In case you haven’t noticed my blogging has slowed to a crawl the last few weeks in spite of a lot of stuff going on that I really want to discuss.  But the nature of my life when I am teaching a class is that I lose my lunch hours that are otherwise devoted to blogging or research for this blog.  (Now if you want a review of the global seismicity for the last six weeks I can produce that pretty quickly.)  With the class now completed I hope to increase the output of my Reformed and ecclesiastical thoughts while giving my mind a break from network protocols and non-elastic deformation of fault zones.  (But with some deference to writing that I need to get done for the Special Committee.)

This past weekend was a very nice one in spite of the fact that my oldest headed back to college and took the youngest along for a couple of weeks.  On Saturday I had a wonderful conversation with a recent high school graduate that while discussing trust and human nature drifted into the topic of human sinfulness.  Now it didn’t go there by that name, but the Reformed theologian in me wanted to engage this young Methodist in conversation on human nature and sin but unfortunately that would have taken the conversation in a direction that was outside the bounds of the discussion.  Maybe another time.

And yesterday in worship we heard the “true preaching of the Word of God” and had the “right administration of the Sacraments of Jesus Christ.”  Our speaker yesterday was a preacher that my wife and I almost never disagree over what they preach and how it is preached.  We can’t say that about all the preachers we hear, although there are some we distinctly both approve of and some we uniformly question.

Our youngest is at the point where he is learning to carefully listen to a sermon and discern the spiritual content of the message.  We were encouraged a couple of years back when he told us that the preacher he most (or is that actually?) enjoyed listening to was a good friend of ours who I consider one of the best young preachers in the region.  It reminded me that when I was growing up I too had a particular minister at our church who was best at keeping me engaged in the message.

We had a “teachable moment” a few weeks ago when we heard another preacher none of us had heard before.  Maybe the most telling was reaction of some others in the congregation who thought it was a wonderful sermon.  My reaction was not as glowing.  It was not a bad sermon by any means.  I assure you that I have heard worse, a lot worse.  That is part of the price that is paid when you serve as a COM liaison to Pastor Nominating Committees.  And through the experience of listening to as many as ten sermons a week I came up with a series of things I look for when I evaluate a sermon.  Now I teach earthquakes, not homiletics, so trained professionals might have additions or subtractions from this list, but as we as a family were discussing the recent sermon these are some of the things I mentioned, albeit in a more kid-friendly form.

• First is fidelity to the scripture as a whole.  Is there anything in the sermon that just does not agree with what the Bible says and the Gospel of Jesus Christ teaches.  The moment I hear something that I understand as contrary to Scripture, be it blatantly contrary or even the possibility of being a misunderstanding, I usually stop following the sermon as closely.  A pastor we had a number of years ago, who was clearly orthodox in his theology, said that if he saw me flipping through my Bible during the sermon he got nervous that he had said something wrong.  Glad I found that out later.
• Second, is the preacher sticking to the passage chosen for the day?  (I will leave it for another time to discuss lectionary versus sequential versus “this is what I want to preach on” selection of the scripture.  Let me just say that I personally use the lectionary passages and mark in my own notes if the speaker does or does not.)  The question at the end of the sermon is not “was that an interesting sermon” but did they exegete that passage or did they use that as a jumping off point to just talk about some other passages scattered throughout the Bible.  There is no problem in my mind with comparing and contrasting various passages in the sermon.  Scripture is indeed interpreted in the light of Scripture.  It is when the announced passage is only briefly touched on before launching into what would more aptly be called a Bible survey talk.  That would be using the Bible to make a point, not taking a specific passage and finding the point in that passage.  Since “God acts first” the message should flow from the scripture, not the other way around.
• Is the Gospel preached?  I would guess that some readers would want this listed first, with good justification.  But if you notice I have developed this as a series of concentric circles zeroing in on this central mark.  The ultimate goal of the true preaching of the Word is the “proclamation of the Gospel for the salvation of humankind.”  But to get there you need the first two.  And there is a tension in this between just throwing something in at the end about the justifying work of Jesus Christ and how you need him in your life on the one hand and finding a Messianic overtone in every single verse of the Old Testament on the other.  The former trivializes it and the latter can obscure the message inherent in that text.  Our preacher yesterday made the transition from the Old Testament text to how it points to salvation in Jesus Christ in such a profound, artful, and relevant manner that it really did emphasize both the Old Testament message as well as the gospel of salvation.  It was a thing of beauty.

In addition to my “technical score” based on my exegetical guidelines I also have the more practical aspects that go into the “style points”:

• Does the message hold together?  Is there a logical progression through the sermon from the Scripture text selected to the concluding points at the end.  I don’t automatically look for a three-point sermon, I have heard what I would consider great sermons with only one point and some with seven points.  The idea here is the effort that went into shaping the sermon into an understandable argument and not a deadly “Saturday night special” that went together at the last minute.
• Do all the stories, jokes, and quotes support the point of the sermon?  These added touches have their place but when used in a formulaic or excessive manner can distract from the delivery of the message of Scripture.  The message should speak through these additions, not be obscured by them. 
     For the pastors that always begin with a random joke just to warm up the audience that is an automatic half-point deduction in my scoring.  (I have to see the connection within the first minute or two of the message.)  When quotes are used just to add a different voice but the quote is only tangential, that also gets counted as a negative.  I am sure more than one preacher at my church has used a humorous comment in our worship service and noticed that while much of the congregation is chuckling I’m straight faced and shaking my head because I could not see the connection or value.  (Be warned, our family pew is right under the pulpit.)  And a sermon that seems like a stand-up comedy routine drives me crazy with the over use of the humor.   There is no intrinsic problem with any of these additions and when used well they can play a great service when they both enhance or illustrate the point being made while adding another “voice” to the preaching.  The problem comes when they are overused, used in a formulaic manner, or are gratuitous and don’t really add anything to the message.
• Is the delivery engaging but not distracting?  Our human nature is such th
  at our minds tend not to drift as easily if there is an element of “entertainment” when we are listening to a presentation.  Fluctuations in the voice, dramatic pauses, and leaning over the pulpit rail are one thing.  But running around the chancel, continuous wild arm movements, a multitude of items for an “object lesson” and the like draw attention to the preacher not the message that is being preached.  But on the other end of the spectrum, one of the most famous sermons ever preached, “Sinners in the hands of an angry God” by Jonathan Edwards was reportedly simply read with no “hellfire and brimstone” flourishes and very little modulation of the voice.

A couple of items that may be most noticeable to some people are not on my list above.  One of the sacred cows in some churches is length.  Working with PNC’s one of the items some made a top priority was how long the speaker went.  It was not unusual for the first comment made after the tape was turned off was “that was too long.”  I can’t say I was very successful dissuading them of placing that criteria so high.  Personally, I have heard some terrible five minute sermons and some excellent 45 minute sermons.  We need to learn to listen for the message not watch the clock.  (And I will stop there otherwise I’ll get into the rant about not needing to watch the clock in worship because it is the Lord’s Day anyway and we should not be filling it up with other stuff that we need to rush out of church on time (whatever that is) and get to…)  But back to the topic of length — there is a place for making the sermon the “right length,” but the message and the worship service should decide the length, not the brunch reservations.  With the possible exception of a worship service that is broadcast live and must fit the format, the elders telling the preacher that sermons last 12 minutes is a disservice to the preaching of the true word of God.

Another item that some people have legitimate opinions over but is not on my list is the use of pulpit versus podium versus nothing.  I must admit that this is not a big thing for me.  I do appreciate and honor the tradition of the pulpit, and maybe we need to educate our congregations on that tradition and heritage.  But in my mind the true preaching of the Word is more a matter of content than location.  And this may have something to do with the fact that on a sermon tape you usually can’t tell where they are delivering it, and also that I have led worship on our church camping trips for many years where the community is simply gathered in a circle in the woods.  The use of a pulpit does tend to cut down on the unwanted dramatic touches however.

Finally, I know that many people have strong feelings for and against the use of video clips in sermons, especially some churches where it is an expected part of the message.  Again, this is a neutral item for me.  It is in the same category as jokes, quotes, and stories.  If it enhances or illuminates the message than use it, if it is a gimmick only to get people’s attention or is formulaic, than it may be a problem.

So, these are my guidelines developed after listening to, and making notes on, hundreds if not thousands of sermons.  But I fully acknowledge that they are what works for me as I apply the test of the “True Preaching of the Word of God.”  I’m sure many of you have different opinions on some of these items.  In the end the important thing is that the Word is truly preached.