What If?

June 14, 2011May 29, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Thankfully most churches do not descend into the superficiality of contemporary TV games shows. Now I would be highly relevant and refer to one, but I don’t watch any, so I’ll have to be slightly generic. Imagine for a moment that your church instituted a new slot in the church service. . .

Each week two preachers take turns to give the opening five minutes of their sermon. Then the audience get to vote for which sermon they get to hear that day. Perhaps the losing introduction gets less travel expenses. Perhaps the church could install a praise-o-meter and the selection could be made via volume of singing in two subsequent songs. Ok, enough of that.

Thankfully most churches don’t descend to such a level. We have a bit more of an appropriate atmosphere and ethos around the worship time and the sermon. Or do we?

Even without the flashing lights of the praise-o-meter, or the host with his “able assistant,” or the hype of a vote, something similar does happen each week. At the end of the introduction, each listener chooses whether they will engage or disengage for the rest of the message. Few, if any, will leave. But many may leave internally, heading for the golf course, or the weekly to-do list, or the forthcoming interview, or whatever. In fact, by the end of the introduction, many leavers will already be long gone. The first moments and minutes of a message are so vital!

Preaching is no game. But let’s not neglect the importance of arresting attention, surfacing a need, engaging the listener, demonstrating earliest possible relevance of speaker, text and message. Don’t depend on their dutiful commitment to listen to the Word. Win them so they can’t help themselves!

Facing a Phrase Unneeded

June 13, 2011May 29, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

When I listen to others preach, there are a handful of phrases that always stir a little reaction inside me. One is, “of course we all know…” or variants. “I’m sure you know the story of…” or “To quote a verse you probably have memorised…” or similar.

Why do people say this? I think it is about a sort of humility. It is a shorthand way of saying, “I know many of you have been Christians for many years and I am nervous, if I am honest, that I am not bringing anything new to the church today, so since my message is the same old same old, I’m going to pre-empt your critique that it was all the same old stuff by acknowledging that as I preach…” That would be cumbersome, so “As we all know…” it is, then. Hang on. Perhaps that family of phrases is unhelpful.

What if somebody doesn’t know it? We live in an age of increasing biblical illiteracy. People in our churches do not know their Bibles, generally speaking, as church goers may have done a generation or three ago. Giving the impression that everyone in the church knows something can be very unhelpful for the individual who doesn’t know that (uncomfortable to be the odd one out, even if actually there are many in the same boat, they will all feel alone at this moment)! Which leads on to a second point…

What if somebody is visiting? Chances are, an outsider is already feeling like an alien who has unknowingly landed on a different planet as they try to figure out the customs and culture of this thing called church. Don’t add to it by making them feel stupid because they don’t know what “we all know.” But there’s another reason I’d like to throw in here too:

Is the Bible really same old same old? Absolutely not! If you think it is, don’t preach it, please. The ancient documents collected together that we call the Bible is more fresh and alive and new and relevant and powerful and engaging and poignant and stirring that today’s newspaper headlines. We preach it and we preach it and we preach it again because it isn’t old news. It is fresh and relevant and more for today than anything else any of us could come up with. So preach with enthusiasm and excitement, not just for the visitor who may well have never heard it before, but for the most tired looking saint of the decades who needs to feel the force of the freshness of the Word anew right now!

Application as Looking

June 10, 2011May 29, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

We hear about preaching needing application. Some end up at one extreme offering to-do lists for successful living that make the Bibles bulge (and the listeners feel overwhelmed with pressure). Others end up at the other extreme of rejecting all reference to application since it is supposedly the work of the Spirit (implying that communicating the passage, pointing to Christ, etc., are not works of the Spirit?), and you hear things as misguided as “now may the Spirit apply to our hearts the truths we have seen in His Word.” Wrong! Preachers should not abdicate any of their role, neither should they think of any part of their role as being completely on their own shoulders either.

I have previously written about the need for our application to go deeper than conduct. There is a place for conduct in our application, of course. There is also the need for our application to reach to the thinking and worldview and belief systems of our listeners. And there is the deeper level of the affections, the values, the emotional centre, the loves of our listeners. Affections, belief and conduct. Three levels of legitimate and necessary application.

But let me offer another nudge. Not a three-layer nudge, but a two-part nudge. Instead of always offering “do” to our listeners (with the attitudinal companion of pressure), let’s consider our role as nudging listeners with a “look!” (with the attitudinal companion of enthusiasm).

As we offer the Word, explaining and applying it to our listeners, let a large chunk of the application be “look!” As people see the God of Scripture, revealed in the Son, by the power of the Spirit, their lives will be transformed: inside to out, affections, belief, conduct.

Our task is not primarily to be a conveyor of our exegetical insights, opaquely offering the Bible to contemporary folks. Our task is more to be a lens, effectively handling the Scripture to offer a glimpse of the One revealing Himself in the Word, transparently letting God be seen to contemporary listeners with eyes to see. So we speak and they listen. And we say Look! And by God’s grace they see.

Delivery Matters If…

June 7, 2011May 18, 2011 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Your view of the importance of delivery in preaching may reveal a deeper theological issue. I don’t want to overstate this, because there are numerous factors involved in a person’s view of the importance of delivery. The general view of those in our “tradition,” the training we’ve received, the perception of what is spiritual, etc. But there does seem to be a correlation between one’s view of sermon delivery and one’s view of God.

If God is essentially a giver of information and requirement, i.e. the distant unknowable deity of classical theism, then delivery will not seem so important. The job of the preacher is to put the information before the people. What they do with that information is between them and God. Some will emphasize that it is only God’s Spirit than can vivify the spoken word in the minds and wills of those hearing. Others may emphasize that the listeners are duty-bound to act on what they hear. However, whatever the theological position, there tends to be a distrust of any focus on delivery since some sort of performance may well muddy the waters of the relatively simple information-only view of Christianity. To touch the heart must be manipulative and somehow not of God, since He is pure mind and will. Thus the preacher should be as plain as possible, so that it is the message alone that touches listeners and glory goes to Christ alone.

Whether they are right or wrong in their understanding, all would agree that the glory must go to Christ alone. However, is there another view?

If God is essentially a giver of Himself, a communicator, a relator, i.e. the made-known God of biblical trinitarian Christianity, then delivery suddenly becomes more important. The job of the preacher is be God’s spokesperson, re-presenting the inspired message of the text, and thereby offering God to the listeners. What they do with that communication is ultimately between them and God, yet it is by no means a “mere information” approach to preaching. It involves heart-to-heart communication, it involves person-to-person connection, it is about relationship even in the course of a “monological” sermon. It is possible to abuse delivery by making it into a fake performance issue (but that is inherently opposed to the authentic relational communication of a God who comes to us genuinely in the Son and by the Spirit). So we should not over-react to “performance” or “sales pitch” trickery by disavowing all attention to communication. Rather we look to be genuine/natural and effective/engaging/compelling communicators. Is God glorified by poor or unthought-through communication? Since God is such an effective communicator, such an engaging communion of three persons, such a captivating lover, surely we must seek to be the best communicators we can be as we represent His Word to others?

So What You Are Saying Is . . .

June 2, 2011May 10, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

So let’s say you are preaching on Ephesians 2:1-10. And you happen to see on Facebook that the Apostle Paul is preaching at an event not far from you on that very text, just two days before you are due to preach. Let’s assume he is not able to come and take your preaching engagement, but you can get to hear his.

After he preaches the passage, explaining his way through it, you decide to cut to the bottom line. You approach him afterwards and get to him before any of the others who line up behind you. “Thanks Paul, great to meet you, so you are saying, in Ephesians 2:1-10…” then you just decide to state your main idea of the passage to him, “that God saved us by grace, making us alive so that we can do good works?”

If Paul’s response might be, “uh, yes, sort of, but what I’m mostly saying is that it is all of God’s grace that he has made us who were dead, alive with Christ . . .” then you should change your message. If your main idea is not what he’d say his main idea was in the passage, then your main idea should change.

Remember, as a preacher your task is not to come up with your own message somehow based on a text. Your job is to re-present the message of that text, targeted to a new audience and situation, but remaining genuinely faithful to the intent of the author. Be nice to ask him in person, but let’s be sure to check our main idea against the text itself, and to do so more than once. Feel free to ask someone else too, not the author, but someone who will look at the text carefully and test your idea.

Momentum Matters

May 31, 2011May 21, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

When you are preaching, your listeners will subconsciously be looking for unity (a single focus to your preaching), and order (a clarity of structured presentation), and progress (a sense that you are moving forward and getting closer to the end). It is this progress that can be easily lost causing the message to feel like it gets stuck in the mud.

What causes momentum to be lost? Could be one of several things:

Is momentum about content of the message? Yes it can be. Is one part of the message too dense or extended in terms of explanation? Is there too much repetition that might give the sense of you losing your way or going round in circles? Content issues can cause a loss of momentum.

Is momentum about structure of the message? Yes it can be. If you haven’t previewed the structure, or don’t give effective and deliberate transitions, then it can all meld into one and feel dense or still instead of progressing. If you structure your message so that you keep jumping around the text, listeners can lose the sense of progress that comes from a sequential following of the passage (it can be appropriate to do this approach in a text, but make structure and transitions extra clear).

Is momentum about delivery of the message? Yes it can be. If you lose energy, or become monotonous in voice or visual presentation, then momentum can seap away. If you lose your initial enthusiasm (or if your enthusiasm is at a constant high pitch without releasing that tension), then momentum can be lost.

Momentum can be hard to get hold of, but for preaching to engage listeners, we have to consider not only unity and order, but also progress. Don’t take this the wrong way, but they like to know you’re getting closer to being done!

Personally Engaged Preaching Passage Easy Review System (PEPPERS)

May 25, 2011May 10, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

It sounds like an acronym from NASA, something with a massive federal budget and cosmic goals. Actually I just made up the acronym, it requires the smallest budget, but it does have eternal goals.

Most preachers don’t have great blocks of time in which to prepare their messages. Even if we did, it would still be good to spread the preparation out over at least five days, if not more. Taking small bits of time and working on a passage allows it to work on us (this is why more than five days is even better). Part of that process is getting the passage into us as we get into it.

A friend was recently describing his habit of seeking to memorize the passage he is going to preach. This is a great habit and I commend it, although I don’t tend to memorize the next passage I’ll be preaching. But his suggestion sparks one from me. One of the best ways I have learned to review and potentially memorize a passage. To live up to our image for the day, let’s call it the PEPPERS project (ok, could have gone with the vegetable look, but didn’t.)

Typically we tend to read and re-read a passage when reviewing it or memorizing it. I have found it very helpful to write out a set of acronym style notes instead. So for verse 1-2 of Psalm 1, for example, I would have on the page (this is NIV in case you look it up):

1. Bitmwdnwitcotw, ositwos, ositsom,

2. bhdiitlotL, aohlhmdan.

I follow the capitalization and keep the punctuation, but only put in the first letter of each word. Then when I want to review the passage, it forces me to engage my mind, instead of simply scanning over words while thinking of something else. It allows for a small card or note to be carried, instead of a lengthier piece of paper. This note would be a very useful way to engage quickly, but effectively with a passage in the days of preparation, during those times when you have to be doing something else. In the line at the bank, pull out the notecard. Waiting for a haircut, pull out the notecard. You get the drift.

Guardrails and Bridge Width

May 20, 2011May 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Some time ago I referred to Timothy Warren of DTS who used the analogy of guardrails for guarding the application of a message from straying off target. I’d like to use the same analogy with slight modification in respect to preaching a text.

The preacher builds a bridge between the Bible text in its world and the listeners in theirs. It may be helpful to imagine a guardrail either side of this road. One guardrail is the intended audience, the other is the purpose of the communication. On the Bible side of the bridge, the intended audience were the church or individual receiving the inspired text (i.e. the churches of Galatia). The purpose was specific in terms of Paul’s intent for those churches.

By the time the preacher gets over to today, he is also thinking of an intended audience (the congregation of Community Church this coming Sunday) and also has a purpose in preaching this text to them on this occasion.

Now if the audience this Sunday shares significant characteristics and cultural experiences with the original audience, then the guardrail comes straight across the bridge. And if the purpose for the sermon matches Paul’s purpose for his letter, then that guardrail also comes straight across.

But what if the audience is different (perhaps they haven’t gone after another gospel), and therefore the purpose is slightly different (encouragement with some warning, rather than open rebuke), then I imagine the guardrails shifting the road direction slightly (think of how your lanes are changed when there is construction on the motorway/freeway). The message of the text is not significantly changed (there are limits), but the sermon is adjusted from what the original did.

If this were applied to preaching a passage from Leviticus, then I imagine the considerable change in audience and purpose would be reflected in the less direct application of the text (a six-lane road narrowing to a two-lane road since we can’t apply it freely and directly), yet the road remains the same.

You cannot preach any truth from a particular passage. You can only preach the truth of that passage. However, the ease of transfer depends on the consistency of audience situation and sermonic purpose. Adjusting these guardrails will adjust the message (but the message must still be the message of the passage).

Tranlsation Error? Sure?

May 18, 2011May 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I’ve mentioned this before, but let me drop it in again. Be very careful before you tell a congregation their Bible translation is wrong. I was in a church a while back where somebody corrected the translation with the comment, “the NIV committee pulled a fast one here.” Very unhelpful. Whatever decisions they made that we might disagree with, I doubt they “pulled a fast one.” What’s more, it was clear from the explanation given that the person commenting didn’t know his Greek almost at all.

1. The notion of word for word direct equivalence is naïve. Each word in the Greek has its own semantic domain (essentially a range of potential nuances/connotations/senses and potentially appropriate glosses or equivalents in English). So word X might be translated as A or B (to keep things simple). Word Y might be translated as C or sometimes B. To say the translation is wrong because they translated Y as B when you think it can only be C would be naïve and unhelpful.

2. Listeners are naïve. Generally speaking, when the speaker makes some judgment of the translation or comments on the Greek, the listeners will mostly assume they have someone with some level of expertise before them. This is massively naïve. I tend to see those who are very capable in the Greek barely letting it show in any overt way, while those who refer to it often are desperately lacking in Koine competence.

3. Preach your passage. Does your passing comment about the translation really help people understand the passage? Really? Is it worth undermining their confidence in the translation for that insight? And honestly, although this is hard to answer, do you have enough competence in translating the Greek to make your critique (or second-hand critique) stand up with integrity?

Tempting as it may be, for several reasons, to correct the translation you are preaching from, it is typically better to avoid overt critique and simply allow your insight to shape your explanation of the text.

Comments on God Speaking and the Bible – Be Careful

May 17, 2011May 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Does God speak through the text, as distinct from analyzing and understanding it? Is it that when the Bible speaks, God speaks, or when the Bible speaks, God also speaks?

It is true that there is more to understanding a Bible passage than just analyzing the technicalities of the propositions the grammar. However, let’s be careful not to create a notion of exegetical accuracy versus some supra-biblical revelation. This notion can come from well-meaning comments like “we can study what the text means, but let’s be open now to hearing what God has to say.”

I heard of a song leader who struck up a chord after the message with the comment, “now let’s hear what God has to say.” Unfortunate, albeit amusing in some ways.

But the same separation can occur within the preaching. The preacher can give the sense that there is the meaning of the text, and then there is God speaking to us as we look at the text.

Cold non-relational exegesis is certainly problematic. But so is supposedly relational non-exegetical Bible reading. Let’s not offer the notion of non-exegetical devotional Bible reading, nor the notion of non-devotional exegetical Bible reading. Whether our goal is personal devotional reading, or technical pre-teaching study, let us be sure to keep together the relational aspects of reading God’s Word with the technical aspects of studying God’s Word.