Stage 6 – Message Idea

Passage Precedes Message

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I just read a post on communication that related to content versus visuals in their relative importance.  The conclusion was that neither trumped the other, but in fact connection trumped them both.  In the more specific realm of biblical preaching, we have to give precedence to the content, but that does not mean we neglect all other aspects of effective communication.

A point made concerned the preparation of a presentation.  It is not good to start by sitting at the computer to plan the visuals.  It is much better to spend time in thought with pen and paper to determine the desired outcome and the best way to achieve it.  How true that is.  It is true for a business presentation, and it is true, with modification, for preaching as well.

How easy it is to slip into starting with illustrations, visuals, message details.  It is also easy to start with thinking about what we want to achieve and then go hunting for a text to utilize in that quest.  But really we should be starting away from the PC, Bible in hand and congregation in our prayers.  Good preaching preparation does logically follow the eight stages I advocate on this site, but this is not a formula.  Good preaching starts with a real soak in the text, out of which can spring the budding thoughts on how to preach that text, outline, illustrations, etc.

It is that initial soaking in the text (study, analysis of structure, content and intent, coalescing of the main idea, etc.) which is the critical first half of the bridge we are hoping to build to our listeners.  Too many preachers build backwards only to discover the bridge is weak on the Bible side and consequently, weak in authority, power, etc.

Apologetics for Homiletics – Part 3

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

So the critical matter of the role of the Spirit raised issues concerning evaluation of past “fruit,” and more importantly, the dynamic tension between good stewardship and self-reliance.  Now another objection:

Doesn’t homiletics create a methodological strait jacket? People with years of experience in reading a passage, soaking in it and then coming up with something to say may resist a more “formulaic” approach.  After all, “soak then say” preaching methodology seems a lot more flexible than Haddon Robinson’s 10 stages, or Mead’s 8, or Ramesh Richard’s 7, or Bryan Chappell’s 14, etc.  Here are a couple of thoughts to consider:

1. Good methodology recognizes the natural progression from text to sermon, it does not impose a rigid process. When I teach homiletics I follow the order of the stages, but I regularly recognize that thoughts may come for any part of the process at any time.  Hence it is good to work on loose sheets of paper so insights and ideas can be noted in the appropriate place, before returning to the current stage in the progression.  While thoughts may come randomly at times, there is reason for the order.  One cannot and should not be forming the message before understanding the passage.  In the first four stages one cannot determine the passage idea before studying the passage’s content and intent (intent becoming evident primarily from content), etc.  In the last four stages, there has to be a message before there can truly be an introduction or conclusion, and the message structure cannot precede determination of the idea, etc.  The order is logical, not arbitrary, it recognizes the progression, it doesn’t impose restriction.

Again, there is more to say, but I will defer that to the next post.

Making Words Clear

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Here in London you can visit the British Library and look at such priceless items as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus.  While it is a privilege to see them, they are not the easiest things to read and understand.  Written in uncials, ITISNOTEASYTOREADTEXTWITHOUTGAPSORPUNCTUATION.  Never mind the fact that it is in Greek, just the running together of endless letters is tough enough.

Thankfully we don’t have to read Greek text written in uncials.  We are blessed to have the Bible very accurately translated into our language, with all the blessings of spaces between words, punctuation, etc.  They’ve even conveniently added in the widely recognized and accepted verse and chapter divisions.  They usually also add the equally uninspired and sometimes unhelpful section headings.  Nevertheless, with all this help, the text is still often perceived to be a block of writing with one word running into the next.

As we study a passage in order to understand it and then preach it, we start to recognize the structure of the thought.  Just this week I was in Ephesians 5:1-14.  Initially it feels like a whole series of almost random instructions and explanations.  Gradually the flow of thought becomes clearer.  Major thoughts stand out, supporting thoughts fall into place.  Typically in the epistles I will use some kind of clausal layout and/or exegetical outlining approach to see the flow of thought more clearly.

When we preach our task includes the need to make a string of words clear.  We don’t have to start with an uncial script, but to all intents and purposes, we practically are.  Listeners hearing a string of verses often grasp very little first time through.  As we preach we look for ways to emphasize the main thoughts, we look for ways to demonstrate how the “support material” in the text explains, proves and/or applies the main thoughts.  Without technical jargon, our preaching needs to verbally achieve the formation of something like a clausal layout in the minds and hearts of our listeners.  Certainly, by the time we are done preaching, they should not see the text as a string of random words or thoughts . . . it should be much clearer than that!

Squeezing One Sentence into Half an Hour

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Last night I was involved in a very enjoyable Bible study in Ephesians.  After wrestling with the text together for a good while, we tried to summarize the section in one sentence.  Having made a first pass at a summary statement (or main idea), I mentioned that now there is a chance we could preach the passage.  A very perceptive (and tongue-in-cheek) question came right back at me.  “How come if you can say it in one sentence, a sermon has to take half-an-hour?”

So, how come?  How come we work hard to get the main idea of a passage and then take half-an-hour to preach a message that in theory can be stated in one sentence?  Let us make a dangerous assumption for the sake of this post – let’s assume that we actually have a one sentence main idea statement of the message of the text.  What do we do for half-an-hour?

Option 1.  We carefully plan how to best drive that main idea home. What introduction will draw people forward into the message with genuinely piqued interest and a thirst for this part of God’s Word? When should the main idea be presented? Should we repeatedly drive it home using the text’s sub-points (not annoyingly like a child’s impersonation of a sub-machine gun, but like the carefully placed bullets of a sniper) or should we create anticipation so once the main idea is stated it goes deep (like a bunker-busting missile)?  How can the main idea be supported by explanation of the text?  How can the main idea be earthed in our lives through carefully developed application?  Option 1 is to take half-an-hour and make that main idea so clear, so transformative, so evident from the text, so applicational for each life.  Option 1 is about turning one sentence into a life-changing power-packed single message. Or there is option 2 . . .

Option 2.  We use our half-an-hour to increasingly obfuscate the main idea. We provide a series of pieces of information, background descriptions, vaguely related cross-references, potentially amusing anecdotes, random highlights from our exegesis, etc.  All of these could be helpful, but if we’re not careful they may simply provide a cover of smoke so that the main idea in no way hits home.  Or we hide the main idea beneath three or four points from the text that do not hold together but function as a selection of messages from which our listeners can select their favourite.  Often option 2 is selected by default.  It is selected because the main idea is not fully crystallized in our minds so we spray random bullets hoping our listeners will make something out of it.

If a sermon can be stated in one sentence, why do we need half-an-hour?  I suppose it depends on the preacher, and it depends on the sermon!

Why State Ideas Explicitly? – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Here’s the question again:

Since our culture is shaped by the communication of implicit and pervasive ideas, and much of the Scriptures use a narrative communication with ideas implicitly conveyed, are we communicating effectively when we state explicit ideas in preaching?

Two more thoughts:

Generally speaking, explicit statement of the idea is necessary if people are to have any chance of getting it. I’ve seen it time and again in preaching classrooms.  The preacher knows that the class will be asked what the main idea of the message was, so they try to exaggerate it, repeating it until they feel almost embarrassed to do so any more.  Then when the group is asked for it (knowing they would be asked and some looking for it throughout the message) . . . many fail to give the preachers idea accurately!  It is scary as a preacher to realize how easily people miss the main idea, even when we are explicit.  So we need to consider how to communicate that idea effectively.  Generally this means repetition, emphasis, etc.  Sometimes a better way is more subtle, but strong through subtlety (as in an inductive message – less repetition, but more impact).  Moving deliberately away from explicit statement of the main idea without a very good alternative strategy and plan seems like homiletical folly.

This question does raise a valid issue. Not only do we need to think about the explicit main idea of our message, but we need to consider our implicit communication.  How can we reinforce the main idea through implicit means during the sermon?  What other values and ideas are we conveying implicitly in this or any sermon?

Is it right to state the main idea explicitly?  I think it is.  But this does not call us to simple formulaic approaches to idea repetition.  It calls us to wrestle with our entire preaching strategy as we seek to convey the true and exact meaning of the biblical text with impact in the lives of our listeners.

Why State Ideas Explicitly?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

A while ago I was asked a very perceptive question:

Since our culture is shaped by the communication of implicit and pervasive ideas, and much of the Scriptures use a narrative communication with ideas implicitly conveyed, are we communicating effectively when we state explicit ideas in preaching?

I think a question of that depth requires a better answer than I am about to give, but perhaps this post and the next can challenge both our theory and practice.  A couple of thoughts in lieu of a full-orbed answer:

Preaching is different since listeners cannot soak in it. I would suggest that the pervasive influence of our culture is a soaking influence.  People are constantly and gradually bombarded with messages about life, reality, meaning, self, beauty, satisfaction, money, sex and so on.  This “implicit” pounding continues moment by moment, day after day.  Then we stand on a Sunday morning and hope to counter with truth from God’s Word.  From one perspective, it is hardly a fair fight!

Culture, Bible and Preaching all influence both implicitly and explicitly. While the question recognizes the implicit nature of communication in both culture and the Scriptures, it fails to recognize that all three use both implicit and explicit communication.  Culture is implicit in the communication of the general main ideas of the world, but when “soaking” is not possible, it can become very overt.  An ad campaign that will be seen many times can be subtle, but witness also the numerous explicit “big ideas” communicated daily in advertizing, film, music, etc.  According to Robinson, the Bible communicates eight or ten big “big ideas” repeatedly throughout the canon.  Spend a life soaking in the Word of God and those ideas will mark you deeply.  Yet each passage also conveys its idea more directly – with language, propositional statements, images painted with words, even narratives that leave a mark on the reader (whether or not the reader bothers to try and put exact words to the idea that has been presented therein).  Preaching also communicates both implicitly and explicitly.  Over the years, listeners who soak in your preaching will be marked by implicit messages and attitudes conveyed in your preaching – attitudes toward God, toward truth, toward the Bible, toward people, etc.  Yet we also make explicit that which the listener should not miss – the idea of this passage, presented to us today.

Tomorrow I will add a couple more thoughts in response to this question.

Preach Deeper

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

I just came across some notes I made a while ago.  It’s a three part description of preaching that I hear.  This is simplified, but perhaps helpful as a stimulus to move from approach 1 to 2 and from 2 to 3.

Approach 1 – Springboard Preaching (Inadequate approach to preaching)

This is where the preacher touches down in a passage just long enough to bounce out of it and into their own thoughts.  A word or phrase may be taken on the journey through the message, but it has long since been ripped out of its passage context.

Approach 2 – Highlight Bounce Preaching (Adequate, but “amateur” approach to preaching)

This is where the preacher is a little more aware of the context of the passage and moves through the passage noting highlights along the way.  Typically these highlights will reflect the best bits of Bible study done in preparation (often the best study moves out of the passage, so the message also can jump to other passages, but I did not want to complicate the diagram!)  This is better than Springboard Preaching, but let me show you a better way!

Approach 3 – “Plumbed” Passage Preaching (Preferable approach to preaching)

This is where the preacher has studied the passage in its context and is able to present the message of the passage to some depth.  This is not a series of mini-messages on various passage details, but it allows the details to work together to shape a single message that truly represents the passage in question.  The depth may vary according to time, skill of the exegete, etc.  But this approach to preaching will result in a coherent message, satisfying presentation of the passage and more accurate understanding of the meaning of the passage.  (Please note that it is never possible to fully “plumb” the depths of the passage, so the term is used relatively!)

For simplicity, I have presumed that each message is based in one text and that each message is making connection to the listeners by way of application.  I have assumed that there is a sense of progress in each message.  (None of these can be assumed in real life preaching!)  The simple focus here is on how the passage is handled.  Let’s strive to be Approach 3 preachers whenever possible.

Dense Packing Doesn’t Prosper

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

It is commonly referred to as a mistake new preachers make, but we can all fall into the trap.  A sermon will not work well if it is too overwhelming.

Let’s say you study the passage for several hours.  You discover interesting bits of information regarding background, structure, syntax, grammar, word meanings, not to mention parallel passages, cross-references, informing theology and later use of this text in the canon.  You discover fascinating insights through archaelogical reference tools, an interesting textual critical debate concerning one word that may or may not be original, and an interpretational debate that has gone back and forth since Calvin’s commentary was published.  Plus you stumbled across some useful anecdotes, an amusing story or three in a database of illustrations and you heard a great opening remark that you’d love to fit in, somehow.  Several hours of preparation will yield a significant resource pool of information.

But then you have to pack up what you intend to carry into the pulpit.  You only have a limited time.  Listeners only have a limited capacity to take information onboard.  After all your work, you have enough to load up three large suitcases and a trunk, plus a carry-on bag and a personal item.  But you can only pack a small suitcase and take it with you into the sermon time.  Prayerfully select.  Leave some of your work neatly folded for a future journey.  Graciously drop some of it in the waste.  Pack only that which will help you achieve your message purpose and drive home your message idea with application for their lives.  And don’t mention all that you couldn’t bring with you.

When you travel into the pulpit, just take one small case.  Don’t overstuff it either, tempting as that may be.  In the preaching journey, dense packing doesn’t prosper.

When In Doubt, Sound It Out

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Sometimes preparation grinds to a halt.  You feel like you’re drowning in a sea of paper, half-finished thoughts, words and scribbles everywhere.  Even with a good system for organizing your pre-sermon study and message notes, it is still possible to feel stuck.  You’ve gone from a sprint to crawl and the open expanse before you now feels like a brick wall in a cluttered alley.  I don’t think I am alone in experiencing this roadblock in preparation.

There are lots of tips that people share, but one stands head and shoulders above the others from my perspective. Of course you should pray, it may be wise to do something else, perhaps get some exercise to clear the brain jam or even sleep, the natural thought organizer.  But head and shoulders above them all (or at least one always worth trying in combination with some of the others) – use oral preparation for oral communication.

It’s not surprising that words on paper sometimes feel overwhelming when we are actually preparing for an oral form of communication, not a written one.  So stand up, Bible in hand, and preach it.  It may still feel jumbled and confused, but it is amazing how quickly a flowing and organized message can form when it is formed orally rather than on paper.

Then you can shift into reverse and write your notes and/or manuscript!  It is worth going back to paper for a couple of reasons.  Sometimes you can really nail it orally, but then be unable to do so again.  The discipline of going back to paper helps to cement the preparation.  If you understand that an outline is simply a representation of thought structures, then it should be straightforward to outline a series of thoughts that have formed in the oral presentation.  Furthermore, even if you preach without notes, the discipline of writing the outline or manuscript will provide a focus for further preparation, and a record for future re-preaching of the same passage.

Oral preparation need not replace paper preparation, but it can act as a turbo boost to the preparation process!

Preaching Warning Passages

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I was just reading a little commentary on Joel by Thomas Finley.  On page 38 he makes a comment that is worth our attention as preachers.  It’s not new, it’s not profound, but it’s easy to leave this out of the equation as we evaluate our ministry.

According to Finley, the prophets, such as Joel, “had the power as preachers to motivate people to repent on the basis of warning them of the judgment to come. Although the New Testament focuses on the Lord’s grace and mercy, the warnings of judgment are not absent there either. In light of Joel and the rest of Scripture, one might wonder whether contemporary pastors who tend to avoid “fire and brimstone” preaching in favor of a steady diet of mercy and forgiveness provide an incomplete presentation of God’s Word.”

While we must recognize that culturally our listeners have changed over recent decades, and consequently their appreciation for a dramatic and aggressive pulpit pounding has dropped, this does not mean we cannot preach warning of judgment.  The culture in which we preach, the people to whom we preach, behoove us to give careful attention to our tone, attitude, word choice and so on.  But the Bible text has not changed, and if we are to preach the whole counsel, then we will be preaching passages like Joel – heavy on warning, powerful in presentation of divine judgment.

The calling of expository preaching demands not only a sensitivity to our listeners, but an absolute commitment to hearing the Word of God, and presenting it accurately, faithfully and clearly.