Delivery

A Point on Points

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

As you outline your message you will probably have some points.  My suggestion is to write full sentences that are applicationally/relevantly focused on the listeners (rather than historical/biblical summary statements).

But, you may say, I like to preach the point inductively and arrive at the application toward the end of the point.  Of course, that is the normal approach.  My suggestion should not therefore be dismissed.  Why?

1. Because a brief taste of relevance early in the point will increase the listener’s motivation to listen. You can quickly go back to the text and develop things from there, ending up with a more focused applicational element.  Just like in a message, though, if your point starts historical and takes a while to feel relevant, listeners may not be with you once you get there.

2. Because what you write as your point in your outline does not have to be stated at that point in the message. It is a common fallacy that a sermon has to follow its outline so that every line is said in order.  The “point” can be the target toward which that section of the message progresses.  The advantage of this approach is that you preach with a purpose, rather than starting with a historical summary statement and then expanding that, eventually moving on to the next point after a token attempt at applying the text (sometimes not fully thought through).  In a sense, then, your outline point is your fully thought through main idea of that section of the text.  Whether you state that at the outset, or later on, is up to you (perhaps you can choose a marker in your notes to indicate that this shouldn’t be stated up-front).

3. Because the commentary-like summary statement is lacking on several fronts. As I already stated, it leaves you open to fading away before you arrive at the point of connection between the world of the Bible and the world of your listeners (you may not effectively build the bridge).  Furthermore, a commentary-like summary, or a pithy alliterated heading, is not typically a complete thought.  Better to plan a full sentence since thought is transferred by the speaking of ideas, requiring full sentences.  To preach with sub-headings sounds like a read outline and requires the listener to fill in the rest of the thought.  Generally it is not wise to trust the listener to fill in much of anything in a message (not because of their lack of ability, but because you may not have fully gripped their focus so that they desperately want to do part of your job for you!)

Full sentence, relevant points will make your outlines stronger.  They may not make the best 200 word Christian newspaper outlines, but remember, your goal is to preach a sermon.  Let your editor turn it into written language before you go to print, don’t make your listeners translate in order to understand!

Shop Window Evangelistic Preaching

/ Peter Mead / 5 Comments

Following on from yesterday’s post about making church accessible for non-regulars, I have been pondering what I perceive to be a short-sighted approach to evangelism.

I grew up in a church tradition that had a “gospel service” every Sunday evening.  This was probably a vibrant and dynamic approach decades ago, but by the time I was there it had become somewhat bizarre.  A weekly presentation of the gospel to mostly saved folks, with almost no fruit to speak of.

In various forms, we often seem to fall into this idea that if non-Christians are present, then the sermon has to be primarily or even exclusively a gospel presentation and call for response.  I know some will argue that every sermon should be that, but hear me out.  Every sermon should be good news, but not every sermon has to be exclusively aimed at converting souls.

I see the value in shop window preaching, for want of a much more appropriate label.  This is where we preach to Christians for their edification, but alert to the fact that non-Christians may be looking in.  It seems to me that sometimes non-Christians only ever hear one message until they make some sort of commitment, and then they get hit with this whole array of discipleship and spiritual growth and church life and sanctification and so on and so on.  Why not let them see Christianity in action in our preaching?

I think this kind of exposure to Christians being Christians can be highly effective evangelistically.  Furthermore it means that church can be church rather than evangelistic crusade every single week, yet at the same time be effective in evangelism.  My desire is to make every Sunday morning accessible to believers and visitors alike, and sometimes to be more directly targeted at the visitors.

Something to ponder as we head into another year of church ministry.

Wilberforce on Apathy

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I quoted from Peter Sanlon’s article in Anvil, focusing on Jonathan Edwards.  After looking at Augustine, Richard Sibbes and Edwards, Sanlon finally turns to William Wilberforce.  I have to admit this wouldn’t have been the next figure in church history I would have expected in this tracing of engaging the emotions in ministry.  Nevertheless, it is very helpful indeed.

He notes Wilberforce’s book title, “A Practical View of the prevailing religious system of professed Christians in the higher and middle classes in this country contrasted with real Christianity.”  Let me quote from the article, including a quotation from Wilberforce.

___

“Wilberforce saw that the main reason for his difficulty in abolishing slavery lay in the apathy of people to others’ suffering.  He perceived that the only solution lay in genuine Christianity which engaged the emotions in their God-designed role of making a person feel as he or she ought to feel.  Only if approached in this way could people be moved to action.

“Wilberforce’s critique of unemotional and apathetic Christianity remains penetrating.  He noted that a ‘hot zeal for orthodoxy’ was not the same thing as genuine internalised acceptance of the gospel.  He warned that what people paraded externally as ‘charity’ could often be ‘nothing other than indifference.’ Wilberforce suggested that in the case of many who had been ‘converted’:

Their hearts are no more than before supremely set on the great work of their salvation, but are chiefly bent upon increasing their fortunes, or raising their families.  Meanwhile they content themselves on having amended from vices, which they are no longer strongly tempted to commit.

“In all of this searching critique, Wilberforce laid the majority of the blame at the door of ministers who failed to engage with people at the level of their emotions, claiming that most Christian preaching spoke of ‘general Christianity’ rather than bringing to the surface ‘the workings of the heart.’

. . . “Much of the preaching which Wilberforce heard and rejected as less than full-orbed evangelical proclamation could be summed up in the phrase, ‘accurate, but apathetic.'”

___

I suspect that Sanlon’s comments, built on Wilberforce’s significant ministry (not as a minister of the gospel, but as a politician), might be highly relevant to us today.  How much do we see a zealous orthodoxy shot through with a reprehensible apathy today?  Let’s examine our own hearts on this, and then preach to the hearts of others.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

From Peter Sanlon’s article, “Bringing Emotions to the Surface in Ministry,” in Anvil, vol.26, nos. 3&4, 2009, p239-240.

Edwards on Evangelism

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I very much enjoyed an article in the Anvil journal by Peter Sanlon.  Let me quote three paragraphs, where the middle one is a quote from Jonathan Edwards –

The primacy of the affections has implications for our ministries.  We should see that prayer, sacraments, singing and preaching are all given by God ‘to excite and express religious affections.’ Perhaps one of the areas of ministry where we understandably, but erroneously, fail to appreciate the primacy of the affections, is evangelism.  It makes sense intellectually that an unbeliever needs to understand that of which they were previously ignorant.  This is indeed necessary (Rom.10:14) but Edwards would affirm that the main point of spiritual work in conversion is in the affections.  To engage in mission which takes seriously the primacy of the affections would involve a radical overhaul of our present day reliance on programmes, courses and rational explanations:

There is a difference between having an opinion that God is holy and gracious, and having a sense of that holiness and grace.  There is a difference between have a rational judgment that honey is sweet, and having a sense of its sweetness.  A man may have the former, that knows not how honey tastes.

A compelling case could be made that much evangelical ministry today is geared at giving people an opinion and rational judgment about God which falls far short of the sense of sweetness Edwards encouraged people to taste.  In a time when people are starving for lack of the pleasure of tasting the sweetness of God, we should not denigrate emotions but rather seek to stir up any emotion which tends towards inculcating the emotional heart-felt plea, ‘Jesus, Master, have mercy on us’ (Luke 17:13). We must do this in evangelism, because, ‘the way to draw men and women into Christ’s kingdom, Edwards believed, was through his listeners’ affections.’

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

From Peter Sanlon’s article, “Bringing Emotions to the Surface in Ministry,” in Anvil, vol.26, nos. 3&4, 2009, p238.

Chrysostom on Applause

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Way way back many centuries ago, not long after the Bible ended, there was a famous preacher called Chrysostom.  I thought I’d share a bit of his thinking today.  He’s reflecting on the tension created by the applause that was culturally part of the public speaking event, and had come into the church too:

There are many preachers who make long sermons: if they are well applauded, they are as glad as if they had obtained a kingdom: if they bring their sermon to an end in silence, their despondency is worse, I may almost say, than hell.  It is this that ruins churches, that you do not seek to hear sermons that touch the heart, but sermons that will delight your ears with their intonation and the structure of their phrases, just as if you were listening to singers and lute-players.

Then he offers a helpful simile to show the dangerous temptations facing preachers (still today, I would say):

We act like a father who gives a sick child a cake or an ice, or something else that is merely nice to eat – just because he asks for it; and takes no pains to give him what is good for him; and then when the doctors blame him says, ‘I could not bear to hear my child cry.’ . . . . That is what we do when we elaborate beautiful sentences, fine combinations and harmonies, to please and not to profit, to be admired and not to instruct, to delight and not to touch you, to go away with your applause in our ears, and not to better your conduct.

Finally, he gives a vulnerable and honest insight into the inner struggle he faced as a preacher.  Let’s face it, the flesh is a potent feature in every preacher’s experience.

Believe me, I am not speaking at random: when you applaud me as I speak, I feel at the moment as it is natural for a man to feel.  I will make a clean breast of it.  Why should I not?  I am delighted and overjoyed.  And then when I go home and reflect that the people who have been applauding me have received no benefit, and indeed that whatever benefit they might have had has been killed by the applause and praises, I am sore at heart, and I lament and fall to tears, and I feel as though I had spoken altogether in vain, and I say to myself, What is the good of all your labours, seeing that your hearers don’t want to reap any fruit out of all that you say? And I have often thought of laying down a rule absolutely prohibiting all applause, and urging you to listen in silence.

Most of our churches don’t have applause breaking out mid-sermon.  But we still have the flesh!

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
This quote taken from S. Chrys. Hom. xxx. In Act. Apost. c. 3, vol.ix. 238., quoted by Edwin Hatch in The influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, 1897, p111.

Thermometer Reading

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I wrote using the notion of a thermal imaging view of the Scriptures. At the risk of overuse, I’d like to turn that thermal camera in another direction. What would people see if they saw a thermal image of you preaching?

1. Warmth of the Person. I sat through a message recently where I got the distinct impression that the preacher was cold. He wasn’t shivering. But he never smiled, not once in an hour long service. He didn’t seem warm toward us the listeners, or toward the message he preached (and consequently, even if it is uncomfortable to say it, he didn’t seem warm toward God). I recognize that different preachers have different temperaments and styles of presentation, but I suspect that subconsciously others felt the same cool temperature from the pulpit. I doubt anyone would have ever said that of Jesus’ preaching, and it is Him that we preach and represent.

2. Warmth of the Message. The content of the message says a lot about the focus of the preacher. For instance, what about the preacher I heard a while back who seemed passionate about declaring the sins of certain people in Bible times (and by implicit association, of us too). The strange thing is that the passage being preached was not pure judgment, but judgment that led into the saving work of God’s Redeemer. What was strange about that? Well, the fact that the good news climax of the passage felt like a passing reference in the conclusion of the message. Why would a preacher focus so heavily on judgment and almost miss the glorious climax of the passage? The content decisions of the preacher say a lot about the preacher . . . and go a long way to determining the temperature radiating from the front as we preach.

As you prepare to preach your next message, is your message radiating the glow of a loving and living God? As you step up to preach your next message, is your heart prayerfully prayed full so that you yourself radiate that same glow?

Since a Spoken Message is the Goal

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

If you are a normal preacher then your goal is a spoken message (I know, your goal is really to please God, to see lives transformed, etc., but stay with me for now).  Your goal is probably not to publish your manuscript in a national newspaper, or to collate your manuscript into an anthology for publication, or to edit your manuscript for a preaching journal.  Normal preachers normally just preach the sermon.  (Actually, it is tempting to long for a team of secretaries, personal assistants and editors who will whisk a sermon away and process it into publishable form . . . anyone volunteering time and skill in this area is always welcome, by the way!) So, if normal preachers just preach the sermon, what does this mean?

For one thing, it means that we shouldn’t feel obligated to do all our preparation on paper or word processor.  While we are taught to write and outline and indent and manuscript, perhaps we would benefit from sometimes choosing to speak, record, dictate and map.  Some advocate for a full move over to oral sermon mapping – a move I am not opposed to and may explore more on here in the coming weeks.  But even without abandoning our pens and word processors, we can still benefit from recognizing the potential benefits of greater coherence between preparation and delivery.

There are times in my preparation when I get stuck.  Not confused stuck (although that happens too).  Not uncertain of homiletics stuck (although that also happens).  Stuck, as in, I’m not sure what to do next stuck, I feel like I have a log-jam in my mind stuck.  Maybe your preparations always flow easily and smoothly from beginning to end.  Mine don’t.

I find it very helpful when I do get stuck to step away from the computer (yes, apparently Spurgeon didn’t even have one!), clear my throat, and speak.  Sometimes something that makes sense on paper doesn’t work when spoken.  Equally there are times when things aren’t working on paper, but speaking them through seems to unstick the stuckness.  Sometimes I pray through a message or section of it.  Other times I pray and then preach through as if to human listeners.  Sometimes I will pick up the phone and talk through the logic of the message with someone.  Whether it is in prayer or with prayer, to an imaginary audience or with a responding human, talking seems to help unstick the stuck when preparing a talk.  Funny that.

Exegetical Preaching? Yes and No.

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Some people like exegetical preaching.  Some people don’t.  Most would express an opinion one way or the other.  But actually, what is exegetical preaching?

Do we mean preaching that is based on sound exegesis? If we do, then that should be true of all preaching.  While I know it certainly isn’t true of all preaching, it really should be.  Whether the sermon is a walk-through explanation of a passage, or a topical presentation of several passages, or a carefully constructed character portrait, or a first-person presentation, or an overview of a Bible book or section, or whatever . . . it should be based on exegesis.

Exegesis is about drawing out the meaning that is in a text.  Eisegesis is about reading into a text the meaning you want to impose on it.  Sad to say there is a lot of eisegetical preaching around these days (probably always has been).  Nevertheless, there really isn’t a category of biblical preaching that is somehow good and helpful, but isn’t exegetical.  Whether you are looking at five verses, four separate verses, three chapters or two whole testaments . . . the work underlying the message should be exegetical.  There is no other legitimate way.

Do we mean preaching that meticulously shows every aspect of the exegetical study underlying the message? This is a different matter.  This is a strategy decision on the part of the preacher.  It need not be a once for all decision.  It is strategy.  Is it helpful for me to show some of my work in how I preach this passage to these people on this occasion?  Perhaps letting some of the exegetical work show will demonstrate where I’m getting my message from?  Perhaps letting some show will demonstrate how to handle Scriptures?  Perhaps this is an audience that appreciates a bit of that kind of background?

(But remember, it is always possible to let too much exegetical work show – perhaps drawing attention to your skill and knowledge, or overwhelming the listener, or manipulating the evidence to demonstrate certainty where that is not appropriate, etc.  Some of your exegetical work should probably always remain hidden, not least because you don’t have hours to preach, but also because some aspects are seldom if ever helpful.  People need the fruit of your study, and sometimes they will benefit from seeing some of how you harvested that fruit.)

Exegetical preaching?  The work underlying the message – absolutely yes.  The style of presentation – maybe a bit, maybe no.

Finishing Strong

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday I offered five examples of how to finish weakly as your sermon finishes weekly.  Let’s ponder what makes a conclusion strong:

Elements required in a conclusion – sometimes it is helpful to review the flow of the message, usually it is worth reviewing the main idea and intended applications of the message.  The conclusion is a great opportunity to encourage response to and application of the message.  The conclusion has to include, at some point, the phenomena known as stopping.  Review, encourage, stop.

Elements not required in a conclusion – standard teaching it may be, but worth mentioning nonetheless: generally it is not helpful to introduce new information during the conclusion.  A concluding story?  Maybe that’s ok.  But don’t suddenly throw in a new piece of exegetical insight into the preaching passage, or rush off to another passage for one last bit of sight-seeing.

Finishing the journey – as someone who has flown once or twice, let me continue with the airplane analogy since there are several thoughts that can be shared here.  Passengers who have had a great journey with a bad landing will leave with their focus entirely on the bad landing.  Passengers want the pilot to know where he is going and to take them straight there.  They don’t particularly want the pilot to finish a normal journey with a historic televised adrenaline landing.  Passengers like a smooth landing, but they’ll generally take a slight bump over repeated attempts to find the perfect one.  Once landed, extended taxi-ing is not appreciated.  A good landing that takes you by surprise always seems to have a pleasant effect.

Haddon’s Runway – one approach that I particularly appreciate and find hard to emulate, is Haddon Robinson’s oft-used approach.  It is evident after most Haddon sermons that he carefully planned his final sentence.  He flies the plane until he gets there and then quite naturally the plane lands on that landing strip of just ten to fifteen words and the journey is over.  Smooth, apparently effortless, immensely effective.  As he teaches in class, much better to finish two sentences before listeners think you should than two sentences after!

Tomorrow we’ll consider the post-sermon elements of the service, since these also have an effect on the journey.

Finishing Weak – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday I started a series of four posts on sermon conclusions with a list of weak finishes.  Mike Doyle added a comment with several more examples that were so helpful I decided to include them today and make this a five-part series. I hope nobody minds two negative lists in a row (if you simply invert what is said in these lists, you already have two positive lists in respect to sermon conclusions!)

6. The “Machine Gun” Finish – wildly fire off a hundred different applications in the final minute in the hope of hitting something – no depth, very shallow, badly aimed, rarely hits the target, and often has nothing to do with the passage.

7. The “Salvation by Works” Finish – after preaching the wonders of God’s grace in Jesus Christ – undermine that grace by throwing doubt on the their own salvation because of their sin or not doing the application you suggest.

8. The “Left Field” Finish – where the conclusion and/or application has very little to do with the passage, your sermon, or anything else.

9. The “Not Again” Finish – where (for some funny reason) the conclusion is the same as every other conclusion you’ve given for the last 3 years – it also happens to be your hobby horse, and is often one of pray more, give more, evangelise more, read the bible more and come to church more.

Thanks, Mike, for adding these to the list – very helpful!

If I could just add some more to the growing list, what about…

10. The “Gospel out of Nowhere” Finish – where the preacher feels the absence of the gospel in the message and so levers it in at the conclusion without any sense of connection to what has gone before.  (To a thinking listener, this may feel a little forced and intellectually inconsistent.)

11. The “Tear Jerker” Finish – which is similar to the “overly climactic” one listed yesterday, but this is where the speaker seeks to cement emotional response by throwing in a random and largely disconnected tear jerker of a story (perhaps involving a child, an animal, a death, or whatever).  Strapped to this emotional bomb, the preacher hopes the truth of the message will strike home (even though in reality the truth will probably be smothered in the disconnected emotion of the anecdote).