Father’s Day Post: What To Ask The Children

June 16, 2011June 12, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Coming home from church at Sunday lunch time is a regular opportunity to chat with the children. Have we forgotten anyone? How was Sunday School? What did you learn? All the normal interrogatives to engage the next generation after a morning of church.

But what about after the sermon? What should I ask? There are several options:

1. What did you learn? This is the Sunday School question transferred to the church service. Perhaps it implies that preaching is primarily educative. Perhaps it suggests that the goal of the listener is to be intellectually stimulated by the preaching of the Word so that they come away better informed. Certainly this is a fair question and there is a content to the Christian faith that makes the question worthwhile. I suspect children of experiential meditative religions don’t get asked what they learned after visiting the temple. And I suppose sometimes it is the only question I suspect might get anything out of the children. But having said that, this shouldn’t be the only question to ask, for education is not the only goal in preaching.

2. How did the sermon change you? I suppose this is a worthwhile question since church is meant to be transformative rather than merely repetitive. On the one hand this question might train an expectation of transformation at the hearing of God’s Word. On the other hand, it might fan the flames of self-focus that is the scourge of fallen humanity. Perhaps the question can be modified slightly, “how did the sermon change you in response to Christ?”

3. How did the sermon make you feel? This is a riskier question when the answer might easily be “bored” or “sleepy.” But contrary to popular opinion, it is a legitimate question. God didn’t just design our brains, but also our emotions. Every sermon will have an “affect” on us. Sadly, too many will numb souls, rather than igniting hearts with fire in response to the love of God. Too many sermons will depress the listeners, rather than stirring deep within the kind of passion for God that is only fitting for those who hear His Word preached.

Too often I only feel comfortable asking the first question. Perhaps this is something for preachers to ponder, as well as Dads.

Why Preach From There?

June 15, 2011June 11, 2011 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

As someone who preaches in a variety of churches and settings, I often find myself evaluating a preaching position. I was recently in the friendliest little countryside chapel that just happened to have the highest pulpit platform I’ve seen in a long time. Why preach from all the way up there?

Elevation Intimidation – If I were to preach from up there I would be implying several things. For one, there is authority when spoken from on high. But on the other hand, there is also a sense of intimidation. A sense of separation between the lofty preacher and the humble listeners.

Distant Proclamation – In other venues the front three rows are empty and the pulpit is then back some distance. Again, it is a position of authority, but there is also the sense of interpersonal distance. If my goal is to be an aloof expert, that is fine. But if I want to increase the sense of connection in the communication event, perhaps I need to preach from closer (and on the same level avoids the elevation issues mentioned above).

Obstructed Communication – In most venues there is a barricade, a pile of rubble and barrels that obscure the preacher from the listener. Really? Ok, maybe not specifically that, but the big old wooden pulpit monument functions in the same way. Authority? Sure. But what about the inevitable distance that obstruction puts into communication? Try having a meaningful conversation through a door, or a wall. Now cut a hole so you can see just the upper torso and head…still feels weird.

If our goal is to connect and communicate, then we must consider where we preach from, and why.

What If?

June 14, 2011May 29, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Thankfully most churches do not descend into the superficiality of contemporary TV games shows. Now I would be highly relevant and refer to one, but I don’t watch any, so I’ll have to be slightly generic. Imagine for a moment that your church instituted a new slot in the church service. . .

Each week two preachers take turns to give the opening five minutes of their sermon. Then the audience get to vote for which sermon they get to hear that day. Perhaps the losing introduction gets less travel expenses. Perhaps the church could install a praise-o-meter and the selection could be made via volume of singing in two subsequent songs. Ok, enough of that.

Thankfully most churches don’t descend to such a level. We have a bit more of an appropriate atmosphere and ethos around the worship time and the sermon. Or do we?

Even without the flashing lights of the praise-o-meter, or the host with his “able assistant,” or the hype of a vote, something similar does happen each week. At the end of the introduction, each listener chooses whether they will engage or disengage for the rest of the message. Few, if any, will leave. But many may leave internally, heading for the golf course, or the weekly to-do list, or the forthcoming interview, or whatever. In fact, by the end of the introduction, many leavers will already be long gone. The first moments and minutes of a message are so vital!

Preaching is no game. But let’s not neglect the importance of arresting attention, surfacing a need, engaging the listener, demonstrating earliest possible relevance of speaker, text and message. Don’t depend on their dutiful commitment to listen to the Word. Win them so they can’t help themselves!

Facing a Phrase Unneeded

June 13, 2011May 29, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

When I listen to others preach, there are a handful of phrases that always stir a little reaction inside me. One is, “of course we all know…” or variants. “I’m sure you know the story of…” or “To quote a verse you probably have memorised…” or similar.

Why do people say this? I think it is about a sort of humility. It is a shorthand way of saying, “I know many of you have been Christians for many years and I am nervous, if I am honest, that I am not bringing anything new to the church today, so since my message is the same old same old, I’m going to pre-empt your critique that it was all the same old stuff by acknowledging that as I preach…” That would be cumbersome, so “As we all know…” it is, then. Hang on. Perhaps that family of phrases is unhelpful.

What if somebody doesn’t know it? We live in an age of increasing biblical illiteracy. People in our churches do not know their Bibles, generally speaking, as church goers may have done a generation or three ago. Giving the impression that everyone in the church knows something can be very unhelpful for the individual who doesn’t know that (uncomfortable to be the odd one out, even if actually there are many in the same boat, they will all feel alone at this moment)! Which leads on to a second point…

What if somebody is visiting? Chances are, an outsider is already feeling like an alien who has unknowingly landed on a different planet as they try to figure out the customs and culture of this thing called church. Don’t add to it by making them feel stupid because they don’t know what “we all know.” But there’s another reason I’d like to throw in here too:

Is the Bible really same old same old? Absolutely not! If you think it is, don’t preach it, please. The ancient documents collected together that we call the Bible is more fresh and alive and new and relevant and powerful and engaging and poignant and stirring that today’s newspaper headlines. We preach it and we preach it and we preach it again because it isn’t old news. It is fresh and relevant and more for today than anything else any of us could come up with. So preach with enthusiasm and excitement, not just for the visitor who may well have never heard it before, but for the most tired looking saint of the decades who needs to feel the force of the freshness of the Word anew right now!

Offending and Offenders

June 9, 2011May 29, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Nobody likes to be criticised, nor to hear that others are offended at them or by them. Yet as preachers we need to become discerning in this issue of offense. As a follow-up to yesterday’s post, let’s look at this from another angle.

Some offense is avoidable and should be avoided. Some is not avoidable and shouldn’t be avoided. Some offense is peripheral. Some offense is central.

If you are criticised for something that was misunderstood, or came across wrongly, or whatever, then apologise. Perhaps a passing humorous remark hurt somebody’s feelings. Hopefully you will have opportunity to apologise to them (unless they remain hidden in the undergrowth and simply spread their critique by the poisonous weed of gossip). Perhaps an illustration came across as arrogant when you meant it entirely differently. Don’t get caught up in thinking that everything you say is of the Lord simply because you prayed about it, or because you are the preacher. Lead the way in humility and readiness to apologise. Be approachable so at least some people will talk to you about these things.

If you are criticised for something that is incidental, consider whether the one criticising is a professional moaner. Some will find anything for their target. They didn’t like that you put your Bible down, or that you put your hand in your pocket during a personal story, or that you flapped a wasp away, or that you wore a tie, or didn’t, or smiled, or didn’t, or whatever, or didn’t. If this person comes to you and they are repeatedly offended, consider whether this is an opportunity to graciously but firmly put a finger on the critical spirit. If this person consistently goes to others about you, then encourage the others to both encourage them to speak to the person they think has sinned instead of gossiping, and perhaps to call them on their attitude.

If you are criticised legitimately, learn.

If you are criticised because the Bible, the gospel, the Christ, the Spirit, has made them uncomfortable, or convicted, or challenged, or whatever . . . then, well, then good. Some people want to come to church as an exercise in religious piety, but without true piety. They want to go through the motions, but don’t want their own emotions to be engaged at all. They want to tick an attendance box, and you preaching the Bible gets in the way of that. Don’t apologise. Keep preaching. Don’t allow a small number of complainants to control you or the church. Our goal must never be to keep everyone happy. You can easily arrest the development of the church for the sake of a handful, while the steady trickle of the spiritually lively out of the back door will spiritually bankrupt the church.

There are many reasons people get offended. We must care. Hard-skinned unapproachability is not becoming of a preacher of God’s Word. But there are numerous ways to respond. May God grant us wisdom and humility and courage to know what to do. (And may God also grant us co-leaders around us who can both discern and act when they hear the critique instead of us!)

You Can’t Please All…

June 8, 2011May 29, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The goal in preaching is not to please all of your listeners. We know that. But in our vulnerability it can be very uncomfortable to hear that some are not happy with your preaching. The challenge is to try to figure out why and then know whether to adjust or not. Here are some possible reasons and possible responses.

Over Their Heads – Perhaps your preaching is simply not pitched effectively. You use terminology that is unnecessarily lofty or academic and people simply struggle to understand you. There is no virtue in this and you need to hear the feedback. If you can’t make it understandable, it is your problem rather than theirs. The flesh has a tendency to show-off, but there is no excuse for fleshly preaching. Hear the feedback graciously and seek to change.

Overly Grating Their Tolerance – Perhaps your personality is simply grating and they struggle with you. This is a hard one to quantify or change. I suppose in an ideal world your increasing fruit of the Spirit as you mature should alleviate this problem over time (but what if they’re not growing?) Sometimes two personalities will clash and it will always be a struggle. Sometimes people hide behind the clash of personalities when there is an underlying sin issue that should be addressed (jealousy, bitterness, contempt, etc.) This is a harder problem to address, but loving them is not a bad path to take.

Overly Burdening Their Lives – Perhaps your preaching is simply weighing them down with duty and burden. This may be a misunderstanding of both the Bible and the preacher’s task on your part, or a misunderstanding of Christianity on theirs. I would suspect the former. Too many think that the preacher needs to “spiritually beat and berate” listeners in order to be truly preaching. Too many have a sort of “flagellation by sermon” approach to spirituality. Some listeners feel somehow better when they can walk out of church and say, “mmm, I needed that!” But this approach to Christianity will tend to break bruised reeds and snuff out smoldering wicks.

Overly Touching Their Hearts – Perhaps your preaching is simply touching too close to home. If you are preaching in such a way as to target the hearts of your listeners, then many will resonate deeply with what you’re doing. But in any church there will be some who are essentially hard-hearted, who want the preaching to meet certain criteria and stroke the egos of the religious and pious. Some find it deeply convicting to “feel” as if they don’t really have a loving personal relationship with God. They revolt at the notion that those who do not love Christ are actually “accursed.” It’s painful, but if this is the issue, then the fact that a small minority are unhappy may be a strong affirmation of your preaching. Would we prefer to have everyone be pleasantly untouched?

There are other reasons, and often a blend of more than one. The challenge is to sort it through and preach for our audience of One, yet with a loving sensitivity to the many who sit and listen. It is wrong to refuse to hear feedback, and it is wrong to try to please everyone. Love Him, love them and respond to the feedback where appropriate.

Which God Do We Preach?

June 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Today’s post is on the Cor Deo site. Click here to go there!

Momentum Matters

May 31, 2011May 21, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

When you are preaching, your listeners will subconsciously be looking for unity (a single focus to your preaching), and order (a clarity of structured presentation), and progress (a sense that you are moving forward and getting closer to the end). It is this progress that can be easily lost causing the message to feel like it gets stuck in the mud.

What causes momentum to be lost? Could be one of several things:

Is momentum about content of the message? Yes it can be. Is one part of the message too dense or extended in terms of explanation? Is there too much repetition that might give the sense of you losing your way or going round in circles? Content issues can cause a loss of momentum.

Is momentum about structure of the message? Yes it can be. If you haven’t previewed the structure, or don’t give effective and deliberate transitions, then it can all meld into one and feel dense or still instead of progressing. If you structure your message so that you keep jumping around the text, listeners can lose the sense of progress that comes from a sequential following of the passage (it can be appropriate to do this approach in a text, but make structure and transitions extra clear).

Is momentum about delivery of the message? Yes it can be. If you lose energy, or become monotonous in voice or visual presentation, then momentum can seap away. If you lose your initial enthusiasm (or if your enthusiasm is at a constant high pitch without releasing that tension), then momentum can be lost.

Momentum can be hard to get hold of, but for preaching to engage listeners, we have to consider not only unity and order, but also progress. Don’t take this the wrong way, but they like to know you’re getting closer to being done!

Guardrails and Bridge Width

May 20, 2011May 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Some time ago I referred to Timothy Warren of DTS who used the analogy of guardrails for guarding the application of a message from straying off target. I’d like to use the same analogy with slight modification in respect to preaching a text.

The preacher builds a bridge between the Bible text in its world and the listeners in theirs. It may be helpful to imagine a guardrail either side of this road. One guardrail is the intended audience, the other is the purpose of the communication. On the Bible side of the bridge, the intended audience were the church or individual receiving the inspired text (i.e. the churches of Galatia). The purpose was specific in terms of Paul’s intent for those churches.

By the time the preacher gets over to today, he is also thinking of an intended audience (the congregation of Community Church this coming Sunday) and also has a purpose in preaching this text to them on this occasion.

Now if the audience this Sunday shares significant characteristics and cultural experiences with the original audience, then the guardrail comes straight across the bridge. And if the purpose for the sermon matches Paul’s purpose for his letter, then that guardrail also comes straight across.

But what if the audience is different (perhaps they haven’t gone after another gospel), and therefore the purpose is slightly different (encouragement with some warning, rather than open rebuke), then I imagine the guardrails shifting the road direction slightly (think of how your lanes are changed when there is construction on the motorway/freeway). The message of the text is not significantly changed (there are limits), but the sermon is adjusted from what the original did.

If this were applied to preaching a passage from Leviticus, then I imagine the considerable change in audience and purpose would be reflected in the less direct application of the text (a six-lane road narrowing to a two-lane road since we can’t apply it freely and directly), yet the road remains the same.

You cannot preach any truth from a particular passage. You can only preach the truth of that passage. However, the ease of transfer depends on the consistency of audience situation and sermonic purpose. Adjusting these guardrails will adjust the message (but the message must still be the message of the passage).

Tranlsation Error? Sure?

May 18, 2011May 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I’ve mentioned this before, but let me drop it in again. Be very careful before you tell a congregation their Bible translation is wrong. I was in a church a while back where somebody corrected the translation with the comment, “the NIV committee pulled a fast one here.” Very unhelpful. Whatever decisions they made that we might disagree with, I doubt they “pulled a fast one.” What’s more, it was clear from the explanation given that the person commenting didn’t know his Greek almost at all.

1. The notion of word for word direct equivalence is naïve. Each word in the Greek has its own semantic domain (essentially a range of potential nuances/connotations/senses and potentially appropriate glosses or equivalents in English). So word X might be translated as A or B (to keep things simple). Word Y might be translated as C or sometimes B. To say the translation is wrong because they translated Y as B when you think it can only be C would be naïve and unhelpful.

2. Listeners are naïve. Generally speaking, when the speaker makes some judgment of the translation or comments on the Greek, the listeners will mostly assume they have someone with some level of expertise before them. This is massively naïve. I tend to see those who are very capable in the Greek barely letting it show in any overt way, while those who refer to it often are desperately lacking in Koine competence.

3. Preach your passage. Does your passing comment about the translation really help people understand the passage? Really? Is it worth undermining their confidence in the translation for that insight? And honestly, although this is hard to answer, do you have enough competence in translating the Greek to make your critique (or second-hand critique) stand up with integrity?

Tempting as it may be, for several reasons, to correct the translation you are preaching from, it is typically better to avoid overt critique and simply allow your insight to shape your explanation of the text.