This link should have gone on the site on Monday, but here it is now . . .
Religion
I Needed That
Following on from yesterday’s post about vicarious conviction, there is a related matter to stir up a bit. It is the appetite in the church for “I needed that” sermons. Don’t get me wrong, there are times when a sermon should sensitively but clearly touch the raw nerve of sin with deep conviction. Sometimes the Bible speaks in such a way that we feel lovingly stung by the disciplining word of God our Father. But I am not writing about that. I am writing about sermons that some church goers seem to appreciate because of the scourging they feel somehow cleansed by.
1. The flesh is drawn to religion.
We see it all over the world. Humans are religious. In the absence of divine revelation they will define religion according to predictable patterns: working to satisfy a distant deity by fulfillment of self-imposed regulations. Strangely though, even in the presence of grace-filled divine revelation, churchgoers are so prone to define their religion in similar terms: working to satisfy a distant deity by fulfilling self-imposed regulations. That’s the tendency of the flesh, isn’t it? The pre-programmed flesh continues to tend toward independence from God, even in the midst of supposedly worshipping Him.
2. The church always veers toward maturation by works.
What Paul was fighting in Galatians, and elsewhere, is still prevalent today. Who is it that bewitches us to think that having begun by faith we will then mature by means of keeping the law, working hard, beating ourselves, etc? Too many in supposedly Bible-believing churches are acting as functional members of another tradition where enduring a beating in a sermon is akin to purging the soul by means of climbing stone steps on our knees, or whatever.
3. The whipping preacher will always receive affirmation.
Here is the piece that always stuns me. If you hang around near a preacher that has just spent the sermon time whipping the congregation, some will come up and affirm the sermon! Is this a spiritual machismo that stands up after a beating and laughs it off with a “is that all you’ve got?” I suspect it is often the same kind of false understanding of salvation described above. Effectively it might be “thanks for the whipping today, I needed that, and now I feel as purged spiritually as I do physically after a hard session in the gym!”
Are you preaching the pseudo-gospel of guilt and pressure? Are you urging people via moralistic tirades to be better Christians? Do you get comments like “We needed that!” and “I like that kind of preaching!”
In the grossly inaccurate Da Vinci Code there is an albino Opus Dei monk hitman. If you saw the film you’ll remember his self-flagellation in his room. Whip in hand, back sliced open. Don’t preach for that effect. Dan Brown’s story may be compelling, but that scene is not an effect your listeners truly need you to give them when you preach!
Vicarious Conviction
There are people in the church who seem to be addicted to a form of vicarious conviction. Actually, I should say, two forms of vicarious conviction.
The first kind is where the preacher exhibits aggressive commitment to biblical truth. You probably know people, as I do, who are very vehement and aggressive and indignant and passionate . . . in private. That is, they will express themselves in the strongest terms about the quality of the food, but only until the waiter arrives, then they speak like a hesitant mouse. Or they are bordering on vitriolic in their complaints about somebody’s behavior, until that person arrives and they go very quiet and “disaffected nice.” I wonder if this is the kind of person that gets so stirred up by watching somebody express biblical truth in the most belligerent tones possible and affirms that kind of preaching (irrespective of whether the preaching was actually biblically or situationally appropriate or not). They love to see someone else expressing publically the kind of conviction they can only muster in private conversation.
The second kind is where the preacher pins the congregation up against the wall and beats them. Strangely some people seem oddly untouched by this, as if all the conviction is really directed at everyone else. The self-justifying person is untouched by the tirade, but they are so gratified to know that everyone else is getting what they need to hear. It is sort of a vicarious conviction where the self-justifying listener is thrilled to think that others are hearing something so challenging. They love to think others are being rebuked, blind to their own shortcomings, and tone deaf to the grace that is inherent in a gospel coming from the God of the Bible (or lacking in the tirade from the front).
Bible Handling Mirror 2
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
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
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
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!
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
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
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.
