Stage 3 – Passage Purpose

Rumors of Commentaries

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

When I get to listen to a sermon, I sometimes pick up on a commentary vibe.  That is, a sense that the preacher has been spending some time in the commentaries.  Sometimes it is overt references to “the commentators” or a specific commentary (I am describing what I hear, not affirming the practice of citing and quoting the commentaries).  Other times it is a series of background facts that feel like they’ve come from some time in the books.

On the positive side I am always glad to know the speaker has been working in preparation for the sermon.  I’d much rather have somebody who has prepared responsibly than someone who is “winging it” without humble reference to “experts” in the field.

On the negative side I sometimes get a feeling of concern.  It’s hard to pinpoint, but it’s a feeling of concern nonetheless.  I wonder whether the commentaries have been conversation partners in the personal study of the text, or crutches leant on to short-cut the process of exegesis.  I wonder whether the commentaries have simulated wrestling with the structure and flow of the text and consequently the sermon, or whether they have merely furnished a dissected structure on which to hang the broken pieces of a partial sermon.

I thank God for commentaries and good commentators.  We are so blessed today with access to these reference works.  I think it is either arrogance or stupidity that would lead us to ignore them in sermon preparation (provided we are blessed with access to them).  However, they are just one part of our preparation.  We have to wrestle with the text, with its flow of thought, its meaning, its purpose, its idea.  We have to wrestle with the sermon purpose, its idea, its strategy, its structure, its flow, etc.

Commentary study alone will provide a veritable pile of tidbits that can easily fill the sermon time.  But remember that as the preacher, our job is not to fill sermon time, but to prayerfully, carefully, and personally develop a sermon that faithfully explains and relevantly applies the text for our specific congregation.

Do We Preach the Bible or Theology?

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

As preachers we have to determine a fundamental perspective in our approach to preaching. Do we preach the Bible, or do we preach a theology? Obviously when we preach the Bible we will preach theology, and hopefully we will do that well. And there are times when we must chose to address a particular theological issue (the atonement, for example). But generally, when we have a text to preach. Which is it to be? Preach the text or the system?

Let me be honest. There are some passages that feel slightly less comfortable in my understanding of theology than others. If you’re honest, that happens to you too. But my conviction is that when I have a passage to preach, I want to preach that passage. If my study of the text prods at my theology, then hopefully the theology is the one that gets reshaped.

The comment that sparked this post was just a throw away line. The biblical narrative was read. After a theological background was put in place we were brought back to the story. It was summarized in one sentence. Then the implication given was along the lines of, “the story is that simple, so let’s leave that behind . . .” The rest of the message felt like the preaching of a theology, with the narrative functioning as a loose illustration of the theology. (It would be better if the passage were ignored, rather than abused in this way, then listeners wouldn’t go away thinking they’d heard the passage preached.)

This is not about homiletical technique. It’s fundamental to our view of our role as preachers. We are to preach the text. Prayerfully wrestle with the text. Understand the text. Preach the text. Let the preaching of the text shape the theology, not vice versa.

The Pre-Sermon Bible Study Journey

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Bible study feels like a journey. Perhaps for others the terrain feels slightly different, but I can often discern three stages I go through in the process of studying a passage. I am not referring to exegetical method here, but rather to a sense of progress in my quest to understand the passage.

1. Apparent Clarity. Not in every text, but often the first reading seems relatively clear. Perhaps I recognize the characters, or note some rich preaching vocabulary or concepts. Whether or not I’m thinking about preaching it, the text seems initially clear. This stage does not last long. Once I start questioning the text, I soon move into the next stage:

2. Complexity and Lack of Clarity. As I seek to plumb the meaning of the passage, hunting for the author’s idea, it often becomes murky. There’s word study, lexical study, contextual analysis, wrestling with the flow of the text, alternating between synthesis and analysis, etc. At this point it is sometimes tempting to quit or go for a shortcut (like preaching multiple distinct ideas from the same text). If I prayerfully push on through, there is often the joy of arriving at the last stage:

3. Informed Clarity. This is where the relationship of the parts and the whole make sense. This is where the section is clear in its relationship to the flow of the book. This is a great place to get to in Bible study. This is the place I like to be before I think about preaching the text.

My fear for myself, and others seeking to be Biblical preachers, is that we will fail to preach out of a “stage 3” informed clarity. I see in myself the temptation to quit in stage two and preach some form of textual confusion (obviously we tend to paper over confusion to give apparent cohesion to the message). At times I hear messages where I wonder if the preacher even entered stage two at all. The presence of some “rich” preaching words seems to be enough to spark a whole message in some preachers! Let’s be sure to be diligent, to study and show ourselves approved, to push through to informed clarity for our own sakes, and for the sake of those who have to listen to our explanation of the text!

The Fine Art of Avoiding Over-Qualification

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

No biblical text says everything.  Each text says something.  So, we have a potential problem.  There is a constant temptation in preaching to over-qualify.  We are tempted to over-qualify the big idea so that it won’t be critiqued as biblically incomplete.  We are tempted to over-qualify the points of application so that we aren’t perceived to be imbalanced.  We are tempted to over-qualify the whole sermon so that we’re seen to be theologically well-rounded.

There is a place for qualifying.  Our big idea should not contradict the teaching of Scripture.  Our application should not be so imbalanced as to lead to harm or confusion.  Our whole sermon should be seen to fit fully in the category of “Biblical” preaching!

But, generally speaking, we are not required to preach the “whole counsel” from every text.  If we try to say everything, we run the risk of effectively saying nothing.  Let us prayerfully and carefully seek to let the force of the specific preaching text get through to our listeners.  Let us allow subsequent preaching to bring total balance.  Let’s not squeeze the sting out of each text and end up with a bland pulpit.

Relevance and Application, Cousins Not Twins

/ Peter Mead / 5 Comments

Biblical preaching needs to be relevant. It can’t simply be a theological lecture or a vaguely devotional time-out. It needs to be relevant. There are some who suggest that every sermon must include a series of action steps in order to be considered relevant. Would you agree with that idea? Are relevance and application close to the same, like twins in the preaching family, or are they more like cousins? What is the connection between relevance and application?

Determine the congregational need for the text to be preached. Perhaps there is a lack of understanding of the meaning and relevance of the text, so the message should inform. Perhaps there is a lack of emotional engagement with the meaning and relevance of the text, so the message should stir. Perhaps there is a lack of practical application of the meaning and relevance of the text, so the message should prompt and motivate action. Perhaps there is actually little lacking and the message should encourage and affirm. Perhaps in most situations it will be a combination of several of these.

Encourage application, but also the process that will lead to application. When the text sets up practical applicational action steps, then by all means communicate those clearly. However, simply giving people a list of application steps may be counterproductive. Too many lists, too little time – the reality felt by some listeners. Perhaps sometimes we should suggest possible areas or directions of application, but primarily encourage further prayerful study of the passage as the next step. Our task as preachers is not to be the only source of spiritual prompting, but to stimulate our listeners in their personal walk with the Lord.

A sermon can be highly relevant, even without the to-do list to close. What do you think?

Check the AA Map On the Bridge

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In the UK one of the companies concerned with caring for stranded motorists is the AA (the Automobile Association). This is essentially similar to the AAA in the US (and I should mention the RAC over here, who I used to work for and remain loyal to!) So the AA produce road maps to help you know where you’re going. Here’s an important tip – when you’re on the bridge, check the AA map.

Preaching, as John Stott taught, is about building a bridge between the world of the Bible text and the world of your congregation. If you look at the 8-stage approach we advocate on this site, you’ll see two parts to the bridge. The first part of the bridge-building is all about the biblical passage. You select the passage(s), study it, discern its original purpose and formulate the idea in it. That puts you 4-stages through the process. You’re half-way. Now check the AA map.

I don’t mean the Automobile Association. I mean your Audience Analysis. This is important because the last four stages are all concerned with effective and relevant communication of the passage(s) to your congregation. The message purpose, idea, outline and details all need to take into account who you are preaching to. So when you’re halfway across, when you’re in the middle of the bridge, check the Audience Analysis map and make sure you know where you’re going!

Purposes – There May Be Two!

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

It’s a fairly simple truth, but an important one. Sometimes, perhaps even often, the passage purpose (stage 3 in our model) and the message purpose (stage 5), will differ. While it may sound very orthodox and biblical to suggest that the purpose for preaching any text is the same as the writer’s purpose in penning the text, this is not always the case.

Take 1Corinthians 15 as an example. Paul is addressing a church caught up in an idea of their time. The idea that the church had swallowed from its culture was that bodies are bad, being spiritual means being non-physical and there was essentially nothing more to come in the future, because they had already “arrived” spiritually. So, for example, when Paul tells them that both the living and the dead believers will have their bodies transformed at the coming of Christ, that would have been felt quite forcefully. Today however, our common thinking in the church is often somewhat different. Perhaps a congregation may generally accept the reality of the coming resurrection and not be caught up in an anti-somatic (“anti bodily existence”) philosophy, or perhaps they give no thought whatsoever to our future resurrection. Obviously it depends on the congregation. Just because the need of the people may differ, this does not mean that the text is needed any the less. We just have to be careful to think through the author’s purpose, and our purpose in preaching that text. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful . . . and part of our responsibility is to know our people enough to know what angle on the passage idea they need to receive!

Be sure to think through the author’s purpose in writing any text, but also think through whether your purpose in preaching it will remain the same (sometimes), or differ (sometimes).

Mapping Your Thought

/ Peter Mead / 7 Comments

Some people think in a very linear and text-oriented way.  Others don’t.  I find the use of mind maps or concept maps to be helpful in my Bible study.  Somewhere between analysis of details and synthesis of discourse using a conventional outline, I often find myself doodling a map or diagram on paper.  For instance, when trying to define the relationships between the major themes in Hebrews, I started to map out my thoughts.  Suddenly I have a piece of paper with major and minor themes, circles, linking lines, arrows and so on.  I wouldn’t show this paper to my congregation, but it helps me process the mass of information into a more coherent and dynamic understanding of what is there.

Typically I will take appropriate elements of that thought and convert back to an outline form (and if possible, a full manuscript), but there are also possibilities in respect to replacing outlines and notes with sermon maps.  Perhaps I’ll address that another day.  At this stage I am merely suggesting that some may be helped by free doodling of the themes, ideas, flow and theology of a book or section of book during stage 2 – passage study.

There are software tools available, some free to download.  I haven’t explored those possibilities yet, but if you know of one that is easy to learn and use, let us know about it!

Happy New Year! Resolution Anyone?

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

To be honest I am not a huge advocate of resolutions.  But this year I have been inspired.  I have one that is very fresh in my thinking right now.  Of course, as preachers, there are many possible resolutions.

Do You Have One?  Perhaps to pray more specifically and fervently, to apply more directly, to call for response more overtly, to preach from a book you’ve never touched before, to continue to develop by reading a preaching book, or maybe one each quarter, to attend a conference or training event for further equipping, to take a formal class or distance learning course, to get specific feedback or pre-sermon input every other month, to begin the process of mentoring another preacher during the year, to get more involved in your church small group program so as to get to know your people more fully, to read through the Bible in English once, twice, more, to read the New Testament through in Greek, to approach someone and request their input as a mentor, to preach first person properly for the first time, to preach from a difficult genre, to refresh or stretch yourself in exegetical skills, theology or some other area of “divinity” studies.  Do you have one?  Maybe one of these, or maybe another of your own, feel free to share a comment as it may motivate others to follow your lead.

Here’s Mine!  All of the above are good ideas.  But the one that is really burning in me at the moment is not new to me.  It’s not about turning over a new leaf.  It’s about continuing to do what I always try to do, but with even more conviction.  Brief story:  The other day I finished preparation for my Sunday evening sermon on Hebrews 13:20-21.  I had some spare time and was curious what other preachers have done with the text since it is not a typical epistle paragraph.  So I did a search and a quick skim through about ten sermons on the text.  I entered the process with a small amount of interest, I finished with a large amount of concern.  Some of the sermons had good content, very orthodox, theologically solid, but why was it that none of the examples I looked at seemed to be trying to preach what the author intended?  Why did they feel like Bible truths strung together by passing reference to these two verses, rather than actually preaching the intended truth of these verses?

My resolution for 2008 is to strive always, passionately and prayerfully, to actually preach the text I claim to be preaching.  You?

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.