Stage 7 – Message Outline

Save the Best for Last

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

If you have read any book on sermon composition, or studied preaching formally, you will have come across the two basic approaches to shaping a sermon – inductive and deductive.  Both have strengths and weaknesses, both are useful.  Yesterday I preached a message that was essentially inductive.  I began by introducing the basic concept and made a promise – “I want to show you the greatest song of all time.”

The message progressed by setting the scene for the book (an OT prophet), and surveying the content of the book to give a feel for it’s scope and intensity.  The focus narrowed to the final section of the book, then finally onto the central feature of that final section.  In the last minutes of the message, the place of final emphasis, the greatest song ever became evident.

This is one example of an inductive approach.  Often used when an audience is antagonistic to the main idea of the message (as in Peter’s message on Pentecost), but not exclusively so, the inductive approach has some real strengths.  It does give you time to overcome antagonism and lower defences.  It does allow time for intrigue to build so that people actually want to hear the main idea by the time it is stated.  It allows for final stress to be placed on the most important thing.

Inductive approaches to preaching can be complicated and daunting.  They often require a different set of skills from the preacher: not least the ability to build trust and maintain interest for the entire message.  But we shouldn’t feel daunted.  Perhaps with the next message it is worth considering the option of not stating the main idea at the end of the introduction.  Instead give the question or the incomplete sentence only, leaving the answer (or complement) until later on in the message.

Sometimes it is very worth saving the best for last.

Sermons and Series

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

After listening to a couple of Andy Stanley series recently, I have been pondering a point he makes in his book, Communicating for a Change.  He says that what most people try to achieve in a single sermon should really be developed over a whole series.  This allows for each message to genuinely have a single point, rather than a collection of points (and reduced impact).  It allows for the whole series to reinforce rather than confuse.

I have to say, after listening to a couple of his series, I tend to agree.  Perhaps we bite off too much in a series.  Perhaps we try to cover whole sections of a book, or a whole book, when maybe we would do better to drive home one passage more effectively. Perhaps we are too quick to move on and assume listeners have understood the point and applied it in their lives.

I suppose this creates a difficulty if we are committed to trying to preach every bit of the Bible over some self-determined priod of time.  I suppose it also puts a burden on the preacher – if you’re going to stay in the same passage for more than one sermon, you’d better not be boring!  But ultimately I suppose it asks the key question: not are we trying to cover ground, or are we trying to entertain, but are we trying to see lives transformed?  If that is the question, perhaps more focused series is part of the solution?

Preaching and Those Few Key Sentences

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

How many hundreds of sentences are used in a sermon?  And they all matter.  But they don’t all matter as much as a few of them.  I suppose I would suggest the following sentences as worthy of extra effort:

1. The Main Idea. Hours might be spent crafting and honing the main sentence for a message.  That would be hours well spent.  The main idea is the boss of everything in the message, it is the filter through which much extraneous “good stuff” is sloughed off.  It is the burning hot focus that is to be seared into the heart and mind of the listener.  It brings together understanding of the passage with emphasis on the life-changing relevance for the listener.  The main idea really is all it’s cracked up to be, and it’s absence will only confirm that billing!

2. The first sentence. It’s great to start the message with an arresting introduction.  Instead of beating around the bush until you get into your stride, much better to start with a bang.  It may be a startling sentence.  It may be an intriguing sentence.  It may be a contemporary paraphrase of that infinitely powerful sentence, “once upon a time . . . ” (narratives do grip listeners fast!)

3. Transition sentences. I think transitions are oft-neglected.  A good message with poor transitions will lose people.  Give some extra effort to transitioning slowly, smoothly, safely.  Keep your passengers in the car when you take the turns.

4. The final sentence. That last sentence can ring in the ears as silence descends and you move to take your seat.  Despite the best efforts of over anxious worship leaders or people chairing meetings, the final sentence can resonate in a life.  Don’t fizzle to a halting stop.  Stop.  Clear.  Precise.  Having arrived at your destination.  Having achieved your goal.  Having parked the message with exactly the final sentence you determined.

Preaching may involve hundreds of sentences, but a few of them are worth extra careful crafting!

Excessive Abstractions and Principles Too General

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Preaching an ancient text to a contemporary congregation will usually require some level of abstraction.  To preach an ancient instruction simply as it stands is to present a historical lecture, rather than a relevant presentation of inspired truth.  Some preachers simply say what is there and effectively offer historical lecture.  Other preachers abstract from historical specifics to timeless abiding theological truth, but end up preaching vague generalities.

To grasp what Robinson calls the “exegetical idea” and move through the “theological idea” to get to the “homiletical idea” is not easy.  The end result needs to be clearly from the text or the authority has been lost.  Yet the end result has to be specifically clear in its emphasis on the relevance of that text to us or the interest is lost.  One temptation is simply to play it safe, perhaps too safe.

What I mean by that is that we might derive a general, borderline generic, principle from a passage and move from historical explanation (often curtailed) into general application of this general principle.  Was the message true?  Yes.  Biblical?  Yes.  Relevant?  I suppose so.  Life-changing?  Probably not!  Sometimes it is a fear of fully engaging the text that can lead to this “generic” preaching.  Other times it is a fear of fully engaging the listeners that leads to it.

John Stott’s metaphor of the preacher as bridge-builder is helpful here.  The best preaching will not only touch both the world of the Bible and the world of the listener.  The best preaching will be firmly rooted, planted, engaged with and connected to both worlds.  Let’s not preach vaguely biblical abstract generalities.  Let’s really preach this text to these people!

How Long Is Just Right?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I’d like to answer a question offered in a comment a few days ago by Peter D:

“I have heard a couple times that people tune out after about 20 mins in hearing a speech or sermon. With that being said do you think that there are times we can force a text to be longer than it needs to be? It seems like most sermons I hear are bewteen the 45-and hour long mark. That being said do you feel that sometimes they might be more effective if they were shorter (still keeping the context in full view) or is there something internal that tells us they need to be so and so long?”

This is an important question for us all to think about.  Some sermons would be more effective if they were shorter, while some would always feel too long no matter how quickly they finished!  We have a tendency to simply preach to the standard length for our own context and personal comfort (our own more than the listener’s).  But it is not a bad idea to consider what would be most effective.

1. There is no “right length” of message, but there is an appropriate length for any specific context. Tomorrow I am preaching in my home church and I know it will need to be slightly shorter than usual.  If I go ten minutes longer, on this occasion, it would not be appropriate.  Not only does the specific church influence this, but so does the culture in which that church exists.

2. Listeners do not have shorter attention spans, but listeners struggle to concentrate beyond a very few minutes. Is that not contradictory?  Sort of.  So many harp on about today’s listener being unable to concentrate beyond 15 or 20 minutes – yet the movies of this generation are considerably longer than most were twenty or thirty years ago.  Actually though, listeners struggle to concentrate beyond 3-5 minutes at a time, so even a 15 or 20 minute sermon can easily be 10-15 minutes too long, unless . . .

3. The preacher needs to engage and re-engage the listener regularly in the message. Some speakers are engaging in content, manner, delivery, energy, empathy, etc. and listeners who regularly declare they simply aren’t able to concentrate beyond fifteen minutes, will listen fully engaged for an hour and then act surprised at how much time has passed!  Other speakers can make the briefest of devotional thoughts feel like the most tedious of hours.

4. Thus we can’t “blame” the listeners if the concensus is that our preaching is too long! Every speaker should do a self-evaluation, and then get some honest input from others, to determine areas of strength and weakness in respect to their ability to engage the focus and attention of the listeners.  These are weaknesses worth addressing, for without attention, there is no communication – at least not the kind you are trying to achieve.  Disinterested listeners are receiving a message, often one reinforcing negative associations between the Bible and words like “boring” and “irrelevant.”  What a tragedy that some who preach are, somewhat inadvertently, communicating the very opposite of what they intend!

5. Finally, I appreciate Don Sunukjian’s point about explanation and application ratios. If a passage requires lots of explanation, thus only leaving a short time for application, so be it.  But if a passage is relatively easy to understand, don’t pad the time with unnecessary explanation, instead use the time for lots and lots of application.  It is often the lack of application that undermines the effectiveness of our preaching.  More qualifiers are needed, but this post has gone on too long now!

Biblical Preaching Presents God

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I suppose it is obvious, but some preachers have lost sight of the obvious.  When we preach, we should preach the Bible (for the alternatives offered by contemporary culture, sophisticated philosophy or personal insights will always fall short).  Yet when we preach, our goal is not really to present the Bible itself.  The Bible itself is not the end, it is not the goal, it is not the god.  We preach the Bible not because of what it is in itself, but because it is God’s Word.

This distinction in no way undermines our view of the Bible.  In fact, it should only strengthen it.  What does God’s character and intimate involvement suggest about the quality of the revelation He has given?  But we must not forget that it is just that – a revelation from and of Him.

Preaching that presents the Bible, but somehow loses God, really loses the Bible too.  It is easy to turn the Bible into a set of historical data, stories with morals attached, illustrations for our own thought processes.  But our goal is not to turn the Bible into anything.  Our goal is to preach the Bible well, so that the giver of the revelation is presented.  Biblical preaching is about presenting God himself.

Evaluate your next message before you preach it. Where does God fit in the message?  Is He the main character?  Is He the real hero of the story?  Is the message pointing us to respond to Him?

It is easy to leave God as a background assumption as we preach a human level story with human level applications – be good, be better, be like so and so.  May God never be a background assumption as we preach the self-offering and self-giving revelation He gave to us!

Ten Commandments for Clarity

/ Peter Mead / 5 Comments

Some preachers focus their attention on the world of the Bible.  Others focus their attention on the world of the listener.  These are the two worlds of a preacher, right?  Faithfulness to the text: biblical accuracy.  Connection with the listener: contemporary relevance.  Both matter, but don’t forget the one who is linking the two worlds together so that the Bible speaks powerfully to the listeners – the preacher.  As well as being biblical and relevant, make sure you are clear.

Where does clarity come from?  Here are ten quick hints or reminders for us to consider as we prepare our next message.

1. Clarity comes from preaching the one big idea of the text, not several ideas. Preach one idea and preach it well.  Don’t preach multiple ideas and confuse everybody.

2. Clarity comes from well-structured thought. Well-structured does not mean infinitely complex, but rather a clear, simple, logical progression of thought that remembers itself.  If they know that you know where you are going, there’s more chance listeners will travel with you.

3. Clarity comes from expulsion of unnecessary content. Every message needs some time in the cutting room.  Remove anything that is extraneous or unnecessary for the goal of communicating the main idea effectively and clearly.  Good content will be omitted!

4. Clarity comes from choosing words that communicate. Your goal is not to impress with your erudite, sophisticated and learned vocabulary.  Your goal is to communicate.

5. Clarity comes from repeating and raining down words to unify the message. Give listeners the repetition and consistent wording that provides unity to the ear.

6. Clarity comes from restatement of important sentences. When you have a key sentence, restate it so they have another chance to get it.  For those important statements in a message, run it by them again in different words so they don’t miss it.

7. Clarity comes from carefully planned and executed transitions. As has been said before (Mathewson?) – we tend to lose people in the turns, so drive slowly.  Make transitions obvious and clear, pause, re-engage, get people with you before you move on.

8. Clarity comes from effective use of variation in delivery. Vary the vocal elements of delivery – the pace at which you speak, the pitch at which you speak, the punch with which you speak.  Practice adding emphasis through various vocal means.

9. Clarity comes from effective use of physical movement. I didn’t mention variation in non-verbals, although that is important (don’t distract with monotonous or bizarre gestures).  But especially consider using your movement to clarify the content or progression of the message.

10. Clarity comes from effective engagement with the listener (energy, enthusiasm, etc.) All the best “technique” won’t communicate clearly if listeners are bored or disinterested.  An often overlooked key to clarity is simply to make sure listeners are engaged and with you as you speak!

Tool of Inestimable Value

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

There’s a tool in preparation that should not be overlooked.  Of course there are many aspects of preparation that matter, not least the preparation of the life of the preacher, plus the various aspects of Bible study skills, pastoral awareness and involvement, etc.  But there is one tool that many preachers neglect far too much.

Most of us were trained to prepare our messages on paper – study notes, outlines, manuscripts, preaching notes, etc.  All of this is good, but don’t miss the obvious.  The goal in preaching is not to write a good outline, or write a good manuscript.  The goal is to speak a message.  So don’t neglect the value of talking through the message.

There is nothing unspiritual about good preparation.  But there is something very sensible about it.  When you speak through a message you will find that some parts don’t flow as they seemed to on paper.  You’ll find that some transitions are clunky, while others are practically absent to the half-listening ear.  You’ll find that some sentences are too long, some thoughts are too convoluted, some thought processes are unclear.  Every negative discovered in pre-preaching speaking is a good thing for you can strengthen your message.

But then there’ll be positives too.  A different way of stating a key point, or phrasing a transition, or even a helpful image or support material that comes to mind as you are listening to yourself speak through the message.  Speaking through a message is a great way to break a log jam.  Recently I was wrestling with a passage, or actually, with a message.  I understood the passage to a certain extent, but was struggling to form the message in any way other than straight information (i.e. tedious sermon alert!)  I decided to preach it through, and in doing so was able to reformulate the main idea to be more engaging and memorable.  I also came up with another illustrative image that conveyed the sense of the passage much better than what I’d written in my outline.

It may sound simple, but sometimes the best thing you can do is leave your desk and preach through the message as it stands.  It will usually improve your message and motivate you to press on in your preparation.  Simple?  Yes.  But definitely a tool of inestimable value.

The Bible, Expository & Consecutive Preaching – Part 5

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Daniel Goepfrich wrote a substantial interaction with this blog over on his site – here – this post is responding to the issue of relevant preaching from paragraph 12 to the end.

———————

You then progress to the issue of contemporary relevance.  I agree with you that the Bible is full of God’s spokesmen addressing contemporary issues (prophets, Jesus, apostles, etc.)  As I have already mentioned, my understanding of expository preaching is not about form of preaching, but a commitment to understanding and communicating the biblical text with emphasis on its relevance now.  I quoted Wiersbe’s comment on Ironside to prompt thought, not to suggest that we should only preach straight through books, and I appreciate you noticing that early on and changing your post accordingly.

However, there is an issue worth thinking through here.  Do we “make the text relevant” or do we show “how the text is relevant?”  To use Stott’s approach in Between Two Worlds, is the text boss of the message, or is the preacher?  This is where expository preaching is separated from other approaches (again, not a form issue, an authority issue).  Does the biblical narrative speak with authority in reference to God and humanity, or is it merely a recounting of what happened?  Does the message of the prophets, or Jesus, or Paul, or James, speak with authority today, or is it merely an example to follow in that we too should speak relevantly?  I don’t think you are suggesting that, but I gently push your words toward a perhaps logical conclusion?  No, you are right when you say that we preach the Bible because it is relevant today.  I heartily agree.

In fact, what you suggest is that we use the Bible texts to speak to today’s situations, but we need not feel constrained to the form of writing in which they were recorded.  I do not advocate strict adherence to the form so that every sermon has to be a verse-by-verse re-presentation.  I would suggest that is a good default place to start though.  Why?  Because form is not merely a type of cultural baggage that we can dispose of and lose nothing.  No, the writers were deliberate communicators and we will not fully understand them if we do not seek to understand what they wrote in the way that they wrote it.  So I would urge the preacher to study a passage both in context, and with awareness of the genre and form it is in.

Do we have to preach according to that form?  Not necessarily.  However, if we want our listeners to know how to understand the Bible, then we do them a major disservice if we don’t show how form influences meaning.  Hence my position – the form of the text is a good default for the form of the sermon, but there may be good reasons to adjust the form of the sermon away from the form of the text.

I have really appreciated your post and interaction with my site.  I hope my response has been helpful in clarifying where I’m coming from?  Thanks for recognizing that I’m not dogmatic about form as some are (i.e. the “consecutive only” preaching proponents).  I hope this post has helped to clarify that while I see real benefits to consecutive preaching, my real commitment is to a true understanding of “expository preaching.”

I agree that we need to keep preaching what people need to hear, rather than just what they want to hear. That argument could be used by both sides on the consecutive versus topical debate.  The fact is, people need to hear what God is saying, and for that we must be committed to expository preaching – whether we choose to use a consecutive approach (as you will with Philippians) or a topical approach.  Not everything is expository, though, and I am concerned about preaching that uses the text to say what the preacher wants to say (which could happen in both consecutive and topical preaching!)  For that reason we need to be continually growing as students of the Word of God.

Every blessing in your ministry, Daniel, and thank you again for reading biblicalpreaching.net

Preaching Story: Make the Switch

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

A switch that could make a big difference when preaching narratives.  How do you preach a story?

Common Default Approach – This is the approach that begins the message with the reading of the text, then moves on to talk about the story, noting elements within the text and giving both explanation and application based on those observations.

Strengths & Weaknesses – It is easier to read a text straight through than to interrupt the reading of the text, people know the whole story from the start and it allows great freedom in terms of what you do with the rest of the message.  These are strengths to one degree or another.  However, there are also inherent weaknesses in this approach.  The story becomes a specimen to examine, rather than a narrative to be experienced (once the reading is over).  The inherent tensions within the narrative are essentially lost, although a good preacher will attempt to rekindle them in the elements of retelling the narrative that follows the reading.

Original Force Approach – Okay, I made that name up, but it does convey my point here.  The simple switch I’m suggesting is instead of “read the story and talk about it,” rather try to “tell the story homiletically.”  What I mean by that is allow the form of the story, and the telling of it, to form the spine of most of the message.  In the process of telling the story, combine explanation of context, culture, historical setting, etc., with deliberate application for contemporary listeners.

Strengths & Weaknesses – The weaknesses that stand out to me with this approach are the greater challenges involved in telling a story effectively such as vivid description, maintaining tension, etc. Thus it may be slightly harder to preach well in this way.  However, the strengths of this approach are significant.  The original force of the passage can be recreated for listeners, whether or not they already know the end of the story.  The inherent tensions and intrigue in a narrative can become strengths of the message (you don’t have to create tension with a story, it has tension inbuilt).  Explanation can feel natural as the story is told, application can carry the implicit force of the narrative.  The ability of a narrative to overcome resistance is harnessed rather than lost (in the common default approach, listeners often put their guard back up once you start “preaching” again after the story’s been read).  There are other strengths too – while it may be harder to preach this way, it makes preaching preparation more interesting as you enter fully into the narrative rather than standing over it with scalpel in hand.  So much more could be added . . .

Next time you preach a narrative, instead of reading it and then talking about it, try telling the story so that the original force is felt as the thrust of the sermon.