Bible Versions

January 5, 2011January 5, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

As I am sure you have heard already, it is now the 400th anniversary of the King James Version of the English Bible. For some reading this site that will be nothing more than a quaint historical monument. For others it will be a celebration because they and their church still use the KJV/AV (although probably not the 1611 version, I suspect!) For many of us, we’re in a mixed setting. That is, most have moved away from it to a more modern version, either in the RSV years, or the NIV publicity-fest, or to the NKJV in the early 80’s, or the NLT or ESV in more recent years. But there may be one or two in our churches that still hold on to their KJV’s with a resolute commitment.

So do we ignore the anniversary in order to avoid any disputes over the “inspired” nature of the KJV (a claim never made by the original translators who acknowledge the inspired text was the original language, and they were reviewing earlier English Bibles for content and style). Or do we take the opportunity to educate our churches on textual criticism, text families, translation philosophies and communication theory? Or do we thank God for what the KJV did in its time, and for the example it set for modern translations to follow in later years?

Arguments over Bible translations tend to include a lot of opinion, but often not very informed opinion. Perhaps we have an opportunity to inject grace into these disputes, as well as some carefully measured information. Let’s be careful not to throw petrol on a smoldering fire. Yet at the same time let’s not miss an opportunity to be thankful for all that God has given us in terms of the Scriptures in our own language. There are still hundreds of millions of people without any portion of the Bible in their heart-language. Surely we should be thankful for the plethora of Bibles available in English!

Tomorrow I’ll follow up this post with some thoughts on Bible Versions and preaching.

(NB The Cor Deo podcast, latest edition, focuses entirely on the issue of relational Bible reading.)

Get the Idea? – Part 3

December 30, 2010December 30, 2010 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

So a lot of people endorse Haddon Robinson’s Biblical Preaching but seem to miss the prize jewel in the book – the Big Idea. They may use the language, but many miss the point. We’ve thought about the Big Idea in terms of communication, and in terms of biblical studies. One more:

The Big Idea in terms of the Holy Spirit Continue reading →

Get the Idea? – Part 2

December 29, 2010December 30, 2010 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

This is the middle post in a series of three on Big Idea preaching. Specifically, I’ve been struck by how many people recommend Haddon Robinson’s book, yet seem to not have grasped what it teaches. I understand that they are impressed by the well written chapters dealing with various elements of sermon preparation and delivery (I was impressed first time through), but the powerful notion of the Big Idea is not instantly grasped (took me a while!) So yesterday we thought about The Big Idea being about communication. But more than that . . .

Continue reading →

Preaching Proverbs

December 21, 2010 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

I’m pondering the possibility of preaching a few messages from Proverbs (very early days, it won’t be until the summer at the earliest). Since this is a very unique genre and even sub-genre, I need to start thinking well ahead. Here are some very early incomplete thoughts:

1. It is important to understand them in their historical context. These were sayings written in the context of a covenant that tied direct results to obedience or disobedience. While we continue to reap what we sow, we don’t live under the same conditions as ancient Israel. Somehow the preacher has to navigate this without making the text feel irrelevant.

2. There is more structure to the book than people tend to think. I have been impressed to see some explanations of structure in the apparently random sequences of proverbs (yet unless it really adds something, I don’t want my listeners to get bogged down in my inadequate explanation of that). I also think it is vital to understand the book as a whole and the role of personified wisdom and folly. I can’t just jump in and preach a verse here or there without taking time to consider the whole book properly.

3. Wisdom is a rare commodity today. The Proverbs call to pursue wisdom seems as necessary as ever. There is an amazing level of spiritual lethargy and applicational dumbness in the church today. Somehow I need to preach in such a way as to motivate the listeners to pursue the God of wisdom and to live out the wise teaching of His Word. Yet at the same time I mustn’t simply pile rules on rules and create a gospel-less sense of adding burdens to guilt-prone fleshly spirituality.

4. The pithy nature of the genre is powerful. So as a preacher who may often preach much longer chunks of text, I must resist the urge to pack information into the sermon, flatten the point and dissipate the punch. As a convinced believer in big idea preaching (a spoken communication commitment, as well as a recognition of the nature of inspired revelation), what more could I ask for than a powerful and memorable main idea already packaged and perhaps ready to preach? Yet it is so tempting to pack in information rather than pursue application and transformation. One truth driven deeper is better than multiplied truth scattered liberally.

That’s my thinking for now . . . gradually over the next months I will return to Proverbs and build toward a series.

7 Dangers of Fanciful Interpretations – part 2

December 17, 2010December 16, 2010 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Continuing yesterday’s list of 7 dangers of fanciful interpretations:

4. Fanciful interpretation may lead to preacher puffery. If you get lots of empty praise, which you probably will if you preach the equivalent of donuts and cupcakes, there is a very real danger that you may believe the hype and get puffed up. You may get far less feedback from people who are deeply convicted, or who need time to be with the Lord because of what they’ve heard from His Word. So actually the fanciful approach is a short-cut to puffery (unless you learn to discern the value of feedback and praise!)

5. Fanciful interpretation may lead to unnecessary division between believers. On the one hand there are those who will be deeply troubled by what they hear from you. On the other hand there will be noise from the less discerning who get very hyped up by your sugary fare. Chances are that these two groups will have some difficult conversations when the latter look to the former to celebrate the teaching they’ve enjoyed so much!

6. Fanciful interpretation may put off thinking unbelievers. Some people do think and may sit there looking at a Bible as you talk. What if they evaluate Christianity and decide that we’re all apparently unthinking or fanciful in what we believe? Some people are able to see through the lack of intellectual credibility of some Christian communicators. Then we all get tarred with the same brush. More importantly, Christ is rejected based on the false assumption that the Christian faith is intellectually deficient or inconsistent.

7. Fanciful interpretation disappoints God. It doesn’t honour God to treat His Word as if what He inspired isn’t good enough, or interesting enough, or relevant enough.

And other dangers?

7 Dangers of Fanciful Interpretations

December 16, 2010 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Fanciful interpretations get great feedback, but they do great damage. Fanciful interpretations get some people very excited, but those who know their Bibles, or have been to Bible school tend to look glum in the midst of the hysteria. Is this because all who have training are killjoys? Or is it perhaps because they see through the hype like a parent watching children getting excited about excessive amounts of sugar?

You can usually spot the indications of fanciful interpretation. One big red flag is when people are saying, “I would never have got that from that passage, wow!” Or even, “That was so rich, deep, original, (you choose the description)!”

But if people are so obviously blessed and encouraged, what is wrong with it? Let me offer seven problems with fanciful interpretation:

1. Fanciful interpretation teaches listeners bad Bible study. You may have convinced yourself that that particular reference to a boat has a deeper meaning relating to postmodernism, or that the name of the valley is an anagram of a suburb of Manchester, or whatever. But let’s say, for argument’s sake, that your clever interpretation doesn’t seem to do any harm and is motivating for the listeners on a spiritual level (perhaps a spiritual theology of David’s brothers’ names, or the significance of a geographical feature for the Christian life). Surely no harm is done? It is if the listeners then copy your way of handling Scripture and come up with an application you find objectionable (the cults do this all the time).

2. Fanciful interpretation offers nutritionally empty fare. Perhaps you’ve come across the notion of empty calories? Something made with highly processed sugar and white flour and unnatural ingredients. These things tend to taste good (temporarily), but have no nutritional value. In fact, over time and in excess, they can do great harm to you. The same is true of overly sweet, overly processed Bible fancies that stir excitement but offer no nutritional value.

3. Fanciful interpretation may cause listeners to give up on their Bibles. After all, if they can’t see how you got there, maybe instead of copying your approach, perhaps they’ll just feel inadequate and give up on their Bibles. They may look forward to hearing you again (which is the motivation for some speakers), but their Bibles will gain dust in the meantime.

The rest of the list tomorrow . . .

Red or Blue?

December 6, 2010 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Today’s post is on the Cor Deo blog. In it I ask a significant question for Bible readers and preachers alike. When we look at the pages of Scripture, do we see red or blue? There’s nothing political about the post, it deals with a much more important subject than that!

Also, remember that those who comment on any post on the Cor Deo site this month will be in with a chance of winning a free book – A Praying Life by Paul Miller. All we ask is that you also share the link to the Book Giveaway page on facebook, twitter, by email or a web link – here’s the link to share:

http://www.cordeo.org.uk/book-giveaway-a-praying-life/

To go to the post, Red or Blue? – please click here.

Incidental Details, None But Plenty

December 2, 2010November 26, 2010 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

The biblical narratives tend to be lean in their writing. What Luke could write in six, or ten, or twenty-six verses would take a contemporary writer three-hundred pages. Nevertheless, there are many details tied into the narratives.

There are interesting word choices – such as the word used for “have mercy on me” in Luke 18:9-14. There are significant passing remarks, like the fact that Mark tells us the grass was green at the feeding of the five thousand. There are key functions achieved by narratival details, like the angry grumbling of the crowd under the tree in Jericho when Jesus invited himself to Zac’s place. There are intriguing ways around saying the straight answer, like after the Good Samaritan, the questioner of Jesus can’t bring himself to say the word “Samaritan” in a positive sense. Or the elder brother in Luke 15 who won’t refer to the younger son as his brother. There are interesting repetitions, like “he believed” happening twice in twenty-four hours at the end of John 4. I could go on.

So what to do with such interesting “incidental” details?

One approach is to completely miss them and preach every story as if it is the same as several other stories. That could apply to a story recorded in several gospels, but sounding the same whatever passage you preach it from. Or it could apply to a particular story becoming a generic story-type that could be preached from numerous passages.

Another approach is to dismiss them and give some sort of sophisticated sounding explanation of how there is no reason for it to be here, but it shows the human-ness of the author. Certainly the author was a human, but often a dismissal of detail in Scripture is evidence of nothing more than the preacher’s lack of careful study and thought.

Another approach is to dissect them and preach a series of distinct messages based on separate textual triggers. In this approach the preacher goes off on a mini-logue about grumbling from the crowds at Zac’s tree, but fails to recognise the inherent thrust of that detail in that particular story. Often true truth will be preached from the wrong text.

Are there incidental details? Depends how you view and preach the text. I appreciate this quote from Flannery O’Connor:

“A story is a way to say something that can’t be said any other way, and it takes every word in the story to say what the meaning is.”

Exegetical Preaching? Yes and No.

December 1, 2010November 25, 2010 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Some people like exegetical preaching. Some people don’t. Most would express an opinion one way or the other. But actually, what is exegetical preaching?

Do we mean preaching that is based on sound exegesis? If we do, then that should be true of all preaching. While I know it certainly isn’t true of all preaching, it really should be. Whether the sermon is a walk-through explanation of a passage, or a topical presentation of several passages, or a carefully constructed character portrait, or a first-person presentation, or an overview of a Bible book or section, or whatever . . . it should be based on exegesis.

Exegesis is about drawing out the meaning that is in a text. Eisegesis is about reading into a text the meaning you want to impose on it. Sad to say there is a lot of eisegetical preaching around these days (probably always has been). Nevertheless, there really isn’t a category of biblical preaching that is somehow good and helpful, but isn’t exegetical. Whether you are looking at five verses, four separate verses, three chapters or two whole testaments . . . the work underlying the message should be exegetical. There is no other legitimate way.

Do we mean preaching that meticulously shows every aspect of the exegetical study underlying the message? This is a different matter. This is a strategy decision on the part of the preacher. It need not be a once for all decision. It is strategy. Is it helpful for me to show some of my work in how I preach this passage to these people on this occasion? Perhaps letting some of the exegetical work show will demonstrate where I’m getting my message from? Perhaps letting some show will demonstrate how to handle Scriptures? Perhaps this is an audience that appreciates a bit of that kind of background?

(But remember, it is always possible to let too much exegetical work show – perhaps drawing attention to your skill and knowledge, or overwhelming the listener, or manipulating the evidence to demonstrate certainty where that is not appropriate, etc. Some of your exegetical work should probably always remain hidden, not least because you don’t have hours to preach, but also because some aspects are seldom if ever helpful. People need the fruit of your study, and sometimes they will benefit from seeing some of how you harvested that fruit.)

Exegetical preaching? The work underlying the message – absolutely yes. The style of presentation – maybe a bit, maybe no.

Behold My New Phone

November 25, 2010November 25, 2010 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

I’d like to revisit the theme of the last two posts from another angle. Perhaps an analogy might help. Sitting across from a friend in Pizza Hut, I decide to “preach” my new mobile phone to him.

I place it on the table and say what it says on it. “Samsung.” Then I describe it a bit, sharing a bit of the knowledge I’ve gleaned in my research. “It’s a Samsung Galaxy S. Free with most usage contracts. It runs Android 2.1 currently, and it’s mostly black.”

Then I construct a message based on the phone. “You see the N in Samsung? This makes me think of the iPhone, because that has an N in it too. The iPhone is very popular now and the new operating system has really improved on the old 3GS, even with all the controversy over the signal dropping. Now for my next point, do you see the two S’s in the name? This makes me want to talk about Sony Vaio laptops – they really have come down in price lately, not as elite as they used to appear in the market.”

I could go in any number of directions with “my message” based on the Samsung sitting in front of me. I could talk about mobile phones, or technology, or communication, or any subject of my choice. If I could make enough connections to the phone, my friend might even think I was clever!

But all the while my Samsung phone is sitting there, black, dormant, inactive, unused, undemonstrated. The focus is on my cleverness in message construction, technology association and sheer verbosity.

How different it would be if I would pick it up, turn it on, and show my friend the phone in action, let him see the resolution, experience the new text input method, enjoy an app or two. Suddenly I’m not preaching my message based on the surface details of the phone. Now I’m preaching the phone!

The same is true of preaching a Bible text. Some of us are happy to have the text sit open in front of us while we construct our message based on the text. We make the most random associations in order to preach from the Bible book we would have preferred to be preaching from. We jump off relatively incidental details (at least in the way we use them) to get to the message we are itching to share.

All the while the text sits there. Inspired dynamite ready to be detonated in the hearts and lives of listeners, lying dormant while we wax on eloquently with our message based on the text, sort of. Can I be so bold as to summarize my point in three words? Preach the text!