|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Preaching from Notes
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
Not sure if this is right for Purgatory, or whether it should be in Ecclesiantics or elsewhere. I notice that Mystery Worshippers are quite often a bit sniffy about those who preach from notes. But what is wrong with using notes, or even a script, if the sermon content and delivery are good? Not everyone has a gift for extempore preaching (or a direct feed from the Holy Spirit) - though there are not a few who think they do.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
No problem at all but make sure you give all that you do some life. You may need nots if you are quoting someone else or if you want to make sure you say something with a very specific form of words.
I use very brief notes for most sermons these days but sometimes it's in full and at otheers about 3 words on a piece of paper.
Whatever your approach it's no excuse for a lack of preparation or for pinching other people's work.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
People who preach without notes might not be extemporising, just very well prepared. They could have made notes and grown familiar with the points they want to make. Perhaps rehearsed it a couple of times. It often comes across better if the preacher is speaking directly to the congregation.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Preaching from notes is fine, as long as that is what you do. Reading a sermon from notes is tedious. And I often find that preachers who have notes are more coherent than those who try to make it up as they go along.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I think the key is to use notes or a script but not to give the impression that you are reading an essay! I find preparing the script helps me organise my thoughts and vocabulary beforehand.
One important thing is to realise that spoken and literary English are different. So, if you do write out your sermon, cultivate a "spoken" rather than a "written" style. And keep eye-contact with your listeners.
I come from a Free Church tradition where the sermon probably occupies a more significant position in the liturgy than it does in some other traditions.
[ 31. March 2012, 14:33: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Not everyone has a gift for extempore preaching (or a direct feed from the Holy Spirit) - though there are not a few who think they do.
Yes, I know a few who use no notes. They are good speakers - but after a while I find they begin to repeat themselves.
Far better to write the sermon/speech/whatever first, but then only glance at the notes rather than reading from them. In my view.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I tend to use a full script, or nothing written at all. I find it difficult to preach from "bullet-point" style notes, mainly because I easily forget how I got from one point to the next.
When I use a script, its usual purpose is to sit on the lectern in front of me, while I rarely look at it - by the time I've typewritten it, it's got into my head anyway. When I preach without a script, I have to be much more careful not to stray off-topic, or ramble.
I put a lot of work into crafting a script, but then performing it so that it doesn't sound crafted.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
When I use a script, its usual purpose is to sit on the lectern in front of me, while I rarely look at it - by the time I've typewritten it, it's got into my head anyway. When I preach without a script, I have to be much more careful not to stray off-topic, or ramble.
When I was active, that was my approach as well. The principle seems to be as follows. The harder you prepare, the freer you become in delivery.
There's an old story (from the Anglican environment I believe) about a young priest preaching with a bishop present. The bishop buttonholed the young priest afterwards and inquired about his preparation. On being informed that the young priest prepared quite thoroughly but always left spontaneous room for the inspiration of the Spirit, the bishop observed. "Well, on this occasion, I think the Holy Spirit was more evident in your preparation than your spontaneity". Something like that, anyway. Ouch!
The story also seems to teach a good principle.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
As I was told it it went more like this:
Curate: "I was praying for a word from the Holy Spirit"
Bishop: "And what did the Spirit tell you?"
Curate: "He told me to prepare my sermon next time".
Back to the OP, as others have said there is a difference between an unprepared sermon, and preaching without notes, and preaching with a script. Personally I can't easily use a script as I am short-sighted. So to read from a script I'd have to take my glasses off and if I do that I can't see the people I'm talking to, which is a lot worse. So I keep my glasses on and look at the people and occasionally glance at notes.
I've said this before, but a long time ago my Dad told me how he liked to prepare a talk (not a sermon, he never darkened the door of a church other than for weddings and funerals). I don't always do this but it does work:
1) Write out the talk in full
2) Put down the main headings as bullet-points on small cards.
3) Take both the full script and the cards to the lectern.
4) Don't look at either of them while you are talking.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
The advice in Fulfilled in Your Hearing* can be summarized "write, but don't read." They recommend writing a complete manuscript as part of your preparation, but not taking it into the sanctuary with you. This is what I do, but there's no need to be doctrinaire about it.
Reading from a manuscript can allow greater precision of language and can help preachers who are more naturally wordy contain themselves. For some, it will make them much more comfortable which will generally give the congregation a more comfortable experience. The downside is a certain aloofness and inability to adapt to reactions from the congregation.
--
* The USCCB document on preaching.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
It's more a general thing for whenever I'm speaking in public (only an occasional preacher, but it's just as applicable in any setting), but I tend to go for a bit of everything. Dot points in huge type on the left 1/3 of the page, written in full on the right 2/3, and practiced.
The "page" is my iPad, used in landscape mode, which helps avoid rustling of paper or plastic sleeves, and with the cover I have it looks just like a classy bound folder when I'm carrying it. I know of a couple of regular preachers who use an iPad app which shows the pages and also controls the projected slides with the Bible verses on them for those people who absorb read information better than spoken.
I find that the dot points help me avoid getting bogged down explaining something in too much detail, the full text helps with statistics and direct quotes and the practice helps with making sure I speak to the people and not to my page. The dot points and the text are both useful for the times that something interrupts the talk and you need to pick it up again without repetition or omission.
I'm yet to come across a preacher who goes without notes on a regular basis and never gets sidetracked or loses their place. The last time I experienced a good sermon without the preacher having notes or their tablet computer in front of them, they actually had their dot points on the digital projector pointed at the back wall!
On the issue of spontaneity and preparation, I think both are equally valid. You must prepare the talk well, and be equally well-prepared to abandon that and speak to the people instead if needed.
[ 31. March 2012, 16:47: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
On the issue of spontaneity and preparation, I think both are equally valid. You must prepare the talk well, and be equally well-prepared to abandon that and speak to the people instead if needed.
Yes, when I speak in public I find the 'off piste' comments are the ones which tend to be remembered.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I preach one or two 20 minute sermons every week and I type them out in full and 'read' them.
People are always surprised when i tell them this - they say they never knew I had more than just notes.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
In a culture that isn't necessarily tuned into listening to anything for more than five minutes before changing the channel, some clergy write out their sermons word for word for fear that someone will come back and say 'You said such and such', which of course they never said, or 'I found what you said offensive and you meant this', when of course there was nothing offensive and they heard something that wasn't even there. It happens regularly enough and so I can quite understand clergy writing out sermons word for word and then reading the script as it were. Will it not be an absolute necessity in the future anyway with people having to be more responsible for what they say in public - particularly from a pulpit?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
The great advantage of having notes is that one can see where one is supposed to stop.
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rogue
Shipmate
# 2275
|
Posted
I don't think our vicar reads his sermon although we do occasionally have students from the local Bible College who invariably do. I suppose that as newbies this is a safe way to start. The vicar does clearly have notes and there are some quite specific phrases which he works in to very great effect.
We have a projector and some of the preachers put up pictures. If you wander away from the plan at all I guess that these become useless and working out whether and how to skip some slides must be pretty tricky, especially if you are still talking at the same time. It is even worse in our church because we don't have a gadget for the preacher to change the pictures so it is down to the laptop operator (I'm one of them) to work it out. The students generally do use pictures and they provide a script which would make going off topic potentially disastrous, especially as there is usually someone from the college who is there to assess them.
--------------------
If everyone starts thinking outside the box does outside the box come back inside?
Posts: 2507 | From: Toton | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Personally I can't easily use a script as I am short-sighted. So to read from a script I'd have to take my glasses off and if I do that I can't see the people I'm talking to, which is a lot worse. So I keep my glasses on and look at the people and occasionally glance at notes.
A few weeks ago I went to a different optician, who turned out to be a Jewish lay preacher. She immediately suggested that I needed varifocal glasses so that I could read my notes and still see the congregation. She understood, as most people wouldn't, that seeing the congregation is, as you say, Ken, at least as important as seeing your notes.
And the specs are great.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Our priests, and particularly our readers, keep sermon booklets with their sermons printed out word-for-word inside. It is possible to ask them for a copy if you wish to read them over again, if you missed something or would like to refresh your memory. The best ones, of course, put enough expression in their voice to make it sound as if they are talking freely without notes. Some are better at that than others.
Recently, someone who usually has very good people skills gave a sermon which she just read out very woodenly. It was so unusual that I began to wonder whether someone had asked her to preach on a particular topic and had maybe even told her what to say - it was very obvious her heart wasn't in it. Fortunately, that is very rare.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
I have a small question, tangential to the opening post.
Everyone, except for Hart, has spoken of a "script". Hart used the word "manuscript".
I've never heard "script" used to describe the document to aid the delivery of a sermon, only the word "manuscript".
When I hear the word "script," it brings to mind artificiality and theatre.
Am I a fossil? Is this a longstanding change in usage? Has 'script arisen from manuscript in the same way that 'phone arose from telephone?
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
On script/manuscript, I think manuscript originally meant hand-written text and was often used to distinguish between author's original and printed copy. That's all got blurred, now, since "by the author's hand" is much more likely to refer to text produced on a PC/laptop. Script in common usage very often did mean the text of a play, hence I guess its use to describe sermon text may produce a certain queasiness.
I think the obvious reading of sermon notes does produce a kind of disconnect from listeners. In the political world now, to avoid that kind of disconnect, there are transparent projection systems which give the impression of spontaneous "eye-contact" delivery, while in practice the politician is reading a script!
Behind these hopes and subterfuges are some interesting hopes and expectations in the audience/congregation, when listening to a sermon.
1. That what is said will convey something directly to us.
2. That it comes from the heart.
3. That it is genuine in intention, not crafted to manipulate.
Eye contact has I think some importance in all of that.
If we have those expectations, or something like them, they are probably worth some reflection about just how realistic they are.
If a sermon is being delivered without visual aids, I tend personally to close my eyes as a kind of aid to hearing the words. So these issues of visual cues and non-verbal messages don't mean much to me. But I think I'm unusual in that.
[ 01. April 2012, 13:39: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
This discussion is interesting to me, since I'm a frequent public speaker, but in a different format. Modern scientific speaking basically consists in talking through a series of slides that illustrate the research with graphics and comments in terms of short bullet points. I am rather good at this (also in the judgment of others...), but I do rely heavily on the visual / textual hints provided by the slides. I do not read the slide contents off, but I use them to remind me of what I wanted to say about these matters. The slides also serves as a convenient way of timing, with every slide taking about 1.5-2 minutes to discuss. In scientific speaking you often have a precisely limited time allotted to you, getting more or less politely stopped if you go on for too long. With the slide system, I can time myself to an accuracy of less than a minute for short and less than five minutes for long talks, without needing to look at a clock.
I'm not sure that kind of "slide presentation" would work in the religious context, but it could take away quite a lot of the difficulties being discussed concerning preaching, I think.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
Prepare, Pray, Preach. No notes, gut wrenching, from the heart, balls out, tight rope walking.
FTW.
AtB, Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jenn.
Shipmate
# 5239
|
Posted
I'm a beginner so I like to write the entire thing out. Prepare, pray, write, preach. It is still heartfelt, I just put it on paper first. Apparently it comes over ok when I preach it, and I'm not ready to do away with the script yet.
Posts: 2282 | From: England | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Prepare, Pray, Preach. No notes, gut wrenching, from the heart, balls out, tight rope walking.
Yep - I know preachers like this. But, like I say, over time they tend to repeat themselves.
Ask around - see if you do it too, it's possible that no-one told you?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
But, like I say, over time they tend to repeat themselves.
Proof that writing it down dont stop it happening. Irony?
AtB, Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I wonder if I might take this discussion in a different direction.
Might it be that those of us who preach frequently need notes to help remind us of what we are saying, or to stop us repeating ourselves; while those who preach rarely find thisless necessary as they have had a long time to prepare and mull over what they are going to say?
Whatever the case, deciding not to use notes is no excuse for "relying on the Holy Spirit", especially if that simply means "winging it"!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
What we are not discussing so far is the spiritual gift of preaching. Everyone called to preach can get better at it but are we prepared to accept that there is a gift of preaching and that not everyone has it?
I am not musical. I took guitar lesson and can bang out, somewhat un-tunefully, chords and a poor version of 12 bar blues. I could practise more and get more proficient but I will never raise spirits, shake the house down of ever take great joy from it myself. I do not have the gift. And God knows I wish I did. Every band needs band members but someone does the solo.
AtB, Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I have a small question, tangential to the opening post.
Everyone, except for Hart, has spoken of a "script". Hart used the word "manuscript".
I've never heard "script" used to describe the document to aid the delivery of a sermon, only the word "manuscript".
When I hear the word "script," it brings to mind artificiality and theatre.
Am I a fossil? Is this a longstanding change in usage? Has 'script arisen from manuscript in the same way that 'phone arose from telephone?
Notice that as well as using the word 'script', I also used the word 'performance'. I say 'script' because the text in front of me in the pulpit is more or less the words I say. Sometimes I'll depart from it as a stage actor might depart from their script - a few words here or there. (Thankfully I don't have other actors or a director to answer to for doing it.)
This is why 'crafting' the sermon is important. I pay attention to the shape of the whole thing, and the shape and development of the different 'movements' within it (to use a musical metaphor). I look at my use of language, not only for accuracy but for expressiveness, cadence and rhythm. All of this while maintaining an appropriate level of colloquial speech. And let's not forget the silences.
I normally start work writing a sermon about a week before it's due, though I'll usually have the texts in my head for a few days before that. (I have a bizarrely good memory for texts, but for very little else.) However, I'll usually leave writing the last paragraph until the evening before, and may then go back and make a few minor adjustments to the rest. Throughout the whole process, I have to keep clear in my mind how I'm going to deliver it. I went through a brief phase a few years ago of using marks in the text to indicate pace, inflexion and cadence, but I soon found I was better off without them.
All of this feeds into my personal dislike of using visual aids of any kind. If a half-way decent actor can keep an audience's attention for ten minutes without special effects (and they can), a half-way decent preacher ought to be able to do the same with a congregation.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I once attended a service at which a visiting trainee preacher from another denomination was down to preach. She read from her notes, head down, and didn't try to develop any rapport with the congregation. It was a thoughtful sermon, but unfortunately, because of her body language, the congregation got rather fidgety. Our minister was rather cross about the congregation's lack of attention when he heard about it. I think part of the problem is that the people just weren't used to trainee preachers; most preachers in our area/denomination have been doing the work for decades - longer than this trainee had been alive! Also, there was a cultural mismatch that she probably hadn't been prepared for.
I hope the experience didn't put her off! But I hope she learnt from it as well. I was rather surprised that such a young person was being trained to offer such a traditional kind of format rather than being encouraged to try something a bit different, but that's for another thread, perhaps.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I write, with a pen, a fairly full script. It's usually in complete sentences and I could deliver it as it is, but in practice I rephrase some of it as I go along, changing word order and vocabulary to something that seems more natural, and sometimes amplifying it if I judge people need a bit longer to get the hang of what I'm saying.
If I use a word-processor, I become verbose, and I find it easy to lose my place when reading print. Handwriting is more irregular and easier to follow. I only ever glance down, and my eye can find the place more easily on a page of messy handwriting, I also feel that writing with a pen helps me think. It certainly slows me down and gives me time to consider how to phrase things.
What matters far more than these matters of technique, is writing and delivering it with the hearers in mind.
A sermon can be a carefully crafted thing, a little creation, like a piece of music, with structure and internal and external references, allusions and word choice supporting the content.
It must also, though, be written for a certain group of people on a particular day. I picture place and people as I write and imagine how they will receive what I say. It's like playing chess where you think what your opponent's response to your next move might be: if I say such and such, they will expect me to go on to say this, but if instead I say that .. aha! They will be surprised.
And then, in the delivery, it must be performed as Adeodatus said. If you read the text people can tune in if they wish, but there's no real communication. The preacher must burn with the desire to tell the people the message they prepared, must believe it is worth saying and that it will delight or disturb the congregation. It must be spoken with directness.
If you were to tell someone 'Get off the tracks, a train is coming,' or 'Don't move to Scotland, I want to marry you,' the content of your message would be so strong that it would communicate perfectly. A sermon will go all round the houses as well, but it should have at its core, a message of similar directness that the preacher is desperate to share. That means, for me, something I have only just discovered this week. A sermon's main content has to be something I've only just seen for the first time, and am still excited about.
Unfortunately, having done this on Sunday morning, I'm expected to do it all over again on Sunday evening. A stupid idea. I can't manage it, so my evening sermons are preached from a page of jottings. They are sometimes terrible, and rarely good.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Unfortunately, having done this on Sunday morning, I'm expected to do it all over again on Sunday evening. A stupid idea. I can't manage it, so my evening sermons are preached from a page of jottings. They are sometimes terrible, and rarely good.
Lots to agree with in your post (and even to raise a hat to!) Unlike you I do use a Word Processor as it helps me do my preparation, and anyway my writing is terrible. I use a large 14 point font for legibility and I do not "justify" the line ends (or else I do get really lost!)
But - as a fellow Baptist - I have to ask WHY we have to do it again in the evening? Especially if the folk present were there in the morning too (and I realise they might not have been). Do they need a full sermon with all the twiddles? Or might a brief thought or even a more meditative service be more appropriate? All depends on your situation, of course.
This morning I was preaching in the Parish Church (joint service) - this made me more constrained due to the different environment and also the knowledge that I had to be briefer than normal. A very awkwatd pulpit to preach in as the lectern was not deep enough for my usual A4 sheets, so I had to be very careful not to knock them down.
[ 01. April 2012, 15:15: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I wonder if I might take this discussion in a different direction.
Might it be that those of us who preach frequently need notes to help remind us of what we are saying, or to stop us repeating ourselves; while those who preach rarely find thisless necessary as they have had a long time to prepare and mull over what they are going to say?
Whatever the case, deciding not to use notes is no excuse for "relying on the Holy Spirit", especially if that simply means "winging it"!
Whatever method one adopts, there's no excuses for not preparing. As I get older I may know the texts well but I prepare more. The process of preparation brings greater freedom in delivery which means I often appear to be speaking extempore - I'm not as I'm sharing what I believe God has already given me and because I've then worked on it. I remember it.
I agree with other posters: if you write it down, write in "spoken speech" - don't use a way of speaking that is alien to how you normally talk, otherwise people will look for your pulpit voice.
As for writing vs WPing it, I can't read my own writing, so it doesn't help at all. It's OK though if its just a few words like tonight - present, pursue, prove
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
[QUOTE]But - as a fellow Baptist - I have to ask WHY we have to do it again in the evening?
Because Spurgeon said so!
Between wood and water we had 2 very different congregations am and pm. AM was families, people on the fringe (av cong 160 ish) - PM was people from a wider geographical spread 30% of whom went somewhere else in the AM (av. cong 70-80).
AM was multimedia etc, PM an old style teaching service. i enjoyed the variety of both, preaching at least 45 weeks a year.
Different now in the new jerusalem but enjoy exploring new ways of presenting the gospel and reflecting on dsicipleship. Seems to be attractive as PM congs have doubled.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I have for my thesis been going over the Reformed attitude to Church, what becomes clear is what is important about a sermon is not that it is preached but that it is heard.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
One important thing is to realise that spoken and literary English are different. So, if you do write out your sermon, cultivate a "spoken" rather than a "written" style.
But what's wrong with speaking literary English out loud? Fine preaching rhetoric is an art, and I feel cheated when I hear a excessively colloquial sermon.
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I have for my thesis been going over the Reformed attitude to Church, what becomes clear is what is important about a sermon is not that it is preached but that it is heard.
Jengie
Preach it Sister!
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
One important thing is to realise that spoken and literary English are different. So, if you do write out your sermon, cultivate a "spoken" rather than a "written" style.
But what's wrong with speaking literary English out loud? Fine preaching rhetoric is an art, and I feel cheated when I hear a excessively colloquial sermon.
True, but lengthy sentences with several subordinate clauses are difficult to follow when heard. When they are written on a page one can go back and read them again.
Different congregations will be different anyway.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
Different congregations are in some senses easier because you can repeat a lot of the text work, just vary the application (and possibly some of the delivery). If I had to do two sermons a week to overlapping congregations, I'd probably do a series of 4/5 at one, then 4/5 at the other, and use the one I wasn't preaching at to train new preachers...
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
One important thing is to realise that spoken and literary English are different. So, if you do write out your sermon, cultivate a "spoken" rather than a "written" style.
But what's wrong with speaking literary English out loud? Fine preaching rhetoric is an art, and I feel cheated when I hear a excessively colloquial sermon.
True, but lengthy sentences with several subordinate clauses are difficult to follow when heard. When they are written on a page one can go back and read them again.
Different congregations will be different anyway.
Another thing to consider is that formal spoken English and 'fine rhetoric' are still forms of spoken English. Just because it is a spoken form rather than a literary form does not make it "excessively colloquial."
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I script mine in blank verse - one verb per phrase, no sub clauses, no sentence longer than one line - written for the ear, not the eye - it stops me rambling and also means that if I have a headache or a hangover, I can use the script.
I read it aloud every day during the week preceding so i know it almost off by heart.
I print it in a large pitch so that I don't need reading glasses and can maintain eye-contact with the congregation whilst occasionally glimpsing at the script.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
I suppose its each to his/her own.
My practice is to take a full mss into the pulpit but not refer to it. (Unless something bad happens which never has).
Its all in the preparation and a decent memory helps.
My reason for doing this was after reading a Reader's Digest quip. It told of someone coming home from Church and complaining that the preacher had read his sermon. "If he can't remember it how the heck does he expect us to?"
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Personally I can't easily use a script as I am short-sighted. So to read from a script I'd have to take my glasses off and if I do that I can't see the people I'm talking to, which is a lot worse. So I keep my glasses on and look at the people and occasionally glance at notes.
A few weeks ago I went to a different optician, who turned out to be a Jewish lay preacher. She immediately suggested that I needed varifocal glasses so that I could read my notes and still see the congregation. She understood, as most people wouldn't, that seeing the congregation is, as you say, Ken, at least as important as seeing your notes.
And the specs are great.
Like Adeodatus /\ I am a full script person - but the art is in delivery. A full script can be delivered like one. is. reading. the. telephone. directory. or imbued with energy, life, and perhaps even the Spirit.
Funnily enough I use 'conceptual eye contact' - I never eyeball anyone but sort of vacuously roam around the congregation. In the last couple of months I've moved from over-the counter reading specs to vari-focus prescription. But in the wet season in the tropics it makes bugger all difference - glasses fog up and one is lucky to see the script, let alone the people beyond it.
As you can see (sig) I now blog my sermons and some people do read them, but I think they become stolid as written word. Delivery is an imbuement with energy.
I can ad lib till the cows come home, even with beginning, middle and end, but on the whole find it to be a lazy option - and as leo has suggested, there are those who like to tackle the script in their own leisure at another time.
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
I script mine in blank verse - one verb per phrase, no sub clauses, no sentence longer than one line - written for the ear, not the eye - it stops me rambling and also means that if I have a headache or a hangover, I can use the script.
I read it aloud every day during the week preceding so i know it almost off by heart.
I print it in a large pitch so that I don't need reading glasses and can maintain eye-contact with the congregation whilst occasionally glimpsing at the script.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
I script mine in blank verse - one verb per phrase, no sub clauses, no sentence longer than one line - written for the ear, not the eye - it stops me rambling and also means that if I have a headache or a hangover, I can use the script.
I read it aloud every day during the week preceding so i know it almost off by heart.
I print it in a large pitch so that I don't need reading glasses and can maintain eye-contact with the congregation whilst occasionally glimpsing at the script.
You are clearly an erudite preacher Leaf. I sit at your feet in awe.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
Of course people get sniffy about preaching from notes. They know that for the Holy Spirit to speak through you that preparation gets in the way. The Holy Spirit is incapable of inspiring you during the preparation phase.
Scrub that. God knows who will be attending next week, if you start preparing now the Holy Spirit can still inspire you now.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
I script mine in blank verse - one verb per phrase, no sub clauses, no sentence longer than one line - written for the ear, not the eye - it stops me rambling and also means that if I have a headache or a hangover, I can use the script.
I read it aloud every day during the week preceding so i know it almost off by heart.
I print it in a large pitch so that I don't need reading glasses and can maintain eye-contact with the congregation whilst occasionally glimpsing at the script.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
TSA
Its Leo not Leaf
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
No,no, no, don't you see? Leaf was plagiarising Leo
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
TSA
Its Leo not Leaf
Jengie
It was both - Leaf copying verbatim Leo's post (presumably as a satire on all that's being discussed on this thread.
Edited to add - cross-posted with Chorister
[ 01. April 2012, 20:15: Message edited by: Stejjie ]
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
