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!

The Obvious Early Connection

February 7, 2011February 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

The more traditional approach to preaching was apparently to do all the explanation and then ask where the truth might connect to listeners’ lives at the end. Actually, good preachers have always made their listeners feel connected to the message much earlier than that. There is one point of early connection between listeners and Bible text that is usually fairly obvious.

Ever since Genesis 3 we have all lived in a fallen world. Abram did. David did. Paul did. You do.

This means it shouldn’t be too hard to find a connection between text and world. The people in the text are fallen people in a fallen world. So are we. So unless your study and preparation is taking you down a fruitful pathway other than this, it is probably worth asking what is the fallen world issue in the text? Is it rebellion? Is it doubt? Is it suffering? Is it fear? Is it self-love?

Once you can see what the tension is in the text, brought about by the Fall, then you can probably make a connection to today. So far, so good. But don’t miss the next step.

Make that connection overt.

It is no good knowing it and assuming others spot it. Make it clear. Evident. Stated. It is easy to have this kind of “fallen condition focus” (as Bryan Chapell calls it) in our minds, but then fail to say so in our sermons. You start into the context, tell a bit of historical background, explain a bit culturally, dive into the text, explain freely and before you know it you are almost out of time and start to make some sort of application. Oops. You just did what we said it was better to avoid. Why? Because if a sermon feels like a historical lecture, your listeners won’t, well, listen.

Look for point of connection. Make clear point of connection. And do it early.

Every Conviction is Biblical

January 18, 2011January 12, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Many Christians will readily admit that they struggle to apply the teaching of the Bible to their own lives. Strangely though, very few will admit that their convictions may not be thoroughly biblical. Every church, every tradition and every denomination has its own little quirks and unique approaches to things. What is true of churches is true of the people in the churches too. The problems come not from having quirks, but from defending them as biblical when in fact they are not.

How should the church service proceed, how should it be led, how should the music be handled, what is not acceptable in terms of instruments, what can happen in the church building on a Sunday, what time should the service begin, how exactly should the communion table be set out, how many cups can be used, and the list goes on. It is amazing what church details people will hold as strong biblical untouchable convictions. After all, they have a verse to support their position!

So it seems to me that preachers have a prime responsibility to guide, instruct and model in this minefield of application. Some preachers never apply. Others always offer the same applications (trust God, go share your faith, live good lives, etc.) But if we don’t go beyond this, then people will never learn to apply in the areas of the sometimes bizarre church convictions. Surely we want the people in our churches to be enjoying the fullness of personal relationship with the Trinity through Christ, rather than perpetuating sometimes bizarre convictions about all sorts of details and almost believing that Christianity consists in those convictions?

In the next post I want to share some thoughts on application in preaching, specifically in reference to the kind of “incidental detail of Scripture held as deep biblical conviction” that we sometimes come across. Hopefully there is none of this in your church. But don’t be surprised if there is.

Less of a Beating

January 14, 2011January 11, 2011 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

It’s not true in every case, but for many people it is. Let’s say Person A has an issue with Person B. Perhaps Person A runs through how he might address Person B beforehand, or perhaps he is talking it through with his wife first. When Person B isn’t present, Person A tends to be much stronger in tone. But once they are face to face, Person A will typically be more winsome, more loving, more caring for the feelings of Person B. (There are exceptions, but let’s not get into psychologically profiling people who struggle interpersonally!)

There’s something in this that is analogous to preaching, I think. Let’s suppose you are preaching a biblical passage that contains an instruction from Jesus to his disciples. As preachers we have a tendency to turn any biblical text into an assault on the congregation. It could be encouraging, comforting, tender, sensitive, or gentle, but in the hands of an unthinking preacher, it will easily come across as harsh exhortation. Why does that happen?

I think there are various reasons for this phenomena including a misunderstanding of God, or of how people function, or are motivated, or what Christianity is, or often, just a lack of awareness of how we come across. But I wonder if there is also something in the difference between abstraction and in-person communication that I raised in the first paragraph?

We can easily take the words in a text and pull them out of their historical and interpersonal setting, turning them into a more harsh and abrasive instruction than was the case originally. Pulling an exhortative statement from its context and preaching it as bare instruction will usually feel more like the command that must be obeyed (drill instructor) than an instruction set in the context of interpersonal communication.

Did the disciples feel Jesus was barking out orders when he spoke to them of trusting in God, or of loving one another, or how they should pray, etc.? I suspect not. Somehow in person there would have been a more winsome force involved, the engagement of lives as the setting in which His instruction would have intrigued, motivated, drawn out, stirred, and moved them.

What to do? My suggestion is to be wary of excising the instruction from its narrative setting in order to preach it as instruction today. Better to help listeners imagine being there, being in the sandals of the disciples, feeling what they felt, stirring what stirred in them. Essentially it is about honouring the narrative force of the text rather than over-processing it into bite sized directions for today. Don’t treat every text as a mere collection of principles to be plucked out and fired at our listeners. Instead help the listeners to encounter the people in the text and to be stirred by that, very different, experience.

Get the Idea? – Part 1

December 28, 2010December 30, 2010 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Over the past few years I’ve come across quite a number of people who talk about preaching and recommend Haddon Robinson’s book, but don’t really understand Robinson’s teaching on the subject. It seems that some people are impressed with aspects of the book, Biblical Preaching, but don’t really grasp some of the core teaching of it. In particular, the nature and power of the Big Idea in preaching. Today I’d like to focus on communication, but will continue the series tomorrow in respect to biblical studies, then finish with a focus on the Spirit of God. Do we really get the Big Idea?

Continue reading →

A Point on Points

December 27, 2010December 25, 2010 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

As you outline your message you will probably have some points. My suggestion is to write full sentences that are applicationally/relevantly focused on the listeners (rather than historical/biblical summary statements).

But, you may say, I like to preach the point inductively and arrive at the application toward the end of the point. Of course, that is the normal approach. My suggestion should not therefore be dismissed. Why?

1. Because a brief taste of relevance early in the point will increase the listener’s motivation to listen. You can quickly go back to the text and develop things from there, ending up with a more focused applicational element. Just like in a message, though, if your point starts historical and takes a while to feel relevant, listeners may not be with you once you get there.

2. Because what you write as your point in your outline does not have to be stated at that point in the message. It is a common fallacy that a sermon has to follow its outline so that every line is said in order. The “point” can be the target toward which that section of the message progresses. The advantage of this approach is that you preach with a purpose, rather than starting with a historical summary statement and then expanding that, eventually moving on to the next point after a token attempt at applying the text (sometimes not fully thought through). In a sense, then, your outline point is your fully thought through main idea of that section of the text. Whether you state that at the outset, or later on, is up to you (perhaps you can choose a marker in your notes to indicate that this shouldn’t be stated up-front).

3. Because the commentary-like summary statement is lacking on several fronts. As I already stated, it leaves you open to fading away before you arrive at the point of connection between the world of the Bible and the world of your listeners (you may not effectively build the bridge). Furthermore, a commentary-like summary, or a pithy alliterated heading, is not typically a complete thought. Better to plan a full sentence since thought is transferred by the speaking of ideas, requiring full sentences. To preach with sub-headings sounds like a read outline and requires the listener to fill in the rest of the thought. Generally it is not wise to trust the listener to fill in much of anything in a message (not because of their lack of ability, but because you may not have fully gripped their focus so that they desperately want to do part of your job for you!)

Full sentence, relevant points will make your outlines stronger. They may not make the best 200 word Christian newspaper outlines, but remember, your goal is to preach a sermon. Let your editor turn it into written language before you go to print, don’t make your listeners translate in order to understand!

Expository Preaching – Showcasing What?

December 22, 2010 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I am strongly committed to expository preaching. But a lot of what is called expository seems to fall short. For many it seems to have become an exegetical showcase, or a structural/creativity showcase, or a prideful showcase of arrogant orthopraxy.

Exegetical Showcase. For many, expository preaching is essentially to be equated with effective outlining of a text to demonstrate the skill of the preacher in accurate exegesis. Actually, I hesitate to say skill in accurate exegesis, because often outlining of texts seems to lead to a message other than the text’s message – perhaps a show of doctrinal orthodoxy, or an exercise in structural balancing. Nevertheless, for many, expository preaching has become an opportunity to show the fruit of their exegetical labour as if that were an end in itself. Be accurate, please, but don’t think that accurate presentation of a text is expository preaching.

Structural / Creativity Showcase. I hinted at this above. This is where the sermon is an opportunity to demonstrate the ability of the speaker to create a balanced, parallel, aurally or visually appealing and supposedly memorable outline based on a text. There tends to be a value placed on tripartite structuring and balanced insertions of “illustrative” materials. The connections to expository sermonic expectations are clear on many levels, but the connections to the text can be strenuous at times. This isn’t what expository preaching is about – this is a culturally defined expectation trained into listeners (and yielding very affirming feedback!)

Arrogant Orthopraxy Showcase. I suppose this is tied to the previous point. This is where the preacher is concerned, perhaps subconsciously, to demonstrate that their preaching is in line with their heroes (usually in the current generation, sometimes historical figures). The concern seems to be to declare that “I am a true expository preacher!” It is amazing how much insecurity we see in the church as people seem desperate to play the association game, name drop, seek approval, etc.

Expository preaching is not about displaying the preacher’s skill in exegesis, or craft in sermon construction, or association with a certain camp of evangelical Christianity. Expository preaching should come from an accurate understanding of the nature of Scripture, not a commitment to sermonic form or fashion. Expository preaching should come from a passion for God’s inspired and relevant Word to be communicated clearly to specific people that they might respond to Him.