Homiletics

The Other Side of the Gap

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

John Stott presented the notion of a preacher being a bridge builder. That is, in the act of preaching, the preacher is seeking to build a bridge between the world of the Bible and the world of the listeners. A good expository sermon has to be solidly earthed in the biblical text, and it must touch down definitely in the world of the listeners.

For effective communication to take place, we have to know as much as possible about those with whom we communicate.  But the preacher is not a politician or a salesperson or whatever else.  The preacher is shepherding, and thus we should not just know the listeners, we need to love them.  So as prompt in that direction, here are some quick fire points to ponder:

1. We love, because God first loved us. Loving others is really a response to the love of God for us.  As we love Him, our hearts will begin to beat in time with His and consequently we will increase in love for those that He loves.

2. Coldness toward others is an indicator of something more. We can’t claim to love God, but not love our brother.  Allow any perceived coldness toward others to prompt prayer and sensitivity to God.  Take coldness seriously, God does.

3. We are able to connect with listeners because we also live life in this world. Be sensitive to the struggles you experience and recognize that others face the same types of struggles (and more).  Being impervious to the challenges of life doesn’t make you a great leader, it makes you a distant leader.

4. We need to know our listeners. Some preachers are passionate students of the Word of God, but indifferent students of the people of God, or the people God desires to reach.

5. To know people, listen carefully. Yes, we should be observing what is going on, but there’s something about listening.  Most people don’t so much want to be seen, but they long to be heard.

6. Sharing life experience helps massively. Don’t be distant from people.  Have them in your home.  Visit them in theirs.  If appropriate visit them at work, share sport, share celebrations, share sorrow, share life.

7. Pray for the listeners. It’s easy to pray a “God please bless all the listeners on Sunday” kind of prayer.  Surely the preacher who loves the listener will take the time and make the effort to pray for the listeners.

This list is incomplete, so please add to it by commenting below.

Something Happens

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I just started Darrell Johnson’s The Glory of Preaching. I can’t offer any sort of review after only a few pages, although I am looking forward to reading more (his earlier book, Experiencing the Trinity is well worth getting hold of).  But how about a quote:

Through the never-perfect speech of an always-imperfect speaker, the triune God works the miracle of transformation.

So the book presses on into the glory of preaching, building on three foundational convictions:

1. When the living God speaks, something always happens.

2. When the preacher speaks God’s speech, God speaks.

3. Therefore, when the preacher speaks God’s speech, something always happens.

I will write a review of the book in due course, but for now, why not just ponder these brief quotes?  Why not prayerfully ponder the next preaching event you have the privilege of participating in, and pray with expectation that something will happen.  What kind of something?  Well, what kind of God?

The Hardest Element to Define

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The elements that go together to make up this thing called expository preaching are four. There is the God’s empowering/anointing/superintending element. There is the true meaning of the biblical text element. There is the effective communication of the preacher’s words and life element. And there is the emphasis on the contemporary relevance to the listeners element. Each of these is critical, but surely the first is the hardest to define.

I suppose in simplistic short-hand the key to the message being superintended by the Spirit is to pray throughout the preparation process.  The deliberate act of prayer demonstrates the preacher’s dependence on God rather than on self.  Obviously this is a simplistic explanation, but not so simplistic that it shouldn’t be expressed.  How many preachers grow increasingly deficient when it comes to prayer in their ministry?  Of course, prayer offers no guarantee or short-cut, but it is absolutely vital.

If we were to push deeper into this element of preaching, then we would have to look beyond the simple matter of prayer in preparation and consider the whole spirituality of the preacher.  We do not preach out of a vacuum of preparation and a pot of resources restricted to that particular sermon.  As someone once said, it takes hours to prepare a sermon, but it takes a lifetime to prepare a preacher.  There is something about the preacher’s personal walk with the Lord that is essentially linked in to the ministry of that preacher.

But there are other factors to consider.  What about the whole issue of anointing and gifting for ministry?  What about the spiritual state of the listeners?  What about the role of prayer beyond that of the preacher in preparation?  What about the jar of clay circumstances sometimes imposed on the preacher?

The necessity of empowerment from God is undeniable.  It’s the defining how that all works that’s the challenge!

Logos 4 – First Glimpse

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

My first Bible study software was Bibleworks, which I’ve continued to use through numerous upgrades and continue to use very regularly.  A couple of years ago I was given Logos 3, which was a great tool because of the library of reference tools on there.  I just upgraded to Logos 4.  First impressions?

Wow!  This is a significant and impressive upgrade.  It seems easy to navigate and use at a simple level, or to plumb the depths of the tools and resources available.  The desktop is fully customizable allowing for a study arrangement that suits you.  The integration of resources is impressive, saving a lot of time in opening and looking up resources.  I could say more, but I’d encourage you to take a look for yourself.

The range of resources available on Logos is growing all the time.  Be careful not to purchase individual products before checking to see if they are included in a higher base package – if there are one or two commentary sets you are looking at, chances are you’ll save money by upgrading your base package.  Warning . . . if you love books you could very easily get an online shopping addiction!

For more info, go to logos.com

Anyone else have any thoughts on Logos 4 (or Bibleworks, etc.)?

Slow Cooked Sermons

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Most preachers develop of preparation cycle and rhythm.  Perhaps it takes five days from start to finish (maybe with an extended period for collecting any interesting tidbits from the point the series are planned).  Perhaps you have an eight or ten-day cycle.  Perhaps you only preach periodically and so take two or three weeks to study the text and shape the message.

Consider having a slow cooker bubbling on your desk.  You could take that literally, but I mean metaphorically.  Select a series or a sermon that is several months away, set apart 15-30 minutes a day and work through the text nice and slowly.  It allows you to take your time with original language work, whatever level of ability you have.  It allows you time to peruse, ponder and pause over the commentaries.  It allows you to gradually formulate main ideas of sections, outlines of messages, etc.  It allows you to make notes of specific support material.

All the things you may have to rush through in a normal preparation cycle, you can do well with this approach.  What’s more, that slow cooked sermon and the textual study that underlies it may be more of a feast for your soul than some of the study and sermons you do at your normal pace in the meantime!

My messages are seven months away.  The cooker is on (and I get to enjoy learning Logos 4 at the same time!)

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).