What is in Kelvin's Head?

12 Things I’ve Learned About Preaching

17/11/2022
At the moment, I’m on sabbatical and am not preaching regularly. However, I recently had the opportunity to preach to a congregation largely made up of apprentice preachers – those who are training for ordained and lay ministries in the church in the future. A number of them have asked me to share some wisdom on how I prepare a sermon. One even asked me to share my ‘homiletic method’. I don’t know about that, but here’s a few things I’ve been learning about preaching. I’ve written posts like this before, but here’s where I am in 2022.
1. In good sermons there should be a beginning, a middle and an end. In the best sermons, they don’t come in that order.
  Start somewhere unexpected. Bewilder. Entrance. Beguile.
2. A thousand biblical commentaries will not make a preacher a thousand times better.
  I have a huge admiration for those who write biblical commentaries but I have to confess that I very rarely use them when I’m writing a sermon. I remember a biblical scholar who used to be a member of one of the congregations that I’ve belonged to telling me that he had spent months trying to work out what my sources were and what commentaries I was reading.
  “Ah,” I said, “I’m just making it all up”.
  “I knew it!” he replied.
  The only caveat I would add to this is that I don’t think I would be able to make it all up without having been taught theology by inspirational teachers in university.
3. Good preachers listen to good preachers.
  I’m lucky in that I hear good preaching within my own congregation from other members of the team. However, everyone can listen to good preaching these days. This internet thingy looks like it is here to stay.
4. Reflecting on the biblical texts is not just for sermon prep.
  Regularly thinking about what’s in the bible is part of the life of a preacher, it isn’t just for when you need to get into the pulpit. For me, I’ve come to realise that hearing the bible read aloud when saying the daily office with others is a key way that I get to think about what’s in it. Being part of a group of people who regularly read the bible out loud together means that you get to be in a group that can talk about the horrible and outrageous bits honestly and say what you feel about them. This is important. The bible isn’t always nice.
5. It is OK to use other people’s ideas but not their words.
  Don’t copy and paste. You’ll get found out. Anyone who knows you will know if you use material that isn’t in your own voice. They will wonder whose voice it is. And nowadays they will find out.
6. Be serious about being funny if you want to make people laugh.
  I’m very lucky in being someone who preaches in Glasgow where people have an amazing sense of humour. It always used to be said that stand-up comedians dreaded playing Glasgow as audiences could give them a hard time. However, one of a number of reasons that the Glasgow Empire was called the comedians’ graveyard was because the audience was funnier than some who trod the boards and they knew it.
  Different things make people laugh in different places and it is worth working out what those things are. For example, the word, “Edinburgh” is intrinsically funny in Glasgow. The word, “Glasgow” will barely raise a smile in Edinburgh.
  There’s a big difference between being genuinely funny in the pulpit and telling a joke. By and large, formulaic jokes are not nearly as funny as reflecting on real life.
  The way you speak matters. Your voice will be different when you make people laugh to when you make people cry or think or get cross.
  Yes, sometimes preachers should make people cross.
  Rhythm is crucial. Think about preaching whilst doing something rhythmic – walking, swimming, knitting or …. well, you can think of something else that you need rhythm for.
7. Preaching is a form of striptease.
  I’ve said this before and it always makes people feel uneasy. What I mean by it is that good preachers tend to reveal a lot about themselves. Congregations come to know the person they are listening to week after week. Show them another layer. Reveal something new every time.
  You know and they know that there’s parts of your personality that you’ll never quite reveal but they don’t know which those bits are. Not knowing quite what’s coming next is all part of the excitement.
  Tell stories about yourself but only stories in which you are the fool.
8. Art begets preachers art.
  I’m sure that my preaching would be a lot more dull if I didn’t go to the theatre or listen to the spoken word on the radio. People craft words and use them to tell stories. Some of them are very good at it and they have much to teach us in church. People who see good opera and theatre are never going to be satisfied whilst putting on dull liturgy and preaching dull sermons.
  Remember what Peter Brook said: “A stage space has two rules: (1) Anything can happen and (2) Something must happen.”
  A pulpit is a stage.
  The altar sits in the middle of another one.
  Oh, and go to art galleries and look at things you don’t immediately understand. Preaching is a visual art, just one in which the paintings and the sculptures are made with words.
9. Have one idea at once. Save the other ideas for another day.
  My bishop once said to me after I’d preached at some bigfangled service or another, “I don’t know how you do it, you only ever have one idea in every sermon.” He’s right. I do. And if I find I’ve got lots going on in a sermon I try to weed out the thoughts that are getting in the way of the one idea that I’m trying to get over and leave them for another time.
  People in the pews know that a sermon that is a few sentences too short is a hundred times better than a sermon that is a few hours too long. Preachers need to learn the difference too.
10. Always chose the difficult text if presented with a choice to preach on.
  Some of the stories in the bible are difficult. Some vicious. Some violent. Some perplexing. Some outrageous. Always prioritise preaching on the hard stuff and worry away over it. The best sermons I ever write are about the most difficult texts. Preaching on the difficult stuff is hard. Preaching on the lovely stuff is impossible. Who ever preached a sermon that improved on or elucidated 1 Corinthians 13 anyway?
  Someone once told me that I made the hard stuff easy and the easy stuff difficult.
  I take that as a compliment.
  Never be frightened of admitting that a passage is difficult. Never patronise people in the pews by withholding from them Big Modern Ideas that you came across in your theological education. Christians can cope with new ideas. Christianity isn’t about to be wiped out by theology.
11. Record sermons. Share sermons. Be the first to watch your own sermon.
  I’ve probably learned more from watching and listening to my own sermons than from anyone else. Not because I’m a homiletic genius but because I’m not. Listening to how I paced the sermon, how I used the dynamics and speed of my voice and above all, listening for the reactions of the congregation, is crucial to leaning how to do it better. Most people don’t like listening to recordings of their own voice. However, if you want to get better at preaching then get over yourself as quickly as you can. If you can’t cope with listening to yourself you cannot reasonably expect others to listen to you.
  I realised this week after I’d preached that if I’d just rephrased one of the lines and paced it differently I’d have got a belly laugh out of the congregation instead of a mere titter.
  That’s not a failure.
  Spotting that and tucking it away for another time is a success.
12. Everyone who preaches can become a better preacher
  There is no-one who speaks in public who couldn’t get better at it than they currently are. Don’t be frightened of thinking about doing it better, no matter how early (or how late) you are in your preaching career. Quality and excellence are mission values these days, something a lot of people are very frightened of indeed – which I may write about more in another post.
  I remember years ago someone telling me that they thought I’d be a great preacher one day. I was furious – I thought I was pretty good at the time. I eventually came to realise that it wasn’t me who had the word of wisdom that day, it was the person who was speaking to me.
  Nowadays I share their hope that I’ll be a great preacher some day. In the mean time, I’m still learning.

11 responses to “Providence and Vocation for Liberals in Public Life”

David Evans

29/06/2015

I was one of the Lib Dems who did foresee the calamity in 2015 and actively campaigned to get the party to change leader – after 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 it wasn’t difficult for anyone to see, but it was difficult for many nice Lib Dems to own up to the fact that they had allowed it to happen. I failed, but I don’t think it was part of anyone’s plan that I did (except possibly Ryan Coetzee and a few other true believers).

There’s a lot in your points I can agree with, particularly regarding the naivety of referring to God’s plan, when many Christian’s have a view that his/hers/its plan is to let us get on with it and find our own way to salvation. However, the most interesting question is when you say “The trouble is, these are not side issues, these are my rights.” Do you really mean that you have the right to force someone else to marry you who doesn’t want to and believes it is wrong, even though you have the right to and can get someone else to do the same job for you? Do individuals have the right to insist on being married by the registrar of their choice, or just the right to get married? Are you not perhaps just a bit assuming that your tree is that bit taller than the other guy’s?

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  29/06/2015
  
  I think that people should be able to expect individual people who represent the state not to discriminate against them in any of the protected categories. I think that the equal rights tree is bigger than my tree and the registrar’s tree.
  
  I don’t claim that individuals should be able to force registrars of their choice to marry them, not least because I don’t think it is a very real question – few people want to be married by someone who doesn’t want them to be married. I do think that local authorities have not simply the right but the duty to remove public officials who can’t serve every member of the public due to their personal prejudices.
  
  Reply
  1. David Evans
    
    30/06/2015
    
    I think you are rather changing your ground here from your original piece. You started with “The trouble is, these are not side issues, these are my rights.”
    
    You have now moved onto “I think that people should be able to expect individual people who represent the state not to discriminate against them in any of the protected categories.” So we now have a right to expect, but only against a person who works in the public sector, and even if it is against that person’s conscience and only if you are in a specially protected category.
    
    It gets even more tenuous then as you accept when you then say “I don’t claim that individuals should be able to force registrars of their choice to marry them.” So the right is not to a person wanting to be married at all.
    
    Finally we get “I do think that local authorities have not simply the right but the duty to remove public officials who can’t serve every member of the public due to their personal prejudices.” So the right is not to an individual at all, so definitely not “your rights” but to a public sector organisation. Hardly a human right, more of an employer’s right by your own statements.
    
    I rather think that your equal rights tree, however high you think it is, has decidedly peculiar roots.
    
    Reply
    1. Graham Evans
      
      05/07/2015
      
      David, I thought most liberals accepted the view that in the provision of services to the general public, whether provided by the public sector or private sector, a policy of non-discrimination was an essential ingredient of a progressive society. I accept that there is a notable exception to this rule in terms of the provision of abortion, but this arises from the broad range of medical procedures undertaken by one type of doctor or another. Surgeons are specialised medical practitioners, as are nurses who assist them, so it is most unlikely then anyone who opposed abortion on conscience grounds would actually be faced with having to refuse to conduct an abortion. The provision of most services to the general public is also a specialist activity, and no-one forces people to engage in any particular activity. The idea that a registrar should be able to opt out of undertaking a civil gay marriage represents the thin edge of a dangerous wedge. If such people wish to opt out of doing so, then they should act as part of a religious community, such as a deacon in Anglican Church, which has the legal power to conduct religious marriages, are still recognised by the State.
      
      Reply
      1. David Evans
        
        18/07/2015
        
        Quite simply Graham I disagree with your view that this is a level of discrimination in the provision of a public service of anything like the scale you imply makes it essential that every individual has to comply with it. The “go with it or get out” philosophy demanded of the state by so many in pursuit of their personal view of their rights is to my mind a greater threat to liberty than the fact that Fred or Freda don’t agree with something and don’t want to do it but George, Georgina, Harry, Harriette etc etc etc etc can do it instead. Ultimately you aren’t stopping someone from exercising their right; you are preventing someone from imposing their requirement on someone else.
        
        However, I note Kelvin hasn’t responded to my substantive point and I await that with interest.
Iain Brodie Browne

02/07/2015

Firstly thank you for your posting.
I have been expressing my concern elsewhere that the main voices we have heard in the debate about Tim’s faith have been firstly from those who think that it wholly a private matter and because his opinions are sincerely held and are derived from his faith the rest of us should back off and secondly those who seem to imply that having a religious faith at all is a negative factor. Until your contribution I am not aware that anyone has directly addressed the issue from different Christian understanding.
I cut my political teeth at the end of the 1960s opposing the all ‘white’ rugby and cricket tours from South Africa. The dominant voices from the churches were from Trevor Huddleston and David Sheppard. They effectively contested the assertions of those who told us (and they did) that apartheid was part of God’s plan.
Earlier in that decade Michael Ramsey spoke up clearly in support of what was then called homosexual law reform. David Steel, who pushed through the 1967 Act did so at a time when he was regularly introducing Songs of Praise.
I regret that equal marriage and the removal of other discriminations against gay people –including the issue you raise about Registrars- have not been as effectively championed by Christians as those earlier reforms. It is fair to say that in the minds of those who you describe as ‘decent people in society’ Christians are seen as opposing these reforms. The priority for the churches appears to be to gain protection for those who oppose such reforms. Imagine if that had been the approach to apartheid.
My own experience gives me hope that things are changing. Our local church got a new vicar who immediately began to pray for the defeat of the Equal Marriage legislation, got up petitions and lobbied. His views on women priests were no more in tune with ‘decent society’. In common with many churches these matters had not really been properly discussed. It was heartening how many members did openly contest his views and a significant portion of the congregation felt so strongly the eventually relocated to other churches. There is a good deal more support for liberal values amongst church goers than is popularly conceived.

My view is much the same as expressed in the Independent’s editorial this morning which endorsed Tim but added the rider that : ‘It will be for Mr Farron to make clear to party members, the public at large, and this newspaper, that his faith can indeed be reconciled with a liberal view on matters of birth, marriage and death.’ If faith is the opposite of certainty then I have enough to believe that can be achieved but if would be of assistance not only to Tim but to others struggling to reconcile their faith with liberal views if more church leaders provide a Christian narrative as effectively as did Michael Ramsey and Trevor Huddleston did in their day.

http://birkdalefocus.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/influencial-divine-former-libdem-ppc.html

Reply
Andy

18/07/2015

Personally, as a non-Christian, I find the attack on Tim Farron’s Christian faith distasteful, even disturbing. With the issue of gay marriage, something I wholly support, it is clear to me that Farron was trying to protect freedom of religious thought whilst also legislating for LGBT equality. There is nothing illiberal about that. Freedom of religion is one of the most fundamental human rights, and something liberals should defend. Any definition of liberalism which does not include freedom of conscience, is one I have no interest in supporting.

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  18/07/2015
  
  Thanks for commenting, Andy.
  
  I’m not aware of people attacking Tim Farron’s faith. I am aware of people questioning whether someone who apparently has anti-gay views is an appropriate person to represent the Lib Dems as leader.
  
  When it comes to the vote about the registrars, that can either be interpreted as defending religious thought or as defending discrimination. I come to the latter view because if I substitute a couple who are gay for a couple being say mixed race (something many people would once have objected to on religious grounds) then I see clear discrimination at work.
  
  It is a strange day when people are arguing (as some are) that the leader of the Liberal Democrats has the right to hold distasteful views about gay people in private so long as he defends their rights in public. He does have that right but not the right to be taken seriously as well.
  
  Reply
  1. David Evans
    
    18/07/2015
    
    Sadly there have been many who have been attacking Tim’s faith, some directly and some more with disdain. Comments such as listening to his sky fairy are not uncommon. Also portraying his views as apparently anti-gay are without doubt over egging it massively as opposed to the simple fact that as a liberals we should all have views which take into account the “balance of fundamental values of liberty, equality and community” and that this inevitably leads to differences of judgement on lots of individual issues, but do not undermine the fundamental decency and liberalism of many people like Tim, who have proved it over a great many years.
    
    Reply
David Evans

13/11/2015

Kelvin,

It is a great disappointment to me that you have not come back to me with any further reasoning in response to my post on 30 June 02:19. Have you changed your views, reinforced them with new vigour or simply moved on?

Reply
1. Graham Evans
  
  13/11/2015
  
  David, perhaps you could clarify what your substantive point is. Having reread the whole thread it’s certainly not clear to me.
  
  Reply