Religion

Sermons and Series

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

After listening to a couple of Andy Stanley series recently, I have been pondering a point he makes in his book, Communicating for a Change.  He says that what most people try to achieve in a single sermon should really be developed over a whole series.  This allows for each message to genuinely have a single point, rather than a collection of points (and reduced impact).  It allows for the whole series to reinforce rather than confuse.

I have to say, after listening to a couple of his series, I tend to agree.  Perhaps we bite off too much in a series.  Perhaps we try to cover whole sections of a book, or a whole book, when maybe we would do better to drive home one passage more effectively. Perhaps we are too quick to move on and assume listeners have understood the point and applied it in their lives.

I suppose this creates a difficulty if we are committed to trying to preach every bit of the Bible over some self-determined priod of time.  I suppose it also puts a burden on the preacher – if you’re going to stay in the same passage for more than one sermon, you’d better not be boring!  But ultimately I suppose it asks the key question: not are we trying to cover ground, or are we trying to entertain, but are we trying to see lives transformed?  If that is the question, perhaps more focused series is part of the solution?

Preaching a Passage Owned

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Preachers preach a Bible passage from a variety of stances or approaches.  I see something of a continuum here and would love to encourage all preachers to move further down the list.

1. Preaching from thoughts prompted by the passage. In preparation the text is read, then the preacher preaches based on thoughts triggered by elements in the text.  It could be a certain word.  It could be a character mentioned.  It could really be anything.  Why do people do this?  Because they have not been taught a better way, and because it has a sort of pseudo-spirituality about it as an approach (since perhaps God is highlighting unique elements to make this a unique experience of the text).

2. Preaching about a subject in the passage. The preacher latches on to a subject mentioned in a text and addresses that subject, perhaps using other texts for support, perhaps just sharing their own perspective on that subject.

3. Preaching about the subject in the passage. A single unit of Scripture (a epistle’s paragraph, an individual narrative or parable, a psalm, a proverb, etc.) has a specific subject.  It is united by it’s dealing with something in particular.  Preaching about that something in particular is a great step forward and honours the text, the author and the Inspirer of that text.

4. Preaching about the passage. The preacher is focused on the text, has studied it and preaches about it.  There is a focus on the passage.  The details are explained, the flow is clarified, the message is applied.  This is decent preaching.

5. Preaching the passage. The difference between this and the previous one is a matter of distance.  Preaching about the passage can be accurate and relevant, and yet still feel a bit “arms length.”  The passage is like an exhibit being presented.  If every church achieved level 4 consistently I believe the church would be so much healthier.  But there is also level 5 in this continuum.  If level 4 says what the text says, then level 5 is about doing what the text does.  Somehow the preacher isn’t merely presenting an exhibit, but has so grasped the passage and been so gripped by it, that the preaching is no longer “arms length” – it is direct, personal, clear, alive, to us.  There must still be historical explanation, looking at the passage, applying the message of the passage, but now it is the preaching of a passage owned, a passage that has saturated the heart and mind and life and preparation of the preacher.

Where are you on this continuum?  How about moving one step further?

Think It Through Before You Cross Over This Line!

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

There is a line that it may be tempting to cross.  Perhaps you have been studying in a certain area of theology.  Perhaps it is personal experience that is pushing you in a certain direction.  Perhaps you are tired of a certain over-emphasis in your church circles.

So you preach (or write, or converse about, or blog about) something.  You try to expand the horizons, the categories, the awareness of your listeners.  You paint a glorious picture of oft-neglected theological vistas.  In the process you help people to see more clearly, to understand more fully, to respond more holistically.  But that is where danger lurks.

In shifting the emphasis, even if only for one message, you will be tempted to cross a line.  The line is crossed when instead of helping people see more and to see it clearly, you move from addition to contrast.  It is crossed when your study or experience or emphasis takes you to a point where you decide not just to add to the listeners’ understanding, but you decide to contrast your focus with some aspect of orthodoxy.

So actually the Cross wasn’t about that, it was about this.  So really God isn’t that, but this.  So now we see that Christianity is not about that at all, but only this.  Careful.  Extremely careful!

There are things in all church traditions that may be labeled orthodoxy, but are actually biblically errant.  I am not saying we can never contrast or critique.  I believe we must.  What I am saying is that a throw away comment about an emphasis within orthodox theology can come back to bite.

I was just reading a book.  I was enjoying it.  In fact, I read a page that took my breath away it was so well-written.  Then there was a throw away comment of unnecessary contrast.  How easy to do that unawares in writing, in preaching, in conversation.  Evangelical theology needs critique on various levels, but throw away contrast comments are not going to achieve anything other than vilifying their source.  You.

What we say matters.  Be careful!

Is That All?

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

I was just reading a book that made a simple, but memorable point.  The author asked a carpenter working on his house what difference Jesus made to his life and work.  The answer was telling, “I suppose he makes me an honest carpenter.”  Is that all?

How often do we essentially preach a salvation ticket to heaven with morality for the present? How often do we fall painfully short of offering to people in our meetings what Jesus called “life to the full” or “eternal life” … now?  I believe many are failing to preach much of a hope for the future, with the watered down vesions of, or totally ignored subject of, the future.  Yet it is hard to say that the future is neglected for the sake of the present.  For many, the present life offered by Christianity is merely moral.

Have we become dulled and insensitive to the richness of life in fellowship with the God of the universe?  Have we over-simplified gospel preaching to a simple solution for guilt, but stripped it of the richness of reconciliation, regeneration, adoption, fellowship, not to mention the horizontal overflow of these vertical realities?

I’ll keep this post short and not chase down the theological possibilities.  But perhaps we would do well to evaluate the net presentation of the Christian life in our preaching – is it merely that now we can be honest carpenters?

Overly Narrow Application of a Principle

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I’d like to build a little on the post from three days ago.  Here is a post I wrote a while back, but am fairly sure I forgot to post on the site.  It offers another angle on the challenges of application, again overtly leaning on Haddon Robinson’s work.

In simple terms the homiletical process involves three stages.  The first is the exegetical work of determining the original writer’s meaning.  The second stage involves abstraction of that meaning via theological principalization to derive a timeless truth.  The final stage is the earthing of that principle for the listeners sat in front of you – the homiletical application stage.  At this point our task is to not only demonstrate the meaning of the passage, but also to emphasize how it is relevant to the listeners.

Application is set up for illustrative material.  By definition, application involves demonstrating how the biblical principle might be applied in a contemporary setting, what difference it makes to us today.  At this point in the message, it makes sense to use illustrative materials.  But beware, there is a trap that is easy to fall into.

The incomplete variety of application error.  The meaning of a passage, and the derivation of principle, are both inclined toward single statement results.  That is to say, there is one meaning.  But how is that principle applied?  There are usually numerous possibilities.  If you only present a single example application, even if you state that this is one possible application, listeners will tend to presume that is specifically what you are preaching (or even, what the Bible is teaching).

Haddon Robinson gives the example of “honoring your parents” in a Pulpit Talk audio journal.  One possible application he gives from his experience with his own ageing father – that he ended up in a nursing home.  Another possible application he gives from their experience with his mother-in-law – that she was cared for by Haddon’s wife in their house.  To give one example without the other runs the risk of communicating only one option for applying the principle derived from the passage.

When you are applying a passage, demonstrating and emphasizing its relevance for your listeners, be sure to indicate the variety of possible applications, rather than leaving people with a faulty understanding of the passage because of an overly narrow applicational example.

Movie Illustrations – A Risky Business

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Some churches absolutely oppose any illustration from hollywood or TV.  Actually, some churches oppose any attempt to be relevant to contemporary listeners at all.  Now if you preach in a place that is not so restrictive, you’ll be tempted to use movie illustrations sometimes.  They can be very effective.  But there are a few things to keep in mind:

1. Not everyone will have seen it. Simple, but true.  Some films have been seen by most people, but we can’t presume everyone has seen any film.  This means that any reference to a film will require some explanation  Be aware of that and prepare accordingly.

2. Not everything in it may be appropriate. The part you are referring to may be precisely illustrative of what you are saying.  But remember to think through the rest of the film through the eyes of others present.  Are you endorsing everything in the film by referring to it?  What about the lewd scene later on?  What about the underlying paradigm in the story?  What about the language used?  What about . . . what about . . . You might as well think it through before you use it, because others may have immediate reactions without much thinking!

3. Will it take too much explaining? Sometimes a movie provides the ideal example for the point you are making.  Perhaps it explains the point.  Perhaps it proves it.  Perhaps it demonstrates application.  But if it takes too much explaining, then it might just undermine the message.  Background explanation will diminish momentum and energy, it will sabotage a potentially powerful point.  Sometimes it’s just not worth the time and effort needed.

4. Will it overwhelm the text and the message? Sometimes you have the opposite problem.  The image is simply too powerful, too emotional, too overwhelming.  What if the listeners go away with the movie scene resonating deeply, but the text overlooked and the message ignored?  Hollywood are masterful creators of emotional experience.  They know the power of this.  They know what effect it has in conveying their strong agenda.  Very few preachers get the importance of this.  Often our “agendas” fall short (not because we lack visual stimuli – throwing money at a film and adding effects doesn’t guarantee any positive reaction!)  Often we underwhelm, and a movie example can overwhelm, even without showing any of it.  Think it through before you use it.

5. Will it create inappropriate association? What if a movie gives a great example of a principle, but does so in a setting that inappropriate in association with Scriptural truth?  Consider all the great love stories that move so many people deeply, but are actually tales of unfaithfulness, impropriety, stirring the viewer to hope the marriage can end so they can find true love, etc.  Or what about the plethora of potential illustrations in the series that has captured so many of the younger generation . . . Harry Potter.  If you don’t raise a query about the appropriateness of the HP narratives in connection with biblical truth, someone else will.

This post sounds anti-movie illustration.  Not at all.  I use them sometimes.  It is anti-unthought-through movie illustrations!

Preaching and Those Few Key Sentences

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

How many hundreds of sentences are used in a sermon?  And they all matter.  But they don’t all matter as much as a few of them.  I suppose I would suggest the following sentences as worthy of extra effort:

1. The Main Idea. Hours might be spent crafting and honing the main sentence for a message.  That would be hours well spent.  The main idea is the boss of everything in the message, it is the filter through which much extraneous “good stuff” is sloughed off.  It is the burning hot focus that is to be seared into the heart and mind of the listener.  It brings together understanding of the passage with emphasis on the life-changing relevance for the listener.  The main idea really is all it’s cracked up to be, and it’s absence will only confirm that billing!

2. The first sentence. It’s great to start the message with an arresting introduction.  Instead of beating around the bush until you get into your stride, much better to start with a bang.  It may be a startling sentence.  It may be an intriguing sentence.  It may be a contemporary paraphrase of that infinitely powerful sentence, “once upon a time . . . ” (narratives do grip listeners fast!)

3. Transition sentences. I think transitions are oft-neglected.  A good message with poor transitions will lose people.  Give some extra effort to transitioning slowly, smoothly, safely.  Keep your passengers in the car when you take the turns.

4. The final sentence. That last sentence can ring in the ears as silence descends and you move to take your seat.  Despite the best efforts of over anxious worship leaders or people chairing meetings, the final sentence can resonate in a life.  Don’t fizzle to a halting stop.  Stop.  Clear.  Precise.  Having arrived at your destination.  Having achieved your goal.  Having parked the message with exactly the final sentence you determined.

Preaching may involve hundreds of sentences, but a few of them are worth extra careful crafting!

Excessive Abstractions and Principles Too General

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Preaching an ancient text to a contemporary congregation will usually require some level of abstraction.  To preach an ancient instruction simply as it stands is to present a historical lecture, rather than a relevant presentation of inspired truth.  Some preachers simply say what is there and effectively offer historical lecture.  Other preachers abstract from historical specifics to timeless abiding theological truth, but end up preaching vague generalities.

To grasp what Robinson calls the “exegetical idea” and move through the “theological idea” to get to the “homiletical idea” is not easy.  The end result needs to be clearly from the text or the authority has been lost.  Yet the end result has to be specifically clear in its emphasis on the relevance of that text to us or the interest is lost.  One temptation is simply to play it safe, perhaps too safe.

What I mean by that is that we might derive a general, borderline generic, principle from a passage and move from historical explanation (often curtailed) into general application of this general principle.  Was the message true?  Yes.  Biblical?  Yes.  Relevant?  I suppose so.  Life-changing?  Probably not!  Sometimes it is a fear of fully engaging the text that can lead to this “generic” preaching.  Other times it is a fear of fully engaging the listeners that leads to it.

John Stott’s metaphor of the preacher as bridge-builder is helpful here.  The best preaching will not only touch both the world of the Bible and the world of the listener.  The best preaching will be firmly rooted, planted, engaged with and connected to both worlds.  Let’s not preach vaguely biblical abstract generalities.  Let’s really preach this text to these people!

Improving Speech While Not Preparing – 3

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

For the past two days I have looked at word choices and verbal pauses.  More could be said, but it would be more of the same.  Perhaps working on choosing vivid rather than lifeless descriptors would be worth a post, but you can think that through.  I would like to add one more post to the series on another aspect of delivery – the visual element.

What listeners take in through the “eye-gate” is massively significant.  Some elements of visual, or non-verbal delivery, can be improved in everyday life.  Here are a few possibilities, select only those that are issues in your delivery:

1. Eye contact. Perhaps the most important ingredient in any delivery recipe, eye contact takes work for many of us.  In every conversation or presentation (which might be the telling of a story to a group of friends standing around the coffee machine at work), practice making meaningful eye contact with the entire group.  How easy to develop a blind spot (never looking to the people on your left).  How easy to get in the habit of looking over people or past people.  Practice will help your preaching, not to mention your daily conversations!

2. Posture. How do you stand while in a conversation?  How do you stand when saying goodbye at the front door (a very English pastime)?  How do you hold yourself when approaching the counter in a store?  Developing healthy and confident, but not arrogant or contrived posture is worth the effort.  It is so easy to undermine a message by sending “don’t trust me” or “this is not important” signals!

3. Distracting movement. Some people pace, others shuffle, some sway, some fidget.  If you discover you have a propensity to distracting movement, work it out in normal life.  It will only help in life and ministry.

4. Distracting gesture. Apart from some obviously offensive gestures, I am not highly against any gesture.  Hand in pocket can be fine.  Pointing might be appropriate.  Touching the face may not detract from a message.  However, any repeated gesture can become highly distracting.  If you find you have one, work it out in normal life.  Finger to finger push-ups, one arm hanging limp, jingling keys in the pocket, the werewolf, the T-Rex (elbows attached to the side but lots of hand gesturing), what Bert Decker calls the fig leaf, or the fig leaf flasher, the Clinton (gesturing as if holding the pen), even slapping yourself on the head.  Anything can be distracting if overused!

5. Smile.  A grossly underused tool for connection and building trust.  It wouldn’t hurt the world if we all practiced this more in everyday life, and it might show more in our preaching too!

Find out (from friend or from video) what you need to work on, your listeners will appreciate it!

Improving Speech While Not Preparing – 2

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday I referred to Jay Adams’ suggestion that we can improve our language use best by working on it in everyday life so that it becomes natural.  He mentions another aspect of speech that many need to work on.  The unnecessary use of, you know, like, filler words.  These verbal pauses do a lot to distract listeners and lessen the impact of otherwise pointed and focused speech.

The problem with filler words or verbal pauses is that they only seem to get worse when we focus on them in a time of tension.  So simply telling yourself not to say that thing you always say so often is not going to fix it when you’re preaching.  In fact, it will probably exacerbate the problem.  So Jay Adams suggests working on this at home, with the help of your wife.  Have a family member help by making it clear whenever the filler is used.  Gradually the added complexity of conversation will motivate you to drop the filler. “Know?  I don’t know, could you explain it to me please?” That will really stack up in some of our, you know, conversations. “Like?  What was he like, to what would you compare him?” That will complicate a relatively simple interchange!

If you can figure it out, a signal system that is only known to you and your spouse could be used in public settings too.  However, Adams suggests this approach be kept to the private sphere if there isn’t total agreement on how to proceed in public!

Eliminating verbal pauses will achieve massive benefits for preaching.  But perhaps the time to work on the habit is in the normal situations of life, rather than the pressure cooker situation of preaching.  At th end of the day, you know, what have you found helpful in eliminating verbal pauses or distracting cliches?