December 3, 2009 by Peter Mead
It can be tiring to continually hear someone harping on about the “good old days” of some golden age in the past. This is not the problem in many churches. The opposite seems to be true. There is often a wholesale neglect of the past, leaving people in something of a vacuum of present experience.
Obviously it shouldn’t be the central focus of the ministry of a church, but there is a place for recognizing the story God has been telling to get us to where we are. In a family it is important for children to hear “little boy stories” from Dad and “little girl stories” from Mum. Of course, not every story should be told to a younger child, but there is a stability and rootedness that comes from hearing such history. Our family is blessed with a legacy of believing parents and grandparents, so there are many stories of God’s faithfulness and care.
Hopefully your church also has a legacy of believers in the past! Whether the church is twenty years old or two-hundred years old, it is important that the present generation are not left unaware of the line in which they stand. There is probably good and bad in every church history. While not glorifying people with the positive, nor villifying with the negative, knowing the legacy of our heritage matters.
Perhaps it would be worth considering a brief interview of someone in the church so they can tell of the impact of another believer now safely home? Perhaps this is a source of illustrative material worth tapping into? Perhaps it would be worth a church “slideshow” to bring back some memories and share some fireside stories this Christmas . . . why not make it a church family season too?
Rooted. Carrying a legacy of God’s blessing. Bearers of a heritage. Aware of our DNA. Worth some balanced effort?
Posted in Audience Analysis, Christianity, Homiletics, Preaching, Religion, Stage 8 - Message Detail | Leave a Comment »
December 2, 2009 by Peter Mead
After listening to a couple of Andy Stanley series recently, I have been pondering a point he makes in his book, Communicating for a Change. He says that what most people try to achieve in a single sermon should really be developed over a whole series. This allows for each message to genuinely have a single point, rather than a collection of points (and reduced impact). It allows for the whole series to reinforce rather than confuse.
I have to say, after listening to a couple of his series, I tend to agree. Perhaps we bite off too much in a series. Perhaps we try to cover whole sections of a book, or a whole book, when maybe we would do better to drive home one passage more effectively. Perhaps we are too quick to move on and assume listeners have understood the point and applied it in their lives.
I suppose this creates a difficulty if we are committed to trying to preach every bit of the Bible over some self-determined priod of time. I suppose it also puts a burden on the preacher – if you’re going to stay in the same passage for more than one sermon, you’d better not be boring! But ultimately I suppose it asks the key question: not are we trying to cover ground, or are we trying to entertain, but are we trying to see lives transformed? If that is the question, perhaps more focused series is part of the solution?
Posted in Audience Analysis, Christianity, Delivery, Preaching, Religion, Stage 1 - Passage Selection, Stage 2 - Passage Study, Stage 5 - Message Purpose, Stage 6 - Message Idea, Stage 7 - Message Outline, Stage 8 - Message Detail | Tagged Andy Stanley, Communicating for a Change, Expository Preaching | 4 Comments »
December 1, 2009 by Peter Mead
Preachers preach a Bible passage from a variety of stances or approaches. I see something of a continuum here and would love to encourage all preachers to move further down the list.
1. Preaching from thoughts prompted by the passage. In preparation the text is read, then the preacher preaches based on thoughts triggered by elements in the text. It could be a certain word. It could be a character mentioned. It could really be anything. Why do people do this? Because they have not been taught a better way, and because it has a sort of pseudo-spirituality about it as an approach (since perhaps God is highlighting unique elements to make this a unique experience of the text).
2. Preaching about a subject in the passage. The preacher latches on to a subject mentioned in a text and addresses that subject, perhaps using other texts for support, perhaps just sharing their own perspective on that subject.
3. Preaching about the subject in the passage. A single unit of Scripture (a epistle’s paragraph, an individual narrative or parable, a psalm, a proverb, etc.) has a specific subject. It is united by it’s dealing with something in particular. Preaching about that something in particular is a great step forward and honours the text, the author and the Inspirer of that text.
4. Preaching about the passage. The preacher is focused on the text, has studied it and preaches about it. There is a focus on the passage. The details are explained, the flow is clarified, the message is applied. This is decent preaching.
5. Preaching the passage. The difference between this and the previous one is a matter of distance. Preaching about the passage can be accurate and relevant, and yet still feel a bit “arms length.” The passage is like an exhibit being presented. If every church achieved level 4 consistently I believe the church would be so much healthier. But there is also level 5 in this continuum. If level 4 says what the text says, then level 5 is about doing what the text does. Somehow the preacher isn’t merely presenting an exhibit, but has so grasped the passage and been so gripped by it, that the preaching is no longer “arms length” – it is direct, personal, clear, alive, to us. There must still be historical explanation, looking at the passage, applying the message of the passage, but now it is the preaching of a passage owned, a passage that has saturated the heart and mind and life and preparation of the preacher.
Where are you on this continuum? How about moving one step further?
Posted in Homiletics, How to . . . ?, Preacher's Personal Life, Preaching, Religion, Stage 2 - Passage Study, Stage 4 - Passage Idea, Stage 5 - Message Purpose, Stage 6 - Message Idea | Tagged Expository Preaching | 3 Comments »
November 30, 2009 by Peter Mead
There is a line that it may be tempting to cross. Perhaps you have been studying in a certain area of theology. Perhaps it is personal experience that is pushing you in a certain direction. Perhaps you are tired of a certain over-emphasis in your church circles.
So you preach (or write, or converse about, or blog about) something. You try to expand the horizons, the categories, the awareness of your listeners. You paint a glorious picture of oft-neglected theological vistas. In the process you help people to see more clearly, to understand more fully, to respond more holistically. But that is where danger lurks.
In shifting the emphasis, even if only for one message, you will be tempted to cross a line. The line is crossed when instead of helping people see more and to see it clearly, you move from addition to contrast. It is crossed when your study or experience or emphasis takes you to a point where you decide not just to add to the listeners’ understanding, but you decide to contrast your focus with some aspect of orthodoxy.
So actually the Cross wasn’t about that, it was about this. So really God isn’t that, but this. So now we see that Christianity is not about that at all, but only this. Careful. Extremely careful!
There are things in all church traditions that may be labeled orthodoxy, but are actually biblically errant. I am not saying we can never contrast or critique. I believe we must. What I am saying is that a throw away comment about an emphasis within orthodox theology can come back to bite.
I was just reading a book. I was enjoying it. In fact, I read a page that took my breath away it was so well-written. Then there was a throw away comment of unnecessary contrast. How easy to do that unawares in writing, in preaching, in conversation. Evangelical theology needs critique on various levels, but throw away contrast comments are not going to achieve anything other than vilifying their source. You.
What we say matters. Be careful!
Posted in Christianity, Delivery, Homiletics, Preaching, Religion | Leave a Comment »
November 27, 2009 by Peter Mead
I was just reading a book that made a simple, but memorable point. The author asked a carpenter working on his house what difference Jesus made to his life and work. The answer was telling, “I suppose he makes me an honest carpenter.” Is that all?
How often do we essentially preach a salvation ticket to heaven with morality for the present? How often do we fall painfully short of offering to people in our meetings what Jesus called “life to the full” or “eternal life” … now? I believe many are failing to preach much of a hope for the future, with the watered down vesions of, or totally ignored subject of, the future. Yet it is hard to say that the future is neglected for the sake of the present. For many, the present life offered by Christianity is merely moral.
Have we become dulled and insensitive to the richness of life in fellowship with the God of the universe? Have we over-simplified gospel preaching to a simple solution for guilt, but stripped it of the richness of reconciliation, regeneration, adoption, fellowship, not to mention the horizontal overflow of these vertical realities?
I’ll keep this post short and not chase down the theological possibilities. But perhaps we would do well to evaluate the net presentation of the Christian life in our preaching – is it merely that now we can be honest carpenters?
Posted in Christianity, Homiletics, Preacher's Personal Life, Preaching, Religion | Tagged Gospel Preaching, Theology | 2 Comments »
November 26, 2009 by Peter Mead
I’d like to build a little on the post from three days ago. Here is a post I wrote a while back, but am fairly sure I forgot to post on the site. It offers another angle on the challenges of application, again overtly leaning on Haddon Robinson’s work.
In simple terms the homiletical process involves three stages. The first is the exegetical work of determining the original writer’s meaning. The second stage involves abstraction of that meaning via theological principalization to derive a timeless truth. The final stage is the earthing of that principle for the listeners sat in front of you – the homiletical application stage. At this point our task is to not only demonstrate the meaning of the passage, but also to emphasize how it is relevant to the listeners.
Application is set up for illustrative material. By definition, application involves demonstrating how the biblical principle might be applied in a contemporary setting, what difference it makes to us today. At this point in the message, it makes sense to use illustrative materials. But beware, there is a trap that is easy to fall into.
The incomplete variety of application error. The meaning of a passage, and the derivation of principle, are both inclined toward single statement results. That is to say, there is one meaning. But how is that principle applied? There are usually numerous possibilities. If you only present a single example application, even if you state that this is one possible application, listeners will tend to presume that is specifically what you are preaching (or even, what the Bible is teaching).
Haddon Robinson gives the example of “honoring your parents” in a Pulpit Talk audio journal. One possible application he gives from his experience with his own ageing father – that he ended up in a nursing home. Another possible application he gives from their experience with his mother-in-law – that she was cared for by Haddon’s wife in their house. To give one example without the other runs the risk of communicating only one option for applying the principle derived from the passage.
When you are applying a passage, demonstrating and emphasizing its relevance for your listeners, be sure to indicate the variety of possible applications, rather than leaving people with a faulty understanding of the passage because of an overly narrow applicational example.
Posted in Christianity, Homiletics, How to . . . ?, Preaching, Religion, Stage 3 - Passage Purpose, Stage 5 - Message Purpose, Stage 8 - Message Detail | Tagged Application, Audio Journal, Expository Preaching, Haddon Robinson, Pulpit Talk | Leave a Comment »
November 25, 2009 by Peter Mead
Some churches absolutely oppose any illustration from hollywood or TV. Actually, some churches oppose any attempt to be relevant to contemporary listeners at all. Now if you preach in a place that is not so restrictive, you’ll be tempted to use movie illustrations sometimes. They can be very effective. But there are a few things to keep in mind:
1. Not everyone will have seen it. Simple, but true. Some films have been seen by most people, but we can’t presume everyone has seen any film. This means that any reference to a film will require some explanation Be aware of that and prepare accordingly.
2. Not everything in it may be appropriate. The part you are referring to may be precisely illustrative of what you are saying. But remember to think through the rest of the film through the eyes of others present. Are you endorsing everything in the film by referring to it? What about the lewd scene later on? What about the underlying paradigm in the story? What about the language used? What about . . . what about . . . You might as well think it through before you use it, because others may have immediate reactions without much thinking!
3. Will it take too much explaining? Sometimes a movie provides the ideal example for the point you are making. Perhaps it explains the point. Perhaps it proves it. Perhaps it demonstrates application. But if it takes too much explaining, then it might just undermine the message. Background explanation will diminish momentum and energy, it will sabotage a potentially powerful point. Sometimes it’s just not worth the time and effort needed.
4. Will it overwhelm the text and the message? Sometimes you have the opposite problem. The image is simply too powerful, too emotional, too overwhelming. What if the listeners go away with the movie scene resonating deeply, but the text overlooked and the message ignored? Hollywood are masterful creators of emotional experience. They know the power of this. They know what effect it has in conveying their strong agenda. Very few preachers get the importance of this. Often our “agendas” fall short (not because we lack visual stimuli – throwing money at a film and adding effects doesn’t guarantee any positive reaction!) Often we underwhelm, and a movie example can overwhelm, even without showing any of it. Think it through before you use it.
5. Will it create inappropriate association? What if a movie gives a great example of a principle, but does so in a setting that inappropriate in association with Scriptural truth? Consider all the great love stories that move so many people deeply, but are actually tales of unfaithfulness, impropriety, stirring the viewer to hope the marriage can end so they can find true love, etc. Or what about the plethora of potential illustrations in the series that has captured so many of the younger generation . . . Harry Potter. If you don’t raise a query about the appropriateness of the HP narratives in connection with biblical truth, someone else will.
This post sounds anti-movie illustration. Not at all. I use them sometimes. It is anti-unthought-through movie illustrations!
Posted in Audience Analysis, Christianity, Homiletics, How to . . . ?, Preaching, Religion, Stage 8 - Message Detail | Tagged Expository Preaching, Movie Illustrations | 3 Comments »
November 24, 2009 by Peter Mead
How many hundreds of sentences are used in a sermon? And they all matter. But they don’t all matter as much as a few of them. I suppose I would suggest the following sentences as worthy of extra effort:
1. The Main Idea. Hours might be spent crafting and honing the main sentence for a message. That would be hours well spent. The main idea is the boss of everything in the message, it is the filter through which much extraneous “good stuff” is sloughed off. It is the burning hot focus that is to be seared into the heart and mind of the listener. It brings together understanding of the passage with emphasis on the life-changing relevance for the listener. The main idea really is all it’s cracked up to be, and it’s absence will only confirm that billing!
2. The first sentence. It’s great to start the message with an arresting introduction. Instead of beating around the bush until you get into your stride, much better to start with a bang. It may be a startling sentence. It may be an intriguing sentence. It may be a contemporary paraphrase of that infinitely powerful sentence, “once upon a time . . . ” (narratives do grip listeners fast!)
3. Transition sentences. I think transitions are oft-neglected. A good message with poor transitions will lose people. Give some extra effort to transitioning slowly, smoothly, safely. Keep your passengers in the car when you take the turns.
4. The final sentence. That last sentence can ring in the ears as silence descends and you move to take your seat. Despite the best efforts of over anxious worship leaders or people chairing meetings, the final sentence can resonate in a life. Don’t fizzle to a halting stop. Stop. Clear. Precise. Having arrived at your destination. Having achieved your goal. Having parked the message with exactly the final sentence you determined.
Preaching may involve hundreds of sentences, but a few of them are worth extra careful crafting!
Posted in Christianity, Delivery, Homiletics, Preaching, Religion, Stage 4 - Passage Idea, Stage 6 - Message Idea, Stage 7 - Message Outline, Stage 8 - Message Detail | Tagged Big Idea Preaching, Conclusion, Expository Preaching, Introduction | 1 Comment »
November 23, 2009 by Peter Mead
Preaching an ancient text to a contemporary congregation will usually require some level of abstraction. To preach an ancient instruction simply as it stands is to present a historical lecture, rather than a relevant presentation of inspired truth. Some preachers simply say what is there and effectively offer historical lecture. Other preachers abstract from historical specifics to timeless abiding theological truth, but end up preaching vague generalities.
To grasp what Robinson calls the “exegetical idea” and move through the “theological idea” to get to the “homiletical idea” is not easy. The end result needs to be clearly from the text or the authority has been lost. Yet the end result has to be specifically clear in its emphasis on the relevance of that text to us or the interest is lost. One temptation is simply to play it safe, perhaps too safe.
What I mean by that is that we might derive a general, borderline generic, principle from a passage and move from historical explanation (often curtailed) into general application of this general principle. Was the message true? Yes. Biblical? Yes. Relevant? I suppose so. Life-changing? Probably not! Sometimes it is a fear of fully engaging the text that can lead to this “generic” preaching. Other times it is a fear of fully engaging the listeners that leads to it.
John Stott’s metaphor of the preacher as bridge-builder is helpful here. The best preaching will not only touch both the world of the Bible and the world of the listener. The best preaching will be firmly rooted, planted, engaged with and connected to both worlds. Let’s not preach vaguely biblical abstract generalities. Let’s really preach this text to these people!
Posted in Audience Analysis, Christianity, Homiletics, How to . . . ?, Preaching, Religion, Stage 2 - Passage Study, Stage 3 - Passage Purpose, Stage 4 - Passage Idea, Stage 5 - Message Purpose, Stage 6 - Message Idea, Stage 7 - Message Outline, Stage 8 - Message Detail | Tagged Expository Preaching, Haddon Robinson, John Stott | 2 Comments »
November 21, 2009 by Peter Mead
For the past two days I have looked at word choices and verbal pauses. More could be said, but it would be more of the same. Perhaps working on choosing vivid rather than lifeless descriptors would be worth a post, but you can think that through. I would like to add one more post to the series on another aspect of delivery – the visual element.
What listeners take in through the “eye-gate” is massively significant. Some elements of visual, or non-verbal delivery, can be improved in everyday life. Here are a few possibilities, select only those that are issues in your delivery:
1. Eye contact. Perhaps the most important ingredient in any delivery recipe, eye contact takes work for many of us. In every conversation or presentation (which might be the telling of a story to a group of friends standing around the coffee machine at work), practice making meaningful eye contact with the entire group. How easy to develop a blind spot (never looking to the people on your left). How easy to get in the habit of looking over people or past people. Practice will help your preaching, not to mention your daily conversations!
2. Posture. How do you stand while in a conversation? How do you stand when saying goodbye at the front door (a very English pastime)? How do you hold yourself when approaching the counter in a store? Developing healthy and confident, but not arrogant or contrived posture is worth the effort. It is so easy to undermine a message by sending “don’t trust me” or “this is not important” signals!
3. Distracting movement. Some people pace, others shuffle, some sway, some fidget. If you discover you have a propensity to distracting movement, work it out in normal life. It will only help in life and ministry.
4. Distracting gesture. Apart from some obviously offensive gestures, I am not highly against any gesture. Hand in pocket can be fine. Pointing might be appropriate. Touching the face may not detract from a message. However, any repeated gesture can become highly distracting. If you find you have one, work it out in normal life. Finger to finger push-ups, one arm hanging limp, jingling keys in the pocket, the werewolf, the T-Rex (elbows attached to the side but lots of hand gesturing), what Bert Decker calls the fig leaf, or the fig leaf flasher, the Clinton (gesturing as if holding the pen), even slapping yourself on the head. Anything can be distracting if overused!
5. Smile. A grossly underused tool for connection and building trust. It wouldn’t hurt the world if we all practiced this more in everyday life, and it might show more in our preaching too!
Find out (from friend or from video) what you need to work on, your listeners will appreciate it!
Posted in Christianity, Delivery, Homiletics, Preacher's Personal Life, Preaching, Religion | Tagged Body language, Non-Verbal, Visual Communication | Leave a Comment »
November 20, 2009 by Peter Mead
Yesterday I referred to Jay Adams’ suggestion that we can improve our language use best by working on it in everyday life so that it becomes natural. He mentions another aspect of speech that many need to work on. The unnecessary use of, you know, like, filler words. These verbal pauses do a lot to distract listeners and lessen the impact of otherwise pointed and focused speech.
The problem with filler words or verbal pauses is that they only seem to get worse when we focus on them in a time of tension. So simply telling yourself not to say that thing you always say so often is not going to fix it when you’re preaching. In fact, it will probably exacerbate the problem. So Jay Adams suggests working on this at home, with the help of your wife. Have a family member help by making it clear whenever the filler is used. Gradually the added complexity of conversation will motivate you to drop the filler. “Know? I don’t know, could you explain it to me please?” That will really stack up in some of our, you know, conversations. “Like? What was he like, to what would you compare him?” That will complicate a relatively simple interchange!
If you can figure it out, a signal system that is only known to you and your spouse could be used in public settings too. However, Adams suggests this approach be kept to the private sphere if there isn’t total agreement on how to proceed in public!
Eliminating verbal pauses will achieve massive benefits for preaching. But perhaps the time to work on the habit is in the normal situations of life, rather than the pressure cooker situation of preaching. At th end of the day, you know, what have you found helpful in eliminating verbal pauses or distracting cliches?
Posted in Christianity, Delivery, Homiletics, How to . . . ?, Preacher's Personal Life, Preaching, Religion | Tagged Jay Adams, Preaching According to the Holy Spirit | 2 Comments »
November 19, 2009 by Peter Mead
Jay Adams suggests that improvements in speech should be pursued during everyday life, but not when preparing the message. The reason he gives is that focusing on grammar, phraseology or pronunciation during preparation and delivery is a distraction from the real task at hand. It is better, he suggests, to work on improving your speech during every day life. Over the course of several weeks it is possible to master a new speech habit.
For example, you might need to work on saying “He asks you and me,” rather than “He asks you and I.” By concentrating on this and working on it in everyday situations it will not take too long for it to become a speech habit that will naturally come out while preaching.
Another example is that of storytelling. Every day we can practice telling stories compellingly, with good flow, description and appropriate pausing. We shouldn’t wait for a dramatic life event, but rather choose an experience each day to recount to our families over dinner. Practising the telling of a story in the car can help, and the repeated telling of stories with increasing effectiveness will only help our ability to tell stories during preaching – personal “illustrations” or biblical stories.
Tomorrow I’ll mention another aspect of speech that can be worked on in everyday life.
Posted in Christianity, Delivery, Homiletics, How to . . . ?, Preaching, Religion | Tagged Jay Adams, Preaching According to the Holy Spirit | 3 Comments »
November 18, 2009 by Peter Mead
Most people have a tendency to think in black and white categories. Something is either right or wrong, good or bad. In order to get from the complex world of reality to the comfortable world of clear categories, we tend to bifurcate inappropriately and end up with inconsistent dichotomies. For example?
Well, consider the two issues of communication style and biblical content. These are two issues. Yet for many people they seem to have been melded into a one or the other dichotomy. So if a preacher has an engaging and natural style, then the content must be weak and lightweight. Equally, if I am to preach biblically, then my style must needs be less than connecting. The apparent truth of this thinking is seen in so many preachers, but there is real fallacy here.
I just listened to a series of messages that could be labeled as seeker friendly in style, certainly very natural and engaging. Therefore biblically lightweight? Not a bit of it. Actually I found a couple of them stunningly effective in how they handled the text and communicated it to the listeners. That’s not to say that all such messages are biblically solid, but it’s equally wrong to assume all are not.
Natural engaging style that is connecting with the unchurched is one issue. Biblically solid and rich content is another issue. One doesn’t mitigate against the other. Let’s not be too quick to dismiss. Equally I listened to an older message that was biblically solid, but wouldn’t qualify as contemporary in style. Stodgy, boring, irrelevant, cold? Not at all. It was deeply moving and highly helpful.
Let’s be careful not to combine and confuse categories in order to create clear categories for ourselves. Life, and ministry, is lived not in many blacks and whites, but in numerous complex layers of grey. That statement does not in any way argue against objective truth, as it could so easily be misquoted. Rather it urges us to engage the complexity of life, of ministry, of preaching. And on the example given in this post – let’s be both biblically solid and communicatively natural for the sake of ministerial effectiveness.
Posted in Christianity, Delivery, Homiletics, Preaching, Religion, Stage 2 - Passage Study | Tagged Expository Preaching | Leave a Comment »
November 17, 2009 by Peter Mead
Sunday morning I preached the last of the messages. I’d taught class for four days, but then things got busier. Between Thursday evening and Sunday morning (60 hours) I spoke six times, taught two sessions, and travelled many miles by car, train and aeroplane. Not the busiest few days, but among the tightest in terms of the travel schedule. So Sunday afternoon I got on the train to start the journey home.
I was tired and knew that attempting to read or write would be borderline futile. So instead I chose to enjoy a tired feast. Stopping only to hand over my passport or order food, I basically spent the next hours listening to about a dozen messages from about seven different speakers. Subjects were varied. Speakers truly diverse – from Stan Toussaint and Ron Allen to a series from Andy Stanley and even a few minutes of Ken Davis. I drifted a couple of times from eyes closed to actually asleep, so I moved back and listened again to those minutes.
I didn’t listen to make observations on preaching technique. I didn’t listen to gain ideas for illustrations or preaching strategies. I listened because I knew I needed to be fed. I was fed. Actually, I feasted. A stunning illustration of Isaiah 53:10 from an elderly scholar. A moving introduction to a message on life’s pivotal circumstances from a contemporary communicator. An inspiring series on growing in faith. A great example of traditional preaching on the tabernacle. A well-shaped presentation of the raising of Lazarus. A non-traditional survey of a theme in John’s gospel.
Sometimes we need to stop giving out and take the time to be fed. Hungry?
Posted in Christianity, Homiletics, Preacher's Personal Life, Preaching, Religion | Tagged Andy Stanley, Expository Preaching, Ronald Allen, Toussaint | Leave a Comment »
November 16, 2009 by Peter Mead
nugget from Richard Bewes’ book, Speaking in Public Effectively. As a preacher, you may not be asked to give your testimony so much any more, but perhaps these guidelines might be worth giving to anyone you ask to share a testimony in church.
First, it is a testimony to a Person and what he has done for you.
You are not asked to be on your feet to pay tribute to a book, a Christian, a course or a church that may have helped you, though any of these may legitimately come into the story. But it is Jesus Christ, and what he has so far done for you that you are wanting to focus upon primarily.
Second, it is a testimony and not a mini-sermon that you are giving.
Three and a half minutes is enough – unless you have been invited to speak for longer. The whole style is that of telling a story. It is unwise, then to attempt to do the preacher’s task. Use a text, by all means, if there is something from the Scriptures that has meant a great deal in your spiritual beginnings. But don’t end the testimony by a long exhortation to commitment; that is almost certainly someone else’s job in the proceedings.
Third, it is a testimony and not an essay.
Although it may well be wise to write out, word for word, what you intend to say (this can help you keep to time), have your notes on a small jotting pad or card, rather than on a large, distracting sheet of paper. The whole presentation is essentially one of spontaneity and an impulsive desire to tell. Write it out as you would describe it to your best friend in the chair opposite you.
How many good testimonies end awkwardly with an unnecessary exhortation to commitment? Helpful advice from Richard Bewes.
Posted in Christianity, Delivery, Homiletics, How to . . . ?, Preaching, Religion | Tagged Christian Testimony, Richard Bewes, Speaking in Public Effectively | Leave a Comment »
November 13, 2009 by Peter Mead
Actually there are several subjects that preachers are not supposed to talk about, but I’d like to mention one. Briefly. Actually I’d rather not mention it, so I’ll quote somebody else. It’s the issue of “expenses,” aka “petrol money” in some churches, aka “speaking fees,” aka “honoraria.” It’s right that we hesitate to mention this issue since money should not be the motivation of a preacher, but at the same time very few are in a position to totally ignore the issue of finances.
I was just enjoying Richard Bewes’ book Speaking in Public Effectively. In his last chapter he focuses on the travelling speaker. He addresses the unique challenges of travelling to speak, the things you learn to pack, the flexibility that’s needed, the fact that some apparently petty and trivial things can become profoundly significant in the dead of night in an obscure place. Finally, the preaching is done and it’s time to get going on your return journey,
Someone comes up to you wearing specs, and holding a pen and pad. “Could you tell me if you had any expenses?”
In general it’s right to put in a claim, if for no other reason than that the organizers ought to know what the actual costs of their meeting came to. They make an annual budget. They need to know, and so do their successors.
Accept whatever you are given. At times I have been paid with book tokens. You wonder, as you drive away, what the reaction would be at the petrol station, if you leant out of the car window and chirped, “Do you take book tokens here?” But it is all part of the fascinating experience of service, and we learn to take the rough and the smooth together, with equanimity, “not greedy for money, but eager to serve” (1Peter 5:2)
This attitude should govern us all, including those who depend on their speaking for a living. Speakers who become money-conscious should either reform their priorities or leave off speaking. The people who ought to be giving attention to the question of expenses, fees and salaries are the organizing elders. They are the leaders responsible for these matters, and they should, if possible, have business people among them. It is not the concern of the speakers. Never.
I wonder what difference including business people in the discussions of speakers “expenses” might make? Anyway, enough of me quoting someone else, any comments on this issue (feel free to comment “anonymously” on this issue!)
Posted in Christianity, Homiletics, Preacher's Personal Life, Preaching, Religion | Tagged Itinerant Ministry, Richard Bewes, Speaking in Public Effectively, Travelling Speaker | 7 Comments »
November 12, 2009 by Peter Mead
Yesterday I quoted at length from Mike Reeves’ message on Justification (available on theologynetwork.org). Mike was addressing the intriguing question, “Why is it that Luther started the Reformation and Erasmus didn’t?” The first part of his answer focused on the contrast between their views of Scripture. For Erasmus the Scripture was to be revered, but could be squeezed to fit his own vision of Christianity. For Luther the Scriptures were the only sure foundation for belief, the supreme authority allowed to contradict all other claims. Now for the second part of Mike’s answer to the question:
But it wasn’t just the authority of the Bible that made the difference, it was also what they saw as the content of the Bible. For Erasmus the Bible was little more than a collection of moral exhortations. The Bible is all about urging believers to be more like Christ the example. Luther said, that’s just turning the Gospel on its head. Our issue is sinners first and foremost don’t need to copy someone, sinners need a Saviour! Sinners need, first and foremost, a message of salvation! . . . Without the message of Christ’s free gift of righteousness, his free gift of himself and all that he has, there would be no Reformation. Justification by faith alone was what made the Reformation the Reformation. . . . It was this gracious message of a sweet Saviour’s free gift of righteousness that made life changing ministries life changing.
Reformation is not a moral spring clean. It’s not a revolution against the old ways, anything old fashioned and ritualistic. It’s not just about opening the Bible, but not finding the message fully. This is a profound challenge for the church today – what message do people hear?
Our attitude to Scripture is the foundational issue for our preaching. The message we preach from the Scripture is the more visible issue in our preaching. Do we stand, no matter how much contemporary culture, even church culture, not to mention the attacks of the enemy himself, are arrayed against us? Do we stand and preach the message of Scripture, because we are absolutely committed to Scripture, because we are absolutely committed to the God who gave us the Scripture? Do we preach in light of these simple yet profound lessons from history?
Posted in Christianity, Homiletics, Preaching, Religion | Tagged Erasmus, Gospel Preaching, Martin Luther, Michael Reeves, Reformation, theologynetwork.org | Leave a Comment »
November 11, 2009 by Peter Mead
There could be no end to posts dealing with lessons for preachers from the Reformation. I’d like to focus in on one today, then another tomorrow. Both of them were brought out very clearly in a series of messages by Michael Reeves on Justification (available, and well worth listening to, on theologynetwork.org). In the final session of a great series of talks, Mike asks “Why is it that Luther started the Reformation and Erasmus didn’t?” Let me quote the first part of Mike’s two-part answer to this question:
Why is it that Luther started the Reformation and Erasmus didn’t? Because Erasmus is the one who unleashed the Greek New Testament onto Europe. He was getting the Bible out there, so why didn’t he start the Reformation? Well, even though Erasmus was a constant and deep student of the Scriptures, the Scriptures didn’t actually do a lot for him because of how he treated them. Erasmus kept banging on about how vague the Scriptures are (which is very convenient for his own theology), and so he gave them very little practical, let alone overruling, authority. So although he looked at Scripture, the message of Scripture could be tailored, squeezed, adjusted to fit his own vision of what Christianity is.
The only way to break out of that suffocating scheme and achieve any substantial reformation and change in the world – well, it took Luther’s attitude, that Scripture is the only sure foundation for belief. The Bible had to be acknowledged as the supreme authority. It had to be allowed to contradict and overrule all other claims, because if it couldn’t do that, it itself would be overruled and hijacked by another message, as it was with Erasmus. In other words a simple reverence for the Bible was never going to change the world, even quite a high view of the Bible was never going to do much. Sola Scriptura. Scripture alone was the indispensable key for change. Without acknowledging that the Bible has that supreme and foundational authority there would be no Reformation. No Reformation in peoples’ hearts, no Reformation in the world.
That final emboldened text is well worth a “selah” for preachers. On this matter are we an Erasmus, or a Luther?
Posted in Christianity, Homiletics, Preacher's Personal Life, Preaching, Religion | Tagged Erasmus, Martin Luther, Michael Reeves, Mike Reeves, Reformation, theologynetwork.org | Leave a Comment »
November 10, 2009 by Peter Mead
Yesterday I began to respond to Anthony’s question about preaching longer narratives:
How do you handle the tension of wanting to tell the story as it was intended to be told and not wanting to overload the hearers?
We saw that how a story is told is critical (more critical than the amount of information included). We saw that not every detail requires equal focus. This leads on to another thought that is sometimes hard for some people to accept:
4. True expository preaching does not always require every verse to be read out. With a long text, tell the whole story, but read selected highlights. The readers can look down and check what you are telling is accurate, but you don’t have to read every verse in the preaching of the text. If you preach a narrative in first person, you probably won’t read any of the text, but still you need to preach the text!
5. Remember the three ingredients in a sermon. A sermon consists, according to Don Sunukjian, in the combination of three elements. A biblical text plus the big idea plus a preaching purpose. Often sermons are lacking one or two or even all three of these ingredients! The biblical text ingredient means that the message is the text’s message, not a superimposed preacher’s message. Usually this means the text will be opened and read before or during the sermon. However, in a longer message, the text may only be read in part. For instance a single sermon on Romans as a whole will not read the whole thing, but probably will include the reading of 1:16-17 and a few other key highlights. The same is true with a long narrative.
What is always important is not that every word be read, but that the listener is confident that this message is the true and exact message of this text. They can look down while you’re preaching and see it there, they can pull a Berean attitude and check it out later for themselves. Usually the best way to build confidence in the biblical textual nature of the message is to read the whole text and let the exposition show clearly there, but that is a typical strategy, rather than an absolute requirement. With a long narrative the sense of purpose and a clear statement of the main idea are critical, but the biblical source of the message can be conveyed without full detailed exegetical explanation of every verse, or even the reading of every verse.
Posted in Christianity, Delivery, Genre, Homiletics, Preaching, Religion, Stage 2 - Passage Study, Stage 6 - Message Idea, Stage 8 - Message Detail | Tagged Biblical Narrative, Expository Preaching, Preaching narrative | 2 Comments »
November 9, 2009 by Peter Mead
Anthony asked the following after one of the posts last week:
I preach only occasionally, and have tackled a couple of narrative passages recently. I like to respect the narrative chunks in the text, which often have a clear beginning, middle and end. But last time I ended up preaching two whole chapters (75 verses), which was probably a bit much!
I’d be interested to hear what you think about this. How do you handle the tension of wanting to tell the story as it was intended to be told and not wanting to overload the hearers?
This is an important question. After all, not every biblical narrative is contained within a few verses like some of the parables, there are some substantial narratives in the Bible. The David and Bathsheba narrative lasts for nearly 60 verses if you include Nathan’s visit. Anthony is referring to one lasting for 75 verses. A few points to bear in mind:
1. Listeners are more overwhelmed by how something is told than what is told. Especially with narratives, if they are told well, listeners will be glued. Tell children a good story in a compelling way and they won’t be asking you to stop so they can go to sleep. Let’s assume the narratives are good ones since God inspired them, that just leaves the storyteller to do their job well. I’ve sat through the most compelling stories told painfully, but it shouldn’t be that way. Let the story live, tell it well.
2. Good storytelling involves both detailed description and pace change. When you’re telling a Bible story, there are times when you need to add detail to the description to help the images form on the screen of the listener’s heart. There are other times when the story can move ahead in leaps and bounds. The text does this, so can you.
3. True expository preaching does not require equal attention to every detail. The traditional read a verse, explain a verse approach to preaching can become burdensome with a 75 verse narrative. Tell the whole story, but focus in on the details at key points in order to convey the true message of the passage. This requires absolute attention to every detail in preparation, but selective focus in delivery.
A couple more thoughts tomorrow on this . . .
Posted in Christianity, Delivery, Genre, Homiletics, How to . . . ?, Preaching, Religion, Stage 2 - Passage Study, Stage 5 - Message Purpose, Stage 8 - Message Detail | Tagged Biblical Narrative, Expository Preaching, Preaching narrative | 2 Comments »
November 6, 2009 by Peter Mead
Do you ever wonder what someone’s motivation might be? For example, I was thinking about a man I once knew who never read anything except the Bible. His preaching bore the fruit. Some might say that his preaching was biblically saturated and uncluttered. Others might suggest his preaching was unengaging and borderline heretical. Not that the Bible is unengaging, but somehow there was, at times, a lack of connection happening. So I ponder . . . what was the motivation?
1. Was it pure devotion to Christ? Perhaps. Certainly there are many who would do well to stop reading everything but and spend some serious time in God’s Word, like a lifetime. Perhaps this is fruit of the example and we would all do well to heed it.
2. Was it mixed up with insecurity? Perhaps. After all, it’s a lot easier to stay on familiar territory and not be stretched or challenged or confronted or corrected. It can be intimidating to consider the vast array of biblical and theological scholarship out there. What if that held only fear for him? Perhaps the fruit of this example is to encourage us to not fear, but to be stretched and grow, and perhaps have the odd corrective to point out where our own thinking might be distorting the message of Scripture.
3. Was it thinly veiled arrogance? Perhaps. After all, while it might be portrayed as devotion to Christ, it is at the same time a reliance on one’s own ability to piece together the complex canon of Scripture. There is always a tension between separation from corrupting influences and interdependence with the body of Christ. Is it not arrogant to state by word or action, “I don’t need you” to a fellow saint in the local church, or a sibling in Christ who offers conversation through the pages of a book? Perhaps the fruit of this example is to recognize that distinctive devotion can sometimes smack of blatant arrogance and walk more carefully?
I honestly don’t know what to think of this particular man. I’d like to believe the best. Obviously only the Lord can judge his motives. But perhaps I can learn from all the possibilities I mentioned. More in the Word. Unafraid of engaging with scholars. Humble enough to enjoy conversation with a giant of the past, or a “nobody” in the church. I don’t know what his motivations were. But God knows yours and mine. What does our distinctiveness say about us?
Posted in Christianity, Homiletics, Preacher's Personal Life, Preaching, Religion, Stage 2 - Passage Study | 2 Comments »
November 5, 2009 by Peter Mead
Perhaps preaching could be defined as a work of forging connections. In a world of increasingly independent and disconnected individuals relating often on a level of billiard balls (bouncing and bumping, but not connecting), the preacher’s task involves connecting with the listener, connecting the listener with the text, more than that, via the text forging a communicative connection between God and the listener, and potentially, connecting the listeners with one another.
I’m not sure I like this as a definition of preaching, but there are some truths to ponder here. How often do we view preaching preparation, even inadvertently, as preparation to present information that will sit in the air for others to grab hold of if they so choose? How often do we preach as though speaking into thin air, largely unconcerned who is sitting in front of us or whether they are with us in the communication act? How often do we simplify the complexity of forging connections, with all the implied awareness of the complex beings involved, into a simple act of giving information out? Out where? Nowhere, just out.
It is relatively easy to formulate a message and deliver it. But it is much more complex to prayerfully and pastorally consider the listeners, to prayerfully and devotionally consider the God whose Word we present, to prayerfully and purposefully consider how we can forge genuine communication between us and the listeners, etc. What does this involve? Study? Yes. Preparation? Yes. Perhaps prayerfully considering every aspect of delivery, demeanour, interpersonal conversation and intercession in anticipation.
This is not a complete thought or a well crafted unit of prose. It’s a thinking out loud about the difference between just speaking information and actually forging connections between hearts – human and divine. What a privileged calling!
Posted in Audience Analysis, Christianity, Delivery, Homiletics, Preaching, Religion, Stage 5 - Message Purpose, Stage 8 - Message Detail | 1 Comment »
November 4, 2009 by Peter Mead
Each text in the Bible has a tone. We are often oblivious to it. Our training in Bible school tends to focus on analysis of content. Most sermons tend to train listeners to look at content (or perhaps to largely ignore the text and just bounce off it, but that’s another matter!)
I often find myself trying to figure out the tone of an email. Was this writer annoyed, or discouraged, or aggressive, or manipulative, or did it come out wrong? Is this email an encouragement out of empathy, or is it a patronizing exhortation? We learn with our contemporaries that written language doesn’t always communicate tone overtly, yet tone is so significant to the intended communication.
With Bible texts we can’t meet up with Paul or Moses to double check their intent. So we do well to wrestle with the tone of the text. Let’s be diligent in this:
1. Deduce the tone. Don’t settle for simple cold analysis of content. Wrestle with grasping the tone of the passage. Allow that to be a factor in your understanding the passage and then in your preparation of the message.
2. Demonstrate the tone. Too often preachers preach every sermon in monotone. Not necessarily their own vocal range, but rather the tonal range of the whole collection of sermons. Some preachers turn every encouraging passage into a guilt-driven rebuke. Others neutralize every passage they touch to make it a sterile set of philosophical musings. Our preaching will be enriched by demonstrating the tone of the passage . . . as I seem to add a lot . . . appropriately.
3. Declare the tone. People may be so trained in tone-less preaching that simply improving your delivery may not be enough. Sometimes overtly declare the tone of the passage. I preached on Luke 11:1-13 recently . . . all about prayer. A subject that most believers feel very inadequate in, and pressured by, is prayer. Yet the tone of the passage is overtly encouraging. I tried to demonstrate that tone. I also chose to declare it overtly – this passage is not pressuring us, it’s overtly encouraging in its tone! People need to become sensitized to the tone of Scripture. They need to feel the emotion, the anger, the encouragement, the grace.
Let’s be sensitive to the text, and let’s help to sensitize others too.
Posted in Christianity, Delivery, Homiletics, How to . . . ?, Preaching, Religion, Stage 2 - Passage Study, Stage 5 - Message Purpose, Stage 8 - Message Detail | Tagged Expository Preaching | 2 Comments »
November 3, 2009 by Peter Mead
A story is a story. It should be studied as a story and understood as a story. But what about when you are preaching part of a story? For instance, take the book of Ruth. I had to preach just part of that story on Sunday. It’s not easy to break into a story and preach part of it, but leave the rest for the following weeks. Some thoughts:
1. You have to study the whole story. A narrative is incomplete until it has been completed. Profound, but a necessary comment. Even if you are only preaching one part of a longer story, you need to be significantly aware of the whole in order to handle your part well.
2. Build on previous elements, but don’t give away the tensions of subsequent development. If I am preaching from Ruth 1, then I need to preach Ruth 1 without preaching Ruth 2-4. This means that although I really like Boaz and want to preach about Boaz, he’s not in my text yet. If someone else is preaching in subsequent weeks and I have given away all the tension, that is unfair (even if people know the story, build the tension of the whole story and allow each scene to have its day).
3. If you only have one scene in a longer narrative, preach the plot of that scene. Recognize the mini-play nature of a single scene. Look for the tension. See how it resolves, even if only partially. Preach the scene you are preaching. Often readers and listeners think they know a story but really only know certain elements. How many people really understand Jonah 2 or even Jonah 4? How many people have really soaked in Ruth 1? While it may be difficult to preach only part of a narrative, there are advantages too.
4. Make sure you preach a message, not just an introduction. It may be tempting to simply set up the following weeks where the greater tension is resolved, but don’t fail to preach a message this week. Simply setting up what follows is not enough. People have come to church this week and should be fed this week.
Much more could be said . . . you say it.
Posted in Christianity, Genre, Homiletics, How to . . . ?, Old Testament, Preaching, Religion, Specific text, Stage 2 - Passage Study, Stage 5 - Message Purpose, Stage 6 - Message Idea | 3 Comments »
November 2, 2009 by Peter Mead
Last time I suggested one approach, simply asking what the passage is about. But what if that approach isn’t causing fruit to drop from the branches. Are there other tacks to take that might help a preacher grasp the essential unity of idea in a single passage? Here are some angles of approach that I use. Perhaps you might add others. Remember, this is not about studying a passage per se, it builds on that with the goal of defining the united single main idea of the passage – a vital prerequisite to preaching any passage.
5. Try the question answered approach. A passage might yield it’s idea better to a question like this, “Which question does this passage answer?” Is it answering a “why?” question, or a “what?” or a “who?” or a “when?” etc.? This approach can be very fruitful. Discovering an implicit question answered by the overt evidence of the text can work in some cases where asking what the passage is about has become a dead end.
6. Don’t neglect the importance of intent. As well as wrestling with the author’s content, it can also be helpful to come at the passage from the perspective of intent – what did the author intend to happen in light of this passage being communicated?
7. Back up and remind yourself of the genre you are dealing with. Awareness of genre should be an early element in the study of a passage, but sometimes it helps to remind ourselves at this stage in the process. For instance, in an epistle you probably should go back and see the previous unit of thought then wrestle with why this follows that, what question was left implied previously, etc. In a narrative you probably should back away from apparently incidental elements of the story and look again at the points of tension and resolution (then see the apparently incidental elements in light of the plot . . . they aren’t incidental).
8. Talk it through. When stuck it can really break the log-jam to talk it through. Ideally you can call a friend who knows what finding the main idea is all about and talk it through together. Sometimes a ten-minute chat can undo hours of apparent non-progress. If you don’t have someone to talk to, try talking it through out loud to yourself. Your goal is to preach, after all, so there are multiple benefits to this approach. (And remember, of course, that every element of sermon preparation should be constantly talked through with God too . . . prayer saturated expository preparation is what I affirm, but if I don’t say it . . .)
Posted in Christianity, Homiletics, How to . . . ?, Preaching, Religion, Stage 2 - Passage Study, Stage 3 - Passage Purpose, Stage 4 - Passage Idea | Leave a Comment »
October 30, 2009 by Peter Mead
When you are confident that you are dealing with a legitimate unit of text, then you can be confident that there is unity to the idea contained in that text. You will often need that confidence. Usually a passage doesn’t offer its unity on the lowest branch. It can take work and real wrestling in order to determine the united single main idea of a passage.
Here’s one approach:
1. Read the passage multiple times. Early on you probably need to make a note of questions you have on the first run through since these will be the questions listeners have as they hear it on Sunday. However, you can’t prepare a message after one read through. Soak in the passage. Study it. Revisit it. And again.
2. Answer the question – “what’s this passage about?” Not the easiest question, but an important one. It’s asking not for specific detail (such as “what stood out?” or “what’s your favourite bit?”) but for general overview observation – “what’s it about?” You may have two or three things that the passage is dealing with. For instance, a friend of mine is looking at Isaiah 6. Early thoughts are that it is about God’s majesty and holiness, but it’s also about Isaiah’s call into ministry, plus there’s the often neglected last part of the chapter too.
3. Consider whether the answers you have are roughly equal in weight, according to the measure of the passage. It may be that one part has made it onto your list because you’ve heard about it before, it’s familiar, you like it, etc. But is it really a fair answer to the question “what’s the passage about?” If it is really a subordinate issue, tentatively drop it. If not, if each element is genuinely weighty in the passage, then . . .
4. Consider how the elements might be combined, rather than viewed exclusively. Perhaps Isaiah 6 is not about God’s majestic holiness or Isaiah’s call into ministry, but rather a combination of the two? After all, isn’t Isaiah’s call in the context of an encounter with God? How about the message he’s given . . . how does that fit? Is there a contrast between Isaiah’s responsiveness and the rest of the people of unclean lips? Keep wrestling.
Next time I’ll suggest a few other approaches if this one isn’t working.
Posted in Christianity, Homiletics, How to . . . ?, Preaching, Religion, Stage 1 - Passage Selection, Stage 2 - Passage Study, Stage 3 - Passage Purpose, Stage 4 - Passage Idea | Tagged Expository Preaching | Leave a Comment »
October 29, 2009 by Peter Mead
Urgency used to be one of the preeminent distinctives of the preacher. Times change, listeners change, cultures change, preachers change. People no longer expect an urgent edge to every sermon, listeners often resist any hint of hype or overly effected preaching styles. Natural communication styles are the most effective styles in our day. Yet while much may change, the needs of our listeners have not changed.
There is no less need for a clear presentation of the gospel and a compelling call for response today than in any previous era. People are lost, the enemy is roaming, death is lurking, judgment is waiting, and the preacher has the opportunity to address the situation. With all the appropriate and effective naturalness in our preaching styles, let us also make sure there is urgency mixed in too.
If you say that the work is God’s, and he may do it by the weakest means, I answer, It is true, he may do so; but yet his ordinary way is to work by means, and to make not only the matter that is preached, but also the manner of preaching instrumental to the work.
If it weren’t for the run-on sentence, would you know when that was written? It could be speaking to preachers today. How easy it is to hide behind the fact that preaching is God’s work. Oh yes, this is a profound and humbling truth that should be seared through every cell of our being. At the same time it can be an excuse, can’t it? An excuse to cover for lack of improvement in our preaching, for lack of urgency, for lack of focused preparation. God does work using very weak instruments. Even if you pursue training and studies and feedback and improvement, you and I will still be very weak instruments. Good stewards, weak instruments . . . but a great God addressing a great need!
I’m with Richard Baxter on this matter. God’s ordinary means of working in preaching is by the content and the delivery, not despite either. So, will there be a fitting urgency about the next message?
Posted in Christianity, Delivery, Homiletics, Preaching, Religion | Tagged Reformed Pastor, Richard Baxter | 1 Comment »
October 28, 2009 by Peter Mead
We are starting to hear about the 2011 edition of the NIV Bible, timed to coincide with the 400th anniversary of the original King James Version. King James may not have really “authorised” the often called Authorised Version, but he was motivated to have a Bible that had no notes attached to the text (other than Hebrew/Greek notes). Interestingly, it is 100 years since the first publication of the Scofield Reference Bible. C.I.Scofield, whatever your view of his theology, was motivated to see serious students of the Bible studying it more systematically. Later came the New Scofield Reference Bible and the Ryrie Study Bible, not to mention a plethora of other reference and annotated Bibles from various theological streams. The popularity of the NIV Study Bible seemed insurmountable, although recently we saw the launch of the highly lauded ESV Study Bible.
I’ve already mentioned seven Bibles that could all spark significant criticism (we are very quick to attack Bible versions and Study Bibles aren’t we?) Obviously Study Bibles and annotated Bibles all have a particular theological agenda or leaning, that goes without saying. But let’s make a simple observation. Lots of “special” Bibles are published and sold because a lot of Christians feel both some motivation and some level of inadequacy for Bible Study. A good Study Bible is a great resource for many people!
So the question then arises for us as preachers – how do we encourage our listeners to be effective Bible students? Here are some questions to chew on – do we encourage them to use helpful study aids like Study Bibles and other resources? Do we undermine the text they are looking at by critiquing the translation too freely? Do we offer training in basic Bible study approaches – such as an inductive Bible study class? Do we preach in such a way that listeners get the sense that the Bible is understandable and that Bible study would actually help them?
We may not place ourselves in the camp of the NIV translators, the Scofield notes, the Ryrie theology, the ESV Study Bible notes, or whatever. But let’s consider how we can follow in this tradition of looking for ways to help people be serious students of the Word.
Posted in Audience Analysis, Christianity, Homiletics, How to . . . ?, Preaching, Religion, Stage 5 - Message Purpose | Tagged AV, C I Scofield, Charles Ryrie, ESV Study Bible, KJV, New Scofield Reference Bible, Ryrie Study Bible, Scofield Reference Bible | 1 Comment »
October 27, 2009 by Peter Mead
Most things can be described on a continuum. Consider the tone of your presentation to others. At one end of the scale, it is possible to fawn, to flatter, to pander to those listening. At the other end of the scale, a preacher can condescend and patronize. Neither is helpful.
A preacher who overdoes the flattery and pandering will convey very little in the way of integrity and respectability. A preacher who overdoes condescension and patronizing will achieve little in making listeners want to hear what is being said. Both extremes will undermine communication very rapidly and deeply annoy the listeners.
We might assume that younger speakers are the flatterers and older speakers are the patronizers. We would be wrong. Any speaker can have a tendency to offer either, or both. I’ve heard some extremely patronizing speakers in their twenties, and some ridiculously fawning speakers in their sixties. The problem is that most are probably deeply unaware of how they come across.
Yet there is another challenge here. These two extremes are on a continuum, so it is not as simple as just avoiding them. In fact, isn’t low level flattery sometimes called politeness? Isn’t low level patronizing sometimes called being simple and clear? Both of these are very important. It doesn’t help to avoid flattery and pandering by being obnoxious and objectionable. It doesn’t help to avoid condescension by being obfuscatory and lacking in perspicuity.
To be accurate, I wouldn’t say that politeness and flattery are actually on the same continuum, nor clarity and condescension. The distinction is probably at the level of motive. As preachers it would do us good to check our motives regularly – what is our motive in regard to these listeners? Do we love them? Do we genuinely respect them? Are we wanting to serve, or to show off? Are we serving for their benefit, or for our own?
One more thought. Even right motives don’t guarantee effective communication. After all, communication has a lot to do with how the listeners perceive your preaching. Do they find you condescending? Do they find you overly flattering? Perhaps it would be worth a periodic spot check from someone you trust . . . “Do I come across as one speaking naturally to equals, or is there any hint of pandering or patronizing in my delivery – please tell me?”
Posted in Audience Analysis, Christianity, Delivery, Homiletics, How to . . . ?, Preaching, Religion, Stage 8 - Message Detail | Leave a Comment »
October 26, 2009 by Peter Mead
There is a phenomenon, actually not uncommon, that we might call the feel-good sermon. In it the preacher begins with the text and then shares several points that are somehow linked to the text. The points will be put in terms that are comfortable and reassuring to the listener. The listeners may well walk away feeling vaguely blessed and certainly positive in their view of the speaker.
However, this kind of sermon typically does not engage fully with the text. Often issues like sin or judgment will be skirted around or offered merely in non-specific euphemisms. Thus the tension in the text is not really engaged, nor resolved. This probably means that the same tensions in the lives of the listeners are neither engaged, nor resolved.
Let’s beware of preaching feel-good sermons rather than biblical sermons. It is possible to preach the Bible in a very engaging, encouraging and even positive way. It is possible to preach the passage properly, even in a “seeker-friendly” setting. In fact, if our main concern was the listener, wouldn’t we feel obliged to really engage fully with both text and listener? The feel-good sermon seems to be a short-cut to happy handshakes, but it falls short of engaging both the text and the listener. So perhaps the motivation is more fear and the preacher’s personal comfort than it is the motivation of a true minister?
Posted in Audience Analysis, Christianity, Delivery, Homiletics, Preaching, Religion, Stage 2 - Passage Study, Stage 5 - Message Purpose | 2 Comments »
October 23, 2009 by Peter Mead
When you are preparing to preach a passage of Scripture there are always decisions to be made. Some of them are relatively easy to make. Others are harder to make, but the result is definite and clear. Others are not easy to make, neither are they critical to orthdoxy. So do you share the options with your listeners, or do you go for one option and present it (either strongly, if it is clear; or tentatively, if it is not clear)?
Some thoughts, although more could be added:
1. Don’t allow an academic discussion to overwhelm the main purpose and content of the message. If sharing the options with listeners would draw them away from the clear and central teaching of the passage, then think very very carefully before presenting the options.
2. Remember who you are preaching to – some groups just can’t handle options, others love them. As in all preaching, who you are preaching to is very significant. Some groups would be confused and distracted by any apparent ambiguity in your presentation, but others love to get their teeth into such things (and appreciate the vulnerability of a preacher who doesn’t act like they have all the answers).
3. Don’t over-explain, sometimes interpretive options can be offered quite subtly. It is important to recognize the varied amount of explanation needed in such details of a message. Sometimes we can make something bigger than it is, where it could be covered in two or three very brief sentences. Even this might be effective sometimes: “Some people think he meant A, while others understand it to mean B. Actually, either way doesn’t change the message of the whole passage…”
4. Recognize the opportunity to teach some Bible study skill. At the right time, with the right people, in the right passage, with the right words, this can be an opportunity to do some hermeneutics training within a message.
More thoughts . . . ?
Posted in Audience Analysis, Christianity, Delivery, Homiletics, How to . . . ?, Preaching, Religion, Stage 2 - Passage Study, Stage 5 - Message Purpose, Stage 8 - Message Detail | 3 Comments »
October 22, 2009 by Peter Mead
I just read through a course guide for a preaching course. I won’t name it. It left me feeling dry and concerned. Why? To put it basically, because of what was and what wasn’t included.
Included - The different types of sermon that can be used (exegetical and topical given as the main two options, with two others noted). The key role of the hymnbook in sermon preparation (double the content of the exegetical sermon preparation guidelines). A session on effective delivery. Then some guidelines on how to give feedback to a preacher (including the line, “don’t try to correct their theology.”)
Missing - Anything more than a cursory reference to studying the Bible. Anything about how to get from a passage to a message so that the message has any biblical authority, accuracy or relevance. Anything about the personal spirituality of the preacher.
I won’t go on, but surely an introducing to preaching course has to build on Biblical study as a key feature. While it is best to get training in all areas, the fact is that communication and delivery training occurs in daily life, but most Christians are significantly unaware of what it means to really study and understand, let alone preach, a passage of Scripture.
My point is not to criticize this particular book (I suppose what I paid for it was worth it to remind me of the training offered in some venues). My point is for us to look back on the training we received – what was strong, what was weak, what was missing? Are there gaps that could be filled now with some carefully chosen study, course or mentoring?
Posted in Christianity, Delivery, Homiletics, Preacher's Personal Life, Preaching, Religion, Stage 2 - Passage Study | Leave a Comment »
October 21, 2009 by Peter Mead
Have you ever had to preach at short-notice? What do you do if you only have two days to prepare? Two hours? Two minutes? In some ways I hope it doesn’t happen to any of us. On the other hand, maybe it would be good if it did. Why?
1. A short-notice sermon shows quickly whether your spiritual tank is full or empty. There are times when our spiritual reserves are bursting to open a Bible and share from the heart. At other times a short-notice sermon might feel very dry and simply the reworking of an old message. Interestingly, the listeners may not know the difference, but you would. How is your tank today?
2. A short-notice sermon pushes you onto your knees. In the panicky moments of pulling thoughts together for a message without enough time to prepare, it should eventually dawn on us that this is not an exercise in memory or even fast-preparation. Preaching is as much a prayerful endeavor as it is anything else.
3. A short-notice sermon might restore a fading excitement at the privilege of preaching. Perhaps you see God working very much despite your own feelings of inadequacy. Perhaps you see God working despite you not being able to fully craft and script and hone and learn the message. Perhaps you see God working in a fresh way and your heart will be rekindled with a passion for the adventure of preaching. Perhaps you don’t need this to achieve that . . . perhaps?
Plenty more could be said on numerous levels about short-notice preaching. But maybe we could all benefit just from imagining what a one hour or one day warning might do for us as preachers!
Posted in Christianity, Homiletics, Preacher's Personal Life, Preaching, Religion | Leave a Comment »
October 20, 2009 by Peter Mead
A modified form of an article I wrote a while back has now been posted on theologynetwork.org . . . here’s a taste:
True exposition should not be boring, for we would not want to give the impression that God gives of Himself in self-revelation in a way that is boring. True exposition should not be disconnected from real life, for in the incarnation we see God giving of Himself, His ultimate self-revelation, in the most relevant manner imaginable. Perhaps if more preachers would truly grasp the need for effective hermeneutics in their sermon preparation, perhaps then we would not have so much occasion to point the finger at others and complain of dumbed-down diet sermonettes abounding in our generation.
But is improved hermeneutics enough? The article makes a further move that I believe is critical and often overlooked. To read the article, and then look around at the excellent resources, click here – www.theologynetwork.org
Posted in Christianity, Homiletics, Preacher's Personal Life, Preaching, Religion, Stage 2 - Passage Study | Tagged Expository Preaching, Hermeneutics, theologynetwork.org | Leave a Comment »
October 19, 2009 by Peter Mead
Some churches, especially larger ones, never allow anyone to participate from the front unless they are thoroughly vetted first. At the other extreme there are churches that really have little choice who is up front – whoever is willing! But for the rest, in between the extremes, there is a tension.
On the one hand, it is good to involve people and give them opportunity to grow, as well as giving the church opportunity to hear different voices. On the other hand, it can be a challenge to maintain appropriate standards from the front. Actually, perhaps the real challenge is to find the right balance.
Here are three ways people get “involved” and some comments on the tensions faced:
1. Bible Readings – Often this is seen as an ideal place for people to overcome “public speaking fear” because all they have to do is read the passage in front of them.
The balance needs to be found. After all, the public reading of God’s Word is actually a critical event. It is easy to read into a microphone . . . dispassionately, monotonously, haltingly, without clarity, etc There are times when it might be worth hunting for the best public reader, rather than settling for participation alone. On the other hand, listeners will sometimes concentrate more for someone obviously uncomfortable than they would for an overly polished “performer.” The balance needs to be found.
2. Personal Testimony – Everybody expects the usual participants to have a certain testimony, but it can be very effective to hear from “normal” people during the service. It can make a real impression to hear somebody’s personal experience of God’s grace in their lives.
The balance needs to be found. Testimonies do make a real lasting impression, so it is worth trying to make sure that impression isn’t heretical or misleading. How many times have well-meaning testimonies stated, “Of course I can’t prove any of this is true, but that’s what faith is, isn’t it, a leap in the dark!” Include testimony, but pre-screen or coach appropriately. The balance needs to be found.
3. Special Event Preaching – It seems the obvious place, as far as some churches are concerned. For someone to “cut their teeth” as a preacher, it seems set up: a shorter message, freedom to choose the passage, longer time for preparation, no expectation of fitting in to a series running at that time.
The balance needs to be found. All the positives are agreed, but what about the other side of the coin … it is hard to speak at Christmas since it feels like it’s all so familiar. It is hard to speak on Mother’s Day, just because it is. What’s more, special occasions are prime time for guests to visit … what experience do you want them to have of the preaching at your church? The balance needs to be found.
Involving people is a great idea, but enter into it with eyes open and make sure it is the right occasion, the right role, the right timing.
Posted in Audience Analysis, Christianity, Delivery, Homiletics, Preaching, Religion, Stage 1 - Passage Selection, Stage 5 - Message Purpose | Tagged Bible Reading, Christian Testimony, Public Reading | 1 Comment »
October 17, 2009 by Peter Mead
I’d like to answer a question offered in a comment a few days ago by Peter D:
“I have heard a couple times that people tune out after about 20 mins in hearing a speech or sermon. With that being said do you think that there are times we can force a text to be longer than it needs to be? It seems like most sermons I hear are bewteen the 45-and hour long mark. That being said do you feel that sometimes they might be more effective if they were shorter (still keeping the context in full view) or is there something internal that tells us they need to be so and so long?”
This is an important question for us all to think about. Some sermons would be more effective if they were shorter, while some would always feel too long no matter how quickly they finished! We have a tendency to simply preach to the standard length for our own context and personal comfort (our own more than the listener’s). But it is not a bad idea to consider what would be most effective.
1. There is no “right length” of message, but there is an appropriate length for any specific context. Tomorrow I am preaching in my home church and I know it will need to be slightly shorter than usual. If I go ten minutes longer, on this occasion, it would not be appropriate. Not only does the specific church influence this, but so does the culture in which that church exists.
2. Listeners do not have shorter attention spans, but listeners struggle to concentrate beyond a very few minutes. Is that not contradictory? Sort of. So many harp on about today’s listener being unable to concentrate beyond 15 or 20 minutes – yet the movies of this generation are considerably longer than most were twenty or thirty years ago. Actually though, listeners struggle to concentrate beyond 3-5 minutes at a time, so even a 15 or 20 minute sermon can easily be 10-15 minutes too long, unless . . .
3. The preacher needs to engage and re-engage the listener regularly in the message. Some speakers are engaging in content, manner, delivery, energy, empathy, etc. and listeners who regularly declare they simply aren’t able to concentrate beyond fifteen minutes, will listen fully engaged for an hour and then act surprised at how much time has passed! Other speakers can make the briefest of devotional thoughts feel like the most tedious of hours.
4. Thus we can’t “blame” the listeners if the concensus is that our preaching is too long! Every speaker should do a self-evaluation, and then get some honest input from others, to determine areas of strength and weakness in respect to their ability to engage the focus and attention of the listeners. These are weaknesses worth addressing, for without attention, there is no communication – at least not the kind you are trying to achieve. Disinterested listeners are receiving a message, often one reinforcing negative associations between the Bible and words like “boring” and “irrelevant.” What a tragedy that some who preach are, somewhat inadvertently, communicating the very opposite of what they intend!
5. Finally, I appreciate Don Sunukjian’s point about explanation and application ratios. If a passage requires lots of explanation, thus only leaving a short time for application, so be it. But if a passage is relatively easy to understand, don’t pad the time with unnecessary explanation, instead use the time for lots and lots of application. It is often the lack of application that undermines the effectiveness of our preaching. More qualifiers are needed, but this post has gone on too long now!
Posted in Audience Analysis, Christianity, Delivery, Homiletics, Preaching, Religion, Stage 5 - Message Purpose, Stage 7 - Message Outline, Stage 8 - Message Detail | Tagged Donald Sunukjian, Expository Preaching, Sermon Length | 1 Comment »
October 16, 2009 by Peter Mead
I suppose it is obvious, but some preachers have lost sight of the obvious. When we preach, we should preach the Bible (for the alternatives offered by contemporary culture, sophisticated philosophy or personal insights will always fall short). Yet when we preach, our goal is not really to present the Bible itself. The Bible itself is not the end, it is not the goal, it is not the god. We preach the Bible not because of what it is in itself, but because it is God’s Word.
This distinction in no way undermines our view of the Bible. In fact, it should only strengthen it. What does God’s character and intimate involvement suggest about the quality of the revelation He has given? But we must not forget that it is just that – a revelation from and of Him.
Preaching that presents the Bible, but somehow loses God, really loses the Bible too. It is easy to turn the Bible into a set of historical data, stories with morals attached, illustrations for our own thought processes. But our goal is not to turn the Bible into anything. Our goal is to preach the Bible well, so that the giver of the revelation is presented. Biblical preaching is about presenting God himself.
Evaluate your next message before you preach it. Where does God fit in the message? Is He the main character? Is He the real hero of the story? Is the message pointing us to respond to Him?
It is easy to leave God as a background assumption as we preach a human level story with human level applications – be good, be better, be like so and so. May God never be a background assumption as we preach the self-offering and self-giving revelation He gave to us!
Posted in Christianity, Homiletics, Preaching, Religion, Stage 2 - Passage Study, Stage 3 - Passage Purpose, Stage 5 - Message Purpose, Stage 6 - Message Idea, Stage 7 - Message Outline, Stage 8 - Message Detail | Tagged Expository Preaching, Theocentric Preaching | 1 Comment »
October 15, 2009 by Peter Mead
There seems to be an epidemic of copycat mentality in church ministry today. I’m not referring primarily to pulpit plagiarism, although that is a real issue (only exacerbated by the availability of online sermons from the very good to the very poor – all of which are readily copied by some). I’m thinking more generally. If a church is successful (measure that however you choose), then methodology is deemed worthy of mass representation for the benefit of others who in some way seek to reproduce something of that methodology or vision in their own local context.
By the way, please don’t think of this simply as a feature of one brand of Christianity. I have heard the sneers and comments at the expense of Willow Creek or Saddleback, but some who sneer in that direction would affirm and delight in, for example, Redeemer Presbyterian’s Church Planting Center, just to cite one example.
While some are quick to mock some of this, it is certainly not bad. Many churches have been helped and strengthened (not just in numbers) by learning from other church leaders in respect to methodology and ministry vision. Some of the contemporary attacks on Christian consumerism have an element of irony about them inasmuch as there seems to be a band-wagon of consumerism-bashing. Nevertheless, we should ask ourselves after the next seminar we attend, or “this-is-how-we-did-it” book we read . . . am I copying the right thing?
I’m not condemning all the seminars and books on methodology. We can, if we are discerning and aware of our own context, learn from what others are doing in theirs. We should certainly think carefully about that if we are inclined to use methodology as a short-cut, a cut and paste approach to doing church, a photocopied church program from another place, another culture, another context. Learn from others, but recognize their context, and implement prayerfully in recognition of your own context.
But the greater focus, the one so often missing today, is the one Jethani points to at one point in his book, The Divine Commodity, an engagement with the pervasive consumerist distortion of Christianity. “Rather than reproducing a leader’s ministry methodology, we ought to focus on reproducing his or her devotion to God.” (p98)
Why don’t we give more attention to that? Why do we look at “successful” church leaders and copy their method, but not yearn to reproduce their spiritual devotion? If they don’t have that, then what is the method really worth? If they do have that, what is it about us that fails to be stirred by it? Look around for a great Christian leader, one with a deep devotion to God. Don’t cut and paste. You can’t fake that, although you may be tempted to try. Don’t fake. Don’t ignore. Don’t methodologize. In the right sense: Copy.
Posted in Christianity, Homiletics, How to . . . ?, Preacher's Personal Life, Preaching, Religion | Tagged Christian Consumerism, Church Growth, Redeemer Presbyterian, Saddleback Church, Skye Jethani, The Divine Commodity, Willow Creek | 1 Comment »
October 14, 2009 by Peter Mead
Some preachers focus their attention on the world of the Bible. Others focus their attention on the world of the listener. These are the two worlds of a preacher, right? Faithfulness to the text: biblical accuracy. Connection with the listener: contemporary relevance. Both matter, but don’t forget the one who is linking the two worlds together so that the Bible speaks powerfully to the listeners – the preacher. As well as being biblical and relevant, make sure you are clear.
Where does clarity come from? Here are ten quick hints or reminders for us to consider as we prepare our next message.
1. Clarity comes from preaching the one big idea of the text, not several ideas. Preach one idea and preach it well. Don’t preach multiple ideas and confuse everybody.
2. Clarity comes from well-structured thought. Well-structured does not mean infinitely complex, but rather a clear, simple, logical progression of thought that remembers itself. If they know that you know where you are going, there’s more chance listeners will travel with you.
3. Clarity comes from expulsion of unnecessary content. Every message needs some time in the cutting room. Remove anything that is extraneous or unnecessary for the goal of communicating the main idea effectively and clearly. Good content will be omitted!
4. Clarity comes from choosing words that communicate. Your goal is not to impress with your erudite, sophisticated and learned vocabulary. Your goal is to communicate.
5. Clarity comes from repeating and raining down words to unify the message. Give listeners the repetition and consistent wording that provides unity to the ear.
6. Clarity comes from restatement of important sentences. When you have a key sentence, restate it so they have another chance to get it. For those important statements in a message, run it by them again in different words so they don’t miss it.
7. Clarity comes from carefully planned and executed transitions. As has been said before (Mathewson?) – we tend to lose people in the turns, so drive slowly. Make transitions obvious and clear, pause, re-engage, get people with you before you move on.
8. Clarity comes from effective use of variation in delivery. Vary the vocal elements of delivery – the pace at which you speak, the pitch at which you speak, the punch with which you speak. Practice adding emphasis through various vocal means.
9. Clarity comes from effective use of physical movement. I didn’t mention variation in non-verbals, although that is important (don’t distract with monotonous or bizarre gestures). But especially consider using your movement to clarify the content or progression of the message.
10. Clarity comes from effective engagement with the listener (energy, enthusiasm, etc.) All the best “technique” won’t communicate clearly if listeners are bored or disinterested. An often overlooked key to clarity is simply to make sure listeners are engaged and with you as you speak!
Posted in Christianity, Delivery, Homiletics, How to . . . ?, Preaching, Religion, Stage 6 - Message Idea, Stage 7 - Message Outline, Stage 8 - Message Detail | 5 Comments »
October 13, 2009 by Peter Mead
Following my post yesterday, I’d like to share some thoughts from Austin Tucker (Liberty Seminary). It is his conviction that homiletical history is ignored, in part, because homiletics professors are appointed by seminaries based on skewed criteria. According to Tucker, seminaries will choose somebody based on the model of dynamic delivery they provide, secondarily based on academic criteria and only then any sense of homiletical training or background. Personally I suspect that any “skewing” also relates to budgets: after all, many Bible schools are limited once the main positions are in place – New Testament, Old Testament, Languages, Theology, History, etc. – so surely someone can just “cover” homiletics, or perhaps a local pastor can teach his personal approach? Either way, homiletics background is often lacking in formal training.
So what does Tucker suggest? He mentions a friend who picks a preacher each year to read a biography and read available sermons. The benefits are four-fold:
1. It adds homiletical variety to our preaching, keeping us from becoming Brother Obvious.
2. It allows us who preach to others to sit at the feet of those who can preach to us for our spiritual enrichment.
3. It provides a golden vein of possibilities to enrich our own preaching. He quotes Grady Davis’ caution regarding the hijacking of illustrations from others. Such illustrations are like “‘brightly colored kites pulled from the wind of somebody else’s thought’ and entangled in the branches of our sermons.”
4. Diligence in this pursuit restores the perspective that preaching really is a pastor’s priority in the midst of the numerous demands.
Please don’t read this post as being advice from me. I can’t speak with authority on this since I have not diligently studied preachers of yesteryear. But perhaps I’m convincing myself by these posts!
Posted in Christianity, Homiletics, Preacher's Personal Life, Preaching, Religion | Tagged Austin Tucker, Expository Preaching, Grady Davis | 1 Comment »
Older Posts »
