Stage 6 – Message Idea

Unhealthy Division: Style & Substance

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Perhaps people like me add to the kind of division I am thinking about by the labels used in our teaching of preaching, but still, we’d do well to think about this.  Do we too easily divide elements of preaching?

For example, content and delivery, or substance and style.  It’s a simple distinction, and it works for planning a class schedule.  But when you consider the complexity of the act of communication, perhaps the distinction can be unhelpful?  Certainly once we start dismissing style out of a resolute commitment to substance, we are shooting ourselves in the foot.

Now don’t get me wrong.  The term “style” is not the best for what I am writing about.  Even “delivery” can sound like a performance.  The reality, though, is that the message is transmitted through a preacher.  This includes many elements.  Not just vocal production, verbal clarity, non-verbal presentation, etc. (the classic elements of “delivery”), but also that which you might label “ethos” and “pathos.”

I recently tweaked my gradually-improving definition of preaching in one part by adding the two words “and life.”  In reference to the oral communication aspect of preaching, my current best attempt at a definition says that preaching involves “…effective communication through the preacher’s words (and life)…”

Perhaps we would do well to not dismiss matters of “style” and “delivery” as “mere performance.”  It is too easy to take Paul’s self-distancing from the manipulative skill of classical rhetoric (1Cor.2:1-5) and therefore dismiss all rhetoric and homiletics.  The problem with such a blanket response is that Paul clearly utilized both rhetorical and homiletical skill in his writing and preaching.  Instead of a quick dismissal of all style/delivery issues, or at the other extreme, an obsession with delivery that results in a performance mentality, perhaps we would consider more seriously that which results in the pulpit from the weight of who we are personally in our walk with Christ.

Maturity shows.  Passion shows.  Love shows.  Life shows.  Perhaps a preachers style and delivery are a lot more about the preachers inner life and spirituality than our categories tend to recognize?

Main Idea – Another Easy Mistake

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I mentioned an easy mistake to make – finding the biggest detail and losing sight of the rest.  Here’s another easy mistake to make:

Encompassing everything via a statement that is so vague it could come from any number of passages. I suppose it is an overreaction to the fear of missing the point of the passage.  I suppose it gives the preacher comfort that no-one could argue with what the main idea actually says.  The danger though, comes precisely because it is so vague.  What are the possible results of a “We should trust God” kind of main idea?

1. Lack of authority. If it obviously does not represent the preaching text effectively, then the listeners are left with a sense of inadequate preparation on the part of the preacher.  Our authority is really God’s authority demonstrated by the fact that the Bible is boss of the message.  Vague and loose use of the text can only undermine authority.

2. Insipid application. If the main idea derived from the text is vague, the result will typically be vague application also.  Lack of diligence in explaining the text will not set up diligent application of that specific text.  The personality of the preacher may incline them to detailed applications, but without the biblical foundation, such application is likely to be more along the lines of personal suggestions to the listeners.

3. Limited life change. Of course God is able to work despite and around our poor preaching.  But our aim should never be to need a “despite us” kind of grace.  While life change can only ever come from the work of God through His ministry in His people by His Spirit and His grace, He calls us to handle His Word well and preach as effectively as we can.  Vague main ideas come from inadequate biblical study, lead to insipid application and typically result in limited life change.

So what do I suggest?  I suggest the “Hypothetical Bible Expert” test.  Presuming somebody knew their Bible really well, would they be able to identify the passage from just the statement of the preaching idea?  “We should trust God” could come from any number of passages.  A distinct and carefully written main idea will point to one (or a very limited number of passages).  Aim for a unique main idea for each unique passage.

Main Idea – Easy Mistake

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I suppose there are several easy mistakes to make when it comes to getting the main idea of a passage.  I’d like to point out one today.

Do not look for the biggest detail of the passage and then omit the rest of the passage. It may be tempting to look for the weightiest element in a passage and make that the main idea.  Equally, it may be a misunderstanding of the process to search for the biggest point and then miss the rest.

What we should be doing is distilling the whole passage, allowing every detail (big or small), to influence the statement of the main idea.  Some details may not be visible in the wording of the main idea.  Perhaps they influence the tone or the feel of the idea.  Some details are developments of the main idea (perhaps explaining, or proving, or applying it) and consequently may not show in the statement.  However, it is important to approach getting the main idea in the right way:

The right way: every detail feeds into our understanding of the whole, which is then summarized or distilled into one sentence.

The wrong way: only the most significant detail (or even the most attractive or preachable detail) is used to define the main idea, all other details are skipped or omitted.

Easter is Coming – The Power of Identification

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I know Easter is still a couple of months away, but as a preacher it is never too early to think about Easter.  In fact, there is a sense in which commemoration of Easter is never more than six days away – the Lord’s Day is a weekly gathering because of His resurrection.  So here’s a thought regarding Easter (whether you’re planning for April or preparing for tomorrow’s message).

In preaching any narrative section, we need to consider whom listeners will gravitate toward, with whom they will identify.  We should consider how to encourage that or redirect that through our preaching.  In the case of the passion narratives, this tendency to identify can be powerfully used in our preaching.  Luther pointed to this when he wrote:

“Although Christians will identify themselves with Judas, Caiaphas, and Pilate; sinful, condemned actors in the Gospel story – there is another who took the sins of humanity on himself when they were hung around his neck.”

When it comes to the story of the crucifixion we find ourselves identifying with so many characters: Judas, Peter, fleeing disciples, Caiaphas, Pilate, Roman soldiers, Simon from Cyrene, mocking executioners, mocking crowds, mocking thief, repentant thief, followers standing at a distance, followers standing close by, even the Centurion.  Yet the wonder of it all is that we are invited to identify with the perfect One hanging on that cross, for in that act He was most wondrously identifying with us.

Consider how the natural function of narrative – to spark identification – can be utilized to communicate the wondrous truth of Calvary this Easter, or even this Sunday.

Double Sermon Experiment: Lessons Learned

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I have suggested this before, but decided to try it again on Sunday.  One passage, two messages.  In the afternoon I had some doubts.  Perhaps I should do something different?  I prayerfully decided to stick with the plan and I’m glad I did.  (Despite this moment of doubt, the afternoon was less of a trial than it would have been had I needed to switch gears and mentally prepare for a totally different text!)  Here are some observations:

1. A second message in the same passage allows the preacher and the listeners to soak in a text, rather than jumping around. I appreciated this and it seems the listeners did too.  Perhaps we too quickly move from one part of Scripture to another in a two-sermon Sunday.

2. A second message allows elaboration on that which is squeezed by time in the first message. In this case I was preaching a fairly lengthy narrative in a limited time.  Consequently I could not develop the application of the passage to the extent that I felt necessary.  The evening message allowed more complete and concrete application of the main idea.

3. A second message allows for more exegetical work to show, to reinforce the authority of the main idea. I preached the story in the morning, then in the evening I reviewed it briefly before demonstrating how the context reinforces the main idea.  Hopefully this would result in people understanding the process of Bible study more (importance of context), and would motivate some to jump into the book for themselves.

4. A second message allows the main idea to be restated, reiterated and reinforced. Perhaps this is the best benefit of all.  In this case I had a main idea that I think was biblical, fairly clear and important for our lives today.  No matter how well I preached the first message (I’m not saying I did, I’m being hypothetical), I would not want to be overconfident in terms of how well my idea got through.  However, having had review, reinforcement and concretized application in the evening, I’m a little more confident that the main idea might be pondered and applied in the days ahead.

I commend this approach to you.  Study a passage, then preach two messages instead of one.  It allows for more focus over two services, for developed application, for more exegetical work to be demonstrated, for the main idea to have greater effect.

Fullness, Not Dipping – Narratives

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I’d like to share another post in light of the chapter by Leland Ryken in the book he co-edited entitled Preach the Word (in honor of Kent Hughes).  In writing of the importance of understanding the Bible literarily and not just theologically or historically, he states the following:

A biblical scholar who caught the vision for a literary approach to the Bible has written regarding Bible stories, “A story is a story is a story.  It cannot be boiled down to a meaning,” that is, adequately treated at the level of theological abstraction.  A person listening to an expository sermon on the story of Cain should be aware from start to finish that the text being explicated is a narrative, not a theological treatise.  The text exists to be relived in its fullness, not dipped into as a source of proof texts for moral and theological generalizations. (Ryken, quoting John Drury, Preach the Word, 43)

A couple of comments from me:

I agree with the general thrust of this, particularly what is affirmed. I fully agree with Ryken’s qualified version of the Drury quote – a story cannot be “adequately treated” at the level of theological abstraction.  However, this is not to say that there is no place for theological abstraction in the preaching of stories.  Listeners should know they are hearing a narrative preached, rather than a theological treatise.  In fact, discerning listeners should, over time, recognize that very little in the Bible is best described as theological treatise – most of the Bible is highly “occasional” in nature, but still highly relevant to our “occasion” or situation.  Certainly, let’s not treat any Bible passage as a source of proof texts!

I would slightly disagree with what is denied. Listeners listening to a narrative explicated will either consciously or sub-consciously be looking for both unity and relevance in the message.  This puts the onus on us as preachers to make sure the main idea is identified and relevance is emphasized.  This is not about abstracting from a narrative to create some sort of literary-less set of propositions.  It is about making sure people don’t simply hear a story and make of it what they will.  By working toward a statement of the main idea in a narrative, we are forced to study and seek to understand not only the content, but also the intent of the author.  For a story is certainly a story, but Bible writers didn’t waste papyrus on entertainment alone, they were also theologians seeking to communicate about God by means of the highly effective literary form of story.

So let us preach texts in their fullness, let us make sure the stories we study are still stories when we preach, but let’s not think the hard work of defining the main idea is unnecessary with biblical narratives.

We Preach Literature – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I noted Leland Ryken’s comment that expository preaching “keeps its focus on the announced text instead of escaping from it to other material.”  Another feature of expository preaching, in his mind, is as follows:

2. “Expository preaching interacts with the chosen text in terms of the kind of writing that it is instead of immediately extracting a series of theological propositions from it.” – Again, amen.  Too much preaching treats every passage as a 2-D series of propositions, rather than appreciating and learning from the form the text is in.  The Bible writers didn’t send post-it notes to their recipients.  They thought carefully about the most effective way to form the message they wanted to communicate.  Sometimes they chose to send a discourse in the form of a letter.  Much more, they chose to write in some form of poetry.  Even more again, many chose to communicate by means of narrative forms.  Rather than focusing purely on the “what?” (content) of a text, we also need to wrestle with the “why?” (intent), both of which are influenced by the “how?” (form).  Our general hermeneutics must also take into account the special hermeneutics related to the literary form of the text we are preaching.

Notice that Ryken resists “immediately extracting a series of theological propositions” from a text.  This does not mean that literary analysis should lead to proposition-less, truth-free or vague-subjective comments about a Bible text.  Different forms of writing allow a writer to communicate something more effectively, but the writer was still communicating something.  To put it in simple terms, any Bible text is “someone saying something about something in some way to someone” (thanks to Gordon Fee for this insightful sentence!)  The “in some way” is critical and literary analysis recognizes the influence of that in order to grasp the “saying something about something” – which in other terms is the main idea of the passage.  The problem is not with finding the proposition of a passage, but “immediately” (rushing to that rather than really understanding the passage and its form), rushing to “theological propositions” (treating the Bible as a collection of proof texts for our personal systematic theology).

May we always be sensitive to the literary skill of the Bible writers, and thereby be more accurate and effective biblical preachers.

Shifting from Passage to Message – Idea

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Two days ago we considered the move from passage to message in relation to the purpose statement.  Now let’s look at the other core move at the apex of the process, the move from passage idea to message idea.

Many rightly point out that really there are three steps.  To use some Haddon Robinson terminology, you begin by finding the exegetical idea (back then), then move that to a theological idea (timeless), before finally making the move to homiletical idea (contextualized for these people now).  This is absolutely right.  By simplifying the process I do not discount these steps.

The move to message idea involves several elements:

Recognize and remove historical markers – The passage idea should really be historically specific – Paul told Timothy that in the Ephesian church such and such should occur.  Details like Paul, Timothy, Ephesus, etc. are all historical.  The first step is to recognize these and remove them from the idea.  At this point the resulting half-way idea is really the theological idea in the three step process described above.  This will need testing.  Is the idea representative of the timeless teaching of the passage?  If not, adjustment will need to be made.  As ever, application is a minefield and so you should tread carefully – is this the lasting main point of the passage?

In a sense this first move is a negative one, removing historically specific ties.  Now there are two positive moves:

Take into account audience analysis and adjust the idea – Since the message idea is supposed to be specific to these listeners, how can the idea be contemporized in a manner that will register with them and be memorable to them?  This may be pithy, clever, contemporary, etc.  Often the best you will manage will be biblically accurate and relatively clear – don’t despise biblical and clear!

Consider the message purpose and adjust accordingly – The audience analysis and message purpose are both influences in the positive adjustment of the idea.  The passage idea and purpose may be rebuking in nature, but your message purpose may not be rebuking in light of the need of the listeners (my mind goes to the person who rebuked a meeting of hyper-faithful elderly ladies with Ezekiel 34 – evil shepherds of Israel!)  So the message purpose and tone influence the idea statement.

With these three considerations, you move from passage idea to message idea.  It may be that the result is exactly the same (biblical timeless truth preached in the terms of the text).  It may be that the result is different (but not so different: given the idea, someone who knows the Bible should be able to recognize which text it is representing!)

A formula for the engineers?  (Stage 4 minus historical markers)+Audience Analysis Adjustment+Stage 5 adjustment = Stage 6!

The Preparation Process in Question Form

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Perhaps you have already thought it through in this way, or perhaps this will be helpful to you.  The eight stage preparation process can be stated in the form of questions:

1. Passage Selection – Which passage will you prepare to preach?

2. Passage Study – What does the passage say and mean?  (What is the content of the passage?)

3. Passage Purpose – Why was the passage written? (The intent of the passage.)

4. Passage Idea – What is the author saying about what he’s writing about?  What is the heart of the unit of thought?  What is the main point here?  (The goal is to write a one sentence statement succinctly and accurately.)

At the mid-point (not necessarily half-way through the preparation time), you begin to seriously consider to whom you will be preaching the passage.  Audience analysis is essentially answering the “who?” question in reference to the preaching event.

5. Message Purpose – Why do these people need to hear this passage?  Why will you stand and deliver this passage to them?

6. Message Idea – How can the idea of the passage be stated with an emphasis on the relevance to these particular listeners?  How can the idea be stated in a way that is succinct, clear, accurate and ideally, memorable?

7. Message Outline – How can the purpose of the message be achieved?  How can the idea of the message be delivered?  This is the point of deciding the form of the sermon, the preacher’s strategy.

8. Message Detail – How can each movement in the message be developed: explained, supported, applied?  How can the message be most effectively introduced?  How can the message be most effectively concluded?

Just a couple of observations on this:

Observation A – The idea of a passage must be informed by both content and intent, by both what and why.  Equally, the idea of the message must be influenced by the what of the passage, but also by the why of the message (ie.why preach this passage to these people?)  Too often the idea of a message is influenced by content, but not by a carefully considered purpose for the message.  (Even more “oftener” the idea is absent altgether, but that’s another issue!)

Observation B – The first four stages are all about probing and understanding the passage.  Most of the questions in the last four stages are “how?” questions.  The preparation of the message is largely a “how” issue – a matter of preaching strategy, creativity, deliberate clarity, etc.