Preacher’s Personal Life

What Is Love?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

In Explosive Preaching, the author refers to a system he learned from an Eastern European pastor.  It is a simple categorization system used with a list of church members that helps him know how to love different people in his congregation.  Here it is in simple form, for more, see p140ff:

GS = Government Spy. Not a category most of us have to deal with, but if you do, ask yourself carefully, “what is love for a GS?”

SE = Sworn Enemy. A self-confessed leader of the “oust the pastor brigade.”  What is love for this category?  According to the pastor, “You have to love them enough to remember the reasons why they have such an excess of negativity, and reach out to them with winsomeness, not vindictiveness.”  Oh, and he added that if they win, your goal is to bring more glory to God in your going than in our staying.

The reality of such “well-intentioned dragons” is very real for many reading this post.  So I’ll leave it there for now.  If you have SE’s in your church, take some time to ponder your love for them and pray for the grace you need to reflect God’s character in such difficulties.  If you have no SE’s in your church, or you’re not a leader (i.e. target), then take a moment to pray for a pastor you know (he probably has some SE’s)!

Five Major Failings – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Carrying on from yesterday’s two failings, here are the rest:

“3. Vague Phrasing – Preachers seem hardwired to eschew all vivid verbs and concrete nouns, with the result that they sound vague and uninteresting.”

A lack of energy in delivery, a lack of facial engagement, a lack of passion, a lack of effective sensory description and so on are all factors adding to the vague and uninteresting nature of much preaching.

“4. Sub-Christian Resolutions – There is not enough gospel-insight.”

This is a good observation.  If our application and resolution of the message is that we should try harder, do better, be “good-er” or whatever, then we are falling short of Christian preaching.  In my opinion we need not always force a jump to Calvary and Christ, there are times when a theocentric message need not move to the first Easter, but every message should be theocentric.  A try harder message is really anthropocentric (it’s all about us, our needs and our response).

“5. Trivial Applications – The gospel is shrunk down to an individualistic technique that we can use on a Monday, all in the name of relevance, but the grand scope of the gospel as a message that speaks for all time, to nations and tribes as well as individuals, gets lost.  I actually heard someone starting a sermon: ‘The toothpaste squirted out all over my jacket, my alarm failed to go off, and in the shower I used rubbing alcohol as shampoo.  I was having a bad day.’  This was to introduce a biblical twosome who were having a similar bad day – the Emmaus pair.  Come on!”

We do need to differentiate between trivial Monday morning applications and genuine Monday morning applications.  Too much preaching resists the trivial and replaces it with the spiritual-sounding vague applications that all affirm, but none grasp for their own lives.  I agree, let’s cut out the trivial applications, but let’s do so in a way that retains genuine relevance.

Unseen Listeners

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In the next few days I’ll reveal the details of this book I’m reading.  I’ve quoted it or alluded to it several times and for the sake of academic integrity I should cite my source . . . but I just want to get a little further into it first.  Nonetheless, here’s a great little quote.  I won’t say too much, but I will say we would do well to ponder this quote, whatever size congregation we usually preach to:

What other form of speech has thee five effects: to delight God, to astonish angels, to discourage devils, to encourage saints, and to restore sinners?  I’ve done my time preaching to virtually empty halls and churches, and it is a great fillip to remember that three of the five audiences of a sermon are unseen. (p79)

Selah.

The Mastery Challenge

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

In my mind, this post should go without saying.  I’ve been reminded that it doesn’t.  I just read a mini-article on the subject by Robert Clinton.  He states that what we are considering here is a vanishing breed.  He calls them “Bible-Centered Leaders.”  But in the midst of the article, he states that leaders should have an “appropriate, unique, lifelong plan for mastering the Word in order to use it with impact in their ministries.”

Simple question – have you made a personal commitment to a lifelong pursuit of mastery of the Bible?  Clinton refers to the Navigator’s five-finger approach, then his personal “core books” approach.  I have a foundation and brick wall approach.  The specifics don’t matter here.  The question is, do you have a specific, describable, tangible, practical, effective plan to pursue mastery of the Word of God?

We have too many preachers and pastors and leaders and influencers in the church today who are informed by contemporary bestsellers, educated both in Christian and secular approaches to ministry or organizational leadership, up-to-date on cutting edge ministry ideas, pragmatically plugged in to the busy schedule of life, connected to an insane level, thoroughly saturated in networking media, blessed beyond belief by access to a library not even dreamed about in history, functioning in overload on multiple levels . . . but, good as some of these things may be, fundamentally weak on the core need of anyone seeking to be a man of God – mastery of, and by, the Word.

Can you take a piece of paper and write down your strategy for mastering the Word of God, and in the process, being mastered by it?  Can you write down where you are in the process?  Can you immediately state your current study focus in this pursuit?  Can you identify several areas of biblical weakness, as well as some specific areas of relative strength?

If not, what is more important?  Why not put aside the pressing, urgent, busy stuff and take some time to drive a marker into the ground, to prayerfully make plans and to set out on that journey?  If we are not gripped with a passion to master the Word of God, what is our goal?  To be a paperback preacher?  To be an e-networked pastor?  To be upwardly mobile on the ministry ladder?  These all seem so fragile compared to the real need of the church today – leaders who passionately pursue God in His Word, who sacrifice to master it, who are continually more mastered by it, who have genuine substance, who are “thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

Biblical Preaching – Crisis and Recovery

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

We’re coming toward the end of terms and semesters. Just a few weeks to go until many will walk the stage, shake the hands, get the paper, etc. Here are some great thoughts from Al Mohler’s commencement address at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary last December. It’s worth reading the whole address, here’s the link.

“Our authority is not our own. We are called to the task of preaching the Bible, in season and out of season. We are rightly to divide the Word of truth, and to teach the infinite riches of the Word of God. There are no certainties without the authority of the Scripture. We have nothing but commas and question marks to offer if we lose confidence in the inerrant and infallible Word of God. There are no thunderbolts where the Word of God is subverted, mistrusted or ignored.

“The crowds were astonished when they heard Jesus, ‘for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes.’ Congregations are starving for the astonishment of hearing the preacher teach and preach on the authority of the Word of God. If there is a crisis in preaching, it is a crisis of confidence in the Word. If there is a road to recovery, it will be mapped by a return to biblical preaching.”

Lest any of us feel buoyed by degrees earned, titles held, respect given, etc., let’s remember this – the authority in our preaching comes from the Bible, not us.

Disadvantage Us?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Here’s a quote worth pondering, wherever you sit theologically.  It is quoted in a book that is more mainstream and liturgical in orientation than the more evangelical books I tend to quote from.  It is a quote by P.T.Forsyth in reference to the Roman Catholic church.  I’m sure this post could stir response on numerous levels, but the quote is worth considering in reference to our preaching:

The Catholic form of worship will always have a vast advantage over ours so long as people come away from its central act with the sense of something done in the spirit-world, while they leave ours with the sense only of something said to this present world.

In many churches we might beg to differ that something is really said to “this present world” either.  But the point is intriguing.  Are we so connected and “relevant” that there is nothing heavenly, spiritual, special, involved in church? For those of us committed to the centrality of the spoken word in worship, perhaps we need to prayerfully ponder what this might mean for us.

The book, more liturgical in its orientation, points to another conclusion that could be drawn – some seek to separate words and action.  They say, in effect, that the “Eucharist” can do the talking, so don’t bother preaching.  “Some clergy are scared to preach.  They  play up the liturgy as a way of hiding from the people.  A sermon is the best barometer of the spiritual life of the minister.  Some fear that it is too accurate an instrument.”  (Book title and author coming in the next few days…oh the intrigue!)

Words and actions do not fight each other.  They go together in worship.  Whatever label you use, Jesus did give a symbolic act and request that it be done in remembrance of Him.  He also explained it.  With words.  I think it is David Wenham who refers to communion and baptism as enacted parables.  We must follow the instructions of Jesus, and the example too.  He came to preach.  He sent His followers out to preach.  Let’s not hide from preaching behind an excuse of some viable and even biblical “alternative.”  But let us also consider how our preaching might be more than a mere “this world” presentation.  It needs to be that, and so much more besides.

Preaching Means Picking Words – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday we considered the challenge of picking the right words to convey the message when we preach.  We need to be precise rather than slack, but strive to communicate rather than to demonstrate our verbal or intellectual prowess.  Here’s another factor to throw into the mix:

Lofty language languishes. Is lofty language the same thing as pulpit pomposity?  Yes and no.  Pompous words are chosen to show off our intellect (or are used carelessly without intent to show off).  Lofty language may be used to show off our spirituality (or simply be used without thinking because we are used to it in our church circles, or because we mistake it for some sort of spiritual humility and genuinely motivated demonstration of sanctification).  The fact is that in almost every setting, listeners find lofty language and tone to be distant, unengaging and even off-putting.  While it may have been acceptable in a previous generation, it seems that in most places the tolerance for inauthentic communication forms has diminished drastically.  In the western cultures, at least, the majority of listeners now esteem authenticity and natural communication.  Having a pulpit voice or a pulpit vocabulary is not worth it, even if it once was (which is a very questionable “if”).

Lofty language languishes, it doesn’t stand up tall and demand that listeners engage with it and its message. Ok, that paragraph was a long one, so I’ll leave it there and add a part three to this series of posts.

Mini-Review: Brothers We Are Not Professionals, by John Piper

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Subtitle: A Plea To Pastors For Radical Ministry

piperprofessionals1

Just a mini-review.  I’ve cited various chapters in recent posts.  But lest I simply work my way through the book, I have not covered every one.  I would encourage you to prayerfully read through the book.

I don’t know if you are in the “read anything and everything by John Piper” category, or at the other extreme, “I react against Piper because everyone seems to love him” category (or hopefully somewhere in between!)

This book has short chapters (although they seem to get longer as the book progresses).  It has short chapters that are a good introduction or summary of Piper’s Christian Hedonism.  They allow you to ponder the strengths and weaknesses of this theology that pervades all his work and preaching.  I’d encourage those enamored with it to graciously critique it.  I’d encourage those antagonistic toward it to carefully consider what the theological issues specifically are.  But while there are some very typical Piper-theology chapters, this book is not just a short-chapter version of Desiring God and other Piper books.

It has short chapters that directly challenge our de-radicalized view of ministry.  Some of these chapters will poke and convict in areas where we need poking and convicting.  This book is good fodder for personal prayer times.

It has short chapters that clearly call us to issues that some of us have become adept at avoiding.  For instance, the issue of racism.  The issue of abortion.  The issue of global missions.  The issue of loving our wives.  The issue of praying for seminaries.

I’m not a sold-out Piperite.  I have some theological differences.  I’m not a sold-out Piper-antagonist.  I’m thankful for his input in my life, even in this latest quick read through this book.  Wherever you stand on John Piper, if you haven’t read this book, perhaps it would be a good time to do so.  If you have read it, maybe it would be worth another dip.  It was for me.

Unhealthy Division: Style & Substance

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Perhaps people like me add to the kind of division I am thinking about by the labels used in our teaching of preaching, but still, we’d do well to think about this.  Do we too easily divide elements of preaching?

For example, content and delivery, or substance and style.  It’s a simple distinction, and it works for planning a class schedule.  But when you consider the complexity of the act of communication, perhaps the distinction can be unhelpful?  Certainly once we start dismissing style out of a resolute commitment to substance, we are shooting ourselves in the foot.

Now don’t get me wrong.  The term “style” is not the best for what I am writing about.  Even “delivery” can sound like a performance.  The reality, though, is that the message is transmitted through a preacher.  This includes many elements.  Not just vocal production, verbal clarity, non-verbal presentation, etc. (the classic elements of “delivery”), but also that which you might label “ethos” and “pathos.”

I recently tweaked my gradually-improving definition of preaching in one part by adding the two words “and life.”  In reference to the oral communication aspect of preaching, my current best attempt at a definition says that preaching involves “…effective communication through the preacher’s words (and life)…”

Perhaps we would do well to not dismiss matters of “style” and “delivery” as “mere performance.”  It is too easy to take Paul’s self-distancing from the manipulative skill of classical rhetoric (1Cor.2:1-5) and therefore dismiss all rhetoric and homiletics.  The problem with such a blanket response is that Paul clearly utilized both rhetorical and homiletical skill in his writing and preaching.  Instead of a quick dismissal of all style/delivery issues, or at the other extreme, an obsession with delivery that results in a performance mentality, perhaps we would consider more seriously that which results in the pulpit from the weight of who we are personally in our walk with Christ.

Maturity shows.  Passion shows.  Love shows.  Life shows.  Perhaps a preachers style and delivery are a lot more about the preachers inner life and spirituality than our categories tend to recognize?

The Ache of Preaching

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I recently ended a post with a quote from William Willimon, in which he states, “On any Sunday you can give it your all and still know that the Word deserves more.”  How true that is!  In my experience, the majority of preachers, the majority of the time, do not feel great after they have finished preaching.  Sometimes a sermon may leave us energized and excited.  Yet so often we feel vulnerable, weak, drained, even regretful.

The post-sermon interactions with folks are complex.  Some people have used the analogy of giving birth in reference to preaching (to which I quickly add that a shorter gestation, a shorter delivery, and the fact that it is not the same experience at all does slightly undermine the analogy – it’s too easy to minimize what some people go through in this kind of analogy!  My wife deserves much more credit for her birth-work than I do for mine!)

Perhaps we could pull in another analogy and then reduce it appropriately?  Think of a time of emotional trauma – a car accident, a death, a major moment in life (the verdict of a judge, the pronouncement of pass or fail in a major examination), etc.  In the time after a major emotional event, there is that time when things aren’t quite real, when words people say don’t register properly, when the slightest thing can mean too much.  Now reduce that life-sized grief, tension, emotion…reduce that down to the weekly experience that is preaching.  Post-sermon interactions with folk are complex.

Post-sermon emotions are complex.  Swirling feelings of failure, of inadequacy in representing such an awesome God, of having fallen short of really teaching that passage as it deserves.  This swirl of emotions is not the time to evaluate in detail, to make decisions regarding the future, or over-react to a small thing that, at least in that moment, means too much.

Cling on to the Lord’s hand, make a few notes, get through the turmoil time and then evaluate the comments, feedback, etc. on Tuesday morning.  You’ll probably be thinking clearly and reacting appropriately by then!