Delivery

Don’t Treat Everything As Essential – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

So, three more issues that are non-essential in defining expository preaching. Let’s not allow our passion for preaching become a passion to prove our preferences are the only legitimate approach to expository preaching!

Preaching Attire – Some people make a big issue out of ties and jackets (“we are dressing for an appointment at the palace” kind of arguments).  Others are passionate the opposite way (“we are dressing to connect with the culture” kind of arguments).  It’s not an issue worth dying for, so I try to dress according to expectations in the church.  As someone who preaches in many places, I recognize that for most people, their own church is the only place they tend to go and so it is natural that their view of such issues is generally narrower.

Preaching Props – If you look around this site you will see that I am a fan of no-notes well-prepared preaching.  Others advocate for notes, brief or full.  Others are in support of manuscripts.  I have moved from notes to no-notes, but it is not a central issue.  Can a preacher be expository with a manuscript, or with notes, of course!  Which is most effective?  That’s a good question to think through carefully (rather than defaulting to what is comfortable).  But “effective” is not the same as “core issue!”

Visual Aids – Some people have passionately tried to convince me that we should all use powerpoint in our preaching.  I see as many problems as benefits with powerpoint preaching, but this is not a core issue.  Can a preacher be expository using powerpoint, or giving notes to the congregation, or using video clips during the sermon, or holding a shepherd’s crook?  Of course, but none are required.

What other issues do some become so passionate about that they become “core issues” when really they are not?

Don’t Treat Everything as Essential

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

There is always a danger, when we are passionate about something, that our passion will run away with us.  For instance, a passion for expository preaching can easily be misdirected to areas that are not critical issues.  The nature of the Bible, the importance of effective communication, the spiritual and divine work in genuine preaching, the need for appropriate relevance, the nature of the gospel – these are key issues for me.  Here are a few issues that are not critical in my opinion, although we all might be tempted to make them core issues!  Three issues today, three more tomorrow, and what would you add?

Bible Version – I have my preference and I think I have some solid justification for my preference.  But this is not an issue I’ll fight over.  I tend to preach from the pew Bible in the church – that way most people are looking at the same thing.  If the church expresses a preference, then I honor that.  If they want The Message, or the King James Version, I suppose I will use that.  (In my preparation I will use my preferred versions and original languages, then shift to the version for preaching in the final phase of preparation.)

Length of Sermon – A church may want an hour, or they may want twenty minutes.  While I am not known for immaculate time-keeping, I am never trying to make an issue out of this.  Some people seem to think anything less than thirty-five minutes is not expository preaching at all.  Others are passionate in their view that people can’t concentrate beyond twenty-five minutes.  I think both are wrong, but I won’t make an issue out of it!

Form of Sermon – Only verse-by-verse is true preaching.  Only deductive sermons are expository.  Only narrative preaching connects with people. There are so many narrow views around.  Some seem to think that their sermon shape came down from the mount with the blueprint for the tabernacle.  I do not support the notion that expository preaching, by definition, implies any particular form.  Expository preaching is a philosophy of preaching.  The form of the sermon is my choice as the preacher – what will be most effective for communicating the main idea and aiming toward the sermonic purpose?

Is It Only Me?

/ Peter Mead / 12 Comments

I’ve noticed something in my preaching, and I wonder if I’m alone. When I’m preaching a message and coming towards the closing stages, particularly when I am communicating specifically with not-yet-Christians, it seems that the moment is often ripe for a distraction. Just at the point of speaking of the cross and our response to the gospel, a child cries, a door slams, a siren wails, etc.

Perhaps people are simply tiring of staying focused, or increasing activity behind the scenes allows for more distraction as the service comes in to land. Perhaps I just convey tension and communicate poorly at this point. Perhaps. Or perhaps it is a reminder of the spiritual war we are in when it comes to the souls of men and women who are not in Christ. The god of this age has blinded the minds, and to be involved with the light of the glory of the gospel shining in, is to be involved in the greatest spiritual battle that has raged down through time. Perhaps it is a reminder to pray, and to consider the importance of intercessors during the preaching of the gospel. Or perhaps it is just me.

Preaching Narrative

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

When you are preaching a narrative, I think it is healthy to begin with a default approach of tell the story, highlight the main point and then apply that main point.  With many narratives, this approach works perfectly well.  Last week I preached Luke 19:1-10 and found that telling the story of Zaccheus with explanation along the way worked well.  That story flows through the plot, then has a twist at the end (in verse 10).  So I told the story, made the point and applied it to our lives.

Yesterday I preached Mark 2:1-12.  I could have told the story, made the point, then applied it.  However, this approach didn’t feel right this time.  The tension of the story comes in the middle.  The men bring their paralytic friend to Jesus to take care of his physical need.  Jesus then addresses the deeper spiritual need, which causes a stir, before proving his ability to do so by healing the physical need.  I wrestled with how to preach this and decided on essentially two movements.  First there is the bringing of the needy guy to Jesus (vv1-4) and Jesus’ healing act (vv11-12).  Having made the point of this element and applied it to us, I then moved us into the “missing” part of the story (vv5-10).  This made the crowd’s response more clear, but it also allowed me to build the tension more for this “forgiveness” core of the story.  I could have told the story and pointed out how Jesus is the only one able to do the amazing feat of total forgiveness.  Yet in this case the story told straight might have lacked something of the wonder and tension.

I am not saying I chose the right way.  What I am saying is that when we preach a narrative, we may start with the approach of tell the story, make the point and apply it, but sometimes we may change that approach.  Yesterday I changed it to “tell part of the story, make the point thus far and apply it, then tell the rest of the story, make the main point clear and apply it.”  I did this for the sake of heightening the wonder of the core of the narrative.  Sometimes this approach makes sense simply because the biblical narrative is so long (and people need it to touch down in their world before too much time passes by!)  There are no set rules for preaching narrative, but don’t overlook the simple option of telling the story!

The Possibility of Passage Shape

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

When you study a passage, part of the study is to recognize the shape the passage was given by the author (I’ll use “shape” in this post, but could use “structure” or “flow”).  There may be a logical sequencing of thoughts, or a narrative plot, or a poetic structure.  One possibility is that you can take that passage shape and let it be the primary influence on the message shape.

It may be that you decide to change the shape for the sake of the message.  Maybe the original recipients and your listeners differ significantly so that you have to structure the thought differently for the sake of effective communication.

However, to make such a change, in my thinking, should be a deliberate step away from the default option, which is to reflect the passage shape in the sermon shape.  For example, perhaps you are preparing to preach a Psalm and notice that it has three movements each having the same shape and largely the same content.  It might be tempting to “fix” such a literary “wastefulness” and use a more compact approach to preaching it.  Actually, by doing so, you would lose part of the power of the passage.  Our task as preachers is to communicate what a text says, but also to in some way do what a text does.  What does repetition do?  It reinforces, it allows truth to sink deeper, it builds on itself.  Repetition with variation is a powerful tool in writing Scripture, and consequently in the preaching of Scripture.

One possibility that comes when we recognize the shape of a passage is that we will reflect that shape in our message.  There may sometimes be reasons not to do this, but let this possibility be a strong one, even the default.

Don’t Presume They Know

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Effective preaching requires good understanding of both the passage and the people.  Purposeful audience analysis helps the preacher know how to tailor the study of stages 1-4 into a message in stages 5-8.  Obviously the preacher will try to aim for relevance and pitch the messaeg at the right level.  It is this level that can easily trip us up.

At one extreme it is possible to hyper-patronize listeners by spelling out every element of the message as if they understand nothing.  At the other extreme it is possible to bamboozle listeners and go completely over their heads with technical vocabulary and assumed awareness of information needed for the message to make sense.  While these are two extremes, it is worth noting that the danger in one direction is greater than in the other.

As long as the attitude of the preacher is not overtly patronizing, people will listen to basic material, even if they think it is for the sake of others who may be present.  However, people struggle to stay focused when things are going above their heads.  Be careful not to assume people know everything necessary to understand what you are saying.  Don’t assume they know when the story fits in Bible history, or what that theological term means, or what had happened previously in the life of that character.

You don’t have to speak like you are talking to a group of children, instead try to make the message seem “easy” just as a competent sportsman or woman makes their sport look easy.  A great tennis player, ball player, or whatever, doesn’t make it look intricate and complex.  Perhaps we can follow suit in the pulpit.  Our aim is not to bamboozle or impress, our aim is to communicate and equip.

Does Stance Just Happen?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

There are central issues in preaching – interpreting the Scriptures, applying with relevance, relationship with God and with listeners.  But there are plenty of other factors worthy of our consideration.  Not central, but worth considering since our goal is effective communication.  One of these is stance.

The visual presentation of a speaker is a complex series of issues – dress, body language, facial expression, proxemics, etc.  One element is stance.  How we stand communicates.  I am not advocating a one-size fits all approach.  There is no such solution.  Consider the following:

The setting – is the occasion for preaching more formal or informal.  A casual approach at a funeral tends to backfire!  What kind of church is it?  What is he tone of the service?  Who are the people in the congregation?  Since every preaching context is different, there is no one-size fits all approach.

The message – there needs to be consistency between what is being communicated and how.  A super-somber convicting moment presenting the most important thing they will ever hear generally does not work well with hands in pockets, leaning against the side of the pulpit.  On the other hand, perhaps in some settings, with some messages, having you sit on a high stool in a relaxed manner would work wonders.

The options – while many rightly resist the notion that anyone can prescribe the right stance for every preacher on every preaching occasion, we naturally fall into the inconsistent position of haing a default stance that we use whatever the situation (thereby functioning as if there is a one-size fits all after all!)  Take some time to think through your options.  Behind a podium/pulpit, coming out from behind it, removing it, leaning forward with more urgency, leaning back against something, sitting on a stool, moving to different areas of the platform, standing still, etc.  The deliberate move from behind a desk to standing in front and leaning on it helped to transform a president who was an ineffective communicator into a likeable and more effective leader. 

Sometimes small things do matter.  Anything that will remove a communication hindrance or inconsistency from our preaching of the gospel is worthy of some attention.  Take a few moments to think through stance, our communication is no less important than the president of a superpower!

Drop Down the Ladder

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Many great sermons turn out to be good sermons.  Sermons looking set to be good often end up average.  How is it that the last few minutes of a sermon can change it from powerful to pleasant?  One key element is the final descent of the preacher down the ladder of abstraction.

The text must be understood in its original setting for the detail to make sense.  Then the process of theological abstraction moves the preacher toward relevance for the contemporary listeners.  But this is not enough.  It is easy to stop at this stage of the process, and a natural place to let off the preparation pressure (after all, surely listeners can take the abstract and apply it specifically in their own situation?)  Actually no, listeners do not generally apply abstracts to their own lives.  Don’t stop with “trust God!” or “love God more!” or “love one another!” or “be faithful in your relationships!”  These are all abstracts.

To really cement the message as a great, not for the sake of your reputation, but for the sake of lives changed to the glory of God, push through for specific application.  This means re-contextualizing the application for the sake of your listeners.  What will it look like to trust God for some of them this week?  How would greater love for God show up in their daily lives?  What specifically might one do to demonstrate genuine love for another believer in the church this week?  Where is faithfulness tested and proven day by day?

Don’t finish a great message in mid-air and thereby transform the great into the good.  Be sure to earth the message through specifics, stepping down the ladder of abstraction so that the rubber can meet the road of real life.  Listeners generally struggle to take hold of an abstract and apply it specifically, but they are very adept at hearing a specific that fits the life of another in the same pew, and translating that specific into a specific that relates to their version of real life. The Bible is relevant, just be sure to demonstrate that reality for some of your listeners.  The rest will gladly translate for themselves!

Discourse: The Danger of Spiritualization

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

We’ve noted that there are discourse passages in almost every section of Scripture – history, wisdom, prophet, gospel, etc.  Awareness of the broader plot within which discourse is placed is helpful both in understanding the passage meaning and purpose, and also for preaching the passage with contextual understanding and tension.

So if we decide to preach a discourse in a typical analytical manner – for instance a deductive sermon – what should we be wary of?  Be wary of direct transference of relevance to a different audience.  Joshua 1 does not give direct promises to contemporary readers that wherever we place our feet, we can claim for God.  Equally it does not mandate military action on our part.  Yet the passage yields much that can be so relevant to us.

Be careful to work through the process of exegetical analysis (in that context), drawing out the abiding theological implications (in any context), and recontextualizing the principles (in this context).  Be careful not to then re-attach original phrasing in a careless manner that might imply direct transference of details by a spiritualization process (i.e. let it show that you are not simply reading the text and then telling people to “claim land” as God instructs us to “march” over what we should “conquer”).  By showing some process in our preaching, we can protect our people from bad practice in their own Bible study.  By showing awareness of audience (original and contemporary) and passage purpose (original and preached), we guard our people from inappropriate application.

When Discourse Sits in Narrative

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Discourse text often sits within a narrative.  Consider the teaching sections of the Gospels, how a Jesus sermon is set in the context of the story of His ministry or passion.  Consider the speeches in Acts as they move the story forward time and again.  Consider the direct communication of God to Joshua at the key transition point in Israel’s leadership, or the direct communication of the prophets as they address a specific issue at a specific point in Israel’s history.  Whatever form the book may take generally, these specific instances are essentially discourse Scripture.

When a discourse text sits in the midst of a broader narrative, what do we do?  We should analyze the broader plot to see the function of the discourse within it.  The narrative plot then serves as context for the details of the discourse.  Of course we could choose to preach the text in some kind of narrative form, but equally we can choose to keep that plot-work at the level of context and purpose analysis.  A discourse type text can yield clear and effective outlines through careful analysis.  By giving time in our study to the plot within which the discourse sits, we can add tension and interest to the preaching of the discourse.

This applies to epistles too, incidentally.  Just because an epistle may consist entirely of discourse, we should not lose sight of the broader narrative of history in which it sits.  An epistle is a point in time, a point on the plot line of the story of that particular church or individual.  At a key juncture in the story of the church at Rome, or in Colossae, Paul wrote to them.  We have his discourse, but we can also trace the tension of the church’s history to that point, and be left with the tension of how they would respond to his instruction in the letter.  Awareness of the broader narrative can always add tension and interest to the preaching of a discourse.

Discourse usually sits within a broader narrative framework.  Awareness of that helps our interpretation of the passage. It can also help our preaching by adding more life to the living words!