Effective Bible Teaching 1 – Geography

May 22, 2012May 18, 2012 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

There are many ingredients that go into effective Bible teaching – whether that be pulpit preaching or children’s Sunday school lessons. Two critical ingredients are history and geography. It is almost impossible to teach the Bible well without an awareness of history and geography. Haddon Robinson follows John Stott in speaking of the world of the Bible. I’d like to try and whet our appetites for study in these important fields. Work put in here will yield a real harvest in presenting the Bible to others.

John Smith, in his History of Virginia (not highly relevant here), wrote:

As geography without history seemeth a carcus without motion, so history without geography wandereth as a vagrant without certain habitation.

So true. So what are some of the elements of geography that will help our biblical teaching?

Nations and Empires – In the back of most Bibles are a set of maps. It can’t be just one. We need to get a sense of the ancient world from Spain to Iran, with Israel as a tiny place. We need to see Israel and even Jerusalem close up. But more than that, we also need to see a world changing through time. The great Assyrian Empire, so feared, then gone. The mighty Babylonians, then the Medo-Persians, the swift conquering, lasting cultural impact of Greece, the machine that was Rome. We need to see Egypt and Assyria with Israel in between. We need to see how Judea really was on the fringe of the Roman empire. Nations and empires, kingdoms and regions.

Distance and Terrain – The fertile crescent was quite some distance for Abram, or for a captured Judean king. The direct route from Babylon to Jerusalem was another story – that would need some major hill removal and valley filling if a motorway were ever to be made. The lush green rolling hills around Galilee are not out of reach of arid Judean mini-mountains, but again the direct path via Sychar was seldom travelled, many preferring the fast falling Jordan river route. Heading west wasn’t easy either – sea voyages were fraught with dangers from storm and foe (although there was the fishy option), but Roman roads and iron-fisted peace helped the spread of the gospel.

Cities and Towns – We all know that our town is not the same as the one down the road. A city isn’t just more inhabited than a town, it is different on numerous levels. So we must avoid seeing every biblical place as some sort of generic town. Nazareth was a garrison town for Roman soldiers, Tarsus was a city of some means, also well acquainted with Rome’s fast moving war machine, and Philippi had its history with Rome too. Yet each of these places was different. Tekoa and Jerusalem are by no means the same. A reading of Acts points to the strategic nature of hub cities in the growth of the church, while the most obscure of villages have a part to play in God’s plan – even little Bethlehem is graced beyond words! And what about Rome, can the gospel penetrate even Rome?

All of this, and more, lies motionless without the vivifying force of history. To which we turn tomorrow.

I Don’t Feel Like Reading My Bible

May 21, 2012May 18, 2012 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

What advice would you give someone who says they don’t feel like reading their Bible? What advice would you give yourself? Just do it anyway? Today’s post is hosted on the Cor Deo site . . . click here to go there.

Saturday Short Thought: Applicational Yet Unengaging?

May 19, 2012May 17, 2012 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I’ve been thinking about preaching that connects with the congregation. Part of the issue is the complex consisting of application and relevance. But this is not the whole issue by any means. So here is a question: is it possible to be totally applicational in a message, and yet completely unengaging?

I believe it is possible. If there is no personal warmth between preacher and listener, and if there is no vertical warmth between the preacher and God, then a highly applicational message could easily become an instructional rant based on a text.

This isn’t something any of us should strive for. Problem is that if we think being relevant and applicational is the whole deal, then we can overlook the fact that communication is best offered in the context of interpersonal warmth. As preachers our listeners need us to have that reality in both dimensions!

A good friend of mine has a stock of great sayings, one of which goes, when you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail. So true in preaching. A chilling of the temperature in our personal walk with God will show in our communication with others. Even the most winsome of texts can become an opportunity to hammer on the duty theme again, for example.

Let’s leave it there, that almost qualifies as a short thought!

Preaching to the Mixed Congregation

May 18, 2012May 17, 2012 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Almost every gathering to whom we preach is made up of a variety of people. As preachers we tend to address a smaller cross-section than are actually before us. Some of us will tend to only address the unsaved, others only the saved. Some will inadvertently target men, others only appeal to the ladies. Some will subconsciously try to connect with the younger generation, others will only see the aged before them.

Preaching to two peoples: There are only the saved and unsaved, technically there is no “half-saved.” Having said that, from the perspective of the listener there does seem to be a spectrum – from complete newcomer to all things Christian, to those feeling drawn, to those on the cusp of trusting, to those who are newborn, those who are in the midst of their first love, those who are growing with the usual growing pains, those established, those entrenched, those with doubts, etc. But lest we get overwhelmed, let’s remember that there are those present who don’t get the culture in which we worship, or the content of which we speak. And there are those that do. Both can and should be engaged with God’s Word.

Preaching to two genders: I remember being in a discussion where the presenter was arguing that all preaching is male oriented. Not only are most biblical characters male, but so are most characters in illustrations, and those illustrations tend to be sporting or reflective of male interests. This was a fair point and worth pondering. At the same time, one member of the group pointed out that he has no problem getting women into his church, but it is the men he struggles to keep. Statistics would back him up, too. I don’t think there’s an easy solution to this, but we certainly should prayerfully pursue a sensitivity to the congregation before us. And let’s avoid the stereotypes. Not every male is Tarzan. Not every female knits.

Preaching to multiple generations: It can feel irrelevant to sense the preacher only feels comfortable with the elderly of a certain generation. It must feel tiresome to know that the preacher thinks only of the “church of tomorrow” in an attempt to be contemporary and relevant to a certain generation. Truth is that the church is made up of more than one generation. Jesus honoured the children when his disciples would have dismissed them. The Bible repeatedly honours the widows and the vulnerable. We daren’t preach only to the twenty-somethings or the settled late-careerists.

I like the way my friend works. He puts five representative names on cards and spreads them out on the table as he formulates his message. Will this connect with him? Will she feel engaged? And them?

Preaching to the Whole Person and the Whole Congregation

May 17, 2012May 17, 2012 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In his chapter entitled “Powerful Preaching,” in The Preacher and Preaching, Geoff Thomas writes:

“One of the great perils that face preachers…is the problem of hyper-intellectualism, that is, the constant danger of lapsing into a purely cerebral form of proclamation, which falls exclusively upon the intellect. Men become obsessed with doctrine and end up as brain-oriented preachers. There is consequently a fearful impoverishment in their hearers emotionally, devotionally, and practically. Such pastors are men of books and not men of people; they know the doctrines, but they know nothing of the emotional side of religion. They set little store upon experience or upon constant fellowship and interaction with almighty God. It is one thing to explain the truth of Christianity to men and women; it is another thing to feel the overwhelming power of the sheer loveliness and enthrallment of Jesus Christ and to communicate that dynamically to the whole person who listens so that there is a change of such dimensions that he loves Him with all his heart and soul and mind and strength.”

Not only do we need to address the whole person before us, but also all the persons before us. Ramesh Richard lists three attitudes that will be listening during a message:

1. The I Don’t Cares! These are not hostile, they just don’t feel they should be there. They are there out of a sense of duty to friends or family, or habitual routine. For this attitude the need raised at the beginning of the message is critical. Without it, they are free to continue their inner stance of not caring.

2. The I Don’t Knows! They lack the background awareness that others may have regarding God, the Bible, Christianity and church life. These people need good biblical content clearly explained.

3. The I Don’t Believes! These people are doubtful about the truth of what is said, or the applicability of it to real life. They are likely to test what is said with questions such as, “Is this truth coherent?” or “Is the sermon consistent?” or “Is this truth practical?” and especially, “Will this work?” For this attitude you must demonstrate a coherent consistency as well as practical relevance.

Before preaching it is worth prayerfully considering whether the sermon is merely cerebral or emotional, and whether it will engage these three attitudes. Is a clear and valuable need raised? Is there sufficient accessible explanation? Is the message relevant and life engaging? We preach not to get our study into the public domain, but to see the lives, the hearts, the attitudes of our listeners changed by exposure to God’s Word.

Insightful Incidentals – part 2

May 16, 2012May 15, 2012 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday I suggested that some preaching points pursued from minor details in a text can be well off-target. But does this mean we are constrained to a rigid main point only approach? Generally this wouldn’t hurt most preachers, but let’s say for argument’s sake that you are very conscientious on preaching the main idea in a text . . . are there some guidelines for commenting on the less central details?

1. Make sure you’ve understood how the detail relates to the whole before you say anything else about it.

Biblical narrative tends to be sparse in nature. Papyrus was expensive and the writer’s were sober. They didn’t waste words. So if a detail is present, assume the detail is important to the specific goal of the passage. Rather than rushing into an easy preaching point, be sure to make sense of the detail in the whole passage, and the whole passage in light of the detail. Once you know how it is working here, then maybe it bears some passing interest in its own right.

2. Make sure any comment you make concerning the detail is rooted in its context.

Plucking a phrase or sentence out of context to say something it doesn’t say . . . well that is the arena of the cults. Let’s not subtly prepare our people for the cults by modelling cult-like Bible handling in the pulpit (or they might go for it on their doorstep!) A text is saying something. You can’t legitimately say anything from a passage, be sure to say the passage’s something. Context will always be the key to correctly interpreting the meaning of a detail. If it doesn’t mean what you want to say, be patient until the passage does say that. Perhaps even select a preaching passage accordingly, but be committed to saying what the text is actually saying. Never force.

3. Make certain any passing applicational point is rooted biblically.

There may be a place for a passing application point, but be sure the application is genuinely biblical. Many a moralistic point has been made that is more preacher’s culture or personal preference than biblical teaching. Many are committed to the idea of comparing scripture with scripture during the interpretation phase of biblical study. I think more would do well to compare scripture with scripture in anticipation of making their applications. I think Haddon Robinson said a few times that there is more heresy per square inch in the field of application than in any other aspect of preaching.

More could be said on all this, what would you add, or clarify?

Insightful Incidentals?

May 15, 2012 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Whatever passage you are preaching, there will be opportunity to make passing comments about relatively minor details. Of course, all Scripture is God-breathed and there is no such thing as a non-essential word in the Bible. But a high commitment to verbal plenary inspiration (i.e. the words are inspired, all of them), does not mean every word can become a preaching point on a whim.

So what sort of insightful incidental comments are best left unsaid altogether? Tomorrow I’ll address the potentially appropriate ones, but for now, just the baddies:

1. Distracting moralisms – For example, the preacher is working through the story of Zaccheus’ encounter with Jesus. The setup is finished, Jesus has just called Zac down from the tree and there is an interim comment before the big scene in his house. The interim comment is about the crowds grumbling. Cue preacher going off on a gentle tirade about grumbling and how bad that is for a church. A couple of wilderness quotes, the threat of excessive quail dinners and then the diversion is over, back to Zac’s dinner table. Oops. And then some. This story has nothing to do with whether people should grumble or not. Actually, if the preacher had observed more closely, it would have become clear that the comment by Luke is not wasted at all. The crowds grumbled at Jesus! Here is the key point in the story, the moment when Jesus diverts anger onto himself to free up sinner Zac. By looking for a moralistic application point, the preacher has missed the transformational gold of grace in action. Chances are, after missing that, the same preacher might go on to make Zac’s proclamation of distribution into part of his salvation negotiations, rather than the pure response that it actually is.

2. Errant critiques – For example, the preacher is working through the story of the blind man healed in two stages. In this case he hadn’t given any attention to the preceding content in Mark 6-8, which is so critical to understanding this unique story. Getting to the end of the passage, his eyes are drawn by the red ink of Jesus’ words in verse 26. “Do not enter the village.” Voila! Preaching point. We don’t do follow-up these days! We need to learn from Jesus. Jesus didn’t just heal, he also gave instruction. Don’t go back into the world. Just follow me. Etc. Etc. Meanwhile the more astute listeners have their eyes on the text wondering how the preacher missed the first half of the verse. Did Jesus ask this blind man to follow him? Or did he actually send him to his home? It is perilous to be looking for preaching points, rather than really reading the passage to understand it.

3. Personal soapboxes – I’m out of words, but you know what I mean. The slightest hint in a passage and off goes the preacher on a personal crusade.

So easy to preach in vague connection to a text. So much safer and better to preach the message of the text.

Saturday Short Thought: Seeker Sensitive Preaching

May 12, 2012May 12, 2012 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

For the past two weeks I have been blogging my way through what I think might be the ten biggest big ideas in the Bible. I’m sure there are others that should be included.

And I’m sure there are some that shouldn’t. I’ve watched a discussion on a forum where people have been posting their own lists in response to my suggesting there might be eight to ten such macro thoughts. One or two suggestions have seemed to be off-track. My concern is not to wrangle over debates between one theological camp versus another. My concern is that the God of the Bible be represented well when we preach the Bible.

I suppose I could call this seeker sensitive preaching. That is, is our preaching sensitive to the great seeker, the one who came to seek and to save the lost? He is passionate in His seeking, as evidenced in His Passion. Surely it must grieve Him when our preaching misrepresents His character, His nature, His concern, His desire, His goal.

I don’t know if you have pondered what you might include in a list of 8-10 biggest big ideas in the Bible. But if you do come up with a list, let me suggest you review it in light of this question – do those big thoughts represent accurately the character of the God who reveals Himself in His Word?

The same question should be asked of any sermon. When we preach we are not just explaining an ancient text, nor even just declaring a faith tradition passed down to us: we are representing the living God. Let’s be sure we represent Him well.

Biggest Big Ideas – 10. Christ

May 11, 2012May 7, 2012 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

We’ve covered a lot of ground in nine posts. A lot of threads weave through the canon. The resulting tapestry is stunning and breathtaking, but we can’t help ourselves, our gaze goes from the whole to the who…the one who reveals God to us, the Son.

10. The centerpiece of God’s great Word is His Word, His Son, our Lord, the Christ, the deliverer called Jesus, from Nazareth.

The epic adventures of God’s chosen people take more than a few posts to tell. In various times, in different ways, God spoke to them. But in these last days He has spoken to us in a son! Can we ever get beyond the wonder of Jesus of Nazareth? Fully God, fully man, fully one.

His arrival should not have been a surprise. God predicted and announced His coming, as if the enemy were so unequal that even with press releases and pronouncements, his terror attacks would amount to nothing. More than that, God showed His Immanuel-ness all the way through.

God is the kind of God who would choose to walk on two legs with His creation in the garden. But what of an unholy people, surely they could not see His face and live? He is the kind of God who would meet with such as Abraham, and Jacob, and Manoah, and let them live. He is the kind of God who would dwell in tents near His special people, meeting face to face with Moses.

And so the communication of the Father became flesh and pitched his tent among us, so that we beheld his glory! No one has ever seen the Father, but if only we could request just a glimpse? If you have seen me, Jesus would announce, you have seen the Father.

So he spoke to a gathering of the biblically trained elite, and also to a pair of hurting disciples on a road trip. To both he made it clear that the Scriptures speak of Him – by prediction, by appearance, by certain types, by fulfilled themes. Their hearts burned within. Two, in delight at the One who came for them. The others, in anger for the love of God was not in them. The Christ stirs hearts, he can leave none in some hypothetical neutral apathy.

The glory of God’s grace and faithfulness manifest in the flesh of a carpenter from Nazareth. Can anything good come from there? He was the solution to sin, the revelation of God, the forever bond between divine and human, the one who is coming, the one to be worshipped, the one who is friend, who is brother, who is bridegroom.

The greatest theme in the Bible is not our sin, our faith, our redemption or our obedience. It cannot be primarily about us, and yet wonder of wonders, it is about the One who became one of us. The incarnation, the step us-ward, the path cross-ward, the indignity of humiliation at the hands of those created in His image. Can anything good come out of Nazareth? Oh yes, the only One who is good came to there, and from there.

The foundation stone and centerpiece and capstone of every good idea, promise, purpose and revelation is the Word made flesh, the ultimate revelation of the Father, His beloved Son.

Biggest Big Ideas – 9. Hope

May 10, 2012May 10, 2012 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I started this series last week with the note that Haddon Robinson had suggested that the Bible weaves together about ten bigger big ideas. I’m offering my list, feel encouraged to read the Scriptures and write your own. We’ve pondered our triune God, His creation, our fall into sin, His grace, our faith, His great work of redemption, resulting in our unity, the spreading giving goodness of God’s plan and now we have two left. The Bible is saturated with this theme:

9. A fallen world is a place of despair, yet sin cannot win against our great God, so His people always have hope.

From the very beginning God’s book is a book of hope, because God’s people have a God worth trusting. Even in the very moment of rebellion, in the sentencing phase of the first ever trial, God gave not punishment, but promise. The seed of the woman is the hope of a fallen humanity.

Eve thought she had him in the joy of a son born. The generations passed, but God is not slow in keeping His promise. The promised one was coming in the line of Shem, of Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob, of Judah, of Jesse, of David – of the unlikely, of the unholy, of the ordinary people in the line of an extraordinary promise.

The prophets told of the coming servant who would suffer, the coming King who would reign. Generations ticked by, but for those with hearts aligned with God’s, hope only grew stronger. Each father potentially in the line and gazing into his little Jewish boy’s face would wonder. Finally it was a step-Dad’s little boy, a tiny bundle of life that he carried into the temple courts to be gazed on by two sets of faithful hope-filled aged eyes.

Now we live in light of His coming, and yet we look forward. Almost every book of the New Testament speaks of the future return of our Christ, the groom coming to take us home to the Father’s house prepared for us. We live in the shadows between two great spotlights, the appearing of the grace of God, and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ. That is our blessed hope.

Some suggest such a hope is a crutch for the weak, or an anesthetic for the hurting. The truth is we are so weak we need more than a crutch, but this hope does not dull our senses. It enlivens us to live this life with hearts beating after His, with eyes to see His faithful loyal love, with ears to hear His word that stirs faith. Hope transforms the darkest vale of tears, not by a temporary fix, but with the perspective of His forever plan.

The hope of the people of God is not a hope restricted to manageable circumstances or changeable situations. It is a hope that holds in the face of hellish opposition. It is a hope that stirs when death seems to own valley of the shadow in which we walk. It is a hope that steps forward to pay even the greatest price, knowing that it is not we that stand on a slippery slope.

This earth has nothing we desire besides Him. So we live on this earth gripped by the hope that only a good God would offer.

And we will not be disappointed. We wait, we live and we die still anticipating a city whose maker and builder is God. We hail home and do not shrink back, as those looking forward to the homecoming of those bought and washed in precious blood, a community with no trace of sin and its effects.

Yet our hope is not really the city with its perfect architecture and untarnished building materials. They are as asphalt compared to the real glory of that city. For our hope is not merely the place, nor even the privilege of participating in the gathering of the rescued people, our hope is the Person himself in whose presence we will know the fullness of joy – we will be forever with the Lord!

The hope God gives has always gone beyond the where, to the who.

God, who has called you into fellowship with His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful.