My post today is not here, but you can get there from here. It’s a guest post on a blog I appreciate very much – spreadinggoodness.org. It is a blog by Dr Ron Frost. I commend the blog to you, and I’m not just saying that because Ron has kindly invited me to post on his site!
For today’s post, please click here.
There is a lot of discussion about whether preaching is anthropocentric or theocentric (man or God-centered). Some like to get into the theocentric versus christocentric debate (God or Christ-centered). I am not getting into that one in this post (although I will mention a helpful category I heard recently from Walter Kaiser – christocentric is one thing, but christo-exclusive is another . . . I like that helpful distinction!)
Based on the nature of Scripture, I think it is vital that we grasp the necessity of theocentric interpretation, and consequently, preaching. Kent Edwards, in a journal article, stated:
The point of a biblical story is always a theological point. We learn something about God and how to live in response to him when we understand a biblical story. The narrative literature of the Bible is concretized theology.
J.Kent Edwards, JEHS 7:1, 10.
How true that is! Even if you were to study Esther, the story in the Bible where God is textually absent, it doesn’t take long to recognize that God is very much present as the hero of the story! Let’s be sure we don’t study Bible passages, stories in particular, and merely derive little lessons for life. We can leave that with Aesop’s Fables. Let’s be sure we grapple with the theological point of every story, the intersection between God and humanity. God’s Word is all relevant and useful, so our preaching should likewise be relevant and useful to life. But we also center our preaching on God, because the Bible is centered on Him!
I emphasize the need to preach a single text in most sermons. There are exceptions, but generally one text is the way to go. I want to be clear why I make this suggestion (today) and address a possible misunderstanding (tomorrow).
I strongly suggest preaching on one text most of the time, because it is so easy to scratch the surface of a passage and yet fail to preach the text. Multiplying texts only multiplies the likelihood of missing the point and failing to really preach the text at all. It takes a lot of work to wrestle with a text and have a text wrestle with you. It takes a lot of prayerful thought to engage with historical and written context, to recognize rhetorical structure, to analyze each detail of content, to ascertain authorial intent (purpose as well as meaning) and to synthesize the core idea of a passage. I don’t think I’m being lazy when I suggest taking multiple passages multiplies the workload beyond what most of us can bear (if we are to really preach rather than scratch the surface, or scratch some itchy ears).
As I wander through Preach the Word, I am taking advantage of little nuggets here and there to prompt posts. Today I’m influenced by Wayne Grudem’s article on “Right and Wrong Interpretation of the Bible.” He makes a point that I have probably made before, but it bears repeating.
Grudem writes, “It is possible to do a short or long study of any passage. Do what you can with the time you have, and don’t be discouraged about all that you cannot do.”
Study time is not prescribed. I’m often asked how long sermon preparation should take. A standard question, to which I give a probably standard answer – “as long as you have.” It doesn’t help to feel bound to a ten-hour minimum study phase if you simply don’t have ten hours to study the passage. Grudem gives the example of having to give a devotional talk with ten minutes warning. Can it be done? Of course. He doesn’t suggest it is a good idea to prepare for ten minutes, but it can be done. On the other hand, the same passage might be studied for twenty hours in anticipation of a Sunday sermon, for two or three hundred hours in the preparation of an academic article, or for a full year or more for the sake of a PhD.
Don’t be discouraged by time you don’t have. Seems obvious, but it’s so easy to get discouraged when we think of all that we have not done in our preparation. Resources not checked, words not fully studied, verbs unparsed, syntax not diagrammed, cross-references not referenced, etc. If you didn’t have time, God knows that, and we need to know that too.
Don’t be disqualified by time you didn’t use. I would add this to the mix. Often there is not enough time. But sometimes we fail to use the time we have. Obviously that is not good. Often it is inexcusable. Who was it that referred to time-wasting as the greatest sin of the younger generation? Anyway, when you know your time is running out and you can’t honestly say you used every moment as you should have, what should you do? You shouldn’t carry a weight of guilt and self-recrimination that steals your heart away from the privilege of knowing God and preaching His Word. It is important to do what you preach – keep a short account with God, confess, repent, accept forgiveness. We don’t sin so that grace may increase, but praise the Lord that there is plenty of grace in His character . . . we need it!
I’d like to share another post in light of the chapter by Leland Ryken in the book he co-edited entitled Preach the Word (in honor of Kent Hughes). In writing of the importance of understanding the Bible literarily and not just theologically or historically, he states the following:
A biblical scholar who caught the vision for a literary approach to the Bible has written regarding Bible stories, “A story is a story is a story. It cannot be boiled down to a meaning,” that is, adequately treated at the level of theological abstraction. A person listening to an expository sermon on the story of Cain should be aware from start to finish that the text being explicated is a narrative, not a theological treatise. The text exists to be relived in its fullness, not dipped into as a source of proof texts for moral and theological generalizations. (Ryken, quoting John Drury, Preach the Word, 43)
A couple of comments from me:
I agree with the general thrust of this, particularly what is affirmed. I fully agree with Ryken’s qualified version of the Drury quote – a story cannot be “adequately treated” at the level of theological abstraction. However, this is not to say that there is no place for theological abstraction in the preaching of stories. Listeners should know they are hearing a narrative preached, rather than a theological treatise. In fact, discerning listeners should, over time, recognize that very little in the Bible is best described as theological treatise – most of the Bible is highly “occasional” in nature, but still highly relevant to our “occasion” or situation. Certainly, let’s not treat any Bible passage as a source of proof texts!
I would slightly disagree with what is denied. Listeners listening to a narrative explicated will either consciously or sub-consciously be looking for both unity and relevance in the message. This puts the onus on us as preachers to make sure the main idea is identified and relevance is emphasized. This is not about abstracting from a narrative to create some sort of literary-less set of propositions. It is about making sure people don’t simply hear a story and make of it what they will. By working toward a statement of the main idea in a narrative, we are forced to study and seek to understand not only the content, but also the intent of the author. For a story is certainly a story, but Bible writers didn’t waste papyrus on entertainment alone, they were also theologians seeking to communicate about God by means of the highly effective literary form of story.
So let us preach texts in their fullness, let us make sure the stories we study are still stories when we preach, but let’s not think the hard work of defining the main idea is unnecessary with biblical narratives.
Yesterday I noted Leland Ryken’s comment that expository preaching “keeps its focus on the announced text instead of escaping from it to other material.” Another feature of expository preaching, in his mind, is as follows:
2. “Expository preaching interacts with the chosen text in terms of the kind of writing that it is instead of immediately extracting a series of theological propositions from it.” – Again, amen. Too much preaching treats every passage as a 2-D series of propositions, rather than appreciating and learning from the form the text is in. The Bible writers didn’t send post-it notes to their recipients. They thought carefully about the most effective way to form the message they wanted to communicate. Sometimes they chose to send a discourse in the form of a letter. Much more, they chose to write in some form of poetry. Even more again, many chose to communicate by means of narrative forms. Rather than focusing purely on the “what?” (content) of a text, we also need to wrestle with the “why?” (intent), both of which are influenced by the “how?” (form). Our general hermeneutics must also take into account the special hermeneutics related to the literary form of the text we are preaching.
Notice that Ryken resists “immediately extracting a series of theological propositions” from a text. This does not mean that literary analysis should lead to proposition-less, truth-free or vague-subjective comments about a Bible text. Different forms of writing allow a writer to communicate something more effectively, but the writer was still communicating something. To put it in simple terms, any Bible text is “someone saying something about something in some way to someone” (thanks to Gordon Fee for this insightful sentence!) The “in some way” is critical and literary analysis recognizes the influence of that in order to grasp the “saying something about something” – which in other terms is the main idea of the passage. The problem is not with finding the proposition of a passage, but “immediately” (rushing to that rather than really understanding the passage and its form), rushing to “theological propositions” (treating the Bible as a collection of proof texts for our personal systematic theology).
May we always be sensitive to the literary skill of the Bible writers, and thereby be more accurate and effective biblical preachers.
The first half of the preparation process is focused on the passage only. What is in it? What is its structure? Why did the author write it? What was his main idea? Then the second half switches focus from passage to message. I suggest that at that mid-point (between stages 4 and 5), is the best time to turn your thoughts and prayers to the listeners. This might involve a formal “audience analysis” or it might be just a few minutes considering your congregation, some key individuals and any current events that may influence how you preach to them.
So to put it simply, to get the message purpose (stage 5), you take the passage purpose (stage 3) and add in the “audience analysis.” For the formulaically inclined: Stage 3+AA = Stage 5.
Your message purpose begins with the passage purpose, but then you take into account who will be hearing the message. Do they have the same need as the original recipients? Often the situation is different, so the purpose will need adjusting before you can preach this passage to these people. Ask yourself whether the tone of the passage is appropriate for these listeners at this time. Ask yourself whether the passage assumes knowledge in the original recipients that is now lacking for your listeners. Do not ask yourself if the passage is relevant, but ask how the passage is relevant for your listeners on this occasion.
Perhaps you have already thought it through in this way, or perhaps this will be helpful to you. The eight stage preparation process can be stated in the form of questions:
1. Passage Selection – Which passage will you prepare to preach?
2. Passage Study – What does the passage say and mean? (What is the content of the passage?)
3. Passage Purpose – Why was the passage written? (The intent of the passage.)
4. Passage Idea – What is the author saying about what he’s writing about? What is the heart of the unit of thought? What is the main point here? (The goal is to write a one sentence statement succinctly and accurately.)
At the mid-point (not necessarily half-way through the preparation time), you begin to seriously consider to whom you will be preaching the passage. Audience analysis is essentially answering the “who?” question in reference to the preaching event.
5. Message Purpose – Why do these people need to hear this passage? Why will you stand and deliver this passage to them?
6. Message Idea – How can the idea of the passage be stated with an emphasis on the relevance to these particular listeners? How can the idea be stated in a way that is succinct, clear, accurate and ideally, memorable?
7. Message Outline – How can the purpose of the message be achieved? How can the idea of the message be delivered? This is the point of deciding the form of the sermon, the preacher’s strategy.
8. Message Detail – How can each movement in the message be developed: explained, supported, applied? How can the message be most effectively introduced? How can the message be most effectively concluded?
Just a couple of observations on this:
Observation A – The idea of a passage must be informed by both content and intent, by both what and why. Equally, the idea of the message must be influenced by the what of the passage, but also by the why of the message (ie.why preach this passage to these people?) Too often the idea of a message is influenced by content, but not by a carefully considered purpose for the message. (Even more “oftener” the idea is absent altgether, but that’s another issue!)
Observation B – The first four stages are all about probing and understanding the passage. Most of the questions in the last four stages are “how?” questions. The preparation of the message is largely a “how” issue – a matter of preaching strategy, creativity, deliberate clarity, etc.
I just read a post on communication that related to content versus visuals in their relative importance. The conclusion was that neither trumped the other, but in fact connection trumped them both. In the more specific realm of biblical preaching, we have to give precedence to the content, but that does not mean we neglect all other aspects of effective communication.
A point made concerned the preparation of a presentation. It is not good to start by sitting at the computer to plan the visuals. It is much better to spend time in thought with pen and paper to determine the desired outcome and the best way to achieve it. How true that is. It is true for a business presentation, and it is true, with modification, for preaching as well.
How easy it is to slip into starting with illustrations, visuals, message details. It is also easy to start with thinking about what we want to achieve and then go hunting for a text to utilize in that quest. But really we should be starting away from the PC, Bible in hand and congregation in our prayers. Good preaching preparation does logically follow the eight stages I advocate on this site, but this is not a formula. Good preaching starts with a real soak in the text, out of which can spring the budding thoughts on how to preach that text, outline, illustrations, etc.
It is that initial soaking in the text (study, analysis of structure, content and intent, coalescing of the main idea, etc.) which is the critical first half of the bridge we are hoping to build to our listeners. Too many preachers build backwards only to discover the bridge is weak on the Bible side and consequently, weak in authority, power, etc.
I don’t mean preaching your sermon based on another contemporary preacher’s sermon. I mean preaching a sermon based on a Scriptural sermon. There’s lots of them. It can be fascinating to wrestle with a sermon in its context since you would expect to find a sense of context, purpose, application, explanation, etc. If you haven’t given this any thought before, here are some places to go:
The Sermons of Acts – Acts is a book of action, but interestingly, the sermons are not introductory to the action, they are the action! Obviously the sermons in Acts are summaries of the original message, but studying them in their context and looking for what specifically the preacher was saying can be very satisfying. Paul has at least three sermons (not counting defense speeches). Peter also preaches in Acts (very slightly harder to understand and apply directly since things were shifting pretty rapidly in those first months, but still worth studying!)
The Sermons of Jesus – Matthew, for example, alternates between discourse (sermons) and narrative (action). So you have great blocks of teaching – the sermon on the mount, instructions to the disciples, parables of the kingdom, olivet discourse, etc. Since some of these are distilled surveys of teaching, it can be hard to define a specific sermon text, but it is so worth the effort. Who was he preaching to? Why did he preach it?
The only complete sermon – I see only one complete sermon in the Bible. It takes about 50-55 minutes, and it is absolute dynamite. The book of Hebrews is a sermon written down. The more I study it, the more I see it as a sermon. So many features of orality, so much application, so careful in its exposition, so powerful in its relevance to the first hearers.
Other sermons – then you’ve also got snippets of sermons throughout the Old Testament prophets. What a treasure so often neglected.
A case can be made for the oral nature of much of Scripture. With diligent prayerful study, you will find preaching sermons on the Bible’s sermons is immensely satisfying for you, and powerful in the lives of your listeners.
Biblical Preaching 