Not a Fig

August 16, 2011August 10, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Oliver Wendell Holmes is credited with this great quote – “I wouldn’t give a fig for simplicity this side of complexity, but I’d give my right arm for simplicity on the other side of complexity.”

Preacher, where do your sermons sit?

Cheaper than a fig – This is preaching that is simple because it is shallow. The preacher hasn’t wrestled with the text, hasn’t entered into the complexity of the passage, it’s theology, the interface between ancient text and contemporary listener, etc. The preacher is just demonstrating shallow incompetence. Technical commentaries have been ignored. The text has received only scant attention. The sermon is simple because it is simplistic. It doesn’t engage listeners. It doesn’t shed light. It doesn’t stir hearts. It has the nutritional value of a burger bun.

Complexity – This is preaching that has gone beyond the fig stage. The preacher has started to wrestle with the text. The preacher may have engaged in dialogue with some technical commentaries. The preacher has mapped out some or all of the complexities of the theology and its interface with contemporary life. It may be complex because the preacher hasn’t cut out unnecessary detail. Or it may be complex because the preacher hasn’t really got to grips with the details. Or it may be complex because the preacher is trying to impress. Whatever the cause, it is complex. Hard to listen to. The listener has to really work to benefit. Much nutrition, but as hard to digest as day-old steak.

Costly as a right arm – This is the goal. The preacher has gone beyond the shallow into the depths. The preacher has studied, and wrestled, and prayed, and thought themselves through to a place of clarity. This isn’t simplistic, this is profound, yet accessible, relevant, clear, engaging. They often say that the very best sportsmen and women make hitting the ball, shooting for goal, playing the game look so easy. It isn’t because they are just natural at it. It is because they have endured the work necessary to get to the other side of complexity. That’s why we pay so much to watch them. Too many preachers are worth less than a fig because they are simplistic, or so complex that the gold seems hard to mine. If only more preachers were right arm types – having thought themselves through to a level of clarity that is blessing to all who hear.

Short-Cuts in Pastoral Care

August 15, 2011August 11, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

For today’s post, please click here to go to Cor Deo …

Maximum Content, Minimum Loss of Contact

August 12, 2011August 10, 2011 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Just listening to Fred Craddock and he was asked about notes versus no notes. His bottom line was that you want to have maximum content, with a minimum loss of contact with the listener. He also suggested that every preacher should be fully competent at preaching without notes, with notes and with full manuscript. Why?

Full manuscript preaching will be helpful when the subject is controversial. It allows for people to see exactly what was said, and allows for precision from the preacher. I was asked to preach on Euthanasia a few years ago. Full manuscript. It simply wasn’t possible to internalize all the content of that message (not least because it wasn’t rooted in a single text).

Notes are useful in preaching, Craddock said, when “there’s a lot of tiptoeing and maneuvering in the sermon to get through it.” This is a problem in too many sermons, but there may be occasions where it is necessary. Too often a sermon makes good sense to the preacher because they have the notes map in front of them and they know exactly where they’ve come from and where they’re going. But often the listener is as lost as a toddler in a forest.

“Usually, if you prepare for delivery rather than for writing, you will know it by the time you get through preparing.” I agree with this and tend to preach without notes. But I also agree with his follow-up comment. These three approaches are not stages through which the preacher graduates. While no notes may generally be the preferred option, it is not a point of achievement to grab attention from listeners. It is a choice the preacher makes dependent on the message and the situation. Sometimes, as a generally no notes preacher, I will do well to use a full manuscript.

Content and contact to the max.

Listening to Preaching As a Preacher

August 11, 2011August 10, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

We live in a unique time. Never before have people been able to listen to so many sermons in a week. When they leave church on a Sunday morning, they can then take their synced iPods and listen to preaching for the rest of the week. At the supermarket, in the gym, while commuting, at work in some cases, etc. I’ve mentioned before how this can be massively intimidating for a normal preacher (to have their listeners feeding on the world’s finest, or in some cases, the world’s flashiest, for the rest of the week). I’ve mentioned that we shouldn’t be intimidated, or feel hopeless in competition with highly skilled communicators that have been well edited.

But what about our listening? Should we, as preachers, be listening to other preachers? Yes. And no.

Yes. It is good to listen to other preachers. First and foremost, it is important to be fed ourselves. Good preparation does feed us, perhaps more than those we preach to, but we still need to hear from someone else. I have a preacher or two that I listen to so that I can be challenged and encouraged. Secondly, it can be helpful to observe how others are handling texts and preaching opportunities. I don’t like to listen to a sermon on the text I’m about to preach as it is hard not to be overly guided by it, but to observe and learn is a good thing.

And no. I don’t think it is good to listen to too many other preachers. It can become overwhelming. You can end up wanting to do a bit of that like him, and some of that like him, and then it’s great how he, and oh, when he does that, etc. If you’re not careful you can end up preaching like a medley of other voices and lose your own. Listening to other preaching can be helpful. Listening to too much can make it so you lose your own quiet before God, and end up preaching not out of being with Him, but as a preaching karaoke machine.

Do you listen to others? Why? How much?

Preaching Elsewhere

August 10, 2011August 10, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Here’s a mighty little quote from Walter Brueggemann – “If we are to bring a word from elsewhere, then we have to live, to some extent, elsewhere.”

With the huge demands on church leaders and bi-vocational preachers, we have a real challenge. Too many of us are preparing to preach with the fuel gauge indicating nearly empty. We run around like headless chickens giving ourselves away in therapeutic care and meetings management and budget discussions and endless emails and emergency crises and fire fighting and political church squabbles and more emails and then when we are almost wiped out, we prepare a sermon.

But what people need is the kind of creativity, focus, passion and “word from God” that can only come from a preacher who has resisted distractions and spent time doing what most needs to be done in preparing to preach. Reading. Study. Thinking. Prayer. Time alone. Time with God.

I’m sure you are asked how long it takes to prepare a sermon now and then. What’s the answer? A specific number of hours? I suppose that technically it depends on how well the text is known, etc. But the health of the church will not depend on whether you can crank out an acceptable sermon in fifteen hours, or eight, or three. It is about time in preparation that isn’t rushed and squeezed and forced.

Somehow it is hard to imagine rushing into God’s presence, all frantic and breathless, “Lord, I need help, I need a sermon and I need it fast!” and then to have God get stressed and out of breath as we rush to pull something together. Somehow that image doesn’t seem right, does it?

God does care, and He does gladly get involved when we aren’t ignoring Him. And in a genuine emergency He is more than able to help us when we are absolutely stuck. But God doesn’t seem to live at our frantic pace. He is with us, indeed. But somehow by going to Him, we are enabled to get closer to His pace. And then, after spending time with Him, we can come back to preach. Breathless, perhaps. But for a different reason. Let’s preach a message from elsewhere.

Reasons to Just Preach

August 9, 2011August 9, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

In many churches this post would be considered irrelevant or even bizarre. In others to suggest otherwise might raise an eyebrow or two. But in some, the choice can go either way. Should the preacher lead the whole service?

I’ve known a few people who insist that as the preacher they want to lead the whole service. It allows them to craft a whole package that fits together. It allows them expand the impact of their message beyond the official sermon time. And, I’d agree with this, it allows them to control how long they have to preach. But there are some reasons to just preach, if another service leader is available.

1. Increased focus in the preacher on the sermon. Instead of losing energy on earlier elements of the service, the preacher can prayerfully compose themselves so they are 100% focused on the sermon. No need to worry about introducing hymns, remembering the right people to mention in the prayers, covering the announcements adequately, and in many UK churches, no need to have a mini-sermon that is hyper-engaging for the children.

2. Increased focus on the preacher in the sermon. From the listeners’ perspective, when the preacher stands to preach, they haven’t already heard multiple snippets of the same voice. In some cases a preacher may undermine their impact by overdoing their involvement before the sermon. This is especially true if the preacher is not appropriately gifted or able as a service leader.

3. Opportunity for other gifts to develop and be used. Some people are exceedingly capable when it comes to public reading of Scripture, or addressing children, or leading singing, or praying publically, etc. Why do some assume that the whole package of diverse gifting and ability will reside in one person? The Bible does not teach the exclusive gifting of a clerical class, but the gifting of all for the good of all. Why not unleash folks in their area for the good of the church?

From my perspective, as a preacher, I would much rather not lead the entire service when I am preaching. If it is requested or preferred, then I can do so (and I console myself with controlling the time allowed for the sermon). But give me the option of just preaching, following capable and trustworthy people, and I would bite your hand off for that option. What do you think?

Options in Spirituality

August 8, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I usually link to my post on the Cor Deo website every other week. This week’s post, by my good friend Ron Frost, is so helpful that I am going to link to it. Truth and Spirit . . . and preaching. Check out the post and please comment there. I think this post is so important for us as preachers to think through. Here’s the link, please click!

Post Sermon Text Test

August 5, 2011August 5, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

We preach hoping and praying for the message to mark and transform lives as it is preached. But what about after? I want to preach in such a way that the following things are true:

1. The listener will continue to be transformed by the text in the coming days. If the text were merely a source for data and sermonic stuff, then chances are the listeners will lose track of where the message came from. For the text to linger in their hearts and minds, the preacher needs to shine light on the text and shine the message of the text on the screen of their hearts. If they have only heard about it, there is less chance they will remember it than if they have “seen” the text painted vividly during the sermon.

2. The listener will be able to go back to the text later and understand it. If the listener were to look up the text later, then I want them to be able to understand it. That means that they have had it clearly and effectively explained. Not only what does it mean, but why does it mean that? Knowing that I take it a certain way is nowhere near as good as them seeing that that is what it is saying.

3. The listener will want to go back to the text later to read it. This is a biggie. If we assume that listeners go home and re-read the preaching text and carefully work through the notes they took, then we are naive to say the least. The preacher has to stir motivation for them to want to go back to the text. That motivation will come from an effective message, including instilling a confidence in them that they can see the why behind the what of the text. Why does it mean what the sermon said it means? They also have to be convinced of the relevance of the text to their lives. Irrelevant or inaccessible texts are least likely to be return destinations in the days after a sermon.

4. The listener will know how to make sense of it when they go there. This is like number 2, but slightly more than that. Number 2 was about them being able to understand the text itself. This one is about them being equipped to handle the text. That comes down to the instruction given in the sermon (and many sermons over time).

Knowing the Unknowable?

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

Yesterday I wrote about thinking through how your listeners will hear what you say so you can pre-empt misunderstandings. Dave commented and asked what to do with a new/unknown group of listeners? Great question. I don’t have the answer, but I do have some thoughts. Please comment to add yours.

1. An unknown congregation is not unknown to God. So pray. Pray for them. Pray for the preaching. Pray that God will help you to find the information that will help you! This is no substitute for the three ideas that follow, but it is foundationally important.

2. An unknown congregation can become known by enquiry. That is, you might be able to ask and learn about a church ahead of time. Ask the person who invited you to speak. Call and speak to someone in leadership and express that you simply want to get a pulse in order to communicate more effectively. Look at their website (don’t judge a church by its website, even though others will). When you arrive, talk to the person who gets you wired up with the mic, and the person who meets you at the door, and the person sitting next to you, etc. Ask questions and you will get to know a church more.

3. An unknown congregation can become more known by observation. It is amazing what you can deduce by observing during the twenty or thirty minutes before a meeting, as well as during the first part of the service. Good observation skills make the world of difference.

4. An unknown congregation have some things in common with known congregations. The first two may be neither possible nor fruitful, but this one is. I think preachers need to be good students of human nature. Bryan Chappell writes about the Fallen Condition Focus in his book on preaching. His point is that when you see the influence of the Fall in a narrative, then the contemporary listener will find that narrative relevant, no matter how obscure it might be. The same applies here. People tend to fall into similar patterns of error, of misunderstanding the gospel, of church behaviour, of needing encouragement, of hunger, yet inadequacy, stressed, uncertain, etc.

I’d love to hear more on this. How do you, when you are preaching to an unfamiliar group, overcome the unfamiliarity?

Selective Hearing

August 3, 2011August 3, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

A while back I preached a message. When it was over I felt a little bit drained, as many of us do after preaching. A couple of people made comments about one aspect of the message which only added to my low feelings. Obviously I had not communicated well. Perhaps I had been out of balance in what I said. It must have come out poorly.

So a couple of days later I got round to listening to the file, contemplating perhaps deleting some before putting the file online, or maybe choosing not to put it online at all. When I listened to it, I was surprised to find that I had no desire to try to edit the file. The message was good and I stood by it as being solidly biblical and accurate. So why the comments?

People will selectively hear what it said. Now I am the first to point out that what they hear is what matters, not what the preacher meant to say. But that is my point in this post. The preacher needs to think through the message from the perspective of the listeners ahead of time and spot where they will selectively mishear. Then the preacher can pre-empt this with a more overt form of communication. Perhaps instead of just saying the right thing, the preacher should say the right thing, ask a clarifying question, and then answer it. Perhaps the preacher should repeat, restate, underline, emphasize, clarify, etc.

If I had stopped to think ahead of time, I could have guessed both comments and both individuals who might make them. I could have overcome the problem ahead of time. Now I have a message that I am happy with, but they will probably never listen to the message again to check what I actually said, and the opportunity is lost.

Plan ahead and overcome the selective hearing that you probably know will happen!