Treasure Shifts

May 3, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I am currently enjoying Paul David Tripp’s Dangerous Calling. This is my book of the year, so far, and once I finish it I will be sure to review it on here. There is so much good stuff in this book, but just as a taster, here is a list of five “treasure shifts” that can occur in the heart of a pastor/preacher (this is straight quotation from Tripp):

1. IDENTITY: Moving from identity in Christ to identity in Ministry.

In pastoral ministry, it is very tempting to look hirzontally for what you have already been given in Christ. . . . Rather than the hope and courage that come from resting in my identity in Christ, my ministry becomes captured and shaped by the treasure of a series of temporary horizontal affirmations of my value and worth. This robs me of ministry boldness and makes me all too focused on how those in the circle of my ministry are responding to me.

2. MATURITY: Defining spiritual well-being not by the mirror of the Word, but by ministry.

Biblical literacy is not to be confused with Christian maturity. Homiletic accuracy is not the same as godliness. Theological dexterity is very different from practical holiness. Successful leadership is not the same as a heart for Christ. Growth in influence must not be confused with growth in grace. It is tempting to allow a shift to take place in the way that I evaluate my maturity as a pastor. Rather than living with a deep neediness for the continued operation of grace in my own heart, I begin, because of experience and success in ministry, to view myself as being more mature than I actually am. Because of these feelings of arrival, I don’t sit under my own preaching; I don’t preach out of a winsome, tender, and humble heart; and I don’t seek out the ministry of the body of Christ. This allows my preparation to be less devotional and my view of others to be more judgmental.

3. REPUTATION: Shifting from a ministry shaped by zeal for the reputation of Christ to a ministry shaped by hunger for the praise of people.

. . . My heart begins to be captured by the desire to be esteemed by others, the buzz of being needed, the allure of standing out in the crowd, the glory of being in charge, and the power of being right. This makes it hard to admit I am wrong, to submit to the counsel of others, to surrender control, to not have to win the day and prove I am right. It makes it hard to accept blame or to share credit, and it makes me less than excited about ministry as a body-of-Christ collaborative process.

I will finish the list tomorrow.

(NB. This list is found on pages 105-107)

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.

Two Ways to Feed 2

April 17, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I suggested that offering a meal is more loving than throwing a shower of vitamin pills at someone. I’m not sure I want to overwork the analogy, but there is infinite variety even in the category of meal. Here are some thoughts on pulpit cooking options. I’ll let you evaluate each one:

1. Fast Food Preaching. It is prepared quickly, in a very standardized process, with standard content, high on application, but almost bereft of nutrition. Some people get addicted to it. Some people grow sick of it.

2. Home Delivered Fast Food. It is the same as number 1, but you didn’t even have to go and get it. It was delivered by the internet delivery moped and saved you a whole load of time.

3. Home Delivered Fast Food Stolen. Once you get it delivered, you hide the box and pretend that you cooked it. There is a sensed lack of integrity, but you think everyone’s nice comments are genuine.

4. Thrown Together Left-Overs. Again, short on time, you pull together scraps from here and there. They don’t necessarily go together, but what you heard from him and what you read over there and what is on your mind once you pause to think about it . . . all served on one sermon plate.

5. Good Food Disconnected. This is better, you have done some cooking. But you haven’t grasped that while all food may be good food, not all good food goes together on the same plate.

6. One Favourite Recipe. You have learned to do a mean chili con carne, so that’s what you cook. Every time. Guests coming? Chili con carne. Sorted. Unless, of course, they come twice. Works better if you are a traveling chef, unless people swap venues and then things get complicated 🙂

7. Good Ingredients Cooked the Wrong Way. You take your chili con carne recipe and just replace the ingredients. Problem is that it doesn’t work with a lamb joint, cooking chocolate or a fruit selection. Forcing every Bible text into the same sermon shape may not be such a great solution!

8. Good Ingredients Cooked the Right Way. Please cook salmon differently to beef. Deal with each text and congregation and situation according to what and who they are.

9. The Fast Feast. Seven good but random courses back to back in half an hour, without either break in delivery or connection in content. Not ideal.

10. Non-gourmet home cooked healthy meal. It isn’t exciting. It won’t win a prize. But it may win hearts as you give of yourself to those you love. And over time, it will generate health like nothing else.

Two Ways to Feed

April 16, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

There are essentially two ways to feed someone. I may decide to chase further possible analogies tomorrow, but for now, just two ways:

1. The pill shower. Next to our stove we have a funny shaped little dish. It usually contains some real treasures. It is where my wife puts her supplements for the day. There will be vitamin C for the immune system and various B vitamins for energy levels, and perhaps some fish oils for joint and heart health. Every one of those pills has real value for health.

Let’s say I come home from work and join my family at the dinner table. We pray and then my wife unveils the meal for the day – a randomly shuffled assortment of vitamin pills from the funny little dish!

Healthy? Technically it is.

Satisfying? Nope.

Sustainable for long-term health and growth? Hardly.

But is this not the way some of us preach the Bible to people in the church? An assortment of truth nuggets randomly assorted and presented in some manner as a “healthy diet”?

There is an alternative:

2. The meal. A meal tends to consist of a restricted number of elements carefully prepared and served in an appropriate order and combination. A meal can be healthy, or unhealthy. It can be gourmet or a highly processed “ready meal.” Oh the potential points of connection are multiplying!

Preaching a meal means preaching a passage or a small combination of passages, rather than assorted truth nuggets from all over the place. It means thinking about who you are preaching to and what they might need, rather than a standardized packaging of recommended daily allowance supplements. It means building long-term health and growth and even taking issues of satisfaction into account (although not exclusively, of course, or they may get a case of itchy-ear-itis).

Meals tend to be different each time, whereas a diet of supplements would always feel the same.

Let’s preach meals, seems like a proven and healthy approach to feeding folks. I’ll let you ponder the multiplying analogies. . . do you preach fast food, pre-packaged or home-cooked, etc.?

Point 2

April 11, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Periodically I like to come back to this issue of outlines and whom they serve. The sermon outline is the preacher’s strategy, but it is not the actual “weapon.” If we think of the message purpose as the target, and the message idea as the arrow, then the outline is the strategy. Strategy is important, but the goal is for those on the receiving end to leave with the arrow firmly implanted in their hearts and lives. The strategy gets it there, but if they go away with greater awareness of strategy than arrow, then something has not quite worked.

Am I suggesting that making an outline memorable is not the main goal for the preacher? Yes. Am I saying that a memorable outline is wrong and should not be offered? Not at all. If the outline happens to be memorable, that is fine. But the preacher’s energy is better spent getting the listener into the passage and getting the main point of that passage into the listener’s heart with a clear sense of its relevance to their lives and the encouragement to respond appropriately to the God whose heart is revealed in the text.

Allow me to offer some of the potential dangers of focusing on creating a memorable outline:

1. The focus can easily be shifted from the passage to the preacher’s craft. This is where the listener is listening for the preacher’s message based on a text, rather than looking for the message of the text.

2. The biblical passage may not be preached honestly. This is what happens when a text is squeezed into an outline form, rather than having the message shaped and controlled by the text.

3. The listener can be drawn toward the clever preacher, rather than the wonderful God. This doesn’t mean that we preach dull and plain so that all focus can go to Christ. Rather, we need to beware that our cleverness doesn’t become a distraction from the God speaking in the Bible.

I’ll finish off the list tomorrow…

Jesus vs Religion – Honouring God cont.

April 6, 2013April 1, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

This week I have used Edlredge’s Beautiful Outlaw as the springboard for a series of posts. While I can’t affirm everything in the book, his chapter on the dangers of religion really did stir my thinking and for that I am thankful. So let’s finish the list, three more points that effectively continue the thought of honouring God.

8. A trivial morality prevails.

“Trivial morality takes the severe beauty of holiness and makes it ridiculous.” (176) Churches can easily fall into straining gnats and swallowing camels. Eldredge points to a church that won’t say the word “hell” out loud. Another that rejected a pastoral candidate because he occasionally drinks wine with a meal (an elder hit him with a Bible and said, “you better read this, son!” . . . get out of there, Mr Candidate, find a Christian church to pastor!) You can fill in the equivalents in your context. Trivial morality undermines the gospel. We must not fall into it ourselves, or preach in such a way as to reinforce it in others.

9. The system operates on the fear of man.

“’What good people might think rules this world.’ Members toe the line not because they are captured by God, but because they’re afraid of what the gossip mill will say if they don’t.” (176)

Is it possible for a church to be controlled by the fear of man? There is no doubt about that. Is it possible for a preacher to bring about change? That is not easy. No single sermon solutions here. But drip feeding through consistent preaching and personal example, combined with a bit of Jesus-like radical challenge when appropriate (pray for wisdom and courage!) . . . it must be possible to win such a church to the gospel.

10. False humility is honoured.

“A woman told me that when she comes into her morning prayer time it is with the posture of, ‘Who am I, a sinner, to come before you, a holy God?’ (She was holding her hands above her head as if to shield herself from a deserved wrath.) Sounds holy. It’s disgusting. You don’t see a whiff of this in those who knew they were the lowest—the woman who anoints Jesus, the leper, Peter after renouncing him three times. They come running to Jesus. False humility is religious.” (177)

That is quite the list. I hope it has been a helpful prompt to prayerful Bible reading and reflection. Being “anti-religious” can be a quasi-religion, so we do need wisdom here. There is much that has been helpful in the traditional forms of Christianity across the world. But if we are honest, a good tradition is always one person away from being a deadening influence for Christ. The problem ultimately is not with Christianity in its many local expressions. The problem is with our flesh that will still push intimacy with God away and replace it with personally driven performance.

Jesus vs Religion – Honouring God

April 5, 2013April 1, 2013 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

So I am halfway through Eldredge’s list of ten indicators of religious distraction from true Christ-centred Christianity. Let’s see if I can finish the list in a single post, actually I won’t bother trying. I’ll finish the list tomorrow. All to do with honouring God:

6. The holiness of God is taught by making him “unknowable” or unapproachable.

“God is spoken of as a mystery so high and lifted up we cannot possibly be friends. The talk may be very intellectual and philosophical; it may be hyperspiritual talk of the heavens; it might be existential “dark night of the soul” stuff. Do you ever hear Jesus talk like this? Of course there are mysteries to God, but Jesus came to make God known.”

The incarnation is about the unseen God being seen, and touched, and met, and talked to, and heard, and known. The New Testament critiques the proto-gnostic notions of an un-incarnate Christ because that tendency was in the churches. In modified forms it still is. While it may get us kudos as we stand at the church door and shake hands with the impressed, let us instead offer them the only begotten God who has made the Father fully known.

7. Holiness is substituted with rule-keeping.

The church seems to propagate technical righteousness and the minding of evangelical manners. Is this what holiness is all about? If we can’t make the connection between holiness and the fellowship of the Trinity, but only speak of separation from sinful acts, then perhaps our view of holiness is too superficial. If the preacher doesn’t get it, the congregation have little chance.

Tomorrow I’ll finish the list . . .

Jesus vs Religion – Serving God

April 4, 2013April 1, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Beautiful Outlaw by John Eldredge offers a colourful portrait of the personality of Jesus, and warns of the deadening effects of religious mutations of Christianity. While we may not embrace all of Eldredge’s theology, let’s not miss the accuracy of his diagnosis when it comes to the dangers of religiosity. We all fall into such mutations of Christianity, so this week I am probing a little from the perspective of a preacher. We’ve thought about loving and knowing God. How about serving Him?

4. Religious activity is confused with commitment to Christ.

“To draw near to God requires a church function of some kind. Church activities are considered more important than any other type of activity. Those who do not engage regularly in religious gatherings are suspect. To question the centrality of church functions immediately places the questioner outside the faithful. Leaders get very defensive about church—but to suggest this fact is to incur something along the lines of malice.” (173-4)

The most committed to Christ must be the people who attend the most meetings. Really? It only takes you missing one meeting to learn one thing: people don’t know your circumstances or your motives. Perhaps you were caught in a conversation of eternal significance, perhaps you were serving God in a private way that should not be broadcast to the church, perhaps your family needed you there. If you ever chose to stay home and didn’t feel guilt before God (although in some churches you certainly would feel guilt before others) . . . then you know one thing. You cannot assume and judge negatively when others miss meetings. I know of preachers preaching pressure to attend faithfully. If that is you, cut it out. Preach Christ.

5. Christian service substitutes for friendship with Jesus.

“Fighting for a cause becomes the expression of devotion to Jesus. . . . Exhausted Christians working for noble causes, but they do not report a daily personal encounter with Jesus. Over time the work itself substitutes for Jesus, and seeking him seems harder than doing more for him. Martha, Martha. Loving Jesus comes first; out of this will flow whatever work in the world he has for us to do.” (174)

There is a reason that many pastors and preachers suffer burnout and depression – they lose their grip on being lead worshippers and lead responders and lead delighters in God. And they become lead activists in the church. Busy, busy. Exhaustion. But loving God always comes before loving people in the presentation of the Great Commandment. We cannot, we must not, fall for the lie that we are loving God by loving people. Love God first. Let him minister to you before you minister to others!

Live that, and then preach that. It might rescue your church.

Jesus vs Religion – Knowing God

April 3, 2013April 1, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday we pondered the replacement of love with false reverence. Now for another test to know when “the religious” is at work in the church (launching from some thoughts of John Eldredge in Beautiful Outlaw):

2. Knowing about God substitutes for knowing God.

“Therefore, teaching is exalted. Church feels like a seminar—could be intellectual, could be motivational. Good content is what matters. Doctrine is fiercely defended. Members can explain to you theories of the atonement, or seven steps to success, but can’t name one intimate encounter they’ve had with Jesus.” (172)

This is a very real danger for us preachers. Especially those of us who have had the privilege of attending formal theological training in some form. One of two things tends to happen in Bible school, and both are problematic. Either we have a great time of personal growth as we delight in the studies and learning environment—which results in us viewing church as an opportunity to recreate that academic environment. Or we have our faith numbed as we grow sophisticated in our understanding of what true Christianity supposedly is—which also results in us viewing church as an opportunity to recreate that academic environment.

Church is not seminary-lite with courses running one lecture a week over several weeks. Church is a different animal. There should be an educational component, but it should be so much more than that. (Part of the problem may be that Bible college and seminary should be so much more than that too, but over time the ideals of the founders of Bible Institutes and Colleges tend to dull toward secular respectability, intellectual sophistication and spiritual deadness . . . perhaps a subject for another day.)

Let’s be very careful that our own study and personal walk with Christ is genuinely intimate rather than allowing it to reduce to academic study alone. Then let’s make sure our preaching pursues life transformation and personal introduction, rather than settling for information transfer and cultural reinforcement.

3. Power displays are confused for intimacy with Jesus.

Some churches celebrate the miraculous and delight that God is at work in their midst. But chasing the next miracle is not the same thing as chasing Jesus. In Eldredge’s words, “I can give someone a thousand dollars and it doesn’t make them my friend. They can keep coming back to me for more, and it doesn’t make them my friend.” (173)

Even if we have great stories to tell of God’s coming through in our lives and experience, let us not short change our listeners by failing to invite them into the reality of relationship with God Himself. A Christianity that offers only the benefits of Christ without the person of Christ might be no Christianity at all.

Jesus vs Religion – Loving God

April 2, 2013April 1, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In his book, Beautiful Outlaw, John Eldredge lists ten tests to know when “the religious” is operating. This week I am walking through them for us to ponder as preachers, and in respect to our preaching. Please see the first post for a caveat regarding concerns with his books.

1. False reverence replaces loving Jesus.

“In fact, loving Jesus is considered optional. I know, it seems to hard to believe. But it’s really quite common. You don’t meet a lot of people, frankly, who are given over to loving Jesus. But they live a clean life, attend church faithfully, and are considered to be ‘good Christians.’” (172)

Is it possible to be a Christian, but to have the “being in love with God” part be an optional extra – extra credit, if you like? I am afraid this is all too common. Jesus could not have been more clear about the greatest commandment. I think John’s gospel also hints a little about the issue of loving God. But we have come to the place where people define being a Christian based primarily on praying a prayer, making a commitment, and assenting to a basic creed.

I am glad he put this one first. It is truly fundamental. If you don’t love Jesus, something is profoundly broken. Paul said so in 1Corinthians 16:22 if anyone does not love Christ, he is accursed. Let’s stop accepting alternative measures of true faith to avoid the central one.

Loving Jesus is not an option for you as a preacher, and it is not an option for those who go by the label Christian. If you don’t love Jesus, don’t preach. If you do love Jesus, then when you preach don’t just prompt a pretense of love by adding certain terminology to the creedal commitments of the church. We don’t need churches full of people who adopt an alteration of their “vocabularius receptus.” We need to help our churches be full of people who are transformed from external religious practice to real love for a Christ they discover to be so captivating and a God whose love is so transformative.