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.

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.

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.

Less of a Beating

January 14, 2011January 11, 2011 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

It’s not true in every case, but for many people it is. Let’s say Person A has an issue with Person B. Perhaps Person A runs through how he might address Person B beforehand, or perhaps he is talking it through with his wife first. When Person B isn’t present, Person A tends to be much stronger in tone. But once they are face to face, Person A will typically be more winsome, more loving, more caring for the feelings of Person B. (There are exceptions, but let’s not get into psychologically profiling people who struggle interpersonally!)

There’s something in this that is analogous to preaching, I think. Let’s suppose you are preaching a biblical passage that contains an instruction from Jesus to his disciples. As preachers we have a tendency to turn any biblical text into an assault on the congregation. It could be encouraging, comforting, tender, sensitive, or gentle, but in the hands of an unthinking preacher, it will easily come across as harsh exhortation. Why does that happen?

I think there are various reasons for this phenomena including a misunderstanding of God, or of how people function, or are motivated, or what Christianity is, or often, just a lack of awareness of how we come across. But I wonder if there is also something in the difference between abstraction and in-person communication that I raised in the first paragraph?

We can easily take the words in a text and pull them out of their historical and interpersonal setting, turning them into a more harsh and abrasive instruction than was the case originally. Pulling an exhortative statement from its context and preaching it as bare instruction will usually feel more like the command that must be obeyed (drill instructor) than an instruction set in the context of interpersonal communication.

Did the disciples feel Jesus was barking out orders when he spoke to them of trusting in God, or of loving one another, or how they should pray, etc.? I suspect not. Somehow in person there would have been a more winsome force involved, the engagement of lives as the setting in which His instruction would have intrigued, motivated, drawn out, stirred, and moved them.

What to do? My suggestion is to be wary of excising the instruction from its narrative setting in order to preach it as instruction today. Better to help listeners imagine being there, being in the sandals of the disciples, feeling what they felt, stirring what stirred in them. Essentially it is about honouring the narrative force of the text rather than over-processing it into bite sized directions for today. Don’t treat every text as a mere collection of principles to be plucked out and fired at our listeners. Instead help the listeners to encounter the people in the text and to be stirred by that, very different, experience.

A Fear Worth Facing: Tipping Points and Similar Situation

January 13, 2011January 11, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Just one more post following up on this issue of whether it is appropriate for a preacher to endeavour to be engaging in their presentation – be that through manner and energy in delivery and/or passion and enthusiasm for content. I have been responding to the potential critique that it is up to the listener to hear and the preacher merely needs to faithfully speak the Word of God (especially since it is God’s work to change lives anyway).

One more post, two more points, then I’m done (but feel free to comment, agree, disagree, qualify, etc.)

1. Tipping Points. With a lot of these aspects of preaching I think there is a scale. At one end is reliance on God, at the other is communication ability on our part (which can be improved, hence I talk about it on here). While I would advocate for being the best steward of ministry opportunities that we can be, I would never affirm the idea of trusting in our own abilities rather than leaning fully on God. It’s as if there is a tipping point. A point at which seeking to be the best stewards of our ministry that we can be, we tip over and lean not on the Lord, but on our own ability, training, etc. If you sense yourself tipping away in the wrong direction so that you are not leaning on the Lord – stop! But actually, this scale and tipping point notion doesn’t really work. These are not mutually exclusive categories. It is possible to seek to improve my communication abilities to a very significant level, yet at the same time to remain fully leaned into the Lord. It is not true that to put 60% effort into communication improvement means my trust in God reduces to 40%. It seems like it is a matter of attitude. How is that measured? Surely in prayer and reliance upon the convicting work of the Spirit. Let’s all pray that we will be able to be the best preachers we can be, but at the same time, plead with the Lord never to allow us to trust in ourselves unawares.

2. Similar Situation. Until this point I have kept this series of posts focused on edificatory preaching of believers. But evangelism is not so different, is it? Only God can save a soul. Yet most of us see the problem with an evangelism approach that simply does not engage listeners. Perhaps you’ve seen offensive and incomprehensible shouters in a public place – not in the slightest representative of the winsome grace of God, yet always quick to point to their faithfulness in sounding forth God’s Word. Trumpets a blasting, but not a clear tone. We don’t rely on our ability to engage listeners in evangelistic communication, but surely we seek to be engaging, and clear, and biblical, and relevant . . . doing all we can so that if they choose to walk away from the gospel it will be the offense of the gospel, not the incompetence, incoherence, or objectionable nature of the messenger. Doesn’t the same apply in church preaching, not only because there will probably be unsaved present, but because it’s all part of the same ministry and great commission?

A Fear Worth Facing: Whose Responsibility?

January 12, 2011January 11, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Over the last couple of days I have written about the preacher’s fear of disengaged listeners. Yesterday I began to respond to the critique of those who might suggest the responsibility is that of the listener to “do the duty” and “have the discipline” to listen to God’s Word preached. My first response to that is somewhat pragmatic (“maybe that’s true, but if people struggle to listen, then why not do everything legitimate to help?”) and hopefully very pastoral (“my love for the listeners drives me to be as engaging as possible”).

Let me offer two more thoughts on this matter:

A. While “responsibility” may not be the best word for it, the issue of responsibility is not black and white. Whose responsibility is it that the sermon be heard? The listener’s? The preacher’s? God’s? I suppose the answer is … yes. On the one side, if a listener is disengaged during a sermon, the first place to look for cause may well be the heart of the listener. (I’m tempted to say that if too many listeners are disengaged during a sermon then maybe we should look at the preacher, but that would distract me from my point here!) On the other side, if a flock does not exhibit greater maturity over time, then it does not seem inappropriate to look at the shepherding that flock has received over time. That is to say, the “responsibility” seems to land on both sides. And at the same time we must know that unless God builds the house, or transforms the lives, then we labour in vain.

B. I don’t see any reason for preachers to abdicate their responsibility, as long as they pursue their ministry in total dependence on God. That is to say, I am responsible to handle the Bible well. I can’t preach error from the text and simply state that it is up to God to transform lives. I am responsible to preach a clear message. I can’t preach confusion and simply state that it is up to the listeners to sort through it (or point to one or two people who thank me afterward and therefore assert that God’s hand is on my ministry). I am responsible to preach relevantly. I can’t simply preach historical and distant content and finish by suggesting that the Spirit will apply to our hearts the truths we have seen in His Word. I am responsible to speak engagingly. I can’t simply blame listeners for not listening, or claim divine sanction to be as poor a communicator as possible so that God can get the glory.

Is God at work and am I totally dependent on Him in order for anything good to transpire? Yes. “Apart from me you can do nothing.” Is it the state of the listener’s heart that will influence how they hear? Yes. But at the same time do I have a stewardship in this ministry that behooves me to prayerfully and by faith do the best that I can? I would say so.

A Fear Worth Facing: Love Driven Preaching

January 11, 2011January 11, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday I wrote about the fear facing speakers that listeners will be disengaged. I’m sure some would read what I wrote and disagree, perhaps quite strongly. The critique would probably go along these lines:

Listening to the Bible being taught is the responsibility of the listener. It is one of the spiritual disciplines that we teach new believers. They should listen carefully, attentively and prayerfully. They should look for what the Word of God is saying to them. It is not about the preacher, it is about the Word of God. If there is a problem, it is their problem, for it is their duty to listen.

While I am uncomfortable with the tone of this kind of talk, I can see some truth in it. The parable of the sower is really the parable of the soils since the same sower and same seed has different results based on the “hearing” of the soil (heart) in which it lands. Certainly as a listener I remind myself that my issue with a preacher may well be, first and foremost, an issue with my own heart.

Yet as a preacher I find myself responding to this kind of comment with a pragmatic and pastoral response. While it may be true that listeners should listen, the fact is that they won’t if I am not being a good steward of the ministry opportunity. It is a privilege to preach God’s Word, and my delight in it and passion for it should engage listeners.

If I am lacking in key factors that will engage listeners, then I can critique them, I can make them feel guilty, I can harangue, I can pile on the pressure, but am I not choosing a self-protective rather than a loving approach? Surely the pastoral concern for the listener would drive me to do what I can to make the feeding a more engaging experience?

My wife loves our children and wants to feed them a healthy diet. And because she loves them she also makes the meals very palatable and enjoyable. I suppose she could harangue and pile on the guilt about starving millions and her sacrifice in preparing healthy instead of the easier junk options, but her love motivates her to make the food very good, as well as very healthy.

When it comes to the preaching event, there is a responsibility on the side of the listeners. But if I am a loving preacher, then surely I will do everything possible on my part to help them to engage with and hear God’s Word?

A Fear Worth Facing

January 10, 2011January 11, 2011 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

I think there is one fear that preachers may have, but may be unwilling to face. It’s also true of struggling school teachers, or any public speaker. It is the fear that the listeners may have already left the room, even though their bodies are still sat there.

The signs are obvious – fidgeting, vacant stares, shuffling, unusual levels of coughing or yawning, raised eyebrows, longing looks toward the clock on the wall or the watch on the wrist. It may be that some people will wish they were somewhere else no matter what you do. But what if the number grows from the few relatively unreachables to cross the line into an unacceptable range?

Some speakers may, I suspect, have a deep awareness of this reality every time they preach. But it must be hard to see it for what it is. Much safer to speak of spiritual warfare, or to critique the congregation, or to have a pithy grabber about Jeremiah and other unloved prophets, or to pretend the problem is not there at all. But if it is, it is.

Perhaps some preachers would have the courage to take the faith step of calling it what it is. If you are not engaging the listeners, be honest about that in your prayers. I don’t recall who said it is a sin to bore people with the Bible, but I’m inclined to agree.

What if you’re not consistently boring, but dip your toe in now and then like most of us? Then perhaps it is worth thinking about what it takes to engage a gathering of listeners. It is important to be faithful to the text, but it is something other than that. It is important to be clear in your content and delivery, but it is more than that. It is important to be relevant in your message, but it is more than that. It is the human to human communication characteristic of being engaging.

Possible ingredients to add to faithful, clear and relevant content, in no particular order: energy, smile, humour, confidence, gentleness, humility, authority, sensitivity, warmth, eye contact, vocal variation, naturalness, authenticity, laughter, affection, poise, and you can probably add to the list . . .

Bible Versions and Preaching – Do What?

January 7, 2011January 5, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday I shared a couple of thoughts on this issue, urging thought about what we say as preachers concerning Bible versions. Today I’d like to offer a couple of thoughts about what we do with Bible versions:

3. Preach from the text people are looking at. Whether you like it or not, if most people in the church use one version, and that version is sitting in the seat in front of them, and that version is projected on the screen at the front, then you should probably be using that version when you preach. Why do anything to undermine communication? Now you may not prefer the NIV, many don’t, but if that is what people have in the congregation, you should probably use it for preaching. By all means study in a translation you prefer (or original language if you can), but up-front use what people have in front of them. I suppose that if I were in a KJV church, I would be tempted to do the reading from that, but then preach from a more understandable version (and perhaps not state that I’m doing so!)

4. Think carefully about bulk buys of Bibles for the church. When churches buy dozens of “pew Bibles” in a certain version, the ramifications are massive. Some of you remember the decision being made thirty years ago, and some churches are still using the same “pew Bibles” from that decision. More than that, many people in those churches are still using that same version at home, and repeatedly buying the same version when their Bible wears out (hopefully), because, after all, that’s what everyone uses in the church. So it is a big decision. And it can be a difficult, but potentially strategic decision to change the version used in the “pew Bible” and “from the front.” I know of some churches that have made that change in recent years from NIV to ESV, for example. This year we will see a revised version of the NIV coming out in a couple of months, probably with significant fanfare. Whether churches switch to a different version, or make the transition to the new NIV, is up to each church leadership. I would just suggest that there are moments when a decision to start replacing worn Bibles with more of the same version is not unlike signing a three-decade contract for your church. Whatever is decided, let it be a thought-through and informed decision!

(NB Cor Deo podcast about relational Bible reading – click here.)