How to . . . ?

Tomorrow Will You Preach, or Just Report?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

One reason that a lot of preaching in churches seems to fall short is that there is a lack of engagement with the people present.  I’ve heard numerous messages that fall into the category of relatively dispassionate lecturing.  The speaker stands as a reporter of the facts of their research.  They study a text, then that information is presented.  Then maybe there is an attempt at application.  But it falls short.

The preacher is not a reporter of facts found during their research.  The preacher is called to speak to the listeners from God’s Word.  The Bible is not exhibit A.  It is the source of the message for us, today.  The Bible doesn’t sit off to one side and get pointed at during the presentation, it sits in the hand of the preacher as the source and driver of the message for us.

So often the problem is a lack of engagement.  First, a lack of engagement with the life of the preacher during preparation.  If the Word of God does not speak into the life of the preacher, then the Bible will be presented at arms length, as an exhibit.  Second, a lack of deliberate engagement with the lives of the listeners.  Tomorrow, be sure to preach the Word to them, don’t just talk about the Word in their hearing.  Today, make sure you’ve opened yourself up to the text you’re planning to preach.

If you are a preacher, your role is more than merely reporting.

No Greek or Hebrew? A Tip

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

A very significant proportion of preachers around the world have had no training in the original languages.  After hearing yet another example in the last weeks, I’d like to give a tip regarding “this word literally means…” Generally speaking, unless you have thoroughly researched it.  Don’t use it.

The latest example I heard from the leader of a Bible study.  The verse seemed to be clear enough in content, but then we were given an exciting insight into the Hebrew text, “in the original language this word literally means . . .”  Interesting, perhaps even exciting, but actually, wrong.  It struck me as being slightly bizarre at the time, but not having my Hebrew text in front of me, and not wanting to “lord it over” in some way, I just made a note to check it later.  There’s no way it could be understood that way, unless the source of the alternative understanding had a particular theological agenda (which I’m fairly sure I can guess).

Sometimes “this literally means” might be helpful. It’s rare, but now and then this kind of background linguistic knowledge can add a nuance or some colour to our understanding of a passage.  One example is where a dynamic equivalent translation is “hiding” the repetitious use of a term (eg.”flesh” in Romans 6-8).  It is helpful to know there is a theme being repeated, and that the term used has particular connotations lost in some dynamic translations.

Often “this literally means” is not helpful. Remember that a decent translation (of which we have many in English) is the work of scholars trying to convey the meaning of the original text.  That means they tried to choose words that would express the thought and meaning of the original.  An “insight” that moves us in a new direction is not helpful if that insight is not accurate.  Without a decent amount of training in the original languages it can be hard to tell if someone knows what they are writing or speaking about.  Typically it is worth checking the “insight” against more than one academic commentary, or asking someone with genuine skill in the language (i.e. not just a course or two).

Sometimes “this literally means” is borderline heresy. Here’s the real danger, not just that our dabbling in “original language” comments lead our listeners slightly off track (although that is bad enough), but that we actually verge on heresy.

We are so blessed with good translations in our language.  If you have not had opportunity to seriously study Greek and Hebrew for a couple of years or more, it’s best to not pull out the “this literally means” type of comments.  Just as you may get it wrong, so do others, and some of them get their insights published!

Avenues of Audience Analysis

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In order to preach effectively, we must be at home in the world of the Bible, and in the world of our people.  We need to know them.  Jay Adams, in Preaching with Purpose, suggests three principal ways to analyze the congregation to whom we preach.  Perhaps it’s worth evaluating our own ministry through these categories to see where we might be missing out on helpful understanding of our listeners?

1. Informal contact with people. More than just rubbing shoulders on a Sunday or in church activities (where people tend to act the way they feel they should), this means getting into the normal lives of the people in the church.  Spending time with people at home, at work and at play is time well spent.  Without probing or surveying, plenty of useful insight will emerge in this natural environment.

2. Counseling contact with people. Not surprisingly from Jay Adams, he sees the value of counseling people.  Obviously confidentiality must be respected, but analysis of counseling notes will point to trends, concerns, areas of struggle.  He points out that just as preachers are helped by counseling, so counselors are helped by preaching.  If a counselor does not preach then they are in danger from not doing the deliberate and regular biblical exegesis they need to be biblically solid in their ministry.

3. Formal contact with people. Finally, Adams advocates for doing systematic, deliberate analysis of the congregation.  When first arriving in a church it is important to analyze the congregation and review the diet they have received from the pulpit.  Then regular surveys of key people, probing of elders, and so on, all helps to fill in the picture for the preacher.

Do we take “audience analysis” seriously?  Is there one approach, of these three, that needs more deliberate effort on our part?

Holding Back the Obvious

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Sometimes a passage very obviously points beyond itself.  For instance a passage with an obvious parallel to today, or a passage that points forward to Christ.  Psalm 22 is a classic example of the latter, or Genesis 22.  It is natural to make the obvious connection from the start and repeat it throughout.  Sometimes this is very worthwhile – especially when the parallel is to today.  Highlighting and emphasizing the applicational relevance of a passage is usually very helpful (rather than holding out until a few brief applications at the end).  However, if the application is obvious, it may be worth holding back before you state it.  Certainly when your passage obviously pre-figures Christ in some way, it is worth considering holding back on the mention of Christ.

Why?  Three reasons.

First, it is good for the congregation to see that a passage has value in its own right, without having to overtly read it through New Testament glasses that were not available to the original readers.

Second, it is good for the sermon because if the connection is clear, then the listeners will be thinking about that as you go, perhaps wondering if you are missing the obvious.  This added tension can really maintain interest in the sermon.

Third, it is good for you as a preacher, because it allows you to “pack a punch” when that tension is finally resolved.  References throughout the message will add explanation, but will reduce the impact.

For the sake of demonstrating the value of a passage in its own right, for added tension and for added impact, it is often worth holding back the obvious, especially when the obvious is Jesus.

Non-Words

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Last night I was watching the first half of the God Delusion Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox.  It is interesting on a number of levels, but I’ll just mention one.  Dawkins hesitates way too often.  Um, ah, uh.  So far Lennox has not.  It makes a difference.  I’ve been following the US presidential race and reading analysis of the communication involved.  The media’s favorite candidate uses many non-words, but the newest participant in the race does not.  It is making a difference.  In the UK I’ve noticed that some people seem to revere the skill of using non-words and hesitation (think of the last university students you heard interviewed – they often do it).

The manner in which we communicate influences listeners at both the conscious and sub-conscious level.  Since we do not want to undermine the truth of what we say when we are preaching the Word of God, let’s be vigilant for non-words.  Figure out whether you use non-words or filler-words.  Perhaps identify your personal, uh, like, you know, favorite.  Then wage war against it.  Mean what you say and say what you mean.  It’s not just about wasting words, it’s also about undermining the good things that you are saying.

When In Doubt, Sound It Out

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Sometimes preparation grinds to a halt.  You feel like you’re drowning in a sea of paper, half-finished thoughts, words and scribbles everywhere.  Even with a good system for organizing your pre-sermon study and message notes, it is still possible to feel stuck.  You’ve gone from a sprint to crawl and the open expanse before you now feels like a brick wall in a cluttered alley.  I don’t think I am alone in experiencing this roadblock in preparation.

There are lots of tips that people share, but one stands head and shoulders above the others from my perspective. Of course you should pray, it may be wise to do something else, perhaps get some exercise to clear the brain jam or even sleep, the natural thought organizer.  But head and shoulders above them all (or at least one always worth trying in combination with some of the others) – use oral preparation for oral communication.

It’s not surprising that words on paper sometimes feel overwhelming when we are actually preparing for an oral form of communication, not a written one.  So stand up, Bible in hand, and preach it.  It may still feel jumbled and confused, but it is amazing how quickly a flowing and organized message can form when it is formed orally rather than on paper.

Then you can shift into reverse and write your notes and/or manuscript!  It is worth going back to paper for a couple of reasons.  Sometimes you can really nail it orally, but then be unable to do so again.  The discipline of going back to paper helps to cement the preparation.  If you understand that an outline is simply a representation of thought structures, then it should be straightforward to outline a series of thoughts that have formed in the oral presentation.  Furthermore, even if you preach without notes, the discipline of writing the outline or manuscript will provide a focus for further preparation, and a record for future re-preaching of the same passage.

Oral preparation need not replace paper preparation, but it can act as a turbo boost to the preparation process!

Preaching Warning Passages

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I was just reading a little commentary on Joel by Thomas Finley.  On page 38 he makes a comment that is worth our attention as preachers.  It’s not new, it’s not profound, but it’s easy to leave this out of the equation as we evaluate our ministry.

According to Finley, the prophets, such as Joel, “had the power as preachers to motivate people to repent on the basis of warning them of the judgment to come. Although the New Testament focuses on the Lord’s grace and mercy, the warnings of judgment are not absent there either. In light of Joel and the rest of Scripture, one might wonder whether contemporary pastors who tend to avoid “fire and brimstone” preaching in favor of a steady diet of mercy and forgiveness provide an incomplete presentation of God’s Word.”

While we must recognize that culturally our listeners have changed over recent decades, and consequently their appreciation for a dramatic and aggressive pulpit pounding has dropped, this does not mean we cannot preach warning of judgment.  The culture in which we preach, the people to whom we preach, behoove us to give careful attention to our tone, attitude, word choice and so on.  But the Bible text has not changed, and if we are to preach the whole counsel, then we will be preaching passages like Joel – heavy on warning, powerful in presentation of divine judgment.

The calling of expository preaching demands not only a sensitivity to our listeners, but an absolute commitment to hearing the Word of God, and presenting it accurately, faithfully and clearly.

Please Ponder Passage Purpose

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I am continuing to read Jay Adams book Preaching with Purpose (1982).  Chapters 5 and 6 concern selecting a preaching portion, but point beyond stage 1 to the oft-neglected stage 3 in my process – passage purpose.  Adams points out that a preaching passage has unity not because of literary convention, or by rhetorical fiat and received homiletical tradition.  A preaching passage has unity because of the author’s purpose (“telically speaking” – major emphasis on the term “telos” and “telic” in Adams!)

Each book has an overarching goal, or perhaps several main goals.  Some books state that goal (see John 20:30-31, 1John5:13), while in others it is through studying the whole that the goals become apparent.  It is the preacher’s task to determine what that overarching goal is, then also to determine what the specific purpose in the indiviual passage is.  This individual passage purpose will relate to the overarching goal(s).  What was the author intending to achieve?  Was this section to inform, to convince or to motivate?  (Three developmental questions in Adams form)

So often preachers study the passage content, but give little or no attention to passage intent.  Without the intention or purpose of the author, the passage remains a collection of content details.  When we add in to the study process the critical element of passage purpose, then we are able to genuinely understand the passage, and hopefully, to beneficially preach the passage.  Without passage purpose, a message is likely to pull a passage out of context and misrepresent the intention of the content.  As I’ve written elsewhere, the message purpose does not have to match the passage purpose, but it does have to begin there and it does have some restraints imposed by the passage purpose.

Next time you are selecting and studying a passage, give some deliberate thought to the passage purpose – you haven’t really studied the passage until you do!

Pondering Purpose

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

This morning I am pondering purpose.  Honestly I am pondering the purpose of the spyware and virus that is pushing me closer and closer to replacing my pc – why do people write these evil things?  Hopefully my character can be shaped by the frustration.  But as my pc is scanned for the tenth time, I have reached for Preaching with Purpose by Jay Adams.  It is a book with an edge (which appeals right now as I have an edge too this morning!)

There is so much purposeless preaching today in which the preacher has only the vaguest idea of what he wants to achieve.  The members of congregations who are subjected to this sort of preaching for any length of time, as a result, both individually and corporately, themselves, become aimless and confused. . . . the amazing lack of concern for purpose among homileticians and preachers has spawned a brood of preachers who are dull, lifeless, abstract, and impersonal; it has obscured truth, hindered joyous Christian living, destroyed dedication and initiative, and stifled service for Christ. (Page 1)

It would do us no harm at all to take our next sermon and run it through the purpose test.  What is the purpose of that introduction?  What is the purpose of that illustration – why there, why that one?  What is the purpose of the sermon shape?  What was the author’s purpose in writing that passage?  What is the purpose of preaching that message at all?  Purpose should drive every aspect of preaching.

Now if I can just rescue my pc . . .

Evangelistic Preaching – A Flexibility Test?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I don’t think there is a definitive model for evangelistic preaching.  There are guidelines, certainly, but also a real need for flexibility.  You have to flex according to the kind of church you are in, the occasion on which you preach, the kind of people to whom you are preaching and so on.

I grew up in a church context where there was, in theory, an evangelistic sermon every Sunday night.  In many ways it was a remnant from an earlier generation in which people would attend church simply because a service was taking place.  By the time I came along (due to being in a Christian family), our culture had changed.  Week after week the meeting would take place, always to the same crowd of believers, usually without clear explanation of how to respond to the gospel, often without clear explanation of the meaning of the cross.  The format of the service was traditional and probably distinctly alien and uncomfortable for any outsider that might attend.  It certainly did not motivate me to invite non-believers.

I think many churches are more purposeful about evangelistic meetings now (at least in my circles).  More creativity, more “natural” communication, more effort to remove the “cringe” factors.  But one thing is clear – there is not one way to preach evangelistically.  Taking into account the people present, how the meeting has been promoted, the expectations of those who have invited friends, etc. all influences how to preach.  Sometimes a gentle introduction to Christianity that leaves people wanting more is ideal.  Other times it is critical to give a more complete gospel presentation.  Sometimes it is time to “shake the tree” and catch the already ripened fruit by overt calls to decision.

It takes sensitivity, wisdom, faith and courage to know which way to go on a particular occasion.  Generally it is best to present the way you informed the church that you would (because they bring guests according to what they are expecting you to do!)  Ultimately, there will probably be criticism coming from somewhere, but that is evangelistic preaching – never easy, always critical.  There is no simple formula, for there are so many variables.  But at its core the gospel doesn’t change, and the world needs it as much as ever.