Stage 8 – Message Detail

Preaching Easter (Pt4): Resurrection Implications

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

NT Wright made an interesting comment this week. He suggested that the New Testament presents many implications that come from the resurrection. However, the one that most preachers tend to emphasize is not really presented in the New Testament. Namely, “Because Jesus rose from the dead, we can go to heaven when we die.” I mention this not to affirm the comment, but to prompt our thinking and Bible study.

Before preaching the resurrection this Sunday, check your text for the implications that are present. For instance, in 1st Corinthians 15 we read that His resurrection gives us hope of our own (v16-20), the fear of death is removed (v26, 54-57), there are ethical implications (v32-34), motivation for ministry (v58), and even prompting to practical help for the poor (16:1, note Galatians 2:7-10).

Let’s preach the truth of the resurrection, let’s even allow our excitement to show, but let’s also try to be specifically clear in presenting the implications. It is easy in our excitement about the event to fall short in our relevance and application. Truly, everything is changed because Jesus rose from the dead. Part of our task is to help people see how that is true.

Preaching Easter (Pt3): Harmonization and the Gospels

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Whenever we preach from the gospels we need to be aware that there may be up to four accounts of the story before us. In the past a great deal of emphasis was placed on harmonizing the gospel accounts. That is to say, placing all four side by side and seeking to combine them in order to have the “full” story. There is certainly a place for this practice, but how much of this should we concern ourselves with as preachers?

There are many elements in the Gospels that only appear in one gospel. In this case the issue of harmonization is largely irrelevant. But then there are events found in all of the gospels. The passion narrative, obviously, is found in all four.

Check all four gospels for accuracy in your preaching. If you are preaching from, say, Luke’s account, then it is helpful to check the other three. You wouldn’t want to undermine your preaching by telling the story in such a way that you make errors because you forgot to check the other gospels.

Preach the text rather than the event. Having checked the other gospels to make sure you are not presenting an error in your sermon, be sure to actually preach Luke’s account (or whichever you have as your preaching text). The gospel writers did not simply recount a transcript of a video taken the first Easter. They selectively chose the details to include in order to write an historically accurate theological presentation. Seek to preach the emphasis of the text you are in.

Preaching Easter (Pt2): Shock and Awe

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I expect we would agree that the typical crucifixion image that comes to mind is probably a little too “hygienic.” The traditional pictures seen in old churches with the Lord serene and clean, hanging on the cross with a minimal element of humiliation are so far from the brutal reality of the event. Those pictures, combined with the regularity with which we refer to the cross, lead many believers to have an unrealistic mental picture of Calvary.

As we preach the Easter story in the next days, we have the opportunity to tell the story well. We can give enough description, and take enough time, so that the image is able to form in peoples’ minds. We can give enough description so that the image forming is more accurate, less “clean” and closer to what actually happened. Historical and biblical accuracy should permeate our preaching of this great event.

However, this does not mean we should automatically “go all out.” It may be that overly graphic detail is unhelpful to some. I’ve heard some very effective presentations of the crucifixion that went into the medical details and the sickening truth of the event. I’ve also heard some where the “shock and awe” tactic backfired significantly. We must be aware of who will be listening and what will be most effective for them. Our goal is to present the biblical truth and call for response, not to repulse people with images that obscure the message. Remember that people will be drawn and convicted by the Holy Spirit, not by our skill in story telling that can stir the emotions into a frenzy.

Let’s try to find the right balance for our listeners this Easter. We need to tell the story well, we need to help people see and feel the reality of Calvary. But we also need to be careful to allow the Holy Spirit to stir the heart, rather than merely stirring the stomach by excessive shock and awe tactics.

Preaching Easter (Pt1): Back to Basics

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

In some ways Easter is not like Christmas.  The Christmas story tends to remain largely unmentioned for eleven months of the year.  So when the advent season comes round again people expect to hear the basic Christmas story.  But the events of the first Easter get mentioned and preached on throughout the year.  So there is a temptation for us as preachers to try and get clever with our Easter messages – perhaps hyper-creative, or super-subtle, or whatever.

Our regular listeners need to hear the basic Easter story.  Jesus told his followers to share bread and wine, “in remembrance” of Him.  In a sense the Easter story never grows old for Christ’s followers – it means too much to us.  So as a preacher don’t feel pressure from somewhere to say something that is somehow clever or different.  There are plenty of biblical passages that can be used, and people will appreciate a clear preaching of any of them.

Remember that irregular listeners need to hear the basic Easter story.  At Easter time there is a higher likelihood of visitors.  Maybe they feel they should go to church at Christmas and again at Easter.  Maybe they are visiting family who go to your church and politely join their hosts.  These people don’t need some kind of creatively opaque and nuanced message.  They need the message of the text clearly presented and applied.

As a preacher you may be feeling the pressure to do something different this year.  I’m not suggesting we should be boring or predictable.  I’m not saying that creativity is inappropriate.  Let us be as effective as possible in our communication of the biblical message of Easter.  However, let’s remember that sometimes it is very effective to simply preach the basics – the story from the text, the implications for us today.

Saying the Text’s Something

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

You have a text, maybe more, but certainly one.  You study it.  You determine what it’s purpose was and the author’s idea.  Then you consider your congregation and the purpose of preaching the sermon.  You shape the idea, then the sermon and preach.  Simple really.  But there are some traps we easily fall into.  Here are a couple to consider:

Don’t Overqualify.  Often the text will be saying something quite strong.  We want to make sure we’re not misunderstood or somehow imbalanced, so we qualify it.  This text says this.  But don’t forget that other text that says that, and the other that says something else.  Before we know it, we’ve overqualified the message and the force of the sermon has been dissipated like replacing a bullet with two dozen marshmallows.  There are times when we must communicate careful balancing of a potentially misunderstandable idea.  Generally though, don’t overqualify a message and end up saying nothing.  A lot of balancing can come through future preaching of other texts.

Don’t Overteach.  It’s easy to cram a perfectly good message with extra information that would be best suited in perfectly good other messages.  Either we can try to dump every scrap of exegetical inquiry into the message, or we can cram too many ideas into a one-idea time slot.  “Seven great lessons from the book of whatever” would generally be more effective as seven separate sermons.  Once the ideas start to pile up, people will either synthesize the message in their own way (over which you have no real influence), or they will take one “nugget” and ignore the rest (and that nugget may be a merely anecdotal illustration), or they will simply take away nothing.  Generally speaking, don’t overteach in a message so that in saying lots, people actually take home little to nothing.

Don’t try to say everything.  Don’t try to say lots of things.  Don’t risk the people getting nothing.  Say something.  Say the something the text pushes you towards.  Say the text’s something and try to say it well.

Banish Boredom from the Sermon

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

They say that people no longer want to sit through a boring traditional sermon.  I don’t agree.  I don’t think people ever wanted to sit through a boring sermon.  Fred Craddock suggests that boredom is a form of evil, and I agree with Haddon Robinson that it is a sin to bore people with the Bible.  Take a moment to self-evaluate – are your sermons ever boring?

Boredom is partly a contagious attitude.  Somehow we have to make sure that we don’t find the sermon or its content boring.  The danger is always present since we spend hours working on the passage and sermon before preaching it.  Actually, I think the danger is often the opposite: that we get distracted by other things and fail to spend the necessary time in preparation.  Generally, the more time I spend preparing in a passage, the more excited I get about it (unless I’m trying to force it into some sermon form).  Whatever the cause, make sure you are not bored with the passage, the ministry, the routine, even subconsciously, or else it will contagiously spread to your listeners!

Boredom can be overcome.  During preparation, scan your outline or manuscript with a boring meter.  Note the parts of the message that are somewhat boring.  At these points overcome the problem before it occurs.  Engage the imagination in description or illustration.  Consider contemporary ways to communicate the ancient truth.  Can a story be used that will drive the message forward?  Is it a moment to reveal something slightly personal?  How does the text affect me – can I let that show?  Would it be helpful and appropriate to season the sermon with a hint of humor?

Enthusiasm and imagination are keys to unlocking boredom from a sermon, but try to overcome the problem ahead of time.  Try to avoid discovering the sermon is boring by the facial feedback of a disconnecting congregation.  It’s far easier to fix in the study than in the service!

The Added Challenges of Being a Visiting Speaker – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

More things to think about when you are a visiting speaker. The few minutes between arriving and the service starting can be quite busy!

Program awareness both pre and post message – What will go on before you step up to speak? It’s no good having an icebreaker moment of hilarity if they’ve had heart stirring worship for twenty minutes. However, sometimes you can tell that after what is coming before they will need some help to settle and focus. Also, what comes after you? Should you close in prayer, announce a song, simply sit down? It’s best to know! And there may be ways to make subtle connections to what comes before and after, thereby helping the whole service to sit together well.

Personal introduction, by whom? – Will they be introducing you so that people know who you are (and what will they say – see previous post Speaker Introductions!) Or do they expect a brief personal intro at the start of the message? (Or do they like an informal interview intro – I would not suggest this idea, but some places seem to choose it!)

Final audience analysis – As a visitor I always use the last few minutes before the service to get to know the people, either by observation or by probing a local about the kind of people present. It’s amazing what you can learn in just a couple of minutes that can help to tailor the message.

(If you didn’t see it then, also check out the post from December 9th – The Time Before You Speak)

I Can’t Use The Word “Sensitivity” For This

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I wrote about careful and considered sensitivity toward diverse groups within the congregation. I deliberately left out a very significant group and would like to mention them today. Problem is, I can’t call it “strengthened by sensitivity – part 2.” I don’t really want to open the can of worms relating to seeker sensitive church models. There are strengths and weaknesses in all these approaches to church, but I don’t want to make us think of that right now.

I want us to think about the next congregation we will speak to, those individuals sitting in the chairs and listening to us preach. Among them there may well be non-Christians. We need to be careful in what we say. As Nathan suggested in his comment yesterday, “Sometimes we pepper our messages with phrases like, “You know the story about Japheth…”, or, “But we as Christians….” These phrases can unintentionally make the non-Christians feel like what we’re saying doesn’t apply to them, and that we’re oblivious to their presence among us. It can also give the impression that church is like a graduate course that requires a bunch of prerequisite courses in order to track along.”

So take a moment to think through who may be there tomorrow. Pray for them. Prayerfully consider whether there are elements in the sermon that could require too much background, or anything that could be misunderstood, or might imply something you don’t intend (in reference to outsiders, or the gospel, etc.)

Let’s pray that tomorrow, whether we are being overtly evangelistic or not, many non-Christians will respond to the captivating work of the Spirit of God and spark celebrations in heaven!

Strengthened by Sensitivity

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Sensitivity can really strengthen a sermon.  If it is overdone it can also neutralize a sermon, but well-placed and well-worded sensitivity is well worth the extra thought it takes.  If the text was originally targeted at one specific type of person (such as the early chapters of Proverbs targeted at young males), perhaps a careful comment or two can open up its relevance to a wider audience.  Or in your illustrations and applications, perhaps another one is needed to include a group that may feel excluded.  Or when the subject can feel sensitive to some, a careful acknowledgement of that is well worth considering.  For example:

Singles.  A lot of biblical stories and teaching relates to marriage, either human or the relational image of God and His people.  For some singles in the church, this can be hard to take.  Sensitivity to their feelings can really help.

Childless.  It is natural and easy to relate stories of your own children, but for some in the church this can be painful since they remain childless.  Be especially careful in biblical stories where God has “closed the womb” as a form of discipline.

Women.  It is definitely worth being sensitive to the existence, worth and ability of women.  Make sure your illustrations don’t always default to male imagery, male characters, and male thinking patterns.  As ever, too much is generally not appreciated by men or women, but deliberate well-placed sensitivity is well worth the effort.

The elderly.  High energy practical applications for hectic families and workplace interactions can easily miss the elderly who no longer have a full nest, a full work schedule or even a full tank of energy.

The unemployed.  In our desire to be relevant to the majority, we can easily apply the sermon in respect to work life.  There may be some wrestling with the reality of unemployment and the many feelings that come with that.  They probably don’t want to be put in the spotlight, but will sense your sensitivity.

So five groups of people that can easily feel left out or even hurt by insensitivity from the pulpit.  Any other groups we should be aware of in our sermon preparation?  A well-placed and well-worded comment here and there, an extra illustration from daily life, and our sermons will be strengthened by sensitivity.

Rumors of Commentaries

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

When I get to listen to a sermon, I sometimes pick up on a commentary vibe.  That is, a sense that the preacher has been spending some time in the commentaries.  Sometimes it is overt references to “the commentators” or a specific commentary (I am describing what I hear, not affirming the practice of citing and quoting the commentaries).  Other times it is a series of background facts that feel like they’ve come from some time in the books.

On the positive side I am always glad to know the speaker has been working in preparation for the sermon.  I’d much rather have somebody who has prepared responsibly than someone who is “winging it” without humble reference to “experts” in the field.

On the negative side I sometimes get a feeling of concern.  It’s hard to pinpoint, but it’s a feeling of concern nonetheless.  I wonder whether the commentaries have been conversation partners in the personal study of the text, or crutches leant on to short-cut the process of exegesis.  I wonder whether the commentaries have simulated wrestling with the structure and flow of the text and consequently the sermon, or whether they have merely furnished a dissected structure on which to hang the broken pieces of a partial sermon.

I thank God for commentaries and good commentators.  We are so blessed today with access to these reference works.  I think it is either arrogance or stupidity that would lead us to ignore them in sermon preparation (provided we are blessed with access to them).  However, they are just one part of our preparation.  We have to wrestle with the text, with its flow of thought, its meaning, its purpose, its idea.  We have to wrestle with the sermon purpose, its idea, its strategy, its structure, its flow, etc.

Commentary study alone will provide a veritable pile of tidbits that can easily fill the sermon time.  But remember that as the preacher, our job is not to fill sermon time, but to prayerfully, carefully, and personally develop a sermon that faithfully explains and relevantly applies the text for our specific congregation.