Today was the first of two days in my preaching class where students are preaching their final sermons. I don't preach until next week, so this week I got to just watch other students and provide feedback for them.
Or something like that. I don't know where to start with feedback sometimes. What if a sermon was really awful, both in its content and in its delivery? How do you tell someone that has never preached before that you thought was bad? Luckily, I didn't have to. I could just sit quietly.
I suppose I was expecting the teacher/grader to be harsher in his evaluation, even with the understanding that this is an introduction class. Many of these students haven't preached before, and the nervousness shows in their delivery. I don't think any of the four I listened to were within 3 minutes of the time given. We are supposed to aim for 20. 16 might have been the longest as the nerves forced many to rush their speech. One person was done before they had even been giving the 5 minutes left signal.
I'm not assuming that I will ace my sermon, but some of the things, like timing should be worked out well enough in advance and practice to at least get that part right.
At least I know that the feedback will be largely positive when I'm done :)
Go back and read this from an outsiders point of view. How does your personal "style" reflect on how you view others. Seems like you had a blog earlier on perceptions and our personalities being results of our perceptions. What is the difference between satisfying a school requirement? (talk for so many minutes) versus preaching what is felt. I recognize that seminary and society "expect" certain standards (how long to preach a sermon) for example but, should "padding" be added to meet the 20 minute "goal", or should the message be as brief as possible. I recognize that the "learning environment" is meant to train and prepare these people for preaching, and possibly to show some that they are not meant to preach. However, what is the lesson being taught here? You have to preach for 20 minutes for it to be "OK" or the message should be relevent? or something else? This response is guilty of oversimplification. I hope your feedback will be positive but, how would you react to someone saying you took too long to say what needed to be said. Practice on timing should let you know whether or not you can pace yourself. Pacing content doesn't equate to a good message. How do you blend both? How do you react when someone isn't 100% in agreement with your style or content? Does that lessen what you are trying to say? When you don't agree 100% with the style or content of someone else's message, does that lessen what they are trying to say? Given all that, if you can't understand what message they are trying to give, and their style, pacing, etc. makes it hard for others to understand, what's the answer?
ReplyDeleteI don't have any reason to believe that a message should be a certain length. I'll defend that forever.
ReplyDeleteI was more concerned with the teacher laying out his expectations and not following through (at least verbally) as he critiqued the sermons.
This teacher was very clear that we were given 20 minutes, and that he assigned enough text to each person to fill those 20 minutes. He was clear that you should aim for between 19-21, that over 21 would be bad and you would get cut off, and that under 18 or so would also be bad.
I was just surprised that he didn't mention verbally that say, someone only preached for 13 minutes.
Though "pacing" (i mean both speed, pitch, and movement when i say that) is unnatural for many people, it was one of the things that could be practiced to guaruntee your time be close. People couldn't necessarily practice nerves away, but time they should have been able to get down.
I for example, will likely preach most of my messages for well longer than 20 minutes. I like messages (if they are well done) that take much longer as they get to a level of depthness and understanding that you just can't introduce in 20 minutes.