Homiletics

Visual Variations

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday we gave some thought to the vocal variations needed for effective delivery.  Today let’s remind ourselves of some aspects of visual delivery – the non-verbals that are so powerful.  The key here is for the visual (non-verbals) and the vocal to work together with the verbal (words) to make the communication consistent and impactful.  Words must reign supreme in the thoughts of the preacher, but words can be undermined by inconsistent visual presentation, or poor tone of voice.

Visual delivery issue – eye-contact. This is absolutely and definitely number one on the list.  Eye contact is so powerful.  Without it there is no trust.  With too much there is perceived intimidation or inappropriate intimacy.  We need to make sure we’re making genuine eye-contact with the people we speak to … perhaps 3-5 seconds at a time, then on to someone else.  Beware of “blind spots” (mine is the people in the center of a spread out group, yours?)   Beware of having your head in your notes all the time (and it is probably much, much more time than you think!)  Beware of looking over everyone to the clock on one side and a fascinating emergency exit sign over the door on the other side.

Visual delivery issue – gesture. To put it simply, gesture needs to be consistent with words, increased in size for larger audiences and not repetitively monotonous.  It takes practice to point to the right when you say left, or when referring to the past, because this is backwards to you the speaker.  It feels unnatural to make gestures bigger when in front of a large crowd, but it looks weird to them if you don’t.  And be careful of any repetitive habits . . . anything can be annoying or distracting once it’s repeated a few times – the finger point, the spider on a mirror, the hand in pocket, the werewolf, the T-Rex, the glass ceiling around the waist, the fig-leaf, the fig-leaf flasher, the Clinton, the face scratch, the arm twitch, the weight shifting, the rock’n’roll four-step, etc. (thanks to Bert Decker, Hershael York and others for the labels picked up over the years!)  Any of these are fine, once or twice, but repetitively can become highly distracting.  If you don’t know what you do a lot, ask someone!

I’ll finish this list tomorrow . . .

Vocal Variations

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Delivery of a message is a complex issue.  While this shouldn’t create tensions in us that distract from working hard on content (Bible study, pastoral awareness, prayer, message shaping, etc.), we do need to give some thought to how we deliver a sermon.  Delivery consists of three elements – the verbal (words used), the visual (body language) and the vocal (use of the voice).  Let’s just review some basics for three days . . . not new information, but perhaps a timely reminder to work on one or two details of delivery…

Vocal variation through pitch. We each have an upper limit and a lower limit to the range of notes we can hit with our voice.  Some of us (well, me), can’t “hit” any note in particular, but we all have a range of possibilities!  By default we will usually fall into a limited range of pitch.  It takes effort to break out of that range and add variation to the voice.  Naturally, when excited, our pitch will rise.  It takes effort to learn to sometimes drop the pitch for the sake of emphasis.  This is worth doing to avoid screeching your way through an exciting sermon like a shrill dog whistle!

Vocal variation through pace. All of us can speak faster and slower.  Most listeners can cope with both faster and slower (as long as volume is appropriate).  However, listeners will struggle with monotonous pace.  It’s hard to listen to a 100mph preacher.  It’s hard to listen to a 1mph preacher.  Be sure to vary the pace . . . which takes effort to learn.  Just like with pitch, we have a default when excited – we go faster.  Problem is, with an exciting Bible message we can end up sprinting for half an hour and leaving everyone breathlessly in our wake.  Emphasis can be achieved by slowing the pace at the key moment, but it takes effort to learn this.

Vocal variation through power / punch. You can speak louder and softer.  We tend to fall into a certain level, it takes effort to add variation.  Again, for emphasis we naturally go louder.  But going softer can really be effective too, with some practice.  Here’s a post that addresses this specific issue –When Less is More.

Vocal variation through pause. Basic truths – speakers feel that any pause is really, really long, and they think that listeners think they’ve forgotten what they’ll say next.  In reality a pause is never perceived to be as long as it feels to the speaker.  In reality if you don’t look nervous, they won’t feel nervous.  Pauses really help.  They add emphasis.  They allow seconds for soaking in a truth.  They allow people (including you) to breathe.  So don’t undermine every possible pause with a verbal filler, you know, umm, like, just really, you know, like, that.

Have You Ever Watched A Movie Twice?

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Most people have.  Let me share the three reasons people gave at the seminar last weekend for having done this, then I’ll make my point clear:

1. It’s like children wanting the same story told over and over – it gives a sense of security.

2. You catch details you didn’t see first time through.

3. You still enjoy the satisfying bits.

All very true.  My point?  When your preaching text is a familiar narrative, it may be tempting to just talk about it rather than to tell the story again . . . don’t.  Tell the story!

1. If you tell the story well, all of these three things apply.  It’s not just children that appreciate security. In a changing and often worrying world, it is very reassuring at a deep level to be reminded of the unchanging truths of God’s Word – God is still on the throne, Joseph’s story still works out God’s greater plan, Daniel still honors God in the persecution, Jesus still tells Jairus not to fear, and ultimately, the story of the gospel is still true.

2. People do notice things when a story is well told that they may have never noticed before – “I never realised she understood Jesus that way!”  or “I never picked up his gentleness of tone with her before” or whatever.  Just because people have heard a story numerous times, it doesn’t mean they have really understood it.  (How many times has Jonah been told and the point been missed?)

3. It is very satisfying to again experience the resolution of tension in a narrative, even if you know how the story ends.  If this is true with a movie, how much more with true narratives of the Bible?  It’s satisfying to hear Nebuchadnezzar’s statement about God after the grass eating incident.  It’s satisfying to see the ram caught in the bush after having your heart pounding as the knife is raised over Isaac.  It’s satisfying to see everyone safely on shore after the incredible adventure of Paul’s shipwreck.

Narratives create security, they intrigue with new insights, they satisfy with tensions resolved.  Narratives tap into the human ability to identify with others.  Narratives stir the emotions.  Narratives drop the guard of the listener so that truth can hit home.  Narratives are powerful.  That’s why God inspired so many of them.  When you preach a narrative . . . be sure to tell the story well!

A Mentoring Prod

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I’ve written before on the critical subject of mentoring.  It’s easy as a preacher to be too busy to invest in mentoring relationships.  It’s also easy to miss the heart of what we are called to in ministry.  I’ve just started The Making of a Mentor by Ted Engstrom and Ron Jenson.  Pointing to Paul’s example in 1Thessalonians 2:7-12, they underline the importance of relationships in ministry.  I’d like to share their quote from Harry Stack Sullivan, an eminent psychologist in the field of interpersonal relationships:

“All personal damage and regression, as well as all personal healing and growth, come through our relationships with others.  There is a persistent, if uninformed, suspicion in most of us that we can solve our own problems and be the masters of our ships of life.  But the fact of the matter is that by ourselves we can only be consumed by our problems and suffer shipwreck.”

Two simple questions.  Who are you allowing to invest in you?  Who are you investing in?

Application: Specific Not Facile

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

When it comes to the application of a message, there are many options.  One is to ignore it completely and leave it up to the Holy Spirit (not a good option since it’s part of our job as preachers . . . by this logic why do we preach at all?)  Another is to be vague and ethereal in application, positing plain platitudes (not a good option since people will affirm any attempt at application, but that doesn’t mean it made any difference in their lives).  Another approach, popular in some circles, is to always give a very specific action step in every message (again, this is open to question since some texts don’t lend themselves to facile or purely practical action steps, and listeners can grow burdened by the pressure of ever growing action lists).

So how do we make sure application is specific, without making the grandeur of God’s Word look puny by pathetic pedantry?  I would suggest that we make sure we are really understanding a passage as intended by the author, in all it’s beauty and power, before we start trying to come up with applications.  We have a tendency to leap to applications and then somehow make every passage into a “witness more” or “live better” kind of passage. Once you’ve come to a decent level of grasping the meaning of the passage, then you have a hope of good application.

It is always worth starting with the original recipients. What was the author trying to do in them by this act of communication?  If we can grasp that, then we are halfway to applying it today.  If the original intent was to motivate a specific action step, then ours might well follow suit.  If the original intent was to convince of a theological truth, then perhaps we should aim for the same.

Still, how do we earth the message in the lives of today’s listener?  How do we apply, whether it is to the heart, to the mind, and/or to the actions of the listener?  Remember that vague application will float around nicely in the vaulted roof, but it won’t change lives.  Think about yourself.  What is this passage specifically doing to me as I study it?  Think about specific individuals in the church.  What is the message of this passage looking to do in the life of Sarah the tired young mother?  What is it straining to do in the life of Harry, the retired retailer with financial worries?  What will it do if let loose in the life of Josh the recent graduate with no employment but a fiancee to make the future look bright?  For specific and helpful application, earth it in the lives of specific people.

Why Why Matters

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The question “why?” is critical for good preaching.

Why did the author write the passage? Wrestling with the intent of the author is critical if the goal is to understand the passage.  This means not only asking “what does the passage say?” – that is, content.  But also asking “why did the author write it?” – that is, intent.  Many people don’t consider the author at all, which is a big mistake.  Others consider the content carefully, but fail to ask “why?” This results in incomplete exegesis of the passage, which dooms the message to inherent weakness.

Why are you preaching this message? If this question is not asked, then we may fall into the trap of merely fulfilling routine, filling time, or even “doing our job.”  But really, it is important to ask why you are preaching the message.  This implies another “why?” question.  Why do these people need to hear this passage?  Prayerfully considering the needs of the listeners in light of the message of the passage will drive the preacher toward clarity in message purpose.  If my goal is to fill time, I am surely a master of that (who among us is not highly skilled in the rhetorical art of waffling?)  However, if my goal is driven by the text and the spiritual needs of those who will listen, then this will drive me to my knees in prayer and dependence on God.  The “why?” question matters because it forces clarity in purpose and reliance on God.

Why is that there? Not only does “why?” help in the big macro issues of understanding the text and determining the message purpose, it is also helpful in the micro issues of message detail.  Why is that illustration there?  Why use that quote?  Why am I planning to mention that historical detail?  Why does that exegetical note need to be stated?  Why do I take so long explaining that verse?  Why am I not explaining this term?  Every detail in the message should pass through the x-ray machine of the “why?” question.  Extraneous detail, whether in explanation or illustration, is not neutral, it is harmful.  Unnecessary stuffing, pieces without purpose, undermines the bigger “why?” of message purpose.

I’m not sure if it is possible to ask “why?” too many times in sermon preparation. “Why?” matters!

Preaching – What Kind of Authority Is This?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

In recent decades many churches have moved from having the Scripture preached with authority to a watered down “talk” so committed to connection and amateurism that it completely lacks authority.  While the “watery talk” may have proved ineffective in achieving anything other than a voluntary social club under the name of church, we need to think carefully about the authority that we have as a preacher.  Again, reading Al Mohler’s, He Is Not Silent, I see a brief list worth mentioning for your thoughts.

Three forms of false authority of which we should beware:

1. Professional Authority. The task of preaching and teaching the Bible is not a professional task identifiable by degrees and letters after the name.  While I would encourage many people to pursue the benefits of formal training, I never suggest that an academic qualification qualifies someone for ministry – the biblical standards are clearly spelled out, for example, in the Pastoral Epistles.  Some churches despise formal training (often out of bad past experiences with apparently arrogant graduates, and often because of insecurity among the present leaders).  Other churches simply ignore any higher qualification earned (which still seems a bit unfortunate considering what it takes to get through it!)  On the other hand, some churches honor the degree as if it confers authority for ministry, which is missing the point of formal training.  We don’t need to ignore or despise academic qualifications, but let’s not grant authority based on them either.

2. Positional Authority. Do you lead in the church based on your title?  This is also a false authority.  Positional titles in church hierarchies are not the source of authority in preaching.  This can come from the leader, or from the people in the church overstating the importance of a position.  Somehow some people derive security and even identity from revering the pastor, the minister, the vicar, the whatever.  But this is not the source of authority in our preaching.  Mohler points to Acts 17:11 and the noble Bereans’ response to the Apostle Paul – good example.

3. Personal Authority. This is the “small c” charismatic leader who influences by sheer force of personality.  Many churches fall for this, or create it for themselves.  Again, beware.  This should not be the source of authority in preaching.

We should preach with authority.  Not an authority based on professional qualifications, nor positional titles, nor personal charisma.  We should preach with the authority of God’s Word well understood, well explained, and well applied.  The authority is not in us, but it should shine through in our lives and our words.

Expository Preaching Is a Matter of Life and Death!

/ Peter Mead / 9 Comments

I’ve picked up Albert Mohler’s book He is Not Silent again.  In chapter 3 he addresses the issue of defining expository preaching.  He urges us to drop the language of “I prefer expository preaching” in favor of defining true exposition, which is true preaching.  Mohler has major concerns with the contemporary emphasis on topical and narrative preaching, and urges the reader to understand true preaching as simply the reading and explanation of a biblical text. 

(I would agree with Mohler’s concern, but wish to add a couple of qualifiers.  I would suggest that true exposition must go beyond reading and explaining a text – a very mind-focused concern.  Thus preaching is not only to say what the text says, but to appropriately do what the text does, too.  Furthermore I would also suggest it is possible to learn much from the narrative preaching camp, as long as you think through what it means to be expository in your philosophy of preaching.  And it is wrong to tar all topical preaching with the same brush…there is a place for periodic expository-topical sermons.)

Mohler goes on to state that where there is a decline in expository preaching, there is first an abandonment of the conviction that the coming of the Word of the Lord is a matter of life and death.  Earthing his thoughts in Deuteronomy 4:32-40, Mohler offers three points for the development of both a theology of and a passion for, expository preaching.  First, the only true and living God is the God who speaks (present tense – He speaks today through His Word preached.)  Second, God’s true people are those who hear God speaking to them.  Third, God’s people depend for their very lives on hearing His Word.  Thus, preaching is always a matter of life and death!

Pastoral Periphery?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Martyn Lloyd-Jones held preaching to be the highest calling.  Many pastors and church leaders consider it the central calling in their ever increasing list of tasks.  In reality preaching is only ever one part of a bigger package.  There may also be counsellor, crisis-management, events organizer, team coordinator, small group leader, tension diffuser, visionary leader, committee chair, leadership liaison, building project coordinator, public relations officer, and on it goes.

I’m not affirming or even condoning how much some church leaders have on their plate, but I do recognize it.  Monday morning may be a good time to reflect on the non-preaching aspects of the ministry coming up in the days and weeks ahead.  For those with a passion to preach there may be a tendency to neglect other aspects of our ministry and move from yesterday’s message(s) to next Sunday’s.  Perhaps our preaching could be strengthened by prayerful consideration of the other aspects of church life (not just the task lists, but especially the people involved).  Take some time to pray for others in the church and pray through what you know to be their concerns and priorities as they look at the ministry of the church.

As well as taking a break from preaching preparation, this will give greater sensitivity to the priorities God has given to others.  The benefits of the rest and the awareness, will also help your preaching too, so in a sense you’re still pursuing your “high calling!”

Definitions

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Definitions matter.  They matter theologically.  They matter personally.  They matter in preaching.  I’m not talking about the definition of preaching – although that is a fine word to wrestle with!  I’m talking about the basic building blocks of the faith.

As preachers we need to think about the definitions of words and often we need to give the definitions of words.  What is faith?  What is hope?  What is love?  What is sin?  What is grace?  What is salvation?

Never assume that a definition is obvious.  You may have had a standard definition in mind for years, but don’t assume it is accurate.  Since the defining of key terms is fundamental to understanding, we must poke and prod our definitions.

Is faith believing a creedal statement to be true?  Is hope anticipation of the unseen?  Is love an act of the will for the good of another?  Is sin lawbreaking?  Is grace “God’s riches at Christ’s expense”?  Is salvation being justified before God?

I hope we would like to add nuance or completely redefine these definitions.  I suggest many in our churches either have no definition or these typically limited definitions in their thinking.  If we as preachers don’t help people with the basic definition work of core theology – who will?