Christianity

Dumbing Down Preaching?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

After my post on making sense I received the following very helpful comment from Martin:

You make good points but I am left wondering.

There is so much dumbing down in America, are your encouraging the dumbing down of the sermon too?

How do you lift the bar for the congregation?

How do you keep the focus of the bright ones without leaving the newcomers behind?

In a rhetorical sense, should pastors check their brains (and learning) at the door to appeal to the least common denominator? In so doing, do the more educated listeners leave the service longing for more meat and less milk?

In sum, how do you balance these competing elements in the congregation?

————————

Thanks for the comment.  I am absolutely not encouraging the dumbing down of the sermon.  I am encouraging making sermons understandable.  The level at which the sermon is pitched should be part of the preacher’s strategy, thoroughly informed by who is listening to the sermon (which implies knowing your congregation as well as possible).

Let’s take, as an example, a tennis coach.  Their job is to maximize the potential of the student by helping them improve their game.  In order to achieve that goal, they have to make sure that everything they work on with the student is both understood and implemented.  In reality they will make sure the basics are well-drilled, but they will also add to those basics the more nuanced elements of the game to produce a trained player who can play to the best of their ability.  That will take many hours of training, perhaps hundreds of hours.  But if you drop in at any point in the training, the student should understand what is being taught.  A tennis coach that uses obscure language, unknown illustrations, omitted connections, rapid transitions, unclear speech, assumed knowledge and incoherent literary speech will not be effective, and unlike the preacher, will not be thanked for their “deep training.”

So to lift the bar for the congregation we must make sure our preaching is stretching them by its content, rather than missing them by lack of clarity.

I think it is possible to communicate to several levels at once.  Usually there is no need to differentiate massively in our preaching, “now for the more biblically astute listeners, listen to this…”  Actually we can offer extra elements without overplaying the introduction.  The key is for the listeners to be able to understand what you mean.  Newcomers are helped massively by simple explanations of all that is happening, so that even if they don’t fully comprehend every element of the service/message, they feel welcomed and comfortable (rather than alien and uncomfortable).

Pastors please don’t check your brains at the door.  But feel free to leave your egos there.  An effective communicator uses a part of their skill and learning to make sure they connect with their listeners.  Obscuring speech in order to appear intelligent is a prideful and profoundly unhelpful habit.  The best sportspersons are the best because they make the profoundly complex look simple.  The best coaches communicate effectively so that their instructions can be understood.  The best preachers profoundly communicate the scriptures, using their skill to make sure that listeners understand them.

Share

Does It Make Sense?

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

It seems obvious, but it needs to be said.  When we speak we need to make sure we make sense.  There are various reasons why we may not make sense to our listeners.  Here are a few to be aware of:

1. Obscure Language – If you obfuscate using technical, rare or archaic vocabulary, then you will lose folks.  They will probably still compliment you on your “deep” message, but be alert enough to spot the implication of that encouraging feedback!

2. Unknown Illustrations – Your illustration from the world of online war games, submarine technology, chinese martial arts, Finnish cuisine, Egyptian burial rituals or first world war poetry may make perfect sense to you.  But are you including enough explanation to allow them to get it?  (And if it needs that much explanation, is it really the best illustration to use?)

3. Omitted Connections – The logical connection between what you are currently saying and the larger point you are offering may not be so logical if you forget to mention it.  Actually, you need to state, restate and underline the logical connection, just in case they were drifting in that moment.  So easy to miss bits of messages we know, but are so needed.

4. Rapid Transitions – Maybe you include something of a transition from direct explanation to explanatory illustration, but the transition is so fast your passengers fail to make the turn with you.  Disoriented they look around trying to figure out where they are now, almost oblivious to what you are actually saying.

5. Unclear Speech – If they can’t make it out, they can’t comprehend it.  And there’s no need to get snooty about your accent either, every accent has elements that are unclear, so try to be aware of that and speak clearly.  Watch for facial signals of misfiring speech.  Restate if you suspect some may have missed what you said.  Oh, and be careful of rapid fire sentence finishing, or fading away when the period is in sight.

6. Assumed Knowledge – It is dangerous to assume people know things.  Do they have the biblical awareness necessary for the message?  Do they know the cultural, historical, political, geographical knowledge that you are assuming for your explanation of the text to be vividly received?

7. Written Notes – I’m not having a go at notes.  I’m just pointing out that almost anything can make sense in written outline form, but your listeners are listening.  Sometimes what is written doesn’t make sense when it is heard.  Write your messages for listeners, not for your own eyes.

What’s missing?  Why else do we sometimes fail to make sense?  (Number 8 – Don’t speak out of your depth – If we don’t get it ourselves, they have no chance!)

Share

Preaching and Training

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I am a huge advocate for biblical preaching.  But I don’t think preaching covers all the bases as far as training and equipping is concerned.  It would be naive to think that a sermon or two every week for decades will equip a church

As leaders of churches we need to think carefully about the place of small groups, of seminars, of training sessions, of mentoring . . . and somehow figure out how to do that without overcrowding the weekly schedule.

Think too of subjects that probably won’t, or won’t easily get addressed, in normal preaching.  How does the big story of the Bible fit together?  What are the various temperaments with which God has wired us?  And spiritual gifts – how do we discover and use and fan into flame?  And what about practical instruction in addressing interpersonal tensions?  And how do you mentor a leader, a preacher, a husband, a dad . . . with just preaching?

Preaching is critical, but it’s not everything.  How are you equipping people in the local church to multiply the ministry?

Share

Points of Pride

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I suspect that if we’re honest, we’d all admit that preaching leads to numerous battles with pride.  Perhaps not every time, perhaps not in the same way as each other, but there is an inherent danger that points of pride will peek through when we preach.  Much of this may be an internal battle unseen by others except the Lord.  But sometimes in our preaching we do things that can reveal, or be perceived to be, pride peeking through.  A few examples:

1. References to “scholastic matters” – You know what I mean, the extra reference to a dispute among commentators, an unnecessary quotation from the Greek/Hebrew, a technical term (punctiliar aorist, genitive absolute, etc.), an unnecessary excursus into matters of textual criticism, unnecessary citation details showing how much you’ve read, etc.

2. Allusions to “hidden stores of knowledge” – This is more subtle, but some of us fall into it.  It’s where you open the door to a subject, only to immediately close it with some passing reference to “that is for another time” or “so much we could say about that…”  Sometimes it helps to let people know you’re aware that more could be said about a matter, but sometimes it can come across as prideful parading of unrevealed knowledge.

3. Demonstrations of “foreign language competence” – I remember reading a theology book and getting very annoyed by the author quoting in Dutch and Norwegian (as well as Latin, French, German, Spanish, etc.), all without English translation.  Ostentatious to say the least.  But actually in our preaching it can be tempting to throw in a foreign phrase or quote.  Depending on the audience this may connect very effectively, or it may just look prideful.

4. Narratives of “personal illustration” – Haddon Robinson always said that an illustration shouldn’t make you look like a jerk or a hero.  Tempting though.  A story in which you gave a stunning response in the moment, or where others acclaimed your skill, or yet another reference to your prize winning exploits in the county fair vegetable competition, or “when I met Billy Graham…”  Maybe it is a good illustration, maybe it does help the message, but think carefully how it comes across, because if it smacks of pride, it will leave a sour taste.

So I readily hold my hands up as guilty of all four charges.  Perhaps you do too.  Let’s think through the next message and try to eradicate any hint of pride so that nothing will detract from the God of whom we preach, who is worthy of all honour!

Share

Sad Separations

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Here are three separations often occurring in pulpits that are sad, to say the least:

The separation of leadership and preaching – I’ve mentioned this before, probably after reading Michael Quicke’s 360-Degree Leadership.  In some churches, especially those that have to, or choose to, rely on visiting speakers, there is an unfortunate separation of preaching from leadership.  The result tends to be preaching that is informative, perhaps even impressive, but not truly pastoral.

The separation of theology and application – It’s sad to see a situation where the riches of theology have supposedly been plumbed, and yet there hasn’t been the appropriate and necessary emphasis on application.  Is theology truly preached if it is only offered as informational instruction rather than transformational preaching?

The separation of gospel and text – Perhaps somewhat different, it is sad to see that in some situations the gospel is preached, but without genuine reference to the text.  That is to say, the text is presented, but rather than preached, it offers a springboard to a generic gospel presentation.  Better the gospel than no gospel, but much better the gospel well rooted in God’s Word.

Any other sad pulpit separations you’ve noticed?

Share

Where Does Christ Fit?

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

When you are preaching the Old Testament, there should always be a radar bleeping in your heart regarding where Christ fits into the message.  Some will suggest that every message must be entirely and purely about Christ, whatever the text was originally intended to convey.  I feel this approach can bring our view of the inspiration of Scripture into disrepute.

Not every Old Testament passage is just about Christ. I know that Jesus took two disciples on a tour of the Old Testament on the road to Emmaus, but I’d also like to point out that that road is only 7 miles long!  We need to recognize that many passages are about humanity responding to the God of the covenant, or about the power of the creator God, or about judgment, etc.  If it is a stretch to make the passage be about Jesus, don’t.  However,

The listeners are always listening to the sermon post-incarnation. Consequently there is a need to make sure we are engaging with the text in light of later revelation.  That doesn’t mean we have to reinterpret the original meaning to be something that it could not have been originally.  But we do have to land the bridge of the message in the contemporary circumstance of our listeners (including the fact that we are post-incarnation, post-cross, post-resurrection, post-Pentecost, etc.)

The Old Testament is, of course, heading toward Christ. It is Christo-telic.  That doesn’t mean it is Christo-exclusive.

May God grant us wisdom as we seek to honour His whole revelation in all its fullness, recognizing the progression of revelation, speaking with absolute relevance to contemporary listeners and always honouring and glorifying the Word incarnate!

Share

Full Sentence Points

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Why do I recommend preachers have full sentence points?  Or to put it another way – what is the problem with single-word points?

After all, a series of three or four single words can be memorable, both during the message and potentially after it.  So why not just give single word “points” as the message progresses?

A single-word may convey a title, but it cannot convey an idea. A single word will tell the listeners something about what is going to be said, but it is not able to convey the idea in a nutshell.  Why waste the opportunity to make a single sentence summary of the message content?

Single-word points tend to push the message toward information summary rather than transformational communication. Not always, but often, a single word will lean toward historical lecture material.  The old idea of masses of explanation before any application is problematic.  Why waste the opportunity to be relevant, targeted, personal at such a key moment in the message?  Putting the points in full sentences that relate to us today can be very powerful.  You can immediately go to the text and “back then” to see the support for the point, but you’re doing so with a sense of its relevance to us before you even get there.

Single-word points encourage a lack of cohesion within each point. If your “point” is a subject, then there is almost no end to what you could (and possibly will try to) say in this section of the message.  If your point is a distilled summary of the applicational point (or the message of the text at that section), then there is automatically a control mechanism to avoid scattered thoughts that don’t cohere.

Preaching is oral communication, which consists of transmitting ideas. When we talk in conversation we make points, assertions, suggestions, encouragements, etc. in full sentences.  We don’t naturally use single-word headings.  This is a written  communication approach.  Whatever notes you may or may not be looking at, when you preach you are speaking.  Why use literary approaches?  Forcing yourself to think yourself clear at the level of the points in your message, making sure you can convey the thought in a clear sentence will only help your message communicate more effectively.

Incidentally, if you are still craving the mnemonic assistance of single word tags, you could always add them (or some shorthand approach) in the transitions and final summary.  Having said that, remember that your goal is not for listeners to remember your outline, but to be transformed by the main idea of the text and its application to their lives.

Share

10 Ways to Make Your Listeners Uncomfortable

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Someone said preaching should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable.  Here are ten ways to make your listeners feel uncomfortable as you preach, but not in the right sense of the term:

1. Give off non-verbal signals of nervousness. Wring your hands, pace uncontrollably, fidget as you preach, breath shallow, avoid eye contact, flit from one ceiling corner to another, etc.  If you convey nerves, they are contagious and soon the whole room will be infected.

2. Appear to be dependent on your notes. If they get the impression that you might lose your place, or somehow get stuck, then they will start watching in the “eyes up” time for when your eyes will go down again.  If you need notes for personal testimony, something isn’t working well.

3. Appear to be uncertain or hesitant. This doesn’t mean you need to rush or preach at 100mph.  But there is a vast difference between a purposeful pause with poise and a hesitant gap that generates anxiety in all present.

4. Apologise for lack of preparation and you are set. This never fails.  If you can give a good apology for your lack of preparation, or for your inability to communicate, or whatever, you’ll have almost guaranteed an uncomfortable experience for your listeners.

5. Expect people to tune in to ineffective description. Describing a narrative scene or an illustration situation is not easy.  A poor description will leave the imagination projection screen blank inside the listeners.  But that is not a disaster, they will usually be tracking conceptually, even if they can’t “see” what you’re saying.  But to make them uncomfortable, verbally express the expectation that they can imagine what you’re describing.  “Can you imagine being there?  What would it have felt like?”  If the description isn’t vivid, then the questions will pressure listeners into an uncomfortable corner.

I’ll finish the list tomorrow.

Share

Creative Series

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

It’s easy to fall into a rut with planning a series.  Either a whole book, or a whole section, divided equally into chunks.  But there can be variety in a series.

How about a survey message to start and/or finish? Giving people a sense of the whole will help with the parts.

Why not linger longer in key sections? Most of us typically feel like we could go again with the content we omitted after a message.  Most listeners fail to really take onboard a message after one shot.  Why not linger longer in a key section for a couple or three messages?  I’m listening to a series with three messages from John 1:14-18, followed by a couple of messages that reach out into the rest of John.

Why not pause for fuller context? That is, sometimes a New Testament book will lean heavily on Old Testament content, why not take a message from back there?  For example, I can imagine a series through Hebrews that includes three messages on the key Old Testament passages – Psalm 2, Psalm 95, etc., followed by the Hebrews section that builds on them.

How about tasting the themes from other writers? In a series on a book or section of a book, why not take a message and see how other writers handle the same theme and how they nuance it?

How about a mid-series pause for applicational underlining? We tend to march on, passage on passage.  But why not pause mid-series to review and underline the applications that have become evident thus far?

Then there is the benefit of changing perspective too. Perhaps you’ve preached a book from Paul’s perspective, why not try a message engaging with the letter from the perspective of the recipients.  It could work with anything from Romans to Philemon.  Changing perspective can really underline the reality in which the text was written and its relevance for us today – it’s not just a timeless religious text, it’s a relevant application of the gospel to real people in real situations.

Plenty more that could spice up a series too . . . any thoughts?

Share