How to . . . ?

Full Sentence Points

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Why do I recommend preachers have full sentence points?  Or to put it another way – what is the problem with single-word points?

After all, a series of three or four single words can be memorable, both during the message and potentially after it.  So why not just give single word “points” as the message progresses?

A single-word may convey a title, but it cannot convey an idea. A single word will tell the listeners something about what is going to be said, but it is not able to convey the idea in a nutshell.  Why waste the opportunity to make a single sentence summary of the message content?

Single-word points tend to push the message toward information summary rather than transformational communication. Not always, but often, a single word will lean toward historical lecture material.  The old idea of masses of explanation before any application is problematic.  Why waste the opportunity to be relevant, targeted, personal at such a key moment in the message?  Putting the points in full sentences that relate to us today can be very powerful.  You can immediately go to the text and “back then” to see the support for the point, but you’re doing so with a sense of its relevance to us before you even get there.

Single-word points encourage a lack of cohesion within each point. If your “point” is a subject, then there is almost no end to what you could (and possibly will try to) say in this section of the message.  If your point is a distilled summary of the applicational point (or the message of the text at that section), then there is automatically a control mechanism to avoid scattered thoughts that don’t cohere.

Preaching is oral communication, which consists of transmitting ideas. When we talk in conversation we make points, assertions, suggestions, encouragements, etc. in full sentences.  We don’t naturally use single-word headings.  This is a written  communication approach.  Whatever notes you may or may not be looking at, when you preach you are speaking.  Why use literary approaches?  Forcing yourself to think yourself clear at the level of the points in your message, making sure you can convey the thought in a clear sentence will only help your message communicate more effectively.

Incidentally, if you are still craving the mnemonic assistance of single word tags, you could always add them (or some shorthand approach) in the transitions and final summary.  Having said that, remember that your goal is not for listeners to remember your outline, but to be transformed by the main idea of the text and its application to their lives.

Share

10 Ways to Make Your Listeners Uncomfortable

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Someone said preaching should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable.  Here are ten ways to make your listeners feel uncomfortable as you preach, but not in the right sense of the term:

1. Give off non-verbal signals of nervousness. Wring your hands, pace uncontrollably, fidget as you preach, breath shallow, avoid eye contact, flit from one ceiling corner to another, etc.  If you convey nerves, they are contagious and soon the whole room will be infected.

2. Appear to be dependent on your notes. If they get the impression that you might lose your place, or somehow get stuck, then they will start watching in the “eyes up” time for when your eyes will go down again.  If you need notes for personal testimony, something isn’t working well.

3. Appear to be uncertain or hesitant. This doesn’t mean you need to rush or preach at 100mph.  But there is a vast difference between a purposeful pause with poise and a hesitant gap that generates anxiety in all present.

4. Apologise for lack of preparation and you are set. This never fails.  If you can give a good apology for your lack of preparation, or for your inability to communicate, or whatever, you’ll have almost guaranteed an uncomfortable experience for your listeners.

5. Expect people to tune in to ineffective description. Describing a narrative scene or an illustration situation is not easy.  A poor description will leave the imagination projection screen blank inside the listeners.  But that is not a disaster, they will usually be tracking conceptually, even if they can’t “see” what you’re saying.  But to make them uncomfortable, verbally express the expectation that they can imagine what you’re describing.  “Can you imagine being there?  What would it have felt like?”  If the description isn’t vivid, then the questions will pressure listeners into an uncomfortable corner.

I’ll finish the list tomorrow.

Share

Illustrations and Interest

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Illustrations are an interesting subject.  Actually, my concern is that often illustrations are seen as the source of interest in a message.  Therefore the best speakers, that is, the most interesting, are those who seem to be a repository of well-researched illustrations.  But here’s my concern – do we rely on illustrations to be interesting?

Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that we are relying on illustrations to be interesting.  What does this imply?  Does it imply that really entering into the text as we preach is boring?  (That is to say, explaining, understanding, encountering, experiencing the text is actually boring?)  Or does it imply that actually we often aren’t really engaging and entering into a text at all?

In some preaching you do get the sense that the text serves as an introduction to the next illustration.  Personally, I don’t believe the text itself is boring and in need of our help to make it interesting.  I do believe that a lot of preaching somehow seeks to explain texts without really entering into them.  The text is offered at arms length as exhibit A, but is not a living and active revelation in which the preaching thereof engages the whole listener in an encounter with God.  (I’m not really arguing for some kind of neo-orthodox “text becoming word” concept here, but I am suggesting that the Bible is written with affective and emotive function in the different biblical genre that requires it to be somehow experienced and well-understood – as opposed to “mentally understood” from a safe distance leaving the heart largely untouched.)

So no illustrations then?  I’m not saying that.  If their main function is to offer interest, then I would suggest revisiting the text some more and discovering something more of its wonder as engaging inspired revelatory literature.  But what if the illustration serves to explain some aspect of the message, or help to validate or “prove” the truth of the text, or assist the listeners in imagining effective application of the text?  By all means, use explanations, or proofs (maybe a better term would be supports or validations), or applications.  Personally I prefer to call them what they are – explanations, or supports, or applications.  If I call them “illustrations” then I might be tempted to fall into the illustration equals interest trap.  For many, that is what illustrations are.  They don’t have to be.  May we convince people of the inherent interest value, and personal value, of the Word of God.  If we fail to do that, what is it we are doing again?

Share

Why Did the Coughs Spread?

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday I shared about the contrast between the attention of the crowd one night and the significant distraction the next night – same venue, same weather, same chairs, different speaker.  Perhaps something here might be helpful to you.  Why were they distracted?

1. It felt like a commentary with added anecdotes. It was like a commentary explanation of a text, but with the added anecdotes of the speaker’s illustrations, and with a little something of his personality.

2. It felt like a written document was being preached. There is a massive difference between spoken speech and written language.  We must learn to write in “spoken” English if we are to be preachers that prepare with literary approaches (which is only one approach).

3. The message moved between the text and third-party illustrations and back again. I felt untouched.  It seems like it should be obvious that preaching should land in the lives of the listeners, which is not the same thing as sharing personal experiences, or saying things in contemporary language.  In fact, when personal experiences seem aloof or “I’m an important person” they really don’t help the connection at all.  Where, specifically, does your next message touch the lives of those present?

4. It was hard to tell if the speaker was passionate about the passage and message or not. Something believed but not really owned will probably be offered in an “at arms length” manner which will leave the listeners holding it “at arms length.”

5. I wondered what would happen if we all left, would the speaker just carry on anyway? It kind of felt like it tonight.  Which leads to a nice closing question.  What if the speaker sensed that we’d all left mentally?  What if you sense that?  Then what?

Share

Simply Good Preaching

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Someone has said that you know it was a good sermon when you find yourself asking how the preacher knew all about you.  That’s a nice sentiment that points to the importance of applicational relevance in preaching.

Now allow me to give you my statement.  This is not a complete statement, or a forever statement.  It’s a today statement.  I heard a great sermon this morning.  (This post was written a couple of weeks back at Keswick, in case you’re wondering!)  So I heard a great sermon.  Here’s my statement, “you know it was a good sermon when twelve hours later you find yourself still pondering the powerful but simple take home truth, reminiscing over the clear images used to drive home the main points, reflecting on how engaged you felt by the message and the messenger, how excited you were, and still are, to look at the text, to pray through all that hit home, to take stock of your life in light of the text, to respond and be transformed by the message.”

That’s my sentiment tonight that points to the importance of so knowing your text that you can take listeners by the hand and enter into it fully, of so thinking through your presentation that you have clear and concise main thoughts, an overwhelming master idea, an engaging manner of delivery, a contagious energy in presentation, a reliance on the Lord to move in peoples’ lives, and a targeted relevance to the listeners before you.

Simple really, pull those things together and you’ll probably preach a decent message!

Share

The Identification Situation

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

One of the secrets of the success of narrative writing and storytelling (whether that is historical narrative, fiction, fantasy, film or whatever) is the power of identification.  When you read, hear or see a story, you naturally find yourself either identifying with or disassociating from characters in the story.  If you are left cold, it is usually a sign that the story isn’t being told well, or you are in some sort of disconnected state.

So, if this is a central function of narratives, then it is a factor to consider in preaching biblical narratives.  Some might try to make a hard and fast rule here, but again I would urge wisdom and consideration of the options.

Identifying with the Central Character. This is the most obvious and typically the most natural.  As we see the faith or failure of Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Ruth, etc., we naturally find ourselves identifying or disassociating.  Actually, I read a reference to a small study recently that suggested preachers are more likely to associate with the hero of the story than non-preachers are.  Interesting.  There is a danger here.  We can easily turn a God-centred biblical narrative into a moralistic tale of “so let’s try hard to be like Benaiah.”  The other danger is that we are theologically informed of the danger and then fail to engage with narratives in the way they naturally function.

Identify with Non-Central Characters. This is where the non-preachers apparently will naturally identify – with the disciples, the fearful soldiers of Saul’s army, the guilty brothers of Joseph, etc.  This changes things from a preaching perspective.  Suddenly the temptation to moralise is diminished somewhat, though not entirely.  The preaching of the narrative is suddenly fresh instead of predictable, for one thing.

Identify with the original recipients. From an applicational perspective, this is probably the best place to start.  Moses wasn’t telling Israel to all try to be like him, but rather to see afresh the heritage of God at work amongst them.  Samuel wanted Israel to celebrate David and the God of his faith, rather than try to generate a new generation of Davids.  While not narrative texts, Paul’s letters all had applicational intent, specifically related to the recipients of each letter (whom we can identify with by the ongoing characteristics of church life and struggle).

Identification is a primary feature of narratives.  Engage with this truth wisely.

Share

And Now For The Next in the Series

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

A little double entendre in the title.  I want to write briefly about sermon series.  But this is also another in the series of posts started yesterday.  In that post I suggested that we shouldn’t be overly dogmatic about whether we project the text or not.  I have my opinions, obviously others have theirs too.  But my point was that this is not the main point (even though we are prone to make any preference into a definitive conviction).  So today I’ll raise the subject of series, and again I’ll suggest that there are different perspectives, and perhaps again we’ll hear some readers share their reasoned positions.

Should we always preach through Bible books, or sections of books?  Some would say absolutely yes.  God gave us sixty-six books, He did not inspire a thematic table of contents.  A balanced diet will best be found by sequential exposition that therefore does not and cannot shirk the tough subjects, tricky texts and the whole scope of the canon.  The “whole counsel” is a term often coined in these discussions.  It does diminish the time wasting that can go on in selecting sermon texts, or the personal hobby horses that regularly gallop through some pulpits.

But others would critique this approach for a variety of reasons.  Some would suggest that while “all Scripture is God-breathed and useful” – not all Scripture is equally useful to all listeners all of the time.  At a certain level we would probably all agree with that (you would be disappointed to take a friend to an evangelistic event and have the preaching text announced as Nehemiah 7).  Some would suggest that varying the preaching text allows for a broader scope of biblical exposure than being tied into a very long series through a book.  Others might point out that it is perfectly possible to preach expository sermons without being tied into consecutive passage selection (which must not become a defining feature of “expository” preaching).

Perhaps, again, there is a place for balance.  Perhaps sequential series are a good staple diet, but recognizing some of the dangers of overzealous commitment to the practice (i.e. you might not be able to pull off a decade long series like your hero did in a different time and culture, and your listeners might actually get bored and lose interest!)  Perhaps there is a place for series of non-sequential but related texts that allow an important theme to be reinforced repeatedly.  Perhaps there is a place for stand-alone, non-series messages, pastoral or “prophetic” responses to specific situations or crises.

Where do I stand? I’m a gentle proponent of consecutive series through books or sections, but not exclusively.  I suppose I’m probably in favour of the perhapses of the last paragraph.  Again, instead of becoming overly dogmatic in our commitment to one “methodology,” perhaps we should make sure we keep the more important issues more central – like how we handle whatever text we preach, how we look to and lean on the Lord as we serve in the privilege of preaching His word, how we care for the people to whom we preach, how we make sure our preaching is theocentric and the gospel is clearly presented, etc.

Share

Job Description?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I recently enjoyed reading The Trellis and the Vine by Colin Marshall and Tony Payne.  In the book they suggest that the role of the pastor has shifted from religious service provider to CEO in many churches.  But they also suggest there needs to be a further shift, to trainer (i.e. multiplier of disciple making disciples).  I agree with this perspective and want to make a similar suggestion in terms of the role of the preacher.

What was the role of the preacher in the past? Perhaps the preacher’s role was that of local community leader, or spiritual director of the congregation, or Bible/theology expert.  It all depends on the situation or context.  There may be some scope for considering what we’ve lost: for example, have we abdicated our role in society, or have we been kicked out?  Or have we left behind the days of the “divines” in favour of the days of the networked and busy?  But this post wants to push us to think of the future.

What is the role of the preacher in the present? Again this depends on the church.  In some churches the preacher is a visionary leader directing the church community via the weekly team talk.  In other churches the preacher is an entertainer needed to provide some semblance of content in the weekly gathering.  In other churches the preacher is an overworked slave expected to do the work of the ministry while every other minister and priest in the church is satisfied to pay the preacher’s salary.  In other churches the preacher’s role is to present and apply the Word of God with sensitivity to God, the people, and the times.  I don’t want to suggest all is bad today, it certainly isn’t.

What could the role of the preacher become? The preacher’s task as expositor of God’s Word should not change, although the manner, style, etc., will change.  I wonder, though, if there is a shift in the role of the preacher to include a more overtly training mentality – the preacher as spirituality coach, the preacher as Bible study tutor, the preacher as ministry and missions mobiliser, the preacher as mentor of preachers.  All of these have been done and are being done.  But what about in your church?  Where has the ministry arrived at today, where could it go in the months ahead?

Share

Should Bible Text Be Projected?

/ Peter Mead / 6 Comments

This is the kind of question that can easily become a strongly held conviction.  But should it?

Well, people do benefit from seeing the text, and seeing it in the same translation as the speaker, and without the hassles, distraction, or potential embarressment of having to look it up in their own Bible, which of course, they may not have.

On the other hand, people who don’t need to bring their Bibles to church, won’t bring their Bibles to church, and won’t develop the ability to look up references, nor to see passages in their contexts – instead getting used to the idea that verses stand alone in picturesque vacuums.

Some will offer a compromise.  The main text will not be projected, but the cross-references will be projected so folks can keep their finger on the main preaching text and not get caught up or discouraged in a melee of sword drills throughout the message (which, as a passing comment, I would suggest is not that helpful most of the time, even if folks can keep up).

So what to do?  My suggestion is to be a bit situational.  What kind of church is it?  What kind of service?  In an evangelistic service perhaps it is worth it to avoid any embarressment or discomfort, but in a Bible study for believers surely they would benefit from having a finger on the text in its context?  What kind of sermon?  Perhaps a special event is not conducive to people carrying Bibles.

Some have a tendency to make every matter one of strong conviction.  This tends to dilute the effectiveness of such convictions.  Don’t allow the deity of Christ, the relationality of our Triune God, the inspired nature and centrality of Scripture, the exclusivity of faith (not faith-plus), the importance of an expository philosophical commitment in preaching, etc. . . . don’t allow important convictions like these to get lost in a sea of passionate commitments to which version of the Bible people should use, or what people should wear to church, or to preach, or whether the south Galatia view trumps the north Galatia view, or whether believers should drink alcohol, or how long a sermon should last, or whether the Bible text should or shouldn’t be projected.

As preachers, even as believers, we have to form opinions about many things.  But let’s reserve the passion of convictions for that which really counts.  Should Bible texts be projected?  Maybe.  Sometimes.

Share

A Reader, A Wise Reader

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Preachers need to be, as well as many other things, readers.  But unless you are single and financially set for life, you probably don’t have as much time as you’d like for reading.  Join the club.  So this post includes some thoughts, then perhaps you can share your suggestions and experiences too.

1. Reading book reviews can offer a varied input without massive time. I find it helpful to scan through and read some of the reviews in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, as well as a couple of other journals.  There are many sources of book reviews, both academic and popular level, for Christian and wider reading.

2. Break the buyers obligation mindset. So many people I know feel trapped by an unwritten rule that states if you buy a book you must read cover to cover, including preface and foreword, before moving on to another book.  Loose yourself from such a yoke of slavery!  If you pay ten dollars, pounds, yen or whatever for a book, and one chapter is all that you really need to read, then you paid ten dollars/pounds/yen for that chapter (the other chapters were a free gift from the publisher for you to keep on your shelves or give to someone else!)

3. Read wisely, which isn’t just word by word. Preview a chapter before you read it, scan the pages, check out the conclusion, survey the headings, etc.  Read for learning rather than simply achieving the page goal.

4. Be ready to read in snippets. You have five minutes to wait before your ride arrives at the mechanic’s place to pick you up . . . so you read two pages (and when they are a few minutes later, you’ve read more!)  You think you’ll have no time to wait when you pick up the car, but without a book the opportunity is wasted when they take an extra thirty minutes to be finished (does this sound like something that just happened to me?)

5. Perhaps a balanced diet approach might help. I heard of one minister who had a daily regimen of reading for two hours.  Thirty minutes of Bible.  Thirty minutes of a christian book.  Thirty minutes of a non-Christian book.  Thirty minutes of a cricket book.  Diligent habits like that result in a lot of knowledge of cricket, or Bible, or whatever you care about.  Maybe that’s why I know almost nothing about cricket.  Actually, I know about the things I care about, because I make time for them.  Which is my point.

What do you do to help you be a reader, a wise reader?