Easter As Gory Story?

April 19, 2011April 18, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

If you are preaching in the next few days then I would hope Easter is in the mix. Of course the cross of Christ is at the very centre of global history and God’s salvation plan. A question we face as preachers is just how gory does the presentation need to be?

Crucifixion was incredibly graphic and deliberately so. In a culture where people killed their dinner, and where blood flowed freely in the temple courts, in a culture so far removed from the clean and sanitized version of life that we enjoy today, crucifixion was still a massive visual deterrent. While some today might not fear a few months in prison for committing a crime, the Roman cross was massively feared.

So should we seek to paint the power of the deterrent by the words we use to describe what Christ went through? Different preachers might lean in different directions. Some seem to delight in the opportunity to make people squirm, describing in graphic detail just what the nails did to the wrists and feet, the agony of every breath, the ultimate cause of death, etc. Others go to the other extreme and paint a picture as beautiful as the stained glass windows where Jesus seems barely marked by the whole process.

The truth is that if we saw what Christ went through at the hands of the mocking soldiers and then at Calvary, I suspect we would all feel sick to the core. But is that the point of our preaching?

Perhaps it is a good idea to stun and shock people out of a religious view of the crucifixion. Or perhaps it is better not to overwhelm people with gore so they miss the real issue. A few brief thoughts:

1. Who are your listeners? What do they need? What would be most effective for them? Might they feel like they experienced something unexpected and before any watershed times that may still exist on TV? It is possible to be deeply moved by the cross without being made to feel ill.

2. What is the text? Remember you are preaching the text or texts, so what is emphasized there? It is too easy in “familiar” bits of Bible history to leap from the text to preaching the event itself. Maybe in this case that is legitimate, but don’t give up the distinctive value of each inspired text too easily.

3. What is your purpose? Remember that there is more to preaching the cross than stirring a gut reaction to the brutality of what Christ went through for us. At the same time, perhaps you prayerfully decide that the offense of the cross is needed by those to whom you will be preaching. No hard and fast rules here, just a plea for prayerful sensitivity to God and those present.

The Friday Finish for the Feedback Fiesta

April 15, 2011April 12, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Since we’ve been thinking feedback all week, why not finish the week with one more post? We’ve thought about questions to ask others, we’ve pondered the value of feedback others offer unasked, and we’ve thought about some key ingredients in the unrequested feedback of greater significance. The week can’t end without a couple more nudges that I’ve made before. You can improve your preaching by engaging in your own feedback too!

1. Prayerful Evaluation. Ask God what He thought of your message. Process in His presence. He cares more about your preaching than you do, and I’m sure He’d be glad to be your main preaching coach. We can be so quick to pray about a sermon before we preach it, but say almost nothing afterwards. Almost as if we want God’s help to do our thing well. What about saying thank you? What about asking Him what was going on in your own heart? What about asking Him to nudge you in better directions? What about processing the feedback received in His presence?

2. Audio Evaluation. I tend to listen through my messages as I prepare them for the archive. I get to spot the bits that didn’t come across so clearly, or the moments when pause could have been better used, or the moments when my description was lacking in colour, or whatever. It is worth listening to yourself because you are the only person who knows what you were planning to say after all the study and preparation.

3. Video Evaluation. I mention this periodically, but it’s worth the nudge. If you watch yourself preach on video, it will improve your preaching. Don’t need to do it every week. But now and then. You will spot things nobody has yet had the guts to mention to you! You will realize that you are actually looking at your notes 72% of the time. You will spot that you aren’t smiling as much as you think you are. You will see some very effective gesturing (as well as some backward gestures). You will be glad you did it. Promise.

Genuinely Realistic Worthwhile Feedback

April 14, 2011April 12, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

After a couple of days of essentially suggesting we shouldn’t put too much stock in feedback that comes over a handshake, I want to suggest that there are some really helpful bits of input that can come without us requesting it. Just as we need to learn to discern the generally worthless, let’s also grow in our sensitivity to the genuine and worthwhile input. Several ingredients tend to go into helpful input:

1. Time. When someone speaks to you about a message and there is time involved, then you should put more stock in the feedback. The time might be delay before speaking to you. “The message you preached two weeks ago has really been on my heart…” keep listening and see what you can learn from this interaction. “The message you preached last year on X really changed my life, here’s how…” keep listening and thank the Lord for genuine encouragement.

Or the time ingredient may be the length of conversation. Even though it happens right after church, if someone wants to talk for a few minutes about the message, then perhaps they aren’t just being polite. They may be socially uncomfortable and struggling to get away from you, but hopefully you are socially aware enough to discern the difference. If there is time in a conversation, then generally that means there is something beyond the polite being said. This could be encouraging/affirming, or it could be constructive/helpful – be alert, welcoming and responsive to both.

2. Thought. If someone has put thought into what they are saying, then you should put more thought into processing it. A from the hip comment may speak more truth than it knows, but often it can pass us by without anything being lost. But a thoughtful comment, an interaction about the message that has been thought through, this is the stuff of potential when it comes to getting constructive feedback. Without straying into the pursuit of praise, you can probe with a question or two when someone is obviously and genuinely thinking about a message. “What was it that stood out to you?” or “What would you say was the main point of that message?” These aren’t questions to ask all, but they may be helpful with some.

3. Insight. Sometimes somebody can make a very brief, yet very insightful comment. If you sense a rabbi, a jedi knight, or a wise sage has just said something, be sure to lock the thought away for further pensive perusal. Not every quick comment should be quickly dismissed. Sometimes the value of these comments only come out through prayer and meditation.

May God give us the wisdom to discern the difference between most comments and helpful comments, and may He give us the courage and humility to take onboard that which is helpful in all.

Generally Relatively Worthless Feedback – Part 2

April 13, 2011April 12, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday I began this post on the less constructive kind of feedback we will get week in and week out (and without our requesting it). The post-meeting handshake feedback tends to border on the meaningless as far as constructive input is concerned (although massively meaningful in terms of relationships, which are worth much more than your pursuit of improvement).

We thought about the polite comment, and suggested that you don’t build a sense of the great importance of your ministry on this kind of comment (remember, there were millions of people who chose not to be there to hear you, and some who were probably chose to mentally join the millions!)

We thought about the extreme comment, noting that either extreme praise or extreme attack tend not to be the most constructive help as you seek to improve your preaching! Two more:

3. The no comment. These are hard to read too. Is the person saying nothing or avoiding you because they are deeply challenged and convicted, or because they are livid (with good reason or otherwise), or because they aren’t sure how to do the polite thing since you were so offensive, or because they need time to process more deeply, or because they are socially uncomfortable. Some of these could be really helpful sources of feedback, but you may not even realize the connection wasn’t made.

4. The misunderstandable comment. “That was so deep!” should be interpreted as “that was completely over my head.” The “thanks for your hard work preparing” might mean “shame it came across without evidence that you’d really mastered or been mastered by the text.” “You certainly put a new spin on things!” could well mean “I don’t know of any good Bible scholar, church leader or theologian who would quite see it that way,” or even “if I weren’t so gracious I’d declare you a heretic, have you thought of starting your own cult?” And I shouldn’t miss this one: “What a feast of Scripture!” could well mean, “that felt like an accidental explosion in a concordance factory, my goodness, I couldn’t keep up with your obsessive compulsive cross-referencing!” Be careful you don’t misunderstand the thoroughly misunderstandable comments that may be some of your most insightful feedback!

After preaching we tend to be vulnerable and perhaps not in the best place to carefully process the feedback that comes our way. It is good to pray through everything people say and ask God to help us discern what is helpful, what is simply politeness in action, and what is from the enemy. But if we want constructive feedback, that usually takes an effort on our part. Having said that, tomorrow I will consider one other channel of feedback that generally is more helpful than what I have described in these posts!

Generally Relatively Worthless Feedback

April 12, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday I listed some questions we might use to pursue meaningful and constructive feedback on our preaching. In most walks of life a combination of feedback, objectively measured results and supervisor evaluations are the norm. Preaching is one of the few avenues in which helpful feedback is an optional luxury (athough many may be giving great feedback, just not to you; and the results are objectively measurable; albeit not entirely in the present; and the greatest of all supervisor evaluations is coming for us all). But there is a cheap shortcut to getting feedback, and it is generally worthless.

Post-meeting handshake feedback is part of the package of ministry. Tempting as it may be to hide in a study and pray, you have to interact with folks in case the odd one here and there actually wants to talk and there might be a deeply meaningful conversation. That said, the majority of what comes with a handshake should be graciously accepted, without any delusions of having really received feedback on your preaching.

I think there are several categories worth pondering:

1. The polite comment. If someone gives you a cake, you say thank you. If someone give you a ride, you say thank you. If someone does anything for you, you say thank you. If someone preaches a sermon for you, you say thank you. And, since you are shaking hands at the time, you probably add another comment too since human interaction seems to require it. Perhaps “thank you for the message,” or “thank you for preaching,” or “really appreciate you coming,” or “that’s given us a lot to think about,” etc. I’m convinced there are some preachers who have built a lifetime’s ministry on this category of feedback without ever realizing that it is bordering on meaningless as far as constructive value is concerned. People don’t tend to say, “thanks for preaching, your second point was unclear and I found your repetitive sword fighting gesture a bit distracting.” You have to pursue that kind of helpful feedback.

2. The extreme comment. Some people are just polite. Let’s face it, some people are just rude. Or socially uncomfortable in the other direction. They don’t know how to turn on the tap and get an appropriate flow of gratitude or critique. Instead they always give a firehose blast and you aren’t helped much either way – “that was the worst thing I ever heard” or “that was the best message I ever heard” are both a bit hard to process.

Tomorrow I will add a couple more to finish this list. Hopefully we can see that there is a world of difference between handshake comments and sought-after, permission-given, constructively thought through feedback.

Feedback Questions

April 11, 2011April 11, 2011 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Peter, who comments on the site frequently, asked what questions to use when requesting feedback on his preaching.

The challenge with getting feedback from others is that typically they are not trained in homiletics. Let me be clear, this is both a positive and a negative. But as far as pursuing feedback is concerned, you need to ask clear and answerable questions. Complicated feedback forms are the staple diet of homiletics profs, but simple questions are worth their weight in gold.

Question 1 – Given that every oral communication situation demands an inherent unity of the presenter, did the speaker effectively engage with the single proposition of the text once the text is distilled using good hermeneutical principles? Ok, just joking. This is a horrible question. Long, hard to decipher, actually only requires a single word answer, yet at the same time touches on several elements of preaching. Let’s try again:

Engaging? Did the preacher make you want to listen? How? – This is often the missing question on feedback forms I have seen. It is possible to be biblically faithful, organizationally clear and personally relevant, yet to be completely unengaging.

Biblically sound? Did you have the feeling that the preacher handled the Bible passage properly? – Might seem strange to use the word “feel” in a question on biblical accuracy, but for most listeners, that’s all they have to go by!

Clear? Was the message easy to follow? Why? – This points the listener to issues of organizational clarity, as well as allowing for comments on vocal clarity, and whether they knew where you were in the text.

Interesting? Did the passage and the message feel interesting to you? – It is a sin to bore people with the Bible, so you might as well find out if you did or not!

Connecting or Distracting? Did the preacher’s delivery help you connect or was it distracting? How? – You need to give people permission to tell you that you keep picking your ear, or moving like a robot, or shuffling your feet, etc. Furthermore you may think that your eye contact is great, but they may tell you that you’re always looking at your notes!

You may find that you need to add prompts for each question (i.e. for the last one you could add – eye contact, gestures, movement, distracting habits, etc.) But then you are heading toward one of those complicated forms that only preaching teachers can really fill in!

And if you want the most challenging feedback of all? Add this question:

Please write down the main idea of the message…

Opaque or Lens?

April 5, 2011April 5, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Opacity is worthy of our consideration. The contrast between being opaque and being a lens was suggested last week in conversation. That is, does the preacher act as a lens through which I see Christ, or as an opaque presenter through which I see little? It may be hard to quantify, but as listeners I think we know the difference.

When the opaque preacher preaches, we receive information and ideas, maybe even illustrations and anecdotes, perhaps applications, and even apparently effective delivery. Technically the sermon might tick all the standard boxes. Faithful to the text, relevant to the audience, clear in presentation. But obviously not clear in the sense we mean in this post. Because for all the good that’s there, the sermon event feels opaque.

So what is it that turns the opaque preaching into a lens through which the person of Christ is seen, through which the grace of God can shine into our lives? I suspect it isn’t primarily about technique, since great preparation and delivery skill can still lead to opaque messages. Perhaps it’s something along the lines of …

A sermon will act as a lens to the extent that the preacher relationally engages both God and the listeners as true personalities.

That could be better stated, but it will do for now (comment freely and offer better statements!)

1. If God is viewed as a distant, unknowable, cold deity who has left us with a set of data encoded in an anthology we call the Bible, then the preacher won’t engage Him. But if God is known personally, through the Word, through prayer, through a living and vital and covenantally loyal love relationship; and if God is an active participant in the life of the preacher; and if the preacher genuinely loves and likes God . . . then we may be onto something special for preaching.

2. If the listeners are viewed as an amorphous group of punters who have chosen to attend a presentation in which they (the seated ranks of unknowns) get to hear me (the preacher), then the preacher won’t engage them effectively. But if the people matter, and are cared for and prayed for and are important to the preacher (even if he is visiting), and if he seems to not only care enough to give tough medicine, but loves enough to make it palatable, and likes enough to smile . . . then we may be onto something special for preaching.

Opaque or lens?

Not Too Good, Just Good Enough

March 23, 2011March 23, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Here’s a quote from David Gordon’s chapter on the state of preaching in Why Johnny Can’t Preach: The Media Have Shaped the Messengers. I reviewed the book on Monday and recommend it as a quick but insightful read. Anyway, here’s the quote:

[People distort my concern with] “Ah, David, you’re right; ours is not a day of great preaching.” This is not my concern. . . . I don’t care about its presence or absence one whit. What I care about is the average Christian family in the average pew in the average church on the average Sunday. And the problem there is not that we don’t have “great” preachers; in many circumstances we don’t even have mediocre preachers. If Jesus tests Peter’s profession of love by the ministerial act of feeding his sheep, our sheep do not need gourmet meals. But they do need good, solid nourishment, and they are not ordinarily getting it. (pp14-15)

I agree. Now let me put this positively. I tend to teach people, particularly in respect to the main idea of their sermons, that the goal isn’t stunning or great. The goal is just good, faithful and clear. We read super-ideas in some preaching books. These stunning, out of the park, hit it for six, idea-of-the-year, super-main-ideas tend to be the very best the author has ever preached. We can’t live up to some of these pithy, witty, clever, assonated, succinct and memorable main ideas. We may never achieve a single one good enough to be published. But the thing is this – if we will just preach consistently biblical, faithful, plain, clear, just decent main ideas that are derived carefully from the text and targeted prayerfully toward the hearts of the people . . . just a steady diet of good main ideas will transform our churches.

Roast Preacher?

March 18, 2011March 17, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In a culture that is as committed to the Sunday roast dinner as it is to complaining, it isn’t surprising that people here talk about having Roast Preacher for dinner! But as parents we are sensitive to the presence of children at our dinner table (and for the record, the absence of roast dinners on a Sunday – all who manage that feat on a Sunday are borderline miracle workers in our opinion!) So how to discuss the sermon with the family present? I like three questions used by the author of the book I’m not naming until next week. I think we should try these:

1. What was the point or thrust of the sermon?

2. Was this point adequately established in the text that was read?

3. Were the applications legitimate applications of the point?

If the main point was not clear, then it will be interesting to determine together what the sum total, bottom line, distilled main idea actually was from our perspective. (Preachers note this, if you don’t make your main point clear, others will be guessing or dismissing, and neither is good!)

If the main point was not established in the text, then we have two paths ahead of us. One would be to guess where the main point actually did come from (danger of psycho-analysis with children present). The more productive path would be to look at the text again and determine what the main point actually is in the text. (Preachers note this, most people will not automatically go back to the text and hunt down a statement of the main point of it. They will either accept what you said, or they will ignore and move on – neither is a good result.)

If the applications were not legitimate applications of the point, then again we have a couple of options. One would be to trace out both the roots and the fruits of the false applications . . . which would hopefully lead to other Bible study and application of other biblical truth. Or it might lead to spotting false agenda and considering the long-term fruit of sub-gospel preaching. Depends on the sermon, I suppose. The other option would be to chase more legitimate applications of the teaching of the text read. (Preachers note this, most people either buy what you say or ignore it. You probably get the pattern here by now.)

So let’s say we end up chasing down the legitimate applications of the actual main point of a text, having heard a disunited message that failed to establish its main point in the text read or provide legitimate applications. I suspect we’d be a very rare family if we managed that over our Sunday lunch. Preachers note this – these three questions are not unfair, let’s be sure people can answer them easily and in the affirmative.

Life’s Too Fast To Preach

March 16, 2011March 16, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

We don’t always realize just how fast our fast-paced lives are. We live in an age of flashing images that rush by at frantic pace. As the book I’m currently enjoying points out, “we become acclimated to distraction, to multitasking, to giving part of our attention to many things at once, while almost never devoting the entire attention of the entire soul to anything.” (p50)

But preaching a biblical text demands that we slow down and focus. We must concentrate fully on the text.

1. Poetry – “the rhythms and cadences, the music of the language, cannot be experienced at all by scanning.” (p.50). Indeed the dense line by line nature of poetic art demands focused reading if we are to glimpse the gold that is there.

It is not just poetry though, we must also slow for:

2. Narrative – it takes focused concentration for the imagination to engage, for the images to form, for the tension to be felt. Characters have to be met, tension faced, resolution experienced. Narrative will only yield superficial and petty sermon outlines if it is not engaged slowly.

3. Discourse – it takes focused concentration to follow the intricate composition of an epistle or recorded speech. How does the thought flow? What is the main thought? How is it developed? Again, discourse will preach after a superficial glimpse, but it will be poor!

Slow down. Read the text. Then maybe you can preach it.