Preacher, What Is Your Role?

June 28, 2011June 28, 2011 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Donald Sunukjian’s short definition of preaching is “Listen to what is God saying . . . to us?” Simple, maybe overly so, but helpful nonetheless. Preaching is something about God speaking through His Word to us now. But somehow it is easy to slip into some roles that really aren’t preaching. Preacher, you are not supposed to be:

1. Advice Dispenser – You may think people have a high view of your wisdom, or your office, but don’t descend into constantly offering your advice. People may pay big money to go hear Self-Help Gurus, but they are almost certainly not coming to your church primarily because of your advice. Preach the Word.

2. Public Entertainer – Of course you shouldn’t be drab and dull, the Bible is exciting and energising and it is good news. This is precisely the point. Don’t feel you need to “make it interesting” and get caught up in the excitement of making people happy and descend into the role of public entertainer. Preach the Word.

3. Time Filler – Sometimes church can feel like a routine that must needs be fulfilled week after week. And sometimes it does seem that you could waffle and say nothing much between end of sung worship and closing hymn (and still get affirming handshakes afterwards). Don’t descend into filling time. Unique opportunity. Preach the Word.

4. Worship Balancer – You may never have thought of this, and I don’t want to give ideas, but some seem to see it as their job to bring balance. After all the love and tenderness of the singing (especially some strains of modern worship), don’t descend into a balancing act of bringing the punch, the guilt, the stress, the duty. Whiplash. Preach the Word.

5. Life Coach – Speaking of self-help gurus, we have a massive arsenal of feel good stories to use in the anthology of self-help called the Bible. Oh wait, don’t do that. Shifting to a human-centred handling of the Bible guts it of its power and point. Don’t descend into some sort of life coaching role. Better spouse. Better parent. Better bill-payer. Stop. Preach the Word.

We’ll finish the list tomorrow, but feel free to add your own…

Examining the Extent of Explanation

September 18, 2009 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Biblical preachers should study to a higher level than they preach. In the days, or even weeks, that we have to study a passage in anticipation of preaching it, we should probe and study and push and delve. The study should incorporate all appropriate study methodology (appropriate to the genre, to the text, to our own abilities and skills). The study should also appropriately consider the input of others (a variety of “experts” in printed form, or in real conversation if you have access).

The result of all that study should be more fodder for explanation than you have time to preach. Even if you could cram it all in, what about emphasizing the relevance for today’s listener in terms of application and support materials, etc?

It is an important skill to learn to limit the extent of the explanation given in a sermon. I suppose the best measure I’ve come across is what Donald Sunukjian said . . . “as much as necessary.” That is in no way a negative comment on explanation (like I might say “let’s have as much vegetable as necessary in a meal, but unlimited meat”). It is a comment demonstrating the high value that needs to be placed on emphasized relevance. In Sunukjian’s terms, “explain as much as necessary, then apply, apply, apply.”

So how do we determine the necessary extent of explanation (and background information, demonstration of exegesis, etc.)? A couple of key values come to mind, you may add others too:

1. A commitment to serve, not to show off. Every preacher faces constant temptation from insidious pride. It is so easy to show off all the study you’ve done, all the skills you have, all the extra information you’ve gleaned. Value service rather than display. Value people over performance. We all need to make sure our motivation is as much “for their sake” as possible, and as little “for my sake” as possible.

2. A sense of personal security, rather than insecurity. Insecurity abounds in the human race. If our antenna are attuned we can spot it all around us, all the time. An insecure preacher (for personal reasons, or as a result of criticism, etc.) will try to establish their right to be preaching in various ways. One is to demonstrate excessive exegesis to undergird their ministry (and even personal worth). A secure preacher is not concerned with how they look, or even if they’ll be criticized, but is concerned primarily with pleasing the Lord as they handle His Word for the sake of His people.

Let’s examine the extent of our explanation.

Do We Get It Backwards?

April 9, 2009 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Here’s a provocative quote from Charles Kraft:

The amount of crucial information involved in Christianity is, I believe, quite small. The amount of Christian behavior demanded in response to all that information is, however, quite large. We have, however, given ourselves over to a methodology that emphasizes the lesser of the two ingredients. (Jesus Model for Contemporary Communication, 123)

I essentially concur with this and want to make a couple of comments. Obviously Kraft is not saying that Christianity is simplistic or lacking in content. I’m sure he’d agree that we will never exhaust the riches of God’s Word. However, for each truth in that Word, there are numerous necessary applications to real life behavior. As preachers we tend to explain, explain, explain some more and then finally squeeze in a couple of minutes of application. Perhaps we would do well to follow the advice of Don Sunukjian along the same lines, when he says we should explain as much as necessary, then apply, apply, apply.

In reality I find a lot of preaching is lacking in application, but not really because the text is being over-explained. I would suggest, perhaps provocatively, that I rarely find a text even decently explained. What many preachers tend to do is fill time with talk. Random details in the text, other texts, illustrations lacking in defined purpose, filler words and noise. I find it so refreshing when a preacher actually explains a text, and it is time to celebrate when there is specific and substantial application added to the mix. I know there are still some exegetically heavy lecturers getting into pulpits, but probably far less than in the past. However, it would be wrong to flatter many preachers who lack in application by suggesting they explain too much. In reality many preachers neither explain nor apply well.

Many preachers tend to feel they have not done their job if they only preach one text, one main idea, one truth and then apply it well. They perhaps feel that such preaching might be too lightweight or thin on content. So they try to pack in more information, more texts, more truths, etc. What could have been a powerful, penetrative, convicting, focused, applicational and memorable sermon becomes an overwhelming speedboat charge through the jungle of the catechism, or through systematic theology, or through all things Bible (complete with the resulting spray in the face that makes you do that squinting, blinking thing with your eyes!)

If it means actually seeing lives changed, let’s preach lightweight. Actually, I don’t believe that. Let’s preach one text well. Well focused, not going anywhere else without good reason. Well explained, but not an information dump. Well applied, specific and with the appropriate grandeur for such a biblical truth.

Beware Special Revelation Preaching

December 22, 2008 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I need to be careful how I phrase this post. Depending on our theology, we all have slightly differing views of how much God directly communicates with us. Some are very hesitant to hint that God “spoke” to them, while others freely assign such labels that give the impression of a hotline from heaven. I don’t intend to weigh in on the issues of guidance or prophecy, etc. My concern is with biblical preaching.

We need to be careful that we don’t undermine our approach to preaching by means of a “special revelation” approach to sermon preparation. The process is fairly simple to explain: you spend time prayerfully considering the text and the occasion until you sense that God has “given you something to say.” Then you preach that. I am not dismissing this approach out of hand, but I do want to raise some warning flags. First though, let me affirm the intent in this approach:

Affirmed – The desire to say what God is saying. This should be the desire of every true preacher. We want to say what God wants us to say, nothing else.

Affirmed – The reliance on God through prayer. May we never advocate or practice prayerless preaching.

Affirmed – The desire for contemporary relevance.

However . . .

Warning Flag – There is an inherent risk that the text God inspired will be abused as merely a point of departure for other thoughts, which may or may not be from Him.

Warning Flag – The process can be a shortcut taken to avoid the prayerful work of understanding the passage and planning how to best present the truth found there. (Perhaps also a safety measure to avoid feeling personal inadequacy in the area of Bible study, preaching, etc. It is better to bring our inadequacy to God, rather than finding ways to avoid the issue.)

Warning Flag – This approach can undermine the congregation’s view of the Bible. It fails to demonstrate that when the Bible is understood properly, God is speaking. It gives the impression that we need something new and fresh, rather than the “old stuff” in the Bible. A truly dangerous impression to give.

The reality is that we can and must commit to prayerful study of the Bible in order to understand its meaning and then present that meaning emphasizing its relevance for our listeners on a particular occasion. Perhaps Don Sunukjian’s simple definition of expository preaching is a good place to end – “Listen to what God is saying . . . to us!”

Do We Preach a Distant God?

November 17, 2008November 11, 2008 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I made a passing reference to the fact that our God is not the deity of the deists. That is to say that He didn’t wind things up and then sit back disinterested with His arms folded. Before we start pointing the finger at famous deists like Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein or even Antony Flew, let’s check our preaching. Is it possible that we inadvertently preach deism?

We are right to both study and present the author’s meaning in a passage. The first stage of effective Bible study has to look at the inspired text “back then.” Once we have understood the author’s idea in the passage, then we can consider how to legitimately apply that idea in our world today. However, there is a potential danger in solid exegetical methodology. The danger is that we present God’s work as “back then” but not “today.” There is a real risk that we imply a God at work in the days of Moses, Matthew or the preacher to the Hebrews, but today we have only the reflected benefit of careful application.

The truth is that God is at work today. He is as intimately concerned about each life as He ever has been. Some err by emphasizing the direct revelation of God today to the neglect of His Word which He inspired long ago. Likewise, some of us may err by emphasizing the act of inspiration long ago to the neglect of His present concern, sovereignty and involvement in the world today. I appreciate Don Sunukjian’s shorthand definition of preaching for this particular reason. He states that preaching is “Listen to what God is saying . . . to us!” An absolute commitment to sound exegesis. A clear commitment to a divine involvement in the act of preaching.

We must get both the “back then” and the “today” aspects of our preaching on target, otherwise we risk preaching a diminished deity. An emphasis on “today” at the expense of “back then” leads to a subjectively defined experiential deity. An emphasis on “back then” at the expense of “today” might lead to a distant deity. God inspired the Word back then, and His Word still speaks with force today. We preach an ancient text . . . relevantly. Let’s beware that we neither preach an overly imminent experiential God, nor an excessively distant historical God. Let’s be sure to preach the God who inspired the Bible, the God who still speaks through His Word today!

Stage 8 – Message Details: Introductions

July 31, 2008 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

First impressions matter. In the first moments of a message, listeners are making numerous decisions about the speaker. Some of those are conscious, many subconscious. Is this worth listening to, can I trust this person, does this person know where they are going, is this going to be relevant to my life, etc. So once the message is mostly prepared, it is time to work on a compelling introduction. Robinson succinctly puts it like this, “the test of a good introduction is whether they want you to carry on once it’s done.” Many speakers tend to ease into their message, rather than having a strong and decisive start. Work invested in the introduction will pay off throughout the message. It may be only a few brief minutes of the whole, but these are critical minutes.

Previously – There have been numerous posts on introductions. Here I will point back to a few. Recently we saw the importance of starting strong, but not until you’ve paused purposefully to gain attention. While it is good to start strong, you don’t want to overpromise in the intro. Way back at the start of this site’s history, we had two posts covering the essentials of an intro – the essential ingredients and the focus of the intro. Once the basics are grasped, there are ways to move beyond default, always remembering that some things are best omitted. Finally, Don Sunukjian’s explanation of an effective intro is well worth a review, even if you don’t accept it is the only way – see here.