Bible Reading Introductions – Part 2

September 5, 2011September 2, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I wrote last time about why I generally prefer not to launch the message with the reading. This is my response to what may be the response of others to that post (ie. I am writing this one at the same time!)

Someone may respond: “But the reason I read the text first is to honour the text and put it in the place of authority, rather than making it my servant for my message.”

Honouring the text and letting the text be the authority. Absolutely great goals that I affirm wholeheartedly. There are a couple of issues with this logic though.

First, this doesn’t overcome or negate the issues raised last time. That is, people may not be focussed, or aware of the relevance of the reading, etc. Just because you put it first, doesn’t mean your reasons for doing so will be achieved. If I have something really important to say to someone, I don’t launch by saying it. I get their attention first. I highlight the importance and relevance of what I’m about to tell them. I don’t want them to miss it. I’m honouring the message I have and underlining its authority by not placing it dead first.

Second, there are multiple means by which we honour the text and its authority, or fail to do so. Placing it first is just one element of the entire mix. I’ve heard many sermons where the text is read first and then dishonoured by being left behind as the preacher goes on to preach his own ideas, or dishonoured by being handled superficially, or dishonoured by being mishandled. I’ve blogged before about people preaching “my message on this text” rather than “the message of this text.” How you handle the text for the entirety of the message is the measure of whether you honour the text, preach the text and appropriately respect the authority of God’s revealed Word. Where you place the reading is no guarantee that your goal of honouring the text will be successful.

Many of us feel constrained by all sorts of “unwritten rules” that guide us in our preaching. Many of these unwritten rules could also be unlearned for the sake of better biblical preaching.

Bible Reading Introductions

September 2, 2011September 2, 2011 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

If you’ve read posts on this site I hope you’ve noticed that I am committed to the Bible. I want preaching to be biblical. However, to be honest, I generally avoid starting a sermon with a Bible reading. For many, this is the way to start a sermon. After all, you are supposed to read the text and then preach your sermon on it, right?

Here are some reasons why I might not make the reading the very first element in the sermon:

1. It is too good to waste on the distracted. There are a couple of levels of distraction to be overcome. The first is the immediate circumstantial distractions. I don’t want people missing the Bible because they are trying to get comfortable after standing to sing, trying to find a pen that works, negotiating seat space with the extra guest that just arrived, etc. The second level of distraction is the larger life issues. I think we are naive if we think listeners are as motivated for the next chapter of 2Kings as we are. We have been studying it all week and loving what we’ve discovered. They have come to church with unresolved tension from the morning’s hectic preparations, with concern over a medical symptom they haven’t told anyone about yet, with financial burdens mounting, with a sinister request to see their boss looming for the next morning, etc. So if we stand up and begin with, “Turn with me to 2Kings 14…” they may not tune in again. Better to motivate people for what they are going to hear before reading it.

2. I want listeners tuned in to what they will hear. We live in a text for considerable time before preaching it (I hope), but listeners are coming in cold. Like stepping out of an airport into a foreign city, it can take a while to get oriented. To launch instantly into a reading can result in a coherent message being read, but only random Bible words being heard. Better to orient people to what they are going to hear before reading it.

3. I may not want to give away the tension. In some cases, especially narrative, but not exclusively narrative, I may not want them to hear the whole thing yet. Perhaps the text raises a question and answers it. It may well work better for me to develop and clarify the question before reading the answer. There’s a danger of sounding like that person you know who refers to the punchline and then tells the joke. Better to expose people to the text at the right time in the development of the message.

4. It can be a great way to lose people. Just reiterating the first couple of points again. An opening reading can confirm the subconscious fear of listeners that this will be half an hour of irrelevance. Convince them that you, your message and this text is relevant to them. Better to have listeners really hear the text when you read it.

Preaching Duty

September 1, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I was away on Monday and didn’t put up the link to my Cor Deo post. So here it is, raising an issue about the kind of dutiful Christianity that is preached in many churches – click here to go to the article.

Illustration Saturation

August 31, 2011August 25, 2011 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

When speaking in general, most people affirm the value of illustrations. When speaking specifically, illustrations are sometimes the cause of frustration. What kind of illustrations can annoy listeners?

1. Arrogantly Familial – Sharing the odd story about an in-home experience can convey warmth, humility, normalcy, etc. It can also be a bit annoying to keep hearing about darling children’s spirituality, or rebellious children’s shenanigans, or holiday adventures, etc. Frequency is key here, along with avoiding showing off.

2. Obsessively Sporting – Some of us preachers actually enjoy sport and even have loyalty to particular teams. No problem, but it can be a bit annoying when the listener feels like the repeated beating of a certain drum is drowning out the deeper and more important affection in the preaching. Frequency is an issue again, sensitivity to non-sporting listeners, and discretion isn’t a bad idea either.

3. Predictably Popular – So a certain film has been in the news for the past five weeks. Can your listeners guess which illustrations you’ll be using before you preach? Don’t try too hard to be “cool” – it usually backfires. The ability to be subtle is key in this regard. Many a good illustration was ruined by being too blatant.

4. Scarcely Believable – So you are saying that happened to you? Did it really? Some preachers have a tendency to tell stories that sound unbelievable. Hear me carefully, even if it did happen, don’t lose integrity by sounding unbelievable. And if it didn’t happen to you, stop lying!

5. Obviously Canned – Ok, so here he comes out with the quote from General Rommel, or Napolean, or whoever. If you get it from a book of stunning illustrations, don’t be surprised if it sounds like you got it from a book of stunning illustrations.

6. Unnecessarily Extended – Maybe that was a good story, but was the point you were making in the message worthy of that amount of energy? Sometimes a good story is simply too bulky to fit the location you want to squeeze it into. This is annoying for listeners who lose track when the message loses its way.

7. Inappropriately Emotive – So you told me a tear jerker and now you want that emotion transferred to the point you are preaching? Why do I smell a distinct odour of manipulation in the air? Please don’t try to manipulate me, I’ve been getting that all week!

Maybe there are more that you would add to this list?

Sermons in Distant Memory

August 30, 2011August 24, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I am not too old, so distant memory for me is only 15-25 years. But as I think back on sermons that I can still remember from back then, what are some of the elements that seem to have made them memorable? (And what can I learn from that as I preach today?)

1. Vivid imagery – I still remember Wee Hian Chua’s vivid descriptions of New Zealand shepherds on their motorbikes as he contrasted that with the shepherd God of Isaiah 40. Vivid imagery makes an immediate and a lasting impression.

2. Unique Occasion – I remember messages I heard when I first left home and headed off to the mission field to serve with OM. This weekend I have been speaking at that same conference, and for these people, this is their memorable conference.

3. Pointed Relevance – I remember that sense of the passage being relevant to me as I listened to the Argentine preacher in Minehead. He spoke not as a historical lecturer, but as if God were speaking through His Word with relevance to me now.

4. Divine Touch – I remember heading outside to prayerfully ponder the cross after John Lennox spoke on the subject almost 20 years ago. The message was good and clear, but the mark seemed to be made by God’s Spirit putting a finger on something in my heart and life.

5. Contagious Passion – I remember all sorts of details about George Verwer preaching in that church in Bristol (including bizarre details like his enthusiasm that the church book stall sold stamps – not exactly the main idea, but contagious passion nonetheless!)

6. Stunning Clarity – I remember how the passage just became so obvious and lucid when that preacher humbly presented it that Saturday afternoon in my home church. Clarity is a weekly goal, but sometimes there is an astonishing clarity brought to a text.

I am sure I could list more items, and you could too. Here’s a point to note, though. Numbers 1, 3, 5 and 6 are somewhat in the hands of the preacher. We can, and should, work on these and many more aspects of effective preaching. But numbers 2 and 4 at least seem to be out of reach. That is, we can pray, we must pray, but we cannot manufacture occasion or divine touch. As ever, a reminder that in our pursuit of being good stewards of preaching ministry, we are always absolutely dependent on God to take up and use what we offer. It isn’t just up to you and me at all.

Sharpen the Arrow

August 26, 2011August 24, 2011 / Peter Mead / 7 Comments

I’m pondering the message I am going to preach in a few days. It is one of several required at a conference. I have the subject, which leaves me with almost the whole canon as potential preaching fodder. Now I am sharpening.

The temptation is not to sharpen, but to cram bulk into the message. How many bits of a brilliant Bible can I pack into the message in order to touch on as many good bits as possible? Bad idea. A big and bulky message will not communicate, it will not carry well. It will drop like a lead balloon before it gets to the first row.

Much better to remove bulk and sharpen the arrow. That is, instead of trying to get a lot across, I should try to effectively get the main thing across. Better for people to leave with the main thing firmly embedded in their hearts than with the experience of watching a preacher fail to communicate (and carrying nothing away themselves). This is obvious, but the problem is that it is also painful.

To sharpen the arrow I probably need to lose the content from that part of the Bible, and that part too, oh, and that bit. The only way to sharpen metal is to remove bulk. So by faith, prayer and work I need to sharpen the message so that it will communicate more effectively.

Preach Text or Title?

August 25, 2011August 24, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

What do you do when you are asked to preach a title with a text? My simple answer is to honour the title, but preach the text.

Isn’t that the obvious answer? No, I think there is an alternative that is very common and may be legitimate – preach the title by using the text. And then there is the option of preaching the title and ignoring, or even abusing, the text. The challenge is where the line is drawn between these two options. So why would title take precedence over the text?

Sometimes the title is highly relevant, or highly theological, or highly specific. What if the title is “What is the Gospel?” and the text is John 3:16. Or maybe “Are there many ways to God?” and the text is Acts 4:12. Or “Guilt and holistic health” with Romans 8:1.

The temptation then is to try to give the definitive lecture on biblical soteriology, or the exclusivism of Christ, or whatever. You’ve gone from preaching the Bible to preaching theology with the Bible as a key exhibit. I won’t say this is totally wrong. We have probably all benefitted from some “definitive lectures” from great speakers. But personally, I find there is something lacking in this approach. I would rather preach the text.

Personally I find it satisfying when I feel like I’ve done a good job of engaging the text and presenting it in such a way that it has “lived” in the imaginations of the listeners. A well crafted lecture on exclusivism is all well and good, but a text genuinely experienced text is much rarer. As long as it addresses the requested subject by way of application, of course.

So in simplistic terms I might be looking at something along these lines:

Intro – raise the question in light of contemporary thinking so people say “yep, that’s a big issue, what’s the answer?”

Text – take them back there, set the scene, make it vivid, help them experience the unique reality of the situation, and preach the text.

Application – return to today and answer the question . . . “so if that was true for them, what is true for us, under pressure to conform to the world’s way of thinking?” Preach the point of the verse again in reference to the opening of the sermon.

The big thing to remember is that you can either formulate the most brilliant systematic theological presentation of the issue and impress a few. Or you can make the text live, preach vivid and engaging . . . and as long as you answer the question, everyone will love it. And, also, you’ll probably love it more because you will feel like you’ve truly preached the text, rather than pulled a phrase out of context in order to satisfy a contemporary theological question.

Trustworthy Bible

August 24, 2011August 23, 2011 / Peter Mead / 5 Comments

Yesterday was the 59th anniversary of the death of Sir Frederick Kenyon. Kenyon was a renowned scholar of ancient languages who took a keen interest in the authenticity of the Bible. “Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.” Kenyon’s sentiment here is often lost today, not just in the attacks of liberal scholarship, but also in the silence of Christian preachers.

Kenyon, director and head librarian of the British Museum, showed in his day how archeology and the manuscript evidence supported the credibility of the Bible. Of course there are many others who will argue the other way, all pointing to the agendas of those on the other side. Yet in the church today, there seems to be a paranoid silence in some quarters.

Since the Christian position is under attack from very vocal and media backed atheistic thinkers, we are increasingly huddled in church corners believing almost superstitiously in the message of the Bible. Why? There is more evidence for the authenticity of the Bible today than ever before! And while we are grateful for his legacy, we don’t have to just quote Kenyon for support.

Richard Bauckham has been doing some magnificent work in recent years, and Peter Williams et al of Tyndale House are doing a good job both advancing and communicating that work. Do the people in your church know about the integrity of the personal names used in the Gospels? That is, a level of accuracy in name selection that would be a level of sophistication utterly unparalleld in the ancient world if it were a forgery. Do the people in your church know about the evidences for word perfect quotation in the Gospels? Do the people in your church know about the frequency of accurate reporting of place names, as compared to the paltry place awareness in the non-canonical gospels? I could go on, but there is a bigger question. Not do they know, but, do you know about these things?

As preachers we do our listeners a disservice if we simply affirm the Bible’s truth without demonstrating its trustworthiness. By our silence we could reinforce the perception of many that the Bible is an ancient book of myths and legends that we choose to consider as “true for us.” If we won’t demonstrate and prove and affirm and show the integrity and trustworthiness of the Bible, who will?

——————————————

If you haven’t seen it, you won’t want to miss this lecture by Dr Peter Williams on “Eyewitness Evidence”

Identifying Individuals – Beware!

August 23, 2011August 23, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Most of us instinctively know that a distant preacher that never bridges the divide between pulpit and pew is not a model we aspire to emulate. We want to connect. There are many ways to do that – through content, demeanor, illustration, vulnerability, etc.

One way that some preachers try is to single out an individual in the congregation. It sometimes works. It sometimes backfires badly. What’s the difference?

1. People don’t come to church to be embarrassed. Many churches have learned not to invite first time visitors to their feet while the congregation sings a “Jesus welcomes you, so do we!” overture. Embarrassing. The same is true in the sermon. If the preacher points to an individual it draws attention and embarrassment. If you happen upon a long-time faithful leader, it will probably be ok. But if you happen upon a first-timer, they can easily become an only-timer. Which leads to the next point.

2. Do you know them? Simple guideline – if you don’t know the person, don’t even think about singling them out. If you do know them, then there is a chance that you know what is going on, how secure they are under attention, whether your comment might strike too close to home, or be wildly wide of the mark.

3. Is it helpful to them? Is it helpful to all? Again, if you don’t know them, you don’t know whether the comment will be helpful or painful. I hope none of us would point at somebody and talk hypothetically about their private lives, medical situation, spiritual state or relational health. But the fact is, unless we know them well, we won’t know if we touch too close to home, or too far wide of the mark.

4. Will they look foolish? Will you? Again, if you don’t know them, you can’t know how they will seem to others. Equally, you won’t know how you look either. One comment. One obvious assumption. One very embarrassed couple of people. One section of a church laughing at the preacher (not with, at) for his error. One whole congregation feeling uncomfortable because of the whole interchange. Was it worth it? Not at all.

If you know the congregation and the individuals and the life situations and are sure it will work, then perhaps consider identifying an individual. Otherwise, probably better that you don’t. Work on other ways to bridge the gap.

Don’t Move Away From the Bible

August 22, 2011August 22, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday may have passed without you noticing the date, but it was the 766th anniversary of the death of Alexander of Hales. I would have missed it too, except for a brief article I read that began like this:

A decisive moment in Medieval scholasticism came when Alexander of Hales substituted Peter Lombard’s Sentences in place of the Bible as the basic text for his teaching.

In his day he was called the king of theology. Alexander (I won’t call him Alex as I can’t pretend to be too close to him), pioneered the dangerous habit of making a summary of Christian theology using Aristotle as the authority. Summarizing the Christian faith in answer to numerous questions sounds safe enough, but when Aristotle is quoted as a reference in almost every question, something unhealthy might just be brewing. In fact, it was Alexander’s fan, a certain Thomas Aquinas, who is best known for blending Aristotle and Christianity.

Now I am not suggesting that you or I are going to have the same long-lasting consequences as can be traced from Alexander of Hales and those he influenced. Nevertheless, we will do damage if we make a move away from the Bible in our ministry. But, you might say, where could we go from the Bible? After all, we are committed to being biblical preachers . . . okay, some tempting avenues away from the Bible, in no particular order:

1. Theology – Don’t get me wrong, I care passionately about good theology, but I also see the temptation to become “sophisticated” and leave the Bible behind. Don’t do it!

2. Philosophy – Speaking of sophistication, it doesn’t get much more tempting than leaving the Bible to become something of a philosopher. Bad move for a preacher to make.

3. Mysticism – Other extreme, but still a speculative pursuit, some choose to leave the Bible behind in order to go after a greater mystical experience. Oops.

4. Revelation – Along similar, but distinct lines, is the temptation to treat the Bible as passe in the pursuit of new revelation from God. Careful!

5. Culture – Here’s a popular pursuit. How about essentially moving beyond the Bible to being a cultural commentator. Pas une bonne idee.

6. Coaching – Listeners, of course, crave relevant instruction for life in a complex world . . . so why not put the Bible aside and offer engaging applied training in “living life, for dummies.” Well, let me give you six reasons that’s bad practice…

7. Entertainment – Let’s face it, we could always just go for numbers of happy people by squeezing out the Bible in order to offer entertaining sets of humour and anecdotal pulpit pithiness. Yes, but did you hear about the preacher who did this and…

There may be some value in some of these pursuits, but keep your feet firmly planted in the Bible and don’t stray off down a dead end.