Stage 5 – Message Purpose

The Height of Application

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I’ve written recently about application and where it is aimed – heart, head and hands (i.e. affection, belief and conduct).  But what about the height of the application?  That is to say, how high do we set the bar?  Now immediately there are issues rising up: does this language imply duty and responsibility that will smother the drawing power of the love of God?  Are we going to end up pressuring people with more and more things to do somewhat independently of God, rather than drawing them deeper into the life that is relationship with God?

I think there are a couple of errors we fall into:

Some of us can over-pressure on a flimsy foundation.  That is, we preach something, explaining the text somewhat, and then go for broke with application.  It is easy to call for total surrender, but when that applicational structure is built on the foundation of snack-food exposition, it will always feel out of place.

Some of us tire people with inane applications not befitting of the gospel.  We preach, perhaps very well, the truth of God’s Word.  And then we list yet another set of duties to be added to the already overwhelmed list of duties on the scrap of paper inside the Bible’s front cover.  This can feel trite. After a seven-course feast in a five-star restaurant, we then urge people to go home and be sure to eat three marshmallows each day and offer a personal-pack of cookies to at least one neighbor.

So what to do?  How high is the bar to be set?  First, it is important to think through where the text is naturally urging the listener.  Second, remember that duty and pressure is very different from compelled response.  If we can preach the compelling Christ and His Word in such a way that hearts are moved, then application will be the naturally resulting encouragement, rather than grating burdens.  Third, remember that some passages and situations call for very practical described applications, but many others might be better suited to stirring hearts for worship, or challenging false beliefs and worldview blind spots.  Make every message relevant, but not every message has to feel pragmatically “applicational.”

If we are saying that “application” should be fitting for the compelling, drawing, captivating attraction and power of the message preached,then surely the bar is often set too low.  But the answer is not to crank up the pressure, but rather to look for ways to preach for hearts to be moved and carefully consider how the listeners can be encouraged along the path of response . . . and that response, through the years of church history, has often been a response of total and absolute sacrificial commitment.  Let’s raise the bar, but think through how we do it!

What Makes For Thin-Blooded Preaching?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

After a whole series of careful caveats, Michael Quicke defines what he means by thin-blooded preaching in 360-Degree Leadership.  I’ll share brief introductions to each thought, but really recommend buying the book and thinking through his argument first-hand.

1. Individualistic – It is easier to preach to individuals, than to address the complexities of corporate church life, and the calling of the Body of Christ in the world.

2. Aimed at head or heart but rarely both together – On the one hand there is preaching that lodges great slabs of words into heads to occupy listeners with note taking – “Cerebral preachers love to use ‘The Blessed Treasury of Wonderful Bible Verses that will accompany your sermon text and fill up the space to stop you pursuing its specific consequences.'”  Equally he critiques the feel-good preaching that by-passes Scripture in order to only touch the emotions.

3. Spineless Theology – Not theology in general, but the theology of preaching that is essentially unitarian and essentially denies the existence of an actively involved Christ or Holy Spirit, making sermon preparation and delivery an almost entirely human endeavour.

4. Generic Applications – That is, the lightweight fare of homely examples and cheerful little stories that is nonspecific and nonconfrontational.  Pithy anecdotal material that could have been preached unchanged half a century ago, therefore indicating that it isn’t really about gospel transformation of community today.

5. Avoids Conflict – only nurturing and shepherding without exhorting.  This kind of preaching may boldly denounce generic sins, but timidly avoid at all costs the simmering tensions in the church such as crippling tension over worship, or disputes between families.

That is quite enough for one post.  Like me you probably “amen-ed” at least a few of those, but they are all worth pondering as you prayerfully considering your preaching and the preaching-leadership of your church.  I’ll share the other five tomorrow.

Ingredients for Creativity

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

If you want to increase creativity in your preaching, what is needed?

1. Time. If you are squeezed for time then it will not be possible to add the extra work needed (and the thinking capacity needed) for adding creativity to your preaching.

2. Freedom and trust. It is important to know the congregation to whom you preach.  Many will not easily accept more creative approaches to preaching unless there is first a building up of trust and a shared commitment to the core elements of true preaching (i.e. that a particular form is not the definition of faithfulness to the ministry!)

3. Better reading of the text. We need to grow in our ability to thoroughly engage with texts and recognize their genre, their features, their mood, their narrative context, etc.  Better Bible study can help develop more creative preaching.

4. Awareness of yourself as a preacher. We all need to know our own strengths and weaknesses in preaching.  Are you effective in description, in storytelling, in timing of key phrases, in disarming listeners, in role-playing, etc.?  Don’t get too creative in areas of weakness, but built on the strengths first.

5. Exposure to creative and different preachers. Don’t just copy what someone else has done, but if you are never exposed to other preachers, you will struggle to break out of the confines of your own style and tradition.

What would you add to this list?

Struggling With Style and Substance

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

A lot of comments are made about preaching to the younger generation.  Lots can be said about the newest set of adults in our culture, and it is imperative that we get to know who we are trying to reach, or who we are preaching to on a Sunday . . .

But let’s not fall into the trap of thinking that the new generation are simply looking for new style.  It is so easy to think that preaching in a certain style will appeal to the younger generation.  It is true that generationally there is a shift in preferred styles of preaching, but the danger comes when we presume that style is the key, then lose sight of substance.

The younger generation do seem to place a high value on authenticity, integrity and vulnerability.  Yet there is no waning in the desire for substance.  Perhaps it could be argued that the younger generation today actually yearns for depth and substance perhaps more than previous generations who placed higher value on structure and form?

So let’s not try to be “relevant” in style without pursuing God in a deep personal walk, nor offer lightweight preaching simply to appeal in style.  This is not to say that we should preach old style – whatever that might be.  The priority has to be substance, but in our passion to connect, we should be considering all aspects of how to communicate effectively (which inevitably is changing over time and will always do so).

We should also be careful not to disparage popular speakers among the younger generation.  It is so easy to mock and dismiss the currently popular speakers across the spectrum.  Upon closer inspection it might be found that some of them are actually speaking with considerable depth and substance.  The problem is that many simply copy style and lose that substance, which exacerbates the impression of superficiality.

There aren’t simple solutions, but we have to take seriously how to connect with each new generation.

Points in a Narrative Text Sermon

/ Peter Mead / 14 Comments

There is a field of homiletics referred to as narrative preaching, but this post is concerned with the preaching of a narrative passage – eg. David and Goliath, Joseph in Potiphar’s House, Hannah & Samuel, etc.

In other posts I have encouraged the use of full sentence points, rather than descriptive titles that make the message outline look like a commentary synopsis.  The full thoughts help you communicate effectively, generally avoiding historical past tense sentences helps you not sound like a commentary recycler.  But it is worth clarifying a couple of points on points:

1. If the message structure reflects the story structure, then some points may be better stated in historical terms. What I mean is that in an attempt to be contemporary, we can end up making three or four life principles out of the developing elements of the story, rather than allowing the story to be told properly.  The problem then becomes a moralizing approach to the details of a story, rather than allowing the force of the story to stand behind the main point, which itself might best be the only focus of application.  Stories that are told effectively will hold attention, so it is not necessary to generate points of relevance or application throughout the detail of the story.  Pay careful attention to the introduction, generating a definite sense of sermon relevance there, then feel free to be in the world of the narrative for a large part of the message, continually building to the relevance that may only become overt in point 3 or 4 (i.e. whenever the main idea is revealed with its abiding theological thrust).

2. Shorter biblical stories may work best with a default sermon outline. Namely, point 1 is to tell the story.  Point 2 is to state and clarify the main idea of that story.  Point 3 is to reinforce and drive home the application of that main idea.  In this case point 1 is automatically historical.  Point 2 should be written in contemporary terms.  Point 3 has to be contemporary, including all sub-points.  Again the introduction is important, but I suspect that will be the case in almost every sermon that we preach (whether we give it the necessary attention or not).  This approach underlines the fact that the outline of a sermon is for your eyes only.  Once we realize our goal is not to transfer an outline, but to give the text in such a way as to clarify the main point and apply it, then we are freed from the burden of turning every narrative into a parallel rhyming assonated demonstration of guilded wordsmithery.

Managing Message Momentum

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Even the best message preparation often overlooks the critical issue of momentum.  So messages will often follow one of these patterns:

1. “U” … Start with a bang – drag on through the bulk – pick up for a strong finish.

2. “/” … Start slow – gradually increase in energy and get going.

3. “\” … Start strong – lose dynamic after the introduction, or first point, and drag to the end.

Each of these patterns will undermine the effectiveness of the preaching event.  Equally, while some preachers seem content to flatline “_” (i.e. never generate energy or momentum), it is not usually possible for listeners to cope with the opposite (i.e. constant high energy and fast pace).

If you have felt like your preaching tends toward one of these patterns, or if others have hinted at it.  What can you do?

1. Try to work out where the momentum was missing. Was it an unclear transition?  Was it a sequence of explanatory points?  Was it at the point you lost confidence in your content?  Was it just through a lethargic unplanned introduction?  Was it at a difficult juncture in the text?  If you can figure out where momentum was missing in previous messages, this will help you identify where the same could happen in future messages.

2. Listen to yourself practice. Sometimes you can get the sense of momentum struggles in a run through of the message, but not always.  It may be worth recording a run through and listening to it . . . but obviously that requires you to be on top of your preparation.

3. Evaluate the sermon map. Most of us tend to use an outline rather than an actual sermon map, but we can still evaluate it as a map.  As well as evaluating it for location of illustrations (the normal approach, which actually can generate predictability as people see every illustration coming), also look for points of relevance, and consider the terrain . . . will this bit be hard to traverse for the listener?  Marking your outline may allow you to energise a potentially monotonous section with illustration, review & preview, interlude, or even by overviewing rather than detailing a segment.

4. Weigh the sermon on the scales. Many of us tend toward simply making too many points, giving too much explanation, trying to give too much and the sermon is simply too heavy.  What would be lost if you chose to lighten the content slightly and create some breathing space?  If the main point of the text is not lost, then are we choosing to keep content because we want to demonstrate our insight, our study, our knowledge?

Energy, pace, vocal variation, movement, progress, laughter, relevance . . . the complex factors of message momentum.

Purposeful Selection Then Forgotten

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The first logical step in preparing a message (once you’ve been asked to preach, which is presumed), is to select your passage(s) on which to base the message.  Sometimes the invitation comes with the passage, sometimes with a theme, sometimes an open invitation.  Select then forget.  What do I mean?

1. When you’re invited to preach with a passage assigned. You may be tempted to skip the Passage Selection phase of preparation altogether, after all, job is already done, isn’t it?  Well, not fully.  You need to double check that you are handling a full unit of thought (i.e. not half a story, half a proverb, half a psalm, half a paragraph, etc.)  Whatever you are asked to preach, you have to study the full unit of thought in its context, so there is a need to check the selection.  In doing so, especially if a title has been assigned, you may get a clear indication of what they are wanting from the message.  Great, a church or ministry being purposeful is a good thing. But for the study phase (stages 2-4), you need to forget that purpose and seek to dwell in the text.  Reintroduce that purpose in your thoughts for message purpose, stage 5.

2. When you’re invited to preach with a theme assigned. You go on the hunt for an appropriate passage on which to preach that theme (or a combination of passages).  Once you’ve selected your passages, forget the theme for a while.  The text has to be free to speak for itself.  Any imposed message makes it something other than truly biblical preaching.

3. When you’re invited to preach and free to choose. This is hard work.  You can easily waste a lot of time pondering where to go.  You may go where you go for a variety of reasons, but once you’ve gone there, forget your motivation (for now) and allow the text to speak for itself.

What if it is different? At times I’ve been faced with a passage that doesn’t do what I thought it would, or doesn’t do what a title suggests.  Well, then, either preach the passage or pick another.  Simple really, but vital.  When we are studying passage (stages 2-4), we need to let the text be boss, and then let that authority linger through the message formation phase of the process.

Helping People Trust Their Bibles – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

I recently wrote a post relating to textual criticism – please click here to see it. Shrode commented and asked for an example of how I might address the issue of a missing verse while preaching on the passage. Relatively simple, gracious and trust-building was the request. Here’s my attempt (okay, so length may be slightly longer than I’d prefer for a post, but there is content that may not be necessary in the last two paragraphs – and it takes 2.5 minutes more or less):

If you look carefully you’ll notice that verse 4 is missing in this chapter.  Uh oh!  Looks like our Bibles have a problem!?  Actually, no, I would suggest this is a good thing.  We don’t tend to think about them, but there are a whole lot of archeologists and scholars who are constantly at work trying to make sure we have the most accurate and trustworthy Bibles possible.  Let me put it to you this way – we don’t have the original letters that Paul wrote, or the original gospels, or the original books of Moses, etc.

That sounds like a problem, but actually, they were probably destroyed precisely to avoid a problem.  You see, over time, manuscripts would fade and curl at the edges and get worn out.  But if perfect copies were made, why keep a fading original?  Well, over time imperfections crept into the copies of copies of copies.  Over the past centuries archeologists have continued to find more and more manuscripts and biblical quotes in manuscripts.  Gradually they are finding more and more of those copies of copies.  This means that experts can then weigh the evidence to work out what the original actually said.  So when you see a verse number (here verse 4), but no text, this means that evidence has proved that the text in older translations was very likely added later on, rather than being original.

Just in case you are thinking that this really undermines our Bibles, after all, can we trust these people . . . what if they have an agenda?  Actually, I’d point out that as well as some who are very evangelical and conservative Bible believing Christians, there are also many who have no specific belief in the God of the Bible, and some who perhaps are anti the God of the Bible.  Yet despite these differences there is a good concensus that the original text our modern translations are translated from is actually very, very, accurate.  Any discrepancies in the manuscript evidence now only add up to less then 2% of the text, and none of those texts change any of the main teachings of the Bible.  Should it be “Jesus Christ” or “Lord Jesus Christ” . . . that probably doesn’t change much in the book of Acts, for example.

Oh, and one last thing, some people will try to tell you that the Bible has been translated hundreds, or thousands of times . . . like a giant historical chain of chinese whispers [only refer to this if people use that label for the game].  The truth is that actually your modern English Bible has been translated only once, direct from the best original text ever available in the history of Bible translation.  Verse 4 is missing, and rightly so, it shouldn’t have been added in the first place.  We can really and truly trust our English Bibles.  I’d be happy to chat more about this issue if you are concerned.

Now, back to the passage…

Falling Short of Unity, Order and Progress

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Can I offer three ways in which we can have unity, order and progress, yet still fall short in each area?

Unity – We often fall short when we just tie together the sections of the text by means of a keyword or subject.  In many passages it is relatively easy to make the two or three or four points somewhat parallel and addressing aspects of a subject.  I’m being hypothetical now, but the type of outline that goes through The Problem of Prayer, The Power of Prayer, The Perspecuity of Prayer.  (Commentary labels fall short on numerous levels, perhaps another post for that one!)  Did the writer really intend a list of fully parallel and equal thoughts?  Or was the writer actually building a case to say one main thing?  Unity should be pursued at the level of main idea (subject and complement) not just at the level of subject.

Order – I think we fall short of a well-ordered message when we simply progress through the text in the order it is found in Scripture.  Often this is the most effective order to present the passage, but why?  Is it purely for ease of following?  If the writer had shuffled the pack of paragraphs, would it have been the same another way?  If not, if there is a development of the thought, or a progression toward a climax, or an addressing of objections, etc., then let’s recognize and reproduce a more deliberate order than just, “now onto the next verse…”  (Again, often the order is a good order to preach, but ask yourself why?)

Progress – We fall short when our progress is simply a moving toward the end of the passage.  Listeners will generally feel relieved when they get that sensation of nearing the end, but that doesn’t mean the message has moved anywhere, or moved them at all. Progress should give a sense of moving forward, going somewhere, building, arriving, etc.  Consider how the thought in the passage does more than just slide past, but actually engages the reader, creates tension, resolves it, anwers concerns, etc.

Monological Q and A – part 2

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday I offered three thoughts on how to make a message that engages the listener.  Even though you are doing all the talking, they don’t feel like observers at a presentation, but participants in a half quiet conversation.  They feel like you’re talking to them, like they are involved as the message progresses.  Relevant preaching, rhetorical questions and related to life outlining of the message were yesterday’s points, here are three more (and why not push the alliteration since I tend not to do so when preaching!)

4. Room to breathe – It’s so easy to rattle through a message that is clear and defined in our notes, but comes across as an unbroken stream to the listener.  Good use of pauses, and even illustrations, can give room to breathe and re-engage.

5. Really clear structure and transitions – The more people know what’s going on, the more they can engage with it.  If they’re trying to figure out what you’re trying to do, or where you are going, the less they are involved and actually listening.  Good clear structuring and transitions will help the listener to participate in the actual content and journey of the message.

6. Resistance to cruise controlled sermon pace – Pace is so critical.  Again, your notes may be clearly structured, but the listener is at your mercy to get a sense of order and progress.  Many now like to short-circuit this by projecting their outline.  Don’t do that, instead learn to make your message really clear.  Structure and transitions matter.  So too does pace.  No interesting journey progresses at a constant pace – either fast or slow.  Variation of pace will help listeners engage.

Any more that you would add?