How to . . . ?

The Other Side of the Gap

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

John Stott presented the notion of a preacher being a bridge builder. That is, in the act of preaching, the preacher is seeking to build a bridge between the world of the Bible and the world of the listeners. A good expository sermon has to be solidly earthed in the biblical text, and it must touch down definitely in the world of the listeners.

For effective communication to take place, we have to know as much as possible about those with whom we communicate.  But the preacher is not a politician or a salesperson or whatever else.  The preacher is shepherding, and thus we should not just know the listeners, we need to love them.  So as prompt in that direction, here are some quick fire points to ponder:

1. We love, because God first loved us. Loving others is really a response to the love of God for us.  As we love Him, our hearts will begin to beat in time with His and consequently we will increase in love for those that He loves.

2. Coldness toward others is an indicator of something more. We can’t claim to love God, but not love our brother.  Allow any perceived coldness toward others to prompt prayer and sensitivity to God.  Take coldness seriously, God does.

3. We are able to connect with listeners because we also live life in this world. Be sensitive to the struggles you experience and recognize that others face the same types of struggles (and more).  Being impervious to the challenges of life doesn’t make you a great leader, it makes you a distant leader.

4. We need to know our listeners. Some preachers are passionate students of the Word of God, but indifferent students of the people of God, or the people God desires to reach.

5. To know people, listen carefully. Yes, we should be observing what is going on, but there’s something about listening.  Most people don’t so much want to be seen, but they long to be heard.

6. Sharing life experience helps massively. Don’t be distant from people.  Have them in your home.  Visit them in theirs.  If appropriate visit them at work, share sport, share celebrations, share sorrow, share life.

7. Pray for the listeners. It’s easy to pray a “God please bless all the listeners on Sunday” kind of prayer.  Surely the preacher who loves the listener will take the time and make the effort to pray for the listeners.

This list is incomplete, so please add to it by commenting below.

Slow Cooked Sermons

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Most preachers develop of preparation cycle and rhythm.  Perhaps it takes five days from start to finish (maybe with an extended period for collecting any interesting tidbits from the point the series are planned).  Perhaps you have an eight or ten-day cycle.  Perhaps you only preach periodically and so take two or three weeks to study the text and shape the message.

Consider having a slow cooker bubbling on your desk.  You could take that literally, but I mean metaphorically.  Select a series or a sermon that is several months away, set apart 15-30 minutes a day and work through the text nice and slowly.  It allows you to take your time with original language work, whatever level of ability you have.  It allows you time to peruse, ponder and pause over the commentaries.  It allows you to gradually formulate main ideas of sections, outlines of messages, etc.  It allows you to make notes of specific support material.

All the things you may have to rush through in a normal preparation cycle, you can do well with this approach.  What’s more, that slow cooked sermon and the textual study that underlies it may be more of a feast for your soul than some of the study and sermons you do at your normal pace in the meantime!

My messages are seven months away.  The cooker is on (and I get to enjoy learning Logos 4 at the same time!)

Fresh Preaching

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I just stumbled across a quote that brought a wry smile.  I don’t agree with it fully, but it is worth considering.  The chapter is written by Carl George, although he doesn’t cite the source for the quote he includes:

“Almost all ministers are well educated theologically.  Most seminary graduates have more to teach than anybody wants to learn.  If we spend any time at all preparing for a given sermon, we will meet the needs of the listeners.  As Dan Baumann, author of a widely used preaching textbook, says, ‘Anyone who simply sets forth the text and gives its meaning distinctly will be accused of freshness.'”

Now I don’t want to make too much of the “almost all ministers are well educated theologically” statement.  To do so would mean pointing out that this is probably a uniquely North American phenomenon.  I might be tempted to point to the largest denomination in one African country I heard about, in which only four pastors have any college level education, and none of whom have any seminary training.

I agree that most seminary graduates have more to teach than anybody wants to learn.  But what about “If we spend any time at all preparing for a given sermon, we will meet the needs of the listeners.” Surely that should be “perceived needs” of the listeners?

And then there’s that final sentence.  “Anyone who simply sets forth the text and gives its meaning distinctly will be accused of freshness.”

How true.  How sad.

Serve a Meal to the Guests

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

What if preaching were like hospitality – what would your guests experience?

Arriving at the door, slightly tentative about what may follow, they are rushed in and quickly seated.  No time for friendly interaction, there’s a meal to be eaten!  Before them the table is empty, but is continually filled as numerous covered serving dishes, pots and plates continually emerge from the kitchen.  In your zeal to feed them (and to show them everything you’ve done in preparation), you quickly uncover the first dish and serve a spoonful of carefully prepared french beans (the best result of your culinary efforts).  Then as they take their first taste of this fine cuisine you clear their plate, uncover another dish and serve some burned peas, swipe them off the plate and dish out an undercooked steak.  This continues with vegetables in various states of readiness, and an assortment of meats from a variety of animals (some familiar, some more exotic).  To break the intensity you also serve a big scoop of ice cream, before moving back to the main course again.  Your guests look bewildered at the experience, barely managing a bite before receiving more food and the odd sniff of a dessert.  Finally after forty minutes you pull away their plate and extend your hand for a firm handshake.  They smile cautiously and thank you for all your hard work before filing out of the front door.

I hope this wouldn’t be the case!  How much better to be welcomed and made comfortable?  How much more satisfying to enjoy the finest meal you could prepare and nothing more?  How much more comfortable to not have to experience every culinary idea you had and every cuisine cul-de-sac you entered in the last week as you planned and prepared the meal?  How much better to savour the meat chosen, rather than having a whistle-stop tour of all your favourite meats in your meat guide (concordance)?  How enjoyable to enjoy the side dishes and vegetables chosen to compliment the main meat of the meal?  How much better to partake of dessert when it is appropriate, rather than as a forced interlude in a manic meal?  How nice to have time to chew on the good food received?  How much better to receive a carefully prepared meal than an overwhelming force-fed food dump?  How nice to not have to come up with something polite to say at the door!

It can be a real blessing to be a guest for dinner.  It can be even better to be fed from the pulpit!

(Feel free to interpret this post in the comments, perhaps someone else missed what you observed!)

The Theology Bridge

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

When we think through the expositional process, we are really concerned about three stages.  The first stage is understanding the text (exegetical).  The final stage is producing the sermon (homiletical).  The link between the two is the bridge in John Stott’s metaphor (in Between Two Worlds).  The bridge is the theological abstraction process.  In Haddon Robinson’s book you’ll find reference to the exegetical idea, the theological idea and the homiletical idea.  You could equally refer to the “at that time” – “timeless” – “at this time” progression of the stages.  This basic concept is important to grasp.  In order to accurately preach the message a passage today, we have to first consider the timeless theological abstraction of the main idea.  Here are a couple of questions to consider as you move from the exegetical to the theological stages of the process:

1. What does this passage say about God? Whether God is mentioned directly or not, every passage should be considered and preached theocentrically.  The Bible is God’s self-revelation, and since He doesn’t change, the timeless truth of a passage will relate to God in some respect.  This does not mean that the passage is stripped of human interest, but that God is recognized as the key character, whether or not He is mentioned in those specific verses.

2. What does this passage say about humanity in relation to God? Throughout the Bible we see humanity interacting with God.  Some respond with faith, others with self-trust.  Some love Him, some hate Him.  Bryan Chappell refers to the Fallen Condition Focus that can be observed in each text.  In respect to a fallen humanity’s response to God, contemporary listeners will always have a point of connection.

3. Where does the teaching of the passage fit in the flow of progressive revelation? It is always worth thinking through where the passage sits chronologically and progressively in God’s plan of self-revelation.  Technically I suppose that asking this question in the exegetical stage of the process might lead to presenting the meaning of a text in a way that the original readers could not have understood it.  Nevertheless, contemporary readers have to understand a passage in light of the whole canon.  Whether the broader understanding needs to be emphasized will depend on the particular passage and audience.

We study the text to understand what the author meant at that time (exegetical idea).  We abstract the timeless theological truth of that idea (theological idea).  Then we shape our presentation of that idea for our particular listeners at this time (homiletical idea).

Final Preaching Lessons from a Low Budget Film

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I’ve stretched out the lessons I noted from watching a low budget film to three posts.  We’ve considered the importance of speech, the challenge of natural speech in unnatural circumstances (like preaching), the need for less important lines, and the importance of historical/cultural details in the telling of an historic story.  Two more lessons for us, one potentially overwhelming and one hopefully very encouraging!

5. The je ne sais quoi of engaging the audience. What makes the listener or viewer sit forward? What makes them sit back and ponder their blog? What makes a story riveting? What makes it pass you by without leaving much of a mark?  A good film captures your attention, engages your mind and heart, and makes a mark.  A poor film doesn’t.  It sits on the screen and generally remains at arms length.  Yet the difference between the two is often hard to define.  It’s the same with preaching.  It’s something about timing, and energy, and word choices, and details, and movement, and effective transitions.  It’s something about creating identification with what is presented, about the people being believable, about the story stirring the heart.  It’s as if you can get most details right, but one or two out of sync and the listener feels disengaged.  It’s hard to pin down, but on the positive side, it surely keeps us from resting on our laurels.  Surely it urges us to continue pursuing helpful feedback and to strengthen our preaching so that listeners might engage more fully.  Surely it urges us to pray more fervently and recognize that as preachers we cannot generate something in others that it may be God’s business to generate.

But that is discouraging.  Not being able to pin down a complete recipe for preaching.  Surely we’re all doomed?  None of us can get every element right all the time.  One final lesson:

6. There is good news – listeners know and engage anyway. I watched the film gladly, not negatively.  I knew the background story.  I knew why the film was low budget and I knew how little background the actors had.  So while I was not riveting as I might be by some higher budget films, I did choose to engage with the film, follow the plot, get the point, and I did appreciate it.  We need to remember that listeners are not film critics (even though some may give the impression of never being satisfied by anything served up on Sunday morning!)  Most listeners want their preacher to do well.  I have often taught preaching classes where students had to preach in English, even though it isn’t their first language.  I always try (probably unsuccessfully) to convince them that actually they have an advantage over mother-tongue English speakers: namely, the listeners respect the effort it takes and will listen more carefully and will want them to succeed even more!  If, like me, you are not a perfect preacher, thank God that most listeners know that and choose to engage with our sermons anyway!

More Preaching Lessons from a Low Budget Film

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I posted a couple of observations made while watching a low budget film this Christmas.  Observations that demonstrate I was thinking about this blog while watching a film (which probably gives you opportunity to make an observation about me…)

While recognizing the difference between preaching and acting, I noted how actual speech is critical and how it is hard to be natural in an unnatural environment.  I’d like to add another speech related lesson, then point out a couple of other lessons that stood out to me.

3. Don’t try to make every line a humdinger. In a good film every word counts, but not every word is presented as if it is meant to count.  The film I watched seemed to try and make every line a memorable quote (but in effect became a bit tiresome rather than effective).  It might be a rare disease, but there are a few preachers who try to make every line count, even when they don’t.  Probably the more common problem is to waffle and say nothing of substance, but some do seem to say a lot of sentences as if they expect you to write them down and ponder deeply.  Perhaps you recognize this by the pregnant pause, the verbal selah, the look on the face, the rhythm and intonation.  But every line cannot be a humdinger, a home run, a knockout blow, a profound wisdom saying.

4. Historical and cultural details matter. Now to be fair, the film I watched did very well at this.  The history had been researched, the costumes and props were realistic, there was no helicopter flying in the background of a historical scene.  But there were a couple of tiny details.  Small ones, insignificant ones, but distracting ones once noticed.  And while the history was well researched, the accents weren’t.  Historical and cultural details can be a significant distraction to the “audience” both in a film, and in a sermon.

Actually, I’ll save the other two lessons for tomorrow.

Preaching Lessons From Low Budget Film

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Christmas season is good for eating too much chocolate, enjoying family time and watching the odd movie.  We watched an odd movie this year – it was a very low budget film produced by folks with little experience of making movies.  Actually it was impressive for who produced it, but it struck me that there are lessons to be learned from a low budget film.

In the next couple of days I’d like to share some lessons that stood out to me as I was watching the film, obviously recognizing that a film is a different thing to a sermon . . .

1. Actual speech is critical. Special effects, beautiful scenery, stunning vistas, impressive wardrobe and even decent plot do not make a movie work if the speech is lacking in some way.  The same is true of preaching – the best visual presentation, impressive powerpoint slides, stunning wardrobe and even a good sermon won’t really work if the actual speech feels wrong.

2. It’s hard to be natural in an unnatural environment. I know acting is acting and preaching isn’t acting.  However, both are unnatural environments.  The actor is dressed up as someone else, at another time, in a strange place pretending to be another place.  Unnatural.  The preacher is being stared at by a crowd of listeners who usually don’t talk back, with someone controlling the volume of the speakers, a microphone in front, etc.  Unnatural.  Perhaps the biggest challenge in these situations is to come across naturally.  Only when watching a low budget film do you realize how good the normal Hollywood crowd are.  Same with preachers.  Some command attention, others create a cringe.  I think natural presentation is critical, but it takes work, it takes prayer, and in some respects it may take what only God can give.

Tomorrow I’d like to share a couple more preaching lessons from this low budget film.

Vision Month is Coming

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Vision is a difficult thing to pin down. It’s a mental and heart picture of what could be and what should be, it’s the energizing motivation that moves people to pour energy into a project, into a church, into a life.

January is vision month. Everyone is at it. People start going to the gym, a vague plan based on a vague awareness that they should be looking after themselves more for some reason. The vague vision is probably part of why people attend only vaguely once February arrives. People make New Year’s resolutions, again based on some vague awareness of what should be, or what shouldn’t be in their lives.

Why do people come to church? Is it the habit of a lifetime and that habit happens to bring them to the same church as you? Is it a vague awareness of what should be, and so they vaguely attend the church you attend? Or is there a crystal clear vision that energizes, mobilizes and invigorates? I suppose there are three types of churches that come to mind:

1. The “Yes we have a vision, but I’m not sure exactly how to define it” church – This is the church that has some statement somewhere, perhaps something relating to the three functions of the church, or something vaguely connected to the Great Commandment and the Great Commission. But if it is undefined (or impossible to remember), what value does it have? If we don’t know it, why should anyone else? If we don’t know it, we aren’t energized by it or committed to it and it is borderline irrelevant to the life of the church. January is a great month to clarify with crystal precision the vision of the church.

2. The “Our vision changes each year” church – This is the church that chooses a vision verse for the year, preaches on it in January and then may or may not return to it during the year. It is worth asking what difference this makes, and why a clear “what could be and what should be” picture of the preferred future of this church is not articulated and re-articulated regularly.

3. The “We resist contemporary approaches to vision statements” church – This is the church that puffs out the chest and makes statements about the biblical vision for all local churches being a local expression of the same global vision which is articulated in Scripture. Agreed. But if people are coming to church because of habit, or because it is the nearest option with the right denominational tag, then perhaps it’s time to articulate clearly what that biblical vision for all churches is . . . for your church.

There are other churches too. The “We’ve never thought about it” church, and perhaps even the “clear and compelling vision in place and regularly re-articulated” church. What kind of a church are you in? January is coming, vision month. What’s the plan?

Peripheral Vision

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

The first step in preparing a message is to prayerfully determine the preaching text.  It’s important to make sure you are studying a complete unit of thought – a full paragraph, a full narrative, a full poem, a full wisdom saying, etc.  But then be sure you have peripheral vision.

Make sure you continue to look around and be aware of the context of the passage.  Too easily we get blinkered by section headings and forget to see what has preceded and what flows out from the text that we are studying.  Everything needs to be seen in context.  If you happen to be in a place biblically where context isn’t helpful, you’re in one of only a few places.

We need peripheral vision as we study the text, or we so easily may miss what is right there.