Wide View Application 2

March 22, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Last time I suggested that too narrow a view of a passage can lead to burdensome and non-gospel application. In narratives we need to make sure we are seeing God’s role and the humans as living in response to Him (both in faith and rebellious self-trust). In epistles we need to read the imperatives in light of the doctrinal gospel sections that inevitably have preceded the commands and applications.

Last night I was at a prayer meeting where we sang “There’s a Wideness in God’s Mercy” . . . an old hymn with a few great verses:

There’s a wideness in God’s mercy like the wideness of the sea; there’s a kindness in His justice which is more than liberty.

For the love of God is broader than the measures of man’s mind; and the heart of the Eternal is most wonderfully kind.

But we make His love too narrow by false limits of our own; and we magnify His strictness with a zeal He will not own.

If our love were but more simple we should take Him at His word; and our lives would be illumined by the presence of our Lord.

So to avoid imposing a “strictness” God would not own, we must preach good news and not turn it into burdensome law. Here are a few thoughts to keep stirring our thoughts:

1. In narratives like the gospels, observe the growth in faith among characters as the stories unfold. The same is true in other narrative sections of the Bible. We are not given much concerning most characters, but what we are given enables us to get a sense of their trajectory towards God in faith or away in rebellion. Tracing that broader story can help to make sense of a particular pericope (individual story).

2. Be careful to identify the link between doctrine and application. It is often more of a “this is what a life looks like that is gripped by that truth” rather than “so you must now do this!” Is the application an implication? Is it a natural outworking? Is it an appropriate response? These are all very different than a self-moved obligation.

3. Turning response into responsibility is to turn gospel into legalistic burden. Many really struggle with this, but it is so important. A captured heart that is stirred will flow out in far greater commitment, sacrifice, integrity, holiness, etc., than a person pressured to obey by the apparently self-moved determination of their own will. If the heart is not stirred, then the motivation will still be about love, but a misplaced love that is a weaker motivator. That is, if it isn’t love for Christ that stirs a person, then maybe they will obey commands out of love for self in respect to conformity to community expectations – a love-driven action, but not in response to the greatest love of all.

Three Possibilities Preaching Psalms

March 19, 2013 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

As I am reading through the Bible I am currently in the Psalms – what a great book! Sadly, for some, Psalms seems to be preached only as filler material in the summer holidays. There is so much potential for preaching in the book of Psalms. Let me offer three possibilities opened up by preaching from this book:

1. You can introduce new treasure to people. People tend to be familiar with some Psalms. Probably 23. Perhaps 24, 1, 110, 121, 127, 51, 8, 73, 37, 27. But what about Psalm 36? Or 33? There is a whole host of Psalms that tend to get ignored in the annual audition for three filler sermons. And don’t just stick to the filler sermon approach. Why not preach Psalm 34 at the start of a series on 1Peter? It certainly was in the mind of the apostle as he wrote his epistle. Why not preach Psalm 118 in connection with Easter? It might add a new set of thoughts to the Easter considerations since Jesus would very likely have sung that with his disciples at the last supper.

2. You can connect with a different group of people. It may be a stereotype, but some have suggested that engineers enjoy epistles. They like the truth statements, logical flow, direct discourse. So if that is the case, who might appreciate the Psalms? Artists? Sure, and there are more of them than we tend to realise in every congregation. How about the suffering? Certainly. Psalms connects with different people at different times in the complexities of each personal biography.

3. You can offer a more vulnerable sermon. When David wrestles with spiritual realities, why not be more open that we do too? Personal sin struggles, doubting God’s goodness, tendency to trust in ourselves, feelings of extreme fatigue, etc. We don’t preach to preach ourselves, but we ourselves do preach. The Psalms opens up the possibility of greater vulnerability from the preacher, and hopefully stirs vulnerability in the congregation. The Psalm writers didn’t treat God as delicate or fragile, they blasted their prayers at Him. Perhaps we can stir greater prayer in churches that tend to pray religiously, and Psalms would be a worthwhile workshop for that kind of goal.

Dangerous Immunization 2

March 8, 2013March 7, 2013 / Peter Mead / 9 Comments

Yesterday we were thinking about the danger of having non-Bible lovers teaching children and youth. But there are other Bible ministry opportunities in the church:

Surely the home Bible study is a safe place for different folks to try their hand at leading? Absolutely, it can be a very safe and loving environment as far as the trainee leader is concerned. People will be reasonably forgiving toward them. But turn it around. What effect will their leadership have on others present? I am not talking about polish and skill . . . this can be learned and people will be patient. I am talking about core motivation for the Bible. Out of the group who meet on that evening each week, don’t invite someone to try leading unless they have an evident personal appetite for the Word. You might have a Bible college trained, capable presenter, experienced school teacher, well dressed and even charismatic person in the group who is showing motivation to lead the group. But if that person lacks an evident hunger for God’s Word, don’t let them near the reins. There may be another person who ticks far fewer boxes, but if they are not an immunizer, they might be the next Bible study leader to train up and launch.

There may be other venues that include “sharing a biblical thought.” Perhaps a prayer gathering or a social event or whatever. Make sure that every potential biblical communicator is a potent biblical communicator. Having a wider group of people speak, even in a “safe” venue, is not worth it. A good shepherd will not let some of the sheep be immunized so as to lose their appetite for healthy grass, no matter how small a group of sheep are involved, or how brief the immunization exposure might be.

Then there is the pulpit ministry of the church. How many Sundays should a church knowingly tolerate pulpit ministry from people without a personal hunger for the Bible and the God of the Bible? How many Sundays in a year is it ok to have dull, unhelpful, weak preaching? I think once a year is too often. For the visitor that comes that week, the effect could be lifelong. Better to have a local with a passion for God and His Word than a visiting “expert” who dulls the hearts of the listeners.

I feel for the churches where there doesn’t seem to be anyone who can teach the children, the youth, the adults, with a delight in God and His Word. But if that is your church, perhaps you are the key player. Invite people to read through the Bible with you, pray for someone to get infected with the real disease. Seek to infect someone and then see them grow into being a biblically infectious Bible study leader/teacher/preacher. And at the same time do whatever you can to never let a non-Bible lover teach the Bible. The cost is too high.

Dangerous Immunization

March 7, 2013 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Something is not always better than nothing. My wife and I went to a local restaurant and she decided to try something different: pheasant. We’ve never had it before. We’ll never choose it again. The one we were served was poor: chewy, funny tasting, and a piece of shot included as a bonus. Others may say how great Pheasant can be, but we tasted enough of the bad version to probably never choose it again.

There is too much Bible immunization going on in churches. That is where the administration of weakened or dead pathogens are introduced to healthy persons so that immunity is developed against lively forms of the same “disease.” Take the life out of the Bible and give it to people, but don’t be surprised when they develop a distaste for the Bible.

Take Sunday School, for instance. Since the church has always had four classes, it must always have four classes, even if that means pressuring people to teach who lack any personal delight in God’s Word. The children taste a “nothing there” version of the Bible that feels like ancient fables with predictable moral lessons from dull non-infectious teachers. Better to have two or even one classes with a good Bible teacher than more classes where any of them are offering an immunizing effect.

Then the children move up to youth ministry. Here’s a safe place for people to “cut their teeth” on Bible teaching in a safe environment. Perhaps, but only let people teach who have a personal appetite for and delight in God’s Word. It is dangerous to open the door to immunizers. The young folks are at a key stage in life. They are preparing for university, for adulthood, for living out their own faith. And if they have been dulled to the Word of God, then the damage done by such bad leadership choices will be impossible to calculate.

I learn a lot by teaching, but I don’t think it is wise to give people the opportunity to teach in order to generate an appetite within them. It may work for them. But the cost for the listeners is too high. Tomorrow we’ll follow this through into the home group and pulpit ministries of the church.

Impossible Application 2

March 6, 2013March 5, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

So how do we present practical application without promoting an outside-to-in simplistic copyism in the church? Yesterday we started by stating that the human fleshly tendency will be to perform in order to maintain autonomous distance from God. Furthermore we added that practical preaching can give people lists of things to do, but not address the heart issue. Continuing on . . .

3. Heart transformation is not something listeners can self-generate, neither is it something we can force on folks. Actually, if it is about response, then the burden is on us to offer Christ and the gospel so compellingly that perhaps some might respond. This means that we don’t simplify our view of preaching to explanation separate from application, for it is in the explanation that hearts should be stirred for the application.

4. Listeners have a sensitivity to the integration of the preacher. That is, whether the explanation we offer has obviously marked our lives from the inside-out. Listeners don’t just look for conformity to our own lists of practical applications, they sense the importance of heart change in the truths of what we say. If we don’t have a vibrant and real walk with Christ, then the practical application content will be meaningless.

5. Take the opportunity afforded by practical applications to drip-feed a critique of copy-ism and do-ism. Over time, week after week, perhaps people will start to sense the difference between writing a list and trying to live up to it, as opposed to a from-the-heart response to the grace of God in Christ. Grace truly transforms values and therefore behaviour. Part of our task is to make sure we don’t reinforce the post-Genesis 3 notion that informed choices will lead to success in our performance before, but distant from, God.

6. Reinforce that it is possible to perform without being transformed. The Pharisees should helpfully haunt churchy types like us. It is possible to look really good on the outside, but God wants to transform us from the inside. Perhaps we settle too easily for conformity to church social mores, rather than having appetites whetted for the wonder and glorious privilege of knowing God in Christ. If listeners don’t pick up that possibility from the preaching they hear, where will they develop such an appetite?

Impossible Application

March 5, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

As we preach the Bible we have to make sure we don’t simply offer historical and theological instruction. Part of our responsibility is to present what difference the message should make in a life. We need to give a sense of what this truth looks like dressed up in everyday clothes. But therein lies a challenge.

How do we present practical application without promoting an outside-to-in simplistic copyism in the church? Here are some thoughts:

1. The human fleshly tendency will be to perform in order to maintain autonomous distance from God. I know that we tend to think of fleshliness as rebellion alone, but we need to see how the flesh can also play up to a religious role. The essential impulse remains the same as it did in Genesis 3 – I can be like God. This is why we need to be so careful in our preaching. Simply pounding the pulpit and demanding greater morality does not avoid the problem of rebels becoming religious, but still keeping God at arms length. The older son in Luke 15 matched his brother in viewing the father as employer and purveyor of benefits, and went beyond his brother in resisting the father’s extreme desire for relationship.

2. Practical preaching can give people lists of things to do, but not address the heart issue. Notice that I wrote that it can, not that it must always do that. I think preaching should be practical. But if we think that adding practical suggestions to historical explanation amounts to good expository preaching, then we know neither our Bibles nor our listeners very well. We need more than practical instruction. We need heart transformation. And that requires an awareness of the difference between response and responsibility. Consistently presenting responsibility to people will not auto-generate any sort of responsiveness in people.

I will continue the list tomorrow…

Beware of Exemplar Persona Illustrations

February 21, 2013 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

This week I have been raising a warning flag toward preaching that makes Christ, or biblical characters, just an example to copy. While both may be offered as example, and biblical writers do just that at times, still there is always a danger of seeking to motivate a performance approach to Christianity that is not birthed from the inside-out transformation of being in union with Christ. There’s another area worth a mention: the use of non-biblical persons as examples.

It is so easy to offer people famous or unknown, past or present, with an implied “copy that” tone. It could be the prayer warrior who rises at 4am, or the self-sacrificial missionary who gives up all to go and serve, or the faith-filled achiever, or whatever. Again, there could well be real value in offering such an example. However,

1. Be careful not to paint a caricature. Humans are usually a mixed bag of motives. So while in anecdotal form an individual may appear perfectly selfless and wonderful, the reality is probably not so flawless. Even the greatest deeds and sacrifices can be made for the wrong reasons, which is what Paul addresses at the start of 1Corinthians 13. The greatest feats can count for nothing. So be careful not to imply that feat/deed/sacrifice/effort can trump the heart issue. We do need to inspire a new generation with those who’ve gone before, but let’s be sure to inspire with the faith and relationship that others have with Christ, spilling into those amazing anecdotes. Let’s invite people into the fullness of that kind of connection with Christ that can spill out in numerous unique ways in our lives today.

2. Be careful not to endorse a copycat approach. Just to reinforce the point made above, let’s be sure to invite people into the relationship with Christ by His Spirit that can spill out in wonderful ways. Simply copying the performance of another will not bring about the necessary heart transformation that will allow such a feat to count as anything (in 1Corinthians 13 terms such empty performance is “nothing”). Performance is not the key to Christian living–it may be the fruit, but it is not the source.

Beware of Exemplar Homo-Biblicas Preaching

February 20, 2013 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday we looked at the danger of treating Christ as our role model. Today I’ve kept up the pseudo latin title pattern (since Christians seem to love latin in the blogosphere) and want to zero in on a related danger: treating biblical characters as examples to copy.

Surely the biblical narratives were written both to instruct us and to warn us, therefore they are legitimately to be treated as examples in our preaching? Yes, but there is still a danger that we fall short of preaching the Bible when we fall into a simple, “go thou and do likewise” approach. Points to ponder:

Paul probes deeper than behaviour in 1Corinthians 10:1-13 – There he states that there is example in what happened to characters in the Old Testament, but the purpose of that example is not to push the Corinthians simply toward good conduct. These were examples, “that we might not desire evil as they did.” The people of Israel all “did” the same things, but the problem was with their desires. They wanted evil, and they did not please God. The passage heads toward a warning for those who are self-confident (a real danger for those who are diligent to obey conduct-focused preaching!)

Paul pushes beyond behavior in Romans 15:1-7 – The Old Testament was written for instruction, but the goal goes beyond conformity to conduct codes. Paul is pushing for a vertical and horizontal outworking in the context of relationships. The fruit of the instruction is supposed to be hope, mutual harmony and participation in the worship of the Father through the Son.

Biblical characters are responsive humans, not conduct models – In every narrative we see real people living in a standard set of circumstances. That is, they live in a fallen world, swimming in the post-Genesis 3 world of autonomy from God. And they live in a world where God is inviting them to respond to His Word. Some respond in fear, others in faith. To simply look at a godly individual and then make the application to go copy their conduct is like telling a small boy to watch motorcycle racing and then go do the same on his bicycle. He may deceive himself by leaning forward and making engine noises, but the reality is missing. We have a lot of people in churches acting like Christians, but the performance is a charade because the reality of a living union with Christ by His Spirit has been overlooked in the effort to act like virtuous biblical heroes.

Godly conduct is profoundly important. But for it to be real, it must come from the depths of a heart vivified and responsive to Christ, it will not come from copying the externals of exemplary individuals while ignoring the inner realities of those people as they walked with God.

Delivery Dynamics: Will They Listen

February 12, 2013February 13, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I pondered the question “Can they hear?” and thought about projection, pronunciation and pace. But that is only one layer of a bigger issue. Here’s a follow up question:

Will they listen? Just because people technically can hear the preacher, this doesn’t mean that they want to listen. Here are three factors to ponder:

1. Personal Warmth. Dogs can tell when they are not liked. So can congregations. If the preacher lacks personal warmth, then the listeners may feel more critical of the preacher, or they may tune out what they perceive to be a critical spirit toward them. There is no need to act like syrup and present a fake flattery (people see through that, of course). But genuine warmth and care is critical to creating a true communication connection.

2. Prideful Attitude. Many people have a sensitive radar when it comes to personal pride. They can spot any hint of it in others (even while being oblivious to their own profound problems with pride!) So be careful not to show off, to drop names, to seek to impress, to be proactively self-conscious. When listeners thinking you are prideful, they tend to stop being good listeners.

3. Provocatively Annoying. Not to put too fine a point on it, don’t be annoying. I could list any number of habits that preachers might develop that might annoy their listeners, but the best way to find out is to humbly ask a few trusted listeners and be willing to listen to them. It could be a matter of a gesture, or a vocal habit, or a strategy for interaction, or whatever. It would be a shame for people to choose not to listen to your message because something you are doing is annoying to them.

Can they hear? Will they listen? Two key questions in considering the dynamics of delivery.

Biblical Girders 3

January 17, 2013January 17, 2013 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

I have been writing about Biblical Girders: those superstructure passages that form the skeleton that holds the Bible together. As well as key passages, we could well add a list of key themes that weave through the canon like ribbons. I did this earlier last year with the 10 Biggest Big Ideas series (click here to go to the first of those posts).

So what do we do if we recognize that people in our churches are foggy on the biblical superstructure? How can we help folk without turning the church into a lecture hall and losing the devotional and spiritual emphasis in our preaching? Some ideas:

1. Periodically Be Overtly Educational – Perhaps a seminar or evening class or group session where you trace through the superstructure. You will find that there are people in every church that have a genuine appetite to know the Bible better and will want to attend this kind of training if it is done well. You will also find that a false dichotomy between education and devotional spirituality need not be imposed. Take every opportunity, even in a “lecture” to woo people by the gracious work of God in biblical history.

2. Be Alert to the Girders – If you are preaching Genesis 22, Abraham offering up Isaac, be alert to the place of that story in the flow of the narrative. Take the opportunity to help people see it not as a stand-alone incident, but as the culmination of a journey over many decades for Abraham. Include and highlight the importance of Genesis 15 as you preach Genesis 22. When you preach about David and Bathsheba, don’t just look ahead to the fallout in his family life, but also look back to 2Samuel 7 and the amazing covenant God had made with him – highlight the importance of that to your listeners.

3. Preach the Girders – Take a miniseries and help people see the big picture of the Bible. Too many Christians make too many “surprised and helped” comments when they hear a Bible overview. This implies that it is not being offered enough.

4. Preach through Books Without Being “Flat” – When we preach through a book, it is easy to flatten it out into so many segments of equal length and apparently equal value. Instead, look for ways to point toward and back to passages in the book that have a “superstructure status” for the book and the Bible as a whole. Preaching through Habakkuk, don’t let 2:4 get lost in the mix.