Homiletics

Review: Bibleworks 8

/ Peter Mead / 7 Comments

bw8box-reduced-300

I’ve had Bibleworks for many years (since the Hermeneutika days!), but I’ve had Bibleworks 8 for just a couple of weeks.  Is it worth upgrading from an older version?  Is it worth buying Bibleworks for the first time?  Yes and a qualified yes. The qualified yes is that it is worth buying Bibleworks for the first time if you are serious about biblical exegesis, especially original language work.  If all you want is a Bible on the computer and the ability to do a simple search for a word in the English Bible, then you can get cheap or even free software to do that.  Bibleworks is not a library of commentaries, although it does have an increasing set of quality reference tools built-in.  Bibleworks is not a collection of public domain reference tools that are freely available elsewhere.  Bibleworks is about serious biblical exegesis, especially in the original languages.

Some things don’t change.  The basic feel of the program is the same as before, although the user interface is now more logical in its organization.  You still get more Bible versions than you’ll know what to do with, including numerous foreign language versions (great for missionaries), a significant array of Greek and Hebrew grammars and access to such things as the Belgic and Westminster Confessions, and Schaff’s church fathers.

Most things keep improving.  In reality there are now more of the above versions (TNIV, NIrV, plus Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Macedonian, Russian, Arabic, etc.), grammars and historical texts.  I was interested to see that Waltke & O’Connor as well as Dan Wallace’s grammar are now included without needing to be unlocked (Jouon and Muruoka are included too, but I haven’t got into that yet!)  There is now another set of NT Greek diagrams to compare with the previous set (which leads me to ask why this was not available when I was in seminary, and also to make some passing comment about how easy it must be now compared to “back in my day!”)  Apparently, you can now listen to the English text read aloud (if you’re on Vista, which I’m not, so I can’t comment on how that sounds).

The real heart of Bibleworks is how easily it allows complex searches and access to text related information.  Both are easier and better in version 8.  The Analysis Window is clearer and more sensibly organized.  Now there is more information close to hand when working in a text.  I like the context tab, which gives lists of word frequency in the pericope, chapter and book.  The stats tab gives visual representation of the current search results, and the X-refs tabs gives sets of cross-references associated with the current verse (which I suppose some preachers will enjoy too much!)  Phrase matching and related verse tools are impressive new features, finding the same wording elsewhere in the canon.  Grammatical searches are easy to use with auto-complete features.  Not only does Bibleworks have lots of searching tools, it also has them very well integrated.

The text export function is now far more sophisticated, so once I figure out how to use it, I won’t have to reformat every verse I import to MS Word (and once I check the instructions I am sure it will become clearer how to get this feature to work the way I want it to!)

Overall impression so far?  I didn’t know if I’d notice the difference, but I do.  I’m glad I’m blessed with Bibleworks 8 and I would encourage others who do serious exegetical work with original languages to jump in and join me.  I have Logos/Libronix, but honestly always go back to Bibleworks for working with the Bible (and to Libronix for the excellent commentaries).  I cannot compare Bibleworks with Gramcord or Accordance as I don’t have or use either, but I can compare Bibleworks 8 with 7, 6, 5, 4, 3.1, etc.  It’s better.

For more info, pricing, full database lists, etc., please go to bibleworks.com or if you’re in UK/EU go to bibleworks.co.uk

I would be interested to hear from other Bibleworks users what features you find helpful in your sermon preparation.

Chatting Through Sunday’s Sermon

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Sunday’s coming and hopefully your message is not too far away now.  Allow me to engage you in a brief conversation about your message.  Perhaps this is the kind of conversation you have with your spouse or a staff member of your church.  So we chat about the passage, the main idea as you see it, perhaps the tension you plan to build into the message.  We go back and forth, all very cordial and maybe with some humor thrown in.  Then I ask,

“How will you apply this message?”

What is your answer?  If your answer is vague and fluffy, this says a lot about how you will preach the message (although the question might prompt some extra preparation in this area!)  If your answer is specific, with concrete and tangible contemporary examples of the message applied, then things are looking good for Sunday.

So.  How will you apply the message?  There . . . I asked.  Now it’s over to you.  The answer that matters is not one you give me, but what you give them on Sunday.  (Thinking about it, perhaps I should ask me that question too . . . )

Preaching Trends

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

We need to be aware of preaching trends.  Like all trends, they come and go over time, influencing some while leaving others untouched.  Trends can be overt and in your face, or subtle shifts that sweep people along unawares.  For instance, D.A. Carson writes concerning the current focus on preaching narrative:

The current focus on narrative preaching has rightly broadened the older emphasis on discourse passages from the Bible.  If it helps us better handle all the genres of Scripture faithfully and responsibly, it will be to the good.  If it merely tips us from one cultural preference (viz., discourse) to another (viz., narrative), we have not gained anything.  Indeed, because narrative is intrinsically more hermeneutically “open” than discourse, the move may merely contribute toward moving us away from truth.  How much better to remain faithful to biblical truth yet simultaneously focused on Scripture’s existential bite. (Preach the Word, 185.)

This quote helpfully points out several truths about “trends.”  (1) A trend is neither good nor bad in itself, it should be evaluated as part of the broader picture of church ministry.  (2) A trend may be justifiable on one level, but may bring with it side effects or net results that are more sinister. (3) Potentially sinister net results do not automatically disqualify a trend as worthy of our consideration.

Let’s be neither shallow homileto-fashionistas, jumping from one pulpit bandwagon to the next, nor stubborn traditionalists unwilling to learn, thinking we know all we need to know, and committed to increasing irrelevance.  We need to be aware of preaching trends.  We need to be discerning.

Spontaneous Preacher Combustion

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Martyn Lloyd-Jones wrote that “Preaching is theology coming through a man who is on fire.”  In fact, allow me to quote further (from 97-98 of Preaching and Preachers):

What is the chief end of preaching?  I like to think it is this.  It is to give men and women a sense of God and his presence. . . . I can forgive the preacher almost anything if he gives me a sense of God, if he gives me something for my soul . . . if he gives me some dim glimpse of the majesty and the glory of God, the love of Christ my Saviour, and the magnificence of the gospel.

That’s a great thought to ponder as we prepare for the next message.  In reality, it may take longer than from now til Sunday.  Let’s face it, the title for this post is patently ridiculous.  The kind of divinity and spirituality implied by Lloyd-Jones’ reference to a man on fire is not the kind that comes by “spontaneous” combustion.  It comes through the long slow warming of the soul in the warmth of God’s embrace, through slow-cooked spirituality as the preacher is consistently exposed to the burning truths of God’s Word, through the patient grace of One who does not put out a dying ember, but gently fans it into flame over time.  Don’t expect miraculous fire if you are not spending extended time in the presence of God.  Only if we are much at home with God are we likely to give listeners a real sense of God.  Spontaneous?  No.  Fire?  Let’s hope so.

Build Confidence in the Word

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

John MacArthur writes about the clarity of the Bible in his chapter in Preach the Word.  Let me quote him here – not new information (I hope), but important information well worthy of our pondering:

The student of Scripture need not fear that its message is unknowable.  Rather, he can rejoice in knowing that God revealed himself and his plan of salvation in a way that men can understand.  Not only does the Scripture repeatedly claim that God revealed what is written within its pages (over 2,000 times in fact), it also describes itself as that which gives light (Ps. 119:105; 2Pet. 1:19a), is profitable (2Tim. 3:16-17), explains salvation (2Tim. 3:15b), addresses common people (cf. Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:37; Eph. 1:1; 1Cor. 1:2), can be understood by children (Deut. 6:6-7; Eph. 6:4; 2Tim. 3:14-15), and should be used to test the validity of religious ideas (Acts 17:11; cf. 2Cor. 10:5; 1Thess. 5:21-22). It is the truth (John 17:17) that sets men free (John 8:31-36).  Thus, to deny the clarity of Scripture is to call into question not only the Bible’s own self-claims, but also God’s ability to communicate clearly.

Let’s make sure these truths are fresh in our hearts.  It’s easy to begin with strong confidence in the Word, only for it to fade over time.  Is it time to refresh and renew our understanding of and commitment to the clarity and power of God’s Word?

Let’s also make sure we don’t undermine our listeners’ confidence in the Bible.  There are certainly parts that are harder to understand, the Bible itself acknowledges that (2Pet. 3:16).  But the main message of the Bible is clear for any who will read it . . . so let’s encourage them to do just that!

Smooth Preaching Doesn’t Mark

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

I like this term, “smooth preaching.”  I was just reading about it and resonating with the thought.  Peter Jensen uses the term in his chapter on the role of the seminary in the training of the preacher.   (Preach the Word, p216.)  He writes, “There is a variety of smooth preaching that replicates what it sees as the main theme of a text but does not bring to the surface anything in the text that surprises, contradicts, creates tension.”  It is the kind of preaching that rushes too easily to conclusions or fails to spot the points of stress in a text.  It is dull preaching that dulls the Word of God.

I suppose some might wish that someone would publish a book, perhaps a New International Textual Stress Points Commentary, or a Passage-By-Passage Jagged Edge Guide.  But in reality, there is simple no better way to avoid such smooth preaching than this – spend significant time dwelling in a text, wrestling with the text, allowing the text to wrestle with you, opening your own heart to the text, leaning so close to it that it can draw blood.  Close and personal encounters with God’s Word will bring the Bible into real conflict with sin in our lives.  It will expose and challenge our pride, anger, doubts, motivations, attitudes, habits, tendencies.  If we keep texts at arms length, then we will preach smooth sermons.  If we handle texts only briefly before preaching the obvious, then we will preach smooth sermons.  If we really prayerfully vulnerably wrestle with a text, and lose, then we will be in a better position to preach sermons with the textual edge bared to make its mark.  The Word of God does cut, but smooth preaching will only conceal that edge.  Smooth preaching doesn’t mark.

Easter is Coming – The Power of Identification

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I know Easter is still a couple of months away, but as a preacher it is never too early to think about Easter.  In fact, there is a sense in which commemoration of Easter is never more than six days away – the Lord’s Day is a weekly gathering because of His resurrection.  So here’s a thought regarding Easter (whether you’re planning for April or preparing for tomorrow’s message).

In preaching any narrative section, we need to consider whom listeners will gravitate toward, with whom they will identify.  We should consider how to encourage that or redirect that through our preaching.  In the case of the passion narratives, this tendency to identify can be powerfully used in our preaching.  Luther pointed to this when he wrote:

“Although Christians will identify themselves with Judas, Caiaphas, and Pilate; sinful, condemned actors in the Gospel story – there is another who took the sins of humanity on himself when they were hung around his neck.”

When it comes to the story of the crucifixion we find ourselves identifying with so many characters: Judas, Peter, fleeing disciples, Caiaphas, Pilate, Roman soldiers, Simon from Cyrene, mocking executioners, mocking crowds, mocking thief, repentant thief, followers standing at a distance, followers standing close by, even the Centurion.  Yet the wonder of it all is that we are invited to identify with the perfect One hanging on that cross, for in that act He was most wondrously identifying with us.

Consider how the natural function of narrative – to spark identification – can be utilized to communicate the wondrous truth of Calvary this Easter, or even this Sunday.

Say It Separate From the Sermon

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I was just reading a list of rules for preaching by Rolf Jacobson of Luther Seminary.  I was intrigued by number 3, which I share here.  My own preaching tends to be in churches where the liturgical calendar is largely ignored, but I know that for many churches the opposite is true.  Either way, here’s Rolf’s thought:

3. You shall not proclaim the season of the church year. What does this mean? Do not use the text as a point of departure for talking about Advent, Epiphany, Lent, Pentecost, All Saints, Mothers’ Day, Fishing Opener, or the Commemoration of St. NOBODY CARES! Easter and Christmas are okay to mention frequently, but do not trump the biblical text with the liturgical day. Let the rest of the liturgy be the place where the movements of the liturgical season shape the community of faith. I am not against the liturgical year. In fact I fully embrace it. But preach the text! If the preacher constantly refers to the liturgical season, the season becomes the de facto text for the sermon. That is not biblical preaching.

As well as the specific point about preaching the text rather than using it to get to the liturgical calendar, I like an implied point here.  There are other elements in a service that can be used for certain things.  The choice of songs, the introdauction to songs, prayers, other elements in the service.  Let’s not think that anything that could or should be said on Sunday has to be said in the sermon.  We can use the rest of the service for the rest of the agenda, but let’s keep the message time for the message of the text.

Adjust Agenda?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday I quoted from JI Packer’s chapter on Charles Simeon in Preach the Word.  I wanted to finish quoting the paragraph since it is provocative and perhaps helpful:

The motive behind his almost obsessive outbursts against Calvinistic and Arminian “system-Christians,” as he called them, was his belief that, through reading Scripture in light of their systems, both sides would be kept from doing justice to all the texts that were there.  Be “Bible-Christians” rather than slaves to a system, he argued, and so let the whole Bible have its way with you all the time.  Whether or not we agree that such speaking is the wise way to make that point, we must at least endorse Simeon’s “invariable rule . . . to endeavour to give to every portion of the word of God its full and proper force.” (Packer, in Preach the Word, 147-148.)

Perhaps you might substitute a different theological label into his quote, but still I think the point is helpful.  It is naive to think that we can simply preach the Bible in a theology-neutral way.  However, there is a great difference between reading every text in light of your system and constantly adjusting your system in light of the biblical text.  In that sense, let’s preach as, and let’s preach to motivate, “Bible-Christians.”

Abort Sermon! Abort Sermon?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

On one level it is a feeling that can come for any reason.  A little moment of doubt.  An unexpected event, or listener, or conversation, or comment . . . and suddenly the temptation is there to give up on the planned message.  Some may have this feeling every time they preach.  Others may never get it at all.  But is there a genuine reason to abort the message and switch to something else?

In his excellent chapter on Charles Simeon in Preach the Word, J.I. Packer states the following:

Simeon would go on to remind us that expository preaching should be textual in character.  The preacher’s task, according to him, was not imposition, giving texts meaning the do not bear; nor was it juxtaposition, using texts merely as pegs on which to hand general reflections imported from elsewhere (“preachments of this kind are extremely disgustful”); it was, precisely, exposition, bringing out of teh texts what God had put in them  “I never preach,” said Simeon, “unless I feel satisfied that I have the mind of God as regards the sense of the passage.” (Preach the Word, 147)

There may be more than one reason to abort a sermon, but this one alone is worth pondering.  If we are not satisfied that we have the mind of God as regards the sense of a passage . . . we should not preach it!  Better to preach an unprepared sermon at a moment’s notice on a text we do understand, than to preach a prepared sermon built on shaking exegesis.  If you really don’t get, don’t preach it.  Abort sermon!