Stage 3 – Passage Purpose

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.

A Purposeful Change

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I just returned from the campus of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. During the weekend I was able to spend some good time with Mike (the less frequent co-author of this site). He is enjoying a three-month well deserved sabbatical from local church ministry. In one of our many discussions, we decided to make a change to the stages presented on this site (and in preaching instruction I give). We have added a stage and adjusted the order slightly.

The Change – The central stages were previously three; passage idea, passage/message purpose, message idea. Now the central stages in the model are four; passage purpose, passage idea, message purpose, message idea. You’ll see them on the right menu bar.

The Reason – The new order makes sense. Purpose precedes and informs idea. This was true before for the message idea, but not the passage idea. Now the stages are more consistent. The details of the passage are studied for content and structure (stage 2), which helps to reveal purpose (stage 3), that all informs the goal of passage study – the passage idea (stage 4). Then the message development phase begins with sermonic purpose (stage 5), which influences the statement of idea (stage 6), that leads in to the shape of the message (stage 7). Since this is only a website and not published material, we can easily make this change.

As preachers we must be aware not only of the “what” in a text (content), but also the “why” (intent) and the “how” (genre/form). I believe that recognizing the influence of purpose as well as content in the forming of an idea is a step in the right direction.

How Do Ideas Develop?

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

If communication is all about ideas, which it is, then what happens to those ideas? Haddon Robinson regularly states that there are only three things that you can do to develop an idea. You can explain it. You can prove it. Or you can apply it. There is nothing else that can be done to develop an idea.

* In a biblical passage, what is the author doing? Is he explaining/clarifying, is he proving/convincing, or is he applying/exhorting? It is helpful in Bible study to discern what the author is actually doing as his thought develops.

* As you preach the passage, what does your audience need? Do they need explanation? Do they need to be convinced? Do they need to consider application?

* You do not have to do just what the passage does. It could be that a passage spends no time explaining a concept, but your listeners need that extra explanation. We must know our listeners and their needs as well as possible in order to communicate effectively.

* There is a logical progression to the three developmental options. Generally explanation precedes proof/convincing, and both proceed application. The progression is important to note, even though this does not require us to therefore be rigid in our preaching. We do not need to always follow a formula of stating, explaining, proving, applying, etc. This can be both tedious and unnecessary. But it is important to understand the three options, and to think through what is necessary at each stage of each sermon.

Expository Preaching is More Than a Commentary

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In Christ-Centered Preaching (p55), Bryan Chappell makes the following distinction:

“Expository preaching is not a captioned survey of a passage. By this I mean the typical: ‘1. Saul’s Contention, 2. Saul’s Conversion, 3. Saul’s Commission’ (Acts 9:1-19). In my own circles I think I have heard more sermons of this type than any other. They sound very biblical because they are based on a passage of Scripture. But their basic failure is that they tend to be descriptive rather than pastoral. They lack a clear goal or practical application. The congregation may be left without any true insights as to what the passage is really about, and without having received any clear teaching about God or themselves.”

He is so right. My circles also yield many messages of this type. If you look at tomorrow’s notes and discover you have a message like this, what can you do? Well, with just 24 hours to go, probably not too much. Try to change the points from captions to full sentences that state the idea of that section. Try to change those sentences from historical statements to contemporary applicational points. Or just preach what you have and pray for God to use it anyway.

However, before you start next week’s message, there are things you can do. First of all, remember that your goal is not to present a vocal commentary, but a message where God’s Word is vital and relevant to the lives of your listeners. Take the time to evaluate the listeners as well as the passage. Make clear notes for yourself on the purpose of your message. Seek to integrate relevance and application throughout the message, not only at the level of “illustrations,” but right in the points themselves. Make the points full sentences. Preach to transform lives, trusting the Holy Spirit to do the transforming, but not “despite” your message.

Repent of the faulty idea that merely getting biblical information into peoples’ heads, perhaps with a brief vague application in the conclusion, is enough. To preach an expository message, seek to bring the truth of the Word and the lives of your listeners into an encounter. It is about real life, not vague application. It is about the heart, not just the head.

Guarding the Authority of Application

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

We may strive for objectivity and authority in our exegetical work (although it is tentative due to our limitations). However we tend to feel very tentative when it comes to application. How do we make sure our contemporary applications of the text are in line with the passage and its theological truth?

Timothy Warren, of Dallas Theological Seminary, suggests two guardrails that will help keep an application on track and protect the authority of the application. The expositional process moves from the text, through exegesis and theological abstraction to application (the exegetical idea, theological idea and homiletical idea, if you like). On each side of this path, Timothy Warren suggests a guardrail to keep the preacher on track:

Guardrail 1 – Audience. By considering the original referent and description of the passage’s intended audience, the preacher can be protected from an inappropriate application to his audience. For example, if the passage was originally written to scold Israel’s errant leadership (such as Ezekiel 34), it would be inconsistent to scold a church full of faithful followers. The audience is different, so the purpose of the sermon will differ from the purpose of the text. We move from original audience, to universal audience, to our contemporary audience.

Guardrail 2 – Purpose. By recognizing the original intention of the author, it is possible to consider whether the purpose will remain the same or differ for the contemporary listeners. So why did the author write it? Why did God make sure it was preserved for all? Why are you preaching this passage to your specific listeners?

Every time we study a passage and develop a sermon we are moving through these steps: contextualized, decontextualized, recontextualised. By keeping aware of the two guardrails – audience and purpose – we can be more certain that our applications of the text are legitimate and carry the necessary divine authority.

Purpose and Preaching

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Defining the purpose of a message is not an easy task. It is important, but generally neglected. Let me share three steps that may be helpful, followed by a quote from someone in the know.

1 – Study the text. Seems obvious, but it cannot be omitted.

2 – Determine original author’s purpose. What did he intend to be the effect in the lives of the original recipients? We often study content, but not intent. We study the meaning of the author, but not his motivation. It is important to determine both as well as possible. There will be clues in the text, in the historical context, and in the tone of writing (contrast Galatians with Ephesians, for example).

3 – Determine your sermon’s purpose. This may be the same, or similar to that of the original author. For me this is the default position that I move away from by choice rather than by accident. The choice to move is influenced by prayerful consideration of my listeners. Perhaps they don’t need the same effect in their lives. I would not want to automatically rebuke every church to whom I preach Galatians. The developmental questions can help in this. The author may have focused on explanation, proof or application, but my people may need a different balance of these three approaches to the main idea. Application, if specific to our listeners, will certainly feel different to that in the original context.

Haddon Robinson said the “ultimate test of purpose is why are you preaching this sermon? How would you know if people in the congregation embraced the truth of this? What would you expect to see in their lives? What would this mean if they took this seriously? Most expository preachers don’t ask that question . . . without a purpose the sermon just lies there. Progress is lost without purpose.”

In reference to being specific, he asks, “Suppose someone took you seriously. What would they be able to do . . . ?”

Purpose-Driven Preaching

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Sometimes a term is used so much that it loses its sparkle. We live in a day when everything seems to be “purpose- driven.” However, many sermons are still preached without a clearly defined purpose. Jay Adams begins his book Preaching With Purpose with these words:

“The amazing lack of concern for purpose among homileticians and preachers has spawned a brood of preachers who are dull, lifeless, abstract and impersonal; it has obscured truth, hindered joyous Christian living, destroyed dedication and initiative, and stifled service for Christ.”

Perhaps it is better to avoid the term “Purpose-Driven,” but as preachers we can’t avoid the consequences if we neglect this critical element of biblical preaching. As you prepare your next sermon, write down a clear and specific statement of your sermon’s purpose.

Quoted: Jay Adams, Preaching With Purpose, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), 1.

Peter has commented on this post.

Sermon Purpose: Is There a Default Goal?

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

I recently wrote these words, “For an effective sermon, you need a clearly defined purpose – the specific response you prayerfully expect to occur in the life of the listeners.”

Does this mean the response has to be some kind of action? What if your purpose is to stir affection, bolster belief or improve cognition? These can all be very legitimate types of objectives for a sermon. Yet our default should be to preach for a response that includes, but goes beyond the heart and the head. Consider James 1:22 – “Be doers of the Word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.”

As a preacher we should usually consider how to legitimately apply the Biblical idea to ourselves and our listeners for transformed affection, belief, and conduct. We wouldn’t want to assist anyone in “deceiving” themselves!

One tip for preaching narrative (ok, two tips!)

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Have been thinking about the issue of preaching narratives (stories) from the Old Testament. Actually, much of this would also apply to preaching from the gospels or Acts as well. It is tempting to take the short-cuts of allegorizing, spiritualizing, exhortation to imitate characters, moralizing or, with OT texts, jumping to Jesus. Maybe each of these terms need to be considered on their own. But here’s a thought that is helpful to me. It is easy when studying a passage to focus entirely on the text itself (the characters, plot, tension, problem, resolution, etc.)

Tip one, study three contexts. To understand the author’s intention in a specific story, it is important to understand it in the context of the section and the context of the whole book. Biblical writers wove stories (and other forms of writing) together for a larger purpose, there is no random collection of narratives. So be sure to think about the writer’s purpose by considering the story itself, the section it’s in, and the whole book.

This leads to tip two, the one I was thinking of when I started this post! When thinking about how your audience relates to the text, don’t compare them primarily with the characters in the story (although that can be fruitful), but rather compare them with the original audience for the text. How much is your audience this Sunday like the original recipients of the biblical text and in need of the same message?