Stage 7 – Message Outline

Saying the Text’s Something

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

You have a text, maybe more, but certainly one.  You study it.  You determine what it’s purpose was and the author’s idea.  Then you consider your congregation and the purpose of preaching the sermon.  You shape the idea, then the sermon and preach.  Simple really.  But there are some traps we easily fall into.  Here are a couple to consider:

Don’t Overqualify.  Often the text will be saying something quite strong.  We want to make sure we’re not misunderstood or somehow imbalanced, so we qualify it.  This text says this.  But don’t forget that other text that says that, and the other that says something else.  Before we know it, we’ve overqualified the message and the force of the sermon has been dissipated like replacing a bullet with two dozen marshmallows.  There are times when we must communicate careful balancing of a potentially misunderstandable idea.  Generally though, don’t overqualify a message and end up saying nothing.  A lot of balancing can come through future preaching of other texts.

Don’t Overteach.  It’s easy to cram a perfectly good message with extra information that would be best suited in perfectly good other messages.  Either we can try to dump every scrap of exegetical inquiry into the message, or we can cram too many ideas into a one-idea time slot.  “Seven great lessons from the book of whatever” would generally be more effective as seven separate sermons.  Once the ideas start to pile up, people will either synthesize the message in their own way (over which you have no real influence), or they will take one “nugget” and ignore the rest (and that nugget may be a merely anecdotal illustration), or they will simply take away nothing.  Generally speaking, don’t overteach in a message so that in saying lots, people actually take home little to nothing.

Don’t try to say everything.  Don’t try to say lots of things.  Don’t risk the people getting nothing.  Say something.  Say the something the text pushes you towards.  Say the text’s something and try to say it well.

Banish Boredom from the Sermon

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

They say that people no longer want to sit through a boring traditional sermon.  I don’t agree.  I don’t think people ever wanted to sit through a boring sermon.  Fred Craddock suggests that boredom is a form of evil, and I agree with Haddon Robinson that it is a sin to bore people with the Bible.  Take a moment to self-evaluate – are your sermons ever boring?

Boredom is partly a contagious attitude.  Somehow we have to make sure that we don’t find the sermon or its content boring.  The danger is always present since we spend hours working on the passage and sermon before preaching it.  Actually, I think the danger is often the opposite: that we get distracted by other things and fail to spend the necessary time in preparation.  Generally, the more time I spend preparing in a passage, the more excited I get about it (unless I’m trying to force it into some sermon form).  Whatever the cause, make sure you are not bored with the passage, the ministry, the routine, even subconsciously, or else it will contagiously spread to your listeners!

Boredom can be overcome.  During preparation, scan your outline or manuscript with a boring meter.  Note the parts of the message that are somewhat boring.  At these points overcome the problem before it occurs.  Engage the imagination in description or illustration.  Consider contemporary ways to communicate the ancient truth.  Can a story be used that will drive the message forward?  Is it a moment to reveal something slightly personal?  How does the text affect me – can I let that show?  Would it be helpful and appropriate to season the sermon with a hint of humor?

Enthusiasm and imagination are keys to unlocking boredom from a sermon, but try to overcome the problem ahead of time.  Try to avoid discovering the sermon is boring by the facial feedback of a disconnecting congregation.  It’s far easier to fix in the study than in the service!

Rumors of Commentaries

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

When I get to listen to a sermon, I sometimes pick up on a commentary vibe.  That is, a sense that the preacher has been spending some time in the commentaries.  Sometimes it is overt references to “the commentators” or a specific commentary (I am describing what I hear, not affirming the practice of citing and quoting the commentaries).  Other times it is a series of background facts that feel like they’ve come from some time in the books.

On the positive side I am always glad to know the speaker has been working in preparation for the sermon.  I’d much rather have somebody who has prepared responsibly than someone who is “winging it” without humble reference to “experts” in the field.

On the negative side I sometimes get a feeling of concern.  It’s hard to pinpoint, but it’s a feeling of concern nonetheless.  I wonder whether the commentaries have been conversation partners in the personal study of the text, or crutches leant on to short-cut the process of exegesis.  I wonder whether the commentaries have simulated wrestling with the structure and flow of the text and consequently the sermon, or whether they have merely furnished a dissected structure on which to hang the broken pieces of a partial sermon.

I thank God for commentaries and good commentators.  We are so blessed today with access to these reference works.  I think it is either arrogance or stupidity that would lead us to ignore them in sermon preparation (provided we are blessed with access to them).  However, they are just one part of our preparation.  We have to wrestle with the text, with its flow of thought, its meaning, its purpose, its idea.  We have to wrestle with the sermon purpose, its idea, its strategy, its structure, its flow, etc.

Commentary study alone will provide a veritable pile of tidbits that can easily fill the sermon time.  But remember that as the preacher, our job is not to fill sermon time, but to prayerfully, carefully, and personally develop a sermon that faithfully explains and relevantly applies the text for our specific congregation.

Demonstrating Key Values: Application

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

People may hear words, but they sense values.  Values are caught as much as taught.  Watch a dysfunctional family situation where the children are verbally instructed with one set of values, but observe the flagrant disregard for those values in the parents.  Or watch the influence of a preacher who may state the importance of application, but demonstrate that they don’t really value it.

If you value application, do it.  As Robinson’s definition explains, expository preaching means that the biblical concept is first applied by the Holy Spirit to the life of the preacher, then through the preacher, to the listeners.  To be an applicational preacher, be an applicational Bible student first.

If you value application, include it.  Might seem obvious, but if we believe application is important, we should use sermon time to present it.  What value is communicated by a conclusion that merely states, “Now may the Holy Spirit apply to our hearts what we have heard in the last hour!”

If you value application, integrate it.  The traditional, rhetoric-driven, place for application is the end of the sermon.  There is good reason for this.  People generally need to understand and be convinced of the “what?” before they are willing to face the “so what?”  Yet in our day we are very aware of the complexity of communication.  People value relevance, so we need to integrate application and need in the introduction and movements of the sermon.  We must show why the “what?” matters to them before they will sit and listen to our explanation of it.  The “what?” and the “so what?” feed on each other.

If you value application, highlight it.  Try to use comments like, “so we understand it, but our Bible study is incomplete without trying to apply it – let’s think this through in practical and specific ways.”  Try to avoid comments like, “we’ll spend most of our time addressing the ‘what?’ and by the time we get to the end of the sermon, you’ll probably not even notice the ‘so?’”

By our attitude and our passing comments, we contagiously spread the value we place on application.

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 They See It?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday I wrote about the danger of abusing introductions to promote pet perspectives.  After the introduction, the message continues.  As people look at the passage in the Bibles sitting on their laps, can they see how your message comes specifically from that text?

If people cannot see how we get our message from the text we are preaching, one of three things can happen.  Possibility number one is that they will be impressed and so want more of us, rather than more of the Bible.  Possibility number two is that they will feel intimidated and so not pursue Bible study for themselves, since they have no expectation of being able to get something so good out of the passage.  Possibility number three is that they will subconsciously lose trust in the Bible and begin to trust in the system we force on the text.  If they can’t see how we get our message from the text, one of three things can happen, and all of them are bad.

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!

The Elements of Expository Preaching

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

The study of expository preaching can be a lifelong journey. For many of us it should be a lifelong journey. And the complexity of this ministry allows for a lifetime of learning. Consider the complexities of biblical interpretation and the diversity of biblical genre and form. Think about the continual changes in society, not to mention the ever developing experiences and needs of each individual listener. Ponder the numerous variables in effective oral communication, seemingly increasing all the time as advances are made in the fields of communication, rhetoric, education and homiletics. It is clear that there is plenty for us to keep studying and stretching ourselves as preachers: from applied linguistics in discourse analysis to the epistemological paradigms of postmodernity. From family systems dynamics to unintentional perlocutions in the preaching event. There’s plenty to learn for all of us.

But let’s not get caught in a fog of confusion here. The core issues are still the core issues. Preaching must always be concerned with the specific meaning of the biblical author and with the relevant and effective communication of that meaning to contemporary listeners. Preaching remains a spiritual endeavor very much concerned with the work of the Trinitarian God in you and through you. Excellence in Bible study, effectiveness in communication, relevance in presentation, and all of the above in a close reliance on the Spirit of God through prayer. Boil expository preaching down to its elements, and it is not much more than this: God, you, them & Bible study, communication and relevance.

Take stock of the basic elements – where should your learning and passion for growth be focused at this point in the process?

Controversy, Defensiveness and Timing

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Obed submitted a comment on The Full Meal Deal concerning the timing of presenting a controversial or challenging topic. I suppose we could complicate things, but it seems to me that there is a fairly simple principle here. Know your listeners well enough to know how they may react to a controversial idea. If they are likely to get defensive, then lay the groundwork first. I use the image of a boxer’s guard (forgive the martial imagery if you are a pacifist in the sporting arena). Is what I am going to say likely to bring up the hands to guard the face? If so, then what follows will only strike to the surface. As a preacher I need to preach so that the hands remain down and the idea gets through.

The classic example of this is Peter on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. “God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ!” That idea was very likely to stir up a negative reaction among a crowd of Jews in Jerusalem just weeks after Jesus’ death. So Peter did not present the idea in the introduction. This idea was not printed on the notice sheet or bulletin (they would have noticed and put the bullet in, so to speak!) This was not a deductive sermon. Peter knew the listeners’ likely reaction, and used the first part of the sermon to prepare the people for the big idea. Once it came, their reaction was not murderous, but they were convicted.

If your idea is controversial. If the listeners are likely to become defensive. Then time the presentation of the idea. Preach so their hands remain down and the idea gets through, not only to the head, but so that they are “cut to the heart.”

Preaching Inside the Fence – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Several days ago I suggested the image of preparing and preaching within a low fence. I’d like to suggest a reason for doing so that may not be immediately obvious. Very simply, you will enjoy the preaching process more. Let me give another example:

Almost four years ago the church I was involved in was working it’s way through Luke. I had Easter Sunday morning. It was tempting to read Luke, but essentially preach Paul. You know how it is, so simple to revert to the terminology, ideas and focus of a passage like 1st Corinthians 15. I resisted the temptation and erected a low fence. I studied within Luke’s writings. I saturated my preparation with Luke and worked to prepare a deliberately Lukan message. I didn’t want to just preach the resurrection, I wanted to preach Luke’s account of the empty tomb and risen Christ. I tried to grasp the significance and focus of the carefully written account in his gospel. I tried to use Luke’s terminology and present his concept of salvation. I wanted to preach in Luke’s language rather than Paul’s or John’s.

The message went well as far as I could tell. One discerning listener commented on the deliberate Luke language. Probably everyone else missed it. That didn’t matter. The big idea was as good as I could get from the text, the relevance was as deliberate and concrete as possible, the big things were what mattered. But for me, as the preacher, the attention to fine detail like choice of terminology made the study both exacting and rewarding. I felt like I’d tasted something of Luke’s great gospel in a way that I could so easily have bypassed.

I got a taste for preaching with a fence that day, and I’ve continued to do so whenever possible. I’d encourage you to try it if you haven’t already. Take the opportunity to push yourself deeper in whatever book you are preaching. It’s easy to revert to default thoughts from elsewhere, but you’ll enjoy it more if you don’t!