Why Kutzey can't preach #1

I think I do this a bit, and I'm starting to think it's dumb.  What do you think?

While illustrations and jokes are really helpful in all sorts of ways, I've noticed that sometimes I'll make a joke that makes light of a possible and amusing, but wrong, way of reading a text.  The flow ends up being something like this:

Describe next bit of passage (Ie, "God brings the animals before Adam to see whether they might be a suitable helper for him")  

Entertain wrong understanding of passage (Ie, "Does this mean that God really thought an animal could be a suitable helper for Adam?")  

Make 'amusing' comment by extending possibility to the ridiculous (Ie, "You know, Adam, bulls are pretty handy. They can pull a plow. So they don't look so good in a mini-skirt. So what?")  

Plausible denial (Ie, "Of course God didn't think that, what he's really doing is...")

Ok, so this is a particularly dud example of it.  I couldn't come up with something better on the spot, sorry.

But I think what I end up doing by using this kind of construction is drawing attention away from the text.  Instead, if I use positive illustrations and jokes that utilise the surprising elements of what IS there in the text, then I'm drawing attention to how interesting and surprising God's word is.

The alternative is, I think, a bit bland.  But not only bland, I think by laughing at the ridiculous possibilities of getting the text wrong, it can create a bit of an 'insider' atmosphere of "of course we don't think that!" where we laugh at wrong understandings, rather than thinking them through.

This is all a bit unpolished thought, so I'd love to get some wisdom from all you peeps out there.  Any thoughts on this or related preaching bits and bobs?

The wisdom of the ages

Greetings, once again.  This time, a crumb I picked up from a friend's trail.

Went to Murwillumbah Pressy on Sunday, and was greatly blessed by Chris Lindsay's exposition of Proverbs 8 and 9.  So good.

I was going to write a beautifully eloquent summation of all the excellent things he had to say.  But I'm not sure I have time.  And perhaps just listening to the talk yourself would be more edifying anyways.

So I'll just mention a couple of things.  Literally.

• The wisdom offered by Lady Wisdom is something that pre-dates the creation of the world.  It, in fact, undergirds the creation.  If you're looking for transcendent wisdom or ancient and deep truth, Lady Wisdom offers something deeper than the most ancient sage or sect.

• Though so often we choose Lady Folly over Lady Wisdom, the logos, the reason, the logic, the unifying principle, the word of God has come to be Wisdom for us.  So that in Him we are truly wise and all else is made to look foolish.

Much more theological gold in there that'll make you want to read the rest of Proverbs.  Go get it.

A naked preacher?

My lovely friend Anna posted a vulnerable, self-aware and in-process piece on theological writing just the other day.  It made my soul smile.

It echoed the thoughts of Billy Coffee's one-time lecturer on the subject of writing, who said of writers:

“Don’t simply tell me that faith saves you, tell me how it almost failed you, too. Don’t tell me about love, speak of your passion. Don’t tell me you’re hurt, let me see your heart breaking. I don’t want to see your talent on the page, I want to see your blood. Dare to be naked before your readers. Because that is writing, and everything else is worthless crap.”

And for writing, I agree.  Writers who genuinely say something say what they mean.  Which is what they deeply and utterly believe.  And so are naked before those who would laugh, mock and critique that.

Thus, genuine writers:

“People write because they must. Because there is a story inside them that is meant to be shared with the world. But having that story inside you doesn’t make you a writer. How you tell that story does. And you tell it through honesty.”

A question for me, then, is to what extent preaching is 'writing' in this sense?  For we do not tell our own story, though that story is equally "inside us and meant to be shared with the world".

On the side of the naked preacher, I would say that if the person doesn't preach, but only the text is preached, then the duty of plunging the sword of the spirit into oneself before plunging it, with your own blood still afresh on it, into your hearers has been neglected.

On the other hand, when does the preacher's nudity become a distraction from the preacher's work of exposing the naked word of God, in all its glory and implications, to the congregation?  For even if we have a story to tell in Christ, a sermon is not a testimony.  It is the story of Another,

Of course, the answer is not a blank yes or no. (sorry if that's what you were going to say.  Let me introduce you to Graeme Goldsworthy if you were.)  But I suspect the answer lies somewhere in the field of "in what sense ought the preacher be naked, and in what sense ought no-one be looking at the preacher to have noticed?"

Your thoughts?  I'd value them dearly.

Psalm 50 Illustrated

I was on the QTC chapel preaching roster this Tuesday, and was asked to preach on a Psalm.  I ended up picking Psalm 50, as it seemed pretty cool on first read.  It's awesome.  Read Paul's Areopagus speech in Acts 17 and tell me that Gamaliel hadn't set him an assignment on Psalm 50 when he was in Pharisee school.  Awesome use of the Old Testament applied to the gospel era.

Anyways, I stewed on it all week, but found it hard to write.  I ended up grabbing some scrap paper the day before and trying to re-write it out with my own indentation to try to 'get' the meaning better.  On attempting to write it out in words, this is what ended up coming out.

I'm not sure what you call it, but my mind was thinking in the style of those videos that have someone illustrating the concepts of a talk while someone's talking over the top.  Kinda like this video.  You know the style I mean?  In my head, I was doing a video like that.

So my question is, did it flow so well because that medium matches the way that I think and so the internal could be expressed on paper very easily?  Or has the way that I think been altered by watching so many videos like that?

Edit: Or is it just a Psalms/poetry thing?

John Piper on Preaching - An index

Many of us were greatly blessed by God yesterday as John Piper shared with us what he's learned about preaching. It was awesome. Far better then even his evening address.

Here's some introductory comments that he made on the topic of preaching.

He then gave us his thoughts on 5 key areas of preaching. Its aim, its content, the manner of your preaching, preparation for preaching and the act of preaching.

These are just notes and at times fail to capture the depth and significance of each of the points that he made. Mulling over them and their depth may well be very beneficial. A quick scan will likely miss much of the significance of his address.

What is the good?

In preaching, there are a number of goals that a preacher is trying to achieve. In this post, however, I'm focussing in not on content, but rather on communication.

What is the chief value that a communicator ought to strive for? Retention of information? Affecting the hearer? Mirroring the rhetorical method employed by the text?

I'd love to hear some thoughts.

The agony of choice

Back from mission, but no blogging impetus to speak of. I'm completely wrecked after a week of firstly being nervous about a kids' talk that went well and then worrying about an evangelistic talk which didn't go so well.

The kids' talk was made considerably easier by the fact that I used one of the excellent Kidswise talks by Sandy Galea and some awesome props made by my wife.

The sermon on the other hand, was agony!

The loose theme we'd been given was 'Life Matters'. I had initially wanted to do a talk about the tension between life and death in Ecclesiastes. The tension is created by death's ending of life and thus frustrating and cutting off all humanity's work and relationships. Hence, they are in vain. The talk would finish in 1 Corinthians 15 with the resurrection and its result: your labour in the Lord is not in vain.

The problem, though, is that I wanted to explore some different ways of dealing with this tension between life and death. Options such as denial, religiosity and acceptance. After a couple of weeks agonising over preparing this kind of talk, I gave in. I can't do a talk like that well enough yet. To be able to connect that philosophical stuff to real life in an engaging way in a 15 minute evangelistic talk to your average person from the street was a bridge too far.

So I decided to do an exegetical talk on John 11 (Lazarus' resurrection). But by then I only had a couple of days to prepare, and I wasn't really 'feeling' the passage as an evangelistic talk. So it wasn't so crash hot.

I'm not sure if any non-Christians were there. Very few people at church at all on that rainy day.

Still, it was good to stretch myself. Now I've got some thoughts about my limitations as a preacher to explore.

soli deo gloria

A new thought that I've been having about preaching and what's going on in that process: sheet music as an analogy for the interaction between Scripture and preacher.

The analogy has two parts.

The text of Scripture is analogous to the notes on the musical score. They're the content. The right notes. They're already there, and anyone (who can read) can read them.

Preaching, in this analogy, is like the dynamic markers on the sheet. The time signature, the little marks (<) denoting a crescendo, the style and tempo headings (allegro, presto, con motto), the coda sign. They don't tell you what to play, but how to play it. (When is something repeated? Is this bit quiet in order to be solemn, or should I be playing these notes with joy? Where is the grand finale that I'll never forget?) They help you understand the movement of the piece, the effect it intends to have on its hearers and itself provides much of that impact.

A part of the value of this analogy, for me, is that it mirrors the reality that it is the Word of God that changes hearts. Preaching convinces, cajoles and/or exhorts the hearer to be moved by the text, much as dynamics grip, sooth and/or assault the senses in order bring the hearer into the experience of the music.

One of my ideals for preaching is that its purpose is to be an exposition. It ought to expose the truth of the text to the hearts of the congregation, in all its colour, strength, rebuke, gentleness, beauty, healing, grace and power. Put another way, perhaps more speculatively, just as dynamics allow the listener to hear the significance of each note, a sermon gets across the significance of each part of God's Word to the hearts of His people.

/end creative flow

Thoughts from the floor: Ecclesiastes

How does Ecclesiastes speak to you? What bits in it make you think, "That is SO it. This guy understands."? Any favourite bits, especially those which relate to a particular frustration/joy/aspect of real life?

Writing a Bible talk here people, need your help body of Christ.

Gary Millar in a nutshell

What did he say?

1. Look at, nut out, understand and sit under the text.
2. Preach the gospel that it testifies to.

'nuff said.

Gary pushed the centrality, supremacy and potency of the gospel in a way which I'm not sure that I've heard since the early days of unichurch or the last time I was hanging around Graeme Goldsworthy. Not even in good churches have I heard someone speak this way. An enlivening and rebuking experience. It took me back to some heady days.

Gary Millar: Liveblog #15 (Talk on Titus 2)

Not to teach sound doctrine, but to teach what accords with sound doctrine! (v1)

4 things about this gospel that Paul is teaching:

1. People change all the time, so we need to be on our toes and change.
2. Know our people.
3. Start where people really are rather than where we think they are. Otherwise you'll distort the gospel of grace.

Gary's admission:

I found it difficult at times to preach the gospels and the crucifixion. Why? I realised that it was an expose on my own sin. I found that what I liked to do was to take difficult things and make them clear. So I felt good about myself for helping people understand difficult things. The cross was too easy...

'older' Christian generally just means older, in our normal sense.

Preaching to 'older' blokes means encouraging them to keep going.

A danger of a high view of preaching is that this is the only place where teaching happens. And yet Paul encourages the older women to teach the younger. Make sure that we're encouraging this as it's vital. Truth is best taught in close relationship.

Can't stop working at connecting with people, because people are always changing.

Self-questions

• Is my Bible teaching's application specific enough?
• Do I understand the culture well enough?
• Do I know what people are going through at the moment?
• Do I understand the challenges of individual stages of life well enough?
• Do I care enough to find out?
• Is my speaking health-promoting or damaging at the moment?

Why is zeal now an insult? The element of a gospel life that is scary to the outsider is the zeal for good works.

We MUST preach the gospel of grace because it produces Godliness and passion. Preaching legalism does NOT produce lasting change. Legalism and guilt-tripping people does NOT produce lasting change.

Future grace by Piper

Past grace -> respond with gratitude.

Future grace -> respond in faith, living for him.

Look forward to the grace that is to come. Keep going because Jesus is coming.

Get on with a gospel-speaking, straight-talking, hard-working ministry, despite all the rubbish that will come. All of ministry is the gospel, its power, not ours, and God working through it.

Gary Millar: Liveblog #14 (Deut 31-34)

Big Idea:

Good news, bad news (Moses dies, Joshua raised up)

Be strong and courageous

Atonement

What does the future hold?

• Failure
• Death of leader
• New leader coming in
• Sense of foreboding about the future
• 'anxious chapters'
• hints that God is in control, has a plan, that Israel has a hope and that one who will exceed the works of Moses will come.

Route to Christ:

Expose the problem?

Fulfilment?

Attributes of God?

The whole point of this exercise is not saying that this is the way to preach Deuteronomy, but that this method will help you to preach in a Biblical theological framework in a way that gets the OT text to set the agenda, and so that the God who talks can change lives.

Your final package may look completely different to this, but that's because of the magnificent depth of God's word.

Gary Millar: Liveblog #13 (Deut 27-30)

Big Idea:

God will change them

-> Love God and live

Route to Christ

Fulfilment

Consequences

Gospel:

Gary Millar: Liveblog #12 (Deut 12-26)

Big Idea:

Here's how to live

Separated and Consecrated

God's instructions for all of life?

How do we deal with such big chunks?

Nearly impossible to go through it line by line, so how do we get through it? Try all sorts of things!

Read short extracts with a commentary at the end.

Read 6 or 7 carefully chosen extracts that give people the big idea.

Try everything and anything, we just want people to be exposed to the text.

Route to Christ:

Fulfillment in Christ

Expose the problem

Which do you go, the "now you're in Christ live this way" angle, or the "Christ is the fulfillment of all this" angle?

Gospel angle:

Romans 12:1

Gary Millar: Liveblog #11 (Deut 7-11)

Big Idea:

Love in response to grace (how do we deal with the fact that this looks very similar to 5-6?)

Alternative Big Point:

Golden calf incident, so could point out that God is the god of second chances.

God gives fresh starts.

Route to Christ:

Highlight the attribute

Follow the action

Follow the plan

Gospel angle:

Plenty of options

The big push in all of this is to get the main point from the OT and not bolt an NT passage onto it.

Gary Millar: Liveblog #10 (Deut 5-6)

Big Idea:

Obey in response to grace

Route to Christ:

Point out the consequences

Highlight the category

Gospel angle:

Show that this is the way God works in all of Scripture.

Titus 2

Gary Millar: Liveblog #9 (Deut 4)

Bid idea:

We have a God who talks! (So listen)(very unique!)

Route to Christ:

Follow the action

Gospel angle:

Hebrews 1

John 1

Gary Millar: Liveblog #8 (Deut 1-3)

Big Idea:

God's Grace

Our Rebellion

Route(s) to Christ:

Expose the problem

Highlight the attribute

Follow the plan

Gospel angle:

Problem-Solution method

Gary Millar: Liveblog #6

31 - Massively damning statements from God on how they will reject him and therefore be rejected by Yhwh. In black and white, it is told to them that they won't obey. The condemnation is very damning, and Moses is clear that they will need an exile and a return from exile which will involve the circumcision of hearts.

Who's going to write the second verse to 'ascribe greatness' ?

32 - Thus a song of Moses that is witness for Yhwh and against Israel.

32:44 - Only mention of atonement. Not mentioned anywhere else. But a hint of the coalescence of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. These two paradigms do work together.

So obey, because these laws are your life, your key to life.

So how do we preach it/ how was it heard by those hearing? Especially given that the failure is certain?

It's an edgy book. There are 2 ways to live. Choose life. But even if you choose blessing, it's more than likely that you're going to stuff up somewhere along the line.

Set up, so that it is for those on the edge of the land. But Moses also sets it up carefully that it was for everyone who lives in the land.

aha! #2

So, picking up on my previous post, I've realised that I didn't use Paul's sermon well as the basis for my gospel appeal.

Though perhaps with reasonable excuse, as Nathan graciously said, I didn't exegete the things about God's imminence in Acts 17 sufficiently. There is so much in there about both being created for God and His desire to be known by us. Coupled to this Paul's appeal to repent of ignorance and come to know God truly, there's great beauty in the grace of God as expressed here.

Who cares? Well, I think the problem is that my talk's appeal for response was primarily based on not being found to be opposing God. Now this is a good motivation, but would have been far stronger when coupled with the appeal of the God who created me to know him and wants all people everywhere to know him.

Hmm... I'd have to do some more thinking if I was going to really develop this one properly. Ideally, I'd have preached the passage in 2 or 3 talks. We do what we can.