Homiletics

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.

Exposition, Narrative and a Pot of Soup

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

There is a common misunderstanding of expositional preaching in relation to Bible stories.  I’ve heard the analogy used of a pot of soup.  A narrative sermon is like a pot of soup prepared carefully to be enjoyed by the guests – an experience to be savoured.  An expositional sermon is like an explanation of the recipe of the pot of soup.  Recognizing the difference between narrative preaching and preaching narratives, let’s engage with this analogy briefly.

With some preachers this negative recipe description may be fitting, but that doesn’t make the analogy accurate.  An expository preacher is concerned about communicating the point of the passage, rather than seeking to explain the point of every detail.  A good expository preacher knows that a story has its own way of carrying and conveying its point.  Thus a good expositor preacher, preaching a story, will not dissect it into a lifeless and experience-free recipe, but will communicate the story as effectively and accurately as possible.

What needs to be added to the telling of the story?  Any necessary explanation to make sense of it.  An underlining of the point, exposed for clarity, but appropriately timed so as not to undermine the impact.  If not inherently implicit, some form of emphasis on the contemporary relevance of the story.

What isn’t needed is endless detailed explanation, or numerous unnecessary and disconnected illustrations, or ill-timed statements of the proposition, or commentary-style titles for each segment of the message, or a manner which robs the story of its emotion, tension or energy.

When you preach a story, be sure to be expository . . . but not the wrong kind that feels like the explanation of a recipe!

Tailored to a Token Level

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments
The desire to be relevant to our listeners might sometimes undermine our preaching. What I am thinking about is the count the costs, take up your cross, radical discipleship kind of passages.  You know, the ones that seem to be so demanding and so absolute.
It’s not that we don’t believe them, or don’t want to preach them.  But sometimes we might desire to be relevant so much that we turn a cannonball of application into a little pea of attempted relevance.  We want to connect with people where they are at . . . living normal lives, with normal worries and normal stresses.  So we preach a cannonball passage with mushy pea force.
.
Perhaps what people need is the full force of the passage brought to bear on their normal lives, instead of scaled down to fit in their normal lives.  Be sensitive, be wise and be careful how you say what you say and when.  But also be bold, be faithful and be willing to pass on the full force of what the Bible invites us to as followers of Christ.
.
Don’t tailor application down to a token level.  Preach the Word, and be sure to let God preach to you through that Word first.  We all need our lives exposed to the full force of Christ’s call on our lives.

Never the Same

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I am speaking at a conference that I speak at regularly.  Tonight I am preaching a message that I have preached before, but it will be unique.  Same conference, but different people.  The same program, calling for the same title, same content, same focus, same goal.  But it will be different.

This group of people are a different group than last time.  I have only been around this group for three or four days, but I can sense a real difference, and so do others working at the conference.  So as I prepare for tonight’s message I am struck by how I have to put last time out of my mind and not fall into the trap of trying to recreate anything.  Tonight has to be tonight, and it needs to be God’s work.

Somehow this setting is just reinforcing in me a truth that sometimes isn’t at the forefront of my thinking.  Every preaching situation is unique.  Even if the message content is the same, the purpose is the same, the program around it is the same, the preacher is the same (although I’ve changed in six months since last time) . . . but a different set of listeners makes for a different and unique message. 

If this is true, then we have to ask ourselves a couple of very simple questions – how alert are we to who we preach to?  How dependent are we on God for each preaching occasion?

Simple stuff really, but important.  I need to go and continue to prepare.

Homiletical Hermeneutics

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Last night I was in conversation with a good friend and fellow preacher.  We were talking about another preacher and how thoroughly he knows the Bible.  When my friend asked me why I thought he had become so thoroughly saturated with the Bible, I didn’t need to think long about the answer.  Obviously he has read it a lot, studied it and preached it.  But there’s something else that I’d like to share here: he reads the Bible like a preacher. 

That could be a good thing or a bad thing.

The wrong way to read the Bible like a preacher – is to always read looking for a message.  This means the Scriptures are always handled as a resource for sermon material.  It might mean that the Bible bypasses the heart, life and needs of the preacher, moving straight from God to the listeners’ needs.  I suppose it could mean forcing every text into a preconceived sermonic form (seeking to alliterate points, force the text into a certain number of sections, etc.)

The right way to read the Bible like a preacher – is to recognize the inherent communicative nature of Scripture.  Every writer was seeking to communicate effectively.  As a preacher it is possible to develop the skill of a homiletical approach to hermeneutics.  This means that you read the Bible text as communication – you look for the inherent unity that is there, rather than simply chasing down every tangent prompted by each detail.  It means you look for the sense of order and progression in the communication.  It means you recognize how the writer is developing each idea – the phases of explanation, elements of proof, and attempts to apply the idea.  It means you look for the author’s intent as well as their content, with a sensitivity to the needs of the original recipients.

After decades of handling the Bible like that, it shows.  I only hope the same will be true of me at the other end of my life.