Stage 2 – Passage Study

Getting to Grips with the Genres: Narrative (2)

/ Mike Roth / Leave a comment

So if narratives function through plot, how does that look in 2 Samuel 11 and following? What is the rhetorical impact of the story of David and Bathsheba?

Narrative affects the reader/hearer through association or disassociation with/from the main characters. The story contains five parts. Background/Introduction: David should be at war like the other kings, but instead is in the palace lounging around on a sofa. He sees Bathsheba, lusts, fornicates, and sends her away. Inciting incident: David finds out that Bathsheba is pregnant. Rising action: David attempts to save face by bringing the noble Uriah home from war (Interesting to note that Uriah is one of David’s 30 mighty men – 2 Samuel 23:39). Uriah refuses to sleep with his wife after two attempts by David. Uriah is sent back to war with a letter sealing his own death. Uriah is killed. David receives news and comforts his commander. David marries Bathsheba and the baby is born – months go by. Climax: David is confronted by Nathan the prophet. Resolution: David repents and finds forgiveness for his sin… but forgiveness does not annul loss and pain. His son through Bathsheba dies. A son (Solomon) is promised to Bathsheba.

As this story moves along, listeners/hearers inherently associate with/from pre-Nathan David, Bathsheba, Uriah, Nathan, and post-Nathan David. The rhetorical impact is different for each person. For some there is comfort, for others there is conviction, etc. Like David, the story urges some to confess sin. Like Uriah, it encourages some to remain faithful to the Lord despite the wickedness and sin of others. Like Nathan, it urges some to confront sin in others. Like Bathsheba, it comforts the weak.

Getting to Grips with the Genres: Narrative (1)

/ Mike Roth / Leave a comment

Following-up on my 11/20 post, I will describe how biblical narrative functions and make some simple suggestions today. Tomorrow I will demonstrate its intended rhetorical impact using the story of David and Bathsheba.

Narrative is distinct in the way that it works as a type of literature. It employs plot to make its points. There are five parts to plot. “Introduction” is the first part. Introduction, introduces time and setting as well as the main characters. The stage is set in the introduction for the second part of plot to begin. “Inciting incident” is the second part of plot. In the inciting incident, some kind of problem or tension is set into motion that requires resolution. This problem or tension draws in the hearer and drives the plot forward. “Rising action” is the third part of plot. Rising action is usually the longest section of a plot. In this section, characters develop and tension builds. Rising action always leads to “climax.” Climax is the culminating point in the story. Here tension reaches its apex. “Resolution” is the final part of plot. In resolution, the result is harmony and happiness if it is comedy. The result is disharmony and sadness if it is tragedy.

Preaching suggestions for narrative:

– Tell the entire story. This ensures that you tell the story’s point, not your own.

– Faithfully develop the main characters. By this, I do not mean avoid any kind of imagination. Rather, I mean spend time imaging the main characters in ways that faithfully develop and highlight their parts in the plot.

– Allow the story itself to speak conviction, encouragement, exhortation, and comfort.

– Be careful not to kill the story by explaining it away. This is so easy to do in narrative! We treat it like an epistle and feel the need to explain every little thing. Let plot do the talking.

Bigger Passage – Bigger Big Idea?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Is it possible to arrive at one big idea for a passage, even if the passage is relatively long? The answer is yes, as long as you are dealing with a unit. Where there is a unit, there is some level of unity. In almost every case (maybe in every case), a book could be treated as a unit of Scripture. Within that greater unit there are sub-units. Perhaps we could call them major sections. Within major sections there are sub-sections. Within sub-sections there are complete thoughts. These terms are deliberately vague to allow for the different genres. But essentially a book is like a Christmas tree. The higher you go, the more is included within your chosen section.

For example, is it possible to determine a big idea for Ephesians 1:13-14? Yes, in the English Bible this is a sentence with a complete thought. (I know that for Paul it was not a complete sentence, but we’ll get to that!) Now if you step up a level, these two verses would be swallowed into 1:3-14. Again, big idea is possible, but would be different than just the last two verses of the section. Then you could step up a level again and preach that section swallowed within a larger unit – perhaps 1:1-2:10? Certainly you could move up to 1:1-3:21. Again, a big idea that would have to encompass more text, but still it could be a preachable big idea. Then you could move up another level and preach the whole book.

The main idea of a shorter passage becomes a point or movement within the main idea of a longer passage.

The important thing to remember in preaching a larger chunk of text is that you still have to deal with a legitimate unit of Scripture. Also, the details in the smaller units cannot be reflected fully in a succinct big idea. Be very wary of over complicating a big idea for a bigger passage. It may feel more responsible with the text, but it will undermine your main goal of communicating the text relevantly to your listeners.

Back-Burner Sermon Study

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

In ministry we often live under the tyranny of the urgent. Sunday comes about every three days, or so it seems. Often we are hard pressed from every side, not only in terms of sermon preparation, but all the other complex needs of complex humanity that we are trying to serve. So it is easy to get into a routine of short-term sermon preparation.

I think it is healthy to have at least one long-term project on the back burner. Something you would like to pursue biblically, perhaps theologically and academically. Over time, gradually redeem the brief moments of time that you can find by accumulating resources. Read a journal article now and then. Work through the biblical text piece by piece. Utilize your original language skills to the max.

Allow it to percolate very very slowly. Some weeks you may not even give the project ten minutes. But some weeks you will find yourself making time to pursue this element of God’s Word with a passion. Do not rush to formulate sermons. It’s easy to rush to sermon outlines and then think you are done with the project. Perhaps the end result will not be just a sermon or even a sermon series. Perhaps it might also be journal articles. Perhaps a thesis/dissertation. Perhaps a book. Or perhaps it will just be the fruit of long-term pondering on God’s Word. That might just be the most valuable fruit of all.

Imposing Points On a Text?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

In response to the Lazy Preaching? post, one reader asked the following questions – “Does not one run the risk of ‘imposing’ on the text your desire to extract one point? Should not the number of point(s) be driven by the text in question?” These are good questions. How would you answer them? Here’s a couple of things to bear in mind:

The text is in the driving seat – It is absolutely right to suggest that the text itself should inform the shape as well as the content of a sermon. We are not required to replicate the shape of the text, but that is the best place to start. If the text has two chunks, or three movements, then start off assuming your sermon will too. Then, when designing the sermon, evaluate whether this is the best way to communicate the message to your listeners. So we are not restricted to the shape or order of the text, but moving away from that should be thought through and purposeful.

A literary unit does have one “point” – Let’s not get confused on terminology. Here I am actually referring to the main idea, big idea, proposition, take-home truth or whatever label you prefer. That main idea will then typically be developed in more than one point or movement within the message. So while it would be wrong to impose any structure on a text, it is not wrong to look for the main idea. A true literary unit has a unity of thought. Whether it is a parable, a psalm, a poem, a paragraph in an epistle, a prophetic oracle, a proverb, or whatever, it has one main idea. The logic of communication determines that a unit of thought has inherent unity, and therefore that text can be distilled into one main idea by asking the two key questions – what is this author writing about? And, what is this author saying about what he’s writing about?

In reference to Andy Stanley, I don’t know much about him. I’ve never heard him preach. I just received his preaching book which I’ll review in due course, but all I know so far is what I read in that interview. He states that he preaches one point sermons. I wonder if he means sermons with one clear main idea? I’ll need to listen to him preach or read the book to find out. In reality, I suspect that he would use several movements within a message in order to drive home the one main idea (or point, if you want to use that terminology).

Lazy Preaching?

/ Peter Mead / 9 Comments

Andy Stanley, pastor of North Point Community Church, made a passing comment about lazy preaching in an interview with Preaching magazine.  He was talking about his desire to come up with a statement, a takeaway point in a sermon.  His stated goal was that a listener could come back to the same passage of Scripture later and say, “I know what that means.  I know what that’s about.”  Because of that goal he does not like to say, “Paul said” and “John said that again” and so on.  Here are his words, reprinted in Preaching with Power edited by Michael Duduit:

I hate sermons like that.  When I listen to them, I just turn them off.  I think just one passage that says it is all we need.  Just help me understand the one passage – please don’t proof text every point with a verse.  I think that’s lazy preaching.  It would be easy to develop sermons like that.

I tend to agree.  There are reasons to go to other passages, but far fewer legitimate reasons than many of us think.  When we have the opportunity to preach a passage, let’s do the hard work and really preach that passage.  It’s easy to skip all over the canon, but if there isn’t a genuine reason for doing so, it’s lazy preaching.

Getting to Grips with the Genres

/ Mike Roth / 1 Comment

Imagine a history teacher that teaches history like it is fiction. Imagine a poetry teacher that teaches poetry like it is math. To do this would be absurd. History is not fiction and poetry is not math. Each subject functions differently. History functions through names, dates, and other facts whereas fiction functions through plot. Poetry functions through imagery, meter, and rhyme whereas math functions through logic, rules, and order. Principle: to appropriately teach these subjects the teacher must let each subject speak.

This principle applies to homiletics. Different genres fill the pages of Scripture. In the Lord’s sovereignty, he chose to use narrative, prophecy, gospel, epistle, apocalyptic, etc. to communicate specific truths. If we use the same sermon form without considering the genre then we mash unique kinds of literature into foreign forms. As preachers, we must allow Biblical genres to speak and even form our sermons.

In following posts over the next few weeks, I will attempt to accomplish two things. First, I will highlight how different Biblical genres function. Second, I will highlight the distinct rhetorical impact different Biblical genres intend.

Preach to do More Than Satisfy Curiosity

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

The Bible was not given to satisfy curiosity.  It is truth that always intersects life in some way.  Consequently as preachers we must not pretend that arms-length analysis is sufficient.  We have to wrestle with how to help our listeners experience the truth that is being preached.

Haddon Robinson has pointed out that for many people, most of the preaching they have heard has satisfied only to the level of meeting some level of curiosity.  Sadly many in our churches have had years of Bible studies that are not dissimilar to filling out a crossword or Sudoku puzzle.  You get all the parts in the right place, get the thing completed and then feel satisfied.  But the Bible does not work merely at a curiosity level.  It digs deeper, intersects more fully with life.

Haddon was interviewed in 2001 by Preaching magazine.  In his words, “I think God’s truth is always designed to challenge us and change us.”  Let us pray that we never settle for satisfying curiosity when we have the privilege of being involved in transforming lives.

Prayer, Preaching, Professionalism?

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

 

Is there any stage of the preaching process that we should not be bathing in prayer? When people are first exposed to training in homiletics there is often an initial concern. Is this “process” reducing a highly spiritual ministry to a series of stages, techniques and professionalism? That would depend on the instructor, but I’d hope the answer would be no.

We should be praying at every stage. We should prayerfully select the passage and make sure it is a true literary unit. We should prayerfully study the passage and determine author’s purpose and idea. We should prayerfully consider our congregation and determine appropriate sermon purpose, idea, strategy and details. We should even pray about delivery, and of course we should be praying for the people as well as ourselves throughout the process.

Prayer does not result in a bypass around the work. Praying as we select the passage does not mean we will receive direct revelatory guidance about what to preach. Praying during passage study and sermon preparation does not excuse us from the long hours of wrestling with the text or the often grueling work of crafting the preaching idea, and so on. So we don’t pray begging for a hard work bypass. If we do receive an objective direct revelation then we should obey, but prayer is not primarily about that. Prayer is a lot about dependence, about humility, about asking for wisdom as we do our part of His work.

Let us be preachers who do not shy away from the work involved in our ministry, but let us also be preachers who never fail to pray at every stage in the process.

Piper’s Ten Tips from Edwards

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The final chapter of The Supremacy of God in Preaching by John Piper contains ten lessons from the preaching and writing of Jonathan Edwards. I’d like to list all, but highlight a handful for us this morning.

So here’s a list of half of the ten. Preachers should Saturate with Scripture their messages, and employ analogies and images, driving the teaching home with use of threat and warning. They should plead for a response and be intense. It is easy to see where Piper received his greatest preaching influence. Now the other half:

Stir up holy affections – Edwards was right in recognizing that the theological tradition he was such a big part of can easily fall into a mind and will centered anthropology. He was not an advocate for unthinking fervor, for the preacher must also enlighten the mind. However, if all the preacher does is educate the brain and pressure the will, he is missing the driving seat of a person, namely the affections. This is a lesson we would all do well to ponder biblically. Hence we should probe the workings of the heart.

Yield to the Holy Spirit in prayer – the preaching event is such a divine working that we are foolish to lean on our own “professionalism” as communicators. Who among us would say that their ministry has enough or too much prayer in it? For our preaching to reflect the Christlikeness that it should, we must be broken and tender-hearted – a fruit, in part, of much prayer.