How to . . . ?

The Path to Preaching With Passion?

/ Peter Mead / 5 Comments

It is easy to fake pulpit passion. All you have to do is raise the voice, pound the fists, point the finger, grimace a little and before you know it, you have fake pulpit passion. But what does it take to have genuine passion? And why would you want it?

Why? Because genuine passion marks deeply. Genuine passion is contagious, people catch it. It is commanding, people aren’t easily distracted from it. It is convicting, people have hearts changed by it. It is challenging, people see their apathy wilt under it. Genuine passion marks people deeply. (Just in case you’re tempted to fake it, remember that fake passion is off-putting, embarrassing, ineffectual and counter-productive.)

How? Genuine passion is a spiritual dynamic. It all seems to come down to, and flow from, the heart. A heart captivated by a passionate God. A heart filled with the Word of God. A heart walking in step with, beating in time with, the Spirit of God. A heart moved with compassion for the people to whom it will preach. Gripped by God, saturated in the Word, filled with the Spirit, and crystal clear on the urgency of the task of preaching that particular text to those particular people at that particular time. A genuinely passionate preacher is truly a potent tool in God’s hands.

All this is not to say that relaxed or carefully casual delivery is wrong. I often use both and see others doing so effectively. But there is also a time for allowing the passion to show. May God give us the wisdom to know when.

Do They Know That You Know?

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

The preacher must build confidence in the listeners; confidence that the preacher knows the message, knows how it will progress and knows when it will end.

Structure of Message – If the message is deductive, then the main idea is stated early. Confidence can be built by an effective preview of the message. Even something as simple as, “So we will see four things in this text that prove this is true.” If people know there are four “things” to get through, they won’t worry if the first point takes a while and covers only the first verse of a fifteen verse text. The more you preview, the harder you have to work to create tension and desire to listen, but don’t think you’re adding great tension by omitting a preview. You’re only undermining confidence in you. With an inductive message you also need to preview, only you cannot give away as much. But no preview will feel like a wander in the woods blindfolded, and most people don’t prefer that experience. Make sure they know that you know where you are going!

Transitions in the Message – It is hard to put too much work into the transitions. These key moments in the message allow opportunity for reorientation to the main idea or the subject of the message, review of terrain already traveled and a reminder of how far there is left to go. Well worked transitions do wonders for attentiveness, understanding and listener confidence.

Style of Delivery – Confidence is somewhat intangible. I’m not saying you should come across as arrogant or over-confident. However, there is a lot to be said for quiet confidence, for a calm assurance that you know what you are doing. Seek to overcome nervous habits, twitches, mannerisms, and so on. Avoid apologizing, even in jest, during the introduction. Make and maintain meangingful eye contact. If you have to use notes, use them well, but also consider not using them at all.

The preacher must build confidence in the listeners; confidence that the preacher knows the message, knows how it will progress and knows when it will end.

Getting to Grips with the Genres: Narrative (2)

/ Mike Roth / Leave a comment

So if narratives function through plot, how does that look in 2 Samuel 11 and following? What is the rhetorical impact of the story of David and Bathsheba?

Narrative affects the reader/hearer through association or disassociation with/from the main characters. The story contains five parts. Background/Introduction: David should be at war like the other kings, but instead is in the palace lounging around on a sofa. He sees Bathsheba, lusts, fornicates, and sends her away. Inciting incident: David finds out that Bathsheba is pregnant. Rising action: David attempts to save face by bringing the noble Uriah home from war (Interesting to note that Uriah is one of David’s 30 mighty men – 2 Samuel 23:39). Uriah refuses to sleep with his wife after two attempts by David. Uriah is sent back to war with a letter sealing his own death. Uriah is killed. David receives news and comforts his commander. David marries Bathsheba and the baby is born – months go by. Climax: David is confronted by Nathan the prophet. Resolution: David repents and finds forgiveness for his sin… but forgiveness does not annul loss and pain. His son through Bathsheba dies. A son (Solomon) is promised to Bathsheba.

As this story moves along, listeners/hearers inherently associate with/from pre-Nathan David, Bathsheba, Uriah, Nathan, and post-Nathan David. The rhetorical impact is different for each person. For some there is comfort, for others there is conviction, etc. Like David, the story urges some to confess sin. Like Uriah, it encourages some to remain faithful to the Lord despite the wickedness and sin of others. Like Nathan, it urges some to confront sin in others. Like Bathsheba, it comforts the weak.

Getting to Grips with the Genres: Narrative (1)

/ Mike Roth / Leave a comment

Following-up on my 11/20 post, I will describe how biblical narrative functions and make some simple suggestions today. Tomorrow I will demonstrate its intended rhetorical impact using the story of David and Bathsheba.

Narrative is distinct in the way that it works as a type of literature. It employs plot to make its points. There are five parts to plot. “Introduction” is the first part. Introduction, introduces time and setting as well as the main characters. The stage is set in the introduction for the second part of plot to begin. “Inciting incident” is the second part of plot. In the inciting incident, some kind of problem or tension is set into motion that requires resolution. This problem or tension draws in the hearer and drives the plot forward. “Rising action” is the third part of plot. Rising action is usually the longest section of a plot. In this section, characters develop and tension builds. Rising action always leads to “climax.” Climax is the culminating point in the story. Here tension reaches its apex. “Resolution” is the final part of plot. In resolution, the result is harmony and happiness if it is comedy. The result is disharmony and sadness if it is tragedy.

Preaching suggestions for narrative:

– Tell the entire story. This ensures that you tell the story’s point, not your own.

– Faithfully develop the main characters. By this, I do not mean avoid any kind of imagination. Rather, I mean spend time imaging the main characters in ways that faithfully develop and highlight their parts in the plot.

– Allow the story itself to speak conviction, encouragement, exhortation, and comfort.

– Be careful not to kill the story by explaining it away. This is so easy to do in narrative! We treat it like an epistle and feel the need to explain every little thing. Let plot do the talking.

Bigger Passage – Bigger Big Idea?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Is it possible to arrive at one big idea for a passage, even if the passage is relatively long? The answer is yes, as long as you are dealing with a unit. Where there is a unit, there is some level of unity. In almost every case (maybe in every case), a book could be treated as a unit of Scripture. Within that greater unit there are sub-units. Perhaps we could call them major sections. Within major sections there are sub-sections. Within sub-sections there are complete thoughts. These terms are deliberately vague to allow for the different genres. But essentially a book is like a Christmas tree. The higher you go, the more is included within your chosen section.

For example, is it possible to determine a big idea for Ephesians 1:13-14? Yes, in the English Bible this is a sentence with a complete thought. (I know that for Paul it was not a complete sentence, but we’ll get to that!) Now if you step up a level, these two verses would be swallowed into 1:3-14. Again, big idea is possible, but would be different than just the last two verses of the section. Then you could step up a level again and preach that section swallowed within a larger unit – perhaps 1:1-2:10? Certainly you could move up to 1:1-3:21. Again, a big idea that would have to encompass more text, but still it could be a preachable big idea. Then you could move up another level and preach the whole book.

The main idea of a shorter passage becomes a point or movement within the main idea of a longer passage.

The important thing to remember in preaching a larger chunk of text is that you still have to deal with a legitimate unit of Scripture. Also, the details in the smaller units cannot be reflected fully in a succinct big idea. Be very wary of over complicating a big idea for a bigger passage. It may feel more responsible with the text, but it will undermine your main goal of communicating the text relevantly to your listeners.

Eyes May Be Looking, But Are Ears Listening?

/ Peter Mead / 5 Comments

Who’s responsible for the attentiveness of listeners?  Is it the listeners?  After all, they choose to come to church, they should be able to focus on what is happening.  Or is it the sound technician?  That individual plays a huge role in removing certain distractions, but they cannot engineer attentiveness.  What about life circumstances of the listeners?  Surely God could make it so there was nothing going on in their lives in the days leading up to a Sunday?  Of course we can point to the important role of sound technicians and the parents of crying children, but these can only remove distractions.  Attentiveness is almost entirely up to the preacher.

Howard Hendricks, prof at Dallas Seminary, was devoted to the fact that the attention of his students was his responsibility.  He would go to whatever lengths he could to arrest and maintain the attention of those in his class.  He had ways of making you listen!  Perhaps we should be the same?  If so, this has several implications:

We must plan a message for attention – as well as planning a message that is biblical and clear, we must also endeavor to be interesting and relevant throughout.  

We must be aware of our listeners – preaching is a form of two-way communication.  Usually only one party ever speaks, us, but there is still continual feedback through body language, facial expression and so on.  We must be careful never to get into a mode that is all about us.

We must be responsive to the situation – if there is an interruption or distraction, consider how best to overcome it. Sometimes ignoring it is the best or most sensitive approach, but often not.  If others are aware of it but think you’re not, that is distracting.

Are they listening?  That’s up to you.

Back-Burner Sermon Study

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

In ministry we often live under the tyranny of the urgent. Sunday comes about every three days, or so it seems. Often we are hard pressed from every side, not only in terms of sermon preparation, but all the other complex needs of complex humanity that we are trying to serve. So it is easy to get into a routine of short-term sermon preparation.

I think it is healthy to have at least one long-term project on the back burner. Something you would like to pursue biblically, perhaps theologically and academically. Over time, gradually redeem the brief moments of time that you can find by accumulating resources. Read a journal article now and then. Work through the biblical text piece by piece. Utilize your original language skills to the max.

Allow it to percolate very very slowly. Some weeks you may not even give the project ten minutes. But some weeks you will find yourself making time to pursue this element of God’s Word with a passion. Do not rush to formulate sermons. It’s easy to rush to sermon outlines and then think you are done with the project. Perhaps the end result will not be just a sermon or even a sermon series. Perhaps it might also be journal articles. Perhaps a thesis/dissertation. Perhaps a book. Or perhaps it will just be the fruit of long-term pondering on God’s Word. That might just be the most valuable fruit of all.

Breaking Writing Rules for Manuscripts

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

As you may have read in previous posts, I think the best approach is to prepare a full manuscript, but then to preach without notes. The full manuscript allows you to sculpt and craft the language carefully in order to be precise and effective. This can be overdone and end up feeling like a contrived performance, or underdone and end up feeling like a rambling grasping for the right words. But the main rule to remember when writing a manuscript is that you are trying to write for the ear, not the eye. Most other rules can and maybe should be broken.

For example, David Buttrick helpfully suggests that a single move in a sermon (think “point”) may last 3-4 minutes, but since it has inherent unity, it should be manuscripted in a single paragraph. If the stages of development within a move are manuscripted as separate paragraphs, then the move will tend to fall apart. First sentences in paragraphs tend to break the flow of an idea as it is still forming. Perhaps this reflects the nature of oral communication. When speaking to a group, it takes longer for a thought to form in the group consciousness. Hence longer paragraphs.  (See Buttrick’s Homiletic, p50)

Let me quickly incorporate that suggestion in a simple three-level approach to writing for the ear:

On a micro level, sermon manuscripts can break rules of sentence structure. You must write as you speak. Yes. Sometimes incomplete sentences.

On a mid level (is that the right term?), sermon manuscripts will include more repetition that normal written prose. Your manuscript will show evidence of going over the same concept. Repeating, or even better, restating what you’ve just written. You wouldn’t do this in written English, but you’re writing for the ear and that requires repetition and restatement. Saying the same thing again in different terms. Giving hearers one more opportunity to catch what you’ve been saying.

And on a macro level, sermon manuscripts should reflect the unity of the sub-parts in a sermon. So a movement, or point, should cohere. Using bigger paragraphs may help achieve that inner unity.

Imposing Points On a Text?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

In response to the Lazy Preaching? post, one reader asked the following questions – “Does not one run the risk of ‘imposing’ on the text your desire to extract one point? Should not the number of point(s) be driven by the text in question?” These are good questions. How would you answer them? Here’s a couple of things to bear in mind:

The text is in the driving seat – It is absolutely right to suggest that the text itself should inform the shape as well as the content of a sermon. We are not required to replicate the shape of the text, but that is the best place to start. If the text has two chunks, or three movements, then start off assuming your sermon will too. Then, when designing the sermon, evaluate whether this is the best way to communicate the message to your listeners. So we are not restricted to the shape or order of the text, but moving away from that should be thought through and purposeful.

A literary unit does have one “point” – Let’s not get confused on terminology. Here I am actually referring to the main idea, big idea, proposition, take-home truth or whatever label you prefer. That main idea will then typically be developed in more than one point or movement within the message. So while it would be wrong to impose any structure on a text, it is not wrong to look for the main idea. A true literary unit has a unity of thought. Whether it is a parable, a psalm, a poem, a paragraph in an epistle, a prophetic oracle, a proverb, or whatever, it has one main idea. The logic of communication determines that a unit of thought has inherent unity, and therefore that text can be distilled into one main idea by asking the two key questions – what is this author writing about? And, what is this author saying about what he’s writing about?

In reference to Andy Stanley, I don’t know much about him. I’ve never heard him preach. I just received his preaching book which I’ll review in due course, but all I know so far is what I read in that interview. He states that he preaches one point sermons. I wonder if he means sermons with one clear main idea? I’ll need to listen to him preach or read the book to find out. In reality, I suspect that he would use several movements within a message in order to drive home the one main idea (or point, if you want to use that terminology).

First Things First

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

While I add a lot of posts on this site that are somewhat technical in nature, the foundation of effective preaching has to be our personal walk with the Lord. As good stewards we must do everything we can to be the best that we can, but none of that can replace the fundamental reality of a close personal relationship. I appreciate this quote from Jonathan Edwards reflecting on his early years in ministry:

“I spent most of my time in thinking of divine things, year after year; often walking alone in the woods, and solitary places for meditation, soliloquy, and prayer, and converse with God; and it was always my manner, at such times, to sing forth my contemplation. I was almost constantly in ejaculatory prayer, wherever I was. Prayer seemed to be natural to me, as the breath by which the inward burnings of my heart had vent.”

For many of us the danger of busy-ness and distraction is higher than it has ever been. Let’s be sure to turn off the mobile, the email, the internet, etc., and deliberately make time to think, to pray, to stir the burnings of our heart. Our listeners will benefit greatly, but that is secondary. First things first . . . you and God.