How to . . . ?

The Discouraged Preacher – Part 1

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

When you step into the pulpit to preach, certain things come with the territory.  When you preach, you will be discouraged.  Not every time, hopefully, but fairly regularly.  In this series of posts I want to list sources of that discouragement.  Perhaps there are ways to overcome each one, but I don’t claim to have the answers here.  It is helpful, however, to be able to distinguish between types of discouragement.  In this series I want to recognize and honor the discouraged preachers.  Perhaps the discussion stimulated by this will help us all, whether we are discouraged now or not yet!

1. Falling short of personal expectation. Often the flowing power-packed sermon you knew in the study feels like a stuttering limp effort in delivery.  We can be our own worse critics and it is worth remembering that we spot flaws in our preaching that others don’t see (vice versa is also true, of course!)  You know you missed that illustration, they don’t.  Sometimes it is worth getting feedback either from listeners or by reviewing the CD or video to see for yourself whether it was as bad as you thought.  Typically it wasn’t.

2. Negative feedback. Sometimes we receive feedback that pours cold water on any embers of motivation left after preaching.  It could be a “constructively helpful critic” who feels it is their ministry to spot a hole and point it out (a “well-intentioned dragon!”)  It could be a negatively wired individual whose general demeanor is cloudy and who speaks in a moan – they don’t have to comment on the sermon, just interacting with them steals any joy you may have.  Right after preaching, negative comments don’t have to be about the sermon to make us feel bad about our preaching!  Perhaps a persistent offender could be carefully encouraged to submit feedback later in the week when the emotions aren’t so raw and vulnerable.  Perhaps a persistent moaner will require a different strategy!

In part 2 I will list more sources of discouragement for the preacher.

Doubt Is No Cul-De-Sac

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Do we allow people permission to doubt?  Doubt is natural.  But many Christians seem to fear it.  It’s as if doubting might open the door to serious enquiry that might undermine their faith.  So doubt is rejected as somehow unchristian.  I had a good conversation with my seven-year-old who expressed that sometimes she doubts her faith.  I asked what she felt she should do when she doubts.  “Stop doubting” seemed the right thing to say, but wrong.  I encouraged her to engage with any doubts that come.  If Christianity is true, if the Bible is true, then it can stand the test of some tough questions.  Good questions won’t harm truth.

Many Christians feel guilty for doubting.  They feel that they should immediately cut it out and get back on track.  Metaphorically the doubt is seen as a dead end road that should be reversed out of as quickly as possible.  I would encourage people to engage the doubt, to study the truth, to follow through.  Doubt is a pathway to a tested and evidentially undergirded faith.

As we preach we regularly have opportunities to address doubts.  Doubts about God, about the Bible, about suffering, about faith, about the future, about all aspects of Christianity.  Let’s be sure to not reinforce the typical response – to hit reverse and get out quickly.  Instead let’s encourage an informed, researched, understood Christianity.  Let’s encourage people to prayerfully wrestle with the Word.  Let’s model in our preaching a healthy response to doubts.

Don’t pretend doubt is not a reality for many believers, even if you don’t struggle.  Certainly don’t hide personal struggles as if you would lose all credibility if you were found out to be a real person!  Instead seize the moment to model healthy response to doubt and provide the quality of information people need for the struggles they face.

Personal Paraphrasing: Practice Preaching?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

It’s been said many times before, probably because it is true.  The best way to learn something is to have to teach it.  People tend to think they understand something in their minds, but then find it difficult to explain what they claim to understand.  That’s why teachers test students by requiring something more than a signature to state they understand what they’ve been taught!  This is one of the great blessings of preaching.  It forces you to study a passage or subject beyond the normal threshold and then consider how to effectively explain and communicate that to others.  In preaching, we learn.

It is possible to get a small taste of the same by paraphrasing passages of Scripture.  When you force yourself to express the meaning of the text in your own words, you do a small version of preaching.  Without the multiple channels of communication, without the complexities of pastoral ministry, without so much of the process, but the core skill of expressing explanation of a text is replicated by paraphrasing.

I would encourage this among non-preachers to get at least one of the benefits of preaching.  But I would encourage preachers to do it too.  Perhaps in a passage you aren’t planning to preach, just one you are looking at for yourself.  Trying to restate the passage in your own words forces you to think about what the author meant, and it forces you to craft your own sentences.  Both of these skills are core skills for a preacher, so in a tiny microcosmic way, this exercise is a form of practice preaching.

The Bigger Picture

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

For most people in our churches today, the big picture is a mystery.  Their experience in the Bible is like being dropped in a huge forest.  They recognize some trees, they even like those trees, but what they know and recognize seems as random as trees in a vast forest.  We should not take for granted that people understand the bigger picture, the broad storyline of the Bible.

This is why Walk Thru the Bible was such a huge success a generation ago.  It gave people, in five hours, an overview of the storyline of the Old Testament, then later of the New Testament.

As preachers it is our privilege to help people understand how particular passages fit in the flow of the Bible story.  We don’t help by giving obscure links to random and questionable types and shadows elsewhere (unless they are clear and legitimate ones), but we do help by placing texts and stories in their context in the broad flow of the Bible story.

Preaching to People Who Need Counseling – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

So as well as excuses and lack of discipline, two more obstacles are worthy of note.  As preachers preaching for life change, we must be aware of these obstacles in the listener, obstacles well known to counselors, but relevant to preachers too:

3. Complicating problems. One area of change may be hindered by a related area that complicates matters.  For instance preaching on joint prayer in marriage will likely be hindered by general communication problems in marriage.  Perhaps another sermon (or series) is needed as a first step, before addressing the first issue.

4. Failure to repent. People may want to be different, but resist repenting for the present sin.  Many may desire a life of purity, but persist in impure habits.  Many may want to be truth tellers, but still live with unconfessed deception in their lives.  Failure to genuinely repent is a common issue, and an obstacle to life change.

Interdisciplinary studies are fashionable these days.  Here we see input from the field of Christian counseling for preachers.  What others interdisciplinary overlaps do you find helpful as a preacher?

Preaching to People Who Need Counseling

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

If you’ve ever studied counseling at any level, you will have discovered fairly quickly that counseling is not just for the few.  In fact, the case could be made that we are all in need of counseling.  We all have inner issues that influence how we live, how we respond to God, how we relate to others, etc.  Jay Adams is known for his writing in the area of “Biblical Counseling” or “Nouthetic Counselling.”   He makes an interesting point in his chapter on “Counseling and Preaching” in Preaching with Purpose.  Whatever school of counseling you ascribe to, I think his point is worth taking onboard.

When we preach applicationally for change in listeners’ lives, there are certain obstacles to overcome.  Obstacles well known to the counselor, but just as real for the preacher.  Adams lists four in his chapter.

1. Excuses. People resist impetus to change by making excuses.  As a preacher it is worth thinking about what excuses may come up, and then rhetorically addressing those excuses biblically during the sermon.  It would be a shame to preach a great message, only to have listeners resist change by an excuse that could be easily overcome with a little planning.

2. Lack of discipline. Many preachers experience the polite platitudes of the many, but the definite response of the faithful few (or should I say, the disciplined few?)  Most people don’t only need instruction on what to do, but also on how to go about doing it.  Since it takes discipline to create new habits, perhaps the preacher needs to help people see the path to change more clearly.

Tomorrow I’ll share the other two obstacles to life change that need to be considered for preaching to be ultimately effective.

Crises Don’t Hit Everyone Equally

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

The current “crisis” in our news is an economic one.  I’m not going to post any comment on this (you probably don’t care what I think the cause was or the best way out of it!)  But from a preaching standpoint I have a comment to make.  While the media present things a certain way, the reality may touch the lives of listeners in different ways.  Perhaps the current economic crisis is a disaster for some, only a worry for others, and maybe even a help for some.  I spoke recently with someone working “in the city” who is busier than ever due to the present “crisis.”

At other times the crisis has been different.  A war in a foreign land may be a foreign policy issue for many, but for some in the church it may be a significant concern since they have loved ones in that land, or in the armed forces.

It is easy to take the media perspective on current events (a habit worthy of significant questioning in itself), but fail to recognize the more diverse implications for listeners.  It would be a great shame to allow popular opinion shifts to become insensitive comments to some listeners.  For example, people may tire of a war or ongoing news story and grow complacent, critical or dismissive – but for some listeners with vested interest, it may be a reality that they live with each moment.

All that to say . . . we need to know our listeners.  We preach to them, not to the television.

The Two-By-Four Rule?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I was just listening to some training materials on delivery and public speech.  Interesting, although largely familiar material.  I haven’t gone back to double check this, but I think it was called the two-by-four rule: The impact of the first two seconds takes four minutes of further presentation to equal.

If that is true, then perhaps it’s worth giving more attention to such matters as personal grooming, dress, body language, smile, voice and so on . . . especially that initial impression.  Incidentally that initial impression in a church setting is often not the same as in a business setting where the speaker emerges from nowhere to begin the speech.  In church people see you in the car park, in the corridor, during the first part of the service.  Maybe the “I’m-so-stressed-because-Sunday-is-no-Sabbath-for-me” look is unhelpful?

Just Write Them A Letter Instead?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Some people naively think there is no difference between written and oral communication.  Many of us would agree that there is a significant difference.  Yesterday I was interacting with someone who believes these two forms of communication are polar opposites.  Written communication is linear, it is single channel, it is the way to go when the goal is to inform.  Spoken communication is complex, it involves dozens of channels and it is the way to go when the goal is to motivate, to influence, to persuade.

With all the added channels of communication such as energy, eye contact, posture, body language, intonation, etc., preaching is an ideal opportunity to do what preaching is supposed to do.  Go beyond informing listeners to influencing and motivating response to the Word of God.  Preaching involves explanation of the text, but it is to be applicational explanation.  If all you plan to do in your next sermon is inform, then perhaps it would be better use of your time and theirs to just write them a letter instead?

Preach Deeper

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

I just came across some notes I made a while ago.  It’s a three part description of preaching that I hear.  This is simplified, but perhaps helpful as a stimulus to move from approach 1 to 2 and from 2 to 3.

Approach 1 – Springboard Preaching (Inadequate approach to preaching)

This is where the preacher touches down in a passage just long enough to bounce out of it and into their own thoughts.  A word or phrase may be taken on the journey through the message, but it has long since been ripped out of its passage context.

Approach 2 – Highlight Bounce Preaching (Adequate, but “amateur” approach to preaching)

This is where the preacher is a little more aware of the context of the passage and moves through the passage noting highlights along the way.  Typically these highlights will reflect the best bits of Bible study done in preparation (often the best study moves out of the passage, so the message also can jump to other passages, but I did not want to complicate the diagram!)  This is better than Springboard Preaching, but let me show you a better way!

Approach 3 – “Plumbed” Passage Preaching (Preferable approach to preaching)

This is where the preacher has studied the passage in its context and is able to present the message of the passage to some depth.  This is not a series of mini-messages on various passage details, but it allows the details to work together to shape a single message that truly represents the passage in question.  The depth may vary according to time, skill of the exegete, etc.  But this approach to preaching will result in a coherent message, satisfying presentation of the passage and more accurate understanding of the meaning of the passage.  (Please note that it is never possible to fully “plumb” the depths of the passage, so the term is used relatively!)

For simplicity, I have presumed that each message is based in one text and that each message is making connection to the listeners by way of application.  I have assumed that there is a sense of progress in each message.  (None of these can be assumed in real life preaching!)  The simple focus here is on how the passage is handled.  Let’s strive to be Approach 3 preachers whenever possible.