Old Testament

The Identification Situation

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

One of the secrets of the success of narrative writing and storytelling (whether that is historical narrative, fiction, fantasy, film or whatever) is the power of identification.  When you read, hear or see a story, you naturally find yourself either identifying with or disassociating from characters in the story.  If you are left cold, it is usually a sign that the story isn’t being told well, or you are in some sort of disconnected state.

So, if this is a central function of narratives, then it is a factor to consider in preaching biblical narratives.  Some might try to make a hard and fast rule here, but again I would urge wisdom and consideration of the options.

Identifying with the Central Character. This is the most obvious and typically the most natural.  As we see the faith or failure of Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Ruth, etc., we naturally find ourselves identifying or disassociating.  Actually, I read a reference to a small study recently that suggested preachers are more likely to associate with the hero of the story than non-preachers are.  Interesting.  There is a danger here.  We can easily turn a God-centred biblical narrative into a moralistic tale of “so let’s try hard to be like Benaiah.”  The other danger is that we are theologically informed of the danger and then fail to engage with narratives in the way they naturally function.

Identify with Non-Central Characters. This is where the non-preachers apparently will naturally identify – with the disciples, the fearful soldiers of Saul’s army, the guilty brothers of Joseph, etc.  This changes things from a preaching perspective.  Suddenly the temptation to moralise is diminished somewhat, though not entirely.  The preaching of the narrative is suddenly fresh instead of predictable, for one thing.

Identify with the original recipients. From an applicational perspective, this is probably the best place to start.  Moses wasn’t telling Israel to all try to be like him, but rather to see afresh the heritage of God at work amongst them.  Samuel wanted Israel to celebrate David and the God of his faith, rather than try to generate a new generation of Davids.  While not narrative texts, Paul’s letters all had applicational intent, specifically related to the recipients of each letter (whom we can identify with by the ongoing characteristics of church life and struggle).

Identification is a primary feature of narratives.  Engage with this truth wisely.

Share

Some Thoughts on Preparing to Preach Psalm 22

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments
This is not a complete post, but it may be helpful.  I received the following question from a good friend:

I have been asked to preach on psalm 22 and am at the moment soaking myself in it to try and make sure I understand the message, the structure and what God was saying then and is saying now.

I will resist the temptation to jump straight to Matthew 27 and end up preaching that, as the psalm should, in my current view, stand on its own merits.  Nevertheless I can’t imagine preaching this without bringing in Matthew.  I would really welcome your views on how to approach this to get the balance right.

Here’s my initial answer:

This is a key issue in preaching OT.  Many automatically go to the NT, especially from a passage like that.  I suppose I would study it in two stages – first what it meant then, then how Matthew / Jesus uses it (raising the issue of whether Jesus was pulling only specific verses or relating to the whole of it by quoting the start of it).

In terms of preaching it, I would probably want to preach it in terms of David first, for a significant chunk of the message, recognizing that everyone else is probably thinking of Jesus.  Then going to Jesus and showing his use of it would be perfectly legitimate, thinking about how it applies to us as a text, as well as how Jesus’ application of it applies to us.  I preached it a few years ago and found it effective to major on Psalm 22 at 1000BC, with a smaller focus given to Greater Son of David at 32AD, connecting it to us throughout (application of the concept or main idea in reference to David, and response to Jesus in reference to the latter part of the message).

The one thing I would add is that the psalm is not finished 2/3rds of the way through, as some preachers sometimes seem to think.  In your study you should probably wrestle with the issue of whether this was a purely predictive text (i.e.not of David, but all of Jesus), a double fulfillment type of text (sensus plenior in some respect – i.e. both of David and of Jesus), or a purely descriptive text that Jesus appropriated as appropriate to his situation and response to it (i.e. all of David, but Jesus could identify).  I wouldn’t address all these in the sermon, but I would preach according to my understanding of how the two relate.

There’s a lot to think about with this passage, and I haven’t got into any details here!  Hope you can really delight in the study of it.

Biblical Worldview and Ours

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Throughout Scripture God is seen as sovereign and providentially involved in all aspects of life.  When there were natural disasters in Israel, the prophets called the people to respond to the God who created everything.  When war or famine hit, they interpreted it in light of the covenant they were under, but also always recognizing and promoting the reality of a God who is present and immanent and involved.

Today we see two concerning alternatives:

Alternative A – God is Absent. In this view of things we preach about a God who was involved in history, and a God who will intervene again in the future, but a God who is essentially silent today.  The greatest intersection of earth and heaven today is essentially my preaching, and yours.  In many churches Christians live as if God is only slightly more engaged than the God of the Deists . . . that is, He was engaged for longer in the past, and He will be again in the future.  This is a problematic position.

Alternative B – God is Speaking and I Can Give Specific Interpretation. This is the hotline to heaven approach where certain preachers have sufficient anointing to be able to speak with an authority that is theirs, rather than an authority resting in Scripture.  It is the kind of authority that says “I know exactly why this disaster has occurred, and the reason is XYZ” (typically the cause would be their own pet peeeve issue).  This sensational approach to preaching undermines the credibility of all legitimate biblical preachers.

We need to stand in between these two.  We can’t give exact revelation on specifics in a sensational way, neither should we relegate God to history.  Let us instead live out a biblical worldview in which God is providentially shaking the world in order to get our attention.  Volcanic ash clouds, oil disasters, wars, economic crises, the price of fuel . . . let’s be, and let’s preach, a responsive Christianity that has the worldview presented throughout Scripture.  God matters, today.  It is our privilege to respond to Him.  Then what?  Then we go to His Word, where we can hear His heart clearly.

Single Verse Sermons

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

The site received this comment from Peter D:

I have been studying Charles Spurgeon’s sermons. He would often take one scripture and expound on it from every direction he could, would that be thin blooded? I’m preparing a message for later this month and want to focus on one verse within Psalm 63 – it sticks out to me and brings the whole psalm to life, for me at least. In your opinion is it best when dealing with psalms to preach the whole psalm in it’s entirety or can focusing on one part bring it to life for the members?

This is a good question.  Regarding the Psalms I would suggest it is always important to study a Psalm in its entirety, but it may be effective to focus on one part if that seems appropriate for the situation (i.e. when covering the full text in a longer psalm would prove overwhelming or unachievable). 

But what about single verse sermons? Certainly in the past there were many more preachers who preached on single texts, often going from those texts to a sometimes comprehensive canon-wide presentation of the pertinent doctrines suggested (or sometime not suggested) in that text.  Sadly there are many who try to copy the approach of a Spurgeon without achieving a comparable level of personal spirituality and biblical maturity.  There is certainly a place for doctrinal preaching, as well as better and worse ways to do it.  Perhaps there should be a post on that subject sometime . . .

But what can we say about single-verse sermons?

1. If a single verse is a complete unit of thought, great!  For instance, many proverbs stand alone as a complete unit of thought and can be profitably preached as such.

2. If a single verse conveys the main idea of the unit of thought, great!  In some passages there is a single thought that encapsulates the main idea of the passage and it might be effective to preach the verse, while choosing how much of the context to refer to at the same time (depending on situation of sermon, listeners, etc.)

3. If a single verse conveys a significant proportion of the main idea of the text, this might be effective.  As above, the surrounding context will need to be brought into the message in some way or other, but appearing to preach a single verse may work well.  In Peter’s comment above, I noticed how he still tied the single verse to the message of the Psalm as a whole, which makes me think it might be very effective.

4. In a topical message, a single verse may act as sectional manager for that section of the message, but that manager must not act autonomously from the influence of the full unit of thought.  That is, the verse must be understood in its context.

5. If a single verse is used without awareness of context, or to preach a point it wouldn’t give if understood in context, or if preached without studying the context . . . well, please don’t.

Points in a Narrative Text Sermon

/ Peter Mead / 14 Comments

There is a field of homiletics referred to as narrative preaching, but this post is concerned with the preaching of a narrative passage – eg. David and Goliath, Joseph in Potiphar’s House, Hannah & Samuel, etc.

In other posts I have encouraged the use of full sentence points, rather than descriptive titles that make the message outline look like a commentary synopsis.  The full thoughts help you communicate effectively, generally avoiding historical past tense sentences helps you not sound like a commentary recycler.  But it is worth clarifying a couple of points on points:

1. If the message structure reflects the story structure, then some points may be better stated in historical terms. What I mean is that in an attempt to be contemporary, we can end up making three or four life principles out of the developing elements of the story, rather than allowing the story to be told properly.  The problem then becomes a moralizing approach to the details of a story, rather than allowing the force of the story to stand behind the main point, which itself might best be the only focus of application.  Stories that are told effectively will hold attention, so it is not necessary to generate points of relevance or application throughout the detail of the story.  Pay careful attention to the introduction, generating a definite sense of sermon relevance there, then feel free to be in the world of the narrative for a large part of the message, continually building to the relevance that may only become overt in point 3 or 4 (i.e. whenever the main idea is revealed with its abiding theological thrust).

2. Shorter biblical stories may work best with a default sermon outline. Namely, point 1 is to tell the story.  Point 2 is to state and clarify the main idea of that story.  Point 3 is to reinforce and drive home the application of that main idea.  In this case point 1 is automatically historical.  Point 2 should be written in contemporary terms.  Point 3 has to be contemporary, including all sub-points.  Again the introduction is important, but I suspect that will be the case in almost every sermon that we preach (whether we give it the necessary attention or not).  This approach underlines the fact that the outline of a sermon is for your eyes only.  Once we realize our goal is not to transfer an outline, but to give the text in such a way as to clarify the main point and apply it, then we are freed from the burden of turning every narrative into a parallel rhyming assonated demonstration of guilded wordsmithery.

Old Favourites and Oft Avoideds

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Every passage in Scripture is equally inspired, but not every passage is equally known or esteemed.  Patterns of esteem can be traced, although they differ depending on church location, denomination and preacher preference.  So in some parts of the world the books of Samuel are always flavour of the month, while in other parts it is always epistles over narratives.  It seems like John and Luke tend to be preferred over Mark, while Romans gets more attention than 2nd Thessalonians, and 1st Timothy more than Titus.  Luke 15 gets more attention than Luke 14 and Genesis 22 is preferred to Genesis 10 or 5.  Psalms will get more hits than Ezekiel.  Not every passage is equally esteemed or known.

This situation does not therefore require us to bring balance by committing to rigid scheduling of a chapter a week for the next 23 years.  What it does ask of us is whether we ever break out of the familiar and offer our listeners a taste of the less familiar?

Last night I was asked to preach two messages from Ezekiel.  Not my usual hunting ground, but a very enjoyable experience.  I should return there more often.

There are reasons why old favourites tend to be old favourites, and mostly good reasons – clear truth, compelling application, familiar plots, etc.  But there are reasons why oft avoideds also deserve to be preached – they are equally inspired, after all.  So perhaps we should consider periodically offering a series, or at least a stand alone message, on a part of Scripture that might surprise our listeners.  Who knows, for some these oft avoideds might become old favourites!

Feel the Force: Poetry

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

When we preach poetry, do our listeners really feel the force of it?  Poetry is found in the Psalms and wisdom literature, of course, but also in the historical books and the prophets too.  All too easily we can preach to the head, but not move the listeners with the force of the text.

A couple of thoughts on this:

1. Word images may not carry instant force, so we should build it. For example, when the Psalms speak of the heavens, the stars, the sun and moon, etc., there is a big difference between most listeners today and the original hearers of the text.  They lived under the stars.  Once the sun went down the rhythm of life changed and stargazing was as normal as TV gazing is for some today.  So a brief reference to how amazing it is to look at the stars and feel so small (as in Psalm 8 ) will simply not move contemporary listeners like the original reference would have done.  Today we have to build an awareness of our smallness (thankfully we have NASA and the Hubble telescope to help generate a sense of smallness!)

2. The structure of a poem, the shift in content, may not be apparent to our listeners, so we should clarify and demonstrate it. If the poem was read carefully straight through, the discerning reader would probably pick up on the transition that occurs.  The problem with preaching though is that the extra words may obscure the transitions instead of clarifying them.  There is a major transition at the mid-point of Psalm 73.  Yet if the preacher is droning in their voice, or simply moving methodically through a series of points, that dramatic transition may easily be missed.

3. Emotive language can so easily be made informational. As I’ve probably written elsewhere on this site, it is so easy to dissect a frog to learn how it jumps, but in doing so we stop it doing so.  A dissected poem is not enough for effective preaching.

People listening need to feel the force of poetry so that it can mark their lives deeply, as God intends.

Natural Born Series

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Some preachers plan series in a relatively simple manner.  They select a book of the Bible and then preach, unit by unit, through the book, or through a section.  Others select a topic and select appropriate passages to organize a topical series.  I am not critiquing either approach, but want to offer another option too.

Just as we are in danger of reading the Bible to look for a message, so we can fall into reading the Bible to look for a series.  One way this manifests itself is in the sections we dismiss, as much as those we select.  For instance, what if we were looking in the Psalms and were drawn to a section like the Psalms of Ascent?  Well, fifteen weeks might be too long for a series, so we are tempted to look elsewhere.

As often as possible we should simply soak in the text.  Like taking a leisurely bath rather than a quick shower, we should take every opportunity to be saturated by a section.  Something happens once it gets into you.  Let’s push the analogy and say that the skin of our soul becomes wrinkly . . . even when you step out the evidence remains.

So for example, I was preparing a synopsis of a longer study on Psalms 107-118 (the section before the Ascent Psalms).  A dozen psalms that present a unified and powerful message.  If I had been looking for a series, I would have gone elsewhere because 12 weeks is probably too long.  (Or settled for the more obvious Egyptian Hallel of 113-118, missing the blessing of the first part of the sequence.)  But after soaking in this text for a while, I can’t help but find myself thinking of creative ways to present the message of this section.  Combining psalms, summarizing a block of three with a focus on one, perhaps even preaching a message that traces the flow through all twelve.

I soaked and now the wrinkly skin of my soul is looking for an opportunity to preach the section . . . in one message, in three, in five.  I suppose, like a leisurely bath, there is probably a fragrance that lingers from this kind of study, too.

Sometimes we have to plan very pragmatically.  Let’s be sure we also create space for soaking, slow, text-saturated, natural born 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!

Save the Best for Last

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

If you have read any book on sermon composition, or studied preaching formally, you will have come across the two basic approaches to shaping a sermon – inductive and deductive.  Both have strengths and weaknesses, both are useful.  Yesterday I preached a message that was essentially inductive.  I began by introducing the basic concept and made a promise – “I want to show you the greatest song of all time.”

The message progressed by setting the scene for the book (an OT prophet), and surveying the content of the book to give a feel for it’s scope and intensity.  The focus narrowed to the final section of the book, then finally onto the central feature of that final section.  In the last minutes of the message, the place of final emphasis, the greatest song ever became evident.

This is one example of an inductive approach.  Often used when an audience is antagonistic to the main idea of the message (as in Peter’s message on Pentecost), but not exclusively so, the inductive approach has some real strengths.  It does give you time to overcome antagonism and lower defences.  It does allow time for intrigue to build so that people actually want to hear the main idea by the time it is stated.  It allows for final stress to be placed on the most important thing.

Inductive approaches to preaching can be complicated and daunting.  They often require a different set of skills from the preacher: not least the ability to build trust and maintain interest for the entire message.  But we shouldn’t feel daunted.  Perhaps with the next message it is worth considering the option of not stating the main idea at the end of the introduction.  Instead give the question or the incomplete sentence only, leaving the answer (or complement) until later on in the message.

Sometimes it is very worth saving the best for last.