Religion

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.

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.