Audience Analysis

Ask for Double

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

I was listening to Howard Hendricks again recently.  He referred to a medical doctor who had gotten hold of a series Hendricks gave on the book of James.  The doctor told him, “I’ve listened to that series about twenty times, and now I think I get what you’re saying!”

When we look carefully in the prophets, and in the gospels, and elsewhere, it is evident that hearing is a critical component of spirituality.  This is not to suggest that reading is not important, of course, but there is something about hearing.  Hearing the Bible, and hearing the Bible preached.

I wonder if we should do more to encourage people to use their ears in their personal spiritual lives?  How many of the people in our churches have never considered getting the Bible on CD or MP3, and yet have significant chunks of time when they could be listening to the Word?  How often do churches produce CDs of messages, expecting only the children’s Sunday School teachers or the absent to make use of them?  Perhaps it would be worth suggesting the possibility that people might choose to hear the sermon more than once!  (Now the pressure is really on you – imagine asking for double the time!  Your message better be biblically solid, clear, engaging and relevant!)

Examining the Extent of Explanation

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Biblical preachers should study to a higher level than they preach.  In the days, or even weeks, that we have to study a passage in anticipation of preaching it, we should probe and study and push and delve.  The study should incorporate all appropriate study methodology (appropriate to the genre, to the text, to our own abilities and skills).  The study should also appropriately consider the input of others (a variety of “experts” in printed form, or in real conversation if you have access).

The result of all that study should be more fodder for explanation than you have time to preach.  Even if you could cram it all in, what about emphasizing the relevance for today’s listener in terms of application and support materials, etc?

It is an important skill to learn to limit the extent of the explanation given in a sermon.  I suppose the best measure I’ve come across is what Donald Sunukjian said . . . “as much as necessary.”  That is in no way a negative comment on explanation (like I might say “let’s have as much vegetable as necessary in a meal, but unlimited meat”).  It is a comment demonstrating the high value that needs to be placed on emphasized relevance.  In Sunukjian’s terms, “explain as much as necessary, then apply, apply, apply.”

So how do we determine the necessary extent of explanation (and background information, demonstration of exegesis, etc.)?  A couple of key values come to mind, you may add others too:

1. A commitment to serve, not to show off. Every preacher faces constant temptation from insidious pride.  It is so easy to show off all the study you’ve done, all the skills you have, all the extra information you’ve gleaned.  Value service rather than display.  Value people over performance.  We all need to make sure our motivation is as much “for their sake” as possible, and as little “for my sake” as possible.

2. A sense of personal security, rather than insecurity. Insecurity abounds in the human race.  If our antenna are attuned we can spot it all around us, all the time.  An insecure preacher (for personal reasons, or as a result of criticism, etc.) will try to establish their right to be preaching in various ways.  One is to demonstrate excessive exegesis to undergird their ministry (and even personal worth).  A secure preacher is not concerned with how they look, or even if they’ll be criticized, but is concerned primarily with pleasing the Lord as they handle His Word for the sake of His people.

Let’s examine the extent of our explanation.

Application Weak Spots

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Last week I was teaching preaching alongside another instructor in a preacher’s training conference.  At different times we both pointed to three levels of application, and we both pointed out a weak spot . . . but the two sets of categories were very different.  I suppose this should be two posts really, but here are the lists of three:

Targets of Application – Mark Meynell offered three levels of application.  The first, and the one we tend to be best at, is at the level of private application (for instance, our personal spirituality, ethics, devotional life, etc.).  The second level is the relational (for instance, relationships in the home, the workplace, the church, etc.) and he stated that we tend to do okay on this level.  The third level, however, is the weakest.  This is application at the social level (engaging with the world).

Personal Targets of Application – I offered the following three categories of application, again noting that one is usually considerably weaker than the other two.  The first level is the level of conduct, or “the hands” – that is, application in terms of what to do.  The second level is the level of belief, or “the head” – that is, application in terms of what to know/believe.  Depending on the preacher, one of these is usually stronger than the other.  Some seem very quick to present practical applications (often forgetting the inherent value of “belief” application), others tend to emphasize applications in respect to belief.  Both are necessary and often appropriate (depending on the passage and the listeners).  There is a third category that lies underneath both of the first two, but one which is often ignored.  The third level is the level of the affections or “the heart” – that is, application in terms of core values, love and spiritual relationship.  If people do, based on what they know, then there is still another step deeper into the functioning of humanity – to the level of the affections, values, desires, loves.  Consider Ephesians 4:17ff to see how Paul moves deeper than conduct to knowledge, then deeper again to the role of the heart.

Application is not easy.  Two different sets of categories, both pointing to an area of specific weakness.  How can we better apply in respect to engaging with the world?  How can we better apply in respect to the affections of the listener?

Oh, What a Calling!

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

We live in an age of increasing biblical illiteracy.  While we may not lose sleep over the growing lack of awareness of structural details of the tabernacle or believers’ ability to recount the kings of Judah in order, some things should concern us.  I just read an article referring to the ever-shrinking affirmation of Jesus’ exclusivity among self-professed evangelicals.  I just experienced it first-hand at a large gathering of believers.

If Jesus wasn’t right to teach that he is the only way to God, and if the Bible isn’t really right to state that there is no other way to gain salvation, then where do we stand on everything else?  I can understand how people, bombarded and brain-washed by the tolerance teaching of our age, can feel uncomfortable with claims of exclusivity.  What I do not understand is how they piece everything together in their own minds, and how they can have any confidence in God when His Word is perceived to be flawed.

What about the deity of Christ?  His resurrection?  The nature of God?  We really are living in an age when christians are often very committed to a composite theology of their own construction, but one significantly shaped by the tone and teaching of the world.  Perhaps this has always been the case, but nevertheless, we need to be concerned to clarify the truths of Scripture.

At the same time let’s not allow ourselves to think that truth clarified means job done.  Remember the relational core of Christianity.  God in relationship with His people.  Knowing the facts about my spouse is not enough for a healthy relationship.  There is a dimension that goes much beyond the brain and cognition when it comes to marriage.  The same is true when it comes to the relationship that human marriage illustrates.

What a task is ours as we preach!  Not only must we present the truth of God’s Word to counter the constant confusion engendered by a corrupted world system, but we must also consider the dynamics of relationship between the Lord and His bride – a bride that so often is lulled into diminished relationship by truth-assent alone, or experience alone, or effort alone.

Preach the Word of God in all its truth, in all its winsomeness, in all its power, in all its subtlety, in all its relevance.  Preach the Word of God, not as man-centered teaching, but God-centered self-giving.  Preach the Word of God to the mind, but don’t stop there, preach also to the heart.  Preaching, what a calling!

Lone Ranger Preacher?

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Apart from all the spiritual dangers inherent in journeying alone in ministry, there are implications for preaching too.  As preachers most of us naturally fall into a lone ranger approach to sermon preparation.  The time constraints in ministry, the tendencies of personal temperament (many preachers are introverts, it seems), and often the background of training and observed behavior all push us into a solo approach to sermon preparation.  While some things must be done on our own in prayerful solitude with the Lord, we should proactively engage with others too.  Alternative perspectives strengthen preaching on every level.

While it is still technically a solo exercise, take stock of your reading.  Do you read things from different perspectives, or always the same old familiar authors?  It is easy to become comfortable in reading and lose the glorious benefit of being stretched, challenged, provoked, and perhaps even incensed!

Take stock of your preparation process.  Do you actively engage with others as you prepare sermons?  I’m not saying any of us can do all of these every week, but here are some ideas.  Obviously your spouse, if you have one – the perspective of the opposite gender can really help.  Other preacher or preachers?  Perhaps in your church (perhaps ones you are mentoring or being mentored by), or perhaps in another church – time spent talking through two messages together will probably benefit both of you more than spending that half hour on your own message alone!  A feed-forward group?  That is a group of people brought together to specifically share input for forthcoming preaching – could be content, could be support material, could be giving you insight into how differently people think on an issue, etc.

Being a preacher may be a solitary calling in some ways, perhaps lonely at times, certainly a regular overt entry into spiritual warfare, but is that all?  Let us not forget that God has brought us into communion with His people as well as Him.  Let us not forget that we need others just as others need others.  And let’s remember that what is true of us in life and ministry is also true in preaching – let’s not be lone ranger preachers.  Let us rather strengthen ourselves and our preaching by exposure to greater perspective.

Remind People Of Things Once Known

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I recognize that this site is read by people in a variety of countries, so what I write in this post may not be equally relevant to all.  In the contexts where I do most of my preaching, in the west, there are many changes taking place.  One is the level of biblical knowledge.  Here’s a quote from Craig Loscalzo in Apologetic Preaching (p24):

We can no longer assume our preaching takes place within a more or less “Christian” culture.  The great narratives of Judeo-Christian belief, the pivotal stories of the Bible’s characters, the events of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ either are not known or do not carry the meaning-making significance they did for previous generations.

There are many implications for preaching in this reality.  For example, we should be careful about passing references to biblical stories as “illustrations” in our messages – what use is an illustration that the listeners don’t understand?  We should be careful about assuming people understand background to the text we are preaching.  We should be wary of going “over their heads” by aiming too high and not laying down the basics (but at the same time not merely offering diluted fare).

While there are many implications that come from the lack of biblical knowledge, theological awareness, and Christian thought, there is one main implication that stands out.  Let’s finish Loscalzo’s paragraph (and translate the national reference to our own, if it fits):

Biblical knowledge, Christian doctrine and theological reflection must be presented and re-presented from America’s pulpits – yes, even to American Christians.

The Opposite of Church Growth – Really?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I recently had a discussion about reaching Muslims with the gospel.  The point came out that to many Muslims, we Christians don’t look any different than the world around us.  We watch the same movies, live the same lives, have the same number of divorces, etc.  After all, overt Christians on MTV (they have a big cross hanging round their necks) sing some of the most atrocious lyrics.  So while their religion changes lives, obviously Christianity is pure fluff.

At one level we see massive misunderstanding.  Just because someone wears a cross on a chain doesn’t mean they are actually followers of Christ.  After all, you wouldn’t watch Friends, see the Christmas tree and therefore assume they are typical Christians, would you?  Many do.  But at another level, it is true that churches tend not to be filled with people living a sold out radical faith.  We don’t see many living totally abandoned lives, in a sort of Christlike Jihad where the weapons are not violent, but stunningly loving, where the armor is God’s armor and the clash with spiritual forces is continual and real, demanding the deepest of devotion to our master and commander.

Perhaps if the church was more uncompromising in its spirituality it would stand a greater chance of communicating the gospel’s power to Muslims?

But then the fear kicks in.  As preachers, if we preached for this kind of radical spirituality, surely we’d offend people and lose people and empty the pews.  It would be the opposite of church growth.  We’d be single-handedly responsible for emptying the church!  Would it?  Would we?  Perhaps the gospel doesn’t need us to excuse it’s strength.  Perhaps the Bible doesn’t need us to undermine it’s powerful call on lives.

Perhaps . . . perhaps if we lived and preached a radical sold-out all-for-Jesus come-live-die uncompromisingly clear biblical message, perhaps we would see the church thinned out.  Perhaps we would see some leave, their desire for sanctified entertainment unmet and their worldliness made to feel uncomfortable.  And perhaps we’d stand a chance of reaching Muslims with the gospel.  More than that, perhaps there would be something attractive about such a message that the hunger for reality in our culture of mind-numbing entertainment would kick in and our apparent attempts to purge the church might result in genuine church growth?  Perhaps.

If the offense is the messenger, we will merely do damage.  But if the offense is the gospel, watch out!

Something to ponder.

Preach to Them, But Be You

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

When we preach, we seek to bring the message of the text to the listeners.  This involves being at home in the world of the Bible and in the world of our listeners.  The latter part of this process does involve knowing the people to whom you preach.  Know their culture, know their life experience, know their struggles, know their vocabulary, know them.  However, don’t fall into the mistake of preaching as them if that is not you.  Where might this occur?

Preaching to youth. If you are preaching to the younger generation, great, preach to them.  Be aware of their subculture, their life issues, their needs.  They will appreciate it if you know what they are talking about, what films they are watching, what issues they are facing.  However, don’t try to be 18 if you are 48.  Be yourself, dude.  Oops.

Preaching across cultures. If you are preaching in another culture, great, preach the Word!  Know as much as you can about that culture, their language, their life experiences.  They will appreciate you not coming in as a foreigner who thinks you know better.  But, don’t overdo the incarnational approaches in your preaching.  Over time you may become more “that culture” than your own.  But don’t pretend.  Don’t preach in their accent when you normally speak in yours (in fact, they will probably listen better if you speak in your own!)  This is not just true in foreign lands, it is true in different church cultures too.  Don’t try to “speak common” if you are from a “linguistically refined” background, and vice versa – make sure you are communicating, but be you.

Preaching across personality types. Huh?  Well, if your personality is gentle and tender, and you are preaching to a church that has a loud and boisterous personality, be you.  Just because someone else can bounce all over the platform and burn 100 calories per minute in their preaching, it doesn’t mean you have to.  And vice versa.  A preacher who is very different from the gathered group of listeners can communicate incredibly effectively – but it takes wisdom to know in what ways to adapt to them, and in what ways to simply be different.

Whenever we preach we need to be as aware of our listeners as possible.  Whenever we preach we need to connect with our listeners.  Yet that does not mean simply pretending to be the same as the listeners when we are not.  Connect.  But be you.

Don’t Disregard Distractions

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Don’t ignore the power of distractions.  I’m not referring to the things that distract you, but the things you do that distract your listeners.  Don’t just shrug and say, “that’s just me.”  It’s not.  If you know about a distraction and don’t do something about it, then really you are saying, “that’s just me being too lazy or proud to address the issue.”  If you don’t know about your distracting mannerisms and habits, perhaps it’s time to ask someone who will be honest with you?  What might they point out?

Distracting Gestures – These tend to be the first thing people will mention because their power to distract is so great.  Basically any gesture you use too frequently will distract.  Especially any gesture you use rhythmically.

Distracting Gaze – It is distracting to listen to a speaker who won’t look at you, but instead seems to be looking over your head, or at some apparition only he can see on the wall over by the clock.  Eye contact matters to people, whether they know it or not.

Distracting Words or Non-Words – Hmmm, you know, like, I mean, just really, uhhhh, and what not.  Non-words, filler words, mispronounced words and repeatedly tacked on words are all distractions.  Find out what you use and graciously assassinate it.

Distracting Attire – Do most people really appreciate that loud shirt you were given on the ministry trip to wherever-land, or only the one or two ebullient people who react with joy to anything that breaks the monotony of normal life?  Equally, do the right clothes fit wrong, or the patterns create hallucinations for people watching your image projected on the screen (most of us don’t have this problem).

Your goal in communicating is to communicate.  It makes no sense to tolerate distractions.  Funnily enough, distracted listeners are, well, distracted.  Find out if you are causing distraction in any way, the don’t disregard what you discover.

Looking Back on Modernity

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Craig Loscalzo, in his chapter on postmodernity and preaching (in Apologetic Preaching), looks back on preaching under modernity and describes it in this way:

The modern pulpit was steeped in a reasoned homiletic, marked by point-making sermons, alliterated outlines and a third-person descriptive logic.  Sermons of the modern era often talked about God, about the Bible, about life, viewing these matters like specimens under a microscope.  This pulpit philosophy, saturated with rationalism, focused on factual knowledge as the sole medium for communicating religious truth. . . . For modern pulpits, faith often became unwittingly a synonym for rationalism.  In Tom Long’s estimation we thought we were the children of Abraham but discovered we were merely the children of Descartes.

Quite a description!  Some of us are blissfully unaware of postmodernity (neither every preacher, nor every local community is yet thoroughly beyond modernism).  However, whether your community is showing signs of the shift or still stuck in the 1950’s, it’s important to hear Loscalzo’s description.  What is abundantly clear here, wherever we may stand on the issues of postmodernity and its impact on our listeners, this description of preaching under modernity is anything but an ideal to which we should long to return.

You could probably list concerns about postmodernity, most Christian readers can.  Hopefully you could also list opportunities that it presents to us as the church.  But lest any of us simply dig in to fight against postmodernity, let’s not hold a rose-tinted view of what has gone before.  As well as recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of what is coming, let’s also recognize strengths and weaknesses of what we may be leaving behind.  It was not a golden age to which we must seek a return.  The Bible, of course, is not anti-rational, incoherent or unthinking.  Yet it is not merely rational.  It goes much deeper.  So must our preaching.  While some may seem to check their rationality at the door, let’s not fight for rationality at the expense of every other aspect of the human soul’s functioning.