Homiletics

Don’t short change the conclusion

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

One element of sermon preparation that tends to get less attention than it deserves is the conclusion. One preacher said, “My sermons are like chickens with their heads cut off – once you think the sermon is done, it just jumps back up and runs in another direction!”

A couple of suggestions to avoid short-changing the sermon:

1 – Write a rough conclusion early. Obviously, you have to study the passage and start work on the sermon before you can write any conclusion. However, once you are considering the purpose of the sermon, write a rough conclusion to reflect that purpose. This will help your sermon preparation, as you will know where you are heading. This will also help your conclusion since it will have time to percolate in your heart and mind.

2 – Write your conclusion out in full. I advocate writing a full manuscript, but I don’t always achieve it. The pressures of time and ministry may not allow it. Nevertheless, it is worth writing out the conclusion, and editing it, and reading it aloud, and praying though it. Put in some effort on the specific wording of the conclusion. Give it some good attention, otherwise it is likely to rise up and run some more when it should have been laid to rest!

Sermon Titles: Tricky Little Things

/ Peter Mead / 9 Comments

I don’t find it easy to write a title for a sermon. Actually, I do . . . a bad one! I don’t find it easy to write a good title for a sermon. So what makes a title tick?

A bad title illicits a yawn, an expectation that the message will be boring, irrelevant or distant. “Joseph’s Journey to Egypt.” Can’t imagine people purring with anticipation for that one. There have been times when I’ve sat through an introduction in which the preacher posed a question, “So what must be present in your ministry if it is to count for anything?” But I sat there unmoved by the “tension” because the bulletin had already told me the title – “Love – 1Cor.13:1-3.” I like the title Alexander Strauch used for an article on that text (and I believe, a message), “5-1=0.”

A good title stirs interest and piques curiosity. A good title gets the listener on your side. They already want to hear what you have to say before you start your introduction – what a bonus! So the big idea in a deductive sermon might make a good title, as long as it is going to be stated in the introduction and it leaves people wanting to know more. “I wonder what that is supposed to mean? The preacher will need to explain that!” But if the sermon is inductive, then don’t give away any tension in your title. That would be like your uncle who always gives away the punch line in the introduction to a joke, “Did you hear the one that ends with her saying, ‘no, but that’s a really nice ski mask!’… ?”

Be great to hear some creative sermon titles . . .

I believe in manuscripts! No notes – part 3.

/ Peter Mead / 6 Comments

Stephen commented on part 1 of the “no notes” post.  Please read his comment there.  He referred to the fact that some famous speakers carry a manuscript into the pulpit. “The defense of using a manuscript I have been told is to ensure every thought is well developed and theologically sound.” Thoughts on the issue of the manuscript:

1. If possible, fully manuscript your message.  I totally agree with these reasons for writing a manuscript – every thought should be fully developed and theologically sound.  There is no excuse for preaching undeveloped thought or unsound concepts.  This is why I avoid the phrase “extemporaneous” preaching, since people understand that to mean “spontaneous” preaching rather than “prepared, but without notes” (the dictionary gives both meanings).  This is also why I encourage the writing of a full manuscript.  It allows for both developed thought and doctrinal soundness.  It also allows for attention to the details of style, precision in the choice of individual words, use of rhetorical devices, avoidance of unhelpful reduncancy, injection of deliberate aids to oral clarity and so on.

2.  Don’t take your manuscript into the pulpit.  I would guess that some of the big name speakers who advocate manuscript preaching do not actually read their manuscript verbatim.  I’ve yet to hear someone preach from a manuscript effectively – although some who have a manuscript treat it as notes rather than a script.  I find when I type a full manuscript that a lot of the extra work will show during delivery (the work of manuscripting internalizes the message, even specific wording).  I prefer the connection I feel with the listeners now I preach without notes, but the real issue is the listeners, what is the most effective way to communicate with them?

3. Write your manuscript for the ear.  If you are going to write a manuscript, it is important to write as you will speak.  We have all learned to write for the eye.  We place high value on succinct, clear and varied content.  But we need to write for the ear.  This means using restatement, sometimes repetition, short sentences, consistent terminology, very deliberate transitions, and so on.  A thoroughly effective sermon, when transcribed, requires editing before it reads well.  When going in the other direction, we need to pay careful attention to our style.  The question is not does it look good on paper, but does it communicate when people can’t see it?  Listeners cannot look back and reread a sentence, nor hear the underlining of a section title, so we must not speak in written English! Is it written for the ear?

4. Preaching requires a commitment both to the Bible and to the listener.  As a preacher you must give yourself to diligent study of the text and thoroughly biblical content.  At the same time, preaching involves maximum connection and effective communication with the listener.  Write a manuscript, but preach without notes – in my mind this approach achieves both!

Old Testament Stories – part 2: Good Illustrations?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

It is often tempting to use Old Testament stories as illustrations in a sermon, but before doing so, here are five questions to consider:

1 – Do they know the story? Many listeners do not know the stories of the Bible. This means we have to explain our illustration. Does it make sense to have to make something clear, that is given in order to make something else clear? If your listeners need to get to know these stories, why not preach on them?

2 – Is there a better illustration? This may sound heretical, but in a hierarchy of illustrations, most biblical stories actually sit low on the ladder – experienced by none, learned by few. Biblical stories should be preached, but that doesn’t mean they must be our primary pool of illustrations for other biblical texts.

3 – What’s the main idea of the text? A different biblical text will have a different central idea than the one you’re preaching. There is the ever-present danger of misrepresenting a biblical text.

4 – Are you going in the right direction? If people don’t accept your point from one biblical text, offering them another often won’t help. However, if they do accept what you are saying, then why move backwards to the Old Testament instead of forward into their lives with a relevant illustration of personal application?

5 – What example are you giving? To listen to some preachers, some might get the impression that all they need to live the Christian life is the New Testament, and a passing acquaintance with the Old. If the preacher does not model the highest respect for the whole canon, who will?

There may be good reason to use a biblical illustration, but before doing so, consider these questions first.

Old Testament Stories – part 1: Preaching Texts?

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Some people take the view that the texts for preaching should come primarily, or even exclusively, from the New Testament. In order to preach “the whole counsel,” many use the Old Testament as illustrations in their sermons. Should Old Testament stories be illustrations, or preaching texts in their own right?

There are some reasons to hesitate before using an Old Testament story as an illustration in a sermon. Part 2 of this post will give five questions for the preacher to consider before using the Old Testament for an illustration.

Steve Mathewson (The Art of Preaching Old Testament Narrative – review coming soon) lists four reasons many preachers struggle with preaching Old Testament narratives.

  1. Tendency to view stories as fluff.
  2. Minimizing of the role of Old Testament stories in the canon.
  3. Intimidating features of Old Testament language and literature.
  4. Enslavement to a particular style of exposition. That is to say, Old Testament stories usually feel forced when preached using analytical outlines and “impaled on the frame of Aristotelian logic” (to use Fred Craddock’s phrase, As One Without Authority, p45).

It is not easy to preach Old Testament stories well, but “all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful . . .” All of it. Preach it all.

God told you? Really?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I wish more people were careful not to carelessly throw around “God told me” vocabulary. When the preacher slips in this statement, what does it communicate? What do people understand? Did the preacher really receive a supernatural revelation, a voice resounding in the study? That is what people hear the preacher say, and they wonder why they never hear God say anything to them. I am sure there are many churches filled with people feeling intimidated by their lack of personal supernatural revelation. There are churches full of people who are learning to use this vocabulary for less dramatic experiences and thereby intimidating other believers. There are churches full of people who could be truly gripped by the wonder of hearing God speaking through His Word, but instead wishing for an experience that others may or may not have in their quiet times. As preachers we must be very careful of the words we use and how they might be taken, we must be very careful of the example we set our listeners.

Review: The Passion Driven Sermon, by Jim Shaddix.

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Subtitle – Changing the Way Pastors Preach and Congregations Listen

ShaddixPassion

This is a book with both strengths and weaknesses. To be honest, this is not a classic.

Jim Shaddix is a pastor and teacher of preaching at New Orleans Baptist Seminary. He co-authored Power in the Pulpit, a preaching manual, with Jerry Vines. This book, The Passion Driven Sermon, is not a manual, but a theology of preaching. In this book he wrestles with what preaching is, and what it should be.

The Passion Driven Sermon, according to Shaddix, should be a sermon driven by passion for the glory of God. His passion is evident throughout the book as he addresses issues relating to preaching and the Bible, preaching and the pastor’s role as shepherd, then preaching and the sermon.

There are some real strengths in this book. His style is uncompromising. The recurring idea throughout is that preaching should be filled with “God’s stuff” rather than just “good stuff.” The passion for God, for His glory and for His Word, is commendable. The repeated swipes at non-expository felt needs preaching is certainly needed in certain circles.

However, there are also real weaknesses in this book. Often the swipes taken at non-expository felt needs preaching swipe too broadly. The reader soon has the sense that any specific relevance to the daily life of the listener is a compromise that should be rejected.

Is it not possible to preach Christ and Him crucified, to preach theocentric and Biblical sermons, making clear the claim of Christ on the lives of the listener, but to do so with relevance and application? True expository preaching demands both Bible and relevance.

Pendulums swing far, often too far – but it is important to get the point of the swing. Shaddix’s book is a pendulum swing away from man-centered, unbiblical, rhetorically driven ear-scratching preaching. He swings too far and rejects too much, but we should hear his message anyway.

We do need the message of this book today, but I would be nervous if a preacher followed this book to the letter. After reading this, it would be healthy to read another book that places the importance of relevance in Biblical exposition back in its rightful place.

To be honest, at times it felt like Shaddix was in a bad mood when he wrote the book. Strengths and weaknesses, but not a classic.

Balance Between Caution and Boldness?

/ Mike Roth / Leave a comment

In an article titled Considering Hearers, Haddon Robinson writes, “But if we focus too hard on not offending, or if we read too many letters from the offended, we can become paralyzed. We start qualifying every sentence. We end up with weasel sermons that are defensive, cautious, and spineless.”

I must admit, these words were much needed exhortation. Preaching on a regular basis to graduate educated, post-moderns, I have received my share of letters! Some letters are encouraging, some are rightfully corrective, but the vast majority are nitpicky. While we must do everything within our ability to preach sermons that carefully and lovingly consider the words we use, the tone we speak with and the illustrations we tell, we must not become overly careful and cautious. If we do, we risk speaking so broadly and generally, that we end up saying nothing at all.

So, how do we balance necessary caution and the proclamation of truth with boldness? Here is one suggestion: imaginary friends. Yes, you read it right – imaginary friends. Robinson calls this, “taking the listeners’ side.” As you write your sermon, imagine yourself surrounded by three, four, even five diverse people. For example, my five friends are named Chris, Victoria, Jeff, Ken and Elsa. Chris is deeply theological and socially oriented. Victoria is a product of the feminist movement, highly educated and politically savvy. Jeff is simple, homeless and wonderfully pragmatic. He loves to say, “so what.” Ken is white-collar, an MBA gradate, highly motivated and helpfully cynical. Elsa is a single mom, with many needs, endless strength and a passion for Jesus. I sit with these friends in my study every week I preach. I ask them questions and think through their answers. I make statements and ponder their responses. Considering these friends as I write sermons, helps me to be appropriately careful. It keeps me lovingly cautious.

A side benefit to this is that it also helps me to be relevant. Of course, I change my friends around every now and then. I add a young single man here and an elderly woman there… The purpose of this is to strike a balance of caution and boldness in the sermons I preach. I have found this to help.

Other suggestions?

Is one sermon enough?

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Dr. Sid Buzzell of Colorado Christian University made a comment worthy of consideration.  He has one foot in pastoral preaching and the other in education.  He suggested that if preachers started to think of preaching schedules with the mindset of an educator there would be one obvious difference.  If preachers were truly concerned with the outcome in mind,  what the listeners should become as a result of the preaching, then many sermons would become series of sermons.

Perhaps preachers do have a tendency to cover material once, move on to new material, and expect too much change from such short exposure.  So maybe it’s time to ask ourselves, in light of the Biblical passage before us, and as those seeking to see life change that will bring pleasure and glory to God, and knowing our people as we do . . . is one sermon enough?

Like a good plane ride

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Norman just added a comment to the post “Focus on the basics” – I read a good quote “A good sermon is like a good plane ride. It must have a smooth take-off and a smooth landing…”

Calvin Miller recently taught the analogy of preaching being like a plane ride at the International Congress on Preaching. He spoke of how passengers have three expectations – to take off, to go somewhere and to land. For take-off and landing he spoke of the critical first three and last three minutes. For going somewhere he spoke of the importance of the flight plan. While going somewhere it is important to consider the length of the flight is not too long, making sure the intellectual weather is not too heavy, and that the in-flight entertainment is not boring. He even got into the physics of flight – the right combination of the downward weight of content with the forward thrust of passion. I wonder how much farther this analogy could be pushed?