Preaching technique: the irreducible minimum

[tneujahr]

Been listening and reading some of Andy Stanley's stuff lately. He promotes an idea that I find quite fascinating and have attempted to integrate into my preaching:

Teach less for more.


How many times do you get bombarded with information each and every day? How much of it do you actually remember? Do you think the same is also true for your parishioners?

When you are crafting a sermon, consider this: What is the ONE THING that I want people to learn from this sermon. To preach the irreducible minimum, you must be able to summarize your whole sermon in one simple statement, and then you must ruthlessly cut out all additional fluff that detracts from that one statement. This is also called being a "one-point preacher."

Everything in the sermon--from the introduction to the close--must somehow serve that one point. It must be a repeated (and yes, a varied) theme.

For example, last week my one point was "Dead to sin, alive in Christ." It was taken from Romans 6, which tells us that through baptism our old, sinful selves are crucified and buried with Christ.

Now, I was very tempted to launch into a discussion on the workings of baptism. I was going to bring in the Small Catechism, maybe talk about the wonders and glories of baptism. I would have spent about five minutes, maybe more, on it. Would that have been profitable? Normally yes . . . but not in this case, because it would have distracted my hearers from the main point that both I and Paul were trying to make, namely that we have new lives in Christ and no longer need to live as though we are still in the slavery of sin.

So, I'm on my way to being a one-point preacher. I find it focuses my thoughts more. My sermons are better crafted, because I have to edit them with a harshly critical eye. They are delivered better, because I don't have to remember numerous points, just the one. I'm done with offering sermons like "The Seven Words of Christ on the Cross" or even "Five Ways to Improve Your Marriage", because dumping multiple pieces of data on folks just dilutes the entire message and they can't remember it all anyway. From now on, I'm going to say ONE THING per sermon, and if the topic demands more I'll preach that next week.

[chemnitznsasse]

Been listening and reading some of Andy Stanley's stuff lately. He promotes an idea that I find quite fascinating and have attempted to integrate into my preaching:

Teach less for more.


How many times do you get bombarded with information each and every day? How much of it do you actually remember? Do you think the same is also true for your parishioners?

When you are crafting a sermon, consider this: What is the ONE THING that I want people to learn from this sermon. To preach the irreducible minimum, you must be able to summarize your whole sermon in one simple statement, and then you must ruthlessly cut out all additional fluff that detracts from that one statement. This is also called being a "one-point preacher."

Everything in the sermon--from the introduction to the close--must somehow serve that one point. It must be a repeated (and yes, a varied) theme.

For example, last week my one point was "Dead to sin, alive in Christ." It was taken from Romans 6, which tells us that through baptism our old, sinful selves are crucified and buried with Christ.

Now, I was very tempted to launch into a discussion on the workings of baptism. I was going to bring in the Small Catechism, maybe talk about the wonders and glories of baptism. I would have spent about five minutes, maybe more, on it. Would that have been profitable? Normally yes . . . but not in this case, because it would have distracted my hearers from the main point that both I and Paul were trying to make, namely that we have new lives in Christ and no longer need to live as though we are still in the slavery of sin.

So, I'm on my way to being a one-point preacher. I find it focuses my thoughts more. My sermons are better crafted, because I have to edit them with a harshly critical eye. They are delivered better, because I don't have to remember numerous points, just the one. I'm done with offering sermons like "The Seven Words of Christ on the Cross" or even "Five Ways to Improve Your Marriage", because dumping multiple pieces of data on folks just dilutes the entire message and they can't remember it all anyway. From now on, I'm going to say ONE THING per sermon, and if the topic demands more I'll preach that next week.

Pastor Neujahr,


This actually, to some extent, is in line with what you were taught in homiletics at St. Louis. Remember "Goal, Malady, Means"??? You shold
have one goal for your sermon, one thing you are trying to accomplish.

BTW, have you really offered a sermon with the title "Five Ways to Improve Your Marriage"??? Please tell me you're kidding . . .

In Christ,

[tneujahr]

You're right--this was talked about at seminary, at least to a certain extent. In practice, though, I've noticed a tendency--certainly in myself and also at times in others--to do a data dump on the people. You know how it is . . . you get so much good information from your sermon prep that you wonder how it's all going to fit into a sermon. Much better to drop off 70% of it and use just the material that's directly relevant to the one point you want to make.


And no . . . haven't done "5 Ways to Improve Your Marriage." Did offer a 3-part sermon series last year during Pentecost on what a Godly, Biblical marriage is and how to achieve that, however.

[chemnitznsasse]

I do have to admit that I too sometimes include too much information in my sermons, but my basic approach is this:

First, I don't so much ask "What does this text mean?" but "What is God trying to do with this text?" It moves from a "teaching" focus of preaching to more of a "proclamation" focus (though prclamation includes teaching.)

I also tend to ask what poblem the text identifies in our lives and how odes this text point to Christ.

So, in the case of Baptism, I include material that identifies how Baptism in one of the ways Christ deals with our sin. When dealing with Romans 6, I woulnd have identified baptism - and in the specific = When THEY were baptized - as the point where God united them to Christ, put their sinful nature to death with Christ on the cross, and raised them as a new creation.

What usually trips me up is preching on the Old Testament. If I am trying to get my hearers to identify with OT Israel, I often spend too much time trying to describe the sitz-in-leben for the OT people, with the intention of showing in what ways we struggle with the same thing. And I usually spend too much time trying to do that.

[tneujahr]

I agree, "preach the text."

That was drilled into me at seminary, as well. Preach the intent of the text, preach it so that your hearers have the same reaction as the original hearers. If it's not in the text, don't preach it.


And thankfully . . . that means preaching one point! The Biblical writers had a point they were trying to make. I search for that point and try to make it my sermon's point. I do tend towards a form of the goal-malady-means sermon, getting the people to identify with the issue and showing them where Scripture addresses that issue. But again, since I've become convinced of the "one point" sermon, I'm much more focused on what the issue is and how EXACTLY the Scriptures address it.

As for pointing to Christ . . . I once said to my congregation that I could talk at great lengths of Biblical things from the pulpit, but that if I never got around to Christ and the cross then it wasn't really a sermon. I figure that the whole of the Scriptures point us to Christ, and that the sermon should leave us with a definite knowledge of how His Gospel applies to the issue at hand. When my people leave on Sunday, I want them to leave thinking, "Because Christ died for me, I can ___________", and then fill in the blank with the application from the sermon. I always want them to be drawn first and foremost to Christ, and then to grow in their Christian lives.

[M. J. Young]

I've been trying for quite a while to work out the difference between preaching and teaching, and I think maybe you have just nailed it for me.

Thanks.

--M. J. Young

[pastorjimg]

Another way to prevent data dump on people and keep your sermons to the point- preach for no more than 12 minutes. This has helped me a lot!

[tneujahr]

Another way to prevent data dump on people and keep your sermons to the point- preach for no more than 12 minutes. This has helped me a lot!

Oh now you have GOT to be kidding!

Man, I don't think that I could ever cut it down to twelve minutes. For me, that's more of a devotional than a sermon.

But hey, if it works for you . . .

[pastorjimg]

Yes, it works for me and was offered as a suggestion. Preaching is very personal. What works for one doesn't work for all.

Along those lines I read that the attention span for a man is about 12 minutes- a group I am intentional about reaching. I found in that process I accomplished a lot of what is being discussed in this thread.

[davidhvoss]

I always shoot for 12 minute sermons and never go over 15. I know when I'm sitting in the pew, I honestly believe that if the pastor can't say what he wants to say in 20 minutes then I'm left wondering why. My current pastor is an excellent preacher and I think he's always under 20. I like 15 mainly because I don't have the windfall of knowledge most pastors do (yet).

We were taught Goal-Malady-Means in Hom I but it was in Hom II where we started working with "Function" and "Forms". Hom II was a real eye opener and taught me many, many different ways to present a text. I'm much more creative now with my 12 minute sermons

I preached at my home church - I was limited to 600 words (that's about 5 minutes)!!!! I thought it was just because I was a seminarian, but no, the pastor only preaches 5 minute sermons!!!! He didn't want me going over that! I negotiated to 700 words and I spoke slowly.. my mom came all the way down from Milwaukee, I wasn't going to have her short changed! Jeepers.

Worst sermon I ever heard was 35 minutes. The pastor (who was retired) spend 15 minutes of that discussing a conversation he had with Einstein. It was like he was trying to impress the congregation or something. I have no idea what he was proclaiming! Too bad because this sermon was to a full house at the first service welcoming our new pastor. There were 400 people suffering with me.

[tneujahr]

See now, I disagree. If I got a 12 minute sermon on a regular basis--even and ESPECIALLY if I was sitting in a pew--I'd feel ripped off. "What? That's all of the counsel from God's word you can give me? You been at the golf course all week, or something?"

I listen to guys all the time that go 40 minutes. My favorite pastor gave excellent sermons that went 30-35 ever week. Twelve minutes just doesn't seem long enough to give me the meat that I want.

I do find it ironic, though, that I get a little flak for "long" sermons, mainly because there are a few people that I know that pay really close attention to their watches during church service, but still can go home and watch TBN for hours on end.

In the end, though, it's all about what communicates to the people God's given you. If they get all they need and want in 12 minutes, then that's good for you and them.

I just can't give or hear such a short sermon (and especially not a five minute one! WOW!!) without feeling that some theft has been going on.

[tneujahr]

Yes, it works for me and was offered as a suggestion. Preaching is very personal. What works for one doesn't work for all.

Along those lines I read that the attention span for a man is about 12 minutes- a group I am intentional about reaching. I found in that process I accomplished a lot of what is being discussed in this thread.

And pastorji, I didn't intend to make you feel slighted. Honestly. I was just taken aback by something that seems really foreign to me. Please keep on posting your suggestions on the forum and don't let my rather abrupt-sounding response to your first post scare you off!

[pstrmry]

I asked my 1st contextual ed. supervisor how long I should preach; His response: "sometimes, 5 minutes is too long, and sometimes 20 minutes isn't long enough." In other words, quality is way more important than quantity. I generally do 12 - 15 minutes. I try to keep the sermon to one specific point, and preach the text.

I also try very hard to be disciplined enough to only use those illustrations which actually lead toward the point of the sermon, and not use them to fill time just because they are good and sort of on the topic.