Stage 5 – Message Purpose

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!

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.

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.”

Biblical Preaching – Crisis and Recovery

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

We’re coming toward the end of terms and semesters. Just a few weeks to go until many will walk the stage, shake the hands, get the paper, etc. Here are some great thoughts from Al Mohler’s commencement address at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary last December. It’s worth reading the whole address, here’s the link.

“Our authority is not our own. We are called to the task of preaching the Bible, in season and out of season. We are rightly to divide the Word of truth, and to teach the infinite riches of the Word of God. There are no certainties without the authority of the Scripture. We have nothing but commas and question marks to offer if we lose confidence in the inerrant and infallible Word of God. There are no thunderbolts where the Word of God is subverted, mistrusted or ignored.

“The crowds were astonished when they heard Jesus, ‘for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes.’ Congregations are starving for the astonishment of hearing the preacher teach and preach on the authority of the Word of God. If there is a crisis in preaching, it is a crisis of confidence in the Word. If there is a road to recovery, it will be mapped by a return to biblical preaching.”

Lest any of us feel buoyed by degrees earned, titles held, respect given, etc., let’s remember this – the authority in our preaching comes from the Bible, not us.

Disadvantage Us?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Here’s a quote worth pondering, wherever you sit theologically.  It is quoted in a book that is more mainstream and liturgical in orientation than the more evangelical books I tend to quote from.  It is a quote by P.T.Forsyth in reference to the Roman Catholic church.  I’m sure this post could stir response on numerous levels, but the quote is worth considering in reference to our preaching:

The Catholic form of worship will always have a vast advantage over ours so long as people come away from its central act with the sense of something done in the spirit-world, while they leave ours with the sense only of something said to this present world.

In many churches we might beg to differ that something is really said to “this present world” either.  But the point is intriguing.  Are we so connected and “relevant” that there is nothing heavenly, spiritual, special, involved in church? For those of us committed to the centrality of the spoken word in worship, perhaps we need to prayerfully ponder what this might mean for us.

The book, more liturgical in its orientation, points to another conclusion that could be drawn – some seek to separate words and action.  They say, in effect, that the “Eucharist” can do the talking, so don’t bother preaching.  “Some clergy are scared to preach.  They  play up the liturgy as a way of hiding from the people.  A sermon is the best barometer of the spiritual life of the minister.  Some fear that it is too accurate an instrument.”  (Book title and author coming in the next few days…oh the intrigue!)

Words and actions do not fight each other.  They go together in worship.  Whatever label you use, Jesus did give a symbolic act and request that it be done in remembrance of Him.  He also explained it.  With words.  I think it is David Wenham who refers to communion and baptism as enacted parables.  We must follow the instructions of Jesus, and the example too.  He came to preach.  He sent His followers out to preach.  Let’s not hide from preaching behind an excuse of some viable and even biblical “alternative.”  But let us also consider how our preaching might be more than a mere “this world” presentation.  It needs to be that, and so much more besides.

The Aim of Preaching Easter

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

What is your aim as you preach this Easter?  In his book, Sacred Rhetoric (p119-120), Michael Pasquarello makes the following comment about Martin Luther:

Luther’s homiletic aim was to demonstrate, by means of the Gospel, that the resurrection is more than an idle tale or a painted picture that evokes admiration and religious sentiment. . . . He hoped that in telling others the Easter story, the presence of the risen Christ might elicit faith’s true confession: “Christ is my Savior and King.”

Let’s not settle for a complacent approach to sermonic purpose as Easter approaches.  Why am I preaching this passage on this date to these people?  Because it’s Easter, of course!  That’s not enough, what do we aim to achieve?

What should the result be for the non-Christian present?  Luther wrote, “Although Christians will identify themselves with Judas, Caiaphas, and Pilate – sinful, condemned actors in the Gospel story – there is another who took the sins of humanity on himself when they were hung around his neck. . . . And today, Easter Sunday, when we see him, they are gone; there is only righteousness and life, the Risen Christ who comes to share his gifts.” (Sermons, 125, cited in Pasquarello, 120)

What should our Easter preaching do for Christians?  Again, same book, “Christians are now free to look away from their sins, from evil and death, and to fix their gaze upon Christ, which is the logic or grammar of faith.”

What is your aim as you preach this Easter?  Be specific.  Target your message.  Don’t waste a glorious occasion.

Preaching Means Picking Words

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

It almost goes without saying, but let’s say it anyway: preaching involves choosing words.  Sometimes the words are chosen agonizingly poring over a manuscript.  Other times words are chosen at an essentially sub-conscious level during delivery.  Whether it takes an age to get the right word, or a split-second to get any word, what word should be chosen?  A couple of thoughts:

Precise words – we really are to carefully choose the best words we can.  One aspect of that choice should be precision.  If we mean something specific, we should say that, and not something else.  Was it Mark Twain who said (probably was, it was usually him) – “Choose the right word – and not it’s second cousin.”  How easy it is to preach in vague words and achieve vague results.

Pomposity & pride are problematic – while it is important to be precise in our word choices, we should watch carefully for the insidious creeping of intellectual arrogance.  It is tempting to show that you know that term, but your goal is to preach the Bible so that the listeners can understand and respond to it, not so that they can praise you for such heady fare.  So beware of “jargon” known only to theologians, literary analysts or even trendy-Christian-fashionistas.  (This isn’t just a simple rule that says, “don’t do it!”  You also need to think through the choices you make.  For instance, avoiding reference to ‘biblical narrative’ by using the term ‘Bible story’ is certainly less technical, but it might imply ‘piece of old fiction’ if your supporting comments aren’t also carefully chosen.  It is vital to know your listeners and choose words accordingly – ‘biblical narrative’ would be considered highly technical by some, not at all by others.)

So let’s be precise rather than haphazard as we choose our words.  At the same time our deliberate approach to word choices should generally tend toward the clear and plain, rather than highly technical and “showy-offy” (technical term).  Poring over a manuscript for precision is one thing, it’s the sub-conscious choices that are the real challenge. Surely that requires us to make a deep-down, heart-level, fundamental, core-value, gut-level commitment to eliminating pride from our preaching.

Unhealthy Division: Style & Substance

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Perhaps people like me add to the kind of division I am thinking about by the labels used in our teaching of preaching, but still, we’d do well to think about this.  Do we too easily divide elements of preaching?

For example, content and delivery, or substance and style.  It’s a simple distinction, and it works for planning a class schedule.  But when you consider the complexity of the act of communication, perhaps the distinction can be unhelpful?  Certainly once we start dismissing style out of a resolute commitment to substance, we are shooting ourselves in the foot.

Now don’t get me wrong.  The term “style” is not the best for what I am writing about.  Even “delivery” can sound like a performance.  The reality, though, is that the message is transmitted through a preacher.  This includes many elements.  Not just vocal production, verbal clarity, non-verbal presentation, etc. (the classic elements of “delivery”), but also that which you might label “ethos” and “pathos.”

I recently tweaked my gradually-improving definition of preaching in one part by adding the two words “and life.”  In reference to the oral communication aspect of preaching, my current best attempt at a definition says that preaching involves “…effective communication through the preacher’s words (and life)…”

Perhaps we would do well to not dismiss matters of “style” and “delivery” as “mere performance.”  It is too easy to take Paul’s self-distancing from the manipulative skill of classical rhetoric (1Cor.2:1-5) and therefore dismiss all rhetoric and homiletics.  The problem with such a blanket response is that Paul clearly utilized both rhetorical and homiletical skill in his writing and preaching.  Instead of a quick dismissal of all style/delivery issues, or at the other extreme, an obsession with delivery that results in a performance mentality, perhaps we would consider more seriously that which results in the pulpit from the weight of who we are personally in our walk with Christ.

Maturity shows.  Passion shows.  Love shows.  Life shows.  Perhaps a preachers style and delivery are a lot more about the preachers inner life and spirituality than our categories tend to recognize?

Not Every Passage is Easy

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I suppose many of us preachers have a desire to make every passage understandable.  This is good and right on many levels.  Yet some passages, and some details in passages, are tough.  I was leading a Bible study on Isaiah 49-50 the other night . . . there was a tough detail.  Should I force my understanding on people?  What if my understanding of it rests on a broader background than some of those present can draw on?  I’m intrigued by Piper’s point in chapter 14 of Brothers We Are Not Professionals – we should show people why God inspired hard texts.

It is amazing that so much of Christianity rests on the shoulders of a “book,” and some parts of that “book” (technically 66 of them I suppose) are hard to understand.  Why did God do this?  Piper offers four reasons.  1. To stir in us a sense of desperation (utter dependence on God’s enablement).  2. To move us to supplication (prayer to God for help).  3. To prompt real cogitation (thinking hard about Biblical texts – which is no alternative to praying for help!)  4. To stimulate genuine education (the training of young people and adults to pray earnestly, read well and think hard.)

As preachers we must wrestle with hard texts and not simply skirt around them in our preaching, nor avoid them in our scheduling.  On the one hand it is up to us to help make the message of the text clear.  At the same time, we may do our listeners a disservice if we don’t point out when a passage is tough, and look for ways to let that be a motivation for study, rather than a hindrance.

Don’t Dilute By Distraction – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

In the closing stages of a message, the last leg of the journey, it is easy to lose the focus and momentum of a message.  Yesterday I raised the issue of introducing other texts, which can (not always, but often) dilute the force of the ending of a message.  Here’s another:

Don’t dilute by adding unnecessary new images. After twenty or thirty minutes where the overarching image has been the tender care of a mother for her child, the preacher decides to throw another image into the mix in the closing moments – perhaps the care of a shepherd for the lambs, or a coach for his team, or whatever.  Often a new image, a new illustration, a new set of vocabulary, when introduced in the final leg of a sermon will undermine the strength of what has gone before, or totally overwhelm the message (such as a moving story that is so powerful it makes every other element of the message, including the Bible, mere introduction).  Again, it is not always true.  Sometimes a pithy anecdote, a moving illustration, a well turned phrase, may serve to close a message well…but only sometimes…and not a very big sometimes either.

The final thrust of a message is a critical leg of the journey.  It’s the time to consolidate, not dilute.  A time to pull elements together and drive them home, not add new information that shatters the unity of the whole.