Religion

Improving Speech While Not Preparing

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Jay Adams suggests that improvements in speech should be pursued during everyday life, but not when preparing the message.  The reason he gives is that focusing on grammar, phraseology or pronunciation during preparation and delivery is a distraction from the real task at hand.  It is better, he suggests, to work on improving your speech during every day life.  Over the course of several weeks it is possible to master a new speech habit.

For example, you might need to work on saying “He asks you and me,” rather than “He asks you and I.”  By concentrating on this and working on it in everyday situations it will not take too long for it to become a speech habit that will naturally come out while preaching.

Another example is that of storytelling.  Every day we can practice telling stories compellingly, with good flow, description and appropriate pausing.  We shouldn’t wait for a dramatic life event, but rather choose an experience each day to recount to our families over dinner.  Practising the telling of a story in the car can help, and the repeated telling of stories with increasing effectiveness will only help our ability to tell stories during preaching – personal “illustrations” or biblical stories.

Tomorrow I’ll mention another aspect of speech that can be worked on in everyday life.

Of Bifurcations and Dichotomies

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Most people have a tendency to think in black and white categories.  Something is either right or wrong, good or bad.  In order to get from the complex world of reality to the comfortable world of clear categories, we tend to bifurcate inappropriately and end up with inconsistent dichotomies.  For example?

Well, consider the two issues of communication style and biblical content.  These are two issues.  Yet for many people they seem to have been melded into a one or the other dichotomy.  So if a preacher has an engaging and natural style, then the content must be weak and lightweight.  Equally, if I am to preach biblically, then my style must needs be less than connecting.  The apparent truth of this thinking is seen in so many preachers, but there is real fallacy here.

I just listened to a series of messages that could be labeled as seeker friendly in style, certainly very natural and engaging.  Therefore biblically lightweight?  Not a bit of it.  Actually I found a couple of them stunningly effective in how they handled the text and communicated it to the listeners.  That’s not to say that all such messages are biblically solid, but it’s equally wrong to assume all are not.

Natural engaging style that is connecting with the unchurched is one issue.  Biblically solid and rich content is another issue.  One doesn’t mitigate against the other.  Let’s not be too quick to dismiss.  Equally I listened to an older message that was biblically solid, but wouldn’t qualify as contemporary in style.  Stodgy, boring, irrelevant, cold?  Not at all.  It was deeply moving and highly helpful.

Let’s be careful not to combine and confuse categories in order to create clear categories for ourselves.  Life, and ministry, is lived not in many blacks and whites, but in numerous complex layers of grey.  That statement does not in any way argue against objective truth, as it could so easily be misquoted.  Rather it urges us to engage the complexity of life, of ministry, of preaching.  And on the example given in this post – let’s be both biblically solid and communicatively natural for the sake of ministerial effectiveness.

A Tired Feast

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Sunday morning I preached the last of the messages.  I’d taught class for four days, but then things got busier.  Between Thursday evening and Sunday morning (60 hours) I spoke six times, taught two sessions, and travelled many miles by car, train and aeroplane.  Not the busiest few days, but among the tightest in terms of the travel schedule.  So Sunday afternoon I got on the train to start the journey home.

I was tired and knew that attempting to read or write would be borderline futile.  So instead I chose to enjoy a tired feast.  Stopping only to hand over my passport or order food, I basically spent the next hours listening to about a dozen messages from about seven different speakers.  Subjects were varied.  Speakers truly diverse – from Stan Toussaint and Ron Allen to a series from Andy Stanley and even a few minutes of Ken Davis.  I drifted a couple of times from eyes closed to actually asleep, so I moved back and listened again to those minutes.

I didn’t listen to make observations on preaching technique.  I didn’t listen to gain ideas for illustrations or preaching strategies.  I listened because I knew I needed to be fed.  I was fed.  Actually, I feasted.  A stunning illustration of Isaiah 53:10 from an elderly scholar.  A moving introduction to a message on life’s pivotal circumstances from a contemporary communicator.  An inspiring series on growing in faith.  A great example of traditional preaching on the tabernacle.  A well-shaped presentation of the raising of Lazarus.  A non-traditional survey of a theme in John’s gospel.

Sometimes we need to stop giving out and take the time to be fed.  Hungry?

Giving a Testimony

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

nugget from Richard Bewes’ book, Speaking in Public Effectively.  As a preacher, you may not be asked to give your testimony so much any more, but perhaps these guidelines might be worth giving to anyone you ask to share a testimony in church.

First, it is a testimony to a Person and what he has done for you.

You are not asked to be on your feet to pay tribute to a book, a Christian, a course or a church that may have helped you, though any of these may legitimately come into the story.  But it is Jesus Christ, and what he has so far done for you that you are wanting to focus upon primarily.

Second, it is a testimony and not a mini-sermon that you are giving.

Three and a half minutes is enough – unless you have been invited to speak for longer.  The whole style is that of telling a story.  It is unwise, then to attempt to do the preacher’s task.  Use a text, by all means, if there is something from the Scriptures that has meant a great deal in your spiritual beginnings.  But don’t end the testimony by a long exhortation to commitment; that is almost certainly someone else’s job in the proceedings.

Third, it is a testimony and not an essay.

Although it may well be wise to write out, word for word, what you intend to say (this can help you keep to time), have your notes on a small jotting pad or card, rather than on a large, distracting sheet of paper.  The whole presentation is essentially one of spontaneity and an impulsive desire to tell. Write it out as you would describe it to your best friend in the chair opposite you.

How many good testimonies end awkwardly with an unnecessary exhortation to commitment?  Helpful advice from Richard Bewes.

The Subject We Don’t Mention

/ Peter Mead / 8 Comments

Actually there are several subjects that preachers are not supposed to talk about, but I’d like to mention one.  Briefly.  Actually I’d rather not mention it, so I’ll quote somebody else.  It’s the issue of “expenses,” aka “petrol money” in some churches, aka “speaking fees,” aka “honoraria.”  It’s right that we hesitate to mention this issue since money should not be the motivation of a preacher, but at the same time very few are in a position to totally ignore the issue of finances.

I was just enjoying Richard Bewes’ book Speaking in Public Effectively.  In his last chapter he focuses on the travelling speaker.  He addresses the unique challenges of travelling to speak, the things you learn to pack, the flexibility that’s needed, the fact that some apparently petty and trivial things can become profoundly significant in the dead of night in an obscure place.  Finally, the preaching is done and it’s time to get going on your return journey,

Someone comes up to you wearing specs, and holding a pen and pad. “Could you tell me if you had any expenses?”

In general it’s right to put in a claim, if for no other reason than that the organizers ought to know what the actual costs of their meeting came to.  They make an annual budget.  They need to know, and so do their successors.

Accept whatever you are given.  At times I have been paid with book tokens.  You wonder, as you drive away, what the reaction would be at the petrol station, if you leant out of the car window and chirped, “Do you take book tokens here?”  But it is all part of the fascinating experience of service, and we learn to take the rough and the smooth together, with equanimity, “not greedy for money, but eager to serve” (1Peter 5:2)

This attitude should govern us all, including those who depend on their speaking for a living.  Speakers who become money-conscious should either reform their priorities or leave off speaking.  The people who ought to be giving attention to the question of expenses, fees and salaries are the organizing elders.  They are the leaders responsible for these matters, and they should, if possible, have business people among them.  It is not the concern of the speakers.  Never.

I wonder what difference including business people in the discussions of speakers “expenses” might make?  Anyway, enough of me quoting someone else, any comments on this issue (feel free to comment “anonymously” on this issue!)

Reformation Lessons for Preachers – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I quoted at length from Mike Reeves’ message on Justification (available on theologynetwork.org).  Mike was addressing the intriguing question, “Why is it that Luther started the Reformation and Erasmus didn’t?” The first part of his answer focused on the contrast between their views of Scripture.  For Erasmus the Scripture was to be revered, but could be squeezed to fit his own vision of Christianity.  For Luther the Scriptures were the only sure foundation for belief, the supreme authority allowed to contradict all other claims.  Now for the second part of Mike’s answer to the question:

But it wasn’t just the authority of the Bible that made the difference, it was also what they saw as the content of the Bible.  For Erasmus the Bible was little more than a collection of moral exhortations.  The Bible is all about urging believers to be more like Christ the example.  Luther said, that’s just turning the Gospel on its head.  Our issue is sinners first and foremost don’t need to copy someone, sinners need a Saviour!  Sinners need, first and foremost, a message of salvation!  . . . Without the message of Christ’s free gift of righteousness, his free gift of himself and all that he has, there would be no Reformation.  Justification by faith alone was what made the Reformation the Reformation.  . . . It was this gracious message of a sweet Saviour’s free gift of righteousness that made life changing ministries life changing.

Reformation is not a moral spring clean.  It’s not a revolution against the old ways, anything old fashioned and ritualistic.  It’s not just about opening the Bible, but not finding the message fully.  This is a profound challenge for the church today – what message do people hear?

Our attitude to Scripture is the foundational issue for our preaching.  The message we preach from the Scripture is the more visible issue in our preaching.  Do we stand, no matter how much contemporary culture, even church culture, not to mention the attacks of the enemy himself, are arrayed against us?  Do we stand and preach the message of Scripture, because we are absolutely committed to Scripture, because we are absolutely committed to the God who gave us the Scripture?  Do we preach in light of these simple yet profound lessons from history?

Reformation Lessons for Preachers

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

There could be no end to posts dealing with lessons for preachers from the Reformation.  I’d like to focus in on one today, then another tomorrow.  Both of them were brought out very clearly in a series of messages by Michael Reeves on Justification (available, and well worth listening to, on theologynetwork.org).  In the final session of a great series of talks, Mike asks “Why is it that Luther started the Reformation and Erasmus didn’t?” Let me quote the first part of Mike’s two-part answer to this question:

Why is it that Luther started the Reformation and Erasmus didn’t?  Because Erasmus is the one who unleashed the Greek New Testament onto Europe.  He was getting the Bible out there, so why didn’t he start the Reformation?  Well, even though Erasmus was a constant and deep student of the Scriptures, the Scriptures didn’t actually do a lot for him because of how he treated them.  Erasmus kept banging on about how vague the Scriptures are (which is very convenient for his own theology), and so he gave them very little practical, let alone overruling, authority.  So although he looked at Scripture, the message of Scripture could be tailored, squeezed, adjusted to fit his own vision of what Christianity is.

The only way to break out of that suffocating scheme and achieve any substantial reformation and change in the world – well, it took Luther’s attitude, that Scripture is the only sure foundation for belief.  The Bible had to be acknowledged as the supreme authority.  It had to be allowed to contradict and overrule all other claims, because if it couldn’t do that, it itself would be overruled and hijacked by another message, as it was with Erasmus.  In other words a simple reverence for the Bible was never going to change the world, even quite a high view of the Bible was never going to do much.  Sola Scriptura.  Scripture alone was the indispensable key for change.  Without acknowledging that the Bible has that supreme and foundational authority there would be no Reformation.  No Reformation in peoples’ hearts, no Reformation in the world.

That final emboldened text is well worth a “selah” for preachers.  On this matter are we an Erasmus, or a Luther?

Preaching Longer Narratives – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday I began to respond to Anthony’s question about preaching longer narratives:

How do you handle the tension of wanting to tell the story as it was intended to be told and not wanting to overload the hearers?

We saw that how a story is told is critical (more critical than the amount of information included).  We saw that not every detail requires equal focus.  This leads on to another thought that is sometimes hard for some people to accept:

4. True expository preaching does not always require every verse to be read out. With a long text, tell the whole story, but read selected highlights.  The readers can look down and check what you are telling is accurate, but you don’t have to read every verse in the preaching of the text.  If you preach a narrative in first person, you probably won’t read any of the text, but still you need to preach the text!

5. Remember the three ingredients in a sermon. A sermon consists, according to Don Sunukjian, in the combination of three elements.  A biblical text plus the big idea plus a preaching purpose.  Often sermons are lacking one or two or even all three of these ingredients!  The biblical text ingredient means that the message is the text’s message, not a superimposed preacher’s message.  Usually this means the text will be opened and read before or during the sermon.  However, in a longer message, the text may only be read in part.  For instance a single sermon on Romans as a whole will not read the whole thing, but probably will include the reading of 1:16-17 and a few other key highlights.  The same is true with a long narrative.

What is always important is not that every word be read, but that the listener is confident that this message is the true and exact message of this text.  They can look down while you’re preaching and see it there, they can pull a Berean attitude and check it out later for themselves.  Usually the best way to build confidence in the biblical textual nature of the message is to read the whole text and let the exposition show clearly there, but that is a typical strategy, rather than an absolute requirement.  With a long narrative the sense of purpose and a clear statement of the main idea are critical, but the biblical source of the message can be conveyed without full detailed exegetical explanation of every verse, or even the reading of every verse.

Preaching Longer Narratives

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Anthony asked the following after one of the posts last week:

I preach only occasionally, and have tackled a couple of narrative passages recently. I like to respect the narrative chunks in the text, which often have a clear beginning, middle and end. But last time I ended up preaching two whole chapters (75 verses), which was probably a bit much!

I’d be interested to hear what you think about this. How do you handle the tension of wanting to tell the story as it was intended to be told and not wanting to overload the hearers?

This is an important question.  After all, not every biblical narrative is contained within a few verses like some of the parables, there are some substantial narratives in the Bible.  The David and Bathsheba narrative lasts for nearly 60 verses if you include Nathan’s visit.  Anthony is referring to one lasting for 75 verses.  A few points to bear in mind:

1. Listeners are more overwhelmed by how something is told than what is told. Especially with narratives, if they are told well, listeners will be glued.  Tell children a good story in a compelling way and they won’t be asking you to stop so they can go to sleep.  Let’s assume the narratives are good ones since God inspired them, that just leaves the storyteller to do their job well.  I’ve sat through the most compelling stories told painfully, but it shouldn’t be that way.  Let the story live, tell it well.

2. Good storytelling involves both detailed description and pace change. When you’re telling a Bible story, there are times when you need to add detail to the description to help the images form on the screen of the listener’s heart.  There are other times when the story can move ahead in leaps and bounds.  The text does this, so can you.

3. True expository preaching does not require equal attention to every detail. The traditional read a verse, explain a verse approach to preaching can become burdensome with a 75 verse narrative.  Tell the whole story, but focus in on the details at key points in order to convey the true message of the passage.  This requires absolute attention to every detail in preparation, but selective focus in delivery.

A couple more thoughts tomorrow on this . . .

What Is The Motivation . . .

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Do you ever wonder what someone’s motivation might be?  For example, I was thinking about a man I once knew who never read anything except the Bible.  His preaching bore the fruit.  Some might say that his preaching was biblically saturated and uncluttered.  Others might suggest his preaching was unengaging and borderline heretical.  Not that the Bible is unengaging, but somehow there was, at times, a lack of connection happening.  So I ponder . . . what was the motivation?

1. Was it pure devotion to Christ? Perhaps.  Certainly there are many who would do well to stop reading everything but and spend some serious time in God’s Word, like a lifetime.  Perhaps this is fruit of the example and we would all do well to heed it.

2. Was it mixed up with insecurity? Perhaps.  After all, it’s a lot easier to stay on familiar territory and not be stretched or challenged or confronted or corrected.  It can be intimidating to consider the vast array of biblical and theological scholarship out there.  What if that held only fear for him?  Perhaps the fruit of this example is to encourage us to not fear, but to be stretched and grow, and perhaps have the odd corrective to point out where our own thinking might be distorting the message of Scripture.

3. Was it thinly veiled arrogance? Perhaps.  After all, while it might be portrayed as devotion to Christ, it is at the same time a reliance on one’s own ability to piece together the complex canon of Scripture.  There is always a tension between separation from corrupting influences and interdependence with the body of Christ.  Is it not arrogant to state by word or action, “I don’t need you” to a fellow saint in the local church, or a sibling in Christ who offers conversation through the pages of a book?  Perhaps the fruit of this example is to recognize that distinctive devotion can sometimes smack of blatant arrogance and walk more carefully?

I honestly don’t know what to think of this particular man.  I’d like to believe the best.  Obviously only the Lord can judge his motives.  But perhaps I can learn from all the possibilities I mentioned.  More in the Word.  Unafraid of engaging with scholars.  Humble enough to enjoy conversation with a giant of the past, or a “nobody” in the church.  I don’t know what his motivations were.  But God knows yours and mine.  What does our distinctiveness say about us?