Religion

What Font Do You Preach In?

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

I just read an interesting article about a study in motivation at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.  The study involved presenting students with an exercise regime.  One group had it presented in plain Arial font, the other in a hard-to-read messy font.  Apparently the results, in terms of motivation, were remarkable.  The plain font folks were motivated, thinking the regime would be relatively easy to do, wouldn’t require much time and would be fluid and easy.  The harder font folks were the opposite – they thought the workout would be tough, time-consuming and they were not at all motivated to implement it in their own schedules.

Apparently the mode of presentation/communication had significantly influenced their perception of the content, and their motivation to apply the content.  You can read the article and find out the second test study (involving cooking), here.

Now I’m not suggesting that we learn how to preach from studies in font use, but it does raise an interesting question for us.  As communicators seeking to communicate and motivate, what “font” do we preach in?  Do we communicate with accessible language, in a clear and easy to listen manner?  Or do we adorn our sermons with inaccessible vocabulary, complex sentences, or do we deliver in a manner that requires real effort on the part of the listener?  If we do, apparently it will influence their perception of our content, it will hinder their motivation to apply what they hear.

Monday Musings on Manipulation

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Thought I’d follow up on Saturday’s post by sharing a quote I appreciated in the book I will name this week:

You must not fear to have affective goals for the sermon as well as cognitive goals.  There is nothing wrong with trying to move the listener.  It is not manipulative to seek to engage their entire being with the truth.  Manipulation is when the preacher overwhelms the emotions (or the mind for that matter), and creates a disorientation that actually takes the power of will away from the listener. (p.106)

I like that definition in some ways.  I like the recognition that manipulation occurs when disorientation is prompted by overwhelming.  I like the recognition that such overwhelming can be of the emotions and also of the mind.  When this occurs, something is taken away from the listener – somehow their decision making is controlled by an outside force, rather than by the appropriately shaped motives of their own heart.

Is the will ever truly free?  Perhaps not, but the heart must be free to supply the values that the mind and will rely on to make decisions.  Supplanting the heart with emotional hype, or with overwhelming intellectual astonishment, or even excessive pressure on the will itself (guilt-trip preaching) . . . are all a problem, all can be manipulation.

As a preacher convinced that my role is to speak to the heart, and not just the head, I must regularly wrestle with the issue of manipulation.  I must ponder the interaction of the soul’s faculties.  I must spurn any rhetorical technique designed to manipulate the listener.  I must consider what is biblically, ethically, theologically appropriate as one who has the privilege of speaking the Word of God into the lives of others.

The Whole Listener

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Some preachers preach merely to inform.  Perhaps they are under the impression that the mind is the control center of the human being.  Perhaps that think that their task is merely educative.  Perhaps they are in a tradition that reveres the intellect, but pulls away from other aspects of human complexity.  Perhaps they’ve never known any other approach.

As preachers we must inform, we must explain, we must educate, we must teach.  But our goal is not knowledge.  We do not aim to transfer information.  Rather the goal is transformation.  Consequently we have to consider how God’s Word transforms lives and preach accordingly.

If we preach on the love of God, this cannot be a mere intellectual exercise.  People need to experience something of that love in the event of the sermon.  If we preach on the wrath of God, surely they should feel an appropriate reaction inside – reverence, godly fear?  If we preach on the grandeur of God, it is not enough that they have some facts for a future exam question.

As we preach the Word we seek to not only say what it says, but also to somehow do what it does.  We want to preach so that our listeners somehow experience the truth of the Word of God.  We preach for feelings as well as thoughts.  When the whole person, not just the mind, is engaged, then opportunity for transformation is increased.

Let’s not preach just to the mind.  Nor just to the mind and will.  Let’s be sure to also preach to the heart, to the affections, to the feelings, to the values, to the motives, to the core of the listener.  May we never settle for informative lectures, that is not enough for this Easter-based faith!

Comment on Commentaries

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I’ve written on commentaries before, such as here and here, and even here. I was just prompted by something I read to point out something else concerning commentaries. As well as the standard sage advice to not overly revere the commentaries, but rather treat them as conversation partners; as well as the solid suggestion to not invite them into the conversation too early; one more suggestion:

Don’t only read commentators that are solidly within your own theological tradition or denominational stream. It is tempting, especially with limited resources, to always buy from the same denominational publishing house, or in a series that is largely of your kind theologically.  Some people seem to only read Reformed Calvinists, others look for well-known Arminian theologians, others like anything connected to Dallas, others want Abingdon Press, others only John MacArthur, others only Tom Wright, others only buy UK/Australian authors, etc.  Tempting as such an approach may be, you will find that richer insight is gained by engaging with a variety of voices.  All of these that I have mentioned can be helpful, as can Roman Catholic commentators, or Jewish commentators, etc.

A couple of caveats (since I know some readers will take me out of context and write me off theologically for one of the items in that list, or perhaps for all of them – I could list more until I find your favorite!)  (1) Just because it’s different, doesn’t make it right, any more than it makes it wrong.  That is to say, whatever their tradition or theology, some commentators deal with the text better than others – you are still looking for good commentators.  (2) Make sure you have some grounding yourself before you bounce around in other camps.  Reading multiple voices is part of good seminary training, but be careful not to intellectually buy into anything and everything in print.  (3) Don’t neglect quality commentators from “your camp.”  They will probably form the “spine” of your collection.  (4) It is helpful to know where a commentator is coming from.  It helps to know that this guy always looks for an obscure position and takes it.  It helps to know that that one comes from a theology that tends to read these kinds of verses in this way.

Finally, I’ve mentioned John Glynn’s helpful book in the past.  I’d like to point you to a very helpful online resource strongly influenced by John Glynn’s book.  Perhaps you have not come across it yet – bestcommentaries.com. I would not say that I always agree with the scores given to a commentary, of course, but it largely seems to be a very helpful guide.  Take a look around it, you will probably be glad to add it to your bookmarks!

Do We Get It Backwards?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Here’s a provocative quote from Charles Kraft:

The amount of crucial information involved in Christianity is, I believe, quite small.  The amount of Christian behavior demanded in response to all that information is, however, quite large.  We have, however, given ourselves over to a methodology that emphasizes the lesser of the two ingredients. (Jesus Model for Contemporary Communication, 123)

I essentially concur with this and want to make a couple of comments.  Obviously Kraft is not saying that Christianity is simplistic or lacking in content.  I’m sure he’d agree that we will never exhaust the riches of God’s Word.  However, for each truth in that Word, there are numerous necessary applications to real life behavior.  As preachers we tend to explain, explain, explain some more and then finally squeeze in a couple of minutes of application.  Perhaps we would do well to follow the advice of Don Sunukjian along the same lines, when he says we should explain as much as necessary, then apply, apply, apply.

In reality I find a lot of preaching is lacking in application, but not really because the text is being over-explained.  I would suggest, perhaps provocatively, that I rarely find a text even decently explained.  What many preachers tend to do is fill time with talk.  Random details in the text, other texts, illustrations lacking in defined purpose, filler words and noise.  I find it so refreshing when a preacher actually explains a text, and it is time to celebrate when there is specific and substantial application added to the mix.  I know there are still some exegetically heavy lecturers getting into pulpits, but probably far less than in the past.  However, it would be wrong to flatter many preachers who lack in application by suggesting they explain too much.  In reality many preachers neither explain nor apply well.

Many preachers tend to feel they have not done their job if they only preach one text, one main idea, one truth and then apply it well.  They perhaps feel that such preaching might be too lightweight or thin on content.  So they try to pack in more information, more texts, more truths, etc.  What could have been a powerful, penetrative, convicting, focused, applicational and memorable sermon becomes an overwhelming speedboat charge through the jungle of the catechism, or through systematic theology, or through all things Bible (complete with the resulting spray in the face that makes you do that squinting, blinking thing with your eyes!)

If it means actually seeing lives changed, let’s preach lightweight.  Actually, I don’t believe that.  Let’s preach one text well.  Well focused, not going anywhere else without good reason.  Well explained, but not an information dump.  Well applied, specific and with the appropriate grandeur for such a biblical truth.

Unseen Listeners

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In the next few days I’ll reveal the details of this book I’m reading.  I’ve quoted it or alluded to it several times and for the sake of academic integrity I should cite my source . . . but I just want to get a little further into it first.  Nonetheless, here’s a great little quote.  I won’t say too much, but I will say we would do well to ponder this quote, whatever size congregation we usually preach to:

What other form of speech has thee five effects: to delight God, to astonish angels, to discourage devils, to encourage saints, and to restore sinners?  I’ve done my time preaching to virtually empty halls and churches, and it is a great fillip to remember that three of the five audiences of a sermon are unseen. (p79)

Selah.

The Mastery Challenge

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

In my mind, this post should go without saying.  I’ve been reminded that it doesn’t.  I just read a mini-article on the subject by Robert Clinton.  He states that what we are considering here is a vanishing breed.  He calls them “Bible-Centered Leaders.”  But in the midst of the article, he states that leaders should have an “appropriate, unique, lifelong plan for mastering the Word in order to use it with impact in their ministries.”

Simple question – have you made a personal commitment to a lifelong pursuit of mastery of the Bible?  Clinton refers to the Navigator’s five-finger approach, then his personal “core books” approach.  I have a foundation and brick wall approach.  The specifics don’t matter here.  The question is, do you have a specific, describable, tangible, practical, effective plan to pursue mastery of the Word of God?

We have too many preachers and pastors and leaders and influencers in the church today who are informed by contemporary bestsellers, educated both in Christian and secular approaches to ministry or organizational leadership, up-to-date on cutting edge ministry ideas, pragmatically plugged in to the busy schedule of life, connected to an insane level, thoroughly saturated in networking media, blessed beyond belief by access to a library not even dreamed about in history, functioning in overload on multiple levels . . . but, good as some of these things may be, fundamentally weak on the core need of anyone seeking to be a man of God – mastery of, and by, the Word.

Can you take a piece of paper and write down your strategy for mastering the Word of God, and in the process, being mastered by it?  Can you write down where you are in the process?  Can you immediately state your current study focus in this pursuit?  Can you identify several areas of biblical weakness, as well as some specific areas of relative strength?

If not, what is more important?  Why not put aside the pressing, urgent, busy stuff and take some time to drive a marker into the ground, to prayerfully make plans and to set out on that journey?  If we are not gripped with a passion to master the Word of God, what is our goal?  To be a paperback preacher?  To be an e-networked pastor?  To be upwardly mobile on the ministry ladder?  These all seem so fragile compared to the real need of the church today – leaders who passionately pursue God in His Word, who sacrifice to master it, who are continually more mastered by it, who have genuine substance, who are “thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

Reflections on Foreign Language Preaching

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

It has been an interesting weekend of preaching for me.  For the first time in almost four years, I preached in Italian.  Actually, three times in two churches.  (Background: I spent my first five years in Italy and have visited many times while growing up, my Italian is quite poor, limited vocabulary and by no means fluent … but just about able to preach in Italian which is probably better for listeners than using translation.) So I have been reflecting on the experience and what it shows me in reference to first language preaching:

Being aware of possible confusion prompts greater focus on the main thought. Since I know my Italian is severely limited, I know that I can easily miscommunicate at any moment.  This forces me to stay more focused on the main thought that threads through the message.  On reflection, the reality is that I can easily miscommunicate at any moment, even in English.  It’s not just my use of the language, but so many other factors than distract listeners for a moment and cause a loss of understanding.  Preaching in Italian has only served to reinforce the value of the central idea in preaching.  Preach one thing.

Transitions really do matter a lot. It is so easy to lose people in the curves of a message, in the move from one section of the message to the next.  Again, preaching in a weak second language made that sensation obvious to me, but perhaps I would be helped to remember that in every message.  Transition super clearly.

Listeners are really gracious. In recent years I’ve taught people who have been required to preach in class, but not in their first language.  I’ve always told them that although it is so much harder to preach in a second language, there is also an advantage.  Listeners feel for the preacher in such a situation and try to understand, they put in more effort.  As the recipient of such gracious listening again I am reminded how true that is.  I suppose the same principle would apply to first-time nervousness, to preaching when ill or injured, etc.  As long as the limitation is not overbearing, listeners are gracious (at least in the Italian culture and in my preaching classes!)

Respect to those who consistently preach in a second language. Sure, I know that some missionaries get to the stage of thinking and preaching fluently in a second language as if it were their mother-tongue . . . but it takes massive effort to get to that stage, many never do, but press on anyway.  Respect.

More thoughts may come to mind.  This weekend I have another three Italian messages to give.  (If I come to mind and you want to pray for me, that would be appreciated!)

Preacher’s Block

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

You’ve probably heard of writer’s block – apparently it explains why some authors spend hours wandering aimlessly around cities like London and New York, buying coffee at Starbucks and then claiming it as a business expense.  But what about preacher’s block?  I’ve never heard anyone use the term, but I’ve certainly experienced it.  Here are a couple of ideas, feel free to add your own suggestions:

1. Take a break. Go for a walk, visit Starbucks, buy a coffee.  Ok, I’m not fully serious here, but taking a break can be helpful (but not always).  (Be honest on your tax returns or church expense account though, sin can be a real preacher’s block!)

2. Talk it through. If you have a spouse or friend or fellow preacher who doesn’t mind a mind-dump from you once in a while, take advantage of the chance to talk it through with them.  What you’re thinking, why you’re stuck, etc.  Of course you always have the option of talking it through at length with someone who cares more than you do about how the message goes, but I presume you are praying throughout the process anyway (probably an unwise assumption, hence I mentioned it!)

3. Preach it through. Most people leave running through their message much too late.  It can be a very helpful practice, once you have the passage studied and the main idea somewhat clear, to stand and deliver.  You probably won’t want people listening in at this stage, but you will often find it really helpful for you.  After all, the preparation process is supposed to culminate in oral communication.  Too often we trudge slowly through written preparation when our goal is not to write a book, but to speak a message.  Sometimes you will preach it through and then write down some helpful thoughts (phrases that worked well, transitions that communicated effectively, etc.)  Always you will find out where you are unclear and where further study, further work, further prayer and further thought are needed.  Preaching it through is not exactly a short-cut, but it can be a major tool for focusing and fine-tuning your preparation.

4. Confess, repent and press on. I suppose some preacher’s block should be recognized as indiscipline, inappropriate distraction or just plain laziness.  I don’t want to ignore that or skirt around it.  But contrary to what non-preaching legalistic spiritual drill sargeants may think, not all preacher’s block is a sin.

So over to you, other suggestions?

The First-Person Exception Clause

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

I just received a really encouraging email from Steve.  Steve has attended a couple of my preaching seminars and also helped to set one up in his own church.  We had talked about the possibility of preaching in first-person, and he followed through on the idea.  Here are the highlights of the email with some added comments from me:

“Whereas I’ve heard another preacher do this with a slight tongue in cheek approach, I did the whole thing totally straight, trying to maintain the idea that I was Abraham telling my story to my grandchildren.” – that’s an important point, it’s so easy to slip into an ongoing humour that distances us from our character in order to connect with our listeners.  This may be appropriate in some settings, but I say if you’re going to go for it, go for it.  Now, was it easy?

“It was really tough going as I had no notes whatsoever and when you realise you’ve missed something it is so hard to think around whether you should go back and make that point you forgot or carry on, whilst still keeping totally in character.” Most people agree that Abraham would not use notes to give his message (I would suggest the same principle might apply as you give “your” message next time too, but that would be taking us off the point of this post).  Preaching without notes in any form provides that kind of challenge.  It does get easier, but never easy.  Here comes the exception clause:

“I think many were impressed with the fact I listed out Abraham’s genealogy from Abraham back to Noah. That was just a memory trick though and very early on in the sermon.” Generally we should avoid anything that smacks of showing off in our preaching.  It can be easy to do after spending hours with our nose in the books, but we are there to serve and communicate, not to show off.  However, Steve has made a comment here that I view as an exception to the rule – in this case such information would obviously be known by Abraham himself.  People may be impressed, but if used judiciously, this type of communication can serve to underline that this is a serious sermon.  But this should be carefully weighed so it is not the big talking point or lasting effect of the message:

“It was so good though as I was taking the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac and so many people came up afterwards and said that the story had come alive for them like never before and made them think what it really felt like for them both. You could really see people on the edge of their seats.” That’s the power of well-told narrative!

So, last words to a first time first-person preacher: “It was definitely worth doing though even if it was a real challenge.”