The Worst Kind of Name Dropping

November 25, 2011November 22, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Last Friday’s post on pulpit integrity stirred some conversation, so let me stir in another similar area. I think most of us are aware that it is annoying to hear someone “name dropping.” Sometimes the well-known person genuinely is the preacher’s friend, and that is ok to mention. Sometimes they are genuinely friends, but it wasn’t necessary to mention it. It really boils down to two factors – what is the motivation of the speaker, and how is it perceived?

But there is another form of “name-dropping,” so to speak, that is even more prevalent and irritating. It is when a preacher constantly drops the “I” reference, as if they are somebody special.

I think Haddon Robinson wrote in his book that in illustrations we should not make ourselves out to be heroes or jerks. That is, don’t be the amazing protagonist in a sermonic tale, neither make yourself look like a ridiculous buffoon. Neither approach helps your credibility as a preacher, or more importantly, the credibility of the message you are bringing.

I’m sure most of us are really aware of the danger of “bigging ourselves up” when we preach. Most preachers seem really sensitive to not coming across that way. But there are one or two that seem blissfully unaware of how they come across.

I was looking back at some notes I took when one particular preacher was in town and on a roll with the “I” references. (Details obscured to avoid identification!)

“I preached twice in such and such a famous venue . . . I preached with a famous film star in the congregation . . . I’ve been introduced to such and such a politician . . . I have never had a Muslim who could cope with my saying such and such . . . I was preaching in a place after they had been preparing for five years . . . I preached and the mayor was there . . . I was saying to my people on Thursday . . . I preached and he was so soundly converted . . .”

Wow, and I missed some out! I am sure that is an extreme case. I do wonder though, if you know one of these extreme cases, how to point this out to them? Is it ethical to send anonymous links to this post?

For the rest of us, let’s pray for sensitivity that we never come across as full of ourselves. It can easily be done accidentally and the damage done can be hard to undo. Let’s also ask for honest feedback from one or two folks that we trust. Better to know if you name drop the big “I” rather than getting an anonymous link to a post like this one!

Listeners and Pulpit Integrity

November 18, 2011November 15, 2011 / Peter Mead / 7 Comments

Listeners can sense a lack of integrity like dogs can sense when someone isn’t a canine fan. People long for the preacher to have a deep sense of consistency about them. And it isn’t just the big and obvious issues like consistency in the preacher’s private life or relational issues. Integrity comes into play in smaller things too.

For example –

1. Do you read Hebrew, young man? That’s what I wrote in my notes after hearing a younger preacher say, “A careful reading would say this . . .” It’s interesting how many of the preachers with no training in biblical languages seem so quick to make reference to them. “This is a present continuous tense . . . Paul used a genitive so that means . . . the original word here is better translated . . . “ I could go on. There is almost no good reason to make references to the original languages. And if you aren’t trained, there are even more reasons not to try. Take onboard what the commentaries say, but don’t imply knowledge you don’t have. (An even bigger concern here is how credulous many listeners are . . . many actually don’t spot it.)

2. If you read this book every week for twenty-five years, you would begin to see . . . I still find myself wondering if the preacher who said that had really read John’s gospel over 1300 times when he made that remark. It certainly undermined his credibility because it didn’t feel real. That’s the issue when integrity comes into question by what we say. Don’t imply that you have a shortcut to special knowledge (the same could be said of claims of direct revelation during preparation).

3. Is that really your angst that is firing now? Every now and then you will hear a preacher that seems to get worked up about something, but somehow it feels fake. It’s like a smile that doesn’t wrinkle around the eyes. It feels forced. Some preachers seem to convey a conviction about things that perhaps aren’t really convictions yet. That’s ok, just don’t pretend they are. It really undermines perceived integrity when your angst feels hollow and learned.

4. Personalised illustrations. Using someone else’s illustration is common fare in preaching. Pretending that actually happened to you, when it didn’t, is a lie.

5. Lifted sermons. Using someone else’s illustration is common fare in preaching. Being influenced by another preacher’s explanation of a text is good. Having your wording marked by theirs is unavoidable at times. But preaching a lifted sermon as if it were your own, well, what do you think that says about integrity?

Other ways we can undermine our integrity while preaching?

It’s All About Me / Us, Jesus

November 14, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Is the church filled with a sort of sanctified self-obsession? Do we fuel that with our messages, our words, our prayers? Today’s post is hosted on the Cor Deo site – click here to go there.

Not Even a Hint – Racism in the Pulpit

October 31, 2011October 31, 2011 / Peter Mead / 9 Comments

The last couple of weeks have seen two high profile footballers accused of making racist remarks to opponents. The world is rightly disgusted by this, even in the context of highly competitive and even combative sporting battle. How much more should we in the church avoid all hints of racism?

If you are an overtly racist preacher, this post will not get to the heart of the issue. I am writing more for those who don’t try to support a race discrimination position by twisting Scripture and becoming defensive. I am writing for preachers who may accidentally give a hint of racism without intending to do so.

Here are three ways I have seen preachers fall into hints of racism that might prove helpful.

1. Cut out references to a “black heart” – Maybe in the context of a mimed drama it might be ok, but probably not. Because of the way “black” and “white” are used as race markers, we have to be careful in using them as references to sinfulness and righteousness. The Bible does speak of white robes, but a black heart? Though your sins be as scarlet, sure, but not a black heart. I heard one preacher make reference to “your disgusting black heart.” He did so seemingly oblivious to who was sitting in front of him. And to make things worse, he himself was from a place associated with racism in the past. Probably best to just avoid the use of “black” as a reference to sin. Not even a hint.

2. Generally don’t mimic accents from the pulpit – Again, I haven’t heard this done in a mocking way. But it can feel mocking nonetheless. I have experienced this with US folks faking a British accent, and with British folks faking a US accent (neither are very successful, which can lead to the feeling of implicit mockery). When preaching Bible stories we are preaching about people in the Middle East, or Africa, or Mediterranean Europe. Don’t fake an accent if it could be taken as mockery. Not even a hint.

3. Watch out for easy targets – In the English context there is much talk about racism and wanting to kick it out of sports, TV, etc. Yet there seems to be open season on anti-American comments, or anti-French jokes. I’m fully English and patriotically so, but I find myself reacting inside to anti-US comments from preachers. In the context of the body of Christ united across Jew/Gentile lines, it just doesn’t seem appropriate. Let’s go for a “not even a hint” approach, why not?

Are there other ways preachers inadvertently give a hint of racism in their preaching?

Easier to Read One

October 27, 2011October 27, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The other day I spent a great morning with a friend reading through some fairly weighty church history. For a couple of hours we stretched our thinking and responded with heavy hearts to an in-depth overview of medieval theology. One paragraph in particular caught my attention and my mind went back to this blog, especially in light of the Lit! review a couple of days ago.

I won’t try to give all the details here, but essentially the book was engaging a debate over the state of theological thought in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Was the fourteenth century about decline into chaos, or was it heading toward the harvest of medieval theology? And then what happened in the fifteenth century? Was it all progress and growth, or was there largely a retreat to the great masters of the thirteenth century? And our thoughts should go on to consider what really happened in the sixteenth century as well – was that all progress, or was there some significant relapses there too?

Your brain might be stretching trying figure out who was around in those centuries, but that’s not the point, here’s the sentence:

[The intellectual decline is attributed to] “the indolence of ‘easy-going scholars,’ who found it ‘so much more convenient to study one author rather than ten or twenty.'”

Ok, one more bit, then back to today:

Like war-weary Europeans who surrendered to strong-arm rule in the late fifteenth century, many argument-weary scholars appear to have given their minds passively to the intellectual giants of the past on the eve of the Reformation.

So fast forward to today. For most Christians, the preacher is the closest they typically come to a Christian scholar. But the question that sits up to be answered is fairly obvious, I think. Is my church being fed by preacher(s) who are enriched by good reading, or by preacher(s) who are “easy-going scholars?” It is, after all, so much more convenient to study one author rather than ten or twenty.

If you’ve read this site with any sort of frequency, I’m sure you’ll have noticed that my real passion is to get preachers to genuinely preach the Word (rather than just preaching from, or using, or in association with, the Word).

But I would also encourage wider reading too. Some preachers hardly read anything, and there is a “thin-ness” to their ministry. Other preachers constantly read one author, and there is a “superficial tone of emulation” in their ministry. Let’s be preachers who read, who read widely, who read quality, and who read so as not to give our minds passively to intellectual giants of the past, or the present.

Book Review: Lit! by Tony Reinke

October 25, 2011January 18, 2012 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Lit! – A Christian Guide to Reading Books by Tony Reinke is bordering on a must read for preachers and church leaders. Years ago it was a given that leaders have to be readers, but today I wonder if we’ve not bought into the notion that leaders have to be too busy to be real readers. Headlines? Yes. Emails? Of course. Web browser? Certainly. Blogs? Staying in touch. Books? Uh, too busy, sorry.

This book is a thoroughly enjoyable pithy little promo for the right kind of reading. The first half of the book lays a theological foundation for books and reading. The second half offers nine dynamite chapters of practical wisdom to help the motivated reader become a real reader.

When we commit ourselves to literature rather than a superficial spinning through surface hype, we find a richness of personal enlightenment that is truly of God. Reinke doesn’t advocate an only-Christian book approach to reading, but he does clearly recognize two categories of books in the world. The Bible. And everything else.

The book engages with what to read, as well as how to read. It addresses issues of conscience, of priorities, of benefits. And it does it all in an engaging energetic manner that makes you want to keep reading, and pick up something else, something good, to read at the same time (if only that were possible!)

Should we read non-Christian books? Absolutely – at least, the best of them, if we already have a well-formed biblical worldview (which I think he assumes too easily and most readers would also assume naively). In fact, Reinke gives biblical examples of reading non-biblical authors as well as a couple of giants from church history on the subject.

Actually, with a passionate commitment to reading like Reinke, we are having to leave behind over 10,000 books for every one that we choose. So we need to choose well, read discerningly, and benefit as fully as possible.

I’ve been struck many times by how many people do not read wisely. “I can’t buy another book until I’ve finished the last one I started . . . three years ago!” Bad logic. Preachers need to be reading and we can’t afford to get log-jammed by a bothersome book.

Randy Alcorn writes of Lit! : “Seldom have I enjoyed a book more than this one.” I concur. Hence I read it in a day. I think your ministry would be blessed if you enjoyed it too.

(If you are in the UK, click here to buy book.)

Where Are The Signs of Life?

October 18, 2011October 18, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

I often speak to preachers who are discouraged by the apparent lack of response to the Word in the congregation. For today’s post I’d like us to dream together about what may happen in the next months. After all, we have a God who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or even imagine. So let’s dare to dream together and pray for each other to see one or more of these scenarios working out in the church where you serve . . .

1. The climate change. You have probably heard this before, but most preachers overestimate what can be achieved in one sermon, but massively underestimate what can be achieved through consistent biblical preaching over the months and years. We hear a lot about climate change, but imagine if the whole ethos of your church were to gradually change. What if people in your church had their hearts warmed by the sunshine of the gospel? What if they became enlivened by the freshness of God’s grace and the Narnian winter of legalism began to thaw? What if people gradually started to see God for who He is and began to delight in Him, starting to move beyond a dutiful Christianity to a delightful responsiveness to Him? Keep preaching the Word and making much of the Lord and pray for climate change in the church!

2. The breakthrough moment. I suppose this is the one we hope for on a weekly basis! What if there is a long running conflict simmering under the surface in a key relationship and you don’t even know about it? And what if this Sunday one party went to the other in tears of repentance and brokenness? What if there is a deep seated sin issue in the church, and this Sunday hearts are broken in repentance and turning to the Lord and stepping into the light? What if one individual is a power broker and this Sunday they decide to finally let go of the reins and trust God with His church? Lots of what ifs, and if any Sunday can be the Sunday, then it might be this Sunday, or the next . . . so keep preaching the Word!

Tomorrow I’ll add a couple more. Let’s dream together and pray for each other. There are a lot of discouraged preachers out there. Preachers placed very strategically, by God, in situations where His Word, His Spirit, His preacher can make the world of difference!

Is Godliness Goodliness?

October 17, 2011October 17, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

As we preach, we both reflect God’s character and we target God’s character in our listeners. The question we have to ask is this – what is God’s character? Some seem to subsume every facet of character under holiness and piety, prioritising the presentation of and pursuit of a personal piety of pursed lips. Today’s post, as is the case every other Monday, is hosted on www.cordeo.org.uk – please click here to go there, thanks!

Distraction Decisions

October 11, 2011October 11, 2011 / Peter Mead / 7 Comments

Jon commented on the issue of distraction with the following:

Peter, do you have any solutions for #3, distraction? A few weeks ago I preached a message. I was prepared, everything was ready, and the night before, a dear friend and church member almost passed away, and was still critically ill.

My sermon wasn’t really related to what was on my heart and the heart of everyone else. I wondered if I should have just set it aside, but there was no time to even really think about something else to preach. I could have just spoken without notes/preparation about trials, etc.

Thoughts?

My feeling would be that if the cause of your distraction as a preacher is known to everybody in the congregation – i.e. the whole church is feeling the weight of the situation – then I would lean toward setting aside the notes. In this case it was a dear friend in the church who lay critically ill. On other occasions it could be a global event like 9/11. But if all are thinking of the same thing, then it makes sense as the preacher to engage with that present reality. A few thoughts:

1. Sometimes the situation is personal to you, but less so for others. In this case I would lean toward preaching as planned. There are no rules here, just a sensitivity to the situation and the congregation, not to mention the Lord, of course.

2. If you only have a couple of hours to prepare, God knows. I wouldn’t advocate leaving preparation until the last minute. That smacks of abusing grace. But when it is genuinely minimal preparation, God understands and undertakes (as they used to say in my church back in the day).

3. You don’t know the impact of sensitive, relevant, engaged, pastoring. But you might guess the impact of irrelevance. Even an outsider who doesn’t know the individual concerned might be touched by the love of the church for the brother or sister in Christ. By this will all men know that you are my disciples . . .

I don’t think these decisions are at all easy. And the challenge is to make the decision in a moment of personal distraction (perhaps it is good to consult some trusted colleagues on this kind of decision?) These thoughts are just off the top of my head (and while the intermittent internet connection is temporarily on!) Any thoughts you’d like to add?

Where Do You Preach From – Part 2

October 10, 2011October 3, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Continuing the list from last time, I’m contemplating why a preacher may seem to be emotionally or spiritually a couple of feet back from where their body and mouth appear to be – that sense of distance or aloofness that undermines good engaging preaching.

4. The preacher may be nervous and so suffering from presentation freeze. It’s simple. Nerves freeze the vocal range, facial expressions and body language of the preacher. Maybe nerves have frozen the delivery into a “safe” zone that comes across as stilted, dispassionate and distant.

5. The preacher may be feeling hypocritical due to personal sin. This probably isn’t one to ponder on behalf of another (unless you know something). But it is worth praying through personally. We should all ask the Lord to search and try our hearts to see if there be any wicked way in us.

6. The preacher may be dour in personality. I don’t mean to be rude, but some preachers are just plain dull people. Not sure what to suggest, but do try to reflect the joy, enthusiasm, love, laughter, expression and life that is fitting for one representing our God!

7. The listener may be struggling to engage and projecting the issue onto the preacher. It is entirely possible that it isn’t an issue with the preacher at all, but rather the listener. Then again, if more than one listener points out that you seem distant when you preach, it probably isn’t them!

There might be other reasons too. Perhaps the amplification isn’t set at the right level. Perhaps the lighting isn’t working to full effect. What else might cause this issue, and how can we overcome it? After all, surely we would all rather be effectively communicating and fully engaging to listeners?