Passion Sappers 3

October 6, 2011October 3, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

For two days we have been pondering possible problems that might instigate a drain in our passion to preach. We thought about our connection with God in the first post, and our vision for the church and its ministry in the second post.

Let’s not miss one more important possibility . . . maybe the issue is something in our life or ministry that is draining the passion. After all, we seek to connect with God and with the listeners, bridging the gap between the two. But we mustn’t miss the reality that in preaching, the preacher matters too. Maybe it isn’t something spiritually wrong, or a ministry vision issue, maybe it is something else?

Am I physically healthy? I won’t turn this blog into a physical health advice column, but I know myself . . . I am more motivated for everything when I am looking after myself physically – drinking enough water, exercising regularly, eating carefully, watching intake of supplements (a deficiency in a single vitamin or mineral could be wiping you out), avoiding filling my body with low-level poisons and junk fuel, etc. Even apart from the contradictory message that it sends to listeners when we are completely unhealthy, or the poor stewardship of living in such a way as we are likely to die years younger than necessary, I know it is worth looking after ourselves for the sake of energy and motivation levels alone.

Am I getting enough rest? It is easy in the pressure zone of ministry, not to mention family life, other work commitments, etc., to cut corners on rest in order to get more done. Truth is that we are designed to function best with sufficient rest. Burning the candle at both ends will damage our ability to think clearly, to function with energy, to stay healthy, etc. Sometimes we need to remind ourselves of the truth in Psalm 121 and 127 . . . our Lord never slumbers nor sleeps, but He does give to His beloved, even while we are asleep!

Am I engaged in stimulating fellowship? Two of the loneliest places I can think of are the pulpit and the church leadership position. Being involved in ministry leadership creates a certain distance and loneliness. It should not be this way. God has designed us to function best in teams, stimulating one another, sparking dreams and vision, looking out for each others’ hearts, etc. Have you fallen for the pyramid climbing view of leadership hierarchy that means you are keeping others at a distance to maintain your own position of power? It’s time to let others in and experience the unique joy and stimulation of genuine fellowship, of interdependence, of daring each other to dream and pray to a God who can do more than all we ask or even dare to dream.

Other passion sappers? I’m sure I’m missing a few . . .

Passion Sappers 2

October 5, 2011October 3, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday we pondered a pair of possible reasons for a perished passion to preach. Focusing on God, our abiding in Christ and in His Word, is very important. Yet preaching is about the link forged between God and our world. Perhaps the passion is drained by a loss of vision for the recipients of the ministry?

Passion for the Church – Do you see no hope of change or progress in your church? At its core, biblical preaching in the local church context is about seeing God at work transforming lives and the church community as you speak for Him. When the hope fades due to apparent ecclesial entrenchment, so will your passion to truly preach engagingly and relevantly in the church. Sometimes this is about leadership structures, sometimes about power-figures with personal agenda, sometimes it can feel like church-wide malaise with a commitment to concrete boots when it comes to moving forward (and it can feel like drowning is the only option). The local church environment can be a brutal place to do ministry, but it is God’s primary plan. Perhaps your eyes have shifted from the One who promised to build His church to the ones apparently committed to thwarting that mission in your context. Eyes on the Lord!

Passion for the Community – Have you lost the sense that your church can reach its community? At its core, biblical preaching in the local church context is about seeing God’s spreading goodness reach beyond the gathering of believers to the community in which God has placed you. But in an increasingly hostile environment , where the church seems to be increasingly marginalised by society, it is easy to lose hope of impact. While I would encourage churches to make their evangelistic and caring ministries as connecting and relevant as possible (why offend people with religiosity instead of the gospel?), at the same time we need to remember that God both chooses and uses the weak things in the world to shame the wise. Maybe He will even use your church, in all its weakness. The key is that He is the one to use it . . . so eyes on the Lord, again!

Passion for the World – Have you settled into such a local vision that you’ve lost your global impact dreams? At its core, Christianity has a global agenda. But failure within the church and in the local community means that many churches have all but given up on any sense of global vision. If someone from the church swims upstream with a commitment to global missions, great, but we’ll probably do all we can to slow them down and get in their way first. If they make it to the field, then we will feel satisfied that we have a global ministry. Perhaps we need to dare to dream a bit more, a bit bigger, a bit further . . . which only happens if we are engaged with a global missionary God who Himself has a passion for the whole world.

So we’ve looked at God yesterday, and His passion for ministry today . . . there are many more avenues to pursue in each of these categories (feel free to do so in the comments).

Passion Sappers

October 4, 2011October 3, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Chatting with a good friend last week we got on to the subject of motivation for preaching. Whether you preach every week or periodically, there is always the possibility of losing your passion to preach. It’s good to be aware of what might cause the passion to drain away, so here are some ideas:

Passion for God – Has your abiding grown stale? At its core, preaching is about representing God as you speak for Him. If the connection grows dull, then the spark to preach will often go with it. Remember Jesus’ words in John 15 – apart from me you can do nothing. Strong stuff. So it is always good to ask ourselves about the state of our abiding . . . am I not only tipping my hat to the Lord, but leaning into Him, more than that, am I pressed up against Him? If not, then my internal motivation tank will easy drain and leave me sapped of passion to preach.

Passion for God’s Word – Have you settled for knowing, rather than being in God’s Word? At its core, biblical preaching is about re-presenting God’s Word as you speak for Him. If the Word isn’t fresh and exciting and personal and relevant to your life, then your passion to preach it to others might fade. Being an “expert” in the Bible doesn’t guarantee a passion to preach it. I could list theological faculties with experts in the Bible who have zero passion to preach it because it is not personally engaging them. Jesus faced Bible experts with no passion for anything but making themselves look good and killing him! Expertise is not the key, present experience of encountering God in the Word is.

We could ponder further issues like prayer, spiritually stimulating fellowship, etc. But for now let’s leave it with a focus on abiding in Christ and in His Word. More tomorrow, with the gaze in a different direction, perhaps…

How to Preach the One True God – Part Two

October 1, 2011September 30, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

So do we have to thoroughly define terms every time we mention God? That is, will every sermon be thwarted by a systematics lecture within moments of setting sail from the introduction? Not at all. Here are four suggestions that I think will have cumulative power without disrupting every sermon completely. Remember the first suggestion from yesterday though . . . you need to know the difference between the God defined by philosophy and the one true God who has revealed Himself in the Son and through the Spirit.

2. Repetition of “which God” question – by repeatedly pointing out that not every assumed description of the “one true God” is biblically true of the “one true God.” Some assumptions are true of Him, but not primary in His self-revelation. Just as it can be powerful in an evangelistic setting to ask someone who doesn’t believe in God which God they don’t believe in, so it can be powerful to open the subject up to Christians and ask which God they do believe in. It is a dangerous assumption that all who refer to God mean the same being, or even are clear on who He is. Sadly too many end up assuming a sort of impersonal ultimate force rather than the feeling, thinking, personal, loving creator God of the Bible. Let’s chip away at the naive assumption that everyone basically knows who God is.

3. Emphasis of particular text in light of its context – just as we can overlay a certain set of divine assumptions on the Bible as a whole, so we can easily do that with particular texts. Try to be more nuanced in making clear what a text is offering us as it reveals God. For example, Yahweh high and lifted up in Isaiah 6, holy holy holy . . . needs to be preached in light of Isaiah 1-5, where His heart for the whoring faithless nation who don’t draw near in loving devotion is made clear. Sovereign and holy? Absolutely. Distant, cold, rule-obsessed and uninvolved? Never! Without seeing how God reveals Himself and His heart in chapters 1-5, the sixth chapter can be preached with wrong emphasis, and the last five verses can really end up preaching that other philosophically-driven view of God.

4. Emphasis of particular text in light of complete revelation – that is to say, don’t give the impression that “God” in the Old Testament is just “Father” in New Testament terms. How easy it is to give the mistaken impression that God becomes a trinity when the Son is incarnated. The God of the Old Testament is trinity, even if each particular instance doesn’t make that clear. Was it the Father than spoke face to face with Abraham, that wrestled with Jacob, that spoke to the elders of Israel, etc.? What about the Spirit in the Old Testament? Any time we see “God” referenced in the Bible, we must be sensitive to the content and the informing theology at that point in the progress of revelation, but we shouldn’t forget what we now know more clearly about the one true God being trinity!

5. Since God is trinity, repetition of trinitarian hints are worthwhile – just to reinforce the previous point, don’t feel you have to fully explain the Trinity every time you mention it. Why not intrigue people with a sense of the beautiful attractive wonder of who God really and personally is through trinitarian hints as you preach the Bible. Don’t wait for the overt trinitarian formula to refer to trinity. Don’t miss the Father/Son language and turn that into a generic one-size-fits-all “God” reference as some preachers and authors do (almost giving the impression that the Son is somehow less than God). Don’t ignore the trinity in the Old Testament where there is a hint, and even where there isn’t. After all, we want to preach the one true trinitarian God of the Bible!

Ok, two posts over the daily limit . . . I need to stop, but feel free to comment.

How to Preach the One True God

September 30, 2011September 30, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday’s post sparked some good comments, which in turn have stirred my heart to follow up with another post. It is true that we need to be clear evangelistically which God we are preaching – a friend of mine used the example of Elijah with the prophets of Baal. He didn’t affirm their zeal and assume they had the same deity in mind, just the wrong label, he absolutely set up and followed through on the competition between two deities – one real and the other not. Nevertheless I am not advocating that we copy everything about Elijah’s methodology!

Actually I am not really referring to evangelism at all. My post was about being clear which God we are preaching to those sitting in our church (even if they are all Christians, albeit unlikely). Are we preaching the monadic lory-grabbing power-God of philosophy who can think only of himself? Or are we preaching the relationally self-giving glory-giving God who exists in Trinity and invites us into the circle of his other-centred loving relationality? To know the true God is eternal life, so we desperately don’t want to get this wrong!

Richard’s comment referred to a conversation with a Muslim, “after two hours it dawned on me that though we both affirmed “God”, be it as supreme or “one” or whatever, the “One God” he was talking about was not the “One Trinitarian God” I was talking about.” I’ve had that sensation while in conversation with Christians!

So how can we preach the one true God? Do we end up in lengthy detailed explanations every time we come to a technical term like “Father” or “Son” or even “God?” I don’t think that’s necessary. Now and then an extended explanation, and even a differentiation, can work wonders. (Remember that if you don’t differentiate, they will overlay their selfish and distant and cold God on your selfless and warm-hearted Immanuel God.) But there is also a cumulative power in preaching that can work wonders. Five brief suggestions:

1. Be sure you know the difference between the God defined by philosophical attributes and the God self-revealed in His relationality in the Bible. While many or most of the attributes listed in our systematic theologies are true, we might be wrong-headed thinking that God can be defined without the Son as our point of entry into the discussion. Remember that Jesus didn’t prove his deity by ticking every box in the philosophical attribute list, but the Jewish leadership easily spotted his claim through references to his relationship the the Father. Be sure you really know the difference and are preaching the one true trinitarian God of the Bible. Don’t be guilty of overlay (and probably assume you are, since you’ll naturally assume you aren’t!)

Ok, I said brief, but the post became more than twice my daily limit. So the other four suggestions will be coming tomorrow (I’ll put up a post on Saturday for a change – it’s too important a subject to wait past another Sunday!)

More Help in the Vicinity

September 28, 2011September 25, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday we were thinking about texts that don’t sit up and easily offer engaging and interesting sermon spice. Perhaps they lack illustrative content, or engaging narratival features. The temptation is to relegate the text to a small role in the making of the sermon and break out a couple of humdinger illustrations that you know will stir the listeners. Before you resort to such tactics, I’m encouraging you to poke around in the neighbourhood of the text some more.

Yesterday we thought about the situation of the author and the recipients. Both point to narrative potential, even in the midst of an epistle. Here are a couple more leads to follow before you move on from the desk and get too creative in your sermon preparation:

3. What about a quotation? It’s hard to get through a paragraph in the New Testament without there being a quote or allusion or wording from the Old Testament. A bit of digging here might shine light on the text and offer more angles for the preaching of the text. Of course, good exegesis should have unearthed the quotes, but perhaps another look as a preacher will yield some potential colour for your sermon. Maybe Old Testament story, maybe something in the cross-over from back then to the day of the author.

4. What about the rest of the book? Seems strange to say it, but preachers can sometimes fall into the same trap many commentators seem to meet – atomistic Bible reading. That is, you are preaching from verses 5-11, so you only really focus on verses 5-11 (and in some cases, one verse at a time!) It is part of the flow of the whole, so look around again and see how your section works in the whole of the book. This might yield an angle from which to preach the text with greater engagement and interest.

There is always a danger that our passion to preach well can move us on from understanding the passage to the max. Don’t be in too much of a rush, but instead be sure to diligently dive into every detail in the text, and in the vicinity.

Help in the Vicinity

September 27, 2011September 25, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Some passages are sitting up and shouting “preach me! preach me!” Others are slightly less helpful. That is, the text is, of course, God-breathed and useful. But perhaps the author didn’t include any illustrations or pictorial language in the passage, or there is neither story in the passage or in the immediate context . . . it just reads like a logical progression of content that needs something to make it sing from the pulpit. Epistles tend to have sections like this.

Be careful! In this situation you are going to be tempted to preach less than biblically. You’ll be tempted to use the text as a springboard and bounce off it to preach your own message, using your own illustrations, etc. The text could become a very minor bit-part player making little more than a cameo appearance in your message. I’m assuming you’ve studied the passage and understand it, but I want to encourage you to search a little more in the vicinity of the text. It may yet yield a more thoroughgoing biblical sermon.

1. What about the author? Does his situation, life experience, background and story shine any light on the passage? If it does, then you have the hint of a narrative now . . . every life is a narrative, and this text might just tap into that in such a way that the message can be preached in an engaging manner with description and empathy and flow.

2. What about the situation? Bible writers didn’t write for a hobby. They were neither drunk nor wasteful. If they put it on papyrus, then it was for a purpose. What was going on with the recipients of the writing that prompted the author to write what he did. Again, you now are poking around in the bushes of a story, and stories will engage, allow description, create tension, offer resolution, empathy and intrigue. People are interested in people (that’s how many TV shows work).

I’ll add two more tomorrow…

Let’s Interact Some More . . .

September 22, 2011September 22, 2011 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Yesterday I began with three thoughts about interactive preaching. Following on from the importance of knowing the congregation and knowing the content, here are some more thoughts:

4. Expansive questions work better than only one possible answer. Listeners don’t like being asked for something very specific – who wants to get it wrong? They know you want them to say something specific, so chances are stacked against them. Tuesday night’s message worked well because the invitation was for input from a vast array of possible answers. I was primarily asking for examples of incidents in the gospels where Peter and John would have learned from being with Jesus (and since they were almost always there, there weren’t many “wrong answers”). I would be more guarded about asking for input on a single text, since the first comment could give away the whole resolution to the tension of the narrative, or whatever. It can be done, but carefully.

5. Graciousness is key. But how you deal with “wrong answers” matters deeply. If someone had referred to an incident where Peter & John weren’t present, it really wouldn’t help anyone to respond harshly, “uh, no! That was only Nathaniel with Jesus on that occasion!” Making the contributor feel foolish hurts everyone. They would feel for him, they would be less likely to risk talking, they would lose interest in your message (since you don’t seem to care about them). Much better to receive all input positively, “Great thought. Thinking about it, I’m with you on that, I’m sure Nathaniel would have told the others about that even though they weren’t physically present. Thanks.” I was at a conference earlier this summer where the presenter chose to take questions, but was then harsh and sometimes bordering on brutal in how he responded to them. Not helpful at all. (And maybe some preachers simply shouldn’t do interaction.)

6. Non-traditional journeys still need a destination. To put it another way, an interactive message is not a short-cut to avoid preparation. You can’t be at the mercy of those present to make sure it goes somewhere worthwhile. You have to know where you are going and make sure they get there. They are at your mercy, not the other way around. A meandering walk through the forest isn’t good if it ends somewhere in the middle and you then walk away. Make sure you get them to the right place at the right time.

7. Interaction takes time. It is hard to gauge how long a contributor will talk once they start. You have to be able to graciously stop lengthy input, but it isn’t easy. I wouldn’t consider significant interaction unless there was time available for it. Good interaction can be wasted if there is then a panicked rush at the end to get to the destination.

What would you add to this list?

Let’s Interact . . .

September 21, 2011September 21, 2011 / Peter Mead / 6 Comments

Last night I had a great time at a church I’ve visited many times before. I had about 85 minutes and decided to do an interactive message. Here are some reflections and thoughts from me, but feel free to chip in:

1. All messages should be somewhat interactive. Even if you don’t expect the listeners to say anything, good preaching will always be stirring response and comments within the listeners. Good preachers know what listeners are probably thinking and respond accordingly. In these two posts I am thinking about overt congregational participation.

2. Knowing the congregation matters. It does help to know who you’ll be preaching to when you choose to go much more interactive. A few years ago I chose to do an interactive sermon in a church that I hardly knew. I certainly was unaware of the group brought along from a nearby “home” that interacted in an entirely different way than the elderly folks who made up the rest of the congregation! Knowing them matters, them knowing you care matters just as much, but we’ll come to that issue tomorrow.

3. Knowing the content matters even more. This one is massive. As the preacher you have to know the subject and the range of potential input. Taking a comment from the crowd that changes your understanding of the text could be complicated. You get to choose how wide the net is thrown for input, but it is important that you can handle whatever may come from within that range of Bible text (and theology/history/whatever else you open yourself up to). If you are genuinely struck by new insight, great, but if you seem to be informed by everything you hear, you’ll lose their confidence!

I’ll finish this post tomorrow, but feel free to chip in with your thoughts . . .

(Put Some Points in Brackets)

September 16, 2011September 16, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

It seems obvious, but preaching involves delivering a message. It isn’t about delivering your outline via powerpoint, or presenting your outline verbally. It is about delivering the message. The outline is for you, it doesn’t always have to be given to them.

One thing that happens when we feel we need to give over our outline in our presentation is that we tend to always state our points when we start them. You know the routine, “My second point is XYZ.” Then we proceed to demonstrate that point from the text, and explain it to the listeners, and support it with some anecdotal or biblical evidence, and then illustrate it with our pithy little story, etc. This tried and tested approach is big on clarity, but it can also be deadly dull to hear.

I remember sitting in a conference where I’d noticed the sermonic pattern by the second message and was then able to predict what would come next for the rest of the day, whoever was preaching.

Sometimes your next point shouldn’t be given up-front in your first sentence of that section of the message, but rather held back and developed before being delivered. A point in a message might be better delivered inductively, rather than deductively. This avoids the dull tedium of every section of every message being the same. Here comes the verse, here comes the explanation, now he’ll refer to a cross-reference, wait for it, here comes the illustration. Instead you might begin the next point with an illustration, or a question, or an explanation with the point itself held back.

I was taught that an inductively developed point in a message should be written in the outline in brackets. Simple little approach, but it reminds the preacher that the preaching event is not about a slightly animated reading of an outline. Actually, the outline is supposed to record what the message does, how it develops, etc. For some preachers that has become reversed, so that the message is supposed to say what the outline states. Your goal is to preach a good sermon, not to demonstrate or even deliver your good outline.

(Put some of your points in brackets, lest every five-minute section sound essentially the same!)