Homiletics

Review: Introduction to Biblical Preaching, by Donald Sunukjian

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Subtitle: Proclaiming Truth With Clarity and Relevance

sunukjian.jpg

Donald Sunukjian studied under Haddon Robinson at Dallas Seminary, then also taught there. He now teaches at Talbot Seminary in LA. Sunukjian has an ability to think through elements of preaching in minute detail, yet has a communication style that is clear and accessible – both in person and in his writing. These qualities have combined to make this a great book.

This is definitely another book in the Haddon Robinson school of thought. The process is similar, the emphasis on the main idea and the purpose are evident, delivery without notes is encouraged, etc. Incidentally, the reader should not be intimidated by the “zigzag” big idea – if Sunukjian came up with such effective preaching ideas regularly, surely more would be included in the book! He admits that you go with what you have, and only sometimes is the preaching idea a real humdinger.

He defines biblical preaching simply as “Look at what God is saying to us!” Throughout this 370 page book, numerous biblical examples are given to make clear the point being taught. Sunukjian has a large bank of example sermons that show up throughout the book so that the variety is not random and overwhelming, but reinforcing and familiar.

His ability to think through the details comes out in areas such as whether to use inductive or deductive approaches according to the material being covered, or how to preach a chiastic passage so contemporary listeners will understand it.

Sunukjian’s speciality is the subject of oral clarity – preaching so listeners can follow. His six elements of oral clarity are detailed in a chapter, but exemplified throughout the book. Sunukjian demonstrates a real awareness of what works for the listener, a concern sometimes missing in other “how to” preaching texts.

After the process is detailed, there are two sample sermons presented in the appendix. These are repeated with helpful explanatory notes to guide the reader through the process.

In a book of 370 pages, it seems strange to point to a section being too short, but the delivery chapter is very short. However, it is fair to say that if a preacher follows the teaching throughout the book, then delivery will be improved. If there were any other negatives, it would be a slight discomfort with one or two of the biblical examples. Again, this is a small point since most are handled very effectively.

Overall this is a very strong book, perhaps even a great book. As I read preaching books, I mark helpful points with post-its. Many books have only a handful sticking out, this one has a forest of post-its! As an introductory text for a preaching class, this would work well. As a supplemental book for those of us who’ve read other textbooks, this is definitely worth having. It has many definite strengths, is clearly organized and engagingly written. This definitely makes my list of top preaching books.

Getting Specific Sermon Feedback – Part 3

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Most preachers get too little sermon feedback that is any use to them.  However, it is possible to get too much.  Here are three more thoughts:

1. Most “feedback” is not very helpful.  After preaching, people feel obliged to make a comment if they speak to the preacher.  A simple thank you is always appreciated and usually appropriate.  Unfortunately for us as preachers, we will often get feedback that is of less value than that.  At one extreme we may get a comment like, “that was the best message I ever heard!”  At the other extreme we may get someone taking us to task over something we said, or something they thought we said.  Neither extreme is helpful.  After preaching we are usually vulnerable.  We tend to be emotionally drained and may struggle to handle high praise or strong criticism.

2. Process it all at the throne of grace.  I got into a healthy habit as a young preacher when I was serving on the OM ship (see www.omships.org).  After preaching I would head to my cabin, lock the door and boldly approach the heavenly throne.  I knew I couldn’t handle the extreme feedback.  I knew I didn’t want to let pride creep in from the exaggerated praise, or despair from the criticism.  So I would bring every comment I could remember and place it before the throne.  If there was criticism, I would need God’s grace to process it and discern what was fair and helpful.  If there was praise, it would really be His anyway.

3. You can get too much good feedback.  Even if you are appropriately handling the post-sermon comments and have in place a way to get genuine and constructive feedback, you can still get too much.  It is good to listen to yourself, or watch a video.  It is good to get input from others.  I would suggest you do this regularly, but not all the time.  Constantly processing genuine feedback can become a draining experience.  Constantly listening to yourself can be like going twelve rounds with a young Tyson.  It’s worse than that.  You can be your own harshest critic.  So get regular feedback, but give yourself a rest from it too.  Do your best, keep improving as a good steward, but rest in the Lord at the same time.

Preaching to the Heart: A Recipe

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

It is easy to preach a sermon to the mind, to the will, or even to the emotions of our listeners.  Information feeds the mind, pressure pounds on the will, vivid emotive illustrations can stir the emotions.  Yet what does it take to reach the heart?  How can we preach to the core of our people?

According to Tim Keller, there are two key ingredients, no three.

1. Imagination is critical.  On its own imagination in preaching will only hit the emotions.  Yet good preaching requires vivid imagination.

2. Reasoned logic is critical.  On its own reasoned logic in preaching will only hit the mind.  Yet good preaching requires reasonable logic and orderly thought.

Two exemplary preachers for Keller are Jonathan Edwards and C.S. Lewis.  Both preached sermons shot through with logic, but plunged in imagination.  No temperament will naturally do both, but by God’s grace we must.  And that leads to ingredient number three:

3. The gospel is critical.  On its own, the human heart will default to legalism and religion, or license and irreligion.  Keller is right when he warns us not to preach religion as opposed to irreligion, but the gospel as opposed to either of them.  Good preaching requires us to present the glorious gospel, so that hearts are drawn by the powerful attraction of Christ and the grace of God.  As it was stated centuries ago – “affection is only overcome by greater affection.”  Thus, the grace of God can stir the heart from its other loves.  Nothing else will do.

Our Goal is Transformation not Recollection

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

It seems obvious that we preach with a goal of transforming lives with God’s Word. Yet I see so much focus given to the very different issue of ensuring recollection. This is why people take notes or preachers produce fill-in-the-blank handouts (so listeners will have a record of the points); this is why some preachers would rather die than not alliterate or perfectly parallel or absolutely assonate the main points of a message; this is why outlines are publicly projected by powerpoint. All to achieve the goal of recollection. The logic is clear – if people don’t remember the points, then they will not be able to carefully apply what they have heard in the realities of life.

Three comments:

1. Is it right to assume that people with a record of the points (either written or memorized) will seek to apply the lessons learned in normal life? We hope so, but as preachers we must admit this is quite removed from the preaching event. We might be able to influence the thinking of our listeners, but what about their will? It is wrong to assume that information alone will later move the will.

2. A life is transformed at a deeper level than the mind or the will. Both the mind and the will are subject to the motive centre of the human being – the heart. It is the values of the heart that allow a mind to weigh information, and the values of the heart determine the decisions of the will. If people are not applying what we preach, the problem is probably not their memory. The problem is the heart. So instead of preaching so the mind can remember, we must preach so the heart is changed.

3. Much preaching targets primarily the mind (intellectual or informational preaching), or the will (exhortational or guilt-inducing preaching). Truly biblical preaching must target the heart. How terrible would it be to produce a fruit of right-thinking and right-living people whose hearts remain cold toward Christ?

D.M. Lloyd-Jones stated the following in reference to Jonathan Edwards:

“The first and primary object of preaching is not just to give information, it is, as Edwards says, to produce an impression. It is the impression at the time that matters, even more than what you can remember subsequently. In this respect, Edwards is, in a sense, critical of what was a prominent puritan custom and practice. The puritan father would catechize and question the children as to what the preacher had said. Edwards, in my opinion, has the true notion of preaching. It is not primarily to impart information, and while you are writing your notes you may be missing something of the impact of the Spirit.”

(Quoted by Tim Keller in lectures given at GCTS, 2006.)

Getting Specific Delivery Feedback – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

It is a good idea to periodically ask a group of people to observe your preaching and give feedback in the areas mentioned in the previous post.  There is another way.  I do think it is good to involve others sometimes, but you cannot do that all the time.  One thing that is relatively easy to do (in many places), but is generally neglected, is to record the message on video.

Obviously in some churches there may be nobody with a camcorder of any kind, in which case this post is irrelevant.  But it is increasingly common for people to have camcorders of some kind.  Simply set up the camera in an inconspicuous location and record the message.  It can be at the back or in a pew (to get the perspective of a listener).

Record the message, then when you are on your own, watch it.  This way you can observe yourself.  It could be a painful experience, but it is truly no pain, no gain.  You may find that you have a repeated gesture or a verbal pause.  You may find that the feedback from others is actually true!

I am convinced that if some preachers would just see themselves once, they would make significant changes as a result.  A lack of movement will send you to sleep while watching, or too much movement may make you seasick.  Those elbows locked into your hips do make you look like a T-Rex.  That gesture does look like a werewolf in the Thriller video.  Who injected anaesthesia in your left arm?  Did you know your eyelids flutter when you’re making an important point?  Did you know your thumbs look so huge from the congregation’s perspective?  Did you know you said “umm” every four seconds for the first five minutes?  Did you know you often don’t complete the sentence?  Did you know . . . well, you will once you watch the video!

Luke 18:9-14 – Explaining My Intro

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The second of two longer than usual posts. This time I will explain why I did what I did (see yesterday’s post for the transcription).

On paper this feels like a long introduction. The message lasted 39 minutes, and this introduction took 5 minutes, about 13% of the message. Maybe slightly longer than necessary, but stories keep attention so I didn’t think people would lose interest.

There were some deliberate parallels to the parable. Both characters came from a privileged background (just like the two Jews, God’s special people). Lyndsey was a very deliberately good person, going above and beyond what anyone might expect of her. She was the kind of person you would choose for your church. On the other hand, Steve had knowingly compromised with what was wrong, living off other people who had little choice but to channel their money toward him. Steve was a character that begs little pity (he had chosen to sell rather than becoming an addict who felt obliged to sell, he had chosen his lifestyle, etc.) Both characters prayed, in very similar ways to the characters in the story. Steve cried out for mercy. Lyndsey spoke of what she would not do, and what she does do, above and beyond what was required. Their eternal destinies matched those of the parable characters.

I did not want the story to mimic the parable so that listeners would be focused on the text at this point. So I included significant differences. The story was about two characters, but they were not both men. They were a man and a woman, from the same family. This added a tension to the story, as people wondered how differently their lives might turn out. Instead of the religious leader in Jewish terms, I used a prominently involved church goer (an obvious parallel, but not a pastor or elder – perhaps too obvious). Instead of a tax man (different connotation today anyway), I chose to depict the compromise and despised nature through a combination of drugs dealer and homosexual with AIDS – perhaps the epitome of the kind of character that might be despised by my listeners. Yet with the differences, the man was still getting rich off other people’s resources. I chose not to have them come into the same building, such as a church, to pray. Again, too obvious. Instead I used Christmas day as a believable trigger for both to be praying.

My style of delivery was not like Jesus. Today people respond to more detailed description (novels last longer than five verses and movies are fully visual). Today people connect better with named characters. Perhaps the opening line would have distracted people enough from the parable to get caught up in the story – where would these two end up? Then I gave a false conclusion. After describing their different prayers on Christmas day, all felt completed by the use of the opening line again, but there was an extra step, perhaps surprising, the additional comment above heaven and hell.

I’m not saying it was perfect, or even good. But maybe this shows the kind of thinking that went into the story. Deliberate parallels, and deliberate differences. I wanted people not only to give attention, have their interest piqued and be moved toward the text. I also wanted people to somehow feel the force of the parable. I wanted to do what Jesus did. Then we looked at the text and focused entirely on the inspired version. However, there were subtle links as the sermon went on. For example, the use of phrases from the introduction, such as the Pharisee “going above and beyond what was required.”

So there it is, for what it’s worth. It is not easy to come up with a story that parallels a parable, but has a chance of slipping through the defenses of a knowledgeable crowd. Preaching a parable to unchurched and biblically illiterate non-believers is probably relatively easy. My challenge here was a crowd of people with a notice sheet that informed them I’d be in Luke 18 and talking about prayer!

Luke 18:9-14 – Contemporary Parable – Part 1

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Some weeks ago I mentioned the idea of retelling a parable in a contemporary setting.  I preached Luke 18:9-14 and used a contemporized version for my introduction. In this post I will give the transcription of the parable.  In part 2 I will share my explanation of why I did it this way.

———————————

It’s amazing how a brother and sister can end up in such different places.

For example, Steve and Lyndsey.  Steve and Lyndsey grew up in a good Christian home.  Father was a minister in a small rural church and they had everything that they could ask for.  They went through their teenage years, went off to university, and then things seemed to go a little bit differently.  Lyndsey did well, she went to university, studied hard, was very effective in her studies and got a good degree.  She was very involved in the Christian Union, and they invited her back to take an extra year working in the CU among students.  So she spent that extra year there on campus and during that year she met the man who would become her husband.  They got married.  And they settled into a good life, a very good life.  They were very involved in their church: leading home groups, leading youth work, leading Sunday School classes.  In fact, if there was something on a Monday night they would have been there too, because they were there every night of the week doing something, they were the kind of people you love to have in a church.  Lyndsey and her husband were the epitome of a busy, hard working, Christian couple.

Steve was a bit different, he went to university and he was clever as well, very effective, but not very focused on his studies.  He was more motivated by money.  He found a way to make money very easily.  In the university where he attended there was a bit of a drug culture, not obvious on the outside, but it was there and if you knew where to go you could get the drugs.  And Steve sort of dabbled a little bit, but didn’t want to get addicted so he pulled back.  But recognizing the power of the drugs he decided to start selling.  He knew that if he could get other people on the drugs then they would be dependent on him and he would be raking the money in – especially if he wasn’t addicted and having to spend the money himself.  That’s how he went through university, scraped through his final exams and headed out into the world to continue making massive money.  Steve drove the nicest car.  Steve didn’t own a home, he rented a hotel room to live in.  He lived in absolute luxury paying cash day after day.  Because he had everything he could wish for. He got involved in different forms of illicit living and in the end one of his male friends gave him a disease.  And Steve, with all the money he could ever wish for, was being ravaged by this deadly disease. 

Christmas came, and Christmas day Steve spent in his hotel room.  All day his mind played games with him, reminiscing, taking him back to memories of his childhood.  But somehow he couldn’t put that together with where he was now and the state he was in.  And that night, before he fell into bed he sat on the edge of his bed, with tears pouring down his face and cried out to God, “God my life is a mess, have mercy on me.”

Lyndsey and her husband had a busy day.  Of course, church all morning, very involved with that.  Then they came home and had a great Turkey dinner – her parents were there, his parents were there.  And all day her mind was playing tricks on her.  She kept reminiscing back to childhood and remembering all those times with Steve her brother.  That night, before she fell into bed content and happy with the way the day had gone, Lyndsey prayed.  And she said, “Thank you God that I’m not like Steve.  Thank you God that my life has turned out the way it’s supposed to.  Thank you that I don’t do those sins that he does, I don’t even know some of the things he does.  I thank you that I can be involved in all these good things.  I can be so involved in church, I do above and beyond what any pastor would suggest his people do.”  Then she went to sleep.

Lyndsey and Steve, brother and sister, ended up in completely different places.  Actually, completely different places.  Because Steve went to heaven.  Lyndsey didn’t.

Now in the interest of honesty let me tell you that that story is not strictly true, I made it up.  It’s fabricated and any likeness to anyone you know is completely coincidental.  And yet that story is so true all around us.  On both sides.  In the interest of honesty let me also tell you that that isn’t my story, it’s actually Jesus’ story.  And if you have a Bible, let’s look at it, Luke chapter 18 . . .

Oh No! It’s Friday, and Sunday’s Coming!

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

While some preachers may be so structured that every preparation is perfect, most of us are not able to create such a vacuum to live in. To misquote Tony Campolo, “it’s Friday, but Sunday is coming!”  For preachers this may not be a cry of hope, but of concern.  What are those final stages of preparation that often get short-changed?  Our Lord understands and is gracious to us when life hits.  However, it would be helpful for us to be aware of these things and adjust our preparation so these things are not always cut-short or omitted altogether:

1. Conclusions matter – As someone has said, you can recover from a bad introduction, but not from a bad conclusion.  That final few moments of the sermon are critical, but often get very little preparation in a tight schedule.  Without preparation the conclusion will be forming during preaching, which often means an over-extended sermon with multiple failed landings (an experience no passenger enjoys!)

2. Cut the fat – Usually the sermon manuscript on Friday will be longer than it should be by Sunday.  While first-time preachers worry about filling the time, experienced preachers should worry about removing the fat in the sermon.  As Dave Stone put it recently, there’s a huge difference between taking on a big-burger challenge and eating at a fine restaurant.  People don’t enjoy forcing down two pounds of ground beef.  They would much prefer a well-prepared 7 ounce steak that they can handle.  So before you preach the sermon, cut the fat, give people a carefully prepared portion.

3. Check the balance – It is important to review the balance of the sermon to make sure the weight is distributed appropriately.  You probably don’t want four illustrations in one point of the message, and none in the other points.  Make sure there is appropriate intensity and passion, but also moments of relief or listeners won’t be able to stay with you.  Be careful to allow an idea (or sub-idea) to develop fully – give the necessary time to explain, support and/or apply the idea in each point.  Before preaching the message, make sure it is balanced.  Don’t preach a Popeye sermon: really strong in the forearms, but lacking everywhere else.

Getting Specific Delivery Feedback – Part 1

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

A great message prepared is not job done.  As preachers we also have to deliver the message.  There are some aspects of poor delivery that only others can point out.  Periodically ask a handful of listeners to look for specific things in your delivery.  The feedback may be uncomfortable, but it is worth it for the improvement in your preaching.

1. Voice – The enemy of delivery is monotony.  Have somebody listen to your voice and note how much you vary the pitch (up and down), the pace (fast and slow), the punch (stronger and weaker), the use of pause (stop and start), and so on.

2. Verbal Pause – It is great to pause on purpose, but verbal pauses really grate on your listeners.  It could be an “ummm” or a redundant word like, well, uh, “like” or the popular Christian filler “just really.”  Whatever you do to fill those gaps in the flow, find out and then eliminate them. 

3. Gesture – Are your gestures varied, consistent with what you are saying, big enough for the audience, natural?  You may discover that you have a dead arm, or a repetitive movement, or a bizarre mannerism.  Find out, then you can deal with it.

4. Eye Contact – Your eyes are so important they are worthy of their own observer.  Have someone watch your eyes.  Are you looking at the people, or past the people?  Are you looking at the people or at your notes?  Are you looking at all the people, or do you have blind spots?  If you use notes, and are really up for a shock, have someone time how long you are looking at your audience rather than your notes.  The result of this might convince you to try no notes!

Is Your Preaching in a Rut?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

It is easy to settle into a pattern of the familiar and comfortable.  We do this in all areas of life: same breakfast cereal, same choice in the restaurant, same type of movie, same store for clothes.  It is natural and usually not a problem.  But once in a while it is good to vary things.  A different salad dressing, one of those new deli sandwiches on the menu, a thriller or rom-com instead of the usual _______ (fill in the blank).  In the same way, in our preaching it is easy to get into a rut.  Perhaps it’s time to challenge yourself with something fresh:

1. Different kind of text: I don’t mean preaching from a different “holy book.”  Perhaps you find yourself always preaching epistles, or Old Testament narratives, or stories from the gospels.  Schedule something different – one of the other three above, or a Psalm, a Proverb, a Prophet.

2. Different shape of sermon: It’s easy to always preach deductively (main idea up front), or inductively (just the theme or subject up front, the main idea emerging at the end).  When the text allows for it, try the other one, or an inductive-deductive outline.  Perhaps your sermons are always a list of keyword points?  Try preaching a one-point message.

3. Different type of sermon: When was the last time you preached first-person?  Loads of options – you can be the writer, a character, an implied character.  You can visit your listeners today, or have them travel through time and visit you back then.  You can preach the whole sermon in character, or part of a sermon.  You can use costume, props or neither one.

4. Different props in delivery: If you’re used to taking a manuscript into the pulpit, try abbreviated notes.  If you’re into notes, try no notes (see earlier posts on how to do this).  If you usually project something on a screen, try turning it off and having people look at you instead.

5. Different preaching logistics: If you always preach from behind a pulpit, try removing the pulpit, or move out from behind it.  Perhaps stand on a different level, or even sit on a high stool (if it suits the sermon). 

A change is as good as a rest.  You will benefit from getting out of the rut, and you may find your people listen more attentively too!