Letter Frame – Preacher’s Treasure

November 21, 2013 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

The “letter-frame” is a jargon-laden way of referring to the opening and closing of the New Testament epistles. I’d like to ponder these sections for a couple of reasons. Firstly, because they are fully inspired text. The words are worth just as much as the more familiar content of the epistles. Secondly, because they are so often ignored.

Inspired and ignored. Two words that should not be introduced!

“Standard” Openings – it is wise to be slightly wary of “standards” in biblical literature, as if the author was consulting a writer’s guide whenever he wrote. A lot of research has been done on the nature of letters and epistles, and I don’t want to review that here. But let me offer the normal view of the “standard” opening:

Sender, to the recipients, greetings, I thank God . . .

This probably sounds familiar: Paul, to the saints at…, grace and peace, I thank God every time I think of you . . . here are a few introductory preaching thoughts on preaching the introductory thoughts, or at least an introduction to the subject:

1. Notice what is added. Paul could just write “Paul” at the start of each epistle, but typically he adds more. In Galatians he dives in, third word, to address the critique against him. He is an apostle! And he gives details on how that is the case and that he is not alone in what he writes! However, in Philippians, Paul sounds a different note – he and Timothy are servants. To the Corinthians he adds a very generous saintly description of a profoundly unholy group of believers, and then drives straight into another theme by associating them with all believers (something they weren’t clear on!)

2. Notice when the pattern is changed. On all but two occasions Paul is careful to use his opening prayer graciously and significantly. But in Titus he presses into the heart of the matter, perhaps because the epistle is a brief reminder to close friend Titus, rather than a fully developed epistle to less connected friends? And then there is Galatians. Hold on tight! Instead of thanking God on every remembrance of them, Paul is astonished that they are deserting the gospel. They aren’t going to another religion, or giving up on being Christians, or going all worldly. No, they are taking onboard a law-heavy entrance and development plan that is totally against the gospel he preached to them. Result? They are turning from God by their “greater” commitment to godliness (in the flesh).

It is one thing to recognize what is there, but what difference does it make to our preaching? More ideas next time…

The Why Behind The Instruction

July 9, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The Bible contains plenty of instruction. There are the instructional sections of epistles. Jesus gave more than a few. There are the instructions implicit in the wisdom literature. Then there are obvious implications with built-in instructions when we look at narratives.

So our job is to explain and apply, and the apply part is relatively easy when we are dealing with instruction, right? Yes and no. Certainly it is helpful when the text pushes us toward something that will be helpful and relevant to communicate to listeners. And for the most part, people appreciate being told what is expected of them. But there is an issue to watch out for . . .

How do we avoid moralizing? That is, how do we avoid simply turning the Bible into instructions for good clean living? You may think there is nothing wrong with that, but I beg to differ. The problem of sin is far more profound than mere ignorance or lack of instruction. The sin problem facing humanity is far more profound than we tend to recognize, and consequently a lot of sermons don’t even scratch the surface of the issue. In fact, some actually exacerbate the issue!

How can a sermon make the sin problem worse? Surely good preaching helps people live less sinful lives? Good preaching does, but not by moralizing. Simply pressuring people to clean up their act and perform more like good clean Christians is not gospel work. It is what Tim Keller refers to as turning younger brothers into older brothers. Cleaner, supposedly better and certainly more religious, but no more Christian than a fence post. Behaviour modification is not the intention of the Bible. Independent pride promotion is the antithesis of Biblical intent.

So am I going against Scripture to argue against moralizing, especially when there is so much instruction there? I don’t think so. The Scripture assumes things to which we have grown blind. Knowing God brings life change, there are instructions relevant for those who are in communion with Him, but the process is never one of behaviour modification first, internal realities second. And growth as a Christian is not a different set of rules, it continues to be by faith from first to last. So what does this mean?

In a nutshell, it means that we can’t simply be the older brother patrol out to instruct people toward a pseudo-godliness. When you preach an instructive section, be sure to put it in its full gospel context. Specifically, seek to answer the “why?” question. Why does that command make sense in light of the Bible’s teaching about God and sin and life? How you answer the why question will reveal your theology. That you ask the why question will reveal your awareness that instruction alone is never enough.

Dangerous Assumption 5: Other Options

May 24, 2013May 19, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

This week we have looked at two dangerous assumptions that can override good preaching preparation. One is overtly too human-centred, leading either to striving or enabled independence. The other is apparently God-centred, yet perhaps open to the charge of misrepresenting the God-centred reality presented in Scripture. One variation of this latter assumption makes God profoundly selfish, the other makes Him non-relational in His controlling. Let’s finish the week with a few miscellaneous other assumptions that could be causing us to misrepresent the Bible text we are preaching. Again, our goal is not to be negative, but to stir us to pray for God’s perspective on our handling of the Bible – let’s let God be the coach in all of this.

Dangerous Assumption C: It’s all about something else.

7. The power filter. This may just be a variation on some of what we’ve considered already. It is the notion that Christianity is about spiritual access to power on another plane. Somehow we have to tap into this secret energy source that will give us super-human stamina or impressive miracle power to wow the world. The Bible can then become a set of data to twist and use as leverage in accessing this heavenly fuel. Again, the marital and relational nature of true Christianity gets lost here. The Spirit who pours out God’s love into our hearts becomes the conduit for wow-fuel that leaves Jesus distant and enables our thoroughly dependent independence.

8. The nice filter. This is where the preacher filters out anything tough or challenging or difficult and makes everything soft and nice. In one form everything becomes syrupy and fluffy, without any hint of wrath or anger, etc. In another form, the wrath and anger of God become another “side” to Him that is somehow held in tension with his love. We therefore lean on the loving “side” of God and are spared the nasty side. Alternatively we celebrate nice Jesus who has delivered us from angry Father. Whatever version grips us, we have a problem. Unless we see God’s holiness and justice and wrath and jealous nature as part of His triune love, then we will have a God with a split personality or a divided trinity. Nice is not the issue, but His love might be more significant than we realise.

9. The hobby horse filter. This is where every passage is seen through lenses looking for a hobby horse issue. Consequently the pet topic becomes elevated disproportionately whenever a text offers a link. It could be a theological issue, a pet illustration category, or whatever. In fact, here’s another variation:

10. The agenda filter. This is where our personal or political or cultural agenda is imposed on any passage. We could all pick an issue in national or church politics and create a “study Bible” with notes linking almost any passage to the subject of our own choosing. Thankfully publishers don’t publish most of these potential study Bibles!

Let’s spend time with God asking Him to show us where our lenses are changing the hue of His self-revelation to us in the Bible. Our desire to be biblical preachers is to please the God who has spoken, who speaks, who has revealed and will be revealed by our preaching. He is more than able to point out where we may be misrepresenting Him, so let’s be sure to ask!

Dangerous Assumption 4: God (continued)

May 23, 2013May 19, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

After pondering variations on the assumption that it is all about me (either in the direction of striving or divinely enabled successful independence), yesterday we probed the issue of an “all about God” assumption – namely, the glory filter. Here’s another “all about God” filter that may be corrupting our reading and preaching of the Bible:

6. The takeover filter. There is no question that God wants to be God in the life of the listeners. The Bible says a categorical No! to our autonomy from God. But we must be careful not to misrepresent the salvation plan. The predominant biblical motif is that of marriage, not dictatorial control. I have been crucified with Christ and no longer live, but there is also the life I now live. Huh? Captivated by our groom and united with him by the Spirit, we are invited into a marital relationship, not a bizarre state of hypnosis and unthinking passivity. The Bible does not invite us to enter into a non-communicative and non-reciprocal relationship with a takeover Spirit. We are not invited to go beyond the Bible into a higher level of spirituality that is impossible to describe, yet worthy of our greatest efforts to pursue personal surrender to it.

The Bible invites us to know God and to be in fellowship with Him by His Spirit in response to His love. It is a relationship of hearing His heart in His Word and responding to Him in prayer and walking with Him and keeping in step with His Spirit and being both dead to self and yet more alive than ever (since life is, by definition, knowing God). There are various unbiblical and sub-biblical versions and perversions of Christian spirituality. Some do sound very Christian, but even when the focus is apparently all on God, it is still possible to corrupt the Bible and misrepresent what He is saying.

Dangerous Assumption 3: God

May 22, 2013May 19, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Dangerous assumptions lurk below the surface of our preaching preparation, always ready to undermine our most diligent exegesis and expositional planning. We can diligently do everything well in our study and message preparation, but the tinted glasses of our own dangerous assumption will colour the end result and undermine the preaching process. Our goal in pondering these assumptions is not to throw stones at others, but to prompt us to pray and ask God to help us see where we aren’t seeing clearly. It can be painful to discover an errant agenda in our preaching, but if our goal is to please Him, then surely we must ask Him to show us if there be any dangerous assumption in us.

So far we’ve looked at some variations of the assumption that it is “all about me” – both in the direction of pressure to perform for God and in the direction of getting God to perform for us. But there’s another assumption we need to be wary of too:

Dangerous Assumption B: It is all about God.

5. The glory filter. There is no question that everything should be done for the glory of God. But some have morphed this doctrine into a form that seems to have lost the relational and motivational moorings of Scripture. Rather than seeing the delightful glory-giving nature of the Triune God who is revealed by Scripture, glory becomes this dutiful commodity that a self-absorbed God demands from us constantly. There is a real danger that glory can become the measure of behaviour demanded of listeners, without their hearts being stirred by the glory of God’s glory. Haman glorified a man he despised from the heart. But God the Father has always glorified the Son because he loves him (John 17:24).

Should we be stirred to glorify God by the preaching of His Word? Absolutely. Who would ever come up with a God who is all-glorious, yet also lovingly gives glory to the undeserving? The danger is when we twist the God behind the text into a glory-grabbing tyrant and preach every passage accordingly. It will sound very biblical, but it may end up being a slightly sanctified variation on the duty filter that turns everything into a human-centred preaching model.

Tomorrow we’ll think on another variation of an “all about God” filter that may not be consistent with the Scriptures.

Dangerous Assumption 2: Me (Continued)

May 21, 2013May 19, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The assumption that Christianity is all about me has many variations. Whatever version we propound, there will be problems as we try to preach the Bible faithfully. Yesterday we considered the duty and guilt filters – two ways that preachers can reframe any passage to preach pressure on those present. In these approaches, the Bible comes across as a whip to stir the lazy or the guilty into striving action. But there is another pair of angles to consider here:

3. The selfish filter. Here is a perversion of the same problem. Instead of turning the listener inwards with guilt or pressure to perform, this feeds the self-absorption in the other direction. Not “you are nothing” but instead, “you are god!” Somehow the self-absorption of the preacher has been corrupted so that the Bible is twisted to support selfishness. The text is read as a means to an end, and the end is a sanctified sinfulness. Suddenly God is the great slave of all who get their ducks lined up so that He will do their bidding. Suddenly the manifold grace of God to the undeserving becomes the heavenly affirmation of our incurvedness as we take advantage of plucked promises and twisted truths. The preacher here is the life coach and guru for sanctified sinfulness (in all its variations).

4. The success filter. Perhaps this is a low-level version of number 3. It doesn’t claim that God is our great slave who delivers freely for our selfishness, but it does still see life as essentially independent. The preacher becomes the life coach for personal success in all areas of life: marriage, parenting, work, leisure, health, etc. The Bible is seen as the instruction manual for successful Christian living, and the listeners are invited to have their self-focus affirmed in the continual pursuit of relevant applications.

The issue in all of these angles is not just the broken view of sin (i.e. not seeing the self-oriented nature of the fallen human heart), but also a poor view of God and salvation. The Bible does not suggest salvation is the divine provision for independent living. As preachers of the Bible, if our view of God does not grip our hearts and reorient everything, then we will misrepresent the Bible in our preaching and corrupt application into some form of self-serving exercise. God’s goal has never been our independent functioning, but rather the privilege of participation in His fellowship. Preaching that makes it all essentially about me will be problematic, whatever the flavour.

Dangerous Assumption

May 20, 2013May 19, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Good preachers will preach the passage they claim to be preaching. Even in a topical message with several passages being presented, the preacher should be sure to say what that text is actually saying. Using texts to say what the preacher wants to say is an indication of a pride problem in the preacher. However, even the diligent preacher of the passage before them can undermine their good work by dangerous assumptions that undergird their work.

These assumptions come various sources, but they tend to be theological paradigms that cause the preacher to see any text in a certain way. They are like tinted glasses that change the hue of everything. This will lead to misrepresenting the Bible and potentially to some significant false teaching in the church. Over the next days I’d like to try to highlight some of these tints in the hope that some might be prompted to pray and ask the Lord to expose their own false or dangerous assumptions. It would be good for us all to do that.

Dangerous Assumption A: It is all about me.

There are many potential angles here.

1. The duty filter. This could be driven by a faulty view of God, an errant understanding of the gospel, a separation of gospel from Christian living, baggage from childhood abandonment, theological pride, personal guilt and a whole lot more. Whatever the root, the result is that every passage is seen through lenses that underline and embolden imperatival content, or even introduce this tone where it is not present. So the preacher takes any story or psalm or passage and turns it into a set of duties for the listener to strive toward.

2. The guilt filter. This is associated with number 1, but it seeks to transfer feelings of guilt onto the listeners. This is perhaps less optimistic. Whereas in the previous angle the listeners are pressured as if they can simply choose to obey and be diligent, this lens turns the text a shade of sour. Now the goal is not so much to instruct and pressure, but to make the listeners feel guilty and therefore pressured. The motivational effectiveness of guilt is questionable in the extreme, but this approach to preaching can have the feel of desparation about it. Like all of the filters in this sub-set, it tends to skim over the problematic issue of turning listeners in on themselves, which is at the very heart of the sin issue we are claiming to address as we preach the Bible.

There’s another side to this, which we’ll ponder tomorrow.

The Gospel in Concrete 2

May 17, 2013May 16, 2013 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

The epistles don’t assume full awareness of God and the gospel and proceed quickly into practical applications. Instead God has given us many case studies of the apostles applying the gospel in concrete situations, and they don’t just dive into instruction, or assume that believers all have the basics in place. Furthermore:

3. The apostles never assume that God is a given. This is a big problem in the church today. Too many people assume that anyone talking about “god” is talking about God. And I don’t just mean those outside the church. Some of us do sniff out that there are different conceptions of “god” floating around, both in religious talk and in cultural use. But even within the church, it is thoroughly naive to assume that anyone referring to “God” is necessarily speaking with a full biblical awareness of the one true God revealed in the Bible. The epistle writers don’t just use a generic label and press on into practicalities. They always clarify and specify. Often we’ll find reference to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, or references such as “the God of all grace.” Let’s be real about the fact that even within the church, the God described by some people sounds like a different God than we see revealing Himself in the Bible.

4. The apostles never offered a paper-thin gospel. “God is the in-charge super-being who will judge you, so be sure you sort your relationship with him by praying this prayer.” Not something we find in the New Testament. The gospel they offer consistently communicates such realities as the intra-trinitarian relationships, the wonder of “in Christ” participation in that fellowship by the Spirit, inside-to-out transformation of a life by change of desires, the self-giving love of God as spotlighted by Christ’s atoning death on the cross, the divine countering of the Lie that still permeates this world through cosmic antagonism to the Truth, etc.

More could certainly be added (feel free to comment, of course). Let’s be looking at the epistles and recognizing the wonder of having these case studies in applied gospel theology for us to learn from and use as we seek to address the down-to-earth complexities of specific local situations.

The Gospel in Concrete

May 16, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In the New Testament, the gospel is never given “in a vacuum.” That is to say, we don’t find generic presentations of the gospel as a set of statements. Instead we find the gospel being applied to concrete situations: real people, real churches, real issues.

God didn’t give us a standard version and then leave the application to us. Instead we were given a set of case studies where we can observe the apostles engaging real life situations with the gospel. We see the church being split by a form of gnosticism in 1John, a different form creeping in in Colossae, the young believers under pressure from the antagonists around them in Thessalonica, the self-confident yet worldly church at Corinth, the divided churches of Rome, the threat of false-Law-teachers in Galatia, the discouraged by pressure believers addressed in Hebrews, etc.

As we ponder the “case studies” given to us in the New Testament epistles, here are some thoughts:

1. The apostles don’t respond to down-to-earth issues with mere down-to-earth instruction. You won’t find an epistle that just says, “here is how to act like Christians, pull yourselves together and just try hard, do the right thing and the feelings will follow…” Instead we find the apostles responding to sometimes very human issues with an application of theological reality. They certainly do get specific and practical, but always on the back of, or in association with, doctrinal instruction that needed to be grasped or reaffirmed. To put this in terms of relevance to today, just pressuring people to act appropriately is never appropriate. They need to be gripped by the reality of who God is and what He has done/is doing. They need to see themselves and the gospel clearly.

2. The apostles never assume the believers all know the basics. I could imagine some of us today writing a contemporary epistle along these lines: “Okay, so we all know who God is and what the gospel is, of course, so let’s get to the nitty gritty . . . ” The apostles didn’t do that. Even after spending months or years teaching in a church, they still chose to reinforce and re-communicate the truths of the faith. Why? Perhaps because they knew people didn’t easily grasp the wonderful realities of the gospel.

More thoughts tomorrow…

Wide View Application

March 20, 2013 / Peter Mead / 6 Comments

If we are not careful we can easily misfire when it comes to applying Bible texts. One cause of dangerous misfiring comes from too narrow a view of the text. The result is application that functions as a legalistic burden – appealing to the flesh, but not consistent with the gospel.

In Narratives Look Up. In Bible stories we can easily focus on the human characters and determine to copy or not copy them. The moral of this story is . . . oops. This is a recipe for burdensome preaching. It is not a recipe for gospel preaching. It is not really good news that the Bible is full of examples for us to copy or not copy in our own strength. We need to always look up. The characters are not just humans in action, they are humans living in response to God and His Word. Their response is instructive, but we don’t live as their copycats, we live as people responding to God and His Word too. In preaching narratives, be sure to use a wider view and include the divine dimension.

In Epistles Look Out. In epistles we can easily focus on the commands and determine to obey them. The lesson for today is . . . oops. This is a recipe for burdensome preaching. It is not a recipe for gospel preaching. It is not really good news that the Bible is full of imperatives for us to harvest and apply in our own strength. We need always to look out. The imperatives and commands are not just stand alone instructions for holy living, they are imperatives and commands coming in the context of a whole letter that was written to be heard in one shot. The recipients would have felt the force of the instruction in light of the gospel content. Ephesians 4 is to applied in light of Ephesians 1-3, otherwise it becomes just another burden for our weary souls. In preaching epistles, be sure to use a wider view and include the divine doctrinal dimension.