Stage 5 – Message Purpose

True Topical Takes Time

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Some churches apparently have “topical sermons” every week.  Apparently some preachers think they are easier to prepare and easier to listen to.  Yes and no. A topical message is easier to prepare if you are simply wanting to say your own thing and bounce off a couple of verses along the way.  A topical message is easier to listen to if people have a taste for anecdotal soundbites.  However, true topical preaching, what you might call expository-topical preaching, this takes time.

(Incidentally, people may have a taste for lite-topical preaching, but often this is only because they’ve not heard decent expository preachng.  It’s never a fair contest to pit engaging topical messages by good communicators against dry and tedious lectures falsely placed under the label of “expository preaching.”)

By topical preaching, I mean preaching that is not initially birthed out of a passage or passages, but rather birthed out of the concept or title.  A good expository-topical approach will then select appropriate passages and do the exegetical work in those passages so that the part of the message coming from that passage actually comes from that passage.  Hence expository-topical.  Rather than using or abusing a bit of a text to say what I want to say, the onus is on me to let that text really speak for itself.

It may be easy to jump through my five favorite verses and link them together with anecdotes, but genuine expository-topical preaching requires me to wrestle with each passage chosen, in context, so that the text itself is boss over that part of the message.  True topical takes time.

I’m not of the opinion that every message should be from a single passage (I do think that is a healthy staple diet approach).  This week I finish a mini-series on the ‘christian virtues’ of faith, hope and love.  A broad title like “Love” takes time.  Time to select which of the hundreds of passages to use.  Time to understand them and develop a coherent message.  Time to cut out and drop material that could so easily fill a series on the subject.  If the subject were not so thrilling, I’d be tempted to say that I’m looking forward to preparing a non-topical message again next week!

Preach for Faith – Lennox II

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I was reflecting on Dr John Lennox’s concerns as Christians add fuel to the fire of Richard Dawkin’s faulty logic.  Faith, by his definition, is knowingly trusting in something which cannot be proven – believing against reason.  Yet Lennox yearns for people to understand that the faith is always a response to fact, and the Christian faith is firmly founded on trustworthy facts – not least the resurrection of Jesus.  Yesterday I shared his concern over the “leap in the dark” language used in some Christian circles as a very poor explanation of faith.  Today I’d like to share his second concern.

2. An over-emphasis on faith as a gift given from above.  Now it would be very easy for some readers to dismiss this, or to get into a theological slanging match.  I certainly don’t want to take sides or position this site on one side or the other of the debates this touches on.  Whether we agree with his own position or not, I think we must engage with Dr Lennox’s concern.  Could it be that an over-emphasis on faith as a gift received is inadvertently undermining the truth that Christianity is founded on fact, not least the fact of the resurrection of Jesus?  Could it be that internal theological debates undermine the presentation of the gospel to a culture now influenced by new atheism?  Could it be that irrespective of our stance on the so-called “free-will” debate, that we need to consider underlining, rather than undermining, the facts on which our faith response is built?

We preach the faith.  We preach for faith.  Obviously there is much to ponder in a world influenced by a whole smorgasbord of thinking, from the clear to the fallacious and deceptive.

Preach for Faith

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Probably it’s a combination of attending an apologetically driven conference and being scheduled to preach on faith this Sunday, but I’m pondering preaching for faith.  I suppose that is always close to the heart of the matter in Christian preaching.  Anyway, here are a couple of thoughts, although this could be a series of posts for the rest of the month.

The critical role of God’s Word. Right back in Genesis 3 everything “went wrong” when?  When they doubted God’s Word and listened to another “authority.”  Surely God’s Word couldn’t be trusted since this impressive creature had disobeyed it and yet still lived?  So they ate and they died spiritually, they began to die physically and the whole creation began to suffer death.  From that decisive moment on, the Bible is full of narratives, all of which have a big question mark hanging over them like an unfurled banner – “will people trust God’s Word or not?”  Interestingly, when God’s Son steps into the world to make a path back to deep relational intimacy with God, He comes as God’s Word.  Will he be trusted?  Doubting God’s word in the first place led us away, now there is a symmetry in the remedy in that we are asked to trust God’s Word (incarnated and inscripturated) in order to be brought back.  Consequently Paul writes to the Romans that faith comes by hearing, so the Word of God must be preached.  Peter tells his readers that they were born again through the resurrection of Jesus from the dead and through the living and enduring Word of God.  Hebrews urges the believers to remember their leaders who spoke the Word of God to them, and thereby imitate their faith.  In John 17, Jesus prays concerning the Word of God that He has given to His followers, and prays that they will be sanctified by the truth, which is the Word.  I could go on pulling example after example, but the point is critical – the preaching of the Word of God is absolutely central to the purposes of God in redeeming a lost world.

So the simple question is this – as you look at your message this Sunday, what is the appropriate faith response to God’s Word as preached in your message?  Is it clear?  Is it central?

In the next post I’d like to share some provocative thoughts on faith from Dr John Lennox.

Preacher Say Something

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday my wife had to spend the day in the hospital having blood taken every hour.  So I received regular updates by text message (SMS).  She was listening to some CDs she’d been sent.  Teaching on the subject of the family.  I received a sort of running commentary by text message.  The bottom line?  This preacher had taken a long time to say nothing.  Sort of a safari through Scripture making passing observations about families in the Bible (“Oh look!  There’s another one!”).  A great opportunity, but he’d essentially just filled time.

I am not one to spend hours trying to fix a broken pipe.  I tend to think that if I can afford to have someone else do the work, then I will, because my time is also worth something (and because I’m rubbish at fixing things and will end up paying anyway!)  If I spend four hours to save fifty pounds ($75), have I really saved any money?  Likewise, when we are preaching, we are asking people to sit and listen to us for 30 minutes, 45 minutes, however long you preach.  Please don’t just fill time.  Say something.  Study the text until you grasp it, until it grasps you, then say the text’s something.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to scan over this Sunday’s message once it is ready to roll out.  Is there any filler?  Is there any pointless meandering?  Is there any “saying something and nothing?”  Why is that line there?  And that paragraph?  What about that illustration?  In the past I wrote a post entitled “Please only powerpoint on purpose.”  I suppose I could steal my own line to conclude this post – please only produce preaching prose on purpose.

Disturbing Feedback

/ Peter Mead / 6 Comments

Yesterday I made a passing comment about “disturbing feedback.”  Let me begin with yesterday’s example and then add some more.  They tend to speak for themselves.  Don’t be too encouraged when you hear these kinds of comments after your preaching:

“Ooo, I never would have seen that in that passage!”

“As ever, such a rich message.  I mean, real steak that, really rich.” (This could be good feedback, but it depends on whether they could chew the steak or not!)

“I’m amazed at the long words you know.”

“I can’t wait to come back next Sunday, I need more Bible in my life!”

“I really enjoyed that story you told about the German sailor in the storm during the war, I’ll never forget that illustration!”

“If only I had gone to seminary, then I’d be able to be as clever as you!”

“Don’t worry about finishing fifteen minutes late, the nursery workers said the kids were really burning up some energy in there!”

“If I knew my Bible like you do, then I wouldn’t need to keep going to the table of contents every thirty seconds to find the passages you were quoting!”

“Phew!  I’m out of breath!  What a journey through the whole Bible you took us on today!”

“You’re right, we do need to try harder to live better.”

“You tell ‘em, preacher, they really need to hear that!”

“I don’t suppose we’ll ever know what Paul meant in that passage, will we?”

“I like Jesus, shame he’s not around today to fix all our problems!”

“I’m with you, let’s be as good as we can and then we’ll all get to heaven!”

And how about this one, simply because I have to stop somewhere:

“I loved that quote – ‘By all means preach the gospel, and if necessary use words.’ – fantastic!  Now I know I don’t need to ever say anything, just live well.  Thanks!”

What would you add?  Not necessarily from personal experience, although if you have any . . .

More Sneaky Landmines

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Last week I shared three sneaky landmines that every preacher faces in the ministry. I appreciated the good comments by Larry and Sudhir, so thought I’d bring their suggestions to the fore in this post. More landmines:

Thinking we need something new to say – Now just because a take on a passage has been the main one offered for generations does not make it right. Sometimes the church does put a spin on the truth or downright miss the point for long periods of time. However, as a preacher, my job is not to continually come up with something new. The ageless truth of the Bible, preached again with clarity and emphasizing the particular relevance for these listeners – that is the goal. And if you have a new view untouched by past generations and the scholars on your shelf of commentaries? Probably delay preaching that message for a few weeks, pray it through more and get into conversation with some trusted advisers . . . then if it is what the Bible teaches, preach it!

Majoring on Distinctive Minors – That’s not a new chord progression for the guitarist, it’s a temptation we all face. It is tempting to major on the minors that make us (my theology, our denomination, etc.) distinctive from others. Preach the dominant thought in each unit of thought, don’t make it your goal to always get this feedback: “Ooo, I never would have seen that in that passage!” (This is disturbing feedback!)

Pointing the Preaching Finger at Someone – You know who is at the forefront of your mind. That face that is constantly there as you prepare your message. Perhaps a critic. Perhaps someone who has angered you. Perhaps someone who has made it their mission to bring you down, so you are tempted to make it your mission to launch applicational mortars from the relative security of the pulpit. Don’t. Preach the Word for the benefit of all. Don’t take aim and fire cheap shots. To do so is a poor strategy on many levels, not least the spiritual level!

Question to Ponder – What is it we preach?

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

What is it that we preach?  I’m really “preaching to the choir” in this post.  I’m addressing those who are committed to expository preaching and therefore will unhesitatingly affirm – “we preach the Bible!”  Others may hesitate and desire to preach contemporary ideas or whatever else, but for those of us who, at least in theory, preach the Bible, my question stands.  What is it that we preach?  I see two approaches among expository preachers:

Option A – We preach the main thought of a text.

Option B – We preach an aspect of biblical theology prompted by the main thought of a text.

I see strengths in both approaches.  I see potential weaknesses in the way either approach might be applied by some preachers.  I see different preachers and different “schools of thought” falling under different categories in this over-simplified schema.

So how are we to select our option and move forward?  I see value in both options, but on this site I urge a commitment to option A (preach the text you are preaching), with an awareness of option B (develop the theology of the text biblically if you deem it necessary).  I know and respect others who essentially affirm option B for every sermon (always develop the thought through the canon to its fulfilment).

Identifying these two categories is an intriguing starting point for reflection on my own approach to preaching and hopefully for yours too.  Where might this reflection lead?  Is it necessary to offer rationale and critique of each?  Will people recognize that I am not setting up a permanent either/or mutually exclusive construct, but rather identifying the primary leaning of the expository preacher?

Five Major Failings – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Carrying on from yesterday’s two failings, here are the rest:

“3. Vague Phrasing – Preachers seem hardwired to eschew all vivid verbs and concrete nouns, with the result that they sound vague and uninteresting.”

A lack of energy in delivery, a lack of facial engagement, a lack of passion, a lack of effective sensory description and so on are all factors adding to the vague and uninteresting nature of much preaching.

“4. Sub-Christian Resolutions – There is not enough gospel-insight.”

This is a good observation.  If our application and resolution of the message is that we should try harder, do better, be “good-er” or whatever, then we are falling short of Christian preaching.  In my opinion we need not always force a jump to Calvary and Christ, there are times when a theocentric message need not move to the first Easter, but every message should be theocentric.  A try harder message is really anthropocentric (it’s all about us, our needs and our response).

“5. Trivial Applications – The gospel is shrunk down to an individualistic technique that we can use on a Monday, all in the name of relevance, but the grand scope of the gospel as a message that speaks for all time, to nations and tribes as well as individuals, gets lost.  I actually heard someone starting a sermon: ‘The toothpaste squirted out all over my jacket, my alarm failed to go off, and in the shower I used rubbing alcohol as shampoo.  I was having a bad day.’  This was to introduce a biblical twosome who were having a similar bad day – the Emmaus pair.  Come on!”

We do need to differentiate between trivial Monday morning applications and genuine Monday morning applications.  Too much preaching resists the trivial and replaces it with the spiritual-sounding vague applications that all affirm, but none grasp for their own lives.  I agree, let’s cut out the trivial applications, but let’s do so in a way that retains genuine relevance.

Five Major Failings

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

I thought I’d share this list of five major failings of many preachers, according to the book that I am currently enjoying:

“1. Multiplitus – Using too many points until the sermon becomes a starburst that dazzles rather than communicates.”

Well put.  When we try to preach more than one point, we quickly move from communication to fireworks.

“2. Elephantine Introductions – Huge ten or even fifteen minute introductions that contain the guiding imagery to control the rest of the sermon.  Trouble is that the imagery is either tiresome, prosaic, or just misleading.”

I’ve been accused of this at times, sometimes with justification.  I suppose that not having the entire reading up front can sometimes confuse people somehow searching for the end of the introduction.  Nonetheless, the last line is especially important – tiresome, prosaic, or just misleading.  We need to be careful with our introductions.  Essentially we need to “meet the people” and then “motivate them to listen” and without further ado, “move into the message/passage.”  (I don’t know why I used quotation marks there, the ‘meet, motivate and move’ alliterative language is my own – until someone publishes it first.)

Ok, tomorrow I’ll share the other three major failings according to this writer, along with my own comments.

Monday Musings on Manipulation

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Thought I’d follow up on Saturday’s post by sharing a quote I appreciated in the book I will name this week:

You must not fear to have affective goals for the sermon as well as cognitive goals.  There is nothing wrong with trying to move the listener.  It is not manipulative to seek to engage their entire being with the truth.  Manipulation is when the preacher overwhelms the emotions (or the mind for that matter), and creates a disorientation that actually takes the power of will away from the listener. (p.106)

I like that definition in some ways.  I like the recognition that manipulation occurs when disorientation is prompted by overwhelming.  I like the recognition that such overwhelming can be of the emotions and also of the mind.  When this occurs, something is taken away from the listener – somehow their decision making is controlled by an outside force, rather than by the appropriately shaped motives of their own heart.

Is the will ever truly free?  Perhaps not, but the heart must be free to supply the values that the mind and will rely on to make decisions.  Supplanting the heart with emotional hype, or with overwhelming intellectual astonishment, or even excessive pressure on the will itself (guilt-trip preaching) . . . are all a problem, all can be manipulation.

As a preacher convinced that my role is to speak to the heart, and not just the head, I must regularly wrestle with the issue of manipulation.  I must ponder the interaction of the soul’s faculties.  I must spurn any rhetorical technique designed to manipulate the listener.  I must consider what is biblically, ethically, theologically appropriate as one who has the privilege of speaking the Word of God into the lives of others.