Yes, I am aware of the fact that Paul cited some secular poets in Acts 17, but I don’t have Paul’s discernment and authority. So, I’ll stick with the Scripture.

I often hear people try to use this example to prove that we should use these kind of illustrations all the time. The problem with this argument is this: Paul was speaking to pagan Gentiles who were completely unfamiliar with Scripture. This is quite different than a pastor preaching before a congregation who all have Bibles open in their laps.

I have on occasion used the lives and writings of men like John Bunyan, John Owen, George Whitefield, John Calvin, Charles Spurgeon and Jonathan Edwards as illustration material.

Most of our hearers today know little if anything about these men and such illustrations may serve a dual purpose of aptly illustrating the text in terms of men who lived lives of great Biblical integrity and helping to introduce the hearers to a bit of church history in the process.

I recently used the account of William Borden of Yale to good benefit as well…No reserves, No retreat, No regrets. A superb missionary illustration.

Another comment…when I use hymns by men such as Isaac Watts, Horatius Bonar and the like as illustration material, I like to cite the theological/historical-situational context of the hymn to better highlight the lyrics and make them more pertinent.

But… above all else, use God’s Word to illustrate God’s Word.

The Bible is its best illustrator…use the analogy of Scripture as often as possible.

Contrary to what I’ve heard some say, the use of lyrics from certain hymns is quite appropriate as well, given the fact that the lyrics of these hymns are almost always solid as a rock and based on God’s inerrant Word.

Personally, I find references to Catholic mystics very distasteful and inappropriate. Sometimes (not nearly often enough) the disclaimer is issued…”I may not agree with everything so and so said, but…”. Then, a quotation is given to a person whose literature is peppered with pantheism, Roman Catholic mysticism, etc. I for one will not use such sources and always have been able to find plenty of solid men to quote without resorting to such sources.

Yes, I am aware of the fact that Paul cited some secular poets in Acts 17, but I don’t have Paul’s discernment and authority. So, I’ll stick with the Scripture.

Use the Scripture to illustrate the message…that’s an apostolic pattern to follow.

Those are my views.

As far as my opinion concerning the use of illustrations, here are some thoughts:

1) The use of illustrations *must* be sub-servient to the text. I am seeing more and more that illustrations are eclipsing explanation. Explanation must *always* have priority over illustrations, regardless of the audience. If we were to look at the preaching of the apostles, we see very little use of illustrations.
2) Illustrations are not always necessary. That is, I think it is usually unnecessary to have to use an illustration in every main point in a sermon.
3) Some of the best illustrations are those that come from Scripture.
4) Illustrations need to be short, to the point, and must serve the text. You can use a powerful illustration in 15-30 seconds. It doesn’t need to drag on for 2 minutes like I have been hearing a lot lately.
5) There is a danger in using illustrations outside of Scripture because they move the hearer away from the text and they can possibly distract and lose the hearer from the text. John Piper wrote an excellent article concerning this topic on his blog.
6) Ultimately, the power is in the Word that God has given us, not in stories or illustrations. Sure, God can uses stories or illustrations to drive points home, but the chief power is in the text itself. Peter’s sermon at Pentecost in Acts 2 is a perfect example of powerfully preaching the Word as he drew soley from the text.

I have not read Chapell’s Using Illustrations to Preach with Power, so I am unable to comment. I do strongly disagree, however, in Christ Centered Preaching, when he presents a model of preaching that equally divides the time for a main point between explanation, illustration, and application, and when those 3 components should vary in length and focus based on the audience. The explanation must always have priority over illustration. Period.

I hope that helps.

What do you think is the appropriate use of illustrations in sermons? Have you read Brian Chapell’s Using Illustrations to Preach with Power? If so, what do you think of his recommendations?

I hope to be discussing the role of preaching in integral mission soon over at our blog (wsvanderlugt.wordpress.com), and I would love your thoughts and interaction.

Blessings!