Stage 5 – Message Purpose

Sermons and Series

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

After listening to a couple of Andy Stanley series recently, I have been pondering a point he makes in his book, Communicating for a Change.  He says that what most people try to achieve in a single sermon should really be developed over a whole series.  This allows for each message to genuinely have a single point, rather than a collection of points (and reduced impact).  It allows for the whole series to reinforce rather than confuse.

I have to say, after listening to a couple of his series, I tend to agree.  Perhaps we bite off too much in a series.  Perhaps we try to cover whole sections of a book, or a whole book, when maybe we would do better to drive home one passage more effectively. Perhaps we are too quick to move on and assume listeners have understood the point and applied it in their lives.

I suppose this creates a difficulty if we are committed to trying to preach every bit of the Bible over some self-determined priod of time.  I suppose it also puts a burden on the preacher – if you’re going to stay in the same passage for more than one sermon, you’d better not be boring!  But ultimately I suppose it asks the key question: not are we trying to cover ground, or are we trying to entertain, but are we trying to see lives transformed?  If that is the question, perhaps more focused series is part of the solution?

Preaching a Passage Owned

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Preachers preach a Bible passage from a variety of stances or approaches.  I see something of a continuum here and would love to encourage all preachers to move further down the list.

1. Preaching from thoughts prompted by the passage. In preparation the text is read, then the preacher preaches based on thoughts triggered by elements in the text.  It could be a certain word.  It could be a character mentioned.  It could really be anything.  Why do people do this?  Because they have not been taught a better way, and because it has a sort of pseudo-spirituality about it as an approach (since perhaps God is highlighting unique elements to make this a unique experience of the text).

2. Preaching about a subject in the passage. The preacher latches on to a subject mentioned in a text and addresses that subject, perhaps using other texts for support, perhaps just sharing their own perspective on that subject.

3. Preaching about the subject in the passage. A single unit of Scripture (a epistle’s paragraph, an individual narrative or parable, a psalm, a proverb, etc.) has a specific subject.  It is united by it’s dealing with something in particular.  Preaching about that something in particular is a great step forward and honours the text, the author and the Inspirer of that text.

4. Preaching about the passage. The preacher is focused on the text, has studied it and preaches about it.  There is a focus on the passage.  The details are explained, the flow is clarified, the message is applied.  This is decent preaching.

5. Preaching the passage. The difference between this and the previous one is a matter of distance.  Preaching about the passage can be accurate and relevant, and yet still feel a bit “arms length.”  The passage is like an exhibit being presented.  If every church achieved level 4 consistently I believe the church would be so much healthier.  But there is also level 5 in this continuum.  If level 4 says what the text says, then level 5 is about doing what the text does.  Somehow the preacher isn’t merely presenting an exhibit, but has so grasped the passage and been so gripped by it, that the preaching is no longer “arms length” – it is direct, personal, clear, alive, to us.  There must still be historical explanation, looking at the passage, applying the message of the passage, but now it is the preaching of a passage owned, a passage that has saturated the heart and mind and life and preparation of the preacher.

Where are you on this continuum?  How about moving one step further?

Overly Narrow Application of a Principle

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I’d like to build a little on the post from three days ago.  Here is a post I wrote a while back, but am fairly sure I forgot to post on the site.  It offers another angle on the challenges of application, again overtly leaning on Haddon Robinson’s work.

In simple terms the homiletical process involves three stages.  The first is the exegetical work of determining the original writer’s meaning.  The second stage involves abstraction of that meaning via theological principalization to derive a timeless truth.  The final stage is the earthing of that principle for the listeners sat in front of you – the homiletical application stage.  At this point our task is to not only demonstrate the meaning of the passage, but also to emphasize how it is relevant to the listeners.

Application is set up for illustrative material.  By definition, application involves demonstrating how the biblical principle might be applied in a contemporary setting, what difference it makes to us today.  At this point in the message, it makes sense to use illustrative materials.  But beware, there is a trap that is easy to fall into.

The incomplete variety of application error.  The meaning of a passage, and the derivation of principle, are both inclined toward single statement results.  That is to say, there is one meaning.  But how is that principle applied?  There are usually numerous possibilities.  If you only present a single example application, even if you state that this is one possible application, listeners will tend to presume that is specifically what you are preaching (or even, what the Bible is teaching).

Haddon Robinson gives the example of “honoring your parents” in a Pulpit Talk audio journal.  One possible application he gives from his experience with his own ageing father – that he ended up in a nursing home.  Another possible application he gives from their experience with his mother-in-law – that she was cared for by Haddon’s wife in their house.  To give one example without the other runs the risk of communicating only one option for applying the principle derived from the passage.

When you are applying a passage, demonstrating and emphasizing its relevance for your listeners, be sure to indicate the variety of possible applications, rather than leaving people with a faulty understanding of the passage because of an overly narrow applicational example.

Excessive Abstractions and Principles Too General

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Preaching an ancient text to a contemporary congregation will usually require some level of abstraction.  To preach an ancient instruction simply as it stands is to present a historical lecture, rather than a relevant presentation of inspired truth.  Some preachers simply say what is there and effectively offer historical lecture.  Other preachers abstract from historical specifics to timeless abiding theological truth, but end up preaching vague generalities.

To grasp what Robinson calls the “exegetical idea” and move through the “theological idea” to get to the “homiletical idea” is not easy.  The end result needs to be clearly from the text or the authority has been lost.  Yet the end result has to be specifically clear in its emphasis on the relevance of that text to us or the interest is lost.  One temptation is simply to play it safe, perhaps too safe.

What I mean by that is that we might derive a general, borderline generic, principle from a passage and move from historical explanation (often curtailed) into general application of this general principle.  Was the message true?  Yes.  Biblical?  Yes.  Relevant?  I suppose so.  Life-changing?  Probably not!  Sometimes it is a fear of fully engaging the text that can lead to this “generic” preaching.  Other times it is a fear of fully engaging the listeners that leads to it.

John Stott’s metaphor of the preacher as bridge-builder is helpful here.  The best preaching will not only touch both the world of the Bible and the world of the listener.  The best preaching will be firmly rooted, planted, engaged with and connected to both worlds.  Let’s not preach vaguely biblical abstract generalities.  Let’s really preach this text to these people!

Preaching Longer Narratives

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Anthony asked the following after one of the posts last week:

I preach only occasionally, and have tackled a couple of narrative passages recently. I like to respect the narrative chunks in the text, which often have a clear beginning, middle and end. But last time I ended up preaching two whole chapters (75 verses), which was probably a bit much!

I’d be interested to hear what you think about this. How do you handle the tension of wanting to tell the story as it was intended to be told and not wanting to overload the hearers?

This is an important question.  After all, not every biblical narrative is contained within a few verses like some of the parables, there are some substantial narratives in the Bible.  The David and Bathsheba narrative lasts for nearly 60 verses if you include Nathan’s visit.  Anthony is referring to one lasting for 75 verses.  A few points to bear in mind:

1. Listeners are more overwhelmed by how something is told than what is told. Especially with narratives, if they are told well, listeners will be glued.  Tell children a good story in a compelling way and they won’t be asking you to stop so they can go to sleep.  Let’s assume the narratives are good ones since God inspired them, that just leaves the storyteller to do their job well.  I’ve sat through the most compelling stories told painfully, but it shouldn’t be that way.  Let the story live, tell it well.

2. Good storytelling involves both detailed description and pace change. When you’re telling a Bible story, there are times when you need to add detail to the description to help the images form on the screen of the listener’s heart.  There are other times when the story can move ahead in leaps and bounds.  The text does this, so can you.

3. True expository preaching does not require equal attention to every detail. The traditional read a verse, explain a verse approach to preaching can become burdensome with a 75 verse narrative.  Tell the whole story, but focus in on the details at key points in order to convey the true message of the passage.  This requires absolute attention to every detail in preparation, but selective focus in delivery.

A couple more thoughts tomorrow on this . . .

Forging Connections

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Perhaps preaching could be defined as a work of forging connections.  In a world of increasingly independent and disconnected individuals relating often on a level of billiard balls (bouncing and bumping, but not connecting), the preacher’s task involves connecting with the listener, connecting the listener with the text, more than that, via the text forging a communicative connection between God and the listener, and potentially, connecting the listeners with one another.

I’m not sure I like this as a definition of preaching, but there are some truths to ponder here.  How often do we view preaching preparation, even inadvertently, as preparation to present information that will sit in the air for others to grab hold of if they so choose?  How often do we preach as though speaking into thin air, largely unconcerned who is sitting in front of us or whether they are with us in the communication act?  How often do we simplify the complexity of forging connections, with all the implied awareness of the complex beings involved, into a simple act of giving information out?  Out where?  Nowhere, just out.

It is relatively easy to formulate a message and deliver it.  But it is much more complex to prayerfully and pastorally consider the listeners, to prayerfully and devotionally consider the God whose Word we present, to prayerfully and purposefully consider how we can forge genuine communication between us and the listeners, etc.  What does this involve?  Study? Yes.  Preparation? Yes.  Perhaps prayerfully considering every aspect of delivery, demeanour, interpersonal conversation and intercession in anticipation.

This is not a complete thought or a well crafted unit of prose.  It’s a thinking out loud about the difference between just speaking information and actually forging connections between hearts – human and divine.  What a privileged calling!

Textual Tone – Deduce, Demonstrate, Declare

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Each text in the Bible has a tone.  We are often oblivious to it.  Our training in Bible school tends to focus on analysis of content.  Most sermons tend to train listeners to look at content (or perhaps to largely ignore the text and just bounce off it, but that’s another matter!)

I often find myself trying to figure out the tone of an email.  Was this writer annoyed, or discouraged, or aggressive, or manipulative, or did it come out wrong?  Is this email an encouragement out of empathy, or is it a patronizing exhortation?  We learn with our contemporaries that written language doesn’t always communicate tone overtly, yet tone is so significant to the intended communication.

With Bible texts we can’t meet up with Paul or Moses to double check their intent.  So we do well to wrestle with the tone of the text.  Let’s be diligent in this:

1. Deduce the tone. Don’t settle for simple cold analysis of content.  Wrestle with grasping the tone of the passage.  Allow that to be a factor in your understanding the passage and then in your preparation of the message.

2. Demonstrate the tone. Too often preachers preach every sermon in monotone.  Not necessarily their own vocal range, but rather the tonal range of the whole collection of sermons.  Some preachers turn every encouraging passage into a guilt-driven rebuke.  Others neutralize every passage they touch to make it a sterile set of philosophical musings.  Our preaching will be enriched by demonstrating the tone of the passage . . . as I seem to add a lot . . . appropriately.

3. Declare the tone. People may be so trained in tone-less preaching that simply improving your delivery may not be enough.  Sometimes overtly declare the tone of the passage.  I preached on Luke 11:1-13 recently . . . all about prayer.  A subject that most believers feel very inadequate in, and pressured by, is prayer.  Yet the tone of the passage is overtly encouraging.  I tried to demonstrate that tone.  I also chose to declare it overtly – this passage is not pressuring us, it’s overtly encouraging in its tone!  People need to become sensitized to the tone of Scripture.  They need to feel the emotion, the anger, the encouragement, the grace.

Let’s be sensitive to the text, and let’s help to sensitize others too.

Narrative Breaking Series

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

A story is a story.  It should be studied as a story and understood as a story.  But what about when you are preaching part of a story?  For instance, take the book of Ruth.  I had to preach just part of that story on Sunday.  It’s not easy to break into a story and preach part of it, but leave the rest for the following weeks.  Some thoughts:

1. You have to study the whole story. A narrative is incomplete until it has been completed.  Profound, but a necessary comment.  Even if you are only preaching one part of a longer story, you need to be significantly aware of the whole in order to handle your part well.

2. Build on previous elements, but don’t give away the tensions of subsequent development. If I am preaching from Ruth 1, then I need to preach Ruth 1 without preaching Ruth 2-4.  This means that although I really like Boaz and want to preach about Boaz, he’s not in my text yet.  If someone else is preaching in subsequent weeks and I have given away all the tension, that is unfair (even if people know the story, build the tension of the whole story and allow each scene to have its day).

3. If you only have one scene in a longer narrative, preach the plot of that scene. Recognize the mini-play nature of a single scene.  Look for the tension.  See how it resolves, even if only partially.  Preach the scene you are preaching.  Often readers and listeners think they know a story but really only know certain elements.  How many people really understand Jonah 2 or even Jonah 4?  How many people have really soaked in Ruth 1?  While it may be difficult to preach only part of a narrative, there are advantages too.

4. Make sure you preach a message, not just an introduction. It may be tempting to simply set up the following weeks where the greater tension is resolved, but don’t fail to preach a message this week.  Simply setting up what follows is not enough.  People have come to church this week and should be fed this week.

Much more could be said . . . you say it.

Study Bibles and Studying the Bible

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

We are starting to hear about the 2011 edition of the NIV Bible, timed to coincide with the 400th anniversary of the original King James Version.  King James may not have really “authorised” the often called Authorised Version, but he was motivated to have a Bible that had no notes attached to the text (other than Hebrew/Greek notes).  Interestingly, it is 100 years since the first publication of the Scofield Reference Bible.  C.I.Scofield, whatever your view of his theology, was motivated to see serious students of the Bible studying it more systematically.  Later came the New Scofield Reference Bible and the Ryrie Study Bible, not to mention a plethora of other reference and annotated Bibles from various theological streams.  The popularity of the NIV Study Bible seemed insurmountable, although recently we saw the launch of the highly lauded ESV Study Bible.

I’ve already mentioned seven Bibles that could all spark significant criticism (we are very quick to attack Bible versions and Study Bibles aren’t we?)  Obviously Study Bibles and annotated Bibles all have a particular theological agenda or leaning, that goes without saying.  But let’s make a simple observation.  Lots of “special” Bibles are published and sold because a lot of Christians feel both some motivation and some level of inadequacy for Bible Study.  A good Study Bible is a great resource for many people!

So the question then arises for us as preachers – how do we encourage our listeners to be effective Bible students?  Here are some questions to chew on – do we encourage them to use helpful study aids like Study Bibles and other resources?  Do we undermine the text they are looking at by critiquing the translation too freely?  Do we offer training in basic Bible study approaches – such as an inductive Bible study class?  Do we preach in such a way that listeners get the sense that the Bible is understandable and that Bible study would actually help them?

We may not place ourselves in the camp of the NIV translators, the Scofield notes, the Ryrie theology, the ESV Study Bible notes, or whatever.  But let’s consider how we can follow in this tradition of looking for ways to help people be serious students of the Word.

Feel-Good Sermons

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

There is a phenomenon, actually not uncommon, that we might call the feel-good sermon.  In it the preacher begins with the text and then shares several points that are somehow linked to the text.  The points will be put in terms that are comfortable and reassuring to the listener.  The listeners may well walk away feeling vaguely blessed and certainly positive in their view of the speaker.

However, this kind of sermon typically does not engage fully with the text.  Often issues like sin or judgment will be skirted around or offered merely in non-specific euphemisms.  Thus the tension in the text is not really engaged, nor resolved.  This probably means that the same tensions in the lives of the listeners are neither engaged, nor resolved.

Let’s beware of preaching feel-good sermons rather than biblical sermons.  It is possible to preach the Bible in a very engaging, encouraging and even positive way.  It is possible to preach the passage properly, even in a “seeker-friendly” setting.  In fact, if our main concern was the listener, wouldn’t we feel obliged to really engage fully with both text and listener?  The feel-good sermon seems to be a short-cut to happy handshakes, but it falls short of engaging both the text and the listener.  So perhaps the motivation is more fear and the preacher’s personal comfort than it is the motivation of a true minister?