Preach Text or Title?

August 25, 2011August 24, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

What do you do when you are asked to preach a title with a text? My simple answer is to honour the title, but preach the text.

Isn’t that the obvious answer? No, I think there is an alternative that is very common and may be legitimate – preach the title by using the text. And then there is the option of preaching the title and ignoring, or even abusing, the text. The challenge is where the line is drawn between these two options. So why would title take precedence over the text?

Sometimes the title is highly relevant, or highly theological, or highly specific. What if the title is “What is the Gospel?” and the text is John 3:16. Or maybe “Are there many ways to God?” and the text is Acts 4:12. Or “Guilt and holistic health” with Romans 8:1.

The temptation then is to try to give the definitive lecture on biblical soteriology, or the exclusivism of Christ, or whatever. You’ve gone from preaching the Bible to preaching theology with the Bible as a key exhibit. I won’t say this is totally wrong. We have probably all benefitted from some “definitive lectures” from great speakers. But personally, I find there is something lacking in this approach. I would rather preach the text.

Personally I find it satisfying when I feel like I’ve done a good job of engaging the text and presenting it in such a way that it has “lived” in the imaginations of the listeners. A well crafted lecture on exclusivism is all well and good, but a text genuinely experienced text is much rarer. As long as it addresses the requested subject by way of application, of course.

So in simplistic terms I might be looking at something along these lines:

Intro – raise the question in light of contemporary thinking so people say “yep, that’s a big issue, what’s the answer?”

Text – take them back there, set the scene, make it vivid, help them experience the unique reality of the situation, and preach the text.

Application – return to today and answer the question . . . “so if that was true for them, what is true for us, under pressure to conform to the world’s way of thinking?” Preach the point of the verse again in reference to the opening of the sermon.

The big thing to remember is that you can either formulate the most brilliant systematic theological presentation of the issue and impress a few. Or you can make the text live, preach vivid and engaging . . . and as long as you answer the question, everyone will love it. And, also, you’ll probably love it more because you will feel like you’ve truly preached the text, rather than pulled a phrase out of context in order to satisfy a contemporary theological question.

Identifying Individuals – Beware!

August 23, 2011August 23, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Most of us instinctively know that a distant preacher that never bridges the divide between pulpit and pew is not a model we aspire to emulate. We want to connect. There are many ways to do that – through content, demeanor, illustration, vulnerability, etc.

One way that some preachers try is to single out an individual in the congregation. It sometimes works. It sometimes backfires badly. What’s the difference?

1. People don’t come to church to be embarrassed. Many churches have learned not to invite first time visitors to their feet while the congregation sings a “Jesus welcomes you, so do we!” overture. Embarrassing. The same is true in the sermon. If the preacher points to an individual it draws attention and embarrassment. If you happen upon a long-time faithful leader, it will probably be ok. But if you happen upon a first-timer, they can easily become an only-timer. Which leads to the next point.

2. Do you know them? Simple guideline – if you don’t know the person, don’t even think about singling them out. If you do know them, then there is a chance that you know what is going on, how secure they are under attention, whether your comment might strike too close to home, or be wildly wide of the mark.

3. Is it helpful to them? Is it helpful to all? Again, if you don’t know them, you don’t know whether the comment will be helpful or painful. I hope none of us would point at somebody and talk hypothetically about their private lives, medical situation, spiritual state or relational health. But the fact is, unless we know them well, we won’t know if we touch too close to home, or too far wide of the mark.

4. Will they look foolish? Will you? Again, if you don’t know them, you can’t know how they will seem to others. Equally, you won’t know how you look either. One comment. One obvious assumption. One very embarrassed couple of people. One section of a church laughing at the preacher (not with, at) for his error. One whole congregation feeling uncomfortable because of the whole interchange. Was it worth it? Not at all.

If you know the congregation and the individuals and the life situations and are sure it will work, then perhaps consider identifying an individual. Otherwise, probably better that you don’t. Work on other ways to bridge the gap.

Moving Toward Noteless

August 17, 2011August 17, 2011 / Peter Mead / 14 Comments

Dean asked in a comment about moving from manuscript to notes or even no notes. How is it possible to make that move? A few thoughts:

1. Manuscripting is a great approach to sermon preparation that I affirm. The issue is not writing a manuscript, but relying on it or reading it in the pulpit. Work put in on wording and phrasing in preparation will yield fruit in preaching, so it is worth continuing to manuscript in my opinion.

2. Moving to notes means formulating a distillation on paper. That is, putting in something similar to headings and sub-headings in your manuscript, then removing the text to leave these “headings” and highlights of content. I don’t like to use the term headings because actually a sermon outline is not built with headings, it is made up of ideas. The problem with headings is that they tend to be incomplete sentences, and therefore, incomplete thoughts. If we take the heading approach we will be tempted into clever little pithy alliterations and summary headings that actually don’t reflect the content of the message. Much better to summarize the movement of the message and preach with those “ideas” rather than alliterated bullet points. (That is not to say that you might not be able to use trigger terms to jog your memory of the ideas that constitute the points or movements of the message, but these are triggers for you, not your listeners.)

3. Moving to no notes means a bit more of a step. With notes you can still have a complex message that bounces around the canon like a hard rubber ball in concrete box. When you go no notes you need to simplify the message and tie it in more closely to the text you are preaching. Effectively the text becomes your notes, so you look at the text and see the shape of thought that provides the skeleton for the message. No notes preaching doesn’t require superior memory skills, it requires only greater familiarization with the text and a more accessible / clear / logical / simple message. If a message is so complex that you need notes to help you navigate it, then what hope do your listeners have? You’ve spent hours in it, they only get one shot!

4. Moving to notes or no notes requires practice. I don’t mean just trying and failing in the pulpit (in reality you won’t “fail” as easily as you expect). What I mean is running through the message without the manuscript. Prayerfully practicing before you preach is not at all unspiritual. I would encourage preachers to preach . . . often a message makes sense on paper, but simply won’t flow from your mouth. Better to find that out before you preach it on Sunday! Remember, the goal of sermon preparation is an oral communication event, not a polished manuscript for publication.

Not a Fig

August 16, 2011August 10, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Oliver Wendell Holmes is credited with this great quote – “I wouldn’t give a fig for simplicity this side of complexity, but I’d give my right arm for simplicity on the other side of complexity.”

Preacher, where do your sermons sit?

Cheaper than a fig – This is preaching that is simple because it is shallow. The preacher hasn’t wrestled with the text, hasn’t entered into the complexity of the passage, it’s theology, the interface between ancient text and contemporary listener, etc. The preacher is just demonstrating shallow incompetence. Technical commentaries have been ignored. The text has received only scant attention. The sermon is simple because it is simplistic. It doesn’t engage listeners. It doesn’t shed light. It doesn’t stir hearts. It has the nutritional value of a burger bun.

Complexity – This is preaching that has gone beyond the fig stage. The preacher has started to wrestle with the text. The preacher may have engaged in dialogue with some technical commentaries. The preacher has mapped out some or all of the complexities of the theology and its interface with contemporary life. It may be complex because the preacher hasn’t cut out unnecessary detail. Or it may be complex because the preacher hasn’t really got to grips with the details. Or it may be complex because the preacher is trying to impress. Whatever the cause, it is complex. Hard to listen to. The listener has to really work to benefit. Much nutrition, but as hard to digest as day-old steak.

Costly as a right arm – This is the goal. The preacher has gone beyond the shallow into the depths. The preacher has studied, and wrestled, and prayed, and thought themselves through to a place of clarity. This isn’t simplistic, this is profound, yet accessible, relevant, clear, engaging. They often say that the very best sportsmen and women make hitting the ball, shooting for goal, playing the game look so easy. It isn’t because they are just natural at it. It is because they have endured the work necessary to get to the other side of complexity. That’s why we pay so much to watch them. Too many preachers are worth less than a fig because they are simplistic, or so complex that the gold seems hard to mine. If only more preachers were right arm types – having thought themselves through to a level of clarity that is blessing to all who hear.

Post Sermon Text Test

August 5, 2011August 5, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

We preach hoping and praying for the message to mark and transform lives as it is preached. But what about after? I want to preach in such a way that the following things are true:

1. The listener will continue to be transformed by the text in the coming days. If the text were merely a source for data and sermonic stuff, then chances are the listeners will lose track of where the message came from. For the text to linger in their hearts and minds, the preacher needs to shine light on the text and shine the message of the text on the screen of their hearts. If they have only heard about it, there is less chance they will remember it than if they have “seen” the text painted vividly during the sermon.

2. The listener will be able to go back to the text later and understand it. If the listener were to look up the text later, then I want them to be able to understand it. That means that they have had it clearly and effectively explained. Not only what does it mean, but why does it mean that? Knowing that I take it a certain way is nowhere near as good as them seeing that that is what it is saying.

3. The listener will want to go back to the text later to read it. This is a biggie. If we assume that listeners go home and re-read the preaching text and carefully work through the notes they took, then we are naive to say the least. The preacher has to stir motivation for them to want to go back to the text. That motivation will come from an effective message, including instilling a confidence in them that they can see the why behind the what of the text. Why does it mean what the sermon said it means? They also have to be convinced of the relevance of the text to their lives. Irrelevant or inaccessible texts are least likely to be return destinations in the days after a sermon.

4. The listener will know how to make sense of it when they go there. This is like number 2, but slightly more than that. Number 2 was about them being able to understand the text itself. This one is about them being equipped to handle the text. That comes down to the instruction given in the sermon (and many sermons over time).

Selective Hearing

August 3, 2011August 3, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

A while back I preached a message. When it was over I felt a little bit drained, as many of us do after preaching. A couple of people made comments about one aspect of the message which only added to my low feelings. Obviously I had not communicated well. Perhaps I had been out of balance in what I said. It must have come out poorly.

So a couple of days later I got round to listening to the file, contemplating perhaps deleting some before putting the file online, or maybe choosing not to put it online at all. When I listened to it, I was surprised to find that I had no desire to try to edit the file. The message was good and I stood by it as being solidly biblical and accurate. So why the comments?

People will selectively hear what it said. Now I am the first to point out that what they hear is what matters, not what the preacher meant to say. But that is my point in this post. The preacher needs to think through the message from the perspective of the listeners ahead of time and spot where they will selectively mishear. Then the preacher can pre-empt this with a more overt form of communication. Perhaps instead of just saying the right thing, the preacher should say the right thing, ask a clarifying question, and then answer it. Perhaps the preacher should repeat, restate, underline, emphasize, clarify, etc.

If I had stopped to think ahead of time, I could have guessed both comments and both individuals who might make them. I could have overcome the problem ahead of time. Now I have a message that I am happy with, but they will probably never listen to the message again to check what I actually said, and the opportunity is lost.

Plan ahead and overcome the selective hearing that you probably know will happen!

Visual Check-Up

July 26, 2011July 25, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

What you communicate is not merely about what you say. It is also about how you say it, both the tone and attitude of your voice, and the body language framing the whole communication event. Body language matters. It matters massively. If you don’t know that, try to contradict your words with your posture/gesture/expression and see what is heard by your experiment partner!

So for a quick five-point check-up. For best results, watch a video of yourself preaching. For next best results, ask a trusted friend or three to evaluate your body language. For benefit, think through the following prayerfully:

1. When you preach are you stilted or frozen? This happens to almost everybody when they are nervous, and some never seem to get over it. Strangely though, some are unaware of how petrified they become at the pulpit. As I tend to put it, being natural generally does not come naturally.

2. When you preach are you free and natural? This is obviously the opposite of the first question, but important to ponder some more. Are you more animated in sharing a personal anecdote or sporting memory with a group of friends than you are when you preach?

3. Is your visual presentation consistent? Some preachers tend to animate themselves in spurts. The first few minutes is all action, then by the end they seem to have contracted core hypothermia.

3b. Is your visual presentation consistent? Same question, different meaning. Do you consistently match content to visual presentation? Gesture to words (three fingers for the third in a list is always going to work better than four), expression to emotion, movement to geography, etc.?

4. Let’s be honest, are you aggravatingly repetitive? It could be a perma-grin, or a repeated gesture, or a rhythmic movement, or whatever. Any aspect of visual presentation will be aggravating once people notice it and can predict it.

5. Ok, one more honest one, are you grating in some way so listeners struggle to listen? Perhaps you come across as aggressive, or effeminate, or arrogant, or intimidating, or bombastic, or distracted, or hesitant, or whatever. Hard to pinpoint these things, but definitely worth finding out, somehow.

Bible Handling Mirror 2

July 20, 2011July 15, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

So we all think we’re biblical when we preach. But how good are we at handling the Bible. Yesterday I suggested five questions to ask in pursuing feedback on this matter – questions on observing the text closely, interpreting in context, awareness of historical background issues, grasping the flow of thought in a passage, and accurate interpretation of the details. Having asked about context issues, let’s continue with questions relating to content, before returning to broader biblical context questions:

6. How sensitive am I to the tone of the author? Do I treat the text as an ancient data dump, or have I tapped into the actual tone of the author? Am I sensitive to his mood, his intent, his heart beating in the words that he wrote?

7. How appropriately do I point to the weightier details of the passage? Every passage consists of details, and some are weightier than others. Do I spend my time where it matters, or do I get bogged down with subsidiary details?

8. How aware am I of the earlier texts that feed into this passage? If a passage is quoted, am I aware of that passage? If a passage is alluded to or influential on the writer, do I seem aware of that?

9. How well do I place this passage in the full panorama of Scripture? This differs from question 8 because that was only looking at what had come before. This question is asking about the whole canon, all of it. Am I alert to where this passage fits in the progress of revelation? Do I make sure that this passage is preached appropriately for today?

10. How good is my summary of the passage, really? I suppose we should ask if there was a summary statement of the passage . . . but assuming there is, how is it? Does it reflect the nuances and uniquenesses of the passage, or is it too generic? Does it capture the heart of the passage? Would it get a knowing nod from the author as an accurate summary of his intended meaning?

Finding people who could give you feedback on these ten questions could make the difference between you being self-aware and being self-deceived. Don’t be naive. Try to find out how well you are handling the Bible, honestly. Then let’s all grow more and more as preachers of the Word!

Bible Handling Mirror

July 19, 2011July 15, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Every preacher probably thinks their preaching is biblical. Even that really bad preacher that you once heard. Sadly, probably especially that really bad preacher that you once heard! To put it bluntly, we all have a tendency to be naive about our level of biblical accuracy. It is genuinely hard to know what you don’t know. There is never a guarantee that you will spot poor Bible handling in the mirror. So, what to do about it?

Well you can take courses from trustworthy instructors and see their feedback on your Bible handling. Or more immediately, you can ask someone who knows what they are talking about for feedback. (The only problem with this is that if you don’t what you don’t know, how do you know if they know . . . still, worth getting feedback, probably from multiple evaluators.) Some probing questions to ask them:

1. How diligently do I observe the text? Am I really careful to see exactly what it does say? Do I notice the key details? Do I represent what is actually said in the text precisely? To put it another way, am I diligent to preach this text and not jump from it to say what I want to say?

2. How effectively do I interpret the text in context? Am I obviously alert to, and influenced by, the context in which the passage sits? Do I seem to be genuinely familiar with the book as a whole? Do I show how the details of this passage make sense in light of the flow of the broader section in which it sits?

3. How familiar am I with the relevant historical and cultural background to the text? Am I preaching the text demonstrating a natural familiarity with the historical background, the cultural background, the geography, the “world” of the text? Or am I preaching the text at very long arms length with all the presuppositions of our individualistic, affluent, democratic, freedom obsessed culture firmly in place?

4. How alert am I to the author’s flow of thought? Does the sermon feel staccato and bitty, or do I show the flow of thought? Does it feel like separate thoughts bound together by a title, or does it feel coherent?

5. How accurately do I interpret the details in the text? The words, the names, the grammar, the dialogue, the details. Do I show a good level of precision when it comes to the analysis and close work in the text?

I’ll add another five tomorrow…

Token Triumphalism

July 15, 2011July 15, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I think we should beware of token gestures of triumphalism in our preaching. I suppose we could go to the example of Michael in Jude in the Assumption of Moses moment, but I’m thinking slightly lower on the scale than the direct rebuking of Satan (although I have seen it done and don’t see the value of it).

Take, for instance, the direct rebuking of atheists. This can sound especially bizarre when the pointed comments about particular individuals are made in a manner that surely would be different were the individual in the room. I think the people in our churches need to be protected from the false teaching of atheists old and new. Especially when the media seem to fawn at the sight of a new book from Richard Dawkins, et al. But helping people see the problem with the teaching of a man is different than rebuking and attacking the man himself. The same holds for the teaching of extreme liberals like the Jesus seminar or Bart Ehrmann or historically flamboyant writers like Dan Brown. Help people see the error if appropriate, but don’t go celebrating the future demise of a man with fireworks or attacking him as if he is the devil.

Then there is another bizarre twist, when the preacher decides to attack Christians who are engaging with such folks. Whether it be a John Lennox for debating the new atheists, or a Darrell Bock for writing about the Da Vinci Code, or whoever. Somehow a small-minded preacher critiquing brothers who are serving the church by engaging and critiquing such works as The God Delusion or whatever, somehow it just seems a bit pathetic. I have no aspiration to enter the mainstream debate scene or write to uncover the errors in new atheistic argumentation. But I am thankful for those that do. Different parts of the body of Christ at work for the good of us all. If I, as a preacher, decide to ridicule or reject the efforts of men like Lennox and Bock, I don’t show a superior or even a biblical form of Christianity. What I show is small-minded, uninformed and paper-thin Christianity.

We could think about other religions too. Again, it is important for our people to be informed about the uniqueness of Christ and the dangers in the cults or religions vying for their attention. Let’s do so accurately and graciously, rather than sounding off in the safety of our own company.

There’s one more category, but I won’t develop the thought. Some preachers seem very quick to mock, critique, ridicule and put down other churches and denominations. Again, there may be a place for gracious contrasting or critiquing, but cheap shots and token triumphalism somehow tends to undermine a person’s preaching, making them look small and sometimes quite silly.