Why Preach From There?

June 15, 2011June 11, 2011 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

As someone who preaches in a variety of churches and settings, I often find myself evaluating a preaching position. I was recently in the friendliest little countryside chapel that just happened to have the highest pulpit platform I’ve seen in a long time. Why preach from all the way up there?

Elevation Intimidation – If I were to preach from up there I would be implying several things. For one, there is authority when spoken from on high. But on the other hand, there is also a sense of intimidation. A sense of separation between the lofty preacher and the humble listeners.

Distant Proclamation – In other venues the front three rows are empty and the pulpit is then back some distance. Again, it is a position of authority, but there is also the sense of interpersonal distance. If my goal is to be an aloof expert, that is fine. But if I want to increase the sense of connection in the communication event, perhaps I need to preach from closer (and on the same level avoids the elevation issues mentioned above).

Obstructed Communication – In most venues there is a barricade, a pile of rubble and barrels that obscure the preacher from the listener. Really? Ok, maybe not specifically that, but the big old wooden pulpit monument functions in the same way. Authority? Sure. But what about the inevitable distance that obstruction puts into communication? Try having a meaningful conversation through a door, or a wall. Now cut a hole so you can see just the upper torso and head…still feels weird.

If our goal is to connect and communicate, then we must consider where we preach from, and why.

What If?

June 14, 2011May 29, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Thankfully most churches do not descend into the superficiality of contemporary TV games shows. Now I would be highly relevant and refer to one, but I don’t watch any, so I’ll have to be slightly generic. Imagine for a moment that your church instituted a new slot in the church service. . .

Each week two preachers take turns to give the opening five minutes of their sermon. Then the audience get to vote for which sermon they get to hear that day. Perhaps the losing introduction gets less travel expenses. Perhaps the church could install a praise-o-meter and the selection could be made via volume of singing in two subsequent songs. Ok, enough of that.

Thankfully most churches don’t descend to such a level. We have a bit more of an appropriate atmosphere and ethos around the worship time and the sermon. Or do we?

Even without the flashing lights of the praise-o-meter, or the host with his “able assistant,” or the hype of a vote, something similar does happen each week. At the end of the introduction, each listener chooses whether they will engage or disengage for the rest of the message. Few, if any, will leave. But many may leave internally, heading for the golf course, or the weekly to-do list, or the forthcoming interview, or whatever. In fact, by the end of the introduction, many leavers will already be long gone. The first moments and minutes of a message are so vital!

Preaching is no game. But let’s not neglect the importance of arresting attention, surfacing a need, engaging the listener, demonstrating earliest possible relevance of speaker, text and message. Don’t depend on their dutiful commitment to listen to the Word. Win them so they can’t help themselves!

Facing a Phrase Unneeded

June 13, 2011May 29, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

When I listen to others preach, there are a handful of phrases that always stir a little reaction inside me. One is, “of course we all know…” or variants. “I’m sure you know the story of…” or “To quote a verse you probably have memorised…” or similar.

Why do people say this? I think it is about a sort of humility. It is a shorthand way of saying, “I know many of you have been Christians for many years and I am nervous, if I am honest, that I am not bringing anything new to the church today, so since my message is the same old same old, I’m going to pre-empt your critique that it was all the same old stuff by acknowledging that as I preach…” That would be cumbersome, so “As we all know…” it is, then. Hang on. Perhaps that family of phrases is unhelpful.

What if somebody doesn’t know it? We live in an age of increasing biblical illiteracy. People in our churches do not know their Bibles, generally speaking, as church goers may have done a generation or three ago. Giving the impression that everyone in the church knows something can be very unhelpful for the individual who doesn’t know that (uncomfortable to be the odd one out, even if actually there are many in the same boat, they will all feel alone at this moment)! Which leads on to a second point…

What if somebody is visiting? Chances are, an outsider is already feeling like an alien who has unknowingly landed on a different planet as they try to figure out the customs and culture of this thing called church. Don’t add to it by making them feel stupid because they don’t know what “we all know.” But there’s another reason I’d like to throw in here too:

Is the Bible really same old same old? Absolutely not! If you think it is, don’t preach it, please. The ancient documents collected together that we call the Bible is more fresh and alive and new and relevant and powerful and engaging and poignant and stirring that today’s newspaper headlines. We preach it and we preach it and we preach it again because it isn’t old news. It is fresh and relevant and more for today than anything else any of us could come up with. So preach with enthusiasm and excitement, not just for the visitor who may well have never heard it before, but for the most tired looking saint of the decades who needs to feel the force of the freshness of the Word anew right now!

Application as Looking

June 10, 2011May 29, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

We hear about preaching needing application. Some end up at one extreme offering to-do lists for successful living that make the Bibles bulge (and the listeners feel overwhelmed with pressure). Others end up at the other extreme of rejecting all reference to application since it is supposedly the work of the Spirit (implying that communicating the passage, pointing to Christ, etc., are not works of the Spirit?), and you hear things as misguided as “now may the Spirit apply to our hearts the truths we have seen in His Word.” Wrong! Preachers should not abdicate any of their role, neither should they think of any part of their role as being completely on their own shoulders either.

I have previously written about the need for our application to go deeper than conduct. There is a place for conduct in our application, of course. There is also the need for our application to reach to the thinking and worldview and belief systems of our listeners. And there is the deeper level of the affections, the values, the emotional centre, the loves of our listeners. Affections, belief and conduct. Three levels of legitimate and necessary application.

But let me offer another nudge. Not a three-layer nudge, but a two-part nudge. Instead of always offering “do” to our listeners (with the attitudinal companion of pressure), let’s consider our role as nudging listeners with a “look!” (with the attitudinal companion of enthusiasm).

As we offer the Word, explaining and applying it to our listeners, let a large chunk of the application be “look!” As people see the God of Scripture, revealed in the Son, by the power of the Spirit, their lives will be transformed: inside to out, affections, belief, conduct.

Our task is not primarily to be a conveyor of our exegetical insights, opaquely offering the Bible to contemporary folks. Our task is more to be a lens, effectively handling the Scripture to offer a glimpse of the One revealing Himself in the Word, transparently letting God be seen to contemporary listeners with eyes to see. So we speak and they listen. And we say Look! And by God’s grace they see.

Offending and Offenders

June 9, 2011May 29, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Nobody likes to be criticised, nor to hear that others are offended at them or by them. Yet as preachers we need to become discerning in this issue of offense. As a follow-up to yesterday’s post, let’s look at this from another angle.

Some offense is avoidable and should be avoided. Some is not avoidable and shouldn’t be avoided. Some offense is peripheral. Some offense is central.

If you are criticised for something that was misunderstood, or came across wrongly, or whatever, then apologise. Perhaps a passing humorous remark hurt somebody’s feelings. Hopefully you will have opportunity to apologise to them (unless they remain hidden in the undergrowth and simply spread their critique by the poisonous weed of gossip). Perhaps an illustration came across as arrogant when you meant it entirely differently. Don’t get caught up in thinking that everything you say is of the Lord simply because you prayed about it, or because you are the preacher. Lead the way in humility and readiness to apologise. Be approachable so at least some people will talk to you about these things.

If you are criticised for something that is incidental, consider whether the one criticising is a professional moaner. Some will find anything for their target. They didn’t like that you put your Bible down, or that you put your hand in your pocket during a personal story, or that you flapped a wasp away, or that you wore a tie, or didn’t, or smiled, or didn’t, or whatever, or didn’t. If this person comes to you and they are repeatedly offended, consider whether this is an opportunity to graciously but firmly put a finger on the critical spirit. If this person consistently goes to others about you, then encourage the others to both encourage them to speak to the person they think has sinned instead of gossiping, and perhaps to call them on their attitude.

If you are criticised legitimately, learn.

If you are criticised because the Bible, the gospel, the Christ, the Spirit, has made them uncomfortable, or convicted, or challenged, or whatever . . . then, well, then good. Some people want to come to church as an exercise in religious piety, but without true piety. They want to go through the motions, but don’t want their own emotions to be engaged at all. They want to tick an attendance box, and you preaching the Bible gets in the way of that. Don’t apologise. Keep preaching. Don’t allow a small number of complainants to control you or the church. Our goal must never be to keep everyone happy. You can easily arrest the development of the church for the sake of a handful, while the steady trickle of the spiritually lively out of the back door will spiritually bankrupt the church.

There are many reasons people get offended. We must care. Hard-skinned unapproachability is not becoming of a preacher of God’s Word. But there are numerous ways to respond. May God grant us wisdom and humility and courage to know what to do. (And may God also grant us co-leaders around us who can both discern and act when they hear the critique instead of us!)

You Can’t Please All…

June 8, 2011May 29, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The goal in preaching is not to please all of your listeners. We know that. But in our vulnerability it can be very uncomfortable to hear that some are not happy with your preaching. The challenge is to try to figure out why and then know whether to adjust or not. Here are some possible reasons and possible responses.

Over Their Heads – Perhaps your preaching is simply not pitched effectively. You use terminology that is unnecessarily lofty or academic and people simply struggle to understand you. There is no virtue in this and you need to hear the feedback. If you can’t make it understandable, it is your problem rather than theirs. The flesh has a tendency to show-off, but there is no excuse for fleshly preaching. Hear the feedback graciously and seek to change.

Overly Grating Their Tolerance – Perhaps your personality is simply grating and they struggle with you. This is a hard one to quantify or change. I suppose in an ideal world your increasing fruit of the Spirit as you mature should alleviate this problem over time (but what if they’re not growing?) Sometimes two personalities will clash and it will always be a struggle. Sometimes people hide behind the clash of personalities when there is an underlying sin issue that should be addressed (jealousy, bitterness, contempt, etc.) This is a harder problem to address, but loving them is not a bad path to take.

Overly Burdening Their Lives – Perhaps your preaching is simply weighing them down with duty and burden. This may be a misunderstanding of both the Bible and the preacher’s task on your part, or a misunderstanding of Christianity on theirs. I would suspect the former. Too many think that the preacher needs to “spiritually beat and berate” listeners in order to be truly preaching. Too many have a sort of “flagellation by sermon” approach to spirituality. Some listeners feel somehow better when they can walk out of church and say, “mmm, I needed that!” But this approach to Christianity will tend to break bruised reeds and snuff out smoldering wicks.

Overly Touching Their Hearts – Perhaps your preaching is simply touching too close to home. If you are preaching in such a way as to target the hearts of your listeners, then many will resonate deeply with what you’re doing. But in any church there will be some who are essentially hard-hearted, who want the preaching to meet certain criteria and stroke the egos of the religious and pious. Some find it deeply convicting to “feel” as if they don’t really have a loving personal relationship with God. They revolt at the notion that those who do not love Christ are actually “accursed.” It’s painful, but if this is the issue, then the fact that a small minority are unhappy may be a strong affirmation of your preaching. Would we prefer to have everyone be pleasantly untouched?

There are other reasons, and often a blend of more than one. The challenge is to sort it through and preach for our audience of One, yet with a loving sensitivity to the many who sit and listen. It is wrong to refuse to hear feedback, and it is wrong to try to please everyone. Love Him, love them and respond to the feedback where appropriate.

Delivery Matters If…

June 7, 2011May 18, 2011 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Your view of the importance of delivery in preaching may reveal a deeper theological issue. I don’t want to overstate this, because there are numerous factors involved in a person’s view of the importance of delivery. The general view of those in our “tradition,” the training we’ve received, the perception of what is spiritual, etc. But there does seem to be a correlation between one’s view of sermon delivery and one’s view of God.

If God is essentially a giver of information and requirement, i.e. the distant unknowable deity of classical theism, then delivery will not seem so important. The job of the preacher is to put the information before the people. What they do with that information is between them and God. Some will emphasize that it is only God’s Spirit than can vivify the spoken word in the minds and wills of those hearing. Others may emphasize that the listeners are duty-bound to act on what they hear. However, whatever the theological position, there tends to be a distrust of any focus on delivery since some sort of performance may well muddy the waters of the relatively simple information-only view of Christianity. To touch the heart must be manipulative and somehow not of God, since He is pure mind and will. Thus the preacher should be as plain as possible, so that it is the message alone that touches listeners and glory goes to Christ alone.

Whether they are right or wrong in their understanding, all would agree that the glory must go to Christ alone. However, is there another view?

If God is essentially a giver of Himself, a communicator, a relator, i.e. the made-known God of biblical trinitarian Christianity, then delivery suddenly becomes more important. The job of the preacher is be God’s spokesperson, re-presenting the inspired message of the text, and thereby offering God to the listeners. What they do with that communication is ultimately between them and God, yet it is by no means a “mere information” approach to preaching. It involves heart-to-heart communication, it involves person-to-person connection, it is about relationship even in the course of a “monological” sermon. It is possible to abuse delivery by making it into a fake performance issue (but that is inherently opposed to the authentic relational communication of a God who comes to us genuinely in the Son and by the Spirit). So we should not over-react to “performance” or “sales pitch” trickery by disavowing all attention to communication. Rather we look to be genuine/natural and effective/engaging/compelling communicators. Is God glorified by poor or unthought-through communication? Since God is such an effective communicator, such an engaging communion of three persons, such a captivating lover, surely we must seek to be the best communicators we can be as we represent His Word to others?

Which God Do We Preach?

June 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Today’s post is on the Cor Deo site. Click here to go there!

Two Main Types of “Illustration”

June 3, 2011May 10, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

I recognize that there are multiple legitimate ways of “illustrating” a sermon, although I suspect the helpful options are sometimes more limited than we might imagine. I sometimes prefer to think in terms of explanations, proofs or applications rather than the more generic term “illustrations” (which can and does slide into time-fillers, interest-adders or expected-anecdotes . . . all of which I would resist). To simplify things, I think there are essentially two sources of helpful “illustration” that we should always look at.

1. The Contemporary Life Example. How did Jesus illustrate? Generally not with other biblical passages/stories (and this to very Bible aware Jews, totally unlike the increasingly biblical illiterate listeners of today). Nor with historical examples (and this to a very historically oriented people). But with everyday examples that listeners could easily relate to. Good illustrative material comes from the everyday experiences we can describe and use to help people to understand biblical truth, or visualise themselves applying the message.

2. The Inherent Textual Imagery. Generally speaking, Jesus was teaching new and direct truth, we are teaching Bible passages. So the other main category of “illustration” material is the imagery right in the text itself. Help people to see what the passage is saying (whenever possible use the imagery implied by the passage itself rather than rushing to another passage, or rushing to some “interesting” extra-biblical material).

So What You Are Saying Is . . .

June 2, 2011May 10, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

So let’s say you are preaching on Ephesians 2:1-10. And you happen to see on Facebook that the Apostle Paul is preaching at an event not far from you on that very text, just two days before you are due to preach. Let’s assume he is not able to come and take your preaching engagement, but you can get to hear his.

After he preaches the passage, explaining his way through it, you decide to cut to the bottom line. You approach him afterwards and get to him before any of the others who line up behind you. “Thanks Paul, great to meet you, so you are saying, in Ephesians 2:1-10…” then you just decide to state your main idea of the passage to him, “that God saved us by grace, making us alive so that we can do good works?”

If Paul’s response might be, “uh, yes, sort of, but what I’m mostly saying is that it is all of God’s grace that he has made us who were dead, alive with Christ . . .” then you should change your message. If your main idea is not what he’d say his main idea was in the passage, then your main idea should change.

Remember, as a preacher your task is not to come up with your own message somehow based on a text. Your job is to re-present the message of that text, targeted to a new audience and situation, but remaining genuinely faithful to the intent of the author. Be nice to ask him in person, but let’s be sure to check our main idea against the text itself, and to do so more than once. Feel free to ask someone else too, not the author, but someone who will look at the text carefully and test your idea.