How to . . . ?

What do they remember?

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

In my previous post I questioned the emphasis on having people remember the sermon’s outline. It is much more important that lives are transformed in the preaching of the sermon, than that listeners remember content (although sermonic content is critical). If we want them to remember anything, it should be the big idea of the message and its application to their lives.

In reality, what do people remember most easily? What do people come back later and remind us of, sometimes years later? It is not the outline. Usually it is the illustrations we use, the images we portray, the stories we tell. This leads to two simple, but important implications:

1 – Use illustrations. Seems obvious, but to leave a lasting impression in our listeners, we should probably consider using illustrations!

2 – Use illustrations that reinforce the sermon’s idea or purpose. Since a story or example is likely to lodge in the thinking and emotions of our listeners longer than most of what we say, it is critical that we choose those illustrations very carefully. What is the value in people remembering a cute or moving story that had only a tenuous link to the idea itself? This underscores the danger of finding a text and a message to fit an illustration. If the outline is a servant that should usually stay out of sight, then the illustration is a prominent and memorably dressed servant, but still a servant of the text’s idea and purpose.

What do you want them to remember – the outline?

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Before preaching, it is important to have the end in sight. Is our goal really to have people remember the details of the sermon? It seems that both preachers and listeners alike assume that the listener is supposed to remember the outline of the message. So preachers lament the lack of note-taking, or actively encourage it, perhaps by giving “fill in the blank” outlines. Another approach is to use powerpoint projection with the outline visually presented to the listener. And, of course, there’s the common approach of preaching with memorable, sometimes alliterated, points that function as “hooks to hang thoughts on.” None of these things are wrong (or right), but they all point toward the goal of having listeners remember the outline of the sermon (or at least have a written record of it for future consultation).

Perhaps it is time to question the value of remembering or recording a sermon’s outline. Of course, the listener can think through the message later using the outline the preacher used (if a paper record of the sermon’s content is necessary, perhaps give out a handout after the service is over?) Would it not be a better goal for people to think through the text later, rather than through the preacher’s outline?

The real goal of preaching is lives transformed by God’s Word. Any transformation should come from the biblical passage’s main idea relevantly applied to the listener’s life. The goal is not memorization, but transformation. Yet if something should be remembered, surely it should be the main idea, clearly derived from the passage and relevantly applied. The outline of a message is there to order thought, to ensure progress and to serve the big idea and its purpose. The outline is not king. It is merely a discreet servant, usually serving behind the scenes.

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 . . .

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.

Notes or no notes? – part 2

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

In part 1 of this post I presented the “why” of no notes preaching from my perspective. The relational connection through increased eye contact is the biggest reason for me. Also the side effects of less complicated messages, more text-related messages, and staying-put-in-your-text messages, these are all positives as well.

So, how? Well, it is not by memorization. Trying to memorize 30-45 minutes of material is a sure way to achieve the following negative results: performing like an actor, freezing like an amateur actor, and failing to have any relational connection because you seem aloof (trying to remember the next “line”). It is probably worth memorizing the big idea, perhaps the statements of each move or point if you are going to state them explicitly, the opening few lines and the concluding few lines. Beyond that, it’s all about internalization.

Having studied the text as fully as possible, you then prepare a message that fits closely to that text and makes good sense. If possible, it is worth typing out a full word-for-word manuscript. This manuscript allows you to work carefully on specific word choices and phrasing. The work of giving close attention to the manuscript is surprisingly effective at internalizing the wording so that it comes out again when you practice the message and/or deliver it.

In the busy schedule of ministry life, typing a full manuscript is not always possible. So writing out a full outline and then preaching through the message out loud also serves to internalize the message.

Preaching without notes is not about special memory skills. It is about full preparation that leads to the preacher being very at home in the preaching text. It is about prayerful preparation that allows the message to soak into the very fiber of the preacher’s life.

For many preachers the fear of forgetting where they are, or freezing during delivery, hinders them from trying no notes preaching. I thank the Lord for my preaching professor that took away all other options when I had to preach in class. Maybe you should find someone to require no notes preaching of you?

Notes or no notes? – Part 1

/ Peter Mead / 11 Comments

I preached with notes for a decade, sometimes extensive, sometimes brief. Three years ago I switched to preaching without notes. I would not go back. I’m pretty sure that Mike preaches with some notes and does so very effectively. We’ll get his thoughts on this subject soon. There are more important things than whether you preach with or without notes. It’s more important to be Biblical, to have clear big idea, specific purpose and relevance. So I would not make a definitive case for no notes as opposed to with notes or with manuscript preaching (although to be honest I have yet to see someone who can read a manuscript effectively in preaching). However, this issue is important since delivery is a key element in preaching.

So why do I advocate and encourage no notes preaching? Preaching without notes increases eye contact beyond belief! Greater eye contact increases the sense of connection and intimacy between listener and speaker. We are living in a day when people are increasingly resistant to “pre-planned” speeches. While my preaching is completely pre-planned, it feels more authentic and relational because I am not following notes. For eye contact alone, it is worth it for me.

But there are other benefits. Preaching without notes forces you to make sure the outline makes sense. As Haddon Robinson says, a good outline remembers itself. An outline on paper can be deceptive, giving the impression of logical ordering, but an outline that does not flow or make sense will be very hard to internalize for preaching without notes. Preaching without notes also forces you to tie the message as directly as possible to the text. The text is your notes, so the message needs to logically flow from the text. Furthermore, you are more likely to stay put in the text you are dealing with rather than skipping all over the canon (a good habit to get into for many reasons!)

So that’s the “why?” In the next post I will explain the “how” of no notes preaching . . . and it is not about memorization!

Preaching Parables – Two Thoughts

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Last Sunday I preached from Luke 18, where there are two parables at the start of the chapter. A couple of thoughts about preaching parables:

Jesus told stories that packed a punch, don’t deaden the force – Of course the preacher’s role includes the need to explain the story, but we also need to preach the story in such a way as to achieve a similar effect as Jesus intended. For example, as I preached on the Pharisee and the Tax Collector, how could I help the listeners today to feel the force of that story in the way that Jesus’ listeners felt it? Well, I couldn’t just read the text. Nor could I just tell the story as it stands. As Jesus set the scene in verse 10, “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee, and the other a tax collector,” his listeners would immediately have significant emotional reaction. One was a good guy, the other a very bad guy. But for my churched listeners, their emotional reaction would be muted at best, the exact opposite at worse. For churched folk listening today, one is a bad guy (the one who typically opposed Jesus and ultimately got Him crucified) and the other is probably ok (the one who Jesus would hang out with, the one who might be like the other former tax collector that gave us our favorite Christmas readings in a Gospel). This is the opposite emotional reaction than Jesus intended. So, I chose to tell a contemporary story, in some ways equivalent to the parable, but not a forced equivalency. Having felt the force, we were ready to go back, read the text and have it explained. When it comes to preaching stories it is easy to kill the specimen by dissecting it. Stories are best observed alive, rather than cut up.

Incidentally, I could have chosen to do the same thing with Luke 18:1-8, but chose not to. I felt that story would work with a more straightforward “read a bit and then explain” approach, while maintaining the flow of the story. On another occasion I might use a contemporary version first.

The Gospel writers recorded stories in carefully packaged contexts, don’t rip them out – Whenever I preach from a Gospel passage, I am very aware of the double context. There’s the original historical context when Jesus spoke the words to the people around him. Then there’s the written context when Luke arranged, edited, commented on and put together the Gospel (different audience, different point in time, sometimes with different purpose). So when preaching a parable of Jesus, I am not dealing simply with a story Jesus told, but with a story Jesus told in a context Luke put together. So it is important to recognize the blending of both contexts. In the case of Luke 18, I focused primarily on the stories as Jesus told them (as presented by Luke), but was careful to notice the written contexts stretching back into chapter 17 for 18:1-8, and then on through the next two stories for 18:9-14.

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?