Stage 5 – Message Purpose

Application Is Not Always Pragmatic

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

There is plenty of teaching around about the need for application in preaching.  If all we do is lecture on biblical truth, but don’t earth it in the lives of the listeners, then can we really claim to be truly preaching?  Having said that, application doesn’t have to be always pragmatic.  It really depends on the text, the listeners and the occasion, but essentially there are three targets for application:

3. Conduct (the hands) – this is the pragmatic application level.  This is where we give tangible and measurable suggestions to respond to the teaching of the text.  Some are quick to decry this, but remember that Jesus emphasised “doing” what he taught, and James makes a similar strong emphasis with his mirror illustration.  Where this often falls short is that it is either left too vague (so listeners agree, but have no plan to follow through), or there is simply so much of it, week after week, that many listeners simply feel burdened by endless “to-do” lists piling up in their Bibles.

But pragmatics is not all there is to say about application.  Tomorrow we’ll finish the list.

Feel the Force: Discourse

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

This is where we sometimes struggle the most.  When preaching the epistles (less so the speeches of Joshua, Jesus, etc.), we can easily fall into logical information transfer and presentation of facts.  But the fact is that all discourse is set in a narrative context.  How do we make sure listeners feel the force of the discourse sections of Scripture, especially the epistles?

1. Be sure to set the scene contextually – the text is a glimpse into a narrative. It is when we treat the epistles as timeless statements or creeds, rather than letters, that we lose sight of the specific situations that sparked their composition in the first place.  Help people to feel the emotion of Paul writing his last letter to Timothy, or his anger at the corrupting of the gospel in Galatia, or his connection with the Philippian church, or his passion for the unity of the churches in Rome.  It takes effort and skill to effectively set a text in its historical context, but it must be done for listeners to really feel the force of the text.

2. Consider how to appropriately target the message to the listeners. If we are facing similar problems today, then perhaps the text can be preached with a sense of directness, rather than held at arms length as an exhibit from the ancient world.  Perhaps the Galatian error hasn’t been introduced in your church (although perhaps contemporary churchgoers are closer to that than we’d like to think!)  So if the original purpose and thrust doesn’t quite fit, would it work to imagine how it might and then preach directly?  Somehow we need to hear what God is saying to us, now.

3. Build on the imagery included in the text. The epistles are not pure logical argumentation.  They regularly refer to people, incidents, imagery, examples, rhetorical devices, etc.  As a preacher we can build on these to make sure our preaching of that text is not mere lecturing on the facts with tacked on application.  Most texts are far richer in imagery or wordplay than we tend to think.  Not only in poetry and narrative, but also in the epistles, the text will often yield plenty of “illustrative” material if we observe carefully!

4. Build a sense of progression into the structure. How easy it is to simply produce a parallel set of points that do not build, do not progress, do not intrigue and do not pack a punch.  A good outline is not only somewhat symmetrical (and not always that), but reflects the progression and punch of the text.

As we preach the text, let’s make it our goal to help listeners to feel the force of the text.  Understand it, yes.  Apply it, yes.  But more than that, feel it (for when the force of the text is felt, understanding and application will increase!)

Feel the Force: Narrative

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday we touched briefly on poetry and noted how easy it is to preach without conveying the force of the text.  Today let’s have a brief reminder regarding narrative.  If the “force” of poetry lies in often emotive imagery, the “force” of narrative rests in the lack of rest, the tension necessary for a story to be a story.

1. We mustn’t sacrifice the tension for other details. It is easy to preach a story in component parts as if it were merely an illustration of propositional truths.  I certainly am not prepared to give up the reality that a single story will be held together by a single sense of purpose, tension and thus, a proposition.  However, preaching story requires telling story and feeling story.  It is not enough to break up the text into segments and describe each as if we were writing a commentary.  For the force of the story to get across, the listeners have to be aware of the tension in the story, more than that, they need to feel the tension.

2. We mustn’t lose the resolution in the rhythm of the message. If the story really becomes a story by the introduction of tension, then the story is rapidly approaching the end once that tension is resolved.  It is in the resolution of the story that we usually have the key to unlocking the purpose and meaning of the whole.  How is the prodigal brought into the family?  (And interestingly, why isn’t the tension resolved for his older brother a few verses later?)  What is God’s evaluation of the two men praying in the temple?  Who demonstrates neighborly love to the injured man by the road?  If our message is not built around telling the story, then it is easy for the resolution to be lost in the detail of our structure.

3. The text is lean, but effective engagement requires the forming of imagery. The Bible does not give much detail in the telling of most of its stories.  Every detail counts and should be studied carefully.  However, the listeners are not studying the text at length, they are listening to you preach it.  So for them to be able to engage with the text, to be able to identify with central characters, to disassociate from others, to wrestle with the tension, they need effective and developed description of the events.  It takes time for the mists to clear on the screen of their hearts so that they can feel the force of the narrative!

Feel the Force: Poetry

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

When we preach poetry, do our listeners really feel the force of it?  Poetry is found in the Psalms and wisdom literature, of course, but also in the historical books and the prophets too.  All too easily we can preach to the head, but not move the listeners with the force of the text.

A couple of thoughts on this:

1. Word images may not carry instant force, so we should build it. For example, when the Psalms speak of the heavens, the stars, the sun and moon, etc., there is a big difference between most listeners today and the original hearers of the text.  They lived under the stars.  Once the sun went down the rhythm of life changed and stargazing was as normal as TV gazing is for some today.  So a brief reference to how amazing it is to look at the stars and feel so small (as in Psalm 8 ) will simply not move contemporary listeners like the original reference would have done.  Today we have to build an awareness of our smallness (thankfully we have NASA and the Hubble telescope to help generate a sense of smallness!)

2. The structure of a poem, the shift in content, may not be apparent to our listeners, so we should clarify and demonstrate it. If the poem was read carefully straight through, the discerning reader would probably pick up on the transition that occurs.  The problem with preaching though is that the extra words may obscure the transitions instead of clarifying them.  There is a major transition at the mid-point of Psalm 73.  Yet if the preacher is droning in their voice, or simply moving methodically through a series of points, that dramatic transition may easily be missed.

3. Emotive language can so easily be made informational. As I’ve probably written elsewhere on this site, it is so easy to dissect a frog to learn how it jumps, but in doing so we stop it doing so.  A dissected poem is not enough for effective preaching.

People listening need to feel the force of poetry so that it can mark their lives deeply, as God intends.

Aim for Simple

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Last night I led a Bible study in the Psalms.  This study series is deliberately designed to include some more challenging “academic” content, making participants aware of the possibilities in terms of formal study of the Psalms, hermeneutical principles, etc.  But the bulk of the time is spent not talking about the Psalms, but looking at a Psalm or two.  Actually, last night we looked at three.

Most people found the reading ahead of the study a little overwhelming.  It was.  A relatively lengthy explanation of how the book was formed and how the shape evolved during that process.  Then we looked at a section of Psalms to see the evidence of deliberate shaping .  Then we spent the bulk of the time observing, interpreting, reflecting on, applying, enjoying, responding to the three Psalms.

That was a Bible study, and not a normal Bible study.  It was not a sermon.  When I preach I have to avoid the temptation to prove my study efforts, to demonstrate my level of exegtical ability, to convince listeners of some academic point or to present material at a level above the heads of the listeners.  When I preach I want the message of the text itself to be clear and to be clearly applied.  Simple is better than complicated.  Clear is better than opaque.

I would rather hear “I understood that” over “that was so deep” (i.e. I didn’t understand it).  Let’s be profound in preparation, profound in impact, but simple in clear content, vocabulary and presentation.

Fierce Attention and Affection

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I was just reading a synopsis of an intriguing book.  The book is about the importance of conversations, both at work and at home.  Nothing to do with preaching though?  Well, perhaps more than might be obvious.  I was struck by the author’s second principle – “Come out from behind yourself into the conversation and make it real.”  She writes that it is too easy to try to please so much that the truth gets hidden away in exchange for a trinket of approval.  In the next section she writes of the need for fierce affection for the other person.  I won’t pursue that in terms of conversations, but what about our preaching?

How easily we slip into routine prayer, routine preparation, routine textual study, routine sermon forms, etc.  How different would it be if we gave a more fierce attention to the text, and pursued a more fierce affection for our listeners?  What does the text really say?  What do the listeners really struggle with?  And although it feels even less comfortable in this context, what if we fiercely prayed about the next sermon?

Ok, so the word “fierce” may seem out of place here.  I tend to agree.  But I like the thrust of it, the sense of not going through the motions, but stepping out from behind the mask of normalcy to genuinely pursue the meaning of the text, the lives of the listeners, the heart of God.  Whatever we call it, let’s go for it!

Facebook in Sermon Preparation

/ Peter Mead / 6 Comments

James Wood made the following comment on the post Extent of Application:

I think he brings up a good point. I’ve tried to combat this by forming the sermon through conversation with the community. The beauty is, technology can aid this! I will post questions from the text to my facebook page as I’m studying. The responses help me to direct my study and hone my examples to reflect the needs of the community.

I have not tried this, but am intrigued.  While not a huge fan of facebook, it may be an easy way to access “feed-forward” input in the preparation of a sermon.  The point of “feed-forward” input is to be able to hone a message in advance of it being preached by gaining input from an individual or group during the preparation process.  (Obviously it is kind of like feedback, but in anticipation.)

Has anyone else tried using Facebook or Twitter or even good old fashioned email for input prior to preaching?  There is something about face to face interaction, but let’s be honest and recognize that something is better than nothing and unless we have a system in place, we are often choosing nothing over something in these matters.  At the same time, perhaps people feel less pressure in an electronic social setting and are therefore more willing to engage honestly?

Any thoughts or experience on this, please share!

The Forming of Images

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Another quote from Flickering Pixels by Shane Hipps, prompting a thought for today:

Advertising is the direct result of the camera.  “Images have an incredible capacity to generate needs in humans that don’t naturally exist.” (75)  “Images initially make us feel rather than think.”  “Images don’t invite you to argue; they give you an experience.” (76) “Image culture dramatically shapes the way we think.  It also determines what we think about.” (77)

It would be wrong to assume that such an image culture has only existed in our part of the world in recent years.  The reality is that the non-image, linear logical culture is largely a recent and localized phenomenon.  Perhaps the difference now is that we are an image saturated culture with pixels flickering constantly.  Everywhere else, for most of time, there has been a constancy of image formed through the familiar narratives that defined each culture.

That’s the thing about narrative.  It forms an image in the hearer that doesn’t require multi-million dollar Hollywood camera work.  Good storytelling forms images in minds and hearts just as effectively.  In the early days of radio it was the story and soap opera shows that proved popular, not just information driven shows.  Ask a child if they are willing to hear a good story without any pictures to supplement it and they will usually cope just fine!  (In fact, some children would give anything to have a parent who would read to them at all!)

The Bible is saturated with stories.  The Bible also has a meta-narrative that gives us a sense of security, stability and insight into the reality in which we continue to live.  As preachers our task is not to simply provide good argumentation, effective applicational lists or biblical facts.  Our task is primarily one of forming images in the hearts and minds of listeners that will stir faith through the experience of already seeing God work during our preaching.  Our task is to form images so that listeners can respond appropriately to God’s self-giving through His Word – not in any way a mere mental decision, but a heart-driven response to a heart-stirring God.

Preacher, form images!

Extent of Application

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I was just reading a synopsis of a book on the effect of technology on faith.  For example:

Reading and writing are individual activities.  The technology of writing favors individualism over community, leading us to spiritual disciplines of “quiet time” and “journaling” and a gospel that is primarily oriented to the individual.  Printing erodes the communal nature of faith. (p56-7 – Flickering Pixels by Shane Hipps)

That’s an interesting observation.  I think many of us tend to promote an individual spirituality – quiet times, reading, journaling, private prayer, etc.  When we do mention corporate applications they are often either related to witnessing or church/ministry involvement.  Both of these corporate or interpersonal activities are typically felt in terms of duty rather than delight (the same could be said of the private disciplines – it all depends on how we perceive and present them).

When we think of the applications of our preaching, the contemporary relevance of the Word of God, do we think through all that it might mean to us by way of invitation as well as burden, in terms of the heart, the head and the hands, as well as corporately and not just individually?  The Bible speaks to us all in far more intricate and engaging ways than many of our sermons do.

Worth pondering, at least for me . . .

Finding the Balance Without Scratching Ears

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

As a preacher in a church there is a tension to be faced.  On the one hand, every time you stand up front to preach you are answerable to God for your stewardship of the opportunity.  Consequently you must feel a sense of the burden of preaching what is needed and what is right for the people.  Like parents with a child, sometimes it is necessary to give a certain medicine.  It’s not a time to make decisions based on what the child would prefer in that moment.

On the other hand we have to hear what listeners say.  Preaching is communication, and if the recipient does not receive what the sender intended, then something is not working.  It may be that they are hard hearted or don’t know what they need, but on the other hand, we preachers aren’t immune from error either.  Perhaps we haven’t realized that our communication is failing to communicate, that our message is not comprehensible, or our application is not connecting.  Perhaps we need to hear some feedback that could help us be better preachers.

I firmly believe in the preacher’s answerability to God and in the preacher’s need for feedback.  These two things are not mutually exclusive, but there may be times when a balance is needed.  It’s always easier to label others and stand secure in our own insecurity, but let’s be sure that critique of our preaching is not actually a legitimate cry for something that we could do better, that they would value more and that God would actually be pleased with!