Religion

Edwards on Evangelism

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I very much enjoyed an article in the Anvil journal by Peter Sanlon.  Let me quote three paragraphs, where the middle one is a quote from Jonathan Edwards –

The primacy of the affections has implications for our ministries.  We should see that prayer, sacraments, singing and preaching are all given by God ‘to excite and express religious affections.’ Perhaps one of the areas of ministry where we understandably, but erroneously, fail to appreciate the primacy of the affections, is evangelism.  It makes sense intellectually that an unbeliever needs to understand that of which they were previously ignorant.  This is indeed necessary (Rom.10:14) but Edwards would affirm that the main point of spiritual work in conversion is in the affections.  To engage in mission which takes seriously the primacy of the affections would involve a radical overhaul of our present day reliance on programmes, courses and rational explanations:

There is a difference between having an opinion that God is holy and gracious, and having a sense of that holiness and grace.  There is a difference between have a rational judgment that honey is sweet, and having a sense of its sweetness.  A man may have the former, that knows not how honey tastes.

A compelling case could be made that much evangelical ministry today is geared at giving people an opinion and rational judgment about God which falls far short of the sense of sweetness Edwards encouraged people to taste.  In a time when people are starving for lack of the pleasure of tasting the sweetness of God, we should not denigrate emotions but rather seek to stir up any emotion which tends towards inculcating the emotional heart-felt plea, ‘Jesus, Master, have mercy on us’ (Luke 17:13). We must do this in evangelism, because, ‘the way to draw men and women into Christ’s kingdom, Edwards believed, was through his listeners’ affections.’

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

From Peter Sanlon’s article, “Bringing Emotions to the Surface in Ministry,” in Anvil, vol.26, nos. 3&4, 2009, p238.

Chrysostom on Applause

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Way way back many centuries ago, not long after the Bible ended, there was a famous preacher called Chrysostom.  I thought I’d share a bit of his thinking today.  He’s reflecting on the tension created by the applause that was culturally part of the public speaking event, and had come into the church too:

There are many preachers who make long sermons: if they are well applauded, they are as glad as if they had obtained a kingdom: if they bring their sermon to an end in silence, their despondency is worse, I may almost say, than hell.  It is this that ruins churches, that you do not seek to hear sermons that touch the heart, but sermons that will delight your ears with their intonation and the structure of their phrases, just as if you were listening to singers and lute-players.

Then he offers a helpful simile to show the dangerous temptations facing preachers (still today, I would say):

We act like a father who gives a sick child a cake or an ice, or something else that is merely nice to eat – just because he asks for it; and takes no pains to give him what is good for him; and then when the doctors blame him says, ‘I could not bear to hear my child cry.’ . . . . That is what we do when we elaborate beautiful sentences, fine combinations and harmonies, to please and not to profit, to be admired and not to instruct, to delight and not to touch you, to go away with your applause in our ears, and not to better your conduct.

Finally, he gives a vulnerable and honest insight into the inner struggle he faced as a preacher.  Let’s face it, the flesh is a potent feature in every preacher’s experience.

Believe me, I am not speaking at random: when you applaud me as I speak, I feel at the moment as it is natural for a man to feel.  I will make a clean breast of it.  Why should I not?  I am delighted and overjoyed.  And then when I go home and reflect that the people who have been applauding me have received no benefit, and indeed that whatever benefit they might have had has been killed by the applause and praises, I am sore at heart, and I lament and fall to tears, and I feel as though I had spoken altogether in vain, and I say to myself, What is the good of all your labours, seeing that your hearers don’t want to reap any fruit out of all that you say? And I have often thought of laying down a rule absolutely prohibiting all applause, and urging you to listen in silence.

Most of our churches don’t have applause breaking out mid-sermon.  But we still have the flesh!

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
This quote taken from S. Chrys. Hom. xxx. In Act. Apost. c. 3, vol.ix. 238., quoted by Edwin Hatch in The influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, 1897, p111.

How Would You Preach If

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

If you knew that God was with you and intended to capture hearts and transform lives?  I know you probably respond by saying you already know that.  Me too.  But I’m asking what if you really knew that?  What if you were able to know for certain God’s character and purposes and desire for the lives of your hearers?  What then?

It seems to me that often we know these kinds of truths, but they seem to have minimal impact on our preaching.  I’m not criticizing that, just acknowledging it.  God calls us to minister not by sight, but by faith.  By sight we may see eager and open hearts, but often we won’t.  But by faith we are called to present Christ so that hearts melt and are drawn to him.  By faith we are called to preach truth so that darkness flees from the penetration of light.  By faith we are called to care for souls by feeding them God’s Word and participating in their encounter with him that their souls and hearts and lives might be filled full of the life only available as we all lean closer into Christ.

The thing is, there is no way to muster the knowledge of God’s with-us-ness in respect to our preaching.  Just like the listeners we urge to trust in His Word, we too have to believe what is taught and live in light of it.  By faith.  Not sight.  Not guarantees.  Not mechanism.  Not training.  Not anything we can generate in us.  By faith.

So, time to prepare to preach, let’s do it.

But They Know Actual People

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

It seems inevitable that a biblical ministry that brings the message of the Bible to people in this world will frequently have to engage with sin.  If you have figured out how to preach only positive messages, then you probably should preach from more than the first couple and last couple of chapters!  So as we preach we address sin.  Here’s my one point for this post, although much more could be said on numerous levels, of course: sometimes we can make reference to certain sins in the abstract, but f0r some listeners these things are not abstract.  We may speak about the sin, but they know actual people who engage in that sin.

For example, it is easy to zoom in on the sin of a certain addiction or behaviour.  From your perspective what you say is fine.  You are looking out at a broken world and speaking about it, hopefully using biblical support for what you say.  But some of the people listening aren’t working in the abstract.  They are wrestling with the issue themselves.  Or they have a friend or relative who is caught up in it.  They know the back story.  They don’t want to excuse the sin, but they feel for the person entangled in it.

What to do?  One approach would be to tread softly around all issues, never get specific, always speak happy thoughts in abstract and vague ways.  Doesn’t sound like the best approach when you’re reading the Bible and seeing God’s spokesmen in action, does it?  Perhaps the better approach is to address whatever issue and instead of saying less, say slightly more.  Sometimes just including an acknowledgment of listeners’ feelings and the complexity of sin makes all the difference.  For example, avoiding the obvious ones so we don’t get distracted from the point of the post, perhaps you are addressing the sin of eating peanuts (and have biblical support for your position!)  You might have said some things already about the prevalence of this addiction, but then maybe you include something like this:

“Perhaps you know someone who struggles with this.  You know what the Bible says, but you also know them and you care about them.  You know what they’ve gone through in recent years, or how they were hurt by that failed relationship, or the scar left by their absent father.  This is not some sort of abstract issue for you because as soon as it is mentioned you see their face.  I understand that.  We live in a broken and hurting world filled with real people with real stories.  Sin is real and it hurts.”

Then you continue with your point.  If the transition to this content and from this content is smooth, it won’t jar, but it will keep listeners with you as you touch on a subject that hits a nerve. Sin is always viewed differently when it touches close to home.  When you preach to a decent sized and diverse congregation, sin issues are always touching close to home for someone.  Be sensitive to them.  Win an audience for the Word.

Red or Blue?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Today’s post is on the Cor Deo blog.  In it I ask a significant question for Bible readers and preachers alike.  When we look at the pages of Scripture, do we see red or blue?  There’s nothing political about the post, it deals with a much more important subject than that!

Also, remember that those who comment on any post on the Cor Deo site this month will be in with a chance of winning a free book – A Praying Life by Paul Miller.  All we ask is that you also share the link to the Book Giveaway page on facebook, twitter, by email or a web link – here’s the link to share:

http://www.cordeo.org.uk/book-giveaway-a-praying-life/

To go to the post, Red or Blue? – please click here.

Since a Spoken Message is the Goal

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

If you are a normal preacher then your goal is a spoken message (I know, your goal is really to please God, to see lives transformed, etc., but stay with me for now).  Your goal is probably not to publish your manuscript in a national newspaper, or to collate your manuscript into an anthology for publication, or to edit your manuscript for a preaching journal.  Normal preachers normally just preach the sermon.  (Actually, it is tempting to long for a team of secretaries, personal assistants and editors who will whisk a sermon away and process it into publishable form . . . anyone volunteering time and skill in this area is always welcome, by the way!) So, if normal preachers just preach the sermon, what does this mean?

For one thing, it means that we shouldn’t feel obligated to do all our preparation on paper or word processor.  While we are taught to write and outline and indent and manuscript, perhaps we would benefit from sometimes choosing to speak, record, dictate and map.  Some advocate for a full move over to oral sermon mapping – a move I am not opposed to and may explore more on here in the coming weeks.  But even without abandoning our pens and word processors, we can still benefit from recognizing the potential benefits of greater coherence between preparation and delivery.

There are times in my preparation when I get stuck.  Not confused stuck (although that happens too).  Not uncertain of homiletics stuck (although that also happens).  Stuck, as in, I’m not sure what to do next stuck, I feel like I have a log-jam in my mind stuck.  Maybe your preparations always flow easily and smoothly from beginning to end.  Mine don’t.

I find it very helpful when I do get stuck to step away from the computer (yes, apparently Spurgeon didn’t even have one!), clear my throat, and speak.  Sometimes something that makes sense on paper doesn’t work when spoken.  Equally there are times when things aren’t working on paper, but speaking them through seems to unstick the stuckness.  Sometimes I pray through a message or section of it.  Other times I pray and then preach through as if to human listeners.  Sometimes I will pick up the phone and talk through the logic of the message with someone.  Whether it is in prayer or with prayer, to an imaginary audience or with a responding human, talking seems to help unstick the stuck when preparing a talk.  Funny that.

Incidental Details, None But Plenty

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

The biblical narratives tend to be lean in their writing.  What Luke could write in six, or ten, or twenty-six verses would take a contemporary writer three-hundred pages.  Nevertheless, there are many details tied into the narratives.

There are interesting word choices – such as the word used for “have mercy on me” in Luke 18:9-14.  There are significant passing remarks, like the fact that Mark tells us the grass was green at the feeding of the five thousand.  There are key functions achieved by narratival details, like the angry grumbling of the crowd under the tree in Jericho when Jesus invited himself to Zac’s place.  There are intriguing ways around saying the straight answer, like after the Good Samaritan, the questioner of Jesus can’t bring himself to say the word “Samaritan” in a positive sense.  Or the elder brother in Luke 15 who won’t refer to the younger son as his brother.  There are interesting repetitions, like “he believed” happening twice in twenty-four hours at the end of John 4.  I could go on.

So what to do with such interesting “incidental” details?

One approach is to completely miss them and preach every story as if it is the same as several other stories.  That could apply to a story recorded in several gospels, but sounding the same whatever passage you preach it from.  Or it could apply to a particular story becoming a generic story-type that could be preached from numerous passages.

Another approach is to dismiss them and give some sort of sophisticated sounding explanation of how there is no reason for it to be here, but it shows the human-ness of the author.  Certainly the author was a human, but often a dismissal of detail in Scripture is evidence of nothing more than the preacher’s lack of careful study and thought.

Another approach is to dissect them and preach a series of distinct messages based on separate textual triggers.  In this approach the preacher goes off on a mini-logue about grumbling from the crowds at Zac’s tree, but fails to recognise the inherent thrust of that detail in that particular story.  Often true truth will be preached from the wrong text.

Are there incidental details?  Depends how you view and preach the text.  I appreciate this quote from Flannery O’Connor:

“A story is a way to say something that can’t be said any other way, and it takes every word in the story to say what the meaning is.”

Exegetical Preaching? Yes and No.

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Some people like exegetical preaching.  Some people don’t.  Most would express an opinion one way or the other.  But actually, what is exegetical preaching?

Do we mean preaching that is based on sound exegesis? If we do, then that should be true of all preaching.  While I know it certainly isn’t true of all preaching, it really should be.  Whether the sermon is a walk-through explanation of a passage, or a topical presentation of several passages, or a carefully constructed character portrait, or a first-person presentation, or an overview of a Bible book or section, or whatever . . . it should be based on exegesis.

Exegesis is about drawing out the meaning that is in a text.  Eisegesis is about reading into a text the meaning you want to impose on it.  Sad to say there is a lot of eisegetical preaching around these days (probably always has been).  Nevertheless, there really isn’t a category of biblical preaching that is somehow good and helpful, but isn’t exegetical.  Whether you are looking at five verses, four separate verses, three chapters or two whole testaments . . . the work underlying the message should be exegetical.  There is no other legitimate way.

Do we mean preaching that meticulously shows every aspect of the exegetical study underlying the message? This is a different matter.  This is a strategy decision on the part of the preacher.  It need not be a once for all decision.  It is strategy.  Is it helpful for me to show some of my work in how I preach this passage to these people on this occasion?  Perhaps letting some of the exegetical work show will demonstrate where I’m getting my message from?  Perhaps letting some show will demonstrate how to handle Scriptures?  Perhaps this is an audience that appreciates a bit of that kind of background?

(But remember, it is always possible to let too much exegetical work show – perhaps drawing attention to your skill and knowledge, or overwhelming the listener, or manipulating the evidence to demonstrate certainty where that is not appropriate, etc.  Some of your exegetical work should probably always remain hidden, not least because you don’t have hours to preach, but also because some aspects are seldom if ever helpful.  People need the fruit of your study, and sometimes they will benefit from seeing some of how you harvested that fruit.)

Exegetical preaching?  The work underlying the message – absolutely yes.  The style of presentation – maybe a bit, maybe no.

How Long, O Passage?

/ Peter Mead / 6 Comments

When we have the freedom to pick a passage on which to preach, the decision can end up taking an inordinate amount of time.  Which book?  Which bit?  Typically my suggestion is fairly simple – “Pray, consider what the listeners might need, what they have been hearing lately and what you want to preach. Oh, and don’t waste 80% of your preparation time making your decision.”

But let’s say you’ve zeroed in on a potential passage, but you aren’t sure how much of it to preach.  Perhaps a narrative and a subtly connected transition section sit together.  Perhaps a paragraph in an epistle sits next to a connected paragraph (almost always true).  Perhaps you’re looking at a Psalm, and the adjacent Psalm seems well connected (not unusual).  What to do?  Here are some factors to consider as you make the decision:

1. Unity of the longer passage – Does it really hold together?  Is preaching the longer version going to drive in the focus, or will it dissipate it?  That is, will it feel like a higher-calibre bullet that penetrates deeper, or will it feel like buck-shot spraying further away from the target?

2. What time do you have to preach – We can’t get away from this, what you can do in fifteen minutes is very different than what you can do in forty.  (Not to say forty is always better, but it is much easier.)  So if you are preaching in a situation where time is restricted for whatever reason, then less passage means less explation necessary, which in turn means more opportunity to apply the text.

3. Need of the audience – What do they need?  Does the extra bit of passage add something that is really pertinent to them?  Perhaps it allows for encouragement alongside rebuke?  Perhaps it provides extra clarification on the real issue in the first part of the passage?  Perhaps it drives home the truth in some way?

4. Required amount of explanation – Some passages require a lot of historical, contextual, cultural explanation to make sense.  Others don’t.  If the longer passage adds an inordinate amount of explanation requirement, then it might be better to keep the passage shorter and get to the applicational content as well.  Your goal is not to impress people with your Bible knowledge.

5. Your personal preference – Sometimes it will be perfectly legitimate to simply ask, what would I prefer to preach?  And it probably will be necessary to study the whole passage for a while before you decide what you would prefer.

I am not saying we can ignore textual unit boundaries completely.  Narratives generally don’t like being broken, unless you can give a complete scene as a stand-alone.  Psalms generally like to hold together within themselves.  But preaching more than a narrow textual unit is often possible, and sometimes will be desirable.  Hopefully these criteria may be helpful.  There are surely others too…

Testimonies: A Lasting Impression

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

A testimony can be a very effective element in a church service, a genuine supplement and co-worker to the sermon.  Seeing a “normal” person speak of the difference the gospel has made in their life, or a more contemporary experience of applying the Word, or of living as a lover of a loving God . . . it can be powerful.

Equally, a testimony can leave a lasting impression for all the wrong reasons.  The person is probably not experienced in public speaking.  Consequently the delivery may be anything from engaging in its vulnerability to agonizing in its manner.  Non-public speakers often will struggle to accurately determine amount of content for time available, or suitability of content.

The person leading the service has a responsibility when someone else is at the microphone.  Most of the work of vetting and coaching, of course, should have been done beforehand.  But even so, the MC needs to be able to maintain control of the presentation.  If there is any doubt, then an interview approach will be much safer than handing over the reins completely.

What should go into the coaching and vetting beforehand?  The testifier should be coached to give testimony to a person and what Christ has done for them.  It is easy to slip into affirming something other than Christ.

It is also easy to slip into making personal testimony normative.  “I benefitted so much so I really urge you to…”  Stop!  That’s sliding out of testimony and into preaching.  If the person was asked to give a testimony, there is no reason to be coy about coaching them not to preach.  People giving testimony often seem to struggle in knowing how to stop.  There is the not very effective, “so, yeah, umm, yeah, that is what I wanted to say” type of ending.  No harm done.  But if they slip into the preaching of a sermon to try and tie a bow on what’s been said, it will usually backfire in some way (either with heresy, or discomfort, or undermining the value of the testimony, or whatever).

Just like preaching, many testimonies end with an uncomfortable call for commitment, when actually the motivation already generated by the testimony is simply being lost by such a call.

Let’s think about getting testimony back into church life, for many churches seem to have given up on it.  But for it to work well, it has to be pre-coached.