Evangelism

Beware the Power of Propagated Rumors

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

There are always troublesome trends around, even in the church. They may be ideas or vague concepts, but they creep in and stick around for a while. Perhaps books are written to support them, but something published is not something certain. Maybe it’s time to put your finger on the pulse of your church and see if there are any ideas drifting around. In some cases we don’t need to address them, but simply be careful not to propagate them in our preaching, either by attitude, inference or reference. In other cases we need to step in and overtly correct with direct Bible teaching.

The heretical understandings. For example, how many people in our churches have the idea that the Trinity can be explained by the illustration of water, ice and steam (a modalistic explanation) or three friends in one group (a tritheistic explanation). If there is heretical thinking, look for appropriate moments to clarify the truth.

The fashionable trends. Not everything we disagree with is outright heresy. Often they are theological fashions and trends. Perhaps an idea pushed in a book that is imbalanced or narrow. Perhaps an idea emanating from a certain “camp” in Christendom. Perhaps an idea pushed on us from pressure groups outside the church. Fashionable “trends” that I’ve heard lately would include the idea that eschatology is other-worldly, always “retreatist” in orientation and therefore irrelevant. The blanket statement that foreign missionaries are no longer needed in other countries. The notion that Paul hated women. Or that any social concern among Christians means they have given up on the gospel. Or the opposite idea that Christians concerned with evangelism have no concern for people. I want to be careful not to add weight to any of these ideas, no matter how popular they might be in some circles.

We don’t have to address every issue going on in broader Christianity. But we should be aware of any way in which a passing comment, or perceived attitude, might continue to propagate ideas we don’t support. And we should have our finger on the pulse enough to recognize when an idea is becoming imbalanced, or worse, when a heresy is becoming acceptable.

I Can’t Use The Word “Sensitivity” For This

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I wrote about careful and considered sensitivity toward diverse groups within the congregation. I deliberately left out a very significant group and would like to mention them today. Problem is, I can’t call it “strengthened by sensitivity – part 2.” I don’t really want to open the can of worms relating to seeker sensitive church models. There are strengths and weaknesses in all these approaches to church, but I don’t want to make us think of that right now.

I want us to think about the next congregation we will speak to, those individuals sitting in the chairs and listening to us preach. Among them there may well be non-Christians. We need to be careful in what we say. As Nathan suggested in his comment yesterday, “Sometimes we pepper our messages with phrases like, “You know the story about Japheth…”, or, “But we as Christians….” These phrases can unintentionally make the non-Christians feel like what we’re saying doesn’t apply to them, and that we’re oblivious to their presence among us. It can also give the impression that church is like a graduate course that requires a bunch of prerequisite courses in order to track along.”

So take a moment to think through who may be there tomorrow. Pray for them. Prayerfully consider whether there are elements in the sermon that could require too much background, or anything that could be misunderstood, or might imply something you don’t intend (in reference to outsiders, or the gospel, etc.)

Let’s pray that tomorrow, whether we are being overtly evangelistic or not, many non-Christians will respond to the captivating work of the Spirit of God and spark celebrations in heaven!

Controversy, Defensiveness and Timing

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Obed submitted a comment on The Full Meal Deal concerning the timing of presenting a controversial or challenging topic. I suppose we could complicate things, but it seems to me that there is a fairly simple principle here. Know your listeners well enough to know how they may react to a controversial idea. If they are likely to get defensive, then lay the groundwork first. I use the image of a boxer’s guard (forgive the martial imagery if you are a pacifist in the sporting arena). Is what I am going to say likely to bring up the hands to guard the face? If so, then what follows will only strike to the surface. As a preacher I need to preach so that the hands remain down and the idea gets through.

The classic example of this is Peter on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. “God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ!” That idea was very likely to stir up a negative reaction among a crowd of Jews in Jerusalem just weeks after Jesus’ death. So Peter did not present the idea in the introduction. This idea was not printed on the notice sheet or bulletin (they would have noticed and put the bullet in, so to speak!) This was not a deductive sermon. Peter knew the listeners’ likely reaction, and used the first part of the sermon to prepare the people for the big idea. Once it came, their reaction was not murderous, but they were convicted.

If your idea is controversial. If the listeners are likely to become defensive. Then time the presentation of the idea. Preach so their hands remain down and the idea gets through, not only to the head, but so that they are “cut to the heart.”