Delivery

Exhort, Educate . . . Manipulate?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Some preachers think that there are two legitimate options in preaching, but to go further would be wrong.  Legitimate would be to exhort listeners – that is, to appropriately pressure their will to obey the Lord, respond to the gospel, etc.  Legitimate would be to educate the listeners – that is, to feed information to their minds so that they know more and can therefore make better decisions.

But the next step?  Well, many people think the next step beyond the will and the mind is to address the emotions, and that, of course, would be wrong.  It must be wrong to address the emotions since that can so easily seem like manipulation.  I would agree that it can become manipulation.  I would agree that manipulation is wrong.  But I still think our preaching has to go deeper than mind and will.  How?

My sense is that manipulation occurs when I, as a preacher, utilize my ability to make a mark in the emotions that is disctinct from the content of the biblical text.  After all, the text is boss in an expository sermon, so if I am representing that text appropriately, then it should not be manipulation.  But when I resort to “techniques” – stand-alone tear-jerking stories, turns of phrase, emotional outbursts of my own, etc. – that aren’t representing the message of the text, then I am on dangerous ground.

If we remember that our role is to herald the Word of God, then we represent (re-present) the text of Scripture.  In so doing we need to represent a Word that targets the heart very often, and is seldom focused purely on exhortation or education.  We should be wary of manipulation, but not so that we ignore any textual targeting of the heart.  If we fall into the trap of performing, then manipulation creeps in so easily and we can corrupt the pure Word of God.

Preach to the will, certainly.  Preach to the mind, of course.  But be sure to preach to the heart, the Bible does!

Save the Best for Last

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

If you have read any book on sermon composition, or studied preaching formally, you will have come across the two basic approaches to shaping a sermon – inductive and deductive.  Both have strengths and weaknesses, both are useful.  Yesterday I preached a message that was essentially inductive.  I began by introducing the basic concept and made a promise – “I want to show you the greatest song of all time.”

The message progressed by setting the scene for the book (an OT prophet), and surveying the content of the book to give a feel for it’s scope and intensity.  The focus narrowed to the final section of the book, then finally onto the central feature of that final section.  In the last minutes of the message, the place of final emphasis, the greatest song ever became evident.

This is one example of an inductive approach.  Often used when an audience is antagonistic to the main idea of the message (as in Peter’s message on Pentecost), but not exclusively so, the inductive approach has some real strengths.  It does give you time to overcome antagonism and lower defences.  It does allow time for intrigue to build so that people actually want to hear the main idea by the time it is stated.  It allows for final stress to be placed on the most important thing.

Inductive approaches to preaching can be complicated and daunting.  They often require a different set of skills from the preacher: not least the ability to build trust and maintain interest for the entire message.  But we shouldn’t feel daunted.  Perhaps with the next message it is worth considering the option of not stating the main idea at the end of the introduction.  Instead give the question or the incomplete sentence only, leaving the answer (or complement) until later on in the message.

Sometimes it is very worth saving the best for last.

Practice Makes . . . ?

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

The old saying goes, “practice makes perfect.”  Maybe.  Practice can also ingrain bad habits.  I think it was Howard Hendricks who said that “evaluated practice makes perfect” (inexact quote, please comment to correct wording and source!)  I want to offer a suggestion for “evaluated practice” that can really help.  First the obvious sources of feedback, then the more obvious one.

Obvious sources of feedback – While you may not have pursued it diligently, you’ve probably considered asking listeners for feedback on your preaching.  Perhaps you’ve handed out evaluation sheets to a select few, or perhaps you’ve asked for feedback on a specific issue of content, clarity or delivery.  Perhaps you’ve sent your mp3 to another preacher or trusted friend for critique.  Perhaps you’ve gone so far as to form a preaching team that includes non-preachers, creative communicators, etc., to evaluate and feed into your church’s preaching.

The more obvious source of feedback – Perhaps this is so obvious, but it’s worth a mention.  Feedback as a form of evaluation is something you can also do for yourself.  Don’t just do this yourself and avoid the input of others, but don’t miss this either.  After preaching, why not carve out some time to prayerfully evaluate the message.  What went well?  How did the time slip away in the middle section?  Which transition felt clunky?  When did attention drop?  If possible, sometimes listen to the message and ask the same questions, plus, How much variation is there in vocal punch, pitch, pace and pause?  Now and then get a video of yourself and also watch for eye contact, gestures, expressions, movement, etc.  Whatever you do, whether it is thinking back over the message, listening to it, or watching it, be sure to make some notes.  Perhaps have a journal of sermon evaluation.  That journal will offer nudges in the right direction, and great encouragement when problem areas become strengths in time.

After all, evaluated practice makes perfect . . . or realistically, evaluated practice makes better.

The Challenge of Consistency

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

I tend to agree with the notion of there being a difference between small church and big church.  A small church, perhaps under 100 people, will tend to have strengths that can become weaknesses in a larger church, perhaps over 200 people.  For instance, in a small church, low standards of music and preaching will be smiled at since everyone knows the individual who is “trying their best.”  But once that church grows through the transitional stage and becomes bigger, such low standards become more counter productive.  Visitors (and there will probably be more now) don’t know the individual up front and the whole dynamic doesn’t work quite so well.  While fellowship is often a strength in smaller churches, it takes deliberate work to achieve that in a larger church.  The emphasis on “up-front” standards inevitably increases as a church grows.

This provides a challenge.  I suppose it is a challenge for all churches of all sizes.  It is especially a challenge for churches with some creative capacity (people, skills, people-hours, etc.).  When you have a guest service of a certain standard, then people will bring guests along.  If that service is done well, then some of those guests might return the next week.  There’s the problem.  If all the effort to be clear and relevant and engaging and effective in the music, the preaching, the presentation, etc., if all that effort is spent on one Sunday, what about the next?

The challenge is consistency.  If your church has a goal of bringing the unchurched to a particular service, then it is worth thinking through whether greater consistency could be achieved in that service 52 times each year.  At that point people would be much more inclined to risk their own relationships and bring people along to the guest events.

There has to be flexibility in this.  Different churches have different capacities for guest events.  The vast majority cannot live up to the standards seen in the small number of “megachurches.”  There also has to be balance in this.  The primary role of the church service may not be evangelism.  Nevertheless, taking into account the specific ethos of a church, it would be worth giving some thought to greater consistency between guest events and normal Sundays.

Sermons and Series

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

After listening to a couple of Andy Stanley series recently, I have been pondering a point he makes in his book, Communicating for a Change.  He says that what most people try to achieve in a single sermon should really be developed over a whole series.  This allows for each message to genuinely have a single point, rather than a collection of points (and reduced impact).  It allows for the whole series to reinforce rather than confuse.

I have to say, after listening to a couple of his series, I tend to agree.  Perhaps we bite off too much in a series.  Perhaps we try to cover whole sections of a book, or a whole book, when maybe we would do better to drive home one passage more effectively. Perhaps we are too quick to move on and assume listeners have understood the point and applied it in their lives.

I suppose this creates a difficulty if we are committed to trying to preach every bit of the Bible over some self-determined priod of time.  I suppose it also puts a burden on the preacher – if you’re going to stay in the same passage for more than one sermon, you’d better not be boring!  But ultimately I suppose it asks the key question: not are we trying to cover ground, or are we trying to entertain, but are we trying to see lives transformed?  If that is the question, perhaps more focused series is part of the solution?

Think It Through Before You Cross Over This Line!

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

There is a line that it may be tempting to cross.  Perhaps you have been studying in a certain area of theology.  Perhaps it is personal experience that is pushing you in a certain direction.  Perhaps you are tired of a certain over-emphasis in your church circles.

So you preach (or write, or converse about, or blog about) something.  You try to expand the horizons, the categories, the awareness of your listeners.  You paint a glorious picture of oft-neglected theological vistas.  In the process you help people to see more clearly, to understand more fully, to respond more holistically.  But that is where danger lurks.

In shifting the emphasis, even if only for one message, you will be tempted to cross a line.  The line is crossed when instead of helping people see more and to see it clearly, you move from addition to contrast.  It is crossed when your study or experience or emphasis takes you to a point where you decide not just to add to the listeners’ understanding, but you decide to contrast your focus with some aspect of orthodoxy.

So actually the Cross wasn’t about that, it was about this.  So really God isn’t that, but this.  So now we see that Christianity is not about that at all, but only this.  Careful.  Extremely careful!

There are things in all church traditions that may be labeled orthodoxy, but are actually biblically errant.  I am not saying we can never contrast or critique.  I believe we must.  What I am saying is that a throw away comment about an emphasis within orthodox theology can come back to bite.

I was just reading a book.  I was enjoying it.  In fact, I read a page that took my breath away it was so well-written.  Then there was a throw away comment of unnecessary contrast.  How easy to do that unawares in writing, in preaching, in conversation.  Evangelical theology needs critique on various levels, but throw away contrast comments are not going to achieve anything other than vilifying their source.  You.

What we say matters.  Be careful!

Preaching and Those Few Key Sentences

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

How many hundreds of sentences are used in a sermon?  And they all matter.  But they don’t all matter as much as a few of them.  I suppose I would suggest the following sentences as worthy of extra effort:

1. The Main Idea. Hours might be spent crafting and honing the main sentence for a message.  That would be hours well spent.  The main idea is the boss of everything in the message, it is the filter through which much extraneous “good stuff” is sloughed off.  It is the burning hot focus that is to be seared into the heart and mind of the listener.  It brings together understanding of the passage with emphasis on the life-changing relevance for the listener.  The main idea really is all it’s cracked up to be, and it’s absence will only confirm that billing!

2. The first sentence. It’s great to start the message with an arresting introduction.  Instead of beating around the bush until you get into your stride, much better to start with a bang.  It may be a startling sentence.  It may be an intriguing sentence.  It may be a contemporary paraphrase of that infinitely powerful sentence, “once upon a time . . . ” (narratives do grip listeners fast!)

3. Transition sentences. I think transitions are oft-neglected.  A good message with poor transitions will lose people.  Give some extra effort to transitioning slowly, smoothly, safely.  Keep your passengers in the car when you take the turns.

4. The final sentence. That last sentence can ring in the ears as silence descends and you move to take your seat.  Despite the best efforts of over anxious worship leaders or people chairing meetings, the final sentence can resonate in a life.  Don’t fizzle to a halting stop.  Stop.  Clear.  Precise.  Having arrived at your destination.  Having achieved your goal.  Having parked the message with exactly the final sentence you determined.

Preaching may involve hundreds of sentences, but a few of them are worth extra careful crafting!

Improving Speech While Not Preparing – 3

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

For the past two days I have looked at word choices and verbal pauses.  More could be said, but it would be more of the same.  Perhaps working on choosing vivid rather than lifeless descriptors would be worth a post, but you can think that through.  I would like to add one more post to the series on another aspect of delivery – the visual element.

What listeners take in through the “eye-gate” is massively significant.  Some elements of visual, or non-verbal delivery, can be improved in everyday life.  Here are a few possibilities, select only those that are issues in your delivery:

1. Eye contact. Perhaps the most important ingredient in any delivery recipe, eye contact takes work for many of us.  In every conversation or presentation (which might be the telling of a story to a group of friends standing around the coffee machine at work), practice making meaningful eye contact with the entire group.  How easy to develop a blind spot (never looking to the people on your left).  How easy to get in the habit of looking over people or past people.  Practice will help your preaching, not to mention your daily conversations!

2. Posture. How do you stand while in a conversation?  How do you stand when saying goodbye at the front door (a very English pastime)?  How do you hold yourself when approaching the counter in a store?  Developing healthy and confident, but not arrogant or contrived posture is worth the effort.  It is so easy to undermine a message by sending “don’t trust me” or “this is not important” signals!

3. Distracting movement. Some people pace, others shuffle, some sway, some fidget.  If you discover you have a propensity to distracting movement, work it out in normal life.  It will only help in life and ministry.

4. Distracting gesture. Apart from some obviously offensive gestures, I am not highly against any gesture.  Hand in pocket can be fine.  Pointing might be appropriate.  Touching the face may not detract from a message.  However, any repeated gesture can become highly distracting.  If you find you have one, work it out in normal life.  Finger to finger push-ups, one arm hanging limp, jingling keys in the pocket, the werewolf, the T-Rex (elbows attached to the side but lots of hand gesturing), what Bert Decker calls the fig leaf, or the fig leaf flasher, the Clinton (gesturing as if holding the pen), even slapping yourself on the head.  Anything can be distracting if overused!

5. Smile.  A grossly underused tool for connection and building trust.  It wouldn’t hurt the world if we all practiced this more in everyday life, and it might show more in our preaching too!

Find out (from friend or from video) what you need to work on, your listeners will appreciate it!

Improving Speech While Not Preparing – 2

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday I referred to Jay Adams’ suggestion that we can improve our language use best by working on it in everyday life so that it becomes natural.  He mentions another aspect of speech that many need to work on.  The unnecessary use of, you know, like, filler words.  These verbal pauses do a lot to distract listeners and lessen the impact of otherwise pointed and focused speech.

The problem with filler words or verbal pauses is that they only seem to get worse when we focus on them in a time of tension.  So simply telling yourself not to say that thing you always say so often is not going to fix it when you’re preaching.  In fact, it will probably exacerbate the problem.  So Jay Adams suggests working on this at home, with the help of your wife.  Have a family member help by making it clear whenever the filler is used.  Gradually the added complexity of conversation will motivate you to drop the filler. “Know?  I don’t know, could you explain it to me please?” That will really stack up in some of our, you know, conversations. “Like?  What was he like, to what would you compare him?” That will complicate a relatively simple interchange!

If you can figure it out, a signal system that is only known to you and your spouse could be used in public settings too.  However, Adams suggests this approach be kept to the private sphere if there isn’t total agreement on how to proceed in public!

Eliminating verbal pauses will achieve massive benefits for preaching.  But perhaps the time to work on the habit is in the normal situations of life, rather than the pressure cooker situation of preaching.  At th end of the day, you know, what have you found helpful in eliminating verbal pauses or distracting cliches?

Improving Speech While Not Preparing

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Jay Adams suggests that improvements in speech should be pursued during everyday life, but not when preparing the message.  The reason he gives is that focusing on grammar, phraseology or pronunciation during preparation and delivery is a distraction from the real task at hand.  It is better, he suggests, to work on improving your speech during every day life.  Over the course of several weeks it is possible to master a new speech habit.

For example, you might need to work on saying “He asks you and me,” rather than “He asks you and I.”  By concentrating on this and working on it in everyday situations it will not take too long for it to become a speech habit that will naturally come out while preaching.

Another example is that of storytelling.  Every day we can practice telling stories compellingly, with good flow, description and appropriate pausing.  We shouldn’t wait for a dramatic life event, but rather choose an experience each day to recount to our families over dinner.  Practising the telling of a story in the car can help, and the repeated telling of stories with increasing effectiveness will only help our ability to tell stories during preaching – personal “illustrations” or biblical stories.

Tomorrow I’ll mention another aspect of speech that can be worked on in everyday life.