Momentum Matters

May 31, 2011May 21, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

When you are preaching, your listeners will subconsciously be looking for unity (a single focus to your preaching), and order (a clarity of structured presentation), and progress (a sense that you are moving forward and getting closer to the end). It is this progress that can be easily lost causing the message to feel like it gets stuck in the mud.

What causes momentum to be lost? Could be one of several things:

Is momentum about content of the message? Yes it can be. Is one part of the message too dense or extended in terms of explanation? Is there too much repetition that might give the sense of you losing your way or going round in circles? Content issues can cause a loss of momentum.

Is momentum about structure of the message? Yes it can be. If you haven’t previewed the structure, or don’t give effective and deliberate transitions, then it can all meld into one and feel dense or still instead of progressing. If you structure your message so that you keep jumping around the text, listeners can lose the sense of progress that comes from a sequential following of the passage (it can be appropriate to do this approach in a text, but make structure and transitions extra clear).

Is momentum about delivery of the message? Yes it can be. If you lose energy, or become monotonous in voice or visual presentation, then momentum can seap away. If you lose your initial enthusiasm (or if your enthusiasm is at a constant high pitch without releasing that tension), then momentum can be lost.

Momentum can be hard to get hold of, but for preaching to engage listeners, we have to consider not only unity and order, but also progress. Don’t take this the wrong way, but they like to know you’re getting closer to being done!

The Image of the Invisible OmniBeing

May 30, 2011May 29, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Today’s post is found here. Glen Scrivener offers a guest post on Cor Deo and I think you should read it. It has massive implications for preachers. Enjoy!

Is a Theme Sentence a Main Idea?

May 27, 2011May 10, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

It all depends what you mean. Some people use the notion of a theme sentence to refer to exactly the same thing as the main idea or big idea of the passage or message (the exegetical idea or homiletical idea in Robinson terms). Others mean something entirely less specific.

The main idea, or big idea, or theme and thrust, or proposition, or whatever you want to call it, should express both what the passage is about (the subject of the passage), and what it says about that (the complement of the passage).

When we have only the theme without the thrust, that is, the subject without completing it, then we may have a theme sentence of sorts, but really it is something significantly diminished. The theme without specificity is perhaps a title (though probably a weak one), but it is not the succinct, pregnant, clear, focused distillation of the details in the passage that is a main idea sentence.

If you have a theme sentence that is a couple of words long, and may not even be a sentence (i.e.a title lacking a verb or completion), then you do not have a sermon ready to expand into the time available. You have a title. You have a start. But to have the single sentence summary of the whole passage that is worth it’s weight in gold, be sure to complete the sentence, complete the thought. You’re preaching about God’s love? Great. What is the passage saying specifically about that?

Extended Sermonic Incubation

May 26, 2011May 10, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

I’ve been struck again recently by the challenge of regular preaching. Sometimes regular preachers might look with envy at those who only get to preach every two or three months. Weeks on end to ponder a passage before preaching it. For too many of us, the sermon for next Sunday is not really considered until the Tuesday before (and for some, later than that).

A friend recently suggested that without enough incubation time, the preacher will end up preaching while they have a mass of information accumulated, like a firework box of ideas going off all over the place. Better to give it the necessary time for your heart and mind to stabilize and settle on the main idea of the passage. Amen.

Then there’s another reason for preparing over a longer period of time. It simply takes time for passages to work in our lives, as God’s Spirit moves in us using that Word on which we are dwelling. So if you start your preparation on Saturday night, there is no time for the passage to be truly owned, because it has really gripped you. It hasn’t. You may be excited to preach it, but it hasn’t got hold of you and worked itself out yet. So five days is better than one.

But ten days is better than five. Haddon Robinson advocates the notion of doing the first day’s worth of passage reading and study in the Thursday of the week before you start preparing the sermon (day’s worth may not equate to eight hours, of course, it may only be one or two). Then you press on with this week’s sermon prep, before returning to it the following Monday or Tuesday. Perhaps refer to yesterday’s PEPPERS approach to reviewing the text for added blessing!

Several weeks are better than ten days. As well as the above approach, I really appreciate knowing what passage I’ll be preaching on in a month or two or even longer. Knowing that I’ll be preaching on Mark, or Acts, or Proverbs, or whatever, allows me to pick at the text and gradually accumulate over the course of time – accumulating not only helpful resources, articles, illustrations, etc., but accumulating the experience of that text starting to work in my life.

Shotguns and Sniper Bullets

May 24, 2011May 9, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Generally speaking I urge preachers to stay in their preaching text as they prepare, and as they preach. It is too easy to drift into another passage (or ten) and dissipate the impact of the passage we said we would preach. However one of the exceptions that I do tend to mention is when the passage you are preaching quotes or alludes to or relies in some way on another Bible passage. What then?

Actually, the more we know our Bibles, the more we see by way of allusion as we look at the text. I did an exercise with a group of pastors where we worked through Ephesians 2 and thought about Old Testament passages that might have been in Paul’s thinking as he wrote, or even specific wording that he used. We were coming up with Old Testament passages for almost every verse in the chapter! What to do?

1. In preparation, go to OT passages that may be helpful, but don’t lose your focus on your preaching text. It can be a rich exercise to go back and see the text and context of the fall in Genesis 3, the possible wording from Genesis 6, the session of Christ in Psalm 110, the far and near reference in Isaiah 57, the background of circumcision language in Genesis 17 and elsewhere, etc. But remember that you need to be able to preach Ephesians 2! I may feel like a sawn off shotgun has scattered marks all over the canon, but that is my blessing, not my listener’s burden!

2. In preaching, only go to one or two OT passages if they are genuinely helpful, but don’t lose your focus on your preaching text. Listeners simply cannot handle masses of other references. It turns a sharp and pointed message into an annoying multi-point prodding. If one, or maybe two, are particularly helpful, then use them carefully. In Ephesians 2:1-10, for instance, I’d be inclined to go to Genesis 3 in the early verses, but I wouldn’t chase multiple other references. Perhaps Psalm 110:1 in reference to being seated with Christ. Probably no more. Better to hit home specifically than to scatter shot everywhere.

My personal goal includes getting to know the Word of God as much as possible (not as an end in itself, but since through the Word I can know God). My goal in preaching is not to show that off, but to help people be impacted by this particular text.

Pulpit Sin

May 23, 2011May 9, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Generally I’m very hesitant to add sins to the lists we are given in the Bible. I’d rather preach the power of life transforming grace than the pressure of legalistic righteousness. But forgive me this one time, I am going to add a sin to our lists. It’s a sin some preachers commit. It’s a sin we should never commit:

In my opinion preaching that is boring is a sin! There, said it.

There is nothing spiritual or godly or Christlike or commendable about preaching in a boring manner. The Bible is not boring! Our task is neither to make it interesting, nor to add illustrative extras to make it interesting (add them for legitimate purposes, of course, but not because you think the Bible is boring!)

How can we avoid boring preaching? There are many ways, but here are two pairs to bear in mind:

Avoid boring with poor content. Look for ways to preach in a manner that is visual, i.e. that will make listeners respond with “Oh, I see what you’re saying!” So in your explanation seek to help people “see what you’re saying.” And in your application help people to “see what you’re saying.” What does that involve? It involves doing more than merely presenting information, or stating propositions, or making points. It involves painting pictures with words of the imagery in a passage, or vividly describing the action in a narrative. It involves painting pictures with words when describing application of the message. Preach vivid so the listeners can see what you mean to say!

Avoid boring with poor delivery. Look for ways to add energy to your presentation. There are two primary areas to keep in mind. The vocal needs energy. And the visual needs energy. Be sure to vary your volume, your pace, your tone, your use of pause. Be sure to add energy to your eye contact, facial expression, gestures, movement, your whole presentation. It is very easy to turn vivid and compelling content into a boring message by forcing it through the filter of poor delivery. There is no virtue in looking and sounding as if the passage has been nothing more than soporific in your preparation. Did Jesus preach in a bland voice and without expression? I suspect not. So let’s try to be more Christlike in our preaching!

Guardrails and Bridge Width

May 20, 2011May 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Some time ago I referred to Timothy Warren of DTS who used the analogy of guardrails for guarding the application of a message from straying off target. I’d like to use the same analogy with slight modification in respect to preaching a text.

The preacher builds a bridge between the Bible text in its world and the listeners in theirs. It may be helpful to imagine a guardrail either side of this road. One guardrail is the intended audience, the other is the purpose of the communication. On the Bible side of the bridge, the intended audience were the church or individual receiving the inspired text (i.e. the churches of Galatia). The purpose was specific in terms of Paul’s intent for those churches.

By the time the preacher gets over to today, he is also thinking of an intended audience (the congregation of Community Church this coming Sunday) and also has a purpose in preaching this text to them on this occasion.

Now if the audience this Sunday shares significant characteristics and cultural experiences with the original audience, then the guardrail comes straight across the bridge. And if the purpose for the sermon matches Paul’s purpose for his letter, then that guardrail also comes straight across.

But what if the audience is different (perhaps they haven’t gone after another gospel), and therefore the purpose is slightly different (encouragement with some warning, rather than open rebuke), then I imagine the guardrails shifting the road direction slightly (think of how your lanes are changed when there is construction on the motorway/freeway). The message of the text is not significantly changed (there are limits), but the sermon is adjusted from what the original did.

If this were applied to preaching a passage from Leviticus, then I imagine the considerable change in audience and purpose would be reflected in the less direct application of the text (a six-lane road narrowing to a two-lane road since we can’t apply it freely and directly), yet the road remains the same.

You cannot preach any truth from a particular passage. You can only preach the truth of that passage. However, the ease of transfer depends on the consistency of audience situation and sermonic purpose. Adjusting these guardrails will adjust the message (but the message must still be the message of the passage).

Tranlsation Error? Sure?

May 18, 2011May 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I’ve mentioned this before, but let me drop it in again. Be very careful before you tell a congregation their Bible translation is wrong. I was in a church a while back where somebody corrected the translation with the comment, “the NIV committee pulled a fast one here.” Very unhelpful. Whatever decisions they made that we might disagree with, I doubt they “pulled a fast one.” What’s more, it was clear from the explanation given that the person commenting didn’t know his Greek almost at all.

1. The notion of word for word direct equivalence is naïve. Each word in the Greek has its own semantic domain (essentially a range of potential nuances/connotations/senses and potentially appropriate glosses or equivalents in English). So word X might be translated as A or B (to keep things simple). Word Y might be translated as C or sometimes B. To say the translation is wrong because they translated Y as B when you think it can only be C would be naïve and unhelpful.

2. Listeners are naïve. Generally speaking, when the speaker makes some judgment of the translation or comments on the Greek, the listeners will mostly assume they have someone with some level of expertise before them. This is massively naïve. I tend to see those who are very capable in the Greek barely letting it show in any overt way, while those who refer to it often are desperately lacking in Koine competence.

3. Preach your passage. Does your passing comment about the translation really help people understand the passage? Really? Is it worth undermining their confidence in the translation for that insight? And honestly, although this is hard to answer, do you have enough competence in translating the Greek to make your critique (or second-hand critique) stand up with integrity?

Tempting as it may be, for several reasons, to correct the translation you are preaching from, it is typically better to avoid overt critique and simply allow your insight to shape your explanation of the text.

Comments on God Speaking and the Bible – Be Careful

May 17, 2011May 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Does God speak through the text, as distinct from analyzing and understanding it? Is it that when the Bible speaks, God speaks, or when the Bible speaks, God also speaks?

It is true that there is more to understanding a Bible passage than just analyzing the technicalities of the propositions the grammar. However, let’s be careful not to create a notion of exegetical accuracy versus some supra-biblical revelation. This notion can come from well-meaning comments like “we can study what the text means, but let’s be open now to hearing what God has to say.”

I heard of a song leader who struck up a chord after the message with the comment, “now let’s hear what God has to say.” Unfortunate, albeit amusing in some ways.

But the same separation can occur within the preaching. The preacher can give the sense that there is the meaning of the text, and then there is God speaking to us as we look at the text.

Cold non-relational exegesis is certainly problematic. But so is supposedly relational non-exegetical Bible reading. Let’s not offer the notion of non-exegetical devotional Bible reading, nor the notion of non-devotional exegetical Bible reading. Whether our goal is personal devotional reading, or technical pre-teaching study, let us be sure to keep together the relational aspects of reading God’s Word with the technical aspects of studying God’s Word.