Homiletics

Preaching and Those Few Key Sentences

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

How many hundreds of sentences are used in a sermon?  And they all matter.  But they don’t all matter as much as a few of them.  I suppose I would suggest the following sentences as worthy of extra effort:

1. The Main Idea. Hours might be spent crafting and honing the main sentence for a message.  That would be hours well spent.  The main idea is the boss of everything in the message, it is the filter through which much extraneous “good stuff” is sloughed off.  It is the burning hot focus that is to be seared into the heart and mind of the listener.  It brings together understanding of the passage with emphasis on the life-changing relevance for the listener.  The main idea really is all it’s cracked up to be, and it’s absence will only confirm that billing!

2. The first sentence. It’s great to start the message with an arresting introduction.  Instead of beating around the bush until you get into your stride, much better to start with a bang.  It may be a startling sentence.  It may be an intriguing sentence.  It may be a contemporary paraphrase of that infinitely powerful sentence, “once upon a time . . . ” (narratives do grip listeners fast!)

3. Transition sentences. I think transitions are oft-neglected.  A good message with poor transitions will lose people.  Give some extra effort to transitioning slowly, smoothly, safely.  Keep your passengers in the car when you take the turns.

4. The final sentence. That last sentence can ring in the ears as silence descends and you move to take your seat.  Despite the best efforts of over anxious worship leaders or people chairing meetings, the final sentence can resonate in a life.  Don’t fizzle to a halting stop.  Stop.  Clear.  Precise.  Having arrived at your destination.  Having achieved your goal.  Having parked the message with exactly the final sentence you determined.

Preaching may involve hundreds of sentences, but a few of them are worth extra careful crafting!

Excessive Abstractions and Principles Too General

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Preaching an ancient text to a contemporary congregation will usually require some level of abstraction.  To preach an ancient instruction simply as it stands is to present a historical lecture, rather than a relevant presentation of inspired truth.  Some preachers simply say what is there and effectively offer historical lecture.  Other preachers abstract from historical specifics to timeless abiding theological truth, but end up preaching vague generalities.

To grasp what Robinson calls the “exegetical idea” and move through the “theological idea” to get to the “homiletical idea” is not easy.  The end result needs to be clearly from the text or the authority has been lost.  Yet the end result has to be specifically clear in its emphasis on the relevance of that text to us or the interest is lost.  One temptation is simply to play it safe, perhaps too safe.

What I mean by that is that we might derive a general, borderline generic, principle from a passage and move from historical explanation (often curtailed) into general application of this general principle.  Was the message true?  Yes.  Biblical?  Yes.  Relevant?  I suppose so.  Life-changing?  Probably not!  Sometimes it is a fear of fully engaging the text that can lead to this “generic” preaching.  Other times it is a fear of fully engaging the listeners that leads to it.

John Stott’s metaphor of the preacher as bridge-builder is helpful here.  The best preaching will not only touch both the world of the Bible and the world of the listener.  The best preaching will be firmly rooted, planted, engaged with and connected to both worlds.  Let’s not preach vaguely biblical abstract generalities.  Let’s really preach this text to these people!

Improving Speech While Not Preparing – 3

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

For the past two days I have looked at word choices and verbal pauses.  More could be said, but it would be more of the same.  Perhaps working on choosing vivid rather than lifeless descriptors would be worth a post, but you can think that through.  I would like to add one more post to the series on another aspect of delivery – the visual element.

What listeners take in through the “eye-gate” is massively significant.  Some elements of visual, or non-verbal delivery, can be improved in everyday life.  Here are a few possibilities, select only those that are issues in your delivery:

1. Eye contact. Perhaps the most important ingredient in any delivery recipe, eye contact takes work for many of us.  In every conversation or presentation (which might be the telling of a story to a group of friends standing around the coffee machine at work), practice making meaningful eye contact with the entire group.  How easy to develop a blind spot (never looking to the people on your left).  How easy to get in the habit of looking over people or past people.  Practice will help your preaching, not to mention your daily conversations!

2. Posture. How do you stand while in a conversation?  How do you stand when saying goodbye at the front door (a very English pastime)?  How do you hold yourself when approaching the counter in a store?  Developing healthy and confident, but not arrogant or contrived posture is worth the effort.  It is so easy to undermine a message by sending “don’t trust me” or “this is not important” signals!

3. Distracting movement. Some people pace, others shuffle, some sway, some fidget.  If you discover you have a propensity to distracting movement, work it out in normal life.  It will only help in life and ministry.

4. Distracting gesture. Apart from some obviously offensive gestures, I am not highly against any gesture.  Hand in pocket can be fine.  Pointing might be appropriate.  Touching the face may not detract from a message.  However, any repeated gesture can become highly distracting.  If you find you have one, work it out in normal life.  Finger to finger push-ups, one arm hanging limp, jingling keys in the pocket, the werewolf, the T-Rex (elbows attached to the side but lots of hand gesturing), what Bert Decker calls the fig leaf, or the fig leaf flasher, the Clinton (gesturing as if holding the pen), even slapping yourself on the head.  Anything can be distracting if overused!

5. Smile.  A grossly underused tool for connection and building trust.  It wouldn’t hurt the world if we all practiced this more in everyday life, and it might show more in our preaching too!

Find out (from friend or from video) what you need to work on, your listeners will appreciate it!

Improving Speech While Not Preparing – 2

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday I referred to Jay Adams’ suggestion that we can improve our language use best by working on it in everyday life so that it becomes natural.  He mentions another aspect of speech that many need to work on.  The unnecessary use of, you know, like, filler words.  These verbal pauses do a lot to distract listeners and lessen the impact of otherwise pointed and focused speech.

The problem with filler words or verbal pauses is that they only seem to get worse when we focus on them in a time of tension.  So simply telling yourself not to say that thing you always say so often is not going to fix it when you’re preaching.  In fact, it will probably exacerbate the problem.  So Jay Adams suggests working on this at home, with the help of your wife.  Have a family member help by making it clear whenever the filler is used.  Gradually the added complexity of conversation will motivate you to drop the filler. “Know?  I don’t know, could you explain it to me please?” That will really stack up in some of our, you know, conversations. “Like?  What was he like, to what would you compare him?” That will complicate a relatively simple interchange!

If you can figure it out, a signal system that is only known to you and your spouse could be used in public settings too.  However, Adams suggests this approach be kept to the private sphere if there isn’t total agreement on how to proceed in public!

Eliminating verbal pauses will achieve massive benefits for preaching.  But perhaps the time to work on the habit is in the normal situations of life, rather than the pressure cooker situation of preaching.  At th end of the day, you know, what have you found helpful in eliminating verbal pauses or distracting cliches?

Improving Speech While Not Preparing

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Jay Adams suggests that improvements in speech should be pursued during everyday life, but not when preparing the message.  The reason he gives is that focusing on grammar, phraseology or pronunciation during preparation and delivery is a distraction from the real task at hand.  It is better, he suggests, to work on improving your speech during every day life.  Over the course of several weeks it is possible to master a new speech habit.

For example, you might need to work on saying “He asks you and me,” rather than “He asks you and I.”  By concentrating on this and working on it in everyday situations it will not take too long for it to become a speech habit that will naturally come out while preaching.

Another example is that of storytelling.  Every day we can practice telling stories compellingly, with good flow, description and appropriate pausing.  We shouldn’t wait for a dramatic life event, but rather choose an experience each day to recount to our families over dinner.  Practising the telling of a story in the car can help, and the repeated telling of stories with increasing effectiveness will only help our ability to tell stories during preaching – personal “illustrations” or biblical stories.

Tomorrow I’ll mention another aspect of speech that can be worked on in everyday life.

Of Bifurcations and Dichotomies

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Most people have a tendency to think in black and white categories.  Something is either right or wrong, good or bad.  In order to get from the complex world of reality to the comfortable world of clear categories, we tend to bifurcate inappropriately and end up with inconsistent dichotomies.  For example?

Well, consider the two issues of communication style and biblical content.  These are two issues.  Yet for many people they seem to have been melded into a one or the other dichotomy.  So if a preacher has an engaging and natural style, then the content must be weak and lightweight.  Equally, if I am to preach biblically, then my style must needs be less than connecting.  The apparent truth of this thinking is seen in so many preachers, but there is real fallacy here.

I just listened to a series of messages that could be labeled as seeker friendly in style, certainly very natural and engaging.  Therefore biblically lightweight?  Not a bit of it.  Actually I found a couple of them stunningly effective in how they handled the text and communicated it to the listeners.  That’s not to say that all such messages are biblically solid, but it’s equally wrong to assume all are not.

Natural engaging style that is connecting with the unchurched is one issue.  Biblically solid and rich content is another issue.  One doesn’t mitigate against the other.  Let’s not be too quick to dismiss.  Equally I listened to an older message that was biblically solid, but wouldn’t qualify as contemporary in style.  Stodgy, boring, irrelevant, cold?  Not at all.  It was deeply moving and highly helpful.

Let’s be careful not to combine and confuse categories in order to create clear categories for ourselves.  Life, and ministry, is lived not in many blacks and whites, but in numerous complex layers of grey.  That statement does not in any way argue against objective truth, as it could so easily be misquoted.  Rather it urges us to engage the complexity of life, of ministry, of preaching.  And on the example given in this post – let’s be both biblically solid and communicatively natural for the sake of ministerial effectiveness.

A Tired Feast

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Sunday morning I preached the last of the messages.  I’d taught class for four days, but then things got busier.  Between Thursday evening and Sunday morning (60 hours) I spoke six times, taught two sessions, and travelled many miles by car, train and aeroplane.  Not the busiest few days, but among the tightest in terms of the travel schedule.  So Sunday afternoon I got on the train to start the journey home.

I was tired and knew that attempting to read or write would be borderline futile.  So instead I chose to enjoy a tired feast.  Stopping only to hand over my passport or order food, I basically spent the next hours listening to about a dozen messages from about seven different speakers.  Subjects were varied.  Speakers truly diverse – from Stan Toussaint and Ron Allen to a series from Andy Stanley and even a few minutes of Ken Davis.  I drifted a couple of times from eyes closed to actually asleep, so I moved back and listened again to those minutes.

I didn’t listen to make observations on preaching technique.  I didn’t listen to gain ideas for illustrations or preaching strategies.  I listened because I knew I needed to be fed.  I was fed.  Actually, I feasted.  A stunning illustration of Isaiah 53:10 from an elderly scholar.  A moving introduction to a message on life’s pivotal circumstances from a contemporary communicator.  An inspiring series on growing in faith.  A great example of traditional preaching on the tabernacle.  A well-shaped presentation of the raising of Lazarus.  A non-traditional survey of a theme in John’s gospel.

Sometimes we need to stop giving out and take the time to be fed.  Hungry?

Giving a Testimony

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

nugget from Richard Bewes’ book, Speaking in Public Effectively.  As a preacher, you may not be asked to give your testimony so much any more, but perhaps these guidelines might be worth giving to anyone you ask to share a testimony in church.

First, it is a testimony to a Person and what he has done for you.

You are not asked to be on your feet to pay tribute to a book, a Christian, a course or a church that may have helped you, though any of these may legitimately come into the story.  But it is Jesus Christ, and what he has so far done for you that you are wanting to focus upon primarily.

Second, it is a testimony and not a mini-sermon that you are giving.

Three and a half minutes is enough – unless you have been invited to speak for longer.  The whole style is that of telling a story.  It is unwise, then to attempt to do the preacher’s task.  Use a text, by all means, if there is something from the Scriptures that has meant a great deal in your spiritual beginnings.  But don’t end the testimony by a long exhortation to commitment; that is almost certainly someone else’s job in the proceedings.

Third, it is a testimony and not an essay.

Although it may well be wise to write out, word for word, what you intend to say (this can help you keep to time), have your notes on a small jotting pad or card, rather than on a large, distracting sheet of paper.  The whole presentation is essentially one of spontaneity and an impulsive desire to tell. Write it out as you would describe it to your best friend in the chair opposite you.

How many good testimonies end awkwardly with an unnecessary exhortation to commitment?  Helpful advice from Richard Bewes.

The Subject We Don’t Mention

/ Peter Mead / 8 Comments

Actually there are several subjects that preachers are not supposed to talk about, but I’d like to mention one.  Briefly.  Actually I’d rather not mention it, so I’ll quote somebody else.  It’s the issue of “expenses,” aka “petrol money” in some churches, aka “speaking fees,” aka “honoraria.”  It’s right that we hesitate to mention this issue since money should not be the motivation of a preacher, but at the same time very few are in a position to totally ignore the issue of finances.

I was just enjoying Richard Bewes’ book Speaking in Public Effectively.  In his last chapter he focuses on the travelling speaker.  He addresses the unique challenges of travelling to speak, the things you learn to pack, the flexibility that’s needed, the fact that some apparently petty and trivial things can become profoundly significant in the dead of night in an obscure place.  Finally, the preaching is done and it’s time to get going on your return journey,

Someone comes up to you wearing specs, and holding a pen and pad. “Could you tell me if you had any expenses?”

In general it’s right to put in a claim, if for no other reason than that the organizers ought to know what the actual costs of their meeting came to.  They make an annual budget.  They need to know, and so do their successors.

Accept whatever you are given.  At times I have been paid with book tokens.  You wonder, as you drive away, what the reaction would be at the petrol station, if you leant out of the car window and chirped, “Do you take book tokens here?”  But it is all part of the fascinating experience of service, and we learn to take the rough and the smooth together, with equanimity, “not greedy for money, but eager to serve” (1Peter 5:2)

This attitude should govern us all, including those who depend on their speaking for a living.  Speakers who become money-conscious should either reform their priorities or leave off speaking.  The people who ought to be giving attention to the question of expenses, fees and salaries are the organizing elders.  They are the leaders responsible for these matters, and they should, if possible, have business people among them.  It is not the concern of the speakers.  Never.

I wonder what difference including business people in the discussions of speakers “expenses” might make?  Anyway, enough of me quoting someone else, any comments on this issue (feel free to comment “anonymously” on this issue!)

Reformation Lessons for Preachers – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I quoted at length from Mike Reeves’ message on Justification (available on theologynetwork.org).  Mike was addressing the intriguing question, “Why is it that Luther started the Reformation and Erasmus didn’t?” The first part of his answer focused on the contrast between their views of Scripture.  For Erasmus the Scripture was to be revered, but could be squeezed to fit his own vision of Christianity.  For Luther the Scriptures were the only sure foundation for belief, the supreme authority allowed to contradict all other claims.  Now for the second part of Mike’s answer to the question:

But it wasn’t just the authority of the Bible that made the difference, it was also what they saw as the content of the Bible.  For Erasmus the Bible was little more than a collection of moral exhortations.  The Bible is all about urging believers to be more like Christ the example.  Luther said, that’s just turning the Gospel on its head.  Our issue is sinners first and foremost don’t need to copy someone, sinners need a Saviour!  Sinners need, first and foremost, a message of salvation!  . . . Without the message of Christ’s free gift of righteousness, his free gift of himself and all that he has, there would be no Reformation.  Justification by faith alone was what made the Reformation the Reformation.  . . . It was this gracious message of a sweet Saviour’s free gift of righteousness that made life changing ministries life changing.

Reformation is not a moral spring clean.  It’s not a revolution against the old ways, anything old fashioned and ritualistic.  It’s not just about opening the Bible, but not finding the message fully.  This is a profound challenge for the church today – what message do people hear?

Our attitude to Scripture is the foundational issue for our preaching.  The message we preach from the Scripture is the more visible issue in our preaching.  Do we stand, no matter how much contemporary culture, even church culture, not to mention the attacks of the enemy himself, are arrayed against us?  Do we stand and preach the message of Scripture, because we are absolutely committed to Scripture, because we are absolutely committed to the God who gave us the Scripture?  Do we preach in light of these simple yet profound lessons from history?