Audience Analysis

Passionate About Good Preaching

/ Peter Mead / 8 Comments

I hear a lot of things about preaching. Not all of them are positive. People can’t concentrate as long as they used to. People don’t like long sermons. The church needs to move to “talks” in order to be contemporary and relevant. The religious monological tirade is a thing of the past. And on it goes.

It’s almost amusing how people so quickly default to shrinking and changing the sermon when things aren’t going so well. But if you have the privilege of seeing more than one local church context you will quickly realise that the “diet sermonette” approach is not the only option. Why is it that so many of the thriving churches have 40-minute sermons, or even longer in some cases? Why is it that some churches that make preaching a central feature of church life are packed to the rafters with the generation that can no longer concentrate or tolerate sermons?

I think that throwing out the sermon because it isn’t working in a particular context is short-sighted. It’s like saying my ten year old car is struggling to make the 50 mile commute to work every day, so I’ll replace it with a skateboard. Skateboards are more contemporary, and big old fume generating machines are so old fashioned. I’m not making an ecological statement here, but some forms of transport aren’t up to the burden placed on them. The old car and the new skateboard are not up to the task. So the solution is probably going to be a better car. Old monologues that feel like tirades and pithy little “talks” are not up to the task when it comes to all the weight placed on preached. The solution is not something new, it’s something renewed. If the preaching isn’t good enough, improve the preaching, don’t just terminate the sermon slot.

I’m passionate about good preaching, and saddened by the short-sightedness of so many that feel preaching should be disposed of, even in the absence of a suitable alternative. I’ve said it before, and will say it again. This generation is hungry for good preaching. That is, preaching that effectively and accurately and provocatively and relevantly and engagingly and vulnerably and spiritually conveys the teaching of God’s Word. Remember, we are talking about Biblical Preaching . . . so the material we’re using is the very best there is, it is God’s Word. Now the burden is on us to somehow do justice to God’s Word in how we preach it!

Superior Ammunition. Really?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

In class last week we were discussing effective sermon delivery.  We brainstormed through the categories of verbal, vocal and visual presentation.  So what goes into effective verbal delivery – i.e. the words you choose to use?

One person mentioned the need for accurate and precise word choice, rather than lots of filler words and verbal pauses.  Absolutely.  If you spoke on behalf of the government you wouldn’t arrive with a, umm, you know, imprecise kind of, you know, message.  How much more when you speak as an ambassador of heaven?

Another mentioned the need for common language.  After all, despite what some may think, Jesus spoke in common language.  The New Testament was written in common Greek.  We need to communicate with the people who are listening to us.

Related to this is the importance of your motivation in word choice.  One brother mentioned the temptation to try to look well educated by choosing erudite terminology.  I stumbled across a great quote in Briscoe’s book, something like, “if you are consistently shooting over the target, this is not an indication of your superior ammunition, but proof that you can’t aim properly.”  Fantastic.

Preaching and Note Takers

/ Peter Mead / 13 Comments

I had an enjoyable conversation with a friend today about note takers in church.  Some preachers love it when listeners are taking notes.  After all, it means they are listening, learning and will be going over the message again later.  But actually it doesn’t.  They are half-listening, may be learning, may or may not go over it again later.

I’ve read research that suggests the best way for listeners to learn from a message is to listen attentively, and then have time immediately afterwards to make some retrospective notes.  That allows them to give full attention to the message, rather than trying to recall and write while you are preaching.  It also allows them to immediately distill main point and applications of the message, rather than fooling themselves into thinking an outline equates to learning or life change.

Attention given to one thing means less attention given to something else.  If people are writing, then their minds are distracted from what is being said at that moment.

I like students to be taking notes in a class setting.  Firstly, because the sheer volume of information is greater than a single sermon that supposedly has a focused main point.  Secondly, because the goal is much more centrally about information transfer.  Preaching should educate, but the main goal of preaching is not education.

If you are in the habit of giving “fill in the blank” notes, I am sure you will want to defend that approach, and you are welcome to do so.  I like what I heard Tim Keller say a while back – “it’s when they put their pens down that I know I am really getting through.”  Why don’t we try giving a 3-5 minute quiet time after a message and encourage either prayer or note taking in that time?  I’d love to hear from any who have done that in a church service setting.

Enough from me, what are your thoughts on note takers?

People Communicate

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

We can subconsciously slip into viewing preaching as something other than communication. How so? Well, we can slip into thinking it is about simply teaching information, or view it as a literary exercise (written and read), or view it as a liturgical procedure. But preaching is about communication. Even though it is typically monological, it is still communication.

For communication to occur there has to be connection between people. I heard a teacher say recently in respect to using media, “When I communicate the scriptures it may be old news to me, but it has to be good news to connect with people. . . The good news became a person. . . People communicate, not things.” I would extend that thought by suggesting that people communicate, not statements, nor facts, nor anecdotes, but people.

How easily we lose sight of this and end up with good content, well illustrated, relevantly applied, clearly structured, but still fail to communicate because we fail to pay attention to the need for interpersonal connection. I sat in a meeting a while back and the speaker didn’t smile until 53 minutes into the meeting. Not ideal for connection. The message met every criteria, except it didn’t seem to connect. It lacked smile, warmth, empathy, energy, enthusiasm, eye contact, connection.

People may not typically respond verbally in your church, but preach so as to stir response internally. Preach so that they are interacting mentally and emotionally with the message, and with you. If they don’t connect, they won’t trust you, and deep down, they will distrust the message too (even while affirming it, they will remain applicationally cold toward it, because you seem interpersonally cold toward them).

Distractions

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Distractions happen. Sometimes worse than others. This morning I was preaching on a ship (if you know me you will know which one). Ten minutes into my message there was a drill which meant about twenty or so people rushed out. Momentary distraction. Five minutes later three of the fire crew returned and were putting on their apparatus in the front corner of the hall, twenty feet from me. Distraction.

Thankfully most of us don’t have to compete with something that interesting most of the time. But what to do when people are all looking at something else? This morning I didn’t fight it. What advantage to compete and have people only half hear what you are saying?

Whatever you decide to do, one very important key is that your listeners will pick up on your mood. If you are tense and annoyed, they will feel bad and the distraction will be increased. If you seem calm and unflustered, they will be the same. In fact, sometimes it really helps to diffuse any tension they are feeling by a gentle and careful acknowledgement of the situation.

One thing that is clear, is that if you don’t have their attention, speaking is pointless. I remember reading of Bruce Wilkinson’s memory of Howard Hendricks’ absolute commitment to commanding the attention of his students, for without attention, there can be no learning.

So how do you do with attention? Not when there is a display by the local fire brigade twenty feet from the speaker, but when there are the normal distractions of life. People have other things on their minds, the seats aren’t always the most comfortable, not everyone had an invigorating night’s sleep, blood sugar levels do drop at key moments, etc.

It’s one of those things, I suppose. The more obviously you are trying to get attention, the less effective you will probably be. But you should be doing something. Somehow your voice, your energy, your body language, your manner, your content, your enthusiasm, your something has to get and keep attention . . . Otherwise it is largely irrelevant what you are doing when you preach.

Preach the Text, Don’t Just Preach From the Text

/ Peter Mead / 5 Comments

It’s a simple statement, but some preachers probably need to ponder it.  With the good motivation of seeking to be pastorally relevant, some preachers short-change the preaching of the text.  It certainly saves time if you merely summarise or refer to the text, but don’t bother with any extended explanation, or any retelling of the narratives, or any extended description to help the listeners enter into the world of the text.  Bypassing these elements does allow you to get to application and relevance.  But what is lost in the process?

People receiving lightweight Bible content that is heavy on application will not mature into the kind of Bible-mature people you probably want them to be.  It trains listeners to look for lessons and applications, but to do so without really entering into the text to any depth.  It may encourage people to try to live out the Christian life, but without drawing them deeper into the source of life – relationship with the persons of the Godhead.  As preachers we have a double-duty, or even a double delight: to enable people to encounter the God of the Bible as they enter into His Word, and to be changed by that encounter.  These two go together.  But don’t short-change the first by skipping to the second.  As the world seems to spin further and further away from the anchors of Biblical truth, people need to be more biblically literate and mature, not less.

Is It Ever Appropriate to Preach the Same Text to the Same Church?

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Simple question.  Simple answer?  Yes.

But what about people thinking you haven’t prepared something fresh so you are just reworking old material?  What about the feeling of deja vu that will overcome the listeners?  What about?  What about?

As a preacher you have to answer to God for your preaching ministry.  If you think the church needs that passage again, why not preach it again?  What people might think about your ministry or effort is very much a secondary issue.  You can make it clear that you are not trying to sneek a repeat past them.  Tell them upfront that you have preached it before and that you feel before God that we need to think it through again, or some more.

Personally I would be very willing to return to the same text for a second service on the same day.  It allows for deeper levels of application and reinforcement.  I would be willing to return to the same text after a gap of weeks, months or years, too.  Perhaps it helps to think about it this way:

A sermon event consists of several ingredients – the preacher, the listeners, the situation, the text.  When time has passed, the preacher is not the same person they were before.  The listeners have changed (individually, and in respect to who is actually present).  The situation has changed.  The text remains the same, but is engaged by the first three elements in a fresh way.

Same text, different occasion, why not?  Our purpose is not to impress listeners with new information week after week, but to shepherd people before God as under-shepherds . . . sometimes the same patch of grass is what they/we really need!

The Missing Connection

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Sometimes technically solid sermons seem to sputter and struggle.  It’s not unusual for a message to fall flat.  Why is that possible when the pieces are in place?

Content – We know the importance of having good content.  I tend to use the term “Biblical” when I am evaluating a message, others use the term “faithful.”  It’s a matter of content.

Clarity – We probably see it as a self-evident truth that for something to communicate it needs to make sense (although just believing it doesn’t make us automatically clear communicators).  A clear message clearly presented is a blessing to listeners.

Contemporaneity – Ok, so if I wasn’t enjoying my alliteration (might as well do it on here since I rarely alliterate in messages), I might prefer to speak of emphasising the relevance of the passage.  That is, helping listeners to hear what God is saying today, to us, through His Word.

Good content, clearly presented, with a contemporary sense of relevance.  What more could you want in a message?  How can messages with all three ingredients in place still fall flat?

I think there is a fourth ingredient that is often overlooked, frequently forgotten in the mix of making a message that ministers well:

Connection – Again if I weren’t in the mood for “C’s” I would probably call this being engaging.  It is something about the persona of the preacher, the energy, the relevance, the eye contact, the warmth, the humour, the manner of delivery, the feel and flow of the whole, the comfort or nerves of the speaker, and so much more.  It may be hard to pin down what makes it, but as a listener you can sense when it’s missing.

Let’s try to preach good content, clearly, with a contemporary focus.  But as well, let’s seek to connect.  After all, we are communicating for a communicating and relational God.  Preaching is a relational exercise.  And when connection is missing, preaching falls flat.

Idea to Idea, or Outline to Outline?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Some preaching methodologies suggest that the main idea is what crosses from textual study to sermon preparation. Others suggest that the outline of the text crosses over to form the outline of the sermon. Which is right?

Both, but with qualifications.

The idea is in charge of the message, the outline is not. Remember that the main idea of the passage was what the author was seeking to communicate to the recipients, and he chose to do so making choices about genre, structure, details, etc. Everything after the idea is a matter of authorial strategy. As we prepare to preach, our goal is to firstly grasp the main idea of the text, process that idea so that it takes into account the needs and situation of the listeners, and then consider how to form a sermon that will effectively deliver that main idea.

The outline of the text is not boss, but it does matter. In my approach, I teach a narrowing focus in the textual study that culminates in the defining of the main idea of the passage. That idea is then influenced (in certain respects) by an overt awareness of the listeners which determines the purpose of the message, and then the message idea is then in charge of the subsequent decisions relating to strategy (including the message structure, the illustrative details, intro, conclusion, etc.)

Having said all that, when it comes to the structure or outline of the message, where do I begin? With a contemporised outline derived from the passage. In effect the work done on the idea is also done on the outline.  So why don’t I overtly state that in the 8-stage process?

The outline of the passage is a starting place, but it does not always have to be obeyed. My default approach is to follow the strategy the author used by following the order and structure of the passage in my message outline.  However, I don’t feel restricted by this approach.  Sometimes the contemporary listeners are in a different place to the original recipients.  Sometimes they need differing strategies to drive the main idea home.  Perhaps extra info is needed, or a different starting place, or perhaps a different ordering of the content of the passage.

The passage outline is the place to start when it comes to the message outline, but it is not a requirement.  (However, I do feel constrained by the main idea of the text as I work at the level of main idea – hence my approach that emphasises the progress from passage idea to message idea).

Share