Stage 8 – Message Detail

Arriving at the Destination

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Just a quick post on something I’ve mentioned before, but worth a revisit.  The best flight is one that has a planned destination, and once arriving there, it lands.  The same is true with preaching.  How easily we can end up planning the landing mid-flight, as we preach!  How tempting it is to pull out during descent to circle around one more time and add in a couple of elements we thought of saying, then forgot.  How uncomfortable to be a passenger on that kind of flight, or in that kind of sermon!

Know where the message is going.  Plan the landing ahead of time.  Perhaps have a final sentence that really nails the message.  Get there.  Say it.  Stop.

I have often been impressed at how Haddon Robinson seems to land his messages with a great sentence and a definite period, rather than waffling and fizzling to a vague finish.  I know I need to keep working on that, so I thought I’d share it here in case you do too!

Pondering Pace

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Effective preachers can range from plodding to pacey.  Contrary to popular opinion, slow is not always better.  As long as people can hear (volume) clearly (annunciation), their brains can generally cope with pace.  However, it is worth asking whether their hearts can cope?

Recently I had the joy of listening to a friend of mine preach in a setting designed for offering feedback.  The message was very good.  He did what many of us have done, though, and got confused about how long he had left.  Thinking he should be finishing (although he could have preached longer), he increased the pace.  Did we hear, understand and comprehend what he said at the faster pace?  Yes.  But did it have the same impact on our hearts?  Probably not.

At times I have watched a TV show, or a film, at an increased pace.  So for example, a 40-minute episode can be seen in 27-minutes.  This saves time, and you still understand all that happens.  But something is different.  At 1.4x the normal speed it is possible to follow dialogue and action, but it is harder to feel it.  When the moment of tension arrives, the intruder’s in the house, the music generates tension through it’s heartbeat style . . . well, at 1.4x the normal speed you simply don’t feel the tension, or the fear, or the anticipation, or the joy, etc.

We don’t have to preach slow, there is benefit in using a range of pace.  But recognize that rushed delivery undermines the affective impact of the message.  Is it worth trading that in for the benefit of cramming in more information?  I suppose it depends on whether you think humans are purely brain-driven, or if the heart has a role to play.

A Thought Experiment About Dictation Software

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Imagine for a moment that they invented software that would take a recording of your voice and transcribe it word for word into an electronic document.  Or imagine that you had a secretary who would transcribe a recording of your sermon.  (Now, if you have either of these, you are very blessed.  If you have both, you have to wonder what God is expecting from someone so privileged!)

So you have your imaginary document, a word for word transcription of your message.  What would you discover if you were to analyse it carefully?

* Would you find sentences and thoughts left incomplete, or open loops left unclosed?  Some of us struggle to complete our thoughts when speaking out loud and our listeners can be left feeling confused or disoriented (or even just plain bored).

* Would you find inane repetition of non-words?  I gave a presentation recently and as I sat down I felt very aware that I had used a couple of words repeatedly and slightly out of place.  I don’t think this example was a recurring pattern, but I’d like to know if it is so I could deal with this.  Perhaps you like to use, you know, lots of, well, you know, filler words.  Transcribed sermons would make those just really obvious wouldn’t they?

* Would you find absolutely no reference to yourself, such that the message could have come from anybody?  Seems like listeners value the connection to the preacher, as long as he doesn’t come across as an idiot or a hero.  Speaking of which…

* Would you find excessive positive references to yourself?  I did this, I said that, I met so and so, I answered, I shared, I witnessed, I preached, my church, my ministry, my opportunities, my anointing.  Painful though it may be, knowing that you come across as full of yourself is better to know than not know!

* Would you find a loss of momentum in the message?  It was going great until 2/3rds of the way through, then it sort of tread water for a page and a half.  Better to know that.

* Would you discover that actually your message didn’t make sense.  That would be hard to take, but actually, if it didn’t make sense, it was hard to take for the listeners, so better to join the club and know that too!

Ah well, good thing they haven’t invented such dictation software, or personal secretaries, or even tape recorders so that we could listen to our own messages, transcribe and analyse.  Might be painful if we did!

Hope You Don’t Mind a Re-Heat

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Sometimes we’ll have a meal that consists of leftovers reheated.  Sometimes this tastes better than the first time it was served.  Anyway, I was looking back at some of the earliest posts on this site and decided to re-heat one that I’ve often thought back on, or even referred to: The Preacher’s Cutting Room

Watching a movie on VHS was simple. Watch it, rewind it, return it. Now we use DVDs – watch it, then watch as many hours of extra bonus material as you can tolerate! You can enjoy “The Making of . . .” and “Meet the cast . . .” and “Humorous gaffes.” Then there is also “Deleted scenes.”

A scene might take days to film, more days to edit, cost thousands of dollars, and then be mercilessly cut from the final edition of the film. One such scene was in the movie Gladiator. As Maximus waited under the Coliseum, he looked out through a barred window to see Christians praying as the lions approached. A powerful scene, very moving. It was cut.

The director’s commentary on the scene explained the situation. It did not help the progress of the plot. It was potentially overwhelming, too weighty.

After many hours of preparing a sermon, get out the scissors. It isn’t easy, but there may be an element of explanation, an illustration, or a story that does not help the message, or may overwhelm it. If it would not be missed, or if its absence would not result in reduced understanding of the message . . . cut it. Perhaps when your sermon is on a DVD you can make it available, but for now we are still preaching in VHS.

I suppose I could try to bring the imagery up-to-date with some reference to Blu-Ray preaching (sharper and clearer?) or 3-D preaching (content doesn’t matter as long as there’s some special effects 🙂  Actually preachers do fall into the latter, don’t we?  Remember the early days of overhead projectors with acetates, or of powerpoint?  Suddenly the technology was exciting and some settled for sermons that simply used it for the sake of it.  Over time, hopefully, preachers learn that tools are servants, but the message still has to be genuinely focused, contentful, well-honed.  I suspect preaching with twitter feedback, and other such contemporary ideas, may become part of preaching in some circles, but will be completely ignored in others. Either way, the preacher will always have a cutting room.

Any time we study God’s Word and prayerfully consider preaching it to others, we will probably end up blessed with more content than is really needed for that specific message from that passage to those people on that occasion.  Don’t dismiss the cuttings, some may be very useful, perhaps reheated in another message, but don’t overpack the sermon either . . . let it be as focused as it should be.

Share

Why Not Use the Main Idea for the Message Title?

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Just following up on yesterday’s post, I thought I’d clarify why I don’t think it is usually a good idea to simply use the main idea of the message as a title.

1. You don’t want to give away any sermonic tension. Obviously if you are preaching an inductive message, then you need to withhold the main idea until the end of the message.  But if you’re preaching a deductive message, wouldn’t it be okay to advertise the main idea?  Occasionally it could be effective to do so, but I would generally choose not to do so.  Even in a deductive message, you typically will begin with an engaging and interesting introduction that leads to the presentation of the main idea of the message.  Within that short space of time, you may create some tension in the listener as they wonder how you’ll address this message to the need you are surfacing in the introduction.  But there are other factors to consider as well, before you give away your main idea to the advertising committee!

2. Length. Your main idea must needs be a complete sentence.  While it is generally better to be pithy than pedantic, it still may stretch for 10 to 15 words.  To put it simply, this will be too long to be an effective title for the message.

3. Care of Delivery. Hopefully your main idea is a well-crafted piece of precision communication, perhaps and probably taking longer to craft than significantly longer chunks of the message.  This is a precious piece of sentencry (new term, you saw it here first!) that will carry the weight of the message on its shoulders, yet penetrate deep into the hearts and minds of your listeners.  It is strong, yet precious.  Personally, when I have the fruit of significant labour, or something that should be of significance to the recipients, I would rather deliver it myself than just leaving it out in public.  I may be overplaying this since often our main ideas are just good and clear (on a good day), but I think my point stands.  If it is thrown around publically on leaflets, posters, adverts, or even just in the notice sheet, then I am not in control of how it is stated, how it is packaged, how it is heard.  Even just in the notice sheet . . . let’s be honest, do you really trust the guy who is sharing the notices earlier in the service not to mis-emphasise (or worse) your title if he chooses to mention it?

4. Contrasting Goals. I’ve gone over my word limit, so let me be brief for the last two.  The main idea is intended to be, above all, clear.  It should stir a definite nod of the head in recognition that it is exactly what the passage is saying, in summary, to us today.  Not so the title.  The title is intended to intrigue, to interest, to promise more, to suggest relevance and interest will follow for all who choose to attend and listen.

5. When the title is needed. If you’re not convinced already, this should do the job.  When is the title needed?  Probably more than a week in advance.  When is your main idea usually in a fit state for public presentation?  Probably not then.

Share

Sermon Titles: So Tricky

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Over three years ago, when this blog was first beginning, I wrote a post about sermon titles.  I called it “Tricky Little Things” and for some reason it was the post that consistently got the highest level of hits in the couple of years that followed.  So I thought I’d revisit it today with some tweaks.  Let’s think about sermon titles:

I don’t find it easy to write a title for a sermon. Actually, I do . . . a bad one! I don’t find it easy to write a good title for a sermon. So what makes a title tick?  Even before we get to that question, let’s consider a preliminary question – what is the point of the title?

Defining purpose for sermon titles is a worthwhile endeavour.  You have to consider your own situation.  Will the title be advertised publically?  Will it be announced to the church?  Will they only see it as they browse the notice sheet at the start of the service?  Some situations will demand more of the title than others!  Nevertheless, what makes a title tick?

A bad title illicits a yawn, an expectation that the message will be boring, irrelevant or distant. “Joseph’s Journey to Egypt.” Can’t imagine people purring with anticipation for that one. There have been times when I’ve sat through an introduction in which the preacher posed a question, “So what must be present in your ministry if it is to count for anything?” But I sat there unmoved by the “tension” because the bulletin had already told me the title – “Love – 1Cor.13:1-3.” I like the title Alexander Strauch used for an article on that text (and I believe, a message), “5-1=0.”

A good title stirs interest and piques curiosity. A good title gets the listener on your side. They already want to hear what you have to say before you start your introduction – bonus! So the big idea in a deductive sermon might make a good title, as long as it is going to be stated in the introduction and it leaves people wanting to know more. “I wonder what that is supposed to mean? The preacher will need to explain that!” But if the sermon is inductive, then don’t give away any tension in your title. That would be like your uncle who always gives away the punch line in the introduction to a joke, “Did you hear the one that ends with her saying, ‘no, but that’s a really nice ski mask!’… ?”

Titles are little things, but they’re not easy to write.  The keywords to keep in mind are intrigue, interest and relevance.

Share

Logical, Not Mechanical

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I teach an 8-stage approach to preaching preparation, always emphasising that each stage should be saturated with prayer (avoiding suggesting prayer as a single stage, or suggesting that this is a prayerless process).

The 8 stages are in a logical order. You cannot prepare the message until you’ve worked with the passage (1-4 before 5-8).  You cannot study the passage until you’ve selected it (1 before 2-4).  You cannot determine the idea of the passage until you’ve selected and studied it (1-3 before 4).  You cannot finalise your message idea until you’ve determined your message purpose (5 before 6).  You cannot decide on structure/strategy and details like intro/conclusion/”illustration” until you’ve determined message purpose and main controlling idea (5 and 6 before 7 and 8).

The 8 stages are not in a rigid order. The reality of preaching preparation is much more fluid than these stages might suggest.  Ideas and thoughts come at various times and should be noted rather than rejected.  As much as we should try to study the passage in its own right, we cannot help but tend toward application earlier in the process, and therefore also to thoughts about the message.  We are dynamic and unpredictable creatures, so naturally preparing a message will reflect that.  (I do stand by my suggestion that those learning should learn the more “stilted” approach first, then grow flexible out of a solid foundation.  Also seasoned preachers would do well to periodically follow the process closely.)

The 8 stages do not constitute a machine. The important thing is that we don’t fall into the trap of thinking a logical and ordered process equates to a message machine: feed in a text and just enough time and out pops a fully formed message.  That will feel as ineffective to our listeners as it will to us.  These 8 stages are logical.  You may choose to add in a distinct middle stage of overtly prayerfully analysing the expected listeners before embarking on the latter four stages of message preparation.  You may disagree with the stages and adjust them or increase them.  But what we mustn’t do is become mechanical in our preparation.  It takes time, seemingly unproductive time, to chew on the text.  It takes time, prayerful experience, and eyes fixed on the Lord, for the text and message to be worked out in your life before you speak it out of your own lips.

Follow the process if it is helpful to you, but remember to pray, to dwell, to linger, to process, to chew.

Share

Dumbing Down Preaching?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

After my post on making sense I received the following very helpful comment from Martin:

You make good points but I am left wondering.

There is so much dumbing down in America, are your encouraging the dumbing down of the sermon too?

How do you lift the bar for the congregation?

How do you keep the focus of the bright ones without leaving the newcomers behind?

In a rhetorical sense, should pastors check their brains (and learning) at the door to appeal to the least common denominator? In so doing, do the more educated listeners leave the service longing for more meat and less milk?

In sum, how do you balance these competing elements in the congregation?

————————

Thanks for the comment.  I am absolutely not encouraging the dumbing down of the sermon.  I am encouraging making sermons understandable.  The level at which the sermon is pitched should be part of the preacher’s strategy, thoroughly informed by who is listening to the sermon (which implies knowing your congregation as well as possible).

Let’s take, as an example, a tennis coach.  Their job is to maximize the potential of the student by helping them improve their game.  In order to achieve that goal, they have to make sure that everything they work on with the student is both understood and implemented.  In reality they will make sure the basics are well-drilled, but they will also add to those basics the more nuanced elements of the game to produce a trained player who can play to the best of their ability.  That will take many hours of training, perhaps hundreds of hours.  But if you drop in at any point in the training, the student should understand what is being taught.  A tennis coach that uses obscure language, unknown illustrations, omitted connections, rapid transitions, unclear speech, assumed knowledge and incoherent literary speech will not be effective, and unlike the preacher, will not be thanked for their “deep training.”

So to lift the bar for the congregation we must make sure our preaching is stretching them by its content, rather than missing them by lack of clarity.

I think it is possible to communicate to several levels at once.  Usually there is no need to differentiate massively in our preaching, “now for the more biblically astute listeners, listen to this…”  Actually we can offer extra elements without overplaying the introduction.  The key is for the listeners to be able to understand what you mean.  Newcomers are helped massively by simple explanations of all that is happening, so that even if they don’t fully comprehend every element of the service/message, they feel welcomed and comfortable (rather than alien and uncomfortable).

Pastors please don’t check your brains at the door.  But feel free to leave your egos there.  An effective communicator uses a part of their skill and learning to make sure they connect with their listeners.  Obscuring speech in order to appear intelligent is a prideful and profoundly unhelpful habit.  The best sportspersons are the best because they make the profoundly complex look simple.  The best coaches communicate effectively so that their instructions can be understood.  The best preachers profoundly communicate the scriptures, using their skill to make sure that listeners understand them.

Share

Does It Make Sense?

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

It seems obvious, but it needs to be said.  When we speak we need to make sure we make sense.  There are various reasons why we may not make sense to our listeners.  Here are a few to be aware of:

1. Obscure Language – If you obfuscate using technical, rare or archaic vocabulary, then you will lose folks.  They will probably still compliment you on your “deep” message, but be alert enough to spot the implication of that encouraging feedback!

2. Unknown Illustrations – Your illustration from the world of online war games, submarine technology, chinese martial arts, Finnish cuisine, Egyptian burial rituals or first world war poetry may make perfect sense to you.  But are you including enough explanation to allow them to get it?  (And if it needs that much explanation, is it really the best illustration to use?)

3. Omitted Connections – The logical connection between what you are currently saying and the larger point you are offering may not be so logical if you forget to mention it.  Actually, you need to state, restate and underline the logical connection, just in case they were drifting in that moment.  So easy to miss bits of messages we know, but are so needed.

4. Rapid Transitions – Maybe you include something of a transition from direct explanation to explanatory illustration, but the transition is so fast your passengers fail to make the turn with you.  Disoriented they look around trying to figure out where they are now, almost oblivious to what you are actually saying.

5. Unclear Speech – If they can’t make it out, they can’t comprehend it.  And there’s no need to get snooty about your accent either, every accent has elements that are unclear, so try to be aware of that and speak clearly.  Watch for facial signals of misfiring speech.  Restate if you suspect some may have missed what you said.  Oh, and be careful of rapid fire sentence finishing, or fading away when the period is in sight.

6. Assumed Knowledge – It is dangerous to assume people know things.  Do they have the biblical awareness necessary for the message?  Do they know the cultural, historical, political, geographical knowledge that you are assuming for your explanation of the text to be vividly received?

7. Written Notes – I’m not having a go at notes.  I’m just pointing out that almost anything can make sense in written outline form, but your listeners are listening.  Sometimes what is written doesn’t make sense when it is heard.  Write your messages for listeners, not for your own eyes.

What’s missing?  Why else do we sometimes fail to make sense?  (Number 8 – Don’t speak out of your depth – If we don’t get it ourselves, they have no chance!)

Share

Points of Pride

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I suspect that if we’re honest, we’d all admit that preaching leads to numerous battles with pride.  Perhaps not every time, perhaps not in the same way as each other, but there is an inherent danger that points of pride will peek through when we preach.  Much of this may be an internal battle unseen by others except the Lord.  But sometimes in our preaching we do things that can reveal, or be perceived to be, pride peeking through.  A few examples:

1. References to “scholastic matters” – You know what I mean, the extra reference to a dispute among commentators, an unnecessary quotation from the Greek/Hebrew, a technical term (punctiliar aorist, genitive absolute, etc.), an unnecessary excursus into matters of textual criticism, unnecessary citation details showing how much you’ve read, etc.

2. Allusions to “hidden stores of knowledge” – This is more subtle, but some of us fall into it.  It’s where you open the door to a subject, only to immediately close it with some passing reference to “that is for another time” or “so much we could say about that…”  Sometimes it helps to let people know you’re aware that more could be said about a matter, but sometimes it can come across as prideful parading of unrevealed knowledge.

3. Demonstrations of “foreign language competence” – I remember reading a theology book and getting very annoyed by the author quoting in Dutch and Norwegian (as well as Latin, French, German, Spanish, etc.), all without English translation.  Ostentatious to say the least.  But actually in our preaching it can be tempting to throw in a foreign phrase or quote.  Depending on the audience this may connect very effectively, or it may just look prideful.

4. Narratives of “personal illustration” – Haddon Robinson always said that an illustration shouldn’t make you look like a jerk or a hero.  Tempting though.  A story in which you gave a stunning response in the moment, or where others acclaimed your skill, or yet another reference to your prize winning exploits in the county fair vegetable competition, or “when I met Billy Graham…”  Maybe it is a good illustration, maybe it does help the message, but think carefully how it comes across, because if it smacks of pride, it will leave a sour taste.

So I readily hold my hands up as guilty of all four charges.  Perhaps you do too.  Let’s think through the next message and try to eradicate any hint of pride so that nothing will detract from the God of whom we preach, who is worthy of all honour!

Share