Preaching

Back to the Note Takers

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

On Friday I wrote about note takers and made a passing comment about the idea of people returning to their notes and reviewing.  I think it is only fair to suggest that many never achieve that goal, even if they have it.  But even if they do, it raises an issue.

Is my goal to make my listeners need my outline in order to navigate their way through a passage?  Certainly this is better than being lost in a passage.  But personally I would rather preach so as to motivate people to go back to the passage, not my outline.  Furthermore, I would rather preach to equip people to get the main thrust of the passage and know how to apply the text and respond to the God who inspired the text.

So if my goal is about the connection between the text, and my main idea, and the relevance to their lives . . . why would I prioritize their getting back to my outline?  Hooks to hang thoughts on is a well-worn phrase.  But I have neither hooks nor my outline in my goal when preaching.  Perhaps I should consider encouraging them to listen fully, then make brief notes after the fact, notes pointing to the main message and its impact in their lives.  Perhaps I should encourage them to go back to the text and look through it for themselves . . . that would be almost Berean, wouldn’t it?

(May I finish with a parenthetical comment?  Listeners, like preachers, might easily suggest that they know themselves and they know they do best taking notes during the message.  Maybe they are right.  Or maybe they are influenced by the common perception propounded in educational culture that note takers are the most attentive and best learners.  Would people be so convinced this works best for them if it weren’t the generally presumed “best way” . . . I do wonder!)

Preaching and Note Takers

/ Peter Mead / 13 Comments

I had an enjoyable conversation with a friend today about note takers in church.  Some preachers love it when listeners are taking notes.  After all, it means they are listening, learning and will be going over the message again later.  But actually it doesn’t.  They are half-listening, may be learning, may or may not go over it again later.

I’ve read research that suggests the best way for listeners to learn from a message is to listen attentively, and then have time immediately afterwards to make some retrospective notes.  That allows them to give full attention to the message, rather than trying to recall and write while you are preaching.  It also allows them to immediately distill main point and applications of the message, rather than fooling themselves into thinking an outline equates to learning or life change.

Attention given to one thing means less attention given to something else.  If people are writing, then their minds are distracted from what is being said at that moment.

I like students to be taking notes in a class setting.  Firstly, because the sheer volume of information is greater than a single sermon that supposedly has a focused main point.  Secondly, because the goal is much more centrally about information transfer.  Preaching should educate, but the main goal of preaching is not education.

If you are in the habit of giving “fill in the blank” notes, I am sure you will want to defend that approach, and you are welcome to do so.  I like what I heard Tim Keller say a while back – “it’s when they put their pens down that I know I am really getting through.”  Why don’t we try giving a 3-5 minute quiet time after a message and encourage either prayer or note taking in that time?  I’d love to hear from any who have done that in a church service setting.

Enough from me, what are your thoughts on note takers?

Revisiting Relevance

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I scratched the surface of Relevance Theory in respect to preaching.  Let’s look at it a bit more (accepting that there is so much that could be written if we were to really do justice to the theory, as well as to preaching).

To reject the need for relevance is naïve.  Actually, those who reject the need for relevance and simply preach the Word in a more scholarly and abstract way are still relevant to their listeners.  The problem is that the relevance is much weaker.  For example, people listen because they have a perceived need to hear a sermon in church, or a fleshly sense of the need to be pressured religiously (or even, that enduring under the sound of biblical teaching is somehow healthy in and of itself, like uncomfortable spiritual callisthenics).

The solution to a self-centred pragmatic applicationalism is not to resist relevance and application.  Rather it is to see two stages to the solution, rather than one.  At one level listeners are distracted and discouraged and perhaps even self-concerned.  Offering relevance in a message so that they listen and engage is simply wisdom in action.  As I start a message I can assume that the listeners are distracted and not fully engaged.  As I demonstrate the relevance of the speaker, the message and the text, early on in the message, I am motivating listening.  As I surface a need from the text that stirs interest in the listener, I am motivating engagement.  But my message won’t simply meet a felt need.  Rather, that is the entrance, the first level of relevance.

But there is a second level.  It is that level that moves the focus of relevance and benefit from ourselves to the Lord.  As we are caught up in the gospel we are drawn out of our selves to Him, the gospel captivates our self-centred hearts and stirs us to respond to the greater affection of God’s grace.  As we are caught up in His grace, then effort can be asked without any sense of a burden of duty, and relevance/benefit becomes His rather than ours.  Our delight is to please Him.

If this is true, then to relegate all application to the final three minutes of the message is foolhardy.  With this approach people will listen poorly, and then be left with only the first level, rather than the delightful privilege of entering into the second, others-centred level of applicational relevance.

Theorising Relevance

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The field of communications theory is vast and sometimes intriguing.  Take, for instance, relevance theory.  Relevance theory, in basic terms, argues that perceived relevance over effort required equals response of audience.  To put it another way, listeners will respond more when they perceive the message to be more relevant to them, and less effort.

So in non-preaching terms, if someone receives a good benefit (reduced risk of cancer), for less effort (just a low-cost drink once per day), they are more likely to respond positively (i.e. make a purchase).  In contrast less benefit (marginal increase in strength), for more effort (two hours in a gym every day), they are less likely to respond positively (i.e. they won’t join the gym based on this message).  Fairly basic, fairly obvious.

So how does relevance theory apply to preaching, if at all?  After all, preaching is communication with an inherent element of persuasion:

Some preachers seem to go whole hog on this theory.  That is, they make every message as relevant and practical and felt needs focused as possible, while at the same time minimizing biblical or theological content, or life demands, as far as possible.  Such messages tend to be easy to listen to, easy to apply, easy to take notes, easy.

Others resist such an application of the theory by suggesting that the gospel makes demands on listeners and this should not be simplified to the temporal things of this life.  The road is narrow, after all.  So preaching tends to be more scholarly, application tends to be more abstract, and response tends to be more variable (but perhaps deeper in the lives of the committed).

I am not convinced either approach is right.  The former one seems to come close to catering to the self-concerned lifestyles of the spiritually immature who think Christianity is primarily about their own benefits.  The latter seems to tend toward legalistic righteousness that coerces by duty (but perhaps offering an equally temporal benefit of spiritual pride).

At one level, I believe we cannot ignore relevance theory, simply because it is an observed reality of human response.  But on the other hand, I feel the need to shift from a sales or persuasion metaphor to that of relationship.  When my heart is captivated by my wife, then no effort is too great, even just for the “small perceived benefit” of her smile (since the benefit that motivates my sacrifice is really hers and not mine).  Somehow it seems to me that our task is not to make things easy, or to pile on the pressure, but to present the grace of God so that hearts are stirred to respond fully . . . for His benefit.

Perhaps we need to think not only of the relevance for us (which is important if people are to listen), but go beyond that to the relevance of our application for our Lord (since it is the benefit that accrues to the other that stirs the heart and life of a lover, which is what we are, right?)

People Communicate

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

We can subconsciously slip into viewing preaching as something other than communication. How so? Well, we can slip into thinking it is about simply teaching information, or view it as a literary exercise (written and read), or view it as a liturgical procedure. But preaching is about communication. Even though it is typically monological, it is still communication.

For communication to occur there has to be connection between people. I heard a teacher say recently in respect to using media, “When I communicate the scriptures it may be old news to me, but it has to be good news to connect with people. . . The good news became a person. . . People communicate, not things.” I would extend that thought by suggesting that people communicate, not statements, nor facts, nor anecdotes, but people.

How easily we lose sight of this and end up with good content, well illustrated, relevantly applied, clearly structured, but still fail to communicate because we fail to pay attention to the need for interpersonal connection. I sat in a meeting a while back and the speaker didn’t smile until 53 minutes into the meeting. Not ideal for connection. The message met every criteria, except it didn’t seem to connect. It lacked smile, warmth, empathy, energy, enthusiasm, eye contact, connection.

People may not typically respond verbally in your church, but preach so as to stir response internally. Preach so that they are interacting mentally and emotionally with the message, and with you. If they don’t connect, they won’t trust you, and deep down, they will distrust the message too (even while affirming it, they will remain applicationally cold toward it, because you seem interpersonally cold toward them).

Preach the Text, Don’t Just Preach From the Text

/ Peter Mead / 5 Comments

It’s a simple statement, but some preachers probably need to ponder it.  With the good motivation of seeking to be pastorally relevant, some preachers short-change the preaching of the text.  It certainly saves time if you merely summarise or refer to the text, but don’t bother with any extended explanation, or any retelling of the narratives, or any extended description to help the listeners enter into the world of the text.  Bypassing these elements does allow you to get to application and relevance.  But what is lost in the process?

People receiving lightweight Bible content that is heavy on application will not mature into the kind of Bible-mature people you probably want them to be.  It trains listeners to look for lessons and applications, but to do so without really entering into the text to any depth.  It may encourage people to try to live out the Christian life, but without drawing them deeper into the source of life – relationship with the persons of the Godhead.  As preachers we have a double-duty, or even a double delight: to enable people to encounter the God of the Bible as they enter into His Word, and to be changed by that encounter.  These two go together.  But don’t short-change the first by skipping to the second.  As the world seems to spin further and further away from the anchors of Biblical truth, people need to be more biblically literate and mature, not less.

Uniquely Meaningful

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

I heard a helpful lecture recently concerning how Scripture is accessed and used in peoples’ lives.  The lecturer made the observation that Christianity is unique among the world’s religions in that it has meaning at its core.  How so?

Well, other religions may be more primarily concerned with form, with tradition, with the system.  Christianity is uniquely centred around a God who has revealed Himself in the Word – written and incarnate.  What does this mean for preaching?  Well, for a start it has to mean that we are concerned with genuinely grasping the meaning of the Word as we prepare to preach it, it means we are concerned not for others to go through the form of a church service, but rather that they grasp the meaning of the Word preached.  It means that at its core Christianity is concerned with God’s self-revelation resulting in responsive hearts bound to His in personal relationship.  How easily we slip into a religiosity that is more about form and externals.  As preachers, we are at the heart of avoiding that cul-de-sac.

I’ll leave this post there, although so much more could be said, but I am travelling today and so don’t have time to add more yet.

Is It Ever Appropriate to Preach the Same Text to the Same Church?

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Simple question.  Simple answer?  Yes.

But what about people thinking you haven’t prepared something fresh so you are just reworking old material?  What about the feeling of deja vu that will overcome the listeners?  What about?  What about?

As a preacher you have to answer to God for your preaching ministry.  If you think the church needs that passage again, why not preach it again?  What people might think about your ministry or effort is very much a secondary issue.  You can make it clear that you are not trying to sneek a repeat past them.  Tell them upfront that you have preached it before and that you feel before God that we need to think it through again, or some more.

Personally I would be very willing to return to the same text for a second service on the same day.  It allows for deeper levels of application and reinforcement.  I would be willing to return to the same text after a gap of weeks, months or years, too.  Perhaps it helps to think about it this way:

A sermon event consists of several ingredients – the preacher, the listeners, the situation, the text.  When time has passed, the preacher is not the same person they were before.  The listeners have changed (individually, and in respect to who is actually present).  The situation has changed.  The text remains the same, but is engaged by the first three elements in a fresh way.

Same text, different occasion, why not?  Our purpose is not to impress listeners with new information week after week, but to shepherd people before God as under-shepherds . . . sometimes the same patch of grass is what they/we really need!

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.