Seven Deadly Sins of Ministry Mobilisation – Part 2

March 4, 2011March 3, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday we started the list, today we’ll try to finish it:

4. Look on the outside, miss the heart. How true is this? So easy to do! In the article the writer speaks of how mobilisers tend to be looking for high calibre people to focus their immense talents in new specific areas. I suppose we tend to do this in church world too? We aim for the obvious people of potential, people with something to offer, etc. Easily done. Samuel did it when looking for the next king of Israel. But God reminded Samuel that He had different priorities. Works-in-progress. True of young David. True of Jesus’ twelve. True of us. True of others.

4. Look on the outside, miss the heart. I know I am repeating myself, but I want to add something the article didn’t present. We easily fire our mobilising efforts on the outside, instead of targeting the heart in our communication. This is true of all preaching, not just mobilisation efforts. People do what they love. If we don’t seek to communicate with the heart, we should plan for superficial or short-lived response.

5. Dishonour those who don’t go. Easy to make response a priority, so that apparent non-response is dishonoured in some way. I would add, that in our attempts to mobilise ministry in the church, we shouldn’t miss the opportunity to affirm what is being done. Many churchgoers only hear of the need, but never hear the affirmation of those that do serve so faithfully.

6. Prioritize ministry over family, and even God. Easily done! When do you hear a preacher telling people in his church they need to prioritise evenings with family, rather than cajoling people to serve every evening the church doors are open? And what if more church leaders were like a colleague of mine who runs a team of workers with lots of work to get done, but sends them home if they haven’t read their Bible yet that day?

7. Talk about it, but don’t do it. Easy trap to fall into. Hard balance to find though. It is important to be involved in ministry beyond the up-front, but it is also important not to be trying to do everything so that what you should be doing isn’t done well. Balancing this is probably worth another post sometime.

Mobilising folks for ministry, both locally and globally, is an important part of our preaching privilege. May God grant us wisdom to do this well!

(The list was written by Shane Bennett, click here to go to the article.)

Seven Deadly Sins of Ministry Mobilisation

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

One of the lesser recognized tasks of a preacher is to mobilise ministry from others. The up-front roles in the church are not the exhaustive list of ministry roles, but the ones tasked with equipping others for the ministry. Part of that is mobilisation. I’d like to share a list of seven counterproductive traits from an article I read that related to mobilising people for cross-cultural missions. I’ll widen the scope slightly, but the points should still be helpful for us all.

1. Arrogance. The notion that those of us involved in ministry are somehow God’s A-team. This is particularly prevalent among those with a passion for a certain kind of ministry or a certain focus. It could be the 10/40 window, or it could be one of the church’s local outreaches. It is easy to advocate with an imbalance that borders on arrogance, suggesting that only one form of ministry commitment counts for anything.

2. I know God loves my stuff best. This is closely tied to the previous one. It is easy to do. I was speaking at a missions conference last weekend and it would have been easy to always illustrate things with reference to the organisation I work for. Instead I tried to throw in references to other organisations to avoid falling into this trap. In the local church it is easy to over-illustrate, or over-push, or over-emphasise some aspect of ministry close to your heart (and give the impression that all other avenues of service are less of a concern to God).

Can I make a missions specific side comment here? Actually, let me just cut and paste a very important sentence:

Can I be blunt here? Outreach to Muslims, outreach to international students, outreach by national pastors, outreach by anyone not American – not one of these things is the end-all-and-be-all of God’s work on the planet.

3. Info-vomit. What is true for mobilisers for world mission can also be true for mobilisers for church ministry and for preachers in general. The internet allows for more information than anyone can handle. Don’t think that just blasting people with stats and facts and figures and info will suddenly stir them to action.

What does stir people to action? I’m looking forward to number 4, but will get there tomorrow in part two of this mini-series of posts. (I will also cite my source tomorrow, just so you don’t sneak a peak at number 4 – it is a good one!)

Lessons on God from Biblical Genre: Narrative, Apocalyptic, More…

February 28, 2011February 18, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Springing off D A Carson’s recent lecture on this subject, let’s look at a couple more genres, and add a few more for good measure (he was limited to just over an hour).

Narrative – Carson suggested that narrative is a very nuanced genre, allowing for significant fine tuning for the complexities of life. As a preaching implication I would suggest that every narrative should be entered into fully, rather than touched on en route to a more generic sermon proposition. Allow the full colour and vivid richness of human identification to work its way with power into the thoughts and hearts of the listeners. Their lives are also full colour and vividly rich (often in complexity, challenge, doubts and struggles).

Apocalyptic – Carson suggested that apocalyptic literature reminds us that it is already known who wins in the end. To be fair his time was running out and he gave no indication that he was avoiding this part of the potential content. Many do, though. Thus it is either neglected, or any reference to it quickly becomes an excessive lesson in apocalyptic genre explanations that can leave the listener wondering if there is anything that can be understood from this genre. I suggest we need to think more carefully about how to honour God’s self-revelation through this genre.

Prophecy – Carson made no mention to this, but his time was gone. It is important to understand both the overlap and the distinctions between apocalyptic and prophetic writing. Prophecy speaks of God’s intimate involvement in the present (His concern, His responsiveness, His interest in the present) and His ultimate sovereignty in the future (His plans, His purposes, His right to rule in this world, in time and eternity). Again, as preachers, we should not fear or avoid prophecy. We should preach it. Surely it is one of the richest biblical genres in so many ways.

Poetry – Carson spoke of wisdom literature. I would want to ponder the particular features of poetry too, both within the wisdom corpus, and beyond it in places like Miriam’s song, or Hannah’s song, etc. Doesn’t the volume of poetry in the Bible tell us something of God’s love for artistic forms of communication, and his awareness of the needs of the human heart (not proposition-free, but more than “merely propositional”).

Final comment from Carson: “The problem is that we live in a culture that loves moral ambiguity for it’s own sake. At the end of Job, God wins, and don’t ever forget it. If we only had the narrative of David’s life we might have excuse for immorality. If you only had Psalm 1 you’d be encouraged or crushed, no subtlety, no recognition of the complex nature of each of us. But in God’s perfect wisdom He has given us apocalyptic and wisdom to tell us he doesn’t bend or grade on a curve. But he also gives narratives to show us how complex we are.”

As humans we need all the genre. As preachers we must give what is needed.

Lessons on God from Biblical Genre: History

February 24, 2011February 18, 2011 / Peter Mead / 6 Comments

Yesterday we pondered what the epistolary genre might teach us about God, and the implications for our preaching. Continuing with some springboarding off D A Carson’s recent Laing Lecture at LST, let’s think about biblical history.

Carson suggested the following: God discloses himself not only in words, but also in space-time history. We have access to that through witnesses, the standard mode of communicating historical veracity. Thus there is so much emphasis placed on the importance of witnesses.

In fact, Christianity is unique among religions in that if we were to take Jesus out of history, there would be no Christianity (not true of other religions). If Jesus didn’t actually rise from the dead, then witnesses are liars and we are still in our sins, our faith is futile. For the Christian, one of the tests of our faith is the truthfulness of the faith’s object. So no matter how strong and precious your faith may be, if that faith is not in something that is true, then you have nothing.

Biblically, a personal and precious faith without truth does not make a person spiritual, it makes them a joke. So Biblical faith is not the same as the contemporary view – that it is either a synonym for religion, or a personal subjective religious choice. This final definition makes it a faux pas to introduce the truth question (since we are talking about something both personal and subjective). But the truth question is absolutely paramount. While there are many elements of Christianity where we are to take God at His word, there are also critical elements, foundations, that require a test in history – notably the resurrection of Christ.

Implications for our preaching? I would suggest:

1. We must overtly overcome the “Bible story as fairy tale” perception. It is not enough to assume people understand the historicity of the biblical record, we need to be overt on this matter.

2. We should seek to overcome the notion that the Bible is a religious book, but good history books are published by other printing presses. The Bible is not only history, but it is phenomenally trustworthy historical source material.

3. We must train believers to know that their faith is resting on reality and fact, rather than the “leap in the dark” nonsense coming from both critics and ill-advised testimonies of people feeling public-presentation fright.

4. We should recognize how unaware Christians tend to be in respect to the differences between biblical Christianity and other religions. This leaves people very vulnerable when other religions are so proactively on the march.

Preaching in Light of the Big Question

February 16, 2011February 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The big question throughout Scripture is consistently the same. Will people trust God or not? Will they have faith in Him or not? Will we?

We are living under the same banner, the same fluttering question mark. Will we trust God? As preachers we need to help people see the simplicity of life (i.e. this is really the issue in every situation), while addressing the complexity of life (i.e. it never feels that simple!)

Hebrews 11, for an obvious example, presents example after example of people of faith who lived in the present in light of eternity. They were willing to choose discomfort now, because of what was to come. This is always a great indicator of faith in God. They trusted God. But this is an obvious preaching passage. What about something more obscure?

Leviticus 17 makes an enigmatic reference to the people making sacrifices outside the camp to goat demons or goat idols. Some obviously were choosing to be unfaithful to God for some reason or other. This incident is similar to the golden calf incident back in Exodus. God had delivered them, was among them, yet they rebelled and didn’t trust Him. Ok, what else?

Actually if we take any incident in Scripture, any narrative, we will find people either trusting or not trusting God.

We face the same options today, although in different forms. Will we be unfaithful to a God who has given us so much and dwells among us? Will we commit spiritual adultery by giving our worship to another? Or will we be men and women of faith, trusting in God even when it means choosing discomfort in the present circumstances? Let’s be preachers that encourage others to allow God’s Word to inspire them as we read all sorts of biblical texts, obscure or otherwise – and let’s try to live out a good answer to the big question hanging over us today.

Preach With The Right Goal

February 15, 2011February 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I’d like to think this was obvious that it wouldn’t need to be stated. I suspect I’d be wrong. The goal of Bible reading, and indeed, the goal of sermon listening, isn’t to gather information. That’s not a bad side-effect or by-product, but it’s not the real goal.

The goal of spending time in God’s Word is not to fill the brain with facts so that you can impress at the next Christmas Bible trivia quiz. It’s not to gather information so that you can feel good about your knowledge relative to others. Now this is not to say that our brains don’t matter. They do, very much. But our goal in Bible reading, and our goal in preaching the Bible, is not primarily intellectual, but spiritual.

The goal of spending time in God’s Word is to know, relate to and respond to God Himself. We worship God, not the Bible. Yet we can know God and respond to God as we spend time in what He’s given of Himself to us in the Word, the Bible.

Make this clear in your preaching. Even if you know this, I guess some of your listeners will still be in the “I need to know more, educate me” school of spirituality. As preachers we must first live, and then also preach, the central vital absolute importance of Christianity as relationship.

Some of your listeners don’t grasp this. In fact, they may be getting very overwhelmed and discouraged because they struggle to retain information. Help them know that the real goal is to know and respond to God. The goal of preaching is not primarily informational, educational, or even transformational, it is relational. Spiritual. The goal is God, not just a better them.

The War of the Words

February 11, 2011February 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Ever since the beginning, everything seems to be about words in conflict. After all, God’s creation was all good, until a little conversation in chapter 3. What was the core of that conversation? “Did God really say?” The serpent questioned God’s words, and questioned whether or not those words could be trusted. He offered an alternative, “you won’t die” as opposed to “don’t eat or you will die.” Tragically, they went for it.

So, history is all about Adam’s “dead” offspring. Oh, and about a God who captures the hearts of this spiritually dead humanity by offering his words again, “believe in me and you will have life!”

Sometimes we crave direct and exciting intervention from God, if only we could see His angels all the time, or miracles immediately after every prayer. But the vast majority of the time, even in Bible times, God is more indirect. He gives His word and He asks us to trust Him.

In the book of Genesis, once the war of the words becomes clear, the foundation is laid. Then the story shifts to focus on one man, Abram, and God’s plan. God’s word to Abram at the start of Genesis 12 really sets the direction for the rest of the Bible. We get to watch Abram growing in his trust in God’s word. Just like us, he didn’t get it all at once. Just like Abram, we need to listen carefully to what God says and trust Him.

The Bible goes on like this for three-quarters of a million words. Our lives go on like this for even more words. As preachers we stand and preach in this war of words, and the words we preach matter.

The war of the words still rages, let’s make sure we’re listening when we open God’s word. Let’s be sure we’re preaching our hearts out whenever we get the chance. Because for the rest of the day, the rest of the week, there will be plenty of alternative words trying to capture all of our hearts!

Superficial Preaching Isn’t Christlike

February 10, 2011February 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

When Jesus finished preaching the sermon on the mount, the crowds were astonished at his teaching! I’m sure one of the reasons for that was because when Jesus taught, he didn’t stay on the surface. He spoke in simple ways, but spoke such profound truths. His teaching went beyond behaviour to motives, past the outward to the inward issues of the heart. If we imagine being there, we can see why they were amazed!

After that sermon the reader moves into two chapters of Jesus’ miracles. The crowds were amazed again, and I suspect that part of that related to how Jesus wasn’t superficial with people – it’s not his style, is it? We see his heart in his actions as well as his preaching.

So what about when we preach? Are we superficial? Do we fail to probe the depths of the experience of contemporary experience of the pain of life? Superficial allows more time for heady exegetical demonstrations. Superficial allows more time for obscure learned illustrations. Superficial allows me to avoid the discomfort of being real with the listeners.

But superficial preaching, just like superficial living, simply isn’t Christlike.

Preaching in the Presence of Lists

February 9, 2011February 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

At various times you will be preaching in the presence of lists. Not the to-do lists that are manically collected by some church-goers, bursting out of their Bibles’ strained clasps. The lists that God inspired.

It may be tempting to just skip them or dismiss them (easy to make disparaging remarks that we don’t really mean). But if you aren’t preaching the list, and it is in sight, what to do?

Help people, even in passing, to know why it is there. It isn’t there to put off Bible readers in their cyclical reading aspirations. It isn’t there to tempt people to put a new spin on received pronunciations. It is there for a reason.

Let’s take the descendants of Esau in Genesis 36 as an example.

Why is it there? It’s good to remember when these books were written and for whom. Whether Genesis was written or compiled by Moses, it was part of the five books which were for the Israelites as they entered into the promised land. It was important for them to know where they had come from, their history, God’s promises and so on.

One of Moses’ (and God’s) concerns was that they not mingle with the inhabitants of the land or near neighbours, in such a way as to become disloyal to the one true God. This chapter, with all its people and connected place names, would be a helpful reminder to them of where some of these other people came from. Certainly the chapter keeps pointing out that Edom was from the “unchosen” line of Esau – and Israel would often have issues with Edom later on!

It probably seems obvious to you, the studied preacher, to consider when the list was written and for whom. I suspect that might never enter the minds of some of your listeners. Unless you point it out, of course.

(And then encourage people that they don’t have to pronounce every name if they are on a fast read through – it’s amazing how people appreciate permission to press on in their Bible reading!)

The Challenge of Raised Adrenaline

February 2, 2011February 2, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Most of the time listeners are fairly comfortable when listening. They may be engaged, interested and tracking along. If that is not the case, then they may be bored, fidgety or distracted. This is not good. But it can also go the other way. They might be tense, adrenaline pumping and up-tight. Typically this extreme only occurs when the speaker does something to spark that kind of reaction. Unlike being bored and disinterested, this heightened state can be both bad or good.

The thing we need to remember as speakers is that if we cause people to have a surge of adrenaline, then we need to be careful what we do with that effect. It is easy to stir people and make them uncomfortable. But to do it in a way that is loving and helpful is a bit more complicated.

I was recently in a dramatic presentation. By definition art engages the emotions. This was certainly the case on this occasion. My heart was pumping, adrenaline was flowing, breath was shortened. Somehow in that state my reactions seemed to be more intense. If I disagreed with something said or done, then I really disagreed. If I appreciated it, I found myself nodding and showing affirmation much more freely. I suppose this is why many react so strongly to drama in church settings, by the way. If it becomes uncomfortable, as art often does, then it feels very uncomfortable.

Anyway, I am not writing about drama, but about preaching. When we raise our voices, offer snippets of dramatic monologue, present graphic images on a screen or by description, stun people with painful or angering illustrations, anything that raises the adrenaline of the listeners, then we must be extra careful. It is easy to cause upset in that state. It is easy to offend. It is easy for people to miss the value of what we do and react to some element of it. It is easy to attach good goals to falsely stirred emotions.

I am certainly not advocating for boring or dry preaching. The Bible is very emotionally stirring. As we represent it, we need to reach the whole person. But when we touch people deeply, when we move people strongly, then we must be very careful and prayerful about what we do at that point. Be a shame to waste a good message by losing the listeners due to recklessness on our part when they are in a heightened state of focus and attention!