Part 1 of this series on sermon structure covered the three fundamental building blocks of a sermon: introduction, body, and conclusion. The next step is to piece together the logical flow that will guide the sermon. (See: Basic Sermon Structure, Part 1)

Second law: Determine whether to use deductive reasoning or inductive reasoning.

Deductive reasoning argues from general to specific. In the sermon, the preacher states the Big Idea (the general) early in the message. The structure (specifics) of the message then develops to support or " prove true " the Big Idea.

In the conclusion of the message, the preacher returns to the big idea with the rhetorical delight of implying, " I told you so. " The following deductive model may prove helpful.

Introduction

1. Raise the subject.
   
2. Develop the need.
   
3. Offer promise of application.
   
4. State the Big Idea
   

(Insert a transition that recreates tension and a need for the biblical text.)

Body

I. This statement is the primary evidence to support the Big Idea (from the text, illustration, application, etc.).
II. Following points are further evidence to support the Big Idea (from the text, illustration, application, etc.).

Conclusion

1. Review briefly.
   
2. Specify the desired application.
   
3. Drive home the Big Idea
   

The advantage of deductive structure is clarity. The preacher gives the Big Idea right up front, probably in the sermon's introduction. The specifics of the sermon body buttress the Big Idea. In the conclusion, the preacher puts the whole idea back together (repeating the Big Idea), with a sense of accomplishment that communicates, " See, that's just what I said in the beginning. "

The potential disadvantage of deductive arrangement is the loss of tension early in the message. If hearers know the Big Idea, why should they continue to listen?

Notice that in the deductive model I have included a transition that rebuilds tension. This tension question focuses on, " Is this Big Idea true or valid? " The specifics of the message then answer that question, arguing from general to specific (and back to general).

On the other hand, inductive reasoning argues from specifics to general. It asks the question " What conclusion is this evidence leading up to? "

The introduction of an inductive sermon raises a narrowed subject as defined by the biblical text. It is not a broad theme, such as prayer; it is a narrowed theme, such as " how to pray through a crisis. "

The remainder of the message then seeks to answer a focus question that aims at the complement to the subject. The sermon then follows a structure of specifics that arrive at (add up to) the Big Idea. That is, we move from the specifics to the general. For instance, examining Paul's attitudes and behaviors of prayer in a crisis would lead up to the answer to the previous narrowed theme " how to pray through a crisis. "

Here is an inductive model that may be helpful.

Introduction

1. Raise the subject.
   
2. Develop the need.
   
3. Offer promise of application.
   
4. Ask a focus question that can be answered only by the Big Idea.
   

Body

I. This statement is the first piece of the answer to the focus question. (Support from the text, illustration, application, etc.)
(Insert a review/preview transition between each main point of the body.)
II. Following statements are further pieces of the answer to the focus question. (Support from the text, illustration, application, etc.)

Conclusion

1. Review briefly.
   
2. State the entire Big Idea.
   
3. Specify the desired application.
   
4. Drive home the Big Idea.
   

The advantage of inductive structure is tension. The sermon begs for resolution to the question raised in the introduction until enough of the specifics have been developed to arrive at the Big Idea.

One critical ingredient in the inductive arrangement is the inclusion of review-preview transitions between main movements. These transitions say, in few words, where we've been and where we're going, while reminding us of the focus question. These transitions retain the tension, yet insure clarity as they provide the roadmap for everyone to arrive at the Big Idea in the same way. For example, between main points (or moves) number one and two, I may say something like, "

Whether you choose classic deduction or induction, maintaining clear and proper organization is essential to a logically sound and understandable sermon.

The late Keith Willhite served as chairman and professor of pastoral ministries at Dallas Theological Seminary, and is author of Preaching with Relevance Without Dumbing-Down (Kregel).