Notes on Reviewing Experience

February 4, 2011February 4, 2011 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

I’ve just finished a series of messages at my home church. Each message was recorded and I took the time to listen to them again. This allowed me to edit start and finish, as well as any particularly disturbingly loud sneezes from folks in the congregation. It also allowed me to review my messages. One thing stands out – my mental review and my audio review were different. For example:

1. After preaching certain elements seemed big in my memory, but were minimal in the audio. That is, a passing comment that took three seconds in reality actually became a thirty second major issue in my mental recollection of the message. When we look back on a message and one comment or detail stands out, let’s not assume it was “as bad” or “as major” as our minds might tell us.

2. After preaching my overall impression of the message could be very different from reality. For instance, I might look back and think, “that was rushed.” However, in review of the audio it might sound anything but rushed. This kind of thing happened several times in this series.

3. There is much to learn from both kinds of review. While I am saying we shouldn’t trust our mental review too much, it is good to take stock and learn from the experience of preaching a message. At the same time, let’s not miss the opportunity to learn from the experience of hearing that same message. Preaching and hearing are different experiences. Learning from both will aid our preaching.

Do you review your preaching? By memory? By audio? By video? By feedback?

The Challenge of Raised Adrenaline

February 2, 2011February 2, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Most of the time listeners are fairly comfortable when listening. They may be engaged, interested and tracking along. If that is not the case, then they may be bored, fidgety or distracted. This is not good. But it can also go the other way. They might be tense, adrenaline pumping and up-tight. Typically this extreme only occurs when the speaker does something to spark that kind of reaction. Unlike being bored and disinterested, this heightened state can be both bad or good.

The thing we need to remember as speakers is that if we cause people to have a surge of adrenaline, then we need to be careful what we do with that effect. It is easy to stir people and make them uncomfortable. But to do it in a way that is loving and helpful is a bit more complicated.

I was recently in a dramatic presentation. By definition art engages the emotions. This was certainly the case on this occasion. My heart was pumping, adrenaline was flowing, breath was shortened. Somehow in that state my reactions seemed to be more intense. If I disagreed with something said or done, then I really disagreed. If I appreciated it, I found myself nodding and showing affirmation much more freely. I suppose this is why many react so strongly to drama in church settings, by the way. If it becomes uncomfortable, as art often does, then it feels very uncomfortable.

Anyway, I am not writing about drama, but about preaching. When we raise our voices, offer snippets of dramatic monologue, present graphic images on a screen or by description, stun people with painful or angering illustrations, anything that raises the adrenaline of the listeners, then we must be extra careful. It is easy to cause upset in that state. It is easy to offend. It is easy for people to miss the value of what we do and react to some element of it. It is easy to attach good goals to falsely stirred emotions.

I am certainly not advocating for boring or dry preaching. The Bible is very emotionally stirring. As we represent it, we need to reach the whole person. But when we touch people deeply, when we move people strongly, then we must be very careful and prayerful about what we do at that point. Be a shame to waste a good message by losing the listeners due to recklessness on our part when they are in a heightened state of focus and attention!

The Challenge of Reception Perception

February 1, 2011February 1, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Preaching involves communicating and communicating involves sensitivity to other parties involved. If you preach you know that you can often sense things from the listeners, even if they are vocally silent. You pick up on body language, levels of fidgeting, eye contact, etc. A smiler in the crowd can be a Godsend, but a frowner may just be concentrating. And all the while, you are seeking to communicate. A two-way process. Even a monologue is really two-way when preaching is in action.

The problem is that you can’t always read the signals accurately. Its not just the odd smiler or frowner that’s an issue. Sometimes you have a sense of the atmosphere of the whole, and sometimes that sense is dead wrong. You perceive deadness, but they sense something special occurring. Or you sense a special moment, but they are actually struggling to stay awake. The fact is that sometimes we will completely misunderstand what we sense is going on in the congregation.

So should we give up trying to read them and just do our part? I don’t think so. Our part includes sensitivity to the Lord, and to them. We shouldn’t stop reading the signals, but we should probably make sure we don’t rely on the signals. Allow the times you’ve completely misread folks to keep you humbly dependent on the Lord, leaning on Him and giving your all.

Bible in a Message?

January 31, 2011February 1, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I concluded a series on the Bible with a “panoramic whole Bible in a single message” message. I was pondering which verses to use as my anchor point, verses that would give me a sense of the whole, the grand vista of divine revelation and intent. John 3:16? Something in Romans? A well-known Psalm? Actually, I went for two verses in Leviticus. Click here to see today’s post on the Cor Deo site.

One Simple Truth

January 28, 2011January 28, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Last time we thought about ways to trim the message. This is not to appease the unsubstantiated claims that people cannot concentrate like they used to (evidence suggests otherwise). Rather it is to enable the central truth of the message to come across more clearly, rather than being hidden by excessive padding.

The other side of this matter is that central truth. Is it too “big?” Sometimes we simply try to cram in too much information. Our main idea takes forty-eight words to summarize. This is a problem. I think it is important to realize the value of the cumulative effect of effective communication. Communicate effectively a biblical truth this Sunday, then another next Sunday, let them build. This is so much more helpful than trying to achieve everything in every message and effectively achieving very little because it was all just too much!

I suppose it is harder to put it more clearly than Andy Stanley (which is often the case, to be honest!) . . . just preach one simple truth.

I’m tempted to make some analogy along the lines of comparing the ineffective feast people offer to someone who has been starving, when actually what they can effectively assimilate is a small dose of something specific (but the feast feels like you’re feeding them, even if they do end up with no benefit from the overdose) . . . I’m tempted to do that, but that might be unnecessary elongation of this post.

One simple truth.

Time is Tight

January 26, 2011January 28, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

When you’re preaching, the clock is ticking. In one setting you may have 20 minutes, in another you may have 45. The reality is, though, that messages expand to fill the time available fairly easily. So it is important to think carefully about what to include. Perhaps more importantly, what to exclude. Where can time be trimmed?

Introduction – Sometimes a message needs a longer introduction than hard and fast rules allow. The problem doesn’t come from a long introduction, though, but from an introduction that feels long. If you need to go long, give a sense of relevance and a hint of Bible so that the fussy won’t get worked up (sometimes just reading the first verse of a passage switches off the introduction monitors in the congregation!) However, often the introduction can be trimmed to avoid making the message play catch up.

Illustration – The problem with good illustrations is that you know them well, and listeners will resonate. When they do, you sense it and before you know it the illustration has grown. Beware of expanding illustrations.

Historical and Literary Context – Some preachers never include either, and their preaching suffers significantly. However, choose to include what is pertinent and helpful. Don’t give an extended background to the entire Roman occupation when you are needing to press on with the message. Enough to make sense of the passage is usually enough.

Conclusion – The end of a message can often be far more punchy if it is tightened up. See if time can be saved by nailing a specific conclusion, rather than waffling to halt.

Post Sermon – It is easy to add five minutes to the end of a meeting by having a full song and a longer prayer than necessary. Why not let the sermon soak and leave people pensive rather than switching off with a closing volley of church ammo.

If you rein in the message at every place possible, you’ll probably finish on time. If, by some miracle, you finish five minutes early, absolutely nobody will mind at all! All of this, of course, has to be balanced with achieving your aims. The goal of preaching is not the early finish, its the transformed life.

Fire in the Bones

January 25, 2011January 25, 2011 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

I respect all preachers in history and across the globe today who suffer for preaching God’s Word. Many of us reading this blog face nothing of the persecution that many preachers have had to endure. Sometimes our biggest struggles seem to be coping with disappointing response in the lives of those listening, or perhaps filtering slightly tactless feedback at the door of the church. But still, even in the ease of our experience, many of us do face something. It is nothing compared to what others may face, but it is something nonetheless.

We face the repeated decision to stand up and preach again. Most preachers can speak about the sense of feeling battered in ministry. There is the work of preparation, the prayerful work of hoped for response, the draining work of giving of yourself, the sometimes tiring work of processing feedback from people oblivious to how vulnerable you may feel at that point. Sometimes this can all add up to a significant level. The combination of personal, spiritual, emotional, relational and physical expenditure, alongside the reality of spiritual warfare, can leave us drained.

What then? What do we do next? Do we give up? Do we quit the ministry? Sometimes that may be a very real temptation for some of us. Do we lay low and pour ourselves into something safer for a while? Do we avoid interaction with people? There are any number of possible responses to ministry drain on a weekly basis.

My thoughts sometimes go back to Jeremiah’s words in chapter 20. He went through it and suffered deeply. He was drained and wiped out and had no natural resource left. Tempted to remain quiet, he could not. Not because he loved preaching. Not because he wanted affirmation (he got none). Not because he needed the income. He could not because “there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I am weary with holding it in, and I cannot.” He could not because the LORD was with him.

Do you get up and preach again because you love preaching? Or because you need affirmation? Or because of some other self-gripped motive? Or, or do you get up and preach again because God is with you and you cannot keep inside what He has given to you?

Tired? You’re not alone. Let’s press on.

Reading Letters

January 24, 2011January 21, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

The epistles are generally a form of discourse. That is to say, they tend to be a direct form of communication (as opposed to narrative or poetry). This might imply that they are there to be studied so that I can figure out the main point. But when I read a contemporary letter I tend to look for more than just the bottom line. I tend to look for two things, and this applies when interpreting epistles too:

1. I tend to look for the message, or even the bottom line of a letter. What is this person specifically saying to me? I don’t want to read several hundred words as if they are all equally valuable, but disconnected nuggets of information. I do want to figure out what the main point or points are in the letter.

2. I tend to look for their heart coming through toward me. Are they loving, or polite, or cold, or complaining, or angry? Whether it is a complaint from somebody, or an encouragement from a friend, or a notification from a company, there is always more than pure information in a letter.

When we look at the biblical letters we do well to look for both things. What is the main point of each section? And what is the heart of the writer toward the recipients?

Technically this isn’t about finding the main idea (1) and finding the mood (2), as if these are separate and distinct items. The mood, the heart, combines with the information included to determine my sense of the main idea.

If we have been trained to do so, we tend to read narratives with imagination and sensitivity. We tend to read poems with a certain level of imagination and responsiveness. The danger is that we will read discourse as pure information, where we would be far better being alert to the affective tone of the communicator. Isn’t all human communication affective in one way or another?

Shine the Light on the Core Issue

January 21, 2011January 12, 2011 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

It struck me afresh recently that many in our churches may be missing a very crucial element of Christianity.

They know the answers, they’ve prayed the prayer, they go to church, they live good lives, they may even witness (or they know that they should), they have grown to enjoy Christian gatherings, they see the emptiness of the world’s alternatives, they can explain the gospel, they look the part, they serve the church, they teach the children, they give to the collection, they make sacrificial decisions, they pray and they mean it and on it goes. So much Christianity wrapped up in one life, but yet, what is missing?

Christ.

Christianity is not religion, nor is it ecclesiology, nor is it church participation, nor moral and ethical living, nor family tradition, nor schedule commitments, nor participation in a social gathering, nor any number of other things people seem to make it. Christianity is about being in relationship with Christ.

When I first met my future wife and then returned home to England I spoke about her to folks here. I remember one particular conversation. I was enthusing about the person who I thought I might actually get to marry. He was melancholic about the whole concept of relationships. I shared information about her. He shared complaints about the whole structure of dating and courting and marriage in his experience. I talked about her. He had yet more to say about the “institution” of romance.

I suppose you could observe that we were talking about the same thing. The difference was that I was captivated by a person, he was not.

I wonder how many in the church today are ticking the boxes and we all assume they are safely in the family of God, but actually they are not. One of the most overlooked verses in all of Scripture is in 1Cor.16 where Paul states that “if any man does not love Christ, he is accursed.” Perhaps we should be far slower to assume people are already born again based on the indicators of their confession, conduct and church participation. Perhaps we should be looking for that delight that comes only from someone who knows someone special. And perhaps in our preaching we should look for ways to shine the light of the Word beyond the peripheral issues, through the created “christian” structures that people hold to be their faith, and show the empty place where Christ should be captivating the heart and changing everything from the inside out.

Every Conviction is Biblical – Applicational Faux Pas

January 20, 2011January 12, 2011 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

People have an amazing ability to miss the point and make a point out of a minor point. This seems to be especially prevalent in church world. Here are some approaches people use, maybe people in your church. Look for ways to gently and sensitively correct these approaches as you preach, while also modelling appropriate application of the text.

A. The Selective Normative Detail Approach – If it is in there, automatically copy it. I include the term “selective” since nobody can apply this consistently. One person may choose to have a conviction about how to pray before eating based on the feeding of the five thousand, but they may not see the need to apply the same approach to the size of seated groups when a large gathering is to be fed. It is amazing what details in a narrative can become normative for some.

B. The Selective Absence as Normative Approach – If it is not in there, don’t allow it. Again, this has to be selective because consistency would not be possible. So since guitars are not mentioned, they may be deemed inappropriate, but many churches holding convictions about guitars are fine with carpet in the room. Preferences are preferences. They need not be considered biblical and moral convictions.

C. The Equal Weight Normativity Approach – This is where every detail is considered equal. If something is mentioned as a narrative detail, then it is considered as normative as a pattern or an instruction. After all, it is in the Bible!

D. The Ridiculous Application of Detail Approach – I’ve covered this already really, but I just want to underline it with another category. One church springs to mind. They felt they had to meet at 11am rather than 10:30am, because in the Bible it says, “when the hour had come, they…”

Feel free to add to the list . . .

It is amazing what people will do with the Bible, and what they miss by focusing on this kind of thing. But if we, as preachers, don’t model and instruct otherwise, nothing will change.