Homiletics

Gospels That Aren’t Worth It

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Another brief thought sparked by a good conversation.  The friend I was chatting with made an observation.  He said that in a lot of churches it seems like the gospel, the good news, is that we are good news.  Interesting thought.  Imagine if the gospel was just that we are the gospel.  But honestly, if that’s it, then it doesn’t seem worth it.

(There are other gospels on the loose today, also not worth it.  If the gospel is just that we can be rich in this world – not worth it.  If the gospel is just that we can protect the environment – not worth it.)

We won’t get into precise definition of the gospel here, although there is huge need for that.  But the basic conclusion was this – the gospel surely is something about what God has done in Christ.  If we let the gospel shrink to an us-size gospel, rather than a Christ-size gospel, we do everyone a profound disservice.  Now a Christ-size gospel, a work of God gospel, that reaches us and does what only God could do for people who deserve anything but . . . that’s a gospel worth preaching!

Where Did the Confidence Go?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I recently read a book about a certain denomination in this country (not important which denomination here), and it made an interesting observation.  Over the course of a generation it seemed like there was a wholesale loss of confidence.  This showed in evangelism, in church health, in preaching, etc.

Today I was enjoying conversation with a friend who made a similar observation about the same denomination.  A loss of confidence in Scripture, in our ability to understand it, and therefore in our ability to preach it.

This raises the issue of confidence in preaching.  Being self-confident is not the goal here.  Our confidence has to be in God – in His Spirit, His Word, His work in us and others, His gifting.  Tied into this is a certain level of confidence needed in our hermeneutics so that we are not grasping around trying to find “a message” instead of diligently and prayerfully pursuing “the message” in a passage.

What level does your confidence reach in respect to your preaching?  Just as importantly, in whom is your confidence as you preach?

Fresh Preaching

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I just stumbled across a quote that brought a wry smile.  I don’t agree with it fully, but it is worth considering.  The chapter is written by Carl George, although he doesn’t cite the source for the quote he includes:

“Almost all ministers are well educated theologically.  Most seminary graduates have more to teach than anybody wants to learn.  If we spend any time at all preparing for a given sermon, we will meet the needs of the listeners.  As Dan Baumann, author of a widely used preaching textbook, says, ‘Anyone who simply sets forth the text and gives its meaning distinctly will be accused of freshness.'”

Now I don’t want to make too much of the “almost all ministers are well educated theologically” statement.  To do so would mean pointing out that this is probably a uniquely North American phenomenon.  I might be tempted to point to the largest denomination in one African country I heard about, in which only four pastors have any college level education, and none of whom have any seminary training.

I agree that most seminary graduates have more to teach than anybody wants to learn.  But what about “If we spend any time at all preparing for a given sermon, we will meet the needs of the listeners.” Surely that should be “perceived needs” of the listeners?

And then there’s that final sentence.  “Anyone who simply sets forth the text and gives its meaning distinctly will be accused of freshness.”

How true.  How sad.

Serve a Meal to the Guests

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

What if preaching were like hospitality – what would your guests experience?

Arriving at the door, slightly tentative about what may follow, they are rushed in and quickly seated.  No time for friendly interaction, there’s a meal to be eaten!  Before them the table is empty, but is continually filled as numerous covered serving dishes, pots and plates continually emerge from the kitchen.  In your zeal to feed them (and to show them everything you’ve done in preparation), you quickly uncover the first dish and serve a spoonful of carefully prepared french beans (the best result of your culinary efforts).  Then as they take their first taste of this fine cuisine you clear their plate, uncover another dish and serve some burned peas, swipe them off the plate and dish out an undercooked steak.  This continues with vegetables in various states of readiness, and an assortment of meats from a variety of animals (some familiar, some more exotic).  To break the intensity you also serve a big scoop of ice cream, before moving back to the main course again.  Your guests look bewildered at the experience, barely managing a bite before receiving more food and the odd sniff of a dessert.  Finally after forty minutes you pull away their plate and extend your hand for a firm handshake.  They smile cautiously and thank you for all your hard work before filing out of the front door.

I hope this wouldn’t be the case!  How much better to be welcomed and made comfortable?  How much more satisfying to enjoy the finest meal you could prepare and nothing more?  How much more comfortable to not have to experience every culinary idea you had and every cuisine cul-de-sac you entered in the last week as you planned and prepared the meal?  How much better to savour the meat chosen, rather than having a whistle-stop tour of all your favourite meats in your meat guide (concordance)?  How enjoyable to enjoy the side dishes and vegetables chosen to compliment the main meat of the meal?  How much better to partake of dessert when it is appropriate, rather than as a forced interlude in a manic meal?  How nice to have time to chew on the good food received?  How much better to receive a carefully prepared meal than an overwhelming force-fed food dump?  How nice to not have to come up with something polite to say at the door!

It can be a real blessing to be a guest for dinner.  It can be even better to be fed from the pulpit!

(Feel free to interpret this post in the comments, perhaps someone else missed what you observed!)

The Theology Bridge

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

When we think through the expositional process, we are really concerned about three stages.  The first stage is understanding the text (exegetical).  The final stage is producing the sermon (homiletical).  The link between the two is the bridge in John Stott’s metaphor (in Between Two Worlds).  The bridge is the theological abstraction process.  In Haddon Robinson’s book you’ll find reference to the exegetical idea, the theological idea and the homiletical idea.  You could equally refer to the “at that time” – “timeless” – “at this time” progression of the stages.  This basic concept is important to grasp.  In order to accurately preach the message a passage today, we have to first consider the timeless theological abstraction of the main idea.  Here are a couple of questions to consider as you move from the exegetical to the theological stages of the process:

1. What does this passage say about God? Whether God is mentioned directly or not, every passage should be considered and preached theocentrically.  The Bible is God’s self-revelation, and since He doesn’t change, the timeless truth of a passage will relate to God in some respect.  This does not mean that the passage is stripped of human interest, but that God is recognized as the key character, whether or not He is mentioned in those specific verses.

2. What does this passage say about humanity in relation to God? Throughout the Bible we see humanity interacting with God.  Some respond with faith, others with self-trust.  Some love Him, some hate Him.  Bryan Chappell refers to the Fallen Condition Focus that can be observed in each text.  In respect to a fallen humanity’s response to God, contemporary listeners will always have a point of connection.

3. Where does the teaching of the passage fit in the flow of progressive revelation? It is always worth thinking through where the passage sits chronologically and progressively in God’s plan of self-revelation.  Technically I suppose that asking this question in the exegetical stage of the process might lead to presenting the meaning of a text in a way that the original readers could not have understood it.  Nevertheless, contemporary readers have to understand a passage in light of the whole canon.  Whether the broader understanding needs to be emphasized will depend on the particular passage and audience.

We study the text to understand what the author meant at that time (exegetical idea).  We abstract the timeless theological truth of that idea (theological idea).  Then we shape our presentation of that idea for our particular listeners at this time (homiletical idea).

Suggesting Future Posts

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Happy New Year!  I’ve freshened up the look of the site and made a few tweaks, hope you like it?  Now I think we’re ready for 2011!

When I started this blog back in 2007, I didn’t know what would happen with it.  It was just a venue to write some thoughts down regarding preaching.  I tend to write each day, apart from when I write a batch of posts (out of necessity, or because I have a lot of things on my mind regarding preaching).  This means that posts are not really planned, and the diet is not really balanced.  There will be times when I focus on one type of Bible literature, or on some aspect of delivery, or on some approach to preaching, or on some element of the preacher’s personal life, or on one particular writer’s thoughts on the subject, etc.  I will continue to work in the same way during 2011, God willing.

However, I am very open to hearing suggestions of things to write about.  Perhaps you have been pondering some aspect of preaching.  Mention it, then I may write on it and you can comment on the post.  Perhaps something on the site isn’t as clear, or as emphasized as it should be.  Any suggestions are welcome, and those that spark my thinking will result in posts.

I hope this is a great year for your preaching ministry – may your listeners delight more in God, and may He delight in your ministry.  Happy New Year!

Final Preaching Lessons from a Low Budget Film

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I’ve stretched out the lessons I noted from watching a low budget film to three posts.  We’ve considered the importance of speech, the challenge of natural speech in unnatural circumstances (like preaching), the need for less important lines, and the importance of historical/cultural details in the telling of an historic story.  Two more lessons for us, one potentially overwhelming and one hopefully very encouraging!

5. The je ne sais quoi of engaging the audience. What makes the listener or viewer sit forward? What makes them sit back and ponder their blog? What makes a story riveting? What makes it pass you by without leaving much of a mark?  A good film captures your attention, engages your mind and heart, and makes a mark.  A poor film doesn’t.  It sits on the screen and generally remains at arms length.  Yet the difference between the two is often hard to define.  It’s the same with preaching.  It’s something about timing, and energy, and word choices, and details, and movement, and effective transitions.  It’s something about creating identification with what is presented, about the people being believable, about the story stirring the heart.  It’s as if you can get most details right, but one or two out of sync and the listener feels disengaged.  It’s hard to pin down, but on the positive side, it surely keeps us from resting on our laurels.  Surely it urges us to continue pursuing helpful feedback and to strengthen our preaching so that listeners might engage more fully.  Surely it urges us to pray more fervently and recognize that as preachers we cannot generate something in others that it may be God’s business to generate.

But that is discouraging.  Not being able to pin down a complete recipe for preaching.  Surely we’re all doomed?  None of us can get every element right all the time.  One final lesson:

6. There is good news – listeners know and engage anyway. I watched the film gladly, not negatively.  I knew the background story.  I knew why the film was low budget and I knew how little background the actors had.  So while I was not riveting as I might be by some higher budget films, I did choose to engage with the film, follow the plot, get the point, and I did appreciate it.  We need to remember that listeners are not film critics (even though some may give the impression of never being satisfied by anything served up on Sunday morning!)  Most listeners want their preacher to do well.  I have often taught preaching classes where students had to preach in English, even though it isn’t their first language.  I always try (probably unsuccessfully) to convince them that actually they have an advantage over mother-tongue English speakers: namely, the listeners respect the effort it takes and will listen more carefully and will want them to succeed even more!  If, like me, you are not a perfect preacher, thank God that most listeners know that and choose to engage with our sermons anyway!

More Preaching Lessons from a Low Budget Film

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I posted a couple of observations made while watching a low budget film this Christmas.  Observations that demonstrate I was thinking about this blog while watching a film (which probably gives you opportunity to make an observation about me…)

While recognizing the difference between preaching and acting, I noted how actual speech is critical and how it is hard to be natural in an unnatural environment.  I’d like to add another speech related lesson, then point out a couple of other lessons that stood out to me.

3. Don’t try to make every line a humdinger. In a good film every word counts, but not every word is presented as if it is meant to count.  The film I watched seemed to try and make every line a memorable quote (but in effect became a bit tiresome rather than effective).  It might be a rare disease, but there are a few preachers who try to make every line count, even when they don’t.  Probably the more common problem is to waffle and say nothing of substance, but some do seem to say a lot of sentences as if they expect you to write them down and ponder deeply.  Perhaps you recognize this by the pregnant pause, the verbal selah, the look on the face, the rhythm and intonation.  But every line cannot be a humdinger, a home run, a knockout blow, a profound wisdom saying.

4. Historical and cultural details matter. Now to be fair, the film I watched did very well at this.  The history had been researched, the costumes and props were realistic, there was no helicopter flying in the background of a historical scene.  But there were a couple of tiny details.  Small ones, insignificant ones, but distracting ones once noticed.  And while the history was well researched, the accents weren’t.  Historical and cultural details can be a significant distraction to the “audience” both in a film, and in a sermon.

Actually, I’ll save the other two lessons for tomorrow.

Preaching Lessons From Low Budget Film

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Christmas season is good for eating too much chocolate, enjoying family time and watching the odd movie.  We watched an odd movie this year – it was a very low budget film produced by folks with little experience of making movies.  Actually it was impressive for who produced it, but it struck me that there are lessons to be learned from a low budget film.

In the next couple of days I’d like to share some lessons that stood out to me as I was watching the film, obviously recognizing that a film is a different thing to a sermon . . .

1. Actual speech is critical. Special effects, beautiful scenery, stunning vistas, impressive wardrobe and even decent plot do not make a movie work if the speech is lacking in some way.  The same is true of preaching – the best visual presentation, impressive powerpoint slides, stunning wardrobe and even a good sermon won’t really work if the actual speech feels wrong.

2. It’s hard to be natural in an unnatural environment. I know acting is acting and preaching isn’t acting.  However, both are unnatural environments.  The actor is dressed up as someone else, at another time, in a strange place pretending to be another place.  Unnatural.  The preacher is being stared at by a crowd of listeners who usually don’t talk back, with someone controlling the volume of the speakers, a microphone in front, etc.  Unnatural.  Perhaps the biggest challenge in these situations is to come across naturally.  Only when watching a low budget film do you realize how good the normal Hollywood crowd are.  Same with preachers.  Some command attention, others create a cringe.  I think natural presentation is critical, but it takes work, it takes prayer, and in some respects it may take what only God can give.

Tomorrow I’d like to share a couple more preaching lessons from this low budget film.