Dangerous Assumption 4: God (continued)

May 23, 2013May 19, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

After pondering variations on the assumption that it is all about me (either in the direction of striving or divinely enabled successful independence), yesterday we probed the issue of an “all about God” assumption – namely, the glory filter. Here’s another “all about God” filter that may be corrupting our reading and preaching of the Bible:

6. The takeover filter. There is no question that God wants to be God in the life of the listeners. The Bible says a categorical No! to our autonomy from God. But we must be careful not to misrepresent the salvation plan. The predominant biblical motif is that of marriage, not dictatorial control. I have been crucified with Christ and no longer live, but there is also the life I now live. Huh? Captivated by our groom and united with him by the Spirit, we are invited into a marital relationship, not a bizarre state of hypnosis and unthinking passivity. The Bible does not invite us to enter into a non-communicative and non-reciprocal relationship with a takeover Spirit. We are not invited to go beyond the Bible into a higher level of spirituality that is impossible to describe, yet worthy of our greatest efforts to pursue personal surrender to it.

The Bible invites us to know God and to be in fellowship with Him by His Spirit in response to His love. It is a relationship of hearing His heart in His Word and responding to Him in prayer and walking with Him and keeping in step with His Spirit and being both dead to self and yet more alive than ever (since life is, by definition, knowing God). There are various unbiblical and sub-biblical versions and perversions of Christian spirituality. Some do sound very Christian, but even when the focus is apparently all on God, it is still possible to corrupt the Bible and misrepresent what He is saying.

Dangerous Assumption 3: God

May 22, 2013May 19, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Dangerous assumptions lurk below the surface of our preaching preparation, always ready to undermine our most diligent exegesis and expositional planning. We can diligently do everything well in our study and message preparation, but the tinted glasses of our own dangerous assumption will colour the end result and undermine the preaching process. Our goal in pondering these assumptions is not to throw stones at others, but to prompt us to pray and ask God to help us see where we aren’t seeing clearly. It can be painful to discover an errant agenda in our preaching, but if our goal is to please Him, then surely we must ask Him to show us if there be any dangerous assumption in us.

So far we’ve looked at some variations of the assumption that it is “all about me” – both in the direction of pressure to perform for God and in the direction of getting God to perform for us. But there’s another assumption we need to be wary of too:

Dangerous Assumption B: It is all about God.

5. The glory filter. There is no question that everything should be done for the glory of God. But some have morphed this doctrine into a form that seems to have lost the relational and motivational moorings of Scripture. Rather than seeing the delightful glory-giving nature of the Triune God who is revealed by Scripture, glory becomes this dutiful commodity that a self-absorbed God demands from us constantly. There is a real danger that glory can become the measure of behaviour demanded of listeners, without their hearts being stirred by the glory of God’s glory. Haman glorified a man he despised from the heart. But God the Father has always glorified the Son because he loves him (John 17:24).

Should we be stirred to glorify God by the preaching of His Word? Absolutely. Who would ever come up with a God who is all-glorious, yet also lovingly gives glory to the undeserving? The danger is when we twist the God behind the text into a glory-grabbing tyrant and preach every passage accordingly. It will sound very biblical, but it may end up being a slightly sanctified variation on the duty filter that turns everything into a human-centred preaching model.

Tomorrow we’ll think on another variation of an “all about God” filter that may not be consistent with the Scriptures.

Dangerous Assumption

May 20, 2013May 19, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Good preachers will preach the passage they claim to be preaching. Even in a topical message with several passages being presented, the preacher should be sure to say what that text is actually saying. Using texts to say what the preacher wants to say is an indication of a pride problem in the preacher. However, even the diligent preacher of the passage before them can undermine their good work by dangerous assumptions that undergird their work.

These assumptions come various sources, but they tend to be theological paradigms that cause the preacher to see any text in a certain way. They are like tinted glasses that change the hue of everything. This will lead to misrepresenting the Bible and potentially to some significant false teaching in the church. Over the next days I’d like to try to highlight some of these tints in the hope that some might be prompted to pray and ask the Lord to expose their own false or dangerous assumptions. It would be good for us all to do that.

Dangerous Assumption A: It is all about me.

There are many potential angles here.

1. The duty filter. This could be driven by a faulty view of God, an errant understanding of the gospel, a separation of gospel from Christian living, baggage from childhood abandonment, theological pride, personal guilt and a whole lot more. Whatever the root, the result is that every passage is seen through lenses that underline and embolden imperatival content, or even introduce this tone where it is not present. So the preacher takes any story or psalm or passage and turns it into a set of duties for the listener to strive toward.

2. The guilt filter. This is associated with number 1, but it seeks to transfer feelings of guilt onto the listeners. This is perhaps less optimistic. Whereas in the previous angle the listeners are pressured as if they can simply choose to obey and be diligent, this lens turns the text a shade of sour. Now the goal is not so much to instruct and pressure, but to make the listeners feel guilty and therefore pressured. The motivational effectiveness of guilt is questionable in the extreme, but this approach to preaching can have the feel of desparation about it. Like all of the filters in this sub-set, it tends to skim over the problematic issue of turning listeners in on themselves, which is at the very heart of the sin issue we are claiming to address as we preach the Bible.

There’s another side to this, which we’ll ponder tomorrow.

Contagious Pulpit Boredom 2

May 15, 2013May 14, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday we pointed out that God is not boring and the Bible is not boring. So why is some preaching boring? Two more facts and then we’ll get to the heart of the matter. . .

3. Life is not boring. Even in a safe neighbourhood where nothing seems to happen and people may complain of being bored, life is not boring. With all its complexities, doubts, troubles, questions, issues, fears, hopes, changes, challenges and memories, life is not boring. As we preach we preach from the inspired text to people desperately in need of what God has to say through the Word to them. Preaching with relevance should not be so hard, as long as we are in touch with life and its challenges.

4. Church is not boring. Many churches are, in fact, boring, but church itself is not. God’s glorious plan to call out and redeem a bride for His Son, working with materials that are still very much “works in progress” to build a beautiful temple, that is anything but dull. Now when we turn church into our own little kingdoms and lose any real awareness of what God is doing, then church can become a dull place of petty politics and personal preferences, but church from God’s perspective is never a dull matter.

So why is there dull and boring preaching? It must be something to do with the preacher! Hate to say it, but perhaps this can be a nudge to ask God to search our hearts and show us if there is any of the sin of boring people with the Bible in us? Actually, why not pray and then ask a few folks? It could be delivery, it could be personal manner, it could be that all the enthusiasm we generate for conversation about sport and family evaporates when we stand to preach. It could be a lack of personal vibrancy in our walk with the Lord. It could be a lack of sleep (perhaps due to number 4 above!) It could be something easy to change. Or it could be that we genuinely are finding God and the Bible and life and the church to be boring. If so, let this post be your call to a sabbatical or urgent action. Boring people through preaching is too dangerous to let it happen even once more.

Preaching and the Harvesting of Imperatives – part 2

May 13, 2013May 11, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Last time we looked at the importance of seeing all of a text in its context, rather than plucking out heads of command for instant applicational preaching. We also highlighted the need for seeing the wider context since instructional sections of books were intended to be heard alongside the doctrinal foundations. Here are two more points to ponder, especially for those of us who tend toward the harvesting of imperatives for our preaching preparation:

3. Impartial tone sensitivity. Not every imperative is a command. As I have mentioned before, a little Greek can be dangerous. Knowing that a word is technically imperatival in mood does not mean it is automatically a command as we tend to think of them. It could be a pronouncement, or an request/entreaty, or even a stereotyped greeting! While it would be nice if we could all know our Greek better, that is not the only key here. One thing we can all do is to develop a sensitivity to the tone of the text. Some preachers are able to turn any textual “tool” into a sledgehammer–not because the text is one, but because that is all they can see. Their personal baggage makes every invitation, every encouragement, every description, every single text into a sledgehammer that needs to be smashed into the consciences of their listeners. Personal baggage is hugely damaging in biblical preaching.

4. What kind of God is this? Here’s a final thought to keep in mind. As you are reading through the Bible, consider whether the God being described is really a power-hungry law-giver, or whether we might be projecting something onto Him with such emphases. After all, what if the consistent thread throughout the canon is God’s loving relationality and therefore the imperatives might be reflecting a jilted lover rather than a distant law-giver? Perhaps it is worth a read through to see if that makes a difference to how we see the imperatives.

These posts are not intended to deny the importance of imperatives. Thank God that the Bible does not leave us in the dark as to what a person brought into relationship with God will look like in everyday life. But let’s beware that we don’t make our role as preachers into a pressuring role when our task might be presentation. How lives are changed is so significant an issue that I’d invite you to take a sabbatical and ponder it at length.

Preaching and the Harvesting of Imperatives

May 11, 2013May 11, 2013 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

In our natural desire to make our preaching applicable and relevant, we may be tempted to simply harvest imperatives. That is, to find the instructions in a passage and make them the preaching points. That surely avoids all the baggage and allows us to get to the point and preach with potent relevance? Here are four thoughts to keep in mind if you tend toward this approach:

1. Content, context and coloured fonts. Some people are huge fans of red-letter Bibles. These Bibles use different coloured fonts to allow the reader to spot when Jesus is speaking. Maybe that is helpful. And maybe, for some, it creates a level of confusion. After all, surely more than one or two folks have fallen into the trap of thinking something Jesus said is therefore more important than the fully inspired packaging of Matthew or Mark’s gospel writing around the quote? All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful, including the bits around what Jesus said. Same is true of imperatives. If we were to get an “orange letter” Bible with all the commands highlighted, we would be in danger of elevating imperatives in an unnatural manner. In our preaching we can effectively do the same. We need to be sure to study and present the meaning of the passage as a whole. All the content matters, all the context is relevant.

2. Wide, wide as the canon. The context of an imperative is not just the immediate setting of the sentence, paragraph or section. We need to develop sensitivity to the wider context. For instance, in the epistles we need to be sure to view the letter as a whole when we are looking at the imperatival sections in detail. That is to say, Ephesians 4-6 assumes Ephesians 1-3. It was meant to be heard at once. If we dive into the latter part of the letter (same with Romans, Colossians, etc.) without the first part, then we can turn description of God’s mercies and calling presented in real life terms into stand alone burdensome commands and duties. Let’s be sure to read imperatives in the context of the whole book, and with the assumed context of the theology of the writer as informed by earlier Scripture.

I will finish the list on Monday . . .

Treasure Shifts – part 2

May 4, 2013May 3, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Here is the rest of the list of treasure shifts that can occur in the heart of a pastor/preacher. Paul Tripp hits the nail on the head on almost every page of his Dangerous Calling, but I am just offering this snapshot for now (review to follow in the next weeks!)

4. ESSENTIALITY: Moving from rest in the essential presence of Jesus the Messiah to seeing oneself as way too essential to what God is doing.

. . . I begin to load the burden of the individual and collective growth of God’s people onto my own shoulders. This causes me to devalue the importance of the gifts and ministry of others and tempts me to assign to myself more than I am able to do. In ways that I probably am not aware of, I’ve begun to try to be the Messiah instead of resting in my identity as a tool in his faithful and powerful hands.

5. CONFIDENCE: Shifting away from a humble confidence in transforming grace to overconfidence in one’s own experience and gifts.

. . . We are all capable of becoming all too confident in ourselves. A confidence shift begins to take place from the treasure of humble confidence in the power of rescuing, forgiving, transforming, and delivering grace, to rest in my own knowledge, abilities, gifts and experience. Because of this, I don’t grieve enough, I don’t pray enough, I don’t prepare enough, I don’t confess enough, and I don’t listen to others enough. I have begun to assign to myself capabilities I don’t have, and because I do, I don’t minister out of my own sense of need for Christ’s grace, and I don’t seek out the help of others.

Andy Stanley’s 7 Guidelines part 6

April 30, 2013May 10, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

So to finish off Andy Stanley’s list of seven guidelines for preaching to the unchurched, here is number 7…

Guideline 7: Don’t go mystical . . . unless you want a new car.

I have resisted the urge to quote too much, so I’ve earned some quoting credit.

If you are serious about your weekend service serving as a bridge for those who are returning to faith or exploring faith for the first time, stay away from the mystical. Even if you are in a highly charismatic church, stay away from the mystical. You don’t live that way. Nonbelievers don’t live that way. So don’t preach that way. Mystical just puts distance between you and your audience.

Now, on the other hand, if you are into positioning yourself as “God’s man” or “God’s anointed mouthpiece” or other such nonsense, then mystical is the way to go. Mystical communicates that you have an inside track; you are closer to God than the people in the audience could ever hope to be. Mystical creates . . . mystery! And with mystery comes fear! And that puts you in the driver’s seat. Once you get your people thinking you are something special, they will treat you special. Throw in a little prosperity theology and in no time you will be driving in style, dressing in style, and the people close to you will never question your decisions. How could they? You are God’s man. It’ll be awesome.

Now, your spouse and kids will know you are a poser and a phony. But eventually your spouse will get so accustomed to the fortune and fame, he or she won’t say anything. Your kids, on the other hand, well, they’ll be a mess. But you’ll have the resources necessary to ensure they get the best treatment options available. Wear contacts. Avoid reading glasses. Get yourself an entourage, an Escalade, and some armor-bearers, and you will be good to go. Oh, one other thing. Stay away from the Gospels. Things didn’t go well for those guys. Stick with the Old Testament. The Gospels could be hazardous to your charade!

While many may not quite follow through to that extreme, there are many who offer a mystical charade as a means of multiplying the sense of authority in what they say. We need a radar for this kind of stuff in our own hearts and lives. Actually, we have a radar. He’s called the Holy Spirit. So while a false mystical approach can be so damaging, a humble walk with the One able to search us and know us is so important for communicators.

Point 3

April 12, 2013April 11, 2013 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Finishing 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 1

April 9, 2013 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Some 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?