Christianity

Personality Excuses

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Phillips Brooks once famously defined preaching as “Truth through personality.”  Today the word “personality” is sometimes used in a more restrictive sense to refer to the quirks of an individual.  “Oh, that’s just his personality” we sometimes say.  Now when it comes to preaching, there is a potential tension that can surface.  The tension is between personality and communication.  That is to say,  the quirks of a personality that might be excused by some, versus the effect created in the listener in a communication event.

Let me try to be more clear: when we communicate, we effect (and affect) the listeners.  This is more than just transferring information (although for some preachers that does seem to be the only real goal, and could probably  be achieved more effectively by simply producing a handout).  So our effect is more than just information transfer.  It also includes intended emotional affects, and unintended by-products.  (If you have any familiarity with Speech-Act Theory, then what I am referring to is unintended perlocutionary elements of speech.)

So, is personality a good excuse for unintended negative by-products in our preaching?  I would suggest not.  Even if some present would excuse an element of your message, the effect or affect on those unaware of that excuse is still very real.  You wouldn’t want the possibility of visitors being in church to be considered a risk by those that know you, would you?

What kind of quirks am I referring to? Well, for instance, cutting or inappropriate, or even just ineffective, humour.  Or a patronising and condescending manner.  Or apparent pride.  Or distracting verbal (or physical) habits.  Or excessive and unrelenting pace.  Or whatever . . . anything that undermines the communication.  And sometimes many of these quirks might only show for a few seconds in an entire message, but that can be enough to do the damage.

So instead of excusing personality, what? In a small enough group where everyone knows everyone, such things will generally be excused (though not as completely as we might think).  With a larger group, or with outsiders present, the negative effects of such quirks can really undermine the whole ministry.  So what to do?  I suppose in simple terms we need to find out what those quirks are and deal with them.  Perhaps you should print this post and give it to someone, asking them to be honest with you.  Not easy, but important.

Drumroll Please . . .

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

At the risk of beating a drum to the point of creating a drumroll effect, I need to re-address something I’ve written about numerous times before.  I say “I need to” do this not because you need to hear it, but because I need to say it.  I just read an article about expository preaching in a good magazine . . .

Expository preaching should not be contrasted with applicational or relevant preaching!

This article contrasts one writer’s approach to selecting texts with another writer’s commitment to preaching through books.  The former selects passages and combines them in series to address the needs of the church.  The latter is strongly committed to preaching through books.  The latter was referred to as expository preaching, the former as something else.  In this particular case, both are expository preachers.  Why?  Because expository preaching is not defined by a commitment to preach through books.

Expository preaching involves both a commitment to preaching the true and exact meaning of the preaching text in context, and a commitment to do so emphasizing its relevance to the listeners present.  It is not either/or, it is both/and.

This article set up a false dichotomy between two expositional preachers and urged churches to preach through books.  As a default, I would probably agree with the importance of preaching through books, but when I choose to preach a series made up of texts taken from various places, I will still preach expository messages (because – did I say this already? – expository preaching is not defined by preaching through books).

Expository preaching is not about how you select the text, it is about what you do with it, or better, what it does with you, when you study and preach it.

Bonus: They Can’t See Your Notes

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I’ve posted a couple of posts about the fact that listeners can’t see your notes.  This fact does create a burden or two on you, the preacher, but there are positives too.

1. They don’t know what you missed. This may be for the sake of time, or because your eyes skipped, or because of a memory failure (although if you are preaching without notes, then you should know that a good clear message will remember itself).

2. They don’t know when you changed order. On purpose or accidentally, it is often perfectly acceptable to change the order of a message.

3. They don’t know when you adjusted your message. You don’t need to apologize for what you haven’t included, what you’ve omitted or what you would have liked to have covered.  They don’t know how your message has adjusted from what was planned or what was possible.

What difference does all this make?  Well, for one thing, it means that you shouldn’t feel obligated to stick exactly to an outline you prepared earlier.  Sometimes a message needs to flex in light of circumstances, people present, mood of service, etc.  (I could make the point here that if you’re using a powerpointed outline or a handout, then you are forced to stick with it, but I won’t make that point here.)

One big thought should linger in our minds as we prepare to preach.  We may look at our notes (on paper, or mentally), but our listeners are looking at us.  Are we engaged with them?  Do we smile?  Do we make eye-contact?  How about body language?  All of these things, and so much more, push me toward suggesting that they can’t see our notes and it is probably better if we can’t see our notes either.  But I won’t make that point now, either.

They can’t see your notes, let that take a little pressure off.

But Wait, They Can See My Notes

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday I wrote about some of the challenges that come from our listeners not being able to see our notes.  We preach orally, but tend to prepare in literary forms (manuscript, indented outlines, etc.)  I mentioned the issue of transitions – very different animals in spoken than in written communication.  I mentioned the need to indicate sense of progress, or purpose of illustration.  But wait, isn’t there a shortcut to circumvent this whole issue?

The Potential Powerpoint Shortcut – Wouldn’t it be better to just project your notes so they can follow along on a powerpoint sermon outline?  I would urge you not to make a projected outline your strategy to overcome these issues.  Your outline is for you.  If you use powerpoint, use it well (i.e. for images, minimal words, lots of blank screen, perfectly timed, etc.)

What Happens if You Powerpoint Your Outline? Projecting your outline will give the impression your primary goal is to educate and inform, it will spark frenzied note taking, it will cause people to try to memorize three sub-points rather than being marked by the one main point, it will distract from the deeper impact and applicational emphasis of your message.  What’s more, what is gained in visual communication via the screen is typically lost in visual communication and connection via the preacher.  It takes real skill to powerpoint in a connecting and engaging manner (a skill rarely found in ecclesial settings).

So I Should Never Use Powerpoint? Use powerpoint by all means, but usually not for your outline.  The outline is a skeleton, it is for you and it is for you to think through how to communicate as effectively as possible.  One of the first posts I wrote was entitled “What do you want them to remember – the outline?”

Because They Can’t See Your Notes

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I suppose it is obvious, but sometimes obvious things need stating.  When we preach we are communicating orally.  People hear us, and usually can see us, but they can’t see our notes.

What difference does this startling realization make to our preaching?  Well, it should cause us to pay particular attention to the following:

1. Transitions. It is so easy to lose people in a transition.  If they mentally check-out for a few seconds they can easily miss the move from one section of the message to the next, leaving them disorientated and confused.  Slow down through the curves, as I think Steve Matthewson put it on his site.  Be sure to take your passengers with you.  Flashback and preview, underline or mark the transition in some way.

2. Follow-ability. You can look down at your notes (if you use them), or down at the text (if you don’t use notes, your message will probably be mentally associated with the passage itself).  If they look down they see dozens of verses that all look the same.  You need to make clear where you are in the text.  Don’t make following along an extreme sport that only the most focused individuals can participate in.

3. Sense of progress. You know that you have finished four pages of notes with three to go.  They don’t.  Because they can’t see your notes you either need to have a clear structure that is previewed at the start and reviewed at transitions (as in a deductive message), or a clear indication of destination and sensation of progress toward it (as in an inductive message), or else a very compelling presentation that people simply don’t want to end.  Otherwise they will be investing mental resources in trying to figure out where you are in your message.

4. Purpose of Illustration. You can look down and see your illustration marker and where it sits in relation to the section of the message, the sub-point you are explaining, proving or applying, etc.  Because they can’t see your notes they can easily lose track of why you are telling the story about the time your Uncle took you to the fish market.  Don’t just tell illustrations well, but clarify their purpose whenever appropriate.

They can’t see your notes and they shouldn’t see your notes  . . . but they will see the message you preach and the way that you preach it.

The Height of Application – 2

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

On Friday I wrote about raising the bar without just cranking up the pressure. But any talk of application must also bring us back to take a prayerful look at ourselves.  I read a comment in Michael Quicke’s 360-Degree Leadership, a quote from someone, R T Warner, I think.  It said that the early church “out-lived the pagans, and out-died them, and out-thought them.”

Many of us today are living in unprecedented luxury compared to the rest of the world today and throughout history.  We have access to resources, and standards of living, and health care and on and on.  We shouldn’t feel bad about all that, but give thanks and make the most of the blessings we’ve been given in order to bless others.  However, we don’t want to become spiritually lethargic unawares.

We can urge others to respond to the teaching of God’s Word with total abandon, with radical commitment, etc.  But in a very real sense we can only “raise the bar” for others to the level it is raised in our own lives.  We don’t need to flaunt our own commitment or sacrifices, but they do speak loud and clear to our listeners.  So we should be sure to prayerfully take stock of our own responsiveness to the Lord.

Here’s a quick checklist:

1. Walk with God – all that is involved in that . . . listening to His Word, prayer, intercession, meditation, etc.  Do we . . . as much or more than we urge others to . . .

2. Resources – use of time, of money, of energy, of abilities, etc.  Just because some of us have more time freed up for ministry, doesn’t mean we are giving more.  Remember the widow’s offering – how would that apply to our use of time and other resources?

3. Sacrifice – do we really, or do we just, you know, sort of?

4. Holiness – easy to bang on about pet peeve sins, but how is the Lord dealing with issues in your life?  You know you’re not perfect, but are you complacent because your sins are not those sins?

5. Okay, I’ll stop, but we do need to prayerfully address the whole issue of personal “application” in response to God’s Word.  Actually, conversing with the Lord about these things can be such a blessing . . . perhaps it should really be an ongoing conversation – not about me, but about my response to Him.

The Height of Application

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I’ve written recently about application and where it is aimed – heart, head and hands (i.e. affection, belief and conduct).  But what about the height of the application?  That is to say, how high do we set the bar?  Now immediately there are issues rising up: does this language imply duty and responsibility that will smother the drawing power of the love of God?  Are we going to end up pressuring people with more and more things to do somewhat independently of God, rather than drawing them deeper into the life that is relationship with God?

I think there are a couple of errors we fall into:

Some of us can over-pressure on a flimsy foundation.  That is, we preach something, explaining the text somewhat, and then go for broke with application.  It is easy to call for total surrender, but when that applicational structure is built on the foundation of snack-food exposition, it will always feel out of place.

Some of us tire people with inane applications not befitting of the gospel.  We preach, perhaps very well, the truth of God’s Word.  And then we list yet another set of duties to be added to the already overwhelmed list of duties on the scrap of paper inside the Bible’s front cover.  This can feel trite. After a seven-course feast in a five-star restaurant, we then urge people to go home and be sure to eat three marshmallows each day and offer a personal-pack of cookies to at least one neighbor.

So what to do?  How high is the bar to be set?  First, it is important to think through where the text is naturally urging the listener.  Second, remember that duty and pressure is very different from compelled response.  If we can preach the compelling Christ and His Word in such a way that hearts are moved, then application will be the naturally resulting encouragement, rather than grating burdens.  Third, remember that some passages and situations call for very practical described applications, but many others might be better suited to stirring hearts for worship, or challenging false beliefs and worldview blind spots.  Make every message relevant, but not every message has to feel pragmatically “applicational.”

If we are saying that “application” should be fitting for the compelling, drawing, captivating attraction and power of the message preached,then surely the bar is often set too low.  But the answer is not to crank up the pressure, but rather to look for ways to preach for hearts to be moved and carefully consider how the listeners can be encouraged along the path of response . . . and that response, through the years of church history, has often been a response of total and absolute sacrificial commitment.  Let’s raise the bar, but think through how we do it!

Discover Cor Deo – 3rd of July

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

If you are in the UK and might be interested in Cor Deo – the new mentored training programme launching in 2011, consider yourself invited to Discover Cor Deo.  This event will be held in central London and will help to answer any questions you may have about Cor Deo, you’ll get to meet the mentors and get a taste of what’s to come in the programme.

Cor Deo is about multiplying ministry that shares God’s heart.  It is a unique five-month intensive training programme that is open to those who have a passion for God and for ministry.  Whether you are considering training for the first time, or if you are considering a refreshing season of study as part of a sabbatical or study break, please consider Cor Deo. 

The information for Discover Cor Deo can be found on the left side of the home page at cordeo.org.uk

We are actively seeking the first team of participants and spaces are limited.  Come and find out more, we would love to see you on the 3rd of July!

Are You Sure You Want To Do That?

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

It is so tempting, but are you sure you want to do that?  Perhaps a commentary suggests another way to translate the text.  Or perhaps you have studied a little Greek and think that they have made a mistake in their handing of a tense or whatever.  So you’re tempted to criticise the translation the people are reading as you preach.

Now there are advantages to criticising it.  For one, it makes you look like you know what you are talking about when it comes to original languages – which may or may not be the case.  Another advantage is that it shows you have been studying hard in preparation.  Then, of course, presuming you do know what you are talking about, there is the advantage of greater understanding of the text for all who are present.

But there are some very real disadvantages too.  First, and most important of all in my estimation, you are planting seeds of doubt as to the trustworthiness of the rest of the translation.  They may see this particular verse more clearly (may is the important word here), but now they don’t know if they can trust the other 1188 chapters full of verses.  Also, they are now probably celebrating your knowledge (whether you have it or not).  This should make you a bit twitchy, unless your goal is the praise of men, of course.

Why am I making this point, does it happen?  Oh yes.  I heard a fine Hebrew scholar completely undermine the translations in a sermon almost ten years ago . . . and I still have that lingering sensation of not being able to trust the translations as I think of that message (sermons can prove to be very memorable).  A while ago I heard a well-read, but poorly or incompletely trained Greek reader inadvertently critique the translations.  Now this gentleman would presume he knows enough about Greek to say what he said, people always do.  But his errors were those of a relative novice.  If you haven’t studied Greek seriously beyond about the second year of seminary, presume you don’t know enough to comment too firmly in public.  And as the first example shows, even if you do know enough, are you sure you want to do that?

What to do?  Often it is possible to “correct” a translation subtly in the explanation of the text, or even in the reading, without drawing attention to it.  Often it is enough to say something like, “this could also be put this way . . .” without saying such things as “the translators got it wrong here,” or, and I can’t believe I heard this one, “the translators played a trick on us here…”

Are you sure you want to do that?

Praise God for Influential Preachers

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

I just read an article from Preaching magazine –25 Most Influential Pastors of the Past 25 Years. The title should be “preachers” rather than “pastors” in any strict sense of the term’s current usage. Anyway, it is worth reading.  I’m sure some would be quick to criticise how American the list is, but that is always a cheap and easy critique.  What struck me was how many of these preachers have blessed me in recent years (and I don’t spend much time listing to famous preachers).

I would encourage you to read the article and give thanks for these and other well-known preachers who have faithfully sought to serve God through their ministries.  It is easy to critique the famous, but actually it must be hard to be in their positions, perhaps facing some unique stresses that most of us don’t face.

Perhaps the list might suggest some names that you haven’t heard before, leading you to trawl the web for a sermon by E.K.Bailey, or W.A.Criswell, or Fred Craddock.  Or someone who doesn’t fit in your theological or ecclesiological comfort zone . . . anyone from Adrian Rogers, to Bill Hybels, to William Willimon, to Stephen Olford, to Warren Wiersbe, to Rick Warren, to Jack Hayford, to Tim Keller, etc.  Have you observed Andy Stanley preach?  Have you

Maybe this kind of list has a handful of preachers that you have really been blessed by over the years – stop and give thanks for them.  I’m delighted to see Haddon Robinson on there, I know many who would give thanks for the influence of John Piper in their lives, I have friends who have been so blessed by John Stott, and other friends who have faithfully tuned in to Chuck Swindoll, and of course, there are numerous people I know who would count Billy Graham as the preacher God used to reach them with the gospel.

As with all lists, we could add others who would be on our personal list. Famous, or not, we do well to pause and give thanks for preachers God has used in our lives over the years.  I fondly remember the hours I spent listening to George Verwer messages while going through university – how making a quick meal of pasta could stretch into the afternoon as God dealt with and encouraged me through George’s preaching.  Or the Calvary Chapel preacher whose tapes I would rewind incessantly as I took copious notes in my black chair with my feet on the bed.  Or the seminary prof who preached in class every morning at 8am . . . Bruce Fong it was a pleasure to study God’s Word with you, man O man, what a privilege!