Printer-Friendly Version  

Brian Larson

Editor of PreachingToday.com and Preaching Today Audio
Christianity Today International, Carol Stream, Illinois

This paper examines the following questions: What is a sermon move as defined by David Buttrick, and how does it differ from the most commonly used form of sermon point?

At a preaching conference several years ago I heard a well known and highly skilled evangelical preacher recommend several keys to life-changing sermons. For one key on the list, he said, "Think not just in terms of an outline, not just Roman numeral I, II, and III, or certain points that you want to make. But think in terms of moves…. If you want a book—it’s fairly technical, very good but quite thick—it’s by a guy named David Buttrick, and it’s called Homiletic: Moves and Structures."

Although this preacher then presented an example of a message based on a series of moves, when he finished I still did not have a handle on how sermon moves are any different than points, except for the absence of Roman numerals. This did not surprise me, because I had already read most of Buttrick's Homiletic, and I could not do any better at a distinguishing definition. What exactly is a move? I thought. Is it really any different in nature than what we have traditionally called a point?

I began to notice other evangelical homileticians using the word moves interchangeably it seemed with points and came to the conclusion there is something about preaching in moves that appeals to us. (This seemed especially significant to me because for evangelicals to adopt the term moves they must overcome their resistance to someone like Buttrick, who lacks an evangelical view of the authority of Scripture [Buttrick, 1987, pp. 240–250]). Does the term moves appeal to us just because it connotes more movement than does the static points? Is the postmodern suspicion about reasoned, rational thinking coloring our view of a word like points and of outlines in general? Is the term moves simply a buzz word?

I asked another extremely skilled homiletician who had read Buttrick how he would distinguish between points and moves. He offered a few thoughts but could not compare and contrast the two in a definitive way. With my curiosity piqued, I even urged him to think further about it and write an article on the subject for PreachingToday.com and save me the trouble. His article never came to be. And so I came to write this paper.

My purpose in this paper is not to argue for preaching in moves as defined by Buttrick. Personally I am leery of any method developed by someone with a low view of Scripture. But I do not want to rule out the possibility of learning something even from such methods. Sometimes they contain truth about communication regardless of their foundation that can be built onto a solid footing consistent with a high view of Scripture. My purpose, then, is to compare and contrast moves as defined by Buttrick and points as they are most commonly used.

Definition of Points

We can define Buttrick's moves with relative precision based on his book, but points is a catch-all term. For the purpose of my analysis, then, I will distinguish what I see as the essential qualities of points, and then I will identify optional qualities of points and how they are generally used.

Essentials: In general usage, a point usually has the following qualities:

• There is an outline marker—such as I, II, III; first, second, third; A, B, C—which indicates the logic and relative importance of the ideas.

• Each point is logically subordinate to a single proposition, theme, subject, idea.
Options: In general usage, a point may have the following qualities:

• A series of points may follow either deductive or inductive logic, but deductive logic has dominated.

• A point may comprise either a word, phrase, or full sentence. My sense is that none of these dominate.

• A point be either alliterated or nonalliterated, but alliteration has dominated.

• A point may be either parallel or sequential in logic with other points, but parallel logic has dominated.

• A point may have either parallel or nonparallel sentence syntax with other points, but parallel syntax has dominated.

• A point may appeal primarily to the head with propositional truths, to the will with exhortation, or to the emotions with artistic elements. Which has dominated likely depends on the preacher's tradition.

Before I define moves, we need to keep in mind that the terms points and moves are both used in two ways: to describe either (1) the heading alone—that is, the word, phrase, or sentence of the outline—or, (2) the heading and its full development. I will use the terms in the former sense unless I add the adjective full, as in full point or full move.

Definition of Moves

The essentials of a move are:

1. The move is expressed in a full sentence.

2. The move makes sense as part of a sequence of moves comprising the entire sermon. That is, the move is worded in a way that shows how it transitions from the previous move. As a result, moves are worded in a more conversational style.

3. Together the moves of a sermon normally follow a sequential rather than parallel logic.

We can see contrasts with the common use of points if we also look at the essential elements of a full move in Buttrick's system. I understand Buttrick's full moves to have seven essential features:

1. A move is a thought unit conveying a single idea, which in the outline is expressed in a complete sentence.

2. A move is designed to form in consciousness in a unified pattern of image, emotion, concept, attitude.

3. A move is three to four minutes in duration.

4. A move comprises an opening statement, development, and a closing rephrasing of the opening statement.

5. A move develops by exploring three areas that control the meaning of the idea: (1) theology, (2) lived experience, (3) oppositions to the idea.

6. A move fits in a sequence of moves having a conversational flow.

7. A move is intended to form faith consciousness.

In addition, we can understand better what a full move is when we see where it comes from. Here is my understanding of the sermon preparation steps in Buttrick's system (Buttrick, 1987, pp. 306–316).

1. Exegete the biblical text. (Buttrick, 1987, p. 306)

2. Analyze the passage as plot to see the structure of the author's ideas. (Buttrick, 1987, pp. 290–293, 306)

3. Identify theological principles in the passage ("the theological field of meaning"). (Buttrick, 1987, p. 307)

4. Identify relevant comparisons with our lives today ("analogies"). (Buttrick, 1987, p. 308)

5. Write a list of ideas ("the field of understanding") blending the results of stages one through four above. (If we compare the field of understanding with the commonly used outlining stage (a) exegetical outline, (b) theological outline, (c) homiletical outline, the field of understanding is a theological outline with contemporary relevance.) (Buttrick, 1987, p. 308)

6. Convert the field of understanding into a sequence of moves. (Buttrick, 1987, p. 309)

a. Select one idea as the point of entry. This is not the sermon introduction but rather the first idea from the field of understanding that fits our rhetorical purposes. (Buttrick, 1987, pp. 309–310)

b. Choose from the field of understanding a sequence of ideas that flow in a way natural to human consciousness (following the logic of association, extension, contrast, chronology, microcosm-macrocosm, lesser to greater, general to particular, and so on). The sequence of ideas should flow like a conversation, rather than a list of topics. The movements are taken not from the sections of the text but rather from the field of understanding. This sequence of ideas—moves—is the basic structure of the sermon. (Buttrick, 1987, p. 312)

7. Write an expanded sketch of each move. This is a brainstorming of phrases, words, illustrations, images, lived experiences relevant to the move. (Buttrick, 1987, p. 313)

8. Critique the sketch for its theological precision and for how hearers will understand it. Based on that, plan how to improve the sketch of each move. Think about the possible shape of each move. (Buttrick, 1987, pp. 314–315)

9. Write the final structure of moves. This is not a word-for-word manuscript, but rather a detailed outline in conversational, full sentence form. (Buttrick, 1987, p. 316)

10. Write the full manuscript of the sermon.

Compare and Contrast

How does a move, as defined by Buttrick, differ from a point? Since points come in all stripes, I will contrast moves with the dominant way points have been used. Haddon Robinson calls the subject-completed form of outline the most common one used by preachers (Robinson, 2001, p. 124). This form typically has points with parallel logic, parallel sentence syntax, and deductive logic. Here are seven distinctives between moves and points.

1. How outline ideas are highlighted: Both moves and points follow an outline of ideas. Buttrick emphasizes that moves are a sequence of ideas (Buttrick, 1987, pp. 23–24). Both moves and points depend on driving these key ideas home, and so both require that we highlight outline ideas.

Points highlight their ideas with outline markers: numbers or letters. We may express this formally, "A. We can pray out loud; B. We can pray in our hearts." We may word this less formally, "The first thing I want to say about prayer is…." Points may also highlight outline ideas with repetition and rephrasing.

Moves do not use outline markers (in the final manuscript, that is; Buttrick uses them in sermon preparation notes). Full moves highlight outline ideas by repetition and rephrasing in both the opening and closing of the full move. Buttrick emphasizes that moves must have an opening and closing statement of the idea (Buttrick, 1987, pp. 37–40, 50–53). In the opening statement, the preacher states the idea and then rephrases it one or more times.
In addition, preachers often highlight points through parallel syntax and alliteration. Moves rarely employ these means.

2. How main ideas relate logically to one another in the outline: Most points are parallel in logic. That is, each point follows logically from a single transition in the introduction. "Here are five reasons to pray." Often the points are interchangeable; the preacher could switch points two and four without logical harm to the message. Points used in this fashion are a list of ideas that often do not have a strong relationship between them.

In addition, points have typically followed deductive logic. Each point explains, proves, or applies the big idea (proposition, thesis, theme) presented in the introduction.

Moves generally follow sequential, rather than parallel, logic. One idea leads to another idea, which leads to another, and so on. "1. God loves the world. 2. But the world does not return God's love. 3. Therefore God will one day create a new world order." The ideas are less interchangeable, depending on rhetorical strategy. A creates the need to talk about B, which creates the need to talk about C. Each move depends on the move that precedes it and stimulates an interest in the move to follow. (Certainly sequential logic is also used in points, but is less dominant.)

Moves make less use of deductive logic. (With Buttrick's disdain for propositional, rational reasoning [Buttrick, 1987, pp. 23, 41, 312, 320], he might say moves make no use of deduction.) Buttrick would say moves use more intuitive forms of logic, such as the logic of association, extension, time, place, story, addition, image, contrast, elaboration. (I would argue that deduction is also intuitive.)

3. Transitions: To transition from point to point in a parallel outline, we should refer to the controlling transition of the introduction. "The second reason why prayer may go unanswered is we lack faith…. The third reason why prayer may go unanswered is we lack persistence." As this example shows, transitions between points also usually refer to outline markers, which moves obviously do not. This results in a more formal feeling outline and transitions that clearly have the form of a teaching. (I argue there is nothing wrong with the teaching form depending on the sermon's purpose and audience.) The outline feels like an outline. Formal transitions make the logic of progression clear.
To transition between moves, the sermon needs no formal transition that refers back to a controlling transition because moves flow out of one another—with the help of the closing statement of the previous move—rather than out of a controlling transition. The transition is inherent in the ideas of adjoining moves and in the transitional words included in the idea. For example:

• God wants to answer our prayers.

• But that does not mean he gives us everything we ask for.

• Instead God gives us what he knows is good.

• For us to accept God's wisdom can be quite a challenge.

Since the idea of a move is repeated in the closing statement of the move, it naturally flows into the opening statement of the next move. This results in a more informal, conversational feeling to the message. The outline does not feel like an outline. The challenge is the hearer may miss that the sermon has transitioned to another move, thus the need to rephrase the opening idea of a new move two or three times.

4. Big Idea: Points are unified by a big idea (theme, thesis, proposition) that encompasses all the points of the sermon.

Buttrick certainly believes in the importance of unity and a hierarchy of ideas within individual moves (Buttrick, 1987, 34–35; 49–50), but he says little about how to achieve overall unity in a sermon. His chapters on the sermon writing process (Buttrick, 1987, 305–317) and conjoining moves (Buttrick, 1987, 69–79) say nothing about writing a big idea sentence.

5. Form: Points and moves have different forms. Points are in the form of instruction and analysis. Moves tend toward the form of essay. Points are formal; moves informal. On the spectrum of lecture versus conversation, points lean toward lecture and moves toward conversation. (Although moves make no intention of having the aimless chatter or two-way dialogue of true conversation (Buttrick, 1987, p. 25), they do strive for the sorts of logic and informality followed in conversation).

At their extremes, the distinctions between points and moves can be the difference between categories and ideas, a grocery list and a short story, a class syllabus and a plot summary, a lecture and a conversation.

6. Tasks: Buttrick does not make much of the term tasks, but a task focus in moves dominates Buttrick's Homiletic (see Long, 1989, pp. 106–119, for an explanation of a task oriented approach to preaching). Buttrick sees the preacher as an enabler of faith consciousness in the hearer (Buttrick, 1987, pp. 36, 250). To fulfill that purpose, the preacher must strategically select a series of moves that enable the hearer to hold in consciousness, and accept, certain theological ideas. Sermons must dismantle oppositions, supply images with the right associations, and evoke comparisons between lived experience and theological truth. It is the preacher's responsibility to select the ideas, images, lived experiences, and so on that enable faith.

We can contrast this task oriented approach in moves with two dominant models for points. First, preachers may select points more to fit an outline form than to accomplish a persuasive task. For example, if I am using a subject-completed form of points, I may select points from a text based on whether or not they flow in parallel from my transition keyword. Each major point must be a reason to pray, for instance, or a work of Christ. In the major points of the outline, at least, the preacher must subordinate other ideas in the text—and may pay no attention to the mindsets of hearers. Form rules.

Second, preachers may adopt an expository preaching rule that says the sermon must draw all major points and subpoints from the text. God knows what people need to hear, and so preachers should not presume they know what tasks need to be accomplished in a sermon to change hearers. In this approach, if we elevate a task that is not in the text to the status of a major point, it is not expository preaching.

7. Purpose: Buttrick says the goal of a full move is to cause an understanding to "form in consciousness" (Buttrick, 1987, pp. 24–27). Is this just another way of saying the goal of a full move is to cause hearers to understand the truth? I do not think so. "Forming an idea in consciousness" aims for a fuller effect than simply understanding.

The purpose of a full move is not just for the hearer to understand and believe the idea, but for the idea to make a life-changing impression on the consciousness of the hearer, resulting in Christian understanding, belief, attitude, feeling, conduct.

Of course, at least in theory the purpose of a full point includes more than abstract, rational understanding. Most preachers would say a full point should also form beliefs, stir emotion, change attitudes, show how the idea applies to daily life, and result in changed conduct. My sense, though, is there is something about the word points and the use of the dominant form of outline described above that creates a mindset that leans toward the abstract, rational side of the preaching task and may neglect the fuller purpose of preaching. In any event, in the minds of many people, points are dominated by the pursuit of rational understanding.

Then again, Buttrick says little or nothing about preachers making a direct appeal to the will of the hearer to obey the Word of the Lord. I doubt if that fits his theology. The dominant form of points has certainly emphasized this element. Some homileticians advocate forming every point in terms of active obedience. For example, "1. Pray daily. 2. Pray humbly. 3. Pray persistently." Points and full points frequently exhort hearers. They appeal to the will. In an evangelical understanding, they are based on a purpose of making clear the Word of the Lord and calling hearers to obedience. My sense is that Buttrick's theology sees the task of preaching more in terms of evoking a Christian mind, and thereby Christian conduct, in hearers (Buttrick, 1987, p. 28, 33).

Buttrick speaks of a move "bringing out" things in consciousness (Buttrick, 1987, pp. 40–43). Buttrick calls for the preacher to evoke theological images, memories of lived experience, current understandings, feelings, attitudes, and beliefs in the consciousness of the hearer and thereby shape faith. It seems to me that Buttrick has greater faith in what can be "brought out" in consciousness by skillful communication than in what the Scriptures can create supernaturally in the heart of the hearer (Buttrick, 1987, pp. 26, 113, 144, 240, 374, 376, 419, 420, 458).

Conclusion

In my opinion, the idea in Buttrick's book that is most distinctive and appealing to evangelicals is his emphasis on what a preacher must do to cause an idea to "form in consciousness" (Buttrick, 1987, p. 26). That is the criteria that largely controls the philosophy of moves. For a preacher to be concerned about what causes truth to form in the consciousness of hearers is certainly valid, and Buttrick has many helpful things to say about that.

As shown in the compare and contrast section above, there are significant differences between moves and the common form of points. For preachers mired in the rut of preaching in the latter form week after week, adding the form of moves described by Buttrick could breathe new vitality into their preaching and even bring a higher level of biblical exposition. Steve Mathewson, pastor of Dry Creek Bible Church in Belgrade, Montana, told me, "I believe we can adapt Buttrick's concept of moves and utilize it to serve expository preaching…. I find that the concept of moves gives me more freedom to go with the flow of the text."

Thankfully, the logic of moves does not depend on Buttrick's beliefs about Scripture. A person can preach in moves and remain grounded in complete confidence in the power and authority of God's Word.

---

Reference List

David Buttrick, Homiletic, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987)

Thomas G. Long, The Witness of Preaching, (Louisville: Westminster / John Knox Press, 1989)

Haddon Robinson, Biblical Preaching, second edition, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001)