Do You Preach Concrete as Abstract?

November 28, 2011November 23, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

God didn’t give us a systematic theology with an index and table of contents. Christ didn’t work with a scribe to give us an abstract set of philosophical and theological truths that we should memorise and apply. Instead, in His wisdom, God gave us the Bible.

The Bible contains a variety of genres. Look at the New Testament, for instance. Here we have a combination of historical narrative and occasional epistles. The theology of the Bible is offered to us in the vivid action of the Gospels and Acts. It is given in the concrete situations of the first century church. As Karen Jobes puts it in her Letters to the Church (p13)

In his wisdom, God gave us, among the inspired writings, the letters of the apostles to specific Christians living in very concrete situations during times that were very trying the Christian faith. Because of that, we get to see how the Christian life was to be lived out in the context of first-century culture, and we can identify the same or similar issues today that challenge us. Rather than giving us a book of abstract philosophy or theology, God’s Word has come in the form of very practical and specific situations. It is another instance of God’s incarnational intent, to be Immanuel, God with us.

So here’s my question for the day: do we make enough effort to communicate the context of the passages we preach? I’ve seen quite a number of preachers who preach texts from the epistles as if they are abstract presentations of truth. They sometimes do a decent job of putting in concrete contemporary applications, but the text itself is treated as abstract truth statements.

God has given us a gift as preachers. He has done some of our work for us. He has given us the section of the Bible that is most likely to be abstract logical argument as occasional writings – that is, specific presentations of the gospel applied to specific churches, in specific cultural milieu, with specific issues at hand. As we re-present these texts to our listeners, before we even get to contemporary application, our listeners will be translating from 1st century concrete to 21st century concrete.

Let’s be careful not to rush past presenting the situation that sparked the writing of the text in an attempt to be relevant. Helping people to see what occasioned the epistle will already be helping them to see its relevance to us.

Saturday Short Thought: Christmas According to Sibbes

November 26, 2011November 23, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

This week I spent a few days on here thinking out loud about Christmas. I’ve also done quite a bit of thinking in terms of the six messages I have coming up in December. I am going with a Christ of Christmas theme, delving back beyond the start of the New Testament to tap into the epic expectation of the one anointed to be prophet, priest and king. I’m sure you have plans and ideas stirring too.

But let me throw this into the mix from a few centuries ago. Richard Sibbes is a preacher worthy of our attention. According to Sibbes, the incarnation is a greater mystery than that of creation…

“We cannot too often meditate of these things. It is the life and soul of a Christian. It is the marrow of the gospel. It is the wonder of wonders. We need not wonder at anything after this.” (Sibbes, Works 5:485)

Like Sibbes and those puritans who were like him, may we be stirred as we ponder the Incarnation. May it elicit wonder and thankfulness in our hearts. May we be stirred to preach the Christ who

“hath taken our flesh upon him for that purpose, that he might have experimental knowledge of our infirmities and weaknesses, and from that he might be the more sweet, and kind, and gentle to us.” (Sibbes, Works 5:480-2)

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

Next week – Handling the Text as a Preacher

A week of posts on our handling and presenting of the biblical text.

The Worst Kind of Name Dropping

November 25, 2011November 22, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Last Friday’s post on pulpit integrity stirred some conversation, so let me stir in another similar area. I think most of us are aware that it is annoying to hear someone “name dropping.” Sometimes the well-known person genuinely is the preacher’s friend, and that is ok to mention. Sometimes they are genuinely friends, but it wasn’t necessary to mention it. It really boils down to two factors – what is the motivation of the speaker, and how is it perceived?

But there is another form of “name-dropping,” so to speak, that is even more prevalent and irritating. It is when a preacher constantly drops the “I” reference, as if they are somebody special.

I think Haddon Robinson wrote in his book that in illustrations we should not make ourselves out to be heroes or jerks. That is, don’t be the amazing protagonist in a sermonic tale, neither make yourself look like a ridiculous buffoon. Neither approach helps your credibility as a preacher, or more importantly, the credibility of the message you are bringing.

I’m sure most of us are really aware of the danger of “bigging ourselves up” when we preach. Most preachers seem really sensitive to not coming across that way. But there are one or two that seem blissfully unaware of how they come across.

I was looking back at some notes I took when one particular preacher was in town and on a roll with the “I” references. (Details obscured to avoid identification!)

“I preached twice in such and such a famous venue . . . I preached with a famous film star in the congregation . . . I’ve been introduced to such and such a politician . . . I have never had a Muslim who could cope with my saying such and such . . . I was preaching in a place after they had been preparing for five years . . . I preached and the mayor was there . . . I was saying to my people on Thursday . . . I preached and he was so soundly converted . . .”

Wow, and I missed some out! I am sure that is an extreme case. I do wonder though, if you know one of these extreme cases, how to point this out to them? Is it ethical to send anonymous links to this post?

For the rest of us, let’s pray for sensitivity that we never come across as full of ourselves. It can easily be done accidentally and the damage done can be hard to undo. Let’s also ask for honest feedback from one or two folks that we trust. Better to know if you name drop the big “I” rather than getting an anonymous link to a post like this one!

Preaching’s Second Five Letter Word

November 24, 2011November 22, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

What is preaching’s five letter word? Jesus? Ok, yes, of course. And another? This one is also really important. This is one that seems to be strangely absent with some preachers. It’s absence can be as significant as the absence of the preacher’s arm, maybe more so. What’s the word? It is S-M-I-L-E.

Ask someone who listens to you preach if you smile much when you preach. If the answer is “constantly,” then maybe you need to vary things a bit. But if the answer is “not really” or “not that I’ve seen” or “never once in twenty-three years of preaching” then maybe it is time to consider the following factors:

1. If you are a Christian you have reason to smile. Yes we live in difficult times and the gospel is serious business and lives are messy and many are lost. But if a Christian doesn’t have reason to smile, nobody does. The fruit of the Spirit is joy. This may be evident in you at other times, but perhaps the weight of the ministry burden or a hint of public speaking fear is hiding it?

2. If you have good news you have reason to smile. The gospel isn’t just called good news. It actually is good news! We would be wary of someone offering us lesser good news without any hint of a smile.

3. If you are enthusiastic about your message you have reason to smile. Your smile is part of the whole package of communication that includes the words, the tone of voice, the body language and the facial expression. I remember that dear elderly brother who used to stand on a Sunday morning and droan great content in the dullest voice and with the saddest face, “we are overjoyed to be here this morning to worship the Lord.” Really?

4. If you love the people you are talking to you have reason to smile. In normal life we don’t have to consciously try to smile when we meet relatives or friends that we love. Many of the smile-free preachers I’ve met in recent years are quite amiable in conversation.

5. If you are representing Christ you have reason to smile. This is the biggest one in my mind. As a preacher of the gospel you are representing Christ, not only in your words, but also in your demeanour. Please let people know that Christ is winsome and warm and loving and kind and has the most beautiful character qualities.

Love to hear your thoughts on smile-less preaching. Anyone like to defend it?

Christmas Preaching 2: Beyond Matthew and Luke

November 22, 2011November 17, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday we thought about preparing messages on the familiar Christmas passages. Here are some thoughts on preaching for Christmas beyond the normal presentation of the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke.

1. There are other ways to preach the narratives themselves. You don’t have to simply talk your way through the text. Consider the possibility of preaching the emphasis of the text from the perspective of a contemporary character – Anna, Simeon, a shepherd, etc. Consider a bit of “in hindsight” first person preaching – Joseph looking back, or Luke having done his research. Remember though, if you have a “manger scene” play with children involved, your going into character may feel like too much of a good thing, even though you will surpass their preparations.

2. Why not preach all four Gospel introductions? We tend to dwell in Matthew or Luke or a blend of the two. Why not introduce people to Matthew’s introduction, then Mark’s (why no birth narrative, where was this all headed anyway, why is Mark 1:1-13 such a stunning intro to his gospel?) Then give them the visitation, prophecy, Mary focused and children prepared emphasis of Luke’s opening chapters. And who wouldn’t want to preach from John 1:1-18 right before Christmas (or any other time for that matter!) All four are stunning pieces of inspired text!

3. There are other New Testament passages that explain the Incarnation and Christ’s mission to the world. Perhaps it would be helpful to offer some explanation from other parts of the New Testament. What did the preachers of Acts say about why Christ was sent into the world? What about Paul’s explanation of the timing of it all in Galatians 4? There’s plenty on Christmas beyond Matthew and Luke.

4. Why not tap into the mine that is Old Testament prophecy? Where to start? Most people dip into the Old Testament at Christmas to read Isaiah 9:6-7, or Micah 5:2. Why not help people understand the richness of those texts and others like them in their context? What were the Jews waiting for when the first Christmas dawned?

5. Perhaps it is worth encountering a Christmas Carol and its theology? Not my typical approach, but people know the carols. Perhaps it would be worth helping people to understand the richness of the second verse of Hark the Herald Angels Sing biblically?

Tomorrow I’ll offer another handful of yuletide ponderings.

Christmas Preaching 1: Familiar Passages

November 21, 2011November 17, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

I am in the process of preparing six messages for the Christmas season. Perhaps you are also preaching in the coming weeks of advent. Here are some thoughts that may be helpful:

1. There’s nothing wrong with familiar passages. It is tempting to think that we have to be always innovating, always creative, always somewhere surprising. Don’t. Just as children will repeatedly ask for the same bedtime story, and adults will revisit the same movie of choice, so churchgoers are fine with a Christmas message at Christmas. Sometimes in trying to be clever we simply fail to connect. Don’t hesitate to preach a Matthew or Luke birth narrative!

2. Preach the writer’s emphasis, not a Christmas card. Anywhere in the Gospels it is possible to be drawn from the emphasis of the text to the event itself. If you are preaching Matthew for several weeks, great, preach Matthew. If Luke, preach Luke. Whether it is a series or an individual message, be sure to look closely and see what the writer is emphasizing in each narrative.

3. Familiar passages deserve to be offered fresh. Don’t take my first comment as an excuse to be a stale preacher. There’s no need to simply dust off an old message and give it again without first revisiting it. Whenever we preach God’s Word we should stand and preach as those who have a fresh passion for what God is communicating there. There’s no excuse for a cold heart or stale content.

4. Fresh doesn’t have to mean innovative or weird. Now all this talk of fresh could lead us down a windy path into strange ideas. There is plenty in each text that is very much there, so we don’t need to superimpose our own clever and innovative “five facts about struggling against capitalism from the angel’s visit to Zechariah.” Equally, we don’t have to preach dressed as a sheep in order to offer something fresh.

5. Be careful when fresh includes disagreeing with tradition. You may find that looking closely at the text and studying the culture of that time actually causes you to question some stable assumptions (see what I did there?) Was there a stable? Where was Jesus born? When did the Magi arrive? How did the star thing work? Think carefully about throwing a hand grenade into peoples’ traditions. There is a place, and a tone, for correcting errant thinking, but tread carefully.

Saturday Short Thought – Preaching to Listeners

November 19, 2011November 16, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

This week I have blogged about listeners. I was preaching at a Christian Union gathering again this week, this time in Northampton. I preached from Matthew’s gospel to a gathering of missions agency reps and students. Since numbers were down on last week, it was more tempting to try and please the reps, rather than speak specifically to the students. I hope I managed to keep the message on target for the listeners that were the focus of the message.

I’m reminded of John Stott’s great book on preaching – Between Two Worlds. In it he introduces the metaphor of the preacher as bridge-builder. I often come back to his thought that we have to land the message on both sides.

Some preachers start in the Bible text and build straight up to heaven, without landing the world of the listener.

Other preachers start in the world of the listener and never make any real connection in the world of the Bible text.

True biblical preachers have to be at home in both worlds and make sure their messages are firmly planted in the text, and land solidly in the realm of the listener.

Simple thought, but so important. As you preach tomorrow, are you well-rooted in the text? Good, but don’t forget to land very clearly and relevantly in the experience of the listeners too.

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

Next week – Preparing to Preach Christmas Messages

Listeners and Pulpit Integrity

November 18, 2011November 15, 2011 / Peter Mead / 7 Comments

Listeners can sense a lack of integrity like dogs can sense when someone isn’t a canine fan. People long for the preacher to have a deep sense of consistency about them. And it isn’t just the big and obvious issues like consistency in the preacher’s private life or relational issues. Integrity comes into play in smaller things too.

For example –

1. Do you read Hebrew, young man? That’s what I wrote in my notes after hearing a younger preacher say, “A careful reading would say this . . .” It’s interesting how many of the preachers with no training in biblical languages seem so quick to make reference to them. “This is a present continuous tense . . . Paul used a genitive so that means . . . the original word here is better translated . . . “ I could go on. There is almost no good reason to make references to the original languages. And if you aren’t trained, there are even more reasons not to try. Take onboard what the commentaries say, but don’t imply knowledge you don’t have. (An even bigger concern here is how credulous many listeners are . . . many actually don’t spot it.)

2. If you read this book every week for twenty-five years, you would begin to see . . . I still find myself wondering if the preacher who said that had really read John’s gospel over 1300 times when he made that remark. It certainly undermined his credibility because it didn’t feel real. That’s the issue when integrity comes into question by what we say. Don’t imply that you have a shortcut to special knowledge (the same could be said of claims of direct revelation during preparation).

3. Is that really your angst that is firing now? Every now and then you will hear a preacher that seems to get worked up about something, but somehow it feels fake. It’s like a smile that doesn’t wrinkle around the eyes. It feels forced. Some preachers seem to convey a conviction about things that perhaps aren’t really convictions yet. That’s ok, just don’t pretend they are. It really undermines perceived integrity when your angst feels hollow and learned.

4. Personalised illustrations. Using someone else’s illustration is common fare in preaching. Pretending that actually happened to you, when it didn’t, is a lie.

5. Lifted sermons. Using someone else’s illustration is common fare in preaching. Being influenced by another preacher’s explanation of a text is good. Having your wording marked by theirs is unavoidable at times. But preaching a lifted sermon as if it were your own, well, what do you think that says about integrity?

Other ways we can undermine our integrity while preaching?

When Non-Christians Listen

November 17, 2011November 15, 2011 / Peter Mead / 7 Comments

Yesterday we pondered issues of sensitivity in light of the presence of children. Here’s another area where we should always show sensitivity – how do we come across when non-Christians are listening?

Here are some areas to ponder –

1. How do we refer to them? I imagine a non-christian listening in to our preaching might be easily turned off if we aren’t careful how we refer to them. It seems like terminology such as pagan, heathen, outsiders, the spiritually dead and enemies of God might feel a bit harsh without some careful context setting. I tend to prefer terms like those who are not sure they are in God’s family, or just looking in from the outside, or visitors, or guests. Non–christians seems safe enough, but not if it is misunderstood. Understanding your context and your audience is vital here. How do you refer to the lost in your congregation?

2. How do we refer to us? Just as coming across with derogatory labels is not a good idea, nor is it wise to refer to believers in a way that might unnecessarily offend. For instance, you know that we are righteous by the declaration of God based entirely on the person and atoning work of Christ. But calling believers righteous, or saints, is more likely to insinuate that others present are evil and that we think we are better than them. What I am saying is that we need to be careful since visitors will almost certainly misunderstand careless references.

3. How do we speak to Christians? We tend to think in terms of how to target the unsaved with our preaching, but what about when a message, or part of a message, is really aimed at believers? Probably not a good idea to tell the “outsiders” to stop listening. I tend to say who I am addressing, and encourage visitors to listen in since we have nothing to hide.

How do you handle these things?

When Children Listen

November 16, 2011November 15, 2011 / Peter Mead / 6 Comments

Some churches seem to ban children from the main service. Others make the main service all about the children. The rest of us are somewhere in between. As a preacher I am conscious when people are drawn away from the message by a distressed or distracting child. And as a parent I am also very aware when a preacher doesn’t seem to be aware that children are present and listening.

Children are great recorders, but they aren’t great processors. They won’t fill in background context and think through why something the preacher said actually isn’t supposed to bother them, or scare them, or intrigue them. They’ll hear and then they’ll remember. And maybe they will ask about it later. But often they won’t.

So what kind of things do preachers say that parents may not appreciate?

1. Direct references to sex. The Bible is full of euphemisms for marital or extramarital intimacy. When children are present, don’t preach like you’re talking to prisoners, or sailors, or whatever. Yes, David did commit adultery, and yes Adam did know Eve, and yes, the Samaritan women had had five husbands and was living with a man. But no, there’s no need to be sensational for the sake of it. Show concern for the children, and other sensitive listeners.

2. Unnecessarily gruesome description. The Bible is not as prudish as some people make it out to be. Beware of description that may lodge in tender minds and prove unhelpful. Yes, there is a lot of death, the cross is an agonizing way to die by suffocation, a tent peg can be a quick way to leave this mortal tent, etc. But no, there’s no need to be so detailed that tender listeners feel traumatised and distracted from the real message of the sermon. Be careful.

3. Unhelpfully glorifying things parents may be keeping from their children. The Bible is not a simple list of forbidden and allowed, there are numerous grey areas. Beware of glorifying things that some parents might consider harmful to their children. Yes, Saul did visit a witch, Samson was both sensual and violent, and fishermen probably did have colourful language. But what if some families don’t want their children interacting with Harry Potter, or watching highly rated films, or listening to swearing, etc. Be sensitive to the more sensitive listeners. It’s not that we should allow Pharisees to control the church, but we certainly should honour parents as they carry the primary discipleship burden for their children. This isn’t a call for absolute avoidance of everything anyone might disagree with, it’s a plea for wisdom in order to avoid “glorifying” things which may not be wise and edifying for others.

Parents, how else should preachers be sensitive when your children are present?