How to . . . ?

Revisiting That Definition

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday I mentioned Haddon Robinson’s definition of expository preaching.  Many writers seem to quote Haddon rather than offering another definition.  So let’s look at it and make a few comments.

“Expository preaching is the communication of a biblical concept, derived from and transmitted through a historical, grammatical, and literary study of a passage in its context, which the Holy Spirit first applies to the personality and experience of the preacher, then through the preacher, applies to the hearers.”

Importance of the “concept” – the central role of the “big idea” is vital.  Preaching is not the conveying of random details held together by their proximity in a biblical text.  This definition urges the preacher to study the passage in order to determine the big idea of the passage.

Importance of the study method – among the expository definitions that come to mind, this one is unique in including a definition of the hermeneutical approach advocated.  In order to get to the biblical concept in a passage, the preacher is to use a historical, grammatical, literary study of the passage in context.

Importance of the presentation – many people miss the two words “transmitted through” that come before the hermeneutical element.  Not only should a preacher use good hermeneutics in the study, but they should exemplify good hermeneutics in the presentation.

Importance of the Holy Spirit – again, many definitions of preaching seem to omit any reference to the Holy Spirit.  This one recognizes the role of the Spirit in applying the biblical concept in the life of the preacher, then through the preacher in the listeners.

Creating Conceptual Categories vs Contextualizing

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

John Piper wrote on his blog this week about the danger of over-zealous contextualizing.  What he means by this is the reaching for points of connection so that the message of the Bible can fit into the thinking of the listener.  We sometimes have to create conceptual categories that may be missing from the mental frameworks of our listeners.

He raises an important point.  I would suggest that we have to think through whether we are preaching concepts that are driven by the Bible text, or preaching Bible texts to support concepts driven by our system of theology.  When we preach a Bible passage, our task is to communicate the concept conveyed by that text.  According to Robinson’s definition, expository preaching is the communication of a biblical concept … applied to the listeners.

Certainly, preaching is more than communicating a helpful principle or tip for life.  Preaching involves communicating concepts that may actually reframe the way our listeners perceive reality.  For instance, if you are preaching on the armor of God in Ephesians 6, don’t present it as a helpful tip for times of testing (that may prove helpful if people happen to remember the message).  Rather preach that we live in a constant Ephesians 6 reality and people are either appropriately dressed or vulnerably naked.  People often don’t perceive reality as a constant spiritual battle, so we should help to shift that wrong perception.

Steps To Faith

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Coming to faith is a process.  I’ve been studying the early chapters of Daniel and the early chapters of John.  It’s not uncommon to find, in the Bible, that there is a process involved in understanding God for who He is and accepting His role and self-presentation.  Whether or not Nebuchadnezzar is truly “converted” in chapter 4, there are key incidents in the previous two chapters.  What might this all mean for us as preachers?

1. View each message as an opportunity to move people forward one step. It takes repeated exposure to the gospel for people to gradually be drawn closer to that point of heart-level understanding and response.  Even once people are saved, the process continues.  So let’s not have the mentality that says, “I’ve already told them this, they should get it now!”  Our listeners, just like us, are notoriously slow and gradual in responding to God.

2. Remember that the process happens apart from preaching too. While that visitor may be a first-time listener to your preaching, they may have already been through many steps on the journey (listening to preachers on the radio, reading books, interacting with believers, etc.)  So while we should view each message as an opportunity to prompt the next step, we should not underestimate the opportunity and fail to present an opportunity to fully respond.  Somehow we need a real sensitivity to God and to people in this aspect of ministry.

The Possibility of Passage Shape

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

When you study a passage, part of the study is to recognize the shape the passage was given by the author (I’ll use “shape” in this post, but could use “structure” or “flow”).  There may be a logical sequencing of thoughts, or a narrative plot, or a poetic structure.  One possibility is that you can take that passage shape and let it be the primary influence on the message shape.

It may be that you decide to change the shape for the sake of the message.  Maybe the original recipients and your listeners differ significantly so that you have to structure the thought differently for the sake of effective communication.

However, to make such a change, in my thinking, should be a deliberate step away from the default option, which is to reflect the passage shape in the sermon shape.  For example, perhaps you are preparing to preach a Psalm and notice that it has three movements each having the same shape and largely the same content.  It might be tempting to “fix” such a literary “wastefulness” and use a more compact approach to preaching it.  Actually, by doing so, you would lose part of the power of the passage.  Our task as preachers is to communicate what a text says, but also to in some way do what a text does.  What does repetition do?  It reinforces, it allows truth to sink deeper, it builds on itself.  Repetition with variation is a powerful tool in writing Scripture, and consequently in the preaching of Scripture.

One possibility that comes when we recognize the shape of a passage is that we will reflect that shape in our message.  There may sometimes be reasons not to do this, but let this possibility be a strong one, even the default.

Don’t Presume They Know

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Effective preaching requires good understanding of both the passage and the people.  Purposeful audience analysis helps the preacher know how to tailor the study of stages 1-4 into a message in stages 5-8.  Obviously the preacher will try to aim for relevance and pitch the messaeg at the right level.  It is this level that can easily trip us up.

At one extreme it is possible to hyper-patronize listeners by spelling out every element of the message as if they understand nothing.  At the other extreme it is possible to bamboozle listeners and go completely over their heads with technical vocabulary and assumed awareness of information needed for the message to make sense.  While these are two extremes, it is worth noting that the danger in one direction is greater than in the other.

As long as the attitude of the preacher is not overtly patronizing, people will listen to basic material, even if they think it is for the sake of others who may be present.  However, people struggle to stay focused when things are going above their heads.  Be careful not to assume people know everything necessary to understand what you are saying.  Don’t assume they know when the story fits in Bible history, or what that theological term means, or what had happened previously in the life of that character.

You don’t have to speak like you are talking to a group of children, instead try to make the message seem “easy” just as a competent sportsman or woman makes their sport look easy.  A great tennis player, ball player, or whatever, doesn’t make it look intricate and complex.  Perhaps we can follow suit in the pulpit.  Our aim is not to bamboozle or impress, our aim is to communicate and equip.

The Preacher’s Heart – Part 3

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Culture and call, community and communion.  All arenas of life, sub-plots in the story God is writing in us.  All are arenas of critical importance for us, since it is in respect to these that our choices in response to God’s initiative determine how God shapes our hearts.  The final two arenas:

Arena 5: Conflict – Conflict is guaranteed in leadership (it may be personal, relational, demonic, or organizational).  Criticism is also part of the package.  This is no less the case for preachers.  How do you engage with the inevitable conflicts that come your way?  These are not distractions from your growth as a leader, these are key moments in shaping your heart for leadership.  (Again consider how Moses was shaped by conflict in Egypt, and criticism in the wilderness.  Or think of David versus Saul, and versus Absalom.  And Paul faced challenges from the church as a new convert, conflict with Barnabas, persecution from Jews and opposition within the church regarding his apostleship.)

Arena 6: Commonplace –  In the ordinary mundane things of life you are being shaped.  The normal routine, when no-one is watching, when you are “plugging away” in your role, in your relationships.  To be shaped well: look for God in these times, keep learning, say yes to God (obey in the small stuff), stay grateful.  We can sometimes rush toward the exciting end of ministry, but remember how God shapes us in these low-key times.  For Moses it was decades in the desert, for David there were the years on the run, for Paul there was obscurity for the first years, and so much more.  For us, perhaps we have wilderness seasons, but also the repetitious routine of time in the study.

It all counts, as long as we choose to respond well.  God uses every element of life to shape us as preachers, as leaders, as men and women after His own heart.

The Preacher’s Heart – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Last time I introduced the first two categories in Reggie McNeal’s book, A Work of Heart.  These six “arenas” are the sub-plots of our lives through which God is shaping us as his followers, as preachers, as leaders.  How we respond to these initiatives will determine what we become.  Last time we considered briefly culture and call.

Arena 3: Community – We are, by nature, creatures of community.  Your family of origin, current family, relationships, friendships, all are shaping and sustaining you for leadership.  Issues here include love, forgiveness, identity, and purposeful relationships (mentoring).  Consider the influence of Moses’ families of origin, Jethro, Joshua.  Consider David’s family background, his mighty men, his Abigail.  Consider how Paul was shaped by Barnabas, Timothy and Silas, Luke, Epaphras, etc.

Arena 4: Communion – Your conscious cultivation of your own relationship with God – rest, conversation, devotion, worship.  It is so easy, with hindsight, to see the value of Paul’s time in obscurity, or David’s years on the run, or Moses’ decades in the desert and then the weeks on the mountain.  How much they fellowshipped with God, what sweet communion they enjoyed.  Yet at the time, without hindsight, so many would choose rather to dry up in the heart.

Any understanding of the Christian life that is not, at its core, about relationship with God and with others, is surely grossly inadequate.  Perhaps it would be a good idea to take some time to evaluate your own state of heart in respect to communion with God and community (how easy to fall into the trap of “lone rangering” in ministry…how dangerous!)

Does Stance Just Happen?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

There are central issues in preaching – interpreting the Scriptures, applying with relevance, relationship with God and with listeners.  But there are plenty of other factors worthy of our consideration.  Not central, but worth considering since our goal is effective communication.  One of these is stance.

The visual presentation of a speaker is a complex series of issues – dress, body language, facial expression, proxemics, etc.  One element is stance.  How we stand communicates.  I am not advocating a one-size fits all approach.  There is no such solution.  Consider the following:

The setting – is the occasion for preaching more formal or informal.  A casual approach at a funeral tends to backfire!  What kind of church is it?  What is he tone of the service?  Who are the people in the congregation?  Since every preaching context is different, there is no one-size fits all approach.

The message – there needs to be consistency between what is being communicated and how.  A super-somber convicting moment presenting the most important thing they will ever hear generally does not work well with hands in pockets, leaning against the side of the pulpit.  On the other hand, perhaps in some settings, with some messages, having you sit on a high stool in a relaxed manner would work wonders.

The options – while many rightly resist the notion that anyone can prescribe the right stance for every preacher on every preaching occasion, we naturally fall into the inconsistent position of haing a default stance that we use whatever the situation (thereby functioning as if there is a one-size fits all after all!)  Take some time to think through your options.  Behind a podium/pulpit, coming out from behind it, removing it, leaning forward with more urgency, leaning back against something, sitting on a stool, moving to different areas of the platform, standing still, etc.  The deliberate move from behind a desk to standing in front and leaning on it helped to transform a president who was an ineffective communicator into a likeable and more effective leader. 

Sometimes small things do matter.  Anything that will remove a communication hindrance or inconsistency from our preaching of the gospel is worthy of some attention.  Take a few moments to think through stance, our communication is no less important than the president of a superpower!

Drop Down the Ladder

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Many great sermons turn out to be good sermons.  Sermons looking set to be good often end up average.  How is it that the last few minutes of a sermon can change it from powerful to pleasant?  One key element is the final descent of the preacher down the ladder of abstraction.

The text must be understood in its original setting for the detail to make sense.  Then the process of theological abstraction moves the preacher toward relevance for the contemporary listeners.  But this is not enough.  It is easy to stop at this stage of the process, and a natural place to let off the preparation pressure (after all, surely listeners can take the abstract and apply it specifically in their own situation?)  Actually no, listeners do not generally apply abstracts to their own lives.  Don’t stop with “trust God!” or “love God more!” or “love one another!” or “be faithful in your relationships!”  These are all abstracts.

To really cement the message as a great, not for the sake of your reputation, but for the sake of lives changed to the glory of God, push through for specific application.  This means re-contextualizing the application for the sake of your listeners.  What will it look like to trust God for some of them this week?  How would greater love for God show up in their daily lives?  What specifically might one do to demonstrate genuine love for another believer in the church this week?  Where is faithfulness tested and proven day by day?

Don’t finish a great message in mid-air and thereby transform the great into the good.  Be sure to earth the message through specifics, stepping down the ladder of abstraction so that the rubber can meet the road of real life.  Listeners generally struggle to take hold of an abstract and apply it specifically, but they are very adept at hearing a specific that fits the life of another in the same pew, and translating that specific into a specific that relates to their version of real life. The Bible is relevant, just be sure to demonstrate that reality for some of your listeners.  The rest will gladly translate for themselves!

Discourse: The Danger of Spiritualization

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

We’ve noted that there are discourse passages in almost every section of Scripture – history, wisdom, prophet, gospel, etc.  Awareness of the broader plot within which discourse is placed is helpful both in understanding the passage meaning and purpose, and also for preaching the passage with contextual understanding and tension.

So if we decide to preach a discourse in a typical analytical manner – for instance a deductive sermon – what should we be wary of?  Be wary of direct transference of relevance to a different audience.  Joshua 1 does not give direct promises to contemporary readers that wherever we place our feet, we can claim for God.  Equally it does not mandate military action on our part.  Yet the passage yields much that can be so relevant to us.

Be careful to work through the process of exegetical analysis (in that context), drawing out the abiding theological implications (in any context), and recontextualizing the principles (in this context).  Be careful not to then re-attach original phrasing in a careless manner that might imply direct transference of details by a spiritualization process (i.e. let it show that you are not simply reading the text and then telling people to “claim land” as God instructs us to “march” over what we should “conquer”).  By showing some process in our preaching, we can protect our people from bad practice in their own Bible study.  By showing awareness of audience (original and contemporary) and passage purpose (original and preached), we guard our people from inappropriate application.