Let Man Not Separate Holy Spirit and Preaching Content

December 29, 2011December 28, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday we addressed the issue of preparing to preach, and how that is a part of ministry life that truly and profoundly involves the Holy Spirit (or at least, it should). The danger of divorcing our ministry from the Spirit persists into the preaching event too.

There are a few places where this danger lurks:

1. The notion that explanation is not needed from the preacher, for the Spirit will bring home the truth of God’s Word. I have come across this a few times. It comes across as if something profoundly spiritual is supposed to be happening as the preacher states the Word, but fails to explain it. It may be accompanied by knowing comments and tones that give the impression that those “in the know” have some sort of insight here, and hopefully the rest of us will get that mystery knowledge too. Then maybe the preacher carries on with this statement-without-explanation approach, or perhaps they move into a list of highly relevant personal applications (or anecdotes).

From my perspective this lack of explanation tends to come across to some as profound spirituality that inspires or intimidates, and at the same time it can come across to others as indicative that the preacher is incapable of explaining the text and is sort of bluffing. Preacher, lean fully on God’s strength and pray continually for the Spirit to be at work, and explain the text, that’s part of your role.

2. The idea that application is the Spirit’s work, not the preacher’s. I have come across this one more than the other, perhaps at the other end of the ecclesiastical spectrum. It is exemplified in my experience in a sentence that rings alarm bells – “Now may the Spirit apply to our hearts and lives the truths we have seen in His Word. Amen.” This sentence sometimes comes after a lengthy lecture of biblical content devoid of overt application and clarified relevance. Why is that somehow the Spirit’s role, but not at all the role of the preacher? Is this phrase suggesting that the explanation was all of the preacher, and nothing of the Spirit? I hope not.

So why not follow through and not abdicate a key role the preacher is called to – namely to not only lecture biblical content, but rather to communicate the meaning of the text with an emphasis on its relevance to the contemporary and specific listeners? Preacher, lean fully on God’s strength and pray continually for the Spirit to be at work, and apply the text, that’s part of your role.

One more area tomorrow – the whole matter of delivery.

Preaching Proverbs 5: Random Thoughts

December 16, 2011December 9, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

To finish off this series of posts on preaching Proverbs, here is a randomly organized collection of brief thoughts. See what I did there?

1. Preaching topically may be fine. I’ve avoided the more obvious approach of addressing a subject that Proverbs addresses with multiple references, but it’s fine to do that. And it would be fine to not be exhaustive, why not just focus more on two or three proverbs and aim for effectiveness over exhaustiveness?

2. Preaching a shorter sermon will be appreciated. I’ve shared how a full-length sermon may be possible from a two line truth, but why not preach short? Finish ten minutes early and your listeners may talk about the message for years!

3. Preaching a section may be effective. You can check out Bruce Waltke and discover structure that you’ve never seen before. Or you can go where my Hebrew prof suggested . . . preach a series of apparently random proverbs since that is how life is experienced from our perspective.

4. Remember that Proverbs is primarily observation, not promise. Don’t turn an observation of life lived under the covenant of Deuteronomy 28-30 into a promise for all people of God in every age.

5. Preach a pugilistic match-up of contemporary wisdom with Proverbial sagacity. That is, take a saying from our culture and watch it lose in a fight with one of God’s inspired sayings.

6. Preach Proverbs with humour and with poetry. Help people see what life is like and what it could be like with a healthy dose of sanctified wit and biblically saturated poetic presentation. Certainly the main idea should be proverbial, poetic, memorable, pithy, precise.

7. Preach Proverbs for living with godly wisdom, don’t preach godly wisdom to fuel the fires of self-centred success.

8. Provoke further thought, don’t bore listeners into submission as if your extensive knowledge is the focus. Their further thought, in the fear of Lord, worked into their hearts and lives: that is the focus.

And if you don’t have it yet, get hold of a copy of Jeff Arthurs book, Preaching with Variety – his chapter on Proverbs alone is worth the price of the book. Actually, the rest is good too . . . and I will be giving a copy away on the facebook page promotion later this month – click here to go to the promo information.

Preaching Proverbs 4: Sayings and Sermons

December 15, 2011December 9, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I described two masterpieces of the art of preaching Proverbs (click here to see post). Both the explanatory emphasis of the first and the applicational emphasis of the second affirmed the possibility of a full-length single saying sermon from the Proverbs. What were some of the key features of these sermons?

1. Repetition. In both cases the preachers repeated the main idea (the proverb) multiple times. It never felt forced or tedious, but it did tattoo the truths on the hearts of those listening. Proverbs are designed to be memorable. While we don’t have the memorability of the original language to aid us, repetition certainly helped.

2. Memorability. We don’t have sound-play in the wording like the Hebrew, but memorability can be achieved in other ways. In the first example Haddon Robinson achieved memorability by pursuing visualization. That is, through vivid description, the listeners could see what he described, and having seen it on the screen of their hearts, they wouldn’t forget. In the second example, Gene Curtis achieved memorability by a different type of sound-play. Not the sounds of the words, but the clever use of a repeated first line of a song. Actually, this musical marker was so effective in flagging up the need for the proverb because he ended the mini-rendition by tweaking the tune into a melancholic minor key each time – a refrain introducing the main idea each time.

3. Non-linearity. Neither sermon imposed what felt like a foreign sermon structure on the text. There was no overt three point with sub-point presentation involved. Both felt relaxed and slightly circular, yet on paper could have been defined using standard outlining, of course. There wasn’t the urgency of a narrative, or the driving progression in logic of an epistle. The structure seemed to fit the genre.

4. Application. Both sermons were marked by specific, tangible, relevant and vivid application. While the one placed greater emphasis on explanation, both felt absolutely preached to the listener, to mark the listener and to bring about transformation. I’m sure many of us could manage it, but surely it must be wrong to turn a practical, vivid, life truth, into an academic curio. It takes great intellect to make something simple and clear, but a lesser preacher can impress and confuse the listener. Hey, was that a contemporary antithetical distich? Nice.

Tomorrow I’ll finish the series . . .

Preaching Proverbs 3: Full-Length Single Saying Sermons

December 14, 2011December 9, 2011 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Jon provoked this series of posts by asking if it is possible to preach longer than five minutes on a proverb (particularly the two-line kind), without preaching topically through a whole subject. I believe it is. Not just in theory, but based on my experience as a listener. Two, perhaps three messages stand out to me, that have been on a single two-line saying, and have warranted the full sermon length they were given. So, two ways to pursue fully orbed Proverb preaching:

The Every Angle Jewel Explanation Approach. The message I have in mind is one I head a few years back from Dr Haddon Robinson. Seemed like a simple saying, until he started probing it. Like a connoisseur of fine jewels, Robinson took up that little saying and methodically turned it in every direction, probing each facet to gradually determine the richness of the meaning of the proverb. Technically he used carefully developed paragraphs of thought. Experientially it was like sitting at the feet of a wise sage giving a guided tour of a fascinating thought. In the process of explanation I learned about metallurgy, about Hebrew culture, about the language used, and most importantly, about myself as the light reflecting from that jewel shone into corners of my life. There was no bony structure sticking out, or jerky transition into time for an application. It was relaxed, it was measured, it was well-crafted, it was a message that marked me.

The Every Direction Intersection Application Approach. Ok, so my label is almost as long as a proverb, but I’m not Solomon. The message I have in mind is one I heard in seminary chapel over a decade ago. Dr Gene Curtis preached a masterpiece of a sermon that still influences my ministry today. A typical two liner. A full length sermon. A lot of marked listeners. How did he do it? He explained the proverb, which didn’t take long, but then he applied it. Then he applied it again. Then he applied it again. Multiple situational applications, all driving home the same point, the main point of the proverb. In this particular case he also used the first line of a children’s Sunday school song to reinforce the point and offer a musical memory marker along the way. If you can imagine a busy intersection in the centre of a large city, a roundabout/rotary with multiple roads leading off it, that was his sermon. He left the world of the Hebrew sage and entered the office of the pastor, the conversation of the spouse, the lap of the parent, the phone call of the friend, etc. Each time showing the relevance of the proverb, each time reinforcing the same point, each time returning to the text and then heading off on a different exit point. I would love to have preached a sermon so effective.

I was impressed recently with a sermon by Andy Stanley on a single proverb, which was excellent, but despite the impressive feats, perhaps it didn’t quite attain to the two I’ve described. (Or perhaps it had the strengths of both!)

10 Ways to Half Preach a Text – Part iii

December 1, 2011November 23, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

We are half way through our list. Some of these may be errors you always diligently avoid. But there may be one in here that makes you or I reconsider an aspect of our preaching. Actually there may be occasions when we fall into some of these approaches, but feel it is necessary in those circumstances. That is fine, there aren’t as many rules in preaching as people may think. But it is good to step into them aware of the potential weakness of the decision, rather than as a habitual approach.

6. Impose a sermon structure instead of letting the text’s structure influence your message.

Those who are committed to preaching as a ministry governed by rules and tradition will regularly cross this line. For it to be a sermon it must have . . . tends to lead to imposition of “correct structure” on Bible texts. It is interesting how few texts genuinely offer a standard number of parallel and equally weighted points. Much more often there is a flow of thought or plot, a combination of one dominant thought with supporting elements, or whatever. Let’s be careful that we don’t abuse a text by forcing a sermonic grid onto it in an attempt to preach the text. We may be left preaching a bruised and caged specimen.

7. Preach a preferred cross-reference

I remember listening to a set of lectures on tape (remember tapes?) The cover said they were lectures on the Pastoral Epistles. The labels on the tapes said the same. Actually, the lecturer also kept referring to the Pastoral Epistles too. But the overwhelming sense I got when listening to them was that the lecturer wished he were in Romans. He went there constantly. Maybe he felt he’d missed out when a more senior lecturer got to do the prized epistle.

When you preach a text. Preach it. It is inspired. It is useful. It is worth the effort to study it and understand it and preach it. Don’t take the short-cut that may or may not be there to a more familiar, a more “preachable” or a more exciting text.

8. Preach a plethora of cross-references.

Every now and then I hear a preacher who seems to be entering the “who can reference the most Bible books in thirty minutes” competition. Please don’t. There are few good reasons to cross-reference, don’t do it otherwise. (See here and here for the main two reasons in my opinion.) Every moment taken in a cross-reference is time not used in preaching your preaching text, if it doesn’t add to the preaching of this text, don’t let your time be stolen.

We’ll finish the ten tomorrow, although ten is not the limit, there may be more!

Do You Preach Concrete as Abstract?

November 28, 2011November 23, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

God didn’t give us a systematic theology with an index and table of contents. Christ didn’t work with a scribe to give us an abstract set of philosophical and theological truths that we should memorise and apply. Instead, in His wisdom, God gave us the Bible.

The Bible contains a variety of genres. Look at the New Testament, for instance. Here we have a combination of historical narrative and occasional epistles. The theology of the Bible is offered to us in the vivid action of the Gospels and Acts. It is given in the concrete situations of the first century church. As Karen Jobes puts it in her Letters to the Church (p13)

In his wisdom, God gave us, among the inspired writings, the letters of the apostles to specific Christians living in very concrete situations during times that were very trying the Christian faith. Because of that, we get to see how the Christian life was to be lived out in the context of first-century culture, and we can identify the same or similar issues today that challenge us. Rather than giving us a book of abstract philosophy or theology, God’s Word has come in the form of very practical and specific situations. It is another instance of God’s incarnational intent, to be Immanuel, God with us.

So here’s my question for the day: do we make enough effort to communicate the context of the passages we preach? I’ve seen quite a number of preachers who preach texts from the epistles as if they are abstract presentations of truth. They sometimes do a decent job of putting in concrete contemporary applications, but the text itself is treated as abstract truth statements.

God has given us a gift as preachers. He has done some of our work for us. He has given us the section of the Bible that is most likely to be abstract logical argument as occasional writings – that is, specific presentations of the gospel applied to specific churches, in specific cultural milieu, with specific issues at hand. As we re-present these texts to our listeners, before we even get to contemporary application, our listeners will be translating from 1st century concrete to 21st century concrete.

Let’s be careful not to rush past presenting the situation that sparked the writing of the text in an attempt to be relevant. Helping people to see what occasioned the epistle will already be helping them to see its relevance to us.

Hearing the Text

November 4, 2011October 31, 2011 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

This post is not about amplification, nor about the place and role of the Bible reading. Both issues would be worth considering, but not today. I’m talking about the message itself. It is troubling when you hear a sermon and can’t quite seem to hear the text coming through.

This is where the big idea approach to preaching is so on target. If the big idea of the text is the control mechanism during message formation, then the text should be coming through. Sadly though, too many preach generic messages that essentially disconnect from the text itself.

I suppose preaching is essentially very easy for some folks. A thirty-five minute message is really only a couple of minutes of “worked material” that builds tenuous links between the text and the message. Once the text is tied in somehow, the standard message content can flow freely without hindrance. Easy.

Some people do this by leaving the text behind. It is read, a couple of comments are made, and then the message moves on from the text into generic sermon zone.

Others do this by pulling from the text the three things they want to find there. Perhaps something pointing to human sin, and something to do with God, and maybe something along the lines of consequences, or perhaps a vague segue to Calvary, or whatever. Thus the narrative is plundered for intro links to the message the preacher intended to preach.

Let me encourage you to make the preaching text more than an introduction for the message, or an introduction for the points. Allow the text to be master over the sermon.

Seek to preach so that God’s Word is communicated and God’s voice is heard. Seek to preach so that listeners can clearly hear the text and its influence on the entire message. Seek to genuinely preach the Word.

How Long, O Preacher?

November 3, 2011October 31, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I’ve written before about sermon length debates, and may do so again. But this post is not about sermon length. It is about the ticking clock. From the moment the sermon begins, how long until . . .

Tick. . .

1. Relevance – That is, until the listeners get the sense that this message is relevant to them. Don’t leave application until a little section at the end, that is way too long. Show them from the very beginning that this preacher, this message, this text, is relevant to them.

2. Grace – That is, until the listeners are clear that Christianity is not about our performance and diligent dutiful behaviour. Don’t preach behavior and conformity and religiosity and law for most of the message and then throw in a bit of grace at the end. It is easy to do a law before grace approach that doesn’t just short-change grace, it positively rips it off. Undermine the religious misunderstanding, don’t reinforce it. Too many are still convinced the Bible is all about the rules we need to strive to obey, but are sadly unaware of the radical grace that stirs inside-out life change.

3. Delight – That is, until the listeners get a sense from your demeanour or expression that knowing Christ is a good thing. It is easy, in the seriousness of the preaching event, to fail to show the joy of the Lord. The pulpit is not the place for crass humour or inappropriate levity, but if we don’t have reason to be joyful, then nobody does!

4. Smile – That is, make sure number 3 shows in more than your words. Just saying you are joyful doesn’t convince anyone if there is no other hint of it!

5. Shuffling – Ok, changing category slightly, but how long until your listeners are shuffling, coughing, looking around, fidgeting, etc.? If this happens during your message, presume the problem is your preaching, not their level of maturity and spirituality. In fact, this may occur sooner that you’d like, because 1, 2, 3 and 4 have not come as soon as they should have.

This is a random list, but I’m sure other things could be added where the clock is really ticking!

The Memorable Outline Myth – Part 2

October 29, 2011October 29, 2011 / Peter Mead / 9 Comments

So yesterday I did the unthinkable. I pulled the pin from a grenade in the sacred space where the notion of a memorable outline is revered as the chief end of preaching. I suggested that people might not be best helped by a set of textual labels that typically lack applicational relevance. I even suggested that people might not review what we have made so memorable!

As I wrote yesterday, if the text yields a clear and applicational sequence of thoughts, by all means preach that. But I fear that in many cases a pre-commitment to paralleled alliterated points may undermine the following aspects of preaching:

1. Is the text being presented authentically? If you are dissecting and squeezing the text into an outline form, you may well be doing it an injustice. Very few texts are actually written as equal paralleled thoughts. Don’t give people a clever outline at the expense of really opening up the inspired text.

2. Is the listener motivated to return to this text, and the rest of the Bible? If they feel incapable of “finding the three points” in a passage, they are less likely to be opening their Bibles (which is what they really need on Thursday, not just a vague memory of three uninspired descriptive labels from Sunday).

3. Is energy poured into future recall being lost from present impact? Would it be better to have them feel the full force of the text’s impact at the point of preaching, and then be motivated to read more later in the day and the next day, rather than striving to cram in uninspired labels as a memory aid to help them remember a message that may have been only somewhat impactful on Sunday?

4. Is the main idea being undermined by a commitment to a longer list of lower value statements? If you put your energy into one carefully crafted applicational representation of the main idea of the text, that single sentence summary would be more memorable and reach further and make more of a difference than a set of well-stated points that reflect smaller segments within the text. Let the whole strike home to the heart in a single thought.

5. Is the projection of the outline teaching listeners bad listening habits? That is, are we communicating to them that the point of preaching is primarily education, that the goal of listening is recall and that the measure of spirituality is the taking of notes? It’s weird, but when my wife opens her heart to me and speaks, I don’t reach for a pad and a pencil, I open my heart and I listen.

The Memorable Outline Myth

October 28, 2011October 28, 2011 / Peter Mead / 5 Comments

I think this post will tread on some toes. I do it in love.

I think there is a myth among preachers and among listeners, a myth that may be distracting energy from and dissipating the potential impact of the preaching event. It is the myth of the importance of conveying a memorable outline. It goes something like this:

Everybody knows that good preaching will offer a memorable outline of the points of the message, a set of “hooks to hang your thoughts on,” as it were. With this memorability, listeners will be able to go away and recall the message later in the week, thereby being changed by an encounter with God’s Word throughout the week. In fact, this is so important, why not project the outline on the screen – it seems silly not to.

A couple of quick challenges, then I’ll suggest what may be lost in this pursuit of memorability.

A. How often do those who actually write down the outline go on to review and benefit from it, let alone those who walk out of church with just their memories to rely on?

B. How often do preachers actually make their points applicational so that remembering the outline will be life changing, rather than offering labels or titles for content that functions essentially as a set of poor commentary headings?

Now I know that this post is throwing a couple of grenades into a pretty sacred space for many preachers. Let me offer a token caveat – if a text yields a clear, memorable and applicational sequence of points, praise the Lord and preach it!

I do believe every sermon should have an outline. I am not promoting confused preaching. But I think the outline is really the servant of the preacher. The outline is for my sake, not theirs. There are other things that are much more important for them to feel the impact of and walk away with.

Next time I will finish the post by suggesting various aspects of preaching that may be being undermined by this memorable outline myth. And I won’t wait until Monday, I’ll post it tomorrow.