Homiletics

Purposeful Selection Then Forgotten

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The first logical step in preparing a message (once you’ve been asked to preach, which is presumed), is to select your passage(s) on which to base the message.  Sometimes the invitation comes with the passage, sometimes with a theme, sometimes an open invitation.  Select then forget.  What do I mean?

1. When you’re invited to preach with a passage assigned. You may be tempted to skip the Passage Selection phase of preparation altogether, after all, job is already done, isn’t it?  Well, not fully.  You need to double check that you are handling a full unit of thought (i.e. not half a story, half a proverb, half a psalm, half a paragraph, etc.)  Whatever you are asked to preach, you have to study the full unit of thought in its context, so there is a need to check the selection.  In doing so, especially if a title has been assigned, you may get a clear indication of what they are wanting from the message.  Great, a church or ministry being purposeful is a good thing. But for the study phase (stages 2-4), you need to forget that purpose and seek to dwell in the text.  Reintroduce that purpose in your thoughts for message purpose, stage 5.

2. When you’re invited to preach with a theme assigned. You go on the hunt for an appropriate passage on which to preach that theme (or a combination of passages).  Once you’ve selected your passages, forget the theme for a while.  The text has to be free to speak for itself.  Any imposed message makes it something other than truly biblical preaching.

3. When you’re invited to preach and free to choose. This is hard work.  You can easily waste a lot of time pondering where to go.  You may go where you go for a variety of reasons, but once you’ve gone there, forget your motivation (for now) and allow the text to speak for itself.

What if it is different? At times I’ve been faced with a passage that doesn’t do what I thought it would, or doesn’t do what a title suggests.  Well, then, either preach the passage or pick another.  Simple really, but vital.  When we are studying passage (stages 2-4), we need to let the text be boss, and then let that authority linger through the message formation phase of the process.

Pick a Preacher to Ponder

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

All of us are naturally drawn to some people, and less so to others.  At the same time, all of us are busy and often live in the frenzy of the urgent.  But there is real value in stopping for a few moments and pondering a biblical preacher – that is, a preacher in the Bible.  Perhaps their situation will draw you, or their personality, or their apparent failure, or their success.  Perhaps in pondering their life and ministry you will recognize something for which to pray in respect to your own preaching, or perhaps an encouragement in difficult days.  So think for a moment . . . who?  Why?

The Lord Himself – Obvious choice I suppose, but not simply the agrarian story-teller people describe him to be.  His preaching polarised people, could be profoundly clear, or blindingly opaque.

Stephen – A masterful sermon that gets by far the longest summary in the book of Acts (a book where the speeches seem to be more action than the action!)  He nailed his opponents with a strong idea and followed through for maximum response.

Paul – Sometimes unimpressive, sometimes apparently unsuccessful, regularly opposed, yet faithful.  He was not just an apostolic brain, he poured out his life, his heart and love for the people he preached to and alongside.

The Preacher to the Hebrews – Engagingly biblical, alternating between exposition and exhortation, presenting compelling images and preaching a profoundly moving word of exhortation.

or perhaps, Elijah, Ezekiel, Micah, Jeremiah, Jonah, etc. – from eccentric to downright hard-hearted, from unheard to massive negative reaction, the prophets were covenant enforcers proclaiming in louder and bolder tones what God’s people had so long ignored, or what the nations needed to hear.

Noah – big on obedience, with the biggest of visual aids, perhaps the longest preaching ministry without fruit, yet an ancestor of us all.

Asaph – a worship leader who almost went over the edge, but felt the tension of what that would do to the generation he led if he spoke up.  A man able to see clearly because of drawing nearer to God and recognizing the significance of God’s dwelling with humanity.

Who would you choose?  Why?  What might the fruit of such pondering be in your preaching ministry?

Helping People Trust Their Bibles – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

I recently wrote a post relating to textual criticism – please click here to see it. Shrode commented and asked for an example of how I might address the issue of a missing verse while preaching on the passage. Relatively simple, gracious and trust-building was the request. Here’s my attempt (okay, so length may be slightly longer than I’d prefer for a post, but there is content that may not be necessary in the last two paragraphs – and it takes 2.5 minutes more or less):

If you look carefully you’ll notice that verse 4 is missing in this chapter.  Uh oh!  Looks like our Bibles have a problem!?  Actually, no, I would suggest this is a good thing.  We don’t tend to think about them, but there are a whole lot of archeologists and scholars who are constantly at work trying to make sure we have the most accurate and trustworthy Bibles possible.  Let me put it to you this way – we don’t have the original letters that Paul wrote, or the original gospels, or the original books of Moses, etc.

That sounds like a problem, but actually, they were probably destroyed precisely to avoid a problem.  You see, over time, manuscripts would fade and curl at the edges and get worn out.  But if perfect copies were made, why keep a fading original?  Well, over time imperfections crept into the copies of copies of copies.  Over the past centuries archeologists have continued to find more and more manuscripts and biblical quotes in manuscripts.  Gradually they are finding more and more of those copies of copies.  This means that experts can then weigh the evidence to work out what the original actually said.  So when you see a verse number (here verse 4), but no text, this means that evidence has proved that the text in older translations was very likely added later on, rather than being original.

Just in case you are thinking that this really undermines our Bibles, after all, can we trust these people . . . what if they have an agenda?  Actually, I’d point out that as well as some who are very evangelical and conservative Bible believing Christians, there are also many who have no specific belief in the God of the Bible, and some who perhaps are anti the God of the Bible.  Yet despite these differences there is a good concensus that the original text our modern translations are translated from is actually very, very, accurate.  Any discrepancies in the manuscript evidence now only add up to less then 2% of the text, and none of those texts change any of the main teachings of the Bible.  Should it be “Jesus Christ” or “Lord Jesus Christ” . . . that probably doesn’t change much in the book of Acts, for example.

Oh, and one last thing, some people will try to tell you that the Bible has been translated hundreds, or thousands of times . . . like a giant historical chain of chinese whispers [only refer to this if people use that label for the game].  The truth is that actually your modern English Bible has been translated only once, direct from the best original text ever available in the history of Bible translation.  Verse 4 is missing, and rightly so, it shouldn’t have been added in the first place.  We can really and truly trust our English Bibles.  I’d be happy to chat more about this issue if you are concerned.

Now, back to the passage…

How To Not Preach Like a Commentary

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

It’s easy to preach like a commentary.  Either you lift content out of a commentary and preach it, or you write your message like you were writing a commentary.  It leads to a set of headings superimposed on the text, and sometimes superimposed on a projector screen too.  The Problem of Prayer, The Power of Prayer, The Perspecuity of Prayer.  Or perhaps, Saul’s Condition, Saul’s Conversion, Saul’s Conviction.

This kind of outlining might suggest that the preacher thinks the greatest goal in preaching is to offer a set of memory aids to help the listener hang their thoughts in a biblical passage.  It suggests that historical and biblical information is the key ingredient for life transformation.  It suggests a lack of awareness of the possibilities for more pastoral care in and through preaching.

A couple of suggestions:

1. Try changing your view of “points” from titles to full sentences. A full sentence requires a verb and will more actively engage the listener than a title can.

2. Try writing your sentences in contemporary rather than historical terms. Whenever possible it is worth taking the opportunity to speak with relevance to the listeners.  This can be done at the end, of course, but also in the introduction, in every transition, within each point, and also within the phrasing of each point.  Make the point applicational and then support that from the text.

3. Don’t pour your energy into creating a memorable outline, but into effectively conveying the message of the text. When alliteration and parallelism falls into your lap, great, consider using them.  But actually our energies will often be better invested in thinking through how to reconvey the already powerful message of the text, rather than trying to help people remember an outline.  Lives are changed by the text, by the main idea, by the application of the passage, by connecting with God and with the speaker.  Lives are not changed by outlines.

Falling Short of Unity, Order and Progress

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Can I offer three ways in which we can have unity, order and progress, yet still fall short in each area?

Unity – We often fall short when we just tie together the sections of the text by means of a keyword or subject.  In many passages it is relatively easy to make the two or three or four points somewhat parallel and addressing aspects of a subject.  I’m being hypothetical now, but the type of outline that goes through The Problem of Prayer, The Power of Prayer, The Perspecuity of Prayer.  (Commentary labels fall short on numerous levels, perhaps another post for that one!)  Did the writer really intend a list of fully parallel and equal thoughts?  Or was the writer actually building a case to say one main thing?  Unity should be pursued at the level of main idea (subject and complement) not just at the level of subject.

Order – I think we fall short of a well-ordered message when we simply progress through the text in the order it is found in Scripture.  Often this is the most effective order to present the passage, but why?  Is it purely for ease of following?  If the writer had shuffled the pack of paragraphs, would it have been the same another way?  If not, if there is a development of the thought, or a progression toward a climax, or an addressing of objections, etc., then let’s recognize and reproduce a more deliberate order than just, “now onto the next verse…”  (Again, often the order is a good order to preach, but ask yourself why?)

Progress – We fall short when our progress is simply a moving toward the end of the passage.  Listeners will generally feel relieved when they get that sensation of nearing the end, but that doesn’t mean the message has moved anywhere, or moved them at all. Progress should give a sense of moving forward, going somewhere, building, arriving, etc.  Consider how the thought in the passage does more than just slide past, but actually engages the reader, creates tension, resolves it, anwers concerns, etc.

Preaching and Television

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I know there is preaching on television, but that is not my focus here. I was just reading Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman and his interesting perspective on the influence of television.  Allow me to share some snippets and then make a couple of comments for us as preachers.

The print age was the Age of Exposition.  It was replaced by the Age of Show Business. (63) . . . It  introduced irrelevance, impotence, and incoherence — context-free — information reduced to novelty, interest, and curiosity.  News became sensational events.  Information moved quickly but it had little to do with those who received it.  “In a sea of information, there was very little of it to use.” (67) . . . The photograph presents the world as object; language, the world as idea.  (72) . . .  This new language “denied interconnectedness, proceeded without context, argued the irrelevance of history, explained nothing, and offered fascination in place of complexity and coherence. …that played the tune of a new kind of public discourse in America.” (77)  All public understanding is shaped by the biases of television.

Ok, just a few more snippets:

Television has gradually become our culture.”   “The peek-a-boo world it has constructed around us no longer seems even strange.” (79) . . . “We have so thoroughly accepted its definitions of truth, knowledge, and reality that irrelevance seems to us to be filled with import, and incoherence seems eminently sane.” (80) . . . Television speaks in only one persistent voice–the voice of entertainment.  “Television, in other words, is transforming our culture into one vast arena for show business.” (80) . . . The average network shot is 3.5 seconds.  There is always something new to see, devoted entirely to entertainment.  It is now the natural format of all experience and all subject matter is entertaining.  The news is not to be taken seriously.  Several minutes of news should give us many sleepless nights – but newscasters don’t even blink.  Neither do we. (86-7) . . . TV sets the format for all discourse.  Americans exchange images, not ideas, argue with good looks and celebrities, not propositions.  (90-93) . . . Any murder can be erased from our minds by, “Now this….”  (99) . . . “Credibility” refers only to the impression of sincerity.  Nixon was dishonored not because he lied on TV but because he looked like a liar on TV.  (102)

Ok, three comments from me:

1. We should not be intimidated by television. There may be some things we could learn from effective communicators on the TV, but we certainly shouldn’t feel pressured to have a new visual image every 3.5 seconds, or a new subject every 45 seconds!  People can and will concentrate if the communicator can grab and retain attention.  Gimmicks are not the key to this.  Powerpoint certainly doesn’t fulfill any so-called requirement for visual stimulation!

2. We may find people drawn to good preaching exactly because it offers something different, substantial, lasting and inherently valuable when compared to standard fare on TV. Which therefore means we should be neither deliberately poor communicators, nor should we unthinkingly replicate our culture’s way of communicating.

3. We don’t need to come across as anti-cultural and anti-TV, but we do have opportunity to raise questions about the cultural values being pumped into most living rooms. Gracious commentary on culture has immense value to Christians who are often unwittingly over-influenced by the corruptions in the culture.

Monological Q and A – part 3

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

All that I’ve written in the last two posts rests on a critical foundation.  In order to preach so that listeners feel engaged and involved, even though they may sit in silence, the preacher has to know the listeners as well as possible.

Relational pastoring requires the preacher to know the people listening.  In your own church you have weeks, months and years to gradually learn about those that listen when you preach.  Yet it is so easy to neglect the relationships because of a commitment to study, or as a protective policy to prevent vulnerability on your part.

As a visiting speaker you may only have twenty minutes before the meeting, and during the singing, to observe and learn all you can about the people to whom you will be speaking.  As limited as it may be, this time is priceless for learning about listeners.  Learn to observe.  Learn to ask questions.

As a visitor, or as an in-house speaker, it is vital to remember the importance of knowing the worlds of your listeners, as well as the world of the biblical text.  A weakness on either side of the chasm will weaken the bridge you build between the two.

Monological Q and A – part 2

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday I offered three thoughts on how to make a message that engages the listener.  Even though you are doing all the talking, they don’t feel like observers at a presentation, but participants in a half quiet conversation.  They feel like you’re talking to them, like they are involved as the message progresses.  Relevant preaching, rhetorical questions and related to life outlining of the message were yesterday’s points, here are three more (and why not push the alliteration since I tend not to do so when preaching!)

4. Room to breathe – It’s so easy to rattle through a message that is clear and defined in our notes, but comes across as an unbroken stream to the listener.  Good use of pauses, and even illustrations, can give room to breathe and re-engage.

5. Really clear structure and transitions – The more people know what’s going on, the more they can engage with it.  If they’re trying to figure out what you’re trying to do, or where you are going, the less they are involved and actually listening.  Good clear structuring and transitions will help the listener to participate in the actual content and journey of the message.

6. Resistance to cruise controlled sermon pace – Pace is so critical.  Again, your notes may be clearly structured, but the listener is at your mercy to get a sense of order and progress.  Many now like to short-circuit this by projecting their outline.  Don’t do that, instead learn to make your message really clear.  Structure and transitions matter.  So too does pace.  No interesting journey progresses at a constant pace – either fast or slow.  Variation of pace will help listeners engage.

Any more that you would add?

Monological Q and A

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

My last post on Friday sparked a few comments regarding the possibilities of Q&A with congregations.  There is certainly more to be said for that.  I read an article by a friend wrestling with the biblical tension (for want of a better word), between the need for authoritative presentation of truth (preacher as herald), and the need for engaged relational disciple-making (conversational, relational, mentoring ministry).  We lose so much if we give up one for the other.

While you may want to continue that discussion, and I will return to it at some point, I’d like to address a related matter.  The preacher in a traditional preaching setting still needs to make listeners feel involved.  Pure monologue that leaves listeners feeling like observers of a pre-packaged presentation is less than what it could be.  How can we preach so listeners feel engaged and involved?  A few of many possibilities:

1. Relevant preaching – I suppose this is obvious, but listeners will engage more when a message is relevant to their lives.  That doesn’t mean a heavenly majestic text is trivialised to a silly practical level.  It does mean that the preacher has thought about how the text is relevant to these listeners on this occasion.  The world of the text is earthed in the realities of life.  Then listeners feel involved.

2. Rhetorical questions – Too many can start to sound false, but a well placed rhetorical question only expresses what the listener is thinking.  Their inner dialogue follows right along with the preacher, “yes, I just thought that, here’s my answer, what does the text say to me now?”  That inner dialogue requires skill from the preacher, but it turns monologue into something far richer.

3. Related to life wording – It’s not hard to change the wording of the main idea, and the main points, from historical description of the text (commentary title approach to outlining), to related to us wording (contemporary full sentence statements approach).  Obviously you go back to the text to support what you’re saying, but it drives the message into today, rather than simply offering an historical lecture followed by an applicational team talk in the final moments.

I’ll add three more suggestions tomorrow.  Feel free to pre-empt or offer your insight.

Why Don’t We Have Q and A?

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

On Wednesday evening I spoke at a meeting I haven’t visited before.  They asked for a specific subject and so I spoke on that.  They suggested having ten minutes of questions after the message.  These were intelligent and helpful questions.  Hopefully my answers were the same!

So I have two thoughts:

1. Why don’t we create venues for Q&A times? I’ve only heard of a very few churches that have some structure set up for people to interact with the preacher about the message.  I heard of one place where the preacher goes to another room about half an hour after the service and is available for questions about the message.  Why not?  Obviously a Q&A at the end of the service could easily turn deeper communication times into information transfer times to be sabotaged by the curious, but thereby undermining life change for others.  Yet perhaps there is a way to create opportunities for a group to feed off one anothers questions and probe the message further?

But this leads me to a deeper question:

2. Why aren’t there more questions in church? I just spent three days with a group of student ministry leaders . . . major note takers and question askers!  Then the meeting on Wednesday evening – essentially a special interest group.  There are questions in classroom settings and in seminar formats, but in normal church?  Opportunity is already in place in that people can approach the preacher and ask a question, but typically do not.  Is it learned behaviour to not probe the sermon?  Is it a genuine lack of interest?  Or is it just that sense of not coming across as negative or critical?  Perhaps the opporrtunity would generate the interest and desire to probe messages further.  Perhaps for that reason alone we should consider introducing the odd time for Q&A?

Have you tried anything along these lines?  Did it work?  I’d love to hear from other people’s experience.