The Relevance of the Reading

June 23, 2011June 23, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Sometimes, in some services, you may choose to have a reading that is not the text you will be primarily preaching. For example:

1. To lay a foundation from an earlier and informing text – Perhaps your New Testament passage leans heavily on an Old Testament passage, so you read it for the sake of familiarity once you are explaining the connection during the sermon.

2. To avoid giving away the “tension” when preaching a narrative – Perhaps your sermon reflects the tension and resolution of a good narrative, so you want to avoid a recent reminder of how things work out in the end. So you read something vaguely supportive of a theme in the sermon.

3. To support an earlier “phase” of the service – Perhaps you, or the worship team, have designed the service to flow through a greater sequence, of which the sermon is only a part. Consequently the reading of the Bible earlier in the service is intended to fit with the songs around it, rather than as the sermon text.

4. To be appropriate to the day in the church calendar – Perhaps it is Trinity Sunday, or Pentecost, or Reformation Day, or whatever. So you read a relevant passage, but then proceed to preach a message that may be only indirectly connected, or may be completely unrelated.

5. Because you were assigned the text, but basically intend to morph the message into a passage you are ready to preach – So you read the assigned text, but then do a couple of swift moves in your introduction to move into the sermon of your choice.

There may be other reasons too. I tend to see the first three as being more legitimate rationale for this practice than the last couple, but that is not the point of this post. What is?

If there is any possibility of doubt or confusion for the listener . . . explain! Seems simple enough, but it is amazing how often we lead services and expect people to grasp the master plan of our clever service design through some sort of mind-reading or osmosis. It may not matter if people get the full riches of your artistry. On the other hand, if they are confused by it, then it is probably counter productive.

If You Must Take Notes

June 22, 2011June 22, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I have written before about studies I’ve read that show the best way to take notes as a listener is to listen wholeheartedly and then pause immediately after the message to write down highlights for a few minutes. This is so much better than trying to take notes and therefore always listening with half an ear to what is being said as you also use mental energy on processing the information onto paper.

The thing about taking notes is that it usually translates into a desire to primarily capture content. People passionately pursue a record of the points, perhaps listing cross-references and occasionally (if you’re blessed with a good preacher), writing down the main idea of the message. This secretarial quest supposedly then supplies a useful written record for later review and reprocessing of the message in the quietness of private quiet time.

What if the goal of preaching is not primarily information transfer? What if preaching is about much more than education? What if preaching is about encountering God in His Word and responding to Him, being transformed by Him, and seeing His Word applied in your life?

If you must take notes, how about trying this “holistic applicational” approach to note taking?

Divide your blank sheet into three equal columns. At the top of each column write A, B, C, or if you’re a doodler, draw a heart, a head and two hands.

In the A column make notes on how the message you are hearing is marking your affections, your heart. How is it stirring you to respond to God? How does it make you feel? How are your values and emotions and passions and desires being affected? If there’s nothing to write in this column, see if you can put something in the next column.

In the B column make notes on how the message you are hearing is shaping your beliefs, your thinking. How is it informing your worldview? What are you learning about God, about life, and the Bible, etc.? How is your thinking being changed? If there’s nothing to write in this column, see if you can at least put something in the next column.

In the C column make notes on how the message you are hearing is guiding your conduct. How is it applicable in your daily life? What practical, tangible, measurable steps can you take in response to this message? How will your life look different from the outside? If there’s nothing to write in this column either, pray for your preacher to recognize that preaching is more than covering familiar ancient territory in an un-engaging manner!

Ideally, a good sermon will offer all three columns something helpful. Too many sermons would be purely right column, or contradictory between columns (i.e.practical steps offered in column C, perhaps some information for column B, but a big fat “it’s making me feel bored, or guilty, or pressured” in column A!)

Oh, but where can we fit in the informational stuff, the outline, the cross-references? Hopefully your sheet would be either so full that you have no space for it, or so empty because you are genuinely engaged and forget the paper, but in reality I’m sure you’ll squeeze it in somewhere!

The Non-Definitive Sermon

June 21, 2011June 20, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I think we all have a tendency to want to give the definitive sermon when we preach. But maybe we shouldn’t. And probably we can’t.

On Saturday I was asked to speak on prayer and fasting. I decided not to try to be definitive or exhaustive. Instead I chose a foundational and central truth and then preached that with the aim of marking the listeners with that truth. In this case I chose to survey briefly the writers of the New Testament to hear a consistent witness to the “loving Father” aspect of prayer that I had chosen to emphasise. I covered fasting in about a paragraph at the end.

Definitive? Not at all. Helpful? Hopefully.

By choosing to preach this message as I did, I was choosing not to say so much. I didn’t mention repentance or thanksgiving, or worship, three key aspects of a healthy prayer life. I didn’t get into aspects of spiritual warfare, or do close analysis of biblical prayers. I didn’t fully engage with the challenges of unanswered prayer. I gave fasting only a cursory mention (although seemingly satisfying to people if feedback is anything to go by). It wasn’t definitive, it wasn’t meant to be.

Instead I tried to drive home the main idea of the message and hope that people will build on that in the future. I would like to take that foundation and build a series, but it was a one-off opportunity on this occasion.

So why didn’t I try to cover all these vital elements of prayer? Because a message that tries to do everything often achieves nothing. It is like the difference between a bed of nails and a single nail. The bed of nails may be impressive, but it leaves a superficial impression. The single nail will penetrate. In preaching terms, the single main idea arrow will cut to the heart more consistently than the exhaustive sermon’s magazine of smaller artillery.

Let’s not overestimate what can be accomplished in a single sermon, so that we do not underachieve by overpreaching. Preach specifically to penetrate substantially.

Father’s Day Post: What To Ask The Children

June 16, 2011June 12, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Coming home from church at Sunday lunch time is a regular opportunity to chat with the children. Have we forgotten anyone? How was Sunday School? What did you learn? All the normal interrogatives to engage the next generation after a morning of church.

But what about after the sermon? What should I ask? There are several options:

1. What did you learn? This is the Sunday School question transferred to the church service. Perhaps it implies that preaching is primarily educative. Perhaps it suggests that the goal of the listener is to be intellectually stimulated by the preaching of the Word so that they come away better informed. Certainly this is a fair question and there is a content to the Christian faith that makes the question worthwhile. I suspect children of experiential meditative religions don’t get asked what they learned after visiting the temple. And I suppose sometimes it is the only question I suspect might get anything out of the children. But having said that, this shouldn’t be the only question to ask, for education is not the only goal in preaching.

2. How did the sermon change you? I suppose this is a worthwhile question since church is meant to be transformative rather than merely repetitive. On the one hand this question might train an expectation of transformation at the hearing of God’s Word. On the other hand, it might fan the flames of self-focus that is the scourge of fallen humanity. Perhaps the question can be modified slightly, “how did the sermon change you in response to Christ?”

3. How did the sermon make you feel? This is a riskier question when the answer might easily be “bored” or “sleepy.” But contrary to popular opinion, it is a legitimate question. God didn’t just design our brains, but also our emotions. Every sermon will have an “affect” on us. Sadly, too many will numb souls, rather than igniting hearts with fire in response to the love of God. Too many sermons will depress the listeners, rather than stirring deep within the kind of passion for God that is only fitting for those who hear His Word preached.

Too often I only feel comfortable asking the first question. Perhaps this is something for preachers to ponder, as well as Dads.

Application as Looking

June 10, 2011May 29, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

We hear about preaching needing application. Some end up at one extreme offering to-do lists for successful living that make the Bibles bulge (and the listeners feel overwhelmed with pressure). Others end up at the other extreme of rejecting all reference to application since it is supposedly the work of the Spirit (implying that communicating the passage, pointing to Christ, etc., are not works of the Spirit?), and you hear things as misguided as “now may the Spirit apply to our hearts the truths we have seen in His Word.” Wrong! Preachers should not abdicate any of their role, neither should they think of any part of their role as being completely on their own shoulders either.

I have previously written about the need for our application to go deeper than conduct. There is a place for conduct in our application, of course. There is also the need for our application to reach to the thinking and worldview and belief systems of our listeners. And there is the deeper level of the affections, the values, the emotional centre, the loves of our listeners. Affections, belief and conduct. Three levels of legitimate and necessary application.

But let me offer another nudge. Not a three-layer nudge, but a two-part nudge. Instead of always offering “do” to our listeners (with the attitudinal companion of pressure), let’s consider our role as nudging listeners with a “look!” (with the attitudinal companion of enthusiasm).

As we offer the Word, explaining and applying it to our listeners, let a large chunk of the application be “look!” As people see the God of Scripture, revealed in the Son, by the power of the Spirit, their lives will be transformed: inside to out, affections, belief, conduct.

Our task is not primarily to be a conveyor of our exegetical insights, opaquely offering the Bible to contemporary folks. Our task is more to be a lens, effectively handling the Scripture to offer a glimpse of the One revealing Himself in the Word, transparently letting God be seen to contemporary listeners with eyes to see. So we speak and they listen. And we say Look! And by God’s grace they see.

Look Wider to See Deeper and Higher

June 1, 2011June 2, 2011 / Peter Mead / 5 Comments

Interesting comment today. After interacting with students’ sermon outlines on a passage I got the privilege of preaching the passage. One participant observed afterwards, “we were looking at this passage on a very human level, but you went deeper to show us God and how He sees us, which made it so much more powerful.”

Very encouraging feedback, but my point is actually this: they were looking at a list of instructions in an epistle. I probably did dig a little more than they could in the passage itself. But the God vision came from a wider lens, not a bigger shovel. I looked at the passage in its context and saw God at work. They looked at the instructions and felt pressure to obey. I looked at God’s work and saw a privilege to participate in.

Sometimes we need to dig deeper in the text (actually, always). Sometimes we need to look wider at the context (actually, always). Always we need to make sure we are preaching God and not just human.

Momentum Matters

May 31, 2011May 21, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

When you are preaching, your listeners will subconsciously be looking for unity (a single focus to your preaching), and order (a clarity of structured presentation), and progress (a sense that you are moving forward and getting closer to the end). It is this progress that can be easily lost causing the message to feel like it gets stuck in the mud.

What causes momentum to be lost? Could be one of several things:

Is momentum about content of the message? Yes it can be. Is one part of the message too dense or extended in terms of explanation? Is there too much repetition that might give the sense of you losing your way or going round in circles? Content issues can cause a loss of momentum.

Is momentum about structure of the message? Yes it can be. If you haven’t previewed the structure, or don’t give effective and deliberate transitions, then it can all meld into one and feel dense or still instead of progressing. If you structure your message so that you keep jumping around the text, listeners can lose the sense of progress that comes from a sequential following of the passage (it can be appropriate to do this approach in a text, but make structure and transitions extra clear).

Is momentum about delivery of the message? Yes it can be. If you lose energy, or become monotonous in voice or visual presentation, then momentum can seap away. If you lose your initial enthusiasm (or if your enthusiasm is at a constant high pitch without releasing that tension), then momentum can be lost.

Momentum can be hard to get hold of, but for preaching to engage listeners, we have to consider not only unity and order, but also progress. Don’t take this the wrong way, but they like to know you’re getting closer to being done!

Pulpit Sin

May 23, 2011May 9, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Generally I’m very hesitant to add sins to the lists we are given in the Bible. I’d rather preach the power of life transforming grace than the pressure of legalistic righteousness. But forgive me this one time, I am going to add a sin to our lists. It’s a sin some preachers commit. It’s a sin we should never commit:

In my opinion preaching that is boring is a sin! There, said it.

There is nothing spiritual or godly or Christlike or commendable about preaching in a boring manner. The Bible is not boring! Our task is neither to make it interesting, nor to add illustrative extras to make it interesting (add them for legitimate purposes, of course, but not because you think the Bible is boring!)

How can we avoid boring preaching? There are many ways, but here are two pairs to bear in mind:

Avoid boring with poor content. Look for ways to preach in a manner that is visual, i.e. that will make listeners respond with “Oh, I see what you’re saying!” So in your explanation seek to help people “see what you’re saying.” And in your application help people to “see what you’re saying.” What does that involve? It involves doing more than merely presenting information, or stating propositions, or making points. It involves painting pictures with words of the imagery in a passage, or vividly describing the action in a narrative. It involves painting pictures with words when describing application of the message. Preach vivid so the listeners can see what you mean to say!

Avoid boring with poor delivery. Look for ways to add energy to your presentation. There are two primary areas to keep in mind. The vocal needs energy. And the visual needs energy. Be sure to vary your volume, your pace, your tone, your use of pause. Be sure to add energy to your eye contact, facial expression, gestures, movement, your whole presentation. It is very easy to turn vivid and compelling content into a boring message by forcing it through the filter of poor delivery. There is no virtue in looking and sounding as if the passage has been nothing more than soporific in your preparation. Did Jesus preach in a bland voice and without expression? I suspect not. So let’s try to be more Christlike in our preaching!

Guardrails and Bridge Width

May 20, 2011May 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Some time ago I referred to Timothy Warren of DTS who used the analogy of guardrails for guarding the application of a message from straying off target. I’d like to use the same analogy with slight modification in respect to preaching a text.

The preacher builds a bridge between the Bible text in its world and the listeners in theirs. It may be helpful to imagine a guardrail either side of this road. One guardrail is the intended audience, the other is the purpose of the communication. On the Bible side of the bridge, the intended audience were the church or individual receiving the inspired text (i.e. the churches of Galatia). The purpose was specific in terms of Paul’s intent for those churches.

By the time the preacher gets over to today, he is also thinking of an intended audience (the congregation of Community Church this coming Sunday) and also has a purpose in preaching this text to them on this occasion.

Now if the audience this Sunday shares significant characteristics and cultural experiences with the original audience, then the guardrail comes straight across the bridge. And if the purpose for the sermon matches Paul’s purpose for his letter, then that guardrail also comes straight across.

But what if the audience is different (perhaps they haven’t gone after another gospel), and therefore the purpose is slightly different (encouragement with some warning, rather than open rebuke), then I imagine the guardrails shifting the road direction slightly (think of how your lanes are changed when there is construction on the motorway/freeway). The message of the text is not significantly changed (there are limits), but the sermon is adjusted from what the original did.

If this were applied to preaching a passage from Leviticus, then I imagine the considerable change in audience and purpose would be reflected in the less direct application of the text (a six-lane road narrowing to a two-lane road since we can’t apply it freely and directly), yet the road remains the same.

You cannot preach any truth from a particular passage. You can only preach the truth of that passage. However, the ease of transfer depends on the consistency of audience situation and sermonic purpose. Adjusting these guardrails will adjust the message (but the message must still be the message of the passage).

Eight Ways To Dissipate the Impact of Your Message – Part 2

May 11, 2011May 4, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Finishing up the list of eight ways we can inadvertently dissipate the impact of a passage:

5. By over-qualifying applications

Sometimes we make an application of a passage, but then feel the need to qualify it and state all the ways that might not be the way to act. Some qualification may be necessary or even vital, but trying to cover every possible misapplication can mean the actual application is lost in the mix.

6. By unnecessary balancing of the teaching of this passage

Just as with an application, so with the teaching of a passage. Perhaps your passage is speaking of the opposition of the world to followers of Christ . . . but if you over-qualify this with our need to influence the world (salt of the earth, etc.), then it will dissipate the passage you are preaching. Consider whether the balancing needs to be done in this message, or by preaching another passage another time.

7. By equally weighting every detail in the passage

Every passage consists of details – some weightier than others. Part of our task is to weigh up the relative influence of each on the summation of the whole. If we treat every word or every phrase equally, then we will lose the full impact of the actual message. Consider 2Tim.4:1-5 . . . is “preach the word” worthy of equal attention as “always be sober-minded” in the explanation of the passage?

8. By over-extending the landing

Some of the best sermons lose all their impact by the extra five minutes tacked on the end. Nail it and stop. Hard to do though. I could say more, but won’t.