Homiletics

Put Your Feet Up?

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Do you have a few teachers you would have been delighted to have studied under personally, but didn’t?  I do, and near the top of that list would be Howard Hendricks.  I’ve been blessed by some of his disciples, but at the moment am enjoying listening to some of his teaching.  Here’s an old quote he used from the president of Yale addressing the board of the great institution:

Ladies and Gentlemen, if I don’t spend time every day with my feet propped up on the desk, dreaming about what Yale ought to be, you need to fire me because I am no longer the leader of Yale – I am simply a pathetic manager of the institution.

Please don’t get upset if you happen to like being a manager of something, but please get the point.  Leaders need to spend time thinking and dreaming of what the ministry, institution, church, and even family, ought to be.  I suspect that in the busy-ness of ministry and life many of us are falling considerably behind in our think-time, as Hendricks would put it.

Let’s be very wary of a preaching routine, and a ministry routine, that lacks time to think and dream.  Sanctified prayerful dreaming is an element of true eternity-shaping ministry that I sense is lacking in many today.  Let’s make space and dare to dream, then ask God.  He is able to do abundantly beyond all that we ask or even imagine . . . with many of us that is not even half a challenge.  Let’s consider putting our feet up so that we can be leaders, and because it’s exciting to see God being God!

Examining the Extent of Explanation

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Biblical preachers should study to a higher level than they preach.  In the days, or even weeks, that we have to study a passage in anticipation of preaching it, we should probe and study and push and delve.  The study should incorporate all appropriate study methodology (appropriate to the genre, to the text, to our own abilities and skills).  The study should also appropriately consider the input of others (a variety of “experts” in printed form, or in real conversation if you have access).

The result of all that study should be more fodder for explanation than you have time to preach.  Even if you could cram it all in, what about emphasizing the relevance for today’s listener in terms of application and support materials, etc?

It is an important skill to learn to limit the extent of the explanation given in a sermon.  I suppose the best measure I’ve come across is what Donald Sunukjian said . . . “as much as necessary.”  That is in no way a negative comment on explanation (like I might say “let’s have as much vegetable as necessary in a meal, but unlimited meat”).  It is a comment demonstrating the high value that needs to be placed on emphasized relevance.  In Sunukjian’s terms, “explain as much as necessary, then apply, apply, apply.”

So how do we determine the necessary extent of explanation (and background information, demonstration of exegesis, etc.)?  A couple of key values come to mind, you may add others too:

1. A commitment to serve, not to show off. Every preacher faces constant temptation from insidious pride.  It is so easy to show off all the study you’ve done, all the skills you have, all the extra information you’ve gleaned.  Value service rather than display.  Value people over performance.  We all need to make sure our motivation is as much “for their sake” as possible, and as little “for my sake” as possible.

2. A sense of personal security, rather than insecurity. Insecurity abounds in the human race.  If our antenna are attuned we can spot it all around us, all the time.  An insecure preacher (for personal reasons, or as a result of criticism, etc.) will try to establish their right to be preaching in various ways.  One is to demonstrate excessive exegesis to undergird their ministry (and even personal worth).  A secure preacher is not concerned with how they look, or even if they’ll be criticized, but is concerned primarily with pleasing the Lord as they handle His Word for the sake of His people.

Let’s examine the extent of our explanation.

Perhaps the Greatest Test?

/ Peter Mead / 6 Comments

We all know that some moments are more challenging than others.  What would be the greatest test of your ministry as a preacher?  Would it be to preach with your preaching professor in the pew?  Would it be to preach with a famous preacher visiting to hear you?  Would it be to preach as a stand-in guest preacher for someone famous (when listeners are expecting him, but get you instead)?  Would it be to preach with a loved one present who does not know the Lord?

Perhaps the greatest test of a preacher is not preaching, but not preaching, if you see what I mean?  Let me put it this way.  Perhaps the greatest test of you as a preacher has very little to do with your observed ministry in the pulpit, but a lot to do with what is unseen.  What if your listeners could watch you behind closed doors?  What if they saw how you treat your spouse and your children?  What if they could see the “real you” when no eyes are looking?

The truth is that we whisper-preach with our words, but we megaphone-preach with our lives.  I’m keeping this post short.  Today I’ve scheduled a day-off … handling school for the morning to give my wife the day off, and then something all together this afternoon.  Now the rubber meets the road!  Forget exams and big events and special sermons and ministry . . . perhaps today is the greater test!

Application Weak Spots

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Last week I was teaching preaching alongside another instructor in a preacher’s training conference.  At different times we both pointed to three levels of application, and we both pointed out a weak spot . . . but the two sets of categories were very different.  I suppose this should be two posts really, but here are the lists of three:

Targets of Application – Mark Meynell offered three levels of application.  The first, and the one we tend to be best at, is at the level of private application (for instance, our personal spirituality, ethics, devotional life, etc.).  The second level is the relational (for instance, relationships in the home, the workplace, the church, etc.) and he stated that we tend to do okay on this level.  The third level, however, is the weakest.  This is application at the social level (engaging with the world).

Personal Targets of Application – I offered the following three categories of application, again noting that one is usually considerably weaker than the other two.  The first level is the level of conduct, or “the hands” – that is, application in terms of what to do.  The second level is the level of belief, or “the head” – that is, application in terms of what to know/believe.  Depending on the preacher, one of these is usually stronger than the other.  Some seem very quick to present practical applications (often forgetting the inherent value of “belief” application), others tend to emphasize applications in respect to belief.  Both are necessary and often appropriate (depending on the passage and the listeners).  There is a third category that lies underneath both of the first two, but one which is often ignored.  The third level is the level of the affections or “the heart” – that is, application in terms of core values, love and spiritual relationship.  If people do, based on what they know, then there is still another step deeper into the functioning of humanity – to the level of the affections, values, desires, loves.  Consider Ephesians 4:17ff to see how Paul moves deeper than conduct to knowledge, then deeper again to the role of the heart.

Application is not easy.  Two different sets of categories, both pointing to an area of specific weakness.  How can we better apply in respect to engaging with the world?  How can we better apply in respect to the affections of the listener?

Big and Mini Hope – part 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I presented the need for preaching that doesn’t hide from, deny or avoid the big eschatological hope presented throughout Scripture.  People need that message of hope, God knew that, and so He gave us plenty of it in the Bible.  But now for the mini hope . . .

Mini hope. Perhaps these two points don’t go together.  But maybe they do.  Just as people need the big hope of “that day” to mark and shape “this day,” so people need confidence that God’s Word can change their lives today.  It is so easy to preach a legalistic, moralistic, guilt-driven message of needed change, but fail to encourage people with the hope of the empowering grace of God, the hope of the present indwelling Holy Spirit, the hope of the deep personal love and concern of God, the hope of life-changing intimacy with God.  Ever since eleven frightened men were transformed by a genuinely empty tomb and risen Savior, empowered by the Spirit and proclaiming hope to the world – this world has been marked and changed by a gospel not of mere pressure to improve yourself, but genuine darkness-shattering hope of the Gospel.

Why do I call this mini-hope?  Because most of the time people don’t feel their need in global and history-making terms.  They feel like they are small people in small lives with relatively small challenges that feel overwhelming to them . . . and good preaching offers hope and help and encouragement and the working of God in His love in relatively small, but deeply meaningful ways.  Most messages are not a spiritual mountain-top, but reminders of the hope of the gospel in the ongoing struggles of life.  Mini hope, but critical.

It seems to me that true biblical preaching should be infused with hope – both big ultimate eschatological hope, and day-by-day glorious new covenant hope.

Big and Mini Hope

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Christian preaching should be infused with hope.  This is because the Bible is infused with hope.  While every generation likes to think that their generation is different from all that have come before, the fact is that almost every generation has been lacking in hope.  I was just reading of the collapse of the 50’s optimism in the 60’s.  Dostoyevsky’s famous line, “If God does not exist, everything is permissible” springs to mind.  And if it is possible to state this in relative terms – God does not exist even more now . . . in the perspective of my culture, at least.  Culture changes, but needs do not.  The God is dead movement in the 60’s is not making the cover of news magazines now, but “new atheism” (great misnomer) gets plenty of airtime.  We may not live in fear of nuclear war as we did then, but what of terrorism, or even the fear of ecological disaster?  Times change, but hopelessness persists.

Biblical preaching should be infused with hope, big hope and mini hope:

Big hope. The Bible is shot through with messages of hope that this world as it is is not all that there ever will be.  We are people in a privileged position in that we know the end of the story is not what we see in front of our eyes, but more than that, God has told us the end of the story already.  You could say it is not written yet, but it’s already been written.  Sad to see how much of Christendom has moved to ignore or platitudify (new word?) the eschatological hope that pervades Scripture.  Oh yes, eschatology may be divisive, errors have been made, sensationalism has been embarressing at times, etc., etc., but one thing we can’t get away from, or redefine our way out of (at least not convincingly), is that God certainly gave us a lot of “big hope” in the Bible.  As we preach the Word, people need to hear and see that we are people of genuine hope.  A hope that is not irrelevant or incomprehensible, but a hope that lifts our eyes to that Day so that our lives are changed today.

Tomorrow I’ll share the mini hope . . .

Of Lecterns and Pulpits

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Lecterns and pulpits are worth thinking about.  After all, we so easily take them for granted.  Perhaps you’ve always had one, perhaps you’ve always seen preachers preach from behind one.  However, if our goal is to effectively communicate God’s Word to people, we need to consider every aspect of our preaching.  So here are a few thoughts on these pieces of ecclesial furniture.

Don’t hide. I suppose this is the basic thought in this post.  Don’t hide.  Remember that communication includes body language, which means that people need to be able to see your body language.  Be careful not to slouch or lean on the pulpit.  If they can’t see a significant percentage of you, then you probably need to elevate your energy levels to appear normal in your expression.  Be deliberate in letting your gestures show above and beyond the pulpit (reach higher and wider).  Seriously consider coming out from the castle!  Let the pulpit hold your notes, but don’t feel obligated to stay there yourself.

Do familiarize. Make sure everything is ready ahead of time.  If it is adjustable, adjust it appropriately (which doesn’t mean it should be up to your armpits just because you’re tall!)  Make sure any notes you use will be visible (why are some lecterns at such a high angle?)  Make sure you have a glass of water if you need it, etc.  If there is anything more technical than a glass of water, make sure you know how it works ahead of time – any light, controls for visual media, etc.  Obviously if you’ve preached from the same pulpit for a while, then this isn’t as necessary, but it’s always worth double checking before the meeting.

Don’t criticize. You may understand the negative impact of “barrier furniture” to communication, but be very careful not to criticize it.  Even if it holds your notes in a near vertical position, makes your water glass nearly inaccessible, blocks your listeners from hearing “with their eyes” and looks like a wooden battle ship, or upended casket, or whatever . . . keep these thoughts to yourself.  You can move to the side, or make the best of the situation from behind there.  But if you give voice to these thoughts you will not come across well, and the person whose father built the monstrosity in 1924, or who donated the money to buy it in honor of their spouse’s homegoing . . . well, you know how they’ll feel!

Clusters and Journeys

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Influencers are leaders.  So preachers are leaders.  But how much do we lead in our preaching?  Take the issue of preaching calendars, for example.  At one extreme we have churches that have no calendar planned, or only preachers planned (but no subjects/texts).  I suppose the ultimate example might be  church that relies fully on visiting speakers who all choose their own message for each service.  At the other extreme we have churches who carefully map out the entire year of preaching, so that you can know now what text will be preached the second Sunday of next October.

Some would hold that only the Holy Spirit should lead the church, and thus the random outside preacher approach is fine since God can work through whoever is preaching.  I suppose we could all agree to that in principle, but at the same time, I want to graciously ask a question of that approach.  Is there not the risk of simply presenting biblical truths without any sense of deliberately leading the church forward on its journey?  How much opportunity is missed by “simply preaching” without really tapping into the broader reality of the growth of the local church?

Now for those who have a well-planned preaching calendar.  Is it merely constructed by the gathering of series in some attempt to give a balanced diet?  That’s a good start, but again, are we failing to lead as well as the opportunity affords?  Do we fall into preaching collections of random messages strung together by the unity of a Bible book, or a series title, but fail to prayerfully plot the journey of the church?  Or are we plotting a journey 16 months in advance and failing to take stock of where we actually have travelled several months into the year?

One further thought.  Do we rely on one-hit messages to achieve change when really we would be far better with a cluster of messages approach? One-hit messages can be stand alone, or they can be a series that moves from one thing to the next, without the clustering power intended by a series.

Wherever our church sits on the scale of pre-planned preaching schedules, all of us are in danger of missing out on the opportunity to really lead the church as we preach.  Let’s prayerfully consider how God would have us carry the burden of leadership, every time we plan a preaching schedule, and every time we preach.

The Heart of Who We Are and What We Do

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Spiritual formation is the heart of who we are and what we do.  We spend our time helping people allow God into their lives to form their spirits.  We encourage others to make space for God.  Yet we so often fail to heed our own advice.

These are the words of Chuck Sackett, reflecting on re-entering pastoral ministry after a quarter of a century teaching in a seminary.  Allow me to quote further from his article on preaching and pastoral ministry, the lines leading up to the above quote:

For approximately fifteen years I met with a small group of professors for spiritual formation.  We studied together, prayer together, laughed and cried together, celebrated and commiserated.  To this band of brothers I owe my spiritual sanity.

Spiritual formation takes time and discipline.  Spending time with God requires. . . spending time.

Ministry concerns; sermon preparation and marriage counseling; vision development and staff relatonships all command your time and attention.  A segment of your day given to Scripture, prayer, meditation, journaling, solitude, silence (you name the discipline) is a luxury you feel you can ill afford . . . so you move on from the important to the urgent.  And in the meantime your soul withers and dies.

So we come back to the initial quote – spiritual formation is the heart of who we are and what we do.  But do we take our own advice?

A Rather Poignant Visual

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Apparently we live in an age where people need the visual.  The visual is not only on our televisions in the evening, but on the screen in front of us all day at the office, and now on the screen in our hands as we commute in the train.  We are bombarded by the visual everywhere we look.  Apparently this is so patently obvious that self-appointed experts in “people today” are always quick to point out that people need something visual during the sermon too.  After all, something that is only heard has little to no chance of being remembered, according to the same experts.

Consequently it is equally obvious, to these experts, that the only way for preaching to succeed today is by use of powerpoint.  I suppose we could express deep appreciation that God has blessed us to live in the only generation with such capability!  In reality, people have always valued the visual, in every culture, in every age.  So was it unfair to only allow the invention of powerpoint in these last days?

I don’t intend to negate the value of powerpoint or similar software here.  I would graciously point out that in the business world, in education and apparently, even in the military, there has been a pulling back from powerpoint in recent years (especially in the final third of presentations where there is nothing like face-to-face communication for the final thrust and appeal).  Powerpoint can be used well in preaching, I believe that, even if I haven’t often seen it.  Rather than unthinking commitment to powerpoint, I would urge us to ponder David Larsen’s warning over triangulation in communication.  Technology is not bad, but it can so easily move sermon-time into circus-time and show-time on the one hand, or into over-intellectualization and de-emotionalization on the other.

Believe it or not, this is not a post about powerpoint.  It’s a post about the visual.  Preaching has always been a visual as well as audible communication form.  Two important ways spring to mind:

1. As we preach the Word, images form. Good preaches paints pictures in the heart of the listener.  They hear what we say and they see what we mean.  Better, they hear what God says and see what He means.  They enter into the narratives, they see the truths, they see themselves living out the reality preached.  Good preaching is full of images, irrespective of our use of powerpoint.

2. As we preach the Word, they see us. This is nothing to get excited about in a vain sense, but it is powerful.  Far more powerful than any clip art or projected photo.  Despite well-intentioned prayers before sermons, listeners do see the preacher, and that is part of God’s design.  Truth through personality.  God’s message through His messenger.  We communicate with our words and tone, but also through our body language, gesture, expression.  We communicate with our words, but also with our lives.  We are, as David Larsen put it, a rather poignant visual.