Expository Preaching

How Long Is Just Right?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I’d like to answer a question offered in a comment a few days ago by Peter D:

“I have heard a couple times that people tune out after about 20 mins in hearing a speech or sermon. With that being said do you think that there are times we can force a text to be longer than it needs to be? It seems like most sermons I hear are bewteen the 45-and hour long mark. That being said do you feel that sometimes they might be more effective if they were shorter (still keeping the context in full view) or is there something internal that tells us they need to be so and so long?”

This is an important question for us all to think about.  Some sermons would be more effective if they were shorter, while some would always feel too long no matter how quickly they finished!  We have a tendency to simply preach to the standard length for our own context and personal comfort (our own more than the listener’s).  But it is not a bad idea to consider what would be most effective.

1. There is no “right length” of message, but there is an appropriate length for any specific context. Tomorrow I am preaching in my home church and I know it will need to be slightly shorter than usual.  If I go ten minutes longer, on this occasion, it would not be appropriate.  Not only does the specific church influence this, but so does the culture in which that church exists.

2. Listeners do not have shorter attention spans, but listeners struggle to concentrate beyond a very few minutes. Is that not contradictory?  Sort of.  So many harp on about today’s listener being unable to concentrate beyond 15 or 20 minutes – yet the movies of this generation are considerably longer than most were twenty or thirty years ago.  Actually though, listeners struggle to concentrate beyond 3-5 minutes at a time, so even a 15 or 20 minute sermon can easily be 10-15 minutes too long, unless . . .

3. The preacher needs to engage and re-engage the listener regularly in the message. Some speakers are engaging in content, manner, delivery, energy, empathy, etc. and listeners who regularly declare they simply aren’t able to concentrate beyond fifteen minutes, will listen fully engaged for an hour and then act surprised at how much time has passed!  Other speakers can make the briefest of devotional thoughts feel like the most tedious of hours.

4. Thus we can’t “blame” the listeners if the concensus is that our preaching is too long! Every speaker should do a self-evaluation, and then get some honest input from others, to determine areas of strength and weakness in respect to their ability to engage the focus and attention of the listeners.  These are weaknesses worth addressing, for without attention, there is no communication – at least not the kind you are trying to achieve.  Disinterested listeners are receiving a message, often one reinforcing negative associations between the Bible and words like “boring” and “irrelevant.”  What a tragedy that some who preach are, somewhat inadvertently, communicating the very opposite of what they intend!

5. Finally, I appreciate Don Sunukjian’s point about explanation and application ratios. If a passage requires lots of explanation, thus only leaving a short time for application, so be it.  But if a passage is relatively easy to understand, don’t pad the time with unnecessary explanation, instead use the time for lots and lots of application.  It is often the lack of application that undermines the effectiveness of our preaching.  More qualifiers are needed, but this post has gone on too long now!

Biblical Preaching Presents God

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I suppose it is obvious, but some preachers have lost sight of the obvious.  When we preach, we should preach the Bible (for the alternatives offered by contemporary culture, sophisticated philosophy or personal insights will always fall short).  Yet when we preach, our goal is not really to present the Bible itself.  The Bible itself is not the end, it is not the goal, it is not the god.  We preach the Bible not because of what it is in itself, but because it is God’s Word.

This distinction in no way undermines our view of the Bible.  In fact, it should only strengthen it.  What does God’s character and intimate involvement suggest about the quality of the revelation He has given?  But we must not forget that it is just that – a revelation from and of Him.

Preaching that presents the Bible, but somehow loses God, really loses the Bible too.  It is easy to turn the Bible into a set of historical data, stories with morals attached, illustrations for our own thought processes.  But our goal is not to turn the Bible into anything.  Our goal is to preach the Bible well, so that the giver of the revelation is presented.  Biblical preaching is about presenting God himself.

Evaluate your next message before you preach it. Where does God fit in the message?  Is He the main character?  Is He the real hero of the story?  Is the message pointing us to respond to Him?

It is easy to leave God as a background assumption as we preach a human level story with human level applications – be good, be better, be like so and so.  May God never be a background assumption as we preach the self-offering and self-giving revelation He gave to us!

More Thoughts on Homiletical History

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Following my post yesterday, I’d like to share some thoughts from Austin Tucker (Liberty Seminary).  It is his conviction that homiletical history is ignored, in part, because homiletics professors are appointed by seminaries based on skewed criteria.  According to Tucker, seminaries will choose somebody based on the model of dynamic delivery they provide, secondarily based on academic criteria and only then any sense of homiletical training or background.  Personally I suspect that any “skewing” also relates to budgets: after all, many Bible schools are limited once the main positions are in place – New Testament, Old Testament, Languages, Theology, History, etc. – so surely someone can just “cover” homiletics, or perhaps a local pastor can teach his personal approach?  Either way, homiletics background is often lacking in formal training.

So what does Tucker suggest?  He mentions a friend who picks a preacher each year to read a biography and read available sermons.  The benefits are four-fold:

1. It adds homiletical variety to our preaching, keeping us from becoming Brother Obvious.

2. It allows us who preach to others to sit at the feet of those who can preach to us for our spiritual enrichment.

3. It provides a golden vein of possibilities to enrich our own preaching. He quotes Grady Davis’ caution regarding the hijacking of illustrations from others.  Such illustrations are like “‘brightly colored kites pulled from the wind of somebody else’s thought’ and entangled in the branches of our sermons.”

4. Diligence in this pursuit restores the perspective that preaching really is a pastor’s priority in the midst of the numerous demands.

Please don’t read this post as being advice from me.  I can’t speak with authority on this since I have not diligently studied preachers of yesteryear.  But perhaps I’m convincing myself by these posts!

Tragedy

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I’d like to quote from James Stewart’s classic, Heralds of God (p20).  After this quote, I will only have the briefest of comments to share:

If you as preachers would speak a bracing, reinforcing word to the need of the age, there must be no place for the disillusioned mood in your own life.  Like your Master, you will have meat to eat that the world knows not of; and that spiritual sustenance, in so far as you partake of it daily, will strengthen your powers of resistance to the dangerous infection.  Surely there are few figures so pitiable as the disillusioned minister of the Gospel.  High hopes once cheered him on his way: but now the indifference and the recalcitrance of the world, the lack of striking visible results, the discovery of the appalling pettiness and spite and touchiness and complacency which can lodge in narrow hearts, the feeling of personal futility – all these have seared his soul.  No longer does the zeal of God’s House devour him.  No longer does he mount the pulpit steps in thrilled expectancy that Jesus Christ will come amongst His folk that day, travelling in the greatness of His strength, mighty to save.  Dully and drearily he speaks now about what once seemed to him the most dramatic tidings in the world.  the edge and verve and passion of the message of divine forgiveness, the exultant, lyrical assurance of the presence of the risen Lord, the amazement of supernatural grace, the urge to cry “Woe is me if I preach not the Gospel” – all have gone.  The man has lost heart.  He is disillusioned.  And that, for an ambassador of Christ, is tragedy.

Amen.

Demand

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I’ve really been encouraged by reading James Stewart’s classic book, Heralds of God, again.  Here’s a quote that might be relevant before tomorrow’s message:

If you are wise, you will not in your preaching mask or minimize the overwhelming, absolute nature of Christ’s demand.  Men are ready for a Leader who will unhesitatingly claim the last ounce of His followers’ courage and fidelity.  Field-Marshal Wavell has told, in his notable lectures entitled Generals and Generalship, the story of how Napoleon, when an artillery officer at the siege of Toulon, built a battery in such an exposed position that he was told he would never find men to man it.  But Napoleon had a sure instinct for what was required.  He put up a placard – “The battery of men without fear”: and it was always manned.  This is no time to be offering a reduced, milk-and-water religion.  Far too often the world has been presented with a mild and undemanding half-Christianity.  The Gospel has been emasculated long enough.  Preach Christ today in the total challenge of His high, imperious claim.  Some will be scared, and some offended: but some, and they the most worth winning, will kneel in homage at His feet.

In the 63 years since this was published it is not just the length of sentence and complexity of punctuation that has changed.  I suppose it is almost impossible to write something like that today without being vilified from various sides.  Still, does he not have a point here?  From one side we hear that Christian preaching is too full of male dominated illustrations.  From the other side we hear that church is lacking in anything to attract men.  But actually, the calling on a life implicit in the gospel and biblical teaching is not a male versus female issue.  It is a captivated passionate pursuit of God versus a comfortably self-obsessed issue.  Whatever the terminology, let’s not preach a milk-and-water religion.

Ask for Double

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

I was listening to Howard Hendricks again recently.  He referred to a medical doctor who had gotten hold of a series Hendricks gave on the book of James.  The doctor told him, “I’ve listened to that series about twenty times, and now I think I get what you’re saying!”

When we look carefully in the prophets, and in the gospels, and elsewhere, it is evident that hearing is a critical component of spirituality.  This is not to suggest that reading is not important, of course, but there is something about hearing.  Hearing the Bible, and hearing the Bible preached.

I wonder if we should do more to encourage people to use their ears in their personal spiritual lives?  How many of the people in our churches have never considered getting the Bible on CD or MP3, and yet have significant chunks of time when they could be listening to the Word?  How often do churches produce CDs of messages, expecting only the children’s Sunday School teachers or the absent to make use of them?  Perhaps it would be worth suggesting the possibility that people might choose to hear the sermon more than once!  (Now the pressure is really on you – imagine asking for double the time!  Your message better be biblically solid, clear, engaging and relevant!)

Examining the Extent of Explanation

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Biblical preachers should study to a higher level than they preach.  In the days, or even weeks, that we have to study a passage in anticipation of preaching it, we should probe and study and push and delve.  The study should incorporate all appropriate study methodology (appropriate to the genre, to the text, to our own abilities and skills).  The study should also appropriately consider the input of others (a variety of “experts” in printed form, or in real conversation if you have access).

The result of all that study should be more fodder for explanation than you have time to preach.  Even if you could cram it all in, what about emphasizing the relevance for today’s listener in terms of application and support materials, etc?

It is an important skill to learn to limit the extent of the explanation given in a sermon.  I suppose the best measure I’ve come across is what Donald Sunukjian said . . . “as much as necessary.”  That is in no way a negative comment on explanation (like I might say “let’s have as much vegetable as necessary in a meal, but unlimited meat”).  It is a comment demonstrating the high value that needs to be placed on emphasized relevance.  In Sunukjian’s terms, “explain as much as necessary, then apply, apply, apply.”

So how do we determine the necessary extent of explanation (and background information, demonstration of exegesis, etc.)?  A couple of key values come to mind, you may add others too:

1. A commitment to serve, not to show off. Every preacher faces constant temptation from insidious pride.  It is so easy to show off all the study you’ve done, all the skills you have, all the extra information you’ve gleaned.  Value service rather than display.  Value people over performance.  We all need to make sure our motivation is as much “for their sake” as possible, and as little “for my sake” as possible.

2. A sense of personal security, rather than insecurity. Insecurity abounds in the human race.  If our antenna are attuned we can spot it all around us, all the time.  An insecure preacher (for personal reasons, or as a result of criticism, etc.) will try to establish their right to be preaching in various ways.  One is to demonstrate excessive exegesis to undergird their ministry (and even personal worth).  A secure preacher is not concerned with how they look, or even if they’ll be criticized, but is concerned primarily with pleasing the Lord as they handle His Word for the sake of His people.

Let’s examine the extent of our explanation.

Application Weak Spots

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Last week I was teaching preaching alongside another instructor in a preacher’s training conference.  At different times we both pointed to three levels of application, and we both pointed out a weak spot . . . but the two sets of categories were very different.  I suppose this should be two posts really, but here are the lists of three:

Targets of Application – Mark Meynell offered three levels of application.  The first, and the one we tend to be best at, is at the level of private application (for instance, our personal spirituality, ethics, devotional life, etc.).  The second level is the relational (for instance, relationships in the home, the workplace, the church, etc.) and he stated that we tend to do okay on this level.  The third level, however, is the weakest.  This is application at the social level (engaging with the world).

Personal Targets of Application – I offered the following three categories of application, again noting that one is usually considerably weaker than the other two.  The first level is the level of conduct, or “the hands” – that is, application in terms of what to do.  The second level is the level of belief, or “the head” – that is, application in terms of what to know/believe.  Depending on the preacher, one of these is usually stronger than the other.  Some seem very quick to present practical applications (often forgetting the inherent value of “belief” application), others tend to emphasize applications in respect to belief.  Both are necessary and often appropriate (depending on the passage and the listeners).  There is a third category that lies underneath both of the first two, but one which is often ignored.  The third level is the level of the affections or “the heart” – that is, application in terms of core values, love and spiritual relationship.  If people do, based on what they know, then there is still another step deeper into the functioning of humanity – to the level of the affections, values, desires, loves.  Consider Ephesians 4:17ff to see how Paul moves deeper than conduct to knowledge, then deeper again to the role of the heart.

Application is not easy.  Two different sets of categories, both pointing to an area of specific weakness.  How can we better apply in respect to engaging with the world?  How can we better apply in respect to the affections of the listener?

Clusters and Journeys

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Influencers are leaders.  So preachers are leaders.  But how much do we lead in our preaching?  Take the issue of preaching calendars, for example.  At one extreme we have churches that have no calendar planned, or only preachers planned (but no subjects/texts).  I suppose the ultimate example might be  church that relies fully on visiting speakers who all choose their own message for each service.  At the other extreme we have churches who carefully map out the entire year of preaching, so that you can know now what text will be preached the second Sunday of next October.

Some would hold that only the Holy Spirit should lead the church, and thus the random outside preacher approach is fine since God can work through whoever is preaching.  I suppose we could all agree to that in principle, but at the same time, I want to graciously ask a question of that approach.  Is there not the risk of simply presenting biblical truths without any sense of deliberately leading the church forward on its journey?  How much opportunity is missed by “simply preaching” without really tapping into the broader reality of the growth of the local church?

Now for those who have a well-planned preaching calendar.  Is it merely constructed by the gathering of series in some attempt to give a balanced diet?  That’s a good start, but again, are we failing to lead as well as the opportunity affords?  Do we fall into preaching collections of random messages strung together by the unity of a Bible book, or a series title, but fail to prayerfully plot the journey of the church?  Or are we plotting a journey 16 months in advance and failing to take stock of where we actually have travelled several months into the year?

One further thought.  Do we rely on one-hit messages to achieve change when really we would be far better with a cluster of messages approach? One-hit messages can be stand alone, or they can be a series that moves from one thing to the next, without the clustering power intended by a series.

Wherever our church sits on the scale of pre-planned preaching schedules, all of us are in danger of missing out on the opportunity to really lead the church as we preach.  Let’s prayerfully consider how God would have us carry the burden of leadership, every time we plan a preaching schedule, and every time we preach.

A Rather Poignant Visual

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Apparently we live in an age where people need the visual.  The visual is not only on our televisions in the evening, but on the screen in front of us all day at the office, and now on the screen in our hands as we commute in the train.  We are bombarded by the visual everywhere we look.  Apparently this is so patently obvious that self-appointed experts in “people today” are always quick to point out that people need something visual during the sermon too.  After all, something that is only heard has little to no chance of being remembered, according to the same experts.

Consequently it is equally obvious, to these experts, that the only way for preaching to succeed today is by use of powerpoint.  I suppose we could express deep appreciation that God has blessed us to live in the only generation with such capability!  In reality, people have always valued the visual, in every culture, in every age.  So was it unfair to only allow the invention of powerpoint in these last days?

I don’t intend to negate the value of powerpoint or similar software here.  I would graciously point out that in the business world, in education and apparently, even in the military, there has been a pulling back from powerpoint in recent years (especially in the final third of presentations where there is nothing like face-to-face communication for the final thrust and appeal).  Powerpoint can be used well in preaching, I believe that, even if I haven’t often seen it.  Rather than unthinking commitment to powerpoint, I would urge us to ponder David Larsen’s warning over triangulation in communication.  Technology is not bad, but it can so easily move sermon-time into circus-time and show-time on the one hand, or into over-intellectualization and de-emotionalization on the other.

Believe it or not, this is not a post about powerpoint.  It’s a post about the visual.  Preaching has always been a visual as well as audible communication form.  Two important ways spring to mind:

1. As we preach the Word, images form. Good preaches paints pictures in the heart of the listener.  They hear what we say and they see what we mean.  Better, they hear what God says and see what He means.  They enter into the narratives, they see the truths, they see themselves living out the reality preached.  Good preaching is full of images, irrespective of our use of powerpoint.

2. As we preach the Word, they see us. This is nothing to get excited about in a vain sense, but it is powerful.  Far more powerful than any clip art or projected photo.  Despite well-intentioned prayers before sermons, listeners do see the preacher, and that is part of God’s design.  Truth through personality.  God’s message through His messenger.  We communicate with our words and tone, but also through our body language, gesture, expression.  We communicate with our words, but also with our lives.  We are, as David Larsen put it, a rather poignant visual.