There is something I’ve wanted to do on a Sunday morning for a couple years now. My preaching classes encourage it. And I’ve read a few articles recently heralding this method of preaching. Yet, I’ve not been able to do it until yesterday morning.
What is that thing?
Preach without a full manuscript.
For the first time preaching on a Sunday morning I walked into the pulpit with only a bare outline and a few quotes typed up.
I wish I could say that I did this intentionally. That I had finally gotten over my fears and decided that the benefit outweighed the risk. But that would be a lie. I walked into the pulpit without a manuscript because something happened to my computer on Sunday morning. Before I could print my sermon—the one I wrote out in full manuscript form—the entire thing was erased. I knew I didn’t have time to write it all out again, and frankly I didn’t want to. I knew that it was time to do what I’d been wanting to do for awhile.
I survived.
And I’ll likely do it again. Though I don’t know if I’m fully prepared to shelve the process of writing out a manuscript. Here are a few observations from yesterday.
- I don’t think this would work well if I didn’t do a ton of prep work. I could tell that if I hadn’t been prepared this whole thing would have been a jumbled mess.
- It is harder to judge time. When I’m working from a manuscript I know about how much time I have left and whether or not I can chase a rabbit. If I don’t have that manuscript its harder to pace myself.
- Those brain dead moments that I was afraid of are a great opportunity for faith. Even when I preach with a manuscript I don’t just stand behind the pulpit and read it. The manuscript is really just there to help me whenever I lose my train of thought and become practically brain dead. Not having that manuscript means I don’t have that security blanket. This provides a great opportunity for faith. But that also scares me, because if I’m not in the right frame it is also a great opportunity for my flesh to take over and to fill those gaps with my own carnal stupidity.
- There were several things after of which I said to myself, “Man I wish I’d said this”. Of course, I feel that way even when using a manuscript. But I do feel like I’m able to tie things together a bit more coherently whenever I use a manuscript. But it was not as scattered as I thought it might be. I believe with time I can faithfully exposit a text and do so without taking a full manuscript into the pulpit.
- I did feel more connected with the congregation. It’s more than just being able to keep eye contact. If I see blank stares I feel a bit more free to change course and teach/preach freely instead of simultaneously worrying about what I’m going to have to shave off the manuscript.
Next week I believe I will still prepare and write out a manuscript—just to get my thoughts out. But I will also leave a few places open for more extemporaneous preaching and I’ll probably go into the pulpit with just a rough outline.
I think its ironic that the sermon the Lord chose to have me preach in this style was one on the sufficiency of Jesus. It was a sermon where I was making a point on the disciples lack of bread but applying it more broadly. I didn’t feel as if I walked into the pulpit with much bread. But I knew that didn’t matter much because Jesus is sufficient. It’s about His Words and not my own.
I started out doing full manuscripts, then cut down to a multi-page heavily annotated outline, and now do a half sheet front and back outline. Rarely have I gone completely noteless, a few occasions I’ve done some scribbles on a 3×5 notecard or a sticky note.
Part of what moved me from more to less was noticing that the less eye contact I made with the audience, the more when I did look up I’d find them staring out the windows. 😀 (when I had a full manuscript, I tended to read it over audience engagement)
Curious: Who is your preaching prof? I had York for my two classes.
I don’t think full manuscripts are any less biblical or exhibit any less faith than preaching from an outline. People who preach from a manuscript are just as inclined to make errors than people who preach completely extemporaneously. It depends on the “hard-wiring” of the individual and the kind of speaking situation as to what is more fruitful.
For example, I teach from an outline, lecture from a manuscript, and preach from both. Sometimes I give missions presentations and I usually speak extemporaneously from a short mental outline. If my time is constrained, then I will work out the best way to say it in the time I have and stick to the manuscript. If I have a translator, I write and rewrite in order to have short, simple sentences with a limited vocabulary and eliminate what look to be difficult-to-translate idioms. The easier it is for the translator, the better the communication will be.
When I first started out, in the confidence of youth, I would use basic bullet points for my sermon. I’ve moved to using full (or almost full) manuscripts for a number of reasons (that are personal to me):
1. It helps me remove um’s and errrr’s from my introduction.
2. Likewise, it helps me to properly “land” my conclusion
3. It requires me to think more carefully about the words I am using, and more intentionally “craft” my sermon.
4. It prevents me from making too many off-hand “funny” remarks.
For me, at least, I’ve found it very beneficial to do so. It also means that I work a little harder on my preparation – when it was just bullet points, I frequently found that I skimped on prep and it affected my preaching.
I’ve been tempted to go noteless but I continue to use a “modified” manuscript. I tried to read it through several times before preaching, enough to where I’m comfortable taking my eyes away. If I do get stumped, the manuscript is still there for me to glance at. This allows for audience engagement (eye contact) and consistency on several levels. Why have to choose between notes or not when we can have the best of both?