Religion

Why Don’t We Have Q and A?

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

On Wednesday evening I spoke at a meeting I haven’t visited before.  They asked for a specific subject and so I spoke on that.  They suggested having ten minutes of questions after the message.  These were intelligent and helpful questions.  Hopefully my answers were the same!

So I have two thoughts:

1. Why don’t we create venues for Q&A times? I’ve only heard of a very few churches that have some structure set up for people to interact with the preacher about the message.  I heard of one place where the preacher goes to another room about half an hour after the service and is available for questions about the message.  Why not?  Obviously a Q&A at the end of the service could easily turn deeper communication times into information transfer times to be sabotaged by the curious, but thereby undermining life change for others.  Yet perhaps there is a way to create opportunities for a group to feed off one anothers questions and probe the message further?

But this leads me to a deeper question:

2. Why aren’t there more questions in church? I just spent three days with a group of student ministry leaders . . . major note takers and question askers!  Then the meeting on Wednesday evening – essentially a special interest group.  There are questions in classroom settings and in seminar formats, but in normal church?  Opportunity is already in place in that people can approach the preacher and ask a question, but typically do not.  Is it learned behaviour to not probe the sermon?  Is it a genuine lack of interest?  Or is it just that sense of not coming across as negative or critical?  Perhaps the opporrtunity would generate the interest and desire to probe messages further.  Perhaps for that reason alone we should consider introducing the odd time for Q&A?

Have you tried anything along these lines?  Did it work?  I’d love to hear from other people’s experience.

Authentic Communicators

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Apologies for no posts over the last three days.  I was expecing to have internet access where I was, but didn’t.

I was leading a session on preaching with a great group of folks yesterday.  We were considering what listeners value in a communicator.  Honesty.  Real-ness.  Vulnerability.  Eye-contact.  Authenticity.  I wonder if a previous generation might have listed different things?  Good word choice.  Presence.  Style.  Power.  Attractive voice.  Something else?

Perhaps authenticity has always been important, but it seems to be especially so today.  People don’t want to hear well-prepared but trafficked truth.  People don’t appreciate a presentation at arms length from Bible to listener, but by-passing the heart and life of the preacher.  As has always been the case, good preachers are transformed by the text before offering the text to others.

All this does not mean that speakers shouldn’t present well, clearly, effectively, even powerfully.  It does mean that every element of delivery has to be genuine, natural and authentic.  And that’s one of the challenges of delivery . . . it is not natural to stand in front of a group of people and speak naturally.  Hence the need to work on delivery to help it become more natural.  As I tend to say in the delivery workshops I sometimes run – the goal is not to perform, the goal is to let the natural you come through!

A Classic Contrast Revisited

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

In Between Two Worlds (I Believe in Preaching), John Stott contrasted the typical weakness in more liberal churches from the weakness in the preaching in more conservative churches.  One connected with the audience, but had no rooting in Scripture.  The other started with Scripture and built straight up to heaven, without ever touching down.  Timothy Ward’s book Words of Life revisits this contrast.  Allow me to paraphrase:

Some churches aim to give hope and inspire faith, but do so by proclaiming a Christ different from the Christ presented in the New Testament.  This is achieved by honouring the purpose of a text without being shaped fully by the content.  (Incidentally, this also happens in more conservative churches where a particularly elevated value is given to passion and emotion.)

On the other hand, some churches are driven by content, but seemingly unaware of the purpose for which that content was communicated.  In the more conservative churches there is a tendency to see the preacher as primarily a “Bible teacher.”  True biblical preaching should neither by-pass, nor settle for, faithful exegetical and doctrinal instruction.

Let me quote Ward’s conclusion to the section: “Properly faithful biblical preaching involves the preacher deliberately seeking to fashion every verbal (and indeed physical) aspect of his preaching in such a way that the Spirit may act through his words in the lives of his hearers, ministering the content of Scripture in accordance with the purpose of Scripture.” (p165)

Without wanting to critique Stott’s great book in any way, I have to admit I am really excited by what Ward has done here.  Scripture is not just a repository of truth which the preacher must purposefully land in the lives of the listeners.  The preacher’s task includes sensitivity to the original author’s purpose (or intent) as well as content, which must be effectively and sensitively communicated to the contemporary listeners.  What Stott would probably affirm (and I’m not checking the book, so he may overtly state this), Ward does overtly state.  Preacher, in your passage study, be sure to recognize the author’s intent as well as content.  Then preach so as to appropriately do what the passage did, as well as saying what the passage said.

“The Spirit is again graciously present in the preached message, if what is preached now is faithful in purpose and content to what he once inspired.” (p.165, italics original)

Fear, Trembling, But Not Only

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

I am just finishing up an excellent book on bibliology.  In the final chapter the author addresses the issue of preaching.  I need to re-read, digest some more and then write a review or something.  Excellent.  Anyway, just a point to ponder today.

The author quotes Karl Barth who suggests the question preachers should be asking is not “How does one do it?” but “How can one do it?”  It is critical to remember the greater issue is not our competence in preaching, but our dependence on the God for whom we speak.

The preacher is given the privilege of speaking God’s words, and yet has no power to determine any specific result – hence the preacher should preach in fear and trembling.  At the same time the preacher mustn’t be so fearful that resolve to know and proclaim Christ and him crucified is lost.

In boldness and trembling, in confidence and fear, we preach God’s Word.

Prayerful Preparation and Prayer

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I strongly resist the notion that learning about homiletics means that your preaching will automatically become professional, fleshly and spiritually cold.  Some do end up there.  Some do become mechanistic in their approach.  But I hold that it is right to be a good steward of the opportunity to develop as a preacher, as long as the process is saturated in prayer, as long as the personal relationship with the Lord doesn’t grow cold and become a thing of the past.

So when I teach a beginners intro to preaching, I always make it abundantly clear that the process I teach is not a machine into which a text is fed and a message emerges at the other end.  The process is a logical approach to developing a message, but it should be pursued in dependence upon the Lord through conversational prayer throughout the process.  Pray as you select a passage, pray as you study it, pray as you identify its purpose and pray as you clarify its main idea.  Pray as you consider who will hear the message, pray as you determine the purpose of the message, etc.

Having said all that, there is still a difference between prayerful preparation and just plain prayer.  Make sure that all your prayer is not running in parallel to preparation so that you fail to spend time with the Lord about the preaching opportunity.  Take time away from your PC, your notes, etc., and make sure you spend time talking to Him about the message, the people, the opportunity, your own heart and motivation in preaching, etc.

Time taken out of preparation to spend in focused prayer before the Lord is not time wasted.  Let’s be sure to prepare prayerfully.  And let’s be sure to pray as part of preparation.  Prayerful.  And prayer.  Both.

Help People Trust Their Bibles

/ Peter Mead / 7 Comments

I was just reading a post by Bill Mounce on the Koinonia blog (to see it click here.)  He offers a simple and graciously toned introduction to textual criticism set in the context of a natural question raised by folks in the church . . . “why is verse 4 missing in my Bible?”

Some textual critical questions would probably only be asked by people already heavily interested in the subject with apparatus in hand.  These kinds of questions may intrigue us, but usually shouldn’t find their way into the pulpit!  However, if people in the pew are looking at their Bible and asking a textual critical question, then we need to offer help.  Just a few brief thoughts in light of Bill’s good post:

1. Textual criticism can be explained relatively simply. People probably don’t need to know about every textual family, how to pronounce homeoteleuton, or the full rationale behind lectio difficilor potior.

2. Textual criticism can be explained with grace. This area of study can really stir up the tension, especially between adherents to different textual families.  Such tensions won’t help if shown from the pulpit.  Be gracious to people who disagree with you on Majority Text vs Critical Text issues.  Often you’d be fighting an unseen opponent anyway since people in the same church often tend to use the same version of the Bible (and most of these without any real understanding of text critical issues underlying the options)!

3. Textual criticism should be explained at the right time. Just because you’re enjoying a textual critical excursion in your personal study, or even in your sermon preparation, doesn’t mean the people are needing a dose of it.  But when a verse is missing and they are wondering, or when you’re going through Mark or John and you get to the square bracket sections, then is probably a good time to offer some explanation.

4. Textual critical explanations should build trust in our English Bibles. This has to be paramount.  What have you gained if you’ve showed off your knowledge, perhaps won a debate against an opponent not present, but undermined the confidence of every listener in their English Bible?

Too Obvious To State?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I was in a conversation with a friend the other day and his question prompted a response that I heard previously from Haddon Robinson.  Interestingly, I don’t remember Haddon overtly teaching this concept, but it came out several times in responses to questions he was asked.  Perhaps these three principles (from Aristotle, I believe), are too obvious to state.  Let me state them anyway:

A message needs unity – that is, a message should be about one thing.  Not three things, or numerous things, but one thing.  A sense of unity is important.  If it’s missing then the listeners will supply an imposed unity (often in the form of only remembering your most poignant or amusing illustration . . . which can be frustrating when you are later met with, “Hi!  You’re the preacher who preached the message about the child lost in the funfair!”, when actually you were preaching about salvation but didn’t make that clear by presenting a united message!)

A message needs to be in order – Often a message that makes total sense in the order of 1, 2, 3, 4, simply does not communicate  when it is structured 1, 3, 4, 2.  Or even worse: 1, 3, part of 4, part of 2, rest of 4, etc.  The speaker should think through the order of the message and make sure it makes sense.

A message needs a sense of progress – It needs to be going somewhere.  Without progress the message is about as enjoyable as treading water, in a confined space, with limited air (perhaps it’s only me that feels claustrophobic in a too slow message?)  The preacher needs to give a sense of going somewhere so that the journey through the message can be more satisfying than enduring the ticking of the clock.

Unity, order and progress.  Basics.  Obvious ones, perhaps, but probably worth stating to ourselves now and then!

Most Important

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

How about starting the week with a quote from Pasquarello’s We Speak Because We Have First Been Spoken (p4):

“For this reason, the most important element of sermon preparation is the theological, spiritual and moral formation of the preacher through the Spirit’s empowerments of faith, hope, and love, which are completed by the gifts of wisdom, understanding, counsel, strength, knowledge, godliness, and fear of the Lord (Isa.11). Learning the ‘grammar’ of the preaching life requires cultivating habits of the mind, heart, and body – including speaking truthfully – that are intrinsic to the church’s vocation of knowing and worshiping the triune God. If this is true, preaching excellence will be the fruit of listening to God’s prior Word and act before we ourselves presume to speak.  And because the depth and riches of God’s Word are too great to absorb in a lifetime, we will have cause to listen for eternity.”

I’ll basically leave the post there, but it’s worth remembering that this week is not just about preparing this Sunday’s sermon . . . it’s more about the relational investment in response to the work of God in your life as He shapes you into the person, and the preacher, He wants you to be.  Suddenly sermon prep isn’t confined to one box in our schedule!

Don’t Rush

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I’m not referring specifically to the speed of delivery here.  Some of us need to slow down sometimes, others could really do with speeding up slightly, and we all need to be sensitive to the particular listeners before us.

I am referring to the pace of information being offered.  It is easy, especially after studying for many hours, to overload the listeners’ bandwidth.  Listeners need time to process information.  Images take time to form.  Stories take time to tell.  Take the necessary time.

As well as taking the necessary time, be aware of the aural equivalent of optical illusions.  There are things we do that may not speed up the pace the words are emerging, but will give the impression that the information is rushing out:

1. Mini illustrations, quotes and anecdotes. It is easy to jump through illustrations really quickly.  It may work, or it may overwhelm the bandwidth.

2. Piling up Biblical illustrations. It is so easy to jump in and out of a biblical book, then another, and another.  All the while you are seeking to underline the point of the main passage, but listeners can easily feel overwhelmed with unfamiliar contexts and content (even if they know the contexts, it still takes mental effort to process a passing illustration).

3. Key explanations unrestated. It is easy to make a vital connection.  I was just listening to a sermon where a key, critical, vital connection was made in the space of a handful of words.  “Here xyz means jkl.”  It was a link that required some backing up and explanation.  It slipped by and the next five minutes I was struggling to listen because I didn’t get the four-word sentence (I understood the sentence, but couldn’t see how he got there from that verse).

4. Transitions. While it is possible to drive quickly down the straight road, we need to slow down through corners.  Transitioning between one point and the next is a critical moment in the message, but it is so easy to fly through the bends.

5. Multiple purposes. If you are trying to achieve too many things, the message will feel choppy and disconnected.  When listeners can’t follow the flow that comes from unity of purpose, they will feel like the message is firing in multiple directions and therefore struggle to take it all in (in fact, they won’t, they’ll reprocess for unity and probably make the main thing the most compelling illustration or story used!)

Let’s beware of things we may do that give the sense of being too fast.  Allow listeners enough time in the passage you’re preaching to let it soak down into their lives and saturate their hearts.

Preaching and Practice

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I know I recently started Darrell Johnson’s book and mentioned that I would review it, but have not had a chance to finish it since.  And I know that I should probably finish that before I start another.  But, well, too late.  I just started into Michael Pasquarello’s We Speak Because We Have First Been Spoken. So far so good.

Here’s a taste:

If we are what we know and love and become what we do and say, our way of speaking will be intrinsic to, and indicative of, what we are and what we hope to be by the grace of God.  And while most preachers will acknowledge the importance of “practicing what you preach,” they give too little attention to the manner in which the character of a preacher’s way of being, the conversation of one’s loves, habits, and desires, is communicated as “preaching what you practice.”

It is vital that we realize that “effective preaching” (a term Pasquarello would probably resist) is built not only on the communication of our words, but more substantially by the communication of our life.  So I am challenged by the relative clarity of not only “practicing what we preach,” but actually “preaching what we practice.”

Worth pondering.