Church

We Must Not Lose Christ at Christmas

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

As Christmas approaches, plans are coming together—not only for family gatherings but also for church events.  Last year, our church put on a Christmas musical, which involved lots of cast, support crew, set building, costume making, songwriting, etc.  This year, we are keeping it simple with just a couple of carol services.  Whether we “go big” or “keep it simple,” there is one important ingredient that must not be forgotten.

It is so easy to have everyone frantically pulling together a Christmas production and then have nobody remembering to bring the baby for the manger.  In the same way, it is easy to be busy with Christmas plans, even Christmas preaching, and fail to keep the focus on the baby at the centre of the story.

If Jesus is forgotten for a nativity scene, then someone will be quickly despatched to go and pick up a baby doll before anyone notices.  But what happens if we lose Jesus from our Christmas, and even from our Christianity?

If the theme is Christmas, but Christ is missing, then there will be lots of peace on earth and goodwill to all men, but no basis for such a message of hope.  And if the focus is more general, then a Christianity without Jesus will descend into moral tirades and an attempt to police either church or society.  There can be no real Christianity without Christ.

And yet, it keeps on happening.  How often is the gospel presented as a moral and legal logical presentation?  “You have been bad, judgment is coming, God can help you get fixed, and there are some other benefits too…”  It might involve some presentation of truth, but the heart of the message is missing.

John Piper wrote these words in God is the Gospel:

“The critical question for our generation – and for every generation – is this: If you could have Heaven, with no sickness, and with all the friends you ever had on earth, and all the food you ever liked, and all the leisure activities you ever enjoyed, and all the natural beauties you ever saw, all the physical pleasures you ever tasted, and no human conflict or any natural disasters, could you be satisfied with Heaven, if Christ was not there?”

We have briefly considered Christmas, and Christianity in general, as well as our evangelism.  But what about on a personal level?  When Jesus is missing, we will tend to see God as distant and become increasingly self-focused.  This does not necessarily mean we will become rebellious and overtly sinful.  We might just become religious and self-righteous.  Whether in compliance or rebellion, we will become much more behavioural in our focus.

Without Jesus, we will start to see our Bibles as instruction manuals, more than God’s self-revelation.  For instance, in John 5, Jesus is rebuking the religious leaders for diligently studying their Bibles and yet missing him completely.  They would study and recite the Hebrew Scriptures, but they were blind to the self-revelation of God that should have had them excited at the arrival of Jesus.  Sadly, their study spectacles only allowed them to see the dazzling lights of self-glorification, and they missed the main focus of the Scriptures who now stood in front of them.

When we let Jesus drift out of the spotlight in our Christianity, we will lose that vital sense of the relationship with God that Jesus came to establish.  Instead of gazing on Jesus and being transformed (2 Corinthians 3:18), we will see only ourselves and drift toward self-glorifying, or self-loathing, or we will become self-appointed evaluators of others and start to inflict unhelpful pressure on others. 

There is a world of difference between Christianity with Jesus at the centre, and religion with me at the centre.  Actually, there is an eternity of difference.

As we come to another Christmas, let’s be sure to pause and allow our hearts to be wowed by the wonder of it all.  Charles Wesley’s hymn says this: “In vain the first-born seraph tries, to sound the depths of love divine!”  If angels are amazed, surely we should slow down and make sure we are too.  Can we ever fully grasp the wonder of Christmas?  Wesley’s words again, “Veiled in flesh, the godhead see, hail the incarnate deity, pleased as man with man to dwell, Jesus our Immanuel!”

Before the year is done, take a moment to stop and take stock.  Jesus has to be the centre of everything, not only at Christmas, but in all of Christianity.  He is much too precious to lose!

______________________________________________________

As we enter the month of December, click below for the advent series of videos in Pleased to Dwell – Peter’s book about the Incarnation . . .

The Thirties – Part 8 (Points to Ponder)

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

In this series, I have considered ACG’s book, Inside Germany.  Published in 1939, it is a fascinating account of the Nazi takeover of Germany that brought the world to the brink of disaster.  In light of reading that book and reflecting on our own times, what are some takeaway points to consider as preachers?

1. Only one message can change hearts.  It is not a political message nor driven by headlines in the newspapers or social media.  It is the message of the Gospel, and it comes from the Bible.  We must preach the gospel as loud and clear as possible in tumultuous times.  It may be that the turbulent times stir previously comfortable hearts to a new level of openness.  When those moments come, we must offer Jesus to a needy world. 

2. Only saying one thing can be a sign of weakness.  I know that our ministry is to preach the Gospel.  However, we also have some clauses in our job description that relate to being people of the truth.  In an age of disinformation, misinformation, malinformation, etc., we must speak the truth.  In an age of censorship, controlled media narratives, and the silencing of independent thinking, we need to promote informed and free thought.  Suppose our default position in public speech is to hide behind what is culturally acceptable.  For now, we can quote Bible verses because it is still safe to do so.  Why do we think we will later become bold clarions of truth when the societal pressure to conform becomes so much greater once tyranny takes a tighter grip on our throats?

3. We need to grow in discernment.  Too many are proclaiming a media-shaped worldview with some Bible verses attached.  There is probably a church in your town that is already fully there – sounding like their pulpit is a marginally more religious version of a BBC TV presenter.  God has not called us to offer insipid commentary on society with the odd tip of the hat to contemporary ideology.  We were called to think and proclaim biblically.  So read the Bible, then read the culture through the lens of the Bible (and not vice versa). 

We wouldn’t only read theology books from one agenda-driven publishing house, so don’t read society simply through the lens of the mainstream media’s agreed narrative.  Neither should we only read society through just one or two social media voices.  Let’s look for trustworthy sources.  That doesn’t mean checking to see if they are on the BBC, even if it once did.  Censorship should be a red flag to any thinker.  Look for who is being paid and who is losing their livelihood.  Look for who stands to gain and who is being silenced.  Let’s look for multiple trustworthy sources of information and set an example of being informed, thoughtful, and biblical in our discernment.

4. Have the courage to speak when silence is easier.  Can I be candid?  There have been times during recent years when I have found that many Christian leaders seem to be hiding behind the mantra of only preaching the Gospel.  It is easy to quote John 3:16 on social media.  But how many churches have gone along with the media narrative every step of the way, only to wonder later why they didn’t question more?  The easy choice today can mean I have reduced my credibility in a year or two.

5. What is our territory?  We have to be careful with politicised issues.  But don’t fall for the simplistic idea that every political matter is off-limits to us.  Last week, I was in a room where some people were asked what it was like to live under Soviet rule.  One answered about how they could not trust anyone.  Another spoke about never showing gladness outwardly.  Then an older man said, “We can never explain to our children what it was like because it was a spirit.”  There was a spiritual reality behind Communist rule.  There was an evil spirituality in Nazi rule too.  And if there is a “spirit of the age” at work in the ideological agenda of our day, then we cannot say that preachers should stay quiet.  Politics may be largely off-limits, but speaking God’s truth in the midst of a spiritual battle certainly is our territory.

6. Having courage does not negate the need for gentleness.  Sometimes, people hear a call for courage as a call for bombastic shouting.  Not at all.  We represent Christ, and we need to convey the nature of his character, as well as truth, in society.  But we should not underestimate what can be achieved in this world with gentle forcefulness.  (See my post on Solzhenitsyn’s “Live Not By Lies” from January.)

7. Pray and pray boldly.  As well as saying little to challenge the media narrative, it is also easy to pray as if that media narrative dictates reality.  God can do immeasurably beyond all that we ask or imagine.  In our private and public prayers, let us boldly pray for God to bring down those who exalt themselves, for God to expose those whose plans are for evil rather than good, and for God to break open hearts that seem so solidified against him.  The Third Reich was supposedly going to last a thousand years, but it was done in twelve.  Many prayed for that.  The impregnable Iron Curtain was brought down in my younger years.  Many prayed for that too.  And so it is with every variation of Communism, globalism, or religious takeover. Let’s pray that God would bring it down so that more can be spared the suffering and freely come to know him.

The Thirties – Part 6 (Contemporary Shifts)

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In the last post, we brought out the question sitting in the shadows throughout this series of posts.  What part did the church play in allowing the Nazi takeover of Germany?  We can never know what would have happened if more stood up and overtly resisted.  But that is one of the critical questions we must wrestle with in our day.  First, when will we stop supporting the general direction of travel?  Second, how will we resist?

Whatever we may feel is the driving force behind the changes, we surely must get our heads out of the sand and recognise the shifts that are taking place.  There are moral shifts regarding gender, sexuality and crime.  There are human rights shifts regarding free speech, free movement, the right to assemble, and bodily autonomy.  There are ideological shifts in respect to traditional religions, cult-like agendas, and globalist unaccountable power grabs.  The world could be a very different place in a very short time.

Morality and change – Even before the full extent of their atrocities were revealed, people knew the Nazi morality. “The Nazis claim that all that is beneficial to the German people is right.” (p192)  This, of course, meant that they could do whatever they liked.  When right and wrong are redefined, a culture is under threat.  We live in a culture where you are judged to be a threat to progress if your actions, words, and even thoughts do not support the approved narrative, the dominant ideology, or the power imposing religion. 

Why do people assume that the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom to disagree will persist when those asserting their power are committed to a different morality?  If any try speaking against certain sanctions and medications, kneeling ceremonies, well-known religions, or theories in climate science, then they soon discover that there are consequences in our day.  There has been a major shift in the ethical foundations of our society – we must not pretend otherwise.

Democracy and change – People naively believe that societies change from good to bad in free and fair elections.  Sometimes that has happened.  But revolutionary change tends to require a crisis. “On the day after the Reichstag fire, a new law ‘for the protection of the people and the state against communist acts of violence’ was made public.  It had been obviously prepared beforehand. … This law deprived every citizen of his few remaining civil rights and left him at the mercy of the new masters and their heavily armed sluggers now elevated to the rank of authority. Person and home were no longer inviolate. Privacy of mail, telephone and telegram had ceased to exist. Freedom of speech, press and assembly was a thing of the past.” (p215)  It was not an election that changed everything but a manufactured crisis.  A crisis means that change can be imposed ‘for the good’ of the people. 

Individuals as the threat to change – As with every tyrannical takeover and revolutionary moment, the free-thinking individual is an instant threat to the people in power.  Germany had “confined itself to the deliberate destruction of the rights of all those who think independently and come to conclusions different from those of the masters of the Third Reich.” (p230)  We see the same thing when Communist revolutions grab hold of a country – immediately the useful idiots who helped create the crisis are a threat to be discarded, along with the educated, the religious leaders, the writers, the influencers.

The Nazis considered the “fourth battlefield” to be enemies from within the state.  So, they used the SS troops to bear arms freely as they brought terror and control to the nation.  The SA “brown shirts” were more of an accessory to the Nazis but were used either in uniform or in everyday clothes “to arouse enthusiasm among the masses.” The jubilant masses described by foreign press correspondents were usually “well-rehearsed SA formations.” They would create disturbances outside Jewish-run businesses, where the Gestapo would sweep in to arrest the owners for their own protection and dispatch them off to concentration camps.  Then, the SA performance would quiet down.  (See p250-251)

The recurring theme of thought crime came out strongly in the book: “None of those imprisoned under the pretext of protective confinement had committed crimes. Their only guilt in the eyes of the Nazis was to have opinions contrary to Nazi creed.” (p338)  A society can never be considered free when people are punished for holding specific opinions.

Is change a surprise? It is easy to assume that the German people were unaware of the evils of the Nazi regime until the secrets were revealed after the end of the Third Reich and the humbling death of Hitler in his bunker. “Again it must be emphasised, that everything that has taken place within the last five years has been publicly and repeatedly proclaimed by the Nazi regime long before it came to pass.  Only the degree in which early predictions have been fulfilled is a matter of surprise.” (p267)  I can’t help but wonder if such published predictions were also disparagingly called conspiracy theories a century ago.  There does seem to be a pattern – troubling things are proclaimed and published, the media run a different narrative, people quote those troubling things, the media decry those people as quacks and conspiracy nuts.  And then, sometimes very quickly, those troubling things turn out to be true.

In the next post in this series, we will consider more parallels to our time.

The Thirties – Part 5 (What About The Church?)

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

The question I brought into my reading of ACG’s book was more specific than society.  I wanted to know what was happening in the church during those years of transition to tyranny.  And is there anything we can learn for our tumultuous times?

The Catholic Church agreed a concordat with the Nazi party in 1933.  It gave the church a lot of freedom and protection.  But at a cost. “Catholic clergy were deprived of their civil rights. Political activity was forbidden.” (p205)  Ironically, they kept their position of influence in society, while relinquishing their ability to say anything constructive.  I have watched many wrestle with this tension in recent years.  Should we strive to keep our “voice” in society by following the rules imposed by the media, or do we speak out about concerns and thereby invite society’s opposition? 

“To oppose the encroachments by the Third Reich, the churches should have united and fought jointly the common danger, but here as in the political field, the spirit as well as the prerequisites to such unity were sadly lacking. As to the Protestant Church, the wealthy parishioners and the Protestant middle class were in favor of the Nazi regime. …Neither then nor later did the Protestant clergy show a common will and determination in defense of their rights.” (p206)  It is intriguing that those with some societal standing (in terms of their wealth status) are identified as supporting the regime.  Surely, if the benefits are to be weighed in terms of income and status, that should be a warning flag that the motives may be somewhat corrupted.

Is it possible to imagine a church in our time that goes along with a rogue government or popular narrative in order to keep its voice in society?  But what if it already has little to no voice?  What is it protecting?

“The Nazi aim in the field of religion is the establishment of a co-ordinated German church under party supervision. … Their publicly proclaimed thesis is “The word of Adolf Hitler is the word of God and has the authority of God.” (p206)  It was not just moral madness that should have been opposed, but also the religious heresy of the time.

Even within the 1930’s, there was a growing religious fervor in silent protests against the Nazi regime.  What if they had not capitulated initially to take the easy path and keep their influence?  What if the church had been willing to take a stand from the start?

There was a concerted effort to undermine the church’s influence in society.  The black-shirts, the elite guards, were forbidden to belong to any religion.  The Hitler Youth movement estranged a generation from churches. “Church services are held under observation of the Gestapo, the state secret police. Clergymen who have held services outside the church confines in order to escape police supervision have been arrested and sent to concentration camps.” (p208)

Church leaders and members were subjected to every possible charge and slander. “They are accused of immorality, corruption and violation of government regulations. . . . Occasional cases of law violations are blatantly generalized.” (p208)  It is hard to stand for what is right and true, but is that not what all believers are called to do in this fallen world?  We represent Jesus and the Gospel.  Always with grace and love, but sometimes with courage and a willingness to pay the ultimate price.  And when we capitulate in order to have a voice in society, what happens when society wakes up to the truth and then wonders why the church didn’t say anything? 

Is it better to have a voice, or to use it? 

I don’t want to condemn the church in the 1930s without acknowledging how easily cowed the church in the 2020s might prove to be.  As Dietrich Bonhoeffer famously wrote, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

The Thirties – Part 4 (How Did it Happen?)

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The tyrannical Nazi Reich toppled the German Republic in just fourteen years.  It is historically fascinating to trace the transition.  More than that, we must learn from history to avoid repeating it.  So, how did it happen? 

There were all sorts of players involved.  Lots of people had vested interests.  There was plenty of historical baggage everywhere you look.  And complex political wranglings tugged at the emerging storyline.  It would take a long book to lay bare the complex reasons for the change.  However, there are some pertinent points that a series of blog posts can consider to enlighten our thinking for our world today.

ACG repeatedly points to a critical underlying issue – a lack of willingness to resist.  For example, he writes, “Yes, it ought to be said again and again, that the iron will necessary to maintain the authority of the state, to guard jealously the inalienable rights of the people, and to fight in defense of democracy, was sadly lacking.” (p142)

When people were openly attempting to destroy democracy and bring in a dictatorship, there should have been a response from “energetic authorities” – but there was not.

While the outside world was concerned about the “saber-rattling speeches” from the Nazis, “The republic, however, and its statesmen continued to view the manifestations of reaction and renewed militarism with unconcern.” (p145)

“When Nazis took power, people had done nothing, but felt it was too late to take a stand.” So sad.  And yet, it is so believable as we watch human nature in recent history.  In the early 1930s, they still had the numbers and the means to stop it, but the will to resist had already dissipated. 

Once the Nazis were in power, the rules changed.  They introduced a worker’s passport to control the labour force for government purposes.  People couldn’t change jobs without permission, which kept the masses from moving to the cities and away from the armaments factories.  Tyranny, by definition, needs to impose control over individuals.

It would be unfair to say that the people merely turned away from reality. “Everything is prepared in the Third Reich by means of a thoroughly co-ordinated press and radio.” (p192)  There was massive propaganda pressure against the people.  The most heinous example of this was the national pressure against Jews and the normalization of hatred against a class of people.  During 1936-37, 870 Jews were convicted of racial crimes, turning the screw even more.  They could not receive protection because of the hostility of the police and the courts.  In our times, we are repeatedly seeing how quickly a society can be turned against a race, class or group of people (consider medical dissenters since 2021 or Jews in recent months, for just two examples).  And sadly, the majority of people either do not see it or refuse to see it. 

“The annexation of Austria was accompanied by all the horrible happenings known from 1933 when Nazism conquered power in Germany.  At that time the world was unwilling to believe its own eyes and prepared to forget the horrors as quickly as possible.” (p336-7)  I wonder how often the combination of narrative control by the media and self-imposed blindness in key people leads to greater harm to the world.

I started ACG’s book expecting only to find hints of what was to follow during the Second World War, and especially the horrors of the holocaust.  But the concentration camps, the numerous “suicides”, and the killing sprees were all already present and known in the thirties.  Living in a world that is unwilling to believe its own eyes is scary!

Society may be conditioned to support an approved narrative, but we are called to be men and women of truth.  In the next post, I want to get to the heart of my concern: what was the church doing in the transition to Nazi rule?  Does the church matter?  Do our voices make a difference?

The Thirties – Part 3 (The Threats Identified)

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In the last post, I noted a few parallels between the 1930s and our times.  But what about the threat itself?  The Nazi threat was totalitarian, oppressive, ideological and quasi-religious.  Since the fall of the Third Reich, the world has been more focused on Communism, supposedly coming from the opposite end of the political spectrum.  Also, on the expansion of militant religion, and latterly, activist agendas driven and funded by globalist ideologues.   While the media seems to scream “Nazi!” quite freely as an insult, there appears to be an eerie ignorance of where the threat lies for our society today.  What would be the cost in both freedom and lives if we continue to push in the direction of the utopian dreams being touted?

Interestingly, the ideologies swirling in the 1930s seem to come from both ends of the traditional political spectrum as people understand it. 

“Hardly had the republic been established, when the enemies started to attack in earnest.  From the left . . . the communists savagely pounded away at the people’s state and its institutions . . . fighting and belittling everything created by the republic. . . . Propelled by the insane belief in a world revolution, the communists caused millions of gold rubles to flow into Germany for the fight against the republic.” It is interesting to read how “time and again [the communists] joined forces with the Nationalists and Nazis in parliament.  They cast their vote against democratic government and, together with the Nazis, did immeasurable harm to the dignity of parliament by turning it into a place of political rowdyism and unheard-of brawls.” ACG was not surprised to see communists joining the brown-shirted storm troop army by the thousands, nor “the most radical communist districts . . . becoming strongholds of the National Socialist movement and its sluggers.” (p361) 

In another place, he notes how “Some SA formations had as many as thirty per cent communists in their ranks.  This was not at all surprising. Both the Nazi SA and the communists had much in common; above all, their hatred of democracy and especially of the social democracy.” (p252)

Wait, we are constantly told that the Nazis and the Communists represent opposite extremes on the political spectrum.  Instead of focusing all our attention on Left versus Right, we should instead contrast control and freedom.  Tyranny is tyranny, whatever uniform it wears.  And perhaps tyranny is the threat to liberal democracy and human freedom that lingers and re-asserts itself time and again.

Suppose the constitutional rights of the individual are not protected. In that case, any solution offered for any actual or imaginary crisis will prove to be a force of control.  In other words, self-proclaimed saviours tend to become tyrants.

 ACG finished his 1939 book with a prescient finale:

“National Socialism stands for the propagation of a system aimed at the destruction of individualism, the enslaving of other peoples, and barbarism. Civilization gives way to the law of the jungle. Wherever Hitler goes, the four horsemen of the Nazi Apocalypse follow. National Socialism is synonymous with war, devouring uncounted millions of lives, destroying culture and civilization. Hitler consciously or unconsciously is driving toward this goal. He is taking Germany and with her, all Europe and the whole world on the road to disaster.” (p367)

We would do well to understand what is meant by the political “left” and “right” but also to grasp that the real battle might be between control and freedom.  As preachers, our calling is not to preach a party political message.  The pulpit is not a soapbox; we have something much more important to proclaim.  But let us not bury our heads in the sand and live in ignorance of what is happening in the world around us. 

In the next post, I want to explore how the great shift happened so quickly and whether that may be helpful for our awareness today.

7 Defining Moments in Your Sermon – Part Four

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

We have thought about two moments before the sermon starts, two in the introduction and two in the body of the sermon. 

What about the conclusion?  Let’s go there for the final defining moment:

7. The landing – We know the end of the message is important.  During preparation, we might have prayed and dreamed of a huge revival breaking out.  During delivery, we might just be desperate to be finished and away from the microphone.  But between those two extremes we can see that the conclusion does matter.  There is both the quality of the landing and the fact of the landing.  The quality is determined by both tone and content.  It is a chance to review the main points of the message, to restate the main idea again, and to bring a sense of conclusion to the whole.  The tone can be encouraging, upbeat, hopeful, and faith-stirring rather than critical, harsh and guilt-trippy.  As well as the quality, there is also the fact of landing.  Arrive.  Get there.  Stop talking.  Don’t elongate the message in the hope that your fourth attempted landing will prove to be better than the first three.  Robinson used to say that it is best to end a sentence or two before people expect you to end. Review, encourage, finish. 

So there we go, seven defining moments of the sermon.  But I need to add one more:

Bonus – Clearly stating the main idea.  Of course, no matter how hard I try to point away from the obvious moments to some that people may not be aware of, I still feel the need to underline the importance of a well-defined main idea in the message.  Too many preachers preach without it.  The main idea needs to be clarified by the preacher, otherwise it will be hastily cobbled together in the minds of your confused listeners.  It is your job to make sure the message is coherent.  Nothing holds a message together so well as an accurately defined main idea.

What would you add to this list?  What are the defining moments in a sermon?

7 Defining Moments in Your Sermon – Part Two

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

As we work through this list of seven defining moments in the sermon, we have so far thought only about the unseen preparation of all involved and the first impressions before the sermon really starts.  Now let’s consider two that are part of the introduction to the message:

3. The motivation to listen – Most sermons will have the same elements: a beginning, a middle, an end, a Bible passage explained and applied, and some illustrative material to help communicate.  Now, all of these standard elements can be better or worse.  But they tend to be present.  However, the motivation to listen is by no means guaranteed.  It is not guaranteed from the listener’s side, and it is not guaranteed in the details of the sermon.  How could it be missed?  Easily.  Too many preachers assume that their listeners are interested in Elijah’s encounter with a widow or Paul’s answer to the church’s question.  And too many introductions offer something less than motivation. 

We can easily settle for familiarity or interest.  Familiarity introductions are the ones that refer to something we all experience – you know, going upstairs and forgetting what you went up to get.  Everyone smiles and relaxes a bit.  Then, the message continues as if that connection is enough.  Or interest introductions are the ones that raise eyebrows with an interesting tidbit – you know, that it is impossible to lick your own elbow.  Some knew that, some didn’t, some try it, etc.  And the message moves on.  Familiarity introductions and interesting introductions are probably better than just launching into 1 Kings 19 and its background, but better by far would be an introduction that makes listeners want to hear what is coming. 

Inasmuch as you are able, motivate listeners to listen.  Robinson used to talk about surfacing a need in your listeners that the passage would then be able to address.  Use your introduction to grab their attention, convince them that they need what this passage is going to show them, and win their hearts to be open to you as you lead them into the passage.

4. The overview – At the end of the introduction, it is easy to skip the overview.  Generally, you should not skip it.  Give people a sense of the shape of the message.  We are going to see the problem described, and then the solution.  Or Paul gives three truths that we will look at together.  Or the passage comes to us in two chunks, verses 1-5 and verses 6-9.  Or we will see the transformation we need is coming, the triumph over death is certain, and the therefore that changes how we live – the transformation, the triumph, and the therefore.  The overview can be detailed or a very high-level glimpse, but if it is missing, the listeners are slightly in the dark as to where the message is headed.  If your message is an inductive shape, then make sure the question that is going to be answered is clear: what is the critical ingredient that we need if we are to have a ministry like the master?

Feel free to comment about introductions – what works well?  What do you hear that doesn’t connect or help the listener?  Introductions are critical to the effectiveness of a sermon.  Next time, we will look at two more defining moments in the sermon.

7 Defining Moments in Your Sermon

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

As you preach, there are numerous defining moments.  That is, pivotal decisions or moments that will multiply the impact of the sermon.  The whole sermon matters, of course.  You can’t expect one great line to do great work when it is packaged in fluff.  But while you work on the whole sermon, remember that there are some defining moments that could make or break it.

1. The unseen preparation (yours and theirs!) – Whatever happens during the sermon itself is really just the final part of a process.  There has been a whole lot of unseen preparation before the moment of delivery.  Of course, there have been the ups and downs of sermon preparation for you, the preacher.  The prayer, the study, the wrestling with word choices, the hunting for illustrative material, the interruptions, the storm, and the calm inside you and in your study.  The journey to the pulpit may have been arduous, or somehow serene, but hopefully God has been at work in you before he will work through you. And I am only describing the last few days, but God has been at work for years.  However, the sermon is not just about the preacher.  How has God been stirring the listeners?  Providential circumstances, carefully timed conversations, quiet questions inside, or overwhelming challenges without.  It is not unusual for a sermon to touch a nerve that was only sensitized in the preceding days.  “How did the preacher know that about me?”  Often, the preacher didn’t.  But someone did.  It is helpful to remember that a lifetime of preparation is brought into the sermon from all sides, and only God can be aware of that, let alone influential in it!

2. The first moments of the introduction – It is hard to overstate the importance of the first moments.  I don’t mean the introduction.  I mean the first impressions.  Do you seem comfortable, or nervous, or indifferent, or agitated?  Will listeners get the sense that you have something to say that is worth their focus and time to listen?  Will people who have never heard you before feel welcomed and engaged?  Will regular listeners sense that you are well prepared, or will they get the sense that you are somehow “off” this week?  Remember, humans are wired relationally.  When you sit at a table in a restaurant, you know whether you like the server before you have a chance to evaluate your first interaction.  Sometime, watch a video of yourself.  Watch up until your first word.  Prayerfully and conversationally evaluate (that is, ask God what he thinks, and ask someone else what they notice – don’t just trust your own perspective).  Then watch the first couple of sentences, and evaluate again. 

We will continue this list of defining moments in your sermon next time, but feel warmly invited to comment with any that are on your mind!

The Least Resolution for 2024

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

January does not just bring a new page on the calendar but a whole new calendar.  And with the new year, we tend to generate renewed commitments.  Maybe you have already determined what 2024 will mean for you.  Perhaps your mind has already pondered daily step counts, gym visits, dietary changes, or other healthy habits.  Or maybe you are thinking about Bible reading, daily prayer routines, or other spiritual goals.  May your resolutions last and bear good fruit!  But perhaps the resolution we need for 2024 is more foundational than healthy habits and more straightforward than spiritual practices.

As I write this, I am in Budapest, where I have just visited a museum of the political terror of the twentieth century.  As you can imagine, it is a sobering experience to see the vast walls of victims, the displays focused on the political prisoners, a room commemorating the persecution of the religious leaders, the torture chambers, the prison cells, and the gallows.  But perhaps the lingering memory for me will be the final room.  With red walls and hundreds of pictures, it felt like yet another presentation of victims.  But it was not.  It was a room of “victimizers” – ordinary people who were merely doing their job, simply following orders, just playing along, and thereby facilitating the evil machine.  We can remember the victims, and we must.  Yet we must also face the uncomfortable reality that most cogs in the cruel machine of death were ordinary people.

Fifty years ago, in February 1974, Alexander Solzhenitsyn was arrested in the Soviet Union and exiled to the West.  There, he was welcomed as a hero.  On the day of his arrest, he released a document entitled “Live Not by Lies.”  He knew the power of an ideology that sought to reshape society.  He also knew the power of individuals who simply refuse to lie (and the even greater power of a crowd joining together in this conviction).  He knew that the ideological system would totter and collapse when it ran up against the brick wall of reality, exemplified by many individuals refusing to play along with the evil fantasy.

Fifty years later, perhaps it is time for us to revisit this document.  Are we living in times where some, on behalf of all, have determined what society should look like?  Do we see a mounting pressure to conform with what ‘they say’ is acceptable human thought and belief? Indeed, we should not be so naïve as to assume that the absence of marching military on our streets means we face no ideological threat. 

The pressure is growing for everyone quietly to conform.  More than that, the pressure is growing to affirm openly and celebrate what we know to be false.  Surely, it would be better to speak the truth now instead of growing our tendency to fit in and play it safe as the stakes mount.

Truth and Lies – Choosing not to lie was not an original idea for Solzhenitsyn.  Paul urged the Colossians not to lie to one another.  Not only had they put off their old self, but they had put on the new self to reflect their creator’s image (Colossians 3:9-10).  He told the Ephesian believers to speak the truth to one another since they were no longer defined by the lie (Ephesians 4:25).

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus addresses the anger underneath murder, the lust underneath adultery, and the daily consistency of speech beneath more flamboyant oaths (Matthew 5:21-37).  There is plenty of Old Testament support for the expectation that God’s people should be consistent speakers of truth (Exodus 20:16; Leviticus 19:11; Proverbs 14:5).  God does not lie, and his people represent him.

Fear and Lies – Solzhenitsyn knew the impact of fear on a population.  He wrote of the great threat facing humanity in his day, which was “about to flare up and engulf us.”  And he described the fear: “While we continue to smile sheepishly and babble; ‘But what can we do to stop it? We haven’t the strength.’”

God asked Isaiah’s listeners, “Whom did you dread and fear, so that you lied, and did not remember me, did not lay it to heart?” (Isaiah 57:11).  Their fear led to lies, as they forgot who was really in charge.

Our world seems to be changing at a frightening rate.  Trying to keep up with the latest adjustments to sense and morality can be tiring.  And it is increasingly revealing how much fear lies within most of us, who are so prone to play along with society’s expectations rather than speak what is true.  It is concerning how easily we fear and perhaps lie while forgetting who is really in charge. 

Some will capitulate completely and speak what is false.  Others hide behind a cloak of not wanting to “sound political” and speak out about the reducing set of acceptable Christian declarations.  Fear of being labelled and criticized leads many to hold back from speaking the simple truth.  After all, it is much easier to quote a Bible verse on social media or avoid the hot topics in conversation rather than offer the most minor form of resistance.

Solzhenitsyn wrote that the fear his people felt was not primarily a fear of nuclear death or a third world war.  The fear was of taking a “civic stance.”  He wrote, “We hope only not to stray from the herd, not to set out on our own, and risk suddenly having to make do without the white bread, the hot water heater, a Moscow residency permit.”  The penalty for a civic stance may have changed, but the fear of the herd has not.

History has never smiled on the timid, and yet each fearful choice always makes sense at the time.  How often do I justify timidity when society needs me to show courage and speak the truth?  We have almost constant opportunities to speak the truth about marriage, gender, sexuality, race, free speech, bodily autonomy, science, medical ethics, corruption, or whatever other prescribed view is being pushed at any given moment.

We cannot simply wait for an ideology to fall apart.  We must be part of the brick wall of reality into which it must crash.  And yet, it is always easier to “continue to acknowledge, glorify, and strengthen” that which we want to see collapse.  At the very least, we must not “recoil from its most vulnerable point.  From lies.”

Violence and Lies – Solzhenitsyn described how violence bursts into peaceful situations with great self-assurance.  “But violence ages swiftly, a few years pass—and it is no longer sure of itself.  To prop itself up, to appear decent, it will without fail call forth its ally—Lies.  For violence has nothing to cover itself with but lies.”

So, even under overt tyranny, people do not have to experience violence at all times.  The demand is only of a “daily participation in deceit” – the tribute paid to maintain one’s position under the power of the oppressive system.  Just play along, it is safer.

The connection between violence and lies is also not a discovery made under the rule of twentieth-century totalitarianism.  Micah wrote to the city in his day, “Your rich men are full of violence, your inhabitants speak lies and their tongue is deceitful in their mouth” (Micah 6:12).

We may not have to stand and fight against violence.  We may not even have to step out publicly and boldly declare the truth. “But let us at least refuse to say what we do not think!”

The Consequences of No Lies – In the Soviet Union, there was a cost to this most simple of stands.  It could cost your job and complicate life.  It could cost your success in education and impoverish your future.  But Solzhenitsyn was clear:

“And as for him who lacks the courage to defend even his own soul: Let him not brag of his progressive views, boast of his status as an academician or a recognized artist, a distinguished citizen or general.  Let him say to himself plainly: I am cattle, I am a coward, I seek only warmth and to eat my fill.”

To choose not to lie was not an easy choice in his day.  It will increasingly not be an easy choice for social standing, or even for physical wellbeing, in our day.  But the choice not to lie is “the only one for the soul.”

The implication of no lies is worthy of note. “The more of us set out together, the thicker our ranks, the easier and shorter will this path be for us all!  If we become thousands—they will not cope, they will be unable to touch us.  If we will grow to tens of thousands—we will not recognize our country!”

As we head into a new year, may we not simply play along with the world.  Instead, let us graciously, prayerfully, and wisely determine that whatever else may happen, we will not participate in the lies expected of us in society.  As representatives of God in this world, this is the least we must do!

(Source of AS quotes: https://www.solzhenitsyncenter.org/live-not-by-lies)