# Reading your sermon



## Notthemama1984

Out of curiosity, how many members of PB type out and read their sermons?


----------



## JML

I carry a full manuscript into the pulpit but I do not read my sermon. It is more of a safety net that I try to use the least amount as possible. I usually bold my main points of my outline and if I have studied my sermon enough, they serve as a reminder of what to speak of next. I use my manuscript less and less the more I preach. I personally feel it is good to stay away from reading your sermon because you lose the interaction and eye contact with the people. That is just my opinion though.


----------



## fredtgreco

Chaplainintraining said:


> Out of curiosity, how many members of PB type out and read their sermons?



Hopefully no one.

Any benefit of wordsmithing (in my opinion) is completely lost by the disconnect with the congregation. Please, please, please, don't read a sermon. You can prepare a manuscript ahead of time to help, but don't read!


----------



## Jack K

I have far less experience than a lot of guys here, but...

I'll type up a very detailed outline and often write out a word-for-word intro or conclusion. But this is to help with preparation more than anything, and to help me learn the sermon better. I take the detailed outline into the pulpit, with key transitions highlighted, but then won't refer to it unless I get lost.

Occasionally I'll read maybe one sentence to get myself back on track. But I think it'd be a big mistake to read large chunks of it. Fred is right that anything gained is lost by the disconnect with your hearers.


----------



## Grimmson

I write out initially my sermon to organize my thoughts and then am more likely use an outline based on that written sermon. Outlines provide a more natural way of communication and allows for flexibility in the presentation of the sermon, which would be necessary if changes occur in the audience for a given Sunday. The only reason I could see in regards to a manuscript form is if one is a good reader, placing emphasis on sections of the sentences in the sermon, and if there is a concern of leaving out certain important information for explanation and clarification within a given restrained time frame.


----------



## KMK

I bring a detailed outline to the pulpit and read too much of it. I have only been preaching for 3 years and have much improving to do. However, I don't agree that there is a complete correlation between reading and disconnect. If that were true then why would we read the Scriptures in public at all?


----------



## Wayne

Apparently Thornwell taught or encouraged his Columbia Seminary students to write out a full manuscript, at least in the early years of their ministry.
One of his favorite students, Thomas Dwight Witherspoon, did just that and we have preserved at the PCA Historical Center just over 100 of his sermon mss.
But all of those manuscripts date from his first pastorate. Thereafter he moved to short outlines. So his experience was apparently very much like John's, above.
I can't tell whether he actually read the sermons from the pulpit, but I kind of doubt it.


----------



## N. Eshelman

At Puritan Seminary we were required to preach from a full mss because of the discipline required. I continue that practice, but use it only as a reminder of what has been studied.


----------



## Notthemama1984

I had assumed some would read. I guess I was wrong.


----------



## Curt

I have a detailed outline to which I occasionally refer. I am thoroughly prepared, but there is always a lot that gets delivered that is not in the notes.


----------



## Phil D.

Speaking only as a hearer, I do find it somewhat annoying when very much of sermon is read.

---------- Post added at 10:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:34 AM ----------

Having said that, I would certainly rather hear a theologically solid sermon read, than a watered-down sermon not read.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I'll just share an experience of mine:
At a church where I attended many years ago, there was a minister there who was a very able communicator. I am sure I grew in grace, and greatly benefited from his ministry. Not at first, but sometime later, I discovered that he very nearly read his meticulously prepared sermons. This was not obvious from his pulpiteering.

There is danger in any form of preparation and delivery. Perhaps more in one direction with one given method than another. Find what works for you, and use it. And don't quit developing. Perhaps, beginning one way, you may feel there is benefit to be had in changing over to another method. The immediacy of spontaneity (studied, to be sure) may be the "best" for modern use, generally, in our culture of "authenticity." But I think we can fall into the mistake of so straightjacketing our seminarians, that we end up forcing "leftys" to be "rightys," when God didn't make them thus. There needs to be room for the minority who flourish in the "abnormal" ways. We need to recognize God calls "redheads" sometimes.


----------



## Romans922

I prepare and carry into the pulpit a full manuscript, but I don't read it. I occasionally look at it. I have paragraphs highlighted differently so when I look down I know where i am and i don't have to stare at it. Eye contact is very important.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Perhaps the question is not whether or not one reads a sermon but whether or not one _delivers_ a sermon using a manuscript. I had a Church member ask me recently if I had training in reading because my delivery, when I'm reading the Scriptures during portions of worship, is usually very passionate. I have not had any training. One might say I have a gift for reading the Word but I also understand what I'm reading and try to inflect the Scriptures in a way to communicate the vibrancy of the passage I'm reading. I just can't imagine reading Psalm 32 in a monotone voice with not an ounce of passion.

It would be the same for a sermon. I teach with and without notes and can speak extemporaneously on a theological subject for hours without a manuscript.

Perhaps you can tell me, by listening to this, whether or not I'm delivering from a manuscript: http://www.hopeofchrist.net/2010/08/psalm-51/

I agree with Bruce. Maybe I'm not so much a "lefty" or "righty" here as much as I can do either and I prefer to manuscript. I suppose, for me, it's a more detailed outline that I have the freedom to generally stick with or re-phrase/addend as it strikes me during delivery.


----------



## raekwon

I can't go without a full manuscript. Even with the hours of study and prep that I do, I am simply not skilled enough in speaking even semi-extemporaneously to not need one. That said, I *try* to not look like I'm reading. I tend to "scoop" a block of text into my brain (so to speak) and then speak it while making eye contact and engaging with the congregation. Don't know if I succeed.


----------



## fredtgreco

raekwon said:


> I can't go without a full manuscript. Even with the hours of study and prep that I do, I am simply not skilled enough in speaking even semi-extemporaneously to not need one. That said, I *try* to not look like I'm reading. I tend to "scoop" a block of text into my brain (so to speak) and then speak it while making eye contact and engaging with the congregation. Don't know if I succeed.


 Rae,

I would encourage you to find opportunities to improve your extemporaneous speaking ability - devotionals, nursing homes, etc. One necessary skill (in my opinion) for a minister is to be ready to speak/preach the Word in season and out.


----------



## Rich Koster

Question within a question here: If you were quoting (let's say Calvin or Spurgeon etc...) wouldn't you read it to insure the accuracy of the quote?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Fred,

I'm not trying to argue with you but get your thoughts. Is your concern that you believe a preacher ought to have skill for extemporaneous preaching when he needs it or is your objection to preaching with a manuscript (outline?) altogether?


----------



## JML

Rich Koster said:


> Question within a question here: If you were quoting (let's say Calvin or Spurgeon etc...) wouldn't you read it to insure the accuracy of the quote?


 
Yes. I try not to choose very long quotes though.


----------



## fredtgreco

Semper Fidelis said:


> Fred,
> 
> I'm not trying to argue with you but get your thoughts. Is your concern that you believe a preacher ought to have skill for extemporaneous preaching when he needs it or is your objection to preaching with a manuscript (outline?) altogether?


 
Rich,

My main concern is that a minister be able to speak with authority and some depth at any time, without always having to have notes in front of him. The pastor is constantly asked to give comments, teach and even pray (instructionally) impromptu. Developing the ability not to be tied to notes is critically important. 

As to preaching, I think that non-reading is best. That does not mean extemporaneous speaking - in fact, being unprepared and "trusting the Spirit" is also a problem. There is nothing wrong with notes, outlines, or even preparing a manuscript ahead of time. My opinion is just that it is too distracting to read a sermon, and that such a practice is not best practice.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jesus is my friend

Just a thought here,and this was from a modern arminian church I used to attend:If you do not aim to maintain eye contact thoughout the sermon then the listener will not pay attention and you have lost him/her,another wrong thought was in the disdain for formal Christian training and education (seminary would be referred to as cemetary)

My point is eye contact is not necessary for God to acccomplish what He wills,but the faithfulness of the preacher to simply be true to the Word whether he reads,memorizes or a combination of the two


----------



## PresbyDane

Strangly I have heard that this is excactly what Johnathan Edwards did.

He wrote his sermons out and them read them out loud, with the manuscript in one hand and a candle i the other to see by, due to his poor eye sight.

I think you can pay to much attention to "connecting with the "audience""

The word is the important, not the "performance" we are preachers, not rock stars.

We have the holy spirit to help us we do not need a good stage performance.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Just a random thought.

I do find it interesting that President Obama reads his speeches and is considered a fantastic speaker, but for preachers whose "speeches" are much more important it is considered poor communication to read.

Just interesting.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

fredtgreco said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fred,
> 
> I'm not trying to argue with you but get your thoughts. Is your concern that you believe a preacher ought to have skill for extemporaneous preaching when he needs it or is your objection to preaching with a manuscript (outline?) altogether?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich,
> 
> My main concern is that a minister be able to speak with authority and some depth at any time, without always having to have notes in front of him. The pastor is constantly asked to give comments, teach and even pray (instructionally) impromptu. Developing the ability not to be tied to notes is critically important.
> 
> As to preaching, I think that non-reading is best. That does not mean extemporaneous speaking - in fact, being unprepared and "trusting the Spirit" is also a problem. There is nothing wrong with notes, outlines, or even preparing a manuscript ahead of time. My opinion is just that it is too distracting to read a sermon, and that such a practice is not best practice.
Click to expand...

 
Thanks Fred. I shouldn't have used the word "extemporaneous" above to refer to preaching impromptu. In retrospect I realize it was poor terminology. 

I guess personal experience is not a completely reliable guide but I used to use a rough outline and found myself more prone to going on tangents. As you know, the problem with preaching is sometimes as much what to leave out as well as what to include. I sort of preach to myself a few times through the refinement of the manuscript and then delivery includes fewer asides. 

I'm not claiming that my own method does not need further development and I appreciate your thoughts.

By the way, I'm exhorting to a Korean Church on Sunday AM and that's one occasion where a manuscript is a must because I end up breaking the manuscript into sentences for the translator to translate ahead of time.


----------



## amg

PresbyDane said:


> Strangly I have heard that this is excactly what Johnathan Edwards did.
> 
> He wrote his sermons out and them read them out loud, with the manuscript in one hand and a candle i the other to see by, due to his poor eye sight.


 
Jonathan Edwards did indeed write his sermons out in full manuscript, and I would venture to say that nearly all of the puritans did. How do you think we have their manuscripts? The people in the pews weren't keeping up notes that quickly, that's for sure.

I have experience with preaching from a full manuscript and a key note outline and I would have to say that my preference is manuscript, though I do not have much experience preaching either. The few times that I have used key notes I have either gone way too long, or in instances of being in a timed venue I have had to cut the final points short. Obviously this is due to a lack of experience on my part though. I will say that every time that I have had the opportunity to preach from a key note outline the Lord has been exceedingly gracious in helping me along- which is assuring to the use of key note outlines.

Regardless, I still feel more comfortable at this point from a full manuscript because I am both excited and nervous enough having the privilege to open the Word of the living God that I do not need to busy my mind fretting over whether I have forgotten to say something or not. Manuscripting also allows you to use the exact verbage that you want to which means that you are not grasping for words in the pulpit. And, yet another positive of manuscripting is that you know exactly how long you will preach.

That is just my  though.


----------



## nicnap

I think a pastor should carry an outline only ... as Dr. Carrick says, if a man reads his sermons, he doesn't experience the highs or lows of delivering the sermon. I started with just an outline in my first pastorate, and then somehow moved to a full manuscript; I am now back to an outline, and have to confess that I am a far better preacher without a full manuscript -- there is more freedom and even "interaction" with the congregation.





alanmichael.gentry said:


> Jonathan Edwards did indeed write his sermons out in full manuscript, and I would venture to say that nearly all of the puritans did. How do you think we have their manuscripts? The people in the pews weren't keeping up notes that quickly, that's for sure.



Actually, they may very well have kept up. There are reported instances of men who were able to listen and even memorize entire sermons and produce transcripts of the sermons in their entirety. (Granted, I don't think it was the norm.)


----------



## KMK

alanmichael.gentry said:


> And, yet another positive of manuscripting is that you know exactly how long you will preach.



I agree that writing out a full manuscript is very helpful for this reason. However, the question of this thread is not so much should a full manuscript be written, but should it be read. I think all of us would agree that it reading to the point that no eye contact is made whatsoever should be avoided. However, uninterrupted eye contact is not necessary either.


----------



## Edward

Chaplainintraining said:


> I do find it interesting that President Obama reads his speeches and is considered a fantastic speaker, but for preachers whose "speeches" are much more important it is considered poor communication to read.



Few churches are equipped wit h teleprompters.


----------



## amg

nicnap said:


> alanmichael.gentry said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jonathan Edwards did indeed write his sermons out in full manuscript, and I would venture to say that nearly all of the puritans did. How do you think we have their manuscripts? The people in the pews weren't keeping up notes that quickly, that's for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, they may very well have kept up. There are reported instances of men who were able to listen and even memorize entire sermons and produce transcripts of the sermons in their entirety. (Granted, I don't think it was the norm.)
Click to expand...

 
With the sheer volume of sermons and other works which we have preserved for us today it is not reasonable to believe that the exception was the rule. I will agree that the average 16th or 17th century parishioner was better at listening to and meditating on the preached Word than many parishioners today, but at the same time, even as you stated, the ability to memorize entire sermons on the fly was not the norm. Furthermore, there are other factors which would seem to discredit the idea, such as six day work weeks (something which is generally foreign to many of us; the puritans also placed a far higher premium on the family and personal devotion than many average parishioners today), financial constraints (from what I understand of my own study, Jonathan Edwards wrote vertically and horizontally on a sheet of paper as a means of conserving resources) and the fact that this is not something which is recorded for us anywhere (that I know of at least), which further discredits the notion. Many of the puritan works which we have today are not books which the men sat down to write, but rather, they were sermons which were collated together, at least that is from what I understand. I'll not argue over whether or not they read from a manuscript, or preached loosely from a manuscript, but I think that the circumstantial evidence indicates that the puritans manuscripted their sermons.

Does anyone know for certain either way?

Once again, just my .


----------



## Curt

Something I find interesting is that when I preach, it's with an outline, but when I lecture, it's with a manuscript (although I am never tied to the MS).


----------



## Notthemama1984

Edward said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do find it interesting that President Obama reads his speeches and is considered a fantastic speaker, but for preachers whose "speeches" are much more important it is considered poor communication to read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Few churches are equipped wit h teleprompters.
Click to expand...

 
No, but just as a choir member can learn to read the music and watch the conductor at the same time, couldn't the preacher read the sermon and look out at the crowd at the same time?


----------



## au5t1n

From the perspective of the pew, a well-delivered sermon read straight from a manuscript is fine with me. So is a well-delivered sermon from an outline or no notes. Ultimately the content is far more important than whether I can see your eyes, but when using a manuscript it is important to avoid droning.


----------



## TexanRose

Also from the perspective of the pew, I wonder if a written manuscript might help prevent disjointed or incomplete sentences. I find a sermon easier to follow if the sentences are more carefully constructed.


----------



## au5t1n

TexanRose said:


> Also from the perspective of the pew, I wonder if a written manuscript might help prevent disjointed or incomplete sentences. I find a sermon easier to follow if the sentences are more carefully constructed.


 
Not to mention the lack of frequent "like"s and "ya know"s and looping back over the same slightly re-worded sentences to fill time. An extemporaneous preacher (or whatever the preferred term is) can deliver a well-structured sermon that does not suffer these problems, but it takes talent and/or experience. I would guess that manuscripting sermons would develop these skills faster and stronger, enabling a young preacher to be a better preacher when and if he does ditch the manuscript.


----------



## Notthemama1984

austinww said:


> TexanRose said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also from the perspective of the pew, I wonder if a written manuscript might help prevent disjointed or incomplete sentences. I find a sermon easier to follow if the sentences are more carefully constructed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the lack of frequent "like"s and "ya know"s and looping back over the same slightly re-worded sentences to fill time.
Click to expand...

 
 Great Post


----------



## N. Eshelman

Like yeah. Right. Like, exactly.


----------



## EKSB SDG

As a hearer in the pew, I can affirm that listening to a verbatim reading from a prepared manuscript is distracting and annoying. Even more annoying is when the same sermon is recycled and re-read verbatim several years later by the pastor to the same congregation. Anyone have an thoughts on this practice, or how I should handle it?


----------



## Notthemama1984

Does he read monotone or with emotions?


----------



## EKSB SDG

Sometimes with emotion, generally with monotone, often sounding like a student reading his research paper in front of a class.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Ouch. Could it then be said that the problem is with the monotone and not necessarily with the reading?


----------



## Wayne

There is a known connection between writing and speaking. First learn to write well and subsequently you should see an improvement in your speaking ability.
The obvious connection is that you are learning to marshal your thoughts, to organize them, and to present them in a forceful, persuasive manner.


----------



## EKSB SDG

Both the monotone and focusing on the script are definitely a problem. I have a bigger problem with the all too frequent recycling of the same sermon to the same people. I've discussed this problem with him, but he doesn't think there's anything wrong with it. He seemed surprised that anyone would notice. I recently gave this pastor a copy of Dennis Prutow's recently published book on homiletics (So Pastor, What's Your Point?). I also gave a copy of this book to my favorite pastor.


----------



## Reformed Roman

My pastor at my current church read his whole sermon, at least the one I saw him preach. Occasionally every 5 minutes or so he would make a comment at the audience. But he is a great speaker. 

But with the sermon written out, he could state everything he learned in his study, or far more useful information, neatly organized, since he wrote it down. I think he probably tells what the text says far better that way, and that's probably why he does it.


----------



## Caroline

From the point of view of the pews also (and having been a teacher for many years), I would strongly discourage full manuscripts. They are certainly tempting for nervous pastors, I'm sure. I don't envy you the job of preaching--even teaching math is far less challenging, because people simply do not have the fervency on the subject that they do about their faith, so they are more forgiving about blunders if I make any. I wish I could say that it doesn't matter whether you are delivering from a manuscript. 

However, I have never seen a well-delivered sermon that was read. The entire point of public speaking is that you can see your audience to be sure that they can understand you and that you are communicating your point. You gather feedback from your audience's expressions and body language to know whether you need to spend more time on a point and so on. And you can only do this if you are looking at them and have some flexibility built into your presentation. If you are going to read your sermon, you may as well just mail it to me--I can also read. And I could probably understand it better that way. I usually can barely even follow a sermon when it is read--the pastor's voice is usually flat and too soft and too fast. And there are long pauses wherein he obviously lost his place and has to scan through several paragraphs to find it again. It is also easy to let one's mind wander while reading aloud, and I have known pastors to skip entire lines of text in their sermon without even realizing it--apparently, they stopped paying attention to what they were saying. 

If you have a manuscript at all, then I think you run the risk of losing the connection with the audience as you are too tempted to read or even to stick too closely to it even when it is obvious that no one understands your point. However, I suppose it is possible to use one as 'notes' rather than really reading it--but I do think that is a risky habit.

I am curious how many pastors have someone in the audience that tells them if they are bad speakers or develop unfortunate mannerisms. If you WERE saying 'um' too much or swaying too much while you talk so that it is distracting or reading your notes too obviously ... do you prefer to be told or not?


----------



## Notthemama1984

I absolutely prefer to be told.


----------



## py3ak

alanmichael.gentry said:


> The people in the pews weren't keeping up notes that quickly, that's for sure.



Calvin's lectures on the Minor Prophets are drawn from notes students took of his extemporaneous addresses, and then he revised their notes of his lectures. If it's possible to keep up with notes of a lecture with technicalities, a sermon is probably easier.


----------



## Romans922

> I think a pastor should carry an outline only ... as Dr. Carrick says, if a man reads his sermons, he doesn't experience the highs or lows of delivering the sermon. I started with just an outline in my first pastorate, and then somehow moved to a full manuscript; I am now back to an outline, and have to confess that I am a far better preacher without a full manuscript -- there is more freedom and even "interaction" with the congregation.



As much as I agree with GPTS, I disagree with the need to use an outline in order to not read. I agree we shouldn't read sermons, but you can use a manuscript, not read, and can have freedom in your preaching (being led by the Spirit). At least I believe so, speaking from personal experience. You don't have to speak every word in your manuscript, and you can say other things as well.

I am sure, at least with me, if you took my manuscripts that I take into the pulpit, you will notice a very distinct difference between my manuscript and what you actually hear. Typically illustrations, scripture, application are added in without ever preparing for it. So I disagree...


----------



## amg

EKSB SDG said:


> Sometimes with emotion, generally with monotone, often sounding like a student reading his research paper in front of a class.


 
The larger issue at hand is not whether or not the sermon is read or preached extemporaneously. The issue is not even how the sermon is preached or read. What do you think Paul means here?

_"26For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29That no flesh should glory in his presence. 30But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: 31That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord."_ (1 Corinthian 1.26-31)

C.H. Spurgeon used to say that the preacher didn't need nearly as much preparation as the congregation, and he exampled this with a man going out to sow seed. He said, the man going out to seed doesn't need nearly as much preparation as the ground receiving the seed. I think that he is spot on there.

Jonathan Edwards read all of his sermons the _exact same_ way for much of his ministry, very slow and calculated, very monotonous and he would recycle his sermons in other churches. The most famous example of this is Sinner's in the Hands of an Angry God. Edwards preached this sermon to one congregation and the Lord did not move. A few months later he preached the same message in Enfield, Connecticut the _exact same_ way and he had to stop reading to look up. The congregation was dead still and he could hear the pews creaking because the congregation was gripping them so hard. He could even see their knuckles turning white. What's the real difference? The difference is not in the way the sermon was delivered, the difference was the hearts of the people and the Lord's rending the heavens and coming down with great and mighty power.

Ultimately, it does not matter how well you can preach extemporaneously or how meticulously you can prepare a manuscript to preach from, if the Lord does not come down in great and terrible power nothing will happen. The church today is not going to benefit from preachers who preach extemporaneously any more than the church is going to benefit from preachers who prepare thorough sermon manuscripts. When the man of God stands before the people of God he is delivering a message from the Holy One- this is something the church today needs to remember. The issue at hand is not the delivery, but the fact that the Lord is meeting with His people and we need to be prepared to meet with Him.

O, that we would have the same preparation to meet with the Lord as those Israelites of old in Exodus 19.


----------



## fredtgreco

Ok - let me break in with some reality.

You are not (and I am not) Jonathan Edwards. You are not Spurgeon. You are not preaching to people who have never seen a television, have much longer attention spans, and who know their Bibles better than most ministers (after all, English grammar was taught out of the Bible then).

Of course, we can find great exceptions as to what the Spirit can use in a man of exceptional talents in the midst of a great time in Providence (e.g. the Great Awakening). But this is not the norm. As a wise older friend told me about sermon preparation: "Don't put on the Holy Spirit's back what is your job." We ought not to be presumptuous preachers. Prepare, prepare, prepare in the study, and thus be able to speak _*to *_(not _*at*_) the people. Preach, as one put it "as a dying man to dying men." How many of us would read an essay to our children when we were concerned for their souls? What possible example do we have of reading a sermon in the Bible?

Men, do your work, and then engage your people!


----------



## Herald

Fred, thank you. Your post served as both encouragement and admonishment. 

Sent using my most excellent Android device.


----------



## Caroline

Thank you, Fred. That was an excellent point. Presentation isn't everything, but it isn't nothing either. I suppose a pastor could deliver a good theological sermon full of the truth of the Word while he was sitting in a recliner wearing his pajamas and bunny slippers, but I'm going to guess nobody here does that because it wouldn't be good sermon delivery. 

As you noted, a substantial part of being a good pastor who loves his people is having some reasonable concern for whether those people can follow what he is saying and are not terribly distracted by his own mannerisms. There is no virtue in lazily refusing to move a stumbling-block just because people can--with great inconvenience--manage to get around it every week if they try hard enough.


----------



## Wannabee

I had to come to grips that seminary didn't teach me how to preach so much as teach me how to learn to preach. I was given many tools, but it didn't make me a preacher. I could put together a good presentation of what a passage said and teach it truthfully, yet without presenting it in a way that penetrated hearts and brought people face to face with their standing before God almighty. That takes work. It takes personal soul work and can often be painful. Spurgeon has been presented here as an example. But many aren't aware that he trembled when he preached on depression because he knew the horrors of it and that it was an area he found great struggles in overcoming. But it was because of these very struggles in his own life, conveyed through his preaching, that many came to know Christ better. Is this how we proclaim Christ? As a fellow beggar at a feast that only Christ could prepare? 

Coming to grips with this more and more, as God has shown me my own frailties, has made me a better preacher. Like Isaiah, I realize with greater conviction that I am more like those I preach to (unclean lips) than I am like God almighty. Areas I thought were easy to overcome at one time become difficult challenges as God continues to show me that my faithfulness is dependent upon Him. Who am I to preach "at" anyone, as Fred so aptly pointed out?

If you are at a point where you must use a manuscript because of lack of experience, I urge you to try something that I found very freeing. I'm still working on it. I'm still learning how to preach. But this was very helpful. I prepared my manuscript as I always had. I did my exegesis, prepared an outline and then filled it in with material from my research. I then focused on what was the main teaching I wanted to get across and framed the sermon to move toward or point toward that main point. My friend calls this sharpening the arrow. Then, when I had taken out all that I thought did not focus on the main point, I finally had my sermon. This is generally the point where most who preach from a manuscript stop. It's what I used to do. But a couple of years ago I began to take another step. I would go through my sermon and outline the whole thing. At first it was difficult and very time consuming. But I found that it was incredibly freeing to take this outline into the pulpit rather than a manuscript. It allowed for more extemporaneous preaching. And it allowed me to find my spot more easily since I was looking at an outline rather than trying to find a specific spot in a manuscript. Now I am able to skip the manuscript portion of my sermon preparation. I still need to grow in my preaching, but I do see where this has been beneficial to preacher and listener alike. Also, there are times when I tend to jump around in my outline due to the dynamic of the moment. Perhaps an illustration pops into my head that tends to tie certain thoughts together in an order I hadn't used originally. With an outline it's much easier to do this and to hop past certain portions of the sermon that have already been touched on. And there are times when I realize that whole sections are not really helpful to the sermon as it's being delivered, so I'll skip them altogether. I've stopped halfway through my notes before. My purpose is not to make sure they hear everything I've learned or put in my notes. My purpose is to help them see Christ more clearly and, as much as I'm able, pour the truth of God into hearts, exposing them to the verity of Scripture in order to help facilitate a great love for and faithfulness to Christ Jesus.


----------



## raekwon

nicnap said:


> I think a pastor should carry an outline only ... as Dr. Carrick says, [/b]if a man reads his sermons, he doesn't experience the highs or lows of delivering the sermon.[/b]



I dunno, man. I find that even when I read, my cadence and delivery hits levels of intensity and emotion at the appropriate times. Then again, that might have something to do with my method of "reading," which isn't your typical "stare at the page and recite" style.


----------



## amg

fredtgreco said:


> Ok - let me break in with some reality.
> 
> You are not (and I am not) Jonathan Edwards. You are not Spurgeon. You are not preaching to people who have never seen a television, have much longer attention spans, and who know their Bibles better than most ministers (after all, English grammar was taught out of the Bible then).
> 
> Of course, we can find great exceptions as to what the Spirit can use in a man of exceptional talents in the midst of a great time in Providence (e.g. the Great Awakening). But this is not the norm. As a wise older friend told me about sermon preparation: "Don't put on the Holy Spirit's back what is your job." We ought not to be presumptuous preachers. Prepare, prepare, prepare in the study, and thus be able to speak _*to *_(not _*at*_) the people. Preach, as one put it "as a dying man to dying men." How many of us would read an essay to our children when we were concerned for their souls? What possible example do we have of reading a sermon in the Bible?
> 
> Men, do your work, and then engage your people!


 
You are absolutely correct that neither of us is a Charles Spurgeon or a Jonathan Edwards. The gem and the glory is not in the vessel, or the ability of the vessel, but it is the message itself: that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. It would not matter if we had a 1,000 Spurgeons, or a 1,000 Edwards, or a 1,000 Whitefields in the church today- revival is a good and perfect gift which comes down from our heavenly Father with whom there is no variableness neither shadow of turning.

The God of Spurgeon and the God of Edwards is the same God that we serve and He is just as capable of moving as He did then- NOW. My argument is not that men should not prepare for the pulpit- rather, we should be as prepared to handle the Word of the living God as possible, afterall do you not know that is will be required of you (Romans 2.2, 6-7; 2 Timothy 2.15)? My argument is that the delivery is virtually irrelevant. Yes, we need to be reverent (preaching from a lazy boy with bunny slippers on is to make a mockery of the highest calling on earth) and we need to study and we need to have unabated zeal- and yes, I agree, as Baxter said, we need preachers who preach as dying men to other dying men with a message of the living God! But, are you saying that a man cannot have unabated zeal if he preaches from a manuscript? That is an over generalization.

My friend, neither of us would read from manuscript to our loved ones who we knew were unsaved- you have a family, you have witnessed to the unconverted, you know as well as I do the painful urge to reach out and save a soul from the grips of sin and misery and eternal hell which Christ has saved us from- but we cannot- only God can. And how many times would I have saved my own loved ones, and my own friends, and the folks who I am able to share the gospel with- but I cannot. After I was saved I spoke with my great-grandfather, the man is now 86 years old, and I told him all that Christ had done for me and he said very simply, "No.... No." As much as I would like to change his heart, I cannot, and the way that I present the message is not going to change his heart.

My argument is that more so than we need gifted men in the pulpit, be it intellectually or oratorically, we need men called of God and we need the power of the Almighty God. Did you read the end of my last post?

"Ultimately, it does not matter how well you can preach extemporaneously or how meticulously you can prepare a manuscript to preach from, if the Lord does not come down in great and terrible power nothing will happen. The church today is not going to benefit from preachers who preach extemporaneously any more than the church is going to benefit from preachers who prepare thorough sermon manuscripts. When the man of God stands before the people of God he is delivering a message from the Holy One- this is something the church today needs to remember. The issue at hand is not the delivery, but the fact that the Lord is meeting with His people and we need to be prepared to meet with Him.

O, that we would have the same preparation to meet with the Lord as those Israelites of old in Exodus 19. "

And, I will say it once more, the church is not going to benefit from gifted men. The glory is not in the messenger, but it is the message, and what a glorious message it is! If we as the people of God could only know the weight of what we have been saved from, if we could only realize our total dependence upon God, I believe we would have a zeal for sinners and we would know what it is to truly meet with Him and to truly strive with Him in the place of prayer- which is what we need. What I find so disheartening anymore is when I speak with young people at the university, and they are reformed in their doctrine, and their hearts are cold to the gospel and they have no zeal for sinners or for the gospel of truth. What has happened is their doctrine has failed to impact their lives and I think this happens far too often in our reformed circles. And, just as I cannot reach out and save those sinners on their way to eternity I cannot reach out and stir those cold hearts with the heart stirring truths of Christ. This is why the way we deliver the message does not matter: because we cannot change hearts and we cannot mimic the Holy Ghost, who is the only One who can change hearts. May God have mercy upon us.


----------



## nicnap

raekwon said:


> I dunno, man. I find that even when I read, my cadence and delivery hits levels of intensity and emotion at the appropriate times. Then again, that might have something to do with my method of "reading," which isn't your typical "stare at the page and recite" style.



The highs and lows aren't necessarily the intonation of the message, which I agree can be reached by reading, but the spirit of the message. There is an element of knowing, "That sermon hit home." Or, "That sermon bombed." You don't necessarily get that with reading, because you don't get the interaction. I am not saying that people don't make eye contact or have good intonation when they read, but there is something that is _intangible _that isn't the same.


----------



## Romans922

nicnap said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno, man. I find that even when I read, my cadence and delivery hits levels of intensity and emotion at the appropriate times. Then again, that might have something to do with my method of "reading," which isn't your typical "stare at the page and recite" style.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The highs and lows aren't necessarily the intonation of the message, which I agree can be reached by reading, but the spirit of the message. There is an element of knowing, "That sermon hit home." Or, "That sermon bombed." You don't necessarily get that with reading, because you don't get the interaction. I am not saying that people don't make eye contact or have good intonation when they read, but there is something that is _intangible _that isn't the same.
Click to expand...

 
Again I take my manuscript into the pulpit and I very easily have that interaction. But I know my manuscript. Therefore, I have freedom in the pulpit where I am not looking at it all the time. People are often surprised when they learn i use a manuscript. So basically it boils down to this, it doesn't matter what you take to the pulpit, it is what you do when you get there (not at all trying to limit the role of the Spirit in what I am saying here).

I know what you and dr. Carrick are trying to guard against, but one shouldn't make absolute statements in this regard. After all, i have seen men use an outline and still have no interaction with the congregation.


----------



## nicnap

Romans922 said:


> nicnap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno, man. I find that even when I read, my cadence and delivery hits levels of intensity and emotion at the appropriate times. Then again, that might have something to do with my method of "reading," which isn't your typical "stare at the page and recite" style.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The highs and lows aren't necessarily the intonation of the message, which I agree can be reached by reading, but the spirit of the message. There is an element of knowing, "That sermon hit home." Or, "That sermon bombed." You don't necessarily get that with reading, because you don't get the interaction. I am not saying that people don't make eye contact or have good intonation when they read, but there is something that is _intangible _that isn't the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again I take my manuscript into the pulpit and I very easily have that interaction. But I know my manuscript. Therefore, I have freedom in the pulpit where I am not looking at it all the time. People are often surprised when they learn i use a manuscript. So basically it boils down to this, it doesn't matter what you take to the pulpit, it is what you do when you get there (not at all trying to limit the role of the Spirit in what I am saying here).
> 
> I know what you and dr. Carrick are trying to guard against, but one shouldn't make absolute statements in this regard. After all, i have seen men use an outline and still have no interaction with the congregation.
Click to expand...

 

Indeed, there are men who can, and do handle a manuscript very well. I think it does come down to how well you know your material, and how much it has "gripped" you. I will give a for instance: a man ought to be able to continue preaching if the power goes off (if it is dusk) -- he won't be able to read his notes, but should be able to continue. This happened to me at an OPC church where I was supplying one Lord's day a few years ago. A storm came up, it got dark outside, and the power went off. It was still daylight and I could see faces, but the storm and power outage would have made it impossible to read notes. That is what I am trying to guard against. Had I been tied to my manuscript, there would have been no way to continue. The minister should be "full" of his text and his material, so that as Fred has said, he can preach at a moment's notice ... or in a power outage.


----------



## LeeJUk

If reading your sermon helps you personally rightly communicate the Word of God then do it.
If being a bit more flexible and using an outline helps you to rightly communicate the Word of God do it. 
Those who read aren't necessarily boring and monotone and those who are more flexible aren't necessarily more interesting or emotional in their delivery. 

God uses both styles of preaching and I don't think one is worse than the other. It is a purely individual matter.

The important thing is that its truth coming out of your lips.


----------



## Caroline

I wouldn't say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to preach well from a manuscript, but I have never seen it done. One of the dangers in public speaking is that people are often not aware if they are bad at it. I have no doubt that pastors who read sermons with a monotone believe they are reading very well, although I have never asked them. In fact, I used to evaluate research presentations at a grad school, and I never had a student fail who thought they deserved it. Many wept buckets of tears and said they thought they had done very well, even if they had been barely understandable. Such is human nature that we all tend to evaluate ourselves higher than we ought.

I'm not saying that any of you guys are wrong about that, but I do think wisdom dictates that if you don't have someone in your audience that you rely on to tell you when you do something stupid, you should. Obviously, find someone who won't just tear you down but isn't afraid to offer constructive criticism from time to time. In other words, not your mother who thinks you can do no wrong, and not the obnoxious old lady who thinks you can never measure up to the last pastor, but someone that can be objective.

That being said, I have to say that one of my biggest pet peeves is when I hear people tearing down a sermon style in a truly nitpicky fashion. If a pastor if faithful to the Word, works hard, serves the congregation and his family, tries to deliver his sermons well and makes an effort to improve ... do we all really need to focus on that little nervous twitch he has during the first five minutes of the sermon? Not everything is a big deal and needs to be commented on. But then, if something is truly awful, then I don't think we do bad pastors any favors by telling them that they are good. It's a balance.


----------



## SemperEruditio

I preach from a manuscript and it feels very unnatural. My pastor preaches from a manuscript and everyone assumes he just has some notes on a piece of paper because the eye contact he maintains with us and how it just flows. The other intern preaches from a manuscript and it's hit or miss with him as it is with me. What I've noticed is that it comes down to how much we know or "feel" the text. The pastor seems to feel every text and that comes out in his preaching. He maintains eye contact with the congregation and then looks away to his manuscript and doesn't miss a beat. I have no idea how he does it. I feel as though I am cemented to the manuscript. It feels very wooden. I add the inflection but there are plenty of times when I look out and realize that a point needs to be expounded and lately I have taken the time to unchain from the script. It was during those brief sections that the congregation became more attentive. You can hear it in my voice as well. There's a life to it and I feel connected to them. When I return to reading I feel disconnected but safe. It's turned into a very unprofitable crutch.

My #1 critic is my wife and she's recommended I do what has been recommended here and in Chapell's book, that I type out the manuscript and then from that create the outline and preach from the outline. My pastor reassures me that it comes with time and I think it is also more of a fear thing. I just need to cut the umbilical cord and write out my sermon and then create an outline from that. The other thing is that since I have time I begin to practice with my wife before. This has been recommended that I do as long as I am able to because pretty soon I won't have the time.

Thanks Fred for the exhortation!


----------



## Reformed Roman

I just wanted to post a small note of caution here. 

As long as your not in a recliner with bunny slippers, I see nothing wrong with reading your sermon.

My Pastor actually did this at my new church and it was great. When you have like 45 minute sermons, and you've been doing hours and hours of studying, it's great when I get to hear everything he studied in that time, in a organized manner. 

I just want to give a slight warning. It's not as much the method but the message. I say pick the best method according to your strengths God has given you, and according to the needs of the congregation. Whether that's a manuscript, an outline, or you just reading off the full sermon.


----------



## KMK

Zach Rohman said:


> As long as your not in a recliner with bunny slippers, I see nothing wrong with reading your sermon.



Is this a slam against the late Dr. Eugene Scott? If so, you forgot to mention the cigar and the sombrero.


----------



## TomVols

I always advise: don't strive to be note-less; strive to be note-free. Rare is the person who can write for the ear and not for the eye. That said, careful preparation should be made. If you're coing to preach to the same people week in and week out for years, you should be working on your language to make sure you aren't constantly repeating default phrases. Delivery does matter. I'm not saying you're sinning if you don't have glossy fill in the blank outlines and neon Power Point presentations. I am simply saying preaching is verbal communication - an oral act. It is the highest priority and deserves our utmost attention. 

I have to say a word here about the physical construction of the pulpit. Some pulpits are very well designed and can lend themselves to the pastor reading sections or visualizing his notes without losing sight of the congregation. But others are slanted or short, where the pastor looks down and then back up, and he looks like a chicken eating corn. But we probably can't control this. Use your pulpit well. And if you must move around, don't do it to the point that I'm following your motions more than I'm following your words. 

By the way, I would question whether President Obama is all that great of a communicator. Clinton was far more passionate, and Bush was better at enunciation. If you don't believe me, go back and watch the three in order and compare. All of them had their default tendencies.


----------



## Reepicheep

Obviously everyone has an opinion on this...

Preaching is not delivering a theological paper or doctrinal treatise. Preaching is, among other things, opening up the Word of God to a particular flock and should involve all the personal connection you can muster. Let's be honest- if reading a sermon sufficed, let's get out manuscripts that are better than anything we could muster. I would read Barnhouse's sermons to my congregation...

What you carry in to the pulpit is unique to each preacher- short outline, extended outline, or manuscript. It doesn't matter so long as you preach the Word to the people, not read a paper to them.

If you write a manuscript with the intention of reading it, it seems good and engaging when you're writing it, but usually it comes off like a treatise and is generally hard to listen to, no matter what you think. We communicate with an audience differently than we write. Writing doesn't require as many repeated phrases, paradigmatic speech, certain verbal emphasis, etc. Profound writers often struggle to be effective with an audience because there is no ability for the audience to go back and re-hear something, etc. 

I'm sure some people will say- "Well, if it's a faithful exposition of God's Word, who cares if it is read?" 

I guess I think a shepherds job is a bit more thorough than that. We should have the message/sermon so ingrained in our minds and hearts that we could throw away the notes and look the sheep for whom Christ died in the eyes and speak to them fluently, never looking down or anywhere else for that matter. 

This is a good topic for discussion. I am with Fred on this- please don't read sermons to the people of God...they can go to Monergism.com and do that for themselves.


----------



## dudley

Phil said "Speaking only as a hearer, I do find it somewhat annoying when very much of sermon is read."
I agree and my experience as a layman who also teaches public speaking and rhetoric and oratory is that a majority of Protestant ministers I have heard preach the Gospel far surpass my experience with the catholic priests who I listened to for so many years as a catholic and heard a majority of them read their sermons which were often very weak. 

I believe the Protestants have been and continue to be superior in their oratory and public speaking skills over the catholic priests; because they deliver the message from the heart and it is not read. Never read a sermon is the advice I would give to all ministers of the Gospel.


----------



## Gesetveemet

You can read the greatest sermon ever written or
you can preach the greatest sermon ever spoke but
*unless God gives the application* neither will 
encourage the saints or save a soul.



.


----------



## PuritanZealot

I didn't know this was a common practice, perhaps I am naive of the processes used by most pastors. But my Pastor never reads from a manuscript, he very often has absolutely no idea what he is going to preach about, and one of the deacons told me the other day he sometimes turns up at chapel with three or four passages or subjects in mind and allows the Holy Spirit to guide him. I have witnessed other ministers changing their verse mid sermon, or changing the angle of the subject depending on the Holy Spirits guidance. 
I think this has a lot to do with computers as well, how many of you would write out your manuscript in its entirety by hand and read from it when you had a wednesday evening sermon, a prayer meeting sermon, and two Lords Day sermons to write out? I am not rebuking those who do read from a manuscript, there must be errors in both arguments but traditionally I would have thought the most gifted preachers would have been the ones who could preach the Gospel from the Bible anywhere at anytime. I am reminded that Gadsby, Kershaw, Warburton and Philpot were known as awful stutterers, shy, retiring, quiet, but when in the pulpit turned into loud, rousing firebrands. The Holy Spirit will use the vessel how he pleases.
The foolish confounding the wise etc...


----------



## Gesetveemet

Mr. Fraser

Our elders sometimes read Philpot and other like minded preachers
when we lack pulpit supply. We still consider it the word of God
even though it's a read sermon. 



.


----------



## PuritanZealot

Our deacons do the same thing sir, when a preacher isn't available we have a reading sermon and one of the old Gadsby, Philpot et al sermons are ready for the congregation. That is an entirely different subject I think thought and not treated the same as the living word of preaching a minister espouses in a face to face sermon.


----------



## KMK

Reepicheep said:


> What you carry in to the pulpit is unique to each preacher- short outline, extended outline, or manuscript. It doesn't matter so long as you preach the Word to the people, not read a paper to them.



I wholeheartedly agree with this. Didn't we learn back in High School that when public speaking you don't read a paper to the audience? Just because you have the full manuscript in front of you doesn't necessarily mean you are 'reading' it to the audience.


----------



## Edward

PuritanZealot said:


> he very often has absolutely no idea what he is going to preach about, and one of the deacons told me the other day he sometimes turns up at chapel with three or four passages or subjects in mind and allows the Holy Spirit to guide him. I have witnessed other ministers changing their verse mid sermon, or changing the angle of the subject depending on the Holy Spirits guidance.



The PCA directory of worship advises "53-3. Preaching requires much study, meditation, and prayer, and ministers
should prepare their sermons with care, and not indulge themselves in loose, extemporary harangues, nor serve God with that which costs them naught." (This piece is non-constitutional, but still useful). 

As for reading, I would suggest that that reflects a lack in the pastor's training which should be addressed. Of course, if a pastor isn't available to the congregation, then the directives set out in the PCA BCO would provide guidance to other bodies who lack such a document:

"4-5. Churches without teaching elders ought not to forsake the assembling of themselves together, but should be convened by the Session on the Lord's Day, and at other suitable times, for prayer, praise, the presenting and expounding of the Holy Scriptures, and exhortation, or the *reading of a sermon of some approved minister*. In like manner, Christians whose lot is cast in destitute regions ought to meet regularly for the worship of God."


----------



## Caroline

PuritanZealot said:


> I didn't know this was a common practice, perhaps I am naive of the processes used by most pastors. But my Pastor never reads from a manuscript, he very often has absolutely no idea what he is going to preach about, and one of the deacons told me the other day he sometimes turns up at chapel with three or four passages or subjects in mind and allows the Holy Spirit to guide him. I have witnessed other ministers changing their verse mid sermon, or changing the angle of the subject depending on the Holy Spirits guidance.
> I think this has a lot to do with computers as well, how many of you would write out your manuscript in its entirety by hand and read from it when you had a wednesday evening sermon, a prayer meeting sermon, and two Lords Day sermons to write out? I am not rebuking those who do read from a manuscript, there must be errors in both arguments but traditionally I would have thought the most gifted preachers would have been the ones who could preach the Gospel from the Bible anywhere at anytime. I am reminded that Gadsby, Kershaw, Warburton and Philpot were known as awful stutterers, shy, retiring, quiet, but when in the pulpit turned into loud, rousing firebrands. The Holy Spirit will use the vessel how he pleases.
> The foolish confounding the wise etc...


 
Although the most gifted preachers might be able to do this, I would strongly advise against assuming that you are that gifted. Perhaps a man has a photographic memory to pull up verses at any time at a moment's notice ... good. But most people do not.

I had a pastor once (if one can call so odious a man 'pastor', because the fault I am about to describe is by far the least of his problems) who took great pride in never preparing for his sermons. He told me that he just preached whatever the Holy Ghost led him to say. 

"I never spend a moment in preparation," he told me proudly. And to demonstrate this, he lifted the pulpit (it was a small, lightweight pulpit) and shook it upside down to show me that he had no notes on it.

And, being a smart-mouthed teenager, I gave the obvious smart-mouth response, "Yes, sir, I can tell. You definitely sound like you didn't prepare at all."

But truthfully, whether I should have said it or not, he did sound that way. He misquoted the Bible constantly, and he really only ever preached on one subject--that women who wore pants were going to hell. 

Of course, that is an extreme example, but I'm just saying .... I think it is possible to go to two different extremes, both of which are destructive. One would be to prepare in advance every line and then stand up and merely read it back word-for-word to the congregation, and the other is to assume that the right words will just come to you with no effort at all. Both are a sort of laziness and/or fear, I think. Public speaking is hard, and it is risky. That's just the way it is. Some people may find easier ways to do it if they are particularly gifted in a certain way, but most of us have to do our work and take the risk.


----------



## Parker234

As I understand it, Edwards preached from a full manuscript early in his ministry, but by the end (especially when paper was hard to come by) he ended up using an abbreviated outline. Look at the condition of some of his later manuscripts at the Yale website.


----------

