How to . . . ?

Illustrate With Pastoral Care – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

The rest of the list begun in part 1.  Most of this is not new to any of us, but it’s always good to take stock and make sure bad habits have not crept in unawares!

Poke fun at no one but self – just because people may laugh at the joke, this does not justify ridiculing ethnic groups, dialects, political parties, gender, age, or specific individuals.

Share the spotlight – don’t be the hero of your illustration, and don’t be the focus too often either.

Demonstrate taste and respect sensibilities – generally avoid the four “b’s” – birthing, blood, bedrooms and bathrooms!  And don’t use profanity.

Finish what you begin – don’t leave people hanging with a story.  Unresolved story elements can become dominant in listener’s thoughts.

Illustrate With Pastoral Care

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I’m enjoying another read-through of Bryan Chappell’s Christ-Centered Preaching.  He gives a helpful list of guidelines for using illustrations pastorally (p203-4).  Half today, and half in part two:

Get the facts straight – handling facts well instills confidence in the listener, but referring to the “95 theses of Martin Luther King” doesn’t.

Beware of untrue or incredible illustrations – don’t present it as true if it is not.  Also don’t present as true even if it is, but people will doubt it.  Credibility is too important.

Maintain balance – not too long and not too many on top of each other.

Be real – too much E.M.Bounds and George Mueller can present an unreal view of what it means to live a spiritual life today.

Don’t carelessly expose, disclose or embarrass – watch out for tacit approval of entertainment that may be “unapproved” by parents in the congregation.  And be very careful not to disclose confidences or embarrass people present (family as well as people in the church!)

The Form of Structure

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Bryan Chappell makes the comment in his book, Christ-Centered Preaching (p162), that while the structure of a sermon is not the most important question, it is one of the most common questions he is asked when teaching preaching.  Having given specific examples as the starting point for preachers, he then recognizes the great variety of options available to preachers.  The only constraint he gives are four criteria that allow different sermon shapes or structures to represent Scripture well and strike effectively at the human heart.  Every outline should be:

Faithful to the text – accurately representing the movement and meaning of the passage.

Obvious from the text – not imposed on the passage, but evident from it for the sake of those following you with the Bible on their laps.

Related to a Fallen Condition Focus – Chappell’s distinctive element of the FCF, which thereby allows connection between human need and divine grace in the gospel.

Moving toward a climax – which encompasses both the need for order and progression.

Don’t Get Stung By the Be’s

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I made a passing reference the other day to Bryan Chappell’s list of three “be’s.” These are worthy of our consideration since he raises a crucial point. It is easy to fall into the trap of being biblically based, but biblically incomplete in our preaching. By focusing on the narrow slice of text we are preaching, and not taking into account the broader teaching of Scripture, we can end up implying (or even stating), that we need to “be” something in order to be loved by God. (See Christ-Centered Preaching, page 289ff).

Be Like – This is where a character is presented, then the congregation are urged to be like them in respect to the chararcteristics highlighted. Chappell acknowledges that biblical writers intended for certain characters to model certain characteristics for the readers to emulate. However, the writers also are honest in presentation of weakness, failure and sin. We must beware of preaching a “be like” message that lacks in awareness of the grace and enablement of God, lest we leave room for boasting and inadvertently preach a works righteousness.

Be Good – While again there is clear biblical instruction to be good or be holy, a message focusing on behavior is dangerous if key elements are lacking. God does not command us to behave well in our own strength. Moralistic harangues are easy to preach and often hard to take, but impossible to justify. Our message cannot be “try-harder-be-better-this-week” and biblical at the same time. Chappell rightly points out that it is wrong to preach that we are saved by grace and kept by our obedience.

Be Disciplined – Very similar to the behavior focus above, this type of message focuses on spiritual disciplines as the means to pleasing God. Many believers fall into the trap of thinking that their identity is tied to their observance of religious practices. Disciplines preached in isolation from the grace of God present a God so easily vexed, a God of “brownie points” spirituality.

It is good to emulate biblical characters in some respects, to be good in behavior and even disciplined in spirituality, but there are dangers in all of these areas. How easily we paint a false portrait of God, a dark shadow of guilt in the place of grace and a false image of true Christianity. As Chappell carefully states it, “‘Be’ messages are not wrong in themselves; they are wrong messages by themselves.”

Taking Series Seriously – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

For a series to work well, it is important to recognize the role of the Spirit and have flexibility in scheduling.  Here are two more important issues to consider:

Avoiding the sameness – A long series in the same book can get old.  There are several ways to avoid this.  Vary the message structure (include a first-person sermon, a more narrative sermon, a good old clear deductive sermon, etc.)  Vary the text length (some weeks you may need to cover only a few verses, but other weeks it would be possible to cover a chapter or two).  Perhaps sameness can be avoided by having another speaker involved (make sure all speakers in a series are on the same page regarding the books overall idea, structure, etc.).  And, of course, a long series in the same book can get old, so . . .

Length of series – Think through the length of the series.  The old days of seven years verse-by-verse through one book are the old days.  Today some advocate that a series should not go longer than 8 weeks.  Others say  4 or 5.  I say you have to think through the situation – who is preaching, to whom, what are they used to, what is the preacher capable of doing effectively, what is the subject matter, etc.  No hard and fast rules, but several months will probably get old for some.  Cover ground more quickly, or break the series and then return to it.

It is a good idea to usually preach sermons in series.  It is a good idea to think through your series seriously.

Taking Series Seriously

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I shared a few reasons why I think sermon series are generally the way to go.  However, for series to work well, several issues need to be addressed.  Rob’s comment yesterday raised several key issues.  Today I’ll mention two, then the next day two more:

Role of the Spirit – Does a series quench the Holy Spirit?  Does preparing a sermon quench the Spirit?  It is amazing how a series can be scheduled many months ahead of time, then when a particular Sunday comes, the text and its application fit as if the Spirit Himself had faxed you the plan.  However, this does not remove the fact that we need to allow flexibility in our schedules . . .

Flexibility in scheduling – It is unhelpful to pack the schedule so tight that the preacher feels under pressure from the schedule.  Consider leaving “buffer zones” in the schedule, a week or two here and there.  You will have no problem filling them when the time arrives, either with a visiting missionary, a one-off message on a text you’re dying to preach, or a one-off for one of the preachers you are mentoring in the church.  Or, if there is an issue to address, you have the space in the schedule to do so (and if the issue happens three weeks too soon, then just shift everything back a week).

Is It Only Me?

/ Peter Mead / 12 Comments

I’ve noticed something in my preaching, and I wonder if I’m alone. When I’m preaching a message and coming towards the closing stages, particularly when I am communicating specifically with not-yet-Christians, it seems that the moment is often ripe for a distraction. Just at the point of speaking of the cross and our response to the gospel, a child cries, a door slams, a siren wails, etc.

Perhaps people are simply tiring of staying focused, or increasing activity behind the scenes allows for more distraction as the service comes in to land. Perhaps I just convey tension and communicate poorly at this point. Perhaps. Or perhaps it is a reminder of the spiritual war we are in when it comes to the souls of men and women who are not in Christ. The god of this age has blinded the minds, and to be involved with the light of the glory of the gospel shining in, is to be involved in the greatest spiritual battle that has raged down through time. Perhaps it is a reminder to pray, and to consider the importance of intercessors during the preaching of the gospel. Or perhaps it is just me.

Preaching Longer Narratives

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Nathan asked about preaching longer narratives, such as the narratives of Daniel.  Last week I preached Daniel chapter 2 and the book of Esther (10 chapters!), so I’ve been thinking about this recently.  Here are my thoughts, I’d love to hear anything you would add:

Even if it is long, preach a literary unit. Longer narratives can stretch through many verses and multiple scenes.  Unless the scenes are really sub-plots that can stand on their own, I would suggest trying to preach the whole narrative.  While this may create some challenges, it is still better to deal with an entire narrative than risk misunderstanding and misapplying a part-narrative.

Tell the whole story, but perhaps read selectively. In the case of the Daniel 2 message, the leader of the service had a major chunk of the passage read before I got up to preach.  In the case of Esther, I read certain paragraphs and verses as I told the story.  While we want to honor the text and certainly encourage people to read it through later, the weakness in extended reading is actually our reading rather than the text itself.

The challenge is actually the same as for any passage. The challenge we face in preaching a longer narrative is, in one respect, no different than any other passage.  Which details will receive in-depth attention, and which elements or sections can be summarized to maintain flow and unity?  A longer narrative calls on our skill in big picture exegesis and compelling story-telling, but in many ways the process remains the same – study the passage, determine the main idea and purpose, define purpose and main idea for the sermon and shape it strategically, etc.

Preaching Narrative

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

When you are preaching a narrative, I think it is healthy to begin with a default approach of tell the story, highlight the main point and then apply that main point.  With many narratives, this approach works perfectly well.  Last week I preached Luke 19:1-10 and found that telling the story of Zaccheus with explanation along the way worked well.  That story flows through the plot, then has a twist at the end (in verse 10).  So I told the story, made the point and applied it to our lives.

Yesterday I preached Mark 2:1-12.  I could have told the story, made the point, then applied it.  However, this approach didn’t feel right this time.  The tension of the story comes in the middle.  The men bring their paralytic friend to Jesus to take care of his physical need.  Jesus then addresses the deeper spiritual need, which causes a stir, before proving his ability to do so by healing the physical need.  I wrestled with how to preach this and decided on essentially two movements.  First there is the bringing of the needy guy to Jesus (vv1-4) and Jesus’ healing act (vv11-12).  Having made the point of this element and applied it to us, I then moved us into the “missing” part of the story (vv5-10).  This made the crowd’s response more clear, but it also allowed me to build the tension more for this “forgiveness” core of the story.  I could have told the story and pointed out how Jesus is the only one able to do the amazing feat of total forgiveness.  Yet in this case the story told straight might have lacked something of the wonder and tension.

I am not saying I chose the right way.  What I am saying is that when we preach a narrative, we may start with the approach of tell the story, make the point and apply it, but sometimes we may change that approach.  Yesterday I changed it to “tell part of the story, make the point thus far and apply it, then tell the rest of the story, make the main point clear and apply it.”  I did this for the sake of heightening the wonder of the core of the narrative.  Sometimes this approach makes sense simply because the biblical narrative is so long (and people need it to touch down in their world before too much time passes by!)  There are no set rules for preaching narrative, but don’t overlook the simple option of telling the story!

The Basic Elements of a Preaching Definition

/ Peter Mead / 5 Comments

It is a good exercise to think through what should be included in a definition of expository preaching.  One way is to collect several definitions and recognize what is present in all of them, or unique to some of them.  While wording may change, it seems to me that a definition should include the following pieces as a bare minimum:

Some reference to the meaning of a biblical text – whether one takes Sunukjian’s phrase “the true and exact meaning of a text” or Robinson’s specification of the method used to arrive at that understanding or simply use of the term “truth,” as in Vines & Shaddix’s “biblical truth,” somehow expository preaching in its definition must honor the reality of specific and true meaning in the text.

Some reference to communication – perhaps “oral communication” or “presentation” or “spoken” or whatever.  Somehow the meaning of a text has to be conveyed to the other side of the chasm (John Stott’s 2nd world) – the listeners.

Some reference to relevance – without relevance, the communication of biblical truth could remain at the level of historical lecture (and often does).  True biblical preaching has to include the meaning of a biblical passage communicated with relevance.  Generally the term “applied” will come in at this point.

Some reference to God – should go without saying, but the whole process involves God.  God’s Spirit at work in the study, in the delivery, in the lives of the listeners, in the Word He inspired, etc.

Expository preaching is surely the meaning of at least one biblical passage communicated with applied relevance to contemporary listeners, the whole process being under the influence of the Holy Spirit.  I still prefer Haddon’s definition in many ways, but would you agree that these four elements form the sine qua non of expository preaching?  What would you include?