Christmas Preaching 1: Familiar Passages

November 21, 2011November 17, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

I am in the process of preparing six messages for the Christmas season. Perhaps you are also preaching in the coming weeks of advent. Here are some thoughts that may be helpful:

1. There’s nothing wrong with familiar passages. It is tempting to think that we have to be always innovating, always creative, always somewhere surprising. Don’t. Just as children will repeatedly ask for the same bedtime story, and adults will revisit the same movie of choice, so churchgoers are fine with a Christmas message at Christmas. Sometimes in trying to be clever we simply fail to connect. Don’t hesitate to preach a Matthew or Luke birth narrative!

2. Preach the writer’s emphasis, not a Christmas card. Anywhere in the Gospels it is possible to be drawn from the emphasis of the text to the event itself. If you are preaching Matthew for several weeks, great, preach Matthew. If Luke, preach Luke. Whether it is a series or an individual message, be sure to look closely and see what the writer is emphasizing in each narrative.

3. Familiar passages deserve to be offered fresh. Don’t take my first comment as an excuse to be a stale preacher. There’s no need to simply dust off an old message and give it again without first revisiting it. Whenever we preach God’s Word we should stand and preach as those who have a fresh passion for what God is communicating there. There’s no excuse for a cold heart or stale content.

4. Fresh doesn’t have to mean innovative or weird. Now all this talk of fresh could lead us down a windy path into strange ideas. There is plenty in each text that is very much there, so we don’t need to superimpose our own clever and innovative “five facts about struggling against capitalism from the angel’s visit to Zechariah.” Equally, we don’t have to preach dressed as a sheep in order to offer something fresh.

5. Be careful when fresh includes disagreeing with tradition. You may find that looking closely at the text and studying the culture of that time actually causes you to question some stable assumptions (see what I did there?) Was there a stable? Where was Jesus born? When did the Magi arrive? How did the star thing work? Think carefully about throwing a hand grenade into peoples’ traditions. There is a place, and a tone, for correcting errant thinking, but tread carefully.

Saturday Short Thought – Preaching to Listeners

November 19, 2011November 16, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

This week I have blogged about listeners. I was preaching at a Christian Union gathering again this week, this time in Northampton. I preached from Matthew’s gospel to a gathering of missions agency reps and students. Since numbers were down on last week, it was more tempting to try and please the reps, rather than speak specifically to the students. I hope I managed to keep the message on target for the listeners that were the focus of the message.

I’m reminded of John Stott’s great book on preaching – Between Two Worlds. In it he introduces the metaphor of the preacher as bridge-builder. I often come back to his thought that we have to land the message on both sides.

Some preachers start in the Bible text and build straight up to heaven, without landing the world of the listener.

Other preachers start in the world of the listener and never make any real connection in the world of the Bible text.

True biblical preachers have to be at home in both worlds and make sure their messages are firmly planted in the text, and land solidly in the realm of the listener.

Simple thought, but so important. As you preach tomorrow, are you well-rooted in the text? Good, but don’t forget to land very clearly and relevantly in the experience of the listeners too.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Next week – Preparing to Preach Christmas Messages

Listeners and Pulpit Integrity

November 18, 2011November 15, 2011 / Peter Mead / 7 Comments

Listeners can sense a lack of integrity like dogs can sense when someone isn’t a canine fan. People long for the preacher to have a deep sense of consistency about them. And it isn’t just the big and obvious issues like consistency in the preacher’s private life or relational issues. Integrity comes into play in smaller things too.

For example –

1. Do you read Hebrew, young man? That’s what I wrote in my notes after hearing a younger preacher say, “A careful reading would say this . . .” It’s interesting how many of the preachers with no training in biblical languages seem so quick to make reference to them. “This is a present continuous tense . . . Paul used a genitive so that means . . . the original word here is better translated . . . “ I could go on. There is almost no good reason to make references to the original languages. And if you aren’t trained, there are even more reasons not to try. Take onboard what the commentaries say, but don’t imply knowledge you don’t have. (An even bigger concern here is how credulous many listeners are . . . many actually don’t spot it.)

2. If you read this book every week for twenty-five years, you would begin to see . . . I still find myself wondering if the preacher who said that had really read John’s gospel over 1300 times when he made that remark. It certainly undermined his credibility because it didn’t feel real. That’s the issue when integrity comes into question by what we say. Don’t imply that you have a shortcut to special knowledge (the same could be said of claims of direct revelation during preparation).

3. Is that really your angst that is firing now? Every now and then you will hear a preacher that seems to get worked up about something, but somehow it feels fake. It’s like a smile that doesn’t wrinkle around the eyes. It feels forced. Some preachers seem to convey a conviction about things that perhaps aren’t really convictions yet. That’s ok, just don’t pretend they are. It really undermines perceived integrity when your angst feels hollow and learned.

4. Personalised illustrations. Using someone else’s illustration is common fare in preaching. Pretending that actually happened to you, when it didn’t, is a lie.

5. Lifted sermons. Using someone else’s illustration is common fare in preaching. Being influenced by another preacher’s explanation of a text is good. Having your wording marked by theirs is unavoidable at times. But preaching a lifted sermon as if it were your own, well, what do you think that says about integrity?

Other ways we can undermine our integrity while preaching?

When Children Listen

November 16, 2011November 15, 2011 / Peter Mead / 6 Comments

Some churches seem to ban children from the main service. Others make the main service all about the children. The rest of us are somewhere in between. As a preacher I am conscious when people are drawn away from the message by a distressed or distracting child. And as a parent I am also very aware when a preacher doesn’t seem to be aware that children are present and listening.

Children are great recorders, but they aren’t great processors. They won’t fill in background context and think through why something the preacher said actually isn’t supposed to bother them, or scare them, or intrigue them. They’ll hear and then they’ll remember. And maybe they will ask about it later. But often they won’t.

So what kind of things do preachers say that parents may not appreciate?

1. Direct references to sex. The Bible is full of euphemisms for marital or extramarital intimacy. When children are present, don’t preach like you’re talking to prisoners, or sailors, or whatever. Yes, David did commit adultery, and yes Adam did know Eve, and yes, the Samaritan women had had five husbands and was living with a man. But no, there’s no need to be sensational for the sake of it. Show concern for the children, and other sensitive listeners.

2. Unnecessarily gruesome description. The Bible is not as prudish as some people make it out to be. Beware of description that may lodge in tender minds and prove unhelpful. Yes, there is a lot of death, the cross is an agonizing way to die by suffocation, a tent peg can be a quick way to leave this mortal tent, etc. But no, there’s no need to be so detailed that tender listeners feel traumatised and distracted from the real message of the sermon. Be careful.

3. Unhelpfully glorifying things parents may be keeping from their children. The Bible is not a simple list of forbidden and allowed, there are numerous grey areas. Beware of glorifying things that some parents might consider harmful to their children. Yes, Saul did visit a witch, Samson was both sensual and violent, and fishermen probably did have colourful language. But what if some families don’t want their children interacting with Harry Potter, or watching highly rated films, or listening to swearing, etc. Be sensitive to the more sensitive listeners. It’s not that we should allow Pharisees to control the church, but we certainly should honour parents as they carry the primary discipleship burden for their children. This isn’t a call for absolute avoidance of everything anyone might disagree with, it’s a plea for wisdom in order to avoid “glorifying” things which may not be wise and edifying for others.

Parents, how else should preachers be sensitive when your children are present?

Preach To Your Listeners

November 15, 2011November 15, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In my experience there is a clear division among sermons preached. Two categories, and almost every sermon falls cleanly into one or the other. There are sermons preached to the people listening, and there are sermons preached to some other group.

Here are some of the indicators:

1. People in the crosshairs. Sometimes the preacher seems to be focused very fully on me, the listener. He seems to know about my circumstances, my life, my local culture, etc. The preacher seems to care – it comes through demeanor, content, warmth, smile, etc. It is great feedback when people say, “it felt like that was just for me!” Some of that is definitely a God-thing, but don’t miss the difference your love makes! Other times the preacher seems to have the target fixed on some other people – those who don’t go to church, or the New Atheists, or the gang culture, or media moguls, or some high profile Christian leaders, or another denomination. That can be hard to take for listeners when they get the sense we are preaching to someone else.

2. Purpose of message. It may be that the preacher feels we need to be equipped to understand and handle the arguments of New Atheists. That could be very helpful. But sometimes it can feel like the preacher is having a go at certain people in their absence. It’s like when a preacher looks up from their notes and only looks over your head at the clock or the door. After a while you start to wonder why you are there.

3. Content of message. It seems so obvious that we should target our communication at those people we want to understand what we are saying. I wouldn’t preach in English without translation while visiting Japan (unless, of course, it were an English speaking gathering). So why offer content that is inaccessible to your listeners? Good communicators always make their listeners feel connected and focused on. It is true in conversation. It is true in preaching.

It is such a simple question, but so important. Am I preaching specifically to these listeners?

It’s All About Me / Us, Jesus

November 14, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Is the church filled with a sort of sanctified self-obsession? Do we fuel that with our messages, our words, our prayers? Today’s post is hosted on the Cor Deo site – click here to go there.

Saturday Short Thought – Preaching Good News

November 12, 2011November 11, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

This week I have been blogging on here about preaching the gospel, the Good News. Thursday night I had the opportunity to preach to a gathering of Christian students in Birmingham about what really matters to our God. It would be easy to make that kind of message into a guilt trip, a pressure message. Sort of like preaching about the good news, but dressing it up in the garb of bad news. But I tried to show how really it is all about Christ, and Christ is so careful with fragile ones like us.

I tried to show that while we have a mission to participate in here on earth, we are invited into that by a very sensitive Christ who doesn’t snap a bruised reed, or snuff out a smoldering wick. We all have reasons to hold back from joining in Christ’s mission to reach this world – financial reasons, guilt reasons, fear reasons. But the issue really isn’t those obstacles, the issue is Christ. And my aim, in preaching the passage I preached, was to bring the listeners face to face with the Christ who loves them and gave Himself for them.

So here’s a quick thought to end the week – if you are preaching tomorrow, and the core of what you are preaching is the gospel, will the message feel like good news? That is, will your presentation of Christ and the written Word smell of the grace of God? Or will your manner, your applications, your tone, your demeanour, your presentation somehow dress it up as something other than Christlike? Let’s preach good news.

Wear the Right Strait Jacket

November 11, 2011November 11, 2011 / Peter Mead / 5 Comments

This week I had the joy of leading a group in consideration of what it takes to be growing as preachers. I told them we need to wear the right strait-jacket. I also told them that most preachers wear the wrong one.

Actually, when it comes to biblical preaching there aren’t as many rules as people tend to think. The preacher has all sorts of freedom that should be instructed through experience of what works effectively, what achieves communication goals, etc. But there are not as many rules as people tend to think. As I wrote on here some time back:

Some like to impose significant amounts of structure on the preaching event, but in reality there are few limits involved. There may be some limits imposed by the culture and heritage of a church – congregational traditions – and it is wise to think carefully before smashing through those expectations in an attempt to be creative. However, these limits vary from place to place and it is possible, once trust is established, to carefully adjust such expectations.

So is there any constraint, or is it all freedom? And how is it people (in this age of freedom!) tend to choose to wear a strait jacket? And the one they choose to wear is the one that could well be cast aside? Here are the two strait jackets:

Wear This One – “To have integrity as a biblical preacher, I must be constrained by the true meaning of the passage I am preaching.” Each passage is saying something. When we preach, we need to say the something the passage is saying. We cannot say anything from anywhere in the Bible. While we can tailor and target and re-order and re-emphasize, we cannot say whatever we want from a passage. Some people, in the pursuit of “interesting” and “relevant” and especially “original,” will undermine the exegetical integrity of their preaching by saying what the text simply isn’t saying. Be constrained by the text you preach.

Don’t Wear This One – “To be considered a preacher, I must preach in a certain manner, using a certain form that qualifies as a real sermon.” While the first strait jacket guarantees our integrity as Bible handlers, this second jacket can sometimes undermine our effectiveness as biblical preachers. What shape should a sermon take? What style of delivery should be used? Matters of form are matters of freedom for the preacher to evaluate strategically. Different texts, different circumstances, different occasions, different strengths as a preacher, different personalities, different listeners, can all prompt different sermon shape and delivery style. At this level our goal is effectiveness in communication. We do not need unnecessary limits in place to hinder our effectiveness.

Sadly too many preachers settle into a predictable pattern where actually there could be considerable freedom – in matters of form and delivery. And too many show a wild freedom where there is a limit – in the meaning of the text. Let’s be sure to wear the right strait jacket, but throw away the other!

PS One More Critical Concern With Gospel Presentations

November 10, 2011November 11, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

I thought I might need to add more. Here’s one:

11. The Gospel requires clarity about the true nature of sin. Since the gospel of grace is good news about the solution to a problem, we have to be clear on the nature of the problem. What is the sin we are saved from?

Sin results in ignorance, but sin is much deeper than that. The gospel is not simply an education programme.

Sin means people don’t choose well, but sin is much deeper than that. The gospel is not really about God empowering our wills to choose rightly.

Sin means people broke and break the law – lawlessness, but sin goes deeper than that too. The gospel is not simply about God enabling us to become law-keepers again.

In the Fall, humanity didn’t just shift the moral prerogative from God to themselves, they shifted their entire affection.

Sin, at its core, is about rebellious rejection of the love of God in favour of love for self that influences every facet of our life and being. Our first parents turned from a love relationship with God to the death of self-love (a deathly curvature of the soul). The gospel has to address this deepest motivational reality of sin. In the Gospel, God needs to somehow captivate our hearts and overcome our powerful self-affection with a greater and more compelling affection, thereby drawing us back into fellowship with Him, which is life itself.

If we aren’t clear about the depth and extent of sin, then our Gospel presentations will be inadequate. People will listen and compare themselves with the depraved individuals that make the TV news, presuming their need is less since they don’t break the law quite that much. But when sin is seen as a heart issue at its core, then people can start to see that the manifestation might be lawless rebellion, or it might equally be self-righteous religiosity.

We must be clear on the bad news, in order to be clear on the good news.

Final Critical Concerns With Gospel Presentations

November 9, 2011November 7, 2011 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

To wrap up this mini-series, three more critical concerns with gospel presentations (I’m sure you and I could add more too!)

8. The Gospel is about God giving life to the spiritually dead and the Satanically blinded. The people to whom we present the gospel are not just uninformed, or weak, or sick, they are dead. And the god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers. This is more than a little obstacle. That is to say, we must never rely on our cleverness, our apologetic sophistication, our smooth presentation or any particular “this is the only way to evangelise” kind of presentation. Let’s benefit from all that is available apologetically, and let’s do the best we can, but let’s do that completely in dependence on, and in prayer to, the God who brings people from death to life.

9. The Gospel is about both personal and communal realities. Many of the contemporary critiques of ecclesiastical blind spots tend to push us toward a less individualistic and more corporate view of salvation. This is a vital need in an overly individualistic worldview. However, don’t lose one at the expense of the other. We are saved into dynamic relationship with the Trinity and the body of Christ . . . but we are brought into this reality individually.

10. The Gospel is about both present and future concerns. Again, many contemporary critiques of traditional evangelical Christianity focus their attacks on the traditional emphasis on the future and eternity. It is true that the Bible also speaks much about the present transformation brought about by the gospel, and about the present experience of eternal life, but the key term here is “also!” The Bible does say a lot about the future and eternity too. Both and. End of.

Well, probably not end of, since there are other things to add. Any thoughts?