Part 11 (1/2)

16.

FIND YOUR VOICE.

What works for you?

I mentioned up front that you might find yourself wondering, Isn't this just one way of communicating? Isn't Andy just writing about his style of communication? Don't we need to develop our own style and approach? I get questions like these every time I talk about communication. So let's talk about style.

Much has been written on the importance of being yourself as a communicator. And I would agree. Authenticity communicates volumes. Authenticity covers a mult.i.tude of communication sins. If a communicator is believable and sincere, I can put up with a lot of things. But if I get the feeling that I'm listening to their stage personality, big turnoff. I imagine you are the same way. I want to hear you, not your best rendition of your favorite communicator.

I love what Chuck Swindoll says about this: Know who you are.

Accept who you are.

Be who you are.16 I think that is great advice for the man who thinks he needs to mimic Rick Warren or the woman who accessorizes herself in an attempt to be the next Beth Moore. But ”be who you are” can become an excuse. My style can become a smoke screen for any number of bad communication habits. Through the years I've heard too many preachers and teachers play the style card to keep from having to change and improve. Boring is not a style. Boring is boring. Confusing may be a style. But it is still confusing. Each of our communication habits, both good and bad, are part of our style. But bad habits need to be eliminated from our style, not defended as part of it. ”Being who you are,” to borrow from Chuck's quote, is not an excuse for poor communication skills. It is an exhortation to be who G.o.d made you rather than trying to be who G.o.d made somebody else. It is not the same as saying: Know that your messages are too complicated.

Accept that they are too complicated.

Be complicated!

Or, Know that you aren't engaging.

Accept that you aren't engaging.

Be unengaging!

Be who you are. But be the very best communicator you can possibly be. To do that you must be willing to sacrifice what's comfortablea”what has become part of your stylea”for the sake of what is effective. And over time the changes you make will become part of your style. Perhaps a few ill.u.s.trations will help.

PRINCIPLE AND STYLE.

Years ago a very well-known communicator was pa.s.sing through town so I invited him to stay with us. This is a guy who travels and speaks for a living. He's booked solid eighteen to twenty months out. He told me one year he spoke over four hundred times. He does everything from student camps to Bible conferences to revivals. He sells lots of product. He's creative, funny, and naturally engaging.

As we were sitting in my kitchen talking, the subject of communication came up. He started asking me questions about how and when I prepared. How far out I planned. Typical preacher questions. I felt like he might be open to some new ideas so I took a chance. ”I think I can help you with something,” I said.

He smiled, ”Really? What's that?”

I continued, ”I've noticed a pattern in your communication that you may not be aware of. When you get to the Bible part of your messages, I always sense a decline in the momentum. It is like you are two different communicators. On the front and back end you are funny, relevant, and engaging. Once you dive into the text you get a bit preachy. And honestly, I don't think you connect your topic to the text very well.”

Once again he smiled. ”I've noticed the same thing,” he said. I asked him to pull out a message I had recently heard him give. He had it with him. In fact, he was planning to give it again the following night in a different city. Like most preachers, when he got to the text he felt the need to cover three or four points. In this case he had four. So I suggested he reduce it to one. He looked at me like most guys do at this point. His eyes said it all. How am I going to fill the time? I a.s.sured him that would not be a problem.

He laughed. ”You're right. That's never the problem.” We spent about thirty minutes reorganizing his message around a point instead of four. By the time we were finished his nervousness had changed to excitement. ”I wish somebody had told me about this a long time ago.”

Two days later he called me. ”It went great,” he said. ”I felt like my momentum actually picked up when I got to the text. It was so much easier this way. I don't think I even used my notes.”

Here's my point. He did not alter his style. He simply incorporated a principle; one idea is better than four. He didn't quit being himself, he just adjusted his approach. And by his own admission it needed to be adjusted. He would agree that the way he handled the text actually worked against his style. But his adjustment wasn't an attempt to copy or emulate anybody else. In fact, he is a communicator many communicators try to emulate. Like most of us, he inherited a style of communication that he is committed to breaking away from. The last vestige was the four-point outline where every point received equal treatment.

I have another friend, not as well known, who because of a particular area of expertise is in great demand in the arena of church leaders.h.i.+p. I think I've heard every talk he's given on this particular topic. But I noticed two bad habits. He rarely made transition statements. Consequently, it is just about impossible to know when he has changed subjects or moved on to the next part of his talk. Suddenly, you realize, ”Oh, he's talking about something different.” He would leave it to the audience to connect the dots. Like most bad communication habits, he was totally unaware of what he was doing. That is, until he asked me for a critique. I have so much respect for this gentleman that I felt funny critiquing him about anything. But I got over it.

We went through one of his outlines, and I drew lines between the different sections and said, ”You are going around these curves way too fast. You've got to slow down and tell us that you are moving on to the next section. Otherwise, you lose your audience in the transitions.” Again, this had nothing to do with style. I was simply pointing out a principle of communication. Namely, slow down in the curves. When you transition between parts of a talk, throw in a few lines of transition so people can follow.

His other bad habit was that he would ends his talks too abruptly. The way I described it to him was that when he brought the car to a stop I felt like he was throwing me into the winds.h.i.+eld. Without any verbal or nonverbal warning he would say, ”Let's pray.” That's when you realized he was through. But there was no lead in. No signals that he was bringing his talk to a close.

”Come to a stop slowly,” I said. ”Ma.n.u.script your closing thoughts so that you don't have to think so much about what you are saying. That way you can concentrate on your pace and the emotion of the moment.” The other thing I suggested was that he pause after his closing statement before he launched into a closing prayer.

He was so grateful. After going back and listening to a couple of his talks he called me and said, ”I see what you mean. I think I have become so familiar with my material that I don't really think about transitions. And you are definitely right about the way I close. It is way too abrupt.” These were minor adjustments that in no way affected his style of communication. He didn't need to change his style. He just needed to tweak a couple of things.

One of the most difficult conversations I've ever had was with a preacher who would never stay within the time he was allotted. I was working for my dad when this occurred. The last time this fellow preached for us we were very clear about the time constraints and how there was no room for error because of our parking situation. He said he understood and then went twenty minutes over in both services.

The temptation, of course, was just not to invite him back and let that be the end of it. But I felt like he should know why we never invited him again. So I took him to lunch. I was thirty-five and he was closing in on fifty. I was a student pastor. He traveled and spoke internationally. He was big-time. I was still taking kids to Six Flags on the weekends. Halfway through lunch I told him we weren't going to have him back and why. He was shocked. I asked him if anyone had ever told him that he had a reputation for ignoring his time constraints and wreaking havoc with schedules. No one had ever told him. His defense was, ”When I'm speaking I believe I'm being led by the Holy Spirit. I just go with my leading.”

I humbly shared with him that I didn't buy it. I went on to explain that I believed the Holy Spirit was at work in every facet of what happened on Sunday morning; preschool, middle school, parking lot, etc. Furthermore, I believed the Holy Spirit was active in our planning for what happened during our weekend services and that He was actually working against the Holy Spirit.

At that point he became a bit defensive. I would have, too.

While we were on the subject, I went on to share with him that I thought his messages would be far more effective if he shortened them. By the time he arrived at his conclusion everybody was thinking about the time, their kids, or lunch. He consistently missed the optimal window for making his point. On two occasions we had to cancel the closing song because he went so long. I told him about that and asked him how he thought that made the musicians feel who had spent hours preparing.

By the time I finished he was ready to write apology notes. I told him that wouldn't be necessary. What I didn't tell him was that everybody was so frustrated with him I'm not sure they would have been received all that well. Last I heard, he was still ignoring the clock. It's part of his style. And it's rude.

Don't dismiss principles of communication in defense of style. If you want to be an effective communicator, you must allow communication principles to shape your style. At the end of the day, principles win out over style. For example, in 1984, while in seminary, my Hebrew professor was asked to speak in chapel. He was new to the school. He was young, c.o.c.ky, aloof, and as you might imagine, he was not particularly liked. He was only there a couple of years before being asked to move on. When I heard he was doing chapel I almost didn't go.

In four years of seminary his message is the only one I can remember. But it had nothing to do with his style or his presentation. Both were lacking. He was dry, he read his sermon, he made little to no eye contact. He stood behind the lectern during the entire message. And to cap it all off, he was teaching out of the Old Testament and read from his Hebrew text, which we all interpreted as showing off. But in spite of everything he had working against him, I remember his message to this day. Why? Because he made one and only one point. And he made it unmistakably clear. He didn't ill.u.s.trate it. He didn't have any visuals. n.o.body came out after him and punctuated his point with a song. He told us up front what he was going to talk about and then he restated it half a dozen times throughout his reading of the text. And wouldn't you know it, he stated it again in his conclusion. His point, ”G.o.d disciplines the disobedient.” The text, 1 Kings 13, one of the strangest stories in the Bible. One of the most unforgettable messages I've ever heard.

What my professor lacked in style he more than made up for in clarity. He came to make one point and he made it. We had dozens of chapel speakers. Some of them quite famous. I couldn't tell you one thing they said. But the guy who was quite possibly the most unpopular man on campus made one unforgettable point. Moral of the story, clarity trumps style. Clarity trumps just about everything.

FACE IT.

Don't defend bad communication habits with the line, ”Well that's not my style.” Let's be honest, for many communicators ”style” means a combination of bad habits. Habits they don't even know they have. But habits that have shaped them as a communicator and have shaped their reputation. Don't hide behind style to excuse a lack of clarity. Please don't use style as an excuse not to engage your audience.

Think about it this way. What if I came to you and said, ”If you will start doing the following four things when you speak, your audience size will double in a month. Not only that, your personal income will double as well.” Would you try it? Or would you look at the list and say, ”Gee, I don't know. I'm not really comfortable with that. That's not my style.”

Obviously I can't (and wouldn't if I could) guarantee results from applying anything in this book. That's not my point. My point is that there is something out there that would motivate you to quit hiding behind the ”that's not my style” excuse and work to become a better communicator. It may not be the size of your audience or money, but there's something that would move you to try some new things and take some new risks.

What if you had a sixteen-year-old son who said he was coming to church one last time and then he was packing up and hitting the road for good. And what if in the middle of the night an angel appeared and said, ”You can reach the heart of your son if you do exactly what I tell you. Go into your attic and find his old box of Legos. On Sunday preach a message around this one point: Christ came to build a bridge to the disconnected. The entire time you are preaching you are to construct a bridge using his Legos.” I know it's far-fetched. However, I also know that somebody reading this book is going to go find some Legos and build a bridge next Sunday.

If that really happened to you, I feel confident that you would not respond by saying, ”But I'm not good with visual aids.” Neither would you say, ”I can't do that in my church, it would require removing the pulpit.” If you really believed that getting way outside your comfort zone on a Sunday morning would reach your teenage son, you would do it. If you wouldn't, there are probably other books you should be reading.

Now please don't miss this. Next Sunday, somebody's prodigal son or daughter may slip into the back of your auditorium to give the G.o.d thing one last try. And it could very well be that somewhere in your town there is a mom or dad praying like crazy that something significant would happen in the heart of their child. I know you would be willing to do some new and possibly unusual things to reach your own son or daughter. What would you be willing to do to reach someone else's?

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 wors.h.i.+p 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.

GOAL AND STYLE.

In chapter 11 I challenged you to identify your goal as a communicator and then choose an approach that supports your goal. Here I am challenging you to develop a style that supports your goal as well. If your goal is changed lives then you must develop a style that facilitates that goal. As you are probably aware, churches are notorious for having a mission statement hanging on the wall that is not supported by what's actually happening down the hall. Similarly, I've listened to dozens of preachers and teachers whose stated purpose for communicating is changed lives but whose style of communication doesn't support their purpose. If you are not willing to make adjustments for the sake of your goal then one thing is clear: Your goal is something other than changed lives. Your goal is to keep doing what you've always done, to do what's comfortable.

Think for a moment about some of the communicators who have captured the attention of the evangelical community in America over the past ten years: Rob Bell, Tony Evans, Louie Giglio, Bill Hybels, Beth Moore, Rick Warren, and Ed Young. They have things in common. But they come to the platform with their own unique style of communication. They are all engaging. But they are not all funny. Each drives the listener to a point of application. But they don't get there the same way. They are all committed to the Scriptures. But the way they approach the Scriptures varies. Some are intense while others are gregarious. Ed, Louie, and Rob make frequent use of visuals. The others do not. Bill is comfortable with a ma.n.u.script. Rick is comfortable with fill in the blank. Louie is comfortable with not knowing exactly what he is going to talk about until he arrives and sizes up an audience.

There is no one correct style. But there are principles that each of these individuals draw from. Each has a slightly different approach. But they all communicate for life change. Each has adopted a style that fits their personality. But they all connect with a variety of audiences.