Some Thoughts about the Nature of Illustration in Sermons etc.

Some thoughts about the nature of illustration in sermons etc.

I have just begun my fifth year as a pastor.  I must admit that my approach to preaching has changed over the years.  Those who attend the United Methodist Church in Hudson might be able to point out one or two things that have changed since I have been there, such as cultivating a somewhat milder tone, but there are others as well.  For example, before having to preach week after week, I thought of myself as an outline preacher.  I always thought it was neat when someone could just stand up with a few scribbles on a piece of paper and then deliver a passionate and engaging message.

The transition from outline to manuscript, in hindsight, was inevitable.  When I preached several times at my home church in Marshalltown as an intern, I only ever used outlines, but they steadily got to be far more detailed and each point turned into a paragraph.  Once I had to write a manuscript for my sermon that I had to give at licensing school.  One of the things I appreciated was the ability to think out in more precise terms what I wanted to say.  As I put it into practice, I found that the Holy Spirit worked just as much when I prepared throughout the week as it did when I preached from an outline.  In fact, I found that, by thinking out exactly what I wanted to say and seeing how it sounded out loud, I was able to use more precise language, reducing confusion and other good things. I found that I was more able to preach with boldness and conviction when I wrote out a manuscript than I ever was when I preached from an outline.

Though manuscript preaching is quite common in the mainline (or, at least, within some parts of the mainline), it was quite uncommon in the circles I found myself in before becoming a pastor.  In spite of the fact that I found a manuscript extremely helpful, there was still a nagging feeling that I had, at least in this way, abandoned my tradition.  I had to wrestle with this for quite a while.

All of this is to set the stage for some thoughts on illustrations in sermons, because this is also an area where I find myself at sharp distinction from, not only my tradition before becoming a pastor, but even among my seminary peers and throughout the mainline.  I have personally never been in favor of filling my sermons with illustrations.  The initial, gut-level reason why I have tended to avoid them is because I am simply not that creative of a person.  I have always had a hard time figuring out good illustrations, so I more or less let them go.  From time to time, someone (usually from outside of the church I serve) would talk about how helpful they have been in their lives, and I would begin to wrestle with the issue over again.

I found myself having conversations with people who love good illustrations in sermons and been able to discern my issues at a deeper level.  I began to realize that, when people would speak of really powerful illustrations they have heard used, they would not be able to recall the point from the Gospel that was the real purpose.  One person in particular related to me a youth leader he knew who frequently brought small items that were related to the message that they could take home to remind them of it.  There was one particular item that he kept in his room and had a lot of meaning for him.  But when I asked him, “What was the point of the message that went along with that item?”  The response was, “I don’t remember.”

Even in my own experience, I have found that this is the case.  Relatively recently, I used an illustration that I thought was better than most.  Not only did I make the point at the very beginning that the illustration was very limited, I also made sure to frequently point away from the illustration to the reality I was hoping to communicate.  The talk was very well received.  The young people who heard it loved it and really resonated with the illustration.  However, it became clear that their grasp on the illustration was far stronger than their grasp on the actual point made by the Gospel.  The talk was relatable, but I began to think that it could be argued that, since in practice, the illustration overshadowed the Gospel in the hearers, it was not truly a Gospel message, not truly the Christian faith proclaimed and received.

It is only recently that I found, in the course of my reading, a truly clear and deeply theological argument along these lines.  Let us say that we have an aspect of revelation, “Thing A.”  Because the ways and thoughts of God are not like the ways of human beings  (Isaiah 55:8-9), we should not be surprised that it is not easy for us to understand.  After all, it stands against the ways of the world and it stands against us inasmuch as we are sinners who are not fully conformed to the image of Christ.  In order to understand the revelation of Thing A, we introduce an illustration, “Thing B.”  The moment we try to illustrate Thing A with Thing B, our attention becomes divided between the two, if it is not wholly captivated by Thing B.

The problem is that, while Thing A is revelation, Thing B is not.  At its best, the illustration would intend to make a leap from Thing B (the illustration, created out of our own imagination) to Thing A (revelation, given by God).  But how is this possible?  How can we make a jump directly from something that is not revelation to something that is?  How can we say that the two Things are similar in any meaningful way for the church if one is revelation and one is invented by human beings?  It might be argued, “But Thing B is so much easier to understand than Thing A, so we should start there.”  I do not deny that Thing B is easier to understand.  How could it be otherwise?  Thing B stands far closer to us than Thing A because Thing A stands against us as the Word of God while Thing B was invented by the creativity of human beings.

When we illustrate the Gospel with images that we have thought up ourselves, what have we done?  If people walk away from the sermon or other message remembering the Gospel and the revelation from God and not the illustration, then the illustration was unnecessary.  If they walk away remembering the illustration and not the revelation, they have walked away with something, but it is something of fundamentally human creation and not the word of God.  There is a word for substituting something of human creation for the revelation of God.  Idolatry.

When I first heard illustration bluntly called idolatry, I thought to myself, “Well, I probably wouldn’t go THAT far.”  However, the more I think of it, the more I think that it is true.  What can we make of the desire to illustrate the Gospel to make it easier to understand by making it something of our own creation?  What are we to do if illustration is as important as we make it by our constant use of it?  What are we to say to those who think that illustration is so important for sermons and other Christian proclamation that it is not just helpful but necessary?

I cannot finally stand in judgment of others on this as it probably would not take someone long to find all kinds of other problems in my sermons that I post for all to see, especially if they were looking for them.  However, I have become more convinced than ever before that illustration is not where I should be putting my energy.  I refuse to feel that my preaching is inferior because it is devoid of illustration.  I hope that people would walk away from my sermons remembering nothing that was said than remembering something of my own clever invention that replaces the Gospel in their minds.