Sad Separations

August 27, 2010September 4, 2010 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Here are three separations often occurring in pulpits that are sad, to say the least:

The separation of leadership and preaching – I’ve mentioned this before, probably after reading Michael Quicke’s 360-Degree Leadership. In some churches, especially those that have to, or choose to, rely on visiting speakers, there is an unfortunate separation of preaching from leadership. The result tends to be preaching that is informative, perhaps even impressive, but not truly pastoral.

The separation of theology and application – It’s sad to see a situation where the riches of theology have supposedly been plumbed, and yet there hasn’t been the appropriate and necessary emphasis on application. Is theology truly preached if it is only offered as informational instruction rather than transformational preaching?

The separation of gospel and text – Perhaps somewhat different, it is sad to see that in some situations the gospel is preached, but without genuine reference to the text. That is to say, the text is presented, but rather than preached, it offers a springboard to a generic gospel presentation. Better the gospel than no gospel, but much better the gospel well rooted in God’s Word.

Any other sad pulpit separations you’ve noticed?

Where Does Christ Fit?

August 26, 2010September 4, 2010 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

When you are preaching the Old Testament, there should always be a radar bleeping in your heart regarding where Christ fits into the message. Some will suggest that every message must be entirely and purely about Christ, whatever the text was originally intended to convey. I feel this approach can bring our view of the inspiration of Scripture into disrepute.

Not every Old Testament passage is just about Christ. I know that Jesus took two disciples on a tour of the Old Testament on the road to Emmaus, but I’d also like to point out that that road is only 7 miles long! We need to recognize that many passages are about humanity responding to the God of the covenant, or about the power of the creator God, or about judgment, etc. If it is a stretch to make the passage be about Jesus, don’t. However,

The listeners are always listening to the sermon post-incarnation. Consequently there is a need to make sure we are engaging with the text in light of later revelation. That doesn’t mean we have to reinterpret the original meaning to be something that it could not have been originally. But we do have to land the bridge of the message in the contemporary circumstance of our listeners (including the fact that we are post-incarnation, post-cross, post-resurrection, post-Pentecost, etc.)

The Old Testament is, of course, heading toward Christ. It is Christo-telic. That doesn’t mean it is Christo-exclusive.

May God grant us wisdom as we seek to honour His whole revelation in all its fullness, recognizing the progression of revelation, speaking with absolute relevance to contemporary listeners and always honouring and glorifying the Word incarnate!

Full Sentence Points

August 25, 2010September 4, 2010 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Why do I recommend preachers have full sentence points? Or to put it another way – what is the problem with single-word points?

After all, a series of three or four single words can be memorable, both during the message and potentially after it. So why not just give single word “points” as the message progresses?

A single-word may convey a title, but it cannot convey an idea. A single word will tell the listeners something about what is going to be said, but it is not able to convey the idea in a nutshell. Why waste the opportunity to make a single sentence summary of the message content?

Single-word points tend to push the message toward information summary rather than transformational communication. Not always, but often, a single word will lean toward historical lecture material. The old idea of masses of explanation before any application is problematic. Why waste the opportunity to be relevant, targeted, personal at such a key moment in the message? Putting the points in full sentences that relate to us today can be very powerful. You can immediately go to the text and “back then” to see the support for the point, but you’re doing so with a sense of its relevance to us before you even get there.

Single-word points encourage a lack of cohesion within each point. If your “point” is a subject, then there is almost no end to what you could (and possibly will try to) say in this section of the message. If your point is a distilled summary of the applicational point (or the message of the text at that section), then there is automatically a control mechanism to avoid scattered thoughts that don’t cohere.

Preaching is oral communication, which consists of transmitting ideas. When we talk in conversation we make points, assertions, suggestions, encouragements, etc. in full sentences. We don’t naturally use single-word headings. This is a written communication approach. Whatever notes you may or may not be looking at, when you preach you are speaking. Why use literary approaches? Forcing yourself to think yourself clear at the level of the points in your message, making sure you can convey the thought in a clear sentence will only help your message communicate more effectively.

Incidentally, if you are still craving the mnemonic assistance of single word tags, you could always add them (or some shorthand approach) in the transitions and final summary. Having said that, remember that your goal is not for listeners to remember your outline, but to be transformed by the main idea of the text and its application to their lives.

10 Ways to Make Your Listeners Uncomfortable

August 23, 2010August 23, 2010 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Someone said preaching should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable. Here are ten ways to make your listeners feel uncomfortable as you preach, but not in the right sense of the term:

1. Give off non-verbal signals of nervousness. Wring your hands, pace uncontrollably, fidget as you preach, breath shallow, avoid eye contact, flit from one ceiling corner to another, etc. If you convey nerves, they are contagious and soon the whole room will be infected.

2. Appear to be dependent on your notes. If they get the impression that you might lose your place, or somehow get stuck, then they will start watching in the “eyes up” time for when your eyes will go down again. If you need notes for personal testimony, something isn’t working well.

3. Appear to be uncertain or hesitant. This doesn’t mean you need to rush or preach at 100mph. But there is a vast difference between a purposeful pause with poise and a hesitant gap that generates anxiety in all present.

4. Apologise for lack of preparation and you are set. This never fails. If you can give a good apology for your lack of preparation, or for your inability to communicate, or whatever, you’ll have almost guaranteed an uncomfortable experience for your listeners.

5. Expect people to tune in to ineffective description. Describing a narrative scene or an illustration situation is not easy. A poor description will leave the imagination projection screen blank inside the listeners. But that is not a disaster, they will usually be tracking conceptually, even if they can’t “see” what you’re saying. But to make them uncomfortable, verbally express the expectation that they can imagine what you’re describing. “Can you imagine being there? What would it have felt like?” If the description isn’t vivid, then the questions will pressure listeners into an uncomfortable corner.

I’ll finish the list tomorrow.

Illustrations and Interest

August 19, 2010August 1, 2010 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Illustrations are an interesting subject. Actually, my concern is that often illustrations are seen as the source of interest in a message. Therefore the best speakers, that is, the most interesting, are those who seem to be a repository of well-researched illustrations. But here’s my concern – do we rely on illustrations to be interesting?

Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that we are relying on illustrations to be interesting. What does this imply? Does it imply that really entering into the text as we preach is boring? (That is to say, explaining, understanding, encountering, experiencing the text is actually boring?) Or does it imply that actually we often aren’t really engaging and entering into a text at all?

In some preaching you do get the sense that the text serves as an introduction to the next illustration. Personally, I don’t believe the text itself is boring and in need of our help to make it interesting. I do believe that a lot of preaching somehow seeks to explain texts without really entering into them. The text is offered at arms length as exhibit A, but is not a living and active revelation in which the preaching thereof engages the whole listener in an encounter with God. (I’m not really arguing for some kind of neo-orthodox “text becoming word” concept here, but I am suggesting that the Bible is written with affective and emotive function in the different biblical genre that requires it to be somehow experienced and well-understood – as opposed to “mentally understood” from a safe distance leaving the heart largely untouched.)

So no illustrations then? I’m not saying that. If their main function is to offer interest, then I would suggest revisiting the text some more and discovering something more of its wonder as engaging inspired revelatory literature. But what if the illustration serves to explain some aspect of the message, or help to validate or “prove” the truth of the text, or assist the listeners in imagining effective application of the text? By all means, use explanations, or proofs (maybe a better term would be supports or validations), or applications. Personally I prefer to call them what they are – explanations, or supports, or applications. If I call them “illustrations” then I might be tempted to fall into the illustration equals interest trap. For many, that is what illustrations are. They don’t have to be. May we convince people of the inherent interest value, and personal value, of the Word of God. If we fail to do that, what is it we are doing again?

Why Did the Coughs Spread?

August 13, 2010August 1, 2010 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday I shared about the contrast between the attention of the crowd one night and the significant distraction the next night – same venue, same weather, same chairs, different speaker. Perhaps something here might be helpful to you. Why were they distracted?

1. It felt like a commentary with added anecdotes. It was like a commentary explanation of a text, but with the added anecdotes of the speaker’s illustrations, and with a little something of his personality.

2. It felt like a written document was being preached. There is a massive difference between spoken speech and written language. We must learn to write in “spoken” English if we are to be preachers that prepare with literary approaches (which is only one approach).

3. The message moved between the text and third-party illustrations and back again. I felt untouched. It seems like it should be obvious that preaching should land in the lives of the listeners, which is not the same thing as sharing personal experiences, or saying things in contemporary language. In fact, when personal experiences seem aloof or “I’m an important person” they really don’t help the connection at all. Where, specifically, does your next message touch the lives of those present?

4. It was hard to tell if the speaker was passionate about the passage and message or not. Something believed but not really owned will probably be offered in an “at arms length” manner which will leave the listeners holding it “at arms length.”

5. I wondered what would happen if we all left, would the speaker just carry on anyway? It kind of felt like it tonight. Which leads to a nice closing question. What if the speaker sensed that we’d all left mentally? What if you sense that? Then what?

Simply Good Preaching

August 11, 2010August 1, 2010 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Someone has said that you know it was a good sermon when you find yourself asking how the preacher knew all about you. That’s a nice sentiment that points to the importance of applicational relevance in preaching.

Now allow me to give you my statement. This is not a complete statement, or a forever statement. It’s a today statement. I heard a great sermon this morning. (This post was written a couple of weeks back at Keswick, in case you’re wondering!) So I heard a great sermon. Here’s my statement, “you know it was a good sermon when twelve hours later you find yourself still pondering the powerful but simple take home truth, reminiscing over the clear images used to drive home the main points, reflecting on how engaged you felt by the message and the messenger, how excited you were, and still are, to look at the text, to pray through all that hit home, to take stock of your life in light of the text, to respond and be transformed by the message.”

That’s my sentiment tonight that points to the importance of so knowing your text that you can take listeners by the hand and enter into it fully, of so thinking through your presentation that you have clear and concise main thoughts, an overwhelming master idea, an engaging manner of delivery, a contagious energy in presentation, a reliance on the Lord to move in peoples’ lives, and a targeted relevance to the listeners before you.

Simple really, pull those things together and you’ll probably preach a decent message!

The Identification Situation

August 5, 2010August 1, 2010 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

One of the secrets of the success of narrative writing and storytelling (whether that is historical narrative, fiction, fantasy, film or whatever) is the power of identification. When you read, hear or see a story, you naturally find yourself either identifying with or disassociating from characters in the story. If you are left cold, it is usually a sign that the story isn’t being told well, or you are in some sort of disconnected state.

So, if this is a central function of narratives, then it is a factor to consider in preaching biblical narratives. Some might try to make a hard and fast rule here, but again I would urge wisdom and consideration of the options.

Identifying with the Central Character. This is the most obvious and typically the most natural. As we see the faith or failure of Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Ruth, etc., we naturally find ourselves identifying or disassociating. Actually, I read a reference to a small study recently that suggested preachers are more likely to associate with the hero of the story than non-preachers are. Interesting. There is a danger here. We can easily turn a God-centred biblical narrative into a moralistic tale of “so let’s try hard to be like Benaiah.” The other danger is that we are theologically informed of the danger and then fail to engage with narratives in the way they naturally function.

Identify with Non-Central Characters. This is where the non-preachers apparently will naturally identify – with the disciples, the fearful soldiers of Saul’s army, the guilty brothers of Joseph, etc. This changes things from a preaching perspective. Suddenly the temptation to moralise is diminished somewhat, though not entirely. The preaching of the narrative is suddenly fresh instead of predictable, for one thing.

Identify with the original recipients. From an applicational perspective, this is probably the best place to start. Moses wasn’t telling Israel to all try to be like him, but rather to see afresh the heritage of God at work amongst them. Samuel wanted Israel to celebrate David and the God of his faith, rather than try to generate a new generation of Davids. While not narrative texts, Paul’s letters all had applicational intent, specifically related to the recipients of each letter (whom we can identify with by the ongoing characteristics of church life and struggle).

Identification is a primary feature of narratives. Engage with this truth wisely.

Does It Matter If It’s Going Online?

July 16, 2010July 17, 2010 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Last Sunday I was preaching in a church and had to ask if the message would be going online. Every now and then you have to be aware of such things. But unless you’re sharing information that is sensitive, does it really matter?

I suppose the myth of online exposure is alluring for all egos. After all, millions could hear the message, right? Online statistics should help to dispel such ideas for most of us. A grand total of 7 hits tends to put a pin in a ballooned ego. The possibility of your preaching, or mine, going viral is minimal. So it would certainly be presumptuous, and it would sound weird to your live listeners, if you started making reference to potential online listeners across the globe (probably no need to offer in-line translation of a key word in Japanese, just in case).

But what if we’re more realistic, should we be thinking about online listeners? Generally I would say not. After all, you almost certainly don’t know who they might be. As a preacher you are preaching to the people in front of you. Preach to them. If others receive some help online, praise the Lord. Certainly the nursery workers may appreciate hearing what they missed on Sunday morning as they served behind the scenes. Generally speaking, online listeners are in the “bonus” category of beneficiaries in this unprecedented technological age in which we live.

However, we should be aware in respect to specific content. If a message is online, it is amazing what damage can be done. Just pull an illustration out of context, edit slightly, and suddenly you can become the villain for any number of potential offendees. Suddenly we have to be very careful in respect to comparison of religions, or description of cross-cultural missions, or accounts of evangelistic success, or humourous stories about old room-mates, or … you name it. Now, good integrity should overcome most potential issues. But as a wise and prepared preacher, it would be better to take a moment and think through the reach of a message before you preach it (and avoid the slightly unfortunate, ‘is this going online?’ question that I asked last Sunday morning!)

Should Bible Text Be Projected?

July 13, 2010July 17, 2010 / Peter Mead / 6 Comments

This is the kind of question that can easily become a strongly held conviction. But should it?

Well, people do benefit from seeing the text, and seeing it in the same translation as the speaker, and without the hassles, distraction, or potential embarressment of having to look it up in their own Bible, which of course, they may not have.

On the other hand, people who don’t need to bring their Bibles to church, won’t bring their Bibles to church, and won’t develop the ability to look up references, nor to see passages in their contexts – instead getting used to the idea that verses stand alone in picturesque vacuums.

Some will offer a compromise. The main text will not be projected, but the cross-references will be projected so folks can keep their finger on the main preaching text and not get caught up or discouraged in a melee of sword drills throughout the message (which, as a passing comment, I would suggest is not that helpful most of the time, even if folks can keep up).

So what to do? My suggestion is to be a bit situational. What kind of church is it? What kind of service? In an evangelistic service perhaps it is worth it to avoid any embarressment or discomfort, but in a Bible study for believers surely they would benefit from having a finger on the text in its context? What kind of sermon? Perhaps a special event is not conducive to people carrying Bibles.

Some have a tendency to make every matter one of strong conviction. This tends to dilute the effectiveness of such convictions. Don’t allow the deity of Christ, the relationality of our Triune God, the inspired nature and centrality of Scripture, the exclusivity of faith (not faith-plus), the importance of an expository philosophical commitment in preaching, etc. . . . don’t allow important convictions like these to get lost in a sea of passionate commitments to which version of the Bible people should use, or what people should wear to church, or to preach, or whether the south Galatia view trumps the north Galatia view, or whether believers should drink alcohol, or how long a sermon should last, or whether the Bible text should or shouldn’t be projected.

As preachers, even as believers, we have to form opinions about many things. But let’s reserve the passion of convictions for that which really counts. Should Bible texts be projected? Maybe. Sometimes.