Expository Preaching

Don’t Blame the Wrong Thing

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In his book, Explosive Preaching, Ron Boyd-MacMillan delineates two factions in a debate over the place of preaching.  On the one hand, there are those he calls the pro-sermon faction who need to wake up to the fact that their logic is often overdone.  That is to say, in their mind “preaching = sermonizing” and this does not ultimately help their side of the debate.  He marshals the evidence from Scripture to suggest that preaching in the Bible was not the common “sermonizing” of recent history.  (I would add the comment that in his survey of preaching in the Bible he fails to note the book, or perhaps better, sermon to the Hebrews.)

On the other side there is the faction he calls the anti-monolog brigade.  To this crowd he points out that “monolog = boring” is also flawed logic.  Let me quote him (p161):

Don’t go blaming monolog.  Blame boring monolog instead!  Returning home from this conference [where the avoidance of any “talking head” monolog had resulted in meaningless activity without understanding] I wrote in my journal, “I think the greatest problem facing preaching today is the fear of the monolog.”  There’s a lunatic fringe in the anti-monolog brigade that want to banish the sermon completely.  Fat chance.  The monolog will always be with us.  In large groups and even small, it is a communicational necessity.  But the effect of this scaremongering is a bunch of preachers who keep their monolog to an embarrassed minimum and fill up the minutes with film clips, skits, and roving mike questions.  The problem is this – if they are poor at the monolog, they are probably poor at other forms of communication too!  In this conference I mentinoed, one preacher introduced a series of completely banal and boring skits, but you don’t hear anyone calling for an end to drama!  He also used PowerPoint images that were completely off the point, and he had a person wandering around the audience with a roving mike s that anyone who felt led could interrupt the speaker if something wasn’t clear, but it was so staged we were squirming.  One question was, “Would you say more about the theology of the book in relation to the historical period?”  Well, amazingly, it so happened that this was his next segment of material, with PowerPoints ready to go.  A miracle?  Come on.

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry, but I do know that monologs are not the problem.  Boring monologs are to blame!

What’s Fresh?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

If you are a regular preacher, then the chances are that you have a rhythm in your preparation.  This is good in many ways.  However, it also runs the risk of getting into some well-worn ruts.  If you are an irregular preacher, then perhaps your preparation process lasts over several weeks.  This is also good in many ways.  However, it also runs the risk of getting into ruts (you forget what you decided you should improve next time).

Both schedules also run the risk of lacking freshness in content.  Regular preachers feel the pressure of the weekly cycle, irregular preachers sometimes end up preaching on a passage that they have personally “moved on” from by the time the Sunday comes.

As you look ahead to your next message, whether it is this Sunday or this summer, what is fresh about it?  What will be fresh when it is delivered?  Is it time to freshen up your delivery in some way, or do you have a standard sermon form you always fall into, or is it time to pour effort into specific wording, or perhaps your support materials (or lack thereof)?  And is the text, the truth, the walk with God fresh?

Proxemic Considerations

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Just a little thing, but prompted by a recent experience in a church.  It was a small church, perhaps 30 people packed in to what is essentially just a room.  At the front there is the preaching platform, raised probably six to eight inches off the floor.  Then there’s me – Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.  Well, not quite, but I felt more than a bit Gulliver when I stood on the platform in that small room.

I felt more than a little silly on the platform.  But it’s what they are used to, I am just a visitor, what difference does it make how I feel?  Actually, that’s not the main issue, although it is a factor.  How does it make the listeners feel to have someone towering over them to preach in a tiny room?  I asked permission to stand on the floor, made a gentle joke at my own expense (to avoid any perceived rudeness toward their church furniture), and proceeded to preach from the floor.

Inasmuch as you can ever evaluate a single element within the complexity of a communication situation – it worked.  There was a relaxed, interactive and open atmosphere.  The sermon was received very well and it seemed to be one of those times when the Word of God is moving freely into the hearts of the listeners.

All that to say, consider the proxemics of preaching now and then (and probably always when in a new environment).  Is the preacher standing above the listeners, below them, or on the same level – each has an effect.  Is the preacher distant or close – each has an effect.  Are there objects between the speaker and the listeners, such as church furniture?  It has an effect.  There is a helpful introduction to this subject in Duane Litfin’s textbook on communication, if you have it sitting on your shelf.

We probably don’t need to worry ourselves too much with the technical terminology of proxemics, kinesthetic factors or even the sociofugal-sociopetal axis!  But we should be more than a little concerned with whether we are communicating in the way we intend.

Five Major Failings – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Carrying on from yesterday’s two failings, here are the rest:

“3. Vague Phrasing – Preachers seem hardwired to eschew all vivid verbs and concrete nouns, with the result that they sound vague and uninteresting.”

A lack of energy in delivery, a lack of facial engagement, a lack of passion, a lack of effective sensory description and so on are all factors adding to the vague and uninteresting nature of much preaching.

“4. Sub-Christian Resolutions – There is not enough gospel-insight.”

This is a good observation.  If our application and resolution of the message is that we should try harder, do better, be “good-er” or whatever, then we are falling short of Christian preaching.  In my opinion we need not always force a jump to Calvary and Christ, there are times when a theocentric message need not move to the first Easter, but every message should be theocentric.  A try harder message is really anthropocentric (it’s all about us, our needs and our response).

“5. Trivial Applications – The gospel is shrunk down to an individualistic technique that we can use on a Monday, all in the name of relevance, but the grand scope of the gospel as a message that speaks for all time, to nations and tribes as well as individuals, gets lost.  I actually heard someone starting a sermon: ‘The toothpaste squirted out all over my jacket, my alarm failed to go off, and in the shower I used rubbing alcohol as shampoo.  I was having a bad day.’  This was to introduce a biblical twosome who were having a similar bad day – the Emmaus pair.  Come on!”

We do need to differentiate between trivial Monday morning applications and genuine Monday morning applications.  Too much preaching resists the trivial and replaces it with the spiritual-sounding vague applications that all affirm, but none grasp for their own lives.  I agree, let’s cut out the trivial applications, but let’s do so in a way that retains genuine relevance.

Five Major Failings

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

I thought I’d share this list of five major failings of many preachers, according to the book that I am currently enjoying:

“1. Multiplitus – Using too many points until the sermon becomes a starburst that dazzles rather than communicates.”

Well put.  When we try to preach more than one point, we quickly move from communication to fireworks.

“2. Elephantine Introductions – Huge ten or even fifteen minute introductions that contain the guiding imagery to control the rest of the sermon.  Trouble is that the imagery is either tiresome, prosaic, or just misleading.”

I’ve been accused of this at times, sometimes with justification.  I suppose that not having the entire reading up front can sometimes confuse people somehow searching for the end of the introduction.  Nonetheless, the last line is especially important – tiresome, prosaic, or just misleading.  We need to be careful with our introductions.  Essentially we need to “meet the people” and then “motivate them to listen” and without further ado, “move into the message/passage.”  (I don’t know why I used quotation marks there, the ‘meet, motivate and move’ alliterative language is my own – until someone publishes it first.)

Ok, tomorrow I’ll share the other three major failings according to this writer, along with my own comments.

Monday Musings on Manipulation

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Thought I’d follow up on Saturday’s post by sharing a quote I appreciated in the book I will name this week:

You must not fear to have affective goals for the sermon as well as cognitive goals.  There is nothing wrong with trying to move the listener.  It is not manipulative to seek to engage their entire being with the truth.  Manipulation is when the preacher overwhelms the emotions (or the mind for that matter), and creates a disorientation that actually takes the power of will away from the listener. (p.106)

I like that definition in some ways.  I like the recognition that manipulation occurs when disorientation is prompted by overwhelming.  I like the recognition that such overwhelming can be of the emotions and also of the mind.  When this occurs, something is taken away from the listener – somehow their decision making is controlled by an outside force, rather than by the appropriately shaped motives of their own heart.

Is the will ever truly free?  Perhaps not, but the heart must be free to supply the values that the mind and will rely on to make decisions.  Supplanting the heart with emotional hype, or with overwhelming intellectual astonishment, or even excessive pressure on the will itself (guilt-trip preaching) . . . are all a problem, all can be manipulation.

As a preacher convinced that my role is to speak to the heart, and not just the head, I must regularly wrestle with the issue of manipulation.  I must ponder the interaction of the soul’s faculties.  I must spurn any rhetorical technique designed to manipulate the listener.  I must consider what is biblically, ethically, theologically appropriate as one who has the privilege of speaking the Word of God into the lives of others.

The Whole Listener

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Some preachers preach merely to inform.  Perhaps they are under the impression that the mind is the control center of the human being.  Perhaps that think that their task is merely educative.  Perhaps they are in a tradition that reveres the intellect, but pulls away from other aspects of human complexity.  Perhaps they’ve never known any other approach.

As preachers we must inform, we must explain, we must educate, we must teach.  But our goal is not knowledge.  We do not aim to transfer information.  Rather the goal is transformation.  Consequently we have to consider how God’s Word transforms lives and preach accordingly.

If we preach on the love of God, this cannot be a mere intellectual exercise.  People need to experience something of that love in the event of the sermon.  If we preach on the wrath of God, surely they should feel an appropriate reaction inside – reverence, godly fear?  If we preach on the grandeur of God, it is not enough that they have some facts for a future exam question.

As we preach the Word we seek to not only say what it says, but also to somehow do what it does.  We want to preach so that our listeners somehow experience the truth of the Word of God.  We preach for feelings as well as thoughts.  When the whole person, not just the mind, is engaged, then opportunity for transformation is increased.

Let’s not preach just to the mind.  Nor just to the mind and will.  Let’s be sure to also preach to the heart, to the affections, to the feelings, to the values, to the motives, to the core of the listener.  May we never settle for informative lectures, that is not enough for this Easter-based faith!

Do We Get It Backwards?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Here’s a provocative quote from Charles Kraft:

The amount of crucial information involved in Christianity is, I believe, quite small.  The amount of Christian behavior demanded in response to all that information is, however, quite large.  We have, however, given ourselves over to a methodology that emphasizes the lesser of the two ingredients. (Jesus Model for Contemporary Communication, 123)

I essentially concur with this and want to make a couple of comments.  Obviously Kraft is not saying that Christianity is simplistic or lacking in content.  I’m sure he’d agree that we will never exhaust the riches of God’s Word.  However, for each truth in that Word, there are numerous necessary applications to real life behavior.  As preachers we tend to explain, explain, explain some more and then finally squeeze in a couple of minutes of application.  Perhaps we would do well to follow the advice of Don Sunukjian along the same lines, when he says we should explain as much as necessary, then apply, apply, apply.

In reality I find a lot of preaching is lacking in application, but not really because the text is being over-explained.  I would suggest, perhaps provocatively, that I rarely find a text even decently explained.  What many preachers tend to do is fill time with talk.  Random details in the text, other texts, illustrations lacking in defined purpose, filler words and noise.  I find it so refreshing when a preacher actually explains a text, and it is time to celebrate when there is specific and substantial application added to the mix.  I know there are still some exegetically heavy lecturers getting into pulpits, but probably far less than in the past.  However, it would be wrong to flatter many preachers who lack in application by suggesting they explain too much.  In reality many preachers neither explain nor apply well.

Many preachers tend to feel they have not done their job if they only preach one text, one main idea, one truth and then apply it well.  They perhaps feel that such preaching might be too lightweight or thin on content.  So they try to pack in more information, more texts, more truths, etc.  What could have been a powerful, penetrative, convicting, focused, applicational and memorable sermon becomes an overwhelming speedboat charge through the jungle of the catechism, or through systematic theology, or through all things Bible (complete with the resulting spray in the face that makes you do that squinting, blinking thing with your eyes!)

If it means actually seeing lives changed, let’s preach lightweight.  Actually, I don’t believe that.  Let’s preach one text well.  Well focused, not going anywhere else without good reason.  Well explained, but not an information dump.  Well applied, specific and with the appropriate grandeur for such a biblical truth.

Reflections on Foreign Language Preaching

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

It has been an interesting weekend of preaching for me.  For the first time in almost four years, I preached in Italian.  Actually, three times in two churches.  (Background: I spent my first five years in Italy and have visited many times while growing up, my Italian is quite poor, limited vocabulary and by no means fluent … but just about able to preach in Italian which is probably better for listeners than using translation.) So I have been reflecting on the experience and what it shows me in reference to first language preaching:

Being aware of possible confusion prompts greater focus on the main thought. Since I know my Italian is severely limited, I know that I can easily miscommunicate at any moment.  This forces me to stay more focused on the main thought that threads through the message.  On reflection, the reality is that I can easily miscommunicate at any moment, even in English.  It’s not just my use of the language, but so many other factors than distract listeners for a moment and cause a loss of understanding.  Preaching in Italian has only served to reinforce the value of the central idea in preaching.  Preach one thing.

Transitions really do matter a lot. It is so easy to lose people in the curves of a message, in the move from one section of the message to the next.  Again, preaching in a weak second language made that sensation obvious to me, but perhaps I would be helped to remember that in every message.  Transition super clearly.

Listeners are really gracious. In recent years I’ve taught people who have been required to preach in class, but not in their first language.  I’ve always told them that although it is so much harder to preach in a second language, there is also an advantage.  Listeners feel for the preacher in such a situation and try to understand, they put in more effort.  As the recipient of such gracious listening again I am reminded how true that is.  I suppose the same principle would apply to first-time nervousness, to preaching when ill or injured, etc.  As long as the limitation is not overbearing, listeners are gracious (at least in the Italian culture and in my preaching classes!)

Respect to those who consistently preach in a second language. Sure, I know that some missionaries get to the stage of thinking and preaching fluently in a second language as if it were their mother-tongue . . . but it takes massive effort to get to that stage, many never do, but press on anyway.  Respect.

More thoughts may come to mind.  This weekend I have another three Italian messages to give.  (If I come to mind and you want to pray for me, that would be appreciated!)

Preacher’s Block

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

You’ve probably heard of writer’s block – apparently it explains why some authors spend hours wandering aimlessly around cities like London and New York, buying coffee at Starbucks and then claiming it as a business expense.  But what about preacher’s block?  I’ve never heard anyone use the term, but I’ve certainly experienced it.  Here are a couple of ideas, feel free to add your own suggestions:

1. Take a break. Go for a walk, visit Starbucks, buy a coffee.  Ok, I’m not fully serious here, but taking a break can be helpful (but not always).  (Be honest on your tax returns or church expense account though, sin can be a real preacher’s block!)

2. Talk it through. If you have a spouse or friend or fellow preacher who doesn’t mind a mind-dump from you once in a while, take advantage of the chance to talk it through with them.  What you’re thinking, why you’re stuck, etc.  Of course you always have the option of talking it through at length with someone who cares more than you do about how the message goes, but I presume you are praying throughout the process anyway (probably an unwise assumption, hence I mentioned it!)

3. Preach it through. Most people leave running through their message much too late.  It can be a very helpful practice, once you have the passage studied and the main idea somewhat clear, to stand and deliver.  You probably won’t want people listening in at this stage, but you will often find it really helpful for you.  After all, the preparation process is supposed to culminate in oral communication.  Too often we trudge slowly through written preparation when our goal is not to write a book, but to speak a message.  Sometimes you will preach it through and then write down some helpful thoughts (phrases that worked well, transitions that communicated effectively, etc.)  Always you will find out where you are unclear and where further study, further work, further prayer and further thought are needed.  Preaching it through is not exactly a short-cut, but it can be a major tool for focusing and fine-tuning your preparation.

4. Confess, repent and press on. I suppose some preacher’s block should be recognized as indiscipline, inappropriate distraction or just plain laziness.  I don’t want to ignore that or skirt around it.  But contrary to what non-preaching legalistic spiritual drill sargeants may think, not all preacher’s block is a sin.

So over to you, other suggestions?