Guardrails and Bridge Width

May 20, 2011May 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Some time ago I referred to Timothy Warren of DTS who used the analogy of guardrails for guarding the application of a message from straying off target. I’d like to use the same analogy with slight modification in respect to preaching a text.

The preacher builds a bridge between the Bible text in its world and the listeners in theirs. It may be helpful to imagine a guardrail either side of this road. One guardrail is the intended audience, the other is the purpose of the communication. On the Bible side of the bridge, the intended audience were the church or individual receiving the inspired text (i.e. the churches of Galatia). The purpose was specific in terms of Paul’s intent for those churches.

By the time the preacher gets over to today, he is also thinking of an intended audience (the congregation of Community Church this coming Sunday) and also has a purpose in preaching this text to them on this occasion.

Now if the audience this Sunday shares significant characteristics and cultural experiences with the original audience, then the guardrail comes straight across the bridge. And if the purpose for the sermon matches Paul’s purpose for his letter, then that guardrail also comes straight across.

But what if the audience is different (perhaps they haven’t gone after another gospel), and therefore the purpose is slightly different (encouragement with some warning, rather than open rebuke), then I imagine the guardrails shifting the road direction slightly (think of how your lanes are changed when there is construction on the motorway/freeway). The message of the text is not significantly changed (there are limits), but the sermon is adjusted from what the original did.

If this were applied to preaching a passage from Leviticus, then I imagine the considerable change in audience and purpose would be reflected in the less direct application of the text (a six-lane road narrowing to a two-lane road since we can’t apply it freely and directly), yet the road remains the same.

You cannot preach any truth from a particular passage. You can only preach the truth of that passage. However, the ease of transfer depends on the consistency of audience situation and sermonic purpose. Adjusting these guardrails will adjust the message (but the message must still be the message of the passage).

Tranlsation Error? Sure?

May 18, 2011May 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I’ve mentioned this before, but let me drop it in again. Be very careful before you tell a congregation their Bible translation is wrong. I was in a church a while back where somebody corrected the translation with the comment, “the NIV committee pulled a fast one here.” Very unhelpful. Whatever decisions they made that we might disagree with, I doubt they “pulled a fast one.” What’s more, it was clear from the explanation given that the person commenting didn’t know his Greek almost at all.

1. The notion of word for word direct equivalence is naïve. Each word in the Greek has its own semantic domain (essentially a range of potential nuances/connotations/senses and potentially appropriate glosses or equivalents in English). So word X might be translated as A or B (to keep things simple). Word Y might be translated as C or sometimes B. To say the translation is wrong because they translated Y as B when you think it can only be C would be naïve and unhelpful.

2. Listeners are naïve. Generally speaking, when the speaker makes some judgment of the translation or comments on the Greek, the listeners will mostly assume they have someone with some level of expertise before them. This is massively naïve. I tend to see those who are very capable in the Greek barely letting it show in any overt way, while those who refer to it often are desperately lacking in Koine competence.

3. Preach your passage. Does your passing comment about the translation really help people understand the passage? Really? Is it worth undermining their confidence in the translation for that insight? And honestly, although this is hard to answer, do you have enough competence in translating the Greek to make your critique (or second-hand critique) stand up with integrity?

Tempting as it may be, for several reasons, to correct the translation you are preaching from, it is typically better to avoid overt critique and simply allow your insight to shape your explanation of the text.

Comments on God Speaking and the Bible – Be Careful

May 17, 2011May 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Does God speak through the text, as distinct from analyzing and understanding it? Is it that when the Bible speaks, God speaks, or when the Bible speaks, God also speaks?

It is true that there is more to understanding a Bible passage than just analyzing the technicalities of the propositions the grammar. However, let’s be careful not to create a notion of exegetical accuracy versus some supra-biblical revelation. This notion can come from well-meaning comments like “we can study what the text means, but let’s be open now to hearing what God has to say.”

I heard of a song leader who struck up a chord after the message with the comment, “now let’s hear what God has to say.” Unfortunate, albeit amusing in some ways.

But the same separation can occur within the preaching. The preacher can give the sense that there is the meaning of the text, and then there is God speaking to us as we look at the text.

Cold non-relational exegesis is certainly problematic. But so is supposedly relational non-exegetical Bible reading. Let’s not offer the notion of non-exegetical devotional Bible reading, nor the notion of non-devotional exegetical Bible reading. Whether our goal is personal devotional reading, or technical pre-teaching study, let us be sure to keep together the relational aspects of reading God’s Word with the technical aspects of studying God’s Word.

Myopic Christianity

May 16, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Perhaps one of the key roles of the preacher is to bring perspective to people who think they see clearly. To read today’s post, please click here.

Using Used Outlines – Part 2

May 13, 2011May 10, 2011 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Continuing the list of suggestions for the pressured preacher who feels he has to use used outlines in order to be ready to preach . . .

4. Don’t move on too quickly. Most sermons take too long to finish, but then are finished with too soon. While I’m not advocating preaching longer for most preachers, I would say that once the sermon is done, it may well not be done, and might bear the weight of another visit next time. Doubling up exegetical work by preaching the same passage more than once is worth considering.

5. Don’t pressure yourself. There are several problems with borrowing sermon outlines. One is that you might borrow junk and therefore offer junk to your listeners (it is amazing how much poor preaching is offered through the internet!) On the other hand, you might get into the habit of borrowing a standard you find intimidating and can therefore never live up to. Don’t pressure yourself. Your listeners will appreciate a simpler sermon that is truly owned, they don’t need you to pretend to be him (whoever he is).

6. Don’t starve yourself. Another issue with borrowing sermon outlines is that you are cutting yourself off from one of the greatest delights of preaching – the wrestling with a text so that it marks your life. Even if you can’t give 20 hours a week to a sermon (few can), you will do much better to have wrestled for two hours than none.

7. Generate time from elsewhere. Do you create a powerpoint when you preach? Don’t bother, save the time. The powerpoint may or may not be helpful, but if it is powerpoint time or passage time, it should be passage time every time. Do you spend half an hour picking songs for the service? Ask someone else to do that. Do you search the internet for pithy introductory anecdotes? Save the time and get into the Word. Do you scratch your head for illustrations? Look at the text more carefully and describe the images or story in the passage.

More thoughts and ideas?

Using Used Outlines

May 12, 2011May 12, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Earlier this week Tom wrote:

Good morning! I just found your blog and read the post on stage 1. It looks like you are addressing preachers who are full time. I am a “part-time” pastor-I have to work another job to make ends meet. Do you have any advice for someone like me? So far (I have only been at this for 3 years), I rely heavily on outlines someone has already done. I would like to get away from this, but do not feel I have the luxury as yet to do this.

I understand the pressures of preaching while holding down other full-time employment (plus the pressures of marriage, parenting, crisis management, etc.) I suppose that using outlines from others does give a pretty significant boost toward being ready to preach. But the challenge with this is whether you are really ready to preach if you haven’t wrestled with the text yourself. It does seem to undermine the whole notion of the truth of God’s Word coming through a personality that has been marked by it first.

Rather than just making pressured preachers feel bad, I would offer the following suggestions:

1. Try to wean yourself off using the outlines of other preachers. Initially move to seeing them as conversation partners and try to adapt and improve what they offer by making it more your own.

2. Don’t go for overkill on your preaching preparation. That is, don’t leave “borrowed” outlines in order to try to preach self-studied extended and tricky passages. Choose easy to preach passages.

3. Don’t bite off too much each time. Whenever possible, try to preach a shorter passage (still making sure it is a legitimate unit). Andy Stanley makes the insightful comment that most sermons should really be series. Why try to cover massive chunks of text if your preparation time is limited. The same must be said of multiple passages (why preach three passages in a message when you could do better with one?)

I’ll finish the list tomorrow…

Eight Ways To Dissipate the Impact of Your Message – Part 2

May 11, 2011May 4, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Finishing up the list of eight ways we can inadvertently dissipate the impact of a passage:

5. By over-qualifying applications

Sometimes we make an application of a passage, but then feel the need to qualify it and state all the ways that might not be the way to act. Some qualification may be necessary or even vital, but trying to cover every possible misapplication can mean the actual application is lost in the mix.

6. By unnecessary balancing of the teaching of this passage

Just as with an application, so with the teaching of a passage. Perhaps your passage is speaking of the opposition of the world to followers of Christ . . . but if you over-qualify this with our need to influence the world (salt of the earth, etc.), then it will dissipate the passage you are preaching. Consider whether the balancing needs to be done in this message, or by preaching another passage another time.

7. By equally weighting every detail in the passage

Every passage consists of details – some weightier than others. Part of our task is to weigh up the relative influence of each on the summation of the whole. If we treat every word or every phrase equally, then we will lose the full impact of the actual message. Consider 2Tim.4:1-5 . . . is “preach the word” worthy of equal attention as “always be sober-minded” in the explanation of the passage?

8. By over-extending the landing

Some of the best sermons lose all their impact by the extra five minutes tacked on the end. Nail it and stop. Hard to do though. I could say more, but won’t.

Eight Ways To Dissipate the Impact of Your Message

May 10, 2011May 4, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The preaching of a Bible text should make an impact, its point should hit home. Yet as preachers there are times when we inadvertently dissipate the impact as we preach. Here are eight ways we sometimes provoke a dissipation situation:

1. By unnecessary multiple cross-references

There may be a need for taking listeners to other Bible passages, but often there is not. If it isn’t really helpful, then piling on references and quotes will only dissipate the impact of this particular text. Don’t steal time from this passage for only a passing reference to something else.

2. By only slightly connected examples

It is tempting to use related examples that may not be specifically related to what the passage is saying. So if the passage is speaking of gratitude toward God for salvation, this may or may not be an ideal moment to tell the “thank you” story you have from your encounter with the child next door, or whatever. Sometimes we see a term and jump to an example that is not really relevant to the specific nature of this text.

3. By unnecessary illustrations

It is tempting to think that we have to add interest to the Bible. Wrong motivation. The Bible is interesting and relevant, our task is to help people see how that is true. If an illustration of some kind will be helpful for explaining, or proving, or applying the passage, then use it. But piling on illustrations is not helpful as it can significantly dissipate the impact of the text itself.

4. By overpowering illustrations

Sometimes a story or image is simply overwhelming. It is powerful, it is effective, it is memorable, but perhaps it is better left out. Is your goal really to have people go away remembering the moving story of the little orphan boy and the sporting achievement, or the message of the passage? If it is too much, leave it out.

We’ll finish the list tomorrow, but please add any that come to mind…

Don’t Withhold the Blessing

May 9, 2011May 4, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Let’s say you study a passage well. You will be blessed. Perhaps the passage is a paragraph in Ephesians. You study it, you dwell on it, you soak in it. It stirs your heart, moves you into praise and action, marks your life, blesses you. Then you come to prepare your message.

If you are like the majority of preachers, you will somehow base your message on that paragraph, but you’ll spend a significant proportion of your message talking about other passages. A verse in Romans. Another in Colossians. An image from Hebrews. A story from Luke. An episode in Genesis. A favourite Psalm. Your favourite verse in Jeremiah 29. Throw in a Messianic prophecy from Isaiah. A reference or two to the Law, and on it goes. Surely nobody would get that scattered, you think? Some do! I kept track in one sermon that quoted from 25 books of the New Testament alone.

What are you doing if you preach like that? Blessing people with the whole Bible? Or stealing the paragraph in Ephesians from the listeners. This is a unique opportunity for them to be blessed by the passage that was such a blessing to you. Don’t withhold the blessing. Preach the text.

Overemphasized Misrepresentation

May 6, 2011May 1, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Preaching is a balancing act. You are always in danger of overemphasizing some element in a text so that you misrepresent the whole. For example:

1. A theologically weighty word can send you up like a rocket. For example, I was working with a group of preachers looking at Ephesians 1:3-14. We observed features of the text, including the references to God and the relationships within the Trinity, we saw the amount of grace, love, lavished, blessing language. We saw all that God has done for us, in Him. But then we saw the word that might light the fuse and obliterate everything else – predestined! It would be so easy to take off and end up with a message bereft of intra-trinitarian relationality, stone cold and lacking in loving grace toward us, with some personal hobby horse message on predestination (in favour or against, depending on your position). Of course one should preach about predestination in the course of preaching this passage, but not to the exclusion of all else that is so richly interwoven!

2. A seemingly misplaced verse can take over the passage. For example, we were looking at Ephesians 2:1-10. Verse 10 is intriguing. Should it be seen as part of what Paul is saying in 8-9, or does it stand alone? Various groups processed the passage in different ways. Those that included 10 with 8-9 seemed to recognize it as a sub-point (i.e. after affirming that we are not saved by works, Paul does cover himself in case any miss his point and neglect good works altogether, but the focus is on God’s saving grace). Those that separated out verse 10 seemed to end up seeing the whole passage as culminating in the good works of believers, the goal of all that God did in our salvation. In one approach the verse was a passing, albeit important sub-point. In the other approach, it became the goal of all. I’m not affirming one or either of these here, I’m just making the point that how we see a verse working with those around it will determine our understanding and explanation of the whole.

3. A vivid image in a text can overwhelm the whole. So there’s a term in your passage that is particularly vivid and preaches so well in terms of visual imagery. Be careful that it doesn’t take over the message and end up becoming the dominant motif for the whole passage, when in reality it is a small part of a much bigger whole.

Understanding a passage is so much more than simply checking what words mean in a biblical dictionary and breaking the passage down into sections. The whole issue of relative weight and flow of thought is a massively important element in studying a biblical passage.