Audience Analysis

The Lesson of the Soils

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

In the synoptics’ parable of the sower, the one variable is the soil.  Same sower, same seed, but different soil.  The variable results therefore point to the state of the soil as a critical consideration.  I don’t intend to do anything like a full exegesis here, more of a pondering on the truth already stated.

There are implications in this for those that listen on a Sunday morning. What can be done to encourage them to come to the sermon with open and expectant hearts?  Surely there needs to be an ethos in the church that the Bible is for the church.  It’s not for academics to dissect in their ivory tower exegesis labs.  It’s for the community of God’s people in the real world, looking for real help, real insight, real spiritual food, real input from God.  This morning I enjoyed listening to a series being introduced at a good church – one of the speakers quoted Karl Barth, “If we expected to hear God’s Word more, we would hear it even in weak and perverted sermons.  The statement that there was nothing in it for me, should read that I was not ready to let anything be said to me.” I don’t share that to spark a debate on neo-orthodox conceptions of God’s Word, but to put a finger on the attitude of the heart in listening to the Bible preached.

There are implications in this for those that listen before Sunday morning. Surely our churches need to be encouraged to listen well, to be good hearers of God’s Word as it is preached to them.  But that same encouragement must also be pointed our way.  We are real people, in a real world, with real challenges and real spiritual needs.  We do not sit in anything even slightly ivory or lab-like as we prepare to preach.  Like others, we too sit under God’s Word as listeners, as hearers.  Let us make sure we have expectant hearts and an eager openness to be shaped by the Bible passages we study.  Right now I am studying Joel and preparing a series in this little power-packed book.  I must prayerfully listen well, before I dare to speak it to others.

The one variable is the soil.  Always.  Theirs on a Sunday morning, the world’s as we witness to them, but ours too as we sit under God’s Word, listening as we prepare to speak.

Preaching Warning Passages

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I was just reading a little commentary on Joel by Thomas Finley.  On page 38 he makes a comment that is worth our attention as preachers.  It’s not new, it’s not profound, but it’s easy to leave this out of the equation as we evaluate our ministry.

According to Finley, the prophets, such as Joel, “had the power as preachers to motivate people to repent on the basis of warning them of the judgment to come. Although the New Testament focuses on the Lord’s grace and mercy, the warnings of judgment are not absent there either. In light of Joel and the rest of Scripture, one might wonder whether contemporary pastors who tend to avoid “fire and brimstone” preaching in favor of a steady diet of mercy and forgiveness provide an incomplete presentation of God’s Word.”

While we must recognize that culturally our listeners have changed over recent decades, and consequently their appreciation for a dramatic and aggressive pulpit pounding has dropped, this does not mean we cannot preach warning of judgment.  The culture in which we preach, the people to whom we preach, behoove us to give careful attention to our tone, attitude, word choice and so on.  But the Bible text has not changed, and if we are to preach the whole counsel, then we will be preaching passages like Joel – heavy on warning, powerful in presentation of divine judgment.

The calling of expository preaching demands not only a sensitivity to our listeners, but an absolute commitment to hearing the Word of God, and presenting it accurately, faithfully and clearly.

Evangelistic Preaching – A Flexibility Test?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I don’t think there is a definitive model for evangelistic preaching.  There are guidelines, certainly, but also a real need for flexibility.  You have to flex according to the kind of church you are in, the occasion on which you preach, the kind of people to whom you are preaching and so on.

I grew up in a church context where there was, in theory, an evangelistic sermon every Sunday night.  In many ways it was a remnant from an earlier generation in which people would attend church simply because a service was taking place.  By the time I came along (due to being in a Christian family), our culture had changed.  Week after week the meeting would take place, always to the same crowd of believers, usually without clear explanation of how to respond to the gospel, often without clear explanation of the meaning of the cross.  The format of the service was traditional and probably distinctly alien and uncomfortable for any outsider that might attend.  It certainly did not motivate me to invite non-believers.

I think many churches are more purposeful about evangelistic meetings now (at least in my circles).  More creativity, more “natural” communication, more effort to remove the “cringe” factors.  But one thing is clear – there is not one way to preach evangelistically.  Taking into account the people present, how the meeting has been promoted, the expectations of those who have invited friends, etc. all influences how to preach.  Sometimes a gentle introduction to Christianity that leaves people wanting more is ideal.  Other times it is critical to give a more complete gospel presentation.  Sometimes it is time to “shake the tree” and catch the already ripened fruit by overt calls to decision.

It takes sensitivity, wisdom, faith and courage to know which way to go on a particular occasion.  Generally it is best to present the way you informed the church that you would (because they bring guests according to what they are expecting you to do!)  Ultimately, there will probably be criticism coming from somewhere, but that is evangelistic preaching – never easy, always critical.  There is no simple formula, for there are so many variables.  But at its core the gospel doesn’t change, and the world needs it as much as ever.

Preaching Controversial Theological Issues – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I began this post on how to preach a passage that may tread on some toes.  Sometimes there are informed members of the congregation who hold a particular position theologically.  Often there are relatively uninformed members of the congregation who hold a particular position tenaciously.  What should we do when we have to preach a passage that might stir disunity in the church?  Perhaps a passage touching on predestination, eternal security, eschatology, or a particular branch of Christian theology?  We should evaluate the choice of passage, preach the passage and preach wisely.  Furthermore:

Recognize, but don’t overqualify. It is often appropriate to recognize that there are different opinions on an issue that comes up in the text.  By recognizing it we assure people that we are not preaching unaware.  But don’t overqualify every statement and end up sounding like a politician who is saying a lot, but basically avoiding saying anything bad.

Watch your tone. It is important to choose words wisely, but don’t forget your tone.  Model a gracious spirit, never take cheap shots, demonstrate an attitude of harmony.  Make sure you are not using the opportunity and platform to win some points in a theological sparring match.  Fully pray through the situation ahead of time, not only in reference to the message, but also in reference to your relationship with key individuals in the church.

If appropriate, overtly teach theology. If you have the authority to do so, the situation requires it, you have prayed at length, etc., then it may be appropriate to ignore what I have written here and preach blatant theology (apart from watching your tone – always appropriate!)  Generally I would save this for the genuinely central issues – deity of Christ, salvation by grace/faith alone , the inspiration of the Bible, the trinitarian nature of Christianity.  The issues listed at the start of yesterday’s post are important, but not as central as these.

Minds Full of Questions

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Another variation on what I wrote yesterday.  People have questions.  But when do they get answers?  Perhaps perplexing Biblical questions are a good set up for a series of messages.  However, there are many questions people have that can be answered in a few minutes.  Consider having a panel Q&A, or a pastor Q&A, now and then.  It could be after a series on a subject, or it could be open to whatever people are thinking about.

I’ve been involved in these type of formats several times.  It always seems profitable.  Recognize and acknowledge that you may not have a good answer for some questions, but that you will try to direct people to the help they need.  Remember that it is usually better to sort and compile the questions ahead of time.

We preach and hopefully stir questions.  Consider whether it might be a helpful and potentially enjoyable church activity to take questions periodically.  The answers help people.  Seeing that you don’t have all the answers will help people.  Showing people how to approach the answering of such questions will help people most of all.

Churchill’s Power Line

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

James C. Humes, in his book, Speak Like Churchill, Stand Like Lincoln: 21 Powerful Secrets of History’s Greatest Speakers, gives Churchill’s formula for planning a true power line.  In the speech of a politician this is the sound-bite designed to galvanize the nation, or reach millions in the media.  It’s the cream that rises to the top of a speech.  Perhaps we can consider these elements as we craft the message idea – our power line.

C for Contrast. Pairing antonyms in one line can work wonders.  Churchill declared,

“There is only one answer to defeat and that is victory!”

R for Rhyme. Subtle internal rhyming adds power to a line and makes it more memorable.  For instance, the rhyming of two seas in the famous Iron Curtain speech:

“From Stettin in the Baltic
To Trieste in the Adriatic,
An iron curtain has descended upon the continent of Europe.”

E for Echo.  Echoing a term within a line can add power to it.  For example, here’s Churchill again:

“We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the streets, we shall fight in the hills, we shall never surrender.”

A for Alliteration. This is not saying we should alliterate our points, that can be discussed elsewhere, but it adds power to that key line.  Consider a line apparently coming from Churchill on public speech:

“Vary the pose and vary the pitch and don’t forget the pause.”

Martin Luther King’s most quoted sentence is a classic example,

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character!”

M for Metaphor. Well-chosen and framed imagery has much greater power than mere abstraction.  One more from Churchill:

“An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”

One last tip to go with this list – use power lines sparingly.  One per message.  Any more is wasteful both in terms of your effort and your effectiveness.

Not a Rule, But a Commitment to Expository Order

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I split the preparation process into two.  Stages 1-4 focus on the text.  Stages 5-8 are concerned with forming the message.  Before beginning to think about the message, it is a good idea to consider the listeners (audience analysis).  Until this point the focus is on the text.  From this point on the focus is on both the text and listeners.

Obviously it cannot be a rule that no thought should be given to the listeners in the first half of the preparation process.  Our minds will naturally and often wander onto those for whom we care pastorally.  We will see points of application.  We will have illustrative thoughts coming to mind.  We will remember that their questions of the text must be answered if they are to receive a full message.  At times in the process we will mentally jump ahead and make a note for later in the process (an illustration, a helpful nugget of the wordsmith’s craft, etc.)

However, we should have a strong commitment to keeping our focus on the text in the first part of our preparation.  Brief and even frequent thoughts related to our listeners may be acceptable.  Periodic leaps forward in our notes to record a thought for later in the process is fine.  But first and foremost our objective is to understand the passage.  What did the author mean?  What was his purpose?  What is the idea conveyed in the text itself?

We must make a firm commitment to first truly study the Bible, rather than hunting for a sermon in the sacred text.  The study process should lead to application in our own lives, which should naturally then lead on to an applied message for our listeners.  But our first task is not to find a message, but to let the Scripture be master of our lives, then of our message.  A commitment to expository preaching is a commitment to study the text first.  It’s not a hard and fast rule, but it is a commitment.

Real Life Is Raw

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

As I write this post I am sitting in a café working away at my laptop.  I can tune out most of what is going on around me.  But not at the moment.  Two parents and a teenage daughter are having a dispute at the next table.  It’s simple really.  The father wants to protect his daughter and she is resisting.  He loves her.  She knows best.  Her friend sleeps with her boyfriend, so why can’t she?  Friends matter more than some old-fashioned morals.  The mother is sitting silently on the sidelines, but the Dad is obviously hurting.  So is the daughter.  He wouldn’t move her from one school to another, would he?  Emotions run high.  I’m starting to feel emotion just sitting here trying not to listen.

Real life is raw.  Real life stirs emotions.  People don’t worry for a moment.  They lie awake fretting.  People don’t solve problems in a vacuum.  The emotions rise and relationships fray.  People don’t live life in three-second statements.  They live it in the raw.  Life is complex.  Life is painful.  Life is real.

As I sit here I am reminded that simply referring to the fact that people have struggles with health, or in marriage, or raising teens, is not enough to guarantee connection.  Empathy requires an emotional engagement with the pain of peoples’ lives.  God sovereignly allows us to experience certain pain to increase our empathy.  But let’s not rely on that, let’s be sure to engage our emotions and try to feel the reality of the life people live.  Maybe then our empathy will be more complete, and our connection to real life in the pulpit more effective.

The Strength is in the Roots

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Back in the 1950’s H. Grady Davis shifted the metaphor for a sermon.  Instead of something constructed by the preacher, a building, it is something grown, akin to a tree.  Here is another quote used in McDill’s book, 12 Essential Skills (I appreciate these quotes at the start of each chapter).

A sermon should be like a tree. . . .
It should have deep roots:
As much unseen as above the surface
Roots spreading as widely as its branches spread
Roots deep underground
In the soil of life’s struggle
In the subsoil of the eternal Word.

The real strength of a sermon is not found in delivery, although that aspect matters much.  It is not found in the structure and content – try stealing a sermon and notice that it feels weaker than when you heard it from its source!  The strength of a sermon has to reside in the roots.  So check the roots of your sermons, of your ministry as a preacher.  Are they deep into the soil of life’s struggle?  Are they deeper still in the subsoil of the eternal Word?  Let’s be sure we are not preaching impressive, but rootless sermons . . . a breeze might just blow them over!

Cut Unnecessary Intros

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

This would apply to the whole sermon, but I am thinking specifically of stories, illustrations, humor, etc.  Many of us have a tendency to set-up an element of the sermon with an introductory comment.  There are exceptions to this advice, but generally speaking, don’t.  It is better to seamlessly slide into the story than it is to introduce it.  Think of people telling jokes.  When they begin, “Here’s one that will make you laugh,” or “This is a really funny joke,” the net result is almost always negative.  Much better to hear the story and be surprised rather than expecting something good or bad.  The same goes in preaching.  Don’t say, “Here’s a startling statistic I came across this week…” (Which usually means the preacher hunted for it online!)  Just give it.  Don’t say, “Here’s an illustration that will make this notion clear…”, instead just say, “It’s like…” and say it.

There are exceptions, sometimes it helps to wisely frame or set up some element of a message.  Most of the time seamless is more effective.  When you have this kind of content in a message, think through ahead of time which will work better.  Try it both ways.  Then go with the most effective for the listeners.