Moving Toward Noteless

August 17, 2011August 17, 2011 / Peter Mead / 14 Comments

Dean asked in a comment about moving from manuscript to notes or even no notes. How is it possible to make that move? A few thoughts:

1. Manuscripting is a great approach to sermon preparation that I affirm. The issue is not writing a manuscript, but relying on it or reading it in the pulpit. Work put in on wording and phrasing in preparation will yield fruit in preaching, so it is worth continuing to manuscript in my opinion.

2. Moving to notes means formulating a distillation on paper. That is, putting in something similar to headings and sub-headings in your manuscript, then removing the text to leave these “headings” and highlights of content. I don’t like to use the term headings because actually a sermon outline is not built with headings, it is made up of ideas. The problem with headings is that they tend to be incomplete sentences, and therefore, incomplete thoughts. If we take the heading approach we will be tempted into clever little pithy alliterations and summary headings that actually don’t reflect the content of the message. Much better to summarize the movement of the message and preach with those “ideas” rather than alliterated bullet points. (That is not to say that you might not be able to use trigger terms to jog your memory of the ideas that constitute the points or movements of the message, but these are triggers for you, not your listeners.)

3. Moving to no notes means a bit more of a step. With notes you can still have a complex message that bounces around the canon like a hard rubber ball in concrete box. When you go no notes you need to simplify the message and tie it in more closely to the text you are preaching. Effectively the text becomes your notes, so you look at the text and see the shape of thought that provides the skeleton for the message. No notes preaching doesn’t require superior memory skills, it requires only greater familiarization with the text and a more accessible / clear / logical / simple message. If a message is so complex that you need notes to help you navigate it, then what hope do your listeners have? You’ve spent hours in it, they only get one shot!

4. Moving to notes or no notes requires practice. I don’t mean just trying and failing in the pulpit (in reality you won’t “fail” as easily as you expect). What I mean is running through the message without the manuscript. Prayerfully practicing before you preach is not at all unspiritual. I would encourage preachers to preach . . . often a message makes sense on paper, but simply won’t flow from your mouth. Better to find that out before you preach it on Sunday! Remember, the goal of sermon preparation is an oral communication event, not a polished manuscript for publication.

Phones and Bibles

August 17, 2011August 11, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

“My main word is, as Stephen F. Olford has often said, that ‘we belong in the study not in the office.’ The symbol of our ministry is a Bible, not a telephone. We are ministers of the Word, not administrators, and we need to relearn the question of priority in every generation.”

These words are attributed to John Stott, who recently went home to be with the Lord. How true these words are.

Where the clergyman once held a position of honour in the community, we now find ourselves tempted to grasp for respectability and credibility. So there is a temptation to try to look like the respected folks of the community. They have increasing education, so we are tempted to flaunt ours, or get extra degrees for the wrong reasons. They have manic lives, so we are tempted to run around like mad folks looking for an ulcer (who would respect a preacher who is able to choose serenity over stress?) They have offices, mobile phones and permanent contactability, so we feel we can do no other.

What difference would it make if we stopped playing the busy professional and renewed our commitment to a different calling, to the ministry of the Word and prayer? If our gut reaction to this idea is to fear loss of credibility, or loss of income, or loss of support from those who think they hold us accountable . . . then we are making decisions out of fear rather than faith. What does God want of us? Acts 6:4 is worth pondering in prayer. Let’s ask Him what He thinks.

Not a Fig

August 16, 2011August 10, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Oliver Wendell Holmes is credited with this great quote – “I wouldn’t give a fig for simplicity this side of complexity, but I’d give my right arm for simplicity on the other side of complexity.”

Preacher, where do your sermons sit?

Cheaper than a fig – This is preaching that is simple because it is shallow. The preacher hasn’t wrestled with the text, hasn’t entered into the complexity of the passage, it’s theology, the interface between ancient text and contemporary listener, etc. The preacher is just demonstrating shallow incompetence. Technical commentaries have been ignored. The text has received only scant attention. The sermon is simple because it is simplistic. It doesn’t engage listeners. It doesn’t shed light. It doesn’t stir hearts. It has the nutritional value of a burger bun.

Complexity – This is preaching that has gone beyond the fig stage. The preacher has started to wrestle with the text. The preacher may have engaged in dialogue with some technical commentaries. The preacher has mapped out some or all of the complexities of the theology and its interface with contemporary life. It may be complex because the preacher hasn’t cut out unnecessary detail. Or it may be complex because the preacher hasn’t really got to grips with the details. Or it may be complex because the preacher is trying to impress. Whatever the cause, it is complex. Hard to listen to. The listener has to really work to benefit. Much nutrition, but as hard to digest as day-old steak.

Costly as a right arm – This is the goal. The preacher has gone beyond the shallow into the depths. The preacher has studied, and wrestled, and prayed, and thought themselves through to a place of clarity. This isn’t simplistic, this is profound, yet accessible, relevant, clear, engaging. They often say that the very best sportsmen and women make hitting the ball, shooting for goal, playing the game look so easy. It isn’t because they are just natural at it. It is because they have endured the work necessary to get to the other side of complexity. That’s why we pay so much to watch them. Too many preachers are worth less than a fig because they are simplistic, or so complex that the gold seems hard to mine. If only more preachers were right arm types – having thought themselves through to a level of clarity that is blessing to all who hear.

Short-Cuts in Pastoral Care

August 15, 2011August 11, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

For today’s post, please click here to go to Cor Deo …

Maximum Content, Minimum Loss of Contact

August 12, 2011August 10, 2011 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Just listening to Fred Craddock and he was asked about notes versus no notes. His bottom line was that you want to have maximum content, with a minimum loss of contact with the listener. He also suggested that every preacher should be fully competent at preaching without notes, with notes and with full manuscript. Why?

Full manuscript preaching will be helpful when the subject is controversial. It allows for people to see exactly what was said, and allows for precision from the preacher. I was asked to preach on Euthanasia a few years ago. Full manuscript. It simply wasn’t possible to internalize all the content of that message (not least because it wasn’t rooted in a single text).

Notes are useful in preaching, Craddock said, when “there’s a lot of tiptoeing and maneuvering in the sermon to get through it.” This is a problem in too many sermons, but there may be occasions where it is necessary. Too often a sermon makes good sense to the preacher because they have the notes map in front of them and they know exactly where they’ve come from and where they’re going. But often the listener is as lost as a toddler in a forest.

“Usually, if you prepare for delivery rather than for writing, you will know it by the time you get through preparing.” I agree with this and tend to preach without notes. But I also agree with his follow-up comment. These three approaches are not stages through which the preacher graduates. While no notes may generally be the preferred option, it is not a point of achievement to grab attention from listeners. It is a choice the preacher makes dependent on the message and the situation. Sometimes, as a generally no notes preacher, I will do well to use a full manuscript.

Content and contact to the max.

Listening to Preaching As a Preacher

August 11, 2011August 10, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

We live in a unique time. Never before have people been able to listen to so many sermons in a week. When they leave church on a Sunday morning, they can then take their synced iPods and listen to preaching for the rest of the week. At the supermarket, in the gym, while commuting, at work in some cases, etc. I’ve mentioned before how this can be massively intimidating for a normal preacher (to have their listeners feeding on the world’s finest, or in some cases, the world’s flashiest, for the rest of the week). I’ve mentioned that we shouldn’t be intimidated, or feel hopeless in competition with highly skilled communicators that have been well edited.

But what about our listening? Should we, as preachers, be listening to other preachers? Yes. And no.

Yes. It is good to listen to other preachers. First and foremost, it is important to be fed ourselves. Good preparation does feed us, perhaps more than those we preach to, but we still need to hear from someone else. I have a preacher or two that I listen to so that I can be challenged and encouraged. Secondly, it can be helpful to observe how others are handling texts and preaching opportunities. I don’t like to listen to a sermon on the text I’m about to preach as it is hard not to be overly guided by it, but to observe and learn is a good thing.

And no. I don’t think it is good to listen to too many other preachers. It can become overwhelming. You can end up wanting to do a bit of that like him, and some of that like him, and then it’s great how he, and oh, when he does that, etc. If you’re not careful you can end up preaching like a medley of other voices and lose your own. Listening to other preaching can be helpful. Listening to too much can make it so you lose your own quiet before God, and end up preaching not out of being with Him, but as a preaching karaoke machine.

Do you listen to others? Why? How much?

Preaching Elsewhere

August 10, 2011August 10, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Here’s a mighty little quote from Walter Brueggemann – “If we are to bring a word from elsewhere, then we have to live, to some extent, elsewhere.”

With the huge demands on church leaders and bi-vocational preachers, we have a real challenge. Too many of us are preparing to preach with the fuel gauge indicating nearly empty. We run around like headless chickens giving ourselves away in therapeutic care and meetings management and budget discussions and endless emails and emergency crises and fire fighting and political church squabbles and more emails and then when we are almost wiped out, we prepare a sermon.

But what people need is the kind of creativity, focus, passion and “word from God” that can only come from a preacher who has resisted distractions and spent time doing what most needs to be done in preparing to preach. Reading. Study. Thinking. Prayer. Time alone. Time with God.

I’m sure you are asked how long it takes to prepare a sermon now and then. What’s the answer? A specific number of hours? I suppose that technically it depends on how well the text is known, etc. But the health of the church will not depend on whether you can crank out an acceptable sermon in fifteen hours, or eight, or three. It is about time in preparation that isn’t rushed and squeezed and forced.

Somehow it is hard to imagine rushing into God’s presence, all frantic and breathless, “Lord, I need help, I need a sermon and I need it fast!” and then to have God get stressed and out of breath as we rush to pull something together. Somehow that image doesn’t seem right, does it?

God does care, and He does gladly get involved when we aren’t ignoring Him. And in a genuine emergency He is more than able to help us when we are absolutely stuck. But God doesn’t seem to live at our frantic pace. He is with us, indeed. But somehow by going to Him, we are enabled to get closer to His pace. And then, after spending time with Him, we can come back to preach. Breathless, perhaps. But for a different reason. Let’s preach a message from elsewhere.

Reasons to Just Preach

August 9, 2011August 9, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

In many churches this post would be considered irrelevant or even bizarre. In others to suggest otherwise might raise an eyebrow or two. But in some, the choice can go either way. Should the preacher lead the whole service?

I’ve known a few people who insist that as the preacher they want to lead the whole service. It allows them to craft a whole package that fits together. It allows them expand the impact of their message beyond the official sermon time. And, I’d agree with this, it allows them to control how long they have to preach. But there are some reasons to just preach, if another service leader is available.

1. Increased focus in the preacher on the sermon. Instead of losing energy on earlier elements of the service, the preacher can prayerfully compose themselves so they are 100% focused on the sermon. No need to worry about introducing hymns, remembering the right people to mention in the prayers, covering the announcements adequately, and in many UK churches, no need to have a mini-sermon that is hyper-engaging for the children.

2. Increased focus on the preacher in the sermon. From the listeners’ perspective, when the preacher stands to preach, they haven’t already heard multiple snippets of the same voice. In some cases a preacher may undermine their impact by overdoing their involvement before the sermon. This is especially true if the preacher is not appropriately gifted or able as a service leader.

3. Opportunity for other gifts to develop and be used. Some people are exceedingly capable when it comes to public reading of Scripture, or addressing children, or leading singing, or praying publically, etc. Why do some assume that the whole package of diverse gifting and ability will reside in one person? The Bible does not teach the exclusive gifting of a clerical class, but the gifting of all for the good of all. Why not unleash folks in their area for the good of the church?

From my perspective, as a preacher, I would much rather not lead the entire service when I am preaching. If it is requested or preferred, then I can do so (and I console myself with controlling the time allowed for the sermon). But give me the option of just preaching, following capable and trustworthy people, and I would bite your hand off for that option. What do you think?

Options in Spirituality

August 8, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I usually link to my post on the Cor Deo website every other week. This week’s post, by my good friend Ron Frost, is so helpful that I am going to link to it. Truth and Spirit . . . and preaching. Check out the post and please comment there. I think this post is so important for us as preachers to think through. Here’s the link, please click!

Post Sermon Text Test

August 5, 2011August 5, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

We preach hoping and praying for the message to mark and transform lives as it is preached. But what about after? I want to preach in such a way that the following things are true:

1. The listener will continue to be transformed by the text in the coming days. If the text were merely a source for data and sermonic stuff, then chances are the listeners will lose track of where the message came from. For the text to linger in their hearts and minds, the preacher needs to shine light on the text and shine the message of the text on the screen of their hearts. If they have only heard about it, there is less chance they will remember it than if they have “seen” the text painted vividly during the sermon.

2. The listener will be able to go back to the text later and understand it. If the listener were to look up the text later, then I want them to be able to understand it. That means that they have had it clearly and effectively explained. Not only what does it mean, but why does it mean that? Knowing that I take it a certain way is nowhere near as good as them seeing that that is what it is saying.

3. The listener will want to go back to the text later to read it. This is a biggie. If we assume that listeners go home and re-read the preaching text and carefully work through the notes they took, then we are naive to say the least. The preacher has to stir motivation for them to want to go back to the text. That motivation will come from an effective message, including instilling a confidence in them that they can see the why behind the what of the text. Why does it mean what the sermon said it means? They also have to be convinced of the relevance of the text to their lives. Irrelevant or inaccessible texts are least likely to be return destinations in the days after a sermon.

4. The listener will know how to make sense of it when they go there. This is like number 2, but slightly more than that. Number 2 was about them being able to understand the text itself. This one is about them being equipped to handle the text. That comes down to the instruction given in the sermon (and many sermons over time).