Stage 2 – Passage Study

Preach More Than Truth

/ Peter Mead / 8 Comments

That’s a provocative title.  Ok, how about a provocative opening volley?

Preaching true truth using a Bible passage is better than preaching error and heresy, but not necessarily much better.

Right, now to dig myself out of the hole . . . what do I mean?  Well, it is common to hear preachers take a Bible text and preach a message that is truth.  Real truth.  True truth.  Bible truth.  All off the back of the text they read.  But the truth preached is not the truth specifically communicated by the passage.  This is better than error and heresy . . .

Truth is better than error. Obviously it is better to preach the truth.  People need to hear the truth.  People need to face the truth.  Error and heresy confuse people and mislead people and have eternal consequences.  Give me truth over heresy any day.

But it is not enough to preach truth using a passage from the Scriptures . . .

Any truth preached from a Bible passage is not good enough. The real goal in preaching a passage is to preach the truth of that passage.  To simply jump off the passage to preach a generic biblical truth can be genuinely harmful, not to mention wasteful.

Why is it wasteful? Because this particular passage is saying a specific something.  It is not saying anything.  It is not saying everything.  It is saying something.  If you don’t preach that specific something, then the opportunity is gone and the passage probably won’t be preached again for several years (to these people).  While there are consistent themes and big  big ideas in the canon, each passage is unique in terms of its specific main idea.  Why waste the opportunity to let that passage hit home?  (How many “whole counsel” preachers are actually mostly preaching only a single message from a whole host of source texts?  This leads to the other matter…)

Why is it harmful? Really, what harm can be done if the truth is preached, if the gospel is presented, if people are brought face to face with the demands of the gospel on their lives?  Perhaps none.  But what if the listeners look down at their Bible and see what is actually there?  One of two things could happen, and both are harmful:

1. They might think that it is normal to read any passage and squish it into a simple presentation of the gospel (or whatever true truth is consistently preached).  They will learn to not treat the Scriptures as having anything specific to say.

2. They might recognise that the message preached does not have the authority of the text it is claimed to be based on.  The discerning listener may end up rejecting true truth because the preacher acted as if that message actually came from that text.

Whether they learn to misread the Bible, or they distrust the message, harm is done by preaching true truth that is not the truth presented in a passage.

Flat Preaching

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I recently was leading a preaching seminar where participants had the opportunity to preach and receive feedback.  The participant I listened to really did an outstanding job!  He preached the miracle at the end of John 4, and it was not a flat message.

Here’s what I mean.  There are tens of miracles in the gospels.  A lot of them are healings.  Chap with a problem comes to Jesus, Jesus says something, chap  trusts, Jesus heals, happily ever after.  They’re all a bit the same – if you preach them that way!  In reality each account is uniquely written with its own features and characteristics and context and purpose.

So in the miracle at the end of John 4, the writer includes several indicators pointing to his main thought in this unique passage.  He points the reader, consciously or sub-consciously back to John 2 and 3.  He points us back to Jesus’ earlier concern with people trusting in him, but his not entrusting himself to them.  He raises the matter of belief based on signs.  He underlines the issue of belief with a double reference to belief.  The writer is doing something unique in this passage.

So the good preacher will do something unique with this passage.  Actually, the good preacher will do the writer’s something unique with this passage.  (That last sentence probably needs to be read twice, cumbersome but deliberate!)  The task of the preacher is not to come up with their own clever message on the passage, but to really and truly and fairly and powerfully bring out the message of the passage.

How easily we preach a miracle story as just another miracle story.  Human interest problem, solved by Jesus, because Jesus is powerful and is the solution to the underlying sin problem, so let’s ponder the cross.  That’s fine, but sometimes it simply doesn’t honour the unique contours and features of the text itself.  Good preachers do.

Preach the Main Point

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Last week I had the joy of teaching a group of church leaders in a class on preaching biblical narratives.  Once we had grasped the significance and power of plot in a narrative, we realized how purposeful narratives tend to be.  They aren’t a random assortment of preaching fodder as many see them.

It is easy to read a story and bounce off the details to preach personal hobby horses.

A passing reference to alcohol in the story of Nabal can easily become a tirade against alcohol in the hands of a careless preacher.  But that is not the focal point of the story.  The plot, when understood properly, pushes the careful preacher toward the heart of the issue (usually in some way related to the resolution of the tension in the plot).

And yet the beauty of narrative passages is that they don’t simply present simple truths, but clothe theological truth in the concrete realities of life.  While many Christians may choose to make every conceivable matter into a black and white simplistic issue, biblical narratives engage us in the complexities of real life.  Daniel didn’t eat the meat offered to idols.  Aha! There it is, biblical support for total separation from anything I deem to be worldly!  Hang on, in the same passage he isn’t fussing about being labeled with a Babylon deity’s name.  Complex.

Narratives are such powerful parts of Scripture.  They present, engage and drive home a central truth in very vivid and heart-stirring ways.  Yet they don’t lay comfortably in our simplistic constructs for life, choosing rather to stretch our faith and our thinking by their complex depictions of human motivation, faith, and experience.

Preaching and Story – Part 5

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

So this post is really an extension of implication four in the series we have been considering on the impact of narrative in our preaching.  Much more could be said, but this will be the last in this specific series.  So to review implication number four:

4. When preaching “non-narrative” sections, consider how they are snapshots of a narrative. We saw how two genres are, by definition, largely narratival – both history and gospel (including parables, of course).  But what about the five “non-narrative” genres?

So a psalm was written by someone in response to God’s work, or in gratitude for a particular moment of deliverance, or in the tension of particular situation, either individual or corporate, or to guide others in the tensions of life.

Prophecy, as we know, is not all about foretelling the future, but often more about God’s heart being revealed in respect to the present.  Either way, narrative is there . . . either God’s response to the tensions and problems and reactions and dangers of the present, or God’s explanation of kingdom hope shining at the end of the current tunnel.

Wisdom literature is shot through with the tensions of a fallen world, with the challenges of human folly as we so easily pick foolish paths in the midst of the situations we face – glimpses into the story of humanity.

Apocalyptic, despite all the caveats and careful explanations that seem to overwhelm the text so often these days, is a revelation of reality, present or future, the unseen becoming seen, and it is shot through with narrative features – and then I saw, then he said, and then, and then, so the dragon waited, then the world celebrated, then the judge came, and then, and then.

Epistle, of course, is a snapshot into a narrative – that apostle’s attempt to bring the gospel to bear on the present situation of the recipients.  We have to look at the occasion that prompted the writing of the letter, and we need to look for any hints as to what transpired in response to it.  A glimpse into the narratives of life lived in a fallen world.

At some level there are aspects of narrative pervading every passage in the Bible.  How does our preaching reflect that?

 

Preaching and Story – Part 4

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

So we have been thinking this week about the role of the Bible story in our preaching.  We haven’t thought about how the individual stories relate to the big story as a whole, the redemption history, as it were.  Perhaps that would be worth a post at some point (actually I know it would because some preachers seem so eager to fit everything in its macro context that the particular text they claim to be preaching gets lost or somehow reworked so that the actual message of the text is lost in the mix . . . but that is for another day).  We have considered the importance of entering into the narrative, and trusting the narrative to offer more than illustration and introduction, and thinking through how to increase the impact of a narrative by retelling and revisiting it before moving on.  Now to the final implication in this series.  This weekend I should be returning from Asia and will be looking forward to seeing what comments have been sparked by this series!

4. When preaching “non-narrative” sections, consider how they are snapshots of a narrative. There are three main types of literature in the Bible, and about seven major genre.  One of the three types is narrative, the most common one, but still leaving two non-narrative types (poetry and discourse).  A couple of the genre are narrative (history and gospel, including parables), again with lots of page space, but also leaving five that are non-narrative (psalm, prophecy, wisdom, apocalyptic, epistle.)  But stop the bus for a minute!  Are these other types and genres non-narratival?  Aren’t poetry and discourse both snapshots into a narrative?  Discourse, be it epistle or speech, is given in the context of a narrative situation.  And it may be harder to accurately know the context that gave rise to a particular poem, but human nature leads us to wonder and often to reconstruct such a narrative (be careful not to then interpret a poem in light of a reconstructed narratival context, but why not tap into the emotional setting of a fallen world that sparks such poetry?)

I will extend this series by one post and tomorrow consider the five supposedly non-narratival genres to see how they are, in fact, more narrative-ish than we tend to think!

Extended Gestation

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Somebody has likened (with all the necessary caveats and apologies) preaching to pregnancy.  You know the elements of the analogy: something growing within, the building excitement, that something has to come out at a specific point in time, with the resulting post-delivery tiredness and even sometimes the post-partum blues.

Among other elements where the analogy breaks down, there is one that I’d like us to ponder today.  The length of gestation.  Real pregnancy has a consistency of length, preaching preparation doesn’t.  It is easy to fall into a cycle of preaching preparation, from start to finish, taking only five to six days.  This fits between Sundays, but it creates issues.

Is the message able to fully grow, and specifically, is it able to fully grow and work its way into your life if you’ve only been working on it for five days?  “I’ve been studying this passage for the past few days.  I’ve lived with it since Tuesday, and have been applying it consistently since yesterday morning.  Listen to my powerful message from 24 hours of experience . . . ” We don’t say this when we preach, but sometimes we say it by our lives.

Haddon Robinson suggested using a ten-day preparation cycle.  This means doing some preparatory exegetical work on the Thursday of the previous week.  This give it time to stir in the heart and mind before launching into preparation in the week before preaching.

Some preachers suggest planning a preaching calendar a year in advance, allowing for time to do initial study, ongoing research/collection of information, and personal application.  Some advocate taking a week to do preliminary work on all messages to be preached as part of this process.

What do you do?  How long do you take to allow the message to grow, and to make sure it has time to make a mark on your life, before you commend it to others?

Share

When Does This Touch My Heart?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Following on from yesterday’s post about the process of preparation being logical, but not mechanical, I’d like to come at the same issue from a different angle.

There is a danger that we follow a process like the 8-stage approach presented on this site, and then afterward seek to “add affect.”  That is, we work through the steps, end up with something of a message, but then try to add the affective elements to it.  These might include adding some sense of its effect or affect on us, the preacher.  Or adding elements to stir the affections of the listener.

Adding Affect Smacks of Rhetorical Trickery. Distinctly adding in content, or manner, or anecdote for the purpose of stirring response from listeners feels to me like the rhetorical trickery of the professional speakers of Paul’s day.  There are ways to generate response, to stir emotion, to manipulate feelings.  What place do these have in a ministry of integrity?  Hopefully none.

Preaching Flat is No Solution. Some seem to reject emotional manipulation by preaching purely informational sermons.  They seem to think that simply saying the truth and leaving all aspects of response and emotion to the Holy Spirit is the way to honour what Paul was saying in 1Cor.1-4.  I beg to differ.  Anytime we leave a part of preaching to the Holy Spirit, we are suggesting that there are some things we can do, and other bits He must do.  Leaving application to the Holy Spirit can sometimes seem to suggest that we can handle explanation without Him.  This is wrong thinking.  The preacher’s task is to explain, to apply, to represent the message of the text, to speak as God’s spokesperson, God’s herald, doing all in dependence on the Holy Spirit.  This roundabout paragraph brings me to my point though – how can we flat preach a text that isn’t flat?

Affect Shouldn’t Be Added, But Pervade. If the text you are studying comes with the affective contours of a real life writer in real life tensions, inspired by a passionate God who has a heart . . . then where does this “flat” bit come from?  It is our received approach that makes exegesis a cold process.  It is our elevation of cold intellectual knowledge to a revered status.  The text isn’t mere information.  God isn’t pure mind.  We don’t need to be mere intellects in action as we prepare.  Listeners aren’t blank slates waiting for an information dump.

So where does this passage touch my heart? Not as an afterthought, or I haven’t really studied it.  At every stage in the process my heart should be responsive to the text.  Actually, responsive to the God who inspired the text.  Let us grow in engaging fully with God, with His Word, and then hopefully our listeners will grow in the same as they respond to the preaching of His Word.

Share

Logical, Not Mechanical

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I teach an 8-stage approach to preaching preparation, always emphasising that each stage should be saturated with prayer (avoiding suggesting prayer as a single stage, or suggesting that this is a prayerless process).

The 8 stages are in a logical order. You cannot prepare the message until you’ve worked with the passage (1-4 before 5-8).  You cannot study the passage until you’ve selected it (1 before 2-4).  You cannot determine the idea of the passage until you’ve selected and studied it (1-3 before 4).  You cannot finalise your message idea until you’ve determined your message purpose (5 before 6).  You cannot decide on structure/strategy and details like intro/conclusion/”illustration” until you’ve determined message purpose and main controlling idea (5 and 6 before 7 and 8).

The 8 stages are not in a rigid order. The reality of preaching preparation is much more fluid than these stages might suggest.  Ideas and thoughts come at various times and should be noted rather than rejected.  As much as we should try to study the passage in its own right, we cannot help but tend toward application earlier in the process, and therefore also to thoughts about the message.  We are dynamic and unpredictable creatures, so naturally preparing a message will reflect that.  (I do stand by my suggestion that those learning should learn the more “stilted” approach first, then grow flexible out of a solid foundation.  Also seasoned preachers would do well to periodically follow the process closely.)

The 8 stages do not constitute a machine. The important thing is that we don’t fall into the trap of thinking a logical and ordered process equates to a message machine: feed in a text and just enough time and out pops a fully formed message.  That will feel as ineffective to our listeners as it will to us.  These 8 stages are logical.  You may choose to add in a distinct middle stage of overtly prayerfully analysing the expected listeners before embarking on the latter four stages of message preparation.  You may disagree with the stages and adjust them or increase them.  But what we mustn’t do is become mechanical in our preparation.  It takes time, seemingly unproductive time, to chew on the text.  It takes time, prayerful experience, and eyes fixed on the Lord, for the text and message to be worked out in your life before you speak it out of your own lips.

Follow the process if it is helpful to you, but remember to pray, to dwell, to linger, to process, to chew.

Share

Beyond Identification

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday I wrote about how narratives do engage us through identification and disassociation.  We can’t avoid that reality – it drives the popularity of movies, of bedtime stories, of Sunday School stories, of family fireside reminiscences, etc.  But biblical narrative always offers something more.  Our challenge as preachers is to be sure to always go there.

What if the passage is easy to understand and ready to be preached.  You’ve built a message based on the natural connection with a central character, or a minor character, or the original recipients.  Your time is filled, the message will preach, that bird will fly.  You aren’t done.  You’re not ready.

Biblical narratives either overtly or implicitly urge us to engage with the central characer in the canon – with God himself.  Was it really David’s courage, or was it something about his faith in God and his instruction?  Was it really about Ruth’s loyalty to Naomi, or was there something going on in terms of her loyalty to a God who had so far not seemed very “effective”?  Was it really about Joseph’s moral convictions, or was there something deeper going on in respect to his living by faith in a God who was with him when every circumstance screamed that he’d been long forgotten by such a God?

How does the narrative point us to the ongoing tension of faith or flight as creatures live in God’s world?  How does the narrative enable us to engage with the progressive revelation of the trinitarian self-revelation of Scripture?

Share

Varied Skills in Passage Study – II

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Studying a passage effectively involves a variety of skills.  Yesterday we mentioned matters of contextual awareness, scholarly awareness and original language study.  Today I want to share a few more.  Not a definitive list or blueprint for the exegetical process, but a series of prompts that may or may not be helpful reminders.

Purposeful Study and Preaching – Too often, preachers study a passage to find meaning, then preach meaning and tack on purpose at the end.  Purpose (i.e. application) is not only a concern in the formation of the message.  Purpose should influence our exegesis too.  If we remain blissfully unaware of the author’s intent, we will fail to fully grasp his content.  Bring “purpose” into the mix long before you start thinking of your purpose in preaching it.

Point-ful Study – Make sure that your study of a unit of thought coalesces into a focused and unified sense of the passage idea.  A random collection of exegetical artefacts is not the goal of exegesis, nor is it evidence of good exegesis.  You are studying cohesive communication, be sure to grasp what the author would agree was a synopsis of what he was communicating.  Getting to the main idea of the passage, thoroughly informed by every detail, is an absolutely critical point in passage study.

Scissors – A critical exegetical skill for the preacher is to decide what to cut out of the sermon.  A condensed dump of all your gleaned knowledge will not serve your listeners.  Study hard, learn lots, but cut out all that doesn’t advance the focused and pointed message.

What else would you add – other skills?  Sometimes one of the greatest skills for exegesis is the skill of creating the time and space and quiet needed for intense study!  What else?

Share