It is helpful to me when preachers start in the "modern world" because it (1) provides a transition from our world into the text, showing how the Bible affects real life; and (2) sets the stage for later points of application in the sermon. A compelling introduction can just be the fruit of the hard work of applying the text. If the sermon has grown out of a study of the text and seeks to expose and apply Scripture, the congregation probably knows that Scripture is the most important thing we are thinking about, whether the sermon starts by reading the text or not.

Personally I do not begin many sermons with illustrations. I feel it's better to put the Bible in front of our congregation as much as possible. I cannot say that I never use illustrations, but I always begin by reading the Scripture to be expounded for that day. With only having a few minutes a week to preach and prepare our people, I personally try to use little outside of the word sources.

I think I'm remembering this correctly, but when Mark Dever came to WTS to give some talks on preaching in the fall of 2005, he made some comments on introductions that spurred some converation between me and a friend. My friend was from a very conservative OPC church (that may be redundant) that discouraged sermon introductions on the basis that preachers should expect their congregations to be hungry to hear God's word.

After discussing Mark's talk we came to the conclusion that this was basically the right assumption to bring into the pulpit, but it does't necessarily rule out introductions. An introduction can serve to convince people who are hungry for God's word of the significance of the text at hand.

I'm not sure if this was really Mark's point or not, but it was a helpful discussion. I've always been captivated by Mark's introductions, but I've come to think that they are somewhat inimitable.

Two thoughts on introductions. First, it seems that if the preacher is given a good chunk of time to preach then there is more of a place for an introduction, which then can help the sermon and the hearers overall. Second, the thing that I have noticed and benefited from with Mark Dever's introductions is that they really seem to draw you in as to why you need to hear this sermon and what this passage has to say. On a personal note, as an Assoc. pastor who doesn't preach very often, I am not very good at introductions at all and would love some help on what you more seasoned preachers try to do in your introductions and how to do it well. Thanks.

How about this for sitting on the fence? I think it depends. I don't use a lot of illustrations because I don't feel I have the time.

Sometimes I think it is a danger for the pastor to want people to "know" that he is well-read. I'm not really sure what spiritual fruit this works.

Bert Daniel is hot.

John Piper rarely uses intro's but seems to get my attention even whilst listening in the car. I tend to find them pointless ... but the ones I hear tend to take up 5 minutes of a 25 minute sermon. They are also sometime strained.

I suppose if they are done well they can be good. I listen to Mark Chanski's sermons and like the intro's generally ... but he, like Mark Dever, has over an hour to preach.

My preaching mentor has stressed for us the importance of introductions in getting the attention of people and showing the relevance of the text (not making it relevant, but demonstrating its relevance). This is operating under the assumption that most people coming to church are not terribly interested and automatically attentive. Even if a church is filled for the most part with interested, attentive people, there are bound to be some who could not care less.

But are sermon intros Scriptural? I believe Paul gives us an example that justifies sermon introductions. He was grieved about the idolatry in Athens (Acts 17:16). He wanted to address this need and get people to repent and believe in the true God by confronting them with the truth about Jesus. When he had the opportunity to preach on Mars Hill, he introduced his sermon by connecting with something people already knew about - the altar they had made to "the unknown god" (Acts 17:23). He even quoted a pagan writer to make the point that God is the source of our lives, applying that point by attacking the idea that we shouldn't think that "the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man" (Acts 17:29).

Paul was speaking to people who asked him to preach. They were interested and he gave an introduction to the sermon instead of going straight to Scripture. Sermon introductions are often encouraged to get attention of those who are not interested. It would appear from Paul's usage that sermon introductions can be profitable to both the interested and uninterested. This is a powerful argument to me as to their usefulness and legitimacy. We are opening the lids of their minds to pour in the truth. We are like physicians showing the patients why they need the treatment.

I always begin by reading the text and then move in to my intro. Since we usually go through books of the Bible my intro usually consists of reminding the congregation of where we have been and where we will be going in that particular book, that way the context is always fresh in their minds. If there is something going on in the culture that needs to be addressed then I will do it when that area arrives in the text. However, if I were to do a special sermon to address a particular issue then I would read the text and then move to set up both the context of the author and our context as readers and the exegete the text making the necessary connection between these two contexts. I am not the primary preaching pastor at our church but when I do teach this is the way I try to do things.