Letter from the Tax Office

April 1, 2011April 1, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I enjoyed a good conversation about preaching yesterday. Here’s a thought. 2 hypothetical situations:

Situation 1 – I have received a letter from the tax office stating that a Mr Jones is going to be hearing from the bailiffs if he doesn’t pay his tax bill within five days. I figure out that Mr Jones lives six doors down from me. Out of courtesy I take the letter to him and hand it over.

Situation 2 – I have a close friend who works in the tax office who lets me know that a mutual friend of ours, who happens to live next door, is long overdue on a tax payment and needs to respond immediately. I go next door and explain the situation carefully and clearly to Mr Smith, making sure he understands the gravity of the situation.

Which situation will offer the more compelling communication. Obviously the second one. Why? Because in the first I know neither the person in the tax office, nor the recipient. In the second one I know and like both of them.

Question: when you preach, which situation fits you? Ignore any tax and duty typology here – that’s not my point. As a communicator do I take data from the study of a written document and present that clearly to others? That is, do I handle a 2-D document in a manner that is relationally disconnected? Or do I have a heart-level connection with both the Author of that document, and the listeners of my message?

Many preachers and pastors are alert to the importance of knowing and loving the people to whom they preach. Humans can sense when someone cares, or even when someone likes them. Have you heard a preacher that didn’t seem to like you? I have recently and it left me stone cold. A good shepherd really loves his sheep. A good under-shepherd will too.

Fewer preachers seem to be alert to the importance of the heart connection in the other side of the preaching mix. That is, do you as a preacher know not only the text, but do you know and love and like the God who inspired it?

This makes a massive difference, but is rarely addressed in the preaching books. Massive difference. If you are not compelled and captivated by the One whose Word you preach, then why should your listeners be marked by its presentation? Your love for them alone is inadequate. It will carry things a decent distance, but it will fall short. The connection, ultimately, has to be between them and Him. Relational coldness between you and them, or you and Him, will short-circuit the whole loop.

An Officious Calling

March 30, 2011March 30, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

David Gordon’s list of four failing approaches to preaching includes the category of “Introspection.” Let’s hear some highlights (pp83-84):

Some of the neo-Puritans have apparently determined that the purpose and essence of Christian preaching is to persuade people that they do not, in fact, believe. …This brand of preaching constantly suggests that if a person does not always love attending church, always look forward to reading the Bible, or family worship, or prayer, then the person is probably not a believer. To the outsider, it appears patently curious to take an opportunity to promote faith as an opportunity to declare its nonexistence.

Since the sermon mentions Christ only in passing (if at all), the sermon says nothing about the adequacy of Christ as Redeemer, and therefore does nothing nourish or build faith in him. So true unbelievers are given nothing that might make believers of them, and many true believers are persuaded that they are not believers, and the consolations of Christian faith are taken from them.

It is absolutely debilitating to be told again and again that one does not have faith when one knows perfectly well that one does have faith, albeit weak and imperfect.

It is really hard to see any positive that comes from this kind of preaching. The bruised reed and smoldering wick do seem to get broken and snuffed out. The dead in sin are hardly offered life when the love of God is not offered as the vivifying affection. Even the self-righteous are only reinforced in their misbelief since they will always assume this message is for someone else.

The self-righteous like it too much; for them, religion makes them feel good about themselves, because it allows them to view themselves as the good guys and others as the bad guys – they love to hear the minister scold the bad guys each week. And sadly, the temperament of some ministers is simply officious. Scolding others is their life calling.

So, what can we suggest to preachers who find themselves being described in this post? I suppose the only solution is to fling yourself at the foot of the cross, read the Word for yourself and see your own brokenness and need. If you see brokenness in yourself, surely you see the need for others to be tended, to be cared for, to be shepherded, to be encouraged. If you see no brokenness in yourself, then perhaps you need the very gospel you are convinced nobody else really believes.

Learning to Listen to The Word

March 29, 2011March 29, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Why is it that some people are seemingly so alive, and others seem stone cold, when both have the same Bible? Maybe the difference is in them…click here for today’s post

Review: Why Johnny Can’t Preach, by T.David Gordon

March 21, 2011January 18, 2012 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

It’s a short book,108 pages, but it packs quite a punch. T.David Gordon wrote Why Johnny Can’t Preach during a year of treatment for cancer. Given only a 25% chance of survival, he found his focus clear and the desire to compromise his message absent. The book is hard-hitting, but I found the tone entirely appropriate and not harsh despite the subject matter.

The writer is a media ecologist – that is, one who studies the effects of the change of media forms on the culture. Taking his title from two books in the 1960’s on the growing inability of students to read and write, this book focuses on why the present state of preaching is so dire.

The first part of the book sets out his evidence for his claim that preaching is ordinarily poor. While admitting freely that his first line of evidence is merely anecdotal, I found the presentation of evidence hard to argue with (not that I’m inclined to argue since my experience largely reflects the author’s). Yet Gordon’s evidence is not merely subjective. He goes to some pains to make clear that there are some objective measures of sermon quality that can be used to identify problem preaching. It is too common to hear “that is just your opinion” if a sermon is ever questioned or critiqued.

The author’s argument culminates with the almost total absence of the annual review, not missing in any other profession, but indicative that all sides know there is an issue. Gordon doesn’t blame seminaries for this state of affairs. In his perspective they haven’t changed, but the calibre of incoming student certainly has. What has changed? Because of the change in media forms, Johnny is no longer able to read, nor write, nor discern the significant, and hence he can’t preach either.

True preaching requires close examination and study of a quality text, something non-readers have no experience of today. People don’t study classical languages. They don’t read literature. They aren’t equipped to really study a text. People read for content, but don’t learn to look at how a text communicates.

True preaching requires careful composition. But people don’t write letters anymore. They talk on the phone. Instead of careful composition, we live in a day of easy and cheap talk.

True preaching requires a sensibility of the significant. But the only way to watch hours of television is to turn off such sensibility, so most do.

A once-common sensibility (close reading of texts) is now uncommon, and a once-common activity (composition) is now comparatively rare. A once-common daily occurrence (face-to-face communication allowing us to “read” the unstated feelings of another) has been replaced by telephone conversation in which visual feedback is absent. A once-common sensibility, the capacity to distinguish the significant from the insignificant, is becoming rare. For a minister today to preach a basic average sermon by early-twentieth-century standards would require a lifestyle that is significantly countercultural.

The book is not solely concerned with capacity to study and compose. The fourth chapter looks at the content of sermons and gives a fine rebuttal of four contemporary approaches – moralism, how-to, introspection and “so-called culture wars” . . . helpful content that I will come back to in other posts.

At certain points I would suggest that the author’s view of Christian preaching is a little narrow. There is more to an inherently relational faith than merely submitting our will to God’s will. Perhaps the Bible text, if read carefully, might present the heart of God such that our hearts might be changed in response.

Nevertheless, even taken on the author’s terms, the book’s message is important and needs to be considered. All of us live in a fast-paced world that simply doesn’t allow for careful reading of God’s heart in His Word. Perhaps it is time we were more counter-cultural in order to be able to read the text well.

Thankfully, T. David Gordon is still alive and serving the church through his teaching and writing. We should be grateful for this little gem of a book. Buy this book, perhaps even pass on a copy to someone else!

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

Surprising Identification

February 18, 2011February 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

When we read “narrative” – that is, story – we naturally find ourselves identifying with some characters, and perhaps distancing ourselves from others. We do the same thing when we watch films or TV shows too. There’s nothing wrong with that, whether it is a fictional story (like a film), or an inspired account of something that actually happened (like a biblical narrative).

As a preacher, part of your task is to tap into this natural response to narrative. You do this by telling the story well enough that people start to identify. You do this by overtly helping people to identify. But sometimes the natural point of identification is not the way to go (or maybe it is the way to go, with a twist somewhere along the line for greater affective impact!) Take, for example, the passion narratives. Who might you, or your listeners, naturally identify with? Caiaphas, Peter, Pilate, Judas?

Here’s an interesting quote from a certain German monk, a Dr Martin Luther:

“It is a Christian art when a person can regard the Lord Jesus as one whose business is to deal with our sins. . . . Although Christians will identify themselves with Judas, Caiaphas, and Pilate; sinful, condemned actors in the Gospel story – there is another who took the sins of humanity on himself when they were hung around his neck. . . . And today, Easter Sunday, when we see him, they are gone; there is only righteusness and life, the Risen Christ who comes to share his gifts.” (Sermons, 125.)

The amazing thing about the easter story, the heart of our proclamation, is that while we naturally identify with so many of the characters involved, we are invited to identify with the One at the centre of it all. It isn’t natural that we identify with the sinless Jesus, but it is the heart of the gospel to do so!

Preaching in Light of the Big Question

February 16, 2011February 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The big question throughout Scripture is consistently the same. Will people trust God or not? Will they have faith in Him or not? Will we?

We are living under the same banner, the same fluttering question mark. Will we trust God? As preachers we need to help people see the simplicity of life (i.e. this is really the issue in every situation), while addressing the complexity of life (i.e. it never feels that simple!)

Hebrews 11, for an obvious example, presents example after example of people of faith who lived in the present in light of eternity. They were willing to choose discomfort now, because of what was to come. This is always a great indicator of faith in God. They trusted God. But this is an obvious preaching passage. What about something more obscure?

Leviticus 17 makes an enigmatic reference to the people making sacrifices outside the camp to goat demons or goat idols. Some obviously were choosing to be unfaithful to God for some reason or other. This incident is similar to the golden calf incident back in Exodus. God had delivered them, was among them, yet they rebelled and didn’t trust Him. Ok, what else?

Actually if we take any incident in Scripture, any narrative, we will find people either trusting or not trusting God.

We face the same options today, although in different forms. Will we be unfaithful to a God who has given us so much and dwells among us? Will we commit spiritual adultery by giving our worship to another? Or will we be men and women of faith, trusting in God even when it means choosing discomfort in the present circumstances? Let’s be preachers that encourage others to allow God’s Word to inspire them as we read all sorts of biblical texts, obscure or otherwise – and let’s try to live out a good answer to the big question hanging over us today.

Preach With The Right Goal

February 15, 2011February 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I’d like to think this was obvious that it wouldn’t need to be stated. I suspect I’d be wrong. The goal of Bible reading, and indeed, the goal of sermon listening, isn’t to gather information. That’s not a bad side-effect or by-product, but it’s not the real goal.

The goal of spending time in God’s Word is not to fill the brain with facts so that you can impress at the next Christmas Bible trivia quiz. It’s not to gather information so that you can feel good about your knowledge relative to others. Now this is not to say that our brains don’t matter. They do, very much. But our goal in Bible reading, and our goal in preaching the Bible, is not primarily intellectual, but spiritual.

The goal of spending time in God’s Word is to know, relate to and respond to God Himself. We worship God, not the Bible. Yet we can know God and respond to God as we spend time in what He’s given of Himself to us in the Word, the Bible.

Make this clear in your preaching. Even if you know this, I guess some of your listeners will still be in the “I need to know more, educate me” school of spirituality. As preachers we must first live, and then also preach, the central vital absolute importance of Christianity as relationship.

Some of your listeners don’t grasp this. In fact, they may be getting very overwhelmed and discouraged because they struggle to retain information. Help them know that the real goal is to know and respond to God. The goal of preaching is not primarily informational, educational, or even transformational, it is relational. Spiritual. The goal is God, not just a better them.

Superficial Preaching Isn’t Christlike

February 10, 2011February 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

When Jesus finished preaching the sermon on the mount, the crowds were astonished at his teaching! I’m sure one of the reasons for that was because when Jesus taught, he didn’t stay on the surface. He spoke in simple ways, but spoke such profound truths. His teaching went beyond behaviour to motives, past the outward to the inward issues of the heart. If we imagine being there, we can see why they were amazed!

After that sermon the reader moves into two chapters of Jesus’ miracles. The crowds were amazed again, and I suspect that part of that related to how Jesus wasn’t superficial with people – it’s not his style, is it? We see his heart in his actions as well as his preaching.

So what about when we preach? Are we superficial? Do we fail to probe the depths of the experience of contemporary experience of the pain of life? Superficial allows more time for heady exegetical demonstrations. Superficial allows more time for obscure learned illustrations. Superficial allows me to avoid the discomfort of being real with the listeners.

But superficial preaching, just like superficial living, simply isn’t Christlike.

Keep the Main Ingredient Main

February 8, 2011February 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Just a quick thought to ponder. Presumably our goal in life and ministry should be the same as God’s goal for our lives – to make us more like Christ, to grow spiritually. How does that happen?

Reading, hearing, responding to the Bible is not the only ingredient in God’s recipe for our spirituality. There is also need for prayer, awareness of creation, the Lord’s Supper, other forms of worship, fellowship with other believers, perhaps even suffering, fasting, and so on. Bible intake isn’t everything, but it is central and critical. Why?

1. Because it gives us the perspective and discernment we need as we participate in all the other ingredients in God’s recipe for our spiritual growth.

2. Because it is the way God claims to speak to us. It is the Word of God. While it may feel traditional and staid, and while all other “revelations” may have an air of excitement about them, the Bible is the Word of God that speaks.

We need to live that out ourselves, and make clear to our listeners why we make much of God’s Word.

Fire in the Bones

January 25, 2011January 25, 2011 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

I respect all preachers in history and across the globe today who suffer for preaching God’s Word. Many of us reading this blog face nothing of the persecution that many preachers have had to endure. Sometimes our biggest struggles seem to be coping with disappointing response in the lives of those listening, or perhaps filtering slightly tactless feedback at the door of the church. But still, even in the ease of our experience, many of us do face something. It is nothing compared to what others may face, but it is something nonetheless.

We face the repeated decision to stand up and preach again. Most preachers can speak about the sense of feeling battered in ministry. There is the work of preparation, the prayerful work of hoped for response, the draining work of giving of yourself, the sometimes tiring work of processing feedback from people oblivious to how vulnerable you may feel at that point. Sometimes this can all add up to a significant level. The combination of personal, spiritual, emotional, relational and physical expenditure, alongside the reality of spiritual warfare, can leave us drained.

What then? What do we do next? Do we give up? Do we quit the ministry? Sometimes that may be a very real temptation for some of us. Do we lay low and pour ourselves into something safer for a while? Do we avoid interaction with people? There are any number of possible responses to ministry drain on a weekly basis.

My thoughts sometimes go back to Jeremiah’s words in chapter 20. He went through it and suffered deeply. He was drained and wiped out and had no natural resource left. Tempted to remain quiet, he could not. Not because he loved preaching. Not because he wanted affirmation (he got none). Not because he needed the income. He could not because “there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I am weary with holding it in, and I cannot.” He could not because the LORD was with him.

Do you get up and preach again because you love preaching? Or because you need affirmation? Or because of some other self-gripped motive? Or, or do you get up and preach again because God is with you and you cannot keep inside what He has given to you?

Tired? You’re not alone. Let’s press on.