Stage 5 – Message Purpose

Do We Preach the Bible or Theology?

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

As preachers we have to determine a fundamental perspective in our approach to preaching. Do we preach the Bible, or do we preach a theology? Obviously when we preach the Bible we will preach theology, and hopefully we will do that well. And there are times when we must chose to address a particular theological issue (the atonement, for example). But generally, when we have a text to preach. Which is it to be? Preach the text or the system?

Let me be honest. There are some passages that feel slightly less comfortable in my understanding of theology than others. If you’re honest, that happens to you too. But my conviction is that when I have a passage to preach, I want to preach that passage. If my study of the text prods at my theology, then hopefully the theology is the one that gets reshaped.

The comment that sparked this post was just a throw away line. The biblical narrative was read. After a theological background was put in place we were brought back to the story. It was summarized in one sentence. Then the implication given was along the lines of, “the story is that simple, so let’s leave that behind . . .” The rest of the message felt like the preaching of a theology, with the narrative functioning as a loose illustration of the theology. (It would be better if the passage were ignored, rather than abused in this way, then listeners wouldn’t go away thinking they’d heard the passage preached.)

This is not about homiletical technique. It’s fundamental to our view of our role as preachers. We are to preach the text. Prayerfully wrestle with the text. Understand the text. Preach the text. Let the preaching of the text shape the theology, not vice versa.

Can You Support It?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

One privilege of preaching is the privilege of study.  But not everything you discover in your private moments poring over the sacred text should be shared from the pulpit.  Some things may be an exegetical cul-de-sac that you pursued but led to an apparent dead end.  Other things may be genuine insights from the passage and its context, but are still better left unshared.  For instance, perhaps you discern an apparently symbolic or spiritualized understanding of some aspect of the preaching passage.  Should this be presented to a mixed congregation at various levels of biblical understanding?  Here are three questions to ponder before deciding to go ahead and share your insight:

Will your explanation be enough?  We all know the challenge of trying to explain intricate study, perhaps in the original language, to people seeing the text for almost the first time.  If our explanation appears inadequate, we run the risk of undermining our credibility or the logical cohesion of the message.

Do you feel the need to resort to cheap argumentation?  For instance, “If you were to read this book through once a week for 25 years, then you would begin to see that . . .”  This kind of throw-away remark in a sermon can cut deeply into the listeners.  Is the preacher unable to communicate the point now, so the listener is assured they would see it if they studied more?  (Incidentally, I was wondering whether the speaker who said this had read through the book in question 1300 times in the last quarter century!)

Will people copying your methodology get into trouble?  If the insight is somehow symbolic or spiritualized, do we want others copying the method?  Let’s say the insight is genuine.  What would happen if the listeners copy the method and start assigning non-obvious meanings to elements in their Bible readings?

There are times when an exegetical insight, even a genuine one, is better left in the study (or the classroom).  As preachers, we shoulder a significant responsibility for our listeners.  Let’s be sure to consider what is best for them, rather than what looks good for us.

Keep Drums Out of the Introduction

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The first few minutes of a sermon are important. They provide the opportunity to get the attention of the listeners, surface a need for what is to follow and move them into the passage and message. During this relatively brief movement there is a temptation that we probably all face to one degree or another. There is the temptation to lay unnecessary foundational blocks (and thereby promote a personal theological agenda).

Recently I was not preaching and so had the opportunity to listen to a visiting speaker. I was not the only one to notice the significant theological agenda being pushed in the extended introduction. Our task as preacher is to bring the message of our preaching text, not to use the text to bang on our favorite doctrinal drum.

Next sermon, let’s be careful to evaluate the background we give. Do we give enough? Do we give too much? Is what we give relevant to the understanding and application of the passage? As I suggested yesterday, in one sermon we cannot achieve everything. Over time people should get the whole canon, but it’s not our task to achieve that in one message on one text. Perhaps you decide to preach the whole Bible’s message in one sermon – great, but be honest about that and don’t give the impression it all comes from one particular text.

Our responsibility is to faithfully preach the specific text before us. Give whatever background is necessary for the communication, explanation and application of that passage. But don’t abuse the introduction by banging your favorite theological drum.

Goals – Too High, Too Low

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Many preachers have a tendency to overestimate what can be achieved in one sermon.  We also have a tendency to underestimate what can be achieved in five years.  Perhaps today will be an obviously great day in the work of the church.  Perhaps major breakthroughs will occur for all to see, as you have prayed for during the week.  But if not, remember that over time, faithful preaching of the Word is making a difference.  A huge difference.

Let’s pray and preach like this next one matters supremely.  But let’s also pray and plug away faithfully, knowing that our supreme Command often has a longer-term view.

The Fine Art of Avoiding Over-Qualification

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

No biblical text says everything.  Each text says something.  So, we have a potential problem.  There is a constant temptation in preaching to over-qualify.  We are tempted to over-qualify the big idea so that it won’t be critiqued as biblically incomplete.  We are tempted to over-qualify the points of application so that we aren’t perceived to be imbalanced.  We are tempted to over-qualify the whole sermon so that we’re seen to be theologically well-rounded.

There is a place for qualifying.  Our big idea should not contradict the teaching of Scripture.  Our application should not be so imbalanced as to lead to harm or confusion.  Our whole sermon should be seen to fit fully in the category of “Biblical” preaching!

But, generally speaking, we are not required to preach the “whole counsel” from every text.  If we try to say everything, we run the risk of effectively saying nothing.  Let us prayerfully and carefully seek to let the force of the specific preaching text get through to our listeners.  Let us allow subsequent preaching to bring total balance.  Let’s not squeeze the sting out of each text and end up with a bland pulpit.

What Are You Aiming To Be?

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

I was greatly encouraged the other night. After a challenging week I had a two to three hour drive to preach at a university Christian Union meeting. It went well, far better than it should have gone. On the way home I was built up and encouraged by listening to Dr Joseph Stowell, former president at Moody Bible Institute. He was speaking about preaching. He encouraged this preacher.

One of the gems I appreciated in his talk was this. He urged his listeners not to aim to be a great preacher. Instead, he urged them to strive to be an effective preacher. Greatness puts the focus on yourself, while effectiveness keeps the focus where it should be, on the listeners. As he said, “The issue is not how well you’re doing, it’s how well your listeners are doing!”

One of the benefits of aiming for effectiveness rather than greatness is that it takes away any jealousy or resentment of “great” preachers. If you’re not aiming for greatness then they are no threat, they are not the competition. In reality there are very few great preachers, and most of us would do well to not be comparing ourselves and making excuses for our own lack of “fame” (if I had thirteen secretaries, or if I had a slick marketing manager, or if I just knew the right people, etc.) Let the greats be great. Let us be effective. Oh, and if Swindoll, or Piper, or Stanley, or Lucado, or Begg, or Briscoe, or David Jeremiah, or whoever, happens to throw a bail of hay over the fence and feed our sheep, then praise the Lord!

Let’s not aim for greatness, let’s diligently strive for effectiveness.

Not Created Equal

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Preparation and presentation are not the same thing.  For example, consider the issue of details in the preaching text.  In one sense every text is made up of details.  Nouns, verbs, adjectives, participles, grammatical constructions, quotations, allusions, etc.  It can be a narrative, a speech, a letter, an exhortation, a poem, a wisdom saying, or whatever.  Every text is built with details.

In preparation we begin with an interest in every detail.  It is important to see and interpret every element of a text.  It is often helpful to note what is not present too.  As diligent exegetes we consider every detail important enough to study and interpret in its context.  We continually move back and forth between analysis and synthesis, between details and big picture.  However, during the course of the study process, some details will be seen as more critical to a solid understanding of the text.  Every detail matters, but not every detail is equal.

In presentation we are limited by time and motivated by purpose.  Our purpose in preaching is not to present every avenue of inquiry that we have pursued at our desk.  Our purpose in preaching is not to download (or dump!) all of our acquired knowledge to our listeners.  Our purpose is tied to our main preaching idea and its application.  So we carefully cut unnecessary explanation of details that do not drive forward the main idea and purpose of the message.

In the study, diligently analyze the details.  In the sermon, remember that some details need no more than a passing comment, others just a careful presentation in the reading.  However, some details are critical and central, calling on us to highlight them and clarify their significance to our listeners.  We don’t want to lose the forest for the trees, but in order to enjoy the forest fully, some trees have to be highlighted.  Details.  They all matter, but they are not created equal.

Relevance and Application, Cousins Not Twins

/ Peter Mead / 5 Comments

Biblical preaching needs to be relevant. It can’t simply be a theological lecture or a vaguely devotional time-out. It needs to be relevant. There are some who suggest that every sermon must include a series of action steps in order to be considered relevant. Would you agree with that idea? Are relevance and application close to the same, like twins in the preaching family, or are they more like cousins? What is the connection between relevance and application?

Determine the congregational need for the text to be preached. Perhaps there is a lack of understanding of the meaning and relevance of the text, so the message should inform. Perhaps there is a lack of emotional engagement with the meaning and relevance of the text, so the message should stir. Perhaps there is a lack of practical application of the meaning and relevance of the text, so the message should prompt and motivate action. Perhaps there is actually little lacking and the message should encourage and affirm. Perhaps in most situations it will be a combination of several of these.

Encourage application, but also the process that will lead to application. When the text sets up practical applicational action steps, then by all means communicate those clearly. However, simply giving people a list of application steps may be counterproductive. Too many lists, too little time – the reality felt by some listeners. Perhaps sometimes we should suggest possible areas or directions of application, but primarily encourage further prayerful study of the passage as the next step. Our task as preachers is not to be the only source of spiritual prompting, but to stimulate our listeners in their personal walk with the Lord.

A sermon can be highly relevant, even without the to-do list to close. What do you think?

Written Text: More Than Words

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

It would seem obvious that a written text, such as the one you will preach next Sunday, is made up of words on the page.  Furthermore, we all know that words on a page convey information.  So our task in preaching must revolve around the relevant explanation, proclamation and application of those words, right?  Right, sort of, but it’s much more than that.  Words on a page are not randomly generated codes from some computer.  They are coherent and purposeful communication.

How is writer communicating with those words? We need to be sensitive to the tone of writing as well as the words written.  Is the writer rebuking or encouraging, defensive or freely celebrating, sarcastic or sombre?  For example, when you consider the cultural context and background issues in Corinth, you might expect a rebuking and attacking tone toward the end of 1Cor.15.  But actually the tone there is careful, then celebratory and genuinely encouraging.  It would be a shame to miss the tone as you study it and then preach rebukingly.

What does the writer intend to occur through that communication? If the writer intends to inform and stir specific application, then it will help us to pick up on that from the text.  For instance, if the tone is encouraging and positive, it would likely be counter-productive to preach a stinging message from the text.

Start with the tone and intent of the writer.  There may well be reason to preach in a different tone or with a different goal.  But first of all see if the writer’s tone and intent fit your situation.  That’s the best place to start.  If you decide to change your tone or intent because of the congregation, great, but let’s be careful not to default to always rebuking, or always guilt-inducing, etc.

As you study your passage for the next sermon, remember to ask yourself, “what was the writer’s tone here?” and “what did he intend to achieve through this text?”

Check the AA Map On the Bridge

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In the UK one of the companies concerned with caring for stranded motorists is the AA (the Automobile Association). This is essentially similar to the AAA in the US (and I should mention the RAC over here, who I used to work for and remain loyal to!) So the AA produce road maps to help you know where you’re going. Here’s an important tip – when you’re on the bridge, check the AA map.

Preaching, as John Stott taught, is about building a bridge between the world of the Bible text and the world of your congregation. If you look at the 8-stage approach we advocate on this site, you’ll see two parts to the bridge. The first part of the bridge-building is all about the biblical passage. You select the passage(s), study it, discern its original purpose and formulate the idea in it. That puts you 4-stages through the process. You’re half-way. Now check the AA map.

I don’t mean the Automobile Association. I mean your Audience Analysis. This is important because the last four stages are all concerned with effective and relevant communication of the passage(s) to your congregation. The message purpose, idea, outline and details all need to take into account who you are preaching to. So when you’re halfway across, when you’re in the middle of the bridge, check the Audience Analysis map and make sure you know where you’re going!