. . . About Whether it’s time to Stop Preaching Sermons

 

That question came to mind when I saw research from theology professor Perry Shaw showing that people remember only 5% of what they hear in a lecture after 24 hours.

Perry, author of the book, Transforming Theological Education, notes that “delivering lectures to passive students . . . is no longer an adequate approach for promoting learning.”

He goes on to say that in most lectures students are not paying attention 40% of the time, and that the longer the lecture goes on, the less attentive they are.

Shaw was talking about seminary classes, but his thoughts caused me to wonder about sermons, too.

After all, what is a sermon, really? Just a lecture, if you think about it. 

If anything, it’s worse than a lecture. 

In a lecture, at least, students are permitted—even encouraged—to stop the speaker and ask questions of clarification, or even to voice disagreement and offer other opinions.

Try that in a church one Sunday morning and see what happens; you might get a visit by an usher.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying sermons didn’t have their time and place.

For a long time, they were the best way to deliver theological education to people, especially when many were illiterate.

Plus, they mirrored what was happening in the culture, when people were accustomed to getting information that way.

That's what happened during the famous 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates in the U.S., when Abraham Lincoln debated Stephen Douglas in a series of seven three-hour long debates about slavery.

At each debate, the first debater spoke for 60 minutes, the other spoke for 90 minutes, and then the first one had a 30-minute rejoinder.

The halls were packed for the debates; reports indicate the audience was spellbound.

Such a thing would be impossible today.

Today, attention spans are much shorter (about ten seconds online when people visit websites).

But still, in many churches, the apex of the service is the sermon, even though all the information we could possibly need about faith, or anything else, is available on our phones. 

To be clear, I'm not questioning the quality of the ideas being shared by preachers, or the courage of their convictions.

I’m just saying the world has changed, and what happens on Sunday mornings may need to change with it.

I know my own way of communicating has changed. I grew up with long-form journalism, and for many years that's how I shared information.

But we live in a Twitter, Facebook and Instagram world today. Shorter is always better when it comes to capturing attention.

Does that mean hyper-short is the best way to communicate? Probably not. 

But as someone trying to communicate important information to people today, I don’t have the luxury of debating the best way to transmit it. 

I just need to be an effective communicator, using the tools that most effectively reach people.

Plus, unlike in church, I don't hold people captive. They can leave whenever they want. 

(Try walking out when a sermon goes to long . . . . )

But back to Perry Shaw. How are university professors adapting to this new world? 

When I ask my professor friends, they say they are cutting down the amount of information they share in each class, using more visuals, and encouraging more participation.

I wonder if preachers might want to consider doing that, too—especially the part about participation.

What if, instead of speaking for 30 minutes, they spoke for 10-15 minutes, then came down from the platform to lead a discussion about the point they were trying to make?

After all, if retention goes up the more people are engaged, wouldn't that be a good thing?

Any preachers out there brave enough to try it? 

Anyway, that’s what I’ve been thinking. What are your thoughts?