Religion

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

When Does This Touch My Heart?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Following on from yesterday’s post about the process of preparation being logical, but not mechanical, I’d like to come at the same issue from a different angle.

There is a danger that we follow a process like the 8-stage approach presented on this site, and then afterward seek to “add affect.”  That is, we work through the steps, end up with something of a message, but then try to add the affective elements to it.  These might include adding some sense of its effect or affect on us, the preacher.  Or adding elements to stir the affections of the listener.

Adding Affect Smacks of Rhetorical Trickery. Distinctly adding in content, or manner, or anecdote for the purpose of stirring response from listeners feels to me like the rhetorical trickery of the professional speakers of Paul’s day.  There are ways to generate response, to stir emotion, to manipulate feelings.  What place do these have in a ministry of integrity?  Hopefully none.

Preaching Flat is No Solution. Some seem to reject emotional manipulation by preaching purely informational sermons.  They seem to think that simply saying the truth and leaving all aspects of response and emotion to the Holy Spirit is the way to honour what Paul was saying in 1Cor.1-4.  I beg to differ.  Anytime we leave a part of preaching to the Holy Spirit, we are suggesting that there are some things we can do, and other bits He must do.  Leaving application to the Holy Spirit can sometimes seem to suggest that we can handle explanation without Him.  This is wrong thinking.  The preacher’s task is to explain, to apply, to represent the message of the text, to speak as God’s spokesperson, God’s herald, doing all in dependence on the Holy Spirit.  This roundabout paragraph brings me to my point though – how can we flat preach a text that isn’t flat?

Affect Shouldn’t Be Added, But Pervade. If the text you are studying comes with the affective contours of a real life writer in real life tensions, inspired by a passionate God who has a heart . . . then where does this “flat” bit come from?  It is our received approach that makes exegesis a cold process.  It is our elevation of cold intellectual knowledge to a revered status.  The text isn’t mere information.  God isn’t pure mind.  We don’t need to be mere intellects in action as we prepare.  Listeners aren’t blank slates waiting for an information dump.

So where does this passage touch my heart? Not as an afterthought, or I haven’t really studied it.  At every stage in the process my heart should be responsive to the text.  Actually, responsive to the God who inspired the text.  Let us grow in engaging fully with God, with His Word, and then hopefully our listeners will grow in the same as they respond to the preaching of His Word.

Share

Logical, Not Mechanical

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I teach an 8-stage approach to preaching preparation, always emphasising that each stage should be saturated with prayer (avoiding suggesting prayer as a single stage, or suggesting that this is a prayerless process).

The 8 stages are in a logical order. You cannot prepare the message until you’ve worked with the passage (1-4 before 5-8).  You cannot study the passage until you’ve selected it (1 before 2-4).  You cannot determine the idea of the passage until you’ve selected and studied it (1-3 before 4).  You cannot finalise your message idea until you’ve determined your message purpose (5 before 6).  You cannot decide on structure/strategy and details like intro/conclusion/”illustration” until you’ve determined message purpose and main controlling idea (5 and 6 before 7 and 8).

The 8 stages are not in a rigid order. The reality of preaching preparation is much more fluid than these stages might suggest.  Ideas and thoughts come at various times and should be noted rather than rejected.  As much as we should try to study the passage in its own right, we cannot help but tend toward application earlier in the process, and therefore also to thoughts about the message.  We are dynamic and unpredictable creatures, so naturally preparing a message will reflect that.  (I do stand by my suggestion that those learning should learn the more “stilted” approach first, then grow flexible out of a solid foundation.  Also seasoned preachers would do well to periodically follow the process closely.)

The 8 stages do not constitute a machine. The important thing is that we don’t fall into the trap of thinking a logical and ordered process equates to a message machine: feed in a text and just enough time and out pops a fully formed message.  That will feel as ineffective to our listeners as it will to us.  These 8 stages are logical.  You may choose to add in a distinct middle stage of overtly prayerfully analysing the expected listeners before embarking on the latter four stages of message preparation.  You may disagree with the stages and adjust them or increase them.  But what we mustn’t do is become mechanical in our preparation.  It takes time, seemingly unproductive time, to chew on the text.  It takes time, prayerful experience, and eyes fixed on the Lord, for the text and message to be worked out in your life before you speak it out of your own lips.

Follow the process if it is helpful to you, but remember to pray, to dwell, to linger, to process, to chew.

Share

Dumbing Down Preaching?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

After my post on making sense I received the following very helpful comment from Martin:

You make good points but I am left wondering.

There is so much dumbing down in America, are your encouraging the dumbing down of the sermon too?

How do you lift the bar for the congregation?

How do you keep the focus of the bright ones without leaving the newcomers behind?

In a rhetorical sense, should pastors check their brains (and learning) at the door to appeal to the least common denominator? In so doing, do the more educated listeners leave the service longing for more meat and less milk?

In sum, how do you balance these competing elements in the congregation?

————————

Thanks for the comment.  I am absolutely not encouraging the dumbing down of the sermon.  I am encouraging making sermons understandable.  The level at which the sermon is pitched should be part of the preacher’s strategy, thoroughly informed by who is listening to the sermon (which implies knowing your congregation as well as possible).

Let’s take, as an example, a tennis coach.  Their job is to maximize the potential of the student by helping them improve their game.  In order to achieve that goal, they have to make sure that everything they work on with the student is both understood and implemented.  In reality they will make sure the basics are well-drilled, but they will also add to those basics the more nuanced elements of the game to produce a trained player who can play to the best of their ability.  That will take many hours of training, perhaps hundreds of hours.  But if you drop in at any point in the training, the student should understand what is being taught.  A tennis coach that uses obscure language, unknown illustrations, omitted connections, rapid transitions, unclear speech, assumed knowledge and incoherent literary speech will not be effective, and unlike the preacher, will not be thanked for their “deep training.”

So to lift the bar for the congregation we must make sure our preaching is stretching them by its content, rather than missing them by lack of clarity.

I think it is possible to communicate to several levels at once.  Usually there is no need to differentiate massively in our preaching, “now for the more biblically astute listeners, listen to this…”  Actually we can offer extra elements without overplaying the introduction.  The key is for the listeners to be able to understand what you mean.  Newcomers are helped massively by simple explanations of all that is happening, so that even if they don’t fully comprehend every element of the service/message, they feel welcomed and comfortable (rather than alien and uncomfortable).

Pastors please don’t check your brains at the door.  But feel free to leave your egos there.  An effective communicator uses a part of their skill and learning to make sure they connect with their listeners.  Obscuring speech in order to appear intelligent is a prideful and profoundly unhelpful habit.  The best sportspersons are the best because they make the profoundly complex look simple.  The best coaches communicate effectively so that their instructions can be understood.  The best preachers profoundly communicate the scriptures, using their skill to make sure that listeners understand them.

Share