Showing posts with label preaching. Show all posts
Showing posts with label preaching. Show all posts

Are Sermons Worthwhile?

There is a lot of anti-sermon sentiment being expressed these days. Recently, a friend posted an Alan Knox quote on Facebook: "If people rarely learn to do through lecture, why do we continue to put so much focus on lecture in the church (the sermon)."

It raises the question, "Is the sermon useless?"

Obviously, I believe in the power of the sermon. It's part of my ministry to deliver one every week. But notice here a theme that will continue throughout this article. My belief in the power of the sermon causes me to deliver them every week. I wouldn't do this if I believed sermons were ineffective. My actions are influenced by my belief. Beliefs are very important.

Sermons are not as effective as standing by your neighbor's side and helping them through a situation. Nobody is arguing that they are. Sermons play a different role. The role of a sermon is to help many people at one time on a mass scale. We don't have to decide between listening to sermons or helping our neighbor on an individual level. That is unless you are one of the highly scheduled people who only has one hour of free time each week. "Should I use the only hour I have available to go sing songs to God with my brothers and sisters in Jesus and listen to a sermon or should I just use that time to help my neighbor?" Most of us don't face that dilemma. The sermon and the individual life of loving one another work best in tandem. A sermon doesn't teach "how to love your neighbor"; it teaches "why you should love your neighbor" and inspires you to do it. The "how-to" will vary from person to person, but the inspiration and encouragement should be universal.

Modern church culture teeters on the precipice of belief. I frequently encounter the idea, "Belief doesn't matter; all that matters is action." It is true that belief without action is meaningless, but that does not correlate that belief is meaningless. Belief influences and inspires our action. Without belief, we wouldn't have the action. Our lack of action only shows our belief in the wrong things.

Harvard Magazine recently published Eric Manz' The Decline of the Lecture. A quote from it was repeated on Scot McKnight's blog, Professors: What about lectures?, which was then reprinted at Alan Knox' post Sermons sound like a great idea, but what are people getting from them?:
When Mazur speaks to audiences on pedagogy, he asks his listeners to think about something they are really good at—perhaps some skill they are proud of, especially one that advanced their career. “Now, think of how you became good at it,” he says next. Audience members, supplied with wireless clickers, can choose from several alternatives: trial and error, apprenticeship, lectures, family and friends, practicing. Data from thousands of subjects make “two things stand out,” Mazur says. “The first is that there is a huge spike at practicing—around 60 percent of the people select ‘practicing.’” The other thing is that for many audiences, which often number in the hundreds, “there is absolutely zero percent for lectures. Nobody cites lectures.”
Mazur's question is rigged. Having a person name something they are really good at would lead one to answer with an action. You don't learn actions in a lecture. A lecture would not be the best place to teach someone how to file records in an office, program a computer, or fix a car. But if the question was to name a belief, where you learned it, and how it influences your life, then you would encounter the power of the lecture. And that belief might cause one to file records as quickly as possible because they value honest pay for honest work. Another belief might cause a programmer to try some experimental code because she values creativity. And belief can cause a car mechanic to be excellent in what he does because he values the importance of doing things right. Beliefs operate on a different level than practical applications. If being a follower of Christ was only practical applications, then we should get rid of the sermon. But it's so much more.

The sermon does not really operate in the realm of practice but in the realm of belief and inspiration. It is the firm conviction of most who deliver sermons that beliefs are important, that they influence peoples practice. Sermons help build the belief structure that is the foundation for application. We see many people who are struggling in life because they have wrong beliefs that cause their wrong actions. Now, we could force them to do the right actions through some experimental learning exercise, but their lives will not be fixed until they actually transform the belief that is causing them to do the bad action.

The church isn't teaching the science of Christianity but the art of living like Jesus. Good art exudes from the core of a person, from their beliefs and feelings. Boring art is procedural and replicable. Great art inspires people to view the world differently. Boring art just placates for a moment. A sermon deals in the realm of beliefs, feelings, and worldview. I measure a good sermon on whether the people that heard it are going to change because of hearing it. True, the end goal is a change in action, but that change will come about through a change in beliefs, feelings, and worldview along with the motivation to overcome what they need to conquer.

Auditory learners (around 30% of people) actually learn best from lectures. So at worst, a sermon is a good learning tool for 30% of all people. Combine the lecture with a good, complimentary Powerpoint presentation and you get the visual learners (around 65% of people ). So a good sermon with a good visual Powerpoint will reach 95% of the people involved. You will still have problems with the Tactile learners (around 5% of people), but thankfully a church is not only the Sunday Morning gathering. Stats come from the Center on Education and Training for Employment at The Ohio State University.

Steve Holmes replied to Scot McKnight's blog, Professors: What about lectures? :
I reviewed almost all the academic literature on the worth of lectures for a book on preaching I’m writing just now. It is, I think it is fair to say, inconclusive – as many studies found lectures to be better than other forms as found them to be worse. That is, in terms of promoting student learning of material; if you factor in efficiency of academic time, lecturing probably beats any other mode of delivery other than sophisticated online self-directed learning modules).
 At the same time, there is a large body of communications literature that stresses the peerless superiority of the set-piece monologue – when done well – in selling vision (why did Steve Jobs launch his products at keynotes? why do politicians make speeches on the campaign trail? it’s not because they can’t be bothered to do something better…)
Which raises the question – what are we trying to do when we lecture/preach? Tell people something they don’t know? Or inspire them to live out what they do know? In the case of preaching, I know the answer to that one…
You can talk to any preacher, and they will be able to share with you times that a sermon they have shared has been used by God to change lives. It is a humbling and extraordinary act to be involved in. I have delivered sermons where people weep because of the healing they are receiving regarding some past emotional pain. I have also delivered sermons where people's lives are changed because they discard a past, destructive habit. And I have delivered sermons where nothing happens because I wrote a bad sermon. The problem isn't the medium, it's the methods. As preachers, we have to continually hone our craft to bring about God's will in the lives of our listeners.

Most of the resistance I see to sermons are people who don't want to hear any view different than their own. They want their life the way they want it and don't want input from others. It fits very well in the American gospel of individualism. In this day and age, we can get all our news from sources that are filtered through the viewpoint we already have. We can ignore the "friend" on Facebook who continues to state things that don't align with our worldview. We can get radio that plays only music we like. This is all dangerous. We need to stretch ourselves and allow ourselves to listen to other viewpoints because, in the end, we will discover that some of the things we currently believe are wrong.

Disclaimer: I try to listen to around two sermons a week from other preachers because they inspire me and challenge me to view things differently.

For further reading, Adam Kotsko gives a good defense of the lecture at Inside Higher Ed: A Defense of the Lecture. The general idea is that people have to have a good framework of thought prior to being thrown into a discussion.

Tweaking Our Style, Keeping the Message


While watching this video, I was struck by the idea that we, as pastors, need to tweak our presentations, not change the message .  Through singing "Old MacDonald," "Twinkle, Twinkle," "Humpty Dumpty," and "If You're Happy and You Know It" in a different style, Edward Reid connected with the audience despite the fact that they already knew all these songs and are familiar to death with them. 

It's similar to the great, life-changing gospel message that we share with churchgoers week in and week out.  They know the gospel inside and out, backwards and forwards.  But knowing it is different than having it connect and allowing it to transform.

What Edward Reid did could have completely flopped.  The crowd could have sat there bored, thinking that this is utterly ridiculous, while mocking him.  At the :22 mark, you can see a lady look completely disgusted.  But by the 3:10 mark, when they show her again, she is thoroughly enjoying it.  The same happened with the hosts.  Confused at first, and then completely into it.

These songs provided the joy they were intended to bring about.  The audience enjoyed thesm like they hadn't since they were little children being sung to by fun, dancing parents.  But if they heard the songs in the old traditional way, it would have produced boredom.  It would not have the intended effect.

When we tweak our style, it could also completely flop.  But it might not, and the reward if it doesn't far surpasses the risk.  What we see is that when the songs were presented in a different style, it connected and allowed the audience to enjoy the moment.  Our message can do so much more than that, yet we continue to present it in the same, boring way.  The Gospel deserves so much more than that. 

How I long for the message of the gospel to connect with everyone we present it to and to transform lives for His glory and the growth of His kingdom.  Maybe we just need to tweak our style because we are ignored when we share the great message in the same old way.

Interactive Sermons, Preaching, and the Role of the Sunday Morning Gathering

A friend sent me a message asking me the following:
What is your take on interactive preaching on Sunday mornings? What I mean is, if you have a question or a comment should you share it during the sermon? I have started to study it more. Again, just curious.
Here was my reply in case you are also wondering about it.

We did it for a while, and I liked it.  As a listener, I have a tough time remaining focused once a preacher has stated something that spurs me down a side road.

On the pragmatic side, I don't think interactive preaching can be done well in a large setting, and we keep growing larger and larger.  We want to be a church of 100, so I believe that we need to start behaving like a church of 100.  When we had interactive preaching, we only had a few people interact.  It was these same people every week who had something to say.  Interactive preaching also hampers the point of the message from getting across.  A preacher should be wrestling with what God wants him to say to the congregation throughout the week.  His week's worth of prayer and seeking God's thoughts should not go out the window because someone else brought up a controversial tangent. 

Another alternative if you want more involvement would be to open the mic up for anyone to share at some point during the service.  I have seen this done and have enjoyed those gatherings.  I have not experienced it regularly, and I would assume that the same people would get up and speak week after week. 

As for history of the sermon, you might want to read a chapter in a book by Frank Viola called Pagan Christianity.  I would have loaned you my copy while you were here if I would have known then that you were interested in this.  It is titled "The Sermon: Protestantism's Most Sacred Cow."  Viola is a house church guy and does not like the sermon as it is today.  He has a lot of good things to say, although he also has a real agenda against sanctuary church.  I also have a love for the church meeting in houses, but that is not what everyone is called to.  Viola makes a good argument that the sermon is not mandated by Scripture and really did not arrive at its current form until the 4th century with the speaking of Augustine and Chrysostom.  He has the faulty logic that since it originated in pagan circles, it is automatically evil, but that is another long discussion for another day. 


The sermon is not a Scriptural mandate.  The purpose of the sermon is to educate people.  If there is a better way to educate, then we need to be willing to discard the sermon and use the better way.  After all, the sermon is just a tool; education that leads to action is the goal. 

The key thing to remember is that the purpose of any education is to lead people to a place where encountering God transforms them.  If we just educate people on grand theological concepts or historical information that have no practical value, then the process of transformation is stifled. Bad education is worse than no education at all because the people in the church then feel they have done something they were supposed to do when all they have done is sat through a lesson unchanged.  Religion is the exact opposite of transformation.  Being educated can easily fall into being a religious ritual void of its power. 

A read through of the book of Corinthians would show that the church was definitely not just one or two people standing up at the pulpit while everyone else was led.  It was definitely more of an interactive experience.  Prophets would get up and share a message they felt on their heart from the Lord.  "When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation"  1 Cor 14:26b (ESV).  It would have been a much different experience than what we currently have.  Maybe it is something to strive for.

But here comes the reason why I have a church gathering with a sermon that is not interactive.  It has nothing to do with a scriptural mandate one way or another.  It comes from the realization that visitors are most likely to check out our church and the seeking are likely to come seek God during that one hour on Sunday where we usually have the sermon, and visitors expect to hear a sermon.  That is what they have come for.  As a church, we have interaction with one another and sharing what God has laid on our hearts during our Christian Education time and Small Groups.  Hopefully, that it is also happening in relationships throughout the week. 

As for the visitors, I want to give them what they want in regards to the sermon and not turn them away from our service by making it impermeable to them.  They are coming to hear a message from the Bible.  I want to them to hear about God's grace and His great call on their life to surrender their life to Him and love their neighbor. 
 
We need to always be reminded that church is not that hour spent together on Sunday morning.  Church is us living our lives together as people surrendered to Jesus.  This gives us the liberty to tweak things during that hour.

Go ahead and give interactive sermons a try if you feel led.  There is nothing wrong with doing that.  Just make sure it is helping the body you are part of achieve the mission they are called to.