I’ve written before on the critical subject of mentoring.  It’s easy as a preacher to be too busy to invest in mentoring relationships.  It’s also easy to miss the heart of what we are called to in ministry.  I’ve just started The Making of a Mentor by Ted Engstrom and Ron Jenson.  Pointing to Paul’s example in 1Thessalonians 2:7-12, they underline the importance of relationships in ministry.  I’d like to share their quote from Harry Stack Sullivan, an eminent psychologist in the field of interpersonal relationships:

“All personal damage and regression, as well as all personal healing and growth, come through our relationships with others.  There is a persistent, if uninformed, suspicion in most of us that we can solve our own problems and be the masters of our ships of life.  But the fact of the matter is that by ourselves we can only be consumed by our problems and suffer shipwreck.”

Two simple questions.  Who are you allowing to invest in you?  Who are you investing in?

When it comes to the application of a message, there are many options.  One is to ignore it completely and leave it up to the Holy Spirit (not a good option since it’s part of our job as preachers . . . by this logic why do we preach at all?)  Another is to be vague and ethereal in application, positing plain platitudes (not a good option since people will affirm any attempt at application, but that doesn’t mean it made any difference in their lives).  Another approach, popular in some circles, is to always give a very specific action step in every message (again, this is open to question since some texts don’t lend themselves to facile or purely practical action steps, and listeners can grow burdened by the pressure of ever growing action lists).

So how do we make sure application is specific, without making the grandeur of God’s Word look puny by pathetic pedantry?  I would suggest that we make sure we are really understanding a passage as intended by the author, in all it’s beauty and power, before we start trying to come up with applications.  We have a tendency to leap to applications and then somehow make every passage into a “witness more” or “live better” kind of passage. Once you’ve come to a decent level of grasping the meaning of the passage, then you have a hope of good application.

It is always worth starting with the original recipients. What was the author trying to do in them by this act of communication?  If we can grasp that, then we are halfway to applying it today.  If the original intent was to motivate a specific action step, then ours might well follow suit.  If the original intent was to convince of a theological truth, then perhaps we should aim for the same.

Still, how do we earth the message in the lives of today’s listener?  How do we apply, whether it is to the heart, to the mind, and/or to the actions of the listener?  Remember that vague application will float around nicely in the vaulted roof, but it won’t change lives.  Think about yourself.  What is this passage specifically doing to me as I study it?  Think about specific individuals in the church.  What is the message of this passage looking to do in the life of Sarah the tired young mother?  What is it straining to do in the life of Harry, the retired retailer with financial worries?  What will it do if let loose in the life of Josh the recent graduate with no employment but a fiancee to make the future look bright?  For specific and helpful application, earth it in the lives of specific people.

The question “why?” is critical for good preaching.

Why did the author write the passage? Wrestling with the intent of the author is critical if the goal is to understand the passage.  This means not only asking “what does the passage say?” – that is, content.  But also asking “why did the author write it?” – that is, intent.  Many people don’t consider the author at all, which is a big mistake.  Others consider the content carefully, but fail to ask “why?” This results in incomplete exegesis of the passage, which dooms the message to inherent weakness.

Why are you preaching this message? If this question is not asked, then we may fall into the trap of merely fulfilling routine, filling time, or even “doing our job.”  But really, it is important to ask why you are preaching the message.  This implies another “why?” question.  Why do these people need to hear this passage?  Prayerfully considering the needs of the listeners in light of the message of the passage will drive the preacher toward clarity in message purpose.  If my goal is to fill time, I am surely a master of that (who among us is not highly skilled in the rhetorical art of waffling?)  However, if my goal is driven by the text and the spiritual needs of those who will listen, then this will drive me to my knees in prayer and dependence on God.  The “why?” question matters because it forces clarity in purpose and reliance on God.

Why is that there? Not only does “why?” help in the big macro issues of understanding the text and determining the message purpose, it is also helpful in the micro issues of message detail.  Why is that illustration there?  Why use that quote?  Why am I planning to mention that historical detail?  Why does that exegetical note need to be stated?  Why do I take so long explaining that verse?  Why am I not explaining this term?  Every detail in the message should pass through the x-ray machine of the “why?” question.  Extraneous detail, whether in explanation or illustration, is not neutral, it is harmful.  Unnecessary stuffing, pieces without purpose, undermines the bigger “why?” of message purpose.

I’m not sure if it is possible to ask “why?” too many times in sermon preparation. “Why?” matters!

In recent decades many churches have moved from having the Scripture preached with authority to a watered down “talk” so committed to connection and amateurism that it completely lacks authority.  While the “watery talk” may have proved ineffective in achieving anything other than a voluntary social club under the name of church, we need to think carefully about the authority that we have as a preacher.  Again, reading Al Mohler’s, He Is Not Silent, I see a brief list worth mentioning for your thoughts.

Three forms of false authority of which we should beware:

1. Professional Authority. The task of preaching and teaching the Bible is not a professional task identifiable by degrees and letters after the name.  While I would encourage many people to pursue the benefits of formal training, I never suggest that an academic qualification qualifies someone for ministry – the biblical standards are clearly spelled out, for example, in the Pastoral Epistles.  Some churches despise formal training (often out of bad past experiences with apparently arrogant graduates, and often because of insecurity among the present leaders).  Other churches simply ignore any higher qualification earned (which still seems a bit unfortunate considering what it takes to get through it!)  On the other hand, some churches honor the degree as if it confers authority for ministry, which is missing the point of formal training.  We don’t need to ignore or despise academic qualifications, but let’s not grant authority based on them either.

2. Positional Authority. Do you lead in the church based on your title?  This is also a false authority.  Positional titles in church hierarchies are not the source of authority in preaching.  This can come from the leader, or from the people in the church overstating the importance of a position.  Somehow some people derive security and even identity from revering the pastor, the minister, the vicar, the whatever.  But this is not the source of authority in our preaching.  Mohler points to Acts 17:11 and the noble Bereans’ response to the Apostle Paul – good example.

3. Personal Authority. This is the “small c” charismatic leader who influences by sheer force of personality.  Many churches fall for this, or create it for themselves.  Again, beware.  This should not be the source of authority in preaching.

We should preach with authority.  Not an authority based on professional qualifications, nor positional titles, nor personal charisma.  We should preach with the authority of God’s Word well understood, well explained, and well applied.  The authority is not in us, but it should shine through in our lives and our words.

I’ve picked up Albert Mohler’s book He is Not Silent again.  In chapter 3 he addresses the issue of defining expository preaching.  He urges us to drop the language of “I prefer expository preaching” in favor of defining true exposition, which is true preaching.  Mohler has major concerns with the contemporary emphasis on topical and narrative preaching, and urges the reader to understand true preaching as simply the reading and explanation of a biblical text. 

(I would agree with Mohler’s concern, but wish to add a couple of qualifiers.  I would suggest that true exposition must go beyond reading and explaining a text – a very mind-focused concern.  Thus preaching is not only to say what the text says, but to appropriately do what the text does, too.  Furthermore I would also suggest it is possible to learn much from the narrative preaching camp, as long as you think through what it means to be expository in your philosophy of preaching.  And it is wrong to tar all topical preaching with the same brush…there is a place for periodic expository-topical sermons.)

Mohler goes on to state that where there is a decline in expository preaching, there is first an abandonment of the conviction that the coming of the Word of the Lord is a matter of life and death.  Earthing his thoughts in Deuteronomy 4:32-40, Mohler offers three points for the development of both a theology of and a passion for, expository preaching.  First, the only true and living God is the God who speaks (present tense – He speaks today through His Word preached.)  Second, God’s true people are those who hear God speaking to them.  Third, God’s people depend for their very lives on hearing His Word.  Thus, preaching is always a matter of life and death!

Martyn Lloyd-Jones held preaching to be the highest calling.  Many pastors and church leaders consider it the central calling in their ever increasing list of tasks.  In reality preaching is only ever one part of a bigger package.  There may also be counsellor, crisis-management, events organizer, team coordinator, small group leader, tension diffuser, visionary leader, committee chair, leadership liaison, building project coordinator, public relations officer, and on it goes.

I’m not affirming or even condoning how much some church leaders have on their plate, but I do recognize it.  Monday morning may be a good time to reflect on the non-preaching aspects of the ministry coming up in the days and weeks ahead.  For those with a passion to preach there may be a tendency to neglect other aspects of our ministry and move from yesterday’s message(s) to next Sunday’s.  Perhaps our preaching could be strengthened by prayerful consideration of the other aspects of church life (not just the task lists, but especially the people involved).  Take some time to pray for others in the church and pray through what you know to be their concerns and priorities as they look at the ministry of the church.

As well as taking a break from preaching preparation, this will give greater sensitivity to the priorities God has given to others.  The benefits of the rest and the awareness, will also help your preaching too, so in a sense you’re still pursuing your “high calling!”

Definitions matter.  They matter theologically.  They matter personally.  They matter in preaching.  I’m not talking about the definition of preaching – although that is a fine word to wrestle with!  I’m talking about the basic building blocks of the faith.

As preachers we need to think about the definitions of words and often we need to give the definitions of words.  What is faith?  What is hope?  What is love?  What is sin?  What is grace?  What is salvation?

Never assume that a definition is obvious.  You may have had a standard definition in mind for years, but don’t assume it is accurate.  Since the defining of key terms is fundamental to understanding, we must poke and prod our definitions.

Is faith believing a creedal statement to be true?  Is hope anticipation of the unseen?  Is love an act of the will for the good of another?  Is sin lawbreaking?  Is grace “God’s riches at Christ’s expense”?  Is salvation being justified before God?

I hope we would like to add nuance or completely redefine these definitions.  I suggest many in our churches either have no definition or these typically limited definitions in their thinking.  If we as preachers don’t help people with the basic definition work of core theology – who will?

Some churches apparently have “topical sermons” every week.  Apparently some preachers think they are easier to prepare and easier to listen to.  Yes and no. A topical message is easier to prepare if you are simply wanting to say your own thing and bounce off a couple of verses along the way.  A topical message is easier to listen to if people have a taste for anecdotal soundbites.  However, true topical preaching, what you might call expository-topical preaching, this takes time.

(Incidentally, people may have a taste for lite-topical preaching, but often this is only because they’ve not heard decent expository preachng.  It’s never a fair contest to pit engaging topical messages by good communicators against dry and tedious lectures falsely placed under the label of “expository preaching.”)

By topical preaching, I mean preaching that is not initially birthed out of a passage or passages, but rather birthed out of the concept or title.  A good expository-topical approach will then select appropriate passages and do the exegetical work in those passages so that the part of the message coming from that passage actually comes from that passage.  Hence expository-topical.  Rather than using or abusing a bit of a text to say what I want to say, the onus is on me to let that text really speak for itself.

It may be easy to jump through my five favorite verses and link them together with anecdotes, but genuine expository-topical preaching requires me to wrestle with each passage chosen, in context, so that the text itself is boss over that part of the message.  True topical takes time.

I’m not of the opinion that every message should be from a single passage (I do think that is a healthy staple diet approach).  This week I finish a mini-series on the ‘christian virtues’ of faith, hope and love.  A broad title like “Love” takes time.  Time to select which of the hundreds of passages to use.  Time to understand them and develop a coherent message.  Time to cut out and drop material that could so easily fill a series on the subject.  If the subject were not so thrilling, I’d be tempted to say that I’m looking forward to preparing a non-topical message again next week!

It is healthy and helpful to get feedback on your preaching.  Sometimes you might pursue this by asking several people to fill out an evaluation of a sermon preached.  Perhaps you ask for specific feedback on handling of the text, or aspects of delivery that you are working on, etc.  Another approach is to form a group for feedback and have someone lead the group as they discuss the message and the preaching together.  Other times it is very effective to watch yourself on video (and see the things people don’t want to mention to you).  But here’s another approach to add to the feedback quiver.

It may be helpful to ask a handful of people for their reflections on your preaching in general.  Perhaps do this after not preaching for a week or two (if you never get a Sunday off, pray about whether that is healthy for you or the church).  Ask people to give their general impression of your preaching.  You could ask specific questions in respect to handling the text, communicating clearly, relevance of the messages, etc. Or you could simply ask for a one or two sentence description of your preaching ministry, along with your top two or three strengths and two or three areas to focus on for improvement.  It might be interesting to see what people say – especially if there is overlap between the comments made.

Sometimes we get feedback on a specific sermon and “preach out of our skin” on that Sunday.  Now and then it might prove helpful to get a more general impression from some listeners.

There are many exciting parts of the Bible.  Last night I was leading a seminar and we thought briefly about the story of Acts.  That’s exciting.  The problem we have, though, is decades of familiarity combined with a stoic tendency in traditional church settings.  Many of us have heard the stories since childhood, and sadly, many times we’ve heard the stories recounted and dissected without any enthusiasm.  Now the goal of preaching is not to whip up excitement as if that were an end in itself.  However, to faithfully preach exciting elements of the Bible requires us to think about how the tone and import of the passage can be communicated (as well as the truth therein).

Excitement needs to be “taught” – it is not enough to simply ooze enthusiasm and keep telling people “this is really exciting!”  It doesn’t work.  They need to understand it for themselves.  They will appreciate enthusiasm from the front, it might make a refreshing change, however, without understanding it they cannot genuinely enter into it.

Excitement needs to be “felt” – simply understanding the facts about the text is not enough.  Our goal as preachers is not just to say what the text says, but to appropriately do what the text does.  This means with a narrative, for instance, listeners need to not just know the story, but they need to be helped to see, hear, smell, taste, touch . . . feel the story.

Excitement needs to be “caught” – while enthusiasm alone can be quite annoying, it is necessary.  As people are helped to both feel and understand the emotion present in a text, we as preachers need to enter into that emotion in an appropriate but contagious way.  If the passage is filled with joyful excitement, but we seem depressed and bored, something is wrong.  If the passage is filled with awe and wonder, yet we are communicating as if it is “oh so normal” – we have a problem.

It’s all about congruence really.  The accuracy of our words, the effectiveness of our description, the evidence of our emotion – these all need to work together if the excitement, or wonder, or compassion, or righteous indignation, or joy of the text is to be effectively communicated.