Homiletics

Study Bibles and Studying the Bible

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

We are starting to hear about the 2011 edition of the NIV Bible, timed to coincide with the 400th anniversary of the original King James Version.  King James may not have really “authorised” the often called Authorised Version, but he was motivated to have a Bible that had no notes attached to the text (other than Hebrew/Greek notes).  Interestingly, it is 100 years since the first publication of the Scofield Reference Bible.  C.I.Scofield, whatever your view of his theology, was motivated to see serious students of the Bible studying it more systematically.  Later came the New Scofield Reference Bible and the Ryrie Study Bible, not to mention a plethora of other reference and annotated Bibles from various theological streams.  The popularity of the NIV Study Bible seemed insurmountable, although recently we saw the launch of the highly lauded ESV Study Bible.

I’ve already mentioned seven Bibles that could all spark significant criticism (we are very quick to attack Bible versions and Study Bibles aren’t we?)  Obviously Study Bibles and annotated Bibles all have a particular theological agenda or leaning, that goes without saying.  But let’s make a simple observation.  Lots of “special” Bibles are published and sold because a lot of Christians feel both some motivation and some level of inadequacy for Bible Study.  A good Study Bible is a great resource for many people!

So the question then arises for us as preachers – how do we encourage our listeners to be effective Bible students?  Here are some questions to chew on – do we encourage them to use helpful study aids like Study Bibles and other resources?  Do we undermine the text they are looking at by critiquing the translation too freely?  Do we offer training in basic Bible study approaches – such as an inductive Bible study class?  Do we preach in such a way that listeners get the sense that the Bible is understandable and that Bible study would actually help them?

We may not place ourselves in the camp of the NIV translators, the Scofield notes, the Ryrie theology, the ESV Study Bible notes, or whatever.  But let’s consider how we can follow in this tradition of looking for ways to help people be serious students of the Word.

Preaching To Equals

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Most things can be described on a continuum.  Consider the tone of your presentation to others.  At one end of the scale, it is possible to fawn, to flatter, to pander to those listening.  At the other end of the scale, a preacher can condescend and patronize.  Neither is helpful.

A preacher who overdoes the flattery and pandering will convey very little in the way of integrity and respectability.  A preacher who overdoes condescension and patronizing will achieve little in making listeners want to hear what is being said.  Both extremes will undermine communication very rapidly and deeply annoy the listeners.

We might assume that younger speakers are the flatterers and older speakers are the patronizers.  We would be wrong.  Any speaker can have a tendency to offer either, or both.  I’ve heard some extremely patronizing speakers in their twenties, and some ridiculously fawning speakers in their sixties.  The problem is that most are probably deeply unaware of how they come across.

Yet there is another challenge here.  These two extremes are on a continuum, so it is not as simple as just avoiding them.  In fact, isn’t low level flattery sometimes called politeness?  Isn’t low level patronizing sometimes called being simple and clear?  Both of these are very important.  It doesn’t help to avoid flattery and pandering by being obnoxious and objectionable.  It doesn’t help to avoid condescension by being obfuscatory and lacking in perspicuity.

To be accurate, I wouldn’t say that politeness and flattery are actually on the same continuum, nor clarity and condescension.  The distinction is probably at the level of motive.  As preachers it would do us good to check our motives regularly – what is our motive in regard to these listeners?  Do we love them?  Do we genuinely respect them?  Are we wanting to serve, or to show off?  Are we serving for their benefit, or for our own?

One more thought.  Even right motives don’t guarantee effective communication.  After all, communication has a lot to do with how the listeners perceive your preaching.  Do they find you condescending?  Do they find you overly flattering?  Perhaps it would be worth a periodic spot check from someone you trust . . . “Do I come across as one speaking naturally to equals, or is there any hint of pandering or patronizing in my delivery – please tell me?”

Feel-Good Sermons

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

There is a phenomenon, actually not uncommon, that we might call the feel-good sermon.  In it the preacher begins with the text and then shares several points that are somehow linked to the text.  The points will be put in terms that are comfortable and reassuring to the listener.  The listeners may well walk away feeling vaguely blessed and certainly positive in their view of the speaker.

However, this kind of sermon typically does not engage fully with the text.  Often issues like sin or judgment will be skirted around or offered merely in non-specific euphemisms.  Thus the tension in the text is not really engaged, nor resolved.  This probably means that the same tensions in the lives of the listeners are neither engaged, nor resolved.

Let’s beware of preaching feel-good sermons rather than biblical sermons.  It is possible to preach the Bible in a very engaging, encouraging and even positive way.  It is possible to preach the passage properly, even in a “seeker-friendly” setting.  In fact, if our main concern was the listener, wouldn’t we feel obliged to really engage fully with both text and listener?  The feel-good sermon seems to be a short-cut to happy handshakes, but it falls short of engaging both the text and the listener.  So perhaps the motivation is more fear and the preacher’s personal comfort than it is the motivation of a true minister?

Interpretive Options

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

When you are preparing to preach a passage of Scripture there are always decisions to be made.  Some of them are relatively easy to make.  Others are harder to make, but the result is definite and clear.  Others are not easy to make, neither are they critical to orthdoxy.  So do you share the options with your listeners, or do you go for one option and present it (either strongly, if it is clear; or tentatively, if it is not clear)?

Some thoughts, although more could be added:

1. Don’t allow an academic discussion to overwhelm the main purpose and content of the message. If sharing the options with listeners would draw them away from the clear and central teaching of the passage, then think very very carefully before presenting the options.

2. Remember who you are preaching to – some groups just can’t handle options, others love them. As in all preaching, who you are preaching to is very significant.  Some groups would be confused and distracted by any apparent ambiguity in your presentation, but others love to get their teeth into such things (and appreciate the vulnerability of a preacher who doesn’t act like they have all the answers).

3. Don’t over-explain, sometimes interpretive options can be offered quite subtly. It is important to recognize the varied amount of explanation needed in such details of a message.  Sometimes we can make something bigger than it is, where it could be covered in two or three very brief sentences.  Even this might be effective sometimes: “Some people think he meant A, while others understand it to mean B.  Actually, either way doesn’t change the message of the whole passage…”

4. Recognize the opportunity to teach some Bible study skill. At the right time, with the right people, in the right passage, with the right words, this can be an opportunity to do some hermeneutics training within a message.

More thoughts . . . ?

Training Gaps

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I just read through a course guide for a preaching course.  I won’t name it.  It left me feeling dry and concerned.  Why?  To put it basically, because of what was and what wasn’t included.

Included – The different types of sermon that can be used (exegetical and topical given as the main two options, with two others noted).  The key role of the hymnbook in sermon preparation (double the content of the exegetical sermon preparation guidelines).  A session on effective delivery.  Then some guidelines on how to give feedback to a preacher (including the line, “don’t try to correct their theology.”)

Missing – Anything more than a cursory reference to studying the Bible.  Anything about how to get from a passage to a message so that the message has any biblical authority, accuracy or relevance.  Anything about the personal spirituality of the preacher.

I won’t go on, but surely an introducing to preaching course has to build on Biblical study as a key feature.  While it is best to get training in all areas, the fact is that communication and delivery training occurs in daily life, but most Christians are significantly unaware of what it means to really study and understand, let alone preach, a passage of Scripture.

My point is not to criticize this particular book (I suppose what I paid for it was worth it to remind me of the training offered in some venues).  My point is for us to look back on the training we received – what was strong, what was weak, what was missing?  Are there gaps that could be filled now with some carefully chosen study, course or mentoring?

Short-Notice Preaching

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Have you ever had to preach at short-notice?  What do you do if you only have two days to prepare?  Two hours?  Two minutes?  In some ways I hope it doesn’t happen to any of us.  On the other hand, maybe it would be good if it did.  Why?

1. A short-notice sermon shows quickly whether your spiritual tank is full or empty. There are times when our spiritual reserves are bursting to open a Bible and share from the heart.  At other times a short-notice sermon might feel very dry and simply the reworking of an old message.  Interestingly, the listeners may not know the difference, but you would.  How is your tank today?

2. A short-notice sermon pushes you onto your knees. In the panicky moments of pulling thoughts together for a message without enough time to prepare, it should eventually dawn on us that this is not an exercise in memory or even fast-preparation.  Preaching is as much a prayerful endeavor as it is anything else.

3. A short-notice sermon might restore a fading excitement at the privilege of preaching. Perhaps you see God working very much despite your own feelings of inadequacy.  Perhaps you see God working despite you not being able to fully craft and script and hone and learn the message.  Perhaps you see God working in a fresh way and your heart will be rekindled with a passion for the adventure of preaching.  Perhaps you don’t need this to achieve that . . . perhaps?

Plenty more could be said on numerous levels about short-notice preaching.  But maybe we could all benefit just from imagining what a one hour or one day warning might do for us as preachers!

TheologyNetwork.Org Article

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

A modified form of an article I wrote a while back has now been posted on theologynetwork.org . . . here’s a taste:

True exposition should not be boring, for we would not want to give the impression that God gives of Himself in self-revelation in a way that is boring.  True exposition should not be disconnected from real life, for in the incarnation we see God giving of Himself, His ultimate self-revelation, in the most relevant manner imaginable.  Perhaps if more preachers would truly grasp the need for effective hermeneutics in their sermon preparation, perhaps then we would not have so much occasion to point the finger at others and complain of dumbed-down diet sermonettes abounding in our generation.

But is improved hermeneutics enough?  The article makes a further move that I believe is critical and often overlooked.  To read the article, and then look around at the excellent resources, click here – www.theologynetwork.org

The Tension in Involving People

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Some churches, especially larger ones, never allow anyone to participate from the front unless they are thoroughly vetted first.  At the other extreme there are churches that really have little choice who is up front – whoever is willing!  But for the rest, in between the extremes, there is a tension.

On the one hand, it is good to involve people and give them opportunity to grow, as well as giving the church opportunity to hear different voices.  On the other hand, it can be a challenge to maintain appropriate standards from the front.  Actually, perhaps the real challenge is to find the right balance.

Here are three ways people get “involved” and some comments on the tensions faced:

1. Bible Readings – Often this is seen as an ideal place for people to overcome “public speaking fear” because all they have to do is read the passage in front of them.

The balance needs to be found.  After all, the public reading of God’s Word is actually a critical event.  It is easy to read into a microphone . . . dispassionately, monotonously, haltingly, without clarity, etc  There are times when it might be worth hunting for the best public reader, rather than settling for participation alone.  On the other hand, listeners will sometimes concentrate more for someone obviously uncomfortable than they would for an overly polished “performer.”  The balance needs to be found.

2. Personal Testimony – Everybody expects the usual participants to have a certain testimony, but it can be very effective to hear from “normal” people during the service.  It can make a real impression to hear somebody’s personal experience of God’s grace in their lives.

The balance needs to be found.  Testimonies do make a real lasting impression, so it is worth trying to make sure that impression isn’t heretical or misleading.  How many times have well-meaning testimonies stated, “Of course I can’t prove any of this is true, but that’s what faith is, isn’t it, a leap in the dark!” Include testimony, but pre-screen or coach appropriately. The balance needs to be found.

3. Special Event Preaching – It seems the obvious place, as far as some churches are concerned.  For someone to “cut their teeth” as a preacher, it seems set up: a shorter message, freedom to choose the passage, longer time for preparation, no expectation of fitting in to a series running at that time.

The balance needs to be found.  All the positives are agreed, but what about the other side of the coin … it is hard to speak at Christmas since it feels like it’s all so familiar.  It is hard to speak on Mother’s Day, just because it is.  What’s more, special occasions are prime time for guests to visit … what experience do you want them to have of the preaching at your church?  The balance needs to be found.

Involving people is a great idea, but enter into it with eyes open and make sure it is the right occasion, the right role, the right timing.

How Long Is Just Right?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I’d like to answer a question offered in a comment a few days ago by Peter D:

“I have heard a couple times that people tune out after about 20 mins in hearing a speech or sermon. With that being said do you think that there are times we can force a text to be longer than it needs to be? It seems like most sermons I hear are bewteen the 45-and hour long mark. That being said do you feel that sometimes they might be more effective if they were shorter (still keeping the context in full view) or is there something internal that tells us they need to be so and so long?”

This is an important question for us all to think about.  Some sermons would be more effective if they were shorter, while some would always feel too long no matter how quickly they finished!  We have a tendency to simply preach to the standard length for our own context and personal comfort (our own more than the listener’s).  But it is not a bad idea to consider what would be most effective.

1. There is no “right length” of message, but there is an appropriate length for any specific context. Tomorrow I am preaching in my home church and I know it will need to be slightly shorter than usual.  If I go ten minutes longer, on this occasion, it would not be appropriate.  Not only does the specific church influence this, but so does the culture in which that church exists.

2. Listeners do not have shorter attention spans, but listeners struggle to concentrate beyond a very few minutes. Is that not contradictory?  Sort of.  So many harp on about today’s listener being unable to concentrate beyond 15 or 20 minutes – yet the movies of this generation are considerably longer than most were twenty or thirty years ago.  Actually though, listeners struggle to concentrate beyond 3-5 minutes at a time, so even a 15 or 20 minute sermon can easily be 10-15 minutes too long, unless . . .

3. The preacher needs to engage and re-engage the listener regularly in the message. Some speakers are engaging in content, manner, delivery, energy, empathy, etc. and listeners who regularly declare they simply aren’t able to concentrate beyond fifteen minutes, will listen fully engaged for an hour and then act surprised at how much time has passed!  Other speakers can make the briefest of devotional thoughts feel like the most tedious of hours.

4. Thus we can’t “blame” the listeners if the concensus is that our preaching is too long! Every speaker should do a self-evaluation, and then get some honest input from others, to determine areas of strength and weakness in respect to their ability to engage the focus and attention of the listeners.  These are weaknesses worth addressing, for without attention, there is no communication – at least not the kind you are trying to achieve.  Disinterested listeners are receiving a message, often one reinforcing negative associations between the Bible and words like “boring” and “irrelevant.”  What a tragedy that some who preach are, somewhat inadvertently, communicating the very opposite of what they intend!

5. Finally, I appreciate Don Sunukjian’s point about explanation and application ratios. If a passage requires lots of explanation, thus only leaving a short time for application, so be it.  But if a passage is relatively easy to understand, don’t pad the time with unnecessary explanation, instead use the time for lots and lots of application.  It is often the lack of application that undermines the effectiveness of our preaching.  More qualifiers are needed, but this post has gone on too long now!

Biblical Preaching Presents God

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I suppose it is obvious, but some preachers have lost sight of the obvious.  When we preach, we should preach the Bible (for the alternatives offered by contemporary culture, sophisticated philosophy or personal insights will always fall short).  Yet when we preach, our goal is not really to present the Bible itself.  The Bible itself is not the end, it is not the goal, it is not the god.  We preach the Bible not because of what it is in itself, but because it is God’s Word.

This distinction in no way undermines our view of the Bible.  In fact, it should only strengthen it.  What does God’s character and intimate involvement suggest about the quality of the revelation He has given?  But we must not forget that it is just that – a revelation from and of Him.

Preaching that presents the Bible, but somehow loses God, really loses the Bible too.  It is easy to turn the Bible into a set of historical data, stories with morals attached, illustrations for our own thought processes.  But our goal is not to turn the Bible into anything.  Our goal is to preach the Bible well, so that the giver of the revelation is presented.  Biblical preaching is about presenting God himself.

Evaluate your next message before you preach it. Where does God fit in the message?  Is He the main character?  Is He the real hero of the story?  Is the message pointing us to respond to Him?

It is easy to leave God as a background assumption as we preach a human level story with human level applications – be good, be better, be like so and so.  May God never be a background assumption as we preach the self-offering and self-giving revelation He gave to us!