Audience Analysis

Should Bible Text Be Projected?

/ Peter Mead / 6 Comments

This is the kind of question that can easily become a strongly held conviction.  But should it?

Well, people do benefit from seeing the text, and seeing it in the same translation as the speaker, and without the hassles, distraction, or potential embarressment of having to look it up in their own Bible, which of course, they may not have.

On the other hand, people who don’t need to bring their Bibles to church, won’t bring their Bibles to church, and won’t develop the ability to look up references, nor to see passages in their contexts – instead getting used to the idea that verses stand alone in picturesque vacuums.

Some will offer a compromise.  The main text will not be projected, but the cross-references will be projected so folks can keep their finger on the main preaching text and not get caught up or discouraged in a melee of sword drills throughout the message (which, as a passing comment, I would suggest is not that helpful most of the time, even if folks can keep up).

So what to do?  My suggestion is to be a bit situational.  What kind of church is it?  What kind of service?  In an evangelistic service perhaps it is worth it to avoid any embarressment or discomfort, but in a Bible study for believers surely they would benefit from having a finger on the text in its context?  What kind of sermon?  Perhaps a special event is not conducive to people carrying Bibles.

Some have a tendency to make every matter one of strong conviction.  This tends to dilute the effectiveness of such convictions.  Don’t allow the deity of Christ, the relationality of our Triune God, the inspired nature and centrality of Scripture, the exclusivity of faith (not faith-plus), the importance of an expository philosophical commitment in preaching, etc. . . . don’t allow important convictions like these to get lost in a sea of passionate commitments to which version of the Bible people should use, or what people should wear to church, or to preach, or whether the south Galatia view trumps the north Galatia view, or whether believers should drink alcohol, or how long a sermon should last, or whether the Bible text should or shouldn’t be projected.

As preachers, even as believers, we have to form opinions about many things.  But let’s reserve the passion of convictions for that which really counts.  Should Bible texts be projected?  Maybe.  Sometimes.

Share

Vary Text Length

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

On the one hand there is a simple guideline when selecting passage length to preach – preach a unit of thought.  On the other hand, there are many sections that allow for combining units of thought and thereby preaching longer or shorter sections.  The epistles, for instance, allow the preacher to combine several paragraphs.  Equally, the gospels often allow for the combining of narrative units because that is how the authors often made their overarching points.

I suppose it almost goes without saying, but we can vary length of preaching text.

Sometimes select the smallest possible unit of thought. This might be a couple of sentences that make up a complete thought in the epistles, or a single verse in proverbs, or a very short narrative, etc.   If you usually cover more ground it will allow you to give more application, to go deeper in the text, or just to not overwhelm listeners with too much too quickly.

Sometimes combine associated units of thought. This might involve paragraphs that flow together in an epistle or a sequence of narratives in the gospels, or potentially a pair of psalms that go together.  Many preachers default to only preaching one unit, or always preaching one chapter, or never really preaching any text, but instead bouncing off one to go everywhere else.  Listeners might be very blessed by a combined unit approach.

Sometimes preach whole sections or books. This can easily slip into application-less overview with commentary titles, but it need not be that.  The flow of thought in a passage or book is a key discovery.  Remember that the epistles were written to be heard in one sitting.  Why not give people an overview of the flow of thought, while at the same time being sure to drive home the main point and application of the text.  For people used to hearing the same short sections every week, this would be refreshing.  It can make a great intro or conclusion to a series, too.

There are other approaches too.  How about preaching the same section more than once?  How about combining two passages that show the progress among the recipients – such as tracing the story of the church at Ephesus from Acts to Ephesians to Revelation chapter two?

Simple point about preaching text length . . . vary it.

Preview for Clarity

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Some people like to take the complexity and intricacy of preaching and turn it into a one-size fits all template.  This is unfortunate because preaching has so many variables to be enjoyed and utilized.  Take, for instance, the preview.  As part of the introduction to a  message, the preacher may choose to give an outline of what is to follow, thus giving a sense of direction, of structure, of purpose, of intent.  Here are some preview options:

1. Specifically outline all the points. This would be a deductive preaching approach for the purist.  What it loses in intrigue and interest, it adds in clarity and precision.  It helps the listener know what is coming, how many points, how they relate to one another and to the text.  But recognize that clarity isn’t the only strength to pursue in a message.  Remember that interest and intrigue are also important.  A strongly deductive outline for the whole message will be helped by an inductive approach within each point.  While the whole may be clearly previewed, the points will be helped by offering only part of the package, leaving something to be developed for the interest of the listener.

2. Structurally outline the passage’s flow of thought. Instead of giving your whole outline at the start, sometimes it is very effective to simply overview the chunks.  I heard a very effective message recently that used this approach.  By no means an exact quote: “In the first ten verses Paul shows it does mean to stick with Christ, then in the last six verses what it doesn’t mean to stick with Christ.”  Simple.  Clear.  Listener’s familiarised with the terrain and ready to press into the details.  Sometimes this kind of simplified preview prepares listeners for more detail without overwhelming them in advance.

3. Outline within the points. In a more inductive sermon, the preview by necessity is more restricted.  Instead of giving the full idea (subject and complement) and outline of the message, a message preview might give just the subject and maybe a super-simplified sense of the text’s shape or purposein order to assure the listener that the full idea will be achieved in the course of the message.  In such cases it may work well to use previewing during the message as a new point or movement is introduced.  While not giving away the whole, it does satisfy the listener’s desire for direction.  So perhaps the solution to the stated problem is still to come, but in the first movement of the message a false solution will be presented and found wanting – this could be clearly previewed without undermining the inductive nature of the message.

There are other approaches to previewing a message too.  The important thing is to deliberately include a preview that will most help the listeners as they receive this particular message.  No one size fits all, but custom made previews crafted for a unique combination of text and listeners.

What Adjectives?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

When you preach, what adjectives best describe your manner, tone and style?  Perhaps you tend to preach in a relaxed manner, or intense, or aggressive, or rushed, or tense, or lighthearted, or calm, or nervous.  Some adjectives are probably to be preferred over others – is there really a place for a preacher to come across as silly, or nervous, or rude, probably not.  But here are a couple of adjectival questions to ponder:

1. Would the adjective vary from sermon to sermon? People drawn to your humour, or passion, or aggression, or confidence, or hesitancy, or gentleness, or whatever, may find that same aspect of your preaching to be off-putting eventually if every sermon experience is the same.  Consider whether your preaching is overly influenced by your personal style, rather than responding to the text, the audience and the situation as it should in good communication.

2. Would a different adjective describe the same feature from another listener’s perspective? While one person may find your preaching engaging and humourous, another might offer the descriptive couplet of offensive and trivial.  Be careful not to fool yourself into thinking your style is pleasing to all, appropriate in every situation and thoroughly effective.  Gentle and calm?  Or tedious and soporific?  Passionate?  Or rude?  Orderly?  Or monotonous and predictable?  This should keep us on our toes, and on our knees, if that be possible (since prayer should saturate our delivery and reception of the message as well as the content of the message).

How would you describe your preaching?  How would your listeners?  When did you last ask one or two?  Were they free to answer honestly?

They Can’t Concentrate That Long!

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

I’d like to return to something that has been addressed on here before.  The idea that people now have a reduced attention span of fifteen to twenty minutes (insert similar number of your choice).  This is a myth.  Urban legend.  Fallacy.

People have never had a concentration span that long.  Good speakers know that people will stay with you for a few minutes.  Then if you engage them as listeners in some way, for another few minutes.  Then if you engage them again, for another few minutes.  3-5 minutes is probably the attention span of listeners today, as it was yesterday and fifty years before that.  Good speakers can hold (or regain) attention, bad speakers never could.

People can concentrate as well as ever.  I was chatting with a good friend this morning and he mentioned how young people will focus 100% for five hours without a break on a video game.  Movies are actually getting longer.  Some of the popular speakers today speak with good meaty content for 40 minutes to an hour (and the younger generation flock to hear them).  If something is worth hearing, and if the presentation is engaging, then length of presentation is not the issue many make it out to be.

So what to do about it?  In simple terms, preach well.  Better content and better delivery will have people listening better.  Gimmicks won’t.  Using visual multimedia won’t improve concentration.  Dividing a forty minute message into two twenty minute sections won’t improve concentration.  Giving people a pen and paper won’t improve concentration.  There may be a place for all of these ideas and many more, but they won’t fix the problem of inattentive listeners.  That will be fixed by better messages and better presentation.

Preaching to Youth

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

I received an email from Peter who was asking about preaching to youth.  Now I don’t know the setting of that message, the age of the youth, their culture, etc.  So my response has to be non-specific, and honestly, more focused on my cultures (US/UK).  Nevertheless, here are some thoughts, perhaps you could add others:

1. Be engaging,  don’t be silly.  Some people think youth can’t concentrate or don’t want meat, so they just act silly and try to entertain.  Youth are very capable of concentrating and value good quality content.  But if it is boring (as with adults), they will disengage.  So engage rather than entertain (although if you are humorous then don’t be afraid to use it).

2. This generation values meat.  When I think of who the popular  speakers are today among the younger generation, the names that come to mind are not entertainers.  Notice how younger folks flock to hear people like Tim Keller, John Piper, Mark Driscoll, DA Carson . . . which proves that the younger generation are not lightweight.

3. Recognize that you are speaking cross-culturally. You may be only 15 years older than them, and from the same place, but you are effectively preaching to a different culture.  It is good to think about their worldview, their values, their language, etc.  Don’t try to be one of them (too many try to act like a youth and have no credibility as a result), but do try to know who you are speaking to.

4. Don’t be longer than necessary, but know that concentration spans are as short as ever. That is to say, don’t think 15 or 20 or 30 minutes is the key.  The key is 3-5 minutes.  You can preach for an hour in some settings, but actually that has to be a series of 3-5 minute sections that grab and retain attention.

5. The younger generation value authenticity more than previous generations. Don’t make yourself out to be a total idiot, but do be real with your own struggles and life.  They don’t value polished rhetoric and a pulpit persona, they do value genuine and authentic communication from the heart and the head, to the heart and the head.

Ingredients for Creativity

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

If you want to increase creativity in your preaching, what is needed?

1. Time. If you are squeezed for time then it will not be possible to add the extra work needed (and the thinking capacity needed) for adding creativity to your preaching.

2. Freedom and trust. It is important to know the congregation to whom you preach.  Many will not easily accept more creative approaches to preaching unless there is first a building up of trust and a shared commitment to the core elements of true preaching (i.e. that a particular form is not the definition of faithfulness to the ministry!)

3. Better reading of the text. We need to grow in our ability to thoroughly engage with texts and recognize their genre, their features, their mood, their narrative context, etc.  Better Bible study can help develop more creative preaching.

4. Awareness of yourself as a preacher. We all need to know our own strengths and weaknesses in preaching.  Are you effective in description, in storytelling, in timing of key phrases, in disarming listeners, in role-playing, etc.?  Don’t get too creative in areas of weakness, but built on the strengths first.

5. Exposure to creative and different preachers. Don’t just copy what someone else has done, but if you are never exposed to other preachers, you will struggle to break out of the confines of your own style and tradition.

What would you add to this list?

A List of Styles

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

At the BibleFresh preaching event one speaker shared about preaching to the 20’s-30’s generation.  I think his name was Andy West (apologies Andy if I got your last name wrong).  His talk will probably be available online in due course at this site.

He shared four styles of preaching that he observes among effective preaching to the younger adult generation.  I’d like to offer the four styles he listed for your interest:

1. The Preacher Orator: “here is my argument!” – This is the expert speaker who will tend to fill venues with younger generation adults craving an authoritative word in an age where truth and depth are not common currency in everyday life.  People flock to hear Tim Keller, for example.  It is structured, linear, deep.

2. The Preacher Artist: “how would you feel…?” – This type of preacher paints pictures with words, engages through effective storytelling and is creatively imaginative.

3. The Preacher Conversationalist: “I’m like you…” – The preacher is an ordinary person who has honesty and integrity, connecting with the listeners.

4. The Preacher Facilitator: “Let’s go on a journey together.” – This preacher doesn’t so much dispense truth as help listeners to engage with the truth.

A few quick questions spring out of this:

A. Is this list complete, or are there other “styles” that are engaging effectively with the younger generation?

B. How much are we able to switch between styles as preachers in order to offer greater variety and appropriate engagement with our listeners?  (This is a critical question on numerous levels of preaching and with all generations.)

C. Should we be proactively exploring team approaches to preaching ministry that would more deliberately match the preacher to the subject and the listeners for each specific Sunday?

Struggling With Style and Substance

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

A lot of comments are made about preaching to the younger generation.  Lots can be said about the newest set of adults in our culture, and it is imperative that we get to know who we are trying to reach, or who we are preaching to on a Sunday . . .

But let’s not fall into the trap of thinking that the new generation are simply looking for new style.  It is so easy to think that preaching in a certain style will appeal to the younger generation.  It is true that generationally there is a shift in preferred styles of preaching, but the danger comes when we presume that style is the key, then lose sight of substance.

The younger generation do seem to place a high value on authenticity, integrity and vulnerability.  Yet there is no waning in the desire for substance.  Perhaps it could be argued that the younger generation today actually yearns for depth and substance perhaps more than previous generations who placed higher value on structure and form?

So let’s not try to be “relevant” in style without pursuing God in a deep personal walk, nor offer lightweight preaching simply to appeal in style.  This is not to say that we should preach old style – whatever that might be.  The priority has to be substance, but in our passion to connect, we should be considering all aspects of how to communicate effectively (which inevitably is changing over time and will always do so).

We should also be careful not to disparage popular speakers among the younger generation.  It is so easy to mock and dismiss the currently popular speakers across the spectrum.  Upon closer inspection it might be found that some of them are actually speaking with considerable depth and substance.  The problem is that many simply copy style and lose that substance, which exacerbates the impression of superficiality.

There aren’t simple solutions, but we have to take seriously how to connect with each new generation.