Stage 8 – Message Detail

Preaching Longer Narratives

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Nathan asked about preaching longer narratives, such as the narratives of Daniel.  Last week I preached Daniel chapter 2 and the book of Esther (10 chapters!), so I’ve been thinking about this recently.  Here are my thoughts, I’d love to hear anything you would add:

Even if it is long, preach a literary unit. Longer narratives can stretch through many verses and multiple scenes.  Unless the scenes are really sub-plots that can stand on their own, I would suggest trying to preach the whole narrative.  While this may create some challenges, it is still better to deal with an entire narrative than risk misunderstanding and misapplying a part-narrative.

Tell the whole story, but perhaps read selectively. In the case of the Daniel 2 message, the leader of the service had a major chunk of the passage read before I got up to preach.  In the case of Esther, I read certain paragraphs and verses as I told the story.  While we want to honor the text and certainly encourage people to read it through later, the weakness in extended reading is actually our reading rather than the text itself.

The challenge is actually the same as for any passage. The challenge we face in preaching a longer narrative is, in one respect, no different than any other passage.  Which details will receive in-depth attention, and which elements or sections can be summarized to maintain flow and unity?  A longer narrative calls on our skill in big picture exegesis and compelling story-telling, but in many ways the process remains the same – study the passage, determine the main idea and purpose, define purpose and main idea for the sermon and shape it strategically, etc.

Definitions Without Jesus – Christian Preaching?

/ Peter Mead / 5 Comments

John raised an important question in response to the post on key elements of an expository preaching definition.  Should it not include some reference to Jesus?  Some say yes, others say not necessarily.  Interestingly, of the six definitions I have used in my preaching course, only one includes a reference to Christ (J.I.Packer uses the term, “Christ-related”).  Anyway, two positions to ponder:

Christocentric preaching – Bryan Chappell, influenced by Edmund Clowney, teaches and models a form of preaching wherein the fallen-condition focus of the passage is resolved by moving to the person and work of Christ.  People in this line of thought have made comments that a sermon which could be preached in a synagogue, or one in which Christ is not mentioned, is essentially a non-Christian sermon.  (Interestingly, Chappell’s definition of an expository sermon, on p132 of Christ-Centered Preaching does not make any reference to Christ – “An expository sermon . . . expounds Scriptures by deriving from a specific text main points and subpoints that disclose the thought of the author, cover the scope of the passage, and are applied to the lives of listeners.”)

Theocentric preaching – I’ve heard Haddon Robinson reject the charge that a message without Christ is essentially a non-Christian sermon by stating that he preaches theocentrically, and if God plays a key role in the message, then he knows no other God but the Trinitarian God of Scripture.  In practice, Robinson does move from an Old Testament passage to Christ when it works to do so, but he does not feel obliged to do so every time.

People who question the “always bring it round to Jesus” approach are not automatically advocating anthropocentric, “seven secrets for success,” or self-help sermons.  Chappell is right to critique sub-Christian preaching of the “be like,” “be good,” or “be disciplined” variety.  However, must every sermon include Jesus in order to be considered expository?  Certainly many sermons will naturally move to Jesus, but must every sermon?  I would say not, what would you say?

Creating Conceptual Categories vs Contextualizing

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

John Piper wrote on his blog this week about the danger of over-zealous contextualizing.  What he means by this is the reaching for points of connection so that the message of the Bible can fit into the thinking of the listener.  We sometimes have to create conceptual categories that may be missing from the mental frameworks of our listeners.

He raises an important point.  I would suggest that we have to think through whether we are preaching concepts that are driven by the Bible text, or preaching Bible texts to support concepts driven by our system of theology.  When we preach a Bible passage, our task is to communicate the concept conveyed by that text.  According to Robinson’s definition, expository preaching is the communication of a biblical concept … applied to the listeners.

Certainly, preaching is more than communicating a helpful principle or tip for life.  Preaching involves communicating concepts that may actually reframe the way our listeners perceive reality.  For instance, if you are preaching on the armor of God in Ephesians 6, don’t present it as a helpful tip for times of testing (that may prove helpful if people happen to remember the message).  Rather preach that we live in a constant Ephesians 6 reality and people are either appropriately dressed or vulnerably naked.  People often don’t perceive reality as a constant spiritual battle, so we should help to shift that wrong perception.

Drop Down the Ladder

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Many great sermons turn out to be good sermons.  Sermons looking set to be good often end up average.  How is it that the last few minutes of a sermon can change it from powerful to pleasant?  One key element is the final descent of the preacher down the ladder of abstraction.

The text must be understood in its original setting for the detail to make sense.  Then the process of theological abstraction moves the preacher toward relevance for the contemporary listeners.  But this is not enough.  It is easy to stop at this stage of the process, and a natural place to let off the preparation pressure (after all, surely listeners can take the abstract and apply it specifically in their own situation?)  Actually no, listeners do not generally apply abstracts to their own lives.  Don’t stop with “trust God!” or “love God more!” or “love one another!” or “be faithful in your relationships!”  These are all abstracts.

To really cement the message as a great, not for the sake of your reputation, but for the sake of lives changed to the glory of God, push through for specific application.  This means re-contextualizing the application for the sake of your listeners.  What will it look like to trust God for some of them this week?  How would greater love for God show up in their daily lives?  What specifically might one do to demonstrate genuine love for another believer in the church this week?  Where is faithfulness tested and proven day by day?

Don’t finish a great message in mid-air and thereby transform the great into the good.  Be sure to earth the message through specifics, stepping down the ladder of abstraction so that the rubber can meet the road of real life.  Listeners generally struggle to take hold of an abstract and apply it specifically, but they are very adept at hearing a specific that fits the life of another in the same pew, and translating that specific into a specific that relates to their version of real life. The Bible is relevant, just be sure to demonstrate that reality for some of your listeners.  The rest will gladly translate for themselves!

Discourse: The Danger of Spiritualization

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

We’ve noted that there are discourse passages in almost every section of Scripture – history, wisdom, prophet, gospel, etc.  Awareness of the broader plot within which discourse is placed is helpful both in understanding the passage meaning and purpose, and also for preaching the passage with contextual understanding and tension.

So if we decide to preach a discourse in a typical analytical manner – for instance a deductive sermon – what should we be wary of?  Be wary of direct transference of relevance to a different audience.  Joshua 1 does not give direct promises to contemporary readers that wherever we place our feet, we can claim for God.  Equally it does not mandate military action on our part.  Yet the passage yields much that can be so relevant to us.

Be careful to work through the process of exegetical analysis (in that context), drawing out the abiding theological implications (in any context), and recontextualizing the principles (in this context).  Be careful not to then re-attach original phrasing in a careless manner that might imply direct transference of details by a spiritualization process (i.e. let it show that you are not simply reading the text and then telling people to “claim land” as God instructs us to “march” over what we should “conquer”).  By showing some process in our preaching, we can protect our people from bad practice in their own Bible study.  By showing awareness of audience (original and contemporary) and passage purpose (original and preached), we guard our people from inappropriate application.

When Discourse Sits in Narrative

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Discourse text often sits within a narrative.  Consider the teaching sections of the Gospels, how a Jesus sermon is set in the context of the story of His ministry or passion.  Consider the speeches in Acts as they move the story forward time and again.  Consider the direct communication of God to Joshua at the key transition point in Israel’s leadership, or the direct communication of the prophets as they address a specific issue at a specific point in Israel’s history.  Whatever form the book may take generally, these specific instances are essentially discourse Scripture.

When a discourse text sits in the midst of a broader narrative, what do we do?  We should analyze the broader plot to see the function of the discourse within it.  The narrative plot then serves as context for the details of the discourse.  Of course we could choose to preach the text in some kind of narrative form, but equally we can choose to keep that plot-work at the level of context and purpose analysis.  A discourse type text can yield clear and effective outlines through careful analysis.  By giving time in our study to the plot within which the discourse sits, we can add tension and interest to the preaching of the discourse.

This applies to epistles too, incidentally.  Just because an epistle may consist entirely of discourse, we should not lose sight of the broader narrative of history in which it sits.  An epistle is a point in time, a point on the plot line of the story of that particular church or individual.  At a key juncture in the story of the church at Rome, or in Colossae, Paul wrote to them.  We have his discourse, but we can also trace the tension of the church’s history to that point, and be left with the tension of how they would respond to his instruction in the letter.  Awareness of the broader narrative can always add tension and interest to the preaching of a discourse.

Discourse usually sits within a broader narrative framework.  Awareness of that helps our interpretation of the passage. It can also help our preaching by adding more life to the living words!

Getting to Grips with the Genres: Poetry (2)

/ Mike Roth / Leave a comment

Yesterday’s post was concerned with how poetry works.  Now let’s consider the implications for our preaching.

Implications for Preaching Poetry

-If preaching narrative connects listeners to plot and discourse connects listeners to ideas, then poetry connects listeners to feelings attached to ideas.

-This means that preaching poetry is slow. It’s less like going on a run than it is like sitting before a painting in an art gallery. The preacher is to draw out colors, themes, nuance, and ideas, line by line, in a way that gives time and space for listeners to connect not just cognitively but affectively to the poem.

-Consider using music, paintings, pictures, movie clips, etc., to draw-out an idea.

-Consider allowing for testimony that affirms the points in poetry. Consider attaching biblical narrative to the points too.

-Poetry speaks to truths and feelings that we have felt, will feel, and need to feel. They are not fiction but fact. We need to be shaped by them. Allow your preaching of poetry the time, space, tone, posture, and space to accomplish this. It’s worth it!

Land the Last Line

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

It’s true every time we preach, but especially on Easter Sunday. It’s great to land the last line. Some people regularly finish with a bang, a really pregnant final sentence that absolutely nails it. Others among us struggle for consistency with the finish. It’s always easy to fizzle to a close or to stick on a generic statement like, “So that’s why it’s an interesting passage.” But that last line can really hang in the air, linger in the memory and stick in the heart.

As I’ve written before, the best time to plan the end is before you preach. Trying to pull a stunning conclusion out of mid-air is almost always a wasted effort. Sunukjian makes the suggestion that the concluding statement should be positive rather than negative, and a statement rather than a question. Perhaps I’ll share more on his suggestions another time. If in doubt, it is usually a great place to restate the main idea one last time.

So before preaching the Easter Sunday message, try to take a couple of minutes and run through the final few lines. What a great day to land a last line really well!

Blessings and Responsibilities

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

We live in a time of unique blessings.  We have unmatched access to information on the internet.  We have more commentaries and Bible study resources than ever before (even online materials).  We have visual media unknown to previous generations.

I don’t think the best way to handle these changes is by ignoring them.  It may sound very pious to lock yourself in a study with just the Bible (especially an old translation), and live out a monastic sermon preparation process.  I think we should be grateful for whatever extra tools God has allowed us to access.  But with the blessing comes responsibility.

We may be able to do instant concordance searches and access lexical information at the touch of a mouse button.  So what do we do with the extra time no longer spent flicking through chunky tomes of fine print?  If the fruit of quicker access to information is cheaper exegesis, then the church will be all the poorer for these advances in technology. Let’s try to take the time our predecessors had to spend in page turning in prayerful interaction with the text and the sermon preparation process.

We are blessed by the visual media available to us.  When the Passion of the Christ was in the cinema I saw it with a group of men from our church.  Then I was preaching on the crucifixion and so went back to see it again, on my own.  It was very moving to watch through it again as part of my preparation.  Since many people were watching it, I wanted to make sure my sermon wouldn’t differ confusingly from the film.  But also, and more importantly, I had to make sure I preached the inspired text rather than Mel Gibson’s screenplay.  It was certainly a blessing to see.  Something previous generations never had.  But it added a responsibility, I had to check the passion narratives more.

We live in an age of many blessings, but we must not forget that with blessing there is usually responsibility too.

Beware the Power of Propagated Rumors

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

There are always troublesome trends around, even in the church. They may be ideas or vague concepts, but they creep in and stick around for a while. Perhaps books are written to support them, but something published is not something certain. Maybe it’s time to put your finger on the pulse of your church and see if there are any ideas drifting around. In some cases we don’t need to address them, but simply be careful not to propagate them in our preaching, either by attitude, inference or reference. In other cases we need to step in and overtly correct with direct Bible teaching.

The heretical understandings. For example, how many people in our churches have the idea that the Trinity can be explained by the illustration of water, ice and steam (a modalistic explanation) or three friends in one group (a tritheistic explanation). If there is heretical thinking, look for appropriate moments to clarify the truth.

The fashionable trends. Not everything we disagree with is outright heresy. Often they are theological fashions and trends. Perhaps an idea pushed in a book that is imbalanced or narrow. Perhaps an idea emanating from a certain “camp” in Christendom. Perhaps an idea pushed on us from pressure groups outside the church. Fashionable “trends” that I’ve heard lately would include the idea that eschatology is other-worldly, always “retreatist” in orientation and therefore irrelevant. The blanket statement that foreign missionaries are no longer needed in other countries. The notion that Paul hated women. Or that any social concern among Christians means they have given up on the gospel. Or the opposite idea that Christians concerned with evangelism have no concern for people. I want to be careful not to add weight to any of these ideas, no matter how popular they might be in some circles.

We don’t have to address every issue going on in broader Christianity. But we should be aware of any way in which a passing comment, or perceived attitude, might continue to propagate ideas we don’t support. And we should have our finger on the pulse enough to recognize when an idea is becoming imbalanced, or worse, when a heresy is becoming acceptable.