Bony Outlines

July 1, 2011June 30, 2011 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

How bony should you make your sermon outline? Some people are passionately committed to having the sermon outline show through for maximum clarity. Every point is obviously a point. It is offered as such (my third point is…) The points need to be equal in weight, alliterated in wording and balanced perfectly.

This kind of rhetorical approach to preaching is understandable. It’s what we have been told is the right way to preach. It is perhaps what we have often heard done either successfully or not. Maybe we were taught it in seminary. Apparently people like to take notes of the points. Apparently parallel points are more memorable (and apparently remembering your outline is the goal of some listeners).

Can I question the point of all this for a moment? What if the points of the sermon are actually for the preacher’s benefit, rather than for the listeners? What if their take-away should be the main idea of the passage and how it has marked them, rather than a synopsis of your outline that they probably will never look at again?

If the only goal in preaching were clarity, then bony preaching would be the way to go. Let the skeleton show through in everything. But what about faithfulness to the text? Perhaps the text doesn’t offer three balanced points, and to make it offer that would be to abuse the text? What about relevance? What about engaging the listener? What about transformation that doesn’t come merely from information transfer? Perhaps bony preaching is not the only way to go?

I do not advocate rejection of traditional outlining methodologies. I am not saying we should go free form and nebulous in our preaching. But I would suggest that my outline is my servant, not my product. I outline the flow of the sermon to reflect the text and the message, but that is for my sake. Somehow I have to find the balance between bony preaching (clear, but potentially weak in other areas), and fleshy sermons (engaging, interesting, and/or biblically faithful, but potentially less “clear” by traditional measures).

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!

Preacher’s Log – 2

May 4, 2011May 1, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Following on from yesterday’s post . . . Sunday is getting ever nearer!

Tuesday to Thursday before – I am busy all day each day with Cor Deo training, so don’t have time for sermon preparation, but am chewing over the passages and their implications during spare moments, praying for Sunday’s messages to go well. I’m also pondering again the people to whom I’ll be preaching these passages, wanting God’s best for this church.

Friday before – Key preparation day. I work on outline of the text, main idea of the text, and prepare to form the main idea and outline/strategy of the sermons. I check a couple of commentaries. Actually, three. I check RT France’s NIGTC commentary, particularly to interact with some key sections of Greek exegesis (I simply haven’t had time to work through the whole section of Mark in Greek, but I do check a few key verses and decide whether I want to change anything based on his input). I check Rikki Watts’ focused presentation of Mark’s reliance on Isaiah’s “new exodus” motif (this was massively helpful in some sections of Mark, less so in others). I check Donald English’s very accessible BST (very good on seeing the big questions of Mark and the larger flow of the text).

Prayerfully thinking about the people to whom I am preaching on Sunday, I think through my strategy (outline) and message idea for Sunday’s messages. I would have liked to get to the details of how I will explain, any illustrative/applicational elements, but have run out of time.

Saturday morning – I have an hour and so can try to catch up a bit and think through the details of the messages. Actually, Sunday morning’s message comes first and so gets the attention.

Saturday evening – I don’t have time during the day (family are important ministry too), but in the evening I take some time and preach through Sunday morning’s message. Couple of things need to change, so I make a couple of notes, then head to bed (better to have slept than to have worked through the night striving for a better message!)

Sunday morning early – I pray and preach through the morning message. It is very hard to think about the evening message with the morning one looming.

Sunday afternoon – I take a couple of hours to look at my notes for the evening message on Mark 10, and then preach it through. Couple of tweaks, but time runs out.

Message is preached.

Monday after the message – I listen through both messages as I prepare the files to put them online. This is a chance to evaluate and also to be thankful to God for His help. I think back on the feedback received and process that before the Lord in prayer.

I was very happy with the Mark 10 message. Wasn’t perfect, they never are, but I am thankful for how that went.

The Obvious Early Connection

February 7, 2011February 6, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

The more traditional approach to preaching was apparently to do all the explanation and then ask where the truth might connect to listeners’ lives at the end. Actually, good preachers have always made their listeners feel connected to the message much earlier than that. There is one point of early connection between listeners and Bible text that is usually fairly obvious.

Ever since Genesis 3 we have all lived in a fallen world. Abram did. David did. Paul did. You do.

This means it shouldn’t be too hard to find a connection between text and world. The people in the text are fallen people in a fallen world. So are we. So unless your study and preparation is taking you down a fruitful pathway other than this, it is probably worth asking what is the fallen world issue in the text? Is it rebellion? Is it doubt? Is it suffering? Is it fear? Is it self-love?

Once you can see what the tension is in the text, brought about by the Fall, then you can probably make a connection to today. So far, so good. But don’t miss the next step.

Make that connection overt.

It is no good knowing it and assuming others spot it. Make it clear. Evident. Stated. It is easy to have this kind of “fallen condition focus” (as Bryan Chapell calls it) in our minds, but then fail to say so in our sermons. You start into the context, tell a bit of historical background, explain a bit culturally, dive into the text, explain freely and before you know it you are almost out of time and start to make some sort of application. Oops. You just did what we said it was better to avoid. Why? Because if a sermon feels like a historical lecture, your listeners won’t, well, listen.

Look for point of connection. Make clear point of connection. And do it early.

Too Subtle Transitions

January 4, 2011January 5, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I think I have written in the past about not going through the turns in your message too quickly. If you take a turn quickly you can easily lose the passengers. I was just discussing this with a friend, particularly one type of transition that doesn’t work so well. Let’s call it the “conjoined rhetorical questions” transition. Hardly pithy, but descriptive nonetheless.

Here’s how it might look:

Perhaps you are thinking that this instruction seems challenging, or perhaps you are thinking about how you’ve already failed . . .

This kind of sentence can function like a hinge between two sections. But I suspect your listeners may get lost in the turn. Essentially the transition here, potentially a major one in the message, comes down to the following: “…or…” – what shall we say, milliseconds in length? Certainly easy to miss and the listeners will then find themselves subtly confused by your talk of past failure when you are talking about instruction for us in the future (they missed the turn).

What would it look like to slow this down? It will seem pedantic in written form, but remember, oral communication is different than written communication!

So there you have it: the passage asks something of us that isn’t easy. Perhaps you’re thinking how challenging it seems? I’m certainly finding this to be a challenging instruction. Not easy at all. But hang on a second, hold on. It is challenging, but perhaps you’re not looking ahead to the challenge. Perhaps, like me, you’re looking back because you have failed in this area in the past? That’s another issue we have to think about. It’s challenging, yes. But what about past failure? Let’s think about that . . .

Instead of milliseconds, now I’m taking around thirty seconds, plus pauses.

Be careful not to rely on a conjunction to achieve a transition. Too easy to miss. Too easy to lose people. And if they are floundering for a minute or two, your message is not communicating.

Get the Idea? – Part 1

December 28, 2010December 30, 2010 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Over the past few years I’ve come across quite a number of people who talk about preaching and recommend Haddon Robinson’s book, but don’t really understand Robinson’s teaching on the subject. It seems that some people are impressed with aspects of the book, Biblical Preaching, but don’t really grasp some of the core teaching of it. In particular, the nature and power of the Big Idea in preaching. Today I’d like to focus on communication, but will continue the series tomorrow in respect to biblical studies, then finish with a focus on the Spirit of God. Do we really get the Big Idea?

Continue reading →

A Point on Points

December 27, 2010December 25, 2010 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

As you outline your message you will probably have some points. My suggestion is to write full sentences that are applicationally/relevantly focused on the listeners (rather than historical/biblical summary statements).

But, you may say, I like to preach the point inductively and arrive at the application toward the end of the point. Of course, that is the normal approach. My suggestion should not therefore be dismissed. Why?

1. Because a brief taste of relevance early in the point will increase the listener’s motivation to listen. You can quickly go back to the text and develop things from there, ending up with a more focused applicational element. Just like in a message, though, if your point starts historical and takes a while to feel relevant, listeners may not be with you once you get there.

2. Because what you write as your point in your outline does not have to be stated at that point in the message. It is a common fallacy that a sermon has to follow its outline so that every line is said in order. The “point” can be the target toward which that section of the message progresses. The advantage of this approach is that you preach with a purpose, rather than starting with a historical summary statement and then expanding that, eventually moving on to the next point after a token attempt at applying the text (sometimes not fully thought through). In a sense, then, your outline point is your fully thought through main idea of that section of the text. Whether you state that at the outset, or later on, is up to you (perhaps you can choose a marker in your notes to indicate that this shouldn’t be stated up-front).

3. Because the commentary-like summary statement is lacking on several fronts. As I already stated, it leaves you open to fading away before you arrive at the point of connection between the world of the Bible and the world of your listeners (you may not effectively build the bridge). Furthermore, a commentary-like summary, or a pithy alliterated heading, is not typically a complete thought. Better to plan a full sentence since thought is transferred by the speaking of ideas, requiring full sentences. To preach with sub-headings sounds like a read outline and requires the listener to fill in the rest of the thought. Generally it is not wise to trust the listener to fill in much of anything in a message (not because of their lack of ability, but because you may not have fully gripped their focus so that they desperately want to do part of your job for you!)

Full sentence, relevant points will make your outlines stronger. They may not make the best 200 word Christian newspaper outlines, but remember, your goal is to preach a sermon. Let your editor turn it into written language before you go to print, don’t make your listeners translate in order to understand!

Idea to Idea, or Outline to Outline?

September 14, 2010September 20, 2010 / 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).

Logical, Not Mechanical

September 6, 2010 / 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.

Where Does Christ Fit?

August 26, 2010September 4, 2010 / 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!