Religion

Compelling Conclusions: 5 Ineffective Ingredients (Podcast Post – Episode 2)

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

A compelling conclusion contains three ingredients: a look back, a look forward, and a definite finish.  However, many sermon conclusions are harmed by extra ingredients.  Here are a few to watch out for and avoid when bringing your sermon down to its landing.

1. The conclusion is not the place for new information.  Do not go deeper into the text, nor bring in extra scholarship at this point in the sermon.  A helpful story or quote could be helpful, but remember that you are trying to finish, not trying to add more to the message.

2. The conclusion is not the place for emotional manipulation.  Do not try to ramp up the emotion at the end of the message.  Let the affective force of the text do its work in the body of the message.  While there is scope for enthusiasm and encouragement, listeners are rightly wary of added emotion designed only to stir response at the end of a message.  It feels manipulative, so don’t do it.

3. The conclusion is not the place for an untrusting final effort.  You have prayerfully prepared and presented God’s Word.  Trust the Word and trust the Spirit.  Do not think that if you just give one last push, then you will be able to push people into a response.  Sometimes a brief message review can become one last try to drive the truth home to the listeners.  This final and added push, often generated by the apparent lack of responsiveness in the listeners, is not faith-filled but is a fleshly effort to achieve a goal that is not ours to achieve.  The Lord brings the growth.

4. The conclusion is not the place for a discouraging, downbeat fade towards the finish.  A sea of apparently unresponsive faces can be pretty disheartening.  But the conclusion is not the time to show your discouragement.  If the listeners sense it in your tone, or see it in your face, then your conclusion will undo the good that may be present but invisible.  Again, trust God to change lives, even if it feels like a failure in this moment.

5. The conclusion is not the place for disconnected applications.  Some preachers feel the conclusion is a special moment to throw extra applications at their listeners.  Don’t do it.  After a message on prayer, don’t add in an extra “Oh, and also be sure to tell someone about Jesus this week and invite them to next Sunday’s special event.” 

For a fuller explanation of the three ingredients for compelling conclusions and Peter’s acronym to remember them, please watch the video or listen to the podcast.  We appreciate any help getting the word out about this new resource – thank you in advance for any likes, comments, reviews, follows, shares, and prayers!

To follow the Podcast, click here for Apple, or here for Spotify.

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 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 2 (A Rapid Shift)

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The shift from the German Republic founded in 1919 to the Nazi’s Third Reich in 1933 was colossal.  Clearly, it was possible for things to shift so rapidly in that society.  Are there any parallels between then and now?  As I read ACG’s Inside Germany, so many statements jumped out to me:

  • “The state, in my opinion, belongs to the people only if all the people take part in the exercise of government and public authority.” (p120)  Is there not an increasing feeling of disconnect between the population and the people with ultimate power in our day? 
  • “The best laws are of little value when carried out haphazardly or reluctantly.” (p120)  Confidence in a great legal system can drain away when it seems like there are different rules for different people.
  • “Knives, pistols and explosives are dangerous weapons. To those, however, who are guided by ideals and who, in the political struggle, have not lost sight of human dignity and integrity, the weapons of slander, abuse and insidious intrigues are far more dangerous.” (p122) ACG resigned as Minister of the Interior of Prussia in 1930following a targeted hate campaign by communist and national socialist agitators.  A politically motivated cancel culture is not a new phenomenon, but it is a concerning one.
  • We might assume that the people of Germany in the 1930s knew all too well the history of the war in the 1910s.  And yet, it doesn’t take long for a generation to rise who are ignorant or deliberately misinformed.  Those born during, or just before, the Great War became the youngsters who were so uninformed and so easily steered towards serving Hitler’s goals just two decades later. “What did those youngsters know of the struggles, miseries and sacrifices in the bitter war years?  Those youths from whom the truth was deliberately withheld had not the slightest inkling of the splendid response of the Social Democrats, the Jews and others to the war needs of the nation.  How many of the young men and women who swallow the lies and deceits of the National Socialist propaganda, hook, line and sinker know . . .” (p362) How confident can we be today that the younger generation is properly educated about the threats to our society from political, ideological or religious groups?  The evidence would suggest that too many know all too little.
  • In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote that “A lie, if big enough, always has an excellent chance . . . . The masses with their primitive and one-sided minds are more susceptible to a big lie than a little one.” It is troubling to see how confident many are today that they are not the victim of any big lies.  They might acknowledge the possibility, or even the likelihood, of lies being the fare of politicians and the media.  But could they be the victim of a big lie?  Of course not, because they would know if they were.  It is a strange self-delusion, and our world is full of it.

There are so many parallels between then and now.  More will emerge in subsequent posts, but this is a starter list to ponder and prayerfully consider.  And the question that hangs over it all, like a Zeppelin, is what could and should the church pastors do in a society that is leaning in a dangerous direction?

The Thirties – Part 1 (A Seismic Shift)

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

At the height of restrictions during the times of Covid, I made a comment to a friend.  His response has stayed with me.  My comment made a specific comparison of a contemporary trend with 1930s Germany.  He immediately reacted and told me that we should never make such a comparison because it implied that the motives of certain influential people were as evil as Hitler himself.  I find censorship to be a huge red flag, and I felt like my thought process was being shut down.  A few years later, whether the situation warranted my comment is still up for discussion.  Perhaps, over time, we will know.  But my interest in 1930s Germany has continued.

What did they know?  And significantly, how did they respond during an era of multiplying warning flags?

Recently, I discovered Inside Germany, a book written by Albert C. Grzesinksi [herein ACG] – a member of the Social Democratic Party who helped to found the German Republic after the First World War.  Intriguingly, he published the book in 1939 without the benefit of hindsight.  After six years of the Third Reich, he wrote without knowing what would unfold in the next six years. The horrors of Nazi Germany during the Second World War, especially the “Final Solution” to the “Jewish problem,” were eventually revealed to the world.  But what about before the war?  How did the German Republic become the Third Reich?  How did so many accept such a rapid transition from liberal democracy to tyrannical evil?  It is a fascinating read.  And maybe, a century later, there could be lessons for us as we pray for our world, influence Christians and lead churches in a time of potentially tectonic political shifts.

The German Republic was quite an achievement after the devastation of the Great War of 1914-18.  On the 31st of July, 1919, the National Assembly in Weimer “gave the German people a constitution that was one of the most liberal, progressive and inspiring documents in the history of the world.  On the 23rd of March, 1933, the parliament of the same republic passed an empowering act which concentrated all powers in the hands of Hitler, and which wrote finis to German democracy and the liberal republic.” (p357)  Strikingly,  ACG wrote, “Those two dates . . . mark Germany’s road to Golgotha, the road to the crucifixion of the German people under the Nazi swastika.” (ibid.)

It would be easy to assume that Germany, after WWI, simply rebuilt itself, leading to WWII.  Not so.  The Germany of 1919 had to be radically changed to become the Third Reich of 1933 and following. “Seemingly by a stroke of the pen, political liberties were achieved which not even the boldest optimists and democratic dreamers of Germany had dared to envision. Germany became a state of, by and for the people; a democratic fatherland dedicated to the needs and aspirations of the working masses.” (p358)  And it is that seismic shift from liberal democracy to totalitarian tyranny that intrigues me.  How can that happen so quickly?  And, if you will indulge a series of posts about Nazi Germany, I’d like to ponder what it might mean for how we preach and influence both church and society in our tumultuous times?

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 Three

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

We have thought about the pre-sermon moments that impact the preaching event and considered a couple of aspects of the introduction.  Now, let’s consider a couple of moments that can define the impact of the message from within the body of the sermon.  Obviously, the points are important, the text’s explanation is critical, and so on, but that is what we tend to focus on.  Here are two surprisingly significant moments to consider:

5. Every transition – It could be argued that transitions separate good communicators from average ones.  It is natural to focus on the content of the points, but it is a step up to be aware of how you move from one to the next.  It is like having a passenger riding behind you on a motorcycle.  They will tend to stay with you in a straight line, unless you accelerate too fast.  But you really need to slow down through the turns.  The same is true when you preach.  A good transition can achieve so many good things: a review of what’s been said, an encouraging conclusion to a point, a reminder of progress in the message, a preview of what is to come, a chance to re-engage for the distracted listener, an opportunity to reinforce the main idea, a moment of pause for an overwhelmed listener, and so on.  Or you can clumsily jump into your next point and leave people confused as to what happened to the other point, why you are talking about this, how it relates, and so on.  Pay attention to every transition; your message will be more helpful for more people.

6. The Interruption or Surprise – We do not preach in a vacuum-sealed box that can be completely controlled.  It is an environment with many variables.  Let’s categorise them as either public or private.  The public ones interrupt everyone’s experience.  The phone ringing, the child crying, the jackhammer starting, the gunshot (hopefully not).  Some are minor, some are more significant.  You have to decide at the moment how to handle it.  Be careful not to draw attention to someone feeling awkward about their phone or baby or to press on through something worthy of a pause.  I’ve seen a preacher totally undermine his credibility and sermon by a harsh and unkind response to an accidental interruption.  I’ve also seen a preacher try to press on, oblivious to the passed-out person being carried out of the congregation.  The first should have been more gentle, the second would have done well to notice, pause and pray for the person.  I don’t remember either of the sermons, but years later, I remember the interruptions and the response from the preacher.

Then there are the private interruptions.  That is the thought that suddenly presents as you are preaching.  Maybe a new illustration.  Maybe a warning flag about using a planned illustration.  Perhaps an extra thought that could be added, or a new direction for the application.  A beginning preacher may not be able to imagine any internal dialogue while preaching because the whole experience is so consuming and overwhelming.  But actually, there can be quite a wrestle going on inside a preacher while the sermon continues to be preached.  Don’t automatically discount every thought and press on through the notes.  Neither should you take every thought as a Spirit-led and anointed change of direction.  You have to prayerfully and humbly process as you go.  You won’t always get it right, but you will do well to lean towards the love of God and others in every decision you make (and keep an eye on the clock, too, as an act of love for the children’s workers and people who brought a first-time guest!)

Is Our View of Satan Too Small?

/ Peter Mead / 6 Comments

I have noticed something strange.  Many Christians will acknowledge the existence and the general agenda of Satan.  They will affirm that he is alive and active on planet Earth.  Yes, they recognize that he hates God and God’s people.  Yes, he hates truth and wants to steal, kill and destroy.  Yes, he wants to tempt us into rebellion, crush us under guilt, and destroy all that is good, beautiful and anything that has even the faintest reflection of God’s character. 

And yet, oddly, as quickly as those affirmations are made, that awareness seems to evaporate just as quickly.  For many Christians, the devil appears to be a very limited antagonist.  He might get some vague credit (for want of a better term) for any temptation we consciously notice. Still, he gets specific credit for very little activity. 

For example, suppose the subject of the occult is raised with the related concepts of devil worship, seances, fortune telling, etc. Many will shudder and point to the enemy’s works in that case.  But is that the whole story?  Is Satan just tempting us as individuals and running a relatively obscure dark religious operation? 

Let’s take a few moments to review some essential biblical background. 

Origins of Satan – The name Satan means adversary and came to be applied to the greatest adversary of all – the devil.  It is a well-earned label!

What we know of his origins is described primarily in Ezekiel 28:11-19, where it is clear that prideful arrogance was the key driver of his original fall from perfection.  Since his fall, his primary domain has been Earth and Sheol.  We see him cursed by God in Genesis 3 – the one whose goal was to be the most high became the most low, eating dirt close to the underworld.

Influence in the world – The big question in this post essentially relates to his influence.  According to 1 John 5:19, the whole world is under the control of the evil one.  He is called the ‘prince of this world’ on several occasions (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11).  He influences through lies, especially the original lie that we humans can be like God, and he masquerades as an angel of light, deceiving people (John 8:44; 2 Corinthians 11:14).  There are plenty of people whose spiritual father is the devil, and it is possible to identify them by their actions and their lack of love (John 8:44; Matthew 13:36-40; Acts 13:10; Ephesians 2:2; 1 John 3:10)

Influence over nations – He rules the nations and tried to strike a deal with Jesus in exchange for Jesus bowing down to him. Still, Jesus did not affirm his ultimate ownership of the nations and did not bow down.  Jesus knew and trusted that, at the right time, the Father would give the nations to him.  (See Matthew 4:10.)  Jesus confronted the power of evil by casting out demons from people. It is evident that Satan commands the realms of darkness (see 1 John 3:8).  What Jesus began in his ministry, he is continuing – building his church and the “gates of hell” continue to be unable to resist the onslaught.  Satan is on the defensive. 

Influence in the Church – Paul wrote to the Romans, “The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.” (Romans 16:20). Yet, it would be naïve to assume that Satan does not influence the church.  While our minds might go to Judas Iscariot, whom Satan influenced (John 13:2) and then entered (John 13:27), we do not need to live in fear of being taken over by the evil one.  We belong to God, who is greater than the one who is in the world (1 John 4:4).  However, we should recognize that discord, anger, unforgiveness and resentment can provide an opportunity to the devil, and we should actively resist him (James 4:7; 1 Peter 5:8-9).

Our hope as the spiritual war rages – Because of Jesus’ victory over the rulers and authorities on the cross (see Colossians 2:13-15), Satan’s power of death is now broken (see Hebrews 2:14-15).  We now know that death is swallowed up in victory (1 Corinthians 15:54).  And yet, the one who comes only to steal and kill and destroy does not give up easily (John 10:10).  His ultimate downfall is already determined; he will be thrown into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:10).  In the meantime, he fights on.  Indeed, as his time gets short, we might expect him to offer a big final push, but we know the end of the story.

The hole in our spiritual warfare – So, what is missing in our understanding of the spiritual battle that we are in?  Satan exists and is active on earth.  Yes, he does tempt us and would delight to see us derailed by sin and defiled by discord.  And yes, the occult does exist, and some people are drawn into religious acts of pure evil.  But at the start of this post, I suggested our view of Satan may be too small.  Is Satan just tempting us as individuals and running a relatively obscure dark religious operation? 

To be candid, I have been struck by how much we are inclined to bury our heads in the sand regarding evil in this world. “Oh yes,” people will affirm, “Satan is real, and we are in a spiritual battle.” But mention some specific aspects of society and watch the response change:

Could there be evil at work in news reporting designed to shape our thinking? “No way, we can trust the news media.” 

Might the enemy be shaping education to harm children?

“Don’t be ridiculous!”

What about medical professionals who seem driven by something other than ‘first do no harm?’

“Of course not! The doctors I know are good people.”  

What about government decisions that seem to benefit them but harm people and cost lives?

“Absolutely not!  They have our best interests at heart.” 

What about unelected and unaccountable groups of the hyper-rich and influential seeking to gain control over ordinary people?

“If such groups exist, then I’m sure they mean well.”

What about influential people who have publicly declared the global population needs to be reduced by whatever means?

“Of course not; they only want to help the poor!”

What about the entertainment industry that so fills our consciousness?

“Oh, but I like him, she’s my favourite, etc.”

It does not mean much to acknowledge that Satan is real and active if we then immediately deny that he could be at work in almost every layer of human authority and influence.  And I would suggest we are utterly naïve if we don’t believe that the prevailing paradigm of our day, with its “lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God”, is influenced by Satan.  (See 2 Corinthians 10:3-6) 

In the past, Christians seemed ready to recognize the malevolence of hedonism or materialism as it confronted our worldview in the so-called “Christian West” or the evils of totalitarian regimes in the East.  But today, too many Christians seem happy to play along with and believe the best about media-driven narratives concerning identity politics, critical theories, social justice, weather worship, globalist agendas, neo-communist ideologies, uncontrolled immigration and encroaching violent religion.  Are we sure that we should ‘believe the best’ and ‘affirm the good’ in all the ideas swirling around and in all the layers of authority setting themselves up over us?

Perhaps it is time for us to fix our eyes on Jesus and recognize that we are genuine outsiders in this world and that we will be hated by it. And yet we are here as ambassadors to represent God’s truth, to share the hope of Jesus, to stand for what is right and to not love our lives even unto death. Let’s stop smiling at the devil as if he is an insignificant foe.  Let us instead armour up, stand firm, be ready to speak, be prayerful as if we are in a war (for we are), and when we have done everything we can, to stand.

(HT – https://www.logos.com/grow/satan-in-the-bible/ )