How Long, O Preacher?

November 3, 2011October 31, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I’ve written before about sermon length debates, and may do so again. But this post is not about sermon length. It is about the ticking clock. From the moment the sermon begins, how long until . . .

Tick. . .

1. Relevance – That is, until the listeners get the sense that this message is relevant to them. Don’t leave application until a little section at the end, that is way too long. Show them from the very beginning that this preacher, this message, this text, is relevant to them.

2. Grace – That is, until the listeners are clear that Christianity is not about our performance and diligent dutiful behaviour. Don’t preach behavior and conformity and religiosity and law for most of the message and then throw in a bit of grace at the end. It is easy to do a law before grace approach that doesn’t just short-change grace, it positively rips it off. Undermine the religious misunderstanding, don’t reinforce it. Too many are still convinced the Bible is all about the rules we need to strive to obey, but are sadly unaware of the radical grace that stirs inside-out life change.

3. Delight – That is, until the listeners get a sense from your demeanour or expression that knowing Christ is a good thing. It is easy, in the seriousness of the preaching event, to fail to show the joy of the Lord. The pulpit is not the place for crass humour or inappropriate levity, but if we don’t have reason to be joyful, then nobody does!

4. Smile – That is, make sure number 3 shows in more than your words. Just saying you are joyful doesn’t convince anyone if there is no other hint of it!

5. Shuffling – Ok, changing category slightly, but how long until your listeners are shuffling, coughing, looking around, fidgeting, etc.? If this happens during your message, presume the problem is your preaching, not their level of maturity and spirituality. In fact, this may occur sooner that you’d like, because 1, 2, 3 and 4 have not come as soon as they should have.

This is a random list, but I’m sure other things could be added where the clock is really ticking!

Vinegar and Preaching

November 2, 2011October 31, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I never liked vinegar growing up. In recent years I’ve developed an appreciation for balsamic vinegar on salad, or cider vinegar on crisps (i.e. chips if you’re across the Atlantic). But I don’t think I’ll ever develop a taste for it in the pulpit.

What am I saying?

1. The seriousness of the message can cause us to come across as sour. The spiritual deadness of the lost, the reality of coming judgment for those who spurn God’s love in the Son, the harsh effects of sin in this broken world . . . these things all add up so that we don’t feel great levity in the pulpit. Fair enough. But let’s not give the impression that there is no joy in knowing God, or that the news we bring is something other than great news.

2. Some preachers turn every positive statement into vinegar by forced applications. “Christ has overcome the world! Have you?” or “So husbands, will we go from here and love our wives as Christ loved the church? Probably not.” Be careful not to rush to application in such a way that every positive becomes a burden. We should be relevant in our preaching, but often the relevance should not come from what we must do, but from leaning into what Christ has done.

3. Jesus wasn’t sour. We are His ambassadors. This means that we don’t just represent God’s Word (as in the content), but also we represent God completely – our demeanour, our character, our emotion, etc. Do people who hear you preach get the sense that Jesus is winsome, compelling, engaging, or do they assume he must also be sour, bitter and twisted?

Let’s prayerfully ponder this issue, lest we pickle the people in the pews.

Not Even a Hint – Racism in the Pulpit

October 31, 2011October 31, 2011 / Peter Mead / 9 Comments

The last couple of weeks have seen two high profile footballers accused of making racist remarks to opponents. The world is rightly disgusted by this, even in the context of highly competitive and even combative sporting battle. How much more should we in the church avoid all hints of racism?

If you are an overtly racist preacher, this post will not get to the heart of the issue. I am writing more for those who don’t try to support a race discrimination position by twisting Scripture and becoming defensive. I am writing for preachers who may accidentally give a hint of racism without intending to do so.

Here are three ways I have seen preachers fall into hints of racism that might prove helpful.

1. Cut out references to a “black heart” – Maybe in the context of a mimed drama it might be ok, but probably not. Because of the way “black” and “white” are used as race markers, we have to be careful in using them as references to sinfulness and righteousness. The Bible does speak of white robes, but a black heart? Though your sins be as scarlet, sure, but not a black heart. I heard one preacher make reference to “your disgusting black heart.” He did so seemingly oblivious to who was sitting in front of him. And to make things worse, he himself was from a place associated with racism in the past. Probably best to just avoid the use of “black” as a reference to sin. Not even a hint.

2. Generally don’t mimic accents from the pulpit – Again, I haven’t heard this done in a mocking way. But it can feel mocking nonetheless. I have experienced this with US folks faking a British accent, and with British folks faking a US accent (neither are very successful, which can lead to the feeling of implicit mockery). When preaching Bible stories we are preaching about people in the Middle East, or Africa, or Mediterranean Europe. Don’t fake an accent if it could be taken as mockery. Not even a hint.

3. Watch out for easy targets – In the English context there is much talk about racism and wanting to kick it out of sports, TV, etc. Yet there seems to be open season on anti-American comments, or anti-French jokes. I’m fully English and patriotically so, but I find myself reacting inside to anti-US comments from preachers. In the context of the body of Christ united across Jew/Gentile lines, it just doesn’t seem appropriate. Let’s go for a “not even a hint” approach, why not?

Are there other ways preachers inadvertently give a hint of racism in their preaching?

The Memorable Outline Myth – Part 2

October 29, 2011October 29, 2011 / Peter Mead / 9 Comments

So yesterday I did the unthinkable. I pulled the pin from a grenade in the sacred space where the notion of a memorable outline is revered as the chief end of preaching. I suggested that people might not be best helped by a set of textual labels that typically lack applicational relevance. I even suggested that people might not review what we have made so memorable!

As I wrote yesterday, if the text yields a clear and applicational sequence of thoughts, by all means preach that. But I fear that in many cases a pre-commitment to paralleled alliterated points may undermine the following aspects of preaching:

1. Is the text being presented authentically? If you are dissecting and squeezing the text into an outline form, you may well be doing it an injustice. Very few texts are actually written as equal paralleled thoughts. Don’t give people a clever outline at the expense of really opening up the inspired text.

2. Is the listener motivated to return to this text, and the rest of the Bible? If they feel incapable of “finding the three points” in a passage, they are less likely to be opening their Bibles (which is what they really need on Thursday, not just a vague memory of three uninspired descriptive labels from Sunday).

3. Is energy poured into future recall being lost from present impact? Would it be better to have them feel the full force of the text’s impact at the point of preaching, and then be motivated to read more later in the day and the next day, rather than striving to cram in uninspired labels as a memory aid to help them remember a message that may have been only somewhat impactful on Sunday?

4. Is the main idea being undermined by a commitment to a longer list of lower value statements? If you put your energy into one carefully crafted applicational representation of the main idea of the text, that single sentence summary would be more memorable and reach further and make more of a difference than a set of well-stated points that reflect smaller segments within the text. Let the whole strike home to the heart in a single thought.

5. Is the projection of the outline teaching listeners bad listening habits? That is, are we communicating to them that the point of preaching is primarily education, that the goal of listening is recall and that the measure of spirituality is the taking of notes? It’s weird, but when my wife opens her heart to me and speaks, I don’t reach for a pad and a pencil, I open my heart and I listen.

Tweaking Ingredients in Preaching

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

I spent my first few years in Italy. One enduring result on this is a long-term liking for Nutella. The original and best chocolate hazelnut spread! Australians might love their vegemite and the Americans their peanut butter, but this European can’t get away from Nutella. Except for when I see it in American shops, that is.

In recent years I have seen it appearing in the grocery store during my visits to the US, and have bought a jar or two. Same jar, same wrapping, same colour, but not same taste. One ingredient is different – just the oil. One ingredient on a long list, but it makes a difference.

The same is true with preaching. One ingredient modified slightly and the whole product can taste wrong. Here are some examples of tweaks that might ruin preaching:

1. Tweaking the tone from good news. Same passage, same illustrations, same length of sermon, but if you replace the good news aspect of the message with pressure to conform, guilt for failure or legalistic righteousness, I guarantee the message won’t taste the same!

2. Tweaking “of” to “from.” This is a common one. Instead of passionately pursuing the preaching of the message of the text, many preachers choose instead to preach their message from the text. That is, they use the biblical text as a starting point, but at the end the listeners don’t feel they know the text any better than at the beginning. Don’t preach from a text, preach the text. (I think this is the hardest one to spot in a mirror – every preacher thinks they are explaining the text. Perhaps you should ask someone who knows the Bible well and be ready to listen to what they tell you!)

3. Tweaking the text to fit an outline. Some preachers don’t go near this neighbourhood, but some seem to live there. Its where the text is twisted slightly to help it fit in a certain outline. Perhaps a three-point alliterated outline. Is that really what the writer was doing in the text? Was that his intended outline? If not, you may leave a sour taste for listeners who sense that you’ve done a bit of a number on the text!

These feel like relatively small adjustments, but they leave a very different impression.

Strategic Application Saving

October 14, 2011October 14, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday I met with a good friend to talk through a passage he is going to preach soon. I love conversations like that! As usual, within a few minutes I was starting to wish I were also preaching that passage. Just a side comment, but pre-preaching conversations about a passage with another preacher can be so fruitful! Anyway, onto the point of today’s post…

I think application is generally best incorporated throughout a message. So instead of lengthy explanation followed by a block of application at the end, we can demonstrate the relevance of the message from the introduction onwards, and at every transition, within every movement of the message, etc. But with the passage we were looking at yesterday, I felt that this was an opportunity for strategic application saving.

His passage has two foci of potential application. One relates to the kind of people we will encounter as we go out into the world to share the gospel. The second relates to the kind of people we are within the church. My suggestion was to make the whole focus on the former, and save the latter until the very end. Why?

My sense was that if he hinted at, or overtly referred to, the possibility that there might be people with false motives in the church, then subconsciously the listeners would have their guard up. Instead, better to focus the application of the passage on “the big world out there and what we will encounter as we share the gospel” for the bulk of the message, allow the listeners to become engrossed in the narrative from Acts, and then at the end introduce the “but what about us in here” target.

Withholding an aspect of application can be very strategic when listeners drop their guard and are therefore more open to be struck by its relevance. Our tendency as preachers is to give away too much early on in the message. Even a little comment like, “this passage speaks to what we will meet out there, and also what kind of people we are…” – that mini comment early on could change the reception of the entire message.

If part of the relevance of a message might be resisted, pay special attention to when you introduce the thought. One option is to avoid early references to it, get the guard to drop, and then perhaps it will hit home more strategically.

Where Do You Preach From – Part 2

October 10, 2011October 3, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Continuing the list from last time, I’m contemplating why a preacher may seem to be emotionally or spiritually a couple of feet back from where their body and mouth appear to be – that sense of distance or aloofness that undermines good engaging preaching.

4. The preacher may be nervous and so suffering from presentation freeze. It’s simple. Nerves freeze the vocal range, facial expressions and body language of the preacher. Maybe nerves have frozen the delivery into a “safe” zone that comes across as stilted, dispassionate and distant.

5. The preacher may be feeling hypocritical due to personal sin. This probably isn’t one to ponder on behalf of another (unless you know something). But it is worth praying through personally. We should all ask the Lord to search and try our hearts to see if there be any wicked way in us.

6. The preacher may be dour in personality. I don’t mean to be rude, but some preachers are just plain dull people. Not sure what to suggest, but do try to reflect the joy, enthusiasm, love, laughter, expression and life that is fitting for one representing our God!

7. The listener may be struggling to engage and projecting the issue onto the preacher. It is entirely possible that it isn’t an issue with the preacher at all, but rather the listener. Then again, if more than one listener points out that you seem distant when you preach, it probably isn’t them!

There might be other reasons too. Perhaps the amplification isn’t set at the right level. Perhaps the lighting isn’t working to full effect. What else might cause this issue, and how can we overcome it? After all, surely we would all rather be effectively communicating and fully engaging to listeners?

Where Do You Preach From?

October 7, 2011October 3, 2011 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Have you ever got the sense that the preacher is preaching from a couple of feet behind where their body is located? Perhaps there’s a better way to put this, but I’m struggling to think of how to do so. What I mean is that sense that the preacher is speaking the words, but somehow, behind the speaking there is a gap. It’s a gap from heart to mouth, a gap from personality to mouth. It’s as if the preacher’s mouth is being held at arms length from the core of who the preacher is. Somehow the preacher is not giving fully of themselves, but seem rather to be holding something back. Why might a preacher come across this way?

1. The message may not be fresh and overflowing. When a message is old and hasn’t been worked to the point of dynamic freshness, the preacher may stumble through, overly relying on notes, fumbling for words, lacking heart and enthusiasm. It may not be the preacher’s fault, necessarily, but the best preaching comes not from having good notes, or just from good content, but also from being “prayed full” to overflowing with the message God has given.

2. The message may not be truly owned. Perhaps the preacher started preparing too late and so the message hasn’t penetrated the spiritual fibre of their character. Perhaps the preacher remains unconvinced, or even resistant to the full implications of the text. Maybe the preacher has plagiarized the message and hasn’t genuinely worked it through until it is fully owned. The preaching event is not just the message, it is about the message through the messenger.

3. The preacher may be spiritually or emotionally distracted. Everybody has an off day, maybe this is the case. We shouldn’t judge too harshly without knowing the facts. Equally, God sometimes comes through in power when the preacher is at the lowest ebb.

I don’t want to go too long, so I’ll finish the list next time. Love to hear your thoughts on this . . .

How to Preach the One True God – Part Two

October 1, 2011September 30, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

So do we have to thoroughly define terms every time we mention God? That is, will every sermon be thwarted by a systematics lecture within moments of setting sail from the introduction? Not at all. Here are four suggestions that I think will have cumulative power without disrupting every sermon completely. Remember the first suggestion from yesterday though . . . you need to know the difference between the God defined by philosophy and the one true God who has revealed Himself in the Son and through the Spirit.

2. Repetition of “which God” question – by repeatedly pointing out that not every assumed description of the “one true God” is biblically true of the “one true God.” Some assumptions are true of Him, but not primary in His self-revelation. Just as it can be powerful in an evangelistic setting to ask someone who doesn’t believe in God which God they don’t believe in, so it can be powerful to open the subject up to Christians and ask which God they do believe in. It is a dangerous assumption that all who refer to God mean the same being, or even are clear on who He is. Sadly too many end up assuming a sort of impersonal ultimate force rather than the feeling, thinking, personal, loving creator God of the Bible. Let’s chip away at the naive assumption that everyone basically knows who God is.

3. Emphasis of particular text in light of its context – just as we can overlay a certain set of divine assumptions on the Bible as a whole, so we can easily do that with particular texts. Try to be more nuanced in making clear what a text is offering us as it reveals God. For example, Yahweh high and lifted up in Isaiah 6, holy holy holy . . . needs to be preached in light of Isaiah 1-5, where His heart for the whoring faithless nation who don’t draw near in loving devotion is made clear. Sovereign and holy? Absolutely. Distant, cold, rule-obsessed and uninvolved? Never! Without seeing how God reveals Himself and His heart in chapters 1-5, the sixth chapter can be preached with wrong emphasis, and the last five verses can really end up preaching that other philosophically-driven view of God.

4. Emphasis of particular text in light of complete revelation – that is to say, don’t give the impression that “God” in the Old Testament is just “Father” in New Testament terms. How easy it is to give the mistaken impression that God becomes a trinity when the Son is incarnated. The God of the Old Testament is trinity, even if each particular instance doesn’t make that clear. Was it the Father than spoke face to face with Abraham, that wrestled with Jacob, that spoke to the elders of Israel, etc.? What about the Spirit in the Old Testament? Any time we see “God” referenced in the Bible, we must be sensitive to the content and the informing theology at that point in the progress of revelation, but we shouldn’t forget what we now know more clearly about the one true God being trinity!

5. Since God is trinity, repetition of trinitarian hints are worthwhile – just to reinforce the previous point, don’t feel you have to fully explain the Trinity every time you mention it. Why not intrigue people with a sense of the beautiful attractive wonder of who God really and personally is through trinitarian hints as you preach the Bible. Don’t wait for the overt trinitarian formula to refer to trinity. Don’t miss the Father/Son language and turn that into a generic one-size-fits-all “God” reference as some preachers and authors do (almost giving the impression that the Son is somehow less than God). Don’t ignore the trinity in the Old Testament where there is a hint, and even where there isn’t. After all, we want to preach the one true trinitarian God of the Bible!

Ok, two posts over the daily limit . . . I need to stop, but feel free to comment.

Interaction Flops – Part 2

September 24, 2011September 23, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday’s post was getting a bit long, so I’ve spilled over to today. Thinking about participative preaching, or interaction between pulpit and pew, that doesn’t really work. We thought about the cultural differences issue yesterday. Here are a few more warning flags:

Patronising the listeners – It is easy to cross a line from helpful invitation to participate vocally, to patronising listeners. It’s hard to get this right because assuming knowledge can be unhelpful:“We all know that Malachi is the last book in the Old Testament” . . . maybe, at a pastors conference, but in a normal church setting, what about the new young believer or visitor who doesn’t know that? Now they feel uniquely uninformed. But it can go the other way in participative preaching moments: “You finish the sentence if you can, ‘Jesus’ mother was called…?” As people mumble the name, Mary, chances are that they might be feeling like six year olds. Some preachers need to learn that getting people in a congregation to say something out loud is no great achievement, and it is no guarantee of attention or interest either. Sometimes it is just plain patronising.

Unnecessary invitations – You have to be sensitive to the congregation. Somehow you need to sense when asking for them to answer a question, or say something, or vocally agree, or whatever is simply unnecessary. I’ve sat in congregations where the preacher wasn’t really patronising, but perhaps just nervous. Everyone was with them, following, enjoying, appreciating, and suddenly the preacher seems to lose their nerve and start looking for vocal affirmation, or an answer to a question to “keep us engaged” when actually we were engaged, but now are getting a bit annoyed by the slowing of the pace and the loss of momentum. Tricky one to judge, but just don’t fall into the trap of thinking vocal response from the congregation is somehow always engaging or helpful.

Narrow answer requests– This is hard to take as a listener. When the preacher has a specific and narrow answer in mind and wants somebody else to say it. As we saw in the earlier posts, if you ask for participation, be open to the participation that may come back to you. Don’t frustrate listeners with a question that leaves them groping in the dark for “your” right answer!

What might you add to this list? Any other interaction flops that preachers should be wary of?