Stage 8 – Message Detail

Most Illustrations Need More Time

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Robinson and other instructors teach a hierarchy of illustrative materials.  In a simplified four-level hierarchy the list would be as follows:

Level 1 illustrations come from the experience of both the speaker and listeners.

Level 2 illustrations come from the experience of the listeners, but the speaker has to learn about them since they have not personally experienced the same.

Level 3 illustrations come from the experience of the speaker, but must be learned by the listeners.

Level 4 illustrations lie outside the experience of both speaker and listener.

Level 1 illustrations can be brief and passing, but don’t have to be.  The experience of joining the shortest line of people, but ending up in the slowest is probably one we’ve all experienced at some point.  That kind of life situation is easy to include and can connect quickly with listeners.  However, even here, it is important to remember that images take time to form in the minds of listeners, so it may be worth adding some detail and taking some extra time.

Lower level illustrations need more time in delivery.  If people need to learn about something in order to get the illustration, then the illustration must take more time.  A throw-away line about a movie, a historical event, a personal experience of yours, and so on will not form in the minds of the listeners and so will either be missed or create confusion.  Be sure to take the extra thirty seconds, minute or longer to make sure you are actually communicating as you speak.  Alternatively try to use a level 1 or 2 illustration since it will probably be more effective anyway!

Lower level illustrations need more time in preparation.  If you are speaking outside your own experience, then you must take the time to learn what you are talking about.  Extra research!  For instance, if you are single but want to give a “married” illustration of some kind, it would be worth talking to a couple of married folks to be sure you communicate accurately.  Or if you have experienced something but the listeners haven’t, it might be worth checking with a couple of folks to make sure what they hear is what you intend (for instance when you refer to an aspect of your job or ministry).

We probably would do well to take extra time on most illustrations and pieces of support material.  However, as you move down the levels, more time becomes a necessity.  Not only in delivery, but also in preparation.

Know Your Theology and Preach Your Bible

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Last week I wrote a post that spoke against theological agenda-driven preaching.  Yesterday’s post affirmed the value and relevance of theology.  Are these positions contradictory?  Not at all.  We are living in a generation where there is an increasing biblical and theological illiteracy.  So as preachers we have a responsibility to really know the important doctrines of the faith.  And as preachers we have the responsibility of preaching the Bible so that listeners will know where that doctrine comes from and how to get it.

Here’s a quote from Spurgeon’s Lectures to My Students that seems appropriate:

Be well instructed in theology, and do not regard the sneers of those who rail at it because they are ignorant of it.  Many preachers are not theologians, and hence the mistakes which they make.  It cannot do any hurt to the most lively evangelist to be also a sound theologian, and it may often be the means of saving him from gross blunders.  Nowadays, we hear men tear a single sentence of Scripture from its connection, and cry “Eureka! Eureka!” as if they had found a new truth; and yet they have not discovered a diamond, but a piece of broken glass. . . . Let us be thoroughly well acquainted with the great doctrines of the Word of God.

Know your theology, and preach the Bible well so that people can see not only what to believe, but how to derive that belief from the pages of Scripture.  There are two potential challenges in this.  One is ignorance of sound theology.  The other is adherence to a system of theology not firmly rooted in the Bible.  Let us preach to counter the increasing biblical and theological illiteracy, and let’s do it demonstrating healthy handling of the text!

Practical Vs Doctrinal – No Contest

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

I was just reading a little book by a famous seminary professor.  He referred to the thousands of chapel services he has sat through in his time.  The one thing that bothered him perhaps more than anything else was when a visiting speaker would say something along the lines of:

I am going to leave the theological instruction to your faculty here, but today I just want to be practical!

It is important to demonstrate the consistent link between the biblical/theological and the pastoral/practical.  We do our listeners a disservice when we imply a disconnect between the two.  People need to understand that the most theological or doctrinal passages in their Bible have real-life relevance to them.  People need to recognize that instruction purporting to be practical and relevant but lacking a solid biblical grounding is inherently weak.

It may sound like an understatement in English, but all Scripture is both God-breathed and useful.  Don’t give the impression that some sermons are biblical, exegetical, theological, doctrinal, while others are practical, pastoral, relevant and helpful.  Strive to demonstrate that both sides are really on the same side – there really is no contest.

It Can’t All Be “We”

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Cultures shift.  In the west we are living in an age when people no longer respect authority, including the authority of a preacher.  People may like the preacher, and listen to the preacher, but there is some resistance to the concept of a preacher speaking with authority.  Consequently, many preachers will try to use “we” throughout the sermon.  In effect, preaching as a fellow observer and recipient of the text.  This may be a good idea, but there are limits.

The notion of preaching without authority came to the fore in the 1970’s, with books like As One Without Authority by Fred Craddock.  This hugely influential book placed the “New Homiletic” into the consciousness of many.  Much of what Craddock wrote is well worth taking onboard, but there is an underlying issue we need to recognize.  The New Homiletic, even in its more conservative forms, is strongly influenced by the New Hermeneutic.  Here we find strong emphasis on a reader-response approach to the text, but the author seems to have been lost along the way.

If we hold to the importance of authorial intent in our hermeneutics, then a total “we” approach seems inappropriate.  As preachers, we study the text, hopefully with some degree of skill, in order to determine the author’s meaning.  Consequently, there should be a humble but authoritative explanation of the meaning of the text for the benefit of our listeners.  This “humble but authoritative explanation” may not require a “you” approach in contrast to “we,” but it does carry some authority.

Meaning is not determined by a primarily subjective response to the text in us all as readers.  In one sense there is a mutuality as we, God’s people, discover the meaning of the text.  However, that discovery must be the meaning of the text, not a meaning we discover subjectively in experiencing the text.

Nevertheless, in the applicational features of a sermon, and there should be many, perhaps “we” should be prevalent.  We all stand under the authority of the text.  We all should be responding to what we read.  Let the “we” feature in the shared need for the message of the text (introduce appropriate vulnerability and connection early).  Let the “we” feature carefully in application throughout the message.  However, let us be careful what we might imply with “we” in the explanation of the text. Let us strive to understand and communicate the meaning of the text as those with humble authority, but let us take our position amongst the ranks of God’s people responding to His Word.

Demonstrating Key Values: Application

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

People may hear words, but they sense values.  Values are caught as much as taught.  Watch a dysfunctional family situation where the children are verbally instructed with one set of values, but observe the flagrant disregard for those values in the parents.  Or watch the influence of a preacher who may state the importance of application, but demonstrate that they don’t really value it.

If you value application, do it.  As Robinson’s definition explains, expository preaching means that the biblical concept is first applied by the Holy Spirit to the life of the preacher, then through the preacher, to the listeners.  To be an applicational preacher, be an applicational Bible student first.

If you value application, include it.  Might seem obvious, but if we believe application is important, we should use sermon time to present it.  What value is communicated by a conclusion that merely states, “Now may the Holy Spirit apply to our hearts what we have heard in the last hour!”

If you value application, integrate it.  The traditional, rhetoric-driven, place for application is the end of the sermon.  There is good reason for this.  People generally need to understand and be convinced of the “what?” before they are willing to face the “so what?”  Yet in our day we are very aware of the complexity of communication.  People value relevance, so we need to integrate application and need in the introduction and movements of the sermon.  We must show why the “what?” matters to them before they will sit and listen to our explanation of it.  The “what?” and the “so what?” feed on each other.

If you value application, highlight it.  Try to use comments like, “so we understand it, but our Bible study is incomplete without trying to apply it – let’s think this through in practical and specific ways.”  Try to avoid comments like, “we’ll spend most of our time addressing the ‘what?’ and by the time we get to the end of the sermon, you’ll probably not even notice the ‘so?’”

By our attitude and our passing comments, we contagiously spread the value we place on application.

Do We Preach the Bible or Theology?

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

As preachers we have to determine a fundamental perspective in our approach to preaching. Do we preach the Bible, or do we preach a theology? Obviously when we preach the Bible we will preach theology, and hopefully we will do that well. And there are times when we must chose to address a particular theological issue (the atonement, for example). But generally, when we have a text to preach. Which is it to be? Preach the text or the system?

Let me be honest. There are some passages that feel slightly less comfortable in my understanding of theology than others. If you’re honest, that happens to you too. But my conviction is that when I have a passage to preach, I want to preach that passage. If my study of the text prods at my theology, then hopefully the theology is the one that gets reshaped.

The comment that sparked this post was just a throw away line. The biblical narrative was read. After a theological background was put in place we were brought back to the story. It was summarized in one sentence. Then the implication given was along the lines of, “the story is that simple, so let’s leave that behind . . .” The rest of the message felt like the preaching of a theology, with the narrative functioning as a loose illustration of the theology. (It would be better if the passage were ignored, rather than abused in this way, then listeners wouldn’t go away thinking they’d heard the passage preached.)

This is not about homiletical technique. It’s fundamental to our view of our role as preachers. We are to preach the text. Prayerfully wrestle with the text. Understand the text. Preach the text. Let the preaching of the text shape the theology, not vice versa.

Can You Support It?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

One privilege of preaching is the privilege of study.  But not everything you discover in your private moments poring over the sacred text should be shared from the pulpit.  Some things may be an exegetical cul-de-sac that you pursued but led to an apparent dead end.  Other things may be genuine insights from the passage and its context, but are still better left unshared.  For instance, perhaps you discern an apparently symbolic or spiritualized understanding of some aspect of the preaching passage.  Should this be presented to a mixed congregation at various levels of biblical understanding?  Here are three questions to ponder before deciding to go ahead and share your insight:

Will your explanation be enough?  We all know the challenge of trying to explain intricate study, perhaps in the original language, to people seeing the text for almost the first time.  If our explanation appears inadequate, we run the risk of undermining our credibility or the logical cohesion of the message.

Do you feel the need to resort to cheap argumentation?  For instance, “If you were to read this book through once a week for 25 years, then you would begin to see that . . .”  This kind of throw-away remark in a sermon can cut deeply into the listeners.  Is the preacher unable to communicate the point now, so the listener is assured they would see it if they studied more?  (Incidentally, I was wondering whether the speaker who said this had read through the book in question 1300 times in the last quarter century!)

Will people copying your methodology get into trouble?  If the insight is somehow symbolic or spiritualized, do we want others copying the method?  Let’s say the insight is genuine.  What would happen if the listeners copy the method and start assigning non-obvious meanings to elements in their Bible readings?

There are times when an exegetical insight, even a genuine one, is better left in the study (or the classroom).  As preachers, we shoulder a significant responsibility for our listeners.  Let’s be sure to consider what is best for them, rather than what looks good for us.

Can They See It?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday I wrote about the danger of abusing introductions to promote pet perspectives.  After the introduction, the message continues.  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.  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.  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.  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.

Keep Drums Out of the Introduction

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The first few minutes of a sermon are important. They provide the opportunity to get the attention of the listeners, surface a need for what is to follow and move them into the passage and message. During this relatively brief movement there is a temptation that we probably all face to one degree or another. There is the temptation to lay unnecessary foundational blocks (and thereby promote a personal theological agenda).

Recently I was not preaching and so had the opportunity to listen to a visiting speaker. I was not the only one to notice the significant theological agenda being pushed in the extended introduction. Our task as preacher is to bring the message of our preaching text, not to use the text to bang on our favorite doctrinal drum.

Next sermon, let’s be careful to evaluate the background we give. Do we give enough? Do we give too much? Is what we give relevant to the understanding and application of the passage? As I suggested yesterday, in one sermon we cannot achieve everything. Over time people should get the whole canon, but it’s not our task to achieve that in one message on one text. Perhaps you decide to preach the whole Bible’s message in one sermon – great, but be honest about that and don’t give the impression it all comes from one particular text.

Our responsibility is to faithfully preach the specific text before us. Give whatever background is necessary for the communication, explanation and application of that passage. But don’t abuse the introduction by banging your favorite theological drum.

A Great Opportunity To Be Missed?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The final moments of a sermon are highly strategic. The last opportunity to emphasize the main idea, drive home the application, stir motivation for response, etc. Then there is one other thing we may be inclined to include – an early advert for next Sunday’s continuation in the series, an early raising of need for what is to follow. I am not saying this should or should not be included, but I’d like to point out a couple of points to ponder before you choose to refer to series sermon today-plus-one:

Finish this sermon. Be sure to resolve the present sermon fully. Your mind may be wandering to the next in the series (or you may want to raise hope that next week will be better than this one), but be sure to preach a complete sermon now. This moment is primarily about today’s sermon, not next Sunday’s. (As you can tell from the site, I don’t recommend preaching through the text until time runs out and then picking up at the same point next time. Preach a complete unit of thought.)

Don’t undermine this sermon. It would be a waste of all that has gone before to end with something along the lines of, “. . . today was alright, but you don’t want to miss next week’s message! That one will really be something!”

Only dangle a carrot with care. Perhaps you are inspired by a well-written TV show that always leaves people at a cliffhanger and longing for next week’s episode. Remember that takes a high level of skill to pull off effectively. It is far easier to leave people disheartened and frustrated by doing this poorly. You may choose to leave some element of the sermon or text hanging in the air, but think it through carefully.

Let the title intrigue. Often all you need to stir interest in next week’s sermon is the title printed in the bulletin. The title is there to stir interest and to intrigue. I wrote a post on titles that may help – Titles: Tricky Little Things.

The end of this sermon may be an opportunity to motivate people to come for the next sermon. But think this through carefully, as it may just be a great way to undo the moment, dissipate focus and lose what you’ve been trying to achieve to this point. What do you think?