Preacher’s Log – 2

May 4, 2011May 1, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Following on from yesterday’s post . . . Sunday is getting ever nearer!

Tuesday to Thursday before – I am busy all day each day with Cor Deo training, so don’t have time for sermon preparation, but am chewing over the passages and their implications during spare moments, praying for Sunday’s messages to go well. I’m also pondering again the people to whom I’ll be preaching these passages, wanting God’s best for this church.

Friday before – Key preparation day. I work on outline of the text, main idea of the text, and prepare to form the main idea and outline/strategy of the sermons. I check a couple of commentaries. Actually, three. I check RT France’s NIGTC commentary, particularly to interact with some key sections of Greek exegesis (I simply haven’t had time to work through the whole section of Mark in Greek, but I do check a few key verses and decide whether I want to change anything based on his input). I check Rikki Watts’ focused presentation of Mark’s reliance on Isaiah’s “new exodus” motif (this was massively helpful in some sections of Mark, less so in others). I check Donald English’s very accessible BST (very good on seeing the big questions of Mark and the larger flow of the text).

Prayerfully thinking about the people to whom I am preaching on Sunday, I think through my strategy (outline) and message idea for Sunday’s messages. I would have liked to get to the details of how I will explain, any illustrative/applicational elements, but have run out of time.

Saturday morning – I have an hour and so can try to catch up a bit and think through the details of the messages. Actually, Sunday morning’s message comes first and so gets the attention.

Saturday evening – I don’t have time during the day (family are important ministry too), but in the evening I take some time and preach through Sunday morning’s message. Couple of things need to change, so I make a couple of notes, then head to bed (better to have slept than to have worked through the night striving for a better message!)

Sunday morning early – I pray and preach through the morning message. It is very hard to think about the evening message with the morning one looming.

Sunday afternoon – I take a couple of hours to look at my notes for the evening message on Mark 10, and then preach it through. Couple of tweaks, but time runs out.

Message is preached.

Monday after the message – I listen through both messages as I prepare the files to put them online. This is a chance to evaluate and also to be thankful to God for His help. I think back on the feedback received and process that before the Lord in prayer.

I was very happy with the Mark 10 message. Wasn’t perfect, they never are, but I am thankful for how that went.

More than a Manual

May 2, 2011May 2, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Do you preach human level, or do you preach God? Big difference. To read this post, click here.

Exegesis and Application

April 25, 2011April 22, 2011 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

I’ve recently been reading student responses to Fee and Stuart’s book How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. This is a rare book, a hermeneutics book that has sold massive numbers. If you haven’t read it, you probably should. That doesn’t mean it is perfect though, there may be much in it that you might quibble with (it may be the willingness to take positions on issues that makes the book such a bestseller). One point that struck me as I looked at it again is the unfortunate decision to define hermeneutics as the follow on step after exegesis. I know I’m not the only one that doesn’t see these terms as sequential steps in a process. (They even acknowledge this is not the normal use of the term.)

I would agree with their definition of exegesis as “the careful, systematic study of the Scripture to discover the original, intended meaning.” But surely the following step, thinking about the significance and potential impact of the passage in contemporary terms should be called application? And hermeneutics? Well, that refers to the guidelines that enable both exegesis and application to be done effectively.

This is especially important for preachers (and then, by extension, to all believers). As I wrote on here some years ago:

The difference between a true expository sermon and an interesting biblical lecture is often the speaker’s awareness of sermonic purpose. As Bryan Chappell wrote (Christ-Centered Preaching, p52) “Without the ‘so what?’ we preach to a ‘who cares?’” In his own way Haddon Robinson has put it like this, “Preaching can be like delivering a baby, or like delivering a missile – in one your goal is to just get it out, but in the other your goal is to hit the target!”

Perhaps the problem goes deeper though. While it is true that we must think through the purpose for a sermon before preaching it, there seems to be an issue at an earlier stage in the process. Are we saying that it is possible to study a passage, but not follow through and consider its application? Hermeneutical purists argue about whether application is a part of the hermeneutical process.Yet as preachers our concern is not academic wrangling, but bringing the Word of God into the lives of His people, by the power of His Spirit, to see His purposes worked out. May we never fall into the trap of studying a passage, determining the author’s intended meaning, but failing to consider the contemporary application of that passage in our own lives.

Perhaps a lack of application in the pulpit is the fruit of a lack of application in personal study. The implications are frightening.

Opaque or Lens?

April 5, 2011April 5, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Opacity is worthy of our consideration. The contrast between being opaque and being a lens was suggested last week in conversation. That is, does the preacher act as a lens through which I see Christ, or as an opaque presenter through which I see little? It may be hard to quantify, but as listeners I think we know the difference.

When the opaque preacher preaches, we receive information and ideas, maybe even illustrations and anecdotes, perhaps applications, and even apparently effective delivery. Technically the sermon might tick all the standard boxes. Faithful to the text, relevant to the audience, clear in presentation. But obviously not clear in the sense we mean in this post. Because for all the good that’s there, the sermon event feels opaque.

So what is it that turns the opaque preaching into a lens through which the person of Christ is seen, through which the grace of God can shine into our lives? I suspect it isn’t primarily about technique, since great preparation and delivery skill can still lead to opaque messages. Perhaps it’s something along the lines of …

A sermon will act as a lens to the extent that the preacher relationally engages both God and the listeners as true personalities.

That could be better stated, but it will do for now (comment freely and offer better statements!)

1. If God is viewed as a distant, unknowable, cold deity who has left us with a set of data encoded in an anthology we call the Bible, then the preacher won’t engage Him. But if God is known personally, through the Word, through prayer, through a living and vital and covenantally loyal love relationship; and if God is an active participant in the life of the preacher; and if the preacher genuinely loves and likes God . . . then we may be onto something special for preaching.

2. If the listeners are viewed as an amorphous group of punters who have chosen to attend a presentation in which they (the seated ranks of unknowns) get to hear me (the preacher), then the preacher won’t engage them effectively. But if the people matter, and are cared for and prayed for and are important to the preacher (even if he is visiting), and if he seems to not only care enough to give tough medicine, but loves enough to make it palatable, and likes enough to smile . . . then we may be onto something special for preaching.

Opaque or lens?

Life Instruction Preaching

March 31, 2011March 31, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Another of David Gordon’s flawed approaches to preaching is what he calls the How-To sermon (p82).

How-to preaching differs from moralism not so much in the what as in the how. Unlike moralism, it expends less time describing what one ought to do, and more time how to go about doing it. In one sense, it is even worse than moralism, because it reduces life and religion to technique, and suggests (implicitly, never explicitly) that a sinner can change his ways if he just has the right method.

How-to preaching, like moralism, pushes the person and work of the redeeming Christ out of the realm of the hearer’s consideration. The hearer’s utter inability to rescue himself from sin, and Christ’s utter ability to do precisely that, would not be at home in such a homiletical environment. The how-to sermon implies that human behavior is not a matter of an intractable will, not a matter of total depravity, not a matter of rebellion against the reign of God the Creator, but merely a matter of technique. It is worse than Pelagianism because it doesn’t even accept the burden of attempting to prove that the will is morally unencumbered by original sin; it assumes this heresy from the outset.

I won’t get into how the human soul operates in this post (i.e. whether Augustine’s issue with Pelagianism was merely a concern of his view of the will), but I do want to engage with Gordon’s critique of how-to preaching. After all, with the clamor for “relevant” and “applied” preaching in our day, surely there is here a tension between what should be preached and what people ask to be preached? I don’t think so, although itching ears are a biblically described scourge on our churches nonetheless.

I agree with Gordon absolutely that we might as well preach on how the leopard can change his spots, since teaching a sinner to live right is just as effective. Christianity is absolutely not a set of techniques for holy living. It is about the privilege of participation in the loving life of the Trinity through relationship via Christ by faith. As we preach the Bible we preach of this God who has made life available if we will trust His Word, His way, His character, etc. So as we preach the Bible, we preach of God’s self-revelation to those that need Him.

Thus we can, we must, preach applied messages (rightly defined), and relevant messages, since the Bible very much speaks to us today. But when we take the wondrous self-giving of God and turn it into a manufacturer’s manual (i.e. a book telling you how to avoid any contact with the manufacturer by handling life properly), then we are not preaching the Bible, but a type of heresy that has no place in the church.

Strangling the Gospel

March 25, 2011March 24, 2011 / Peter Mead / 5 Comments

David Gordon lists four types of failed sermon types that are prevalent today. The list is worth considering in full, but especially the first sermon type he describes. The first on his list, and the first on mine, is moralism. Here are some highlights that I have pulled from this section of the book:

Protestant liberalism was a way of understanding Christianity as essentially consisting of a particular moral framework, and of understanding Christ as essentially a great moral teacher. [It] often denied outright that Christianity was a redemptive religion. . . . Rather, it perceived Christianity as consisting of the discovery of a right and proper way to live an ethical life.

…Ironically, the very orthodox and evangelical Christians who protested against Protestant liberalism in the early twentieth century are quite likely to promote its basic emphases from the pulpit today.

…Moralism occurs whenever the fundamental message of a sermon is “be good; do good” (or some specific thereof). Whenever the fundamental purpose of the sermon is to improve the behavior of others, so that Christ in his redemptive office is either denied or largely overlooked, the sermon is moralistic.

…Go and listen to the typical sermon in the typical evangelical or Reformed church, and ask what Luther would think if he were present. Luther would think he was still in Rome. (Taken from pp79-81)

This is a huge issue. Moralism and legalism is a plague in some churches. Somehow the fresh and dynamic, personal and engaged reality of relationship with Christ tends to grow dim over time (and over generations). So in some churches today there are those who would essentially affirm the preaching of a Roman Catholic or Mormon or Conservative Moralist or child behavioural traditionalist guest speaker.

Legalism is not honouring to God. Legalism strangles the gospel. It chokes love. It throttles grace. It undermines the gospel. Let us be very careful to really preach the glorious grace of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Moralism is always an attractive shortcut to producing churches full of people who look very christian. Let’s dare to take the path less travelled – to preach the transforming grace of God, His captivating love that doesn’t mass produce Pharisees, but will stir a response. The love of the Trinity in the gospel will always polarize, it will distinguish, it will certainly bother some of the core people in any church. But let’s not forget who bothered Christ the most – it was the moralistic legalists who mastered the form, yet missed the heart.

Finger On

March 15, 2011March 15, 2011 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

I listened to two preachers recently. Walter Kaiser (on CD) and another well known speaker in the UK. There are several differences between them, but I’d like to point to one. Kaiser wanted his listeners to keep their finger on the text. The other man didn’t.

If you’ve heard Kaiser you will know that he likes to get people to look at the text. Lots of good preachers do that. It helps people see that you speak with authority because the authority is not yours, but the authority of the Word of God. It helps people follow the message. It helps people come back to the text later and then see for themselves what you were teaching.

I know you’ve heard preaching like the alternative I have in mind. The text is read, but left behind as the sermon progresses through several paralleled points of the preacher’s own construction – a biblical theology of the phrase, if you will. Lots of preachers do that. It gives the sense that you speak with authority because you speak with authority. It motivates listeners to close their Bibles and just listen. It helps people not re-open their Bibles later since they can’t remember how you derived your points anyway.

Both approaches will get glowing feedback. But both are not equal. Be a preacher who motivates listeners to get their finger on the text. What advantage is there in not doing so?

Christian Sounding Non-Christian Preaching

March 10, 2011March 10, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

He certainly looked the part. He came in dressed like every visiting preacher we have here. His tone was serious. His piety was evident. His passion for our purity was spilling over in everything he said. He preached of the righteousness of God, and what it means to be the righteous people of God. He spoke against some things that are a real concern of mine in the present culture. He pointed to the text. He referred to the Greek. He brought that discomfort that I suspect my comfortable flesh needs now and then. He certainly couldn’t be faulted as far as taking his Christianity seriously. He wanted us to do the same.

Then someone I know graciously pointed out that what he preached wasn’t even Christian.

I was shocked.

Where was he preaching? It could be your church or mine. It could be Galatia or Philippi or Colossae in the 50’s. The problem with legalists is that they sound so Christian. And it feels so wrong to question their fervent presentation of truth. And in a culture so morally lax they can feel like a breath of clear air in terms of right living that pleases God. Yet legalism does not please God.

The gospel is not great news for those that want to be proud of their own goodness. It isn’t good news for them before salvation and it isn’t good news for them after. Let us raise our antenna and spot the difference between convicting Bible teaching and gospel-lite pressure sessions (and if the gospel gets so ‘lite’ it isn’t there, perhaps we should call it what it is…sub-christian…non-christian).

There It Is!

March 7, 2011March 4, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Perhaps you have sat in Bible studies where this has happened. The text being studied might be something like Ephesians 2:21. The next question in the booklet asks something about the term “temple.” It also has a string of cross-references with it. So the leader assigns references to different ones in the group. One by one these are read out.

“Ok, I’ve got Matthew 12:6, ‘I tell you, something greater than the temple is here.’ Yep, temple, ok.”

“Ok, I’ve got Revelation 7:15, ‘They are before the throne of God and serve him day and night in the temple’ – yep, temple, there it is.”

“Ok, I’ve got Acts 2:46, ‘And day by day, attending the temple…” – ok, yep, temple!”

“Ok, I’ve got John 2:14, ‘In the temp…’ there it is!”

These may have been carefully selected cross-references to provide helpful insight into the meaning in Ephesians 2:21, but they have served no purpose other than giving people a chance to practice finding Bible references and play a game of word recognition.

Maybe, like me, you have found yourself sitting through moments like this, wondering what the point of it all is?

Where does this come from? Let us assume for a moment that the person who wrote the Bible study questions had a plan in their selection of cross-references (this is an assumption). Then surely the value will come from taking at least a moment or two to recognize more than just the presence of the word? Surely it should involve some thought as to the use of the term in that context and how that might influence our understanding of the focus text for the evening?

So where does this practice come from? Is it, perhaps, the example of preachers who use cross-references essentially as time-fillers, failing to make any sense of why they have gone to the verses or what differences they make to the understanding of the target text?

As I have written before, there are not too many reasons to go to other passages when preaching. (Here is my low fence post, and here is part 1 and part 2 of a post on cross-referencing.)

When you do go to another text, make sure it is clear what you are looking at and why.

Lessons on God from Biblical Genre: History

February 24, 2011February 18, 2011 / Peter Mead / 6 Comments

Yesterday we pondered what the epistolary genre might teach us about God, and the implications for our preaching. Continuing with some springboarding off D A Carson’s recent Laing Lecture at LST, let’s think about biblical history.

Carson suggested the following: God discloses himself not only in words, but also in space-time history. We have access to that through witnesses, the standard mode of communicating historical veracity. Thus there is so much emphasis placed on the importance of witnesses.

In fact, Christianity is unique among religions in that if we were to take Jesus out of history, there would be no Christianity (not true of other religions). If Jesus didn’t actually rise from the dead, then witnesses are liars and we are still in our sins, our faith is futile. For the Christian, one of the tests of our faith is the truthfulness of the faith’s object. So no matter how strong and precious your faith may be, if that faith is not in something that is true, then you have nothing.

Biblically, a personal and precious faith without truth does not make a person spiritual, it makes them a joke. So Biblical faith is not the same as the contemporary view – that it is either a synonym for religion, or a personal subjective religious choice. This final definition makes it a faux pas to introduce the truth question (since we are talking about something both personal and subjective). But the truth question is absolutely paramount. While there are many elements of Christianity where we are to take God at His word, there are also critical elements, foundations, that require a test in history – notably the resurrection of Christ.

Implications for our preaching? I would suggest:

1. We must overtly overcome the “Bible story as fairy tale” perception. It is not enough to assume people understand the historicity of the biblical record, we need to be overt on this matter.

2. We should seek to overcome the notion that the Bible is a religious book, but good history books are published by other printing presses. The Bible is not only history, but it is phenomenally trustworthy historical source material.

3. We must train believers to know that their faith is resting on reality and fact, rather than the “leap in the dark” nonsense coming from both critics and ill-advised testimonies of people feeling public-presentation fright.

4. We should recognize how unaware Christians tend to be in respect to the differences between biblical Christianity and other religions. This leaves people very vulnerable when other religions are so proactively on the march.