Preaching in the Presence of Lists

February 9, 2011February 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

At various times you will be preaching in the presence of lists. Not the to-do lists that are manically collected by some church-goers, bursting out of their Bibles’ strained clasps. The lists that God inspired.

It may be tempting to just skip them or dismiss them (easy to make disparaging remarks that we don’t really mean). But if you aren’t preaching the list, and it is in sight, what to do?

Help people, even in passing, to know why it is there. It isn’t there to put off Bible readers in their cyclical reading aspirations. It isn’t there to tempt people to put a new spin on received pronunciations. It is there for a reason.

Let’s take the descendants of Esau in Genesis 36 as an example.

Why is it there? It’s good to remember when these books were written and for whom. Whether Genesis was written or compiled by Moses, it was part of the five books which were for the Israelites as they entered into the promised land. It was important for them to know where they had come from, their history, God’s promises and so on.

One of Moses’ (and God’s) concerns was that they not mingle with the inhabitants of the land or near neighbours, in such a way as to become disloyal to the one true God. This chapter, with all its people and connected place names, would be a helpful reminder to them of where some of these other people came from. Certainly the chapter keeps pointing out that Edom was from the “unchosen” line of Esau – and Israel would often have issues with Edom later on!

It probably seems obvious to you, the studied preacher, to consider when the list was written and for whom. I suspect that might never enter the minds of some of your listeners. Unless you point it out, of course.

(And then encourage people that they don’t have to pronounce every name if they are on a fast read through – it’s amazing how people appreciate permission to press on in their Bible reading!)

Keep the Main Ingredient Main

February 8, 2011February 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Just a quick thought to ponder. Presumably our goal in life and ministry should be the same as God’s goal for our lives – to make us more like Christ, to grow spiritually. How does that happen?

Reading, hearing, responding to the Bible is not the only ingredient in God’s recipe for our spirituality. There is also need for prayer, awareness of creation, the Lord’s Supper, other forms of worship, fellowship with other believers, perhaps even suffering, fasting, and so on. Bible intake isn’t everything, but it is central and critical. Why?

1. Because it gives us the perspective and discernment we need as we participate in all the other ingredients in God’s recipe for our spiritual growth.

2. Because it is the way God claims to speak to us. It is the Word of God. While it may feel traditional and staid, and while all other “revelations” may have an air of excitement about them, the Bible is the Word of God that speaks.

We need to live that out ourselves, and make clear to our listeners why we make much of God’s Word.

The Obvious Early Connection

February 7, 2011February 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

The more traditional approach to preaching was apparently to do all the explanation and then ask where the truth might connect to listeners’ lives at the end. Actually, good preachers have always made their listeners feel connected to the message much earlier than that. There is one point of early connection between listeners and Bible text that is usually fairly obvious.

Ever since Genesis 3 we have all lived in a fallen world. Abram did. David did. Paul did. You do.

This means it shouldn’t be too hard to find a connection between text and world. The people in the text are fallen people in a fallen world. So are we. So unless your study and preparation is taking you down a fruitful pathway other than this, it is probably worth asking what is the fallen world issue in the text? Is it rebellion? Is it doubt? Is it suffering? Is it fear? Is it self-love?

Once you can see what the tension is in the text, brought about by the Fall, then you can probably make a connection to today. So far, so good. But don’t miss the next step.

Make that connection overt.

It is no good knowing it and assuming others spot it. Make it clear. Evident. Stated. It is easy to have this kind of “fallen condition focus” (as Bryan Chapell calls it) in our minds, but then fail to say so in our sermons. You start into the context, tell a bit of historical background, explain a bit culturally, dive into the text, explain freely and before you know it you are almost out of time and start to make some sort of application. Oops. You just did what we said it was better to avoid. Why? Because if a sermon feels like a historical lecture, your listeners won’t, well, listen.

Look for point of connection. Make clear point of connection. And do it early.

Notes on Reviewing Experience

February 4, 2011February 4, 2011 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

I’ve just finished a series of messages at my home church. Each message was recorded and I took the time to listen to them again. This allowed me to edit start and finish, as well as any particularly disturbingly loud sneezes from folks in the congregation. It also allowed me to review my messages. One thing stands out – my mental review and my audio review were different. For example:

1. After preaching certain elements seemed big in my memory, but were minimal in the audio. That is, a passing comment that took three seconds in reality actually became a thirty second major issue in my mental recollection of the message. When we look back on a message and one comment or detail stands out, let’s not assume it was “as bad” or “as major” as our minds might tell us.

2. After preaching my overall impression of the message could be very different from reality. For instance, I might look back and think, “that was rushed.” However, in review of the audio it might sound anything but rushed. This kind of thing happened several times in this series.

3. There is much to learn from both kinds of review. While I am saying we shouldn’t trust our mental review too much, it is good to take stock and learn from the experience of preaching a message. At the same time, let’s not miss the opportunity to learn from the experience of hearing that same message. Preaching and hearing are different experiences. Learning from both will aid our preaching.

Do you review your preaching? By memory? By audio? By video? By feedback?

The Challenge of Raised Adrenaline

February 2, 2011February 2, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Most of the time listeners are fairly comfortable when listening. They may be engaged, interested and tracking along. If that is not the case, then they may be bored, fidgety or distracted. This is not good. But it can also go the other way. They might be tense, adrenaline pumping and up-tight. Typically this extreme only occurs when the speaker does something to spark that kind of reaction. Unlike being bored and disinterested, this heightened state can be both bad or good.

The thing we need to remember as speakers is that if we cause people to have a surge of adrenaline, then we need to be careful what we do with that effect. It is easy to stir people and make them uncomfortable. But to do it in a way that is loving and helpful is a bit more complicated.

I was recently in a dramatic presentation. By definition art engages the emotions. This was certainly the case on this occasion. My heart was pumping, adrenaline was flowing, breath was shortened. Somehow in that state my reactions seemed to be more intense. If I disagreed with something said or done, then I really disagreed. If I appreciated it, I found myself nodding and showing affirmation much more freely. I suppose this is why many react so strongly to drama in church settings, by the way. If it becomes uncomfortable, as art often does, then it feels very uncomfortable.

Anyway, I am not writing about drama, but about preaching. When we raise our voices, offer snippets of dramatic monologue, present graphic images on a screen or by description, stun people with painful or angering illustrations, anything that raises the adrenaline of the listeners, then we must be extra careful. It is easy to cause upset in that state. It is easy to offend. It is easy for people to miss the value of what we do and react to some element of it. It is easy to attach good goals to falsely stirred emotions.

I am certainly not advocating for boring or dry preaching. The Bible is very emotionally stirring. As we represent it, we need to reach the whole person. But when we touch people deeply, when we move people strongly, then we must be very careful and prayerful about what we do at that point. Be a shame to waste a good message by losing the listeners due to recklessness on our part when they are in a heightened state of focus and attention!

The Challenge of Reception Perception

February 1, 2011February 1, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Preaching involves communicating and communicating involves sensitivity to other parties involved. If you preach you know that you can often sense things from the listeners, even if they are vocally silent. You pick up on body language, levels of fidgeting, eye contact, etc. A smiler in the crowd can be a Godsend, but a frowner may just be concentrating. And all the while, you are seeking to communicate. A two-way process. Even a monologue is really two-way when preaching is in action.

The problem is that you can’t always read the signals accurately. Its not just the odd smiler or frowner that’s an issue. Sometimes you have a sense of the atmosphere of the whole, and sometimes that sense is dead wrong. You perceive deadness, but they sense something special occurring. Or you sense a special moment, but they are actually struggling to stay awake. The fact is that sometimes we will completely misunderstand what we sense is going on in the congregation.

So should we give up trying to read them and just do our part? I don’t think so. Our part includes sensitivity to the Lord, and to them. We shouldn’t stop reading the signals, but we should probably make sure we don’t rely on the signals. Allow the times you’ve completely misread folks to keep you humbly dependent on the Lord, leaning on Him and giving your all.

Bible in a Message?

January 31, 2011February 1, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I concluded a series on the Bible with a “panoramic whole Bible in a single message” message. I was pondering which verses to use as my anchor point, verses that would give me a sense of the whole, the grand vista of divine revelation and intent. John 3:16? Something in Romans? A well-known Psalm? Actually, I went for two verses in Leviticus. Click here to see today’s post on the Cor Deo site.

One Simple Truth

January 28, 2011January 28, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Last time we thought about ways to trim the message. This is not to appease the unsubstantiated claims that people cannot concentrate like they used to (evidence suggests otherwise). Rather it is to enable the central truth of the message to come across more clearly, rather than being hidden by excessive padding.

The other side of this matter is that central truth. Is it too “big?” Sometimes we simply try to cram in too much information. Our main idea takes forty-eight words to summarize. This is a problem. I think it is important to realize the value of the cumulative effect of effective communication. Communicate effectively a biblical truth this Sunday, then another next Sunday, let them build. This is so much more helpful than trying to achieve everything in every message and effectively achieving very little because it was all just too much!

I suppose it is harder to put it more clearly than Andy Stanley (which is often the case, to be honest!) . . . just preach one simple truth.

I’m tempted to make some analogy along the lines of comparing the ineffective feast people offer to someone who has been starving, when actually what they can effectively assimilate is a small dose of something specific (but the feast feels like you’re feeding them, even if they do end up with no benefit from the overdose) . . . I’m tempted to do that, but that might be unnecessary elongation of this post.

One simple truth.

Time is Tight

January 26, 2011January 28, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

When you’re preaching, the clock is ticking. In one setting you may have 20 minutes, in another you may have 45. The reality is, though, that messages expand to fill the time available fairly easily. So it is important to think carefully about what to include. Perhaps more importantly, what to exclude. Where can time be trimmed?

Introduction – Sometimes a message needs a longer introduction than hard and fast rules allow. The problem doesn’t come from a long introduction, though, but from an introduction that feels long. If you need to go long, give a sense of relevance and a hint of Bible so that the fussy won’t get worked up (sometimes just reading the first verse of a passage switches off the introduction monitors in the congregation!) However, often the introduction can be trimmed to avoid making the message play catch up.

Illustration – The problem with good illustrations is that you know them well, and listeners will resonate. When they do, you sense it and before you know it the illustration has grown. Beware of expanding illustrations.

Historical and Literary Context – Some preachers never include either, and their preaching suffers significantly. However, choose to include what is pertinent and helpful. Don’t give an extended background to the entire Roman occupation when you are needing to press on with the message. Enough to make sense of the passage is usually enough.

Conclusion – The end of a message can often be far more punchy if it is tightened up. See if time can be saved by nailing a specific conclusion, rather than waffling to halt.

Post Sermon – It is easy to add five minutes to the end of a meeting by having a full song and a longer prayer than necessary. Why not let the sermon soak and leave people pensive rather than switching off with a closing volley of church ammo.

If you rein in the message at every place possible, you’ll probably finish on time. If, by some miracle, you finish five minutes early, absolutely nobody will mind at all! All of this, of course, has to be balanced with achieving your aims. The goal of preaching is not the early finish, its the transformed life.

Fire in the Bones

January 25, 2011January 25, 2011 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

I respect all preachers in history and across the globe today who suffer for preaching God’s Word. Many of us reading this blog face nothing of the persecution that many preachers have had to endure. Sometimes our biggest struggles seem to be coping with disappointing response in the lives of those listening, or perhaps filtering slightly tactless feedback at the door of the church. But still, even in the ease of our experience, many of us do face something. It is nothing compared to what others may face, but it is something nonetheless.

We face the repeated decision to stand up and preach again. Most preachers can speak about the sense of feeling battered in ministry. There is the work of preparation, the prayerful work of hoped for response, the draining work of giving of yourself, the sometimes tiring work of processing feedback from people oblivious to how vulnerable you may feel at that point. Sometimes this can all add up to a significant level. The combination of personal, spiritual, emotional, relational and physical expenditure, alongside the reality of spiritual warfare, can leave us drained.

What then? What do we do next? Do we give up? Do we quit the ministry? Sometimes that may be a very real temptation for some of us. Do we lay low and pour ourselves into something safer for a while? Do we avoid interaction with people? There are any number of possible responses to ministry drain on a weekly basis.

My thoughts sometimes go back to Jeremiah’s words in chapter 20. He went through it and suffered deeply. He was drained and wiped out and had no natural resource left. Tempted to remain quiet, he could not. Not because he loved preaching. Not because he wanted affirmation (he got none). Not because he needed the income. He could not because “there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I am weary with holding it in, and I cannot.” He could not because the LORD was with him.

Do you get up and preach again because you love preaching? Or because you need affirmation? Or because of some other self-gripped motive? Or, or do you get up and preach again because God is with you and you cannot keep inside what He has given to you?

Tired? You’re not alone. Let’s press on.