Word Studies 2 – Identifying Key Terms

June 20, 2012 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

This week we are pondering the specific skill of word study in preaching. Today I’ll focus on identifying key terms, then tomorrow we can consider the actual processes involved.

So how do you identify words to define more carefully?

1. Prayerfully read and study the passage. Sounds silly, but until you get some decent familiarity with the passage, you can’t start identifying words.

2. Recognize that not every word is equal. All words are equally inspired, but not all words are equal in a passage. You might assume this is obvious. After all, a weighty word like justified or righteous must be worth studying, while a normal word like in or of is obvious, right? Sometimes wrong. A “weighty” word may not be a key term in a particular passage (it may be given in the build up to the point of a prayer, for instance), while an obvious word may be the key to the whole section.

3. Recognize that your time is restricted. It would be great to do a full chase on every term in a passage. Actually, hypothetically it might be great in your study phase, if you had infinite time. But in reality studying every word equally will distract you from the force of the passage in your study, and it will certainly confuse people in your preaching. For instance, in Ephesians 1:15-23, I would cover the first 47 words fairly briefly. Why? Because I want the focus to be on the point of the passage, which is what Paul is actually praying from the end of v17 onwards. If I give detailed explanations of faith, Lord, love, saints, prayers, God, Father and glory in my sermon, people will be numb by the time I get to Paul’s actual request.

So how to identify key terms?

A. Look for repeated terms. In Ephesians 3:1-13, the term mystery is repeated and seems important. (Dynamic equivalent translations may hide repetition of terms, prefer formal equivalence for focused study.)

B. Look for structurally important terms. Down in verse 8, grace was given to Paul with the results being the rest of verses 8-10.

C. Look for key connections or little words. In this passage, the as, of verse 5 feels significant when the passage is read carefully (even better, when the passage is broken down to a phrase by phrase structural outline, or disagrammed if you have that skill from Greek). Incidentally, once you start looking at the structure of epistle text like this, a good formal translation needs to be the working text, not a dynamic equivalent text.

D. Look for key terms in the wider context. A term may only be used once in the passage, but be critical in the flow of the book. For example, stewardship in verse 2 is important in the flow of Ephesians 1-3.

E. Look for key terms that are missed by the other guidelines. Here’s the catch all. It forces you to keep looking and observing the text. In this case, it allows you to notice that glory in verse 13 is massively significant. Doesn’t look it structurally, but actually Paul digressed in verse 1, so completing that thought in v13 is a big deal here.

5 Reasons Why I Love Preaching Psalms

June 1, 2012May 29, 2012 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

So yesterday I shared some thoughts on preaching the prophets. How about another list on the Psalms? Why do I enjoy preaching them?

1. They are self-contained. A psalm is a complete unit of thought. It may be part of a short collection, so it is worth looking at those before and after. It may give a historical clue in its superscription, so it is worth looking at that and chasing the history if there is anything suggested. But essentially with a Psalm I know what I need to study and prepare . . . the psalm.

2. They are real and messy. Life isn’t all clean and simple. Life gets messy. Emotions soar and plummet. Situations overwhelm and resolution of tension can utterly delight. The Psalms don’t pretend we are unfeeling stoical creatures. We might, but the Psalms remind us to be real. Not only does this make for preaching that sounds real and not just some sort of religious talk, but it also connects because listeners are also living real rather than merely religious lives.

3. They are emotive and heart-felt. As a communicator I know the danger of adding emotional thrust to cold sterile content. It can be very manipulative. But I also know the danger of sterilizing powerful biblical texts into safe little life lessons. Oops. The Psalms are sitting up to be preached with a full heart to those who have a feeling heart – whether that be pain, or joy, sorrow, or delight.

4. They are full of imagery. I don’t have to look endlessly for imagery to add to a message when I’m preaching from the Psalms. It is usually right there. I need to spend that energy on the text and then on effective description and presentation, but then I can have confidence that the imagery choice was made by God’s Spirit rather than me.

5. They are always relevant. When people have lived the Christian life for a while, they typically end up appreciating the Psalms. The rugged rawness reflects their own personal experience. It tends to be the less mature who can’t get into the Psalms. So as I preach them, I can have confidence that nerves will be touched, hearts will be stirred, lives will be helped.

I haven’t even mentioned the messianic hopes, the glimpses into the godhead, etc. Ah well, I will stick with the five I put in the title. Just a nudge in case you’ve forgotten to preach from this great collection.

5 Reasons Why I Love Preaching the Prophets

May 31, 2012June 4, 2012 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

After three days of reflections on a great series from Daniel, here are a few reasons why I personally love to preach from the prophets:

1. They are less familiar. This isn’t to suggest that sounding novel is a good thing, but it is nice to see people leaning forward once they get the sense that you are going to make clear something they may have avoided in their own personal studies. Obviously there are the familiar parts – Isaiah 6, 40, 53, the first half of Daniel, Habakkuk, etc. But there is plenty of relatively untouched ground in both the major and the minor prophets.

2. They are stunning communicators. The prophets had to get attention. They couldn’t even be normal, let alone dull. As a communicator it is a bit of dream to be able to tap into the creativity of the truly shocking, without taking any real flack for the choice of approach. If we let the genre, the tone, and the creativity of the prophets shape our preaching of them, we should see this as a real head-start!

3. They are robust and direct. You don’t have to go far in a prophet to get a sense of what God is feeling about things. In the narrative sections you sometimes have to think and feel your way through multiple chapters for a single narrative. In the prophets you’ll probably get struck on the nose within a few verses. The prophets were, by definition, stunning communicators. They had to be, since the people were so often so dull of hearing. This leads on to another…

4. There are cultural similarities. I don’t want to overplay the “Christian nation” ideas that some seem so passionate about, but there is a real sense in which our cultures have slipped from what they once were. People taking God for granted or treating Him as irrelevant; people living to please themselves; people pursuing dishonest gain, plotting and scheming . . . this is the stuff of the Prophets, and of today.

5. They are hope filled. There are layers upon layers of hope offered in the prophets. Not only do they give the messianic predictions, but also the shorter term sense of God’s concern and interest and involvement in their lives . . . and also the longer term sense of ultimate reconciliation and kingdom hopes and guaranteed judgment on the wicked, etc.

I could go on, but I’ll leave it there. When was the last time you preached from a Prophet?

Clarity: More Than Thinking

April 26, 2012April 25, 2012 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday I offered three implications of the doctrine of Biblical clarity for us as preachers. Since the Bible is written by a master communicator who made sure it could be understood, therefore we need to work hard at understanding, we should help others know it can be understood, and we should strive to be clear in our own preaching.

There’s one more issue that I wanted to add to the list. This might be the one we need to ponder more than the others. Clarity is not really about intellectual capacity. The brightest scholars can make the biggest mess with interpreting Biblical texts. The simplest Christian can profoundly understand God’s Word.

Intellect is a blessing, but it is not a requirement. Formal training is a privilege, but it is not the definitive necessity. Reference resources are helps, but they are not preconditions for understanding. We have to grasp the fact that understanding communication is not an exclusively brain-defined exercise – our brain, or anyone else’s.

Dr B may be a very intelligent individual. Mr S may never have finished school and struggle to read. But which of these two is most likely to understand the nuances of Mrs S’s communication? Probably the husband who loves her.

4. Preachers have to both recognize and model that understanding is not primarily a matter of intellectual capacity or formal training, but alignment of heart by the Spirit. We can so easily purvey the notion that scholarship and intellect are pre-eminent distinctives of effective biblical study. The Word of God makes wise the simple. But there is a profound spiritual and relational aspect to understanding the Bible.

Notice how Jesus speaks of the role of the soil in the parable of the good soils (Matthew 13, Mark 4, Luke 8). In his explanation the repeated issue is their hearing. He continues on in Mark and Luke to speak of a lamp under a jar, then returning immediately to the issue of hearing. He warns them, “Take care then how you hear, for the one who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he thinks that he has will be taken away.”

So how is the good soil defined? In Matthew it is the one who hears and understands. In Mark, it is those who hear and accept. In Luke, it is those who hear the word, holding it fast in an honest and good heart.

As preachers we can easily give the impression that the issue is intellect. It isn’t. The real issue is the alignment of the heart, its responsiveness to the God whose word is being spoken. It is more about Spirit enlivened relational capacity than genetically transferred intellectual capacity. As preachers of God’s Word, we must both recognize and model that.

Beyond Guilt – Part 3

April 18, 2012April 18, 2012 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

So far we have looked at issues of stance and tone in this series. It is easy to have a minimalist default approach of piling on the pressure and using guilt to twist arms. The biblical preacher needs to get beyond that.

3. The Preacher’s Strategy. Let’s face the real issue head on. What is our strategy in preaching? If the goal is life transformation, then what strategy makes sense? It certainly can’t be a simplistic answer since the human is a complex creature. But here are some pointers on strategy issues.

Transformation involves movement from a negative to a positive. Preaching for that transformation cannot simply critique the negative. We need to help people see what life would look like if the biblical truth were to take hold. Simply making people feel bad is not a solution.

Often people simply cannot conceive of what a faith-filled Christ-like in-step-with-the-Spirit life would look like in terms of a specific issue. In one sense then we have some role as life coaches. But it is more than that.

Transformation involves motivation for applying the message of God’s Word. Preaching for that transformation cannot simply inform, or even pressure, it needs to motivate. We need to understand how people work at the deepest level. If we think that information plus pressure will generate good things then we have been significantly led away from the teaching of the Bible by the thinking of this world.

What is the root issue Paul points to in Ephesians 4:17ff? People act and behave a certain way because of their thinking – so we need to educate! Hang on, yes we do, but he goes further, there’s a deeper issue…the root issue is the hardness of heart. Somehow the heart influences even how the mind will process information. Christian transformation is not really about well-informed minds and well-disciplined wills. It is an issue of the heart, inside to out, a matter of response as opposed to responsibility.

Transformation involves response to more than a vision of better living. It is not about realizing innate potential, but about responding from the core to a compelling love that alone can truly transform a life.

So our strategy includes presentation of application rather than just declaration of guilt. Our strategy includes communicating with people as if they are heart-driven beings and not just informed decision makers. But the ultimate issue has to be the One to whom people should respond, which I’ll leave until tomorrow’s post.

Overqualified! Go, Stay.

February 29, 2012February 27, 2012 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Ok, I can’t help throwing this one into the mix. How often do we drain the impact of a text by immediate overqualification? For example, in the area of response to the great commission.

God is a missionary God. What if the Son had responded to the Father as many preachers respond to texts that assume and expect missionary momentum from lives transformed by the gospel? What if the Son had insisted that He could be a missionary-messiah right there, in heaven? What if the Son had pulled out Acts 1:8 and spoken of the need to minister in “His Jerusalem” first? This does seem bizarre.

But I have to say that as a speaker sometimes asked to preach on “missionary” type texts and at “missions” events, it can get frustrating to see others overqualify and undercut the thrust of a message. Let’s say I preach a text and in the preaching suggest that it would be a natural response for some of us to respond by seeking to take the message of God’s love to other cultures and lands. What happens? The service leader or worship leader then stands up and thanks me for my message, then prays about how “we can all be missionaries right here in our own neighbourhood!”

That’s nice, very inclusive, now everyone can feel involved. Or, to put it another way, now the potential impact of the message is dissipated and any self-focused listeners can remain comfortably, well, comfortable.

I’ve heard preachers do it too. They preach on the giving and going and sacrificing nature of God. Then they preach a passage where the followers of Christ are urged to give and go and sacrifice. Then they immediately qualify so that all can feel included, and none need feel too stirred.

“Go isn’t an imperative in Matthew 28, it is just ‘as you are going’ – that is, wherever you find yourself.” (Uh, maybe…or perhaps more accurately, go isn’t in itself an imperative verb, but as an attendant circumstance participle it does carry the force of the verb it goes with – in this case an imperatival force. Ok, don’t quote the Greek grammar, but be right if you’re going to use Greek to support your explanation. Jesus is assuming and urging a “go” in this passage!)

“Remember that Acts 1:8 starts with Jerusalem, that’s where we have to start!” (Uh, ok, but the momentum in that verse is leaning towards the ends of the earth, and if you keep reading you’ll see how God used persecution to get them moving!)

I could go on, but my point applies in lots of areas. We have a tendency to read one thing, then by unthinking qualification end up preaching something else. We do it with grace, we do it with Trinity, we do it with missions passages. Any others you’d add?

Saturday “Short” Thought: Thesaurus Needed

February 18, 2012February 18, 2012 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

These last weeks I have been blogging about preaching story – a vital skill in preaching, and sadly too easily neglected (either by avoidance of narrative sections, or by preaching as if they weren’t narrative.) In Cor Deo this week we were looking at a monumental passage in the Gospels – John 5.

John is at the same time both the easiest writing to follow (thinking in terms of the Greek especially), and some of the most profound content to grasp. What makes him “easy” to read includes his consistent use of recurring terminology, but this doesn’t make it easy to hear read.

For example, think of the places where Jesus gets going with a “me in you and you in me and us in them that the world may know…” rhythm. Easy words, but not easy to hear read and make sense of it though. Or the example this week in John 5 where Jesus uses the term “witness” about ten times in one paragraph. Even the more formal translation committees were probably relieved to offer two glosses for some variation – witness and testimony.

So what happens when the listeners hear such overwhelming repetition? Do they track with it, or do they roll their eyes and start to wonder when in church history the thesaurus was invented?

In the Gospels Jesus had continual run-ins with a “city gate legal system” over everything from Sabbath misdemeanours to blasphemy. In that system anybody of standing could initiate proceedings, but this didn’t mean constant frivolous charges. So the Jews were not longing for an official trial. They were looking for a charge that would stick, followed by the witnesses to make the charge stick. In that system the key issue in prosecution was not so much the evidence (forget CSI), but the credibility and social standing of the witnesses.

So Jesus made a claim to equality with the Father. That was a more serious charge (blasphemy) than the preceding sabbath breaking charge. Now, witnesses. They had their human witnesses, but what about Jesus, who could he call on? How about the Father, and John the Baptist, and the works themselves, indeed the very word of the Father, speaking of which, how about the Scriptures, Moses? Witness, witness, witness, witness, witness, witness, witness!

They didn’t get a conviction that day. The chess game continued.

So what does this mean for the preacher? Somehow you need to orient the listeners to the culture, the situation, the motivation, etc, and then they can hear the text singing instead of grating. Whether you read it straight through or in bits with explanation, well that is a matter of preaching strategy, but please don’t just read it so their eyes are rolling and they look down on the writing ability of John and the Spirit!

_______________________________________

Next week: I’m enjoying this too much, so how about a record breaking series extension?

Preaching Narratives – I’ll look at some of the issues in different parts of the Bible and even suggest that narrative might be in a class of its own as a super-genre!

No Theory Test

February 6, 2012 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In the UK we have both a theory and a practical driving test. In life, the Bible only offers us the latter. So is living the Christian life primarily about what you know, or about who you know? Today’s post is over on Cor Deo – click here to go there.

Woven Threads of Meaning

October 12, 2011October 12, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Here’s a post from back in the early days of this site that I think is worthy of a review (and as in sermon preparation, I’ll find myself tweaking it as I look at it again!)

____________________

Sometimes a passage may prove more complex than it initially appears. This is almost always the case with stories in the Gospels. Christians tend to view each story as a distinct unit that can be pulled out from the context in which it is placed. In reality, each story or account in a Gospel is carefully woven together with others for a purpose.

For example, the stilling of the storm in Mark 4 is placed after, and linked to, the first part of the chapter where Jesus is teaching about the kingdom using parables. The episode is connected to teaching on the small beginnings, but inevitable growth of the kingdom programme. However, in Matthew the account is in a series of miracle stories, quite separate from those same parables (which appear later). While someone might suggest this indicates that what comes before and after is irrelevant to the interpretation of the passage, actually the opposite is true. The stories themselves, just like words, seem to get their meaning not only from within themselves, but also from the company they keep.

So while a story may appear simple to understand, as you study it in its context you often find greater clarity in its meaning and purpose. Then as you consider the context and flow of thought more, the interpretation may become more involved and complex. As a preacher your first priority is not to “find a sermon,” but to do everything you can to understand the passage.

Once you’ve done all that you can to understand the passage, you then have to form the sermon. The temptation will be to dump every element of your study into the sermon. Don’t. What is necessary and helpful? What must be explained, what can simply be stated, what parts of your presentation need proof? How much time do you have to support what you say? Sometimes you will discover that your understanding of a passage has multiple threads of complexity, stretching out through layer after layer of other stories and accounts within the Gospel.

Be thankful for the back-up support you have, but only give as much as is necessary and your listeners can handle. They may be fine with one layer of contextual explanation, but overwhelmed if you present five. Know the passage fully, but also know what your listeners need and are able to take onboard!

This principle applies in every genre – explain as much as necessary, and save as much time as possible for connecting the passage to the people in front of you!

How to Preach the One True God – Part Two

October 1, 2011September 30, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

So do we have to thoroughly define terms every time we mention God? That is, will every sermon be thwarted by a systematics lecture within moments of setting sail from the introduction? Not at all. Here are four suggestions that I think will have cumulative power without disrupting every sermon completely. Remember the first suggestion from yesterday though . . . you need to know the difference between the God defined by philosophy and the one true God who has revealed Himself in the Son and through the Spirit.

2. Repetition of “which God” question – by repeatedly pointing out that not every assumed description of the “one true God” is biblically true of the “one true God.” Some assumptions are true of Him, but not primary in His self-revelation. Just as it can be powerful in an evangelistic setting to ask someone who doesn’t believe in God which God they don’t believe in, so it can be powerful to open the subject up to Christians and ask which God they do believe in. It is a dangerous assumption that all who refer to God mean the same being, or even are clear on who He is. Sadly too many end up assuming a sort of impersonal ultimate force rather than the feeling, thinking, personal, loving creator God of the Bible. Let’s chip away at the naive assumption that everyone basically knows who God is.

3. Emphasis of particular text in light of its context – just as we can overlay a certain set of divine assumptions on the Bible as a whole, so we can easily do that with particular texts. Try to be more nuanced in making clear what a text is offering us as it reveals God. For example, Yahweh high and lifted up in Isaiah 6, holy holy holy . . . needs to be preached in light of Isaiah 1-5, where His heart for the whoring faithless nation who don’t draw near in loving devotion is made clear. Sovereign and holy? Absolutely. Distant, cold, rule-obsessed and uninvolved? Never! Without seeing how God reveals Himself and His heart in chapters 1-5, the sixth chapter can be preached with wrong emphasis, and the last five verses can really end up preaching that other philosophically-driven view of God.

4. Emphasis of particular text in light of complete revelation – that is to say, don’t give the impression that “God” in the Old Testament is just “Father” in New Testament terms. How easy it is to give the mistaken impression that God becomes a trinity when the Son is incarnated. The God of the Old Testament is trinity, even if each particular instance doesn’t make that clear. Was it the Father than spoke face to face with Abraham, that wrestled with Jacob, that spoke to the elders of Israel, etc.? What about the Spirit in the Old Testament? Any time we see “God” referenced in the Bible, we must be sensitive to the content and the informing theology at that point in the progress of revelation, but we shouldn’t forget what we now know more clearly about the one true God being trinity!

5. Since God is trinity, repetition of trinitarian hints are worthwhile – just to reinforce the previous point, don’t feel you have to fully explain the Trinity every time you mention it. Why not intrigue people with a sense of the beautiful attractive wonder of who God really and personally is through trinitarian hints as you preach the Bible. Don’t wait for the overt trinitarian formula to refer to trinity. Don’t miss the Father/Son language and turn that into a generic one-size-fits-all “God” reference as some preachers and authors do (almost giving the impression that the Son is somehow less than God). Don’t ignore the trinity in the Old Testament where there is a hint, and even where there isn’t. After all, we want to preach the one true trinitarian God of the Bible!

Ok, two posts over the daily limit . . . I need to stop, but feel free to comment.