Mohler cites an interaction (p165 of He is Not Silent) between Spurgeon and a student at his pastor’s college:
A student . . . once asked how he could focus more clearly on bringing believers into the faith. “Do you expect converts every time you preach?” Spurgeon asked. The student quickly retorted, “Of course not.” And the reply came back: “That is why you have none.”
Selah.
The health of any church depends, in part, on its leaders functioning faithfully as theologians. It’s part of the package for any elder (pastor, minister, leader, whatever term you are used to). Leading, feeding, caring and protecting. How are we to lead others on God’s behalf if we’re unclear on the nature of the church, it’s mission, God’s character and plan? How are we to feed the saints if we’re not wrestling with the great doctrines of the faith and setting them forth? How are we to care effectively for souls if we never consider what a human consists of and how they function in relation to salvation and walking in the Spirit? How are we to protect the flock if we’re unaware of theological trends and errors in the general atmosphere of the contemporary church at large?
The pastoral functions of any church leader require that theological reflection and processing be involved in the ministry. It is a dangerous error to presume that theology is a function of the academy or the research university. It is worrying to find many preachers and leaders who think that their task is not that of theology.
If you preach, then you influence. If you influence, then you lead. If you lead, don’t make the grave error of divorcing your ministry from that of theology. If you do, then both your ministry and theology will suffer. You will suffer. And so will they.
A switch that could make a big difference when preaching narratives. How do you preach a story?
Common Default Approach – This is the approach that begins the message with the reading of the text, then moves on to talk about the story, noting elements within the text and giving both explanation and application based on those observations.
Strengths & Weaknesses – It is easier to read a text straight through than to interrupt the reading of the text, people know the whole story from the start and it allows great freedom in terms of what you do with the rest of the message. These are strengths to one degree or another. However, there are also inherent weaknesses in this approach. The story becomes a specimen to examine, rather than a narrative to be experienced (once the reading is over). The inherent tensions within the narrative are essentially lost, although a good preacher will attempt to rekindle them in the elements of retelling the narrative that follows the reading.
Original Force Approach – Okay, I made that name up, but it does convey my point here. The simple switch I’m suggesting is instead of “read the story and talk about it,” rather try to “tell the story homiletically.” What I mean by that is allow the form of the story, and the telling of it, to form the spine of most of the message. In the process of telling the story, combine explanation of context, culture, historical setting, etc., with deliberate application for contemporary listeners.
Strengths & Weaknesses – The weaknesses that stand out to me with this approach are the greater challenges involved in telling a story effectively such as vivid description, maintaining tension, etc. Thus it may be slightly harder to preach well in this way. However, the strengths of this approach are significant. The original force of the passage can be recreated for listeners, whether or not they already know the end of the story. The inherent tensions and intrigue in a narrative can become strengths of the message (you don’t have to create tension with a story, it has tension inbuilt). Explanation can feel natural as the story is told, application can carry the implicit force of the narrative. The ability of a narrative to overcome resistance is harnessed rather than lost (in the common default approach, listeners often put their guard back up once you start “preaching” again after the story’s been read). There are other strengths too – while it may be harder to preach this way, it makes preaching preparation more interesting as you enter fully into the narrative rather than standing over it with scalpel in hand. So much more could be added . . .
Next time you preach a narrative, instead of reading it and then talking about it, try telling the story so that the original force is felt as the thrust of the sermon.
You know what I mean. People are sitting and listening, sort of, until you say a key phrase, then suddenly everyone is really listening carefully. Let’s make the assumption that having people really listen is a positive thing. Now let’s consider some examples of “switch on” phrases and consider the implications for our preaching:
“How does this apply to us?” – People do tend to listen more when the message is about them, their lives, their needs, etc. We could critique that theologically and point to the self-obsession of humanity. Or we could be thankful that all Scripture is both God-breathed and “useful” – i.e. life changing. And then we could stop leaving application to the last three minutes of a message and look for ways to include it throughout. Compare and contrast an introduction infused with relevance and applicational preparation for the message to follow, with the standard switch off phrase “Last week we were deep in 2Chronicles 17, please turn with me to 2Chronicles 18 . . .”
“Let me tell you a story . . .” – People of all ages love a good story. “Once upon a time” does wonders for children of all ages. This kind of phrase is much more of a switch on than “let’s talk about the story.” I’ve said it before, when the passage is a narrative, tell the story! Even when it is not, how can the message be engaging and interesting, rather than mere lecturing and information transfer?
“Here’s how I struggle with this . . .” – People are always interested in appropriate vulnerability from the preacher. Haddon Robinson urges preacher to neither be the hero, nor the jerk, in the stories they tell by way of illustration. He is right, but he is not saying be absent from your illustrations. People are far more interested in you as a real person, than they are in Napoleon or Lenin. It is good to personalize aspects of the message, as long as it doesn’t make you look too good, or too much of an idiot. Credibility and interest can increase or crash with personal stories. Choose wisely, but choose some.
Some things switch on listeners, but integrity demands that we don’t use them. Over-promising and then under-delivering, offering success guarantees in a messy world, promising healing or wealth when the text doesn’t support that application. We must have integrity so that we’re not mere pragmatists. However, it is easy to go to the other extreme and fail to learn from the reactions of listeners. What other phrases switch on the listener? What might be the implications for our preaching?
Sometimes in preaching we will cover details that have apologetic value. This will probably not be the main thrust of the passage, but if time allows, why not note the inference that can be made so that our listeners are strengthened in their view of the accuracy of the Bible? Our churches would be stronger in this day and age if more believers had a fact-based robust evangelical bibliology. We don’t have to wait for the next DaVinciCode-esque attack on the Bible, we can be reinforcing a proper view of the Bible through our preaching.
Consider, for example, Mark’s accurate knowledge of names and languages. The more we study, the more we discover that the gospels have exactly the pattern of names and languages we would expect them to have if they were true. The more common names in Judea/Galilee at the time of Christ have qualifiers added to help the reader know which John (brother of James / son of Zebedee, or the baptizing one) or which Judas (brother of Jesus, Iscariot, or son of James). On the other hand, no information needed to identify the Thaddeus (39th most popular name), or Philip (61st). This may not seem that significant, but at that time, the 2nd most popular name among Jews in Palestine was 68th most popular in Egypt. The writers (especially Matthew and Mark on this issue) demonstrate real accuracy in their choices of names and when to add clarification details – was this sophisticated research leading to accurate fiction, or was it just plain accurate history?
For another example, consider Mark’s knowledge of local languages. In 14:70 he knows local differences in accent. In 5:41 he gives the correct Aramaic for that time and place (see also 7:11; 7:34). In 11:9 he gives the right pronunciation for the locals saying “Hosanna,” rather than the Old Testament “Hoshiana” (in the Talmud the Rabbis apparently complain about the local crowd mispronouncing the “sh” as “s”). Yet at the same time, Mark knows accurate Roman Latin – see 6:27 (speculator); 15:39 (centurio); 12:42 (quadrans) . . . all details, but the kind of evidence you’d expect for an eyewitness testimony written in Rome.
As Peter Williams of Tyndale House, Cambridge, recently stated, “The gospels have exactly the pattern of names and languages we would expect them to have if they were true. The pattern is too complex for an ancient forger to reproduce (it would be a level of sophistication never seen in antiquity!)”
(Thanks to Peter Williams for his great teaching on this subject, and he would point to Richard Bauckham’s book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses as a key source.)
As a preacher it is important to know the big shape of the book you are preaching. It is also important to communicate it. Too many Christians see the books of the Bible as a random assortment of random chunks. Our preaching should not exacerbate that lack of macro awareness. While preaching a passage it is helpful for our listeners to hear how this piece fits in the whole message of the book.
We won’t agree on every attempt to “macro frame” a Bible book, but we should agree that people need to recognize the unity and flow of the books.
The first three chapters of Ephesians describe the calling of believers as church – a body united in Christ Jesus. Then from 4:1 on the book is concerned with the conduct of believers as church – a body living out its unity in Christ Jesus. Calling: Conduct. Overly simplistic? Maybe, but better than only having random details or a couple of favorite verses.
What about Mark’s gospel? Two big questions. Who is Jesus and what does it mean to follow him? In 1:1 the reader is told who He is (Christ, the Son of God), but the characters in the narrative take a long time to get there. The hinge of the book is in the middle of chapter 8, where Peter makes his “you are the Christ,” confession, only to then put his foot in it by rebuking Jesus for introducing crucifixion talk. But the reality is that a Christ who is simply miracle-working man of power is an incomplete Christ. You can’t have the Christ without the cross. So in the next chapters Jesus keeps explaining and predicting the cross. He came not to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many. The followers of Jesus are to take up their cross and follow Him. Do they get it? When will someone understand? Perhaps once the Christ dies on the cross, and the climactic statement of the centurion standing close by, “this man was the Son of God.” (1:1; 8:27-34; 15:39). Mark’s gospel has a profound flow to it, but how will people know this if we don’t let it slip out in our preaching?
Romans seems to move through four chunks of thought – Our problem (we lack God’s righteousness – 1:18-3:20); God’s provision (he gives us His righteousness – 3:21-8:39); God’s promise (we can trust His promise of righteousness – 9:1-11:36); Our practice (we live out God’s righteousness – 12:1-15:33). Now I know that this righteousness emphasis doesn’t also point out the other core issues of God’s faithfulness and unity between God’s people that spans the book. Perhaps we can present differing macro frames of reference for the same book to help people see the big picture?
We’ll leave it there for now, but as preachers, let’s not miss opportunities to help people see where a passage fits in the flow of a book. Let’s do some macro framing!
On June 30th I wrote a post on preaching as a matter of life and death. For that post click here. In the good discussion that followed I made this comment – God has communicated in His Word (and calls us to preach that Word), in such a way as to move the heart/affections, as well as informing the mind, urging the will and so on. Beyond Bluestockings asked the helpful question – If the moving of hearts and affections is the work of man (the preacher) then the results will surely be temporary?
Such an important question deserves more than a quick answer . . . so hopefully this is helpful:
Thanks for the comment and my apologies for the delay in approving it. You are right that the moving of hearts and affections is the work of the Holy Spirit. If we make that our task we can easily fall into manipulation and the achieving of temporary results. What I am saying is that God’s Word is not simply an information transfer from God’s mind to ours. Rather, God’s Word is that and so much more. It was designed and written to move the affections, to captivate the heart, to instill values, to draw people to God, etc. Since the Bible is not mere information transfer, but carefully written communication that functions on various levels (i.e. through word choices, sentence structure, genre decisions, etc.), our task is to faithfully preach the Bible text as it stands. That means not flattening it into mere information. (My parenthetical statement in the previous comment “and calls us to preach that Word” should probably be moved to the end of the sentence for clarity!)
For instance, a Psalm may be highly emotive, full of moving imagery, authorial passion, etc. If we simply dissect that information and talk about it, then I think we are failing to faithfully represent the text. Rather we should present the Psalm in such a way that listeners feel the full force of the communication that is there – the images, the emotion, the passion, the truth, etc. Certainly there is explanation, but also more than that, there is something of experiencing the text as well. Thus we are to say what it says and appropriately do what it does. This does not take on the burden of transforming listeners, for that should always remain the work of the Spirit of God. However, since God is not an “information only” being (as some seem to suggest by denying any genuine affections in God), then there is no reason why we should “de-affect” the text and make it information only. Did God inspire the information in the Bible, or did His inspiration go much further? That is, did God inspire every word, every genre choice, every tone, etc.?
I believe our task in preaching is to be genuinely and deeply faithful to the preaching text, “re-presenting” it to the best of our ability (study ability, message formation ability, delivery ability), while always resting fully on God to achieve any life change in the listeners.
When it comes to the application of a message, there are many options. One is to ignore it completely and leave it up to the Holy Spirit (not a good option since it’s part of our job as preachers . . . by this logic why do we preach at all?) Another is to be vague and ethereal in application, positing plain platitudes (not a good option since people will affirm any attempt at application, but that doesn’t mean it made any difference in their lives). Another approach, popular in some circles, is to always give a very specific action step in every message (again, this is open to question since some texts don’t lend themselves to facile or purely practical action steps, and listeners can grow burdened by the pressure of ever growing action lists).
So how do we make sure application is specific, without making the grandeur of God’s Word look puny by pathetic pedantry? I would suggest that we make sure we are really understanding a passage as intended by the author, in all it’s beauty and power, before we start trying to come up with applications. We have a tendency to leap to applications and then somehow make every passage into a “witness more” or “live better” kind of passage. Once you’ve come to a decent level of grasping the meaning of the passage, then you have a hope of good application.
It is always worth starting with the original recipients. What was the author trying to do in them by this act of communication? If we can grasp that, then we are halfway to applying it today. If the original intent was to motivate a specific action step, then ours might well follow suit. If the original intent was to convince of a theological truth, then perhaps we should aim for the same.
Still, how do we earth the message in the lives of today’s listener? How do we apply, whether it is to the heart, to the mind, and/or to the actions of the listener? Remember that vague application will float around nicely in the vaulted roof, but it won’t change lives. Think about yourself. What is this passage specifically doing to me as I study it? Think about specific individuals in the church. What is the message of this passage looking to do in the life of Sarah the tired young mother? What is it straining to do in the life of Harry, the retired retailer with financial worries? What will it do if let loose in the life of Josh the recent graduate with no employment but a fiancee to make the future look bright? For specific and helpful application, earth it in the lives of specific people.
The question “why?” is critical for good preaching.
Why did the author write the passage? Wrestling with the intent of the author is critical if the goal is to understand the passage. This means not only asking “what does the passage say?” – that is, content. But also asking “why did the author write it?” – that is, intent. Many people don’t consider the author at all, which is a big mistake. Others consider the content carefully, but fail to ask “why?” This results in incomplete exegesis of the passage, which dooms the message to inherent weakness.
Why are you preaching this message? If this question is not asked, then we may fall into the trap of merely fulfilling routine, filling time, or even “doing our job.” But really, it is important to ask why you are preaching the message. This implies another “why?” question. Why do these people need to hear this passage? Prayerfully considering the needs of the listeners in light of the message of the passage will drive the preacher toward clarity in message purpose. If my goal is to fill time, I am surely a master of that (who among us is not highly skilled in the rhetorical art of waffling?) However, if my goal is driven by the text and the spiritual needs of those who will listen, then this will drive me to my knees in prayer and dependence on God. The “why?” question matters because it forces clarity in purpose and reliance on God.
Why is that there? Not only does “why?” help in the big macro issues of understanding the text and determining the message purpose, it is also helpful in the micro issues of message detail. Why is that illustration there? Why use that quote? Why am I planning to mention that historical detail? Why does that exegetical note need to be stated? Why do I take so long explaining that verse? Why am I not explaining this term? Every detail in the message should pass through the x-ray machine of the “why?” question. Extraneous detail, whether in explanation or illustration, is not neutral, it is harmful. Unnecessary stuffing, pieces without purpose, undermines the bigger “why?” of message purpose.
I’m not sure if it is possible to ask “why?” too many times in sermon preparation. “Why?” matters!
I’ve picked up Albert Mohler’s book He is Not Silent again. In chapter 3 he addresses the issue of defining expository preaching. He urges us to drop the language of “I prefer expository preaching” in favor of defining true exposition, which is true preaching. Mohler has major concerns with the contemporary emphasis on topical and narrative preaching, and urges the reader to understand true preaching as simply the reading and explanation of a biblical text.
(I would agree with Mohler’s concern, but wish to add a couple of qualifiers. I would suggest that true exposition must go beyond reading and explaining a text – a very mind-focused concern. Thus preaching is not only to say what the text says, but to appropriately do what the text does, too. Furthermore I would also suggest it is possible to learn much from the narrative preaching camp, as long as you think through what it means to be expository in your philosophy of preaching. And it is wrong to tar all topical preaching with the same brush…there is a place for periodic expository-topical sermons.)
Mohler goes on to state that where there is a decline in expository preaching, there is first an abandonment of the conviction that the coming of the Word of the Lord is a matter of life and death. Earthing his thoughts in Deuteronomy 4:32-40, Mohler offers three points for the development of both a theology of and a passion for, expository preaching. First, the only true and living God is the God who speaks (present tense – He speaks today through His Word preached.) Second, God’s true people are those who hear God speaking to them. Third, God’s people depend for their very lives on hearing His Word. Thus, preaching is always a matter of life and death!
Biblical Preaching 