Profound Explanation

March 27, 2012March 27, 2012 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday we pondered some aspects of profundity in preparation for preaching. Today let’s probe a little more on the issue of profundity in explaining a biblical text. Almost every preacher does some sort of explanation of a text, but what makes for a high enrichment without unnecessary obfuscation, uh, unnecessarily complicating it or overwhelming listeners?

5. Help listeners feel the original situation, don’t just bring imperatives over to today. To be a bit more specific, help listeners feel the original relational situation. If they can enter into the felt intent of the author, then the force of the text will be more effectively communicated. The writer didn’t typically write to simply convey information – discourse intended to move, narrative intended to engage, poetry intended to stir. As much as people claim to like straight application or direct commands, the truth is that application will always be more effective when the authority of the text is felt in its context.

6. Be theologically enriched, but don’t impose your theology. Walter Kaiser speaks of an informing theology that is flowing into a passage – it might be the backdrop of the Fall, the plan of the promise, the history of the nation, etc. Don’t treat a passage as if it were a standalone story in a sterile vacuum, but don’t trample all over it with your theological system either. Be sensitive to the hints in the text, to the passage in its context, and in its place in the greater story.

7. Select the pertinent elements of explanation, don’t be exhaustive. It is tempting to want to show all the study that has gone into the message, to cite all the commentaries, to note all the interesting anomalies in the syntax or the cross-references in your Thompson Chain Reference. Think through how much explanation is really necessary and genuinely helpful. Be targeted and purposeful. Omit anything that isn’t genuinely helpful. Better to give just enough explanation and leave space for application and relevance throughout the message, rather than over-packing the explanation and making it too dense, too broad or too irrelevant.

8. Seek to plumb the text, don’t just harvest imperatives. I see this a lot with preachers in the epistles. Rather than offering the uniquely inspired content of a passage, they make it feel much like any other and simply present what we must do. But that is like judging a person by their shoes and wristwatch – why not get to know them as a whole person? Get to know the passage, its flow, its logic, its relational framing, its purpose, its mood, its tone, its strategy. Then preach the imperatives as part of the whole.

Tomorrow we’ll move onto aspects of profound application.

Profound Preparation

March 26, 2012March 26, 2012 / Peter Mead / 8 Comments

This week I’d like to ponder what it might look like to pursue a more profound preaching ministry. While most would acknowledge that preaching should neither be dense nor inaccessible, this does not mean that shallowness and dumbing down are the order of the day.

Profound preaching must surely start with profound preparation. Four suggestions to get a week-long list going:

1. Begin with humble recognition that you yourself need to be changed by God. It is too easy to think of preaching preparation as being about you the preacher pursuing a message to preach to them, the needy recipients. At this point in the process you stand very much in their shoes, needing to hear from God. You need to encounter His heart in His Word. You need to be marked deeply and changed by a God who communicates, who cares, who challenges and who changes. It makes no sense to have profound faith for the sake of others, but not an openness and humility in yourself. The preparation of a sermon will be a privilege, an opportunity for God to mark your life profoundly.

2. Study the passage to know God, not just the facts. It is easy to treat Bible study as a pursuit of non-trivial trivia. Don’t. Study the passage in order to know God better. What is His self-revelation saying of Him? How are the characters responding to Him? Wherever you are in the canon, the passage is theocentric, so make sure that your heart is too.

3. Don’t mix your message preparation with your Bible study. As a preacher who cares about the congregation, or as a preacher desperate to be ready on time, it is tempting to blend passage study with message formation. Keep the stages separate. You have the privilege of doing some in-depth Bible study, take advantage of that! You may not be able to help thinking of who you will be preaching to, but try to keep those thoughts until you’ve really gotten to grips with the passage (or better, until God has gotten to grips with you through the passage).

4. Saturate your preparation in prayer. This should go without saying, but it can’t, so it won’t. The entire preparation process should be absolutely pickled in prayer. Prayer in passage study, prayer in personal response, prayer in “audience analysis,” prayer in message formation, prayer for delivery, prayer for life change, prayer for immediate impact, prayer for long-term fruit, etc.

Tomorrow I’ll offer a few more thoughts, this time on profound explanation in preaching. Feel free to comment any time.

Saturday Short Thought: Year on Year

March 24, 2012March 23, 2012 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

This evening I have the privilege of speaking at the 80th Anniversary celebration of a church in Surrey. As preachers it is tempting to think that the next message we preach is the only one that matters. But a chance to look back with friends at God’s work over eighty years will be a great chance to celebrate the long-term impact of God’s Word.

The building work of preaching – week after week, the Word of God faithfully preached to a gathering of believers will shape them. This could be in a good direction or not, which is why it is so vital that we watch carefully the diet that the flock are being fed. One poor message here and there may not produce tangible trouble, but diet does matter. I am convinced that if the churches in this country received a steady diet of just plain well-handled Bible sermons – nothing spectacular, just plain, accurate, faithful and lovingly served biblical truth, then the church would be in a very healthy place!

The shaking work of preaching – some messages, or series, will shake a church. This is good. Just as our personal reading should shake up our theological convictions and how we live, so the Word should shake a church. Some preachers want to create a visible shake every week, which may not prove so sustainable or helpful in the long-haul. But looking back over the years, I suspect healthy churches can see seasons where God’s Word brought about change (usually with discomfort and tension in the process).

The cumulative work of preaching – the steady weeks and the firework weeks, the series that seemed to hit home, and those that passed by, interspersed with the messages that brought instant fruit, and perhaps a few that brought critical feedback . . . over time the diet of God’s Word does something to people, to a church, to a community.

Your sermon this Sunday may not be the talking point of this Monday, but it is part of the history of your church being written over the decades. Preach the Word.

__________________________________

Next Week: Pursuing Profound Preaching

Representing the Gospel

March 23, 2012March 22, 2012 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

When we preach, we are representing an absolutely glorious gospel! I was just emailing with a friend in another country who made the observation that in some cultures preachers entertain people to death, while in others they bore people to death. So true. So wrong.

The preacher is representing a message from a communicating and wonderfully gracious God, and it is a message of great news. Here are some ways that we might fall into a false representation:

1. Boring news. If we ponder it for half a minute, we should repent of ever boring people with the message of the Bible. How can we take such a magnificent message and make it boring? If it doesn’t even keep our preaching from being dull, it can’t be that good, can it?

2. Restricting news. If we really read the New Testament carefully, we should never come across as if the gospel is the good news of life restricted. It sets people free from slavery to sin to know life to the full. Certainly there are costs involved, perhaps even our lives, but if the preacher looks like all life has been strangled out of them, what does that represent?

3. Angry news. If all the preacher offers is a visual representation of the wrath of God through their demeanor and expression, might that indicate that they don’t know the God they preach about as well as they should? Christ attracted the broken, he didn’t scare them all away.

4. Silly news. If the preacher has to act like a clown to get the attention of the listeners, I suspect there may be a problem in the content of the message. If the preacher has to be a sophisticated entertainer, then I still suspect there may be a problem in the content of the message.

5. Illogical news. If I can be honest, some preachers almost convince me that the atheists are right. It sounds like everything is about a petty creator judging well-meaning people for the smallest of sins with the greatest of torture, but its okay because we just need to say a magic phrase to get a ticket to paradise. Sometimes the gospel just seems illogical, and…

6. Flimsy news. If I can continue from the previous point, sometimes the message just seems so lightweight that it doesn’t seem to stand up to listeners questions, let alone any real scrutiny. Is the simplistic and self-centred gospel really what so many have given their lives for? Were they burned at the stake for something so flimsy? Surely not.

7. Tired news. If listeners are not stirred by the gospel, it should be because they are blinded by the god of this age, not because it isn’t stirring. Christians listening should be responsive, and if they are not showing some indication of how great the news is, perhaps that shows the preacher hasn’t really represented the gospel well.

What would you add?

God’s Representative

March 22, 2012March 20, 2012 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

I’ve only had one job with an official uniform. Whenever I wore it, I knew I was representing the company. People would see me doing my job and they would see the whole company. If I left a positive impression, the company benefitted. If I didn’t, it didn’t.

Preacher, you represent God. And I’m not primarily concerned about what clothes you wear. I am referring to what demeanour you wear, what character you wear, etc.

Since this post is just sent out into the ether, can I be blunt? Some preachers seem to not know the God that I know through His Word. At least, if they do know Him, it doesn’t show. Hang on, let’s stay blunt – it should show.

Some preachers minister to a church just by being there. Somehow their interactions are genuinely caring, their demeanour reflects a God who is relational, their manner reflects a gospel that is good news, their lives reflect a relationship with a God who changes us from the inside out. Others don’t.

I think it is vitally important to communicate the meaning of a text as accurately as possible. But I know that communication includes more than the words used to explain the passage.

Communication includes demeanour, smile, manner, personality, body language and vocal tone. When Jesus spoke, broken and sinful and needy people were drawn to him. When Jesus spoke, only the hyper-religious seemed to get upset. When some of us speak, it seems like only the hyper-religious can connect. Surely this ought not to be?

Take for example, how moody God is. I hope you’re thinking He’s not moody. But some people preach as if He were – sometimes He is in a loving mood, sometimes He’s in an angry mood. Surely if we read the Bible carefully we’ll see that God is love, which can help explain some of the tougher sections. He isn’t wrath, which must then “balance” the loving side.

Should we therefore not preach judgment sections, or rebuke sections? Of course we should, but perhaps we’d be closer to God’s heart if we were to preach through tears rather than clenched teeth?

When we stand to preach from God’s Word, whether we like it or not, whether we know we’re inadequate or not, we are representing God – a personal God, a God who has revealed Himself, His heart, His values. We represent Him. Do we represent Him accurately?

Canonical Representation

March 21, 2012March 20, 2012 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I pondered the nature of the preaching event as representing the text being preached. Let’s push that further. My sermon this coming weekend needs to also represent the whole of the canon.

This doesn’t mean that I need to try to cram in the whole of the canon. I have observed some preachers who seem convinced their role is to quote as many different books as possible. I counted 25 out of 27 New Testament books in one sermon – that was quite a feat (or ordeal, depending on your perspective!)

There is value in showing how your passage fits in the whole, especially when earlier themes are feeding into the preaching passage, or when it offers a sense of anticipation that needs to be followed through. There is value in helping people see how the whole story of the Bible flows. (It is worth saying that there are also reasons to stay focused where you are – it is much easier to go on a wild safari in the back seat of a concordance than it is to clearly go below the surface in your specific passage.)

So this weekend, whether I refer to other passages or not, I need to remember that I am representing the whole canon.

This means the God of my message shouldn’t come across as if our only revelation were this specific passage. How sad to preach a passage and leave listeners with the sense that God is petty, or nasty, or soft, or distant, or whatever. This passage is one piece of a bigger whole that we represent as we preach.

This means that the whole scope of God’s plan shouldn’t come across as being simplistic – it’s all about me and my forgiveness, or it’s all about us and our salvation. Paul warned the church in Rome not to become arrogant through a simplistic salvation model.

We should neither automatically cross-reference, nor always stay only within our passage. We need wisdom to choose how overtly we engage the rest of the canon. But the fact remains, we represent the whole Bible as we preach a part of it.

Representing!

March 20, 2012March 20, 2012 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I always get nervous when the preacher is the centre of attention.

In a sense it is inevitable that the preacher will be focused on – the preacher is the one taking the risks inherent in putting your head over the parapet, standing there for half an hour and baring both your understanding and your life. We shouldn’t wonder when people use us for target practice or to roast over Sunday dinner.

However I do get nervous when the preacher either courts or seems to settle into being the centre of attention. Our flesh will naturally thrive on any pride-fodder. That could be the “visiting man of God” mentality that pervades some cultures and is offered to the preacher, or the “specially called” mentality that seems to ooze from some preachers.

The reality is that it is not the preacher’s masterpiece based on a text that should be the focus, nor the preacher as a masterpiece of God’s handiwork (although the extent of God’s work in a life usually does show). The preacher and the sermon function as representatives, not as figures of interest in their own right. I’d like to chase that idea a bit for a few days.

Let’s start with the sermon itself. As I’ve written before, a sermon shouldn’t just begin with a text, or bounce off a text, or even be based on a text. The sermon should really re-present the text.

Obviously the preacher will bring strengths of explanation and presentation, and the profile of the listeners should shape the targeting of that text. Nevertheless, the preacher’s task is not just to say what the text says, but also to do what the text does.

The text isn’t a mere repository of information or sermonic illustration, it is a fully inspired section of God’s Word. So the preacher should be so gripped by it that there is a yearning to bring across that text with its full force.

I can’t imagine the churches Paul wrote to receiving his letter, reading it out and then going on as if nothing had happened. I’m sure those writings stirred response. How sad that so often sermons based on those texts have somehow failed to represent them adequately. How sad to see people walking out of a church apparently untouched by the text presented, viewing the sermon as a required duty of church practice (and quiet listening as a required duty of good Christians).

As we preach a Bible text, let’s keep in mind that the sermon event – both the message and the preacher, are representing that passage to these people.

Ministry Actually Is God’s Work

March 19, 2012 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

A little statement from Paul in a transitional paragraph in Galatians offers us some real encouragement in our ministry. The post is hosted on the Cor Deo site, click here to go there.

Preaching Triangle & Touching a Nerve

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

This week in Cor Deo I had the chance to give an hour’s introduction to Ezekiel. A brief look at chapter 28 in our sweeping overview allowed a glimpse of the message to the “King of Tyre” and a chance to ponder the fall of Lucifer through a heart corrupted by a self-ward gaze.

I suspect the enemy isn’t overly concerned by some Christian preaching. You know, the kind that offers a sanctified version of Genesis 3. You can be independent, you can be successful, you can be like your own god, you can be equipped for a self-concerned life. Whether it is evangelistic (you can get yourself the best future for you, here’s a ticket to a nice heaven password) or edificatory (you can be an independent success story, just look to yourself and do these things)…I suspect the enemy isn’t too bothered.

But what if a preacher catches on to the Preaching Triangle reality of interdependence? The preacher’s own dependence on God in a love relationship, then a shared concern for the listeners to become reliant on God in a love relationship, manifesting in preaching that seeks to forge connections between listeners and preacher, and more importantly, God. This be fighting talk from the perspective of the enemy of our souls!

Interesting how the verses that jump to mind seem to support this post. Resist the devil and persist in being right and doing good? No, resist the devil and draw near to God (in the context of broken relationships, friendship with the world, the jealousy of God over the Spirit made to dwell in us, humble dependence on God). The devil prowls around like a roaring lion, so resist him and do right in yourself? No, resist, recognize the experience of your brothers around the world, look to God to restore, confirm, strengthen, etc., which is why in humility we should cast our cares on the God who cares for us.

But what about the armour of God, that is all about individual response isn’t it? Oh hang on, a key part is praying at all times in the Spirit, and they were to be praying for Paul too. Never mind. One more? The god of this age has blinded the minds to keep folks from seeing the light of the good news of the glory of Christ, the image of God, so how did Paul preach? Take a look at 2Cor.4 and see his dependence on God and self-giving for them . . . preaching triangle in the context of a great spiritual battle.

Do not lose heart. Real relationally driven preaching will touch a nerve with the enemy, but the solution can never be a retreat into non-relational solitude, that’s just his way.

Other Gods and the Preaching Triangle

March 16, 2012March 12, 2012 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I suggested only a genuinely Trinitarian view of God can make sense of the relational nature of the Preaching Triangle. What would it look like with other Christian versions of God?

First, a God who is primarily and essentially alone can think only of Himself. The thread of self-glorification would sour the relationships and make the whole circuit somewhat duty oriented, the delight would be sapped. The preacher would be information-oriented and have a tendency toward a pressurizing manner as they preach.

At the same time, both the preacher and the listener would feel a tension between seeking the good of others in obedience to that command, while there is an under-tow of self-orientation in the God who drives the whole for His own self-honouring. Both preacher and listeners might be drawn toward pursuit of Christianity for self-oriented goals. There would probably be a different tone of relationship at every level – between the people and God, between the authoritian preacher and the dutiful listeners, etc.

Second, a God who is primarily and essentially unknowable would not make self-revelation the centre-piece of Christian ministry. Instead any preaching model would pay little attention to the Bible, perhaps using it to stir an experience in the listener that doesn’t have integrity with the actual meaning of the text. Perhaps it would be downplayed for the sake of the experience of worship so that the emphasis would be on some kind of encounter beyond revelation, rather than an encounter with a knowable God by means of His Word.

Has God made himself known, or are we to chase a mystical indescribable experience? If the latter be the case, then the Bible would diminish in the triangle, and the preacher would be both elevated and diminished at the same time. Elevated to the status of unique channel of spiritual power through which listeners might access the special experience. Diminished because the communication of God’s Word isn’t really that critical in this type of Christianity (so I’d expect the preacher to offer unique benefits other than good biblical preaching in order to maintain their own import).

These brief critiques of two common false views of God assume that a relational view of preaching is accurate. If either of these views of God were accurate, then the preaching triangle would be inherently different. Much more authoritarian and less relational in the first case. Much less content oriented and experiential in the second.

If our experience of preaching ministry is closer to the two critiques just offered, perhaps we need to revisit our view of God. Which Christian version of God is shaping our preaching ministry, really?