Expository Preaching

Preaching and Biblical Theology – Side 2

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Here’s the basic definition of “Biblical Theology” that I am leaning on for this series of posts: Biblical theology is the fruit of studying the Bible in such a way as to recognize the individuality of each biblical author, the progress of revelation over time and the unity of the canon resulting from the inspired nature of Scripture. The question is whether our preaching neglects one side of this triangle?  Yesterday I considered the issue of authorial individuality (both in style/vocabulary and in content/theology).  Now let’s look at the second “side of the triangle:”

The Progress of Revelation – Over time, the revelation from God progressed.  If our Bible’s stopped at Genesis 3, we’d know very little.  If our Bibles stopped at Malachi, we’d be at a loss.  Our Bibles do not stop at Deuteronomy, or Malachi, or 2Timothy, or Jude (contrary to the opinion of some – I recently read a well-known scholar arguing that Revelation doesn’t add anything to the Bible in terms of theology, it just adds imagination!  We could play “spot the theological agenda” with that quote, but that’s going off point for this post!)  God gave us 66 books and each is adding to the revelation.  Thus it is important to recognize where your preaching passage sits in that progress.  We neglect this aspect of understanding the Scriptures when we fail to recognize the meaning of a passage in its context, at that time in the progress of revelation.  We can neglect this aspect when we always read everything through the “lens” of later revelation, without first honoring the fact that it is inspired Scripture even before that “lens” was added.

Guidelines – always seek to recognize the meaning of a passage as intended by the author at that point in the progress, before also recognizing how revelation progressed in the centuries that followed.  Perhaps consider whether more time needs to be spent on helping listeners see what the original recipients would have received from the passage, before jumping to a contemporary application, or even a New Testament filtered interpretation.  Always ask yourself, am I giving the impression that this text was not inspired or was not “useful” (2Tim.3:16) until a later book was written?

Other suggestions?  We’ll deal with the matter of the unity of the canon tomorrow to finish this mini-series.

Preaching and Biblical Theology – Side 1

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Biblical Theology is a very fruitful field for preachers.  Not every fruit is worth eating, of course, but there is real benefit to studying works in this field.  To give a basic definition for the sake of this post: Biblical theology is the fruit of studying the Bible in such a way as to recognize the individuality of each biblical author, the progress of revelation over time and the unity of the canon resulting from the inspired nature of Scripture. My question today is simple, does our preaching honor these three aspects of biblical theology, or do we neglect one “side of the triangle?”  Today we’ll consider the first “side of the triangle,” with the others to follow:

Individuality of each biblical author – The writings of John have a distinctive style, vocabulary and content when compared to the writings of Luke, or Paul, etc.  How do we neglect this reality in our preaching?  We do so by blending everything into the same, flat message.  We do so by excessive cross-referencing to other authors without good reason.  A high view of the Scriptures can easily lead to neglect of the individual styles and content of the human authors.  Obviously we would affirm that John does not contradict Matthew, or Moses, for that matter.  However, we may let our listeners down when we give the impression that the human author’s individuality does not shine through in their writings.  In fact, we may be undermining the high view of Scriptures we affirm if we give the impression they were mere conduits for the dictation of God – a flawed understanding of inspiration!

Guidelines? Wherever possible, recognize and value the individuality of the human author when preaching a passage.  Generally seek to demonstrate the flow of thought within the book, rather than demonstrating the theology of the passage through cross-referencing all over the canon.  Perhaps consider how to preach the content of this passage using the vocabulary and style of this author (eg. I preached the resurrection passage in Luke in deliberately Lukan terms, rather than slipping into Johannine vocabulary or Pauline, 1Cor.15, argumentation.)

These are not hard and fast rules, just suggestions to help if this “side of the triangle” is being neglected in your preaching.  Other suggestions?  (The other two sides are coming, so please don’t get overly concerned that I haven’t emphasized the unity of the canon yet!)

Are There Really Only Three Passages?

/ Peter Mead / 9 Comments

I recently heard a friend make an excellent point.  Apparently there are only three passages in the Bible.  How do we know this?  Well, there seem to be only three sermon outlines, so obviously there are only three texts.  The sermon outlines are as follows:

1. Jesus died for your sins, repent and believe, when you die you’ll go to heaven

2. Read the Bible more, pray more, evangelise more

3. Have more faith, be more obedient.

That’s pretty convincing (if you base your research on the majority of sermons preached).  But perhaps the research is flawed?  Perhaps there are more than three texts in the Bible?  Perhaps these three outlines don’t really reflect the beautiful variety and complexity of the Bible?

Of course, there are probably a couple of handfuls of major themes that trace their way through the Bible.  However, what an amazing selection of texts.  Which one are you preaching tomorrow?  Does it have a more specific outline and main thought than these three listed above?  Let’s make sure it shows.

What If You’re Not Ready?

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

It is so important to understand the text before you preach it!  I don’t mean just knowing what the big words mean.  I don’t mean just having a collection of exegetical insights to share.  I don’t mean even having a sermon vaguely based on certain parts of the text.  I mean really understanding what the text is saying – understanding it’s unity, it’s message, it’s point, it’s purpose, it’s role in the broader flow of thought in the book.  What if you’re not ready though?

Suggestion with several caveats to follow: If you’re not ready, don’t preach it.  Instead preach an old message again that you are confident is biblically sound.

Just think what an example that might be for the congregation!  “We were scheduled to be in Epistle XYZ 4:15-22, but I’ve been studying it over several weeks and still am not there yet – some passages take real work to really grasp!  So I’ll keep on studying, but for today, let’s look again at . . . ”

Caveats a coming!

1. Chances are, they won’t remember a message you re-preach.  But it would be honest to tell them it’s worth a second look at this old message rather than trying to “slip it through.”

2. Recognize that as a Bible student we never fully plumb the depths of any passage and as a preacher we shouldn’t really present all the plumbs either!  It takes wisdom to know the difference between “I’ll never fully plumb this passage” and “I haven’t grasped the fundamental unity and flow of thought in this passage.

3. It is in no way a good example if you simply started too late.

4. Whether you are a paid pastor preaching weekly, or an unpaid preacher preaching periodically, there is an element of commitment involved.  It will undermine your credibility if you follow the above suggestion more than very rarely!  (In fact, if you are only doing one section in a series from the same book, you can’t simply make the subsequent weeks shift by missing your section.  Get help earlier in the process and make sure you grasp the passage before you preach it, for surely you must preach it!)

5. It is probably better to take this post as a strong prod to really be prepared, rather than actually trying what I suggest!  (I’d be interested to hear if anyone has ever publically announced their need for more time to study a certain passage!)

The World’s Most Influential People

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Sitting on my desk is a recent copy of Time Magazine.  The main reason that I still get it is that they offered to almost pay me to receive it (that’s an exaggeration, before you start asking for details).  It is the edition with the world’s 100 most influential people.  Interesting collection of people from Obama to Sarkozy, Pacquiao to Nadal, Oprah to Palin and Michelle Obama to Rush Limbaugh.  A largely predictable list that doesn’t stir massive response from this sporadic Time reader.

However, I have one complaint about the list.  One person is missing.  The faithful biblical expositor.  Oh yes, Rick Warren made it on to the list after a year of critique from various sides.  I’m glad he’s on there.  But I’m thinking about faithful preacher at the normal church on 53rd and Main.  I’m thinking about the faithful expositor at 13th Presby-Bapto-Angli-Independent Bible Church.  I’m thinking about the unknown preachers I shared a week with recently in a country many people have not heard of.  I’m thinking about the relatively no-name preacher in a relatively unknown church somewhere.  Preachers like you.  Preachers like me.  Preachers who study the Word and faithfully, prayerfully present the meaning of the text and emphasize its relevance to the lives of their listeners.  Preachers who plug away for little or no pay (on earth), for little or no thanks (on earth), for little or no acclaim (on earth).

Only eternity will tell how much genuinely lasting influence has been exerted by the preachers who’ve looked beyond fame and position to serve faithfully in this vital ministry.  Unnamed preacher in unknown church.  Time missed you.  Eternity will not.  Be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, for you know your labour is not in vain in the Lord!

Five Looks and Two Options

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

This post is building on the previous two.  Yesterday I shared “Five Looks” approach to Bible study to illustrate a discussion on Monday’s post.  The issue raised on Monday was do we preach the main thought of a text, or a biblical theology prompted by the main thought of a text?  The question really focuses in on step 4 of the “five looks” – Look Forward.  How does looking beyond our focus text help us in the process of interpretation?

Some would say that we must read all of Scripture through the lens of later revelation, and that consequently all preaching must progress the story to its full conclusion.  I beg to differ, while asking for careful hearing so that I am not just dismissed as being somehow outside the pale of someone’s definition of orthodoxy!

It is important to consider a text in its biblical context.  This includes what comes later, as well as what came before.  However, we should not explain a text in light of later revelation such that the text itself, as inspired originally, is left stripped of its value.  The human author did not know the later revelation, so why must we require later information in order to interpret the text as it stands?  The progress of revelation matters greatly, but we need not immediately read a passage through a later lens.  We look at a passage in its context of the progress of revelation, but then progress the story beyond that if necessary and helpful.  We do not need to meld the latter with the former into one “super-interpretation” (although I would call such a process actually a diminished interpretation).  Rather we should do one, then the other, recognizing that the order matters.

Study, understand and preach a passage in its context (recognizing where it fits in the progress of revelation).  If necessary, develop the greater story to its culmination.  If you like, using the “five looks” approach presented above: step 4 carefully understood is important in our Bible study, but in preaching we should preach the fruit of steps 1-3, plus 5, adding in 4 if necessary and helpful.

Question to Ponder – What is it we preach?

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

What is it that we preach?  I’m really “preaching to the choir” in this post.  I’m addressing those who are committed to expository preaching and therefore will unhesitatingly affirm – “we preach the Bible!”  Others may hesitate and desire to preach contemporary ideas or whatever else, but for those of us who, at least in theory, preach the Bible, my question stands.  What is it that we preach?  I see two approaches among expository preachers:

Option A – We preach the main thought of a text.

Option B – We preach an aspect of biblical theology prompted by the main thought of a text.

I see strengths in both approaches.  I see potential weaknesses in the way either approach might be applied by some preachers.  I see different preachers and different “schools of thought” falling under different categories in this over-simplified schema.

So how are we to select our option and move forward?  I see value in both options, but on this site I urge a commitment to option A (preach the text you are preaching), with an awareness of option B (develop the theology of the text biblically if you deem it necessary).  I know and respect others who essentially affirm option B for every sermon (always develop the thought through the canon to its fulfilment).

Identifying these two categories is an intriguing starting point for reflection on my own approach to preaching and hopefully for yours too.  Where might this reflection lead?  Is it necessary to offer rationale and critique of each?  Will people recognize that I am not setting up a permanent either/or mutually exclusive construct, but rather identifying the primary leaning of the expository preacher?

When Training Is Spurned?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I received this comment a few days ago from a reader of this site:

How do you convince a man who fights against every opportunity placed in his way that he needs, that he requires, further training in preaching?

Answer that and I’ll be grateful! I know the need, but a lay-reader in my congregation has no concept that he does. Short of removing him from preaching there is beginning to seem little else that can be done to get this need through to him – and the reality that this must come before anything else. Excuses to avoid the training come thick and fast from him – and most make no sense anyway!

If we could answer that question, many of us would be grateful.  Recently I was co-leading a preaching course in a city.  Four years of preparation had gone into that event (not from me, I came in at the last minute).  It was a great success, but the big church pastors of the city felt that they did not need it, they were above what we were offering.  This greatly disappointed the organizers who strongly insist that those pastors do need the training that was given!  What to do?

I suppose training in preaching is not dissimilar to preaching itself.  You cannot force it on people.  Even if they are coerced into being present, they need to want to hear it.  In preaching that is why we must work so hard on our introduction in order to motivate the listeners to care about the message – we rub salt on their tongues to make them thirsty for God’s Word.  In the same way, we need to carefully consider winsome ways to motivate people to be open and receptive to training.  Forcing attendance will not work.

This post is not a definitive answer to the question, but I hope it could be the start of a conversation.  What will motivate the resistant to participate in preaching training?  What barriers must be overcome?  For instance:

Pride is a barrier – so we must be careful not to give the impression that we have it all together and they don’t.  Sharing the joy of learning and demonstrating that you’re a learner can motivate others to join the joyful journey of lifelong learning.

Insecurity is a barrier – I constantly observe how insecurity and pride go hand in hand.  The resistant may feel deeply insecure and scared of opening up to input that will shine light on their inadequacies.  Again, humility on our part, as well as a generous dose of encouragement might help (it’s tempting to never encourage lest we demotivate them from taking training, but the opposite may be true).

Overwhelmedness is a barrier – it all might seem like too much at once.  Perhaps giving people a small taste of good training is the way to go – a one-day seminar in the church for all the preachers (I’ve found these quite effective, invitations welcome!), a single magazine article, a single particularly helpful post on this or another site.

What else?  I’d love to hear more thoughts on the complexities of motivating preachers to take helpful training.

Short Cuts to Nowhere Good – Two

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I pointed out that prayer is by no means a short cut when it comes to preparing to preach.  It is critical, but it should not be viewed as a short cut.  Today I’d like to share another unhelpful short-cut.

2. Passage Details. It is always tempting to bounce off a detail in the passage and preach a message that may be biblical, but is not the message of this passage.  For instance, you might see a theological term that is rich in meaning and you can easily put together a series of thoughts on that aspect of theology.  Or perhaps you spot a name of a character that you’d like to speak about.  Or maybe there is some other detail in the text that is familiar and lends itself to a message that just falls together easily.  Wait.  This may be a short-cut, but it is not a good path to take.  Instead be sure to study all the details in the passage so that you can wrestle with what this passage is actually saying, not just what words it includes.  Using details in the text, but failing to actually preach the text is what I might call pseudo-expository preaching.  It sounds biblical, it looks expository, but it has a weakened authority since the message of the text is not the message of the sermon.  It takes longer to study a passage through in detail, but it is so worth the effort!

Short Cuts to Nowhere Good

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

There are a couple of short-cuts taken by many preachers that need to be highlighted for the sake of Biblical Preaching.  Please be sure to read the explanation as well as the heading (it’s amazing how people miss the point of what’s written sometimes!)

1. Prayer. Prayer is not a short-cut.  It is a necessity.  It is critical.  However, it is not a short-cut.  In fact, praying in preparation will probably make the preparation take longer, but it is worth the longer journey.  Many preachers think that all they need to do is pray and then preach their impressions.  This is neither pleasing to the Lord nor helpful for the listeners.  Why do some preachers think God is so pleased when they essentially dismiss the Bible by skirting around the study process in preparation?  I suspect that if we pray “Lord, please show me what I should say from this text!” that His answer would include “I want you to say what the text says.” God takes His Word very seriously, so should we, and prayer is not short-cut around the blessing of spending significant time and effort wrestling with the true and exact meaning of the passage.

Tomorrow I will add another short-cut that is not worth taking if we are to be Biblical Preachers!