Homiletics

Homiletics – Just a Practical Subject?

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

I recently heard a comment I’ve heard at various times and in various forms.  Essentially it was a reference to homiletics as if it were a subject of tips for public speaking, a merely practical subject that may or may not be very important in the curriculum of a training institution.  Tips for speaking, suggestions on sermon construction, it is really just a fringe subject.

While acknowledging that my perspective may be a bit biased as someone who teaches homiletics, I would beg to differ.  In my own experience of seminary training, it was in homiletics that everything converged.

Bible study methods, exegetical training and biblical theology training converged in homiletics.  Finally I discovered how the various elements of fine training coalesced into a coherent whole, with a purposeful goal.  Instead of feeling like Bible study would always be both a joyful privilege and an endless task – with the various potential avenues of study never adequately traveled – I saw the personal and corporate fruit of biblical studies as a whole.

The bar is raised on all subjects by homiletics.  We have probably all heard the old adage that to learn something well you should teach it.  It’s true, having to communicate something verbally to others does stimulate us to learn it at a higher level.  So while we may feel blessed to learn about church history and theology and so on, it is when we seek to bring these things to bear in the lives of others that we ourselves learn at a whole new level.

Spiritual formation and Christian devotion feeds into homiletics, which lies at the heart of church ministry, the focus of God’s work in the world.  The privilege of the preacher is to shepherd souls, it is soul care – both evangelistically and in edification.  This is not mere information transfer, but pastoral ministry in focused form.  There are numerous other fields of pastoral ministry, all of which matter and should be taught, but in some way or other, each feeds something into homiletics.  

In a sense all subjects converge in homiletics.  While some like to say systematic theology is the queen of the sciences, perhaps it is worth considering homiletics as the pinnacle of pastoral and theological education?

Too often homiletics is taught as a little addendum, an almost token seminar in public speaking tacked onto a robust theological education.  Let’s think again about the importance of homiletics – for the sake of the institutions, but much more importantly, for the sake of the church.

Love People To Jesus

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Lacking motivation for anything productive (post-preaching experience, anyone?), I decided to dip into Thielicke’s Encounter with Spurgeon again.  Guess how many paragraphs I had to read before being ready to offer another post (and that largely by quotation)?  One.  Check this out:

“Among the important elements in the promotion of conversion are your own tone, temper, and spirit in preaching. If you preach the truth in a dull, monotonous style, God may bless it, but in all probability he will not; at any rate the tendency of such a style is not to promote attention, but to hinder it.  It is not often that sinners are awakened by ministers who are themselves asleep.  A hard, unfeeling mode of speech is also to be avoided; want of tenderness is a sad lack, and repels rather than attracts.  The spirit of Elijah may startle, and where it is exceedingly intense it may go far to prepare for the reception of the gospel; but for actual conversion more of John is needed – love is the winning force.  We must love men to Jesus.  Great hearts are the main qualifications for great preachers, and we must cultivate our affections to that end.  At the same time our manner must not degenerate into the soft and saccharine cant which some men affect who are forever “dearing” everybody, and fawning upon people as if they hoped to soft-sawder them into godliness.  Manly persons are disgusted, and suspect hypocrisy when they hear a preacher talking molasses.  Let us be bold and outspoken, and never address our hearers as if we were asking a favor of them, or as if they would oblige the Redeemer by allowing him to save them.  We are bound to be lowly, but our office as ambassadors should prevent our servile . . .”

Back to me again.  Rather than repeating some of the gems in that paragraph, I have to ask why so many today are so quick to think only in black and white terms, to fail to differentiate within categories.  If you speak of the importance of love, then you are tarred with the same brush as the “dearing” crowd mentioned above.  If you mention the importance of tone, then you are sometimes considered a performance focused homiletician who doesn’t care about content.  Let’s be bold and outspoken, proclaiming the gospel with great hearts for God, never talking the molasses that disgusts the manly, but loving people to Jesus.

What To Do With Extra Material?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

A couple of years ago I wrote about the preacher’s cutting room.  It is normal to finish a sermon and have material left over, content that was not shared.  If we are honest, some of it was not shared because it was not worth sharing, or because it might cause an unnecessary stir.  But some material is good material.  What to do with it?

1. File it for a future message. This is particularly the case with illustrative material that could be adapted and used at another time.  The key here is to have a filing system that will allow you to retrieve it when you need it.  The other piece that fits in this category is exegetical notes on the passage that may be useful next time the passage is preached – so of course it is worth compiling and filing a set of exegetical notes (I presume you do this with every passage you study?)

2. Preach a Second Sermon. If the schedule and setting allows it, I am a big fan of the idea of preaching a second sermon on the same text.  We so easily move on without taking time for things to sink in, but a second sermon on the same text would allow for reviewing the main content, and for development and reinforcement of application (which often can get short-changed if you do a good job of explaining the text in the first sermon).  Churches with a morning and evening service would do well to consider this approach.

3. Have a Q&A or interaction session of some kind. Perhaps a Q&A session, or a smaller group setting for those who want to interact about the sermon.  I’ve heard of these kind of things, but wonder how this is not adding another meeting to typically overloaded church schedules.

4. Post Out Takes Online? I wonder if anyone has tried this approach?  Using facebook or a blog, it would be easy for a preacher to follow up a message with a handful of sermon pieces that were omitted for the Sunday, but could then provide a venue for people in the church to follow up the sermon and interact with it and with each other online.  I like this idea, anyone do something similar and able to share your experience?

5. Podcast the Out Takes? Similar to above, but why not record a few minutes of reflection and get those online within a day or so.  This would also allow opportunity to respond to any questions that have been asked (perhaps clarifying something or helping with any misunderstanding that became clear from feedback received).

Any other suggestions?  I preached last Sunday and could easily have shared a further 10-15 minutes of material if either an online blog or pod system were in place.  I’m really intrigued to know if anyone has experience to share with us . . .

Guest Post – On Re-Using Old Material

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Here’s an email I received from John Bell.  I asked if I could simply include it here as a guest post and he kindly agreed:

Dear Peter –

Thanks for responding to these things. I really appreciate your thoughts.

Your comments about using others’ thoughts in our own preaching are very helpful. I particularly like your suggestion of how to express that I’m building on ideas that I’ve heard from others that have profoundly affected me. Something so brief and general can communicate what needs to be said.

Whenever we preach, no matter where the material comes from, I would hold up three standards:

– Do I have the active conviction that this message makes central the main point of the text?

– Does the main point of the text have a hold of my heart, mind, and life?

– Does the message I preach flow from these two things?

It seems that these three issues are more important than where the ideas, words, or illustrations come from. For example, if I dust off a sermon I preached a while ago, I have to wrestle with it until these three things are true again. Perhaps the old wording and illustrations will work again, and perhaps they will not. I have to work at it until they capture me again, or until I find something else that does. I remember hearing Haddon Robinson say that it can take as much time to preach effectively again an old sermon as it does to develop a new one. To say what once had a hold of my heart will not be much different than saying what once had a hold on someone else’s heart. It will not speak with the same authority as one speaking with the authority of God and His Word.

So I agree that to attempt to bypass this work of study and this work of being ‘captured’ by the text is not the path for speaking as one speaking the very words of God.

Thanks for the challenge to take up the good work of preparing oneself truly to be a minister of God’s Word!

— John

An Idea – Discuss: Permissible Plagiarism?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Another suggestion was made in reference to Monday’s post.  Let me quote John’s suggestion in full:

‘Appropriate re-use’ of others’ ideas. Of course the question is what ‘appropriate re-use’ might mean, but if I’ve heard a sermon on a passage that was very effective and faithful to the text, or I’ve read a commentary that powerfully and faithfully expressed the message of the text, certainly there must be ways to build on this work with integrity rather than having to ‘start from scratch.’ Any thoughts?

Many thoughts, but what to say?  I agree that it seems unwise to re-invent the wheel, but at the same time there is a danger inherent in trafficking in unlearned truth. I think that it is vital to have time lag in preparation, which is exactly what is missing when people are most tempting to plagiarize.  If a message is particularly striking and well done, then why not take notes, evaluate what made it effective, wrestle with the text in light of that preacher’s chosen approach.  But then there needs to be time in order to work through the sermon for yourself.  You need to submit your life to the text, and allow the message to become your own, even if a particularly well-turned phrase, or effective and faithful sermon structure reflects the work of another.

Then there is the matter of attributing sources. We need to think through the side effects of citing sources when we preach – people may feel turned off by names of folks they don’t know, or by people they do know of and disagree with.  People may feel you are showing off, or that your access to “scholars” puts you in a different league to them and thereby demotivate them from studying the Word for themselves.  If something needs to be attributed to someone else, it is possible to do that without citing names and details.  “One preacher I heard put it this way. . . ” can be all it takes to move you from plagiarism to personal integrity.  (People can always ask for specific citations after the sermon.)

Check your motives.  You can go to all sorts of lengths to hide another preacher’s work in your sermon.  But if you are going “to lengths” then something isn’t right.  The question is not what can you get away with, but what is right as you preach as one who will give an answer to the Lord? Your motives will usually be most compromised when you feel most desperate for a breakthrough before a looming deadline.

I acknowledge that others will influence our preaching, and they should.  But it should be a “they” and not just one person.  It should still be us that preaches, and not a poor clone of another.  We should be above reproach, but equally we should be open to learn from others who are perhaps better students of the Word or preachers than ourselves.  So much more to say, but that’s enough from me for now . . . feel free to comment.

Speeding the Process

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

A couple of other ideas that can be added to yesterday’s post:

“Sermon Ideation Groups to plan a series through a book.” John suggested this and I heartily concur.  Mapping out passages and initial ideas can be a great headstart to the sermon series planning process.  Anything that helps to avoid the “from scratch” sensation each week is helpful.  I would add a couple more thoughts related to this:

Phone a Friend and Talk it Through. There are times when sermon preparation is moving forward at a pace, then other times when things seem to grind to a halt.  Being able to talk with someone who understands the process, the concept of good Bible study, etc. can be the kickstart the process needs to get going again.  Such a friend is worth their weight in gold.  If you don’t have one, train some!

Allow Margin to Plan When Productive. I was really productive on planning a series for next January . . . all within a window of 24 hours at the end of May.  That is a significant headstart, which also allows me to collect useful material, illustrations, etc., over the next six months.

The goal is not to speed up the process of preparation, but it doesn’t hurt to be able to be prepared in the limited time that we have.  Cutting corners doesn’t honour the Lord, but thinking it through so we can give our best, even with all the pastoral and personal crises that will come between now and preaching time, is a worthwhile endeavour.

When Time is Short

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

A good friend wrote the following:

As I anticipate teaching preaching overseas, I realize that I need to take seriously the lack of time that these pastors have for sermon prep. I feel like my training has prepared me well both to practice and to teach a strategy for preaching that requires quite a bit of time, and many western pastors have that luxury. My students will not.  Any suggestions?

I’ve seen this in many places, as well as in teaching bi-vocational preachers in the west.  How can the preaching process take less time without compromising what matters?  Where can the time be trimmed, without compromising the end product?  Here are some possibilities:

Remove the Passage Selection Headache.  Encouraging them to plan a series (typically through a book), allows study to overlap and build, and it takes away the stress of finding a passage from scratch every week.

Encourage preachers to preach one thing well, not to preach everything in one. Most people feel that preaching should be both an exhausting process and an exhaustive presentation of every exegetical detail in a text – so in some ways teaching them to preach is about teaching them what is not preaching, even though they have heard it every Sunday from others.

Remove pressure to discover endless clever illustrations. I’ve tried to remove pressure to chase quotable illustrations, encouraging good handling of, and effective descriptive of the text (so that if they explain a text, or tell the story well, summarize the main point and apply it specifically, they can feel like they are really preaching).

The default starting point for a narrative sermon outline is helpful.  I find giving a simple default outline for narratives to be helpful (so they aren’t scratching their heads about outline when it often can be as simple as tell the story, clarify the main point and then apply it.)

Recycle Bible study.  If people are preaching twice in a weekend, I encourage preaching twice off the back of one set of exegesis (that is, go back to the same passage and apply it further or chase issues in a different way).

Preaching to Youth

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

I received an email from Peter who was asking about preaching to youth.  Now I don’t know the setting of that message, the age of the youth, their culture, etc.  So my response has to be non-specific, and honestly, more focused on my cultures (US/UK).  Nevertheless, here are some thoughts, perhaps you could add others:

1. Be engaging,  don’t be silly.  Some people think youth can’t concentrate or don’t want meat, so they just act silly and try to entertain.  Youth are very capable of concentrating and value good quality content.  But if it is boring (as with adults), they will disengage.  So engage rather than entertain (although if you are humorous then don’t be afraid to use it).

2. This generation values meat.  When I think of who the popular  speakers are today among the younger generation, the names that come to mind are not entertainers.  Notice how younger folks flock to hear people like Tim Keller, John Piper, Mark Driscoll, DA Carson . . . which proves that the younger generation are not lightweight.

3. Recognize that you are speaking cross-culturally. You may be only 15 years older than them, and from the same place, but you are effectively preaching to a different culture.  It is good to think about their worldview, their values, their language, etc.  Don’t try to be one of them (too many try to act like a youth and have no credibility as a result), but do try to know who you are speaking to.

4. Don’t be longer than necessary, but know that concentration spans are as short as ever. That is to say, don’t think 15 or 20 or 30 minutes is the key.  The key is 3-5 minutes.  You can preach for an hour in some settings, but actually that has to be a series of 3-5 minute sections that grab and retain attention.

5. The younger generation value authenticity more than previous generations. Don’t make yourself out to be a total idiot, but do be real with your own struggles and life.  They don’t value polished rhetoric and a pulpit persona, they do value genuine and authentic communication from the heart and the head, to the heart and the head.

Stock-Fish and Dentures

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

I am sure I will come back to both Thielicke and Spurgeon in the days to come, but let’s end this Thielicke on Spurgeon week with another hefty paragraph.  In a sense it brings us full circle, back to where we started – the need to seek to improve our preaching.  Let’s drink deep of the water in this paragraphian well:

Have we not taken the perfectly proper recognition that it is not we but the Word itself that creates a hearing for itself and made of that recognition a “pretext for evil,” an excuse for slovenly neglect of rhetoric? Is it not a misconception of the doctrine of justification when we allow “by faith alone” to become an abstention from works, including the work of rhetoric?  When a man preaches the pure Word of God and the pews are empty or those attending go to sleep in church, we are all too ready to make a virtue of our lack of sues and talk about the offense that must necessarily accompany the preaching of the gospel.  We have a great talent for persuading ourselves that it is not only the stones which can cry out but that the empty pews will testify for us.  And yet it may have been due only to the miserable structure of our sermons that people who value intellectual order were unable to follow them without torturously abusing their minds, and finally giving it up.  Perhaps it was also our poorly used voice that caused people to indulge in church rather than at home their desire for sleep.  Or we stood like stock-fish in the pulpit, or we revolved our arms like paddle wheels, or we kept threatening with our fists, or rattling our dentures – in short, we did not pay enough attention to, we did not cultivate, the instrumental factor.  We did not grieve over the poorly fired, porous “earthen vessels” of our disorderly sermon outlines and our miserable rhetoric.  On the contrary – what a strange perversion! – we were pleased with them because, after all, the wretchedness of the vessel seemed only to enhance the treasure it contained. (p.17)

We Don’t Believe You!

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Thielicke responds to Spurgeon’s insistence on the necessity for the farmer to sharpen his scythe (the need for Sabbath, for rest, for sabbatical, for vacation, for refreshment, as well as for preparation and, indirectly, training) with this:

Nor can the fisherman always be fishing; he must mend his nets.  . . . Whereas Spurgeon enjoins us to remember that preachers must not think too highly of themselves as instruments but in faith accept that they are dispensable, we hound our young vicars – not everybody does this, I know, but many do! – chasing them from examinations into the bustling business of pastoral service in the big cities, from funerals to marriage, and from the pulpit to doorbell-ringing, opening the pores of the body of Christ to all the bacilli against which, after all, we should be mobilizing the antibiotic of our message of peace.  We keep killing flowers in the bud, because we no longer let things grow because down underneath we have forgotten how to pray “Thy kingdom come,” and in its place have put our “manager’s faith,” our belief that everything can be produced and organized.

How true this is today.  If you are in leadership in a church, what would be the most honest label for what you do?  Spiritual leader?  Or People Pleaser?  Or Program Manager?  Or Schedule Maintainer? Or, well, fill in the blank as you choose.  Too easily the demands of ministry turn the spiritual into the stressed, the example into the bad example.

Health warning: what follows is likely to make you feel convicted and you may need to lie down.  You may not be able to concentrate on other things for a few minutes, perhaps longer.  You may need to kneel with the urge to pray, to confess, to repent.

We preach “Do not be anxious!” – and at the same time worry ourselves to death about whether everybody will he this.  We say, “God reigns” – and still we run about madly keeping the ecclesiastical machinery going.  We proclaim man’s passive righteousness (the righteousness that comes from God)- and still we behave like activists.  We preach eternity; but when Jesus asks us, “Did you have enough of everything?” we will have to reply, “Oh, no; we didn’t have enough time.”  This is why we preach peace and radiate restlessness.  This is why we give stones instead of bread, and men do not believe us.  The faith is refuted by the incredulity of those who proclaim it. (p.12)