What should the preacher preach from? Manuscript? Notes? Nothing?
We usually think of four options in sermon preparation and presentation: (1) impromptu—no specific preparation; (2) extemporaneous— thoughts prepared; (3) manuscript thoughts and words prepared; (4) memoriter— thoughts and words prepared and memorized. Since numbers 1 and 4 are the extremes and seldom used, we'll concentrate on the other two methods. Let's compare the advantages and disadvantages of extemporaneous versus manuscript preaching in three areas:
1. Preparation. In most cases manuscript preaching forces preachers to a more complete and precise preparation. Those who have written their sermons out can more exactly analyze the sermons before delivering them.
Since ministers who preach extemporaneous sermons do not prepare their words beforehand preparing only their thoughts they save considerable time in sermon preparation. The two or three hours they save by not writing out a manuscript they can spend in additional research for the sermon or in carrying out other pastoral duties.
2. Presentation. In a sermon preached from a manuscript, I heard a preacher describe the witch of Endor as looking "like a wet gunnysack drooped over a fence post. One front tooth stood out like a lonely sentinel guarding the entrance to hell." Only wording prepared ahead of time can be that precise and descriptive.
Extemporaneous preaching, however, is usually more relational than is manuscript preaching. Henry Ward Beecher said that a written sermon reaches out a gloved hand to people; an unwritten sermon reaches out a glowing palm. A glove can be more perfect than the scarred and calloused hand, but it's not as warm, nor as sensitive.
Reading sermons limits the preacher's eye contact with the audience. As Phil lips Brooks insisted, preaching is truth through personality. Now, the eye definitely conveys personality. So anything that interferes with the preacher's eye contact keeps the personality from coming through and interferes with the preaching.
Manuscript preachers can offset some of their method of delivery's inherent weaknesses by knowing the material so well that they do not have to read it word for word. Keeping the voice and gestures conversational also helps.
3. Preservation. In the category of preservation, manuscript preaching has the advantage. Preparing manuscripts for preaching teaches one to write. And it makes one's sermons readily available for publication. Too much of our Christian literature comes from scholars who write to prove theories from books. Too little comes from practicing pastors. We need more writing by pastors who aim to apply theory to people's lives.
Trial or error
Most homileticians agree that the ideal way to deliver a sermon is first to write a manuscript and then to preach from an outline whether the preacher uses the outline in the pulpit or memorizes it. Realities of the pastor's busy schedule, however, prevent most from devoting that much time to sermon preparation.
Many preachers take a manuscript into the pulpit but read only parts of it, preaching the rest of it extemporaneously. For example, illustrations and appeals don't lend themselves well to manuscript delivery and should probably be preached extemporaneously.
I was especially impressed by the method of delivery of a Sacramento preacher. He faithfully followed his manuscript until he came to the appeal. Then putting the manuscript aside, he folded his hands, leaned forward in the pulpit, and talked to his congregation. The manuscript had simply laid the groundwork for what happened in the appeal. Actually, his reading the bulk of his sermon emphasized the intimacy of his appeal.
No single method fits everybody. And obviously both manuscript and extemporaneous preaching have significant ad vantages and disadvantages. The problem is that preachers tend to choose the method that's wrong for them. It takes a vivacious and personable preacher to read a sermon well. But it's the precise, scholarly minister who is most likely to choose this method. Extemporaneous delivery, on the other hand, requires a good memory and careful organization that keeps the sermon moving and on a straight course. But it's the preacher of action, with less of a scholarly bent, who usually chooses this delivery.
Too many of us preach the way we do because we have drifted into that technique and feel comfortable with it rather than because it's what communicates most effectively with our listeners.
If you haven't experimented, if you've rested satisfied with what's comfortable or familiar, you may be using the wrong method. It's a matter of trial or error.