Do You Preach Concrete as Abstract?

November 28, 2011November 23, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

God didn’t give us a systematic theology with an index and table of contents. Christ didn’t work with a scribe to give us an abstract set of philosophical and theological truths that we should memorise and apply. Instead, in His wisdom, God gave us the Bible.

The Bible contains a variety of genres. Look at the New Testament, for instance. Here we have a combination of historical narrative and occasional epistles. The theology of the Bible is offered to us in the vivid action of the Gospels and Acts. It is given in the concrete situations of the first century church. As Karen Jobes puts it in her Letters to the Church (p13)

In his wisdom, God gave us, among the inspired writings, the letters of the apostles to specific Christians living in very concrete situations during times that were very trying the Christian faith. Because of that, we get to see how the Christian life was to be lived out in the context of first-century culture, and we can identify the same or similar issues today that challenge us. Rather than giving us a book of abstract philosophy or theology, God’s Word has come in the form of very practical and specific situations. It is another instance of God’s incarnational intent, to be Immanuel, God with us.

So here’s my question for the day: do we make enough effort to communicate the context of the passages we preach? I’ve seen quite a number of preachers who preach texts from the epistles as if they are abstract presentations of truth. They sometimes do a decent job of putting in concrete contemporary applications, but the text itself is treated as abstract truth statements.

God has given us a gift as preachers. He has done some of our work for us. He has given us the section of the Bible that is most likely to be abstract logical argument as occasional writings – that is, specific presentations of the gospel applied to specific churches, in specific cultural milieu, with specific issues at hand. As we re-present these texts to our listeners, before we even get to contemporary application, our listeners will be translating from 1st century concrete to 21st century concrete.

Let’s be careful not to rush past presenting the situation that sparked the writing of the text in an attempt to be relevant. Helping people to see what occasioned the epistle will already be helping them to see its relevance to us.

The Worst Kind of Name Dropping

November 25, 2011November 22, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Last Friday’s post on pulpit integrity stirred some conversation, so let me stir in another similar area. I think most of us are aware that it is annoying to hear someone “name dropping.” Sometimes the well-known person genuinely is the preacher’s friend, and that is ok to mention. Sometimes they are genuinely friends, but it wasn’t necessary to mention it. It really boils down to two factors – what is the motivation of the speaker, and how is it perceived?

But there is another form of “name-dropping,” so to speak, that is even more prevalent and irritating. It is when a preacher constantly drops the “I” reference, as if they are somebody special.

I think Haddon Robinson wrote in his book that in illustrations we should not make ourselves out to be heroes or jerks. That is, don’t be the amazing protagonist in a sermonic tale, neither make yourself look like a ridiculous buffoon. Neither approach helps your credibility as a preacher, or more importantly, the credibility of the message you are bringing.

I’m sure most of us are really aware of the danger of “bigging ourselves up” when we preach. Most preachers seem really sensitive to not coming across that way. But there are one or two that seem blissfully unaware of how they come across.

I was looking back at some notes I took when one particular preacher was in town and on a roll with the “I” references. (Details obscured to avoid identification!)

“I preached twice in such and such a famous venue . . . I preached with a famous film star in the congregation . . . I’ve been introduced to such and such a politician . . . I have never had a Muslim who could cope with my saying such and such . . . I was preaching in a place after they had been preparing for five years . . . I preached and the mayor was there . . . I was saying to my people on Thursday . . . I preached and he was so soundly converted . . .”

Wow, and I missed some out! I am sure that is an extreme case. I do wonder though, if you know one of these extreme cases, how to point this out to them? Is it ethical to send anonymous links to this post?

For the rest of us, let’s pray for sensitivity that we never come across as full of ourselves. It can easily be done accidentally and the damage done can be hard to undo. Let’s also ask for honest feedback from one or two folks that we trust. Better to know if you name drop the big “I” rather than getting an anonymous link to a post like this one!

Christmas Preaching 1: Familiar Passages

November 21, 2011November 17, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

I am in the process of preparing six messages for the Christmas season. Perhaps you are also preaching in the coming weeks of advent. Here are some thoughts that may be helpful:

1. There’s nothing wrong with familiar passages. It is tempting to think that we have to be always innovating, always creative, always somewhere surprising. Don’t. Just as children will repeatedly ask for the same bedtime story, and adults will revisit the same movie of choice, so churchgoers are fine with a Christmas message at Christmas. Sometimes in trying to be clever we simply fail to connect. Don’t hesitate to preach a Matthew or Luke birth narrative!

2. Preach the writer’s emphasis, not a Christmas card. Anywhere in the Gospels it is possible to be drawn from the emphasis of the text to the event itself. If you are preaching Matthew for several weeks, great, preach Matthew. If Luke, preach Luke. Whether it is a series or an individual message, be sure to look closely and see what the writer is emphasizing in each narrative.

3. Familiar passages deserve to be offered fresh. Don’t take my first comment as an excuse to be a stale preacher. There’s no need to simply dust off an old message and give it again without first revisiting it. Whenever we preach God’s Word we should stand and preach as those who have a fresh passion for what God is communicating there. There’s no excuse for a cold heart or stale content.

4. Fresh doesn’t have to mean innovative or weird. Now all this talk of fresh could lead us down a windy path into strange ideas. There is plenty in each text that is very much there, so we don’t need to superimpose our own clever and innovative “five facts about struggling against capitalism from the angel’s visit to Zechariah.” Equally, we don’t have to preach dressed as a sheep in order to offer something fresh.

5. Be careful when fresh includes disagreeing with tradition. You may find that looking closely at the text and studying the culture of that time actually causes you to question some stable assumptions (see what I did there?) Was there a stable? Where was Jesus born? When did the Magi arrive? How did the star thing work? Think carefully about throwing a hand grenade into peoples’ traditions. There is a place, and a tone, for correcting errant thinking, but tread carefully.

Eternal Preaching – Part 1

October 21, 2011October 21, 2011 / Peter Mead / 7 Comments

Some sermons do seem to drag on towards eternity, but perhaps too few preach in light of eternity. It seems to me that in many quarters the church has reacted against eschatological sensationalism by removing all reference to the end-times from the pulpit. Perhaps the subject is seen as being divisive, difficult, obscure, irrelevant or embarrassingly sensational and therefore best left alone.

Here are my responses to these five common reasons for avoiding the subject of the future, then next time I’ll offer some positive reasons to go eternal in your preaching.

1. Eschatology is divisive. After all, there are so many views on the millennium, the coming of Christ for the church, the details on the timeline, political implications today, etc. Actually, most issues in the Bible are potentially divisive – the nature of God, the person of Christ, the role of the believer in salvation, the work of the Holy Spirit, etc. If a subject is potentially divisive, surely we shouldn’t avoid it, but watch our attitudes and clarity when we do speak of it?

2. It is difficult. I suspect many a preacher avoids all references to the future because they are pretty sure they aren’t sure where they stand on it all. Like most subjects in the Bible, it is both complicated enough for a doctoral research pursuit, yet simple enough for a child to understand. Avoiding a subject because it is difficult will lead us to missing out on the rich wonder of the Bible, and our listeners will never hear us mention the central subjects like the Triune God, the Incarnation, etc.

3. It is obscure. Uh, no. Biblical reference to the future is not limited to a couple of the more apocalyptic prophets. Every book in the New Testament except one includes reference to the return of Christ, let alone all the other aspects of future teaching. Obscure it certainly is not, if we read the Bible, that is. I suppose the challenge is that many don’t and so judge Christianity by their cultural worldview instead.

4. It is irrelevant. Again, no. We’ll look at applicational value of future thinking next time.

5. It is embarrassingly sensational. Sadly, it can be and often is. There is too much hype and puff coming from some. The solution to that is to offer our listeners the good example of being well grounded biblically, rather than leaving them to become newspaper and paperback theologians.

None of these reasons are enough to kick the future out of our present preaching. Next time, we’ll start stacking up the positive reasons to bring back future and eternal preaching.

I Like To Pick a Prophet or Two

October 20, 2011October 20, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

When did you last preach a series from one of the writing prophets? When did you last lay open a minor prophet in a single session? I think God gave us a great squad to choose from with the 16 in the canon. Here are five reasons why I like to pick a prophet or two:

1. God’s Heart on the Sleeve – This is the big one for me. The prophets don’t keep you waiting to let you know what is on God’s heart. They were wonderful communicators of God’s passion, concern, anger, love, etc. In a church deeply stained by centuries of stoic thinking, it is a delight to offer the fullness of God’s affections, passions, compassion, emotion.

2. Punchy Relevance in Abundance – The prophets weren’t under the impression that their job was to fill a sermon slot with an informative soliloquy. They cried out to God’s people in specific application to their pain, their misery, their complacency, their present reality. Preaching on overtly applied texts tends to stir greater levels of contemporary relevance today too.

3. Messianic Goldmine in Places – This is what they’re famous for, of course. It’s a delight to preach of the Servant of the Lord, or of Immanuel, or of Zerubbabel’s signet ring, or of the New Covenant blessings. I’d be careful not to cherry pick the messianic predictions, but to preach them in their full context for full effect. We have a wonderful Christ, so preach the prophets!

4. Thematic Contrasts and Crescendos Galore – Like a stunning diamond on black velvet, so read the prophets. Impending judgment flowing into kingdom hope. Human sin overwhelming, then God’s grace superabundant. Faithless people, faithful God. Doom! Salvation! Darkness! Glory! The bulging muscular arm and clenched fist of the Lord! The tender shepherd holding the little ones close to His beating heart!

5. Novelty Value for Jaded Listeners – Perhaps they’ve heard stories from the gospels for months on end. Maybe they are saturated in epistolary logic. Perchance they have experienced the odd dip into Isaiah 6, 40, and 53. But what about Ezekiel 16, or Jeremiah 20, or Hosea, or Zephaniah? Typically the prophets, presuming they are well preached, will get a good hearing because listeners aren’t used to hearing them.

There you go, five reasons why I like to pick a prophet or two.

Woven Threads of Meaning

October 12, 2011October 12, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Here’s a post from back in the early days of this site that I think is worthy of a review (and as in sermon preparation, I’ll find myself tweaking it as I look at it again!)

____________________

Sometimes a passage may prove more complex than it initially appears. This is almost always the case with stories in the Gospels. Christians tend to view each story as a distinct unit that can be pulled out from the context in which it is placed. In reality, each story or account in a Gospel is carefully woven together with others for a purpose.

For example, the stilling of the storm in Mark 4 is placed after, and linked to, the first part of the chapter where Jesus is teaching about the kingdom using parables. The episode is connected to teaching on the small beginnings, but inevitable growth of the kingdom programme. However, in Matthew the account is in a series of miracle stories, quite separate from those same parables (which appear later). While someone might suggest this indicates that what comes before and after is irrelevant to the interpretation of the passage, actually the opposite is true. The stories themselves, just like words, seem to get their meaning not only from within themselves, but also from the company they keep.

So while a story may appear simple to understand, as you study it in its context you often find greater clarity in its meaning and purpose. Then as you consider the context and flow of thought more, the interpretation may become more involved and complex. As a preacher your first priority is not to “find a sermon,” but to do everything you can to understand the passage.

Once you’ve done all that you can to understand the passage, you then have to form the sermon. The temptation will be to dump every element of your study into the sermon. Don’t. What is necessary and helpful? What must be explained, what can simply be stated, what parts of your presentation need proof? How much time do you have to support what you say? Sometimes you will discover that your understanding of a passage has multiple threads of complexity, stretching out through layer after layer of other stories and accounts within the Gospel.

Be thankful for the back-up support you have, but only give as much as is necessary and your listeners can handle. They may be fine with one layer of contextual explanation, but overwhelmed if you present five. Know the passage fully, but also know what your listeners need and are able to take onboard!

This principle applies in every genre – explain as much as necessary, and save as much time as possible for connecting the passage to the people in front of you!

More Help in the Vicinity

September 28, 2011September 25, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday we were thinking about texts that don’t sit up and easily offer engaging and interesting sermon spice. Perhaps they lack illustrative content, or engaging narratival features. The temptation is to relegate the text to a small role in the making of the sermon and break out a couple of humdinger illustrations that you know will stir the listeners. Before you resort to such tactics, I’m encouraging you to poke around in the neighbourhood of the text some more.

Yesterday we thought about the situation of the author and the recipients. Both point to narrative potential, even in the midst of an epistle. Here are a couple more leads to follow before you move on from the desk and get too creative in your sermon preparation:

3. What about a quotation? It’s hard to get through a paragraph in the New Testament without there being a quote or allusion or wording from the Old Testament. A bit of digging here might shine light on the text and offer more angles for the preaching of the text. Of course, good exegesis should have unearthed the quotes, but perhaps another look as a preacher will yield some potential colour for your sermon. Maybe Old Testament story, maybe something in the cross-over from back then to the day of the author.

4. What about the rest of the book? Seems strange to say it, but preachers can sometimes fall into the same trap many commentators seem to meet – atomistic Bible reading. That is, you are preaching from verses 5-11, so you only really focus on verses 5-11 (and in some cases, one verse at a time!) It is part of the flow of the whole, so look around again and see how your section works in the whole of the book. This might yield an angle from which to preach the text with greater engagement and interest.

There is always a danger that our passion to preach well can move us on from understanding the passage to the max. Don’t be in too much of a rush, but instead be sure to diligently dive into every detail in the text, and in the vicinity.

Help in the Vicinity

September 27, 2011September 25, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Some passages are sitting up and shouting “preach me! preach me!” Others are slightly less helpful. That is, the text is, of course, God-breathed and useful. But perhaps the author didn’t include any illustrations or pictorial language in the passage, or there is neither story in the passage or in the immediate context . . . it just reads like a logical progression of content that needs something to make it sing from the pulpit. Epistles tend to have sections like this.

Be careful! In this situation you are going to be tempted to preach less than biblically. You’ll be tempted to use the text as a springboard and bounce off it to preach your own message, using your own illustrations, etc. The text could become a very minor bit-part player making little more than a cameo appearance in your message. I’m assuming you’ve studied the passage and understand it, but I want to encourage you to search a little more in the vicinity of the text. It may yet yield a more thoroughgoing biblical sermon.

1. What about the author? Does his situation, life experience, background and story shine any light on the passage? If it does, then you have the hint of a narrative now . . . every life is a narrative, and this text might just tap into that in such a way that the message can be preached in an engaging manner with description and empathy and flow.

2. What about the situation? Bible writers didn’t write for a hobby. They were neither drunk nor wasteful. If they put it on papyrus, then it was for a purpose. What was going on with the recipients of the writing that prompted the author to write what he did. Again, you now are poking around in the bushes of a story, and stories will engage, allow description, create tension, offer resolution, empathy and intrigue. People are interested in people (that’s how many TV shows work).

I’ll add two more tomorrow…

Images Right Before Your Eyes

April 27, 2011April 22, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Most preachers don’t aspire to being dull and lifeless, bland and black and white. We want to preach vivid, full-colour, living messages from a truly living Word of God. So why are we so quick to look beyond the Bible for every image and illustration in a sermon? Sometimes it seems as if we have been preconditioned to believe the Bible itself is boring and dull, so part of our work is to find lively little pithy anecdotal marshmallows to make the Bible palatable. Before we look outside the Bible (which is a legitimate option, of course), let’s be sure to check our passage carefully:

When preaching from biblical poetry – such as a psalm, the writer will usually give us some very helpful images. Why go hunting for new images when the psalm provides a resting child, restless hours fretting in bed, God lifting His face toward us, climbing the mountain toward Jerusalem, entering the city gates in procession, etc. We need to work on relevance and be sure to handle the imagery appropriately, but handle it, it is right in the passage. It would be a shame to waste the head-start we are given right on the page.

When preaching a biblical narrative – such as a parable or event, then the passage itself is an image! Too often I’ve heard preachers at pains to explain the story, but the preaching lacks zing because they forget to actually tell the story. Don’t dissect a story to death, allow it to live in front of people and let them observe its power. Be sure to explain and apply, of course, but don’t let the vivid imagery of the story itself get lost in your study. Bring the story to the people.

When preaching biblical discourse – such as an epistolary paragraph, then you may have extra work on your hands. Often the passage will be very effective and logical explanation, or even direct application. But it may be so direct that it lacks imagery. This will not be the case in most of James, but is true in parts of Paul. Just because it is prose and perhaps plain in presentation, do not fail to look for images that will help the truth stick in the hearts and minds of your listeners. Sometimes alertness to word-study will help, other times simply reading the text carefully will do the job. Be a shame to preach a “put off, put on” passage and not utilize the visual impact of that imagery, or to preach a “love one another” and not paint the picture of what that looks like in vivid terms. Abstractions don’t do the same work as concrete descriptions, so be sure to preach what it is saying in specifics so listeners can “see” what you mean.

Life’s Too Fast To Preach

March 16, 2011March 16, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

We don’t always realize just how fast our fast-paced lives are. We live in an age of flashing images that rush by at frantic pace. As the book I’m currently enjoying points out, “we become acclimated to distraction, to multitasking, to giving part of our attention to many things at once, while almost never devoting the entire attention of the entire soul to anything.” (p50)

But preaching a biblical text demands that we slow down and focus. We must concentrate fully on the text.

1. Poetry – “the rhythms and cadences, the music of the language, cannot be experienced at all by scanning.” (p.50). Indeed the dense line by line nature of poetic art demands focused reading if we are to glimpse the gold that is there.

It is not just poetry though, we must also slow for:

2. Narrative – it takes focused concentration for the imagination to engage, for the images to form, for the tension to be felt. Characters have to be met, tension faced, resolution experienced. Narrative will only yield superficial and petty sermon outlines if it is not engaged slowly.

3. Discourse – it takes focused concentration to follow the intricate composition of an epistle or recorded speech. How does the thought flow? What is the main thought? How is it developed? Again, discourse will preach after a superficial glimpse, but it will be poor!

Slow down. Read the text. Then maybe you can preach it.