Delivery

Of Inner Screens and Communion Closets

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Some more of Thielicke on Spurgeon:

When Spurgeon speaks, it is as if the figures of the patriarchs and prophets and apostles were in the auditorium – sitting upon a raised tribune! – looking down upon the listeners.  You hear the rush of the Jordan and the murmuring of the brooks of Siloam; you see the cedars of Lebanon swaying in the wind, hear the clash and tumult of battle between the children of Israel and the Philistines, sense the safety and security of Noah’s ark, suffer the agonies of soul endured by Job and Jeremiah, hear the creak of oars as the disciples strain against the contrary winds, and feel the dread of the terrors of the apocalypse.  The Bible is so close that you not only hear its messages but breathe its very atmosphere.  The heart is so full of Scripture that it leavens the consciousness, peoples the imagination with its images, and determines the landscape of the soul by its climate.  And because it has what might be called a total presence, the Bible as the Word of God is really concentrated life that enters every pore and teaches us not only to see and hear but also to taste and smell the wealth of reality that is spread out before us here.

Those who listened to these lectures of Spurgeon lived . . . in the atmosphere of the Bible.  They no longer needed to be exhorted to take the Bible seriously; it penetrated into what the psychologists call the “image level” of their unconscious.  Even the admonition to prayer was hardly needed, for the words that reached the hearer were spoken by one who himself had come out of the stillness of eternal communion with God, and what he said to the hearer had first been talked about with the Father in heaven.(v9)

Vivid preaching that reaches deeper than mere words ever could, aiming to transform the listener at every level of the heart, soul, spirit; penetrating to the screen in the inner man, so the vivid and striking reality of Scripture is lived even in the hearing, all coming from one who is personally intimate with the God whose Word he preaches.  It can’t get much better than that!

What Are You Trying To Say?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I made a passing reference to Speech Act Theory.  This communications theory recognizes that in speech, something greater than information transfer is occurring.  Once you get into the literature (either secular communications studies by folks like Austin and then Searle, or in some hermeneutics writings by Kevin Vanhoozer, for instance), you will meet terms like locution, illocution and perlocution.  Locution roughly equates to the words themselves, as traditionally used.  Illocution refers to the force and intent of a speech act.  Perlocution equates to what is brought about in the listener.

Speech Act Theory tends to focus primarily on the illocutionary aspects of speech communication – the force or intent, what you are trying to do by what you say.  So let’s linger there for a post and allow the terms they use to prompt our thinking about what we intend to do when we communicate.    Remember, at every point in a sermon, you are trying to achieve something by your communication.  What are you trying to achieve?  Haddon Robinson teaches that the only ways to develop an idea are to explain it, prove it, or apply it.  This simple observation has profound impact on our hermeneutics (what was the author seeking to do), and on our message preparation (what am I trying to achieve in this section, in this “illustration,” etc.)

In a similar way, let’s look at the five main categories Searle offered in respect to illocutionary intent:

1. Assertives: statements that  commit a speaker to the truth of an expressed proposition. As preachers we have a privileged duty to assert the truth, reality as it really is from God’s perspective.

2. Directives: statements that attempt to cause the hearer to take a particular action.   Again, as preachers there are times when we seek to be directive in our communication, that we all might be doers and not hearers only.

3. Commissives: statements which commit the speaker to a course of action as described by the propositional content (in what is said). Perhaps a smaller element in most preaching, but as the speaker, and certainly as a leader, we will sometimes commit ourselves to something by what we say.

4. Expressives: statements that express the “sincerity condition of the speech act”. That is to say, these express the speaker’s attitudes and emotions toward what is said.  Surely there is a place for this in preaching, lest we be impassible in our communication, even though God wasn’t in His (in Scripture).  Where to express our attitude and emotion in a message, and how, is worthy of our thoughtful consideration.

5. Declaratives: statements that attempt to change the world by “representing it as having been changed”. Perhaps more for moments like baptism and marriage, when reality is actually changed by what is said, but worth considering in respect to our preaching.  (Perhaps in a negative sense, when do we seek to speak declaratively when reality has not actually been changed?  Some prayer is spoken in declaratives, which borders on presumption in some cases!)

Long words, sometimes complicated definitions.  But some of us wouldn’t be hurt as communicators to think through, using these categories, what we’re intending to do when we open our mouths to preach.

Personality Excuses

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Phillips Brooks once famously defined preaching as “Truth through personality.”  Today the word “personality” is sometimes used in a more restrictive sense to refer to the quirks of an individual.  “Oh, that’s just his personality” we sometimes say.  Now when it comes to preaching, there is a potential tension that can surface.  The tension is between personality and communication.  That is to say,  the quirks of a personality that might be excused by some, versus the effect created in the listener in a communication event.

Let me try to be more clear: when we communicate, we effect (and affect) the listeners.  This is more than just transferring information (although for some preachers that does seem to be the only real goal, and could probably  be achieved more effectively by simply producing a handout).  So our effect is more than just information transfer.  It also includes intended emotional affects, and unintended by-products.  (If you have any familiarity with Speech-Act Theory, then what I am referring to is unintended perlocutionary elements of speech.)

So, is personality a good excuse for unintended negative by-products in our preaching?  I would suggest not.  Even if some present would excuse an element of your message, the effect or affect on those unaware of that excuse is still very real.  You wouldn’t want the possibility of visitors being in church to be considered a risk by those that know you, would you?

What kind of quirks am I referring to? Well, for instance, cutting or inappropriate, or even just ineffective, humour.  Or a patronising and condescending manner.  Or apparent pride.  Or distracting verbal (or physical) habits.  Or excessive and unrelenting pace.  Or whatever . . . anything that undermines the communication.  And sometimes many of these quirks might only show for a few seconds in an entire message, but that can be enough to do the damage.

So instead of excusing personality, what? In a small enough group where everyone knows everyone, such things will generally be excused (though not as completely as we might think).  With a larger group, or with outsiders present, the negative effects of such quirks can really undermine the whole ministry.  So what to do?  I suppose in simple terms we need to find out what those quirks are and deal with them.  Perhaps you should print this post and give it to someone, asking them to be honest with you.  Not easy, but important.

Bonus: They Can’t See Your Notes

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I’ve posted a couple of posts about the fact that listeners can’t see your notes.  This fact does create a burden or two on you, the preacher, but there are positives too.

1. They don’t know what you missed. This may be for the sake of time, or because your eyes skipped, or because of a memory failure (although if you are preaching without notes, then you should know that a good clear message will remember itself).

2. They don’t know when you changed order. On purpose or accidentally, it is often perfectly acceptable to change the order of a message.

3. They don’t know when you adjusted your message. You don’t need to apologize for what you haven’t included, what you’ve omitted or what you would have liked to have covered.  They don’t know how your message has adjusted from what was planned or what was possible.

What difference does all this make?  Well, for one thing, it means that you shouldn’t feel obligated to stick exactly to an outline you prepared earlier.  Sometimes a message needs to flex in light of circumstances, people present, mood of service, etc.  (I could make the point here that if you’re using a powerpointed outline or a handout, then you are forced to stick with it, but I won’t make that point here.)

One big thought should linger in our minds as we prepare to preach.  We may look at our notes (on paper, or mentally), but our listeners are looking at us.  Are we engaged with them?  Do we smile?  Do we make eye-contact?  How about body language?  All of these things, and so much more, push me toward suggesting that they can’t see our notes and it is probably better if we can’t see our notes either.  But I won’t make that point now, either.

They can’t see your notes, let that take a little pressure off.

But Wait, They Can See My Notes

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday I wrote about some of the challenges that come from our listeners not being able to see our notes.  We preach orally, but tend to prepare in literary forms (manuscript, indented outlines, etc.)  I mentioned the issue of transitions – very different animals in spoken than in written communication.  I mentioned the need to indicate sense of progress, or purpose of illustration.  But wait, isn’t there a shortcut to circumvent this whole issue?

The Potential Powerpoint Shortcut – Wouldn’t it be better to just project your notes so they can follow along on a powerpoint sermon outline?  I would urge you not to make a projected outline your strategy to overcome these issues.  Your outline is for you.  If you use powerpoint, use it well (i.e. for images, minimal words, lots of blank screen, perfectly timed, etc.)

What Happens if You Powerpoint Your Outline? Projecting your outline will give the impression your primary goal is to educate and inform, it will spark frenzied note taking, it will cause people to try to memorize three sub-points rather than being marked by the one main point, it will distract from the deeper impact and applicational emphasis of your message.  What’s more, what is gained in visual communication via the screen is typically lost in visual communication and connection via the preacher.  It takes real skill to powerpoint in a connecting and engaging manner (a skill rarely found in ecclesial settings).

So I Should Never Use Powerpoint? Use powerpoint by all means, but usually not for your outline.  The outline is a skeleton, it is for you and it is for you to think through how to communicate as effectively as possible.  One of the first posts I wrote was entitled “What do you want them to remember – the outline?”

Because They Can’t See Your Notes

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I suppose it is obvious, but sometimes obvious things need stating.  When we preach we are communicating orally.  People hear us, and usually can see us, but they can’t see our notes.

What difference does this startling realization make to our preaching?  Well, it should cause us to pay particular attention to the following:

1. Transitions. It is so easy to lose people in a transition.  If they mentally check-out for a few seconds they can easily miss the move from one section of the message to the next, leaving them disorientated and confused.  Slow down through the curves, as I think Steve Matthewson put it on his site.  Be sure to take your passengers with you.  Flashback and preview, underline or mark the transition in some way.

2. Follow-ability. You can look down at your notes (if you use them), or down at the text (if you don’t use notes, your message will probably be mentally associated with the passage itself).  If they look down they see dozens of verses that all look the same.  You need to make clear where you are in the text.  Don’t make following along an extreme sport that only the most focused individuals can participate in.

3. Sense of progress. You know that you have finished four pages of notes with three to go.  They don’t.  Because they can’t see your notes you either need to have a clear structure that is previewed at the start and reviewed at transitions (as in a deductive message), or a clear indication of destination and sensation of progress toward it (as in an inductive message), or else a very compelling presentation that people simply don’t want to end.  Otherwise they will be investing mental resources in trying to figure out where you are in your message.

4. Purpose of Illustration. You can look down and see your illustration marker and where it sits in relation to the section of the message, the sub-point you are explaining, proving or applying, etc.  Because they can’t see your notes they can easily lose track of why you are telling the story about the time your Uncle took you to the fish market.  Don’t just tell illustrations well, but clarify their purpose whenever appropriate.

They can’t see your notes and they shouldn’t see your notes  . . . but they will see the message you preach and the way that you preach it.

Ingredients for Creativity

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

If you want to increase creativity in your preaching, what is needed?

1. Time. If you are squeezed for time then it will not be possible to add the extra work needed (and the thinking capacity needed) for adding creativity to your preaching.

2. Freedom and trust. It is important to know the congregation to whom you preach.  Many will not easily accept more creative approaches to preaching unless there is first a building up of trust and a shared commitment to the core elements of true preaching (i.e. that a particular form is not the definition of faithfulness to the ministry!)

3. Better reading of the text. We need to grow in our ability to thoroughly engage with texts and recognize their genre, their features, their mood, their narrative context, etc.  Better Bible study can help develop more creative preaching.

4. Awareness of yourself as a preacher. We all need to know our own strengths and weaknesses in preaching.  Are you effective in description, in storytelling, in timing of key phrases, in disarming listeners, in role-playing, etc.?  Don’t get too creative in areas of weakness, but built on the strengths first.

5. Exposure to creative and different preachers. Don’t just copy what someone else has done, but if you are never exposed to other preachers, you will struggle to break out of the confines of your own style and tradition.

What would you add to this list?

A List of Styles

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

At the BibleFresh preaching event one speaker shared about preaching to the 20’s-30’s generation.  I think his name was Andy West (apologies Andy if I got your last name wrong).  His talk will probably be available online in due course at this site.

He shared four styles of preaching that he observes among effective preaching to the younger adult generation.  I’d like to offer the four styles he listed for your interest:

1. The Preacher Orator: “here is my argument!” – This is the expert speaker who will tend to fill venues with younger generation adults craving an authoritative word in an age where truth and depth are not common currency in everyday life.  People flock to hear Tim Keller, for example.  It is structured, linear, deep.

2. The Preacher Artist: “how would you feel…?” – This type of preacher paints pictures with words, engages through effective storytelling and is creatively imaginative.

3. The Preacher Conversationalist: “I’m like you…” – The preacher is an ordinary person who has honesty and integrity, connecting with the listeners.

4. The Preacher Facilitator: “Let’s go on a journey together.” – This preacher doesn’t so much dispense truth as help listeners to engage with the truth.

A few quick questions spring out of this:

A. Is this list complete, or are there other “styles” that are engaging effectively with the younger generation?

B. How much are we able to switch between styles as preachers in order to offer greater variety and appropriate engagement with our listeners?  (This is a critical question on numerous levels of preaching and with all generations.)

C. Should we be proactively exploring team approaches to preaching ministry that would more deliberately match the preacher to the subject and the listeners for each specific Sunday?

Struggling With Style and Substance

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

A lot of comments are made about preaching to the younger generation.  Lots can be said about the newest set of adults in our culture, and it is imperative that we get to know who we are trying to reach, or who we are preaching to on a Sunday . . .

But let’s not fall into the trap of thinking that the new generation are simply looking for new style.  It is so easy to think that preaching in a certain style will appeal to the younger generation.  It is true that generationally there is a shift in preferred styles of preaching, but the danger comes when we presume that style is the key, then lose sight of substance.

The younger generation do seem to place a high value on authenticity, integrity and vulnerability.  Yet there is no waning in the desire for substance.  Perhaps it could be argued that the younger generation today actually yearns for depth and substance perhaps more than previous generations who placed higher value on structure and form?

So let’s not try to be “relevant” in style without pursuing God in a deep personal walk, nor offer lightweight preaching simply to appeal in style.  This is not to say that we should preach old style – whatever that might be.  The priority has to be substance, but in our passion to connect, we should be considering all aspects of how to communicate effectively (which inevitably is changing over time and will always do so).

We should also be careful not to disparage popular speakers among the younger generation.  It is so easy to mock and dismiss the currently popular speakers across the spectrum.  Upon closer inspection it might be found that some of them are actually speaking with considerable depth and substance.  The problem is that many simply copy style and lose that substance, which exacerbates the impression of superficiality.

There aren’t simple solutions, but we have to take seriously how to connect with each new generation.

Preparing in Silence?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

“A lot of preachers are introverts because they need to be able to prepare on their own for hours.”  “Preaching is an oral event, yet the preparation of outlining and manuscripting is all pursued using written language skills.”  “Silence is the soil in which sermons sprout.”

All statements with some truth to them.  But also all statements that indicate a subtle tension between preparation and delivery of a spoken sermon.  A lot of preachers are introverts, perhaps for the reason stated.  So much of our preaching training is essentially an adaptation of skills for producing written work.  And there is a definite place for silence in the context of walking with Christ – as essential if preaching is truly a “God-event.”

So this post is not about turning all preparation upside down and advocating sermon preparation with loud music on, or in the midst of conversation.  (Actually there are preachers that find it helpful to do the message formation phase of their preparation in a public place – like Starbucks – in order to be able to better think through who they will be speaking to . . . a thought to ponder, perhaps.)

A couple of suggestions, though, in light of the oral nature of preaching:

1. Don’t just pray then prepare, but pray during out loud preparation. That is, don’t just pray and then work on the sermon.  Try praying as you prepare.  Talk through your thinking out loud, in conversation with the Lord.  Say your thoughts out loud, and also talk about what you are saying.  Why not?  It might help your thoughts to form in coherent oral form, it might help your prayer to be more than introductory, it might help you notice when your mind has drifted away from the task at hand for the last twenty minutes!

2. Don’t always write, then talk, but invert the process. We are trained to pray, then read, then write, then talk.  Why in that order?  Why not keep the prayer going throughout, but instead read, then talk, then write?  Often a written sermon won’t deliver well, but a well-delivered sermon can always be written in some form or other.  Talking through the message earlier in the week will almost certainly help you know where you are in the process far more than looking at your notes will!

Preaching is a spoken event.  Perhaps we need to prepare appropriately.