Deep Conviction

September 20, 2011September 20, 2011 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

As I waited for my children to get showered and dressed after their swimming lessons I scanned through an old notebook. I took these notes about 15 years ago as I listened to a Howard Hendricks cassette on leadership. As ever with him, good stuff. At one point he was speaking of the need to develop deep personal conviction.

“We live in a day without a cause. Some churches have programs instead of building convictions in people. Only beliefs are not good enough to get job done. The people in your church need to fill their minds with solid Bible study. They need to develop an appetite for meditating and thinking, for praying and pursuing God.” (Rough quote from old notes)

This gives me pause for thought.

First, am I a man of deep conviction? Have I not only learned, but tested and retested in non-cotton wool environments? Do I fire my belief into conviction not only in the furnace of life’s experience, but also in the quiet place of prayer, face to face with my God? Are my convictions genuine so that those I get near have a chance of becoming infected with them? (As Hendricks put it, ‘you don’t catch anything from a man who doesn’t even have a cold!’)

Second, is my preaching delivered with deep conviction or with performance hype? I think the difference comes from two factors, among others. 1 – Are there years of study and ministry and life experience standing behind each sermon. And 2 – Have I given this particular sermon preparation enough days to start to take a fresh hold in my heart and life? If I start to prepare this Sunday’s sermon on Saturday, or Friday, then I will be unable to speak out of deep contemporary conviction and will have to rely on long-term life conviction only. Start early enough so this message can really take hold and start to work in me before it is spoken through me.

Third, do I preach and lead and mentor for more than assent? It is easy to preach in order to educate, but it takes much more to preach in order to deeply persuade, to infect, to stir the hearts of those listening so that lives are touched. For a start it takes something more than I can do as a teacher, it takes God at work in the hearts of those listening, so I must be a pray-er if I am to be a true preacher. More than that, I will need to get alongside some people in the church and infect them close up. That gets into mentoring, building a team, mobilising and equipping others. Another post for another day.

Let’s pray that we will be preachers of deep genuine conviction, and that we will be used to spark other genuine deep conviction Christians too.

Primary Concerns Divine and Human

September 19, 2011September 20, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

If we are made in God’s image, will God’s priorities be evident in us? (And might we describe God in a way that makes Him out to be in our image?) Today’s post is hosted over at Cor Deo. Click here to go there.

(Put Some Points in Brackets)

September 16, 2011September 16, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

It seems obvious, but preaching involves delivering a message. It isn’t about delivering your outline via powerpoint, or presenting your outline verbally. It is about delivering the message. The outline is for you, it doesn’t always have to be given to them.

One thing that happens when we feel we need to give over our outline in our presentation is that we tend to always state our points when we start them. You know the routine, “My second point is XYZ.” Then we proceed to demonstrate that point from the text, and explain it to the listeners, and support it with some anecdotal or biblical evidence, and then illustrate it with our pithy little story, etc. This tried and tested approach is big on clarity, but it can also be deadly dull to hear.

I remember sitting in a conference where I’d noticed the sermonic pattern by the second message and was then able to predict what would come next for the rest of the day, whoever was preaching.

Sometimes your next point shouldn’t be given up-front in your first sentence of that section of the message, but rather held back and developed before being delivered. A point in a message might be better delivered inductively, rather than deductively. This avoids the dull tedium of every section of every message being the same. Here comes the verse, here comes the explanation, now he’ll refer to a cross-reference, wait for it, here comes the illustration. Instead you might begin the next point with an illustration, or a question, or an explanation with the point itself held back.

I was taught that an inductively developed point in a message should be written in the outline in brackets. Simple little approach, but it reminds the preacher that the preaching event is not about a slightly animated reading of an outline. Actually, the outline is supposed to record what the message does, how it develops, etc. For some preachers that has become reversed, so that the message is supposed to say what the outline states. Your goal is to preach a good sermon, not to demonstrate or even deliver your good outline.

(Put some of your points in brackets, lest every five-minute section sound essentially the same!)

Preach the Text, Not Just From a Text

September 15, 2011September 15, 2011 / Peter Mead / 8 Comments

Sometimes preachers give away their entire main idea in the title they advertise ahead of time. I think I’ve done that with this title. It’s one of the things that always makes a message feel either like biblical preaching, or not truly biblical preaching. Does the preacher preach the text? Or does the preacher preach from a text, using a text, referring to a text?

1. The difference demonstrates the preacher’s view of the Bible. For some, the Bible is a great data bank to be raided for foundational wording on which they can build their presentation. For others, the Bible is a continual source of delight as they come fresh to texts each time they preach them and encounter God in His Word, before bringing the ancient word ever fresh and new to the listeners. Is your Bible old and static, or dynamic and relationally connecting?

2. The difference demonstrates the preacher’s view of preaching. For some, preaching is primarily about their own craft in preparing a message where the text is an ingredient, a factor. For others, the Bible is the master lens through which God is seen by the needy listeners as His Word is effectively presented in the preaching moment.

3. The difference demonstrates the preacher’s view of the listeners’ need. For some, the listeners come together for a church service in which they need to have the sermon slot filled with good sermonic art and craft, a bit of polished poetry, a touch of humor, a hint of depth and a good measure of preacher’s personality. For others, the listeners have a profound need, whether they are unsaved or saved, of an encounter with the God who reveals Himself fully and freely in His Word.

4. The difference demonstrates the preacher’s view of themselves. For some, preaching is an opportunity to demonstrate their own faithfulness to the gospel, or cleverness with words, or artistry with concepts, or craft with alliteration, or ingenuity with a book of sermon illustrations. For others, preaching is about communicating God’s Word to the people God brings together, in the power of God’s Spirit, and the focus, strangely enough, is on God, not the preacher.

The Morass of Moralism

September 14, 2011September 14, 2011 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

When the focus of a sermon becomes a moralistic [set of instructions for holy living], listeners will most likely assume that they can secure or renew their relationship with God through proper behaviors. Even when the behaviors advocated are reasonable, biblical, and correct, a sermon that does not move from expounding standards of obedience to explaining the source, motives, and results of obedience places persons’ hopes in their own actions. (B.Chappell, 291)

What are the keys to avoiding the kind of moralistic preaching that Chappell refers to here? He points to the source, motives and results. Good things to ponder. I’ll put it like this:

Remember Who? does the changing – Moralistic preaching will always feel like a burden on the listeners to get their acts together and make the necessary changes. Surely the message of the Bible is that we are responders with the privilege of participating in that change process, rather than instigators with the burden of fixing ourselves.

Remember How? we participate – So how do we participate? Is it by repenting of our badness and striving to have goodness? Or is it repenting of our religiousness and righteousness as well as our overt rebellion, and turning to the One who offers us life and holiness? Repentance is toward Christ, and then salvation (including sanctification) is by faith in Him.

Remember What? is the source of power – How does God change us as we trust in Christ? By the work of the Spirit in us. Moralistic preaching seems to leave God out of the equation (other than being the stated source of excessive requirements). Surely the reality of Christianity is that we now get to participate in the amazing privilege of New Covenant blessings, including the work of the Holy Spirit within us.

Remember Where? is the focus – Moralistic preaching always turns listeners in on themselves. They go from being rebellious to being religious . . . but the gospel calls us out of ourselves and away from both. The focus of biblical Christianity is not my struggles, my weaknesses, my sins, my effort, my discipline, my success, my holiness . . . the focus is on Christ. My part is response to Him, faith in Him, love for Him.

Let’s finish with a Chappell quote:

Preaching application should readily and vigorously exhort obedience to God’s commands, but such exhortations should be based primarily on responding in love to God’s grace, not on trying to gain or maintain it. (B.C., 292)

The Preacher and the Passing of Time

September 13, 2011September 13, 2011 / Peter Mead / 9 Comments

I heard a preacher tell a gathering of senior church leaders that they needed to be careful. If they weren’t careful they could do enough damage in the last ten years of their ministry to undo all the good they had achieved in their first two or three decades. He urged them to pour their energies into championing the next generation of leaders, rather than critiquing the young and striving to maintain elements of church life that had now grown stale.

The time comes for all of us, sooner or later, where we fit into the category of “older preachers.” I think it is vital we think ahead of time what the tone of our ministry will be at that stage. Some older preachers are an absolute delight to listen to – the combination of humility, wisdom, experience, knowledge, faith and passion can absolutely transform listeners, and provide a stability impossible to duplicate in the younger generation of preachers.

But some older preachers are an absolute liability – the combination of arrogance, stubbornness, ignorance, bitterness and apparently decreasing fruit of the Spirit can do real damage to listeners, and provide a stability impossible to thrive under for all younger listeners.

I remember a conversation with the eldest faculty member at seminary a decade ago. He told me he had observed over the years that older faculty seemed to lose the mental sharpness and the energy to stay on top of their subject somewhere around the age of sixty-five. Consequently he planned to retire around that age as soon as he got a hint that his mind was starting to fade (and the hint would come from asking trusted colleagues directly). I respect that and hope to have the same plans in place for a new phase of ministry when age affects what I do.

That raises another related issue – is there a new phase of ministry open for those of a certain age? I’m sure we would all be tempted to cling on to position and influence if the alternative is to feel like we’re on the scrap heap. But what about positions emeritus? I think of John Stott who retired decades ago, yet never retired, always having a key, but changing role to play. Why not have opportunities to function as sage and champion for the next generation? It takes wisdom to plan ahead, not only for ourselves, but also for others in the church. The older generation can be a massive blessing to the ongoing growth of the church (or some can be a ball and chain to progress).

How is your preaching? It is different to what it was ten years ago. But in what way? Does anything need to change in your approach, frequency, mindset, position?

Over Qualified Sermons

September 12, 2011September 12, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

As I have written before, one of the hardest things in preaching is choosing what to leave out. And one of the sources of extraneous material is the qualifications we tend to add to every point in the message. You know how it goes: the next point Paul makes is ABC . . . of course, we have to balance this with DEF from Paul’s other letter, and GHI from Peter’s second epistle, and JKL from Proverbs, and MNO from our general experience, and PQR to keep pressure group 1 happy, and STU to avoid criticism from fashionable trend watch group 2, and VWX to touch the pet peeve issue of in-church political group 3, and YZ to… By the time you get through that nobody has a clue what the actual point of the message, or the text, actually was. Over-qualified sermon.

So, here’s a principle (and, ironically, a gentle qualifying follow up):

Principle – Preach the passage with its full force. Allow other passages to be preached another time. Your job is to faithfully and effectively communicate this particular passage with relevance to the listeners. Your job is not to cover every possible qualifying statement and pack so much material around all that you say that the cutting edge is not only dulled, but totally hidden.

Qualifying follow up – Preach the passage with fidelity to the whole canon. This doesn’t mean you have to refer to the whole canon, or even any of the rest of the canon. But you do need to think about whether the point could be misapplied or whether the truth, the gospel, etc., could be misunderstood. Qualify as much as necessary. Often the only thing that needs to be added is a brief statement such as, “what we are saying here doesn’t mean we should never do XYZ, but we’ll talk about that another time. Don’t miss what this passage is saying . . . ”

How do you handle the qualifying issue in your preaching?

Take the Opportunity to Stretch

September 9, 2011September 8, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

It is easy to grow tired of pushing ourselves as preachers. After all, as the years pass by we are increasingly familiar with Bible texts and can prepare to preach them with less time required. Equally, as the years pass by we grow increasingly busy in respect to life and ministry. Factors combine to make sermon preparation get squeezed.

Let me nudge you to take the opportunity to stretch yourself with your next sermon. Carve out the time and add a few hours to the early part of your preparation. Don’t rush to the message formation phase, but linger longer in the text. Some suggestions:

1. Take the time to read the section or book more than you would normally do so. Extra exposure to the text will never hurt and could be enlightening as you move past the “familiarity” sensation to the “I see clearly” sensation.

2. Take the time to work your way through the text in the original language. Some preachers are diligent with original language work, but many have let it go from whatever level they were at in the past. Why not break out the text books and see what you can discover. For instance, why not take whatever grammar texts you have and check the scripture index for your passage? I often find this helpful with Daniel Wallace, for instance. Why not work with the text for a while until you can read through it in the original? Why not translate carefully at least a key verse or two? If you do this and more on a regular basis, great, but many do not.

3. Take the time to have a conversation with a partner or two. Perhaps you have access to a flesh and blood discussion partner who will engage you in the text. Perhaps you want to get a scholar or three off your shelf and have an out loud conversation with them about the text. It is too easy to rush to message formation and miss out on the sharpening that can come through robust discussion. As I prepare for this weekend’s sermon, I am enjoying listening to a fairly technical lecture from a solid Greek scholar. So, can you list the technical issues in the text that you won’t be referencing overtly in your sermon?

4. Take the time to memorize the text and pray through it. Perhaps you used to memorize, but haven’t done so in a long time. That muscle will soon strengthen if you use it. Memorize the text early on in the process and see the benefits as you meditate during the rest of the week’s preparation.

Passionless Preacher?

September 8, 2011September 8, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday we talked about passion that can become off-putting. But what about the preachers that are devoid of all passion, preaching sermons as limp as soggy cardboard? If you know one, I’ll leave you to figure out how to get them to read this post. If you know you are one, perhaps this will help.

1. Hear what people are saying, and hear what you are saying. If people are saying your preaching is dull, you need to hear that feedback. Don’t blame them. Don’t ignore them. Hear them. Equally, if you will just listen to yourself, or watch yourself on video, you will see just how bland the sermon presentation actually is. You may say, “Oh no, I am much more passionate than I come across!” Ok, but you don’t come across as passionate, so it is actually irrelevant how passionate you may be on the inside.

2. Is it frozen delivery? It is common for speakers to freeze when presenting to a crowd of people. What feels so fiery on the inside comes out as a restricted vocal range, monotonous tone, limited gestures, solidified facial expression and the natural movement of a broken robot with fading batteries. It may simply be that you need to grow in the area of delivery: not learning to be someone else, but learning to be yourself freely in front of the folks.

3. Is it personal fatigue? Maybe you are preparing half of Saturday night and then skipping breakfast and preaching on empty. Sometimes emergencies occur and we have no choice but to preach on an empty tank. But generally speaking, it isn’t a good idea, or good stewardship of your ministry, to eat poorly, sleep inadequately, exercise rarely and preach in a state of physical breakdown.

4. Is it a loss of vision? Ministry can take its toll. Well-intentioned dragons can sap energy like nothing else, repetition of services with minimal response and maximum negativity from some, overloaded ministry schedule because you are the only person active in ministry in the church, etc. Before long you are struggling to preach with any vision other than getting it done for another week. Not good.

5. Is it eyes unfixed and heart gone cold? Here’s the big one, whether it is true or not. Preaching without passion comes across as if what you are preaching about isn’t really that important. Unbelievers will be put off the gospel and believers will be discouraged. The greatest solution to the greatest problem in passionless preaching is to get your eyes fixed back on Christ and allow the sunshine of God’s grace to bring your heart back to the boil. When we taste and see that the Lord is good, it becomes much harder to preach without passion.

Passion Need Not Put Off

September 7, 2011September 7, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Preaching with a contagious passion for God, His Word, the gospel and the people is a good thing. But we always need to be careful not to let our passion slip into offensive or off-putting communication styles.

Passion that becomes aggressive can offend. We must always be aware of how we are coming across when we preach. What might feel like a passion for the truth on our part can easily become unnecessarily offensive to the listeners. Every word and sentence counts, so be careful not to make a care free assertion that might unnecessarily offend sensitive listeners. Listeners are not always the best at hearing statements in context. Hearers of “quotes” from Sunday’s sermon never really hear those quotes in context.

Passion that becomes “shouty” can be bothersome. So tempting for some personalities to convey their enthusiasm by shouting. It feels powerful and full of conviction at the time, and you can almost guarantee some misleading and positive feedback from some insecure folks who feel they need to say something nice to you afterwards. Getting known as a shouting preacher won’t help you on several levels.

Passion that becomes distracted can be hard to follow. Sometimes our passion for something leads us off on a wild goose chase of anecdotes and illustrations, or a wild safari ride through the canon of Scripture. Let your passion drive your main idea home, not drive your listeners to distraction because they can’t follow you in your distraction.

Passion that becomes too intense can drain. Even if we don’t shout, a certain level of intensity, if maintained consistently, will drain an audience of energy and focus. Give them a break, a chance to breathe, a chance to recalibrate. Intensity turned up a notch or two and left there can become simply too much to take. Not worth it, better that they hear what you’re saying.