Beyond Guilt – Part 4

April 19, 2012April 19, 2012 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Some preachers rely exclusively on the pressure tactic of guilt in their preaching. Surely there must be a more biblically rounded approach? This week I’ve suggested we need to consider our stance, our tone and yesterday, our strategy. Let me offer the fourth factor today:

4. The Preacher’s Vision. Essentially, when we boil it down, what are we offering when we preach? Ok, the message of the text. So there will be an individuality to each message since every text is unique. But what does the Bible offer – even allowing for each text to be its own unique entity in the tapestry of the whole?

If you think the Bible offers instructions for living, your preaching will reflect that. If you think the Bible offers engaging ancient stories with helpful morals, then your preaching will reflect that. But if you think the Bible offers a vision of the heart and character and grace and personality of God, then your preaching will reflect that.

To put this another way, what is the good news offered in the Word? Is it the good news of a way in which a sinful humanity can now be empowered to live a more righteous life – that is, a gospel that somehow misses God out? Or is it the good news of who God is, offering a sinful humanity the privilege of relationship with Him who to know is life, and who to know will transform a life?

I wish this were so obvious that I didn’t see the need to write the post, but I have heard sermons where God is essentially, or even actually, omitted and absent. These are the kind of messages I might see as party political speeches, or “if only people would be good society would be better” messages, etc. There are many types of speeches in the world today, but the ones where God is at most a bit-part player are not the kind of speeches we need in the church.

If the vision captivating the preacher’s heart is the Law, then the message will likely be a guilt focused message. If the vision captivating the preacher’s heart is the grace and love of a loving God, then the message is likely to be more compelling, more transformative. After all, the gospel involves the transformation of lives from the inside out, not by the pressure of responsibility, but by the attractive invitation to respond to the goodness of our so very good God.

The vision captivating you will show in your preaching, and if it is the vision of the God who reveals Himself throughout His Word, then I suspect you will offer that same vision in your preaching – a vision that alone can truly transform lives.

Beyond Guilt – Part 3

April 18, 2012April 18, 2012 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

So far we have looked at issues of stance and tone in this series. It is easy to have a minimalist default approach of piling on the pressure and using guilt to twist arms. The biblical preacher needs to get beyond that.

3. The Preacher’s Strategy. Let’s face the real issue head on. What is our strategy in preaching? If the goal is life transformation, then what strategy makes sense? It certainly can’t be a simplistic answer since the human is a complex creature. But here are some pointers on strategy issues.

Transformation involves movement from a negative to a positive. Preaching for that transformation cannot simply critique the negative. We need to help people see what life would look like if the biblical truth were to take hold. Simply making people feel bad is not a solution.

Often people simply cannot conceive of what a faith-filled Christ-like in-step-with-the-Spirit life would look like in terms of a specific issue. In one sense then we have some role as life coaches. But it is more than that.

Transformation involves motivation for applying the message of God’s Word. Preaching for that transformation cannot simply inform, or even pressure, it needs to motivate. We need to understand how people work at the deepest level. If we think that information plus pressure will generate good things then we have been significantly led away from the teaching of the Bible by the thinking of this world.

What is the root issue Paul points to in Ephesians 4:17ff? People act and behave a certain way because of their thinking – so we need to educate! Hang on, yes we do, but he goes further, there’s a deeper issue…the root issue is the hardness of heart. Somehow the heart influences even how the mind will process information. Christian transformation is not really about well-informed minds and well-disciplined wills. It is an issue of the heart, inside to out, a matter of response as opposed to responsibility.

Transformation involves response to more than a vision of better living. It is not about realizing innate potential, but about responding from the core to a compelling love that alone can truly transform a life.

So our strategy includes presentation of application rather than just declaration of guilt. Our strategy includes communicating with people as if they are heart-driven beings and not just informed decision makers. But the ultimate issue has to be the One to whom people should respond, which I’ll leave until tomorrow’s post.

Beyond Guilt – Part 2

April 17, 2012April 17, 2012 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

This week I am pondering how to preach with a more nuanced approach than mere guilt pressure. As I’ve written already, there is a place for genuine conviction of sin, and I am not hiding from that. But equally, I am not just hiding in that, nor avoiding the danger hiding in a non-nuanced guilt approach.

How can we hide in a guilt approach? I suspect some see no other way to help lives change than to pile on the pressure. Every passage is turned into a guilt trip. Doesn’t matter what tone the passage takes, the message will have been filtered into a guilt and pressure tone.

And what danger is hiding in such an approach? There is an implicit danger with guilt focused messages. I say you should feel guilty. If I convince you, then you feel that you must change. Guilt alone will not drive people to God. It will drive them to despair or to efforts of the flesh. Neither result is good. Guilt has to come in a package with hope, with grace, with access to life transformation that has to come from God, not from self.

So, yesterday we looked at the issue of stance. Here’s another element, perhaps an obvious one, but still important nonetheless.

2. The Preacher’s Tone. Too many people think too simplistically. As if communication is about information transfer. But the truth is that communication involves a complex of signals, some of which can override others. So my body language can contradict, and overwhelm my words. So too can my vocal presentation. Voice and body language combine in regards to the tone of my communication.

If my tone is close to that of an angry prophet, that will override the most gracious of poetic content. If my tone is akin to that of a Victorian school master, then my words, my message, will take on a whole new meaning.

Children know this. If a parent says their name with a certain tone, they know they’re supposed to feel guilty. It’s voice, expression, posture, etc. But it boils down to tone.

Do you have a default tone that is guilt inducing? Can you make the most encouraging passage into a pressure text? Can you turn Psalm 23 into a rebuke for not being a good sheep? Can you take Jesus’ yoke and burden, which are easy and light, and make them tricky to put on properly if your listeners aren’t living just right?

Let’s be sure that when we preach, it is not just our words that reflect the meaning of the text, but that our tone also reflects the tone of the text, and the tone of the God who is speaking to these people on this occasion.

Stance and tone can be adjusted to avoid a guilt-only approach. They can be factors in a better motivational methodology. But tomorrow we’ll zero in on a key factor in preaching to encourage and motivate.

Beyond Guilt

April 16, 2012April 16, 2012 / Peter Mead / 10 Comments

A friend asked me how we can preach to encourage listeners apart from making them feel guilty. He and I would both recognize the need for genuine conviction of sin, a work of the Spirit and a feature of some texts (and therefore some messages). But I understand the need for the question – too much preaching relies too much on guilt as the primary, or even the only, change mechanism.

Guilt is a poor motivator. The Spirit of God certainly does bring conviction to people, to me. An absence of conviction of sin in a life is an indication of a real problem. But there is much more to the Spirit’s work than just conviction of sin. There is much more to life transformation than guilt.

As I read the Bible I find myself convicted, yes, but also stirred, inspired, encouraged, enlightened, intrigued, reassured, enlivened, thrilled, calmed, galvanized, spurred, moved, attracted, delighted, renewed, transformed, changed.

God uses the Bible to change lives, and He changes lives by more than just guilt. So how, as a preacher of God’s Word, can I beneficially engage the lives of listeners with more than just a guilt session?

This week I’d like to offer several elements of an answer to this question.

1. The Preacher’s Stance. Where do we stand? Guilt-only approaches tend to take a domineering and confrontational stance. This comes through sometimes before a word is even spoken. It shows in demeanour, in expression, in attitude. It may be justified in terms of the authority of God’s Word, etc., but it is worth rethinking.

I would suggest a stance that is empathetic rather than confrontational, although there is a place for the latter. I am not suggesting the preacher stands amongst the listeners as a sympathetic fellow-struggler with nothing more than shared struggle. We do stand with God’s Word and so do have something very profound to offer. But we also stand as recipients of that Word.

Sometimes our talk of authority can lead us to authoritarian approaches. Yes, God’s Word has authority and as I preach God’s Word there is a “thus saith the Lord” aspect. But it is right here that some betray their narrow view of God and come right back to a guilt-only approach. That is, they see God as being purely authoritarian and a guilt-approach-only Deity.

Thus saith the Lord. We represent Him. How did God reveal His own character, personality, values, etc.? On Sinai, through the prophets, in Christ? God didn’t just come as a pounding fist.

We should consider the stance we take as one standing and speaking God’s Word, while at the same time being one standing as a recipient of God’s Word. If our stance is simply a “lording it over” stance then we betray a worldly passion for power that reflects a twisted view of God Himself.

Tomorrow I’ll add another element to consider in pursuing how to preach with more than just guilt.

Saturday Short Thought: Rooted Preaching

April 14, 2012April 14, 2012 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

John Stott wrote about preaching as requiring a certain familiarity in two worlds – the world of the Bible and the world of the listener.

Haddon Robinson takes this a step further by adding two more “worlds.” The world of the listeners is the world of the congregational culture, as well as the societal culture at large. Then there is the world of the preacher’s inner life.

It isn’t easy to live in multiple worlds at once. There is always a danger that we will give diminished attention to one of these worlds. That was a point Stott made. Instead of building a bridge from one world to the other, there is always a tendency to build heavily on one side only – either being in this world only or building a tower from the Bible straight to heaven.

How do we measure our engagement with each world?

The world of the listener – prayerful concern for specific people and watchful awareness of the cultural influences, local and national?

The world of the Bible – prayerful fascination with the text, the culture, the people, the politics, the geography, the history, etc?

I was struck by this quote from John Smith, in The History of Virginia. A nudge to keep history and geography tied together:

As geography without history seemeth a carcus without motion, so history without geography wandereth as a vagrant without certain habitation.

Preaching isn’t a simple task, but what a privilege!

Preaching Cross-References?

April 13, 2012April 13, 2012 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

How much should the preacher use cross-references? Yesterday Dave wrote this in a comment:

In an effort to avoid falling prey to the errors you outline here I kept myself from using many cross references. When reviewing the sermon, my pastor said his biggest advice was to use more cross references! Do you have any hints on how to balance preaching the text and using cross references?

Dave, my advice is don’t use cross-references.

That should be the default. It will keep you in your passage and help your message stay focused. If there is a need for cross-reference, then do so, as much as is needed. For instance, if your passage is building on an earlier one, you might cite it. Or if the idea in your passage seems unusual in some way, it may be worth proving from elsewhere. I can’t think of many more reasons to cross-reference.

I certainly wouldn’t add cross-references to satisfy others who assume there should be lots of them. If someone advised me to use them more I would be inclined to ask why, what would they add, what is the reason for the advice? Some people think a sermon has to have lots of cross referencing, or three parallel and alliterated points, or application just at the end, etc. These are all strategy decisions that should be made on a case by case basis, not given as a standard guideline.

We have to keep in mind the down side of cross referencing in order to make an informed choice:

1. You lose focus on your passage. Some of those listening to you will hear a cross-reference and instantly have a clear view of that passage’s context, content, argument, occasion, etc. Most won’t. As they start thinking about that passage and whatever thoughts it triggers, they will not be contemplating the passage you are trying to preach.

2. You overwhelm listeners with scattered information. Some will try to turn to any reference, even after you’ve moved back to your preaching passage. Some will try to take notes of the references. Either way, their attention will be diverted and the potential for concentration burnout increases.

3. You lose depth in explanation of your passage. If they don’t understand the preaching passage, will going somewhere else really help explain it? Sometimes it might, but typically it means explaining another passage. Why not stay here and present it more clearly?

4. You lose time for application. If they do understand the preaching passage, why abdicate your role of applying it to them by going elsewhere and half explaining another one?

As a default, I suggest we use zero cross-references. Then when we do cross-reference, let’s do so on purpose. A sniper’s bullet, not scattered buckshot.

Preaching Christ or His Benefits

April 10, 2012April 10, 2012 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

There are many subtle problems that can creep into our preaching. This week I’d like to highlight a few that could undermine preaching effectiveness.

Do we fall into preaching the benefits of a hidden Christ? That is, does Christ recede into the background as a “given” in our preaching, so that what we offer people is really all about them?

It is so easy to do this. It is not just the “you can be rich” preachers that do this. In Christ, after all, we are offered forgiveness, identity, status, hope, transformation, eternal life, heaven, etc. But these are all offered in Christ. They aren’t just handed over so that we can continue in our apparently blissful independence.

To see the danger here, I think we have to be much more alert to the shadows of Eden in which we live. We can easily think the Fall has left us with the propensity to do sins, but not realize just how pervasive and absolute that fallen state actually is.

Sometimes the gospel is presented along these lines: God’s perfect standard will not tolerate the slightest blemish. So because I stole a paperclip from work once, therefore my record is forever blighted unless I am forgiven by Christ. This “49/50 is still falling short of the glory of God” idea can convey a couple of false ideas. One is that God is petty. Another is that I only need a bit of help for salvation.

The truth is that all of us are at 0/50, since even our righteous deeds are as filthy rags. Even the good things we do are not good if they are done in fleshly independence from God.

Consequently if we preach the benefits of Christ and miss the greater matter of the relationship we were created for, then the fleshly impulse will drive listeners to make an expedient decision – i.e. trust Christ so that they can have the benefits of forgiveness, status, hope, etc. I sometimes refer to this as “get your ticket to heaven” preaching.

We have to see that this is still shot through with the sin of Genesis 3, rather than the wonder of a heart transforming gospel.

Let’s be careful when we preach not to make the subtle shift from preaching a gospel that draws people out of their self-love, to preaching a gospel that essentially reinforces that self-love.

Easter and Emotions

April 6, 2012April 2, 2012 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Easter is a season of emotion. Last year I posted under the title Easter as Restricted Emotions. Here are a couple of those paragraphs:

I remember being at a big Christian festival one easter years ago. For three days everyone milled around in their own separate worlds (as British people are prone to do, if we’re honest). Several thousand people avoiding and evading each other as if only the family unit or church group existed. Then on Easter Sunday morning everyone had a strange skip in their step, a smile on their face, a greeting for every passer by.

I know that Easter Sunday is an amazing day, but it did strike me as being a bit strange. How is it in your church? Is everyone super-sombre on Good Friday and then buzzing with joy on Easter Sunday morning? In one sense these emotions are appropriate, but isn’t the truth that emotions are massively mixed on both days?

Perhaps we should acknowledge the stirring of deep love and gratitude alongside the appropriate sombre feelings of Good Friday. Perhaps we should pause to remember why Christ had to rise from the dead, instead of simply celebrating as if Friday never happened.

The first followers had massively confused emotions on the first Easter Sunday. Fear mixed with delight and joy and sadness with celebration. Maybe some in our churches are wracked with guilt like Peter was that first Easter?

Just one other post from last year asks if we are actually going to preach the passage we read on Sunday. It is easy to read Luke or Mark and preach 1Corinthians 15. Click here to go there…

Easter and Apologetics

April 5, 2012April 2, 2012 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

As I trawl the archives for Easter posts from past years I find a few that speak of apologetics. Here is one I wrote after attending a conference focused on the resurrection in 2008:

Yesterday I attended a day conference about the resurrection held in Westminster Chapel. NT Wright and Gary Habermas were the speakers, along with a brief session with Antony Flew. He is the British philosopher who caused a real stir a few years ago by giving up his atheistic position to state that the evidence had convinced him of the existence of God. His position is essentially deist, but he was asked what it would take for him to accept the deity of Jesus. “Well, I suppose it would take something on the magnitude of what you’re talking about today, an otherwise impossible thing like a resurrection from the dead.” When asked the same question about the Holy Spirit, his response was the same – “If the resurrection is true then everything else would come with it.”

Here is a non-Christian thinking more clearly about Christianity than many Christians. How easy it is for us to slip into a very lazy apologetic, either directly or in testimony. It goes along the lines of, “Obviously I can’t prove my faith, it’s like a leap in the dark really, but you just believe and then you know it is true.”

This easter season, let’s be sure to clearly communicate that the Christian faith is founded very firmly on historical fact. The biblical record carries an unparalleled historicity. If Jesus rose from the dead, then the implications are massive, but if he didn’t really rise, then let’s give up and do something else with our lives. As preachers we are in the prime position to communicate the facts of easter and that the Christian message is not an invitation to take a leap into the dark. As preachers we may also need to sensitively follow up on a testimony given by someone else that both affirms them, but also clarifies that actually Christianity is based and built on fact.

Profound Transformation

March 30, 2012March 28, 2012 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

As we finish up the series of 20 nudges toward more profound preaching, let’s ponder the goal of profound preaching: profound transformation. Surely that is our goal? Lives changed from the core of their being, from the inside out. That is the nature of new covenant ministry, it seeks to do what the old covenant could never achieve, hang on, I’m into the first point…

17. A transformed life comes from the inside out, not the outside in. Conforming folks to churchy culture and respectable behaviour is not too difficult. Having said that, for centuries people have been trying and failing with a transformation by Aristotle’s external ethics approach, because we are designed as heart-driven creatures. Maybe it’s time we followed Luther in rejecting the Philosopher’s theology and recognized the transformative power of a biblical new covenant ministry.

18. A transformed life actually has new wants, so profound preaching must penetrate the heart of the listener. You know the old maxim, if you aim at nothing, you’ll probably hit it every time. So surely we must at least be aiming to preach so that God’s Word can engage and penetrate the heart – to aim for information transfer only, or pressured behaviour only, is to aim to miss.

19. A transformed life is not about memorised outlines, but about the Word impacting life in the moment of preaching, and continuing to do so subsequently. So the main idea of the passage and its application needs to be remembered. This takes work. Too often we pour our energies into helping folks remember outlines, or we put no effort into helping them remember and they walk away with untargeted illustrations and anecdotes. Main idea and application – in the moment of preaching, and in the days to follow.

20. True transformation is humanly impossible, only God can do it, so pray hard and preach by faith!