Preaching Proverbs 2: Persons Present and Powerful

December 13, 2011December 9, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday I suggested we must beware of legalistic moralizing when preaching the Proverbs. Tomorrow I’ll offer two simple approaches to full-length sermons on single proverbs. Today I want to share two more “foundational thoughts” that I think should be kept in mind.

Thought 2 – We should preach Christ, but let’s not be overly speculative and force Christ into every line. I won’t delve into the issues, good and bad, with preaching Christ as “lady wisdom personified” in this post. It is possible to preach Christ from Proverbs, but it isn’t a game where the most creative link wins a prize. Some of what is done with good intentions does come across as Christian gymnastics and even the most informed listener struggles to see how anyone else would have come to that conclusion from that text. Let’s be careful not to lose biblical credibility while trying to “preach Christian.” Better to preach Christ in light of the larger flow of biblical revelation than to make a hop, skip and jump from a rock badger to the Rock of Ages.

Thought 3 – Proverbs gives us a compelling framing imagery of the two women. Proverbs is a literary piece of art. Now we do lose so much in terms of the assonance, alliteration, word play, etc. – kind of like translating “a stitch in time saves nine” into Italian, or “raining cats and dogs” into Korean. And we are not really attuned to Hebraic parallelism when it comes to poetic writing forms. But we shouldn’t miss how the collection of short, memorable and pithy sayings is wrapped in a frame of human imagery. Specifically the two personified ladies of wisdom and folly. Which path will the young man take? The road to destruction in response to the heady flirtation of harlot folly, or the wonderful blessing of marriage to lady wisdom? I would be inclined to allow that kind of overt literary framing to provide an overriding narratival snapshot into which the issues of wisdom and folly can be placed in relational terms rather than mere burdens of behavior.

So much more could be said on both of these thoughts, so feel free to comment and share your thoughts.

10 Ways to Half Preach a Text – Part iv

December 2, 2011November 23, 2011 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Sometimes it is just a good idea to finish a list. Let’s go, two more items to add, especially for preachers who like to tick the “expository preacher” self-description box:

9. Explain it, but don’t apply it.

This is a common error among those who say they are most committed to expository preaching. They will give in-depth explanation of the preaching passage, sometimes avoiding every item on the list so far. Carefully explained text in context with focus on historical situation, authorial intent, and perhaps some linking into the broader sweep of theological and salvation history. Solid stuff. Then they stop.

One of the reasons I use Haddon Robinson’s label of “biblical preaching” for this site, rather than “expository preaching” is because of the baggage people have with the latter term. Some people grew up listening to endless dry Bible lectures and whenever they questioned its value they were silenced with a war cry for “faithful expository preaching!” Problem is, preaching without emphasizing the relevance to the listeners is not expository preaching, no matter how good a Bible lecture it may be.

We simply can’t abdicate our role as preachers when it comes to applicational relevance and hide behind the notion that this is the work of the Holy Spirit. This is to suggest that I can handle the illumination of the text, but will hand the baton over to the Spirit for application of the text. Sorry, it is both/and. The entire process of preparation and delivery, of explanation and application, is a process in which the Spirit is at work, and so is the preacher. We must apply what we explain.

10. Commentary it, but don’t proclaim it.

This is another one for “expositors” to keep in mind. Either due to a certain approach in training, or as learned behavior from examples observed, too many preachers preach sermon points that are actually commentary titles. “The next point in my sermon is Saul’s Contention!” Uh, no, that is the next subtitle in the commentary you are reading out to us. There is a big difference between biblical commentary and biblical proclamation.

When we proclaim a text, we look to speak it out to our listeners. Oral communication does not match written communication. We don’t speak in titles, we speak in sentences. Let me encourage you to make your points into full sentences, and why not make them contemporary rather than historical if possible? This will keep us from sounding like we are reading our personal biblical commentary, and listeners are more likely to sense that God’s Word has been proclaimed and they have heard from Him.

10 Ways to Half Preach a Text – Part iii

December 1, 2011November 23, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

We are half way through our list. Some of these may be errors you always diligently avoid. But there may be one in here that makes you or I reconsider an aspect of our preaching. Actually there may be occasions when we fall into some of these approaches, but feel it is necessary in those circumstances. That is fine, there aren’t as many rules in preaching as people may think. But it is good to step into them aware of the potential weakness of the decision, rather than as a habitual approach.

6. Impose a sermon structure instead of letting the text’s structure influence your message.

Those who are committed to preaching as a ministry governed by rules and tradition will regularly cross this line. For it to be a sermon it must have . . . tends to lead to imposition of “correct structure” on Bible texts. It is interesting how few texts genuinely offer a standard number of parallel and equally weighted points. Much more often there is a flow of thought or plot, a combination of one dominant thought with supporting elements, or whatever. Let’s be careful that we don’t abuse a text by forcing a sermonic grid onto it in an attempt to preach the text. We may be left preaching a bruised and caged specimen.

7. Preach a preferred cross-reference

I remember listening to a set of lectures on tape (remember tapes?) The cover said they were lectures on the Pastoral Epistles. The labels on the tapes said the same. Actually, the lecturer also kept referring to the Pastoral Epistles too. But the overwhelming sense I got when listening to them was that the lecturer wished he were in Romans. He went there constantly. Maybe he felt he’d missed out when a more senior lecturer got to do the prized epistle.

When you preach a text. Preach it. It is inspired. It is useful. It is worth the effort to study it and understand it and preach it. Don’t take the short-cut that may or may not be there to a more familiar, a more “preachable” or a more exciting text.

8. Preach a plethora of cross-references.

Every now and then I hear a preacher who seems to be entering the “who can reference the most Bible books in thirty minutes” competition. Please don’t. There are few good reasons to cross-reference, don’t do it otherwise. (See here and here for the main two reasons in my opinion.) Every moment taken in a cross-reference is time not used in preaching your preaching text, if it doesn’t add to the preaching of this text, don’t let your time be stolen.

We’ll finish the ten tomorrow, although ten is not the limit, there may be more!

10 Ways to Half Preach a Text – Part ii

November 30, 2011November 23, 2011 / Peter Mead / 12 Comments

In this series of posts I am offering ten ways that I see preachers half-using a preaching text. The goal isn’t to critique, but to nudge us all to a higher view of the inspired text, a higher level of diligence in studying the text, and therefore a higher level of impact in our preaching of the text. So we’ve already considered using the text as an intro to another message, or failing to see how the details cohere, or preaching a message only nominally tied to the text itself.

4. Use the content, but ignore the context.

I use the term use deliberately. Sometimes the content of a passage could feel used because it isn’t understood in light of its context. This could be a certain term or phrase that is plucked out of its setting in a sentence and used to make a point. It could be the whole paragraph or section that is presented without awareness of how it fits in the flow of thought in the book.

I remember a conversation I had with a street preacher years ago. There are some street preachers that do a tremendous work of communicating the gospel to a busy and distracted world. This was not one of them. We got into a discussion about the Bible and I asked him what his view of the Bible was. “Oh, the Bible is like a treasure chest filled with jewels and treasures that we pick up and show to the world!” Problem was, he was plucking phrases without context and shouting random references to washing in blood and becoming white as snow, etc. It didn’t communicate. It regularly offended (in the wrong way).

That street shouter was an extreme example, but let’s not be lesser examples of the same error. Let’s be careful to always present a whole text in its context, rather than plucking the “useful” preaching bits and using, or abusing, them.

5. Use the context, but ignore the content.

I suppose this is a less common error, in my experience. But it is possible. I guess this happens more in the gospels. The preacher preaches about the ministry of Jesus in general, but doesn’t present the unique details conveyed by the gospel writer in this particular instance. (Or the preacher may preach the event accurately through harmonizing the gospels, but fail to preach the inspired text of the gospel in question.) Contextually it is possible to say Jesus was doing such and such, but if you’re preaching a particular healing narrative, preach it with good awareness of the detail the writer chose to include.

The list will build tomorrow, but feel free to comment on these or other things that come to mind at any point.

10 Ways to Half Preach a Text

November 29, 2011November 23, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday’s post about the occasional nature of the epistles prompts a series of related posts. Most preachers would claim to be, and believe they are, biblical preachers. Trouble is, a lot of “biblical preaching” is only half-baked at best. That is, the biblical part is incompletely developed. Let me share some ways preachers only half-use a text:

1. Say just enough about the text to introduce what you want to say.

This is a common approach. The text is read at the start of the message or before the message. The preacher then gives enough explanatory comments to get things going, then focuses in on what he wants to say, rather than what the text itself is really saying. Some do this blatantly with a two or three sentence transition between reading the text and moving on to the message of choice. Others may spend longer and convince more listeners.

I was tracking with a message recently and this phase lasted fifteen minutes. But from that point on, the text was never really influencing the message, it was the preacher’s subject of choice that determined the goal and thrust of it all. Shame really, because the comments about the text whet my appetite, but the message fell so flat.

In teaching I often say that no matter how smart you are, what you can make it say is not as good as what God made it say. In this case I have to modify the saying: no matter how smart you are, what you go on to say instead is not as good as what could have been said if the text were truly preached.

Don’t bounce off the text, leaving it behind in search of your target.

2. Preach from the details, but don’t figure out how they work together to give the main idea.

This is fairly self-explanatory. It is possible to make points from details in the text, but never get to the point of understanding or conveying the thrust of the whole text working together. How do the details cohere?

3. Preach a generic message or idea from what could be any text.

We are all capable of preaching abstracted truths and generic messages and tying them to a text with tenuous connections. Don’t preach a good message from a text. Preach the message of the text.

Tomorrow we’ll add a couple more to our list.

Do You Preach Concrete as Abstract?

November 28, 2011November 23, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

God didn’t give us a systematic theology with an index and table of contents. Christ didn’t work with a scribe to give us an abstract set of philosophical and theological truths that we should memorise and apply. Instead, in His wisdom, God gave us the Bible.

The Bible contains a variety of genres. Look at the New Testament, for instance. Here we have a combination of historical narrative and occasional epistles. The theology of the Bible is offered to us in the vivid action of the Gospels and Acts. It is given in the concrete situations of the first century church. As Karen Jobes puts it in her Letters to the Church (p13)

In his wisdom, God gave us, among the inspired writings, the letters of the apostles to specific Christians living in very concrete situations during times that were very trying the Christian faith. Because of that, we get to see how the Christian life was to be lived out in the context of first-century culture, and we can identify the same or similar issues today that challenge us. Rather than giving us a book of abstract philosophy or theology, God’s Word has come in the form of very practical and specific situations. It is another instance of God’s incarnational intent, to be Immanuel, God with us.

So here’s my question for the day: do we make enough effort to communicate the context of the passages we preach? I’ve seen quite a number of preachers who preach texts from the epistles as if they are abstract presentations of truth. They sometimes do a decent job of putting in concrete contemporary applications, but the text itself is treated as abstract truth statements.

God has given us a gift as preachers. He has done some of our work for us. He has given us the section of the Bible that is most likely to be abstract logical argument as occasional writings – that is, specific presentations of the gospel applied to specific churches, in specific cultural milieu, with specific issues at hand. As we re-present these texts to our listeners, before we even get to contemporary application, our listeners will be translating from 1st century concrete to 21st century concrete.

Let’s be careful not to rush past presenting the situation that sparked the writing of the text in an attempt to be relevant. Helping people to see what occasioned the epistle will already be helping them to see its relevance to us.

Christmas Preaching 2: Beyond Matthew and Luke

November 22, 2011November 17, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday we thought about preparing messages on the familiar Christmas passages. Here are some thoughts on preaching for Christmas beyond the normal presentation of the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke.

1. There are other ways to preach the narratives themselves. You don’t have to simply talk your way through the text. Consider the possibility of preaching the emphasis of the text from the perspective of a contemporary character – Anna, Simeon, a shepherd, etc. Consider a bit of “in hindsight” first person preaching – Joseph looking back, or Luke having done his research. Remember though, if you have a “manger scene” play with children involved, your going into character may feel like too much of a good thing, even though you will surpass their preparations.

2. Why not preach all four Gospel introductions? We tend to dwell in Matthew or Luke or a blend of the two. Why not introduce people to Matthew’s introduction, then Mark’s (why no birth narrative, where was this all headed anyway, why is Mark 1:1-13 such a stunning intro to his gospel?) Then give them the visitation, prophecy, Mary focused and children prepared emphasis of Luke’s opening chapters. And who wouldn’t want to preach from John 1:1-18 right before Christmas (or any other time for that matter!) All four are stunning pieces of inspired text!

3. There are other New Testament passages that explain the Incarnation and Christ’s mission to the world. Perhaps it would be helpful to offer some explanation from other parts of the New Testament. What did the preachers of Acts say about why Christ was sent into the world? What about Paul’s explanation of the timing of it all in Galatians 4? There’s plenty on Christmas beyond Matthew and Luke.

4. Why not tap into the mine that is Old Testament prophecy? Where to start? Most people dip into the Old Testament at Christmas to read Isaiah 9:6-7, or Micah 5:2. Why not help people understand the richness of those texts and others like them in their context? What were the Jews waiting for when the first Christmas dawned?

5. Perhaps it is worth encountering a Christmas Carol and its theology? Not my typical approach, but people know the carols. Perhaps it would be worth helping people to understand the richness of the second verse of Hark the Herald Angels Sing biblically?

Tomorrow I’ll offer another handful of yuletide ponderings.

Wear the Right Strait Jacket

November 11, 2011November 11, 2011 / Peter Mead / 5 Comments

This week I had the joy of leading a group in consideration of what it takes to be growing as preachers. I told them we need to wear the right strait-jacket. I also told them that most preachers wear the wrong one.

Actually, when it comes to biblical preaching there aren’t as many rules as people tend to think. The preacher has all sorts of freedom that should be instructed through experience of what works effectively, what achieves communication goals, etc. But there are not as many rules as people tend to think. As I wrote on here some time back:

Some like to impose significant amounts of structure on the preaching event, but in reality there are few limits involved. There may be some limits imposed by the culture and heritage of a church – congregational traditions – and it is wise to think carefully before smashing through those expectations in an attempt to be creative. However, these limits vary from place to place and it is possible, once trust is established, to carefully adjust such expectations.

So is there any constraint, or is it all freedom? And how is it people (in this age of freedom!) tend to choose to wear a strait jacket? And the one they choose to wear is the one that could well be cast aside? Here are the two strait jackets:

Wear This One – “To have integrity as a biblical preacher, I must be constrained by the true meaning of the passage I am preaching.” Each passage is saying something. When we preach, we need to say the something the passage is saying. We cannot say anything from anywhere in the Bible. While we can tailor and target and re-order and re-emphasize, we cannot say whatever we want from a passage. Some people, in the pursuit of “interesting” and “relevant” and especially “original,” will undermine the exegetical integrity of their preaching by saying what the text simply isn’t saying. Be constrained by the text you preach.

Don’t Wear This One – “To be considered a preacher, I must preach in a certain manner, using a certain form that qualifies as a real sermon.” While the first strait jacket guarantees our integrity as Bible handlers, this second jacket can sometimes undermine our effectiveness as biblical preachers. What shape should a sermon take? What style of delivery should be used? Matters of form are matters of freedom for the preacher to evaluate strategically. Different texts, different circumstances, different occasions, different strengths as a preacher, different personalities, different listeners, can all prompt different sermon shape and delivery style. At this level our goal is effectiveness in communication. We do not need unnecessary limits in place to hinder our effectiveness.

Sadly too many preachers settle into a predictable pattern where actually there could be considerable freedom – in matters of form and delivery. And too many show a wild freedom where there is a limit – in the meaning of the text. Let’s be sure to wear the right strait jacket, but throw away the other!

Hearing the Text

November 4, 2011October 31, 2011 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

This post is not about amplification, nor about the place and role of the Bible reading. Both issues would be worth considering, but not today. I’m talking about the message itself. It is troubling when you hear a sermon and can’t quite seem to hear the text coming through.

This is where the big idea approach to preaching is so on target. If the big idea of the text is the control mechanism during message formation, then the text should be coming through. Sadly though, too many preach generic messages that essentially disconnect from the text itself.

I suppose preaching is essentially very easy for some folks. A thirty-five minute message is really only a couple of minutes of “worked material” that builds tenuous links between the text and the message. Once the text is tied in somehow, the standard message content can flow freely without hindrance. Easy.

Some people do this by leaving the text behind. It is read, a couple of comments are made, and then the message moves on from the text into generic sermon zone.

Others do this by pulling from the text the three things they want to find there. Perhaps something pointing to human sin, and something to do with God, and maybe something along the lines of consequences, or perhaps a vague segue to Calvary, or whatever. Thus the narrative is plundered for intro links to the message the preacher intended to preach.

Let me encourage you to make the preaching text more than an introduction for the message, or an introduction for the points. Allow the text to be master over the sermon.

Seek to preach so that God’s Word is communicated and God’s voice is heard. Seek to preach so that listeners can clearly hear the text and its influence on the entire message. Seek to genuinely preach the Word.

Strategic Application Saving

October 14, 2011October 14, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday I met with a good friend to talk through a passage he is going to preach soon. I love conversations like that! As usual, within a few minutes I was starting to wish I were also preaching that passage. Just a side comment, but pre-preaching conversations about a passage with another preacher can be so fruitful! Anyway, onto the point of today’s post…

I think application is generally best incorporated throughout a message. So instead of lengthy explanation followed by a block of application at the end, we can demonstrate the relevance of the message from the introduction onwards, and at every transition, within every movement of the message, etc. But with the passage we were looking at yesterday, I felt that this was an opportunity for strategic application saving.

His passage has two foci of potential application. One relates to the kind of people we will encounter as we go out into the world to share the gospel. The second relates to the kind of people we are within the church. My suggestion was to make the whole focus on the former, and save the latter until the very end. Why?

My sense was that if he hinted at, or overtly referred to, the possibility that there might be people with false motives in the church, then subconsciously the listeners would have their guard up. Instead, better to focus the application of the passage on “the big world out there and what we will encounter as we share the gospel” for the bulk of the message, allow the listeners to become engrossed in the narrative from Acts, and then at the end introduce the “but what about us in here” target.

Withholding an aspect of application can be very strategic when listeners drop their guard and are therefore more open to be struck by its relevance. Our tendency as preachers is to give away too much early on in the message. Even a little comment like, “this passage speaks to what we will meet out there, and also what kind of people we are…” – that mini comment early on could change the reception of the entire message.

If part of the relevance of a message might be resisted, pay special attention to when you introduce the thought. One option is to avoid early references to it, get the guard to drop, and then perhaps it will hit home more strategically.