Preaching

The Thirties – Part 9 (Final Thoughts)

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

As the allied leaders appeased Hitler in the later 1930s, ACG noted how this played into his hands. “The peace of Munich is a complete victory for Hitler.  The Munich pact replaces the Versailles Treaty. Germany has won the [First World] war after all. An unforgettable lesson has been taught to the whole world, namely that nothing can be expected from lawful agreement, arbitration and peaceful negotiations. All that matters is power and might. What you can grab by force and threat is yours by right. It is a lesson that will not be forgotten by the Germans within and without the Fatherland. It will continue to plague the world in years to come.” (p350-351)

The Allies simply needed to call Hitler’s bluff.  However, the British and the French gave up on their treaty with Czechoslovakia and tried to pursue peace.  Hitler lacked the strength and public support needed to wage a new war.  But sadly, his lies won him the extra time he needed. “The great Swedish Chancellor Count Axel Oxenstjerna was right when he said to his son: ‘Don’t you know, my boy, with what little intelligence the world is run?’  Oxenstjerna’s words are as true today as they were 300 years ago.” (p354)

As ACG came to the end of his book, preparing for publication in 1939, he wrote, “At the apex of the German pyramid stands a dictator drunk with success and surrounded by a horde of daring adventurers. He and they live in a world of their own. Germany, they believe and make others believe, has become the hub of the universe. . . . It is a sad commentary on our times that the forces of progress, suffering from a strange malady of inertia and moral paralysis, have permitted a dictatorship to bring limitless misery to millions of people who once were happy.” (p356)

It is pretty sobering to read the final pages, knowing all that was to follow in the subsequent six years of Nazi tyranny.  “I have no intention of defending that which can not be defended. I have testified in previous chapters to the all too many sins of omission committed by the democratic state, statesmen and national leaders, and their failure to take timely and energetic action against the enemies of democracy and progress. Yet to arrive at a conclusive answer one must not look around for individual scapegoats. It is necessary to realise the collective responsibility and the collective guilt of the German people; that collective guilt which can perhaps best be explained by the lack of political instinct and political common sense of the Germans.” (p360)  As we look at threats to society today, we could soon be writing the same thing of our nation, or of the west.

“If individual guilt and responsibility have to be apportioned, then certainly all those are guilty who allowed things to come to such a pass.”  (p365)  ACG referred to Reich Chancellor Bruening in 1930 and others who made influential decisions with devastating consequences.  But what about a broader view?  What about the population, the foreign leaders, community influencers like the church leaders, etc.? 

“The longer National Socialism rules in Germany, the greater becomes the danger of a new and all-devastating war.  It is the sacred duty of all those within and without Germany to whom justice and law, humanity, democracy and peace are not matters of mere lip service, to co-operate in the fight for the preservation of mankind.” (p368)  This is still true today . . . totalitarian, globalist takeover agendas are flagrant, and too many heads remain firmly buried in the sand. 

So, to come full circle, common decency dictates that we should not liken anything today to 1930’s Germany.  In light of what has happened in recent years and what may lie ahead of us, maybe it would be wiser if we did.

The Thirties – Part 8 (Points to Ponder)

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

In this series, I have considered ACG’s book, Inside Germany.  Published in 1939, it is a fascinating account of the Nazi takeover of Germany that brought the world to the brink of disaster.  In light of reading that book and reflecting on our own times, what are some takeaway points to consider as preachers?

1. Only one message can change hearts.  It is not a political message nor driven by headlines in the newspapers or social media.  It is the message of the Gospel, and it comes from the Bible.  We must preach the gospel as loud and clear as possible in tumultuous times.  It may be that the turbulent times stir previously comfortable hearts to a new level of openness.  When those moments come, we must offer Jesus to a needy world. 

2. Only saying one thing can be a sign of weakness.  I know that our ministry is to preach the Gospel.  However, we also have some clauses in our job description that relate to being people of the truth.  In an age of disinformation, misinformation, malinformation, etc., we must speak the truth.  In an age of censorship, controlled media narratives, and the silencing of independent thinking, we need to promote informed and free thought.  Suppose our default position in public speech is to hide behind what is culturally acceptable.  For now, we can quote Bible verses because it is still safe to do so.  Why do we think we will later become bold clarions of truth when the societal pressure to conform becomes so much greater once tyranny takes a tighter grip on our throats?

3. We need to grow in discernment.  Too many are proclaiming a media-shaped worldview with some Bible verses attached.  There is probably a church in your town that is already fully there – sounding like their pulpit is a marginally more religious version of a BBC TV presenter.  God has not called us to offer insipid commentary on society with the odd tip of the hat to contemporary ideology.  We were called to think and proclaim biblically.  So read the Bible, then read the culture through the lens of the Bible (and not vice versa). 

We wouldn’t only read theology books from one agenda-driven publishing house, so don’t read society simply through the lens of the mainstream media’s agreed narrative.  Neither should we only read society through just one or two social media voices.  Let’s look for trustworthy sources.  That doesn’t mean checking to see if they are on the BBC, even if it once did.  Censorship should be a red flag to any thinker.  Look for who is being paid and who is losing their livelihood.  Look for who stands to gain and who is being silenced.  Let’s look for multiple trustworthy sources of information and set an example of being informed, thoughtful, and biblical in our discernment.

4. Have the courage to speak when silence is easier.  Can I be candid?  There have been times during recent years when I have found that many Christian leaders seem to be hiding behind the mantra of only preaching the Gospel.  It is easy to quote John 3:16 on social media.  But how many churches have gone along with the media narrative every step of the way, only to wonder later why they didn’t question more?  The easy choice today can mean I have reduced my credibility in a year or two.

5. What is our territory?  We have to be careful with politicised issues.  But don’t fall for the simplistic idea that every political matter is off-limits to us.  Last week, I was in a room where some people were asked what it was like to live under Soviet rule.  One answered about how they could not trust anyone.  Another spoke about never showing gladness outwardly.  Then an older man said, “We can never explain to our children what it was like because it was a spirit.”  There was a spiritual reality behind Communist rule.  There was an evil spirituality in Nazi rule too.  And if there is a “spirit of the age” at work in the ideological agenda of our day, then we cannot say that preachers should stay quiet.  Politics may be largely off-limits, but speaking God’s truth in the midst of a spiritual battle certainly is our territory.

6. Having courage does not negate the need for gentleness.  Sometimes, people hear a call for courage as a call for bombastic shouting.  Not at all.  We represent Christ, and we need to convey the nature of his character, as well as truth, in society.  But we should not underestimate what can be achieved in this world with gentle forcefulness.  (See my post on Solzhenitsyn’s “Live Not By Lies” from January.)

7. Pray and pray boldly.  As well as saying little to challenge the media narrative, it is also easy to pray as if that media narrative dictates reality.  God can do immeasurably beyond all that we ask or imagine.  In our private and public prayers, let us boldly pray for God to bring down those who exalt themselves, for God to expose those whose plans are for evil rather than good, and for God to break open hearts that seem so solidified against him.  The Third Reich was supposedly going to last a thousand years, but it was done in twelve.  Many prayed for that.  The impregnable Iron Curtain was brought down in my younger years.  Many prayed for that too.  And so it is with every variation of Communism, globalism, or religious takeover. Let’s pray that God would bring it down so that more can be spared the suffering and freely come to know him.

The Thirties – Part 6 (Contemporary Shifts)

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In the last post, we brought out the question sitting in the shadows throughout this series of posts.  What part did the church play in allowing the Nazi takeover of Germany?  We can never know what would have happened if more stood up and overtly resisted.  But that is one of the critical questions we must wrestle with in our day.  First, when will we stop supporting the general direction of travel?  Second, how will we resist?

Whatever we may feel is the driving force behind the changes, we surely must get our heads out of the sand and recognise the shifts that are taking place.  There are moral shifts regarding gender, sexuality and crime.  There are human rights shifts regarding free speech, free movement, the right to assemble, and bodily autonomy.  There are ideological shifts in respect to traditional religions, cult-like agendas, and globalist unaccountable power grabs.  The world could be a very different place in a very short time.

Morality and change – Even before the full extent of their atrocities were revealed, people knew the Nazi morality. “The Nazis claim that all that is beneficial to the German people is right.” (p192)  This, of course, meant that they could do whatever they liked.  When right and wrong are redefined, a culture is under threat.  We live in a culture where you are judged to be a threat to progress if your actions, words, and even thoughts do not support the approved narrative, the dominant ideology, or the power imposing religion. 

Why do people assume that the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom to disagree will persist when those asserting their power are committed to a different morality?  If any try speaking against certain sanctions and medications, kneeling ceremonies, well-known religions, or theories in climate science, then they soon discover that there are consequences in our day.  There has been a major shift in the ethical foundations of our society – we must not pretend otherwise.

Democracy and change – People naively believe that societies change from good to bad in free and fair elections.  Sometimes that has happened.  But revolutionary change tends to require a crisis. “On the day after the Reichstag fire, a new law ‘for the protection of the people and the state against communist acts of violence’ was made public.  It had been obviously prepared beforehand. … This law deprived every citizen of his few remaining civil rights and left him at the mercy of the new masters and their heavily armed sluggers now elevated to the rank of authority. Person and home were no longer inviolate. Privacy of mail, telephone and telegram had ceased to exist. Freedom of speech, press and assembly was a thing of the past.” (p215)  It was not an election that changed everything but a manufactured crisis.  A crisis means that change can be imposed ‘for the good’ of the people. 

Individuals as the threat to change – As with every tyrannical takeover and revolutionary moment, the free-thinking individual is an instant threat to the people in power.  Germany had “confined itself to the deliberate destruction of the rights of all those who think independently and come to conclusions different from those of the masters of the Third Reich.” (p230)  We see the same thing when Communist revolutions grab hold of a country – immediately the useful idiots who helped create the crisis are a threat to be discarded, along with the educated, the religious leaders, the writers, the influencers.

The Nazis considered the “fourth battlefield” to be enemies from within the state.  So, they used the SS troops to bear arms freely as they brought terror and control to the nation.  The SA “brown shirts” were more of an accessory to the Nazis but were used either in uniform or in everyday clothes “to arouse enthusiasm among the masses.” The jubilant masses described by foreign press correspondents were usually “well-rehearsed SA formations.” They would create disturbances outside Jewish-run businesses, where the Gestapo would sweep in to arrest the owners for their own protection and dispatch them off to concentration camps.  Then, the SA performance would quiet down.  (See p250-251)

The recurring theme of thought crime came out strongly in the book: “None of those imprisoned under the pretext of protective confinement had committed crimes. Their only guilt in the eyes of the Nazis was to have opinions contrary to Nazi creed.” (p338)  A society can never be considered free when people are punished for holding specific opinions.

Is change a surprise? It is easy to assume that the German people were unaware of the evils of the Nazi regime until the secrets were revealed after the end of the Third Reich and the humbling death of Hitler in his bunker. “Again it must be emphasised, that everything that has taken place within the last five years has been publicly and repeatedly proclaimed by the Nazi regime long before it came to pass.  Only the degree in which early predictions have been fulfilled is a matter of surprise.” (p267)  I can’t help but wonder if such published predictions were also disparagingly called conspiracy theories a century ago.  There does seem to be a pattern – troubling things are proclaimed and published, the media run a different narrative, people quote those troubling things, the media decry those people as quacks and conspiracy nuts.  And then, sometimes very quickly, those troubling things turn out to be true.

In the next post in this series, we will consider more parallels to our time.

The Thirties – Part 5 (What About The Church?)

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

The question I brought into my reading of ACG’s book was more specific than society.  I wanted to know what was happening in the church during those years of transition to tyranny.  And is there anything we can learn for our tumultuous times?

The Catholic Church agreed a concordat with the Nazi party in 1933.  It gave the church a lot of freedom and protection.  But at a cost. “Catholic clergy were deprived of their civil rights. Political activity was forbidden.” (p205)  Ironically, they kept their position of influence in society, while relinquishing their ability to say anything constructive.  I have watched many wrestle with this tension in recent years.  Should we strive to keep our “voice” in society by following the rules imposed by the media, or do we speak out about concerns and thereby invite society’s opposition? 

“To oppose the encroachments by the Third Reich, the churches should have united and fought jointly the common danger, but here as in the political field, the spirit as well as the prerequisites to such unity were sadly lacking. As to the Protestant Church, the wealthy parishioners and the Protestant middle class were in favor of the Nazi regime. …Neither then nor later did the Protestant clergy show a common will and determination in defense of their rights.” (p206)  It is intriguing that those with some societal standing (in terms of their wealth status) are identified as supporting the regime.  Surely, if the benefits are to be weighed in terms of income and status, that should be a warning flag that the motives may be somewhat corrupted.

Is it possible to imagine a church in our time that goes along with a rogue government or popular narrative in order to keep its voice in society?  But what if it already has little to no voice?  What is it protecting?

“The Nazi aim in the field of religion is the establishment of a co-ordinated German church under party supervision. … Their publicly proclaimed thesis is “The word of Adolf Hitler is the word of God and has the authority of God.” (p206)  It was not just moral madness that should have been opposed, but also the religious heresy of the time.

Even within the 1930’s, there was a growing religious fervor in silent protests against the Nazi regime.  What if they had not capitulated initially to take the easy path and keep their influence?  What if the church had been willing to take a stand from the start?

There was a concerted effort to undermine the church’s influence in society.  The black-shirts, the elite guards, were forbidden to belong to any religion.  The Hitler Youth movement estranged a generation from churches. “Church services are held under observation of the Gestapo, the state secret police. Clergymen who have held services outside the church confines in order to escape police supervision have been arrested and sent to concentration camps.” (p208)

Church leaders and members were subjected to every possible charge and slander. “They are accused of immorality, corruption and violation of government regulations. . . . Occasional cases of law violations are blatantly generalized.” (p208)  It is hard to stand for what is right and true, but is that not what all believers are called to do in this fallen world?  We represent Jesus and the Gospel.  Always with grace and love, but sometimes with courage and a willingness to pay the ultimate price.  And when we capitulate in order to have a voice in society, what happens when society wakes up to the truth and then wonders why the church didn’t say anything? 

Is it better to have a voice, or to use it? 

I don’t want to condemn the church in the 1930s without acknowledging how easily cowed the church in the 2020s might prove to be.  As Dietrich Bonhoeffer famously wrote, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

The Thirties – Part 4 (How Did it Happen?)

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The tyrannical Nazi Reich toppled the German Republic in just fourteen years.  It is historically fascinating to trace the transition.  More than that, we must learn from history to avoid repeating it.  So, how did it happen? 

There were all sorts of players involved.  Lots of people had vested interests.  There was plenty of historical baggage everywhere you look.  And complex political wranglings tugged at the emerging storyline.  It would take a long book to lay bare the complex reasons for the change.  However, there are some pertinent points that a series of blog posts can consider to enlighten our thinking for our world today.

ACG repeatedly points to a critical underlying issue – a lack of willingness to resist.  For example, he writes, “Yes, it ought to be said again and again, that the iron will necessary to maintain the authority of the state, to guard jealously the inalienable rights of the people, and to fight in defense of democracy, was sadly lacking.” (p142)

When people were openly attempting to destroy democracy and bring in a dictatorship, there should have been a response from “energetic authorities” – but there was not.

While the outside world was concerned about the “saber-rattling speeches” from the Nazis, “The republic, however, and its statesmen continued to view the manifestations of reaction and renewed militarism with unconcern.” (p145)

“When Nazis took power, people had done nothing, but felt it was too late to take a stand.” So sad.  And yet, it is so believable as we watch human nature in recent history.  In the early 1930s, they still had the numbers and the means to stop it, but the will to resist had already dissipated. 

Once the Nazis were in power, the rules changed.  They introduced a worker’s passport to control the labour force for government purposes.  People couldn’t change jobs without permission, which kept the masses from moving to the cities and away from the armaments factories.  Tyranny, by definition, needs to impose control over individuals.

It would be unfair to say that the people merely turned away from reality. “Everything is prepared in the Third Reich by means of a thoroughly co-ordinated press and radio.” (p192)  There was massive propaganda pressure against the people.  The most heinous example of this was the national pressure against Jews and the normalization of hatred against a class of people.  During 1936-37, 870 Jews were convicted of racial crimes, turning the screw even more.  They could not receive protection because of the hostility of the police and the courts.  In our times, we are repeatedly seeing how quickly a society can be turned against a race, class or group of people (consider medical dissenters since 2021 or Jews in recent months, for just two examples).  And sadly, the majority of people either do not see it or refuse to see it. 

“The annexation of Austria was accompanied by all the horrible happenings known from 1933 when Nazism conquered power in Germany.  At that time the world was unwilling to believe its own eyes and prepared to forget the horrors as quickly as possible.” (p336-7)  I wonder how often the combination of narrative control by the media and self-imposed blindness in key people leads to greater harm to the world.

I started ACG’s book expecting only to find hints of what was to follow during the Second World War, and especially the horrors of the holocaust.  But the concentration camps, the numerous “suicides”, and the killing sprees were all already present and known in the thirties.  Living in a world that is unwilling to believe its own eyes is scary!

Society may be conditioned to support an approved narrative, but we are called to be men and women of truth.  In the next post, I want to get to the heart of my concern: what was the church doing in the transition to Nazi rule?  Does the church matter?  Do our voices make a difference?

The Thirties – Part 3 (The Threats Identified)

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In the last post, I noted a few parallels between the 1930s and our times.  But what about the threat itself?  The Nazi threat was totalitarian, oppressive, ideological and quasi-religious.  Since the fall of the Third Reich, the world has been more focused on Communism, supposedly coming from the opposite end of the political spectrum.  Also, on the expansion of militant religion, and latterly, activist agendas driven and funded by globalist ideologues.   While the media seems to scream “Nazi!” quite freely as an insult, there appears to be an eerie ignorance of where the threat lies for our society today.  What would be the cost in both freedom and lives if we continue to push in the direction of the utopian dreams being touted?

Interestingly, the ideologies swirling in the 1930s seem to come from both ends of the traditional political spectrum as people understand it. 

“Hardly had the republic been established, when the enemies started to attack in earnest.  From the left . . . the communists savagely pounded away at the people’s state and its institutions . . . fighting and belittling everything created by the republic. . . . Propelled by the insane belief in a world revolution, the communists caused millions of gold rubles to flow into Germany for the fight against the republic.” It is interesting to read how “time and again [the communists] joined forces with the Nationalists and Nazis in parliament.  They cast their vote against democratic government and, together with the Nazis, did immeasurable harm to the dignity of parliament by turning it into a place of political rowdyism and unheard-of brawls.” ACG was not surprised to see communists joining the brown-shirted storm troop army by the thousands, nor “the most radical communist districts . . . becoming strongholds of the National Socialist movement and its sluggers.” (p361) 

In another place, he notes how “Some SA formations had as many as thirty per cent communists in their ranks.  This was not at all surprising. Both the Nazi SA and the communists had much in common; above all, their hatred of democracy and especially of the social democracy.” (p252)

Wait, we are constantly told that the Nazis and the Communists represent opposite extremes on the political spectrum.  Instead of focusing all our attention on Left versus Right, we should instead contrast control and freedom.  Tyranny is tyranny, whatever uniform it wears.  And perhaps tyranny is the threat to liberal democracy and human freedom that lingers and re-asserts itself time and again.

Suppose the constitutional rights of the individual are not protected. In that case, any solution offered for any actual or imaginary crisis will prove to be a force of control.  In other words, self-proclaimed saviours tend to become tyrants.

 ACG finished his 1939 book with a prescient finale:

“National Socialism stands for the propagation of a system aimed at the destruction of individualism, the enslaving of other peoples, and barbarism. Civilization gives way to the law of the jungle. Wherever Hitler goes, the four horsemen of the Nazi Apocalypse follow. National Socialism is synonymous with war, devouring uncounted millions of lives, destroying culture and civilization. Hitler consciously or unconsciously is driving toward this goal. He is taking Germany and with her, all Europe and the whole world on the road to disaster.” (p367)

We would do well to understand what is meant by the political “left” and “right” but also to grasp that the real battle might be between control and freedom.  As preachers, our calling is not to preach a party political message.  The pulpit is not a soapbox; we have something much more important to proclaim.  But let us not bury our heads in the sand and live in ignorance of what is happening in the world around us. 

In the next post, I want to explore how the great shift happened so quickly and whether that may be helpful for our awareness today.

The Thirties – Part 2 (A Rapid Shift)

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The shift from the German Republic founded in 1919 to the Nazi’s Third Reich in 1933 was colossal.  Clearly, it was possible for things to shift so rapidly in that society.  Are there any parallels between then and now?  As I read ACG’s Inside Germany, so many statements jumped out to me:

  • “The state, in my opinion, belongs to the people only if all the people take part in the exercise of government and public authority.” (p120)  Is there not an increasing feeling of disconnect between the population and the people with ultimate power in our day? 
  • “The best laws are of little value when carried out haphazardly or reluctantly.” (p120)  Confidence in a great legal system can drain away when it seems like there are different rules for different people.
  • “Knives, pistols and explosives are dangerous weapons. To those, however, who are guided by ideals and who, in the political struggle, have not lost sight of human dignity and integrity, the weapons of slander, abuse and insidious intrigues are far more dangerous.” (p122) ACG resigned as Minister of the Interior of Prussia in 1930following a targeted hate campaign by communist and national socialist agitators.  A politically motivated cancel culture is not a new phenomenon, but it is a concerning one.
  • We might assume that the people of Germany in the 1930s knew all too well the history of the war in the 1910s.  And yet, it doesn’t take long for a generation to rise who are ignorant or deliberately misinformed.  Those born during, or just before, the Great War became the youngsters who were so uninformed and so easily steered towards serving Hitler’s goals just two decades later. “What did those youngsters know of the struggles, miseries and sacrifices in the bitter war years?  Those youths from whom the truth was deliberately withheld had not the slightest inkling of the splendid response of the Social Democrats, the Jews and others to the war needs of the nation.  How many of the young men and women who swallow the lies and deceits of the National Socialist propaganda, hook, line and sinker know . . .” (p362) How confident can we be today that the younger generation is properly educated about the threats to our society from political, ideological or religious groups?  The evidence would suggest that too many know all too little.
  • In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote that “A lie, if big enough, always has an excellent chance . . . . The masses with their primitive and one-sided minds are more susceptible to a big lie than a little one.” It is troubling to see how confident many are today that they are not the victim of any big lies.  They might acknowledge the possibility, or even the likelihood, of lies being the fare of politicians and the media.  But could they be the victim of a big lie?  Of course not, because they would know if they were.  It is a strange self-delusion, and our world is full of it.

There are so many parallels between then and now.  More will emerge in subsequent posts, but this is a starter list to ponder and prayerfully consider.  And the question that hangs over it all, like a Zeppelin, is what could and should the church pastors do in a society that is leaning in a dangerous direction?

The Thirties – Part 1 (A Seismic Shift)

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

At the height of restrictions during the times of Covid, I made a comment to a friend.  His response has stayed with me.  My comment made a specific comparison of a contemporary trend with 1930s Germany.  He immediately reacted and told me that we should never make such a comparison because it implied that the motives of certain influential people were as evil as Hitler himself.  I find censorship to be a huge red flag, and I felt like my thought process was being shut down.  A few years later, whether the situation warranted my comment is still up for discussion.  Perhaps, over time, we will know.  But my interest in 1930s Germany has continued.

What did they know?  And significantly, how did they respond during an era of multiplying warning flags?

Recently, I discovered Inside Germany, a book written by Albert C. Grzesinksi [herein ACG] – a member of the Social Democratic Party who helped to found the German Republic after the First World War.  Intriguingly, he published the book in 1939 without the benefit of hindsight.  After six years of the Third Reich, he wrote without knowing what would unfold in the next six years. The horrors of Nazi Germany during the Second World War, especially the “Final Solution” to the “Jewish problem,” were eventually revealed to the world.  But what about before the war?  How did the German Republic become the Third Reich?  How did so many accept such a rapid transition from liberal democracy to tyrannical evil?  It is a fascinating read.  And maybe, a century later, there could be lessons for us as we pray for our world, influence Christians and lead churches in a time of potentially tectonic political shifts.

The German Republic was quite an achievement after the devastation of the Great War of 1914-18.  On the 31st of July, 1919, the National Assembly in Weimer “gave the German people a constitution that was one of the most liberal, progressive and inspiring documents in the history of the world.  On the 23rd of March, 1933, the parliament of the same republic passed an empowering act which concentrated all powers in the hands of Hitler, and which wrote finis to German democracy and the liberal republic.” (p357)  Strikingly,  ACG wrote, “Those two dates . . . mark Germany’s road to Golgotha, the road to the crucifixion of the German people under the Nazi swastika.” (ibid.)

It would be easy to assume that Germany, after WWI, simply rebuilt itself, leading to WWII.  Not so.  The Germany of 1919 had to be radically changed to become the Third Reich of 1933 and following. “Seemingly by a stroke of the pen, political liberties were achieved which not even the boldest optimists and democratic dreamers of Germany had dared to envision. Germany became a state of, by and for the people; a democratic fatherland dedicated to the needs and aspirations of the working masses.” (p358)  And it is that seismic shift from liberal democracy to totalitarian tyranny that intrigues me.  How can that happen so quickly?  And, if you will indulge a series of posts about Nazi Germany, I’d like to ponder what it might mean for how we preach and influence both church and society in our tumultuous times?

7 Defining Moments in Your Sermon – Part Four

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

We have thought about two moments before the sermon starts, two in the introduction and two in the body of the sermon. 

What about the conclusion?  Let’s go there for the final defining moment:

7. The landing – We know the end of the message is important.  During preparation, we might have prayed and dreamed of a huge revival breaking out.  During delivery, we might just be desperate to be finished and away from the microphone.  But between those two extremes we can see that the conclusion does matter.  There is both the quality of the landing and the fact of the landing.  The quality is determined by both tone and content.  It is a chance to review the main points of the message, to restate the main idea again, and to bring a sense of conclusion to the whole.  The tone can be encouraging, upbeat, hopeful, and faith-stirring rather than critical, harsh and guilt-trippy.  As well as the quality, there is also the fact of landing.  Arrive.  Get there.  Stop talking.  Don’t elongate the message in the hope that your fourth attempted landing will prove to be better than the first three.  Robinson used to say that it is best to end a sentence or two before people expect you to end. Review, encourage, finish. 

So there we go, seven defining moments of the sermon.  But I need to add one more:

Bonus – Clearly stating the main idea.  Of course, no matter how hard I try to point away from the obvious moments to some that people may not be aware of, I still feel the need to underline the importance of a well-defined main idea in the message.  Too many preachers preach without it.  The main idea needs to be clarified by the preacher, otherwise it will be hastily cobbled together in the minds of your confused listeners.  It is your job to make sure the message is coherent.  Nothing holds a message together so well as an accurately defined main idea.

What would you add to this list?  What are the defining moments in a sermon?

7 Defining Moments in Your Sermon – Part Three

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

We have thought about the pre-sermon moments that impact the preaching event and considered a couple of aspects of the introduction.  Now, let’s consider a couple of moments that can define the impact of the message from within the body of the sermon.  Obviously, the points are important, the text’s explanation is critical, and so on, but that is what we tend to focus on.  Here are two surprisingly significant moments to consider:

5. Every transition – It could be argued that transitions separate good communicators from average ones.  It is natural to focus on the content of the points, but it is a step up to be aware of how you move from one to the next.  It is like having a passenger riding behind you on a motorcycle.  They will tend to stay with you in a straight line, unless you accelerate too fast.  But you really need to slow down through the turns.  The same is true when you preach.  A good transition can achieve so many good things: a review of what’s been said, an encouraging conclusion to a point, a reminder of progress in the message, a preview of what is to come, a chance to re-engage for the distracted listener, an opportunity to reinforce the main idea, a moment of pause for an overwhelmed listener, and so on.  Or you can clumsily jump into your next point and leave people confused as to what happened to the other point, why you are talking about this, how it relates, and so on.  Pay attention to every transition; your message will be more helpful for more people.

6. The Interruption or Surprise – We do not preach in a vacuum-sealed box that can be completely controlled.  It is an environment with many variables.  Let’s categorise them as either public or private.  The public ones interrupt everyone’s experience.  The phone ringing, the child crying, the jackhammer starting, the gunshot (hopefully not).  Some are minor, some are more significant.  You have to decide at the moment how to handle it.  Be careful not to draw attention to someone feeling awkward about their phone or baby or to press on through something worthy of a pause.  I’ve seen a preacher totally undermine his credibility and sermon by a harsh and unkind response to an accidental interruption.  I’ve also seen a preacher try to press on, oblivious to the passed-out person being carried out of the congregation.  The first should have been more gentle, the second would have done well to notice, pause and pray for the person.  I don’t remember either of the sermons, but years later, I remember the interruptions and the response from the preacher.

Then there are the private interruptions.  That is the thought that suddenly presents as you are preaching.  Maybe a new illustration.  Maybe a warning flag about using a planned illustration.  Perhaps an extra thought that could be added, or a new direction for the application.  A beginning preacher may not be able to imagine any internal dialogue while preaching because the whole experience is so consuming and overwhelming.  But actually, there can be quite a wrestle going on inside a preacher while the sermon continues to be preached.  Don’t automatically discount every thought and press on through the notes.  Neither should you take every thought as a Spirit-led and anointed change of direction.  You have to prayerfully and humbly process as you go.  You won’t always get it right, but you will do well to lean towards the love of God and others in every decision you make (and keep an eye on the clock, too, as an act of love for the children’s workers and people who brought a first-time guest!)