Month: June 2009

Preach for Faith

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Probably it’s a combination of attending an apologetically driven conference and being scheduled to preach on faith this Sunday, but I’m pondering preaching for faith.  I suppose that is always close to the heart of the matter in Christian preaching.  Anyway, here are a couple of thoughts, although this could be a series of posts for the rest of the month.

The critical role of God’s Word. Right back in Genesis 3 everything “went wrong” when?  When they doubted God’s Word and listened to another “authority.”  Surely God’s Word couldn’t be trusted since this impressive creature had disobeyed it and yet still lived?  So they ate and they died spiritually, they began to die physically and the whole creation began to suffer death.  From that decisive moment on, the Bible is full of narratives, all of which have a big question mark hanging over them like an unfurled banner – “will people trust God’s Word or not?”  Interestingly, when God’s Son steps into the world to make a path back to deep relational intimacy with God, He comes as God’s Word.  Will he be trusted?  Doubting God’s word in the first place led us away, now there is a symmetry in the remedy in that we are asked to trust God’s Word (incarnated and inscripturated) in order to be brought back.  Consequently Paul writes to the Romans that faith comes by hearing, so the Word of God must be preached.  Peter tells his readers that they were born again through the resurrection of Jesus from the dead and through the living and enduring Word of God.  Hebrews urges the believers to remember their leaders who spoke the Word of God to them, and thereby imitate their faith.  In John 17, Jesus prays concerning the Word of God that He has given to His followers, and prays that they will be sanctified by the truth, which is the Word.  I could go on pulling example after example, but the point is critical – the preaching of the Word of God is absolutely central to the purposes of God in redeeming a lost world.

So the simple question is this – as you look at your message this Sunday, what is the appropriate faith response to God’s Word as preached in your message?  Is it clear?  Is it central?

In the next post I’d like to share some provocative thoughts on faith from Dr John Lennox.

Preacher Say Something

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday my wife had to spend the day in the hospital having blood taken every hour.  So I received regular updates by text message (SMS).  She was listening to some CDs she’d been sent.  Teaching on the subject of the family.  I received a sort of running commentary by text message.  The bottom line?  This preacher had taken a long time to say nothing.  Sort of a safari through Scripture making passing observations about families in the Bible (“Oh look!  There’s another one!”).  A great opportunity, but he’d essentially just filled time.

I am not one to spend hours trying to fix a broken pipe.  I tend to think that if I can afford to have someone else do the work, then I will, because my time is also worth something (and because I’m rubbish at fixing things and will end up paying anyway!)  If I spend four hours to save fifty pounds ($75), have I really saved any money?  Likewise, when we are preaching, we are asking people to sit and listen to us for 30 minutes, 45 minutes, however long you preach.  Please don’t just fill time.  Say something.  Study the text until you grasp it, until it grasps you, then say the text’s something.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to scan over this Sunday’s message once it is ready to roll out.  Is there any filler?  Is there any pointless meandering?  Is there any “saying something and nothing?”  Why is that line there?  And that paragraph?  What about that illustration?  In the past I wrote a post entitled “Please only powerpoint on purpose.”  I suppose I could steal my own line to conclude this post – please only produce preaching prose on purpose.

3 DQ’s – Dynamite Questions

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Okay, that should be “developmental questions,” but they are dynamite.  Sunukjian and others have followed Robinson in making quite a fuss of these three questions.  I would encourage you to do the same.  The questions represent the three ways in which a stated idea can be developed.  There are no other ways to develop an idea than in these three directions:

1. What does it mean? (Explain)

2. Is it true? (Prove)

3. What difference does it make? (Apply)

The great thing about knowing these three questions is that they are so versatile:

Use them in studying the passage – Unless the writer is moving on to a new idea, these three questions can help you understand what is going on in the passage.  Not only do they move you toward an understanding of content, but also authorial intent – which is so valuable as you wrestle with a passage.

Use them in developing your main idea – Consider your listeners in order to determine which of the three developmental questions are needed to develop your message.  If they don’t understand the idea, there’s no point jumping to application without further explanation.  Just because people understand what you are saying, it doesn’t mean they are convinced – perhaps proof and support is needed?

Use them in developing each movement in the message – What works on a macro level also works in the chunks.  With these three questions as keys to developing your ideas as you communicate, you need never scratch your head for things to say (few of us struggle with that), or simply pad the message with pointless filler materials (some of us may struggle with that!)

I don’t advocate a predictable and slavish repetition of these three questions under each point of a message.  I know some that do and the result is both predictable and often unengaging, not to mention how it can turn every genre into a dissected discourse.  However, it is not a bad discipline to be asking yourself these three questions, both in study of the passage and in preparation of the message.

Undermining Popular Fallacies

/ Peter Mead / 5 Comments

A couple of years ago we had the relatively short-lived hype of The Da Vinci Code movie.  While the hype soon dissipated, the effects of Dan Brown’s book and then the film have surely continued below the surface for many uninformed readers.  How many in our churches are under the impression that Jesus’ deity was a decision made by a vote three centuries after He was on earth, or that the New Testament canon was formed in a smoke-filled room by leaders with a hidden agenda?  The absolute historical fallacies promulgated by The Da Vinci Code called many of us to address them directly at the time (special Da Vinci Code messages).  However, the effect of such teaching is longer lasting and perhaps we need to think through whether we need to subtly address underlying false assumptions about the Bible, Christ and history?

In a recent seminar I used a video clip wherein members of the public were giving their personal views of the Bible.  Most of them saw very little value in the Bible and so didn’t read it for themselves.  Several times the same fallacy came through.  “So much has been lost in translation,” and “it is poorly translated” and my favorite of all – a mini-beard stroking “intellectual” who stated, as if every informed person would know this information, that “the Bible has been translated over five million times!”  This kind of misunderstanding is common in the streets and even the universities of our towns.  The so-called “New Atheists” love to take pot-shots at the Bible, as do other major world religions that do not advocate the translation of their “holy book.”

While the Bible has been at least partially translated into over 2000 languages, we need to make it clear that the Bible people are looking at as  they listen on a Sunday morning has been translated once.  From the original language text into English – direct, by highly competent linguists, once.  We do not have the end result of a two-thousand year game of Chinese Whispers.  We do not have the last link in a chain of translation and mis-translation.  Once.  We have very accurate translations of original language texts based on overwhelming manuscript evidence, the likes of which no other historical work can even come close.  Just once.

In a culture where peoples’ understanding of the authenticity and authority of the Bible cannot in any way be presumed, we as preachers need to think about how to establish the trustworthy nature of the text that we preach.  A great message is so easily undermined if there is no confidence in the text from which it comes.

Final Reflections on the European Leadership Forum (ELF)

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday I was really reflecting on a couple of specific messages given.  But here are two very important overall reflections on this great event:

6. Remember that the Bible is not second class to apologetics/theology/counselling, etc. Several speakers really stood out in their emphasis on the Bible (not just in the Bible Teachers Network).  It is easy to fall into thinking that the Bible is somehow intellectually second class to top level apologetics or systematic theology or even a discipline like counselling.  In reality the Bible is at the core and these other “disciplines” should be around the edge seeking to reflect the teaching of the Bible accurately.  When they fail to do so, they surely fail, period.  Are we robustly biblical, or have we fallen for the lie that something else is superior in power and value?

7. Expository preaching feeds the soul in ways other presentations of truth do not. I was reassured to both experience and hear from others that expository preaching does a work in peoples’ lives in a way that non-expository approaches do not.  Those who were present will probably reflect on the same contrast, although perhaps in different words.  By this point I do not mean that preaching has to be done in a particular form or way.  What I do mean is that the Bible text needs to be boss of the content, rather than hand-maid; communication has to be effectively engaging, rather than agonizing; relevance to listeners needs to be demonstrated and emphasized, rather than assumed; and everything needs to be very much done in reliance on the Spirit, rather than on personal “authority” (academic, professional or experiential).

A great week, a great event, a great vision.  I’ve come home physically tired and spiritually energised.  I’m thankful for the forum and hope it goes from strength to strength.  And, on reflection, I’m thankful for expository preaching and hope it also gets stronger and stronger across Europe and the globe.  We need it, both at the forum, and in our countries.

More Reflections on the European Leadership Forum (ELF)

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

On Saturday I shared a couple of reflections on the ELF in Hungary as related to preaching.  Here are a few more to ponder together:

3. Watch your language for second language listeners. In some ways I’d expect this to be obvious, but obviously it wasn’t for one or two speakers.  When there are people in the audience that are listening in their second language, watch yours. While they may understand the words, they may not be familiar with local figures of speech.  What does it mean that “the apostles made a killing on the God-fearers!”?  Always be aware of who is listening when you speak.

4. Affirm as well as rebuke. Along the same lines, actually reflecting on the same message, it is important not to simply generalise and rebuke without some affirmation too.  Perhaps the majority of your congregation never witness to anyone, but be sure to recognize that some do, whether or not they feel effective in doing so.  It is much easier to blast, it stirs and maximises effect.  But with any group, and especially an international group, be sure to affirm the good that is happening today.

5. Delivery matters. You cannot turn good content into a good talk without good delivery.  (At the same time good delivery will not sanctify weak content.)

I was going to complete the list today, but actually I’ll save the last thoughts for tomorrow.  As ever, feel free to comment.  I’d love to hear the reflections of those present at the ELF too.