Stage 8 – Message Detail

The Balancing Act of Evangelism

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

This Sunday may be it. The only chance you will get. There may be someone there this Sunday who may never come again. So it would be wise to spell out the gospel in detail, wouldn’t it? After all, this may be the only opportunity and so it would make sense to be sure to cover all the bases. This is the approach many of us from time to time. Perhaps aware of visitors or motivated by something we heard, we decide to pack the corners of our message with evangelistic information.

I’m not suggesting this is wrong. But it is certainly not so simple. There are two sides to this issue. On the one side you are preaching the text to people that ultimately need to either respond to the gospel, or continue to apply the reality of the gospel in their lives. It may well be that this is the only opportunity for somebody to hear the important details concerning themselves, their predicament, God’s provision, and so on. I’ve sat through many supposedly evangelistic messages that did a lot of work, but then failed to spell out how to respond. So perhaps we should look to present the gospel as fully as possible in every message?

On the other hand, are we not running the risk of forcing every text into a certain gospel form, rather than honoring the text in a truly expository manner? Are we not running the risk of adding detail to a message that does not support the main idea and thereby complicating the message? People find clear messages easier to follow, ones that are built closely around a single main idea. If they are easy to follow then the experience is more enjoyable and people are more likely to return for more. A message considered confusing and complicated will not motivate people to want more.

Perhaps part of the solution is to present the gospel every Sunday, but if it risks complicating the message in some way, then it could be presented at some other point in the service. This may be the last Sunday someone will be able to hear the gospel. Equally, it may be the last Sunday they will bother coming to church if the communication is overwhelming and complicated. Present the gospel, or motivate them to return for more, or maybe you can do both?

Preach the Word, Lead as a Champion

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

If you are a preacher, then you are a leader.  Your self-esteem may not say so.  Your mannerisms and style may not say so.  Your church structure may not say so.  But when you preach, you have the influence of a leader.  Of course it is easy to be a poor leader.  You can undermine the whole thing by your style, your ego, or your lack of planning, not to mention your life out of the pulpit.  But it is important to remember this; when you preach, you are a leader.

So preach the Word with relevance.  Leaders know the people and know their needs.  Leaders know that there is no time to waste on interesting trivia when life change is needed.

So preach as a champion.  This does not mean that you preach with a trophy on a stand next to you.  This means that you champion the values and goals of the church.  Don’t fall into the trap of perpetually plugging programs in the preaching.  That gets old really fast and confuses the communication.  Plug and promote programs in the notices / announcements.  But while preaching deliberately present the values and vision that hopefully underlie those programs.  This is all secondary to the primary concern of preaching the specific text with accuracy and relevance, but there are numerous ways to appropriately pursue “secondary” goals while communicating.  If your church’s values and vision are biblical, then there will be numerous opportunities.  And if it doesn’t fit, don’t do it.  But when it does, take the opportunity to be a champion, to be a leader.

Eyes May Be Looking, But Are Ears Listening?

/ Peter Mead / 5 Comments

Who’s responsible for the attentiveness of listeners?  Is it the listeners?  After all, they choose to come to church, they should be able to focus on what is happening.  Or is it the sound technician?  That individual plays a huge role in removing certain distractions, but they cannot engineer attentiveness.  What about life circumstances of the listeners?  Surely God could make it so there was nothing going on in their lives in the days leading up to a Sunday?  Of course we can point to the important role of sound technicians and the parents of crying children, but these can only remove distractions.  Attentiveness is almost entirely up to the preacher.

Howard Hendricks, prof at Dallas Seminary, was devoted to the fact that the attention of his students was his responsibility.  He would go to whatever lengths he could to arrest and maintain the attention of those in his class.  He had ways of making you listen!  Perhaps we should be the same?  If so, this has several implications:

We must plan a message for attention – as well as planning a message that is biblical and clear, we must also endeavor to be interesting and relevant throughout.  

We must be aware of our listeners – preaching is a form of two-way communication.  Usually only one party ever speaks, us, but there is still continual feedback through body language, facial expression and so on.  We must be careful never to get into a mode that is all about us.

We must be responsive to the situation – if there is an interruption or distraction, consider how best to overcome it. Sometimes ignoring it is the best or most sensitive approach, but often not.  If others are aware of it but think you’re not, that is distracting.

Are they listening?  That’s up to you.

Fear of Forgetting

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I’m sure that I’m not the only one to get to the end of a message, sit down, and realize I forgot something.  A great illustration, a clever one-liner, some piece of support material.  When this happens, remember one thing – nobody else knows!  People listening accept what they hear as long as it makes sense and is somewhat engaging.  They don’t sit there thinking, “Well, that point would be better if it had a second illustration.” 

Elements of a sermon can be overlooked whether you preach without notes, with notes or with a manuscript.  It’s simply a reality of sermonic delivery that there is not a constant and equal attention given to that which is being said, that which the sermon design suggests should be said and the feedback being received from the listeners.  Sometimes our minds get ahead.  Sometimes we get distracted.  It’s alright.  People are not evaluating the sermon based on our manuscript.  They are listening to the delivery and if that goes well, then missed support material will not harm the message.

However, there are some elements that, if missed, can be very serious.  The main idea of the message should not only be included, but made to stick in the hearts of the listeners.  The surfacing of need for the message is very important in the early stages (and often not included in the prepared sermon or in the preached one!)  If this is overlooked then the listeners are unlikely to have genuine attention.  Also, the transitions of the message are important or people will get lost.

Pay attention to remembering the main idea, the creation of need, and transitions.  That clever one-liner or pertinent story from yesterday’s paper feels important to you, and may help if it gets in there, but won’t missed if you forget it.

Preaching Camera Angles

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

You might get the impression from this site that I watch a lot of television.  Truth is I don’t own one.  I watch DVDs now and then, but don’t have a TV.  Anyway, the analogy of film or TV is helpful as we consider ways to improve our communication of God’s Word.  Let me suggest one issue worth considering – perspective.

If you ever watch an old show or movie from the fifties, it will feel quite stilted and unreal now.  The fixed position camera observed all the action and conversation in the room, but essentially didn’t move very much.  Today camera work is so different.  Moving positions, wide and narrow lenses, changing speeds, even filming within the consciousness of characters (dreams, memories, fears, etc.)  Human consciousness is much more complex than the old fixed camera angle allowed.

Whether the contemporary approach merely reflects the complexity of human consciousness or a if actually it reflects changes in human consciousness (in an age where a fixed perspective on the world is shunned), well, that can be a discussion starter to keep up your sleeve in case you need it.  But a point to ponder right now is this – do we as preachers communicate in a way that feels stilted, stuck and so 1950’s?  Or are we able to adapt our presentation to vary the perspective, delve into various realms of human consciousness, intriguing and engaging as we go?  The Bible provides great variety of perspective, emotion, awareness, intrigue, and so on.  Do we do justice to that, or do we stultify it into a predictably unchanging perspective?

Breaking Writing Rules for Manuscripts

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

As you may have read in previous posts, I think the best approach is to prepare a full manuscript, but then to preach without notes. The full manuscript allows you to sculpt and craft the language carefully in order to be precise and effective. This can be overdone and end up feeling like a contrived performance, or underdone and end up feeling like a rambling grasping for the right words. But the main rule to remember when writing a manuscript is that you are trying to write for the ear, not the eye. Most other rules can and maybe should be broken.

For example, David Buttrick helpfully suggests that a single move in a sermon (think “point”) may last 3-4 minutes, but since it has inherent unity, it should be manuscripted in a single paragraph. If the stages of development within a move are manuscripted as separate paragraphs, then the move will tend to fall apart. First sentences in paragraphs tend to break the flow of an idea as it is still forming. Perhaps this reflects the nature of oral communication. When speaking to a group, it takes longer for a thought to form in the group consciousness. Hence longer paragraphs.  (See Buttrick’s Homiletic, p50)

Let me quickly incorporate that suggestion in a simple three-level approach to writing for the ear:

On a micro level, sermon manuscripts can break rules of sentence structure. You must write as you speak. Yes. Sometimes incomplete sentences.

On a mid level (is that the right term?), sermon manuscripts will include more repetition that normal written prose. Your manuscript will show evidence of going over the same concept. Repeating, or even better, restating what you’ve just written. You wouldn’t do this in written English, but you’re writing for the ear and that requires repetition and restatement. Saying the same thing again in different terms. Giving hearers one more opportunity to catch what you’ve been saying.

And on a macro level, sermon manuscripts should reflect the unity of the sub-parts in a sermon. So a movement, or point, should cohere. Using bigger paragraphs may help achieve that inner unity.

Preach Like It May Their Last

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

If you are preaching today, it is tempting to be caught up in your own world.  Concerned about your presentation, the details of the sermon, even the peripheral details that you didn’t delegate to someone more passionate about them.  But know this – today’s sermon may be the last some of those people ever hear.

The tired teenager who is gaining the freedom to not have to come to church, but has not yet gained a sense of need for church.  Today may be their last.  The person who’s been coming for a while, but only fits in on the outside, by dressing right, yet on the inside is wracked with doubts and is tired of pretending.  Today may be their last.  The couple whose marriage is seconds away from complete train wreck and can’t keep up the show any longer.  Today may be their last.  The guy struggling with significant temptation who feels like he’ll cave in any day, but is currently painfully unaware of the waves of guilt that will follow.  Today may be his last.

Today may be the last time some people in your congregation hear you preach.  It may be their last sermon, their last Sunday morning at church.  We’ve all heard evangelistic messages that point out the urgency of the occasion.  “You may step out of here and be hit by a bus.  Do not delay!”  Let’s turn that urgency on ourselves for a moment.  Some of them may die before next Sunday.  But there are dozens of other reasons why you may not see them again.  The reasons are important, but so is this sermon.  How much more direct should it be?  How much more relevant?  How much more real should you be?  How much more urgent?

This may be their last.  Preach in a way that will make this sermon count.

Lazy Preaching? – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / 8 Comments

Well yesterday’s post stirred more response than usual!  Andy Stanley stated his point in strong terms, which probably sparked some response.  While as an Englishman I might state the same point in a slightly more understated way, I do urge people who attend my preaching courses to stick in their primary passage most of the time.  Naturally people ask for exceptions to that suggestion.  I have two main exceptions in my own thinking.  Let me share those with you and then ask what other exceptions you might add to the list.  As I wrote yesterday, there are fewer legitimate reasons to use multiple cross-references than we tend to think.

1. When the idea of the primary text does not sound biblical.  If you preach a passage and clarify the point, but people internally react with a metaphorically raised eyebrow.  “Is that biblical?”  In this instance I might run through a series of other passages very quickly that support the same idea.  In this situation I am not developing each cross-reference in detail, or going topical for multiple points, but simply allowing the weight of evidence to underline the biblical nature of what the primary text is saying.

2. When the primary passage leans heavily on another biblical passage.  For example when preaching the middle of 1Peter 3 recently, I was very aware of how much Psalm 34 was influencing Peter’s thought at that point, so I took some time to go back there during the sermon.  Again, not a topical approach, but supportive of the primary passage.

I can imagine one or two other reasons to go to other passages that may be legitimate too, but these are the main two in my thinking.  I’d love to hear more interaction on this subject.

I think we should be wary of anything that sounds like “memory trigger cross referencing” (you won’t find that in any book, I just made up the label!)  So you’re preaching through a passage and a word or phrase triggers your memory of another (perhaps more familiar) passage . . . so you go over there for a moment.  Carrying on you find numerous opportunities to go on a safari through the canon.  Often there is no scriptural reason for doing so, no awareness of what texts influence which writers, no awareness of specific contexts and meaning, and no genuine purpose for the excursions in respect to the specific purpose of the primary text and the sermon.  Memory trigger cross referencing is indeed very easy, all you need is a concordance, or a few favorite passages.  Surely we would agree that is lazy preaching?  But when should we consider going elsewhere in the Bible?  The lines are open  . . .

Lazy Preaching?

/ Peter Mead / 9 Comments

Andy Stanley, pastor of North Point Community Church, made a passing comment about lazy preaching in an interview with Preaching magazine.  He was talking about his desire to come up with a statement, a takeaway point in a sermon.  His stated goal was that a listener could come back to the same passage of Scripture later and say, “I know what that means.  I know what that’s about.”  Because of that goal he does not like to say, “Paul said” and “John said that again” and so on.  Here are his words, reprinted in Preaching with Power edited by Michael Duduit:

I hate sermons like that.  When I listen to them, I just turn them off.  I think just one passage that says it is all we need.  Just help me understand the one passage – please don’t proof text every point with a verse.  I think that’s lazy preaching.  It would be easy to develop sermons like that.

I tend to agree.  There are reasons to go to other passages, but far fewer legitimate reasons than many of us think.  When we have the opportunity to preach a passage, let’s do the hard work and really preach that passage.  It’s easy to skip all over the canon, but if there isn’t a genuine reason for doing so, it’s lazy preaching.

Surrogate Sermons – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Continuing on with Dwight Stevenson’s list from yesterday . . . “surrogate sermons” we should be avoiding:

Palace propaganda – Catering to the specific audience in a church by giving exactly and only what they want to hear (often determined by their socio-economic class, race, etc.)

Theological lecture – We must be able to give reason for our faith, but that does not mean we substitute dogma for faith in preaching.  Preaching can be doctrinal without sounding doctrinaire.  Preach the inspired text, not only a system.

Argumentation and debate – We are called to be Christ’s witnesses, not his lawyers.  It is easy to level our guns at a theological position, or a moral concern, but let us be careful not to breed counterattack, controversy and division.

Eulogy – A syrupy diet of simplistic non-answers to life’s realities that sound acceptable because they elevate Christ continuously.

Ecclesiastical commercial – The promotional work for the programs of the church can be done effectively and creatively outside of the sermon.

Monologue and soliloquy – Communication that is effectively the act of hearing one’s own voice, because the preacher is unaware of the internal and explicit reactions of the listeners.