Delivery

Make Two Key Times Count

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I just saw a chart showing that there are two key times in any presentation.  I’ll describe the chart for you.  On the vertical axis, from 0 to 100%, is the scale of attention and retention.  On the horizontal axis, it reads “beginning … middle … end.”  The chart consists of a U-shaped curve.  Attention/retention are highest at the beginning and the end, but dip significantly in the middle.

This poses some concern for me as a preacher.  If this is true, then we need to consider whether we’ve packed the best meat in the middle of the sermon.  Surely we wouldn’t want to give a “meat sandwich” of a sermon if our listeners miss significant amounts of good meat, but take in all the white bread at the start and finish?  Perhaps we need to give more attention to the bread of the sandwich.  Too many sermons are fine steak in the middle of dry cheap white sliced bread.  We need to give more time to preparing our intros and conclusions (so the bread is a higher quality homebaked wholemeal something or other).

Ok, enough of the sandwich analogy, I’m starting to get distracted by my own hunger.  When we preach, let’s think carefully about how to maximize the value of our introduction – not just grabbing attention and building rapport, but also raising need for what is to follow and moving powerfully into the message in order to protect against an excessive dip in attention and focus.

Let’s think carefully about how to make the most of our conclusion – not just fizzling to a faded flop of a finish, but finishing strong, driving home the main idea, encouraging application of it and stopping with purpose.

If attention and retention are highest at the beginning and end of a message, let’s make these two key times count.

(If you want to see the chart and the suggestions given in that post, just click here.)

What’s Missing in Preaching These Days?

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

It’s an important question.  As I talk to people about preaching, and read about preaching, and sometimes hear preaching too (although there are exceptions to what I will write in this post), there is a general sense that something is missing in contemporary preaching.  I suppose it probably varies by culture, perhaps by denomination, certainly by individual preacher, but generally speaking, something seems to be missing.

The more I ponder this issue, the more I realize it is not a technical detail (although “technically” there may be many common failings).  To use the analogy of a car (since mine is about to receive it’s annual “government test”) – it’s not a matter of a bolt here or a seal there.  It’s more on the level of whether the engine is there or not.  What I am saying is this – the weakness of much contemporary preaching is a core weakness, not a minor detail.

Perhaps it is that many preachers simply don’t know their Bible well enough.  After all, in an age of constant e-communications and busy lifestyles, it seems to be increasingly difficult to find preachers who really dwell in the sacred text, rather than just visiting it during preparation.  Perhaps it is that many preachers don’t know their God well enough?  I ask it as a question, because I know that is a potentially inflammatory thought.  But then again, that’s the beauty of blogging – I can prod to prompt pondering, even if you think I am wrong in what I write.  As somebody wrote somewhere (sounds like a Hebrews quotation) – where have all the divines gone? Perhaps the communication of many preachers is too stilted, too inauthentic for this generation?  That may seem like a leap into a different aspect of preaching, but I see real connections between the communication aspect of preaching and the previous matters of being a biblical preacher, being God’s preacher.  Somehow I don’t think the prophets would have seemed inauthentic.

I’m just thinking out loud.  What I’m thinking is that if there is a general weakness in preaching these days, it is less a matter of effective transitions or pithy wording of key statements in a message, and more a matter of the underlying connection with the Lord, deep knowledge of His Word, and authentic heart-to-heart connection between preacher and listeners.  What do you think?  Am I way off track?  Am I missing something?  Or, generally speaking, is something missing?

Easter is Coming – The Power of Identification

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I know Easter is still a couple of months away, but as a preacher it is never too early to think about Easter.  In fact, there is a sense in which commemoration of Easter is never more than six days away – the Lord’s Day is a weekly gathering because of His resurrection.  So here’s a thought regarding Easter (whether you’re planning for April or preparing for tomorrow’s message).

In preaching any narrative section, we need to consider whom listeners will gravitate toward, with whom they will identify.  We should consider how to encourage that or redirect that through our preaching.  In the case of the passion narratives, this tendency to identify can be powerfully used in our preaching.  Luther pointed to this when he wrote:

“Although Christians will identify themselves with Judas, Caiaphas, and Pilate; sinful, condemned actors in the Gospel story – there is another who took the sins of humanity on himself when they were hung around his neck.”

When it comes to the story of the crucifixion we find ourselves identifying with so many characters: Judas, Peter, fleeing disciples, Caiaphas, Pilate, Roman soldiers, Simon from Cyrene, mocking executioners, mocking crowds, mocking thief, repentant thief, followers standing at a distance, followers standing close by, even the Centurion.  Yet the wonder of it all is that we are invited to identify with the perfect One hanging on that cross, for in that act He was most wondrously identifying with us.

Consider how the natural function of narrative – to spark identification – can be utilized to communicate the wondrous truth of Calvary this Easter, or even this Sunday.

Say It Separate From the Sermon

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I was just reading a list of rules for preaching by Rolf Jacobson of Luther Seminary.  I was intrigued by number 3, which I share here.  My own preaching tends to be in churches where the liturgical calendar is largely ignored, but I know that for many churches the opposite is true.  Either way, here’s Rolf’s thought:

3. You shall not proclaim the season of the church year. What does this mean? Do not use the text as a point of departure for talking about Advent, Epiphany, Lent, Pentecost, All Saints, Mothers’ Day, Fishing Opener, or the Commemoration of St. NOBODY CARES! Easter and Christmas are okay to mention frequently, but do not trump the biblical text with the liturgical day. Let the rest of the liturgy be the place where the movements of the liturgical season shape the community of faith. I am not against the liturgical year. In fact I fully embrace it. But preach the text! If the preacher constantly refers to the liturgical season, the season becomes the de facto text for the sermon. That is not biblical preaching.

As well as the specific point about preaching the text rather than using it to get to the liturgical calendar, I like an implied point here.  There are other elements in a service that can be used for certain things.  The choice of songs, the introdauction to songs, prayers, other elements in the service.  Let’s not think that anything that could or should be said on Sunday has to be said in the sermon.  We can use the rest of the service for the rest of the agenda, but let’s keep the message time for the message of the text.

The Non-Academic Preacher Compliment

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Last week I spoke to a friend who had asked to borrow my master’s thesis.  He was positive about it, but mentioned that he’d had to look up some terms I’d used.  He was a bit surprised since he doesn’t have that challenge when I preach.  That’s an encouraging compliment in my eyes!

Here’s a quick quote that is somewhat related in Phillip Jensen’s chapter, “Preaching the Word Today” in Preach the Word, the book of essays in honor of Kent Hughes:

With the discriminating eye of the cynic, the modern scholar can deconstruct the author’s writings so as to explain what he “really” meant.  Only the expert – never the ploughboy – can know what was meant.  The priesthood of all believers is no longer replaced by the sacerdotalism of the sacramentalists but by the arrogance of the academy.

We need to be so careful.  I think it is good to get the best academic training possible (a matter of good stewardship), but we need to be very careful not to develop the easily associated arrogance that comes with training, nor to carry that arrogance into the pulpit.  We serve the priesthood of all believers; we are not the priesthood for all other believers.

Let’s make sure we open up the Bible in peoples’ laps, rather than moving it further away from them.  Let’s make sure we communicate well, rather than impress with lofty language that the ploughboy doesn’t understand.  Let’s make sure we prepare for ministry and prepare for a message as fully as we are able, but not let that show in any way that will hinder our listeners.

Points on Picking Passages – Part 1

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

While you may agree that working through a book is the ideal default when planning a preaching schedule, what if you are only preaching a single message? What if a passage is not assigned and you are free to choose? What freedom to delight in! Or perhaps, what a stress to despair in! Today I’ll lay a foundation with two firm facts, then tomorrow offer several considerations as a passage is chosen.

Two Firm Facts:

1. God is sovereign. We should pray throughout the preparation process, including the selection of a passage. However, we don’t need to wait endless hours for direct revelation of a specific passage when God has not promised to give us such a revelation.  How often have we preached and then heard, “that was exactly what God knew I needed to hear?”  Far more often than an angel visits us with preaching instructions.  God is not at the mercy of our ability to “spot the signs” and discern some slightly hidden hints from heaven.  God is sovereign.

2. All Scripture is “useful.” In theory any passage can be preached with appropriate application to any given group of listeners. Obviously some passages are far harder to preach relevantly than others depending on the passage and the listeners. However, there is not one perfect passage for this occasion that if you miss it you will have failed. Enjoy the freedom that comes from knowing what they need is the Bible – clear and applied – not a needle in the haystack that you somehow have to find.

Tomorrow I’ll offer some considerations to complete this post.

Double Sermon Experiment: Lessons Learned

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I have suggested this before, but decided to try it again on Sunday.  One passage, two messages.  In the afternoon I had some doubts.  Perhaps I should do something different?  I prayerfully decided to stick with the plan and I’m glad I did.  (Despite this moment of doubt, the afternoon was less of a trial than it would have been had I needed to switch gears and mentally prepare for a totally different text!)  Here are some observations:

1. A second message in the same passage allows the preacher and the listeners to soak in a text, rather than jumping around. I appreciated this and it seems the listeners did too.  Perhaps we too quickly move from one part of Scripture to another in a two-sermon Sunday.

2. A second message allows elaboration on that which is squeezed by time in the first message. In this case I was preaching a fairly lengthy narrative in a limited time.  Consequently I could not develop the application of the passage to the extent that I felt necessary.  The evening message allowed more complete and concrete application of the main idea.

3. A second message allows for more exegetical work to show, to reinforce the authority of the main idea. I preached the story in the morning, then in the evening I reviewed it briefly before demonstrating how the context reinforces the main idea.  Hopefully this would result in people understanding the process of Bible study more (importance of context), and would motivate some to jump into the book for themselves.

4. A second message allows the main idea to be restated, reiterated and reinforced. Perhaps this is the best benefit of all.  In this case I had a main idea that I think was biblical, fairly clear and important for our lives today.  No matter how well I preached the first message (I’m not saying I did, I’m being hypothetical), I would not want to be overconfident in terms of how well my idea got through.  However, having had review, reinforcement and concretized application in the evening, I’m a little more confident that the main idea might be pondered and applied in the days ahead.

I commend this approach to you.  Study a passage, then preach two messages instead of one.  It allows for more focus over two services, for developed application, for more exegetical work to be demonstrated, for the main idea to have greater effect.

Don’t Undermine Trust

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

NOTE – Peter has replied to helpful comment on this post.

Different versions translate some things in slightly different ways.  One version says “healed” where another says “saved.”  Sometimes a footnote points out an alternative reading to the one in the text, but other versions choose the alternative reading.  What do we do when we are preaching a text with a textual variant in it?

1. Recognize that the listeners may be using different versions. This means that it might be worth a brief passing comment that “your version may have it this way…”  Generally it is probably better to affirm both as possible, or express a preference for one over the other in a gracious manner that does not tear down the alternative.

2. Recognize that your listeners are not experts in textual criticism. (Incidentally, be honest with yourself too.  Just because you can pronounce a Greek word in a dictionary does not mean you are a Greek scholar.)  So we should be very hesitant to overwhelm people with textual critical issues.  In reality, most of the time this will achieve a double goal.  First it may show how much work you’ve done, what skill you have or perhaps add confidence in your understanding of the passage.  More importantly, second of all it almost certainly will undermine their trust in their own Bibles.  People don’t understand how their version came to exist, they don’t grasp the process from inspiration to translation, and so your textual critical observation may very well cause them to distrust their Bible.  “If my version is wrong in this verse, why should I trust it anywhere else?”

3. Do your work in preparation, but think carefully what you say while preaching. The last thing we want to do is inadvertently undermine peoples’ trust in the Bible sitting open in their lap!

Dealing With Personal Inadequacies in Preaching

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I made a passing comment about inadequacy in preaching.  We all feel inadequate in some area.  Perhaps it relates to our lack of training.  Or our lack of understanding the many elements of the expository preaching process.  Or perhaps we feel lightweight in the arena of theology.  Or maybe our delivery lacks that certain something.  Or maybe we feel inadequate in the area of pastoral awareness and connection with our listeners.  The list could go on.  Here are some thoughts on this matter:

1. Feelings of inadequacy are appropriate. As I wrote the other day, we are out of our depth.  We should be feeling inadequate as we handle God’s Word, as we prepare to present the Word of God to people who need it so desperately, as we participate in a ministry with such eternal ramifications.  Inadequacy should be the name of the game on one level.

2. Feelings of inadequacy should not be avoided. There are ways to hide from our feelings of inadequacy.  For instance, rationalizing approaches that circumvent our areas of weakness.  One example was presented yesterday – just waiting on God to give us what to say rather than facing the challenge of studying the text to see what God has said there.  We naturally find ways to avoid inadequacy and protect ourselves.  This is not a faith approach.

3. Feelings of inadequacy should not undermine faith. When we stand to preach, we stand in faith.  We have to trust God.  We have to trust in His Word.  We have to trust in the power of His Spirit.  So feelings of inadequacy may be a prompt to doubt, which we should address by prayer-fueled faith.

4. Feelings of inadequacy might be a prompt to faith-filled action. I deliberately didn’t put this first, but it does belong on the list.  That is to say, perhaps our feelings of inadequacy should prompt us to prayerfully strengthen in those areas of weakness.  Is it time to take a course of study, attend a training day, read a book, work through a systematic theology text or whatever?  We should not try to strengthen weakness as a means of fleshly self-reliance, but rather as good stewards of the ministry God has entrusted to us.  Let us prove to be faithful stewards, rather than fearful stewards.

Feelings of inadequacy – not all good, not all bad, not the end of the story.

Laughter and the Preacher

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The subject of humor in preaching can create tension.  Personally I think that natural humor appropriately used can be a great tool in preaching.  Obviously I agree that unnatural humor inappropriately used for the sake of entertainment in preaching is not good at all.  Satan loves to take something that is good and corrupt it, even in the church.  But I’m not wanting to write about humor in preaching, I’m thinking about laughter in the preacher.  Perhaps a preacher with a great laugh comes to mind, like Charles Swindoll, or a preacher with dry humor, or whatever, but I’m not thinking primarily about preaching today.

I just read the quote that laughter is an instant vacation.  Perhaps in the busy-ness of life and ministry, we need something akin to mini-sabbaths by laughter.  Before you start thinking that my view of sabbath is limited, hear me out.  I know that the biblical concept of Sabbath from Genesis 2 to the book of Hebrews is very rich theologically.  I also know that we of all people, hopefully understanding the Bible well, being experts in the struggles of contemporary life, carrying the pastoral burdens of deeply hurting folks, facing spiritual opposition at potentially elevated levels, etc., we of all people have reason to be sombre and serious.

Yet at the same time, if we know the Bible well, if we know God well, if we have a firm grasp of the theological truths in which we deal every day, the truths of a God who has grasped our hearts and poured out his love into them . . . we of all people should have laughter in our lives.  The Psalmist wrote about the return of the captives and spoke of how their mouths were filled with laughter.  Why?  Because they knew, indeed all the nations knew, that the LORD had done great things for them!  (see Psalm 126)  The book of Proverbs speaks of a joyful heart being good medicine (Pro.17:22).  They say the laughter of a Dad is critical to the psychological health of a child.  Laughter, by definition, seems to be a healthy ingredient in life.

I don’t deny the other side of the coin.  The need for seriousness in many aspects of life and ministry, the sadness that may overwhelm our hearts as they beat with His for this hurting rebellious world, the deep realities of mourning in this world that itself groans in travail.  I do not urge flippancy or silliness or folly.  I simply want to prod myself and perhaps you too . . . surely we of all people should have regular bouts of laughter.  God-inspired, clean, honest, “I’ve cast my cares on Him so the burdens are not on me” laughter.  God-given, grace-prompted, “God has given me so much to rejoice in that I am able to enjoy the little blessings” laughter.

Perhaps if we allow ourselves to laugh in private, it may even spill naturally and appropriately into the pulpit.  Maybe that wouldn’t be a bad thing sometimes.