Stage 8 – Message Detail

Preview for Clarity

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Some people like to take the complexity and intricacy of preaching and turn it into a one-size fits all template.  This is unfortunate because preaching has so many variables to be enjoyed and utilized.  Take, for instance, the preview.  As part of the introduction to a  message, the preacher may choose to give an outline of what is to follow, thus giving a sense of direction, of structure, of purpose, of intent.  Here are some preview options:

1. Specifically outline all the points. This would be a deductive preaching approach for the purist.  What it loses in intrigue and interest, it adds in clarity and precision.  It helps the listener know what is coming, how many points, how they relate to one another and to the text.  But recognize that clarity isn’t the only strength to pursue in a message.  Remember that interest and intrigue are also important.  A strongly deductive outline for the whole message will be helped by an inductive approach within each point.  While the whole may be clearly previewed, the points will be helped by offering only part of the package, leaving something to be developed for the interest of the listener.

2. Structurally outline the passage’s flow of thought. Instead of giving your whole outline at the start, sometimes it is very effective to simply overview the chunks.  I heard a very effective message recently that used this approach.  By no means an exact quote: “In the first ten verses Paul shows it does mean to stick with Christ, then in the last six verses what it doesn’t mean to stick with Christ.”  Simple.  Clear.  Listener’s familiarised with the terrain and ready to press into the details.  Sometimes this kind of simplified preview prepares listeners for more detail without overwhelming them in advance.

3. Outline within the points. In a more inductive sermon, the preview by necessity is more restricted.  Instead of giving the full idea (subject and complement) and outline of the message, a message preview might give just the subject and maybe a super-simplified sense of the text’s shape or purposein order to assure the listener that the full idea will be achieved in the course of the message.  In such cases it may work well to use previewing during the message as a new point or movement is introduced.  While not giving away the whole, it does satisfy the listener’s desire for direction.  So perhaps the solution to the stated problem is still to come, but in the first movement of the message a false solution will be presented and found wanting – this could be clearly previewed without undermining the inductive nature of the message.

There are other approaches to previewing a message too.  The important thing is to deliberately include a preview that will most help the listeners as they receive this particular message.  No one size fits all, but custom made previews crafted for a unique combination of text and listeners.

When Time is Short

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

A good friend wrote the following:

As I anticipate teaching preaching overseas, I realize that I need to take seriously the lack of time that these pastors have for sermon prep. I feel like my training has prepared me well both to practice and to teach a strategy for preaching that requires quite a bit of time, and many western pastors have that luxury. My students will not.  Any suggestions?

I’ve seen this in many places, as well as in teaching bi-vocational preachers in the west.  How can the preaching process take less time without compromising what matters?  Where can the time be trimmed, without compromising the end product?  Here are some possibilities:

Remove the Passage Selection Headache.  Encouraging them to plan a series (typically through a book), allows study to overlap and build, and it takes away the stress of finding a passage from scratch every week.

Encourage preachers to preach one thing well, not to preach everything in one. Most people feel that preaching should be both an exhausting process and an exhaustive presentation of every exegetical detail in a text – so in some ways teaching them to preach is about teaching them what is not preaching, even though they have heard it every Sunday from others.

Remove pressure to discover endless clever illustrations. I’ve tried to remove pressure to chase quotable illustrations, encouraging good handling of, and effective descriptive of the text (so that if they explain a text, or tell the story well, summarize the main point and apply it specifically, they can feel like they are really preaching).

The default starting point for a narrative sermon outline is helpful.  I find giving a simple default outline for narratives to be helpful (so they aren’t scratching their heads about outline when it often can be as simple as tell the story, clarify the main point and then apply it.)

Recycle Bible study.  If people are preaching twice in a weekend, I encourage preaching twice off the back of one set of exegesis (that is, go back to the same passage and apply it further or chase issues in a different way).

Of Inner Screens and Communion Closets

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Some more of Thielicke on Spurgeon:

When Spurgeon speaks, it is as if the figures of the patriarchs and prophets and apostles were in the auditorium – sitting upon a raised tribune! – looking down upon the listeners.  You hear the rush of the Jordan and the murmuring of the brooks of Siloam; you see the cedars of Lebanon swaying in the wind, hear the clash and tumult of battle between the children of Israel and the Philistines, sense the safety and security of Noah’s ark, suffer the agonies of soul endured by Job and Jeremiah, hear the creak of oars as the disciples strain against the contrary winds, and feel the dread of the terrors of the apocalypse.  The Bible is so close that you not only hear its messages but breathe its very atmosphere.  The heart is so full of Scripture that it leavens the consciousness, peoples the imagination with its images, and determines the landscape of the soul by its climate.  And because it has what might be called a total presence, the Bible as the Word of God is really concentrated life that enters every pore and teaches us not only to see and hear but also to taste and smell the wealth of reality that is spread out before us here.

Those who listened to these lectures of Spurgeon lived . . . in the atmosphere of the Bible.  They no longer needed to be exhorted to take the Bible seriously; it penetrated into what the psychologists call the “image level” of their unconscious.  Even the admonition to prayer was hardly needed, for the words that reached the hearer were spoken by one who himself had come out of the stillness of eternal communion with God, and what he said to the hearer had first been talked about with the Father in heaven.(v9)

Vivid preaching that reaches deeper than mere words ever could, aiming to transform the listener at every level of the heart, soul, spirit; penetrating to the screen in the inner man, so the vivid and striking reality of Scripture is lived even in the hearing, all coming from one who is personally intimate with the God whose Word he preaches.  It can’t get much better than that!

Some Thoughts on Preparing to Preach Psalm 22

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments
This is not a complete post, but it may be helpful.  I received the following question from a good friend:

I have been asked to preach on psalm 22 and am at the moment soaking myself in it to try and make sure I understand the message, the structure and what God was saying then and is saying now.

I will resist the temptation to jump straight to Matthew 27 and end up preaching that, as the psalm should, in my current view, stand on its own merits.  Nevertheless I can’t imagine preaching this without bringing in Matthew.  I would really welcome your views on how to approach this to get the balance right.

Here’s my initial answer:

This is a key issue in preaching OT.  Many automatically go to the NT, especially from a passage like that.  I suppose I would study it in two stages – first what it meant then, then how Matthew / Jesus uses it (raising the issue of whether Jesus was pulling only specific verses or relating to the whole of it by quoting the start of it).

In terms of preaching it, I would probably want to preach it in terms of David first, for a significant chunk of the message, recognizing that everyone else is probably thinking of Jesus.  Then going to Jesus and showing his use of it would be perfectly legitimate, thinking about how it applies to us as a text, as well as how Jesus’ application of it applies to us.  I preached it a few years ago and found it effective to major on Psalm 22 at 1000BC, with a smaller focus given to Greater Son of David at 32AD, connecting it to us throughout (application of the concept or main idea in reference to David, and response to Jesus in reference to the latter part of the message).

The one thing I would add is that the psalm is not finished 2/3rds of the way through, as some preachers sometimes seem to think.  In your study you should probably wrestle with the issue of whether this was a purely predictive text (i.e.not of David, but all of Jesus), a double fulfillment type of text (sensus plenior in some respect – i.e. both of David and of Jesus), or a purely descriptive text that Jesus appropriated as appropriate to his situation and response to it (i.e. all of David, but Jesus could identify).  I wouldn’t address all these in the sermon, but I would preach according to my understanding of how the two relate.

There’s a lot to think about with this passage, and I haven’t got into any details here!  Hope you can really delight in the study of it.

When Order Matters

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Sometimes the points in a message can be given in any order.  Sometimes order matters.

1. When wrong order of content loses listeners

I remember Don Sunukjian explaining how in preaching, because we increase the time taken to explain the elements of a sentence, we sometimes need to reverse the order.  For example, I can say “Let’s go to the store, to buy some dog food, because Rusty is hungry.”  The hearer can hold on to the first two pieces of information while awaiting the reason behind it all.  But if I “preach” that sentence and expand each element, then the order has to be reversed.

“Let’s go to the store.  By store I don’t mean a place where things are kept, so much as a place where things are kept in order for visitors to peruse and purchase.  Now in contemporary society there are many different kinds of store – from the convenience store to the supermarket to the wholesaler to the Swedish furniture warehouse.  Each serves its own purpose, and while some may be controversial when they open in an area . . . ” etc.

To go from extended explanation of stores to an extended explanation of foods, and foods prepared for canine pets in particular, would be overwhelming and irrelevant if listeners didn’t know already that your pet dog Rusty needed food.

Sometimes order of content matters.

2. When wrong order of content changes the message.

In simple terms it is easy to preach the result of salvation first and communicate that salvation is by good works.

It is easily done.  For example, we assume a starting point, then state what is really point two, but it comes across as point one.  So, if we are captivated by a love relationship with Christ (point 1), then our priorities will reflect that and our behavior will be changed (point 2), and consequently our lives will be lived in the blessing of the “shalom” that comes from ordering our lives according to the orders of the God of order (point 3, to inadvertently quote a Stuart Briscoe message I heard twenty years ago.)  So easily we presume point 1 and instead preach points 2 then 3, which leads to preaching legalism rather than the gospel.

I’ll leave it there for now, but next time you structure a message, think through whether the order matters, and whether you have the correct order.

What Are You Trying To Say?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I made a passing reference to Speech Act Theory.  This communications theory recognizes that in speech, something greater than information transfer is occurring.  Once you get into the literature (either secular communications studies by folks like Austin and then Searle, or in some hermeneutics writings by Kevin Vanhoozer, for instance), you will meet terms like locution, illocution and perlocution.  Locution roughly equates to the words themselves, as traditionally used.  Illocution refers to the force and intent of a speech act.  Perlocution equates to what is brought about in the listener.

Speech Act Theory tends to focus primarily on the illocutionary aspects of speech communication – the force or intent, what you are trying to do by what you say.  So let’s linger there for a post and allow the terms they use to prompt our thinking about what we intend to do when we communicate.    Remember, at every point in a sermon, you are trying to achieve something by your communication.  What are you trying to achieve?  Haddon Robinson teaches that the only ways to develop an idea are to explain it, prove it, or apply it.  This simple observation has profound impact on our hermeneutics (what was the author seeking to do), and on our message preparation (what am I trying to achieve in this section, in this “illustration,” etc.)

In a similar way, let’s look at the five main categories Searle offered in respect to illocutionary intent:

1. Assertives: statements that  commit a speaker to the truth of an expressed proposition. As preachers we have a privileged duty to assert the truth, reality as it really is from God’s perspective.

2. Directives: statements that attempt to cause the hearer to take a particular action.   Again, as preachers there are times when we seek to be directive in our communication, that we all might be doers and not hearers only.

3. Commissives: statements which commit the speaker to a course of action as described by the propositional content (in what is said). Perhaps a smaller element in most preaching, but as the speaker, and certainly as a leader, we will sometimes commit ourselves to something by what we say.

4. Expressives: statements that express the “sincerity condition of the speech act”. That is to say, these express the speaker’s attitudes and emotions toward what is said.  Surely there is a place for this in preaching, lest we be impassible in our communication, even though God wasn’t in His (in Scripture).  Where to express our attitude and emotion in a message, and how, is worthy of our thoughtful consideration.

5. Declaratives: statements that attempt to change the world by “representing it as having been changed”. Perhaps more for moments like baptism and marriage, when reality is actually changed by what is said, but worth considering in respect to our preaching.  (Perhaps in a negative sense, when do we seek to speak declaratively when reality has not actually been changed?  Some prayer is spoken in declaratives, which borders on presumption in some cases!)

Long words, sometimes complicated definitions.  But some of us wouldn’t be hurt as communicators to think through, using these categories, what we’re intending to do when we open our mouths to preach.

Bonus: They Can’t See Your Notes

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I’ve posted a couple of posts about the fact that listeners can’t see your notes.  This fact does create a burden or two on you, the preacher, but there are positives too.

1. They don’t know what you missed. This may be for the sake of time, or because your eyes skipped, or because of a memory failure (although if you are preaching without notes, then you should know that a good clear message will remember itself).

2. They don’t know when you changed order. On purpose or accidentally, it is often perfectly acceptable to change the order of a message.

3. They don’t know when you adjusted your message. You don’t need to apologize for what you haven’t included, what you’ve omitted or what you would have liked to have covered.  They don’t know how your message has adjusted from what was planned or what was possible.

What difference does all this make?  Well, for one thing, it means that you shouldn’t feel obligated to stick exactly to an outline you prepared earlier.  Sometimes a message needs to flex in light of circumstances, people present, mood of service, etc.  (I could make the point here that if you’re using a powerpointed outline or a handout, then you are forced to stick with it, but I won’t make that point here.)

One big thought should linger in our minds as we prepare to preach.  We may look at our notes (on paper, or mentally), but our listeners are looking at us.  Are we engaged with them?  Do we smile?  Do we make eye-contact?  How about body language?  All of these things, and so much more, push me toward suggesting that they can’t see our notes and it is probably better if we can’t see our notes either.  But I won’t make that point now, either.

They can’t see your notes, let that take a little pressure off.

But Wait, They Can See My Notes

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Yesterday I wrote about some of the challenges that come from our listeners not being able to see our notes.  We preach orally, but tend to prepare in literary forms (manuscript, indented outlines, etc.)  I mentioned the issue of transitions – very different animals in spoken than in written communication.  I mentioned the need to indicate sense of progress, or purpose of illustration.  But wait, isn’t there a shortcut to circumvent this whole issue?

The Potential Powerpoint Shortcut – Wouldn’t it be better to just project your notes so they can follow along on a powerpoint sermon outline?  I would urge you not to make a projected outline your strategy to overcome these issues.  Your outline is for you.  If you use powerpoint, use it well (i.e. for images, minimal words, lots of blank screen, perfectly timed, etc.)

What Happens if You Powerpoint Your Outline? Projecting your outline will give the impression your primary goal is to educate and inform, it will spark frenzied note taking, it will cause people to try to memorize three sub-points rather than being marked by the one main point, it will distract from the deeper impact and applicational emphasis of your message.  What’s more, what is gained in visual communication via the screen is typically lost in visual communication and connection via the preacher.  It takes real skill to powerpoint in a connecting and engaging manner (a skill rarely found in ecclesial settings).

So I Should Never Use Powerpoint? Use powerpoint by all means, but usually not for your outline.  The outline is a skeleton, it is for you and it is for you to think through how to communicate as effectively as possible.  One of the first posts I wrote was entitled “What do you want them to remember – the outline?”

Because They Can’t See Your Notes

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I suppose it is obvious, but sometimes obvious things need stating.  When we preach we are communicating orally.  People hear us, and usually can see us, but they can’t see our notes.

What difference does this startling realization make to our preaching?  Well, it should cause us to pay particular attention to the following:

1. Transitions. It is so easy to lose people in a transition.  If they mentally check-out for a few seconds they can easily miss the move from one section of the message to the next, leaving them disorientated and confused.  Slow down through the curves, as I think Steve Matthewson put it on his site.  Be sure to take your passengers with you.  Flashback and preview, underline or mark the transition in some way.

2. Follow-ability. You can look down at your notes (if you use them), or down at the text (if you don’t use notes, your message will probably be mentally associated with the passage itself).  If they look down they see dozens of verses that all look the same.  You need to make clear where you are in the text.  Don’t make following along an extreme sport that only the most focused individuals can participate in.

3. Sense of progress. You know that you have finished four pages of notes with three to go.  They don’t.  Because they can’t see your notes you either need to have a clear structure that is previewed at the start and reviewed at transitions (as in a deductive message), or a clear indication of destination and sensation of progress toward it (as in an inductive message), or else a very compelling presentation that people simply don’t want to end.  Otherwise they will be investing mental resources in trying to figure out where you are in your message.

4. Purpose of Illustration. You can look down and see your illustration marker and where it sits in relation to the section of the message, the sub-point you are explaining, proving or applying, etc.  Because they can’t see your notes they can easily lose track of why you are telling the story about the time your Uncle took you to the fish market.  Don’t just tell illustrations well, but clarify their purpose whenever appropriate.

They can’t see your notes and they shouldn’t see your notes  . . . but they will see the message you preach and the way that you preach it.

The Height of Application

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I’ve written recently about application and where it is aimed – heart, head and hands (i.e. affection, belief and conduct).  But what about the height of the application?  That is to say, how high do we set the bar?  Now immediately there are issues rising up: does this language imply duty and responsibility that will smother the drawing power of the love of God?  Are we going to end up pressuring people with more and more things to do somewhat independently of God, rather than drawing them deeper into the life that is relationship with God?

I think there are a couple of errors we fall into:

Some of us can over-pressure on a flimsy foundation.  That is, we preach something, explaining the text somewhat, and then go for broke with application.  It is easy to call for total surrender, but when that applicational structure is built on the foundation of snack-food exposition, it will always feel out of place.

Some of us tire people with inane applications not befitting of the gospel.  We preach, perhaps very well, the truth of God’s Word.  And then we list yet another set of duties to be added to the already overwhelmed list of duties on the scrap of paper inside the Bible’s front cover.  This can feel trite. After a seven-course feast in a five-star restaurant, we then urge people to go home and be sure to eat three marshmallows each day and offer a personal-pack of cookies to at least one neighbor.

So what to do?  How high is the bar to be set?  First, it is important to think through where the text is naturally urging the listener.  Second, remember that duty and pressure is very different from compelled response.  If we can preach the compelling Christ and His Word in such a way that hearts are moved, then application will be the naturally resulting encouragement, rather than grating burdens.  Third, remember that some passages and situations call for very practical described applications, but many others might be better suited to stirring hearts for worship, or challenging false beliefs and worldview blind spots.  Make every message relevant, but not every message has to feel pragmatically “applicational.”

If we are saying that “application” should be fitting for the compelling, drawing, captivating attraction and power of the message preached,then surely the bar is often set too low.  But the answer is not to crank up the pressure, but rather to look for ways to preach for hearts to be moved and carefully consider how the listeners can be encouraged along the path of response . . . and that response, through the years of church history, has often been a response of total and absolute sacrificial commitment.  Let’s raise the bar, but think through how we do it!