Delivery

Holiday Post 1: Full Meal Deal

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Since I am going on holiday with my family, I am also not writing new material this week.  But here are a few posts from years ago that might be of interest . . .

I still remember the first pulpit advice I received.  I was a teenager and had been asked to lead a meeting.  I wasn’t preaching, but I was chairing the meeting, introducing songs, speaker, doing the reading, praying, etc.  Afterwards my youth leader came to me and encouraged me that I’d done well.  Then he offered this advice; “Don’t ever apologize for what you’re doing.  It doesn’t matter who asked you, or how incapable you may feel, God has allowed you to be there so don’t apologize.”

The ingredients to a pulpit introductory apology tend to include feelings of inadequacy, any lack of preparation, feelings of humility, a desire to appear humble, a lack of planning for opening comments, nervousness, etc.  The ingredients are understandable, but the result is not helpful.  Don’t apologize.  It grossly undermines credibility and can easily transfer your anxiety to your listeners.

If you are humble, it will show.  But if you are nervous, unprepared, unqualified, incapable, etc., people don’t need that pointed out to them.  They may notice, and they will usually be very gracious.  Or more often than you realize, they will not notice at all.  The first time I taught a lecture at seminary I mentioned that time was running low so I had to skip some material.  My prof followed up on that, “Don’t tell them you are cutting stuff out, let them think they’re getting the full meal deal!”

What was the first helpful pulpit advice you received?

Verse-by-Verse Preaching: Why Not?

/ Peter Mead / 5 Comments

Preaching through a passage verse-by-verse seems to fit with a high view of Scripture, so why shouldn’t we settle for that as a preaching approach?

This is an important question.  After all, many people equate expository preaching with a verse-by-verse approach.  But there are some differences.  As I offer some counter points from a genuine expository perspective, please bear in mind that we may still take an apparently verse-by-verse approach at times in our preaching.  Nonetheless, these thoughts need to be kept in mind:

1. Verse-by-verse preaching can flatten out inspired texts and fall into a running commentary approach.  That is, a verse is an artificial division of the text.  The real division is the natural unit of thought that the author was seeking to communicate.  In a Psalm this might be the strophe, or the parallelism, not to mention the psalm as a whole.  In an epistle it would be a paragraph.  As preachers we need to communicate the thoughts intended by the author, which may not happen if we treat each verse as a unit of thought.

2. Verse-by-verse preaching can treat the text as a data source, rather than honouring its intended function.  Following on from number 1 above, when verses are treated as micro-units, then there is a temptation to view the text as a collection of data to be mined for interesting snippets.  This is very different than honouring every detail as part of the whole communication effort.  Every detail matters, but we need to communicate the “distilled thought” of the whole unit, as opposed to selecting highlights from a flattened text.

3. Verse-by-verse preaching can lose sight of the inspired genre and form of a text.  This may be restating the same thought from a different angle, but it is important.  God didn’t just inspire the meaning of the text.  We have to take the genre and form as vehicles in which that meaning is conveyed.  Consequently we must read a poem as if it were a poem, and a section of discourse as exactly that.  It does not help to preach a Psalm and a prophecy and a narrative and an epistle in the same way.

4. Verse-by-verse preaching can lose tension and emotion from a passage.  Not only does it tend toward treating verses as data banks, it can also flatten the emotive force of a passage.  There is often a tension to be felt, or a resolution to be experienced.  Verse-by-verse preaching easily can lose sight of such realities.

Submitted via comment, thanks David: 5. Verse-by-verse preaching tends to reinforce the tendency of many believers to focus on “proof” or “key” verses, rather than learning the argument of the author. Context can be lost and, ultimately, verses come to mean something other than they were meant to.

Bottom line.  For some preachers, a verse-by-verse approach would help increase their biblical content and focus.  However, a strict verse-by-verse approach doesn’t inherently recognize that while every verse is fully inspired, not every verse is created equal.

The Struggle to Simplify

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Thank you to Matthew for this comment – I found your blog through the Church Leaders post you did on the 11 Types of Preachers. I find that I am in the “Professor Preacher” type and have been at a loss for some general principles to help simplify and bring clarity to my preaching. It is hard to remove pieces and connections that seem to grip me in the study. Help!

I am glad to see I am not the only one!  It is so hard to be gripped in the study, but then slim down the content in the message.  For one thing, nobody wants to come across as simplistic or uninformed.  More than that, the complex layers of interdependent history and texts makes a matrix of information that is fascinating for the student of biblical history.  But the challenge remains – we don’t want to overload listeners with good information that will keep them from feeling the impact of the text we are preaching.

Here are a few pointers for myself, Matthew and any other “Bible-history-oholics” that might be listening in.  My thoughts are slightly on the background issues as I am working on a message from Jonah and was in that phase, but will turn my thoughts to other aspects of co-textual complexity, perhaps tomorrow!)

1. We should never cut down our understanding of the complexity in order to preach simply.  This will only result in simplistic explanation and errors on our part.  This won’t help people.  We have to go the more difficult route of informed simplicity, rather than uninformed simplicity, if we are to handle the Bible well.

2. We need to make sure we allow time for clarification of information, not just accumulation.  It is so easy to steal time from prayerful consideration of listeners, from sermon formation, from family and even from sleep, when we have the scent of a good trail in biblical history and context.  There is seemingly no end to connections and facts and insights and maps and cross-references, etc.  We have to impose an end for the sake of everything else.

3. We must pause and consider the key threads of detail.  That is, stopping and thinking through this question – “If I only had a couple of minutes to explain the background and context of this passage, to someone who is neither super-informed, nor longing for me to impress them, what would I include?”  Later, in light of the main idea of the message, as the message is formed, we need to do this again (lest our historical background comments take the entire time and turn the sermon into a Bible school lecture!)  We do the same in sharpening the main idea itself, as well as the message shape.  It takes much more work to preach clear, than to be complex!

Tomorrow, let’s add some more thoughts related to this quest.

Clarity of Source

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

This seems so obvious, but I wonder if some preachers are self-deceived.  We need to preach the message of the text we are preaching.  This is not the same as preaching a message that only has points of connection with the text we claim to be preaching.  That is, reading a text and preaching a message that isn’t really the message of that text, simply isn’t acceptable.  But it is common.

As people look at the passage in the Bibles sitting on their laps, can they see how your message comes specifically from that text?

If people cannot see how we get our message from the text we are preaching, one of three things can happen.

Possibility number one is that they will be impressed and so want more of us, rather than more of the Bible.  They might be impressed because we can find things they would never have seen.  They might think we have special knowledge, or a direct hotline to God for new revelation.  They might even think we have a grasp of the Greek that far exceeds that of the entire translation committee for their Bible version!

Possibility number two is that they will feel intimidated and so not pursue Bible study for themselves, since they have no expectation of being able to get something so good out of the passage.  Might as well wait until next week.  Why bother trying in the meantime when all it takes is a bit of patience?

Possibility number three is that they will subconsciously lose trust in the Bible and begin to trust in the system we force on the text.  After all, the person they are looking to for spiritual leadership shows no real confidence in the Bible.  If he uses it as nothing more than a tool for preaching, then why should they submit to it in their lives?

If they can’t see how we get our message from the text, one of three things can happen, and all of them are bad.

Neither Padded, Nor Dense – 3

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday I began a list.  The goal is to preach sermons that are not only heard, but also felt.  The first point was to recognize that cramming in information will squeeze out feeling.  Furthermore:

2. Take the time to let images form.  Whether you are explaining the context, making sense of the text, telling the story, or even illustrating a point, let the images form.  Imagine that inside your listeners there is a screen.  That screen is covered by smoke.  Quick propositions and statements won’t register on that screen.  It takes good description and a bit of time for the images to form there.  But once those images form, once people can see what you are saying, then something powerful starts to happen.  They empathise with characters.  They experience the plot.  They begin to feel.  And once they feel, then the truth being preached is a truth experienced, a truth driven deep.  It goes beyond cognition.  Truth felt tends to lead to lives changed.

3. Develop the skill of painting with words.  I mentioned this in passing, but it is worthy of its own point.  We need to develop our ability to describe.  Stories need to be effectively told, poems need to be carefully described, contexts of letters need to be engagingly presented.  Wherever we are in the Bible, we need to keep growing in our ability to describe effectively, vividly and engagingly.  Vocabulary matters.  Pace matters.  Expression matters.  I can describe something with 100% accurate facts, but leave you completely underwhelmed.  A good preacher can describe something so that you feel like you see it.

4. Find the balance between time/pace and content.  This is the challenge.  Every element of a message could potentially benefit from more time and slower pace.  But there is a balance to be found.  It is like the movie maker situation we pondered earlier in the week.  Too much time, too slow a development, too drawn out a scene, and the momentum is lost.  Too fast, too much information and too rapid a transition and the viewers are left behind.

The difference between a summary and the real deal should not be padding, and it can’t be just information crammed in.  There has to be careful planning to engage not only the heads of the listeners, but also their hearts.

Neither Padded, Nor Dense – 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

When information is crammed in, it is not just information that will be lost.  For example, I used to have a laptop that allowed me to watch DVD’s in normal speed and 1.2x, 1.4x and 2x, and all without losing sound.  This was great.  It meant I could watch a 40 minute episode of some crime drama or other in less than 30 minutes.  I saw everything.  I heard everything.  But something was different.

The faster transfer of information somehow meant that while I could follow the story and get the details, I didn’t feel it.  That tense moment when the detective entered the abandoned warehouse, gun drawn, eyes wide . . . it wasn’t tense.  That shocking moment when the body was found, well it wasn’t really shocking.   All of the emotion seemed to be drained by amping up the content transfer density.

So back to preaching.  What is our goal?  Is it to transfer information as efficiently as possible?  I was reading about Jonathan Edwards and his preaching style.  He wasn’t flamboyant and flashy like his contemporary, George Whitefield.  Edwards had a quiet intensity.  His goal wasn’t just that people learn, or even that they act on what they heard.  He wanted them to feel the truth of the doctrine being presented.

But does the Bible intend to be felt?  Or is it just information transfer?  It seems to me that every genre incarnates truth in the non-vacuum of reality.  Narratives, poems, prophecies, letters, etc., are all theological truth wrapped up in human experience and story and description.  It seems as if the Bible wasn’t given as an inspired collection of abstract truths, but as theology in concrete.

So how do we preach sermons to be felt?  This is a question worth pondering.  Here are some suggestions:

1. Recognize that cramming in information squeezes out feeling.  I am not reducing the value of information.  Hopefully our exegetical work generates great information.  But putting too much information in the sermon will not only make it harder for people to take any of it in.  It will also mean they don’t feel the truth of it.  We are not in a race to speak all truth as exhaustively and as rapidly as possible.  We need to grow in our ability to be selective.  Every time we preach we will not be exhaustive.  There will always be more good information that could be said.  But there has to be a balancing of content density with other factors for maximum effectiveness.

More tomorrow…

Planks and Slices 3 – Whole Bible Grains

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Some who have only heard the preaching of books in slices may be surprised to discover that there is a long tradition of tracing themes through the Bible. Some who have only heard topical messages may be surprised to discover that some people preach through a book chunk by chunk. Sadly some are surprised to discover how rich the Bible is after only hearing human wisdom launched from the mortar tube of token Scripture readings.

Anyway, enough surprises, let’s get into Bible length grain issues. The Bible has the diversity of different writers, different languages, different cultural settings and writer circumstances. But it also has an amazing unity, almost as if it were inspired by the same Spirit throughout!

Sometimes we will trace grains length-wise through the Bible as a whole. It may be as part of a message, or it may form the entirety of a message. But it is not guaranteed to be helpful. It can be great. It can be terrible. Any pointers?

1. Don’t confuse tracing a theme with going on a wild safari in the backseat of a concordance. There is nothing worse than being in a small group Bible study where people are chasing through Bible references, ignoring the contexts and just noting repeated uses of a term. “Next verse, who has the Deuteronomy one? Thanks Bob…yep, there it is again! Our word for the night: ‘Remember!’ Great, who has the Nehemiah verse?” Okay, there may be one thing worse – a sermon that does the same.

A phenomena of language is that sometimes different writers use the same words in different settings, and sometimes they even mean different things. Linking sections together based on the proximity of concordance placement is not the key to being a master Bible handler. It doesn’t take much skill to chase the chain link of repeated terms through the Bible. We need to know our way through the Bible with a bit more skill than that to preach effectively.

2. Beware of overloading listeners with references. Even if you are legitimately making connections, the listeners have a threshold that is easy to cross with too many cross-references. Preaching is not a competition to reference as many passages as possible.

Sometimes a theme can be fully exhausted with three passages (Melchizedek), or effectively communicated with two passages (I’ve been thinking of Exodus 33 and John 1:14-18, for an example). Adding in Deuteronomy, Isaiah and Malachi may be more complete, but it may deaden the effect of the preaching if listeners feel overloaded.

More thoughts to finish this list tomorrow…

Planks and Slices 2 – Preaching Plank Grains

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I introduced the idea of tracing a grain through the length of a Bible book. Today I’d like to offer a few more thoughts before moving on to the bigger idea of tracing themes beyond the borders of a single book.

1. “Knowing tones” don’t do the job of preaching the richness of the Bible. It is easy to preach through a book and emphasize certain terms with knowing looks, vocal emphases and passing remarks. This doesn’t mean that you are doing anything significant. People may not get the point that unity has emerged again in Philippians 4 after taking a back seat in chapter 3, just because you intonate in some way. They haven’t been soaked in the text as you have…

2. Be overt in highlighting some grains if it is helpful to the listeners. Not only should we be overt to help people spot it, but we need to be clear in explaining what we are referring to. We can’t assume listeners have picked up on something subtle. If we make only a subtle nod toward a theme, then we can’t rely on that nod to carry the sermon forward significantly.

3. Be clear in explaining how a thematic grain is worth noting. Most people aren’t collecting biblical trivia as they listen to us preach. Some love that kind of stuff, but most tend to value things based on their perceived value. We need to be clear how the theme is present and what the writer is doing with it.

4. Preaching thematically doesn’t negate the need for deliberate message unity and purposefulness. It may be tempting to see thematic grains as something that is overlooked by preaching textual slices, and therefore a shortcut to preaching “something new” . . . this is not the goal. We need to preach clear, biblical, relevant and engaging messages. Help people see the grains, but do so with a purpose in line with the purpose of the text itself.

5. Beware of repetitious overload in a series. We need to repeat things in preaching, but beware that a shorthand reference to a theme can creep in, especially in a series. The negative here is that some may not understand the knowing tones and passing asides, while others who have heard about it before may not be finding the rediscovery of a theme as a wonderful delight. Be sure that each sermon preaches effectively, and that the whole effect of the series is sensitizing rather than dulling to listeners. Let the main thought of a passage drive the message. Sometimes this means that a theme may recede in a particular message, even if present in the text.

Tomorrow I’ll start to ponder canon-wide thematic grain issues.  What would you add here?

Speech: More Than Pragmatic

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

I wonder if some of us are missing something deeply significant?  Preaching involves spoken communication, but what is that spoken communication?  Is it a tool we use to transfer the information that we need to get across?  Or is it profoundly more than that?

I’ve heard preachers who preach as if their speaking is about the information transfer, but little more.  So that sense of personal detachment, or coldness, or distance . . . is that just a matter of poor delivery, or is there something more going on?

What I want to scratch the surface of is the nature of speech itself.  Here are some quick thoughts on why speech itself is more than a pragmatic tool:

1. The Bible doesn’t treat human speech as just a tool.  There is a massive emphasis on hearing God’s Word.  Our response to what we hear defines us.  Our integrity of action to what we confess is critical.  The tongue is a powerful organ in the body.

2. The Bible is a story of “did God say?”  The serpent offered humanity an autonomous alternative to trusting dependence on God.  We can be our own gods.  Why would we want that?  Because of a distrust in God’s spoken word, which is a distrust of His gracious character.  Ever since then the hiss of the lie has been an ever-present.  And the question has always been, who will trust the word of God’s promise?

3. The Bible presents us with a God who speaks.  Why don’t we see more from heaven?  We can’t fathom that perhaps our eyes are not the senior sense.  We fell by distrust of speech, we are invited to trust based on God’s Word (and He even made His Word visible to us in a Person!)  But this isn’t some pragmatic condescension of God for our sake, He is eternally a speaking God.  What constitutes the reality of the Trinity?  We would do well to let go a little of a metaphysical conversation of substance, and ponder more the biblical revelation of a God in eternal communion.

4. The Bible seems to see speech as central to what it is to be a person.  Now we’re probing a bit more.  For centuries we’ve been caught up in the idea of personhood as being about rationality, will-power and individualism.  We’ve seen it as an issue of separation, of hierarchy, of a will to power.  What if what we are is not best defined by our CV/resume (skills, capacities, education, even references from the most impressive people we know)?  What if what we are is defined by who we have true relationship with?  We inherently sense that reality, but our world denies it.  And what if relationship is, at its core, a matter of speaking and hearing, of a mutual indwelling through communication?

Okay, enough for today, but here’s the thought I’m nudging us toward.  What if preaching is profoundly more about speech than we’ve ever realised?  Our God is a God who speaks.  A God who has spoken.  And at the centre of Christianity is our heart response to what He says?

Amateur: Not All Good

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

To put it simply, the term amateur can be used in reference to something being done out of a love for it (rather than as a paid job).  Or it can refer to something  being done in a way that shows lack of skill, being done not very well.  Let’s ponder the latter today and finish positively tomorrow.

Amateurishness can be seen in various aspects of preaching:

* Lack of preparation, inadequate study and research, use of poor sources, surface-only work with the text, etc.

* Scattered (dis)organisation of content, poor logical ordering of content, lack of effort with word choices, etc.

* Poor delivery, excessive verbal pauses, um, any self-presentation that appears to be hiding the self out of nervousness (acting like a clown, for instance), etc.

I’m sure we could all list plenty of ways to preach in an amateurish fashion.  There is also the bigger picture of the whole service.  What people will enjoy in a group of 50 will be intolerable in a group of 250.  But there are two further points to ponder here:

1. Critiquing amateurishness is not to say there is no place for weakness.  We all have weakness and should preach in a state of weakness rather than prideful self-reliance.  What we might critique as amateurishness is more an issue of not preparing properly, or not growing into effective homiletical skill or delivery skill.  It is an issue of poor stewardship, not something that we should justify in some sort of reverse sanctification by extension process.  By all means let’s appear as fools and as weak to a world that is arrogant in its upside-down state.  But let’s let the gospel message itself be the “foolishness” and the “weakness” – not our own lack of good stewardship of the ministry we have the privilege of participating in.

2. Recognize who suffers from unnecessary amateurishness.  Here’s the strange thing.  When a preacher is genuinely very limited in skill, ability, knowledge, resources, time, etc., then the same perceived weaknesses are often unperceived.  But when we simply show a lack of commitment or passion for preaching, then we can’t rely on some loophole that guarantees God’s intervention.

Unbelievers will judge the gospel based not on the gospel, but on our demonstration of its value to us.  Believers will be frustrated and distracted so that the focus will be on the poor preacher rather than the wonderful biblical truth.  Amateurishness that flows from lack of effort both in the preparation of a specific sermon, and in the longer-term failure to grow in the ministry of preaching, is ultimately an issue of love – a lack of love for the lost, the believers we are supposed to shepherd, and for the Lord who gave everything for us.

Tomorrow we’ll think about the good side of amateur!