Religion

Musts From Beyond The Schedule

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

It is so easy to get into ministry maintainance mode.  We do what we have to do to keep things ticking over.  As soon as one program is over, the next is looming.  And there is certainly something to be said for faithful plugging away in local church work.  But while remaining faithful to what must be done, we should remember that there are other things that must be done too.  These “musts” comes not from the tyranny of the weekly schedule, but from the beating heart of God.

Dream – Take some time to dream.  Let’s unshackle our imaginations and prayerfully imagine what could be.   We should break out of the small confines we easily find ourselves in and engage sanctified imaginations for God.  Imagine what could be for individuals in the church, for ministries in the church, for the church itself.  Dream dreams that don’t fit in the weekly schedule.  Tangibly meeting specific needs in the local community.  Mobilizing missionaries who will actually go and make a difference.  Taking a stand on a key ethical issue and seeing God work through that.  As we walk close with the Lord, His values become our values, and increasingly our dreams should reflect His.

Strategize – Pray about taking steps toward these bigger goals.  Your strategy will go beyond preaching on the subject, but it should include that.  The pulpit ministry of the church has a unique and definite role to play.  Even if you are not able to define a five-year detailed strategy, just taking some steps is worth it.

Preach – It’s easy to lose sight of how influential preaching is in the life of the church.  It’s easy to allow negative feedback or a perceived lack of response to drain your motivation.  But preaching does matter and it does influence.  So preach.  Preach the Word of God for the transformation of lives.

Pursue – If you are pursuing a goal, then pursue it after you preach on it.  That might involve further messages.  It’s easy to expect too much from a single message.  It might involve conversations, convening an interest group, distributing resources, the targeted giving of key books, further prayer, of course.  If you want to lose your passion for something, then reflect only on the apparent lack of response from a message.  If you want to see greater things happening, then pursue with further preaching and more.

Not Commentaries, But Within Reach

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

One of my preaching instructors at seminary once mentioned a handful of books that he keeps within easy reach of his desk for sermon preparation.  I’ve done the same ever since and find myself referring to them often.

To preach the text effectively we have to do more than dissect the text and preach the parts.  We have to be concerned with understanding the flow of thought, the literary artistry, the implications of the genre and form, etc.  So when I’m preparing to preach a text, I tend to use the Scripture index to find if it is addressed in books like these:

Words of Delight: A Literary Introduction to the Bible by Leland Ryken is a very helpful book – perhaps just a paragraph or two, but often those thoughts are very helpful.  The Art of Biblical Narrative by Robert Alter – a classic that should be required reading for us all.  It covers less biblical texts, but its great when the text is in there!  Reading Biblical Narrative or Poetry, both by JP Fokkelman is worth a look too.  As is The Literary Structure of the Old Testament by David Dorsey.

There are others, but I’ll leave it there.  These are not atomistic commentaries, but rather literary guides.  Do you have a shelf like this close at hand?  What is on it?

Commentaries – The Golden Ones

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Since we’re talking commentaries, here’s another thought.  How are we supposed to know which ones to buy?  As a preacher I often note a common problem in commentaries – they tend to be atomistic.  That is to say that many of them seem to deal only with the word or phrase at hand.  As a preacher I benefit from this, but value very highly those commentaries that wrestle with the flow of the text, those that include a significant macro view as well as the micro.  This is determined more by author than by series, so we have to hunt carefully in order to find them.  But when you find one that gives a very clear picture of the flow of a text, snap it up, it’s worth its weight in gold!

A couple of basic tips on commentary buying:

If possible, don’t buy blind. If you are able to access a library or borrow from a friend, then do so.  Once you’ve used a commentary you have a much better idea of whether you need to own it.

Try to have more than one. Since commentaries are conversation partners, it is better to have more than one so he or she doesn’t dominate the conversation.

Generally buy selectively rather than a whole series.  No series keeps up the same standard throughout, so it is worth picking and choosing from different series.  If you’re looking for “flow” commentaries that I described at the start, recognize that they can come in the small format (EBC, Tyndale, BST), or substantial English format (NAC, PNTC), as well as the chunkier exegetical formats (Hermeneia, NICNT/OT, WBC, NIGTC, BEC).  However, it is worth noting with discount retailers doing their thing, it may be worth buying a good series for the PC and letting that be the conversation partner, for example NAC or WBC.

Before you buy another commentary, meet John Glynn.  John Glynn’s Commentary & Reference Survey from Kregel is worth its weight in platinum!  I find his evaluation and suggestions on commentaries and other reference tools to be generally excellent.  Paying a few dollars, pounds, euros, yen for this will save money on poor purchases – guaranteed!

Commentaries are important tools of the trade, and buying well is a skill worth aquiring.  But if you can find those commentaries that do a good job on textual flow and macro appreciation of the literary artistry in a book – well, then you are finding gold!

Rumors of Commentaries

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

When I get to listen to a sermon, I sometimes pick up on a commentary vibe.  That is, a sense that the preacher has been spending some time in the commentaries.  Sometimes it is overt references to “the commentators” or a specific commentary (I am describing what I hear, not affirming the practice of citing and quoting the commentaries).  Other times it is a series of background facts that feel like they’ve come from some time in the books.

On the positive side I am always glad to know the speaker has been working in preparation for the sermon.  I’d much rather have somebody who has prepared responsibly than someone who is “winging it” without humble reference to “experts” in the field.

On the negative side I sometimes get a feeling of concern.  It’s hard to pinpoint, but it’s a feeling of concern nonetheless.  I wonder whether the commentaries have been conversation partners in the personal study of the text, or crutches leant on to short-cut the process of exegesis.  I wonder whether the commentaries have simulated wrestling with the structure and flow of the text and consequently the sermon, or whether they have merely furnished a dissected structure on which to hang the broken pieces of a partial sermon.

I thank God for commentaries and good commentators.  We are so blessed today with access to these reference works.  I think it is either arrogance or stupidity that would lead us to ignore them in sermon preparation (provided we are blessed with access to them).  However, they are just one part of our preparation.  We have to wrestle with the text, with its flow of thought, its meaning, its purpose, its idea.  We have to wrestle with the sermon purpose, its idea, its strategy, its structure, its flow, etc.

Commentary study alone will provide a veritable pile of tidbits that can easily fill the sermon time.  But remember that as the preacher, our job is not to fill sermon time, but to prayerfully, carefully, and personally develop a sermon that faithfully explains and relevantly applies the text for our specific congregation.

Know Your Theology and Preach Your Bible

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Last week I wrote a post that spoke against theological agenda-driven preaching.  Yesterday’s post affirmed the value and relevance of theology.  Are these positions contradictory?  Not at all.  We are living in a generation where there is an increasing biblical and theological illiteracy.  So as preachers we have a responsibility to really know the important doctrines of the faith.  And as preachers we have the responsibility of preaching the Bible so that listeners will know where that doctrine comes from and how to get it.

Here’s a quote from Spurgeon’s Lectures to My Students that seems appropriate:

Be well instructed in theology, and do not regard the sneers of those who rail at it because they are ignorant of it.  Many preachers are not theologians, and hence the mistakes which they make.  It cannot do any hurt to the most lively evangelist to be also a sound theologian, and it may often be the means of saving him from gross blunders.  Nowadays, we hear men tear a single sentence of Scripture from its connection, and cry “Eureka! Eureka!” as if they had found a new truth; and yet they have not discovered a diamond, but a piece of broken glass. . . . Let us be thoroughly well acquainted with the great doctrines of the Word of God.

Know your theology, and preach the Bible well so that people can see not only what to believe, but how to derive that belief from the pages of Scripture.  There are two potential challenges in this.  One is ignorance of sound theology.  The other is adherence to a system of theology not firmly rooted in the Bible.  Let us preach to counter the increasing biblical and theological illiteracy, and let’s do it demonstrating healthy handling of the text!

Practical Vs Doctrinal – No Contest

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

I was just reading a little book by a famous seminary professor.  He referred to the thousands of chapel services he has sat through in his time.  The one thing that bothered him perhaps more than anything else was when a visiting speaker would say something along the lines of:

I am going to leave the theological instruction to your faculty here, but today I just want to be practical!

It is important to demonstrate the consistent link between the biblical/theological and the pastoral/practical.  We do our listeners a disservice when we imply a disconnect between the two.  People need to understand that the most theological or doctrinal passages in their Bible have real-life relevance to them.  People need to recognize that instruction purporting to be practical and relevant but lacking a solid biblical grounding is inherently weak.

It may sound like an understatement in English, but all Scripture is both God-breathed and useful.  Don’t give the impression that some sermons are biblical, exegetical, theological, doctrinal, while others are practical, pastoral, relevant and helpful.  Strive to demonstrate that both sides are really on the same side – there really is no contest.

Hermeneutics for Preaching – It Can’t All Be We, part 2

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Following the post on Saturday, “It Can’t All Be We,” Steve submitted an important comment.  I hope he doesn’t mind the extra exposure for the comment by including it here, but I think this is a very important issue for us to wrestle with as preachers.

Steve wrote: The problem with saying there is only one meaning to a text is that our own interpretations of it depend on our own particular social locations. A white Anglo westerner reads the parable of the lost sons one way while a native west African reads it another. What most of us (in the west) mean by “meaning of the text” is arrived at through the use of historical-critical tools that were developed by 19th century white German scholars. Certainly, there’s much to the New Hermeneutic that evangelicals will find unacceptable, but there’s no sense in throwing the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.

My response: Thanks for the comment Steve. Over the past two centuries there has been a shift in focus in determining meaning. The 19th century was focused primarily on the author. The first part of the 20th century saw the focus shift to the text itself. The later part of the 20th century saw the focus shift to the reader. I’m excited to see the resurgence of the author in our generation, especially a more rounded approach that recognizes our presuppositions as readers and the nature and form of the text too. However, if the author is left out, then there is no hope of any objective standard of measure when it comes to the meaning of a text.

So it is important to be aware of our own cultural presuppositions when we read a story like Luke 15. But I also think we have the capability to study the text using a plain, grammatical, contextual and historical hermeneutic. We can study the historical cultural setting of the text to help determine the meaning of the text. Our concern should not be seeking a “white westerner” or a “native west African” understanding, but a “first century middle eastern” understanding. While accepting that our own “lenses” will influence our study, we have the responsibility to pursue that study to the best of our ability so that we can present the meaning of the text. As I wrote in the post, this should lead to a “humble but authoritative” presentation of the meaning. Authoritative because we have employed good hermeneutical skill in the process, and humble because we recognize our own limitations and biases more than others do.

As you’ll notice in my earlier review of Lowry’s book, I am in no way throwing the baby out with the bath water when it comes to the New Homiletic or the New Hermeneutic. I recognize a lot of value in these streams of thought, but I would suggest that a purely subjective interpretational approach to the text is the bath water that can be helpfully drained away.

I’d be interested to read other comments on this.

Feeling Down in the Ministry

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Non-preachers often don’t realize the roller-coaster of ministry.  Due to the exacting nature of ministry – giving out, being buffeted spiritually, etc. – we are all prone to repeated discouragement.  Today as you press on through another Sunday, take stock of the realities of ministry:

Discouragements are par for the course.  A preacher facing discouragement is normal.  One who claims to never get discouraged is a cause for concern.  Remember that if you’re feeling down today, or tomorrow, so are hundreds, maybe thousands of other preachers around the globe.  You are not alone.

God has gifted, prepared and used you.  Look back and spiritually reminisce over those times when God’s gifts have been clear.  Remember the blessing of training received, both formally and informally.  Thank God for the example of past mentors, prayer partners, etc.  Review your file of encouraging notes and emails.

Remember the standard.  It is tempting to try to, or to feel pressured to, live up to the standards of someone else.  Perhaps the previous pastor, or a famous preacher, or a personal ministry hero of yours.  God wants each of us to trust Him and give the best that we can.  Let others inspire, but not pressure.

Remember who to please.  It is not possible to keep everyone happy all the time.  You may preach sensitively and yet tread on toes nonetheless.  We are not called to a ministry of plate spinning where each plate is the emotional happiness of each person around us.  We are called to live a life of radical love for the Lord, where our desire is to please Him in what we do and why we do it.

What else would you add for the sake of fellow preachers who may be feeling discouraged today?

It Can’t All Be “We”

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Cultures shift.  In the west we are living in an age when people no longer respect authority, including the authority of a preacher.  People may like the preacher, and listen to the preacher, but there is some resistance to the concept of a preacher speaking with authority.  Consequently, many preachers will try to use “we” throughout the sermon.  In effect, preaching as a fellow observer and recipient of the text.  This may be a good idea, but there are limits.

The notion of preaching without authority came to the fore in the 1970’s, with books like As One Without Authority by Fred Craddock.  This hugely influential book placed the “New Homiletic” into the consciousness of many.  Much of what Craddock wrote is well worth taking onboard, but there is an underlying issue we need to recognize.  The New Homiletic, even in its more conservative forms, is strongly influenced by the New Hermeneutic.  Here we find strong emphasis on a reader-response approach to the text, but the author seems to have been lost along the way.

If we hold to the importance of authorial intent in our hermeneutics, then a total “we” approach seems inappropriate.  As preachers, we study the text, hopefully with some degree of skill, in order to determine the author’s meaning.  Consequently, there should be a humble but authoritative explanation of the meaning of the text for the benefit of our listeners.  This “humble but authoritative explanation” may not require a “you” approach in contrast to “we,” but it does carry some authority.

Meaning is not determined by a primarily subjective response to the text in us all as readers.  In one sense there is a mutuality as we, God’s people, discover the meaning of the text.  However, that discovery must be the meaning of the text, not a meaning we discover subjectively in experiencing the text.

Nevertheless, in the applicational features of a sermon, and there should be many, perhaps “we” should be prevalent.  We all stand under the authority of the text.  We all should be responding to what we read.  Let the “we” feature in the shared need for the message of the text (introduce appropriate vulnerability and connection early).  Let the “we” feature carefully in application throughout the message.  However, let us be careful what we might imply with “we” in the explanation of the text. Let us strive to understand and communicate the meaning of the text as those with humble authority, but let us take our position amongst the ranks of God’s people responding to His Word.

Do We Preach the Bible or Theology?

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

As preachers we have to determine a fundamental perspective in our approach to preaching. Do we preach the Bible, or do we preach a theology? Obviously when we preach the Bible we will preach theology, and hopefully we will do that well. And there are times when we must chose to address a particular theological issue (the atonement, for example). But generally, when we have a text to preach. Which is it to be? Preach the text or the system?

Let me be honest. There are some passages that feel slightly less comfortable in my understanding of theology than others. If you’re honest, that happens to you too. But my conviction is that when I have a passage to preach, I want to preach that passage. If my study of the text prods at my theology, then hopefully the theology is the one that gets reshaped.

The comment that sparked this post was just a throw away line. The biblical narrative was read. After a theological background was put in place we were brought back to the story. It was summarized in one sentence. Then the implication given was along the lines of, “the story is that simple, so let’s leave that behind . . .” The rest of the message felt like the preaching of a theology, with the narrative functioning as a loose illustration of the theology. (It would be better if the passage were ignored, rather than abused in this way, then listeners wouldn’t go away thinking they’d heard the passage preached.)

This is not about homiletical technique. It’s fundamental to our view of our role as preachers. We are to preach the text. Prayerfully wrestle with the text. Understand the text. Preach the text. Let the preaching of the text shape the theology, not vice versa.