I have a conviction that no sermon is ready for preaching, not ready for writing out, until we can express its theme in a short, pregnant sentence as clear as a crystal. I find the getting of that sentence is the hardest, the most exacting, and the most fruitful labour in my study. To compel oneself to fashion that sentence, to dismiss every word that is vague, ragged, ambiguous, to think oneself through to a form of words which defines the theme with scrupulous exactness—this is surely one of the most vital and essential factors in the making of a sermon: and I do not think any sermon ought to be preached or even written, until that sentence has emerged, clear and lucid as a cloudless moon.”
—J. H. Jowett, The Preacher: His Life and Work (Harper & Bros, 1912), p. 133.
The quotation may be old but the idea is very popular today, too.
I want to ask whether it's a helpful idea. Of course, it is likely to help the preacher (and the hearer) in gaining a sense of coherence and so on. And that's good. But I want to ask the question for this reason: does a commitment to achieving a single-senteced summary of a sermon mean that the text portion must be reduced in size until one dominant thought in present in it? Suppose a couple or more things are going on in a passage - how is that to be handled? Cut it back to one main thought? Is that helpful? Can we not handle two or more big ideas at once? Are listeners so dull? Is the sermon so sacrosanct?
Maybe I'm being pedantic because I don't like the thought of more work on top of the usual sermon graft!
And what if the form of the text also communicates a message or intends an effect, in addition to the message and intent of its words? I'm thinking primarily of psalms but not only. How ought that to be handled in a sermon? Can it be handled at all or is it 'done' through the reading aloud of scripture only?
