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.

Hermeneutics for Preaching – It Can’t All Be We, part 2

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Following the post on Saturday, “It Can’t All Be We,” Steve submitted an important comment.  I hope he doesn’t mind the extra exposure for the comment by including it here, but I think this is a very important issue for us to wrestle with as preachers.

Steve wrote: The problem with saying there is only one meaning to a text is that our own interpretations of it depend on our own particular social locations. A white Anglo westerner reads the parable of the lost sons one way while a native west African reads it another. What most of us (in the west) mean by “meaning of the text” is arrived at through the use of historical-critical tools that were developed by 19th century white German scholars. Certainly, there’s much to the New Hermeneutic that evangelicals will find unacceptable, but there’s no sense in throwing the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.

My response: Thanks for the comment Steve. Over the past two centuries there has been a shift in focus in determining meaning. The 19th century was focused primarily on the author. The first part of the 20th century saw the focus shift to the text itself. The later part of the 20th century saw the focus shift to the reader. I’m excited to see the resurgence of the author in our generation, especially a more rounded approach that recognizes our presuppositions as readers and the nature and form of the text too. However, if the author is left out, then there is no hope of any objective standard of measure when it comes to the meaning of a text.

So it is important to be aware of our own cultural presuppositions when we read a story like Luke 15. But I also think we have the capability to study the text using a plain, grammatical, contextual and historical hermeneutic. We can study the historical cultural setting of the text to help determine the meaning of the text. Our concern should not be seeking a “white westerner” or a “native west African” understanding, but a “first century middle eastern” understanding. While accepting that our own “lenses” will influence our study, we have the responsibility to pursue that study to the best of our ability so that we can present the meaning of the text. As I wrote in the post, this should lead to a “humble but authoritative” presentation of the meaning. Authoritative because we have employed good hermeneutical skill in the process, and humble because we recognize our own limitations and biases more than others do.

As you’ll notice in my earlier review of Lowry’s book, I am in no way throwing the baby out with the bath water when it comes to the New Homiletic or the New Hermeneutic. I recognize a lot of value in these streams of thought, but I would suggest that a purely subjective interpretational approach to the text is the bath water that can be helpfully drained away.

I’d be interested to read other comments on this.

An Annual Retreat Every Week?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

This weekend we had the privilege of joining a church for their annual weekend away. Stunning weather (in February in England!), great food, beautiful venue, etc. But from my perspective I would say that I enjoy weekend retreats primarily because they provide such an ideal preaching environment. Why?

1. These events are smothered in prayer. The participants look forward to special retreats for a long time and consequently pray for them to be a special time. Others who know about these events also pray for them, probably in a way they wouldn’t pray for a normal Sunday program at the church!

2. People come with raised expectations. For some the expectation is to rest, or to enjoy the fellowship, or the music, or the preaching. But there is something about expectation mixed with prayer that creates a dynamic environment for ministry to occur.

3. Multiple sessions allow for cumulative ministry. This weekend I had five sessions. The weekend format allowed for elements of the message to be reinforced both outside the preaching and in subsequent sermons. I was able to build and reiterate within the sessions too. There was less need for transitioning from normal life to the sermon once everyone was truly present at the retreat.

It would be nice to have these events every weekend in some ways. But totally impractical too! The organizers need some days off now to recover! And I expect your church wouldn’t take too kindly to you suggesting five sermons for everyone every weekend. But I wonder about the prayer and the expectation. Perhaps there are ways to increase both of these elements, so that each Sunday can reach its true eternal potential. Increasing prayer and expectation . . . what do you think?

Feeling Down in the Ministry

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Non-preachers often don’t realize the roller-coaster of ministry.  Due to the exacting nature of ministry – giving out, being buffeted spiritually, etc. – we are all prone to repeated discouragement.  Today as you press on through another Sunday, take stock of the realities of ministry:

Discouragements are par for the course.  A preacher facing discouragement is normal.  One who claims to never get discouraged is a cause for concern.  Remember that if you’re feeling down today, or tomorrow, so are hundreds, maybe thousands of other preachers around the globe.  You are not alone.

God has gifted, prepared and used you.  Look back and spiritually reminisce over those times when God’s gifts have been clear.  Remember the blessing of training received, both formally and informally.  Thank God for the example of past mentors, prayer partners, etc.  Review your file of encouraging notes and emails.

Remember the standard.  It is tempting to try to, or to feel pressured to, live up to the standards of someone else.  Perhaps the previous pastor, or a famous preacher, or a personal ministry hero of yours.  God wants each of us to trust Him and give the best that we can.  Let others inspire, but not pressure.

Remember who to please.  It is not possible to keep everyone happy all the time.  You may preach sensitively and yet tread on toes nonetheless.  We are not called to a ministry of plate spinning where each plate is the emotional happiness of each person around us.  We are called to live a life of radical love for the Lord, where our desire is to please Him in what we do and why we do it.

What else would you add for the sake of fellow preachers who may be feeling discouraged today?

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.