Preaching

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).

Why Preach a Series?

/ Peter Mead / 5 Comments

Some may ask, why do so many of us preach in series?  There are many reasons, but here are a handful to start with:

A series of sermons has greater leverage than a solo sermon. By reinforcing and reviewing a Bible book, the series allows for the lessons to sink in and be applied.  We often are too naïve in what we expect from a single sermon, but underestimate what can be achieved over time.

A series of sermons can create momentum beyond the moment. As well as the preacher reviewing what has gone before, the listeners also know what is coming and are more likely to engage with the Bible book in advance of future messages.

A series of sermons allows messages to balance each other. If a message stands alone, then its distinctives will often need to be balanced within the message, which potentially reduces the applicational impact of it.  Knowing (and if necessary, stating), that a future sermon will present another side of this issue allows the present message to be preached without excessive balancing.

A series of sermons allows for longer lead time in preparation. Knowing what is coming up allows me to channel my preparation weeks or months in advance of the sermon.  This is much healthier than a brief preparation phase which does not allow the sermon to work in me before it comes from me.

A series of sermons allows for overlapped or deeper exegetical work. If I have a series in one book, or in one section of a book, I can use my preparation time to really grapple with that part of the Bible. A series of six sermons in Hebrews allows me more time in studying Hebrews as a whole than six sermons from all over the canon.

This is not to suggest that series are the only way to go, or are the way to go without thought.  There is much to take into account when planning a series and sermons within a series, but these are five of the reasons why I affirm the practice of preaching series of sermons.

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.

Culturally Default Texts

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Philip Jenkins has written a book entitled The New Faces of Christianity: Believing the Bible in the Global South. I can’t tell you what I think, because I haven’t had opportunity to read it yet. However, based on the comments that I heard when the book was recommended to me, it seems to be an important book. One comment stood out to me (and once I read the book I’ll know whether this is a fair comment in light of what Jenkins presents). My friend pointed out how preaching in some cultures seems to be almost exclusively based in the narratives of the books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles. Apparently the context of those stories just connects very easily to people feeling oppressed, “needing” miracles, facing persecution, etc.

I wonder if we have culturally default texts that we naturally tend to preach from? In some western churches the default seems to be epistles – propositional truth and argumentation, a natural fit for the mind trained under modernity. Or perhaps our default is New Testament, or Old Testament. Do you recognize a culturally default type of preaching text in your national, local and church culture? Which parts of the Bible do we shy away from and therefore miss out on? The prophets? The wisdom literature? The apocalyptic? The historical narratives?

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!

Definitions Without Jesus – Christian Preaching?

/ Peter Mead / 5 Comments

John raised an important question in response to the post on key elements of an expository preaching definition.  Should it not include some reference to Jesus?  Some say yes, others say not necessarily.  Interestingly, of the six definitions I have used in my preaching course, only one includes a reference to Christ (J.I.Packer uses the term, “Christ-related”).  Anyway, two positions to ponder:

Christocentric preaching – Bryan Chappell, influenced by Edmund Clowney, teaches and models a form of preaching wherein the fallen-condition focus of the passage is resolved by moving to the person and work of Christ.  People in this line of thought have made comments that a sermon which could be preached in a synagogue, or one in which Christ is not mentioned, is essentially a non-Christian sermon.  (Interestingly, Chappell’s definition of an expository sermon, on p132 of Christ-Centered Preaching does not make any reference to Christ – “An expository sermon . . . expounds Scriptures by deriving from a specific text main points and subpoints that disclose the thought of the author, cover the scope of the passage, and are applied to the lives of listeners.”)

Theocentric preaching – I’ve heard Haddon Robinson reject the charge that a message without Christ is essentially a non-Christian sermon by stating that he preaches theocentrically, and if God plays a key role in the message, then he knows no other God but the Trinitarian God of Scripture.  In practice, Robinson does move from an Old Testament passage to Christ when it works to do so, but he does not feel obliged to do so every time.

People who question the “always bring it round to Jesus” approach are not automatically advocating anthropocentric, “seven secrets for success,” or self-help sermons.  Chappell is right to critique sub-Christian preaching of the “be like,” “be good,” or “be disciplined” variety.  However, must every sermon include Jesus in order to be considered expository?  Certainly many sermons will naturally move to Jesus, but must every sermon?  I would say not, what would you say?

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?

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.