Homiletics

We Preach Literature – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I noted Leland Ryken’s comment that expository preaching “keeps its focus on the announced text instead of escaping from it to other material.”  Another feature of expository preaching, in his mind, is as follows:

2. “Expository preaching interacts with the chosen text in terms of the kind of writing that it is instead of immediately extracting a series of theological propositions from it.” – Again, amen.  Too much preaching treats every passage as a 2-D series of propositions, rather than appreciating and learning from the form the text is in.  The Bible writers didn’t send post-it notes to their recipients.  They thought carefully about the most effective way to form the message they wanted to communicate.  Sometimes they chose to send a discourse in the form of a letter.  Much more, they chose to write in some form of poetry.  Even more again, many chose to communicate by means of narrative forms.  Rather than focusing purely on the “what?” (content) of a text, we also need to wrestle with the “why?” (intent), both of which are influenced by the “how?” (form).  Our general hermeneutics must also take into account the special hermeneutics related to the literary form of the text we are preaching.

Notice that Ryken resists “immediately extracting a series of theological propositions” from a text.  This does not mean that literary analysis should lead to proposition-less, truth-free or vague-subjective comments about a Bible text.  Different forms of writing allow a writer to communicate something more effectively, but the writer was still communicating something.  To put it in simple terms, any Bible text is “someone saying something about something in some way to someone” (thanks to Gordon Fee for this insightful sentence!)  The “in some way” is critical and literary analysis recognizes the influence of that in order to grasp the “saying something about something” – which in other terms is the main idea of the passage.  The problem is not with finding the proposition of a passage, but “immediately” (rushing to that rather than really understanding the passage and its form), rushing to “theological propositions” (treating the Bible as a collection of proof texts for our personal systematic theology).

May we always be sensitive to the literary skill of the Bible writers, and thereby be more accurate and effective biblical preachers.

We Preach Literature

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I’m enjoying Preach the Word and will add a full review in due course, but I’ll share some highlights along the way.  This is the book of essays intended to honor Kent Hughes of College Chapel in Wheaton.  This morning I enjoyed a chapter by one of the editors, Leland Ryken, on the Bible as literature.  He urges preachers to learn from the field of literary analysis and not presume theologians have all the answers when it comes to accurately understanding the Bible.  Early on he notes the need for preachers to add even a “modicum of self-conscious literary analysis to their methodology” to improve the incipient literary criticism that all have to participate in during preparation.

Then he notes a couple of features of what constitutes expository preaching, in his opinion.  I offer you these two features for your thoughts and response.  This is not an attempt at an exhaustive definition, but two features of expository preaching:

1. “Expository preaching keeps its focus on the announced text instead of escaping from it to other material” – I wholeheartedly agree.  I have written before on the limited legitimate reasons to go elsewhere in the Bible in a message.  I would offer these three as legitimate excursions, rather than unhelpful escapes.  First, when the idea of the passage seems unbiblical, it is good to show that the truth is consistent with teaching elsewhere (perhaps a brief, fast-paced tour of key texts).  Second, when the passage being considered leans heavily on another passage, such as an Old Testament quote later in the Old Testament or in the New Testament (perhaps a meaningful, but not excessive day-trip to the text in question).  Third, when it is considered helpful and appropriate to trace out the thought of the passage, or see the fulfillment of the passage, later in the Bible (not any and every excuse to “get to Jesus,” but a purposeful advance after fully dealing with the preaching text, perhaps to aid in application for the listener today).

Unhelpful escapes to other passages include running to more familiar territory.  Or jumping texts based on familiar language.  Or perhaps seeking to be exhaustive on a theme in the text, thereby exhausting listeners rather than seeking to plumb the depths of the preaching passage itself.  Or even twisting the meaning of the text in order to get to some sort of contemporary spiritualized application of the gospel. Then there is the issue of “illustrating” the preaching text by means of another text (that then needs to be explained, potentially overwhelms the preaching text and certainly doesn’t help to land the application in listeners’ contemporary experience.)

I’ll save the second feature for tomorrow, but let’s be sure to think carefully before losing focus on our announced text!

Laughter and the Preacher

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The subject of humor in preaching can create tension.  Personally I think that natural humor appropriately used can be a great tool in preaching.  Obviously I agree that unnatural humor inappropriately used for the sake of entertainment in preaching is not good at all.  Satan loves to take something that is good and corrupt it, even in the church.  But I’m not wanting to write about humor in preaching, I’m thinking about laughter in the preacher.  Perhaps a preacher with a great laugh comes to mind, like Charles Swindoll, or a preacher with dry humor, or whatever, but I’m not thinking primarily about preaching today.

I just read the quote that laughter is an instant vacation.  Perhaps in the busy-ness of life and ministry, we need something akin to mini-sabbaths by laughter.  Before you start thinking that my view of sabbath is limited, hear me out.  I know that the biblical concept of Sabbath from Genesis 2 to the book of Hebrews is very rich theologically.  I also know that we of all people, hopefully understanding the Bible well, being experts in the struggles of contemporary life, carrying the pastoral burdens of deeply hurting folks, facing spiritual opposition at potentially elevated levels, etc., we of all people have reason to be sombre and serious.

Yet at the same time, if we know the Bible well, if we know God well, if we have a firm grasp of the theological truths in which we deal every day, the truths of a God who has grasped our hearts and poured out his love into them . . . we of all people should have laughter in our lives.  The Psalmist wrote about the return of the captives and spoke of how their mouths were filled with laughter.  Why?  Because they knew, indeed all the nations knew, that the LORD had done great things for them!  (see Psalm 126)  The book of Proverbs speaks of a joyful heart being good medicine (Pro.17:22).  They say the laughter of a Dad is critical to the psychological health of a child.  Laughter, by definition, seems to be a healthy ingredient in life.

I don’t deny the other side of the coin.  The need for seriousness in many aspects of life and ministry, the sadness that may overwhelm our hearts as they beat with His for this hurting rebellious world, the deep realities of mourning in this world that itself groans in travail.  I do not urge flippancy or silliness or folly.  I simply want to prod myself and perhaps you too . . . surely we of all people should have regular bouts of laughter.  God-inspired, clean, honest, “I’ve cast my cares on Him so the burdens are not on me” laughter.  God-given, grace-prompted, “God has given me so much to rejoice in that I am able to enjoy the little blessings” laughter.

Perhaps if we allow ourselves to laugh in private, it may even spill naturally and appropriately into the pulpit.  Maybe that wouldn’t be a bad thing sometimes.

Shifting from Passage to Message – Idea

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Two days ago we considered the move from passage to message in relation to the purpose statement.  Now let’s look at the other core move at the apex of the process, the move from passage idea to message idea.

Many rightly point out that really there are three steps.  To use some Haddon Robinson terminology, you begin by finding the exegetical idea (back then), then move that to a theological idea (timeless), before finally making the move to homiletical idea (contextualized for these people now).  This is absolutely right.  By simplifying the process I do not discount these steps.

The move to message idea involves several elements:

Recognize and remove historical markers – The passage idea should really be historically specific – Paul told Timothy that in the Ephesian church such and such should occur.  Details like Paul, Timothy, Ephesus, etc. are all historical.  The first step is to recognize these and remove them from the idea.  At this point the resulting half-way idea is really the theological idea in the three step process described above.  This will need testing.  Is the idea representative of the timeless teaching of the passage?  If not, adjustment will need to be made.  As ever, application is a minefield and so you should tread carefully – is this the lasting main point of the passage?

In a sense this first move is a negative one, removing historically specific ties.  Now there are two positive moves:

Take into account audience analysis and adjust the idea – Since the message idea is supposed to be specific to these listeners, how can the idea be contemporized in a manner that will register with them and be memorable to them?  This may be pithy, clever, contemporary, etc.  Often the best you will manage will be biblically accurate and relatively clear – don’t despise biblical and clear!

Consider the message purpose and adjust accordingly – The audience analysis and message purpose are both influences in the positive adjustment of the idea.  The passage idea and purpose may be rebuking in nature, but your message purpose may not be rebuking in light of the need of the listeners (my mind goes to the person who rebuked a meeting of hyper-faithful elderly ladies with Ezekiel 34 – evil shepherds of Israel!)  So the message purpose and tone influence the idea statement.

With these three considerations, you move from passage idea to message idea.  It may be that the result is exactly the same (biblical timeless truth preached in the terms of the text).  It may be that the result is different (but not so different: given the idea, someone who knows the Bible should be able to recognize which text it is representing!)

A formula for the engineers?  (Stage 4 minus historical markers)+Audience Analysis Adjustment+Stage 5 adjustment = Stage 6!

Pre-Review: Preach the Word, edited by Leland Ryken and Todd Wilson

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Subtitle: Essays on Expository Preaching in Honor of R. Kent Hughes

rykenpreach

This recent volume from Crossway just landed on my doorstep.  I have not read it, hence this is a “pre-review.”  However, since I’ve not added a review for a while, and since Christmas is fast approaching, I thought I’d highlight this book’s existence just in case you need an idea for a Christmas gift (for yourself, or another preacher!)

Kent Hughes recently retired after a quarter of a century as senior pastor of College Church in Wheaton.  He has preached, taught and written very significantly in the area of expository preaching over the years of his ministry.  This book is a collection of essays from an impressive list of friends and colleagues.  (The list of contributors includes Wayne Grudem, John MacArthur, John Piper, Duane Litfin, JI Packer, David Jackman, Phillip Jensen and DA Carson.)

The book is divided into four sections.  The first addresses hermeneutics and exegesis under the title Interpretive Principles and Practices.  The second is entitled, Biblical and Historical Paradigms, providing frameworks and paradigms for the preacher’s ministry.  The third section on Contemporary Challenges and Aims engages with the particular difficulties facing the contemporary expositor.  Finally, the fourth section is entitled Training and Example, addressing the oft-neglected area of developing preachers.

The book has a timeless dignity about its appearance, and an apparent unity, even quality, in its content.  In due course I will complete this post with a true review, but right now it may be worth taking the plunge and buying a copy for Christmas – perhaps even a Christmas gift to yourself for your ministry?  Since this is a pre-review, all I can say here is that having looked at it, I am motivated to read it!

Shifting From Passage to Message – Purpose

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The first half of the preparation process is focused on the passage only.  What is in it?  What is its structure?  Why did the author write it?  What was his main idea?  Then the second half switches focus from passage to message.  I suggest that at that mid-point (between stages 4 and 5), is the best time to turn your thoughts and prayers to the listeners.  This might involve a formal “audience analysis” or it might be just a few minutes considering your congregation, some key individuals and any current events that may influence how you preach to them.

So to put it simply, to get the message purpose (stage 5), you take the passage purpose (stage 3) and add in the “audience analysis.”  For the formulaically inclined: Stage 3+AA = Stage 5.

Your message purpose begins with the passage purpose, but then you take into account who will be hearing the message.  Do they have the same need as the original recipients?  Often the situation is different, so the purpose will need adjusting before you can preach this passage to these people.  Ask yourself whether the tone of the passage is appropriate for these listeners at this time.  Ask yourself whether the passage assumes knowledge in the original recipients that is now lacking for your listeners.  Do not ask yourself if the passage is relevant, but ask how the passage is relevant for your listeners on this occasion.

Communicate the Christmas Carols

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Some of the Christmas carols contain phenomenal truths.  Yet they can easily be sung mindlessly – familiar tunes, familiar lyrics and some unfamiliar words mixed in.  As we preach or lead services in this Christmas season, let’s not miss the opportunity to highlight the glorious truths contained in the songs we sing.  Perhaps a passing comment in a message, reference to a carol to illustrate a point in a sermon, or even brief explanation outside of the sermon.

Consider, for one example, the second verse of Hark the Herald Angels:

Christ by highest heav’n adored
Christ the everlasting Lord!
Late in time behold Him come
Offspring of a Virgin’s womb
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see
Hail the incarnate Deity
Pleased as man with man to dwell
Jesus, our Emmanuel
Hark! The herald angels sing
“Glory to the newborn King!”

How could anyone sing those words without stirred hearts?  But for many, the stirring is mere nostalgia at Christmas past.  Let’s make sure people in our churches don’t miss the stirring reality reflected here!

It’s Not the Technique That Counts

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

There are technically correct ways to write an outline for a message.  But more importantly, there is a point to having an outline.  Some people can do a perfect outline in form with every indent and numerical marker correct.  However, some people who can do a perfect outline, still don’t achieve what the outline is meant to achieve.  It is designed to reflect the shape of thought.  It’s purpose is to give a visual representation of the flow and shape of thought.  It is supposed to present visual ratios of spoken content, relative importance of message elements, etc.

If you have perfect outlining technique, great.  But make sure your outlines are helping you preach.  Ultimately it’s not what you have on paper that matters, but what is said in the message.  However, this does not mean we can dismiss outlining altogether.  If your technique is not perfect, but it accurately reflects what you plan to say, perhaps that is good enough.  If your technique is perfect, but somehow it doesn’t represent the message well, that is not good enough.  If your preaching is good, but you have no idea how to outline well, then it would be worth learning in order to augment the preaching.

There are many such supportive techniques associated with preaching.  It’s good to learn them well and it’s good to use them.  But it’s even better to make sure that our preaching is the best it can be, and not have a false confidence from skill in supportive techniques alone.

Most Important Element in Introduction?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

We’ve considered the various elements of an introduction before. The need to grab attention, build communication rapport, surface a need, move listeners into the text and the message. I’d like to underline the one that is probably neglected more than the others, yet it is the one we should never forget.

Another way of thinking about the “surface need” element of the introduction is to call it relevance. In the introduction, as a listener, I want to know …

This speaker is relevant to me. I don’t want to listen to somebody that is out of touch with the real world. Please give me confidence that you are a relevant speaker.

This message is relevant to me. If I am a normal listener, I have not come to church excited for a historical lecture. Please give me confidence that this message will be relevant to my life. If you leave application and relevance until the end of the message (traditional approach) then I may well miss it (to be absent from the body may not mean being present with the Lord, if you see what I mean?)

This passage is relevant to me. I would be thrilled to open up my Bible with expectation and motivation, hungry to understand it and be changed by it. As the preacher you need to create that motivation during your introduction.

Relevance in the introduction really is a great ingredient!

Necessary and Possible

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In simple terms, how much of a message should be spent on explaining the passage, and how much should be spent on applying it?

Spend as much time as necessary explaining the passage. If you don’t explain the passage, your application will lack authority.  People need to understand the meaning of the passage, they need to see how the details of the text work together to convey the main point.  They need to see how it fits in the flow of the section.  They need to have confidence that any application you present is built firmly on the teaching of the passage.

Spend as much time as possible applying the passage. Once people understand the meaning of the passage, they need to see how it relates to their life.  In fact, don’t fall into the trap of explaining and then applying as two sequential elements in the sermon.  Certainly application will show up at the end and be significant in the conclusion, but it should also present itself right at the start, in the introduction, in the wording of the main idea and in the phrasing of the main points of the message.  However, proportionately, this guideline is important to bear in mind – give as much application as possible.

Don’t reverse these guidelines! It is easy to get this backwards and end up giving as much explanation as possible.  After all, you may have spent hours digging in the text.  You were excited by all that you learnt.  You enjoy Bible study.  Therefore it is easy to make a sermon an exegetical information dump.  Don’t.  Select carefully and give what is necessary, but don’t over-prove, don’t overwhelm.  Make sure you never skimp on connecting the truth of God’s Word into the nitty gritty of real life.

Simple guidelines, but I find them helpful.