New Testament

Feel the Force: Narrative

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday we touched briefly on poetry and noted how easy it is to preach without conveying the force of the text.  Today let’s have a brief reminder regarding narrative.  If the “force” of poetry lies in often emotive imagery, the “force” of narrative rests in the lack of rest, the tension necessary for a story to be a story.

1. We mustn’t sacrifice the tension for other details. It is easy to preach a story in component parts as if it were merely an illustration of propositional truths.  I certainly am not prepared to give up the reality that a single story will be held together by a single sense of purpose, tension and thus, a proposition.  However, preaching story requires telling story and feeling story.  It is not enough to break up the text into segments and describe each as if we were writing a commentary.  For the force of the story to get across, the listeners have to be aware of the tension in the story, more than that, they need to feel the tension.

2. We mustn’t lose the resolution in the rhythm of the message. If the story really becomes a story by the introduction of tension, then the story is rapidly approaching the end once that tension is resolved.  It is in the resolution of the story that we usually have the key to unlocking the purpose and meaning of the whole.  How is the prodigal brought into the family?  (And interestingly, why isn’t the tension resolved for his older brother a few verses later?)  What is God’s evaluation of the two men praying in the temple?  Who demonstrates neighborly love to the injured man by the road?  If our message is not built around telling the story, then it is easy for the resolution to be lost in the detail of our structure.

3. The text is lean, but effective engagement requires the forming of imagery. The Bible does not give much detail in the telling of most of its stories.  Every detail counts and should be studied carefully.  However, the listeners are not studying the text at length, they are listening to you preach it.  So for them to be able to engage with the text, to be able to identify with central characters, to disassociate from others, to wrestle with the tension, they need effective and developed description of the events.  It takes time for the mists to clear on the screen of their hearts so that they can feel the force of the narrative!

Planning a Selective Series

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

What criteria can you use when planning a series in a longer book that you don’t want to last for years?  Obviously we’re not obligated to cover complete books in a series, but how might you do that selectively rather than comprehensively?  Here are some pointers:

Foundation – Know the message, flow and structure of the book.  In order to plan a series that selectively represents the whole, you need a good awareness of the whole.  Without this you are likely to end up with a plan that doesn’t represent the book, or you’ll start into the series and end up preaching every passage (which might be appreciated . . . but only “might be” – your church may not want you to try to be Martyn Lloyd-Jones!)

1. Select key moments in the book. In every book there are key moments of transition or anchor points for the flow of the book.  For example, a selective series in Mark’s gospel would need to be touching heavily on the transition that occurs at 8:27-30 and the following couple of paragraphs.  Equally, Mark 10:45 is fairly critical, perhaps with the following story which is somewhat transitional as the final step before Jerusalem.

2. Select key examples in the book. There are some passages that may not be at a transition point, but are just very typical of the style and message of the book.  For instance, Mark 4:35-41 as an example of Mark’s pattern of following teaching with testing.

3. Select an example in a sequence, but show the whole progression. Often a book will string together a series of stories making a similar point, such as in Mark 2-3.  So you might select an example in the sequence demonstrating Jesus’ authority, but also show briefly how many such stories there are in the section.  This covers a lot of ground, but can make quite an impression as people feel the weight of the authority demonstrated by the whole sequence.

4. Select passages you want to preach. As long as you have the other three types of message included, there is nothing wrong with selecting based on personal motivation – the fruit will probably show in your preaching if you are motivated!

5. Keep the big idea of the book clear throughout. Consistently, even if subtly, reinforce the big idea of the whole book to cohere the series.

Future Christmas Sermons

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

It would be easy to push through this season and then leave Christmas sermons until next year.  It would be a wasted opportunity.  Just as it can save money to buy next year’s cards right after this year’s Christmas, so it can save time to give some thought to next year’s sermons now.

Perhaps you have preached through the standard passages this year, but have noticed some connected passages that might make for an interesting series next year.  Make a note now while the thoughts are fresh.  For example:

Prophecies – perhaps you’ve noticed the references to Old Testament prophecies like Isaiah 7:14, Micah 5:2, even Jeremiah 31:15.  Why not take an Old Testament approach to Christmas hopes next year?

People – perhaps you noticed the four other ladies in Matthew’s genealogy . . . Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, the one “who had been Uriah’s wife.”  Four ladies with question marks over their morality, rightly or wrongly, that set up the lady who has to be in the genealogy (also with a question mark hanging over her morality, wrongly in her case).  Or perhaps you’d like to trace the Gentiles in the genealogy to show the greater scope of the Christmas hope.

Themes – perhaps you noticed a theme this year that could be developed with one week in the Old Testament, one week in the Christmas narratives and one week later on in the gospels or epistles.  For example, the Immanuel theme from Isaiah 7:14-9:7, emphasized in Matthew 1, continued for our age in Matthew 28:20.

Less Obvious Passages – perhaps you wondered about the less obvious passages, ie. those that aren’t in early Matthew or Luke.  So you have the prologue to John’s Gospel, giving the other side of the story, if you like.  Or you have references like Galatians 4:4 and similar passages.

Christmas Titles – perhaps you’d like to explore the titles used in the Christmas narratives – Jesus, Saviour, Immanuel, King, etc.

Carol Theology – while some are keen to cut down the errors in the carols, there are some great truths encapsulated in the carols too.  Perhaps you’d like to take Hark the Herald Angels Sing or another carol and trace a biblical background to a verse each week.  Different, but for some congregations this might be a blessing.  Remember that you are preaching the Bible, not the carol.

Contemporary Emphases – you could take key emphases in the world’s view of Christmas and present a positive biblical engagement with each one.  Gifts, peace, goodwill, family, etc.

Whatever thoughts you have at the moment, make a good set of notes, it will save a lot of stress later next year!

Connecting With Story

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

There are many stories in the Bible, and this is one season in the year when most of us are preaching stories.  In some ways Bible stories give the preacher an advantage.  For example, stories offer a flow, a plot, a progression, that can be replicated in the message (although it amazes me how many preachers try to preach a story without telling the story!)  Also, stories offer vivid images and allow for effective description.  But how do we forge the connection between “back then” and “today”?  A few thoughts, I’m sure you could add more:

Don’t just historically lecture, but preach to today. It is easy to fall into the trap of presenting what happened back then, but not recognizing the enduring theological significance for today.  People appreciate hearing about what happened, but they deeply appreciate it when the preacher can emphasize the relevance of that happening to us today.

Don’t caricature characters, but encourage identification with their humanness. Again, it is easy to pick on one aspect of a character’s action in a story, but miss the other side of the coin.  For example, Zechariah doubted the message of the angel, but he was also a faithful pray-er over the long-term.  Don’t beat up your listeners with a sense of identification with the negative only – “How often do we doubt God’s goodness to us?  How easily we resist what God is doing!” Stories function through resolution of tension in a plot and through identification with characters . . . be careful not to mis-emphasize a character portrayal if the biblical account is more balanced.

Don’t identify without theocentrizing.  It is also possible to present the characters effectively so that listeners can identify with them, but miss the point that God is at the center of biblical narrative.  It’s not just Joseph’s kindness and personal character quality that is significant in Matthew 1, it is also very much focused on God’s revelation of His plan to both save His people from their sins and His presence with His people.  Joseph is a great example of a “fine, young man.”  But the passage presents this fine, young man responding to the revelation of God’s purposes.  Jesus, Immanuel.  That is the information that Joseph acted upon.  The amazing thing about Christmas narratives is that the theocentric truth is bundled up in a tiny human infant.

Christmas preached as just peace and happiness and quaint idyllic scenes is a travesty – Christmas is set up for theocentric preaching (but don’t lose the humanness of the other characters too).

The Preacher’s Motivation

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday I pondered why a message might be considered a new take or somehow different from what was expected.  On this particular occasion I preached Matthew 1.  I wonder if there’s another element to add to yesterday’s list of thoughts:

4. Not overemphasizing the theologically rich element in the text. In this passage there is the quote and fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 and the virgin giving birth to a son.  Don’t get me wrong, I did preach that, explained the original context briefly, touching on the Immanuel theme developing right through to 9:6-7.  The Matthew text was clear that Mary was a virgin and that the baby was there because of the Holy Spirit, not any sexual impropriety. However, I didn’t turn the sermon into a theological lecture, nor an apologetic defense of Christian orthodoxy.  My reason for that was because of who would be listening, and because the text doesn’t do that.  As I was pondering this, I wondered whether sometimes we might be tempted to use a theological detail in the text as an opportunity to show off our own orthodoxy, rather than to help listeners understand the truth?  I don’t know, this is just a thought.  I think it is important, it is vital, to teach the theological truth of Scripture, to edify and educate the people in our churches.  Certainly we have too many biblically illiterate people in our churches these days.  But still, are there times when our motivation for a strong theological presentation in a sermon is not really for God’s pleasure or their benefit, but actually for us to demonstrate our theological acumen, or to take pride in our orthodoxy (especially in comparison to some exalted figure who has denied orthodoxy in some respect)?

Why Is This New?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I was pondering the passage I preached yesterday.  It was Matthew 1 – the genealogy and Joseph’s dream.  I engaged with the text, tried to preach it with it’s own emphasis, and emphasised the relevance to us today.  A couple of comments afterwards referred to the new or different angle or take on the story.

So why was it new?  I don’t think it was.  I think I preached the text according to the prompts in the text.  I don’t in any way think my message was somehow better than others, but I have pondered what might be expected from the preaching of that passage that I didn’t do, or vice versa.  Perhaps one of the following explanations clarifies what was supposedly new or different?

1. Recognition of the experience of a character. In this case it was Joseph, his shattered world at the discovery of Mary’s pregnancy.  I suppose we tend to skip over that to get to the angel in the dream.  I suppose it is easy to subconciously assume that Joseph viewed the first Christmas the same way we do as we look at manger scenes and Christmas cards.  He didn’t have that.  He did have a totally broken world, at least temporarily.

2. Recognition of what is not in the text. Once the angel came in the dream and answered the “how did she get pregnant” question, there is still a lot that is unstated.  We tend to see what is there and presume it is the complete solution to the challenging situation.  But what about the “how is this going to work out” kind of questions?  Joseph was taking his bride home during their betrothal with her already pregnant.  He knew how, but what would everyone else think and say and do?  This might define their lives in so many ways.  Joseph didn’t have every question answered, but he obviously had enough – in who this Jesus was (God’s saviour of people from sins) and in this Jesus, Immanuel (God with us in the midst of life’s unanswered questions).

3. Emphasis on the relevance of the familiar. I suppose we tend to go through the Christmas narratives and simply celebrate Jesus.  But as with many narratives, it is the character’s interaction with and response to God that offers such relevance to us.  Maybe we’re not used to stepping into Joseph’s sandals, but maybe we should try it – he’s a bit of unsung hero.  What did he know?  Jesus.  Immanuel.  He moved forward because somehow that was enough.  What do we know?  What don’t we know?  Perhaps the relevance of the Bible is sometimes missed because of the more obvious elements?

Tomorrow I will share another thought on this passage, particularly in reference to how we preach the text.

Preaching As Invitation

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In our zeal to do our best, sometimes we might over deliver in a sermon.  For example, we might over deliver on the content of the passage so that listeners get the sense that they have no exhausted that passage and so have no need to return to it.  We might over deliver on the application of the passage so that listeners get the sense that the work of the passage has been done and they have no need to ponder further how they might live in light of it.  We might over deliver on the “experience” of the passage so that listeners get the sense taht heir encounter with God in that passage is now done and they have no real invitation for further engagement with Him.

Let’s be sure to prepare and preach a passage to the best of our ability.  The process may be exhausting at times, as well as a delightful privilege.  However, the sermon must not exhaust the listener’s sense of invitation.  Let’s present the passage in such a way that we invite people into the passage and the Scriptures more.  Let’s present the message in such a way that we invite people into the delight of relationship with Christ more.

One example.  This Sunday I am preaching the Mary and Martha incident in Luke 10.  What a tragedy it would be if I thoroughly satisfied listeners with the key distinction of the priority of relationship with Christ and service for Christ.  If people left that sermon happy that they had seen the difference and know what the passage is saying, but do not feel the implicit invitation to join Mary at Jesus’ feet and enjoy that relationship for themselves . . . if that happens, then I may have over-preached.

Preaching is an invitation into the text, more than that, an invitation into the delighted relationship offered to us as God offers His heart in the Word by His Spirit.

The Bible, Expository & Consecutive Preaching – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Daniel Goepfrich wrote a substantial interaction with this blog over on his site – here – this post is specifically addressing this sentence in paragraph 8:

Most of the Scriptures were not written as sermons or messages to be taught straight through. Sure, some of the letters in the New Testament are designed that way and a few books in the Old Testament, but the majority of the Bible is not.

———————

Whether or not the books of the Bible were written as sermons or messages to be taught straight through seems to be slightly besides the point.  NT letters, for instance, weren’t designed to be taught through, but were written to be read through in one sitting.  In a pre-literate world where orality was central, believers would almost always be hearers not readers, and capable of hearing and retaining in a way that we don’t need to be today. I would suggest that none of the Bible books were “designed” to be preached either straight through (one chunk at a time) or dipped into (topical selectivity).

One issue to consider, though, is that there is a unity and cohesion to each of the Bible books.  They are not random (with the possible exception of parts of Proverbs), but deliberately ordered.  I would suggest that historical books are anything but randomly ordered narratives.  The gospel writers and the OT narrative writers were theologians, as well as the writing prophets, who based their ordering neither on strict chronology as we might expect, nor on random order of recollection, as you later suggest, but on their theological goal in writing.  Recognizing the structuring of books does not require consecutive preaching (and many consecutive preachers are painfully unaware of the connections between their preaching sections).  However, whether we choose to preach through a book or topically, my concern either way is that the preacher should strive to understand the authorial intent in any given passage.  Understanding a passage in its written context is critical in achieving that understanding.

———————

I will continue my response tomorrow.

Mindset Switch on Texts

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

The traditional approach to preaching a Bible passage is that it is a collection of data, probably in an antiquated form.  So for many preachers, coming to the text is coming in search of sermon content – data to be transmitted, information to be mined and presented.

In recent years awareness has increased significantly in regards to the inherent strength and function of Bible texts.  They are not collections of data presented in incidental forms.  Rather, it is becoming clearer to many that God speaks through the texts as texts.  God speaks not only through the information contained in a text, but also through the way that the text itself functions.  God did not only inspire the content, but the genre and form of the passage.  Poetry is poetry for a reason.  Discourse is discourse on purpose.  Prophetic writing is that way for a reason (this being a positive reason, not just an excuse to dismiss any content that doesn’t fit with your theology, as I see an alarming number of people doing these days).

If you are still of the mindset that a Bible text is a collection of data to be mined for personal edification and sermon preparation, please consider this switch.  Treat a text as a piece of purposeful communication.  The genre matters.  The form matters.  The function of the text is a key factor to consider in understanding the text.

Highlight the Apologetic Value of Details

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Sometimes in preaching we will cover details that have apologetic value.  This will probably not be the main thrust of the passage, but if time allows, why not note the inference that can be made so that our listeners are strengthened in their view of the accuracy of the Bible?  Our churches would be stronger in this day and age if more believers had a fact-based robust evangelical bibliology.  We don’t have to wait for the next DaVinciCode-esque attack on the Bible, we can be reinforcing a proper view of the Bible through our preaching.

Consider, for example, Mark’s accurate knowledge of names and languages. The more we study, the more we discover that the gospels have exactly the pattern of names and languages we would expect them to have if they were true.  The more common names in Judea/Galilee at the time of Christ have qualifiers added to help the reader know which John (brother of James / son of Zebedee, or the baptizing one) or which Judas (brother of Jesus, Iscariot, or son of James).  On the other hand, no information needed to identify the Thaddeus (39th most popular name), or Philip (61st).   This may not seem that significant, but at that time, the 2nd most popular name among Jews in Palestine was 68th most popular in Egypt.  The writers (especially Matthew and Mark on this issue) demonstrate real accuracy in their choices of names and when to add clarification details – was this sophisticated research leading to accurate fiction, or was it just plain accurate history?

For another example, consider Mark’s knowledge of local languages. In 14:70 he knows local differences in accent.  In 5:41 he gives the correct Aramaic for that time and place (see also 7:11; 7:34).  In 11:9 he gives the right pronunciation for the locals saying “Hosanna,” rather than the Old Testament “Hoshiana” (in the Talmud the Rabbis apparently complain about the local crowd mispronouncing the “sh” as “s”).  Yet at the same time, Mark knows accurate Roman Latin – see 6:27 (speculator); 15:39 (centurio); 12:42 (quadrans) . . .  all details, but the kind of evidence you’d expect for an eyewitness testimony written in Rome.

As Peter Williams of Tyndale House, Cambridge, recently stated, “The gospels have exactly the pattern of names and languages we would expect them to have if they were true.  The pattern is too complex for an ancient forger to reproduce (it would be a level of sophistication never seen in antiquity!)”

(Thanks to Peter Williams for his great teaching on this subject, and he would point to Richard Bauckham’s book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses as a key source.)