Taking notes during a sermon is wrong? Right?

[Reformed Catholic]

Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones said the following: “I have often discouraged the taking of notes while I am preaching. . . . The first and primary object of preaching is not only to give information. It is, as Edwards says, to produce an impression. It is the impression at the time that matters, even more than what you can remember subsequently. . . . While you are writing your notes, you may be missing something of the impact of the Spirit.”
(Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Puritans: Their Origins and Successors)

Ray Ortlund affirms this and adds that “Hearing a sermon is not like hearing a lecture. It is your meeting with the living Christ. It is you seeing his glory, so that you can feel it and be changed by it. Let’s pay attention to him and what he means a sermon to be, lest we miss him.”

Tim Keller: “I don’t mind if you take notes at the beginning of a message, but if you’re still taking notes at the end, I feel like I haven’t brought it home.”

On the other hand, Joel Beeke, in his sermon “Puritan Theology of Worship” says that Puritans would often take notes while the sermon was being preached. Is this true? What has been the standard Reformed practice when sermons are being preached?

 

[MW]

Lloyd Jones had a retentive memory and perhaps assumed others thought like he did. He probably had a bit of a revivalist streak in him as well.

It becomes a question as to whether one wants to "affect" a person short term or long term. There are times when the gospel comes front and centre, and people are pressed with an immediate challenge. It would be a distraction to take notes at such a time. Other times it is a steady diet of instruction from the Word and note-taking would be advantageous.

Edwards believed the affections were moved via the understanding. If one has learned to understand things better by taking notes then that is going to aid the affections. I prefer to take in the whole thing and work it through while I hear it, and notes do not assist in doing this, but that is just me.

Heads of homes would often take notes so that they could go over the main points of the sermon as a part of Sabbath conference with the family. It is useful for individuals to have something to which they can refer for private meditation.

 

[davejonescue]

To kind of bring this into the reality of a 21st century context. Why not both? One can go to church, be fully immersed in the message, then go home and re-listen to it and take notes, as almost all churches, (and I have seen this from even 25 people churches) record their sermons and put them online. My point is both can be done. Either listen/take notes during the service, and/or do the opposite at home.

 

[TheInquirer]

God does not sanctify his saints by impressions, the preacher's ability to "bring it home," or a supposed mystical meeting with Jesus. He does so by the Spirit applying the truth to the heart and mind. If taking notes enables one to better remember, meditate upon, and be transformed by that truth, why in the world would anyone be against it?

 

[davejonescue]

God does not sanctify his saints by impressions, the preacher's ability to "bring it home," or a supposed mystical meeting with Jesus. He does so by the Spirit applying the truth to the heart and mind. If taking notes enables one to better remember, meditate upon, and be transformed by that truth, why in the world would anyone be against it?

I think it could possibly stem from being a distraction to hearing that truth in which the Spirit would apply. If a person is busy trying to write down what the pastor just said, they are probably missing what he is saying.

 

[Sam Jer]

People may want to consider writing quickly and illegibly. It is less distracting than writing like a normal person but still forces you to pay better attention.

 

[TheInquirer]

The problem with listening to someone speak is that ideas are going by very quickly. The mind only retains a small percentage of what is said. If God is prompting that person by the Spirit to key in on an idea that they write down, isn't that cooperating with the Spirit's work?

I am not advocating writing down everything the preacher says (not many preachers who are worth taking that many notes on from my limited experience) but important ideas or thoughts the Spirit may be prompting.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

I see nothing wrong with taking notes (though in my 17 + years of Christian life I've yet to see someone doing this) as they may want to take a note as a reminder, as they may forget it before the end of the sermon.

 

[davejonescue]

Someone could possibly create a recording app with buttons for 15scds, 30scds, 1mn, 2mn, 3mn; so that during the course of the ability to record the sermon, it can timestamp segments, then transcribe 15scds back, 30scds back, 1mn back, etc. And give you a detailed list at the end of the service; either in audio or text.

 

[Polanus1561]

Ask your pastor.

 

[pgwolv]

For a long time I did not take notes, just because I did not see the need. For the past couple of years I have been taking notes, and it has greatly enhanced my ability to follow the structure of the sermon and see the bigger picture. Also, notes are helpful when discussing the sermon afterwards, to quickly reference a specific Scripture passage that was quoted, or to discover the nuances that may be lost when hearing something to which my mind latches based on my current spiritual progress or something that happened in the week.

 

[Ploutos]

I think it rather absurd to attempt to make a blanket statement about note-taking, as if people all had the same learning style.

Personally, if I don't take notes, I'm not generally going to be much use discussing the sermon afterwards. That said: of late one of our children has been much more lap-greedy during the service so I have had to attempt the same kind of mental exercise usually generated by note-taking while managing a wiggly toddler. So I think it's not the note-taking itself but rather the way in which it galvanizes my mind into a suitable frame for listening.

 

[RamistThomist]

I'm very good at taking notes. If I take notes, I can tell you everything about the sermon. I can go over the highlights with my daughter. If I don't take notes, I often can't follow what the person is saying. It's as simple as that.

 

[iainduguid]

I think the point that Keller, Ortlund and Lloyd-Jones were making is simply that listening to a sermon ought not to be exactly like listening to a lecture in class. Provided you have that distinction clear, and you are listening to a sermon as a sermon, I doubt they would be too worried about whether you took notes or not. Of course, it is also incumbent on the preacher to make sure his sermon isn't simply a class lesson as well...

 

[Solparvus]

It’s no sin to take notes, but it helps to revisit what’s going on in a sermon. Contrast it with a lecture, where copious note-taking is quite appropriate and expected. A lecture is meant to merely inform the mind, but a sermon is meant to form the soul. A lecture is free to be impersonal, but a sermon is always personal. It is God who is speaking by His Word and Spirit to Christ’s bride. In personal interactions, note-taking is not often necessary.

A sermon may cut to the heart. It may heal. It may burn like a fire, or smash like a hammer. If these things happen, note-taking just may become superfluous.

This past Lord’s Day our pastor preached on Ephesians 3:20-21. I have small kids and am not usually free to take notes. All I can do is listen as attentively as circumstances allow me to. However, I’ve been living off the core idea of that sermon. It has helped my prayer and my outlook, and it brought me to better know God, His care, and His power. It helps that there have been some truly remarkable providences in the past few weeks gloriously coinciding with what God has had to say.

Sometimes the memory of the experience of a sermon does more good than note-taking. I remember the sermon under which I may have been converted. I did start note-taking, but I eventually stopped because I just couldn’t keep on. The Spirit was working to show me my legalism. I remember the sermon’s key point, the experience, the conviction, the opening of Christ to me that day. The Spirit worked, and it’s unforgettable.

If a person comes to a sermon disgusted with their sin, they won’t forget the glory of the remedy in Jesus Christ. If one has been slacking and they hear a piercing sermon on taking up their cross, they won’t forget the impression. Christ spoke the truth plainly, and people wished they could just pick up stones and put Him out. No one had to take notes.

As to the issue of impressions, the Word should make very deep impressions. “Cut to the heart,” “like a hammer,” “like a fire,” “sweeter than honey,” etc. But these will be the impression of the inscripturated truth applied by the Spirit, and not mere unfounded hunches that could just as easily be one’s imagination.

Not every sermon is going to have dramatic encounters, and I’m not against note-taking; but I’d start with an appreciation that we are coming as a bride to hear the husband speak, and that posture will do far more good for the outcome of a sermon than will copious notes. But again, I see notes as lawful helps.

 

[retroGRAD3]

I take notes. I find it helpful. The notes usually focus on applications.

 

[Redeemed Ronin]

For most of my Christian life, I took notes during sermons. It keeps me focused on the flow of the content, and helps with retention, meditation, and discussion. I'm at a point where I cannot take notes (kids), and it is much harder to focus during the sermon. That is not to say that the Holy Spirit cannot work without my note taking, but it does help me be more present during worship and mitigates distractions.

 

[ZackF]

It just helps me concentrate on the sermon even though I have seldom referred to them later. I was at a seminar once where the audience was told to just listen her and that an outline will furnished. I wanted to humiliate her but the Spirit prevailed.

 

[HauerVos]

I disagree. I need to write stuff down to remember it. I don't take sermon notes like I do lecture notes... just the main things to remember/consider for the week ahead.

 

[biblesword]

Someone could possibly create a recording app with buttons for 15scds, 30scds, 1mn, 2mn, 3mn; so that during the course of the ability to record the sermon, it can timestamp segments, then transcribe 15scds back, 30scds back, 1mn back, etc. And give you a detailed list at the end of the service; either in audio or text.

I sometimes use chatgpt and tell it to create an outline as I feed it information. By the end of the sermon, I have my thoughts organized into a big picture plus I have a record of each thought in the chat history. I sometimes have trouble getting engaged and focused on the sermon so the act of doing something related to the sermon helps me to get in the zone.

 

[Corey Powell]

I have often found that taking notes help me focus on what is being said rather than distract me. I don't write the notes to have something to reference later, rather writing the points of the sermon helps me follow the pastor's train of thought and helps me keep my mind from wandering, which I feel prone to. I believe it is a matter of personal discernment, but of course you should submit to your church leadership if give guidance.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones said the following: “I have often discouraged the taking of notes while I am preaching. . . . The first and primary object of preaching is not only to give information. It is, as Edwards says, to produce an impression. It is the impression at the time that matters, even more than what you can remember subsequently. . . . While you are writing your notes, you may be missing something of the impact of the Spirit.”
(Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Puritans: Their Origins and Successors)

Ray Ortlund affirms this and adds that “Hearing a sermon is not like hearing a lecture. It is your meeting with the living Christ. It is you seeing his glory, so that you can feel it and be changed by it. Let’s pay attention to him and what he means a sermon to be, lest we miss him.”

Tim Keller: “I don’t mind if you take notes at the beginning of a message, but if you’re still taking notes at the end, I feel like I haven’t brought it home.”

On the other hand, Joel Beeke, in his sermon “Puritan Theology of Worship” says that Puritans would often take notes while the sermon was being preached. Is this true? What has been the standard Reformed practice when sermons are being preached?

Most preachers in our day don't preach like Lloyd-Jones (I've never listened to Ray Ortlund or Tim Keller, so I won't comment on them one way or the other).

When I say that most preachers don't preach like Lloyd-Jones, I'm not saying they aren't as skilled as him; I mean their understanding of, and approach to, preaching is altogether different.

Most preachers and hearers understand the sermon to be essentially the word of man. It's a man's thoughts, reflections, and perspectives on a passage of Scripture. It's natural that someone would take notes on something like that.

What Lloyd-Jones understood, however, is that preaching is essentially the word of God, not the word of man. It's a message from God, formed in the soul of his ordained instrument (the preacher) by the operation of the Holy Ghost. Further, it is a confrontation with the living God.

Does that mean that you shouldn't take notes? Not necessarily, but we should guard against missing the Lord in the sermon by distracting ourselves with note taking. There's a danger of focusing on the intellectual element, and missing the spiritual element. If you are able to (or especially if you are helped to) commune with the living God while taking down notes, then by all means do it, but never turn it into a mere intellectual exercise.

I fear that true preaching is virtually absent from most evangelical and Reformed pulpits in our day. In such a context, Lloyd-Jones' words fall flat.

 

[iainduguid]

Most preachers in our day don't preach like Lloyd-Jones (I've never listened to Ray Ortlund or Tim Keller, so I won't comment on them one way or the other).

When I say that most preachers don't preach like Lloyd-Jones, I'm not saying they aren't as skilled as him; I mean their understanding of, and approach to, preaching is altogether different.

Most preachers and hearers understand the sermon to be essentially the word of man. It's a man's thoughts, reflections, and perspectives on a passage of Scripture. It's natural that someone would take notes on something like that.

What Lloyd-Jones understood, however, is that preaching is essentially the word of God, not the word of man. It's a message from God, formed in the soul of his ordained instrument (the preacher) by the operation of the Holy Ghost. Further, it is a confrontation with the living God.

Does that mean that you shouldn't take notes? Not necessarily, but we should guard against missing the Lord in the sermon by distracting ourselves with note taking. There's a danger of focusing on the intellectual element, and missing the spiritual element. If you are able to (or especially if you are helped to) commune with the living God while taking down notes, then by all means do it, but never turn it into a mere intellectual exercise.

I fear that true preaching is virtually absent from most evangelical and Reformed pulpits in our day. In such a context, Lloyd-Jones' words fall flat.

Tyler, since sound preaching is one of the marks of the true church, that's a pretty strong statement for a young man to make. Is that really what you think? That most Reformed churches today are not true churches? That most of us here on this Board don't attend true churches? Is that the general view among the pastors of the Free Church (Continuing)?

 

[MW]

Tyler, since sound preaching is one of the marks of the true church, that's a pretty strong statement for a young man to make. Is that really what you think? That most Reformed churches today are not true churches? That most of us here on this Board don't attend true churches? Is that the general view among the pastors of the Free Church (Continuing)?

I don't know how you come to this from Tyler's words. He said it is the approach to and understanding of preaching that is different. You can have sound content but it is delivered with a different focus. Sinclair Ferguson said something similar in his lecture on Perkins.

 

[iainduguid]

I don't know how you come to this from Tyler's words. He said it is the approach to and understanding of preaching that is different. You can have sound content but it is delivered with a different focus. Sinclair Ferguson said something similar in his lecture on Perkins.

I would have absolutely no problem with saying that much preaching today is different from that of Lloyd-Jones. But what he actually said was "true preaching is virtually absent from most evangelical and Reformed pulpits in our day". That is a remarkable claim.

 

[MW]

I would have absolutely no problem with saying that much preaching today is different from that of Lloyd-Jones. But what he actually said was "true preaching is virtually absent from most evangelical and Reformed pulpits in our day". That is a remarkable claim.

It is homiletics. What constitutes true preaching? How is the Word to be preached? The lack of true preaching in this sense does not makes a church false. Sometimes churches have only had readers.

 

[Grant Van Leuven]

This is such interesting timing. We study the Westminster Standards after food and fellowship following our evening worship service each Lord's Day. In the section on WSC 89 and 90 (the latter being the immediate referent) I spoke a little to the first comment about attending to the Word for it to be effectual (with the caveat it has to be first the Holy Spirit making it so in WSC 89) and the need to give proper attention including during the preaching of it (per WSC 89). I mentioned for some that may involve taking notes, although attentiveness often involves the kind of listening that has the eyes and face engaged with the preacher. I commented that note taking is fine, though I do not prefer to take notes heavily myself as it distracts me from being preached to in a sense: I like to just sit back (or rather forward) and take it in as "Thus saith the Lord!".

While discussing, I mentioned years ago I stopped providing the sermon outline for note taking because I noticed many people were so concerned to try and take down all the details that they weren't looking up and interacting with the preaching for the "divine dynamic" so to speak as much as I thought best in that preaching is more than lecturing. I encouraged what I do: write something or things that really hit(s) me (if I have anything to write with but usually I can't with babies in my lap like recently on vacation helping my wife). But I usually would hunt for a bulletin to scribble a phrase or reference down to remember if I really want to not forget something very specific. But otherwise, my main concern is the Lord speaks to them what they need to hear and the main moves and one main point (the title of the sermon in the bulletin so no note taking required for that: this also relates to my "Prutonian Preaching" training that the one main point is what you should be driving at, and I think there's another stream a while back about Dr. Dennis Prutow's book, So Pastor What's Your Point? that I helped with publishing while at RPTS). The point being that folks won't remember most of what we say (which is pretty humbling) so Dr. Prutow says make the whole sermon move (with moves, not many points) to lead to driving home (screwing it in the skull is more how he spoke about it) the one point (homiletical point derived from the exegetical point). In a sense, one might make lots of notes but if they one main point isn't in their skull with them throughout the week what's the point!? But also, later when folks sometimes want details from a sermon I preached I'm happy to email it in PDF to them (after I've fixed the typos!) as mostly type my sermon but also talk off it as the Spirit leads (that's another whole issue I know).

All this to say, after a few years of observation while preaching, I felt convicted to "relieve" the saints from the apparent need to write down as much as possible filling in between what I supplied with the EP, moves with Scripture references, and HP as it seemed to weigh them down and distract them (and frankly I guess I also found it distracting). They did not appear weighted down or in drudgery, rather they were earnest about it. This is not to discourage note taking, which is a way of being very attentive and trying to not miss things and be able to better remember things. But there seems to be a balance somewhere to encourage (that's what I was just referencing to the saints last Lord's Day evening--I'm not sure they remembered I used to do that it's been so long ago as I'm nearly here 15 years now). Just volunteering this for consideration with the question and comments. Note taking isn't sinful (that would be silly). But I do appreciate the other consideration per my observations offered above.

One other way to think about it: I can't remember who wrote/said this, but we can see preaching as providing a nice meal. People sit down and get much nourishment out of it, but they don't necessarily remember all the pieces eaten in particular or even the items on the menu. But they sure are thankful to have been fed (not realizing how much went into the recipe, making it, and preparing and serving it). And the "cook" sure is glad they are well fed and nourished and the ongoing family fellowship continues to grow. It's not that simple, but helpful I think. Maybe my pastoral advice is not to approach a sermon like a lecture and feel you need to get ready to pass a test. But take notes if you like with whatever YOU want to remember to take away--AND please also the homiletical point! ;-)

 

[jwithnell]

It is homiletics. What constitutes true preaching? How is the Word to be preached? The lack of true preaching in this sense does not makes a church false. Sometimes churches have only had readers.

This thread recognizes what the WCF teaches: we have both sound preaching in godly fear and the conscionable hearing of that Word. I find when I want to be critical of the first that it's worth examining myself to see if I uphold my part as the hearer

 

[Alexander Suarez]

I would have absolutely no problem with saying that much preaching today is different from that of Lloyd-Jones. But what he actually said was "true preaching is virtually absent from most evangelical and Reformed pulpits in our day". That is a remarkable claim.

Ian,

I think there is good material here for a separate thread to let our brother Tyler elaborate on his comment and to allow some critical interaction unto edification. If you and @TylerRay are open to it, I'll create the new thread to discuss that statement: "I fear that true preaching is virtually absent from most evangelical and Reformed pulpits in our day." I have a few questions of mine own, but I fear it will get this thread off topic.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Tyler, since sound preaching is one of the marks of the true church, that's a pretty strong statement for a young man to make. Is that really what you think? That most Reformed churches today are not true churches? That most of us here on this Board don't attend true churches? Is that the general view among the pastors of the Free Church (Continuing)?

Dr. Duguid,

The mark of preaching isn't wholly absent from the majority of Reformed churches. Pardon me if I implied that. What is lacking is the heart of the ordinance of preaching, which is the prophetic element. The mark can be (and is, in this case) more or less present even when it is attended with corruptions.

I'd like to ask you not to impute my personal statements, or your construals of my personal statements, to the pastors of my entire denomination. I'm neither competent nor authorized to speak on their behalf, and I have plenty of opinions of my own.