# Evaluating your preaching



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 29, 2010)

For those who preach, what do you do to accurately evaluate your sermons? 

I currently record my sermons and do my best to see where I think I am deficient, but am thinking there has to be other ways as well.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 29, 2010)

If you are married & have an intelligent and educated wife try this. Ask her to listen to the Bryan Chapell lectures from Cov Seminary on Prep & Del. She can then offer very good feedback.

I know many guys whose wives consider every word out of their mouths to be the Second Coming of Spurgeon. Although it seems to be great for the ego, I doubt that these women could offer effective feedback.

However if you try this, be ready for a reality check! If your wife understands how it should be done, be prepared to learn how you are missing the mark.

Best thing I ever did for my preaching was take Preparation & Delivery from Covenant on-line. Second best was to have my wife listen to all of the lectures along with me.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 29, 2010)

I will skip forward to those lectures today!


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 29, 2010)

What if you think Chapel is deficient in his view of preaching, then what do you do?

As your elders are also shepherds of the flock. I would ask them for advice and help. Then ask other trusted Pastors to listen and give feedback.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 29, 2010)

Romans922 said:


> What if you think Chapel is deficient in his view of preaching, then what do you do?



Substitute a reading of the relevant sections of _Preaching and Preachers_?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 29, 2010)

So far I am batting 1.000 I have the lectures, have the book, and my associate pastor is listenig to my sermons periodically and giving feedback.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 29, 2010)

Romans922 said:


> What if you think Chapel is deficient in his view of preaching, then what do you do?
> 
> As your elders are also shepherds of the flock. I would ask them for advice and help. Then ask other trusted Pastors to listen and give feedback.


 
You mean you disagree that preaching is the process of presenting the scripture, in an understandable way, so that the gospel can can convict people, of specic sins, and turn them to Christ?


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 29, 2010)

No I disagree with Chapel's philosophy of preaching.


----------



## Curt (Nov 29, 2010)




----------



## Kevin (Nov 29, 2010)

Romans922 said:


> No I disagree with Chapel's philosophy of preaching.


 
and you would define that how?


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 29, 2010)

NOT PURITAN-esque


----------



## Kevin (Nov 29, 2010)

Whatever.


----------



## Herald (Nov 29, 2010)

Romans922 said:


> NOT PURITAN-esque


 What exactly is PURITAN-esque preaching? 


Sent using my most excellent Android device.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 29, 2010)

Romans922 said:


> NOT PURITAN-esque





Kevin said:


> Whatever.



Rarely have I been so illumined or edified by an exchange!


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 29, 2010)

Romans922 said:


> No I disagree with Chapel's philosophy of preaching.


 
Like what, his belief that he should have a point? Or that he shouldn't put people to sleep? Or that sermons should be Christ-centered?

Help me out here, please, because there's a lot of room for interpretation with your remark...


----------



## Guido's Brother (Nov 29, 2010)

Our consistory has a sermon-evaluation discussion every three months. My elders sit together and discuss my preaching without me in the room for about 30 minutes or so. Then I'm invited back in and offered constructive feedback. This is a fairly common practice amongst the Canadian Reformed Churches.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 29, 2010)

Kevin said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> > No I disagree with Chapel's philosophy of preaching.
> ...


 The "fallen condition focus" and over-emphasis on the redemptive historical method. Generally speaking, Chapell's method is weak on application. _Christ Centered Preaching_ (his book, not as a philosophy) has its good points, but it is insufficient in my view. It produces a weak pulpit ministry in my opinion. And my opinion is based not on theory, but in practice.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 29, 2010)

fredtgreco said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> > Romans922 said:
> ...



So... a little too much gospel and too little law for your blood?


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 29, 2010)

Herald said:


> What exactly is PURITAN-esque preaching?




Fred hit the nail on the head, sorry I wasn't right on top of the responses. 

I was going to say that Chapell comes from the camp that is more of a Redemptive-Historical preaching method rather than a historical-grammatical method with pointed application. 

But Fred brings up a point that I didn't think about in this conversation and that is in the long run it leads to a weak pulpit ministry.


Perhaps Chapell's 'sonship' view should be in this conversation as well.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 29, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin said:
> ...


 Not exactly - although I think it is weak on the third use of the law. I would say it is weak on the gospel's ability to change the believer's life and actions, sort of classic application.


----------



## KMK (Nov 29, 2010)

Chaplainintraining said:


> For those who preach, what do you do to accurately evaluate your sermons?
> 
> I currently record my sermons and do my best to see where I think I am deficient, but am thinking there has to be other ways as well.


 
Here is a Sermon Application Rubric that I use to make sure I am covering all the bases from month to month.


----------



## greenbaggins (Nov 29, 2010)

I have found Chapell to be somewhat weak on explaining the text. Take his Ephesians sermons for instance (published in the Reformed Expository Commentary series). They are long on illustrations (many of which are only tangential at best to the main point), and short on explanation of the text. The liberal scholar Ernest Best is FAR better at explaining the meaning of the text than Chapell is. One of the dangers of the redemptive-historical method is that the forest is emphasized at the expense of the trees, if it is not done correctly. Now, in this context, I am referring to the redemptive-historical method not in the sense of preaching Christ from all the Scriptures (which I would hope we all agree needs to be done), but in the more negative sense of having Christ pop out of the box in an artificial way, and having the text refer to Him, and therefore not to us. Furthermore, I don't think that illustration can take the place of application. All too often it does in Chapell's preaching. I won't deny that Chapell often preaches decent sermons. He does. However, I have seen too many graduates of Covenant who have weak preaching. I know an elder, in fact, who claims to know right away whether a guy is a Covenant grad or not on the basis of his preaching.


----------



## AThornquist (Nov 29, 2010)

At my church the pastors are active in evaluating and giving feedback to one another whenever needed. If that means every week for a certain preacher, then it's every week. If that means it's needed only occasionally, then it is given appropriately as well. The point is, they are active in helping one another in terms of their ability to feed the flock, which is also the practice of our pastoral mentoring group that gathers several times a month for instruction from the pastors and preaching from men of the church, especially from pastoral students; afterward there is a time of evaluation and encouragement regarding the sermon. If at all possible, have a discerning handful of people do likewise with your preaching. Other advice in this thread is helpful as well, but there is much to be gained from wise counsel that cares for you and desires for your ministry to flourish and that can personally hear you preach.


----------



## KMK (Nov 29, 2010)

I hate to contribute to the off-topic discussion of Chapell, but do his critics level the same against Clowney? It seems that Chapell and Clowney are engaged in a struggle against moralistic preaching and must be understood in that context.


----------



## Herald (Nov 29, 2010)

KMK said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > For those who preach, what do you do to accurately evaluate your sermons?
> ...


 
Ken, I like your rubric. Thanks.

Sent using my most excellent Android device.


----------



## greenbaggins (Nov 29, 2010)

KMK said:


> I hate to contribute to the off-topic discussion of Chapell, but do his critics level the same against Clowney? It seems that Chapell and Clowney are engaged in a struggle against moralistic preaching and must be understood in that context.


 
I agree that they were opposed to moralistic preaching, as am I. The redemptive-historical focus and consummation of history in the person and work of Christ not only acts as a guide and fence to application; but also _is_ the point of the Bible. That being said, I would not level the same criticism against Clowney. For one thing, Clowney injected quite a bit more straight exegesis into his sermons than Chapell does. For another thing, Clowney was also quite a bit more inventive when it came to how the text applies to us.


----------



## KMK (Nov 29, 2010)

greenbaggins said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > I hate to contribute to the off-topic discussion of Chapell, but do his critics level the same against Clowney? It seems that Chapell and Clowney are engaged in a struggle against moralistic preaching and must be understood in that context.
> ...


 
So criticism against Chapell is not criticism against the RH model in general, but against a lack of honest exegesis?


----------



## greenbaggins (Nov 29, 2010)

KMK said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > KMK said:
> ...


 
I think some here would criticize Chapell and by extension the entire RH model. I think Chapell can be criticized on more than one front with regard to preaching. As to the RH model, I think that there are some salutary emphases in the movement, while I would not go to the extremes that many in the movement take it.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 29, 2010)

Are we talking about the content of the delivered sermon or more about the delivery of the preacher in this OP?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 29, 2010)

Delivery


----------



## KMK (Nov 29, 2010)

Herald said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Chaplainintraining said:
> ...



No problem, Bill. It isn't exactly my rubric. I got the idea from Sinclair Ferguson and combined parts of William Perkins with William Ames and put it together.

I realize now that I attached a version with some of my own notes on it. Here is a blank copy.


----------



## Herald (Nov 29, 2010)

KMK said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > KMK said:
> ...



Thanks.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 29, 2010)

For delivery: 

I prefer sincere and simple, extemporanous preaching that does not look angry (no Billly Sunday poses with the bible over the head like a club) and uses plain language and deals much with application. 

Anything overly-dramatic often looks unnatural and turns me away, but a sincere pleading is okay.

If an OT verse is being used to point to Christ...just say so at the beginning to save the audience from the dramatic build-up to reveal Christ in the last 10 minutes. Say your main points all upfront and then explain them further in the message. Also, anything that sounds overly jugmental or negative is a turn-off to a great many people (strident or arrogant or dogmatic plattitudes don't sit well, neither does sarcasm or smugness). Any lilt of voice or dramatic raising or lowering can only be pulled off by a few preachers and most of the time is too predictable ('''okay, here it comes...he is now going to raise his voice dramatically to emphasize that last point...YAWN). Although, the preacher should be animated and engaging and look his audience in the eye (and not always on his notes). Involving the audience through the use of well-placed questions and many word pictures and concrete examples also seems to be ways to keep the audiences attention.

---------- Post added at 02:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:05 AM ----------

More thoughts:

I have seen youtubes or sermonaudios of my delivery and I wince at times. OUCH.

But I find when I have seen myself engage with the audience in Q and A (about my work here) I am more relaxed and things come out more naturally and there is a lot of interaction between myself and the congregants.. Also I find that the simpler and more direct I am, the more engagement and eye contact the audience gives me. Also, when I move from the abstract to the concrete and give a well placed story or word picture of visual illlustration, then the audience seems to come alive again. 

I do not speak well and I have tried to practice in a mirror, but I usually just end up laughing at myself or feeling REALLY immobilized due to self-consciousness.


----------



## mvdm (Nov 29, 2010)

Our consistory evaluates every sermon preached. We developed an evaluation form, and different elders are assigned to evaluate at a given worship service. At our monthly meeting, we go over every sermon preached in the last month. The minister remains in the room so that he can hear our discussion, receive immediate feedback, provide us answers where necessary, and then he is given the form for his further reading and study. We usually devote about 1 hour per consistory meeting for this task. Both elders and minister have found this to be a very edifying process.


----------



## Bookmeister (Nov 30, 2010)

Three part sermon diagnostic

1. Is Christ mentioned?
2. Is He the subject of the verbs?(is He doing the action or being acted on?)
3. What are those verbs?(is He making you happy, healthy, wealthy etc.? Or is He suffering and dying on the cross to pay for your sins? Is He rising again on the third day? Etc.)


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 30, 2010)

If you preach through the entirety of the Scriptures, not every sermon is going to have Christ as the central figure. Now in the big scheme of your preaching sure He is. Like one was saying above,


> One of the dangers of the redemptive-historical method is that the forest is emphasized at the expense of the trees


. If every sermon, even from the middle of Esther or some other book, is specifically about Jesus (sure in the large picture everything is about or points to Him) then the forest is emphasized at the expense of the trees and over time your congregation will suffer. Both have to be emphasized in their proper places. There are indicatives and imperatives in the Gospel message. Some texts will lend more towards indicative: this is what has happened, this is who you are; but don't forget also the imperatives that stand on the shoulders of the indicative: this is what must be done now, worship, holiness/obedience. 

So asking, "Is He the subject of the verbs?" Not all the time, No and for good reason. I'm preaching here coming up 2 sermons on Rev. 12, and one sermon is focused on Satan. My sermon's subject is Satan not Jesus. Who is Satan and what does that mean for us.

Does the words Jesus or Christ have to be mentioned in every sermon, "Is Christ mentioned?" No, sometimes, especially in the OT you are talking about the Lord or God, so yes and no. If the text doesn't say Jesus or Christ, then I am not necessarily going to mention Jesus, but perhaps in an evangelistic way. If in Esther, perhaps you are going to preach on how to live as a Christian or Ruth, the focus isn't on Jesus and you don't necessarily have to mention Him, ESPECIALLY if you are preaching through a book to the same congregation. 

Not every sermon is specifically about Jesus Christ. Not every sermon is about the forest (in other words), sometimes it has to be about the trees. Not all the time, but sometime.


----------



## Reepicheep (Dec 1, 2010)

greenbaggins said:


> I know an elder, in fact, who claims to know right away whether a guy is a Covenant grad or not on the basis of his preaching.


 
Well, I know a few elders who know right away whether a guy is a Westminster or Greenville grad on the basis of his preaching...most of the congregation will be sleeping in 10 minutes.

Sorry, but that's about as legit as your statement.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Dec 1, 2010)

OP answers: 
1. My wife will me feedback that is always helpful. She represents the "single mom in the pew" balancing worship with 4 kids under 7. 
2. My session gives feedback. This is part of the job of ruling elders, in my opinion. Older elders keeping younger pastors in line.  
3. I have a friend that listens and we talk about them. I talk to him about his as well. 
4. The presbytery should have a listen on occasion and give feedback.


----------



## KMK (Dec 1, 2010)

I know I am part of the problem here but let's not allow this thread degenerate into mud slinging over the RH issue. Let us stick to the OP and discuss how a preacher can best evaluate his sermons.


----------

