Homiletics

Full Sentence Points

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Why do I recommend preachers have full sentence points?  Or to put it another way – what is the problem with single-word points?

After all, a series of three or four single words can be memorable, both during the message and potentially after it.  So why not just give single word “points” as the message progresses?

A single-word may convey a title, but it cannot convey an idea. A single word will tell the listeners something about what is going to be said, but it is not able to convey the idea in a nutshell.  Why waste the opportunity to make a single sentence summary of the message content?

Single-word points tend to push the message toward information summary rather than transformational communication. Not always, but often, a single word will lean toward historical lecture material.  The old idea of masses of explanation before any application is problematic.  Why waste the opportunity to be relevant, targeted, personal at such a key moment in the message?  Putting the points in full sentences that relate to us today can be very powerful.  You can immediately go to the text and “back then” to see the support for the point, but you’re doing so with a sense of its relevance to us before you even get there.

Single-word points encourage a lack of cohesion within each point. If your “point” is a subject, then there is almost no end to what you could (and possibly will try to) say in this section of the message.  If your point is a distilled summary of the applicational point (or the message of the text at that section), then there is automatically a control mechanism to avoid scattered thoughts that don’t cohere.

Preaching is oral communication, which consists of transmitting ideas. When we talk in conversation we make points, assertions, suggestions, encouragements, etc. in full sentences.  We don’t naturally use single-word headings.  This is a written  communication approach.  Whatever notes you may or may not be looking at, when you preach you are speaking.  Why use literary approaches?  Forcing yourself to think yourself clear at the level of the points in your message, making sure you can convey the thought in a clear sentence will only help your message communicate more effectively.

Incidentally, if you are still craving the mnemonic assistance of single word tags, you could always add them (or some shorthand approach) in the transitions and final summary.  Having said that, remember that your goal is not for listeners to remember your outline, but to be transformed by the main idea of the text and its application to their lives.

Share

10 Ways to Make Your Listeners Uncomfortable

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Someone said preaching should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable.  Here are ten ways to make your listeners feel uncomfortable as you preach, but not in the right sense of the term:

1. Give off non-verbal signals of nervousness. Wring your hands, pace uncontrollably, fidget as you preach, breath shallow, avoid eye contact, flit from one ceiling corner to another, etc.  If you convey nerves, they are contagious and soon the whole room will be infected.

2. Appear to be dependent on your notes. If they get the impression that you might lose your place, or somehow get stuck, then they will start watching in the “eyes up” time for when your eyes will go down again.  If you need notes for personal testimony, something isn’t working well.

3. Appear to be uncertain or hesitant. This doesn’t mean you need to rush or preach at 100mph.  But there is a vast difference between a purposeful pause with poise and a hesitant gap that generates anxiety in all present.

4. Apologise for lack of preparation and you are set. This never fails.  If you can give a good apology for your lack of preparation, or for your inability to communicate, or whatever, you’ll have almost guaranteed an uncomfortable experience for your listeners.

5. Expect people to tune in to ineffective description. Describing a narrative scene or an illustration situation is not easy.  A poor description will leave the imagination projection screen blank inside the listeners.  But that is not a disaster, they will usually be tracking conceptually, even if they can’t “see” what you’re saying.  But to make them uncomfortable, verbally express the expectation that they can imagine what you’re describing.  “Can you imagine being there?  What would it have felt like?”  If the description isn’t vivid, then the questions will pressure listeners into an uncomfortable corner.

I’ll finish the list tomorrow.

Share

Creative Series

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

It’s easy to fall into a rut with planning a series.  Either a whole book, or a whole section, divided equally into chunks.  But there can be variety in a series.

How about a survey message to start and/or finish? Giving people a sense of the whole will help with the parts.

Why not linger longer in key sections? Most of us typically feel like we could go again with the content we omitted after a message.  Most listeners fail to really take onboard a message after one shot.  Why not linger longer in a key section for a couple or three messages?  I’m listening to a series with three messages from John 1:14-18, followed by a couple of messages that reach out into the rest of John.

Why not pause for fuller context? That is, sometimes a New Testament book will lean heavily on Old Testament content, why not take a message from back there?  For example, I can imagine a series through Hebrews that includes three messages on the key Old Testament passages – Psalm 2, Psalm 95, etc., followed by the Hebrews section that builds on them.

How about tasting the themes from other writers? In a series on a book or section of a book, why not take a message and see how other writers handle the same theme and how they nuance it?

How about a mid-series pause for applicational underlining? We tend to march on, passage on passage.  But why not pause mid-series to review and underline the applications that have become evident thus far?

Then there is the benefit of changing perspective too. Perhaps you’ve preached a book from Paul’s perspective, why not try a message engaging with the letter from the perspective of the recipients.  It could work with anything from Romans to Philemon.  Changing perspective can really underline the reality in which the text was written and its relevance for us today – it’s not just a timeless religious text, it’s a relevant application of the gospel to real people in real situations.

Plenty more that could spice up a series too . . . any thoughts?

Share

Illustrations and Interest

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Illustrations are an interesting subject.  Actually, my concern is that often illustrations are seen as the source of interest in a message.  Therefore the best speakers, that is, the most interesting, are those who seem to be a repository of well-researched illustrations.  But here’s my concern – do we rely on illustrations to be interesting?

Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that we are relying on illustrations to be interesting.  What does this imply?  Does it imply that really entering into the text as we preach is boring?  (That is to say, explaining, understanding, encountering, experiencing the text is actually boring?)  Or does it imply that actually we often aren’t really engaging and entering into a text at all?

In some preaching you do get the sense that the text serves as an introduction to the next illustration.  Personally, I don’t believe the text itself is boring and in need of our help to make it interesting.  I do believe that a lot of preaching somehow seeks to explain texts without really entering into them.  The text is offered at arms length as exhibit A, but is not a living and active revelation in which the preaching thereof engages the whole listener in an encounter with God.  (I’m not really arguing for some kind of neo-orthodox “text becoming word” concept here, but I am suggesting that the Bible is written with affective and emotive function in the different biblical genre that requires it to be somehow experienced and well-understood – as opposed to “mentally understood” from a safe distance leaving the heart largely untouched.)

So no illustrations then?  I’m not saying that.  If their main function is to offer interest, then I would suggest revisiting the text some more and discovering something more of its wonder as engaging inspired revelatory literature.  But what if the illustration serves to explain some aspect of the message, or help to validate or “prove” the truth of the text, or assist the listeners in imagining effective application of the text?  By all means, use explanations, or proofs (maybe a better term would be supports or validations), or applications.  Personally I prefer to call them what they are – explanations, or supports, or applications.  If I call them “illustrations” then I might be tempted to fall into the illustration equals interest trap.  For many, that is what illustrations are.  They don’t have to be.  May we convince people of the inherent interest value, and personal value, of the Word of God.  If we fail to do that, what is it we are doing again?

Share

When Expository Preaching Almost Isn’t

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

One approach to preaching a text is a particularly well worn path, but at times it verges on leaving the territory of the expository.  If done well it doesn’t leave the territory, but it sometimes gets close to the fence.  Let me see if I can help you see what I mean.

Imagine you have a preaching text, perhaps a section of, let’s say, ten verses.  A fairly common and standard approach is to come up with a series of points that cover those ten verses.  Perhaps you take a keyword approach – three reasons, four benefits, three challenges, etc.  By using these key words you are able to construct a series of points that are parallel and technically cover the entire text.  In the preaching of that text you will, by means of your three or four points, preach the whole passage.  You will probably have a liberal sprinkling of illustrations throughout.  At various points in the message the listeners will look down at the text.  Traditional, tried and tested, faithful expository preaching.  Probably.

It all depends on whether the points you are preaching are the points of the text.  This is where the keyword approach can run into difficulty.  Rarely did Paul, or Peter, or John, set out to list a series of thoughts in parallel form.  Consequently, the processing of the text into your points might result in processed text (and like food, excessive processing can wring the nutrition from it).  Now I need to be careful here because the approach described above can be a very faithful approach to preaching, and very effective.  But I’d like to offer a nudge:

When you preach, are you overtly or implicitly saying “my message (on this text)” and “my points”?  Or, are you overtly and implicitly saying “Paul’s message in this text” and “Paul’s point.”  Exposition that isn’t by the fence at the periphery of camp exposition, but sits right in the middle, is exposition where the text is not just the source of the propositional content and historical background, but where the text is really the boss of the message.  The best expositions are where the listeners haven’t just been informed about the text, but where they have entered into the text, the text has entered into them, and where the text has been set free to do what the text was intended to do.

Too easily some of us don’t really do what the text does, but instead we focus just on saying what the text says, and actually end up helping the text out by nursing it through with the aid of our well planned structures and materials of interest.

Expository, but only just.

Share

Keswick Reflections

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

I had the privilege of attending the Keswick Convention for the first time this year.  I had a little role in the young adults stream – K2.  But I also got to enjoy the Bible readings and evening celebrations, as well as a couple of afternoon sessions.  I have to say, I have become a fan of Keswick (good preaching, decent music, no pre-registration, great town, perfect weather . . . ok, that last bit was a lie.)

It was a blessing to be around people hungry for the Word.  I laugh as I remember walking down Helvellyn Street toward the main tent and being overtaken by an older gentleman, probably in his seventies, practically running in order to get in for the Bible teaching.  Whatever your age, a hunger for the Word of God is a sign of sure spiritual health!

It was a blessing to receive some real feasts from the Word.  Actually, the Sunday morning message I heard in one of the churches was enough for the week.  But there were other feasts too.  The morning Bible readings were excellent – good content, high relevance, great energy, contagious enthuiasm.  The more relaxed afternoon sessions I attended were a blessing too.  For many, I’m sure, a week at Keswick must be a welcome feeding from God’s Word (especially for the many coming from churches where the diet is poor).

It was a preacher’s pleasure to watch and learn as others were preaching.  Not every message hit the same heights.  But there were things to learn about preaching in every message.  Things about content, structure, unity of message, use of illustration, aspects of delivery.  It was great to be able to observe and sit under seven other preachers in a week.  We preachers can learn a lot when we watch and listen, whether the experience is generally positive or negative.  And each time, irrespective of the preacher, the passage is pure gold, the pondering of which will effect the gradual transformation of our hearts and lives.

It was great to be in a huge crowd for singing too!  As a poor singer it is great once in a while to be in a crowd big enough to make me less concerned about ruining the experience of those in front of me during the sung worship times.  Ironic that when we get into the biggest crowd ever, we presume our voices will be perfected and able to hit the right notes every time!

Share

Why Do You Preach – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

I enjoyed a passing point made by Derek Tidball recently at Keswick.  Here’s the text:

“Therefore, since through God’s mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart.”  (2Cor.4:1)

Derek pointed out that we live in a culture saturated by meritocratic thinking.  You have to have a certificate to be able to everything.  The same is often true in church world.  People expect you to be able to do this and do that like the best of names.  The pressure is on if you are involved in ministry, and the pressure is to live up to the standards of expectation imposed by the church.  All too easily we can fall into the trap of thinking that we are in ministry because of our merit – our education, our training, our skills, our abilities, etc.

But when we realize that we are in ministry through God’s mercy, that changes everything.  Suddenly ministry becomes about response.  It becomes about our wonder at His mercy toward us.  It becomes a real sense of privilege, rather than pure pressure and evangelical purgatory (as some church situations can feel for some in so-called “service”).

Response.  Wonder.  Privilege.  Hard to think of three better words to describe the experience of ministry.  As long as we look to our own merit, we are living out an anti-gospel ministry.  When our gaze is on Him and His mercy, suddenly it all looks very different.

Share

Why Did the Coughs Spread?

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday I shared about the contrast between the attention of the crowd one night and the significant distraction the next night – same venue, same weather, same chairs, different speaker.  Perhaps something here might be helpful to you.  Why were they distracted?

1. It felt like a commentary with added anecdotes. It was like a commentary explanation of a text, but with the added anecdotes of the speaker’s illustrations, and with a little something of his personality.

2. It felt like a written document was being preached. There is a massive difference between spoken speech and written language.  We must learn to write in “spoken” English if we are to be preachers that prepare with literary approaches (which is only one approach).

3. The message moved between the text and third-party illustrations and back again. I felt untouched.  It seems like it should be obvious that preaching should land in the lives of the listeners, which is not the same thing as sharing personal experiences, or saying things in contemporary language.  In fact, when personal experiences seem aloof or “I’m an important person” they really don’t help the connection at all.  Where, specifically, does your next message touch the lives of those present?

4. It was hard to tell if the speaker was passionate about the passage and message or not. Something believed but not really owned will probably be offered in an “at arms length” manner which will leave the listeners holding it “at arms length.”

5. I wondered what would happen if we all left, would the speaker just carry on anyway? It kind of felt like it tonight.  Which leads to a nice closing question.  What if the speaker sensed that we’d all left mentally?  What if you sense that?  Then what?

Share

When the Coughs Drop

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

As a speaker you should be able to sense the level of focus of your listeners.  Before you say they always listen well, I would encourage you to follow this advice.  Try being in the crowd and listening, observing, sensing what is going on around you among the listeners.  If you have the privilege of attending a conference or large Christian event, you should have the privilege of experiencing the crowd from within the crowd with different speakers.

Large crowd events are helpful because the large numbers both multiply and muffle.  That is, in a small group there may be an individual who never listens – proportionately they are more of a small group than they’d be in a big group.  Equally, it is quite the effect to sense distraction spread through a large crowd.  What happens?

Fidget levels increase. It’s amazing how still listeners can be when the preacher captures the crowd.  But when he hasn’t, fidgeting is rife.  Chairs move, people change position, people check their watches, the clock, the window, the people in peripheral vision, etc.

Infectious coughing spreads. I sat in a large crowd tonight (I wrote this a few weeks before it was put on the site), and I listened as the coughing spread across the crowd.  Like dogs barking in a neighborhood, like children crying in a nursery, like coughs among a crowd ready to be done already.  Last night I sat in the same crowd.  You could hear a pin drop.  Did a mass distribution of cough drops make the coughs drop last night?  No, different speaker.

At the first appropriate moment, people flee to the exits. It can be painful to feel trapped in a meeting too long.  How long is too long?  After all, these folks knew when the service would last until.  It was too long when the preacher didn’t connect for too long.

Experience the distraction of the crowd, experience the impressive focus possible.  Then go back to your own preaching.  Try to be accurately aware of the level of attention you hold, and then try to improve it.  Tomorrow I’ll share some reflections on why the distraction levels were so high among the listeners in the meeting I sat in tonight.

Share