Religion

Review Categories

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday I wrote about the value of doing a prayerful self-review after preaching.  I’d like to follow up with the categories I use for that kind of review . . . When I am listening to sermons in class, or in a church where I need to review speakers, I tend to use a simple quadrant.  I look for four things, and I look for these in my own preaching.

(1) Is it Biblical? That is, does the message content accurately convey the message of the preaching text, and is it accurate in its representation of the whole of Scripture?

(2) Is it Clear? Does it make sense?  Sad to say too much preaching is actually incoherent in part or in whole.  Does the message have a sense of unity, of order and of progress?

(3) Is it Engaging? This is often missed when preaching is evaluated for faithfulness, clarity and relevance.  Does the speaker and the message engage the heart and not just the mind of the listener?  Is there energy, is there connection?

(4) Is it Relevant? This is not to suggest the preacher has “make the text relevant,” but rather, does the message emphasise the relevance of this passage to us as a congregation?  If we are honest, it is too easy to slip into historical lecture and fail to make evident what God is saying to us, right now, through His Word.

These are the categories of review I use for others, it only makes sense to use them for myself after I preach.  Prayerful reflection on preaching should serve to improve our future preaching.

Post Sermon Review

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

The old adage says practice makes perfect.  I have to agree with Haddon Robinson and Howard Hendricks in disputing that.  Practice makes ingrained. Perhaps perfect practice makes perfect, or maybe evaluated and critiqued practice makes perfect.  But if you do something over and over, without constructive improvement, it won’t suddenly become good, it will simply become ingrained and hard to fix.  So after we preach, we need to review.

What should self-review include? I think there is a place for feedback from others and I have written about that on this site.  But in this post I want to dwell on self-review.  There are different ways to do this, but I want to encourage at least a minimalist approach.  Sure, if you can get yourself videoed, then it is a real eye-opener to watch yourself preach.  Perhaps once every now and then this is well worth the pain!  Listening to the audio of a message is worth it periodically, but I wouldn’t suggest suffering through such discomfort every week!

What I do suggest, though, is to prayerfully evaluate after every message.  In the aftermath preachers tend to feel discouraged and overly critical.  However, prayerful gratitude and handing over to God is so worthwhile(especially handing over any excessively painful critique, or especially laudatory affirmation, is very healthy!)  In this prayerful review, the preacher will typically be able to recognise some of the weaknesses in the preaching – perhaps an unclear section, a loss of momentum, an overly used term, etc.  This kind of review will not reveal everything, we need feedback from others to recognize our blindspots.  However, it will prove helpful and can feed into future preaching if we note our observations and prayerfully review them before future preaching.

Tomorrow I will share the categories that I use for reviewing a sermon

Hope You Don’t Mind a Re-Heat

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Sometimes we’ll have a meal that consists of leftovers reheated.  Sometimes this tastes better than the first time it was served.  Anyway, I was looking back at some of the earliest posts on this site and decided to re-heat one that I’ve often thought back on, or even referred to: The Preacher’s Cutting Room

Watching a movie on VHS was simple. Watch it, rewind it, return it. Now we use DVDs – watch it, then watch as many hours of extra bonus material as you can tolerate! You can enjoy “The Making of . . .” and “Meet the cast . . .” and “Humorous gaffes.” Then there is also “Deleted scenes.”

A scene might take days to film, more days to edit, cost thousands of dollars, and then be mercilessly cut from the final edition of the film. One such scene was in the movie Gladiator. As Maximus waited under the Coliseum, he looked out through a barred window to see Christians praying as the lions approached. A powerful scene, very moving. It was cut.

The director’s commentary on the scene explained the situation. It did not help the progress of the plot. It was potentially overwhelming, too weighty.

After many hours of preparing a sermon, get out the scissors. It isn’t easy, but there may be an element of explanation, an illustration, or a story that does not help the message, or may overwhelm it. If it would not be missed, or if its absence would not result in reduced understanding of the message . . . cut it. Perhaps when your sermon is on a DVD you can make it available, but for now we are still preaching in VHS.

I suppose I could try to bring the imagery up-to-date with some reference to Blu-Ray preaching (sharper and clearer?) or 3-D preaching (content doesn’t matter as long as there’s some special effects 🙂  Actually preachers do fall into the latter, don’t we?  Remember the early days of overhead projectors with acetates, or of powerpoint?  Suddenly the technology was exciting and some settled for sermons that simply used it for the sake of it.  Over time, hopefully, preachers learn that tools are servants, but the message still has to be genuinely focused, contentful, well-honed.  I suspect preaching with twitter feedback, and other such contemporary ideas, may become part of preaching in some circles, but will be completely ignored in others. Either way, the preacher will always have a cutting room.

Any time we study God’s Word and prayerfully consider preaching it to others, we will probably end up blessed with more content than is really needed for that specific message from that passage to those people on that occasion.  Don’t dismiss the cuttings, some may be very useful, perhaps reheated in another message, but don’t overpack the sermon either . . . let it be as focused as it should be.

Share

Pre-Sermon Phone Call

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

One side of a pre-sermon phone call.

Yes, I know, it’s not the easiest of passages, you’re right.  Who assigned you that passage?  Well, I suppose that doesn’t really matter now does it? . . . Yes, you’re right, Sunday is coming.  But before you say another word, let me make some suggestions.  I know it’s tempting to skirt around the subject, or to take the main theme and preach on that without really dealing with the passage.  Or to fill time with illustrations and anecdotes – yes, it is easier to illustrate the theme in general than it is to explain this specific passage.

. . . So let me graciously ask you, why are you preaching about the subject of the passage and not really preaching the passage itself? . . .

. . . It’s not a clear passage?  No, it isn’t the easiest, but I would encourage you to dwell in it longer, keep praying and studying it.  Keep looking at how it fits in its context too, that almost always helps in the gospels.

. . . The commentators don’t agree?  Well, of course not, they have to say something slightly different to get published . . . ok, that was probably unfair, and yes, they are experts (some of them), but to you they have to be conversation and study partners, not dictators of the message, or diffusers of a strong teaching point.

. . .  The passage is too challenging?  You already said that . . . oh, I see what you mean, too challenging if you really preach it and apply it.  Yes, that’s how it often is when you dig into the teaching of Jesus.

. . . You have how many good illustrations?  . . . wow, I often struggle to find one or two, and you’ve got more than ten!  That’s great!  I’d suggest you save some for another message to allow time to preach this passage somewhere in there! . . . Which ones?  Well, cut out the ones that are illustrating the main theme, but not really illustrating this passage.

. . . Ok, I need to get going too, but here’s my suggestion: if you preach the theme, but skirt around the passage, your preaching will be weak.  It will lack authority.  You have some great illustrations, but maybe too many.  Don’t feel like you have to go to other passages to give different Bible teaching in order to have a reason to illustrate it – that’s backwards.  This passage is plenty of material for the message, along with the illustrations that really help this passage.  Don’t try to give a whole biblical theology of the main theme.  Let this passage do its work in peoples’ hearts.  Let it keep working in yours too.  Say less, fully earth the whole message in the passage and it will be a powerful message!  See you Sunday . . . yes, I’ll be praying for you.  Bye.

Share

Is Preaching Purely Subjective?

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

I know that my preaching has improved over the years.  I also know that my preaching is sometimes better and sometimes worse, for a whole variety of reasons.  But what about the preaching of others?  Many people will naturally evaluate the preaching of others, while some seem insistent that to evaluate is to somehow question the sovereign empowering of God.

I don’t deny that God can work through strengths and weaknesses in a preacher or sermon, but that doesn’t mean strengths and weaknesses don’t exist. We all know how God sometimes chooses to use our weaker attempts to do powerful work, but surely we mustn’t therefore pursue poorer preaching that grace may increase?  No, we have to balance the matter of being a steward of the opportunity we have.  A good steward will give their very best, but a humble steward will know that it is up to God to bring the increase.

I don’t deny that God can use all sorts of preachers in different situations, but that doesn’t mean the leadership in a church or event shouldn’t evaluate preachers. Again, it is a matter of stewardship.  If I am a leader in a church and someone is invited to preach, I should be evaluating them prior to inviting again (and to be able to follow up with the people in the church pastorally).  I may choose not to engage in a criticism-fest with others, but my responsibility as a leader is to evaluate, to guard and to feed the flock under my care.  As I heard one leader said once, “I can’t play the piano, so I don’t.”  It isn’t helping anything to give all preachers some sort of diplomatic immunity.

I don’t deny that different speakers appeal to different listeners, but that doesn’t mean that all preaching evaluation is purely subjective. Some things are not subjective.  A speaker either preaches heresy or borders on it or is basically biblical or is solidly biblical . . . it may be a scale, but it can be evaluated.  A speaker is either comprehensible or not (even though incomprehensible speakers are still a blessing to some diligent listeners who will get something out of whatever is spoken to them).  But some things may be subjective, such as manner, tone, level of interest, relevance or connection.  Having said that, such things can still be evaluated.  It may have connected with me to a certain extent, but would it make sense to a visitor, to a non-believer, to person X or Y or Z?  It is possible to have certain criteria by which to evaluate, depending on the nature of the meeting.

Preaching is sometimes described as both art and science.  As art it is subjective, but as science there are means to evaluate preaching (and even art can have to pass certain standards to make it into a gallery!)

Share

Idea to Idea, or Outline to Outline?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Some preaching methodologies suggest that the main idea is what crosses from textual study to sermon preparation. Others suggest that the outline of the text crosses over to form the outline of the sermon. Which is right?

Both, but with qualifications.

The idea is in charge of the message, the outline is not. Remember that the main idea of the passage was what the author was seeking to communicate to the recipients, and he chose to do so making choices about genre, structure, details, etc. Everything after the idea is a matter of authorial strategy. As we prepare to preach, our goal is to firstly grasp the main idea of the text, process that idea so that it takes into account the needs and situation of the listeners, and then consider how to form a sermon that will effectively deliver that main idea.

The outline of the text is not boss, but it does matter. In my approach, I teach a narrowing focus in the textual study that culminates in the defining of the main idea of the passage. That idea is then influenced (in certain respects) by an overt awareness of the listeners which determines the purpose of the message, and then the message idea is then in charge of the subsequent decisions relating to strategy (including the message structure, the illustrative details, intro, conclusion, etc.)

Having said all that, when it comes to the structure or outline of the message, where do I begin? With a contemporised outline derived from the passage. In effect the work done on the idea is also done on the outline.  So why don’t I overtly state that in the 8-stage process?

The outline of the passage is a starting place, but it does not always have to be obeyed. My default approach is to follow the strategy the author used by following the order and structure of the passage in my message outline.  However, I don’t feel restricted by this approach.  Sometimes the contemporary listeners are in a different place to the original recipients.  Sometimes they need differing strategies to drive the main idea home.  Perhaps extra info is needed, or a different starting place, or perhaps a different ordering of the content of the passage.

The passage outline is the place to start when it comes to the message outline, but it is not a requirement.  (However, I do feel constrained by the main idea of the text as I work at the level of main idea – hence my approach that emphasises the progress from passage idea to message idea).

Share

Extended Gestation

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Somebody has likened (with all the necessary caveats and apologies) preaching to pregnancy.  You know the elements of the analogy: something growing within, the building excitement, that something has to come out at a specific point in time, with the resulting post-delivery tiredness and even sometimes the post-partum blues.

Among other elements where the analogy breaks down, there is one that I’d like us to ponder today.  The length of gestation.  Real pregnancy has a consistency of length, preaching preparation doesn’t.  It is easy to fall into a cycle of preaching preparation, from start to finish, taking only five to six days.  This fits between Sundays, but it creates issues.

Is the message able to fully grow, and specifically, is it able to fully grow and work its way into your life if you’ve only been working on it for five days?  “I’ve been studying this passage for the past few days.  I’ve lived with it since Tuesday, and have been applying it consistently since yesterday morning.  Listen to my powerful message from 24 hours of experience . . . ” We don’t say this when we preach, but sometimes we say it by our lives.

Haddon Robinson suggested using a ten-day preparation cycle.  This means doing some preparatory exegetical work on the Thursday of the previous week.  This give it time to stir in the heart and mind before launching into preparation in the week before preaching.

Some preachers suggest planning a preaching calendar a year in advance, allowing for time to do initial study, ongoing research/collection of information, and personal application.  Some advocate taking a week to do preliminary work on all messages to be preached as part of this process.

What do you do?  How long do you take to allow the message to grow, and to make sure it has time to make a mark on your life, before you commend it to others?

Share

Why Not Use the Main Idea for the Message Title?

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Just following up on yesterday’s post, I thought I’d clarify why I don’t think it is usually a good idea to simply use the main idea of the message as a title.

1. You don’t want to give away any sermonic tension. Obviously if you are preaching an inductive message, then you need to withhold the main idea until the end of the message.  But if you’re preaching a deductive message, wouldn’t it be okay to advertise the main idea?  Occasionally it could be effective to do so, but I would generally choose not to do so.  Even in a deductive message, you typically will begin with an engaging and interesting introduction that leads to the presentation of the main idea of the message.  Within that short space of time, you may create some tension in the listener as they wonder how you’ll address this message to the need you are surfacing in the introduction.  But there are other factors to consider as well, before you give away your main idea to the advertising committee!

2. Length. Your main idea must needs be a complete sentence.  While it is generally better to be pithy than pedantic, it still may stretch for 10 to 15 words.  To put it simply, this will be too long to be an effective title for the message.

3. Care of Delivery. Hopefully your main idea is a well-crafted piece of precision communication, perhaps and probably taking longer to craft than significantly longer chunks of the message.  This is a precious piece of sentencry (new term, you saw it here first!) that will carry the weight of the message on its shoulders, yet penetrate deep into the hearts and minds of your listeners.  It is strong, yet precious.  Personally, when I have the fruit of significant labour, or something that should be of significance to the recipients, I would rather deliver it myself than just leaving it out in public.  I may be overplaying this since often our main ideas are just good and clear (on a good day), but I think my point stands.  If it is thrown around publically on leaflets, posters, adverts, or even just in the notice sheet, then I am not in control of how it is stated, how it is packaged, how it is heard.  Even just in the notice sheet . . . let’s be honest, do you really trust the guy who is sharing the notices earlier in the service not to mis-emphasise (or worse) your title if he chooses to mention it?

4. Contrasting Goals. I’ve gone over my word limit, so let me be brief for the last two.  The main idea is intended to be, above all, clear.  It should stir a definite nod of the head in recognition that it is exactly what the passage is saying, in summary, to us today.  Not so the title.  The title is intended to intrigue, to interest, to promise more, to suggest relevance and interest will follow for all who choose to attend and listen.

5. When the title is needed. If you’re not convinced already, this should do the job.  When is the title needed?  Probably more than a week in advance.  When is your main idea usually in a fit state for public presentation?  Probably not then.

Share

Sermon Titles: So Tricky

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Over three years ago, when this blog was first beginning, I wrote a post about sermon titles.  I called it “Tricky Little Things” and for some reason it was the post that consistently got the highest level of hits in the couple of years that followed.  So I thought I’d revisit it today with some tweaks.  Let’s think about sermon titles:

I don’t find it easy to write a title for a sermon. Actually, I do . . . a bad one! I don’t find it easy to write a good title for a sermon. So what makes a title tick?  Even before we get to that question, let’s consider a preliminary question – what is the point of the title?

Defining purpose for sermon titles is a worthwhile endeavour.  You have to consider your own situation.  Will the title be advertised publically?  Will it be announced to the church?  Will they only see it as they browse the notice sheet at the start of the service?  Some situations will demand more of the title than others!  Nevertheless, what makes a title tick?

A bad title illicits a yawn, an expectation that the message will be boring, irrelevant or distant. “Joseph’s Journey to Egypt.” Can’t imagine people purring with anticipation for that one. There have been times when I’ve sat through an introduction in which the preacher posed a question, “So what must be present in your ministry if it is to count for anything?” But I sat there unmoved by the “tension” because the bulletin had already told me the title – “Love – 1Cor.13:1-3.” I like the title Alexander Strauch used for an article on that text (and I believe, a message), “5-1=0.”

A good title stirs interest and piques curiosity. A good title gets the listener on your side. They already want to hear what you have to say before you start your introduction – bonus! So the big idea in a deductive sermon might make a good title, as long as it is going to be stated in the introduction and it leaves people wanting to know more. “I wonder what that is supposed to mean? The preacher will need to explain that!” But if the sermon is inductive, then don’t give away any tension in your title. That would be like your uncle who always gives away the punch line in the introduction to a joke, “Did you hear the one that ends with her saying, ‘no, but that’s a really nice ski mask!’… ?”

Titles are little things, but they’re not easy to write.  The keywords to keep in mind are intrigue, interest and relevance.

Share