Saturday Short Thought – Lone Ranger Ministry?

December 10, 2011December 8, 2011 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

This week I have blogged about delivery, which in many ways is all about the connection between preacher and listeners. Preaching is an inherently communicative ministry, yet it can be such a lonely ministry. Some preachers are too busy and don’t spend the time they need to, alone with God. Other preachers are too independent and don’t spend the time they need to, connecting with others. Preaching involves lone time in preparation, and often a desire to remain alone after preaching (since a spent preacher can feel so vulnerable during post-preaching interaction).

Three slightly random thoughts to finish the week:

1. The preacher should never be truly alone. Preparation time should be saturated in prayer, and enjoyed in fellowship with the God we represent. If we have any encouragement from our union with Christ, if we have any comfort from His love, any fellowship with the Spirit . . . surely we do. We must.

2. Preacher’s benefit from interaction with each other. This week we had our second preacher’s workshop at church. I am excited about this group and hope that in time it will become a special gathering that will not only educate and develop preachers, but will create a sense of team in the preaching ministry of the church. Sharing resources, sharing feedback, sharing enthusiasm, sharing encouragement. I wouldn’t want to miss out on that!

3. In a small way preachers can benefit from online connections. I find some benefit from mutual encouragement with other preaching friends online. Comments on this site make a difference in my ministry. So this week I have launched the Biblical Preaching facebook page – a place for preachers and listeners to connect and share resources, discussion, encouragement. The slightly less formal surroundings there will, I hope, allow interactions that will feed into the content of this site. I’ll also share the odd link to helpful resources there too. The more people that know about it and “like” it, the more value it will have. Would you help by “liking” the page (you can click on the like button in the facebook box to the right, or go to the page and like it there), and perhaps share the link with others via facebook and twitter? Thanks so much. Don’t miss the chance to win two great preaching books too – click here for promotion information.

__________________________________

Next Week: Powerful, Provocative, Pithy – Preaching Proverbs

Can I Tread on Some Special Toes?

December 9, 2011December 9, 2011 / Peter Mead / 32 Comments

It is coming up to the time of year when people are making resolutions. One of the big ones in churches is to read the Bible through in a year. So perhaps you are thinking of encouraging people to do this by suggesting a reading plan. Here’s where I am going to tread on some special toes.

“I don’t think the Robert Murray M’Cheyne reading plan

is a good idea.”

There, I said it.

His plan, which is still widely promoted by various big names, essentially involves reading four chapters per day. This takes people through the whole Bible plus a bit of repeating (NT & Psalms, I think) in a year. I think it is great to help people get into the Bible, and I know many have been helped by it, but I don’t think this is the best way to go.

Essentially the problem with the plan, and others like it, is that the reading is segregated. So readers start in Genesis, Ezra, Matthew and Acts all on day one. I don’t want to stir up a sanctified riot, but I don’t think this is a good idea. Why not?

1. It treats the Bible chapters as vitamin pills rather than the feast that they are. That is, it creates a sense of “balance” without encouraging readers to really savour the taste of the text as it flows.

2. It hinders the reader from reading the text in context. In a busy life it is hard enough to keep track of one flow of thought, let alone four.

3. It doesn’t encourage the reader to get “in the zone.” I don’t know anyone that would advocate reading four novels at a time, a page from each, each day. How much better to invite people beyond the first few minutes of distracted reading and into the zone where they get gripped by the narrative and don’t want to put it down?

4. It promotes a tick-box approach to Bible reading as a discipline, rather than an overt opportunity to engage with God’s heart as revealed in the epic revelation. So many people view Bible reading as a laborious discipline that they must force themselves to do. But the people I know who delight in the Bible tend to be people who devour it, rather than dipping into it.

Suggestion? Why not encourage and invite people to read the Bible aggressively and relationally, as if God has a personality and is personal. That is, by reading His Word with a passion to know Him, readers/listeners might get to know His personality and grow in their personal relationship with Him.

Perhaps it is worth pondering how to encourage people by enthusiastic invitation, rather than by affirming the “difficulty” and “trudgery” of “getting through the Bible” in a year or three. Here is a link to my friend Ron’s article on Bible reading – as “Bible presenters” lets be sure to be genuine Bible enthusiasts that do more than try to fire up the so-called disciplined wills of our listeners!

7 Tone Balances

December 8, 2011November 23, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

The tone of our preaching is so important. Yet this is a balancing act. Seven “tones” to balance in biblical preaching:

1. Serious yet joyful – We handle the most serious of content in the most serious of circumstances. Yet we have more reason than any to have joy. It isn’t right for a biblical preacher to come across as flippant and silly, but neither is it right to come across as sombre and melancholic.

2. Textual yet relevant – We preach as inhabitants of two worlds: the world of the inspired text and the world of our listeners. It is possible for our tone to be too much in one or the other and for our preaching to be undermined as a result.

3. Contemporary yet genuine – We preach as fellow humans in the present situation. It is incarnational to not come across as a prophet who has been locked in a victorian time capsule. Yet we need to be genuine in this, no good pretending to be contemporary in ways we are not, people see through that.

4. Authentic yet appropriate – In a culture that increasingly craves authentic communicators, we must show the real us when we speak. Listeners don’t connect with plastic preachers. Yet we must be appropriate in what we share. Sometimes too much information undoes everything around it.

5. Welcoming yet exclusive – We preach as those who represent the welcoming spreading graciousness of Christ, yet as those who stand with Him in His claim to absolute exclusivity. We can’t be welcoming in a way that offers hope to those on a hopeless path.

6. Warm yet warning – We preach as ambassadors for Christ. He wasn’t stone cold like some preachers are, Christ was compelling and warm. Yet the self-righteous found Christ to be one who warned, rather than warmed them.

7. Winsome yet real – Maybe this has been covered already, but let me reinforce it. We speak as representatives of a God who seeks to woo the wounded. Our preaching tone should be winsome and Christlike, but that won’t work if it is mere catchphrases that aren’t supported by a deeply stirred reality.

Saturday Short Thought: Christmas According to Sibbes

November 26, 2011November 23, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

This week I spent a few days on here thinking out loud about Christmas. I’ve also done quite a bit of thinking in terms of the six messages I have coming up in December. I am going with a Christ of Christmas theme, delving back beyond the start of the New Testament to tap into the epic expectation of the one anointed to be prophet, priest and king. I’m sure you have plans and ideas stirring too.

But let me throw this into the mix from a few centuries ago. Richard Sibbes is a preacher worthy of our attention. According to Sibbes, the incarnation is a greater mystery than that of creation…

“We cannot too often meditate of these things. It is the life and soul of a Christian. It is the marrow of the gospel. It is the wonder of wonders. We need not wonder at anything after this.” (Sibbes, Works 5:485)

Like Sibbes and those puritans who were like him, may we be stirred as we ponder the Incarnation. May it elicit wonder and thankfulness in our hearts. May we be stirred to preach the Christ who

“hath taken our flesh upon him for that purpose, that he might have experimental knowledge of our infirmities and weaknesses, and from that he might be the more sweet, and kind, and gentle to us.” (Sibbes, Works 5:480-2)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Next week – Handling the Text as a Preacher

A week of posts on our handling and presenting of the biblical text.

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.)