Know Your Theology and Preach Your Bible

February 21, 2008 / 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

February 20, 2008 / 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

February 19, 2008 / 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

February 17, 2008February 13, 2008 / 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”

February 16, 2008February 13, 2008 / 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?

February 14, 2008February 13, 2008 / 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.

Review: The Homiletical Plot, by Eugene Lowry

February 8, 2008 / Peter Mead / 6 Comments

Eugene Lowry’s work sits under the broad umbrella of the New Homiletic. His work overlaps considerably with Fred Craddock. Other New Homiletic writers have been criticized for writing well, but failing to provide a clear model of what they are suggesting. This charge cannot be leveled at Lowry. The Homiletic Plot was first released in 1980, then re-released twenty-one years later. The text of the book remains unchanged, with the only significant change being an additional afterword. This addition is very helpful, clarifying elements of the book and providing an overview of the New Homiletic field.

The Homiletical Plot provides a plotline for narrative sermons which suggests the preacher might typically move through five discernible stages in a narrative sermon. Don’t confuse narrative preaching with preaching on narrative texts. The former is an organic approach to preaching that develops sermons using temporal sequencing to develop a sermonic experience, the latter could take any form, but uses a biblical story as its text. In fact, a biblical narrative contains features of plot already, so the resulting sermon might vary from the “Lowry Loop” more than non-narrative texts. However, it is important to note that Lowry is not suggesting the forcing of any text into his 5-stage loop.

Whether or not you have read much from New Homiletic writers, Lowry is well worth reading. It is relatively short (131pp) yet has many strengths. He presents a good case for thinking of sermons as horizontal rather than vertical, an event in time rather than space, progressing rather than static, organically developed rather than constructed. The opening stage of upsetting the equilibrium should be required reading for every preacher. The notion of complications and plumbing the depths of the real issues in life is very thought provoking, whether or not you agree with Lowry’s theology (which he does not push on the reader). The notion of a sudden shift is surely a powerful concept and I appreciated the positive approach to concluding the sermon.

There are three weaknesses worth noting. Even with all the explanation and helpful diagrams, the reader is still left wondering what this actually looks like in a sermon. The danger of example sermons in an appendix is that they will turn off some readers and narrow the potential readership. However, the problem of no sample sermon is that the reader is left pondering exactly how Lowry might “plumb the depths” or perform the sudden shift.

Perhaps the greatest problem with the book for those of us committed to expository preaching relates to explaining the biblical text. Lowry states that he would typically spend more time on stage 2 (analyzing the discrepancy) than the other stages put together. Does this pursuit of deeper issues in the listener leave enough time to actually explain the text itself?

The final concern relates to the “Gospel” that permeates the model. Lowry continually refers to “experiencing the gospel” (stage 4), but which gospel? At times it feels like nothing more than the good news that God has turned things upside down in Jesus. This book will appeal to a broad spectrum of Christendom, and deliberately so, but some of us may feel the need to translate some of its teaching into our paradigm.

On one hand the book is highly refreshing and challenging – it certainly contains much for us to learn. On the other hand it highlights the dividing line between New Homiletic and those of us who would hold back from being counted in that camp. If it is possible to reduce the notion of a sermon to its minimum required features, then perhaps two broad camps can become more clear. The expository preaching camp might be satisfied with Sunukjian’s trio of bare essentials: A Bible text explained + the Big Idea + Relevance = a sermon. The reader of Lowry is left with a different trio: A “Gospel” image derived a Bible text + Plot + Relevance = a sermon.

This book would benefit all of us as preachers. Some aspects of it may not fully satisfy all of us. But it gives us all plenty to think about!

The Big One: Glory!

February 3, 2008January 28, 2008 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I’m sure we all would concur that we want to preach to the glory of God! It is a motivation that should drive everything we do. But let’s make sure this is not an ambiguous concept.

God is glorified when we magnify Him in our preaching. When His Word is preached, He should be the central character, the hero, the one elevated as a result. This means our preaching is not about us as preachers, or merely about our listeners, or even about Bible characters, it is first and foremost about God. Theocentric preaching, absolutely.

However, it is important to remember that bringing “glory” to God is not merely saying big things about Him or saying those things in a certain voice. Glory is the fruit of love. Consider John’s presentation of glory in his gospel, in chapter 17, for instance. So as we preach God’s Word out of love for Him, and stir in others a greater love for God, He is glorified.

Furthermore, genuine love for God will show in the lives of our listeners. Whatever we do, whether in word or deed, it should all be to the glory of God. We should glorify Him in our bodies. There are numerous references like these that point out the need for appropriate practical emphases in our preaching. It is not enough to always stir worship, but not life change. As I listened to Joe Stowell recently, I was reminded again that preaching for transformed lives means a practical righteousness in the lives of our listeners that is the greatest apologetic of our age – which all brings glory to God!

Let us preach to the glory of God, but not hide behind that motivation as an excuse for irrelevant or application free sermons.

Written Text: More Than Words

January 21, 2008 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

It would seem obvious that a written text, such as the one you will preach next Sunday, is made up of words on the page. Furthermore, we all know that words on a page convey information. So our task in preaching must revolve around the relevant explanation, proclamation and application of those words, right? Right, sort of, but it’s much more than that. Words on a page are not randomly generated codes from some computer. They are coherent and purposeful communication.

How is writer communicating with those words? We need to be sensitive to the tone of writing as well as the words written. Is the writer rebuking or encouraging, defensive or freely celebrating, sarcastic or sombre? For example, when you consider the cultural context and background issues in Corinth, you might expect a rebuking and attacking tone toward the end of 1Cor.15. But actually the tone there is careful, then celebratory and genuinely encouraging. It would be a shame to miss the tone as you study it and then preach rebukingly.

What does the writer intend to occur through that communication? If the writer intends to inform and stir specific application, then it will help us to pick up on that from the text. For instance, if the tone is encouraging and positive, it would likely be counter-productive to preach a stinging message from the text.

Start with the tone and intent of the writer. There may well be reason to preach in a different tone or with a different goal. But first of all see if the writer’s tone and intent fit your situation. That’s the best place to start. If you decide to change your tone or intent because of the congregation, great, but let’s be careful not to default to always rebuking, or always guilt-inducing, etc.

As you study your passage for the next sermon, remember to ask yourself, “what was the writer’s tone here?” and “what did he intend to achieve through this text?”

The Commitment to Expository Preaching

January 18, 2008 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Over time words can change their meaning and the connotations attached to them. This is true of both “expository” and “preaching.” As you probably noticed, gone are the days when the preacher in town was highly respected and appreciated by all. Today there are many who view the whole concept of preaching very negatively. As preachers we might be tempted to avoid the term. Maybe in some circles that might be a good idea. For instance, when interacting with a non-believer. When I’m travelling and sit next to a stranger on the plane, I’ve learned not to shut down the conversation by referring to myself as a missionary, a minister, or a preacher. Other job descriptions are more intriguing and stimulate further conversation (anything from lecturer in Ancient Near Eastern Spirituality to communications trainer will keep things going).

However, within church circles, let’s not be bashful about the concept of preaching. In reality the people in your church are not bored with preaching. If anything, they are bored with your preaching! I get told that people can’t concentrate beyond 25 minutes of preaching. I may not say it, but I tend to think that actually they might prefer only 25 minutes of the preaching they’ve heard. The onus here is not on the church culture to correct its view of the biblical importance of the preaching ministry. The onus is on us preachers to improve and make sure that the specific preaching our people are thinking of when they refer to preaching is good preaching! As Haddon Robinson said on one of the early Center for Preaching podcasts, “not all preaching is worth it, but good preaching is worth it!” Let’s agree on that and press on to develop so that our listeners will not be among the voices of disapproval for this critical ministry.