HOME | CONTRIBUTE A STORY! | ABOUT MMI | CATEGORIES OF INTEREST | CONTACT ME

image

Why Speak 45 Minutes When You Could Speak 30 Minutes?

Orginally published on Thursday, June 12, 2008 at 7:45 AM
by Todd Rhoades

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?

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?


This post has been viewed 1055 times so far.


  There are 43 Comments:

  • Posted by John G

    I’m not sure that time is the critical factor. You have to be a really great communicator to deliver a message which will be understood, internalised and acted upon by the listeners, whether it lasts for an hour or just ten minutes. A communication which doesn’t meet those extraordinarily high standards just gets filtered out like static. I suppose it’s more respectful to limit your static to 15 minutes, rather than subjecting people to an hour of it.

  • Posted by eric Partin

    Both. We try to keep the time to 30-35 minutes but we are not trying to fill up 35 minutes. The goal is to communicate what we want to communicate and if it takes less than that, that is fine. If it takes more, then we cut it down.

  • Posted by

    Good preaching is an interactive event.  If the listeners are committed to listening and internalizing, you can preach all day.  It takes a good preacher to bring listeners to that level of commitment.

    But if the listeners aren’t there, 15-20 minutes is about the maximum.  If you can’t do it in that amount of time, you’re either trying to cover too much or are inadequately organized.

  • Posted by

    We aim for 33-38 minutes.  Hit is much of the time sometimes we go over.

  • Posted by

    Several years ago, I shifted from speaking in front of adults to speaking in front of youth.

    When I did, I focused on having ‘one point’ talks. Made a huge difference in responsiveness, even when I speak to adults now.

    My talks are shorter, more in depth on the point I’m addressing, and more interactive.

    I wouldn’t go back to multiple point talks.

  • Posted by Jesse Phillips

    I agree, this is an important question. I think this also applies to books. I don’t want to read 300 pages, when you really could communicate the important ideas in 20 or 50 pages.

    Same with sermons. Don’t need the extra fluff, which I think is what much of a sermon is composed of. On the other hand, 30, 45, 60 minutes, that’s nothing. Many times I hear pastors say they don’t have time to go into more.

    So, honestly, I think the sermon is not our best weapon for life change.

  • Posted by

    Jesse,
    I agree to a point that a sermon is not our best weapon.  Relationships led by the Spirit and saturated with the word are always more transforming. 

    As a preacher for the past 27+ years, I have found that sermons have a cumulative impact.  That one sermon may not make a difference but several do.  They form a body of truth tht transforms.  Sermons also establish the climate of a church more than any other ingredient to a service.  Sermons represent the voice of God to a congregation, often determining what God sounds like and cares about for many believers in Christ.  Sermons are often how pastors lead their congregations forward, to green pastures, to quiet waters, through death shadowy valleys.  Sermons are the place where point of decision commitments can be called for.  Sermons are the place where a broader base of God’s Character con be discovered. 

    I think too many sermons put several weeks of content into one.  I am always in the habit of asking what can I leave out of my messages.  I am in favor of the one point sermon. 

    I think every preacher should listen to their own message each week for growth, accountability to tone, content, focus, clarity… I think every preacher should have a few others listen to their sermons each month for the same reasons.  I think every preacher should read at least 3 or 4 books on preaching each year and attend a 1 day conference on preaching every 2-3 years. 

    This is such a big topic and can be difficult for preachers to not be defensive.  We pour everything we have into a 35 minutes message.  Hopefully aware that even at our best without God the Holy Spirit, we cannot do anything.  We will, for the same message, get praised and criticized.  The impact of our whole ministry is often judged by our preaching.  Then as the scripture warns… we will face stricter judgment...WOW.

  • Posted by Brian L.

    I agree that many times the sermon can draaaaaaaag.

    I usually preach 20-30 minutes, and sometimes less.  I preach from a manuscript because I know that a certain amount of material is about 20-25 minutes.  I also preach from a manuscript because I’m easily dist - hey, look at that shiny car!

    Some feel that a short sermon is “a sermonette for Christianettes.” I don’t necessarily agree.  Some of the greatest speeches in history have been short.  For example, the Gettysburg address is about 2 minutes long.

    I’m a huge fan of Andy Stanley’s book, “Communicating for a Change.” Easy read, but revolutionary in how we can communicate in ways that actually bring life-change.  It is about one-point preaching, and his case is very persuasive.

    Giving the people one point to consider and apply is going to be more effective, IMO, than a multi-point message with a ton of stuff to swallow.

    BTW, I am still transitioning in this myself.  I’m generally a multi-point guy trying to bring that down to one strong statement that will stick with the hearts (by the work of the Holy Spirit, of course).

    Brian L.

  • Posted by

    My pet peeve is when a preacher does a sermon series, and each week he feels compelled to recap the previous sermon(s) for the first 15 minutes of his 46 minute sermon.

    Another pet peeve is when a preacher ‘manages the clock’ so poorly that the intro and point #1 are 40 minutes in length and then he has to cram the final three points and conclusion into the remaining 5 minutes.

    It occurred to me the other day that most pastors are at a huge disadvantage in that they rarely hear any preaching but their own.

  • Posted by Bo Lane

    Good communicators are very few and far between. In fact, I’d argue that most teaching pastors are in the wrong field. Their heart might be in it but their calling isn’t teaching - shepherding maybe, but not teaching.

    That being said, a pastor who has been called to teach, should understand that certain types of teaching styles and certain lengths of messages are and are not effect for the crowd to which they are speaking. Though I am a huge advocate for shorter messages, I don’t think that is the initial problem - the lack of good communicators, in my opinion, is the problem.

  • Posted by

    On the other side of the board, what about pastors who rigidly set how long the sermon will be, and not take the time to extrapolate and teach on something that may require an hour and a half for proper understanding?  Or, what about those that lock in a time because they want to have the congregation get in, get out, get on with their Sunday?

    There’s one church at http://29minutes.org that calls itself, “The Home of the 29-Minute Sermon.” On their page, they say:

    “Summit Church is home of the 29-minute sermon. Don’t you hate it when people waste your time? When we go to the movies, a restaurant or a doctor’s office we often evaluate the quality of that product or service by the efficiency of their presentation and how that business or service values our time.

    “At Summit Church we value YOUR TIME. We commit to NOT wasting your time with pointless announcements, rambling sermons or song-services that fail to inspire. In fact, we recognize that most Americans have opted out of church because they value family time more highly than going to some out-dated, highly-theological-but-irrelevant sermon.”

    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. 

    --
    CS

  • Posted by Brian L.

    Sigh, CS -

    Isn’t there ANYTHING you can’t find to criticize on this site?

    You barely touched on the subject, and then decided to bring in another ministry to harp on.  Very sad.

    I hate to say this, but will say it anyway.  I agree with another poster who is finding it hard to come back here because of what we know we’ll find from you, Sam, Ricky, and others.

    I’m sorry for Todd, because this is an awesome place.

    Brian L.

  • Posted by

    I used to give a 10 minute message every week with my students and that was harder than giving a 45 minute message.  It took more time to make sure I was extremely clear about what I was going to say.  I think a one point message is more work than three points and an application as well.

  • Posted by eric Partin

    Besides that, Wayne of Summit Church is a friend of mine. Even if I didn’t agree with him, I still wouldn’t talk about him. I always tell my friends that they are safe in my presence even if they are not there. IN other words, I won’t let people talk about them. So, I am going to ask you to knock it off or I will knock your block off.

  • I am a member of our teaching team at Christ’s Church of the Valley outside of Philadelphia and we speak for 22-30min max.  I think your question is great!  Why preach longer… just because you can?  Is it possible you can help people navigate through biblical truths better with a 1 point life application sermon instead of 8 points?

  • Posted by

    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

  • Posted by

    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

  • Posted by Peter Hamm

    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.

  • Posted by

    is this a one sided openion thing,

  • Posted by

    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?

  • Posted by Derek

    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…

  • 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....

  • 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

  • Posted by Peter Hamm

    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.

  • 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

  • Page 1 of 2 pages

     1 2 >
Post Your Comments:

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Live Comment Preview:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: