Stage 8 – Message Detail

Biblical Preaching Must Be Biblical

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Of course biblical preaching has to be biblical.  However, just because preaching is biblical it does not mean it is the best it can be.  John Piper notes that just because the Bible is believed to be inerrant, it does not guarantee that preaching will therefore flourish.  He notes three ways in which evangelicals undercut the power and authority of biblical preaching:

1.”Subjectivist epistemologies that belittle propositional revelation.”  In a day when truth is considered relative and subjective, we preach the Word because God has given revelation to us by means of objective proposition.  Preach the idea of the text, and you preach the Word of God.

2. “Linguistic theories that cultivate an exegetical atmosphere of ambiguity.”  Sometimes diligent study using all tools available can lead us to a point of textual confusion and paralysis.  We have to evaluate whether that is a genuinely difficult passage and admit that, or find a way past exegetical paralysis to effective preaching.

3. “Cultural relativism that enables people to dispense flippantly with uncomfortable biblical teaching.”  So easy to try to please the people by avoiding the tough stuff.  We must preach the whole counsel to help the people and ultimately please our audience of One.  (Quotes taken from Piper, The Supremacy of God in Preaching, 40.)

It would be good to take stock of this list and check our own ministries to make sure we are not undercutting the power and authority of biblical preaching.  (We should also make sure we don’t use some of this terminology that would render us incomprehensible to most listeners!)

Application’s Oft-Missing Ingredient . . . ?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Recently Steve Mathewson wrote a helpful post on the PreachingToday blog concerning application.  He warned of the danger of too many “life application points” in preaching.  How easy it is to overwhelm our listeners with to-do lists.  I agree that this is a huge danger for us. 

In some church circles people have become very fond of what they perceive to be highly relevant preaching.  This often takes the form of “7 Keys to a Happy Marriage” or “5 Smooth Stones for Spiritual Battle.”  Because people seem to respond to this kind of “list” preaching, it is a temptation to incorporate that into a more expositional model of preaching.  So at the end of an expository sermon, the preacher will give a list of life application points.  These are specific strategies to be implemented in daily life.

It is easy to overwhelm list-driven people with more lists to add to their backlog of lists.  So what should we do?  First, we should be sure to apply the main idea of the text/sermon rather than lists of secondary suggestions.  Second, we should concentrate on helping people visualize how this could look in normal life.  Perhaps we share two or three examples, but not as a list.  Rather, this is a selection of possible scenarios out of which at least one will help listeners to see what the idea would look like in action in their life.  Sometimes several scenarios will be unnecessary.  Third, we must look for ways to include an encouraging tone in our application.  This does not just mean an enthusiastic team talk that fires up our people.  It means stirring an inner sense of motivation and a feeling of competence in our listeners.  We easily overwhelm, but instead we should strive to give appropriate encouragement (the oft-missing ingredient).

If you didn’t see Steve’s post, it is well worth a read: http://blog.preachingtoday.com/2007/10/the_challenge_of_application.html

More on the 2 Basic Stances

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Bob asked some helpful questions on yesterday’s post.  Generally an expository sermon will have “back then” and “today” stances because by definition an expository sermon needs to both explain and relevantly apply the text. So at a certain level the progress will typically go from then to now (allowing for the sermon to start in the present before moving back in order to create need). Within a sermon point, you would often include both.

However, there is a nuance that I intend here. It is possible to explain a text either with our feet firmly planted in the present, or by travelling back to Bible times and getting into the mind and situation of the writer. Also it is possible to apply the text from “back then” or from a “today” stance.

Perhaps first-person preaching is the best explanation of this. When you choose to preach in character, you have several choices to make. One key choice is whether your character is visiting today, or whether the congregation is visiting back then. I recently preached Nahum as Nahum, but I decided to have Nahum visit contemporary England to give the message. This allowed him to make more specific applications to my listeners than if they had been transported through time to Nahum’s day. However, if I had chosen to take them back there, I would have been able to explain the text more vividly. Instead of referring back to what happened all those centuries ago, I would have been able to engage imaginations more directly and create a sense of fear at the Assyrians who live over there, etc. In first-person preaching, a “back then” stance is stronger for explanation and weaker for application (because it can only be hints that people have to translate into their own world). But a “today” stance is often weaker on explanation while allowing more in application.

In normal preaching it does not have to be either/or. We have the freedom to select the stance throughout the sermon. If we are aware of the strengths of both, perhaps we will do better at selecting the most effective means of preaching the Word. Perhaps taking a few minutes to “experience” through imagination exactly what the writer is meaning by his words would be worth it for better understanding (rather than just making explanatory comments from two-thousand years away). But then you want to clarify the relevance of that understanding, so you switch back to today and address people in their contemporary life situations. Application is usually better when direct, clear and vivid. Explanation is usually better from a closer perspective.

This may seem obvious, but I have heard a lot of preachers choosing the wrong stances. I’ve done it myself. It is easy to analyze the text from a distance, sitting very comfortably in the 21st century. And then somehow we hope that vague applications in the terms of the 1st century will hit home. How much better to get us back into the 1st century to understand the passage, but then vividly apply in contemporary terms. Be aware of the basic concept of preaching stance and evaluate your sermon accordingly. These are not hard and fast rules, but perhaps a helpful insight.

Stances Between Two Worlds

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

John Stott’s classic preaching text, Between Two Worlds, is one of several works that have utilized the metaphor of a “bridge-builder” in relation to preaching.  Stott rightly notes that in preaching we have to build from the world of the text and earth the message in the world of our listeners.  Good biblical preaching will always include explanation of the text and application to our times.  

Whether we think in terms of the bridge or not, we are constantly faced with a two-option decision in preaching.  It is true in first-person preaching, in “normal” preaching, in expository-topical preaching, etc.  The choice is a choice of stance.  Let’s say you are in the second point of your sermon.  You have a text and you need to talk about it.  Which stance do you take?  Do you orient yourself back then, taking people toward the world of the writer, the culture, the situation, the language, etc?  Or do you orient yourself to today, bringing the text into the world of the listeners, their culture, their needs, their situation?  

When you choose, for a section of a sermon (a section which may only be as long as a sub-point in your outline) to orient toward the “back then” . . . then you probably hope to achieve better explanation of the meaning of the text.  When you choose, on the other hand, to orient toward “today,” then you probably are aiming for better application of the text.  Since true preaching includes both explanation and application, it follows that during a sermon there will be times when your stance is more “back then” and times when it is more “today.”  Be sure to include both, and do so purposefully.  Both have their strengths, so use both accordingly.

Preach To The Heart, Then Put Feet On It

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

It is a constant temptation for preachers. In fact, it is a feature of some streams of preaching. To preach at the level of behavioral change. You take a biblical story, draw out a moral (or several) from it, usually at the level of the characters’ ethics. Then preach a moralized version of the passage. The Bible is more than a book of moral case studies. Preaching should go to the level of God (theocentric) rather than just humanity (anthropocentric). Yet the message must also be relevantly addressed to a human audience.

People are heart driven creatures, so preach deeper than the mind and will. Of course we are called to inform peoples’ minds and exhort the will. Yet our preaching will always fall short if we don’t address the heart, the values, the desires, the passions, the feelings and the attitudes of our listeners. Whenever possible, target your message at the hearts of your listeners.

Heart level preaching is not merely conceptual, put some feet on it too. It is easy to preach at the level of attitudes or values and end up with a very conceptual and abstract message. It is important to try and earth that preaching in the every day world of your listeners. What does that mean when they watch the news on the TV? What will that look like when that person starts to flirt with them? What should they do when the temptation comes? Preach to the heart, but then help them visualize successful application of that preaching. They may agree with you and desire to change, so help them see what that will involve by putting feet on your heart-level preaching.

Images in Preaching, Not Always a Challenge

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

One thing we all want to avoid is preaching in a way that resembles a lecture more than a living, vivid, full color message.  Somehow we want our preaching to fizz and bubble, rather than lying soggy and lifeless in the pulpit.  One thing we need to give attention to is vivid imagery.

When preaching a poetic passage . . .  such as a psalm, the writer will usually give us some very helpful images.  Why go hunting for new images when the psalm provides a resting child, restless hours fretting in bed, climbing the mountain toward Jerusalem, entering the city gates in procession, etc.  We need to work on relevance and be sure to handle the imagery appropriately, but handle it, it is right in the passage.  It would be a shame to waste the head-start we are given.

When preaching a narrative passage . . .  such as a parable or event, then the passage itself is an image.  Too often I’ve heard preachers at pains to explain the story, but the preaching lacks zing because they forget to actually tell the story.  Don’t dissect a story to death, allow it to live in front of people and let them observe its power.  Be sure to explain and apply, of course, but don’t fail to let the vividness slip by in your preparation.

When preaching a discourse passage . . . such as an epistolary paragraph, then you may have extra work on your hands.  Often the passage will be very effective and logical explanation, or even direct application.  But it may be so direct that it lacks imagery.  This will not be the case in most of James, but is often true in parts of Paul.  Just because it is prose and perhaps plain in presentation, do not fail to look for images that will help the truth stick in the hearts and minds of your listeners.  If the images aren’t in the text, then find them elsewhere.  But don’t preach image-free, that’s a real waste of an opportunity.

First Person: An Extra Challenge

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Sometimes preaching a passage in first person is the best and most effective way of communicating it.  Preaching in character allows you to engage the story in a more vivid and engaging manner.  Yet preaching first person sermons well is by no means easy.  You have to do all the work of Bible study and designing the message as for a normal sermon, but you also have to do more . . . more research, more planning, more details.  Two brief thoughts to add in to the planning process:

1. Remember that you are presenting the history, but need to preach the theology of the text.  For example, if you are preaching a narrative from the Gospels, you should preach the narrative in light of one of the written records.  I say this as opposed to preaching a composite blend of multiple accounts, to preach the event itself.  So if your narrative is found in all three synoptic Gospels, then be aware of all three (so as not to present a historical error in your story-telling), but make sure your idea, purpose and emphasis come from one of them.  The historical event was revelation, but the written account is inspired.

2. Remember to find ways to provide the evidence to support the idea of your sermon, and your interpretation of the text.  In normal preaching this is more simple, you merely decide how much of your textual study should be demonstrated and in what way.  If your understanding of the passage is influenced by the term the writer chose to use, then you can demonstrate that.  But when preaching first person, you usually can’t refer to the text in this way.  Do not therefore simply tell the story without letting your study show.  Show it in other ways.  For example, in Mark 4:35-41 you discover that the term “rebuked” is significant in understanding the story as Mark presents it, as is the use of “be still” in Mark’s gospel.  When preaching in character you cannot simply explain how these terms point to Mark’s intent in his presentation of the story.  But they can still show.  For example, speaking as a disciple, “You should have seen Him!  It wasn’t just that He spoke to the storm, it was also the way He did it.  As I thought back on it after, playing that moment over and over in my mind, I realized where I’d seen Him speak like that before.  It was when . . .” (then describe briefly the earlier incidents in Mark 1 and 3).  You can’t refer to chapter and verse, but you can refer to the stories in such a way as to highlight the significance.  And again, “The words He used, ‘be still!’ – He’d said that before . . .”  In first person it takes creativity to support your interpretation of the text, and it will be an indirect approach.  But you must do it, otherwise you run the risk of telling a story, but not preaching a text.

Take the Time

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Some things take time.  This is true in all areas of life, and it is especially true in preaching.  Ideas take time to form in the minds of your listeners.  Description takes time to take effect.  Applications take time to visualize. 

We must avoid the temptation to rush through a sermon in order to cram in as much “content” as possible.  It is better to communicate one thing well, than three things poorly.  So before preaching a sermon, ruthlessly cut anything that does not serve and support the big idea.

Just because a clear image comes into your mind as you read a text, do not assume others see it clearly or at all.  Take time to describe what the text is referring to, not only so people have the facts, but so they can see it in their minds.  Careful and vivid, specific and focused description will eventually lead to an image emerging in the shadows of their minds.  This will take some time.  If you are preaching about Paul’s thorn in the flesh, take the time to help people enter into the reality of a thorn in the flesh.  If you are preaching a story with a terrifying storm, do what it takes for people not only to know about bad storms, but see the waves in their minds, to feel their hearts racing and their breathing become shallow.

Take the time to help people visualize themselves applying the message in their own lives.  Great Bible study worked into a great message can easily miss the target because the application is left vague and brief.  You can tell people to trust Jesus, and if you do they will nod and maybe even say “Amen!”  But what will that look like in real life tomorrow?  Wednesday morning at work?  Thursday evening at home?  Friday night when their daughter is not home and the curfew time has passed?  Take the time to describe application in glorious technicolor . . . because as you are describing, gradually an image will form, and they will know how the message, the idea, the text can change them, and by God’s power, it will.

Layers of Complexity

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Sometimes a passage may prove more complex than it initially appears.  This is almost always the case with stories in the Gospels.  Usually Christians tend to view each story as a distinct unit that can be pulled out from the context in which it is placed.  In reality, each story or account in a Gospel is carefully woven together with others for a purpose.  For example, the stilling of the storm in Mark 4 is placed after, and linked to, the first part of the chapter where Jesus is teaching about the kingdom using parables.  However, in Matthew the account is in a series of miracle stories, quite separate from those same parables (which appear later).  While someone might suggest this indicates that what comes before and after is irrelevant to the interpretation of the passage, in fact the opposite is true.  The stories themselves, just like words, seem to get their meaning not only from within themselves, but also from the company they keep.

So while a story may appear simple to understand, as you study it in its context you often find that considering it in its context will clarify its meaning and purpose.  Then as you consider the context and flow of thought more, the interpretation may become more involved and complex.  As a preacher your first priority is to do everything you can to understand the passage. 

Once you’ve done all that you can to understand the passage, you then have to form the sermon.  The temptation will be to dump every element of your study into the sermon.  Don’t.  What is necessary and helpful?  What must be explained, what can simply be stated, what parts of your presentation need proof?  How much time do you have to support what you say?  Sometimes you will discover that your understanding of a passage has multiple layers of complexity, stretching out through layer after layer of other stories and accounts within the gospel.  Be thankful for the back-up support you have, but only give as much as is necessary and as much as your listeners can handle.  They may be fine with one layer of context, but overwhelmed if you present five layers.  Know the passage fully, but also know what your listeners need and are able to take onboard!

How Do Ideas Develop?

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

If communication is all about ideas, which it is, then what happens to those ideas? Haddon Robinson regularly states that there are only three things that you can do to develop an idea. You can explain it. You can prove it. Or you can apply it. There is nothing else that can be done to develop an idea.

* In a biblical passage, what is the author doing? Is he explaining/clarifying, is he proving/convincing, or is he applying/exhorting? It is helpful in Bible study to discern what the author is actually doing as his thought develops.

* As you preach the passage, what does your audience need? Do they need explanation? Do they need to be convinced? Do they need to consider application?

* You do not have to do just what the passage does. It could be that a passage spends no time explaining a concept, but your listeners need that extra explanation. We must know our listeners and their needs as well as possible in order to communicate effectively.

* There is a logical progression to the three developmental options. Generally explanation precedes proof/convincing, and both proceed application. The progression is important to note, even though this does not require us to therefore be rigid in our preaching. We do not need to always follow a formula of stating, explaining, proving, applying, etc. This can be both tedious and unnecessary. But it is important to understand the three options, and to think through what is necessary at each stage of each sermon.