Stage 5 – Message Purpose

Is It Ever Appropriate to Preach the Same Text to the Same Church?

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Simple question.  Simple answer?  Yes.

But what about people thinking you haven’t prepared something fresh so you are just reworking old material?  What about the feeling of deja vu that will overcome the listeners?  What about?  What about?

As a preacher you have to answer to God for your preaching ministry.  If you think the church needs that passage again, why not preach it again?  What people might think about your ministry or effort is very much a secondary issue.  You can make it clear that you are not trying to sneek a repeat past them.  Tell them upfront that you have preached it before and that you feel before God that we need to think it through again, or some more.

Personally I would be very willing to return to the same text for a second service on the same day.  It allows for deeper levels of application and reinforcement.  I would be willing to return to the same text after a gap of weeks, months or years, too.  Perhaps it helps to think about it this way:

A sermon event consists of several ingredients – the preacher, the listeners, the situation, the text.  When time has passed, the preacher is not the same person they were before.  The listeners have changed (individually, and in respect to who is actually present).  The situation has changed.  The text remains the same, but is engaged by the first three elements in a fresh way.

Same text, different occasion, why not?  Our purpose is not to impress listeners with new information week after week, but to shepherd people before God as under-shepherds . . . sometimes the same patch of grass is what they/we really need!

Pondering Pace

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Effective preachers can range from plodding to pacey.  Contrary to popular opinion, slow is not always better.  As long as people can hear (volume) clearly (annunciation), their brains can generally cope with pace.  However, it is worth asking whether their hearts can cope?

Recently I had the joy of listening to a friend of mine preach in a setting designed for offering feedback.  The message was very good.  He did what many of us have done, though, and got confused about how long he had left.  Thinking he should be finishing (although he could have preached longer), he increased the pace.  Did we hear, understand and comprehend what he said at the faster pace?  Yes.  But did it have the same impact on our hearts?  Probably not.

At times I have watched a TV show, or a film, at an increased pace.  So for example, a 40-minute episode can be seen in 27-minutes.  This saves time, and you still understand all that happens.  But something is different.  At 1.4x the normal speed it is possible to follow dialogue and action, but it is harder to feel it.  When the moment of tension arrives, the intruder’s in the house, the music generates tension through it’s heartbeat style . . . well, at 1.4x the normal speed you simply don’t feel the tension, or the fear, or the anticipation, or the joy, etc.

We don’t have to preach slow, there is benefit in using a range of pace.  But recognize that rushed delivery undermines the affective impact of the message.  Is it worth trading that in for the benefit of cramming in more information?  I suppose it depends on whether you think humans are purely brain-driven, or if the heart has a role to play.

Drip Feeding

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

I’m sure I am not the only person who finds themselves praying for one message to make a massive difference.  When we are captivated by the God who speaks through a specific passage of Scripture, our yearning is for that impact to be felt deep and real by the listeners when we preach it.

But let’s not lose sight of the impact of a drip feeding ministry.  Regular exposure to the God of the Bible, to His Gospel, to the blessing of His self-revelation in His Word . . . it has a massive effect on people, even if we don’t see the impact of every point, every message, every application.

Somebody said it is easy to over-estimate what can be achieved in one message, but under-estimate what can be achieved over five years.  Pray for the balance of faith-fueled passion for each message, but also for divine diligence to press on for the long-term effect.

Hope You Don’t Mind a Re-Heat

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Sometimes we’ll have a meal that consists of leftovers reheated.  Sometimes this tastes better than the first time it was served.  Anyway, I was looking back at some of the earliest posts on this site and decided to re-heat one that I’ve often thought back on, or even referred to: The Preacher’s Cutting Room

Watching a movie on VHS was simple. Watch it, rewind it, return it. Now we use DVDs – watch it, then watch as many hours of extra bonus material as you can tolerate! You can enjoy “The Making of . . .” and “Meet the cast . . .” and “Humorous gaffes.” Then there is also “Deleted scenes.”

A scene might take days to film, more days to edit, cost thousands of dollars, and then be mercilessly cut from the final edition of the film. One such scene was in the movie Gladiator. As Maximus waited under the Coliseum, he looked out through a barred window to see Christians praying as the lions approached. A powerful scene, very moving. It was cut.

The director’s commentary on the scene explained the situation. It did not help the progress of the plot. It was potentially overwhelming, too weighty.

After many hours of preparing a sermon, get out the scissors. It isn’t easy, but there may be an element of explanation, an illustration, or a story that does not help the message, or may overwhelm it. If it would not be missed, or if its absence would not result in reduced understanding of the message . . . cut it. Perhaps when your sermon is on a DVD you can make it available, but for now we are still preaching in VHS.

I suppose I could try to bring the imagery up-to-date with some reference to Blu-Ray preaching (sharper and clearer?) or 3-D preaching (content doesn’t matter as long as there’s some special effects 🙂  Actually preachers do fall into the latter, don’t we?  Remember the early days of overhead projectors with acetates, or of powerpoint?  Suddenly the technology was exciting and some settled for sermons that simply used it for the sake of it.  Over time, hopefully, preachers learn that tools are servants, but the message still has to be genuinely focused, contentful, well-honed.  I suspect preaching with twitter feedback, and other such contemporary ideas, may become part of preaching in some circles, but will be completely ignored in others. Either way, the preacher will always have a cutting room.

Any time we study God’s Word and prayerfully consider preaching it to others, we will probably end up blessed with more content than is really needed for that specific message from that passage to those people on that occasion.  Don’t dismiss the cuttings, some may be very useful, perhaps reheated in another message, but don’t overpack the sermon either . . . let it be as focused as it should be.

Share

Idea to Idea, or Outline to Outline?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Some preaching methodologies suggest that the main idea is what crosses from textual study to sermon preparation. Others suggest that the outline of the text crosses over to form the outline of the sermon. Which is right?

Both, but with qualifications.

The idea is in charge of the message, the outline is not. Remember that the main idea of the passage was what the author was seeking to communicate to the recipients, and he chose to do so making choices about genre, structure, details, etc. Everything after the idea is a matter of authorial strategy. As we prepare to preach, our goal is to firstly grasp the main idea of the text, process that idea so that it takes into account the needs and situation of the listeners, and then consider how to form a sermon that will effectively deliver that main idea.

The outline of the text is not boss, but it does matter. In my approach, I teach a narrowing focus in the textual study that culminates in the defining of the main idea of the passage. That idea is then influenced (in certain respects) by an overt awareness of the listeners which determines the purpose of the message, and then the message idea is then in charge of the subsequent decisions relating to strategy (including the message structure, the illustrative details, intro, conclusion, etc.)

Having said all that, when it comes to the structure or outline of the message, where do I begin? With a contemporised outline derived from the passage. In effect the work done on the idea is also done on the outline.  So why don’t I overtly state that in the 8-stage process?

The outline of the passage is a starting place, but it does not always have to be obeyed. My default approach is to follow the strategy the author used by following the order and structure of the passage in my message outline.  However, I don’t feel restricted by this approach.  Sometimes the contemporary listeners are in a different place to the original recipients.  Sometimes they need differing strategies to drive the main idea home.  Perhaps extra info is needed, or a different starting place, or perhaps a different ordering of the content of the passage.

The passage outline is the place to start when it comes to the message outline, but it is not a requirement.  (However, I do feel constrained by the main idea of the text as I work at the level of main idea – hence my approach that emphasises the progress from passage idea to message idea).

Share

When Does This Touch My Heart?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Following on from yesterday’s post about the process of preparation being logical, but not mechanical, I’d like to come at the same issue from a different angle.

There is a danger that we follow a process like the 8-stage approach presented on this site, and then afterward seek to “add affect.”  That is, we work through the steps, end up with something of a message, but then try to add the affective elements to it.  These might include adding some sense of its effect or affect on us, the preacher.  Or adding elements to stir the affections of the listener.

Adding Affect Smacks of Rhetorical Trickery. Distinctly adding in content, or manner, or anecdote for the purpose of stirring response from listeners feels to me like the rhetorical trickery of the professional speakers of Paul’s day.  There are ways to generate response, to stir emotion, to manipulate feelings.  What place do these have in a ministry of integrity?  Hopefully none.

Preaching Flat is No Solution. Some seem to reject emotional manipulation by preaching purely informational sermons.  They seem to think that simply saying the truth and leaving all aspects of response and emotion to the Holy Spirit is the way to honour what Paul was saying in 1Cor.1-4.  I beg to differ.  Anytime we leave a part of preaching to the Holy Spirit, we are suggesting that there are some things we can do, and other bits He must do.  Leaving application to the Holy Spirit can sometimes seem to suggest that we can handle explanation without Him.  This is wrong thinking.  The preacher’s task is to explain, to apply, to represent the message of the text, to speak as God’s spokesperson, God’s herald, doing all in dependence on the Holy Spirit.  This roundabout paragraph brings me to my point though – how can we flat preach a text that isn’t flat?

Affect Shouldn’t Be Added, But Pervade. If the text you are studying comes with the affective contours of a real life writer in real life tensions, inspired by a passionate God who has a heart . . . then where does this “flat” bit come from?  It is our received approach that makes exegesis a cold process.  It is our elevation of cold intellectual knowledge to a revered status.  The text isn’t mere information.  God isn’t pure mind.  We don’t need to be mere intellects in action as we prepare.  Listeners aren’t blank slates waiting for an information dump.

So where does this passage touch my heart? Not as an afterthought, or I haven’t really studied it.  At every stage in the process my heart should be responsive to the text.  Actually, responsive to the God who inspired the text.  Let us grow in engaging fully with God, with His Word, and then hopefully our listeners will grow in the same as they respond to the preaching of His Word.

Share

Logical, Not Mechanical

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I teach an 8-stage approach to preaching preparation, always emphasising that each stage should be saturated with prayer (avoiding suggesting prayer as a single stage, or suggesting that this is a prayerless process).

The 8 stages are in a logical order. You cannot prepare the message until you’ve worked with the passage (1-4 before 5-8).  You cannot study the passage until you’ve selected it (1 before 2-4).  You cannot determine the idea of the passage until you’ve selected and studied it (1-3 before 4).  You cannot finalise your message idea until you’ve determined your message purpose (5 before 6).  You cannot decide on structure/strategy and details like intro/conclusion/”illustration” until you’ve determined message purpose and main controlling idea (5 and 6 before 7 and 8).

The 8 stages are not in a rigid order. The reality of preaching preparation is much more fluid than these stages might suggest.  Ideas and thoughts come at various times and should be noted rather than rejected.  As much as we should try to study the passage in its own right, we cannot help but tend toward application earlier in the process, and therefore also to thoughts about the message.  We are dynamic and unpredictable creatures, so naturally preparing a message will reflect that.  (I do stand by my suggestion that those learning should learn the more “stilted” approach first, then grow flexible out of a solid foundation.  Also seasoned preachers would do well to periodically follow the process closely.)

The 8 stages do not constitute a machine. The important thing is that we don’t fall into the trap of thinking a logical and ordered process equates to a message machine: feed in a text and just enough time and out pops a fully formed message.  That will feel as ineffective to our listeners as it will to us.  These 8 stages are logical.  You may choose to add in a distinct middle stage of overtly prayerfully analysing the expected listeners before embarking on the latter four stages of message preparation.  You may disagree with the stages and adjust them or increase them.  But what we mustn’t do is become mechanical in our preparation.  It takes time, seemingly unproductive time, to chew on the text.  It takes time, prayerful experience, and eyes fixed on the Lord, for the text and message to be worked out in your life before you speak it out of your own lips.

Follow the process if it is helpful to you, but remember to pray, to dwell, to linger, to process, to chew.

Share

Sad Separations

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Here are three separations often occurring in pulpits that are sad, to say the least:

The separation of leadership and preaching – I’ve mentioned this before, probably after reading Michael Quicke’s 360-Degree Leadership.  In some churches, especially those that have to, or choose to, rely on visiting speakers, there is an unfortunate separation of preaching from leadership.  The result tends to be preaching that is informative, perhaps even impressive, but not truly pastoral.

The separation of theology and application – It’s sad to see a situation where the riches of theology have supposedly been plumbed, and yet there hasn’t been the appropriate and necessary emphasis on application.  Is theology truly preached if it is only offered as informational instruction rather than transformational preaching?

The separation of gospel and text – Perhaps somewhat different, it is sad to see that in some situations the gospel is preached, but without genuine reference to the text.  That is to say, the text is presented, but rather than preached, it offers a springboard to a generic gospel presentation.  Better the gospel than no gospel, but much better the gospel well rooted in God’s Word.

Any other sad pulpit separations you’ve noticed?

Share

Where Does Christ Fit?

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

When you are preaching the Old Testament, there should always be a radar bleeping in your heart regarding where Christ fits into the message.  Some will suggest that every message must be entirely and purely about Christ, whatever the text was originally intended to convey.  I feel this approach can bring our view of the inspiration of Scripture into disrepute.

Not every Old Testament passage is just about Christ. I know that Jesus took two disciples on a tour of the Old Testament on the road to Emmaus, but I’d also like to point out that that road is only 7 miles long!  We need to recognize that many passages are about humanity responding to the God of the covenant, or about the power of the creator God, or about judgment, etc.  If it is a stretch to make the passage be about Jesus, don’t.  However,

The listeners are always listening to the sermon post-incarnation. Consequently there is a need to make sure we are engaging with the text in light of later revelation.  That doesn’t mean we have to reinterpret the original meaning to be something that it could not have been originally.  But we do have to land the bridge of the message in the contemporary circumstance of our listeners (including the fact that we are post-incarnation, post-cross, post-resurrection, post-Pentecost, etc.)

The Old Testament is, of course, heading toward Christ. It is Christo-telic.  That doesn’t mean it is Christo-exclusive.

May God grant us wisdom as we seek to honour His whole revelation in all its fullness, recognizing the progression of revelation, speaking with absolute relevance to contemporary listeners and always honouring and glorifying the Word incarnate!

Share

Simply Good Preaching

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Someone has said that you know it was a good sermon when you find yourself asking how the preacher knew all about you.  That’s a nice sentiment that points to the importance of applicational relevance in preaching.

Now allow me to give you my statement.  This is not a complete statement, or a forever statement.  It’s a today statement.  I heard a great sermon this morning.  (This post was written a couple of weeks back at Keswick, in case you’re wondering!)  So I heard a great sermon.  Here’s my statement, “you know it was a good sermon when twelve hours later you find yourself still pondering the powerful but simple take home truth, reminiscing over the clear images used to drive home the main points, reflecting on how engaged you felt by the message and the messenger, how excited you were, and still are, to look at the text, to pray through all that hit home, to take stock of your life in light of the text, to respond and be transformed by the message.”

That’s my sentiment tonight that points to the importance of so knowing your text that you can take listeners by the hand and enter into it fully, of so thinking through your presentation that you have clear and concise main thoughts, an overwhelming master idea, an engaging manner of delivery, a contagious energy in presentation, a reliance on the Lord to move in peoples’ lives, and a targeted relevance to the listeners before you.

Simple really, pull those things together and you’ll probably preach a decent message!

Share