Delivery

Why State Ideas Explicitly? – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Here’s the question again:

Since our culture is shaped by the communication of implicit and pervasive ideas, and much of the Scriptures use a narrative communication with ideas implicitly conveyed, are we communicating effectively when we state explicit ideas in preaching?

Two more thoughts:

Generally speaking, explicit statement of the idea is necessary if people are to have any chance of getting it. I’ve seen it time and again in preaching classrooms.  The preacher knows that the class will be asked what the main idea of the message was, so they try to exaggerate it, repeating it until they feel almost embarrassed to do so any more.  Then when the group is asked for it (knowing they would be asked and some looking for it throughout the message) . . . many fail to give the preachers idea accurately!  It is scary as a preacher to realize how easily people miss the main idea, even when we are explicit.  So we need to consider how to communicate that idea effectively.  Generally this means repetition, emphasis, etc.  Sometimes a better way is more subtle, but strong through subtlety (as in an inductive message – less repetition, but more impact).  Moving deliberately away from explicit statement of the main idea without a very good alternative strategy and plan seems like homiletical folly.

This question does raise a valid issue. Not only do we need to think about the explicit main idea of our message, but we need to consider our implicit communication.  How can we reinforce the main idea through implicit means during the sermon?  What other values and ideas are we conveying implicitly in this or any sermon?

Is it right to state the main idea explicitly?  I think it is.  But this does not call us to simple formulaic approaches to idea repetition.  It calls us to wrestle with our entire preaching strategy as we seek to convey the true and exact meaning of the biblical text with impact in the lives of our listeners.

Why State Ideas Explicitly?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

A while ago I was asked a very perceptive question:

Since our culture is shaped by the communication of implicit and pervasive ideas, and much of the Scriptures use a narrative communication with ideas implicitly conveyed, are we communicating effectively when we state explicit ideas in preaching?

I think a question of that depth requires a better answer than I am about to give, but perhaps this post and the next can challenge both our theory and practice.  A couple of thoughts in lieu of a full-orbed answer:

Preaching is different since listeners cannot soak in it. I would suggest that the pervasive influence of our culture is a soaking influence.  People are constantly and gradually bombarded with messages about life, reality, meaning, self, beauty, satisfaction, money, sex and so on.  This “implicit” pounding continues moment by moment, day after day.  Then we stand on a Sunday morning and hope to counter with truth from God’s Word.  From one perspective, it is hardly a fair fight!

Culture, Bible and Preaching all influence both implicitly and explicitly. While the question recognizes the implicit nature of communication in both culture and the Scriptures, it fails to recognize that all three use both implicit and explicit communication.  Culture is implicit in the communication of the general main ideas of the world, but when “soaking” is not possible, it can become very overt.  An ad campaign that will be seen many times can be subtle, but witness also the numerous explicit “big ideas” communicated daily in advertizing, film, music, etc.  According to Robinson, the Bible communicates eight or ten big “big ideas” repeatedly throughout the canon.  Spend a life soaking in the Word of God and those ideas will mark you deeply.  Yet each passage also conveys its idea more directly – with language, propositional statements, images painted with words, even narratives that leave a mark on the reader (whether or not the reader bothers to try and put exact words to the idea that has been presented therein).  Preaching also communicates both implicitly and explicitly.  Over the years, listeners who soak in your preaching will be marked by implicit messages and attitudes conveyed in your preaching – attitudes toward God, toward truth, toward the Bible, toward people, etc.  Yet we also make explicit that which the listener should not miss – the idea of this passage, presented to us today.

Tomorrow I will add a couple more thoughts in response to this question.

Why Don’t They Return

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

One of the perpetual questions for preachers and church leaders.  Why don’t visitors return?  Some churches may be persisting with “guest services” in some form or other that have not seen an outsider come in for years.  But other churches have some success at attracting guests or visitors.  If we get visitors, but never see them again, what is the reason?

Non-Preaching Reasons – This is a preaching site, so I have a tendency to think about the preaching part of church life, but there are many potential non-preaching reasons.  Are church members unfriendly?  Does the church put visitors in the spotlight and make them uncomfortable (“too friendly” approaches like, “would any visitors please stand up so we can welcome you with a round of applause, a huge bouquet of flowers and a fireworks display in your honor?”)  Does the whole experience feel uncomfortably alien to them?  (Remember that church culture is probably not their culture, so they don’t know when they’re supposed to stand, sit, look up a Bible reference, etc.)  Lack of personal connection (people ultimately come to church relationally, so if the relational connections are not made, return visits will probably not occur).  There are many more possible reasons, some of which are outside our control.  But for the sake of the gospel, take stock of everything from seating, welcomers, friendliness, to missing explanations of church service elements, to your own personal hygiene!  People matter, after all.

Preaching Reasons – Preaching is not everything, but it is a significant something.  Could visitors choose not to return because of their experience of your preaching?  Is your manner apparently false (lofty, outdated, affected, too “stained glass”)?  Is your preaching engaging or tedious?  Does it bear any relevance to their lives?  Can they follow what you’re talking about?  People are not used to sitting and listening to a speaker for an extended time (i.e. beyond five minutes!)  If your preaching is boring, irrelevant, strangely affected or unhelpfully aggressive, not to mention legalistic or apparently insincere (i.e. incessantly “nice” throughout) . . . well, they might not want to sit through it again!

Some elements of a visitor’s experience and motivation are beyond our control.  It is ultimately up to the Spirit to draw people to Jesus and the Gospel, as only He can truly convict and save.  But let’s not add any unnecessary barriers to the process.  Perhaps it’s time to take stock of everything from a visitor’s perspective.  This doesn’t mean transforming everything into an extreme seeker-sensitive church model.  Whatever your view on how church should be, surely we can agree it should be “visitor considerate.”

Doubt Is No Cul-De-Sac

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Do we allow people permission to doubt?  Doubt is natural.  But many Christians seem to fear it.  It’s as if doubting might open the door to serious enquiry that might undermine their faith.  So doubt is rejected as somehow unchristian.  I had a good conversation with my seven-year-old who expressed that sometimes she doubts her faith.  I asked what she felt she should do when she doubts.  “Stop doubting” seemed the right thing to say, but wrong.  I encouraged her to engage with any doubts that come.  If Christianity is true, if the Bible is true, then it can stand the test of some tough questions.  Good questions won’t harm truth.

Many Christians feel guilty for doubting.  They feel that they should immediately cut it out and get back on track.  Metaphorically the doubt is seen as a dead end road that should be reversed out of as quickly as possible.  I would encourage people to engage the doubt, to study the truth, to follow through.  Doubt is a pathway to a tested and evidentially undergirded faith.

As we preach we regularly have opportunities to address doubts.  Doubts about God, about the Bible, about suffering, about faith, about the future, about all aspects of Christianity.  Let’s be sure to not reinforce the typical response – to hit reverse and get out quickly.  Instead let’s encourage an informed, researched, understood Christianity.  Let’s encourage people to prayerfully wrestle with the Word.  Let’s model in our preaching a healthy response to doubts.

Don’t pretend doubt is not a reality for many believers, even if you don’t struggle.  Certainly don’t hide personal struggles as if you would lose all credibility if you were found out to be a real person!  Instead seize the moment to model healthy response to doubt and provide the quality of information people need for the struggles they face.

Do We Preach Written Texts?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

It seems obvious, but as preachers of the Bible we are preachers of written texts.  Or are we?  I am not questioning the inspiration of the Bible – my view of Scripture is as high as ever.  I am sharing a helpful prod I received this week in a book I was reading.  In this book there was a critique of the standard writer/text/reader model of New Testament communication – an overly simplistic model, perhaps.  The writer suggested it would be helpful to consider the actual process involved in communicating a New Testament epistle.  The process suggested was Author-Secretary-Courier-Reader, with oral “rehearsal” included at various stages.  The author was not sitting at a desk with quill in hand, but dictating so the secretary (amanuensis) could inscribe the letter.  The author was also concerned with the ability of the courier to be able to then read the text effectively, for the recipients weren’t reading their mail, but rather listening to the spoken word (probably numerous times).

While the writer/text/reader model of communication is simple and accurate at a certain level, it does fall short in representing the orality of the original text.  Perhaps we have not given the Bible text, especially the epistles in this case, enough credit for their oral-communication features.  Literary features abound and so do the scholarly studies into them.  But perhaps there is a need for more studies into the orality features of the biblical text?  And as preachers, perhaps we need to think more about the oral nature of the texts we preach.  There are many possible implications.

Do we preach written texts?  Yes.  But more than that, we preach spoken texts written in order to be spoken, and very importantly, heard.

The Two-By-Four Rule?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I was just listening to some training materials on delivery and public speech.  Interesting, although largely familiar material.  I haven’t gone back to double check this, but I think it was called the two-by-four rule: The impact of the first two seconds takes four minutes of further presentation to equal.

If that is true, then perhaps it’s worth giving more attention to such matters as personal grooming, dress, body language, smile, voice and so on . . . especially that initial impression.  Incidentally that initial impression in a church setting is often not the same as in a business setting where the speaker emerges from nowhere to begin the speech.  In church people see you in the car park, in the corridor, during the first part of the service.  Maybe the “I’m-so-stressed-because-Sunday-is-no-Sabbath-for-me” look is unhelpful?

Just Write Them A Letter Instead?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Some people naively think there is no difference between written and oral communication.  Many of us would agree that there is a significant difference.  Yesterday I was interacting with someone who believes these two forms of communication are polar opposites.  Written communication is linear, it is single channel, it is the way to go when the goal is to inform.  Spoken communication is complex, it involves dozens of channels and it is the way to go when the goal is to motivate, to influence, to persuade.

With all the added channels of communication such as energy, eye contact, posture, body language, intonation, etc., preaching is an ideal opportunity to do what preaching is supposed to do.  Go beyond informing listeners to influencing and motivating response to the Word of God.  Preaching involves explanation of the text, but it is to be applicational explanation.  If all you plan to do in your next sermon is inform, then perhaps it would be better use of your time and theirs to just write them a letter instead?

Preach Deeper

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

I just came across some notes I made a while ago.  It’s a three part description of preaching that I hear.  This is simplified, but perhaps helpful as a stimulus to move from approach 1 to 2 and from 2 to 3.

Approach 1 – Springboard Preaching (Inadequate approach to preaching)

This is where the preacher touches down in a passage just long enough to bounce out of it and into their own thoughts.  A word or phrase may be taken on the journey through the message, but it has long since been ripped out of its passage context.

Approach 2 – Highlight Bounce Preaching (Adequate, but “amateur” approach to preaching)

This is where the preacher is a little more aware of the context of the passage and moves through the passage noting highlights along the way.  Typically these highlights will reflect the best bits of Bible study done in preparation (often the best study moves out of the passage, so the message also can jump to other passages, but I did not want to complicate the diagram!)  This is better than Springboard Preaching, but let me show you a better way!

Approach 3 – “Plumbed” Passage Preaching (Preferable approach to preaching)

This is where the preacher has studied the passage in its context and is able to present the message of the passage to some depth.  This is not a series of mini-messages on various passage details, but it allows the details to work together to shape a single message that truly represents the passage in question.  The depth may vary according to time, skill of the exegete, etc.  But this approach to preaching will result in a coherent message, satisfying presentation of the passage and more accurate understanding of the meaning of the passage.  (Please note that it is never possible to fully “plumb” the depths of the passage, so the term is used relatively!)

For simplicity, I have presumed that each message is based in one text and that each message is making connection to the listeners by way of application.  I have assumed that there is a sense of progress in each message.  (None of these can be assumed in real life preaching!)  The simple focus here is on how the passage is handled.  Let’s strive to be Approach 3 preachers whenever possible.

Revisiting Preaching Style

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I’ve written about style before, but it’s worth revisiting.  Not surprisingly, I am resonating with much of what Jay Adams wrote about style back in ’82.  The reason I resonate is that I still come across pockets of preaching activity that fall into the three inadequate styles he lists in his book (I will quote and condense):

Preacher’s Style – This is a stilted style pockmarked with King James’s terminology and Elizabethan constructions (beloved, unto, beseech, the person of, babe, vale, etc.)  This sort of style, unknown to the apostles, who spoke an elevated (by their content) fish-market Greek, or even the translators of the KJV/AV who wrote exactly as they talked.  This style is a modern travesty totally without previous history or biblical warrant.  Cleanse your preaching of all such “preachy” language.

Scholastic Style – This technical, super-sophisticated and bookish style is equally unhelpful.  The great biblical, theological terms must be used, but not without exlanation, nor should be be used in profusion.  Don’t sound like a theological treatise (or an academic essay).

Chatty Style – This approach majors on the slang and jargon of the day and lacks all form and order.  Again, Adams sees this as unhelpful to effective communication.

Good preaching style is a plain (but not drab), unaffected (but not unstudied) style that gets in there and gets the job done without calling attention to itself.  It should always be clear and appropriate to both content and mood.  The best analogy Adams sees is the news reader on TV.  Our preaching style should not be lower than this, but should be elevated by its content slightly above this standard style with its standard use of language.

That’s Adams take a generation ago, what now?  I know some still choose preachy, scholastic or chatty styles.  Is there a better standard than the TV newsreader?

Practice Preaching With Senses

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In yesterday’s post I highlighted a helpful point from Jay Adams’ book, Preaching with Purpose, in which he emphasized the need for preaching to all five senses.  For some of us this may come easy.  For others of us, this will take some real work.  Here are a couple of practice exercises that may help.

The Study Search – Adams suggests working within the confines of your study.  Touch, smell, taste, listen, and look at everything around you.  What does that wood feel like?  What does that old book smell like?  How does the painkiller tablet taste?  What about the sound of the door opening?  And that pile of stuff on your desk, what does it look like?  Take a few minutes and observe carefully.  Perhaps in the process you will come up with numerous similes and anecdotes to vivify your preaching.

The Scripture Search – Take a poetic passage – a psalm or song.  Carefully comb through it looking for sensory language or allusions (direct or implied).  Make note of ways to preach that text so that the senses are fully engaged.  For instance, try Psalm 113 or 133 for starters.  Then consider a narrative passage – life is lived with five senses, so this shouldn’t be too hard.  What sensory language could be used to communicate this narrative vividly?  Perhaps try Luke 15, or Genesis 39.