Bible Handling Mirror 2

July 20, 2011July 15, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

So we all think we’re biblical when we preach. But how good are we at handling the Bible. Yesterday I suggested five questions to ask in pursuing feedback on this matter – questions on observing the text closely, interpreting in context, awareness of historical background issues, grasping the flow of thought in a passage, and accurate interpretation of the details. Having asked about context issues, let’s continue with questions relating to content, before returning to broader biblical context questions:

6. How sensitive am I to the tone of the author? Do I treat the text as an ancient data dump, or have I tapped into the actual tone of the author? Am I sensitive to his mood, his intent, his heart beating in the words that he wrote?

7. How appropriately do I point to the weightier details of the passage? Every passage consists of details, and some are weightier than others. Do I spend my time where it matters, or do I get bogged down with subsidiary details?

8. How aware am I of the earlier texts that feed into this passage? If a passage is quoted, am I aware of that passage? If a passage is alluded to or influential on the writer, do I seem aware of that?

9. How well do I place this passage in the full panorama of Scripture? This differs from question 8 because that was only looking at what had come before. This question is asking about the whole canon, all of it. Am I alert to where this passage fits in the progress of revelation? Do I make sure that this passage is preached appropriately for today?

10. How good is my summary of the passage, really? I suppose we should ask if there was a summary statement of the passage . . . but assuming there is, how is it? Does it reflect the nuances and uniquenesses of the passage, or is it too generic? Does it capture the heart of the passage? Would it get a knowing nod from the author as an accurate summary of his intended meaning?

Finding people who could give you feedback on these ten questions could make the difference between you being self-aware and being self-deceived. Don’t be naive. Try to find out how well you are handling the Bible, honestly. Then let’s all grow more and more as preachers of the Word!

Bible Handling Mirror

July 19, 2011July 15, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Every preacher probably thinks their preaching is biblical. Even that really bad preacher that you once heard. Sadly, probably especially that really bad preacher that you once heard! To put it bluntly, we all have a tendency to be naive about our level of biblical accuracy. It is genuinely hard to know what you don’t know. There is never a guarantee that you will spot poor Bible handling in the mirror. So, what to do about it?

Well you can take courses from trustworthy instructors and see their feedback on your Bible handling. Or more immediately, you can ask someone who knows what they are talking about for feedback. (The only problem with this is that if you don’t what you don’t know, how do you know if they know . . . still, worth getting feedback, probably from multiple evaluators.) Some probing questions to ask them:

1. How diligently do I observe the text? Am I really careful to see exactly what it does say? Do I notice the key details? Do I represent what is actually said in the text precisely? To put it another way, am I diligent to preach this text and not jump from it to say what I want to say?

2. How effectively do I interpret the text in context? Am I obviously alert to, and influenced by, the context in which the passage sits? Do I seem to be genuinely familiar with the book as a whole? Do I show how the details of this passage make sense in light of the flow of the broader section in which it sits?

3. How familiar am I with the relevant historical and cultural background to the text? Am I preaching the text demonstrating a natural familiarity with the historical background, the cultural background, the geography, the “world” of the text? Or am I preaching the text at very long arms length with all the presuppositions of our individualistic, affluent, democratic, freedom obsessed culture firmly in place?

4. How alert am I to the author’s flow of thought? Does the sermon feel staccato and bitty, or do I show the flow of thought? Does it feel like separate thoughts bound together by a title, or does it feel coherent?

5. How accurately do I interpret the details in the text? The words, the names, the grammar, the dialogue, the details. Do I show a good level of precision when it comes to the analysis and close work in the text?

I’ll add another five tomorrow…

Token Triumphalism

July 15, 2011July 15, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I think we should beware of token gestures of triumphalism in our preaching. I suppose we could go to the example of Michael in Jude in the Assumption of Moses moment, but I’m thinking slightly lower on the scale than the direct rebuking of Satan (although I have seen it done and don’t see the value of it).

Take, for instance, the direct rebuking of atheists. This can sound especially bizarre when the pointed comments about particular individuals are made in a manner that surely would be different were the individual in the room. I think the people in our churches need to be protected from the false teaching of atheists old and new. Especially when the media seem to fawn at the sight of a new book from Richard Dawkins, et al. But helping people see the problem with the teaching of a man is different than rebuking and attacking the man himself. The same holds for the teaching of extreme liberals like the Jesus seminar or Bart Ehrmann or historically flamboyant writers like Dan Brown. Help people see the error if appropriate, but don’t go celebrating the future demise of a man with fireworks or attacking him as if he is the devil.

Then there is another bizarre twist, when the preacher decides to attack Christians who are engaging with such folks. Whether it be a John Lennox for debating the new atheists, or a Darrell Bock for writing about the Da Vinci Code, or whoever. Somehow a small-minded preacher critiquing brothers who are serving the church by engaging and critiquing such works as The God Delusion or whatever, somehow it just seems a bit pathetic. I have no aspiration to enter the mainstream debate scene or write to uncover the errors in new atheistic argumentation. But I am thankful for those that do. Different parts of the body of Christ at work for the good of us all. If I, as a preacher, decide to ridicule or reject the efforts of men like Lennox and Bock, I don’t show a superior or even a biblical form of Christianity. What I show is small-minded, uninformed and paper-thin Christianity.

We could think about other religions too. Again, it is important for our people to be informed about the uniqueness of Christ and the dangers in the cults or religions vying for their attention. Let’s do so accurately and graciously, rather than sounding off in the safety of our own company.

There’s one more category, but I won’t develop the thought. Some preachers seem very quick to mock, critique, ridicule and put down other churches and denominations. Again, there may be a place for gracious contrasting or critiquing, but cheap shots and token triumphalism somehow tends to undermine a person’s preaching, making them look small and sometimes quite silly.

True Fellowship

July 14, 2011July 14, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

If you are gripped by what the Bible offers, then you will probably preach about the wonder of true Christian fellowship as it should be as one of your recurring themes. But a church is typically a very mixed group of people, including those seemingly not gripped by the same vision. And preaching can be a very lonely ministry. This seems to suggest there might be a problem for preachers.

Last night the ministry I am involved in had its final “graduation” meal together. (Cor Deo is online here.) The ten men who have been shoulder to shoulder for the past six months won’t gather in that way after today. We have delighted in God together, and therefore have found our fellowship to be true, deep and satisfying too. I suspect that we will not lose the taste for good fellowship with like-minded responders to God and will go out of our way to look for it in the next season of life. But some preachers seem to have never had the taster, and so preaching can be such a lonely experience.

Some preachers look within their church for this kind of fellowship. Perhaps a colleague or two in the formal ministry functions of the church, or perhaps others from the congregation. Often the challenge is for this not to become a church ministry focused relationship since there is always so much to discuss. Or for it to be restricted by what cannot be discussed. Somehow those in leadership often feel the need to be less than real due to some perceived image that must be maintained.

Some preachers look outside their church for this kind of fellowship. Perhaps a pastor of another church, or a person in a similar situation as far as ministry involvement. Maybe it is a friend who is safe to share with and offer a more unrestricted vulnerability.

Whether the person is in the church, or in another, is not the issue. What matters is that we don’t do ministry alone. We need true fellowship. That means standing shoulder to shoulder with others who share our delight in God, pursuing Him together and enjoying Him together. If our hearts are not gripped by the glorious grace of our God, then how can we truly serve the church as preachers of His Word? And as my youth leader used to say regularly – a burning coal removed from close contact with others will soon grow cool and lose the glow.

Preacher, Encourage!

July 13, 2011July 13, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Everyone needs encouragement. We need it as preachers. So we shouldn’t be surprised if our listeners do too! And yet, strangely, something that everyone needs, and everyone acknowledges is needed, seems to be strangely absent in a significant amount of preaching. Let me encourage you to encourage people as you preach.

Don’t think exhortation is encouragement. There is a need for exhortation, but people need to be encouraged too. Exhorting involves persuasion and a hint of rebuke, but encouragement injects hope, confidence and life.

Don’t think guilt is encouragement. To put it simply, it is not. Guilting people into conformity is a shortcut that may yield results, but it will be short-lived and counter-productive. Allow guilt to come by the conviction of the Spirit, but don’t add guilt where guilt is not the issue – that is a form of legalism.

Don’t think that enthusiasm is encouragement. Your enthusiasm may be contagious, but people may sit impressed by your passion, yet not feel encouraged in their own. Think through how to invest rather than simply demonstrate enthusiasm in your preaching.

There are other things we may offer and think we are being encouraging. But consider both your passage and your listeners, how can this be preached in a way that will encourage them? Robinson talks about the need for ten encouraging messages for every one rebuke. It is so counterproductive when we get that ratio reversed. Be encouraged as you read the Word, and look to share that encouragement as encouragement!

The Destructive Power of the Patronising Quip

July 12, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

It is simple really, people don’t like to be patronized. So don’t. That is, if you want them to hear what else you are saying, assuming the patronizing comment is not the main idea of your message, don’t do it. It is like speaking to your spouse for ten minutes and throwing in a couple of insults along the way – what do you think they will go away thinking about?

I’m sure we all know what it is to be patronized, but let me share some patronizing comments that I’ve heard from the pulpit in recent years (just to be sure we are all alert to the range available to us if we want to undermine a sermon or two!)

Patronizing the locale – “So this is the little town of…” Maybe it is “little” from the visiting speaker’s perspective, but most locals don’t like outsiders telling them where they live is insignificant. Call it pride if you will, but don’t expect such a warm hearing.

Patronizing the church – “I come from a church of X hundred, but it’s so nice to be in an intimate gathering like this…” It’s like being a tourist. Comment positively as much as you like, but not in implied comparison with the bigger and better that you have come from.

Patronizing the knowledge – “Have you ever considered the difference the next word makes to this passage?” Unless you are claiming to have come up with something new, some of them probably have considered that. (And if you’ve got something new, you may have a different problem on your hands!) Along similar lines, “turn to X in your Bibles, you’ll need to use the table of contents to find!”

Patronizing the experience – “You may not have seen this before…” This is similar to the previous comment, it implies that you are a first time guide (which generally grates on those seasoned travellers through the Bible). Bizarrely I heard one preacher say, “If you read through John’s Gospel every week for twenty years, you would see this…” I don’t know if that is patronizing or just plain deceptive – I struggle to believe the implication that since he had done that he could now show us this wonderful insight in the text (it was a fanciful, or should I say, a theologically driven twisting of the text on that occasion!)

The strange thing about patronizing is that it tends to be in the form of passing comments, rather than overall content. This isn’t a hard and fast statement. Surely some preachers may come across as patronizing in everything they say, but I suspect that is primarily attitude. The point is, people don’t mind hearing basic messages. The way to avoid patronizing is not to wow the listener with new insight, clever exegesis or overwhelming passion. The way to avoid patronizing is to speak with love for the listener. When we are sensitive to how we come across, then we will filter out the unhelpful quips along the way.

Truth and Vision

July 11, 2011July 11, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

When we preach the truth, it should stir vision. Many preachers hope that will occur. Good preachers make sure it does.

As you preach through a text it will be offering a vision – a vision of what God is like, a vision of God’s purposes, a vision of what His people should be like in response to Him, a vision of what the world could be like. The problem is that it is too easy to preach truth from a text and feel like the job is done.

The preacher’s task is not only to understand the text (specific), in its context (general), but also to know the listeners (specific) in their context (general). This includes knowing how the message will come across. So there is the detailed part of communication – i.e. do they understand what I mean by each word and each sentence. But there is also the broader part of communication – i.e. have they been able to envision the bigger picture of what is going on here? Too often we settle for being understood at an atomistic level, but fail to make the most of the broad vision casting opportunity.

So when we preach, we should be asking ourselves, and God, what does this passage depict for us? Is it speaking of the fallen condition of humanity and God’s great redemptive work? Is it speaking of God’s character and attractiveness? Is it painting a portrait of what the body of Christ should look like? Is it suggestive of all that an individual believer, or local church, could be and do in response to Christ? Try to see the big picture on the applicational side, the listeners’ side of the divide.

Once you catch a clear glimpse of the bigger picture (again, I am speaking of the bigger picture on the listeners’ side, rather than just the passage in its context, which is vital for understanding the specifics), then look for ways to help the listener to hear and to see that scene. A visionary message, in this sense, will stir hearts and lift listeners in motivation. It will rouse tired hearts. It will move stuck believers.

Each passage is a specific painting in the greater collage of God’s great canon. Each sermon is an opportunity to stir hearts with something bigger than understanding a specific painting.

Can You See It Yet?

July 8, 2011February 25, 2015 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Here’s a hypothetical suggestion to make a point. The traditional approach to preaching is to announce and read the text very early on, or even prior to, the sermon. What if we did the exact opposite?

I used to watch a children’s television programme in which the artist would be painting away on a wall or large canvas. A stroke here. A bit of colour there. A splash of paint. A few dots. “Can you see it yet?” The impressive thing was that until the very end I would have no idea what he was painting. Then suddenly it would all come together.

What if we preached like that? Hypothetical, but bear with me. You start your message with surfacing a need and you move into the body of the message explaining and applying the text (this is where the idea fails in reality) without identifying it. In your conclusion you read the passage. Just before the conclusion would you still be asking “Can you see it yet?”

If this were possible, it would be anything but impressive. Yet not unusual. When some preachers preach, usually after having read the text on which the sermon is based, the discerning listeners are left bemused by how what they are hearing seems to bear no resemblance to the text. The undiscerning listeners are left with the impression that this is how the Bible should be handled. An anecdote here. A pithy line there. An application. A story. A comment. But can we see the connection to the text?

I’m not suggesting you leave the reading until the end, unless that would help the sermon. I am suggesting the goal in preaching is not to make the connection between text and sermon a complete mystery!

Torrents of Trite Truths

July 7, 2011July 7, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Little story. Almost a decade ago I was teaching a class in a Bible college overseas. I was teaching a wonderful group of enthusiastic church ministers how to handle the New Testament via a survey class. It was such a delight to share with them in that setting.

One day during the eight-day course, we had the chapel time with all the classes and staff present. A pastor was visiting from a church that had put a lot of funding into the institution, so naturally the “big church” pastor was invited to preach during chapel. It was painful.

He wasn’t really preaching a text, so much as preaching platitudes. Problem was that the enthusiastic students seemed to trigger something in him. Swept away on the wave of vocal affirmation, the pastor noticeably “rose to the occasion.” He went off on a wild safari of pithy alliterated lists and trite truths. Each time he got a vocal response he cranked it up a level. The room was electric. I sank lower and lower in my seat, oscillating between anger and momentary depression.

As I left the chapel (time eventually ran out and he had to stop), my young travel companion made a discerning comment about the whole thing. Unfortunately the students were different. They processed the difference between what they were learning and what they experienced from the “great preacher” by dividing learning from preaching.

Oh yes, there is a right way to handle the Bible and honour the message that God inspired. And there is a great way to preach so that listeners are stirred into a frenzy affirming trite truths and pithy epithets. Disconnect. One didn’t feed the other.

I feel like I say this regularly in as many ways as I can think of, but let me say it again: please please please preach the text you are preaching. Anyone (including four year olds) can spurt the truths of the faith learned parrot fashion. Surely God wants those mature enough to be sensitive to His inspired text to carefully and humbly be fed and feed others from the Word.

Preacher, Please Know What You Are Talking About!

July 6, 2011July 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

This should go without saying, but apparently it doesn’t. When you preach, please know what you are talking about! There are few things that undermine integrity as quickly as a preacher making mistakes in what they say.

We all make mistakes, and there is grace, of course. I’ve made mistakes. You have too. But the difficulty here is that ignorance is never obvious in the mirror. It is really hard to know what we don’t know.

I would love to give some examples, but I’ll keep this slightly general. Here are some categories:

1. Do you know the book from which your preaching text is drawn? Now and then a preacher will come out with something about a Bible book that leaves those who know their Bibles thoroughly confused. Actually, they will see through the preacher, but the ignorant will swallow the error.

2. Do you know the context of the cross-referencing you are doing? It is easy to spin off a text and dip into another part of the canon (either quoting or referring to content). But do you know that area of the Bible? If you only studied for your preaching text then you might easily make errors in regard to that other part of the Bible.

3. Do you know your theology as well as you think you do? Sometimes preachers will make theological points that have no foundation in the preaching text (or any other text, for that matter). This might be done when trying to show orthodoxy in some way – for example, wanting to affirm the full deity and humanity of Christ, but forcing that into an explanation of something to do with Christ’s ministry where it doesn’t fit.

4. Do you know the facts of the illustrative material you are using? I heard a preacher apparently trying to quote a key figure in church history, yet his introductory comments about him betrayed a significant ignorance of that church history. The same could be true when presenting a scientific or cultural example – getting the facts wrong, or even looking shaky, will undermine integrity.

5. Last but certainly not least, have you actually looked carefully at the text you are preaching? There is nothing worse than a preacher going off on a point about something, apparently trying to link it to the text, but ignoring the adjacent phrase that undermines the entire point.

Know the text, know the context, know the book, the Bible, and any realm from which illustrative materials are drawn. Hard work? Of course.