Homiletics

Preaching and Television

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I know there is preaching on television, but that is not my focus here. I was just reading Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman and his interesting perspective on the influence of television.  Allow me to share some snippets and then make a couple of comments for us as preachers.

The print age was the Age of Exposition.  It was replaced by the Age of Show Business. (63) . . . It  introduced irrelevance, impotence, and incoherence — context-free — information reduced to novelty, interest, and curiosity.  News became sensational events.  Information moved quickly but it had little to do with those who received it.  “In a sea of information, there was very little of it to use.” (67) . . . The photograph presents the world as object; language, the world as idea.  (72) . . .  This new language “denied interconnectedness, proceeded without context, argued the irrelevance of history, explained nothing, and offered fascination in place of complexity and coherence. …that played the tune of a new kind of public discourse in America.” (77)  All public understanding is shaped by the biases of television.

Ok, just a few more snippets:

Television has gradually become our culture.”   “The peek-a-boo world it has constructed around us no longer seems even strange.” (79) . . . “We have so thoroughly accepted its definitions of truth, knowledge, and reality that irrelevance seems to us to be filled with import, and incoherence seems eminently sane.” (80) . . . Television speaks in only one persistent voice–the voice of entertainment.  “Television, in other words, is transforming our culture into one vast arena for show business.” (80) . . . The average network shot is 3.5 seconds.  There is always something new to see, devoted entirely to entertainment.  It is now the natural format of all experience and all subject matter is entertaining.  The news is not to be taken seriously.  Several minutes of news should give us many sleepless nights – but newscasters don’t even blink.  Neither do we. (86-7) . . . TV sets the format for all discourse.  Americans exchange images, not ideas, argue with good looks and celebrities, not propositions.  (90-93) . . . Any murder can be erased from our minds by, “Now this….”  (99) . . . “Credibility” refers only to the impression of sincerity.  Nixon was dishonored not because he lied on TV but because he looked like a liar on TV.  (102)

Ok, three comments from me:

1. We should not be intimidated by television. There may be some things we could learn from effective communicators on the TV, but we certainly shouldn’t feel pressured to have a new visual image every 3.5 seconds, or a new subject every 45 seconds!  People can and will concentrate if the communicator can grab and retain attention.  Gimmicks are not the key to this.  Powerpoint certainly doesn’t fulfill any so-called requirement for visual stimulation!

2. We may find people drawn to good preaching exactly because it offers something different, substantial, lasting and inherently valuable when compared to standard fare on TV. Which therefore means we should be neither deliberately poor communicators, nor should we unthinkingly replicate our culture’s way of communicating.

3. We don’t need to come across as anti-cultural and anti-TV, but we do have opportunity to raise questions about the cultural values being pumped into most living rooms. Gracious commentary on culture has immense value to Christians who are often unwittingly over-influenced by the corruptions in the culture.

Monological Q and A – part 3

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

All that I’ve written in the last two posts rests on a critical foundation.  In order to preach so that listeners feel engaged and involved, even though they may sit in silence, the preacher has to know the listeners as well as possible.

Relational pastoring requires the preacher to know the people listening.  In your own church you have weeks, months and years to gradually learn about those that listen when you preach.  Yet it is so easy to neglect the relationships because of a commitment to study, or as a protective policy to prevent vulnerability on your part.

As a visiting speaker you may only have twenty minutes before the meeting, and during the singing, to observe and learn all you can about the people to whom you will be speaking.  As limited as it may be, this time is priceless for learning about listeners.  Learn to observe.  Learn to ask questions.

As a visitor, or as an in-house speaker, it is vital to remember the importance of knowing the worlds of your listeners, as well as the world of the biblical text.  A weakness on either side of the chasm will weaken the bridge you build between the two.

Monological Q and A – part 2

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday I offered three thoughts on how to make a message that engages the listener.  Even though you are doing all the talking, they don’t feel like observers at a presentation, but participants in a half quiet conversation.  They feel like you’re talking to them, like they are involved as the message progresses.  Relevant preaching, rhetorical questions and related to life outlining of the message were yesterday’s points, here are three more (and why not push the alliteration since I tend not to do so when preaching!)

4. Room to breathe – It’s so easy to rattle through a message that is clear and defined in our notes, but comes across as an unbroken stream to the listener.  Good use of pauses, and even illustrations, can give room to breathe and re-engage.

5. Really clear structure and transitions – The more people know what’s going on, the more they can engage with it.  If they’re trying to figure out what you’re trying to do, or where you are going, the less they are involved and actually listening.  Good clear structuring and transitions will help the listener to participate in the actual content and journey of the message.

6. Resistance to cruise controlled sermon pace – Pace is so critical.  Again, your notes may be clearly structured, but the listener is at your mercy to get a sense of order and progress.  Many now like to short-circuit this by projecting their outline.  Don’t do that, instead learn to make your message really clear.  Structure and transitions matter.  So too does pace.  No interesting journey progresses at a constant pace – either fast or slow.  Variation of pace will help listeners engage.

Any more that you would add?

Monological Q and A

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

My last post on Friday sparked a few comments regarding the possibilities of Q&A with congregations.  There is certainly more to be said for that.  I read an article by a friend wrestling with the biblical tension (for want of a better word), between the need for authoritative presentation of truth (preacher as herald), and the need for engaged relational disciple-making (conversational, relational, mentoring ministry).  We lose so much if we give up one for the other.

While you may want to continue that discussion, and I will return to it at some point, I’d like to address a related matter.  The preacher in a traditional preaching setting still needs to make listeners feel involved.  Pure monologue that leaves listeners feeling like observers of a pre-packaged presentation is less than what it could be.  How can we preach so listeners feel engaged and involved?  A few of many possibilities:

1. Relevant preaching – I suppose this is obvious, but listeners will engage more when a message is relevant to their lives.  That doesn’t mean a heavenly majestic text is trivialised to a silly practical level.  It does mean that the preacher has thought about how the text is relevant to these listeners on this occasion.  The world of the text is earthed in the realities of life.  Then listeners feel involved.

2. Rhetorical questions – Too many can start to sound false, but a well placed rhetorical question only expresses what the listener is thinking.  Their inner dialogue follows right along with the preacher, “yes, I just thought that, here’s my answer, what does the text say to me now?”  That inner dialogue requires skill from the preacher, but it turns monologue into something far richer.

3. Related to life wording – It’s not hard to change the wording of the main idea, and the main points, from historical description of the text (commentary title approach to outlining), to related to us wording (contemporary full sentence statements approach).  Obviously you go back to the text to support what you’re saying, but it drives the message into today, rather than simply offering an historical lecture followed by an applicational team talk in the final moments.

I’ll add three more suggestions tomorrow.  Feel free to pre-empt or offer your insight.

Why Don’t We Have Q and A?

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

On Wednesday evening I spoke at a meeting I haven’t visited before.  They asked for a specific subject and so I spoke on that.  They suggested having ten minutes of questions after the message.  These were intelligent and helpful questions.  Hopefully my answers were the same!

So I have two thoughts:

1. Why don’t we create venues for Q&A times? I’ve only heard of a very few churches that have some structure set up for people to interact with the preacher about the message.  I heard of one place where the preacher goes to another room about half an hour after the service and is available for questions about the message.  Why not?  Obviously a Q&A at the end of the service could easily turn deeper communication times into information transfer times to be sabotaged by the curious, but thereby undermining life change for others.  Yet perhaps there is a way to create opportunities for a group to feed off one anothers questions and probe the message further?

But this leads me to a deeper question:

2. Why aren’t there more questions in church? I just spent three days with a group of student ministry leaders . . . major note takers and question askers!  Then the meeting on Wednesday evening – essentially a special interest group.  There are questions in classroom settings and in seminar formats, but in normal church?  Opportunity is already in place in that people can approach the preacher and ask a question, but typically do not.  Is it learned behaviour to not probe the sermon?  Is it a genuine lack of interest?  Or is it just that sense of not coming across as negative or critical?  Perhaps the opporrtunity would generate the interest and desire to probe messages further.  Perhaps for that reason alone we should consider introducing the odd time for Q&A?

Have you tried anything along these lines?  Did it work?  I’d love to hear from other people’s experience.

Authentic Communicators

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Apologies for no posts over the last three days.  I was expecing to have internet access where I was, but didn’t.

I was leading a session on preaching with a great group of folks yesterday.  We were considering what listeners value in a communicator.  Honesty.  Real-ness.  Vulnerability.  Eye-contact.  Authenticity.  I wonder if a previous generation might have listed different things?  Good word choice.  Presence.  Style.  Power.  Attractive voice.  Something else?

Perhaps authenticity has always been important, but it seems to be especially so today.  People don’t want to hear well-prepared but trafficked truth.  People don’t appreciate a presentation at arms length from Bible to listener, but by-passing the heart and life of the preacher.  As has always been the case, good preachers are transformed by the text before offering the text to others.

All this does not mean that speakers shouldn’t present well, clearly, effectively, even powerfully.  It does mean that every element of delivery has to be genuine, natural and authentic.  And that’s one of the challenges of delivery . . . it is not natural to stand in front of a group of people and speak naturally.  Hence the need to work on delivery to help it become more natural.  As I tend to say in the delivery workshops I sometimes run – the goal is not to perform, the goal is to let the natural you come through!

A Classic Contrast Revisited

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

In Between Two Worlds (I Believe in Preaching), John Stott contrasted the typical weakness in more liberal churches from the weakness in the preaching in more conservative churches.  One connected with the audience, but had no rooting in Scripture.  The other started with Scripture and built straight up to heaven, without ever touching down.  Timothy Ward’s book Words of Life revisits this contrast.  Allow me to paraphrase:

Some churches aim to give hope and inspire faith, but do so by proclaiming a Christ different from the Christ presented in the New Testament.  This is achieved by honouring the purpose of a text without being shaped fully by the content.  (Incidentally, this also happens in more conservative churches where a particularly elevated value is given to passion and emotion.)

On the other hand, some churches are driven by content, but seemingly unaware of the purpose for which that content was communicated.  In the more conservative churches there is a tendency to see the preacher as primarily a “Bible teacher.”  True biblical preaching should neither by-pass, nor settle for, faithful exegetical and doctrinal instruction.

Let me quote Ward’s conclusion to the section: “Properly faithful biblical preaching involves the preacher deliberately seeking to fashion every verbal (and indeed physical) aspect of his preaching in such a way that the Spirit may act through his words in the lives of his hearers, ministering the content of Scripture in accordance with the purpose of Scripture.” (p165)

Without wanting to critique Stott’s great book in any way, I have to admit I am really excited by what Ward has done here.  Scripture is not just a repository of truth which the preacher must purposefully land in the lives of the listeners.  The preacher’s task includes sensitivity to the original author’s purpose (or intent) as well as content, which must be effectively and sensitively communicated to the contemporary listeners.  What Stott would probably affirm (and I’m not checking the book, so he may overtly state this), Ward does overtly state.  Preacher, in your passage study, be sure to recognize the author’s intent as well as content.  Then preach so as to appropriately do what the passage did, as well as saying what the passage said.

“The Spirit is again graciously present in the preached message, if what is preached now is faithful in purpose and content to what he once inspired.” (p.165, italics original)

Fear, Trembling, But Not Only

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

I am just finishing up an excellent book on bibliology.  In the final chapter the author addresses the issue of preaching.  I need to re-read, digest some more and then write a review or something.  Excellent.  Anyway, just a point to ponder today.

The author quotes Karl Barth who suggests the question preachers should be asking is not “How does one do it?” but “How can one do it?”  It is critical to remember the greater issue is not our competence in preaching, but our dependence on the God for whom we speak.

The preacher is given the privilege of speaking God’s words, and yet has no power to determine any specific result – hence the preacher should preach in fear and trembling.  At the same time the preacher mustn’t be so fearful that resolve to know and proclaim Christ and him crucified is lost.

In boldness and trembling, in confidence and fear, we preach God’s Word.

Prayerful Preparation and Prayer

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I strongly resist the notion that learning about homiletics means that your preaching will automatically become professional, fleshly and spiritually cold.  Some do end up there.  Some do become mechanistic in their approach.  But I hold that it is right to be a good steward of the opportunity to develop as a preacher, as long as the process is saturated in prayer, as long as the personal relationship with the Lord doesn’t grow cold and become a thing of the past.

So when I teach a beginners intro to preaching, I always make it abundantly clear that the process I teach is not a machine into which a text is fed and a message emerges at the other end.  The process is a logical approach to developing a message, but it should be pursued in dependence upon the Lord through conversational prayer throughout the process.  Pray as you select a passage, pray as you study it, pray as you identify its purpose and pray as you clarify its main idea.  Pray as you consider who will hear the message, pray as you determine the purpose of the message, etc.

Having said all that, there is still a difference between prayerful preparation and just plain prayer.  Make sure that all your prayer is not running in parallel to preparation so that you fail to spend time with the Lord about the preaching opportunity.  Take time away from your PC, your notes, etc., and make sure you spend time talking to Him about the message, the people, the opportunity, your own heart and motivation in preaching, etc.

Time taken out of preparation to spend in focused prayer before the Lord is not time wasted.  Let’s be sure to prepare prayerfully.  And let’s be sure to pray as part of preparation.  Prayerful.  And prayer.  Both.

Help People Trust Their Bibles

/ Peter Mead / 7 Comments

I was just reading a post by Bill Mounce on the Koinonia blog (to see it click here.)  He offers a simple and graciously toned introduction to textual criticism set in the context of a natural question raised by folks in the church . . . “why is verse 4 missing in my Bible?”

Some textual critical questions would probably only be asked by people already heavily interested in the subject with apparatus in hand.  These kinds of questions may intrigue us, but usually shouldn’t find their way into the pulpit!  However, if people in the pew are looking at their Bible and asking a textual critical question, then we need to offer help.  Just a few brief thoughts in light of Bill’s good post:

1. Textual criticism can be explained relatively simply. People probably don’t need to know about every textual family, how to pronounce homeoteleuton, or the full rationale behind lectio difficilor potior.

2. Textual criticism can be explained with grace. This area of study can really stir up the tension, especially between adherents to different textual families.  Such tensions won’t help if shown from the pulpit.  Be gracious to people who disagree with you on Majority Text vs Critical Text issues.  Often you’d be fighting an unseen opponent anyway since people in the same church often tend to use the same version of the Bible (and most of these without any real understanding of text critical issues underlying the options)!

3. Textual criticism should be explained at the right time. Just because you’re enjoying a textual critical excursion in your personal study, or even in your sermon preparation, doesn’t mean the people are needing a dose of it.  But when a verse is missing and they are wondering, or when you’re going through Mark or John and you get to the square bracket sections, then is probably a good time to offer some explanation.

4. Textual critical explanations should build trust in our English Bibles. This has to be paramount.  What have you gained if you’ve showed off your knowledge, perhaps won a debate against an opponent not present, but undermined the confidence of every listener in their English Bible?