Religion

Only Preach Positive?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I just started John Piper’s response to N.T. Wright, The Future of Justification. It seems to be a very courteous and carefully written challenge of Wright’s presentation of justification.  Piper is careful to note that he is past the stage in life where he needs to score points in academic debates, yet he is writing a critique of Wright’s work.  Why?  Because, he says, people don’t bring him books written by other New Perspective scholars like Dunn or Sanders, but they do bring him the popular works of Wright.  Here is the scholar Piper writing as the pastor Piper in order to seek to protect others from an emphasis or understanding that is perceived to be harmful.

I haven’t read the book yet, so I won’t comment on the issues being addressed (although I could from my own study).  But one quote on pages 28-29 really caught my attention and resonated deeply.  It comes early on in an introductory section entitled On Controversy.  It addresses the issue of whether we should contend at all, or whether it is better to simply be positive, without pointing out error in others. It comes from a 1932 speech by J. Gresham Machen delivered in London:

Men tell us that our reaching should be positive and not negative, that we can preach the truth without attacking error.  But if we follow that advice we shall have to close our Bible and desert its teachings.  The New Testament is a polemic book almost from beginning to end.

He goes on to tell of a time when he heard a theology prof urge his listeners away from the unfortunate controversies in Paul’s writings and give their attention to the inspiring hymn to Christian love found in 1st Corinthians 13.  Machen continues:

In reply, I am bound to say that the example was singularly ill-chosen.  That hymn to Christian love is in the midst of a great polemic passage; it would never have been written if Paul had been opposed to controversy with error in the Church.  It was because his soul was stirred within him by a wrong use of the spiritual gifts that he was able to write that glorious hymn.  So it is always in the Church.  Every really great Christian utterance, it may almost be said, is born in controversy.  It is when men have felt compelled to take a stand against error that they have risen to the really great heights in the celebration of truth.

Review: The Expository Genius of John Calvin, by Steven J. Lawson, 2007.

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Steven Lawson is a pastor who works closely with John MacArthur at the Expositor’s Institute.  He was trained at Dallas and Reformed Theological Seminaries.  This book is the first in a series of Long Line of Godly Men Profiles published by Reformation Trust of Ligonier Ministries.

This is an attractively presented little hardback (133pp).  In it Lawson seeks to present the qualities and distinctives of John Calvin.  Not Calvin the theologian who wrote the famous Institutes, nor Calvin the commentator whose exegesis is still referenced by serious scholars, nor Calvin the statesman who served as a Reformation leader in Geneva with influence spreading much farther, nor Calvin the shaper of both church and western culture, but Calvin the pastor, Calvin the preacher.  For all his accomplishments, Calvin’s priority was his pulpit ministry to real ordinary needy folk in Geneva.

The first chapter of the book presents a brief summary of Calvin’s life and legacy.  In the subsequent seven chapters, Lawson deals with various aspects of the preaching of Calvin, delineating 32 distinctives recognizable in Calvin’s preaching ministry.  Throughout the book, Lawson’s observations are supported diligently by sermon sound-bites and quotations from other scholars like Alister McGrath, James M. Boice, T.H.L. Parker, etc.  Although the support material is sufficient, it is by no means overwhelming and it does not turn this engaging little book into a dry academic research tome.

Chapters two and three address Calvin’s attitude toward the pulpit and personal preparation.  It is no surprise to read of his diligent mind, devoted heart and relentless will, but challenging nonetheless.  Then Lawson considers how Calvin would launch a sermon, along with reference to delivery (no notes, I’m glad to report!)  The most substantial chapters deal with expounding the text and crafting delivery.  The last two chapters look at application of the truth and sermon conclusion.  A couple of brief appendices are given to support details in the book (sermon text verse divisions for several series and an outline from a sermon on Job 21).

I have studied church history, even the Reformation, but I am no church historian.  Does this book deserve great respect as an accurate and insightful piece of historical research?  I don’t know.  Perhaps Calvin scholars would disagree with details or emphases.  Perhaps they would applaud loudly.  Certainly Calvin the preacher and pastor is often lost in the focus on his Institutes (written as an introduction to his commentaries!), or in the controversies over his politics and leadership.  Calvin the preacher is worthy of our attention.  This little book is a quick read, but thought provoking in its clarity.  Thought provoking on a historical level, perhaps, but especially as we consider our own preaching ministry today.  I would not suggest we affirm every distinctive and emulate without thought for our own times and contexts, but I’m sure any preacher would find their own ministry poked and encouraged by this book.  I look forward to subsequent volumes in the series.

Be Thankful

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I realize that many people who read this blog are not preaching three times every Sunday.  Many preach periodically, or maybe not at all.  So for those that get to listen to sermons as well as preach them, I thought I’d mention something obvious but important.  Be thankful.

It’s easy to criticize.  Roast preacher is a delicacy we’re all very capable of serving up for Sunday lunch.  It’s easy to spot holes, disagree with details or nitpick the niceties of a sermon.  There is a place for evaluation, and even a place for appropriate criticism.  But remember to recognize that a dull sermon does not equate to heresy, a sermon that didn’t fire your imagination does not equate to a dud.  We should be discerning.  We should be testing everything against Scripture.  We should be careful not to be lead astray.  But we should also be thankful.

Thankful for the work put in.  Thankful for a preacher who at least tries to handle the Bible with some degree of skill.  Thankful for effort in the arena of application.  Thankful for a pastor who cares about his listeners even if the sharpness in sermon delivery is lacking a little something.  Very very few get to listen to stunning sermons week in and week out.  But let’s all be thankful for what we do get.  (And if there are genuine issues of concern, pray for wisdom and courage to know the best path forward, rather than taking the simple option of roast preacher with a gravy of gossip!)

First-Person Dangers – Part 3

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

One more post in this series.  Again, I affirm first-person preaching as a powerful tool in the preacher’s repertoire, but I don’t affirm poor first-person preaching!  Hence this list of dangers to be aware of when venturing into this realm of preaching.

Danger 6 – Excessive humor or frivolity.  First-person preaching provides many more opportunities than regular preaching for humorous and even frivolous comments.  Sometimes humor is helpful.  Sometimes humor can help to cover a potentially distracting moment.  Sometimes it can provide relief from tension.  Sometimes it helps, but only if it is sometimes.  I don’t see any court jesters in the Bible, so there’s no need to preach like one.  First-person preaching inherently carries the risk of being seen as more entertainment than preaching.  Don’t exacerbate that through excessive humor or frivolity.

Danger 7 – Inadequate or strained relevance. This form has inherent strengths in terms of being engaging and disarming.  It also has the inherent weakness of struggling to be relevant.  If the audience are invited to listen “back then,” applications can only be timelessly conceptual, i.e. vague.  If the character has traveled through time then they have to portray a convincing understanding of contemporary culture and issues if they are to make any attempt at relevance.  While it is certainly possible to preach the entire sermon in character, it is also possible to step out of character for specific and concrete application.  Whenever you preach in first-person, pay careful attention to the need for relevant application.

Danger 8 – Not being appropriate to your audience.  This covers a lot of what has been stated already.  But I would go further.  Analyze the congregation to decide how much first-person preaching they will truly value.  Some congregations love it and beg for more. Others can gain a lot from it once in a while.  Some are so rigid they cannot hear the message because the form is a potentially offensive distraction.  As always in good preaching, we have to know not only the text, but also the listeners.

Please preach first-person when it is the best strategy available, but please always do it with as much excellence as you can muster!

First-Person Dangers – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In part 1 we saw three potential dangers in first-person preaching. Today I share some more. I share them not to warn you away from first-person preaching, but to encourage excellent first-person preaching!

Danger 4 – Distractingly amateurish dramatics. Even people who enjoy the amateur dramatic scene do not appreciate amateurish dramatics. Unless it’s someone you love, you probably wouldn’t want to spend the time cringing at a poor dramatic production. How much less poor dramatic preaching? This means that if costume is used, it should reflect the same quality as the sermon (leave the curtains and towels to children’s nativity plays, then maybe eliminate them there too!) It means striving for real consistency in content (Would the character know that? Is the speaker’s personal culture shaping content too much?)

Danger 5 – Losing sight of natural delivery. This may seem strange, since first-person by definition is about preaching as someone other than yourself. But this one actually follows from the previous danger. The goal in delivery is to be both effective and natural. (Isn’t it true that the best actors seem to be natural?) The natural element here is often lost due to dramatic excess. Sometimes the problem is “too much.” For instance, thirty minutes of excessive shouting and gesturing simply because the biblical character is seen as somewhat feisty is probably too much! Even feisty, strong-willed people don’t shout and gesture incessantly! While larger audiences require larger gestures, the goal is to communicate naturally!

Tomorrow I’ll finish the list, although feel free to add more!

First-Person Dangers

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

When you have an idea and a purpose for your sermon, you then choose the strategy that will best allow the idea to hit home.  Once you realize the potential in first-person sermons, this form will regularly suggest itself.  First-person preaching done well can be immensely powerful and profoundly effective.  But there are also a few dangers.  I’ll gently share a few, perhaps you can suggest others.  This is not to dissuade preaching in the first-person, but to encourage careful planning so that it is maximally effective.

Danger 1 – Don’t leaning on the form to do the work. Just because first person preaching has an inherent interest factor, you cannot rely on that to carry you through.  The form is a strategy chosen to serve the main idea, not a master that defines your content.  It is easy to pour energy into the “first-person” part of the sermon and fail to put the effort into the “sermon” part of the first-person.  The form may help, or it may utterly hinder your task of preaching the Word!

Danger 2 – Preaching event rather than text. It is enlightening to bring good first-person perspective to a Bible story or message, but remember that it is the text that was inspired, not the event itself. Don’t just bounce off the text to preach an event, but rather study the text and be sure to preach its message. 

Danger 3 – Not doing the extra work necessary. There are no two-ways about it, first-person preaching is extra work.  You have to do all the same work as any other sermon in terms of studying the text and the audience, formulating main idea and so on.  Plus you have to study extra historical, geographical, social, and cultural background.  Furthermore you are adding a dramatic element that takes extra work (just as a powerpoint is extra work and can easily suck away preparation time if you don’t recognize that!)

In part 2 I’ll add some more dangers to be aware of, but feel free to add any you like by commenting at any time.

Ideas that Stick – Part 3

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

So far we’ve seen the principles of simplicity, unexpectedness and concreteness.  Here are the last three principles from Made to Stick by Chip and Dan Heath.

Principle 4 – Credibility. An idea must carry it’s own credentials, thereby having internal credibility.  The Heath’s suggest this comes from concreteness, as opposed to vague, statistical or abstract statement.  However, influencing an audience with an idea involves the support materials chosen as well as the statement of the idea itself.  Using real people in support material (eg stories of real people) adds credibility to an idea (more so than quotes from experts or celebrities, although those have a place).

Principle 5 – Emotional. The best way to make people care about an idea is to help them feel something.  Again, concreteness matters, for we are wired to feel things for people, not for abstractions.  Excess may paralyze (for instance, the overwhelming need of the masses), but an individual will stir the heart.

Principle 6 – Stories.  Stories are like flight simulators for the brain, according to the book.  As preachers we may be preaching a story anyway, but even if not, it might be worth considering how to use the power of story to simulate action in response to the idea.

The summary of the book is certainly worth pondering for preachers wrestling with ideas.  According to the Heaths, for an idea to stick it has to be useful and lasting.  A “sticky” idea makes the audience pay attention, understand, remember, agree/believe, care, and be able to act on it.  This list translates into unexpected, concrete, credible, emotional, story-related ideas communicated with succinct clarity that has the simplicity and profundity of a proverb.

They were talking business.  But ideas are ideas, and if we handle the Bible well, then the ideas we are handling and presenting should be worth more effort than any name brand!

Ideas that Stick – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

So a “sticky” idea is simple, that is both stripped to its core essence and yet profound.  In Made to Stick, Chip and Dan Heath share further principles that can bridge the gap from the business world to homiletics.  How can we craft main ideas that will stick?

Principle 2 – Unexpectedness.  Surprise increases alertness and focus, it grabs attention.  Consequently, when an idea can incorporate an element of unpredictability, it can generate both interest and curiosity.  This is not to suggest that an idea needs a gimmicky element.  The profound nature of a proverb resists the tacky nature of a gimmick.

Principle 3 – Concreteness. The authors again draw on the concept of a proverb (in their case, they are using proverbs such as “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” rather than Solomonic statements).  Concreteness suggests that profound truth be communicated in terms of human actions, sensory information, concrete language.  In our circles we might refer to communicating as low on the ladder of abstraction as possible.  After all, life is not abstract, so relevant truth need not be presented only in the abstract.  Some might take this to mean putting the cookies on the lower shelf, but that may miss the point and merely dumb down an idea.  It’s more about presenting an idea concretely – cookies and shelves, rather than taking a feast of biblical truth and turning it into a quick sugary snack.

In part 3 we will finish the list.

Ideas that Stick

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

In our approach to preaching (sometimes labeled the Big Idea approach), the main idea of the sermon is critical.  The idea is the core essence of a sermon that acts as boss over every other detail.  The main idea is like an arrow that is fired toward the target, and you want it to stick.  Consequently, anything I find about shaping a good idea is interesting to me.

Consider, for instance, Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die, by Chip and Dan Heath.  It’s not about preaching.  It’s about business.  One of the authors is a prof of organizational behavior and the other is a business consultant.  The focus is on business ideas, but they make some good points for us as preachers too.  After all, wouldn’t we love for the ideas we work so hard to craft as we study the Bible to be preaching ideas that “catch on” because they are memorable and clear?

In the next few posts I’ll share and apply the main principles from Made to Stick.

Principle 1 – Be Simple. The main idea in a sermon does not need to be dumbed down, but it does need to be stripped to the core of the idea, its critical essence.  The Heath’s do not simply teach that shorter is better.  A sound-bite is not the ideal.  According to the Heath’s, what is the ideal?  A proverb.  That which is both simple and profound.  We should be looking for the same.  Our initial attempts at stating the idea of a passage are usually both inaccurate and excessively long.  We must work to make the idea accurate and simplify it in order to get at the core essence.  Perhaps we would do well to aim for proverbial-like main ideas.  What do you think?

I’ll share more principles in part 2.

Factors In Selecting Sermon Form – Part 3

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

So I think it best to start with the shape of the text as the default shape for the sermon. But that may be adjusted due to the needs, nature and situation of the audience. One other factor should be mentioned too:

Factor 3 – The strengths of the preacher. Another factor to consider is you. Are you able to effectively keep attention and hold the tension of an inductive sermon? If not, it may be better not to try, fail and lose your listeners. Equally, we do need to try and fail in order to learn. It is worth considering your own ability as a preacher, but please don’t let this be an excuse to always preach the same shape!

Every time you preach you choose which sermon form to use. Start with the text shape as your default, but feel free to change your strategy in light of your listeners and yourself.