Delivery

Appeal To All Senses

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Just a quick quote today, again taken from Jay Adams, Preaching With Purpose:

Most homiletics books speak about “illustrating” truth and making it “vivid.”  But those terms refer to communication by means of appeal to but a single sense: the sense of sight.  That failure, so inherent in the very single sense vocabulary of homiletics, has led to dull, lifeless preaching.  Of course, there are many dull, lifeless preachers for whom it is difficult to “paint word pictures” that appeal to the sense of sight, let alone learn to help congregations to taste, touch, smell, and even hear with the ear.

I think this is a helpful point.  Listeners have five sense and preachers can communicate to every sense by means of carefully chosen words and well-crafted delivery. I remember sitting under the teaching of David Needham, a master of using words and emotion that caused us to salivate as he described the taste, smell and sound of the golden delicious apples of his Californian childhood!

Adams goes on in the same paragraph to make the same point I want to make today.  When we appeal to the full range of human senses, we only do what the Bible does so often.  Be sure to look carefully in your preaching text for any sense appeal that is already there.  Then think carefully about your message, each detail, and how it can deliberately target various senses as you preach.

Don’t Stop Short

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Tomorrow’s passage is relevant for our listeners.  Hopefully by this stage in preparation we see the relevance and have a message that will present the idea of the passage, built on explanation of the details, with applications that point to the relevance.  But it is always easier to only go 75% of the way there.  Don’t stop short.

Don’t just ask a vague question when the passage is set up for a probing question.  Don’t just make a vague application.  Help people see the specific ways in which this passage can make a difference in their affections, their belief, their conduct.  Their thinking and their actions should be changed by biblical preaching.  It’s easy to keep it general, vague and maybe even nice.  But don’t stop short, push through and drive the message home (with grace, of course, but home nonetheless).

Dense Packing Doesn’t Prosper

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

It is commonly referred to as a mistake new preachers make, but we can all fall into the trap.  A sermon will not work well if it is too overwhelming.

Let’s say you study the passage for several hours.  You discover interesting bits of information regarding background, structure, syntax, grammar, word meanings, not to mention parallel passages, cross-references, informing theology and later use of this text in the canon.  You discover fascinating insights through archaelogical reference tools, an interesting textual critical debate concerning one word that may or may not be original, and an interpretational debate that has gone back and forth since Calvin’s commentary was published.  Plus you stumbled across some useful anecdotes, an amusing story or three in a database of illustrations and you heard a great opening remark that you’d love to fit in, somehow.  Several hours of preparation will yield a significant resource pool of information.

But then you have to pack up what you intend to carry into the pulpit.  You only have a limited time.  Listeners only have a limited capacity to take information onboard.  After all your work, you have enough to load up three large suitcases and a trunk, plus a carry-on bag and a personal item.  But you can only pack a small suitcase and take it with you into the sermon time.  Prayerfully select.  Leave some of your work neatly folded for a future journey.  Graciously drop some of it in the waste.  Pack only that which will help you achieve your message purpose and drive home your message idea with application for their lives.  And don’t mention all that you couldn’t bring with you.

When you travel into the pulpit, just take one small case.  Don’t overstuff it either, tempting as that may be.  In the preaching journey, dense packing doesn’t prosper.

Content Differences in Preaching and Lecturing

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In his book, Preaching with Purpose, Jay Adams regularly distinguishes lecturing from preaching.  One is designed to inform, the other to motivate appropriate response and change.  One is about the Bible, the other is about the listeners and God, from the Bible.  But does this mean that applicational preachers will say less about the Bible than “lecturers” in a pulpit?  Not according to Adams:

The preacher explains the text just as fully as does the lecturer; in fact, more fully.  He explains the ‘telos’ as well.  Everything of importance that the lecturer might say about the passage (and, lecturing lends itself to by-paths, discussing unimportant details, it must be remembered) the preacher can say also.  The difference is in how they handle the same material; the difference is in their orientation and use of it, and in how they say what they say.

So a Bible lecturer in a pulpit may state truth, but the listeners don’t know why they are looking at it when it is presented.  The listener to true preaching will know the why as well as the what, of that which is presented.

A call for expository preaching is neither a call for apparently irrelevant informing (even with application tacked on at the end), nor is it a call for applicational messages weak in content.

Communicate Relevantly . . . Carefully

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

As a preacher who desires to be firmly planted in the world of the Bible and the world of the listeners, it can be a real challenge to be appropriately specific in your preaching.  In a small church, everybody knows everyone and can easily figure out who you are referring to if you give a specific example – confidentiality undermined.  In a larger church, people may not know who you are referring to.  However, the person you are referring to can easily sense you are referring to them, and suddenly their trust can feel undermined.

Here are a few suggestions, perhaps you can add others:

Instead of defaulting to more general applications, translate away from one specific to another. Don’t refer to specific marriage problems when you’ve been counseling a couple in that area, but perhaps the application would work in terms of parenting struggles, work relationships, etc.  Remember that people will translate one specific that you preach into the specific situation of their own life experience.

Keep a record of specific observations, potential illustrations, etc., so that you can adjust them and use them at an appropriate time. Right now everyone knows that particular marriage is on the rocks.  You have an example from the situation that could be helpful, but right now is not the time to use it, even if confidentiality is protected.  So having a good record system allows you to decide when to bring in an example to your preaching.

Always review carefully before you preach, considering how it could be taken as well as how you intend it. It may be easier to become non-specific and generic, but the result is not worth it.  So keep the specificity in your preaching, but be careful to review ahead of each sermon to make sure you are aware of any potential land mines.

Tomorrow Will You Preach, or Just Report?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

One reason that a lot of preaching in churches seems to fall short is that there is a lack of engagement with the people present.  I’ve heard numerous messages that fall into the category of relatively dispassionate lecturing.  The speaker stands as a reporter of the facts of their research.  They study a text, then that information is presented.  Then maybe there is an attempt at application.  But it falls short.

The preacher is not a reporter of facts found during their research.  The preacher is called to speak to the listeners from God’s Word.  The Bible is not exhibit A.  It is the source of the message for us, today.  The Bible doesn’t sit off to one side and get pointed at during the presentation, it sits in the hand of the preacher as the source and driver of the message for us.

So often the problem is a lack of engagement.  First, a lack of engagement with the life of the preacher during preparation.  If the Word of God does not speak into the life of the preacher, then the Bible will be presented at arms length, as an exhibit.  Second, a lack of deliberate engagement with the lives of the listeners.  Tomorrow, be sure to preach the Word to them, don’t just talk about the Word in their hearing.  Today, make sure you’ve opened yourself up to the text you’re planning to preach.

If you are a preacher, your role is more than merely reporting.

Holding Back the Obvious

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Sometimes a passage very obviously points beyond itself.  For instance a passage with an obvious parallel to today, or a passage that points forward to Christ.  Psalm 22 is a classic example of the latter, or Genesis 22.  It is natural to make the obvious connection from the start and repeat it throughout.  Sometimes this is very worthwhile – especially when the parallel is to today.  Highlighting and emphasizing the applicational relevance of a passage is usually very helpful (rather than holding out until a few brief applications at the end).  However, if the application is obvious, it may be worth holding back before you state it.  Certainly when your passage obviously pre-figures Christ in some way, it is worth considering holding back on the mention of Christ.

Why?  Three reasons.

First, it is good for the congregation to see that a passage has value in its own right, without having to overtly read it through New Testament glasses that were not available to the original readers.

Second, it is good for the sermon because if the connection is clear, then the listeners will be thinking about that as you go, perhaps wondering if you are missing the obvious.  This added tension can really maintain interest in the sermon.

Third, it is good for you as a preacher, because it allows you to “pack a punch” when that tension is finally resolved.  References throughout the message will add explanation, but will reduce the impact.

For the sake of demonstrating the value of a passage in its own right, for added tension and for added impact, it is often worth holding back the obvious, especially when the obvious is Jesus.

Non-Words

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Last night I was watching the first half of the God Delusion Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox.  It is interesting on a number of levels, but I’ll just mention one.  Dawkins hesitates way too often.  Um, ah, uh.  So far Lennox has not.  It makes a difference.  I’ve been following the US presidential race and reading analysis of the communication involved.  The media’s favorite candidate uses many non-words, but the newest participant in the race does not.  It is making a difference.  In the UK I’ve noticed that some people seem to revere the skill of using non-words and hesitation (think of the last university students you heard interviewed – they often do it).

The manner in which we communicate influences listeners at both the conscious and sub-conscious level.  Since we do not want to undermine the truth of what we say when we are preaching the Word of God, let’s be vigilant for non-words.  Figure out whether you use non-words or filler-words.  Perhaps identify your personal, uh, like, you know, favorite.  Then wage war against it.  Mean what you say and say what you mean.  It’s not just about wasting words, it’s also about undermining the good things that you are saying.

Preaching Warning Passages

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I was just reading a little commentary on Joel by Thomas Finley.  On page 38 he makes a comment that is worth our attention as preachers.  It’s not new, it’s not profound, but it’s easy to leave this out of the equation as we evaluate our ministry.

According to Finley, the prophets, such as Joel, “had the power as preachers to motivate people to repent on the basis of warning them of the judgment to come. Although the New Testament focuses on the Lord’s grace and mercy, the warnings of judgment are not absent there either. In light of Joel and the rest of Scripture, one might wonder whether contemporary pastors who tend to avoid “fire and brimstone” preaching in favor of a steady diet of mercy and forgiveness provide an incomplete presentation of God’s Word.”

While we must recognize that culturally our listeners have changed over recent decades, and consequently their appreciation for a dramatic and aggressive pulpit pounding has dropped, this does not mean we cannot preach warning of judgment.  The culture in which we preach, the people to whom we preach, behoove us to give careful attention to our tone, attitude, word choice and so on.  But the Bible text has not changed, and if we are to preach the whole counsel, then we will be preaching passages like Joel – heavy on warning, powerful in presentation of divine judgment.

The calling of expository preaching demands not only a sensitivity to our listeners, but an absolute commitment to hearing the Word of God, and presenting it accurately, faithfully and clearly.

Evangelistic Preaching – A Flexibility Test?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I don’t think there is a definitive model for evangelistic preaching.  There are guidelines, certainly, but also a real need for flexibility.  You have to flex according to the kind of church you are in, the occasion on which you preach, the kind of people to whom you are preaching and so on.

I grew up in a church context where there was, in theory, an evangelistic sermon every Sunday night.  In many ways it was a remnant from an earlier generation in which people would attend church simply because a service was taking place.  By the time I came along (due to being in a Christian family), our culture had changed.  Week after week the meeting would take place, always to the same crowd of believers, usually without clear explanation of how to respond to the gospel, often without clear explanation of the meaning of the cross.  The format of the service was traditional and probably distinctly alien and uncomfortable for any outsider that might attend.  It certainly did not motivate me to invite non-believers.

I think many churches are more purposeful about evangelistic meetings now (at least in my circles).  More creativity, more “natural” communication, more effort to remove the “cringe” factors.  But one thing is clear – there is not one way to preach evangelistically.  Taking into account the people present, how the meeting has been promoted, the expectations of those who have invited friends, etc. all influences how to preach.  Sometimes a gentle introduction to Christianity that leaves people wanting more is ideal.  Other times it is critical to give a more complete gospel presentation.  Sometimes it is time to “shake the tree” and catch the already ripened fruit by overt calls to decision.

It takes sensitivity, wisdom, faith and courage to know which way to go on a particular occasion.  Generally it is best to present the way you informed the church that you would (because they bring guests according to what they are expecting you to do!)  Ultimately, there will probably be criticism coming from somewhere, but that is evangelistic preaching – never easy, always critical.  There is no simple formula, for there are so many variables.  But at its core the gospel doesn’t change, and the world needs it as much as ever.