Notthemama1984
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Out of curiosity, how many members of PB type out and read their sermons?
Reading your sermon
- Thread starter Notthemama1984
- Start date
- Status
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.
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
Puritan Board Doctor
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.
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
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
Tempus faciendi, Domine.
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.
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
Puritan Board Senior
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
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I had assumed some would read. I guess I was wrong.
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
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.
---------- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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?
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?
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?
Yes. I try not to choose very long quotes though.
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.
Jesus is my friend
Puritan Board Junior
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
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
Puritanboard Doctor
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.
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
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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.
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.
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.
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
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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.
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.)
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.)
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
Puritanboard Commissioner
Few churches are equipped wit h teleprompters.
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
.- Status
