Thread: Preaching without notes Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030398

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :
 
Why do Mystery Worshippers (and others) have such a thing about preaching without notes? In my experience it can often suggest the preacher has not really prepared but is making it up as s/he goes along. Preachers without notes also seem to ramble more and lose the point, and when they don't they sometimes come across as making out that the Gospel is their own great idea rather than something they are meant to be proclaiming. You know, I often find preachers who don't use notes a bit creepy.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
.... it can often suggest the preacher has not really prepared but is making it up as s/he goes along.

You know, I often find preachers who don't use notes a bit creepy.

Well, it's worse if a preacher does have notes but sounds like he/she is making it up as they go along. That happens quite a bit of the time IME - it may be inexperience or laziness but it isn't good whatever it is.

Why do you find them creepy? Could it be that you are secretly envious of those who can speak well without notes?

I always prepare fully - taking some time to put each sermon together. The notes are there in front of me but not a script: my written style of English is very different from my spoken style and I want to put the ideas and themes I've been given into a digestible and accessible form with everyday language. The notes form the stepping stones, my speaking the links.

It seems to work for me and for the churches I've been involved with.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I tend to write my sermons out in full, though I don't always keep rigidly to the script.....

Father Vicar mostly preaches extempore, which is OK up to a point, though he sometimes repeats himself unnecessarily. He also tends to use certain words/phrases ad nauseam, so I amuse myself by counting the number of times he says 'of course', 'and so on', 'wonderful', and 'my lovely/second wife' (delete as applicable).................

My fellow Blue-Scarfed Menace can always be relied on to mention (a) the Orthodox Church (often in respect of Metropolitan Anthony), and (b) the need for us all to be 'filled with the Holy Spirit' and to 'get out and evangelise the parish'. Not sure why he thinks (a) we're not already, and (b) aren't already......but then, he's always off on some conference or other, so isn't really part of everyday parish life!

Ahem. I do apologise.....and I'll get me coat.

Ian J.
 
Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :
 
Yes, ExclamationMark, you're quite right, it does of course depend on the preacher. I suppose I was really a bit bothered about Mystery Worshippers rather taking the line that using notes was always a minus point.

What I find "a bit creepy" is the preacher who seems to have memorised a text and delivers it likes a recitation without really engaging the congregation. 'Creepy' is perhaps the wrong word. I am probably reacting against the rather unnatural perfomances of preachers who know they are not gifted speakers but who have been persuaded that reading is a sign of insincerity or something. I am not getting at the preachers, more the prejudice against using notes.

[ 08. August 2015, 12:54: Message edited by: Corvo ]
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
There's a good story about Archbishop Frederick William Temple,(father of the great William) who had a nasty habit of visiting churches incognito and listening to sermons. After one such visit he asked the hapless vicar 'Tell me, do you preach extempore or use notes?' 'I always used to make notes,' was the reply, 'but one day I left them at the Vicarage and had to preach extempore. And, do you know, people said it was the best sermon I had ever preached. So there and then, I vowed never again to use notes.' 'I, Frederick William Temple, by Divine permission Archbishop of Canterbury, hereby release you from your rash vow!'
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Notes - but rehearsed so often that I don't need them when the time comes (but useful to have in the pulpit in case i have a headache or something.)
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
A few people preach brilliantly without notes, but the majority of preachers need to realise that they are not in that favoured few and would do much better to use notes. Some may manage with just dot points to keep on track, but there are others who are advised to write their sermons out in full. There is no shame in having to do the last as it is much better to read a good sermon tha extemporise a terrible one.
 
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :
 
My practice has changed as I've got older / more experienced. I used to write out my notes in full now I have just bullet points or key reminders to keep me on track as by the time I've finished preparing I know my material well enough to not need the notes. I would always have at least some notes with me in the pulpit but I'm finding the need to refer to them less and less (so it might appear to the uninitiated that I'm not using any notes).

However, I should note that it is my common practice to use PowerPoint slides in addition so I have usually put as much preparation into what people are going to see as I have what they are going to hear from me. The slides also therefore act as notes for me too which keeps me on track.

[ 08. August 2015, 16:23: Message edited by: Jammy Dodger ]
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Almost always I type it out word for word (indeed, I should be doing this right now if it were not for this displacement activity), but I try to listen to the voice in my head and write it as a script to be spoken rather than a lecture to be delivered. I usually diverge from it occasionally when preaching, but the text is always there to keep me on track. Perhaps rather like Archbishop Temple's poor priest, I am misguided in thinking this is an effective way to preach, but comeback tends to be positive. I have heard some dire sermons which sound like someone reading a theology textbook, and it's not about content but finding the appropriate register.
Some preachers are able to hold attention and give stimulating sermons apparently without any notes at all. That's not me I'm afraid.
 
Posted by Cathscats (# 17827) on :
 
I do just as Angloid says, and usually the sermon grows with each time I have to preach it - usually twice. Another advantage is that when a member of the congregation says he or she would like a copy I can give them one. I also have the manuscript on the church website for those who were onto able to be there and want to see it - at least one person actually does look it up!!

But if does depend on the preacher and his or her style.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I prepare a full script, although I don't just read it. I find I need to do this, both to organise my thoughts and to avoid inane repetition of the same few words and phrases. Obviously too one needs a full script if - as I sometimes do - one is quoting someone else.

I think the trick, as someone else has said, is learning to write in spoken speech-form. If you don't, the sermon does indeed sound like a theological lecture. One also needs to build in little phrases which link preacher to congregation ("I think you'll agree", "You may be wondering" and similar sets of words).

Added to this one must never give the impression of merely reading (that might be easier if we had autocues like the TV newsreaders!), also one must be ready to go "off-piste" if it's clear that one has lost contact with the listeners. And one needs to listen for the prompting of the Holy Spirit who, occasionally and mysteriously, leads one in a different direction from one's careful preparation!

Yes, people do sometimes ask for the text, either for themselves or for a friend. I can't imagine why, as the effectiveness of any sermon is as much in the speaking as in the content.

(As an aside, my wife thinks I'm bonkers writing out my sermons in full, as it takes a long to time to do. I often have two or three to do each weeks; the lengths are about 2500, 1500 and 1000 words respectively. On top of that are prayers etc. She is a teacher and says she could never give that amount of time in a classroom situation - but the interplay of teacher and [primary-age students is different to that of preacher and congregation).
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
At the very first I wrote notes. It was suggested to me that I should write everything out in full to slow down my delivery; this I did for about 20 years (and it worked!). It also helped me organise my thoughts in French, which is not my native language.

Now, I write notes that fit on one piece of A6 paper.

Exceptions are weddings and funerals, or very occasionally some very significant message (most recently, the one after the Charlie Hebdo attacks), for which I still write everything out in full, and usually stick to the script pretty closely.

[ 09. August 2015, 08:02: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I also write out the sermon in full. But, I don't usually fully stick to the script - the only exception is when preaching in Japan and there is a member of the congregation translating, in that case I stick rigidly to what I wrote. But, a sermon delivered in 1-2 sentence chunks with pauses for translation is never going to be a flowing piece of oratory (not that my sermons ever get close to that anyway!)

That's a very different practice to my more normal public speaking, at scientific meetings, where I have no notes. But, in that case I've got Powerpoint slides which keeps the structure and I can easily ad-lib around. Again, an exception when working with interpreters who have a script in advance that I then stick to much more rigidly.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
And speaking with interpreters imposes its own set of rules: e.g. short pithy sentences rather than dangling subordinate clauses!
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I think the most distracting I have ever experienced from the preaching side was in Ghana: consecutive interpretation into two different tribal languages, simultaneously (one interpreter stationed either side of me), but I can relate to the difficulties from the interpreter's side, too.

anecdote tangent/

I have made it a rule never to interpret another preacher ever since I heard a pastor interpret a visiting speaker. As the sermon progressed it became increasingly clear that the interpreting pastor disagreed profoundly with the content. Having started by interpreting in the first person ("I this, I that...") by the end he was saying "the brother says that..." [Big Grin]

/anecdote tangent

[ 09. August 2015, 12:29: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I find it very encouraging that I seem to follow the same path as Angloid, Baptist Trainfan, leo, and Alan Cresswell!

[Overused] [Overused] [Overused] [Overused]
Ian J.
 
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
'I, Frederick William Temple, by Divine permission Archbishop of Canterbury, hereby release you from your rash vow!'

No, no! "By divine providence" please.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I always write out in full what I'm going to say, I'm aware from my day job that I have a tendency to lose my train of thought and half-finish and then rephrase sentences if I work without a script. Even though I read pretty much verbatim what I've written I'm told it comes across well.
 
Posted by moonfruit (# 15818) on :
 
As a still very baby preacher, I go for the 'full script' approach - I'd be too nervous to have anything less. The vicar of my church has something approaching a full script. One of the other priests in the team ministry will sometimes speak without notes, and these are the occasions when a friend and I are tempted to play 'sermon bingo' - I think that's the problem with being under-prepared as it means you can end up reverting to a few pet themes and phrases. And also, when he prepares well and sticks to what he's prepared, he preaches well, so it's all the more frustrating when he doesn't prepare!

And nothing beats, for making me want to scream, when he stands up and says "Well, I did have a sermon prepared, but I'm not going to use it. Instead..." [brick wall]
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
My experience formed by a Readers Digest anecdote many moons ago.

Lady came home from service and bemoaned the fact that the preacher virtually read the whole sermon from a full script.

If he cant remember it how on earth does he expect us to?

Since that day 45 years ago I prepare a full mss, take it into pulpit but preach having memorised 95% of it without reference to mss.

Seems to work without anybody realising it.

[ 09. August 2015, 20:32: Message edited by: shamwari ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Ah but 1 Cor 1:21 talks (arguably) about the foolishness of preaching.

The reasons I stopped writing out my sermons full-length are multiple and not all may be good ones, but one was actually to prevent them being archived; I came to feel that preaching was something to be experienced in the moment, not pored over later (which is not an excuse not to do good preparation).

I'm not at all sure we're supposed to "remember" a sermon. We might all remember memorable ones, or bits of them, but I doubt many people recall much of what was said last week, notes or otherwise. That's the foolishness of preaching*.

==

*Ironically, however, I got this insight from 1 Corinthians from a sermon by someone else that I can actually remember...
 
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :
 
I write out the whole sermon. I may well deviate from the script, particularly at the beginning if something's just happened that it would be helpful to refer to. About two or three times I've completely changed what I was going to say - but that's over the course of about 10 years.

When I'm due to preach (not every week as I am a "blue scarved menace") I look at the last two or three sermons I preached to that congregation, to make sure I don't bang on about the same theme every time.

In my experience, people who don't use notes at all are capable of preaching eloquently, but they do use the same ideas rather a lot.
 
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :
 
A preacher (who uses notes) needs to write in the style of themselves talking without notes (only without the waffle). This takes a small amount of effort to learn how to do, and many preachers (especially those who didn't train in recent decades) haven't learnt to do that. There's no good reason why people should have to listen to something that sounds like a written essay when they could be listening to the same theological points made just as precisely but with less dreary sentence construction.

Having said that, some people preach brilliant extempore sermons. Some people tend to make clever arguments that really do have to be planned properly in advance. Both groups can preach very good sermons, but both groups will fail badly if they preach with the wrong amount of notes. I guess ideally you'd hear a range of sermons in both styles, but since most churches stick with one style, few people do that.

(And, on average, CofE vicars think they need fewer notes than they actually do)
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
yes.

I like the sting in the tail - but it's not just Anglicans!
 
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
yes.

I like the sting in the tail - but it's not just Anglicans!

Actually I might have made unjustified assumptions in my sting in the tail. Many vicars probably know they're bad at extempore preaching, but occasionally make a decision at 1am on Sunday morning that this is the least worst option (the alternative involving a risk that the vicar would fall asleep during their own sermon). And I'm sure that the very important things that disrupted the vicar's planned sermon prep time really did seem like unavoidable rare emergencies at the time.

But more seriously, sermons benefit from time spent on preparation (and this is true even for extempore preachers). If people complain about the quality of sermons in a church, they're arguably complaining that other activities were preventing the preacher from preparing well enough. That may or may not be a reasonable complaint.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Small tangent- but for the next 25 days you can enjoy a delightful vintage BBC version of Wodehouse's wonderful Great Sermon Handicap. (I think it is assumed that most of the participants would have been using notes [Smile] .)
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
There is NO excuse for poor and shoddy preparation (certainly in the non-conformist tradition).

Prepare with your congregation in mind. Imagine delivering the sermon. Read the commentaries, put the text in context and write it out to ensure that the right word is used when half a dozen others are available. Anticipate objections and phrase things so to meet them in advance.

Then speak as never sure to preach again and as a dying man to dying men.

The greatest privilege of all.
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
There's perhaps a question about what a sermon's suppose to be...

As a Quaker (at least in the British variant), turning up with notes, or even with a planned sermon, would be regarded with suspicion. But generally we're not expecting more than a Cole of minutes contribution. It's the worship as a whole that matters.

In the days when I served as a college chaplain, I ranged from full script, through bullet points, to "Oh shit, the celebrant hasn't turned up so I'd better take over".

I'm guessing that if the sermon is seen more as a lecture then we move more in the direction of "presenting a paper", while if it's seen more as a prayer, you lose the notes.

Incidentally, I've got a feeling that there's a general cultural move towards speaking extemporaneously. Or, at least appearing to do so. That encompasses academic conferences and political rallies.

Transparent note screens appeared a considerable time back for politicians.

Is it time for the churches to abandon the sermon as an unavoidably corrupted mode of discourse?
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
I've been following this with interest, as someone who thought that speaking without notes was to aim for, but now I'm not so sure. Yes, there is a tendency to repeat, to use short 'crutches', and to ramble a bit, in those I know who preach without notes.

And yet they always get the most admiration from the audience.

I know someone in a speaker's club which is often called upon to supply someone to speak to groups and clubs. I don't think that the sermon should be abandoned, as people do want to listen to an interesting speaker who is good at delivery.

Perhaps more use might be made of lay preachers if there is no time to prepare for sermons?
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Where does the belief come from that there's something mysteriously more virtuous about being either spontaneous or ill-prepared?
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
Exactly Enoch.

Luther once went unprepared into the pulpit on the basis that "it will be given to you in that hour what you should say".

Somebody asked him afterward. " Did the Lord speak?"

Yes said Luther. He said " Martin you have been a very lazy man".
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Exactly Enoch.

Luther once went unprepared into the pulpit on the basis that "it will be given to you in that hour what you should say".

Somebody asked him afterward. " Did the Lord speak?"

Yes said Luther. He said " Martin you have been a very lazy man".

That gets a [Overused]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Where does the belief come from that there's something mysteriously more virtuous about being either spontaneous or ill-prepared?

I think the delivery of written sermons used to be very dry and boring back in bygone times; I'm sure I read something similar about the Calvinists. Perhaps their ministers thought they had to show how much better educated they were than the RC priests of the time, and reading from copious notes helped give that impression. The offshoot would be breakaway movements that wanted less stultifying and cerebral but more spiritual preaching....

I must say, though, coming from another tradition I find that CofE sermons are normally very short, so the need to write them down doesn't appear to be great. A lot of the time, actually, I don't think they are, are they? They're obviously well-prepared, with the main points and illustrations memorised, but there's little spontaneous about them.

Anyway, it's usually the Pentecostal sermon that's often characterised as being unscripted. I'm not sure that represents the whole truth today, though. Like all religious movements many of Pentecostal groups have become more formal, and their clergy better educated. The 'spontaneous and ill-prepared' sermon is less appealing in that context.
 
Posted by Rowen (# 1194) on :
 
Sermon-script writer too.
But prepared extensively, and I sometimes depart/amend...
I don't look down very often, but I try and keep my finger at the right place, in case I need extra help.

One lovely, deaf family request a copy of my sermon, ahead of time. They. Ring it to church and follow it. They know when I depart from the script. At first it threw them, now they grin and start looking through the papers... Recently, I even begged the congregation's pardon, and told them what page to go to..... Everyone giggled!

But folk seem to appreciate my sermons, thanks be to God.
 
Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :
 
I have been bored through both types and very happy with both types.

The best preacher I have heard was very experienced. He loved preaching and it showed in his sermons. Apparently he had once been a write it all down preacher but he moved to not using notes at all.

He had introduction, developments with other references and illustrations. Then he would return to his introduction, tie everything up with a neat little bow and finish. A pleasure to listen to for both manner and content.
 
Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Where does the belief come from that there's something mysteriously more virtuous about being either spontaneous or ill-prepared?

Which seems to be the view of many Mystery Worshippers.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Spontaneous doesn't need to be ill-prepared. The presence of notes doesn't indicate preparation either.

As I only preach very occasionally (rarely more than once a month at the moment) I usually have 2-3 weeks to prepare, which clearly wouldn't be the situation for ministers who preach every week, but my preparation starts with reading the texts a couple of times and then basically think about them while driving to work, cooking dinner or whatever. With occasional re-reading or dipping into commentaries/online resources which needs to be done with books & computer. These days I usually have a file on my phone that I jot down thoughts during that time. By the time I write the sermon I've done a lot of preparation and I'm familiar with the text and have a message to present.

If I turn up at church and find I've forgotten my notes I could probably give the sermon quite well, but it would probably be presented without the connecting sections that join the different points - a spoken version of a set of bullet points rather than a paragraph of text. Some people have the skills to remember what they plan to say (actors, of course, do that all the time) and could probably write a sermon and deliver it without notes. Other will be able to use all that thinking and reading and just deliver a sermon, rather like the way I shape it in my head and the written version is just a polishing of it with the words typed out to help me deliver it. It will be extempore, but prepared.

Conversely, there are sites out there which provide sermon ideas, even entire sermons. You could print out one of those, and read it to the congregation. And, it will be totally unprepared.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Re. Alan's final comments:

There is an alleged story of a prospective Baptist minister who went to "preach with a view" in a church. He preached a terrific sermon and, on the strength of it, the church called him to be their minister.

Six months into his ministry, the Deacons spoke to him. "We're very pleased to have you", they said, "and we enjoy your sermons. But they're not as good as that first one. Just one other thing, too: we notice you don't do that strange twiddling with your fingers at the beginning and the end of the sermon that you did then".

"Ah", said the Minister, "I can explain. I actually preached one of Spurgeon's sermons that day. And the twiddling gestures were quotation marks".

[ 11. August 2015, 08:16: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Where does the belief come from that there's something mysteriously more virtuous about being either spontaneous or ill-prepared?

Which seems to be the view of many Mystery Worshippers.
Surely much of this issue boils down to two things.

1. Was the sermon - with our without notes - coherent; and did it inform, stimulate thinking and feed the soul?

2. Did the notes - or the lack of them - drive a wedge between preacher and people?
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Almost always I type it out word for word (indeed, I should be doing this right now if it were not for this displacement activity), but I try to listen to the voice in my head and write it as a script to be spoken rather than a lecture to be delivered. I usually diverge from it occasionally when preaching, but the text is always there to keep me on track.

Like others, this is my practice as well.

As has already been mentioned, the key is to write the sermon as you would speak it. Hear yourself saying it.

I frequently go off-script, though. Mainly because, as I am preaching I realise that what I want to say could be put better than how I had written it. Also, there is the important point about learning to assess the response of the congregation. Sometimes, you get the sense that one point has really gone home and perhaps needs to be emphasised or expanded. Or maybe you realise that the congregation is bored and you need to move on quickly and drop parts of what you are going to say.

When I first started preaching, I had done a lot of public speaking training at work, where they tried to get you to work without any notes at all. But I quickly realised that preaching is different from this kind of public speaking. There ARE lessons to be learned, to be sure, but the two are not the same types of speaking.

One reason I have for writing my sermon out is that it helps me to hone my thoughts. In the early days, I would have a bullet point where I knew (or thought I knew) what I wanted to say. But when I came to it, I realised that my thinking was fuzzy and what came out of my mouth were just rather trite platitudes. Writing something out forces me to be clear in my own head about what I am trying to say.

A second reason for writing the sermon out is that it helps me to fine-tune a few rhetorical flourishes. You know - things like alliteration, or repetition and stuff like that. That's the kind of thing that very few people can do "off the cuff" - and yet it can be really effective. I frequently find that in writing my sermon, I gradually develop something that pulls it all together. Perhaps some key questions which build upon one another, or a refrain that I come back to a few times. I can't do that "off the cuff", though.

I am also aware that some of the best comedians - and the ones who seem to be always able to improvise a joke - usually are the ones who have honed and polished their "spontaneous" jokes until they are just right. Morecambe and Wise were a case in point. Nothing they did was "spontaneous". Every joke, every throw away line, was rehearsed and examined until they thought it would get the biggest laugh.

Groucho Marx (one of my all time heros) was the same. He was known to argue endlessly with directors about a single word, if he thought that including it would give what he said the right flow and result in a bigger pay off at the end.

Having said all that, I do make a point of being pretty spontaneous at our 8:00 service. I usually preach from a different text to our main service and only have a vague idea of where I am going when I start to preach. I find that this helps me to not be too rigid and to find a little flexibility in what I say. Just last Sunday, I found that my sermon went in a completely different direction half way through.

The bottom line, though, is that we all have our own preaching styles. We should hone and refine these styles, for sure. but we shouldn't let other people try and force us to change to fit THEIR style.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Where does the belief come from that there's something mysteriously more virtuous about being either spontaneous or ill-prepared?

It is linked to the whole idea that "Spirit-led" means "unprepared" - an idea that is widely perpetuated in some circles. Which, of course, is complete nonsense. The Spirit leads when we sit and prepare, just as much as when we fly by the seat of our pants.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
As has already been mentioned, the key is to write the sermon as you would speak it. Hear yourself saying it.

[Big snip]

The bottom line, though, is that we all have our own preaching styles. We should hone and refine these styles, for sure. but we shouldn't let other people try and force us to change to fit THEIR style.

Yes. (Except for the bit about the 8am service, which doesn't apply in my case).
 
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 
From my point of view, I see it potentially as a sign of being well-prepared. Just a sign, mind you, not necessarily a definitive one.

I've seen preachers just stand a read a script, seemingly for the first time, so you've really got no idea if they've even researched and written it. I tend to find such sermons to lack engagement and tend to be done just 'to get it over and done with' rather than to impart any kind of wisdom, inspiration or challenge to the listener.

You can get some who get sidetracked without notes and who probably could do with some lessons in public speaking. The prime offenders being those who engage in street preaching. Though I have reservations about more than just their technique. [brick wall]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Again, I think context comes into it too - in a High Church setting - and I visited an Anglo-Catholic church in South Wales this last Sunday - I'd expect a short homily and probably reading from notes.

In a Baptist setting I'd expect something more along the lines that ExclamationMark and Baptist Trainfan have described ... and I'm completely comfortable with that.

I agree with SvitlanaV2 that even in full-on Pentecostal settings it's rare to find unprepared sermons these days - even if the style gives the impression that it's somehow more spontaneous ...

I've heard good, bad and indifferent sermons in all these settings.

At best, some of the short homilies you get in more formally liturgical and sacramental settings can be masterpieces of concision and economy. At worst they can be pretty dry and hardly worth listening to at all - which was the case of the sermon in the Welsh parish on Sunday ... read out from prepared notes and not actually saying very much ...

I've heard very inspiring expository sermons with lots of meat on the bones - I've heard dull as ditch-water ones with an inordinate amount of time spent line by line, verse by verse, getting nowhere in particular ...

I've heard sermons which sound inspiring - lots of 'hwyl' - but which don't 'stay by you' as my mum-in-law would say.

I've heard quiet and sober ones that suddenly catch you by surprise ...

Good preaching does seem rare these days but for my money - despite my inclination for more liturgical forms of worship these days, the league table I'd draw up would go as follows:

1. Baptists. I've heard better sermons from Baptists than anyone else. I'm talking BU ones here in the UK. All have had notes but don't always refer to them ... and at best they have been engaging but without being overly rhetorical and dramatic.

2. Methodists. Not quite so engaging but evidence of scholarship there at times - worn lightly ...

3. At their best - some of the restorationist guys - they might have preached some odd stuff at times but they had some good preachers. No doubt about that.

4. Anglicans. Mixed ... I've heard some good Anglican sermons but not many. Some lay-readers are better than vicars. Some nuggets in and amongst.

5/6 Brethren and Pentecostals - although in each case I'd wince at the content ... by and large.

7. RCs, Orthodox - preaching ain't really their thing -- although there's no reason why it shouldn't be. I've heard some very good talks from monks, Orthodox bishops and others in conference or study-group contexts rather than Sunday worship.

Thinking about it ... the Orthodox priests I've heard preach during Liturgies have tended not to have notes - they've got too many other bits and pieces to carry so goodness knows how they'd manage pieces of paper ... [Big Grin] - although I've heard one Orthodox Sunday sermon read out from notes.

At the Easter Vigil, though, they read out St John Chrysostom's Easter Sermon - which is terrific.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
What about the Reformed people (URC or Church of Scotland)? Perhaps you haven't had much experience of them.

At their best they can be superb; at their worst they can turn into dry-and-dust didacticism or even become so rationalistic that God doesn't seem to get much of a look in!

One of the best preachers I have "sat under" consistently was a Scottish Charismatic Baptist who brought together the virtues of all three traditions: scholarly, eloquent, engaging and infused with a quiet intensity of the Spirit.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
I can preach extempore with the best of them (modest, too), but in the acoustic context of my pad and most I am strictly a notes person - so that the text is available pretty much word for word to those who struggle to hear. I have found most extempore preaching, my own included, to be a lazy option.

That said the art of preaching (which is a specialist form of oratory) is to deliver the notes with a warmth, intimacy and sometimes even crafted spontaneity that draws the listener (I used to be a radio broadcaster) in rather than repels them. I work incessantly at keeping myself somewhere near that goal and pray fervently that it sometimes carries the breath of God to someone somewhere.

Though I blog my sermons (see below: tag line) I do not like them as written word.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I've only heard one Kirk sermon and about 3 URC ones - one if the URC ones was particularly memorable due to the circumstances - she'd lost her son in the Asian tsunami ...

I'm sure she could preach very well normally too ... but that one knocked me out.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
Though I blog my sermons (see below: tag line) I do not like them as written word.

I know what you mean.

I have always been very wary about letting others have a copy of my sermon. The text is not to be read, but heard. But I have now been forcefully requested to make my sermons available on the church website. I know that there are a few people who cannot make it to church who like to read the sermons (and gently berate me when I fail to post them on the website). So I do it, but I hate doing it.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
The text is not to be read, but heard. But I have now been forcefully requested to make my sermons available on the church website. I know that there are a few people who cannot make it to church who like to read the sermons (and gently berate me when I fail to post them on the website). So I do it, but I hate doing it.

Agreed - but to satisfy those who want them - my notes (usually in powerpoint form) are on the website. The sound is streamed too
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
... I have always been very wary about letting others have a copy of my sermon. The text is not to be read, but heard. But I have now been forcefully requested to make my sermons available on the church website. I know that there are a few people who cannot make it to church who like to read the sermons (and gently berate me when I fail to post them on the website). So I do it, but I hate doing it.

Can you get someone to record the sermons and make them available that way?
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
This reminds me of a story.

A young preacher was giving his first sermon at his new parish. He wanted everything perfect, so he practiced and practiced the sermon. He wanted to do it without notes.

Sunday came, and he was doing fine. All of the sudden he forgot his next point. In homiletics he was taught if he forgot what he was going to say, he should repeat the last line, "I will come."

Still nothing. She he repeated the line again, "I will come."

By this time, his wife, who had heard the sermon over and over, knew he was in trouble she mouthed the next line.

The preacher could not quite make out what the wife was trying to say, so he leaned out from the pulpit, repeating the line once again, "I will come." But he lost his balance and fell out of the pulpit, into the lap of an older woman.

The pastor was so apologetic, but the woman brushed him off. "That's all right, son. You warned me three times."
 
Posted by leftfieldlover (# 13467) on :
 
One of the best, and memorable, sermons, I ever heard was Rowan Williams preaching without notes at Candlemass.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I preach rarely, but when I do I don't write the sermon out. I do a lot of research, but the only thing I write down are some key words that help me remember the structure of what I want to say. During the sermon, I then fill out this structure choosing my words more spontaneously.

I interpret often, although rarely for sermons (yes, I can do subordinate clauses [Smile] ). You can always tell when I disagree with the speaker, because I use the same trick: "(S)he says that ..."
 
Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :
 
As the years have gone by the way I prepare and then preach has changed quite a bit.

This is in part because I have received various advice from working towards using less notes to having a full script.

My notes are somewhere in-between now. Most weeks I have time to rehearse my sermon simply so I can hear myself and what I am saying.
 
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
Most weeks I have time to rehearse my sermon simply so I can hear myself and what I am saying.

Rehearsing what one is to say (or read) is far more important than most folk seem to realize. It's also important to rehearse in the space in which the speaking/reading will take place -- though this is not always possible.

In nearly 70 years of listening to (suffering through?) sermons, homilies, addresses, readings, proclamations, etc.) I would venture than no more than 20 percent rehearse, or rehearse effectively.

Your experience may vary -- I hope it's better than mine!
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I agree, up to a point. For those of us who preach in the same space on a regular basis, rehearsal may not be needed in the same way.

I preach weekly in my own church (quite large, good acoustics for speech, pews, microphone). I sometimes preach in another church (same size, very long reverberation time, chairs, microphone) and in a little chapel (no microphone, not much resonance, chairs). Each requires a different way of speaking, and also imposes its own relationship with the congregation.

I do wish that Scripture readers - who may not do it all that often - rehearsed their lessons more frequently. And that they didn't bring up to the lectern a tiny Bible with miniscule text they can't follow and thin pages they can't turn, rather than using the one that's already there and open at the right page!

[ 18. August 2015, 16:32: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
P.S. (Missed edit window): Even if preachers are reading their text, it mustn't sound as if they are. And they need to maintain eye-contact with the congregation rather than burying their head in the script.

(Yes, I know that Jonathan Edwards used to hold his script in front of his face and read it by the light of one candle, yet still gain an amazing response. But we're not in 18th-century New England!)

Has anyone ever seen those transparent projection-screen thingies (as featured at political conferences) - used in church? I haven't.

[ 18. August 2015, 16:37: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

I do wish that Scripture readers - who may not do it all that often - rehearsed their lessons more frequently. And that they didn't bring up to the lectern a tiny Bible with miniscule text they can't follow and thin pages they can't turn, rather than using the one that's already there and open at the right page!

I think the reason some of us do this is to allay the nagging doubt that perhaps this time the lectern Bible won't be open at the right page, or that we may not be able to easily find on the page where to begin and end the reading, or that having practiced at home using a different version there may be unfamiliar words or phrases in the church Bible (this latter point applies to our own church in particular, where the Lectern Bible and pew Bibles are in a version of the Bible so rare that it doesn't even appear on Bible Gateway!! .... that will keep people guessing!)

Having said that, I have now managed to quell the urge to bring my own Bible, or a pew Bible, to the lectern when I am reading. I possibly never actually did the reading from my own Bible, just had it with me 'just in case'.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:


I do wish that Scripture readers - who may not do it all that often - rehearsed their lessons more frequently. And that they didn't bring up to the lectern a tiny Bible with miniscule text they can't follow and thin pages they can't turn, rather than using the one that's already there and open at the right page!

I think some churches give training or advice to individuals who want to do Bible readings during worship. It's a good idea. IME, though, most people who do the job are good at it. Maybe this is because it's usually the same few people, so they get lots of practice.

In the churches I go to readers are expected to bring a Bible to the lectern. It's good if the church provides pew Bibles (all the same translation) with which everyone is familiar. This means no one has to grapple with a random Bible that they've brought along or had to borrow but probably aren't used to reading.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
We have both a lectern Bible and pew Bibles. in the same translation. However, the layout of the text on the page is totally different in each. So, even if you practice at home with a pew Bible, you might well be "thrown" when you get to the lectern, as it looks entirely different and the visual cues you have learned are missing.

I have no idea why the publishers did that!
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Has anyone ever seen those transparent projection-screen thingies (as featured at political conferences) - used in church? I haven't.
I've been to a service in a Free Church in which there was a projector thingy to the side of the minister. As he preached, any Bible references were projected up, to help anyone who was taking notes (quite a few were). (The minister himself couldn't see what was being projected, unless he had one of those small e-reader sized screens just to check that the projection was in synch with his preaching.) It was like a powerpoint, with each reference coming up as a bullet point.

I found it impressive. It's a church which has a very high standard of preaching, and attending it feels like a guilty pleasure. I couldn't be Free Church because of their opposition to ordained women and homosexuality, but this particular church has very good services.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I think there may be value in the use of PowerPoint (or similar) within church services, even the sermon. But, it then turns the sermon from something spoken to something audio-visual and that should subtlety alter the form of the sermon - just as there is a difference between preparing something to be read and something to be spoken (as previously noted). Even if it's just projecting the Scriptures being referenced, thus avoiding the turning of pages as people turn to the verses the preacher just mentioned, it will alter the nature of the delivery - if only because (unless you project a longer section of text than actually mentioned) people don't see the immediate context. If you include relevant images so that it's not just words on the wall then those will reinforce the words projected and those spoken.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
For some of us the powerpoint is our notes.

Jengie
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The projection thingy at our church is used for the hymns and prayers. It's a blessing for those of us with vision issues. Instead of wrestling with my reading glasses, a pocket light, and the service leaflet, I can look at the text projected on the wall beside the altar.

What is absolutely fatal, however, is when the preacher uses it as a sermon crutch. We have one priest who is just terrible with this -- sermons supplemented with music videos, even advertisements, sappy photographs harvested from the Internet, slushy soundtracks. Every time I sit through one of this guy's sermons I add to the list of things that he is not allowed to bring up, if he should happen to preside at my funeral. (So far I have barred everything published or produced after 1900, with the sole exception of works I have written myself. And no pictures of animals.) There is muttering in the ranks; I know of people who check it out on the web site and if this guy is in the pulpit they don't show up that Sunday.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I have used a projector twice when leading worship. On both occasions primarily as part of the "childrens address" (in quotes as we don't have many children, and even if we did I wouldn't be speaking only to them), and since it was set up also projected suitable images with the hymn number on at appropriate times. I've never used it during the sermon, even though talking to Powerpoint slides is my most common form of public speaking (at scientific conferences and the like). Of course, my sermon would refer back to what was shown during the earlier part of the service.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I didn't mean that sort of projector, I'm afraid. I meant the transparent sheets in front of the speaker on which their note are projected, like an autocue, thus freeing them from using notes. No-one else can see what's on them. Like the square screen, to the right of the speaker as you face her.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Like the square screen, to the right of the speaker as you face her.

It didn't do her much good did it? [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Like the square screen, to the right of the speaker as you face her.

It didn't do her much good did it? [Disappointed]
It's not fair on the little screen to blame it for that.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
It didn't do him much good either [Smile]
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
We might; I don't know. In my church the words to the hymns etc are projected onto a screen and there's a wee screen thing at the lectern, about 5 inches by 4, which shows what's being projected. This means that the person at the lectern knows what's on the screen behind them. There's another of these in the pulpit, so possibly they could be used for more than just the words of the hymns; I really have no idea.

Last time I was at the lectern I read the words of the Lord's Prayer off the wee screen thing, because although I know it perfectly well, if I'm leading I'm nervous I'll lapse into the "old" form ("forgive us our debts" etc) and botch the whole thing up.

I will make discreet inquiry and find out if these screen things can be used as autocues. I'll also find out what the correct name for the "wee screen thing" is.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
The screens at the pulpit and lectern are small monitors, which show what is being projected onto the main screen (i.e. the words of hymns). It would be possible to detach one from the system and use it independently as an autocue. As far as I know, this has never been done.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
The screens at the pulpit and lectern are small monitors, which show what is being projected onto the main screen (i.e. the words of hymns). It would be possible to detach one from the system and use it independently as an autocue. As far as I know, this has never been done.

Yes - I use one (actually on a small music stand next to the lectern).

I also have the ability to run the system through powerpoint from my laptop
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
For some of us the powerpoint is our notes.

Jengie

As has been much written-about, PowerPoint is anything but a panacea.

As someone who translates and interprets PowerPoint presentations in a wide variety of contexts in the secular world, I find the number of speakers who use them well to be vanishingly tiny.

Powerpoint has an amazing tendency, as a medium, to become the message. The emphasis tends to shift from the content to the form.

And unless you have a monitor, people tend to speak to the screen the powerpoint is being projected on.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
PP is a tool which can be used well or badly. However I agree that it can become the message instead of the medium. It's true people can talk at their monitor or screen, but speakers can also bury their head in their notes! More serious is that it "locks" you into your presentation and doesn't let you fly.

I do use PP occasionally (not in regular sermons). Generally I don't use it as a resume of my talk, but prefer to project images or quotes or questions which are germane to my talk and inform it - I don't necessarily read out what's on the screen.

Useful in Church Meetings if one is trying to explain a complex issue with "pros" and "cons", there the "bullet points" are invaluable.

The whole thing can take a lot of time to prepare though!!!
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The layout of many churches make the fairly common practice of having the laptop which is running the presentation in front of the speaker. There is rarely space in most pulpits which are designed for paper notes, though a tablet would usually work. To install permanent repeater screens would be a considerable expense for most churches, although if such technology is regularly used it may be a good investment to help the preacher looking forward. Though, even with a laptop/monitor in front of me I still turn to the screen behind me a lot - mainly because I want to make sure I'm pointing at the right bit of the slide.

The clear screens that we were talking about earlier, as routinely used by politicians in their conferences, have the advantage of meaning the speaker never needs to look down at all - it's what they are designed for.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
I can see the point of having screens upon which you can display power point or visual aids in preaching. But why would the cost of a clear scren be worth incurring? Preaching, or speaking, from notes in a way which maintains sufficient eye contact with the audience is really not that difficult- it has to be learned, sure, but it can be learned and thousands if not millions of people do it.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I've not used one, but I assume you need to learn how to make best use of a clear screen as well - after all, you've gained nothing if you end up preaching the to screen!
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Indeed. So learn how to preach from notes/ tablet and save money and electricity!
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I've never used a tablet. I once preached off my laptop (that'll teach to delay printing till the last minute and then not have a back-up ink cartridge!) I hated it, because there was far less on each page than on a page of A4 and I found it fiddly to keep scrolling down. Give me paper any time.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I hated it, because there was far less on each page than on a page of A4 and I found it fiddly to keep scrolling down. Give me paper any time.

Laptop screens are the wrong shape. I imagine you never write notes on a piece of landscape A4. The modern trend for widescreen, in order to accommodate films and the like, makes it worse.

A reasonable tablet in portrait orientation (a new iPad, say) can just about match a sheet of A4. Whether it really works for you or not depends on how you use your notes. People who like to scribble on their notes, underline points to emphasize and so on probably wouldn't like it.

People who prefer to encode all that stuff in the electronic file itself will do OK.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Useful in Church Meetings if one is trying to explain a complex issue with "pros" and "cons", there the "bullet points" are invaluable.

Look at the link in my above post for why the linear format of PowerPoints is especially bad for complex issues*, especially the link to the PowerPoint version of the Gettysburg Address.

*Except if one is trying only to give the impression of a clear explanation as a way of sneaking in one's preferred decision, always possible in this context I guess [Two face]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
And indeed what else would you be trying to do in a Church Meeting?
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:


I do wish that Scripture readers - who may not do it all that often - rehearsed their lessons more frequently. And that they didn't bring up to the lectern a tiny Bible with miniscule text they can't follow and thin pages they can't turn, rather than using the one that's already there and open at the right page!

I think some churches give training or advice to individuals who want to do Bible readings during worship. It's a good idea. IME, though, most people who do the job are good at it. Maybe this is because it's usually the same few people, so they get lots of practice.

In the churches I go to readers are expected to bring a Bible to the lectern. It's good if the church provides pew Bibles (all the same translation) with which everyone is familiar. This means no one has to grapple with a random Bible that they've brought along or had to borrow but probably aren't used to reading.

As a former broadcaster I would emphasize that the greatest trick of reading from a lectern is projecting only as far (or at the most not more than 30 cms past) the microphone and speaking to it as to a lover. Not making love, but making intimate conversation.

The same applies to preachers - it is a one-to-one, not a one-to-many communication, no matter how many are present.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Yes and no. For, while one is clearly speaking to individuals, surely each individual is also aware of the fact that they are hearing as part of a congregation? (The same is true of congregational responses, they are both individual and participatory).

Clearly one is speaking "to" people and not preaching into thin air or just reading a thesis without reference or link to one's auditors. But I think the experience of listening in church is different to listening to the radio at home, a dynamic which will change according to the size of the group and the building in which they are meeting.

I wonder to what extent the preaching experience (and demagogy in general) has been altered by the advent of broadcasting and, indeed, sound reinforcement systems in buildings? Quite a bit, I would have thought. Roosevelt's "Fireside Chats" must have had quite an effect. Conversely, I remember reading a book about American radio preachers of the 1950s (predominantly black) who used their "church" style while speaking from the radio studio.

[ 25. August 2015, 08:42: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
A TV presenter speaks to the camera as though that camera was the person being addressed. Which is fine, most of the time the TV will be viewed by only 1-4 people, and it can be made to appear that they are all being addressed individually. Radio, again can be a pseudo-phone call one to one conversation (albeit one where there is rarely an immediate response).

When preaching, or otherwise addressing a live audience, you can't just pick one person in the congregation and talk to them. You need to be moving the direction of your attention so that they whole congregation feels they are being addressed (and, so that that one person doesn't feel got at!).
 
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Spontaneous doesn't need to be ill-prepared.

No, I always like to carefully prepare for any spontaneity.
 
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:


I do wish that Scripture readers - who may not do it all that often - rehearsed their lessons more frequently. And that they didn't bring up to the lectern a tiny Bible with miniscule text they can't follow and thin pages they can't turn, rather than using the one that's already there and open at the right page!

I think some churches give training or advice to individuals who want to do Bible readings during worship. It's a good idea. IME, though, most people who do the job are good at it. Maybe this is because it's usually the same few people, so they get lots of practice.

In the churches I go to readers are expected to bring a Bible to the lectern. It's good if the church provides pew Bibles (all the same translation) with which everyone is familiar. This means no one has to grapple with a random Bible that they've brought along or had to borrow but probably aren't used to reading.

As a former broadcaster I would emphasize that the greatest trick of reading from a lectern is projecting only as far (or at the most not more than 30 cms past) the microphone and speaking to it as to a lover. Not making love, but making intimate conversation.

The same applies to preachers - it is a one-to-one, not a one-to-many communication, no matter how many are present.

As a former live sound engineer, I would note that works in a nice quiet controlled studio isn't the same as what is needed in a noisy live space and with (in many churches IME) an insufficient PA system.

I would often want to encourage a reader (and a preacher) to project. That does't mean a loss of subtlety though - anyone who is a regular at the theatre will hear the range of power that can be given to a projected voice.

And in most typical English parish churches, for traditional style services, the microphones should only be for the closed circuit systems - a hearing loop, a recording, a relay to another room etc. - not for the live sound.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
[....]As a former broadcaster I would emphasize that the greatest trick of reading from a lectern is projecting only as far (or at the most not more than 30 cms past) the microphone and speaking to it as to a lover...

Does that involve doing a Barry White voice, then ?
[Big Grin]
 
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
This would seem to be the gadget being discussed

A tad expensive, I fear...
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
And in most typical English parish churches, for traditional style services, the microphones should only be for the closed circuit systems - a hearing loop, a recording, a relay to another room etc. - not for the live sound.

Yes and Amen, and not just for them. I think we have the only unplugged church left in Western Europe, and that includes the musicians except for a practice-sized bass amp.

Our congregation is in a U shape and it's a real challenge to look round everyone while preaching. Most preachers have a favoured side; I tend to look left more than I do right.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I tend to agree ... except for three things.

1. There may be people present who are hard of hearing or who (for whatever reason) don't use hearing aids. For instance, my late mother's aid didn't have a T-switch so couldn't pick up from loop systems.

2. I think the advent of radio has altered the style of oratory. Many people mistrust people who "project" and prefer a low-key style ... this, by its nature, demands the use of a microphone.

3. Conversely, people have lost the art of listening and become accustomed to higher levels of sound than in the past. Spurgeon's unamplified voice in the Crystal Palace must have been tiny if you were in the back row!

But it does seem ridiculous to use amplification or reinforcement in the tiniest rooms ... especially as it's so often done badly.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I think the advent of radio has altered the style of oratory.

I think this is a cultural thing. France has radio (!) but has yet to get the hang of the emerging British informal lingustic style in many walks of life, including public speaking.

I remember feeling totally lost at a UK family service in a "breakfast show" TV format, and that must be 20 years ago now. It still seems really alien.
 
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:

And in most typical English parish churches, for traditional style services, the microphones should only be for the closed circuit systems - a hearing loop, a recording, a relay to another room etc. - not for the live sound.

How well does that work? The practical problem I'd expect would be that readers wouldn't be able to hear if they're projecting into the microphone OK. I suppose it'd be OK with a decent mike (or with in-ear monitoring for anyone who says anything)
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
... And in most typical English parish churches, for traditional style services, the microphones should only be for the closed circuit systems - a hearing loop, a recording, a relay to another room etc. - not for the live sound.

I really don't agree with that statement. It sounds like the ideological idealism of the expert.

It may be OK for some small ancient churches, but, speaking as a consumer, it won't do for either C19 barns, or the worst of all, 1940s-1960s churches that were designed at a time when architecture was all about making a visual statement and anything practical like acoustics or whether the rain came through the roof, were largely ignored.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I do wish that Scripture readers - who may not do it all that often - rehearsed their lessons more frequently. And that they didn't bring up to the lectern a tiny Bible with miniscule text they can't follow and thin pages they can't turn, rather than using the one that's already there and open at the right page!

Even better - get them to come to church with their reading printed out, in a suitably large font. It takes 5 minutes, maximum, these days. We have a couple of people who do that and they always know what they are saying and are clear and "listenable".
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Get them to come to church with their reading printed out, in a suitably large font.

Bue Baptists don't use fonts ... [Devil]

Seriously, I agree (and some of our folk do it). Only problem then is that you're not seen to be reading from the Book - does that diminish its authority?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I know of someone who would print out the text in easy to read large font, and before the service insert the sheets in the relevant places in the large lectern Bible. He then gets up to read, opens the big Bible at the right page and reads from his printed sheet rather than the relatively small print in the Bible itself. We all knew he was doing it, but it maintained the illusion of reading from the book and meant he wasn't carrying sheets of paper around.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I read from my short-form A6 notes tucked inside my Bible.
 
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
... And in most typical English parish churches, for traditional style services, the microphones should only be for the closed circuit systems - a hearing loop, a recording, a relay to another room etc. - not for the live sound.

I really don't agree with that statement. It sounds like the ideological idealism of the expert.

It may be OK for some small ancient churches, but, speaking as a consumer, it won't do for either C19 barns, or the worst of all, 1940s-1960s churches that were designed at a time when architecture was all about making a visual statement and anything practical like acoustics or whether the rain came through the roof, were largely ignored.

'should' as an ideal, from which practice will often deviate.

Normally, a more balanced approach is needed - but it is often easier with an insufficient system/poor acoustics for people to try and project into the space and someone sat at the back with control helping out with the reinforcement.

I can only amplify what the microphone picks up. I can always make the PA system quieter!
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
One particularly *interesting* service I got lumbered with reading and a dodgy mike/sound system. I can project without mike and I could monitor whether the mike was picking up or not, but that reading changed phrase to phrase, from projecting unamplified to mike picking up and back again.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Earlier in the summer I was preaching, with a radio mike and also a mike on the lectern (we don't have a pulpit, so I usually preach from there). Someone had changed the batteries in the mikes and my opening words boomed around the church, so I moved the mike further down my jacket. But, when I got up to preach the combination of both mikes and proximity to one of the speakers was a bad combination. I made some lame joke about it being good to be heard, but there's such a thing as too much of a good thing, and switched the mikes off.
 
Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :
 
We were told by our sound engineer to always turn our radio mike off when we came to the ambo (which had its own mike).
 
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I do wish that Scripture readers - who may not do it all that often - rehearsed their lessons more frequently. And that they didn't bring up to the lectern a tiny Bible with miniscule text they can't follow and thin pages they can't turn, rather than using the one that's already there and open at the right page!

Even better - get them to come to church with their reading printed out, in a suitably large font. It takes 5 minutes, maximum, these days. We have a couple of people who do that and they always know what they are saying and are clear and "listenable".
The Lectionary Page is your friend!
The Lectionary Page

Re the original post: I will be preaching in a few weeks (I'm a lay person in the very beginning stages of a "discernment" process) and am definitely relying on a written text. But I'm pretty good at reading with feeling and liveliness.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I do wish that Scripture readers - who may not do it all that often - rehearsed their lessons more frequently. And that they didn't bring up to the lectern a tiny Bible with miniscule text they can't follow and thin pages they can't turn, rather than using the one that's already there and open at the right page!

Even better - get them to come to church with their reading printed out, in a suitably large font. It takes 5 minutes, maximum, these days. We have a couple of people who do that and they always know what they are saying and are clear and "listenable".
The Lectionary Page is your friend!
The Lectionary Page

I would usually use textweek.com as it provides links to a range of sites (Bible gateway, etc) so you can pick the translation (presumably to that of the pew Bibles, whichever version the preacher is expecting). But, there is no real excuse for not being able to get the text printed in advance, and rehearsed a bit too.
 
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
[QUOTE]I would usually use textweek.com as it provides links to a range of sites (Bible gateway, etc) so you can pick the translation (presumably to that of the pew Bibles, whichever version the preacher is expecting). But, there is no real excuse for not being able to get the text printed in advance, and rehearsed a bit too.

Yes, Textweek has a lot of good resources.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
https://www.biblegateway.com/


is a website with many bible versions incuding other languages is you so wish
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Which then requires you to enter the passages ... as I said, textweek (and probably other places) take you straight to the right text within Biblegateway (or other similar online Bible sites). Which can save the problems of a slip of the fingers which meant that a couple of years ago I'd prepared a sermon on the lectionary epistle of 2 Timothy 2:3-15, and heard 1 Timothy 2:3-15 read, and noticed the indrawn breath in the congregation when it got to "I want women to dress modestly ... A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach". That was an interesting morning.
 
Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :
 
Advantage of having a uniform lectionary tradition.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I like textweek for its easy links to exegetic material too. I'm not a preacher but my travelling lifestyle forces me to miss church often. Through textweek, I can at least read interesting things about this week's lecture.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0