Why I Started Preaching 6-Point Sermons

In any craft, there’s always room for growth, and generally, if you’re not getting better, you’re getting worse. Preaching is no different. It’s been several years now since I took my preaching courses in seminary, but I’m still looking for ways to improve and get better. Recently, as part of that effort, I read Denny Prutow’s So Pastor, What’s Your Point? It’s actually sort of a difficult book to get a hold of, but I’m glad I did.

I was trained with Bryan Chapell’s method, which is a pretty standard 3- to 5- point method, and it served me well. I still use it when I feel like it would serve the text better. But my search for a better method started when I heard someone point out that Chapell-style three points sermons often lack one of Dabney’s cardinal requisites: movement. Chapell encourages the use of one main proposition supported by three to five main points. Each point is a pillar to hold up the proposition. This approach will get the job done, and as long as you’re preaching the text, you’ll end up with something faithful and helpful. But it can be a bit stale. It’s sort of like going down a waterslide at a waterpark. The destination is the bottom of the slide, but you have to stand in line and climb the stairs three times to land there three times. Of course, there are ways to introduce movement into such a structure, but the method itself doesn’t have the tendency.

Older styles of Reformed preaching avoid this by taking the text, exposition, application approach. This is what you find in the Puritans, and it’s Dabney’s method as well. The idea is that you begin with a simple introduction, explain the text, draw out a single doctrine (your proposition in Chapell’s terms), and then apply it. That text to doctrine to application style certainly has movement, but it can also be dry. Especially in the 21st century as it’s getting harder to hold people’s attention, it’s difficult to keep people with you long enough so that application actually lands. I’ve seen well-trained congregations handle it (think MacArthur’s Grace Community Church), but this is not the average congregation.

This is where Prutow’s method comes in. It’s based on both historical example and modern communication research. Human focus engages at both high levels and low levels. At a high level, we can focus for about thirty minutes before needing a reset. Entertainment companies recognize this. That’s why shows and movies are generally produced in thirty minute increments. At a low level, within these thirty minute windows, we can focus for about five minutes. For a biblical example of this principle, consider the book of Ephesians. It takes about thirty minutes to read out loud, and it’s divided into six chapters which each take about five minutes. Some of the best historical preachers did the same thing. If you look at the sermons of Chrysostom or Calvin, you’ll notice that they will take a text and comment on it for about five minutes before moving to the next verse.

Prutow encourages us, then, to follow this example by preaching in a series of six blocks. These can be adjusted for time. If you want to preach on the shorter side, you make the blocks four minutes for a sermon around 25 minutes. Or you can extend them out to six minutes for a sermon closer to 40 minutes. You can also adjust the total length of your sermon depending on the venue by shrinking or expanding these blocks. You could also add or subtract blocks if your congregation is not accustomed to sermons in the 25-40 minute range.

Here’s how this works for me. I will generally take a text and find it’s main point. Then I break the text up into six pieces. I’m not creating six distinct “points” per se, but I’m putting together an outline of logical flow. They’re not six separate supporting claims for the main point, but a progression of ideas driving at the main point. That’s your movement. Then I write 500-700 words per point. Usually, I just land the plane with the sixth point and tack on an introduction. Sometimes, I even just use my first point as an introduction. For example, I’ve just prepared a sermon on Acts 2:37-39. I’m talking about the nature of baptism, but the text already has a great introduction built-in. The crowds at Pentecost ask, “What shall we do?” So I explain that in point 1/intro, but it sets up for the fuller discussion of baptism in the rest of the sermon. Verse 39, then, is set up for some classic discriminatory preaching. I close by addressing the same three groups Peter addresses: you, your children, and all who are far off. That’s point 6.

Here are a few benefits I’ve noticed using this method.

1. My preparation is more efficient. I think this is mostly because I can squeeze prep time into smaller blocks. After I’ve done my preliminary research and outline, I can usually write one of these 500-700 word blocks in about 30-45 minutes. For some reason, if I’m writing a three-point sermon, it takes slightly more than double that for each point. And if I have to stop in the middle of working on one of those longer points (a common occurrence for any pastor), there’s a longer on-ramp to get back into what I was doing. I have to do more work to reorient myself to what I was working on. With this method, nearly every time I sit down, I’ve got a transitional sentence at the end of a block that gives me an easy spot to pick up from.

2. My teaching is more simple and illustrative. I find that in a traditional structure, I start looking to fill space. I may write a simple exposition and application, but then I find that I haven’t said enough on each point to fill the time. So my explanations get longer, and my illustrations often feel displaced. But when I only have 500 words to say what needs to be said, I have the opposite problem. I must be ruthlessly efficient with my words. This engenders simplicity, but it also forces me to think harder and better about illustrations.

3. I stick closer to the text. If you give me ten minutes to talk about a verse or phrase of Scripture, you’ve given me a longer leash to start to draw people out of the text. I love making connections in the text, but it can get out of hand if I’m not careful. In my three-point sermons, it was not uncommon to end up talking about some other text or doctrine ancillary to the main point simply because I had more time to return back to where we started. But with the six-point method, I’m returning back to the text I’m preaching every five minutes. Again, there’s simply not time to wander off or overexplain.

4. Application is always before the congregation. In a three-point sermon, I would normally put the application at the end of every point, and probably bring it all back together in the end. This means for every 7-8 minutes of explanation/illustration, I was doing 2-3 minutes of application. But using the six-point method, that ratio shifts to something like 2-3 minutes of explanation/illustration to 2-3 minutes of application. Not only is there more application, but it is much more frequent. With the three-point method, it often felt like I was jumping back and forth between the heads and hearts of my hearers. And often, at least practically, the intellect was my main target. But now, I’m able to keep the hearts of my hearers engaged for basically the whole sermon. The application comes earlier in the sermon, and it doesn’t really let up.

5. And finally, I have movement. When your explanations are simple, when your illustrations are sticky, and when your application is engaging, the whole feel of the sermon changes. Often, writing and even preaching a three-point sermon sort of felt like building a house. It involved sketching out a detailed plan and trying to give people all the pieces to put together. But the six-point sermon feels much more like driving a nail. Each point/block is like a strike from the hammer. There’s a focused effort with each point to pierce deeper into the hearts of the hearers. And by the end, one would hope that the nail is flush with the wood, that the Word has fully penetrated and permanently marked the hearers.

If you’ve never tried this method of preaching, I think it’s more than worth a shot. This is certainly not the only way to preach; it may not even be the best way to preach. But I’ve found it to be immensely helpful. And if nothing else, Prutow’s book is definitely worth the read.