Knowing the Unknowable?

August 4, 2011August 4, 2011 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Yesterday I wrote about thinking through how your listeners will hear what you say so you can pre-empt misunderstandings. Dave commented and asked what to do with a new/unknown group of listeners? Great question. I don’t have the answer, but I do have some thoughts. Please comment to add yours.

1. An unknown congregation is not unknown to God. So pray. Pray for them. Pray for the preaching. Pray that God will help you to find the information that will help you! This is no substitute for the three ideas that follow, but it is foundationally important.

2. An unknown congregation can become known by enquiry. That is, you might be able to ask and learn about a church ahead of time. Ask the person who invited you to speak. Call and speak to someone in leadership and express that you simply want to get a pulse in order to communicate more effectively. Look at their website (don’t judge a church by its website, even though others will). When you arrive, talk to the person who gets you wired up with the mic, and the person who meets you at the door, and the person sitting next to you, etc. Ask questions and you will get to know a church more.

3. An unknown congregation can become more known by observation. It is amazing what you can deduce by observing during the twenty or thirty minutes before a meeting, as well as during the first part of the service. Good observation skills make the world of difference.

4. An unknown congregation have some things in common with known congregations. The first two may be neither possible nor fruitful, but this one is. I think preachers need to be good students of human nature. Bryan Chappell writes about the Fallen Condition Focus in his book on preaching. His point is that when you see the influence of the Fall in a narrative, then the contemporary listener will find that narrative relevant, no matter how obscure it might be. The same applies here. People tend to fall into similar patterns of error, of misunderstanding the gospel, of church behaviour, of needing encouragement, of hunger, yet inadequacy, stressed, uncertain, etc.

I’d love to hear more on this. How do you, when you are preaching to an unfamiliar group, overcome the unfamiliarity?

Preaching As

August 2, 2011August 2, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I was enjoying conversation with a good friend yesterday. Together we were reflecting on the role of preaching in the life of the local church. It is such a full-orbed role, isn’t it? After all, as preacher this Sunday, you have the opportunity to preach as . . .

Teacher – The flock needs to be fed, and the preacher has the privilege of offering the food of God’s Word. This is certainly an educational role, but it is much more than education. Hearts and well as minds need to be fed. Lives need nourishing on the Word of God. As the text is expounded, there is massive opportunity for God to be presented (although some manage to preach the text without presenting God!) Teach, or they starve.

Leader – The flock needs to be led, and the preacher has the privilege of offering direction and example from God’s Word. Too easily we separate leadership from preaching. Either different people fulfill the roles, or different types of communication are used to lead than to preach. Why? The preacher has a unique opportunity to offer leadership to the congregation.

Shepherd – The flock needs to be cared for, and the preacher has the privilege of caring as the Word is presented. It is easy to think of pastoral care as a function of visitation, but how much can also be done from the pulpit? As a listener you can tell the difference between being cared for and being talked at. The preacher should care and let it show.

Defender – The flock needs to be protected, and the preacher has the privilege of defending the flock with the offering of the Word. Some don’t like this notion. They want all preaching to be sugar sweet and positive. But the reality is that there are false teachers and false teachings that are a definite threat to the flock, the preacher can defend as they preach the Word.

Evangelist – The flock needs to be growing, and the preacher has the privilege of offering the gospel as they preach the Word. Again, don’t assume that another person, another time, another role or office should take care of this. The preacher has the opportunity to clarify the gospel and call on listeners for response.

I Needed That

July 22, 2011July 15, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Following on from yesterday’s post about vicarious conviction, there is a related matter to stir up a bit. It is the appetite in the church for “I needed that” sermons. Don’t get me wrong, there are times when a sermon should sensitively but clearly touch the raw nerve of sin with deep conviction. Sometimes the Bible speaks in such a way that we feel lovingly stung by the disciplining word of God our Father. But I am not writing about that. I am writing about sermons that some church goers seem to appreciate because of the scourging they feel somehow cleansed by.

1. The flesh is drawn to religion.

We see it all over the world. Humans are religious. In the absence of divine revelation they will define religion according to predictable patterns: working to satisfy a distant deity by fulfillment of self-imposed regulations. Strangely though, even in the presence of grace-filled divine revelation, churchgoers are so prone to define their religion in similar terms: working to satisfy a distant deity by fulfilling self-imposed regulations. That’s the tendency of the flesh, isn’t it? The pre-programmed flesh continues to tend toward independence from God, even in the midst of supposedly worshipping Him.

2. The church always veers toward maturation by works.

What Paul was fighting in Galatians, and elsewhere, is still prevalent today. Who is it that bewitches us to think that having begun by faith we will then mature by means of keeping the law, working hard, beating ourselves, etc? Too many in supposedly Bible-believing churches are acting as functional members of another tradition where enduring a beating in a sermon is akin to purging the soul by means of climbing stone steps on our knees, or whatever.

3. The whipping preacher will always receive affirmation.

Here is the piece that always stuns me. If you hang around near a preacher that has just spent the sermon time whipping the congregation, some will come up and affirm the sermon! Is this a spiritual machismo that stands up after a beating and laughs it off with a “is that all you’ve got?” I suspect it is often the same kind of false understanding of salvation described above. Effectively it might be “thanks for the whipping today, I needed that, and now I feel as purged spiritually as I do physically after a hard session in the gym!”

Are you preaching the pseudo-gospel of guilt and pressure? Are you urging people via moralistic tirades to be better Christians? Do you get comments like “We needed that!” and “I like that kind of preaching!”

In the grossly inaccurate Da Vinci Code there is an albino Opus Dei monk hitman. If you saw the film you’ll remember his self-flagellation in his room. Whip in hand, back sliced open. Don’t preach for that effect. Dan Brown’s story may be compelling, but that scene is not an effect your listeners truly need you to give them when you preach!

Preacher, Encourage!

July 13, 2011July 13, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Everyone needs encouragement. We need it as preachers. So we shouldn’t be surprised if our listeners do too! And yet, strangely, something that everyone needs, and everyone acknowledges is needed, seems to be strangely absent in a significant amount of preaching. Let me encourage you to encourage people as you preach.

Don’t think exhortation is encouragement. There is a need for exhortation, but people need to be encouraged too. Exhorting involves persuasion and a hint of rebuke, but encouragement injects hope, confidence and life.

Don’t think guilt is encouragement. To put it simply, it is not. Guilting people into conformity is a shortcut that may yield results, but it will be short-lived and counter-productive. Allow guilt to come by the conviction of the Spirit, but don’t add guilt where guilt is not the issue – that is a form of legalism.

Don’t think that enthusiasm is encouragement. Your enthusiasm may be contagious, but people may sit impressed by your passion, yet not feel encouraged in their own. Think through how to invest rather than simply demonstrate enthusiasm in your preaching.

There are other things we may offer and think we are being encouraging. But consider both your passage and your listeners, how can this be preached in a way that will encourage them? Robinson talks about the need for ten encouraging messages for every one rebuke. It is so counterproductive when we get that ratio reversed. Be encouraged as you read the Word, and look to share that encouragement as encouragement!

Truth and Vision

July 11, 2011July 11, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

When we preach the truth, it should stir vision. Many preachers hope that will occur. Good preachers make sure it does.

As you preach through a text it will be offering a vision – a vision of what God is like, a vision of God’s purposes, a vision of what His people should be like in response to Him, a vision of what the world could be like. The problem is that it is too easy to preach truth from a text and feel like the job is done.

The preacher’s task is not only to understand the text (specific), in its context (general), but also to know the listeners (specific) in their context (general). This includes knowing how the message will come across. So there is the detailed part of communication – i.e. do they understand what I mean by each word and each sentence. But there is also the broader part of communication – i.e. have they been able to envision the bigger picture of what is going on here? Too often we settle for being understood at an atomistic level, but fail to make the most of the broad vision casting opportunity.

So when we preach, we should be asking ourselves, and God, what does this passage depict for us? Is it speaking of the fallen condition of humanity and God’s great redemptive work? Is it speaking of God’s character and attractiveness? Is it painting a portrait of what the body of Christ should look like? Is it suggestive of all that an individual believer, or local church, could be and do in response to Christ? Try to see the big picture on the applicational side, the listeners’ side of the divide.

Once you catch a clear glimpse of the bigger picture (again, I am speaking of the bigger picture on the listeners’ side, rather than just the passage in its context, which is vital for understanding the specifics), then look for ways to help the listener to hear and to see that scene. A visionary message, in this sense, will stir hearts and lift listeners in motivation. It will rouse tired hearts. It will move stuck believers.

Each passage is a specific painting in the greater collage of God’s great canon. Each sermon is an opportunity to stir hearts with something bigger than understanding a specific painting.

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!

Tone Deaf Preaching

July 5, 2011July 5, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

You won’t hear me starting a chorus in public. Tone deaf. But what about preaching? Is there a need for aural sensitivity in the preacher? I think there is, absolutely.

What is the tone of the text? Some preachers deal with texts as flat data sets offering them a set of information from which to draw a textually rooted sermon (which is better than those who use the text as a springboard to bounce off to reach the heights of their own constructed sermonizing!) But if we are going to be genuinely biblical preachers, then we must develop a sensitivity for the tone of the text. Galatians 1 is very different from Philippians 4, which is neither Psalm 51 nor Isaiah 40. What is the tone of the text? Without sensitivity to the tone, you aren’t grasping a text properly.

What is the tone of your preaching? It doesn’t matter how good a sermon may be on paper, your congregation have to hear you preach it. This means how it comes across is very important. If you are consistently coming across as nagging, or edgy, or aggressive, or disrespectful, or patronizing, or prideful . . . and if you don’t know it, this is a problem. Ask for honest feedback. Listen to yourself. Watch yourself. Is the tone what you want it to be? Is the tone what the text suggests? Is the tone what they need it to be?

The tone of the text. The tone of the preacher. Some preachers seem tone deaf to both. Good preachers aren’t.

Preacher, What is Your Role – Part 2

June 29, 2011June 28, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday we listed five pseudo-preaching roles that people fall into. Let’s finish the list and in doing so remember that to preach the Bible is to speak God’s Word into the lives of contemporary hearers. So we already considered advice dispenser, public entertainer, time filler, worship balancer, and life coach. Furthermore, preacher, you are not supposed to be:

6. Guilt Giver – It is a generations-old tradition. Selectively quote, misread your passage, partially preach the text. Pound the pulpit, point the finger, induce guilt at every opportunity. After all, waiting for God to touch hearts and change lives can feel like a slow process. So why not hurry it up by coercing people through guilt? Don’t shortcut. Preach the Word.

7. Revelation Provider – The Bible, to some, seems to feel so passe, so old-school, so done. Much more exciting to seek to always offer new revelation. In some circles this is about fresh “thus saith the Lord” declarations, in others this is done surreptitiously through the “I prayed about this and God gave me…” If He truly did, great, give it to us. Yet the preacher has a lifetime of wonderful objective truth to expound. Preach the Word.

8. Exegetical Innovator – Along similar lines, when you are looking at the Bible your job is not to see something new. You don’t have to find obscure little references in Chronicles, nor do you have to see something nobody has ever seen before in Psalm 23 or Romans. This tends to lead into subjective typology and fanciful interpretations. Be faithful. The freshness is still there. Preach the Word.

9. Societal Commentator – Oh it is inevitable that we do speak about and into the contemporary state of society. But that is not our main job. Instead of waxing forth on societal ills, speak to the people listening. They need to hear from God’s Word. If your main aspiration is to be a commentator, write for the local paper. If you are going to preach, preach the Word.

10. Rhetorical Artist – Maybe you’ve noticed how many contemporary preachers have become so “natural” in delivery style. Surely something is being lost. Don’t descend into maintaining earlier generational styles of hyper-alliteration, tongue-rolling flourishes, affected vocal delivery and wooden gestures deemed appropriate only for preaching. Preach the Word.

What would you add to this list?

Preacher, What Is Your Role?

June 28, 2011June 28, 2011 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Donald Sunukjian’s short definition of preaching is “Listen to what is God saying . . . to us?” Simple, maybe overly so, but helpful nonetheless. Preaching is something about God speaking through His Word to us now. But somehow it is easy to slip into some roles that really aren’t preaching. Preacher, you are not supposed to be:

1. Advice Dispenser – You may think people have a high view of your wisdom, or your office, but don’t descend into constantly offering your advice. People may pay big money to go hear Self-Help Gurus, but they are almost certainly not coming to your church primarily because of your advice. Preach the Word.

2. Public Entertainer – Of course you shouldn’t be drab and dull, the Bible is exciting and energising and it is good news. This is precisely the point. Don’t feel you need to “make it interesting” and get caught up in the excitement of making people happy and descend into the role of public entertainer. Preach the Word.

3. Time Filler – Sometimes church can feel like a routine that must needs be fulfilled week after week. And sometimes it does seem that you could waffle and say nothing much between end of sung worship and closing hymn (and still get affirming handshakes afterwards). Don’t descend into filling time. Unique opportunity. Preach the Word.

4. Worship Balancer – You may never have thought of this, and I don’t want to give ideas, but some seem to see it as their job to bring balance. After all the love and tenderness of the singing (especially some strains of modern worship), don’t descend into a balancing act of bringing the punch, the guilt, the stress, the duty. Whiplash. Preach the Word.

5. Life Coach – Speaking of self-help gurus, we have a massive arsenal of feel good stories to use in the anthology of self-help called the Bible. Oh wait, don’t do that. Shifting to a human-centred handling of the Bible guts it of its power and point. Don’t descend into some sort of life coaching role. Better spouse. Better parent. Better bill-payer. Stop. Preach the Word.

We’ll finish the list tomorrow, but feel free to add your own…

One Simple Truth

June 27, 2011June 27, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I have to admit, I like a lot of what Andy Stanley has to say about preaching. One thing he does well is to say all that needs to be said, but without over packing the sermon. He sometimes speaks of preaching “one simple truth.” This issue tends to stir a reaction one way or the other:

On the one hand there are those that simply can’t find their way through a download of exegetical information. It is all too foreign. Too distant. Too technical. Too alien. Too irrelevant. So a dense sermon will leave little to no mark on them, other than boring them away from God and His Word.

On the other hand there are those that simply can’t cope with a sermon so simple that they gain nothing new from the experience of listening. It is all too simple. Too be there, done that. Too basic. So a lightweight sermon will leave little to no mark on them, other than boring them away from God and His Word (and probably exacerbating their pride, which helps nobody!)

So what to do? I don’t advocate simplistic preaching, nor dense preaching. I think we need to prayerfully pursue an engaging and accessible re-presentation of the biblical text, seeking to apply the text to the hearts and lives of those listening. With this as our goal, we should be able to satisfy most who want something of substance. At the same time, a loving consideration of listeners will allow us to avoid going over the heads of the listeners. It is our job to make the difficult accessible.

There may be a handful that can’t ever be pleased. Anything more than “do this, do that” and it is too complex. Anything less than rabbinical midrash and never-before-seen pesher and it is too basic. But for the most part, engaged and touched listeners will not be thinking “too basic” or “too complex.”

It is the disengaged and untouched that tend to swell the ranks of dissenters and create the tension.