Eternal Preaching – Part 1

October 21, 2011October 21, 2011 / Peter Mead / 7 Comments

Some sermons do seem to drag on towards eternity, but perhaps too few preach in light of eternity. It seems to me that in many quarters the church has reacted against eschatological sensationalism by removing all reference to the end-times from the pulpit. Perhaps the subject is seen as being divisive, difficult, obscure, irrelevant or embarrassingly sensational and therefore best left alone.

Here are my responses to these five common reasons for avoiding the subject of the future, then next time I’ll offer some positive reasons to go eternal in your preaching.

1. Eschatology is divisive. After all, there are so many views on the millennium, the coming of Christ for the church, the details on the timeline, political implications today, etc. Actually, most issues in the Bible are potentially divisive – the nature of God, the person of Christ, the role of the believer in salvation, the work of the Holy Spirit, etc. If a subject is potentially divisive, surely we shouldn’t avoid it, but watch our attitudes and clarity when we do speak of it?

2. It is difficult. I suspect many a preacher avoids all references to the future because they are pretty sure they aren’t sure where they stand on it all. Like most subjects in the Bible, it is both complicated enough for a doctoral research pursuit, yet simple enough for a child to understand. Avoiding a subject because it is difficult will lead us to missing out on the rich wonder of the Bible, and our listeners will never hear us mention the central subjects like the Triune God, the Incarnation, etc.

3. It is obscure. Uh, no. Biblical reference to the future is not limited to a couple of the more apocalyptic prophets. Every book in the New Testament except one includes reference to the return of Christ, let alone all the other aspects of future teaching. Obscure it certainly is not, if we read the Bible, that is. I suppose the challenge is that many don’t and so judge Christianity by their cultural worldview instead.

4. It is irrelevant. Again, no. We’ll look at applicational value of future thinking next time.

5. It is embarrassingly sensational. Sadly, it can be and often is. There is too much hype and puff coming from some. The solution to that is to offer our listeners the good example of being well grounded biblically, rather than leaving them to become newspaper and paperback theologians.

None of these reasons are enough to kick the future out of our present preaching. Next time, we’ll start stacking up the positive reasons to bring back future and eternal preaching.

I Like To Pick a Prophet or Two

October 20, 2011October 20, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

When did you last preach a series from one of the writing prophets? When did you last lay open a minor prophet in a single session? I think God gave us a great squad to choose from with the 16 in the canon. Here are five reasons why I like to pick a prophet or two:

1. God’s Heart on the Sleeve – This is the big one for me. The prophets don’t keep you waiting to let you know what is on God’s heart. They were wonderful communicators of God’s passion, concern, anger, love, etc. In a church deeply stained by centuries of stoic thinking, it is a delight to offer the fullness of God’s affections, passions, compassion, emotion.

2. Punchy Relevance in Abundance – The prophets weren’t under the impression that their job was to fill a sermon slot with an informative soliloquy. They cried out to God’s people in specific application to their pain, their misery, their complacency, their present reality. Preaching on overtly applied texts tends to stir greater levels of contemporary relevance today too.

3. Messianic Goldmine in Places – This is what they’re famous for, of course. It’s a delight to preach of the Servant of the Lord, or of Immanuel, or of Zerubbabel’s signet ring, or of the New Covenant blessings. I’d be careful not to cherry pick the messianic predictions, but to preach them in their full context for full effect. We have a wonderful Christ, so preach the prophets!

4. Thematic Contrasts and Crescendos Galore – Like a stunning diamond on black velvet, so read the prophets. Impending judgment flowing into kingdom hope. Human sin overwhelming, then God’s grace superabundant. Faithless people, faithful God. Doom! Salvation! Darkness! Glory! The bulging muscular arm and clenched fist of the Lord! The tender shepherd holding the little ones close to His beating heart!

5. Novelty Value for Jaded Listeners – Perhaps they’ve heard stories from the gospels for months on end. Maybe they are saturated in epistolary logic. Perchance they have experienced the odd dip into Isaiah 6, 40, and 53. But what about Ezekiel 16, or Jeremiah 20, or Hosea, or Zephaniah? Typically the prophets, presuming they are well preached, will get a good hearing because listeners aren’t used to hearing them.

There you go, five reasons why I like to pick a prophet or two.

Sharpen the Arrow

August 26, 2011August 24, 2011 / Peter Mead / 7 Comments

I’m pondering the message I am going to preach in a few days. It is one of several required at a conference. I have the subject, which leaves me with almost the whole canon as potential preaching fodder. Now I am sharpening.

The temptation is not to sharpen, but to cram bulk into the message. How many bits of a brilliant Bible can I pack into the message in order to touch on as many good bits as possible? Bad idea. A big and bulky message will not communicate, it will not carry well. It will drop like a lead balloon before it gets to the first row.

Much better to remove bulk and sharpen the arrow. That is, instead of trying to get a lot across, I should try to effectively get the main thing across. Better for people to leave with the main thing firmly embedded in their hearts than with the experience of watching a preacher fail to communicate (and carrying nothing away themselves). This is obvious, but the problem is that it is also painful.

To sharpen the arrow I probably need to lose the content from that part of the Bible, and that part too, oh, and that bit. The only way to sharpen metal is to remove bulk. So by faith, prayer and work I need to sharpen the message so that it will communicate more effectively.

Preach Text or Title?

August 25, 2011August 24, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

What do you do when you are asked to preach a title with a text? My simple answer is to honour the title, but preach the text.

Isn’t that the obvious answer? No, I think there is an alternative that is very common and may be legitimate – preach the title by using the text. And then there is the option of preaching the title and ignoring, or even abusing, the text. The challenge is where the line is drawn between these two options. So why would title take precedence over the text?

Sometimes the title is highly relevant, or highly theological, or highly specific. What if the title is “What is the Gospel?” and the text is John 3:16. Or maybe “Are there many ways to God?” and the text is Acts 4:12. Or “Guilt and holistic health” with Romans 8:1.

The temptation then is to try to give the definitive lecture on biblical soteriology, or the exclusivism of Christ, or whatever. You’ve gone from preaching the Bible to preaching theology with the Bible as a key exhibit. I won’t say this is totally wrong. We have probably all benefitted from some “definitive lectures” from great speakers. But personally, I find there is something lacking in this approach. I would rather preach the text.

Personally I find it satisfying when I feel like I’ve done a good job of engaging the text and presenting it in such a way that it has “lived” in the imaginations of the listeners. A well crafted lecture on exclusivism is all well and good, but a text genuinely experienced text is much rarer. As long as it addresses the requested subject by way of application, of course.

So in simplistic terms I might be looking at something along these lines:

Intro – raise the question in light of contemporary thinking so people say “yep, that’s a big issue, what’s the answer?”

Text – take them back there, set the scene, make it vivid, help them experience the unique reality of the situation, and preach the text.

Application – return to today and answer the question . . . “so if that was true for them, what is true for us, under pressure to conform to the world’s way of thinking?” Preach the point of the verse again in reference to the opening of the sermon.

The big thing to remember is that you can either formulate the most brilliant systematic theological presentation of the issue and impress a few. Or you can make the text live, preach vivid and engaging . . . and as long as you answer the question, everyone will love it. And, also, you’ll probably love it more because you will feel like you’ve truly preached the text, rather than pulled a phrase out of context in order to satisfy a contemporary theological question.

Can You See It Yet?

July 8, 2011February 25, 2015 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Here’s a hypothetical suggestion to make a point. The traditional approach to preaching is to announce and read the text very early on, or even prior to, the sermon. What if we did the exact opposite?

I used to watch a children’s television programme in which the artist would be painting away on a wall or large canvas. A stroke here. A bit of colour there. A splash of paint. A few dots. “Can you see it yet?” The impressive thing was that until the very end I would have no idea what he was painting. Then suddenly it would all come together.

What if we preached like that? Hypothetical, but bear with me. You start your message with surfacing a need and you move into the body of the message explaining and applying the text (this is where the idea fails in reality) without identifying it. In your conclusion you read the passage. Just before the conclusion would you still be asking “Can you see it yet?”

If this were possible, it would be anything but impressive. Yet not unusual. When some preachers preach, usually after having read the text on which the sermon is based, the discerning listeners are left bemused by how what they are hearing seems to bear no resemblance to the text. The undiscerning listeners are left with the impression that this is how the Bible should be handled. An anecdote here. A pithy line there. An application. A story. A comment. But can we see the connection to the text?

I’m not suggesting you leave the reading until the end, unless that would help the sermon. I am suggesting the goal in preaching is not to make the connection between text and sermon a complete mystery!

Using Used Outlines – Part 2

May 13, 2011May 10, 2011 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Continuing the list of suggestions for the pressured preacher who feels he has to use used outlines in order to be ready to preach . . .

4. Don’t move on too quickly. Most sermons take too long to finish, but then are finished with too soon. While I’m not advocating preaching longer for most preachers, I would say that once the sermon is done, it may well not be done, and might bear the weight of another visit next time. Doubling up exegetical work by preaching the same passage more than once is worth considering.

5. Don’t pressure yourself. There are several problems with borrowing sermon outlines. One is that you might borrow junk and therefore offer junk to your listeners (it is amazing how much poor preaching is offered through the internet!) On the other hand, you might get into the habit of borrowing a standard you find intimidating and can therefore never live up to. Don’t pressure yourself. Your listeners will appreciate a simpler sermon that is truly owned, they don’t need you to pretend to be him (whoever he is).

6. Don’t starve yourself. Another issue with borrowing sermon outlines is that you are cutting yourself off from one of the greatest delights of preaching – the wrestling with a text so that it marks your life. Even if you can’t give 20 hours a week to a sermon (few can), you will do much better to have wrestled for two hours than none.

7. Generate time from elsewhere. Do you create a powerpoint when you preach? Don’t bother, save the time. The powerpoint may or may not be helpful, but if it is powerpoint time or passage time, it should be passage time every time. Do you spend half an hour picking songs for the service? Ask someone else to do that. Do you search the internet for pithy introductory anecdotes? Save the time and get into the Word. Do you scratch your head for illustrations? Look at the text more carefully and describe the images or story in the passage.

More thoughts and ideas?

Using Used Outlines

May 12, 2011May 12, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Earlier this week Tom wrote:

Good morning! I just found your blog and read the post on stage 1. It looks like you are addressing preachers who are full time. I am a “part-time” pastor-I have to work another job to make ends meet. Do you have any advice for someone like me? So far (I have only been at this for 3 years), I rely heavily on outlines someone has already done. I would like to get away from this, but do not feel I have the luxury as yet to do this.

I understand the pressures of preaching while holding down other full-time employment (plus the pressures of marriage, parenting, crisis management, etc.) I suppose that using outlines from others does give a pretty significant boost toward being ready to preach. But the challenge with this is whether you are really ready to preach if you haven’t wrestled with the text yourself. It does seem to undermine the whole notion of the truth of God’s Word coming through a personality that has been marked by it first.

Rather than just making pressured preachers feel bad, I would offer the following suggestions:

1. Try to wean yourself off using the outlines of other preachers. Initially move to seeing them as conversation partners and try to adapt and improve what they offer by making it more your own.

2. Don’t go for overkill on your preaching preparation. That is, don’t leave “borrowed” outlines in order to try to preach self-studied extended and tricky passages. Choose easy to preach passages.

3. Don’t bite off too much each time. Whenever possible, try to preach a shorter passage (still making sure it is a legitimate unit). Andy Stanley makes the insightful comment that most sermons should really be series. Why try to cover massive chunks of text if your preparation time is limited. The same must be said of multiple passages (why preach three passages in a message when you could do better with one?)

I’ll finish the list tomorrow…

Don’t Withhold the Blessing

May 9, 2011May 4, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Let’s say you study a passage well. You will be blessed. Perhaps the passage is a paragraph in Ephesians. You study it, you dwell on it, you soak in it. It stirs your heart, moves you into praise and action, marks your life, blesses you. Then you come to prepare your message.

If you are like the majority of preachers, you will somehow base your message on that paragraph, but you’ll spend a significant proportion of your message talking about other passages. A verse in Romans. Another in Colossians. An image from Hebrews. A story from Luke. An episode in Genesis. A favourite Psalm. Your favourite verse in Jeremiah 29. Throw in a Messianic prophecy from Isaiah. A reference or two to the Law, and on it goes. Surely nobody would get that scattered, you think? Some do! I kept track in one sermon that quoted from 25 books of the New Testament alone.

What are you doing if you preach like that? Blessing people with the whole Bible? Or stealing the paragraph in Ephesians from the listeners. This is a unique opportunity for them to be blessed by the passage that was such a blessing to you. Don’t withhold the blessing. Preach the text.

Preacher’s Log

May 3, 2011May 1, 2011 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

A friend asked me to offer something of a mini-log of a sermon preparation. Here goes:

Several weeks before – So I know I’m going to preach on Mark 10 in a few weeks time. I don’t have much time now, but I grab a few minutes to read it through and make a list of initial observations or questions about the text. I also make the time to read the whole book of Mark (both because I’m preaching a series, and because I need that for understanding chapter 10). I start outlining the series so I know which passage will be preached on which Sunday. The calendar dictates Good Friday’s text, and Easter Sunday morning, and Palm Sunday, but otherwise I have some flexibility.

10 days before – I’m in the thick of preparing messages for the Sunday before, but I take a few minutes to look ahead at the passages coming up the following Sunday. Again, just make the odd note, and pray for clear understanding and application of the passage (I’m starting to feel quite convicted as I see the contrast between Jesus’ resolute journey to the cross, and the disciples’ continual pyramid-climbing attitude – is that true of me, too?)

Monday before – Now that the previous two messages are done, I am more free to think and plan for this coming Sunday. Spent some time outlining the text and looking at how the content flows together. Am contemplating how to preach the passage around 8:27-30 in the morning, and then the third passion prediction in chapter 10, with the passage around it. I’m pondering whether I should use the three passion predictions in the evening message, but also deal with the first passion prediction in the morning. I feel I have to do that in both cases (no extra sermons to deal with other content in this section, unfortunately…looks like the transfiguration isn’t going to feature this time, shame).

Now it would be nice to have the rest of the week free to prepare the messages for Sunday. No such luxury. It will be Friday before I can give the messages any real attention again.

Impositional Preaching

March 8, 2011March 5, 2011 / Peter Mead / 7 Comments

Some of the greatest preachers of recent history have built sermons on single verses. I tend not to do that. Am I saying I know better than them?

Dr Lloyd-Jones, not to mention Spurgeon, and others, have demonstrated extended sermon series that essentially preach a single text at a time. Surely if we were to be preachers after their kind today, then we should pursue the same kind of ministry? Actually, I think not.

First, let’s recognize what these men did. Spurgeon sometimes resorted to an allegorical exegesis of the text, but not always. Lloyd-Jones tended to preach the Bible’s theology radiating from the impact point of a single verse. That is, since the word “justified” is in this verse, what all could be said from the whole canon on that theme (perhaps in this message, perhaps over several).

Second, let’s recognize what wannabe’s often do. Today when I hear people building messages from single texts I tend not to hear people with the pedigree of Spurgeon or Lloyd-Jones. I do hear some allegorical, not to mention fanciful, interpretations. These lack credibility and authority. I also hear some waffling messages padded with poor cross-referencing that shows neither theological acumen, nor precision in respect to recognition of biblical connections (nor genuine understanding of the theological needs of the listener). In an era where listeners will look at the text and dismiss apparently unfounded sermonizing, we would do well to reevaluate the efficacy of many “single verse” approaches to preaching.

Third, let’s realize that imposition is not exposition. Too often the preacher has the mindset of seeking to utilize the text as a series of pegs on which to hang their thoughts. All too often those pegs are not divinely intended to hold the weight placed on them. The Bible is an intricate and powerful construct of divine design. Sadly, all too often preachers take a twig from the oak tree and assume it will bear the same weight as the oak was designed to hold. Impositional preaching is not exposition, it is a pale imitation of what some greats from church history did.

Fourth, let’s realise that exposition is about honouring God, not historical figures. I deeply respect Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones, as well as many other preachers through church history that I do not seek to emulate every week. My view of expository preaching is built on my understanding of the nature of God’s Word. As I seek to explain it, to demonstrate its relevance, to say what it says and seek to somehow make the message do what it does, I am pursuing a contemporary ministry of expository preaching. I may fall short of historical models, and yet at the same time I may at times get closer to honouring the intent of the text. I pray that God will enable me to have a fraction of the impact of these great men. I pray that God will equip me to be a preacher of His Word, rather than one who seeks to reproduce a historically bound model of ministry.