Stage 2 – Passage Study

Interpretive Options

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

When you are preparing to preach a passage of Scripture there are always decisions to be made.  Some of them are relatively easy to make.  Others are harder to make, but the result is definite and clear.  Others are not easy to make, neither are they critical to orthdoxy.  So do you share the options with your listeners, or do you go for one option and present it (either strongly, if it is clear; or tentatively, if it is not clear)?

Some thoughts, although more could be added:

1. Don’t allow an academic discussion to overwhelm the main purpose and content of the message. If sharing the options with listeners would draw them away from the clear and central teaching of the passage, then think very very carefully before presenting the options.

2. Remember who you are preaching to – some groups just can’t handle options, others love them. As in all preaching, who you are preaching to is very significant.  Some groups would be confused and distracted by any apparent ambiguity in your presentation, but others love to get their teeth into such things (and appreciate the vulnerability of a preacher who doesn’t act like they have all the answers).

3. Don’t over-explain, sometimes interpretive options can be offered quite subtly. It is important to recognize the varied amount of explanation needed in such details of a message.  Sometimes we can make something bigger than it is, where it could be covered in two or three very brief sentences.  Even this might be effective sometimes: “Some people think he meant A, while others understand it to mean B.  Actually, either way doesn’t change the message of the whole passage…”

4. Recognize the opportunity to teach some Bible study skill. At the right time, with the right people, in the right passage, with the right words, this can be an opportunity to do some hermeneutics training within a message.

More thoughts . . . ?

Training Gaps

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I just read through a course guide for a preaching course.  I won’t name it.  It left me feeling dry and concerned.  Why?  To put it basically, because of what was and what wasn’t included.

Included – The different types of sermon that can be used (exegetical and topical given as the main two options, with two others noted).  The key role of the hymnbook in sermon preparation (double the content of the exegetical sermon preparation guidelines).  A session on effective delivery.  Then some guidelines on how to give feedback to a preacher (including the line, “don’t try to correct their theology.”)

Missing – Anything more than a cursory reference to studying the Bible.  Anything about how to get from a passage to a message so that the message has any biblical authority, accuracy or relevance.  Anything about the personal spirituality of the preacher.

I won’t go on, but surely an introducing to preaching course has to build on Biblical study as a key feature.  While it is best to get training in all areas, the fact is that communication and delivery training occurs in daily life, but most Christians are significantly unaware of what it means to really study and understand, let alone preach, a passage of Scripture.

My point is not to criticize this particular book (I suppose what I paid for it was worth it to remind me of the training offered in some venues).  My point is for us to look back on the training we received – what was strong, what was weak, what was missing?  Are there gaps that could be filled now with some carefully chosen study, course or mentoring?

TheologyNetwork.Org Article

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

A modified form of an article I wrote a while back has now been posted on theologynetwork.org . . . here’s a taste:

True exposition should not be boring, for we would not want to give the impression that God gives of Himself in self-revelation in a way that is boring.  True exposition should not be disconnected from real life, for in the incarnation we see God giving of Himself, His ultimate self-revelation, in the most relevant manner imaginable.  Perhaps if more preachers would truly grasp the need for effective hermeneutics in their sermon preparation, perhaps then we would not have so much occasion to point the finger at others and complain of dumbed-down diet sermonettes abounding in our generation.

But is improved hermeneutics enough?  The article makes a further move that I believe is critical and often overlooked.  To read the article, and then look around at the excellent resources, click here – www.theologynetwork.org

Biblical Preaching Presents God

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I suppose it is obvious, but some preachers have lost sight of the obvious.  When we preach, we should preach the Bible (for the alternatives offered by contemporary culture, sophisticated philosophy or personal insights will always fall short).  Yet when we preach, our goal is not really to present the Bible itself.  The Bible itself is not the end, it is not the goal, it is not the god.  We preach the Bible not because of what it is in itself, but because it is God’s Word.

This distinction in no way undermines our view of the Bible.  In fact, it should only strengthen it.  What does God’s character and intimate involvement suggest about the quality of the revelation He has given?  But we must not forget that it is just that – a revelation from and of Him.

Preaching that presents the Bible, but somehow loses God, really loses the Bible too.  It is easy to turn the Bible into a set of historical data, stories with morals attached, illustrations for our own thought processes.  But our goal is not to turn the Bible into anything.  Our goal is to preach the Bible well, so that the giver of the revelation is presented.  Biblical preaching is about presenting God himself.

Evaluate your next message before you preach it. Where does God fit in the message?  Is He the main character?  Is He the real hero of the story?  Is the message pointing us to respond to Him?

It is easy to leave God as a background assumption as we preach a human level story with human level applications – be good, be better, be like so and so.  May God never be a background assumption as we preach the self-offering and self-giving revelation He gave to us!

Our Posture Before the Bible

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Recently, Tom Lyon wrote an article for The Banner of Truth magazine entitled “Our Posture Before the Word of God.”  As preachers who spend time studying God’s Word, it would be wise to remind ourselves of these principles.  Equally, as preachers who preach to people who also may be spending time in the Bible and may also be tempted to twist its teaching for a personal agenda, it would be wise to convey these attitudes in how we handle Scripture before them.

1.    If I find something with which I cannot agree, I am wrong.

2.    If I find something which I cannot understand, I am wrong to judge it on that account. A quote from Martyn Lloyd-Jones: “You have a very small brain and you have a very poor spirit within you; do not be surprised that you cannot understand.”

3.    If I find something which would contradict the clear teaching of Scripture elsewhere, I cannot be right.

4.    If I find something which would slander the revealed character of God, I am certainly wrong.

5.    If I find something which brings up an apparent contradiction, I am wrong not to face it squarely.

6.    If I find something which leads to a summary principle, I am wrong if I do not follow it to its conclusion.

7.    If I find something which disturbs my settled convictions, I am wrong to dismiss it on that account.

8.    If I find something which calls for decisive action and I remain inert, I am fatally wrong.

9.    If I find something which I dare not follow in its practical drift, I am destructively wrong.

10.    If I find something which others blush to admit or struggle to avoid, I am unwise to follow them at that point. A quote from Calvin: “The delicacy of those who affect an appearance of greater prudence than the Holy Spirit in removing or resolving difficulties, is quite intolerable.”

11.    If I find something upon which popular religion frowns, I may presume I am on the right track. C.H. Spurgeon quote: “Be assured there is nothing new in theology except that which is false.”

12.    If I find something which would tend to humble man and glorify God, I am most probably right.

I quote the list as it is, perhaps wanting to add an extra qualifier here and there (such as #11 – not everything old is right, of course).  But I’ll leave the list as it is.

Things I Wish I Had Known

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I’m scanning through Preach the Word, edited by Greg Haslam.  There is an interesting chapter entitled “Thirteen Things I wished I had known about preaching” by Jeff Lucas.  Let me share a few of the thirteen:

1.    The pulpit is a highly dangerous zone.  By “highly dangerous” Lucas is referring to the complications of microphones that may be off when you think they are on, and on when you think they are off.  He is referring to knowing when you preach in the program of the meeting (ie. What comes before the message – will your opening story work after that moving solo?)  Basically, if something goes wrong, everyone notices.  Not exactly what I’d call “dangerous,” but true nonetheless.

2.    At least 25% of the preparation time should be spent on the first three minutes and the last three minutes of the sermon.  (Note that 97.1% of statistics are made up on the spot.)

4.    The voice is designed for variety.  Shouting is not the same as anointing.  Pace, pitch, punch, pause, etc.  Simple, but important to remember.

13. Where the setting is appropriate, always leave time for questions.  Something to consider, even in a formal traditional church setting – can we create a venue for questions?

If you want to know the rest, you’ll have to buy the book.  What do you wish you had known when you started preaching?  I think I would say this, “I wish I’d known that the goal in preparation is not to get a good message as soon as possible, but to really make the most of the spiritual study journey of preparation.”  You?

Preaching Apologetically

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Is it possible to preach mystery in an age of information, hope in an era of skepticism, confidence in a time of doubt, truth in a climate of relativism?  The ultimate question becomes, can we preach Christ in a postmodern world?  My answer, of course, is yes.  My suggestion is that it’s time to apologize for God.

This is Craig Loscalzo in his Apologetic Preaching, page 22.  Strong stuff.  In case you are worried by that last line, let me quote a bit more:

Far too many pulpits have been, for too long, apologizing – that is, making excuses – for God.  Timid sermons that dismiss the sticky issues of Christian faith, sermons that water down the demands of the gospel, pabulum preaching pleasing to people’s ears but unable to offer transformed lives will be transparent to the skeptical lenses of postmodernity. . . . Apologizing for God means apologizing for God, not making apologies for God.  In other words, it means making a case for the gospel in all its scandalous reality.  Apologizing for God means rightfully reclaiming the apologetic role of the pulpit for the cause of Christian faith.

I agree with this.  But I am also wary as I write this.  I’m wary because too often it seems that a move toward apologetics is somehow a move toward theology, philosophy, academia, but somehow also a move away from the Bible.  By no means!  The Bible is inherently apologetic.  Our apologetics are our attempts to speak for God into this world, but the Bible is God’s Word spoken into this world.  Let us not feel stirred to our apologetic role and thereby drift even slightly from expository preaching.  Preach the Word, God’s Word, preach it with an emphasis on its relevance to your listeners – so that the scandalous reality of the gospel can shine into darkness of the contemporary milieu!

Preachers are Theologians

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

The health of any church depends, in part, on its leaders functioning faithfully as theologians.  It’s part of the package for any elder (pastor, minister, leader, whatever term you are used to).  Leading, feeding, caring and protecting.  How are we to lead others on God’s behalf if we’re unclear on the nature of the church, it’s mission, God’s character and plan?  How are we to feed the saints if we’re not wrestling with the great doctrines of the faith and setting them forth?  How are we to care effectively for souls if we never consider what a human consists of and how they function in relation to salvation and walking in the Spirit?  How are we to protect the flock if we’re unaware of theological trends and errors in the general atmosphere of the contemporary church at large?

The pastoral functions of any church leader require that theological reflection and processing be involved in the ministry.  It is a dangerous error to presume that theology is a function of the academy or the research university.  It is worrying to find many preachers and leaders who think that their task is not that of theology.

If you preach, then you influence.  If you influence, then you lead.  If you lead, don’t make the grave error of divorcing your ministry from that of theology.  If you do, then both your ministry and theology will suffer.  You will suffer.  And so will they.

The Bible, Expository & Consecutive Preaching – Part 5

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Daniel Goepfrich wrote a substantial interaction with this blog over on his site – here – this post is responding to the issue of relevant preaching from paragraph 12 to the end.

———————

You then progress to the issue of contemporary relevance.  I agree with you that the Bible is full of God’s spokesmen addressing contemporary issues (prophets, Jesus, apostles, etc.)  As I have already mentioned, my understanding of expository preaching is not about form of preaching, but a commitment to understanding and communicating the biblical text with emphasis on its relevance now.  I quoted Wiersbe’s comment on Ironside to prompt thought, not to suggest that we should only preach straight through books, and I appreciate you noticing that early on and changing your post accordingly.

However, there is an issue worth thinking through here.  Do we “make the text relevant” or do we show “how the text is relevant?”  To use Stott’s approach in Between Two Worlds, is the text boss of the message, or is the preacher?  This is where expository preaching is separated from other approaches (again, not a form issue, an authority issue).  Does the biblical narrative speak with authority in reference to God and humanity, or is it merely a recounting of what happened?  Does the message of the prophets, or Jesus, or Paul, or James, speak with authority today, or is it merely an example to follow in that we too should speak relevantly?  I don’t think you are suggesting that, but I gently push your words toward a perhaps logical conclusion?  No, you are right when you say that we preach the Bible because it is relevant today.  I heartily agree.

In fact, what you suggest is that we use the Bible texts to speak to today’s situations, but we need not feel constrained to the form of writing in which they were recorded.  I do not advocate strict adherence to the form so that every sermon has to be a verse-by-verse re-presentation.  I would suggest that is a good default place to start though.  Why?  Because form is not merely a type of cultural baggage that we can dispose of and lose nothing.  No, the writers were deliberate communicators and we will not fully understand them if we do not seek to understand what they wrote in the way that they wrote it.  So I would urge the preacher to study a passage both in context, and with awareness of the genre and form it is in.

Do we have to preach according to that form?  Not necessarily.  However, if we want our listeners to know how to understand the Bible, then we do them a major disservice if we don’t show how form influences meaning.  Hence my position – the form of the text is a good default for the form of the sermon, but there may be good reasons to adjust the form of the sermon away from the form of the text.

I have really appreciated your post and interaction with my site.  I hope my response has been helpful in clarifying where I’m coming from?  Thanks for recognizing that I’m not dogmatic about form as some are (i.e. the “consecutive only” preaching proponents).  I hope this post has helped to clarify that while I see real benefits to consecutive preaching, my real commitment is to a true understanding of “expository preaching.”

I agree that we need to keep preaching what people need to hear, rather than just what they want to hear. That argument could be used by both sides on the consecutive versus topical debate.  The fact is, people need to hear what God is saying, and for that we must be committed to expository preaching – whether we choose to use a consecutive approach (as you will with Philippians) or a topical approach.  Not everything is expository, though, and I am concerned about preaching that uses the text to say what the preacher wants to say (which could happen in both consecutive and topical preaching!)  For that reason we need to be continually growing as students of the Word of God.

Every blessing in your ministry, Daniel, and thank you again for reading biblicalpreaching.net

The Bible, Expository & Consecutive Preaching – Part 4

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Daniel Goepfrich wrote a substantial interaction with this blog over on his site – here – this post is specifically addressing the examples of poetry and prophets given in paragraphs 10 & 11.

———————

Regarding Poetry, again I don’t insist that we preach through a book – that is not what I teach (thanks for correcting your post on that).  However, it would be a shame to miss the importance of written context for any biblical passage.  Proverbs seems to be the most randomly organized, until you read Bruce Waltke or someone like that and start to see the structuring of apparently random collections of proverbs.  Whether or not that can or should be communicated in preaching is another issue.   Ecclesiastes and Job are not random collections.  Psalms, I would suggest, is not as random as our contemporary hymn books (ordered alphabetically).  It contains collections, and increasingly scholars are recognizing structure and ordering throughout the collection.  My Hebrew prof did his OT PhD on the evidence of structure and order in Psalms 107-118.  His mentor, Gerald Wilson, has demonstrated that Psalms is anything but a mere hymn book.  Again, it would be a shame to have a superficial view of this part of the canon and miss some of the richness contained in the structure and sequencing of the book.  That does not require preaching straight through, but it does urge us to have a real awareness of the literary context in our studies.

You mention prophets, and likewise, I agree that we don’t have to preach straight through.  Again, though, I suggest that even if two oracles were given at different times, or in a different order, the way they are in the Bible now is the inspired text.  Our task is neither to dismiss ordering of texts and treat them as random collections, nor is it to “reconstruct” an original and better order.  Our task, in part, is to understand the inspired text as it stands.  Whether you preach straight through or not is up to you – I do both.  However, I would suggest that not studying a passage in context will seriously undermine your ability to understand the text (and why should you study in context if it’s just random?)

———————

My final segment of response will come tomorrow.  Thanks.