Stage 8 – Message Detail

?-Centric Preaching

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

There is a lot of discussion about whether preaching is anthropocentric or theocentric (man or God-centered).  Some like to get into the theocentric versus christocentric debate (God or Christ-centered).  I am not getting into that one in this post (although I will mention a helpful category I heard recently from Walter Kaiser – christocentric is one thing, but christo-exclusive is another . . . I like that helpful distinction!)

Based on the nature of Scripture, I think it is vital that we grasp the necessity of theocentric interpretation, and consequently, preaching.  Kent Edwards, in a journal article, stated:

The point of a biblical story is always a theological point.  We learn something about God and how to live in response to him when we understand a biblical story.  The narrative literature of the Bible is concretized theology.
J.Kent Edwards, JEHS 7:1, 10.

How true that is!  Even if you were to study Esther, the story in the Bible where God is textually absent, it doesn’t take long to recognize that God is very much present as the hero of the story!  Let’s be sure we don’t study Bible passages, stories in particular, and merely derive little lessons for life.  We can leave that with Aesop’s Fables.  Let’s be sure we grapple with the theological point of every story, the intersection between God and humanity.  God’s Word is all relevant and useful, so our preaching should likewise be relevant and useful to life.  But we also center our preaching on God, because the Bible is centered on Him!

Don’t Undermine Trust

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

NOTE – Peter has replied to helpful comment on this post.

Different versions translate some things in slightly different ways.  One version says “healed” where another says “saved.”  Sometimes a footnote points out an alternative reading to the one in the text, but other versions choose the alternative reading.  What do we do when we are preaching a text with a textual variant in it?

1. Recognize that the listeners may be using different versions. This means that it might be worth a brief passing comment that “your version may have it this way…”  Generally it is probably better to affirm both as possible, or express a preference for one over the other in a gracious manner that does not tear down the alternative.

2. Recognize that your listeners are not experts in textual criticism. (Incidentally, be honest with yourself too.  Just because you can pronounce a Greek word in a dictionary does not mean you are a Greek scholar.)  So we should be very hesitant to overwhelm people with textual critical issues.  In reality, most of the time this will achieve a double goal.  First it may show how much work you’ve done, what skill you have or perhaps add confidence in your understanding of the passage.  More importantly, second of all it almost certainly will undermine their trust in their own Bibles.  People don’t understand how their version came to exist, they don’t grasp the process from inspiration to translation, and so your textual critical observation may very well cause them to distrust their Bible.  “If my version is wrong in this verse, why should I trust it anywhere else?”

3. Do your work in preparation, but think carefully what you say while preaching. The last thing we want to do is inadvertently undermine peoples’ trust in the Bible sitting open in their lap!

Preaching and Affective Hermeneutics

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I don’t spend much time going from blog to blog.  However, one blog that I do read and appreciate is A Spreading Goodness by a good friend and major influence on my life – Dr Ron Frost. He kindly asked me to write a guest post for his site which I was delighted to do. It’s a little longer than my typical post on this site, but I hope it’s worth taking the time to read. I won’t re-post it here as I’d like to redirect you to A Spreading Goodness – you might enjoy the earlier content on there and become a regular (I particularly recommend “I’m a Sinner…” posted on December 15th).

So for today’s post, please click here: spreadinggoodness.org

Application is Not About Benefits

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In the understanding of expository preaching espoused on this site, application is central.  Expository preaching must involve the explanation of the meaning of the biblical text while emphasizing the relevance of that text to the contemporary listener.  This is born out of an understanding that the Bible is highly relevant to us all.  However, there is a danger of misunderstanding this emphasis on relevance and application.

The danger is that people may take away the thought that we are advocating a strong view of the benefits associated with applying the Bible to our lives.  In reality, we are saying much more than that.  Paul House, in his article in Preach the Word, gives Christopher Wright credit for identifying the opposite reality.  We do not apply the Bible to our lives, but rather, “through the power of the Holy Spirit we must learn and help others to learn to ‘apply our lives to the Bible.’  God and his Word – not our lives and minds – comprise the horizon of reality and authority.  We are required to conform to the Scriptures; they are not required to conform to us.”  (Preach the Word, p25)

Only in this way do we protect listeners from getting the impression that they can pick and choose those parts of the Bible that appear most valuable.  As Tozer said, “Nothing less than a whole Bible can produce a whole Christian.”  So application is not primarily about the benefits for our lived reality.  Application is about conforming our lives to reality.

Unusually Careful

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Just a brief thought since it is the season for non-regular attenders at church.  When preparing evangelistic sermons it is worth being unusually careful.  Apparently, Martyn Lloyd-Jones would always write out his evangelistic sermons, rather than his edification sermons.  Remember that the real “risk” when preaching the gospel is not the preacher’s, but the church folk who’ve invited their friends.  It is so easy to inadvertently offend in the wrong sense of the term.  So with all the extra visitors in our churches this Sunday, let’s be unusually careful in preparing the messages.

Fullness, Not Dipping – Narratives

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I’d like to share another post in light of the chapter by Leland Ryken in the book he co-edited entitled Preach the Word (in honor of Kent Hughes).  In writing of the importance of understanding the Bible literarily and not just theologically or historically, he states the following:

A biblical scholar who caught the vision for a literary approach to the Bible has written regarding Bible stories, “A story is a story is a story.  It cannot be boiled down to a meaning,” that is, adequately treated at the level of theological abstraction.  A person listening to an expository sermon on the story of Cain should be aware from start to finish that the text being explicated is a narrative, not a theological treatise.  The text exists to be relived in its fullness, not dipped into as a source of proof texts for moral and theological generalizations. (Ryken, quoting John Drury, Preach the Word, 43)

A couple of comments from me:

I agree with the general thrust of this, particularly what is affirmed. I fully agree with Ryken’s qualified version of the Drury quote – a story cannot be “adequately treated” at the level of theological abstraction.  However, this is not to say that there is no place for theological abstraction in the preaching of stories.  Listeners should know they are hearing a narrative preached, rather than a theological treatise.  In fact, discerning listeners should, over time, recognize that very little in the Bible is best described as theological treatise – most of the Bible is highly “occasional” in nature, but still highly relevant to our “occasion” or situation.  Certainly, let’s not treat any Bible passage as a source of proof texts!

I would slightly disagree with what is denied. Listeners listening to a narrative explicated will either consciously or sub-consciously be looking for both unity and relevance in the message.  This puts the onus on us as preachers to make sure the main idea is identified and relevance is emphasized.  This is not about abstracting from a narrative to create some sort of literary-less set of propositions.  It is about making sure people don’t simply hear a story and make of it what they will.  By working toward a statement of the main idea in a narrative, we are forced to study and seek to understand not only the content, but also the intent of the author.  For a story is certainly a story, but Bible writers didn’t waste papyrus on entertainment alone, they were also theologians seeking to communicate about God by means of the highly effective literary form of story.

So let us preach texts in their fullness, let us make sure the stories we study are still stories when we preach, but let’s not think the hard work of defining the main idea is unnecessary with biblical narratives.

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!

Communicate the Christmas Carols

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Some of the Christmas carols contain phenomenal truths.  Yet they can easily be sung mindlessly – familiar tunes, familiar lyrics and some unfamiliar words mixed in.  As we preach or lead services in this Christmas season, let’s not miss the opportunity to highlight the glorious truths contained in the songs we sing.  Perhaps a passing comment in a message, reference to a carol to illustrate a point in a sermon, or even brief explanation outside of the sermon.

Consider, for one example, the second verse of Hark the Herald Angels:

Christ by highest heav’n adored
Christ the everlasting Lord!
Late in time behold Him come
Offspring of a Virgin’s womb
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see
Hail the incarnate Deity
Pleased as man with man to dwell
Jesus, our Emmanuel
Hark! The herald angels sing
“Glory to the newborn King!”

How could anyone sing those words without stirred hearts?  But for many, the stirring is mere nostalgia at Christmas past.  Let’s make sure people in our churches don’t miss the stirring reality reflected here!

Most Important Element in Introduction?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

We’ve considered the various elements of an introduction before. The need to grab attention, build communication rapport, surface a need, move listeners into the text and the message. I’d like to underline the one that is probably neglected more than the others, yet it is the one we should never forget.

Another way of thinking about the “surface need” element of the introduction is to call it relevance. In the introduction, as a listener, I want to know …

This speaker is relevant to me. I don’t want to listen to somebody that is out of touch with the real world. Please give me confidence that you are a relevant speaker.

This message is relevant to me. If I am a normal listener, I have not come to church excited for a historical lecture. Please give me confidence that this message will be relevant to my life. If you leave application and relevance until the end of the message (traditional approach) then I may well miss it (to be absent from the body may not mean being present with the Lord, if you see what I mean?)

This passage is relevant to me. I would be thrilled to open up my Bible with expectation and motivation, hungry to understand it and be changed by it. As the preacher you need to create that motivation during your introduction.

Relevance in the introduction really is a great ingredient!