Interaction Flops

September 23, 2011September 23, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

For the past two days I have been blogging about a type of interactive preaching, or participative preaching if you prefer. This is not the same as preacher and listeners together discovering the meaning of a text (I’m not convinced about that in a preaching setting). It is the preacher having a specific destination, but allowing the listeners to participate in a significant stage of that journey. In the case of my message on Tuesday, I invited them to imagine what Peter and John might have thought back to during their years with Jesus as they anticipated a trial before the Sanhedrin in Acts 4. They shaped the message in respect to which aspects of the apostles’ experience we imagined together, but I still controlled how the message would end. Anyway, there are numerous approaches to inviting participation from the listeners while preaching. I’d like to wave a red flag at some approaches that seem to flop.

As I mentioned in the previous two-part post, all good preaching should feel somewhat participative, even if the listeners never vocally participate. But problems come when the preacher decides that getting noise out of the listeners’ mouths equates to a higher level of preaching or an automatically more engaged listener. This is too simplistic by half. For instance:

Cultural/Personality Differences – Last year I sat under the preaching of Dr Joe Stowell at Keswick, a preacher I appreciate very much. Joe is an American preacher who invites vocal response and vocal affirmation and audience participation, etc. I don’t know if it is the American versus British difference, or just the warmth of Joe’s personality, but his preaching really was very effective. I’ve seen British preachers doing the same thing in Britain and it fell very flat. Many British listeners aren’t readily participative like other cultures. “Can I hear an amen?” can grate deeply on some congregations. What would naturally and spontaneously stimulate hearty amens and approval in some settings might barely get a low level grunt in others. Trying to whip up a congregation into a non-natural vocal response is generally unwise. They will make some effort to do what you ask, but their discomfort will override their external compliance and have a net negative effect.

Cross-Cultural Issues – When speaking of audience participation, naturally the subject of African-American preaching comes up. There is something very compelling about the rhythmic, call and response, high energy type of preaching popular in some settings (cultural and denominational). But it takes a whole congregation and preacher combination for it to work. Two examples stand out in my memory.

1) I was in Nigeria some years ago and noticed how the believers at this conference responded to the closing prayers of the African preachers – very physical, high movement, verbal agreement, etc. And I noticed how the white preachers couldn’t get the same response when they prayed – congregation standing stock still with hands folded in front of them. Something was different in the mix.

2) I’ll never forget the white preacher preaching in the chapel service of the Bible school where I was a visiting lecturer in Kenya. These listeners did respond vocally, and he couldn’t contain himself. He got swept away on the wave of energy and ended up giving an appalling example of show-off preaching. I think it takes a consistency of preacher and listeners for patricipative preaching to work. Either preacher and listeners are coming from the same tradition, or the listeners are responsive rather than resistant when the preacher is different to them (and the preacher also needs to be understanding when the listeners are different to him in some way!)

This has become a long post, so I’ll spill over to tomorrow . . .

Let’s Interact Some More . . .

September 22, 2011September 22, 2011 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Yesterday I began with three thoughts about interactive preaching. Following on from the importance of knowing the congregation and knowing the content, here are some more thoughts:

4. Expansive questions work better than only one possible answer. Listeners don’t like being asked for something very specific – who wants to get it wrong? They know you want them to say something specific, so chances are stacked against them. Tuesday night’s message worked well because the invitation was for input from a vast array of possible answers. I was primarily asking for examples of incidents in the gospels where Peter and John would have learned from being with Jesus (and since they were almost always there, there weren’t many “wrong answers”). I would be more guarded about asking for input on a single text, since the first comment could give away the whole resolution to the tension of the narrative, or whatever. It can be done, but carefully.

5. Graciousness is key. But how you deal with “wrong answers” matters deeply. If someone had referred to an incident where Peter & John weren’t present, it really wouldn’t help anyone to respond harshly, “uh, no! That was only Nathaniel with Jesus on that occasion!” Making the contributor feel foolish hurts everyone. They would feel for him, they would be less likely to risk talking, they would lose interest in your message (since you don’t seem to care about them). Much better to receive all input positively, “Great thought. Thinking about it, I’m with you on that, I’m sure Nathaniel would have told the others about that even though they weren’t physically present. Thanks.” I was at a conference earlier this summer where the presenter chose to take questions, but was then harsh and sometimes bordering on brutal in how he responded to them. Not helpful at all. (And maybe some preachers simply shouldn’t do interaction.)

6. Non-traditional journeys still need a destination. To put it another way, an interactive message is not a short-cut to avoid preparation. You can’t be at the mercy of those present to make sure it goes somewhere worthwhile. You have to know where you are going and make sure they get there. They are at your mercy, not the other way around. A meandering walk through the forest isn’t good if it ends somewhere in the middle and you then walk away. Make sure you get them to the right place at the right time.

7. Interaction takes time. It is hard to gauge how long a contributor will talk once they start. You have to be able to graciously stop lengthy input, but it isn’t easy. I wouldn’t consider significant interaction unless there was time available for it. Good interaction can be wasted if there is then a panicked rush at the end to get to the destination.

What would you add to this list?

Let’s Interact . . .

September 21, 2011September 21, 2011 / Peter Mead / 6 Comments

Last night I had a great time at a church I’ve visited many times before. I had about 85 minutes and decided to do an interactive message. Here are some reflections and thoughts from me, but feel free to chip in:

1. All messages should be somewhat interactive. Even if you don’t expect the listeners to say anything, good preaching will always be stirring response and comments within the listeners. Good preachers know what listeners are probably thinking and respond accordingly. In these two posts I am thinking about overt congregational participation.

2. Knowing the congregation matters. It does help to know who you’ll be preaching to when you choose to go much more interactive. A few years ago I chose to do an interactive sermon in a church that I hardly knew. I certainly was unaware of the group brought along from a nearby “home” that interacted in an entirely different way than the elderly folks who made up the rest of the congregation! Knowing them matters, them knowing you care matters just as much, but we’ll come to that issue tomorrow.

3. Knowing the content matters even more. This one is massive. As the preacher you have to know the subject and the range of potential input. Taking a comment from the crowd that changes your understanding of the text could be complicated. You get to choose how wide the net is thrown for input, but it is important that you can handle whatever may come from within that range of Bible text (and theology/history/whatever else you open yourself up to). If you are genuinely struck by new insight, great, but if you seem to be informed by everything you hear, you’ll lose their confidence!

I’ll finish this post tomorrow, but feel free to chip in with your thoughts . . .

Deep Conviction

September 20, 2011September 20, 2011 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

As I waited for my children to get showered and dressed after their swimming lessons I scanned through an old notebook. I took these notes about 15 years ago as I listened to a Howard Hendricks cassette on leadership. As ever with him, good stuff. At one point he was speaking of the need to develop deep personal conviction.

“We live in a day without a cause. Some churches have programs instead of building convictions in people. Only beliefs are not good enough to get job done. The people in your church need to fill their minds with solid Bible study. They need to develop an appetite for meditating and thinking, for praying and pursuing God.” (Rough quote from old notes)

This gives me pause for thought.

First, am I a man of deep conviction? Have I not only learned, but tested and retested in non-cotton wool environments? Do I fire my belief into conviction not only in the furnace of life’s experience, but also in the quiet place of prayer, face to face with my God? Are my convictions genuine so that those I get near have a chance of becoming infected with them? (As Hendricks put it, ‘you don’t catch anything from a man who doesn’t even have a cold!’)

Second, is my preaching delivered with deep conviction or with performance hype? I think the difference comes from two factors, among others. 1 – Are there years of study and ministry and life experience standing behind each sermon. And 2 – Have I given this particular sermon preparation enough days to start to take a fresh hold in my heart and life? If I start to prepare this Sunday’s sermon on Saturday, or Friday, then I will be unable to speak out of deep contemporary conviction and will have to rely on long-term life conviction only. Start early enough so this message can really take hold and start to work in me before it is spoken through me.

Third, do I preach and lead and mentor for more than assent? It is easy to preach in order to educate, but it takes much more to preach in order to deeply persuade, to infect, to stir the hearts of those listening so that lives are touched. For a start it takes something more than I can do as a teacher, it takes God at work in the hearts of those listening, so I must be a pray-er if I am to be a true preacher. More than that, I will need to get alongside some people in the church and infect them close up. That gets into mentoring, building a team, mobilising and equipping others. Another post for another day.

Let’s pray that we will be preachers of deep genuine conviction, and that we will be used to spark other genuine deep conviction Christians too.

(Put Some Points in Brackets)

September 16, 2011September 16, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

It seems obvious, but preaching involves delivering a message. It isn’t about delivering your outline via powerpoint, or presenting your outline verbally. It is about delivering the message. The outline is for you, it doesn’t always have to be given to them.

One thing that happens when we feel we need to give over our outline in our presentation is that we tend to always state our points when we start them. You know the routine, “My second point is XYZ.” Then we proceed to demonstrate that point from the text, and explain it to the listeners, and support it with some anecdotal or biblical evidence, and then illustrate it with our pithy little story, etc. This tried and tested approach is big on clarity, but it can also be deadly dull to hear.

I remember sitting in a conference where I’d noticed the sermonic pattern by the second message and was then able to predict what would come next for the rest of the day, whoever was preaching.

Sometimes your next point shouldn’t be given up-front in your first sentence of that section of the message, but rather held back and developed before being delivered. A point in a message might be better delivered inductively, rather than deductively. This avoids the dull tedium of every section of every message being the same. Here comes the verse, here comes the explanation, now he’ll refer to a cross-reference, wait for it, here comes the illustration. Instead you might begin the next point with an illustration, or a question, or an explanation with the point itself held back.

I was taught that an inductively developed point in a message should be written in the outline in brackets. Simple little approach, but it reminds the preacher that the preaching event is not about a slightly animated reading of an outline. Actually, the outline is supposed to record what the message does, how it develops, etc. For some preachers that has become reversed, so that the message is supposed to say what the outline states. Your goal is to preach a good sermon, not to demonstrate or even deliver your good outline.

(Put some of your points in brackets, lest every five-minute section sound essentially the same!)

Over Qualified Sermons

September 12, 2011September 12, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

As I have written before, one of the hardest things in preaching is choosing what to leave out. And one of the sources of extraneous material is the qualifications we tend to add to every point in the message. You know how it goes: the next point Paul makes is ABC . . . of course, we have to balance this with DEF from Paul’s other letter, and GHI from Peter’s second epistle, and JKL from Proverbs, and MNO from our general experience, and PQR to keep pressure group 1 happy, and STU to avoid criticism from fashionable trend watch group 2, and VWX to touch the pet peeve issue of in-church political group 3, and YZ to… By the time you get through that nobody has a clue what the actual point of the message, or the text, actually was. Over-qualified sermon.

So, here’s a principle (and, ironically, a gentle qualifying follow up):

Principle – Preach the passage with its full force. Allow other passages to be preached another time. Your job is to faithfully and effectively communicate this particular passage with relevance to the listeners. Your job is not to cover every possible qualifying statement and pack so much material around all that you say that the cutting edge is not only dulled, but totally hidden.

Qualifying follow up – Preach the passage with fidelity to the whole canon. This doesn’t mean you have to refer to the whole canon, or even any of the rest of the canon. But you do need to think about whether the point could be misapplied or whether the truth, the gospel, etc., could be misunderstood. Qualify as much as necessary. Often the only thing that needs to be added is a brief statement such as, “what we are saying here doesn’t mean we should never do XYZ, but we’ll talk about that another time. Don’t miss what this passage is saying . . . ”

How do you handle the qualifying issue in your preaching?

Passionless Preacher?

September 8, 2011September 8, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday we talked about passion that can become off-putting. But what about the preachers that are devoid of all passion, preaching sermons as limp as soggy cardboard? If you know one, I’ll leave you to figure out how to get them to read this post. If you know you are one, perhaps this will help.

1. Hear what people are saying, and hear what you are saying. If people are saying your preaching is dull, you need to hear that feedback. Don’t blame them. Don’t ignore them. Hear them. Equally, if you will just listen to yourself, or watch yourself on video, you will see just how bland the sermon presentation actually is. You may say, “Oh no, I am much more passionate than I come across!” Ok, but you don’t come across as passionate, so it is actually irrelevant how passionate you may be on the inside.

2. Is it frozen delivery? It is common for speakers to freeze when presenting to a crowd of people. What feels so fiery on the inside comes out as a restricted vocal range, monotonous tone, limited gestures, solidified facial expression and the natural movement of a broken robot with fading batteries. It may simply be that you need to grow in the area of delivery: not learning to be someone else, but learning to be yourself freely in front of the folks.

3. Is it personal fatigue? Maybe you are preparing half of Saturday night and then skipping breakfast and preaching on empty. Sometimes emergencies occur and we have no choice but to preach on an empty tank. But generally speaking, it isn’t a good idea, or good stewardship of your ministry, to eat poorly, sleep inadequately, exercise rarely and preach in a state of physical breakdown.

4. Is it a loss of vision? Ministry can take its toll. Well-intentioned dragons can sap energy like nothing else, repetition of services with minimal response and maximum negativity from some, overloaded ministry schedule because you are the only person active in ministry in the church, etc. Before long you are struggling to preach with any vision other than getting it done for another week. Not good.

5. Is it eyes unfixed and heart gone cold? Here’s the big one, whether it is true or not. Preaching without passion comes across as if what you are preaching about isn’t really that important. Unbelievers will be put off the gospel and believers will be discouraged. The greatest solution to the greatest problem in passionless preaching is to get your eyes fixed back on Christ and allow the sunshine of God’s grace to bring your heart back to the boil. When we taste and see that the Lord is good, it becomes much harder to preach without passion.

Passion Need Not Put Off

September 7, 2011September 7, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Preaching with a contagious passion for God, His Word, the gospel and the people is a good thing. But we always need to be careful not to let our passion slip into offensive or off-putting communication styles.

Passion that becomes aggressive can offend. We must always be aware of how we are coming across when we preach. What might feel like a passion for the truth on our part can easily become unnecessarily offensive to the listeners. Every word and sentence counts, so be careful not to make a care free assertion that might unnecessarily offend sensitive listeners. Listeners are not always the best at hearing statements in context. Hearers of “quotes” from Sunday’s sermon never really hear those quotes in context.

Passion that becomes “shouty” can be bothersome. So tempting for some personalities to convey their enthusiasm by shouting. It feels powerful and full of conviction at the time, and you can almost guarantee some misleading and positive feedback from some insecure folks who feel they need to say something nice to you afterwards. Getting known as a shouting preacher won’t help you on several levels.

Passion that becomes distracted can be hard to follow. Sometimes our passion for something leads us off on a wild goose chase of anecdotes and illustrations, or a wild safari ride through the canon of Scripture. Let your passion drive your main idea home, not drive your listeners to distraction because they can’t follow you in your distraction.

Passion that becomes too intense can drain. Even if we don’t shout, a certain level of intensity, if maintained consistently, will drain an audience of energy and focus. Give them a break, a chance to breathe, a chance to recalibrate. Intensity turned up a notch or two and left there can become simply too much to take. Not worth it, better that they hear what you’re saying.

Bible Reading Introductions – Part 2

September 5, 2011September 2, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I wrote last time about why I generally prefer not to launch the message with the reading. This is my response to what may be the response of others to that post (ie. I am writing this one at the same time!)

Someone may respond: “But the reason I read the text first is to honour the text and put it in the place of authority, rather than making it my servant for my message.”

Honouring the text and letting the text be the authority. Absolutely great goals that I affirm wholeheartedly. There are a couple of issues with this logic though.

First, this doesn’t overcome or negate the issues raised last time. That is, people may not be focussed, or aware of the relevance of the reading, etc. Just because you put it first, doesn’t mean your reasons for doing so will be achieved. If I have something really important to say to someone, I don’t launch by saying it. I get their attention first. I highlight the importance and relevance of what I’m about to tell them. I don’t want them to miss it. I’m honouring the message I have and underlining its authority by not placing it dead first.

Second, there are multiple means by which we honour the text and its authority, or fail to do so. Placing it first is just one element of the entire mix. I’ve heard many sermons where the text is read first and then dishonoured by being left behind as the preacher goes on to preach his own ideas, or dishonoured by being handled superficially, or dishonoured by being mishandled. I’ve blogged before about people preaching “my message on this text” rather than “the message of this text.” How you handle the text for the entirety of the message is the measure of whether you honour the text, preach the text and appropriately respect the authority of God’s revealed Word. Where you place the reading is no guarantee that your goal of honouring the text will be successful.

Many of us feel constrained by all sorts of “unwritten rules” that guide us in our preaching. Many of these unwritten rules could also be unlearned for the sake of better biblical preaching.

Sharpen the Arrow

August 26, 2011August 24, 2011 / Peter Mead / 7 Comments

I’m pondering the message I am going to preach in a few days. It is one of several required at a conference. I have the subject, which leaves me with almost the whole canon as potential preaching fodder. Now I am sharpening.

The temptation is not to sharpen, but to cram bulk into the message. How many bits of a brilliant Bible can I pack into the message in order to touch on as many good bits as possible? Bad idea. A big and bulky message will not communicate, it will not carry well. It will drop like a lead balloon before it gets to the first row.

Much better to remove bulk and sharpen the arrow. That is, instead of trying to get a lot across, I should try to effectively get the main thing across. Better for people to leave with the main thing firmly embedded in their hearts than with the experience of watching a preacher fail to communicate (and carrying nothing away themselves). This is obvious, but the problem is that it is also painful.

To sharpen the arrow I probably need to lose the content from that part of the Bible, and that part too, oh, and that bit. The only way to sharpen metal is to remove bulk. So by faith, prayer and work I need to sharpen the message so that it will communicate more effectively.