How to . . . ?

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!

The Non-Academic Preacher Compliment

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Last week I spoke to a friend who had asked to borrow my master’s thesis.  He was positive about it, but mentioned that he’d had to look up some terms I’d used.  He was a bit surprised since he doesn’t have that challenge when I preach.  That’s an encouraging compliment in my eyes!

Here’s a quick quote that is somewhat related in Phillip Jensen’s chapter, “Preaching the Word Today” in Preach the Word, the book of essays in honor of Kent Hughes:

With the discriminating eye of the cynic, the modern scholar can deconstruct the author’s writings so as to explain what he “really” meant.  Only the expert – never the ploughboy – can know what was meant.  The priesthood of all believers is no longer replaced by the sacerdotalism of the sacramentalists but by the arrogance of the academy.

We need to be so careful.  I think it is good to get the best academic training possible (a matter of good stewardship), but we need to be very careful not to develop the easily associated arrogance that comes with training, nor to carry that arrogance into the pulpit.  We serve the priesthood of all believers; we are not the priesthood for all other believers.

Let’s make sure we open up the Bible in peoples’ laps, rather than moving it further away from them.  Let’s make sure we communicate well, rather than impress with lofty language that the ploughboy doesn’t understand.  Let’s make sure we prepare for ministry and prepare for a message as fully as we are able, but not let that show in any way that will hinder our listeners.

A Patient Ministry

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

It is generally obvious that life transformation generally happens gradually.  While God might give a breakthrough epiphany moment from time to time, He does His patient work of building the church all the time.  This is true on multiple levels.

We need patience with the congregation. That’s not to suggest we preach without an edge of expectancy, encouragement and even exhortation.  It is to suggest that we pray for breakthroughs, but trust God to work out His plans in each life in His timing.

We need patience with ourselves. It’s easy to respond to a small bit of negative feedback, or a feeling of failure last time we preached, and suddenly have a list of personal weaknesses that need to be fixed.  We need to patiently serve faithfully.  Seeking to improve out of good stewardship of our ministry, but trusting God to continue working in our lives at His pace.

We need patience with key people. It could be a “well-intentioned dragon” – a constructive critic in the church.  It could be a person of influence with unclear motives.  It could be an individual that requires far more energy than we feel able to give.  We must pray for wisdom, for strength, for patience to not make rash moves at our speed that miss what God is doing at His.

I am by no means affirming ministry weakened by low expectation, unimproved by lack of personal growth or unnecessarily hindered by a motivation-drain unaddressed.  I am simply reminding myself and us all of something I was told fifteen years ago: “God walks at 3mph.”  Let’s keep our gaze on Him and serve, even live, with prayerful patience.

Points on Picking Passages – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday we saw that God is sovereign and all Scripture is “useful” (which sounds like an understatement when separated from 2Tim.3:16!)  So when there is freedom to choose a passage for a message, consider:

Consider the people. Who are they?  What do they need?  What issues are they facing in life, both individually and corporately? Sometimes a prayerful consideration of the applicational needs of the people will prompt your thinking toward a specific passage or kind of passage.

Consider the program. What teaching have they had recently?  What is coming up after your message?  Sometimes the program might suggest a helpful place to go for your message.  Perhaps a helpful OT background passage for the subsequent series in a NT book.  Perhaps a passage with a similar idea to reinforce teaching they’ve recently heard.  Perhaps something very different to bring balance to the program.

Consider your preference. There is nothing unspiritual about asking yourself, what do I want to study and preach?  If you are personally motivated to be in a specific book or passage,  then it will enliven both your study and delivery.  Often such a choice leads to more work, not less, because when the heart engages with the opportunity, the preacher will give more in the preparation stage.

Consider your personal ability. Some passages are harder to interpret than others.  Some are harder to preach than others.  Is the study time available before you preach enough to really study the passage well (and are you capable of such study)?  Is the time available for the message long enough to really preach a long narrative with all the necessary description and narration?  There’s nothing spiritual about biting off more than you can chew.  Lives are changed by simple and the familiar passages preached well.

Careful of excessive delay in decision. However you choose, it is important to choose.  It is much better to spend hours wrestling with the text in prayerful preparation, than it is to spend hours wrestling with what passage to preach.  The sooner you make a decision, the sooner the text can start working in your life (a prerequisite to effectively preaching it to others).

Any other considerations that you would add to the mix?

Points on Picking Passages – Part 1

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

While you may agree that working through a book is the ideal default when planning a preaching schedule, what if you are only preaching a single message? What if a passage is not assigned and you are free to choose? What freedom to delight in! Or perhaps, what a stress to despair in! Today I’ll lay a foundation with two firm facts, then tomorrow offer several considerations as a passage is chosen.

Two Firm Facts:

1. God is sovereign. We should pray throughout the preparation process, including the selection of a passage. However, we don’t need to wait endless hours for direct revelation of a specific passage when God has not promised to give us such a revelation.  How often have we preached and then heard, “that was exactly what God knew I needed to hear?”  Far more often than an angel visits us with preaching instructions.  God is not at the mercy of our ability to “spot the signs” and discern some slightly hidden hints from heaven.  God is sovereign.

2. All Scripture is “useful.” In theory any passage can be preached with appropriate application to any given group of listeners. Obviously some passages are far harder to preach relevantly than others depending on the passage and the listeners. However, there is not one perfect passage for this occasion that if you miss it you will have failed. Enjoy the freedom that comes from knowing what they need is the Bible – clear and applied – not a needle in the haystack that you somehow have to find.

Tomorrow I’ll offer some considerations to complete this post.

The Challenge of Narratives 3: Gospels – Part II

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Note – Peter has extended comments related to this post, see previous in the series here

Last time we looked at the interpretational challenge of more than one “author.”  Now, let’s see another challenge:

2. More than one “account” of the event. What are we to do when we find the same story told in two, three, or even all four gospels?  Perhaps like me you were taught the analogy of the car accident?  A solution to the “problem” of multiple, but not identical accounts, this explanation goes like this:

The Car Accident. A car is involved in a crash, so the Police come to the scene and take eye-witness accounts of what occurred.  The person standing at the traffic light saw it one way, but the person coming out of the shop saw it differently.  Same event, different accounts.  Hence we have four gospels, problem solved.

But as with all such analogies, this one falls short.  It doesn’t take into account that each “eye-witness” statement was written under inspiration and with theological intent.  The gospels were not transcripts of history intended to give chronological exhaustive accuracy.  Rather, they are historically accurate, but they are primarily theological writing skillfully arranged to convey four specific and distinct messages.

So what do we do?

1. We should compare multiple accounts of the same event in order to check for accuracy in our understanding of what transpired (you wouldn’t want to preach factual error because you didn’t read Mark’s account).

2. We should compare multiple accounts in order to recognize the emphasis given in the particular text you are studying (i.e. what is John emphasizing here?)

3. We should resist the temptation to preach a composite harmonization of the event itelf, but rather preach the text.  The text is inspired, not the event.  So study them all, but if your text is in John, preach John.  If your text is in Mark, preach Mark.

eg. The feeding of the 5000 has different emphasis in each gospel, so don’t preach a composite of John’s “bread of life” theology with Mark’s “kingdom feast has come” theology.

eg. The stilling of the storm in Matthew 8:23-27 is in a sequence of three miracles emphasizing Jesus’ authority.  In Mark 4:35-41 it stands as a lesson to the disciples after teaching on the unstoppable nature of the kingdom, and begins a series of four stories emphasizing the fear/faith theme.

Time Wasted When Time Is Short

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

It’s easy to waste time you don’t have when you’re preaching.  For example, as we start our message, it is tempting to say that if only we had longer we could do a better job of preaching the passage.  We waste time by saying this and achieve nothing other than a vain attempt to protect our reputation from a negative reaction to our preaching (aka an excuse).

Don’t tell people you wish you had more time to do justice to the passage.  Use the time you have to the full.  I won’t take any more of your time on this post!

?-Centric Preaching

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

There is a lot of discussion about whether preaching is anthropocentric or theocentric (man or God-centered).  Some like to get into the theocentric versus christocentric debate (God or Christ-centered).  I am not getting into that one in this post (although I will mention a helpful category I heard recently from Walter Kaiser – christocentric is one thing, but christo-exclusive is another . . . I like that helpful distinction!)

Based on the nature of Scripture, I think it is vital that we grasp the necessity of theocentric interpretation, and consequently, preaching.  Kent Edwards, in a journal article, stated:

The point of a biblical story is always a theological point.  We learn something about God and how to live in response to him when we understand a biblical story.  The narrative literature of the Bible is concretized theology.
J.Kent Edwards, JEHS 7:1, 10.

How true that is!  Even if you were to study Esther, the story in the Bible where God is textually absent, it doesn’t take long to recognize that God is very much present as the hero of the story!  Let’s be sure we don’t study Bible passages, stories in particular, and merely derive little lessons for life.  We can leave that with Aesop’s Fables.  Let’s be sure we grapple with the theological point of every story, the intersection between God and humanity.  God’s Word is all relevant and useful, so our preaching should likewise be relevant and useful to life.  But we also center our preaching on God, because the Bible is centered on Him!