Preacher’s Personal Life

How Would You Preach If

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

If you knew that God was with you and intended to capture hearts and transform lives?  I know you probably respond by saying you already know that.  Me too.  But I’m asking what if you really knew that?  What if you were able to know for certain God’s character and purposes and desire for the lives of your hearers?  What then?

It seems to me that often we know these kinds of truths, but they seem to have minimal impact on our preaching.  I’m not criticizing that, just acknowledging it.  God calls us to minister not by sight, but by faith.  By sight we may see eager and open hearts, but often we won’t.  But by faith we are called to present Christ so that hearts melt and are drawn to him.  By faith we are called to preach truth so that darkness flees from the penetration of light.  By faith we are called to care for souls by feeding them God’s Word and participating in their encounter with him that their souls and hearts and lives might be filled full of the life only available as we all lean closer into Christ.

The thing is, there is no way to muster the knowledge of God’s with-us-ness in respect to our preaching.  Just like the listeners we urge to trust in His Word, we too have to believe what is taught and live in light of it.  By faith.  Not sight.  Not guarantees.  Not mechanism.  Not training.  Not anything we can generate in us.  By faith.

So, time to prepare to preach, let’s do it.

Thermometer Reading

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I wrote using the notion of a thermal imaging view of the Scriptures. At the risk of overuse, I’d like to turn that thermal camera in another direction. What would people see if they saw a thermal image of you preaching?

1. Warmth of the Person. I sat through a message recently where I got the distinct impression that the preacher was cold. He wasn’t shivering. But he never smiled, not once in an hour long service. He didn’t seem warm toward us the listeners, or toward the message he preached (and consequently, even if it is uncomfortable to say it, he didn’t seem warm toward God). I recognize that different preachers have different temperaments and styles of presentation, but I suspect that subconsciously others felt the same cool temperature from the pulpit. I doubt anyone would have ever said that of Jesus’ preaching, and it is Him that we preach and represent.

2. Warmth of the Message. The content of the message says a lot about the focus of the preacher. For instance, what about the preacher I heard a while back who seemed passionate about declaring the sins of certain people in Bible times (and by implicit association, of us too). The strange thing is that the passage being preached was not pure judgment, but judgment that led into the saving work of God’s Redeemer. What was strange about that? Well, the fact that the good news climax of the passage felt like a passing reference in the conclusion of the message. Why would a preacher focus so heavily on judgment and almost miss the glorious climax of the passage? The content decisions of the preacher say a lot about the preacher . . . and go a long way to determining the temperature radiating from the front as we preach.

As you prepare to preach your next message, is your message radiating the glow of a loving and living God? As you step up to preach your next message, is your heart prayerfully prayed full so that you yourself radiate that same glow?

Since a Spoken Message is the Goal

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

If you are a normal preacher then your goal is a spoken message (I know, your goal is really to please God, to see lives transformed, etc., but stay with me for now).  Your goal is probably not to publish your manuscript in a national newspaper, or to collate your manuscript into an anthology for publication, or to edit your manuscript for a preaching journal.  Normal preachers normally just preach the sermon.  (Actually, it is tempting to long for a team of secretaries, personal assistants and editors who will whisk a sermon away and process it into publishable form . . . anyone volunteering time and skill in this area is always welcome, by the way!) So, if normal preachers just preach the sermon, what does this mean?

For one thing, it means that we shouldn’t feel obligated to do all our preparation on paper or word processor.  While we are taught to write and outline and indent and manuscript, perhaps we would benefit from sometimes choosing to speak, record, dictate and map.  Some advocate for a full move over to oral sermon mapping – a move I am not opposed to and may explore more on here in the coming weeks.  But even without abandoning our pens and word processors, we can still benefit from recognizing the potential benefits of greater coherence between preparation and delivery.

There are times in my preparation when I get stuck.  Not confused stuck (although that happens too).  Not uncertain of homiletics stuck (although that also happens).  Stuck, as in, I’m not sure what to do next stuck, I feel like I have a log-jam in my mind stuck.  Maybe your preparations always flow easily and smoothly from beginning to end.  Mine don’t.

I find it very helpful when I do get stuck to step away from the computer (yes, apparently Spurgeon didn’t even have one!), clear my throat, and speak.  Sometimes something that makes sense on paper doesn’t work when spoken.  Equally there are times when things aren’t working on paper, but speaking them through seems to unstick the stuckness.  Sometimes I pray through a message or section of it.  Other times I pray and then preach through as if to human listeners.  Sometimes I will pick up the phone and talk through the logic of the message with someone.  Whether it is in prayer or with prayer, to an imaginary audience or with a responding human, talking seems to help unstick the stuck when preparing a talk.  Funny that.

Supplements and Substitutes

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Back to the diet theme (perhaps I am actually hungry as I type this post!) Last week I referred to vegetables and chocolate.  While in Sri Lanka I scanned my way through an enjoyable book entitled Preach It! by Stuart Briscoe.  In it (page 18), he makes the following point:

“Alternative methods of communicating and participating, which may be perfectly valid and helpful as supplements to preaching, have been installed as substitutes for preaching.  That makes no more sense than exchanging a bottle of dietary supplements for a healthy diet of solid food.”

I have to say that I stand firmly with Stuart on this issue.  There are many supplemental approaches to feed the church with Scripture, and I am a fan of most.  Home group and small group Bible studies can be very helpful.  Seminars and classes can provide valuable input.  Reading programs, personal devotional notes, pastor’s blogs, etc.  All helpful supplements.

But these are not substitutes for preaching.  The healthy church needs a steady diet of well prepared Biblical content delivered by an appropriate form of biblical preaching.  The Christian faith is a faith based on revelation, it is a faith with preaching at its centre.

You may be growing tired at the lack of response to your preaching.  You may be discouraged by the sense that preaching doesn’t do what you pray it will in peoples’ lives.  Don’t give up on preaching.  By all means look to improve it, get training, read helpful material, listen to good role models, but don’t give up on it.  Whether it is obvious or not, your church needs solid and relevant biblical preaching if it is to be healthy.  You don’t see your children grow with every meal, but you will see the difference if you give up on meals altogether!

The Missing Connection

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Sometimes technically solid sermons seem to sputter and struggle.  It’s not unusual for a message to fall flat.  Why is that possible when the pieces are in place?

Content – We know the importance of having good content.  I tend to use the term “Biblical” when I am evaluating a message, others use the term “faithful.”  It’s a matter of content.

Clarity – We probably see it as a self-evident truth that for something to communicate it needs to make sense (although just believing it doesn’t make us automatically clear communicators).  A clear message clearly presented is a blessing to listeners.

Contemporaneity – Ok, so if I wasn’t enjoying my alliteration (might as well do it on here since I rarely alliterate in messages), I might prefer to speak of emphasising the relevance of the passage.  That is, helping listeners to hear what God is saying today, to us, through His Word.

Good content, clearly presented, with a contemporary sense of relevance.  What more could you want in a message?  How can messages with all three ingredients in place still fall flat?

I think there is a fourth ingredient that is often overlooked, frequently forgotten in the mix of making a message that ministers well:

Connection – Again if I weren’t in the mood for “C’s” I would probably call this being engaging.  It is something about the persona of the preacher, the energy, the relevance, the eye contact, the warmth, the humour, the manner of delivery, the feel and flow of the whole, the comfort or nerves of the speaker, and so much more.  It may be hard to pin down what makes it, but as a listener you can sense when it’s missing.

Let’s try to preach good content, clearly, with a contemporary focus.  But as well, let’s seek to connect.  After all, we are communicating for a communicating and relational God.  Preaching is a relational exercise.  And when connection is missing, preaching falls flat.

A Thought Experiment About Dictation Software

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Imagine for a moment that they invented software that would take a recording of your voice and transcribe it word for word into an electronic document.  Or imagine that you had a secretary who would transcribe a recording of your sermon.  (Now, if you have either of these, you are very blessed.  If you have both, you have to wonder what God is expecting from someone so privileged!)

So you have your imaginary document, a word for word transcription of your message.  What would you discover if you were to analyse it carefully?

* Would you find sentences and thoughts left incomplete, or open loops left unclosed?  Some of us struggle to complete our thoughts when speaking out loud and our listeners can be left feeling confused or disoriented (or even just plain bored).

* Would you find inane repetition of non-words?  I gave a presentation recently and as I sat down I felt very aware that I had used a couple of words repeatedly and slightly out of place.  I don’t think this example was a recurring pattern, but I’d like to know if it is so I could deal with this.  Perhaps you like to use, you know, lots of, well, you know, filler words.  Transcribed sermons would make those just really obvious wouldn’t they?

* Would you find absolutely no reference to yourself, such that the message could have come from anybody?  Seems like listeners value the connection to the preacher, as long as he doesn’t come across as an idiot or a hero.  Speaking of which…

* Would you find excessive positive references to yourself?  I did this, I said that, I met so and so, I answered, I shared, I witnessed, I preached, my church, my ministry, my opportunities, my anointing.  Painful though it may be, knowing that you come across as full of yourself is better to know than not know!

* Would you find a loss of momentum in the message?  It was going great until 2/3rds of the way through, then it sort of tread water for a page and a half.  Better to know that.

* Would you discover that actually your message didn’t make sense.  That would be hard to take, but actually, if it didn’t make sense, it was hard to take for the listeners, so better to join the club and know that too!

Ah well, good thing they haven’t invented such dictation software, or personal secretaries, or even tape recorders so that we could listen to our own messages, transcribe and analyse.  Might be painful if we did!

Preaching About Preaching

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I think you have to be very careful when it comes to preaching about preaching.  It is tempting to do so.  After all, Christianity is a revelation based faith, flowing from a speaking, self-revealing and relational God, with a big emphasis on the importance of preaching (despite the frequent attempts to deny its importance).  But to get side-tracked into preaching about preaching seems to be a precarious ledge with some deep ravines on every side.  For example:

1. Who are the listeners? If you are preaching at a pastors’ conference then it is probably highly appropriate to preach about preaching.  But if the listeners are a normal congregation, then what is your goal?  Are you intending to intimidate those who are scared to death of “preaching” (but may be capable of witnessing under other labels . . .)  Are you hoping to train them to discern (and if so, will they discern well as a result, or just discern in line with your personal preferences?)  Or is your goal not so much what the listeners will do with what is said, but to make a comparison?  If so, then there is the double danger of criticising inappropriately other servants of the Lord, or of becoming self-laudatory.  There are reasons to preach about preaching, but beware of these dangerous traps.

2. How is your ego? Anytime we talk about what we give a large chunk of our life to doing, there is a danger that the ego might run free and leave a bitter taste of self-congratulation and arrogance.  There are different preachers, different approaches to preaching, different theologies propagated through preaching and different schools of thought in respect to every aspect of preaching.  It is important to think through any inherent critique before you make it.  It may be very appropriate to graciously critique some aspects of preaching (i.e. those who do not preach what the text is saying), but very dangerous to critique secondary matters (such as certain styles . . . that preacher who sits on a bar stool and uses humour at times may actually be a far more biblical and Christ-honouring preacher than a more traditional style individual who seems to fit a particular mold you may be comfortable with).

It is sometimes appropriate to preach about preaching (not least when the preaching text is about preaching, although even then, we sometimes need to abstract slightly in order to apply to non-preachers).  But we need to be careful not to let our egos creep in and turn an opportunity to serve others into a self-patting exercise.  We often get more ego stroking after preaching than we deserve already, let’s not waste our preaching in doing the same for ourselves.