Delivery

Of Bifurcations and Dichotomies

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Most people have a tendency to think in black and white categories.  Something is either right or wrong, good or bad.  In order to get from the complex world of reality to the comfortable world of clear categories, we tend to bifurcate inappropriately and end up with inconsistent dichotomies.  For example?

Well, consider the two issues of communication style and biblical content.  These are two issues.  Yet for many people they seem to have been melded into a one or the other dichotomy.  So if a preacher has an engaging and natural style, then the content must be weak and lightweight.  Equally, if I am to preach biblically, then my style must needs be less than connecting.  The apparent truth of this thinking is seen in so many preachers, but there is real fallacy here.

I just listened to a series of messages that could be labeled as seeker friendly in style, certainly very natural and engaging.  Therefore biblically lightweight?  Not a bit of it.  Actually I found a couple of them stunningly effective in how they handled the text and communicated it to the listeners.  That’s not to say that all such messages are biblically solid, but it’s equally wrong to assume all are not.

Natural engaging style that is connecting with the unchurched is one issue.  Biblically solid and rich content is another issue.  One doesn’t mitigate against the other.  Let’s not be too quick to dismiss.  Equally I listened to an older message that was biblically solid, but wouldn’t qualify as contemporary in style.  Stodgy, boring, irrelevant, cold?  Not at all.  It was deeply moving and highly helpful.

Let’s be careful not to combine and confuse categories in order to create clear categories for ourselves.  Life, and ministry, is lived not in many blacks and whites, but in numerous complex layers of grey.  That statement does not in any way argue against objective truth, as it could so easily be misquoted.  Rather it urges us to engage the complexity of life, of ministry, of preaching.  And on the example given in this post – let’s be both biblically solid and communicatively natural for the sake of ministerial effectiveness.

Giving a Testimony

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

nugget from Richard Bewes’ book, Speaking in Public Effectively.  As a preacher, you may not be asked to give your testimony so much any more, but perhaps these guidelines might be worth giving to anyone you ask to share a testimony in church.

First, it is a testimony to a Person and what he has done for you.

You are not asked to be on your feet to pay tribute to a book, a Christian, a course or a church that may have helped you, though any of these may legitimately come into the story.  But it is Jesus Christ, and what he has so far done for you that you are wanting to focus upon primarily.

Second, it is a testimony and not a mini-sermon that you are giving.

Three and a half minutes is enough – unless you have been invited to speak for longer.  The whole style is that of telling a story.  It is unwise, then to attempt to do the preacher’s task.  Use a text, by all means, if there is something from the Scriptures that has meant a great deal in your spiritual beginnings.  But don’t end the testimony by a long exhortation to commitment; that is almost certainly someone else’s job in the proceedings.

Third, it is a testimony and not an essay.

Although it may well be wise to write out, word for word, what you intend to say (this can help you keep to time), have your notes on a small jotting pad or card, rather than on a large, distracting sheet of paper.  The whole presentation is essentially one of spontaneity and an impulsive desire to tell. Write it out as you would describe it to your best friend in the chair opposite you.

How many good testimonies end awkwardly with an unnecessary exhortation to commitment?  Helpful advice from Richard Bewes.

Preaching Longer Narratives – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday I began to respond to Anthony’s question about preaching longer narratives:

How do you handle the tension of wanting to tell the story as it was intended to be told and not wanting to overload the hearers?

We saw that how a story is told is critical (more critical than the amount of information included).  We saw that not every detail requires equal focus.  This leads on to another thought that is sometimes hard for some people to accept:

4. True expository preaching does not always require every verse to be read out. With a long text, tell the whole story, but read selected highlights.  The readers can look down and check what you are telling is accurate, but you don’t have to read every verse in the preaching of the text.  If you preach a narrative in first person, you probably won’t read any of the text, but still you need to preach the text!

5. Remember the three ingredients in a sermon. A sermon consists, according to Don Sunukjian, in the combination of three elements.  A biblical text plus the big idea plus a preaching purpose.  Often sermons are lacking one or two or even all three of these ingredients!  The biblical text ingredient means that the message is the text’s message, not a superimposed preacher’s message.  Usually this means the text will be opened and read before or during the sermon.  However, in a longer message, the text may only be read in part.  For instance a single sermon on Romans as a whole will not read the whole thing, but probably will include the reading of 1:16-17 and a few other key highlights.  The same is true with a long narrative.

What is always important is not that every word be read, but that the listener is confident that this message is the true and exact message of this text.  They can look down while you’re preaching and see it there, they can pull a Berean attitude and check it out later for themselves.  Usually the best way to build confidence in the biblical textual nature of the message is to read the whole text and let the exposition show clearly there, but that is a typical strategy, rather than an absolute requirement.  With a long narrative the sense of purpose and a clear statement of the main idea are critical, but the biblical source of the message can be conveyed without full detailed exegetical explanation of every verse, or even the reading of every verse.

Preaching Longer Narratives

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Anthony asked the following after one of the posts last week:

I preach only occasionally, and have tackled a couple of narrative passages recently. I like to respect the narrative chunks in the text, which often have a clear beginning, middle and end. But last time I ended up preaching two whole chapters (75 verses), which was probably a bit much!

I’d be interested to hear what you think about this. How do you handle the tension of wanting to tell the story as it was intended to be told and not wanting to overload the hearers?

This is an important question.  After all, not every biblical narrative is contained within a few verses like some of the parables, there are some substantial narratives in the Bible.  The David and Bathsheba narrative lasts for nearly 60 verses if you include Nathan’s visit.  Anthony is referring to one lasting for 75 verses.  A few points to bear in mind:

1. Listeners are more overwhelmed by how something is told than what is told. Especially with narratives, if they are told well, listeners will be glued.  Tell children a good story in a compelling way and they won’t be asking you to stop so they can go to sleep.  Let’s assume the narratives are good ones since God inspired them, that just leaves the storyteller to do their job well.  I’ve sat through the most compelling stories told painfully, but it shouldn’t be that way.  Let the story live, tell it well.

2. Good storytelling involves both detailed description and pace change. When you’re telling a Bible story, there are times when you need to add detail to the description to help the images form on the screen of the listener’s heart.  There are other times when the story can move ahead in leaps and bounds.  The text does this, so can you.

3. True expository preaching does not require equal attention to every detail. The traditional read a verse, explain a verse approach to preaching can become burdensome with a 75 verse narrative.  Tell the whole story, but focus in on the details at key points in order to convey the true message of the passage.  This requires absolute attention to every detail in preparation, but selective focus in delivery.

A couple more thoughts tomorrow on this . . .

Forging Connections

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Perhaps preaching could be defined as a work of forging connections.  In a world of increasingly independent and disconnected individuals relating often on a level of billiard balls (bouncing and bumping, but not connecting), the preacher’s task involves connecting with the listener, connecting the listener with the text, more than that, via the text forging a communicative connection between God and the listener, and potentially, connecting the listeners with one another.

I’m not sure I like this as a definition of preaching, but there are some truths to ponder here.  How often do we view preaching preparation, even inadvertently, as preparation to present information that will sit in the air for others to grab hold of if they so choose?  How often do we preach as though speaking into thin air, largely unconcerned who is sitting in front of us or whether they are with us in the communication act?  How often do we simplify the complexity of forging connections, with all the implied awareness of the complex beings involved, into a simple act of giving information out?  Out where?  Nowhere, just out.

It is relatively easy to formulate a message and deliver it.  But it is much more complex to prayerfully and pastorally consider the listeners, to prayerfully and devotionally consider the God whose Word we present, to prayerfully and purposefully consider how we can forge genuine communication between us and the listeners, etc.  What does this involve?  Study? Yes.  Preparation? Yes.  Perhaps prayerfully considering every aspect of delivery, demeanour, interpersonal conversation and intercession in anticipation.

This is not a complete thought or a well crafted unit of prose.  It’s a thinking out loud about the difference between just speaking information and actually forging connections between hearts – human and divine.  What a privileged calling!

Textual Tone – Deduce, Demonstrate, Declare

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Each text in the Bible has a tone.  We are often oblivious to it.  Our training in Bible school tends to focus on analysis of content.  Most sermons tend to train listeners to look at content (or perhaps to largely ignore the text and just bounce off it, but that’s another matter!)

I often find myself trying to figure out the tone of an email.  Was this writer annoyed, or discouraged, or aggressive, or manipulative, or did it come out wrong?  Is this email an encouragement out of empathy, or is it a patronizing exhortation?  We learn with our contemporaries that written language doesn’t always communicate tone overtly, yet tone is so significant to the intended communication.

With Bible texts we can’t meet up with Paul or Moses to double check their intent.  So we do well to wrestle with the tone of the text.  Let’s be diligent in this:

1. Deduce the tone. Don’t settle for simple cold analysis of content.  Wrestle with grasping the tone of the passage.  Allow that to be a factor in your understanding the passage and then in your preparation of the message.

2. Demonstrate the tone. Too often preachers preach every sermon in monotone.  Not necessarily their own vocal range, but rather the tonal range of the whole collection of sermons.  Some preachers turn every encouraging passage into a guilt-driven rebuke.  Others neutralize every passage they touch to make it a sterile set of philosophical musings.  Our preaching will be enriched by demonstrating the tone of the passage . . . as I seem to add a lot . . . appropriately.

3. Declare the tone. People may be so trained in tone-less preaching that simply improving your delivery may not be enough.  Sometimes overtly declare the tone of the passage.  I preached on Luke 11:1-13 recently . . . all about prayer.  A subject that most believers feel very inadequate in, and pressured by, is prayer.  Yet the tone of the passage is overtly encouraging.  I tried to demonstrate that tone.  I also chose to declare it overtly – this passage is not pressuring us, it’s overtly encouraging in its tone!  People need to become sensitized to the tone of Scripture.  They need to feel the emotion, the anger, the encouragement, the grace.

Let’s be sensitive to the text, and let’s help to sensitize others too.

Urgency in Preaching

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Urgency used to be one of the preeminent distinctives of the preacher.  Times change, listeners change, cultures change, preachers change.  People no longer expect an urgent edge to every sermon, listeners often resist any hint of hype or overly effected preaching styles.  Natural communication styles are the most effective styles in our day.  Yet while much may change, the needs of our listeners have not changed.

There is no less need for a clear presentation of the gospel and a compelling call for response today than in any previous era.  People are lost, the enemy is roaming, death is lurking, judgment is waiting, and the preacher has the opportunity to address the situation.  With all the appropriate and effective naturalness in our preaching styles, let us also make sure there is urgency mixed in too.

If you say that the work is God’s, and he may do it by the weakest means, I answer, It is true, he may do so; but yet his ordinary way is to work by means, and to make not only the matter that is preached, but also the manner of preaching instrumental to the work.

If it weren’t for the run-on sentence, would you know when that was written?  It could be speaking to preachers today.  How easy it is to hide behind the fact that preaching is God’s work.  Oh yes, this is a profound and humbling truth that should be seared through every cell of our being.  At the same time it can be an excuse, can’t it?  An excuse to cover for lack of improvement in our preaching, for lack of urgency, for lack of focused preparation.  God does work using very weak instruments.  Even if you pursue training and studies and feedback and improvement, you and I will still be very weak instruments.  Good stewards, weak instruments . . . but a great God addressing a great need!

I’m with Richard Baxter on this matter.  God’s ordinary means of working in preaching is by the content and the delivery, not despite either.  So, will there be a fitting urgency about the next message?

Preaching To Equals

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Most things can be described on a continuum.  Consider the tone of your presentation to others.  At one end of the scale, it is possible to fawn, to flatter, to pander to those listening.  At the other end of the scale, a preacher can condescend and patronize.  Neither is helpful.

A preacher who overdoes the flattery and pandering will convey very little in the way of integrity and respectability.  A preacher who overdoes condescension and patronizing will achieve little in making listeners want to hear what is being said.  Both extremes will undermine communication very rapidly and deeply annoy the listeners.

We might assume that younger speakers are the flatterers and older speakers are the patronizers.  We would be wrong.  Any speaker can have a tendency to offer either, or both.  I’ve heard some extremely patronizing speakers in their twenties, and some ridiculously fawning speakers in their sixties.  The problem is that most are probably deeply unaware of how they come across.

Yet there is another challenge here.  These two extremes are on a continuum, so it is not as simple as just avoiding them.  In fact, isn’t low level flattery sometimes called politeness?  Isn’t low level patronizing sometimes called being simple and clear?  Both of these are very important.  It doesn’t help to avoid flattery and pandering by being obnoxious and objectionable.  It doesn’t help to avoid condescension by being obfuscatory and lacking in perspicuity.

To be accurate, I wouldn’t say that politeness and flattery are actually on the same continuum, nor clarity and condescension.  The distinction is probably at the level of motive.  As preachers it would do us good to check our motives regularly – what is our motive in regard to these listeners?  Do we love them?  Do we genuinely respect them?  Are we wanting to serve, or to show off?  Are we serving for their benefit, or for our own?

One more thought.  Even right motives don’t guarantee effective communication.  After all, communication has a lot to do with how the listeners perceive your preaching.  Do they find you condescending?  Do they find you overly flattering?  Perhaps it would be worth a periodic spot check from someone you trust . . . “Do I come across as one speaking naturally to equals, or is there any hint of pandering or patronizing in my delivery – please tell me?”

Feel-Good Sermons

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

There is a phenomenon, actually not uncommon, that we might call the feel-good sermon.  In it the preacher begins with the text and then shares several points that are somehow linked to the text.  The points will be put in terms that are comfortable and reassuring to the listener.  The listeners may well walk away feeling vaguely blessed and certainly positive in their view of the speaker.

However, this kind of sermon typically does not engage fully with the text.  Often issues like sin or judgment will be skirted around or offered merely in non-specific euphemisms.  Thus the tension in the text is not really engaged, nor resolved.  This probably means that the same tensions in the lives of the listeners are neither engaged, nor resolved.

Let’s beware of preaching feel-good sermons rather than biblical sermons.  It is possible to preach the Bible in a very engaging, encouraging and even positive way.  It is possible to preach the passage properly, even in a “seeker-friendly” setting.  In fact, if our main concern was the listener, wouldn’t we feel obliged to really engage fully with both text and listener?  The feel-good sermon seems to be a short-cut to happy handshakes, but it falls short of engaging both the text and the listener.  So perhaps the motivation is more fear and the preacher’s personal comfort than it is the motivation of a true minister?

Interpretive Options

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

When you are preparing to preach a passage of Scripture there are always decisions to be made.  Some of them are relatively easy to make.  Others are harder to make, but the result is definite and clear.  Others are not easy to make, neither are they critical to orthdoxy.  So do you share the options with your listeners, or do you go for one option and present it (either strongly, if it is clear; or tentatively, if it is not clear)?

Some thoughts, although more could be added:

1. Don’t allow an academic discussion to overwhelm the main purpose and content of the message. If sharing the options with listeners would draw them away from the clear and central teaching of the passage, then think very very carefully before presenting the options.

2. Remember who you are preaching to – some groups just can’t handle options, others love them. As in all preaching, who you are preaching to is very significant.  Some groups would be confused and distracted by any apparent ambiguity in your presentation, but others love to get their teeth into such things (and appreciate the vulnerability of a preacher who doesn’t act like they have all the answers).

3. Don’t over-explain, sometimes interpretive options can be offered quite subtly. It is important to recognize the varied amount of explanation needed in such details of a message.  Sometimes we can make something bigger than it is, where it could be covered in two or three very brief sentences.  Even this might be effective sometimes: “Some people think he meant A, while others understand it to mean B.  Actually, either way doesn’t change the message of the whole passage…”

4. Recognize the opportunity to teach some Bible study skill. At the right time, with the right people, in the right passage, with the right words, this can be an opportunity to do some hermeneutics training within a message.

More thoughts . . . ?