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.

Look Wider to See Deeper and Higher

June 1, 2011June 2, 2011 / Peter Mead / 5 Comments

Interesting comment today. After interacting with students’ sermon outlines on a passage I got the privilege of preaching the passage. One participant observed afterwards, “we were looking at this passage on a very human level, but you went deeper to show us God and how He sees us, which made it so much more powerful.”

Very encouraging feedback, but my point is actually this: they were looking at a list of instructions in an epistle. I probably did dig a little more than they could in the passage itself. But the God vision came from a wider lens, not a bigger shovel. I looked at the passage in its context and saw God at work. They looked at the instructions and felt pressure to obey. I looked at God’s work and saw a privilege to participate in.

Sometimes we need to dig deeper in the text (actually, always). Sometimes we need to look wider at the context (actually, always). Always we need to make sure we are preaching God and not just human.

Guardrails and Bridge Width

May 20, 2011May 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Some time ago I referred to Timothy Warren of DTS who used the analogy of guardrails for guarding the application of a message from straying off target. I’d like to use the same analogy with slight modification in respect to preaching a text.

The preacher builds a bridge between the Bible text in its world and the listeners in theirs. It may be helpful to imagine a guardrail either side of this road. One guardrail is the intended audience, the other is the purpose of the communication. On the Bible side of the bridge, the intended audience were the church or individual receiving the inspired text (i.e. the churches of Galatia). The purpose was specific in terms of Paul’s intent for those churches.

By the time the preacher gets over to today, he is also thinking of an intended audience (the congregation of Community Church this coming Sunday) and also has a purpose in preaching this text to them on this occasion.

Now if the audience this Sunday shares significant characteristics and cultural experiences with the original audience, then the guardrail comes straight across the bridge. And if the purpose for the sermon matches Paul’s purpose for his letter, then that guardrail also comes straight across.

But what if the audience is different (perhaps they haven’t gone after another gospel), and therefore the purpose is slightly different (encouragement with some warning, rather than open rebuke), then I imagine the guardrails shifting the road direction slightly (think of how your lanes are changed when there is construction on the motorway/freeway). The message of the text is not significantly changed (there are limits), but the sermon is adjusted from what the original did.

If this were applied to preaching a passage from Leviticus, then I imagine the considerable change in audience and purpose would be reflected in the less direct application of the text (a six-lane road narrowing to a two-lane road since we can’t apply it freely and directly), yet the road remains the same.

You cannot preach any truth from a particular passage. You can only preach the truth of that passage. However, the ease of transfer depends on the consistency of audience situation and sermonic purpose. Adjusting these guardrails will adjust the message (but the message must still be the message of the passage).

Preacher’s Log – 2

May 4, 2011May 1, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Following on from yesterday’s post . . . Sunday is getting ever nearer!

Tuesday to Thursday before – I am busy all day each day with Cor Deo training, so don’t have time for sermon preparation, but am chewing over the passages and their implications during spare moments, praying for Sunday’s messages to go well. I’m also pondering again the people to whom I’ll be preaching these passages, wanting God’s best for this church.

Friday before – Key preparation day. I work on outline of the text, main idea of the text, and prepare to form the main idea and outline/strategy of the sermons. I check a couple of commentaries. Actually, three. I check RT France’s NIGTC commentary, particularly to interact with some key sections of Greek exegesis (I simply haven’t had time to work through the whole section of Mark in Greek, but I do check a few key verses and decide whether I want to change anything based on his input). I check Rikki Watts’ focused presentation of Mark’s reliance on Isaiah’s “new exodus” motif (this was massively helpful in some sections of Mark, less so in others). I check Donald English’s very accessible BST (very good on seeing the big questions of Mark and the larger flow of the text).

Prayerfully thinking about the people to whom I am preaching on Sunday, I think through my strategy (outline) and message idea for Sunday’s messages. I would have liked to get to the details of how I will explain, any illustrative/applicational elements, but have run out of time.

Saturday morning – I have an hour and so can try to catch up a bit and think through the details of the messages. Actually, Sunday morning’s message comes first and so gets the attention.

Saturday evening – I don’t have time during the day (family are important ministry too), but in the evening I take some time and preach through Sunday morning’s message. Couple of things need to change, so I make a couple of notes, then head to bed (better to have slept than to have worked through the night striving for a better message!)

Sunday morning early – I pray and preach through the morning message. It is very hard to think about the evening message with the morning one looming.

Sunday afternoon – I take a couple of hours to look at my notes for the evening message on Mark 10, and then preach it through. Couple of tweaks, but time runs out.

Message is preached.

Monday after the message – I listen through both messages as I prepare the files to put them online. This is a chance to evaluate and also to be thankful to God for His help. I think back on the feedback received and process that before the Lord in prayer.

I was very happy with the Mark 10 message. Wasn’t perfect, they never are, but I am thankful for how that went.

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.

Opaque or Lens?

April 5, 2011April 5, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Opacity is worthy of our consideration. The contrast between being opaque and being a lens was suggested last week in conversation. That is, does the preacher act as a lens through which I see Christ, or as an opaque presenter through which I see little? It may be hard to quantify, but as listeners I think we know the difference.

When the opaque preacher preaches, we receive information and ideas, maybe even illustrations and anecdotes, perhaps applications, and even apparently effective delivery. Technically the sermon might tick all the standard boxes. Faithful to the text, relevant to the audience, clear in presentation. But obviously not clear in the sense we mean in this post. Because for all the good that’s there, the sermon event feels opaque.

So what is it that turns the opaque preaching into a lens through which the person of Christ is seen, through which the grace of God can shine into our lives? I suspect it isn’t primarily about technique, since great preparation and delivery skill can still lead to opaque messages. Perhaps it’s something along the lines of …

A sermon will act as a lens to the extent that the preacher relationally engages both God and the listeners as true personalities.

That could be better stated, but it will do for now (comment freely and offer better statements!)

1. If God is viewed as a distant, unknowable, cold deity who has left us with a set of data encoded in an anthology we call the Bible, then the preacher won’t engage Him. But if God is known personally, through the Word, through prayer, through a living and vital and covenantally loyal love relationship; and if God is an active participant in the life of the preacher; and if the preacher genuinely loves and likes God . . . then we may be onto something special for preaching.

2. If the listeners are viewed as an amorphous group of punters who have chosen to attend a presentation in which they (the seated ranks of unknowns) get to hear me (the preacher), then the preacher won’t engage them effectively. But if the people matter, and are cared for and prayed for and are important to the preacher (even if he is visiting), and if he seems to not only care enough to give tough medicine, but loves enough to make it palatable, and likes enough to smile . . . then we may be onto something special for preaching.

Opaque or lens?

Surprising Identification

February 18, 2011February 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

When we read “narrative” – that is, story – we naturally find ourselves identifying with some characters, and perhaps distancing ourselves from others. We do the same thing when we watch films or TV shows too. There’s nothing wrong with that, whether it is a fictional story (like a film), or an inspired account of something that actually happened (like a biblical narrative).

As a preacher, part of your task is to tap into this natural response to narrative. You do this by telling the story well enough that people start to identify. You do this by overtly helping people to identify. But sometimes the natural point of identification is not the way to go (or maybe it is the way to go, with a twist somewhere along the line for greater affective impact!) Take, for example, the passion narratives. Who might you, or your listeners, naturally identify with? Caiaphas, Peter, Pilate, Judas?

Here’s an interesting quote from a certain German monk, a Dr Martin Luther:

“It is a Christian art when a person can regard the Lord Jesus as one whose business is to deal with our sins. . . . Although Christians will identify themselves with Judas, Caiaphas, and Pilate; sinful, condemned actors in the Gospel story – there is another who took the sins of humanity on himself when they were hung around his neck. . . . And today, Easter Sunday, when we see him, they are gone; there is only righteusness and life, the Risen Christ who comes to share his gifts.” (Sermons, 125.)

The amazing thing about the easter story, the heart of our proclamation, is that while we naturally identify with so many of the characters involved, we are invited to identify with the One at the centre of it all. It isn’t natural that we identify with the sinless Jesus, but it is the heart of the gospel to do so!

Preaching in Light of the Big Question

February 16, 2011February 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The big question throughout Scripture is consistently the same. Will people trust God or not? Will they have faith in Him or not? Will we?

We are living under the same banner, the same fluttering question mark. Will we trust God? As preachers we need to help people see the simplicity of life (i.e. this is really the issue in every situation), while addressing the complexity of life (i.e. it never feels that simple!)

Hebrews 11, for an obvious example, presents example after example of people of faith who lived in the present in light of eternity. They were willing to choose discomfort now, because of what was to come. This is always a great indicator of faith in God. They trusted God. But this is an obvious preaching passage. What about something more obscure?

Leviticus 17 makes an enigmatic reference to the people making sacrifices outside the camp to goat demons or goat idols. Some obviously were choosing to be unfaithful to God for some reason or other. This incident is similar to the golden calf incident back in Exodus. God had delivered them, was among them, yet they rebelled and didn’t trust Him. Ok, what else?

Actually if we take any incident in Scripture, any narrative, we will find people either trusting or not trusting God.

We face the same options today, although in different forms. Will we be unfaithful to a God who has given us so much and dwells among us? Will we commit spiritual adultery by giving our worship to another? Or will we be men and women of faith, trusting in God even when it means choosing discomfort in the present circumstances? Let’s be preachers that encourage others to allow God’s Word to inspire them as we read all sorts of biblical texts, obscure or otherwise – and let’s try to live out a good answer to the big question hanging over us today.

Preach With The Right Goal

February 15, 2011February 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I’d like to think this was obvious that it wouldn’t need to be stated. I suspect I’d be wrong. The goal of Bible reading, and indeed, the goal of sermon listening, isn’t to gather information. That’s not a bad side-effect or by-product, but it’s not the real goal.

The goal of spending time in God’s Word is not to fill the brain with facts so that you can impress at the next Christmas Bible trivia quiz. It’s not to gather information so that you can feel good about your knowledge relative to others. Now this is not to say that our brains don’t matter. They do, very much. But our goal in Bible reading, and our goal in preaching the Bible, is not primarily intellectual, but spiritual.

The goal of spending time in God’s Word is to know, relate to and respond to God Himself. We worship God, not the Bible. Yet we can know God and respond to God as we spend time in what He’s given of Himself to us in the Word, the Bible.

Make this clear in your preaching. Even if you know this, I guess some of your listeners will still be in the “I need to know more, educate me” school of spirituality. As preachers we must first live, and then also preach, the central vital absolute importance of Christianity as relationship.

Some of your listeners don’t grasp this. In fact, they may be getting very overwhelmed and discouraged because they struggle to retain information. Help them know that the real goal is to know and respond to God. The goal of preaching is not primarily informational, educational, or even transformational, it is relational. Spiritual. The goal is God, not just a better them.

The War of the Words

February 11, 2011February 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Ever since the beginning, everything seems to be about words in conflict. After all, God’s creation was all good, until a little conversation in chapter 3. What was the core of that conversation? “Did God really say?” The serpent questioned God’s words, and questioned whether or not those words could be trusted. He offered an alternative, “you won’t die” as opposed to “don’t eat or you will die.” Tragically, they went for it.

So, history is all about Adam’s “dead” offspring. Oh, and about a God who captures the hearts of this spiritually dead humanity by offering his words again, “believe in me and you will have life!”

Sometimes we crave direct and exciting intervention from God, if only we could see His angels all the time, or miracles immediately after every prayer. But the vast majority of the time, even in Bible times, God is more indirect. He gives His word and He asks us to trust Him.

In the book of Genesis, once the war of the words becomes clear, the foundation is laid. Then the story shifts to focus on one man, Abram, and God’s plan. God’s word to Abram at the start of Genesis 12 really sets the direction for the rest of the Bible. We get to watch Abram growing in his trust in God’s word. Just like us, he didn’t get it all at once. Just like Abram, we need to listen carefully to what God says and trust Him.

The Bible goes on like this for three-quarters of a million words. Our lives go on like this for even more words. As preachers we stand and preach in this war of words, and the words we preach matter.

The war of the words still rages, let’s make sure we’re listening when we open God’s word. Let’s be sure we’re preaching our hearts out whenever we get the chance. Because for the rest of the day, the rest of the week, there will be plenty of alternative words trying to capture all of our hearts!