Like other teachers of preaching, I listen to a lot of sermons, sometimes a dozen in a single day. I have noticed that this fact rarely evokes covetous sighs from my faculty colleagues, many of whom imagine a daily regimen of multiple homilies as akin to endless trips to the periodontist.
Contrary to expectations, though, I find that helping students preach for the first time carries the excitement of teaching skydiving to beginners. There is always that telltale widening of the eyes as they stand in the open bay of the pulpit feeling the wind whip by, staring into the depths below and suddenly becoming aware of what they are about to do as you tap them on the shoulder and say, “Go!”
“Pulpit search committees almost always top their wish lists with ‘good preacher.'”
That’s probably more unequivocally true for the less liturgical of the more protestant churches–but it’s certainly high on my list too.
On the other hand, I have known some dazzling preachers who were awful human beings. And I’ve known one or two great priests who were terrible preachers. The former were always worth listening to. The latter I also listened to gladly because there was invariably a warm humanity that shone through their sometimes insipid words.
Some of the worst preachers are the ones who think they are really good. And many preachers use one cliche after the next. And many of them seem to watch too much TV and never read a book–other than a current bestseller.
In general, the best preachers are really smart, very well read, imaginative, not egocentric, and of course faithful and theologically and biblically literate. And extremely rare, at least in today’s church. I’m not looking for an “intellectual” sermon, but I do appreciate an intelligent one–which can in fact be very plain and straightforward.
In terms of form and delivery, I think that every preacher who’s been in the business for more than five years should be able to preach from a few notes rather than from a full MS. And–this is important–don’t be so dull-witted that anyone can see exactly where you’re headed–what general point you’re headed toward–15 minutes before you get there.
Almost without exception, the biggest problem with sermons – everywhere – is that the preacher has too little material for the length of the sermon. If every preacher out there (especially the mediocre ones) would take the time to edit their sermon on Saturday by removing 20% of the words, (but not eliminating any of the topics) it would be a church service better suited for our fast-paced life. For some preachers, it might mean shortening the “Hello, and Good Morning” portion (which typically happens at two or three other points in the service anyway), for others the recap of sporting events. The very real question we all (musicians, preachers, and liturgists) need to seriously address is why services on average are longer than they used to be, even twenty years ago?
“The very real question we all … need to seriously address is why services on average are longer than they used to be….”
Agreed. I don’t know why, and I’m not going to bother figuring it out. But, yes, those who plan all this should work on the problem because a regular service that is 1 h 20 m long is ridiculous. One hour is long enough. Cut out the peace, shorten hymns (esp long, boring, unfamiliar ones), keep sermons to ten minutes, cut out announcements that are in the bulletin … and then add a couple minutes for silence, which might be the most valuable part of all.
He, he – not Orthodox then?
I’m focused less on the length, less on the preacher and more on the content. I don’t expect my worship to take less time than a trip to Costco. And I don’t feel especially devout if I give an hour on Sundays to worship the Lord and 4 hours in front of the TV to worship the NFL. I don’t take the model for decent sermons to be TV advertising or stand up comedy. You know I’m even willing to be bored and don’t necessarily see it as some huge failure – at least sometimes. Because that’s how it is in the other deepest loves I experience – things aren’t always entertaining and they’re certainly not always brief.
RE: “Almost without exception, the biggest problem with sermons – everywhere – is that the preacher has too little material for the length of the sermon.”
I think there are some unflattering reasons why preachers don’t have content enough to fill 15 minutes — often I’ve sat there with shock [probably never more so than during one particular Good Friday service] and thought “the only reason I can think of for such little content is that he really really does not ‘get it'”.
Either that, or his mind needs to have a sign over the door with the words “vacancy, nobody home.”
But I think a lot of times preachers have vacuum-sermons simply because they don’t half-way comprehend what on earth they are talking about, and they haven’t bothered to read even one or two commentaries.
It’d be like my trying to present a 15-minute lecture on astrophysics or organic chemistry. It would be humorous to watch me try to fill the time with some meaningful words, and certainly I would not have enough content.
“It’d be like my trying to present a 15-minute lecture on astrophysics or organic chemistry. It would be humorous to watch me try to fill the time with some meaningful words….”
Even a five-minute clip of you trying to do that with organic chemistry would be funny, though. Send me the YouTube clip when avail.
On the rest of what you said: right. If these preachers were teachers, getting evaluated every other month by listeners, peers, and supervisors, then they might get better–or, better, get out. There are one hell of a lot of third-raters out there. No wonder attendance has declined.
FWLIW I rather agree with that. Some kind of helpful evaluative process, plus appropriate continuing training ought to bring real advantages. On the other hand, I also think ought to be true, in some helpful and mutually accountable ways, for all church members.
without any empirical reason, I would like to say to all preachers: “stand down in ten minutes, if that’s all you have to say”
[i]Some kind of helpful evaluative process[/i]
The best evaluators are the congregation. If all you do is mumble to me “great sermon”, then I’m inclined to accept that. If on the other hand you want to question me about something or take me to task about something you don’t agree with, you will have my full attention. We might both learn something and I might get some useful feedback. Sad to say, it does not happen enough.
There is also something about preaching that feeds off of body language in a congregation. I can give the exact same sermon to the 8am Rite I folks that I give to the 10:30am Rite II folks. Very often the 8am experience is like preaching to an empty building. At 10:30 there is life and that life seems to energize me as I preach.
There is no excuse for consistantly poor preparation in a sermon or dismally poor delivery. But it is not a performance, it is part of the liturgy, ie the work of us all, so if you do not like what you are hearing, perhaps you can become part of the process to improve the experience for everyone.
One last point; sermon preparation is not just about reading and studying. It also requires praying over the scripture readings and the proper collect and praying for inspiration. Because in the end, it is the Holy Spirit that leads us into to truth. Some weeks can be brutally busy so that prayer time gets sacrificed to other things (hospital emergencies, sudden death, a funeral, etc). I imagine Kevin Martin could add a lot to what I have said here.
I think it will depend on how well formed the congregation is (thus the need for some kind of mutual accountability). The very worst sermons IMO are those that are well delivered, grippingly interesting but profoundly wrong. I take those to be genuinely spiritually dangerous. Wrong but formally good preachers are a catastrophe for a church.