Adam Nesmith has outlined three different ways (he calls them ‘philosophies’, but I think that’s a bit too ambitious) in which the preacher might incorporate application into his message.

1. No distinct application section

The sermon is essentially an explanation of the text, and the preacher hopes that the Holy Spirit will apply it to the hearts and lives of the hearers.  There may be some occasional application points along the way, but there is no structured approach to this.

Nesmith suggests that John MacArthur is a exponent of this approach.

Nesmith argues that there may be a small place for such preaching (such as when the text itself is applicatory, as in ‘let him whole stole, steal no longer’).   I agree that it violates the basic idea of preaching itself, which is to explain and apply the word of God.

2. Point-by-point application

The sermon has a number of main divisions, or points, and the application is given at the end of each point.

Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones favoured this approach, according to Nesmith.

One strength is that the hearers are offered practical teaching throughout the sermon, and not just at the end.  Moreover, each application is clearly linked to the exposition from which it flows.

3. Application at the end of the exposition

This approach gives weight and substance to the whole business of application.  It enables applications to be given, not simply on each individual point, but on the exposition as a whole.

This approach was typical of the Puritans, says Nesmith, and also of J.C. Ryle.

Comment

Each of these approaches assumes that application (if it happens at all) comes after exposition.  But I suspect that other models are worth considering, including:

4. The appplication-led sermon

Of course, the preacher’s preparation must be driven by the text, the whole text and nothing but the text.  But his presentation may be structured around one or more applications.  One obvious benefit of such preaching is derived from the very fact that it is application-led.  Another is that it offers a different experience of exploring the text together.  Imagine a game involving a house, in which are various objects to be discovered.  One approach would be to say: ‘Let’s enter the house and see what we can find.’  That’s the more conventional approach.  But the approach we’re not thinking about says: ‘In this house you will find the following treasures.  Let’s see if we can find them together.’

Looking back over my own sermon notes, I don’t find I’ve used this method particularly often.  But here’s one example.

In a sermon on Acts 4:5-31 (esp. 23-31)

1. Be clear who you are praying to, vv24-28
2. Be careful what you pray for(!), v29f
3. Be confident your prayer will be heard, v31.