Delivery

I Mean, Just, Really

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

It’s been a while since I mentioned verbal pauses, so why not?  A verbal pause is a space filler.  It isn’t a productive and healthy pause – that requires space and silence.  It is a filler.  It keeps anyone from hearing the silence that scares some public speakers and threatens some domineering monological conversationalists (i.e. the type that don’t want to give you the chance to participate, lest they have to be quiet).  In preaching the verbal pause is typically prompted by nervousness or habit.  It can be controlled, or even eliminated.

The Noise Verbal Pause. This may feel less common, but equally it may be that we are tuning out the disfluencies more.  Gaps are filled with an elongated letter, sometimes determined by the national origin or local accent of the speaker.  Most speakers have moved beyond the child-like “ummmm” but may still deploy the odd “uhhhhhh” or extended “eyyyyy.”

The Out of Context Word Verbal Pause. The big one in recent years has been the “like” used in place of emphasis, introduction of quoted speech, description of emotional reaction, etc.  Some people string together “and” after “and.”  “So” can easily become a bridge word overcoming all full stops in spoken English.  “I mean” can punctuate many a spoken paragraph.  And you don’t have to choose a common one, you may have a unique one that is just you (ask someone honest and you’ll soon find out which word has a disproportionate usage in your vocabulary).

The Under-Vocab’ed Over-Emphasis Verbal Pause. This is where no adjective quite manages to describe and emphasise what is about to be said enough, so the speaker (or pray-er) resorts to repeating with emphasis such bland words as “Just” and “Really” and sometimes, again in prayer, “just really” or even sometimes “just really just” . . . focus and intensity.  Oh, and verbal pausing in a certain respect.

The Connecting With Listener Annoyingly Verbal Pause. In full this might look like a “you know what I mean?” but often will get shortened to a “y’know” punctuating the presentation of propositional statements.  Other variations include “you with me?” or “got it?” or “does that make sense?”

Verbal pauses are distracting in spoken communication. They often make you sound less intelligent or clear. They typically will muddle the message you’re trying to convey. Verbal pauses are really noise, not communication. As speakers committed to handling a very important message well, we must seek to reduce them and be as effective as possible.

Preacher, Use Strategy

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I typically teach with reference to the arrow and the target (i.e. the main idea and the message purpose respectively).  In order to deliver the arrow to hit the target, strategy is necessary.  This might mean preaching in the clear and logical manner of a deductive message, or it might choosing the slightly trickier, but when effective, very effective, inductive message.  A preacher needs to think through how to preach the text as effectively as possible.  This is strategy.

It encourages me to see this type of language used by Spurgeon.  Let’s taste a bit of that:

Again, brethren, if you wish to see souls saved, we must be wise as to the times when we address the unconverted.  Very little common sense is spent over this matter.  Under certain e there is a set time for speaking to sinners, and this comes as regularly as the hour of noon. . . . Why should the warning word be alway at the hinder end of the discourse when hearers are most likely to be weary? . . . When their interest is excited, and they are least upon the defensive, then let fly a shaft at the careless, and it will frequently be more effectual than a whole flight of arrows shot against them at a time when they are thoroughly encased in armor of proof.  Surprise is a great element in gaining attention and fixing a remark upon the memory, and times for addressing the careless should be chosen with an eye to that fact.

Spurgeon here raises an interesting thought.  Not only should strategy influence our choice of sermon shape and content, it should also influence our decision about timing and target within the group who are listening.  I know I tend to address the unsaved near the end.  Why?  I’ve been impressed with Andy Stanley’s direct approach in introductions on several occasions.

When will you target the unsaved this Sunday?  What about the saved by lethargic?  The excited and passionate?  The naturally skeptical?  The comfortable?  We often think through messages from all angles of the text, but why not think through all angles of those listening.  There is diversity there, a good military campaign would think through that variety.  So would a sporting gameplan.  Why not in the most important battle of all?

Share

Sermon Speaker Service Leader?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Different church traditions handle services differently.  Some have a worship leader (or in some more formal settings, perhaps a chairperson).  Others expect the preacher to lead the service.  If you fall into the latter category, some thoughts:

1. Being a gifted preacher doesn’t mean every public speaking activity is therefore covered in one person. The preacher may not be the best person to introduce and lead songs, or to give weekly announcements (a very tricky thing to do well), or to give a thought for the children (if your tradition includes such a thing), or offer a lengthy pastoral prayer, etc.  I am not a huge fan of getting people up front just to give them the experience, I like to see things done well (especially in a larger church), but why not put in the effort and resources to a team of service leaders / children’s talk givers / announcement makers, etc.?

2. The preacher may be a better preacher if they can focus on that. The time before preaching can be a good time to prayerfully consider the message and the listeners.  The introduction can strike a chord more effectively if that voice hasn’t already been up front for the whole service.

3. The preacher may or may not be a good person to input into the content of the rest of the service. Some preachers love to craft song sets to set up the sermon.  Others just pick their favourite four or five songs whether they fit or not.  One size doesn’t fit all.

Sometimes I lead the service, sometimes I don’t.  There are advantages both ways.  One advantage of having a speaker lead the service in a multi-speaker church is variety (but this might be better achieved through resourcing a service leading team).  One advantage of having a speaker not lead the service in a single-preacher church is variety.  But the greatest goal is not variety, it should be quality . . . honouring the Lord with the best service possible, and engaging the people in the most effective way possible.

Share

Sermon and Song

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

How does the sermon relate to the singing elements of the service?  Here are a few thoughts:

Singing is not the warm-up. In some circles the singing elements of the service seem to function essentially as a warm-up before the main event, which is the preaching.  While I don’t deny the centrality of the Word in the protestant faith, I don’t think the musical element of church life needs to be disparaged either.  The Christian faith is a revelation based faith, and it is a singing faith.  Churches do well to give their best musically, as well as in preaching, and in reality this requires different parts of the body to be functioning in their respective areas of gifting and passion.

Singing doesn’t have to just come first. In some settings it is traditional to have a period of singing, interspersed with prayer and sometimes notices (how to not overdo notices or kill the atmosphere is worthy of a blog in its own right!).  This is then typically followed by the sermon at the end, perhaps with a song to finish.  Some messages seem to set up the opportunity to respond in song, so sometimes it may be good to bring the message earlier and have musical response.

Singing isn’t always a good idea at the end. Sometimes the sermon ends, there’s a prayer, a sense of quiet, and then the leader flicks the switch and introduces a song.  The closing song can be so powerful, or so counterproductive.  If the song switches people out of Bible and faith mode into normal world again, then perhaps it would be better to omit it.  The message of God’s Word, the stirring of faith, the gaze on Christ, etc., should all continue on into the week ahead, not stop abruptly with the singing of a closing song.

Tomorrow I’ll offer a few more thoughts on sermon and song . . .

Share

Should Bible Text Be Projected?

/ Peter Mead / 6 Comments

This is the kind of question that can easily become a strongly held conviction.  But should it?

Well, people do benefit from seeing the text, and seeing it in the same translation as the speaker, and without the hassles, distraction, or potential embarressment of having to look it up in their own Bible, which of course, they may not have.

On the other hand, people who don’t need to bring their Bibles to church, won’t bring their Bibles to church, and won’t develop the ability to look up references, nor to see passages in their contexts – instead getting used to the idea that verses stand alone in picturesque vacuums.

Some will offer a compromise.  The main text will not be projected, but the cross-references will be projected so folks can keep their finger on the main preaching text and not get caught up or discouraged in a melee of sword drills throughout the message (which, as a passing comment, I would suggest is not that helpful most of the time, even if folks can keep up).

So what to do?  My suggestion is to be a bit situational.  What kind of church is it?  What kind of service?  In an evangelistic service perhaps it is worth it to avoid any embarressment or discomfort, but in a Bible study for believers surely they would benefit from having a finger on the text in its context?  What kind of sermon?  Perhaps a special event is not conducive to people carrying Bibles.

Some have a tendency to make every matter one of strong conviction.  This tends to dilute the effectiveness of such convictions.  Don’t allow the deity of Christ, the relationality of our Triune God, the inspired nature and centrality of Scripture, the exclusivity of faith (not faith-plus), the importance of an expository philosophical commitment in preaching, etc. . . . don’t allow important convictions like these to get lost in a sea of passionate commitments to which version of the Bible people should use, or what people should wear to church, or to preach, or whether the south Galatia view trumps the north Galatia view, or whether believers should drink alcohol, or how long a sermon should last, or whether the Bible text should or shouldn’t be projected.

As preachers, even as believers, we have to form opinions about many things.  But let’s reserve the passion of convictions for that which really counts.  Should Bible texts be projected?  Maybe.  Sometimes.

Share

What Adjectives?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

When you preach, what adjectives best describe your manner, tone and style?  Perhaps you tend to preach in a relaxed manner, or intense, or aggressive, or rushed, or tense, or lighthearted, or calm, or nervous.  Some adjectives are probably to be preferred over others – is there really a place for a preacher to come across as silly, or nervous, or rude, probably not.  But here are a couple of adjectival questions to ponder:

1. Would the adjective vary from sermon to sermon? People drawn to your humour, or passion, or aggression, or confidence, or hesitancy, or gentleness, or whatever, may find that same aspect of your preaching to be off-putting eventually if every sermon experience is the same.  Consider whether your preaching is overly influenced by your personal style, rather than responding to the text, the audience and the situation as it should in good communication.

2. Would a different adjective describe the same feature from another listener’s perspective? While one person may find your preaching engaging and humourous, another might offer the descriptive couplet of offensive and trivial.  Be careful not to fool yourself into thinking your style is pleasing to all, appropriate in every situation and thoroughly effective.  Gentle and calm?  Or tedious and soporific?  Passionate?  Or rude?  Orderly?  Or monotonous and predictable?  This should keep us on our toes, and on our knees, if that be possible (since prayer should saturate our delivery and reception of the message as well as the content of the message).

How would you describe your preaching?  How would your listeners?  When did you last ask one or two?  Were they free to answer honestly?

Pre-Sermon Review – A Strange Idea?

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

I don’t know of many churches that require it, but I do see many that should consider it. Too often we leave the preacher in a very lonely spot as far as preaching is concerned.  The sermon is prepared and delivered, and then everyone gets to think and evaluate and critique and respond and so on.  But it is too late if something is omitted that is vital, or included that is misleading, or misspoken that is heretical.

I know of one church that requires whichever staff member is preaching to present their sermon outline and content at a breakfast meeting a couple of days before delivery.  It allows for interaction, input, critique, and all that before it does any damage, or misses an opportunity, with the gathered folks on the Sunday.

If your church has a “staff” that are paid to work together during the week, this should be a no-brainer.  But for the many more churches where the workers work elsewhere during the week, the decision to bring a few together ahead of the Sunday is a big decision.  But if we believe in the importance of preaching the Word, then surely it is a decision worth considering seriously.

Preaching is about relationship.  It is about communication.  God’s Word to humanity presented by a human in the power of the Spirit that collectively and individually we might have the opportunity to respond to Him, both for salvation and for spiritual growth.  Preaching involves relationship between speaker and listeners (a good speaker knows it is not mere monologue, irrespective of whether they choose to have verbal participation from the listeners).  Preaching is relational, but we so easily make preaching a solo exercise.  Doesn’t really make sense.

They Can’t Concentrate That Long!

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

I’d like to return to something that has been addressed on here before.  The idea that people now have a reduced attention span of fifteen to twenty minutes (insert similar number of your choice).  This is a myth.  Urban legend.  Fallacy.

People have never had a concentration span that long.  Good speakers know that people will stay with you for a few minutes.  Then if you engage them as listeners in some way, for another few minutes.  Then if you engage them again, for another few minutes.  3-5 minutes is probably the attention span of listeners today, as it was yesterday and fifty years before that.  Good speakers can hold (or regain) attention, bad speakers never could.

People can concentrate as well as ever.  I was chatting with a good friend this morning and he mentioned how young people will focus 100% for five hours without a break on a video game.  Movies are actually getting longer.  Some of the popular speakers today speak with good meaty content for 40 minutes to an hour (and the younger generation flock to hear them).  If something is worth hearing, and if the presentation is engaging, then length of presentation is not the issue many make it out to be.

So what to do about it?  In simple terms, preach well.  Better content and better delivery will have people listening better.  Gimmicks won’t.  Using visual multimedia won’t improve concentration.  Dividing a forty minute message into two twenty minute sections won’t improve concentration.  Giving people a pen and paper won’t improve concentration.  There may be a place for all of these ideas and many more, but they won’t fix the problem of inattentive listeners.  That will be fixed by better messages and better presentation.

Love People To Jesus

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Lacking motivation for anything productive (post-preaching experience, anyone?), I decided to dip into Thielicke’s Encounter with Spurgeon again.  Guess how many paragraphs I had to read before being ready to offer another post (and that largely by quotation)?  One.  Check this out:

“Among the important elements in the promotion of conversion are your own tone, temper, and spirit in preaching. If you preach the truth in a dull, monotonous style, God may bless it, but in all probability he will not; at any rate the tendency of such a style is not to promote attention, but to hinder it.  It is not often that sinners are awakened by ministers who are themselves asleep.  A hard, unfeeling mode of speech is also to be avoided; want of tenderness is a sad lack, and repels rather than attracts.  The spirit of Elijah may startle, and where it is exceedingly intense it may go far to prepare for the reception of the gospel; but for actual conversion more of John is needed – love is the winning force.  We must love men to Jesus.  Great hearts are the main qualifications for great preachers, and we must cultivate our affections to that end.  At the same time our manner must not degenerate into the soft and saccharine cant which some men affect who are forever “dearing” everybody, and fawning upon people as if they hoped to soft-sawder them into godliness.  Manly persons are disgusted, and suspect hypocrisy when they hear a preacher talking molasses.  Let us be bold and outspoken, and never address our hearers as if we were asking a favor of them, or as if they would oblige the Redeemer by allowing him to save them.  We are bound to be lowly, but our office as ambassadors should prevent our servile . . .”

Back to me again.  Rather than repeating some of the gems in that paragraph, I have to ask why so many today are so quick to think only in black and white terms, to fail to differentiate within categories.  If you speak of the importance of love, then you are tarred with the same brush as the “dearing” crowd mentioned above.  If you mention the importance of tone, then you are sometimes considered a performance focused homiletician who doesn’t care about content.  Let’s be bold and outspoken, proclaiming the gospel with great hearts for God, never talking the molasses that disgusts the manly, but loving people to Jesus.

Preaching to Youth

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

I received an email from Peter who was asking about preaching to youth.  Now I don’t know the setting of that message, the age of the youth, their culture, etc.  So my response has to be non-specific, and honestly, more focused on my cultures (US/UK).  Nevertheless, here are some thoughts, perhaps you could add others:

1. Be engaging,  don’t be silly.  Some people think youth can’t concentrate or don’t want meat, so they just act silly and try to entertain.  Youth are very capable of concentrating and value good quality content.  But if it is boring (as with adults), they will disengage.  So engage rather than entertain (although if you are humorous then don’t be afraid to use it).

2. This generation values meat.  When I think of who the popular  speakers are today among the younger generation, the names that come to mind are not entertainers.  Notice how younger folks flock to hear people like Tim Keller, John Piper, Mark Driscoll, DA Carson . . . which proves that the younger generation are not lightweight.

3. Recognize that you are speaking cross-culturally. You may be only 15 years older than them, and from the same place, but you are effectively preaching to a different culture.  It is good to think about their worldview, their values, their language, etc.  Don’t try to be one of them (too many try to act like a youth and have no credibility as a result), but do try to know who you are speaking to.

4. Don’t be longer than necessary, but know that concentration spans are as short as ever. That is to say, don’t think 15 or 20 or 30 minutes is the key.  The key is 3-5 minutes.  You can preach for an hour in some settings, but actually that has to be a series of 3-5 minute sections that grab and retain attention.

5. The younger generation value authenticity more than previous generations. Don’t make yourself out to be a total idiot, but do be real with your own struggles and life.  They don’t value polished rhetoric and a pulpit persona, they do value genuine and authentic communication from the heart and the head, to the heart and the head.