One Simple Truth

January 28, 2011January 28, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Last time we thought about ways to trim the message. This is not to appease the unsubstantiated claims that people cannot concentrate like they used to (evidence suggests otherwise). Rather it is to enable the central truth of the message to come across more clearly, rather than being hidden by excessive padding.

The other side of this matter is that central truth. Is it too “big?” Sometimes we simply try to cram in too much information. Our main idea takes forty-eight words to summarize. This is a problem. I think it is important to realize the value of the cumulative effect of effective communication. Communicate effectively a biblical truth this Sunday, then another next Sunday, let them build. This is so much more helpful than trying to achieve everything in every message and effectively achieving very little because it was all just too much!

I suppose it is harder to put it more clearly than Andy Stanley (which is often the case, to be honest!) . . . just preach one simple truth.

I’m tempted to make some analogy along the lines of comparing the ineffective feast people offer to someone who has been starving, when actually what they can effectively assimilate is a small dose of something specific (but the feast feels like you’re feeding them, even if they do end up with no benefit from the overdose) . . . I’m tempted to do that, but that might be unnecessary elongation of this post.

One simple truth.

Every Conviction is Biblical

January 18, 2011January 12, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Many Christians will readily admit that they struggle to apply the teaching of the Bible to their own lives. Strangely though, very few will admit that their convictions may not be thoroughly biblical. Every church, every tradition and every denomination has its own little quirks and unique approaches to things. What is true of churches is true of the people in the churches too. The problems come not from having quirks, but from defending them as biblical when in fact they are not.

How should the church service proceed, how should it be led, how should the music be handled, what is not acceptable in terms of instruments, what can happen in the church building on a Sunday, what time should the service begin, how exactly should the communion table be set out, how many cups can be used, and the list goes on. It is amazing what church details people will hold as strong biblical untouchable convictions. After all, they have a verse to support their position!

So it seems to me that preachers have a prime responsibility to guide, instruct and model in this minefield of application. Some preachers never apply. Others always offer the same applications (trust God, go share your faith, live good lives, etc.) But if we don’t go beyond this, then people will never learn to apply in the areas of the sometimes bizarre church convictions. Surely we want the people in our churches to be enjoying the fullness of personal relationship with the Trinity through Christ, rather than perpetuating sometimes bizarre convictions about all sorts of details and almost believing that Christianity consists in those convictions?

In the next post I want to share some thoughts on application in preaching, specifically in reference to the kind of “incidental detail of Scripture held as deep biblical conviction” that we sometimes come across. Hopefully there is none of this in your church. But don’t be surprised if there is.

A Fear Worth Facing: Tipping Points and Similar Situation

January 13, 2011January 11, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Just one more post following up on this issue of whether it is appropriate for a preacher to endeavour to be engaging in their presentation – be that through manner and energy in delivery and/or passion and enthusiasm for content. I have been responding to the potential critique that it is up to the listener to hear and the preacher merely needs to faithfully speak the Word of God (especially since it is God’s work to change lives anyway).

One more post, two more points, then I’m done (but feel free to comment, agree, disagree, qualify, etc.)

1. Tipping Points. With a lot of these aspects of preaching I think there is a scale. At one end is reliance on God, at the other is communication ability on our part (which can be improved, hence I talk about it on here). While I would advocate for being the best steward of ministry opportunities that we can be, I would never affirm the idea of trusting in our own abilities rather than leaning fully on God. It’s as if there is a tipping point. A point at which seeking to be the best stewards of our ministry that we can be, we tip over and lean not on the Lord, but on our own ability, training, etc. If you sense yourself tipping away in the wrong direction so that you are not leaning on the Lord – stop! But actually, this scale and tipping point notion doesn’t really work. These are not mutually exclusive categories. It is possible to seek to improve my communication abilities to a very significant level, yet at the same time to remain fully leaned into the Lord. It is not true that to put 60% effort into communication improvement means my trust in God reduces to 40%. It seems like it is a matter of attitude. How is that measured? Surely in prayer and reliance upon the convicting work of the Spirit. Let’s all pray that we will be able to be the best preachers we can be, but at the same time, plead with the Lord never to allow us to trust in ourselves unawares.

2. Similar Situation. Until this point I have kept this series of posts focused on edificatory preaching of believers. But evangelism is not so different, is it? Only God can save a soul. Yet most of us see the problem with an evangelism approach that simply does not engage listeners. Perhaps you’ve seen offensive and incomprehensible shouters in a public place – not in the slightest representative of the winsome grace of God, yet always quick to point to their faithfulness in sounding forth God’s Word. Trumpets a blasting, but not a clear tone. We don’t rely on our ability to engage listeners in evangelistic communication, but surely we seek to be engaging, and clear, and biblical, and relevant . . . doing all we can so that if they choose to walk away from the gospel it will be the offense of the gospel, not the incompetence, incoherence, or objectionable nature of the messenger. Doesn’t the same apply in church preaching, not only because there will probably be unsaved present, but because it’s all part of the same ministry and great commission?

A Fear Worth Facing: Whose Responsibility?

January 12, 2011January 11, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Over the last couple of days I have written about the preacher’s fear of disengaged listeners. Yesterday I began to respond to the critique of those who might suggest the responsibility is that of the listener to “do the duty” and “have the discipline” to listen to God’s Word preached. My first response to that is somewhat pragmatic (“maybe that’s true, but if people struggle to listen, then why not do everything legitimate to help?”) and hopefully very pastoral (“my love for the listeners drives me to be as engaging as possible”).

Let me offer two more thoughts on this matter:

A. While “responsibility” may not be the best word for it, the issue of responsibility is not black and white. Whose responsibility is it that the sermon be heard? The listener’s? The preacher’s? God’s? I suppose the answer is … yes. On the one side, if a listener is disengaged during a sermon, the first place to look for cause may well be the heart of the listener. (I’m tempted to say that if too many listeners are disengaged during a sermon then maybe we should look at the preacher, but that would distract me from my point here!) On the other side, if a flock does not exhibit greater maturity over time, then it does not seem inappropriate to look at the shepherding that flock has received over time. That is to say, the “responsibility” seems to land on both sides. And at the same time we must know that unless God builds the house, or transforms the lives, then we labour in vain.

B. I don’t see any reason for preachers to abdicate their responsibility, as long as they pursue their ministry in total dependence on God. That is to say, I am responsible to handle the Bible well. I can’t preach error from the text and simply state that it is up to God to transform lives. I am responsible to preach a clear message. I can’t preach confusion and simply state that it is up to the listeners to sort through it (or point to one or two people who thank me afterward and therefore assert that God’s hand is on my ministry). I am responsible to preach relevantly. I can’t simply preach historical and distant content and finish by suggesting that the Spirit will apply to our hearts the truths we have seen in His Word. I am responsible to speak engagingly. I can’t simply blame listeners for not listening, or claim divine sanction to be as poor a communicator as possible so that God can get the glory.

Is God at work and am I totally dependent on Him in order for anything good to transpire? Yes. “Apart from me you can do nothing.” Is it the state of the listener’s heart that will influence how they hear? Yes. But at the same time do I have a stewardship in this ministry that behooves me to prayerfully and by faith do the best that I can? I would say so.

A Fear Worth Facing: Love Driven Preaching

January 11, 2011January 11, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday I wrote about the fear facing speakers that listeners will be disengaged. I’m sure some would read what I wrote and disagree, perhaps quite strongly. The critique would probably go along these lines:

Listening to the Bible being taught is the responsibility of the listener. It is one of the spiritual disciplines that we teach new believers. They should listen carefully, attentively and prayerfully. They should look for what the Word of God is saying to them. It is not about the preacher, it is about the Word of God. If there is a problem, it is their problem, for it is their duty to listen.

While I am uncomfortable with the tone of this kind of talk, I can see some truth in it. The parable of the sower is really the parable of the soils since the same sower and same seed has different results based on the “hearing” of the soil (heart) in which it lands. Certainly as a listener I remind myself that my issue with a preacher may well be, first and foremost, an issue with my own heart.

Yet as a preacher I find myself responding to this kind of comment with a pragmatic and pastoral response. While it may be true that listeners should listen, the fact is that they won’t if I am not being a good steward of the ministry opportunity. It is a privilege to preach God’s Word, and my delight in it and passion for it should engage listeners.

If I am lacking in key factors that will engage listeners, then I can critique them, I can make them feel guilty, I can harangue, I can pile on the pressure, but am I not choosing a self-protective rather than a loving approach? Surely the pastoral concern for the listener would drive me to do what I can to make the feeding a more engaging experience?

My wife loves our children and wants to feed them a healthy diet. And because she loves them she also makes the meals very palatable and enjoyable. I suppose she could harangue and pile on the guilt about starving millions and her sacrifice in preparing healthy instead of the easier junk options, but her love motivates her to make the food very good, as well as very healthy.

When it comes to the preaching event, there is a responsibility on the side of the listeners. But if I am a loving preacher, then surely I will do everything possible on my part to help them to engage with and hear God’s Word?

A Fear Worth Facing

January 10, 2011January 11, 2011 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

I think there is one fear that preachers may have, but may be unwilling to face. It’s also true of struggling school teachers, or any public speaker. It is the fear that the listeners may have already left the room, even though their bodies are still sat there.

The signs are obvious – fidgeting, vacant stares, shuffling, unusual levels of coughing or yawning, raised eyebrows, longing looks toward the clock on the wall or the watch on the wrist. It may be that some people will wish they were somewhere else no matter what you do. But what if the number grows from the few relatively unreachables to cross the line into an unacceptable range?

Some speakers may, I suspect, have a deep awareness of this reality every time they preach. But it must be hard to see it for what it is. Much safer to speak of spiritual warfare, or to critique the congregation, or to have a pithy grabber about Jeremiah and other unloved prophets, or to pretend the problem is not there at all. But if it is, it is.

Perhaps some preachers would have the courage to take the faith step of calling it what it is. If you are not engaging the listeners, be honest about that in your prayers. I don’t recall who said it is a sin to bore people with the Bible, but I’m inclined to agree.

What if you’re not consistently boring, but dip your toe in now and then like most of us? Then perhaps it is worth thinking about what it takes to engage a gathering of listeners. It is important to be faithful to the text, but it is something other than that. It is important to be clear in your content and delivery, but it is more than that. It is important to be relevant in your message, but it is more than that. It is the human to human communication characteristic of being engaging.

Possible ingredients to add to faithful, clear and relevant content, in no particular order: energy, smile, humour, confidence, gentleness, humility, authority, sensitivity, warmth, eye contact, vocal variation, naturalness, authenticity, laughter, affection, poise, and you can probably add to the list . . .

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 3

December 30, 2010December 30, 2010 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

So a lot of people endorse Haddon Robinson’s Biblical Preaching but seem to miss the prize jewel in the book – the Big Idea. They may use the language, but many miss the point. We’ve thought about the Big Idea in terms of communication, and in terms of biblical studies. One more:

The Big Idea in terms of the Holy Spirit Continue reading →

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!