Homiletics

Vision Month is Coming

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Vision is a difficult thing to pin down. It’s a mental and heart picture of what could be and what should be, it’s the energizing motivation that moves people to pour energy into a project, into a church, into a life.

January is vision month. Everyone is at it. People start going to the gym, a vague plan based on a vague awareness that they should be looking after themselves more for some reason. The vague vision is probably part of why people attend only vaguely once February arrives. People make New Year’s resolutions, again based on some vague awareness of what should be, or what shouldn’t be in their lives.

Why do people come to church? Is it the habit of a lifetime and that habit happens to bring them to the same church as you? Is it a vague awareness of what should be, and so they vaguely attend the church you attend? Or is there a crystal clear vision that energizes, mobilizes and invigorates? I suppose there are three types of churches that come to mind:

1. The “Yes we have a vision, but I’m not sure exactly how to define it” church – This is the church that has some statement somewhere, perhaps something relating to the three functions of the church, or something vaguely connected to the Great Commandment and the Great Commission. But if it is undefined (or impossible to remember), what value does it have? If we don’t know it, why should anyone else? If we don’t know it, we aren’t energized by it or committed to it and it is borderline irrelevant to the life of the church. January is a great month to clarify with crystal precision the vision of the church.

2. The “Our vision changes each year” church – This is the church that chooses a vision verse for the year, preaches on it in January and then may or may not return to it during the year. It is worth asking what difference this makes, and why a clear “what could be and what should be” picture of the preferred future of this church is not articulated and re-articulated regularly.

3. The “We resist contemporary approaches to vision statements” church – This is the church that puffs out the chest and makes statements about the biblical vision for all local churches being a local expression of the same global vision which is articulated in Scripture. Agreed. But if people are coming to church because of habit, or because it is the nearest option with the right denominational tag, then perhaps it’s time to articulate clearly what that biblical vision for all churches is . . . for your church.

There are other churches too. The “We’ve never thought about it” church, and perhaps even the “clear and compelling vision in place and regularly re-articulated” church. What kind of a church are you in? January is coming, vision month. What’s the plan?

Peripheral Vision

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

The first step in preparing a message is to prayerfully determine the preaching text.  It’s important to make sure you are studying a complete unit of thought – a full paragraph, a full narrative, a full poem, a full wisdom saying, etc.  But then be sure you have peripheral vision.

Make sure you continue to look around and be aware of the context of the passage.  Too easily we get blinkered by section headings and forget to see what has preceded and what flows out from the text that we are studying.  Everything needs to be seen in context.  If you happen to be in a place biblically where context isn’t helpful, you’re in one of only a few places.

We need peripheral vision as we study the text, or we so easily may miss what is right there.

Preparing for 2010

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Before you know it, 2010 will be here.  What do you hope for in terms of your preaching ministry during next year?  Do you pray for more opportunities or more help with the preaching in your church?  Do you pray for more fruit in the lives of your listeners, or more fruit in your private spiritual walk?  Do you pray for one area of your preaching to be strengthened, or for greater consistency in your preparation?  Do you pray for fruitful times in the Word, or fruitful pastoral interactions with people in the church?  Do you pray for diligence in following through on that training opportunity you are wanting to pursue, or for the courage to follow through on mentoring others?

There is a lot that we can pray about in advance of 2010.  Of course, praying is vital.  But it is worth asking, if you have a specific and tangible goal, what are you going to do to meet it?  Prayerfully, of course, but it probably requires something of you too.  When January comes everyone goes on about New Year’s resolutions.  As a leader you need to be ahead of the game.  Perhaps the next few days might give opportunities, moments of respite from seasonal festivities, to prayerfully ponder your preaching ministry in 2010.

The last thing we want to do is preach just because we do.  There will never be another 2010 . . . how can we make it count.  If you’ve given any thought to your 2010, please share for our encouragement.

Future Christmas Sermons

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

It would be easy to push through this season and then leave Christmas sermons until next year.  It would be a wasted opportunity.  Just as it can save money to buy next year’s cards right after this year’s Christmas, so it can save time to give some thought to next year’s sermons now.

Perhaps you have preached through the standard passages this year, but have noticed some connected passages that might make for an interesting series next year.  Make a note now while the thoughts are fresh.  For example:

Prophecies – perhaps you’ve noticed the references to Old Testament prophecies like Isaiah 7:14, Micah 5:2, even Jeremiah 31:15.  Why not take an Old Testament approach to Christmas hopes next year?

People – perhaps you noticed the four other ladies in Matthew’s genealogy . . . Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, the one “who had been Uriah’s wife.”  Four ladies with question marks over their morality, rightly or wrongly, that set up the lady who has to be in the genealogy (also with a question mark hanging over her morality, wrongly in her case).  Or perhaps you’d like to trace the Gentiles in the genealogy to show the greater scope of the Christmas hope.

Themes – perhaps you noticed a theme this year that could be developed with one week in the Old Testament, one week in the Christmas narratives and one week later on in the gospels or epistles.  For example, the Immanuel theme from Isaiah 7:14-9:7, emphasized in Matthew 1, continued for our age in Matthew 28:20.

Less Obvious Passages – perhaps you wondered about the less obvious passages, ie. those that aren’t in early Matthew or Luke.  So you have the prologue to John’s Gospel, giving the other side of the story, if you like.  Or you have references like Galatians 4:4 and similar passages.

Christmas Titles – perhaps you’d like to explore the titles used in the Christmas narratives – Jesus, Saviour, Immanuel, King, etc.

Carol Theology – while some are keen to cut down the errors in the carols, there are some great truths encapsulated in the carols too.  Perhaps you’d like to take Hark the Herald Angels Sing or another carol and trace a biblical background to a verse each week.  Different, but for some congregations this might be a blessing.  Remember that you are preaching the Bible, not the carol.

Contemporary Emphases – you could take key emphases in the world’s view of Christmas and present a positive biblical engagement with each one.  Gifts, peace, goodwill, family, etc.

Whatever thoughts you have at the moment, make a good set of notes, it will save a lot of stress later next year!

What Will They Copy?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I was just writing a mini-article in response to a request.  As I was writing it, I came across an article I wrote earlier this year.  I’ve linked to it previously, but here it is if you didn’t see it back then – click here.  Let me just quote a paragraph:

We must preach as those genuinely captivated by the love of God in the Word of God. We must preach contagiously as those who enjoy delightful engagement with this God. Our listeners will subconsciously mimic our leadership in their own “spirituality”–the question is; what kind of spirituality will they mimic? Will theirs be an intellect-only spirituality? Or will it be a purely pragmatic, self-concerned spirituality? Will it be a pseudo-spiritual flight of fancy unearthed in the truth of God’s revelation in His Word? Or will it perhaps be relational, Word-based, heart-level, real?

It is a scary thought, but an important one.  Listeners do more than listen.  They also mimic.  They copy.  Not least, they will be influenced by the spirituality they perceive in the preacher.  In light of that, it is hopefully not too hard to spot how they might end up with an intellect-only spirituality, or a purely pragmatic spirituality, etc.  The problem comes when we start thinking through how to shift their perception of spirituality based on our messages and how we live our lives with them.

Wouldn’t it be great if they could copy a relational, Word-based, heart-level, real spirituality?

Ponder the Passage Purpose

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

As a preacher studying a passage it is tempting to be purposeful, but ignore the purpose of the passage.  So you are studying the passage because you are trying to prepare a sermon, or perhaps because you are intrigued by the theological content of the text, or perhaps because you are pondering whether you should preach that passage at all!  It becomes normal for a preacher to look at a Bible text and wonder how they would preach it.

However, while it may be inevitable that we look at passages through preaching lenses, it is important to not miss something that is fundamental to accurate interpretation of that passage.  What was the author’s purpose?

1. Look at the context – It is vital to look at any passage in its context.  What is going on around the text you are focused on?  What is the flow of thought or logical progression in the book?  What does the book generally say about its purpose (perhaps in the introduction, conclusion or “letter-frame”)?  If you’ve ever studied hermeneutics at all, you should be committed to the importance of context.

2. Look at the content – For most people who are deliberate in their interpretation, this is the element to which they give the most attention.  What words are used?  What are they referring to?  How are sentences structured?  Etc.  Content is very important, especially when it is understood in context.

3. Don’t forget to consider the intent! – Content in context will do a lot to explain the “what” of a passage.  But unless we are deliberate, we can fail to recognize the “why” of a passage.  But unless we are alert to the “why” then we can’t fully grasp the “what.”  Look for clues in context, in content, in tone, in attitude, in the presence of imperatives, etc.  Some of this is hard objective analysis, some of it requires more of a subjective feel . . . which is not license to impose intent, but recognition that we must really listen to a text and be gripped by it, rather than merely passing it under the microscope of our expectations.

Passage purpose is easily neglected, but if it is, our preaching may feel like analysis . . . without vitality.

Exhort, Educate . . . Manipulate?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Some preachers think that there are two legitimate options in preaching, but to go further would be wrong.  Legitimate would be to exhort listeners – that is, to appropriately pressure their will to obey the Lord, respond to the gospel, etc.  Legitimate would be to educate the listeners – that is, to feed information to their minds so that they know more and can therefore make better decisions.

But the next step?  Well, many people think the next step beyond the will and the mind is to address the emotions, and that, of course, would be wrong.  It must be wrong to address the emotions since that can so easily seem like manipulation.  I would agree that it can become manipulation.  I would agree that manipulation is wrong.  But I still think our preaching has to go deeper than mind and will.  How?

My sense is that manipulation occurs when I, as a preacher, utilize my ability to make a mark in the emotions that is disctinct from the content of the biblical text.  After all, the text is boss in an expository sermon, so if I am representing that text appropriately, then it should not be manipulation.  But when I resort to “techniques” – stand-alone tear-jerking stories, turns of phrase, emotional outbursts of my own, etc. – that aren’t representing the message of the text, then I am on dangerous ground.

If we remember that our role is to herald the Word of God, then we represent (re-present) the text of Scripture.  In so doing we need to represent a Word that targets the heart very often, and is seldom focused purely on exhortation or education.  We should be wary of manipulation, but not so that we ignore any textual targeting of the heart.  If we fall into the trap of performing, then manipulation creeps in so easily and we can corrupt the pure Word of God.

Preach to the will, certainly.  Preach to the mind, of course.  But be sure to preach to the heart, the Bible does!

Save the Best for Last

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

If you have read any book on sermon composition, or studied preaching formally, you will have come across the two basic approaches to shaping a sermon – inductive and deductive.  Both have strengths and weaknesses, both are useful.  Yesterday I preached a message that was essentially inductive.  I began by introducing the basic concept and made a promise – “I want to show you the greatest song of all time.”

The message progressed by setting the scene for the book (an OT prophet), and surveying the content of the book to give a feel for it’s scope and intensity.  The focus narrowed to the final section of the book, then finally onto the central feature of that final section.  In the last minutes of the message, the place of final emphasis, the greatest song ever became evident.

This is one example of an inductive approach.  Often used when an audience is antagonistic to the main idea of the message (as in Peter’s message on Pentecost), but not exclusively so, the inductive approach has some real strengths.  It does give you time to overcome antagonism and lower defences.  It does allow time for intrigue to build so that people actually want to hear the main idea by the time it is stated.  It allows for final stress to be placed on the most important thing.

Inductive approaches to preaching can be complicated and daunting.  They often require a different set of skills from the preacher: not least the ability to build trust and maintain interest for the entire message.  But we shouldn’t feel daunted.  Perhaps with the next message it is worth considering the option of not stating the main idea at the end of the introduction.  Instead give the question or the incomplete sentence only, leaving the answer (or complement) until later on in the message.

Sometimes it is very worth saving the best for last.

A Lonely Place

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

It is not unusual to hear that a leader is in a lonely place.  After all, church leadership, like all leadership, is a difficult place to be.  There are stresses and strains not only in your own life, but also the burdens of others that you care for.  There are confidences to keep and decisions to make that effect so many.  As a preacher the problems are perhaps compounded by the solitary nature of the preaching ministry (most tend to prepare alone, then “recover” alone too).

Some of this loneliness is unavoidable. The unique stresses and difficulties have to be acknowledged and lived with.  Being a preacher is often a lonely road and the emotional ups and downs in some ways simply have to be accepted and pressed through.  However . . .

Some of this loneliness is avoidable. I suppose it comes down to our view of leadership (remember that someone who preaches is an influencer and thus a leader, irrespective of their official title in the church).  The world’s view of leadership involves climbing higher into a narrower space in order to have power over more people.  Sometimes we can fall into a worldly approach to leadership that results in us “lording it over” (even though we know that is wrong and so couch it in all the right terms and attitudes).  Servant-leadership calls us to invite others to join us in serving, because if the leader is a servant lifting others up, then there is always room for help at the bottom.  I recently wrote on this issue – here.

Loneliness can be dangerous. So as a pastor, minister, leader, whatever.  As a preacher too, we must be wary of the lonely nature of the ministry.  Be wary if you don’t have a safe place, a small group of individuals who don’t care about your hype, your reputation, your abilities, etc.  Make sure there are some with whom you can be real, be fully vulnerable, be broken, be hurt, be cared for, be healed.  Perhaps this is possible within your church.  Probably you need to look outside.  Certainly you need to be careful as this is a risky thing . . . but the risks of not doing it are greater!

Practice Makes . . . ?

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

The old saying goes, “practice makes perfect.”  Maybe.  Practice can also ingrain bad habits.  I think it was Howard Hendricks who said that “evaluated practice makes perfect” (inexact quote, please comment to correct wording and source!)  I want to offer a suggestion for “evaluated practice” that can really help.  First the obvious sources of feedback, then the more obvious one.

Obvious sources of feedback – While you may not have pursued it diligently, you’ve probably considered asking listeners for feedback on your preaching.  Perhaps you’ve handed out evaluation sheets to a select few, or perhaps you’ve asked for feedback on a specific issue of content, clarity or delivery.  Perhaps you’ve sent your mp3 to another preacher or trusted friend for critique.  Perhaps you’ve gone so far as to form a preaching team that includes non-preachers, creative communicators, etc., to evaluate and feed into your church’s preaching.

The more obvious source of feedback – Perhaps this is so obvious, but it’s worth a mention.  Feedback as a form of evaluation is something you can also do for yourself.  Don’t just do this yourself and avoid the input of others, but don’t miss this either.  After preaching, why not carve out some time to prayerfully evaluate the message.  What went well?  How did the time slip away in the middle section?  Which transition felt clunky?  When did attention drop?  If possible, sometimes listen to the message and ask the same questions, plus, How much variation is there in vocal punch, pitch, pace and pause?  Now and then get a video of yourself and also watch for eye contact, gestures, expressions, movement, etc.  Whatever you do, whether it is thinking back over the message, listening to it, or watching it, be sure to make some notes.  Perhaps have a journal of sermon evaluation.  That journal will offer nudges in the right direction, and great encouragement when problem areas become strengths in time.

After all, evaluated practice makes perfect . . . or realistically, evaluated practice makes better.