Simple Idea – So Helpful

March 11, 2011March 11, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

This week at Cor Deo my colleague Ron mentioned something he does in preparing for sermons. Simple suggestion to say the least, but so helpful. Instead of cutting and pasting the text of the passage into a document to work with, he photocopies his own Bible page.

Then he can work on the photocopy at a significant level of inductive observational detail. Then when he comes to preach from his own Bible, he’s very familiar with the layout of the text and only needs to make minimal markings on the text since he’s just been working all week on a replica of the same.

Simple.

I could leave it there, but let me add a couple of comments:

1. Too many spend too little time really soaking in the text. It shows in the preaching. The message is often a decent message, but the tie to the text is tenuous. If you have a great Christian gospel message that really is the message of another text, preach the other text! But if you’re preaching this text, then live in it and let it live in you for a while so that you are really preaching the text you say you are preaching!

2. The more our message is tied to the text we’re preaching, the less we are reliant on extraneous notes and imposed sermonic structures. This means the listeners perceive a more natural presentation (that’s helpful), and they are more likely to follow in their Bibles (that’s helpful), so that the focus is less on your sermonic artistry and more on the inspired revelation that came from God (that’s helpful too!)

Committed to Authorial Intent? Remember Authorial Intent!

March 9, 2011March 9, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Many who read this blog would be committed to the notion of authorial intent. That is, the meaning of the text is pursued in line with authorial intent. It doesn’t mean what it could not have meant. It doesn’t mean what the author didn’t intend to convey.

Yet while many hold to a strong conservative hermeneutic (perhaps a historic0-grammatical or some kind of christocentric variation), it seems that authorial intent often goes missing. How so? Well, the meaning as intended by the author is pursued and preached. Yet the intended effect, the intended outcome, the goal of the author is often lost.

As you study a text you need to look at the context (historical and written), and at the content (what’s in the passage), and also at the intent. This means being sensitive to stated and implicit intended outcomes in the original recipients. It means being sensitive to the tone and attitude of the writer. Was the writer being encouraging, or rebuking, or concerned, etc.? Sensitivity to content and to intent is necessary if we are to really honour a text and understand it well.

Where do some preachers seem to miss this?

1. When the tone of the message bears no resemblance to the tone of the text. Maybe this is a different audience in need of a different tone, but a deliberate decision to change the tone is not the same as squeezing all texts into your shepherding mood, or your angry mood, or your bible thumping mood, or your “self-appointed prophetic voice” mood or whatever.

2. When the intended outcome of the message bears no resemblance to the intended outcome of the text. Again, it is possible to shift from what the author intended. Yet too often the preacher has never considered the original to that extent, but rather has pursued a message from a text, rather than really wrestling with the message of the text.

Authorial intent is about more than simply affirming that my doctrine is in line with the Apostle Paul’s. It is about growing in sensitivity to the text I am reading so that I am better able to re-present it to others when I preach.

Preaching in Light of the Big Question

February 16, 2011February 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The big question throughout Scripture is consistently the same. Will people trust God or not? Will they have faith in Him or not? Will we?

We are living under the same banner, the same fluttering question mark. Will we trust God? As preachers we need to help people see the simplicity of life (i.e. this is really the issue in every situation), while addressing the complexity of life (i.e. it never feels that simple!)

Hebrews 11, for an obvious example, presents example after example of people of faith who lived in the present in light of eternity. They were willing to choose discomfort now, because of what was to come. This is always a great indicator of faith in God. They trusted God. But this is an obvious preaching passage. What about something more obscure?

Leviticus 17 makes an enigmatic reference to the people making sacrifices outside the camp to goat demons or goat idols. Some obviously were choosing to be unfaithful to God for some reason or other. This incident is similar to the golden calf incident back in Exodus. God had delivered them, was among them, yet they rebelled and didn’t trust Him. Ok, what else?

Actually if we take any incident in Scripture, any narrative, we will find people either trusting or not trusting God.

We face the same options today, although in different forms. Will we be unfaithful to a God who has given us so much and dwells among us? Will we commit spiritual adultery by giving our worship to another? Or will we be men and women of faith, trusting in God even when it means choosing discomfort in the present circumstances? Let’s be preachers that encourage others to allow God’s Word to inspire them as we read all sorts of biblical texts, obscure or otherwise – and let’s try to live out a good answer to the big question hanging over us today.

Preaching in the Presence of Lists

February 9, 2011February 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

At various times you will be preaching in the presence of lists. Not the to-do lists that are manically collected by some church-goers, bursting out of their Bibles’ strained clasps. The lists that God inspired.

It may be tempting to just skip them or dismiss them (easy to make disparaging remarks that we don’t really mean). But if you aren’t preaching the list, and it is in sight, what to do?

Help people, even in passing, to know why it is there. It isn’t there to put off Bible readers in their cyclical reading aspirations. It isn’t there to tempt people to put a new spin on received pronunciations. It is there for a reason.

Let’s take the descendants of Esau in Genesis 36 as an example.

Why is it there? It’s good to remember when these books were written and for whom. Whether Genesis was written or compiled by Moses, it was part of the five books which were for the Israelites as they entered into the promised land. It was important for them to know where they had come from, their history, God’s promises and so on.

One of Moses’ (and God’s) concerns was that they not mingle with the inhabitants of the land or near neighbours, in such a way as to become disloyal to the one true God. This chapter, with all its people and connected place names, would be a helpful reminder to them of where some of these other people came from. Certainly the chapter keeps pointing out that Edom was from the “unchosen” line of Esau – and Israel would often have issues with Edom later on!

It probably seems obvious to you, the studied preacher, to consider when the list was written and for whom. I suspect that might never enter the minds of some of your listeners. Unless you point it out, of course.

(And then encourage people that they don’t have to pronounce every name if they are on a fast read through – it’s amazing how people appreciate permission to press on in their Bible reading!)

The Obvious Early Connection

February 7, 2011February 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

The more traditional approach to preaching was apparently to do all the explanation and then ask where the truth might connect to listeners’ lives at the end. Actually, good preachers have always made their listeners feel connected to the message much earlier than that. There is one point of early connection between listeners and Bible text that is usually fairly obvious.

Ever since Genesis 3 we have all lived in a fallen world. Abram did. David did. Paul did. You do.

This means it shouldn’t be too hard to find a connection between text and world. The people in the text are fallen people in a fallen world. So are we. So unless your study and preparation is taking you down a fruitful pathway other than this, it is probably worth asking what is the fallen world issue in the text? Is it rebellion? Is it doubt? Is it suffering? Is it fear? Is it self-love?

Once you can see what the tension is in the text, brought about by the Fall, then you can probably make a connection to today. So far, so good. But don’t miss the next step.

Make that connection overt.

It is no good knowing it and assuming others spot it. Make it clear. Evident. Stated. It is easy to have this kind of “fallen condition focus” (as Bryan Chapell calls it) in our minds, but then fail to say so in our sermons. You start into the context, tell a bit of historical background, explain a bit culturally, dive into the text, explain freely and before you know it you are almost out of time and start to make some sort of application. Oops. You just did what we said it was better to avoid. Why? Because if a sermon feels like a historical lecture, your listeners won’t, well, listen.

Look for point of connection. Make clear point of connection. And do it early.

Reading Letters

January 24, 2011January 21, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

The epistles are generally a form of discourse. That is to say, they tend to be a direct form of communication (as opposed to narrative or poetry). This might imply that they are there to be studied so that I can figure out the main point. But when I read a contemporary letter I tend to look for more than just the bottom line. I tend to look for two things, and this applies when interpreting epistles too:

1. I tend to look for the message, or even the bottom line of a letter. What is this person specifically saying to me? I don’t want to read several hundred words as if they are all equally valuable, but disconnected nuggets of information. I do want to figure out what the main point or points are in the letter.

2. I tend to look for their heart coming through toward me. Are they loving, or polite, or cold, or complaining, or angry? Whether it is a complaint from somebody, or an encouragement from a friend, or a notification from a company, there is always more than pure information in a letter.

When we look at the biblical letters we do well to look for both things. What is the main point of each section? And what is the heart of the writer toward the recipients?

Technically this isn’t about finding the main idea (1) and finding the mood (2), as if these are separate and distinct items. The mood, the heart, combines with the information included to determine my sense of the main idea.

If we have been trained to do so, we tend to read narratives with imagination and sensitivity. We tend to read poems with a certain level of imagination and responsiveness. The danger is that we will read discourse as pure information, where we would be far better being alert to the affective tone of the communicator. Isn’t all human communication affective in one way or another?

Every Conviction is Biblical – Training in Application

January 19, 2011January 12, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Last time we raised the issue of how easily people take a biblical detail and turn it into a deep conviction. Consequently as preachers we have a responsibility to train people to appropriately apply the Scriptures. So many are so good at being so focused on misapplied details that they fail to respond to the intended message of the text. So, three thoughts about application in our preaching:

1. Do it. As I’ve said and written many times, we must not abdicate our role by simply handing over to God the matter of “applying the truths we have seen in His Word.” He does, and He uses us as part of that. Some people in our churches are fascinated by the Bible and will chat about historical and linguistic and cultural and all sorts of other details with us. Yet they may never move on to applying the Word to their lives. We must model that understanding is not enough. What does it mean? And also, how should I respond to this?

2. Expand it. Don’t always offer the same applications – be good, be better, try harder, witness more, pray more, etc. For one thing this is moralism rather than Christianity. But also be sure that your applications aren’t always to do lists. People in some churches get overwhelmed with lists of hints for better living and are scared by their Bibles, not because of the awesome God they might encounter in its pages, but because of the ticker tape parade effect if they open their Bible and the half sheets of bulletins with to-do lists should spray out and cover their living room floor. Application is not just about conduct and behavior. It is also about beliefs – show people that changing their belief system in light of Scripture is critical application. It is also about affections and values – show them that having their heart moved is the deepest and primary need in responding to a personal God revealing Himself in the pages of Scripture.

3. Restrict it. Application of the Bible can easily be carelessly done (especially, it seems, in the area of convictions about how things should be done). As preachers we need to implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, help people to learn how to apply the Word. This will involve pulling people back from wrong approaches, as well as training in right approaches. I paraphrase Haddon Robinson’s comment that “there is more heresy per square inch in the area of application than in any other aspect of Bible study.”

In the next post I want to offer some approaches to application that we should be careful of and train people to avoid.

Every Conviction is Biblical

January 18, 2011January 12, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Many Christians will readily admit that they struggle to apply the teaching of the Bible to their own lives. Strangely though, very few will admit that their convictions may not be thoroughly biblical. Every church, every tradition and every denomination has its own little quirks and unique approaches to things. What is true of churches is true of the people in the churches too. The problems come not from having quirks, but from defending them as biblical when in fact they are not.

How should the church service proceed, how should it be led, how should the music be handled, what is not acceptable in terms of instruments, what can happen in the church building on a Sunday, what time should the service begin, how exactly should the communion table be set out, how many cups can be used, and the list goes on. It is amazing what church details people will hold as strong biblical untouchable convictions. After all, they have a verse to support their position!

So it seems to me that preachers have a prime responsibility to guide, instruct and model in this minefield of application. Some preachers never apply. Others always offer the same applications (trust God, go share your faith, live good lives, etc.) But if we don’t go beyond this, then people will never learn to apply in the areas of the sometimes bizarre church convictions. Surely we want the people in our churches to be enjoying the fullness of personal relationship with the Trinity through Christ, rather than perpetuating sometimes bizarre convictions about all sorts of details and almost believing that Christianity consists in those convictions?

In the next post I want to share some thoughts on application in preaching, specifically in reference to the kind of “incidental detail of Scripture held as deep biblical conviction” that we sometimes come across. Hopefully there is none of this in your church. But don’t be surprised if there is.

Less of a Beating

January 14, 2011January 11, 2011 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

It’s not true in every case, but for many people it is. Let’s say Person A has an issue with Person B. Perhaps Person A runs through how he might address Person B beforehand, or perhaps he is talking it through with his wife first. When Person B isn’t present, Person A tends to be much stronger in tone. But once they are face to face, Person A will typically be more winsome, more loving, more caring for the feelings of Person B. (There are exceptions, but let’s not get into psychologically profiling people who struggle interpersonally!)

There’s something in this that is analogous to preaching, I think. Let’s suppose you are preaching a biblical passage that contains an instruction from Jesus to his disciples. As preachers we have a tendency to turn any biblical text into an assault on the congregation. It could be encouraging, comforting, tender, sensitive, or gentle, but in the hands of an unthinking preacher, it will easily come across as harsh exhortation. Why does that happen?

I think there are various reasons for this phenomena including a misunderstanding of God, or of how people function, or are motivated, or what Christianity is, or often, just a lack of awareness of how we come across. But I wonder if there is also something in the difference between abstraction and in-person communication that I raised in the first paragraph?

We can easily take the words in a text and pull them out of their historical and interpersonal setting, turning them into a more harsh and abrasive instruction than was the case originally. Pulling an exhortative statement from its context and preaching it as bare instruction will usually feel more like the command that must be obeyed (drill instructor) than an instruction set in the context of interpersonal communication.

Did the disciples feel Jesus was barking out orders when he spoke to them of trusting in God, or of loving one another, or how they should pray, etc.? I suspect not. Somehow in person there would have been a more winsome force involved, the engagement of lives as the setting in which His instruction would have intrigued, motivated, drawn out, stirred, and moved them.

What to do? My suggestion is to be wary of excising the instruction from its narrative setting in order to preach it as instruction today. Better to help listeners imagine being there, being in the sandals of the disciples, feeling what they felt, stirring what stirred in them. Essentially it is about honouring the narrative force of the text rather than over-processing it into bite sized directions for today. Don’t treat every text as a mere collection of principles to be plucked out and fired at our listeners. Instead help the listeners to encounter the people in the text and to be stirred by that, very different, experience.

Bible Versions and Preaching – Say What?

January 6, 2011January 5, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday we asked the question about what to do with the 1611 anniversary, recognizing that each church situation is different. Some would be wise to avoid overplaying it. Others might use it as a great evangelistic opportunity. Others may see it as an educational moment. But what about Bible Versions and preaching? Here are some largely non-1611 connected thoughts…

1. Inject gratitude into an often overly contentious issue. As a preacher, if the subject comes up, you have the opportunity to either stoke the fires of dispute, or to inject gratitude for the amazing privilege we have in our language. Just read about what it took to produce Bibles in the past, or observe the work involved in a new translation, or consider the sacrifice paid by many in the world today if they are caught with one, or recognize the historical anomaly of easy book ownership, or even look at what is now available for free online (for example, check out the excellent NET Bible) . . . and you will see that we have great reasons to be very very grateful. As a preacher your opinion may count for a little more than that of others, even if you are uninformed. Be informed, but be careful too!

2. Be very wary of undermining trust in translations. People don’t automatically know the difference between the inspired nature of the original texts, and the authoritative nature of translations inasmuch as they accurately convey the original text. Sometimes real damage has been done by a cavalier critique of some detail in one translation or another, leaving listeners feel that they cannot trust their version, or even any version in their language. Surely this is not helpful. Often there are far more subtle ways to convey a more accurate sense of the meaning of the text than outright critique of the translation (and remember that one of the hardest things to know is what you don’t know on a subject . . . so it’s probably safe to presume your knowledge, even combined with a commentator, may not be absolutely better than the translation committees of several Bible versions … there are some issues in translations, but be humble and careful what you say!)

Tomorrow I’ll share a couple more thoughts on this issue, feel free to comment.

(NB The Cor Deo podcast that just went live is a conversation about the role of the Bible in the believer’s life and relational Bible reading – click here to get to the player, or find Cor Deo on iTunes.)