Audience Analysis

Homiletical Hermeneutics

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Last night I was in conversation with a good friend and fellow preacher.  We were talking about another preacher and how thoroughly he knows the Bible.  When my friend asked me why I thought he had become so thoroughly saturated with the Bible, I didn’t need to think long about the answer.  Obviously he has read it a lot, studied it and preached it.  But there’s something else that I’d like to share here: he reads the Bible like a preacher. 

That could be a good thing or a bad thing.

The wrong way to read the Bible like a preacher – is to always read looking for a message.  This means the Scriptures are always handled as a resource for sermon material.  It might mean that the Bible bypasses the heart, life and needs of the preacher, moving straight from God to the listeners’ needs.  I suppose it could mean forcing every text into a preconceived sermonic form (seeking to alliterate points, force the text into a certain number of sections, etc.)

The right way to read the Bible like a preacher – is to recognize the inherent communicative nature of Scripture.  Every writer was seeking to communicate effectively.  As a preacher it is possible to develop the skill of a homiletical approach to hermeneutics.  This means that you read the Bible text as communication – you look for the inherent unity that is there, rather than simply chasing down every tangent prompted by each detail.  It means you look for the sense of order and progression in the communication.  It means you recognize how the writer is developing each idea – the phases of explanation, elements of proof, and attempts to apply the idea.  It means you look for the author’s intent as well as their content, with a sensitivity to the needs of the original recipients.

After decades of handling the Bible like that, it shows.  I only hope the same will be true of me at the other end of my life.

The Other Side of the Gap

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

John Stott presented the notion of a preacher being a bridge builder. That is, in the act of preaching, the preacher is seeking to build a bridge between the world of the Bible and the world of the listeners. A good expository sermon has to be solidly earthed in the biblical text, and it must touch down definitely in the world of the listeners.

For effective communication to take place, we have to know as much as possible about those with whom we communicate.  But the preacher is not a politician or a salesperson or whatever else.  The preacher is shepherding, and thus we should not just know the listeners, we need to love them.  So as prompt in that direction, here are some quick fire points to ponder:

1. We love, because God first loved us. Loving others is really a response to the love of God for us.  As we love Him, our hearts will begin to beat in time with His and consequently we will increase in love for those that He loves.

2. Coldness toward others is an indicator of something more. We can’t claim to love God, but not love our brother.  Allow any perceived coldness toward others to prompt prayer and sensitivity to God.  Take coldness seriously, God does.

3. We are able to connect with listeners because we also live life in this world. Be sensitive to the struggles you experience and recognize that others face the same types of struggles (and more).  Being impervious to the challenges of life doesn’t make you a great leader, it makes you a distant leader.

4. We need to know our listeners. Some preachers are passionate students of the Word of God, but indifferent students of the people of God, or the people God desires to reach.

5. To know people, listen carefully. Yes, we should be observing what is going on, but there’s something about listening.  Most people don’t so much want to be seen, but they long to be heard.

6. Sharing life experience helps massively. Don’t be distant from people.  Have them in your home.  Visit them in theirs.  If appropriate visit them at work, share sport, share celebrations, share sorrow, share life.

7. Pray for the listeners. It’s easy to pray a “God please bless all the listeners on Sunday” kind of prayer.  Surely the preacher who loves the listener will take the time and make the effort to pray for the listeners.

This list is incomplete, so please add to it by commenting below.

What Will They Copy?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I was just writing a mini-article in response to a request.  As I was writing it, I came across an article I wrote earlier this year.  I’ve linked to it previously, but here it is if you didn’t see it back then – click here.  Let me just quote a paragraph:

We must preach as those genuinely captivated by the love of God in the Word of God. We must preach contagiously as those who enjoy delightful engagement with this God. Our listeners will subconsciously mimic our leadership in their own “spirituality”–the question is; what kind of spirituality will they mimic? Will theirs be an intellect-only spirituality? Or will it be a purely pragmatic, self-concerned spirituality? Will it be a pseudo-spiritual flight of fancy unearthed in the truth of God’s revelation in His Word? Or will it perhaps be relational, Word-based, heart-level, real?

It is a scary thought, but an important one.  Listeners do more than listen.  They also mimic.  They copy.  Not least, they will be influenced by the spirituality they perceive in the preacher.  In light of that, it is hopefully not too hard to spot how they might end up with an intellect-only spirituality, or a purely pragmatic spirituality, etc.  The problem comes when we start thinking through how to shift their perception of spirituality based on our messages and how we live our lives with them.

Wouldn’t it be great if they could copy a relational, Word-based, heart-level, real spirituality?

The Preacher’s Motivation

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday I pondered why a message might be considered a new take or somehow different from what was expected.  On this particular occasion I preached Matthew 1.  I wonder if there’s another element to add to yesterday’s list of thoughts:

4. Not overemphasizing the theologically rich element in the text. In this passage there is the quote and fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 and the virgin giving birth to a son.  Don’t get me wrong, I did preach that, explained the original context briefly, touching on the Immanuel theme developing right through to 9:6-7.  The Matthew text was clear that Mary was a virgin and that the baby was there because of the Holy Spirit, not any sexual impropriety. However, I didn’t turn the sermon into a theological lecture, nor an apologetic defense of Christian orthodoxy.  My reason for that was because of who would be listening, and because the text doesn’t do that.  As I was pondering this, I wondered whether sometimes we might be tempted to use a theological detail in the text as an opportunity to show off our own orthodoxy, rather than to help listeners understand the truth?  I don’t know, this is just a thought.  I think it is important, it is vital, to teach the theological truth of Scripture, to edify and educate the people in our churches.  Certainly we have too many biblically illiterate people in our churches these days.  But still, are there times when our motivation for a strong theological presentation in a sermon is not really for God’s pleasure or their benefit, but actually for us to demonstrate our theological acumen, or to take pride in our orthodoxy (especially in comparison to some exalted figure who has denied orthodoxy in some respect)?

The Challenge of Consistency

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

I tend to agree with the notion of there being a difference between small church and big church.  A small church, perhaps under 100 people, will tend to have strengths that can become weaknesses in a larger church, perhaps over 200 people.  For instance, in a small church, low standards of music and preaching will be smiled at since everyone knows the individual who is “trying their best.”  But once that church grows through the transitional stage and becomes bigger, such low standards become more counter productive.  Visitors (and there will probably be more now) don’t know the individual up front and the whole dynamic doesn’t work quite so well.  While fellowship is often a strength in smaller churches, it takes deliberate work to achieve that in a larger church.  The emphasis on “up-front” standards inevitably increases as a church grows.

This provides a challenge.  I suppose it is a challenge for all churches of all sizes.  It is especially a challenge for churches with some creative capacity (people, skills, people-hours, etc.).  When you have a guest service of a certain standard, then people will bring guests along.  If that service is done well, then some of those guests might return the next week.  There’s the problem.  If all the effort to be clear and relevant and engaging and effective in the music, the preaching, the presentation, etc., if all that effort is spent on one Sunday, what about the next?

The challenge is consistency.  If your church has a goal of bringing the unchurched to a particular service, then it is worth thinking through whether greater consistency could be achieved in that service 52 times each year.  At that point people would be much more inclined to risk their own relationships and bring people along to the guest events.

There has to be flexibility in this.  Different churches have different capacities for guest events.  The vast majority cannot live up to the standards seen in the small number of “megachurches.”  There also has to be balance in this.  The primary role of the church service may not be evangelism.  Nevertheless, taking into account the specific ethos of a church, it would be worth giving some thought to greater consistency between guest events and normal Sundays.

Awareness of Our History

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

It can be tiring to continually hear someone harping on about the “good old days” of some golden age in the past.  This is not the problem in many churches.  The opposite seems to be true.  There is often a wholesale neglect of the past, leaving people in something of a vacuum of present experience.

Obviously it shouldn’t be the central focus of the ministry of a church, but there is a place for recognizing the story God has been telling to get us to where we are.  In a family it is important for children to hear “little boy stories” from Dad and “little girl stories” from Mum.  Of course, not every story should be told to a younger child, but there is a stability and rootedness that comes from hearing such history.  Our family is blessed with a legacy of believing parents and grandparents, so there are many stories of God’s faithfulness and care.

Hopefully your church also has a legacy of believers in the past!  Whether the church is twenty years old or two-hundred years old, it is important that the present generation are not left unaware of the line in which they stand.  There is probably good and bad in every church history.  While not glorifying people with the positive, nor villifying with the negative, knowing the legacy of our heritage matters.

Perhaps it would be worth considering a brief interview of someone in the church so they can tell of the impact of another believer now safely home?  Perhaps this is a source of illustrative material worth tapping into?  Perhaps it would be worth a church “slideshow” to bring back some memories and share some fireside stories this Christmas . . . why not make it a church family season too?

Rooted.  Carrying a legacy of God’s blessing.  Bearers of a heritage.  Aware of our DNA.  Worth some balanced effort?

Sermons and Series

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

After listening to a couple of Andy Stanley series recently, I have been pondering a point he makes in his book, Communicating for a Change.  He says that what most people try to achieve in a single sermon should really be developed over a whole series.  This allows for each message to genuinely have a single point, rather than a collection of points (and reduced impact).  It allows for the whole series to reinforce rather than confuse.

I have to say, after listening to a couple of his series, I tend to agree.  Perhaps we bite off too much in a series.  Perhaps we try to cover whole sections of a book, or a whole book, when maybe we would do better to drive home one passage more effectively. Perhaps we are too quick to move on and assume listeners have understood the point and applied it in their lives.

I suppose this creates a difficulty if we are committed to trying to preach every bit of the Bible over some self-determined priod of time.  I suppose it also puts a burden on the preacher – if you’re going to stay in the same passage for more than one sermon, you’d better not be boring!  But ultimately I suppose it asks the key question: not are we trying to cover ground, or are we trying to entertain, but are we trying to see lives transformed?  If that is the question, perhaps more focused series is part of the solution?

Movie Illustrations – A Risky Business

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Some churches absolutely oppose any illustration from hollywood or TV.  Actually, some churches oppose any attempt to be relevant to contemporary listeners at all.  Now if you preach in a place that is not so restrictive, you’ll be tempted to use movie illustrations sometimes.  They can be very effective.  But there are a few things to keep in mind:

1. Not everyone will have seen it. Simple, but true.  Some films have been seen by most people, but we can’t presume everyone has seen any film.  This means that any reference to a film will require some explanation  Be aware of that and prepare accordingly.

2. Not everything in it may be appropriate. The part you are referring to may be precisely illustrative of what you are saying.  But remember to think through the rest of the film through the eyes of others present.  Are you endorsing everything in the film by referring to it?  What about the lewd scene later on?  What about the underlying paradigm in the story?  What about the language used?  What about . . . what about . . . You might as well think it through before you use it, because others may have immediate reactions without much thinking!

3. Will it take too much explaining? Sometimes a movie provides the ideal example for the point you are making.  Perhaps it explains the point.  Perhaps it proves it.  Perhaps it demonstrates application.  But if it takes too much explaining, then it might just undermine the message.  Background explanation will diminish momentum and energy, it will sabotage a potentially powerful point.  Sometimes it’s just not worth the time and effort needed.

4. Will it overwhelm the text and the message? Sometimes you have the opposite problem.  The image is simply too powerful, too emotional, too overwhelming.  What if the listeners go away with the movie scene resonating deeply, but the text overlooked and the message ignored?  Hollywood are masterful creators of emotional experience.  They know the power of this.  They know what effect it has in conveying their strong agenda.  Very few preachers get the importance of this.  Often our “agendas” fall short (not because we lack visual stimuli – throwing money at a film and adding effects doesn’t guarantee any positive reaction!)  Often we underwhelm, and a movie example can overwhelm, even without showing any of it.  Think it through before you use it.

5. Will it create inappropriate association? What if a movie gives a great example of a principle, but does so in a setting that inappropriate in association with Scriptural truth?  Consider all the great love stories that move so many people deeply, but are actually tales of unfaithfulness, impropriety, stirring the viewer to hope the marriage can end so they can find true love, etc.  Or what about the plethora of potential illustrations in the series that has captured so many of the younger generation . . . Harry Potter.  If you don’t raise a query about the appropriateness of the HP narratives in connection with biblical truth, someone else will.

This post sounds anti-movie illustration.  Not at all.  I use them sometimes.  It is anti-unthought-through movie illustrations!

Excessive Abstractions and Principles Too General

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Preaching an ancient text to a contemporary congregation will usually require some level of abstraction.  To preach an ancient instruction simply as it stands is to present a historical lecture, rather than a relevant presentation of inspired truth.  Some preachers simply say what is there and effectively offer historical lecture.  Other preachers abstract from historical specifics to timeless abiding theological truth, but end up preaching vague generalities.

To grasp what Robinson calls the “exegetical idea” and move through the “theological idea” to get to the “homiletical idea” is not easy.  The end result needs to be clearly from the text or the authority has been lost.  Yet the end result has to be specifically clear in its emphasis on the relevance of that text to us or the interest is lost.  One temptation is simply to play it safe, perhaps too safe.

What I mean by that is that we might derive a general, borderline generic, principle from a passage and move from historical explanation (often curtailed) into general application of this general principle.  Was the message true?  Yes.  Biblical?  Yes.  Relevant?  I suppose so.  Life-changing?  Probably not!  Sometimes it is a fear of fully engaging the text that can lead to this “generic” preaching.  Other times it is a fear of fully engaging the listeners that leads to it.

John Stott’s metaphor of the preacher as bridge-builder is helpful here.  The best preaching will not only touch both the world of the Bible and the world of the listener.  The best preaching will be firmly rooted, planted, engaged with and connected to both worlds.  Let’s not preach vaguely biblical abstract generalities.  Let’s really preach this text to these people!

Forging Connections

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Perhaps preaching could be defined as a work of forging connections.  In a world of increasingly independent and disconnected individuals relating often on a level of billiard balls (bouncing and bumping, but not connecting), the preacher’s task involves connecting with the listener, connecting the listener with the text, more than that, via the text forging a communicative connection between God and the listener, and potentially, connecting the listeners with one another.

I’m not sure I like this as a definition of preaching, but there are some truths to ponder here.  How often do we view preaching preparation, even inadvertently, as preparation to present information that will sit in the air for others to grab hold of if they so choose?  How often do we preach as though speaking into thin air, largely unconcerned who is sitting in front of us or whether they are with us in the communication act?  How often do we simplify the complexity of forging connections, with all the implied awareness of the complex beings involved, into a simple act of giving information out?  Out where?  Nowhere, just out.

It is relatively easy to formulate a message and deliver it.  But it is much more complex to prayerfully and pastorally consider the listeners, to prayerfully and devotionally consider the God whose Word we present, to prayerfully and purposefully consider how we can forge genuine communication between us and the listeners, etc.  What does this involve?  Study? Yes.  Preparation? Yes.  Perhaps prayerfully considering every aspect of delivery, demeanour, interpersonal conversation and intercession in anticipation.

This is not a complete thought or a well crafted unit of prose.  It’s a thinking out loud about the difference between just speaking information and actually forging connections between hearts – human and divine.  What a privileged calling!