How to . . . ?

Vision Month is Coming

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Vision is a difficult thing to pin down. It’s a mental and heart picture of what could be and what should be, it’s the energizing motivation that moves people to pour energy into a project, into a church, into a life.

January is vision month. Everyone is at it. People start going to the gym, a vague plan based on a vague awareness that they should be looking after themselves more for some reason. The vague vision is probably part of why people attend only vaguely once February arrives. People make New Year’s resolutions, again based on some vague awareness of what should be, or what shouldn’t be in their lives.

Why do people come to church? Is it the habit of a lifetime and that habit happens to bring them to the same church as you? Is it a vague awareness of what should be, and so they vaguely attend the church you attend? Or is there a crystal clear vision that energizes, mobilizes and invigorates? I suppose there are three types of churches that come to mind:

1. The “Yes we have a vision, but I’m not sure exactly how to define it” church – This is the church that has some statement somewhere, perhaps something relating to the three functions of the church, or something vaguely connected to the Great Commandment and the Great Commission. But if it is undefined (or impossible to remember), what value does it have? If we don’t know it, why should anyone else? If we don’t know it, we aren’t energized by it or committed to it and it is borderline irrelevant to the life of the church. January is a great month to clarify with crystal precision the vision of the church.

2. The “Our vision changes each year” church – This is the church that chooses a vision verse for the year, preaches on it in January and then may or may not return to it during the year. It is worth asking what difference this makes, and why a clear “what could be and what should be” picture of the preferred future of this church is not articulated and re-articulated regularly.

3. The “We resist contemporary approaches to vision statements” church – This is the church that puffs out the chest and makes statements about the biblical vision for all local churches being a local expression of the same global vision which is articulated in Scripture. Agreed. But if people are coming to church because of habit, or because it is the nearest option with the right denominational tag, then perhaps it’s time to articulate clearly what that biblical vision for all churches is . . . for your church.

There are other churches too. The “We’ve never thought about it” church, and perhaps even the “clear and compelling vision in place and regularly re-articulated” church. What kind of a church are you in? January is coming, vision month. What’s the plan?

Peripheral Vision

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

The first step in preparing a message is to prayerfully determine the preaching text.  It’s important to make sure you are studying a complete unit of thought – a full paragraph, a full narrative, a full poem, a full wisdom saying, etc.  But then be sure you have peripheral vision.

Make sure you continue to look around and be aware of the context of the passage.  Too easily we get blinkered by section headings and forget to see what has preceded and what flows out from the text that we are studying.  Everything needs to be seen in context.  If you happen to be in a place biblically where context isn’t helpful, you’re in one of only a few places.

We need peripheral vision as we study the text, or we so easily may miss what is right there.

Future Christmas Sermons

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

It would be easy to push through this season and then leave Christmas sermons until next year.  It would be a wasted opportunity.  Just as it can save money to buy next year’s cards right after this year’s Christmas, so it can save time to give some thought to next year’s sermons now.

Perhaps you have preached through the standard passages this year, but have noticed some connected passages that might make for an interesting series next year.  Make a note now while the thoughts are fresh.  For example:

Prophecies – perhaps you’ve noticed the references to Old Testament prophecies like Isaiah 7:14, Micah 5:2, even Jeremiah 31:15.  Why not take an Old Testament approach to Christmas hopes next year?

People – perhaps you noticed the four other ladies in Matthew’s genealogy . . . Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, the one “who had been Uriah’s wife.”  Four ladies with question marks over their morality, rightly or wrongly, that set up the lady who has to be in the genealogy (also with a question mark hanging over her morality, wrongly in her case).  Or perhaps you’d like to trace the Gentiles in the genealogy to show the greater scope of the Christmas hope.

Themes – perhaps you noticed a theme this year that could be developed with one week in the Old Testament, one week in the Christmas narratives and one week later on in the gospels or epistles.  For example, the Immanuel theme from Isaiah 7:14-9:7, emphasized in Matthew 1, continued for our age in Matthew 28:20.

Less Obvious Passages – perhaps you wondered about the less obvious passages, ie. those that aren’t in early Matthew or Luke.  So you have the prologue to John’s Gospel, giving the other side of the story, if you like.  Or you have references like Galatians 4:4 and similar passages.

Christmas Titles – perhaps you’d like to explore the titles used in the Christmas narratives – Jesus, Saviour, Immanuel, King, etc.

Carol Theology – while some are keen to cut down the errors in the carols, there are some great truths encapsulated in the carols too.  Perhaps you’d like to take Hark the Herald Angels Sing or another carol and trace a biblical background to a verse each week.  Different, but for some congregations this might be a blessing.  Remember that you are preaching the Bible, not the carol.

Contemporary Emphases – you could take key emphases in the world’s view of Christmas and present a positive biblical engagement with each one.  Gifts, peace, goodwill, family, etc.

Whatever thoughts you have at the moment, make a good set of notes, it will save a lot of stress later next year!

What Will They Copy?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I was just writing a mini-article in response to a request.  As I was writing it, I came across an article I wrote earlier this year.  I’ve linked to it previously, but here it is if you didn’t see it back then – click here.  Let me just quote a paragraph:

We must preach as those genuinely captivated by the love of God in the Word of God. We must preach contagiously as those who enjoy delightful engagement with this God. Our listeners will subconsciously mimic our leadership in their own “spirituality”–the question is; what kind of spirituality will they mimic? Will theirs be an intellect-only spirituality? Or will it be a purely pragmatic, self-concerned spirituality? Will it be a pseudo-spiritual flight of fancy unearthed in the truth of God’s revelation in His Word? Or will it perhaps be relational, Word-based, heart-level, real?

It is a scary thought, but an important one.  Listeners do more than listen.  They also mimic.  They copy.  Not least, they will be influenced by the spirituality they perceive in the preacher.  In light of that, it is hopefully not too hard to spot how they might end up with an intellect-only spirituality, or a purely pragmatic spirituality, etc.  The problem comes when we start thinking through how to shift their perception of spirituality based on our messages and how we live our lives with them.

Wouldn’t it be great if they could copy a relational, Word-based, heart-level, real spirituality?

Exhort, Educate . . . Manipulate?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Some preachers think that there are two legitimate options in preaching, but to go further would be wrong.  Legitimate would be to exhort listeners – that is, to appropriately pressure their will to obey the Lord, respond to the gospel, etc.  Legitimate would be to educate the listeners – that is, to feed information to their minds so that they know more and can therefore make better decisions.

But the next step?  Well, many people think the next step beyond the will and the mind is to address the emotions, and that, of course, would be wrong.  It must be wrong to address the emotions since that can so easily seem like manipulation.  I would agree that it can become manipulation.  I would agree that manipulation is wrong.  But I still think our preaching has to go deeper than mind and will.  How?

My sense is that manipulation occurs when I, as a preacher, utilize my ability to make a mark in the emotions that is disctinct from the content of the biblical text.  After all, the text is boss in an expository sermon, so if I am representing that text appropriately, then it should not be manipulation.  But when I resort to “techniques” – stand-alone tear-jerking stories, turns of phrase, emotional outbursts of my own, etc. – that aren’t representing the message of the text, then I am on dangerous ground.

If we remember that our role is to herald the Word of God, then we represent (re-present) the text of Scripture.  In so doing we need to represent a Word that targets the heart very often, and is seldom focused purely on exhortation or education.  We should be wary of manipulation, but not so that we ignore any textual targeting of the heart.  If we fall into the trap of performing, then manipulation creeps in so easily and we can corrupt the pure Word of God.

Preach to the will, certainly.  Preach to the mind, of course.  But be sure to preach to the heart, the Bible does!

A Lonely Place

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

It is not unusual to hear that a leader is in a lonely place.  After all, church leadership, like all leadership, is a difficult place to be.  There are stresses and strains not only in your own life, but also the burdens of others that you care for.  There are confidences to keep and decisions to make that effect so many.  As a preacher the problems are perhaps compounded by the solitary nature of the preaching ministry (most tend to prepare alone, then “recover” alone too).

Some of this loneliness is unavoidable. The unique stresses and difficulties have to be acknowledged and lived with.  Being a preacher is often a lonely road and the emotional ups and downs in some ways simply have to be accepted and pressed through.  However . . .

Some of this loneliness is avoidable. I suppose it comes down to our view of leadership (remember that someone who preaches is an influencer and thus a leader, irrespective of their official title in the church).  The world’s view of leadership involves climbing higher into a narrower space in order to have power over more people.  Sometimes we can fall into a worldly approach to leadership that results in us “lording it over” (even though we know that is wrong and so couch it in all the right terms and attitudes).  Servant-leadership calls us to invite others to join us in serving, because if the leader is a servant lifting others up, then there is always room for help at the bottom.  I recently wrote on this issue – here.

Loneliness can be dangerous. So as a pastor, minister, leader, whatever.  As a preacher too, we must be wary of the lonely nature of the ministry.  Be wary if you don’t have a safe place, a small group of individuals who don’t care about your hype, your reputation, your abilities, etc.  Make sure there are some with whom you can be real, be fully vulnerable, be broken, be hurt, be cared for, be healed.  Perhaps this is possible within your church.  Probably you need to look outside.  Certainly you need to be careful as this is a risky thing . . . but the risks of not doing it are greater!

Practice Makes . . . ?

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

The old saying goes, “practice makes perfect.”  Maybe.  Practice can also ingrain bad habits.  I think it was Howard Hendricks who said that “evaluated practice makes perfect” (inexact quote, please comment to correct wording and source!)  I want to offer a suggestion for “evaluated practice” that can really help.  First the obvious sources of feedback, then the more obvious one.

Obvious sources of feedback – While you may not have pursued it diligently, you’ve probably considered asking listeners for feedback on your preaching.  Perhaps you’ve handed out evaluation sheets to a select few, or perhaps you’ve asked for feedback on a specific issue of content, clarity or delivery.  Perhaps you’ve sent your mp3 to another preacher or trusted friend for critique.  Perhaps you’ve gone so far as to form a preaching team that includes non-preachers, creative communicators, etc., to evaluate and feed into your church’s preaching.

The more obvious source of feedback – Perhaps this is so obvious, but it’s worth a mention.  Feedback as a form of evaluation is something you can also do for yourself.  Don’t just do this yourself and avoid the input of others, but don’t miss this either.  After preaching, why not carve out some time to prayerfully evaluate the message.  What went well?  How did the time slip away in the middle section?  Which transition felt clunky?  When did attention drop?  If possible, sometimes listen to the message and ask the same questions, plus, How much variation is there in vocal punch, pitch, pace and pause?  Now and then get a video of yourself and also watch for eye contact, gestures, expressions, movement, etc.  Whatever you do, whether it is thinking back over the message, listening to it, or watching it, be sure to make some notes.  Perhaps have a journal of sermon evaluation.  That journal will offer nudges in the right direction, and great encouragement when problem areas become strengths in time.

After all, evaluated practice makes perfect . . . or realistically, evaluated practice makes better.

Connecting With Story

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

There are many stories in the Bible, and this is one season in the year when most of us are preaching stories.  In some ways Bible stories give the preacher an advantage.  For example, stories offer a flow, a plot, a progression, that can be replicated in the message (although it amazes me how many preachers try to preach a story without telling the story!)  Also, stories offer vivid images and allow for effective description.  But how do we forge the connection between “back then” and “today”?  A few thoughts, I’m sure you could add more:

Don’t just historically lecture, but preach to today. It is easy to fall into the trap of presenting what happened back then, but not recognizing the enduring theological significance for today.  People appreciate hearing about what happened, but they deeply appreciate it when the preacher can emphasize the relevance of that happening to us today.

Don’t caricature characters, but encourage identification with their humanness. Again, it is easy to pick on one aspect of a character’s action in a story, but miss the other side of the coin.  For example, Zechariah doubted the message of the angel, but he was also a faithful pray-er over the long-term.  Don’t beat up your listeners with a sense of identification with the negative only – “How often do we doubt God’s goodness to us?  How easily we resist what God is doing!” Stories function through resolution of tension in a plot and through identification with characters . . . be careful not to mis-emphasize a character portrayal if the biblical account is more balanced.

Don’t identify without theocentrizing.  It is also possible to present the characters effectively so that listeners can identify with them, but miss the point that God is at the center of biblical narrative.  It’s not just Joseph’s kindness and personal character quality that is significant in Matthew 1, it is also very much focused on God’s revelation of His plan to both save His people from their sins and His presence with His people.  Joseph is a great example of a “fine, young man.”  But the passage presents this fine, young man responding to the revelation of God’s purposes.  Jesus, Immanuel.  That is the information that Joseph acted upon.  The amazing thing about Christmas narratives is that the theocentric truth is bundled up in a tiny human infant.

Christmas preached as just peace and happiness and quaint idyllic scenes is a travesty – Christmas is set up for theocentric preaching (but don’t lose the humanness of the other characters too).

The Preacher’s Motivation

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday I pondered why a message might be considered a new take or somehow different from what was expected.  On this particular occasion I preached Matthew 1.  I wonder if there’s another element to add to yesterday’s list of thoughts:

4. Not overemphasizing the theologically rich element in the text. In this passage there is the quote and fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 and the virgin giving birth to a son.  Don’t get me wrong, I did preach that, explained the original context briefly, touching on the Immanuel theme developing right through to 9:6-7.  The Matthew text was clear that Mary was a virgin and that the baby was there because of the Holy Spirit, not any sexual impropriety. However, I didn’t turn the sermon into a theological lecture, nor an apologetic defense of Christian orthodoxy.  My reason for that was because of who would be listening, and because the text doesn’t do that.  As I was pondering this, I wondered whether sometimes we might be tempted to use a theological detail in the text as an opportunity to show off our own orthodoxy, rather than to help listeners understand the truth?  I don’t know, this is just a thought.  I think it is important, it is vital, to teach the theological truth of Scripture, to edify and educate the people in our churches.  Certainly we have too many biblically illiterate people in our churches these days.  But still, are there times when our motivation for a strong theological presentation in a sermon is not really for God’s pleasure or their benefit, but actually for us to demonstrate our theological acumen, or to take pride in our orthodoxy (especially in comparison to some exalted figure who has denied orthodoxy in some respect)?

The Challenge of Consistency

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

I tend to agree with the notion of there being a difference between small church and big church.  A small church, perhaps under 100 people, will tend to have strengths that can become weaknesses in a larger church, perhaps over 200 people.  For instance, in a small church, low standards of music and preaching will be smiled at since everyone knows the individual who is “trying their best.”  But once that church grows through the transitional stage and becomes bigger, such low standards become more counter productive.  Visitors (and there will probably be more now) don’t know the individual up front and the whole dynamic doesn’t work quite so well.  While fellowship is often a strength in smaller churches, it takes deliberate work to achieve that in a larger church.  The emphasis on “up-front” standards inevitably increases as a church grows.

This provides a challenge.  I suppose it is a challenge for all churches of all sizes.  It is especially a challenge for churches with some creative capacity (people, skills, people-hours, etc.).  When you have a guest service of a certain standard, then people will bring guests along.  If that service is done well, then some of those guests might return the next week.  There’s the problem.  If all the effort to be clear and relevant and engaging and effective in the music, the preaching, the presentation, etc., if all that effort is spent on one Sunday, what about the next?

The challenge is consistency.  If your church has a goal of bringing the unchurched to a particular service, then it is worth thinking through whether greater consistency could be achieved in that service 52 times each year.  At that point people would be much more inclined to risk their own relationships and bring people along to the guest events.

There has to be flexibility in this.  Different churches have different capacities for guest events.  The vast majority cannot live up to the standards seen in the small number of “megachurches.”  There also has to be balance in this.  The primary role of the church service may not be evangelism.  Nevertheless, taking into account the specific ethos of a church, it would be worth giving some thought to greater consistency between guest events and normal Sundays.