Do you ever wonder what someone’s motivation might be?  For example, I was thinking about a man I once knew who never read anything except the Bible.  His preaching bore the fruit.  Some might say that his preaching was biblically saturated and uncluttered.  Others might suggest his preaching was unengaging and borderline heretical.  Not that the Bible is unengaging, but somehow there was, at times, a lack of connection happening.  So I ponder . . . what was the motivation?

1. Was it pure devotion to Christ? Perhaps.  Certainly there are many who would do well to stop reading everything but and spend some serious time in God’s Word, like a lifetime.  Perhaps this is fruit of the example and we would all do well to heed it.

2. Was it mixed up with insecurity? Perhaps.  After all, it’s a lot easier to stay on familiar territory and not be stretched or challenged or confronted or corrected.  It can be intimidating to consider the vast array of biblical and theological scholarship out there.  What if that held only fear for him?  Perhaps the fruit of this example is to encourage us to not fear, but to be stretched and grow, and perhaps have the odd corrective to point out where our own thinking might be distorting the message of Scripture.

3. Was it thinly veiled arrogance? Perhaps.  After all, while it might be portrayed as devotion to Christ, it is at the same time a reliance on one’s own ability to piece together the complex canon of Scripture.  There is always a tension between separation from corrupting influences and interdependence with the body of Christ.  Is it not arrogant to state by word or action, “I don’t need you” to a fellow saint in the local church, or a sibling in Christ who offers conversation through the pages of a book?  Perhaps the fruit of this example is to recognize that distinctive devotion can sometimes smack of blatant arrogance and walk more carefully?

I honestly don’t know what to think of this particular man.  I’d like to believe the best.  Obviously only the Lord can judge his motives.  But perhaps I can learn from all the possibilities I mentioned.  More in the Word.  Unafraid of engaging with scholars.  Humble enough to enjoy conversation with a giant of the past, or a “nobody” in the church.  I don’t know what his motivations were.  But God knows yours and mine.  What does our distinctiveness say about us?

Perhaps preaching could be defined as a work of forging connections.  In a world of increasingly independent and disconnected individuals relating often on a level of billiard balls (bouncing and bumping, but not connecting), the preacher’s task involves connecting with the listener, connecting the listener with the text, more than that, via the text forging a communicative connection between God and the listener, and potentially, connecting the listeners with one another.

I’m not sure I like this as a definition of preaching, but there are some truths to ponder here.  How often do we view preaching preparation, even inadvertently, as preparation to present information that will sit in the air for others to grab hold of if they so choose?  How often do we preach as though speaking into thin air, largely unconcerned who is sitting in front of us or whether they are with us in the communication act?  How often do we simplify the complexity of forging connections, with all the implied awareness of the complex beings involved, into a simple act of giving information out?  Out where?  Nowhere, just out.

It is relatively easy to formulate a message and deliver it.  But it is much more complex to prayerfully and pastorally consider the listeners, to prayerfully and devotionally consider the God whose Word we present, to prayerfully and purposefully consider how we can forge genuine communication between us and the listeners, etc.  What does this involve?  Study? Yes.  Preparation? Yes.  Perhaps prayerfully considering every aspect of delivery, demeanour, interpersonal conversation and intercession in anticipation.

This is not a complete thought or a well crafted unit of prose.  It’s a thinking out loud about the difference between just speaking information and actually forging connections between hearts – human and divine.  What a privileged calling!

Each text in the Bible has a tone.  We are often oblivious to it.  Our training in Bible school tends to focus on analysis of content.  Most sermons tend to train listeners to look at content (or perhaps to largely ignore the text and just bounce off it, but that’s another matter!)

I often find myself trying to figure out the tone of an email.  Was this writer annoyed, or discouraged, or aggressive, or manipulative, or did it come out wrong?  Is this email an encouragement out of empathy, or is it a patronizing exhortation?  We learn with our contemporaries that written language doesn’t always communicate tone overtly, yet tone is so significant to the intended communication.

With Bible texts we can’t meet up with Paul or Moses to double check their intent.  So we do well to wrestle with the tone of the text.  Let’s be diligent in this:

1. Deduce the tone. Don’t settle for simple cold analysis of content.  Wrestle with grasping the tone of the passage.  Allow that to be a factor in your understanding the passage and then in your preparation of the message.

2. Demonstrate the tone. Too often preachers preach every sermon in monotone.  Not necessarily their own vocal range, but rather the tonal range of the whole collection of sermons.  Some preachers turn every encouraging passage into a guilt-driven rebuke.  Others neutralize every passage they touch to make it a sterile set of philosophical musings.  Our preaching will be enriched by demonstrating the tone of the passage . . . as I seem to add a lot . . . appropriately.

3. Declare the tone. People may be so trained in tone-less preaching that simply improving your delivery may not be enough.  Sometimes overtly declare the tone of the passage.  I preached on Luke 11:1-13 recently . . . all about prayer.  A subject that most believers feel very inadequate in, and pressured by, is prayer.  Yet the tone of the passage is overtly encouraging.  I tried to demonstrate that tone.  I also chose to declare it overtly – this passage is not pressuring us, it’s overtly encouraging in its tone!  People need to become sensitized to the tone of Scripture.  They need to feel the emotion, the anger, the encouragement, the grace.

Let’s be sensitive to the text, and let’s help to sensitize others too.

A story is a story.  It should be studied as a story and understood as a story.  But what about when you are preaching part of a story?  For instance, take the book of Ruth.  I had to preach just part of that story on Sunday.  It’s not easy to break into a story and preach part of it, but leave the rest for the following weeks.  Some thoughts:

1. You have to study the whole story. A narrative is incomplete until it has been completed.  Profound, but a necessary comment.  Even if you are only preaching one part of a longer story, you need to be significantly aware of the whole in order to handle your part well.

2. Build on previous elements, but don’t give away the tensions of subsequent development. If I am preaching from Ruth 1, then I need to preach Ruth 1 without preaching Ruth 2-4.  This means that although I really like Boaz and want to preach about Boaz, he’s not in my text yet.  If someone else is preaching in subsequent weeks and I have given away all the tension, that is unfair (even if people know the story, build the tension of the whole story and allow each scene to have its day).

3. If you only have one scene in a longer narrative, preach the plot of that scene. Recognize the mini-play nature of a single scene.  Look for the tension.  See how it resolves, even if only partially.  Preach the scene you are preaching.  Often readers and listeners think they know a story but really only know certain elements.  How many people really understand Jonah 2 or even Jonah 4?  How many people have really soaked in Ruth 1?  While it may be difficult to preach only part of a narrative, there are advantages too.

4. Make sure you preach a message, not just an introduction. It may be tempting to simply set up the following weeks where the greater tension is resolved, but don’t fail to preach a message this week.  Simply setting up what follows is not enough.  People have come to church this week and should be fed this week.

Much more could be said . . . you say it.

Last time I suggested one approach, simply asking what the passage is about.  But what if that approach isn’t causing fruit to drop from the branches.  Are there other tacks to take that might help a preacher grasp the essential unity of idea in a single passage?  Here are some angles of approach that I use.  Perhaps you might add others.  Remember, this is not about studying a passage per se, it builds on that with the goal of defining the united single main idea of the passage – a vital prerequisite to preaching any passage.

5. Try the question answered approach. A passage might yield it’s idea better to a question like this, “Which question does this passage answer?”  Is it answering a “why?” question, or a “what?” or a “who?” or a “when?” etc.?  This approach can be very fruitful.  Discovering an implicit question answered by the overt evidence of the text can work in some cases where asking what the passage is about has become a dead end.

6. Don’t neglect the importance of intent. As well as wrestling with the author’s content, it can also be helpful to come at the passage from the perspective of intent – what did the author intend to happen in light of this passage being communicated?

7. Back up and remind yourself of the genre you are dealing with. Awareness of genre should be an early element in the study of a passage, but sometimes it helps to remind ourselves at this stage in the process.  For instance, in an epistle you probably should go back and see the previous unit of thought then wrestle with why this follows that, what question was left implied previously, etc.  In a narrative you probably should back away from apparently incidental elements of the story and look again at the points of tension and resolution (then see the apparently incidental elements in light of the plot . . . they aren’t incidental).

8. Talk it through. When stuck it can really break the log-jam to talk it through.  Ideally you can call a friend who knows what finding the main idea is all about and talk it through together.  Sometimes a ten-minute chat can undo hours of apparent non-progress.  If you don’t have someone to talk to, try talking it through out loud to yourself.  Your goal is to preach, after all, so there are multiple benefits to this approach.  (And remember, of course, that every element of sermon preparation should be constantly talked through with God too . . . prayer saturated expository preparation is what I affirm, but if I don’t say it . . .)

When you are confident that you are dealing with a legitimate unit of text, then you can be confident that there is unity to the idea contained in that text.  You will often need that confidence.  Usually a passage doesn’t offer its unity on the lowest branch.  It can take work and real wrestling in order to determine the united single main idea of a passage.

Here’s one approach:

1. Read the passage multiple times. Early on you probably need to make a note of questions you have on the first run through since these will be the questions listeners have as they hear it on Sunday.  However, you can’t prepare a message after one read through.  Soak in the passage.  Study it.  Revisit it. And again.

2. Answer the question – “what’s this passage about?” Not the easiest question, but an important one.  It’s asking not for specific detail (such as “what stood out?” or “what’s your favourite bit?”) but for general overview observation – “what’s it about?”  You may have two or three things that the passage is dealing with.  For instance, a friend of mine is looking at Isaiah 6.  Early thoughts are that it is about God’s majesty and holiness, but it’s also about Isaiah’s call into ministry, plus there’s the often neglected last part of the chapter too.

3. Consider whether the answers you have are roughly equal in weight, according to the measure of the passage. It may be that one part has made it onto your list because you’ve heard about it before, it’s familiar, you like it, etc.  But is it really a fair answer to the question “what’s the passage about?”  If it is really a subordinate issue, tentatively drop it.  If not, if each element is genuinely weighty in the passage, then . . .

4. Consider how the elements might be combined, rather than viewed exclusively. Perhaps Isaiah 6 is not about God’s majestic holiness or Isaiah’s call into ministry, but rather a combination of the two?  After all, isn’t Isaiah’s call in the context of an encounter with God?  How about the message he’s given . . . how does that fit?  Is there a contrast between Isaiah’s responsiveness and the rest of the people of unclean lips?  Keep wrestling.

Next time I’ll suggest a few other approaches if this one isn’t working.

Urgency used to be one of the preeminent distinctives of the preacher.  Times change, listeners change, cultures change, preachers change.  People no longer expect an urgent edge to every sermon, listeners often resist any hint of hype or overly effected preaching styles.  Natural communication styles are the most effective styles in our day.  Yet while much may change, the needs of our listeners have not changed.

There is no less need for a clear presentation of the gospel and a compelling call for response today than in any previous era.  People are lost, the enemy is roaming, death is lurking, judgment is waiting, and the preacher has the opportunity to address the situation.  With all the appropriate and effective naturalness in our preaching styles, let us also make sure there is urgency mixed in too.

If you say that the work is God’s, and he may do it by the weakest means, I answer, It is true, he may do so; but yet his ordinary way is to work by means, and to make not only the matter that is preached, but also the manner of preaching instrumental to the work.

If it weren’t for the run-on sentence, would you know when that was written?  It could be speaking to preachers today.  How easy it is to hide behind the fact that preaching is God’s work.  Oh yes, this is a profound and humbling truth that should be seared through every cell of our being.  At the same time it can be an excuse, can’t it?  An excuse to cover for lack of improvement in our preaching, for lack of urgency, for lack of focused preparation.  God does work using very weak instruments.  Even if you pursue training and studies and feedback and improvement, you and I will still be very weak instruments.  Good stewards, weak instruments . . . but a great God addressing a great need!

I’m with Richard Baxter on this matter.  God’s ordinary means of working in preaching is by the content and the delivery, not despite either.  So, will there be a fitting urgency about the next message?

We are starting to hear about the 2011 edition of the NIV Bible, timed to coincide with the 400th anniversary of the original King James Version.  King James may not have really “authorised” the often called Authorised Version, but he was motivated to have a Bible that had no notes attached to the text (other than Hebrew/Greek notes).  Interestingly, it is 100 years since the first publication of the Scofield Reference Bible.  C.I.Scofield, whatever your view of his theology, was motivated to see serious students of the Bible studying it more systematically.  Later came the New Scofield Reference Bible and the Ryrie Study Bible, not to mention a plethora of other reference and annotated Bibles from various theological streams.  The popularity of the NIV Study Bible seemed insurmountable, although recently we saw the launch of the highly lauded ESV Study Bible.

I’ve already mentioned seven Bibles that could all spark significant criticism (we are very quick to attack Bible versions and Study Bibles aren’t we?)  Obviously Study Bibles and annotated Bibles all have a particular theological agenda or leaning, that goes without saying.  But let’s make a simple observation.  Lots of “special” Bibles are published and sold because a lot of Christians feel both some motivation and some level of inadequacy for Bible Study.  A good Study Bible is a great resource for many people!

So the question then arises for us as preachers – how do we encourage our listeners to be effective Bible students?  Here are some questions to chew on – do we encourage them to use helpful study aids like Study Bibles and other resources?  Do we undermine the text they are looking at by critiquing the translation too freely?  Do we offer training in basic Bible study approaches – such as an inductive Bible study class?  Do we preach in such a way that listeners get the sense that the Bible is understandable and that Bible study would actually help them?

We may not place ourselves in the camp of the NIV translators, the Scofield notes, the Ryrie theology, the ESV Study Bible notes, or whatever.  But let’s consider how we can follow in this tradition of looking for ways to help people be serious students of the Word.

Most things can be described on a continuum.  Consider the tone of your presentation to others.  At one end of the scale, it is possible to fawn, to flatter, to pander to those listening.  At the other end of the scale, a preacher can condescend and patronize.  Neither is helpful.

A preacher who overdoes the flattery and pandering will convey very little in the way of integrity and respectability.  A preacher who overdoes condescension and patronizing will achieve little in making listeners want to hear what is being said.  Both extremes will undermine communication very rapidly and deeply annoy the listeners.

We might assume that younger speakers are the flatterers and older speakers are the patronizers.  We would be wrong.  Any speaker can have a tendency to offer either, or both.  I’ve heard some extremely patronizing speakers in their twenties, and some ridiculously fawning speakers in their sixties.  The problem is that most are probably deeply unaware of how they come across.

Yet there is another challenge here.  These two extremes are on a continuum, so it is not as simple as just avoiding them.  In fact, isn’t low level flattery sometimes called politeness?  Isn’t low level patronizing sometimes called being simple and clear?  Both of these are very important.  It doesn’t help to avoid flattery and pandering by being obnoxious and objectionable.  It doesn’t help to avoid condescension by being obfuscatory and lacking in perspicuity.

To be accurate, I wouldn’t say that politeness and flattery are actually on the same continuum, nor clarity and condescension.  The distinction is probably at the level of motive.  As preachers it would do us good to check our motives regularly – what is our motive in regard to these listeners?  Do we love them?  Do we genuinely respect them?  Are we wanting to serve, or to show off?  Are we serving for their benefit, or for our own?

One more thought.  Even right motives don’t guarantee effective communication.  After all, communication has a lot to do with how the listeners perceive your preaching.  Do they find you condescending?  Do they find you overly flattering?  Perhaps it would be worth a periodic spot check from someone you trust . . . “Do I come across as one speaking naturally to equals, or is there any hint of pandering or patronizing in my delivery – please tell me?”

There is a phenomenon, actually not uncommon, that we might call the feel-good sermon.  In it the preacher begins with the text and then shares several points that are somehow linked to the text.  The points will be put in terms that are comfortable and reassuring to the listener.  The listeners may well walk away feeling vaguely blessed and certainly positive in their view of the speaker.

However, this kind of sermon typically does not engage fully with the text.  Often issues like sin or judgment will be skirted around or offered merely in non-specific euphemisms.  Thus the tension in the text is not really engaged, nor resolved.  This probably means that the same tensions in the lives of the listeners are neither engaged, nor resolved.

Let’s beware of preaching feel-good sermons rather than biblical sermons.  It is possible to preach the Bible in a very engaging, encouraging and even positive way.  It is possible to preach the passage properly, even in a “seeker-friendly” setting.  In fact, if our main concern was the listener, wouldn’t we feel obliged to really engage fully with both text and listener?  The feel-good sermon seems to be a short-cut to happy handshakes, but it falls short of engaging both the text and the listener.  So perhaps the motivation is more fear and the preacher’s personal comfort than it is the motivation of a true minister?