Christianity

Facebook in Sermon Preparation

/ Peter Mead / 6 Comments

James Wood made the following comment on the post Extent of Application:

I think he brings up a good point. I’ve tried to combat this by forming the sermon through conversation with the community. The beauty is, technology can aid this! I will post questions from the text to my facebook page as I’m studying. The responses help me to direct my study and hone my examples to reflect the needs of the community.

I have not tried this, but am intrigued.  While not a huge fan of facebook, it may be an easy way to access “feed-forward” input in the preparation of a sermon.  The point of “feed-forward” input is to be able to hone a message in advance of it being preached by gaining input from an individual or group during the preparation process.  (Obviously it is kind of like feedback, but in anticipation.)

Has anyone else tried using Facebook or Twitter or even good old fashioned email for input prior to preaching?  There is something about face to face interaction, but let’s be honest and recognize that something is better than nothing and unless we have a system in place, we are often choosing nothing over something in these matters.  At the same time, perhaps people feel less pressure in an electronic social setting and are therefore more willing to engage honestly?

Any thoughts or experience on this, please share!

The Forming of Images

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Another quote from Flickering Pixels by Shane Hipps, prompting a thought for today:

Advertising is the direct result of the camera.  “Images have an incredible capacity to generate needs in humans that don’t naturally exist.” (75)  “Images initially make us feel rather than think.”  “Images don’t invite you to argue; they give you an experience.” (76) “Image culture dramatically shapes the way we think.  It also determines what we think about.” (77)

It would be wrong to assume that such an image culture has only existed in our part of the world in recent years.  The reality is that the non-image, linear logical culture is largely a recent and localized phenomenon.  Perhaps the difference now is that we are an image saturated culture with pixels flickering constantly.  Everywhere else, for most of time, there has been a constancy of image formed through the familiar narratives that defined each culture.

That’s the thing about narrative.  It forms an image in the hearer that doesn’t require multi-million dollar Hollywood camera work.  Good storytelling forms images in minds and hearts just as effectively.  In the early days of radio it was the story and soap opera shows that proved popular, not just information driven shows.  Ask a child if they are willing to hear a good story without any pictures to supplement it and they will usually cope just fine!  (In fact, some children would give anything to have a parent who would read to them at all!)

The Bible is saturated with stories.  The Bible also has a meta-narrative that gives us a sense of security, stability and insight into the reality in which we continue to live.  As preachers our task is not to simply provide good argumentation, effective applicational lists or biblical facts.  Our task is primarily one of forming images in the hearts and minds of listeners that will stir faith through the experience of already seeing God work during our preaching.  Our task is to form images so that listeners can respond appropriately to God’s self-giving through His Word – not in any way a mere mental decision, but a heart-driven response to a heart-stirring God.

Preacher, form images!

Extent of Application

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I was just reading a synopsis of a book on the effect of technology on faith.  For example:

Reading and writing are individual activities.  The technology of writing favors individualism over community, leading us to spiritual disciplines of “quiet time” and “journaling” and a gospel that is primarily oriented to the individual.  Printing erodes the communal nature of faith. (p56-7 – Flickering Pixels by Shane Hipps)

That’s an interesting observation.  I think many of us tend to promote an individual spirituality – quiet times, reading, journaling, private prayer, etc.  When we do mention corporate applications they are often either related to witnessing or church/ministry involvement.  Both of these corporate or interpersonal activities are typically felt in terms of duty rather than delight (the same could be said of the private disciplines – it all depends on how we perceive and present them).

When we think of the applications of our preaching, the contemporary relevance of the Word of God, do we think through all that it might mean to us by way of invitation as well as burden, in terms of the heart, the head and the hands, as well as corporately and not just individually?  The Bible speaks to us all in far more intricate and engaging ways than many of our sermons do.

Worth pondering, at least for me . . .

Preaching and Response

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

When the Word of God is preached, something happens.  God’s Word, inspired by God’s Spirit, pointing toward God’s Son, spoken by a person empowered by the Spirit of God for their calling from God’s Son, to people prepared by the Spirit of God – it’s a recipe for response!

At times we can see that response.  We get to see the people moved, the individuals gripped, the lives changed.  Sometimes we see something at the moment of preaching, or soon afterwards.  Sometimes we only see the response over months and years of ministry.

At other times we don’t see the response.  We preach our hearts out and are devastated by polite niceties.  Or perhaps we don’t see the response we long for.  Perhaps we get the response of criticism, or argument, or outright attack.  Not quite what we had in mind when we prayed for lives to be changed!

Nevertheless, let’s be committed to preach for response, even an apparently negative one, rather than playing safe and settling for nothing other than polite platitudes.  Obviously any one of us could abuse this post.  We could take it as an excuse to wind people up, to create tensions, to lack sensitivity.  We must all answer for our own motivations, and of course, we will answer as preachers for how we have taken the opportunity to present God’s Word (2Tim.4:1-2).

Let’s not settle for smooth, let’s rather preach the Word with sensitivity to God and to His people, with a prayer-fuelled passion to see Him prompting response rather than apathy, transformation rather than safety.

Mentored Training – Cor Deo

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

You may have noticed the new tab for Cor Deo at the top of the page.  Cor Deo is a mentored study and ministry training programme that I am helping to launch.  The name Cor Deo means “a heart for God” and it is our desire to multiply ministry that shares God’s heart by means of a relationally shaped training programme.

The basic approach will be to invite 6-12 individuals to join the team of mentors for an intensive full-time training programme from February through to July (starting next year).  During this time the team will share a unique study programme between Tuesday and Thursday each week, and then be exposed to a variety of ministry situations by sharing ministry together with the mentors over the weekends.  We want to study, grow and serve together.

Cor Deo has a strongly relational methodology, as well as a thoroughly biblical relational theology.  Can I ask you for a couple of favours?

1. Please take a look at the Cor Deo website and if you like what you see, contact us to receive the Cor Deo updates (we deeply value the prayer partners who will stand with Cor Deo as the ministry develops).

2. If you know someone who might be a potential candidate (remember Cor Deo runs in the UK!), please introduce Cor Deo to them.

Final question – is this a preaching training programme?

Answer – not specifically, although it can be tailored as such for someone who has a desire to develop as a preacher.  One component of the programme is a mentored personal study, which would allow for focused ongoing preaching training during the entire Cor Deo experience.

(Alright, last last question for this post – Could a pastor consider Cor Deo for a study break during a sabbatical (or partial sabbatical)?

Answer – absolutely.  If you are able to take a five month break from current ministry commitments, we would be very interested in discussing the possibility of your coming to Cor Deo.  If you lived close enough, you would be able to maintain a decent level of Sunday ministry during the programme, although it is important to talk through what would be involved!)

Thanks for taking a look at the site.  Please let me know if you’d like to receive the regular email updates. www.cordeo.org.uk

Between Commentaries and Sermons

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

We need to preach somewhere between commentaries and sermons.  The majority of commentaries are very atomistic.  In a sense, they have to be.  The writer focuses in on each verse, or sentence, in turn.  They try to plumb the depths of lexical, semantic, syntactical and cultural meaning.  Once that verse is exhausted they probably deserve a fresh cup of coffee and a break.  When they return it’s on to the next verse.

Commentators are a real blessing to us and we should be exceedingly grateful for the range and quality of commentaries available.  At the same time, let’s be wary that we don’t just preach a commentary (or a compendium of information garnered from several commentators).  Our task is not to exhaustively present every detail, neither is it to place historic labels over sections of text.

On the other hand, there are many sermons that are anything but atomistic in that sense.  They bounce off a text and range to and fro all over the canon without rhyme or reason.

Somehow our preaching needs to fit between these two extremes.  We preach a text (or texts), but we need to present them in their context.  This means making sense of them in the flow of the book, and appropriately making sense of them in the flow of the Bible as a whole.  In effect we need to cut the log both in slice-ward directions, but also in long cuts along the grain.  How we balance those and make sense of the passage is part of the science and art of preaching.  But somehow that fits between the often necessarily atomistic approach of commentaries and the unnecessarily free movement of many sermons.

Distorted Perspectives

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

There are some preachers that claim to be oblivious to negative emotion in regard to preaching.  That is to say, when it’s done, it’s done.  No looking back, no regrets, no negative emotions.  I don’t believe there can be too many like that.  For most of us preaching involves giving of ourselves and often feeling vulnerable and low afterwards.

It’s important to remember that our own perspective on our preaching is not fully trustworthy.  Sometimes what felt horrible to you will have been a real blessing to some listeners (and genuinely not horrible to the rest).  Sometimes what felt like a stunning message to you will have felt somewhat flat to most listeners (and perhaps even poor to some)!

It is important that we don’t trust our own feelings in post-sermon self-evaluation.  Perhaps you have a spouse or friend who understands your need for encouragement afterwards and constructive critique a day or two later?  Perhaps you’ve found it best to always come back to the Lord and hand it all over to Him?  Perhaps you have learned to reason with your own flawed thinking and pray it through?

I’m not going to suggest one approach to handling this issue, but I raise it to suggest that you may need to find an approach that works for you and keeps you pressed up against the Lord in the dangerous post-preaching phase of ministry life!

Planning a Selective Series

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

What criteria can you use when planning a series in a longer book that you don’t want to last for years?  Obviously we’re not obligated to cover complete books in a series, but how might you do that selectively rather than comprehensively?  Here are some pointers:

Foundation – Know the message, flow and structure of the book.  In order to plan a series that selectively represents the whole, you need a good awareness of the whole.  Without this you are likely to end up with a plan that doesn’t represent the book, or you’ll start into the series and end up preaching every passage (which might be appreciated . . . but only “might be” – your church may not want you to try to be Martyn Lloyd-Jones!)

1. Select key moments in the book. In every book there are key moments of transition or anchor points for the flow of the book.  For example, a selective series in Mark’s gospel would need to be touching heavily on the transition that occurs at 8:27-30 and the following couple of paragraphs.  Equally, Mark 10:45 is fairly critical, perhaps with the following story which is somewhat transitional as the final step before Jerusalem.

2. Select key examples in the book. There are some passages that may not be at a transition point, but are just very typical of the style and message of the book.  For instance, Mark 4:35-41 as an example of Mark’s pattern of following teaching with testing.

3. Select an example in a sequence, but show the whole progression. Often a book will string together a series of stories making a similar point, such as in Mark 2-3.  So you might select an example in the sequence demonstrating Jesus’ authority, but also show briefly how many such stories there are in the section.  This covers a lot of ground, but can make quite an impression as people feel the weight of the authority demonstrated by the whole sequence.

4. Select passages you want to preach. As long as you have the other three types of message included, there is nothing wrong with selecting based on personal motivation – the fruit will probably show in your preaching if you are motivated!

5. Keep the big idea of the book clear throughout. Consistently, even if subtly, reinforce the big idea of the whole book to cohere the series.

Finding the Balance Without Scratching Ears

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

As a preacher in a church there is a tension to be faced.  On the one hand, every time you stand up front to preach you are answerable to God for your stewardship of the opportunity.  Consequently you must feel a sense of the burden of preaching what is needed and what is right for the people.  Like parents with a child, sometimes it is necessary to give a certain medicine.  It’s not a time to make decisions based on what the child would prefer in that moment.

On the other hand we have to hear what listeners say.  Preaching is communication, and if the recipient does not receive what the sender intended, then something is not working.  It may be that they are hard hearted or don’t know what they need, but on the other hand, we preachers aren’t immune from error either.  Perhaps we haven’t realized that our communication is failing to communicate, that our message is not comprehensible, or our application is not connecting.  Perhaps we need to hear some feedback that could help us be better preachers.

I firmly believe in the preacher’s answerability to God and in the preacher’s need for feedback.  These two things are not mutually exclusive, but there may be times when a balance is needed.  It’s always easier to label others and stand secure in our own insecurity, but let’s be sure that critique of our preaching is not actually a legitimate cry for something that we could do better, that they would value more and that God would actually be pleased with!

Truth and Testimony

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

It concerns me when truth and testimony seem to be separate.  For instance:

There are some Christians that are very strong on the truth issues relating to Jesus – who He is and what He’s done.  They are passionately committed to the truth and will not compromise on it.

There are some Christians who have a strong peronal relationship with Jesus.  Their testimony is sweet and intimate and personal.  They have a deep sense of the love of God and communion with Him.

My concern is that I see too many Christians who have one, but not the other.  Strong on truth and standing for what is biblical orthodoxy.  Or strong on testimony and shaky on biblical orthodoxy.  Surely the Bible is inviting us and urging us to fully grasp both?

As a preacher, do you tend to pronounce truth, but never really offer the invitation for the more personal and intimate walk with the Lord (assuming that will be there)?  Or do you tend to make Christianity so winsome, but without the infrastructure of truth in place?

Let’s be sure that we are not imbalanced ourselves, but hold firmly to both of these aspects of the gospel . . . and then be sure to present both.