Why Speak 45 Minutes When You Could Speak 30 Minutes?
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Thu, June 12, 2008
- Viewed 115
- (43) comments so far
OK… shot me down if you want… but I’ve had this hypothesis for a long time.
You’ve got to be a REALLY great communicator to keep attention for an hour. A great communicator to keep attention for 45 minutes. And a really, really good communicator to keep my attention for 30 minutes. As a matter of fact, a couple of the speakers at a recent conference I attended had less than 15 minutes to speak, and they lost my attention. I don’t consider myself ADD… I just know a good communicator when I hear one (and the adverse as well).
As Craig put it, “As communicators, we can become emotionally attached to information others simply don’t care about. Find those areas and cut them.”
Amen, Craig!
Be sure to read all of Craig’s post here...
So… here’s today’s question. When you plan your weekly talks. Do you plan around your allotted time limit, or around the actual amount of content you have to communicate? Do you work hard at cutting out the non-essentials?
And… how long do your messages last? Have you considered cutting back a little? Why or why not?
Craig Groeschel had a great post this morning about sermon/message length over at Swerve. Craig says, "I’m as guilty as anyone I know of cramming too much information into a message. I’m working hard to communicate more by communicating less. (Some preachers can cover a whole 4-week series in one message!) Not only do too many preachers attempt to communicate too much content, but many take too much time to do it. Why take 45 minutes to communicate 30 minutes worth of content? Why take 35 minutes to communicate 25 minutes worth of content? There are a few preachers who can hold a crowd for an hour, but not many. (Mark Driscoll, Perry Noble, Steven Furtick, and Matt Chandler seem to do it well. Most don’t.) Many who preach an hour (or more) could say the same thing in 45 minutes. I’d argue they would probably be even better."
A couple observations and thoughts. First of all, Craig is being incredibly humble. I've heard him speak. And yes, he is also in the list of the few that can capture my attention for a long period of time. Secondly, I'm suprised that this really hasn't come up before. Over the years, most churches have changed everything about their services (in an effort to reach the culture) except their sermon length. My question is... where else in our culture do we ask people to sit and listen to a speaker for 45 minutes? I really can't think of one. And I do agree with Craig: many speakers look at how much time they have to fill rather than how much content they have to deliver. That, in and of itself, does not make for a culturally relevant presentation, does it?
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
CS on Thu, June 12, 2008
eric Partin:
“So, I am going to ask you to knock it off or I will knock your block off.”
Personal threats are completely uncalled for here. Especially when it’s a pastor doing so.
In light of this conversation, we were speaking about the merits and pitfalls of shorter sermons. I noted that here was a church that made a 29-minute guarantee for the sermon length, and I listed reasons for why this may be a bad idea. We should analyze and discuss things based on their Biblical foundation and merits.
—
CS
Eric Joppa on Thu, June 12, 2008
CS,
will you please stop picking fights? Eric didn’t say he was a pastor, he said that Wayne, a person you have never met, is a friend of his. While I agree that personal threats are not welcome, you are so constantly negative that you dominate conversations and chase away the kind of open dialogue I was attracted to here.
Either go away and argue with someone else, or change your tune, but either way, change.
-E
Peter Hamm on Fri, June 13, 2008
I have a Senior Pastor who is our primary Teacher who can talk for 50 or 60 minutes and still engage you. The rest of us, when we fill in, can’t imho. I try to stay 30-35 min. max.
But here’s the important thing, and a bit of an answer to CS’s original (legitimate) concern about what if what you need to communicate needs more time? imho, if you need over 30 minutes to get your point across, you are communicating more than they will remember and implement anyway. People only remember so much. If you give a three point sermon, they’ll remember one of the points. You don’t get to pick which one either! If you keep to the Andy Stanley-esque “ONE POINT”… you’ve decided (not them) what they will remember, and perhaps you’ve decided how they will change. BIG difference.
helen on Fri, June 13, 2008
is this a one sided openion thing,
DanielR on Fri, June 13, 2008
CS, you say “I think this does a number of bad things. First, it sets the emphasis on the wants of the church, not on God. Second, it can restrict in-depth teaching. Third, church should not be seen as a restaurant or doctor’s office in that way.”
If you read further on their website you’ll find that they address those concerns.
“Summit Church’s strategy for Sunday messages is designed to strengthen your family, through practical messages on marriage and dating, Parenting, Financial Principles from the Bible, Expanding your leadership and Understanding the foundations of Christianity. That, combined with contemporary and classic worship encounters creates a powerful combination. Wednesday night Bible Studies and various Summit Groups are designed for deeper and longer times of growing closer to God but Sunday Mornings are designed to be quick and inspiring. “
I understand the concerns you voiced and agree that the marketing could be taken the wrong way and could be seen as placing the emphasis on the wrong things.
But what does it say that the perception of your comments, and of you, is that you’re just looking to trash another ministry?
Derek on Sat, June 14, 2008
The only place in our culture where we ask people to sit for 45 minutes or longer and listen to a person speak would be in the arena of stand up comedy. I have heard Mark Driscoll and Mike Slaughter (Ginghamsburg Church in Tripp City, OH) speak of the value of learn from the stand up comics. I am not saying that we should preach like a stand up comic, but there is something to be learned from those guys about the art of communication.
I preach 40-45 minutes.
I don’t think I am the greatest communicator, but I check in from time to time with my key leaders and I always get positive feedback. I think it is a matter of what your congregation is used to. I am not the founding pastor of our church, but I know the pastor before me also preached 45 minutes.
I say do what works for you. There is no way I could preach 25-30 each week. I did preach a 30 minute sermon once when I had a missionary schedule to speak to our congregation. And one of my leaders said that he felt “short changed” by the short sermon.
Derek
P.S. Guys I suggest not waisting time with C.S.’s comments…
Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus on Sun, June 15, 2008
Craig says, “I’m as guilty as anyone I know of cramming too much information into a message.
Well, babies need baby food, after all….
Charles E. Whisnant on Sun, June 15, 2008
If the Church loves the Word, they should have a desire to hear the Word preached.. Too often the person in the pew, really doesn’t like to hear the teaching of the Word, but rather an hour of praise music.
A preacher/teacher who knows the Word, can speak for an hour with interested and the people who have hunger for the Word will gladly listen.
Developing a group of Christians who want to learn, they will training their mind to listen to the Word of God, is the key.
Charles
Peter Hamm on Mon, June 16, 2008
Charles writes [Developing a group of Christians who want to learn, they will training their mind to listen to the Word of God, is the key.] I would argue rather that making disciples who make disciples is the key. The teaching of the Word means nothing if it doesn’t produce life-change, as we learn in the parable of the soils. If I preach for 50 minutes and it’s less effective than if I preached 30, then I should have preached 30.
Charles E. Whisnant on Mon, June 16, 2008
Peter
I would agree what you said “The teaching of the Word means nothing if it doesn’t produce life-change”.
“The words of the Lord are pure words, there is not an error of any sort in the whole compass of them, These words come from Him who can make no mistakes.” Spurgeon. Thus we preach to our people the Word. If we preach or teach the Word from the Word and its coming from the Lord, why would the length of time be a factor.
We are restrained by time, or TV time, or Radio time, and often restrained by our membership who want an early dinner.
You are right Peter, for one hour of preaching on Sunday (three different sermons) was followed up with several hours of one on one training faithful men and women in the life changing living.
If the preaching/teaching doesn’t get out of the pulpit and into the lives of those who hear, you are right why preach or teach an hour.
Charles
If I did not believe in the infallibility of the Book
Wyeth Duncan on Mon, June 16, 2008
I’m curious:
How do passages like 1 Corinthians 1:21 (“It pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.”) or 2 Timothy 4:1-5 (“…preach the word…”) factor into this discussion?
When it comes to communicating the word of God, is there something unique about preaching that gives it value over other forms of communication?
Even when “people will not endure sound teaching” do preachers have an obligation to preach anyway?
Also, does the Holy Spirit have the power to attract and hold the attention of an audience, even for 30+ minutes?
Ed Dean on Tue, June 17, 2008
With all due respect to those thinking that lengthy preaching is better, I think it all depends on who you are preaching to. Asking for feedback from key leaders says to me that you are preaching to the choir, as they say. What if there are lost people in your church? Do we care whether or not they get the point(s)?
So the fundamental question is, “Who are our services for?” If I can be brutally honest, if preaching to the choir worked, we would all be in heaven now. The choir has come to believe that spiritual growth happens at church on Sundays when the pastor is talking. It doesn’t. I might learn something but the growth actually happens when I put it into practice.
I have heard people that sit under great teachers, go to seminars, have several translations of the Bible and a book shelf full of Christian books say that they are starving spiritually. The problem isn’t the content on Sunday mornings being too light. The problem is thinking that maturity is measured by knowledge and that I’ll serve, love and give when my knowledge is complete enough. And it never is quite there. Pastors are to teach in order to equip for service not teach lofty ideas for the sake of knowledge. Eph. 4
Peter Hamm on Tue, June 17, 2008
Ed Dean,
You NAILED it!
Billy Cox on Tue, June 17, 2008
The other day, my pastor said something to the effect that ‘we need to stop talking about reaching the community and start doing it.’
I was wracking my brain trying to remember when he and I had EVER talked about reaching the community and then I realized he was talking about his preaching, so apparently ‘we’ was the ‘we’ that pastors use when referring to themselves in the third person.
I breathed a sigh of relief that I wasn’t part of the ‘we’ who was going to have to reach the community. (whew! close call)
Anthony Trask on Tue, June 17, 2008
I struggle with message length- the two messages I have on my website right now are an hour long! I only am able to speak one Sunday a month, because my head duty is being “just the youth pastor”, so when I speak I have to cram everything into one message because I am not allowed the time to preach a series which would allow messages of about 25 minutes. Maybe I’ll learn!
Page 2 of 3 pages < 1 2 3 >
Post a Comment