Delivery

Learning About Introductions From Evangelists

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Last night I had the pleasure of sharing a session with a great group of God’s servants who work among the military in this country.  In conversation afterward I was again struck by how important our introductions are when preaching.

An evangelist can’t take the introduction to a conversation for granted.  It is critical to have a point of connection, an entry into the conversation.  I am always impressed when I meet evangelists who are skilled in this area!  You simply can’t launch into the gospel without finding some starting point, some reason for the hearer to hear what you are saying.  That’s not to suggest that we simply respond to felt needs with the gospel – it is far more glorious a message than that!  But we do need to start somewhere, and somewhere relevant is a great place to start.

Likewise a preacher can’t take the introduction to a sermon for granted.  Generally our listeners are not as antagonistic as a group of soldiers in the barracks may be, but this should not lull us into introductory complacency.  People are living real lives with real issues.  When we launch into our message by simply stating a reference and reading the text, we give no real reason for hearers to hear.  We should presume distraction and fight for their focus.  Find a way to connect, demonstrate early on that what you are going to say is relevant to their real lives and people will lean forward to listen.  Choose to default to a non-introduction and people will settle back in the pew and let their minds wander elsewhere.

Whether we are sharing the gospel in a conversation, or preaching the Word in a church, we need to give thought to connecting early and engaging our listeners with the message.  Unengaged listeners may be many things, but they are not truly hearers.

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 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!

Making Words Clear

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Here in London you can visit the British Library and look at such priceless items as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus.  While it is a privilege to see them, they are not the easiest things to read and understand.  Written in uncials, ITISNOTEASYTOREADTEXTWITHOUTGAPSORPUNCTUATION.  Never mind the fact that it is in Greek, just the running together of endless letters is tough enough.

Thankfully we don’t have to read Greek text written in uncials.  We are blessed to have the Bible very accurately translated into our language, with all the blessings of spaces between words, punctuation, etc.  They’ve even conveniently added in the widely recognized and accepted verse and chapter divisions.  They usually also add the equally uninspired and sometimes unhelpful section headings.  Nevertheless, with all this help, the text is still often perceived to be a block of writing with one word running into the next.

As we study a passage in order to understand it and then preach it, we start to recognize the structure of the thought.  Just this week I was in Ephesians 5:1-14.  Initially it feels like a whole series of almost random instructions and explanations.  Gradually the flow of thought becomes clearer.  Major thoughts stand out, supporting thoughts fall into place.  Typically in the epistles I will use some kind of clausal layout and/or exegetical outlining approach to see the flow of thought more clearly.

When we preach our task includes the need to make a string of words clear.  We don’t have to start with an uncial script, but to all intents and purposes, we practically are.  Listeners hearing a string of verses often grasp very little first time through.  As we preach we look for ways to emphasize the main thoughts, we look for ways to demonstrate how the “support material” in the text explains, proves and/or applies the main thoughts.  Without technical jargon, our preaching needs to verbally achieve the formation of something like a clausal layout in the minds and hearts of our listeners.  Certainly, by the time we are done preaching, they should not see the text as a string of random words or thoughts . . . it should be much clearer than that!

Squeezing One Sentence into Half an Hour

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Last night I was involved in a very enjoyable Bible study in Ephesians.  After wrestling with the text together for a good while, we tried to summarize the section in one sentence.  Having made a first pass at a summary statement (or main idea), I mentioned that now there is a chance we could preach the passage.  A very perceptive (and tongue-in-cheek) question came right back at me.  “How come if you can say it in one sentence, a sermon has to take half-an-hour?”

So, how come?  How come we work hard to get the main idea of a passage and then take half-an-hour to preach a message that in theory can be stated in one sentence?  Let us make a dangerous assumption for the sake of this post – let’s assume that we actually have a one sentence main idea statement of the message of the text.  What do we do for half-an-hour?

Option 1.  We carefully plan how to best drive that main idea home. What introduction will draw people forward into the message with genuinely piqued interest and a thirst for this part of God’s Word? When should the main idea be presented? Should we repeatedly drive it home using the text’s sub-points (not annoyingly like a child’s impersonation of a sub-machine gun, but like the carefully placed bullets of a sniper) or should we create anticipation so once the main idea is stated it goes deep (like a bunker-busting missile)?  How can the main idea be supported by explanation of the text?  How can the main idea be earthed in our lives through carefully developed application?  Option 1 is to take half-an-hour and make that main idea so clear, so transformative, so evident from the text, so applicational for each life.  Option 1 is about turning one sentence into a life-changing power-packed single message. Or there is option 2 . . .

Option 2.  We use our half-an-hour to increasingly obfuscate the main idea. We provide a series of pieces of information, background descriptions, vaguely related cross-references, potentially amusing anecdotes, random highlights from our exegesis, etc.  All of these could be helpful, but if we’re not careful they may simply provide a cover of smoke so that the main idea in no way hits home.  Or we hide the main idea beneath three or four points from the text that do not hold together but function as a selection of messages from which our listeners can select their favourite.  Often option 2 is selected by default.  It is selected because the main idea is not fully crystallized in our minds so we spray random bullets hoping our listeners will make something out of it.

If a sermon can be stated in one sentence, why do we need half-an-hour?  I suppose it depends on the preacher, and it depends on the sermon!

Orient Before Any Journey

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

It’s important to know where you are going before you try to go there.  This is true in travel and it is true in preaching.  Some people mistakenly think that since “deductive” or “punch-line first” approaches to preaching can lack interest, tension and motivation to listen, the alternative is to travel vaguely toward an unknown goal.  Wrong.  It is important to orient the listener to where the message is going, whether or not the punch-line or main idea is given up front.

This is true for the message as a whole. If you decide that an inductive strategy would work best for the message, then plan the orientation phase well.  People don’t like to be led through a forest blind-folded, but this is how some poor inductive sermons feel from the listener’s perspective.  Look for ways to introduce the relevance of the message in the introduction.  Typically an inductive message should have the subject element of the main idea introduced early on, leaving the complement to complete the idea for later in the message.

This is true for smaller phases of the message. For example, don’t launch into background information without giving some orientation to why it is relevant to the message.  As the speaker, you know how relevant the information is to what will follow.  The listeners don’t.  Explain why the background is helpful, then give the background.  Don’t make people wait for the point of what they are already hearing.

There may be some exceptions to this.  However, as a general rule, make sure you orient your listeners so they are motivated to listen to the background information you give, or to the message as a whole.  Highlight relevance early to motivate concentration.  This is not all it takes to keep people with you, but without this, they will drift.

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!)