Christianity

Preach the Preaching Text

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I have written before about staying within a low fence and generally sticking in the passage you are in for the message.  However, there is a similar but slightly different temptation we face as preachers.  It is the temptation to preach the whole book in which the text is found and fail to fully preach the text itself.

Why is this a temptation?  It doesn’t happen every time.  But if you are preaching a single message rather than a whole series (either as part of a series where others are preaching too, or as a stand-alone message), then you are more likely to face this temptation.  It comes from studying the passage in its context, the very thing you should be doing.  It comes from enjoying the study of the whole book, seeing the flow of thought perhaps clearer than you have before.  It comes from an understanding on your part that this text makes so much more sense once the context is fully understood.

What is the problem?  Well, you have to decide.  Should you preach the whole book, or should you preach the specific preaching text.  If it is part of a series, do not neglect your specific text.  If it is a stand-alone, you have the option of preaching the broader text (but if you do, remember that the message must be evident in the text sitting on listeners’ laps, whichever parts you point them to look at, or your message will apparently lack biblical authority).  The problem comes when you try to preach a specific text, but spend so much time giving the context and flow of the book that you fail to adequately explain the text that is read to the listeners.

So what to do?  Once a decision is made on whether you are preaching the main idea of the whole book, or the specific passage, check your outline/notes/manuscript.  Does the message content reflect your objective?  Be careful not to over-introduce.  It is painful, but cut unnecessary introduction and context.  Give enough to set up the preaching text, but be sure to preach the text itself.

Weighing Interpretation Options

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I made passing reference to the process involved in deciding between options when interpreting some aspect of a passage.  Perhaps you can think of two or three ways to take it, to understand what it means.  Perhaps two commentators differ on the interpretation and offer different sets of evidence for their view.  These kind of decisions face us all the time as we are interpreting the Bible.  So how do we evaluate the accuracy and relative weight of the various evidences used to support possible interpretations of a passage?

I still use an approach I was taught in seminary.  It is not a formula that guarantees results.  It is not something that can be put in a spreadsheet and simply crunch the numbers, but as a guideline it is very helpful.  I will list six categories of evidence.  Evidence that sits in category 1 is generally worth more than evidence in category 3.  On the other hand, multiple evidences in different categories may outweigh single evidence in a “better” category, although not always.  This is a guide, not a hard and fast rule.  Here are the categories from most valuable to least:

1. Syntactical Evidence – support found within the passage’s structure or grammar.  This is the internal contextual support for an understanding of the passage.

2. Contextual Evidence – support found in the context of the passage.  The closer the context, the higher the value (immediate context, section context, book context, same writer context, etc.)

3. Lexical Evidence – support found in specific meaning of words used.  Since meaning of a word is determined by the company it keeps, this category actually overlaps with both syntactical and contextual evidence, but a lexical argument lacking in syntactical or contextual support stands here in third place.

4. Correlational Evidence – support found in more distant biblical support where the same word or concept appears.  A different writer may be using the term in a different way.  (Remember that a distance passage that is directly influencing your passage, such as an Old Testament section that is quoted, is much more significant and may be considered as category 2 evidence.)

5. Theological Evidence – support found in theology, rather than elsewhere in the Bible.  This is like correlation, but with a theological creed or system.

6. Verificational Evidence – support found in “experts” (ie.commentators, etc.)  Simply because a big name agrees is of minimal value.  Much better to integrate their arguments into the five categories above, then using the commentary adds much greater value to your study.

Remember, this is a guideline, but I think it is helpful.  It pushes us to look for understanding within the text itself and within the context.  Many people seem to lean heavily on distant unrelated, but familiar, passages.  They tend to rely on their system of theology and having an expert or two on side in an interpretive decision.  Much better to have the better evidence to support an interpretation too!

Make Clear Carefully

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In expository preaching one goal is to make clear the meaning and significance of what is written in the passage.  That sounds relatively easy until you start considering specific passages.  You know the ones I mean.  The passages that you study for hours in order to understand what the author was saying.  In the process you work through numerous possible interpretations with multiple sets of evidence to support each interpretation.  It drives you to evaluate the accuracy and relative weight of these different pieces of evidence as you move toward an understanding of the passage.  In the end, Sunday comes and you sometimes have enough material to teach a seminary course on the passage.

The goal in preaching is to give the fruit of the study labor, not every detail of your behind the scenes work.  Select enough explanatory comments to demonstrate that your understanding is solidly based on the teaching of the text, otherwise your message will lack authority.  When you are not clear on the meaning of every element in the text, find the balance between recognizing the difficulty of the passage, but not undermining confidence in that which is clear.  Be careful that the goal of explaining the meaning does not crowd out presenting the relevance of the passage by means of application.  Don’t let heavy study turn a sermon into a lecture.

When we preach we seek to make clear the meaning and significance of the passage.  That takes prayerful care because it is not easy.  Pray that today’s message will be genuinely expository and pleasing to the Lord.  Pray that the Lord will be at work in the presentation of His Word to His people by you, His servant in the power of His Spirit.  We do our part, but it is not possible to achieve anything lasting with our part alone.

Does Preaching Via Technology Fall Short

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

A good friend Josh commented on the site with this question.  What do you think?

I recently heard at a pastors conference, and the speaker admitted it was controversial, that true effective preaching can only be done in the presence of the hearers. Connecting deeply, not just with their ears, but with the personal interaction that occurs during preaching. In effect, he suggested that preaching via TV, radio, listening to a sermon online (live or a replay) etc. fell short of the essence of preaching. What do you think?

I’ll give a couple of thoughts, but I’d like to hear other peoples’ opinions on this too.

I’m inclined to agree.  True preaching should be the true meaning of the text, communicated effectively by the speaker with applied relevance to the listeners.  Just yesterday I was teaching on the importance of earthing applications as specifically as possible.  This is a good habit in personal Bible study and in preaching to others.  The difficulty in preaching via media is that application may remain slightly generic.  Furthermore it reduces the interpersonal connection which occurs through multiple channels, not just the ear, as mentioned.  (Some preachers preach as if only to the ear, even in person . . . an unfortunate over-simplification of true preaching.)  So media preaching seems to undermine both “effective communication” and “applied relevance” in my understanding of preaching.

On the other hand, this was probably not the speaker’s intent, but I would be somewhat careful before criticising preaching through media.  We live in a day of incredible opportunities via electronic media.  People in inaccessible countries are hearing the gospel via radio (traditional and online) and coming to salvation.  Ministry can be multiplied, including good quality ministry.  I suspect the conference may have made CDs available, so his teaching may be accessed in the months and years ahead by people who could not be at the conference.  Nursery workers in churches are able to serve the church and its parents by watching the children and then hearing the sermon later.  We live in a day of tremendous technological possibilities.

I agree that preaching via media falls slightly short of the ideal, but at the same time I’m thankful for media that allows people access to “slightly short of the ideal” ministry, when the alternative is either none at all, or only face to face preaching that falls far short of the ideal in other ways.  Media preaching should never replace true in-person preaching of whatever standard, but it can be a blessing as a supplement, or for some, as genuinely the only option.

The readers of this site are a good group of people, what do you think about this?

What Does Expository Mean?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

This site is committed to expository preaching.  In many other posts I have referred to what genuine expository preaching is and is not.  It is about a philosophy, a commitment to the authority and influence of the text on the message.  It is not about a form, some commitment to a specific shape or preferred form of preaching.  But in light of the question I was pondering in the last two posts, I want to step back even further.  Not what is “expository preaching,” but what does “expository” mean?

I am teaching a course in Expository Hermeneutics, so I looked up the term in various dictionaries.  It is most commonly defined in reference to writing.  Expository designates nonfiction writing that explains and describes with the aim of conveying information or presenting a certain point of view.  Exposition is about clearly explaining something that is difficult to understand.  The term is also used in reference to music.  It is the first part of a composition, or the opening section of a fugue, in which the themes are presented explicitly.  It is used in theater in reference to that part of a play that provides background information necessary for understanding characters and action.

By definition then, if we believe in expository preaching, we are committed to setting forth the meaning, making clear, exposing, making explicit what is contained within the preaching text.  This mini-foray into the world of english dictionaries perhaps presents a nudge this morning.  It nudges us to make sure we are indeed clear.  Do we make the meaning and intent of a passage clearer, or would our preaching better be labeled “Obfuscatory soliloquy” (to save you looking it up, that is a (usually long) unclear dramatic speech intended to give the illusion of unspoken reflections!)

Why State Ideas Explicitly? – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Here’s the question again:

Since our culture is shaped by the communication of implicit and pervasive ideas, and much of the Scriptures use a narrative communication with ideas implicitly conveyed, are we communicating effectively when we state explicit ideas in preaching?

Two more thoughts:

Generally speaking, explicit statement of the idea is necessary if people are to have any chance of getting it. I’ve seen it time and again in preaching classrooms.  The preacher knows that the class will be asked what the main idea of the message was, so they try to exaggerate it, repeating it until they feel almost embarrassed to do so any more.  Then when the group is asked for it (knowing they would be asked and some looking for it throughout the message) . . . many fail to give the preachers idea accurately!  It is scary as a preacher to realize how easily people miss the main idea, even when we are explicit.  So we need to consider how to communicate that idea effectively.  Generally this means repetition, emphasis, etc.  Sometimes a better way is more subtle, but strong through subtlety (as in an inductive message – less repetition, but more impact).  Moving deliberately away from explicit statement of the main idea without a very good alternative strategy and plan seems like homiletical folly.

This question does raise a valid issue. Not only do we need to think about the explicit main idea of our message, but we need to consider our implicit communication.  How can we reinforce the main idea through implicit means during the sermon?  What other values and ideas are we conveying implicitly in this or any sermon?

Is it right to state the main idea explicitly?  I think it is.  But this does not call us to simple formulaic approaches to idea repetition.  It calls us to wrestle with our entire preaching strategy as we seek to convey the true and exact meaning of the biblical text with impact in the lives of our listeners.

Why State Ideas Explicitly?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

A while ago I was asked a very perceptive question:

Since our culture is shaped by the communication of implicit and pervasive ideas, and much of the Scriptures use a narrative communication with ideas implicitly conveyed, are we communicating effectively when we state explicit ideas in preaching?

I think a question of that depth requires a better answer than I am about to give, but perhaps this post and the next can challenge both our theory and practice.  A couple of thoughts in lieu of a full-orbed answer:

Preaching is different since listeners cannot soak in it. I would suggest that the pervasive influence of our culture is a soaking influence.  People are constantly and gradually bombarded with messages about life, reality, meaning, self, beauty, satisfaction, money, sex and so on.  This “implicit” pounding continues moment by moment, day after day.  Then we stand on a Sunday morning and hope to counter with truth from God’s Word.  From one perspective, it is hardly a fair fight!

Culture, Bible and Preaching all influence both implicitly and explicitly. While the question recognizes the implicit nature of communication in both culture and the Scriptures, it fails to recognize that all three use both implicit and explicit communication.  Culture is implicit in the communication of the general main ideas of the world, but when “soaking” is not possible, it can become very overt.  An ad campaign that will be seen many times can be subtle, but witness also the numerous explicit “big ideas” communicated daily in advertizing, film, music, etc.  According to Robinson, the Bible communicates eight or ten big “big ideas” repeatedly throughout the canon.  Spend a life soaking in the Word of God and those ideas will mark you deeply.  Yet each passage also conveys its idea more directly – with language, propositional statements, images painted with words, even narratives that leave a mark on the reader (whether or not the reader bothers to try and put exact words to the idea that has been presented therein).  Preaching also communicates both implicitly and explicitly.  Over the years, listeners who soak in your preaching will be marked by implicit messages and attitudes conveyed in your preaching – attitudes toward God, toward truth, toward the Bible, toward people, etc.  Yet we also make explicit that which the listener should not miss – the idea of this passage, presented to us today.

Tomorrow I will add a couple more thoughts in response to this question.

Why Don’t They Return

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

One of the perpetual questions for preachers and church leaders.  Why don’t visitors return?  Some churches may be persisting with “guest services” in some form or other that have not seen an outsider come in for years.  But other churches have some success at attracting guests or visitors.  If we get visitors, but never see them again, what is the reason?

Non-Preaching Reasons – This is a preaching site, so I have a tendency to think about the preaching part of church life, but there are many potential non-preaching reasons.  Are church members unfriendly?  Does the church put visitors in the spotlight and make them uncomfortable (“too friendly” approaches like, “would any visitors please stand up so we can welcome you with a round of applause, a huge bouquet of flowers and a fireworks display in your honor?”)  Does the whole experience feel uncomfortably alien to them?  (Remember that church culture is probably not their culture, so they don’t know when they’re supposed to stand, sit, look up a Bible reference, etc.)  Lack of personal connection (people ultimately come to church relationally, so if the relational connections are not made, return visits will probably not occur).  There are many more possible reasons, some of which are outside our control.  But for the sake of the gospel, take stock of everything from seating, welcomers, friendliness, to missing explanations of church service elements, to your own personal hygiene!  People matter, after all.

Preaching Reasons – Preaching is not everything, but it is a significant something.  Could visitors choose not to return because of their experience of your preaching?  Is your manner apparently false (lofty, outdated, affected, too “stained glass”)?  Is your preaching engaging or tedious?  Does it bear any relevance to their lives?  Can they follow what you’re talking about?  People are not used to sitting and listening to a speaker for an extended time (i.e. beyond five minutes!)  If your preaching is boring, irrelevant, strangely affected or unhelpfully aggressive, not to mention legalistic or apparently insincere (i.e. incessantly “nice” throughout) . . . well, they might not want to sit through it again!

Some elements of a visitor’s experience and motivation are beyond our control.  It is ultimately up to the Spirit to draw people to Jesus and the Gospel, as only He can truly convict and save.  But let’s not add any unnecessary barriers to the process.  Perhaps it’s time to take stock of everything from a visitor’s perspective.  This doesn’t mean transforming everything into an extreme seeker-sensitive church model.  Whatever your view on how church should be, surely we can agree it should be “visitor considerate.”

The Discouraged Preacher – Conclusion

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

We have considered a lot of possible causes of discouragement over the past week.  David Wilson commented on some of these posts and also sent me some notes from a message he gave on discouragement.  To conclude this series I would like to quote the three simple but critical pieces of advice with which he concluded that message, and then a quote to finish.

How can we avoid discouragement in ministry?

1. Determine to please God alone. We can easily be tempted to pursue the applause of others, or even from ourselves, but the central issue has to be pleasing God only.  Our audience of One.  (See John 8:29, 2Cor.5:9 and Gal.1:10)

2. Spend time alone with God. Just as Jesus spent time alone with the Father, so must we.  Intimacy with Him must come before ministry for Him.

3. Set realistic goals. Some goals are out of our hands, and so can be a source of real discouragement.  Evaluate goals in ministry and make sure they are achievable as we lean on Him for strength and help.

Here’s a closing quote from Warren Wiersbe’s Walking With Giants (p268):

Discouragement is an enemy we must learn to expect, face honestly, and fight with all our strength. No man can preach the good news effectively if he himself is discouraged. We must try to understand the causes of our despair and, above all else, never yield to the expensive luxury of self-pity. The “I-only-am-left” complex can only lead to defeat. There are yet seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal. It would be nice if one of them would step out and stand by our side, but until then, let us dare to believe God’s Word and keep on going.

The Discouraged Preacher – Part 6

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

One last category to consider:

13. When we feel alone as a preacher. When you stand to preach today, you are not alone.  Even in a church with several preachers, it can feel so lonely to sense that others view preaching differently.  Perhaps you are committed to expository preaching, while others persist in another approach.  Perhaps you are the only preacher.  Perhaps you’ve tried to influence other preachers, but they have not responded and your motivation is drained.  Feeling like you’re the only one committed to expository preaching is a tough place to be.  And it can be hard to talk about because it sounds like condemnation of other preachers, or arrogance.  But remember this, you are not alone in your commitment to expository preaching.  As you stand and try to present the true meaning of the text with effective communication and applied relevance to your listeners, you are one of many preachers doing the same.  Obviously it would be better if there were more, but don’t despair and fail to recognize that there are many training institutions teaching expository preaching, there are many organisations advocating for expository preaching, there are many expositors seeking to do the same as you.  We may not be the majority, we may not feel the camaraderie or support where we stand and serve, but we are not alone.

Pray for other expository preachers who you know will be preaching the Word today.