Stage 7 – Message Outline

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.

We Preach Literature

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I’m enjoying Preach the Word and will add a full review in due course, but I’ll share some highlights along the way.  This is the book of essays intended to honor Kent Hughes of College Chapel in Wheaton.  This morning I enjoyed a chapter by one of the editors, Leland Ryken, on the Bible as literature.  He urges preachers to learn from the field of literary analysis and not presume theologians have all the answers when it comes to accurately understanding the Bible.  Early on he notes the need for preachers to add even a “modicum of self-conscious literary analysis to their methodology” to improve the incipient literary criticism that all have to participate in during preparation.

Then he notes a couple of features of what constitutes expository preaching, in his opinion.  I offer you these two features for your thoughts and response.  This is not an attempt at an exhaustive definition, but two features of expository preaching:

1. “Expository preaching keeps its focus on the announced text instead of escaping from it to other material” – I wholeheartedly agree.  I have written before on the limited legitimate reasons to go elsewhere in the Bible in a message.  I would offer these three as legitimate excursions, rather than unhelpful escapes.  First, when the idea of the passage seems unbiblical, it is good to show that the truth is consistent with teaching elsewhere (perhaps a brief, fast-paced tour of key texts).  Second, when the passage being considered leans heavily on another passage, such as an Old Testament quote later in the Old Testament or in the New Testament (perhaps a meaningful, but not excessive day-trip to the text in question).  Third, when it is considered helpful and appropriate to trace out the thought of the passage, or see the fulfillment of the passage, later in the Bible (not any and every excuse to “get to Jesus,” but a purposeful advance after fully dealing with the preaching text, perhaps to aid in application for the listener today).

Unhelpful escapes to other passages include running to more familiar territory.  Or jumping texts based on familiar language.  Or perhaps seeking to be exhaustive on a theme in the text, thereby exhausting listeners rather than seeking to plumb the depths of the preaching passage itself.  Or even twisting the meaning of the text in order to get to some sort of contemporary spiritualized application of the gospel. Then there is the issue of “illustrating” the preaching text by means of another text (that then needs to be explained, potentially overwhelms the preaching text and certainly doesn’t help to land the application in listeners’ contemporary experience.)

I’ll save the second feature for tomorrow, but let’s be sure to think carefully before losing focus on our announced text!

It’s Not the Technique That Counts

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

There are technically correct ways to write an outline for a message.  But more importantly, there is a point to having an outline.  Some people can do a perfect outline in form with every indent and numerical marker correct.  However, some people who can do a perfect outline, still don’t achieve what the outline is meant to achieve.  It is designed to reflect the shape of thought.  It’s purpose is to give a visual representation of the flow and shape of thought.  It is supposed to present visual ratios of spoken content, relative importance of message elements, etc.

If you have perfect outlining technique, great.  But make sure your outlines are helping you preach.  Ultimately it’s not what you have on paper that matters, but what is said in the message.  However, this does not mean we can dismiss outlining altogether.  If your technique is not perfect, but it accurately reflects what you plan to say, perhaps that is good enough.  If your technique is perfect, but somehow it doesn’t represent the message well, that is not good enough.  If your preaching is good, but you have no idea how to outline well, then it would be worth learning in order to augment the preaching.

There are many such supportive techniques associated with preaching.  It’s good to learn them well and it’s good to use them.  But it’s even better to make sure that our preaching is the best it can be, and not have a false confidence from skill in supportive techniques alone.

Necessary and Possible

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In simple terms, how much of a message should be spent on explaining the passage, and how much should be spent on applying it?

Spend as much time as necessary explaining the passage. If you don’t explain the passage, your application will lack authority.  People need to understand the meaning of the passage, they need to see how the details of the text work together to convey the main point.  They need to see how it fits in the flow of the section.  They need to have confidence that any application you present is built firmly on the teaching of the passage.

Spend as much time as possible applying the passage. Once people understand the meaning of the passage, they need to see how it relates to their life.  In fact, don’t fall into the trap of explaining and then applying as two sequential elements in the sermon.  Certainly application will show up at the end and be significant in the conclusion, but it should also present itself right at the start, in the introduction, in the wording of the main idea and in the phrasing of the main points of the message.  However, proportionately, this guideline is important to bear in mind – give as much application as possible.

Don’t reverse these guidelines! It is easy to get this backwards and end up giving as much explanation as possible.  After all, you may have spent hours digging in the text.  You were excited by all that you learnt.  You enjoy Bible study.  Therefore it is easy to make a sermon an exegetical information dump.  Don’t.  Select carefully and give what is necessary, but don’t over-prove, don’t overwhelm.  Make sure you never skimp on connecting the truth of God’s Word into the nitty gritty of real life.

Simple guidelines, but I find them helpful.

Limit, No Limit

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

When it comes to preaching there are fewer rules than people might think.  Some like to impose significant amounts of structure on the preaching event, but in reality there are few limits involved.  There may be some limits imposed by the culture and heritage of a church – congregational traditions – and it is wise to think carefully before smashing through those expectations in an attempt to be creative.  However, these limits vary from place to place and it is possible, once trust is established, to carefully adjust such expectations.

However, putting aside the idiosyncracies of specific congregations (and the key change monitors who might take it on themselves to preserve order!), the whole issue of limits seems to come down to two principles:

1. To have integrity as a biblical preacher, I must be constrained by the true meaning of the passage I am preaching. This is the one limit that must be in place.  We commit to preaching the true meaning of the text.  To the best of our ability we must strive to understand what was intended in the preaching text.  We cannot preach on anything from anywhere in the Bible.  Sometimes the pursuit of being “interesting” and “relevant” undermines the exegetical integrity of our ministry.  We need this limit firmly in place.

2. To be effective as a biblical preacher, I have freedom in the formation of the sermon and its delivery during preaching. What shape should a sermon take?  What style of delivery should be used?  Matters of form are matters of freedom for the preacher.  Different texts, different circumstances, different occasions, even different listeners, can all prompt different sermon shape and delivery style.  At this level our goal is effectiveness in communication.  We do not need unnecessary limits in place to hinder our effectiveness.

Sadly too many preachers settle into a predictable pattern where there is freedom – in form and delivery.  And too many choose freedom where there is a limit – in the meaning of the text.  Let’s be sure to get our limit and our no limits the right way around!

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.

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!

Orient Before Any Journey

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

It’s important to know where you are going before you try to go there.  This is true in travel and it is true in preaching.  Some people mistakenly think that since “deductive” or “punch-line first” approaches to preaching can lack interest, tension and motivation to listen, the alternative is to travel vaguely toward an unknown goal.  Wrong.  It is important to orient the listener to where the message is going, whether or not the punch-line or main idea is given up front.

This is true for the message as a whole. If you decide that an inductive strategy would work best for the message, then plan the orientation phase well.  People don’t like to be led through a forest blind-folded, but this is how some poor inductive sermons feel from the listener’s perspective.  Look for ways to introduce the relevance of the message in the introduction.  Typically an inductive message should have the subject element of the main idea introduced early on, leaving the complement to complete the idea for later in the message.

This is true for smaller phases of the message. For example, don’t launch into background information without giving some orientation to why it is relevant to the message.  As the speaker, you know how relevant the information is to what will follow.  The listeners don’t.  Explain why the background is helpful, then give the background.  Don’t make people wait for the point of what they are already hearing.

There may be some exceptions to this.  However, as a general rule, make sure you orient your listeners so they are motivated to listen to the background information you give, or to the message as a whole.  Highlight relevance early to motivate concentration.  This is not all it takes to keep people with you, but without this, they will drift.