New Testament

Notice the Details

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

When you are studying a text and preparing to preach it, make sure you notice the details.  No word is there by accident.  As I sometimes say, the writers of the Bible were neither drunk nor wasteful.  Not drunk means that they were coherent and deliberate in what they wrote.  Not wasteful means that papyrus was expensive, so they didn’t waffle for a paragraph or two before getting into it.

Sometimes the details in a passage are helpful theologically.  For example, why does Mark tell the reader that the grass was green when Jesus fed the five thousand?  Is this mere ornamentation?  Or is it part of a larger package of details and tone that are suggestive of Jesus bringing something of the eschatological feasting and abundance?  It can be hard to discern the difference between allegorical misreading of Scripture and sensitivity to the original writer’s intent.  The goal is not to make it say something Mark didn’t know, but to recognize what Mark intended to communicate both overtly and subtly.

Sometimes the details in a passage are helpful apologetically. In a day when the Bible is roundly mocked, we have listeners who need their trust in the Bible bolstered by our preaching.  Thus it is worth noting apparently incidental details that actually under gird a robust evangelical bibliology.  For example, notice the difference between names used in speech quotations and the same names used by the narrator.  Jesus was the 6th most common name in that part of the world at that time, so naturally in speech his name would be qualified, such as “the Nazarene, Jesus” (Mark 14:67).  Yet in the narration, Mark doesn’t need to identify which Jesus he is writing about, so it is just “Jesus” (eg. Mark 14:62, 72).  Mark could easily have had the servant girl referring to “Jesus,” but he didn’t.  Was Mark phenomenally accurate in making up the story, or is he in fact quoting speech with word perfect exactitude?  (Compare the narrator with the speech quotations in Matthew 14:1-11, for another example of this.)

Tomorrow I’ll share a couple more examples of textual details that offer apologetic value for our preaching.  (I’m indebted to Peter Williams of Tyndale House, Cambridge, for these apologetic examples.)

Macro Framing

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

As a preacher it is important to know the big shape of the book you are preaching.  It is also important to communicate it.  Too many Christians see the books of the Bible as a random assortment of random  chunks.  Our preaching should not exacerbate that lack of macro awareness.  While preaching a passage it is helpful for our listeners to hear how this piece fits in the whole message of the book.

We won’t agree on every attempt to “macro frame” a Bible book, but we should agree that people need to recognize the unity and flow of the books.

The first three chapters of Ephesians describe the calling of believers as church – a body united in Christ Jesus.  Then from 4:1 on the book is concerned with the conduct of believers as church – a body living out its unity in Christ Jesus.  Calling: Conduct.  Overly simplistic?  Maybe, but better than only having random details or a couple of favorite verses.

What about Mark’s gospel?  Two big questions.  Who is Jesus and what does it mean to follow him?  In 1:1 the reader is told who He is (Christ, the Son of God), but the characters in the narrative take a long time to get there.  The hinge of the book is in the middle of chapter 8, where Peter makes his “you are the Christ,” confession, only to then put his foot in it by rebuking Jesus for introducing crucifixion talk.  But the reality is that a Christ who is simply miracle-working man of power is an incomplete Christ.  You can’t have the Christ without the cross.  So in the next chapters Jesus keeps explaining and predicting the cross.  He came not to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.  The followers of Jesus are to take up their cross and follow Him.  Do they get it?  When will someone understand?  Perhaps once the Christ dies on the cross, and the climactic statement of the centurion standing close by, “this man was the Son of God.” (1:1; 8:27-34; 15:39).  Mark’s gospel has a profound flow to it, but how will people know this if we don’t let it slip out in our preaching?

Romans seems to move through four chunks of thought – Our problem (we lack God’s righteousness – 1:18-3:20); God’s provision (he gives us His righteousness – 3:21-8:39); God’s promise (we can trust His promise of righteousness – 9:1-11:36); Our practice (we live out God’s righteousness – 12:1-15:33).  Now I know that this righteousness emphasis doesn’t also point out the other core issues of God’s faithfulness and unity between God’s people that spans the book.  Perhaps we can present differing macro frames of reference for the same book to help people see the big picture?

We’ll leave it there for now, but as preachers, let’s not miss opportunities to help people see where a passage fits in the flow of a book.  Let’s do some macro framing!

The Hardest Genre? Part 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday we looked at just some of the challenges that come with preaching epistles, gospels and historical narrative. Now for the other four genre. Which do you find the hardest?

Poetry – Psalms and songs are readily leaned on in times of personal trial, but preaching them well is not so easy. The imagery is sometimes alien to us. The forms and structures are unfamiliar. The genre taps into the affections and emotions in a way that can be difficult to communicate. The temptation to dissect and turn the passage into an epistle is very real. As is true with every passage, but especially here, the passage does not give a complete theology of . . . whatever it’s about.

Wisdom – The Hebraic parallelism and other forms of wisdom literature are especially foreign to our ears. The wisdom literature often sits in the context of a covenant system that applied uniquely to Israel in relationship to God, so application can be treacherous territory if we’re not careful. The brevity of statement provides a different challenge than an extended narrative.

Prophecy – Written by a certain kind of person, to a certain people, at a certain time . . . none of which is the same today. It can be really challenging to enter into the historical context of the prophet, and also to enter fully into the written context of the book (where the start and end of each burden/oracle is often hard to discern). While the prophets reveal the heart and plans of God very boldly, there is plenty in form and content that appears obscure to contemporary ears and sensibilities.

Apocalyptic – Biblical apocalyptic is a genre that is challenging to contemporary interpreters. Many seem so quick to dismiss the content by reference to the genre that all meaning is apparently stripped from the texts. Then there is the conflict in the commentaries and even disputes in the pews over issues of eschatology that can quickly zap any zeal to announce an apocalyptic preaching text. As with prophecy, the challenges are there in terms of interpreting in context, and in applying to contemporary listeners.

Personally I would list the hardest for me as: 1 – historical narrative (Old Testament), 2 – wisdom, and 3 – apocalyptic (because of the potential problems from the pew, more than the interpretation of it). What about you? Let’s make sure we’re not avoiding some genre and growing complacent with others.

The Hardest Genre?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

What is the hardest genre to preach well?  Every genre has its own challenges.  Here’s a list of biblical genre with some brief points on why each can be hard to preach well.  I’ll tell you what I find the toughest, but your top three toughies might be different.  Let’s not avoid the ones we find tough, nor grow complacent in the “easier” genres.

Epistle – Many would list this as the easiest genre to preach.  The original audience is closest to ours, the direct communication translates relatively easily into a sermon and application is often straightforward.  The challenge can be over-familiarity and how to preach with a sense of tension or intrigue.

Gospels – Most of the stories are very familiar, but sometimes small details can really pose problems in interpretation.  It is challenging to really see each unit of thought as it fits in the flow of the text.  It isn’t always easy to sift Jesus’ motives in the action and the author’s motives in how the action is presented.  If you are not good at telling a story, then the gospels can be really challenging.

Story (History/Narrative) – Some stories are very familiar, others are borderline bizarre.  As with the gospels it is not always obvious what the author is doing in stringing episodes together.  With Old Testament narratives you also have the challenge of communicating the story with a sense of relevance to today, as well as the burden of appropriate application.  Then there is the difficulty of unknown geography and lack of familiarity with biblical history among our listeners.

Tomorrow we’ll complete the list of the biblical genre.  I’ll list my hardest three, for what it’s worth, and you can comment with yours . . . feel free to add pointers to the challenges you face in any particular genre – this would be helpful for others to ponder too.

Have You Ever Watched A Movie Twice?

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Most people have.  Let me share the three reasons people gave at the seminar last weekend for having done this, then I’ll make my point clear:

1. It’s like children wanting the same story told over and over – it gives a sense of security.

2. You catch details you didn’t see first time through.

3. You still enjoy the satisfying bits.

All very true.  My point?  When your preaching text is a familiar narrative, it may be tempting to just talk about it rather than to tell the story again . . . don’t.  Tell the story!

1. If you tell the story well, all of these three things apply.  It’s not just children that appreciate security. In a changing and often worrying world, it is very reassuring at a deep level to be reminded of the unchanging truths of God’s Word – God is still on the throne, Joseph’s story still works out God’s greater plan, Daniel still honors God in the persecution, Jesus still tells Jairus not to fear, and ultimately, the story of the gospel is still true.

2. People do notice things when a story is well told that they may have never noticed before – “I never realised she understood Jesus that way!”  or “I never picked up his gentleness of tone with her before” or whatever.  Just because people have heard a story numerous times, it doesn’t mean they have really understood it.  (How many times has Jonah been told and the point been missed?)

3. It is very satisfying to again experience the resolution of tension in a narrative, even if you know how the story ends.  If this is true with a movie, how much more with true narratives of the Bible?  It’s satisfying to hear Nebuchadnezzar’s statement about God after the grass eating incident.  It’s satisfying to see the ram caught in the bush after having your heart pounding as the knife is raised over Isaac.  It’s satisfying to see everyone safely on shore after the incredible adventure of Paul’s shipwreck.

Narratives create security, they intrigue with new insights, they satisfy with tensions resolved.  Narratives tap into the human ability to identify with others.  Narratives stir the emotions.  Narratives drop the guard of the listener so that truth can hit home.  Narratives are powerful.  That’s why God inspired so many of them.  When you preach a narrative . . . be sure to tell the story well!

Keep Looking

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Observation does not work in haste.  It takes time to keep looking at something and really see it.  I’m told that you cannot get the best out of an art gallery by rushing around and taking mental snapshots (my default approach).  I know that neither can you get the best out of a Bible passage from a quick glance.  The problem is that we find triggers to move on.

One trigger that often gets us, and therefore undermines our observation, is that we “find a message.”  We look at the passage, see a superficial outline, and then move on to forming the message.  In reality we would do well to continue observing the passage.

For example, Colossians 4:2-6.  When I first looked at that a few weeks ago, the structure was fairly obvious.  Paul is asking the Colossians to keep on praying (verse 2), for Paul to have opportunities to speak the gospel (verses 3-4).  Then Paul moves on to describe how their conduct should be toward outsiders (verses 5-6).  The structure is simple and it preaches: pray for ministers, and interact well yourselves.

It works, it preaches, but further observation helps to unite the passage further.  As it stands, my outline so far is really two almost distinct ideas.  However, the passage flows as one thought.  For instance, Paul urges them to pray for God to open doors for the gospel (v3), so that he may speak as he “ought to speak.” (v4).  Likewise, perhaps the action of the readers described in verse 5 implies the opening of a door, so that they will have opportunity to speak “as they ought” to speak (v6).  The passage is asking for prayer for “ministers” as well as for themselves, but it is not so distinct as “pray for ministers, but simply interact well yourselves with outsiders.”  No, the prayer (and the action) is for the opening of doors and then the appropriate speech to follow.  If the language of “minister” is used for verses 3-4, then it must also be used of verses 5-6.  There is a unity to the passage that a superficial outline may miss.

Often it is easy to see something that will preach, and then stop looking.  Let’s be diligent to wrestle more with the text, to believe there is greater unity to the thought than may at first appear.  The writer had a clear thought, let’s honour that by pursuing the thought as we study.

Disadvantage Us?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Here’s a quote worth pondering, wherever you sit theologically.  It is quoted in a book that is more mainstream and liturgical in orientation than the more evangelical books I tend to quote from.  It is a quote by P.T.Forsyth in reference to the Roman Catholic church.  I’m sure this post could stir response on numerous levels, but the quote is worth considering in reference to our preaching:

The Catholic form of worship will always have a vast advantage over ours so long as people come away from its central act with the sense of something done in the spirit-world, while they leave ours with the sense only of something said to this present world.

In many churches we might beg to differ that something is really said to “this present world” either.  But the point is intriguing.  Are we so connected and “relevant” that there is nothing heavenly, spiritual, special, involved in church? For those of us committed to the centrality of the spoken word in worship, perhaps we need to prayerfully ponder what this might mean for us.

The book, more liturgical in its orientation, points to another conclusion that could be drawn – some seek to separate words and action.  They say, in effect, that the “Eucharist” can do the talking, so don’t bother preaching.  “Some clergy are scared to preach.  They  play up the liturgy as a way of hiding from the people.  A sermon is the best barometer of the spiritual life of the minister.  Some fear that it is too accurate an instrument.”  (Book title and author coming in the next few days…oh the intrigue!)

Words and actions do not fight each other.  They go together in worship.  Whatever label you use, Jesus did give a symbolic act and request that it be done in remembrance of Him.  He also explained it.  With words.  I think it is David Wenham who refers to communion and baptism as enacted parables.  We must follow the instructions of Jesus, and the example too.  He came to preach.  He sent His followers out to preach.  Let’s not hide from preaching behind an excuse of some viable and even biblical “alternative.”  But let us also consider how our preaching might be more than a mere “this world” presentation.  It needs to be that, and so much more besides.

The Aim of Preaching Easter

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

What is your aim as you preach this Easter?  In his book, Sacred Rhetoric (p119-120), Michael Pasquarello makes the following comment about Martin Luther:

Luther’s homiletic aim was to demonstrate, by means of the Gospel, that the resurrection is more than an idle tale or a painted picture that evokes admiration and religious sentiment. . . . He hoped that in telling others the Easter story, the presence of the risen Christ might elicit faith’s true confession: “Christ is my Savior and King.”

Let’s not settle for a complacent approach to sermonic purpose as Easter approaches.  Why am I preaching this passage on this date to these people?  Because it’s Easter, of course!  That’s not enough, what do we aim to achieve?

What should the result be for the non-Christian present?  Luther wrote, “Although Christians will identify themselves with Judas, Caiaphas, and Pilate – sinful, condemned actors in the Gospel story – there is another who took the sins of humanity on himself when they were hung around his neck. . . . And today, Easter Sunday, when we see him, they are gone; there is only righteousness and life, the Risen Christ who comes to share his gifts.” (Sermons, 125, cited in Pasquarello, 120)

What should our Easter preaching do for Christians?  Again, same book, “Christians are now free to look away from their sins, from evil and death, and to fix their gaze upon Christ, which is the logic or grammar of faith.”

What is your aim as you preach this Easter?  Be specific.  Target your message.  Don’t waste a glorious occasion.

How Would Jesus Preach – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Continuing the list of ten characteristics of Jesus’ preaching, as observed by a chapter in Preach the Word:

(6) Visual in its Appeal – Jesus painted word pictures.  He didn’t speak in abstractions, but he helped his teaching to form in the minds of the listeners (whether they were intended to really understand that picture is a different matter!)  For instance, imagery in Matthew’s gospel includes salt, light, gates, roads, trees, houses, foxes and birds, brides and bridegrooms, wine, farmers, weeds, seeds, bread, treasure, fishing, plants, pits, dogs, weather, rocks, mountains, sheep, vineyards and lamps.

(7) Varied in its Approach – Jesus varied and adapted his methodology, using parables, stories, proverbs, pithy statements, paradoxes, riddles, word plays, etc.

(8) Practical in its Application – Jesus taught his disciples to pray by giving them a prayer and not just a pattern or theory.

(9) Courageous in its Directness – He was through and through a God-pleaser, rather than a men-pleaser, which gave courage to Jesus’ ministry.

(10) Potent in its Impact – in just three years of ministry, Jesus’ impact far surpassed the combined decades of teaching of the finest philosophers of antiquity.  His words inspired the greatest art of history.  His teaching motivated the music and poetry of the greatest composers of the ages.  His preaching continues to change lives today.

Before we just say, “that’s Jesus, He’s different,” let’s be sure to not only praise the Lord for his ministry, but also look to learn from it as we continue to represent Jesus in preaching to the body of Christ and the world that needs Christ.

How Would Jesus Preach?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Haslam’s book, Preach the Word, has a chapter entitled “Learning from Jesus.”  To some it is obvious that we should look to Jesus, who was, after all, the finest of preachers.  But I suppose some would overlook Jesus as a model of preaching since, well, we’re not Jesus.  In this chapter, the writer points out ten characteristics of Jesus’ teaching.  It’s not an exhaustive list, but it is a list worth pondering:

(1) Revelatory in Content – intimacy with the Father added an authority to his teaching, quite unlike the teaching of his contemporaries.

(2) Anointed by the Spirit – another key element in his authority was the role and freedom of the Spirit in the empowering of Jesus’ ministry.

(3) Biblical in its Source – Jesus knew, quoted, cited, explained and preached the Hebrew Bible.  While he was able to add to it in a way we cannot, he never contradicted it.

(4) Always Relevant – Jesus knew who he spoke to and he connected his teaching to their lives.

(5) Compassionate in its Motivation – Jesus really loved those he sought to draw to faith, and it showed in his communication.

I’ll give the other five tomorrow, we already have enough to ponder for one day!