Bible Versions and Preaching – Say What?

January 6, 2011January 5, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday we asked the question about what to do with the 1611 anniversary, recognizing that each church situation is different. Some would be wise to avoid overplaying it. Others might use it as a great evangelistic opportunity. Others may see it as an educational moment. But what about Bible Versions and preaching? Here are some largely non-1611 connected thoughts…

1. Inject gratitude into an often overly contentious issue. As a preacher, if the subject comes up, you have the opportunity to either stoke the fires of dispute, or to inject gratitude for the amazing privilege we have in our language. Just read about what it took to produce Bibles in the past, or observe the work involved in a new translation, or consider the sacrifice paid by many in the world today if they are caught with one, or recognize the historical anomaly of easy book ownership, or even look at what is now available for free online (for example, check out the excellent NET Bible) . . . and you will see that we have great reasons to be very very grateful. As a preacher your opinion may count for a little more than that of others, even if you are uninformed. Be informed, but be careful too!

2. Be very wary of undermining trust in translations. People don’t automatically know the difference between the inspired nature of the original texts, and the authoritative nature of translations inasmuch as they accurately convey the original text. Sometimes real damage has been done by a cavalier critique of some detail in one translation or another, leaving listeners feel that they cannot trust their version, or even any version in their language. Surely this is not helpful. Often there are far more subtle ways to convey a more accurate sense of the meaning of the text than outright critique of the translation (and remember that one of the hardest things to know is what you don’t know on a subject . . . so it’s probably safe to presume your knowledge, even combined with a commentator, may not be absolutely better than the translation committees of several Bible versions … there are some issues in translations, but be humble and careful what you say!)

Tomorrow I’ll share a couple more thoughts on this issue, feel free to comment.

(NB The Cor Deo podcast that just went live is a conversation about the role of the Bible in the believer’s life and relational Bible reading – click here to get to the player, or find Cor Deo on iTunes.)

Bible Versions

January 5, 2011January 5, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

As I am sure you have heard already, it is now the 400th anniversary of the King James Version of the English Bible. For some reading this site that will be nothing more than a quaint historical monument. For others it will be a celebration because they and their church still use the KJV/AV (although probably not the 1611 version, I suspect!) For many of us, we’re in a mixed setting. That is, most have moved away from it to a more modern version, either in the RSV years, or the NIV publicity-fest, or to the NKJV in the early 80’s, or the NLT or ESV in more recent years. But there may be one or two in our churches that still hold on to their KJV’s with a resolute commitment.

So do we ignore the anniversary in order to avoid any disputes over the “inspired” nature of the KJV (a claim never made by the original translators who acknowledge the inspired text was the original language, and they were reviewing earlier English Bibles for content and style). Or do we take the opportunity to educate our churches on textual criticism, text families, translation philosophies and communication theory? Or do we thank God for what the KJV did in its time, and for the example it set for modern translations to follow in later years?

Arguments over Bible translations tend to include a lot of opinion, but often not very informed opinion. Perhaps we have an opportunity to inject grace into these disputes, as well as some carefully measured information. Let’s be careful not to throw petrol on a smoldering fire. Yet at the same time let’s not miss an opportunity to be thankful for all that God has given us in terms of the Scriptures in our own language. There are still hundreds of millions of people without any portion of the Bible in their heart-language. Surely we should be thankful for the plethora of Bibles available in English!

Tomorrow I’ll follow up this post with some thoughts on Bible Versions and preaching.

(NB The Cor Deo podcast, latest edition, focuses entirely on the issue of relational Bible reading.)

Too Subtle Transitions

January 4, 2011January 5, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I think I have written in the past about not going through the turns in your message too quickly. If you take a turn quickly you can easily lose the passengers. I was just discussing this with a friend, particularly one type of transition that doesn’t work so well. Let’s call it the “conjoined rhetorical questions” transition. Hardly pithy, but descriptive nonetheless.

Here’s how it might look:

Perhaps you are thinking that this instruction seems challenging, or perhaps you are thinking about how you’ve already failed . . .

This kind of sentence can function like a hinge between two sections. But I suspect your listeners may get lost in the turn. Essentially the transition here, potentially a major one in the message, comes down to the following: “…or…” – what shall we say, milliseconds in length? Certainly easy to miss and the listeners will then find themselves subtly confused by your talk of past failure when you are talking about instruction for us in the future (they missed the turn).

What would it look like to slow this down? It will seem pedantic in written form, but remember, oral communication is different than written communication!

So there you have it: the passage asks something of us that isn’t easy. Perhaps you’re thinking how challenging it seems? I’m certainly finding this to be a challenging instruction. Not easy at all. But hang on a second, hold on. It is challenging, but perhaps you’re not looking ahead to the challenge. Perhaps, like me, you’re looking back because you have failed in this area in the past? That’s another issue we have to think about. It’s challenging, yes. But what about past failure? Let’s think about that . . .

Instead of milliseconds, now I’m taking around thirty seconds, plus pauses.

Be careful not to rely on a conjunction to achieve a transition. Too easy to miss. Too easy to lose people. And if they are floundering for a minute or two, your message is not communicating.

Shadows of the Fall

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

A biblical preacher should obviously be a gospel preacher. And preaching good news implies also the preaching of bad news. But often we keep the effects of Genesis 3 and the Fall in safe descriptions that don’t bring conviction to the lingering effects of Fall-living in church world. The shadows of the Fall do not only cover the TV news, but cast their hue inside the church. Could we preach with a greater sensitivity to how the temptation of Genesis 3 is subtly captivating Christian affections?

This post is available over on cordeo.org.uk – just click this line to go there.

Get the Idea? – Part 3

December 30, 2010December 30, 2010 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

So a lot of people endorse Haddon Robinson’s Biblical Preaching but seem to miss the prize jewel in the book – the Big Idea. They may use the language, but many miss the point. We’ve thought about the Big Idea in terms of communication, and in terms of biblical studies. One more:

The Big Idea in terms of the Holy Spirit Continue reading →

A Point on Points

December 27, 2010December 25, 2010 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

As you outline your message you will probably have some points. My suggestion is to write full sentences that are applicationally/relevantly focused on the listeners (rather than historical/biblical summary statements).

But, you may say, I like to preach the point inductively and arrive at the application toward the end of the point. Of course, that is the normal approach. My suggestion should not therefore be dismissed. Why?

1. Because a brief taste of relevance early in the point will increase the listener’s motivation to listen. You can quickly go back to the text and develop things from there, ending up with a more focused applicational element. Just like in a message, though, if your point starts historical and takes a while to feel relevant, listeners may not be with you once you get there.

2. Because what you write as your point in your outline does not have to be stated at that point in the message. It is a common fallacy that a sermon has to follow its outline so that every line is said in order. The “point” can be the target toward which that section of the message progresses. The advantage of this approach is that you preach with a purpose, rather than starting with a historical summary statement and then expanding that, eventually moving on to the next point after a token attempt at applying the text (sometimes not fully thought through). In a sense, then, your outline point is your fully thought through main idea of that section of the text. Whether you state that at the outset, or later on, is up to you (perhaps you can choose a marker in your notes to indicate that this shouldn’t be stated up-front).

3. Because the commentary-like summary statement is lacking on several fronts. As I already stated, it leaves you open to fading away before you arrive at the point of connection between the world of the Bible and the world of your listeners (you may not effectively build the bridge). Furthermore, a commentary-like summary, or a pithy alliterated heading, is not typically a complete thought. Better to plan a full sentence since thought is transferred by the speaking of ideas, requiring full sentences. To preach with sub-headings sounds like a read outline and requires the listener to fill in the rest of the thought. Generally it is not wise to trust the listener to fill in much of anything in a message (not because of their lack of ability, but because you may not have fully gripped their focus so that they desperately want to do part of your job for you!)

Full sentence, relevant points will make your outlines stronger. They may not make the best 200 word Christian newspaper outlines, but remember, your goal is to preach a sermon. Let your editor turn it into written language before you go to print, don’t make your listeners translate in order to understand!

Shop Window Evangelistic Preaching

December 24, 2010December 22, 2010 / Peter Mead / 5 Comments

Following on from yesterday’s post about making church accessible for non-regulars, I have been pondering what I perceive to be a short-sighted approach to evangelism.

I grew up in a church tradition that had a “gospel service” every Sunday evening. This was probably a vibrant and dynamic approach decades ago, but by the time I was there it had become somewhat bizarre. A weekly presentation of the gospel to mostly saved folks, with almost no fruit to speak of.

In various forms, we often seem to fall into this idea that if non-Christians are present, then the sermon has to be primarily or even exclusively a gospel presentation and call for response. I know some will argue that every sermon should be that, but hear me out. Every sermon should be good news, but not every sermon has to be exclusively aimed at converting souls.

I see the value in shop window preaching, for want of a much more appropriate label. This is where we preach to Christians for their edification, but alert to the fact that non-Christians may be looking in. It seems to me that sometimes non-Christians only ever hear one message until they make some sort of commitment, and then they get hit with this whole array of discipleship and spiritual growth and church life and sanctification and so on and so on. Why not let them see Christianity in action in our preaching?

I think this kind of exposure to Christians being Christians can be highly effective evangelistically. Furthermore it means that church can be church rather than evangelistic crusade every single week, yet at the same time be effective in evangelism. My desire is to make every Sunday morning accessible to believers and visitors alike, and sometimes to be more directly targeted at the visitors.

Something to ponder as we head into another year of church ministry.

The Weeks After Guest Events

December 23, 2010December 22, 2010 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I am always encouraged to be around churches that put a lot of effort into guest events, or services where non-regulars are likely to be in attendance. Let me encourage you to let that energy move further through the Sunday schedule:

1. Recognizing that certain Sundays are key Sundays. I know of some churches that press on with series without any concern for what Sunday it is. You may value the next installment of that Old Testament epic, but I suspect the friends, neighbours and family visitors won’t though when it is the Sunday before Christmas (in fact, your people probably won’t invite them!) So recognize that some Sundays are key Sundays – Christmas, easter, Mother’s day perhaps, other holidays that may be big in your part of the church world.

2. Put your best foot forward on key Sundays. I know of some churches that think it is a good idea to use once-a-year speakers on these stand alone days since they will have months to prepare and won’t need to coordinate with a series. Oops. Extra visitors coming in seems like the time to put forward the best speakers, best music, etc.

3. Don’t lose your gains by not thinking of the subsequent Sundays. What if some visitors come and really enjoy the welcome, the interaction, the service, the teaching. And then they come back the next week and it is, well, it isn’t accessible and warm anymore? Seems like you will have only achieved the inoculation of more people to hinder their return. Think about the weeks after guest services and how they can also be accessible, warm, etc.

4. Why not have a consistency so you win the trust of the inviters? It is worth thinking about whether every Sunday morning could be accessible and warm for first-time visitors. This way you will not miss golden opportunities when folks come to church for the first time, and you will build the confidence of the people in the church (how many are harangued about bringing folks, but will never budge because they don’t trust the church to handle their friends and neighbours properly?)

7 Dangers of Fanciful Interpretations – part 2

December 17, 2010December 16, 2010 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Continuing yesterday’s list of 7 dangers of fanciful interpretations:

4. Fanciful interpretation may lead to preacher puffery. If you get lots of empty praise, which you probably will if you preach the equivalent of donuts and cupcakes, there is a very real danger that you may believe the hype and get puffed up. You may get far less feedback from people who are deeply convicted, or who need time to be with the Lord because of what they’ve heard from His Word. So actually the fanciful approach is a short-cut to puffery (unless you learn to discern the value of feedback and praise!)

5. Fanciful interpretation may lead to unnecessary division between believers. On the one hand there are those who will be deeply troubled by what they hear from you. On the other hand there will be noise from the less discerning who get very hyped up by your sugary fare. Chances are that these two groups will have some difficult conversations when the latter look to the former to celebrate the teaching they’ve enjoyed so much!

6. Fanciful interpretation may put off thinking unbelievers. Some people do think and may sit there looking at a Bible as you talk. What if they evaluate Christianity and decide that we’re all apparently unthinking or fanciful in what we believe? Some people are able to see through the lack of intellectual credibility of some Christian communicators. Then we all get tarred with the same brush. More importantly, Christ is rejected based on the false assumption that the Christian faith is intellectually deficient or inconsistent.

7. Fanciful interpretation disappoints God. It doesn’t honour God to treat His Word as if what He inspired isn’t good enough, or interesting enough, or relevant enough.

And other dangers?

Wilberforce on Apathy

December 15, 2010 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I quoted from Peter Sanlon’s article in Anvil, focusing on Jonathan Edwards. After looking at Augustine, Richard Sibbes and Edwards, Sanlon finally turns to William Wilberforce. I have to admit this wouldn’t have been the next figure in church history I would have expected in this tracing of engaging the emotions in ministry. Nevertheless, it is very helpful indeed.

He notes Wilberforce’s book title, “A Practical View of the prevailing religious system of professed Christians in the higher and middle classes in this country contrasted with real Christianity.” Let me quote from the article, including a quotation from Wilberforce.

___

“Wilberforce saw that the main reason for his difficulty in abolishing slavery lay in the apathy of people to others’ suffering. He perceived that the only solution lay in genuine Christianity which engaged the emotions in their God-designed role of making a person feel as he or she ought to feel. Only if approached in this way could people be moved to action.

“Wilberforce’s critique of unemotional and apathetic Christianity remains penetrating. He noted that a ‘hot zeal for orthodoxy’ was not the same thing as genuine internalised acceptance of the gospel. He warned that what people paraded externally as ‘charity’ could often be ‘nothing other than indifference.’ Wilberforce suggested that in the case of many who had been ‘converted’:

Their hearts are no more than before supremely set on the great work of their salvation, but are chiefly bent upon increasing their fortunes, or raising their families. Meanwhile they content themselves on having amended from vices, which they are no longer strongly tempted to commit.

“In all of this searching critique, Wilberforce laid the majority of the blame at the door of ministers who failed to engage with people at the level of their emotions, claiming that most Christian preaching spoke of ‘general Christianity’ rather than bringing to the surface ‘the workings of the heart.’

. . . “Much of the preaching which Wilberforce heard and rejected as less than full-orbed evangelical proclamation could be summed up in the phrase, ‘accurate, but apathetic.'”

___

I suspect that Sanlon’s comments, built on Wilberforce’s significant ministry (not as a minister of the gospel, but as a politician), might be highly relevant to us today. How much do we see a zealous orthodoxy shot through with a reprehensible apathy today? Let’s examine our own hearts on this, and then preach to the hearts of others.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

From Peter Sanlon’s article, “Bringing Emotions to the Surface in Ministry,” in Anvil, vol.26, nos. 3&4, 2009, p239-240.