Expository Preaching

The Wrong Kind of Uncomfortable

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

You’ve probably heard it said that good preaching comforts the disturbed and disturbs the comfortable (or something similar).  While this may be true, it is also possible to make listeners uncomfortable in the wrong way.  Here are a couple of examples:

1. Pushing naturally unresponsive people to verbally respond your way, rather than theirs. For example, I’ve been in congregations when the preacher has asked, “do I hear an amen?”  Upon hearing nothing more than a murmur, the question has then been repeated with greater zeal.  Eventually one person overcomes all personal angst and shouts an amen (essentially delivering all from the tension of the moment).  Some people reading this are wondering how any group could be so unresponsive.  Don’t condemn them without knowing them.  And don’t worry about it (unless you end up preaching to this kind of culture, denomination, age range, etc.)  A good preacher will be sensitive to those listening and not force them to behave in a way that may fit the preacher’s personality, but doesn’t fit theirs.  (Also, I’ve been in situations where the people may be willing to respond, but only the speaker knows what was just said that deserves a verbal response – don’t ask for response if you are not a clear communicator…they might feel dishonest if they give what you’re looking for!)

2. Showing emotion inconsistent with your words. In a similar vein, it can be very uncomfortable to listen to a preacher who does not match personal emotional expression to sermon content.  Don’t have a silly grin when talking about hell – even if you are uncomfortable for whatever reason.  Don’t be dead-pan if you are preaching on joy.  Don’t be slouching and uninterested when declaring the greatest news ever.  As I heard Piper say recenty in an interview – preachers need affectional breadth.  (In fact, I forget his exact words, but essentially he said that preachers who are restricted or limited in their affections – that is, breadth of heart response to God and people, rather than the ability to contrive emotional expression – such people should not be preaching.)

Preach in such a way that your emotional expression fits who you are and what you are saying.  Preach in such a way that your listeners can be themselves as listeners, rather than having to mimic you.

Any further thoughts related to this?

Consider a Growth Prompt

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Many preachers never receive any training in their preaching.  Sadly, for some, that is due to a lack of available resources.  For others, perhaps it is simply habit or an unawareness of their need.  By training I am referring to everything from taking a full degree, a complete preaching course, an introductory seminar, a workshop, to studying through a book on the subject, etc.

I was pondering the fact that there are many preachers who only learn to preach by observing others.  While this can be a great source of instruction, it is lacking in several key ways.  Learning by observing does not provide the learner with feedback, critique and help as they preach.  But there is another concern that I’d like to point out today:

Preachers who only learn by observing others preach are limited by the standard of preaching they observe.  If the pool of preachers is a relatively closed group (as in most churches or denominations), then this will typically result in progressively degenerating standards.

What can you do to prompt growth in your preaching and help avoid a mass degeneration of standards in your church circles?

What Are the Best Echoes?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Echoes of heaven.  When believers listen to a preacher, they don’t want to hear the echoing sound of plagiarized preaching.  However, echoes of heaven are a different matter.  It’s that sense that the preacher hasn’t just written a message packed with information and illustration, but has been before the throne of God above.  That sense that this message is an accurate explanation of the passage, but not a cold academic explanation of the passage.  That sense that the preacher knows the Book, and also the Author of the Book.  They want to also hear relevant application of the passage, but not a relevance born out of the worldliness of the preacher’s own life, but the incisive relevance of a “prophet” who speaks forth into this world, yet somehow is anchored in that world.

You can’t fake it.  I suppose we could try.  But faked heavenly echoes will surely clang just like when people drop famous names to try to impress us in conversation.  Genuine echoes of the glories of heaven’s throne room, of angel voices singing, of intimacy with God; these genuine echoes will not clang.  They will usually be faint, even subtle, but resonating with reality if, in fact, they are real.

For the best of echoes we must genuinely spend time in the presence of a God who invites us to boldly come.

Are There Good Echoes?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I echoed the terminology used in Fred Lybrand’s book as we considered whether it is possible to steal your own sermon.  If it is, then there would be a hollow echo in our preaching.  Today I want to ask whether there might be a good echo in our preaching?  I think there is.

It is the good echo of a genuinely influenced life.  It’s not the stealing of a sermon, but the marking of a life that makes for a good echo of others.  Consider those who have taught you, mentored you, influenced you and marked you.  Surely in your preaching their influence will resonate for all to hear.

People do not have to recognize it in order to hear it. You don’t have to speak like them, sound like them, gesture like them.  Mimicry may be flattery for them, but it probably falls into the category of “hollow echo” for you!

Unless you point it out, others may not know how your enthusiasm for the Bible was caught from that Bible survey teacher, or how your passion for accuracy has resonated from the call of that other prof at seminary, or how your theology was forever shaped by encounters with another who remains a good friend, or how your longing to know God was inspired by the genuine example of one close to retirement as you had just begun.  (I could go on describing those who I hope echo in my ministry; Bruce, John, Ron, David respectively.)

Perhaps it would be worthwhile thinking prayerfully through those who have left an impression on you through the years.  What was it about them that made a difference to you?  Perhaps you will have reason to rejoice and express gratitude for good echoes still resonating from your life and ministry.  Perhaps you will have reason to pray and ask God to make more clear in you what you heard so genuinely from them.  (Perhaps their vulnerability was so powerful, yet it is somehow limited in your ministry.  Their precision in wording so effective, yet of a level rarely reached in your preaching.)  What might be found lacking as you look back to others and listen for the echoes in your own ministry?

I think there can be good echoes in our preaching.  The difference is that these echoes don’t bounce around an empty space and come out as feeble hollow echoes.  Somehow these good echoes come from the very fiber of our being, from a life marked rather than a good thing mimicked.

Make Two Key Times Count

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I just saw a chart showing that there are two key times in any presentation.  I’ll describe the chart for you.  On the vertical axis, from 0 to 100%, is the scale of attention and retention.  On the horizontal axis, it reads “beginning … middle … end.”  The chart consists of a U-shaped curve.  Attention/retention are highest at the beginning and the end, but dip significantly in the middle.

This poses some concern for me as a preacher.  If this is true, then we need to consider whether we’ve packed the best meat in the middle of the sermon.  Surely we wouldn’t want to give a “meat sandwich” of a sermon if our listeners miss significant amounts of good meat, but take in all the white bread at the start and finish?  Perhaps we need to give more attention to the bread of the sandwich.  Too many sermons are fine steak in the middle of dry cheap white sliced bread.  We need to give more time to preparing our intros and conclusions (so the bread is a higher quality homebaked wholemeal something or other).

Ok, enough of the sandwich analogy, I’m starting to get distracted by my own hunger.  When we preach, let’s think carefully about how to maximize the value of our introduction – not just grabbing attention and building rapport, but also raising need for what is to follow and moving powerfully into the message in order to protect against an excessive dip in attention and focus.

Let’s think carefully about how to make the most of our conclusion – not just fizzling to a faded flop of a finish, but finishing strong, driving home the main idea, encouraging application of it and stopping with purpose.

If attention and retention are highest at the beginning and end of a message, let’s make these two key times count.

(If you want to see the chart and the suggestions given in that post, just click here.)

Bible Study Is Not a Hop

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

I don’t want to oversimplify Bible study, but in most basic terms it involves two steps. The first step is to understand what the author meant by what he wrote back then.  The second step is to then consider the enduring application of that text for us today.  Back then . . . today.  Two steps.  One.  Two.

Bible study is not a hop.  We cannot simply try to understand what the text means for us today.  But this happens all the time.  Last night I was enjoying a Bible study in Isaiah 28-35.  We noticed how easily writers will try to explain the content of the passage in terms of “us.”  The problem with this “melded” approach to understanding a passage is that it flattens and simplifies everything.

You might say that actually simplified is good when it comes to complex books like Isaiah.  Indeed, but not when simplified comes at the cost of understanding what Isaiah was actually writing, and at the cost of enjoying the multi-layered, complex, intricate and beautiful plan of God.  When we look at the way God works out His promises we should be stirred to cry out, “Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!”  There is a richness to the way God works through history.  That richness can be lost so quickly – in the time it takes to change two steps into a hop.

Wherever we are in the Bible, let’s be sure to wrestle with what the author meant back then, followed by the possible applications for us either by enduring theological truth or by extension (interpretation before application).  One … two.  Not a hop.

What’s Missing in Preaching These Days?

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

It’s an important question.  As I talk to people about preaching, and read about preaching, and sometimes hear preaching too (although there are exceptions to what I will write in this post), there is a general sense that something is missing in contemporary preaching.  I suppose it probably varies by culture, perhaps by denomination, certainly by individual preacher, but generally speaking, something seems to be missing.

The more I ponder this issue, the more I realize it is not a technical detail (although “technically” there may be many common failings).  To use the analogy of a car (since mine is about to receive it’s annual “government test”) – it’s not a matter of a bolt here or a seal there.  It’s more on the level of whether the engine is there or not.  What I am saying is this – the weakness of much contemporary preaching is a core weakness, not a minor detail.

Perhaps it is that many preachers simply don’t know their Bible well enough.  After all, in an age of constant e-communications and busy lifestyles, it seems to be increasingly difficult to find preachers who really dwell in the sacred text, rather than just visiting it during preparation.  Perhaps it is that many preachers don’t know their God well enough?  I ask it as a question, because I know that is a potentially inflammatory thought.  But then again, that’s the beauty of blogging – I can prod to prompt pondering, even if you think I am wrong in what I write.  As somebody wrote somewhere (sounds like a Hebrews quotation) – where have all the divines gone? Perhaps the communication of many preachers is too stilted, too inauthentic for this generation?  That may seem like a leap into a different aspect of preaching, but I see real connections between the communication aspect of preaching and the previous matters of being a biblical preacher, being God’s preacher.  Somehow I don’t think the prophets would have seemed inauthentic.

I’m just thinking out loud.  What I’m thinking is that if there is a general weakness in preaching these days, it is less a matter of effective transitions or pithy wording of key statements in a message, and more a matter of the underlying connection with the Lord, deep knowledge of His Word, and authentic heart-to-heart connection between preacher and listeners.  What do you think?  Am I way off track?  Am I missing something?  Or, generally speaking, is something missing?

Chatting Through Sunday’s Sermon

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Sunday’s coming and hopefully your message is not too far away now.  Allow me to engage you in a brief conversation about your message.  Perhaps this is the kind of conversation you have with your spouse or a staff member of your church.  So we chat about the passage, the main idea as you see it, perhaps the tension you plan to build into the message.  We go back and forth, all very cordial and maybe with some humor thrown in.  Then I ask,

“How will you apply this message?”

What is your answer?  If your answer is vague and fluffy, this says a lot about how you will preach the message (although the question might prompt some extra preparation in this area!)  If your answer is specific, with concrete and tangible contemporary examples of the message applied, then things are looking good for Sunday.

So.  How will you apply the message?  There . . . I asked.  Now it’s over to you.  The answer that matters is not one you give me, but what you give them on Sunday.  (Thinking about it, perhaps I should ask me that question too . . . )

Preaching Trends

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

We need to be aware of preaching trends.  Like all trends, they come and go over time, influencing some while leaving others untouched.  Trends can be overt and in your face, or subtle shifts that sweep people along unawares.  For instance, D.A. Carson writes concerning the current focus on preaching narrative:

The current focus on narrative preaching has rightly broadened the older emphasis on discourse passages from the Bible.  If it helps us better handle all the genres of Scripture faithfully and responsibly, it will be to the good.  If it merely tips us from one cultural preference (viz., discourse) to another (viz., narrative), we have not gained anything.  Indeed, because narrative is intrinsically more hermeneutically “open” than discourse, the move may merely contribute toward moving us away from truth.  How much better to remain faithful to biblical truth yet simultaneously focused on Scripture’s existential bite. (Preach the Word, 185.)

This quote helpfully points out several truths about “trends.”  (1) A trend is neither good nor bad in itself, it should be evaluated as part of the broader picture of church ministry.  (2) A trend may be justifiable on one level, but may bring with it side effects or net results that are more sinister. (3) Potentially sinister net results do not automatically disqualify a trend as worthy of our consideration.

Let’s be neither shallow homileto-fashionistas, jumping from one pulpit bandwagon to the next, nor stubborn traditionalists unwilling to learn, thinking we know all we need to know, and committed to increasing irrelevance.  We need to be aware of preaching trends.  We need to be discerning.