Stage 8 – Message Detail

Preacher Say Something

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday my wife had to spend the day in the hospital having blood taken every hour.  So I received regular updates by text message (SMS).  She was listening to some CDs she’d been sent.  Teaching on the subject of the family.  I received a sort of running commentary by text message.  The bottom line?  This preacher had taken a long time to say nothing.  Sort of a safari through Scripture making passing observations about families in the Bible (“Oh look!  There’s another one!”).  A great opportunity, but he’d essentially just filled time.

I am not one to spend hours trying to fix a broken pipe.  I tend to think that if I can afford to have someone else do the work, then I will, because my time is also worth something (and because I’m rubbish at fixing things and will end up paying anyway!)  If I spend four hours to save fifty pounds ($75), have I really saved any money?  Likewise, when we are preaching, we are asking people to sit and listen to us for 30 minutes, 45 minutes, however long you preach.  Please don’t just fill time.  Say something.  Study the text until you grasp it, until it grasps you, then say the text’s something.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to scan over this Sunday’s message once it is ready to roll out.  Is there any filler?  Is there any pointless meandering?  Is there any “saying something and nothing?”  Why is that line there?  And that paragraph?  What about that illustration?  In the past I wrote a post entitled “Please only powerpoint on purpose.”  I suppose I could steal my own line to conclude this post – please only produce preaching prose on purpose.

3 DQ’s – Dynamite Questions

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Okay, that should be “developmental questions,” but they are dynamite.  Sunukjian and others have followed Robinson in making quite a fuss of these three questions.  I would encourage you to do the same.  The questions represent the three ways in which a stated idea can be developed.  There are no other ways to develop an idea than in these three directions:

1. What does it mean? (Explain)

2. Is it true? (Prove)

3. What difference does it make? (Apply)

The great thing about knowing these three questions is that they are so versatile:

Use them in studying the passage – Unless the writer is moving on to a new idea, these three questions can help you understand what is going on in the passage.  Not only do they move you toward an understanding of content, but also authorial intent – which is so valuable as you wrestle with a passage.

Use them in developing your main idea – Consider your listeners in order to determine which of the three developmental questions are needed to develop your message.  If they don’t understand the idea, there’s no point jumping to application without further explanation.  Just because people understand what you are saying, it doesn’t mean they are convinced – perhaps proof and support is needed?

Use them in developing each movement in the message – What works on a macro level also works in the chunks.  With these three questions as keys to developing your ideas as you communicate, you need never scratch your head for things to say (few of us struggle with that), or simply pad the message with pointless filler materials (some of us may struggle with that!)

I don’t advocate a predictable and slavish repetition of these three questions under each point of a message.  I know some that do and the result is both predictable and often unengaging, not to mention how it can turn every genre into a dissected discourse.  However, it is not a bad discipline to be asking yourself these three questions, both in study of the passage and in preparation of the message.

Undermining Popular Fallacies

/ Peter Mead / 5 Comments

A couple of years ago we had the relatively short-lived hype of The Da Vinci Code movie.  While the hype soon dissipated, the effects of Dan Brown’s book and then the film have surely continued below the surface for many uninformed readers.  How many in our churches are under the impression that Jesus’ deity was a decision made by a vote three centuries after He was on earth, or that the New Testament canon was formed in a smoke-filled room by leaders with a hidden agenda?  The absolute historical fallacies promulgated by The Da Vinci Code called many of us to address them directly at the time (special Da Vinci Code messages).  However, the effect of such teaching is longer lasting and perhaps we need to think through whether we need to subtly address underlying false assumptions about the Bible, Christ and history?

In a recent seminar I used a video clip wherein members of the public were giving their personal views of the Bible.  Most of them saw very little value in the Bible and so didn’t read it for themselves.  Several times the same fallacy came through.  “So much has been lost in translation,” and “it is poorly translated” and my favorite of all – a mini-beard stroking “intellectual” who stated, as if every informed person would know this information, that “the Bible has been translated over five million times!”  This kind of misunderstanding is common in the streets and even the universities of our towns.  The so-called “New Atheists” love to take pot-shots at the Bible, as do other major world religions that do not advocate the translation of their “holy book.”

While the Bible has been at least partially translated into over 2000 languages, we need to make it clear that the Bible people are looking at as  they listen on a Sunday morning has been translated once.  From the original language text into English – direct, by highly competent linguists, once.  We do not have the end result of a two-thousand year game of Chinese Whispers.  We do not have the last link in a chain of translation and mis-translation.  Once.  We have very accurate translations of original language texts based on overwhelming manuscript evidence, the likes of which no other historical work can even come close.  Just once.

In a culture where peoples’ understanding of the authenticity and authority of the Bible cannot in any way be presumed, we as preachers need to think about how to establish the trustworthy nature of the text that we preach.  A great message is so easily undermined if there is no confidence in the text from which it comes.

Disturbing Feedback

/ Peter Mead / 6 Comments

Yesterday I made a passing comment about “disturbing feedback.”  Let me begin with yesterday’s example and then add some more.  They tend to speak for themselves.  Don’t be too encouraged when you hear these kinds of comments after your preaching:

“Ooo, I never would have seen that in that passage!”

“As ever, such a rich message.  I mean, real steak that, really rich.” (This could be good feedback, but it depends on whether they could chew the steak or not!)

“I’m amazed at the long words you know.”

“I can’t wait to come back next Sunday, I need more Bible in my life!”

“I really enjoyed that story you told about the German sailor in the storm during the war, I’ll never forget that illustration!”

“If only I had gone to seminary, then I’d be able to be as clever as you!”

“Don’t worry about finishing fifteen minutes late, the nursery workers said the kids were really burning up some energy in there!”

“If I knew my Bible like you do, then I wouldn’t need to keep going to the table of contents every thirty seconds to find the passages you were quoting!”

“Phew!  I’m out of breath!  What a journey through the whole Bible you took us on today!”

“You’re right, we do need to try harder to live better.”

“You tell ‘em, preacher, they really need to hear that!”

“I don’t suppose we’ll ever know what Paul meant in that passage, will we?”

“I like Jesus, shame he’s not around today to fix all our problems!”

“I’m with you, let’s be as good as we can and then we’ll all get to heaven!”

And how about this one, simply because I have to stop somewhere:

“I loved that quote – ‘By all means preach the gospel, and if necessary use words.’ – fantastic!  Now I know I don’t need to ever say anything, just live well.  Thanks!”

What would you add?  Not necessarily from personal experience, although if you have any . . .

More Sneaky Landmines

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Last week I shared three sneaky landmines that every preacher faces in the ministry. I appreciated the good comments by Larry and Sudhir, so thought I’d bring their suggestions to the fore in this post. More landmines:

Thinking we need something new to say – Now just because a take on a passage has been the main one offered for generations does not make it right. Sometimes the church does put a spin on the truth or downright miss the point for long periods of time. However, as a preacher, my job is not to continually come up with something new. The ageless truth of the Bible, preached again with clarity and emphasizing the particular relevance for these listeners – that is the goal. And if you have a new view untouched by past generations and the scholars on your shelf of commentaries? Probably delay preaching that message for a few weeks, pray it through more and get into conversation with some trusted advisers . . . then if it is what the Bible teaches, preach it!

Majoring on Distinctive Minors – That’s not a new chord progression for the guitarist, it’s a temptation we all face. It is tempting to major on the minors that make us (my theology, our denomination, etc.) distinctive from others. Preach the dominant thought in each unit of thought, don’t make it your goal to always get this feedback: “Ooo, I never would have seen that in that passage!” (This is disturbing feedback!)

Pointing the Preaching Finger at Someone – You know who is at the forefront of your mind. That face that is constantly there as you prepare your message. Perhaps a critic. Perhaps someone who has angered you. Perhaps someone who has made it their mission to bring you down, so you are tempted to make it your mission to launch applicational mortars from the relative security of the pulpit. Don’t. Preach the Word for the benefit of all. Don’t take aim and fire cheap shots. To do so is a poor strategy on many levels, not least the spiritual level!

Preaching and Biblical Theology – Side 3

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

One last time, the basic definition of “Biblical Theology” that I am leaning on for this series of posts: Biblical theology is the fruit of studying the Bible in such a way as to recognize the individuality of each biblical author, the progress of revelation over time and the unity of the canon resulting from the inspired nature of Scripture. The question is whether our preaching neglects one side of this triangle?  So far we have looked at the issue of authorial individuality (both in style/vocabulary and in content/theology) and the progressive nature of revelation.  Now let’s look at the third “side of the triangle:”

The Unity of the Canon – We have 66 books written by roughly 40 authors.  Yet each was fully inspired and therefore there is an essential unity to the canon, forty authors, but also One Author.  When we preach the Bible as a human-only book, when we preach the Bible as tips from sages past, when we fail to preach the Bible as the theocentric self-revelation that it is, then we neglect the unity of the canon.

Guidelines – Recognize that your preaching passage does not stand separate from the rest of the canon, but carefully consider if and how to demonstrate the consistency of the Bible’s message (this is not necessary in every message, but should be an attitude consistently underlying our preaching, and purposefully demonstrated when considered helpful).

Again, there’s much more that could be said, but I’ll leave it there for you to take up the discussion.  Comments always welcome here!

Preaching and Biblical Theology – Side 2

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Here’s the basic definition of “Biblical Theology” that I am leaning on for this series of posts: Biblical theology is the fruit of studying the Bible in such a way as to recognize the individuality of each biblical author, the progress of revelation over time and the unity of the canon resulting from the inspired nature of Scripture. The question is whether our preaching neglects one side of this triangle?  Yesterday I considered the issue of authorial individuality (both in style/vocabulary and in content/theology).  Now let’s look at the second “side of the triangle:”

The Progress of Revelation – Over time, the revelation from God progressed.  If our Bible’s stopped at Genesis 3, we’d know very little.  If our Bibles stopped at Malachi, we’d be at a loss.  Our Bibles do not stop at Deuteronomy, or Malachi, or 2Timothy, or Jude (contrary to the opinion of some – I recently read a well-known scholar arguing that Revelation doesn’t add anything to the Bible in terms of theology, it just adds imagination!  We could play “spot the theological agenda” with that quote, but that’s going off point for this post!)  God gave us 66 books and each is adding to the revelation.  Thus it is important to recognize where your preaching passage sits in that progress.  We neglect this aspect of understanding the Scriptures when we fail to recognize the meaning of a passage in its context, at that time in the progress of revelation.  We can neglect this aspect when we always read everything through the “lens” of later revelation, without first honoring the fact that it is inspired Scripture even before that “lens” was added.

Guidelines – always seek to recognize the meaning of a passage as intended by the author at that point in the progress, before also recognizing how revelation progressed in the centuries that followed.  Perhaps consider whether more time needs to be spent on helping listeners see what the original recipients would have received from the passage, before jumping to a contemporary application, or even a New Testament filtered interpretation.  Always ask yourself, am I giving the impression that this text was not inspired or was not “useful” (2Tim.3:16) until a later book was written?

Other suggestions?  We’ll deal with the matter of the unity of the canon tomorrow to finish this mini-series.

Preaching and Biblical Theology – Side 1

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Biblical Theology is a very fruitful field for preachers.  Not every fruit is worth eating, of course, but there is real benefit to studying works in this field.  To give a basic definition for the sake of this post: Biblical theology is the fruit of studying the Bible in such a way as to recognize the individuality of each biblical author, the progress of revelation over time and the unity of the canon resulting from the inspired nature of Scripture. My question today is simple, does our preaching honor these three aspects of biblical theology, or do we neglect one “side of the triangle?”  Today we’ll consider the first “side of the triangle,” with the others to follow:

Individuality of each biblical author – The writings of John have a distinctive style, vocabulary and content when compared to the writings of Luke, or Paul, etc.  How do we neglect this reality in our preaching?  We do so by blending everything into the same, flat message.  We do so by excessive cross-referencing to other authors without good reason.  A high view of the Scriptures can easily lead to neglect of the individual styles and content of the human authors.  Obviously we would affirm that John does not contradict Matthew, or Moses, for that matter.  However, we may let our listeners down when we give the impression that the human author’s individuality does not shine through in their writings.  In fact, we may be undermining the high view of Scriptures we affirm if we give the impression they were mere conduits for the dictation of God – a flawed understanding of inspiration!

Guidelines? Wherever possible, recognize and value the individuality of the human author when preaching a passage.  Generally seek to demonstrate the flow of thought within the book, rather than demonstrating the theology of the passage through cross-referencing all over the canon.  Perhaps consider how to preach the content of this passage using the vocabulary and style of this author (eg. I preached the resurrection passage in Luke in deliberately Lukan terms, rather than slipping into Johannine vocabulary or Pauline, 1Cor.15, argumentation.)

These are not hard and fast rules, just suggestions to help if this “side of the triangle” is being neglected in your preaching.  Other suggestions?  (The other two sides are coming, so please don’t get overly concerned that I haven’t emphasized the unity of the canon yet!)

Balancing the Balancing

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Every text says something.  No text says everything.  Our task is to preach the text’s something in a way that is faithful to the Bible’s “everything”.  Our task is not to preach everything from this text’s something.

Balance – you don’t want to preach something that on its own is faithful to the preaching text, but distorts the message of the Bible.  So we have to think about balancing it. For example, Psalm 1. This passage is saying that lasting blessing comes to those who live according to the Word of God, rather than the words of the wicked.  However, this does not mean that simply obeying the Bible’s ethical instruction leads to eternal life.  Psalm 1 may need balance to avoid misunderstanding or misapplication.

Balance the balance – we need to be careful though.  It is easy to be so excessive in balancing that we end up blunting the force of the passage at hand.  It is possible to always preach a vague biblical message without ever allowing the text through in its power.  So how to know how much to balance?

1. Remember your goal in this message is to preach this text, not the whole canon in one shot.

2. Consider your listeners (preaching Psalm 1 to a group with non-Christians will require more balancing from beyond the passage than preaching Psalm 1 to a group of Christians at a conference).

3. Consider if this is a one-shot, or part of a process?  People at an evangelistic event may only come once, but people in a church get more messages to balance each other.  However, even with evangelism we don’t have to give them the whole deal every time we get them in (but that’s an evangelistic issue).

4. Decide the extent of balance needed (is the message slightly incomplete, or significantly risky?)  Is the main thought of this message biblically true, or is it heretical if misunderstood (especially if easily misunderstood).

There is not a one-size fits all solution.  But I offer these thoughts as a prompt to consider carefully the balancing we do in our messages – not too little, but not too much either.

What’s Fresh?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

If you are a regular preacher, then the chances are that you have a rhythm in your preparation.  This is good in many ways.  However, it also runs the risk of getting into some well-worn ruts.  If you are an irregular preacher, then perhaps your preparation process lasts over several weeks.  This is also good in many ways.  However, it also runs the risk of getting into ruts (you forget what you decided you should improve next time).

Both schedules also run the risk of lacking freshness in content.  Regular preachers feel the pressure of the weekly cycle, irregular preachers sometimes end up preaching on a passage that they have personally “moved on” from by the time the Sunday comes.

As you look ahead to your next message, whether it is this Sunday or this summer, what is fresh about it?  What will be fresh when it is delivered?  Is it time to freshen up your delivery in some way, or do you have a standard sermon form you always fall into, or is it time to pour effort into specific wording, or perhaps your support materials (or lack thereof)?  And is the text, the truth, the walk with God fresh?