Hearing the Text

November 4, 2011October 31, 2011 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

This post is not about amplification, nor about the place and role of the Bible reading. Both issues would be worth considering, but not today. I’m talking about the message itself. It is troubling when you hear a sermon and can’t quite seem to hear the text coming through.

This is where the big idea approach to preaching is so on target. If the big idea of the text is the control mechanism during message formation, then the text should be coming through. Sadly though, too many preach generic messages that essentially disconnect from the text itself.

I suppose preaching is essentially very easy for some folks. A thirty-five minute message is really only a couple of minutes of “worked material” that builds tenuous links between the text and the message. Once the text is tied in somehow, the standard message content can flow freely without hindrance. Easy.

Some people do this by leaving the text behind. It is read, a couple of comments are made, and then the message moves on from the text into generic sermon zone.

Others do this by pulling from the text the three things they want to find there. Perhaps something pointing to human sin, and something to do with God, and maybe something along the lines of consequences, or perhaps a vague segue to Calvary, or whatever. Thus the narrative is plundered for intro links to the message the preacher intended to preach.

Let me encourage you to make the preaching text more than an introduction for the message, or an introduction for the points. Allow the text to be master over the sermon.

Seek to preach so that God’s Word is communicated and God’s voice is heard. Seek to preach so that listeners can clearly hear the text and its influence on the entire message. Seek to genuinely preach the Word.

Strategic Application Saving

October 14, 2011October 14, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday I met with a good friend to talk through a passage he is going to preach soon. I love conversations like that! As usual, within a few minutes I was starting to wish I were also preaching that passage. Just a side comment, but pre-preaching conversations about a passage with another preacher can be so fruitful! Anyway, onto the point of today’s post…

I think application is generally best incorporated throughout a message. So instead of lengthy explanation followed by a block of application at the end, we can demonstrate the relevance of the message from the introduction onwards, and at every transition, within every movement of the message, etc. But with the passage we were looking at yesterday, I felt that this was an opportunity for strategic application saving.

His passage has two foci of potential application. One relates to the kind of people we will encounter as we go out into the world to share the gospel. The second relates to the kind of people we are within the church. My suggestion was to make the whole focus on the former, and save the latter until the very end. Why?

My sense was that if he hinted at, or overtly referred to, the possibility that there might be people with false motives in the church, then subconsciously the listeners would have their guard up. Instead, better to focus the application of the passage on “the big world out there and what we will encounter as we share the gospel” for the bulk of the message, allow the listeners to become engrossed in the narrative from Acts, and then at the end introduce the “but what about us in here” target.

Withholding an aspect of application can be very strategic when listeners drop their guard and are therefore more open to be struck by its relevance. Our tendency as preachers is to give away too much early on in the message. Even a little comment like, “this passage speaks to what we will meet out there, and also what kind of people we are…” – that mini comment early on could change the reception of the entire message.

If part of the relevance of a message might be resisted, pay special attention to when you introduce the thought. One option is to avoid early references to it, get the guard to drop, and then perhaps it will hit home more strategically.

How to Preach the One True God – Part Two

October 1, 2011September 30, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

So do we have to thoroughly define terms every time we mention God? That is, will every sermon be thwarted by a systematics lecture within moments of setting sail from the introduction? Not at all. Here are four suggestions that I think will have cumulative power without disrupting every sermon completely. Remember the first suggestion from yesterday though . . . you need to know the difference between the God defined by philosophy and the one true God who has revealed Himself in the Son and through the Spirit.

2. Repetition of “which God” question – by repeatedly pointing out that not every assumed description of the “one true God” is biblically true of the “one true God.” Some assumptions are true of Him, but not primary in His self-revelation. Just as it can be powerful in an evangelistic setting to ask someone who doesn’t believe in God which God they don’t believe in, so it can be powerful to open the subject up to Christians and ask which God they do believe in. It is a dangerous assumption that all who refer to God mean the same being, or even are clear on who He is. Sadly too many end up assuming a sort of impersonal ultimate force rather than the feeling, thinking, personal, loving creator God of the Bible. Let’s chip away at the naive assumption that everyone basically knows who God is.

3. Emphasis of particular text in light of its context – just as we can overlay a certain set of divine assumptions on the Bible as a whole, so we can easily do that with particular texts. Try to be more nuanced in making clear what a text is offering us as it reveals God. For example, Yahweh high and lifted up in Isaiah 6, holy holy holy . . . needs to be preached in light of Isaiah 1-5, where His heart for the whoring faithless nation who don’t draw near in loving devotion is made clear. Sovereign and holy? Absolutely. Distant, cold, rule-obsessed and uninvolved? Never! Without seeing how God reveals Himself and His heart in chapters 1-5, the sixth chapter can be preached with wrong emphasis, and the last five verses can really end up preaching that other philosophically-driven view of God.

4. Emphasis of particular text in light of complete revelation – that is to say, don’t give the impression that “God” in the Old Testament is just “Father” in New Testament terms. How easy it is to give the mistaken impression that God becomes a trinity when the Son is incarnated. The God of the Old Testament is trinity, even if each particular instance doesn’t make that clear. Was it the Father than spoke face to face with Abraham, that wrestled with Jacob, that spoke to the elders of Israel, etc.? What about the Spirit in the Old Testament? Any time we see “God” referenced in the Bible, we must be sensitive to the content and the informing theology at that point in the progress of revelation, but we shouldn’t forget what we now know more clearly about the one true God being trinity!

5. Since God is trinity, repetition of trinitarian hints are worthwhile – just to reinforce the previous point, don’t feel you have to fully explain the Trinity every time you mention it. Why not intrigue people with a sense of the beautiful attractive wonder of who God really and personally is through trinitarian hints as you preach the Bible. Don’t wait for the overt trinitarian formula to refer to trinity. Don’t miss the Father/Son language and turn that into a generic one-size-fits-all “God” reference as some preachers and authors do (almost giving the impression that the Son is somehow less than God). Don’t ignore the trinity in the Old Testament where there is a hint, and even where there isn’t. After all, we want to preach the one true trinitarian God of the Bible!

Ok, two posts over the daily limit . . . I need to stop, but feel free to comment.

Preach the Text, Not Just From a Text

September 15, 2011September 15, 2011 / Peter Mead / 8 Comments

Sometimes preachers give away their entire main idea in the title they advertise ahead of time. I think I’ve done that with this title. It’s one of the things that always makes a message feel either like biblical preaching, or not truly biblical preaching. Does the preacher preach the text? Or does the preacher preach from a text, using a text, referring to a text?

1. The difference demonstrates the preacher’s view of the Bible. For some, the Bible is a great data bank to be raided for foundational wording on which they can build their presentation. For others, the Bible is a continual source of delight as they come fresh to texts each time they preach them and encounter God in His Word, before bringing the ancient word ever fresh and new to the listeners. Is your Bible old and static, or dynamic and relationally connecting?

2. The difference demonstrates the preacher’s view of preaching. For some, preaching is primarily about their own craft in preparing a message where the text is an ingredient, a factor. For others, the Bible is the master lens through which God is seen by the needy listeners as His Word is effectively presented in the preaching moment.

3. The difference demonstrates the preacher’s view of the listeners’ need. For some, the listeners come together for a church service in which they need to have the sermon slot filled with good sermonic art and craft, a bit of polished poetry, a touch of humor, a hint of depth and a good measure of preacher’s personality. For others, the listeners have a profound need, whether they are unsaved or saved, of an encounter with the God who reveals Himself fully and freely in His Word.

4. The difference demonstrates the preacher’s view of themselves. For some, preaching is an opportunity to demonstrate their own faithfulness to the gospel, or cleverness with words, or artistry with concepts, or craft with alliteration, or ingenuity with a book of sermon illustrations. For others, preaching is about communicating God’s Word to the people God brings together, in the power of God’s Spirit, and the focus, strangely enough, is on God, not the preacher.

Not a Fig

August 16, 2011August 10, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Oliver Wendell Holmes is credited with this great quote – “I wouldn’t give a fig for simplicity this side of complexity, but I’d give my right arm for simplicity on the other side of complexity.”

Preacher, where do your sermons sit?

Cheaper than a fig – This is preaching that is simple because it is shallow. The preacher hasn’t wrestled with the text, hasn’t entered into the complexity of the passage, it’s theology, the interface between ancient text and contemporary listener, etc. The preacher is just demonstrating shallow incompetence. Technical commentaries have been ignored. The text has received only scant attention. The sermon is simple because it is simplistic. It doesn’t engage listeners. It doesn’t shed light. It doesn’t stir hearts. It has the nutritional value of a burger bun.

Complexity – This is preaching that has gone beyond the fig stage. The preacher has started to wrestle with the text. The preacher may have engaged in dialogue with some technical commentaries. The preacher has mapped out some or all of the complexities of the theology and its interface with contemporary life. It may be complex because the preacher hasn’t cut out unnecessary detail. Or it may be complex because the preacher hasn’t really got to grips with the details. Or it may be complex because the preacher is trying to impress. Whatever the cause, it is complex. Hard to listen to. The listener has to really work to benefit. Much nutrition, but as hard to digest as day-old steak.

Costly as a right arm – This is the goal. The preacher has gone beyond the shallow into the depths. The preacher has studied, and wrestled, and prayed, and thought themselves through to a place of clarity. This isn’t simplistic, this is profound, yet accessible, relevant, clear, engaging. They often say that the very best sportsmen and women make hitting the ball, shooting for goal, playing the game look so easy. It isn’t because they are just natural at it. It is because they have endured the work necessary to get to the other side of complexity. That’s why we pay so much to watch them. Too many preachers are worth less than a fig because they are simplistic, or so complex that the gold seems hard to mine. If only more preachers were right arm types – having thought themselves through to a level of clarity that is blessing to all who hear.

Bible Handling Mirror 2

July 20, 2011July 15, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

So we all think we’re biblical when we preach. But how good are we at handling the Bible. Yesterday I suggested five questions to ask in pursuing feedback on this matter – questions on observing the text closely, interpreting in context, awareness of historical background issues, grasping the flow of thought in a passage, and accurate interpretation of the details. Having asked about context issues, let’s continue with questions relating to content, before returning to broader biblical context questions:

6. How sensitive am I to the tone of the author? Do I treat the text as an ancient data dump, or have I tapped into the actual tone of the author? Am I sensitive to his mood, his intent, his heart beating in the words that he wrote?

7. How appropriately do I point to the weightier details of the passage? Every passage consists of details, and some are weightier than others. Do I spend my time where it matters, or do I get bogged down with subsidiary details?

8. How aware am I of the earlier texts that feed into this passage? If a passage is quoted, am I aware of that passage? If a passage is alluded to or influential on the writer, do I seem aware of that?

9. How well do I place this passage in the full panorama of Scripture? This differs from question 8 because that was only looking at what had come before. This question is asking about the whole canon, all of it. Am I alert to where this passage fits in the progress of revelation? Do I make sure that this passage is preached appropriately for today?

10. How good is my summary of the passage, really? I suppose we should ask if there was a summary statement of the passage . . . but assuming there is, how is it? Does it reflect the nuances and uniquenesses of the passage, or is it too generic? Does it capture the heart of the passage? Would it get a knowing nod from the author as an accurate summary of his intended meaning?

Finding people who could give you feedback on these ten questions could make the difference between you being self-aware and being self-deceived. Don’t be naive. Try to find out how well you are handling the Bible, honestly. Then let’s all grow more and more as preachers of the Word!

Bible Handling Mirror

July 19, 2011July 15, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Every preacher probably thinks their preaching is biblical. Even that really bad preacher that you once heard. Sadly, probably especially that really bad preacher that you once heard! To put it bluntly, we all have a tendency to be naive about our level of biblical accuracy. It is genuinely hard to know what you don’t know. There is never a guarantee that you will spot poor Bible handling in the mirror. So, what to do about it?

Well you can take courses from trustworthy instructors and see their feedback on your Bible handling. Or more immediately, you can ask someone who knows what they are talking about for feedback. (The only problem with this is that if you don’t what you don’t know, how do you know if they know . . . still, worth getting feedback, probably from multiple evaluators.) Some probing questions to ask them:

1. How diligently do I observe the text? Am I really careful to see exactly what it does say? Do I notice the key details? Do I represent what is actually said in the text precisely? To put it another way, am I diligent to preach this text and not jump from it to say what I want to say?

2. How effectively do I interpret the text in context? Am I obviously alert to, and influenced by, the context in which the passage sits? Do I seem to be genuinely familiar with the book as a whole? Do I show how the details of this passage make sense in light of the flow of the broader section in which it sits?

3. How familiar am I with the relevant historical and cultural background to the text? Am I preaching the text demonstrating a natural familiarity with the historical background, the cultural background, the geography, the “world” of the text? Or am I preaching the text at very long arms length with all the presuppositions of our individualistic, affluent, democratic, freedom obsessed culture firmly in place?

4. How alert am I to the author’s flow of thought? Does the sermon feel staccato and bitty, or do I show the flow of thought? Does it feel like separate thoughts bound together by a title, or does it feel coherent?

5. How accurately do I interpret the details in the text? The words, the names, the grammar, the dialogue, the details. Do I show a good level of precision when it comes to the analysis and close work in the text?

I’ll add another five tomorrow…

Torrents of Trite Truths

July 7, 2011July 7, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Little story. Almost a decade ago I was teaching a class in a Bible college overseas. I was teaching a wonderful group of enthusiastic church ministers how to handle the New Testament via a survey class. It was such a delight to share with them in that setting.

One day during the eight-day course, we had the chapel time with all the classes and staff present. A pastor was visiting from a church that had put a lot of funding into the institution, so naturally the “big church” pastor was invited to preach during chapel. It was painful.

He wasn’t really preaching a text, so much as preaching platitudes. Problem was that the enthusiastic students seemed to trigger something in him. Swept away on the wave of vocal affirmation, the pastor noticeably “rose to the occasion.” He went off on a wild safari of pithy alliterated lists and trite truths. Each time he got a vocal response he cranked it up a level. The room was electric. I sank lower and lower in my seat, oscillating between anger and momentary depression.

As I left the chapel (time eventually ran out and he had to stop), my young travel companion made a discerning comment about the whole thing. Unfortunately the students were different. They processed the difference between what they were learning and what they experienced from the “great preacher” by dividing learning from preaching.

Oh yes, there is a right way to handle the Bible and honour the message that God inspired. And there is a great way to preach so that listeners are stirred into a frenzy affirming trite truths and pithy epithets. Disconnect. One didn’t feed the other.

I feel like I say this regularly in as many ways as I can think of, but let me say it again: please please please preach the text you are preaching. Anyone (including four year olds) can spurt the truths of the faith learned parrot fashion. Surely God wants those mature enough to be sensitive to His inspired text to carefully and humbly be fed and feed others from the Word.

Tone Deaf Preaching

July 5, 2011July 5, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

You won’t hear me starting a chorus in public. Tone deaf. But what about preaching? Is there a need for aural sensitivity in the preacher? I think there is, absolutely.

What is the tone of the text? Some preachers deal with texts as flat data sets offering them a set of information from which to draw a textually rooted sermon (which is better than those who use the text as a springboard to bounce off to reach the heights of their own constructed sermonizing!) But if we are going to be genuinely biblical preachers, then we must develop a sensitivity for the tone of the text. Galatians 1 is very different from Philippians 4, which is neither Psalm 51 nor Isaiah 40. What is the tone of the text? Without sensitivity to the tone, you aren’t grasping a text properly.

What is the tone of your preaching? It doesn’t matter how good a sermon may be on paper, your congregation have to hear you preach it. This means how it comes across is very important. If you are consistently coming across as nagging, or edgy, or aggressive, or disrespectful, or patronizing, or prideful . . . and if you don’t know it, this is a problem. Ask for honest feedback. Listen to yourself. Watch yourself. Is the tone what you want it to be? Is the tone what the text suggests? Is the tone what they need it to be?

The tone of the text. The tone of the preacher. Some preachers seem tone deaf to both. Good preachers aren’t.

One Simple Truth

June 27, 2011June 27, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I have to admit, I like a lot of what Andy Stanley has to say about preaching. One thing he does well is to say all that needs to be said, but without over packing the sermon. He sometimes speaks of preaching “one simple truth.” This issue tends to stir a reaction one way or the other:

On the one hand there are those that simply can’t find their way through a download of exegetical information. It is all too foreign. Too distant. Too technical. Too alien. Too irrelevant. So a dense sermon will leave little to no mark on them, other than boring them away from God and His Word.

On the other hand there are those that simply can’t cope with a sermon so simple that they gain nothing new from the experience of listening. It is all too simple. Too be there, done that. Too basic. So a lightweight sermon will leave little to no mark on them, other than boring them away from God and His Word (and probably exacerbating their pride, which helps nobody!)

So what to do? I don’t advocate simplistic preaching, nor dense preaching. I think we need to prayerfully pursue an engaging and accessible re-presentation of the biblical text, seeking to apply the text to the hearts and lives of those listening. With this as our goal, we should be able to satisfy most who want something of substance. At the same time, a loving consideration of listeners will allow us to avoid going over the heads of the listeners. It is our job to make the difficult accessible.

There may be a handful that can’t ever be pleased. Anything more than “do this, do that” and it is too complex. Anything less than rabbinical midrash and never-before-seen pesher and it is too basic. But for the most part, engaged and touched listeners will not be thinking “too basic” or “too complex.”

It is the disengaged and untouched that tend to swell the ranks of dissenters and create the tension.