Author: Peter Mead

The Bible, Expository & Consecutive Preaching – Part 1

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Daniel Goepfrich wrote a substantial interaction with this blog over on his site – click here to see it. His post raises some important issues, so I’ve decided to respond with a series of posts here.  I’ll have to indicate which paragraphs I’m responding to each day, but I would encourage you to read his entire post first and get a feel for his ministry heart as well as his point in the post.

———————

Dear Daniel,

Thanks for giving such a lengthy interaction with the brief post I offered.  And thank you for your kind words about my site.  You obviously have a much appreciated ministry and I praise God for that and for your work there at Oak Tree Community Church.

I will follow your lead and reply with a post on my blog.  Actually, I like to limit the length of each post and also appreciate having several days worth of writing done, so I will divide my response into several posts.

The first thing I would like to suggest is that your post doesn’t fully recognize the emphasis of my blog. Being a proponent of expository preaching does not mean always preaching straight through a Bible book.  You are right that I don’t affirm skipping around hitting various topics, although I do see the value of periodic intentional “expository-topical” preaching.  The issue, though, is how we define expository preaching.

I strongly resist attempts to define expository preaching as a form of preaching (as you seem to imply by the “straight through a Bible book” definition).  My definition of expository preaching has no reference to form in it, only commitments regarding accurately understanding the meaning of the text, effectively communicating it with an emphasis on its relevance to the listeners and a commitment to reliance on the Holy Spirit in the process.  Perhaps we’re not so far apart as you think!

Tomorrow I will continue my response to Daniel’s helpful post.  (The definition of expository preaching for this site is presented here and here, as well as numerous other posts.)

The Difference Two Feet Make

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I am not referring to how much better it is to preach with both legs still intact, nor a cunning reference to the beautiful feet of those who bring good news.  I mean distance.  Two feet.  60cm.  That makes a world of difference.

Beginning preachers, and some that have preached for years, tend to preach their message at arms length. They study and prepare, but it is all about the notes.  From the Bible to the notes to the people.  Arms length. Somehow there is a nervousness about this thing out there called the message.  The preacher is anxious about saying the right words and that anxiety sometimes shows.  Even without showing overtly, it does leave the message somewhat flat, somewhat all about the words.

But two feet make such a difference.  If the Bible study, the message preparation and the delivery can all be brought two feet closer, the preaching is very different.  Instead of something the preacher is straining to not forget, now the message comes from the heart.  Instead of preaching being truth preached by a personality (often stilted in the effort to remember the message), now the message can be truth through personality.  Instead of a message being handled at arms length from the Bible text to the listeners, via the notes of the preacher, now the message comes through the preacher with the force of the life transforming power of the Word clear and unhindered.

I am not saying anything about notes in this post, in favor or against.  I am saying everything about Bible study that is personal rather than professional (for the sake of others), about message preparation that is unique to you rather than following someone else’s prescribed formula, about delivery that comes from the heart (whether or not you need notes to nudge that) rather than merely transferring information from notes to listeners.

It’s hard to pin down exactly how one message can be preached at arms length, while another comes through the heart of the preacher.  Yet as a listener it is usually not hard to tell the difference.

Problems with Plagiarism

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I’m just reading an article by Dr David Lose.  He describes his experience of hearing a sermon preached that he had just read in a book by another author.  A good sermon…plagiarised.  What’s the problem? After all, nobody lost any royalties and God still uses His word.

It’s about integrity.  It’s about the lying to your congregation and misrepresentation of yourself.  The trust of the people in you as the pastor and in preaching in general, is eroded.  This is true of whole sermons, as well as illustrations and other sermon content.  Any time we pass something off in the first person as our own, we lie.

He goes on to offer counsel in response to defense statements that may be offered.  What if I’m not a good preacher?  What if I’m really bad?  He suggests getting training, working at it, attending his seminary (fair enough, he wrote the article).  And if you’re really bad, he suggests finding another line of work (or getting help – which would be my first suggestion since the pastoral office is never intended to be a one man for all roles concept).

Do we have to cite every source when we preach?  Not at all.  The issue is not naming every commentator we have read, but letting others know when a thought is not our own – “As one preacher put it…” or “One commentator writes…”

We need to be aware of this issue.  Some of us may not undermine our integrity as preachers at all in this way, but some preachers constantly do.  It wouldn’t do us any harm to do a quick self-check.  Do I adapt illustrations from others and make them sound like my own experience when they were not?  Do I import chunks of sermons from online or from books without telling listeners what I am doing?  Do I allow a pithy statement to appear as my own when I have read it somewhere?

It’s a useful article, if you want to read it, click here.

Sources on Technology and Preaching

/ Peter Mead / 8 Comments

The site received a comment from Greg, who is in the DMin program at Talbot – preaching cohort. His thesis is allowing him to research “The Effects of Advanced Technology on Expository Preaching.” I’ve taken his questions and integrated them into this post, allowing us all to think about the issue, as well as offering help to Greg.

I suppose in thirty years’ time Greg’s grandchildren may be laughing at what he called “advanced technology” – remember the revolution caused by the Overhead Projector (the ones with transparent sheets on top)? Nevertheless, technology is changing rapidly and it is making a difference in the world of preaching. Now we think nothing of listeners reading along in their Bibles (depending on the church), but before the advanced technology of Gutenberg, that would have been unthinkable.

Here’s a quick comment from me on the issue (not for Greg’s sake, but so that this is actually a post rather than just a request). I think we shouldn’t resist technology as if our previous experience is somehow “the right way.” At the same time, we shouldn’t dive in with technology just because we have the option.  How many poor messages have you heard with powerpoint, just because it was “the new thing?” My mind goes back to some posts I did on powerpoint and preaching – powerpoint on purpose, as well as one of the very early posts on what you want them to remember, oh, and a couple on movie clips – here and here, and I really liked Boyd-MacMillan’s critique of the anti-monolog brigade here.

But Greg’s questions, can we help him out?

1. Any suggestions on recommended reading for this subject? Books or journal articles? (Currently reading or will read, Hipps – Flickering Pixels, Ong – Orality and Literacy, Blackwood – The Power of Multisensory Preaching and Teaching, Stott – Between Two Worlds, Hunt – The Vanishing Word, Levinson – Digital McCluhan)

2. Anyone regularly using technology in their preaching (PowerPoint, Media Shout, Pro Presenter, Video Clips, Multi-site, Video Venues, Texting, etc.) that has an opinion on how valuable you think your technology is to your preaching, I’d love to hear about your experiences

Greg gave his email address, but I wouldn’t want him getting hundreds of new spam emails as a result of this.  So please answer his questions on the site as a comment.  If you want to contact Greg direct, just mention this to me and I’ll send you his email address.  Let’s share thoughts for each other’s benefit, and answer these questions for Greg’s benefit, then hopefully in the long run his DMin can be for all our benefit!

Final words to Greg – Thanks all and blessing on your work in the pulpit!

Cliches, Soundbites and Pithy Grabbers – Beware

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Even for the vast majority of us who are not “broadcast” when we preach, there is still a temptation to achieve good soundbites. On one hand, this is not too far from the goal of having a single sentence summary statement, a big idea, a main idea, a proposition, a take-home truth or whatever you call it. The condensed nature of a single sentence aids the unity of the message, the effectiveness of communication and the memorability of the important core of the message. On the other hand, too many soundbites, cliches or pithy grabbers can be very detrimental.

Have you ever had a conversation with someone who only seems to speak in cliches? I’ve had the privilege a couple of times. It doesn’t take long before you don’t feel that they are actually in a conversation with you. It soon feels like they are looking for the next opportunity to role out one of their catchphrases. Despite your best efforts, you can’t help but suspect a lack of authenticity.

The effect created in a couple of minutes of conversation with a “soundbiter” is just a rapid version of listening to a “soundbiter” preaching. After the positive effects wear off, it doesn’t feel like they’re talking to you. It feels pre-packaged, inauthentic, fake.

It’s good to have principles that you live by and lead by, it’s good to be a clear communicator who is memorable, catchy, pithy and precise. However, you can have too much of a good thing. Don’t put your listeners through endless concatenations of cliches when you’re preaching. Even when you’re not preaching, in other leadership communication, don’t rely too heavily on soundbites. Listeners and followers would rather know you are authentic (communicated via natural style), than the king of cliche.

Preaching Story: Make the Switch

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

A switch that could make a big difference when preaching narratives.  How do you preach a story?

Common Default Approach – This is the approach that begins the message with the reading of the text, then moves on to talk about the story, noting elements within the text and giving both explanation and application based on those observations.

Strengths & Weaknesses – It is easier to read a text straight through than to interrupt the reading of the text, people know the whole story from the start and it allows great freedom in terms of what you do with the rest of the message.  These are strengths to one degree or another.  However, there are also inherent weaknesses in this approach.  The story becomes a specimen to examine, rather than a narrative to be experienced (once the reading is over).  The inherent tensions within the narrative are essentially lost, although a good preacher will attempt to rekindle them in the elements of retelling the narrative that follows the reading.

Original Force Approach – Okay, I made that name up, but it does convey my point here.  The simple switch I’m suggesting is instead of “read the story and talk about it,” rather try to “tell the story homiletically.”  What I mean by that is allow the form of the story, and the telling of it, to form the spine of most of the message.  In the process of telling the story, combine explanation of context, culture, historical setting, etc., with deliberate application for contemporary listeners.

Strengths & Weaknesses – The weaknesses that stand out to me with this approach are the greater challenges involved in telling a story effectively such as vivid description, maintaining tension, etc. Thus it may be slightly harder to preach well in this way.  However, the strengths of this approach are significant.  The original force of the passage can be recreated for listeners, whether or not they already know the end of the story.  The inherent tensions and intrigue in a narrative can become strengths of the message (you don’t have to create tension with a story, it has tension inbuilt).  Explanation can feel natural as the story is told, application can carry the implicit force of the narrative.  The ability of a narrative to overcome resistance is harnessed rather than lost (in the common default approach, listeners often put their guard back up once you start “preaching” again after the story’s been read).  There are other strengths too – while it may be harder to preach this way, it makes preaching preparation more interesting as you enter fully into the narrative rather than standing over it with scalpel in hand.  So much more could be added . . .

Next time you preach a narrative, instead of reading it and then talking about it, try telling the story so that the original force is felt as the thrust of the sermon.

Mindset Switch on Texts

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

The traditional approach to preaching a Bible passage is that it is a collection of data, probably in an antiquated form.  So for many preachers, coming to the text is coming in search of sermon content – data to be transmitted, information to be mined and presented.

In recent years awareness has increased significantly in regards to the inherent strength and function of Bible texts.  They are not collections of data presented in incidental forms.  Rather, it is becoming clearer to many that God speaks through the texts as texts.  God speaks not only through the information contained in a text, but also through the way that the text itself functions.  God did not only inspire the content, but the genre and form of the passage.  Poetry is poetry for a reason.  Discourse is discourse on purpose.  Prophetic writing is that way for a reason (this being a positive reason, not just an excuse to dismiss any content that doesn’t fit with your theology, as I see an alarming number of people doing these days).

If you are still of the mindset that a Bible text is a collection of data to be mined for personal edification and sermon preparation, please consider this switch.  Treat a text as a piece of purposeful communication.  The genre matters.  The form matters.  The function of the text is a key factor to consider in understanding the text.

Contemporary Sermons – Ironside

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Wiersbe’s brief five-page biography of H.A.Ironside is an enjoyable read.  He writes of the man’s passion for the Word, passion for souls, personal spirituality, and deeply valued ministry.  I like this brief section:

Some have criticized Ironside for preaching through Bible books instead of preaching “more contemporary messages” in such a strategic pulpit.  But time, I think, has vindicated his ministry.  His expositions are as fresh and meaningful today as when they were preached.  I have many books of “contemporary sermons” in my library, and they read like old newspapers in comparison.

It is easy to pit one against the other, but surely our goal should be expository preaching of the Word of God.  By definition this should include a sense of contemporary application since we preach to specific people at a certain time.  Yet too often we fall into one or the other approaches.  If you can’t figure out how to combine both effectively with the Bible pre-eminent, then just preach the Bible, I suppose!

Let me just quote Wiersbe again, his final comments on Ironside:

Ironside was not a dazzling preacher; he did not aim to be sensational.  He stepped into the pulpit with exclamation points, not question marks.  A generation of preachers that has tried every gimmick available to get people’s attention would do well to become acquainted with Harry Ironside and to learn afresh the meaning of living by faith and preaching the Word of God in simplicity and love.

When Do Listeners Switch On?

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

You know what I mean.  People are sitting and listening, sort of, until you say a key phrase, then suddenly everyone is really listening carefully.  Let’s make the assumption that having people really listen is a positive thing.  Now let’s consider some examples of “switch on” phrases and consider the implications for our preaching:

“How does this apply to us?” – People do tend to listen more when the message is about them, their lives, their needs, etc.  We could critique that theologically and point to the self-obsession of humanity.  Or we could be thankful that all Scripture is both God-breathed and “useful” – i.e. life changing.  And then we could stop leaving application to the last three minutes of a message and look for ways to include it throughout.  Compare and contrast an introduction infused with relevance and applicational preparation for the message to follow, with the standard switch off phrase “Last week we were deep in 2Chronicles 17, please turn with me to 2Chronicles 18 . . .”

“Let me tell you a story . . .” – People of all ages love a good story.  “Once upon a time” does wonders for children of all ages.  This kind of phrase is much more of a switch on than “let’s talk about the story.”  I’ve said it before, when the passage is a narrative, tell the story!  Even when it is not, how can the message be engaging and interesting, rather than mere lecturing and information transfer?

“Here’s how I struggle with this . . .” – People are always interested in appropriate vulnerability from the preacher.  Haddon Robinson urges preacher to neither be the hero, nor the jerk, in the stories they tell by way of illustration.  He is right, but he is not saying be absent from your illustrations.  People are far more interested in you as a real person, than they are in Napoleon or Lenin.  It is good to personalize aspects of the message, as long as it doesn’t make you look too good, or too much of an idiot.  Credibility and interest can increase or crash with personal stories.  Choose wisely, but choose some.

Some things switch on listeners, but integrity demands that we don’t use them.  Over-promising and then under-delivering, offering success guarantees in a messy world, promising healing or wealth when the text doesn’t support that application.  We must have integrity so that we’re not mere pragmatists.  However, it is easy to go to the other extreme and fail to learn from the reactions of listeners.  What other phrases switch on the listener?  What might be the implications for our preaching?

First Priority

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Just to mix up the content on this site, I am dipping into a book by Andy Stanley and Ed Young, Can We Do That? I’d like to share one of their suggestions.  “We make the message the first priority of the service – and of the pastor.”

In the busy and complex life of church ministry, not to mention the complex relationships between different interest groups, it is important to remember how important the Sunday morning message is.  It is probably the only ministry of the church that has the potential to reach the whole church.  It is probably the ministry of the church most likely to reach visitors and guests (and online listeners if you are into MP3 ministry).

Yet how easy for it to slip down the list when it comes to planning the service, or planning your own weekly schedule for preparation.  Do we need to take stock and make sure the preaching of the Word is getting the priority attention that it needs to be done well?  Are there tasks to be offloaded so that the preacher can be free to preach?  As preachers do we need to be more deliberately inaccessible at certain times to prepare properly?

Acts 6:4 comes to mind.