Delivery

Preacher’s Block

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

You’ve probably heard of writer’s block – apparently it explains why some authors spend hours wandering aimlessly around cities like London and New York, buying coffee at Starbucks and then claiming it as a business expense.  But what about preacher’s block?  I’ve never heard anyone use the term, but I’ve certainly experienced it.  Here are a couple of ideas, feel free to add your own suggestions:

1. Take a break. Go for a walk, visit Starbucks, buy a coffee.  Ok, I’m not fully serious here, but taking a break can be helpful (but not always).  (Be honest on your tax returns or church expense account though, sin can be a real preacher’s block!)

2. Talk it through. If you have a spouse or friend or fellow preacher who doesn’t mind a mind-dump from you once in a while, take advantage of the chance to talk it through with them.  What you’re thinking, why you’re stuck, etc.  Of course you always have the option of talking it through at length with someone who cares more than you do about how the message goes, but I presume you are praying throughout the process anyway (probably an unwise assumption, hence I mentioned it!)

3. Preach it through. Most people leave running through their message much too late.  It can be a very helpful practice, once you have the passage studied and the main idea somewhat clear, to stand and deliver.  You probably won’t want people listening in at this stage, but you will often find it really helpful for you.  After all, the preparation process is supposed to culminate in oral communication.  Too often we trudge slowly through written preparation when our goal is not to write a book, but to speak a message.  Sometimes you will preach it through and then write down some helpful thoughts (phrases that worked well, transitions that communicated effectively, etc.)  Always you will find out where you are unclear and where further study, further work, further prayer and further thought are needed.  Preaching it through is not exactly a short-cut, but it can be a major tool for focusing and fine-tuning your preparation.

4. Confess, repent and press on. I suppose some preacher’s block should be recognized as indiscipline, inappropriate distraction or just plain laziness.  I don’t want to ignore that or skirt around it.  But contrary to what non-preaching legalistic spiritual drill sargeants may think, not all preacher’s block is a sin.

So over to you, other suggestions?

The First-Person Exception Clause

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

I just received a really encouraging email from Steve.  Steve has attended a couple of my preaching seminars and also helped to set one up in his own church.  We had talked about the possibility of preaching in first-person, and he followed through on the idea.  Here are the highlights of the email with some added comments from me:

“Whereas I’ve heard another preacher do this with a slight tongue in cheek approach, I did the whole thing totally straight, trying to maintain the idea that I was Abraham telling my story to my grandchildren.” – that’s an important point, it’s so easy to slip into an ongoing humour that distances us from our character in order to connect with our listeners.  This may be appropriate in some settings, but I say if you’re going to go for it, go for it.  Now, was it easy?

“It was really tough going as I had no notes whatsoever and when you realise you’ve missed something it is so hard to think around whether you should go back and make that point you forgot or carry on, whilst still keeping totally in character.” Most people agree that Abraham would not use notes to give his message (I would suggest the same principle might apply as you give “your” message next time too, but that would be taking us off the point of this post).  Preaching without notes in any form provides that kind of challenge.  It does get easier, but never easy.  Here comes the exception clause:

“I think many were impressed with the fact I listed out Abraham’s genealogy from Abraham back to Noah. That was just a memory trick though and very early on in the sermon.” Generally we should avoid anything that smacks of showing off in our preaching.  It can be easy to do after spending hours with our nose in the books, but we are there to serve and communicate, not to show off.  However, Steve has made a comment here that I view as an exception to the rule – in this case such information would obviously be known by Abraham himself.  People may be impressed, but if used judiciously, this type of communication can serve to underline that this is a serious sermon.  But this should be carefully weighed so it is not the big talking point or lasting effect of the message:

“It was so good though as I was taking the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac and so many people came up afterwards and said that the story had come alive for them like never before and made them think what it really felt like for them both. You could really see people on the edge of their seats.” That’s the power of well-told narrative!

So, last words to a first time first-person preacher: “It was definitely worth doing though even if it was a real challenge.”

Delivery Diagnostics

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Just a quick prompt to do a self-check on your delivery.  By definition, biblical preaching must be heavily focused on content (both biblical and connected to contemporary life).  However, great content can easily be undermined by poor delivery.  Perhaps it would be worth running a quick self-scan over your delivery strengths and weaknesses.  Don’t be overwhelmed, improving any one even slightly is worth the effort required.

Does your delivery convey a tone of affection for the listeners (do you really love them?) How is your eye contact?  Is it fleeting, forced, lacking altogether, overbearing to some, ignoring others?  Are you bound to your notes?  Honestly, do you look at your notes more than you realize?  Are you aware of facial feedback from your listeners?  Do your gestures fit your words?  Are they natural?  Any ruts in your use of gesture?  Do your hands seem stuck?  And your feet?  Do you move naturally?

Do you slow down in transitions (slow through the curves)?  Do your facial expressions vary appropriately?  Do you smile?  How is your posture?  Too stiff or too relaxed?  And your voice?  Does the pitch vary appropriately?  Can people hear you?  Is there enough variation in power, in pace?  Do you pause on purpose?  Do you have any verbal pauses to eliminate?  Do you dress appropriately for the occasion and the culture of the church?  Are there any other personal qwerks that in any way hinder people from listening to you?  Do you pray about delivery before preaching?

An overwhelming checklist, but prayerfully pick one known weakness and consider how it can be improved next time you preach.  Create a plan.  Follow through on it.  Perhaps even ask for accountability on that one thing from a listener or two (that will help you follow through!)

Preaching Means Picking Words – Part 4

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Alright, I think this will be the last in the series.  Yesterday I made mention of sensory details and sufficient time for images to form on the screens of the hearts and imaginations of the listeners.  This is all true and important, well worth pondering, but here’s another piece of the puzzle.  Listeners won’t remain listeners unless they are engaged and interested:

Pick words which energize the message! It’s almost a given that most preachers are imbalanced in their reading.  We tend to read books on biblical studies, theology, commentaries, etc.  These books are precise, but rarely energizing or invigorating to read.  But if we preach like a dry and precise commentary, listeners will miss out on the gems in our content.  We need to practice the skill of energizing our descriptive vocabulary.  Did Saul hide?  No, he cowered.  Did Goliath call out?  Or did he bellow?  What about fog, does it come, or does it creep?  Was that a crowd gathered around Stephen, or was it a mob?

Series Conclusion – It would do us all good to do a stock check on our preaching vocabulary.  Is it accurate, or sloppy?  Does it communicate, or try to show off?  Is it lofty, or natural?  Is it vivid, or bland?  Does it engage and energize, or fall flat?  Perhaps there’s one area to work on. Perhaps more than one.  It’s worth the effort though, after all, at some very basic and fundamental level, preaching means picking words!

Preaching Means Picking Words – Part 3

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Precision is good, pride is not.  Pomposity is slightly different than lofty language.  But there’s still more to write on this issue.  When we preach, we pick words.

Develop your descriptive vocabulary. The Bible text is usually quite lean and sparse when it comes to descriptive details.  It certainly doesn’t paint the pictures like contemporary fiction writers do – “It was her long, flowing, mahogany-brown hair that first caught his attention.  Her confident gait held in tension by the reserved expression on her face.  Was it reserved, or was it demure?  He wondered as she approached the ticket desk, lifting her black leather purse onto the high grey surface and leaning forward on her elbows…” I could go on, I know you’re intrigued (she wanted non-smoking tickets).

So if the Bible is lean and sparse, surely we shouldn’t preach like we’re writing contemporary fiction (where it can take 10 pages of description to get to the conversation)?  It’s true, we shouldn’t trivialize the text, or over-describe and assign inspiration to that which is merely sanctified imagination.  On the other hand, our listeners are listening.  They can’t go back over the text and read it again, engaging their imaginations (as they might at home in their quiet times).  As listeners they need sensory details and sufficient time for the story to form in their hearts and minds.

I try to imagine a blank screen in the minds of my listeners.  As I explain the text, tell the story, etc., I am trying to give enough information, using effective word choices, and taking enough time for an image to form on those blank screens.  It is tempting and too easy to preach the Bible at such pace that listeners never get beyond the fog on the screens.  They won’t remember a set of propositions in the same way as they’d remember the mark left by a clear idea imprinted through the experience of the text well preached, effectively forming on the screens of their minds.

Preaching Means Picking Words – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday we considered the challenge of picking the right words to convey the message when we preach.  We need to be precise rather than slack, but strive to communicate rather than to demonstrate our verbal or intellectual prowess.  Here’s another factor to throw into the mix:

Lofty language languishes. Is lofty language the same thing as pulpit pomposity?  Yes and no.  Pompous words are chosen to show off our intellect (or are used carelessly without intent to show off).  Lofty language may be used to show off our spirituality (or simply be used without thinking because we are used to it in our church circles, or because we mistake it for some sort of spiritual humility and genuinely motivated demonstration of sanctification).  The fact is that in almost every setting, listeners find lofty language and tone to be distant, unengaging and even off-putting.  While it may have been acceptable in a previous generation, it seems that in most places the tolerance for inauthentic communication forms has diminished drastically.  In the western cultures, at least, the majority of listeners now esteem authenticity and natural communication.  Having a pulpit voice or a pulpit vocabulary is not worth it, even if it once was (which is a very questionable “if”).

Lofty language languishes, it doesn’t stand up tall and demand that listeners engage with it and its message. Ok, that paragraph was a long one, so I’ll leave it there and add a part three to this series of posts.

Unhealthy Division: Style & Substance

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Perhaps people like me add to the kind of division I am thinking about by the labels used in our teaching of preaching, but still, we’d do well to think about this.  Do we too easily divide elements of preaching?

For example, content and delivery, or substance and style.  It’s a simple distinction, and it works for planning a class schedule.  But when you consider the complexity of the act of communication, perhaps the distinction can be unhelpful?  Certainly once we start dismissing style out of a resolute commitment to substance, we are shooting ourselves in the foot.

Now don’t get me wrong.  The term “style” is not the best for what I am writing about.  Even “delivery” can sound like a performance.  The reality, though, is that the message is transmitted through a preacher.  This includes many elements.  Not just vocal production, verbal clarity, non-verbal presentation, etc. (the classic elements of “delivery”), but also that which you might label “ethos” and “pathos.”

I recently tweaked my gradually-improving definition of preaching in one part by adding the two words “and life.”  In reference to the oral communication aspect of preaching, my current best attempt at a definition says that preaching involves “…effective communication through the preacher’s words (and life)…”

Perhaps we would do well to not dismiss matters of “style” and “delivery” as “mere performance.”  It is too easy to take Paul’s self-distancing from the manipulative skill of classical rhetoric (1Cor.2:1-5) and therefore dismiss all rhetoric and homiletics.  The problem with such a blanket response is that Paul clearly utilized both rhetorical and homiletical skill in his writing and preaching.  Instead of a quick dismissal of all style/delivery issues, or at the other extreme, an obsession with delivery that results in a performance mentality, perhaps we would consider more seriously that which results in the pulpit from the weight of who we are personally in our walk with Christ.

Maturity shows.  Passion shows.  Love shows.  Life shows.  Perhaps a preachers style and delivery are a lot more about the preachers inner life and spirituality than our categories tend to recognize?

Thou Shalt Not Bore Through Preaching

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I can’t claim this as an inspired eleventh commandment.  But there have been times when I wished it were there in the text!  In reality I tend to hear myself preaching more than others now, so I need to be careful what I say here . . . but a lot of preaching is just really kind of, well, boring.

We could get into all sorts of reasons for that.  There are numerous ways to de-bore elements of preaching.  But I just want to raise the fundamental issue.  Let’s beware that we don’t bore.  Is it the content?  Sometimes.  Is it the delivery? Sometimes.  Is it the lack of “illustrations” (a common quick-fix diagnosis)?  Sometimes.  Is it the presence of predictable illustrations?  Sometimes.  Is it the attitude of the preacher?  Sometimes.  Is it the personality of the preacher?  Sometimes.  Is it the personal spiritual walk of  the preacher?  Sometimes.  Is it the reality about God?  Never.

There are many reasons why preachers commit the horrifying sin of boring listeners.  But lest I elongate this post and dilute the point unnecessarily, let’s just stop here with two comments.  Let us commit to never boring people with the Word of God.  Let us commit to genuinely responding to God convicting us on this issue (when He does), rather than simply sticking on a band-aid quick fix.

Don’t Dilute By Distraction

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Just a quick thought relating to the concluding movement of a message. This includes the conclusion, but might also bring in the final movement or point of the message. During the final thrust, the crescendo of the message, do not dilute the focus of listeners. It is so easy to unnecessarily add new elements to a message at a time when the need is not variation, nor interest, but focus. For instance:

Don’t dilute by adding distracting texts. It’s so tempting to refer to another verse somewhere or other in the Bible. Often, not always, but often, this is a distraction rather than a help. Evaluate carefully before redirecting the gaze of the listeners to a passage, to wording, to a story, to a psalm, to anything that has not been the primary focus of the message. You may mention one verse, but their minds may blossom out in all sorts of bunny trails, or at the very least, the new information may dilute their focus. Be wary of adding texts in this final leg of the journey. (Sometimes a specific text, painstakingly chosen, and carefully used, may serve to close a message well…but only sometimes…a small sometimes.)

Tomorrow I will bring up another source of distraction that can dilute the end of a message.

The Danger of Disengagement

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I enjoyed a couple of very encouraging, although too brief, conversations on preaching.  One thought that was bounced around was one I have addressed on here before – the fact that shortening attention spans is a myth.  People will listen as long as they are engaged.  For some preachers, that means an hour long sermon is entirely possible, while for others, twenty minutes is beyond what they can manage.

This issue of attention brings two thoughts from two very different “homiletics” voices to mind.  First, David Buttrick is among those who suggest that really people can only concentrate in short blocks of time, perhaps up to five minutes.  So the preacher should plan their message in order to recreate attention in these blocks.  I won’t go into detail on that here, just that simple thought may be helpful.

Second, Andy Stanley has helpfully pointed out the danger of disengagement.  What happens once people disengage from our message?  Stanley suggests that once someone disengages, they start to process the preached information in a different way: “this is irrelevant; church is irrelevant; God is irrelevant; the Bible is irrelevant.”  For Stanley the key is to keep listeners travelling with you on a journey.  (For a teaser of Andy’s book, here’s an interview on communication with Ed Stetzer – Andy Stanley interview)

How do we engage our listeners?  How do we keep them engaged?  Do we really recognize the danger when they disengage?