How to . . . ?

Apologetics for Homiletics – Part 3 continued

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

So does homiletical methodology impose a strait jacket on the preacher?  Yesterday we noted that methodology recognizes the progression from text to sermon, it does not rigidly enforce it.  Description of logical order, as opposed to prescription of illogical order.  But there is more to be added:

2. Good methodology only feels like a structure initially. It is like riding a bicycle.  At first there is a lot to remember and try to keep straight, but once it becomes natural, it is natural.  A person first learning to ride a bicycle needs to learn all the necessary elements, even if it feels overwhelming.  It doesn’t help to ignore the handlebars initially and simply let the arms hang limp.  The initial “structured” feel soon fades with practice.

3. Good methodology is a guide, not a machine that “guarantees” results. You cannot feed a text into a machine and produce a good message.  The methodology found in homiletics books and courses is a guide, not a machine.  Any promise to guarantee a great message is a false promise – whether that be a sermon methodology, a published collection of outlines, a website, or whatever.

4. Good methodology does not force the text into a sermon shape. There are methodologies that do this.  This is a strait jacket.  As I’ve written before – sermon form is a choice for the preacher to make in light of the text, the listeners, the occasion and the preacher’s own strengths and skill.  Good sermon preparation methodology is a guide, not a shoe-horn that will squeeze any text into a specific sermon mold.

So homiletics instruction in book or course form is not intended to be a strait jacket, but a guide.  Many testify to the freedom that comes from a sense of structure in the preparation process.  For many, it is the absence of any guidance at all that brings on feelings of insanity, not the “strait jacket” of a sensible thought-through methodology.

Apologetics for Homiletics – Part 2 continued

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Does homiletics quench the Spirit? Yesterday I sounded a warning note concerning “false positive” feedback.  We’ve got to be careful not to assume the Spirit is at work in great ways merely because our listeners are excessively polite to us as they shake our hands and head for the door.  Obviously that is only a minor side-point. Here are some more important points:

2. The Holy Spirit does work during delivery, but also during preparation. Preparation is not unspiritual.  The Holy Spirit is not hindered by careful and prayerful preparation.  The Bible does not promise that we will be given what to say when we preach (only when brought to witness before authorities under persecution – Matt.10:17-20).  In fact, the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible and cares more than we do that it is understood properly and applied appropriately.  How can shooting from the hip be more spiritual than a prayer-soaked preparation?  We should be careful how we define what is spiritual and what is not.

3. Just because the Spirit can work despite us, why would we want to limit Him to that? The best study of the Scriptures that we can manage, the best structuring and development of messages that we can achieve, the best communication skill that we can use . . . it’s all a matter of good stewardship, is it not?  God is not limited to our strengths, He specializes in using us in our weakness, for He gives grace to those who humbly recognize their need.  But shall we deliberately go on preaching poorly that grace may increase?  Not if we are being a good steward.

4. If homiletical instruction causes us to preach in our own strength, then we have a problem, Houston! Having said everything that I have in the first three points, there is a concern that we must all face.  In our good stewardship, we must not end up self-reliant or flesh-powered.  God opposes the proud.  We must allow any training or instruction we receive to humble us (good homiletics training is like opening a window shutter and discovering how vast and intricate the task of preaching really is!)

So that’s a start.  More thoughts tomorrow on this issue of defending the teaching of preaching!

Apologetics for Homiletics – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The whole issue of whether homiletics training and methodology might quench or restrict the Spirit in some way is a critical issue.  Today and tomorrow we will scratch the surface of this issue, then another issue after that.

Doesn’t homiletics quench the Spirit? There is no doubt that God is not limited to working through and with us, He can also work around and despite us.  A passing comment, perhaps even when we preached error of some sort, sometimes has been used of God to “bless” someone.  Several things need to be taken into account, the first of which is subsidiary but worthy of note:

1. Not all positive feedback should be trusted. It’s an experiment I do not suggest you try.  If you stand up and read a passage and then preach biblical sounding truth with a certain amount of enthusiasm or seriousness, but deliberately don’t preach the text before you, deliberately slip in some error, contradict yourself a few times and avoid all specific application . . . what will happen?  You will receive positive feedback.  If it sounded too intellectual to be intelligible, then people will say “That was so rich!”  If it included an amusing anecdote at some point, then some people will shake your hand firmly and declare that they’ve been blessed.  If they can’t think of anything positive to say, they’ll shake your hand and say thank you anyway.  Why?  Because people are polite to preachers (they wouldn’t want to stand in front of a crowd and speak!)  And sadly, in some cases, they have not heard enough good preaching, or trained themselves by constant use of the Bible, in order to recognize poor preaching when they hear it.

Remember that the test of “biblical” preaching is not just the preaching of biblical truth that blesses people (the usual test to which people default), it is the preaching of the truth in the passage preached that appropriately and genuinely influences people. All positive feedback is not a trustworthy indicator of your effectiveness in ministry, nor even of God being at work in their lives.

I have three more thoughts on this issue of the quenching of the Spirit by homiletics, but I’ll add them tomorrow to avoid making this the longest post ever!

Specific Aims

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

As you head forward to preach today, are you clear on your aim?  A great main idea that is fired indiscrimately is not as good as a great main idea fired at a specific target.  Do you have a specific statement of sermon purpose?  Is it something you want listeners to do?  Is it something they should believe or know as a result of the message?  Is it something tangible?  Sometimes a sermon purpose will be in the area of belief rather than action, but how might that changed belief influence action this week?

Expository biblical preaching not only explains the meaning of the text, it also lands that text in the lives of listeners so that they can apply it.  Where do you aim to land the bridge today?

Making Words Clear

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Here in London you can visit the British Library and look at such priceless items as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus.  While it is a privilege to see them, they are not the easiest things to read and understand.  Written in uncials, ITISNOTEASYTOREADTEXTWITHOUTGAPSORPUNCTUATION.  Never mind the fact that it is in Greek, just the running together of endless letters is tough enough.

Thankfully we don’t have to read Greek text written in uncials.  We are blessed to have the Bible very accurately translated into our language, with all the blessings of spaces between words, punctuation, etc.  They’ve even conveniently added in the widely recognized and accepted verse and chapter divisions.  They usually also add the equally uninspired and sometimes unhelpful section headings.  Nevertheless, with all this help, the text is still often perceived to be a block of writing with one word running into the next.

As we study a passage in order to understand it and then preach it, we start to recognize the structure of the thought.  Just this week I was in Ephesians 5:1-14.  Initially it feels like a whole series of almost random instructions and explanations.  Gradually the flow of thought becomes clearer.  Major thoughts stand out, supporting thoughts fall into place.  Typically in the epistles I will use some kind of clausal layout and/or exegetical outlining approach to see the flow of thought more clearly.

When we preach our task includes the need to make a string of words clear.  We don’t have to start with an uncial script, but to all intents and purposes, we practically are.  Listeners hearing a string of verses often grasp very little first time through.  As we preach we look for ways to emphasize the main thoughts, we look for ways to demonstrate how the “support material” in the text explains, proves and/or applies the main thoughts.  Without technical jargon, our preaching needs to verbally achieve the formation of something like a clausal layout in the minds and hearts of our listeners.  Certainly, by the time we are done preaching, they should not see the text as a string of random words or thoughts . . . it should be much clearer than that!

Squeezing One Sentence into Half an Hour

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Last night I was involved in a very enjoyable Bible study in Ephesians.  After wrestling with the text together for a good while, we tried to summarize the section in one sentence.  Having made a first pass at a summary statement (or main idea), I mentioned that now there is a chance we could preach the passage.  A very perceptive (and tongue-in-cheek) question came right back at me.  “How come if you can say it in one sentence, a sermon has to take half-an-hour?”

So, how come?  How come we work hard to get the main idea of a passage and then take half-an-hour to preach a message that in theory can be stated in one sentence?  Let us make a dangerous assumption for the sake of this post – let’s assume that we actually have a one sentence main idea statement of the message of the text.  What do we do for half-an-hour?

Option 1.  We carefully plan how to best drive that main idea home. What introduction will draw people forward into the message with genuinely piqued interest and a thirst for this part of God’s Word? When should the main idea be presented? Should we repeatedly drive it home using the text’s sub-points (not annoyingly like a child’s impersonation of a sub-machine gun, but like the carefully placed bullets of a sniper) or should we create anticipation so once the main idea is stated it goes deep (like a bunker-busting missile)?  How can the main idea be supported by explanation of the text?  How can the main idea be earthed in our lives through carefully developed application?  Option 1 is to take half-an-hour and make that main idea so clear, so transformative, so evident from the text, so applicational for each life.  Option 1 is about turning one sentence into a life-changing power-packed single message. Or there is option 2 . . .

Option 2.  We use our half-an-hour to increasingly obfuscate the main idea. We provide a series of pieces of information, background descriptions, vaguely related cross-references, potentially amusing anecdotes, random highlights from our exegesis, etc.  All of these could be helpful, but if we’re not careful they may simply provide a cover of smoke so that the main idea in no way hits home.  Or we hide the main idea beneath three or four points from the text that do not hold together but function as a selection of messages from which our listeners can select their favourite.  Often option 2 is selected by default.  It is selected because the main idea is not fully crystallized in our minds so we spray random bullets hoping our listeners will make something out of it.

If a sermon can be stated in one sentence, why do we need half-an-hour?  I suppose it depends on the preacher, and it depends on the sermon!

Orient Before Any Journey

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

It’s important to know where you are going before you try to go there.  This is true in travel and it is true in preaching.  Some people mistakenly think that since “deductive” or “punch-line first” approaches to preaching can lack interest, tension and motivation to listen, the alternative is to travel vaguely toward an unknown goal.  Wrong.  It is important to orient the listener to where the message is going, whether or not the punch-line or main idea is given up front.

This is true for the message as a whole. If you decide that an inductive strategy would work best for the message, then plan the orientation phase well.  People don’t like to be led through a forest blind-folded, but this is how some poor inductive sermons feel from the listener’s perspective.  Look for ways to introduce the relevance of the message in the introduction.  Typically an inductive message should have the subject element of the main idea introduced early on, leaving the complement to complete the idea for later in the message.

This is true for smaller phases of the message. For example, don’t launch into background information without giving some orientation to why it is relevant to the message.  As the speaker, you know how relevant the information is to what will follow.  The listeners don’t.  Explain why the background is helpful, then give the background.  Don’t make people wait for the point of what they are already hearing.

There may be some exceptions to this.  However, as a general rule, make sure you orient your listeners so they are motivated to listen to the background information you give, or to the message as a whole.  Highlight relevance early to motivate concentration.  This is not all it takes to keep people with you, but without this, they will drift.

The Challenge of Introducing a Series

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

When you start a new series of messages from a book, the first message is a challenge.  Not just because you want people to be motivated for the series, but because the first message has to stand in its own right.  Simply presenting the background information like the notes in a study Bible is not expository preaching.  But if you give the background and then preach the first section, you may end up with two messages or too little time to really preach that first section.  What to do?

Option 1 – Don’t give any more than brief background awareness and concentrate on the first section.  This keeps you earthed in the text rather than the historical study notes.  It may fall short on giving people awareness of the book as a whole, but if that first section is preached well, people should be motivated to hear more (background information can and should be given throughout the series).  Often the first section serves as a very effective introduction to the themes and issues that will follow in the book.

Option 2 – Give background (author, date, occasion, etc.) and overview of the book’s structure, highlighting the main idea of the book and it’s initial application for the listeners.  The important thing in an overview introduction like this is to make sure you have a main idea that comes from studying the text and make sure it is applied, otherwise you don’t have an expository sermon.

Option 3 – Genuinely preach the whole book.  Obviously with most books it is not feasible to read the whole text.  However, it is possible to preach the flow of thought through the whole book, highlighting and applying the main idea, just as you will with the individual sections later in the series.  Historical background may be only briefly mentioned, but preaching the book can be a powerful introduction to the series.  Again, as with the similar option 2 above, it is critical to have both main idea and application of that idea.  You will need to selectively read verses from the book in order to underscore the biblical authority for your explanation.

Shining Light in a Dark World

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

It is ironic that in the post-enlightenment west, where we “know” that spirits are not real, we naively celebrate Halloween as if it were just fun for the children.  The occultic reality of what goes on in many places remains hidden from many blissful believers in our churches.  Perhaps Cranfield was right in suggesting that the greatest achievement of the powers of evil would be to persuade us that they do not exist.

Halloween and all that goes with it seems to be the last big thing on the schedule before the Christmas hype begins (apologies to Americans who still have Thanksgiving to go yet).  It’s a dark world, but the birth of Jesus breaks in like the light that He is.

Whatever your personal view on Halloween, it is not possible to take the Bible seriously and summarily discount the reality of a spiritual realm.  Perhaps it is time to reflect again on the spiritual nature of ministry.  We preach the gospel to people whose eyes are blinded by the god of this age.  We preach the Word to believers who face ongoing spiritual battles whether they know it or not.  We stand to preach as weak humans in an ongoing conflict that is already won, but will be completed, by the “greater One” who is in us.

Recognize the reality of the spiritual backdrop to all that goes on this Sunday.  Pray accordingly.  Proclaim the truth.  Lean fully on the strength that our Lord supplies.  Jesus took the spiritual battle seriously.  So must we.  After Halloween comes Christmas.  Like shining a light into a dark world.  Whatever our passage this Sunday, let’s preach as if it is Christmas, as if hope has dawned, as if Jesus’ coming changes everything.

Concerning Commentaries

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Commentaries are an interesting blessing.  Most of us have access to various commentaries, both in print, perhaps in software form and online.  For some they can be a crutch that bears all the weight of their study – they simply look up what their favorite expert says about a passage and preach that (sometimes with all the grace of a person walking with one crutch and no legs!)  For others commentaries provide conversation partners – the opportunity to interact with an expert or two regarding their take on a passage.  For some commentaries can be both conversation partner and source of frustration.

Why frustration?  Well, often the commentaries we look in are too atomistic in their approach to the text.  They move from one word or phrase to the next with relatively little comment on the flow of the text, the flow of thought, the implications of the broader context.  Some commentaries become a source of word study information and grammatical analysis, but fall short of the discourse level awareness that we need in order to more fully understand and preach a passage.

So I am wondering . . . have you used a commentary recently that proved really helpful in your sermon preparation?  Not just in terms of the details, but also in terms of the flow of thought?  It could be a technical commentary from the NIGTC or WBC series, or a literary-driven work like Fokkelman’s voluminous work on Samuel, or it could be a “paperback” like Donald English’s little work on Mark for the BST series. Sometimes the paperbacks are more aware of flow of thought than the heavyweight commentary siblings on the shelf.  Anyway, we’d all be interested to read any recommendations for helpful commentaries – helpful conversation partners in the often lonely work of sermon preparation.