Author: Peter Mead

Giving a Testimony

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

nugget from Richard Bewes’ book, Speaking in Public Effectively.  As a preacher, you may not be asked to give your testimony so much any more, but perhaps these guidelines might be worth giving to anyone you ask to share a testimony in church.

First, it is a testimony to a Person and what he has done for you.

You are not asked to be on your feet to pay tribute to a book, a Christian, a course or a church that may have helped you, though any of these may legitimately come into the story.  But it is Jesus Christ, and what he has so far done for you that you are wanting to focus upon primarily.

Second, it is a testimony and not a mini-sermon that you are giving.

Three and a half minutes is enough – unless you have been invited to speak for longer.  The whole style is that of telling a story.  It is unwise, then to attempt to do the preacher’s task.  Use a text, by all means, if there is something from the Scriptures that has meant a great deal in your spiritual beginnings.  But don’t end the testimony by a long exhortation to commitment; that is almost certainly someone else’s job in the proceedings.

Third, it is a testimony and not an essay.

Although it may well be wise to write out, word for word, what you intend to say (this can help you keep to time), have your notes on a small jotting pad or card, rather than on a large, distracting sheet of paper.  The whole presentation is essentially one of spontaneity and an impulsive desire to tell. Write it out as you would describe it to your best friend in the chair opposite you.

How many good testimonies end awkwardly with an unnecessary exhortation to commitment?  Helpful advice from Richard Bewes.

The Subject We Don’t Mention

/ Peter Mead / 8 Comments

Actually there are several subjects that preachers are not supposed to talk about, but I’d like to mention one.  Briefly.  Actually I’d rather not mention it, so I’ll quote somebody else.  It’s the issue of “expenses,” aka “petrol money” in some churches, aka “speaking fees,” aka “honoraria.”  It’s right that we hesitate to mention this issue since money should not be the motivation of a preacher, but at the same time very few are in a position to totally ignore the issue of finances.

I was just enjoying Richard Bewes’ book Speaking in Public Effectively.  In his last chapter he focuses on the travelling speaker.  He addresses the unique challenges of travelling to speak, the things you learn to pack, the flexibility that’s needed, the fact that some apparently petty and trivial things can become profoundly significant in the dead of night in an obscure place.  Finally, the preaching is done and it’s time to get going on your return journey,

Someone comes up to you wearing specs, and holding a pen and pad. “Could you tell me if you had any expenses?”

In general it’s right to put in a claim, if for no other reason than that the organizers ought to know what the actual costs of their meeting came to.  They make an annual budget.  They need to know, and so do their successors.

Accept whatever you are given.  At times I have been paid with book tokens.  You wonder, as you drive away, what the reaction would be at the petrol station, if you leant out of the car window and chirped, “Do you take book tokens here?”  But it is all part of the fascinating experience of service, and we learn to take the rough and the smooth together, with equanimity, “not greedy for money, but eager to serve” (1Peter 5:2)

This attitude should govern us all, including those who depend on their speaking for a living.  Speakers who become money-conscious should either reform their priorities or leave off speaking.  The people who ought to be giving attention to the question of expenses, fees and salaries are the organizing elders.  They are the leaders responsible for these matters, and they should, if possible, have business people among them.  It is not the concern of the speakers.  Never.

I wonder what difference including business people in the discussions of speakers “expenses” might make?  Anyway, enough of me quoting someone else, any comments on this issue (feel free to comment “anonymously” on this issue!)

Reformation Lessons for Preachers – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I quoted at length from Mike Reeves’ message on Justification (available on theologynetwork.org).  Mike was addressing the intriguing question, “Why is it that Luther started the Reformation and Erasmus didn’t?” The first part of his answer focused on the contrast between their views of Scripture.  For Erasmus the Scripture was to be revered, but could be squeezed to fit his own vision of Christianity.  For Luther the Scriptures were the only sure foundation for belief, the supreme authority allowed to contradict all other claims.  Now for the second part of Mike’s answer to the question:

But it wasn’t just the authority of the Bible that made the difference, it was also what they saw as the content of the Bible.  For Erasmus the Bible was little more than a collection of moral exhortations.  The Bible is all about urging believers to be more like Christ the example.  Luther said, that’s just turning the Gospel on its head.  Our issue is sinners first and foremost don’t need to copy someone, sinners need a Saviour!  Sinners need, first and foremost, a message of salvation!  . . . Without the message of Christ’s free gift of righteousness, his free gift of himself and all that he has, there would be no Reformation.  Justification by faith alone was what made the Reformation the Reformation.  . . . It was this gracious message of a sweet Saviour’s free gift of righteousness that made life changing ministries life changing.

Reformation is not a moral spring clean.  It’s not a revolution against the old ways, anything old fashioned and ritualistic.  It’s not just about opening the Bible, but not finding the message fully.  This is a profound challenge for the church today – what message do people hear?

Our attitude to Scripture is the foundational issue for our preaching.  The message we preach from the Scripture is the more visible issue in our preaching.  Do we stand, no matter how much contemporary culture, even church culture, not to mention the attacks of the enemy himself, are arrayed against us?  Do we stand and preach the message of Scripture, because we are absolutely committed to Scripture, because we are absolutely committed to the God who gave us the Scripture?  Do we preach in light of these simple yet profound lessons from history?

Reformation Lessons for Preachers

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

There could be no end to posts dealing with lessons for preachers from the Reformation.  I’d like to focus in on one today, then another tomorrow.  Both of them were brought out very clearly in a series of messages by Michael Reeves on Justification (available, and well worth listening to, on theologynetwork.org).  In the final session of a great series of talks, Mike asks “Why is it that Luther started the Reformation and Erasmus didn’t?” Let me quote the first part of Mike’s two-part answer to this question:

Why is it that Luther started the Reformation and Erasmus didn’t?  Because Erasmus is the one who unleashed the Greek New Testament onto Europe.  He was getting the Bible out there, so why didn’t he start the Reformation?  Well, even though Erasmus was a constant and deep student of the Scriptures, the Scriptures didn’t actually do a lot for him because of how he treated them.  Erasmus kept banging on about how vague the Scriptures are (which is very convenient for his own theology), and so he gave them very little practical, let alone overruling, authority.  So although he looked at Scripture, the message of Scripture could be tailored, squeezed, adjusted to fit his own vision of what Christianity is.

The only way to break out of that suffocating scheme and achieve any substantial reformation and change in the world – well, it took Luther’s attitude, that Scripture is the only sure foundation for belief.  The Bible had to be acknowledged as the supreme authority.  It had to be allowed to contradict and overrule all other claims, because if it couldn’t do that, it itself would be overruled and hijacked by another message, as it was with Erasmus.  In other words a simple reverence for the Bible was never going to change the world, even quite a high view of the Bible was never going to do much.  Sola Scriptura.  Scripture alone was the indispensable key for change.  Without acknowledging that the Bible has that supreme and foundational authority there would be no Reformation.  No Reformation in peoples’ hearts, no Reformation in the world.

That final emboldened text is well worth a “selah” for preachers.  On this matter are we an Erasmus, or a Luther?

Preaching Longer Narratives – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday I began to respond to Anthony’s question about preaching longer narratives:

How do you handle the tension of wanting to tell the story as it was intended to be told and not wanting to overload the hearers?

We saw that how a story is told is critical (more critical than the amount of information included).  We saw that not every detail requires equal focus.  This leads on to another thought that is sometimes hard for some people to accept:

4. True expository preaching does not always require every verse to be read out. With a long text, tell the whole story, but read selected highlights.  The readers can look down and check what you are telling is accurate, but you don’t have to read every verse in the preaching of the text.  If you preach a narrative in first person, you probably won’t read any of the text, but still you need to preach the text!

5. Remember the three ingredients in a sermon. A sermon consists, according to Don Sunukjian, in the combination of three elements.  A biblical text plus the big idea plus a preaching purpose.  Often sermons are lacking one or two or even all three of these ingredients!  The biblical text ingredient means that the message is the text’s message, not a superimposed preacher’s message.  Usually this means the text will be opened and read before or during the sermon.  However, in a longer message, the text may only be read in part.  For instance a single sermon on Romans as a whole will not read the whole thing, but probably will include the reading of 1:16-17 and a few other key highlights.  The same is true with a long narrative.

What is always important is not that every word be read, but that the listener is confident that this message is the true and exact message of this text.  They can look down while you’re preaching and see it there, they can pull a Berean attitude and check it out later for themselves.  Usually the best way to build confidence in the biblical textual nature of the message is to read the whole text and let the exposition show clearly there, but that is a typical strategy, rather than an absolute requirement.  With a long narrative the sense of purpose and a clear statement of the main idea are critical, but the biblical source of the message can be conveyed without full detailed exegetical explanation of every verse, or even the reading of every verse.

Preaching Longer Narratives

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Anthony asked the following after one of the posts last week:

I preach only occasionally, and have tackled a couple of narrative passages recently. I like to respect the narrative chunks in the text, which often have a clear beginning, middle and end. But last time I ended up preaching two whole chapters (75 verses), which was probably a bit much!

I’d be interested to hear what you think about this. How do you handle the tension of wanting to tell the story as it was intended to be told and not wanting to overload the hearers?

This is an important question.  After all, not every biblical narrative is contained within a few verses like some of the parables, there are some substantial narratives in the Bible.  The David and Bathsheba narrative lasts for nearly 60 verses if you include Nathan’s visit.  Anthony is referring to one lasting for 75 verses.  A few points to bear in mind:

1. Listeners are more overwhelmed by how something is told than what is told. Especially with narratives, if they are told well, listeners will be glued.  Tell children a good story in a compelling way and they won’t be asking you to stop so they can go to sleep.  Let’s assume the narratives are good ones since God inspired them, that just leaves the storyteller to do their job well.  I’ve sat through the most compelling stories told painfully, but it shouldn’t be that way.  Let the story live, tell it well.

2. Good storytelling involves both detailed description and pace change. When you’re telling a Bible story, there are times when you need to add detail to the description to help the images form on the screen of the listener’s heart.  There are other times when the story can move ahead in leaps and bounds.  The text does this, so can you.

3. True expository preaching does not require equal attention to every detail. The traditional read a verse, explain a verse approach to preaching can become burdensome with a 75 verse narrative.  Tell the whole story, but focus in on the details at key points in order to convey the true message of the passage.  This requires absolute attention to every detail in preparation, but selective focus in delivery.

A couple more thoughts tomorrow on this . . .

What Is The Motivation . . .

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Do you ever wonder what someone’s motivation might be?  For example, I was thinking about a man I once knew who never read anything except the Bible.  His preaching bore the fruit.  Some might say that his preaching was biblically saturated and uncluttered.  Others might suggest his preaching was unengaging and borderline heretical.  Not that the Bible is unengaging, but somehow there was, at times, a lack of connection happening.  So I ponder . . . what was the motivation?

1. Was it pure devotion to Christ? Perhaps.  Certainly there are many who would do well to stop reading everything but and spend some serious time in God’s Word, like a lifetime.  Perhaps this is fruit of the example and we would all do well to heed it.

2. Was it mixed up with insecurity? Perhaps.  After all, it’s a lot easier to stay on familiar territory and not be stretched or challenged or confronted or corrected.  It can be intimidating to consider the vast array of biblical and theological scholarship out there.  What if that held only fear for him?  Perhaps the fruit of this example is to encourage us to not fear, but to be stretched and grow, and perhaps have the odd corrective to point out where our own thinking might be distorting the message of Scripture.

3. Was it thinly veiled arrogance? Perhaps.  After all, while it might be portrayed as devotion to Christ, it is at the same time a reliance on one’s own ability to piece together the complex canon of Scripture.  There is always a tension between separation from corrupting influences and interdependence with the body of Christ.  Is it not arrogant to state by word or action, “I don’t need you” to a fellow saint in the local church, or a sibling in Christ who offers conversation through the pages of a book?  Perhaps the fruit of this example is to recognize that distinctive devotion can sometimes smack of blatant arrogance and walk more carefully?

I honestly don’t know what to think of this particular man.  I’d like to believe the best.  Obviously only the Lord can judge his motives.  But perhaps I can learn from all the possibilities I mentioned.  More in the Word.  Unafraid of engaging with scholars.  Humble enough to enjoy conversation with a giant of the past, or a “nobody” in the church.  I don’t know what his motivations were.  But God knows yours and mine.  What does our distinctiveness say about us?

Forging Connections

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Perhaps preaching could be defined as a work of forging connections.  In a world of increasingly independent and disconnected individuals relating often on a level of billiard balls (bouncing and bumping, but not connecting), the preacher’s task involves connecting with the listener, connecting the listener with the text, more than that, via the text forging a communicative connection between God and the listener, and potentially, connecting the listeners with one another.

I’m not sure I like this as a definition of preaching, but there are some truths to ponder here.  How often do we view preaching preparation, even inadvertently, as preparation to present information that will sit in the air for others to grab hold of if they so choose?  How often do we preach as though speaking into thin air, largely unconcerned who is sitting in front of us or whether they are with us in the communication act?  How often do we simplify the complexity of forging connections, with all the implied awareness of the complex beings involved, into a simple act of giving information out?  Out where?  Nowhere, just out.

It is relatively easy to formulate a message and deliver it.  But it is much more complex to prayerfully and pastorally consider the listeners, to prayerfully and devotionally consider the God whose Word we present, to prayerfully and purposefully consider how we can forge genuine communication between us and the listeners, etc.  What does this involve?  Study? Yes.  Preparation? Yes.  Perhaps prayerfully considering every aspect of delivery, demeanour, interpersonal conversation and intercession in anticipation.

This is not a complete thought or a well crafted unit of prose.  It’s a thinking out loud about the difference between just speaking information and actually forging connections between hearts – human and divine.  What a privileged calling!

Textual Tone – Deduce, Demonstrate, Declare

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Each text in the Bible has a tone.  We are often oblivious to it.  Our training in Bible school tends to focus on analysis of content.  Most sermons tend to train listeners to look at content (or perhaps to largely ignore the text and just bounce off it, but that’s another matter!)

I often find myself trying to figure out the tone of an email.  Was this writer annoyed, or discouraged, or aggressive, or manipulative, or did it come out wrong?  Is this email an encouragement out of empathy, or is it a patronizing exhortation?  We learn with our contemporaries that written language doesn’t always communicate tone overtly, yet tone is so significant to the intended communication.

With Bible texts we can’t meet up with Paul or Moses to double check their intent.  So we do well to wrestle with the tone of the text.  Let’s be diligent in this:

1. Deduce the tone. Don’t settle for simple cold analysis of content.  Wrestle with grasping the tone of the passage.  Allow that to be a factor in your understanding the passage and then in your preparation of the message.

2. Demonstrate the tone. Too often preachers preach every sermon in monotone.  Not necessarily their own vocal range, but rather the tonal range of the whole collection of sermons.  Some preachers turn every encouraging passage into a guilt-driven rebuke.  Others neutralize every passage they touch to make it a sterile set of philosophical musings.  Our preaching will be enriched by demonstrating the tone of the passage . . . as I seem to add a lot . . . appropriately.

3. Declare the tone. People may be so trained in tone-less preaching that simply improving your delivery may not be enough.  Sometimes overtly declare the tone of the passage.  I preached on Luke 11:1-13 recently . . . all about prayer.  A subject that most believers feel very inadequate in, and pressured by, is prayer.  Yet the tone of the passage is overtly encouraging.  I tried to demonstrate that tone.  I also chose to declare it overtly – this passage is not pressuring us, it’s overtly encouraging in its tone!  People need to become sensitized to the tone of Scripture.  They need to feel the emotion, the anger, the encouragement, the grace.

Let’s be sensitive to the text, and let’s help to sensitize others too.

Narrative Breaking Series

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

A story is a story.  It should be studied as a story and understood as a story.  But what about when you are preaching part of a story?  For instance, take the book of Ruth.  I had to preach just part of that story on Sunday.  It’s not easy to break into a story and preach part of it, but leave the rest for the following weeks.  Some thoughts:

1. You have to study the whole story. A narrative is incomplete until it has been completed.  Profound, but a necessary comment.  Even if you are only preaching one part of a longer story, you need to be significantly aware of the whole in order to handle your part well.

2. Build on previous elements, but don’t give away the tensions of subsequent development. If I am preaching from Ruth 1, then I need to preach Ruth 1 without preaching Ruth 2-4.  This means that although I really like Boaz and want to preach about Boaz, he’s not in my text yet.  If someone else is preaching in subsequent weeks and I have given away all the tension, that is unfair (even if people know the story, build the tension of the whole story and allow each scene to have its day).

3. If you only have one scene in a longer narrative, preach the plot of that scene. Recognize the mini-play nature of a single scene.  Look for the tension.  See how it resolves, even if only partially.  Preach the scene you are preaching.  Often readers and listeners think they know a story but really only know certain elements.  How many people really understand Jonah 2 or even Jonah 4?  How many people have really soaked in Ruth 1?  While it may be difficult to preach only part of a narrative, there are advantages too.

4. Make sure you preach a message, not just an introduction. It may be tempting to simply set up the following weeks where the greater tension is resolved, but don’t fail to preach a message this week.  Simply setting up what follows is not enough.  People have come to church this week and should be fed this week.

Much more could be said . . . you say it.