Delivery

I believe in manuscripts! No notes – part 3.

/ Peter Mead / 6 Comments

Stephen commented on part 1 of the “no notes” post.  Please read his comment there.  He referred to the fact that some famous speakers carry a manuscript into the pulpit. “The defense of using a manuscript I have been told is to ensure every thought is well developed and theologically sound.” Thoughts on the issue of the manuscript:

1. If possible, fully manuscript your message.  I totally agree with these reasons for writing a manuscript – every thought should be fully developed and theologically sound.  There is no excuse for preaching undeveloped thought or unsound concepts.  This is why I avoid the phrase “extemporaneous” preaching, since people understand that to mean “spontaneous” preaching rather than “prepared, but without notes” (the dictionary gives both meanings).  This is also why I encourage the writing of a full manuscript.  It allows for both developed thought and doctrinal soundness.  It also allows for attention to the details of style, precision in the choice of individual words, use of rhetorical devices, avoidance of unhelpful reduncancy, injection of deliberate aids to oral clarity and so on.

2.  Don’t take your manuscript into the pulpit.  I would guess that some of the big name speakers who advocate manuscript preaching do not actually read their manuscript verbatim.  I’ve yet to hear someone preach from a manuscript effectively – although some who have a manuscript treat it as notes rather than a script.  I find when I type a full manuscript that a lot of the extra work will show during delivery (the work of manuscripting internalizes the message, even specific wording).  I prefer the connection I feel with the listeners now I preach without notes, but the real issue is the listeners, what is the most effective way to communicate with them?

3. Write your manuscript for the ear.  If you are going to write a manuscript, it is important to write as you will speak.  We have all learned to write for the eye.  We place high value on succinct, clear and varied content.  But we need to write for the ear.  This means using restatement, sometimes repetition, short sentences, consistent terminology, very deliberate transitions, and so on.  A thoroughly effective sermon, when transcribed, requires editing before it reads well.  When going in the other direction, we need to pay careful attention to our style.  The question is not does it look good on paper, but does it communicate when people can’t see it?  Listeners cannot look back and reread a sentence, nor hear the underlining of a section title, so we must not speak in written English! Is it written for the ear?

4. Preaching requires a commitment both to the Bible and to the listener.  As a preacher you must give yourself to diligent study of the text and thoroughly biblical content.  At the same time, preaching involves maximum connection and effective communication with the listener.  Write a manuscript, but preach without notes – in my mind this approach achieves both!

Notes or no notes? – part 2

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

In part 1 of this post I presented the “why” of no notes preaching from my perspective. The relational connection through increased eye contact is the biggest reason for me. Also the side effects of less complicated messages, more text-related messages, and staying-put-in-your-text messages, these are all positives as well.

So, how? Well, it is not by memorization. Trying to memorize 30-45 minutes of material is a sure way to achieve the following negative results: performing like an actor, freezing like an amateur actor, and failing to have any relational connection because you seem aloof (trying to remember the next “line”). It is probably worth memorizing the big idea, perhaps the statements of each move or point if you are going to state them explicitly, the opening few lines and the concluding few lines. Beyond that, it’s all about internalization.

Having studied the text as fully as possible, you then prepare a message that fits closely to that text and makes good sense. If possible, it is worth typing out a full word-for-word manuscript. This manuscript allows you to work carefully on specific word choices and phrasing. The work of giving close attention to the manuscript is surprisingly effective at internalizing the wording so that it comes out again when you practice the message and/or deliver it.

In the busy schedule of ministry life, typing a full manuscript is not always possible. So writing out a full outline and then preaching through the message out loud also serves to internalize the message.

Preaching without notes is not about special memory skills. It is about full preparation that leads to the preacher being very at home in the preaching text. It is about prayerful preparation that allows the message to soak into the very fiber of the preacher’s life.

For many preachers the fear of forgetting where they are, or freezing during delivery, hinders them from trying no notes preaching. I thank the Lord for my preaching professor that took away all other options when I had to preach in class. Maybe you should find someone to require no notes preaching of you?

Notes or no notes? – Part 1

/ Peter Mead / 11 Comments

I preached with notes for a decade, sometimes extensive, sometimes brief. Three years ago I switched to preaching without notes. I would not go back. I’m pretty sure that Mike preaches with some notes and does so very effectively. We’ll get his thoughts on this subject soon. There are more important things than whether you preach with or without notes. It’s more important to be Biblical, to have clear big idea, specific purpose and relevance. So I would not make a definitive case for no notes as opposed to with notes or with manuscript preaching (although to be honest I have yet to see someone who can read a manuscript effectively in preaching). However, this issue is important since delivery is a key element in preaching.

So why do I advocate and encourage no notes preaching? Preaching without notes increases eye contact beyond belief! Greater eye contact increases the sense of connection and intimacy between listener and speaker. We are living in a day when people are increasingly resistant to “pre-planned” speeches. While my preaching is completely pre-planned, it feels more authentic and relational because I am not following notes. For eye contact alone, it is worth it for me.

But there are other benefits. Preaching without notes forces you to make sure the outline makes sense. As Haddon Robinson says, a good outline remembers itself. An outline on paper can be deceptive, giving the impression of logical ordering, but an outline that does not flow or make sense will be very hard to internalize for preaching without notes. Preaching without notes also forces you to tie the message as directly as possible to the text. The text is your notes, so the message needs to logically flow from the text. Furthermore, you are more likely to stay put in the text you are dealing with rather than skipping all over the canon (a good habit to get into for many reasons!)

So that’s the “why?” In the next post I will explain the “how” of no notes preaching . . . and it is not about memorization!

God told you? Really?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I wish more people were careful not to carelessly throw around “God told me” vocabulary. When the preacher slips in this statement, what does it communicate? What do people understand? Did the preacher really receive a supernatural revelation, a voice resounding in the study? That is what people hear the preacher say, and they wonder why they never hear God say anything to them. I am sure there are many churches filled with people feeling intimidated by their lack of personal supernatural revelation. There are churches full of people who are learning to use this vocabulary for less dramatic experiences and thereby intimidating other believers. There are churches full of people who could be truly gripped by the wonder of hearing God speaking through His Word, but instead wishing for an experience that others may or may not have in their quiet times. As preachers we must be very careful of the words we use and how they might be taken, we must be very careful of the example we set our listeners.

Balance Between Caution and Boldness?

/ Mike Roth / Leave a comment

In an article titled Considering Hearers, Haddon Robinson writes, “But if we focus too hard on not offending, or if we read too many letters from the offended, we can become paralyzed. We start qualifying every sentence. We end up with weasel sermons that are defensive, cautious, and spineless.”

I must admit, these words were much needed exhortation. Preaching on a regular basis to graduate educated, post-moderns, I have received my share of letters! Some letters are encouraging, some are rightfully corrective, but the vast majority are nitpicky. While we must do everything within our ability to preach sermons that carefully and lovingly consider the words we use, the tone we speak with and the illustrations we tell, we must not become overly careful and cautious. If we do, we risk speaking so broadly and generally, that we end up saying nothing at all.

So, how do we balance necessary caution and the proclamation of truth with boldness? Here is one suggestion: imaginary friends. Yes, you read it right – imaginary friends. Robinson calls this, “taking the listeners’ side.” As you write your sermon, imagine yourself surrounded by three, four, even five diverse people. For example, my five friends are named Chris, Victoria, Jeff, Ken and Elsa. Chris is deeply theological and socially oriented. Victoria is a product of the feminist movement, highly educated and politically savvy. Jeff is simple, homeless and wonderfully pragmatic. He loves to say, “so what.” Ken is white-collar, an MBA gradate, highly motivated and helpfully cynical. Elsa is a single mom, with many needs, endless strength and a passion for Jesus. I sit with these friends in my study every week I preach. I ask them questions and think through their answers. I make statements and ponder their responses. Considering these friends as I write sermons, helps me to be appropriately careful. It keeps me lovingly cautious.

A side benefit to this is that it also helps me to be relevant. Of course, I change my friends around every now and then. I add a young single man here and an elderly woman there… The purpose of this is to strike a balance of caution and boldness in the sermons I preach. I have found this to help.

Other suggestions?

Like a good plane ride

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Norman just added a comment to the post “Focus on the basics” – I read a good quote “A good sermon is like a good plane ride. It must have a smooth take-off and a smooth landing…”

Calvin Miller recently taught the analogy of preaching being like a plane ride at the International Congress on Preaching. He spoke of how passengers have three expectations – to take off, to go somewhere and to land. For take-off and landing he spoke of the critical first three and last three minutes. For going somewhere he spoke of the importance of the flight plan. While going somewhere it is important to consider the length of the flight is not too long, making sure the intellectual weather is not too heavy, and that the in-flight entertainment is not boring. He even got into the physics of flight – the right combination of the downward weight of content with the forward thrust of passion. I wonder how much farther this analogy could be pushed?

Focus on the basics

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Great preaching always involves the “effective execution of elementary ideas.” (Attributed to Eugene Emerson Jennings)

It is tempting to give attention in preaching to the clever and intricate subtleties of the art and craft of preaching, but subtleties work best when built on a foundation of good solid basics. A clearly derived and cleanly defined Biblical idea. A definite and specific purpose. A logical and orderly structure. Good pastoral relevance. Effective introduction. A clean finish. Most, if not all preachers would preach their next sermon more effectively if they would focus on the basics.

Question: Is “creating need” the same as preaching for felt-needs?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Tim asked the following question in reference to “Introductions: The Essential Ingredients” –

I’m interested in this ‘create or surface need’ idea. Is there not a danger that this tends towards sermons being man-centred and self-help focussed? Like ‘what felt need (not even necessarily true need) does this text provide the solution for?’ Does this encourage a sense that God and His Word are merely felt-need-meeters?

I’m not being negative – I like the idea of ‘create or surface need’. It just raises questions in my mind.

Peter Mead responds: This is an important question. When people speak of preaching for “felt needs” the concern is with preaching that is primarily “how to” in nature. For example, how to raise teenagers, how to have a happy marriage, etc. There is a concern that preaching these kinds of messages do please listeners, but fail to address their real needs, fail to be God-centered, and often fail to honor the intention of the Biblical texts. These are important concerns!

The reason that “need” is included in the introduction to a message is not to determine the nature of the whole message (man-centered rather than God-centered), but to create an opportunity for the Word of God to get into good soil. Using the parable of the four soils for a moment, the key issue there is a “listening heart.” I believe it is naive to assume that people are always eagerly listening when they sit through a sermon. Let me quote Haddon Robinson in Biblical Preaching, “When you start, the people listen because they ought to, but before long, you must motivate them to listen because they can’t help but listen.” (p.168)

The core conviction here is this – do we believe the Bible should be applied to life? Or to put it another way, do we believe not only that all Scripture is God-breathed, but also that it is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work? (2Tim.3:16-17) Of course we do, which is why most preachers at least make some effort at application at the end of a message. If application is acceptable at the end of a message, then why would it not be acceptable in some form at the start? The reality is that many listeners may be long gone by the end of a message that shows no clear connection to their lives (maybe they will be asleep, or drifting to thoughts of pressing concerns – their upcoming confrontation at work, resolving the increasing tension in the family, how they can improve their golf swing, etc.) Some concerns and distractions may be frivolous, some are very understandable. So what to do? Serve up some relevance early on in the message, thereby helping hearts to be listening to the Word of God as it is preached.

Consider how Peter began his sermon on Pentecost – by promising to clarify the concern of the listeners regarding what was taking place before them. In fact, consider also Acts 3 and 17 for two more examples. The truth of God’s Word does not need to be watered down or changed in response to itching ears. The Word of God is highly relevant to life, our preaching should reflect that early on as well as at the end (and throughout).

I am not advocating God-less or Bible-weak self-help motivational speeches with seven steps to successful living. I am suggesting we preach theocentric, God-honoring, Biblical messages that by His grace, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, can change lives and conform people to the image of Christ in all areas of life. Being Biblical and relevant are not mutually exclusive options in preaching, they are both vital. It just helps listeners to listen if some of that relevance is strategically placed at the beginning, instead of all at the end.

More thoughts on this?

Introductions: Introducing What?

/ Mike Roth / 4 Comments

Tim, you ask a very God-honoring question when it comes to homiletical introduction. Creating or surfacing need is certainly part of what an introduction must do. In fact, as Peter states in his 5/11/2007 entry, an introduction must do four things. It must get attention, create rapport, establish authority and create or surface need. Yet, for these four components to be God-honoring and not man-honoring (which I believe gets at the heart of your question), David Buttrick, in Homiletic Moves and Structures makes a very important point. He states that an introduction must do two things. First, it must give focus to consciousness. Second, it must provide some sort of hermeneutical orientation.

Buttrick is not contradicting the points that Peter makes. In fact, within his chapter on introductions, he makes some of the very same points. Rather, Buttrick establishes an overarching principle that is to contour and influence the direction of the points that Peter makes. In other words, while doing all that Peter has encouraged us to do in an introduction, focus and orientation to the text must occur. This can be difficult. It is much easier get attention, create rapport, establish authority and surface need autonomous from the text that is supposed to be introduced. This happens all the time in preaching and it is a colossal error.

It is all too easy to imagine isn’t it? The preacher stands, opens his Bible, takes out his notes and begins. He starts by catching attention and building rapport through funny or shocking stories. The audience laughs or gasps – sometimes both simultaneously (it is a weird sort of convulsion). The room emits an ethos of warmth and openness and then, the preacher begins to preach. The problem is that the first five minutes had nothing to do with the sermon. The congregation is now enthralled with the preacher not the passage. So, after “warming-up” and “catching the attention” of the congregation, the preacher has to spend another five minutes on a second introduction – this time, focusing on the Word of God. This is a terrible waste of time.

To be clear, the four points that Peter makes need to happen in an introduction. However, they must happen in a way that focuses consciousness and provides some sort of hermeneutical orientation to the passage that is going to be preached. This will take more preparation time, and a lot more effort, but it is worth it. We must capture the attention of our audience while concurrently directing them toward God and His Word. Any other result is not an introduction.

Question: First person preaching from an epistle?

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Tim wrote the following:

Preaching in the first person – do you think this could ever be used for epistolary texts? I realise people use it to good effect on narrative texts. But what about a section of epistle?

What I’m thinking is, say, first part of Galatians 5. If you were first-person Paul then it might:
a) add variety (if you’ve been working through the book)
b) enable you to communicate the historical setting well
c) perhaps enable you to strongly communicate the passion Paul had for the Galatians and the sense of exasperation he felt.

What do you reckon?

Peter responds – Absolutely! First-person preaching is usually thought of as being ideal for narrative texts, but epistles are set up for this approach as well. Although epistles are didactic in form, they are also “story” or at least part of a story. You have characters (Paul and recipients, plus false teachers and other influences), in a specific setting, there is a “plot” (Paul preached, others came in, the locals shifted, now Paul is addressing the problem), which has its own tension (unresolved – we don’t know what happened in response to the letter). Paul wrote the letter, every letter, in response to specific circumstances. So I feel it is set up for a first-person sermon. This would definitely add variety to a series. It is often seen as a good option for overviewing a whole epistle either as an introduction or conclusion to a series (I know Mike has used first-person very effectively to conclude a series in James). But there is no reason why it cannot be used for a shorter section within an epistle. Jeffrey Arthurs, in Preaching with Variety, suggests the approach of dictating to a secretary, which allows for elaboration in a verse-by-verse manner.

First-person sermons allow you to, and often require you to include more background and historical information. And as you wrote, Tim, they allow you to communicate the passion of Paul in a section like this in a less threatening manner to your listeners. They will tolerate more passion and strong wording since “it isn’t really you” and the delivery is more intriguing than threatening. This approach will not be a short-cut though. You have to do all the normal exegetical work in studying the passage, then probably extra on culture and historical context, then think through various aspects of first-person presentation as well. You will need to practice, even if you don’t normally “practice” a sermon.

You will need to decide on preaching situation and viewpoint. Are you letting the audience secretly view Paul as he writes, or does he invite the group in as he is working on it and explain what he’s doing, or has Paul been transported through time to explain the passage to the congregation today. Or, perhaps, are they sitting in a Galatian church, with Paul giving them his perspective on the text as it is read, as he would if he had been there (this would be tricky, but possible) – perhaps using someone else to read the text out a verse at a time and Paul urging the listeners to get it and respond. You can be creative! Another option is to preach part of the message in first-person. You could set it up, then go back to Paul as he dictates and thinks out loud, then return to Tim for an explanation of how that text should influence us in our context.

You will need to decide on costumes and props (subtle is usually plenty!) You will need to think through the area you are to preach from and possible use of the space as an actor would a stage. Unless you transport Paul to today, you will need to think through how to make sure your congregation gets the point for their lives. Your ultimate goal is not just for them to understand the author’s idea in his historical context, you also still need applicational purpose for the present day. But you can’t put in direct references that are inconsistent with the historical situation of the “speaker.” So unless you revert to being Tim for some element of conclusion with contemporary application, you need to carefully plan subtle but effective points of contact between his intention for the Galatians and your intention for your congregation. I have found in bringing a Bible character through time to address my congregation that “clear but subtle” is usually effective. Somehow it strains the consistency of the presentation if an Old Testament prophet (or an NT apostle) has travelled through time and suddenly has full knowledge of contemporary life, culture, current affairs, recent history, etc.

So there is a lot to think about, but I think preaching first person on the first section of Galatians 5 could work very effectively! There are a couple of books available on the subject if you have time to read them before you have to preach this sermon – Haddon Robinson and his son Torrey have written It’s All in How You Tell It: Preaching First Person Expository Messages, and J.Kent Edwards wrote Effective First-Person Biblical Preaching. Tim, if you do this, please come back and comment on this post with your experiences, evaluation, lessons learned, etc.