Stage 8 – Message Detail

Word by Word Preaching: Why Not?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I don’t hear this label used as much as verse-by-verse preaching, but I have come across it.  On the surface, again, it sounds like it fits right in with a high view of Scripture and an expository view of preaching.  But again, I think it could lead preachers into some unhelpful practices that aren’t truly expository.

Some thoughts to chew on:

1. Every word is a doorway to endless digressions, but how they are working together is the real issue.  If you have read the Bible or anything vaguely theological, or if you own a concordance, then any word can be the start of a digression.  There are times when cross-referencing is helpful, but it has to be helpful to something specific.  That is, it cannot be an end in itself.  So you have to study the whole passage in order to know what the main idea is, and then determine whether pursuing the thoughts a word might spark would actually help the communication of that main idea.

2. Every word can slow you down, but you need to give the message of the passage.  This follows on from number 1.  Since each word, or even each theologically weighty word, can be the start of a digression in your explanation, it follows that every word can slow you down in preaching.  For instance, I can imagine someone preaching Ephesians 1:15-23 in this way and running out of time before really preaching the heart of the passage in verses 18-19, or the elaboration of the final element in the subsequent verses.  Just because verses 15-17 contain some mighty terms doesn’t change the fact that Paul is really introducing at that point.  Preach them, but don’t miss the message of the passage.

3. Every word should be studied, but not every word should be “preached.”  Some preachers feel it is their duty to offer a concise word study and chain reference guide for every term in the passage that seems weighty.  Study them all.  Preach the passage.

4. Every last word is inspired, but they are not equally weighted.  I would hold to a verbal plenary inspiration position.  That is, God inspired the words (verbum), all of them (plenary).  That doesn’t mean that I treat them as individual data banks and thought units when preaching.  In any sentence, the meaning is conveyed by a combination of the potential meaning of each word, determined by its function and role within the flow of the sentence and broader context.

Study the words, study the details, do the work.  And the work includes the integration of that study.  What is the author trying to communicate?  What are you trying to communicate to your listeners?  Then, preach the passage.

Verse-by-Verse Preaching: Why Not?

/ Peter Mead / 5 Comments

Preaching through a passage verse-by-verse seems to fit with a high view of Scripture, so why shouldn’t we settle for that as a preaching approach?

This is an important question.  After all, many people equate expository preaching with a verse-by-verse approach.  But there are some differences.  As I offer some counter points from a genuine expository perspective, please bear in mind that we may still take an apparently verse-by-verse approach at times in our preaching.  Nonetheless, these thoughts need to be kept in mind:

1. Verse-by-verse preaching can flatten out inspired texts and fall into a running commentary approach.  That is, a verse is an artificial division of the text.  The real division is the natural unit of thought that the author was seeking to communicate.  In a Psalm this might be the strophe, or the parallelism, not to mention the psalm as a whole.  In an epistle it would be a paragraph.  As preachers we need to communicate the thoughts intended by the author, which may not happen if we treat each verse as a unit of thought.

2. Verse-by-verse preaching can treat the text as a data source, rather than honouring its intended function.  Following on from number 1 above, when verses are treated as micro-units, then there is a temptation to view the text as a collection of data to be mined for interesting snippets.  This is very different than honouring every detail as part of the whole communication effort.  Every detail matters, but we need to communicate the “distilled thought” of the whole unit, as opposed to selecting highlights from a flattened text.

3. Verse-by-verse preaching can lose sight of the inspired genre and form of a text.  This may be restating the same thought from a different angle, but it is important.  God didn’t just inspire the meaning of the text.  We have to take the genre and form as vehicles in which that meaning is conveyed.  Consequently we must read a poem as if it were a poem, and a section of discourse as exactly that.  It does not help to preach a Psalm and a prophecy and a narrative and an epistle in the same way.

4. Verse-by-verse preaching can lose tension and emotion from a passage.  Not only does it tend toward treating verses as data banks, it can also flatten the emotive force of a passage.  There is often a tension to be felt, or a resolution to be experienced.  Verse-by-verse preaching easily can lose sight of such realities.

Submitted via comment, thanks David: 5. Verse-by-verse preaching tends to reinforce the tendency of many believers to focus on “proof” or “key” verses, rather than learning the argument of the author. Context can be lost and, ultimately, verses come to mean something other than they were meant to.

Bottom line.  For some preachers, a verse-by-verse approach would help increase their biblical content and focus.  However, a strict verse-by-verse approach doesn’t inherently recognize that while every verse is fully inspired, not every verse is created equal.

The Struggle for Reference Simplicity

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I was sharing about the issue of complexity in explanation.  Another aspect of complexity is that of over-cross-referencing.  I have addressed this issue before, but it is worth another take.  The danger is two-fold.  First, that too many cross-references will mean the preaching text is lost.  Second, that too many cross-references will mean the listeners are lost.

1. Lose the motivation to overwhelm.  That might seem strange, but some preachers really do seem to love cross-referencing.  For some, the practice was learned by observation and they have never seen any different.  For others, the practice is the fruit of a yearning to impress people (after all, more verses referenced means more kudos for me as a Bible person, right?)  But if asked outright, I suspect none would affirm the desire to overwhelm listeners, so for that reason alone, it is worth diminishing this desire.

2. Gain the motivation to preach your passage.  This is the other side of it.  We don’t want to negatively overwhelm folks, but do we really want to preach our passage?  Some preachers will cross-reference liberally to fill time since they feel like they have so little to say on the actual preaching text.  It is really hard to know what you don’t know, but take my word for it, it is possible to understand a passage better.  As a result, it is possible to preach without filler material.  More than that, it is possible to be in a text and the text to get into you in such a way as you can’t wait to preach this particular passage to the listeners.  Once your motivation is positively stirred by the passage, you’ll be less desirous of canonically wandering eyes.

3. As a default, stay put.  I suppose it is like saying that when you are riding a bike, as a default, look in front of you.  There will be times to do something else, but make it a standard practice to be where you are in the Bible.  Once you are more settled there, then you’ll be less likely to stray into safari mode without good reason.  Speaking of which…

4. Select cross-references hesitantly and carefully.  There are some good reasons to cross-reference, but not too many.  If your passage is relying on an earlier text either by quotation or by thematic development or by theological reliance, then maybe it is worth going there.  If your passage sets up a later development in the canon, then you might choose to take a sneak peak.  Or if your passage yields an idea that seems to be anti-biblical, then it might be time to wheel out the proof that other writers are saying the same thing.  Otherwise, more or less, stay where you are.

I believe these four steps would bring a helpful simplification to some sermons.  More than that, it would allow for some genuine profundity to flourish in place of the Bible sword drill!

The Struggle to Simplify

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Thank you to Matthew for this comment – I found your blog through the Church Leaders post you did on the 11 Types of Preachers. I find that I am in the “Professor Preacher” type and have been at a loss for some general principles to help simplify and bring clarity to my preaching. It is hard to remove pieces and connections that seem to grip me in the study. Help!

I am glad to see I am not the only one!  It is so hard to be gripped in the study, but then slim down the content in the message.  For one thing, nobody wants to come across as simplistic or uninformed.  More than that, the complex layers of interdependent history and texts makes a matrix of information that is fascinating for the student of biblical history.  But the challenge remains – we don’t want to overload listeners with good information that will keep them from feeling the impact of the text we are preaching.

Here are a few pointers for myself, Matthew and any other “Bible-history-oholics” that might be listening in.  My thoughts are slightly on the background issues as I am working on a message from Jonah and was in that phase, but will turn my thoughts to other aspects of co-textual complexity, perhaps tomorrow!)

1. We should never cut down our understanding of the complexity in order to preach simply.  This will only result in simplistic explanation and errors on our part.  This won’t help people.  We have to go the more difficult route of informed simplicity, rather than uninformed simplicity, if we are to handle the Bible well.

2. We need to make sure we allow time for clarification of information, not just accumulation.  It is so easy to steal time from prayerful consideration of listeners, from sermon formation, from family and even from sleep, when we have the scent of a good trail in biblical history and context.  There is seemingly no end to connections and facts and insights and maps and cross-references, etc.  We have to impose an end for the sake of everything else.

3. We must pause and consider the key threads of detail.  That is, stopping and thinking through this question – “If I only had a couple of minutes to explain the background and context of this passage, to someone who is neither super-informed, nor longing for me to impress them, what would I include?”  Later, in light of the main idea of the message, as the message is formed, we need to do this again (lest our historical background comments take the entire time and turn the sermon into a Bible school lecture!)  We do the same in sharpening the main idea itself, as well as the message shape.  It takes much more work to preach clear, than to be complex!

Tomorrow, let’s add some more thoughts related to this quest.

Clarity of Source

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

This seems so obvious, but I wonder if some preachers are self-deceived.  We need to preach the message of the text we are preaching.  This is not the same as preaching a message that only has points of connection with the text we claim to be preaching.  That is, reading a text and preaching a message that isn’t really the message of that text, simply isn’t acceptable.  But it is common.

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.  They might be impressed because we can find things they would never have seen.  They might think we have special knowledge, or a direct hotline to God for new revelation.  They might even think we have a grasp of the Greek that far exceeds that of the entire translation committee for their Bible version!

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.  Might as well wait until next week.  Why bother trying in the meantime when all it takes is a bit of patience?

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.  After all, the person they are looking to for spiritual leadership shows no real confidence in the Bible.  If he uses it as nothing more than a tool for preaching, then why should they submit to it in their lives?

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.

Details and Clarity

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

This week I am reworking old posts as I transfer my family back across the ocean.  Here’s one on details.

Preparation and presentation are not the same thing.  For example, consider the issue of details in the preaching text.  In one sense every text is made up of details.  Nouns, verbs, adjectives, participles, grammatical constructions, quotations, allusions, etc.  It can be a narrative, a speech, a letter, an exhortation, a poem, a wisdom saying, or whatever.  Every text is made up of lots of details.

In preparation we begin with an interest in every detail.  It is important to see and interpret every element of a text.  It is often helpful to note what is not present too.  As diligent exegetes we consider every detail important enough to study and interpret in its context.  We continually move back and forth between analysis and synthesis, between details and big picture.  However, during the course of the study process, some details will be seen as more critical to a solid understanding of the text.  Every detail matters, but not every detail is equal.  The goal in preparation is, in part, to find clarity in our understanding of how all the details are working together.

In presentation we are limited by time and motivated by purpose.  Our purpose in preaching is not to present every avenue of inquiry that we have pursued at our desk.  Our purpose in preaching is not to download (or dump!) all of our acquired knowledge to our listeners.  Our purpose is tied to our main preaching idea and its application.  So we carefully cut unnecessary explanation of details that do not drive forward the main idea and purpose of the message.  It takes cutting to achieve a preached clarity.

In the study, diligently analyze the details.  In the sermon, remember that some details need no more than a passing comment, others just a careful presentation in the reading.  However, some details are critical and central, calling on us to highlight them and clarify their significance to our listeners.  We don’t want to lose the forest for the trees, but in order to enjoy the forest fully, some trees have to be highlighted.  Details.  They all matter, but they are not created equal.

Neither Padded, Nor Dense – 4

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I don’t normally use the movie analogy, but perhaps I could linger with it slightly longer.  A good movie does not pad the main plot, nor does it make it impossibly dense.  In fact, every good movie can be boiled down to something more precise than a ten-minute plot.  It will have one main idea.  And that idea is driven home by the plot and every detail throughout.

I actually watched a movie in the cinema this week (I can’t remember the last time I did that!)  One crystal clear main idea, effectively communicated with every detail included to support it.

Robinson uses the analogy of the arrow and the target – the big idea and the sermon purpose.  I like that.  I add to that the strategy of the preacher.  How is the main idea  to be delivered?  Will it be up-front and repeated throughout?  Will it be built toward and revealed strategically?  There are several approaches.

However the bigger issue is not how it will be delivered, but whether it will be the control mechanism for the whole message.

If the biblical text determines the main idea, and if the main idea is the gatekeeper for every detail of the message, then the message should not be padded, nor dense.

It will not be a padded sermon because every element will be there on purpose.  The explanations will be there to help communicate the main idea.  The proofs will be there to reinforce and support the main idea.  The applications will be there to drive home the main idea.  There won’t be padding because padding makes no sense in a message designed to communicate a main idea.

And it will not be a dense sermon because over packing makes no sense when the goal is the effective applied communication of the main idea.  Over packing only makes sense if the goal is something else.  If we want to show off, we may over pack.  If we want to communicate multiple ideas, we will over pack.  But if our desire is to see the main idea do its job, then we won’t want anything to get in the way of that.

Neither Padded, Nor Dense – 3

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday I began a list.  The goal is to preach sermons that are not only heard, but also felt.  The first point was to recognize that cramming in information will squeeze out feeling.  Furthermore:

2. Take the time to let images form.  Whether you are explaining the context, making sense of the text, telling the story, or even illustrating a point, let the images form.  Imagine that inside your listeners there is a screen.  That screen is covered by smoke.  Quick propositions and statements won’t register on that screen.  It takes good description and a bit of time for the images to form there.  But once those images form, once people can see what you are saying, then something powerful starts to happen.  They empathise with characters.  They experience the plot.  They begin to feel.  And once they feel, then the truth being preached is a truth experienced, a truth driven deep.  It goes beyond cognition.  Truth felt tends to lead to lives changed.

3. Develop the skill of painting with words.  I mentioned this in passing, but it is worthy of its own point.  We need to develop our ability to describe.  Stories need to be effectively told, poems need to be carefully described, contexts of letters need to be engagingly presented.  Wherever we are in the Bible, we need to keep growing in our ability to describe effectively, vividly and engagingly.  Vocabulary matters.  Pace matters.  Expression matters.  I can describe something with 100% accurate facts, but leave you completely underwhelmed.  A good preacher can describe something so that you feel like you see it.

4. Find the balance between time/pace and content.  This is the challenge.  Every element of a message could potentially benefit from more time and slower pace.  But there is a balance to be found.  It is like the movie maker situation we pondered earlier in the week.  Too much time, too slow a development, too drawn out a scene, and the momentum is lost.  Too fast, too much information and too rapid a transition and the viewers are left behind.

The difference between a summary and the real deal should not be padding, and it can’t be just information crammed in.  There has to be careful planning to engage not only the heads of the listeners, but also their hearts.

Neither Padded, Nor Dense – 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

When information is crammed in, it is not just information that will be lost.  For example, I used to have a laptop that allowed me to watch DVD’s in normal speed and 1.2x, 1.4x and 2x, and all without losing sound.  This was great.  It meant I could watch a 40 minute episode of some crime drama or other in less than 30 minutes.  I saw everything.  I heard everything.  But something was different.

The faster transfer of information somehow meant that while I could follow the story and get the details, I didn’t feel it.  That tense moment when the detective entered the abandoned warehouse, gun drawn, eyes wide . . . it wasn’t tense.  That shocking moment when the body was found, well it wasn’t really shocking.   All of the emotion seemed to be drained by amping up the content transfer density.

So back to preaching.  What is our goal?  Is it to transfer information as efficiently as possible?  I was reading about Jonathan Edwards and his preaching style.  He wasn’t flamboyant and flashy like his contemporary, George Whitefield.  Edwards had a quiet intensity.  His goal wasn’t just that people learn, or even that they act on what they heard.  He wanted them to feel the truth of the doctrine being presented.

But does the Bible intend to be felt?  Or is it just information transfer?  It seems to me that every genre incarnates truth in the non-vacuum of reality.  Narratives, poems, prophecies, letters, etc., are all theological truth wrapped up in human experience and story and description.  It seems as if the Bible wasn’t given as an inspired collection of abstract truths, but as theology in concrete.

So how do we preach sermons to be felt?  This is a question worth pondering.  Here are some suggestions:

1. Recognize that cramming in information squeezes out feeling.  I am not reducing the value of information.  Hopefully our exegetical work generates great information.  But putting too much information in the sermon will not only make it harder for people to take any of it in.  It will also mean they don’t feel the truth of it.  We are not in a race to speak all truth as exhaustively and as rapidly as possible.  We need to grow in our ability to be selective.  Every time we preach we will not be exhaustive.  There will always be more good information that could be said.  But there has to be a balancing of content density with other factors for maximum effectiveness.

More tomorrow…

Neither Padded, Nor Dense

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

It takes more than a good story, good actors and good visual effects to make a hit movie.  Think of a movie you particularly liked.  In most cases that movie could have been made in the form of a 10-minute featurette.  It would have been a whole lot cheaper to make, but it never would have made any money.  Why is that?

What is the difference between a 10-minute featurette and a full two-hour blockbuster?  The answer is not padding.  It is almost the opposite.  It is careful development of characters and scenes, giving space for the audience to grow into the plot.  But it is also numerous scenes cut and omitted to keep the flow from being too dense or too long.  All padding is typically cut out, but room to breathe is carefully included.

The same is true of good preaching.  You could take a decent sermon and hammer out the bottom line in a 10-minute sermonette.  You could include the main idea, the outline, etc., but you’d be missing a lot.  And the difference between that and a fuller version of the same sermon shouldn’t be 20-30 minutes of padding, nor should it be 20-30 minutes of dense information.

It is only the beginning preacher that wonders how they will fill the time.  Experienced preachers know the real challenge is in what to leave out.

This week I was speaking with a good friend who has trouble keeping his sermons from becoming overwhelming monsters of content.  All good stuff, but too much to take in for the listener.  We spoke of the main idea and its role in sermon development.  And we also pondered the possibilities of having a three step process.  First, define the main idea.  Second, work out a 10-minute development of that idea.  Third, move up to the full length.

So, how to go from the 10-minute to the full message?  The temptation here is to cram in the information.  But when information is crammed in, then there is a real problem for the listeners.  Actually, there are several problems:

1. They will have to be selective in what they take in.  It isn’t possible to grasp everything when there is too much.  Do you want listeners to pick and choose, or to be gripped by the whole?

2. They may select elements as take home material that was incidental in your eyes.  For instance, the passing remark, the humourous illustration, or the side point, could all become their memorable take home gem.

3. They may check out altogether if it is overwhelming.  While some may selectively choose highlights, others will switch to something their mind is motivated to cope with: their plans for the afternoon, their challenges at work, etc.

4. Their hearts are unlikely to engage.  This one suddenly takes us to a whole new level.  Not only is the issue with their ability to mentally grasp information, there is an issue with their experience of that information.

Tomorrow we’ll probe this fourth point some more.