Interaction Flops

September 23, 2011September 23, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

For the past two days I have been blogging about a type of interactive preaching, or participative preaching if you prefer. This is not the same as preacher and listeners together discovering the meaning of a text (I’m not convinced about that in a preaching setting). It is the preacher having a specific destination, but allowing the listeners to participate in a significant stage of that journey. In the case of my message on Tuesday, I invited them to imagine what Peter and John might have thought back to during their years with Jesus as they anticipated a trial before the Sanhedrin in Acts 4. They shaped the message in respect to which aspects of the apostles’ experience we imagined together, but I still controlled how the message would end. Anyway, there are numerous approaches to inviting participation from the listeners while preaching. I’d like to wave a red flag at some approaches that seem to flop.

As I mentioned in the previous two-part post, all good preaching should feel somewhat participative, even if the listeners never vocally participate. But problems come when the preacher decides that getting noise out of the listeners’ mouths equates to a higher level of preaching or an automatically more engaged listener. This is too simplistic by half. For instance:

Cultural/Personality Differences – Last year I sat under the preaching of Dr Joe Stowell at Keswick, a preacher I appreciate very much. Joe is an American preacher who invites vocal response and vocal affirmation and audience participation, etc. I don’t know if it is the American versus British difference, or just the warmth of Joe’s personality, but his preaching really was very effective. I’ve seen British preachers doing the same thing in Britain and it fell very flat. Many British listeners aren’t readily participative like other cultures. “Can I hear an amen?” can grate deeply on some congregations. What would naturally and spontaneously stimulate hearty amens and approval in some settings might barely get a low level grunt in others. Trying to whip up a congregation into a non-natural vocal response is generally unwise. They will make some effort to do what you ask, but their discomfort will override their external compliance and have a net negative effect.

Cross-Cultural Issues – When speaking of audience participation, naturally the subject of African-American preaching comes up. There is something very compelling about the rhythmic, call and response, high energy type of preaching popular in some settings (cultural and denominational). But it takes a whole congregation and preacher combination for it to work. Two examples stand out in my memory.

1) I was in Nigeria some years ago and noticed how the believers at this conference responded to the closing prayers of the African preachers – very physical, high movement, verbal agreement, etc. And I noticed how the white preachers couldn’t get the same response when they prayed – congregation standing stock still with hands folded in front of them. Something was different in the mix.

2) I’ll never forget the white preacher preaching in the chapel service of the Bible school where I was a visiting lecturer in Kenya. These listeners did respond vocally, and he couldn’t contain himself. He got swept away on the wave of energy and ended up giving an appalling example of show-off preaching. I think it takes a consistency of preacher and listeners for patricipative preaching to work. Either preacher and listeners are coming from the same tradition, or the listeners are responsive rather than resistant when the preacher is different to them (and the preacher also needs to be understanding when the listeners are different to him in some way!)

This has become a long post, so I’ll spill over to tomorrow . . .

Let’s Interact Some More . . .

September 22, 2011September 22, 2011 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Yesterday I began with three thoughts about interactive preaching. Following on from the importance of knowing the congregation and knowing the content, here are some more thoughts:

4. Expansive questions work better than only one possible answer. Listeners don’t like being asked for something very specific – who wants to get it wrong? They know you want them to say something specific, so chances are stacked against them. Tuesday night’s message worked well because the invitation was for input from a vast array of possible answers. I was primarily asking for examples of incidents in the gospels where Peter and John would have learned from being with Jesus (and since they were almost always there, there weren’t many “wrong answers”). I would be more guarded about asking for input on a single text, since the first comment could give away the whole resolution to the tension of the narrative, or whatever. It can be done, but carefully.

5. Graciousness is key. But how you deal with “wrong answers” matters deeply. If someone had referred to an incident where Peter & John weren’t present, it really wouldn’t help anyone to respond harshly, “uh, no! That was only Nathaniel with Jesus on that occasion!” Making the contributor feel foolish hurts everyone. They would feel for him, they would be less likely to risk talking, they would lose interest in your message (since you don’t seem to care about them). Much better to receive all input positively, “Great thought. Thinking about it, I’m with you on that, I’m sure Nathaniel would have told the others about that even though they weren’t physically present. Thanks.” I was at a conference earlier this summer where the presenter chose to take questions, but was then harsh and sometimes bordering on brutal in how he responded to them. Not helpful at all. (And maybe some preachers simply shouldn’t do interaction.)

6. Non-traditional journeys still need a destination. To put it another way, an interactive message is not a short-cut to avoid preparation. You can’t be at the mercy of those present to make sure it goes somewhere worthwhile. You have to know where you are going and make sure they get there. They are at your mercy, not the other way around. A meandering walk through the forest isn’t good if it ends somewhere in the middle and you then walk away. Make sure you get them to the right place at the right time.

7. Interaction takes time. It is hard to gauge how long a contributor will talk once they start. You have to be able to graciously stop lengthy input, but it isn’t easy. I wouldn’t consider significant interaction unless there was time available for it. Good interaction can be wasted if there is then a panicked rush at the end to get to the destination.

What would you add to this list?

Let’s Interact . . .

September 21, 2011September 21, 2011 / Peter Mead / 6 Comments

Last night I had a great time at a church I’ve visited many times before. I had about 85 minutes and decided to do an interactive message. Here are some reflections and thoughts from me, but feel free to chip in:

1. All messages should be somewhat interactive. Even if you don’t expect the listeners to say anything, good preaching will always be stirring response and comments within the listeners. Good preachers know what listeners are probably thinking and respond accordingly. In these two posts I am thinking about overt congregational participation.

2. Knowing the congregation matters. It does help to know who you’ll be preaching to when you choose to go much more interactive. A few years ago I chose to do an interactive sermon in a church that I hardly knew. I certainly was unaware of the group brought along from a nearby “home” that interacted in an entirely different way than the elderly folks who made up the rest of the congregation! Knowing them matters, them knowing you care matters just as much, but we’ll come to that issue tomorrow.

3. Knowing the content matters even more. This one is massive. As the preacher you have to know the subject and the range of potential input. Taking a comment from the crowd that changes your understanding of the text could be complicated. You get to choose how wide the net is thrown for input, but it is important that you can handle whatever may come from within that range of Bible text (and theology/history/whatever else you open yourself up to). If you are genuinely struck by new insight, great, but if you seem to be informed by everything you hear, you’ll lose their confidence!

I’ll finish this post tomorrow, but feel free to chip in with your thoughts . . .

Preach the Text, Not Just From a Text

September 15, 2011September 15, 2011 / Peter Mead / 8 Comments

Sometimes preachers give away their entire main idea in the title they advertise ahead of time. I think I’ve done that with this title. It’s one of the things that always makes a message feel either like biblical preaching, or not truly biblical preaching. Does the preacher preach the text? Or does the preacher preach from a text, using a text, referring to a text?

1. The difference demonstrates the preacher’s view of the Bible. For some, the Bible is a great data bank to be raided for foundational wording on which they can build their presentation. For others, the Bible is a continual source of delight as they come fresh to texts each time they preach them and encounter God in His Word, before bringing the ancient word ever fresh and new to the listeners. Is your Bible old and static, or dynamic and relationally connecting?

2. The difference demonstrates the preacher’s view of preaching. For some, preaching is primarily about their own craft in preparing a message where the text is an ingredient, a factor. For others, the Bible is the master lens through which God is seen by the needy listeners as His Word is effectively presented in the preaching moment.

3. The difference demonstrates the preacher’s view of the listeners’ need. For some, the listeners come together for a church service in which they need to have the sermon slot filled with good sermonic art and craft, a bit of polished poetry, a touch of humor, a hint of depth and a good measure of preacher’s personality. For others, the listeners have a profound need, whether they are unsaved or saved, of an encounter with the God who reveals Himself fully and freely in His Word.

4. The difference demonstrates the preacher’s view of themselves. For some, preaching is an opportunity to demonstrate their own faithfulness to the gospel, or cleverness with words, or artistry with concepts, or craft with alliteration, or ingenuity with a book of sermon illustrations. For others, preaching is about communicating God’s Word to the people God brings together, in the power of God’s Spirit, and the focus, strangely enough, is on God, not the preacher.

The Morass of Moralism

September 14, 2011September 14, 2011 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

When the focus of a sermon becomes a moralistic [set of instructions for holy living], listeners will most likely assume that they can secure or renew their relationship with God through proper behaviors. Even when the behaviors advocated are reasonable, biblical, and correct, a sermon that does not move from expounding standards of obedience to explaining the source, motives, and results of obedience places persons’ hopes in their own actions. (B.Chappell, 291)

What are the keys to avoiding the kind of moralistic preaching that Chappell refers to here? He points to the source, motives and results. Good things to ponder. I’ll put it like this:

Remember Who? does the changing – Moralistic preaching will always feel like a burden on the listeners to get their acts together and make the necessary changes. Surely the message of the Bible is that we are responders with the privilege of participating in that change process, rather than instigators with the burden of fixing ourselves.

Remember How? we participate – So how do we participate? Is it by repenting of our badness and striving to have goodness? Or is it repenting of our religiousness and righteousness as well as our overt rebellion, and turning to the One who offers us life and holiness? Repentance is toward Christ, and then salvation (including sanctification) is by faith in Him.

Remember What? is the source of power – How does God change us as we trust in Christ? By the work of the Spirit in us. Moralistic preaching seems to leave God out of the equation (other than being the stated source of excessive requirements). Surely the reality of Christianity is that we now get to participate in the amazing privilege of New Covenant blessings, including the work of the Holy Spirit within us.

Remember Where? is the focus – Moralistic preaching always turns listeners in on themselves. They go from being rebellious to being religious . . . but the gospel calls us out of ourselves and away from both. The focus of biblical Christianity is not my struggles, my weaknesses, my sins, my effort, my discipline, my success, my holiness . . . the focus is on Christ. My part is response to Him, faith in Him, love for Him.

Let’s finish with a Chappell quote:

Preaching application should readily and vigorously exhort obedience to God’s commands, but such exhortations should be based primarily on responding in love to God’s grace, not on trying to gain or maintain it. (B.C., 292)

Passionless Preacher?

September 8, 2011September 8, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday we talked about passion that can become off-putting. But what about the preachers that are devoid of all passion, preaching sermons as limp as soggy cardboard? If you know one, I’ll leave you to figure out how to get them to read this post. If you know you are one, perhaps this will help.

1. Hear what people are saying, and hear what you are saying. If people are saying your preaching is dull, you need to hear that feedback. Don’t blame them. Don’t ignore them. Hear them. Equally, if you will just listen to yourself, or watch yourself on video, you will see just how bland the sermon presentation actually is. You may say, “Oh no, I am much more passionate than I come across!” Ok, but you don’t come across as passionate, so it is actually irrelevant how passionate you may be on the inside.

2. Is it frozen delivery? It is common for speakers to freeze when presenting to a crowd of people. What feels so fiery on the inside comes out as a restricted vocal range, monotonous tone, limited gestures, solidified facial expression and the natural movement of a broken robot with fading batteries. It may simply be that you need to grow in the area of delivery: not learning to be someone else, but learning to be yourself freely in front of the folks.

3. Is it personal fatigue? Maybe you are preparing half of Saturday night and then skipping breakfast and preaching on empty. Sometimes emergencies occur and we have no choice but to preach on an empty tank. But generally speaking, it isn’t a good idea, or good stewardship of your ministry, to eat poorly, sleep inadequately, exercise rarely and preach in a state of physical breakdown.

4. Is it a loss of vision? Ministry can take its toll. Well-intentioned dragons can sap energy like nothing else, repetition of services with minimal response and maximum negativity from some, overloaded ministry schedule because you are the only person active in ministry in the church, etc. Before long you are struggling to preach with any vision other than getting it done for another week. Not good.

5. Is it eyes unfixed and heart gone cold? Here’s the big one, whether it is true or not. Preaching without passion comes across as if what you are preaching about isn’t really that important. Unbelievers will be put off the gospel and believers will be discouraged. The greatest solution to the greatest problem in passionless preaching is to get your eyes fixed back on Christ and allow the sunshine of God’s grace to bring your heart back to the boil. When we taste and see that the Lord is good, it becomes much harder to preach without passion.

Passion Need Not Put Off

September 7, 2011September 7, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Preaching with a contagious passion for God, His Word, the gospel and the people is a good thing. But we always need to be careful not to let our passion slip into offensive or off-putting communication styles.

Passion that becomes aggressive can offend. We must always be aware of how we are coming across when we preach. What might feel like a passion for the truth on our part can easily become unnecessarily offensive to the listeners. Every word and sentence counts, so be careful not to make a care free assertion that might unnecessarily offend sensitive listeners. Listeners are not always the best at hearing statements in context. Hearers of “quotes” from Sunday’s sermon never really hear those quotes in context.

Passion that becomes “shouty” can be bothersome. So tempting for some personalities to convey their enthusiasm by shouting. It feels powerful and full of conviction at the time, and you can almost guarantee some misleading and positive feedback from some insecure folks who feel they need to say something nice to you afterwards. Getting known as a shouting preacher won’t help you on several levels.

Passion that becomes distracted can be hard to follow. Sometimes our passion for something leads us off on a wild goose chase of anecdotes and illustrations, or a wild safari ride through the canon of Scripture. Let your passion drive your main idea home, not drive your listeners to distraction because they can’t follow you in your distraction.

Passion that becomes too intense can drain. Even if we don’t shout, a certain level of intensity, if maintained consistently, will drain an audience of energy and focus. Give them a break, a chance to breathe, a chance to recalibrate. Intensity turned up a notch or two and left there can become simply too much to take. Not worth it, better that they hear what you’re saying.

Bible Reading Introductions – Part 2

September 5, 2011September 2, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I wrote last time about why I generally prefer not to launch the message with the reading. This is my response to what may be the response of others to that post (ie. I am writing this one at the same time!)

Someone may respond: “But the reason I read the text first is to honour the text and put it in the place of authority, rather than making it my servant for my message.”

Honouring the text and letting the text be the authority. Absolutely great goals that I affirm wholeheartedly. There are a couple of issues with this logic though.

First, this doesn’t overcome or negate the issues raised last time. That is, people may not be focussed, or aware of the relevance of the reading, etc. Just because you put it first, doesn’t mean your reasons for doing so will be achieved. If I have something really important to say to someone, I don’t launch by saying it. I get their attention first. I highlight the importance and relevance of what I’m about to tell them. I don’t want them to miss it. I’m honouring the message I have and underlining its authority by not placing it dead first.

Second, there are multiple means by which we honour the text and its authority, or fail to do so. Placing it first is just one element of the entire mix. I’ve heard many sermons where the text is read first and then dishonoured by being left behind as the preacher goes on to preach his own ideas, or dishonoured by being handled superficially, or dishonoured by being mishandled. I’ve blogged before about people preaching “my message on this text” rather than “the message of this text.” How you handle the text for the entirety of the message is the measure of whether you honour the text, preach the text and appropriately respect the authority of God’s revealed Word. Where you place the reading is no guarantee that your goal of honouring the text will be successful.

Many of us feel constrained by all sorts of “unwritten rules” that guide us in our preaching. Many of these unwritten rules could also be unlearned for the sake of better biblical preaching.

Preaching Duty

September 1, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I was away on Monday and didn’t put up the link to my Cor Deo post. So here it is, raising an issue about the kind of dutiful Christianity that is preached in many churches – click here to go to the article.

Illustration Saturation

August 31, 2011August 25, 2011 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

When speaking in general, most people affirm the value of illustrations. When speaking specifically, illustrations are sometimes the cause of frustration. What kind of illustrations can annoy listeners?

1. Arrogantly Familial – Sharing the odd story about an in-home experience can convey warmth, humility, normalcy, etc. It can also be a bit annoying to keep hearing about darling children’s spirituality, or rebellious children’s shenanigans, or holiday adventures, etc. Frequency is key here, along with avoiding showing off.

2. Obsessively Sporting – Some of us preachers actually enjoy sport and even have loyalty to particular teams. No problem, but it can be a bit annoying when the listener feels like the repeated beating of a certain drum is drowning out the deeper and more important affection in the preaching. Frequency is an issue again, sensitivity to non-sporting listeners, and discretion isn’t a bad idea either.

3. Predictably Popular – So a certain film has been in the news for the past five weeks. Can your listeners guess which illustrations you’ll be using before you preach? Don’t try too hard to be “cool” – it usually backfires. The ability to be subtle is key in this regard. Many a good illustration was ruined by being too blatant.

4. Scarcely Believable – So you are saying that happened to you? Did it really? Some preachers have a tendency to tell stories that sound unbelievable. Hear me carefully, even if it did happen, don’t lose integrity by sounding unbelievable. And if it didn’t happen to you, stop lying!

5. Obviously Canned – Ok, so here he comes out with the quote from General Rommel, or Napolean, or whoever. If you get it from a book of stunning illustrations, don’t be surprised if it sounds like you got it from a book of stunning illustrations.

6. Unnecessarily Extended – Maybe that was a good story, but was the point you were making in the message worthy of that amount of energy? Sometimes a good story is simply too bulky to fit the location you want to squeeze it into. This is annoying for listeners who lose track when the message loses its way.

7. Inappropriately Emotive – So you told me a tear jerker and now you want that emotion transferred to the point you are preaching? Why do I smell a distinct odour of manipulation in the air? Please don’t try to manipulate me, I’ve been getting that all week!

Maybe there are more that you would add to this list?