Stage 5 – Message Purpose

Examining the Extent of Explanation

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Biblical preachers should study to a higher level than they preach.  In the days, or even weeks, that we have to study a passage in anticipation of preaching it, we should probe and study and push and delve.  The study should incorporate all appropriate study methodology (appropriate to the genre, to the text, to our own abilities and skills).  The study should also appropriately consider the input of others (a variety of “experts” in printed form, or in real conversation if you have access).

The result of all that study should be more fodder for explanation than you have time to preach.  Even if you could cram it all in, what about emphasizing the relevance for today’s listener in terms of application and support materials, etc?

It is an important skill to learn to limit the extent of the explanation given in a sermon.  I suppose the best measure I’ve come across is what Donald Sunukjian said . . . “as much as necessary.”  That is in no way a negative comment on explanation (like I might say “let’s have as much vegetable as necessary in a meal, but unlimited meat”).  It is a comment demonstrating the high value that needs to be placed on emphasized relevance.  In Sunukjian’s terms, “explain as much as necessary, then apply, apply, apply.”

So how do we determine the necessary extent of explanation (and background information, demonstration of exegesis, etc.)?  A couple of key values come to mind, you may add others too:

1. A commitment to serve, not to show off. Every preacher faces constant temptation from insidious pride.  It is so easy to show off all the study you’ve done, all the skills you have, all the extra information you’ve gleaned.  Value service rather than display.  Value people over performance.  We all need to make sure our motivation is as much “for their sake” as possible, and as little “for my sake” as possible.

2. A sense of personal security, rather than insecurity. Insecurity abounds in the human race.  If our antenna are attuned we can spot it all around us, all the time.  An insecure preacher (for personal reasons, or as a result of criticism, etc.) will try to establish their right to be preaching in various ways.  One is to demonstrate excessive exegesis to undergird their ministry (and even personal worth).  A secure preacher is not concerned with how they look, or even if they’ll be criticized, but is concerned primarily with pleasing the Lord as they handle His Word for the sake of His people.

Let’s examine the extent of our explanation.

Application Weak Spots

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Last week I was teaching preaching alongside another instructor in a preacher’s training conference.  At different times we both pointed to three levels of application, and we both pointed out a weak spot . . . but the two sets of categories were very different.  I suppose this should be two posts really, but here are the lists of three:

Targets of Application – Mark Meynell offered three levels of application.  The first, and the one we tend to be best at, is at the level of private application (for instance, our personal spirituality, ethics, devotional life, etc.).  The second level is the relational (for instance, relationships in the home, the workplace, the church, etc.) and he stated that we tend to do okay on this level.  The third level, however, is the weakest.  This is application at the social level (engaging with the world).

Personal Targets of Application – I offered the following three categories of application, again noting that one is usually considerably weaker than the other two.  The first level is the level of conduct, or “the hands” – that is, application in terms of what to do.  The second level is the level of belief, or “the head” – that is, application in terms of what to know/believe.  Depending on the preacher, one of these is usually stronger than the other.  Some seem very quick to present practical applications (often forgetting the inherent value of “belief” application), others tend to emphasize applications in respect to belief.  Both are necessary and often appropriate (depending on the passage and the listeners).  There is a third category that lies underneath both of the first two, but one which is often ignored.  The third level is the level of the affections or “the heart” – that is, application in terms of core values, love and spiritual relationship.  If people do, based on what they know, then there is still another step deeper into the functioning of humanity – to the level of the affections, values, desires, loves.  Consider Ephesians 4:17ff to see how Paul moves deeper than conduct to knowledge, then deeper again to the role of the heart.

Application is not easy.  Two different sets of categories, both pointing to an area of specific weakness.  How can we better apply in respect to engaging with the world?  How can we better apply in respect to the affections of the listener?

Big and Mini Hope

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Christian preaching should be infused with hope.  This is because the Bible is infused with hope.  While every generation likes to think that their generation is different from all that have come before, the fact is that almost every generation has been lacking in hope.  I was just reading of the collapse of the 50’s optimism in the 60’s.  Dostoyevsky’s famous line, “If God does not exist, everything is permissible” springs to mind.  And if it is possible to state this in relative terms – God does not exist even more now . . . in the perspective of my culture, at least.  Culture changes, but needs do not.  The God is dead movement in the 60’s is not making the cover of news magazines now, but “new atheism” (great misnomer) gets plenty of airtime.  We may not live in fear of nuclear war as we did then, but what of terrorism, or even the fear of ecological disaster?  Times change, but hopelessness persists.

Biblical preaching should be infused with hope, big hope and mini hope:

Big hope. The Bible is shot through with messages of hope that this world as it is is not all that there ever will be.  We are people in a privileged position in that we know the end of the story is not what we see in front of our eyes, but more than that, God has told us the end of the story already.  You could say it is not written yet, but it’s already been written.  Sad to see how much of Christendom has moved to ignore or platitudify (new word?) the eschatological hope that pervades Scripture.  Oh yes, eschatology may be divisive, errors have been made, sensationalism has been embarressing at times, etc., etc., but one thing we can’t get away from, or redefine our way out of (at least not convincingly), is that God certainly gave us a lot of “big hope” in the Bible.  As we preach the Word, people need to hear and see that we are people of genuine hope.  A hope that is not irrelevant or incomprehensible, but a hope that lifts our eyes to that Day so that our lives are changed today.

Tomorrow I’ll share the mini hope . . .

Clusters and Journeys

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Influencers are leaders.  So preachers are leaders.  But how much do we lead in our preaching?  Take the issue of preaching calendars, for example.  At one extreme we have churches that have no calendar planned, or only preachers planned (but no subjects/texts).  I suppose the ultimate example might be  church that relies fully on visiting speakers who all choose their own message for each service.  At the other extreme we have churches who carefully map out the entire year of preaching, so that you can know now what text will be preached the second Sunday of next October.

Some would hold that only the Holy Spirit should lead the church, and thus the random outside preacher approach is fine since God can work through whoever is preaching.  I suppose we could all agree to that in principle, but at the same time, I want to graciously ask a question of that approach.  Is there not the risk of simply presenting biblical truths without any sense of deliberately leading the church forward on its journey?  How much opportunity is missed by “simply preaching” without really tapping into the broader reality of the growth of the local church?

Now for those who have a well-planned preaching calendar.  Is it merely constructed by the gathering of series in some attempt to give a balanced diet?  That’s a good start, but again, are we failing to lead as well as the opportunity affords?  Do we fall into preaching collections of random messages strung together by the unity of a Bible book, or a series title, but fail to prayerfully plot the journey of the church?  Or are we plotting a journey 16 months in advance and failing to take stock of where we actually have travelled several months into the year?

One further thought.  Do we rely on one-hit messages to achieve change when really we would be far better with a cluster of messages approach? One-hit messages can be stand alone, or they can be a series that moves from one thing to the next, without the clustering power intended by a series.

Wherever our church sits on the scale of pre-planned preaching schedules, all of us are in danger of missing out on the opportunity to really lead the church as we preach.  Let’s prayerfully consider how God would have us carry the burden of leadership, every time we plan a preaching schedule, and every time we preach.

A Rather Poignant Visual

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Apparently we live in an age where people need the visual.  The visual is not only on our televisions in the evening, but on the screen in front of us all day at the office, and now on the screen in our hands as we commute in the train.  We are bombarded by the visual everywhere we look.  Apparently this is so patently obvious that self-appointed experts in “people today” are always quick to point out that people need something visual during the sermon too.  After all, something that is only heard has little to no chance of being remembered, according to the same experts.

Consequently it is equally obvious, to these experts, that the only way for preaching to succeed today is by use of powerpoint.  I suppose we could express deep appreciation that God has blessed us to live in the only generation with such capability!  In reality, people have always valued the visual, in every culture, in every age.  So was it unfair to only allow the invention of powerpoint in these last days?

I don’t intend to negate the value of powerpoint or similar software here.  I would graciously point out that in the business world, in education and apparently, even in the military, there has been a pulling back from powerpoint in recent years (especially in the final third of presentations where there is nothing like face-to-face communication for the final thrust and appeal).  Powerpoint can be used well in preaching, I believe that, even if I haven’t often seen it.  Rather than unthinking commitment to powerpoint, I would urge us to ponder David Larsen’s warning over triangulation in communication.  Technology is not bad, but it can so easily move sermon-time into circus-time and show-time on the one hand, or into over-intellectualization and de-emotionalization on the other.

Believe it or not, this is not a post about powerpoint.  It’s a post about the visual.  Preaching has always been a visual as well as audible communication form.  Two important ways spring to mind:

1. As we preach the Word, images form. Good preaches paints pictures in the heart of the listener.  They hear what we say and they see what we mean.  Better, they hear what God says and see what He means.  They enter into the narratives, they see the truths, they see themselves living out the reality preached.  Good preaching is full of images, irrespective of our use of powerpoint.

2. As we preach the Word, they see us. This is nothing to get excited about in a vain sense, but it is powerful.  Far more powerful than any clip art or projected photo.  Despite well-intentioned prayers before sermons, listeners do see the preacher, and that is part of God’s design.  Truth through personality.  God’s message through His messenger.  We communicate with our words and tone, but also through our body language, gesture, expression.  We communicate with our words, but also with our lives.  We are, as David Larsen put it, a rather poignant visual.

Oh, What a Calling!

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

We live in an age of increasing biblical illiteracy.  While we may not lose sleep over the growing lack of awareness of structural details of the tabernacle or believers’ ability to recount the kings of Judah in order, some things should concern us.  I just read an article referring to the ever-shrinking affirmation of Jesus’ exclusivity among self-professed evangelicals.  I just experienced it first-hand at a large gathering of believers.

If Jesus wasn’t right to teach that he is the only way to God, and if the Bible isn’t really right to state that there is no other way to gain salvation, then where do we stand on everything else?  I can understand how people, bombarded and brain-washed by the tolerance teaching of our age, can feel uncomfortable with claims of exclusivity.  What I do not understand is how they piece everything together in their own minds, and how they can have any confidence in God when His Word is perceived to be flawed.

What about the deity of Christ?  His resurrection?  The nature of God?  We really are living in an age when christians are often very committed to a composite theology of their own construction, but one significantly shaped by the tone and teaching of the world.  Perhaps this has always been the case, but nevertheless, we need to be concerned to clarify the truths of Scripture.

At the same time let’s not allow ourselves to think that truth clarified means job done.  Remember the relational core of Christianity.  God in relationship with His people.  Knowing the facts about my spouse is not enough for a healthy relationship.  There is a dimension that goes much beyond the brain and cognition when it comes to marriage.  The same is true when it comes to the relationship that human marriage illustrates.

What a task is ours as we preach!  Not only must we present the truth of God’s Word to counter the constant confusion engendered by a corrupted world system, but we must also consider the dynamics of relationship between the Lord and His bride – a bride that so often is lulled into diminished relationship by truth-assent alone, or experience alone, or effort alone.

Preach the Word of God in all its truth, in all its winsomeness, in all its power, in all its subtlety, in all its relevance.  Preach the Word of God, not as man-centered teaching, but God-centered self-giving.  Preach the Word of God to the mind, but don’t stop there, preach also to the heart.  Preaching, what a calling!

Remind People Of Things Once Known

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I recognize that this site is read by people in a variety of countries, so what I write in this post may not be equally relevant to all.  In the contexts where I do most of my preaching, in the west, there are many changes taking place.  One is the level of biblical knowledge.  Here’s a quote from Craig Loscalzo in Apologetic Preaching (p24):

We can no longer assume our preaching takes place within a more or less “Christian” culture.  The great narratives of Judeo-Christian belief, the pivotal stories of the Bible’s characters, the events of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ either are not known or do not carry the meaning-making significance they did for previous generations.

There are many implications for preaching in this reality.  For example, we should be careful about passing references to biblical stories as “illustrations” in our messages – what use is an illustration that the listeners don’t understand?  We should be careful about assuming people understand background to the text we are preaching.  We should be wary of going “over their heads” by aiming too high and not laying down the basics (but at the same time not merely offering diluted fare).

While there are many implications that come from the lack of biblical knowledge, theological awareness, and Christian thought, there is one main implication that stands out.  Let’s finish Loscalzo’s paragraph (and translate the national reference to our own, if it fits):

Biblical knowledge, Christian doctrine and theological reflection must be presented and re-presented from America’s pulpits – yes, even to American Christians.

The Opposite of Church Growth – Really?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I recently had a discussion about reaching Muslims with the gospel.  The point came out that to many Muslims, we Christians don’t look any different than the world around us.  We watch the same movies, live the same lives, have the same number of divorces, etc.  After all, overt Christians on MTV (they have a big cross hanging round their necks) sing some of the most atrocious lyrics.  So while their religion changes lives, obviously Christianity is pure fluff.

At one level we see massive misunderstanding.  Just because someone wears a cross on a chain doesn’t mean they are actually followers of Christ.  After all, you wouldn’t watch Friends, see the Christmas tree and therefore assume they are typical Christians, would you?  Many do.  But at another level, it is true that churches tend not to be filled with people living a sold out radical faith.  We don’t see many living totally abandoned lives, in a sort of Christlike Jihad where the weapons are not violent, but stunningly loving, where the armor is God’s armor and the clash with spiritual forces is continual and real, demanding the deepest of devotion to our master and commander.

Perhaps if the church was more uncompromising in its spirituality it would stand a greater chance of communicating the gospel’s power to Muslims?

But then the fear kicks in.  As preachers, if we preached for this kind of radical spirituality, surely we’d offend people and lose people and empty the pews.  It would be the opposite of church growth.  We’d be single-handedly responsible for emptying the church!  Would it?  Would we?  Perhaps the gospel doesn’t need us to excuse it’s strength.  Perhaps the Bible doesn’t need us to undermine it’s powerful call on lives.

Perhaps . . . perhaps if we lived and preached a radical sold-out all-for-Jesus come-live-die uncompromisingly clear biblical message, perhaps we would see the church thinned out.  Perhaps we would see some leave, their desire for sanctified entertainment unmet and their worldliness made to feel uncomfortable.  And perhaps we’d stand a chance of reaching Muslims with the gospel.  More than that, perhaps there would be something attractive about such a message that the hunger for reality in our culture of mind-numbing entertainment would kick in and our apparent attempts to purge the church might result in genuine church growth?  Perhaps.

If the offense is the messenger, we will merely do damage.  But if the offense is the gospel, watch out!

Something to ponder.

Preaching Apologetically

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Is it possible to preach mystery in an age of information, hope in an era of skepticism, confidence in a time of doubt, truth in a climate of relativism?  The ultimate question becomes, can we preach Christ in a postmodern world?  My answer, of course, is yes.  My suggestion is that it’s time to apologize for God.

This is Craig Loscalzo in his Apologetic Preaching, page 22.  Strong stuff.  In case you are worried by that last line, let me quote a bit more:

Far too many pulpits have been, for too long, apologizing – that is, making excuses – for God.  Timid sermons that dismiss the sticky issues of Christian faith, sermons that water down the demands of the gospel, pabulum preaching pleasing to people’s ears but unable to offer transformed lives will be transparent to the skeptical lenses of postmodernity. . . . Apologizing for God means apologizing for God, not making apologies for God.  In other words, it means making a case for the gospel in all its scandalous reality.  Apologizing for God means rightfully reclaiming the apologetic role of the pulpit for the cause of Christian faith.

I agree with this.  But I am also wary as I write this.  I’m wary because too often it seems that a move toward apologetics is somehow a move toward theology, philosophy, academia, but somehow also a move away from the Bible.  By no means!  The Bible is inherently apologetic.  Our apologetics are our attempts to speak for God into this world, but the Bible is God’s Word spoken into this world.  Let us not feel stirred to our apologetic role and thereby drift even slightly from expository preaching.  Preach the Word, God’s Word, preach it with an emphasis on its relevance to your listeners – so that the scandalous reality of the gospel can shine into darkness of the contemporary milieu!

Fearful Preaching?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I just started Apologetic Preaching (Proclaiming Christ to a Postmodern World) by Craig Loscalzo (do you pronounce that the way it looks – anyone know?)  In the first chapter Loscalzo enters the arena of defining and engaging with the broad issues of postmodernity.  In the process he writes of the fear of many contemporary preachers.

This fear comes from seeing other churches successfully growing, while seeing apathy, lethargy, and empty pews up close.  It is a fear of pushing too hard or demanding too much.  It is a fear of being labeled as narrow-minded by colleagues, by the media, by academics they have studied under, or by intellectuals in their church.  Their ecclesiastical vocabulary, in its progressive state, is now purged of terms like sin, judgment, immoral, evil, righteousness, faith and commitment.  They fear offending sensibilities or being stereotyped on either the religious right or left.  He writes, “we have become so hypercautious that our sermons at best offend no one and at worst merely bore.” (p12)  What’s more, a fear of being irrelevant leads to nothing more than mundane chatter.

Obviously he’s writing about other preachers and not us, obviously.  Of course.  Clearly.  Without any doubt.  But rather than get defensive, why not ask God to show us if any fear has crept into our preaching ministry?