Finger On

March 15, 2011March 15, 2011 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

I listened to two preachers recently. Walter Kaiser (on CD) and another well known speaker in the UK. There are several differences between them, but I’d like to point to one. Kaiser wanted his listeners to keep their finger on the text. The other man didn’t.

If you’ve heard Kaiser you will know that he likes to get people to look at the text. Lots of good preachers do that. It helps people see that you speak with authority because the authority is not yours, but the authority of the Word of God. It helps people follow the message. It helps people come back to the text later and then see for themselves what you were teaching.

I know you’ve heard preaching like the alternative I have in mind. The text is read, but left behind as the sermon progresses through several paralleled points of the preacher’s own construction – a biblical theology of the phrase, if you will. Lots of preachers do that. It gives the sense that you speak with authority because you speak with authority. It motivates listeners to close their Bibles and just listen. It helps people not re-open their Bibles later since they can’t remember how you derived your points anyway.

Both approaches will get glowing feedback. But both are not equal. Be a preacher who motivates listeners to get their finger on the text. What advantage is there in not doing so?

Human Nature

March 14, 2011March 14, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

What if a relatively simple misunderstanding were to lead to significant missteps in dealing with important situations? A newspaper article was passed to me last week that suggests just such a misunderstanding was the cause of failure in economic help provided to the fallen Soviet Union, failure in provision for post-Saddam Iraq, failure in the banking system in recent decades, failure in continual restructuring of education systems. Lots of failure. One root cause?

To hear what the journalist suggests is the root issue, please read the rest of the article over on the Cor Deo site – just click here…

Simple Idea – So Helpful

March 11, 2011March 11, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

This week at Cor Deo my colleague Ron mentioned something he does in preparing for sermons. Simple suggestion to say the least, but so helpful. Instead of cutting and pasting the text of the passage into a document to work with, he photocopies his own Bible page.

Then he can work on the photocopy at a significant level of inductive observational detail. Then when he comes to preach from his own Bible, he’s very familiar with the layout of the text and only needs to make minimal markings on the text since he’s just been working all week on a replica of the same.

Simple.

I could leave it there, but let me add a couple of comments:

1. Too many spend too little time really soaking in the text. It shows in the preaching. The message is often a decent message, but the tie to the text is tenuous. If you have a great Christian gospel message that really is the message of another text, preach the other text! But if you’re preaching this text, then live in it and let it live in you for a while so that you are really preaching the text you say you are preaching!

2. The more our message is tied to the text we’re preaching, the less we are reliant on extraneous notes and imposed sermonic structures. This means the listeners perceive a more natural presentation (that’s helpful), and they are more likely to follow in their Bibles (that’s helpful), so that the focus is less on your sermonic artistry and more on the inspired revelation that came from God (that’s helpful too!)

Christian Sounding Non-Christian Preaching

March 10, 2011March 10, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

He certainly looked the part. He came in dressed like every visiting preacher we have here. His tone was serious. His piety was evident. His passion for our purity was spilling over in everything he said. He preached of the righteousness of God, and what it means to be the righteous people of God. He spoke against some things that are a real concern of mine in the present culture. He pointed to the text. He referred to the Greek. He brought that discomfort that I suspect my comfortable flesh needs now and then. He certainly couldn’t be faulted as far as taking his Christianity seriously. He wanted us to do the same.

Then someone I know graciously pointed out that what he preached wasn’t even Christian.

I was shocked.

Where was he preaching? It could be your church or mine. It could be Galatia or Philippi or Colossae in the 50’s. The problem with legalists is that they sound so Christian. And it feels so wrong to question their fervent presentation of truth. And in a culture so morally lax they can feel like a breath of clear air in terms of right living that pleases God. Yet legalism does not please God.

The gospel is not great news for those that want to be proud of their own goodness. It isn’t good news for them before salvation and it isn’t good news for them after. Let us raise our antenna and spot the difference between convicting Bible teaching and gospel-lite pressure sessions (and if the gospel gets so ‘lite’ it isn’t there, perhaps we should call it what it is…sub-christian…non-christian).

Committed to Authorial Intent? Remember Authorial Intent!

March 9, 2011March 9, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Many who read this blog would be committed to the notion of authorial intent. That is, the meaning of the text is pursued in line with authorial intent. It doesn’t mean what it could not have meant. It doesn’t mean what the author didn’t intend to convey.

Yet while many hold to a strong conservative hermeneutic (perhaps a historic0-grammatical or some kind of christocentric variation), it seems that authorial intent often goes missing. How so? Well, the meaning as intended by the author is pursued and preached. Yet the intended effect, the intended outcome, the goal of the author is often lost.

As you study a text you need to look at the context (historical and written), and at the content (what’s in the passage), and also at the intent. This means being sensitive to stated and implicit intended outcomes in the original recipients. It means being sensitive to the tone and attitude of the writer. Was the writer being encouraging, or rebuking, or concerned, etc.? Sensitivity to content and to intent is necessary if we are to really honour a text and understand it well.

Where do some preachers seem to miss this?

1. When the tone of the message bears no resemblance to the tone of the text. Maybe this is a different audience in need of a different tone, but a deliberate decision to change the tone is not the same as squeezing all texts into your shepherding mood, or your angry mood, or your bible thumping mood, or your “self-appointed prophetic voice” mood or whatever.

2. When the intended outcome of the message bears no resemblance to the intended outcome of the text. Again, it is possible to shift from what the author intended. Yet too often the preacher has never considered the original to that extent, but rather has pursued a message from a text, rather than really wrestling with the message of the text.

Authorial intent is about more than simply affirming that my doctrine is in line with the Apostle Paul’s. It is about growing in sensitivity to the text I am reading so that I am better able to re-present it to others when I preach.

Impositional Preaching

March 8, 2011March 5, 2011 / Peter Mead / 7 Comments

Some of the greatest preachers of recent history have built sermons on single verses. I tend not to do that. Am I saying I know better than them?

Dr Lloyd-Jones, not to mention Spurgeon, and others, have demonstrated extended sermon series that essentially preach a single text at a time. Surely if we were to be preachers after their kind today, then we should pursue the same kind of ministry? Actually, I think not.

First, let’s recognize what these men did. Spurgeon sometimes resorted to an allegorical exegesis of the text, but not always. Lloyd-Jones tended to preach the Bible’s theology radiating from the impact point of a single verse. That is, since the word “justified” is in this verse, what all could be said from the whole canon on that theme (perhaps in this message, perhaps over several).

Second, let’s recognize what wannabe’s often do. Today when I hear people building messages from single texts I tend not to hear people with the pedigree of Spurgeon or Lloyd-Jones. I do hear some allegorical, not to mention fanciful, interpretations. These lack credibility and authority. I also hear some waffling messages padded with poor cross-referencing that shows neither theological acumen, nor precision in respect to recognition of biblical connections (nor genuine understanding of the theological needs of the listener). In an era where listeners will look at the text and dismiss apparently unfounded sermonizing, we would do well to reevaluate the efficacy of many “single verse” approaches to preaching.

Third, let’s realize that imposition is not exposition. Too often the preacher has the mindset of seeking to utilize the text as a series of pegs on which to hang their thoughts. All too often those pegs are not divinely intended to hold the weight placed on them. The Bible is an intricate and powerful construct of divine design. Sadly, all too often preachers take a twig from the oak tree and assume it will bear the same weight as the oak was designed to hold. Impositional preaching is not exposition, it is a pale imitation of what some greats from church history did.

Fourth, let’s realise that exposition is about honouring God, not historical figures. I deeply respect Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones, as well as many other preachers through church history that I do not seek to emulate every week. My view of expository preaching is built on my understanding of the nature of God’s Word. As I seek to explain it, to demonstrate its relevance, to say what it says and seek to somehow make the message do what it does, I am pursuing a contemporary ministry of expository preaching. I may fall short of historical models, and yet at the same time I may at times get closer to honouring the intent of the text. I pray that God will enable me to have a fraction of the impact of these great men. I pray that God will equip me to be a preacher of His Word, rather than one who seeks to reproduce a historically bound model of ministry.

There It Is!

March 7, 2011March 4, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Perhaps you have sat in Bible studies where this has happened. The text being studied might be something like Ephesians 2:21. The next question in the booklet asks something about the term “temple.” It also has a string of cross-references with it. So the leader assigns references to different ones in the group. One by one these are read out.

“Ok, I’ve got Matthew 12:6, ‘I tell you, something greater than the temple is here.’ Yep, temple, ok.”

“Ok, I’ve got Revelation 7:15, ‘They are before the throne of God and serve him day and night in the temple’ – yep, temple, there it is.”

“Ok, I’ve got Acts 2:46, ‘And day by day, attending the temple…” – ok, yep, temple!”

“Ok, I’ve got John 2:14, ‘In the temp…’ there it is!”

These may have been carefully selected cross-references to provide helpful insight into the meaning in Ephesians 2:21, but they have served no purpose other than giving people a chance to practice finding Bible references and play a game of word recognition.

Maybe, like me, you have found yourself sitting through moments like this, wondering what the point of it all is?

Where does this come from? Let us assume for a moment that the person who wrote the Bible study questions had a plan in their selection of cross-references (this is an assumption). Then surely the value will come from taking at least a moment or two to recognize more than just the presence of the word? Surely it should involve some thought as to the use of the term in that context and how that might influence our understanding of the focus text for the evening?

So where does this practice come from? Is it, perhaps, the example of preachers who use cross-references essentially as time-fillers, failing to make any sense of why they have gone to the verses or what differences they make to the understanding of the target text?

As I have written before, there are not too many reasons to go to other passages when preaching. (Here is my low fence post, and here is part 1 and part 2 of a post on cross-referencing.)

When you do go to another text, make sure it is clear what you are looking at and why.

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!)

Last of a Long Line of Posts on Genre

March 1, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Actually it won’t be the last, but the last for now. I’ve reflected on this series of posts over on the Cor Deo site and offered a few more thoughts. Be great to have you visit us there (and perhaps sign up for updates or like on facebook, or whatever) – click here for Book of Books