Homiletics

Two Ways to Feed

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

VitaminsThere are essentially two ways to feed someone.  I may decide to chase further possible analogies tomorrow, but for now, just two ways:

1. The pill shower.  Next to our stove we have a funny shaped little dish.  It usually contains some real treasures.  It is where my wife puts her supplements for the day.  There will be vitamin C for the immune system and various B vitamins for energy levels, and perhaps some fish oils for joint and heart health.  Every one of those pills has real value for health.

Let’s say I come home from work and join my family at the dinner table.  We pray and then my wife unveils the meal for the day – a randomly shuffled assortment of vitamin pills from the funny little dish!

Healthy? Technically it is.

Satisfying?  Nope.

Sustainable for long-term health and growth?  Hardly.

But is this not the way some of us preach the Bible to people in the church?  An assortment of truth nuggets randomly assorted and presented in some manner as a “healthy diet”?

There is an alternative:

2. The meal.  A meal tends to consist of a restricted number of elements carefully prepared and served in an appropriate order and combination.  A meal can be healthy, or unhealthy.  It can be gourmet or a highly processed “ready meal.”  Oh the potential points of connection are multiplying!

Preaching a meal means preaching a passage or a small combination of passages, rather than assorted truth nuggets from all over the place.  It means thinking about who you are preaching to and what they might need, rather than a standardized packaging of recommended daily allowance supplements.  It means building long-term health and growth and even taking issues of satisfaction into account (although not exclusively, of course, or they may get a case of itchy-ear-itis).

Meals tend to be different each time, whereas a diet of supplements would always feel the same.

Let’s preach meals, seems like a proven and healthy approach to feeding folks.  I’ll let you ponder the multiplying analogies. . . do you preach fast food, pre-packaged or home-cooked, etc.?

Point 3

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

ExclamationFinishing off the list of potential dangers that come from pouring our efforts into generating memorable outlines, rather than seeing the sermon outline as our strategic plan (which is for us, rather than primarily for them).  The strategy and the weapon should not be confused in warfare, and the strategy / arrow confusion in preaching can undermine the process.  So continuing on:

4. The potential for present impact can be dissipated by energy poured into future recall.  Let the present message mark deeply now, rather than relying on recollection later when impact may be diminished.  In fact, preach in such a way that present impact is as profound as possible, combined with motivation to get listeners back into the Bible on an ongoing basis.  (What if people don’t feel capable of finding the three brilliantly stated points when they look at the passage again?)

5. The arrow of the main idea can be lost in the listing of lower level sub-points.  Deliver one idea effectively and you will see lives transformed.  Overwhelm people with numerous sub-points and impact won’t be the description being used of the preaching.

6. The listener can develop the notion that preaching is about poor education.  You know the type of education I mean, listening for the points that will be on the test, then forgetting everything two days later.  Preaching can imply life is like that, but it isn’t.  We need to know someone, much more than we need to know lots of things.  Spirituality is not defined by taking notes or filling in the blanks.  As I’ve written before, “It’s weird, but when my wife opens her heart to me and speaks, I don’t reach for a pad and a pencil, I open my heart and I listen.”

I could add more thoughts, but will leave it there.  Feel free to add more, or disagree, of course (after all, taking away the transfer of outlines from our view of preaching is not a small move).

Point 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

ExclamationPeriodically I like to come back to this issue of outlines and whom they serve.  The sermon outline is the preacher’s strategy, but it is not the actual “weapon.”  If we think of the message purpose as the target, and the message idea as the arrow, then the outline is the strategy.  Strategy is important, but the goal is for those on the receiving end to leave with the arrow firmly implanted in their hearts and lives.  The strategy gets it there, but if they go away with greater awareness of strategy than arrow, then something has not quite worked.

Am I suggesting that making an outline memorable is not the main goal for the preacher?  Yes.  Am I saying that a memorable outline is wrong and should not be offered?  Not at all.  If the outline happens to be memorable, that is fine.  But the preacher’s energy is better spent getting the listener into the passage and getting the main point of that passage into the listener’s heart with a clear sense of its relevance to their lives and the encouragement to respond appropriately to the God whose heart is revealed in the text.

Allow me to offer some of the potential dangers of focusing on creating a memorable outline:

1. The focus can easily be shifted from the passage to the preacher’s craft.  This is where the listener is listening for the preacher’s message based on a text, rather than looking for the message of the text.

2. The biblical passage may not be preached honestly.  This is what happens when a text is squeezed into an outline form, rather than having the message shaped and controlled by the text.

3. The listener can be drawn toward the clever preacher, rather than the wonderful God.  This doesn’t mean that we preach dull and plain so that all focus can go to Christ.  Rather, we need to beware that our cleverness doesn’t become a distraction from the God speaking in the Bible.

I’ll finish off the list tomorrow…

Point 1

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

ExclamationSome quick-fire suggestions to strengthen the points part of sermons:

1. Actually say something.  Don’t settle for titles, instead write full points.  Make a statement.  Declare something.  It is better to have a full sentence than a label.  Labels and titles are written communication, but spoken communication doesn’t use titles.  When we tell a story from our day, we don’t use titles:

“So while I was filling the car at the petrol station I noticed that the tyre had a bulge in the side.  I checked it, and sure enough, a hernia in the tyre wall.  Tyre Replacement.  So I took the car into town and ended up having two tyres replaced at the place next to the car dealer.  It was not cheap, I can tell you, but safer than . . .”

We don’t speak like that, so let’s not preach like that.

2. Try to make the point contemporary rather than historical.  Why talk for several minutes about the ancient near eastern historical background to a point made by a letter writer back in the day…and then make an application before moving on.  Listeners could well have moved on long before you get to the application.  Why not make the point itself relevant to us and then support that from the text?

3. If you want to write a commentary, write it, don’t preach it.  The last two points really mean that we are not called to preach a commentary (with its historically rooted titles for sections).  So while commentaries may be useful in our preparation, they can never do the work for us.

Lots more to say, what would you add?

Jesus vs Religion – Knowing God

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

StainedGlassJesus2Yesterday we pondered the replacement of love with false reverence.  Now for another test to know when “the religious” is at work in the church (launching from some thoughts of John Eldredge in Beautiful Outlaw):

2. Knowing about God substitutes for knowing God.

“Therefore, teaching is exalted.  Church feels like a seminar—could be intellectual, could be motivational.  Good content is what matters.  Doctrine is fiercely defended.  Members can explain to you theories of the atonement, or seven steps to success, but can’t name one intimate encounter they’ve had with Jesus.” (172)

This is a very real danger for us preachers.  Especially those of us who have had the privilege of attending formal theological training in some form.  One of two things tends to happen in Bible school, and both are problematic.  Either we have a great time of personal growth as we delight in the studies and learning environment—which results in us viewing church as an opportunity to recreate that academic environment.  Or we have our faith numbed as we grow sophisticated in our understanding of what true Christianity supposedly is—which also results in us viewing church as an opportunity to recreate that academic environment.

Church is not seminary-lite with courses running one lecture a week over several weeks.  Church is a different animal.  There should be an educational component, but it should be so much more than that.  (Part of the problem may be that Bible college and seminary should be so much more than that too, but over time the ideals of the founders of Bible Institutes and Colleges tend to dull toward secular respectability, intellectual sophistication and spiritual deadness . . . perhaps a subject for another day.)

Let’s be very careful that our own study and personal walk with Christ is genuinely intimate rather than allowing it to reduce to academic study alone.  Then let’s make sure our preaching pursues life transformation and personal introduction, rather than settling for information transfer and cultural reinforcement.

3. Power displays are confused for intimacy with Jesus.

Some churches celebrate the miraculous and delight that God is at work in their midst.  But chasing the next miracle is not the same thing as chasing Jesus.  In Eldredge’s words, “I can give someone a thousand dollars and it doesn’t make them my friend.  They can keep coming back to me for more, and it doesn’t make them my friend.” (173)

Even if we have great stories to tell of God’s coming through in our lives and experience, let us not short change our listeners by failing to invite them into the reality of relationship with God Himself.  A Christianity that offers only the benefits of Christ without the person of Christ might be no Christianity at all.

Jesus vs Religion – Loving God

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

StainedGlassJesus2In his book, Beautiful Outlaw, John Eldredge lists ten tests to know when “the religious” is operating.  This week I am walking through them for us to ponder as preachers, and in respect to our preaching.  Please see the first post for a caveat regarding concerns with his books.

1. False reverence replaces loving Jesus.

 “In fact, loving Jesus is considered optional.  I know, it seems to hard to believe.  But it’s really quite common.  You don’t meet a lot of people, frankly, who are given over to loving Jesus.  But they live a clean life, attend church faithfully, and are considered to be ‘good Christians.’” (172)

Is it possible to be a Christian, but to have the “being in love with God” part be an optional extra – extra credit, if you like?  I am afraid this is all too common.  Jesus could not have been more clear about the greatest commandment.  I think John’s gospel also hints a little about the issue of loving God.  But we have come to the place where people define being a Christian based primarily on praying a prayer, making a commitment, and assenting to a basic creed.

I am glad he put this one first.  It is truly fundamental.  If you don’t love Jesus, something is profoundly broken.  Paul said so in 1Corinthians 16:22 if anyone does not love Christ, he is accursed.  Let’s stop accepting alternative measures of true faith to avoid the central one.

Loving Jesus is not an option for you as a preacher, and it is not an option for those who go by the label Christian.  If you don’t love Jesus, don’t preach.  If you do love Jesus, then when you preach don’t just prompt a pretense of love by adding certain terminology to the creedal commitments of the church.  We don’t need churches full of people who adopt an alteration of their “vocabularius receptus.”  We need to help our churches be full of people who are transformed from external religious practice to real love for a Christ they discover to be so captivating and a God whose love is so transformative.

Jesus vs Religion – Introduction

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

StainedGlassJesus2Over the years I have generally enjoyed John Eldredge’s books.  Never completely, but always a lot.  Never completely because there tends to be some things in each one that I wish he would state differently.   Theologically I am not on the same page, and I know that he is strongly critiqued by some.  Since this blog isn’t intended to be a place of critique, I won’t go into any detail here, but will offer some interaction with this caveat in place.

The latest one I have read is Beautiful Outlaw.  This is a book about Jesus subtitled, Experiencing the Playful, Disruptive, Extravagant Personality of Jesus.

Eldredge’s portrait of Jesus will most certainly help the reader to enjoy Jesus, perhaps for the first time.  I am saddened by the thought that some of us claim to have known Jesus for years, but hesitate if we are asked if we like him.  We can determine whether we like a person within minutes of meeting them, but apparently we can know Jesus for years and not instinctively know whether we like him?

The majority of the book is given to personality traits of Jesus and is written positively.  But nearer the end of the book Eldredge sets his sights on religion as the great blanket that deadens our delight in our Lord.  He states:

By the way, this is the bottom line test of anything claiming to be of Jesus: Does it bring life?  If it doesn’t, drop it like a rattlesnake.  And you will find that the religious never, ever brings life.  Ever.  That is its greatest exposure. (209)

He points out that Christianity and Christian culture are by no means the same thing.  We need to hear this.  He points to the development of personal preferences that are then defined as the only right way to do church and to know Jesus.  He points out that a lot of Christian culture can get pretty weird, including a language and affected pronunciation that goes with it.  But “loving the culture of the church is not anywhere close to the same thing as loving Jesus.” (170)  We can’t forget that the Pharisees loved their religious culture, but hated Jesus.

This isn’t just a quaint quirkiness in churchianity.  Eldredge  suggests that religiousness is a ploy of the enemy.  In his words, “a wing nut talking about Jesus does far more damage than fifty atheists.” (171)  So true.  I’ve met a few.

He goes on to list the bad breath effect of those who claim some intimate connection to Jesus, but whose lives are so unappealing: “’Gifted Preachers’ who are mean to their children.  ‘Anointed Prophets’ who cannot sustain ordinary friendship.  ‘Servants of the Lord’ who need to be the center of attention.” (171)

Since people loved to be with Jesus, but are often repelled by the culture we’ve created around his name, I think it is worth prayerfully probing this subject over the next few days.

I’d like to take Eldredge’s ten tests of religiosity and walk through them for the rest of this week.  How are we doing, as preachers?  That is, as those often so visible to both believers and visitors.  And what is our preaching doing?  Are we pushing people toward Christian culture, or inviting them to know and enjoy a compelling Christ?

Ground-Zero Preaching (Easter in the Pulpit) 3

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

ChildShockedCrucifixion images tend to be sanitized.  The reality was so much more shocking than we tend to realise.  The frequency of reference, combined with serene artistic representations, has led many believers to have a altogether unrealistic mental image of the crucifixion.

If you are preaching in the next couple of days, before the celebration of Sunday, how should you handle the passion of our Lord?  It is tempting for some to try to be as graphic as they can.  The motivation may be good, but the net result can be lacking.  Turning peoples’ stomachs is not the goal of Easter preaching.  By all means be as biblical and historically accurate as you can be, but always keeping in mind that your listeners are a mixed bunch.

Some of them may fill their minds with horrific images from movie and video games.  But there will be others present who find the slightest hint of blood  brings about faintness and nausea.  The goal is to preach Christ and Him crucified, not to preach so that all people recall is the horror of crucifixion itself.  So beware of excessive medical detail, or overwhelming graphic description, or repulsive projected images.

It is important to remember that people will be drawn by the work of the Spirit, not by the effectiveness of our storytelling and vivid description.

We need to find the right balance this Easter.  Tell it well and help people to know the historicity and reality of Calvary.  But be careful to rely fully on the Spirit to stir the heart, as opposed to simply stirring the stomach by excessive and unhelpful shock and awe tactics.

Ground-Zero Preaching (Easter in the Pulpit) 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

NailsFour gospels do not automatically mean four accounts of everything.  In fact, most of the ministry of Jesus is told in less than four gospels (except for the feeding of the 5000).  But once you get into passion week, then you have four gospels giving their all to get the story across.  This is both a goldmine and a potential distraction for preachers.

After all, we can piece together so many details of that first Easter.  At the same time, we can easily lose the theological emphasis of whichever gospel we are wanting to preach.

It is good to check all the gospels for accuracy.  You don’t want to preach from John and make an error according to Matthew or Mark.  The passion narratives do harmonize, but it is not always immediately easy to see how.  So be sure to check and be fresh on the historical harmonization, but . . .

Preach the passage, not the historical harmonization.  I am preaching from John this year.  I want to make sure that the listeners hear what John intended to communicate.  The gospels are not a transcribed video script, they are carefully crafted presentations of the history artistically woven to achieve something specific in the hearer.  Our task as preachers is not just to tell the history, but to trust that the Gospel writer knew what he was doing (since the capital “A” Author was fully at work in each of the Gospels), and to preach accordingly.

It is a privilege to have the Bible in our language and to be able to preach one of the accounts.  Even if you rotate through the Gospels each Easter, it will be four years until you come back to this year’s Gospel.  Be sure folks get to hear it this time around!

 

Ground-Zero Preaching (Easter in the Pulpit)

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Hammer

Easter is not like Christmas.  The latter tends to go unmentioned for most of the year, then people come out with expectations of hearing familiar content and carols.  Easter is the real ground zero of the Christian faith.  We tend to, or should, return to it week after week.  So what do we do when Easter comes around?

Some might try to get clever at Easter . . . excessive creativity, abundant gory description, shocking video clips, etc.

Remember that regular church attendees need to hear the basic Easter story.  Jesus left his disciples with a frequent reminder, an acted out parable that would help them remember Him: His body given, His blood shed.  So don’t think we have to get clever at Easter.  Those who know and love the Lord profoundly appreciate a carefully planned biblical presentation of the passion.  They will appreciate a Matthew shaped message, or one in the Mark mold, or Luke’s take, or John’s.  They probably won’t even notice a harmonized presentation from multiple gospels.  They appreciate Paul’s reflections, or those in Hebrews, or even a glimpse of the Lamb looking as though it had been slain from Revelation.  Pick a passage and preach it clearly.  No need to be clever.  Believers need to hear the ground zero Easter story.

Remember that visitors need to hear the basic Easter story too. Perhaps it is visitor season as families share holidays together.  They may be interested, or they may be being polite.  Whatever their motivation, what they need is clear and sim

ple.  They don’t need obfuscated “modern art” preaching or a creatively nuanced oblique side-reference to the gospel.  Pick a passage and preach it clearly.  Everyone needs to hear the Easter story.

I am not advocating being boring or predictable.  I am not critiquing creativity.  Let’s certainly seek to be as effective as we can be in our communication of Easter.  And let’s remember that effective can often mean simply preaching the basics: take people to ground zero and help them know the significance of what happened there.