Stage 8 – Message Detail

Expository Preaching is More Than a Commentary

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In Christ-Centered Preaching (p55), Bryan Chappell makes the following distinction:

“Expository preaching is not a captioned survey of a passage. By this I mean the typical: ‘1. Saul’s Contention, 2. Saul’s Conversion, 3. Saul’s Commission’ (Acts 9:1-19). In my own circles I think I have heard more sermons of this type than any other. They sound very biblical because they are based on a passage of Scripture. But their basic failure is that they tend to be descriptive rather than pastoral. They lack a clear goal or practical application. The congregation may be left without any true insights as to what the passage is really about, and without having received any clear teaching about God or themselves.”

He is so right. My circles also yield many messages of this type. If you look at tomorrow’s notes and discover you have a message like this, what can you do? Well, with just 24 hours to go, probably not too much. Try to change the points from captions to full sentences that state the idea of that section. Try to change those sentences from historical statements to contemporary applicational points. Or just preach what you have and pray for God to use it anyway.

However, before you start next week’s message, there are things you can do. First of all, remember that your goal is not to present a vocal commentary, but a message where God’s Word is vital and relevant to the lives of your listeners. Take the time to evaluate the listeners as well as the passage. Make clear notes for yourself on the purpose of your message. Seek to integrate relevance and application throughout the message, not only at the level of “illustrations,” but right in the points themselves. Make the points full sentences. Preach to transform lives, trusting the Holy Spirit to do the transforming, but not “despite” your message.

Repent of the faulty idea that merely getting biblical information into peoples’ heads, perhaps with a brief vague application in the conclusion, is enough. To preach an expository message, seek to bring the truth of the Word and the lives of your listeners into an encounter. It is about real life, not vague application. It is about the heart, not just the head.

And When You Think You Know Them . . .

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

As a preacher it is important to know who you are preaching to.  This takes work.  Often the focus of this work is on building relationships and getting into their world.  Conversations are priceless, counseling matters much, visiting homes and workplaces is all helpful, reading what they read, and entering into their world.  However, sometimes it is helpful to create an opportunity for them to enter your world.  Specifically I am referring to pre-sermon interaction with some of your congregation.  This could take the form of a sermon group that you meet with regularly.  I know some preachers who do this and value it highly.  Even without taking that step, it is possible to benefit from a one-off meeting.

Last year I preached a single message on the subject of euthanasia.  I invited a group of about ten people to come together to discuss the subject in the week before I preached it.  That meeting was very enlightening and critical in my preparation.  The discussion was not primarily concerned with my learning about the subject, but my learning about how people think of the subject.  I wanted their input on how the message could be handled effectively.

I had my pre-conceived commitment to sensitivity reinforced by the real-life experiences of those in the group.  My sensitive approach would now be more personal.  However, I had my pre-conceived ideas of Christian convictions shattered by the discussion.  After that evening I had to rework significant elements of the message.  The over-riding sense from some of the group was a view typical in this culture, that it is not possible to be caring for people and strong on the issue at the same time.  Therefore, in order to be sensitive, I should not take a strong stance on the issue.  That misconception became the foundation of my message – that God’s Word calls us to care for people and at the same time to stand against injustice, precisely because God is a God of immense compassion and uncompromising moral clarity.  My hour with those friends became a critical force driving my message not only toward sensitivity, but also to a more theological level. 

It is easy to assume that Christians think a certain way.  They probably don’t.  Getting some together to talk about the subject is a simple way to find that out!

Who You Preach To – Part Two.

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Ramesh Richard presents a helpful angle on the variety of people listening to any sermon. He presents three attitudes that will be present at various times in a message. “An expositional ministry,” he writes, “allows you to put a weekly dent in their apathy, passivity, ignorance, or hostility to equip them for godliness and service.” So the three attitudes that we must be aware of and communicate with?

1. The I Don’t Cares! These are not hostile, they just don’t feel they should be there at all. They are there out of a sense of duty to friends or family, or habitual routine. For this attitude the need raised at the beginning of the message is critical. Without it, they are free to continue their inner stance of not caring.

2. The I Don’t Knows! They lack the background awareness that others may have regarding God, the Bible, Christianity and church life. These people need good biblical content clearly explained.

3. The I Don’t Believes! These people are doubtful about the truth of what is said, or the applicability of it to real life. They are likely to test what is said with questions such as, “Is this truth coherent?” or “Is the sermon consistent?” or “Is this truth practical?” and especially, “Will this work?” For this attitude you must demonstrate a coherent consistency as well as practical applicability.

These attitudes may come and go during the same sermon, sometimes within the same person. Before preaching, evaluate your sermon and adjust its design to overcome the potential pitfalls for these attitudes. Is a clear and valuable need raised? Is there sufficient accessible explanation? Is the message relevant and practical? We preach not to get our study into the public domain, but to see the lives, the hearts, the attitudes of our listeners changed by exposure to God’s Word.

On This You Cannot Work Too Hard

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Pastoral ministry and family life rarely yield the full quota of hours we would like to perfectly prepare each sermon.  However, there are some elements of a sermon that don’t do well with a short-cut approach.  Time spent on this aspect of the sermon is always time well spent.

Clarity.  It doesn’t come by accident.  The only thing that is clear when you don’t spend time on clarity is that you didn’t spend time on clarity.  It takes work to think yourself clear and then more work to preach in a clear manner. 

However, it is tempting to bypass this aspect of sermon preparation.  This is because everything seems so clear to you, the preacher.  You have spent hours in the text (hopefully).  You have wrestled with understanding the passage and then forming a sermon.  Yet for the clarity to come through, you have to pay close attention to matters of clarity.

I have been both a student and a teacher in preaching classes.  The students know that they need to communicate a clear big idea.  They know that the class will be asked for the big idea once their sermon is over.  Consequently the smart students “work the system” by stating and reiterating their big idea seemingly to an extreme level.  Then when the prof asks the class what the big idea was, there is usually a pause, followed by three or four different ideas.  The preacher sits there with a puzzled look.  “I thought I was being clear!”  If prepped students looking for the idea can’t spot it, what about a congregation who may not even know what a big idea is?  They’ll come up with something, but if you are not clear, then it will not be what you intended.

So before you preach your next sermon, do a review for clarity.  Is the big idea clear?  Does the sermon flow in a clear manner?  Are the transitions clear?  Are you using vocabulary people will understand?  Be clear, be clear, be clear.  If you’re not clear, then what are you achieving?

Hearing Is Not Like Reading

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The difference between writing for the eye and writing for the ear is often overlooked by preachers.  We tend to be book people – we may have studied formally for more years than many others, then our work requires us to keep on reading diligently.  Perhaps we even write books and articles for others to read.  All this means we too easily write for the eye by default, even when we write our sermons.  But our sermons are not for the eye.  They are designed to be heard.  People can’t go back and re-read what we just said, nor pause for thought when a particular sentence strikes a chord.  Consequently, we need to be careful to prepare sermons that work for the ear.  Various techniques will help our listeners.  Here’s an important one:

Restatement – It is not repetition (saying the same thing again, like a parrot), it is restatement (immediately saying the same thing with different words).  Repetition can sound like you think the people listening are stupid (although sometimes it is appropriate to simply repeat what you just said).  Restatement gives the listener time to take in what you are saying.  It’s useful to use with the big idea, with references to the structure of the message, with major points, etc.  When people are reading a book, they can go back and look at an important sentence to make sure they understood it.  When they are listening they can’t go back, so you need to do this for them through restatement.  Practice saying something and then saying it again in other words.  Train yourself to state your point, but then to restate it in different terms.   

How Not To Preach Every Inspired Word

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

As preachers of the Bible it is important that we hold a very high view of God’s Word. Verbal plenary inspiration is the doctrine that affirms the inspiration of the specific words (verbal), every last one of them (plenary). Any position that holds to less than a fully inspired and inerrant canon is a compromise wracked with inconsistency. However, as preachers who hold a high view of Scripture, there are a couple of mistakes we can easily make when preaching God’s Word:

1. Every word is inspired, but a word on its own has little value. That is to say that a word on its own carries only a selection of possible meanings. As Pasquarello puts it, words get their meaning from the company they keep. It is important to preach the words of a text in their context, rather than skimming the passage for the words that supposedly carry extra theological freight and then preaching those words as if divorced from the text. While it may have been fashionable a generation ago to preach a series of word studies, today we must be more aware of the words in their context, and preach the idea of the discourse unit.

2. Every word is inspired, but every word in a passage is not equally weighted. Since every word is inspired it is tempting to merely provide a running explanation phrase-by-phrase through the passage. While this may produce a commentary, it does not produce a good sermon. Recognize that some words function as subordinate to others in a sentence. What are the weighty words that convey the core meaning of the passage? What are the key moments in the narrative on which the whole thing turns? What words have emphasis through their unusual selection, positioning, or repetition? Preach the whole text, but don’t allow the weighty content to be hidden by giving equal time and focus to every subordinate phrase or term.

Peter has responded to a comment on this post.

Cross-Referencing in Preaching – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Cross-referencing may be a waste of energy.  Sunukjian rightly notes that often a move to another passage is a move in the wrong direction.  Having explained the preaching text, the preacher should then move forwards into contemporary life in order to illustrate in such a way that application is visualized by the listener.  Instead, when preachers move back to another passage, they may be wasting both opportunity and energy.  Opportunity because the text remains distant and unapplied in specific terms.  Energy because another passage will not illustrate the same idea, since it has its own distinct idea.  Furthermore, if people do not accept the teaching of one passage, they are unlikely to accept the teaching of another.  It is usually better to stay in one and teach it more fully.

Cross-referencing may be helpful if… well, there are two exceptions that I tend to take into account.  One was hinted at in part 1.  If your passage is heavily influenced by another, then the influencing passage may be a fruitful focus for a segment of the message.  The whole subject of New Testament use of Old Testament is potentially overwhelming to people (or even, in the words of John Sailhamer – Old Testament use of Old Testament such as the influence of the Torah on the Writings, etc.)  However, if the earlier text is studied in context, we’ll usually find the later text’s use of it makes sense in light of that study.  Don’t be too quick to assign hidden meanings to earlier texts and if that’s the best you’ve come up with, then don’t bother preaching that to your people. 

Cross-referencing may also be helpful if…ok, I said there are two.  The other is when a significant point in your preaching text appears to be new or unusual.  Then it is sometimes helpful for people to quickly hear a series of other texts or references that support the same point.  In this limited sense a series of quick quotes can work well.

If you do cross-reference, then…don’t make it into a sword drill.  That is to say, don’t overwhelm or distract people by expecting, or even allowing, them to hunt down every reference.  This is too much for many, and can create an inner crisis for note-takers!   This may be an occasion where I encourage the use of powerpoint.  Let people see the relevant part of each verse.  If the goal is to show that the point is not unique to this passage, then be explicit with your goal and don’t give the impression people need to remember all these references.  Sometimes just referring to the book rather than chapter and verse is sufficient.  If you do cross-reference, do it on purpose, and carefully construct that part of the sermon so people are not overwhelmed, distracted or confused.

Scripture Interprets Scripture – Cross-Referencing in Preaching

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

You’ve probably heard the oft-used line that “Scripture interprets Scripture.”  This principle of hermeneutics seems to be the only principle for some people, but I would suggest it is one among many helpful principles.  It is right to say that no passage will ultimately contradict the rest of the canon, for there is a divinely inspired unity to the Bible.  However, this does not mean that we should neglect near context interpretation in favor of distant context interpretation.  What a writer means by a word or phrase should be evaluated in light of the sentence, the paragraph, the section, the book, the other books by the same writer, the other books from that time period, the other books in that “Testament” and the other books in the Bible – in that order!  Like concentric circles around the bull’s-eye, the closer the context, the more weight we should give it.  So a term used in a letter by Paul does not automatically mean the same as that term in Matthew or John or Ezekiel. 

One exception to this hierarchy of correlation would be to go to a text evidently in the thoughts of the author prior to others that may technically be “closer contexts” but were unknown to the author.  For example, when an NT writer is obviously leaning on an OT passage, that passage may be technically the most distant context, but it actually may be more helpful than another NT writer.  So I’d look more carefully at the prophet Paul is quoting than Matthew’s use of the same term.  We should correlate carefully.

Having stated that we should select cross-references in light of their actual value in interpreting our target passage, this does not mean that we need to give that information to our listeners.  We do a lot of study that does not need to be flashed from the pulpit.  Generally it is better to explain your target passage, rather than potentially confuse or overwhelm listeners with a series of different passages.  In part 2 I will give some specific guidance on cross-referencing in the pulpit.

Topical Preaching – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

More food for thought on the issue of topical preaching.  As I wrote in part 1, it is possible to preach a sermon that is both expository and topical.  Yet generally speaking I urge people to stay in one text.  Why?

There is always more in one passage than you can preach in one sermon.  While it is possible to get the main idea and preach it effectively, that does not mean that you exhaust a passage by doing so.  By staying in one text for the whole message you give yourself a better opportunity to dig deeper in that passage.  We tend to assume people understand something when we should explain it further.  We tend to assume people apply principles when we should apply more explicitly.  Preach in such a way that people see the value of spending some time in a passage, rather than finding a superficial nugget and rushing on to another. 

Most wild safaris in the backseat of a concordance are unhelpful.  It is easy to open a concordance and find several other passages that have at least one word in common with the passage you’re preaching.  It’s common for new preachers to fill time in this way (you can’t be criticized for being unbiblical if the message is full of Bible verses!)  I’ve heard messages where we’ve been taken on a wild Scriptural safari, bouncing along uncomfortable roads to disconnected texts, catching a brief glimpse of something and then revving the engine for another ride.  More often than not these glimpses at other verses add nothing to the message or to our understanding of our “target passage.”  There are occasions when citing or reading other verses is helpful (see future post), but evaluate carefully before stealing this time and energy from your specific text.

It is stretching, refreshing and helpful for you and your listeners to soak in a specific passage rather than skimming over the surface of the old familiar favorites.  Preach your text!

Where to Place “The Reading” – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In part 1 we considered the importance of establishing and underlining the biblical authority of a message.  We underlined the importance of a commitment to expository preaching and the need to reinforce that commitment through attitude and action throughout a sermon.  Now some thoughts on reconsidering the traditional placement of the reading before or at the start of the message:

In some sermons the reading “up front” would be ideal.  If you think through the options and conclude that this would be best for audience, for sermon flow, etc., then do not become a rebel against tradition for the sake of rebellion. Reading first is a good option with much in its favor.

If the tension of the sermon is tied to the unfolding of the text, then perhaps reading the passage as you proceed would be better.  It may be helpful for the sake of clarity if the text is read in its entirety first.  However, this does run the risk of dissipating any tension in the sermon.  A sermon without any inbuilt tension can be as dull as a predictable joke (although with more value).  If the text is a narrative, then it is probably better not to read the resolution of the inbuilt tension before telling the story.  If the sermon contains an element of intrigue, then it also may be wise to split the reading throughout the sermon.  If reading the text and then stating the big idea (or even just the “subject” half of the big idea) leaves listeners feeling as if they could leave at that point because they know what is coming, then perhaps the reading should not have been completed at that moment in the sermon.

If tradition requires or expects an earlier reading, perhaps offer a helpful alternative.  If the text for the message would be best, then by all means have it read earlier.  However, if tension would be lost, select an alternative.  (Be careful also not to let worship leaders steal the tension of a sermon by their pre-message comments!)  For example, many New Testament texts rely heavily on one or two Old Testament texts.  So a sermon in 1st Peter could use a reading from the Old Testament such as Psalm 34 (if the passage is focused on the suffering of God’s people in “exile”) or Isaiah 53 (if the passage is focused on Christ’s passion).  Both passages were heavy on the mind of Peter as he wrote his letter.  If a passage is quoted in the preaching text, perhaps reading that passage in its context would be helpful.