Author: Peter Mead

Push Through To Unity of Main Idea – part 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

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 . . .)

Push Through To Unity of Main Idea

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

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 in Preaching

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

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?

Study Bibles and Studying the Bible

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

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.

Preaching To Equals

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

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?”

Feel-Good Sermons

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

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?

Interpretive Options

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

When you are preparing to preach a passage of Scripture there are always decisions to be made.  Some of them are relatively easy to make.  Others are harder to make, but the result is definite and clear.  Others are not easy to make, neither are they critical to orthdoxy.  So do you share the options with your listeners, or do you go for one option and present it (either strongly, if it is clear; or tentatively, if it is not clear)?

Some thoughts, although more could be added:

1. Don’t allow an academic discussion to overwhelm the main purpose and content of the message. If sharing the options with listeners would draw them away from the clear and central teaching of the passage, then think very very carefully before presenting the options.

2. Remember who you are preaching to – some groups just can’t handle options, others love them. As in all preaching, who you are preaching to is very significant.  Some groups would be confused and distracted by any apparent ambiguity in your presentation, but others love to get their teeth into such things (and appreciate the vulnerability of a preacher who doesn’t act like they have all the answers).

3. Don’t over-explain, sometimes interpretive options can be offered quite subtly. It is important to recognize the varied amount of explanation needed in such details of a message.  Sometimes we can make something bigger than it is, where it could be covered in two or three very brief sentences.  Even this might be effective sometimes: “Some people think he meant A, while others understand it to mean B.  Actually, either way doesn’t change the message of the whole passage…”

4. Recognize the opportunity to teach some Bible study skill. At the right time, with the right people, in the right passage, with the right words, this can be an opportunity to do some hermeneutics training within a message.

More thoughts . . . ?

Training Gaps

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I just read through a course guide for a preaching course.  I won’t name it.  It left me feeling dry and concerned.  Why?  To put it basically, because of what was and what wasn’t included.

Included – The different types of sermon that can be used (exegetical and topical given as the main two options, with two others noted).  The key role of the hymnbook in sermon preparation (double the content of the exegetical sermon preparation guidelines).  A session on effective delivery.  Then some guidelines on how to give feedback to a preacher (including the line, “don’t try to correct their theology.”)

Missing – Anything more than a cursory reference to studying the Bible.  Anything about how to get from a passage to a message so that the message has any biblical authority, accuracy or relevance.  Anything about the personal spirituality of the preacher.

I won’t go on, but surely an introducing to preaching course has to build on Biblical study as a key feature.  While it is best to get training in all areas, the fact is that communication and delivery training occurs in daily life, but most Christians are significantly unaware of what it means to really study and understand, let alone preach, a passage of Scripture.

My point is not to criticize this particular book (I suppose what I paid for it was worth it to remind me of the training offered in some venues).  My point is for us to look back on the training we received – what was strong, what was weak, what was missing?  Are there gaps that could be filled now with some carefully chosen study, course or mentoring?

Short-Notice Preaching

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Have you ever had to preach at short-notice?  What do you do if you only have two days to prepare?  Two hours?  Two minutes?  In some ways I hope it doesn’t happen to any of us.  On the other hand, maybe it would be good if it did.  Why?

1. A short-notice sermon shows quickly whether your spiritual tank is full or empty. There are times when our spiritual reserves are bursting to open a Bible and share from the heart.  At other times a short-notice sermon might feel very dry and simply the reworking of an old message.  Interestingly, the listeners may not know the difference, but you would.  How is your tank today?

2. A short-notice sermon pushes you onto your knees. In the panicky moments of pulling thoughts together for a message without enough time to prepare, it should eventually dawn on us that this is not an exercise in memory or even fast-preparation.  Preaching is as much a prayerful endeavor as it is anything else.

3. A short-notice sermon might restore a fading excitement at the privilege of preaching. Perhaps you see God working very much despite your own feelings of inadequacy.  Perhaps you see God working despite you not being able to fully craft and script and hone and learn the message.  Perhaps you see God working in a fresh way and your heart will be rekindled with a passion for the adventure of preaching.  Perhaps you don’t need this to achieve that . . . perhaps?

Plenty more could be said on numerous levels about short-notice preaching.  But maybe we could all benefit just from imagining what a one hour or one day warning might do for us as preachers!

TheologyNetwork.Org Article

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

A modified form of an article I wrote a while back has now been posted on theologynetwork.org . . . here’s a taste:

True exposition should not be boring, for we would not want to give the impression that God gives of Himself in self-revelation in a way that is boring.  True exposition should not be disconnected from real life, for in the incarnation we see God giving of Himself, His ultimate self-revelation, in the most relevant manner imaginable.  Perhaps if more preachers would truly grasp the need for effective hermeneutics in their sermon preparation, perhaps then we would not have so much occasion to point the finger at others and complain of dumbed-down diet sermonettes abounding in our generation.

But is improved hermeneutics enough?  The article makes a further move that I believe is critical and often overlooked.  To read the article, and then look around at the excellent resources, click here – www.theologynetwork.org