Letter from the Tax Office

April 1, 2011April 1, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I enjoyed a good conversation about preaching yesterday. Here’s a thought. 2 hypothetical situations:

Situation 1 – I have received a letter from the tax office stating that a Mr Jones is going to be hearing from the bailiffs if he doesn’t pay his tax bill within five days. I figure out that Mr Jones lives six doors down from me. Out of courtesy I take the letter to him and hand it over.

Situation 2 – I have a close friend who works in the tax office who lets me know that a mutual friend of ours, who happens to live next door, is long overdue on a tax payment and needs to respond immediately. I go next door and explain the situation carefully and clearly to Mr Smith, making sure he understands the gravity of the situation.

Which situation will offer the more compelling communication. Obviously the second one. Why? Because in the first I know neither the person in the tax office, nor the recipient. In the second one I know and like both of them.

Question: when you preach, which situation fits you? Ignore any tax and duty typology here – that’s not my point. As a communicator do I take data from the study of a written document and present that clearly to others? That is, do I handle a 2-D document in a manner that is relationally disconnected? Or do I have a heart-level connection with both the Author of that document, and the listeners of my message?

Many preachers and pastors are alert to the importance of knowing and loving the people to whom they preach. Humans can sense when someone cares, or even when someone likes them. Have you heard a preacher that didn’t seem to like you? I have recently and it left me stone cold. A good shepherd really loves his sheep. A good under-shepherd will too.

Fewer preachers seem to be alert to the importance of the heart connection in the other side of the preaching mix. That is, do you as a preacher know not only the text, but do you know and love and like the God who inspired it?

This makes a massive difference, but is rarely addressed in the preaching books. Massive difference. If you are not compelled and captivated by the One whose Word you preach, then why should your listeners be marked by its presentation? Your love for them alone is inadequate. It will carry things a decent distance, but it will fall short. The connection, ultimately, has to be between them and Him. Relational coldness between you and them, or you and Him, will short-circuit the whole loop.

An Officious Calling

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

David Gordon’s list of four failing approaches to preaching includes the category of “Introspection.” Let’s hear some highlights (pp83-84):

Some of the neo-Puritans have apparently determined that the purpose and essence of Christian preaching is to persuade people that they do not, in fact, believe. …This brand of preaching constantly suggests that if a person does not always love attending church, always look forward to reading the Bible, or family worship, or prayer, then the person is probably not a believer. To the outsider, it appears patently curious to take an opportunity to promote faith as an opportunity to declare its nonexistence.

Since the sermon mentions Christ only in passing (if at all), the sermon says nothing about the adequacy of Christ as Redeemer, and therefore does nothing nourish or build faith in him. So true unbelievers are given nothing that might make believers of them, and many true believers are persuaded that they are not believers, and the consolations of Christian faith are taken from them.

It is absolutely debilitating to be told again and again that one does not have faith when one knows perfectly well that one does have faith, albeit weak and imperfect.

It is really hard to see any positive that comes from this kind of preaching. The bruised reed and smoldering wick do seem to get broken and snuffed out. The dead in sin are hardly offered life when the love of God is not offered as the vivifying affection. Even the self-righteous are only reinforced in their misbelief since they will always assume this message is for someone else.

The self-righteous like it too much; for them, religion makes them feel good about themselves, because it allows them to view themselves as the good guys and others as the bad guys – they love to hear the minister scold the bad guys each week. And sadly, the temperament of some ministers is simply officious. Scolding others is their life calling.

So, what can we suggest to preachers who find themselves being described in this post? I suppose the only solution is to fling yourself at the foot of the cross, read the Word for yourself and see your own brokenness and need. If you see brokenness in yourself, surely you see the need for others to be tended, to be cared for, to be shepherded, to be encouraged. If you see no brokenness in yourself, then perhaps you need the very gospel you are convinced nobody else really believes.

Learning to Listen to The Word

March 29, 2011March 29, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Why is it that some people are seemingly so alive, and others seem stone cold, when both have the same Bible? Maybe the difference is in them…click here for today’s post

Pulpit Talk Is Never Nothing

March 28, 2011March 29, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

When you preach, what you say may or may not be biblical, accurate, helpful, engaging or even Christian. But one thing it can’t be is nothing. There is no neutral.

1. Poor handling of the Bible is not nothing. Some preachers may read the text and then say whatever they want, failing absolutely to communicate the meaning, the intent or the relevance of the text. But they aren’t doing nothing. You can’t judge dismiss it and say, “Oh, that’s just so and so, we know what he’s like…” Truth is that such poor handling leaves an impression on the impressionable, it trains the incompetent to greater incompetence in Bible handling, it adds fuel to the fire of the skeptic who silently evaluates and concludes that there really is no substance to Christianity. It may be damaging, but it is never nothing.

2. Improper application of the Bible is not nothing. It’s amazing what some people will seek to apply to the listeners. The disciples met with the risen Jesus in the evening, so we should be sure to attend the evening service at church. How is this any better than reading Noah and conclude the spiritual and godly are the few still prepared to throw birds through windows? Whatever might be said of this kind of applicational tripe, you cannot say, “Oh, that’s just preacher so and so, we know what he’s like…” Truth is that such improper application is harmful both in its impact and in its failure to impact. People whose lives are in need of the balm of the Word, in need of the conviction of the Spirit, in need of the wooing of Christ, in need of encouragement, of soul care, of love . . . these people get only guilt, pressure, nonsense, harm and damage. Whatever this type of application may be, it is never nothing.

I suppose I could list all manner of other things here . . . unthought-through illustrations, inaccessible explanations, anecdotal content that serves the main idea not one whit. The preacher preaches and there is no sense in suggesting that every word that proceeds is automatically a fruit of time spent with the Lord. Some words spoken are not befitting for the Christian pulpit. Yet no words spoken are merely nil. Each word, each sound, each expression, each detail . . . it all does something. Let’s be sure to make it all count for eternity.

Strangling the Gospel

March 25, 2011March 24, 2011 / Peter Mead / 5 Comments

David Gordon lists four types of failed sermon types that are prevalent today. The list is worth considering in full, but especially the first sermon type he describes. The first on his list, and the first on mine, is moralism. Here are some highlights that I have pulled from this section of the book:

Protestant liberalism was a way of understanding Christianity as essentially consisting of a particular moral framework, and of understanding Christ as essentially a great moral teacher. [It] often denied outright that Christianity was a redemptive religion. . . . Rather, it perceived Christianity as consisting of the discovery of a right and proper way to live an ethical life.

…Ironically, the very orthodox and evangelical Christians who protested against Protestant liberalism in the early twentieth century are quite likely to promote its basic emphases from the pulpit today.

…Moralism occurs whenever the fundamental message of a sermon is “be good; do good” (or some specific thereof). Whenever the fundamental purpose of the sermon is to improve the behavior of others, so that Christ in his redemptive office is either denied or largely overlooked, the sermon is moralistic.

…Go and listen to the typical sermon in the typical evangelical or Reformed church, and ask what Luther would think if he were present. Luther would think he was still in Rome. (Taken from pp79-81)

This is a huge issue. Moralism and legalism is a plague in some churches. Somehow the fresh and dynamic, personal and engaged reality of relationship with Christ tends to grow dim over time (and over generations). So in some churches today there are those who would essentially affirm the preaching of a Roman Catholic or Mormon or Conservative Moralist or child behavioural traditionalist guest speaker.

Legalism is not honouring to God. Legalism strangles the gospel. It chokes love. It throttles grace. It undermines the gospel. Let us be very careful to really preach the glorious grace of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Moralism is always an attractive shortcut to producing churches full of people who look very christian. Let’s dare to take the path less travelled – to preach the transforming grace of God, His captivating love that doesn’t mass produce Pharisees, but will stir a response. The love of the Trinity in the gospel will always polarize, it will distinguish, it will certainly bother some of the core people in any church. But let’s not forget who bothered Christ the most – it was the moralistic legalists who mastered the form, yet missed the heart.

Not Too Good, Just Good Enough

March 23, 2011March 23, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Here’s a quote from David Gordon’s chapter on the state of preaching in Why Johnny Can’t Preach: The Media Have Shaped the Messengers. I reviewed the book on Monday and recommend it as a quick but insightful read. Anyway, here’s the quote:

[People distort my concern with] “Ah, David, you’re right; ours is not a day of great preaching.” This is not my concern. . . . I don’t care about its presence or absence one whit. What I care about is the average Christian family in the average pew in the average church on the average Sunday. And the problem there is not that we don’t have “great” preachers; in many circumstances we don’t even have mediocre preachers. If Jesus tests Peter’s profession of love by the ministerial act of feeding his sheep, our sheep do not need gourmet meals. But they do need good, solid nourishment, and they are not ordinarily getting it. (pp14-15)

I agree. Now let me put this positively. I tend to teach people, particularly in respect to the main idea of their sermons, that the goal isn’t stunning or great. The goal is just good, faithful and clear. We read super-ideas in some preaching books. These stunning, out of the park, hit it for six, idea-of-the-year, super-main-ideas tend to be the very best the author has ever preached. We can’t live up to some of these pithy, witty, clever, assonated, succinct and memorable main ideas. We may never achieve a single one good enough to be published. But the thing is this – if we will just preach consistently biblical, faithful, plain, clear, just decent main ideas that are derived carefully from the text and targeted prayerfully toward the hearts of the people . . . just a steady diet of good main ideas will transform our churches.

Irrelevant?

March 17, 2011March 17, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

It isn’t unusual to hear people speak of expository preaching as an irrelevant mode of communication that has no place in the contemporary church. Outdated. Unnecessary. Irrelevant. Here’s a quote from a footnote in the book I just finished this morning and will review sometime soon, but will leave you in suspense for now (p79):

As long as original sin has the human race in its grasp, and as long as the conscience has the slightest awareness of guilt, declaring the competence of the sin-bearing Christ to rescue the guilty will never be irrelevant.

Absolutely. The problem with the “irrelevance” talk is that it seems to be looking at entirely the wrong thing.

1. People don’t always know what they need. Everyone seems to be an expert in how long they can concentrate, how they learn best, how they need to be fed, etc. As a parent I know it is possible to be most sincere about what is best, yet in my slightly advanced maturity I can see through the best laid plans of toddlers and children. In a culture that has degenerated on so many levels, the frogs in the near boiling water are happy to announce that preaching the Bible is now irrelevant to them since they are so advanced compared to all who have come before. It seems, at times, that the only advance is the march of sin toward judgment.

2. People don’t always know what they haven’t heard. For example, feed a church poor preaching consistently and they may moan, but they also will cling on to the scraps of good that they receive from the pulpit. Sometimes great expository preaching can be as much of a shock to the system as a nutritious feast is a shock to a starving body.

3. People don’t always know the difference between critiquing bad examples and critiquing something as a whole. I can say that tomatoes are unnecessary for me to have an enjoyable diet because I have only tasted sour excuses for tomatoes. But now that I have enjoyed some of the finer specimens from Italy and elsewhere, I wouldn’t be so brash in my dismissal of all tomatoes. The same goes for expository preaching. What may be irrelevant is the kind of pseudo-expository preaching many have grown accustomed to (lacking biblically, lacking communicationally, lacking applicationally, lacking spiritually, lacking in gospel, lacking in skill, lacking in prayer).

Baby. Bathwater.

Finger On

March 15, 2011March 15, 2011 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

I listened to two preachers recently. Walter Kaiser (on CD) and another well known speaker in the UK. There are several differences between them, but I’d like to point to one. Kaiser wanted his listeners to keep their finger on the text. The other man didn’t.

If you’ve heard Kaiser you will know that he likes to get people to look at the text. Lots of good preachers do that. It helps people see that you speak with authority because the authority is not yours, but the authority of the Word of God. It helps people follow the message. It helps people come back to the text later and then see for themselves what you were teaching.

I know you’ve heard preaching like the alternative I have in mind. The text is read, but left behind as the sermon progresses through several paralleled points of the preacher’s own construction – a biblical theology of the phrase, if you will. Lots of preachers do that. It gives the sense that you speak with authority because you speak with authority. It motivates listeners to close their Bibles and just listen. It helps people not re-open their Bibles later since they can’t remember how you derived your points anyway.

Both approaches will get glowing feedback. But both are not equal. Be a preacher who motivates listeners to get their finger on the text. What advantage is there in not doing so?

Human Nature

March 14, 2011March 14, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

What if a relatively simple misunderstanding were to lead to significant missteps in dealing with important situations? A newspaper article was passed to me last week that suggests just such a misunderstanding was the cause of failure in economic help provided to the fallen Soviet Union, failure in provision for post-Saddam Iraq, failure in the banking system in recent decades, failure in continual restructuring of education systems. Lots of failure. One root cause?

To hear what the journalist suggests is the root issue, please read the rest of the article over on the Cor Deo site – just click here…

Impositional Preaching

March 8, 2011March 5, 2011 / Peter Mead / 7 Comments

Some of the greatest preachers of recent history have built sermons on single verses. I tend not to do that. Am I saying I know better than them?

Dr Lloyd-Jones, not to mention Spurgeon, and others, have demonstrated extended sermon series that essentially preach a single text at a time. Surely if we were to be preachers after their kind today, then we should pursue the same kind of ministry? Actually, I think not.

First, let’s recognize what these men did. Spurgeon sometimes resorted to an allegorical exegesis of the text, but not always. Lloyd-Jones tended to preach the Bible’s theology radiating from the impact point of a single verse. That is, since the word “justified” is in this verse, what all could be said from the whole canon on that theme (perhaps in this message, perhaps over several).

Second, let’s recognize what wannabe’s often do. Today when I hear people building messages from single texts I tend not to hear people with the pedigree of Spurgeon or Lloyd-Jones. I do hear some allegorical, not to mention fanciful, interpretations. These lack credibility and authority. I also hear some waffling messages padded with poor cross-referencing that shows neither theological acumen, nor precision in respect to recognition of biblical connections (nor genuine understanding of the theological needs of the listener). In an era where listeners will look at the text and dismiss apparently unfounded sermonizing, we would do well to reevaluate the efficacy of many “single verse” approaches to preaching.

Third, let’s realize that imposition is not exposition. Too often the preacher has the mindset of seeking to utilize the text as a series of pegs on which to hang their thoughts. All too often those pegs are not divinely intended to hold the weight placed on them. The Bible is an intricate and powerful construct of divine design. Sadly, all too often preachers take a twig from the oak tree and assume it will bear the same weight as the oak was designed to hold. Impositional preaching is not exposition, it is a pale imitation of what some greats from church history did.

Fourth, let’s realise that exposition is about honouring God, not historical figures. I deeply respect Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones, as well as many other preachers through church history that I do not seek to emulate every week. My view of expository preaching is built on my understanding of the nature of God’s Word. As I seek to explain it, to demonstrate its relevance, to say what it says and seek to somehow make the message do what it does, I am pursuing a contemporary ministry of expository preaching. I may fall short of historical models, and yet at the same time I may at times get closer to honouring the intent of the text. I pray that God will enable me to have a fraction of the impact of these great men. I pray that God will equip me to be a preacher of His Word, rather than one who seeks to reproduce a historically bound model of ministry.