Sharpen the Arrow

August 26, 2011August 24, 2011 / Peter Mead / 7 Comments

I’m pondering the message I am going to preach in a few days. It is one of several required at a conference. I have the subject, which leaves me with almost the whole canon as potential preaching fodder. Now I am sharpening.

The temptation is not to sharpen, but to cram bulk into the message. How many bits of a brilliant Bible can I pack into the message in order to touch on as many good bits as possible? Bad idea. A big and bulky message will not communicate, it will not carry well. It will drop like a lead balloon before it gets to the first row.

Much better to remove bulk and sharpen the arrow. That is, instead of trying to get a lot across, I should try to effectively get the main thing across. Better for people to leave with the main thing firmly embedded in their hearts than with the experience of watching a preacher fail to communicate (and carrying nothing away themselves). This is obvious, but the problem is that it is also painful.

To sharpen the arrow I probably need to lose the content from that part of the Bible, and that part too, oh, and that bit. The only way to sharpen metal is to remove bulk. So by faith, prayer and work I need to sharpen the message so that it will communicate more effectively.

Preach Text or Title?

August 25, 2011August 24, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

What do you do when you are asked to preach a title with a text? My simple answer is to honour the title, but preach the text.

Isn’t that the obvious answer? No, I think there is an alternative that is very common and may be legitimate – preach the title by using the text. And then there is the option of preaching the title and ignoring, or even abusing, the text. The challenge is where the line is drawn between these two options. So why would title take precedence over the text?

Sometimes the title is highly relevant, or highly theological, or highly specific. What if the title is “What is the Gospel?” and the text is John 3:16. Or maybe “Are there many ways to God?” and the text is Acts 4:12. Or “Guilt and holistic health” with Romans 8:1.

The temptation then is to try to give the definitive lecture on biblical soteriology, or the exclusivism of Christ, or whatever. You’ve gone from preaching the Bible to preaching theology with the Bible as a key exhibit. I won’t say this is totally wrong. We have probably all benefitted from some “definitive lectures” from great speakers. But personally, I find there is something lacking in this approach. I would rather preach the text.

Personally I find it satisfying when I feel like I’ve done a good job of engaging the text and presenting it in such a way that it has “lived” in the imaginations of the listeners. A well crafted lecture on exclusivism is all well and good, but a text genuinely experienced text is much rarer. As long as it addresses the requested subject by way of application, of course.

So in simplistic terms I might be looking at something along these lines:

Intro – raise the question in light of contemporary thinking so people say “yep, that’s a big issue, what’s the answer?”

Text – take them back there, set the scene, make it vivid, help them experience the unique reality of the situation, and preach the text.

Application – return to today and answer the question . . . “so if that was true for them, what is true for us, under pressure to conform to the world’s way of thinking?” Preach the point of the verse again in reference to the opening of the sermon.

The big thing to remember is that you can either formulate the most brilliant systematic theological presentation of the issue and impress a few. Or you can make the text live, preach vivid and engaging . . . and as long as you answer the question, everyone will love it. And, also, you’ll probably love it more because you will feel like you’ve truly preached the text, rather than pulled a phrase out of context in order to satisfy a contemporary theological question.

Trustworthy Bible

August 24, 2011August 23, 2011 / Peter Mead / 5 Comments

Yesterday was the 59th anniversary of the death of Sir Frederick Kenyon. Kenyon was a renowned scholar of ancient languages who took a keen interest in the authenticity of the Bible. “Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.” Kenyon’s sentiment here is often lost today, not just in the attacks of liberal scholarship, but also in the silence of Christian preachers.

Kenyon, director and head librarian of the British Museum, showed in his day how archeology and the manuscript evidence supported the credibility of the Bible. Of course there are many others who will argue the other way, all pointing to the agendas of those on the other side. Yet in the church today, there seems to be a paranoid silence in some quarters.

Since the Christian position is under attack from very vocal and media backed atheistic thinkers, we are increasingly huddled in church corners believing almost superstitiously in the message of the Bible. Why? There is more evidence for the authenticity of the Bible today than ever before! And while we are grateful for his legacy, we don’t have to just quote Kenyon for support.

Richard Bauckham has been doing some magnificent work in recent years, and Peter Williams et al of Tyndale House are doing a good job both advancing and communicating that work. Do the people in your church know about the integrity of the personal names used in the Gospels? That is, a level of accuracy in name selection that would be a level of sophistication utterly unparalleld in the ancient world if it were a forgery. Do the people in your church know about the evidences for word perfect quotation in the Gospels? Do the people in your church know about the frequency of accurate reporting of place names, as compared to the paltry place awareness in the non-canonical gospels? I could go on, but there is a bigger question. Not do they know, but, do you know about these things?

As preachers we do our listeners a disservice if we simply affirm the Bible’s truth without demonstrating its trustworthiness. By our silence we could reinforce the perception of many that the Bible is an ancient book of myths and legends that we choose to consider as “true for us.” If we won’t demonstrate and prove and affirm and show the integrity and trustworthiness of the Bible, who will?

——————————————

If you haven’t seen it, you won’t want to miss this lecture by Dr Peter Williams on “Eyewitness Evidence”

Identifying Individuals – Beware!

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

Most of us instinctively know that a distant preacher that never bridges the divide between pulpit and pew is not a model we aspire to emulate. We want to connect. There are many ways to do that – through content, demeanor, illustration, vulnerability, etc.

One way that some preachers try is to single out an individual in the congregation. It sometimes works. It sometimes backfires badly. What’s the difference?

1. People don’t come to church to be embarrassed. Many churches have learned not to invite first time visitors to their feet while the congregation sings a “Jesus welcomes you, so do we!” overture. Embarrassing. The same is true in the sermon. If the preacher points to an individual it draws attention and embarrassment. If you happen upon a long-time faithful leader, it will probably be ok. But if you happen upon a first-timer, they can easily become an only-timer. Which leads to the next point.

2. Do you know them? Simple guideline – if you don’t know the person, don’t even think about singling them out. If you do know them, then there is a chance that you know what is going on, how secure they are under attention, whether your comment might strike too close to home, or be wildly wide of the mark.

3. Is it helpful to them? Is it helpful to all? Again, if you don’t know them, you don’t know whether the comment will be helpful or painful. I hope none of us would point at somebody and talk hypothetically about their private lives, medical situation, spiritual state or relational health. But the fact is, unless we know them well, we won’t know if we touch too close to home, or too far wide of the mark.

4. Will they look foolish? Will you? Again, if you don’t know them, you can’t know how they will seem to others. Equally, you won’t know how you look either. One comment. One obvious assumption. One very embarrassed couple of people. One section of a church laughing at the preacher (not with, at) for his error. One whole congregation feeling uncomfortable because of the whole interchange. Was it worth it? Not at all.

If you know the congregation and the individuals and the life situations and are sure it will work, then perhaps consider identifying an individual. Otherwise, probably better that you don’t. Work on other ways to bridge the gap.

Don’t Move Away From the Bible

August 22, 2011August 22, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday may have passed without you noticing the date, but it was the 766th anniversary of the death of Alexander of Hales. I would have missed it too, except for a brief article I read that began like this:

A decisive moment in Medieval scholasticism came when Alexander of Hales substituted Peter Lombard’s Sentences in place of the Bible as the basic text for his teaching.

In his day he was called the king of theology. Alexander (I won’t call him Alex as I can’t pretend to be too close to him), pioneered the dangerous habit of making a summary of Christian theology using Aristotle as the authority. Summarizing the Christian faith in answer to numerous questions sounds safe enough, but when Aristotle is quoted as a reference in almost every question, something unhealthy might just be brewing. In fact, it was Alexander’s fan, a certain Thomas Aquinas, who is best known for blending Aristotle and Christianity.

Now I am not suggesting that you or I are going to have the same long-lasting consequences as can be traced from Alexander of Hales and those he influenced. Nevertheless, we will do damage if we make a move away from the Bible in our ministry. But, you might say, where could we go from the Bible? After all, we are committed to being biblical preachers . . . okay, some tempting avenues away from the Bible, in no particular order:

1. Theology – Don’t get me wrong, I care passionately about good theology, but I also see the temptation to become “sophisticated” and leave the Bible behind. Don’t do it!

2. Philosophy – Speaking of sophistication, it doesn’t get much more tempting than leaving the Bible to become something of a philosopher. Bad move for a preacher to make.

3. Mysticism – Other extreme, but still a speculative pursuit, some choose to leave the Bible behind in order to go after a greater mystical experience. Oops.

4. Revelation – Along similar, but distinct lines, is the temptation to treat the Bible as passe in the pursuit of new revelation from God. Careful!

5. Culture – Here’s a popular pursuit. How about essentially moving beyond the Bible to being a cultural commentator. Pas une bonne idee.

6. Coaching – Listeners, of course, crave relevant instruction for life in a complex world . . . so why not put the Bible aside and offer engaging applied training in “living life, for dummies.” Well, let me give you six reasons that’s bad practice…

7. Entertainment – Let’s face it, we could always just go for numbers of happy people by squeezing out the Bible in order to offer entertaining sets of humour and anecdotal pulpit pithiness. Yes, but did you hear about the preacher who did this and…

There may be some value in some of these pursuits, but keep your feet firmly planted in the Bible and don’t stray off down a dead end.

Preaching in Worship

August 18, 2011August 18, 2011 / Peter Mead / 6 Comments

I just read an article on Preaching in Worship from a 1979 edition of Themelios [this article, and others, is available here on theologicalstudies.org.uk – a growing and very useful source of freely accessible resources, see also biblicalstudies.org.uk].

In the article the author was contemplating the place of the sermon in the worship service. Without falling into a longer is better than shorter over-simplification, he focused on the value given to the sermon in the service. Too often a shorter sermon can feel like a PS at the end of the service. When the emphasis is placed on sung worship, at the expense of the preached Word, then people are forced to settle for mediated and second-hand worship. This is an interesting point. So often people focus on music because it gives a sense of immediacy to the service, and the message gives a sense of second-hand mediated worship (or often, no sense of worship at all), but the writer pointed to the contrary. The songs are second-hand to the listeners, but the response to the preaching of the Word should be immediate.

The author pointed back to the time when preaching was considered dangerous, and so laws were enacted to restrict public worship speech to that found in the Prayer Book. But later, meticulous following of the Prayer Book was no longer required because nobody was worried that preaching would do any harm. I wonder if those opposed to the work of the gospel in your community (locally and internally in the church) are concerned about the preaching in your church? Whether we are talking about spiritual opposition, or human, what would their perspective be? I suspect in some churches the preaching is considered deeply dangerous to those opposing God’s work, yet in others the platitudinous homilies make no difference whatsoever. If I were on the opposing side I wouldn’t be too concerned about the 14-minute homily I heard in one church not too long ago . . . not primarily because of the length, but because of the lack of impact, the lack of relevance, the lack of engaging the text deeply or the listeners meaningfully.

Interestingly the author writes about how to revitalize preaching and the general level of expectation in respect to preaching. Most people “today don’t want preaching partly because they haven’t heard it.” This is so true. I come across people who decry the value of expository preaching, but these same people are usually those without experience of genuinely biblical, clear, engaging and relevant preaching. What if more people approached the preacher(s) in their church and graciously asked for preaching that would help them learn more of God and His Word?

Preaching is central to worship and it is part of true worship, but more than that, the article suggests that it is not just an equal player in the team of elements that make up a worship service. True preaching has a level of immediacy that supersedes the perceived immediacy of sung worship. This is genuinely something to ponder!

An article from the late 70’s . . . dated in some respects, but helpful nonetheless.

Maximum Content, Minimum Loss of Contact

August 12, 2011August 10, 2011 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Just listening to Fred Craddock and he was asked about notes versus no notes. His bottom line was that you want to have maximum content, with a minimum loss of contact with the listener. He also suggested that every preacher should be fully competent at preaching without notes, with notes and with full manuscript. Why?

Full manuscript preaching will be helpful when the subject is controversial. It allows for people to see exactly what was said, and allows for precision from the preacher. I was asked to preach on Euthanasia a few years ago. Full manuscript. It simply wasn’t possible to internalize all the content of that message (not least because it wasn’t rooted in a single text).

Notes are useful in preaching, Craddock said, when “there’s a lot of tiptoeing and maneuvering in the sermon to get through it.” This is a problem in too many sermons, but there may be occasions where it is necessary. Too often a sermon makes good sense to the preacher because they have the notes map in front of them and they know exactly where they’ve come from and where they’re going. But often the listener is as lost as a toddler in a forest.

“Usually, if you prepare for delivery rather than for writing, you will know it by the time you get through preparing.” I agree with this and tend to preach without notes. But I also agree with his follow-up comment. These three approaches are not stages through which the preacher graduates. While no notes may generally be the preferred option, it is not a point of achievement to grab attention from listeners. It is a choice the preacher makes dependent on the message and the situation. Sometimes, as a generally no notes preacher, I will do well to use a full manuscript.

Content and contact to the max.

Post Sermon Text Test

August 5, 2011August 5, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

We preach hoping and praying for the message to mark and transform lives as it is preached. But what about after? I want to preach in such a way that the following things are true:

1. The listener will continue to be transformed by the text in the coming days. If the text were merely a source for data and sermonic stuff, then chances are the listeners will lose track of where the message came from. For the text to linger in their hearts and minds, the preacher needs to shine light on the text and shine the message of the text on the screen of their hearts. If they have only heard about it, there is less chance they will remember it than if they have “seen” the text painted vividly during the sermon.

2. The listener will be able to go back to the text later and understand it. If the listener were to look up the text later, then I want them to be able to understand it. That means that they have had it clearly and effectively explained. Not only what does it mean, but why does it mean that? Knowing that I take it a certain way is nowhere near as good as them seeing that that is what it is saying.

3. The listener will want to go back to the text later to read it. This is a biggie. If we assume that listeners go home and re-read the preaching text and carefully work through the notes they took, then we are naive to say the least. The preacher has to stir motivation for them to want to go back to the text. That motivation will come from an effective message, including instilling a confidence in them that they can see the why behind the what of the text. Why does it mean what the sermon said it means? They also have to be convinced of the relevance of the text to their lives. Irrelevant or inaccessible texts are least likely to be return destinations in the days after a sermon.

4. The listener will know how to make sense of it when they go there. This is like number 2, but slightly more than that. Number 2 was about them being able to understand the text itself. This one is about them being equipped to handle the text. That comes down to the instruction given in the sermon (and many sermons over time).

Knowing the Unknowable?

August 4, 2011August 4, 2011 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Yesterday I wrote about thinking through how your listeners will hear what you say so you can pre-empt misunderstandings. Dave commented and asked what to do with a new/unknown group of listeners? Great question. I don’t have the answer, but I do have some thoughts. Please comment to add yours.

1. An unknown congregation is not unknown to God. So pray. Pray for them. Pray for the preaching. Pray that God will help you to find the information that will help you! This is no substitute for the three ideas that follow, but it is foundationally important.

2. An unknown congregation can become known by enquiry. That is, you might be able to ask and learn about a church ahead of time. Ask the person who invited you to speak. Call and speak to someone in leadership and express that you simply want to get a pulse in order to communicate more effectively. Look at their website (don’t judge a church by its website, even though others will). When you arrive, talk to the person who gets you wired up with the mic, and the person who meets you at the door, and the person sitting next to you, etc. Ask questions and you will get to know a church more.

3. An unknown congregation can become more known by observation. It is amazing what you can deduce by observing during the twenty or thirty minutes before a meeting, as well as during the first part of the service. Good observation skills make the world of difference.

4. An unknown congregation have some things in common with known congregations. The first two may be neither possible nor fruitful, but this one is. I think preachers need to be good students of human nature. Bryan Chappell writes about the Fallen Condition Focus in his book on preaching. His point is that when you see the influence of the Fall in a narrative, then the contemporary listener will find that narrative relevant, no matter how obscure it might be. The same applies here. People tend to fall into similar patterns of error, of misunderstanding the gospel, of church behaviour, of needing encouragement, of hunger, yet inadequacy, stressed, uncertain, etc.

I’d love to hear more on this. How do you, when you are preaching to an unfamiliar group, overcome the unfamiliarity?

Selective Hearing

August 3, 2011August 3, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

A while back I preached a message. When it was over I felt a little bit drained, as many of us do after preaching. A couple of people made comments about one aspect of the message which only added to my low feelings. Obviously I had not communicated well. Perhaps I had been out of balance in what I said. It must have come out poorly.

So a couple of days later I got round to listening to the file, contemplating perhaps deleting some before putting the file online, or maybe choosing not to put it online at all. When I listened to it, I was surprised to find that I had no desire to try to edit the file. The message was good and I stood by it as being solidly biblical and accurate. So why the comments?

People will selectively hear what it said. Now I am the first to point out that what they hear is what matters, not what the preacher meant to say. But that is my point in this post. The preacher needs to think through the message from the perspective of the listeners ahead of time and spot where they will selectively mishear. Then the preacher can pre-empt this with a more overt form of communication. Perhaps instead of just saying the right thing, the preacher should say the right thing, ask a clarifying question, and then answer it. Perhaps the preacher should repeat, restate, underline, emphasize, clarify, etc.

If I had stopped to think ahead of time, I could have guessed both comments and both individuals who might make them. I could have overcome the problem ahead of time. Now I have a message that I am happy with, but they will probably never listen to the message again to check what I actually said, and the opportunity is lost.

Plan ahead and overcome the selective hearing that you probably know will happen!