Homiletics

Not Commentaries, But Within Reach

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

One of my preaching instructors at seminary once mentioned a handful of books that he keeps within easy reach of his desk for sermon preparation.  I’ve done the same ever since and find myself referring to them often.

To preach the text effectively we have to do more than dissect the text and preach the parts.  We have to be concerned with understanding the flow of thought, the literary artistry, the implications of the genre and form, etc.  So when I’m preparing to preach a text, I tend to use the Scripture index to find if it is addressed in books like these:

Words of Delight: A Literary Introduction to the Bible by Leland Ryken is a very helpful book – perhaps just a paragraph or two, but often those thoughts are very helpful.  The Art of Biblical Narrative by Robert Alter – a classic that should be required reading for us all.  It covers less biblical texts, but its great when the text is in there!  Reading Biblical Narrative or Poetry, both by JP Fokkelman is worth a look too.  As is The Literary Structure of the Old Testament by David Dorsey.

There are others, but I’ll leave it there.  These are not atomistic commentaries, but rather literary guides.  Do you have a shelf like this close at hand?  What is on it?

Commentaries – The Golden Ones

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Since we’re talking commentaries, here’s another thought.  How are we supposed to know which ones to buy?  As a preacher I often note a common problem in commentaries – they tend to be atomistic.  That is to say that many of them seem to deal only with the word or phrase at hand.  As a preacher I benefit from this, but value very highly those commentaries that wrestle with the flow of the text, those that include a significant macro view as well as the micro.  This is determined more by author than by series, so we have to hunt carefully in order to find them.  But when you find one that gives a very clear picture of the flow of a text, snap it up, it’s worth its weight in gold!

A couple of basic tips on commentary buying:

If possible, don’t buy blind. If you are able to access a library or borrow from a friend, then do so.  Once you’ve used a commentary you have a much better idea of whether you need to own it.

Try to have more than one. Since commentaries are conversation partners, it is better to have more than one so he or she doesn’t dominate the conversation.

Generally buy selectively rather than a whole series.  No series keeps up the same standard throughout, so it is worth picking and choosing from different series.  If you’re looking for “flow” commentaries that I described at the start, recognize that they can come in the small format (EBC, Tyndale, BST), or substantial English format (NAC, PNTC), as well as the chunkier exegetical formats (Hermeneia, NICNT/OT, WBC, NIGTC, BEC).  However, it is worth noting with discount retailers doing their thing, it may be worth buying a good series for the PC and letting that be the conversation partner, for example NAC or WBC.

Before you buy another commentary, meet John Glynn.  John Glynn’s Commentary & Reference Survey from Kregel is worth its weight in platinum!  I find his evaluation and suggestions on commentaries and other reference tools to be generally excellent.  Paying a few dollars, pounds, euros, yen for this will save money on poor purchases – guaranteed!

Commentaries are important tools of the trade, and buying well is a skill worth aquiring.  But if you can find those commentaries that do a good job on textual flow and macro appreciation of the literary artistry in a book – well, then you are finding gold!

Rumors of Commentaries

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

When I get to listen to a sermon, I sometimes pick up on a commentary vibe.  That is, a sense that the preacher has been spending some time in the commentaries.  Sometimes it is overt references to “the commentators” or a specific commentary (I am describing what I hear, not affirming the practice of citing and quoting the commentaries).  Other times it is a series of background facts that feel like they’ve come from some time in the books.

On the positive side I am always glad to know the speaker has been working in preparation for the sermon.  I’d much rather have somebody who has prepared responsibly than someone who is “winging it” without humble reference to “experts” in the field.

On the negative side I sometimes get a feeling of concern.  It’s hard to pinpoint, but it’s a feeling of concern nonetheless.  I wonder whether the commentaries have been conversation partners in the personal study of the text, or crutches leant on to short-cut the process of exegesis.  I wonder whether the commentaries have simulated wrestling with the structure and flow of the text and consequently the sermon, or whether they have merely furnished a dissected structure on which to hang the broken pieces of a partial sermon.

I thank God for commentaries and good commentators.  We are so blessed today with access to these reference works.  I think it is either arrogance or stupidity that would lead us to ignore them in sermon preparation (provided we are blessed with access to them).  However, they are just one part of our preparation.  We have to wrestle with the text, with its flow of thought, its meaning, its purpose, its idea.  We have to wrestle with the sermon purpose, its idea, its strategy, its structure, its flow, etc.

Commentary study alone will provide a veritable pile of tidbits that can easily fill the sermon time.  But remember that as the preacher, our job is not to fill sermon time, but to prayerfully, carefully, and personally develop a sermon that faithfully explains and relevantly applies the text for our specific congregation.

Vulnerable Time

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I recently spoke to a preacher after he had preached and thanked him for his ministry.  I asked how he felt about it.  To my surprise he said something like, “Oh, I never think about it, the job is done and I move on.”  If that is true, it is strange.  I suspect most preachers are full of feelings after they’ve preached.

Positive Feelings – Every now and then comes that feeling of having really nailed the message!  It’s a great feeling, but probably the rare.  It can be accompanied by high energy or a sense of being wiped out.

Negative Feelings – If you are like me, then these are much more common!  The feeling of having fallen short, failed to fully communicate something or connect as you had hoped.

The Truth – The truth is that these post-sermon feelings can be very deceptive.  We have to try to rest in our Lord, not our perceptions about the ministry.  It probably was not as negative as it felt, so rest in Him.  Or it may not have been as effective as it felt, again, rest in Him.

The Danger – There are several dangers for those of us who have a feeling or two after preaching.  It is easy to take offence, to give offence, to miscommunicate or to misunderstand.  For that hour hanging around the church building after the service, and the first few hours after getting home, be careful.  Don’t get too caught up in any conversation.  Don’t try to make big decisions.  Try to smile, engage with your family and enjoy your lunch (accepting that every other home may well be eating roast pastor!)

You may want to share this post with your spouse, or slip it to that person in the church that always chooses Sunday after church to pick a fight with you about something.  It would be nice if people could leave the feedback for a day or two, but they probably don’t understand.  Whether your feelings are positive or negative or a confusing mixture of both, post-sermon is vulnerable time!

Time for Feeding Instructions

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

When you start a new series consider whether it’s time to be more overt with some study instruction.  This is especially helpful when shifting to a new genre.  For instance, after spending some time in an epistle you shift to a series from Proverbs.  Help people re-orient themselves by deliberately setting aside a message to communicate the basics of Proverbs – how they work and how to study them.  By demonstrating this with a particular proverb the sermon still has definite value in itself.  However, if you are able to equip people to study the Proverbs for themselves, then the sermon’s value is inestimable.

Instructing and equipping people to handle the text should be an ongoing project, but why not let that project boil to the surface when moving into a new genre (Psalms, Proverbs, Parables, Prophets, ePistles, etc.)

Most Illustrations Need More Time

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Robinson and other instructors teach a hierarchy of illustrative materials.  In a simplified four-level hierarchy the list would be as follows:

Level 1 illustrations come from the experience of both the speaker and listeners.

Level 2 illustrations come from the experience of the listeners, but the speaker has to learn about them since they have not personally experienced the same.

Level 3 illustrations come from the experience of the speaker, but must be learned by the listeners.

Level 4 illustrations lie outside the experience of both speaker and listener.

Level 1 illustrations can be brief and passing, but don’t have to be.  The experience of joining the shortest line of people, but ending up in the slowest is probably one we’ve all experienced at some point.  That kind of life situation is easy to include and can connect quickly with listeners.  However, even here, it is important to remember that images take time to form in the minds of listeners, so it may be worth adding some detail and taking some extra time.

Lower level illustrations need more time in delivery.  If people need to learn about something in order to get the illustration, then the illustration must take more time.  A throw-away line about a movie, a historical event, a personal experience of yours, and so on will not form in the minds of the listeners and so will either be missed or create confusion.  Be sure to take the extra thirty seconds, minute or longer to make sure you are actually communicating as you speak.  Alternatively try to use a level 1 or 2 illustration since it will probably be more effective anyway!

Lower level illustrations need more time in preparation.  If you are speaking outside your own experience, then you must take the time to learn what you are talking about.  Extra research!  For instance, if you are single but want to give a “married” illustration of some kind, it would be worth talking to a couple of married folks to be sure you communicate accurately.  Or if you have experienced something but the listeners haven’t, it might be worth checking with a couple of folks to make sure what they hear is what you intend (for instance when you refer to an aspect of your job or ministry).

We probably would do well to take extra time on most illustrations and pieces of support material.  However, as you move down the levels, more time becomes a necessity.  Not only in delivery, but also in preparation.

Know Your Theology and Preach Your Bible

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Last week I wrote a post that spoke against theological agenda-driven preaching.  Yesterday’s post affirmed the value and relevance of theology.  Are these positions contradictory?  Not at all.  We are living in a generation where there is an increasing biblical and theological illiteracy.  So as preachers we have a responsibility to really know the important doctrines of the faith.  And as preachers we have the responsibility of preaching the Bible so that listeners will know where that doctrine comes from and how to get it.

Here’s a quote from Spurgeon’s Lectures to My Students that seems appropriate:

Be well instructed in theology, and do not regard the sneers of those who rail at it because they are ignorant of it.  Many preachers are not theologians, and hence the mistakes which they make.  It cannot do any hurt to the most lively evangelist to be also a sound theologian, and it may often be the means of saving him from gross blunders.  Nowadays, we hear men tear a single sentence of Scripture from its connection, and cry “Eureka! Eureka!” as if they had found a new truth; and yet they have not discovered a diamond, but a piece of broken glass. . . . Let us be thoroughly well acquainted with the great doctrines of the Word of God.

Know your theology, and preach the Bible well so that people can see not only what to believe, but how to derive that belief from the pages of Scripture.  There are two potential challenges in this.  One is ignorance of sound theology.  The other is adherence to a system of theology not firmly rooted in the Bible.  Let us preach to counter the increasing biblical and theological illiteracy, and let’s do it demonstrating healthy handling of the text!

Practical Vs Doctrinal – No Contest

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

I was just reading a little book by a famous seminary professor.  He referred to the thousands of chapel services he has sat through in his time.  The one thing that bothered him perhaps more than anything else was when a visiting speaker would say something along the lines of:

I am going to leave the theological instruction to your faculty here, but today I just want to be practical!

It is important to demonstrate the consistent link between the biblical/theological and the pastoral/practical.  We do our listeners a disservice when we imply a disconnect between the two.  People need to understand that the most theological or doctrinal passages in their Bible have real-life relevance to them.  People need to recognize that instruction purporting to be practical and relevant but lacking a solid biblical grounding is inherently weak.

It may sound like an understatement in English, but all Scripture is both God-breathed and useful.  Don’t give the impression that some sermons are biblical, exegetical, theological, doctrinal, while others are practical, pastoral, relevant and helpful.  Strive to demonstrate that both sides are really on the same side – there really is no contest.

Hermeneutics for Preaching – It Can’t All Be We, part 2

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Following the post on Saturday, “It Can’t All Be We,” Steve submitted an important comment.  I hope he doesn’t mind the extra exposure for the comment by including it here, but I think this is a very important issue for us to wrestle with as preachers.

Steve wrote: The problem with saying there is only one meaning to a text is that our own interpretations of it depend on our own particular social locations. A white Anglo westerner reads the parable of the lost sons one way while a native west African reads it another. What most of us (in the west) mean by “meaning of the text” is arrived at through the use of historical-critical tools that were developed by 19th century white German scholars. Certainly, there’s much to the New Hermeneutic that evangelicals will find unacceptable, but there’s no sense in throwing the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.

My response: Thanks for the comment Steve. Over the past two centuries there has been a shift in focus in determining meaning. The 19th century was focused primarily on the author. The first part of the 20th century saw the focus shift to the text itself. The later part of the 20th century saw the focus shift to the reader. I’m excited to see the resurgence of the author in our generation, especially a more rounded approach that recognizes our presuppositions as readers and the nature and form of the text too. However, if the author is left out, then there is no hope of any objective standard of measure when it comes to the meaning of a text.

So it is important to be aware of our own cultural presuppositions when we read a story like Luke 15. But I also think we have the capability to study the text using a plain, grammatical, contextual and historical hermeneutic. We can study the historical cultural setting of the text to help determine the meaning of the text. Our concern should not be seeking a “white westerner” or a “native west African” understanding, but a “first century middle eastern” understanding. While accepting that our own “lenses” will influence our study, we have the responsibility to pursue that study to the best of our ability so that we can present the meaning of the text. As I wrote in the post, this should lead to a “humble but authoritative” presentation of the meaning. Authoritative because we have employed good hermeneutical skill in the process, and humble because we recognize our own limitations and biases more than others do.

As you’ll notice in my earlier review of Lowry’s book, I am in no way throwing the baby out with the bath water when it comes to the New Homiletic or the New Hermeneutic. I recognize a lot of value in these streams of thought, but I would suggest that a purely subjective interpretational approach to the text is the bath water that can be helpfully drained away.

I’d be interested to read other comments on this.

An Annual Retreat Every Week?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

This weekend we had the privilege of joining a church for their annual weekend away. Stunning weather (in February in England!), great food, beautiful venue, etc. But from my perspective I would say that I enjoy weekend retreats primarily because they provide such an ideal preaching environment. Why?

1. These events are smothered in prayer. The participants look forward to special retreats for a long time and consequently pray for them to be a special time. Others who know about these events also pray for them, probably in a way they wouldn’t pray for a normal Sunday program at the church!

2. People come with raised expectations. For some the expectation is to rest, or to enjoy the fellowship, or the music, or the preaching. But there is something about expectation mixed with prayer that creates a dynamic environment for ministry to occur.

3. Multiple sessions allow for cumulative ministry. This weekend I had five sessions. The weekend format allowed for elements of the message to be reinforced both outside the preaching and in subsequent sermons. I was able to build and reiterate within the sessions too. There was less need for transitioning from normal life to the sermon once everyone was truly present at the retreat.

It would be nice to have these events every weekend in some ways. But totally impractical too! The organizers need some days off now to recover! And I expect your church wouldn’t take too kindly to you suggesting five sermons for everyone every weekend. But I wonder about the prayer and the expectation. Perhaps there are ways to increase both of these elements, so that each Sunday can reach its true eternal potential. Increasing prayer and expectation . . . what do you think?