Author: Peter Mead

A Lonely Place

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

It is not unusual to hear that a leader is in a lonely place.  After all, church leadership, like all leadership, is a difficult place to be.  There are stresses and strains not only in your own life, but also the burdens of others that you care for.  There are confidences to keep and decisions to make that effect so many.  As a preacher the problems are perhaps compounded by the solitary nature of the preaching ministry (most tend to prepare alone, then “recover” alone too).

Some of this loneliness is unavoidable. The unique stresses and difficulties have to be acknowledged and lived with.  Being a preacher is often a lonely road and the emotional ups and downs in some ways simply have to be accepted and pressed through.  However . . .

Some of this loneliness is avoidable. I suppose it comes down to our view of leadership (remember that someone who preaches is an influencer and thus a leader, irrespective of their official title in the church).  The world’s view of leadership involves climbing higher into a narrower space in order to have power over more people.  Sometimes we can fall into a worldly approach to leadership that results in us “lording it over” (even though we know that is wrong and so couch it in all the right terms and attitudes).  Servant-leadership calls us to invite others to join us in serving, because if the leader is a servant lifting others up, then there is always room for help at the bottom.  I recently wrote on this issue – here.

Loneliness can be dangerous. So as a pastor, minister, leader, whatever.  As a preacher too, we must be wary of the lonely nature of the ministry.  Be wary if you don’t have a safe place, a small group of individuals who don’t care about your hype, your reputation, your abilities, etc.  Make sure there are some with whom you can be real, be fully vulnerable, be broken, be hurt, be cared for, be healed.  Perhaps this is possible within your church.  Probably you need to look outside.  Certainly you need to be careful as this is a risky thing . . . but the risks of not doing it are greater!

Practice Makes . . . ?

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

The old saying goes, “practice makes perfect.”  Maybe.  Practice can also ingrain bad habits.  I think it was Howard Hendricks who said that “evaluated practice makes perfect” (inexact quote, please comment to correct wording and source!)  I want to offer a suggestion for “evaluated practice” that can really help.  First the obvious sources of feedback, then the more obvious one.

Obvious sources of feedback – While you may not have pursued it diligently, you’ve probably considered asking listeners for feedback on your preaching.  Perhaps you’ve handed out evaluation sheets to a select few, or perhaps you’ve asked for feedback on a specific issue of content, clarity or delivery.  Perhaps you’ve sent your mp3 to another preacher or trusted friend for critique.  Perhaps you’ve gone so far as to form a preaching team that includes non-preachers, creative communicators, etc., to evaluate and feed into your church’s preaching.

The more obvious source of feedback – Perhaps this is so obvious, but it’s worth a mention.  Feedback as a form of evaluation is something you can also do for yourself.  Don’t just do this yourself and avoid the input of others, but don’t miss this either.  After preaching, why not carve out some time to prayerfully evaluate the message.  What went well?  How did the time slip away in the middle section?  Which transition felt clunky?  When did attention drop?  If possible, sometimes listen to the message and ask the same questions, plus, How much variation is there in vocal punch, pitch, pace and pause?  Now and then get a video of yourself and also watch for eye contact, gestures, expressions, movement, etc.  Whatever you do, whether it is thinking back over the message, listening to it, or watching it, be sure to make some notes.  Perhaps have a journal of sermon evaluation.  That journal will offer nudges in the right direction, and great encouragement when problem areas become strengths in time.

After all, evaluated practice makes perfect . . . or realistically, evaluated practice makes better.

Connecting With Story

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

There are many stories in the Bible, and this is one season in the year when most of us are preaching stories.  In some ways Bible stories give the preacher an advantage.  For example, stories offer a flow, a plot, a progression, that can be replicated in the message (although it amazes me how many preachers try to preach a story without telling the story!)  Also, stories offer vivid images and allow for effective description.  But how do we forge the connection between “back then” and “today”?  A few thoughts, I’m sure you could add more:

Don’t just historically lecture, but preach to today. It is easy to fall into the trap of presenting what happened back then, but not recognizing the enduring theological significance for today.  People appreciate hearing about what happened, but they deeply appreciate it when the preacher can emphasize the relevance of that happening to us today.

Don’t caricature characters, but encourage identification with their humanness. Again, it is easy to pick on one aspect of a character’s action in a story, but miss the other side of the coin.  For example, Zechariah doubted the message of the angel, but he was also a faithful pray-er over the long-term.  Don’t beat up your listeners with a sense of identification with the negative only – “How often do we doubt God’s goodness to us?  How easily we resist what God is doing!” Stories function through resolution of tension in a plot and through identification with characters . . . be careful not to mis-emphasize a character portrayal if the biblical account is more balanced.

Don’t identify without theocentrizing.  It is also possible to present the characters effectively so that listeners can identify with them, but miss the point that God is at the center of biblical narrative.  It’s not just Joseph’s kindness and personal character quality that is significant in Matthew 1, it is also very much focused on God’s revelation of His plan to both save His people from their sins and His presence with His people.  Joseph is a great example of a “fine, young man.”  But the passage presents this fine, young man responding to the revelation of God’s purposes.  Jesus, Immanuel.  That is the information that Joseph acted upon.  The amazing thing about Christmas narratives is that the theocentric truth is bundled up in a tiny human infant.

Christmas preached as just peace and happiness and quaint idyllic scenes is a travesty – Christmas is set up for theocentric preaching (but don’t lose the humanness of the other characters too).

The Preacher’s Motivation

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday I pondered why a message might be considered a new take or somehow different from what was expected.  On this particular occasion I preached Matthew 1.  I wonder if there’s another element to add to yesterday’s list of thoughts:

4. Not overemphasizing the theologically rich element in the text. In this passage there is the quote and fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 and the virgin giving birth to a son.  Don’t get me wrong, I did preach that, explained the original context briefly, touching on the Immanuel theme developing right through to 9:6-7.  The Matthew text was clear that Mary was a virgin and that the baby was there because of the Holy Spirit, not any sexual impropriety. However, I didn’t turn the sermon into a theological lecture, nor an apologetic defense of Christian orthodoxy.  My reason for that was because of who would be listening, and because the text doesn’t do that.  As I was pondering this, I wondered whether sometimes we might be tempted to use a theological detail in the text as an opportunity to show off our own orthodoxy, rather than to help listeners understand the truth?  I don’t know, this is just a thought.  I think it is important, it is vital, to teach the theological truth of Scripture, to edify and educate the people in our churches.  Certainly we have too many biblically illiterate people in our churches these days.  But still, are there times when our motivation for a strong theological presentation in a sermon is not really for God’s pleasure or their benefit, but actually for us to demonstrate our theological acumen, or to take pride in our orthodoxy (especially in comparison to some exalted figure who has denied orthodoxy in some respect)?

Why Is This New?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I was pondering the passage I preached yesterday.  It was Matthew 1 – the genealogy and Joseph’s dream.  I engaged with the text, tried to preach it with it’s own emphasis, and emphasised the relevance to us today.  A couple of comments afterwards referred to the new or different angle or take on the story.

So why was it new?  I don’t think it was.  I think I preached the text according to the prompts in the text.  I don’t in any way think my message was somehow better than others, but I have pondered what might be expected from the preaching of that passage that I didn’t do, or vice versa.  Perhaps one of the following explanations clarifies what was supposedly new or different?

1. Recognition of the experience of a character. In this case it was Joseph, his shattered world at the discovery of Mary’s pregnancy.  I suppose we tend to skip over that to get to the angel in the dream.  I suppose it is easy to subconciously assume that Joseph viewed the first Christmas the same way we do as we look at manger scenes and Christmas cards.  He didn’t have that.  He did have a totally broken world, at least temporarily.

2. Recognition of what is not in the text. Once the angel came in the dream and answered the “how did she get pregnant” question, there is still a lot that is unstated.  We tend to see what is there and presume it is the complete solution to the challenging situation.  But what about the “how is this going to work out” kind of questions?  Joseph was taking his bride home during their betrothal with her already pregnant.  He knew how, but what would everyone else think and say and do?  This might define their lives in so many ways.  Joseph didn’t have every question answered, but he obviously had enough – in who this Jesus was (God’s saviour of people from sins) and in this Jesus, Immanuel (God with us in the midst of life’s unanswered questions).

3. Emphasis on the relevance of the familiar. I suppose we tend to go through the Christmas narratives and simply celebrate Jesus.  But as with many narratives, it is the character’s interaction with and response to God that offers such relevance to us.  Maybe we’re not used to stepping into Joseph’s sandals, but maybe we should try it – he’s a bit of unsung hero.  What did he know?  Jesus.  Immanuel.  He moved forward because somehow that was enough.  What do we know?  What don’t we know?  Perhaps the relevance of the Bible is sometimes missed because of the more obvious elements?

Tomorrow I will share another thought on this passage, particularly in reference to how we preach the text.

The Challenge of Consistency

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

I tend to agree with the notion of there being a difference between small church and big church.  A small church, perhaps under 100 people, will tend to have strengths that can become weaknesses in a larger church, perhaps over 200 people.  For instance, in a small church, low standards of music and preaching will be smiled at since everyone knows the individual who is “trying their best.”  But once that church grows through the transitional stage and becomes bigger, such low standards become more counter productive.  Visitors (and there will probably be more now) don’t know the individual up front and the whole dynamic doesn’t work quite so well.  While fellowship is often a strength in smaller churches, it takes deliberate work to achieve that in a larger church.  The emphasis on “up-front” standards inevitably increases as a church grows.

This provides a challenge.  I suppose it is a challenge for all churches of all sizes.  It is especially a challenge for churches with some creative capacity (people, skills, people-hours, etc.).  When you have a guest service of a certain standard, then people will bring guests along.  If that service is done well, then some of those guests might return the next week.  There’s the problem.  If all the effort to be clear and relevant and engaging and effective in the music, the preaching, the presentation, etc., if all that effort is spent on one Sunday, what about the next?

The challenge is consistency.  If your church has a goal of bringing the unchurched to a particular service, then it is worth thinking through whether greater consistency could be achieved in that service 52 times each year.  At that point people would be much more inclined to risk their own relationships and bring people along to the guest events.

There has to be flexibility in this.  Different churches have different capacities for guest events.  The vast majority cannot live up to the standards seen in the small number of “megachurches.”  There also has to be balance in this.  The primary role of the church service may not be evangelism.  Nevertheless, taking into account the specific ethos of a church, it would be worth giving some thought to greater consistency between guest events and normal Sundays.

Awareness of Our History

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

It can be tiring to continually hear someone harping on about the “good old days” of some golden age in the past.  This is not the problem in many churches.  The opposite seems to be true.  There is often a wholesale neglect of the past, leaving people in something of a vacuum of present experience.

Obviously it shouldn’t be the central focus of the ministry of a church, but there is a place for recognizing the story God has been telling to get us to where we are.  In a family it is important for children to hear “little boy stories” from Dad and “little girl stories” from Mum.  Of course, not every story should be told to a younger child, but there is a stability and rootedness that comes from hearing such history.  Our family is blessed with a legacy of believing parents and grandparents, so there are many stories of God’s faithfulness and care.

Hopefully your church also has a legacy of believers in the past!  Whether the church is twenty years old or two-hundred years old, it is important that the present generation are not left unaware of the line in which they stand.  There is probably good and bad in every church history.  While not glorifying people with the positive, nor villifying with the negative, knowing the legacy of our heritage matters.

Perhaps it would be worth considering a brief interview of someone in the church so they can tell of the impact of another believer now safely home?  Perhaps this is a source of illustrative material worth tapping into?  Perhaps it would be worth a church “slideshow” to bring back some memories and share some fireside stories this Christmas . . . why not make it a church family season too?

Rooted.  Carrying a legacy of God’s blessing.  Bearers of a heritage.  Aware of our DNA.  Worth some balanced effort?

Sermons and Series

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

After listening to a couple of Andy Stanley series recently, I have been pondering a point he makes in his book, Communicating for a Change.  He says that what most people try to achieve in a single sermon should really be developed over a whole series.  This allows for each message to genuinely have a single point, rather than a collection of points (and reduced impact).  It allows for the whole series to reinforce rather than confuse.

I have to say, after listening to a couple of his series, I tend to agree.  Perhaps we bite off too much in a series.  Perhaps we try to cover whole sections of a book, or a whole book, when maybe we would do better to drive home one passage more effectively. Perhaps we are too quick to move on and assume listeners have understood the point and applied it in their lives.

I suppose this creates a difficulty if we are committed to trying to preach every bit of the Bible over some self-determined priod of time.  I suppose it also puts a burden on the preacher – if you’re going to stay in the same passage for more than one sermon, you’d better not be boring!  But ultimately I suppose it asks the key question: not are we trying to cover ground, or are we trying to entertain, but are we trying to see lives transformed?  If that is the question, perhaps more focused series is part of the solution?

Preaching a Passage Owned

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Preachers preach a Bible passage from a variety of stances or approaches.  I see something of a continuum here and would love to encourage all preachers to move further down the list.

1. Preaching from thoughts prompted by the passage. In preparation the text is read, then the preacher preaches based on thoughts triggered by elements in the text.  It could be a certain word.  It could be a character mentioned.  It could really be anything.  Why do people do this?  Because they have not been taught a better way, and because it has a sort of pseudo-spirituality about it as an approach (since perhaps God is highlighting unique elements to make this a unique experience of the text).

2. Preaching about a subject in the passage. The preacher latches on to a subject mentioned in a text and addresses that subject, perhaps using other texts for support, perhaps just sharing their own perspective on that subject.

3. Preaching about the subject in the passage. A single unit of Scripture (a epistle’s paragraph, an individual narrative or parable, a psalm, a proverb, etc.) has a specific subject.  It is united by it’s dealing with something in particular.  Preaching about that something in particular is a great step forward and honours the text, the author and the Inspirer of that text.

4. Preaching about the passage. The preacher is focused on the text, has studied it and preaches about it.  There is a focus on the passage.  The details are explained, the flow is clarified, the message is applied.  This is decent preaching.

5. Preaching the passage. The difference between this and the previous one is a matter of distance.  Preaching about the passage can be accurate and relevant, and yet still feel a bit “arms length.”  The passage is like an exhibit being presented.  If every church achieved level 4 consistently I believe the church would be so much healthier.  But there is also level 5 in this continuum.  If level 4 says what the text says, then level 5 is about doing what the text does.  Somehow the preacher isn’t merely presenting an exhibit, but has so grasped the passage and been so gripped by it, that the preaching is no longer “arms length” – it is direct, personal, clear, alive, to us.  There must still be historical explanation, looking at the passage, applying the message of the passage, but now it is the preaching of a passage owned, a passage that has saturated the heart and mind and life and preparation of the preacher.

Where are you on this continuum?  How about moving one step further?

Think It Through Before You Cross Over This Line!

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

There is a line that it may be tempting to cross.  Perhaps you have been studying in a certain area of theology.  Perhaps it is personal experience that is pushing you in a certain direction.  Perhaps you are tired of a certain over-emphasis in your church circles.

So you preach (or write, or converse about, or blog about) something.  You try to expand the horizons, the categories, the awareness of your listeners.  You paint a glorious picture of oft-neglected theological vistas.  In the process you help people to see more clearly, to understand more fully, to respond more holistically.  But that is where danger lurks.

In shifting the emphasis, even if only for one message, you will be tempted to cross a line.  The line is crossed when instead of helping people see more and to see it clearly, you move from addition to contrast.  It is crossed when your study or experience or emphasis takes you to a point where you decide not just to add to the listeners’ understanding, but you decide to contrast your focus with some aspect of orthodoxy.

So actually the Cross wasn’t about that, it was about this.  So really God isn’t that, but this.  So now we see that Christianity is not about that at all, but only this.  Careful.  Extremely careful!

There are things in all church traditions that may be labeled orthodoxy, but are actually biblically errant.  I am not saying we can never contrast or critique.  I believe we must.  What I am saying is that a throw away comment about an emphasis within orthodox theology can come back to bite.

I was just reading a book.  I was enjoying it.  In fact, I read a page that took my breath away it was so well-written.  Then there was a throw away comment of unnecessary contrast.  How easy to do that unawares in writing, in preaching, in conversation.  Evangelical theology needs critique on various levels, but throw away contrast comments are not going to achieve anything other than vilifying their source.  You.

What we say matters.  Be careful!