Notes on Reviewing Experience

February 4, 2011February 4, 2011 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

I’ve just finished a series of messages at my home church. Each message was recorded and I took the time to listen to them again. This allowed me to edit start and finish, as well as any particularly disturbingly loud sneezes from folks in the congregation. It also allowed me to review my messages. One thing stands out – my mental review and my audio review were different. For example:

1. After preaching certain elements seemed big in my memory, but were minimal in the audio. That is, a passing comment that took three seconds in reality actually became a thirty second major issue in my mental recollection of the message. When we look back on a message and one comment or detail stands out, let’s not assume it was “as bad” or “as major” as our minds might tell us.

2. After preaching my overall impression of the message could be very different from reality. For instance, I might look back and think, “that was rushed.” However, in review of the audio it might sound anything but rushed. This kind of thing happened several times in this series.

3. There is much to learn from both kinds of review. While I am saying we shouldn’t trust our mental review too much, it is good to take stock and learn from the experience of preaching a message. At the same time, let’s not miss the opportunity to learn from the experience of hearing that same message. Preaching and hearing are different experiences. Learning from both will aid our preaching.

Do you review your preaching? By memory? By audio? By video? By feedback?

One Simple Truth

January 28, 2011January 28, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Last time we thought about ways to trim the message. This is not to appease the unsubstantiated claims that people cannot concentrate like they used to (evidence suggests otherwise). Rather it is to enable the central truth of the message to come across more clearly, rather than being hidden by excessive padding.

The other side of this matter is that central truth. Is it too “big?” Sometimes we simply try to cram in too much information. Our main idea takes forty-eight words to summarize. This is a problem. I think it is important to realize the value of the cumulative effect of effective communication. Communicate effectively a biblical truth this Sunday, then another next Sunday, let them build. This is so much more helpful than trying to achieve everything in every message and effectively achieving very little because it was all just too much!

I suppose it is harder to put it more clearly than Andy Stanley (which is often the case, to be honest!) . . . just preach one simple truth.

I’m tempted to make some analogy along the lines of comparing the ineffective feast people offer to someone who has been starving, when actually what they can effectively assimilate is a small dose of something specific (but the feast feels like you’re feeding them, even if they do end up with no benefit from the overdose) . . . I’m tempted to do that, but that might be unnecessary elongation of this post.

One simple truth.

Every Conviction is Biblical – Training in Application

January 19, 2011January 12, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Last time we raised the issue of how easily people take a biblical detail and turn it into a deep conviction. Consequently as preachers we have a responsibility to train people to appropriately apply the Scriptures. So many are so good at being so focused on misapplied details that they fail to respond to the intended message of the text. So, three thoughts about application in our preaching:

1. Do it. As I’ve said and written many times, we must not abdicate our role by simply handing over to God the matter of “applying the truths we have seen in His Word.” He does, and He uses us as part of that. Some people in our churches are fascinated by the Bible and will chat about historical and linguistic and cultural and all sorts of other details with us. Yet they may never move on to applying the Word to their lives. We must model that understanding is not enough. What does it mean? And also, how should I respond to this?

2. Expand it. Don’t always offer the same applications – be good, be better, try harder, witness more, pray more, etc. For one thing this is moralism rather than Christianity. But also be sure that your applications aren’t always to do lists. People in some churches get overwhelmed with lists of hints for better living and are scared by their Bibles, not because of the awesome God they might encounter in its pages, but because of the ticker tape parade effect if they open their Bible and the half sheets of bulletins with to-do lists should spray out and cover their living room floor. Application is not just about conduct and behavior. It is also about beliefs – show people that changing their belief system in light of Scripture is critical application. It is also about affections and values – show them that having their heart moved is the deepest and primary need in responding to a personal God revealing Himself in the pages of Scripture.

3. Restrict it. Application of the Bible can easily be carelessly done (especially, it seems, in the area of convictions about how things should be done). As preachers we need to implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, help people to learn how to apply the Word. This will involve pulling people back from wrong approaches, as well as training in right approaches. I paraphrase Haddon Robinson’s comment that “there is more heresy per square inch in the area of application than in any other aspect of Bible study.”

In the next post I want to offer some approaches to application that we should be careful of and train people to avoid.

Less of a Beating

January 14, 2011January 11, 2011 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

It’s not true in every case, but for many people it is. Let’s say Person A has an issue with Person B. Perhaps Person A runs through how he might address Person B beforehand, or perhaps he is talking it through with his wife first. When Person B isn’t present, Person A tends to be much stronger in tone. But once they are face to face, Person A will typically be more winsome, more loving, more caring for the feelings of Person B. (There are exceptions, but let’s not get into psychologically profiling people who struggle interpersonally!)

There’s something in this that is analogous to preaching, I think. Let’s suppose you are preaching a biblical passage that contains an instruction from Jesus to his disciples. As preachers we have a tendency to turn any biblical text into an assault on the congregation. It could be encouraging, comforting, tender, sensitive, or gentle, but in the hands of an unthinking preacher, it will easily come across as harsh exhortation. Why does that happen?

I think there are various reasons for this phenomena including a misunderstanding of God, or of how people function, or are motivated, or what Christianity is, or often, just a lack of awareness of how we come across. But I wonder if there is also something in the difference between abstraction and in-person communication that I raised in the first paragraph?

We can easily take the words in a text and pull them out of their historical and interpersonal setting, turning them into a more harsh and abrasive instruction than was the case originally. Pulling an exhortative statement from its context and preaching it as bare instruction will usually feel more like the command that must be obeyed (drill instructor) than an instruction set in the context of interpersonal communication.

Did the disciples feel Jesus was barking out orders when he spoke to them of trusting in God, or of loving one another, or how they should pray, etc.? I suspect not. Somehow in person there would have been a more winsome force involved, the engagement of lives as the setting in which His instruction would have intrigued, motivated, drawn out, stirred, and moved them.

What to do? My suggestion is to be wary of excising the instruction from its narrative setting in order to preach it as instruction today. Better to help listeners imagine being there, being in the sandals of the disciples, feeling what they felt, stirring what stirred in them. Essentially it is about honouring the narrative force of the text rather than over-processing it into bite sized directions for today. Don’t treat every text as a mere collection of principles to be plucked out and fired at our listeners. Instead help the listeners to encounter the people in the text and to be stirred by that, very different, experience.

A Fear Worth Facing: Tipping Points and Similar Situation

January 13, 2011January 11, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Just one more post following up on this issue of whether it is appropriate for a preacher to endeavour to be engaging in their presentation – be that through manner and energy in delivery and/or passion and enthusiasm for content. I have been responding to the potential critique that it is up to the listener to hear and the preacher merely needs to faithfully speak the Word of God (especially since it is God’s work to change lives anyway).

One more post, two more points, then I’m done (but feel free to comment, agree, disagree, qualify, etc.)

1. Tipping Points. With a lot of these aspects of preaching I think there is a scale. At one end is reliance on God, at the other is communication ability on our part (which can be improved, hence I talk about it on here). While I would advocate for being the best steward of ministry opportunities that we can be, I would never affirm the idea of trusting in our own abilities rather than leaning fully on God. It’s as if there is a tipping point. A point at which seeking to be the best stewards of our ministry that we can be, we tip over and lean not on the Lord, but on our own ability, training, etc. If you sense yourself tipping away in the wrong direction so that you are not leaning on the Lord – stop! But actually, this scale and tipping point notion doesn’t really work. These are not mutually exclusive categories. It is possible to seek to improve my communication abilities to a very significant level, yet at the same time to remain fully leaned into the Lord. It is not true that to put 60% effort into communication improvement means my trust in God reduces to 40%. It seems like it is a matter of attitude. How is that measured? Surely in prayer and reliance upon the convicting work of the Spirit. Let’s all pray that we will be able to be the best preachers we can be, but at the same time, plead with the Lord never to allow us to trust in ourselves unawares.

2. Similar Situation. Until this point I have kept this series of posts focused on edificatory preaching of believers. But evangelism is not so different, is it? Only God can save a soul. Yet most of us see the problem with an evangelism approach that simply does not engage listeners. Perhaps you’ve seen offensive and incomprehensible shouters in a public place – not in the slightest representative of the winsome grace of God, yet always quick to point to their faithfulness in sounding forth God’s Word. Trumpets a blasting, but not a clear tone. We don’t rely on our ability to engage listeners in evangelistic communication, but surely we seek to be engaging, and clear, and biblical, and relevant . . . doing all we can so that if they choose to walk away from the gospel it will be the offense of the gospel, not the incompetence, incoherence, or objectionable nature of the messenger. Doesn’t the same apply in church preaching, not only because there will probably be unsaved present, but because it’s all part of the same ministry and great commission?

Too Subtle Transitions

January 4, 2011January 5, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I think I have written in the past about not going through the turns in your message too quickly. If you take a turn quickly you can easily lose the passengers. I was just discussing this with a friend, particularly one type of transition that doesn’t work so well. Let’s call it the “conjoined rhetorical questions” transition. Hardly pithy, but descriptive nonetheless.

Here’s how it might look:

Perhaps you are thinking that this instruction seems challenging, or perhaps you are thinking about how you’ve already failed . . .

This kind of sentence can function like a hinge between two sections. But I suspect your listeners may get lost in the turn. Essentially the transition here, potentially a major one in the message, comes down to the following: “…or…” – what shall we say, milliseconds in length? Certainly easy to miss and the listeners will then find themselves subtly confused by your talk of past failure when you are talking about instruction for us in the future (they missed the turn).

What would it look like to slow this down? It will seem pedantic in written form, but remember, oral communication is different than written communication!

So there you have it: the passage asks something of us that isn’t easy. Perhaps you’re thinking how challenging it seems? I’m certainly finding this to be a challenging instruction. Not easy at all. But hang on a second, hold on. It is challenging, but perhaps you’re not looking ahead to the challenge. Perhaps, like me, you’re looking back because you have failed in this area in the past? That’s another issue we have to think about. It’s challenging, yes. But what about past failure? Let’s think about that . . .

Instead of milliseconds, now I’m taking around thirty seconds, plus pauses.

Be careful not to rely on a conjunction to achieve a transition. Too easy to miss. Too easy to lose people. And if they are floundering for a minute or two, your message is not communicating.

Get the Idea? – Part 1

December 28, 2010December 30, 2010 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Over the past few years I’ve come across quite a number of people who talk about preaching and recommend Haddon Robinson’s book, but don’t really understand Robinson’s teaching on the subject. It seems that some people are impressed with aspects of the book, Biblical Preaching, but don’t really grasp some of the core teaching of it. In particular, the nature and power of the Big Idea in preaching. Today I’d like to focus on communication, but will continue the series tomorrow in respect to biblical studies, then finish with a focus on the Spirit of God. Do we really get the Big Idea?

Continue reading →

A Point on Points

December 27, 2010December 25, 2010 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

As you outline your message you will probably have some points. My suggestion is to write full sentences that are applicationally/relevantly focused on the listeners (rather than historical/biblical summary statements).

But, you may say, I like to preach the point inductively and arrive at the application toward the end of the point. Of course, that is the normal approach. My suggestion should not therefore be dismissed. Why?

1. Because a brief taste of relevance early in the point will increase the listener’s motivation to listen. You can quickly go back to the text and develop things from there, ending up with a more focused applicational element. Just like in a message, though, if your point starts historical and takes a while to feel relevant, listeners may not be with you once you get there.

2. Because what you write as your point in your outline does not have to be stated at that point in the message. It is a common fallacy that a sermon has to follow its outline so that every line is said in order. The “point” can be the target toward which that section of the message progresses. The advantage of this approach is that you preach with a purpose, rather than starting with a historical summary statement and then expanding that, eventually moving on to the next point after a token attempt at applying the text (sometimes not fully thought through). In a sense, then, your outline point is your fully thought through main idea of that section of the text. Whether you state that at the outset, or later on, is up to you (perhaps you can choose a marker in your notes to indicate that this shouldn’t be stated up-front).

3. Because the commentary-like summary statement is lacking on several fronts. As I already stated, it leaves you open to fading away before you arrive at the point of connection between the world of the Bible and the world of your listeners (you may not effectively build the bridge). Furthermore, a commentary-like summary, or a pithy alliterated heading, is not typically a complete thought. Better to plan a full sentence since thought is transferred by the speaking of ideas, requiring full sentences. To preach with sub-headings sounds like a read outline and requires the listener to fill in the rest of the thought. Generally it is not wise to trust the listener to fill in much of anything in a message (not because of their lack of ability, but because you may not have fully gripped their focus so that they desperately want to do part of your job for you!)

Full sentence, relevant points will make your outlines stronger. They may not make the best 200 word Christian newspaper outlines, but remember, your goal is to preach a sermon. Let your editor turn it into written language before you go to print, don’t make your listeners translate in order to understand!

Edwards on Evangelism

December 14, 2010December 13, 2010 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I very much enjoyed an article in the Anvil journal by Peter Sanlon. Let me quote three paragraphs, where the middle one is a quote from Jonathan Edwards –

The primacy of the affections has implications for our ministries. We should see that prayer, sacraments, singing and preaching are all given by God ‘to excite and express religious affections.’ Perhaps one of the areas of ministry where we understandably, but erroneously, fail to appreciate the primacy of the affections, is evangelism. It makes sense intellectually that an unbeliever needs to understand that of which they were previously ignorant. This is indeed necessary (Rom.10:14) but Edwards would affirm that the main point of spiritual work in conversion is in the affections. To engage in mission which takes seriously the primacy of the affections would involve a radical overhaul of our present day reliance on programmes, courses and rational explanations:

There is a difference between having an opinion that God is holy and gracious, and having a sense of that holiness and grace. There is a difference between have a rational judgment that honey is sweet, and having a sense of its sweetness. A man may have the former, that knows not how honey tastes.

A compelling case could be made that much evangelical ministry today is geared at giving people an opinion and rational judgment about God which falls far short of the sense of sweetness Edwards encouraged people to taste. In a time when people are starving for lack of the pleasure of tasting the sweetness of God, we should not denigrate emotions but rather seek to stir up any emotion which tends towards inculcating the emotional heart-felt plea, ‘Jesus, Master, have mercy on us’ (Luke 17:13). We must do this in evangelism, because, ‘the way to draw men and women into Christ’s kingdom, Edwards believed, was through his listeners’ affections.’

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

From Peter Sanlon’s article, “Bringing Emotions to the Surface in Ministry,” in Anvil, vol.26, nos. 3&4, 2009, p238.

Some Messages Need More Careful Intros

December 8, 2010December 8, 2010 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

When a message stands on its own rather than being part of a series, or when a message is from a less obvious part of the Bible (i.e. from the Old Testament, or from an unexpected passage for the season), then it is worth giving extra attention to the context that is set up at the start of the message.

To put it another way, will the listeners, after ten or fifteen minutes, be asking themselves, “why are we in this part of the Bible?” If they ask that subconsciously, then you didn’t create a sense of the need for the message during the introduction. Sometimes all this takes is a deliberate answering of the question, “so why are we looking at this passage?” If you can’t be more subtle, at least be that clear. It is part of the work of the introduction to make listeners feel motivated to listen to the message, which includes helping them know why the passage is being preached.

So for an example. Let’s say you’re preaching from somewhere like Judges. It may feel adequate to make some introductory references to the problem of sin in the world today and then launch into historical explanations of Philistine oppression. But the listener will probably have the sense that the message feels distant and irrelevant. Much better to plan the introduction so that it not only makes some reference to a contemporary phenomena that was also true back then, but to make the link really overt. Perhaps in the intro you talk about some aspect of sin in society today, but before you head back into Bible world, think through the transition. This is off the top of my head and not for any passage in particular. But perhaps it gives a sense of a slightly more deliberate link between introductory remarks and the Bible text:

“[Contemporary and engaging examples of sin and its consequences] . . . So we probably all agree that our society is shot through with sin, and that it’s creaking with the natural consequences of that sin. But how are we to respond to it? What should we be looking for, or hoping for, or aiming for, as we live in this sin-stained society today? Let’s look at a Bible text that is over three thousand years old. You might think anything that old would be irrelevant to today, but actually it does have something very helpful for us. This passage was written at a time when the society of Israel faced some of the same problems we face today. Let’s look at it to see not only what was going on then, but how God worked to bring about the change that was needed. Let’s look and see what this ancient text might say to us today as we live in a similar situation. Turn with me to . . . “