Homiletics

What Convictions Do You Convey?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Over time, listeners catch things from the preachers they hear.  Its not just the content of each particular sermon, but also the personal convictions of the preacher that will mark listeners over time.

What do listeners catch from hearing you?  Do they catch a conviction that God’s Word can be trusted?  That it is enjoyable to read and study?  That God is knowable?  That God is in control?  That Christianity is firmly founded on fact?  That we are deeply loved?  That . . .

These kinds of convictions don’t fully come through because you preach a single message on the subject.  They come through and mark lives when they have already come through and marked your life.  We are not mere transmitters of information.  We are not neutral entities in God’s ministry that somehow hopefully will disappear in the course of our preaching.  No, we are lives that continually convey the convictions and affections that have captured our hearts.  Our passion forged in personal study and close walk with Christ over time will shape the convictions with which we infect others.

What convictions do we convey?

Preachers are Theologians not Therapists

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Following on from yesterday’s post, I found the following quote quite insightful:

The rise of therapeutic concerns within the culture means that many pastors, and many of heir church members, believe that the pastoral calling is best understood as a “helping profession.”  As such, the pastor is seen as someone who functions in a therapeutic role in which theology is often seen as more of a problem than a solution.

This is from Al Mohler’s book, He is Not Silent, p108.  This is a helpful distinction.  Have we fallen into thinking of our function as primarily therapeutic?  Cambridge Dictionary defines therapeutic as “causing someone to feel happier and more relaxed or to be more healthy.”  Yes, in the final element our task does involve promoting spiritual health.  However, not every sermon will make listeners feel happier or relaxed.  Sometimes our task is a discomforting one.

I notice particularly Mohler’s observation about theology.  If preaching and pastoral work is about therapy, then theology is often seen as more problem than solution.  Is this why so many churches promote unity at all costs, avoiding key biblical and theological areas in order to keep everyone happy?  If you were to take the theological pulse of your congregation, what teaching of Scripture would be deficient?  If that were less than comfortable to address, would you still do it?  Later Mohler states that “when truth is denied, therapy remains.” (p121)  May it never be true of us that we pander to the yearnings of our age and only offer therapy to a self-centric people.

Preachers are Theologians

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

The health of any church depends, in part, on its leaders functioning faithfully as theologians.  It’s part of the package for any elder (pastor, minister, leader, whatever term you are used to).  Leading, feeding, caring and protecting.  How are we to lead others on God’s behalf if we’re unclear on the nature of the church, it’s mission, God’s character and plan?  How are we to feed the saints if we’re not wrestling with the great doctrines of the faith and setting them forth?  How are we to care effectively for souls if we never consider what a human consists of and how they function in relation to salvation and walking in the Spirit?  How are we to protect the flock if we’re unaware of theological trends and errors in the general atmosphere of the contemporary church at large?

The pastoral functions of any church leader require that theological reflection and processing be involved in the ministry.  It is a dangerous error to presume that theology is a function of the academy or the research university.  It is worrying to find many preachers and leaders who think that their task is not that of theology.

If you preach, then you influence.  If you influence, then you lead.  If you lead, don’t make the grave error of divorcing your ministry from that of theology.  If you do, then both your ministry and theology will suffer.  You will suffer.  And so will they.

The Bible, Expository & Consecutive Preaching – Part 5

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Daniel Goepfrich wrote a substantial interaction with this blog over on his site – here – this post is responding to the issue of relevant preaching from paragraph 12 to the end.

———————

You then progress to the issue of contemporary relevance.  I agree with you that the Bible is full of God’s spokesmen addressing contemporary issues (prophets, Jesus, apostles, etc.)  As I have already mentioned, my understanding of expository preaching is not about form of preaching, but a commitment to understanding and communicating the biblical text with emphasis on its relevance now.  I quoted Wiersbe’s comment on Ironside to prompt thought, not to suggest that we should only preach straight through books, and I appreciate you noticing that early on and changing your post accordingly.

However, there is an issue worth thinking through here.  Do we “make the text relevant” or do we show “how the text is relevant?”  To use Stott’s approach in Between Two Worlds, is the text boss of the message, or is the preacher?  This is where expository preaching is separated from other approaches (again, not a form issue, an authority issue).  Does the biblical narrative speak with authority in reference to God and humanity, or is it merely a recounting of what happened?  Does the message of the prophets, or Jesus, or Paul, or James, speak with authority today, or is it merely an example to follow in that we too should speak relevantly?  I don’t think you are suggesting that, but I gently push your words toward a perhaps logical conclusion?  No, you are right when you say that we preach the Bible because it is relevant today.  I heartily agree.

In fact, what you suggest is that we use the Bible texts to speak to today’s situations, but we need not feel constrained to the form of writing in which they were recorded.  I do not advocate strict adherence to the form so that every sermon has to be a verse-by-verse re-presentation.  I would suggest that is a good default place to start though.  Why?  Because form is not merely a type of cultural baggage that we can dispose of and lose nothing.  No, the writers were deliberate communicators and we will not fully understand them if we do not seek to understand what they wrote in the way that they wrote it.  So I would urge the preacher to study a passage both in context, and with awareness of the genre and form it is in.

Do we have to preach according to that form?  Not necessarily.  However, if we want our listeners to know how to understand the Bible, then we do them a major disservice if we don’t show how form influences meaning.  Hence my position – the form of the text is a good default for the form of the sermon, but there may be good reasons to adjust the form of the sermon away from the form of the text.

I have really appreciated your post and interaction with my site.  I hope my response has been helpful in clarifying where I’m coming from?  Thanks for recognizing that I’m not dogmatic about form as some are (i.e. the “consecutive only” preaching proponents).  I hope this post has helped to clarify that while I see real benefits to consecutive preaching, my real commitment is to a true understanding of “expository preaching.”

I agree that we need to keep preaching what people need to hear, rather than just what they want to hear. That argument could be used by both sides on the consecutive versus topical debate.  The fact is, people need to hear what God is saying, and for that we must be committed to expository preaching – whether we choose to use a consecutive approach (as you will with Philippians) or a topical approach.  Not everything is expository, though, and I am concerned about preaching that uses the text to say what the preacher wants to say (which could happen in both consecutive and topical preaching!)  For that reason we need to be continually growing as students of the Word of God.

Every blessing in your ministry, Daniel, and thank you again for reading biblicalpreaching.net

The Bible, Expository & Consecutive Preaching – Part 4

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Daniel Goepfrich wrote a substantial interaction with this blog over on his site – here – this post is specifically addressing the examples of poetry and prophets given in paragraphs 10 & 11.

———————

Regarding Poetry, again I don’t insist that we preach through a book – that is not what I teach (thanks for correcting your post on that).  However, it would be a shame to miss the importance of written context for any biblical passage.  Proverbs seems to be the most randomly organized, until you read Bruce Waltke or someone like that and start to see the structuring of apparently random collections of proverbs.  Whether or not that can or should be communicated in preaching is another issue.   Ecclesiastes and Job are not random collections.  Psalms, I would suggest, is not as random as our contemporary hymn books (ordered alphabetically).  It contains collections, and increasingly scholars are recognizing structure and ordering throughout the collection.  My Hebrew prof did his OT PhD on the evidence of structure and order in Psalms 107-118.  His mentor, Gerald Wilson, has demonstrated that Psalms is anything but a mere hymn book.  Again, it would be a shame to have a superficial view of this part of the canon and miss some of the richness contained in the structure and sequencing of the book.  That does not require preaching straight through, but it does urge us to have a real awareness of the literary context in our studies.

You mention prophets, and likewise, I agree that we don’t have to preach straight through.  Again, though, I suggest that even if two oracles were given at different times, or in a different order, the way they are in the Bible now is the inspired text.  Our task is neither to dismiss ordering of texts and treat them as random collections, nor is it to “reconstruct” an original and better order.  Our task, in part, is to understand the inspired text as it stands.  Whether you preach straight through or not is up to you – I do both.  However, I would suggest that not studying a passage in context will seriously undermine your ability to understand the text (and why should you study in context if it’s just random?)

———————

My final segment of response will come tomorrow.  Thanks.

The Bible, Expository & Consecutive Preaching – Part 3

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Daniel Goepfrich wrote a substantial interaction with this blog over on his site – here – this post is specifically addressing the example of historical narrative given in paragraph 9.  Be sure to check out the comments on his site.  It’s great to enjoy a mutually respectful interaction like this.

———————

You go on to address various genres.  A couple of comments.  Historical narratives are not always in strict chronological order – I touched on that yesterday.  Neither are all narratives offering normative example (i.e. that we should duplicate what happened).  However, they are written with theological purpose.  I sometimes say that the writers were neither drunk nor wasteful – they didn’t waste words and they didn’t waste parchment.

If we simply view these books as sometimes randomly ordered collections of stories that simply say what happened, then we inadvertently undermine great chunks of inspired Scripture.  All Scripture is inspired and profitable, useful.  The way you make the first 17 books of the Old Testament sound, they almost seem to be about as useful to my daily life as some not very well organized family photo albums.  That’s just what happened.  Important history.  But not really relevant now.

I know that is not your intent, but I exaggerate to make my point.  You raise important issues – that of normative and non-normative narrative, that of sequencing in composition (or redaction, I suppose), etc. Without getting into high levels of biblical criticism, it is important to recognize that our view of Scripture will influence not just how we preach it, but how we understand it in order to preach it.

———————

I’ll go on to the examples Daniel gives of poetry and prophecy tomorrow.

The Bible, Expository & Consecutive Preaching – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Daniel Goepfrich wrote a substantial interaction with this blog over on his site – here – this post is specifically addressing this sentence in paragraph 8:

Most of the Scriptures were not written as sermons or messages to be taught straight through. Sure, some of the letters in the New Testament are designed that way and a few books in the Old Testament, but the majority of the Bible is not.

———————

Whether or not the books of the Bible were written as sermons or messages to be taught straight through seems to be slightly besides the point.  NT letters, for instance, weren’t designed to be taught through, but were written to be read through in one sitting.  In a pre-literate world where orality was central, believers would almost always be hearers not readers, and capable of hearing and retaining in a way that we don’t need to be today. I would suggest that none of the Bible books were “designed” to be preached either straight through (one chunk at a time) or dipped into (topical selectivity).

One issue to consider, though, is that there is a unity and cohesion to each of the Bible books.  They are not random (with the possible exception of parts of Proverbs), but deliberately ordered.  I would suggest that historical books are anything but randomly ordered narratives.  The gospel writers and the OT narrative writers were theologians, as well as the writing prophets, who based their ordering neither on strict chronology as we might expect, nor on random order of recollection, as you later suggest, but on their theological goal in writing.  Recognizing the structuring of books does not require consecutive preaching (and many consecutive preachers are painfully unaware of the connections between their preaching sections).  However, whether we choose to preach through a book or topically, my concern either way is that the preacher should strive to understand the authorial intent in any given passage.  Understanding a passage in its written context is critical in achieving that understanding.

———————

I will continue my response tomorrow.

The Bible, Expository & Consecutive Preaching – Part 1

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Daniel Goepfrich wrote a substantial interaction with this blog over on his site – click here to see it. His post raises some important issues, so I’ve decided to respond with a series of posts here.  I’ll have to indicate which paragraphs I’m responding to each day, but I would encourage you to read his entire post first and get a feel for his ministry heart as well as his point in the post.

———————

Dear Daniel,

Thanks for giving such a lengthy interaction with the brief post I offered.  And thank you for your kind words about my site.  You obviously have a much appreciated ministry and I praise God for that and for your work there at Oak Tree Community Church.

I will follow your lead and reply with a post on my blog.  Actually, I like to limit the length of each post and also appreciate having several days worth of writing done, so I will divide my response into several posts.

The first thing I would like to suggest is that your post doesn’t fully recognize the emphasis of my blog. Being a proponent of expository preaching does not mean always preaching straight through a Bible book.  You are right that I don’t affirm skipping around hitting various topics, although I do see the value of periodic intentional “expository-topical” preaching.  The issue, though, is how we define expository preaching.

I strongly resist attempts to define expository preaching as a form of preaching (as you seem to imply by the “straight through a Bible book” definition).  My definition of expository preaching has no reference to form in it, only commitments regarding accurately understanding the meaning of the text, effectively communicating it with an emphasis on its relevance to the listeners and a commitment to reliance on the Holy Spirit in the process.  Perhaps we’re not so far apart as you think!

Tomorrow I will continue my response to Daniel’s helpful post.  (The definition of expository preaching for this site is presented here and here, as well as numerous other posts.)

The Difference Two Feet Make

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I am not referring to how much better it is to preach with both legs still intact, nor a cunning reference to the beautiful feet of those who bring good news.  I mean distance.  Two feet.  60cm.  That makes a world of difference.

Beginning preachers, and some that have preached for years, tend to preach their message at arms length. They study and prepare, but it is all about the notes.  From the Bible to the notes to the people.  Arms length. Somehow there is a nervousness about this thing out there called the message.  The preacher is anxious about saying the right words and that anxiety sometimes shows.  Even without showing overtly, it does leave the message somewhat flat, somewhat all about the words.

But two feet make such a difference.  If the Bible study, the message preparation and the delivery can all be brought two feet closer, the preaching is very different.  Instead of something the preacher is straining to not forget, now the message comes from the heart.  Instead of preaching being truth preached by a personality (often stilted in the effort to remember the message), now the message can be truth through personality.  Instead of a message being handled at arms length from the Bible text to the listeners, via the notes of the preacher, now the message comes through the preacher with the force of the life transforming power of the Word clear and unhindered.

I am not saying anything about notes in this post, in favor or against.  I am saying everything about Bible study that is personal rather than professional (for the sake of others), about message preparation that is unique to you rather than following someone else’s prescribed formula, about delivery that comes from the heart (whether or not you need notes to nudge that) rather than merely transferring information from notes to listeners.

It’s hard to pin down exactly how one message can be preached at arms length, while another comes through the heart of the preacher.  Yet as a listener it is usually not hard to tell the difference.

Problems with Plagiarism

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I’m just reading an article by Dr David Lose.  He describes his experience of hearing a sermon preached that he had just read in a book by another author.  A good sermon…plagiarised.  What’s the problem? After all, nobody lost any royalties and God still uses His word.

It’s about integrity.  It’s about the lying to your congregation and misrepresentation of yourself.  The trust of the people in you as the pastor and in preaching in general, is eroded.  This is true of whole sermons, as well as illustrations and other sermon content.  Any time we pass something off in the first person as our own, we lie.

He goes on to offer counsel in response to defense statements that may be offered.  What if I’m not a good preacher?  What if I’m really bad?  He suggests getting training, working at it, attending his seminary (fair enough, he wrote the article).  And if you’re really bad, he suggests finding another line of work (or getting help – which would be my first suggestion since the pastoral office is never intended to be a one man for all roles concept).

Do we have to cite every source when we preach?  Not at all.  The issue is not naming every commentator we have read, but letting others know when a thought is not our own – “As one preacher put it…” or “One commentator writes…”

We need to be aware of this issue.  Some of us may not undermine our integrity as preachers at all in this way, but some preachers constantly do.  It wouldn’t do us any harm to do a quick self-check.  Do I adapt illustrations from others and make them sound like my own experience when they were not?  Do I import chunks of sermons from online or from books without telling listeners what I am doing?  Do I allow a pithy statement to appear as my own when I have read it somewhere?

It’s a useful article, if you want to read it, click here.