Nicholas, I think your idea is great. The best people to ask for feedback are your fellow volunteer preachers and the minister at your own church, largely because sermon-critiquing done well is a time-consuming exercise and you need someone who is prepared to listen at least twice. Spouses and family members can be good too.
FWIW here’s the draft of an article I wrote that was published in the most recent Briefing, on the subject of sermon critiquing. You might like to pass it on to whoever you get to critique what you are preaching. I hope and pray that your sermon helps people to know God better!
“Why did the sermon fail?” When Broughton Knox, a former principal of Moore Theological College, said this at the beginning of each and every student sermon critique, he was possibly hoping to instil a sense of humility. Or, not to be too unkind, perhaps he was reflecting on his own slightly mumbly absent-minded professor style.
At any rate these critiques could be brutal affairs. On one occasion the student was told by one of the lecturers “Your exegesis reminded me of an elephant attempting to do ballet.” Not to mention that preachers in training are a particularly demanding and critical congregation. (I hasten to add that these days, Moore College is undoubtedly a kinder, gentler place)
How should we critique the sermons of others? Or, to ask some related questions, how can we help others to become better critics, and how can we improve in response to criticism?
I feel huge sympathy for the minister I knew who used to meet with our staff team to discuss the Bible and the events of the previous Sunday and say, “I don’t want any comments or feedback”. At least we’d been warned. Still, if we want to change our preaching for the better, it doesn’t hurt to listen to what it feels like from the other side, and so a good starting place is to be ready to hear critique.
One easy way for a preacher to get feedback is to listen to themselves. Not while preaching, but later on, whether on tape or MP3. If you are listening to a talk that you’ve given yourself, then once you get past the self-consciousness, you can get an immediate sense of whether there is some part of your speaking that you need to pay attention to.
Are you too soft? Too monotone? Do you mumble? Are there bits where, while listening, you lose your train of thought or your concentration breaks? If you notice these things, the chances are that others have either noticed or been affected by the problem. If you are critiquing another person’s sermon, ask them to tape it. That way both you and they can listen to it again.
The best sermon critiques have two characteristics. They are detailed, and they are positive.
Firstly, they are positive. Think of yourself in the critic’s role. If it is not possible to find even one good thing to say about a preacher’s sermon, it could of course be that your subsequent feedback ought not to be a critique, so much as an encouragement for the preacher to seek other ministry opportunities.
But if God is merciful, that’s going to be rare; as rare as a three-legged dog that wants to shake your hand while jumping through a hoop and whining the theme from Star Wars.
Next time you hear a rubbish sermon, remind yourself that even someone who’s only been a Christian for more than a few years will have heard literally thousands of talks on the Bible. Some of them will have been good. Two will have been brilliant. If the sermon hearer is at a good church, most will have been reasonable.
Whether we know it or not, then, we have high standards and we need to admit it.
That means it’s easy to become impatient when people fall short of the mark. But if even false teachers should be corrected “with gentleness” (2 Tim 2:24-25), then how much more should we want to help preachers who have something worthwhile to say to us from God’s word.
As a practical rule of thumb, then — one which is found nowhere in Scripture— remember 2:1. That is, if you are critiquing a sermon give at least two pieces of feedback that offer specific praise for every negative point you intend to make.
In addition, try to start the critique on a good note and end on a good note. There has to be something you can say. “Thank you for turning up”. “I love the way you combed your hair.” Just don’t lie, is the main thing.
If the first rule is to be positive, the second is to be detailed. “That was a really good sermon” as a comment means almost nothing. It means even less when you discover on asking that the person can’t really say what was good about it.
If you or the person you are training is going to critique conscientiously, two things are essential. The first is detailed notes, the second is a watch. The detailed notes are so that you can be clear that you are really critiquing what is said. The watch is so that you can write down exactly how much time was spent on a particular point.
When I worked for evangelist John Chapman as a student minister, he would sometimes say “There was some great material there, brother, really excellent. Enough for five good sermons.” (Slight pause to allow the message to sink in) “So why did you give it all to us in one go?”
It was a powerful if slightly embarrassing critique, and a good reminder to take a regular chainsaw to complex homiletical structures and over-long content.
But the strength of what he was saying was reinforced by the fact that he had listened to the sermon on tape at least twice, had taken detailed notes, and was able to demonstrate from them exactly what the five potential sermons were, and how three minutes and twenty five seconds on point four just wasn’t sufficient to deliver both clarity and power.
The same point about detail applies to every aspect of a good critique. “I loved the illustration, but it felt a bit long” as a piece of feedback rates barely a pass mark.
Far better: “Your illustration about the man with the conviction for armed robbery worked well to show how we are blind to our own sin. We needed a mental break because you’d gone eight minutes on the meaning of two verses; not only that but it was such an important point that we really needed to have it driven home. However the fact that the illustration took four minutes meant that, together with the introduction, we spent a total of fourteen minutes before moving off the first point.”
The second critique is far more useful because it is no longer just the general impression of one hearer. There is an objective measure (time taken on illustration) that helps the speaker consider whether or not they agree that the illustration was too long.
And, although a number of the other responses may be subjective (“we needed a mental break”), the reasons are detailed enough that the preacher can integrate and respond to the feedback with greater confidence. Also, the preacher is better placed to compare feedback with that given by others.
Useful, if not essential, is having a structure to a critique. Just as a solid sermon structure can help concentration, rescue a talk from obscurity, and aid the hearer’s memory; so also a well-structured critique is going to be useful for a preacher.
Matter (What was said)/Method (How was content communicated?)/ Manner (Was it said well?) is a solid standby structure from the old school debating days.
Or, it should also be possible to ask “What, How, When and Why” questions of the main point. What was the main point? How did we learn about it? When was the point made? Why did it matter (or Why should we believe or act upon it)?
There are various structures of critique available, and some may have advantages over others. The important thing is some structure exists.
Finally, the secret weapon of the Christian sermon critic is prayer. The job of the preacher is to explain the word of God. God has a vested interest in how well and faithfully the preacher does this, and rather sneakily is able by his Spirit to work in both preacher and hearer to see that the message gets through. We should regularly ask him to make this happen.
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
