Delivery

It Can’t All Be “We”

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Cultures shift.  In the west we are living in an age when people no longer respect authority, including the authority of a preacher.  People may like the preacher, and listen to the preacher, but there is some resistance to the concept of a preacher speaking with authority.  Consequently, many preachers will try to use “we” throughout the sermon.  In effect, preaching as a fellow observer and recipient of the text.  This may be a good idea, but there are limits.

The notion of preaching without authority came to the fore in the 1970’s, with books like As One Without Authority by Fred Craddock.  This hugely influential book placed the “New Homiletic” into the consciousness of many.  Much of what Craddock wrote is well worth taking onboard, but there is an underlying issue we need to recognize.  The New Homiletic, even in its more conservative forms, is strongly influenced by the New Hermeneutic.  Here we find strong emphasis on a reader-response approach to the text, but the author seems to have been lost along the way.

If we hold to the importance of authorial intent in our hermeneutics, then a total “we” approach seems inappropriate.  As preachers, we study the text, hopefully with some degree of skill, in order to determine the author’s meaning.  Consequently, there should be a humble but authoritative explanation of the meaning of the text for the benefit of our listeners.  This “humble but authoritative explanation” may not require a “you” approach in contrast to “we,” but it does carry some authority.

Meaning is not determined by a primarily subjective response to the text in us all as readers.  In one sense there is a mutuality as we, God’s people, discover the meaning of the text.  However, that discovery must be the meaning of the text, not a meaning we discover subjectively in experiencing the text.

Nevertheless, in the applicational features of a sermon, and there should be many, perhaps “we” should be prevalent.  We all stand under the authority of the text.  We all should be responding to what we read.  Let the “we” feature in the shared need for the message of the text (introduce appropriate vulnerability and connection early).  Let the “we” feature carefully in application throughout the message.  However, let us be careful what we might imply with “we” in the explanation of the text. Let us strive to understand and communicate the meaning of the text as those with humble authority, but let us take our position amongst the ranks of God’s people responding to His Word.

Demonstrating Key Values: Application

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

People may hear words, but they sense values.  Values are caught as much as taught.  Watch a dysfunctional family situation where the children are verbally instructed with one set of values, but observe the flagrant disregard for those values in the parents.  Or watch the influence of a preacher who may state the importance of application, but demonstrate that they don’t really value it.

If you value application, do it.  As Robinson’s definition explains, expository preaching means that the biblical concept is first applied by the Holy Spirit to the life of the preacher, then through the preacher, to the listeners.  To be an applicational preacher, be an applicational Bible student first.

If you value application, include it.  Might seem obvious, but if we believe application is important, we should use sermon time to present it.  What value is communicated by a conclusion that merely states, “Now may the Holy Spirit apply to our hearts what we have heard in the last hour!”

If you value application, integrate it.  The traditional, rhetoric-driven, place for application is the end of the sermon.  There is good reason for this.  People generally need to understand and be convinced of the “what?” before they are willing to face the “so what?”  Yet in our day we are very aware of the complexity of communication.  People value relevance, so we need to integrate application and need in the introduction and movements of the sermon.  We must show why the “what?” matters to them before they will sit and listen to our explanation of it.  The “what?” and the “so what?” feed on each other.

If you value application, highlight it.  Try to use comments like, “so we understand it, but our Bible study is incomplete without trying to apply it – let’s think this through in practical and specific ways.”  Try to avoid comments like, “we’ll spend most of our time addressing the ‘what?’ and by the time we get to the end of the sermon, you’ll probably not even notice the ‘so?’”

By our attitude and our passing comments, we contagiously spread the value we place on application.

Keep Drums Out of the Introduction

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The first few minutes of a sermon are important. They provide the opportunity to get the attention of the listeners, surface a need for what is to follow and move them into the passage and message. During this relatively brief movement there is a temptation that we probably all face to one degree or another. There is the temptation to lay unnecessary foundational blocks (and thereby promote a personal theological agenda).

Recently I was not preaching and so had the opportunity to listen to a visiting speaker. I was not the only one to notice the significant theological agenda being pushed in the extended introduction. Our task as preacher is to bring the message of our preaching text, not to use the text to bang on our favorite doctrinal drum.

Next sermon, let’s be careful to evaluate the background we give. Do we give enough? Do we give too much? Is what we give relevant to the understanding and application of the passage? As I suggested yesterday, in one sermon we cannot achieve everything. Over time people should get the whole canon, but it’s not our task to achieve that in one message on one text. Perhaps you decide to preach the whole Bible’s message in one sermon – great, but be honest about that and don’t give the impression it all comes from one particular text.

Our responsibility is to faithfully preach the specific text before us. Give whatever background is necessary for the communication, explanation and application of that passage. But don’t abuse the introduction by banging your favorite theological drum.

A Great Opportunity To Be Missed?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The final moments of a sermon are highly strategic. The last opportunity to emphasize the main idea, drive home the application, stir motivation for response, etc. Then there is one other thing we may be inclined to include – an early advert for next Sunday’s continuation in the series, an early raising of need for what is to follow. I am not saying this should or should not be included, but I’d like to point out a couple of points to ponder before you choose to refer to series sermon today-plus-one:

Finish this sermon. Be sure to resolve the present sermon fully. Your mind may be wandering to the next in the series (or you may want to raise hope that next week will be better than this one), but be sure to preach a complete sermon now. This moment is primarily about today’s sermon, not next Sunday’s. (As you can tell from the site, I don’t recommend preaching through the text until time runs out and then picking up at the same point next time. Preach a complete unit of thought.)

Don’t undermine this sermon. It would be a waste of all that has gone before to end with something along the lines of, “. . . today was alright, but you don’t want to miss next week’s message! That one will really be something!”

Only dangle a carrot with care. Perhaps you are inspired by a well-written TV show that always leaves people at a cliffhanger and longing for next week’s episode. Remember that takes a high level of skill to pull off effectively. It is far easier to leave people disheartened and frustrated by doing this poorly. You may choose to leave some element of the sermon or text hanging in the air, but think it through carefully.

Let the title intrigue. Often all you need to stir interest in next week’s sermon is the title printed in the bulletin. The title is there to stir interest and to intrigue. I wrote a post on titles that may help – Titles: Tricky Little Things.

The end of this sermon may be an opportunity to motivate people to come for the next sermon. But think this through carefully, as it may just be a great way to undo the moment, dissipate focus and lose what you’ve been trying to achieve to this point. What do you think?

The Sweetest Agony

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Somebody said that preaching is the sweetest agony.  It is sweet when lives are changed.  And it is agony all the rest of the time!

There is nothing as rewarding as seeing lives changed.  Sometimes from a one-off sermon.  Typically over the long haul.  Sometimes it is hard to measure.  Sometimes you receive a note that overtly expresses gratitude for the change that has occurred.  Often you hear nothing.  Since preaching is often more agony than sweetness, it is a good idea to keep some reminders of the sweetness of lives changed.  A drawer where those periodic notes or letters are dropped in, then sit there awaiting a time when you need a reminder of the sweetness of the preaching ministry.  A folder in your email entitled “Encouragements” that you can go back to when the inbox is overwhelming and discouraging.

There is more sweetness to preaching though.  If the sweetness is changed lives, then don’t miss the one life that hears every time you preach.  I don’t mean your spouse, although any encouragements there are worth so much.  I mean you.  Every time you or I prepare a sermon we are involved.  We go through the times of prayer, the valleys, the highs, the wrestling with the text, the grappling with the big idea, the prayerful cutting of material, the sermon run throughs for an audience of two (the Lord, and yourself).  A lot of this process may be agonizing.  Much of it can seem like thankless toil.  But there are good times too.  Times of sweet fellowship with the Lord.  Times of clarity in the exegesis of the text.  Times of blessing and encouragement.  Sweet times.  When these occur, perhaps find a way to mark them just like the thank-you notes above.  Perhaps an entry in a journal, or a note on your notice board, a visual memorial on a shelf . . . something to remind you of how good it can be, and will be again.

Preaching is agony much of the time, it has to be.  But it is a sweet privilege to see God at work in your life, and through you, in the lives of others.

Not Created Equal

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Preparation and presentation are not the same thing.  For example, consider the issue of details in the preaching text.  In one sense every text is made up of details.  Nouns, verbs, adjectives, participles, grammatical constructions, quotations, allusions, etc.  It can be a narrative, a speech, a letter, an exhortation, a poem, a wisdom saying, or whatever.  Every text is built with details.

In preparation we begin with an interest in every detail.  It is important to see and interpret every element of a text.  It is often helpful to note what is not present too.  As diligent exegetes we consider every detail important enough to study and interpret in its context.  We continually move back and forth between analysis and synthesis, between details and big picture.  However, during the course of the study process, some details will be seen as more critical to a solid understanding of the text.  Every detail matters, but not every detail is equal.

In presentation we are limited by time and motivated by purpose.  Our purpose in preaching is not to present every avenue of inquiry that we have pursued at our desk.  Our purpose in preaching is not to download (or dump!) all of our acquired knowledge to our listeners.  Our purpose is tied to our main preaching idea and its application.  So we carefully cut unnecessary explanation of details that do not drive forward the main idea and purpose of the message.

In the study, diligently analyze the details.  In the sermon, remember that some details need no more than a passing comment, others just a careful presentation in the reading.  However, some details are critical and central, calling on us to highlight them and clarify their significance to our listeners.  We don’t want to lose the forest for the trees, but in order to enjoy the forest fully, some trees have to be highlighted.  Details.  They all matter, but they are not created equal.

Relevance and Application, Cousins Not Twins

/ Peter Mead / 5 Comments

Biblical preaching needs to be relevant. It can’t simply be a theological lecture or a vaguely devotional time-out. It needs to be relevant. There are some who suggest that every sermon must include a series of action steps in order to be considered relevant. Would you agree with that idea? Are relevance and application close to the same, like twins in the preaching family, or are they more like cousins? What is the connection between relevance and application?

Determine the congregational need for the text to be preached. Perhaps there is a lack of understanding of the meaning and relevance of the text, so the message should inform. Perhaps there is a lack of emotional engagement with the meaning and relevance of the text, so the message should stir. Perhaps there is a lack of practical application of the meaning and relevance of the text, so the message should prompt and motivate action. Perhaps there is actually little lacking and the message should encourage and affirm. Perhaps in most situations it will be a combination of several of these.

Encourage application, but also the process that will lead to application. When the text sets up practical applicational action steps, then by all means communicate those clearly. However, simply giving people a list of application steps may be counterproductive. Too many lists, too little time – the reality felt by some listeners. Perhaps sometimes we should suggest possible areas or directions of application, but primarily encourage further prayerful study of the passage as the next step. Our task as preachers is not to be the only source of spiritual prompting, but to stimulate our listeners in their personal walk with the Lord.

A sermon can be highly relevant, even without the to-do list to close. What do you think?

The Commitment to Expository Preaching

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Over time words can change their meaning and the connotations attached to them.  This is true of both “expository” and “preaching.”  As you probably noticed, gone are the days when the preacher in town was highly respected and appreciated by all.  Today there are many who view the whole concept of preaching very negatively.  As preachers we might be tempted to avoid the term.  Maybe in some circles that might be a good idea.  For instance, when interacting with a non-believer.  When I’m travelling and sit next to a stranger on the plane, I’ve learned not to shut down the conversation by referring to myself as a missionary, a minister, or a preacher.  Other job descriptions are more intriguing and stimulate further conversation (anything from lecturer in Ancient Near Eastern Spirituality to communications trainer will keep things going).

However, within church circles, let’s not be bashful about the concept of preaching.  In reality the people in your church are not bored with preaching.  If anything, they are bored with your preaching!  I get told that people can’t concentrate beyond 25 minutes of preaching.  I may not say it, but I tend to think that actually they might prefer only 25 minutes of the preaching they’ve heard.  The onus here is not on the church culture to correct its view of the biblical importance of the preaching ministry.  The onus is on us preachers to improve and make sure that the specific preaching our people are thinking of when they refer to preaching is good preaching!  As Haddon Robinson said on one of the early Center for Preaching podcasts, “not all preaching is worth it, but good preaching is worth it!”  Let’s agree on that and press on to develop so that our listeners will not be among the voices of disapproval for this critical ministry.

Protecting the Final Preparation

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday I sat in church next to my wife (after the four children were safely in their classes) and got to listen to my friend preach.  He did well.  So I told him so.  Turns out he had been run ragged in the 24 hours leading up to the service.  I assured him that it had not shown in the preaching anywhere near the extent to which he had felt it.  He responded with gratitude and something along these lines – I determined this would not happen to me again, but I need to revisit the situation.

As you know there are long lists of details that go into a Sunday morning service at church.  All it takes is one person to be away, or a series of minor crises, and suddenly a lot of the last minute hassles can fall on the preacher’s shoulders.  Take a few moments and evaluate yesterday’s preaching experience.  Were there distractions at home, at church, in the last few hours?  Did you find yourself dealing with issues relating to music, seating, announcements, unlocking the church, preparing communion, notice sheets, hymn books, projectors, lights, greeting people, seating people . . . several of these, all of these?

The time to make sure your final preparation is not crowded or distracted is not next Sunday morning.  It is now.  Who can be enlisted to shoulder burdens so that you are free to preach?  Or if someone else is preaching, what can you do to free them for the task?  The New Testament knows nothing of the one-man ministry models so many churches fall into.  Take stock of your duties, divide them into categories and delegate them away.  Ideally, try to find people with a passion for the things you don’t have passion for, but end up doing anyway.  Some people are passionate about selecting songs, welcoming guests, organizing seating, doing the “children’s talk” if your tradition still has that, etc.  Praise God for people with different passions.  Pray for people with different passions.  Take stock of yesterday, revisit the situation before it’s too late . . . again.

Controversy, Defensiveness and Timing

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Obed submitted a comment on The Full Meal Deal concerning the timing of presenting a controversial or challenging topic. I suppose we could complicate things, but it seems to me that there is a fairly simple principle here. Know your listeners well enough to know how they may react to a controversial idea. If they are likely to get defensive, then lay the groundwork first. I use the image of a boxer’s guard (forgive the martial imagery if you are a pacifist in the sporting arena). Is what I am going to say likely to bring up the hands to guard the face? If so, then what follows will only strike to the surface. As a preacher I need to preach so that the hands remain down and the idea gets through.

The classic example of this is Peter on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. “God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ!” That idea was very likely to stir up a negative reaction among a crowd of Jews in Jerusalem just weeks after Jesus’ death. So Peter did not present the idea in the introduction. This idea was not printed on the notice sheet or bulletin (they would have noticed and put the bullet in, so to speak!) This was not a deductive sermon. Peter knew the listeners’ likely reaction, and used the first part of the sermon to prepare the people for the big idea. Once it came, their reaction was not murderous, but they were convicted.

If your idea is controversial. If the listeners are likely to become defensive. Then time the presentation of the idea. Preach so their hands remain down and the idea gets through, not only to the head, but so that they are “cut to the heart.”