Stage 3 – Passage Purpose

The Preacher’s Motivation

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday I pondered why a message might be considered a new take or somehow different from what was expected.  On this particular occasion I preached Matthew 1.  I wonder if there’s another element to add to yesterday’s list of thoughts:

4. Not overemphasizing the theologically rich element in the text. In this passage there is the quote and fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 and the virgin giving birth to a son.  Don’t get me wrong, I did preach that, explained the original context briefly, touching on the Immanuel theme developing right through to 9:6-7.  The Matthew text was clear that Mary was a virgin and that the baby was there because of the Holy Spirit, not any sexual impropriety. However, I didn’t turn the sermon into a theological lecture, nor an apologetic defense of Christian orthodoxy.  My reason for that was because of who would be listening, and because the text doesn’t do that.  As I was pondering this, I wondered whether sometimes we might be tempted to use a theological detail in the text as an opportunity to show off our own orthodoxy, rather than to help listeners understand the truth?  I don’t know, this is just a thought.  I think it is important, it is vital, to teach the theological truth of Scripture, to edify and educate the people in our churches.  Certainly we have too many biblically illiterate people in our churches these days.  But still, are there times when our motivation for a strong theological presentation in a sermon is not really for God’s pleasure or their benefit, but actually for us to demonstrate our theological acumen, or to take pride in our orthodoxy (especially in comparison to some exalted figure who has denied orthodoxy in some respect)?

Overly Narrow Application of a Principle

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I’d like to build a little on the post from three days ago.  Here is a post I wrote a while back, but am fairly sure I forgot to post on the site.  It offers another angle on the challenges of application, again overtly leaning on Haddon Robinson’s work.

In simple terms the homiletical process involves three stages.  The first is the exegetical work of determining the original writer’s meaning.  The second stage involves abstraction of that meaning via theological principalization to derive a timeless truth.  The final stage is the earthing of that principle for the listeners sat in front of you – the homiletical application stage.  At this point our task is to not only demonstrate the meaning of the passage, but also to emphasize how it is relevant to the listeners.

Application is set up for illustrative material.  By definition, application involves demonstrating how the biblical principle might be applied in a contemporary setting, what difference it makes to us today.  At this point in the message, it makes sense to use illustrative materials.  But beware, there is a trap that is easy to fall into.

The incomplete variety of application error.  The meaning of a passage, and the derivation of principle, are both inclined toward single statement results.  That is to say, there is one meaning.  But how is that principle applied?  There are usually numerous possibilities.  If you only present a single example application, even if you state that this is one possible application, listeners will tend to presume that is specifically what you are preaching (or even, what the Bible is teaching).

Haddon Robinson gives the example of “honoring your parents” in a Pulpit Talk audio journal.  One possible application he gives from his experience with his own ageing father – that he ended up in a nursing home.  Another possible application he gives from their experience with his mother-in-law – that she was cared for by Haddon’s wife in their house.  To give one example without the other runs the risk of communicating only one option for applying the principle derived from the passage.

When you are applying a passage, demonstrating and emphasizing its relevance for your listeners, be sure to indicate the variety of possible applications, rather than leaving people with a faulty understanding of the passage because of an overly narrow applicational example.

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!

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.

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!

Demand

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I’ve really been encouraged by reading James Stewart’s classic book, Heralds of God, again.  Here’s a quote that might be relevant before tomorrow’s message:

If you are wise, you will not in your preaching mask or minimize the overwhelming, absolute nature of Christ’s demand.  Men are ready for a Leader who will unhesitatingly claim the last ounce of His followers’ courage and fidelity.  Field-Marshal Wavell has told, in his notable lectures entitled Generals and Generalship, the story of how Napoleon, when an artillery officer at the siege of Toulon, built a battery in such an exposed position that he was told he would never find men to man it.  But Napoleon had a sure instinct for what was required.  He put up a placard – “The battery of men without fear”: and it was always manned.  This is no time to be offering a reduced, milk-and-water religion.  Far too often the world has been presented with a mild and undemanding half-Christianity.  The Gospel has been emasculated long enough.  Preach Christ today in the total challenge of His high, imperious claim.  Some will be scared, and some offended: but some, and they the most worth winning, will kneel in homage at His feet.

In the 63 years since this was published it is not just the length of sentence and complexity of punctuation that has changed.  I suppose it is almost impossible to write something like that today without being vilified from various sides.  Still, does he not have a point here?  From one side we hear that Christian preaching is too full of male dominated illustrations.  From the other side we hear that church is lacking in anything to attract men.  But actually, the calling on a life implicit in the gospel and biblical teaching is not a male versus female issue.  It is a captivated passionate pursuit of God versus a comfortably self-obsessed issue.  Whatever the terminology, let’s not preach a milk-and-water religion.

Preaching Story: Make the Switch

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

A switch that could make a big difference when preaching narratives.  How do you preach a story?

Common Default Approach – This is the approach that begins the message with the reading of the text, then moves on to talk about the story, noting elements within the text and giving both explanation and application based on those observations.

Strengths & Weaknesses – It is easier to read a text straight through than to interrupt the reading of the text, people know the whole story from the start and it allows great freedom in terms of what you do with the rest of the message.  These are strengths to one degree or another.  However, there are also inherent weaknesses in this approach.  The story becomes a specimen to examine, rather than a narrative to be experienced (once the reading is over).  The inherent tensions within the narrative are essentially lost, although a good preacher will attempt to rekindle them in the elements of retelling the narrative that follows the reading.

Original Force Approach – Okay, I made that name up, but it does convey my point here.  The simple switch I’m suggesting is instead of “read the story and talk about it,” rather try to “tell the story homiletically.”  What I mean by that is allow the form of the story, and the telling of it, to form the spine of most of the message.  In the process of telling the story, combine explanation of context, culture, historical setting, etc., with deliberate application for contemporary listeners.

Strengths & Weaknesses – The weaknesses that stand out to me with this approach are the greater challenges involved in telling a story effectively such as vivid description, maintaining tension, etc. Thus it may be slightly harder to preach well in this way.  However, the strengths of this approach are significant.  The original force of the passage can be recreated for listeners, whether or not they already know the end of the story.  The inherent tensions and intrigue in a narrative can become strengths of the message (you don’t have to create tension with a story, it has tension inbuilt).  Explanation can feel natural as the story is told, application can carry the implicit force of the narrative.  The ability of a narrative to overcome resistance is harnessed rather than lost (in the common default approach, listeners often put their guard back up once you start “preaching” again after the story’s been read).  There are other strengths too – while it may be harder to preach this way, it makes preaching preparation more interesting as you enter fully into the narrative rather than standing over it with scalpel in hand.  So much more could be added . . .

Next time you preach a narrative, instead of reading it and then talking about it, try telling the story so that the original force is felt as the thrust of the sermon.

Mindset Switch on Texts

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

The traditional approach to preaching a Bible passage is that it is a collection of data, probably in an antiquated form.  So for many preachers, coming to the text is coming in search of sermon content – data to be transmitted, information to be mined and presented.

In recent years awareness has increased significantly in regards to the inherent strength and function of Bible texts.  They are not collections of data presented in incidental forms.  Rather, it is becoming clearer to many that God speaks through the texts as texts.  God speaks not only through the information contained in a text, but also through the way that the text itself functions.  God did not only inspire the content, but the genre and form of the passage.  Poetry is poetry for a reason.  Discourse is discourse on purpose.  Prophetic writing is that way for a reason (this being a positive reason, not just an excuse to dismiss any content that doesn’t fit with your theology, as I see an alarming number of people doing these days).

If you are still of the mindset that a Bible text is a collection of data to be mined for personal edification and sermon preparation, please consider this switch.  Treat a text as a piece of purposeful communication.  The genre matters.  The form matters.  The function of the text is a key factor to consider in understanding the text.

Macro Framing

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

As a preacher it is important to know the big shape of the book you are preaching.  It is also important to communicate it.  Too many Christians see the books of the Bible as a random assortment of random  chunks.  Our preaching should not exacerbate that lack of macro awareness.  While preaching a passage it is helpful for our listeners to hear how this piece fits in the whole message of the book.

We won’t agree on every attempt to “macro frame” a Bible book, but we should agree that people need to recognize the unity and flow of the books.

The first three chapters of Ephesians describe the calling of believers as church – a body united in Christ Jesus.  Then from 4:1 on the book is concerned with the conduct of believers as church – a body living out its unity in Christ Jesus.  Calling: Conduct.  Overly simplistic?  Maybe, but better than only having random details or a couple of favorite verses.

What about Mark’s gospel?  Two big questions.  Who is Jesus and what does it mean to follow him?  In 1:1 the reader is told who He is (Christ, the Son of God), but the characters in the narrative take a long time to get there.  The hinge of the book is in the middle of chapter 8, where Peter makes his “you are the Christ,” confession, only to then put his foot in it by rebuking Jesus for introducing crucifixion talk.  But the reality is that a Christ who is simply miracle-working man of power is an incomplete Christ.  You can’t have the Christ without the cross.  So in the next chapters Jesus keeps explaining and predicting the cross.  He came not to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.  The followers of Jesus are to take up their cross and follow Him.  Do they get it?  When will someone understand?  Perhaps once the Christ dies on the cross, and the climactic statement of the centurion standing close by, “this man was the Son of God.” (1:1; 8:27-34; 15:39).  Mark’s gospel has a profound flow to it, but how will people know this if we don’t let it slip out in our preaching?

Romans seems to move through four chunks of thought – Our problem (we lack God’s righteousness – 1:18-3:20); God’s provision (he gives us His righteousness – 3:21-8:39); God’s promise (we can trust His promise of righteousness – 9:1-11:36); Our practice (we live out God’s righteousness – 12:1-15:33).  Now I know that this righteousness emphasis doesn’t also point out the other core issues of God’s faithfulness and unity between God’s people that spans the book.  Perhaps we can present differing macro frames of reference for the same book to help people see the big picture?

We’ll leave it there for now, but as preachers, let’s not miss opportunities to help people see where a passage fits in the flow of a book.  Let’s do some macro framing!