Do They Know That You Know?

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

The preacher must build confidence in the listeners; confidence that the preacher knows the message, knows how it will progress and knows when it will end.

Structure of Message – If the message is deductive, then the main idea is stated early. Confidence can be built by an effective preview of the message. Even something as simple as, “So we will see four things in this text that prove this is true.” If people know there are four “things” to get through, they won’t worry if the first point takes a while and covers only the first verse of a fifteen verse text. The more you preview, the harder you have to work to create tension and desire to listen, but don’t think you’re adding great tension by omitting a preview. You’re only undermining confidence in you. With an inductive message you also need to preview, only you cannot give away as much. But no preview will feel like a wander in the woods blindfolded, and most people don’t prefer that experience. Make sure they know that you know where you are going!

Transitions in the Message – It is hard to put too much work into the transitions. These key moments in the message allow opportunity for reorientation to the main idea or the subject of the message, review of terrain already traveled and a reminder of how far there is left to go. Well worked transitions do wonders for attentiveness, understanding and listener confidence.

Style of Delivery – Confidence is somewhat intangible. I’m not saying you should come across as arrogant or over-confident. However, there is a lot to be said for quiet confidence, for a calm assurance that you know what you are doing. Seek to overcome nervous habits, twitches, mannerisms, and so on. Avoid apologizing, even in jest, during the introduction. Make and maintain meangingful eye contact. If you have to use notes, use them well, but also consider not using them at all.

The preacher must build confidence in the listeners; confidence that the preacher knows the message, knows how it will progress and knows when it will end.

Getting to Grips with the Genres: Narrative (2)

/ Mike Roth / Leave a comment

So if narratives function through plot, how does that look in 2 Samuel 11 and following? What is the rhetorical impact of the story of David and Bathsheba?

Narrative affects the reader/hearer through association or disassociation with/from the main characters. The story contains five parts. Background/Introduction: David should be at war like the other kings, but instead is in the palace lounging around on a sofa. He sees Bathsheba, lusts, fornicates, and sends her away. Inciting incident: David finds out that Bathsheba is pregnant. Rising action: David attempts to save face by bringing the noble Uriah home from war (Interesting to note that Uriah is one of David’s 30 mighty men – 2 Samuel 23:39). Uriah refuses to sleep with his wife after two attempts by David. Uriah is sent back to war with a letter sealing his own death. Uriah is killed. David receives news and comforts his commander. David marries Bathsheba and the baby is born – months go by. Climax: David is confronted by Nathan the prophet. Resolution: David repents and finds forgiveness for his sin… but forgiveness does not annul loss and pain. His son through Bathsheba dies. A son (Solomon) is promised to Bathsheba.

As this story moves along, listeners/hearers inherently associate with/from pre-Nathan David, Bathsheba, Uriah, Nathan, and post-Nathan David. The rhetorical impact is different for each person. For some there is comfort, for others there is conviction, etc. Like David, the story urges some to confess sin. Like Uriah, it encourages some to remain faithful to the Lord despite the wickedness and sin of others. Like Nathan, it urges some to confront sin in others. Like Bathsheba, it comforts the weak.

Getting to Grips with the Genres: Narrative (1)

/ Mike Roth / Leave a comment

Following-up on my 11/20 post, I will describe how biblical narrative functions and make some simple suggestions today. Tomorrow I will demonstrate its intended rhetorical impact using the story of David and Bathsheba.

Narrative is distinct in the way that it works as a type of literature. It employs plot to make its points. There are five parts to plot. “Introduction” is the first part. Introduction, introduces time and setting as well as the main characters. The stage is set in the introduction for the second part of plot to begin. “Inciting incident” is the second part of plot. In the inciting incident, some kind of problem or tension is set into motion that requires resolution. This problem or tension draws in the hearer and drives the plot forward. “Rising action” is the third part of plot. Rising action is usually the longest section of a plot. In this section, characters develop and tension builds. Rising action always leads to “climax.” Climax is the culminating point in the story. Here tension reaches its apex. “Resolution” is the final part of plot. In resolution, the result is harmony and happiness if it is comedy. The result is disharmony and sadness if it is tragedy.

Preaching suggestions for narrative:

– Tell the entire story. This ensures that you tell the story’s point, not your own.

– Faithfully develop the main characters. By this, I do not mean avoid any kind of imagination. Rather, I mean spend time imaging the main characters in ways that faithfully develop and highlight their parts in the plot.

– Allow the story itself to speak conviction, encouragement, exhortation, and comfort.

– Be careful not to kill the story by explaining it away. This is so easy to do in narrative! We treat it like an epistle and feel the need to explain every little thing. Let plot do the talking.

That Time Before You Speak

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Between the start of the service and the sermon, there are lots of dynamics at play in the mind and heart of a speaker. This is especially true, I think, when you are a visiting speaker. In your own church you have less surprises and sometimes more influence over the first part of the service. Here’s the start of a list of pre-sermon dynamics with a few thoughts. Perhaps you can add to the list.

1. The Clock – sometimes the biggest dynamic of all. Announcements take longer, song introductions take longer, sometimes everything takes longer. Which means? You are supposed to preach shorter. So on the one hand, you have to consider where to trim the message (trim support material, not major material or transition material). On the other hand you have to avoid getting stressed or annoyed (it easily shows and does not help!)

2. The Content – a lot is usually said and sung before the sermon. On the one hand you need to listen to it so that you can integrate any elements that really fit with the message. On the other hand you have a message to pray over and think through. And if I can borrow someone’s hand, for me there are often humorous comments that come to mind that should usually be discarded rather than shared!

3. The Speaker Introduction – it is amazing what people say right before the message. Be aware of it, but be careful not to try a quick response without having the time to think it through first, it may not come across as you intend.

4. The Service Mood – your humorous and witty introduction may not fit after the tone set by the music. Adapt. Of course, that could go the other way too.

5. Your Focus – you need to be aware of these things and others that may be added to the list. You also need to be aware of your message. But somehow in the midst of that you have the opportunity to be praying about it all as well.

I preached yesterday evening, and it went okay. But to be honest, I made mistakes in 1 (lost the strength of transitions), 2 (a great song that I didn’t note the lyrics for use in the message), and 3 (quick response that didn’t come off as intended). Make a note and learn for next time. A forever student of preaching.

Bigger Passage – Bigger Big Idea?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Is it possible to arrive at one big idea for a passage, even if the passage is relatively long? The answer is yes, as long as you are dealing with a unit. Where there is a unit, there is some level of unity. In almost every case (maybe in every case), a book could be treated as a unit of Scripture. Within that greater unit there are sub-units. Perhaps we could call them major sections. Within major sections there are sub-sections. Within sub-sections there are complete thoughts. These terms are deliberately vague to allow for the different genres. But essentially a book is like a Christmas tree. The higher you go, the more is included within your chosen section.

For example, is it possible to determine a big idea for Ephesians 1:13-14? Yes, in the English Bible this is a sentence with a complete thought. (I know that for Paul it was not a complete sentence, but we’ll get to that!) Now if you step up a level, these two verses would be swallowed into 1:3-14. Again, big idea is possible, but would be different than just the last two verses of the section. Then you could step up a level again and preach that section swallowed within a larger unit – perhaps 1:1-2:10? Certainly you could move up to 1:1-3:21. Again, a big idea that would have to encompass more text, but still it could be a preachable big idea. Then you could move up another level and preach the whole book.

The main idea of a shorter passage becomes a point or movement within the main idea of a longer passage.

The important thing to remember in preaching a larger chunk of text is that you still have to deal with a legitimate unit of Scripture. Also, the details in the smaller units cannot be reflected fully in a succinct big idea. Be very wary of over complicating a big idea for a bigger passage. It may feel more responsible with the text, but it will undermine your main goal of communicating the text relevantly to your listeners.

Take a Good Thing and Make It Better

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Ideally the passage is studied fully, leading to a strong passage idea.  Then the congregation is taken into account and a message idea is formulated.  Great!  That’s already put the message into a league above many that lack such unity.  But just having a big idea or message idea is one thing, having a good one is another.  Some preachers try so hard to be pithy and clever they’ll sacrifice the idea on the altar of wit.  Don’t do that.  Others have ideas that are almost as long as the message itself.  Maybe more accurate, but they won’t communicate well, they won’t stick.  So how to refine a long idea?  How to take a good thing and make it better:

1. Write out the idea and count the words. I’m not a huge fan of rules in preaching, but several writers have suggested the idea should not be more than 15 or maybe 18 words in length.  I tend to agree, although it’s a flexible guideline rather than a rule.  If you need more, use them, but in reality most ideas could be refined without harming them.

2. Evaluate it phrase by phrase and trim words. Don’t say in six words what could be said in two. Are you using roundabout ways of saying something?  Could you be more direct?

3. Could internal lists be summarized? Within the idea you may have two or three qualifiers for an element, perhaps qualifiers that will be points in the message.  Consider whether these are needed at the level of the idea, or whether a summary term might be more memorable.  If the message is preached well then that summary word will be explained and defined by the message anyway.

4. Is there a more memorable option available?  Some will give up too much to make this step.  Don’t.  But if there is a song title, pithy phrase, play on words, movie line or contemporary proverb that can be adapted to add memorability to the idea, consider it.

Often just getting the idea in any form takes a lot of thinking.  But if you’ve got any energy and time left, consider how it could be leaner, meaner, more precise, more memorable.  None of us get a killer big idea every week.  Even the authors of preaching books only share the strongest few they’ve managed in years of ministry!  But effort invested here is effort well spent.  Work on the idea pays dividends in the message – you’ll be taking a good message and making it even better!

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.

You Have Your Style, But It Is Not An Excuse

/ Peter Mead / 8 Comments

In reality every one of us has our own style when we preach. There has to be an integrity between who we are and our style, which is why if you copy your favourite communicator, it doesn’t seem to work very well (even if it seems to in your mind, ask your people – it doesn’t work very well!) But even though our style may be personal, this does not mean it is above critique or beyond repair. We should carefully consider every factor in our preaching and make any necessary adjustments. We do this not for some vain goal of personal perfection (not possible), but for the others’-centered goal of ministry effectiveness.

I appreciate the analogy Andy Stanley uses in his book, Communicating for a Change. He writes (p177):

In the past four years we have experienced a big influx of adults in their late fifties and sixties. Do you know why they come? Because we have reached their young adult children. Our “style” is not necessarily their “style,” but they are willing to make adjustments in order to be in church with their kids; kids they weren’t sure would ever engage with a church. They have adjusted their style in order to worship with their kids. Shouldn’t we be willing to adjust ours to reach their kids? Boring, confusing, complicated, scattered, and dry are all communication styles. But they are not styles worth defending. They are styles that should be abandoned.

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.