Preach Text or Title?

August 25, 2011August 24, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

What do you do when you are asked to preach a title with a text? My simple answer is to honour the title, but preach the text.

Isn’t that the obvious answer? No, I think there is an alternative that is very common and may be legitimate – preach the title by using the text. And then there is the option of preaching the title and ignoring, or even abusing, the text. The challenge is where the line is drawn between these two options. So why would title take precedence over the text?

Sometimes the title is highly relevant, or highly theological, or highly specific. What if the title is “What is the Gospel?” and the text is John 3:16. Or maybe “Are there many ways to God?” and the text is Acts 4:12. Or “Guilt and holistic health” with Romans 8:1.

The temptation then is to try to give the definitive lecture on biblical soteriology, or the exclusivism of Christ, or whatever. You’ve gone from preaching the Bible to preaching theology with the Bible as a key exhibit. I won’t say this is totally wrong. We have probably all benefitted from some “definitive lectures” from great speakers. But personally, I find there is something lacking in this approach. I would rather preach the text.

Personally I find it satisfying when I feel like I’ve done a good job of engaging the text and presenting it in such a way that it has “lived” in the imaginations of the listeners. A well crafted lecture on exclusivism is all well and good, but a text genuinely experienced text is much rarer. As long as it addresses the requested subject by way of application, of course.

So in simplistic terms I might be looking at something along these lines:

Intro – raise the question in light of contemporary thinking so people say “yep, that’s a big issue, what’s the answer?”

Text – take them back there, set the scene, make it vivid, help them experience the unique reality of the situation, and preach the text.

Application – return to today and answer the question . . . “so if that was true for them, what is true for us, under pressure to conform to the world’s way of thinking?” Preach the point of the verse again in reference to the opening of the sermon.

The big thing to remember is that you can either formulate the most brilliant systematic theological presentation of the issue and impress a few. Or you can make the text live, preach vivid and engaging . . . and as long as you answer the question, everyone will love it. And, also, you’ll probably love it more because you will feel like you’ve truly preached the text, rather than pulled a phrase out of context in order to satisfy a contemporary theological question.

Trustworthy Bible

August 24, 2011August 23, 2011 / Peter Mead / 5 Comments

Yesterday was the 59th anniversary of the death of Sir Frederick Kenyon. Kenyon was a renowned scholar of ancient languages who took a keen interest in the authenticity of the Bible. “Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.” Kenyon’s sentiment here is often lost today, not just in the attacks of liberal scholarship, but also in the silence of Christian preachers.

Kenyon, director and head librarian of the British Museum, showed in his day how archeology and the manuscript evidence supported the credibility of the Bible. Of course there are many others who will argue the other way, all pointing to the agendas of those on the other side. Yet in the church today, there seems to be a paranoid silence in some quarters.

Since the Christian position is under attack from very vocal and media backed atheistic thinkers, we are increasingly huddled in church corners believing almost superstitiously in the message of the Bible. Why? There is more evidence for the authenticity of the Bible today than ever before! And while we are grateful for his legacy, we don’t have to just quote Kenyon for support.

Richard Bauckham has been doing some magnificent work in recent years, and Peter Williams et al of Tyndale House are doing a good job both advancing and communicating that work. Do the people in your church know about the integrity of the personal names used in the Gospels? That is, a level of accuracy in name selection that would be a level of sophistication utterly unparalleld in the ancient world if it were a forgery. Do the people in your church know about the evidences for word perfect quotation in the Gospels? Do the people in your church know about the frequency of accurate reporting of place names, as compared to the paltry place awareness in the non-canonical gospels? I could go on, but there is a bigger question. Not do they know, but, do you know about these things?

As preachers we do our listeners a disservice if we simply affirm the Bible’s truth without demonstrating its trustworthiness. By our silence we could reinforce the perception of many that the Bible is an ancient book of myths and legends that we choose to consider as “true for us.” If we won’t demonstrate and prove and affirm and show the integrity and trustworthiness of the Bible, who will?

——————————————

If you haven’t seen it, you won’t want to miss this lecture by Dr Peter Williams on “Eyewitness Evidence”

Identifying Individuals – Beware!

August 23, 2011August 23, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Most of us instinctively know that a distant preacher that never bridges the divide between pulpit and pew is not a model we aspire to emulate. We want to connect. There are many ways to do that – through content, demeanor, illustration, vulnerability, etc.

One way that some preachers try is to single out an individual in the congregation. It sometimes works. It sometimes backfires badly. What’s the difference?

1. People don’t come to church to be embarrassed. Many churches have learned not to invite first time visitors to their feet while the congregation sings a “Jesus welcomes you, so do we!” overture. Embarrassing. The same is true in the sermon. If the preacher points to an individual it draws attention and embarrassment. If you happen upon a long-time faithful leader, it will probably be ok. But if you happen upon a first-timer, they can easily become an only-timer. Which leads to the next point.

2. Do you know them? Simple guideline – if you don’t know the person, don’t even think about singling them out. If you do know them, then there is a chance that you know what is going on, how secure they are under attention, whether your comment might strike too close to home, or be wildly wide of the mark.

3. Is it helpful to them? Is it helpful to all? Again, if you don’t know them, you don’t know whether the comment will be helpful or painful. I hope none of us would point at somebody and talk hypothetically about their private lives, medical situation, spiritual state or relational health. But the fact is, unless we know them well, we won’t know if we touch too close to home, or too far wide of the mark.

4. Will they look foolish? Will you? Again, if you don’t know them, you can’t know how they will seem to others. Equally, you won’t know how you look either. One comment. One obvious assumption. One very embarrassed couple of people. One section of a church laughing at the preacher (not with, at) for his error. One whole congregation feeling uncomfortable because of the whole interchange. Was it worth it? Not at all.

If you know the congregation and the individuals and the life situations and are sure it will work, then perhaps consider identifying an individual. Otherwise, probably better that you don’t. Work on other ways to bridge the gap.

Don’t Move Away From the Bible

August 22, 2011August 22, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday may have passed without you noticing the date, but it was the 766th anniversary of the death of Alexander of Hales. I would have missed it too, except for a brief article I read that began like this:

A decisive moment in Medieval scholasticism came when Alexander of Hales substituted Peter Lombard’s Sentences in place of the Bible as the basic text for his teaching.

In his day he was called the king of theology. Alexander (I won’t call him Alex as I can’t pretend to be too close to him), pioneered the dangerous habit of making a summary of Christian theology using Aristotle as the authority. Summarizing the Christian faith in answer to numerous questions sounds safe enough, but when Aristotle is quoted as a reference in almost every question, something unhealthy might just be brewing. In fact, it was Alexander’s fan, a certain Thomas Aquinas, who is best known for blending Aristotle and Christianity.

Now I am not suggesting that you or I are going to have the same long-lasting consequences as can be traced from Alexander of Hales and those he influenced. Nevertheless, we will do damage if we make a move away from the Bible in our ministry. But, you might say, where could we go from the Bible? After all, we are committed to being biblical preachers . . . okay, some tempting avenues away from the Bible, in no particular order:

1. Theology – Don’t get me wrong, I care passionately about good theology, but I also see the temptation to become “sophisticated” and leave the Bible behind. Don’t do it!

2. Philosophy – Speaking of sophistication, it doesn’t get much more tempting than leaving the Bible to become something of a philosopher. Bad move for a preacher to make.

3. Mysticism – Other extreme, but still a speculative pursuit, some choose to leave the Bible behind in order to go after a greater mystical experience. Oops.

4. Revelation – Along similar, but distinct lines, is the temptation to treat the Bible as passe in the pursuit of new revelation from God. Careful!

5. Culture – Here’s a popular pursuit. How about essentially moving beyond the Bible to being a cultural commentator. Pas une bonne idee.

6. Coaching – Listeners, of course, crave relevant instruction for life in a complex world . . . so why not put the Bible aside and offer engaging applied training in “living life, for dummies.” Well, let me give you six reasons that’s bad practice…

7. Entertainment – Let’s face it, we could always just go for numbers of happy people by squeezing out the Bible in order to offer entertaining sets of humour and anecdotal pulpit pithiness. Yes, but did you hear about the preacher who did this and…

There may be some value in some of these pursuits, but keep your feet firmly planted in the Bible and don’t stray off down a dead end.

Preaching in Worship

August 18, 2011August 18, 2011 / Peter Mead / 6 Comments

I just read an article on Preaching in Worship from a 1979 edition of Themelios [this article, and others, is available here on theologicalstudies.org.uk – a growing and very useful source of freely accessible resources, see also biblicalstudies.org.uk].

In the article the author was contemplating the place of the sermon in the worship service. Without falling into a longer is better than shorter over-simplification, he focused on the value given to the sermon in the service. Too often a shorter sermon can feel like a PS at the end of the service. When the emphasis is placed on sung worship, at the expense of the preached Word, then people are forced to settle for mediated and second-hand worship. This is an interesting point. So often people focus on music because it gives a sense of immediacy to the service, and the message gives a sense of second-hand mediated worship (or often, no sense of worship at all), but the writer pointed to the contrary. The songs are second-hand to the listeners, but the response to the preaching of the Word should be immediate.

The author pointed back to the time when preaching was considered dangerous, and so laws were enacted to restrict public worship speech to that found in the Prayer Book. But later, meticulous following of the Prayer Book was no longer required because nobody was worried that preaching would do any harm. I wonder if those opposed to the work of the gospel in your community (locally and internally in the church) are concerned about the preaching in your church? Whether we are talking about spiritual opposition, or human, what would their perspective be? I suspect in some churches the preaching is considered deeply dangerous to those opposing God’s work, yet in others the platitudinous homilies make no difference whatsoever. If I were on the opposing side I wouldn’t be too concerned about the 14-minute homily I heard in one church not too long ago . . . not primarily because of the length, but because of the lack of impact, the lack of relevance, the lack of engaging the text deeply or the listeners meaningfully.

Interestingly the author writes about how to revitalize preaching and the general level of expectation in respect to preaching. Most people “today don’t want preaching partly because they haven’t heard it.” This is so true. I come across people who decry the value of expository preaching, but these same people are usually those without experience of genuinely biblical, clear, engaging and relevant preaching. What if more people approached the preacher(s) in their church and graciously asked for preaching that would help them learn more of God and His Word?

Preaching is central to worship and it is part of true worship, but more than that, the article suggests that it is not just an equal player in the team of elements that make up a worship service. True preaching has a level of immediacy that supersedes the perceived immediacy of sung worship. This is genuinely something to ponder!

An article from the late 70’s . . . dated in some respects, but helpful nonetheless.

Moving Toward Noteless

August 17, 2011August 17, 2011 / Peter Mead / 14 Comments

Dean asked in a comment about moving from manuscript to notes or even no notes. How is it possible to make that move? A few thoughts:

1. Manuscripting is a great approach to sermon preparation that I affirm. The issue is not writing a manuscript, but relying on it or reading it in the pulpit. Work put in on wording and phrasing in preparation will yield fruit in preaching, so it is worth continuing to manuscript in my opinion.

2. Moving to notes means formulating a distillation on paper. That is, putting in something similar to headings and sub-headings in your manuscript, then removing the text to leave these “headings” and highlights of content. I don’t like to use the term headings because actually a sermon outline is not built with headings, it is made up of ideas. The problem with headings is that they tend to be incomplete sentences, and therefore, incomplete thoughts. If we take the heading approach we will be tempted into clever little pithy alliterations and summary headings that actually don’t reflect the content of the message. Much better to summarize the movement of the message and preach with those “ideas” rather than alliterated bullet points. (That is not to say that you might not be able to use trigger terms to jog your memory of the ideas that constitute the points or movements of the message, but these are triggers for you, not your listeners.)

3. Moving to no notes means a bit more of a step. With notes you can still have a complex message that bounces around the canon like a hard rubber ball in concrete box. When you go no notes you need to simplify the message and tie it in more closely to the text you are preaching. Effectively the text becomes your notes, so you look at the text and see the shape of thought that provides the skeleton for the message. No notes preaching doesn’t require superior memory skills, it requires only greater familiarization with the text and a more accessible / clear / logical / simple message. If a message is so complex that you need notes to help you navigate it, then what hope do your listeners have? You’ve spent hours in it, they only get one shot!

4. Moving to notes or no notes requires practice. I don’t mean just trying and failing in the pulpit (in reality you won’t “fail” as easily as you expect). What I mean is running through the message without the manuscript. Prayerfully practicing before you preach is not at all unspiritual. I would encourage preachers to preach . . . often a message makes sense on paper, but simply won’t flow from your mouth. Better to find that out before you preach it on Sunday! Remember, the goal of sermon preparation is an oral communication event, not a polished manuscript for publication.

Phones and Bibles

August 17, 2011August 11, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

“My main word is, as Stephen F. Olford has often said, that ‘we belong in the study not in the office.’ The symbol of our ministry is a Bible, not a telephone. We are ministers of the Word, not administrators, and we need to relearn the question of priority in every generation.”

These words are attributed to John Stott, who recently went home to be with the Lord. How true these words are.

Where the clergyman once held a position of honour in the community, we now find ourselves tempted to grasp for respectability and credibility. So there is a temptation to try to look like the respected folks of the community. They have increasing education, so we are tempted to flaunt ours, or get extra degrees for the wrong reasons. They have manic lives, so we are tempted to run around like mad folks looking for an ulcer (who would respect a preacher who is able to choose serenity over stress?) They have offices, mobile phones and permanent contactability, so we feel we can do no other.

What difference would it make if we stopped playing the busy professional and renewed our commitment to a different calling, to the ministry of the Word and prayer? If our gut reaction to this idea is to fear loss of credibility, or loss of income, or loss of support from those who think they hold us accountable . . . then we are making decisions out of fear rather than faith. What does God want of us? Acts 6:4 is worth pondering in prayer. Let’s ask Him what He thinks.

Not a Fig

August 16, 2011August 10, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Oliver Wendell Holmes is credited with this great quote – “I wouldn’t give a fig for simplicity this side of complexity, but I’d give my right arm for simplicity on the other side of complexity.”

Preacher, where do your sermons sit?

Cheaper than a fig – This is preaching that is simple because it is shallow. The preacher hasn’t wrestled with the text, hasn’t entered into the complexity of the passage, it’s theology, the interface between ancient text and contemporary listener, etc. The preacher is just demonstrating shallow incompetence. Technical commentaries have been ignored. The text has received only scant attention. The sermon is simple because it is simplistic. It doesn’t engage listeners. It doesn’t shed light. It doesn’t stir hearts. It has the nutritional value of a burger bun.

Complexity – This is preaching that has gone beyond the fig stage. The preacher has started to wrestle with the text. The preacher may have engaged in dialogue with some technical commentaries. The preacher has mapped out some or all of the complexities of the theology and its interface with contemporary life. It may be complex because the preacher hasn’t cut out unnecessary detail. Or it may be complex because the preacher hasn’t really got to grips with the details. Or it may be complex because the preacher is trying to impress. Whatever the cause, it is complex. Hard to listen to. The listener has to really work to benefit. Much nutrition, but as hard to digest as day-old steak.

Costly as a right arm – This is the goal. The preacher has gone beyond the shallow into the depths. The preacher has studied, and wrestled, and prayed, and thought themselves through to a place of clarity. This isn’t simplistic, this is profound, yet accessible, relevant, clear, engaging. They often say that the very best sportsmen and women make hitting the ball, shooting for goal, playing the game look so easy. It isn’t because they are just natural at it. It is because they have endured the work necessary to get to the other side of complexity. That’s why we pay so much to watch them. Too many preachers are worth less than a fig because they are simplistic, or so complex that the gold seems hard to mine. If only more preachers were right arm types – having thought themselves through to a level of clarity that is blessing to all who hear.

Maximum Content, Minimum Loss of Contact

August 12, 2011August 10, 2011 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Just listening to Fred Craddock and he was asked about notes versus no notes. His bottom line was that you want to have maximum content, with a minimum loss of contact with the listener. He also suggested that every preacher should be fully competent at preaching without notes, with notes and with full manuscript. Why?

Full manuscript preaching will be helpful when the subject is controversial. It allows for people to see exactly what was said, and allows for precision from the preacher. I was asked to preach on Euthanasia a few years ago. Full manuscript. It simply wasn’t possible to internalize all the content of that message (not least because it wasn’t rooted in a single text).

Notes are useful in preaching, Craddock said, when “there’s a lot of tiptoeing and maneuvering in the sermon to get through it.” This is a problem in too many sermons, but there may be occasions where it is necessary. Too often a sermon makes good sense to the preacher because they have the notes map in front of them and they know exactly where they’ve come from and where they’re going. But often the listener is as lost as a toddler in a forest.

“Usually, if you prepare for delivery rather than for writing, you will know it by the time you get through preparing.” I agree with this and tend to preach without notes. But I also agree with his follow-up comment. These three approaches are not stages through which the preacher graduates. While no notes may generally be the preferred option, it is not a point of achievement to grab attention from listeners. It is a choice the preacher makes dependent on the message and the situation. Sometimes, as a generally no notes preacher, I will do well to use a full manuscript.

Content and contact to the max.

Listening to Preaching As a Preacher

August 11, 2011August 10, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

We live in a unique time. Never before have people been able to listen to so many sermons in a week. When they leave church on a Sunday morning, they can then take their synced iPods and listen to preaching for the rest of the week. At the supermarket, in the gym, while commuting, at work in some cases, etc. I’ve mentioned before how this can be massively intimidating for a normal preacher (to have their listeners feeding on the world’s finest, or in some cases, the world’s flashiest, for the rest of the week). I’ve mentioned that we shouldn’t be intimidated, or feel hopeless in competition with highly skilled communicators that have been well edited.

But what about our listening? Should we, as preachers, be listening to other preachers? Yes. And no.

Yes. It is good to listen to other preachers. First and foremost, it is important to be fed ourselves. Good preparation does feed us, perhaps more than those we preach to, but we still need to hear from someone else. I have a preacher or two that I listen to so that I can be challenged and encouraged. Secondly, it can be helpful to observe how others are handling texts and preaching opportunities. I don’t like to listen to a sermon on the text I’m about to preach as it is hard not to be overly guided by it, but to observe and learn is a good thing.

And no. I don’t think it is good to listen to too many other preachers. It can become overwhelming. You can end up wanting to do a bit of that like him, and some of that like him, and then it’s great how he, and oh, when he does that, etc. If you’re not careful you can end up preaching like a medley of other voices and lose your own. Listening to other preaching can be helpful. Listening to too much can make it so you lose your own quiet before God, and end up preaching not out of being with Him, but as a preaching karaoke machine.

Do you listen to others? Why? How much?