Tweaking Ingredients in Preaching

October 26, 2011October 23, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I spent my first few years in Italy. One enduring result on this is a long-term liking for Nutella. The original and best chocolate hazelnut spread! Australians might love their vegemite and the Americans their peanut butter, but this European can’t get away from Nutella. Except for when I see it in American shops, that is.

In recent years I have seen it appearing in the grocery store during my visits to the US, and have bought a jar or two. Same jar, same wrapping, same colour, but not same taste. One ingredient is different – just the oil. One ingredient on a long list, but it makes a difference.

The same is true with preaching. One ingredient modified slightly and the whole product can taste wrong. Here are some examples of tweaks that might ruin preaching:

1. Tweaking the tone from good news. Same passage, same illustrations, same length of sermon, but if you replace the good news aspect of the message with pressure to conform, guilt for failure or legalistic righteousness, I guarantee the message won’t taste the same!

2. Tweaking “of” to “from.” This is a common one. Instead of passionately pursuing the preaching of the message of the text, many preachers choose instead to preach their message from the text. That is, they use the biblical text as a starting point, but at the end the listeners don’t feel they know the text any better than at the beginning. Don’t preach from a text, preach the text. (I think this is the hardest one to spot in a mirror – every preacher thinks they are explaining the text. Perhaps you should ask someone who knows the Bible well and be ready to listen to what they tell you!)

3. Tweaking the text to fit an outline. Some preachers don’t go near this neighbourhood, but some seem to live there. Its where the text is twisted slightly to help it fit in a certain outline. Perhaps a three-point alliterated outline. Is that really what the writer was doing in the text? Was that his intended outline? If not, you may leave a sour taste for listeners who sense that you’ve done a bit of a number on the text!

These feel like relatively small adjustments, but they leave a very different impression.

Eternal Preaching – Part 2

October 24, 2011October 21, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Last time I listed and rebutted five reasons that the future has been squeezed out of much of the preaching in our generation (not in every church, but in many). One accusation is that preaching about the future isn’t worth it because it doesn’t offer any contemporary relevance. You know the idea – “pie in the sky when you die” kind of talk, “too heavenly minded to be of any earthly use” and all that. (Support that idea biblically!)

Here’s an application shotgun blast:

Biblical teaching on the future gives us encouragement in trials (John 14:1); comfort in griefs (1Thess.4:13-18); motivation for purification (1John 2:28-3:3); it moves us toward morality (Col.3:1-5ff); it drives us to diligent spotlessness (2Peter 3:14); it leads us to lay aside lusts (Rom.13:11-14); encourages exemplary living (1Thess.5:1-11); fires our faith (Heb.10:35-39); spurs us to strengthen our hearts (James 5:7-8); produces perseverance in our service (1Cor.15:58); fires us to finish well (2Tim.4:7-8); focuses our passion for preaching (2Tim.4:1-2); stirs worship as we see the sovereign plan of God (Rom.11:25-32); and offers blessing for both reading and heeding (Rev.1:3).

I could have added more, but you get the point. (1) There is a lot of biblical content that points our thinking to future things and eternity. I didn’t touch on the gospels, or the Old Testament, in that blast. Two more mega rounds of applicational value. If we are going to preach the Bible, we can’t help but point our listeners to the future.

If we are going to seek biblical transformation in the lives of our listeners, we can’t help but speak of the future. As we see in the blast above, (2) the Bible assumes that our values are shaped by the future. Where you treasure is, there your heart will be also. Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven. Can a follower of Christ really represent Christ in this world without having eternally shaped values?

We live in a world marked by hopelessness. Whether it is the forlorn agony of poverty, or the vain emptiness of wealth, we are surrounded by the hopeless. (3) Of all people, followers of Christ should be marked by hope, which is a biblical fruit of future focus. If we preach a Christianity bereft of future reference, we snap a leg from the stool of truth on which we sit. Sadly too many believers are trying balance on faith and love, but hope is strangely absent.

Let’s be sure to preach the Bible, shaping values and stirring hope.

Eternal Preaching – Part 1

October 21, 2011October 21, 2011 / Peter Mead / 7 Comments

Some sermons do seem to drag on towards eternity, but perhaps too few preach in light of eternity. It seems to me that in many quarters the church has reacted against eschatological sensationalism by removing all reference to the end-times from the pulpit. Perhaps the subject is seen as being divisive, difficult, obscure, irrelevant or embarrassingly sensational and therefore best left alone.

Here are my responses to these five common reasons for avoiding the subject of the future, then next time I’ll offer some positive reasons to go eternal in your preaching.

1. Eschatology is divisive. After all, there are so many views on the millennium, the coming of Christ for the church, the details on the timeline, political implications today, etc. Actually, most issues in the Bible are potentially divisive – the nature of God, the person of Christ, the role of the believer in salvation, the work of the Holy Spirit, etc. If a subject is potentially divisive, surely we shouldn’t avoid it, but watch our attitudes and clarity when we do speak of it?

2. It is difficult. I suspect many a preacher avoids all references to the future because they are pretty sure they aren’t sure where they stand on it all. Like most subjects in the Bible, it is both complicated enough for a doctoral research pursuit, yet simple enough for a child to understand. Avoiding a subject because it is difficult will lead us to missing out on the rich wonder of the Bible, and our listeners will never hear us mention the central subjects like the Triune God, the Incarnation, etc.

3. It is obscure. Uh, no. Biblical reference to the future is not limited to a couple of the more apocalyptic prophets. Every book in the New Testament except one includes reference to the return of Christ, let alone all the other aspects of future teaching. Obscure it certainly is not, if we read the Bible, that is. I suppose the challenge is that many don’t and so judge Christianity by their cultural worldview instead.

4. It is irrelevant. Again, no. We’ll look at applicational value of future thinking next time.

5. It is embarrassingly sensational. Sadly, it can be and often is. There is too much hype and puff coming from some. The solution to that is to offer our listeners the good example of being well grounded biblically, rather than leaving them to become newspaper and paperback theologians.

None of these reasons are enough to kick the future out of our present preaching. Next time, we’ll start stacking up the positive reasons to bring back future and eternal preaching.

Is Everything In Church Life a Preaching Issue?

October 13, 2011October 13, 2011 / Peter Mead / 5 Comments

Church life seems to be a complicated mixture of many issues. There is the biblical/theological, the worshipful, the devotional, the instructional, the personal, the interpersonal, the contemporary, the cultural, the cross-cultural, the politics (in-house), the financial, the counselling, the development of leadership, the infrastructure of programming, the discipleship, the discipline, the pre-marital, the marital, the building issues and on it goes. So is everything a preaching issue?

Yes and no.

No first. I think some have taken well-meaning comments by famous preachers of the past and pushed them to an extreme. More effective preaching from the pulpit should result in less personal crises in the pew (and hence, less time in counselling). In theory there is truth here, but it would be naive to think that sermons alone will do the pastoral care of a church ministry.

Preaching cannot replace the life-on-life ministries of discipleship, mentoring, pre-marital counselling, interpersonal conflict resolution and on the list goes.

The preacher must be very wise and sensitive about levels of specificity in preaching. A specific issue in the church should not automatically be presented from the pulpit, even in cloaked form. So if Mr and Mrs XYZ are facing significant marital issues, that isn’t a preaching issue.

However…

Yes. Preaching is not one distinct category of church ministry to be listed alongside others as a mutually exclusive function in church life. There is good reason for preaching preparation to take a potentially disproportionate amount of time in our weekly schedule. We may do five or ten things in ministry, but if preaching should not be one fifth or one tenth of our focus. Why? Because preaching is a central ministry of the church that can and should influence every other area.

I cannot simply preach to solve the problem of marital conflict in the church, or address the issue of programme overload, or stir a desire for training and growth within the leaders, etc. But my preaching can influence every one of those areas, and more.

How people view the building, each other, the programme, music, training, missions, relationships, and so on can all be influenced by preaching. We mustn’t fall into the trap of seeing preaching ministry as the weekly Bible bit that speaks detached truths to maintain tradition. Rather the preaching is the primary opportunity to shape a biblical ethos in the character of the church. It is the occasion for marking the very DNA of church life with biblical values. It is the foundation on which all aspects of church ministry can flourish.

Is everything a preaching issue? No. But yes.

Woven Threads of Meaning

October 12, 2011October 12, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Here’s a post from back in the early days of this site that I think is worthy of a review (and as in sermon preparation, I’ll find myself tweaking it as I look at it again!)

____________________

Sometimes a passage may prove more complex than it initially appears. This is almost always the case with stories in the Gospels. Christians tend to view each story as a distinct unit that can be pulled out from the context in which it is placed. In reality, each story or account in a Gospel is carefully woven together with others for a purpose.

For example, the stilling of the storm in Mark 4 is placed after, and linked to, the first part of the chapter where Jesus is teaching about the kingdom using parables. The episode is connected to teaching on the small beginnings, but inevitable growth of the kingdom programme. However, in Matthew the account is in a series of miracle stories, quite separate from those same parables (which appear later). While someone might suggest this indicates that what comes before and after is irrelevant to the interpretation of the passage, actually the opposite is true. The stories themselves, just like words, seem to get their meaning not only from within themselves, but also from the company they keep.

So while a story may appear simple to understand, as you study it in its context you often find greater clarity in its meaning and purpose. Then as you consider the context and flow of thought more, the interpretation may become more involved and complex. As a preacher your first priority is not to “find a sermon,” but to do everything you can to understand the passage.

Once you’ve done all that you can to understand the passage, you then have to form the sermon. The temptation will be to dump every element of your study into the sermon. Don’t. What is necessary and helpful? What must be explained, what can simply be stated, what parts of your presentation need proof? How much time do you have to support what you say? Sometimes you will discover that your understanding of a passage has multiple threads of complexity, stretching out through layer after layer of other stories and accounts within the Gospel.

Be thankful for the back-up support you have, but only give as much as is necessary and your listeners can handle. They may be fine with one layer of contextual explanation, but overwhelmed if you present five. Know the passage fully, but also know what your listeners need and are able to take onboard!

This principle applies in every genre – explain as much as necessary, and save as much time as possible for connecting the passage to the people in front of you!

How to Preach the One True God – Part Two

October 1, 2011September 30, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

So do we have to thoroughly define terms every time we mention God? That is, will every sermon be thwarted by a systematics lecture within moments of setting sail from the introduction? Not at all. Here are four suggestions that I think will have cumulative power without disrupting every sermon completely. Remember the first suggestion from yesterday though . . . you need to know the difference between the God defined by philosophy and the one true God who has revealed Himself in the Son and through the Spirit.

2. Repetition of “which God” question – by repeatedly pointing out that not every assumed description of the “one true God” is biblically true of the “one true God.” Some assumptions are true of Him, but not primary in His self-revelation. Just as it can be powerful in an evangelistic setting to ask someone who doesn’t believe in God which God they don’t believe in, so it can be powerful to open the subject up to Christians and ask which God they do believe in. It is a dangerous assumption that all who refer to God mean the same being, or even are clear on who He is. Sadly too many end up assuming a sort of impersonal ultimate force rather than the feeling, thinking, personal, loving creator God of the Bible. Let’s chip away at the naive assumption that everyone basically knows who God is.

3. Emphasis of particular text in light of its context – just as we can overlay a certain set of divine assumptions on the Bible as a whole, so we can easily do that with particular texts. Try to be more nuanced in making clear what a text is offering us as it reveals God. For example, Yahweh high and lifted up in Isaiah 6, holy holy holy . . . needs to be preached in light of Isaiah 1-5, where His heart for the whoring faithless nation who don’t draw near in loving devotion is made clear. Sovereign and holy? Absolutely. Distant, cold, rule-obsessed and uninvolved? Never! Without seeing how God reveals Himself and His heart in chapters 1-5, the sixth chapter can be preached with wrong emphasis, and the last five verses can really end up preaching that other philosophically-driven view of God.

4. Emphasis of particular text in light of complete revelation – that is to say, don’t give the impression that “God” in the Old Testament is just “Father” in New Testament terms. How easy it is to give the mistaken impression that God becomes a trinity when the Son is incarnated. The God of the Old Testament is trinity, even if each particular instance doesn’t make that clear. Was it the Father than spoke face to face with Abraham, that wrestled with Jacob, that spoke to the elders of Israel, etc.? What about the Spirit in the Old Testament? Any time we see “God” referenced in the Bible, we must be sensitive to the content and the informing theology at that point in the progress of revelation, but we shouldn’t forget what we now know more clearly about the one true God being trinity!

5. Since God is trinity, repetition of trinitarian hints are worthwhile – just to reinforce the previous point, don’t feel you have to fully explain the Trinity every time you mention it. Why not intrigue people with a sense of the beautiful attractive wonder of who God really and personally is through trinitarian hints as you preach the Bible. Don’t wait for the overt trinitarian formula to refer to trinity. Don’t miss the Father/Son language and turn that into a generic one-size-fits-all “God” reference as some preachers and authors do (almost giving the impression that the Son is somehow less than God). Don’t ignore the trinity in the Old Testament where there is a hint, and even where there isn’t. After all, we want to preach the one true trinitarian God of the Bible!

Ok, two posts over the daily limit . . . I need to stop, but feel free to comment.

How to Preach the One True God

September 30, 2011September 30, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday’s post sparked some good comments, which in turn have stirred my heart to follow up with another post. It is true that we need to be clear evangelistically which God we are preaching – a friend of mine used the example of Elijah with the prophets of Baal. He didn’t affirm their zeal and assume they had the same deity in mind, just the wrong label, he absolutely set up and followed through on the competition between two deities – one real and the other not. Nevertheless I am not advocating that we copy everything about Elijah’s methodology!

Actually I am not really referring to evangelism at all. My post was about being clear which God we are preaching to those sitting in our church (even if they are all Christians, albeit unlikely). Are we preaching the monadic lory-grabbing power-God of philosophy who can think only of himself? Or are we preaching the relationally self-giving glory-giving God who exists in Trinity and invites us into the circle of his other-centred loving relationality? To know the true God is eternal life, so we desperately don’t want to get this wrong!

Richard’s comment referred to a conversation with a Muslim, “after two hours it dawned on me that though we both affirmed “God”, be it as supreme or “one” or whatever, the “One God” he was talking about was not the “One Trinitarian God” I was talking about.” I’ve had that sensation while in conversation with Christians!

So how can we preach the one true God? Do we end up in lengthy detailed explanations every time we come to a technical term like “Father” or “Son” or even “God?” I don’t think that’s necessary. Now and then an extended explanation, and even a differentiation, can work wonders. (Remember that if you don’t differentiate, they will overlay their selfish and distant and cold God on your selfless and warm-hearted Immanuel God.) But there is also a cumulative power in preaching that can work wonders. Five brief suggestions:

1. Be sure you know the difference between the God defined by philosophical attributes and the God self-revealed in His relationality in the Bible. While many or most of the attributes listed in our systematic theologies are true, we might be wrong-headed thinking that God can be defined without the Son as our point of entry into the discussion. Remember that Jesus didn’t prove his deity by ticking every box in the philosophical attribute list, but the Jewish leadership easily spotted his claim through references to his relationship the the Father. Be sure you really know the difference and are preaching the one true trinitarian God of the Bible. Don’t be guilty of overlay (and probably assume you are, since you’ll naturally assume you aren’t!)

Ok, I said brief, but the post became more than twice my daily limit. So the other four suggestions will be coming tomorrow (I’ll put up a post on Saturday for a change – it’s too important a subject to wait past another Sunday!)

More Help in the Vicinity

September 28, 2011September 25, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday we were thinking about texts that don’t sit up and easily offer engaging and interesting sermon spice. Perhaps they lack illustrative content, or engaging narratival features. The temptation is to relegate the text to a small role in the making of the sermon and break out a couple of humdinger illustrations that you know will stir the listeners. Before you resort to such tactics, I’m encouraging you to poke around in the neighbourhood of the text some more.

Yesterday we thought about the situation of the author and the recipients. Both point to narrative potential, even in the midst of an epistle. Here are a couple more leads to follow before you move on from the desk and get too creative in your sermon preparation:

3. What about a quotation? It’s hard to get through a paragraph in the New Testament without there being a quote or allusion or wording from the Old Testament. A bit of digging here might shine light on the text and offer more angles for the preaching of the text. Of course, good exegesis should have unearthed the quotes, but perhaps another look as a preacher will yield some potential colour for your sermon. Maybe Old Testament story, maybe something in the cross-over from back then to the day of the author.

4. What about the rest of the book? Seems strange to say it, but preachers can sometimes fall into the same trap many commentators seem to meet – atomistic Bible reading. That is, you are preaching from verses 5-11, so you only really focus on verses 5-11 (and in some cases, one verse at a time!) It is part of the flow of the whole, so look around again and see how your section works in the whole of the book. This might yield an angle from which to preach the text with greater engagement and interest.

There is always a danger that our passion to preach well can move us on from understanding the passage to the max. Don’t be in too much of a rush, but instead be sure to diligently dive into every detail in the text, and in the vicinity.

Help in the Vicinity

September 27, 2011September 25, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Some passages are sitting up and shouting “preach me! preach me!” Others are slightly less helpful. That is, the text is, of course, God-breathed and useful. But perhaps the author didn’t include any illustrations or pictorial language in the passage, or there is neither story in the passage or in the immediate context . . . it just reads like a logical progression of content that needs something to make it sing from the pulpit. Epistles tend to have sections like this.

Be careful! In this situation you are going to be tempted to preach less than biblically. You’ll be tempted to use the text as a springboard and bounce off it to preach your own message, using your own illustrations, etc. The text could become a very minor bit-part player making little more than a cameo appearance in your message. I’m assuming you’ve studied the passage and understand it, but I want to encourage you to search a little more in the vicinity of the text. It may yet yield a more thoroughgoing biblical sermon.

1. What about the author? Does his situation, life experience, background and story shine any light on the passage? If it does, then you have the hint of a narrative now . . . every life is a narrative, and this text might just tap into that in such a way that the message can be preached in an engaging manner with description and empathy and flow.

2. What about the situation? Bible writers didn’t write for a hobby. They were neither drunk nor wasteful. If they put it on papyrus, then it was for a purpose. What was going on with the recipients of the writing that prompted the author to write what he did. Again, you now are poking around in the bushes of a story, and stories will engage, allow description, create tension, offer resolution, empathy and intrigue. People are interested in people (that’s how many TV shows work).

I’ll add two more tomorrow…

Interaction Flops – Part 2

September 24, 2011September 23, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday’s post was getting a bit long, so I’ve spilled over to today. Thinking about participative preaching, or interaction between pulpit and pew, that doesn’t really work. We thought about the cultural differences issue yesterday. Here are a few more warning flags:

Patronising the listeners – It is easy to cross a line from helpful invitation to participate vocally, to patronising listeners. It’s hard to get this right because assuming knowledge can be unhelpful:“We all know that Malachi is the last book in the Old Testament” . . . maybe, at a pastors conference, but in a normal church setting, what about the new young believer or visitor who doesn’t know that? Now they feel uniquely uninformed. But it can go the other way in participative preaching moments: “You finish the sentence if you can, ‘Jesus’ mother was called…?” As people mumble the name, Mary, chances are that they might be feeling like six year olds. Some preachers need to learn that getting people in a congregation to say something out loud is no great achievement, and it is no guarantee of attention or interest either. Sometimes it is just plain patronising.

Unnecessary invitations – You have to be sensitive to the congregation. Somehow you need to sense when asking for them to answer a question, or say something, or vocally agree, or whatever is simply unnecessary. I’ve sat in congregations where the preacher wasn’t really patronising, but perhaps just nervous. Everyone was with them, following, enjoying, appreciating, and suddenly the preacher seems to lose their nerve and start looking for vocal affirmation, or an answer to a question to “keep us engaged” when actually we were engaged, but now are getting a bit annoyed by the slowing of the pace and the loss of momentum. Tricky one to judge, but just don’t fall into the trap of thinking vocal response from the congregation is somehow always engaging or helpful.

Narrow answer requests– This is hard to take as a listener. When the preacher has a specific and narrow answer in mind and wants somebody else to say it. As we saw in the earlier posts, if you ask for participation, be open to the participation that may come back to you. Don’t frustrate listeners with a question that leaves them groping in the dark for “your” right answer!

What might you add to this list? Any other interaction flops that preachers should be wary of?