Christianity

Pre-Sermon Review – A Strange Idea?

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

I don’t know of many churches that require it, but I do see many that should consider it. Too often we leave the preacher in a very lonely spot as far as preaching is concerned.  The sermon is prepared and delivered, and then everyone gets to think and evaluate and critique and respond and so on.  But it is too late if something is omitted that is vital, or included that is misleading, or misspoken that is heretical.

I know of one church that requires whichever staff member is preaching to present their sermon outline and content at a breakfast meeting a couple of days before delivery.  It allows for interaction, input, critique, and all that before it does any damage, or misses an opportunity, with the gathered folks on the Sunday.

If your church has a “staff” that are paid to work together during the week, this should be a no-brainer.  But for the many more churches where the workers work elsewhere during the week, the decision to bring a few together ahead of the Sunday is a big decision.  But if we believe in the importance of preaching the Word, then surely it is a decision worth considering seriously.

Preaching is about relationship.  It is about communication.  God’s Word to humanity presented by a human in the power of the Spirit that collectively and individually we might have the opportunity to respond to Him, both for salvation and for spiritual growth.  Preaching involves relationship between speaker and listeners (a good speaker knows it is not mere monologue, irrespective of whether they choose to have verbal participation from the listeners).  Preaching is relational, but we so easily make preaching a solo exercise.  Doesn’t really make sense.

Dare to Blank Sheet

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

When it comes to church change, status quo is the easiest place to be.  Whether you are thinking about the weekly schedule, or the leadership structure, or the format of services, or the approach to the pulpit ministry of the church (schedule, planning, training, preacher selection, etc.), whatever area of church life you are thinking about, status quo is the comfort zone extraordinaire.

In many cases we won’t try to think creatively until a crisis occurs. People start leaving.  The church splits.  “Terminal decline” becomes a whispered term.  Arresting the downward trend of a church is much, much harder than taking the time (and sometimes having the courage) to strategically think things through while the present doesn’t scream for it to be fixed.

So why not blank sheet sooner? As an individual, as a leadership team, and perhaps even as a church (tread very sensitively, the most immature will typically cling the tightest to certain local traditions, scream the loudest and dominate any attempted discussions if you are not very careful in how you handle this).  What is church?  What is the purpose?  Why do we meet?  What should be included?  How should it be organized?

Just because something would be better, doesn’t mean it is wise to instantly implement every possible change. Managing change is a complex process that will keep us on our knees and sometimes be heart-breakingly frustrating.  But there is value to taking a blank sheet and prayerfully dreaming about what could be and perhaps what should be.  How to get there from here is for another post, but there is value in evaluating strategically.

They Can’t Concentrate That Long!

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

I’d like to return to something that has been addressed on here before.  The idea that people now have a reduced attention span of fifteen to twenty minutes (insert similar number of your choice).  This is a myth.  Urban legend.  Fallacy.

People have never had a concentration span that long.  Good speakers know that people will stay with you for a few minutes.  Then if you engage them as listeners in some way, for another few minutes.  Then if you engage them again, for another few minutes.  3-5 minutes is probably the attention span of listeners today, as it was yesterday and fifty years before that.  Good speakers can hold (or regain) attention, bad speakers never could.

People can concentrate as well as ever.  I was chatting with a good friend this morning and he mentioned how young people will focus 100% for five hours without a break on a video game.  Movies are actually getting longer.  Some of the popular speakers today speak with good meaty content for 40 minutes to an hour (and the younger generation flock to hear them).  If something is worth hearing, and if the presentation is engaging, then length of presentation is not the issue many make it out to be.

So what to do about it?  In simple terms, preach well.  Better content and better delivery will have people listening better.  Gimmicks won’t.  Using visual multimedia won’t improve concentration.  Dividing a forty minute message into two twenty minute sections won’t improve concentration.  Giving people a pen and paper won’t improve concentration.  There may be a place for all of these ideas and many more, but they won’t fix the problem of inattentive listeners.  That will be fixed by better messages and better presentation.

Homiletics – Just a Practical Subject?

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

I recently heard a comment I’ve heard at various times and in various forms.  Essentially it was a reference to homiletics as if it were a subject of tips for public speaking, a merely practical subject that may or may not be very important in the curriculum of a training institution.  Tips for speaking, suggestions on sermon construction, it is really just a fringe subject.

While acknowledging that my perspective may be a bit biased as someone who teaches homiletics, I would beg to differ.  In my own experience of seminary training, it was in homiletics that everything converged.

Bible study methods, exegetical training and biblical theology training converged in homiletics.  Finally I discovered how the various elements of fine training coalesced into a coherent whole, with a purposeful goal.  Instead of feeling like Bible study would always be both a joyful privilege and an endless task – with the various potential avenues of study never adequately traveled – I saw the personal and corporate fruit of biblical studies as a whole.

The bar is raised on all subjects by homiletics.  We have probably all heard the old adage that to learn something well you should teach it.  It’s true, having to communicate something verbally to others does stimulate us to learn it at a higher level.  So while we may feel blessed to learn about church history and theology and so on, it is when we seek to bring these things to bear in the lives of others that we ourselves learn at a whole new level.

Spiritual formation and Christian devotion feeds into homiletics, which lies at the heart of church ministry, the focus of God’s work in the world.  The privilege of the preacher is to shepherd souls, it is soul care – both evangelistically and in edification.  This is not mere information transfer, but pastoral ministry in focused form.  There are numerous other fields of pastoral ministry, all of which matter and should be taught, but in some way or other, each feeds something into homiletics.  

In a sense all subjects converge in homiletics.  While some like to say systematic theology is the queen of the sciences, perhaps it is worth considering homiletics as the pinnacle of pastoral and theological education?

Too often homiletics is taught as a little addendum, an almost token seminar in public speaking tacked onto a robust theological education.  Let’s think again about the importance of homiletics – for the sake of the institutions, but much more importantly, for the sake of the church.

Love People To Jesus

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Lacking motivation for anything productive (post-preaching experience, anyone?), I decided to dip into Thielicke’s Encounter with Spurgeon again.  Guess how many paragraphs I had to read before being ready to offer another post (and that largely by quotation)?  One.  Check this out:

“Among the important elements in the promotion of conversion are your own tone, temper, and spirit in preaching. If you preach the truth in a dull, monotonous style, God may bless it, but in all probability he will not; at any rate the tendency of such a style is not to promote attention, but to hinder it.  It is not often that sinners are awakened by ministers who are themselves asleep.  A hard, unfeeling mode of speech is also to be avoided; want of tenderness is a sad lack, and repels rather than attracts.  The spirit of Elijah may startle, and where it is exceedingly intense it may go far to prepare for the reception of the gospel; but for actual conversion more of John is needed – love is the winning force.  We must love men to Jesus.  Great hearts are the main qualifications for great preachers, and we must cultivate our affections to that end.  At the same time our manner must not degenerate into the soft and saccharine cant which some men affect who are forever “dearing” everybody, and fawning upon people as if they hoped to soft-sawder them into godliness.  Manly persons are disgusted, and suspect hypocrisy when they hear a preacher talking molasses.  Let us be bold and outspoken, and never address our hearers as if we were asking a favor of them, or as if they would oblige the Redeemer by allowing him to save them.  We are bound to be lowly, but our office as ambassadors should prevent our servile . . .”

Back to me again.  Rather than repeating some of the gems in that paragraph, I have to ask why so many today are so quick to think only in black and white terms, to fail to differentiate within categories.  If you speak of the importance of love, then you are tarred with the same brush as the “dearing” crowd mentioned above.  If you mention the importance of tone, then you are sometimes considered a performance focused homiletician who doesn’t care about content.  Let’s be bold and outspoken, proclaiming the gospel with great hearts for God, never talking the molasses that disgusts the manly, but loving people to Jesus.

What To Do With Extra Material?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

A couple of years ago I wrote about the preacher’s cutting room.  It is normal to finish a sermon and have material left over, content that was not shared.  If we are honest, some of it was not shared because it was not worth sharing, or because it might cause an unnecessary stir.  But some material is good material.  What to do with it?

1. File it for a future message. This is particularly the case with illustrative material that could be adapted and used at another time.  The key here is to have a filing system that will allow you to retrieve it when you need it.  The other piece that fits in this category is exegetical notes on the passage that may be useful next time the passage is preached – so of course it is worth compiling and filing a set of exegetical notes (I presume you do this with every passage you study?)

2. Preach a Second Sermon. If the schedule and setting allows it, I am a big fan of the idea of preaching a second sermon on the same text.  We so easily move on without taking time for things to sink in, but a second sermon on the same text would allow for reviewing the main content, and for development and reinforcement of application (which often can get short-changed if you do a good job of explaining the text in the first sermon).  Churches with a morning and evening service would do well to consider this approach.

3. Have a Q&A or interaction session of some kind. Perhaps a Q&A session, or a smaller group setting for those who want to interact about the sermon.  I’ve heard of these kind of things, but wonder how this is not adding another meeting to typically overloaded church schedules.

4. Post Out Takes Online? I wonder if anyone has tried this approach?  Using facebook or a blog, it would be easy for a preacher to follow up a message with a handful of sermon pieces that were omitted for the Sunday, but could then provide a venue for people in the church to follow up the sermon and interact with it and with each other online.  I like this idea, anyone do something similar and able to share your experience?

5. Podcast the Out Takes? Similar to above, but why not record a few minutes of reflection and get those online within a day or so.  This would also allow opportunity to respond to any questions that have been asked (perhaps clarifying something or helping with any misunderstanding that became clear from feedback received).

Any other suggestions?  I preached last Sunday and could easily have shared a further 10-15 minutes of material if either an online blog or pod system were in place.  I’m really intrigued to know if anyone has experience to share with us . . .

Guest Post – On Re-Using Old Material

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Here’s an email I received from John Bell.  I asked if I could simply include it here as a guest post and he kindly agreed:

Dear Peter –

Thanks for responding to these things. I really appreciate your thoughts.

Your comments about using others’ thoughts in our own preaching are very helpful. I particularly like your suggestion of how to express that I’m building on ideas that I’ve heard from others that have profoundly affected me. Something so brief and general can communicate what needs to be said.

Whenever we preach, no matter where the material comes from, I would hold up three standards:

– Do I have the active conviction that this message makes central the main point of the text?

– Does the main point of the text have a hold of my heart, mind, and life?

– Does the message I preach flow from these two things?

It seems that these three issues are more important than where the ideas, words, or illustrations come from. For example, if I dust off a sermon I preached a while ago, I have to wrestle with it until these three things are true again. Perhaps the old wording and illustrations will work again, and perhaps they will not. I have to work at it until they capture me again, or until I find something else that does. I remember hearing Haddon Robinson say that it can take as much time to preach effectively again an old sermon as it does to develop a new one. To say what once had a hold of my heart will not be much different than saying what once had a hold on someone else’s heart. It will not speak with the same authority as one speaking with the authority of God and His Word.

So I agree that to attempt to bypass this work of study and this work of being ‘captured’ by the text is not the path for speaking as one speaking the very words of God.

Thanks for the challenge to take up the good work of preparing oneself truly to be a minister of God’s Word!

— John

An Idea – Discuss: Permissible Plagiarism?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Another suggestion was made in reference to Monday’s post.  Let me quote John’s suggestion in full:

‘Appropriate re-use’ of others’ ideas. Of course the question is what ‘appropriate re-use’ might mean, but if I’ve heard a sermon on a passage that was very effective and faithful to the text, or I’ve read a commentary that powerfully and faithfully expressed the message of the text, certainly there must be ways to build on this work with integrity rather than having to ‘start from scratch.’ Any thoughts?

Many thoughts, but what to say?  I agree that it seems unwise to re-invent the wheel, but at the same time there is a danger inherent in trafficking in unlearned truth. I think that it is vital to have time lag in preparation, which is exactly what is missing when people are most tempting to plagiarize.  If a message is particularly striking and well done, then why not take notes, evaluate what made it effective, wrestle with the text in light of that preacher’s chosen approach.  But then there needs to be time in order to work through the sermon for yourself.  You need to submit your life to the text, and allow the message to become your own, even if a particularly well-turned phrase, or effective and faithful sermon structure reflects the work of another.

Then there is the matter of attributing sources. We need to think through the side effects of citing sources when we preach – people may feel turned off by names of folks they don’t know, or by people they do know of and disagree with.  People may feel you are showing off, or that your access to “scholars” puts you in a different league to them and thereby demotivate them from studying the Word for themselves.  If something needs to be attributed to someone else, it is possible to do that without citing names and details.  “One preacher I heard put it this way. . . ” can be all it takes to move you from plagiarism to personal integrity.  (People can always ask for specific citations after the sermon.)

Check your motives.  You can go to all sorts of lengths to hide another preacher’s work in your sermon.  But if you are going “to lengths” then something isn’t right.  The question is not what can you get away with, but what is right as you preach as one who will give an answer to the Lord? Your motives will usually be most compromised when you feel most desperate for a breakthrough before a looming deadline.

I acknowledge that others will influence our preaching, and they should.  But it should be a “they” and not just one person.  It should still be us that preaches, and not a poor clone of another.  We should be above reproach, but equally we should be open to learn from others who are perhaps better students of the Word or preachers than ourselves.  So much more to say, but that’s enough from me for now . . . feel free to comment.

Speeding the Process

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

A couple of other ideas that can be added to yesterday’s post:

“Sermon Ideation Groups to plan a series through a book.” John suggested this and I heartily concur.  Mapping out passages and initial ideas can be a great headstart to the sermon series planning process.  Anything that helps to avoid the “from scratch” sensation each week is helpful.  I would add a couple more thoughts related to this:

Phone a Friend and Talk it Through. There are times when sermon preparation is moving forward at a pace, then other times when things seem to grind to a halt.  Being able to talk with someone who understands the process, the concept of good Bible study, etc. can be the kickstart the process needs to get going again.  Such a friend is worth their weight in gold.  If you don’t have one, train some!

Allow Margin to Plan When Productive. I was really productive on planning a series for next January . . . all within a window of 24 hours at the end of May.  That is a significant headstart, which also allows me to collect useful material, illustrations, etc., over the next six months.

The goal is not to speed up the process of preparation, but it doesn’t hurt to be able to be prepared in the limited time that we have.  Cutting corners doesn’t honour the Lord, but thinking it through so we can give our best, even with all the pastoral and personal crises that will come between now and preaching time, is a worthwhile endeavour.