1 Timothy 3:1-7: For Men Only?

One of the most convincing pieces of biblical evidence against women in leadership seems to be Paul’s list of qualifications for overseer/elder in 1 Timothy 3:1-8. The terms for these people that we’re more familiar with are pastors, ministers, bishops, etc. I’ll use the terms elder and overseer synonymously in this post.

Even if my interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 were true–that Paul is not laying down an absolute, universal restriction on women–surely the very next chapter in 1 Timothy does confirm Paul would not allow women to lead. Right?

In this (much shorter and much less technical) post, we’ll look at 1 Timothy 3:1-8, and take a few glances at a similar passage from Paul in Titus 1:5-9.

Surprisingly, we’ll see that Paul actually never limits oversight/eldership to men. Instead, he encourages anyone who aspires to this noble task.

How English Translations Let Us Down

Almost every English translation of 1 Timothy 3:1-8 implies that a local church elder is male. Take a look at the beginning of the passage in several translations (my emphasis):

• NLT: This is a trustworthy saying: “If someone aspires to be a church leader, he desires an honorable position.” So a church leader must be a man whose life is above reproach. He must be faithful to his wife.
• NIV: Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife…
• ESV: The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife…
• NASB: It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife…

The masculine pronoun “he” doesn’t occur in the Greek text of 1 Timothy 3:1-8 at all.

Pretty cut and dry, right? When we read 1 Timothy 3:1-8 in English, we think, “Well, even if 1 Timothy 2 doesn’t restrict women from teaching and leading, 1 Timothy 3 says elders are men! He is all over the place. He! He! He!”

There’s just one small problem.

The masculine pronoun “he” doesn’t occur in the Greek text of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 at all.

Not once.[1]

It doesn’t occur in the elder qualification list in Titus 1:5-8 either.[2]

Yet the word “he” occurs six times in the NASB, NIV, and ESV. The NASB also inserts the word “man” in verse 1 though it’s not in the original language. How about the NLT? “He” finds its way in there nine times; “man” is also in there once. (Read the whole passage in just about every English translation.)

These mistranslations influence how we understand Paul’s instructions. He seems to have intentionally left out the masculine pronoun for the express purpose of making it clear that women are eligible to serve as elders, too. (I say “seems” because we cannot know with 100% certainty why he did this.)

In verse 1, Paul uses the phrase ei tis, which should be translated “if anyone.” (The ESV gets it right here.) If Paul wanted to be explicit about which gender can serve, he could have used the masculine pronoun at one point or many.

He seems to have intentionally left out the masculine pronoun for the express purpose of making it clear that women are eligible to serve as elders, too.

But he never does.

Unlike English, Greek does not require the use of a pronoun with a verb. So a third-person singular verb (like “aspires” in verse 1) isn’t connected to “he,” but to “anyone.” Anyone (male or female) is who Paul had in mind.

So what’s the best translation? It may seem sacrilege to the grammar purist, but we can’t do better in English than the singular “they.”[3] Yes, “they” should be used as a singular plural pronoun in cases where “anyone” (or “someone”) is the subject.

Here’s what that would look and sound like:

The saying is trustworthy: if anyone aspires to the work of overseeing, they desire a good work. Therefore, the overseer/bishop must be above reproach, a man of one woman, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not drunk, not a bully but gentle, not quarrelsome, not greedy, managing their own house well with all dignity, keeping their children obedient, for if someone doesn’t know how to manage their own home how will they care for God’s church? They must not be a recent convert or they may become conceited and fall into the devil’s condemnation. Moreover, they must have a good witness with outsiders, so that they will not fall into disgrace and the devil’s snare.

How would this translation change the conversation about the gender of elders? How would it change your perspective?

But What About A “One Woman Man”?

If we go with my suggested translation, it seems that Paul includes the possibility that women can serve as elders in a church. But even this position has a problem. What about that little phrase “a husband of one wife”? It’s often translated “faithful to his wife” or something similar in both 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6.

Doesn’t that mean that all leaders in a church must be men?

No, not at all.

The literal translation is “a man of one woman.” Some believe Paul is excluding from church leadership men who are divorced or even struggling with lust. But that’s not exactly what he said. That’s an interpretation.

Considering his first-century context, Paul is most likely excluding polygamists (men who have more than one wife) from church oversight.

This is how John Chrysostom (a third-century church father) understood Paul’s words: “This he does not lay down as a rule, as if [an overseer] must not be without [a wife], but as prohibiting his having more than one.”[4] Chrysostom spoke Greek and knew Paul’s culture better than we do. We should take his interpretation seriously.

Someone might ask, though, why didn’t Paul prohibit the opposite: women with multiple husbands (“polyandry”)?

The reality is that polyandry was incredibly rare in the ancient world if practiced at all.[5] For most of world history men have had the advantage in social status, financial security, formal education, and so on. That’s probably why Paul didn’t include “a woman of one man.”

There’s one more possibility for “a man of one woman.” More like an additional layer: Paul may also have in mind active, male adulterers who are unfaithful to their wives.[6] Of course, women did commit adultery. And Paul would not have allowed a female adulteress to serve as an elder either! But female adultery was probably less common because of the potential for severe consequences under Roman law.[7]

If Paul means something more than excluding polygamists, we might say “faithful in marriage” (regardless of gender) gets close to what he had in mind.

How Literal Do You Want to Get?

Complementarian teaching can go further, however. Since Paul included the phrase “a man of one woman,” I was taught that this implies only men can be overseers/elders. Otherwise, why would this qualification be here? Why else would it be phrased this way?

That is a very literal reading and application of the text. If we make that argument, couldn’t we then say that Paul excludes single men from being an overseer/elder? (See Chrysostom’s quote above.) Of course, that would mean Paul himself, not to mention Jesus, wouldn’t be able to serve as an overseer in Ephesus. And that’s just nonsense.

The slippery slope of a literal reading continues. Does managing a household well so that [supposedly his] children obey (v 4) mean that the overseer must be married and have children? Does it mean that the person must also be a head of a household? Is Paul excluding slaves or freedmen or general employees who do not have a household to manage?

Bridging the gap to our day, this would mean only wealthy, married businessmen with children can serve as elders! I don’t know of anyone who wants to make that case.

Paul provides a non-exhaustive list that generally represents what an elder should look like. One’s gender isn’t a requirement.

Paul is saying that if a man is married, he needs to only have one wife; if someone has children (he never says father/man/he, etc.), the children must be obedient/submissive.

When we consider that the lists in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are not carbon copies of each other, it should be apparent that these lists are descriptive, not prescriptive. Much like his spiritual gift lists, Paul provides a non-exhaustive list that generally represents what an elder should look like. One’s gender isn’t a requirement.

Women Can Do This Job, Too

The one ministry skill in the list of qualifications is being able to teach. (But let’s not forget that managing one’s house is also a skill!) Since Paul encouraged women to learn (2:11), the expectation was that they would be able to teach at some point!

Looking at the rest of the qualifications, notice that, again like spiritual gifts, none of them are gender-specific–other than “a man of one wife” (which I explained above).

The qualifications are actually pretty unremarkable things that should be true of all Christians! But it’s fascinating that throughout the letter, Paul encourages and commands women to fulfill many of these qualifications.

The table below shows that Paul used at least nine of the qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 in reference to women at other points in the letter.[8]

In Reference to Overseers/Elders (3:1-7)	In Reference to Women
Desire a good work	Devoted to good works (5:10)
Above reproach	Above reproach (5:7)
Sober-minded	Sober-minded (3:11)
Self-controlled	Self-control (2:9)
Respectable	Wear respectable apparel (2:9)
Hospitable	Showing hospitality (5:10)
Well thought of by outsiders	Well-known for good deeds (5:10)
Manage household well	Manage household (5:14)
Avoid the devil’s condemnation	Some have incurred condemnation (5:12)

It seems Paul believes women can and will take on oversight responsibilities. Why else would he encourage women to pursue these things in the exact same letter where he describes a godly leader? I don’t believe Paul would dangle a carrot in front of a woman’s face only to say, “Oh, wait. You can’t have that role because you’re a woman.”

I don’t believe Paul would dangle a carrot in front of a woman’s face only to say, “Oh, wait. You can’t have that role because you’re a woman.”

Back to the point about these qualities being true of every Christian. Since that’s true, it makes perfect sense for Paul to say anyone can aspire to this role. The Holy Spirit empowers women, just as much as he does men, to reflect the qualities Paul mentions. And because the Spirit dwells in men and women, both genders represent and speak for the risen, authoritative Jesus.

Doesn’t it seem wise for an entire faith community (which is made up of men and women, by the way) to have both genders serving as examples and shepherding the flock? Our churches today are more likely to flourish spiritually, emotionally, and socially when both genders are represented in leadership.

Summing It All Up

The overseer qualifications that Paul lays out in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 should not be used to prevent women from serving as elders in a church. Paul never says or implies that they must only be men.

Despite what our English Bibles say, neither of Paul’s lists uses a masculine pronoun in the original language. He says that “anyone” who aspires to serve desires a good thing. And they may serve, as long as they have godly character and are able to teach. In 1 Timothy, it’s also clear that Paul wants women to pursue the same qualities required of elders, implying that they can lead when they’re ready.

Now that we’ve dealt with 1 Timothy 2-3, we’ll shift to the two controversial texts in 1 Corinthians on women’s roles in the church.

---

Notes

Feature photo: Ant Rozetsky on Unsplash.

[1] “He” also doesn’t occur in the section on deacons in 3:9-13.

[2] Titus 1:6 says, “If anyone…” (ei tis), just like 1 Timothy 3:1 does.

[3] The link will take you to an APA article about the singular “they” in English. “Singular ‘They,'” APA Style, September 2019.

[4] Quoted in Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 425.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Mary Beard, SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome (New York: Liverlight, 2016), 308, notes that there is some evidence that the execution of a wife caught in adultery was within the husband’s legal power. Of course, there was no comparable law for adulterous husbands.

[8] This is essentially an English version of the Greek table in Payne, Man and Woman, 447-453.

Interlude: When is a Teaching Cultural or Transcultural?

It seems like a good time to address the question, “How do we know if a command applies to all Christians for all time or just to the original situation?”

You’ll see shades of this in my post on 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Watch out for that in the next day or so.

First things first: 1 Timothy is a personal letter from Paul to his protégé Timothy. Paul’s goal is to encourage Timothy to combat false teaching and preach the true gospel. He also wants to help this young minister work through some tough situations. Chapter 2 tells us about a few of them.

Because of the personal nature of the letter, we should hesitate to see any specific instructions as binding for all cultures in all times simply because it’s in the New Testament.

Beyond this, here are a few principles that can help us know if this section (or any Bible passage) is culture-bound (limited to the original audience) or transcultural (meaning a text is applicable to all cultures for all time). New Testament scholar Grant Osborne helps us out here. I’ll summarize a few points from his article, “Hermeneutics and Women in the Church,” quoting him to begin each point:[1]

1. “Teaching that transcends the cultural biases of the author and his readers will be normative.” In other words, if a teaching stands in opposition to the wider culture, it’s likely transcultural. In 1 Timothy 2, the restriction on women reflects the cultural norms of the day. So, we’ll need to look at the context to ask ourselves why this restriction is put in place.
2. “If a command is wholly tied to a cultural situation that is not timeless in itself, it will probably be a temporary application rather than eternal norm.” I’ll make the case in my post that Timothy was dealing with a specific, cultural situation (false teaching in Ephesus) and a disruptive woman causing problems in the church. His specific situation isn’t the same as every minister’s, so it’s likely that Paul’s command is also specific to Timothy.
3. “Those commands that have proven detrimental to the cause of Christ in later cultures must be reinterpreted.” This doesn’t mean we neglect a command because the present culture opposes it! But it does means we must look closer at the abstract principle embedded within the practice of the original culture.

Related to number three, in his book Slaves, Women & Homosexuals, William Webb (see note 1) talks a lot about the “ladder of abstraction.” By that, he means every text expresses itself in the original culture in concrete terms. But the further away we are from that situation and culture, we need to “move up” the ladder of abstraction to find the abstract principle that’s behind the concrete expression.

Let’s take a neutral example: “Greet each other with a holy kiss” (2 Cor 13:12). Kissing as a greeting, even for men, was common in ancient Middle Eastern cultures. In fact, it’s still common today in parts of the world.

The concrete expression of kissing is rooted in the abstract principle of being welcoming to each other. Thus every community of faith must answer for themselves, “How can we concretely express a warm welcome to each other?”

I’d argue that to literally obey 1 Corinthians 13:12 (that is, kiss the people who walk into your church) would actually mean you violate the text. If you actually greeted people with a kiss, no one would feel welcome and they would not stick around for the worship service! Why? It’s repulsive in our Western culture today. (Not to mention Covid-19.)

Now that’s a silly example we’d all agree on. But I hope it gives you some insight into how culture influences biblical application. Not to mention why application isn’t as simple as your Bible app devo makes it out to be.

---

Notes

[1] Grant R. Osborne, “Hermeneutics and Women in the Church,” JETS 20 (1977), 339-340. You should know that Osborne taught at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, an Evangelical Free Church seminary, a conservative denomination. The “Free Church,” as it’s been called, is devoted to the inspiration and authority of Scripture. Osborne could hardly be labeled as a “liberal scholar” who’s unfaithful to the Bible. See also William J. Webb, Slaves, Women & Homosexuals (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2001), 161ff. If you are interested in the issue of gender roles in Scripture, Webb is a must-read.

Interlude: Answering Questions on Creation & Gender

In our journey through Genesis 1 and 2, I’ve looked at how the creation of humanity as male and female can help us understand the current gender debate in the church today.

Genesis 1-2 is important because it is the only picture we have of God’s ideal before sin. What I’ve tried to show is that man and woman were coworkers in the Garden who had equal status, function, and authority as God’s representatives on earth.

I don’t see any hint of hierarchy in the Garden before the Fall, but some Christians do. You may be one.

Almost all complementarians find their foundation for gender roles in Genesis 1-2. If someone accepts what I proposed in the first two posts, then likely several important questions arise. I want to briefly try to answer those before moving on to Genesis 3.

Isn’t There Such a Thing as “Biblical” Manhood and Womanhood?

We need to know some background to answer this. John Piper and Wayne Grudem are the fathers of the modern biblical manhood and womanhood movement. Back in 1991, they released the first edition of their book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism. Parts of this book influenced me in my late college and post-graduate years. (The link is a PDF where you can download the 2012 edition of the book.)

In chapter one, “A Vision for Complementarity,” Piper writes, “Our understanding is that the Bible reveals the nature of masculinity and femininity by describing diverse responsibilities for man and woman while rooting these differing responsibilities in creation, not convention” (my emphasis).[1]

Piper goes on to define masculinity and femininity this way:

At the heart of mature masculinity is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women in ways appropriate to a man’s differing relationships.

At the heart of mature femininity is a freeing disposition to affirm, receive and nurture strength and leadership from worthy men in ways appropriate to a woman’s differing relationships.[2]

I can’t write a full response to Piper’s claim and definitions (defended over 690-pages!) in a short blog post.

But it’s simply not true that “biblical” masculinity and femininity, as he defines them, are rooted in God’s creation.

The way Piper begins to make his case is not rooted in creation or even Scripture. He fleshes out his definitions with only minor references to complementarian proof texts. Then he provides examples of how women can affirm and defer to men.

Here’s a very odd section of the chapter to give you an idea of how Piper sets the stage.

He writes about women who find themselves in a leadership role over men and suggests how they can do that in a biblically feminine way. He gives the example of a housewife asked by a man for driving directions. According to Piper, the woman (in an authority role here) should give directions in a way that both parties will not have their masculinity and femininity compromised.

“She has superior knowledge that the man needs and he submits himself to her guidance,” he writes. “But we all know that there is a way for that housewife to direct the man in which neither of them feels their mature femininity or masculinity compromised.”[3]

We do?

Piper goes so far to say that a woman should not umpire baseball games. She would have to mediate “heated disputes between men” and this would put strain on their humanity.[4]

Is this really what Creation is getting at? That we can’t have a female calling balls and strikes in the World Series?

Please don’t think I’m building a theological straw man here. This is really how the seminal book on complementarianism begins. This is what evangelicals have been taught on gender roles for the past thirty years.

Piper and Grudem’s entire concept of “biblical manhood and womanhood” is actually rooted in convention, not creation. The problem, of course, is their system sets up an oppressive power dynamic that subordinates all women to all men.

Complementarians can argue that this isn’t true all they want. I used to say this exact thing! Yet Piper writes, “[S]he will affirm and receive and nurture the strength and leadership of men in some form in all her relationships with men.”[5]

It couldn’t be more clear.

This is not Genesis 1-2. The creation narrative actually tells us the exact opposite.

Now I can answer the question. When I look at the Bible, I see that all who follow Jesus–men and women–are to be conformed into his image (Rom 8:29; 12:2; 2 Cor 3:18). If women, like men, are called to become more like Jesus (who was a man) who is the standard for biblical womanhood?

A man?

I hope you can see how this gets a bit wonky. But it took me almost 14 years to see, so it’s okay if you don’t at first.

Women and men are both to be like Jesus. Women and men are both to follow Jesus by living in the power of his Spirit so that we bear the fruit of the Spirit–love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control (Gal 5:22-23). Women and men are both to make disciples, like Jesus. Women and men are both to teach, correct, forgive, encourage, and love one another, like Jesus.

None of this is particular to males or females.

Aimee Byrd is spot on when she says, “I do not need to do something a certain way to be feminine…I simply am feminine because I am female.”[6]

Don’t Some Gender Roles Still Exist?

Complementarians want to put tight fences around gender roles. Genesis 1-2 reveals a capacious arena in which men and women operate together as Yahweh’s representatives. They are kings and priests together in God’s world.

Still, don’t some gender-specific roles exist? Because of biological design, they obviously do! Genesis 4 suggests that Adam and Eve did not have children until after they were kicked out of the Garden. But suppose they had stayed long enough to have children. Even in the Garden, Eve would have been the one to carry a child in her womb, not Adam. During pregnancy and early childbearing years, Eve likely wouldn’t have participated in the provisional tasks of gathering food or landscaping to the extent that Adam did.

These complementary (yes, I used that word!) functions did not subordinate Eve to Adam. Gathering fruit from a tree for dinner is no more a leadership activity than pushing a baby through the birth canal or nursing a newborn.

Outside of these natural, biological functions, what in the Genesis text suggests that Adam led, initiated, and protected Eve, or that Eve affirmed, received and nurtured Adam’s strength and leadership, as Piper and Grudem so confidently assert?

Absolutely nothing.

Doesn’t ‘Creation Order’ Matter for Something?

I’ll deal with this question when we get to 1 Timothy 2. For now, I’ll say that while creation order may mean something in that passage or others, Genesis never suggests the woman is subservient to the man just because she was created second. The text celebrates their equality throughout the narrative.

Isn’t this a Slippery Slope to Gender Confusion, Transgenderism, and Acceptance of Homosexuality?

I’ve heard Stuart Briscoe say, “Calling something a ‘slippery slope’ is what you say when you don’t want to deal with an argument.” I agree.

I believe this argument it’s a scare tactic of Christian culture warriors who need all the ammo they can muster to keep people from asking that powerful question, “What if I’m wrong on this?”

The fact that God made humanity as male and female is in itself an argument against homosexuality, gender non-conformance, or transgenderism. A Christian can (should!) be pro-woman and still affirm the historical Christian sexual ethic of marriage between one man and one woman.[7]

Does this Mean You’re Rejecting the Authority of the Bible?

No. I cherish the Scriptures and want them to shape me as I follow Jesus!

When complementarians use the term “biblical” in relation to manhood and womanhood it puts any other Christian (like me right now) in a no-win situation. Do you have a different interpretation on these texts? You will be called a liberal and accused of being unbiblical, even forsaking the inerrancy of Scripture.

What’s more is that complementarians have often touted their affirmation of the “inerrancy” of Scripture to affirm traditional gender roles. What this means, in a nutshell, is that if you don’t take the Bible “literally,” that is, at face value, you don’t really believe it is truthful and reliable (i.e. “inerrant”) in what it says.

But this is a patently false accusation.

Here’s what is really going on. Complementarians don’t uphold the inerrancy of Scripture as much as the inerrancy of their interpretation of Scripture.[8]

There’s a big difference between the two. And people who want to follow Jesus need to know it.

---

Notes

[1] John Piper and Wayne A. Grudem, eds. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood : A Response to Evangelical Feminism (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 40.

[2] Ibid., 41.

[3] Ibid., 60.

[4] Ibid., 62.

[5] Ibid, 59.

[6] Aimee Byrd, Recovering From Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: How the Church Needs to Rediscover Her Purpose (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2020), 114. You should know that Byrd is a complementarian.

[7] I want to be clear that I’m not saying some people, even Christians, don’t struggle with gender dysphoria, which is a real thing. We must be compassionate and welcoming to anyone struggling with their gender and those who are not professing Christians, are LGBTQ+, but are curious about Jesus. We can do this and uphold the historical Christian sexual ethic. If you are interested in seeing how the Scriptures are consistent across the board in their condemnation of homosexual behavior (in all its forms), see William J. Webb, Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2001) and William Loader, Making Sense of Sex: Attitudes towards Sexuality in Early Jewish and Christian Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013).

[8] This is why the subtitle of Beth Allison Barr’s book is “How the Subjugation of Women Became Gospel Truth.”

The John 3:16 of the Old Testament

I’ve talked to many Christians who were taught and believed that God’s people Israel in the Old Testament were saved by works, rather than grace.

Of course, looking at the prologue to the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 will show that’s simply not true. “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery” (Ex. 20:2).

God acts. God does the work. God does the saving.

Then he gives them his law. The order goes like this: God rescues his people. Then he tells them what their lives should look like under his kingly rule.

Add to that Hebrews 11 where we see that those saints who have come before were saved, not by their commitment to the law, but for their faith. That’s the whole point of that chapter.

That should be enough.

But another passage stuck out to me this morning I hadn’t noticed before. Deuteronomy 4:37: “Because he loved your ancestors and chose their descendants after them, he brought you out of Egypt by his Presence and his great strength.”

That sounds a lot like John 3:16, doesn’t it? That verse says, “God loved the world this way: he gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.” 

• “Because he loved your ancestors and chose their descendants after them” → God loved the world
• “He brought you out of Egypt” → will not perish but have eternal life 
• “By his Presence and his great strength” → he gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in him

When you lay the two passage side-by-side, we see that God’s love is the initiating motivation for salvation. His very real presence and grace is the power of salvation. And finally, freedom and life with God–the rescue from bondage and death–is the result of God’s salvation.

Whether Old Testament or New, the salvation of God does not come because of the obedience or conformity to God’s law, in part or in whole.

It comes freely and only to his people by his grace, his power, and his very Presence.

Preacher: Be Clear and Concise!

What makes for a good sermon? Sound exegesis? An understanding of passage’s place in redemptive history? Quality application? These are necessary, of course. But you can have these things and still be a terrible preacher because your communication is incoherent and your organization sloppy.

The art of communicating the sermon—homiletics—is just as vital as focusing on exegesis and theology. As I try to hone my preaching, I’m working on two simple homiletical elements: being clear and concise.

Clarity
First, ensure you are being clear. Have you ever heard a preacher begin a sermon by meandering for ten or even twenty minutes in an attempt to set up a tension (or try to be “relevant”)? The problem with this is that a congregation want to know why they should listen. Tell them–very often in the first sentence of the sermon! This is simple a big idea, a “thesis” that makes it clear to the congregation that this sermon has one main point. The thesis is clear and memorable. It’s a simple, one-sentence summary of the message.

A second aspect to being clear in preaching is to lay a road map for where the sermon is going. Good preachers build a framework for what’s coming. This may or may not mean having points in the sermon, but it at least means presenting the passage logically. Preaching is not a magic act that’s designed to surprise people. That’s entertainment, not preaching. Providing a road map will only help the congregation’s attentiveness and retention.

Conciseness
A second homiletical skill to sharpen is being concise. You want to preach for an hour. So do I. But if we want to go long, we need to master short. Why? It’s much more difficult to say something meaningful in a short amount of time. Therefore, this makes me more selective in my preparation with what I want to bring out of a text. It also makes me more selective with my words during the act of preaching. Being concise makes words matter more, not less, even though you will use fewer words.

While it may seem very short, I’m working on getting my sermons down to 25 minutes. I know what you’re thinking: “That’s so short! My introductions are ten minutes!” (That’s the problem—let the reader understand!) Twenty-five or thirty minutes, however, isn’t so short when my intro is my thesis statement, a few other sentences to build a tension, and then a roadmap of where I’m going (90 seconds tops!). This will be liberating for you, and it will help you practice not saying everything about everything in every sermon. Remember, master short before long means you will not always preach for 25 minutes. It means you will master 25 minutes and then incrementally speak longer. If I am not faithful with a few minutes, how will I be faithful with many?

These things do not make for fool-proof sermons. There will always be some people who reject God’s word and fail to believe and obey as God calls them to no matter how well a sermon is delivered. Homiletics do not change hearts. God does. It is the word of the cross, not human eloquence, that has power.

Nevertheless, this truth is not a free pass to slouch in our communication. Preacher, do everything you can by God’s grace to hone your craft in order to remove unnecessary obstacles to someone hearing and believing the gospel! The point is not slick communication in order to impress. The point is to be helpful to your hearers. So, for your hearers’ sake, be clear and concise!