Preacher’s Personal Life

Reformation Lessons for Preachers

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

There could be no end to posts dealing with lessons for preachers from the Reformation.  I’d like to focus in on one today, then another tomorrow.  Both of them were brought out very clearly in a series of messages by Michael Reeves on Justification (available, and well worth listening to, on theologynetwork.org).  In the final session of a great series of talks, Mike asks “Why is it that Luther started the Reformation and Erasmus didn’t?” Let me quote the first part of Mike’s two-part answer to this question:

Why is it that Luther started the Reformation and Erasmus didn’t?  Because Erasmus is the one who unleashed the Greek New Testament onto Europe.  He was getting the Bible out there, so why didn’t he start the Reformation?  Well, even though Erasmus was a constant and deep student of the Scriptures, the Scriptures didn’t actually do a lot for him because of how he treated them.  Erasmus kept banging on about how vague the Scriptures are (which is very convenient for his own theology), and so he gave them very little practical, let alone overruling, authority.  So although he looked at Scripture, the message of Scripture could be tailored, squeezed, adjusted to fit his own vision of what Christianity is.

The only way to break out of that suffocating scheme and achieve any substantial reformation and change in the world – well, it took Luther’s attitude, that Scripture is the only sure foundation for belief.  The Bible had to be acknowledged as the supreme authority.  It had to be allowed to contradict and overrule all other claims, because if it couldn’t do that, it itself would be overruled and hijacked by another message, as it was with Erasmus.  In other words a simple reverence for the Bible was never going to change the world, even quite a high view of the Bible was never going to do much.  Sola Scriptura.  Scripture alone was the indispensable key for change.  Without acknowledging that the Bible has that supreme and foundational authority there would be no Reformation.  No Reformation in peoples’ hearts, no Reformation in the world.

That final emboldened text is well worth a “selah” for preachers.  On this matter are we an Erasmus, or a Luther?

What Is The Motivation . . .

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Do you ever wonder what someone’s motivation might be?  For example, I was thinking about a man I once knew who never read anything except the Bible.  His preaching bore the fruit.  Some might say that his preaching was biblically saturated and uncluttered.  Others might suggest his preaching was unengaging and borderline heretical.  Not that the Bible is unengaging, but somehow there was, at times, a lack of connection happening.  So I ponder . . . what was the motivation?

1. Was it pure devotion to Christ? Perhaps.  Certainly there are many who would do well to stop reading everything but and spend some serious time in God’s Word, like a lifetime.  Perhaps this is fruit of the example and we would all do well to heed it.

2. Was it mixed up with insecurity? Perhaps.  After all, it’s a lot easier to stay on familiar territory and not be stretched or challenged or confronted or corrected.  It can be intimidating to consider the vast array of biblical and theological scholarship out there.  What if that held only fear for him?  Perhaps the fruit of this example is to encourage us to not fear, but to be stretched and grow, and perhaps have the odd corrective to point out where our own thinking might be distorting the message of Scripture.

3. Was it thinly veiled arrogance? Perhaps.  After all, while it might be portrayed as devotion to Christ, it is at the same time a reliance on one’s own ability to piece together the complex canon of Scripture.  There is always a tension between separation from corrupting influences and interdependence with the body of Christ.  Is it not arrogant to state by word or action, “I don’t need you” to a fellow saint in the local church, or a sibling in Christ who offers conversation through the pages of a book?  Perhaps the fruit of this example is to recognize that distinctive devotion can sometimes smack of blatant arrogance and walk more carefully?

I honestly don’t know what to think of this particular man.  I’d like to believe the best.  Obviously only the Lord can judge his motives.  But perhaps I can learn from all the possibilities I mentioned.  More in the Word.  Unafraid of engaging with scholars.  Humble enough to enjoy conversation with a giant of the past, or a “nobody” in the church.  I don’t know what his motivations were.  But God knows yours and mine.  What does our distinctiveness say about us?

Training Gaps

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I just read through a course guide for a preaching course.  I won’t name it.  It left me feeling dry and concerned.  Why?  To put it basically, because of what was and what wasn’t included.

Included – The different types of sermon that can be used (exegetical and topical given as the main two options, with two others noted).  The key role of the hymnbook in sermon preparation (double the content of the exegetical sermon preparation guidelines).  A session on effective delivery.  Then some guidelines on how to give feedback to a preacher (including the line, “don’t try to correct their theology.”)

Missing – Anything more than a cursory reference to studying the Bible.  Anything about how to get from a passage to a message so that the message has any biblical authority, accuracy or relevance.  Anything about the personal spirituality of the preacher.

I won’t go on, but surely an introducing to preaching course has to build on Biblical study as a key feature.  While it is best to get training in all areas, the fact is that communication and delivery training occurs in daily life, but most Christians are significantly unaware of what it means to really study and understand, let alone preach, a passage of Scripture.

My point is not to criticize this particular book (I suppose what I paid for it was worth it to remind me of the training offered in some venues).  My point is for us to look back on the training we received – what was strong, what was weak, what was missing?  Are there gaps that could be filled now with some carefully chosen study, course or mentoring?

Short-Notice Preaching

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Have you ever had to preach at short-notice?  What do you do if you only have two days to prepare?  Two hours?  Two minutes?  In some ways I hope it doesn’t happen to any of us.  On the other hand, maybe it would be good if it did.  Why?

1. A short-notice sermon shows quickly whether your spiritual tank is full or empty. There are times when our spiritual reserves are bursting to open a Bible and share from the heart.  At other times a short-notice sermon might feel very dry and simply the reworking of an old message.  Interestingly, the listeners may not know the difference, but you would.  How is your tank today?

2. A short-notice sermon pushes you onto your knees. In the panicky moments of pulling thoughts together for a message without enough time to prepare, it should eventually dawn on us that this is not an exercise in memory or even fast-preparation.  Preaching is as much a prayerful endeavor as it is anything else.

3. A short-notice sermon might restore a fading excitement at the privilege of preaching. Perhaps you see God working very much despite your own feelings of inadequacy.  Perhaps you see God working despite you not being able to fully craft and script and hone and learn the message.  Perhaps you see God working in a fresh way and your heart will be rekindled with a passion for the adventure of preaching.  Perhaps you don’t need this to achieve that . . . perhaps?

Plenty more could be said on numerous levels about short-notice preaching.  But maybe we could all benefit just from imagining what a one hour or one day warning might do for us as preachers!

TheologyNetwork.Org Article

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

A modified form of an article I wrote a while back has now been posted on theologynetwork.org . . . here’s a taste:

True exposition should not be boring, for we would not want to give the impression that God gives of Himself in self-revelation in a way that is boring.  True exposition should not be disconnected from real life, for in the incarnation we see God giving of Himself, His ultimate self-revelation, in the most relevant manner imaginable.  Perhaps if more preachers would truly grasp the need for effective hermeneutics in their sermon preparation, perhaps then we would not have so much occasion to point the finger at others and complain of dumbed-down diet sermonettes abounding in our generation.

But is improved hermeneutics enough?  The article makes a further move that I believe is critical and often overlooked.  To read the article, and then look around at the excellent resources, click here – www.theologynetwork.org

One Thing Worth Copying

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

There seems to be an epidemic of copycat mentality in church ministry today.  I’m not referring primarily to pulpit plagiarism, although that is a real issue (only exacerbated by the availability of online sermons from the very good to the very poor – all of which are readily copied by some).  I’m thinking more generally.  If a church is successful (measure that however you choose), then methodology is deemed worthy of mass representation for the benefit of others who in some way seek to reproduce something of that methodology or vision in their own local context.

By the way, please don’t think of this simply as a feature of one brand of Christianity.  I have heard the sneers and comments at the expense of Willow Creek or Saddleback, but some who sneer in that direction would affirm and delight in, for example, Redeemer Presbyterian’s Church Planting Center, just to cite one example.

While some are quick to mock some of this, it is certainly not bad.  Many churches have been helped and strengthened (not just in numbers) by learning from other church leaders in respect to methodology and ministry vision.  Some of the contemporary attacks on Christian consumerism have an element of irony about them inasmuch as there seems to be a band-wagon of consumerism-bashing.  Nevertheless, we should ask ourselves after the next seminar we attend, or “this-is-how-we-did-it” book we read . . . am I copying the right thing?

I’m not condemning all the seminars and books on methodology.  We can, if we are discerning and aware of our own context, learn from what others are doing in theirs.  We should certainly think carefully about that if we are inclined to use methodology as a short-cut, a cut and paste approach to doing church, a photocopied church program from another place, another culture, another context.  Learn from others, but recognize their context, and implement prayerfully in recognition of your own context.

But the greater focus, the one so often missing today, is the one Jethani points to at one point in his book, The Divine Commodity, an engagement with the pervasive consumerist distortion of Christianity.  “Rather than reproducing a leader’s ministry methodology, we ought to focus on reproducing his or her devotion to God.” (p98)

Why don’t we give more attention to that?  Why do we look at “successful” church leaders and copy their method, but not yearn to reproduce their spiritual devotion?  If they don’t have that, then what is the method really worth?  If they do have that, what is it about us that fails to be stirred by it?  Look around for a great Christian leader, one with a deep devotion to God.  Don’t cut and paste.  You can’t fake that, although you may be tempted to try.  Don’t fake.  Don’t ignore.  Don’t methodologize.  In the right sense: Copy.

More Thoughts on Homiletical History

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Following my post yesterday, I’d like to share some thoughts from Austin Tucker (Liberty Seminary).  It is his conviction that homiletical history is ignored, in part, because homiletics professors are appointed by seminaries based on skewed criteria.  According to Tucker, seminaries will choose somebody based on the model of dynamic delivery they provide, secondarily based on academic criteria and only then any sense of homiletical training or background.  Personally I suspect that any “skewing” also relates to budgets: after all, many Bible schools are limited once the main positions are in place – New Testament, Old Testament, Languages, Theology, History, etc. – so surely someone can just “cover” homiletics, or perhaps a local pastor can teach his personal approach?  Either way, homiletics background is often lacking in formal training.

So what does Tucker suggest?  He mentions a friend who picks a preacher each year to read a biography and read available sermons.  The benefits are four-fold:

1. It adds homiletical variety to our preaching, keeping us from becoming Brother Obvious.

2. It allows us who preach to others to sit at the feet of those who can preach to us for our spiritual enrichment.

3. It provides a golden vein of possibilities to enrich our own preaching. He quotes Grady Davis’ caution regarding the hijacking of illustrations from others.  Such illustrations are like “‘brightly colored kites pulled from the wind of somebody else’s thought’ and entangled in the branches of our sermons.”

4. Diligence in this pursuit restores the perspective that preaching really is a pastor’s priority in the midst of the numerous demands.

Please don’t read this post as being advice from me.  I can’t speak with authority on this since I have not diligently studied preachers of yesteryear.  But perhaps I’m convincing myself by these posts!

The Feelings of the Preacher

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Allow me to quote from Arturo Azurdia’s Spirit Empowered Preaching (p126):

_________________________________

In a manner of speaking, [the preacher] can say, a la Eric Liddel, “When I preach I feel His pleasure.”  However, it is also importrant to acknowledge that there are occasions when, to the preacher, the presence and power of the Spirit of God seem absent in any sensible way.  Distraction rules his mind.  Words come slugglishly.  Passion seems forced.  It is not uncommon for the gospel preacher to feel as though he has failed miserably in his attempt to deliver the word of God. On not a few Sunday afternoons I have been filled with such deep personal disappointment I have declared to my wife that I will never preach again.  One seasoned preacher has said aptly:

The pulpit calls those anointed to it as the sea calls its sailors, and like the sea it batters and bruises and does not rest.  To preach, to really preach, is to die naked a little at a time, and to know each time you do it that you must do it again.

To be sure, there will be Sundays when the man of God will have no sense of the operation of the Holy Spirit in his preaching.  Nevertheless, he must learn that any lack of the Spirt’s ‘felt presence’ on his part is not the infallible barometer of divine work among the congregation.

_________________________________

How true this is.  We must learn not to measure the work of the Spirit by the feelings we have after going through the experience of preaching.  Nevertheless, let’s not swing to the other extreme and neglect all awareness of feelings.  It is easy to become mechanical in an attempt to avoid being driven by emotionalism.  Surely the God who made us as heart-driven creatures in His own image longs for us to know the fullness of every life experience, including preaching, with feelings engaged rather than disengaged.  Don’t trust the feelings in judging the work of the Spirit through your preaching.  Equally don’t neglect the feelings, part of which are designed to function in our personal engagement with a loving God who pours out His love into our hearts by the Spirit whom He has given to us.

Some preachers are too easily swayed by battered and confused feelings.  Others act like robots, dutifully resisting all things affectionate.  Let’s be truly engaged with God at the heart level, pouring out our ministry as a fragrant offering to Him, experiencing the rollercoaster times and the calm times, loving God with all our hearts, and mind, and bodies, and loving others fully too.


Private Prayer

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I would never claim to be an expert in prayer.  I wish I was.  In fact, I repeatedly feel the urge to become one.  However, personal inadequacies in prayer do not mean that I dismiss it as unimportant in ministry.  I really appreciate this brief quote from Calvin Miller:

Preaching, in one sense, merely discharges the firearm that God has loaded in the silent place.

Yesterday I wrote about the concept of seeking prayer support and prayer cover for the ministry that we are involved in.  As vital as that is, it can never be a substitute for personal, private prayer.  I am a little sad at the changing of the season, because this summer I have grown to love an outdoor location nearby where I can go and pray, and dream, and think, and pray some more.  Perhaps it will still work without leaves and with rain, we’ll see.

It is important to find a way, a place, a time, for regular uninterrupted communing with the Lord.  A time to dream together about the future, to think together about the present, to weep together, to worship together, to be together with Him.  I remember the comment of one faculty member at the seminary I attended concerning another – he is a real man of prayer.  I’m not sure how that could be known, but actually it does show, doesn’t it?

In three or four decades time I hope people might say that about me . . . but for that to happen I need to be a man of prayer now.  What can we give up to free up time for prayer?  What else has the same sense of weightiness as fellowship with our Lord? Personal, private prayer.  Nothing else comes close.

Covered in Prayer?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

“It is no marvel that the pulpit is so powerless and ministers so often disheartened when there are so few who hold up their hands …. O, you blood bought churches, your ministers need your prayers!” (Gardiner Spring)

Is there any inconsistency between what we say and what we practice in regard to prayer and preaching?  If we, as preachers, genuinely believe that our preaching is dependent for its power not on technique, ability, skill, etc., but rather on the power of God Himself.  If we, as preachers, are aware of the spiritual battle that rages among believers and not-yet-believers during the weekly routine of church life.  If we, as preachers, are aware of our own struggles and weaknesses in the complex experience of life and ministry.  Well . . . shouldn’t the pursuit of prayer for the ministry be paramount in our many lists of priorities?

Do we diligently seek out prayer partners and ask them to stand with us?  Not because we are somehow special individuals, but because the ministry we are involved in is itself a special task for which we are inadequate?  Do we express to our listeners our need for prayer, or do we give the impression, even inadvertently, that we have it all together?

And finally, what about intercessory prayer meetings before and during and after the preaching of the Word?  In some circles this is standard practice.  In others it is unheard of.  Why?  If it is a spiritual battle, if it is by God’s strength alone, if it is a task too great for us to handle in our strength, then why not?  As I look back on last Sunday’s ministry, perhaps my greatest regret is that I didn’t request a simultaneous prayer gathering – even just two or three people praying for those listening, for the one speaking, for God’s power in it all.

(And just to be consistent with what I have written, here’s a link to our last couple of mini-updates . . . if you can spare a couple of minutes, I’d really value your prayers – http://pouredout.org/?page_id=580 – let me know if you’d like to receive our prayer letter regularly.)