Homiletics

Disturbing Feedback

/ Peter Mead / 6 Comments

Yesterday I made a passing comment about “disturbing feedback.”  Let me begin with yesterday’s example and then add some more.  They tend to speak for themselves.  Don’t be too encouraged when you hear these kinds of comments after your preaching:

“Ooo, I never would have seen that in that passage!”

“As ever, such a rich message.  I mean, real steak that, really rich.” (This could be good feedback, but it depends on whether they could chew the steak or not!)

“I’m amazed at the long words you know.”

“I can’t wait to come back next Sunday, I need more Bible in my life!”

“I really enjoyed that story you told about the German sailor in the storm during the war, I’ll never forget that illustration!”

“If only I had gone to seminary, then I’d be able to be as clever as you!”

“Don’t worry about finishing fifteen minutes late, the nursery workers said the kids were really burning up some energy in there!”

“If I knew my Bible like you do, then I wouldn’t need to keep going to the table of contents every thirty seconds to find the passages you were quoting!”

“Phew!  I’m out of breath!  What a journey through the whole Bible you took us on today!”

“You’re right, we do need to try harder to live better.”

“You tell ‘em, preacher, they really need to hear that!”

“I don’t suppose we’ll ever know what Paul meant in that passage, will we?”

“I like Jesus, shame he’s not around today to fix all our problems!”

“I’m with you, let’s be as good as we can and then we’ll all get to heaven!”

And how about this one, simply because I have to stop somewhere:

“I loved that quote – ‘By all means preach the gospel, and if necessary use words.’ – fantastic!  Now I know I don’t need to ever say anything, just live well.  Thanks!”

What would you add?  Not necessarily from personal experience, although if you have any . . .

More Sneaky Landmines

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Last week I shared three sneaky landmines that every preacher faces in the ministry. I appreciated the good comments by Larry and Sudhir, so thought I’d bring their suggestions to the fore in this post. More landmines:

Thinking we need something new to say – Now just because a take on a passage has been the main one offered for generations does not make it right. Sometimes the church does put a spin on the truth or downright miss the point for long periods of time. However, as a preacher, my job is not to continually come up with something new. The ageless truth of the Bible, preached again with clarity and emphasizing the particular relevance for these listeners – that is the goal. And if you have a new view untouched by past generations and the scholars on your shelf of commentaries? Probably delay preaching that message for a few weeks, pray it through more and get into conversation with some trusted advisers . . . then if it is what the Bible teaches, preach it!

Majoring on Distinctive Minors – That’s not a new chord progression for the guitarist, it’s a temptation we all face. It is tempting to major on the minors that make us (my theology, our denomination, etc.) distinctive from others. Preach the dominant thought in each unit of thought, don’t make it your goal to always get this feedback: “Ooo, I never would have seen that in that passage!” (This is disturbing feedback!)

Pointing the Preaching Finger at Someone – You know who is at the forefront of your mind. That face that is constantly there as you prepare your message. Perhaps a critic. Perhaps someone who has angered you. Perhaps someone who has made it their mission to bring you down, so you are tempted to make it your mission to launch applicational mortars from the relative security of the pulpit. Don’t. Preach the Word for the benefit of all. Don’t take aim and fire cheap shots. To do so is a poor strategy on many levels, not least the spiritual level!

Preaching and Biblical Theology – Side 3

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

One last time, the basic definition of “Biblical Theology” that I am leaning on for this series of posts: Biblical theology is the fruit of studying the Bible in such a way as to recognize the individuality of each biblical author, the progress of revelation over time and the unity of the canon resulting from the inspired nature of Scripture. The question is whether our preaching neglects one side of this triangle?  So far we have looked at the issue of authorial individuality (both in style/vocabulary and in content/theology) and the progressive nature of revelation.  Now let’s look at the third “side of the triangle:”

The Unity of the Canon – We have 66 books written by roughly 40 authors.  Yet each was fully inspired and therefore there is an essential unity to the canon, forty authors, but also One Author.  When we preach the Bible as a human-only book, when we preach the Bible as tips from sages past, when we fail to preach the Bible as the theocentric self-revelation that it is, then we neglect the unity of the canon.

Guidelines – Recognize that your preaching passage does not stand separate from the rest of the canon, but carefully consider if and how to demonstrate the consistency of the Bible’s message (this is not necessary in every message, but should be an attitude consistently underlying our preaching, and purposefully demonstrated when considered helpful).

Again, there’s much more that could be said, but I’ll leave it there for you to take up the discussion.  Comments always welcome here!

Preaching and Biblical Theology – Side 2

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Here’s the basic definition of “Biblical Theology” that I am leaning on for this series of posts: Biblical theology is the fruit of studying the Bible in such a way as to recognize the individuality of each biblical author, the progress of revelation over time and the unity of the canon resulting from the inspired nature of Scripture. The question is whether our preaching neglects one side of this triangle?  Yesterday I considered the issue of authorial individuality (both in style/vocabulary and in content/theology).  Now let’s look at the second “side of the triangle:”

The Progress of Revelation – Over time, the revelation from God progressed.  If our Bible’s stopped at Genesis 3, we’d know very little.  If our Bibles stopped at Malachi, we’d be at a loss.  Our Bibles do not stop at Deuteronomy, or Malachi, or 2Timothy, or Jude (contrary to the opinion of some – I recently read a well-known scholar arguing that Revelation doesn’t add anything to the Bible in terms of theology, it just adds imagination!  We could play “spot the theological agenda” with that quote, but that’s going off point for this post!)  God gave us 66 books and each is adding to the revelation.  Thus it is important to recognize where your preaching passage sits in that progress.  We neglect this aspect of understanding the Scriptures when we fail to recognize the meaning of a passage in its context, at that time in the progress of revelation.  We can neglect this aspect when we always read everything through the “lens” of later revelation, without first honoring the fact that it is inspired Scripture even before that “lens” was added.

Guidelines – always seek to recognize the meaning of a passage as intended by the author at that point in the progress, before also recognizing how revelation progressed in the centuries that followed.  Perhaps consider whether more time needs to be spent on helping listeners see what the original recipients would have received from the passage, before jumping to a contemporary application, or even a New Testament filtered interpretation.  Always ask yourself, am I giving the impression that this text was not inspired or was not “useful” (2Tim.3:16) until a later book was written?

Other suggestions?  We’ll deal with the matter of the unity of the canon tomorrow to finish this mini-series.

Preaching and Biblical Theology – Side 1

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Biblical Theology is a very fruitful field for preachers.  Not every fruit is worth eating, of course, but there is real benefit to studying works in this field.  To give a basic definition for the sake of this post: Biblical theology is the fruit of studying the Bible in such a way as to recognize the individuality of each biblical author, the progress of revelation over time and the unity of the canon resulting from the inspired nature of Scripture. My question today is simple, does our preaching honor these three aspects of biblical theology, or do we neglect one “side of the triangle?”  Today we’ll consider the first “side of the triangle,” with the others to follow:

Individuality of each biblical author – The writings of John have a distinctive style, vocabulary and content when compared to the writings of Luke, or Paul, etc.  How do we neglect this reality in our preaching?  We do so by blending everything into the same, flat message.  We do so by excessive cross-referencing to other authors without good reason.  A high view of the Scriptures can easily lead to neglect of the individual styles and content of the human authors.  Obviously we would affirm that John does not contradict Matthew, or Moses, for that matter.  However, we may let our listeners down when we give the impression that the human author’s individuality does not shine through in their writings.  In fact, we may be undermining the high view of Scriptures we affirm if we give the impression they were mere conduits for the dictation of God – a flawed understanding of inspiration!

Guidelines? Wherever possible, recognize and value the individuality of the human author when preaching a passage.  Generally seek to demonstrate the flow of thought within the book, rather than demonstrating the theology of the passage through cross-referencing all over the canon.  Perhaps consider how to preach the content of this passage using the vocabulary and style of this author (eg. I preached the resurrection passage in Luke in deliberately Lukan terms, rather than slipping into Johannine vocabulary or Pauline, 1Cor.15, argumentation.)

These are not hard and fast rules, just suggestions to help if this “side of the triangle” is being neglected in your preaching.  Other suggestions?  (The other two sides are coming, so please don’t get overly concerned that I haven’t emphasized the unity of the canon yet!)

Balancing the Balancing

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Every text says something.  No text says everything.  Our task is to preach the text’s something in a way that is faithful to the Bible’s “everything”.  Our task is not to preach everything from this text’s something.

Balance – you don’t want to preach something that on its own is faithful to the preaching text, but distorts the message of the Bible.  So we have to think about balancing it. For example, Psalm 1. This passage is saying that lasting blessing comes to those who live according to the Word of God, rather than the words of the wicked.  However, this does not mean that simply obeying the Bible’s ethical instruction leads to eternal life.  Psalm 1 may need balance to avoid misunderstanding or misapplication.

Balance the balance – we need to be careful though.  It is easy to be so excessive in balancing that we end up blunting the force of the passage at hand.  It is possible to always preach a vague biblical message without ever allowing the text through in its power.  So how to know how much to balance?

1. Remember your goal in this message is to preach this text, not the whole canon in one shot.

2. Consider your listeners (preaching Psalm 1 to a group with non-Christians will require more balancing from beyond the passage than preaching Psalm 1 to a group of Christians at a conference).

3. Consider if this is a one-shot, or part of a process?  People at an evangelistic event may only come once, but people in a church get more messages to balance each other.  However, even with evangelism we don’t have to give them the whole deal every time we get them in (but that’s an evangelistic issue).

4. Decide the extent of balance needed (is the message slightly incomplete, or significantly risky?)  Is the main thought of this message biblically true, or is it heretical if misunderstood (especially if easily misunderstood).

There is not a one-size fits all solution.  But I offer these thoughts as a prompt to consider carefully the balancing we do in our messages – not too little, but not too much either.

Sneaky Landmines for Preachers

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Here are a few sneaky landmines that we need to be very wary of  . . . what would you add as a warning to the rest of us?

Pride (I don’t need you) – Pride is a perpetual danger for all believers.  It can sneak up on us from such things as position (ecclesial titles), knowledge (earned degrees, reading, etc.), power and influence (good reputation, people pursuing us for input, etc.)  Pride is lurking constantly at the threshold.  We must beware of it.

Separation (I don’t connect with you) – Perhaps this is a fruit of pride, but it is a real danger for preachers.  Because of what we do and expectations placed on us by others or by ourselves, we can easily fall into the trap of going solo.  There are always risks that come from being vulnerable about struggles and weaknesses and failures and so on.  However, the risk of going solo is greater.  Many preachers struggle with loneliness in their spiritual walk and in their ministry.  Don’t go lone ranger.

Critical Spirit (I don’t like you) – It’s part of the package, par for the course, to receive direct or indirect hurts.  We can feel frustrated by response or lack of response.  Ministry and influence is a breeding ground for growing tension, frustration and hurts.  It is easy to “cope” by becoming critical toward others.  Beware!

What other landmines would you list as a warning to us all?

When Listeners Aren’t Satisfied – 4

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Taking some prompts from Boyd-MacMillan and blending them with my own thoughts, here are a few comments to prompt our thoughts on what to do when listeners aren’t satisfied:

9. Know your own inner landscape. We all have emotional baggage buried inside.  Criticism has a unique ability to slip through, stir up a deep wound and create inner turmoil.  It’s good to know what is going on inside, otherwise we end up taking a beating from external and internal foes.

10. Whatever the justification for the criticism, make sure it improves your preaching! While it may come in a package of intemperate rudeness, there may be a kernel of truth somewhere in there that will help you.  Don’t shrug off all criticism, for a sensitive spirit is critical to effective preaching.  However, be sure to have strategies in place so that rocket-propelled criticism grenades fired by immature or overly upset or “you touched a raw nerve” listeners do not take you out of the spiritual battle of ministry.

That’s not a complete list, but perhaps something is helpful there.  What would you add?

When Listeners Aren’t Satisfied – 3

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Taking some prompts from Boyd-MacMillan and blending them with my own thoughts, here are a few comments to prompt our thoughts on what to do when listeners aren’t satisfied:

6. Anonymous feedback is borderline useless. It’s too easy to blast away from the cover of anonymity.  It is better not to dwell excessively on ecclesiastical mortar attacks.  It is much better to seek out genuinely constructive feedback from trustworthy sources.

7. You don’t have to take the hassle. Remember that you have the freedom to pursue representing God and the gospel in another way, you’re not obliged to stay in the firing line as a preacher.  If you choose to take it because He is worth it, great.  If you feel the time has come to hang up your pulpit and serve in another way, go for it.

8. Strengthen yourself with the biblical giants. (I would add the great preachers of church history, but let me quote Boyd-MacMillan for this one…) “All of them dealt with carping criticism, misunderstanding and humiliation.  Let the experience lead you to a deeper appreciation of what Jesus endured to bring the gospel to each of us.  You might even end up thankful that you are not about to be crucified literally for your messages.” (p223)

Final installment tomorrow, I think.

When Listeners Aren’t Satisfied – 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Taking some prompts from Boyd-MacMillan and blending them with my own thoughts, here are a few comments to prompt our thoughts on what to do when listeners aren’t satisfied:

3. Remember that you answer to God. This is not to excuse bad preaching or oblivious ignorance of helpful critique.  This is to protect us from the unhelpful attacks that may or may not have anything to do with our preaching.  Obviously every sermon could have been better, but can you stand straight before God and give an account for the way you prepared in the time that you had?  Did you walk through the preparation by faith and do your best as a steward of the opportunity?  Our primary goal is to serve Him faithfully, not to please every nitpicker in the pew.

4. Prayerfully process feedback. This is true for praise as well as critique.  Process it prayerfully.  Ask what you can learn from it, and perhaps how you should pray for the source of it too (i.e. instead of getting all huffy about a personal attack, why not pray for the person who obviously has some deep hurt and tension within).

5. Remember that happy listeners may mean sermon failure. Our goal is not to make listeners happy with us.  Our goal is to faithfully present, explain and apply the Bible text to their lives.  What if the text convicts, or prods, or pokes, or makes downright uncomfortable? What if it shines a light in a dark place in their life and they don’t like what they see?  What if their dissatisfaction toward you and your preaching is a very positive sign of the word getting through?  Be careful not to misapply this, but sometimes knowing that listeners were offended by your preaching may be the best feedback that you are doing your job well.  Preaching is not about presenting yourself for a popularity contest (even if some churches make it feel like that!)

I don’t want to overwhelm with words, so I’ll cut it off for now . . .