How to . . . ?

Dealing With Personal Inadequacies in Preaching

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I made a passing comment about inadequacy in preaching.  We all feel inadequate in some area.  Perhaps it relates to our lack of training.  Or our lack of understanding the many elements of the expository preaching process.  Or perhaps we feel lightweight in the arena of theology.  Or maybe our delivery lacks that certain something.  Or maybe we feel inadequate in the area of pastoral awareness and connection with our listeners.  The list could go on.  Here are some thoughts on this matter:

1. Feelings of inadequacy are appropriate. As I wrote the other day, we are out of our depth.  We should be feeling inadequate as we handle God’s Word, as we prepare to present the Word of God to people who need it so desperately, as we participate in a ministry with such eternal ramifications.  Inadequacy should be the name of the game on one level.

2. Feelings of inadequacy should not be avoided. There are ways to hide from our feelings of inadequacy.  For instance, rationalizing approaches that circumvent our areas of weakness.  One example was presented yesterday – just waiting on God to give us what to say rather than facing the challenge of studying the text to see what God has said there.  We naturally find ways to avoid inadequacy and protect ourselves.  This is not a faith approach.

3. Feelings of inadequacy should not undermine faith. When we stand to preach, we stand in faith.  We have to trust God.  We have to trust in His Word.  We have to trust in the power of His Spirit.  So feelings of inadequacy may be a prompt to doubt, which we should address by prayer-fueled faith.

4. Feelings of inadequacy might be a prompt to faith-filled action. I deliberately didn’t put this first, but it does belong on the list.  That is to say, perhaps our feelings of inadequacy should prompt us to prayerfully strengthen in those areas of weakness.  Is it time to take a course of study, attend a training day, read a book, work through a systematic theology text or whatever?  We should not try to strengthen weakness as a means of fleshly self-reliance, but rather as good stewards of the ministry God has entrusted to us.  Let us prove to be faithful stewards, rather than fearful stewards.

Feelings of inadequacy – not all good, not all bad, not the end of the story.

Beware Special Revelation Preaching

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I need to be careful how I phrase this post.  Depending on our theology, we all have slightly differing views of how much God directly communicates with us.  Some are very hesitant to hint that God “spoke” to them, while others freely assign such labels that give the impression of a hotline from heaven.  I don’t intend to weigh in on the issues of guidance or prophecy, etc.  My concern is with biblical preaching.

We need to be careful that we don’t undermine our approach to preaching by means of a “special revelation” approach to sermon preparation.  The process is fairly simple to explain: you spend time prayerfully considering the text and the occasion until you sense that God has “given you something to say.”  Then you preach that.  I am not dismissing this approach out of hand, but I do want to raise some warning flags.  First though, let me affirm the intent in this approach:

Affirmed – The desire to say what God is saying. This should be the desire of every true preacher.  We want to say what God wants us to say, nothing else.

Affirmed – The reliance on God through prayer. May we never advocate or practice prayerless preaching.

Affirmed – The desire for contemporary relevance.

However . . .

Warning Flag – There is an inherent risk that the text God inspired will be abused as merely a point of departure for other thoughts, which may or may not be from Him.

Warning Flag – The process can be a shortcut taken to avoid the prayerful work of understanding the passage and planning how to best present the truth found there.  (Perhaps also a safety measure to avoid feeling personal inadequacy in the area of Bible study, preaching, etc.  It is better to bring our inadequacy to God, rather than finding ways to avoid the issue.)

Warning Flag – This approach can undermine the congregation’s view of the Bible. It fails to demonstrate that when the Bible is understood properly, God is speaking.  It gives the impression that we need something new and fresh, rather than the “old stuff” in the Bible.  A truly dangerous impression to give.

The reality is that we can and must commit to prayerful study of the Bible in order to understand its meaning and then present that meaning emphasizing its relevance for our listeners on a particular occasion.  Perhaps Don Sunukjian’s simple definition of expository preaching is a good place to end – “Listen to what God is saying . . . to us!”

Unusually Careful

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Just a brief thought since it is the season for non-regular attenders at church.  When preparing evangelistic sermons it is worth being unusually careful.  Apparently, Martyn Lloyd-Jones would always write out his evangelistic sermons, rather than his edification sermons.  Remember that the real “risk” when preaching the gospel is not the preacher’s, but the church folk who’ve invited their friends.  It is so easy to inadvertently offend in the wrong sense of the term.  So with all the extra visitors in our churches this Sunday, let’s be unusually careful in preparing the messages.

With the Time You Have

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

As I wander through Preach the Word, I am taking advantage of little nuggets here and there to prompt posts.  Today I’m influenced by Wayne Grudem’s article on “Right and Wrong Interpretation of the Bible.”  He makes a point that I have probably made before, but it bears repeating.

Grudem writes, “It is possible to do a short or long study of any passage.  Do what you can with the time you have, and don’t be discouraged about all that you cannot do.”

Study time is not prescribed. I’m often asked how long sermon preparation should take.  A standard question, to which I give a probably standard answer – “as long as you have.”  It doesn’t help to feel bound to a ten-hour minimum study phase if you simply don’t have ten hours to study the passage.  Grudem gives the example of having to give a devotional talk with ten minutes warning.  Can it be done?  Of course.  He doesn’t suggest it is a good idea to prepare for ten minutes, but it can be done.  On the other hand, the same passage might be studied for twenty hours in anticipation of a Sunday sermon, for two or three hundred hours in the preparation of an academic article, or for a full year or more for the sake of a PhD.

Don’t be discouraged by time you don’t have. Seems obvious, but it’s so easy to get discouraged when we think of all that we have not done in our preparation.  Resources not checked, words not fully studied, verbs unparsed, syntax not diagrammed, cross-references not referenced, etc.  If you didn’t have time, God knows that, and we need to know that too.

Don’t be disqualified by time you didn’t use. I would add this to the mix.  Often there is not enough time.  But sometimes we fail to use the time we have.  Obviously that is not good.  Often it is inexcusable.  Who was it that referred to time-wasting as the greatest sin of the younger generation?  Anyway, when you know your time is running out and you can’t honestly say you used every moment as you should have, what should you do?  You shouldn’t carry a weight of guilt and self-recrimination that steals your heart away from the privilege of knowing God and preaching His Word.  It is important to do what you preach – keep a short account with God, confess, repent, accept forgiveness.  We don’t sin so that grace may increase, but praise the Lord that there is plenty of grace in His character . . . we need it!

Fullness, Not Dipping – Narratives

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I’d like to share another post in light of the chapter by Leland Ryken in the book he co-edited entitled Preach the Word (in honor of Kent Hughes).  In writing of the importance of understanding the Bible literarily and not just theologically or historically, he states the following:

A biblical scholar who caught the vision for a literary approach to the Bible has written regarding Bible stories, “A story is a story is a story.  It cannot be boiled down to a meaning,” that is, adequately treated at the level of theological abstraction.  A person listening to an expository sermon on the story of Cain should be aware from start to finish that the text being explicated is a narrative, not a theological treatise.  The text exists to be relived in its fullness, not dipped into as a source of proof texts for moral and theological generalizations. (Ryken, quoting John Drury, Preach the Word, 43)

A couple of comments from me:

I agree with the general thrust of this, particularly what is affirmed. I fully agree with Ryken’s qualified version of the Drury quote – a story cannot be “adequately treated” at the level of theological abstraction.  However, this is not to say that there is no place for theological abstraction in the preaching of stories.  Listeners should know they are hearing a narrative preached, rather than a theological treatise.  In fact, discerning listeners should, over time, recognize that very little in the Bible is best described as theological treatise – most of the Bible is highly “occasional” in nature, but still highly relevant to our “occasion” or situation.  Certainly, let’s not treat any Bible passage as a source of proof texts!

I would slightly disagree with what is denied. Listeners listening to a narrative explicated will either consciously or sub-consciously be looking for both unity and relevance in the message.  This puts the onus on us as preachers to make sure the main idea is identified and relevance is emphasized.  This is not about abstracting from a narrative to create some sort of literary-less set of propositions.  It is about making sure people don’t simply hear a story and make of it what they will.  By working toward a statement of the main idea in a narrative, we are forced to study and seek to understand not only the content, but also the intent of the author.  For a story is certainly a story, but Bible writers didn’t waste papyrus on entertainment alone, they were also theologians seeking to communicate about God by means of the highly effective literary form of story.

So let us preach texts in their fullness, let us make sure the stories we study are still stories when we preach, but let’s not think the hard work of defining the main idea is unnecessary with biblical narratives.

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!

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!

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.

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.