We Could Be Losing our Listeners with our Well-crafted (yawn) Outlines.
A couple of weeks ago I suggest that we contribute to that glazed look (the Steve Carrel pic) by (1) allowing gaps in the emotional connection between our sermon data and our listener’s response and (2) allowing gaps in the logical connection between our sermon data–even main points–and our listener’s response.
In both cases I am talking about responses in terms of worship responses: what God intends for Scripture to do to the Christian.
An example of the second phenomenon is a sermon on the Beatitudes in Matthew 5.
There are nine “Blessed are’s…” in the section (vv. 1-12). I chose to spend two sermons on all nine (I covered the first three and then the final six).
This type of list can easily cause slumber in the seats because of how easy it is to allow gaps in the logical connection between the individual Beatitude and a worship response.
That means we have to work hard at each Beatitude, each main point if you will, to keep the worship response intact.
I did not do a very good job at this because I chose to cover the final six together: how the blessed ones are described.
Then, it was time to play catch up and connect the dots between Beatitude and God’s intention for announcing such blessings: Kingdom-Made Christians…
believe the blessing
stabilize their hope in this upside down world
assess the degree that they mirror these characteristics
I hope you can see that too many minutes between those bullet points and each Beatitude can create the yawns or blank stares.
May our Lord receive glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21) as work hard to keep strong emotional and logical connections with our listeners who have ears to hear.
He couldn’t take any more of my fascinating biblical history lesson! Go figure.
In the previous post I talked about how the loss of emotional and logical connections can contribute to listener fallout. This weekend I want to elaborate on the first one.
My main preaching mentor, the late Haddon Robinson, taught us a major difference between preaching and lecturing. My own students each year are reminded of the difference between two stances: historical lecturer vs. theological preacher.
Haddon’s words were: the lecturer talks to people about the Bible, while the preacher talks to people about people from the Bible.
It is difficult to find balance, but ideally we want the sermon to sound like we’re talking to our listeners about them throughout the message. In the sermon, the Lord is addressing them and expecting them to respond to His Word.
That means that even those minutes devoted to explaining historical background, for instance, must quickly be reeled back into the preacher’s stance. The historical data, or exegetical data for that matter serves the purpose of theology–Scripture functioning for the Church.
Too many minutes of the lecturer’s stance–talking to them about the Bible–creates a lull in our emotional connection with our listeners.
If you had the courage to listen to a recent sermon, listen to which stance you’re in most of the time. You might find that you’re conditioned to be a lecturer. And you might try to reframe your delivery so that you talk to your listeners about them from the Bible. It will be more difficult for them to fall asleep on you if you’re talking to them about them and, as always, our Lord will receive glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21).
At times, we might contribute to this classic parishioner, blank stare.
One advantage of experiencing a couple of surgeries to extract a 6mm kidney stone from my right kidney was the opportunity to listen to a couple of sermons.
Preachers can relate to this. I was sincerely wanting to worship, not critique the sermon. But while I was worshiping, the homiletician in me thought, “Try to figure out the cause of the blank stare syndrome.”
I came up with two things over the past few weeks. They may help you as you prepare to preach.
First, I help create the blank stare when there is a lull in the emotional connection. There are sermon minutes filled with minutia that do not engage the listener. The data is not connected to any worship response. Many listeners who take God’s Word seriously will endure these minutes until the impact returns. But it’s painful for them and I don’t wan to cause this.
Second, I also help create the blank stare when there is a break in the logical flow of the subject matter. Too many minutes elapse as too many details are disconnected to the main worship response. And this can all happen within a well-crafted outline. Listeners easily lose their place in a sermon. Sometimes we lead them down this path of inactive learning by not connecting the individual concepts to their worship.
The two reasons I’ve listed cover the emotional and logical components of listening. Both are equally important for communication.
When you’re on vacation this summer and you’re a worshiper, play the reason-for-the-blank-stare game. God knows why you’re doing it. You want to be a better preacher. See if you experience what I did and for similar reasons.
And He will receive glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21) because of His gift and your extra effort to improve.
Preaching While Dealing With A Kidney Stone! Yikes!
First, I have been out of commission for a couple of weeks due to fighting a kidney stone. To make a long story short, the first surgery was unsuccessful and the second surgery is scheduled for tomorrow.
The first surgery left me with a temporary stent in my right kidney. That stent prevented me from having another painful attack, but left me with nasty UTI-like symptoms. My main concern, apart from the occasional pain and discomfort, was whether or not I could preach yesterday without feeling like I had to go to the bathroom. And, trust me, with a stent in the ole saying, “When you gotta go, you gotta go,” is reality.
All that to say, this was one of those rare times in my 30 plus years of preaching that I had to preach not knowing whether I was up to the task physically.
If you’ve experienced something similar, then you know what that meant: I had to trust God more than normal.
I don’t like admitting that, but it’s true. I would rather write that I always trust God to the same degree for every sermon. But there is something about suffering for a couple of weeks that elevates the need for God’s help.
[I am keeping the past two weeks in perspective because I have parishioners who have been battling far greater suffering for much longer.]
Yesterday was a good reminder that God is merciful and I need His mercy, sometimes to a greater degree. The great thing about preaching is that it is God’s work. We do have a part to play in it, but I know He knows how much we need Him, especially when we’re struggling.
God was very gracious to me yesterday. I was able to preach a full-length message without having to run to the bathroom mid-sentence.
I hope you never have to preach with a kidney stone, but if you do our Lord will receive glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21) as you entrust the sermon to His care.
The statement means much more than is being said! Introducing Illocutionary Intent-Informed Meaning (II-M) and Why it Matters
This past Monday I was privileged to present some of my more important Ph.D. dissertation findings to the Alcuin Society of Lancaster Bible College | Capital Seminary & Graduate School. Many thanks to faculty and guests who were extremely gracious.
Here are a few things that are pertinent to preachers:
Learn to think about application early in the sermon development process. The old school approach was to wait on application because if entertained too early, the process had the potential to skew exegesis.
In order to think about application earlier, the search for application must be a part of the search for exegetical/theological meaning.
In order for that to happen your exegetical method must include the search for what I call, Illocutionary Intent. This involves looking for clues as to what the biblical author wants to do to the readers.
If you like, try to create a meaning summary, II-M, for Luke 15. In other words, your one-sentence meaning summary must include an element of what the author intends to do to the reader. Or, to put it another way, make sure your meaning summary includes the intended application or response of the church to Luke 15.
Try it and see how you do.
Also, if, like me, you’re already looking at a Text for this coming Sunday, see if you can detect the illocutionary intent of the author. This will give you a sneak peak at your primary sermon application and worship response of your congregants.
And may our Lord receive glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21),
Randal
P.S. I trust you enjoyed a wonderful Easter celebration!
Attempting to Add Additional Depth to our Exegetical Practices for Sermon Development
I am hoping that providing these examples of asking and answering questions as part of exegesis will help you dig deeper as you prepare to preach and teach the Scriptures.
I encountered another example as a result of preparing to preach today from Matthew 3:1-12, the John the Baptist narrative.
One of the key exegetical/theological aspects of the preaching portion is in v. 2, John’s sermon:
“Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
If you’ve preached or taught this before then you’ve defined “repent” and also announced the logical connection created by the connector, “for.” It is because the kingdom of heaven has come near that everyone is called to repentance. You have also defined the kingdom of heaven.
Now, I have been promoting the need to dig a bit deeper by asking and answering additional “why” questions. The analysis above, while important, is not sufficient. In this case I want to ask,
“Why does the arrival of the kingdom of heaven warrant repentance?”
Could you answer that question? Do you see why that question is important for the sermon/lesson? Imagine critical sermon minutes devoted to things like an explanation of the kind of King Jesus is or the kind of kingdom He is creating or the kind of citizen that can occupy this kingdom.
An attempt at an answer is something like: “Only repentance from sin, a true turn from sin and turning to God, creates the kind of citizen that can inhabit the kind of Kingdom God is creating for His new world.”
I am hoping you can see how God can receive glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21) with that kind of exegetical and theological depth.
This is the third post aimed at helping us think about adding theological depth to our preaching. The reason why it is important is because most of our exegetical methods do not include this aspect of sermon development.
At this stage of my thinking I am still considering answering the “Why?” question part of theological exegesis (TE). But I usually think of TE as exegeting a text in its broader immediate and canonical context so it functions for the church, part of theological interpretation (TI).
I am toying with terms like, Implicational Exegesis (IE), or Philosophical Exegesis (PE). I’ll take any suggestions.
Another example of this level of exegesis is in Matthew 1:23 “…they shall call his name Immanuel’ (which means, God with us).”
Since Matthew already does the heavy lifting in the word study aspect of exegesis, it’s up to us to ask why the arrival of “God with us” is significant.
Well, I can tell you that the answer to that question is not easy to find in major commentaries. It will take much theological thinking, thus justifying the label of theological exegesis. We’re asking the question, “Where in the Bible do we learn the significance of having God with us?” and “When we locate such doctrine, what do we learn about what His presence means for His people?”
If we don’t reach that exegetical depth in our sermon, it will be impossible for listeners to connect emotionally with this stated fact. [I am using “connect emotionally” to convey the times when our parishioners feel praise welling up in them because of the reality.]
So, whatever we end up calling it, I find this to be an important, time consuming element of our exegetical practice.
And may our Lord receive glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21) as a result of our efforts to dig a bit deeper into His glorious revelation.
The longer I am privileged to serve as a pastor the more I feel the need to become a better theologian. And, so far, it looks like the three-volume translation of Mastricht’s systematic theology (“…originally written in Latin and subsequently translated into Dutch and now being simultaneously translated into English and re-translated into Dutch…”) is going to be a tremendous help.
Here’s why. First from the Editor’s Preface:
“As a systemic theology or body of divinity, this classic…combines a rigorous, biblical, and scholastic treatment of doctrine with the pastoral aim of preparing the reader to live for God through Christ.” (p. xi, emphasis added)
And from the Translator’s Preface:
“Mastricht is a pastor writing to train pastors…” (p. xvii)
And, if that wasn’t enough to sell me on its value:
“…Mastricht insisted that preaching and theology must be inextricably linked.” (p. xviii)
Finally, lo and behold, before the systematic theology begins, Mastricht decided to write the first 31 pages describing, “The Best Method of Preaching.”
For years I’ve had the privilege of teaching preaching. Each year I urge my new friends and colleagues in ministry to become better theologians for their flocks. One way to do that is to regularly read robust writings of ancient theologians (Petrus van Mastricht lived from 1630-1706).
If you’re a Jonathan Edwards fan, Neele writes, “And if the words of Edwards Amasa Park (1808-1900) can be relied upon, Jonathan Edwards Jr. (1745-1801) read Mastricht’s TPT seven times” (p. lvii). Edwards is quoted as saying that Mastricht’s book was “much better than…any other book in the world, excepting the Bible, in my opinion…” (p. lviii).
Pretty high praise coming from Edwards.
Lord willing, I am excited to read these volumes and see if it was worth Edwards reading it seven times.
More than that, I hope you will join me in becoming a better theologian for your faith-family so God receives glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21).
Learn to get below the surface of theological concepts like “sin.”
A couple of weeks ago I posted on how answering the “why” question can add theological depth to our preaching.
First, when I advocate adding theological depth, I am not talking about the common notion that “deep” preaching is difficult to understand. I am talking about fleshing out the implications of key doctrines in a preaching portion. One way to do that is to look for unanswered “why” questions.
For instance, this coming Sunday, Lord willing I will be preaching Matthew 1:18-25. Verse 21 reads,
“She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”
One question and answer that adds theological depth to preaching this section is,
“Why is being saved from our sins so important?”
The text does not tell us. We add theological depth by answering that question for our listeners.
Probably our theologically astute listeners will respond with something like: “Having Jesus save us from our sins is important because we are under the condemnation of God.”
Very true, of course.
But what about the sanctifying effect of being saved from our sins? Most of our listeners will not think about the devastating effects of sin in our daily lives.
Consider this standard definition of sin:
any lack of conformity to the character of God, whether by act, disposition, or state (a definition that I still remember from my first year of ministry training back in 1980!).
Notice what is missing in this definition. It’s not that it’s not accurate; it’s just not accurate enough. What’s missing is the soul-destroying, joy-destroying effect of sin. And so in a sermon we could say something like:
“Having Jesus save us from our sins is important because not only are we under the condemnation of God, we are also slaves to soul-destroying, joy-destroying sins.”
My point is that many preaching portions demand us to answer this kind of “why” question. And when we do, our Lord will receive glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21),
Dave and I enjoyed fun times together at our Global Outreach Summit. He also has great interest in hermeneutics and homiletics.
Dave Shive is a 1968 graduate of Washington Bible College, and a 1972 graduate of Capital Bible Seminary with a Th.M. in New Testament Studies. He is also a 1994 graduate of the Baltimore Hebrew University where he received an M.A. in Biblical Literature. Dave also pursued doctoral studies at Baltimore Hebrew University.
He has spent the past 48 years in fulltime ministry as a pastor, Christian school director, college professor, and missions advocate.
Since 2008, Dave and Kathy have served as full time mission mobilizers. They are currently on staff with Frontier Ventures (formerly the U.S. Center for World Mission) in Pasadena, CA.
Dave and Kathy will celebrate their 54th wedding anniversary in June 2022. They have lived in Catonsville, MD, for 25 years. They have three married children, Dan, Mike, and Becky and are the proud grandparents of 11 grandchildren.
Working Harder to Preach Shorter
As a guest speaker, I was recently asked to limit my sermon to 25 minutes. As one who prefers 35 or 40 minutes to preach, I was confronted by a daunting challenge. Oddly enough, I find that preparing this short post on preaching short sermons is much more difficult than writing a longer post about preaching shorter sermons!
As I prepared my short(er) sermon, I recalled a senior pastor who, when asked by a guest preacher how long he could speak, replied, “Five minutes shorter than you think.” The senior pastor was probably thinking that he had heard many sermons that could be improved if only they were a bit shorter. One homiletics professor confided to me that each year one or two students would tell him that they could preach a better sermon in class if they were only allowed more pulpit time. The good prof’s response was always the same: “No, you couldn’t” (said with a smile).
As I was preparing my 25-minute sermon, the difficulties in preparing a shorter message were glaring. My struggle reminded me of the quote by Blaise Pascal: “I would have written a shorter letter, but I didn’t have the time.” Similar to Pascal, I realized I could preach a shorter sermon, but I would need a lot more prep time! Therein lies the dilemma of preaching with less allotted time.
To reduce the length of a sermon, more care is required in the selection of what to say. There also needs to be a ruthless culling of what NOT to say. Almost every pastor can agree that preaching for 25 minutes is harder than preaching for 45. Give me a text and I can preach on it for an hour with little preparation (I’m not saying it would be a good sermon!). But give me the same text and ask me to preach on it for 25 minutes and I would need significantly more prep time.
To preach a shorter sermon, one must be more deliberate, focused, conscious of every word, sentence, paragraph, and idea. Greater discipline is needed to make the best use of every precious minute. I found myself desperately returning again and again to my Big Idea to make sure everything I was saying was necessary and remained true to the text.
Oh, and a footnote to my story about my 25-minute sermon. When I arrived at my guest home the night before I was to preach, I was informed that I could take as much time as I needed! Relieved to hear that, I only exceeded my original time limit by a few minutes the next morning. I realized that my preparation for a 25-minute delivery enabled me to preach a much better sermon.This kind of sermon preparation is great practice in developing homiletical discipline. Try this sample exercise: If you have 40 minutes to deliver a sermon, prepare as if you only have 25 minutes to preach. See what happens!
