Stage 7 – Message Outline

A Low Fence

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

When you have a single text for a sermon, you also need a fence.  The fence is there to keep you from wandering too far away from your focus.  

Erect a fence for the passage – last night my preaching text was Hebrews 13:20-21, the final benediction.  I erected a fence around the book of Hebrews.  That fence meant that I kept my study in Hebrews and my presentation in Hebrews.  

Study inside the fence – So what did the writer mean by the reference to “Shepherd,” “the will of God,” and “pleasing”?  While naturally my mind might jump to Psalm 23, John 10 and other passages all over the canon, I tried to stay within the fence.  The best evidence of authorial intent would be found in Hebrews.  By staying there I discovered the unity of 13:1-21 as a follow-on to 12:28, which shed light on “pleasing.”  By staying there I discovered the unity of the final section with parallels to the end of chapter 10, which shed light on “the will of God.”  Staying within the fence kept the focus for study.

Preach inside the fence – It is always tempting to present the sermon in the terms you prefer.  I tried to preach in Hebrews terminology.  Instead of talking about our “vertical spirituality” as loving God (as I would by default, very Johannine), I instead spoke of worshipping God – very Hebrews.  References to a pilgrimage of faith, toward a heavenly city, not shrinking back, shame, the joy set before, Jesus’ being led up from the dead, and so on.  All terminology appropriate for a sermon on Hebrews.  I also tried to refer to the writer as the preacher to the Hebrews rather than the standard writer to the Hebrews.

You only need a low fence – I am not suggesting that you study or preach a book in complete isolation from the other inspired texts.  I am suggesting you honor the author of the book in both your study and presentation.  So to understand “Shepherd” I had to be aware of at least Isaiah 63:11 in the LXX, although the addition of “Great” is very much a Hebrews idea.  And to see that God is pleased with the two-part sacrifice of vertical and horizontal spirituality naturally sets up a brief comment about the greatest commandment(s), John’s first epistle, etc.  The fence does not preclude very helpful study in Old Testament quotes and allusions, nor the opportunity to point out the consistency of idea across New Testament books.  The low fence is there to honor the author, thereby helping you study better, and present more faithfully.

Do They Know That You Know?

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

The preacher must build confidence in the listeners; confidence that the preacher knows the message, knows how it will progress and knows when it will end.

Structure of Message – If the message is deductive, then the main idea is stated early. Confidence can be built by an effective preview of the message. Even something as simple as, “So we will see four things in this text that prove this is true.” If people know there are four “things” to get through, they won’t worry if the first point takes a while and covers only the first verse of a fifteen verse text. The more you preview, the harder you have to work to create tension and desire to listen, but don’t think you’re adding great tension by omitting a preview. You’re only undermining confidence in you. With an inductive message you also need to preview, only you cannot give away as much. But no preview will feel like a wander in the woods blindfolded, and most people don’t prefer that experience. Make sure they know that you know where you are going!

Transitions in the Message – It is hard to put too much work into the transitions. These key moments in the message allow opportunity for reorientation to the main idea or the subject of the message, review of terrain already traveled and a reminder of how far there is left to go. Well worked transitions do wonders for attentiveness, understanding and listener confidence.

Style of Delivery – Confidence is somewhat intangible. I’m not saying you should come across as arrogant or over-confident. However, there is a lot to be said for quiet confidence, for a calm assurance that you know what you are doing. Seek to overcome nervous habits, twitches, mannerisms, and so on. Avoid apologizing, even in jest, during the introduction. Make and maintain meangingful eye contact. If you have to use notes, use them well, but also consider not using them at all.

The preacher must build confidence in the listeners; confidence that the preacher knows the message, knows how it will progress and knows when it will end.

Getting to Grips with the Genres: Narrative (1)

/ Mike Roth / Leave a comment

Following-up on my 11/20 post, I will describe how biblical narrative functions and make some simple suggestions today. Tomorrow I will demonstrate its intended rhetorical impact using the story of David and Bathsheba.

Narrative is distinct in the way that it works as a type of literature. It employs plot to make its points. There are five parts to plot. “Introduction” is the first part. Introduction, introduces time and setting as well as the main characters. The stage is set in the introduction for the second part of plot to begin. “Inciting incident” is the second part of plot. In the inciting incident, some kind of problem or tension is set into motion that requires resolution. This problem or tension draws in the hearer and drives the plot forward. “Rising action” is the third part of plot. Rising action is usually the longest section of a plot. In this section, characters develop and tension builds. Rising action always leads to “climax.” Climax is the culminating point in the story. Here tension reaches its apex. “Resolution” is the final part of plot. In resolution, the result is harmony and happiness if it is comedy. The result is disharmony and sadness if it is tragedy.

Preaching suggestions for narrative:

– Tell the entire story. This ensures that you tell the story’s point, not your own.

– Faithfully develop the main characters. By this, I do not mean avoid any kind of imagination. Rather, I mean spend time imaging the main characters in ways that faithfully develop and highlight their parts in the plot.

– Allow the story itself to speak conviction, encouragement, exhortation, and comfort.

– Be careful not to kill the story by explaining it away. This is so easy to do in narrative! We treat it like an epistle and feel the need to explain every little thing. Let plot do the talking.

The Balancing Act of Evangelism

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

This Sunday may be it. The only chance you will get. There may be someone there this Sunday who may never come again. So it would be wise to spell out the gospel in detail, wouldn’t it? After all, this may be the only opportunity and so it would make sense to be sure to cover all the bases. This is the approach many of us from time to time. Perhaps aware of visitors or motivated by something we heard, we decide to pack the corners of our message with evangelistic information.

I’m not suggesting this is wrong. But it is certainly not so simple. There are two sides to this issue. On the one side you are preaching the text to people that ultimately need to either respond to the gospel, or continue to apply the reality of the gospel in their lives. It may well be that this is the only opportunity for somebody to hear the important details concerning themselves, their predicament, God’s provision, and so on. I’ve sat through many supposedly evangelistic messages that did a lot of work, but then failed to spell out how to respond. So perhaps we should look to present the gospel as fully as possible in every message?

On the other hand, are we not running the risk of forcing every text into a certain gospel form, rather than honoring the text in a truly expository manner? Are we not running the risk of adding detail to a message that does not support the main idea and thereby complicating the message? People find clear messages easier to follow, ones that are built closely around a single main idea. If they are easy to follow then the experience is more enjoyable and people are more likely to return for more. A message considered confusing and complicated will not motivate people to want more.

Perhaps part of the solution is to present the gospel every Sunday, but if it risks complicating the message in some way, then it could be presented at some other point in the service. This may be the last Sunday someone will be able to hear the gospel. Equally, it may be the last Sunday they will bother coming to church if the communication is overwhelming and complicated. Present the gospel, or motivate them to return for more, or maybe you can do both?

Fear of Forgetting

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I’m sure that I’m not the only one to get to the end of a message, sit down, and realize I forgot something.  A great illustration, a clever one-liner, some piece of support material.  When this happens, remember one thing – nobody else knows!  People listening accept what they hear as long as it makes sense and is somewhat engaging.  They don’t sit there thinking, “Well, that point would be better if it had a second illustration.” 

Elements of a sermon can be overlooked whether you preach without notes, with notes or with a manuscript.  It’s simply a reality of sermonic delivery that there is not a constant and equal attention given to that which is being said, that which the sermon design suggests should be said and the feedback being received from the listeners.  Sometimes our minds get ahead.  Sometimes we get distracted.  It’s alright.  People are not evaluating the sermon based on our manuscript.  They are listening to the delivery and if that goes well, then missed support material will not harm the message.

However, there are some elements that, if missed, can be very serious.  The main idea of the message should not only be included, but made to stick in the hearts of the listeners.  The surfacing of need for the message is very important in the early stages (and often not included in the prepared sermon or in the preached one!)  If this is overlooked then the listeners are unlikely to have genuine attention.  Also, the transitions of the message are important or people will get lost.

Pay attention to remembering the main idea, the creation of need, and transitions.  That clever one-liner or pertinent story from yesterday’s paper feels important to you, and may help if it gets in there, but won’t missed if you forget it.

Preaching Camera Angles

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

You might get the impression from this site that I watch a lot of television.  Truth is I don’t own one.  I watch DVDs now and then, but don’t have a TV.  Anyway, the analogy of film or TV is helpful as we consider ways to improve our communication of God’s Word.  Let me suggest one issue worth considering – perspective.

If you ever watch an old show or movie from the fifties, it will feel quite stilted and unreal now.  The fixed position camera observed all the action and conversation in the room, but essentially didn’t move very much.  Today camera work is so different.  Moving positions, wide and narrow lenses, changing speeds, even filming within the consciousness of characters (dreams, memories, fears, etc.)  Human consciousness is much more complex than the old fixed camera angle allowed.

Whether the contemporary approach merely reflects the complexity of human consciousness or a if actually it reflects changes in human consciousness (in an age where a fixed perspective on the world is shunned), well, that can be a discussion starter to keep up your sleeve in case you need it.  But a point to ponder right now is this – do we as preachers communicate in a way that feels stilted, stuck and so 1950’s?  Or are we able to adapt our presentation to vary the perspective, delve into various realms of human consciousness, intriguing and engaging as we go?  The Bible provides great variety of perspective, emotion, awareness, intrigue, and so on.  Do we do justice to that, or do we stultify it into a predictably unchanging perspective?

Breaking Writing Rules for Manuscripts

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

As you may have read in previous posts, I think the best approach is to prepare a full manuscript, but then to preach without notes. The full manuscript allows you to sculpt and craft the language carefully in order to be precise and effective. This can be overdone and end up feeling like a contrived performance, or underdone and end up feeling like a rambling grasping for the right words. But the main rule to remember when writing a manuscript is that you are trying to write for the ear, not the eye. Most other rules can and maybe should be broken.

For example, David Buttrick helpfully suggests that a single move in a sermon (think “point”) may last 3-4 minutes, but since it has inherent unity, it should be manuscripted in a single paragraph. If the stages of development within a move are manuscripted as separate paragraphs, then the move will tend to fall apart. First sentences in paragraphs tend to break the flow of an idea as it is still forming. Perhaps this reflects the nature of oral communication. When speaking to a group, it takes longer for a thought to form in the group consciousness. Hence longer paragraphs.  (See Buttrick’s Homiletic, p50)

Let me quickly incorporate that suggestion in a simple three-level approach to writing for the ear:

On a micro level, sermon manuscripts can break rules of sentence structure. You must write as you speak. Yes. Sometimes incomplete sentences.

On a mid level (is that the right term?), sermon manuscripts will include more repetition that normal written prose. Your manuscript will show evidence of going over the same concept. Repeating, or even better, restating what you’ve just written. You wouldn’t do this in written English, but you’re writing for the ear and that requires repetition and restatement. Saying the same thing again in different terms. Giving hearers one more opportunity to catch what you’ve been saying.

And on a macro level, sermon manuscripts should reflect the unity of the sub-parts in a sermon. So a movement, or point, should cohere. Using bigger paragraphs may help achieve that inner unity.

Incoherent Preaching

/ Peter Mead / 5 Comments

Very few preachers are incoherent.  Yet many preachers are incoherent.  Before you accuse me of being incoherent, let me explain.  The other day I sat through a sermon from a visiting speaker.  I may be my own worst critic, but I try to be gracious to others.  Sorry.  On this occasion I failed.  Why did I have such a hard time with the message?  Because it did not cohere.

The man was coherent.  No reason to believe otherwise.  Every sentence made sense.  Every word fit in its context.  Yet at a higher level the message was incoherent.  It didn’t stick together.  The pieces may have made sense as distinct units.  But the reason for joining them together was unclear.  At a level higher than words or sentences, the message lacked unity.  All the parts of a message must be coordinated to form a single, unified whole.  Without this careful and deliberate cohesion, at a macro level the message is incoherent. 

The need for unity in a message is not a new idea.  It’s been a big idea since long before big idea preaching was defined.  But just because unity, or coherence, is a long established need in speech formulation, this doesn’t mean that we automatically achieve it.  It takes work to make a message cohere.  It takes hard work to avoid being incoherent!

Imposing Points On a Text?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

In response to the Lazy Preaching? post, one reader asked the following questions – “Does not one run the risk of ‘imposing’ on the text your desire to extract one point? Should not the number of point(s) be driven by the text in question?” These are good questions. How would you answer them? Here’s a couple of things to bear in mind:

The text is in the driving seat – It is absolutely right to suggest that the text itself should inform the shape as well as the content of a sermon. We are not required to replicate the shape of the text, but that is the best place to start. If the text has two chunks, or three movements, then start off assuming your sermon will too. Then, when designing the sermon, evaluate whether this is the best way to communicate the message to your listeners. So we are not restricted to the shape or order of the text, but moving away from that should be thought through and purposeful.

A literary unit does have one “point” – Let’s not get confused on terminology. Here I am actually referring to the main idea, big idea, proposition, take-home truth or whatever label you prefer. That main idea will then typically be developed in more than one point or movement within the message. So while it would be wrong to impose any structure on a text, it is not wrong to look for the main idea. A true literary unit has a unity of thought. Whether it is a parable, a psalm, a poem, a paragraph in an epistle, a prophetic oracle, a proverb, or whatever, it has one main idea. The logic of communication determines that a unit of thought has inherent unity, and therefore that text can be distilled into one main idea by asking the two key questions – what is this author writing about? And, what is this author saying about what he’s writing about?

In reference to Andy Stanley, I don’t know much about him. I’ve never heard him preach. I just received his preaching book which I’ll review in due course, but all I know so far is what I read in that interview. He states that he preaches one point sermons. I wonder if he means sermons with one clear main idea? I’ll need to listen to him preach or read the book to find out. In reality, I suspect that he would use several movements within a message in order to drive home the one main idea (or point, if you want to use that terminology).

Lazy Preaching? – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / 8 Comments

Well yesterday’s post stirred more response than usual!  Andy Stanley stated his point in strong terms, which probably sparked some response.  While as an Englishman I might state the same point in a slightly more understated way, I do urge people who attend my preaching courses to stick in their primary passage most of the time.  Naturally people ask for exceptions to that suggestion.  I have two main exceptions in my own thinking.  Let me share those with you and then ask what other exceptions you might add to the list.  As I wrote yesterday, there are fewer legitimate reasons to use multiple cross-references than we tend to think.

1. When the idea of the primary text does not sound biblical.  If you preach a passage and clarify the point, but people internally react with a metaphorically raised eyebrow.  “Is that biblical?”  In this instance I might run through a series of other passages very quickly that support the same idea.  In this situation I am not developing each cross-reference in detail, or going topical for multiple points, but simply allowing the weight of evidence to underline the biblical nature of what the primary text is saying.

2. When the primary passage leans heavily on another biblical passage.  For example when preaching the middle of 1Peter 3 recently, I was very aware of how much Psalm 34 was influencing Peter’s thought at that point, so I took some time to go back there during the sermon.  Again, not a topical approach, but supportive of the primary passage.

I can imagine one or two other reasons to go to other passages that may be legitimate too, but these are the main two in my thinking.  I’d love to hear more interaction on this subject.

I think we should be wary of anything that sounds like “memory trigger cross referencing” (you won’t find that in any book, I just made up the label!)  So you’re preaching through a passage and a word or phrase triggers your memory of another (perhaps more familiar) passage . . . so you go over there for a moment.  Carrying on you find numerous opportunities to go on a safari through the canon.  Often there is no scriptural reason for doing so, no awareness of what texts influence which writers, no awareness of specific contexts and meaning, and no genuine purpose for the excursions in respect to the specific purpose of the primary text and the sermon.  Memory trigger cross referencing is indeed very easy, all you need is a concordance, or a few favorite passages.  Surely we would agree that is lazy preaching?  But when should we consider going elsewhere in the Bible?  The lines are open  . . .