Religion

Feel the Force: Poetry

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

When we preach poetry, do our listeners really feel the force of it?  Poetry is found in the Psalms and wisdom literature, of course, but also in the historical books and the prophets too.  All too easily we can preach to the head, but not move the listeners with the force of the text.

A couple of thoughts on this:

1. Word images may not carry instant force, so we should build it. For example, when the Psalms speak of the heavens, the stars, the sun and moon, etc., there is a big difference between most listeners today and the original hearers of the text.  They lived under the stars.  Once the sun went down the rhythm of life changed and stargazing was as normal as TV gazing is for some today.  So a brief reference to how amazing it is to look at the stars and feel so small (as in Psalm 8 ) will simply not move contemporary listeners like the original reference would have done.  Today we have to build an awareness of our smallness (thankfully we have NASA and the Hubble telescope to help generate a sense of smallness!)

2. The structure of a poem, the shift in content, may not be apparent to our listeners, so we should clarify and demonstrate it. If the poem was read carefully straight through, the discerning reader would probably pick up on the transition that occurs.  The problem with preaching though is that the extra words may obscure the transitions instead of clarifying them.  There is a major transition at the mid-point of Psalm 73.  Yet if the preacher is droning in their voice, or simply moving methodically through a series of points, that dramatic transition may easily be missed.

3. Emotive language can so easily be made informational. As I’ve probably written elsewhere on this site, it is so easy to dissect a frog to learn how it jumps, but in doing so we stop it doing so.  A dissected poem is not enough for effective preaching.

People listening need to feel the force of poetry so that it can mark their lives deeply, as God intends.

The Challenge of Rest

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The theme of work and rest is woven throughout the warp and woof of Scripture.  While there may or may not be some progression in the revelation concerning sabbath (no need to get into that here), the theme of rest persists from creation to Hebrews (again, not getting into an exegetical discussion on that either, tempting though it is!)

I sometimes look at others slightly enviously in this respect.  I used to have a job that began when I left for work and finished when I chose to pack up and come home.  I see people with employment that they can forget about when they leave and genuinely have a free weekend.  Perhaps one day is busy with church, and the other is busy with other activities (a change is as good a rest, so some say).  The issue faced by someone taking rest seriously is how to get that in the midst of weekend projects and commitments.

Somehow that seems like a slightly easier challenge than many others face.

For many, and I presume to include people heavily involved in church ministry, the challenge of rest is slightly different.  Putting to one side the busy nature of Sundays and acknowledging that for many the day of rest has to come somewhere else in the weekly calendar.  But that’s the problem.  For many of us our work, whatever that is, is always there and always hanging over us.  It’s not easy to leave the desk and forget about the message you’re preparing for this Sunday, or the series coming up in a few weeks, or the ministry schedule and necessary early research for next year’s preaching calendar, etc.

So there’s the challenge – how to be sure to get the rest that we need physically, emotionally, mentally and, of course, spiritually, when the demands continue to hang over us?  One day off every week.  One genuine vacation/break every year.  One sabbatical every X years.  Sorry to add another thing to think about, but God has made it’s importance clear, so how do we meet the challenge of rest?

Mentoring Preachers

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

On Friday I suggested that mentoring is an ideal approach to training preachers, while in no way diminishing the value of formal training or personal improvement approaches like reading, attending seminars, etc.  On Saturday I offered the concept of mentoring to a small group of church leaders and suggested that biblically mentoring is at the heart of ministry, and especially the core ingredient in leadership development.  Instead of viewing church life as seasons of stability interrupted by periodic crisis when transition needs to occur, we would be better off viewing leadership development and even transition as a continual process.

So regarding mentoring, I’d like to offer a couple of clarification comments:

1. Mentoring by definition implies a purposeful relationship for building up another person.  Stanley and Clinton define mentoring as “a relational process in which one person empowers another by sharing God-given resources.”

2. Mentoring is not imitation. The person being mentored is invested in by the mentor, who shares resources and helps the “mentee” to be who God made them to be, not to be who the mentor is.

3. The mentor is not in control of the mentee’s life. Mentoring can easily be abused when the agenda becomes the mentor’s agenda and the mentee becomes a person somehow “owned” by the mentor.  The agenda is really the mentee’s, even though the mentor may sometimes know what would benefit them more than they do.

4. There is no reason why the mentor should not be surpassed by the mentee in some way. The mentor is not an absolute limit beyond which the mentee may not pass.  A good mentor will look to leverage their own resources for the sake of the mentee, as well as the resources of others that either may be able to access, always leaning on the Lord since He is the giver of all resources, and looking to launch the mentee into greater fruitfulness, growth and maturity.

So much more could be said, but perhaps that can come via comments or in future posts.  The question is, are we being mentored and are we mentoring others in the realm of preaching?

Plan A, Plan B

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

At a recent preacher training event I was asked if I thought all preachers should have had formal training in homiletics.  Seems like a simple question, but as with all these things, there are complexities.  For instance, a lot of colleges and seminaries seem to relegate homiletics to a level of luxury to which many cannot afford to give attention.  So you’ll often find a teacher of another subject “covering” the preaching courses.  Or you’ll find a local preacher teaching the course, even though they haven’t been trained to teach preaching.  Either of these solutions could work really well, or could be very weak.

So it seems to me that while I think homiletics training in a formal setting has great value and I would encourage all preachers to take advantage of whatever training is available to them . . . I would see another model of training as a higher priority.

Plan A – mentoring. Biblically and practically I think mentoring has to be considered plan A.  Having a preacher or a full church leadership deliberately investing in a new preacher and helping them develop has to be the ideal.  It may not be enough, so supplement it, but if it is omitted, then the best we can hope for is plan B.

Plan B – formal institutional training. This allows time to develop, full observation, critique and feedback, access to quality instruction (not in every case), and the full range of necessary disciplines alongside homiletics.  I affirm and esteem formal training and am thankful I have been able to receive it.

Plan C – Personal deliberate, but ad hoc training. Taking advantage of seminars, workshops, books, etc.  This should be the case for all preachers, but if Plan A and B are missing, then it is probably inferior as a stand alone option.

Plan D – No training, just practice. Practice doesn’t make perfect.  Practice can make stubborn.  Repeating what has been seen in others can create a driven down stubbornness, or a mere unawareness that the individual’s preaching could be so much more effective.  Hence I urge all preachers at least to read something about preaching and take any training opportunities that present themselves.

Plan A, B and C combined make the best sense to me . . . what are your thoughts on the best training for a preacher?  Obviously “Plan Of Course” has to be prayer and dependence on the Lord whatever the other elements!

Aim for Simple

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Last night I led a Bible study in the Psalms.  This study series is deliberately designed to include some more challenging “academic” content, making participants aware of the possibilities in terms of formal study of the Psalms, hermeneutical principles, etc.  But the bulk of the time is spent not talking about the Psalms, but looking at a Psalm or two.  Actually, last night we looked at three.

Most people found the reading ahead of the study a little overwhelming.  It was.  A relatively lengthy explanation of how the book was formed and how the shape evolved during that process.  Then we looked at a section of Psalms to see the evidence of deliberate shaping .  Then we spent the bulk of the time observing, interpreting, reflecting on, applying, enjoying, responding to the three Psalms.

That was a Bible study, and not a normal Bible study.  It was not a sermon.  When I preach I have to avoid the temptation to prove my study efforts, to demonstrate my level of exegtical ability, to convince listeners of some academic point or to present material at a level above the heads of the listeners.  When I preach I want the message of the text itself to be clear and to be clearly applied.  Simple is better than complicated.  Clear is better than opaque.

I would rather hear “I understood that” over “that was so deep” (i.e. I didn’t understand it).  Let’s be profound in preparation, profound in impact, but simple in clear content, vocabulary and presentation.

Natural Born Series

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Some preachers plan series in a relatively simple manner.  They select a book of the Bible and then preach, unit by unit, through the book, or through a section.  Others select a topic and select appropriate passages to organize a topical series.  I am not critiquing either approach, but want to offer another option too.

Just as we are in danger of reading the Bible to look for a message, so we can fall into reading the Bible to look for a series.  One way this manifests itself is in the sections we dismiss, as much as those we select.  For instance, what if we were looking in the Psalms and were drawn to a section like the Psalms of Ascent?  Well, fifteen weeks might be too long for a series, so we are tempted to look elsewhere.

As often as possible we should simply soak in the text.  Like taking a leisurely bath rather than a quick shower, we should take every opportunity to be saturated by a section.  Something happens once it gets into you.  Let’s push the analogy and say that the skin of our soul becomes wrinkly . . . even when you step out the evidence remains.

So for example, I was preparing a synopsis of a longer study on Psalms 107-118 (the section before the Ascent Psalms).  A dozen psalms that present a unified and powerful message.  If I had been looking for a series, I would have gone elsewhere because 12 weeks is probably too long.  (Or settled for the more obvious Egyptian Hallel of 113-118, missing the blessing of the first part of the sequence.)  But after soaking in this text for a while, I can’t help but find myself thinking of creative ways to present the message of this section.  Combining psalms, summarizing a block of three with a focus on one, perhaps even preaching a message that traces the flow through all twelve.

I soaked and now the wrinkly skin of my soul is looking for an opportunity to preach the section . . . in one message, in three, in five.  I suppose, like a leisurely bath, there is probably a fragrance that lingers from this kind of study, too.

Sometimes we have to plan very pragmatically.  Let’s be sure we also create space for soaking, slow, text-saturated, natural born series.

Fierce Attention and Affection

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I was just reading a synopsis of an intriguing book.  The book is about the importance of conversations, both at work and at home.  Nothing to do with preaching though?  Well, perhaps more than might be obvious.  I was struck by the author’s second principle – “Come out from behind yourself into the conversation and make it real.”  She writes that it is too easy to try to please so much that the truth gets hidden away in exchange for a trinket of approval.  In the next section she writes of the need for fierce affection for the other person.  I won’t pursue that in terms of conversations, but what about our preaching?

How easily we slip into routine prayer, routine preparation, routine textual study, routine sermon forms, etc.  How different would it be if we gave a more fierce attention to the text, and pursued a more fierce affection for our listeners?  What does the text really say?  What do the listeners really struggle with?  And although it feels even less comfortable in this context, what if we fiercely prayed about the next sermon?

Ok, so the word “fierce” may seem out of place here.  I tend to agree.  But I like the thrust of it, the sense of not going through the motions, but stepping out from behind the mask of normalcy to genuinely pursue the meaning of the text, the lives of the listeners, the heart of God.  Whatever we call it, let’s go for it!

Facebook in Sermon Preparation

/ Peter Mead / 6 Comments

James Wood made the following comment on the post Extent of Application:

I think he brings up a good point. I’ve tried to combat this by forming the sermon through conversation with the community. The beauty is, technology can aid this! I will post questions from the text to my facebook page as I’m studying. The responses help me to direct my study and hone my examples to reflect the needs of the community.

I have not tried this, but am intrigued.  While not a huge fan of facebook, it may be an easy way to access “feed-forward” input in the preparation of a sermon.  The point of “feed-forward” input is to be able to hone a message in advance of it being preached by gaining input from an individual or group during the preparation process.  (Obviously it is kind of like feedback, but in anticipation.)

Has anyone else tried using Facebook or Twitter or even good old fashioned email for input prior to preaching?  There is something about face to face interaction, but let’s be honest and recognize that something is better than nothing and unless we have a system in place, we are often choosing nothing over something in these matters.  At the same time, perhaps people feel less pressure in an electronic social setting and are therefore more willing to engage honestly?

Any thoughts or experience on this, please share!

The Forming of Images

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Another quote from Flickering Pixels by Shane Hipps, prompting a thought for today:

Advertising is the direct result of the camera.  “Images have an incredible capacity to generate needs in humans that don’t naturally exist.” (75)  “Images initially make us feel rather than think.”  “Images don’t invite you to argue; they give you an experience.” (76) “Image culture dramatically shapes the way we think.  It also determines what we think about.” (77)

It would be wrong to assume that such an image culture has only existed in our part of the world in recent years.  The reality is that the non-image, linear logical culture is largely a recent and localized phenomenon.  Perhaps the difference now is that we are an image saturated culture with pixels flickering constantly.  Everywhere else, for most of time, there has been a constancy of image formed through the familiar narratives that defined each culture.

That’s the thing about narrative.  It forms an image in the hearer that doesn’t require multi-million dollar Hollywood camera work.  Good storytelling forms images in minds and hearts just as effectively.  In the early days of radio it was the story and soap opera shows that proved popular, not just information driven shows.  Ask a child if they are willing to hear a good story without any pictures to supplement it and they will usually cope just fine!  (In fact, some children would give anything to have a parent who would read to them at all!)

The Bible is saturated with stories.  The Bible also has a meta-narrative that gives us a sense of security, stability and insight into the reality in which we continue to live.  As preachers our task is not to simply provide good argumentation, effective applicational lists or biblical facts.  Our task is primarily one of forming images in the hearts and minds of listeners that will stir faith through the experience of already seeing God work during our preaching.  Our task is to form images so that listeners can respond appropriately to God’s self-giving through His Word – not in any way a mere mental decision, but a heart-driven response to a heart-stirring God.

Preacher, form images!

Extent of Application

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I was just reading a synopsis of a book on the effect of technology on faith.  For example:

Reading and writing are individual activities.  The technology of writing favors individualism over community, leading us to spiritual disciplines of “quiet time” and “journaling” and a gospel that is primarily oriented to the individual.  Printing erodes the communal nature of faith. (p56-7 – Flickering Pixels by Shane Hipps)

That’s an interesting observation.  I think many of us tend to promote an individual spirituality – quiet times, reading, journaling, private prayer, etc.  When we do mention corporate applications they are often either related to witnessing or church/ministry involvement.  Both of these corporate or interpersonal activities are typically felt in terms of duty rather than delight (the same could be said of the private disciplines – it all depends on how we perceive and present them).

When we think of the applications of our preaching, the contemporary relevance of the Word of God, do we think through all that it might mean to us by way of invitation as well as burden, in terms of the heart, the head and the hands, as well as corporately and not just individually?  The Bible speaks to us all in far more intricate and engaging ways than many of our sermons do.

Worth pondering, at least for me . . .