How to . . . ?

Non Solo Sermon Ministry

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

At the BibleFresh conference on preaching – here’s the online magazine – we discussed various aspects of preaching and how it can be refreshed in the UK.  Over the next few days I’ll share a few of the thoughts coming out of that event.

Traditionally the sermon was considered by some to be the full extent of ministry, or at least the primary avenue of ministry.  Today preachers are realizing more and more that the sermon is part of a larger package of ministry.  So this makes me think of several ministry partners for the sermon:

1. Other sermons in your church. This isn’t cutting edge thinking to many of us, but some still don’t see the value of preaching in series and allowing a combination of messages over time to reinforce the message and impact.

2. Other ministries in your church. In recent years many churches have moved to having home groups instead of another midweek sermon.  In many cases churches have tried to connect midweek content to Sunday’s sermon.  Some continue this practice, others have found it to be more difficult than expected (in part because preachers didn’t preach with homegroup on their horizon, and in part because leading a homegroup takes a significant amount of skill which often is not trained in a church).  But whatever your church is doing with “curriculum” for homegroups or other gatherings in the church, how can we as preachers think through how our sermons might actually be reinforcing and motivating what is happening in other ministries of the church.  Too easily the sermon falls into an educative model in which it is the main avenue of information transfer, when actually it might better serve the church in respect to encouragement, motivation, challenge, conviction, vision casting, etc.  It is worth pondering the interface between our preaching and the other ministries of the church.

3. Other ministries outside your church. It was mentioned that some preachers struggle with a sense that they cannot compete with the big event festivals people are attending.  Again, if a significant proportion of the church go away for a Christian event or festival, would it be possible to take advantage of that rather than being intimidated?  Could the church think through pre- and post- event preaching that reinforces the often life-changing crises that take place in these settings?

It is always much easier to just preach a single stand alone sermon, but what might help synergize the ministries of the church and beyond?  Worth pondering, even if there are differences in every situation.

Preparing in Silence?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

“A lot of preachers are introverts because they need to be able to prepare on their own for hours.”  “Preaching is an oral event, yet the preparation of outlining and manuscripting is all pursued using written language skills.”  “Silence is the soil in which sermons sprout.”

All statements with some truth to them.  But also all statements that indicate a subtle tension between preparation and delivery of a spoken sermon.  A lot of preachers are introverts, perhaps for the reason stated.  So much of our preaching training is essentially an adaptation of skills for producing written work.  And there is a definite place for silence in the context of walking with Christ – as essential if preaching is truly a “God-event.”

So this post is not about turning all preparation upside down and advocating sermon preparation with loud music on, or in the midst of conversation.  (Actually there are preachers that find it helpful to do the message formation phase of their preparation in a public place – like Starbucks – in order to be able to better think through who they will be speaking to . . . a thought to ponder, perhaps.)

A couple of suggestions, though, in light of the oral nature of preaching:

1. Don’t just pray then prepare, but pray during out loud preparation. That is, don’t just pray and then work on the sermon.  Try praying as you prepare.  Talk through your thinking out loud, in conversation with the Lord.  Say your thoughts out loud, and also talk about what you are saying.  Why not?  It might help your thoughts to form in coherent oral form, it might help your prayer to be more than introductory, it might help you notice when your mind has drifted away from the task at hand for the last twenty minutes!

2. Don’t always write, then talk, but invert the process. We are trained to pray, then read, then write, then talk.  Why in that order?  Why not keep the prayer going throughout, but instead read, then talk, then write?  Often a written sermon won’t deliver well, but a well-delivered sermon can always be written in some form or other.  Talking through the message earlier in the week will almost certainly help you know where you are in the process far more than looking at your notes will!

Preaching is a spoken event.  Perhaps we need to prepare appropriately.

Shaded Differences Not Poles Apart

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The Bible often distinguishes humanity in stark alternatives.  There are those being saved and those perishing.  There are those who trust God and those who don’t.  There is love and hate.  Heaven and hell.  Faith and fear.  The righteous and the wicked.  The wise and the foolish.  Often the stark alternatives provide for very strong opportunities to preach the Word boldly and with great clarity.

Nevertheless, there are also many times where what we intend and what is heard can be close, but still be across the divide.  How easily we preach for relationship and are heard to be preaching for religion.  Thinking in the terms Tim Keller uses for Luke 15 – we can easily slip into trying to turn the irreligious younger son into the religious older son, but God reaches out to both the rebel and religious in order to draw them into relationship.  Sons, not servants.  If we are not very careful, we can preach for relationship and be heard as preaching religion.  This is heavily influenced by the religious tendency of humanity in the flesh, but that is no excuse since we have to preach to those who are listening and can’t just blame them if they miss our point.

I was thinking about a vision for the local church for a presentation this week. I was struck by how easily we settle for a line drawing, a sketched representation of the reality, rather than the full multi-coloured vivid 3-D reality of God’s wisdom demonstrated in the church.  There may be some extremely dead churches, but for many the difference between vibrantly alive and slightly hollow is marginal, little shaded differences, in some areas and not others, in some people and less so in others.

We like to think in black and white terms, in one extreme or the other.  Since we’re not completely dead, we must therefore be completely alive.  It’s easier that way.  But as preachers we need to help people not settle for a mere representation of life to the full, of the delight of being fully alive in Christ, sharing in the communion of the Godhead, participating fully in all that God has for us.

Let’s preach the texts that offer strong polarities and not hold back.  Let’s also recognize that often the difference between reality and mere representation is marginal – so our preaching needs to sensitively engage and encourage in the midst of the shaded differences.

You Can’t Cover Everything

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

People appreciate expository preaching if it is done well.  People tend not to prefer the taste of exhaustive preaching.  The preacher is always tempted to try to cover every angle on every detail in the text.  After all, you’ve probably put hours of work into prayerful study and research, much of which has proved to be interesting and helpful to you.  But when it comes time to preach, selectivity is required.

Here is where the Big Idea becomes such a big deal.  Having the sharp focus of a main idea that reflects accurately and relevantly the main idea of the passage allows you to determine how to be selective.  An avenue of detail, or an anecdote of background information, or a cross-reference, or an illustration, or a side-point, or a personal soapbox, or whatever . . . if it doesn’t fully support that main idea, then it is immediately under scrutiny and should probably be chopped.

Selectivity has to take place before preaching.  Preparing to preach is not just about studying the passage.  Effort is required in preparing the message too.  Going into the preaching event stuffed full of information and selecting as you deliver tends to be as effective as planning your conclusion when you arrive at the end of your preaching time.

As Haddon Robinson has put it, “preaching can be like delivering a baby, or like delivering a missile.  In one your goal is to hit the target, in the other, your goal is to just get it out.”  It is in the “baby delivering” sermons that listeners tend to confuse expository preaching with exhaustive, exhausting, rapid-fire or overwhelming preaching.

Selectivity is probably one of the hardest skills and disciplines in preaching to master, but one of the most important.

Here’s a post from the early days . . . just for old time’s sake!

Points in a Narrative Text Sermon

/ Peter Mead / 14 Comments

There is a field of homiletics referred to as narrative preaching, but this post is concerned with the preaching of a narrative passage – eg. David and Goliath, Joseph in Potiphar’s House, Hannah & Samuel, etc.

In other posts I have encouraged the use of full sentence points, rather than descriptive titles that make the message outline look like a commentary synopsis.  The full thoughts help you communicate effectively, generally avoiding historical past tense sentences helps you not sound like a commentary recycler.  But it is worth clarifying a couple of points on points:

1. If the message structure reflects the story structure, then some points may be better stated in historical terms. What I mean is that in an attempt to be contemporary, we can end up making three or four life principles out of the developing elements of the story, rather than allowing the story to be told properly.  The problem then becomes a moralizing approach to the details of a story, rather than allowing the force of the story to stand behind the main point, which itself might best be the only focus of application.  Stories that are told effectively will hold attention, so it is not necessary to generate points of relevance or application throughout the detail of the story.  Pay careful attention to the introduction, generating a definite sense of sermon relevance there, then feel free to be in the world of the narrative for a large part of the message, continually building to the relevance that may only become overt in point 3 or 4 (i.e. whenever the main idea is revealed with its abiding theological thrust).

2. Shorter biblical stories may work best with a default sermon outline. Namely, point 1 is to tell the story.  Point 2 is to state and clarify the main idea of that story.  Point 3 is to reinforce and drive home the application of that main idea.  In this case point 1 is automatically historical.  Point 2 should be written in contemporary terms.  Point 3 has to be contemporary, including all sub-points.  Again the introduction is important, but I suspect that will be the case in almost every sermon that we preach (whether we give it the necessary attention or not).  This approach underlines the fact that the outline of a sermon is for your eyes only.  Once we realize our goal is not to transfer an outline, but to give the text in such a way as to clarify the main point and apply it, then we are freed from the burden of turning every narrative into a parallel rhyming assonated demonstration of guilded wordsmithery.

Managing Message Momentum

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Even the best message preparation often overlooks the critical issue of momentum.  So messages will often follow one of these patterns:

1. “U” … Start with a bang – drag on through the bulk – pick up for a strong finish.

2. “/” … Start slow – gradually increase in energy and get going.

3. “\” … Start strong – lose dynamic after the introduction, or first point, and drag to the end.

Each of these patterns will undermine the effectiveness of the preaching event.  Equally, while some preachers seem content to flatline “_” (i.e. never generate energy or momentum), it is not usually possible for listeners to cope with the opposite (i.e. constant high energy and fast pace).

If you have felt like your preaching tends toward one of these patterns, or if others have hinted at it.  What can you do?

1. Try to work out where the momentum was missing. Was it an unclear transition?  Was it a sequence of explanatory points?  Was it at the point you lost confidence in your content?  Was it just through a lethargic unplanned introduction?  Was it at a difficult juncture in the text?  If you can figure out where momentum was missing in previous messages, this will help you identify where the same could happen in future messages.

2. Listen to yourself practice. Sometimes you can get the sense of momentum struggles in a run through of the message, but not always.  It may be worth recording a run through and listening to it . . . but obviously that requires you to be on top of your preparation.

3. Evaluate the sermon map. Most of us tend to use an outline rather than an actual sermon map, but we can still evaluate it as a map.  As well as evaluating it for location of illustrations (the normal approach, which actually can generate predictability as people see every illustration coming), also look for points of relevance, and consider the terrain . . . will this bit be hard to traverse for the listener?  Marking your outline may allow you to energise a potentially monotonous section with illustration, review & preview, interlude, or even by overviewing rather than detailing a segment.

4. Weigh the sermon on the scales. Many of us tend toward simply making too many points, giving too much explanation, trying to give too much and the sermon is simply too heavy.  What would be lost if you chose to lighten the content slightly and create some breathing space?  If the main point of the text is not lost, then are we choosing to keep content because we want to demonstrate our insight, our study, our knowledge?

Energy, pace, vocal variation, movement, progress, laughter, relevance . . . the complex factors of message momentum.

Helping People Trust Their Bibles – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

I recently wrote a post relating to textual criticism – please click here to see it. Shrode commented and asked for an example of how I might address the issue of a missing verse while preaching on the passage. Relatively simple, gracious and trust-building was the request. Here’s my attempt (okay, so length may be slightly longer than I’d prefer for a post, but there is content that may not be necessary in the last two paragraphs – and it takes 2.5 minutes more or less):

If you look carefully you’ll notice that verse 4 is missing in this chapter.  Uh oh!  Looks like our Bibles have a problem!?  Actually, no, I would suggest this is a good thing.  We don’t tend to think about them, but there are a whole lot of archeologists and scholars who are constantly at work trying to make sure we have the most accurate and trustworthy Bibles possible.  Let me put it to you this way – we don’t have the original letters that Paul wrote, or the original gospels, or the original books of Moses, etc.

That sounds like a problem, but actually, they were probably destroyed precisely to avoid a problem.  You see, over time, manuscripts would fade and curl at the edges and get worn out.  But if perfect copies were made, why keep a fading original?  Well, over time imperfections crept into the copies of copies of copies.  Over the past centuries archeologists have continued to find more and more manuscripts and biblical quotes in manuscripts.  Gradually they are finding more and more of those copies of copies.  This means that experts can then weigh the evidence to work out what the original actually said.  So when you see a verse number (here verse 4), but no text, this means that evidence has proved that the text in older translations was very likely added later on, rather than being original.

Just in case you are thinking that this really undermines our Bibles, after all, can we trust these people . . . what if they have an agenda?  Actually, I’d point out that as well as some who are very evangelical and conservative Bible believing Christians, there are also many who have no specific belief in the God of the Bible, and some who perhaps are anti the God of the Bible.  Yet despite these differences there is a good concensus that the original text our modern translations are translated from is actually very, very, accurate.  Any discrepancies in the manuscript evidence now only add up to less then 2% of the text, and none of those texts change any of the main teachings of the Bible.  Should it be “Jesus Christ” or “Lord Jesus Christ” . . . that probably doesn’t change much in the book of Acts, for example.

Oh, and one last thing, some people will try to tell you that the Bible has been translated hundreds, or thousands of times . . . like a giant historical chain of chinese whispers [only refer to this if people use that label for the game].  The truth is that actually your modern English Bible has been translated only once, direct from the best original text ever available in the history of Bible translation.  Verse 4 is missing, and rightly so, it shouldn’t have been added in the first place.  We can really and truly trust our English Bibles.  I’d be happy to chat more about this issue if you are concerned.

Now, back to the passage…

How To Not Preach Like a Commentary

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

It’s easy to preach like a commentary.  Either you lift content out of a commentary and preach it, or you write your message like you were writing a commentary.  It leads to a set of headings superimposed on the text, and sometimes superimposed on a projector screen too.  The Problem of Prayer, The Power of Prayer, The Perspecuity of Prayer.  Or perhaps, Saul’s Condition, Saul’s Conversion, Saul’s Conviction.

This kind of outlining might suggest that the preacher thinks the greatest goal in preaching is to offer a set of memory aids to help the listener hang their thoughts in a biblical passage.  It suggests that historical and biblical information is the key ingredient for life transformation.  It suggests a lack of awareness of the possibilities for more pastoral care in and through preaching.

A couple of suggestions:

1. Try changing your view of “points” from titles to full sentences. A full sentence requires a verb and will more actively engage the listener than a title can.

2. Try writing your sentences in contemporary rather than historical terms. Whenever possible it is worth taking the opportunity to speak with relevance to the listeners.  This can be done at the end, of course, but also in the introduction, in every transition, within each point, and also within the phrasing of each point.  Make the point applicational and then support that from the text.

3. Don’t pour your energy into creating a memorable outline, but into effectively conveying the message of the text. When alliteration and parallelism falls into your lap, great, consider using them.  But actually our energies will often be better invested in thinking through how to reconvey the already powerful message of the text, rather than trying to help people remember an outline.  Lives are changed by the text, by the main idea, by the application of the passage, by connecting with God and with the speaker.  Lives are not changed by outlines.

Monological Q and A – part 3

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

All that I’ve written in the last two posts rests on a critical foundation.  In order to preach so that listeners feel engaged and involved, even though they may sit in silence, the preacher has to know the listeners as well as possible.

Relational pastoring requires the preacher to know the people listening.  In your own church you have weeks, months and years to gradually learn about those that listen when you preach.  Yet it is so easy to neglect the relationships because of a commitment to study, or as a protective policy to prevent vulnerability on your part.

As a visiting speaker you may only have twenty minutes before the meeting, and during the singing, to observe and learn all you can about the people to whom you will be speaking.  As limited as it may be, this time is priceless for learning about listeners.  Learn to observe.  Learn to ask questions.

As a visitor, or as an in-house speaker, it is vital to remember the importance of knowing the worlds of your listeners, as well as the world of the biblical text.  A weakness on either side of the chasm will weaken the bridge you build between the two.

Monological Q and A – part 2

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday I offered three thoughts on how to make a message that engages the listener.  Even though you are doing all the talking, they don’t feel like observers at a presentation, but participants in a half quiet conversation.  They feel like you’re talking to them, like they are involved as the message progresses.  Relevant preaching, rhetorical questions and related to life outlining of the message were yesterday’s points, here are three more (and why not push the alliteration since I tend not to do so when preaching!)

4. Room to breathe – It’s so easy to rattle through a message that is clear and defined in our notes, but comes across as an unbroken stream to the listener.  Good use of pauses, and even illustrations, can give room to breathe and re-engage.

5. Really clear structure and transitions – The more people know what’s going on, the more they can engage with it.  If they’re trying to figure out what you’re trying to do, or where you are going, the less they are involved and actually listening.  Good clear structuring and transitions will help the listener to participate in the actual content and journey of the message.

6. Resistance to cruise controlled sermon pace – Pace is so critical.  Again, your notes may be clearly structured, but the listener is at your mercy to get a sense of order and progress.  Many now like to short-circuit this by projecting their outline.  Don’t do that, instead learn to make your message really clear.  Structure and transitions matter.  So too does pace.  No interesting journey progresses at a constant pace – either fast or slow.  Variation of pace will help listeners engage.

Any more that you would add?