Stage 7 – Message Outline

Full Sentence Points

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Why do I recommend preachers have full sentence points?  Or to put it another way – what is the problem with single-word points?

After all, a series of three or four single words can be memorable, both during the message and potentially after it.  So why not just give single word “points” as the message progresses?

A single-word may convey a title, but it cannot convey an idea. A single word will tell the listeners something about what is going to be said, but it is not able to convey the idea in a nutshell.  Why waste the opportunity to make a single sentence summary of the message content?

Single-word points tend to push the message toward information summary rather than transformational communication. Not always, but often, a single word will lean toward historical lecture material.  The old idea of masses of explanation before any application is problematic.  Why waste the opportunity to be relevant, targeted, personal at such a key moment in the message?  Putting the points in full sentences that relate to us today can be very powerful.  You can immediately go to the text and “back then” to see the support for the point, but you’re doing so with a sense of its relevance to us before you even get there.

Single-word points encourage a lack of cohesion within each point. If your “point” is a subject, then there is almost no end to what you could (and possibly will try to) say in this section of the message.  If your point is a distilled summary of the applicational point (or the message of the text at that section), then there is automatically a control mechanism to avoid scattered thoughts that don’t cohere.

Preaching is oral communication, which consists of transmitting ideas. When we talk in conversation we make points, assertions, suggestions, encouragements, etc. in full sentences.  We don’t naturally use single-word headings.  This is a written  communication approach.  Whatever notes you may or may not be looking at, when you preach you are speaking.  Why use literary approaches?  Forcing yourself to think yourself clear at the level of the points in your message, making sure you can convey the thought in a clear sentence will only help your message communicate more effectively.

Incidentally, if you are still craving the mnemonic assistance of single word tags, you could always add them (or some shorthand approach) in the transitions and final summary.  Having said that, remember that your goal is not for listeners to remember your outline, but to be transformed by the main idea of the text and its application to their lives.

Share

When Expository Preaching Almost Isn’t

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

One approach to preaching a text is a particularly well worn path, but at times it verges on leaving the territory of the expository.  If done well it doesn’t leave the territory, but it sometimes gets close to the fence.  Let me see if I can help you see what I mean.

Imagine you have a preaching text, perhaps a section of, let’s say, ten verses.  A fairly common and standard approach is to come up with a series of points that cover those ten verses.  Perhaps you take a keyword approach – three reasons, four benefits, three challenges, etc.  By using these key words you are able to construct a series of points that are parallel and technically cover the entire text.  In the preaching of that text you will, by means of your three or four points, preach the whole passage.  You will probably have a liberal sprinkling of illustrations throughout.  At various points in the message the listeners will look down at the text.  Traditional, tried and tested, faithful expository preaching.  Probably.

It all depends on whether the points you are preaching are the points of the text.  This is where the keyword approach can run into difficulty.  Rarely did Paul, or Peter, or John, set out to list a series of thoughts in parallel form.  Consequently, the processing of the text into your points might result in processed text (and like food, excessive processing can wring the nutrition from it).  Now I need to be careful here because the approach described above can be a very faithful approach to preaching, and very effective.  But I’d like to offer a nudge:

When you preach, are you overtly or implicitly saying “my message (on this text)” and “my points”?  Or, are you overtly and implicitly saying “Paul’s message in this text” and “Paul’s point.”  Exposition that isn’t by the fence at the periphery of camp exposition, but sits right in the middle, is exposition where the text is not just the source of the propositional content and historical background, but where the text is really the boss of the message.  The best expositions are where the listeners haven’t just been informed about the text, but where they have entered into the text, the text has entered into them, and where the text has been set free to do what the text was intended to do.

Too easily some of us don’t really do what the text does, but instead we focus just on saying what the text says, and actually end up helping the text out by nursing it through with the aid of our well planned structures and materials of interest.

Expository, but only just.

Share

Why Did the Coughs Spread?

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday I shared about the contrast between the attention of the crowd one night and the significant distraction the next night – same venue, same weather, same chairs, different speaker.  Perhaps something here might be helpful to you.  Why were they distracted?

1. It felt like a commentary with added anecdotes. It was like a commentary explanation of a text, but with the added anecdotes of the speaker’s illustrations, and with a little something of his personality.

2. It felt like a written document was being preached. There is a massive difference between spoken speech and written language.  We must learn to write in “spoken” English if we are to be preachers that prepare with literary approaches (which is only one approach).

3. The message moved between the text and third-party illustrations and back again. I felt untouched.  It seems like it should be obvious that preaching should land in the lives of the listeners, which is not the same thing as sharing personal experiences, or saying things in contemporary language.  In fact, when personal experiences seem aloof or “I’m an important person” they really don’t help the connection at all.  Where, specifically, does your next message touch the lives of those present?

4. It was hard to tell if the speaker was passionate about the passage and message or not. Something believed but not really owned will probably be offered in an “at arms length” manner which will leave the listeners holding it “at arms length.”

5. I wondered what would happen if we all left, would the speaker just carry on anyway? It kind of felt like it tonight.  Which leads to a nice closing question.  What if the speaker sensed that we’d all left mentally?  What if you sense that?  Then what?

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

Have I Mentioned This Before?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I suspect somewhere in more than a thousand posts on here, I have mentioned once or twice about the importance of unity in a message.  Order is often present, if only by virtue of the progression of the text.  Progress is sort of present, inasmuch as the number of verses are running out, as is the available time.  But all too often, in preaching in some circles, the sense of unity is negligible or just plain vague.

Too many messages are essentially a series of points united by a common textual source and a title.  This is not the inherent unity that is there in the text.  Often messages are essentially a vague-subject completed.  Three things about our title.  Four aspects of such and such.  This is not really reflecting the unity that is present in a unit of thought.  Sometimes I wonder if we might be forcing texts into sermonic structures, rather than structuring sermons in such a way as to effectively communicate the texts.

Share

Preview for Clarity

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Some people like to take the complexity and intricacy of preaching and turn it into a one-size fits all template.  This is unfortunate because preaching has so many variables to be enjoyed and utilized.  Take, for instance, the preview.  As part of the introduction to a  message, the preacher may choose to give an outline of what is to follow, thus giving a sense of direction, of structure, of purpose, of intent.  Here are some preview options:

1. Specifically outline all the points. This would be a deductive preaching approach for the purist.  What it loses in intrigue and interest, it adds in clarity and precision.  It helps the listener know what is coming, how many points, how they relate to one another and to the text.  But recognize that clarity isn’t the only strength to pursue in a message.  Remember that interest and intrigue are also important.  A strongly deductive outline for the whole message will be helped by an inductive approach within each point.  While the whole may be clearly previewed, the points will be helped by offering only part of the package, leaving something to be developed for the interest of the listener.

2. Structurally outline the passage’s flow of thought. Instead of giving your whole outline at the start, sometimes it is very effective to simply overview the chunks.  I heard a very effective message recently that used this approach.  By no means an exact quote: “In the first ten verses Paul shows it does mean to stick with Christ, then in the last six verses what it doesn’t mean to stick with Christ.”  Simple.  Clear.  Listener’s familiarised with the terrain and ready to press into the details.  Sometimes this kind of simplified preview prepares listeners for more detail without overwhelming them in advance.

3. Outline within the points. In a more inductive sermon, the preview by necessity is more restricted.  Instead of giving the full idea (subject and complement) and outline of the message, a message preview might give just the subject and maybe a super-simplified sense of the text’s shape or purposein order to assure the listener that the full idea will be achieved in the course of the message.  In such cases it may work well to use previewing during the message as a new point or movement is introduced.  While not giving away the whole, it does satisfy the listener’s desire for direction.  So perhaps the solution to the stated problem is still to come, but in the first movement of the message a false solution will be presented and found wanting – this could be clearly previewed without undermining the inductive nature of the message.

There are other approaches to previewing a message too.  The important thing is to deliberately include a preview that will most help the listeners as they receive this particular message.  No one size fits all, but custom made previews crafted for a unique combination of text and listeners.

Speeding the Process

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

A couple of other ideas that can be added to yesterday’s post:

“Sermon Ideation Groups to plan a series through a book.” John suggested this and I heartily concur.  Mapping out passages and initial ideas can be a great headstart to the sermon series planning process.  Anything that helps to avoid the “from scratch” sensation each week is helpful.  I would add a couple more thoughts related to this:

Phone a Friend and Talk it Through. There are times when sermon preparation is moving forward at a pace, then other times when things seem to grind to a halt.  Being able to talk with someone who understands the process, the concept of good Bible study, etc. can be the kickstart the process needs to get going again.  Such a friend is worth their weight in gold.  If you don’t have one, train some!

Allow Margin to Plan When Productive. I was really productive on planning a series for next January . . . all within a window of 24 hours at the end of May.  That is a significant headstart, which also allows me to collect useful material, illustrations, etc., over the next six months.

The goal is not to speed up the process of preparation, but it doesn’t hurt to be able to be prepared in the limited time that we have.  Cutting corners doesn’t honour the Lord, but thinking it through so we can give our best, even with all the pastoral and personal crises that will come between now and preaching time, is a worthwhile endeavour.

When Time is Short

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

A good friend wrote the following:

As I anticipate teaching preaching overseas, I realize that I need to take seriously the lack of time that these pastors have for sermon prep. I feel like my training has prepared me well both to practice and to teach a strategy for preaching that requires quite a bit of time, and many western pastors have that luxury. My students will not.  Any suggestions?

I’ve seen this in many places, as well as in teaching bi-vocational preachers in the west.  How can the preaching process take less time without compromising what matters?  Where can the time be trimmed, without compromising the end product?  Here are some possibilities:

Remove the Passage Selection Headache.  Encouraging them to plan a series (typically through a book), allows study to overlap and build, and it takes away the stress of finding a passage from scratch every week.

Encourage preachers to preach one thing well, not to preach everything in one. Most people feel that preaching should be both an exhausting process and an exhaustive presentation of every exegetical detail in a text – so in some ways teaching them to preach is about teaching them what is not preaching, even though they have heard it every Sunday from others.

Remove pressure to discover endless clever illustrations. I’ve tried to remove pressure to chase quotable illustrations, encouraging good handling of, and effective descriptive of the text (so that if they explain a text, or tell the story well, summarize the main point and apply it specifically, they can feel like they are really preaching).

The default starting point for a narrative sermon outline is helpful.  I find giving a simple default outline for narratives to be helpful (so they aren’t scratching their heads about outline when it often can be as simple as tell the story, clarify the main point and then apply it.)

Recycle Bible study.  If people are preaching twice in a weekend, I encourage preaching twice off the back of one set of exegesis (that is, go back to the same passage and apply it further or chase issues in a different way).

Some Thoughts on Preparing to Preach Psalm 22

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments
This is not a complete post, but it may be helpful.  I received the following question from a good friend:

I have been asked to preach on psalm 22 and am at the moment soaking myself in it to try and make sure I understand the message, the structure and what God was saying then and is saying now.

I will resist the temptation to jump straight to Matthew 27 and end up preaching that, as the psalm should, in my current view, stand on its own merits.  Nevertheless I can’t imagine preaching this without bringing in Matthew.  I would really welcome your views on how to approach this to get the balance right.

Here’s my initial answer:

This is a key issue in preaching OT.  Many automatically go to the NT, especially from a passage like that.  I suppose I would study it in two stages – first what it meant then, then how Matthew / Jesus uses it (raising the issue of whether Jesus was pulling only specific verses or relating to the whole of it by quoting the start of it).

In terms of preaching it, I would probably want to preach it in terms of David first, for a significant chunk of the message, recognizing that everyone else is probably thinking of Jesus.  Then going to Jesus and showing his use of it would be perfectly legitimate, thinking about how it applies to us as a text, as well as how Jesus’ application of it applies to us.  I preached it a few years ago and found it effective to major on Psalm 22 at 1000BC, with a smaller focus given to Greater Son of David at 32AD, connecting it to us throughout (application of the concept or main idea in reference to David, and response to Jesus in reference to the latter part of the message).

The one thing I would add is that the psalm is not finished 2/3rds of the way through, as some preachers sometimes seem to think.  In your study you should probably wrestle with the issue of whether this was a purely predictive text (i.e.not of David, but all of Jesus), a double fulfillment type of text (sensus plenior in some respect – i.e. both of David and of Jesus), or a purely descriptive text that Jesus appropriated as appropriate to his situation and response to it (i.e. all of David, but Jesus could identify).  I wouldn’t address all these in the sermon, but I would preach according to my understanding of how the two relate.

There’s a lot to think about with this passage, and I haven’t got into any details here!  Hope you can really delight in the study of it.

When Order Matters

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Sometimes the points in a message can be given in any order.  Sometimes order matters.

1. When wrong order of content loses listeners

I remember Don Sunukjian explaining how in preaching, because we increase the time taken to explain the elements of a sentence, we sometimes need to reverse the order.  For example, I can say “Let’s go to the store, to buy some dog food, because Rusty is hungry.”  The hearer can hold on to the first two pieces of information while awaiting the reason behind it all.  But if I “preach” that sentence and expand each element, then the order has to be reversed.

“Let’s go to the store.  By store I don’t mean a place where things are kept, so much as a place where things are kept in order for visitors to peruse and purchase.  Now in contemporary society there are many different kinds of store – from the convenience store to the supermarket to the wholesaler to the Swedish furniture warehouse.  Each serves its own purpose, and while some may be controversial when they open in an area . . . ” etc.

To go from extended explanation of stores to an extended explanation of foods, and foods prepared for canine pets in particular, would be overwhelming and irrelevant if listeners didn’t know already that your pet dog Rusty needed food.

Sometimes order of content matters.

2. When wrong order of content changes the message.

In simple terms it is easy to preach the result of salvation first and communicate that salvation is by good works.

It is easily done.  For example, we assume a starting point, then state what is really point two, but it comes across as point one.  So, if we are captivated by a love relationship with Christ (point 1), then our priorities will reflect that and our behavior will be changed (point 2), and consequently our lives will be lived in the blessing of the “shalom” that comes from ordering our lives according to the orders of the God of order (point 3, to inadvertently quote a Stuart Briscoe message I heard twenty years ago.)  So easily we presume point 1 and instead preach points 2 then 3, which leads to preaching legalism rather than the gospel.

I’ll leave it there for now, but next time you structure a message, think through whether the order matters, and whether you have the correct order.