Author: Peter Mead

The Tension in Involving People

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Some churches, especially larger ones, never allow anyone to participate from the front unless they are thoroughly vetted first.  At the other extreme there are churches that really have little choice who is up front – whoever is willing!  But for the rest, in between the extremes, there is a tension.

On the one hand, it is good to involve people and give them opportunity to grow, as well as giving the church opportunity to hear different voices.  On the other hand, it can be a challenge to maintain appropriate standards from the front.  Actually, perhaps the real challenge is to find the right balance.

Here are three ways people get “involved” and some comments on the tensions faced:

1. Bible Readings – Often this is seen as an ideal place for people to overcome “public speaking fear” because all they have to do is read the passage in front of them.

The balance needs to be found.  After all, the public reading of God’s Word is actually a critical event.  It is easy to read into a microphone . . . dispassionately, monotonously, haltingly, without clarity, etc  There are times when it might be worth hunting for the best public reader, rather than settling for participation alone.  On the other hand, listeners will sometimes concentrate more for someone obviously uncomfortable than they would for an overly polished “performer.”  The balance needs to be found.

2. Personal Testimony – Everybody expects the usual participants to have a certain testimony, but it can be very effective to hear from “normal” people during the service.  It can make a real impression to hear somebody’s personal experience of God’s grace in their lives.

The balance needs to be found.  Testimonies do make a real lasting impression, so it is worth trying to make sure that impression isn’t heretical or misleading.  How many times have well-meaning testimonies stated, “Of course I can’t prove any of this is true, but that’s what faith is, isn’t it, a leap in the dark!” Include testimony, but pre-screen or coach appropriately. The balance needs to be found.

3. Special Event Preaching – It seems the obvious place, as far as some churches are concerned.  For someone to “cut their teeth” as a preacher, it seems set up: a shorter message, freedom to choose the passage, longer time for preparation, no expectation of fitting in to a series running at that time.

The balance needs to be found.  All the positives are agreed, but what about the other side of the coin … it is hard to speak at Christmas since it feels like it’s all so familiar.  It is hard to speak on Mother’s Day, just because it is.  What’s more, special occasions are prime time for guests to visit … what experience do you want them to have of the preaching at your church?  The balance needs to be found.

Involving people is a great idea, but enter into it with eyes open and make sure it is the right occasion, the right role, the right timing.

How Long Is Just Right?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I’d like to answer a question offered in a comment a few days ago by Peter D:

“I have heard a couple times that people tune out after about 20 mins in hearing a speech or sermon. With that being said do you think that there are times we can force a text to be longer than it needs to be? It seems like most sermons I hear are bewteen the 45-and hour long mark. That being said do you feel that sometimes they might be more effective if they were shorter (still keeping the context in full view) or is there something internal that tells us they need to be so and so long?”

This is an important question for us all to think about.  Some sermons would be more effective if they were shorter, while some would always feel too long no matter how quickly they finished!  We have a tendency to simply preach to the standard length for our own context and personal comfort (our own more than the listener’s).  But it is not a bad idea to consider what would be most effective.

1. There is no “right length” of message, but there is an appropriate length for any specific context. Tomorrow I am preaching in my home church and I know it will need to be slightly shorter than usual.  If I go ten minutes longer, on this occasion, it would not be appropriate.  Not only does the specific church influence this, but so does the culture in which that church exists.

2. Listeners do not have shorter attention spans, but listeners struggle to concentrate beyond a very few minutes. Is that not contradictory?  Sort of.  So many harp on about today’s listener being unable to concentrate beyond 15 or 20 minutes – yet the movies of this generation are considerably longer than most were twenty or thirty years ago.  Actually though, listeners struggle to concentrate beyond 3-5 minutes at a time, so even a 15 or 20 minute sermon can easily be 10-15 minutes too long, unless . . .

3. The preacher needs to engage and re-engage the listener regularly in the message. Some speakers are engaging in content, manner, delivery, energy, empathy, etc. and listeners who regularly declare they simply aren’t able to concentrate beyond fifteen minutes, will listen fully engaged for an hour and then act surprised at how much time has passed!  Other speakers can make the briefest of devotional thoughts feel like the most tedious of hours.

4. Thus we can’t “blame” the listeners if the concensus is that our preaching is too long! Every speaker should do a self-evaluation, and then get some honest input from others, to determine areas of strength and weakness in respect to their ability to engage the focus and attention of the listeners.  These are weaknesses worth addressing, for without attention, there is no communication – at least not the kind you are trying to achieve.  Disinterested listeners are receiving a message, often one reinforcing negative associations between the Bible and words like “boring” and “irrelevant.”  What a tragedy that some who preach are, somewhat inadvertently, communicating the very opposite of what they intend!

5. Finally, I appreciate Don Sunukjian’s point about explanation and application ratios. If a passage requires lots of explanation, thus only leaving a short time for application, so be it.  But if a passage is relatively easy to understand, don’t pad the time with unnecessary explanation, instead use the time for lots and lots of application.  It is often the lack of application that undermines the effectiveness of our preaching.  More qualifiers are needed, but this post has gone on too long now!

Biblical Preaching Presents God

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I suppose it is obvious, but some preachers have lost sight of the obvious.  When we preach, we should preach the Bible (for the alternatives offered by contemporary culture, sophisticated philosophy or personal insights will always fall short).  Yet when we preach, our goal is not really to present the Bible itself.  The Bible itself is not the end, it is not the goal, it is not the god.  We preach the Bible not because of what it is in itself, but because it is God’s Word.

This distinction in no way undermines our view of the Bible.  In fact, it should only strengthen it.  What does God’s character and intimate involvement suggest about the quality of the revelation He has given?  But we must not forget that it is just that – a revelation from and of Him.

Preaching that presents the Bible, but somehow loses God, really loses the Bible too.  It is easy to turn the Bible into a set of historical data, stories with morals attached, illustrations for our own thought processes.  But our goal is not to turn the Bible into anything.  Our goal is to preach the Bible well, so that the giver of the revelation is presented.  Biblical preaching is about presenting God himself.

Evaluate your next message before you preach it. Where does God fit in the message?  Is He the main character?  Is He the real hero of the story?  Is the message pointing us to respond to Him?

It is easy to leave God as a background assumption as we preach a human level story with human level applications – be good, be better, be like so and so.  May God never be a background assumption as we preach the self-offering and self-giving revelation He gave to us!

One Thing Worth Copying

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

There seems to be an epidemic of copycat mentality in church ministry today.  I’m not referring primarily to pulpit plagiarism, although that is a real issue (only exacerbated by the availability of online sermons from the very good to the very poor – all of which are readily copied by some).  I’m thinking more generally.  If a church is successful (measure that however you choose), then methodology is deemed worthy of mass representation for the benefit of others who in some way seek to reproduce something of that methodology or vision in their own local context.

By the way, please don’t think of this simply as a feature of one brand of Christianity.  I have heard the sneers and comments at the expense of Willow Creek or Saddleback, but some who sneer in that direction would affirm and delight in, for example, Redeemer Presbyterian’s Church Planting Center, just to cite one example.

While some are quick to mock some of this, it is certainly not bad.  Many churches have been helped and strengthened (not just in numbers) by learning from other church leaders in respect to methodology and ministry vision.  Some of the contemporary attacks on Christian consumerism have an element of irony about them inasmuch as there seems to be a band-wagon of consumerism-bashing.  Nevertheless, we should ask ourselves after the next seminar we attend, or “this-is-how-we-did-it” book we read . . . am I copying the right thing?

I’m not condemning all the seminars and books on methodology.  We can, if we are discerning and aware of our own context, learn from what others are doing in theirs.  We should certainly think carefully about that if we are inclined to use methodology as a short-cut, a cut and paste approach to doing church, a photocopied church program from another place, another culture, another context.  Learn from others, but recognize their context, and implement prayerfully in recognition of your own context.

But the greater focus, the one so often missing today, is the one Jethani points to at one point in his book, The Divine Commodity, an engagement with the pervasive consumerist distortion of Christianity.  “Rather than reproducing a leader’s ministry methodology, we ought to focus on reproducing his or her devotion to God.” (p98)

Why don’t we give more attention to that?  Why do we look at “successful” church leaders and copy their method, but not yearn to reproduce their spiritual devotion?  If they don’t have that, then what is the method really worth?  If they do have that, what is it about us that fails to be stirred by it?  Look around for a great Christian leader, one with a deep devotion to God.  Don’t cut and paste.  You can’t fake that, although you may be tempted to try.  Don’t fake.  Don’t ignore.  Don’t methodologize.  In the right sense: Copy.

Ten Commandments for Clarity

/ Peter Mead / 5 Comments

Some preachers focus their attention on the world of the Bible.  Others focus their attention on the world of the listener.  These are the two worlds of a preacher, right?  Faithfulness to the text: biblical accuracy.  Connection with the listener: contemporary relevance.  Both matter, but don’t forget the one who is linking the two worlds together so that the Bible speaks powerfully to the listeners – the preacher.  As well as being biblical and relevant, make sure you are clear.

Where does clarity come from?  Here are ten quick hints or reminders for us to consider as we prepare our next message.

1. Clarity comes from preaching the one big idea of the text, not several ideas. Preach one idea and preach it well.  Don’t preach multiple ideas and confuse everybody.

2. Clarity comes from well-structured thought. Well-structured does not mean infinitely complex, but rather a clear, simple, logical progression of thought that remembers itself.  If they know that you know where you are going, there’s more chance listeners will travel with you.

3. Clarity comes from expulsion of unnecessary content. Every message needs some time in the cutting room.  Remove anything that is extraneous or unnecessary for the goal of communicating the main idea effectively and clearly.  Good content will be omitted!

4. Clarity comes from choosing words that communicate. Your goal is not to impress with your erudite, sophisticated and learned vocabulary.  Your goal is to communicate.

5. Clarity comes from repeating and raining down words to unify the message. Give listeners the repetition and consistent wording that provides unity to the ear.

6. Clarity comes from restatement of important sentences. When you have a key sentence, restate it so they have another chance to get it.  For those important statements in a message, run it by them again in different words so they don’t miss it.

7. Clarity comes from carefully planned and executed transitions. As has been said before (Mathewson?) – we tend to lose people in the turns, so drive slowly.  Make transitions obvious and clear, pause, re-engage, get people with you before you move on.

8. Clarity comes from effective use of variation in delivery. Vary the vocal elements of delivery – the pace at which you speak, the pitch at which you speak, the punch with which you speak.  Practice adding emphasis through various vocal means.

9. Clarity comes from effective use of physical movement. I didn’t mention variation in non-verbals, although that is important (don’t distract with monotonous or bizarre gestures).  But especially consider using your movement to clarify the content or progression of the message.

10. Clarity comes from effective engagement with the listener (energy, enthusiasm, etc.) All the best “technique” won’t communicate clearly if listeners are bored or disinterested.  An often overlooked key to clarity is simply to make sure listeners are engaged and with you as you speak!

More Thoughts on Homiletical History

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Following my post yesterday, I’d like to share some thoughts from Austin Tucker (Liberty Seminary).  It is his conviction that homiletical history is ignored, in part, because homiletics professors are appointed by seminaries based on skewed criteria.  According to Tucker, seminaries will choose somebody based on the model of dynamic delivery they provide, secondarily based on academic criteria and only then any sense of homiletical training or background.  Personally I suspect that any “skewing” also relates to budgets: after all, many Bible schools are limited once the main positions are in place – New Testament, Old Testament, Languages, Theology, History, etc. – so surely someone can just “cover” homiletics, or perhaps a local pastor can teach his personal approach?  Either way, homiletics background is often lacking in formal training.

So what does Tucker suggest?  He mentions a friend who picks a preacher each year to read a biography and read available sermons.  The benefits are four-fold:

1. It adds homiletical variety to our preaching, keeping us from becoming Brother Obvious.

2. It allows us who preach to others to sit at the feet of those who can preach to us for our spiritual enrichment.

3. It provides a golden vein of possibilities to enrich our own preaching. He quotes Grady Davis’ caution regarding the hijacking of illustrations from others.  Such illustrations are like “‘brightly colored kites pulled from the wind of somebody else’s thought’ and entangled in the branches of our sermons.”

4. Diligence in this pursuit restores the perspective that preaching really is a pastor’s priority in the midst of the numerous demands.

Please don’t read this post as being advice from me.  I can’t speak with authority on this since I have not diligently studied preachers of yesteryear.  But perhaps I’m convincing myself by these posts!

At Least A Minor Study in History?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

As those who preach, we have a whole raft of subject areas worthy of our study.  Central, in my estimation, is the ongoing engaged and dynamic personal study of Scripture.  We also must be studying the people to whom they preach, what they struggle with, their life experiences, how they think, etc.  Then there are numerous other areas of study, some of which might motivate you to buy books and read, others of which might only serve to cure insomnia.  But what about the subject of the history of preaching?

I know some reading this are avid readers of biography, church history and even preaching history.  I am also sure that some are definitely not.  Here’s a brief quote on the subject from David Larsen, writing in the Journal of the Evangelical Homiletics Society:

The history of preaching can encourage our hearts (as in the providential appearance of significant Biblical preaching in the most unlikely places and at the most unexpected times) as well as warn us about the perils and pitfalls which surround the practitioner of the craft at all times. Our times call for the wise and judicious balance which attention to history provides.

So for those less inclined to the history of preaching, where to start?  There are several (often multi-volume) series of books that address the subject directly.  Yet in many cases they, like most historical writing, tend to focus in one area, but remain blind to another.  Perhaps the best place to start is with biography of a preacher you find intriguing or encouraging – a Spurgeon, Sibbes, Luther or Edwards.  Perhaps it would be worth getting David Larsen’s A Company of Preachers and starting there.

One thing seems clear though, to ignore the past would be naive and might condemn us to repeating errors unnecessarily, or perhaps to leave our hearts weakened by missing the blessing offered by some of these great preachers.

(Here is an accessible starting point – take a look at this introductory article to Richard Sibbes that was just posted over on theologynetwork.org – click here)

Preaching As Invitation

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In our zeal to do our best, sometimes we might over deliver in a sermon.  For example, we might over deliver on the content of the passage so that listeners get the sense that they have no exhausted that passage and so have no need to return to it.  We might over deliver on the application of the passage so that listeners get the sense that the work of the passage has been done and they have no need to ponder further how they might live in light of it.  We might over deliver on the “experience” of the passage so that listeners get the sense taht heir encounter with God in that passage is now done and they have no real invitation for further engagement with Him.

Let’s be sure to prepare and preach a passage to the best of our ability.  The process may be exhausting at times, as well as a delightful privilege.  However, the sermon must not exhaust the listener’s sense of invitation.  Let’s present the passage in such a way that we invite people into the passage and the Scriptures more.  Let’s present the message in such a way that we invite people into the delight of relationship with Christ more.

One example.  This Sunday I am preaching the Mary and Martha incident in Luke 10.  What a tragedy it would be if I thoroughly satisfied listeners with the key distinction of the priority of relationship with Christ and service for Christ.  If people left that sermon happy that they had seen the difference and know what the passage is saying, but do not feel the implicit invitation to join Mary at Jesus’ feet and enjoy that relationship for themselves . . . if that happens, then I may have over-preached.

Preaching is an invitation into the text, more than that, an invitation into the delighted relationship offered to us as God offers His heart in the Word by His Spirit.

The Feelings of the Preacher

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Allow me to quote from Arturo Azurdia’s Spirit Empowered Preaching (p126):

_________________________________

In a manner of speaking, [the preacher] can say, a la Eric Liddel, “When I preach I feel His pleasure.”  However, it is also importrant to acknowledge that there are occasions when, to the preacher, the presence and power of the Spirit of God seem absent in any sensible way.  Distraction rules his mind.  Words come slugglishly.  Passion seems forced.  It is not uncommon for the gospel preacher to feel as though he has failed miserably in his attempt to deliver the word of God. On not a few Sunday afternoons I have been filled with such deep personal disappointment I have declared to my wife that I will never preach again.  One seasoned preacher has said aptly:

The pulpit calls those anointed to it as the sea calls its sailors, and like the sea it batters and bruises and does not rest.  To preach, to really preach, is to die naked a little at a time, and to know each time you do it that you must do it again.

To be sure, there will be Sundays when the man of God will have no sense of the operation of the Holy Spirit in his preaching.  Nevertheless, he must learn that any lack of the Spirt’s ‘felt presence’ on his part is not the infallible barometer of divine work among the congregation.

_________________________________

How true this is.  We must learn not to measure the work of the Spirit by the feelings we have after going through the experience of preaching.  Nevertheless, let’s not swing to the other extreme and neglect all awareness of feelings.  It is easy to become mechanical in an attempt to avoid being driven by emotionalism.  Surely the God who made us as heart-driven creatures in His own image longs for us to know the fullness of every life experience, including preaching, with feelings engaged rather than disengaged.  Don’t trust the feelings in judging the work of the Spirit through your preaching.  Equally don’t neglect the feelings, part of which are designed to function in our personal engagement with a loving God who pours out His love into our hearts by the Spirit whom He has given to us.

Some preachers are too easily swayed by battered and confused feelings.  Others act like robots, dutifully resisting all things affectionate.  Let’s be truly engaged with God at the heart level, pouring out our ministry as a fragrant offering to Him, experiencing the rollercoaster times and the calm times, loving God with all our hearts, and mind, and bodies, and loving others fully too.


Private Prayer

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I would never claim to be an expert in prayer.  I wish I was.  In fact, I repeatedly feel the urge to become one.  However, personal inadequacies in prayer do not mean that I dismiss it as unimportant in ministry.  I really appreciate this brief quote from Calvin Miller:

Preaching, in one sense, merely discharges the firearm that God has loaded in the silent place.

Yesterday I wrote about the concept of seeking prayer support and prayer cover for the ministry that we are involved in.  As vital as that is, it can never be a substitute for personal, private prayer.  I am a little sad at the changing of the season, because this summer I have grown to love an outdoor location nearby where I can go and pray, and dream, and think, and pray some more.  Perhaps it will still work without leaves and with rain, we’ll see.

It is important to find a way, a place, a time, for regular uninterrupted communing with the Lord.  A time to dream together about the future, to think together about the present, to weep together, to worship together, to be together with Him.  I remember the comment of one faculty member at the seminary I attended concerning another – he is a real man of prayer.  I’m not sure how that could be known, but actually it does show, doesn’t it?

In three or four decades time I hope people might say that about me . . . but for that to happen I need to be a man of prayer now.  What can we give up to free up time for prayer?  What else has the same sense of weightiness as fellowship with our Lord? Personal, private prayer.  Nothing else comes close.