Preacher’s Personal Life

What Is Love? Part Trois

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

No reason for the French numbering of this series, just a sprinkling of creativity!  So far we’ve considered the GS, the SE, and the FC people in a congregation.  There’s one category left, according to the pastor cited in Boyd-MacMillan’s book, Explosive Preaching:

AH = Apathetic Horde. This is usually the majority of the congregation.  They know God, but they are struggling to get close to Him.  They are struggling to swim against the tide.  What is love from us?  Well, it is tempting to harangue them, to guilt-trip them, to pile on the pressure.  According to the book, it is also tempting to offer ourselves as their guide who thereby takes away their freedom and responsibility.  The advice on how to love them? “Stay winsome, and resist the impulse to be coercive.”

Okay, in my opinion the majority category deserves the best advice.  I feel this is a bit weak, although accurate as far as it goes.  The book goes on to talk about developing compassion and overcoming compassion fatigue.  How do we love the apathetic horde in the church?  Surely the aim of resisting coercion is critical, but so is the concept of winsomeness.  We need to be winsome, gracious, attractively compelling in our spirituality.  We need to preach to the heart and not just to the mind and will.  We need to preach so that people are given many opportunities to “taste and see that the Lord is good.”  We need to be faithful to the heart-message of the Bible, and not twist every text into a guilt-pressure-cooker to vent your own angst in your half-hour where people at least pretend to listen.

Loving the AH is so important, but not easy.  It costs us to love.  When we love we risk getting hurt, being rejected, seeing failure, etc.  But love we must.  We are compelled by the love of One who gave everything for us, “when we were still sinners.”  That love has spread to us and now yearns to spread through us to others . . . others who may not respond in the right way, or respond at all, for that matter.  Ministry is not about performing certain duties.  It is about serving God by loving people, it is about life-on-life investment – whether we are preaching, counselling, listening, or whatever.

(GS) + SE + FC + AH = the church where we serve … what is love to each?

What Is Love? Part Deux

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Ok, so thankfully not everyone in a church is a government spy or a sworn enemy (although it may feel like that in some churches!)  There are two other categories, according to an Eastern European Pastor quoted in Explosive Preaching, p141:

FC = Fan Club. It can be just as dangerous to accept the ego-stroking adulation of this small but vocal group.  What is love to FC members?  Love is “having the courage to challenge them on what they may not want to hear, and to jeopardize your fan-club status.”  According to the Eastern European Pastor cited in the book, the gospel will offend everyone in the church at some point, but many pastors are too concerned with maintaining the worship coming their way.  Strong stuff.  In reality this may mean querying a “darling distinctive” of your denomination, all the while seeking to maintain fidelity to the gospel message (and not just the popular bits).

I was going to give the other category too, but this is worth pondering.  Who is in your “FC?”  Have you compromised your fidelity to the message at all in order to keep them in the FC?  What situation may be brewing right now that will give you the choice of self-seeking, or gospel-serving in light of these people?  Pray for yourself in this, pray for a pastor/leader you know as well.

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.