Woven Threads of Meaning

October 12, 2011October 12, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Here’s a post from back in the early days of this site that I think is worthy of a review (and as in sermon preparation, I’ll find myself tweaking it as I look at it again!)

____________________

Sometimes a passage may prove more complex than it initially appears. This is almost always the case with stories in the Gospels. Christians tend to view each story as a distinct unit that can be pulled out from the context in which it is placed. In reality, each story or account in a Gospel is carefully woven together with others for a purpose.

For example, the stilling of the storm in Mark 4 is placed after, and linked to, the first part of the chapter where Jesus is teaching about the kingdom using parables. The episode is connected to teaching on the small beginnings, but inevitable growth of the kingdom programme. However, in Matthew the account is in a series of miracle stories, quite separate from those same parables (which appear later). While someone might suggest this indicates that what comes before and after is irrelevant to the interpretation of the passage, actually the opposite is true. The stories themselves, just like words, seem to get their meaning not only from within themselves, but also from the company they keep.

So while a story may appear simple to understand, as you study it in its context you often find greater clarity in its meaning and purpose. Then as you consider the context and flow of thought more, the interpretation may become more involved and complex. As a preacher your first priority is not to “find a sermon,” but to do everything you can to understand the passage.

Once you’ve done all that you can to understand the passage, you then have to form the sermon. The temptation will be to dump every element of your study into the sermon. Don’t. What is necessary and helpful? What must be explained, what can simply be stated, what parts of your presentation need proof? How much time do you have to support what you say? Sometimes you will discover that your understanding of a passage has multiple threads of complexity, stretching out through layer after layer of other stories and accounts within the Gospel.

Be thankful for the back-up support you have, but only give as much as is necessary and your listeners can handle. They may be fine with one layer of contextual explanation, but overwhelmed if you present five. Know the passage fully, but also know what your listeners need and are able to take onboard!

This principle applies in every genre – explain as much as necessary, and save as much time as possible for connecting the passage to the people in front of you!

Distraction Decisions

October 11, 2011October 11, 2011 / Peter Mead / 7 Comments

Jon commented on the issue of distraction with the following:

Peter, do you have any solutions for #3, distraction? A few weeks ago I preached a message. I was prepared, everything was ready, and the night before, a dear friend and church member almost passed away, and was still critically ill.

My sermon wasn’t really related to what was on my heart and the heart of everyone else. I wondered if I should have just set it aside, but there was no time to even really think about something else to preach. I could have just spoken without notes/preparation about trials, etc.

Thoughts?

My feeling would be that if the cause of your distraction as a preacher is known to everybody in the congregation – i.e. the whole church is feeling the weight of the situation – then I would lean toward setting aside the notes. In this case it was a dear friend in the church who lay critically ill. On other occasions it could be a global event like 9/11. But if all are thinking of the same thing, then it makes sense as the preacher to engage with that present reality. A few thoughts:

1. Sometimes the situation is personal to you, but less so for others. In this case I would lean toward preaching as planned. There are no rules here, just a sensitivity to the situation and the congregation, not to mention the Lord, of course.

2. If you only have a couple of hours to prepare, God knows. I wouldn’t advocate leaving preparation until the last minute. That smacks of abusing grace. But when it is genuinely minimal preparation, God understands and undertakes (as they used to say in my church back in the day).

3. You don’t know the impact of sensitive, relevant, engaged, pastoring. But you might guess the impact of irrelevance. Even an outsider who doesn’t know the individual concerned might be touched by the love of the church for the brother or sister in Christ. By this will all men know that you are my disciples . . .

I don’t think these decisions are at all easy. And the challenge is to make the decision in a moment of personal distraction (perhaps it is good to consult some trusted colleagues on this kind of decision?) These thoughts are just off the top of my head (and while the intermittent internet connection is temporarily on!) Any thoughts you’d like to add?

Where Do You Preach From – Part 2

October 10, 2011October 3, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Continuing the list from last time, I’m contemplating why a preacher may seem to be emotionally or spiritually a couple of feet back from where their body and mouth appear to be – that sense of distance or aloofness that undermines good engaging preaching.

4. The preacher may be nervous and so suffering from presentation freeze. It’s simple. Nerves freeze the vocal range, facial expressions and body language of the preacher. Maybe nerves have frozen the delivery into a “safe” zone that comes across as stilted, dispassionate and distant.

5. The preacher may be feeling hypocritical due to personal sin. This probably isn’t one to ponder on behalf of another (unless you know something). But it is worth praying through personally. We should all ask the Lord to search and try our hearts to see if there be any wicked way in us.

6. The preacher may be dour in personality. I don’t mean to be rude, but some preachers are just plain dull people. Not sure what to suggest, but do try to reflect the joy, enthusiasm, love, laughter, expression and life that is fitting for one representing our God!

7. The listener may be struggling to engage and projecting the issue onto the preacher. It is entirely possible that it isn’t an issue with the preacher at all, but rather the listener. Then again, if more than one listener points out that you seem distant when you preach, it probably isn’t them!

There might be other reasons too. Perhaps the amplification isn’t set at the right level. Perhaps the lighting isn’t working to full effect. What else might cause this issue, and how can we overcome it? After all, surely we would all rather be effectively communicating and fully engaging to listeners?

Where Do You Preach From?

October 7, 2011October 3, 2011 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Have you ever got the sense that the preacher is preaching from a couple of feet behind where their body is located? Perhaps there’s a better way to put this, but I’m struggling to think of how to do so. What I mean is that sense that the preacher is speaking the words, but somehow, behind the speaking there is a gap. It’s a gap from heart to mouth, a gap from personality to mouth. It’s as if the preacher’s mouth is being held at arms length from the core of who the preacher is. Somehow the preacher is not giving fully of themselves, but seem rather to be holding something back. Why might a preacher come across this way?

1. The message may not be fresh and overflowing. When a message is old and hasn’t been worked to the point of dynamic freshness, the preacher may stumble through, overly relying on notes, fumbling for words, lacking heart and enthusiasm. It may not be the preacher’s fault, necessarily, but the best preaching comes not from having good notes, or just from good content, but also from being “prayed full” to overflowing with the message God has given.

2. The message may not be truly owned. Perhaps the preacher started preparing too late and so the message hasn’t penetrated the spiritual fibre of their character. Perhaps the preacher remains unconvinced, or even resistant to the full implications of the text. Maybe the preacher has plagiarized the message and hasn’t genuinely worked it through until it is fully owned. The preaching event is not just the message, it is about the message through the messenger.

3. The preacher may be spiritually or emotionally distracted. Everybody has an off day, maybe this is the case. We shouldn’t judge too harshly without knowing the facts. Equally, God sometimes comes through in power when the preacher is at the lowest ebb.

I don’t want to go too long, so I’ll finish the list next time. Love to hear your thoughts on this . . .

Passion Sappers 2

October 5, 2011October 3, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday we pondered a pair of possible reasons for a perished passion to preach. Focusing on God, our abiding in Christ and in His Word, is very important. Yet preaching is about the link forged between God and our world. Perhaps the passion is drained by a loss of vision for the recipients of the ministry?

Passion for the Church – Do you see no hope of change or progress in your church? At its core, biblical preaching in the local church context is about seeing God at work transforming lives and the church community as you speak for Him. When the hope fades due to apparent ecclesial entrenchment, so will your passion to truly preach engagingly and relevantly in the church. Sometimes this is about leadership structures, sometimes about power-figures with personal agenda, sometimes it can feel like church-wide malaise with a commitment to concrete boots when it comes to moving forward (and it can feel like drowning is the only option). The local church environment can be a brutal place to do ministry, but it is God’s primary plan. Perhaps your eyes have shifted from the One who promised to build His church to the ones apparently committed to thwarting that mission in your context. Eyes on the Lord!

Passion for the Community – Have you lost the sense that your church can reach its community? At its core, biblical preaching in the local church context is about seeing God’s spreading goodness reach beyond the gathering of believers to the community in which God has placed you. But in an increasingly hostile environment , where the church seems to be increasingly marginalised by society, it is easy to lose hope of impact. While I would encourage churches to make their evangelistic and caring ministries as connecting and relevant as possible (why offend people with religiosity instead of the gospel?), at the same time we need to remember that God both chooses and uses the weak things in the world to shame the wise. Maybe He will even use your church, in all its weakness. The key is that He is the one to use it . . . so eyes on the Lord, again!

Passion for the World – Have you settled into such a local vision that you’ve lost your global impact dreams? At its core, Christianity has a global agenda. But failure within the church and in the local community means that many churches have all but given up on any sense of global vision. If someone from the church swims upstream with a commitment to global missions, great, but we’ll probably do all we can to slow them down and get in their way first. If they make it to the field, then we will feel satisfied that we have a global ministry. Perhaps we need to dare to dream a bit more, a bit bigger, a bit further . . . which only happens if we are engaged with a global missionary God who Himself has a passion for the whole world.

So we’ve looked at God yesterday, and His passion for ministry today . . . there are many more avenues to pursue in each of these categories (feel free to do so in the comments).

How to Preach the One True God – Part Two

October 1, 2011September 30, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

So do we have to thoroughly define terms every time we mention God? That is, will every sermon be thwarted by a systematics lecture within moments of setting sail from the introduction? Not at all. Here are four suggestions that I think will have cumulative power without disrupting every sermon completely. Remember the first suggestion from yesterday though . . . you need to know the difference between the God defined by philosophy and the one true God who has revealed Himself in the Son and through the Spirit.

2. Repetition of “which God” question – by repeatedly pointing out that not every assumed description of the “one true God” is biblically true of the “one true God.” Some assumptions are true of Him, but not primary in His self-revelation. Just as it can be powerful in an evangelistic setting to ask someone who doesn’t believe in God which God they don’t believe in, so it can be powerful to open the subject up to Christians and ask which God they do believe in. It is a dangerous assumption that all who refer to God mean the same being, or even are clear on who He is. Sadly too many end up assuming a sort of impersonal ultimate force rather than the feeling, thinking, personal, loving creator God of the Bible. Let’s chip away at the naive assumption that everyone basically knows who God is.

3. Emphasis of particular text in light of its context – just as we can overlay a certain set of divine assumptions on the Bible as a whole, so we can easily do that with particular texts. Try to be more nuanced in making clear what a text is offering us as it reveals God. For example, Yahweh high and lifted up in Isaiah 6, holy holy holy . . . needs to be preached in light of Isaiah 1-5, where His heart for the whoring faithless nation who don’t draw near in loving devotion is made clear. Sovereign and holy? Absolutely. Distant, cold, rule-obsessed and uninvolved? Never! Without seeing how God reveals Himself and His heart in chapters 1-5, the sixth chapter can be preached with wrong emphasis, and the last five verses can really end up preaching that other philosophically-driven view of God.

4. Emphasis of particular text in light of complete revelation – that is to say, don’t give the impression that “God” in the Old Testament is just “Father” in New Testament terms. How easy it is to give the mistaken impression that God becomes a trinity when the Son is incarnated. The God of the Old Testament is trinity, even if each particular instance doesn’t make that clear. Was it the Father than spoke face to face with Abraham, that wrestled with Jacob, that spoke to the elders of Israel, etc.? What about the Spirit in the Old Testament? Any time we see “God” referenced in the Bible, we must be sensitive to the content and the informing theology at that point in the progress of revelation, but we shouldn’t forget what we now know more clearly about the one true God being trinity!

5. Since God is trinity, repetition of trinitarian hints are worthwhile – just to reinforce the previous point, don’t feel you have to fully explain the Trinity every time you mention it. Why not intrigue people with a sense of the beautiful attractive wonder of who God really and personally is through trinitarian hints as you preach the Bible. Don’t wait for the overt trinitarian formula to refer to trinity. Don’t miss the Father/Son language and turn that into a generic one-size-fits-all “God” reference as some preachers and authors do (almost giving the impression that the Son is somehow less than God). Don’t ignore the trinity in the Old Testament where there is a hint, and even where there isn’t. After all, we want to preach the one true trinitarian God of the Bible!

Ok, two posts over the daily limit . . . I need to stop, but feel free to comment.

How to Preach the One True God

September 30, 2011September 30, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday’s post sparked some good comments, which in turn have stirred my heart to follow up with another post. It is true that we need to be clear evangelistically which God we are preaching – a friend of mine used the example of Elijah with the prophets of Baal. He didn’t affirm their zeal and assume they had the same deity in mind, just the wrong label, he absolutely set up and followed through on the competition between two deities – one real and the other not. Nevertheless I am not advocating that we copy everything about Elijah’s methodology!

Actually I am not really referring to evangelism at all. My post was about being clear which God we are preaching to those sitting in our church (even if they are all Christians, albeit unlikely). Are we preaching the monadic lory-grabbing power-God of philosophy who can think only of himself? Or are we preaching the relationally self-giving glory-giving God who exists in Trinity and invites us into the circle of his other-centred loving relationality? To know the true God is eternal life, so we desperately don’t want to get this wrong!

Richard’s comment referred to a conversation with a Muslim, “after two hours it dawned on me that though we both affirmed “God”, be it as supreme or “one” or whatever, the “One God” he was talking about was not the “One Trinitarian God” I was talking about.” I’ve had that sensation while in conversation with Christians!

So how can we preach the one true God? Do we end up in lengthy detailed explanations every time we come to a technical term like “Father” or “Son” or even “God?” I don’t think that’s necessary. Now and then an extended explanation, and even a differentiation, can work wonders. (Remember that if you don’t differentiate, they will overlay their selfish and distant and cold God on your selfless and warm-hearted Immanuel God.) But there is also a cumulative power in preaching that can work wonders. Five brief suggestions:

1. Be sure you know the difference between the God defined by philosophical attributes and the God self-revealed in His relationality in the Bible. While many or most of the attributes listed in our systematic theologies are true, we might be wrong-headed thinking that God can be defined without the Son as our point of entry into the discussion. Remember that Jesus didn’t prove his deity by ticking every box in the philosophical attribute list, but the Jewish leadership easily spotted his claim through references to his relationship the the Father. Be sure you really know the difference and are preaching the one true trinitarian God of the Bible. Don’t be guilty of overlay (and probably assume you are, since you’ll naturally assume you aren’t!)

Ok, I said brief, but the post became more than twice my daily limit. So the other four suggestions will be coming tomorrow (I’ll put up a post on Saturday for a change – it’s too important a subject to wait past another Sunday!)

Preaching’s Biggest Assumption

September 29, 2011September 29, 2011 / Peter Mead / 9 Comments

I think the biggest assumption found in Christian preaching today might be this: that God is God.

Now I don’t mean that God has the right to be God, that is a different matter and a truth worth affirming. I mean that when the preacher says “God,” the listeners know who is meant. That is a big assumption.

It’s true that we live in an age of great religious confusion. After all, there may be Muslims, or Sikhs, or Hindus, or Buddhists, or New Age, or cult members present. There does seem to be an ever widening array of divinity options in our world today. But actually this isn’t my thinking in this post. Even when all present would call themselves Christians, I still think this is a big assumption to make.

Among Christians there are different “versions” of God at large, although they essentially do boil down to two main options. One is the monadic deity of philosophy – a God that tends to be assumed and agreed on in terms of his inherent attributes. This is the God that can be defined and described for chapter after chapter of some systematic theology texts before any reference to the Son or the Spirit or the Trinity are made. So many preachers refer to God, and assume all know what they mean . . . the God who made everything, is everywhere, judges everything, is all powerful, etc.

Somehow this power-God of philosophy is overlaid onto the Bible and assumed to be the same as the God of the Bible who is Father because of the eternal relationality of the Trinity, because of the Son and the Spirit. This God somehow seems to be slightly, and at times, radically different from the God that “everyone knows is God” of philosophy. My mind goes back to Mike Reeves’ talk at the Delighted By God conference in the summer where he contrasted the God of Arius and the God of Athanasius, offering both as the two options present in contemporary Christianity (here’s the link).

It isn’t only the increasing biblical illiteracy of our times that makes identifying the God we preach important. It is also the centuries’ old confusion of monadic and trinitarian understandings of God that makes this important. As we make sure our preaching is theocentric and pointing to God rather than humanity as its goal and focus, let’s be sure we are clear which God we are preaching.

Interaction Flops – Part 2

September 24, 2011September 23, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday’s post was getting a bit long, so I’ve spilled over to today. Thinking about participative preaching, or interaction between pulpit and pew, that doesn’t really work. We thought about the cultural differences issue yesterday. Here are a few more warning flags:

Patronising the listeners – It is easy to cross a line from helpful invitation to participate vocally, to patronising listeners. It’s hard to get this right because assuming knowledge can be unhelpful:“We all know that Malachi is the last book in the Old Testament” . . . maybe, at a pastors conference, but in a normal church setting, what about the new young believer or visitor who doesn’t know that? Now they feel uniquely uninformed. But it can go the other way in participative preaching moments: “You finish the sentence if you can, ‘Jesus’ mother was called…?” As people mumble the name, Mary, chances are that they might be feeling like six year olds. Some preachers need to learn that getting people in a congregation to say something out loud is no great achievement, and it is no guarantee of attention or interest either. Sometimes it is just plain patronising.

Unnecessary invitations – You have to be sensitive to the congregation. Somehow you need to sense when asking for them to answer a question, or say something, or vocally agree, or whatever is simply unnecessary. I’ve sat in congregations where the preacher wasn’t really patronising, but perhaps just nervous. Everyone was with them, following, enjoying, appreciating, and suddenly the preacher seems to lose their nerve and start looking for vocal affirmation, or an answer to a question to “keep us engaged” when actually we were engaged, but now are getting a bit annoyed by the slowing of the pace and the loss of momentum. Tricky one to judge, but just don’t fall into the trap of thinking vocal response from the congregation is somehow always engaging or helpful.

Narrow answer requests– This is hard to take as a listener. When the preacher has a specific and narrow answer in mind and wants somebody else to say it. As we saw in the earlier posts, if you ask for participation, be open to the participation that may come back to you. Don’t frustrate listeners with a question that leaves them groping in the dark for “your” right answer!

What might you add to this list? Any other interaction flops that preachers should be wary of?

Interaction Flops

September 23, 2011September 23, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

For the past two days I have been blogging about a type of interactive preaching, or participative preaching if you prefer. This is not the same as preacher and listeners together discovering the meaning of a text (I’m not convinced about that in a preaching setting). It is the preacher having a specific destination, but allowing the listeners to participate in a significant stage of that journey. In the case of my message on Tuesday, I invited them to imagine what Peter and John might have thought back to during their years with Jesus as they anticipated a trial before the Sanhedrin in Acts 4. They shaped the message in respect to which aspects of the apostles’ experience we imagined together, but I still controlled how the message would end. Anyway, there are numerous approaches to inviting participation from the listeners while preaching. I’d like to wave a red flag at some approaches that seem to flop.

As I mentioned in the previous two-part post, all good preaching should feel somewhat participative, even if the listeners never vocally participate. But problems come when the preacher decides that getting noise out of the listeners’ mouths equates to a higher level of preaching or an automatically more engaged listener. This is too simplistic by half. For instance:

Cultural/Personality Differences – Last year I sat under the preaching of Dr Joe Stowell at Keswick, a preacher I appreciate very much. Joe is an American preacher who invites vocal response and vocal affirmation and audience participation, etc. I don’t know if it is the American versus British difference, or just the warmth of Joe’s personality, but his preaching really was very effective. I’ve seen British preachers doing the same thing in Britain and it fell very flat. Many British listeners aren’t readily participative like other cultures. “Can I hear an amen?” can grate deeply on some congregations. What would naturally and spontaneously stimulate hearty amens and approval in some settings might barely get a low level grunt in others. Trying to whip up a congregation into a non-natural vocal response is generally unwise. They will make some effort to do what you ask, but their discomfort will override their external compliance and have a net negative effect.

Cross-Cultural Issues – When speaking of audience participation, naturally the subject of African-American preaching comes up. There is something very compelling about the rhythmic, call and response, high energy type of preaching popular in some settings (cultural and denominational). But it takes a whole congregation and preacher combination for it to work. Two examples stand out in my memory.

1) I was in Nigeria some years ago and noticed how the believers at this conference responded to the closing prayers of the African preachers – very physical, high movement, verbal agreement, etc. And I noticed how the white preachers couldn’t get the same response when they prayed – congregation standing stock still with hands folded in front of them. Something was different in the mix.

2) I’ll never forget the white preacher preaching in the chapel service of the Bible school where I was a visiting lecturer in Kenya. These listeners did respond vocally, and he couldn’t contain himself. He got swept away on the wave of energy and ended up giving an appalling example of show-off preaching. I think it takes a consistency of preacher and listeners for patricipative preaching to work. Either preacher and listeners are coming from the same tradition, or the listeners are responsive rather than resistant when the preacher is different to them (and the preacher also needs to be understanding when the listeners are different to him in some way!)

This has become a long post, so I’ll spill over to tomorrow . . .