Expository Preaching

Planning a Selective Series

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

What criteria can you use when planning a series in a longer book that you don’t want to last for years?  Obviously we’re not obligated to cover complete books in a series, but how might you do that selectively rather than comprehensively?  Here are some pointers:

Foundation – Know the message, flow and structure of the book.  In order to plan a series that selectively represents the whole, you need a good awareness of the whole.  Without this you are likely to end up with a plan that doesn’t represent the book, or you’ll start into the series and end up preaching every passage (which might be appreciated . . . but only “might be” – your church may not want you to try to be Martyn Lloyd-Jones!)

1. Select key moments in the book. In every book there are key moments of transition or anchor points for the flow of the book.  For example, a selective series in Mark’s gospel would need to be touching heavily on the transition that occurs at 8:27-30 and the following couple of paragraphs.  Equally, Mark 10:45 is fairly critical, perhaps with the following story which is somewhat transitional as the final step before Jerusalem.

2. Select key examples in the book. There are some passages that may not be at a transition point, but are just very typical of the style and message of the book.  For instance, Mark 4:35-41 as an example of Mark’s pattern of following teaching with testing.

3. Select an example in a sequence, but show the whole progression. Often a book will string together a series of stories making a similar point, such as in Mark 2-3.  So you might select an example in the sequence demonstrating Jesus’ authority, but also show briefly how many such stories there are in the section.  This covers a lot of ground, but can make quite an impression as people feel the weight of the authority demonstrated by the whole sequence.

4. Select passages you want to preach. As long as you have the other three types of message included, there is nothing wrong with selecting based on personal motivation – the fruit will probably show in your preaching if you are motivated!

5. Keep the big idea of the book clear throughout. Consistently, even if subtly, reinforce the big idea of the whole book to cohere the series.

Exposition, Narrative and a Pot of Soup

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

There is a common misunderstanding of expositional preaching in relation to Bible stories.  I’ve heard the analogy used of a pot of soup.  A narrative sermon is like a pot of soup prepared carefully to be enjoyed by the guests – an experience to be savoured.  An expositional sermon is like an explanation of the recipe of the pot of soup.  Recognizing the difference between narrative preaching and preaching narratives, let’s engage with this analogy briefly.

With some preachers this negative recipe description may be fitting, but that doesn’t make the analogy accurate.  An expository preacher is concerned about communicating the point of the passage, rather than seeking to explain the point of every detail.  A good expository preacher knows that a story has its own way of carrying and conveying its point.  Thus a good expositor preacher, preaching a story, will not dissect it into a lifeless and experience-free recipe, but will communicate the story as effectively and accurately as possible.

What needs to be added to the telling of the story?  Any necessary explanation to make sense of it.  An underlining of the point, exposed for clarity, but appropriately timed so as not to undermine the impact.  If not inherently implicit, some form of emphasis on the contemporary relevance of the story.

What isn’t needed is endless detailed explanation, or numerous unnecessary and disconnected illustrations, or ill-timed statements of the proposition, or commentary-style titles for each segment of the message, or a manner which robs the story of its emotion, tension or energy.

When you preach a story, be sure to be expository . . . but not the wrong kind that feels like the explanation of a recipe!

Homiletical Hermeneutics

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Last night I was in conversation with a good friend and fellow preacher.  We were talking about another preacher and how thoroughly he knows the Bible.  When my friend asked me why I thought he had become so thoroughly saturated with the Bible, I didn’t need to think long about the answer.  Obviously he has read it a lot, studied it and preached it.  But there’s something else that I’d like to share here: he reads the Bible like a preacher. 

That could be a good thing or a bad thing.

The wrong way to read the Bible like a preacher – is to always read looking for a message.  This means the Scriptures are always handled as a resource for sermon material.  It might mean that the Bible bypasses the heart, life and needs of the preacher, moving straight from God to the listeners’ needs.  I suppose it could mean forcing every text into a preconceived sermonic form (seeking to alliterate points, force the text into a certain number of sections, etc.)

The right way to read the Bible like a preacher – is to recognize the inherent communicative nature of Scripture.  Every writer was seeking to communicate effectively.  As a preacher it is possible to develop the skill of a homiletical approach to hermeneutics.  This means that you read the Bible text as communication – you look for the inherent unity that is there, rather than simply chasing down every tangent prompted by each detail.  It means you look for the sense of order and progression in the communication.  It means you recognize how the writer is developing each idea – the phases of explanation, elements of proof, and attempts to apply the idea.  It means you look for the author’s intent as well as their content, with a sensitivity to the needs of the original recipients.

After decades of handling the Bible like that, it shows.  I only hope the same will be true of me at the other end of my life.

Slow Cooked Sermons

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Most preachers develop of preparation cycle and rhythm.  Perhaps it takes five days from start to finish (maybe with an extended period for collecting any interesting tidbits from the point the series are planned).  Perhaps you have an eight or ten-day cycle.  Perhaps you only preach periodically and so take two or three weeks to study the text and shape the message.

Consider having a slow cooker bubbling on your desk.  You could take that literally, but I mean metaphorically.  Select a series or a sermon that is several months away, set apart 15-30 minutes a day and work through the text nice and slowly.  It allows you to take your time with original language work, whatever level of ability you have.  It allows you time to peruse, ponder and pause over the commentaries.  It allows you to gradually formulate main ideas of sections, outlines of messages, etc.  It allows you to make notes of specific support material.

All the things you may have to rush through in a normal preparation cycle, you can do well with this approach.  What’s more, that slow cooked sermon and the textual study that underlies it may be more of a feast for your soul than some of the study and sermons you do at your normal pace in the meantime!

My messages are seven months away.  The cooker is on (and I get to enjoy learning Logos 4 at the same time!)

Serve a Meal to the Guests

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

What if preaching were like hospitality – what would your guests experience?

Arriving at the door, slightly tentative about what may follow, they are rushed in and quickly seated.  No time for friendly interaction, there’s a meal to be eaten!  Before them the table is empty, but is continually filled as numerous covered serving dishes, pots and plates continually emerge from the kitchen.  In your zeal to feed them (and to show them everything you’ve done in preparation), you quickly uncover the first dish and serve a spoonful of carefully prepared french beans (the best result of your culinary efforts).  Then as they take their first taste of this fine cuisine you clear their plate, uncover another dish and serve some burned peas, swipe them off the plate and dish out an undercooked steak.  This continues with vegetables in various states of readiness, and an assortment of meats from a variety of animals (some familiar, some more exotic).  To break the intensity you also serve a big scoop of ice cream, before moving back to the main course again.  Your guests look bewildered at the experience, barely managing a bite before receiving more food and the odd sniff of a dessert.  Finally after forty minutes you pull away their plate and extend your hand for a firm handshake.  They smile cautiously and thank you for all your hard work before filing out of the front door.

I hope this wouldn’t be the case!  How much better to be welcomed and made comfortable?  How much more satisfying to enjoy the finest meal you could prepare and nothing more?  How much more comfortable to not have to experience every culinary idea you had and every cuisine cul-de-sac you entered in the last week as you planned and prepared the meal?  How much better to savour the meat chosen, rather than having a whistle-stop tour of all your favourite meats in your meat guide (concordance)?  How enjoyable to enjoy the side dishes and vegetables chosen to compliment the main meat of the meal?  How much better to partake of dessert when it is appropriate, rather than as a forced interlude in a manic meal?  How nice to have time to chew on the good food received?  How much better to receive a carefully prepared meal than an overwhelming force-fed food dump?  How nice to not have to come up with something polite to say at the door!

It can be a real blessing to be a guest for dinner.  It can be even better to be fed from the pulpit!

(Feel free to interpret this post in the comments, perhaps someone else missed what you observed!)

Connecting With Story

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

There are many stories in the Bible, and this is one season in the year when most of us are preaching stories.  In some ways Bible stories give the preacher an advantage.  For example, stories offer a flow, a plot, a progression, that can be replicated in the message (although it amazes me how many preachers try to preach a story without telling the story!)  Also, stories offer vivid images and allow for effective description.  But how do we forge the connection between “back then” and “today”?  A few thoughts, I’m sure you could add more:

Don’t just historically lecture, but preach to today. It is easy to fall into the trap of presenting what happened back then, but not recognizing the enduring theological significance for today.  People appreciate hearing about what happened, but they deeply appreciate it when the preacher can emphasize the relevance of that happening to us today.

Don’t caricature characters, but encourage identification with their humanness. Again, it is easy to pick on one aspect of a character’s action in a story, but miss the other side of the coin.  For example, Zechariah doubted the message of the angel, but he was also a faithful pray-er over the long-term.  Don’t beat up your listeners with a sense of identification with the negative only – “How often do we doubt God’s goodness to us?  How easily we resist what God is doing!” Stories function through resolution of tension in a plot and through identification with characters . . . be careful not to mis-emphasize a character portrayal if the biblical account is more balanced.

Don’t identify without theocentrizing.  It is also possible to present the characters effectively so that listeners can identify with them, but miss the point that God is at the center of biblical narrative.  It’s not just Joseph’s kindness and personal character quality that is significant in Matthew 1, it is also very much focused on God’s revelation of His plan to both save His people from their sins and His presence with His people.  Joseph is a great example of a “fine, young man.”  But the passage presents this fine, young man responding to the revelation of God’s purposes.  Jesus, Immanuel.  That is the information that Joseph acted upon.  The amazing thing about Christmas narratives is that the theocentric truth is bundled up in a tiny human infant.

Christmas preached as just peace and happiness and quaint idyllic scenes is a travesty – Christmas is set up for theocentric preaching (but don’t lose the humanness of the other characters too).

The Preacher’s Motivation

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday I pondered why a message might be considered a new take or somehow different from what was expected.  On this particular occasion I preached Matthew 1.  I wonder if there’s another element to add to yesterday’s list of thoughts:

4. Not overemphasizing the theologically rich element in the text. In this passage there is the quote and fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 and the virgin giving birth to a son.  Don’t get me wrong, I did preach that, explained the original context briefly, touching on the Immanuel theme developing right through to 9:6-7.  The Matthew text was clear that Mary was a virgin and that the baby was there because of the Holy Spirit, not any sexual impropriety. However, I didn’t turn the sermon into a theological lecture, nor an apologetic defense of Christian orthodoxy.  My reason for that was because of who would be listening, and because the text doesn’t do that.  As I was pondering this, I wondered whether sometimes we might be tempted to use a theological detail in the text as an opportunity to show off our own orthodoxy, rather than to help listeners understand the truth?  I don’t know, this is just a thought.  I think it is important, it is vital, to teach the theological truth of Scripture, to edify and educate the people in our churches.  Certainly we have too many biblically illiterate people in our churches these days.  But still, are there times when our motivation for a strong theological presentation in a sermon is not really for God’s pleasure or their benefit, but actually for us to demonstrate our theological acumen, or to take pride in our orthodoxy (especially in comparison to some exalted figure who has denied orthodoxy in some respect)?

Sermons and Series

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

After listening to a couple of Andy Stanley series recently, I have been pondering a point he makes in his book, Communicating for a Change.  He says that what most people try to achieve in a single sermon should really be developed over a whole series.  This allows for each message to genuinely have a single point, rather than a collection of points (and reduced impact).  It allows for the whole series to reinforce rather than confuse.

I have to say, after listening to a couple of his series, I tend to agree.  Perhaps we bite off too much in a series.  Perhaps we try to cover whole sections of a book, or a whole book, when maybe we would do better to drive home one passage more effectively. Perhaps we are too quick to move on and assume listeners have understood the point and applied it in their lives.

I suppose this creates a difficulty if we are committed to trying to preach every bit of the Bible over some self-determined priod of time.  I suppose it also puts a burden on the preacher – if you’re going to stay in the same passage for more than one sermon, you’d better not be boring!  But ultimately I suppose it asks the key question: not are we trying to cover ground, or are we trying to entertain, but are we trying to see lives transformed?  If that is the question, perhaps more focused series is part of the solution?

Preaching a Passage Owned

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Preachers preach a Bible passage from a variety of stances or approaches.  I see something of a continuum here and would love to encourage all preachers to move further down the list.

1. Preaching from thoughts prompted by the passage. In preparation the text is read, then the preacher preaches based on thoughts triggered by elements in the text.  It could be a certain word.  It could be a character mentioned.  It could really be anything.  Why do people do this?  Because they have not been taught a better way, and because it has a sort of pseudo-spirituality about it as an approach (since perhaps God is highlighting unique elements to make this a unique experience of the text).

2. Preaching about a subject in the passage. The preacher latches on to a subject mentioned in a text and addresses that subject, perhaps using other texts for support, perhaps just sharing their own perspective on that subject.

3. Preaching about the subject in the passage. A single unit of Scripture (a epistle’s paragraph, an individual narrative or parable, a psalm, a proverb, etc.) has a specific subject.  It is united by it’s dealing with something in particular.  Preaching about that something in particular is a great step forward and honours the text, the author and the Inspirer of that text.

4. Preaching about the passage. The preacher is focused on the text, has studied it and preaches about it.  There is a focus on the passage.  The details are explained, the flow is clarified, the message is applied.  This is decent preaching.

5. Preaching the passage. The difference between this and the previous one is a matter of distance.  Preaching about the passage can be accurate and relevant, and yet still feel a bit “arms length.”  The passage is like an exhibit being presented.  If every church achieved level 4 consistently I believe the church would be so much healthier.  But there is also level 5 in this continuum.  If level 4 says what the text says, then level 5 is about doing what the text does.  Somehow the preacher isn’t merely presenting an exhibit, but has so grasped the passage and been so gripped by it, that the preaching is no longer “arms length” – it is direct, personal, clear, alive, to us.  There must still be historical explanation, looking at the passage, applying the message of the passage, but now it is the preaching of a passage owned, a passage that has saturated the heart and mind and life and preparation of the preacher.

Where are you on this continuum?  How about moving one step further?

Overly Narrow Application of a Principle

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I’d like to build a little on the post from three days ago.  Here is a post I wrote a while back, but am fairly sure I forgot to post on the site.  It offers another angle on the challenges of application, again overtly leaning on Haddon Robinson’s work.

In simple terms the homiletical process involves three stages.  The first is the exegetical work of determining the original writer’s meaning.  The second stage involves abstraction of that meaning via theological principalization to derive a timeless truth.  The final stage is the earthing of that principle for the listeners sat in front of you – the homiletical application stage.  At this point our task is to not only demonstrate the meaning of the passage, but also to emphasize how it is relevant to the listeners.

Application is set up for illustrative material.  By definition, application involves demonstrating how the biblical principle might be applied in a contemporary setting, what difference it makes to us today.  At this point in the message, it makes sense to use illustrative materials.  But beware, there is a trap that is easy to fall into.

The incomplete variety of application error.  The meaning of a passage, and the derivation of principle, are both inclined toward single statement results.  That is to say, there is one meaning.  But how is that principle applied?  There are usually numerous possibilities.  If you only present a single example application, even if you state that this is one possible application, listeners will tend to presume that is specifically what you are preaching (or even, what the Bible is teaching).

Haddon Robinson gives the example of “honoring your parents” in a Pulpit Talk audio journal.  One possible application he gives from his experience with his own ageing father – that he ended up in a nursing home.  Another possible application he gives from their experience with his mother-in-law – that she was cared for by Haddon’s wife in their house.  To give one example without the other runs the risk of communicating only one option for applying the principle derived from the passage.

When you are applying a passage, demonstrating and emphasizing its relevance for your listeners, be sure to indicate the variety of possible applications, rather than leaving people with a faulty understanding of the passage because of an overly narrow applicational example.