Stage 2 – Passage Study

Excessive Abstractions and Principles Too General

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Preaching an ancient text to a contemporary congregation will usually require some level of abstraction.  To preach an ancient instruction simply as it stands is to present a historical lecture, rather than a relevant presentation of inspired truth.  Some preachers simply say what is there and effectively offer historical lecture.  Other preachers abstract from historical specifics to timeless abiding theological truth, but end up preaching vague generalities.

To grasp what Robinson calls the “exegetical idea” and move through the “theological idea” to get to the “homiletical idea” is not easy.  The end result needs to be clearly from the text or the authority has been lost.  Yet the end result has to be specifically clear in its emphasis on the relevance of that text to us or the interest is lost.  One temptation is simply to play it safe, perhaps too safe.

What I mean by that is that we might derive a general, borderline generic, principle from a passage and move from historical explanation (often curtailed) into general application of this general principle.  Was the message true?  Yes.  Biblical?  Yes.  Relevant?  I suppose so.  Life-changing?  Probably not!  Sometimes it is a fear of fully engaging the text that can lead to this “generic” preaching.  Other times it is a fear of fully engaging the listeners that leads to it.

John Stott’s metaphor of the preacher as bridge-builder is helpful here.  The best preaching will not only touch both the world of the Bible and the world of the listener.  The best preaching will be firmly rooted, planted, engaged with and connected to both worlds.  Let’s not preach vaguely biblical abstract generalities.  Let’s really preach this text to these people!

Of Bifurcations and Dichotomies

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Most people have a tendency to think in black and white categories.  Something is either right or wrong, good or bad.  In order to get from the complex world of reality to the comfortable world of clear categories, we tend to bifurcate inappropriately and end up with inconsistent dichotomies.  For example?

Well, consider the two issues of communication style and biblical content.  These are two issues.  Yet for many people they seem to have been melded into a one or the other dichotomy.  So if a preacher has an engaging and natural style, then the content must be weak and lightweight.  Equally, if I am to preach biblically, then my style must needs be less than connecting.  The apparent truth of this thinking is seen in so many preachers, but there is real fallacy here.

I just listened to a series of messages that could be labeled as seeker friendly in style, certainly very natural and engaging.  Therefore biblically lightweight?  Not a bit of it.  Actually I found a couple of them stunningly effective in how they handled the text and communicated it to the listeners.  That’s not to say that all such messages are biblically solid, but it’s equally wrong to assume all are not.

Natural engaging style that is connecting with the unchurched is one issue.  Biblically solid and rich content is another issue.  One doesn’t mitigate against the other.  Let’s not be too quick to dismiss.  Equally I listened to an older message that was biblically solid, but wouldn’t qualify as contemporary in style.  Stodgy, boring, irrelevant, cold?  Not at all.  It was deeply moving and highly helpful.

Let’s be careful not to combine and confuse categories in order to create clear categories for ourselves.  Life, and ministry, is lived not in many blacks and whites, but in numerous complex layers of grey.  That statement does not in any way argue against objective truth, as it could so easily be misquoted.  Rather it urges us to engage the complexity of life, of ministry, of preaching.  And on the example given in this post – let’s be both biblically solid and communicatively natural for the sake of ministerial effectiveness.

Preaching Longer Narratives – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday I began to respond to Anthony’s question about preaching longer narratives:

How do you handle the tension of wanting to tell the story as it was intended to be told and not wanting to overload the hearers?

We saw that how a story is told is critical (more critical than the amount of information included).  We saw that not every detail requires equal focus.  This leads on to another thought that is sometimes hard for some people to accept:

4. True expository preaching does not always require every verse to be read out. With a long text, tell the whole story, but read selected highlights.  The readers can look down and check what you are telling is accurate, but you don’t have to read every verse in the preaching of the text.  If you preach a narrative in first person, you probably won’t read any of the text, but still you need to preach the text!

5. Remember the three ingredients in a sermon. A sermon consists, according to Don Sunukjian, in the combination of three elements.  A biblical text plus the big idea plus a preaching purpose.  Often sermons are lacking one or two or even all three of these ingredients!  The biblical text ingredient means that the message is the text’s message, not a superimposed preacher’s message.  Usually this means the text will be opened and read before or during the sermon.  However, in a longer message, the text may only be read in part.  For instance a single sermon on Romans as a whole will not read the whole thing, but probably will include the reading of 1:16-17 and a few other key highlights.  The same is true with a long narrative.

What is always important is not that every word be read, but that the listener is confident that this message is the true and exact message of this text.  They can look down while you’re preaching and see it there, they can pull a Berean attitude and check it out later for themselves.  Usually the best way to build confidence in the biblical textual nature of the message is to read the whole text and let the exposition show clearly there, but that is a typical strategy, rather than an absolute requirement.  With a long narrative the sense of purpose and a clear statement of the main idea are critical, but the biblical source of the message can be conveyed without full detailed exegetical explanation of every verse, or even the reading of every verse.

Preaching Longer Narratives

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Anthony asked the following after one of the posts last week:

I preach only occasionally, and have tackled a couple of narrative passages recently. I like to respect the narrative chunks in the text, which often have a clear beginning, middle and end. But last time I ended up preaching two whole chapters (75 verses), which was probably a bit much!

I’d be interested to hear what you think about this. How do you handle the tension of wanting to tell the story as it was intended to be told and not wanting to overload the hearers?

This is an important question.  After all, not every biblical narrative is contained within a few verses like some of the parables, there are some substantial narratives in the Bible.  The David and Bathsheba narrative lasts for nearly 60 verses if you include Nathan’s visit.  Anthony is referring to one lasting for 75 verses.  A few points to bear in mind:

1. Listeners are more overwhelmed by how something is told than what is told. Especially with narratives, if they are told well, listeners will be glued.  Tell children a good story in a compelling way and they won’t be asking you to stop so they can go to sleep.  Let’s assume the narratives are good ones since God inspired them, that just leaves the storyteller to do their job well.  I’ve sat through the most compelling stories told painfully, but it shouldn’t be that way.  Let the story live, tell it well.

2. Good storytelling involves both detailed description and pace change. When you’re telling a Bible story, there are times when you need to add detail to the description to help the images form on the screen of the listener’s heart.  There are other times when the story can move ahead in leaps and bounds.  The text does this, so can you.

3. True expository preaching does not require equal attention to every detail. The traditional read a verse, explain a verse approach to preaching can become burdensome with a 75 verse narrative.  Tell the whole story, but focus in on the details at key points in order to convey the true message of the passage.  This requires absolute attention to every detail in preparation, but selective focus in delivery.

A couple more thoughts tomorrow on this . . .

What Is The Motivation . . .

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Do you ever wonder what someone’s motivation might be?  For example, I was thinking about a man I once knew who never read anything except the Bible.  His preaching bore the fruit.  Some might say that his preaching was biblically saturated and uncluttered.  Others might suggest his preaching was unengaging and borderline heretical.  Not that the Bible is unengaging, but somehow there was, at times, a lack of connection happening.  So I ponder . . . what was the motivation?

1. Was it pure devotion to Christ? Perhaps.  Certainly there are many who would do well to stop reading everything but and spend some serious time in God’s Word, like a lifetime.  Perhaps this is fruit of the example and we would all do well to heed it.

2. Was it mixed up with insecurity? Perhaps.  After all, it’s a lot easier to stay on familiar territory and not be stretched or challenged or confronted or corrected.  It can be intimidating to consider the vast array of biblical and theological scholarship out there.  What if that held only fear for him?  Perhaps the fruit of this example is to encourage us to not fear, but to be stretched and grow, and perhaps have the odd corrective to point out where our own thinking might be distorting the message of Scripture.

3. Was it thinly veiled arrogance? Perhaps.  After all, while it might be portrayed as devotion to Christ, it is at the same time a reliance on one’s own ability to piece together the complex canon of Scripture.  There is always a tension between separation from corrupting influences and interdependence with the body of Christ.  Is it not arrogant to state by word or action, “I don’t need you” to a fellow saint in the local church, or a sibling in Christ who offers conversation through the pages of a book?  Perhaps the fruit of this example is to recognize that distinctive devotion can sometimes smack of blatant arrogance and walk more carefully?

I honestly don’t know what to think of this particular man.  I’d like to believe the best.  Obviously only the Lord can judge his motives.  But perhaps I can learn from all the possibilities I mentioned.  More in the Word.  Unafraid of engaging with scholars.  Humble enough to enjoy conversation with a giant of the past, or a “nobody” in the church.  I don’t know what his motivations were.  But God knows yours and mine.  What does our distinctiveness say about us?

Textual Tone – Deduce, Demonstrate, Declare

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Each text in the Bible has a tone.  We are often oblivious to it.  Our training in Bible school tends to focus on analysis of content.  Most sermons tend to train listeners to look at content (or perhaps to largely ignore the text and just bounce off it, but that’s another matter!)

I often find myself trying to figure out the tone of an email.  Was this writer annoyed, or discouraged, or aggressive, or manipulative, or did it come out wrong?  Is this email an encouragement out of empathy, or is it a patronizing exhortation?  We learn with our contemporaries that written language doesn’t always communicate tone overtly, yet tone is so significant to the intended communication.

With Bible texts we can’t meet up with Paul or Moses to double check their intent.  So we do well to wrestle with the tone of the text.  Let’s be diligent in this:

1. Deduce the tone. Don’t settle for simple cold analysis of content.  Wrestle with grasping the tone of the passage.  Allow that to be a factor in your understanding the passage and then in your preparation of the message.

2. Demonstrate the tone. Too often preachers preach every sermon in monotone.  Not necessarily their own vocal range, but rather the tonal range of the whole collection of sermons.  Some preachers turn every encouraging passage into a guilt-driven rebuke.  Others neutralize every passage they touch to make it a sterile set of philosophical musings.  Our preaching will be enriched by demonstrating the tone of the passage . . . as I seem to add a lot . . . appropriately.

3. Declare the tone. People may be so trained in tone-less preaching that simply improving your delivery may not be enough.  Sometimes overtly declare the tone of the passage.  I preached on Luke 11:1-13 recently . . . all about prayer.  A subject that most believers feel very inadequate in, and pressured by, is prayer.  Yet the tone of the passage is overtly encouraging.  I tried to demonstrate that tone.  I also chose to declare it overtly – this passage is not pressuring us, it’s overtly encouraging in its tone!  People need to become sensitized to the tone of Scripture.  They need to feel the emotion, the anger, the encouragement, the grace.

Let’s be sensitive to the text, and let’s help to sensitize others too.

Narrative Breaking Series

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

A story is a story.  It should be studied as a story and understood as a story.  But what about when you are preaching part of a story?  For instance, take the book of Ruth.  I had to preach just part of that story on Sunday.  It’s not easy to break into a story and preach part of it, but leave the rest for the following weeks.  Some thoughts:

1. You have to study the whole story. A narrative is incomplete until it has been completed.  Profound, but a necessary comment.  Even if you are only preaching one part of a longer story, you need to be significantly aware of the whole in order to handle your part well.

2. Build on previous elements, but don’t give away the tensions of subsequent development. If I am preaching from Ruth 1, then I need to preach Ruth 1 without preaching Ruth 2-4.  This means that although I really like Boaz and want to preach about Boaz, he’s not in my text yet.  If someone else is preaching in subsequent weeks and I have given away all the tension, that is unfair (even if people know the story, build the tension of the whole story and allow each scene to have its day).

3. If you only have one scene in a longer narrative, preach the plot of that scene. Recognize the mini-play nature of a single scene.  Look for the tension.  See how it resolves, even if only partially.  Preach the scene you are preaching.  Often readers and listeners think they know a story but really only know certain elements.  How many people really understand Jonah 2 or even Jonah 4?  How many people have really soaked in Ruth 1?  While it may be difficult to preach only part of a narrative, there are advantages too.

4. Make sure you preach a message, not just an introduction. It may be tempting to simply set up the following weeks where the greater tension is resolved, but don’t fail to preach a message this week.  Simply setting up what follows is not enough.  People have come to church this week and should be fed this week.

Much more could be said . . . you say it.

Push Through To Unity of Main Idea – part 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Last time I suggested one approach, simply asking what the passage is about.  But what if that approach isn’t causing fruit to drop from the branches.  Are there other tacks to take that might help a preacher grasp the essential unity of idea in a single passage?  Here are some angles of approach that I use.  Perhaps you might add others.  Remember, this is not about studying a passage per se, it builds on that with the goal of defining the united single main idea of the passage – a vital prerequisite to preaching any passage.

5. Try the question answered approach. A passage might yield it’s idea better to a question like this, “Which question does this passage answer?”  Is it answering a “why?” question, or a “what?” or a “who?” or a “when?” etc.?  This approach can be very fruitful.  Discovering an implicit question answered by the overt evidence of the text can work in some cases where asking what the passage is about has become a dead end.

6. Don’t neglect the importance of intent. As well as wrestling with the author’s content, it can also be helpful to come at the passage from the perspective of intent – what did the author intend to happen in light of this passage being communicated?

7. Back up and remind yourself of the genre you are dealing with. Awareness of genre should be an early element in the study of a passage, but sometimes it helps to remind ourselves at this stage in the process.  For instance, in an epistle you probably should go back and see the previous unit of thought then wrestle with why this follows that, what question was left implied previously, etc.  In a narrative you probably should back away from apparently incidental elements of the story and look again at the points of tension and resolution (then see the apparently incidental elements in light of the plot . . . they aren’t incidental).

8. Talk it through. When stuck it can really break the log-jam to talk it through.  Ideally you can call a friend who knows what finding the main idea is all about and talk it through together.  Sometimes a ten-minute chat can undo hours of apparent non-progress.  If you don’t have someone to talk to, try talking it through out loud to yourself.  Your goal is to preach, after all, so there are multiple benefits to this approach.  (And remember, of course, that every element of sermon preparation should be constantly talked through with God too . . . prayer saturated expository preparation is what I affirm, but if I don’t say it . . .)

Push Through To Unity of Main Idea

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

When you are confident that you are dealing with a legitimate unit of text, then you can be confident that there is unity to the idea contained in that text.  You will often need that confidence.  Usually a passage doesn’t offer its unity on the lowest branch.  It can take work and real wrestling in order to determine the united single main idea of a passage.

Here’s one approach:

1. Read the passage multiple times. Early on you probably need to make a note of questions you have on the first run through since these will be the questions listeners have as they hear it on Sunday.  However, you can’t prepare a message after one read through.  Soak in the passage.  Study it.  Revisit it. And again.

2. Answer the question – “what’s this passage about?” Not the easiest question, but an important one.  It’s asking not for specific detail (such as “what stood out?” or “what’s your favourite bit?”) but for general overview observation – “what’s it about?”  You may have two or three things that the passage is dealing with.  For instance, a friend of mine is looking at Isaiah 6.  Early thoughts are that it is about God’s majesty and holiness, but it’s also about Isaiah’s call into ministry, plus there’s the often neglected last part of the chapter too.

3. Consider whether the answers you have are roughly equal in weight, according to the measure of the passage. It may be that one part has made it onto your list because you’ve heard about it before, it’s familiar, you like it, etc.  But is it really a fair answer to the question “what’s the passage about?”  If it is really a subordinate issue, tentatively drop it.  If not, if each element is genuinely weighty in the passage, then . . .

4. Consider how the elements might be combined, rather than viewed exclusively. Perhaps Isaiah 6 is not about God’s majestic holiness or Isaiah’s call into ministry, but rather a combination of the two?  After all, isn’t Isaiah’s call in the context of an encounter with God?  How about the message he’s given . . . how does that fit?  Is there a contrast between Isaiah’s responsiveness and the rest of the people of unclean lips?  Keep wrestling.

Next time I’ll suggest a few other approaches if this one isn’t working.

Feel-Good Sermons

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

There is a phenomenon, actually not uncommon, that we might call the feel-good sermon.  In it the preacher begins with the text and then shares several points that are somehow linked to the text.  The points will be put in terms that are comfortable and reassuring to the listener.  The listeners may well walk away feeling vaguely blessed and certainly positive in their view of the speaker.

However, this kind of sermon typically does not engage fully with the text.  Often issues like sin or judgment will be skirted around or offered merely in non-specific euphemisms.  Thus the tension in the text is not really engaged, nor resolved.  This probably means that the same tensions in the lives of the listeners are neither engaged, nor resolved.

Let’s beware of preaching feel-good sermons rather than biblical sermons.  It is possible to preach the Bible in a very engaging, encouraging and even positive way.  It is possible to preach the passage properly, even in a “seeker-friendly” setting.  In fact, if our main concern was the listener, wouldn’t we feel obliged to really engage fully with both text and listener?  The feel-good sermon seems to be a short-cut to happy handshakes, but it falls short of engaging both the text and the listener.  So perhaps the motivation is more fear and the preacher’s personal comfort than it is the motivation of a true minister?