How to . . . ?

Some Thoughts on Preparing to Preach Psalm 22

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments
This is not a complete post, but it may be helpful.  I received the following question from a good friend:

I have been asked to preach on psalm 22 and am at the moment soaking myself in it to try and make sure I understand the message, the structure and what God was saying then and is saying now.

I will resist the temptation to jump straight to Matthew 27 and end up preaching that, as the psalm should, in my current view, stand on its own merits.  Nevertheless I can’t imagine preaching this without bringing in Matthew.  I would really welcome your views on how to approach this to get the balance right.

Here’s my initial answer:

This is a key issue in preaching OT.  Many automatically go to the NT, especially from a passage like that.  I suppose I would study it in two stages – first what it meant then, then how Matthew / Jesus uses it (raising the issue of whether Jesus was pulling only specific verses or relating to the whole of it by quoting the start of it).

In terms of preaching it, I would probably want to preach it in terms of David first, for a significant chunk of the message, recognizing that everyone else is probably thinking of Jesus.  Then going to Jesus and showing his use of it would be perfectly legitimate, thinking about how it applies to us as a text, as well as how Jesus’ application of it applies to us.  I preached it a few years ago and found it effective to major on Psalm 22 at 1000BC, with a smaller focus given to Greater Son of David at 32AD, connecting it to us throughout (application of the concept or main idea in reference to David, and response to Jesus in reference to the latter part of the message).

The one thing I would add is that the psalm is not finished 2/3rds of the way through, as some preachers sometimes seem to think.  In your study you should probably wrestle with the issue of whether this was a purely predictive text (i.e.not of David, but all of Jesus), a double fulfillment type of text (sensus plenior in some respect – i.e. both of David and of Jesus), or a purely descriptive text that Jesus appropriated as appropriate to his situation and response to it (i.e. all of David, but Jesus could identify).  I wouldn’t address all these in the sermon, but I would preach according to my understanding of how the two relate.

There’s a lot to think about with this passage, and I haven’t got into any details here!  Hope you can really delight in the study of it.

When Order Matters

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Sometimes the points in a message can be given in any order.  Sometimes order matters.

1. When wrong order of content loses listeners

I remember Don Sunukjian explaining how in preaching, because we increase the time taken to explain the elements of a sentence, we sometimes need to reverse the order.  For example, I can say “Let’s go to the store, to buy some dog food, because Rusty is hungry.”  The hearer can hold on to the first two pieces of information while awaiting the reason behind it all.  But if I “preach” that sentence and expand each element, then the order has to be reversed.

“Let’s go to the store.  By store I don’t mean a place where things are kept, so much as a place where things are kept in order for visitors to peruse and purchase.  Now in contemporary society there are many different kinds of store – from the convenience store to the supermarket to the wholesaler to the Swedish furniture warehouse.  Each serves its own purpose, and while some may be controversial when they open in an area . . . ” etc.

To go from extended explanation of stores to an extended explanation of foods, and foods prepared for canine pets in particular, would be overwhelming and irrelevant if listeners didn’t know already that your pet dog Rusty needed food.

Sometimes order of content matters.

2. When wrong order of content changes the message.

In simple terms it is easy to preach the result of salvation first and communicate that salvation is by good works.

It is easily done.  For example, we assume a starting point, then state what is really point two, but it comes across as point one.  So, if we are captivated by a love relationship with Christ (point 1), then our priorities will reflect that and our behavior will be changed (point 2), and consequently our lives will be lived in the blessing of the “shalom” that comes from ordering our lives according to the orders of the God of order (point 3, to inadvertently quote a Stuart Briscoe message I heard twenty years ago.)  So easily we presume point 1 and instead preach points 2 then 3, which leads to preaching legalism rather than the gospel.

I’ll leave it there for now, but next time you structure a message, think through whether the order matters, and whether you have the correct order.

Personality Excuses

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Phillips Brooks once famously defined preaching as “Truth through personality.”  Today the word “personality” is sometimes used in a more restrictive sense to refer to the quirks of an individual.  “Oh, that’s just his personality” we sometimes say.  Now when it comes to preaching, there is a potential tension that can surface.  The tension is between personality and communication.  That is to say,  the quirks of a personality that might be excused by some, versus the effect created in the listener in a communication event.

Let me try to be more clear: when we communicate, we effect (and affect) the listeners.  This is more than just transferring information (although for some preachers that does seem to be the only real goal, and could probably  be achieved more effectively by simply producing a handout).  So our effect is more than just information transfer.  It also includes intended emotional affects, and unintended by-products.  (If you have any familiarity with Speech-Act Theory, then what I am referring to is unintended perlocutionary elements of speech.)

So, is personality a good excuse for unintended negative by-products in our preaching?  I would suggest not.  Even if some present would excuse an element of your message, the effect or affect on those unaware of that excuse is still very real.  You wouldn’t want the possibility of visitors being in church to be considered a risk by those that know you, would you?

What kind of quirks am I referring to? Well, for instance, cutting or inappropriate, or even just ineffective, humour.  Or a patronising and condescending manner.  Or apparent pride.  Or distracting verbal (or physical) habits.  Or excessive and unrelenting pace.  Or whatever . . . anything that undermines the communication.  And sometimes many of these quirks might only show for a few seconds in an entire message, but that can be enough to do the damage.

So instead of excusing personality, what? In a small enough group where everyone knows everyone, such things will generally be excused (though not as completely as we might think).  With a larger group, or with outsiders present, the negative effects of such quirks can really undermine the whole ministry.  So what to do?  I suppose in simple terms we need to find out what those quirks are and deal with them.  Perhaps you should print this post and give it to someone, asking them to be honest with you.  Not easy, but important.

Drumroll Please . . .

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

At the risk of beating a drum to the point of creating a drumroll effect, I need to re-address something I’ve written about numerous times before.  I say “I need to” do this not because you need to hear it, but because I need to say it.  I just read an article about expository preaching in a good magazine . . .

Expository preaching should not be contrasted with applicational or relevant preaching!

This article contrasts one writer’s approach to selecting texts with another writer’s commitment to preaching through books.  The former selects passages and combines them in series to address the needs of the church.  The latter is strongly committed to preaching through books.  The latter was referred to as expository preaching, the former as something else.  In this particular case, both are expository preachers.  Why?  Because expository preaching is not defined by a commitment to preach through books.

Expository preaching involves both a commitment to preaching the true and exact meaning of the preaching text in context, and a commitment to do so emphasizing its relevance to the listeners present.  It is not either/or, it is both/and.

This article set up a false dichotomy between two expositional preachers and urged churches to preach through books.  As a default, I would probably agree with the importance of preaching through books, but when I choose to preach a series made up of texts taken from various places, I will still preach expository messages (because – did I say this already? – expository preaching is not defined by preaching through books).

Expository preaching is not about how you select the text, it is about what you do with it, or better, what it does with you, when you study and preach it.

But Wait, They Can See My Notes

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday I wrote about some of the challenges that come from our listeners not being able to see our notes.  We preach orally, but tend to prepare in literary forms (manuscript, indented outlines, etc.)  I mentioned the issue of transitions – very different animals in spoken than in written communication.  I mentioned the need to indicate sense of progress, or purpose of illustration.  But wait, isn’t there a shortcut to circumvent this whole issue?

The Potential Powerpoint Shortcut – Wouldn’t it be better to just project your notes so they can follow along on a powerpoint sermon outline?  I would urge you not to make a projected outline your strategy to overcome these issues.  Your outline is for you.  If you use powerpoint, use it well (i.e. for images, minimal words, lots of blank screen, perfectly timed, etc.)

What Happens if You Powerpoint Your Outline? Projecting your outline will give the impression your primary goal is to educate and inform, it will spark frenzied note taking, it will cause people to try to memorize three sub-points rather than being marked by the one main point, it will distract from the deeper impact and applicational emphasis of your message.  What’s more, what is gained in visual communication via the screen is typically lost in visual communication and connection via the preacher.  It takes real skill to powerpoint in a connecting and engaging manner (a skill rarely found in ecclesial settings).

So I Should Never Use Powerpoint? Use powerpoint by all means, but usually not for your outline.  The outline is a skeleton, it is for you and it is for you to think through how to communicate as effectively as possible.  One of the first posts I wrote was entitled “What do you want them to remember – the outline?”

Because They Can’t See Your Notes

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I suppose it is obvious, but sometimes obvious things need stating.  When we preach we are communicating orally.  People hear us, and usually can see us, but they can’t see our notes.

What difference does this startling realization make to our preaching?  Well, it should cause us to pay particular attention to the following:

1. Transitions. It is so easy to lose people in a transition.  If they mentally check-out for a few seconds they can easily miss the move from one section of the message to the next, leaving them disorientated and confused.  Slow down through the curves, as I think Steve Matthewson put it on his site.  Be sure to take your passengers with you.  Flashback and preview, underline or mark the transition in some way.

2. Follow-ability. You can look down at your notes (if you use them), or down at the text (if you don’t use notes, your message will probably be mentally associated with the passage itself).  If they look down they see dozens of verses that all look the same.  You need to make clear where you are in the text.  Don’t make following along an extreme sport that only the most focused individuals can participate in.

3. Sense of progress. You know that you have finished four pages of notes with three to go.  They don’t.  Because they can’t see your notes you either need to have a clear structure that is previewed at the start and reviewed at transitions (as in a deductive message), or a clear indication of destination and sensation of progress toward it (as in an inductive message), or else a very compelling presentation that people simply don’t want to end.  Otherwise they will be investing mental resources in trying to figure out where you are in your message.

4. Purpose of Illustration. You can look down and see your illustration marker and where it sits in relation to the section of the message, the sub-point you are explaining, proving or applying, etc.  Because they can’t see your notes they can easily lose track of why you are telling the story about the time your Uncle took you to the fish market.  Don’t just tell illustrations well, but clarify their purpose whenever appropriate.

They can’t see your notes and they shouldn’t see your notes  . . . but they will see the message you preach and the way that you preach it.

The Height of Application – 2

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

On Friday I wrote about raising the bar without just cranking up the pressure. But any talk of application must also bring us back to take a prayerful look at ourselves.  I read a comment in Michael Quicke’s 360-Degree Leadership, a quote from someone, R T Warner, I think.  It said that the early church “out-lived the pagans, and out-died them, and out-thought them.”

Many of us today are living in unprecedented luxury compared to the rest of the world today and throughout history.  We have access to resources, and standards of living, and health care and on and on.  We shouldn’t feel bad about all that, but give thanks and make the most of the blessings we’ve been given in order to bless others.  However, we don’t want to become spiritually lethargic unawares.

We can urge others to respond to the teaching of God’s Word with total abandon, with radical commitment, etc.  But in a very real sense we can only “raise the bar” for others to the level it is raised in our own lives.  We don’t need to flaunt our own commitment or sacrifices, but they do speak loud and clear to our listeners.  So we should be sure to prayerfully take stock of our own responsiveness to the Lord.

Here’s a quick checklist:

1. Walk with God – all that is involved in that . . . listening to His Word, prayer, intercession, meditation, etc.  Do we . . . as much or more than we urge others to . . .

2. Resources – use of time, of money, of energy, of abilities, etc.  Just because some of us have more time freed up for ministry, doesn’t mean we are giving more.  Remember the widow’s offering – how would that apply to our use of time and other resources?

3. Sacrifice – do we really, or do we just, you know, sort of?

4. Holiness – easy to bang on about pet peeve sins, but how is the Lord dealing with issues in your life?  You know you’re not perfect, but are you complacent because your sins are not those sins?

5. Okay, I’ll stop, but we do need to prayerfully address the whole issue of personal “application” in response to God’s Word.  Actually, conversing with the Lord about these things can be such a blessing . . . perhaps it should really be an ongoing conversation – not about me, but about my response to Him.

The Height of Application

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I’ve written recently about application and where it is aimed – heart, head and hands (i.e. affection, belief and conduct).  But what about the height of the application?  That is to say, how high do we set the bar?  Now immediately there are issues rising up: does this language imply duty and responsibility that will smother the drawing power of the love of God?  Are we going to end up pressuring people with more and more things to do somewhat independently of God, rather than drawing them deeper into the life that is relationship with God?

I think there are a couple of errors we fall into:

Some of us can over-pressure on a flimsy foundation.  That is, we preach something, explaining the text somewhat, and then go for broke with application.  It is easy to call for total surrender, but when that applicational structure is built on the foundation of snack-food exposition, it will always feel out of place.

Some of us tire people with inane applications not befitting of the gospel.  We preach, perhaps very well, the truth of God’s Word.  And then we list yet another set of duties to be added to the already overwhelmed list of duties on the scrap of paper inside the Bible’s front cover.  This can feel trite. After a seven-course feast in a five-star restaurant, we then urge people to go home and be sure to eat three marshmallows each day and offer a personal-pack of cookies to at least one neighbor.

So what to do?  How high is the bar to be set?  First, it is important to think through where the text is naturally urging the listener.  Second, remember that duty and pressure is very different from compelled response.  If we can preach the compelling Christ and His Word in such a way that hearts are moved, then application will be the naturally resulting encouragement, rather than grating burdens.  Third, remember that some passages and situations call for very practical described applications, but many others might be better suited to stirring hearts for worship, or challenging false beliefs and worldview blind spots.  Make every message relevant, but not every message has to feel pragmatically “applicational.”

If we are saying that “application” should be fitting for the compelling, drawing, captivating attraction and power of the message preached,then surely the bar is often set too low.  But the answer is not to crank up the pressure, but rather to look for ways to preach for hearts to be moved and carefully consider how the listeners can be encouraged along the path of response . . . and that response, through the years of church history, has often been a response of total and absolute sacrificial commitment.  Let’s raise the bar, but think through how we do it!

Are You Sure You Want To Do That?

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

It is so tempting, but are you sure you want to do that?  Perhaps a commentary suggests another way to translate the text.  Or perhaps you have studied a little Greek and think that they have made a mistake in their handing of a tense or whatever.  So you’re tempted to criticise the translation the people are reading as you preach.

Now there are advantages to criticising it.  For one, it makes you look like you know what you are talking about when it comes to original languages – which may or may not be the case.  Another advantage is that it shows you have been studying hard in preparation.  Then, of course, presuming you do know what you are talking about, there is the advantage of greater understanding of the text for all who are present.

But there are some very real disadvantages too.  First, and most important of all in my estimation, you are planting seeds of doubt as to the trustworthiness of the rest of the translation.  They may see this particular verse more clearly (may is the important word here), but now they don’t know if they can trust the other 1188 chapters full of verses.  Also, they are now probably celebrating your knowledge (whether you have it or not).  This should make you a bit twitchy, unless your goal is the praise of men, of course.

Why am I making this point, does it happen?  Oh yes.  I heard a fine Hebrew scholar completely undermine the translations in a sermon almost ten years ago . . . and I still have that lingering sensation of not being able to trust the translations as I think of that message (sermons can prove to be very memorable).  A while ago I heard a well-read, but poorly or incompletely trained Greek reader inadvertently critique the translations.  Now this gentleman would presume he knows enough about Greek to say what he said, people always do.  But his errors were those of a relative novice.  If you haven’t studied Greek seriously beyond about the second year of seminary, presume you don’t know enough to comment too firmly in public.  And as the first example shows, even if you do know enough, are you sure you want to do that?

What to do?  Often it is possible to “correct” a translation subtly in the explanation of the text, or even in the reading, without drawing attention to it.  Often it is enough to say something like, “this could also be put this way . . .” without saying such things as “the translators got it wrong here,” or, and I can’t believe I heard this one, “the translators played a trick on us here…”

Are you sure you want to do that?

Single Verse Sermons

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

The site received this comment from Peter D:

I have been studying Charles Spurgeon’s sermons. He would often take one scripture and expound on it from every direction he could, would that be thin blooded? I’m preparing a message for later this month and want to focus on one verse within Psalm 63 – it sticks out to me and brings the whole psalm to life, for me at least. In your opinion is it best when dealing with psalms to preach the whole psalm in it’s entirety or can focusing on one part bring it to life for the members?

This is a good question.  Regarding the Psalms I would suggest it is always important to study a Psalm in its entirety, but it may be effective to focus on one part if that seems appropriate for the situation (i.e. when covering the full text in a longer psalm would prove overwhelming or unachievable). 

But what about single verse sermons? Certainly in the past there were many more preachers who preached on single texts, often going from those texts to a sometimes comprehensive canon-wide presentation of the pertinent doctrines suggested (or sometime not suggested) in that text.  Sadly there are many who try to copy the approach of a Spurgeon without achieving a comparable level of personal spirituality and biblical maturity.  There is certainly a place for doctrinal preaching, as well as better and worse ways to do it.  Perhaps there should be a post on that subject sometime . . .

But what can we say about single-verse sermons?

1. If a single verse is a complete unit of thought, great!  For instance, many proverbs stand alone as a complete unit of thought and can be profitably preached as such.

2. If a single verse conveys the main idea of the unit of thought, great!  In some passages there is a single thought that encapsulates the main idea of the passage and it might be effective to preach the verse, while choosing how much of the context to refer to at the same time (depending on situation of sermon, listeners, etc.)

3. If a single verse conveys a significant proportion of the main idea of the text, this might be effective.  As above, the surrounding context will need to be brought into the message in some way or other, but appearing to preach a single verse may work well.  In Peter’s comment above, I noticed how he still tied the single verse to the message of the Psalm as a whole, which makes me think it might be very effective.

4. In a topical message, a single verse may act as sectional manager for that section of the message, but that manager must not act autonomously from the influence of the full unit of thought.  That is, the verse must be understood in its context.

5. If a single verse is used without awareness of context, or to preach a point it wouldn’t give if understood in context, or if preached without studying the context . . . well, please don’t.