Preaching

Notes or no notes? – Part 1

/ Peter Mead / 11 Comments

I preached with notes for a decade, sometimes extensive, sometimes brief. Three years ago I switched to preaching without notes. I would not go back. I’m pretty sure that Mike preaches with some notes and does so very effectively. We’ll get his thoughts on this subject soon. There are more important things than whether you preach with or without notes. It’s more important to be Biblical, to have clear big idea, specific purpose and relevance. So I would not make a definitive case for no notes as opposed to with notes or with manuscript preaching (although to be honest I have yet to see someone who can read a manuscript effectively in preaching). However, this issue is important since delivery is a key element in preaching.

So why do I advocate and encourage no notes preaching? Preaching without notes increases eye contact beyond belief! Greater eye contact increases the sense of connection and intimacy between listener and speaker. We are living in a day when people are increasingly resistant to “pre-planned” speeches. While my preaching is completely pre-planned, it feels more authentic and relational because I am not following notes. For eye contact alone, it is worth it for me.

But there are other benefits. Preaching without notes forces you to make sure the outline makes sense. As Haddon Robinson says, a good outline remembers itself. An outline on paper can be deceptive, giving the impression of logical ordering, but an outline that does not flow or make sense will be very hard to internalize for preaching without notes. Preaching without notes also forces you to tie the message as directly as possible to the text. The text is your notes, so the message needs to logically flow from the text. Furthermore, you are more likely to stay put in the text you are dealing with rather than skipping all over the canon (a good habit to get into for many reasons!)

So that’s the “why?” In the next post I will explain the “how” of no notes preaching . . . and it is not about memorization!

Preaching Parables – Two Thoughts

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Last Sunday I preached from Luke 18, where there are two parables at the start of the chapter. A couple of thoughts about preaching parables:

Jesus told stories that packed a punch, don’t deaden the force – Of course the preacher’s role includes the need to explain the story, but we also need to preach the story in such a way as to achieve a similar effect as Jesus intended. For example, as I preached on the Pharisee and the Tax Collector, how could I help the listeners today to feel the force of that story in the way that Jesus’ listeners felt it? Well, I couldn’t just read the text. Nor could I just tell the story as it stands. As Jesus set the scene in verse 10, “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee, and the other a tax collector,” his listeners would immediately have significant emotional reaction. One was a good guy, the other a very bad guy. But for my churched listeners, their emotional reaction would be muted at best, the exact opposite at worse. For churched folk listening today, one is a bad guy (the one who typically opposed Jesus and ultimately got Him crucified) and the other is probably ok (the one who Jesus would hang out with, the one who might be like the other former tax collector that gave us our favorite Christmas readings in a Gospel). This is the opposite emotional reaction than Jesus intended. So, I chose to tell a contemporary story, in some ways equivalent to the parable, but not a forced equivalency. Having felt the force, we were ready to go back, read the text and have it explained. When it comes to preaching stories it is easy to kill the specimen by dissecting it. Stories are best observed alive, rather than cut up.

Incidentally, I could have chosen to do the same thing with Luke 18:1-8, but chose not to. I felt that story would work with a more straightforward “read a bit and then explain” approach, while maintaining the flow of the story. On another occasion I might use a contemporary version first.

The Gospel writers recorded stories in carefully packaged contexts, don’t rip them out – Whenever I preach from a Gospel passage, I am very aware of the double context. There’s the original historical context when Jesus spoke the words to the people around him. Then there’s the written context when Luke arranged, edited, commented on and put together the Gospel (different audience, different point in time, sometimes with different purpose). So when preaching a parable of Jesus, I am not dealing simply with a story Jesus told, but with a story Jesus told in a context Luke put together. So it is important to recognize the blending of both contexts. In the case of Luke 18, I focused primarily on the stories as Jesus told them (as presented by Luke), but was careful to notice the written contexts stretching back into chapter 17 for 18:1-8, and then on through the next two stories for 18:9-14.

God told you? Really?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I wish more people were careful not to carelessly throw around “God told me” vocabulary. When the preacher slips in this statement, what does it communicate? What do people understand? Did the preacher really receive a supernatural revelation, a voice resounding in the study? That is what people hear the preacher say, and they wonder why they never hear God say anything to them. I am sure there are many churches filled with people feeling intimidated by their lack of personal supernatural revelation. There are churches full of people who are learning to use this vocabulary for less dramatic experiences and thereby intimidating other believers. There are churches full of people who could be truly gripped by the wonder of hearing God speaking through His Word, but instead wishing for an experience that others may or may not have in their quiet times. As preachers we must be very careful of the words we use and how they might be taken, we must be very careful of the example we set our listeners.

Review: The Passion Driven Sermon, by Jim Shaddix.

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Subtitle – Changing the Way Pastors Preach and Congregations Listen

ShaddixPassion

This is a book with both strengths and weaknesses. To be honest, this is not a classic.

Jim Shaddix is a pastor and teacher of preaching at New Orleans Baptist Seminary. He co-authored Power in the Pulpit, a preaching manual, with Jerry Vines. This book, The Passion Driven Sermon, is not a manual, but a theology of preaching. In this book he wrestles with what preaching is, and what it should be.

The Passion Driven Sermon, according to Shaddix, should be a sermon driven by passion for the glory of God. His passion is evident throughout the book as he addresses issues relating to preaching and the Bible, preaching and the pastor’s role as shepherd, then preaching and the sermon.

There are some real strengths in this book. His style is uncompromising. The recurring idea throughout is that preaching should be filled with “God’s stuff” rather than just “good stuff.” The passion for God, for His glory and for His Word, is commendable. The repeated swipes at non-expository felt needs preaching is certainly needed in certain circles.

However, there are also real weaknesses in this book. Often the swipes taken at non-expository felt needs preaching swipe too broadly. The reader soon has the sense that any specific relevance to the daily life of the listener is a compromise that should be rejected.

Is it not possible to preach Christ and Him crucified, to preach theocentric and Biblical sermons, making clear the claim of Christ on the lives of the listener, but to do so with relevance and application? True expository preaching demands both Bible and relevance.

Pendulums swing far, often too far – but it is important to get the point of the swing. Shaddix’s book is a pendulum swing away from man-centered, unbiblical, rhetorically driven ear-scratching preaching. He swings too far and rejects too much, but we should hear his message anyway.

We do need the message of this book today, but I would be nervous if a preacher followed this book to the letter. After reading this, it would be healthy to read another book that places the importance of relevance in Biblical exposition back in its rightful place.

To be honest, at times it felt like Shaddix was in a bad mood when he wrote the book. Strengths and weaknesses, but not a classic.

Balance Between Caution and Boldness?

/ Mike Roth / Leave a comment

In an article titled Considering Hearers, Haddon Robinson writes, “But if we focus too hard on not offending, or if we read too many letters from the offended, we can become paralyzed. We start qualifying every sentence. We end up with weasel sermons that are defensive, cautious, and spineless.”

I must admit, these words were much needed exhortation. Preaching on a regular basis to graduate educated, post-moderns, I have received my share of letters! Some letters are encouraging, some are rightfully corrective, but the vast majority are nitpicky. While we must do everything within our ability to preach sermons that carefully and lovingly consider the words we use, the tone we speak with and the illustrations we tell, we must not become overly careful and cautious. If we do, we risk speaking so broadly and generally, that we end up saying nothing at all.

So, how do we balance necessary caution and the proclamation of truth with boldness? Here is one suggestion: imaginary friends. Yes, you read it right – imaginary friends. Robinson calls this, “taking the listeners’ side.” As you write your sermon, imagine yourself surrounded by three, four, even five diverse people. For example, my five friends are named Chris, Victoria, Jeff, Ken and Elsa. Chris is deeply theological and socially oriented. Victoria is a product of the feminist movement, highly educated and politically savvy. Jeff is simple, homeless and wonderfully pragmatic. He loves to say, “so what.” Ken is white-collar, an MBA gradate, highly motivated and helpfully cynical. Elsa is a single mom, with many needs, endless strength and a passion for Jesus. I sit with these friends in my study every week I preach. I ask them questions and think through their answers. I make statements and ponder their responses. Considering these friends as I write sermons, helps me to be appropriately careful. It keeps me lovingly cautious.

A side benefit to this is that it also helps me to be relevant. Of course, I change my friends around every now and then. I add a young single man here and an elderly woman there… The purpose of this is to strike a balance of caution and boldness in the sermons I preach. I have found this to help.

Other suggestions?

Is one sermon enough?

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Dr. Sid Buzzell of Colorado Christian University made a comment worthy of consideration.  He has one foot in pastoral preaching and the other in education.  He suggested that if preachers started to think of preaching schedules with the mindset of an educator there would be one obvious difference.  If preachers were truly concerned with the outcome in mind,  what the listeners should become as a result of the preaching, then many sermons would become series of sermons.

Perhaps preachers do have a tendency to cover material once, move on to new material, and expect too much change from such short exposure.  So maybe it’s time to ask ourselves, in light of the Biblical passage before us, and as those seeking to see life change that will bring pleasure and glory to God, and knowing our people as we do . . . is one sermon enough?

Like a good plane ride

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Norman just added a comment to the post “Focus on the basics” – I read a good quote “A good sermon is like a good plane ride. It must have a smooth take-off and a smooth landing…”

Calvin Miller recently taught the analogy of preaching being like a plane ride at the International Congress on Preaching. He spoke of how passengers have three expectations – to take off, to go somewhere and to land. For take-off and landing he spoke of the critical first three and last three minutes. For going somewhere he spoke of the importance of the flight plan. While going somewhere it is important to consider the length of the flight is not too long, making sure the intellectual weather is not too heavy, and that the in-flight entertainment is not boring. He even got into the physics of flight – the right combination of the downward weight of content with the forward thrust of passion. I wonder how much farther this analogy could be pushed?

Focus on the basics

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Great preaching always involves the “effective execution of elementary ideas.” (Attributed to Eugene Emerson Jennings)

It is tempting to give attention in preaching to the clever and intricate subtleties of the art and craft of preaching, but subtleties work best when built on a foundation of good solid basics. A clearly derived and cleanly defined Biblical idea. A definite and specific purpose. A logical and orderly structure. Good pastoral relevance. Effective introduction. A clean finish. Most, if not all preachers would preach their next sermon more effectively if they would focus on the basics.

Sermon Purpose: Is There a Default Goal?

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

I recently wrote these words, “For an effective sermon, you need a clearly defined purpose – the specific response you prayerfully expect to occur in the life of the listeners.”

Does this mean the response has to be some kind of action? What if your purpose is to stir affection, bolster belief or improve cognition? These can all be very legitimate types of objectives for a sermon. Yet our default should be to preach for a response that includes, but goes beyond the heart and the head. Consider James 1:22 – “Be doers of the Word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.”

As a preacher we should usually consider how to legitimately apply the Biblical idea to ourselves and our listeners for transformed affection, belief, and conduct. We wouldn’t want to assist anyone in “deceiving” themselves!

Question: Is “creating need” the same as preaching for felt-needs?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Tim asked the following question in reference to “Introductions: The Essential Ingredients” –

I’m interested in this ‘create or surface need’ idea. Is there not a danger that this tends towards sermons being man-centred and self-help focussed? Like ‘what felt need (not even necessarily true need) does this text provide the solution for?’ Does this encourage a sense that God and His Word are merely felt-need-meeters?

I’m not being negative – I like the idea of ‘create or surface need’. It just raises questions in my mind.

Peter Mead responds: This is an important question. When people speak of preaching for “felt needs” the concern is with preaching that is primarily “how to” in nature. For example, how to raise teenagers, how to have a happy marriage, etc. There is a concern that preaching these kinds of messages do please listeners, but fail to address their real needs, fail to be God-centered, and often fail to honor the intention of the Biblical texts. These are important concerns!

The reason that “need” is included in the introduction to a message is not to determine the nature of the whole message (man-centered rather than God-centered), but to create an opportunity for the Word of God to get into good soil. Using the parable of the four soils for a moment, the key issue there is a “listening heart.” I believe it is naive to assume that people are always eagerly listening when they sit through a sermon. Let me quote Haddon Robinson in Biblical Preaching, “When you start, the people listen because they ought to, but before long, you must motivate them to listen because they can’t help but listen.” (p.168)

The core conviction here is this – do we believe the Bible should be applied to life? Or to put it another way, do we believe not only that all Scripture is God-breathed, but also that it is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work? (2Tim.3:16-17) Of course we do, which is why most preachers at least make some effort at application at the end of a message. If application is acceptable at the end of a message, then why would it not be acceptable in some form at the start? The reality is that many listeners may be long gone by the end of a message that shows no clear connection to their lives (maybe they will be asleep, or drifting to thoughts of pressing concerns – their upcoming confrontation at work, resolving the increasing tension in the family, how they can improve their golf swing, etc.) Some concerns and distractions may be frivolous, some are very understandable. So what to do? Serve up some relevance early on in the message, thereby helping hearts to be listening to the Word of God as it is preached.

Consider how Peter began his sermon on Pentecost – by promising to clarify the concern of the listeners regarding what was taking place before them. In fact, consider also Acts 3 and 17 for two more examples. The truth of God’s Word does not need to be watered down or changed in response to itching ears. The Word of God is highly relevant to life, our preaching should reflect that early on as well as at the end (and throughout).

I am not advocating God-less or Bible-weak self-help motivational speeches with seven steps to successful living. I am suggesting we preach theocentric, God-honoring, Biblical messages that by His grace, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, can change lives and conform people to the image of Christ in all areas of life. Being Biblical and relevant are not mutually exclusive options in preaching, they are both vital. It just helps listeners to listen if some of that relevance is strategically placed at the beginning, instead of all at the end.

More thoughts on this?