Finger On

March 15, 2011March 15, 2011 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

I listened to two preachers recently. Walter Kaiser (on CD) and another well known speaker in the UK. There are several differences between them, but I’d like to point to one. Kaiser wanted his listeners to keep their finger on the text. The other man didn’t.

If you’ve heard Kaiser you will know that he likes to get people to look at the text. Lots of good preachers do that. It helps people see that you speak with authority because the authority is not yours, but the authority of the Word of God. It helps people follow the message. It helps people come back to the text later and then see for themselves what you were teaching.

I know you’ve heard preaching like the alternative I have in mind. The text is read, but left behind as the sermon progresses through several paralleled points of the preacher’s own construction – a biblical theology of the phrase, if you will. Lots of preachers do that. It gives the sense that you speak with authority because you speak with authority. It motivates listeners to close their Bibles and just listen. It helps people not re-open their Bibles later since they can’t remember how you derived your points anyway.

Both approaches will get glowing feedback. But both are not equal. Be a preacher who motivates listeners to get their finger on the text. What advantage is there in not doing so?

Simple Idea – So Helpful

March 11, 2011March 11, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

This week at Cor Deo my colleague Ron mentioned something he does in preparing for sermons. Simple suggestion to say the least, but so helpful. Instead of cutting and pasting the text of the passage into a document to work with, he photocopies his own Bible page.

Then he can work on the photocopy at a significant level of inductive observational detail. Then when he comes to preach from his own Bible, he’s very familiar with the layout of the text and only needs to make minimal markings on the text since he’s just been working all week on a replica of the same.

Simple.

I could leave it there, but let me add a couple of comments:

1. Too many spend too little time really soaking in the text. It shows in the preaching. The message is often a decent message, but the tie to the text is tenuous. If you have a great Christian gospel message that really is the message of another text, preach the other text! But if you’re preaching this text, then live in it and let it live in you for a while so that you are really preaching the text you say you are preaching!

2. The more our message is tied to the text we’re preaching, the less we are reliant on extraneous notes and imposed sermonic structures. This means the listeners perceive a more natural presentation (that’s helpful), and they are more likely to follow in their Bibles (that’s helpful), so that the focus is less on your sermonic artistry and more on the inspired revelation that came from God (that’s helpful too!)

Impositional Preaching

March 8, 2011March 5, 2011 / Peter Mead / 7 Comments

Some of the greatest preachers of recent history have built sermons on single verses. I tend not to do that. Am I saying I know better than them?

Dr Lloyd-Jones, not to mention Spurgeon, and others, have demonstrated extended sermon series that essentially preach a single text at a time. Surely if we were to be preachers after their kind today, then we should pursue the same kind of ministry? Actually, I think not.

First, let’s recognize what these men did. Spurgeon sometimes resorted to an allegorical exegesis of the text, but not always. Lloyd-Jones tended to preach the Bible’s theology radiating from the impact point of a single verse. That is, since the word “justified” is in this verse, what all could be said from the whole canon on that theme (perhaps in this message, perhaps over several).

Second, let’s recognize what wannabe’s often do. Today when I hear people building messages from single texts I tend not to hear people with the pedigree of Spurgeon or Lloyd-Jones. I do hear some allegorical, not to mention fanciful, interpretations. These lack credibility and authority. I also hear some waffling messages padded with poor cross-referencing that shows neither theological acumen, nor precision in respect to recognition of biblical connections (nor genuine understanding of the theological needs of the listener). In an era where listeners will look at the text and dismiss apparently unfounded sermonizing, we would do well to reevaluate the efficacy of many “single verse” approaches to preaching.

Third, let’s realize that imposition is not exposition. Too often the preacher has the mindset of seeking to utilize the text as a series of pegs on which to hang their thoughts. All too often those pegs are not divinely intended to hold the weight placed on them. The Bible is an intricate and powerful construct of divine design. Sadly, all too often preachers take a twig from the oak tree and assume it will bear the same weight as the oak was designed to hold. Impositional preaching is not exposition, it is a pale imitation of what some greats from church history did.

Fourth, let’s realise that exposition is about honouring God, not historical figures. I deeply respect Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones, as well as many other preachers through church history that I do not seek to emulate every week. My view of expository preaching is built on my understanding of the nature of God’s Word. As I seek to explain it, to demonstrate its relevance, to say what it says and seek to somehow make the message do what it does, I am pursuing a contemporary ministry of expository preaching. I may fall short of historical models, and yet at the same time I may at times get closer to honouring the intent of the text. I pray that God will enable me to have a fraction of the impact of these great men. I pray that God will equip me to be a preacher of His Word, rather than one who seeks to reproduce a historically bound model of ministry.

There It Is!

March 7, 2011March 4, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Perhaps you have sat in Bible studies where this has happened. The text being studied might be something like Ephesians 2:21. The next question in the booklet asks something about the term “temple.” It also has a string of cross-references with it. So the leader assigns references to different ones in the group. One by one these are read out.

“Ok, I’ve got Matthew 12:6, ‘I tell you, something greater than the temple is here.’ Yep, temple, ok.”

“Ok, I’ve got Revelation 7:15, ‘They are before the throne of God and serve him day and night in the temple’ – yep, temple, there it is.”

“Ok, I’ve got Acts 2:46, ‘And day by day, attending the temple…” – ok, yep, temple!”

“Ok, I’ve got John 2:14, ‘In the temp…’ there it is!”

These may have been carefully selected cross-references to provide helpful insight into the meaning in Ephesians 2:21, but they have served no purpose other than giving people a chance to practice finding Bible references and play a game of word recognition.

Maybe, like me, you have found yourself sitting through moments like this, wondering what the point of it all is?

Where does this come from? Let us assume for a moment that the person who wrote the Bible study questions had a plan in their selection of cross-references (this is an assumption). Then surely the value will come from taking at least a moment or two to recognize more than just the presence of the word? Surely it should involve some thought as to the use of the term in that context and how that might influence our understanding of the focus text for the evening?

So where does this practice come from? Is it, perhaps, the example of preachers who use cross-references essentially as time-fillers, failing to make any sense of why they have gone to the verses or what differences they make to the understanding of the target text?

As I have written before, there are not too many reasons to go to other passages when preaching. (Here is my low fence post, and here is part 1 and part 2 of a post on cross-referencing.)

When you do go to another text, make sure it is clear what you are looking at and why.

Lessons on God from Biblical Genre: Wisdom

February 25, 2011March 1, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In the past two days I have shared D A Carson’s suggested lessons from the epistolary and history genres of Scripture. What does the design of wisdom literature suggest about God, and are there implications for us as preachers?

Carson suggested the following: While there are many kinds of wisdom literature in the Bible, it is interesting how much of it thinks in polarities. Either you follow Dame Wisdom or your follow Lady Folly. The righteous and the wicked. Jesus followed in this line as a wisdom preacher. With Jesus there was no middle-sized gate, no alternative ‘cheaper than rock but stronger than sand’ foundation.

While there is potency in such polarity preaching, Carson suggested that if you only ever preach Psalm 1 to your congregation you will end up with a congregation of legalists or hypocrites (for who can truly apply the avoidance of all godless counsel?)

Implications for our preaching? I would suggest:

1. We live in a time when most people don’t seem willing to stand for anything, including many preachers. Let us have the courage to present reality in the bold relief of wisdom literature polarities.

2. I think that the “two ladies” undergirding theme in Proverbs is a much under-utilized piece of preaching power-fuel. That was also a strange sentence, but I’ll let it stand.

3. We need to preach wisdom literature. Some preachers never do.
We mustn’t always preach wisdom literature. A few preachers might.

4. We should use the opportunity to train listeners how to handle this significant part of the canon (this would apply to all my posts in this series).

Lessons on God from Biblical Genre: History

February 24, 2011February 18, 2011 / Peter Mead / 6 Comments

Yesterday we pondered what the epistolary genre might teach us about God, and the implications for our preaching. Continuing with some springboarding off D A Carson’s recent Laing Lecture at LST, let’s think about biblical history.

Carson suggested the following: God discloses himself not only in words, but also in space-time history. We have access to that through witnesses, the standard mode of communicating historical veracity. Thus there is so much emphasis placed on the importance of witnesses.

In fact, Christianity is unique among religions in that if we were to take Jesus out of history, there would be no Christianity (not true of other religions). If Jesus didn’t actually rise from the dead, then witnesses are liars and we are still in our sins, our faith is futile. For the Christian, one of the tests of our faith is the truthfulness of the faith’s object. So no matter how strong and precious your faith may be, if that faith is not in something that is true, then you have nothing.

Biblically, a personal and precious faith without truth does not make a person spiritual, it makes them a joke. So Biblical faith is not the same as the contemporary view – that it is either a synonym for religion, or a personal subjective religious choice. This final definition makes it a faux pas to introduce the truth question (since we are talking about something both personal and subjective). But the truth question is absolutely paramount. While there are many elements of Christianity where we are to take God at His word, there are also critical elements, foundations, that require a test in history – notably the resurrection of Christ.

Implications for our preaching? I would suggest:

1. We must overtly overcome the “Bible story as fairy tale” perception. It is not enough to assume people understand the historicity of the biblical record, we need to be overt on this matter.

2. We should seek to overcome the notion that the Bible is a religious book, but good history books are published by other printing presses. The Bible is not only history, but it is phenomenally trustworthy historical source material.

3. We must train believers to know that their faith is resting on reality and fact, rather than the “leap in the dark” nonsense coming from both critics and ill-advised testimonies of people feeling public-presentation fright.

4. We should recognize how unaware Christians tend to be in respect to the differences between biblical Christianity and other religions. This leaves people very vulnerable when other religions are so proactively on the march.

Preaching in the Presence of Lists

February 9, 2011February 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

At various times you will be preaching in the presence of lists. Not the to-do lists that are manically collected by some church-goers, bursting out of their Bibles’ strained clasps. The lists that God inspired.

It may be tempting to just skip them or dismiss them (easy to make disparaging remarks that we don’t really mean). But if you aren’t preaching the list, and it is in sight, what to do?

Help people, even in passing, to know why it is there. It isn’t there to put off Bible readers in their cyclical reading aspirations. It isn’t there to tempt people to put a new spin on received pronunciations. It is there for a reason.

Let’s take the descendants of Esau in Genesis 36 as an example.

Why is it there? It’s good to remember when these books were written and for whom. Whether Genesis was written or compiled by Moses, it was part of the five books which were for the Israelites as they entered into the promised land. It was important for them to know where they had come from, their history, God’s promises and so on.

One of Moses’ (and God’s) concerns was that they not mingle with the inhabitants of the land or near neighbours, in such a way as to become disloyal to the one true God. This chapter, with all its people and connected place names, would be a helpful reminder to them of where some of these other people came from. Certainly the chapter keeps pointing out that Edom was from the “unchosen” line of Esau – and Israel would often have issues with Edom later on!

It probably seems obvious to you, the studied preacher, to consider when the list was written and for whom. I suspect that might never enter the minds of some of your listeners. Unless you point it out, of course.

(And then encourage people that they don’t have to pronounce every name if they are on a fast read through – it’s amazing how people appreciate permission to press on in their Bible reading!)

The Obvious Early Connection

February 7, 2011February 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

The more traditional approach to preaching was apparently to do all the explanation and then ask where the truth might connect to listeners’ lives at the end. Actually, good preachers have always made their listeners feel connected to the message much earlier than that. There is one point of early connection between listeners and Bible text that is usually fairly obvious.

Ever since Genesis 3 we have all lived in a fallen world. Abram did. David did. Paul did. You do.

This means it shouldn’t be too hard to find a connection between text and world. The people in the text are fallen people in a fallen world. So are we. So unless your study and preparation is taking you down a fruitful pathway other than this, it is probably worth asking what is the fallen world issue in the text? Is it rebellion? Is it doubt? Is it suffering? Is it fear? Is it self-love?

Once you can see what the tension is in the text, brought about by the Fall, then you can probably make a connection to today. So far, so good. But don’t miss the next step.

Make that connection overt.

It is no good knowing it and assuming others spot it. Make it clear. Evident. Stated. It is easy to have this kind of “fallen condition focus” (as Bryan Chapell calls it) in our minds, but then fail to say so in our sermons. You start into the context, tell a bit of historical background, explain a bit culturally, dive into the text, explain freely and before you know it you are almost out of time and start to make some sort of application. Oops. You just did what we said it was better to avoid. Why? Because if a sermon feels like a historical lecture, your listeners won’t, well, listen.

Look for point of connection. Make clear point of connection. And do it early.

Notes on Reviewing Experience

February 4, 2011February 4, 2011 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

I’ve just finished a series of messages at my home church. Each message was recorded and I took the time to listen to them again. This allowed me to edit start and finish, as well as any particularly disturbingly loud sneezes from folks in the congregation. It also allowed me to review my messages. One thing stands out – my mental review and my audio review were different. For example:

1. After preaching certain elements seemed big in my memory, but were minimal in the audio. That is, a passing comment that took three seconds in reality actually became a thirty second major issue in my mental recollection of the message. When we look back on a message and one comment or detail stands out, let’s not assume it was “as bad” or “as major” as our minds might tell us.

2. After preaching my overall impression of the message could be very different from reality. For instance, I might look back and think, “that was rushed.” However, in review of the audio it might sound anything but rushed. This kind of thing happened several times in this series.

3. There is much to learn from both kinds of review. While I am saying we shouldn’t trust our mental review too much, it is good to take stock and learn from the experience of preaching a message. At the same time, let’s not miss the opportunity to learn from the experience of hearing that same message. Preaching and hearing are different experiences. Learning from both will aid our preaching.

Do you review your preaching? By memory? By audio? By video? By feedback?

One Simple Truth

January 28, 2011January 28, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Last time we thought about ways to trim the message. This is not to appease the unsubstantiated claims that people cannot concentrate like they used to (evidence suggests otherwise). Rather it is to enable the central truth of the message to come across more clearly, rather than being hidden by excessive padding.

The other side of this matter is that central truth. Is it too “big?” Sometimes we simply try to cram in too much information. Our main idea takes forty-eight words to summarize. This is a problem. I think it is important to realize the value of the cumulative effect of effective communication. Communicate effectively a biblical truth this Sunday, then another next Sunday, let them build. This is so much more helpful than trying to achieve everything in every message and effectively achieving very little because it was all just too much!

I suppose it is harder to put it more clearly than Andy Stanley (which is often the case, to be honest!) . . . just preach one simple truth.

I’m tempted to make some analogy along the lines of comparing the ineffective feast people offer to someone who has been starving, when actually what they can effectively assimilate is a small dose of something specific (but the feast feels like you’re feeding them, even if they do end up with no benefit from the overdose) . . . I’m tempted to do that, but that might be unnecessary elongation of this post.

One simple truth.