Reading your sermon

[Notthemama1984]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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!