Stage 5 – Message Purpose

Spaces: Thinking Through the Process

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

A little while back I offered the preparation process in terms of four locations: Study, Stop and Pray (Prayer Closet), Starbucks, Stand and Deliver (Pulpit).  To finish this series on spaces I want to poke around in each of these four locations and prompt our thinking.

1. Study.  I’ve talked about this over the past few days, but essentially the issue here is both noise and access to resources.  To really concentrate on getting to grips with the exegesis means not being pulled away by other things.  It also means being able to spread out the books, while also opening up the heart.  Is it worth considering a separate desk for this?  Is it possible to make the key resources easily accessible?  Can you put a “Do Not Disturb” sign on your door?

2. Stop and Pray.  This one is all about noise.  The noise of people interrupting, the noise of phones beeping, the noise of tasks calling you.  You need to silence them all.  I suspect many of us can’t achieve this in our study or office.  Would it be better to walk and pray with the mobile phone left at home?  Would it be better to go to the church and pray through this phase in the place where you will preach the message?  I find this helpful as it helps to prompt my prayers toward the specific people and families that will be there.

3. Starbucks.  This one is about targeting the message.  Personally I don’t find coffee shops the most conducive to concentrated preparation.  But I see the argument in favour of them (as long as I have music in my ears instead of loud conversations from the volume-unaware that tend to sit near me in these places!)  Somehow the goal here is to be sensitive and alert to the people and the kind of people to whom the message will be preached.  This could be as simple as putting a couple of pictures up on the screen, or placing names on 3×5 cards on the desk, or being around people.  But, if I can’t help but be distracted by being around people, it is better to get the work done in a room on my own!

4. Stand and Deliver.  Different issue, but worthwhile . . . what are the issues in terms of preaching proxemics?  Is there clutter in the preaching environment?  Am I situated in the best place for this congregation?  Should I come down to their level?  Can I lose the seaworthy pulpit and be seen?  Is there clutter from their perspective?

Making Truth Understood

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

So we’ve thought about making biblical truth memorable, and making it known, but what about making it understood.  Is that what preaching is?  Yes.  And no.

1. Contemporary listeners need help understanding the Bible.

There is a significant distance between today’s world and the world of the Bible.  As the preacher, you have a key role in helping to bridge that divide.  This means overcoming differences in culture, in language, in politics, in religion, in worldview, in geography, in customs, in perspectives, etc.  When you preach the Bible you need to help make sense of a very different world for the sake of those in yours.

This means we can’t just read the text and then apply it.  We have to make sense of what is going on.  This means plumbing not only the historical setting and context, but also the literary setting and context.  We have to help people make sense of not only a strangely different world, but also an unusual collection of texts.  People need to understand the canonical structure, the development of thought, the informing theology feeding into a passage, the shape of the story beyond the passage, the nature of the genre of the passage, the forms of literary design within the passage, etc.

And all this means that as preachers we have to make value judgments.  We can’t just dump all the information we know and learn into a message.  This would make it overwhelming and too long.  So we must decide what needs to be said, this time, to make sense of this passage.

2. Your listeners need more than just understanding, but not less.

Just to make matters worse, understanding is not the only goal.  It is the foundational step.  That is, without understanding, then we cannot build effective application, and we cannot expect genuine transformation.  It is no shortcut to bypass understanding and go straight to application, pressing for compliance or hoping for transformation.  Application and transformation must be built squarely on clear understanding of the text.  God is not into radically new revelation.  He has given us His Word to transform lives. He invites us to engage Him there, and as we do so, He also encounters us to change us now.  God hasn’t appointed us to simply explain the truth of His Word, nor to simply seek transformed lives by means of pointed application.  He has appointed us to put it all together – explain, apply, pursue transformation.

Making Truth Known

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday I critiqued the old idea that homiletics is about making truth memorable.  I’d like to ponder a similar issue with both affirmation and critique.  Can we say that preaching is about making truth known?  Yes.  But not only.

Preaching is certainly about declaring and proclaiming truth.  We live in a world of lies and confusion.  Whether we are focusing on evangelism or building up believers, there is a massive need for the proclamation of biblical truth.  Here are some pointers:

1. We cannot assume that people have knowledge of truth.  We live in an age of increasing biblical illiteracy.  Actually, we also live in an age of increasing access to information, but increased shallowness in engaging with available information.  People are not well-read.  Thus it is not wise to assume that people have a certain level of knowledge of the Bible, or philosophy, or history, etc.  Assuming knowledge can lead people to either disengage from presentations, or to take that information and wrongly integrate it with their own perceived insight.

2. We must demonstrate the authority for our authoritative statements.  We do not live in an age where a person’s perceived authority can be assumed based on position or title.  Simply because you are the speaker does not mean much anymore.  Thus we have to demonstrate and prove authority for what is said.  Obviously we must be well-read and accurate in our handling of information.  More than that, we need to help people see for themselves that what we are saying from the Bible is what the Bible actually says.  They may or may not accept that the Bible is inspired by God, but we must show that we are not simply giving our own personal take on what it says.

3. We must recognize that truth statements alone will not suffice.  We should be declaring truth, but let’s be sure to proclaim a person.  People are trained to hold any truth statements at a distance, but we are wired to engage with other persons.  Thus we don’t just state truth, we proclaim Him.  We have to have an authentic personal relationship with the One we then seek to offer to others.  We need to speak from a life of authentic integrity, not performing, but sharing genuinely.  And we need to recognize that we are not simply addressing a brain in a body, but a person whose heart determines the value system of their life.

 

Preaching and the Bible Neighbourhood 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I suggested we need to help listeners know the key landmarks.  This takes repetition and emphasis.  We can’t assume that one time over anything will make it stick.  So as we preach, let’s look for ways to flag up key locations in the canon.  This can be done by character, by key event (giving of a covenant, exile, etc.), or by passage (people should know that Genesis 12 is critical, and Exodus 19, and 2Samuel 7, and Jeremiah 31, etc.)

But we also need to …

2. Help them join the dots.  This is like learning to get from the grocery store to the office.  I could go from home to both, but I needed to figure out how to go from one to the other.  Learning your way around a city is often about joining the dots without home being the starting point.  The same is true in the Bible.

I am not suggesting that we should be preaching chains of references and safari hunts of cross-texts.  This doesn’t help do much but numb listeners.  But when appropriate, we should help people see why putting Moses in the context of Abraham is important.  Or why the New Covenant promised in the midst of the failure of Israel under the Old Covenant matters.  Or why Ruth being in the time of the Judges makes a difference.

And then, of course, what about the thematic development of Old Testament promises and ideas right the way through to the New Testament?  While there are some bizarre links being made from Old Testament to Jesus, we must not miss the intended ones.  The Bible has a unity and so it is not illegitimate to pursue the genuine connections that are present.

This is not a free ticket to speculative connections of common terms, etc.  This is an encouragement to know the Bible well, and to help others become familiar with it.  They don’t need to be instant experts (you and I are still learning too), but it is good for them to have confidence that they can open it, read it, and have a decent sense of what is going on and why it matters to the bigger story.

Tomorrow, I’ll add another suggestion . . .

Preaching and the Bible Neighbourhood

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Eight years ago we moved to south London.  I well remember the early weeks of driving (pre-GPS) with the 250-page map book open on the passenger seat next to me.  I knew one way to get to the office.  I found a way to get to the grocery store.  I found a different way from the grocery store to the route for the office.  I discovered how to get to our church.  Bit by bit I put the pieces together.

It was completely overwhelming at the start.  How could you ever find your way around a city like this?  Winding roads, town after town swallowed up by the sprawling claws of greater London.  But it wasn’t too long before the map sat on the back seat and I could find my way around without much concentration.

As preachers we need to recognize that our congregation may not be super-familiar with the biblical landscape.  It can feel like a confusing mess of history, geography, long names and absent timelines.  And if we aren’t careful, our preaching can only reinforce that sense.

So what can we do to help?  I’d like to share some thoughts today and in the subsequent days.  Here’s the first one:

1. Repeatedly offer them the critical landmarks.  Depending on where they are at, the landmarks may be as basic as Old Testament versus New Testament, or they might be a bit of specific.  But don’t assume too much.  While many will have a sense of Jesus’ life and ministry being in the Gospels, and then the subsequent action being in Acts, I suspect more than we realize are profoundly foggy on Old Testament landmarks.

Abraham and God’s promises to him – critical marker that people need to know is important.  Where does Moses come (and why does he matter?)  What about David (are these all covenant recipients?)  And what about the exile.  All the prophets relate in some way to the exile, so we can’t let it remain a mystery for folk!  There are other landmarks, but it would be good to make sure people are hearing of the significance of these as a starter.

Tomorrow I’ll go to the second point . . . we need to help people join the dots.

Interactive Bible Observation Preaching 2

/ Peter Mead / 7 Comments

Yesterday I shared some reflections on the advantages of the approach I took to preaching through Ruth last month.  The evening meeting allowed a different approach to the morning meeting, so I had folks marking up the passage on a handout, and then interacting together about observations along the way.

Here are some of the disadvantages, limitations or challenges in this approach.

1. It takes longer.  If the church is very strict on end time, then you have to begin it earlier in the meeting.  What might take 30 minutes to preach, can take 45-50 minutes with this approach.  Having said that, people should feel fully engaged if it is done well.  It may also take longer in preparation. That is, even though the homiletical crafting may be less, the exegetical awareness needs to be maximal.

2. It requires a certain relational comfort level.  Maybe requires is too strong a word.  I appreciated knowing the people and feeling a sense of mutual trust.  Having said that, I have seen someone do the same thing with a group of people he’d never met before and it worked very well.  But he had to win trust very quickly.  Too big of a group and it would lose the relational connection potential.

3. It requires care in interaction management.  When people participate, you have to handle what is said graciously.  Even when they are wrong.  This is where knowing the congregation really helps.  A comment shouldn’t be crushed, or too overtly corrected, etc.  I see this as common courtesy, but I am used to it in more “classroom” environments.  Some preachers seem unable to handle interaction without offending people.  I was talking with someone recently and we mentioned a speaker who might be invited to something.  The comment was telling: “yes we could invite him, but don’t let him have any Q&A time!”

4. It requires lots of preacher thinking.  When people participate, there is less control for the preacher.  You don’t know where they will go.  Your questions will influence that, but you really have to know your stuff, and know your plan.  How will you create and sustain tension with this approach?  When will you preach, and when will you interact?  How can the conclusion have impact?

5. You may have to overcome other messages and ideas.  Perhaps it wouldn’t work so well in a very familiar New Testament passage.  Or perhaps it is just what is needed.  But you would need to help people see the text itself, rather than their preconceived ideas and favourite points from other preachers.

Overall, none of these issues disqualify the approach and I will used it again, modifying continually.  Print the text, let them mark it up and lead as you all enjoy the adventure together.

Interactive Bible Observation Preaching

/ Peter Mead / 6 Comments

Last month I decided to try something a little different in our church.  I used the Sunday evening service (we have two services on a Sunday), for a study through the book of Ruth.  Each person attending was given a handout with the plain text of the passage for the evening with headings removed, but plenty of margin space allowed.  At various points I had them marking the text and then interacted with them as we observed the passage together.  I still preached, but it wasn’t a tightly controlled sermon.  I determined when there would be interaction, and overall I think it worked well.

Upon reflection, here are some of the advantages of this approach (not saying it should replace normal preaching, but I think it has a place).

1. It shows people that they can read and think about the passage, they don’t need to be spoon fed.  It is easy to get into the habit of only getting Bible input from “experts” – either at church, or for some, on MP3 downloads during the week.  But this approach subtly reminds people that they can look at and think about the text themselves.

2. It shows some people that they don’t automatically know everything.  This is in contrast to number 1, I suppose.  Some people are over confident in their view on everything.  This approach allows them to discover that they missed something and should look closer.  “I never saw that before” isn’t such a scary phrase from the preacher’s perspective, when they are actually observing the text with other people and it is plainly before them (rather than a homiletical invention).

3. It gives people experience of observing, then interpreting, then applying.  Some never really observe, some skip straight to application, etc.  This is a good group exposure to inductive Bible study.

4. It slows the pace of experiencing the text.  In this instance, it was Ruth, a narrative.  Good preaching can also slow the pace of experiencing the text, but this approach certainly did.  People felt the tension and it built nicely, both during the message and over the weeks.

5. The preaching element is proven.  That is, if done well, the preaching element should not get the “I wouldn’t have seen that in the text” kind of response.  They are seeing it, the preacher is just building and reinforcing what has already come through.  I found the more traditional preaching element in this series felt very gritty and real: it was the explanation and reinforcement of the main theme in each passage, tied into the bigger picture of the book.

There are other advantages, so feel free to add by comment…

Who Aren’t You Preaching To?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday we thought about a potential danger in getting too targeted in our preaching.  Keeping with the issue of our listeners, what about those who aren’t present?

1. It is easy to beat up an absent foe.  I have seen this and maybe even fallen into it.  It is easy to critique someone who is not present.  They could be a liberal biblical commentator, a member of another religion, a published and vocal atheist, or a political figure.  In their absence we can act like the cartoon mouse with chest puffed out and fists swinging, bragging about all that we would do to such and such a cat . . . This kind of bravado doesn’t win friends in an age of recordings taken out of context and aired online, it doesn’t really impress the people listening.  If we are addressing an issue promoted by someone who isn’t present, then we must do our homework, know our stuff, and reflect both biblical truth and grace in how we address it.  Don’t get me wrong, sometimes we have to protect our people from false ideas that are out there, but we also have to be an example in the way we express ourselves.

2. It is easy to offend by association.  It is easy to communicate an “us and them” idea, and then inadvertently offend any members of the “them” who happen to be present.  For instance, as we distinguish Christians from the world, let’s be careful not to give the impression that we think we are better than outsiders.  Always assume “outsiders” might be present and speak in words and tone that fairly reflect the Lord we represent.

3. It is hard to win your congregation’s trust.  What does this have to do with people not present?  Everything.  Who will bring their friends and relatives to church next week?  Certainly not anyone that wouldn’t want their friends and relatives present for what you said this week!  It takes years to build relationships, and if the congregation is resistant to inviting their friends and colleagues to church events, it may well be because you haven’t earned their trust over years of careful and winsome preaching. Maybe I am missing something biblically, but I don’t see why I should invite a friend, and potentially lose a friend, just because an event is happening at church.  If I don’t trust the church and the speaker (and some other factors too), then I won’t bring them.  And nor will they.  So we have to preach as if hoped for visitors were already present.

Thoughts always welcome…

Who Are You Preaching To?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Preaching is not just about communicating the message of the Bible, it is about communicating that message to people.  Specifically, certain people.  Today I’d like to share some thoughts on preaching to those who are present, then we can move on to those who aren’t!

1. Know your listeners as much as possible.  Seems almost too obvious to state, but it is important.  We have to know who is listening when we preach.  If we are a visiting speaker, then we need to go into overdrive before the meeting to find out what we can.  If it is our home church, then we should be engaged in the lives of those who are listening.  It will influence how we pitch the message, the vocabulary used, the applications chosen, the background information given, etc.  Not to mention the difference it will make if you love the people to whom you preach!

2. Be as relevant as possible.  This is true on so many levels.  We need to be relevant in our vocabulary, in our illustrative material, in our applications of biblical truth, etc.  Relevance is the natural next step on from knowing the listeners.  Our task is not to make the Bible relevant, but to show how relevant it is to these specific people.

3. But beware of unhelpful target practice.  There is a danger that the first two points can lead to an unhealthy third one – target practice.  That is, you know your listeners, including the issues, including the tensions, including the squabbles and the politics and so on.  And then you want to be relevant.  And without thinking you can find yourself preaching a sermon to a congregation that is pointed right at one person, or one situation, or one clique, or one faction, or whatever.  It is so easy to either bare someone’s dirty laundry, or to take political potshots.  You can do it in your vocabulary, in your illustrations, in your applications, etc.  This is both an abuse of the preaching privilege, and a flawed approach to addressing issues.  Whether it is a situation you are seeking to help, or a skirmish you’ve been dragged into, the pulpit is not the place to address it directly.  Certainly the Word will speak to life’s real issues, but don’t be the filter through which the Bible gets redirected.

Tomorrow we’ll ponder the audience issue some more, specifically in reference to people who are not present.

Holiday Post 5: Cousins Not Twins

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Today is the end of my brief break with the family, so one last post from January 2008 and then I should start posting from 2012 again on Monday . . .

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?