Month: September 2008

Preaching Warning Passages

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I was just reading a little commentary on Joel by Thomas Finley.  On page 38 he makes a comment that is worth our attention as preachers.  It’s not new, it’s not profound, but it’s easy to leave this out of the equation as we evaluate our ministry.

According to Finley, the prophets, such as Joel, “had the power as preachers to motivate people to repent on the basis of warning them of the judgment to come. Although the New Testament focuses on the Lord’s grace and mercy, the warnings of judgment are not absent there either. In light of Joel and the rest of Scripture, one might wonder whether contemporary pastors who tend to avoid “fire and brimstone” preaching in favor of a steady diet of mercy and forgiveness provide an incomplete presentation of God’s Word.”

While we must recognize that culturally our listeners have changed over recent decades, and consequently their appreciation for a dramatic and aggressive pulpit pounding has dropped, this does not mean we cannot preach warning of judgment.  The culture in which we preach, the people to whom we preach, behoove us to give careful attention to our tone, attitude, word choice and so on.  But the Bible text has not changed, and if we are to preach the whole counsel, then we will be preaching passages like Joel – heavy on warning, powerful in presentation of divine judgment.

The calling of expository preaching demands not only a sensitivity to our listeners, but an absolute commitment to hearing the Word of God, and presenting it accurately, faithfully and clearly.

Please Ponder Passage Purpose

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I am continuing to read Jay Adams book Preaching with Purpose (1982).  Chapters 5 and 6 concern selecting a preaching portion, but point beyond stage 1 to the oft-neglected stage 3 in my process – passage purpose.  Adams points out that a preaching passage has unity not because of literary convention, or by rhetorical fiat and received homiletical tradition.  A preaching passage has unity because of the author’s purpose (“telically speaking” – major emphasis on the term “telos” and “telic” in Adams!)

Each book has an overarching goal, or perhaps several main goals.  Some books state that goal (see John 20:30-31, 1John5:13), while in others it is through studying the whole that the goals become apparent.  It is the preacher’s task to determine what that overarching goal is, then also to determine what the specific purpose in the indiviual passage is.  This individual passage purpose will relate to the overarching goal(s).  What was the author intending to achieve?  Was this section to inform, to convince or to motivate?  (Three developmental questions in Adams form)

So often preachers study the passage content, but give little or no attention to passage intent.  Without the intention or purpose of the author, the passage remains a collection of content details.  When we add in to the study process the critical element of passage purpose, then we are able to genuinely understand the passage, and hopefully, to beneficially preach the passage.  Without passage purpose, a message is likely to pull a passage out of context and misrepresent the intention of the content.  As I’ve written elsewhere, the message purpose does not have to match the passage purpose, but it does have to begin there and it does have some restraints imposed by the passage purpose.

Next time you are selecting and studying a passage, give some deliberate thought to the passage purpose – you haven’t really studied the passage until you do!

Pondering Purpose

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

This morning I am pondering purpose.  Honestly I am pondering the purpose of the spyware and virus that is pushing me closer and closer to replacing my pc – why do people write these evil things?  Hopefully my character can be shaped by the frustration.  But as my pc is scanned for the tenth time, I have reached for Preaching with Purpose by Jay Adams.  It is a book with an edge (which appeals right now as I have an edge too this morning!)

There is so much purposeless preaching today in which the preacher has only the vaguest idea of what he wants to achieve.  The members of congregations who are subjected to this sort of preaching for any length of time, as a result, both individually and corporately, themselves, become aimless and confused. . . . the amazing lack of concern for purpose among homileticians and preachers has spawned a brood of preachers who are dull, lifeless, abstract, and impersonal; it has obscured truth, hindered joyous Christian living, destroyed dedication and initiative, and stifled service for Christ. (Page 1)

It would do us no harm at all to take our next sermon and run it through the purpose test.  What is the purpose of that introduction?  What is the purpose of that illustration – why there, why that one?  What is the purpose of the sermon shape?  What was the author’s purpose in writing that passage?  What is the purpose of preaching that message at all?  Purpose should drive every aspect of preaching.

Now if I can just rescue my pc . . .

Evangelistic Preaching – A Flexibility Test?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I don’t think there is a definitive model for evangelistic preaching.  There are guidelines, certainly, but also a real need for flexibility.  You have to flex according to the kind of church you are in, the occasion on which you preach, the kind of people to whom you are preaching and so on.

I grew up in a church context where there was, in theory, an evangelistic sermon every Sunday night.  In many ways it was a remnant from an earlier generation in which people would attend church simply because a service was taking place.  By the time I came along (due to being in a Christian family), our culture had changed.  Week after week the meeting would take place, always to the same crowd of believers, usually without clear explanation of how to respond to the gospel, often without clear explanation of the meaning of the cross.  The format of the service was traditional and probably distinctly alien and uncomfortable for any outsider that might attend.  It certainly did not motivate me to invite non-believers.

I think many churches are more purposeful about evangelistic meetings now (at least in my circles).  More creativity, more “natural” communication, more effort to remove the “cringe” factors.  But one thing is clear – there is not one way to preach evangelistically.  Taking into account the people present, how the meeting has been promoted, the expectations of those who have invited friends, etc. all influences how to preach.  Sometimes a gentle introduction to Christianity that leaves people wanting more is ideal.  Other times it is critical to give a more complete gospel presentation.  Sometimes it is time to “shake the tree” and catch the already ripened fruit by overt calls to decision.

It takes sensitivity, wisdom, faith and courage to know which way to go on a particular occasion.  Generally it is best to present the way you informed the church that you would (because they bring guests according to what they are expecting you to do!)  Ultimately, there will probably be criticism coming from somewhere, but that is evangelistic preaching – never easy, always critical.  There is no simple formula, for there are so many variables.  But at its core the gospel doesn’t change, and the world needs it as much as ever.

On Controversy

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The comment made by Doulos is very worthy of our attention.  If we choose to address a theologically controversial issue, we must be fully informed.  This seems so obvious, but it is so often not the case.  It is asy to study any issue either superficially, or only from within one camp.  When your input is coming from one side of a debate, even if they present the other side, you are still one-sided.

This is evident in books. I remember one book published several years ago that created quite a stir.  It was written to critique a theological position differing from that of the author.  Unfortunately it was written with an ad hominum edge, a gross tendency to attack a straw man presentation and a generally ungracious attitude.  I know some from the same camp as the writer, who respected the writer for his work in other areas of theology, that bought into his inadequate presentation of the “other side.”  If the same content and tone came from pulpits as was found in that book, harm was done.

This is evident in schools. By schools I mean Bible schools, colleges, seminaries, universities, etc.  It is by no means guaranteed, but it is certainly possible, that in a school you fail to receive fair presentations of all sides in these matters.  “Liberal” institutions are often critiqued as being restrictive by not encouraging reading from “conservative” writers.  However, “conservative” schools, while often better on encouraging the reading of “liberal” authors, often fall short in encouraging the reading of all other “conservatives!”

This is evident in cultures. I see in one country a general attitude towards certain theological positions that simply associates them with another country and then summarily dismisses them from any discussion.  This occurs in various forms around the world.  You see the danger here?  You can study many books, from various writers, study at various schools, etc., but if your study does not stretch out beyond the borders of your culture, then you are at risk of only being fed one side of certain theological debates.

It takes a lot of work to be well-informed on theological matters.  It is impossible to stay on top of everything.  But before you wade in from the pulpit, you must be fully prepared.  Often it is not necessary to “wade in” at all, but when you do, be very wary.  A preacher wields a dangerous influence, like the oft used illustration of the sharp blade – will it be incisive as in the hands of a surgeon, or devastating as with a mugger?  This will be determined by your diligence in study, your prayerful wisdom in preparation, and your attitude and tone in the pulpit.

Preaching Controversial Theological Issues – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I began this post on how to preach a passage that may tread on some toes.  Sometimes there are informed members of the congregation who hold a particular position theologically.  Often there are relatively uninformed members of the congregation who hold a particular position tenaciously.  What should we do when we have to preach a passage that might stir disunity in the church?  Perhaps a passage touching on predestination, eternal security, eschatology, or a particular branch of Christian theology?  We should evaluate the choice of passage, preach the passage and preach wisely.  Furthermore:

Recognize, but don’t overqualify. It is often appropriate to recognize that there are different opinions on an issue that comes up in the text.  By recognizing it we assure people that we are not preaching unaware.  But don’t overqualify every statement and end up sounding like a politician who is saying a lot, but basically avoiding saying anything bad.

Watch your tone. It is important to choose words wisely, but don’t forget your tone.  Model a gracious spirit, never take cheap shots, demonstrate an attitude of harmony.  Make sure you are not using the opportunity and platform to win some points in a theological sparring match.  Fully pray through the situation ahead of time, not only in reference to the message, but also in reference to your relationship with key individuals in the church.

If appropriate, overtly teach theology. If you have the authority to do so, the situation requires it, you have prayed at length, etc., then it may be appropriate to ignore what I have written here and preach blatant theology (apart from watching your tone – always appropriate!)  Generally I would save this for the genuinely central issues – deity of Christ, salvation by grace/faith alone , the inspiration of the Bible, the trinitarian nature of Christianity.  The issues listed at the start of yesterday’s post are important, but not as central as these.

Preaching Controversial Theological Issues – Part 1

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

In different church settings there are different theological issues.  The kind of issues that may polarize a group of believers, or at least some within the group.  It may be the Calvinism/Arminian debate.  It may be some aspect of eternal security.  Or perhaps differing positions on the millennium.  Maybe there are both dispensational and covenantal proponents present.  Or conservatives and charismatics.  There are many such issues that see Christians diverge from each other.  What do you do when you are preaching a passage that could spark division among those listening?

Know your listeners. As best you can, know the people to whom you are preaching.  If you are a visiting speaker and consequently don’t know them so well, let that be a red flag before you wade into some theological controversy.

Evaluate the choice of passage. It is not automatically wrong to preach a potentially controversial passage, but it is worth thinking it through.  If you are preaching a stand-alone message, perhaps it would be better to preach another passage.  But if it is part of a series, do not avoid the tough passages.  People need to ear the whole counsel, including the parts that may make them uncomfortable . . . but it is fair to say that it is worth evaluating whether you, the passage and this particular occasion are a good combination for this to occur.  If it seems appropriate to preach the passage, then:

Preach the passage. If we preach the passage before us, we remain on relatively safe ground.  It is once we start adding theological labels and make a presentation of a position that we veer off into a mine field.  If you preach the passage and say what it says, then people can see it for themselves and are less likely to become contentious.

Preach wisely. Even sticking in the passage does not guarantee unity.  Be wise in your choice of words.  There may be a whole string of possible words to state a point in your particular passage, but some will definitely ignite a reaction, others might be just too much, others are safe.  Again, sticking with the terms of the text is usually better than importing terms from theological tomes (for various reasons).  We are not afraid of theology, but sometimes it is wiser to do theology without people realizing it.

Tomorrow I will complete this post with three more suggestions.  Feel free to comment now or after the next post.

Buy a Stained Glass Window

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

There is always a danger for preachers preparing to preach.  It is easy to slip into a pragmatic mode of studying a text to find a main idea and develop a message.  All very accurate, very professional, but having lost touch of the reality of what is going on.  As we spend time in God’s Word we are listening to God, preparing to speak of God to a needy group of people.  We are preparing to proclaim God’s truth as an act of love and praise.

Michael Pasquarello III, writes in his book, Christian Preaching: A Trinitarian Theology of Proclamation, that he moved his preaching classes from a seminar room to the seminary chapel.  His goal was to change the ethos in order to change the students’ mindset and approach to the preaching process.  His goal is not just accurate preaching, but “doxological speech from the canon of Holy Scripture that creates the faith, life and witness of the church, which is the work of Christ and the Spirit.”

In the past I have found it very helpful to prepare at least some of the time, in the church where I would preach the message.  This isn’t practical for all of us.  So perhaps it’s time to buy a stained glass window for our study?  What have you found helpful to stimulate the reverence and spirituality of this highly spiritual process?

Vague Preaching Ideas

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

When you study a chunk of biblical text, you are looking to state the idea of that chunk.  The idea encapsulates, condenses, summarizes and usually abstracts from the details present.  In terms of the hermeneutical process, we sometimes refer to the stage of principlization (coming between interpretation and application).  The reason for deriving the principle from the passage is to allow for an application of that principle in another setting, namely our setting today.

The first part of the study process involves understanding the author’s idea to the best of our ability.  It is all “back then” in focus.  The statement of the author’s idea will initially be historically specific.  In order for that idea to cross over the divide between then and now, the idea will need to become slightly more abstract.  For instance, “Israel” might become “God’s people,” and so on.  The challenge in this process, however, is not to go too far.  There has to be a limit to how much abstraction takes place in the move from interpretation to application.

Here’s the test I use of my own study and preaching, and the test I use when evaluating student sermons.  Does the end result remain sufficiently specific that it can be reasonably and directly tied in to the passage in question?  To put it another way, if I only hear the idea, is there a reasonable chance that I could identify the passage (presuming I know the Bible well enough)?  If not, if the idea is so vague that it could come from any number of passages, then it is too vague.  You’ve gone too far up the abstraction ladder.

Use this test of your last main idea, and your next one.  Is it really the idea of the passage (with all its details feeding into it), or is it merely a vague statement of biblical truth?

Minds Full of Questions

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Another variation on what I wrote yesterday.  People have questions.  But when do they get answers?  Perhaps perplexing Biblical questions are a good set up for a series of messages.  However, there are many questions people have that can be answered in a few minutes.  Consider having a panel Q&A, or a pastor Q&A, now and then.  It could be after a series on a subject, or it could be open to whatever people are thinking about.

I’ve been involved in these type of formats several times.  It always seems profitable.  Recognize and acknowledge that you may not have a good answer for some questions, but that you will try to direct people to the help they need.  Remember that it is usually better to sort and compile the questions ahead of time.

We preach and hopefully stir questions.  Consider whether it might be a helpful and potentially enjoyable church activity to take questions periodically.  The answers help people.  Seeing that you don’t have all the answers will help people.  Showing people how to approach the answering of such questions will help people most of all.