Preaching Myths #2 – Cool Preaching

August 3, 2013 / Peter Mead / 5 Comments

Here’s another idea that bounces around in various forms, but I think should be probed a bit:

“Cool preaching attracts people.”

This could be the thinking of church leaders who decide to go with a “cool preaching” option in order to seek growth. Or it could be the critique of traditional church folks who are looking sideways at a different church which has a perceived “cool factor” and is growing faster than their church is. When used as a critique, it tends to carry with it the implication that such a church must be dumbing down, softening, weakening, diluting or corrupting the gospel in some way.

Before critiquing the myth, I suppose both thoughts can be affirmed. Some churches do make superficial style issues a driving factor in their growth strategies and in some cases it does seem to attract people (although any style may well put others off coming in the first place, even a contemporary style).

And indeed, some contemporary styled churches have weakened the gospel leading to shallow conversions and poor discipleship. But let’s be fair here, some traditional styled churches have weakened the gospel leading to shallow conversions and poor discipleship too! Sweeping generalizations about contemporary versus traditional are very naive.

So, does cool preaching attract people? I would say that it might, but probably not. The primary people who tend to be attracted to “cool Christianity” may well be Christians whose tradition store has become overstocked and they want to try something different.

Three thoughts:

1. Christ attracts people. Re-read the gospels and notice how normal and broken people were so drawn to Jesus.

2. Christlike communities attract people. If people are not drawn to Jesus today, it is probably because their exposure to his body is cluttered by other baggage and distraction. A community being transformed by the love of God so that they love each other (like Christ) will spill outwards in love to the community (like Christ) and thereby be a magnet to broken people (like Christ).

3. Effective preaching engagingly communicates what matters. Cool preaching without biblical substance is see through. People may well see through “cool-empty” just as they may see through “traditional-empty” (although sadly there will be those who don’t see through one or the other). So what then for our preaching?

A. We must seek to get the substance right: the Bible offered engagingly, the gospel full and clear, and the presentation of God in Christ as clear as the incarnation requires.

B. We must seek to remove unnecessary obstacles: issues of delivery, packaging, presentation, and content need to be carefully evaluated to make sure that people are not choosing to walk away from the gospel because of something other than the gospel.

Being cool is not the goal in preaching, unless you are wanting to temporarily attract young disenchanted Christians. Cool is really not the issue at all, but recognize that in your pursuit of best substance, obstacle-light preaching, you will probably be critiqued for being “cool” but shallow. Make sure you’re not.

Preaching Myths #1 – Pew Trust

August 2, 2013August 2, 2013 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

I may not debunk these myths fully, but I do hope to make us think. Here’s one:

“Put effort into a one-off evangelistic preaching event in your church and people will bring people.”

Many churches recognize the need for preaching (as well as everything else), to be targeted if unchurched folk are going to be interested and understand. So periodically we might have an evangelistic “guest service” and encourage our people to bring people. Some will. But churches often struggle with why the majority won’t bring anyone. Perhaps the non-guest-bringers are just not as committed? Or perhaps it is something else altogether. Could it be:

1. They don’t have any meaningful contact with non-Christians. This is sadly too common. Too many church folks either feel woefully incapable of meaningful spiritual conversation or they are so busy with church activities that they have no time for meaningful relationships with anyone else.

2. They are not motivated to see others get saved. This points to issues in their spiritual maturity, and the answer will not be more arm-twisting and pressure tactics. Instead the church leaders need to think through actually helping them grow spiritually.

Perhaps the majority of people don’t bring people because they are very committed to reaching their friends, family, colleagues and neighbours! Bringing a contact into church for an evangelistic event is a big step of trust:

3. Perhaps they don’t trust the church or event. Here are some questions your church folk may be asking:

A. Do I trust the church to give my contact a good exposure to Christianity? This means more than just the preaching. Will they feel welcome? Will people talk to them? Will it feel awkward? Will there be unnecessary obstacles to their coming to faith in Christ?

B. Do I trust the speaker? Will the speaker be warm-hearted or fiery and offensive? Will the speaker offer good news, or just a cringe-worthy critique of society today? Will the speaker speak in Christian-ese and preach to the choir, or will the speaker be relevant, engaging, interesting, clear? Which version of the gospel will be preached? How will the speaker end the message – strong appeal, awkward appeal, gentle landing? If it is a guest speaker, do I even know him or his plan?

C. Do I trust the following weeks? Huh? People look beyond the evangelistic event? Some do. I do. What if my colleague enjoys it and wants to come back, will church continue to be a good exposure to Christianity for them? Who is speaking next week? What will that experience be like?

D. Do I trust the discipleship ministry of the church? Let’s say my colleague becomes a follower of Christ, wonderful! Now, will the church be able to effectively disciple them?

Simply having an evangelistic event and pressuring folk to bring people is not enough. As my good friend puts it, “I don’t want seeker-sensitive, but I do want seeker-safe.” What has your church done to make this kind of outreach more effective? What do you wish your church would do?

Ten Top Testimony Tips

July 19, 2013July 13, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Testimonies can be so powerful, but there is an inherent risk that is not often mentioned: testimonies are often given by people who are not used to public speaking. I believe anyone giving a testimony should be given instruction, but especially someone unused to the situation and what is expected. Most testimonies that I have heard where things didn’t quite go according to the hopes of the organizers were testimonies where the person giving it was not instructed properly. So here are my top tips:

1. Don’t teach. Simple. Don’t see this as your chance to teach. It is not the desire of the organizers that you teach. Giving teaching in place of testimony is unhelpful, and giving teaching based on testimony is often ineffective. Keep it clean and just give testimony. You may be asked to teach another time.

2. Don’t turn experience into lessons for others, let God do that. It is so easy to finish what happened to you with a lesson for them. It rarely works. Better leave that to God’s Spirit in this case.

3. Only refer to Bible verses if significant to your testimony. Again, this isn’t the time for teaching or biblical exposition. If it made a difference to you in your life story, great, otherwise save it for when you’re asked to preach.

4. Keep to time. If you are given ten minutes, work hard to get it to ten minutes, don’t just free-wheel and drift to 15 minutes. I remember hearing a trio of testimonies back to back and the first chap spoke for longer than was allotted for all three. Everything fell flat after that.

5. Keep it simple. Don’t start elaborating with extensive back story. What was the situation before, what changed, what now? Christ changed your life, tell that story. Don’t tell random other life stories too. And typically don’t pray, just do the testimony and leave prayer, exhortation, application, etc., to the meeting host.

6. Get stuck in, don’t waffle in the introduction. Plan your testimony and really plan your launch. Get stuck in, otherwise minutes will pass before you’ve even begun and then you are already in a losing battle. Many testimonies could be told in the time taken for their own introductions!

7. Be humble. Point to Christ, not to yourself. In fact, point to Christ, not to books, preachers, ministries, etc. If they were significant, make reference in passing, but keep the spotlight on Jesus.

8. Don’t get theologically out of your depth. Plan it so you don’t wade into issues you don’t understand yet. Nothing worse that the awkwardness created by somebody still uninformed making declarations about something currently beyond their reach.

9. Don’t declare things are unexplainable just because you don’t understand them yet. This could be the “you can’t explain it, just believe it . . . leap in the dark” kind of confusion often offered by new believers freezing in front of informed folk. Or it could be the “nobody can explain the end-times/predestination/creation/Trinity” type of theological assertions.

10. Don’t worry about your nerves, everyone expects you to be nervous. They want to hear you and will probably listen better to you than the more assured preacher.

And last of all, remember this – when a testimony doesn’t work as planned, it is probably because the organizers failed to make expectations crystal clear. Testimonies are so powerful, let’s use them well!

Gospel Dimensions 3

July 12, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In the last two days I have made some suggestions as to how a limited view of God and humanity will tend to undermine our preaching. What about our view of sin?

1. When we see the problem as partial rather than total. How often have we heard, or said, that if God’s pass mark is 50, then even a 49 is still falling short of the glory of God? Therefore even the most “perfect” performer of self-righteousness can be caught out because they must have at least stolen a biscuit when they were small or a paperclip from work in recent years. Perhaps we say imagine a perfect white sheet of paper, then put a dot of ink on it . . . no longer perfect. Heaven is perfect, etc. This is all true, but dangerously untrue at the same time. Hypothetically a person could be a 49/50 performer, but in reality, nobody is. To put it another way, we are all zero out of 50 because self-righteousness is not the goal. Sin is not about independent performance according to a standard. The standard reveals our independent performance and abject failure. The independence is a huge part of the issue, so our paper is not mostly white, it is completely covered in blotched ink. And that ink comes in two colours:

2. When we see the problem as naughtiness. Naughtiness is like blue ink. It is the colour of the younger son’s track record as he crawls back wearing swine deodorant from the far country. But naughtiness is not the extent of sin. It is one manifestation, but it is not the whole deal. The Bible does not say we have all been naughty and fallen short of the performance levels of God. Independent self-righteousness is red ink. You may prefer red, but it still covers the white of the page when splashed liberally onto it. Our righteousness is like filthy rags before a God who longs for hearts to not be far from Him. Some human sheets are mostly blue. Some are mostly red. None have any white showing. I am trying different ways to say the same thing: our sin is far worse than we realise!

3. When we see the problem as a hindrance rather than death. Broken will? Clouded uninformed mind? Slightly marred record? Sin goes deeper than all of this. The heart of the human sin problem is the human heart. That is where we are dead toward God, dead in our self-love, dead because life is found in relationship with God. And we cannot fix our own hearts. Fully dead in sin, and fully unable to do a thing about it.

If we present sin as petty naughtiness, then we will preach the good news that a petty God is willing to put up with our paperclip theft. Hardly the gospel. And if we preach a shallow or superficial portrait of sin, then we can very easily offer a gospel of heavenly benefits to people whose hearts remain far from Him. Is this not an anti-gospel?

Gospel Dimensions 2

July 11, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday we pondered how small thinking about God will negatively shape our preaching. What about our dimension estimates of humanity? Again, this can really make a difference to our preaching.

1. When we see humanity as too elevated. I suspect everything I will write in this post about humanity will really be leaning toward tomorrow’s post about sin. I’m convinced that we simply don’t grasp how profound our problems actually are. We swim in the brine of a post-Genesis 3 world and we are saturated to the core of our being, but don’t realize it. Consequently our view of humanity can easily get too elevated, while losing sight of how special we are. The issue is God’s image. What does it mean to be made in God’s image? When we corrupt the image language of Genesis 1 with notions of autonomy, authority and rule apart from relationality, then we end up with a mis-measured humanity. The wonder of humanity is that we are made in the image of a relational God and we are made for relationship with Him. Too much of our gospel-vision lacks a real grasp of how deep that design goes. Instead we fall for a mis-measured human vision of autonomy, rule and authority. Suddenly the image of God is about god-like qualities of abstract thinking and self-definition and self-determination and dominion over others and rule over creation . . . and our thinking about Genesis 1 (image) sounds and smells like Genesis 3 (hiss).

2. When we see humanity too individually. This is another way of saying essentially the same thing. I suspect many of us are better at spotting individuality in our reading of the New Testament than we are at spotting it in our reading of humanity. That is to say, I suspect many of us know that the “you” of the epistles is usually “you all” rather than “you and you and you and you.” It makes a difference. Especially for us English speakers who don’t distinguish you singular from you plural. We are saved into a corporate entity called the church, not given separate and distinct individual memberships for our own benefit. So we hopefully see that on a horizontal level, but I suspect we still fall into seeing humans as stand-alone creatures. It is the world that measures life and success by the items listed on a curriculum vitae or resume. Our identity does not consist in our collection of capacities (education, experience, skills, references), but rather in the fabric of relationships with which we are enriched. If we don’t grasp the difference, we will preach a gospel that tends toward personal benefits and relational disconnection.

3. When we see humanity as inherently good, but hindered. I am out of words, but this can lead into tomorrow. How bad is our problem? Do we have a broken will that needs enabling? Do we have a clouded mind that needs clearing? Or is the problem much deeper and more devastating?

Gospel Dimensions

July 10, 2013July 10, 2013 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

When our view of the gospel is too small, then our preaching will always fall short. Here are some gospel dimensions to pursue:

1. How good is your God?

2. How needy are your listeners?

3. How bad is our sin?

4. How transformative is God’s grace?

When our view of God is too small, our view of humanity is too elevated, our view of our sin is too shallow and our view of God’s grace as too weak, then our preaching of the Bible will always be inadequate. Let me take the first one and suggest a couple of ways our view of God can fall short of the biblical teaching:

1. When we see God as a split personality held in internal dynamic tension. You know how this one goes, God is loving, but he is also something else. It is sort of an endorsement of love, but balanced with holiness, or power, or something. Where does the Bible promote a 50:50 balance in God? I would suggest that we need to read our Bibles more and start to see how God’s “balancing” attributes actually only make sense in the context of who He is. God is not holy in an isolated separation. God is set apart in the perfection of His intra-trinitarian perfect love. This is not to say that God is somehow pro-sin, of course He isn’t. Our minds go there because we have not grasped how relational reality actually is. When justice and love become conflicted perspectives, then we will always hold back slightly on our belief in and presentation of the good news that God so loved that He gave . . .

2. When we see God as a powerful benefactor/butler who needs convincing to act. This is another common perspective. It is about taking a shallow awareness of God’s goodness and combining it with a self-centred perspective on reality. Unless the sin issue is engaged and addressed, then God’s goodness can become corrupted by our preaching into a celestial vending machine for which we need the magic technique. Put the money in the slot, request A7, then smack it on the side and give it a bump. Voila – blessings. This view of God is a corruption of His self-giving goodness . . . it was never intended so that we can be better served in our self-absorption!

3. When we see God as essentially selfish. This is also a common perspective. When our view of God’s glory is not framed in the relational wonder of the self-giving Trinity, then God can become inherently selfish. An inherently selfish God may demand glory from us, but no matter how we dress it up and mix in the fanfare, this will always fall short of the radically different God who gives Himself to us in His Word. We don’t want a sanctified version of all the other gods, we need to know God as He really is.

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.

The Fourth Ingredient

June 28, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

What goes into good preaching? Many point to a mix of three ingredients that are needed:

Biblically Faithful – The message needs to be the message of the text faithfully interpreted and communicated.

Organizationally & Vocally Clear – The listeners need to be able to hear and follow the train of thought.

Contemporarily Relevant – The listeners need to sense that the message is relevant to their life and circumstance.

If preaching could tick these three boxes on a consistent basis, then the church would be healthier by far. But all three can be present and the message can still be painfully dull. Biblical, but dull. Clear, but dull. Relevant, but dull.

So when I evaluate preaching, I always include a fourth necessary ingredient: Interpersonally Engaging. Good preaching needs to be biblical, clear, relevant and engaging.

What goes into engaging?

Engaging content – the content of a message needs to go further than just being biblical and relevant. It engages by being intriguing, or attractive, or gripping, or vivid. The narratives of the biblical text or sermonic illustration need to form images on the screens in listeners’ hearts. The poetry of the text needs to shape images and stirs emotion in the listeners’ hearts. The content needs to captivate listeners so that they can’t help but want to listen.

Engaging delivery – the delivery of a message needs to go further than just being clear. I’ve heard clear preaching that sent me quickly to sleep. Engaging delivery engages through energy – energy appropriate to the situation and personality of the preacher, but energy nonetheless. Energy is not just about hype and volume. It is about facial expression, gesture, movement, vocal variety, eye contact. The delivery, whether big and demonstrative or measured and deliberate, needs to engage the listener in some way.

Motivation to Engage – the key, though, is neither content nor delivery. The key seems to be at the level of the preacher’s motivation. If the preacher is prayerfully prepared to the point that they share God’s heart for the listeners and the situation, then they will want to connect. If they want to connect, then both the content and delivery will tend towards what it should be in order to engage the hearts of those listening. The real issue here is not technique, but motivation for relationship. If the preacher is connected to God and wants to connect with the listener, there is a good chance that they will. And if they do, then there is much greater chance of the preaching being life changing.

Losing our Youth by Dangerous Superficiality

June 19, 2013 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Last night I was chatting with my eldest about her maths homework. As I looked at her workbook I recognized that eventually she will be doing things I can no longer do. For a child there is a progression from basic numeracy, through addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, long division, etc. I expect most parents can cope with these (except long division!) But once the child is working through algebra, geometry, trigonometry and calculus, there is typically the crossing of a threshold in respect to what the parent can readily understand.

So what should the parent do at that point? Hopefully you will start to see the relevance to this site here . . .

1. Become suspicious of the questions and insist that the child go back to basic numeracy.

2. Warn the child of the dangers of sophisticated mathematics and reassert that basic numeracy is all anyone ever needs.

Imagine the child decides they like the subject and wants to chase mathematics to degree level? Uh oh.

Hang on, this makes no sense. No parent that I know would function this way. They would at least cheer the child on, and possibly put some effort in to understanding the subject again or for the first time.

So what do we do in church? Let’s change the subject from mathematics to Christianity. There is a progression. Typically the progression is simple . . . (1) before age 11 tell lots of disconnected stories with a moral sting in the tail, (2) during teenage years speak about issues and hope the youth connect the issues to the disconnected stories, (3) watch them drift away in the sophisticated and heady world of university (if not before).

If a child is progressing to calculus in mathematics, won’t they also be asking very heavy questions in respect to life and faith and eternity? Too often parents, youth leaders and even preachers, are scared by the good questions. Too easily church people retreat into such nonsense as, “you shouldn’t ask questions like that, you will offend God!” or “be careful with your questioning, it could lead you astray!” And these unhelpful comments are sometimes topped off with thoughts like, “the Bible says it, that settles it, we don’t question it, blindly believe it!” Throwing the same few proof texts at good questions will not achieve anything good.

Let’s prayerfully question the children’s and youth ministry in our churches. Let’s prayerfully ponder the preaching in our churches. Are we losing our younger folk by never engaging them properly? Simplistic faith formulae may have worked for you, but they probably won’t for the next generation coming through. If all they see is simplistic “blind faith” and never meet Christians willing to think, to study, to learn, to question, to ponder, to wrestle and to take God seriously, why shouldn’t they be drawn away when they meet a thinking, studying, learning, questioning, pondering, wrestling sophisticated atheist?

Listener Levels: 7 Ways to Add Steak to the Diet

June 13, 2013 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

What if your biblical explanation is typically at a level lower than many of your listeners? What are some suggestions for adding steak to the diet of listeners that are needing it?

1. Pray – Nobody cares about your listeners as much as God, so ask for His coaching.

2. Get feedback – It would be better to know what people think than assume they are needing weightier content. For instance, just because there are seminary professors in your congregation doesn’t mean they want to be “stretched” by your preaching. Good, solid, biblical and faithful preaching that is clear and applicable may be the highlight of their week!

3. Watch and evaluate some great explainers – Watch a preacher who is especially effective at biblical exposition. What is it about their preaching that makes it effective? (You may find they are simpler than you at first imagined . . . our tendency is to think more info, higher vocab and greater complexity is the key to steaky preaching – not so.)

4. Make connections carefully – It doesn’t take any skill to string biblical proof-texts together. There is no licensing for tour guides in the “concordance safari” industry. It does take great biblical awareness to be able to make the links that are appropriate to a message. For instance, learn to look back in the canon and see what is feeding in to the passage (Kaiser’s “Informing Theology”). Learn to value other writing by the same author slightly higher than other writings. This is not as simple as a set of rules, it is an art form.

5. Devour your Bible as if God is worth knowing – To be able to help people make sense of biblical texts, there is no substitute for personal biblical saturation. I’d rather be fed by someone who really knows their Bible than someone who has crammed higher level commentary content in the last days of preparation. (This is not to deny the value of good commentary conversations.)

6. Well-cooked steak is seldom complex – I remember hearing radio ads for a steakhouse in Portland. I was in seminary so could never afford to go there, but it did sound good. What did I expect of a $75 steak? Not lots of extra ingredients and spice overload combined with complex cooking processes. I expected better quality content prepared simply. Same with preaching. When we think about preaching more steaky messages, we tend to crank up the jargon and lose sight of our message purpose. Don’t. Take the time to have better content, but don’t complicate, in fact, simplify sermon structure, etc.

7. The best “theology” is not on the cutting edge of speculation, it is pushing into the big and core questions – Don’t think that steaky biblical explanation comes from speculative originality, whether that be in sensational eschatology, or obscure theological novelty (save that for your PhD). The best steaky biblical explanation comes from showing how the biblical text drives us back to the core questions: who is God and what is He like? What does it mean to be human and made in His image? What is sin and how deep is the problem? What is grace and how does God solve the problem of sin in salvation and Christian growth? God, man, sin, grace and growth. Simple stuff, but if you can let the Bible probe these issues, your steak will be truly life changing.