Homiletics

Application’s Oft-Missing Ingredient . . . ?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Recently Steve Mathewson wrote a helpful post on the PreachingToday blog concerning application.  He warned of the danger of too many “life application points” in preaching.  How easy it is to overwhelm our listeners with to-do lists.  I agree that this is a huge danger for us. 

In some church circles people have become very fond of what they perceive to be highly relevant preaching.  This often takes the form of “7 Keys to a Happy Marriage” or “5 Smooth Stones for Spiritual Battle.”  Because people seem to respond to this kind of “list” preaching, it is a temptation to incorporate that into a more expositional model of preaching.  So at the end of an expository sermon, the preacher will give a list of life application points.  These are specific strategies to be implemented in daily life.

It is easy to overwhelm list-driven people with more lists to add to their backlog of lists.  So what should we do?  First, we should be sure to apply the main idea of the text/sermon rather than lists of secondary suggestions.  Second, we should concentrate on helping people visualize how this could look in normal life.  Perhaps we share two or three examples, but not as a list.  Rather, this is a selection of possible scenarios out of which at least one will help listeners to see what the idea would look like in action in their life.  Sometimes several scenarios will be unnecessary.  Third, we must look for ways to include an encouraging tone in our application.  This does not just mean an enthusiastic team talk that fires up our people.  It means stirring an inner sense of motivation and a feeling of competence in our listeners.  We easily overwhelm, but instead we should strive to give appropriate encouragement (the oft-missing ingredient).

If you didn’t see Steve’s post, it is well worth a read: http://blog.preachingtoday.com/2007/10/the_challenge_of_application.html

More on the 2 Basic Stances

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Bob asked some helpful questions on yesterday’s post.  Generally an expository sermon will have “back then” and “today” stances because by definition an expository sermon needs to both explain and relevantly apply the text. So at a certain level the progress will typically go from then to now (allowing for the sermon to start in the present before moving back in order to create need). Within a sermon point, you would often include both.

However, there is a nuance that I intend here. It is possible to explain a text either with our feet firmly planted in the present, or by travelling back to Bible times and getting into the mind and situation of the writer. Also it is possible to apply the text from “back then” or from a “today” stance.

Perhaps first-person preaching is the best explanation of this. When you choose to preach in character, you have several choices to make. One key choice is whether your character is visiting today, or whether the congregation is visiting back then. I recently preached Nahum as Nahum, but I decided to have Nahum visit contemporary England to give the message. This allowed him to make more specific applications to my listeners than if they had been transported through time to Nahum’s day. However, if I had chosen to take them back there, I would have been able to explain the text more vividly. Instead of referring back to what happened all those centuries ago, I would have been able to engage imaginations more directly and create a sense of fear at the Assyrians who live over there, etc. In first-person preaching, a “back then” stance is stronger for explanation and weaker for application (because it can only be hints that people have to translate into their own world). But a “today” stance is often weaker on explanation while allowing more in application.

In normal preaching it does not have to be either/or. We have the freedom to select the stance throughout the sermon. If we are aware of the strengths of both, perhaps we will do better at selecting the most effective means of preaching the Word. Perhaps taking a few minutes to “experience” through imagination exactly what the writer is meaning by his words would be worth it for better understanding (rather than just making explanatory comments from two-thousand years away). But then you want to clarify the relevance of that understanding, so you switch back to today and address people in their contemporary life situations. Application is usually better when direct, clear and vivid. Explanation is usually better from a closer perspective.

This may seem obvious, but I have heard a lot of preachers choosing the wrong stances. I’ve done it myself. It is easy to analyze the text from a distance, sitting very comfortably in the 21st century. And then somehow we hope that vague applications in the terms of the 1st century will hit home. How much better to get us back into the 1st century to understand the passage, but then vividly apply in contemporary terms. Be aware of the basic concept of preaching stance and evaluate your sermon accordingly. These are not hard and fast rules, but perhaps a helpful insight.

Stances Between Two Worlds

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

John Stott’s classic preaching text, Between Two Worlds, is one of several works that have utilized the metaphor of a “bridge-builder” in relation to preaching.  Stott rightly notes that in preaching we have to build from the world of the text and earth the message in the world of our listeners.  Good biblical preaching will always include explanation of the text and application to our times.  

Whether we think in terms of the bridge or not, we are constantly faced with a two-option decision in preaching.  It is true in first-person preaching, in “normal” preaching, in expository-topical preaching, etc.  The choice is a choice of stance.  Let’s say you are in the second point of your sermon.  You have a text and you need to talk about it.  Which stance do you take?  Do you orient yourself back then, taking people toward the world of the writer, the culture, the situation, the language, etc?  Or do you orient yourself to today, bringing the text into the world of the listeners, their culture, their needs, their situation?  

When you choose, for a section of a sermon (a section which may only be as long as a sub-point in your outline) to orient toward the “back then” . . . then you probably hope to achieve better explanation of the meaning of the text.  When you choose, on the other hand, to orient toward “today,” then you probably are aiming for better application of the text.  Since true preaching includes both explanation and application, it follows that during a sermon there will be times when your stance is more “back then” and times when it is more “today.”  Be sure to include both, and do so purposefully.  Both have their strengths, so use both accordingly.

Review: A Preaching Pod Prod

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

This morning I’d like to point you to a helpful new resource for us as preachers. The Preaching faculty at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary have recently begun a weekly podcast for preachers entitled “Preaching Points.” It is free and it is well worth a listen. At this point there are already four brief podcasts on the site. Titles so far include “Boredom is a Form of Evil,” “Be Yourself,” and “Being Biblical and Contemporary.” Each one lasts about five minutes. To access it you can either click on this link:

http://www.gordonconwell.edu/ockenga/cfp/preachingpoints/archives.php

or type ‘Preaching Points’ in iTunes. Perhaps you will find these podcasts a helpful pod prod for preaching excellence.

The Problem of Performance

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The danger of performing is not only there when preaching a first-person sermon. It is a danger every time we preach. After all, as a preacher we study an ancient text, determine its main idea and its contemporary relevance, then design a message to communicate both the meaning and the relevance to the congregation who will sit before us on Sunday morning. Our goal is not to fill time, but to stir people and to see lives transformed. As has been said many times, we preach to comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable. And if we’re honest, there are ways to get that done. It is not out of our reach to spin a story a certain way in order to turn the emotions of our listeners, or ask a rhetorical question that we know will poke a nerve of guilt in them. So how are we to avoid stepping up to the pulpit and treating it like a stage?

1. Give preparation time to soak. Last minute preparation will lead to last minute desparation wherein “preaching tactics” will seem like our only hope. We must be diligent to begin the study and thinking process early enough for a message or a series to soak in before we must pour out. Even if all we can do is to start reading and making some notes ahead of time, it is worth it. Performance is lines through an actor, but preaching is truth through personality (Phillips Brooks succinct definition). Allow time for the preparation to become a part of who you are so that you preach something you truly believe and know deep down.

2. Prepare more, not less. In the quest for “natural” delivery, it may be tempting to prepare less. The hope is that what comes out will be less of a performance and more “from the heart.” The reality is that unprepared preaching will often lean heavily on our own abilities. It is better to craft, to sweat, to wrestle, to pray, to think and to think some more. As I have written before, in an ideal world it is best to write out a manuscript in full and edit it closely and prayerfully. All that extra work will result not in performance, but genuine preaching “from the heart” as well as “from the text” – choosing to do minimal work will compromise both the text and your heart, leaving only any performance skills you may have.

3. Pray. Not just a “bless this effort” prayer, but real prayer. Personal wrestling with the God who is at work in you first. Persistent wrestling for those who will receive the message. There is a great spiritual battle raging around you and around them. Let us not fight in the pulpit a battle we have not first heavily engaged in the closet.

Preacher’s Worst Nightmare

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

There are all sorts of things that can go wrong for a preacher. What is your worst nightmare? Last week I was at an event at All Souls in London, where a preacher referred to arriving at a church and realizing the message he planned to preach there was one he had preached there before. Is that a nightmare? What about sitting in a service as the first part dragged longer and longer, leaving less and less time for the message? I haven’t enjoyed that experience when it has happened. Or the other extreme. A couple of years ago in the Caribbean I was asked to preach for twenty minutes, but when we arrived at the church I was told my message would be live on the radio and I had to finish on the dot at 10:05am . . . and I was introduced at 9:00am. A twenty minute message squeezed into sixty-five. I’m sure you could add to this list of preaching nightmares.

But the worst nightmare? That’s easy. Preaching a sermon that is all me and no God. That’s the worst nightmare.

Preaching Short – The Challenge

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

When people are first asked to preach, their main concern is “how can I fill that time?”  Once preachers have some experience, they tend to want more time than they have.  If you are used to preaching for 30, 35, 45 minutes, then it is a real challenge to prepare a 10, 12 or 15 minute message.  It forces you to “think yourself clear” to a far greater extent.  It forces you to cut more diligently and preach lean.

Sometimes that is forced on you.  Today I am preaching in a series, but through a translator as we have a load of guests from France with us.  The blessing of preaching through an ‘interrupter’ is that I have had to think through the message to a greater level of clarity and simplicity.  I am not sure if I have succeeded yet.  But it is an interesting thought.  Why not deliberately preach short once in a while?  Why not preach a message half as long as you typically do?  It will challenge you as a preacher, it will shock your listeners and demonstrate that church form is not set in stone.  It will allow extra time for musical response, personal response or fellowship.  I am not advocating preaching shorter sermons all the time.  If you are in a church that allows and appreciates longer sermons, then praise the Lord.  But why not cut the length of a sermon periodically, for your sake and for theirs?  Is that a challenge worth taking?

First-Person: Beware of the Danger of Acting

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

If you decide to preach a message “in character,”  then you are choosing to act as someone other than yourself.  People will know that you are acting and to a certain extent they will accept that.  However, there is good acting and bad acting.  Good acting looks real.  Bad acting looks like a performance.  Flamboyant movements and exaggerated speech do not work anymore.  People enjoy movies, tv shows, etc., that seem real.  There is something about “performance” that puts people off.

So when you decide to preach a first-person sermon, try to select a character that can come across naturally.  You may change your voice, your personality, your temperament, but every change puts you at greater risk of “performing.”  Natural communication is powerful, but performance can be counter-productive.  Know yourself, know your listeners and select your character carefully.  Remember, you don’t have to be a character in the story, you could be an observer unmentioned in the text.  For example, Don Sunukjian preached Esther from the perspective of an observer in the king’s court (I suspect he would have struggled to preach as Esther without seeming unnatural!)  Select your character so that you can present a compelling natural account, rather than a contrived and unnaturally flamboyant performance.

First-person preaching is not an excuse to perform, it is a choice to preach a message in the most effective way possible.

Perpetual Preaching Student?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

To be the best stewards of the ministry the Lord has entrusted us with, we need to keep stretching ourselves. There are many ways to do this.

Preaching Passages – Choosing to preach difficult passages or subjects is often helpful. For those who speak in a variety of churches, it is helpful to have them select the passage rather than choosing your own every time.

Preaching Books – It is good to read books related to the field of preaching and related fields like communication and hermeneutics. If you click on “Review” in the right-hand bar, you’ll find reviews of several very helpful books.

Preaching Exposure – Look for opportunities to hear preachers from outside your own church or circle of influence. Perhaps a respected preacher online, or better yet, a conference or event. It may be hard for pastors to get to other churches on a Sunday (of course), but there may be the odd opportunity to do so, or midweek events. Take the opportunity to listen to good preachers and evaluate what they do well.

Preaching Training – Look for opportunities to take seminars or courses designed for preachers. Perhaps in a local Bible school, or in other venues. There is much to be gained from any course in preaching, just remember that you will get out as much as you put in to the experience.

Preacher Fellowship – It is easy to miss this one, but perhaps this is the best of all. Look for ways to get together with other preachers. Perhaps for an evening every couple of months, or perhaps for a few days less frequently. Opportunities to discuss, to learn, to study together, to pray together, to stimulate each other in your ministry. I am planning for such a get together and cannot wait. I will report on the experience so others can benefit too.

How do you stay fresh and stimulate your own growth as a preacher? It is easy to settle in to a pattern, but it is privilege to be a lifelong student of preaching.

Motion Detectors

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Preaching is not about performance.  It is not an act.  Our goal when we are preaching is to communicate in a natural manner, as ourselves, because “naturalness” is critical to trustworthiness.  The problem is that standing up and speaking before a crowd incites a certain level of nerves.  Nerves influence movement.  So while it is quite right to be somewhat nervous under the weight of the responsibility of preaching God’s Word, unnatural communication is not good stewardship of the opportunity.  We should be aware of our tendency when nervous – not too aware, for we are not performers, but aware enough to be ourselves when in front of a crowd.

Beware of perpetual motion.  At one end of the scale, some people react by moving constantly.  Shifting weight between feet, pacing, rocking, etc.  This can come across as twitchy and shifty.  

Beware of frozen motion.  At the other extreme there is frozen motion.  This could be stance, where your feet become rooted to the spot.  This is natural for a while, but not forever.  Or perhaps a body part.  Maybe a dead arm in the pocket, or resting on the podium.  Or facial expressions.  A forced grin or a perma-frown.  Or eyes.  Always looking at limited focal points – one or two faces, or worse, a clock, or your notes.  

A significant proportion of communication comes through non-verbals.  All your listeners are experts in it (they are observing and interpreting body language every day).  Their motion detectors are permanently on, evaluating whether someone is moving normally and naturally or not.  This all goes on subconsciously.  Somehow you need to also deal with your own body language subconsciously.  Too much awareness and you may start to perform.  Too little awareness and you may be undermining your ministry.  There are far more important things in preaching than your body language, but unfortunately those important things may get lost if unnatural motion detectors are buzzing in your listeners.