Stage 4 – Passage Idea

Idea to Idea, or Outline to Outline?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Some preaching methodologies suggest that the main idea is what crosses from textual study to sermon preparation. Others suggest that the outline of the text crosses over to form the outline of the sermon. Which is right?

Both, but with qualifications.

The idea is in charge of the message, the outline is not. Remember that the main idea of the passage was what the author was seeking to communicate to the recipients, and he chose to do so making choices about genre, structure, details, etc. Everything after the idea is a matter of authorial strategy. As we prepare to preach, our goal is to firstly grasp the main idea of the text, process that idea so that it takes into account the needs and situation of the listeners, and then consider how to form a sermon that will effectively deliver that main idea.

The outline of the text is not boss, but it does matter. In my approach, I teach a narrowing focus in the textual study that culminates in the defining of the main idea of the passage. That idea is then influenced (in certain respects) by an overt awareness of the listeners which determines the purpose of the message, and then the message idea is then in charge of the subsequent decisions relating to strategy (including the message structure, the illustrative details, intro, conclusion, etc.)

Having said all that, when it comes to the structure or outline of the message, where do I begin? With a contemporised outline derived from the passage. In effect the work done on the idea is also done on the outline.  So why don’t I overtly state that in the 8-stage process?

The outline of the passage is a starting place, but it does not always have to be obeyed. My default approach is to follow the strategy the author used by following the order and structure of the passage in my message outline.  However, I don’t feel restricted by this approach.  Sometimes the contemporary listeners are in a different place to the original recipients.  Sometimes they need differing strategies to drive the main idea home.  Perhaps extra info is needed, or a different starting place, or perhaps a different ordering of the content of the passage.

The passage outline is the place to start when it comes to the message outline, but it is not a requirement.  (However, I do feel constrained by the main idea of the text as I work at the level of main idea – hence my approach that emphasises the progress from passage idea to message idea).

Share

Logical, Not Mechanical

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I teach an 8-stage approach to preaching preparation, always emphasising that each stage should be saturated with prayer (avoiding suggesting prayer as a single stage, or suggesting that this is a prayerless process).

The 8 stages are in a logical order. You cannot prepare the message until you’ve worked with the passage (1-4 before 5-8).  You cannot study the passage until you’ve selected it (1 before 2-4).  You cannot determine the idea of the passage until you’ve selected and studied it (1-3 before 4).  You cannot finalise your message idea until you’ve determined your message purpose (5 before 6).  You cannot decide on structure/strategy and details like intro/conclusion/”illustration” until you’ve determined message purpose and main controlling idea (5 and 6 before 7 and 8).

The 8 stages are not in a rigid order. The reality of preaching preparation is much more fluid than these stages might suggest.  Ideas and thoughts come at various times and should be noted rather than rejected.  As much as we should try to study the passage in its own right, we cannot help but tend toward application earlier in the process, and therefore also to thoughts about the message.  We are dynamic and unpredictable creatures, so naturally preparing a message will reflect that.  (I do stand by my suggestion that those learning should learn the more “stilted” approach first, then grow flexible out of a solid foundation.  Also seasoned preachers would do well to periodically follow the process closely.)

The 8 stages do not constitute a machine. The important thing is that we don’t fall into the trap of thinking a logical and ordered process equates to a message machine: feed in a text and just enough time and out pops a fully formed message.  That will feel as ineffective to our listeners as it will to us.  These 8 stages are logical.  You may choose to add in a distinct middle stage of overtly prayerfully analysing the expected listeners before embarking on the latter four stages of message preparation.  You may disagree with the stages and adjust them or increase them.  But what we mustn’t do is become mechanical in our preparation.  It takes time, seemingly unproductive time, to chew on the text.  It takes time, prayerful experience, and eyes fixed on the Lord, for the text and message to be worked out in your life before you speak it out of your own lips.

Follow the process if it is helpful to you, but remember to pray, to dwell, to linger, to process, to chew.

Share

Where Does Christ Fit?

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

When you are preaching the Old Testament, there should always be a radar bleeping in your heart regarding where Christ fits into the message.  Some will suggest that every message must be entirely and purely about Christ, whatever the text was originally intended to convey.  I feel this approach can bring our view of the inspiration of Scripture into disrepute.

Not every Old Testament passage is just about Christ. I know that Jesus took two disciples on a tour of the Old Testament on the road to Emmaus, but I’d also like to point out that that road is only 7 miles long!  We need to recognize that many passages are about humanity responding to the God of the covenant, or about the power of the creator God, or about judgment, etc.  If it is a stretch to make the passage be about Jesus, don’t.  However,

The listeners are always listening to the sermon post-incarnation. Consequently there is a need to make sure we are engaging with the text in light of later revelation.  That doesn’t mean we have to reinterpret the original meaning to be something that it could not have been originally.  But we do have to land the bridge of the message in the contemporary circumstance of our listeners (including the fact that we are post-incarnation, post-cross, post-resurrection, post-Pentecost, etc.)

The Old Testament is, of course, heading toward Christ. It is Christo-telic.  That doesn’t mean it is Christo-exclusive.

May God grant us wisdom as we seek to honour His whole revelation in all its fullness, recognizing the progression of revelation, speaking with absolute relevance to contemporary listeners and always honouring and glorifying the Word incarnate!

Share

Simply Good Preaching

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Someone has said that you know it was a good sermon when you find yourself asking how the preacher knew all about you.  That’s a nice sentiment that points to the importance of applicational relevance in preaching.

Now allow me to give you my statement.  This is not a complete statement, or a forever statement.  It’s a today statement.  I heard a great sermon this morning.  (This post was written a couple of weeks back at Keswick, in case you’re wondering!)  So I heard a great sermon.  Here’s my statement, “you know it was a good sermon when twelve hours later you find yourself still pondering the powerful but simple take home truth, reminiscing over the clear images used to drive home the main points, reflecting on how engaged you felt by the message and the messenger, how excited you were, and still are, to look at the text, to pray through all that hit home, to take stock of your life in light of the text, to respond and be transformed by the message.”

That’s my sentiment tonight that points to the importance of so knowing your text that you can take listeners by the hand and enter into it fully, of so thinking through your presentation that you have clear and concise main thoughts, an overwhelming master idea, an engaging manner of delivery, a contagious energy in presentation, a reliance on the Lord to move in peoples’ lives, and a targeted relevance to the listeners before you.

Simple really, pull those things together and you’ll probably preach a decent message!

Share

Varied Skills in Passage Study – II

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Studying a passage effectively involves a variety of skills.  Yesterday we mentioned matters of contextual awareness, scholarly awareness and original language study.  Today I want to share a few more.  Not a definitive list or blueprint for the exegetical process, but a series of prompts that may or may not be helpful reminders.

Purposeful Study and Preaching – Too often, preachers study a passage to find meaning, then preach meaning and tack on purpose at the end.  Purpose (i.e. application) is not only a concern in the formation of the message.  Purpose should influence our exegesis too.  If we remain blissfully unaware of the author’s intent, we will fail to fully grasp his content.  Bring “purpose” into the mix long before you start thinking of your purpose in preaching it.

Point-ful Study – Make sure that your study of a unit of thought coalesces into a focused and unified sense of the passage idea.  A random collection of exegetical artefacts is not the goal of exegesis, nor is it evidence of good exegesis.  You are studying cohesive communication, be sure to grasp what the author would agree was a synopsis of what he was communicating.  Getting to the main idea of the passage, thoroughly informed by every detail, is an absolutely critical point in passage study.

Scissors – A critical exegetical skill for the preacher is to decide what to cut out of the sermon.  A condensed dump of all your gleaned knowledge will not serve your listeners.  Study hard, learn lots, but cut out all that doesn’t advance the focused and pointed message.

What else would you add – other skills?  Sometimes one of the greatest skills for exegesis is the skill of creating the time and space and quiet needed for intense study!  What else?

Share

Speeding the Process

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

A couple of other ideas that can be added to yesterday’s post:

“Sermon Ideation Groups to plan a series through a book.” John suggested this and I heartily concur.  Mapping out passages and initial ideas can be a great headstart to the sermon series planning process.  Anything that helps to avoid the “from scratch” sensation each week is helpful.  I would add a couple more thoughts related to this:

Phone a Friend and Talk it Through. There are times when sermon preparation is moving forward at a pace, then other times when things seem to grind to a halt.  Being able to talk with someone who understands the process, the concept of good Bible study, etc. can be the kickstart the process needs to get going again.  Such a friend is worth their weight in gold.  If you don’t have one, train some!

Allow Margin to Plan When Productive. I was really productive on planning a series for next January . . . all within a window of 24 hours at the end of May.  That is a significant headstart, which also allows me to collect useful material, illustrations, etc., over the next six months.

The goal is not to speed up the process of preparation, but it doesn’t hurt to be able to be prepared in the limited time that we have.  Cutting corners doesn’t honour the Lord, but thinking it through so we can give our best, even with all the pastoral and personal crises that will come between now and preaching time, is a worthwhile endeavour.

Some Thoughts on Preparing to Preach Psalm 22

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments
This is not a complete post, but it may be helpful.  I received the following question from a good friend:

I have been asked to preach on psalm 22 and am at the moment soaking myself in it to try and make sure I understand the message, the structure and what God was saying then and is saying now.

I will resist the temptation to jump straight to Matthew 27 and end up preaching that, as the psalm should, in my current view, stand on its own merits.  Nevertheless I can’t imagine preaching this without bringing in Matthew.  I would really welcome your views on how to approach this to get the balance right.

Here’s my initial answer:

This is a key issue in preaching OT.  Many automatically go to the NT, especially from a passage like that.  I suppose I would study it in two stages – first what it meant then, then how Matthew / Jesus uses it (raising the issue of whether Jesus was pulling only specific verses or relating to the whole of it by quoting the start of it).

In terms of preaching it, I would probably want to preach it in terms of David first, for a significant chunk of the message, recognizing that everyone else is probably thinking of Jesus.  Then going to Jesus and showing his use of it would be perfectly legitimate, thinking about how it applies to us as a text, as well as how Jesus’ application of it applies to us.  I preached it a few years ago and found it effective to major on Psalm 22 at 1000BC, with a smaller focus given to Greater Son of David at 32AD, connecting it to us throughout (application of the concept or main idea in reference to David, and response to Jesus in reference to the latter part of the message).

The one thing I would add is that the psalm is not finished 2/3rds of the way through, as some preachers sometimes seem to think.  In your study you should probably wrestle with the issue of whether this was a purely predictive text (i.e.not of David, but all of Jesus), a double fulfillment type of text (sensus plenior in some respect – i.e. both of David and of Jesus), or a purely descriptive text that Jesus appropriated as appropriate to his situation and response to it (i.e. all of David, but Jesus could identify).  I wouldn’t address all these in the sermon, but I would preach according to my understanding of how the two relate.

There’s a lot to think about with this passage, and I haven’t got into any details here!  Hope you can really delight in the study of it.

Single Verse Sermons

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

The site received this comment from Peter D:

I have been studying Charles Spurgeon’s sermons. He would often take one scripture and expound on it from every direction he could, would that be thin blooded? I’m preparing a message for later this month and want to focus on one verse within Psalm 63 – it sticks out to me and brings the whole psalm to life, for me at least. In your opinion is it best when dealing with psalms to preach the whole psalm in it’s entirety or can focusing on one part bring it to life for the members?

This is a good question.  Regarding the Psalms I would suggest it is always important to study a Psalm in its entirety, but it may be effective to focus on one part if that seems appropriate for the situation (i.e. when covering the full text in a longer psalm would prove overwhelming or unachievable). 

But what about single verse sermons? Certainly in the past there were many more preachers who preached on single texts, often going from those texts to a sometimes comprehensive canon-wide presentation of the pertinent doctrines suggested (or sometime not suggested) in that text.  Sadly there are many who try to copy the approach of a Spurgeon without achieving a comparable level of personal spirituality and biblical maturity.  There is certainly a place for doctrinal preaching, as well as better and worse ways to do it.  Perhaps there should be a post on that subject sometime . . .

But what can we say about single-verse sermons?

1. If a single verse is a complete unit of thought, great!  For instance, many proverbs stand alone as a complete unit of thought and can be profitably preached as such.

2. If a single verse conveys the main idea of the unit of thought, great!  In some passages there is a single thought that encapsulates the main idea of the passage and it might be effective to preach the verse, while choosing how much of the context to refer to at the same time (depending on situation of sermon, listeners, etc.)

3. If a single verse conveys a significant proportion of the main idea of the text, this might be effective.  As above, the surrounding context will need to be brought into the message in some way or other, but appearing to preach a single verse may work well.  In Peter’s comment above, I noticed how he still tied the single verse to the message of the Psalm as a whole, which makes me think it might be very effective.

4. In a topical message, a single verse may act as sectional manager for that section of the message, but that manager must not act autonomously from the influence of the full unit of thought.  That is, the verse must be understood in its context.

5. If a single verse is used without awareness of context, or to preach a point it wouldn’t give if understood in context, or if preached without studying the context . . . well, please don’t.

The Big Idea of Big Idea Preaching

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

In an email interaction with a good friend, John Bell, I was intrigued to read of his statement of the Big Idea of the Big Idea approach to preaching.  See what you think:

“Effective preaching makes clear and compelling the one thing that the text makes most central.”

This impresses me on a couple of levels.  First, why didn’t I even think of working out the big idea for the whole approach?  Second, having done this, it prompts further thought on the nature of biblical preaching.  It is this kind of thought that drives us deeper into the profundity of the preaching ministry.

So taking John’s statement as a starting point, where might our thoughts go?  Regarding the role of the text in preaching: this definition presupposes, rightly in my opinion, that a unit of thought has a unity of central idea.  This statement underlines the importance of making much of what the text makes central.  Regarding the role of the preacher, it is clear that the task involves both understanding the text, and being able to communicate that understanding in a clear and compelling way.  Speaking of compelling – is that not a subtle way to communicate application, as the force of the text is released to do its work on those that hear?

I know that some take exception to the word “effective,” as if it guarantees a godless pursuit of human professionalism.  I suspect the logical leaps in that critique are worthy of being traced out.  Nevertheless, I wonder how best to make clear in this definition that biblical preaching is not merely a matter of textual study, distillation and communication, but is also always a ministry God does?  Perhaps it could be modified in this way, “God empowers effective preaching that makes clear and compelling the one thing that His inspired text makes most central.” Others would probably choose to pursue a Christocentric critique, rather than a Theocentric one.

Knowing John as I do, I know he wouldn’t desire to leave God out of the definition.  How would you tweak the definition?  The end result is not as important as the process, but that is priceless when the subject is something of this significance!

“Effective preaching makes clear and compelling the one thing that the text makes most central.”

You Can’t Cover Everything

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

People appreciate expository preaching if it is done well.  People tend not to prefer the taste of exhaustive preaching.  The preacher is always tempted to try to cover every angle on every detail in the text.  After all, you’ve probably put hours of work into prayerful study and research, much of which has proved to be interesting and helpful to you.  But when it comes time to preach, selectivity is required.

Here is where the Big Idea becomes such a big deal.  Having the sharp focus of a main idea that reflects accurately and relevantly the main idea of the passage allows you to determine how to be selective.  An avenue of detail, or an anecdote of background information, or a cross-reference, or an illustration, or a side-point, or a personal soapbox, or whatever . . . if it doesn’t fully support that main idea, then it is immediately under scrutiny and should probably be chopped.

Selectivity has to take place before preaching.  Preparing to preach is not just about studying the passage.  Effort is required in preparing the message too.  Going into the preaching event stuffed full of information and selecting as you deliver tends to be as effective as planning your conclusion when you arrive at the end of your preaching time.

As Haddon Robinson has put it, “preaching can be like delivering a baby, or like delivering a missile.  In one your goal is to hit the target, in the other, your goal is to just get it out.”  It is in the “baby delivering” sermons that listeners tend to confuse expository preaching with exhaustive, exhausting, rapid-fire or overwhelming preaching.

Selectivity is probably one of the hardest skills and disciplines in preaching to master, but one of the most important.

Here’s a post from the early days . . . just for old time’s sake!