Author: Peter Mead

Clusters and Journeys

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Influencers are leaders.  So preachers are leaders.  But how much do we lead in our preaching?  Take the issue of preaching calendars, for example.  At one extreme we have churches that have no calendar planned, or only preachers planned (but no subjects/texts).  I suppose the ultimate example might be  church that relies fully on visiting speakers who all choose their own message for each service.  At the other extreme we have churches who carefully map out the entire year of preaching, so that you can know now what text will be preached the second Sunday of next October.

Some would hold that only the Holy Spirit should lead the church, and thus the random outside preacher approach is fine since God can work through whoever is preaching.  I suppose we could all agree to that in principle, but at the same time, I want to graciously ask a question of that approach.  Is there not the risk of simply presenting biblical truths without any sense of deliberately leading the church forward on its journey?  How much opportunity is missed by “simply preaching” without really tapping into the broader reality of the growth of the local church?

Now for those who have a well-planned preaching calendar.  Is it merely constructed by the gathering of series in some attempt to give a balanced diet?  That’s a good start, but again, are we failing to lead as well as the opportunity affords?  Do we fall into preaching collections of random messages strung together by the unity of a Bible book, or a series title, but fail to prayerfully plot the journey of the church?  Or are we plotting a journey 16 months in advance and failing to take stock of where we actually have travelled several months into the year?

One further thought.  Do we rely on one-hit messages to achieve change when really we would be far better with a cluster of messages approach? One-hit messages can be stand alone, or they can be a series that moves from one thing to the next, without the clustering power intended by a series.

Wherever our church sits on the scale of pre-planned preaching schedules, all of us are in danger of missing out on the opportunity to really lead the church as we preach.  Let’s prayerfully consider how God would have us carry the burden of leadership, every time we plan a preaching schedule, and every time we preach.

The Heart of Who We Are and What We Do

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Spiritual formation is the heart of who we are and what we do.  We spend our time helping people allow God into their lives to form their spirits.  We encourage others to make space for God.  Yet we so often fail to heed our own advice.

These are the words of Chuck Sackett, reflecting on re-entering pastoral ministry after a quarter of a century teaching in a seminary.  Allow me to quote further from his article on preaching and pastoral ministry, the lines leading up to the above quote:

For approximately fifteen years I met with a small group of professors for spiritual formation.  We studied together, prayer together, laughed and cried together, celebrated and commiserated.  To this band of brothers I owe my spiritual sanity.

Spiritual formation takes time and discipline.  Spending time with God requires. . . spending time.

Ministry concerns; sermon preparation and marriage counseling; vision development and staff relatonships all command your time and attention.  A segment of your day given to Scripture, prayer, meditation, journaling, solitude, silence (you name the discipline) is a luxury you feel you can ill afford . . . so you move on from the important to the urgent.  And in the meantime your soul withers and dies.

So we come back to the initial quote – spiritual formation is the heart of who we are and what we do.  But do we take our own advice?

A Rather Poignant Visual

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Apparently we live in an age where people need the visual.  The visual is not only on our televisions in the evening, but on the screen in front of us all day at the office, and now on the screen in our hands as we commute in the train.  We are bombarded by the visual everywhere we look.  Apparently this is so patently obvious that self-appointed experts in “people today” are always quick to point out that people need something visual during the sermon too.  After all, something that is only heard has little to no chance of being remembered, according to the same experts.

Consequently it is equally obvious, to these experts, that the only way for preaching to succeed today is by use of powerpoint.  I suppose we could express deep appreciation that God has blessed us to live in the only generation with such capability!  In reality, people have always valued the visual, in every culture, in every age.  So was it unfair to only allow the invention of powerpoint in these last days?

I don’t intend to negate the value of powerpoint or similar software here.  I would graciously point out that in the business world, in education and apparently, even in the military, there has been a pulling back from powerpoint in recent years (especially in the final third of presentations where there is nothing like face-to-face communication for the final thrust and appeal).  Powerpoint can be used well in preaching, I believe that, even if I haven’t often seen it.  Rather than unthinking commitment to powerpoint, I would urge us to ponder David Larsen’s warning over triangulation in communication.  Technology is not bad, but it can so easily move sermon-time into circus-time and show-time on the one hand, or into over-intellectualization and de-emotionalization on the other.

Believe it or not, this is not a post about powerpoint.  It’s a post about the visual.  Preaching has always been a visual as well as audible communication form.  Two important ways spring to mind:

1. As we preach the Word, images form. Good preaches paints pictures in the heart of the listener.  They hear what we say and they see what we mean.  Better, they hear what God says and see what He means.  They enter into the narratives, they see the truths, they see themselves living out the reality preached.  Good preaching is full of images, irrespective of our use of powerpoint.

2. As we preach the Word, they see us. This is nothing to get excited about in a vain sense, but it is powerful.  Far more powerful than any clip art or projected photo.  Despite well-intentioned prayers before sermons, listeners do see the preacher, and that is part of God’s design.  Truth through personality.  God’s message through His messenger.  We communicate with our words and tone, but also through our body language, gesture, expression.  We communicate with our words, but also with our lives.  We are, as David Larsen put it, a rather poignant visual.

Oh, What a Calling!

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

We live in an age of increasing biblical illiteracy.  While we may not lose sleep over the growing lack of awareness of structural details of the tabernacle or believers’ ability to recount the kings of Judah in order, some things should concern us.  I just read an article referring to the ever-shrinking affirmation of Jesus’ exclusivity among self-professed evangelicals.  I just experienced it first-hand at a large gathering of believers.

If Jesus wasn’t right to teach that he is the only way to God, and if the Bible isn’t really right to state that there is no other way to gain salvation, then where do we stand on everything else?  I can understand how people, bombarded and brain-washed by the tolerance teaching of our age, can feel uncomfortable with claims of exclusivity.  What I do not understand is how they piece everything together in their own minds, and how they can have any confidence in God when His Word is perceived to be flawed.

What about the deity of Christ?  His resurrection?  The nature of God?  We really are living in an age when christians are often very committed to a composite theology of their own construction, but one significantly shaped by the tone and teaching of the world.  Perhaps this has always been the case, but nevertheless, we need to be concerned to clarify the truths of Scripture.

At the same time let’s not allow ourselves to think that truth clarified means job done.  Remember the relational core of Christianity.  God in relationship with His people.  Knowing the facts about my spouse is not enough for a healthy relationship.  There is a dimension that goes much beyond the brain and cognition when it comes to marriage.  The same is true when it comes to the relationship that human marriage illustrates.

What a task is ours as we preach!  Not only must we present the truth of God’s Word to counter the constant confusion engendered by a corrupted world system, but we must also consider the dynamics of relationship between the Lord and His bride – a bride that so often is lulled into diminished relationship by truth-assent alone, or experience alone, or effort alone.

Preach the Word of God in all its truth, in all its winsomeness, in all its power, in all its subtlety, in all its relevance.  Preach the Word of God, not as man-centered teaching, but God-centered self-giving.  Preach the Word of God to the mind, but don’t stop there, preach also to the heart.  Preaching, what a calling!

Lone Ranger Preacher?

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Apart from all the spiritual dangers inherent in journeying alone in ministry, there are implications for preaching too.  As preachers most of us naturally fall into a lone ranger approach to sermon preparation.  The time constraints in ministry, the tendencies of personal temperament (many preachers are introverts, it seems), and often the background of training and observed behavior all push us into a solo approach to sermon preparation.  While some things must be done on our own in prayerful solitude with the Lord, we should proactively engage with others too.  Alternative perspectives strengthen preaching on every level.

While it is still technically a solo exercise, take stock of your reading.  Do you read things from different perspectives, or always the same old familiar authors?  It is easy to become comfortable in reading and lose the glorious benefit of being stretched, challenged, provoked, and perhaps even incensed!

Take stock of your preparation process.  Do you actively engage with others as you prepare sermons?  I’m not saying any of us can do all of these every week, but here are some ideas.  Obviously your spouse, if you have one – the perspective of the opposite gender can really help.  Other preacher or preachers?  Perhaps in your church (perhaps ones you are mentoring or being mentored by), or perhaps in another church – time spent talking through two messages together will probably benefit both of you more than spending that half hour on your own message alone!  A feed-forward group?  That is a group of people brought together to specifically share input for forthcoming preaching – could be content, could be support material, could be giving you insight into how differently people think on an issue, etc.

Being a preacher may be a solitary calling in some ways, perhaps lonely at times, certainly a regular overt entry into spiritual warfare, but is that all?  Let us not forget that God has brought us into communion with His people as well as Him.  Let us not forget that we need others just as others need others.  And let’s remember that what is true of us in life and ministry is also true in preaching – let’s not be lone ranger preachers.  Let us rather strengthen ourselves and our preaching by exposure to greater perspective.

Remind People Of Things Once Known

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I recognize that this site is read by people in a variety of countries, so what I write in this post may not be equally relevant to all.  In the contexts where I do most of my preaching, in the west, there are many changes taking place.  One is the level of biblical knowledge.  Here’s a quote from Craig Loscalzo in Apologetic Preaching (p24):

We can no longer assume our preaching takes place within a more or less “Christian” culture.  The great narratives of Judeo-Christian belief, the pivotal stories of the Bible’s characters, the events of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ either are not known or do not carry the meaning-making significance they did for previous generations.

There are many implications for preaching in this reality.  For example, we should be careful about passing references to biblical stories as “illustrations” in our messages – what use is an illustration that the listeners don’t understand?  We should be careful about assuming people understand background to the text we are preaching.  We should be wary of going “over their heads” by aiming too high and not laying down the basics (but at the same time not merely offering diluted fare).

While there are many implications that come from the lack of biblical knowledge, theological awareness, and Christian thought, there is one main implication that stands out.  Let’s finish Loscalzo’s paragraph (and translate the national reference to our own, if it fits):

Biblical knowledge, Christian doctrine and theological reflection must be presented and re-presented from America’s pulpits – yes, even to American Christians.

Some Basic Building Blocks

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Last month I attended a workshop by Dr Rod Wilson of Regent College.  I appreciated a couple of his introductory comments which I will share with you this morning, “We have a message, but we need a method – the Holy Spirit is not an excuse.”

I’m very hesitant to limit the field of homiletics to methodology, but I agree with what he was saying.  The fact is that we don’t have to come up with some sort of core message, we have that already, and no matter how badly we may preach, the message we have is still awesome.  However, simply having the truth does not make for great teaching or preaching.  And how many people lean on the Holy Spirit as an excuse to not prepare, to not develop in ministry, etc?  I find that homiletics is not pure methodology – in reality it tends to be a field in which many other aspects of biblical, theological, spiritual and ministry-related subjects converge.  Yet I would not deny that methodology is important, and I do get a bit concerned by the apparently popular dismissive tone toward homiletics.

Content and method both matter.  But then there is something else too.  Last week I enjoyed fellowshipping with Chip Kirk from OM in the USA (www.chipkirk.com) and appreciated his comment in conversation: “I know that if my ministry is going to achieve anything, I either need an angle, or I need fire.  I don’t want to find an angle.”  Amen to that.

Content matters.  Method matters.  “Anointing” matters.  Three core and critical building blocks of a preaching ministry.

Where is the Call to Repentance?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

So many deeply challenging messages fall short of their intent.  After preaching through a powerful passage, the final few minutes often undermine everything.  All sorts of conviction has been achieved, then at the end all open wounds are smoothed over, rather than following through to excise the growth of ungodly matter in the life of the listener.  The sermonic surgery ends in comfort and the problems persist.  Why?

One reason is that too often preachers are too careful to offer balance and comfort too soon.  In effect, the message finishes flat with something along the lines of, “But what if you haven’t lived up to this?  What if you’ve failed in this area?  Well there is grace, God forgives, etc.”  And people go away having felt convicted, but reassured that all is well.  Whether or not all is well, all is back to normal and lives move on relatively unchanged by the encounter with God’s Word in that message.

When the light of God’s Word shines in all its radicality, in all its power, in all its uncompromising directness, let’s be careful not to undermine the whole thing by merely reassuring people.  This is not a call for extreme holiness preaching without love – a sort of military-style duty-driven drill of responsibility.  It is a call for the scandalous love of God in the gospel to reek havoc in comfortable self-absorbed lives. It’s the pulpit equivalent of a Keith Green concert – calling for deep repentance and response, rather than comforting listeners with the “everything is happy” jingles of some “Christian” music.  God’s overwhelming love calls us to full followership, to radical reality and response, and sometimes to tears, silence, repentance and brokenness.

If we preach the Word, but always sooth the listener, then perhaps we fail to preach the Word.  Perhaps we are tickling ears.  Perhaps we are preaching in fear.  Or perhaps we are preaching out of our own limited spirituality.  Perhaps it’s time for some of us, maybe all of us, to be broken ourselves, to be repenting of comfort-preaching, to get real in response to an oh-so-radical Gospel?  Let’s ask ourselves two questions, one concerning our preaching, and first of all, one concerning our own lives.

Our Posture Before the Bible

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Recently, Tom Lyon wrote an article for The Banner of Truth magazine entitled “Our Posture Before the Word of God.”  As preachers who spend time studying God’s Word, it would be wise to remind ourselves of these principles.  Equally, as preachers who preach to people who also may be spending time in the Bible and may also be tempted to twist its teaching for a personal agenda, it would be wise to convey these attitudes in how we handle Scripture before them.

1.    If I find something with which I cannot agree, I am wrong.

2.    If I find something which I cannot understand, I am wrong to judge it on that account. A quote from Martyn Lloyd-Jones: “You have a very small brain and you have a very poor spirit within you; do not be surprised that you cannot understand.”

3.    If I find something which would contradict the clear teaching of Scripture elsewhere, I cannot be right.

4.    If I find something which would slander the revealed character of God, I am certainly wrong.

5.    If I find something which brings up an apparent contradiction, I am wrong not to face it squarely.

6.    If I find something which leads to a summary principle, I am wrong if I do not follow it to its conclusion.

7.    If I find something which disturbs my settled convictions, I am wrong to dismiss it on that account.

8.    If I find something which calls for decisive action and I remain inert, I am fatally wrong.

9.    If I find something which I dare not follow in its practical drift, I am destructively wrong.

10.    If I find something which others blush to admit or struggle to avoid, I am unwise to follow them at that point. A quote from Calvin: “The delicacy of those who affect an appearance of greater prudence than the Holy Spirit in removing or resolving difficulties, is quite intolerable.”

11.    If I find something upon which popular religion frowns, I may presume I am on the right track. C.H. Spurgeon quote: “Be assured there is nothing new in theology except that which is false.”

12.    If I find something which would tend to humble man and glorify God, I am most probably right.

I quote the list as it is, perhaps wanting to add an extra qualifier here and there (such as #11 – not everything old is right, of course).  But I’ll leave the list as it is.

The Opposite of Church Growth – Really?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I recently had a discussion about reaching Muslims with the gospel.  The point came out that to many Muslims, we Christians don’t look any different than the world around us.  We watch the same movies, live the same lives, have the same number of divorces, etc.  After all, overt Christians on MTV (they have a big cross hanging round their necks) sing some of the most atrocious lyrics.  So while their religion changes lives, obviously Christianity is pure fluff.

At one level we see massive misunderstanding.  Just because someone wears a cross on a chain doesn’t mean they are actually followers of Christ.  After all, you wouldn’t watch Friends, see the Christmas tree and therefore assume they are typical Christians, would you?  Many do.  But at another level, it is true that churches tend not to be filled with people living a sold out radical faith.  We don’t see many living totally abandoned lives, in a sort of Christlike Jihad where the weapons are not violent, but stunningly loving, where the armor is God’s armor and the clash with spiritual forces is continual and real, demanding the deepest of devotion to our master and commander.

Perhaps if the church was more uncompromising in its spirituality it would stand a greater chance of communicating the gospel’s power to Muslims?

But then the fear kicks in.  As preachers, if we preached for this kind of radical spirituality, surely we’d offend people and lose people and empty the pews.  It would be the opposite of church growth.  We’d be single-handedly responsible for emptying the church!  Would it?  Would we?  Perhaps the gospel doesn’t need us to excuse it’s strength.  Perhaps the Bible doesn’t need us to undermine it’s powerful call on lives.

Perhaps . . . perhaps if we lived and preached a radical sold-out all-for-Jesus come-live-die uncompromisingly clear biblical message, perhaps we would see the church thinned out.  Perhaps we would see some leave, their desire for sanctified entertainment unmet and their worldliness made to feel uncomfortable.  And perhaps we’d stand a chance of reaching Muslims with the gospel.  More than that, perhaps there would be something attractive about such a message that the hunger for reality in our culture of mind-numbing entertainment would kick in and our apparent attempts to purge the church might result in genuine church growth?  Perhaps.

If the offense is the messenger, we will merely do damage.  But if the offense is the gospel, watch out!

Something to ponder.