Insightful Incidentals?

May 15, 2012 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Whatever passage you are preaching, there will be opportunity to make passing comments about relatively minor details. Of course, all Scripture is God-breathed and there is no such thing as a non-essential word in the Bible. But a high commitment to verbal plenary inspiration (i.e. the words are inspired, all of them), does not mean every word can become a preaching point on a whim.

So what sort of insightful incidental comments are best left unsaid altogether? Tomorrow I’ll address the potentially appropriate ones, but for now, just the baddies:

1. Distracting moralisms – For example, the preacher is working through the story of Zaccheus’ encounter with Jesus. The setup is finished, Jesus has just called Zac down from the tree and there is an interim comment before the big scene in his house. The interim comment is about the crowds grumbling. Cue preacher going off on a gentle tirade about grumbling and how bad that is for a church. A couple of wilderness quotes, the threat of excessive quail dinners and then the diversion is over, back to Zac’s dinner table. Oops. And then some. This story has nothing to do with whether people should grumble or not. Actually, if the preacher had observed more closely, it would have become clear that the comment by Luke is not wasted at all. The crowds grumbled at Jesus! Here is the key point in the story, the moment when Jesus diverts anger onto himself to free up sinner Zac. By looking for a moralistic application point, the preacher has missed the transformational gold of grace in action. Chances are, after missing that, the same preacher might go on to make Zac’s proclamation of distribution into part of his salvation negotiations, rather than the pure response that it actually is.

2. Errant critiques – For example, the preacher is working through the story of the blind man healed in two stages. In this case he hadn’t given any attention to the preceding content in Mark 6-8, which is so critical to understanding this unique story. Getting to the end of the passage, his eyes are drawn by the red ink of Jesus’ words in verse 26. “Do not enter the village.” Voila! Preaching point. We don’t do follow-up these days! We need to learn from Jesus. Jesus didn’t just heal, he also gave instruction. Don’t go back into the world. Just follow me. Etc. Etc. Meanwhile the more astute listeners have their eyes on the text wondering how the preacher missed the first half of the verse. Did Jesus ask this blind man to follow him? Or did he actually send him to his home? It is perilous to be looking for preaching points, rather than really reading the passage to understand it.

3. Personal soapboxes – I’m out of words, but you know what I mean. The slightest hint in a passage and off goes the preacher on a personal crusade.

So easy to preach in vague connection to a text. So much safer and better to preach the message of the text.

15 Ways to Improve Clarity

April 27, 2012April 25, 2012 / Peter Mead / 6 Comments

This week I’ve been writing about the doctrine of Biblical clarity – the fact that the Bible may be understood. This is a cause for great rejoicing. Imagine for a moment that the Bible was absolutely impregnable. Anyway, one of the points I made the other day was that preachers are representing a God who made His book understandable, so we should model a passion for clarity in our communication.

Let’s have a rapid-fire list of factors that influence our clarity in preaching. I’ll start, you finish:

1. Voice. If it isn’t loud enough, and distinct enough, it isn’t clear enough.

2. Vocab. Don’t try to impress, try to communicate. Jargon doesn’t help, good word choice does.

3. Preaching Text. If you stay in your text as much as possible, it should be easier to follow.

4. Structure. A memorable outline remembers itself, there’s no need to be clever, be clear.

5. Main Idea. One controlling, dominant thought, distilled from the passage is critical for clarity.

6. Unity. Let every element of the message serve the main idea, nothing extraneous.

7. Order. Take the most straightforward path through the message, so others can follow.

8. Transitions. Slow down through the turns or you’ll lose the passengers.

9. Pace. Sometimes you really need to take the foot off the pedal to keep people with you.

10. Visual Consistency. Keep your gestures and scene “locations” consistent to reinforce well.

11. Verbal Consistency. Let key terms rain down through the message, don’t be a thesaurus.

12. Restatement. Restate key sentences in different words, less patronising, but helps clarity.

13. Illustrative Relevance. Be sure illustrative materials have clear connection to the message.

14. Flashback and Preview. Whenever appropriate, review and preview at transitions.

15. Pray. Pray for message clarity during preparation, God cares about this!

That’s a start, what would you add?

Bible Clarity and Preaching Clarity

April 24, 2012April 25, 2012 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The doctrine of the clarity of Scripture does not mean that the Bible is instantly clear, or equally clear to all, or fully clear to anyone. What it does mean is that the Bible can be understood.

I’ve often made the passing remark in teaching settings that the authors of the Bible were neither drunk nor wasteful. That is, they were coherent in their thoughts, and efficient in their writing. They didn’t waste words or papyrus, they wrote in order to be understood by their intended audience.

But their is a greater Author involved too. He is the master communicator and He made sure the Bible communicates exactly what He wants communicated, down to the very last word. Praise God that He is a communicating God to the core of His triunity! He is not a glory-hungry despot who communicates with impenetrable complexity in order to make us feel small!

This truth does not negate the necessary work involved in making sense of the Bible. We do have to cross a significant historical, geographical, political, religious, cultural and linguistic divide. It does take effort, and prayer, and time, to make sense of the Bible. But no matter how tough some parts may be, it can be understood!

So what are some implications of the doctrine of biblical clarity for preachers?

1. Preachers have to work at understanding the Bible, there is no excuse for making up our own message (ab)using a passage. When we preach our own message from a passage, we subtly give the impression that the text is not there to be understood, but abused. Don’t be surprised when listeners copy our textual abuse patterns and come up with ideas we don’t like.

2. Preachers don’t have to make every detail instantly understandable to listeners, but we should be breeding confidence that study leads to understanding. The doctrine of the clarity of Scripture does not imply that God is patronizing. We don’t need to be, either. Some parts are very tough, acknowledge this, don’t fudge. There is much more that can be understood than is seemingly impregnable – help people see this.

3. Preachers are representing a God who made His book understandable, we should model a passion for clarity in our communication. We don’t represent Him well when we make our message dense, impregnable or overly complex.

Tomorrow I will add one more aspect that is perhaps the most crucial of all.

Authority and Clarity

April 24, 2012April 23, 2012 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Two sibling doctrines. One gets all the attention. The other goes unmentioned. Actually, one is the darling of preachers. The other might well think we are out to get it.

Authority and clarity.

These two doctrines matter. Authority speaks of whose Word the Bible is. It speaks of how His Word got to us. It speaks of why we must hear it and apply it.

Clarity speaks of whose Word the Bible is. It speaks of how well His Word got to us. It speaks of how we can grasp it and apply it.

Some speakers overtly present the process by which the Bible got into our hands: how God was involved in revelation, inspiration, transmission, canonization and even in translation. Other speakers don’t get into specifics, but they keep on affirming that this is the Word of God.

Few speakers overtly present the clarity of Scripture: how God has communicated so well that His great book is able to be understood through diligent observation and interpretation, with prayerful reliance on His Spirit for illumination. Many speakers don’t get into clarity at all, if anything, they keep on giving the impression that God’s Word is out of reach to the average person.

That is the issue. While authority gets regular affirmation in the church, clarity is not only oft-ignored, but also oft-undermined. How so?

How easy it is to give the impression that people need the preacher in order to make sense of the Scriptures. How easy to undermine the listeners’ confidence that they have the necessary competence for reading and understanding the Bible.

I’m sorry to suggest this, but we need to ponder this issue: too many of us undermine the confidence of our listeners to take up and read. Tolle lege, if you will. Uh, I just demonstrated one way to do it…there’s nothing like an ancient language quotation to make normal people feel inadequate. But I didn’t mean that. Exactly. That’s how it happens.

Here’s the bottom line for today. The clarity of Scripture and our preaching. It is not about whether our sermons are clear or not (let’s hope they are). The issue is whether our listeners perceive themselves to be competent to pick up their Bibles and read.

That is a big part of our task. That is why I think Clarity deserves a break.

Beyond Guilt – Part 2

April 17, 2012April 17, 2012 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

This week I am pondering how to preach with a more nuanced approach than mere guilt pressure. As I’ve written already, there is a place for genuine conviction of sin, and I am not hiding from that. But equally, I am not just hiding in that, nor avoiding the danger hiding in a non-nuanced guilt approach.

How can we hide in a guilt approach? I suspect some see no other way to help lives change than to pile on the pressure. Every passage is turned into a guilt trip. Doesn’t matter what tone the passage takes, the message will have been filtered into a guilt and pressure tone.

And what danger is hiding in such an approach? There is an implicit danger with guilt focused messages. I say you should feel guilty. If I convince you, then you feel that you must change. Guilt alone will not drive people to God. It will drive them to despair or to efforts of the flesh. Neither result is good. Guilt has to come in a package with hope, with grace, with access to life transformation that has to come from God, not from self.

So, yesterday we looked at the issue of stance. Here’s another element, perhaps an obvious one, but still important nonetheless.

2. The Preacher’s Tone. Too many people think too simplistically. As if communication is about information transfer. But the truth is that communication involves a complex of signals, some of which can override others. So my body language can contradict, and overwhelm my words. So too can my vocal presentation. Voice and body language combine in regards to the tone of my communication.

If my tone is close to that of an angry prophet, that will override the most gracious of poetic content. If my tone is akin to that of a Victorian school master, then my words, my message, will take on a whole new meaning.

Children know this. If a parent says their name with a certain tone, they know they’re supposed to feel guilty. It’s voice, expression, posture, etc. But it boils down to tone.

Do you have a default tone that is guilt inducing? Can you make the most encouraging passage into a pressure text? Can you turn Psalm 23 into a rebuke for not being a good sheep? Can you take Jesus’ yoke and burden, which are easy and light, and make them tricky to put on properly if your listeners aren’t living just right?

Let’s be sure that when we preach, it is not just our words that reflect the meaning of the text, but that our tone also reflects the tone of the text, and the tone of the God who is speaking to these people on this occasion.

Stance and tone can be adjusted to avoid a guilt-only approach. They can be factors in a better motivational methodology. But tomorrow we’ll zero in on a key factor in preaching to encourage and motivate.

Preaching Cross-References?

April 13, 2012April 13, 2012 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

How much should the preacher use cross-references? Yesterday Dave wrote this in a comment:

In an effort to avoid falling prey to the errors you outline here I kept myself from using many cross references. When reviewing the sermon, my pastor said his biggest advice was to use more cross references! Do you have any hints on how to balance preaching the text and using cross references?

Dave, my advice is don’t use cross-references.

That should be the default. It will keep you in your passage and help your message stay focused. If there is a need for cross-reference, then do so, as much as is needed. For instance, if your passage is building on an earlier one, you might cite it. Or if the idea in your passage seems unusual in some way, it may be worth proving from elsewhere. I can’t think of many more reasons to cross-reference.

I certainly wouldn’t add cross-references to satisfy others who assume there should be lots of them. If someone advised me to use them more I would be inclined to ask why, what would they add, what is the reason for the advice? Some people think a sermon has to have lots of cross referencing, or three parallel and alliterated points, or application just at the end, etc. These are all strategy decisions that should be made on a case by case basis, not given as a standard guideline.

We have to keep in mind the down side of cross referencing in order to make an informed choice:

1. You lose focus on your passage. Some of those listening to you will hear a cross-reference and instantly have a clear view of that passage’s context, content, argument, occasion, etc. Most won’t. As they start thinking about that passage and whatever thoughts it triggers, they will not be contemplating the passage you are trying to preach.

2. You overwhelm listeners with scattered information. Some will try to turn to any reference, even after you’ve moved back to your preaching passage. Some will try to take notes of the references. Either way, their attention will be diverted and the potential for concentration burnout increases.

3. You lose depth in explanation of your passage. If they don’t understand the preaching passage, will going somewhere else really help explain it? Sometimes it might, but typically it means explaining another passage. Why not stay here and present it more clearly?

4. You lose time for application. If they do understand the preaching passage, why abdicate your role of applying it to them by going elsewhere and half explaining another one?

As a default, I suggest we use zero cross-references. Then when we do cross-reference, let’s do so on purpose. A sniper’s bullet, not scattered buckshot.

Profound Presentation

March 29, 2012March 28, 2012 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

It is obvious that profundity should be sought in preparation and matters of explanation and application. But what about presentation and delivery? Here are a few suggestions:

13. There is nothing profound in being dull, discouraging, distant or disconnected – cut that out. Some may assume that profound is the opposite of entertaining and therefore seek to be deliberately dour and detached. Apparently then the glory goes to God and not to the preacher. Apparently this path guarantees no manipulation. I disagree on both counts. I don’t think God is glorified by poor incarnational presentation of His Word. And I do think it is possible to manipulate by a detached intellectualism. We need to see preaching as an act of communication and recognize that communication is always more than content alone.

14. Profound impact usually requires genuine connection, so know that interpersonal aspects matter. I often mention that I wouldn’t buy a car from someone who won’t look at me, so surely that matters even more with something important like the truth of God’s Word. Eye contact, personal warmth, open gestures, facial expression, vocal variety, etc. These are all part of the package when a communicator connects effectively with a listener.

15. Profound impact often comes when there is an appropriate level of personal vulnerability and heartfelt conviction. When a passage is preached at arms length, with both the text and the message being an exhibit offered to the listeners, there will be a significant reduction in impact. When a passage has worked in and through a preacher, then the message can come through and from the preacher, and the communication can be both vulnerable and heartfelt.

16. Conviction, passion, enthusiasm, and so on, cannot be effectively faked. A stunning message learned verbatim and copied down to the last detail of delivery will not be the same as the original. Why? Because the copycat communicator cannot copy genuine conviction, and they cannot offer genuine personal passion through the mask of someone else’s message.

Tomorrow I’ll finish the series with a consideration of profound transformation – the goal in all of this. What would you add to this list?

Saturday Short Thought: Year on Year

March 24, 2012March 23, 2012 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

This evening I have the privilege of speaking at the 80th Anniversary celebration of a church in Surrey. As preachers it is tempting to think that the next message we preach is the only one that matters. But a chance to look back with friends at God’s work over eighty years will be a great chance to celebrate the long-term impact of God’s Word.

The building work of preaching – week after week, the Word of God faithfully preached to a gathering of believers will shape them. This could be in a good direction or not, which is why it is so vital that we watch carefully the diet that the flock are being fed. One poor message here and there may not produce tangible trouble, but diet does matter. I am convinced that if the churches in this country received a steady diet of just plain well-handled Bible sermons – nothing spectacular, just plain, accurate, faithful and lovingly served biblical truth, then the church would be in a very healthy place!

The shaking work of preaching – some messages, or series, will shake a church. This is good. Just as our personal reading should shake up our theological convictions and how we live, so the Word should shake a church. Some preachers want to create a visible shake every week, which may not prove so sustainable or helpful in the long-haul. But looking back over the years, I suspect healthy churches can see seasons where God’s Word brought about change (usually with discomfort and tension in the process).

The cumulative work of preaching – the steady weeks and the firework weeks, the series that seemed to hit home, and those that passed by, interspersed with the messages that brought instant fruit, and perhaps a few that brought critical feedback . . . over time the diet of God’s Word does something to people, to a church, to a community.

Your sermon this Sunday may not be the talking point of this Monday, but it is part of the history of your church being written over the decades. Preach the Word.

__________________________________

Next Week: Pursuing Profound Preaching

Representing!

March 20, 2012March 20, 2012 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I always get nervous when the preacher is the centre of attention.

In a sense it is inevitable that the preacher will be focused on – the preacher is the one taking the risks inherent in putting your head over the parapet, standing there for half an hour and baring both your understanding and your life. We shouldn’t wonder when people use us for target practice or to roast over Sunday dinner.

However I do get nervous when the preacher either courts or seems to settle into being the centre of attention. Our flesh will naturally thrive on any pride-fodder. That could be the “visiting man of God” mentality that pervades some cultures and is offered to the preacher, or the “specially called” mentality that seems to ooze from some preachers.

The reality is that it is not the preacher’s masterpiece based on a text that should be the focus, nor the preacher as a masterpiece of God’s handiwork (although the extent of God’s work in a life usually does show). The preacher and the sermon function as representatives, not as figures of interest in their own right. I’d like to chase that idea a bit for a few days.

Let’s start with the sermon itself. As I’ve written before, a sermon shouldn’t just begin with a text, or bounce off a text, or even be based on a text. The sermon should really re-present the text.

Obviously the preacher will bring strengths of explanation and presentation, and the profile of the listeners should shape the targeting of that text. Nevertheless, the preacher’s task is not just to say what the text says, but also to do what the text does.

The text isn’t a mere repository of information or sermonic illustration, it is a fully inspired section of God’s Word. So the preacher should be so gripped by it that there is a yearning to bring across that text with its full force.

I can’t imagine the churches Paul wrote to receiving his letter, reading it out and then going on as if nothing had happened. I’m sure those writings stirred response. How sad that so often sermons based on those texts have somehow failed to represent them adequately. How sad to see people walking out of a church apparently untouched by the text presented, viewing the sermon as a required duty of church practice (and quiet listening as a required duty of good Christians).

As we preach a Bible text, let’s keep in mind that the sermon event – both the message and the preacher, are representing that passage to these people.

Preacher and Listener

March 13, 2012March 12, 2012 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In preaching, every participant matters and every relationship matters. Yesterday we looked at the God/Preacher bond. Now let’s consider the Preacher and the Listener. Again, dangers and potential!

1. There is a danger that the preacher will create too much distance through a knowledgeable authority that isn’t balanced with vulnerability and spirituality, leading to disconnect from the listener.

2. There is a danger that the preacher will collapse themselves too far into the listener’s situation by a reverse of number 1 and have nothing of value to offer from God’s Word.

3. There is a danger that the Bible will not be seen as a means of hearing God’s heart, but as a weapon to be brandished in berating the listener, or as a curio that offers mere speculation to all present (including, and led by, the preacher).

4. There is a danger that the spiritual nature of preaching will lead to the preacher failing to value the interpersonal communication at the core of preaching – the value of the smile, of eye contact, of vocal tone and variation, of gesture, etc.

5. There is a danger that the preacher will resist performance and somehow also fail to value the interpersonal connection formed in preaching – both in vulnerability and personal elements of content, and in delivery aspects such as warmth and energy.

But what potential!

The preacher has the privilege of standing in the midst of God’s people and yet leading them in responsiveness toward a God who delights to stir hearts through His self-revelation in the Word. Sometimes a church will refer to a worship leader as the lead worshipper. The preacher is the lead responder to God’s Word. The preacher doesn’t stand outside the gathering of listeners, but in their midst. Yet the preacher stands there with a word from a communicating God. Can it get any better than this, to be playing a key role in a community of responsiveness toward a loving God?