As preachers we always run the risk of preaching in black and white. We read a biblical text, compile the facts and preach them. Biblical writers wrote in a time where detail concerning characters in the narrative was sparse to say the least. We don’t read physical descriptions very often, other details are usually lacking and a character’s character is often only hinted at. Yet today we preach in a world where character detail and description are much more prominent (in advertising images, commercials, dramas, movies, etc.)
Warning! – The danger here is that we preach from the biblical lack of detail in a manner that resembles an abstract or colorless lecture. We can easily preach messages that people don’t relate to, can’t connect with and probably won’t be touched by.
Possibility! – The text often does give us more than we may at first notice. So with a little extra work and care, perhaps we can preach narrative texts in a more compelling and gripping way.
Definitely! – First we must be sure to make the most of whatever the text does give us. Don’t skim over a physical description, or the meaning of a name, or dialogue from their lips, or any other statement regarding the person.
Carefully! – Typically the text will not give enough information to build a full profile of a character. But carefully proceed to build more of a profile if you can. Consider all pertinent biblical, historical and cultural information. In areas where there is no possible certainty, perhaps suggest possibility without being definite. “Perhaps he felt . . . or was . . . or wanted . . .”
Remember that your goal is to preach the idea of the text with relevance to your listeners. Don’t get sidetracked into endless character profiling like an obsessive detective in a crime drama. Of course, facts are critically important. However, remember that lectures can be boring, but characters in dramas are compelling.
Peter has responded to a comment on this post.
Biblical Preaching 
You wrote:
“Of course, facts are critically important. However, remember that lectures can be boring, but characters in dramas are compelling.”
I am in the middle of a series on preaching the stories of scripture. The key is to know the “point” of your sermon, and only include details that work towards that point.
However, too many of us do not put enough “detail” in our sermons and thus your statement needs to be repeated again and again…
“Other People’s Lenses”
As always, thanks PM & SHCII–I have been gleaning from your experiences. One way I have approached the text differently is looking at the situation differently, both actively and inactively.
Active in the text
2 Examples: Stoning of Stephen–Look at his stoning through several sets of eyes. 1) Stephens perspective 2) the Stoners 3) Saul who held their coats 4) God’s 5) the church’s. Some creative person could come up with a very creative perspective with a title called “The Day the Rocks Cried Out for the Wrong Reasons”. (Rocks View of the Scene).
Inactive in the text
Right now I am in Jonah 1. I looked at the scene from 2 lawyer’s perspective. 1 convicting him and the other justifying his behavior. It works real well as to demonstrate the pains he took to run from God. There are lots of action words for his trying to get away and testimony of people confronting him. Circumstances (God)was telling him to go back, and even his own words implicate him.
From the healing of the paralytic I came up with a series using this method. His friends: methods of evangelism. The man: how he came to Christ. Jesus: ready, willing, and able. The Grumbling, Onlooking Pharisees: How to Kill a Vibrant Church. The last one ended up the best one and I would have missed it having not used The View–which is not on ABC 😉
chip.
Thanks for the comment Chip. I think it can be very helpful to consider different perspectives while studying the passage. Maybe it is sometimes good to preach the different perspectives as you suggest. My one concern which I would always want to keep in mind is that our task is to preach the text rather than the event. What is the idea of the text? Perhaps it is possible to preach various sub-ideas this way, and maybe these would be legitimate and helpful, but it would be easy to stray into not actually preaching the text. Typically a story will include some detail for major characters, but minimal detail for minor characters. At some point on the scale from major to minor characters you must reach a point where to make a sermon involves more conjecture and guess-work than exegesis. At that point we should feel very nervous about preaching it as “God’s Word.”
On the positive side I would say this. If the main idea of the text can be communicated from different perspectives, then this approach would have a great strength. We too easily jump from one text to another, not allowing the truth to really soak in to our listener’s hearts and lives. The repetition that would come from this approach could be powerful. Re-preaching essentially the same main idea several times in consecutive sermons, but with different presentation each time, could be exactly what people need in order to really grasp the point of the story. So I am not denying your approach has some validity, and in some texts I might consider preaching multiple sermons from different perspectives, but there are some things to consider before taking that approach. Thanks again for interacting on the site, brother.
Thank you Peter,
My problem is probably different than some preachers. My subjects were often too broad. Early in my preaching I realized each point was a message in itself. The sub points easily could have been main points. Over the years I have broken an event from several angles. This has helped. When we do we should always review the main idea from the previous week.
The Samaritan Woman incident and Paul in Philippi are good examples of large enough events that can be broken up into a series. It would be a little difficult to bust up the parable of the coin or Peter catching the coin out of the fish.
One last thought: Some content may not give justice in one sermon. I told the listeners the week before I would deal with Simon and the community the first week and the content of his declaration the next week. They appreciated that. Thanks for clarifying that warning and encouraging the “perspectives”. Wish I had you in seminary 🙂
Preach and teach on!
chip.