Author: Peter Mead

Disadvantage Us?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Here’s a quote worth pondering, wherever you sit theologically.  It is quoted in a book that is more mainstream and liturgical in orientation than the more evangelical books I tend to quote from.  It is a quote by P.T.Forsyth in reference to the Roman Catholic church.  I’m sure this post could stir response on numerous levels, but the quote is worth considering in reference to our preaching:

The Catholic form of worship will always have a vast advantage over ours so long as people come away from its central act with the sense of something done in the spirit-world, while they leave ours with the sense only of something said to this present world.

In many churches we might beg to differ that something is really said to “this present world” either.  But the point is intriguing.  Are we so connected and “relevant” that there is nothing heavenly, spiritual, special, involved in church? For those of us committed to the centrality of the spoken word in worship, perhaps we need to prayerfully ponder what this might mean for us.

The book, more liturgical in its orientation, points to another conclusion that could be drawn – some seek to separate words and action.  They say, in effect, that the “Eucharist” can do the talking, so don’t bother preaching.  “Some clergy are scared to preach.  They  play up the liturgy as a way of hiding from the people.  A sermon is the best barometer of the spiritual life of the minister.  Some fear that it is too accurate an instrument.”  (Book title and author coming in the next few days…oh the intrigue!)

Words and actions do not fight each other.  They go together in worship.  Whatever label you use, Jesus did give a symbolic act and request that it be done in remembrance of Him.  He also explained it.  With words.  I think it is David Wenham who refers to communion and baptism as enacted parables.  We must follow the instructions of Jesus, and the example too.  He came to preach.  He sent His followers out to preach.  Let’s not hide from preaching behind an excuse of some viable and even biblical “alternative.”  But let us also consider how our preaching might be more than a mere “this world” presentation.  It needs to be that, and so much more besides.

The Aim of Preaching Easter

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

What is your aim as you preach this Easter?  In his book, Sacred Rhetoric (p119-120), Michael Pasquarello makes the following comment about Martin Luther:

Luther’s homiletic aim was to demonstrate, by means of the Gospel, that the resurrection is more than an idle tale or a painted picture that evokes admiration and religious sentiment. . . . He hoped that in telling others the Easter story, the presence of the risen Christ might elicit faith’s true confession: “Christ is my Savior and King.”

Let’s not settle for a complacent approach to sermonic purpose as Easter approaches.  Why am I preaching this passage on this date to these people?  Because it’s Easter, of course!  That’s not enough, what do we aim to achieve?

What should the result be for the non-Christian present?  Luther wrote, “Although Christians will identify themselves with Judas, Caiaphas, and Pilate – sinful, condemned actors in the Gospel story – there is another who took the sins of humanity on himself when they were hung around his neck. . . . And today, Easter Sunday, when we see him, they are gone; there is only righteousness and life, the Risen Christ who comes to share his gifts.” (Sermons, 125, cited in Pasquarello, 120)

What should our Easter preaching do for Christians?  Again, same book, “Christians are now free to look away from their sins, from evil and death, and to fix their gaze upon Christ, which is the logic or grammar of faith.”

What is your aim as you preach this Easter?  Be specific.  Target your message.  Don’t waste a glorious occasion.

Surfacing Needs vs Felt Needs vs No Needs

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Which approach do you take in your introduction?  If you are typical, you probably fall into the third category – no needs.  Most preaching tends to begin with some form of engaging content followed by the text, or even just straight into the text.  Whether or not people want to listen to that text preached is apparently a mute point (unless you could see into the heads of the listeners, then you’d probably never ignore the issue of “need” again!)

Some cling to a “no needs” approach to sermon introduction because they are concerned about a “felt needs” approach to preaching.  After all, we do not really start with the listener and then preach only to that which they feel they need.  We want to do better than that.  So perhaps its better to just get into the text and the message, rather than trying to address the needs of the listener in the introduction?

Thus Haddon Robinson carefully speaks of “surfacing a need” as a preacher.  It is not that the listener’s felt need determines the choice of text or even the meaning assigned to a text.  Nor does the speaker have to create a need for the text.  No, the text speaks to a need inherent in the creature, a need that the self-giving love of the Creator will meet.  So the preacher surfaces the need to which the text speaks.  This approach starts from the text, but the sermon starts with the listener.

So I suggest we don’t start disconnected (“ok, enough irrelevant humor, let’s have a reading” or even “last week we were in Lamentations 3, please turn to Lamentations 4.”)  Nor should we start with “felt needs” (“alright, you’re all asking me on facebook how to make life more comfortable and still be able to afford entertainment during the economic downturn, let’s turn to Judges chapter . . .”)  I strongly suggest trying to start by “surfacing the need” addressed by the text.  In your study it begins with the text.  Then in your message you start by highlighting the need in the listeners life so they are thirsty for the passage and the message.

Preaching Means Picking Words – Part 4

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Alright, I think this will be the last in the series.  Yesterday I made mention of sensory details and sufficient time for images to form on the screens of the hearts and imaginations of the listeners.  This is all true and important, well worth pondering, but here’s another piece of the puzzle.  Listeners won’t remain listeners unless they are engaged and interested:

Pick words which energize the message! It’s almost a given that most preachers are imbalanced in their reading.  We tend to read books on biblical studies, theology, commentaries, etc.  These books are precise, but rarely energizing or invigorating to read.  But if we preach like a dry and precise commentary, listeners will miss out on the gems in our content.  We need to practice the skill of energizing our descriptive vocabulary.  Did Saul hide?  No, he cowered.  Did Goliath call out?  Or did he bellow?  What about fog, does it come, or does it creep?  Was that a crowd gathered around Stephen, or was it a mob?

Series Conclusion – It would do us all good to do a stock check on our preaching vocabulary.  Is it accurate, or sloppy?  Does it communicate, or try to show off?  Is it lofty, or natural?  Is it vivid, or bland?  Does it engage and energize, or fall flat?  Perhaps there’s one area to work on. Perhaps more than one.  It’s worth the effort though, after all, at some very basic and fundamental level, preaching means picking words!

Preaching Means Picking Words – Part 3

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Precision is good, pride is not.  Pomposity is slightly different than lofty language.  But there’s still more to write on this issue.  When we preach, we pick words.

Develop your descriptive vocabulary. The Bible text is usually quite lean and sparse when it comes to descriptive details.  It certainly doesn’t paint the pictures like contemporary fiction writers do – “It was her long, flowing, mahogany-brown hair that first caught his attention.  Her confident gait held in tension by the reserved expression on her face.  Was it reserved, or was it demure?  He wondered as she approached the ticket desk, lifting her black leather purse onto the high grey surface and leaning forward on her elbows…” I could go on, I know you’re intrigued (she wanted non-smoking tickets).

So if the Bible is lean and sparse, surely we shouldn’t preach like we’re writing contemporary fiction (where it can take 10 pages of description to get to the conversation)?  It’s true, we shouldn’t trivialize the text, or over-describe and assign inspiration to that which is merely sanctified imagination.  On the other hand, our listeners are listening.  They can’t go back over the text and read it again, engaging their imaginations (as they might at home in their quiet times).  As listeners they need sensory details and sufficient time for the story to form in their hearts and minds.

I try to imagine a blank screen in the minds of my listeners.  As I explain the text, tell the story, etc., I am trying to give enough information, using effective word choices, and taking enough time for an image to form on those blank screens.  It is tempting and too easy to preach the Bible at such pace that listeners never get beyond the fog on the screens.  They won’t remember a set of propositions in the same way as they’d remember the mark left by a clear idea imprinted through the experience of the text well preached, effectively forming on the screens of their minds.

Preaching Means Picking Words – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday we considered the challenge of picking the right words to convey the message when we preach.  We need to be precise rather than slack, but strive to communicate rather than to demonstrate our verbal or intellectual prowess.  Here’s another factor to throw into the mix:

Lofty language languishes. Is lofty language the same thing as pulpit pomposity?  Yes and no.  Pompous words are chosen to show off our intellect (or are used carelessly without intent to show off).  Lofty language may be used to show off our spirituality (or simply be used without thinking because we are used to it in our church circles, or because we mistake it for some sort of spiritual humility and genuinely motivated demonstration of sanctification).  The fact is that in almost every setting, listeners find lofty language and tone to be distant, unengaging and even off-putting.  While it may have been acceptable in a previous generation, it seems that in most places the tolerance for inauthentic communication forms has diminished drastically.  In the western cultures, at least, the majority of listeners now esteem authenticity and natural communication.  Having a pulpit voice or a pulpit vocabulary is not worth it, even if it once was (which is a very questionable “if”).

Lofty language languishes, it doesn’t stand up tall and demand that listeners engage with it and its message. Ok, that paragraph was a long one, so I’ll leave it there and add a part three to this series of posts.

Preaching Means Picking Words

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

It almost goes without saying, but let’s say it anyway: preaching involves choosing words.  Sometimes the words are chosen agonizingly poring over a manuscript.  Other times words are chosen at an essentially sub-conscious level during delivery.  Whether it takes an age to get the right word, or a split-second to get any word, what word should be chosen?  A couple of thoughts:

Precise words – we really are to carefully choose the best words we can.  One aspect of that choice should be precision.  If we mean something specific, we should say that, and not something else.  Was it Mark Twain who said (probably was, it was usually him) – “Choose the right word – and not it’s second cousin.”  How easy it is to preach in vague words and achieve vague results.

Pomposity & pride are problematic – while it is important to be precise in our word choices, we should watch carefully for the insidious creeping of intellectual arrogance.  It is tempting to show that you know that term, but your goal is to preach the Bible so that the listeners can understand and respond to it, not so that they can praise you for such heady fare.  So beware of “jargon” known only to theologians, literary analysts or even trendy-Christian-fashionistas.  (This isn’t just a simple rule that says, “don’t do it!”  You also need to think through the choices you make.  For instance, avoiding reference to ‘biblical narrative’ by using the term ‘Bible story’ is certainly less technical, but it might imply ‘piece of old fiction’ if your supporting comments aren’t also carefully chosen.  It is vital to know your listeners and choose words accordingly – ‘biblical narrative’ would be considered highly technical by some, not at all by others.)

So let’s be precise rather than haphazard as we choose our words.  At the same time our deliberate approach to word choices should generally tend toward the clear and plain, rather than highly technical and “showy-offy” (technical term).  Poring over a manuscript for precision is one thing, it’s the sub-conscious choices that are the real challenge. Surely that requires us to make a deep-down, heart-level, fundamental, core-value, gut-level commitment to eliminating pride from our preaching.

Homo Homileticus

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Still I withhold the name of the book I’m reading, but I’ll share another thought nonetheless.  In fact, I’ll quote (and if you want the source, you’ll have to ask, although I’m on vacation and won’t check comments until the end of the month!)

“Homileticians as a caste are extinct in the UK.  Not in a single theological or Bible college, or university, will you find anyone whose full time job is to teach homiletics.  Makes you think that there ought to be a homo homileticus on display in the British Natural History Museum, the skeleton of W.E. Sangster perhaps!”

Now I wouldn’t want to overstate the importance of this, but it is interesting.  Equally I cannot validate the truth of this statement since I have not searched every possible faculty corridor in order to “prove” the extinction of this breed.  The general perception, though, is that anyone can step out of their own discipline and teach preaching.  Perhaps the general fruit of such a perception is worth evaluating?

Mini-Review: Brothers We Are Not Professionals, by John Piper

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Subtitle: A Plea To Pastors For Radical Ministry

piperprofessionals1

Just a mini-review.  I’ve cited various chapters in recent posts.  But lest I simply work my way through the book, I have not covered every one.  I would encourage you to prayerfully read through the book.

I don’t know if you are in the “read anything and everything by John Piper” category, or at the other extreme, “I react against Piper because everyone seems to love him” category (or hopefully somewhere in between!)

This book has short chapters (although they seem to get longer as the book progresses).  It has short chapters that are a good introduction or summary of Piper’s Christian Hedonism.  They allow you to ponder the strengths and weaknesses of this theology that pervades all his work and preaching.  I’d encourage those enamored with it to graciously critique it.  I’d encourage those antagonistic toward it to carefully consider what the theological issues specifically are.  But while there are some very typical Piper-theology chapters, this book is not just a short-chapter version of Desiring God and other Piper books.

It has short chapters that directly challenge our de-radicalized view of ministry.  Some of these chapters will poke and convict in areas where we need poking and convicting.  This book is good fodder for personal prayer times.

It has short chapters that clearly call us to issues that some of us have become adept at avoiding.  For instance, the issue of racism.  The issue of abortion.  The issue of global missions.  The issue of loving our wives.  The issue of praying for seminaries.

I’m not a sold-out Piperite.  I have some theological differences.  I’m not a sold-out Piper-antagonist.  I’m thankful for his input in my life, even in this latest quick read through this book.  Wherever you stand on John Piper, if you haven’t read this book, perhaps it would be a good time to do so.  If you have read it, maybe it would be worth another dip.  It was for me.

Unhealthy Division: Style & Substance

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Perhaps people like me add to the kind of division I am thinking about by the labels used in our teaching of preaching, but still, we’d do well to think about this.  Do we too easily divide elements of preaching?

For example, content and delivery, or substance and style.  It’s a simple distinction, and it works for planning a class schedule.  But when you consider the complexity of the act of communication, perhaps the distinction can be unhelpful?  Certainly once we start dismissing style out of a resolute commitment to substance, we are shooting ourselves in the foot.

Now don’t get me wrong.  The term “style” is not the best for what I am writing about.  Even “delivery” can sound like a performance.  The reality, though, is that the message is transmitted through a preacher.  This includes many elements.  Not just vocal production, verbal clarity, non-verbal presentation, etc. (the classic elements of “delivery”), but also that which you might label “ethos” and “pathos.”

I recently tweaked my gradually-improving definition of preaching in one part by adding the two words “and life.”  In reference to the oral communication aspect of preaching, my current best attempt at a definition says that preaching involves “…effective communication through the preacher’s words (and life)…”

Perhaps we would do well to not dismiss matters of “style” and “delivery” as “mere performance.”  It is too easy to take Paul’s self-distancing from the manipulative skill of classical rhetoric (1Cor.2:1-5) and therefore dismiss all rhetoric and homiletics.  The problem with such a blanket response is that Paul clearly utilized both rhetorical and homiletical skill in his writing and preaching.  Instead of a quick dismissal of all style/delivery issues, or at the other extreme, an obsession with delivery that results in a performance mentality, perhaps we would consider more seriously that which results in the pulpit from the weight of who we are personally in our walk with Christ.

Maturity shows.  Passion shows.  Love shows.  Life shows.  Perhaps a preachers style and delivery are a lot more about the preachers inner life and spirituality than our categories tend to recognize?