The Preacher and the Passing of Time

September 13, 2011September 13, 2011 / Peter Mead / 9 Comments

I heard a preacher tell a gathering of senior church leaders that they needed to be careful. If they weren’t careful they could do enough damage in the last ten years of their ministry to undo all the good they had achieved in their first two or three decades. He urged them to pour their energies into championing the next generation of leaders, rather than critiquing the young and striving to maintain elements of church life that had now grown stale.

The time comes for all of us, sooner or later, where we fit into the category of “older preachers.” I think it is vital we think ahead of time what the tone of our ministry will be at that stage. Some older preachers are an absolute delight to listen to – the combination of humility, wisdom, experience, knowledge, faith and passion can absolutely transform listeners, and provide a stability impossible to duplicate in the younger generation of preachers.

But some older preachers are an absolute liability – the combination of arrogance, stubbornness, ignorance, bitterness and apparently decreasing fruit of the Spirit can do real damage to listeners, and provide a stability impossible to thrive under for all younger listeners.

I remember a conversation with the eldest faculty member at seminary a decade ago. He told me he had observed over the years that older faculty seemed to lose the mental sharpness and the energy to stay on top of their subject somewhere around the age of sixty-five. Consequently he planned to retire around that age as soon as he got a hint that his mind was starting to fade (and the hint would come from asking trusted colleagues directly). I respect that and hope to have the same plans in place for a new phase of ministry when age affects what I do.

That raises another related issue – is there a new phase of ministry open for those of a certain age? I’m sure we would all be tempted to cling on to position and influence if the alternative is to feel like we’re on the scrap heap. But what about positions emeritus? I think of John Stott who retired decades ago, yet never retired, always having a key, but changing role to play. Why not have opportunities to function as sage and champion for the next generation? It takes wisdom to plan ahead, not only for ourselves, but also for others in the church. The older generation can be a massive blessing to the ongoing growth of the church (or some can be a ball and chain to progress).

How is your preaching? It is different to what it was ten years ago. But in what way? Does anything need to change in your approach, frequency, mindset, position?

Over Qualified Sermons

September 12, 2011September 12, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

As I have written before, one of the hardest things in preaching is choosing what to leave out. And one of the sources of extraneous material is the qualifications we tend to add to every point in the message. You know how it goes: the next point Paul makes is ABC . . . of course, we have to balance this with DEF from Paul’s other letter, and GHI from Peter’s second epistle, and JKL from Proverbs, and MNO from our general experience, and PQR to keep pressure group 1 happy, and STU to avoid criticism from fashionable trend watch group 2, and VWX to touch the pet peeve issue of in-church political group 3, and YZ to… By the time you get through that nobody has a clue what the actual point of the message, or the text, actually was. Over-qualified sermon.

So, here’s a principle (and, ironically, a gentle qualifying follow up):

Principle – Preach the passage with its full force. Allow other passages to be preached another time. Your job is to faithfully and effectively communicate this particular passage with relevance to the listeners. Your job is not to cover every possible qualifying statement and pack so much material around all that you say that the cutting edge is not only dulled, but totally hidden.

Qualifying follow up – Preach the passage with fidelity to the whole canon. This doesn’t mean you have to refer to the whole canon, or even any of the rest of the canon. But you do need to think about whether the point could be misapplied or whether the truth, the gospel, etc., could be misunderstood. Qualify as much as necessary. Often the only thing that needs to be added is a brief statement such as, “what we are saying here doesn’t mean we should never do XYZ, but we’ll talk about that another time. Don’t miss what this passage is saying . . . ”

How do you handle the qualifying issue in your preaching?

Take the Opportunity to Stretch

September 9, 2011September 8, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

It is easy to grow tired of pushing ourselves as preachers. After all, as the years pass by we are increasingly familiar with Bible texts and can prepare to preach them with less time required. Equally, as the years pass by we grow increasingly busy in respect to life and ministry. Factors combine to make sermon preparation get squeezed.

Let me nudge you to take the opportunity to stretch yourself with your next sermon. Carve out the time and add a few hours to the early part of your preparation. Don’t rush to the message formation phase, but linger longer in the text. Some suggestions:

1. Take the time to read the section or book more than you would normally do so. Extra exposure to the text will never hurt and could be enlightening as you move past the “familiarity” sensation to the “I see clearly” sensation.

2. Take the time to work your way through the text in the original language. Some preachers are diligent with original language work, but many have let it go from whatever level they were at in the past. Why not break out the text books and see what you can discover. For instance, why not take whatever grammar texts you have and check the scripture index for your passage? I often find this helpful with Daniel Wallace, for instance. Why not work with the text for a while until you can read through it in the original? Why not translate carefully at least a key verse or two? If you do this and more on a regular basis, great, but many do not.

3. Take the time to have a conversation with a partner or two. Perhaps you have access to a flesh and blood discussion partner who will engage you in the text. Perhaps you want to get a scholar or three off your shelf and have an out loud conversation with them about the text. It is too easy to rush to message formation and miss out on the sharpening that can come through robust discussion. As I prepare for this weekend’s sermon, I am enjoying listening to a fairly technical lecture from a solid Greek scholar. So, can you list the technical issues in the text that you won’t be referencing overtly in your sermon?

4. Take the time to memorize the text and pray through it. Perhaps you used to memorize, but haven’t done so in a long time. That muscle will soon strengthen if you use it. Memorize the text early on in the process and see the benefits as you meditate during the rest of the week’s preparation.

Passionless Preacher?

September 8, 2011September 8, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday we talked about passion that can become off-putting. But what about the preachers that are devoid of all passion, preaching sermons as limp as soggy cardboard? If you know one, I’ll leave you to figure out how to get them to read this post. If you know you are one, perhaps this will help.

1. Hear what people are saying, and hear what you are saying. If people are saying your preaching is dull, you need to hear that feedback. Don’t blame them. Don’t ignore them. Hear them. Equally, if you will just listen to yourself, or watch yourself on video, you will see just how bland the sermon presentation actually is. You may say, “Oh no, I am much more passionate than I come across!” Ok, but you don’t come across as passionate, so it is actually irrelevant how passionate you may be on the inside.

2. Is it frozen delivery? It is common for speakers to freeze when presenting to a crowd of people. What feels so fiery on the inside comes out as a restricted vocal range, monotonous tone, limited gestures, solidified facial expression and the natural movement of a broken robot with fading batteries. It may simply be that you need to grow in the area of delivery: not learning to be someone else, but learning to be yourself freely in front of the folks.

3. Is it personal fatigue? Maybe you are preparing half of Saturday night and then skipping breakfast and preaching on empty. Sometimes emergencies occur and we have no choice but to preach on an empty tank. But generally speaking, it isn’t a good idea, or good stewardship of your ministry, to eat poorly, sleep inadequately, exercise rarely and preach in a state of physical breakdown.

4. Is it a loss of vision? Ministry can take its toll. Well-intentioned dragons can sap energy like nothing else, repetition of services with minimal response and maximum negativity from some, overloaded ministry schedule because you are the only person active in ministry in the church, etc. Before long you are struggling to preach with any vision other than getting it done for another week. Not good.

5. Is it eyes unfixed and heart gone cold? Here’s the big one, whether it is true or not. Preaching without passion comes across as if what you are preaching about isn’t really that important. Unbelievers will be put off the gospel and believers will be discouraged. The greatest solution to the greatest problem in passionless preaching is to get your eyes fixed back on Christ and allow the sunshine of God’s grace to bring your heart back to the boil. When we taste and see that the Lord is good, it becomes much harder to preach without passion.

Passion Need Not Put Off

September 7, 2011September 7, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Preaching with a contagious passion for God, His Word, the gospel and the people is a good thing. But we always need to be careful not to let our passion slip into offensive or off-putting communication styles.

Passion that becomes aggressive can offend. We must always be aware of how we are coming across when we preach. What might feel like a passion for the truth on our part can easily become unnecessarily offensive to the listeners. Every word and sentence counts, so be careful not to make a care free assertion that might unnecessarily offend sensitive listeners. Listeners are not always the best at hearing statements in context. Hearers of “quotes” from Sunday’s sermon never really hear those quotes in context.

Passion that becomes “shouty” can be bothersome. So tempting for some personalities to convey their enthusiasm by shouting. It feels powerful and full of conviction at the time, and you can almost guarantee some misleading and positive feedback from some insecure folks who feel they need to say something nice to you afterwards. Getting known as a shouting preacher won’t help you on several levels.

Passion that becomes distracted can be hard to follow. Sometimes our passion for something leads us off on a wild goose chase of anecdotes and illustrations, or a wild safari ride through the canon of Scripture. Let your passion drive your main idea home, not drive your listeners to distraction because they can’t follow you in your distraction.

Passion that becomes too intense can drain. Even if we don’t shout, a certain level of intensity, if maintained consistently, will drain an audience of energy and focus. Give them a break, a chance to breathe, a chance to recalibrate. Intensity turned up a notch or two and left there can become simply too much to take. Not worth it, better that they hear what you’re saying.

Breaking Space Promises

September 6, 2011September 5, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

My friend Tony wrote to me about this issue. It relates to telling people that you are going to give them space to think and respond, but then breaking up the silence with additional comments. So easy to do, so annoying for the listener.

1. A break can be a powerful time. Giving people 30 seconds, or two minutes, or whatever, to respond to the message can be an effective means of allowing the message to sink in and response to be formulated. Rather than an overt show of response, it allows for individuals to pray, to reflect, to allow God to search their hearts, etc.

2. The speaker usually feels the instructions were slightly unclear. This leads to added comments coming as interjections that break up the silent period. There is no intent to annoy, but only to clarify and help nudge people in the right direction.

3. Interruptions are generally exasperating. Listeners are used to hearing your voice, but they are not used to being quiet and processing for themselves. It takes time to switch gears and “go there.” An interruption is not like pressing pause on the CD player, meaning that the break continues when pause is pressed again. It is like pressing skip back on the CD, so that they have to start again. Do that several times and people will be exasperated!

4. If you promise a period of silence, give that full period. There is nothing unspiritual about the preacher checking his watch to make sure he follows through properly. (Just as there is nothing unspiritual about using your car to get to church in the first place!)

Bible Reading Introductions – Part 2

September 5, 2011September 2, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I wrote last time about why I generally prefer not to launch the message with the reading. This is my response to what may be the response of others to that post (ie. I am writing this one at the same time!)

Someone may respond: “But the reason I read the text first is to honour the text and put it in the place of authority, rather than making it my servant for my message.”

Honouring the text and letting the text be the authority. Absolutely great goals that I affirm wholeheartedly. There are a couple of issues with this logic though.

First, this doesn’t overcome or negate the issues raised last time. That is, people may not be focussed, or aware of the relevance of the reading, etc. Just because you put it first, doesn’t mean your reasons for doing so will be achieved. If I have something really important to say to someone, I don’t launch by saying it. I get their attention first. I highlight the importance and relevance of what I’m about to tell them. I don’t want them to miss it. I’m honouring the message I have and underlining its authority by not placing it dead first.

Second, there are multiple means by which we honour the text and its authority, or fail to do so. Placing it first is just one element of the entire mix. I’ve heard many sermons where the text is read first and then dishonoured by being left behind as the preacher goes on to preach his own ideas, or dishonoured by being handled superficially, or dishonoured by being mishandled. I’ve blogged before about people preaching “my message on this text” rather than “the message of this text.” How you handle the text for the entirety of the message is the measure of whether you honour the text, preach the text and appropriately respect the authority of God’s revealed Word. Where you place the reading is no guarantee that your goal of honouring the text will be successful.

Many of us feel constrained by all sorts of “unwritten rules” that guide us in our preaching. Many of these unwritten rules could also be unlearned for the sake of better biblical preaching.

Bible Reading Introductions

September 2, 2011September 2, 2011 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

If you’ve read posts on this site I hope you’ve noticed that I am committed to the Bible. I want preaching to be biblical. However, to be honest, I generally avoid starting a sermon with a Bible reading. For many, this is the way to start a sermon. After all, you are supposed to read the text and then preach your sermon on it, right?

Here are some reasons why I might not make the reading the very first element in the sermon:

1. It is too good to waste on the distracted. There are a couple of levels of distraction to be overcome. The first is the immediate circumstantial distractions. I don’t want people missing the Bible because they are trying to get comfortable after standing to sing, trying to find a pen that works, negotiating seat space with the extra guest that just arrived, etc. The second level of distraction is the larger life issues. I think we are naive if we think listeners are as motivated for the next chapter of 2Kings as we are. We have been studying it all week and loving what we’ve discovered. They have come to church with unresolved tension from the morning’s hectic preparations, with concern over a medical symptom they haven’t told anyone about yet, with financial burdens mounting, with a sinister request to see their boss looming for the next morning, etc. So if we stand up and begin with, “Turn with me to 2Kings 14…” they may not tune in again. Better to motivate people for what they are going to hear before reading it.

2. I want listeners tuned in to what they will hear. We live in a text for considerable time before preaching it (I hope), but listeners are coming in cold. Like stepping out of an airport into a foreign city, it can take a while to get oriented. To launch instantly into a reading can result in a coherent message being read, but only random Bible words being heard. Better to orient people to what they are going to hear before reading it.

3. I may not want to give away the tension. In some cases, especially narrative, but not exclusively narrative, I may not want them to hear the whole thing yet. Perhaps the text raises a question and answers it. It may well work better for me to develop and clarify the question before reading the answer. There’s a danger of sounding like that person you know who refers to the punchline and then tells the joke. Better to expose people to the text at the right time in the development of the message.

4. It can be a great way to lose people. Just reiterating the first couple of points again. An opening reading can confirm the subconscious fear of listeners that this will be half an hour of irrelevance. Convince them that you, your message and this text is relevant to them. Better to have listeners really hear the text when you read it.

Preaching Duty

September 1, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I was away on Monday and didn’t put up the link to my Cor Deo post. So here it is, raising an issue about the kind of dutiful Christianity that is preached in many churches – click here to go to the article.

Illustration Saturation

August 31, 2011August 25, 2011 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

When speaking in general, most people affirm the value of illustrations. When speaking specifically, illustrations are sometimes the cause of frustration. What kind of illustrations can annoy listeners?

1. Arrogantly Familial – Sharing the odd story about an in-home experience can convey warmth, humility, normalcy, etc. It can also be a bit annoying to keep hearing about darling children’s spirituality, or rebellious children’s shenanigans, or holiday adventures, etc. Frequency is key here, along with avoiding showing off.

2. Obsessively Sporting – Some of us preachers actually enjoy sport and even have loyalty to particular teams. No problem, but it can be a bit annoying when the listener feels like the repeated beating of a certain drum is drowning out the deeper and more important affection in the preaching. Frequency is an issue again, sensitivity to non-sporting listeners, and discretion isn’t a bad idea either.

3. Predictably Popular – So a certain film has been in the news for the past five weeks. Can your listeners guess which illustrations you’ll be using before you preach? Don’t try too hard to be “cool” – it usually backfires. The ability to be subtle is key in this regard. Many a good illustration was ruined by being too blatant.

4. Scarcely Believable – So you are saying that happened to you? Did it really? Some preachers have a tendency to tell stories that sound unbelievable. Hear me carefully, even if it did happen, don’t lose integrity by sounding unbelievable. And if it didn’t happen to you, stop lying!

5. Obviously Canned – Ok, so here he comes out with the quote from General Rommel, or Napolean, or whoever. If you get it from a book of stunning illustrations, don’t be surprised if it sounds like you got it from a book of stunning illustrations.

6. Unnecessarily Extended – Maybe that was a good story, but was the point you were making in the message worthy of that amount of energy? Sometimes a good story is simply too bulky to fit the location you want to squeeze it into. This is annoying for listeners who lose track when the message loses its way.

7. Inappropriately Emotive – So you told me a tear jerker and now you want that emotion transferred to the point you are preaching? Why do I smell a distinct odour of manipulation in the air? Please don’t try to manipulate me, I’ve been getting that all week!

Maybe there are more that you would add to this list?