Audience Analysis

Fearful Preaching?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I just started Apologetic Preaching (Proclaiming Christ to a Postmodern World) by Craig Loscalzo (do you pronounce that the way it looks – anyone know?)  In the first chapter Loscalzo enters the arena of defining and engaging with the broad issues of postmodernity.  In the process he writes of the fear of many contemporary preachers.

This fear comes from seeing other churches successfully growing, while seeing apathy, lethargy, and empty pews up close.  It is a fear of pushing too hard or demanding too much.  It is a fear of being labeled as narrow-minded by colleagues, by the media, by academics they have studied under, or by intellectuals in their church.  Their ecclesiastical vocabulary, in its progressive state, is now purged of terms like sin, judgment, immoral, evil, righteousness, faith and commitment.  They fear offending sensibilities or being stereotyped on either the religious right or left.  He writes, “we have become so hypercautious that our sermons at best offend no one and at worst merely bore.” (p12)  What’s more, a fear of being irrelevant leads to nothing more than mundane chatter.

Obviously he’s writing about other preachers and not us, obviously.  Of course.  Clearly.  Without any doubt.  But rather than get defensive, why not ask God to show us if any fear has crept into our preaching ministry?

Easter Laughter

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Helmut Thielicke described Spurgeon’s humour as “Easter laughter,” that which comes as a “mode of redemption because it is sanctified – because it grows out of an overcoming of the world.”  (See Mohler, He is Not Silent, p165.)

We recently enjoyed a CD of Chuck Swindoll funny stories.  Some were funnier than others, but his laughter was a real blessing to us all.  As he stated on that CD, one person wrote in and told him, “Chuck, you can stop preaching, but never stop laughing.  Your’s is the only laughter that ever comes into our home.”

A leader that frets and stresses under pressure is not a leader that followers will find reassuring.  There is a need for a certain calmness that comes from confident faith in God’s purposes.  Likewise, there is a benefit in a certain laughter.  Not drunken laughter.  Not distracting myself from reality laughter.  Not immature laughter.  But confident in God, all is in control, Easter laughter.

Don’t force it, but don’t be afraid of it either.  Appropriate humor and laughter in a message may be more than therapy for listeners – it may be the conveying of a deep personal faith conviction.

Spurgeon-like Evangelistic Expectation

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Mohler cites an interaction (p165 of He is Not Silent) between Spurgeon and a student at his pastor’s college:

A student . . . once asked how he could focus more clearly on bringing believers into the faith.  “Do you expect converts every time you preach?” Spurgeon asked.  The student quickly retorted, “Of course not.”  And the reply came back: “That is why you have none.”

Selah.

Preaching to a Postmodern Culture

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

In his book, He is Not Silent, Al Mohler offers a no-holds barred chapter on postmodernity and preaching.  After listing a series of negative observations of the postmodern “mood” (and probably failing to recognize the positive opportunities now presented to us as preachers), he presents a series of principles for proper proclamation in a postmodern culture.  He earths his thoughts in Acts 17:

1. Christian proclamation in a postmodern culture begins in a provoked spirit (v16)
2. Christian proclamation in a postmodern culture is focused on Gospel proclamation (v17)
3. Christian proclamation in a postmodern culture assumes a context of spiritual confusion (vv18-21)
4. Christian proclamation in a postmodern cultureis directed to a spiritual hunger. (vv22-23)
5. Christian proclamation in a postmodern culture begins with the fundamental issue of God’s nature, character, power, and authority. (vv24-28)
6. Christian proclamation in a postmodern culture confronts error. (v29)
7. Christian proclamation in a postmodern culture affirms the totality of God’s saving purpose. (vv30-31)

Principles worth pondering.

The Bible, Expository & Consecutive Preaching – Part 5

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Daniel Goepfrich wrote a substantial interaction with this blog over on his site – here – this post is responding to the issue of relevant preaching from paragraph 12 to the end.

———————

You then progress to the issue of contemporary relevance.  I agree with you that the Bible is full of God’s spokesmen addressing contemporary issues (prophets, Jesus, apostles, etc.)  As I have already mentioned, my understanding of expository preaching is not about form of preaching, but a commitment to understanding and communicating the biblical text with emphasis on its relevance now.  I quoted Wiersbe’s comment on Ironside to prompt thought, not to suggest that we should only preach straight through books, and I appreciate you noticing that early on and changing your post accordingly.

However, there is an issue worth thinking through here.  Do we “make the text relevant” or do we show “how the text is relevant?”  To use Stott’s approach in Between Two Worlds, is the text boss of the message, or is the preacher?  This is where expository preaching is separated from other approaches (again, not a form issue, an authority issue).  Does the biblical narrative speak with authority in reference to God and humanity, or is it merely a recounting of what happened?  Does the message of the prophets, or Jesus, or Paul, or James, speak with authority today, or is it merely an example to follow in that we too should speak relevantly?  I don’t think you are suggesting that, but I gently push your words toward a perhaps logical conclusion?  No, you are right when you say that we preach the Bible because it is relevant today.  I heartily agree.

In fact, what you suggest is that we use the Bible texts to speak to today’s situations, but we need not feel constrained to the form of writing in which they were recorded.  I do not advocate strict adherence to the form so that every sermon has to be a verse-by-verse re-presentation.  I would suggest that is a good default place to start though.  Why?  Because form is not merely a type of cultural baggage that we can dispose of and lose nothing.  No, the writers were deliberate communicators and we will not fully understand them if we do not seek to understand what they wrote in the way that they wrote it.  So I would urge the preacher to study a passage both in context, and with awareness of the genre and form it is in.

Do we have to preach according to that form?  Not necessarily.  However, if we want our listeners to know how to understand the Bible, then we do them a major disservice if we don’t show how form influences meaning.  Hence my position – the form of the text is a good default for the form of the sermon, but there may be good reasons to adjust the form of the sermon away from the form of the text.

I have really appreciated your post and interaction with my site.  I hope my response has been helpful in clarifying where I’m coming from?  Thanks for recognizing that I’m not dogmatic about form as some are (i.e. the “consecutive only” preaching proponents).  I hope this post has helped to clarify that while I see real benefits to consecutive preaching, my real commitment is to a true understanding of “expository preaching.”

I agree that we need to keep preaching what people need to hear, rather than just what they want to hear. That argument could be used by both sides on the consecutive versus topical debate.  The fact is, people need to hear what God is saying, and for that we must be committed to expository preaching – whether we choose to use a consecutive approach (as you will with Philippians) or a topical approach.  Not everything is expository, though, and I am concerned about preaching that uses the text to say what the preacher wants to say (which could happen in both consecutive and topical preaching!)  For that reason we need to be continually growing as students of the Word of God.

Every blessing in your ministry, Daniel, and thank you again for reading biblicalpreaching.net

Cliches, Soundbites and Pithy Grabbers – Beware

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Even for the vast majority of us who are not “broadcast” when we preach, there is still a temptation to achieve good soundbites. On one hand, this is not too far from the goal of having a single sentence summary statement, a big idea, a main idea, a proposition, a take-home truth or whatever you call it. The condensed nature of a single sentence aids the unity of the message, the effectiveness of communication and the memorability of the important core of the message. On the other hand, too many soundbites, cliches or pithy grabbers can be very detrimental.

Have you ever had a conversation with someone who only seems to speak in cliches? I’ve had the privilege a couple of times. It doesn’t take long before you don’t feel that they are actually in a conversation with you. It soon feels like they are looking for the next opportunity to role out one of their catchphrases. Despite your best efforts, you can’t help but suspect a lack of authenticity.

The effect created in a couple of minutes of conversation with a “soundbiter” is just a rapid version of listening to a “soundbiter” preaching. After the positive effects wear off, it doesn’t feel like they’re talking to you. It feels pre-packaged, inauthentic, fake.

It’s good to have principles that you live by and lead by, it’s good to be a clear communicator who is memorable, catchy, pithy and precise. However, you can have too much of a good thing. Don’t put your listeners through endless concatenations of cliches when you’re preaching. Even when you’re not preaching, in other leadership communication, don’t rely too heavily on soundbites. Listeners and followers would rather know you are authentic (communicated via natural style), than the king of cliche.

When Do Listeners Switch On?

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

You know what I mean.  People are sitting and listening, sort of, until you say a key phrase, then suddenly everyone is really listening carefully.  Let’s make the assumption that having people really listen is a positive thing.  Now let’s consider some examples of “switch on” phrases and consider the implications for our preaching:

“How does this apply to us?” – People do tend to listen more when the message is about them, their lives, their needs, etc.  We could critique that theologically and point to the self-obsession of humanity.  Or we could be thankful that all Scripture is both God-breathed and “useful” – i.e. life changing.  And then we could stop leaving application to the last three minutes of a message and look for ways to include it throughout.  Compare and contrast an introduction infused with relevance and applicational preparation for the message to follow, with the standard switch off phrase “Last week we were deep in 2Chronicles 17, please turn with me to 2Chronicles 18 . . .”

“Let me tell you a story . . .” – People of all ages love a good story.  “Once upon a time” does wonders for children of all ages.  This kind of phrase is much more of a switch on than “let’s talk about the story.”  I’ve said it before, when the passage is a narrative, tell the story!  Even when it is not, how can the message be engaging and interesting, rather than mere lecturing and information transfer?

“Here’s how I struggle with this . . .” – People are always interested in appropriate vulnerability from the preacher.  Haddon Robinson urges preacher to neither be the hero, nor the jerk, in the stories they tell by way of illustration.  He is right, but he is not saying be absent from your illustrations.  People are far more interested in you as a real person, than they are in Napoleon or Lenin.  It is good to personalize aspects of the message, as long as it doesn’t make you look too good, or too much of an idiot.  Credibility and interest can increase or crash with personal stories.  Choose wisely, but choose some.

Some things switch on listeners, but integrity demands that we don’t use them.  Over-promising and then under-delivering, offering success guarantees in a messy world, promising healing or wealth when the text doesn’t support that application.  We must have integrity so that we’re not mere pragmatists.  However, it is easy to go to the other extreme and fail to learn from the reactions of listeners.  What other phrases switch on the listener?  What might be the implications for our preaching?

Highlight the Apologetic Value of Details

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Sometimes in preaching we will cover details that have apologetic value.  This will probably not be the main thrust of the passage, but if time allows, why not note the inference that can be made so that our listeners are strengthened in their view of the accuracy of the Bible?  Our churches would be stronger in this day and age if more believers had a fact-based robust evangelical bibliology.  We don’t have to wait for the next DaVinciCode-esque attack on the Bible, we can be reinforcing a proper view of the Bible through our preaching.

Consider, for example, Mark’s accurate knowledge of names and languages. The more we study, the more we discover that the gospels have exactly the pattern of names and languages we would expect them to have if they were true.  The more common names in Judea/Galilee at the time of Christ have qualifiers added to help the reader know which John (brother of James / son of Zebedee, or the baptizing one) or which Judas (brother of Jesus, Iscariot, or son of James).  On the other hand, no information needed to identify the Thaddeus (39th most popular name), or Philip (61st).   This may not seem that significant, but at that time, the 2nd most popular name among Jews in Palestine was 68th most popular in Egypt.  The writers (especially Matthew and Mark on this issue) demonstrate real accuracy in their choices of names and when to add clarification details – was this sophisticated research leading to accurate fiction, or was it just plain accurate history?

For another example, consider Mark’s knowledge of local languages. In 14:70 he knows local differences in accent.  In 5:41 he gives the correct Aramaic for that time and place (see also 7:11; 7:34).  In 11:9 he gives the right pronunciation for the locals saying “Hosanna,” rather than the Old Testament “Hoshiana” (in the Talmud the Rabbis apparently complain about the local crowd mispronouncing the “sh” as “s”).  Yet at the same time, Mark knows accurate Roman Latin – see 6:27 (speculator); 15:39 (centurio); 12:42 (quadrans) . . .  all details, but the kind of evidence you’d expect for an eyewitness testimony written in Rome.

As Peter Williams of Tyndale House, Cambridge, recently stated, “The gospels have exactly the pattern of names and languages we would expect them to have if they were true.  The pattern is too complex for an ancient forger to reproduce (it would be a level of sophistication never seen in antiquity!)”

(Thanks to Peter Williams for his great teaching on this subject, and he would point to Richard Bauckham’s book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses as a key source.)

Notice the Details

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

When you are studying a text and preparing to preach it, make sure you notice the details.  No word is there by accident.  As I sometimes say, the writers of the Bible were neither drunk nor wasteful.  Not drunk means that they were coherent and deliberate in what they wrote.  Not wasteful means that papyrus was expensive, so they didn’t waffle for a paragraph or two before getting into it.

Sometimes the details in a passage are helpful theologically.  For example, why does Mark tell the reader that the grass was green when Jesus fed the five thousand?  Is this mere ornamentation?  Or is it part of a larger package of details and tone that are suggestive of Jesus bringing something of the eschatological feasting and abundance?  It can be hard to discern the difference between allegorical misreading of Scripture and sensitivity to the original writer’s intent.  The goal is not to make it say something Mark didn’t know, but to recognize what Mark intended to communicate both overtly and subtly.

Sometimes the details in a passage are helpful apologetically. In a day when the Bible is roundly mocked, we have listeners who need their trust in the Bible bolstered by our preaching.  Thus it is worth noting apparently incidental details that actually under gird a robust evangelical bibliology.  For example, notice the difference between names used in speech quotations and the same names used by the narrator.  Jesus was the 6th most common name in that part of the world at that time, so naturally in speech his name would be qualified, such as “the Nazarene, Jesus” (Mark 14:67).  Yet in the narration, Mark doesn’t need to identify which Jesus he is writing about, so it is just “Jesus” (eg. Mark 14:62, 72).  Mark could easily have had the servant girl referring to “Jesus,” but he didn’t.  Was Mark phenomenally accurate in making up the story, or is he in fact quoting speech with word perfect exactitude?  (Compare the narrator with the speech quotations in Matthew 14:1-11, for another example of this.)

Tomorrow I’ll share a couple more examples of textual details that offer apologetic value for our preaching.  (I’m indebted to Peter Williams of Tyndale House, Cambridge, for these apologetic examples.)

Pseudo-Expository Preaching – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday we saw how it is possible to preach a pseudo-expository sermon by failing to live up to all four elements of an expository preaching definition.  We looked at preaching without relying on God’s Spirit (making it a human-powered exercise).  We looked at preaching from a text, but not really preaching the text (a common form of pseudo-expository preaching).  Now for the other two elements:

3 – The issue of effective communication. I suppose this is somewhat subjective, but I would argue that a preacher deliberately not improving in their ability to communicate (perhaps due to a misunderstanding of 1Cor.2:1-5), is undermining their own stewardship of the ministry opportunity.  Furthermore it is worth noting that our communication is not just about logos and pathos during the delivery, but the ethos of the entire life.

4 – The emphasized relevance of the passage. It is not the preacher’s job to “make the text relevant.”  It already is relevant.  But it is our job to underline, to emphasize how it is relevant to the particular listeners before us.  Pseudo-expository preaching that is pseudo because of inadequacy in this respect is easier to spot if you’re looking for it.  The text is explained, but application is ignored.  “Now may the Spirit of God apply to our hearts the truths we have seen in His Word . . . “ that’s a confession of pseudo-expository preaching!  The whole thing is the Spirit’s work, not just this bit.  The issue of relevance and application part of our task as preachers.  We have to be concerned about the text and about the listeners.

I suppose we could deploy a task force of pseudo-expository detectives.  Some pseudo-expository preaching is blatant and as easy to spot as a daylight ram-raid on a high street jewellers.  However, other pseudo-expository preaching would require a team of detectives with forensic back-up (I’m thinking of the “sneak thieves” in that great children’s book, Flat Stanley!)  But it is not our task to deploy task forces of pseudo-expository detectives.  Instead, let’s imagine such a task force visiting us.  What would they find?  Would they unearth some aspect of pseudo-exposition?  Could they, in grace, of course, put their finger on a lack of spirituality, or exegetical rigor, or communicative effort, or concern for listeners in need of biblical encounter with God?