How to . . . ?

Manipulation in Disguise

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Manipulation in preaching is a subject I have visited periodically on this site.  Yesterday I touched on a new angle though (new to this site, although I wouldn’t claim anything on here is truly new, of course).  Here is that final sentence again – Am I really avoiding manipulation when I give the impression that Christianity is primarily about the commodity of knowledge and I am the dispenser of it?

This is a real issue that needs to be addressed.  I would hope that no preacher wants to manipulate, but that all good-willed preachers are doing the best they can.  Of course, I don’t want to accuse anyone of sinful motivation.  But I do want to undermine the logic supporting an approach to preaching that esteems the intellectual at the expense of any engagingly affective fare.  There is here, as so often is the case, a pendulum swing that goes too far.

At one extreme we have manipulative emotional preaching that stirs up the listeners, manipulates commitments and response, sways the feelings of listeners and then seals the deal while they are off balance.  There are ways to do this.  Certain rhythms of speech, stirring background music, heart-wrenching anecdotes, excessive passion in the preacher, tear-jerking vulnerability, etc.  It is certainly possible to go places the preaching text doesn’t go in order to manipulate reaction.

At the other extreme we have disaffected preaching that avoids any hint of manipulation, but leaves all response to the convicting work of the Holy Spirit.  (Did you see what I just did?  I presented this extreme in entirely justifiable and honourable terms.  Who would resist this approach?  What if I kept the excessive tones of the previous paragraph though?)

At the other extreme we have manipulative intellectual preaching that puffs up the preacher, manipulates affirmation and the fleshly desire to be as spiritual as the preacher, and then guarantees positive response by offering humble explanation of the approach to preaching that is being advocated (sometimes giving the impression that any other approach to preaching would be in direct violation of some clear mandate of God himself).  There are ways to manipulate listeners at the other extreme of the scale.  It is possible to present yourself and your ministry in ways that do not reflect the character and values of God, and do not truly represent the Word we preach.

Now I am deliberately pushing this issue to get us to think.  Again, I don’t know of many who are seeking to manipulate.  But what if our position is doing that and we are unaware?  We must be careful.  Perhaps when we see the pendulum has swung too far we need to come back closer to the centre.  The answer is not to disaffect our preaching, but to stick closer to the text.  When people are moved deeply by the truth of the text being preached, we represent God’s Word well.  We don’t need to add anything to it.  Neither do we need to strip it of all emotion.  Rather we need to re-present it to the best of our ability, while simultaneously leaning fully into God’s Spirit to do what our best efforts can never do – to transform us and our listeners as we preach the Word.

Troublingly Distant

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

I enjoyed a conversation with a church planter recently.  He made a comment that I’m hearing more and more.  There is a trend, not new, but seemingly on an upswing, toward distant preaching.  That is, preaching that is safely removed from any hint of emotional appeal or accusations of manipulation.  It is a manner that reveres the intellectual, but makes little or no attempt to touch the heart.  It is cold, distant, removed, disaffected.

Somehow proponents seem to think that this kind of preaching leaves room for the Holy Spirit to work out the impact in listeners’ lives.  It protects the speaker from accusation of manipulation.  It keeps the main thing the main thing and allows the truth to stand unsullied by any emotional appeal.

On the other hand, perhaps it abdicates the preacher’s responsibility to fully engage either the text or the listener.  Perhaps it provides for a prideful presentation of knowledge.  Perhaps it protects the preacher from any responsibility when listeners do not respond, since that, of course, is the Spirit’s concern, not theirs.

I find it concerning that this kind of preaching is coming up more and more in conversation.  It is a sort of expository preaching corrupted.  Expository preaching is not simply about presenting the truth.  It is about presenting the truth of the Scripture in an effective communication manner that emphasizes the relevance to the contemporary situation of listener and seeks response.  Every element of the preaching preparation and presentation should lean fully into God’s work by His Spirit, but that offers no excuse for abdication on the part of the preacher.

Am I faithfully representing the text when I neuter it and remove all affective appeal?  Am I really showing pastoral care for the flock when I turn the multi-dimensional appeal of Scripture into an intellectual exercise?  Am I really honouring God when I act as if I, as His representative, am doing my job by simply informing?  Am I really avoiding manipulation when I give the impression that Christianity is primarily about the commodity of knowledge and I am the dispenser of it?

There’s more to say, but I don’t want to lose the focus on that last sentence . . .

Where is the Virtue in Disconnecting?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Two conversations in two days.  I hope these do not indicate an increasing trend.  These were conversations about preachers that seem to be deliberately moving away from ministry that connects with people.  The first is one who seems to place a value on some sort of higher churchy intonation and vocabulary, sort of a holy style that is farther away from reality than even reality TV (but in an opposite direction).  The second is one who had an innovative and connecting evangelistic ministry, but has apparently chosen to become dull and drab, perhaps in an attempt to come across as more intellectual, or perhaps satisfying to the tighter element in the church.  Actually, speculation on their motivation is only speculation.

But let me speculate some more anyway . . . perhaps the desire is to please the Lord by offering evidence in preaching style of a set apart-ness in life and ministry.  Certainly it is a good motivation to agree with the Lord that sin is repulsive and that we should live lives marked by being set apart from sin.  But I’m not satisfied even as I write that.  After all, do we agree with the Lord when we differ so radically from his example?  He was sinless, yes.  But he was also relevant, connected, a friend of sinners.  The deliberately different religious elite were hardly at the top of his affirmation list.  We are set apart from, and we are set apart to.  To what?  Not to being so other-worldly that we fail to engage with this one.  We are still here for a purpose.  We are sanctified as his representatives in a broken and sin-stained world.

Ok, let’s try speculating some more.  Perhaps some choose to deliberately disconnect in delivery in order to not undermine content by means of rhetorical manipulation and facile entertainment.  Ok, that’s a good point.  But I’m not convinced.  Was Paul really arguing against speaking in the most effective way possible, or was he arguing against the manipulation and trickery of the contemporary public speaker entertainers of his day?  He certainly used a lot of rhetorical “devices” in his writing.  Actually, to deliberately disconnect in order to draw attention to quality of content would be like making the body of a car as non-aerodynamic and heavy as possible in order to draw attention to the power of an engine.  Surely we are stewards of the whole communication process, so that we work in partnership with the Holy Spirit in respect to content, communication and application.  Negating one doesn’t emphasise the other, it merely undermines the whole.

I could speculate more, but I won’t.  I’m sure the people in question have good motives.  But my concern is that we don’t fall into thinking there is virtue in deliberate disconnection when it comes to preaching the Word to this fallen world.

Topical Preaching – Make Your Mind Up

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Many preachers find a topical approach to preaching to be an easier road.  I encourage students not to pursue topical preaching as the primary form of preaching.  Why?  Because it is harder.

Huh?  Easier or harder, make your mind up!

Not all topical sermons are created equal.  There is topical preaching that is a short-cut.  And there is topical preaching that multiplies the work.  What is the difference?  Whether or not it is expository topical. 

Topical preaching is effectively a form of preaching.  It is where the preacher combines passages to make a main point that is their own construct, or the result of a combination of several passages.  Expository preaching is not a form, it’s a commitment.  It is a commitment to exegete the text so that the text functions as boss of what is said in the message.  This can be a single passage exposition.  Or it can be a multiple passage topical exposition. 

The easy road.  I am certainly not suggesting that all non-expository topical sermons are preached because the preacher is lazy.  Not at all.  But it is an easier approach.  You can combine the passages you like, that say what you want to say, without all the baggage of exegesis and contextual analysis.  You can tailor the sermon to speak into lives with the real or apparent authority of Scripture, but without the painstaking effort in preparation. 

The hard road.  The work required to truly get to grips with a passage in order to preach it effectively is significant.  Historical, contextual, cultural, grammatical, lexical, and literary study, not to mention textual critical work, original language study, discourse analysis, etc., all add up to a daunting task.  Now decide to preach on three passages (perhaps Ephesians 5, 1Corinthians 7 and Song of Songs – for a topical sermon on marriage).  Your task is now significantly more daunting.  Expository topical preaching is worthwhile, but it is not a short cut.

There is a place and a need for expository topical preaching in the church.  Yet for the sake of the preacher, let this not be the staple diet.  It is arguable whether there is a place for non-expository topical preaching in the church.  But I suggest that for the sake of the listener, let this not be a regular snack, let alone the staple diet.

Preaching and Story – Part 5

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

So this post is really an extension of implication four in the series we have been considering on the impact of narrative in our preaching.  Much more could be said, but this will be the last in this specific series.  So to review implication number four:

4. When preaching “non-narrative” sections, consider how they are snapshots of a narrative. We saw how two genres are, by definition, largely narratival – both history and gospel (including parables, of course).  But what about the five “non-narrative” genres?

So a psalm was written by someone in response to God’s work, or in gratitude for a particular moment of deliverance, or in the tension of particular situation, either individual or corporate, or to guide others in the tensions of life.

Prophecy, as we know, is not all about foretelling the future, but often more about God’s heart being revealed in respect to the present.  Either way, narrative is there . . . either God’s response to the tensions and problems and reactions and dangers of the present, or God’s explanation of kingdom hope shining at the end of the current tunnel.

Wisdom literature is shot through with the tensions of a fallen world, with the challenges of human folly as we so easily pick foolish paths in the midst of the situations we face – glimpses into the story of humanity.

Apocalyptic, despite all the caveats and careful explanations that seem to overwhelm the text so often these days, is a revelation of reality, present or future, the unseen becoming seen, and it is shot through with narrative features – and then I saw, then he said, and then, and then, so the dragon waited, then the world celebrated, then the judge came, and then, and then.

Epistle, of course, is a snapshot into a narrative – that apostle’s attempt to bring the gospel to bear on the present situation of the recipients.  We have to look at the occasion that prompted the writing of the letter, and we need to look for any hints as to what transpired in response to it.  A glimpse into the narratives of life lived in a fallen world.

At some level there are aspects of narrative pervading every passage in the Bible.  How does our preaching reflect that?

 

Preaching and Story – Part 4

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

So we have been thinking this week about the role of the Bible story in our preaching.  We haven’t thought about how the individual stories relate to the big story as a whole, the redemption history, as it were.  Perhaps that would be worth a post at some point (actually I know it would because some preachers seem so eager to fit everything in its macro context that the particular text they claim to be preaching gets lost or somehow reworked so that the actual message of the text is lost in the mix . . . but that is for another day).  We have considered the importance of entering into the narrative, and trusting the narrative to offer more than illustration and introduction, and thinking through how to increase the impact of a narrative by retelling and revisiting it before moving on.  Now to the final implication in this series.  This weekend I should be returning from Asia and will be looking forward to seeing what comments have been sparked by this series!

4. When preaching “non-narrative” sections, consider how they are snapshots of a narrative. There are three main types of literature in the Bible, and about seven major genre.  One of the three types is narrative, the most common one, but still leaving two non-narrative types (poetry and discourse).  A couple of the genre are narrative (history and gospel, including parables), again with lots of page space, but also leaving five that are non-narrative (psalm, prophecy, wisdom, apocalyptic, epistle.)  But stop the bus for a minute!  Are these other types and genres non-narratival?  Aren’t poetry and discourse both snapshots into a narrative?  Discourse, be it epistle or speech, is given in the context of a narrative situation.  And it may be harder to accurately know the context that gave rise to a particular poem, but human nature leads us to wonder and often to reconstruct such a narrative (be careful not to then interpret a poem in light of a reconstructed narratival context, but why not tap into the emotional setting of a fallen world that sparks such poetry?)

I will extend this series by one post and tomorrow consider the five supposedly non-narratival genres to see how they are, in fact, more narrative-ish than we tend to think!

Preaching and Story – Part 3

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

So we have suggested that since narrative is such a critical form of literature in Scripture, pervading both Testaments at length, and since we live life in the tension / resolution cycle of micro and macro narratives, therefore we need to ponder how narrative influences our preaching.  We have suggested the importance of telling the story, and of trusting the story instead of looking to always get past it to the important stuff.  Now for another implication:

3. Don’t just tell the story and move on, but revisit, review, retell, re-engage the narrative. Sometimes we are just too quick to move on.  We tell the story without effective description, emotion, clarification, cultural awareness, etc.  Then we move on to our lengthy content.  A well told story will include effective description, cultural explanations, empathetic energy, physical movement, etc.  And it also needs the often missing ingredient of time.  Time to dwell in the tension.  Time to ponder the problem.  Time to feel the resolution.  Time to respond to the work of God in that story, and if told well, in my story.  So why not follow up the story with a partial re-telling and review as you conclude the message and apply the truths?  Why not revisit the narrative for a subsequent sermon instead of moving rapidly on at “break-impact” speed (i.e. fast enough to avoid any passage really hitting home!)  Or to be creative, why not have a session where listeners can actively participate in reflecting on the story, or retelling the story, or talking through the impact of the story?

Perhaps you can think of other ways to linger longer in a story preached, so that the church can be changed more completely by it?  Tomorrow we will see the final implication in this series.

Preaching and Story – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday we suggested that preaching on a Bible narrative should include more than just elements based on the story, but should actually tell the story.  Here’s another implication of the pervasive nature of narrative:

2. Don’t just enter the narrative as a means to an end, but see the entering in as a potential location of the “end.” That seems like a risky sentence, but I think it holds firm.  Too easily we feel that a story is, at best, an introduction to our pontifications, applications and morals.  But a well timed, well placed, well told story will often carry its own weight and do its own work.  The listeners will enter into it, they will find themselves in the world of the story, and they will feel the story in their world.  As they identify with the characters and feel the rising tension, as they see the tension resolved, as they feel the blessing of “their” character trusting God, or sense the emptiness of a character choosing the pain of sin, and so on, they will be impacted by the story, during the story.  God invented narrative, trusts narrative and so gave us loads of it in Scripture, knowing people would hear it and read it, and knowing that there wouldn’t always be the helpful explanation we sometimes feel God “needs” from people like us.  God knew what he was doing with the inspiration of narrative, perhaps our seeing story as effective communication in itself might be an act of faith that could bear fruit?  I am not anti-explanation or suggesting that storytelling replace preaching.  I am suggesting that in our preaching we don’t simply see narratives as illustration, or introductions to the “real stuff.”

It’s tempting to move on to the next implication, but perhaps it would be better to let this post linger longer.  Number three tomorrow.

Preaching and Note Takers

/ Peter Mead / 13 Comments

I had an enjoyable conversation with a friend today about note takers in church.  Some preachers love it when listeners are taking notes.  After all, it means they are listening, learning and will be going over the message again later.  But actually it doesn’t.  They are half-listening, may be learning, may or may not go over it again later.

I’ve read research that suggests the best way for listeners to learn from a message is to listen attentively, and then have time immediately afterwards to make some retrospective notes.  That allows them to give full attention to the message, rather than trying to recall and write while you are preaching.  It also allows them to immediately distill main point and applications of the message, rather than fooling themselves into thinking an outline equates to learning or life change.

Attention given to one thing means less attention given to something else.  If people are writing, then their minds are distracted from what is being said at that moment.

I like students to be taking notes in a class setting.  Firstly, because the sheer volume of information is greater than a single sermon that supposedly has a focused main point.  Secondly, because the goal is much more centrally about information transfer.  Preaching should educate, but the main goal of preaching is not education.

If you are in the habit of giving “fill in the blank” notes, I am sure you will want to defend that approach, and you are welcome to do so.  I like what I heard Tim Keller say a while back – “it’s when they put their pens down that I know I am really getting through.”  Why don’t we try giving a 3-5 minute quiet time after a message and encourage either prayer or note taking in that time?  I’d love to hear from any who have done that in a church service setting.

Enough from me, what are your thoughts on note takers?

Revisiting Relevance

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I scratched the surface of Relevance Theory in respect to preaching.  Let’s look at it a bit more (accepting that there is so much that could be written if we were to really do justice to the theory, as well as to preaching).

To reject the need for relevance is naïve.  Actually, those who reject the need for relevance and simply preach the Word in a more scholarly and abstract way are still relevant to their listeners.  The problem is that the relevance is much weaker.  For example, people listen because they have a perceived need to hear a sermon in church, or a fleshly sense of the need to be pressured religiously (or even, that enduring under the sound of biblical teaching is somehow healthy in and of itself, like uncomfortable spiritual callisthenics).

The solution to a self-centred pragmatic applicationalism is not to resist relevance and application.  Rather it is to see two stages to the solution, rather than one.  At one level listeners are distracted and discouraged and perhaps even self-concerned.  Offering relevance in a message so that they listen and engage is simply wisdom in action.  As I start a message I can assume that the listeners are distracted and not fully engaged.  As I demonstrate the relevance of the speaker, the message and the text, early on in the message, I am motivating listening.  As I surface a need from the text that stirs interest in the listener, I am motivating engagement.  But my message won’t simply meet a felt need.  Rather, that is the entrance, the first level of relevance.

But there is a second level.  It is that level that moves the focus of relevance and benefit from ourselves to the Lord.  As we are caught up in the gospel we are drawn out of our selves to Him, the gospel captivates our self-centred hearts and stirs us to respond to the greater affection of God’s grace.  As we are caught up in His grace, then effort can be asked without any sense of a burden of duty, and relevance/benefit becomes His rather than ours.  Our delight is to please Him.

If this is true, then to relegate all application to the final three minutes of the message is foolhardy.  With this approach people will listen poorly, and then be left with only the first level, rather than the delightful privilege of entering into the second, others-centred level of applicational relevance.