Stage 2 – Passage Study

The Hardest Genre?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

What is the hardest genre to preach well?  Every genre has its own challenges.  Here’s a list of biblical genre with some brief points on why each can be hard to preach well.  I’ll tell you what I find the toughest, but your top three toughies might be different.  Let’s not avoid the ones we find tough, nor grow complacent in the “easier” genres.

Epistle – Many would list this as the easiest genre to preach.  The original audience is closest to ours, the direct communication translates relatively easily into a sermon and application is often straightforward.  The challenge can be over-familiarity and how to preach with a sense of tension or intrigue.

Gospels – Most of the stories are very familiar, but sometimes small details can really pose problems in interpretation.  It is challenging to really see each unit of thought as it fits in the flow of the text.  It isn’t always easy to sift Jesus’ motives in the action and the author’s motives in how the action is presented.  If you are not good at telling a story, then the gospels can be really challenging.

Story (History/Narrative) – Some stories are very familiar, others are borderline bizarre.  As with the gospels it is not always obvious what the author is doing in stringing episodes together.  With Old Testament narratives you also have the challenge of communicating the story with a sense of relevance to today, as well as the burden of appropriate application.  Then there is the difficulty of unknown geography and lack of familiarity with biblical history among our listeners.

Tomorrow we’ll complete the list of the biblical genre.  I’ll list my hardest three, for what it’s worth, and you can comment with yours . . . feel free to add pointers to the challenges you face in any particular genre – this would be helpful for others to ponder too.

Pseudo-Expository Preaching

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

If you have a commitment to expository Biblical preaching as it is understood on this site, then some versions of preaching obviously stand out as poor.  The anecdotal platitudinal rambling with a verse attached won’t fool many of us.  The non-expository topical sermon where verses aren’t handled with care and the Bible isn’t in authority over the message, we can usually spot those too (note that it is possible to preach an expository-topical message, so not all topical is bad!)  But the category I label as pseudo-expository can be much harder to spot.

Pseudo-Expository Preaching defined – Pseudo-exp preaching is where the preacher appears to be preaching the text, but falls short of any of the four elements in an expository preaching definition.  The four elements are (1) the work of the Holy Spirit in preparation and delivery, (2) the true meaning of the passage understood, (3) then effectively communicated through the preacher, (4) emphasizing the relevance of the passage to the listeners present.

1 – The Holy Spirit. True preaching cannot be simply the application of a mechanistic preparation process, or simply the fruit of good learning.  True preaching has to be a work of God.  This is very difficult to genuinely discern in others.  Sometimes you can tell from a preacher’s attitude or lifestyle.  But these can be faked.  Yet if we turn the focus onto ourselves, it becomes a searching question – is your preaching done in your own power, or in prayerful and humble reliance on the empowering of the Spirit of God?

2 – The Bible text rightly understood. Some people will be fooled by preaching that bounces off words in a text to say whatever the preacher wants to say.  But true preaching reflects genuine study and understanding of the text. Genuine study and understanding will not be equally profound in every preacher.  If you feel inadequate in this area, don’t be intimidated and give up.  Keep growing in your study skills and your Bible knowledge.  In respect to the next message, try to stick in your passage and grasp it as effectively as you can.  The basics done well will be a blessing to all.  But if you short-cut by bouncing off words, or using the text to give your own message, then that’s pseudo-expository.

Tomorrow I’ll deal with the other two elements and note how they can be missed to create a pseudo-exp sermon.

Why Why Matters

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The question “why?” is critical for good preaching.

Why did the author write the passage? Wrestling with the intent of the author is critical if the goal is to understand the passage.  This means not only asking “what does the passage say?” – that is, content.  But also asking “why did the author write it?” – that is, intent.  Many people don’t consider the author at all, which is a big mistake.  Others consider the content carefully, but fail to ask “why?” This results in incomplete exegesis of the passage, which dooms the message to inherent weakness.

Why are you preaching this message? If this question is not asked, then we may fall into the trap of merely fulfilling routine, filling time, or even “doing our job.”  But really, it is important to ask why you are preaching the message.  This implies another “why?” question.  Why do these people need to hear this passage?  Prayerfully considering the needs of the listeners in light of the message of the passage will drive the preacher toward clarity in message purpose.  If my goal is to fill time, I am surely a master of that (who among us is not highly skilled in the rhetorical art of waffling?)  However, if my goal is driven by the text and the spiritual needs of those who will listen, then this will drive me to my knees in prayer and dependence on God.  The “why?” question matters because it forces clarity in purpose and reliance on God.

Why is that there? Not only does “why?” help in the big macro issues of understanding the text and determining the message purpose, it is also helpful in the micro issues of message detail.  Why is that illustration there?  Why use that quote?  Why am I planning to mention that historical detail?  Why does that exegetical note need to be stated?  Why do I take so long explaining that verse?  Why am I not explaining this term?  Every detail in the message should pass through the x-ray machine of the “why?” question.  Extraneous detail, whether in explanation or illustration, is not neutral, it is harmful.  Unnecessary stuffing, pieces without purpose, undermines the bigger “why?” of message purpose.

I’m not sure if it is possible to ask “why?” too many times in sermon preparation. “Why?” matters!

True Topical Takes Time

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Some churches apparently have “topical sermons” every week.  Apparently some preachers think they are easier to prepare and easier to listen to.  Yes and no. A topical message is easier to prepare if you are simply wanting to say your own thing and bounce off a couple of verses along the way.  A topical message is easier to listen to if people have a taste for anecdotal soundbites.  However, true topical preaching, what you might call expository-topical preaching, this takes time.

(Incidentally, people may have a taste for lite-topical preaching, but often this is only because they’ve not heard decent expository preachng.  It’s never a fair contest to pit engaging topical messages by good communicators against dry and tedious lectures falsely placed under the label of “expository preaching.”)

By topical preaching, I mean preaching that is not initially birthed out of a passage or passages, but rather birthed out of the concept or title.  A good expository-topical approach will then select appropriate passages and do the exegetical work in those passages so that the part of the message coming from that passage actually comes from that passage.  Hence expository-topical.  Rather than using or abusing a bit of a text to say what I want to say, the onus is on me to let that text really speak for itself.

It may be easy to jump through my five favorite verses and link them together with anecdotes, but genuine expository-topical preaching requires me to wrestle with each passage chosen, in context, so that the text itself is boss over that part of the message.  True topical takes time.

I’m not of the opinion that every message should be from a single passage (I do think that is a healthy staple diet approach).  This week I finish a mini-series on the ‘christian virtues’ of faith, hope and love.  A broad title like “Love” takes time.  Time to select which of the hundreds of passages to use.  Time to understand them and develop a coherent message.  Time to cut out and drop material that could so easily fill a series on the subject.  If the subject were not so thrilling, I’d be tempted to say that I’m looking forward to preparing a non-topical message again next week!

Intersecting “Life Experiences”

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Thanks to Sarah for commenting on the post about Illustration Saturation.  As I mentioned in the post, many of us struggle with finding and using “illustration” material.  Sarah asked how to improve at intersecting life experiences with the text.  Here are a few random thoughts to get us going.  Certainly this is no developed strategy, but it is a start:

Read Bible With Sensitivity to Humanity – When studying the Bible, it is right to be theocentric in our reading because the text itself is theocentric.  God is the main character of the Bible and should be the central focus of our preaching.  However, some preachers preach as if humans are irrelevant to the Biblical story and all we need to preach is God / Christ.  The reality is that the Bible is all about God as He interacts and engages with humanity.  Consequently, as we read any passage, we will also catch continual glimpses of human reality.  Bryan Chappell refers to the Fallen Condition Focus.  Are the characters doubting or trusting, in what, why?  Are they loving or hating, who, why?  What is the effect of the Fall in these people, what is God’s provision, what is their response?  These kinds of questions help us to look at people in the text and see that they are people like us.  Once we see them as real people rather than flannel-graph characters, then it is easier to highlight intersection between the characters in the text and our own life experiences.

Read Life with Biblical Sensitivity – As a preacher you are not always reading the Bible.  Once in a while you do other things too.  Whether it is watching the news or entertainment, people watching at work or in the store, enjoying the joys of parenting or whatever . . . try to read life with a sensitivity to what the Bible teaches.  Why are they acting this way?  What is this attitude called biblically?  What character in the Bible does this person remind me of?  We need to read the Bible as it is, real and living revelation of reality.  We need to observe life around us as it is, a living out of the Biblically described reality.

More thoughts tomorrow.  Feel free to comment, this issue could be addressed from many angles.

U.O.P. – Onus On Us

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Unity.  Order.  Progress.  Three essentials in effective communication of a message.  Yet it strikes me that we can sometimes take these for granted when we are preaching on a single passage.  Unity?  One passage.  Order?  Moving through the passage.  Progress?  Getting closer to the end.  If this is all we have, then I suspect our preaching may be bordering on boring, among other things.

Unity.  It takes more than simply having a single preaching text. After all, the content of a message “united” by a single passage can be totally random in examples, references, illustrations, etc.  If we work at grasping the distilled single sentence main idea of the passage, then there is hope of unity in the preaching.  But if we simply bounce off the text and go where our thoughts lead us, then there is no limit to the disunity that can result in our preaching.  How often do we hear preachers supposedly preaching from one passage that seem to feel compelled to refer to fifteen others?

Order.  It takes more than simply having a single preaching text. For example, if you are preaching a ten-verse chunk of text, simply moving from the first to the last does not guarantee a sense of order.  If we fail to wrestle with the text and grasp the essential flow of thought in the passage, then we may simply jump off apparently disconnected thoughts in each successive mini-chunk, resulting in an apparently disordered collection of thoughts.  Surely the biblical writers were not presenting disconnected mini-thoughts?  Yet how often do we hear preachers supposedly preaching from one passage, yet at the end we as listeners have little grasp on the flow of thought in the text, little sense that the passage itself actually makes sense?

Progress.  It takes more than simply having a single preaching text. As we preach, listeners should be moving with us through the combined explanation and application of the text in the experience we call a sermon.  There should be a start.  Then there should be the sense that we’re heading toward a finish.  If we fail to wrestle with the text enough to grasp the movement and purpose of the passage, if we fail to craft the message into a plot or journey that goes somewhere, then what happens?  We end up with a pedantic and plodding presentation.  How often do we hear preachers supposedly preaching from one passage, yet all around we sense that others are looking at the text, as we are, to see how much more of the message there is still to come?  These things ought not to be!

Unity, order and progress.  These are evident in each unit of biblical text.  But the onus is on us as preachers to make sure they are clearly present in our message on that text – the text alone will not guarantee it!

3 DQ’s – Dynamite Questions

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Okay, that should be “developmental questions,” but they are dynamite.  Sunukjian and others have followed Robinson in making quite a fuss of these three questions.  I would encourage you to do the same.  The questions represent the three ways in which a stated idea can be developed.  There are no other ways to develop an idea than in these three directions:

1. What does it mean? (Explain)

2. Is it true? (Prove)

3. What difference does it make? (Apply)

The great thing about knowing these three questions is that they are so versatile:

Use them in studying the passage – Unless the writer is moving on to a new idea, these three questions can help you understand what is going on in the passage.  Not only do they move you toward an understanding of content, but also authorial intent – which is so valuable as you wrestle with a passage.

Use them in developing your main idea – Consider your listeners in order to determine which of the three developmental questions are needed to develop your message.  If they don’t understand the idea, there’s no point jumping to application without further explanation.  Just because people understand what you are saying, it doesn’t mean they are convinced – perhaps proof and support is needed?

Use them in developing each movement in the message – What works on a macro level also works in the chunks.  With these three questions as keys to developing your ideas as you communicate, you need never scratch your head for things to say (few of us struggle with that), or simply pad the message with pointless filler materials (some of us may struggle with that!)

I don’t advocate a predictable and slavish repetition of these three questions under each point of a message.  I know some that do and the result is both predictable and often unengaging, not to mention how it can turn every genre into a dissected discourse.  However, it is not a bad discipline to be asking yourself these three questions, both in study of the passage and in preparation of the message.

Keep Looking

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Observation does not work in haste.  It takes time to keep looking at something and really see it.  I’m told that you cannot get the best out of an art gallery by rushing around and taking mental snapshots (my default approach).  I know that neither can you get the best out of a Bible passage from a quick glance.  The problem is that we find triggers to move on.

One trigger that often gets us, and therefore undermines our observation, is that we “find a message.”  We look at the passage, see a superficial outline, and then move on to forming the message.  In reality we would do well to continue observing the passage.

For example, Colossians 4:2-6.  When I first looked at that a few weeks ago, the structure was fairly obvious.  Paul is asking the Colossians to keep on praying (verse 2), for Paul to have opportunities to speak the gospel (verses 3-4).  Then Paul moves on to describe how their conduct should be toward outsiders (verses 5-6).  The structure is simple and it preaches: pray for ministers, and interact well yourselves.

It works, it preaches, but further observation helps to unite the passage further.  As it stands, my outline so far is really two almost distinct ideas.  However, the passage flows as one thought.  For instance, Paul urges them to pray for God to open doors for the gospel (v3), so that he may speak as he “ought to speak.” (v4).  Likewise, perhaps the action of the readers described in verse 5 implies the opening of a door, so that they will have opportunity to speak “as they ought” to speak (v6).  The passage is asking for prayer for “ministers” as well as for themselves, but it is not so distinct as “pray for ministers, but simply interact well yourselves with outsiders.”  No, the prayer (and the action) is for the opening of doors and then the appropriate speech to follow.  If the language of “minister” is used for verses 3-4, then it must also be used of verses 5-6.  There is a unity to the passage that a superficial outline may miss.

Often it is easy to see something that will preach, and then stop looking.  Let’s be diligent to wrestle more with the text, to believe there is greater unity to the thought than may at first appear.  The writer had a clear thought, let’s honour that by pursuing the thought as we study.

Preaching and Biblical Theology – Side 3

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

One last time, the basic definition of “Biblical Theology” that I am leaning on for this series of posts: Biblical theology is the fruit of studying the Bible in such a way as to recognize the individuality of each biblical author, the progress of revelation over time and the unity of the canon resulting from the inspired nature of Scripture. The question is whether our preaching neglects one side of this triangle?  So far we have looked at the issue of authorial individuality (both in style/vocabulary and in content/theology) and the progressive nature of revelation.  Now let’s look at the third “side of the triangle:”

The Unity of the Canon – We have 66 books written by roughly 40 authors.  Yet each was fully inspired and therefore there is an essential unity to the canon, forty authors, but also One Author.  When we preach the Bible as a human-only book, when we preach the Bible as tips from sages past, when we fail to preach the Bible as the theocentric self-revelation that it is, then we neglect the unity of the canon.

Guidelines – Recognize that your preaching passage does not stand separate from the rest of the canon, but carefully consider if and how to demonstrate the consistency of the Bible’s message (this is not necessary in every message, but should be an attitude consistently underlying our preaching, and purposefully demonstrated when considered helpful).

Again, there’s much more that could be said, but I’ll leave it there for you to take up the discussion.  Comments always welcome here!

Preaching and Biblical Theology – Side 2

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Here’s the basic definition of “Biblical Theology” that I am leaning on for this series of posts: Biblical theology is the fruit of studying the Bible in such a way as to recognize the individuality of each biblical author, the progress of revelation over time and the unity of the canon resulting from the inspired nature of Scripture. The question is whether our preaching neglects one side of this triangle?  Yesterday I considered the issue of authorial individuality (both in style/vocabulary and in content/theology).  Now let’s look at the second “side of the triangle:”

The Progress of Revelation – Over time, the revelation from God progressed.  If our Bible’s stopped at Genesis 3, we’d know very little.  If our Bibles stopped at Malachi, we’d be at a loss.  Our Bibles do not stop at Deuteronomy, or Malachi, or 2Timothy, or Jude (contrary to the opinion of some – I recently read a well-known scholar arguing that Revelation doesn’t add anything to the Bible in terms of theology, it just adds imagination!  We could play “spot the theological agenda” with that quote, but that’s going off point for this post!)  God gave us 66 books and each is adding to the revelation.  Thus it is important to recognize where your preaching passage sits in that progress.  We neglect this aspect of understanding the Scriptures when we fail to recognize the meaning of a passage in its context, at that time in the progress of revelation.  We can neglect this aspect when we always read everything through the “lens” of later revelation, without first honoring the fact that it is inspired Scripture even before that “lens” was added.

Guidelines – always seek to recognize the meaning of a passage as intended by the author at that point in the progress, before also recognizing how revelation progressed in the centuries that followed.  Perhaps consider whether more time needs to be spent on helping listeners see what the original recipients would have received from the passage, before jumping to a contemporary application, or even a New Testament filtered interpretation.  Always ask yourself, am I giving the impression that this text was not inspired or was not “useful” (2Tim.3:16) until a later book was written?

Other suggestions?  We’ll deal with the matter of the unity of the canon tomorrow to finish this mini-series.