Stage 5 – Message Purpose

Truth and Testimony

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

It concerns me when truth and testimony seem to be separate.  For instance:

There are some Christians that are very strong on the truth issues relating to Jesus – who He is and what He’s done.  They are passionately committed to the truth and will not compromise on it.

There are some Christians who have a strong peronal relationship with Jesus.  Their testimony is sweet and intimate and personal.  They have a deep sense of the love of God and communion with Him.

My concern is that I see too many Christians who have one, but not the other.  Strong on truth and standing for what is biblical orthodoxy.  Or strong on testimony and shaky on biblical orthodoxy.  Surely the Bible is inviting us and urging us to fully grasp both?

As a preacher, do you tend to pronounce truth, but never really offer the invitation for the more personal and intimate walk with the Lord (assuming that will be there)?  Or do you tend to make Christianity so winsome, but without the infrastructure of truth in place?

Let’s be sure that we are not imbalanced ourselves, but hold firmly to both of these aspects of the gospel . . . and then be sure to present both.

Exposition, Narrative and a Pot of Soup

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

There is a common misunderstanding of expositional preaching in relation to Bible stories.  I’ve heard the analogy used of a pot of soup.  A narrative sermon is like a pot of soup prepared carefully to be enjoyed by the guests – an experience to be savoured.  An expositional sermon is like an explanation of the recipe of the pot of soup.  Recognizing the difference between narrative preaching and preaching narratives, let’s engage with this analogy briefly.

With some preachers this negative recipe description may be fitting, but that doesn’t make the analogy accurate.  An expository preacher is concerned about communicating the point of the passage, rather than seeking to explain the point of every detail.  A good expository preacher knows that a story has its own way of carrying and conveying its point.  Thus a good expositor preacher, preaching a story, will not dissect it into a lifeless and experience-free recipe, but will communicate the story as effectively and accurately as possible.

What needs to be added to the telling of the story?  Any necessary explanation to make sense of it.  An underlining of the point, exposed for clarity, but appropriately timed so as not to undermine the impact.  If not inherently implicit, some form of emphasis on the contemporary relevance of the story.

What isn’t needed is endless detailed explanation, or numerous unnecessary and disconnected illustrations, or ill-timed statements of the proposition, or commentary-style titles for each segment of the message, or a manner which robs the story of its emotion, tension or energy.

When you preach a story, be sure to be expository . . . but not the wrong kind that feels like the explanation of a recipe!

Tailored to a Token Level

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments
The desire to be relevant to our listeners might sometimes undermine our preaching. What I am thinking about is the count the costs, take up your cross, radical discipleship kind of passages.  You know, the ones that seem to be so demanding and so absolute.
It’s not that we don’t believe them, or don’t want to preach them.  But sometimes we might desire to be relevant so much that we turn a cannonball of application into a little pea of attempted relevance.  We want to connect with people where they are at . . . living normal lives, with normal worries and normal stresses.  So we preach a cannonball passage with mushy pea force.
.
Perhaps what people need is the full force of the passage brought to bear on their normal lives, instead of scaled down to fit in their normal lives.  Be sensitive, be wise and be careful how you say what you say and when.  But also be bold, be faithful and be willing to pass on the full force of what the Bible invites us to as followers of Christ.
.
Don’t tailor application down to a token level.  Preach the Word, and be sure to let God preach to you through that Word first.  We all need our lives exposed to the full force of Christ’s call on our lives.

Fresh Preaching

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I just stumbled across a quote that brought a wry smile.  I don’t agree with it fully, but it is worth considering.  The chapter is written by Carl George, although he doesn’t cite the source for the quote he includes:

“Almost all ministers are well educated theologically.  Most seminary graduates have more to teach than anybody wants to learn.  If we spend any time at all preparing for a given sermon, we will meet the needs of the listeners.  As Dan Baumann, author of a widely used preaching textbook, says, ‘Anyone who simply sets forth the text and gives its meaning distinctly will be accused of freshness.'”

Now I don’t want to make too much of the “almost all ministers are well educated theologically” statement.  To do so would mean pointing out that this is probably a uniquely North American phenomenon.  I might be tempted to point to the largest denomination in one African country I heard about, in which only four pastors have any college level education, and none of whom have any seminary training.

I agree that most seminary graduates have more to teach than anybody wants to learn.  But what about “If we spend any time at all preparing for a given sermon, we will meet the needs of the listeners.” Surely that should be “perceived needs” of the listeners?

And then there’s that final sentence.  “Anyone who simply sets forth the text and gives its meaning distinctly will be accused of freshness.”

How true.  How sad.

Serve a Meal to the Guests

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

What if preaching were like hospitality – what would your guests experience?

Arriving at the door, slightly tentative about what may follow, they are rushed in and quickly seated.  No time for friendly interaction, there’s a meal to be eaten!  Before them the table is empty, but is continually filled as numerous covered serving dishes, pots and plates continually emerge from the kitchen.  In your zeal to feed them (and to show them everything you’ve done in preparation), you quickly uncover the first dish and serve a spoonful of carefully prepared french beans (the best result of your culinary efforts).  Then as they take their first taste of this fine cuisine you clear their plate, uncover another dish and serve some burned peas, swipe them off the plate and dish out an undercooked steak.  This continues with vegetables in various states of readiness, and an assortment of meats from a variety of animals (some familiar, some more exotic).  To break the intensity you also serve a big scoop of ice cream, before moving back to the main course again.  Your guests look bewildered at the experience, barely managing a bite before receiving more food and the odd sniff of a dessert.  Finally after forty minutes you pull away their plate and extend your hand for a firm handshake.  They smile cautiously and thank you for all your hard work before filing out of the front door.

I hope this wouldn’t be the case!  How much better to be welcomed and made comfortable?  How much more satisfying to enjoy the finest meal you could prepare and nothing more?  How much more comfortable to not have to experience every culinary idea you had and every cuisine cul-de-sac you entered in the last week as you planned and prepared the meal?  How much better to savour the meat chosen, rather than having a whistle-stop tour of all your favourite meats in your meat guide (concordance)?  How enjoyable to enjoy the side dishes and vegetables chosen to compliment the main meat of the meal?  How much better to partake of dessert when it is appropriate, rather than as a forced interlude in a manic meal?  How nice to have time to chew on the good food received?  How much better to receive a carefully prepared meal than an overwhelming force-fed food dump?  How nice to not have to come up with something polite to say at the door!

It can be a real blessing to be a guest for dinner.  It can be even better to be fed from the pulpit!

(Feel free to interpret this post in the comments, perhaps someone else missed what you observed!)

What Will They Copy?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I was just writing a mini-article in response to a request.  As I was writing it, I came across an article I wrote earlier this year.  I’ve linked to it previously, but here it is if you didn’t see it back then – click here.  Let me just quote a paragraph:

We must preach as those genuinely captivated by the love of God in the Word of God. We must preach contagiously as those who enjoy delightful engagement with this God. Our listeners will subconsciously mimic our leadership in their own “spirituality”–the question is; what kind of spirituality will they mimic? Will theirs be an intellect-only spirituality? Or will it be a purely pragmatic, self-concerned spirituality? Will it be a pseudo-spiritual flight of fancy unearthed in the truth of God’s revelation in His Word? Or will it perhaps be relational, Word-based, heart-level, real?

It is a scary thought, but an important one.  Listeners do more than listen.  They also mimic.  They copy.  Not least, they will be influenced by the spirituality they perceive in the preacher.  In light of that, it is hopefully not too hard to spot how they might end up with an intellect-only spirituality, or a purely pragmatic spirituality, etc.  The problem comes when we start thinking through how to shift their perception of spirituality based on our messages and how we live our lives with them.

Wouldn’t it be great if they could copy a relational, Word-based, heart-level, real spirituality?

Exhort, Educate . . . Manipulate?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Some preachers think that there are two legitimate options in preaching, but to go further would be wrong.  Legitimate would be to exhort listeners – that is, to appropriately pressure their will to obey the Lord, respond to the gospel, etc.  Legitimate would be to educate the listeners – that is, to feed information to their minds so that they know more and can therefore make better decisions.

But the next step?  Well, many people think the next step beyond the will and the mind is to address the emotions, and that, of course, would be wrong.  It must be wrong to address the emotions since that can so easily seem like manipulation.  I would agree that it can become manipulation.  I would agree that manipulation is wrong.  But I still think our preaching has to go deeper than mind and will.  How?

My sense is that manipulation occurs when I, as a preacher, utilize my ability to make a mark in the emotions that is disctinct from the content of the biblical text.  After all, the text is boss in an expository sermon, so if I am representing that text appropriately, then it should not be manipulation.  But when I resort to “techniques” – stand-alone tear-jerking stories, turns of phrase, emotional outbursts of my own, etc. – that aren’t representing the message of the text, then I am on dangerous ground.

If we remember that our role is to herald the Word of God, then we represent (re-present) the text of Scripture.  In so doing we need to represent a Word that targets the heart very often, and is seldom focused purely on exhortation or education.  We should be wary of manipulation, but not so that we ignore any textual targeting of the heart.  If we fall into the trap of performing, then manipulation creeps in so easily and we can corrupt the pure Word of God.

Preach to the will, certainly.  Preach to the mind, of course.  But be sure to preach to the heart, the Bible does!

Connecting With Story

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

There are many stories in the Bible, and this is one season in the year when most of us are preaching stories.  In some ways Bible stories give the preacher an advantage.  For example, stories offer a flow, a plot, a progression, that can be replicated in the message (although it amazes me how many preachers try to preach a story without telling the story!)  Also, stories offer vivid images and allow for effective description.  But how do we forge the connection between “back then” and “today”?  A few thoughts, I’m sure you could add more:

Don’t just historically lecture, but preach to today. It is easy to fall into the trap of presenting what happened back then, but not recognizing the enduring theological significance for today.  People appreciate hearing about what happened, but they deeply appreciate it when the preacher can emphasize the relevance of that happening to us today.

Don’t caricature characters, but encourage identification with their humanness. Again, it is easy to pick on one aspect of a character’s action in a story, but miss the other side of the coin.  For example, Zechariah doubted the message of the angel, but he was also a faithful pray-er over the long-term.  Don’t beat up your listeners with a sense of identification with the negative only – “How often do we doubt God’s goodness to us?  How easily we resist what God is doing!” Stories function through resolution of tension in a plot and through identification with characters . . . be careful not to mis-emphasize a character portrayal if the biblical account is more balanced.

Don’t identify without theocentrizing.  It is also possible to present the characters effectively so that listeners can identify with them, but miss the point that God is at the center of biblical narrative.  It’s not just Joseph’s kindness and personal character quality that is significant in Matthew 1, it is also very much focused on God’s revelation of His plan to both save His people from their sins and His presence with His people.  Joseph is a great example of a “fine, young man.”  But the passage presents this fine, young man responding to the revelation of God’s purposes.  Jesus, Immanuel.  That is the information that Joseph acted upon.  The amazing thing about Christmas narratives is that the theocentric truth is bundled up in a tiny human infant.

Christmas preached as just peace and happiness and quaint idyllic scenes is a travesty – Christmas is set up for theocentric preaching (but don’t lose the humanness of the other characters too).

The Preacher’s Motivation

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday I pondered why a message might be considered a new take or somehow different from what was expected.  On this particular occasion I preached Matthew 1.  I wonder if there’s another element to add to yesterday’s list of thoughts:

4. Not overemphasizing the theologically rich element in the text. In this passage there is the quote and fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 and the virgin giving birth to a son.  Don’t get me wrong, I did preach that, explained the original context briefly, touching on the Immanuel theme developing right through to 9:6-7.  The Matthew text was clear that Mary was a virgin and that the baby was there because of the Holy Spirit, not any sexual impropriety. However, I didn’t turn the sermon into a theological lecture, nor an apologetic defense of Christian orthodoxy.  My reason for that was because of who would be listening, and because the text doesn’t do that.  As I was pondering this, I wondered whether sometimes we might be tempted to use a theological detail in the text as an opportunity to show off our own orthodoxy, rather than to help listeners understand the truth?  I don’t know, this is just a thought.  I think it is important, it is vital, to teach the theological truth of Scripture, to edify and educate the people in our churches.  Certainly we have too many biblically illiterate people in our churches these days.  But still, are there times when our motivation for a strong theological presentation in a sermon is not really for God’s pleasure or their benefit, but actually for us to demonstrate our theological acumen, or to take pride in our orthodoxy (especially in comparison to some exalted figure who has denied orthodoxy in some respect)?

Why Is This New?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I was pondering the passage I preached yesterday.  It was Matthew 1 – the genealogy and Joseph’s dream.  I engaged with the text, tried to preach it with it’s own emphasis, and emphasised the relevance to us today.  A couple of comments afterwards referred to the new or different angle or take on the story.

So why was it new?  I don’t think it was.  I think I preached the text according to the prompts in the text.  I don’t in any way think my message was somehow better than others, but I have pondered what might be expected from the preaching of that passage that I didn’t do, or vice versa.  Perhaps one of the following explanations clarifies what was supposedly new or different?

1. Recognition of the experience of a character. In this case it was Joseph, his shattered world at the discovery of Mary’s pregnancy.  I suppose we tend to skip over that to get to the angel in the dream.  I suppose it is easy to subconciously assume that Joseph viewed the first Christmas the same way we do as we look at manger scenes and Christmas cards.  He didn’t have that.  He did have a totally broken world, at least temporarily.

2. Recognition of what is not in the text. Once the angel came in the dream and answered the “how did she get pregnant” question, there is still a lot that is unstated.  We tend to see what is there and presume it is the complete solution to the challenging situation.  But what about the “how is this going to work out” kind of questions?  Joseph was taking his bride home during their betrothal with her already pregnant.  He knew how, but what would everyone else think and say and do?  This might define their lives in so many ways.  Joseph didn’t have every question answered, but he obviously had enough – in who this Jesus was (God’s saviour of people from sins) and in this Jesus, Immanuel (God with us in the midst of life’s unanswered questions).

3. Emphasis on the relevance of the familiar. I suppose we tend to go through the Christmas narratives and simply celebrate Jesus.  But as with many narratives, it is the character’s interaction with and response to God that offers such relevance to us.  Maybe we’re not used to stepping into Joseph’s sandals, but maybe we should try it – he’s a bit of unsung hero.  What did he know?  Jesus.  Immanuel.  He moved forward because somehow that was enough.  What do we know?  What don’t we know?  Perhaps the relevance of the Bible is sometimes missed because of the more obvious elements?

Tomorrow I will share another thought on this passage, particularly in reference to how we preach the text.