Delivery Matters

December 5, 2011November 23, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Don’t judge a book by its cover. But you do. The best publishers know that, and so they tend to make the covers of their books look attractive. Every now and then I come across a book that I know is pure gold in content, but just shake my head at the choice of cover. Even the same book released in two countries with different covers can cause consternation, but that is another issue.

While we might strongly assert that only the content matters, the truth is that packaging, and cover, and typeface, and font size all do matter when it comes to books. How much more does delivery matter when people are communicating direct?

Again, some will argue in most spiritual terms that the only thing that matters is content. This simply is not true. Great content poorly delivered is wasted content (because it will not be heard content). While packaging must never cover for thin content, we must not hide great content in shoddy packaging. This is simply poor stewardship.

More than stewardship, it is a downright contradiction of God’s approach. God isn’t in the business of sending abstract content in inaccessible documents via courier. God communicated vividly, powerfully, effectively and personally. His ultimate revelation of Himself was Himself in the person of His Son. Yet His Son came to us in the form of us. The incarnation was, in part, an issue of message delivery. He spoke the language of the people, he connected with the people, he didn’t allow his message to be obscured by poor delivery.

So let’s not be super-spiritual in an attempt to avoid the fact that how we deliver messages matters. When people communicate to people, the people hearing the communication are always and constantly processing much more than just the bare content itself.

There is the tone of voice, the manner of the person, the facial expressions, the physical movement, the body language, the energy conveyed and the perceived interpersonal connection between speaker and listener. Over the next couple of days we’ll ponder some of these aspects of delivery to prompt us in our preaching. After all, delivery matters.

Saturday Short Thought – C.S.Lewis on the KJV

December 3, 2011December 3, 2011 / Peter Mead / 7 Comments

At the risk of opening a bigger can of worms, I’m going to share a quote from C.S.Lewis on the King James Bible (or Authorised Version if you are in the UK). The point he makes could lead us off into endless discussions on Bible versions, and maybe sometime I’ll go there in the blog.

For now, though, my point is to round up a week of posts about how we preach the text of the Bible. It is relatively easy to half-cook a sermon out of a Bible text. But when the Bible is really preached, listeners feel the impact of the text as it is proclaimed. You’ve experienced that sometimes, right? That sense of the text hitting home more profoundly, more personally, more powerfully than you expected? That is the goal.

So, Clive Staples (I came across this quote without good citation, if you have it, please let us know), over to you:

We must sometimes get away from the Authorized Version, if for no other reason, simply because it is so beautiful and so solemn. Beauty exalts, but beauty also lulls. Early associations endear, but they also confuse. Through that beautiful solemnity, the transporting or horrifying realities of which the Book tells may come to us blunted and disarmed, and we may only sigh with tranquil veneration when we ought to be burning with shame, or struck dumb with terror, or carried out of ourselves by ravishing hopes and adorations.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Next week – Delivery Matters

10 Ways to Half Preach a Text – Part iv

December 2, 2011November 23, 2011 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Sometimes it is just a good idea to finish a list. Let’s go, two more items to add, especially for preachers who like to tick the “expository preacher” self-description box:

9. Explain it, but don’t apply it.

This is a common error among those who say they are most committed to expository preaching. They will give in-depth explanation of the preaching passage, sometimes avoiding every item on the list so far. Carefully explained text in context with focus on historical situation, authorial intent, and perhaps some linking into the broader sweep of theological and salvation history. Solid stuff. Then they stop.

One of the reasons I use Haddon Robinson’s label of “biblical preaching” for this site, rather than “expository preaching” is because of the baggage people have with the latter term. Some people grew up listening to endless dry Bible lectures and whenever they questioned its value they were silenced with a war cry for “faithful expository preaching!” Problem is, preaching without emphasizing the relevance to the listeners is not expository preaching, no matter how good a Bible lecture it may be.

We simply can’t abdicate our role as preachers when it comes to applicational relevance and hide behind the notion that this is the work of the Holy Spirit. This is to suggest that I can handle the illumination of the text, but will hand the baton over to the Spirit for application of the text. Sorry, it is both/and. The entire process of preparation and delivery, of explanation and application, is a process in which the Spirit is at work, and so is the preacher. We must apply what we explain.

10. Commentary it, but don’t proclaim it.

This is another one for “expositors” to keep in mind. Either due to a certain approach in training, or as learned behavior from examples observed, too many preachers preach sermon points that are actually commentary titles. “The next point in my sermon is Saul’s Contention!” Uh, no, that is the next subtitle in the commentary you are reading out to us. There is a big difference between biblical commentary and biblical proclamation.

When we proclaim a text, we look to speak it out to our listeners. Oral communication does not match written communication. We don’t speak in titles, we speak in sentences. Let me encourage you to make your points into full sentences, and why not make them contemporary rather than historical if possible? This will keep us from sounding like we are reading our personal biblical commentary, and listeners are more likely to sense that God’s Word has been proclaimed and they have heard from Him.

10 Ways to Half Preach a Text – Part iii

December 1, 2011November 23, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

We are half way through our list. Some of these may be errors you always diligently avoid. But there may be one in here that makes you or I reconsider an aspect of our preaching. Actually there may be occasions when we fall into some of these approaches, but feel it is necessary in those circumstances. That is fine, there aren’t as many rules in preaching as people may think. But it is good to step into them aware of the potential weakness of the decision, rather than as a habitual approach.

6. Impose a sermon structure instead of letting the text’s structure influence your message.

Those who are committed to preaching as a ministry governed by rules and tradition will regularly cross this line. For it to be a sermon it must have . . . tends to lead to imposition of “correct structure” on Bible texts. It is interesting how few texts genuinely offer a standard number of parallel and equally weighted points. Much more often there is a flow of thought or plot, a combination of one dominant thought with supporting elements, or whatever. Let’s be careful that we don’t abuse a text by forcing a sermonic grid onto it in an attempt to preach the text. We may be left preaching a bruised and caged specimen.

7. Preach a preferred cross-reference

I remember listening to a set of lectures on tape (remember tapes?) The cover said they were lectures on the Pastoral Epistles. The labels on the tapes said the same. Actually, the lecturer also kept referring to the Pastoral Epistles too. But the overwhelming sense I got when listening to them was that the lecturer wished he were in Romans. He went there constantly. Maybe he felt he’d missed out when a more senior lecturer got to do the prized epistle.

When you preach a text. Preach it. It is inspired. It is useful. It is worth the effort to study it and understand it and preach it. Don’t take the short-cut that may or may not be there to a more familiar, a more “preachable” or a more exciting text.

8. Preach a plethora of cross-references.

Every now and then I hear a preacher who seems to be entering the “who can reference the most Bible books in thirty minutes” competition. Please don’t. There are few good reasons to cross-reference, don’t do it otherwise. (See here and here for the main two reasons in my opinion.) Every moment taken in a cross-reference is time not used in preaching your preaching text, if it doesn’t add to the preaching of this text, don’t let your time be stolen.

We’ll finish the ten tomorrow, although ten is not the limit, there may be more!

10 Ways to Half Preach a Text – Part ii

November 30, 2011November 23, 2011 / Peter Mead / 12 Comments

In this series of posts I am offering ten ways that I see preachers half-using a preaching text. The goal isn’t to critique, but to nudge us all to a higher view of the inspired text, a higher level of diligence in studying the text, and therefore a higher level of impact in our preaching of the text. So we’ve already considered using the text as an intro to another message, or failing to see how the details cohere, or preaching a message only nominally tied to the text itself.

4. Use the content, but ignore the context.

I use the term use deliberately. Sometimes the content of a passage could feel used because it isn’t understood in light of its context. This could be a certain term or phrase that is plucked out of its setting in a sentence and used to make a point. It could be the whole paragraph or section that is presented without awareness of how it fits in the flow of thought in the book.

I remember a conversation I had with a street preacher years ago. There are some street preachers that do a tremendous work of communicating the gospel to a busy and distracted world. This was not one of them. We got into a discussion about the Bible and I asked him what his view of the Bible was. “Oh, the Bible is like a treasure chest filled with jewels and treasures that we pick up and show to the world!” Problem was, he was plucking phrases without context and shouting random references to washing in blood and becoming white as snow, etc. It didn’t communicate. It regularly offended (in the wrong way).

That street shouter was an extreme example, but let’s not be lesser examples of the same error. Let’s be careful to always present a whole text in its context, rather than plucking the “useful” preaching bits and using, or abusing, them.

5. Use the context, but ignore the content.

I suppose this is a less common error, in my experience. But it is possible. I guess this happens more in the gospels. The preacher preaches about the ministry of Jesus in general, but doesn’t present the unique details conveyed by the gospel writer in this particular instance. (Or the preacher may preach the event accurately through harmonizing the gospels, but fail to preach the inspired text of the gospel in question.) Contextually it is possible to say Jesus was doing such and such, but if you’re preaching a particular healing narrative, preach it with good awareness of the detail the writer chose to include.

The list will build tomorrow, but feel free to comment on these or other things that come to mind at any point.

10 Ways to Half Preach a Text

November 29, 2011November 23, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday’s post about the occasional nature of the epistles prompts a series of related posts. Most preachers would claim to be, and believe they are, biblical preachers. Trouble is, a lot of “biblical preaching” is only half-baked at best. That is, the biblical part is incompletely developed. Let me share some ways preachers only half-use a text:

1. Say just enough about the text to introduce what you want to say.

This is a common approach. The text is read at the start of the message or before the message. The preacher then gives enough explanatory comments to get things going, then focuses in on what he wants to say, rather than what the text itself is really saying. Some do this blatantly with a two or three sentence transition between reading the text and moving on to the message of choice. Others may spend longer and convince more listeners.

I was tracking with a message recently and this phase lasted fifteen minutes. But from that point on, the text was never really influencing the message, it was the preacher’s subject of choice that determined the goal and thrust of it all. Shame really, because the comments about the text whet my appetite, but the message fell so flat.

In teaching I often say that no matter how smart you are, what you can make it say is not as good as what God made it say. In this case I have to modify the saying: no matter how smart you are, what you go on to say instead is not as good as what could have been said if the text were truly preached.

Don’t bounce off the text, leaving it behind in search of your target.

2. Preach from the details, but don’t figure out how they work together to give the main idea.

This is fairly self-explanatory. It is possible to make points from details in the text, but never get to the point of understanding or conveying the thrust of the whole text working together. How do the details cohere?

3. Preach a generic message or idea from what could be any text.

We are all capable of preaching abstracted truths and generic messages and tying them to a text with tenuous connections. Don’t preach a good message from a text. Preach the message of the text.

Tomorrow we’ll add a couple more to our list.

Do You Preach Concrete as Abstract?

November 28, 2011November 23, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

God didn’t give us a systematic theology with an index and table of contents. Christ didn’t work with a scribe to give us an abstract set of philosophical and theological truths that we should memorise and apply. Instead, in His wisdom, God gave us the Bible.

The Bible contains a variety of genres. Look at the New Testament, for instance. Here we have a combination of historical narrative and occasional epistles. The theology of the Bible is offered to us in the vivid action of the Gospels and Acts. It is given in the concrete situations of the first century church. As Karen Jobes puts it in her Letters to the Church (p13)

In his wisdom, God gave us, among the inspired writings, the letters of the apostles to specific Christians living in very concrete situations during times that were very trying the Christian faith. Because of that, we get to see how the Christian life was to be lived out in the context of first-century culture, and we can identify the same or similar issues today that challenge us. Rather than giving us a book of abstract philosophy or theology, God’s Word has come in the form of very practical and specific situations. It is another instance of God’s incarnational intent, to be Immanuel, God with us.

So here’s my question for the day: do we make enough effort to communicate the context of the passages we preach? I’ve seen quite a number of preachers who preach texts from the epistles as if they are abstract presentations of truth. They sometimes do a decent job of putting in concrete contemporary applications, but the text itself is treated as abstract truth statements.

God has given us a gift as preachers. He has done some of our work for us. He has given us the section of the Bible that is most likely to be abstract logical argument as occasional writings – that is, specific presentations of the gospel applied to specific churches, in specific cultural milieu, with specific issues at hand. As we re-present these texts to our listeners, before we even get to contemporary application, our listeners will be translating from 1st century concrete to 21st century concrete.

Let’s be careful not to rush past presenting the situation that sparked the writing of the text in an attempt to be relevant. Helping people to see what occasioned the epistle will already be helping them to see its relevance to us.

Saturday Short Thought: Christmas According to Sibbes

November 26, 2011November 23, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

This week I spent a few days on here thinking out loud about Christmas. I’ve also done quite a bit of thinking in terms of the six messages I have coming up in December. I am going with a Christ of Christmas theme, delving back beyond the start of the New Testament to tap into the epic expectation of the one anointed to be prophet, priest and king. I’m sure you have plans and ideas stirring too.

But let me throw this into the mix from a few centuries ago. Richard Sibbes is a preacher worthy of our attention. According to Sibbes, the incarnation is a greater mystery than that of creation…

“We cannot too often meditate of these things. It is the life and soul of a Christian. It is the marrow of the gospel. It is the wonder of wonders. We need not wonder at anything after this.” (Sibbes, Works 5:485)

Like Sibbes and those puritans who were like him, may we be stirred as we ponder the Incarnation. May it elicit wonder and thankfulness in our hearts. May we be stirred to preach the Christ who

“hath taken our flesh upon him for that purpose, that he might have experimental knowledge of our infirmities and weaknesses, and from that he might be the more sweet, and kind, and gentle to us.” (Sibbes, Works 5:480-2)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Next week – Handling the Text as a Preacher

A week of posts on our handling and presenting of the biblical text.

The Worst Kind of Name Dropping

November 25, 2011November 22, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Last Friday’s post on pulpit integrity stirred some conversation, so let me stir in another similar area. I think most of us are aware that it is annoying to hear someone “name dropping.” Sometimes the well-known person genuinely is the preacher’s friend, and that is ok to mention. Sometimes they are genuinely friends, but it wasn’t necessary to mention it. It really boils down to two factors – what is the motivation of the speaker, and how is it perceived?

But there is another form of “name-dropping,” so to speak, that is even more prevalent and irritating. It is when a preacher constantly drops the “I” reference, as if they are somebody special.

I think Haddon Robinson wrote in his book that in illustrations we should not make ourselves out to be heroes or jerks. That is, don’t be the amazing protagonist in a sermonic tale, neither make yourself look like a ridiculous buffoon. Neither approach helps your credibility as a preacher, or more importantly, the credibility of the message you are bringing.

I’m sure most of us are really aware of the danger of “bigging ourselves up” when we preach. Most preachers seem really sensitive to not coming across that way. But there are one or two that seem blissfully unaware of how they come across.

I was looking back at some notes I took when one particular preacher was in town and on a roll with the “I” references. (Details obscured to avoid identification!)

“I preached twice in such and such a famous venue . . . I preached with a famous film star in the congregation . . . I’ve been introduced to such and such a politician . . . I have never had a Muslim who could cope with my saying such and such . . . I was preaching in a place after they had been preparing for five years . . . I preached and the mayor was there . . . I was saying to my people on Thursday . . . I preached and he was so soundly converted . . .”

Wow, and I missed some out! I am sure that is an extreme case. I do wonder though, if you know one of these extreme cases, how to point this out to them? Is it ethical to send anonymous links to this post?

For the rest of us, let’s pray for sensitivity that we never come across as full of ourselves. It can easily be done accidentally and the damage done can be hard to undo. Let’s also ask for honest feedback from one or two folks that we trust. Better to know if you name drop the big “I” rather than getting an anonymous link to a post like this one!

Preaching’s Second Five Letter Word

November 24, 2011November 22, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

What is preaching’s five letter word? Jesus? Ok, yes, of course. And another? This one is also really important. This is one that seems to be strangely absent with some preachers. It’s absence can be as significant as the absence of the preacher’s arm, maybe more so. What’s the word? It is S-M-I-L-E.

Ask someone who listens to you preach if you smile much when you preach. If the answer is “constantly,” then maybe you need to vary things a bit. But if the answer is “not really” or “not that I’ve seen” or “never once in twenty-three years of preaching” then maybe it is time to consider the following factors:

1. If you are a Christian you have reason to smile. Yes we live in difficult times and the gospel is serious business and lives are messy and many are lost. But if a Christian doesn’t have reason to smile, nobody does. The fruit of the Spirit is joy. This may be evident in you at other times, but perhaps the weight of the ministry burden or a hint of public speaking fear is hiding it?

2. If you have good news you have reason to smile. The gospel isn’t just called good news. It actually is good news! We would be wary of someone offering us lesser good news without any hint of a smile.

3. If you are enthusiastic about your message you have reason to smile. Your smile is part of the whole package of communication that includes the words, the tone of voice, the body language and the facial expression. I remember that dear elderly brother who used to stand on a Sunday morning and droan great content in the dullest voice and with the saddest face, “we are overjoyed to be here this morning to worship the Lord.” Really?

4. If you love the people you are talking to you have reason to smile. In normal life we don’t have to consciously try to smile when we meet relatives or friends that we love. Many of the smile-free preachers I’ve met in recent years are quite amiable in conversation.

5. If you are representing Christ you have reason to smile. This is the biggest one in my mind. As a preacher of the gospel you are representing Christ, not only in your words, but also in your demeanour. Please let people know that Christ is winsome and warm and loving and kind and has the most beautiful character qualities.

Love to hear your thoughts on smile-less preaching. Anyone like to defend it?