Delivery

Blind Spots

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Eye contact is helpful.  Authentic and natural eye contact is priceless.  So much has been written about the importance of eye contact in communication, but I’ll leave you to search around for that online if you so choose.  I’d just like to share a few thoughts on this for us as preachers.

1. Too fleeting gives the impression of being untrustworthy. It’s tempting to just scan your eyes around while really you are just waiting until you can look down at your notes again.  Just because people see your eyes doesn’t mean you have made eye contact.

2. Too lingering implies intimacy or intimidation. Opposite gender folks will start to shuffle uncomfortably, same gender folks may wonder if you are wanting a fight.  I suppose the danger here is an unthinking “eye lock” on one person as your mind is elsewhere.

3. Too predictable implies eye contact is contrived or secondary. Have you listened to a preacher that alternates between their notes, the clock and a fascinating plant over in the corner?  It’s thoroughly distracting and annoying.  It feels like they are looking up from their notes because they’re supposed to, but the room might as well be empty because their is no connection with the people (and in time may become empty, but that’s another matter).

4. Beware of blind spots and find out what they are. I’ve learned that my blind spot is usually in the middle front of the congregation.  I tend to get the sides, and even singers behind me on the platform, but often fail to make any meaningful eye contact with the front few rows in the middle.  I recently observed a preacher who would look up to the right side up to 17 times before he’d look up to the left side of the congregation.

5. Do you really need to look down? It’s amazing how preachers often claim to have their notes simply as a security blanket, but actually they barely look at them (but when filmed discover they are looking down perhaps 70% of the time!)  Do you need as many notes as you have?  Do you look up as much as you think?  When you look up are you making eye contact with people, or just pausing until you can look down again?

Eye contact is worth so much to communicators trying to appear genuine.  It should be valued even more by those of us who actually are genuine and desire to genuinely connect with people.

Points in a Narrative Text Sermon

/ Peter Mead / 14 Comments

There is a field of homiletics referred to as narrative preaching, but this post is concerned with the preaching of a narrative passage – eg. David and Goliath, Joseph in Potiphar’s House, Hannah & Samuel, etc.

In other posts I have encouraged the use of full sentence points, rather than descriptive titles that make the message outline look like a commentary synopsis.  The full thoughts help you communicate effectively, generally avoiding historical past tense sentences helps you not sound like a commentary recycler.  But it is worth clarifying a couple of points on points:

1. If the message structure reflects the story structure, then some points may be better stated in historical terms. What I mean is that in an attempt to be contemporary, we can end up making three or four life principles out of the developing elements of the story, rather than allowing the story to be told properly.  The problem then becomes a moralizing approach to the details of a story, rather than allowing the force of the story to stand behind the main point, which itself might best be the only focus of application.  Stories that are told effectively will hold attention, so it is not necessary to generate points of relevance or application throughout the detail of the story.  Pay careful attention to the introduction, generating a definite sense of sermon relevance there, then feel free to be in the world of the narrative for a large part of the message, continually building to the relevance that may only become overt in point 3 or 4 (i.e. whenever the main idea is revealed with its abiding theological thrust).

2. Shorter biblical stories may work best with a default sermon outline. Namely, point 1 is to tell the story.  Point 2 is to state and clarify the main idea of that story.  Point 3 is to reinforce and drive home the application of that main idea.  In this case point 1 is automatically historical.  Point 2 should be written in contemporary terms.  Point 3 has to be contemporary, including all sub-points.  Again the introduction is important, but I suspect that will be the case in almost every sermon that we preach (whether we give it the necessary attention or not).  This approach underlines the fact that the outline of a sermon is for your eyes only.  Once we realize our goal is not to transfer an outline, but to give the text in such a way as to clarify the main point and apply it, then we are freed from the burden of turning every narrative into a parallel rhyming assonated demonstration of guilded wordsmithery.

Managing Message Momentum

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Even the best message preparation often overlooks the critical issue of momentum.  So messages will often follow one of these patterns:

1. “U” … Start with a bang – drag on through the bulk – pick up for a strong finish.

2. “/” … Start slow – gradually increase in energy and get going.

3. “\” … Start strong – lose dynamic after the introduction, or first point, and drag to the end.

Each of these patterns will undermine the effectiveness of the preaching event.  Equally, while some preachers seem content to flatline “_” (i.e. never generate energy or momentum), it is not usually possible for listeners to cope with the opposite (i.e. constant high energy and fast pace).

If you have felt like your preaching tends toward one of these patterns, or if others have hinted at it.  What can you do?

1. Try to work out where the momentum was missing. Was it an unclear transition?  Was it a sequence of explanatory points?  Was it at the point you lost confidence in your content?  Was it just through a lethargic unplanned introduction?  Was it at a difficult juncture in the text?  If you can figure out where momentum was missing in previous messages, this will help you identify where the same could happen in future messages.

2. Listen to yourself practice. Sometimes you can get the sense of momentum struggles in a run through of the message, but not always.  It may be worth recording a run through and listening to it . . . but obviously that requires you to be on top of your preparation.

3. Evaluate the sermon map. Most of us tend to use an outline rather than an actual sermon map, but we can still evaluate it as a map.  As well as evaluating it for location of illustrations (the normal approach, which actually can generate predictability as people see every illustration coming), also look for points of relevance, and consider the terrain . . . will this bit be hard to traverse for the listener?  Marking your outline may allow you to energise a potentially monotonous section with illustration, review & preview, interlude, or even by overviewing rather than detailing a segment.

4. Weigh the sermon on the scales. Many of us tend toward simply making too many points, giving too much explanation, trying to give too much and the sermon is simply too heavy.  What would be lost if you chose to lighten the content slightly and create some breathing space?  If the main point of the text is not lost, then are we choosing to keep content because we want to demonstrate our insight, our study, our knowledge?

Energy, pace, vocal variation, movement, progress, laughter, relevance . . . the complex factors of message momentum.

Helping People Trust Their Bibles – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

I recently wrote a post relating to textual criticism – please click here to see it. Shrode commented and asked for an example of how I might address the issue of a missing verse while preaching on the passage. Relatively simple, gracious and trust-building was the request. Here’s my attempt (okay, so length may be slightly longer than I’d prefer for a post, but there is content that may not be necessary in the last two paragraphs – and it takes 2.5 minutes more or less):

If you look carefully you’ll notice that verse 4 is missing in this chapter.  Uh oh!  Looks like our Bibles have a problem!?  Actually, no, I would suggest this is a good thing.  We don’t tend to think about them, but there are a whole lot of archeologists and scholars who are constantly at work trying to make sure we have the most accurate and trustworthy Bibles possible.  Let me put it to you this way – we don’t have the original letters that Paul wrote, or the original gospels, or the original books of Moses, etc.

That sounds like a problem, but actually, they were probably destroyed precisely to avoid a problem.  You see, over time, manuscripts would fade and curl at the edges and get worn out.  But if perfect copies were made, why keep a fading original?  Well, over time imperfections crept into the copies of copies of copies.  Over the past centuries archeologists have continued to find more and more manuscripts and biblical quotes in manuscripts.  Gradually they are finding more and more of those copies of copies.  This means that experts can then weigh the evidence to work out what the original actually said.  So when you see a verse number (here verse 4), but no text, this means that evidence has proved that the text in older translations was very likely added later on, rather than being original.

Just in case you are thinking that this really undermines our Bibles, after all, can we trust these people . . . what if they have an agenda?  Actually, I’d point out that as well as some who are very evangelical and conservative Bible believing Christians, there are also many who have no specific belief in the God of the Bible, and some who perhaps are anti the God of the Bible.  Yet despite these differences there is a good concensus that the original text our modern translations are translated from is actually very, very, accurate.  Any discrepancies in the manuscript evidence now only add up to less then 2% of the text, and none of those texts change any of the main teachings of the Bible.  Should it be “Jesus Christ” or “Lord Jesus Christ” . . . that probably doesn’t change much in the book of Acts, for example.

Oh, and one last thing, some people will try to tell you that the Bible has been translated hundreds, or thousands of times . . . like a giant historical chain of chinese whispers [only refer to this if people use that label for the game].  The truth is that actually your modern English Bible has been translated only once, direct from the best original text ever available in the history of Bible translation.  Verse 4 is missing, and rightly so, it shouldn’t have been added in the first place.  We can really and truly trust our English Bibles.  I’d be happy to chat more about this issue if you are concerned.

Now, back to the passage…

How To Not Preach Like a Commentary

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

It’s easy to preach like a commentary.  Either you lift content out of a commentary and preach it, or you write your message like you were writing a commentary.  It leads to a set of headings superimposed on the text, and sometimes superimposed on a projector screen too.  The Problem of Prayer, The Power of Prayer, The Perspecuity of Prayer.  Or perhaps, Saul’s Condition, Saul’s Conversion, Saul’s Conviction.

This kind of outlining might suggest that the preacher thinks the greatest goal in preaching is to offer a set of memory aids to help the listener hang their thoughts in a biblical passage.  It suggests that historical and biblical information is the key ingredient for life transformation.  It suggests a lack of awareness of the possibilities for more pastoral care in and through preaching.

A couple of suggestions:

1. Try changing your view of “points” from titles to full sentences. A full sentence requires a verb and will more actively engage the listener than a title can.

2. Try writing your sentences in contemporary rather than historical terms. Whenever possible it is worth taking the opportunity to speak with relevance to the listeners.  This can be done at the end, of course, but also in the introduction, in every transition, within each point, and also within the phrasing of each point.  Make the point applicational and then support that from the text.

3. Don’t pour your energy into creating a memorable outline, but into effectively conveying the message of the text. When alliteration and parallelism falls into your lap, great, consider using them.  But actually our energies will often be better invested in thinking through how to reconvey the already powerful message of the text, rather than trying to help people remember an outline.  Lives are changed by the text, by the main idea, by the application of the passage, by connecting with God and with the speaker.  Lives are not changed by outlines.

Falling Short of Unity, Order and Progress

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Can I offer three ways in which we can have unity, order and progress, yet still fall short in each area?

Unity – We often fall short when we just tie together the sections of the text by means of a keyword or subject.  In many passages it is relatively easy to make the two or three or four points somewhat parallel and addressing aspects of a subject.  I’m being hypothetical now, but the type of outline that goes through The Problem of Prayer, The Power of Prayer, The Perspecuity of Prayer.  (Commentary labels fall short on numerous levels, perhaps another post for that one!)  Did the writer really intend a list of fully parallel and equal thoughts?  Or was the writer actually building a case to say one main thing?  Unity should be pursued at the level of main idea (subject and complement) not just at the level of subject.

Order – I think we fall short of a well-ordered message when we simply progress through the text in the order it is found in Scripture.  Often this is the most effective order to present the passage, but why?  Is it purely for ease of following?  If the writer had shuffled the pack of paragraphs, would it have been the same another way?  If not, if there is a development of the thought, or a progression toward a climax, or an addressing of objections, etc., then let’s recognize and reproduce a more deliberate order than just, “now onto the next verse…”  (Again, often the order is a good order to preach, but ask yourself why?)

Progress – We fall short when our progress is simply a moving toward the end of the passage.  Listeners will generally feel relieved when they get that sensation of nearing the end, but that doesn’t mean the message has moved anywhere, or moved them at all. Progress should give a sense of moving forward, going somewhere, building, arriving, etc.  Consider how the thought in the passage does more than just slide past, but actually engages the reader, creates tension, resolves it, anwers concerns, etc.

Preaching and Television

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I know there is preaching on television, but that is not my focus here. I was just reading Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman and his interesting perspective on the influence of television.  Allow me to share some snippets and then make a couple of comments for us as preachers.

The print age was the Age of Exposition.  It was replaced by the Age of Show Business. (63) . . . It  introduced irrelevance, impotence, and incoherence — context-free — information reduced to novelty, interest, and curiosity.  News became sensational events.  Information moved quickly but it had little to do with those who received it.  “In a sea of information, there was very little of it to use.” (67) . . . The photograph presents the world as object; language, the world as idea.  (72) . . .  This new language “denied interconnectedness, proceeded without context, argued the irrelevance of history, explained nothing, and offered fascination in place of complexity and coherence. …that played the tune of a new kind of public discourse in America.” (77)  All public understanding is shaped by the biases of television.

Ok, just a few more snippets:

Television has gradually become our culture.”   “The peek-a-boo world it has constructed around us no longer seems even strange.” (79) . . . “We have so thoroughly accepted its definitions of truth, knowledge, and reality that irrelevance seems to us to be filled with import, and incoherence seems eminently sane.” (80) . . . Television speaks in only one persistent voice–the voice of entertainment.  “Television, in other words, is transforming our culture into one vast arena for show business.” (80) . . . The average network shot is 3.5 seconds.  There is always something new to see, devoted entirely to entertainment.  It is now the natural format of all experience and all subject matter is entertaining.  The news is not to be taken seriously.  Several minutes of news should give us many sleepless nights – but newscasters don’t even blink.  Neither do we. (86-7) . . . TV sets the format for all discourse.  Americans exchange images, not ideas, argue with good looks and celebrities, not propositions.  (90-93) . . . Any murder can be erased from our minds by, “Now this….”  (99) . . . “Credibility” refers only to the impression of sincerity.  Nixon was dishonored not because he lied on TV but because he looked like a liar on TV.  (102)

Ok, three comments from me:

1. We should not be intimidated by television. There may be some things we could learn from effective communicators on the TV, but we certainly shouldn’t feel pressured to have a new visual image every 3.5 seconds, or a new subject every 45 seconds!  People can and will concentrate if the communicator can grab and retain attention.  Gimmicks are not the key to this.  Powerpoint certainly doesn’t fulfill any so-called requirement for visual stimulation!

2. We may find people drawn to good preaching exactly because it offers something different, substantial, lasting and inherently valuable when compared to standard fare on TV. Which therefore means we should be neither deliberately poor communicators, nor should we unthinkingly replicate our culture’s way of communicating.

3. We don’t need to come across as anti-cultural and anti-TV, but we do have opportunity to raise questions about the cultural values being pumped into most living rooms. Gracious commentary on culture has immense value to Christians who are often unwittingly over-influenced by the corruptions in the culture.

Monological Q and A

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

My last post on Friday sparked a few comments regarding the possibilities of Q&A with congregations.  There is certainly more to be said for that.  I read an article by a friend wrestling with the biblical tension (for want of a better word), between the need for authoritative presentation of truth (preacher as herald), and the need for engaged relational disciple-making (conversational, relational, mentoring ministry).  We lose so much if we give up one for the other.

While you may want to continue that discussion, and I will return to it at some point, I’d like to address a related matter.  The preacher in a traditional preaching setting still needs to make listeners feel involved.  Pure monologue that leaves listeners feeling like observers of a pre-packaged presentation is less than what it could be.  How can we preach so listeners feel engaged and involved?  A few of many possibilities:

1. Relevant preaching – I suppose this is obvious, but listeners will engage more when a message is relevant to their lives.  That doesn’t mean a heavenly majestic text is trivialised to a silly practical level.  It does mean that the preacher has thought about how the text is relevant to these listeners on this occasion.  The world of the text is earthed in the realities of life.  Then listeners feel involved.

2. Rhetorical questions – Too many can start to sound false, but a well placed rhetorical question only expresses what the listener is thinking.  Their inner dialogue follows right along with the preacher, “yes, I just thought that, here’s my answer, what does the text say to me now?”  That inner dialogue requires skill from the preacher, but it turns monologue into something far richer.

3. Related to life wording – It’s not hard to change the wording of the main idea, and the main points, from historical description of the text (commentary title approach to outlining), to related to us wording (contemporary full sentence statements approach).  Obviously you go back to the text to support what you’re saying, but it drives the message into today, rather than simply offering an historical lecture followed by an applicational team talk in the final moments.

I’ll add three more suggestions tomorrow.  Feel free to pre-empt or offer your insight.

Authentic Communicators

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Apologies for no posts over the last three days.  I was expecing to have internet access where I was, but didn’t.

I was leading a session on preaching with a great group of folks yesterday.  We were considering what listeners value in a communicator.  Honesty.  Real-ness.  Vulnerability.  Eye-contact.  Authenticity.  I wonder if a previous generation might have listed different things?  Good word choice.  Presence.  Style.  Power.  Attractive voice.  Something else?

Perhaps authenticity has always been important, but it seems to be especially so today.  People don’t want to hear well-prepared but trafficked truth.  People don’t appreciate a presentation at arms length from Bible to listener, but by-passing the heart and life of the preacher.  As has always been the case, good preachers are transformed by the text before offering the text to others.

All this does not mean that speakers shouldn’t present well, clearly, effectively, even powerfully.  It does mean that every element of delivery has to be genuine, natural and authentic.  And that’s one of the challenges of delivery . . . it is not natural to stand in front of a group of people and speak naturally.  Hence the need to work on delivery to help it become more natural.  As I tend to say in the delivery workshops I sometimes run – the goal is not to perform, the goal is to let the natural you come through!

Help People Trust Their Bibles

/ Peter Mead / 7 Comments

I was just reading a post by Bill Mounce on the Koinonia blog (to see it click here.)  He offers a simple and graciously toned introduction to textual criticism set in the context of a natural question raised by folks in the church . . . “why is verse 4 missing in my Bible?”

Some textual critical questions would probably only be asked by people already heavily interested in the subject with apparatus in hand.  These kinds of questions may intrigue us, but usually shouldn’t find their way into the pulpit!  However, if people in the pew are looking at their Bible and asking a textual critical question, then we need to offer help.  Just a few brief thoughts in light of Bill’s good post:

1. Textual criticism can be explained relatively simply. People probably don’t need to know about every textual family, how to pronounce homeoteleuton, or the full rationale behind lectio difficilor potior.

2. Textual criticism can be explained with grace. This area of study can really stir up the tension, especially between adherents to different textual families.  Such tensions won’t help if shown from the pulpit.  Be gracious to people who disagree with you on Majority Text vs Critical Text issues.  Often you’d be fighting an unseen opponent anyway since people in the same church often tend to use the same version of the Bible (and most of these without any real understanding of text critical issues underlying the options)!

3. Textual criticism should be explained at the right time. Just because you’re enjoying a textual critical excursion in your personal study, or even in your sermon preparation, doesn’t mean the people are needing a dose of it.  But when a verse is missing and they are wondering, or when you’re going through Mark or John and you get to the square bracket sections, then is probably a good time to offer some explanation.

4. Textual critical explanations should build trust in our English Bibles. This has to be paramount.  What have you gained if you’ve showed off your knowledge, perhaps won a debate against an opponent not present, but undermined the confidence of every listener in their English Bible?