How to . . . ?

Preaching and Biblical Theology – Side 3

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

One last time, the basic definition of “Biblical Theology” that I am leaning on for this series of posts: Biblical theology is the fruit of studying the Bible in such a way as to recognize the individuality of each biblical author, the progress of revelation over time and the unity of the canon resulting from the inspired nature of Scripture. The question is whether our preaching neglects one side of this triangle?  So far we have looked at the issue of authorial individuality (both in style/vocabulary and in content/theology) and the progressive nature of revelation.  Now let’s look at the third “side of the triangle:”

The Unity of the Canon – We have 66 books written by roughly 40 authors.  Yet each was fully inspired and therefore there is an essential unity to the canon, forty authors, but also One Author.  When we preach the Bible as a human-only book, when we preach the Bible as tips from sages past, when we fail to preach the Bible as the theocentric self-revelation that it is, then we neglect the unity of the canon.

Guidelines – Recognize that your preaching passage does not stand separate from the rest of the canon, but carefully consider if and how to demonstrate the consistency of the Bible’s message (this is not necessary in every message, but should be an attitude consistently underlying our preaching, and purposefully demonstrated when considered helpful).

Again, there’s much more that could be said, but I’ll leave it there for you to take up the discussion.  Comments always welcome here!

Preaching and Biblical Theology – Side 2

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Here’s the basic definition of “Biblical Theology” that I am leaning on for this series of posts: Biblical theology is the fruit of studying the Bible in such a way as to recognize the individuality of each biblical author, the progress of revelation over time and the unity of the canon resulting from the inspired nature of Scripture. The question is whether our preaching neglects one side of this triangle?  Yesterday I considered the issue of authorial individuality (both in style/vocabulary and in content/theology).  Now let’s look at the second “side of the triangle:”

The Progress of Revelation – Over time, the revelation from God progressed.  If our Bible’s stopped at Genesis 3, we’d know very little.  If our Bibles stopped at Malachi, we’d be at a loss.  Our Bibles do not stop at Deuteronomy, or Malachi, or 2Timothy, or Jude (contrary to the opinion of some – I recently read a well-known scholar arguing that Revelation doesn’t add anything to the Bible in terms of theology, it just adds imagination!  We could play “spot the theological agenda” with that quote, but that’s going off point for this post!)  God gave us 66 books and each is adding to the revelation.  Thus it is important to recognize where your preaching passage sits in that progress.  We neglect this aspect of understanding the Scriptures when we fail to recognize the meaning of a passage in its context, at that time in the progress of revelation.  We can neglect this aspect when we always read everything through the “lens” of later revelation, without first honoring the fact that it is inspired Scripture even before that “lens” was added.

Guidelines – always seek to recognize the meaning of a passage as intended by the author at that point in the progress, before also recognizing how revelation progressed in the centuries that followed.  Perhaps consider whether more time needs to be spent on helping listeners see what the original recipients would have received from the passage, before jumping to a contemporary application, or even a New Testament filtered interpretation.  Always ask yourself, am I giving the impression that this text was not inspired or was not “useful” (2Tim.3:16) until a later book was written?

Other suggestions?  We’ll deal with the matter of the unity of the canon tomorrow to finish this mini-series.

Preaching and Biblical Theology – Side 1

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Biblical Theology is a very fruitful field for preachers.  Not every fruit is worth eating, of course, but there is real benefit to studying works in this field.  To give a basic definition for the sake of this post: Biblical theology is the fruit of studying the Bible in such a way as to recognize the individuality of each biblical author, the progress of revelation over time and the unity of the canon resulting from the inspired nature of Scripture. My question today is simple, does our preaching honor these three aspects of biblical theology, or do we neglect one “side of the triangle?”  Today we’ll consider the first “side of the triangle,” with the others to follow:

Individuality of each biblical author – The writings of John have a distinctive style, vocabulary and content when compared to the writings of Luke, or Paul, etc.  How do we neglect this reality in our preaching?  We do so by blending everything into the same, flat message.  We do so by excessive cross-referencing to other authors without good reason.  A high view of the Scriptures can easily lead to neglect of the individual styles and content of the human authors.  Obviously we would affirm that John does not contradict Matthew, or Moses, for that matter.  However, we may let our listeners down when we give the impression that the human author’s individuality does not shine through in their writings.  In fact, we may be undermining the high view of Scriptures we affirm if we give the impression they were mere conduits for the dictation of God – a flawed understanding of inspiration!

Guidelines? Wherever possible, recognize and value the individuality of the human author when preaching a passage.  Generally seek to demonstrate the flow of thought within the book, rather than demonstrating the theology of the passage through cross-referencing all over the canon.  Perhaps consider how to preach the content of this passage using the vocabulary and style of this author (eg. I preached the resurrection passage in Luke in deliberately Lukan terms, rather than slipping into Johannine vocabulary or Pauline, 1Cor.15, argumentation.)

These are not hard and fast rules, just suggestions to help if this “side of the triangle” is being neglected in your preaching.  Other suggestions?  (The other two sides are coming, so please don’t get overly concerned that I haven’t emphasized the unity of the canon yet!)

Balancing the Balancing

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Every text says something.  No text says everything.  Our task is to preach the text’s something in a way that is faithful to the Bible’s “everything”.  Our task is not to preach everything from this text’s something.

Balance – you don’t want to preach something that on its own is faithful to the preaching text, but distorts the message of the Bible.  So we have to think about balancing it. For example, Psalm 1. This passage is saying that lasting blessing comes to those who live according to the Word of God, rather than the words of the wicked.  However, this does not mean that simply obeying the Bible’s ethical instruction leads to eternal life.  Psalm 1 may need balance to avoid misunderstanding or misapplication.

Balance the balance – we need to be careful though.  It is easy to be so excessive in balancing that we end up blunting the force of the passage at hand.  It is possible to always preach a vague biblical message without ever allowing the text through in its power.  So how to know how much to balance?

1. Remember your goal in this message is to preach this text, not the whole canon in one shot.

2. Consider your listeners (preaching Psalm 1 to a group with non-Christians will require more balancing from beyond the passage than preaching Psalm 1 to a group of Christians at a conference).

3. Consider if this is a one-shot, or part of a process?  People at an evangelistic event may only come once, but people in a church get more messages to balance each other.  However, even with evangelism we don’t have to give them the whole deal every time we get them in (but that’s an evangelistic issue).

4. Decide the extent of balance needed (is the message slightly incomplete, or significantly risky?)  Is the main thought of this message biblically true, or is it heretical if misunderstood (especially if easily misunderstood).

There is not a one-size fits all solution.  But I offer these thoughts as a prompt to consider carefully the balancing we do in our messages – not too little, but not too much either.

When Listeners Aren’t Satisfied

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Preaching is complex. Take, for example, the matter of listener satisfaction. If they aren’t satisfied, it could be a good sign, or a bad sign. Likewise having everyone happy may mean something is wrong. So how do we navigate the issue of listener satisfaction, after all, dissatisfaction expressed is seldom water off a ducks back (for most of us). Taking some prompts from Boyd-MacMillan and blending them with my own thoughts, here are a few comments to prompt our thoughts. This is by no means a definitive list of thoughts, but it is a start:

1. Expressed dissatisfaction is often overstated. Many people find it hard to express dissatisfaction fairly. It’s as if something wells up within and then bursts forth, often with excessive force. Boyd-MacMillan says that Christians “often express criticism in apocalyptic terms.” Instead of simply stating, “I don’t like his style,” they will instead assert that “he betrayed the gospel of Jesus Christ!” It is a good skill to learn to tone down excessive criticism as well as excessive praise (“that was the best sermon I ever heard!!!” probably wasn’t).

2. Recognize that tension fired your way is often nothing to do with you or your preaching. People react to the innocent provocation of pet peeves, or the poking of raw nerves of various kinds. You may become the focus of the critique, but don’t take all critique at face value.

That’s enough for now, more to follow tomorrow. Feel free to comment from your experience and perspective.

What If You’re Not Ready?

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

It is so important to understand the text before you preach it!  I don’t mean just knowing what the big words mean.  I don’t mean just having a collection of exegetical insights to share.  I don’t mean even having a sermon vaguely based on certain parts of the text.  I mean really understanding what the text is saying – understanding it’s unity, it’s message, it’s point, it’s purpose, it’s role in the broader flow of thought in the book.  What if you’re not ready though?

Suggestion with several caveats to follow: If you’re not ready, don’t preach it.  Instead preach an old message again that you are confident is biblically sound.

Just think what an example that might be for the congregation!  “We were scheduled to be in Epistle XYZ 4:15-22, but I’ve been studying it over several weeks and still am not there yet – some passages take real work to really grasp!  So I’ll keep on studying, but for today, let’s look again at . . . ”

Caveats a coming!

1. Chances are, they won’t remember a message you re-preach.  But it would be honest to tell them it’s worth a second look at this old message rather than trying to “slip it through.”

2. Recognize that as a Bible student we never fully plumb the depths of any passage and as a preacher we shouldn’t really present all the plumbs either!  It takes wisdom to know the difference between “I’ll never fully plumb this passage” and “I haven’t grasped the fundamental unity and flow of thought in this passage.

3. It is in no way a good example if you simply started too late.

4. Whether you are a paid pastor preaching weekly, or an unpaid preacher preaching periodically, there is an element of commitment involved.  It will undermine your credibility if you follow the above suggestion more than very rarely!  (In fact, if you are only doing one section in a series from the same book, you can’t simply make the subsequent weeks shift by missing your section.  Get help earlier in the process and make sure you grasp the passage before you preach it, for surely you must preach it!)

5. It is probably better to take this post as a strong prod to really be prepared, rather than actually trying what I suggest!  (I’d be interested to hear if anyone has ever publically announced their need for more time to study a certain passage!)

The World’s Most Influential People

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Sitting on my desk is a recent copy of Time Magazine.  The main reason that I still get it is that they offered to almost pay me to receive it (that’s an exaggeration, before you start asking for details).  It is the edition with the world’s 100 most influential people.  Interesting collection of people from Obama to Sarkozy, Pacquiao to Nadal, Oprah to Palin and Michelle Obama to Rush Limbaugh.  A largely predictable list that doesn’t stir massive response from this sporadic Time reader.

However, I have one complaint about the list.  One person is missing.  The faithful biblical expositor.  Oh yes, Rick Warren made it on to the list after a year of critique from various sides.  I’m glad he’s on there.  But I’m thinking about faithful preacher at the normal church on 53rd and Main.  I’m thinking about the faithful expositor at 13th Presby-Bapto-Angli-Independent Bible Church.  I’m thinking about the unknown preachers I shared a week with recently in a country many people have not heard of.  I’m thinking about the relatively no-name preacher in a relatively unknown church somewhere.  Preachers like you.  Preachers like me.  Preachers who study the Word and faithfully, prayerfully present the meaning of the text and emphasize its relevance to the lives of their listeners.  Preachers who plug away for little or no pay (on earth), for little or no thanks (on earth), for little or no acclaim (on earth).

Only eternity will tell how much genuinely lasting influence has been exerted by the preachers who’ve looked beyond fame and position to serve faithfully in this vital ministry.  Unnamed preacher in unknown church.  Time missed you.  Eternity will not.  Be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, for you know your labour is not in vain in the Lord!

Five Looks and Two Options

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

This post is building on the previous two.  Yesterday I shared “Five Looks” approach to Bible study to illustrate a discussion on Monday’s post.  The issue raised on Monday was do we preach the main thought of a text, or a biblical theology prompted by the main thought of a text?  The question really focuses in on step 4 of the “five looks” – Look Forward.  How does looking beyond our focus text help us in the process of interpretation?

Some would say that we must read all of Scripture through the lens of later revelation, and that consequently all preaching must progress the story to its full conclusion.  I beg to differ, while asking for careful hearing so that I am not just dismissed as being somehow outside the pale of someone’s definition of orthodoxy!

It is important to consider a text in its biblical context.  This includes what comes later, as well as what came before.  However, we should not explain a text in light of later revelation such that the text itself, as inspired originally, is left stripped of its value.  The human author did not know the later revelation, so why must we require later information in order to interpret the text as it stands?  The progress of revelation matters greatly, but we need not immediately read a passage through a later lens.  We look at a passage in its context of the progress of revelation, but then progress the story beyond that if necessary and helpful.  We do not need to meld the latter with the former into one “super-interpretation” (although I would call such a process actually a diminished interpretation).  Rather we should do one, then the other, recognizing that the order matters.

Study, understand and preach a passage in its context (recognizing where it fits in the progress of revelation).  If necessary, develop the greater story to its culmination.  If you like, using the “five looks” approach presented above: step 4 carefully understood is important in our Bible study, but in preaching we should preach the fruit of steps 1-3, plus 5, adding in 4 if necessary and helpful.

Look Look Look Look Look

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Perhaps you have come across the “Five Looks” approach to Bible study?  It is a clear and helpful approach credited to Andrew Reid of Ridley College, Melbourne.  Here is a brief synopsis:

1. Look Up – We need to receive the Bible as the word of God.  This implies a commitment to prayer and faith.

2. Look Down – We must recognize the Bible as the work of human authors.  This implies careful consideration of the deliberate communication as designed by the human writer. So, exegesis is about considering and understanding the text itself, while also adding in two more looks…

3. Look Back – We need to see a text in its biblical context by looking back to what has gone before, and:

4. Look Forward – We need to see a text in its biblical context by looking forward to what comes after the text.

5. Look Here – Finally it is important to apply the text today and consider it’s application in today’s world.

This is a helpful approach.  Tomorrow I will add a post commenting on this approach to Bible study in light of my post from yesterday.  Feel free to comment in the meantime.

Question to Ponder – What is it we preach?

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

What is it that we preach?  I’m really “preaching to the choir” in this post.  I’m addressing those who are committed to expository preaching and therefore will unhesitatingly affirm – “we preach the Bible!”  Others may hesitate and desire to preach contemporary ideas or whatever else, but for those of us who, at least in theory, preach the Bible, my question stands.  What is it that we preach?  I see two approaches among expository preachers:

Option A – We preach the main thought of a text.

Option B – We preach an aspect of biblical theology prompted by the main thought of a text.

I see strengths in both approaches.  I see potential weaknesses in the way either approach might be applied by some preachers.  I see different preachers and different “schools of thought” falling under different categories in this over-simplified schema.

So how are we to select our option and move forward?  I see value in both options, but on this site I urge a commitment to option A (preach the text you are preaching), with an awareness of option B (develop the theology of the text biblically if you deem it necessary).  I know and respect others who essentially affirm option B for every sermon (always develop the thought through the canon to its fulfilment).

Identifying these two categories is an intriguing starting point for reflection on my own approach to preaching and hopefully for yours too.  Where might this reflection lead?  Is it necessary to offer rationale and critique of each?  Will people recognize that I am not setting up a permanent either/or mutually exclusive construct, but rather identifying the primary leaning of the expository preacher?