Stage 8 – Message Detail

Is Paper PC?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I teach people to use a series of sheets of paper when preparing a sermon, just as I learned from my first preaching professor, John Wecks.  The sheets allow you to catalogue thought in appropriate compartments.  They allow you to write a thought and put it aside until it is time to consider that element of the sermon.  Let me list the sheets I would suggest.  Then I’ll suggest reasons to use real paper or virtual paper on the PC.

The Sheets – The first one to be used is the “Questions of the Text.”  Use this on your first read through and list everything that is not clear.  This sheet will be very helpful as you finish your sermon and prepare to preach it.  See previous post on this subject – August 14th.   Then I’d suggest sheets for exegetical notes (multiple sheets may be required), author’s idea, author’s purpose / sermon purpose, notes on congregation, sermon idea, sermon structure, possible illustrations, areas of application/pictured relevance, introduction, conclusion and then the manuscript (multiple sheets required).

Why go with paper? – No matter how much our computers improve, there is still something special about a desk covered in open books and paper.  So much sentimentality for one so young!  Some people may find the paper approach helpful, others may find it necessary.  It works.  In fact, I would suggest working on paper until it becomes a familiar process.  Then, if you like the reasons given below, shift over to the PC.

Why use a PC? – I suppose some comment about saving the rainforests would be a pc comment about use of a PC.  To be honest, my motivations are more selfish.  If it is on PC then I have a lasting record (as long as I back-up my files).  I have the ability to cut, paste, edit, etc. I can actually read what I have written!  I can cut and paste the Bible text from Bible software, quickly study the original languages and paste in helpful comments from commentaries and lexicons.  I sometimes have a list of unused potential illustrations that can be mined when preparing future sermons.

The PC is a helpful tool, but a Bible, some paper and a pen work amazingly well too!

TIM in the Preacher’s Life

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Does TQM mean anything to you? These three letters were indelibly marked on my brain in university. I studied business theory when TQM was a big deal. Total Quality Management. The letters are stuck in my head even though the theory is not. However, I’d like us to consider something that matters to us as preachers – TIM. Nothing to do with Paul’s apostolic representative in Ephesus. Total Integrity Management. As preachers we must manage our lives and ministries for total integrity. This reaches far:

1. Personal life. We must be people who are above reproach, living lives that bear the scrutiny of watching eyes. This relates to relationships, fidelity, private interests, hobbies, tax payments, internet use, everything.

2. Preparation for preaching. We should do the study and preparation that people believe we do, and that we suggest we do. There may be short-cuts, and some may be legitimate at times, but watch your integrity. It is legitimate to learn from other preachers, perhaps even to use their wording of an idea, or illustration. But when you take, give credit where appropriate. If you short-circuit your ministry by lifting entire sermons off the internet, at least be honest about it and don’t give the impression you’ve been poring over the text for yourself.

3. The sermon’s connection to the text. We must have the integrity to be sure that our message is legitimately derived from the text we use. There is no excuse for springboard preaching, where the text is a launching point for our own thinking.

4. Illustrational material requires honesty too. It is fine to make up a story, Jesus did it. But be careful not to be dishonest in doing so. You know how to convey a story so people know it is fictional. If you didn’t experience it, don’t act as if you did. If our integrity is compromised in a small story, it is compromised. Even if a story is true, but is very bizarre, be careful. No matter how much you affirm its veracity, if people doubt it, then your integrity is undermined. Is it worth it for that story?

5. Emotional manipulation is not our trade. If the text is genuinely moving, let it do its work. But we are not charlatans who play with emotions to manipulate responses from our listeners. You know if this is a temptation or not.

We need to go for TIM. Ultimately, your integrity is your responsibility. Besides you, only God knows what’s really going on. Ask Him to convict you by His Spirit and keep your TIM on track.

Pulpit Prayer

/ Mike Roth / Leave a comment

In Awed to Heaven, Rooted in Earth, Walter Brueggemann writes, “Alongside that substantive act of submission and petition, prayer at the opening of class is a heavily symbol-laden act, for it situates knowledge in the context of faith. It articulates a proper ratio of reason to faith and quite practically asserts that learning takes place with a cloud of witnesses who have believed and trusted before the present company and who believe and trust presently alongside the immediate body of teachers and learners. Thus prayer at the beginning of class in a seminary is not a mere convention – though it is that. It is an act of rightly framing the instruction of the day among a body of believers or would-be believers who are unafraid of the task of learning (xv).”

Though Brueggemann’s context is one between professor and student, I cannot help but think a similar dynamic exists between preacher and congregant. Preaching exists within the context of faith. It is both an expression of and call to faith. Therefore, in both the teaching of theology and the preaching of God’s word, prayer must rightly orient the moment. With this said, I wonder to what extent we prepare for prayer as preachers vs. ad-hoc? I must admit that prayer in my sermons need more advanced thought so that I might rightly introduce and conclude my sermons – in a cloud of witnesses, in the presence of the Lord. Perhaps then, a body of believers or would-be believers would be better prepared to courageously engage the Word of Life face to face.

Litfin’s Study of Paul’s Theology of Proclamation

/ Peter Mead / 6 Comments

Dr Duane Litfin, president of Wheaton, studied Paul’s theology of proclamation for one of his doctoral dissertations. His study reveals how Paul’s view of preaching contrasted with the first-century Greco-Roman rhetorician. The biblical focus for the study was 1Cor.1-4, where the issue is addressed most directly. The following points may give you a taste of his study and its relevance for us as preachers:

1. Language and ideas have the power to sway people. Paul knew that, and we must recognize the power of language and ideas in order to comprehend the reality of ancient rhetoric and the contrast with Paul’s preaching.

2. The ancient rhetorician tailored his efforts to achieve a result, whatever it took. Paul was different. Paul, like the rhetor, viewed the audience as a given, but did not take unto himself the task of inducing belief. For Paul, this was the task of the Spirit of God.

3. Paul proclaimed, and as a herald he announced, but it was not his task to persuade. So he would “placard” the cross before his hearers. He could not allow for the possibility of the listeners’ faith being a product of the preacher’s ability to induce faith by rhetorical technique.

4. Paul did not somehow disavow every element of rhetorical technique. It is clear in his letters, and in the speeches in Acts (if they are accepted as representative of Paul rather than Luke’s writing ability), that Paul did use various elements of rhetoric in order to communicate effectively. In fact, the ancient study of rhetoric was descriptive more than prescriptive, it was determined by observation of what effective speakers did. In light of this, Paul would not have had to study rhetoric in order to learn the skills he demonstrates. But he did put his own preaching in sharp relief to that of the rhetoricians. What was the difference?

5. Paul did not pursue the third step in persuasion. Persuasion theorists break down the process into five steps. (1) Attention, (2) comprehension, (3) yielding, (4) retention, and (5) action. Rhetoric placed heavy emphasis on step 3, yielding. Paul aimed his presentation at step 2, comprehension. Obviously, as people were persuaded by Paul’s preaching, an observer might credit him with the whole process. But in reality, Paul held back from any strategies that might induce a yielding in the hearts of his followers. Without making a cheap shot at ancient rhetoric as being mere manipulation, it is clear that Paul was wary of anything that might cause his hearers to come to faith based on his technique of persuasion. We should be wary of the same.

Peter has responded to a comment, and gives a link to a Litfin article.

Internal Chaos? Be Encouraged.

/ Mike Roth / 3 Comments

In R.E.C. Browne’s classic work on homiletics The Ministry of the Word, he writes, “Creative work always brings creative workers to the edge of an abyss. It is there that the most creative work is done and it is there that conditions exist which may be the undoing of the worker: passionate faith gives rise to profound doubt; love of truth dreads error, bringing one to the verge of falsehood; depth of love increases ability to hate in the name of love; zeal drives the zealous towards fanaticism; desire to influence others brings one into the danger of being enslaved by those whom he would free. Great preaching, like great art, cannot be the work of those who know no chaos within them and it cannot be the work of those who are unable to master the chaos within them (p. 17).”

For those who preach regularly, this place of chaos is known all too well – and it can be paralyzing. I pray the Lord strengthens you to continue His work proclaiming this Word that brings life. May the apostle Peter’s words be of encouragement to you today: “Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God’s grace in its various forms. If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God. If anyone serves, he should do it with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen (1 Peter 4:10-11).”

Mike and Peter have responded to a comment on this post.

This Piece of Paper is Different

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The stages of sermon preparation are not rigid.  They are not like the seven chapters of a book that must be covered in sequence.  They are like loose pieces of paper.  In fact, they can be loose pieces of paper.  Have a page entitled Passage Study, and one for Passage Idea.  Also a Purpose page, a message idea page, and one for message shape, etc.  For message details you probably want three – introduction, conclusion and illustrations.  You can write on any page at any time as you work through the seven stages.  But there’s one more piece of paper, one that has a specific place in the process, and yet should be ignored in certain other stages.  You might entitle it, “Questions of the Text.”

Do use this page in an initial reading of the passage.  Before you study in any detail, read through the text and write down questions of the text.  What needs explaining?  What is not clear?  Are there details, or names, or words that are begging further attention?  Anything that is not immediately clear, write it down.  This is now a valuable piece of paper.  You may study in detail, maybe in original languages, probably in commentaries.  For a period of time you will live in that text.  You will forget what it is like to be a newcomer to the text.  Just like having someone visit your country is fascinating as you watch them observing what to you is familiar, your list of questions is a clue to the experience of a non-native in that text.  Your listeners will be new to the text when you preach it.  Your questions may be similar to theirs, so the list has real value.

Do not use this page in stage 6 – sermon shape.  At this stage do not let that sheet drive your preparation.  If you do, you run the risk of preaching a list of answers to questions, a series of distinct ideas.  A string of disjointed explanations may be considered expository preaching by some, but not here.

Do use this page once you are finished.  Having crafted and written a draft of your sermon, then you can break out the list again.  Which questions are not answered in the course of the message?  If it’s a question a first-time reader is likely to have of that text, you should probably answer it at some point in the message.  You don’t want that to be an obstacle to hearing the main point.  So the first thing you wrote in the process of preparing the message can be a great tool as you run your final checks prior to delivery.

How Being a Preacher Can Kill Your Bible Study

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

The stages of sermon preparation are not a hard and fast series of steps. It is possible to have a useful thought for the introduction, conclusion, illustrations, and so on, very early in the process. Yet these are all stage 7 elements – message details. So even though it is possible to have thoughts at any time, it is usually better to note them and leave them until later. This is especially important in stage 2 – passage study. A commitment to expository preaching requires that we keep stage 2 unpolluted by stages 5-7.

1. As you are studying your passage you are not looking for a sermon. If you collapse stage 6 – sermon shape, into stage 2 – passage study, you will undermine the whole process. It is critical to study the passage first, to understand it, rather than to form it into a sermon.

2. If your mind creeps ahead, make a note and get back to stage 2. We’re all tempted to see our points as we study. Write them down and put them aside. That is not yet. We easily look for our sermon structure, will there be two points, or three? Inductive or deductive? Don’t. Write down any thoughts and then put that aside.

3. Be clear on your goal in studying a passage. What is the goal of studying the passage? It is not to find the sermon. It is not to determine the points of the sermon. It is not to utilize our Greek or Hebrew until we feel we have fulfilled some sense of duty. It is not to parse verbs endlessly, or do word study after word study. The goal of studying the passage is to find, with some degree of confidence, the passage idea. The goal of stage 2 is stage 3 (and part of stage 4). The goal of studying the passage is to know what the author’s idea was, and why he wrote it. Seems obvious, but we easily forget. In fact, many of us have never been told that. I don’t recall my seminary profs training me to exegete a passage so that I grasp the author’s main idea. But that is the goal. All the Bible study skills we have are there to work towards that.

Determine the main idea of the passage, with as much confidence as you can achieve in the time you have. Then you are ready to start considering the purpose of your sermon, your sermon idea and your sermon outline. Do these things too soon and you may abort your Bible study.

Preaching to the Heart: A Recipe

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

It is easy to preach a sermon to the mind, to the will, or even to the emotions of our listeners.  Information feeds the mind, pressure pounds on the will, vivid emotive illustrations can stir the emotions.  Yet what does it take to reach the heart?  How can we preach to the core of our people?

According to Tim Keller, there are two key ingredients, no three.

1. Imagination is critical.  On its own imagination in preaching will only hit the emotions.  Yet good preaching requires vivid imagination.

2. Reasoned logic is critical.  On its own reasoned logic in preaching will only hit the mind.  Yet good preaching requires reasonable logic and orderly thought.

Two exemplary preachers for Keller are Jonathan Edwards and C.S. Lewis.  Both preached sermons shot through with logic, but plunged in imagination.  No temperament will naturally do both, but by God’s grace we must.  And that leads to ingredient number three:

3. The gospel is critical.  On its own, the human heart will default to legalism and religion, or license and irreligion.  Keller is right when he warns us not to preach religion as opposed to irreligion, but the gospel as opposed to either of them.  Good preaching requires us to present the glorious gospel, so that hearts are drawn by the powerful attraction of Christ and the grace of God.  As it was stated centuries ago – “affection is only overcome by greater affection.”  Thus, the grace of God can stir the heart from its other loves.  Nothing else will do.

Luke 18:9-14 – Explaining My Intro

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The second of two longer than usual posts. This time I will explain why I did what I did (see yesterday’s post for the transcription).

On paper this feels like a long introduction. The message lasted 39 minutes, and this introduction took 5 minutes, about 13% of the message. Maybe slightly longer than necessary, but stories keep attention so I didn’t think people would lose interest.

There were some deliberate parallels to the parable. Both characters came from a privileged background (just like the two Jews, God’s special people). Lyndsey was a very deliberately good person, going above and beyond what anyone might expect of her. She was the kind of person you would choose for your church. On the other hand, Steve had knowingly compromised with what was wrong, living off other people who had little choice but to channel their money toward him. Steve was a character that begs little pity (he had chosen to sell rather than becoming an addict who felt obliged to sell, he had chosen his lifestyle, etc.) Both characters prayed, in very similar ways to the characters in the story. Steve cried out for mercy. Lyndsey spoke of what she would not do, and what she does do, above and beyond what was required. Their eternal destinies matched those of the parable characters.

I did not want the story to mimic the parable so that listeners would be focused on the text at this point. So I included significant differences. The story was about two characters, but they were not both men. They were a man and a woman, from the same family. This added a tension to the story, as people wondered how differently their lives might turn out. Instead of the religious leader in Jewish terms, I used a prominently involved church goer (an obvious parallel, but not a pastor or elder – perhaps too obvious). Instead of a tax man (different connotation today anyway), I chose to depict the compromise and despised nature through a combination of drugs dealer and homosexual with AIDS – perhaps the epitome of the kind of character that might be despised by my listeners. Yet with the differences, the man was still getting rich off other people’s resources. I chose not to have them come into the same building, such as a church, to pray. Again, too obvious. Instead I used Christmas day as a believable trigger for both to be praying.

My style of delivery was not like Jesus. Today people respond to more detailed description (novels last longer than five verses and movies are fully visual). Today people connect better with named characters. Perhaps the opening line would have distracted people enough from the parable to get caught up in the story – where would these two end up? Then I gave a false conclusion. After describing their different prayers on Christmas day, all felt completed by the use of the opening line again, but there was an extra step, perhaps surprising, the additional comment above heaven and hell.

I’m not saying it was perfect, or even good. But maybe this shows the kind of thinking that went into the story. Deliberate parallels, and deliberate differences. I wanted people not only to give attention, have their interest piqued and be moved toward the text. I also wanted people to somehow feel the force of the parable. I wanted to do what Jesus did. Then we looked at the text and focused entirely on the inspired version. However, there were subtle links as the sermon went on. For example, the use of phrases from the introduction, such as the Pharisee “going above and beyond what was required.”

So there it is, for what it’s worth. It is not easy to come up with a story that parallels a parable, but has a chance of slipping through the defenses of a knowledgeable crowd. Preaching a parable to unchurched and biblically illiterate non-believers is probably relatively easy. My challenge here was a crowd of people with a notice sheet that informed them I’d be in Luke 18 and talking about prayer!

Luke 18:9-14 – Contemporary Parable – Part 1

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Some weeks ago I mentioned the idea of retelling a parable in a contemporary setting.  I preached Luke 18:9-14 and used a contemporized version for my introduction. In this post I will give the transcription of the parable.  In part 2 I will share my explanation of why I did it this way.

———————————

It’s amazing how a brother and sister can end up in such different places.

For example, Steve and Lyndsey.  Steve and Lyndsey grew up in a good Christian home.  Father was a minister in a small rural church and they had everything that they could ask for.  They went through their teenage years, went off to university, and then things seemed to go a little bit differently.  Lyndsey did well, she went to university, studied hard, was very effective in her studies and got a good degree.  She was very involved in the Christian Union, and they invited her back to take an extra year working in the CU among students.  So she spent that extra year there on campus and during that year she met the man who would become her husband.  They got married.  And they settled into a good life, a very good life.  They were very involved in their church: leading home groups, leading youth work, leading Sunday School classes.  In fact, if there was something on a Monday night they would have been there too, because they were there every night of the week doing something, they were the kind of people you love to have in a church.  Lyndsey and her husband were the epitome of a busy, hard working, Christian couple.

Steve was a bit different, he went to university and he was clever as well, very effective, but not very focused on his studies.  He was more motivated by money.  He found a way to make money very easily.  In the university where he attended there was a bit of a drug culture, not obvious on the outside, but it was there and if you knew where to go you could get the drugs.  And Steve sort of dabbled a little bit, but didn’t want to get addicted so he pulled back.  But recognizing the power of the drugs he decided to start selling.  He knew that if he could get other people on the drugs then they would be dependent on him and he would be raking the money in – especially if he wasn’t addicted and having to spend the money himself.  That’s how he went through university, scraped through his final exams and headed out into the world to continue making massive money.  Steve drove the nicest car.  Steve didn’t own a home, he rented a hotel room to live in.  He lived in absolute luxury paying cash day after day.  Because he had everything he could wish for. He got involved in different forms of illicit living and in the end one of his male friends gave him a disease.  And Steve, with all the money he could ever wish for, was being ravaged by this deadly disease. 

Christmas came, and Christmas day Steve spent in his hotel room.  All day his mind played games with him, reminiscing, taking him back to memories of his childhood.  But somehow he couldn’t put that together with where he was now and the state he was in.  And that night, before he fell into bed he sat on the edge of his bed, with tears pouring down his face and cried out to God, “God my life is a mess, have mercy on me.”

Lyndsey and her husband had a busy day.  Of course, church all morning, very involved with that.  Then they came home and had a great Turkey dinner – her parents were there, his parents were there.  And all day her mind was playing tricks on her.  She kept reminiscing back to childhood and remembering all those times with Steve her brother.  That night, before she fell into bed content and happy with the way the day had gone, Lyndsey prayed.  And she said, “Thank you God that I’m not like Steve.  Thank you God that my life has turned out the way it’s supposed to.  Thank you that I don’t do those sins that he does, I don’t even know some of the things he does.  I thank you that I can be involved in all these good things.  I can be so involved in church, I do above and beyond what any pastor would suggest his people do.”  Then she went to sleep.

Lyndsey and Steve, brother and sister, ended up in completely different places.  Actually, completely different places.  Because Steve went to heaven.  Lyndsey didn’t.

Now in the interest of honesty let me tell you that that story is not strictly true, I made it up.  It’s fabricated and any likeness to anyone you know is completely coincidental.  And yet that story is so true all around us.  On both sides.  In the interest of honesty let me also tell you that that isn’t my story, it’s actually Jesus’ story.  And if you have a Bible, let’s look at it, Luke chapter 18 . . .