Homiletics

But Wait, They Can See My Notes

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday I wrote about some of the challenges that come from our listeners not being able to see our notes.  We preach orally, but tend to prepare in literary forms (manuscript, indented outlines, etc.)  I mentioned the issue of transitions – very different animals in spoken than in written communication.  I mentioned the need to indicate sense of progress, or purpose of illustration.  But wait, isn’t there a shortcut to circumvent this whole issue?

The Potential Powerpoint Shortcut – Wouldn’t it be better to just project your notes so they can follow along on a powerpoint sermon outline?  I would urge you not to make a projected outline your strategy to overcome these issues.  Your outline is for you.  If you use powerpoint, use it well (i.e. for images, minimal words, lots of blank screen, perfectly timed, etc.)

What Happens if You Powerpoint Your Outline? Projecting your outline will give the impression your primary goal is to educate and inform, it will spark frenzied note taking, it will cause people to try to memorize three sub-points rather than being marked by the one main point, it will distract from the deeper impact and applicational emphasis of your message.  What’s more, what is gained in visual communication via the screen is typically lost in visual communication and connection via the preacher.  It takes real skill to powerpoint in a connecting and engaging manner (a skill rarely found in ecclesial settings).

So I Should Never Use Powerpoint? Use powerpoint by all means, but usually not for your outline.  The outline is a skeleton, it is for you and it is for you to think through how to communicate as effectively as possible.  One of the first posts I wrote was entitled “What do you want them to remember – the outline?”

Because They Can’t See Your Notes

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I suppose it is obvious, but sometimes obvious things need stating.  When we preach we are communicating orally.  People hear us, and usually can see us, but they can’t see our notes.

What difference does this startling realization make to our preaching?  Well, it should cause us to pay particular attention to the following:

1. Transitions. It is so easy to lose people in a transition.  If they mentally check-out for a few seconds they can easily miss the move from one section of the message to the next, leaving them disorientated and confused.  Slow down through the curves, as I think Steve Matthewson put it on his site.  Be sure to take your passengers with you.  Flashback and preview, underline or mark the transition in some way.

2. Follow-ability. You can look down at your notes (if you use them), or down at the text (if you don’t use notes, your message will probably be mentally associated with the passage itself).  If they look down they see dozens of verses that all look the same.  You need to make clear where you are in the text.  Don’t make following along an extreme sport that only the most focused individuals can participate in.

3. Sense of progress. You know that you have finished four pages of notes with three to go.  They don’t.  Because they can’t see your notes you either need to have a clear structure that is previewed at the start and reviewed at transitions (as in a deductive message), or a clear indication of destination and sensation of progress toward it (as in an inductive message), or else a very compelling presentation that people simply don’t want to end.  Otherwise they will be investing mental resources in trying to figure out where you are in your message.

4. Purpose of Illustration. You can look down and see your illustration marker and where it sits in relation to the section of the message, the sub-point you are explaining, proving or applying, etc.  Because they can’t see your notes they can easily lose track of why you are telling the story about the time your Uncle took you to the fish market.  Don’t just tell illustrations well, but clarify their purpose whenever appropriate.

They can’t see your notes and they shouldn’t see your notes  . . . but they will see the message you preach and the way that you preach it.

The Height of Application – 2

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

On Friday I wrote about raising the bar without just cranking up the pressure. But any talk of application must also bring us back to take a prayerful look at ourselves.  I read a comment in Michael Quicke’s 360-Degree Leadership, a quote from someone, R T Warner, I think.  It said that the early church “out-lived the pagans, and out-died them, and out-thought them.”

Many of us today are living in unprecedented luxury compared to the rest of the world today and throughout history.  We have access to resources, and standards of living, and health care and on and on.  We shouldn’t feel bad about all that, but give thanks and make the most of the blessings we’ve been given in order to bless others.  However, we don’t want to become spiritually lethargic unawares.

We can urge others to respond to the teaching of God’s Word with total abandon, with radical commitment, etc.  But in a very real sense we can only “raise the bar” for others to the level it is raised in our own lives.  We don’t need to flaunt our own commitment or sacrifices, but they do speak loud and clear to our listeners.  So we should be sure to prayerfully take stock of our own responsiveness to the Lord.

Here’s a quick checklist:

1. Walk with God – all that is involved in that . . . listening to His Word, prayer, intercession, meditation, etc.  Do we . . . as much or more than we urge others to . . .

2. Resources – use of time, of money, of energy, of abilities, etc.  Just because some of us have more time freed up for ministry, doesn’t mean we are giving more.  Remember the widow’s offering – how would that apply to our use of time and other resources?

3. Sacrifice – do we really, or do we just, you know, sort of?

4. Holiness – easy to bang on about pet peeve sins, but how is the Lord dealing with issues in your life?  You know you’re not perfect, but are you complacent because your sins are not those sins?

5. Okay, I’ll stop, but we do need to prayerfully address the whole issue of personal “application” in response to God’s Word.  Actually, conversing with the Lord about these things can be such a blessing . . . perhaps it should really be an ongoing conversation – not about me, but about my response to Him.

The Height of Application

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I’ve written recently about application and where it is aimed – heart, head and hands (i.e. affection, belief and conduct).  But what about the height of the application?  That is to say, how high do we set the bar?  Now immediately there are issues rising up: does this language imply duty and responsibility that will smother the drawing power of the love of God?  Are we going to end up pressuring people with more and more things to do somewhat independently of God, rather than drawing them deeper into the life that is relationship with God?

I think there are a couple of errors we fall into:

Some of us can over-pressure on a flimsy foundation.  That is, we preach something, explaining the text somewhat, and then go for broke with application.  It is easy to call for total surrender, but when that applicational structure is built on the foundation of snack-food exposition, it will always feel out of place.

Some of us tire people with inane applications not befitting of the gospel.  We preach, perhaps very well, the truth of God’s Word.  And then we list yet another set of duties to be added to the already overwhelmed list of duties on the scrap of paper inside the Bible’s front cover.  This can feel trite. After a seven-course feast in a five-star restaurant, we then urge people to go home and be sure to eat three marshmallows each day and offer a personal-pack of cookies to at least one neighbor.

So what to do?  How high is the bar to be set?  First, it is important to think through where the text is naturally urging the listener.  Second, remember that duty and pressure is very different from compelled response.  If we can preach the compelling Christ and His Word in such a way that hearts are moved, then application will be the naturally resulting encouragement, rather than grating burdens.  Third, remember that some passages and situations call for very practical described applications, but many others might be better suited to stirring hearts for worship, or challenging false beliefs and worldview blind spots.  Make every message relevant, but not every message has to feel pragmatically “applicational.”

If we are saying that “application” should be fitting for the compelling, drawing, captivating attraction and power of the message preached,then surely the bar is often set too low.  But the answer is not to crank up the pressure, but rather to look for ways to preach for hearts to be moved and carefully consider how the listeners can be encouraged along the path of response . . . and that response, through the years of church history, has often been a response of total and absolute sacrificial commitment.  Let’s raise the bar, but think through how we do it!

Are You Sure You Want To Do That?

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

It is so tempting, but are you sure you want to do that?  Perhaps a commentary suggests another way to translate the text.  Or perhaps you have studied a little Greek and think that they have made a mistake in their handing of a tense or whatever.  So you’re tempted to criticise the translation the people are reading as you preach.

Now there are advantages to criticising it.  For one, it makes you look like you know what you are talking about when it comes to original languages – which may or may not be the case.  Another advantage is that it shows you have been studying hard in preparation.  Then, of course, presuming you do know what you are talking about, there is the advantage of greater understanding of the text for all who are present.

But there are some very real disadvantages too.  First, and most important of all in my estimation, you are planting seeds of doubt as to the trustworthiness of the rest of the translation.  They may see this particular verse more clearly (may is the important word here), but now they don’t know if they can trust the other 1188 chapters full of verses.  Also, they are now probably celebrating your knowledge (whether you have it or not).  This should make you a bit twitchy, unless your goal is the praise of men, of course.

Why am I making this point, does it happen?  Oh yes.  I heard a fine Hebrew scholar completely undermine the translations in a sermon almost ten years ago . . . and I still have that lingering sensation of not being able to trust the translations as I think of that message (sermons can prove to be very memorable).  A while ago I heard a well-read, but poorly or incompletely trained Greek reader inadvertently critique the translations.  Now this gentleman would presume he knows enough about Greek to say what he said, people always do.  But his errors were those of a relative novice.  If you haven’t studied Greek seriously beyond about the second year of seminary, presume you don’t know enough to comment too firmly in public.  And as the first example shows, even if you do know enough, are you sure you want to do that?

What to do?  Often it is possible to “correct” a translation subtly in the explanation of the text, or even in the reading, without drawing attention to it.  Often it is enough to say something like, “this could also be put this way . . .” without saying such things as “the translators got it wrong here,” or, and I can’t believe I heard this one, “the translators played a trick on us here…”

Are you sure you want to do that?

Praise God for Influential Preachers

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

I just read an article from Preaching magazine –25 Most Influential Pastors of the Past 25 Years. The title should be “preachers” rather than “pastors” in any strict sense of the term’s current usage. Anyway, it is worth reading.  I’m sure some would be quick to criticise how American the list is, but that is always a cheap and easy critique.  What struck me was how many of these preachers have blessed me in recent years (and I don’t spend much time listing to famous preachers).

I would encourage you to read the article and give thanks for these and other well-known preachers who have faithfully sought to serve God through their ministries.  It is easy to critique the famous, but actually it must be hard to be in their positions, perhaps facing some unique stresses that most of us don’t face.

Perhaps the list might suggest some names that you haven’t heard before, leading you to trawl the web for a sermon by E.K.Bailey, or W.A.Criswell, or Fred Craddock.  Or someone who doesn’t fit in your theological or ecclesiological comfort zone . . . anyone from Adrian Rogers, to Bill Hybels, to William Willimon, to Stephen Olford, to Warren Wiersbe, to Rick Warren, to Jack Hayford, to Tim Keller, etc.  Have you observed Andy Stanley preach?  Have you

Maybe this kind of list has a handful of preachers that you have really been blessed by over the years – stop and give thanks for them.  I’m delighted to see Haddon Robinson on there, I know many who would give thanks for the influence of John Piper in their lives, I have friends who have been so blessed by John Stott, and other friends who have faithfully tuned in to Chuck Swindoll, and of course, there are numerous people I know who would count Billy Graham as the preacher God used to reach them with the gospel.

As with all lists, we could add others who would be on our personal list. Famous, or not, we do well to pause and give thanks for preachers God has used in our lives over the years.  I fondly remember the hours I spent listening to George Verwer messages while going through university – how making a quick meal of pasta could stretch into the afternoon as God dealt with and encouraged me through George’s preaching.  Or the Calvary Chapel preacher whose tapes I would rewind incessantly as I took copious notes in my black chair with my feet on the bed.  Or the seminary prof who preached in class every morning at 8am . . . Bruce Fong it was a pleasure to study God’s Word with you, man O man, what a privilege!

Preaching and Leading

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

As I’ve been reading through the early chapters of 360-Degree Leadership by Michael Quicke, I have been struck by his clear point regarding preaching and leading – they should not be divided into two mutually exclusive camps.  While it is possible to lead without preaching, it is only in contemporary churches that this distinction has become more absolute in recent years.  I may quote Quicke again, but first I would like to share some thoughts from my own perspective:

1. Leading without preaching is possible, but should not characterize the entire leadership of a church. The biblical pattern and instruction is that a church should be led by a group of qualified elders (use whatever term you choose, I’m not getting into terminology today).  What is important to note is that the elders are not qualified by gifting, but by qualified Christian character.  This means that some may not be gifted or effective preachers.  However, it is important to be able to communicate and interact with people as individuals.  Leadership without preaching is possible, leadership without communication is not.  Leadership without preaching, although possible, has become too common in some churches.

2. Preaching without leading is possible, but what kind of preaching is that? Even when a preacher does not have an official leadership label, the act of preaching is an act of influence.  By life, example, instruction and encouragement, the preacher influences the congregation. However, two things undercut the leadership of a preacher.  (1) Preaching what Michael Quicke calls thin-blooded sermons that are individualistic and confined to personal spirituality.  (2) Having that preacher be a guest preacher, rather than a local person of influence.  There is a very significant role for guest preachers, but when the majority of the preaching is done by guests, especially if they preach “thin-blooded” sermons, then leadership and preaching have been effectively divorced – a strange state of affairs for the church.

3. When preaching and leading work together, there is great potential. Not every leader has to preach, and not every preacher has to be an in-house leader, but when the majority of the preaching in a church is leadership preaching, there is real potential!  Guest preachers can be used to supplement and bring something unique (either insight, or energy, or as a draw, or supplementary perspective, etc.)  But when leadership and preaching go together, then the church isn’t functioning merely  as a business, but as a spiritual community responding to the Word of God and participating in the dynamic reality of the Christian trinitarian life . . . the life of a God who speaks . . . (can I really end a post there?!)

I’ve reached my limit for a post, so I’ll save the quote for another time.

Single Verse Sermons

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

The site received this comment from Peter D:

I have been studying Charles Spurgeon’s sermons. He would often take one scripture and expound on it from every direction he could, would that be thin blooded? I’m preparing a message for later this month and want to focus on one verse within Psalm 63 – it sticks out to me and brings the whole psalm to life, for me at least. In your opinion is it best when dealing with psalms to preach the whole psalm in it’s entirety or can focusing on one part bring it to life for the members?

This is a good question.  Regarding the Psalms I would suggest it is always important to study a Psalm in its entirety, but it may be effective to focus on one part if that seems appropriate for the situation (i.e. when covering the full text in a longer psalm would prove overwhelming or unachievable). 

But what about single verse sermons? Certainly in the past there were many more preachers who preached on single texts, often going from those texts to a sometimes comprehensive canon-wide presentation of the pertinent doctrines suggested (or sometime not suggested) in that text.  Sadly there are many who try to copy the approach of a Spurgeon without achieving a comparable level of personal spirituality and biblical maturity.  There is certainly a place for doctrinal preaching, as well as better and worse ways to do it.  Perhaps there should be a post on that subject sometime . . .

But what can we say about single-verse sermons?

1. If a single verse is a complete unit of thought, great!  For instance, many proverbs stand alone as a complete unit of thought and can be profitably preached as such.

2. If a single verse conveys the main idea of the unit of thought, great!  In some passages there is a single thought that encapsulates the main idea of the passage and it might be effective to preach the verse, while choosing how much of the context to refer to at the same time (depending on situation of sermon, listeners, etc.)

3. If a single verse conveys a significant proportion of the main idea of the text, this might be effective.  As above, the surrounding context will need to be brought into the message in some way or other, but appearing to preach a single verse may work well.  In Peter’s comment above, I noticed how he still tied the single verse to the message of the Psalm as a whole, which makes me think it might be very effective.

4. In a topical message, a single verse may act as sectional manager for that section of the message, but that manager must not act autonomously from the influence of the full unit of thought.  That is, the verse must be understood in its context.

5. If a single verse is used without awareness of context, or to preach a point it wouldn’t give if understood in context, or if preached without studying the context . . . well, please don’t.

Thin-Blooded Preaching – Part Deux

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

So to the rest of Michael Quicke’s list of what constitutes thin-blooded, leadership-less preaching:

6. Low Compliance – While hoping for positive comments, this kind of preaching really doesn’t expect people to be or do anything substantially different as a result of the preaching.

7. Absence of Process Issues – This is where the preacher steers clear of applying the text to the process of congregational transformation, instead leaving all process issues to the organizational announcements.

8. Solo Role – Following on from the previous item, this is where the sermon ends up in a separate role from the organizational complexities of church life, functioning as a devotional stand-alone on the side.

9. Cowardice – “Maintaining rather than initiating. . . . Safe pairs of hands operating within stable structures rather than big souls daring to live on the leading edge of God’s new structures.”  And to quote a bit more, “Thin-blooded preachers have become understudies on the margins of leadership. Such preaching utterly fails to lead.” 

10. Missionally Defective – That is to say that it fails to lead God’s people in the mission to which they are called in this world.  Preaching becomes about individual conversion, or personal growth, but fails to really engage the interface between the church andthe culture.

“So full-blooded preaching, then, is corporate, holistic, trinitarian, specific in applicaton, realistic about conflict, urges commitment, does justice to process issues, collaborates, is courageous, and is missionally effective.”  The rest of the book pursues that, and I’m looking forward to reading it!

What Makes For Thin-Blooded Preaching?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

After a whole series of careful caveats, Michael Quicke defines what he means by thin-blooded preaching in 360-Degree Leadership.  I’ll share brief introductions to each thought, but really recommend buying the book and thinking through his argument first-hand.

1. Individualistic – It is easier to preach to individuals, than to address the complexities of corporate church life, and the calling of the Body of Christ in the world.

2. Aimed at head or heart but rarely both together – On the one hand there is preaching that lodges great slabs of words into heads to occupy listeners with note taking – “Cerebral preachers love to use ‘The Blessed Treasury of Wonderful Bible Verses that will accompany your sermon text and fill up the space to stop you pursuing its specific consequences.'”  Equally he critiques the feel-good preaching that by-passes Scripture in order to only touch the emotions.

3. Spineless Theology – Not theology in general, but the theology of preaching that is essentially unitarian and essentially denies the existence of an actively involved Christ or Holy Spirit, making sermon preparation and delivery an almost entirely human endeavour.

4. Generic Applications – That is, the lightweight fare of homely examples and cheerful little stories that is nonspecific and nonconfrontational.  Pithy anecdotal material that could have been preached unchanged half a century ago, therefore indicating that it isn’t really about gospel transformation of community today.

5. Avoids Conflict – only nurturing and shepherding without exhorting.  This kind of preaching may boldly denounce generic sins, but timidly avoid at all costs the simmering tensions in the church such as crippling tension over worship, or disputes between families.

That is quite enough for one post.  Like me you probably “amen-ed” at least a few of those, but they are all worth pondering as you prayerfully considering your preaching and the preaching-leadership of your church.  I’ll share the other five tomorrow.