Author: Peter Mead

Preach for Faith – Lennox II

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I was reflecting on Dr John Lennox’s concerns as Christians add fuel to the fire of Richard Dawkin’s faulty logic.  Faith, by his definition, is knowingly trusting in something which cannot be proven – believing against reason.  Yet Lennox yearns for people to understand that the faith is always a response to fact, and the Christian faith is firmly founded on trustworthy facts – not least the resurrection of Jesus.  Yesterday I shared his concern over the “leap in the dark” language used in some Christian circles as a very poor explanation of faith.  Today I’d like to share his second concern.

2. An over-emphasis on faith as a gift given from above.  Now it would be very easy for some readers to dismiss this, or to get into a theological slanging match.  I certainly don’t want to take sides or position this site on one side or the other of the debates this touches on.  Whether we agree with his own position or not, I think we must engage with Dr Lennox’s concern.  Could it be that an over-emphasis on faith as a gift received is inadvertently undermining the truth that Christianity is founded on fact, not least the fact of the resurrection of Jesus?  Could it be that internal theological debates undermine the presentation of the gospel to a culture now influenced by new atheism?  Could it be that irrespective of our stance on the so-called “free-will” debate, that we need to consider underlining, rather than undermining, the facts on which our faith response is built?

We preach the faith.  We preach for faith.  Obviously there is much to ponder in a world influenced by a whole smorgasbord of thinking, from the clear to the fallacious and deceptive.

Preach for Faith – Lennox

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I was not alone in really appreciating John Lennox’s preaching and teaching at the recent European Leadership Forum in Hungary.  As someone who has been focused on debating Richard Dawkins and other “new atheists” in recent years, Dr Lennox has a lot to say about faith and apologetics.  He points to a foundational plank in Richard Dawkins’ logic, his erroneous definition of faith.  I’m quoting from memory, but essentially faith, according to Dawkins, is belief in something where you know there is no evidence.  Consequently it is not possible to really discuss reality with a “person of faith” since by definition they know they are committed to that for which there is no evidence.  It is sad to see the strategy Dawkins has created for his own purposes, but perhaps even sadder to see some Christians rushing headlong into the illogical snare.

The critical role of fact. Faith is a response to fact.  If the facts are shaky, so is the faith.  If the facts are the tall tales of an untrustworthy teenager, then the faith is relatively worthless.  But if the facts are genuine facts, then faith in response to those facts is not so easily dismissable.  The Christian faith is founded on fact.  The central fact is that of the resurrection of Jesus, interestingly the central feature of early apostolic preaching (when there were plenty of eye-witnesses still around to corroborate or to refute the preaching).

As preachers we have a key role in being able to help our hearers understand that their faith is founded on fact.  Yet Lennox points to two common errors, as he sees it, in contemporary Christianity:

1. The tendency to present faith as a leap in the dark.  We hear this from uninformed testimonies where the person speaking is nervous at having so many eyes trained on them and quite naturally feels unable to fully and eloquently explain the whole Christian faith and so simply pulls out the “I don’t really get it, I just took a leap in the dark and now I can testify that something has changed in me” card.  While it would be nice to hear testimonies that are somewhat better informed, there is something compelling about a testimony that is still a work in progress, someone who stands like the blind man in John 9 and cannot compete with the theologians, yet can speak with the authority of personal experience.  However, as preachers we need to make sure we are not giving more of this “leap in the dark” error through our preaching, or even implying it.  Christian faith is a response to fact.

Tomorrow I’ll share Dr Lennox’s other concern in how we preach faith today.

Preach for Faith

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Probably it’s a combination of attending an apologetically driven conference and being scheduled to preach on faith this Sunday, but I’m pondering preaching for faith.  I suppose that is always close to the heart of the matter in Christian preaching.  Anyway, here are a couple of thoughts, although this could be a series of posts for the rest of the month.

The critical role of God’s Word. Right back in Genesis 3 everything “went wrong” when?  When they doubted God’s Word and listened to another “authority.”  Surely God’s Word couldn’t be trusted since this impressive creature had disobeyed it and yet still lived?  So they ate and they died spiritually, they began to die physically and the whole creation began to suffer death.  From that decisive moment on, the Bible is full of narratives, all of which have a big question mark hanging over them like an unfurled banner – “will people trust God’s Word or not?”  Interestingly, when God’s Son steps into the world to make a path back to deep relational intimacy with God, He comes as God’s Word.  Will he be trusted?  Doubting God’s word in the first place led us away, now there is a symmetry in the remedy in that we are asked to trust God’s Word (incarnated and inscripturated) in order to be brought back.  Consequently Paul writes to the Romans that faith comes by hearing, so the Word of God must be preached.  Peter tells his readers that they were born again through the resurrection of Jesus from the dead and through the living and enduring Word of God.  Hebrews urges the believers to remember their leaders who spoke the Word of God to them, and thereby imitate their faith.  In John 17, Jesus prays concerning the Word of God that He has given to His followers, and prays that they will be sanctified by the truth, which is the Word.  I could go on pulling example after example, but the point is critical – the preaching of the Word of God is absolutely central to the purposes of God in redeeming a lost world.

So the simple question is this – as you look at your message this Sunday, what is the appropriate faith response to God’s Word as preached in your message?  Is it clear?  Is it central?

In the next post I’d like to share some provocative thoughts on faith from Dr John Lennox.

Preacher Say Something

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday my wife had to spend the day in the hospital having blood taken every hour.  So I received regular updates by text message (SMS).  She was listening to some CDs she’d been sent.  Teaching on the subject of the family.  I received a sort of running commentary by text message.  The bottom line?  This preacher had taken a long time to say nothing.  Sort of a safari through Scripture making passing observations about families in the Bible (“Oh look!  There’s another one!”).  A great opportunity, but he’d essentially just filled time.

I am not one to spend hours trying to fix a broken pipe.  I tend to think that if I can afford to have someone else do the work, then I will, because my time is also worth something (and because I’m rubbish at fixing things and will end up paying anyway!)  If I spend four hours to save fifty pounds ($75), have I really saved any money?  Likewise, when we are preaching, we are asking people to sit and listen to us for 30 minutes, 45 minutes, however long you preach.  Please don’t just fill time.  Say something.  Study the text until you grasp it, until it grasps you, then say the text’s something.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to scan over this Sunday’s message once it is ready to roll out.  Is there any filler?  Is there any pointless meandering?  Is there any “saying something and nothing?”  Why is that line there?  And that paragraph?  What about that illustration?  In the past I wrote a post entitled “Please only powerpoint on purpose.”  I suppose I could steal my own line to conclude this post – please only produce preaching prose on purpose.

3 DQ’s – Dynamite Questions

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Okay, that should be “developmental questions,” but they are dynamite.  Sunukjian and others have followed Robinson in making quite a fuss of these three questions.  I would encourage you to do the same.  The questions represent the three ways in which a stated idea can be developed.  There are no other ways to develop an idea than in these three directions:

1. What does it mean? (Explain)

2. Is it true? (Prove)

3. What difference does it make? (Apply)

The great thing about knowing these three questions is that they are so versatile:

Use them in studying the passage – Unless the writer is moving on to a new idea, these three questions can help you understand what is going on in the passage.  Not only do they move you toward an understanding of content, but also authorial intent – which is so valuable as you wrestle with a passage.

Use them in developing your main idea – Consider your listeners in order to determine which of the three developmental questions are needed to develop your message.  If they don’t understand the idea, there’s no point jumping to application without further explanation.  Just because people understand what you are saying, it doesn’t mean they are convinced – perhaps proof and support is needed?

Use them in developing each movement in the message – What works on a macro level also works in the chunks.  With these three questions as keys to developing your ideas as you communicate, you need never scratch your head for things to say (few of us struggle with that), or simply pad the message with pointless filler materials (some of us may struggle with that!)

I don’t advocate a predictable and slavish repetition of these three questions under each point of a message.  I know some that do and the result is both predictable and often unengaging, not to mention how it can turn every genre into a dissected discourse.  However, it is not a bad discipline to be asking yourself these three questions, both in study of the passage and in preparation of the message.

Undermining Popular Fallacies

/ Peter Mead / 5 Comments

A couple of years ago we had the relatively short-lived hype of The Da Vinci Code movie.  While the hype soon dissipated, the effects of Dan Brown’s book and then the film have surely continued below the surface for many uninformed readers.  How many in our churches are under the impression that Jesus’ deity was a decision made by a vote three centuries after He was on earth, or that the New Testament canon was formed in a smoke-filled room by leaders with a hidden agenda?  The absolute historical fallacies promulgated by The Da Vinci Code called many of us to address them directly at the time (special Da Vinci Code messages).  However, the effect of such teaching is longer lasting and perhaps we need to think through whether we need to subtly address underlying false assumptions about the Bible, Christ and history?

In a recent seminar I used a video clip wherein members of the public were giving their personal views of the Bible.  Most of them saw very little value in the Bible and so didn’t read it for themselves.  Several times the same fallacy came through.  “So much has been lost in translation,” and “it is poorly translated” and my favorite of all – a mini-beard stroking “intellectual” who stated, as if every informed person would know this information, that “the Bible has been translated over five million times!”  This kind of misunderstanding is common in the streets and even the universities of our towns.  The so-called “New Atheists” love to take pot-shots at the Bible, as do other major world religions that do not advocate the translation of their “holy book.”

While the Bible has been at least partially translated into over 2000 languages, we need to make it clear that the Bible people are looking at as  they listen on a Sunday morning has been translated once.  From the original language text into English – direct, by highly competent linguists, once.  We do not have the end result of a two-thousand year game of Chinese Whispers.  We do not have the last link in a chain of translation and mis-translation.  Once.  We have very accurate translations of original language texts based on overwhelming manuscript evidence, the likes of which no other historical work can even come close.  Just once.

In a culture where peoples’ understanding of the authenticity and authority of the Bible cannot in any way be presumed, we as preachers need to think about how to establish the trustworthy nature of the text that we preach.  A great message is so easily undermined if there is no confidence in the text from which it comes.

Final Reflections on the European Leadership Forum (ELF)

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday I was really reflecting on a couple of specific messages given.  But here are two very important overall reflections on this great event:

6. Remember that the Bible is not second class to apologetics/theology/counselling, etc. Several speakers really stood out in their emphasis on the Bible (not just in the Bible Teachers Network).  It is easy to fall into thinking that the Bible is somehow intellectually second class to top level apologetics or systematic theology or even a discipline like counselling.  In reality the Bible is at the core and these other “disciplines” should be around the edge seeking to reflect the teaching of the Bible accurately.  When they fail to do so, they surely fail, period.  Are we robustly biblical, or have we fallen for the lie that something else is superior in power and value?

7. Expository preaching feeds the soul in ways other presentations of truth do not. I was reassured to both experience and hear from others that expository preaching does a work in peoples’ lives in a way that non-expository approaches do not.  Those who were present will probably reflect on the same contrast, although perhaps in different words.  By this point I do not mean that preaching has to be done in a particular form or way.  What I do mean is that the Bible text needs to be boss of the content, rather than hand-maid; communication has to be effectively engaging, rather than agonizing; relevance to listeners needs to be demonstrated and emphasized, rather than assumed; and everything needs to be very much done in reliance on the Spirit, rather than on personal “authority” (academic, professional or experiential).

A great week, a great event, a great vision.  I’ve come home physically tired and spiritually energised.  I’m thankful for the forum and hope it goes from strength to strength.  And, on reflection, I’m thankful for expository preaching and hope it also gets stronger and stronger across Europe and the globe.  We need it, both at the forum, and in our countries.

More Reflections on the European Leadership Forum (ELF)

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

On Saturday I shared a couple of reflections on the ELF in Hungary as related to preaching.  Here are a few more to ponder together:

3. Watch your language for second language listeners. In some ways I’d expect this to be obvious, but obviously it wasn’t for one or two speakers.  When there are people in the audience that are listening in their second language, watch yours. While they may understand the words, they may not be familiar with local figures of speech.  What does it mean that “the apostles made a killing on the God-fearers!”?  Always be aware of who is listening when you speak.

4. Affirm as well as rebuke. Along the same lines, actually reflecting on the same message, it is important not to simply generalise and rebuke without some affirmation too.  Perhaps the majority of your congregation never witness to anyone, but be sure to recognize that some do, whether or not they feel effective in doing so.  It is much easier to blast, it stirs and maximises effect.  But with any group, and especially an international group, be sure to affirm the good that is happening today.

5. Delivery matters. You cannot turn good content into a good talk without good delivery.  (At the same time good delivery will not sanctify weak content.)

I was going to complete the list today, but actually I’ll save the last thoughts for tomorrow.  As ever, feel free to comment.  I’d love to hear the reflections of those present at the ELF too.

Reflections on the European Leadership Forum (ELF)

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

This week I had the privilege of attending the European Leadership Forum in Hungary.  This is an outstanding event that seeks to connect ministries and leaders across the continent via various “networks” that meet during the forum, then stay in touch in between.  The event was exceptionally well run.  A few random thoughts as far as preaching is concerned:

1. Evangelical Christianity is intellectually very robust. This is certainly not the only thing that we can or should say about the faith, but often we feel bullied into not believing this.  With strident new atheism on the march, as well as other belief systems, it is easy to slip into a fluffy Christianity that fails to stand for truth or present the evidence for the reliability of the Bible, the reality of the resurrection and so on.  I don’t want to shift this blog into an apologetic debate center (there are other sites with that focus), but as preachers it is helpful to be reminded of the robust core of the faith.

2. Leaders need to be reading at a higher level. In the busy schedule of life and ministry it is easy to slip into a low level of personal intake.  As a preacher you are an influencer, and therefore a leader, irrespective of title or position.  As a leader you need to be feeding on that which is deeply nutritious for your soul.  As a leader you need to be, wherever possible, pushing yourself beyond the level of those you influence: perhaps through your choice of reading materials, your level of sacred familiarity with the Word of God, your level of intimacy with the Lord, among other things.

I’ll keep this post short and save some other reflections on the forum for next time.  If you were there this week, please comment and share your reflections too.

Keep Looking

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Observation does not work in haste.  It takes time to keep looking at something and really see it.  I’m told that you cannot get the best out of an art gallery by rushing around and taking mental snapshots (my default approach).  I know that neither can you get the best out of a Bible passage from a quick glance.  The problem is that we find triggers to move on.

One trigger that often gets us, and therefore undermines our observation, is that we “find a message.”  We look at the passage, see a superficial outline, and then move on to forming the message.  In reality we would do well to continue observing the passage.

For example, Colossians 4:2-6.  When I first looked at that a few weeks ago, the structure was fairly obvious.  Paul is asking the Colossians to keep on praying (verse 2), for Paul to have opportunities to speak the gospel (verses 3-4).  Then Paul moves on to describe how their conduct should be toward outsiders (verses 5-6).  The structure is simple and it preaches: pray for ministers, and interact well yourselves.

It works, it preaches, but further observation helps to unite the passage further.  As it stands, my outline so far is really two almost distinct ideas.  However, the passage flows as one thought.  For instance, Paul urges them to pray for God to open doors for the gospel (v3), so that he may speak as he “ought to speak.” (v4).  Likewise, perhaps the action of the readers described in verse 5 implies the opening of a door, so that they will have opportunity to speak “as they ought” to speak (v6).  The passage is asking for prayer for “ministers” as well as for themselves, but it is not so distinct as “pray for ministers, but simply interact well yourselves with outsiders.”  No, the prayer (and the action) is for the opening of doors and then the appropriate speech to follow.  If the language of “minister” is used for verses 3-4, then it must also be used of verses 5-6.  There is a unity to the passage that a superficial outline may miss.

Often it is easy to see something that will preach, and then stop looking.  Let’s be diligent to wrestle more with the text, to believe there is greater unity to the thought than may at first appear.  The writer had a clear thought, let’s honour that by pursuing the thought as we study.