Christianity

Presumed Knowledge

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

There is an epidemic of biblical illiteracy.  This is not only true in the streets of our towns, but often in the pews of our churches.  It is easy for preachers to presume too much knowledge in our listeners.  We can assume that they know the names, places, themes of books and key points of theology.  But the reality is that an increasing number are more than foggy on the basics.

Here are a couple of suggestions, feel free to add more:

1. Teach the big picture story. Often in giving the context for a specific passage, we can locate it in the flow of the bigger story.  Sometimes we should consider preaching bigger pictures sermons – a whole book in one message, or the whole Bible in one message or two.

2. Don’t teach by illustration. Don’t presume that giving other biblical examples will reinforce the knowledge of your listeners.  The truth is that an increasingly biblically illiterate people will be confused and overwhelmed by many biblical illustrations that might have seemed effective a generation ago.  If the illustration requires too much explanation, then it detracts from the point of sharing it.  As Don Sunukjian teaches, once people understand a passage, they need contemporary application rather than ancient illustration.  If they don’t understand the preaching passage, don’t add another to the mix.  If they do, then don’t stay in the past, but earth the truth in the realities of their lives.

3. Scan your next sermon for presumed knowledge. Do you make passing reference to an Old Testament context for a quote in your passage that needs more explanation?  Do you identify the characters referred to so that people know who they are?  Do you make passing references to such things as incipient gnosticism, overrealized eschatology, or even justification?  Scan your next message to make sure no presumed knowledge slips in carelessly.  If we take care, it will help our listeners greatly.

Other thoughts on this?

Do We Preach a Distant God?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I made a passing reference to the fact that our God is not the deity of the deists.  That is to say that He didn’t wind things up and then sit back disinterested with His arms folded.  Before we start pointing the finger at famous deists like Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein or even Antony Flew, let’s check our preaching.  Is it possible that we inadvertently preach deism?

We are right to both study and present the author’s meaning in a passage.  The first stage of effective Bible study has to look at the inspired text “back then.”  Once we have understood the author’s idea in the passage, then we can consider how to legitimately apply that idea in our world today.  However, there is a potential danger in solid exegetical methodology.  The danger is that we present God’s work as “back then” but not “today.”  There is a real risk that we imply a God at work in the days of Moses, Matthew or the preacher to the Hebrews, but today we have only the reflected benefit of careful application.

The truth is that God is at work today.  He is as intimately concerned about each life as He ever has been.  Some err by emphasizing the direct revelation of God today to the neglect of His Word which He inspired long ago.  Likewise, some of us may err by emphasizing the act of inspiration long ago to the neglect of His present concern, sovereignty and involvement in the world today.  I appreciate Don Sunukjian’s shorthand definition of preaching for this particular reason.  He states that preaching is “Listen to what God is saying . . . to us!”  An absolute commitment to sound exegesis.  A clear commitment to a divine involvement in the act of preaching.

We must get both the “back then” and the “today” aspects of our preaching on target, otherwise we risk preaching a diminished deity.  An emphasis on “today” at the expense of “back then” leads to a subjectively defined experiential deity.  An emphasis on “back then” at the expense of “today” might lead to a distant deity.  God inspired the Word back then, and His Word still speaks with force today.  We preach an ancient text . . . relevantly.  Let’s beware that we neither preach an overly imminent experiential God, nor an excessively distant historical God.  Let’s be sure to preach the God who inspired the Bible, the God who still speaks through His Word today!

How Will You Touch the Heart?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

We have probably all heard people attempting to distinguish preaching from teaching, or even preaching from lecturing.  Typically there is some reference to preaching being more impassioned, touching the emotions, etc.  To be fair to the teaching and lecturing professions, the good ones know that to be effective they should do more than merely transmit information.  Nevertheless, today is Sunday, so let’s keep the focus on preaching.

When we preach we do not merely transmit information gleaned in our study time.  We speak from the heart – a heart touched by God’s Word, moved by God’s Spirit, a heart shaped by the personal experience of God working the passage truth into our lives.  We speak from the heart – the heart of God, for He did not inspire the canon to merely give us a repository of truth statements from which to inform ourselves.  We speak to the heart – the heart of listeners desperate for a word from God’s heart.  They may be interested in information, they may not.  But we speak to hurting hearts, empty hearts, longing hearts.  We speak to the hearts of people whose real need is probably not the need they feel and are distracted by, but whose real need can only be met by God Himself.

Preaching should be truthful, accurate, informed, solidly Scriptural, etc.  But it must do more than merely inform.  We preach as persuaders, influencers, spokespersons for the living God who is not a deistic disconnected deity, but a passionately concerned and involved holy lover of souls.  So today, what is the plan?  How will you preach not only from the head to the head, but from the heart and to the heart?

Apologetics for Homiletics – Part 4

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

This week I’ve been considering the importance of homiletics training.  My focus has not been on expository preaching versus other approaches to preaching.  It has been on training, instruction and sermon preparation methodology, as opposed to no training, instruction and no guidance in the preparation process.

But doesn’t homiletics promote “professional” ministry? I’ve touched on this before, but it is worth considering again.  The terms “professional” and “amateur” need to be defined carefully when it comes to preaching.  Are they referring to the skill involved or the motivation?

1. Our motivation in preaching should probably be described in “amateur” terms rather than “professional.” That is to say, we should pursue preaching out of a deep passion for God, His people, His Word and His ministry.  Whether we are paid or not, we should not be motivated by material gain.  Preaching should not become “just our job.”  In this respect, I don’t want to be professional.

2. Our skill in preaching should probably be described in “professional” terms rather than “amateurish.” That is to say, we should be good stewards of every opportunity to “fan into flame” our gifting, improve our skill, grow in our ministry, etc.  Surely we do not honor God by just treating preaching like a little hobby that is a minor interest in our life.

We should preach as professionals in the sense of “to the best of our ability” and as amateurs in the sense of “with the passion of a captured heart.”  We should not preach as professionals in the sense of “relying on our own ability,” nor as amateurs in the sense of “to a poor standard.”  Homiletics doesn’t promote “professional” ministry in a negative sense, but our flesh may twist it that way if we become self-reliant and self-confident along the way.

Good stewardship demands learning from the best homiletics training and input available.  The danger of self-reliance must keep us on our knees the whole way (which is true even if we refuse good homiletic input!)

Apologetics for Homiletics – Part 3 continued

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

So does homiletical methodology impose a strait jacket on the preacher?  Yesterday we noted that methodology recognizes the progression from text to sermon, it does not rigidly enforce it.  Description of logical order, as opposed to prescription of illogical order.  But there is more to be added:

2. Good methodology only feels like a structure initially. It is like riding a bicycle.  At first there is a lot to remember and try to keep straight, but once it becomes natural, it is natural.  A person first learning to ride a bicycle needs to learn all the necessary elements, even if it feels overwhelming.  It doesn’t help to ignore the handlebars initially and simply let the arms hang limp.  The initial “structured” feel soon fades with practice.

3. Good methodology is a guide, not a machine that “guarantees” results. You cannot feed a text into a machine and produce a good message.  The methodology found in homiletics books and courses is a guide, not a machine.  Any promise to guarantee a great message is a false promise – whether that be a sermon methodology, a published collection of outlines, a website, or whatever.

4. Good methodology does not force the text into a sermon shape. There are methodologies that do this.  This is a strait jacket.  As I’ve written before – sermon form is a choice for the preacher to make in light of the text, the listeners, the occasion and the preacher’s own strengths and skill.  Good sermon preparation methodology is a guide, not a shoe-horn that will squeeze any text into a specific sermon mold.

So homiletics instruction in book or course form is not intended to be a strait jacket, but a guide.  Many testify to the freedom that comes from a sense of structure in the preparation process.  For many, it is the absence of any guidance at all that brings on feelings of insanity, not the “strait jacket” of a sensible thought-through methodology.

Apologetics for Homiletics – Part 3

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

So the critical matter of the role of the Spirit raised issues concerning evaluation of past “fruit,” and more importantly, the dynamic tension between good stewardship and self-reliance.  Now another objection:

Doesn’t homiletics create a methodological strait jacket? People with years of experience in reading a passage, soaking in it and then coming up with something to say may resist a more “formulaic” approach.  After all, “soak then say” preaching methodology seems a lot more flexible than Haddon Robinson’s 10 stages, or Mead’s 8, or Ramesh Richard’s 7, or Bryan Chappell’s 14, etc.  Here are a couple of thoughts to consider:

1. Good methodology recognizes the natural progression from text to sermon, it does not impose a rigid process. When I teach homiletics I follow the order of the stages, but I regularly recognize that thoughts may come for any part of the process at any time.  Hence it is good to work on loose sheets of paper so insights and ideas can be noted in the appropriate place, before returning to the current stage in the progression.  While thoughts may come randomly at times, there is reason for the order.  One cannot and should not be forming the message before understanding the passage.  In the first four stages one cannot determine the passage idea before studying the passage’s content and intent (intent becoming evident primarily from content), etc.  In the last four stages, there has to be a message before there can truly be an introduction or conclusion, and the message structure cannot precede determination of the idea, etc.  The order is logical, not arbitrary, it recognizes the progression, it doesn’t impose restriction.

Again, there is more to say, but I will defer that to the next post.

Apologetics for Homiletics – Part 2 continued

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Does homiletics quench the Spirit? Yesterday I sounded a warning note concerning “false positive” feedback.  We’ve got to be careful not to assume the Spirit is at work in great ways merely because our listeners are excessively polite to us as they shake our hands and head for the door.  Obviously that is only a minor side-point. Here are some more important points:

2. The Holy Spirit does work during delivery, but also during preparation. Preparation is not unspiritual.  The Holy Spirit is not hindered by careful and prayerful preparation.  The Bible does not promise that we will be given what to say when we preach (only when brought to witness before authorities under persecution – Matt.10:17-20).  In fact, the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible and cares more than we do that it is understood properly and applied appropriately.  How can shooting from the hip be more spiritual than a prayer-soaked preparation?  We should be careful how we define what is spiritual and what is not.

3. Just because the Spirit can work despite us, why would we want to limit Him to that? The best study of the Scriptures that we can manage, the best structuring and development of messages that we can achieve, the best communication skill that we can use . . . it’s all a matter of good stewardship, is it not?  God is not limited to our strengths, He specializes in using us in our weakness, for He gives grace to those who humbly recognize their need.  But shall we deliberately go on preaching poorly that grace may increase?  Not if we are being a good steward.

4. If homiletical instruction causes us to preach in our own strength, then we have a problem, Houston! Having said everything that I have in the first three points, there is a concern that we must all face.  In our good stewardship, we must not end up self-reliant or flesh-powered.  God opposes the proud.  We must allow any training or instruction we receive to humble us (good homiletics training is like opening a window shutter and discovering how vast and intricate the task of preaching really is!)

So that’s a start.  More thoughts tomorrow on this issue of defending the teaching of preaching!

Apologetics for Homiletics – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The whole issue of whether homiletics training and methodology might quench or restrict the Spirit in some way is a critical issue.  Today and tomorrow we will scratch the surface of this issue, then another issue after that.

Doesn’t homiletics quench the Spirit? There is no doubt that God is not limited to working through and with us, He can also work around and despite us.  A passing comment, perhaps even when we preached error of some sort, sometimes has been used of God to “bless” someone.  Several things need to be taken into account, the first of which is subsidiary but worthy of note:

1. Not all positive feedback should be trusted. It’s an experiment I do not suggest you try.  If you stand up and read a passage and then preach biblical sounding truth with a certain amount of enthusiasm or seriousness, but deliberately don’t preach the text before you, deliberately slip in some error, contradict yourself a few times and avoid all specific application . . . what will happen?  You will receive positive feedback.  If it sounded too intellectual to be intelligible, then people will say “That was so rich!”  If it included an amusing anecdote at some point, then some people will shake your hand firmly and declare that they’ve been blessed.  If they can’t think of anything positive to say, they’ll shake your hand and say thank you anyway.  Why?  Because people are polite to preachers (they wouldn’t want to stand in front of a crowd and speak!)  And sadly, in some cases, they have not heard enough good preaching, or trained themselves by constant use of the Bible, in order to recognize poor preaching when they hear it.

Remember that the test of “biblical” preaching is not just the preaching of biblical truth that blesses people (the usual test to which people default), it is the preaching of the truth in the passage preached that appropriately and genuinely influences people. All positive feedback is not a trustworthy indicator of your effectiveness in ministry, nor even of God being at work in their lives.

I have three more thoughts on this issue of the quenching of the Spirit by homiletics, but I’ll add them tomorrow to avoid making this the longest post ever!

Apologetics for Homiletics

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Homiletics is an interesting subject to teach.  On the one hand there are those that are exceedingly grateful for a guiding structure for the preparation process.  They express appreciation for the increased confidence that can come from actually studying a passage, understanding it, and having some guidelines on how to then communicate the truth of the passage.  On the other hand there are some who resist homiletics as something that will quench the Spirit, professionalize the ministry and become a strait jacket on the preacher.

Perhaps we need an apolgetic for good homiletics.  In some cases the resistance springs from disappointing motivations, but not always.  For instance, some may resist because of laziness or unwillingness to put in the necessary work to actually understand a passage, preach it clearly or communicate with pastoral applicational.  Others may resist out of pride based on past years of ministry (“don’t challenge what I’ve always done!”)  But some concerns are genuine, and for these we may need a basic homiletic apologetic.  In the next few days I will give some thoughts on this matter, but for today it would do us all good to check our own hearts on this issue – is there any resistance to improving my preaching ministry based on laziness, pride, arrogance or other forms of fleshly motivation?

There are legitimate reasons to resist homiletics instruction and methodologies.  Today we can ask God to purge any impure motivations, then tomorrow we’ll dive in to the potentially legitimate concerns!

Specific Aims

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

As you head forward to preach today, are you clear on your aim?  A great main idea that is fired indiscrimately is not as good as a great main idea fired at a specific target.  Do you have a specific statement of sermon purpose?  Is it something you want listeners to do?  Is it something they should believe or know as a result of the message?  Is it something tangible?  Sometimes a sermon purpose will be in the area of belief rather than action, but how might that changed belief influence action this week?

Expository biblical preaching not only explains the meaning of the text, it also lands that text in the lives of listeners so that they can apply it.  Where do you aim to land the bridge today?