Why I Decided to Preach Extemporaneously

The post isn’t all about this point, but it’s important: extemp does not equal noteless. There’s a huge middle between “read/recite/reference the manuscript” and “reference nothing at all.”

Extemp is speaking conversationally. Full stop. You have a plan. If you do it right, you have notes. Maybe you memorize your notes, but the notes are prompts, structure reminders, key facts/details. So you don’t recite your notes, and maybe you don’t even bring them to the pulpit (I don’t recommend that), but they do exist. “Noteless” tends to feed the widespread misunderstanding that extemp is lazy and poorly prepared. Just wing it.

It’s really not that at all, if you do it right.

That said, I’ve delivered sermons that stuck to me so well I didn’t look at my notes at all through the whole thing. That’s unusual for me, though. The essence is always thoroughly internalized, but details of the flow … I often need notes for that. And in a normal-length message, I always include a good bit of cross-referencing and don’t usually have every one of those passages memorized. A great discipline though if you have time and the wits.

by White, I think

Someone recommended the book when I was in school. Not a bad book, as I recall. Probably out of print now.

I tried the technique some, but it’s a bit overwhelming if you are preaching more than a sermon a week.

Styles change over the years, so now I use detailed outlines that aren’t too far from a manuscript, yet allow me the room to extemporize along the way. It allows me to use messages again, either preaching it as is or as my own commentary on the text

I don’t care for manuscript preaching as a listener, though some are more effective than others

As a newish preacher I’m too scared to preach without a full manuscript. Here recently I notice that I adlib sections that I know well without planning to do it. I may try to do an outline sometime.

[josh p]

As a newish preacher I’m too scared to preach without a full manuscript. Here recently I notice that I adlib sections that I know well without planning to do it. I may try to do an outline sometime.

I understand. It seems that a lot of younger preachers manuscript. I don’t know if this is a growing trend in training or not, I’ve just noticed that many do.

We were taught to write outlines which were more or less memory aids. It works fine when the material is fresh, but if you ever want to go back to the same sermon, you need a bit more than memory aids. Even though I write out more details now, I find that I need to do at least some additional study to get the same kind of emotional impact going if using a sermon again.

We once visited Metropolitan Tabernacle and met Peter Masters. He took us to his office and showed us the famous picture of Spurgeon and also one of John Gill. Another thing he showed us was some framed notes from one of Spurgeon’s sermons. It was just a very bare outline on the back of a piece of paper about 4 x 6 inches. Yet you read the resultant sermon in one of his collections and they are remarkable in complex thought and development.

I think that comes from “reading yourself full” on your text, so you have more ideas in your head than you have time to say.

Maybe I should try to create a bare outline from my detailed outline and see how well I do.

On occasion I have written a full manuscript with which I was unsatisfied, and instead of trying to find time or cram a second attempt at a manuscript, I have simply taken my Bible into the pulpit and preached extemporaneously. These sermons seem to generate the highest volume of positive comments and responses. Nevertheless, I continue to write a manuscript each week.

I started out in 1973 using fairly sparse outlines. (eg. Charles Spurgeon, or a little more detail) But as I continued preaching to the same congregation for decades, I slowly added more detail to my notes, as I wanted to be sure I was giving solid meat to some who had been listening to me for many years. After 49 years in the same pulpit, I don’t want to be repeating myself excessively. Spurgeon’s mind was amazing. Mine, not so much, so I prepare carefully and take detailed outlines into the pulpit. However, I have lately quit wearing my eye glasses, which forces me to scan my notes more quickly, and hopefully, not get bogged down in the details. It seems to work for me.

I am sometimes in and sometimes out of my notes for preaching. Making eye contact with the audience is greatly enhanced by preaching with less emphasis on notes. However, I think we must learn how to preach with good content first. I tend to go without notes when it comes to the application sections of the message.

The really old patrons of this site will recognize that Dr. Clearwaters regularly implored his students to preach without notes!

I recall reading about Edwards and “Sinners in the Hands of a Mighty God.” He read from a manuscript with (from what I recall) a “reedy” voice, yet God used it mightily.

I couldn’t be him, and wouldn’t want to be (this is not a comment on his bad theology!! heh heh) . What I mean is, each man develops his own style and finds what works for him.

I think I could improve in eye contact. Used to be better at it. I think I got more skeered as I get older. I also am probably too dependent on the notes.

Nevertheless, the Lord has used my efforts, too, such as they are. Not the way Edwards was used, but nonetheless, I’m glad for the opportunity to serve.

If I had more time, I would like to know my messages so thoroughly that I would need very little in the way of notes. Just can’t do that at this stage.

I’m a younger preacher. Yet my favorite way of preaching is with minimal notes. I try to limit my notes to just a half sheet of paper. I have my sermon proposition, my main points, and my subpoints on that paper, and not much else. I do find, though, that I sometimes struggle with fluency in the pulpit. And the best way that I’ve found to overcome that lack of fluency is to write out a manuscript from my outline, not to use for preaching but simply to clarify in my mind one way in which I might deliver that message.

…until I heard a few who did it well. Done poorly, it can be pretty dry and even painful. Do it well, and you will certainly hold my attention. It must be a good sermon that is well delivered, and if it is, the manuscript fades into the background as the truth becomes paramount.

I heard HB Charles suggest writing a full manuscript so that your thoughts are well-organized but bringing less into the pulpit. I can see that being a great way to preach if you really knew your material.

[josh p]

I heard HB Charles suggest writing a full manuscript so that your thoughts are well-organized but bringing less into the pulpit. I can see that being a great way to preach if you really knew your material.

yes, but time is everything

One only has so much time, so the manuscript, it seems to me, would have to come after the outline, or an outline of some kind. Unless you are among those pastors who only preach once a week, you don’t have time to do this consistently, if at all, in my opinion.

I recall a session in class once where our professor was asked how much time should be put into a sermon on average. The answer was something like “twenty hours.” One of the others said, “Well, if you are preaching two or three times on Sunday and once on Wednesday, where will you find the time?” The professor modified his admittedly “off the cuff” answer with, “Well, maybe you would try to put that amount of time into the Sunday morning message.”

I think some things said about how to do sermon preparation don’t take into account the work load of most pastors, especially the small church pastor.

Thanks Don good points. I am the fill-in guy at my church so I usually have a little more time to prepare. On two occasions I have done all day pulpit supply (SS, Sunday morning, evening) and it was exhausting. I thank the Lord for pastors that are diligent laborers.

Obviously no pastor can devote fifteen or twenty hours to prepare several sermons a week. I have spent about fifteen hours a week for my Sunday morning sermon for years. I have learned that if I do that, I continue to grow in Bible knowledge and sermon quality. I believe that this commitment is necessary to achieve the quality that good preaching demands. However, I have also found that if I maintain that commitment to the Sunday morning sermon, others sermons, receiving much less preparation time, are better by virtue of that commitment. Quality preparation of one sermon improves the quality for other sermons. Also, have pastored for 49 years, I have a large file of Sunday morning sermon outlines in sufficient detail that they can be re-cycled with two or three hours work into pretty decent sermons. Most people do not recognize that these are repeat sermons, and those who do don’t seem to mind at all.

A lifetime!

So, yes, I find the same as Greg, pretty well. I would guess my main sermon each week takes roughly 15 hours of prep time, but it is really hard to quantify. The study of the passage is one thing, then the writing is another. Some of the writing comes direct from the study, but it also comes with experience from many years of preaching. I began full time in 1985, so that makes it 37 years? Is that right? Greg is up on me by a few.

The key thing to me is to keep at it, develop your own style, be faithful to the Word and depend on the Lord. As you work with the text, think it through, think about the world you live in and how the passage applies, you will never run out of fresh material, even if you are preaching the same passage again and again. (Although I would recommend not doing the same passage for weeks on end!)