Skip to main content

How long, O Lord? Some thoughts on sermon density & length

I recently had an interesting series of comments on my Facebook page re length & density of sermons. I didn't contribute to the debate, I just read my friends' arguments (so they're all still my friends...). Here's my thoughts.

As responsible preachers, we must consider two potentially competing principles:
  1. Accurate communication of what the text is saying - which includes, amongst other things, clarity of language and comprehensiveness in covering the material; and
  2. The congregation's ability to take in info - which will be affected by a variety of factors, mainly outside our ability to control: their educational background, age, health, etc.
A long, detailed sermon will emphasise point (1) at the expense of point (2). A short, snappy sermon, full of illustrations and application, will emphasise point (2), potentially at the expense of point (1). I don't think there's a way around this tension. Part of our role as preachers is to best work that tension in the particular congregational context that we're in.

In some places, the people will tend not to need or want detailed sermons, heavy on explanation and justification. The're not dumb - but they're not analytical, they're more practical.

In such contexts, it'd be pastorally irresponsible to subject them to careful dissection and justification of my exegetical conclusions. That would either get the congregation annoyed ("is this guy just showing off how smart he is?") or bored (*zzzz...*) or depressed ("wow! He's so smart! I could never understand the Bible like he does!"). Instead, we should take a few verses, explain them in simple language, and then give the congregation clear illustrations, and plenty of application to show them how to appropriately respond to the passage. The trade-off is: we're implicitly inviting them to trust us - that we have correctly understood the passage in our personal, private preparation.

In a different demographic context, the opposite will be true. The act of demonstrating that we can understand the Bible in a clear, reasonable, publicly verifiable way (= careful dissection and justification of my exegetical conclusions) will itself be a challenge to arrogant modernists who think naturalistic science comprehensively defines all true knowledge, and to equally arrogant post-modernists who know that all claims to knowledge are veiled power-plays. Indeed, in this context, I think it would be evangelistically and pastorally irresponsible not to do this kind of exegetical demonstration. If we don't demonstrate the Biblical-based rationality of our teaching, we'll reinforce the popular misperception that Christianity is anti-intellectual and authoritarian.

This is not to say that illustration and application is unnecessary; it is to say that taking the time to make this exegetical demonstration will, in this demographic context, be pastorally and evangelistically useful, and worth the cost of a longer, denser sermon.

Thoughts, anyone...?
Labels:

Comments

David said…
Generally I agree with your thinking but... I think it wise to expect that the congregation will continue to mature in Christ so that it would be ok to start at point two but over an unspecified time dependent upon the congregations maturity Christ I would hope that you would be heading more to Point one. (Avoiding the Corinthian church problem 1 Cor. 3:1-3) Christmas, Easter, Weddings and Funeral services would be very much Point two as there would be an expectation of many unsaved or bible illiterate attendees.
18 January 2011 at 19:11
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A better understanding of nonbelief

The Nones Project is an ongoing study into the belief systems of people who call themselves non-religious. A few weeks ago one of the project leaders,  Ryan Burge  of Washington University,  posted some really interesting preliminary results  on his Substack.  1. We've probably heard of people who are spiritual but not religious (SBNRs). SBNRs were "the largest group of nones" in the sample. They believe in the supernatural realm but not necessarily in "a God." They are "deeply skeptical of religion but highly interested in spirituality," therefore individualistic and anti-institutional.  2. But this study differentiated SBNRs from people they called Nones In Name Only, NiNos. They different to SBNRs by being religious about their spiritual. They believe not just in the supernatural but in "God." And they tend to engage in traditional communal religious practices while SBNRs practice individualised eclectic bespoke spiritual practices. The s...
Post a Comment
Read more

The different distractions of secularity and spirituality

There has been a lot of discussion about the recent 'vibe shift' away from radical atheism back towards an openness to the supernatural. I don't think this new spirituality is necessarily an openness to the unique claims of Christ. It will more probably replace one set of commonly-accepted misunderstandings about Jesus with another.  Under radical atheism, people dismissed the Biblical claims about Jesus' resurrection because they 'knew' that it was impossible. Jesus hadn't really died. He just passed out (after being beaten and whipped and crucified) and then woke up in the tomb (and rolled away the stone himself and overcame several guards). Or the disciples hallucinated that they saw him (even though Jewish beliefs of the time didn't expect one person to rise possessing eternal life himself; they expected a general resurrection at the end of time - see John 11:24 ). Or something else.  The so-called 'explanations' of Jesus' non-resurrectio...
Post a Comment
Read more
TGC Australia recently published an analysis by Dr Sarah Quicke of whether we are experiencing a 'quiet revival' of interest in and/or conversion to Christianity  here in Australia. It does it a good job of describing the difficulties involved in both gathering and interpreting data about religious beliefs and behaviours, e.g. the difference between the 44% who (still) call themselves Christian and the 8% of people aged 18-35 who actually "believed and lived out the gospel."  Quicke refers to the very insightful McCrindle report An Undercurrent Of Faith , released in March 2025, which uses an analytical method called cohort analysis to try and work out how a particular group of people tend to behave over time. The purpose of this post is to draw attention to one element of that report which agrees with Quicke's analysis but also adds some detail to it.  Here is what the cohort analysis showed about different age groups' identification with Christianity:  As y...
Post a Comment
Read more