Stage 8 – Message Detail

What Convictions Do You Convey?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Over time, listeners catch things from the preachers they hear.  Its not just the content of each particular sermon, but also the personal convictions of the preacher that will mark listeners over time.

What do listeners catch from hearing you?  Do they catch a conviction that God’s Word can be trusted?  That it is enjoyable to read and study?  That God is knowable?  That God is in control?  That Christianity is firmly founded on fact?  That we are deeply loved?  That . . .

These kinds of convictions don’t fully come through because you preach a single message on the subject.  They come through and mark lives when they have already come through and marked your life.  We are not mere transmitters of information.  We are not neutral entities in God’s ministry that somehow hopefully will disappear in the course of our preaching.  No, we are lives that continually convey the convictions and affections that have captured our hearts.  Our passion forged in personal study and close walk with Christ over time will shape the convictions with which we infect others.

What convictions do we convey?

Sources on Technology and Preaching

/ Peter Mead / 8 Comments

The site received a comment from Greg, who is in the DMin program at Talbot – preaching cohort. His thesis is allowing him to research “The Effects of Advanced Technology on Expository Preaching.” I’ve taken his questions and integrated them into this post, allowing us all to think about the issue, as well as offering help to Greg.

I suppose in thirty years’ time Greg’s grandchildren may be laughing at what he called “advanced technology” – remember the revolution caused by the Overhead Projector (the ones with transparent sheets on top)? Nevertheless, technology is changing rapidly and it is making a difference in the world of preaching. Now we think nothing of listeners reading along in their Bibles (depending on the church), but before the advanced technology of Gutenberg, that would have been unthinkable.

Here’s a quick comment from me on the issue (not for Greg’s sake, but so that this is actually a post rather than just a request). I think we shouldn’t resist technology as if our previous experience is somehow “the right way.” At the same time, we shouldn’t dive in with technology just because we have the option.  How many poor messages have you heard with powerpoint, just because it was “the new thing?” My mind goes back to some posts I did on powerpoint and preaching – powerpoint on purpose, as well as one of the very early posts on what you want them to remember, oh, and a couple on movie clips – here and here, and I really liked Boyd-MacMillan’s critique of the anti-monolog brigade here.

But Greg’s questions, can we help him out?

1. Any suggestions on recommended reading for this subject? Books or journal articles? (Currently reading or will read, Hipps – Flickering Pixels, Ong – Orality and Literacy, Blackwood – The Power of Multisensory Preaching and Teaching, Stott – Between Two Worlds, Hunt – The Vanishing Word, Levinson – Digital McCluhan)

2. Anyone regularly using technology in their preaching (PowerPoint, Media Shout, Pro Presenter, Video Clips, Multi-site, Video Venues, Texting, etc.) that has an opinion on how valuable you think your technology is to your preaching, I’d love to hear about your experiences

Greg gave his email address, but I wouldn’t want him getting hundreds of new spam emails as a result of this.  So please answer his questions on the site as a comment.  If you want to contact Greg direct, just mention this to me and I’ll send you his email address.  Let’s share thoughts for each other’s benefit, and answer these questions for Greg’s benefit, then hopefully in the long run his DMin can be for all our benefit!

Final words to Greg – Thanks all and blessing on your work in the pulpit!

Preaching Story: Make the Switch

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

A switch that could make a big difference when preaching narratives.  How do you preach a story?

Common Default Approach – This is the approach that begins the message with the reading of the text, then moves on to talk about the story, noting elements within the text and giving both explanation and application based on those observations.

Strengths & Weaknesses – It is easier to read a text straight through than to interrupt the reading of the text, people know the whole story from the start and it allows great freedom in terms of what you do with the rest of the message.  These are strengths to one degree or another.  However, there are also inherent weaknesses in this approach.  The story becomes a specimen to examine, rather than a narrative to be experienced (once the reading is over).  The inherent tensions within the narrative are essentially lost, although a good preacher will attempt to rekindle them in the elements of retelling the narrative that follows the reading.

Original Force Approach – Okay, I made that name up, but it does convey my point here.  The simple switch I’m suggesting is instead of “read the story and talk about it,” rather try to “tell the story homiletically.”  What I mean by that is allow the form of the story, and the telling of it, to form the spine of most of the message.  In the process of telling the story, combine explanation of context, culture, historical setting, etc., with deliberate application for contemporary listeners.

Strengths & Weaknesses – The weaknesses that stand out to me with this approach are the greater challenges involved in telling a story effectively such as vivid description, maintaining tension, etc. Thus it may be slightly harder to preach well in this way.  However, the strengths of this approach are significant.  The original force of the passage can be recreated for listeners, whether or not they already know the end of the story.  The inherent tensions and intrigue in a narrative can become strengths of the message (you don’t have to create tension with a story, it has tension inbuilt).  Explanation can feel natural as the story is told, application can carry the implicit force of the narrative.  The ability of a narrative to overcome resistance is harnessed rather than lost (in the common default approach, listeners often put their guard back up once you start “preaching” again after the story’s been read).  There are other strengths too – while it may be harder to preach this way, it makes preaching preparation more interesting as you enter fully into the narrative rather than standing over it with scalpel in hand.  So much more could be added . . .

Next time you preach a narrative, instead of reading it and then talking about it, try telling the story so that the original force is felt as the thrust of the sermon.

When Do Listeners Switch On?

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

You know what I mean.  People are sitting and listening, sort of, until you say a key phrase, then suddenly everyone is really listening carefully.  Let’s make the assumption that having people really listen is a positive thing.  Now let’s consider some examples of “switch on” phrases and consider the implications for our preaching:

“How does this apply to us?” – People do tend to listen more when the message is about them, their lives, their needs, etc.  We could critique that theologically and point to the self-obsession of humanity.  Or we could be thankful that all Scripture is both God-breathed and “useful” – i.e. life changing.  And then we could stop leaving application to the last three minutes of a message and look for ways to include it throughout.  Compare and contrast an introduction infused with relevance and applicational preparation for the message to follow, with the standard switch off phrase “Last week we were deep in 2Chronicles 17, please turn with me to 2Chronicles 18 . . .”

“Let me tell you a story . . .” – People of all ages love a good story.  “Once upon a time” does wonders for children of all ages.  This kind of phrase is much more of a switch on than “let’s talk about the story.”  I’ve said it before, when the passage is a narrative, tell the story!  Even when it is not, how can the message be engaging and interesting, rather than mere lecturing and information transfer?

“Here’s how I struggle with this . . .” – People are always interested in appropriate vulnerability from the preacher.  Haddon Robinson urges preacher to neither be the hero, nor the jerk, in the stories they tell by way of illustration.  He is right, but he is not saying be absent from your illustrations.  People are far more interested in you as a real person, than they are in Napoleon or Lenin.  It is good to personalize aspects of the message, as long as it doesn’t make you look too good, or too much of an idiot.  Credibility and interest can increase or crash with personal stories.  Choose wisely, but choose some.

Some things switch on listeners, but integrity demands that we don’t use them.  Over-promising and then under-delivering, offering success guarantees in a messy world, promising healing or wealth when the text doesn’t support that application.  We must have integrity so that we’re not mere pragmatists.  However, it is easy to go to the other extreme and fail to learn from the reactions of listeners.  What other phrases switch on the listener?  What might be the implications for our preaching?

We Don’t Need To De-Affect The Text

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

On June 30th I wrote a post on preaching as a matter of life and death.  For that post click here.  In the good discussion that followed I made this comment – God has communicated in His Word (and calls us to preach that Word), in such a way as to move the heart/affections, as well as informing the mind, urging the will and so on. Beyond Bluestockings asked the helpful question – If the moving of hearts and affections is the work of man (the preacher) then the results will surely be temporary?

Such an important question deserves more than a quick answer . . . so hopefully this is helpful:

Thanks for the comment and my apologies for the delay in approving it.  You are right that the moving of hearts and affections is the work of the Holy Spirit.  If we make that our task we can easily fall into manipulation and the achieving of temporary results.  What I am saying is that God’s Word is not simply an information transfer from God’s mind to ours.  Rather, God’s Word is that and so much more.  It was designed and written to move the affections, to captivate the heart, to instill values, to draw people to God, etc.  Since the Bible is not mere information transfer, but carefully written communication that functions on various levels (i.e. through word choices, sentence structure, genre decisions, etc.), our task is to faithfully preach the Bible text as it stands.  That means not flattening it into mere information.  (My parenthetical statement in the previous comment “and calls us to preach that Word” should probably be moved to the end of the sentence for clarity!)

For instance, a Psalm may be highly emotive, full of moving imagery, authorial passion, etc.  If we simply dissect that information and talk about it, then I think we are failing to faithfully represent the text.  Rather we should present the Psalm in such a way that listeners feel the full force of the communication that is there – the images, the emotion, the passion, the truth, etc.  Certainly there is explanation, but also more than that, there is something of experiencing the text as well.  Thus we are to say what it says and appropriately do what it does.  This does not take on the burden of transforming listeners, for that should always remain the work of the Spirit of God.  However, since God is not an “information only” being (as some seem to suggest by denying any genuine affections in God), then there is no reason why we should “de-affect” the text and make it information only.  Did God inspire the information in the Bible, or did His inspiration go much further?  That is, did God inspire every word, every genre choice, every tone, etc.?

I believe our task in preaching is to be genuinely and deeply faithful to the preaching text, “re-presenting” it to the best of our ability (study ability, message formation ability, delivery ability), while always resting fully on God to achieve any life change in the listeners.

Verbal Variations

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

We’ve looked at the important issues in voice and non-verbals over recent days.  Both of these have to reinforce and support the work being done by your words when you preach.  But before we move on, just a couple of comments on the verbal aspect of delivery . . . the words you choose to use.  I’ll keep this post brief since the others have been so long!

Your goal is not to impress people with big words. Don’t try to make people think you are clever, or have studied really hard, or are super-spiritual, or super-humble, or funny, or whatever.  Your goal is not to create a specific impression of yourself.  It is tempting to impress, decide not to fall for this.

Your goal is to communicate. So choose words that people can understand.  Explain big Bible words that people need to understand, but explain simply and clearly.  Try to use words that are vivid, not bland.  Describe things well so that you don’t just give infomation or abstraction, but you paint a living picture on the screen in their minds and hearts.  Use words that bring in all the senses.  Be engaging rather than flat.  Be lively rather than ponderous.  Be creative rather than predictable.

Words matter, they matter very much!

Application: Specific Not Facile

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

When it comes to the application of a message, there are many options.  One is to ignore it completely and leave it up to the Holy Spirit (not a good option since it’s part of our job as preachers . . . by this logic why do we preach at all?)  Another is to be vague and ethereal in application, positing plain platitudes (not a good option since people will affirm any attempt at application, but that doesn’t mean it made any difference in their lives).  Another approach, popular in some circles, is to always give a very specific action step in every message (again, this is open to question since some texts don’t lend themselves to facile or purely practical action steps, and listeners can grow burdened by the pressure of ever growing action lists).

So how do we make sure application is specific, without making the grandeur of God’s Word look puny by pathetic pedantry?  I would suggest that we make sure we are really understanding a passage as intended by the author, in all it’s beauty and power, before we start trying to come up with applications.  We have a tendency to leap to applications and then somehow make every passage into a “witness more” or “live better” kind of passage. Once you’ve come to a decent level of grasping the meaning of the passage, then you have a hope of good application.

It is always worth starting with the original recipients. What was the author trying to do in them by this act of communication?  If we can grasp that, then we are halfway to applying it today.  If the original intent was to motivate a specific action step, then ours might well follow suit.  If the original intent was to convince of a theological truth, then perhaps we should aim for the same.

Still, how do we earth the message in the lives of today’s listener?  How do we apply, whether it is to the heart, to the mind, and/or to the actions of the listener?  Remember that vague application will float around nicely in the vaulted roof, but it won’t change lives.  Think about yourself.  What is this passage specifically doing to me as I study it?  Think about specific individuals in the church.  What is the message of this passage looking to do in the life of Sarah the tired young mother?  What is it straining to do in the life of Harry, the retired retailer with financial worries?  What will it do if let loose in the life of Josh the recent graduate with no employment but a fiancee to make the future look bright?  For specific and helpful application, earth it in the lives of specific people.

Why Why Matters

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The question “why?” is critical for good preaching.

Why did the author write the passage? Wrestling with the intent of the author is critical if the goal is to understand the passage.  This means not only asking “what does the passage say?” – that is, content.  But also asking “why did the author write it?” – that is, intent.  Many people don’t consider the author at all, which is a big mistake.  Others consider the content carefully, but fail to ask “why?” This results in incomplete exegesis of the passage, which dooms the message to inherent weakness.

Why are you preaching this message? If this question is not asked, then we may fall into the trap of merely fulfilling routine, filling time, or even “doing our job.”  But really, it is important to ask why you are preaching the message.  This implies another “why?” question.  Why do these people need to hear this passage?  Prayerfully considering the needs of the listeners in light of the message of the passage will drive the preacher toward clarity in message purpose.  If my goal is to fill time, I am surely a master of that (who among us is not highly skilled in the rhetorical art of waffling?)  However, if my goal is driven by the text and the spiritual needs of those who will listen, then this will drive me to my knees in prayer and dependence on God.  The “why?” question matters because it forces clarity in purpose and reliance on God.

Why is that there? Not only does “why?” help in the big macro issues of understanding the text and determining the message purpose, it is also helpful in the micro issues of message detail.  Why is that illustration there?  Why use that quote?  Why am I planning to mention that historical detail?  Why does that exegetical note need to be stated?  Why do I take so long explaining that verse?  Why am I not explaining this term?  Every detail in the message should pass through the x-ray machine of the “why?” question.  Extraneous detail, whether in explanation or illustration, is not neutral, it is harmful.  Unnecessary stuffing, pieces without purpose, undermines the bigger “why?” of message purpose.

I’m not sure if it is possible to ask “why?” too many times in sermon preparation. “Why?” matters!

Definitions

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Definitions matter.  They matter theologically.  They matter personally.  They matter in preaching.  I’m not talking about the definition of preaching – although that is a fine word to wrestle with!  I’m talking about the basic building blocks of the faith.

As preachers we need to think about the definitions of words and often we need to give the definitions of words.  What is faith?  What is hope?  What is love?  What is sin?  What is grace?  What is salvation?

Never assume that a definition is obvious.  You may have had a standard definition in mind for years, but don’t assume it is accurate.  Since the defining of key terms is fundamental to understanding, we must poke and prod our definitions.

Is faith believing a creedal statement to be true?  Is hope anticipation of the unseen?  Is love an act of the will for the good of another?  Is sin lawbreaking?  Is grace “God’s riches at Christ’s expense”?  Is salvation being justified before God?

I hope we would like to add nuance or completely redefine these definitions.  I suggest many in our churches either have no definition or these typically limited definitions in their thinking.  If we as preachers don’t help people with the basic definition work of core theology – who will?

True Topical Takes Time

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Some churches apparently have “topical sermons” every week.  Apparently some preachers think they are easier to prepare and easier to listen to.  Yes and no. A topical message is easier to prepare if you are simply wanting to say your own thing and bounce off a couple of verses along the way.  A topical message is easier to listen to if people have a taste for anecdotal soundbites.  However, true topical preaching, what you might call expository-topical preaching, this takes time.

(Incidentally, people may have a taste for lite-topical preaching, but often this is only because they’ve not heard decent expository preachng.  It’s never a fair contest to pit engaging topical messages by good communicators against dry and tedious lectures falsely placed under the label of “expository preaching.”)

By topical preaching, I mean preaching that is not initially birthed out of a passage or passages, but rather birthed out of the concept or title.  A good expository-topical approach will then select appropriate passages and do the exegetical work in those passages so that the part of the message coming from that passage actually comes from that passage.  Hence expository-topical.  Rather than using or abusing a bit of a text to say what I want to say, the onus is on me to let that text really speak for itself.

It may be easy to jump through my five favorite verses and link them together with anecdotes, but genuine expository-topical preaching requires me to wrestle with each passage chosen, in context, so that the text itself is boss over that part of the message.  True topical takes time.

I’m not of the opinion that every message should be from a single passage (I do think that is a healthy staple diet approach).  This week I finish a mini-series on the ‘christian virtues’ of faith, hope and love.  A broad title like “Love” takes time.  Time to select which of the hundreds of passages to use.  Time to understand them and develop a coherent message.  Time to cut out and drop material that could so easily fill a series on the subject.  If the subject were not so thrilling, I’d be tempted to say that I’m looking forward to preparing a non-topical message again next week!