Audience Analysis

Shaded Differences Not Poles Apart

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The Bible often distinguishes humanity in stark alternatives.  There are those being saved and those perishing.  There are those who trust God and those who don’t.  There is love and hate.  Heaven and hell.  Faith and fear.  The righteous and the wicked.  The wise and the foolish.  Often the stark alternatives provide for very strong opportunities to preach the Word boldly and with great clarity.

Nevertheless, there are also many times where what we intend and what is heard can be close, but still be across the divide.  How easily we preach for relationship and are heard to be preaching for religion.  Thinking in the terms Tim Keller uses for Luke 15 – we can easily slip into trying to turn the irreligious younger son into the religious older son, but God reaches out to both the rebel and religious in order to draw them into relationship.  Sons, not servants.  If we are not very careful, we can preach for relationship and be heard as preaching religion.  This is heavily influenced by the religious tendency of humanity in the flesh, but that is no excuse since we have to preach to those who are listening and can’t just blame them if they miss our point.

I was thinking about a vision for the local church for a presentation this week. I was struck by how easily we settle for a line drawing, a sketched representation of the reality, rather than the full multi-coloured vivid 3-D reality of God’s wisdom demonstrated in the church.  There may be some extremely dead churches, but for many the difference between vibrantly alive and slightly hollow is marginal, little shaded differences, in some areas and not others, in some people and less so in others.

We like to think in black and white terms, in one extreme or the other.  Since we’re not completely dead, we must therefore be completely alive.  It’s easier that way.  But as preachers we need to help people not settle for a mere representation of life to the full, of the delight of being fully alive in Christ, sharing in the communion of the Godhead, participating fully in all that God has for us.

Let’s preach the texts that offer strong polarities and not hold back.  Let’s also recognize that often the difference between reality and mere representation is marginal – so our preaching needs to sensitively engage and encourage in the midst of the shaded differences.

Managing Message Momentum

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Even the best message preparation often overlooks the critical issue of momentum.  So messages will often follow one of these patterns:

1. “U” … Start with a bang – drag on through the bulk – pick up for a strong finish.

2. “/” … Start slow – gradually increase in energy and get going.

3. “\” … Start strong – lose dynamic after the introduction, or first point, and drag to the end.

Each of these patterns will undermine the effectiveness of the preaching event.  Equally, while some preachers seem content to flatline “_” (i.e. never generate energy or momentum), it is not usually possible for listeners to cope with the opposite (i.e. constant high energy and fast pace).

If you have felt like your preaching tends toward one of these patterns, or if others have hinted at it.  What can you do?

1. Try to work out where the momentum was missing. Was it an unclear transition?  Was it a sequence of explanatory points?  Was it at the point you lost confidence in your content?  Was it just through a lethargic unplanned introduction?  Was it at a difficult juncture in the text?  If you can figure out where momentum was missing in previous messages, this will help you identify where the same could happen in future messages.

2. Listen to yourself practice. Sometimes you can get the sense of momentum struggles in a run through of the message, but not always.  It may be worth recording a run through and listening to it . . . but obviously that requires you to be on top of your preparation.

3. Evaluate the sermon map. Most of us tend to use an outline rather than an actual sermon map, but we can still evaluate it as a map.  As well as evaluating it for location of illustrations (the normal approach, which actually can generate predictability as people see every illustration coming), also look for points of relevance, and consider the terrain . . . will this bit be hard to traverse for the listener?  Marking your outline may allow you to energise a potentially monotonous section with illustration, review & preview, interlude, or even by overviewing rather than detailing a segment.

4. Weigh the sermon on the scales. Many of us tend toward simply making too many points, giving too much explanation, trying to give too much and the sermon is simply too heavy.  What would be lost if you chose to lighten the content slightly and create some breathing space?  If the main point of the text is not lost, then are we choosing to keep content because we want to demonstrate our insight, our study, our knowledge?

Energy, pace, vocal variation, movement, progress, laughter, relevance . . . the complex factors of message momentum.

Do We Need To Challenge Our Implied Assumptions?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I just read an interesting article entitled Is Leadership a Healthy Christian Aim? It gets into the issue of what we connote by the terms we use.  In this particular case, the fact that adding “servant” to “leadership” doesn’t undo the connotations implicit in leadership language so revered in Christian circles.  I suppose I could argue with the article in places, and perhaps suggest that our goal should be to produce influencers, and influencers, by some definitions, are leaders – whether or not they are recognized officially.  But perhaps I would be falling into the same problem the article is addressing.

So as preachers, do we reinforce, or play along with, common Christian conceptions that actually need overt challenging?  How about the notion that single is second class?  How about the numerous class distinctions still dividing society (especially, perhaps, in the British context)?  How about the idea that only a very few are called to serve in missions?  Or equally, that all are missionaries just by virtue of their existence, wherever they are, irrespective of their attitude to life and ministry? How about the myth of contemporary financial security and its value (irrespective of amount of consumer credit needed)?  How about the notion that life consists in everything to do with this life only?  (How many practical applicational sermons function as if eternity is irrelevant to everyday life?)

I could go on with random statements, but the point is important.  It is easy to fall into the trap of preaching in such a way that we actually reinforce wrong thinking.  We can do that by the words we use, the illustrations we choose, by what is said and by what is not said.  Enough said.

What An Email!

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I just received an email from a friend.  Allow me to quote from it for our benefit:

I’m going to preach in 10 days. I’ve been wrestling a lot with pride and the desire to show off, and no matter how hard I tried to meditate on verses such as “what do you have that you did not receive?”, these tempting thoughts did not leave.

I then listened to an interview. I realized then that I was only praying for myself, for the sermon preparation, for strength and understanding and clarity, but I wasn’t praying for the people to whom I was going to preach. So I decided to pray for them.

I’ve since realized that praying for the congregation is one of the best ways to fight against pride and the desire to show off. As we pray for them, we start loving them and long for them to be amazed by God and not by ourselves, the preachers.

I’ve spent the afternoon trying to understand the passage, but it was too much of an intellectual exercise and not enough of an heart-level meeting with God. I then read this article and this one. I’ve realized that I first need to be impacted by the passage in my own life before I can communicate it to others. I don’t want to simply convey information but I want to share God’s heart with them.

Such an encouraging email!  May God protect us all from preaching out of pride, or from preaching unfelt truth.

Preaching and Television

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I know there is preaching on television, but that is not my focus here. I was just reading Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman and his interesting perspective on the influence of television.  Allow me to share some snippets and then make a couple of comments for us as preachers.

The print age was the Age of Exposition.  It was replaced by the Age of Show Business. (63) . . . It  introduced irrelevance, impotence, and incoherence — context-free — information reduced to novelty, interest, and curiosity.  News became sensational events.  Information moved quickly but it had little to do with those who received it.  “In a sea of information, there was very little of it to use.” (67) . . . The photograph presents the world as object; language, the world as idea.  (72) . . .  This new language “denied interconnectedness, proceeded without context, argued the irrelevance of history, explained nothing, and offered fascination in place of complexity and coherence. …that played the tune of a new kind of public discourse in America.” (77)  All public understanding is shaped by the biases of television.

Ok, just a few more snippets:

Television has gradually become our culture.”   “The peek-a-boo world it has constructed around us no longer seems even strange.” (79) . . . “We have so thoroughly accepted its definitions of truth, knowledge, and reality that irrelevance seems to us to be filled with import, and incoherence seems eminently sane.” (80) . . . Television speaks in only one persistent voice–the voice of entertainment.  “Television, in other words, is transforming our culture into one vast arena for show business.” (80) . . . The average network shot is 3.5 seconds.  There is always something new to see, devoted entirely to entertainment.  It is now the natural format of all experience and all subject matter is entertaining.  The news is not to be taken seriously.  Several minutes of news should give us many sleepless nights – but newscasters don’t even blink.  Neither do we. (86-7) . . . TV sets the format for all discourse.  Americans exchange images, not ideas, argue with good looks and celebrities, not propositions.  (90-93) . . . Any murder can be erased from our minds by, “Now this….”  (99) . . . “Credibility” refers only to the impression of sincerity.  Nixon was dishonored not because he lied on TV but because he looked like a liar on TV.  (102)

Ok, three comments from me:

1. We should not be intimidated by television. There may be some things we could learn from effective communicators on the TV, but we certainly shouldn’t feel pressured to have a new visual image every 3.5 seconds, or a new subject every 45 seconds!  People can and will concentrate if the communicator can grab and retain attention.  Gimmicks are not the key to this.  Powerpoint certainly doesn’t fulfill any so-called requirement for visual stimulation!

2. We may find people drawn to good preaching exactly because it offers something different, substantial, lasting and inherently valuable when compared to standard fare on TV. Which therefore means we should be neither deliberately poor communicators, nor should we unthinkingly replicate our culture’s way of communicating.

3. We don’t need to come across as anti-cultural and anti-TV, but we do have opportunity to raise questions about the cultural values being pumped into most living rooms. Gracious commentary on culture has immense value to Christians who are often unwittingly over-influenced by the corruptions in the culture.

Monological Q and A – part 3

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

All that I’ve written in the last two posts rests on a critical foundation.  In order to preach so that listeners feel engaged and involved, even though they may sit in silence, the preacher has to know the listeners as well as possible.

Relational pastoring requires the preacher to know the people listening.  In your own church you have weeks, months and years to gradually learn about those that listen when you preach.  Yet it is so easy to neglect the relationships because of a commitment to study, or as a protective policy to prevent vulnerability on your part.

As a visiting speaker you may only have twenty minutes before the meeting, and during the singing, to observe and learn all you can about the people to whom you will be speaking.  As limited as it may be, this time is priceless for learning about listeners.  Learn to observe.  Learn to ask questions.

As a visitor, or as an in-house speaker, it is vital to remember the importance of knowing the worlds of your listeners, as well as the world of the biblical text.  A weakness on either side of the chasm will weaken the bridge you build between the two.

Monological Q and A – part 2

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday I offered three thoughts on how to make a message that engages the listener.  Even though you are doing all the talking, they don’t feel like observers at a presentation, but participants in a half quiet conversation.  They feel like you’re talking to them, like they are involved as the message progresses.  Relevant preaching, rhetorical questions and related to life outlining of the message were yesterday’s points, here are three more (and why not push the alliteration since I tend not to do so when preaching!)

4. Room to breathe – It’s so easy to rattle through a message that is clear and defined in our notes, but comes across as an unbroken stream to the listener.  Good use of pauses, and even illustrations, can give room to breathe and re-engage.

5. Really clear structure and transitions – The more people know what’s going on, the more they can engage with it.  If they’re trying to figure out what you’re trying to do, or where you are going, the less they are involved and actually listening.  Good clear structuring and transitions will help the listener to participate in the actual content and journey of the message.

6. Resistance to cruise controlled sermon pace – Pace is so critical.  Again, your notes may be clearly structured, but the listener is at your mercy to get a sense of order and progress.  Many now like to short-circuit this by projecting their outline.  Don’t do that, instead learn to make your message really clear.  Structure and transitions matter.  So too does pace.  No interesting journey progresses at a constant pace – either fast or slow.  Variation of pace will help listeners engage.

Any more that you would add?

Why Don’t We Have Q and A?

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

On Wednesday evening I spoke at a meeting I haven’t visited before.  They asked for a specific subject and so I spoke on that.  They suggested having ten minutes of questions after the message.  These were intelligent and helpful questions.  Hopefully my answers were the same!

So I have two thoughts:

1. Why don’t we create venues for Q&A times? I’ve only heard of a very few churches that have some structure set up for people to interact with the preacher about the message.  I heard of one place where the preacher goes to another room about half an hour after the service and is available for questions about the message.  Why not?  Obviously a Q&A at the end of the service could easily turn deeper communication times into information transfer times to be sabotaged by the curious, but thereby undermining life change for others.  Yet perhaps there is a way to create opportunities for a group to feed off one anothers questions and probe the message further?

But this leads me to a deeper question:

2. Why aren’t there more questions in church? I just spent three days with a group of student ministry leaders . . . major note takers and question askers!  Then the meeting on Wednesday evening – essentially a special interest group.  There are questions in classroom settings and in seminar formats, but in normal church?  Opportunity is already in place in that people can approach the preacher and ask a question, but typically do not.  Is it learned behaviour to not probe the sermon?  Is it a genuine lack of interest?  Or is it just that sense of not coming across as negative or critical?  Perhaps the opporrtunity would generate the interest and desire to probe messages further.  Perhaps for that reason alone we should consider introducing the odd time for Q&A?

Have you tried anything along these lines?  Did it work?  I’d love to hear from other people’s experience.

Help People Trust Their Bibles

/ Peter Mead / 7 Comments

I was just reading a post by Bill Mounce on the Koinonia blog (to see it click here.)  He offers a simple and graciously toned introduction to textual criticism set in the context of a natural question raised by folks in the church . . . “why is verse 4 missing in my Bible?”

Some textual critical questions would probably only be asked by people already heavily interested in the subject with apparatus in hand.  These kinds of questions may intrigue us, but usually shouldn’t find their way into the pulpit!  However, if people in the pew are looking at their Bible and asking a textual critical question, then we need to offer help.  Just a few brief thoughts in light of Bill’s good post:

1. Textual criticism can be explained relatively simply. People probably don’t need to know about every textual family, how to pronounce homeoteleuton, or the full rationale behind lectio difficilor potior.

2. Textual criticism can be explained with grace. This area of study can really stir up the tension, especially between adherents to different textual families.  Such tensions won’t help if shown from the pulpit.  Be gracious to people who disagree with you on Majority Text vs Critical Text issues.  Often you’d be fighting an unseen opponent anyway since people in the same church often tend to use the same version of the Bible (and most of these without any real understanding of text critical issues underlying the options)!

3. Textual criticism should be explained at the right time. Just because you’re enjoying a textual critical excursion in your personal study, or even in your sermon preparation, doesn’t mean the people are needing a dose of it.  But when a verse is missing and they are wondering, or when you’re going through Mark or John and you get to the square bracket sections, then is probably a good time to offer some explanation.

4. Textual critical explanations should build trust in our English Bibles. This has to be paramount.  What have you gained if you’ve showed off your knowledge, perhaps won a debate against an opponent not present, but undermined the confidence of every listener in their English Bible?

Don’t Rush

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I’m not referring specifically to the speed of delivery here.  Some of us need to slow down sometimes, others could really do with speeding up slightly, and we all need to be sensitive to the particular listeners before us.

I am referring to the pace of information being offered.  It is easy, especially after studying for many hours, to overload the listeners’ bandwidth.  Listeners need time to process information.  Images take time to form.  Stories take time to tell.  Take the necessary time.

As well as taking the necessary time, be aware of the aural equivalent of optical illusions.  There are things we do that may not speed up the pace the words are emerging, but will give the impression that the information is rushing out:

1. Mini illustrations, quotes and anecdotes. It is easy to jump through illustrations really quickly.  It may work, or it may overwhelm the bandwidth.

2. Piling up Biblical illustrations. It is so easy to jump in and out of a biblical book, then another, and another.  All the while you are seeking to underline the point of the main passage, but listeners can easily feel overwhelmed with unfamiliar contexts and content (even if they know the contexts, it still takes mental effort to process a passing illustration).

3. Key explanations unrestated. It is easy to make a vital connection.  I was just listening to a sermon where a key, critical, vital connection was made in the space of a handful of words.  “Here xyz means jkl.”  It was a link that required some backing up and explanation.  It slipped by and the next five minutes I was struggling to listen because I didn’t get the four-word sentence (I understood the sentence, but couldn’t see how he got there from that verse).

4. Transitions. While it is possible to drive quickly down the straight road, we need to slow down through corners.  Transitioning between one point and the next is a critical moment in the message, but it is so easy to fly through the bends.

5. Multiple purposes. If you are trying to achieve too many things, the message will feel choppy and disconnected.  When listeners can’t follow the flow that comes from unity of purpose, they will feel like the message is firing in multiple directions and therefore struggle to take it all in (in fact, they won’t, they’ll reprocess for unity and probably make the main thing the most compelling illustration or story used!)

Let’s beware of things we may do that give the sense of being too fast.  Allow listeners enough time in the passage you’re preaching to let it soak down into their lives and saturate their hearts.