Why Speak 45 Minutes When You Could Speak 30 Minutes?
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Thu, June 12, 2008
- Viewed 91
- (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.
John G on Thu, June 12, 2008
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.
eric Partin on Thu, June 12, 2008
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.
Bill on Thu, June 12, 2008
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.
Leonard Lee on Thu, June 12, 2008
We aim for 33-38 minutes. Hit is much of the time sometimes we go over.
Jay Kelly on Thu, June 12, 2008
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.
Jesse Phillips on Thu, June 12, 2008
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.
Leonard Lee on Thu, June 12, 2008
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.
Brian L. on Thu, June 12, 2008
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.
Billy Cox on Thu, June 12, 2008
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.
Bo Lane on Thu, June 12, 2008
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.
CS on Thu, June 12, 2008
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
Brian L. on Thu, June 12, 2008
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.
Leonard Lee on Thu, June 12, 2008
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.
eric Partin on Thu, June 12, 2008
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.
Frank Chiapperino on Thu, June 12, 2008
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?
Page 1 of 3 pages 1 2 3 >
Post a Comment