Expository Preaching

Build Confidence in the Word

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

John MacArthur writes about the clarity of the Bible in his chapter in Preach the Word.  Let me quote him here – not new information (I hope), but important information well worthy of our pondering:

The student of Scripture need not fear that its message is unknowable.  Rather, he can rejoice in knowing that God revealed himself and his plan of salvation in a way that men can understand.  Not only does the Scripture repeatedly claim that God revealed what is written within its pages (over 2,000 times in fact), it also describes itself as that which gives light (Ps. 119:105; 2Pet. 1:19a), is profitable (2Tim. 3:16-17), explains salvation (2Tim. 3:15b), addresses common people (cf. Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:37; Eph. 1:1; 1Cor. 1:2), can be understood by children (Deut. 6:6-7; Eph. 6:4; 2Tim. 3:14-15), and should be used to test the validity of religious ideas (Acts 17:11; cf. 2Cor. 10:5; 1Thess. 5:21-22). It is the truth (John 17:17) that sets men free (John 8:31-36).  Thus, to deny the clarity of Scripture is to call into question not only the Bible’s own self-claims, but also God’s ability to communicate clearly.

Let’s make sure these truths are fresh in our hearts.  It’s easy to begin with strong confidence in the Word, only for it to fade over time.  Is it time to refresh and renew our understanding of and commitment to the clarity and power of God’s Word?

Let’s also make sure we don’t undermine our listeners’ confidence in the Bible.  There are certainly parts that are harder to understand, the Bible itself acknowledges that (2Pet. 3:16).  But the main message of the Bible is clear for any who will read it . . . so let’s encourage them to do just that!

Smooth Preaching Doesn’t Mark

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

I like this term, “smooth preaching.”  I was just reading about it and resonating with the thought.  Peter Jensen uses the term in his chapter on the role of the seminary in the training of the preacher.   (Preach the Word, p216.)  He writes, “There is a variety of smooth preaching that replicates what it sees as the main theme of a text but does not bring to the surface anything in the text that surprises, contradicts, creates tension.”  It is the kind of preaching that rushes too easily to conclusions or fails to spot the points of stress in a text.  It is dull preaching that dulls the Word of God.

I suppose some might wish that someone would publish a book, perhaps a New International Textual Stress Points Commentary, or a Passage-By-Passage Jagged Edge Guide.  But in reality, there is simple no better way to avoid such smooth preaching than this – spend significant time dwelling in a text, wrestling with the text, allowing the text to wrestle with you, opening your own heart to the text, leaning so close to it that it can draw blood.  Close and personal encounters with God’s Word will bring the Bible into real conflict with sin in our lives.  It will expose and challenge our pride, anger, doubts, motivations, attitudes, habits, tendencies.  If we keep texts at arms length, then we will preach smooth sermons.  If we handle texts only briefly before preaching the obvious, then we will preach smooth sermons.  If we really prayerfully vulnerably wrestle with a text, and lose, then we will be in a better position to preach sermons with the textual edge bared to make its mark.  The Word of God does cut, but smooth preaching will only conceal that edge.  Smooth preaching doesn’t mark.

Easter is Coming – The Power of Identification

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I know Easter is still a couple of months away, but as a preacher it is never too early to think about Easter.  In fact, there is a sense in which commemoration of Easter is never more than six days away – the Lord’s Day is a weekly gathering because of His resurrection.  So here’s a thought regarding Easter (whether you’re planning for April or preparing for tomorrow’s message).

In preaching any narrative section, we need to consider whom listeners will gravitate toward, with whom they will identify.  We should consider how to encourage that or redirect that through our preaching.  In the case of the passion narratives, this tendency to identify can be powerfully used in our preaching.  Luther pointed to this when he wrote:

“Although Christians will identify themselves with Judas, Caiaphas, and Pilate; sinful, condemned actors in the Gospel story – there is another who took the sins of humanity on himself when they were hung around his neck.”

When it comes to the story of the crucifixion we find ourselves identifying with so many characters: Judas, Peter, fleeing disciples, Caiaphas, Pilate, Roman soldiers, Simon from Cyrene, mocking executioners, mocking crowds, mocking thief, repentant thief, followers standing at a distance, followers standing close by, even the Centurion.  Yet the wonder of it all is that we are invited to identify with the perfect One hanging on that cross, for in that act He was most wondrously identifying with us.

Consider how the natural function of narrative – to spark identification – can be utilized to communicate the wondrous truth of Calvary this Easter, or even this Sunday.

Adjust Agenda?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday I quoted from JI Packer’s chapter on Charles Simeon in Preach the Word.  I wanted to finish quoting the paragraph since it is provocative and perhaps helpful:

The motive behind his almost obsessive outbursts against Calvinistic and Arminian “system-Christians,” as he called them, was his belief that, through reading Scripture in light of their systems, both sides would be kept from doing justice to all the texts that were there.  Be “Bible-Christians” rather than slaves to a system, he argued, and so let the whole Bible have its way with you all the time.  Whether or not we agree that such speaking is the wise way to make that point, we must at least endorse Simeon’s “invariable rule . . . to endeavour to give to every portion of the word of God its full and proper force.” (Packer, in Preach the Word, 147-148.)

Perhaps you might substitute a different theological label into his quote, but still I think the point is helpful.  It is naive to think that we can simply preach the Bible in a theology-neutral way.  However, there is a great difference between reading every text in light of your system and constantly adjusting your system in light of the biblical text.  In that sense, let’s preach as, and let’s preach to motivate, “Bible-Christians.”

Abort Sermon! Abort Sermon?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

On one level it is a feeling that can come for any reason.  A little moment of doubt.  An unexpected event, or listener, or conversation, or comment . . . and suddenly the temptation is there to give up on the planned message.  Some may have this feeling every time they preach.  Others may never get it at all.  But is there a genuine reason to abort the message and switch to something else?

In his excellent chapter on Charles Simeon in Preach the Word, J.I. Packer states the following:

Simeon would go on to remind us that expository preaching should be textual in character.  The preacher’s task, according to him, was not imposition, giving texts meaning the do not bear; nor was it juxtaposition, using texts merely as pegs on which to hand general reflections imported from elsewhere (“preachments of this kind are extremely disgustful”); it was, precisely, exposition, bringing out of teh texts what God had put in them  “I never preach,” said Simeon, “unless I feel satisfied that I have the mind of God as regards the sense of the passage.” (Preach the Word, 147)

There may be more than one reason to abort a sermon, but this one alone is worth pondering.  If we are not satisfied that we have the mind of God as regards the sense of a passage . . . we should not preach it!  Better to preach an unprepared sermon at a moment’s notice on a text we do understand, than to preach a prepared sermon built on shaking exegesis.  If you really don’t get, don’t preach it.  Abort sermon!

The Non-Academic Preacher Compliment

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Last week I spoke to a friend who had asked to borrow my master’s thesis.  He was positive about it, but mentioned that he’d had to look up some terms I’d used.  He was a bit surprised since he doesn’t have that challenge when I preach.  That’s an encouraging compliment in my eyes!

Here’s a quick quote that is somewhat related in Phillip Jensen’s chapter, “Preaching the Word Today” in Preach the Word, the book of essays in honor of Kent Hughes:

With the discriminating eye of the cynic, the modern scholar can deconstruct the author’s writings so as to explain what he “really” meant.  Only the expert – never the ploughboy – can know what was meant.  The priesthood of all believers is no longer replaced by the sacerdotalism of the sacramentalists but by the arrogance of the academy.

We need to be so careful.  I think it is good to get the best academic training possible (a matter of good stewardship), but we need to be very careful not to develop the easily associated arrogance that comes with training, nor to carry that arrogance into the pulpit.  We serve the priesthood of all believers; we are not the priesthood for all other believers.

Let’s make sure we open up the Bible in peoples’ laps, rather than moving it further away from them.  Let’s make sure we communicate well, rather than impress with lofty language that the ploughboy doesn’t understand.  Let’s make sure we prepare for ministry and prepare for a message as fully as we are able, but not let that show in any way that will hinder our listeners.

Points on Picking Passages – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday we saw that God is sovereign and all Scripture is “useful” (which sounds like an understatement when separated from 2Tim.3:16!)  So when there is freedom to choose a passage for a message, consider:

Consider the people. Who are they?  What do they need?  What issues are they facing in life, both individually and corporately? Sometimes a prayerful consideration of the applicational needs of the people will prompt your thinking toward a specific passage or kind of passage.

Consider the program. What teaching have they had recently?  What is coming up after your message?  Sometimes the program might suggest a helpful place to go for your message.  Perhaps a helpful OT background passage for the subsequent series in a NT book.  Perhaps a passage with a similar idea to reinforce teaching they’ve recently heard.  Perhaps something very different to bring balance to the program.

Consider your preference. There is nothing unspiritual about asking yourself, what do I want to study and preach?  If you are personally motivated to be in a specific book or passage,  then it will enliven both your study and delivery.  Often such a choice leads to more work, not less, because when the heart engages with the opportunity, the preacher will give more in the preparation stage.

Consider your personal ability. Some passages are harder to interpret than others.  Some are harder to preach than others.  Is the study time available before you preach enough to really study the passage well (and are you capable of such study)?  Is the time available for the message long enough to really preach a long narrative with all the necessary description and narration?  There’s nothing spiritual about biting off more than you can chew.  Lives are changed by simple and the familiar passages preached well.

Careful of excessive delay in decision. However you choose, it is important to choose.  It is much better to spend hours wrestling with the text in prayerful preparation, than it is to spend hours wrestling with what passage to preach.  The sooner you make a decision, the sooner the text can start working in your life (a prerequisite to effectively preaching it to others).

Any other considerations that you would add to the mix?

Points on Picking Passages – Part 1

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

While you may agree that working through a book is the ideal default when planning a preaching schedule, what if you are only preaching a single message? What if a passage is not assigned and you are free to choose? What freedom to delight in! Or perhaps, what a stress to despair in! Today I’ll lay a foundation with two firm facts, then tomorrow offer several considerations as a passage is chosen.

Two Firm Facts:

1. God is sovereign. We should pray throughout the preparation process, including the selection of a passage. However, we don’t need to wait endless hours for direct revelation of a specific passage when God has not promised to give us such a revelation.  How often have we preached and then heard, “that was exactly what God knew I needed to hear?”  Far more often than an angel visits us with preaching instructions.  God is not at the mercy of our ability to “spot the signs” and discern some slightly hidden hints from heaven.  God is sovereign.

2. All Scripture is “useful.” In theory any passage can be preached with appropriate application to any given group of listeners. Obviously some passages are far harder to preach relevantly than others depending on the passage and the listeners. However, there is not one perfect passage for this occasion that if you miss it you will have failed. Enjoy the freedom that comes from knowing what they need is the Bible – clear and applied – not a needle in the haystack that you somehow have to find.

Tomorrow I’ll offer some considerations to complete this post.

Double Sermon Experiment: Lessons Learned

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I have suggested this before, but decided to try it again on Sunday.  One passage, two messages.  In the afternoon I had some doubts.  Perhaps I should do something different?  I prayerfully decided to stick with the plan and I’m glad I did.  (Despite this moment of doubt, the afternoon was less of a trial than it would have been had I needed to switch gears and mentally prepare for a totally different text!)  Here are some observations:

1. A second message in the same passage allows the preacher and the listeners to soak in a text, rather than jumping around. I appreciated this and it seems the listeners did too.  Perhaps we too quickly move from one part of Scripture to another in a two-sermon Sunday.

2. A second message allows elaboration on that which is squeezed by time in the first message. In this case I was preaching a fairly lengthy narrative in a limited time.  Consequently I could not develop the application of the passage to the extent that I felt necessary.  The evening message allowed more complete and concrete application of the main idea.

3. A second message allows for more exegetical work to show, to reinforce the authority of the main idea. I preached the story in the morning, then in the evening I reviewed it briefly before demonstrating how the context reinforces the main idea.  Hopefully this would result in people understanding the process of Bible study more (importance of context), and would motivate some to jump into the book for themselves.

4. A second message allows the main idea to be restated, reiterated and reinforced. Perhaps this is the best benefit of all.  In this case I had a main idea that I think was biblical, fairly clear and important for our lives today.  No matter how well I preached the first message (I’m not saying I did, I’m being hypothetical), I would not want to be overconfident in terms of how well my idea got through.  However, having had review, reinforcement and concretized application in the evening, I’m a little more confident that the main idea might be pondered and applied in the days ahead.

I commend this approach to you.  Study a passage, then preach two messages instead of one.  It allows for more focus over two services, for developed application, for more exegetical work to be demonstrated, for the main idea to have greater effect.

The Challenge of Narratives 3: Gospels – Part II

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Note – Peter has extended comments related to this post, see previous in the series here

Last time we looked at the interpretational challenge of more than one “author.”  Now, let’s see another challenge:

2. More than one “account” of the event. What are we to do when we find the same story told in two, three, or even all four gospels?  Perhaps like me you were taught the analogy of the car accident?  A solution to the “problem” of multiple, but not identical accounts, this explanation goes like this:

The Car Accident. A car is involved in a crash, so the Police come to the scene and take eye-witness accounts of what occurred.  The person standing at the traffic light saw it one way, but the person coming out of the shop saw it differently.  Same event, different accounts.  Hence we have four gospels, problem solved.

But as with all such analogies, this one falls short.  It doesn’t take into account that each “eye-witness” statement was written under inspiration and with theological intent.  The gospels were not transcripts of history intended to give chronological exhaustive accuracy.  Rather, they are historically accurate, but they are primarily theological writing skillfully arranged to convey four specific and distinct messages.

So what do we do?

1. We should compare multiple accounts of the same event in order to check for accuracy in our understanding of what transpired (you wouldn’t want to preach factual error because you didn’t read Mark’s account).

2. We should compare multiple accounts in order to recognize the emphasis given in the particular text you are studying (i.e. what is John emphasizing here?)

3. We should resist the temptation to preach a composite harmonization of the event itelf, but rather preach the text.  The text is inspired, not the event.  So study them all, but if your text is in John, preach John.  If your text is in Mark, preach Mark.

eg. The feeding of the 5000 has different emphasis in each gospel, so don’t preach a composite of John’s “bread of life” theology with Mark’s “kingdom feast has come” theology.

eg. The stilling of the storm in Matthew 8:23-27 is in a sequence of three miracles emphasizing Jesus’ authority.  In Mark 4:35-41 it stands as a lesson to the disciples after teaching on the unstoppable nature of the kingdom, and begins a series of four stories emphasizing the fear/faith theme.