Don’t Dilute By Distraction – Part 2

In the closing stages of a message, the last leg of the journey, it is easy to lose the focus and momentum of a message.  Yesterday I raised the issue of introducing other texts, which can (not always, but often) dilute the force of the ending of a message.  Here’s another:

Don’t dilute by adding unnecessary new images. After twenty or thirty minutes where the overarching image has been the tender care of a mother for her child, the preacher decides to throw another image into the mix in the closing moments – perhaps the care of a shepherd for the lambs, or a coach for his team, or whatever.  Often a new image, a new illustration, a new set of vocabulary, when introduced in the final leg of a sermon will undermine the strength of what has gone before, or totally overwhelm the message (such as a moving story that is so powerful it makes every other element of the message, including the Bible, mere introduction).  Again, it is not always true.  Sometimes a pithy anecdote, a moving illustration, a well turned phrase, may serve to close a message well…but only sometimes…and not a very big sometimes either.

The final thrust of a message is a critical leg of the journey.  It’s the time to consolidate, not dilute.  A time to pull elements together and drive them home, not add new information that shatters the unity of the whole.

Don’t Dilute By Distraction

Just a quick thought relating to the concluding movement of a message. This includes the conclusion, but might also bring in the final movement or point of the message. During the final thrust, the crescendo of the message, do not dilute the focus of listeners. It is so easy to unnecessarily add new elements to a message at a time when the need is not variation, nor interest, but focus. For instance:

Don’t dilute by adding distracting texts. It’s so tempting to refer to another verse somewhere or other in the Bible. Often, not always, but often, this is a distraction rather than a help. Evaluate carefully before redirecting the gaze of the listeners to a passage, to wording, to a story, to a psalm, to anything that has not been the primary focus of the message. You may mention one verse, but their minds may blossom out in all sorts of bunny trails, or at the very least, the new information may dilute their focus. Be wary of adding texts in this final leg of the journey. (Sometimes a specific text, painstakingly chosen, and carefully used, may serve to close a message well…but only sometimes…a small sometimes.)

Tomorrow I will bring up another source of distraction that can dilute the end of a message.

The Danger of Disengagement

Yesterday I enjoyed a couple of very encouraging, although too brief, conversations on preaching.  One thought that was bounced around was one I have addressed on here before – the fact that shortening attention spans is a myth.  People will listen as long as they are engaged.  For some preachers, that means an hour long sermon is entirely possible, while for others, twenty minutes is beyond what they can manage.

This issue of attention brings two thoughts from two very different “homiletics” voices to mind.  First, David Buttrick is among those who suggest that really people can only concentrate in short blocks of time, perhaps up to five minutes.  So the preacher should plan their message in order to recreate attention in these blocks.  I won’t go into detail on that here, just that simple thought may be helpful.

Second, Andy Stanley has helpfully pointed out the danger of disengagement.  What happens once people disengage from our message?  Stanley suggests that once someone disengages, they start to process the preached information in a different way: “this is irrelevant; church is irrelevant; God is irrelevant; the Bible is irrelevant.”  For Stanley the key is to keep listeners travelling with you on a journey.  (For a teaser of Andy’s book, here’s an interview on communication with Ed Stetzer – Andy Stanley interview)

How do we engage our listeners?  How do we keep them engaged?  Do we really recognize the danger when they disengage?

What Should Tension Prompt

Most people involved in ministry feel tension from somewhere most of the time.  Perhaps there is discord in the church, or opposition to your ministry, or possibilities elsewhere, or some form of spiritual warfare, or a disquiet within (or all of the above).  Honeymoon periods, by definition, do not last long.  The reality of ministry, whatever form it takes, usually includes tension of some sort.

What should tension prompt?

It could prompt fleshly reactions toward others, or within yourself.  It could prompt a passion to prove or vindicate yourself.  It could prompt discontentment in your heart, or a lack of motivation for your present ministry.  It could prompt many things.  It should prompt one:

Allow any tension, from any side, to push you up against God.  The kind of “de-professionalized” passion for God that Piper was praying for in the quote yesterday.  The kind of passionate for God leadership that is the right response whatever the circumstance.  Perhaps this weekend’s ministry is confused by tension from one side or other.  Perhaps you do not feel like you are on a mountain-top of ministry right now.

Allow any of these tensions to prompt you closer to God, to pray fervently at every opportunity.  Don’t distract yourself with entertainment, or sin, or busy-ness, or future plans.  Respond to the challenge by responding to God.  Allow anything to get your attention and draw you to Him.

If most of us face tension from somewhere most of the time, wouldn’t it be great if the fruit of that was greater godliness on our part, greater fervency in our prayers, greater compassion in our relationships, greater brokenness in our spirits, greater sensitivity in our walks, greater humility in our ministries, greater Christlikeness in our characters and greater fruit in everything?

Banishing Professionalism

I was just prompted by a question to re-read John Piper’s first chapter in Brothers, We Are Not Professionals. Here’s a taste of Piper’s prayer at the end of the chapter:

Banish professionalism from our midst, Oh God, and in its place put passionate prayer, poverty of spirit, hunger for God, rigorous study of holy things, white-hot devotion to Jesus Christ, utter indifference to all material gain, and unremitting labor to rescue the perishing, perfect the saints, and glorify our sovereign Lord.

I suppose one question to ask is this, does the kind of “prophetic” ministry that Piper calls us to somehow stand in contrast to “expository preaching?”  To put it another way, is expository preaching a form of “professionalism?”  I would say not, although definitions are critical.  If by “expository preaching” we mean some kind of insipid, weak, fear-filled, irrelevant but technically satisfactory ministry, then of course there is a contrast. By “professional” does Piper mean “effective expository preaching” or something else?

I think Piper is going after the pastor pursuing the comfortable, dignified role in society, respected like a medical doctor, kind of professionalism – a profession.  If only our churches were led by men who were radically committed to uncomfortable spirituality, to sacrificial response-to-God kind of living.  I suspect that while such leadership would make some uncomfortable, it would give many of us more excitement and willingness to “follow” spiritual leaders, rather than just “fill” the pews kept in order by good and godly managers.

Can a “prophetic” ministry avoid professionalism, but still communicate well, as encouraged on this site?  I don’t think anyone would suggest the OT prophets were poor communicators?  They were master preachers, but they weren’t comfortable preachers.  They weren’t the socially respectable acceptable.  They weren’t nice, or insipid, or predictable, or fearful.  They spoke the Word of God with power and pointedness and precision and pluck (courage didn’t begin with a “p”).  I don’t read Piper ch.1 and think, ‘oh no, there’s no room for expository preaching anymore.’  Actually, I read it and say, “Amen!  If only we had more men of God preaching in our churches!”  What’s missing in contemporary preaching?  There’s a vibrancy, an urgency, a spirituality that is generally missing.  Piper is calling for the kind of radical sold-outness that often drains away in the professionalization of ministry.

We don’t want to sacrifice the authority of the text for the passion of the presenter, nor vice versa.  I suppose most of us preachers should hold our hands up and say “too much too safe too adequate preaching – my bad!”  Time for radical brokenness in our approach to ministry and our view of our own preaching.

Thank you Piper for the prod.  Let’s ponder.  Let’s pray.

Main Idea – Another Easy Mistake

Yesterday I mentioned an easy mistake to make – finding the biggest detail and losing sight of the rest.  Here’s another easy mistake to make:

Encompassing everything via a statement that is so vague it could come from any number of passages. I suppose it is an overreaction to the fear of missing the point of the passage.  I suppose it gives the preacher comfort that no-one could argue with what the main idea actually says.  The danger though, comes precisely because it is so vague.  What are the possible results of a “We should trust God” kind of main idea?

1. Lack of authority. If it obviously does not represent the preaching text effectively, then the listeners are left with a sense of inadequate preparation on the part of the preacher.  Our authority is really God’s authority demonstrated by the fact that the Bible is boss of the message.  Vague and loose use of the text can only undermine authority.

2. Insipid application. If the main idea derived from the text is vague, the result will typically be vague application also.  Lack of diligence in explaining the text will not set up diligent application of that specific text.  The personality of the preacher may incline them to detailed applications, but without the biblical foundation, such application is likely to be more along the lines of personal suggestions to the listeners.

3. Limited life change. Of course God is able to work despite and around our poor preaching.  But our aim should never be to need a “despite us” kind of grace.  While life change can only ever come from the work of God through His ministry in His people by His Spirit and His grace, He calls us to handle His Word well and preach as effectively as we can.  Vague main ideas come from inadequate biblical study, lead to insipid application and typically result in limited life change.

So what do I suggest?  I suggest the “Hypothetical Bible Expert” test.  Presuming somebody knew their Bible really well, would they be able to identify the passage from just the statement of the preaching idea?  “We should trust God” could come from any number of passages.  A distinct and carefully written main idea will point to one (or a very limited number of passages).  Aim for a unique main idea for each unique passage.

Main Idea – Easy Mistake

I suppose there are several easy mistakes to make when it comes to getting the main idea of a passage.  I’d like to point out one today.

Do not look for the biggest detail of the passage and then omit the rest of the passage. It may be tempting to look for the weightiest element in a passage and make that the main idea.  Equally, it may be a misunderstanding of the process to search for the biggest point and then miss the rest.

What we should be doing is distilling the whole passage, allowing every detail (big or small), to influence the statement of the main idea.  Some details may not be visible in the wording of the main idea.  Perhaps they influence the tone or the feel of the idea.  Some details are developments of the main idea (perhaps explaining, or proving, or applying it) and consequently may not show in the statement.  However, it is important to approach getting the main idea in the right way:

The right way: every detail feeds into our understanding of the whole, which is then summarized or distilled into one sentence.

The wrong way: only the most significant detail (or even the most attractive or preachable detail) is used to define the main idea, all other details are skipped or omitted.

How Would Jesus Preach – Part 2

Continuing the list of ten characteristics of Jesus’ preaching, as observed by a chapter in Preach the Word:

(6) Visual in its Appeal – Jesus painted word pictures.  He didn’t speak in abstractions, but he helped his teaching to form in the minds of the listeners (whether they were intended to really understand that picture is a different matter!)  For instance, imagery in Matthew’s gospel includes salt, light, gates, roads, trees, houses, foxes and birds, brides and bridegrooms, wine, farmers, weeds, seeds, bread, treasure, fishing, plants, pits, dogs, weather, rocks, mountains, sheep, vineyards and lamps.

(7) Varied in its Approach – Jesus varied and adapted his methodology, using parables, stories, proverbs, pithy statements, paradoxes, riddles, word plays, etc.

(8) Practical in its Application – Jesus taught his disciples to pray by giving them a prayer and not just a pattern or theory.

(9) Courageous in its Directness – He was through and through a God-pleaser, rather than a men-pleaser, which gave courage to Jesus’ ministry.

(10) Potent in its Impact – in just three years of ministry, Jesus’ impact far surpassed the combined decades of teaching of the finest philosophers of antiquity.  His words inspired the greatest art of history.  His teaching motivated the music and poetry of the greatest composers of the ages.  His preaching continues to change lives today.

Before we just say, “that’s Jesus, He’s different,” let’s be sure to not only praise the Lord for his ministry, but also look to learn from it as we continue to represent Jesus in preaching to the body of Christ and the world that needs Christ.

How Would Jesus Preach?

Haslam’s book, Preach the Word, has a chapter entitled “Learning from Jesus.”  To some it is obvious that we should look to Jesus, who was, after all, the finest of preachers.  But I suppose some would overlook Jesus as a model of preaching since, well, we’re not Jesus.  In this chapter, the writer points out ten characteristics of Jesus’ teaching.  It’s not an exhaustive list, but it is a list worth pondering:

(1) Revelatory in Content – intimacy with the Father added an authority to his teaching, quite unlike the teaching of his contemporaries.

(2) Anointed by the Spirit – another key element in his authority was the role and freedom of the Spirit in the empowering of Jesus’ ministry.

(3) Biblical in its Source – Jesus knew, quoted, cited, explained and preached the Hebrew Bible.  While he was able to add to it in a way we cannot, he never contradicted it.

(4) Always Relevant – Jesus knew who he spoke to and he connected his teaching to their lives.

(5) Compassionate in its Motivation – Jesus really loved those he sought to draw to faith, and it showed in his communication.

I’ll give the other five tomorrow, we already have enough to ponder for one day!

The Wrong Kind of Uncomfortable

You’ve probably heard it said that good preaching comforts the disturbed and disturbs the comfortable (or something similar).  While this may be true, it is also possible to make listeners uncomfortable in the wrong way.  Here are a couple of examples:

1. Pushing naturally unresponsive people to verbally respond your way, rather than theirs. For example, I’ve been in congregations when the preacher has asked, “do I hear an amen?”  Upon hearing nothing more than a murmur, the question has then been repeated with greater zeal.  Eventually one person overcomes all personal angst and shouts an amen (essentially delivering all from the tension of the moment).  Some people reading this are wondering how any group could be so unresponsive.  Don’t condemn them without knowing them.  And don’t worry about it (unless you end up preaching to this kind of culture, denomination, age range, etc.)  A good preacher will be sensitive to those listening and not force them to behave in a way that may fit the preacher’s personality, but doesn’t fit theirs.  (Also, I’ve been in situations where the people may be willing to respond, but only the speaker knows what was just said that deserves a verbal response – don’t ask for response if you are not a clear communicator…they might feel dishonest if they give what you’re looking for!)

2. Showing emotion inconsistent with your words. In a similar vein, it can be very uncomfortable to listen to a preacher who does not match personal emotional expression to sermon content.  Don’t have a silly grin when talking about hell – even if you are uncomfortable for whatever reason.  Don’t be dead-pan if you are preaching on joy.  Don’t be slouching and uninterested when declaring the greatest news ever.  As I heard Piper say recenty in an interview – preachers need affectional breadth.  (In fact, I forget his exact words, but essentially he said that preachers who are restricted or limited in their affections – that is, breadth of heart response to God and people, rather than the ability to contrive emotional expression – such people should not be preaching.)

Preach in such a way that your emotional expression fits who you are and what you are saying.  Preach in such a way that your listeners can be themselves as listeners, rather than having to mimic you.

Any further thoughts related to this?