I was recently involved in an online discussion of the optimal length for sermons. Some thought that we must preach for such and such a time whether it be one hour or 20 minutes. As I considered that I felt compelled to go back and study some of the books on preaching that I have appreciated the most and find out what the great preachers and teachers of the past have had to say about sermon length.
I found that most agree that brevity and succinctness are always to be preferred to verbosity and prolixity in preaching, but that we should generally endeavor to preach for as long as is necessary to properly convey the message. As such, sometimes our sermons will be short, and at other times (but less commonly) long. Never, however, did I read that there should be an absolutely fixed time (say one hour) that all sermons must be hammered into. Additionally, as you will see, most of them counseled brevity even in the 19th century before the advent of the age of attention deficit disorder. Although I didn't quote them below, both Dabney and Shedd pointed out that there are only so many points that even the most attentive mind can absorb and that verbosity not only dulls the attention but overtaxes the listener and fails to instill more real knowledge than a more succinct sermon would.
Here are some statements from various authorities on the subject that I thought were particularly worth considering. The first quote is from "On the Preparation and Delivery of Delivery of Semons" by John Broadus oringinally published in 1870 and recently reprinted by SGCB. If you don't already have it - get it at once. Along with Preaching and Preachers and Evangelical Eloquence, it is one of the best books on the subject ever written.
"As to the length of a sermon, it would be well for a pastor to get it understood that he may sometimes make the sermon very short, and sometimes quite long. There are subjects which can be made very interesting and instructive for twenty minutes, but to occupy thirty or forty minutes it would be necessary to introduce matter really foreign and such as will lessen the effect, or so to hammer out the style as will make it less impressive. Many a preacher has thought of subjects or texts of precisely this description, and has been compelled either to abandon them, or to spoil them in one of the ways indicated. Why not occasionally preach a very short sermon, of twenty, or even of fifteen minutes? In that case, if circumstances warrant, the other services might, without remark, be made longer than usual, pains being taken to render them interesting and impressive. On the other hand, there are subjects which imperatively demand an extended treatment, and cannot well be divided; and the preacher, especially when at home, ought to feel at liberty to occupy a full hour, or in rare cases even more, provided he is sure the sermon will have such a variety of distinct points, such stirring movement from beginning to end, and such sustained energy of delivery, as will keep the people interested in a high degree. Within these limits, the proper average in towns will probably be from thirty to forty-five minutes, the former being best where the habitual mode of treating a subject is condensed and concentrated, the latter where it is more discursive and varied. It is obvious that much depends on the mode of treatment. A long sermon may seem short, a short one may be " tedious-brief," like the scene of Pyramus and Thisbe." - John Broadus
"There is a caution, derived from personal misadventure, which I would seek to impress upon you, with reference to your early trials. Beware of undue length. Do not undertake to say everything, which is the secret of tiresomeness. Oh, the grievousness even of calling to memory the exhaustive and exhausting teachers of patience! Avoid the notion of those who think they must occupy up a certain time, as by hour-glass. Fifteen minutes, well and wisely filled, can insure a better sermon than two hours of platitude and repetition." - J.W. Alexander
"Send hearers away, not loathing, but longing. Long sermons only make people long for the end of them; the best discourses are those which leave us longing for more of the same matter. Hear what a sermon should be:
“It should be brief: if lengthy, it will steep Our hearts in apathy, our eyes in sleep. The dull will yawn, the chapel lounger doze, Attention flag, and memory’s portals close.” "- Spurgeon
"There are times for short hymns and long hymns, for short prayers and long prayers, for short sermons and long sermons, for short speeches and long speeches. It is better to be too short than too long, as it can more easily be mended. Short addresses need no formal divisions: long addresses require them" - G. Rogers (quoted by Spurgeon)
I'm not looking for an argument here and I'm almost sorry I brought the subject up becuase you appear reluctant to take constructive criticism. But by your most recent comments I trust you are not putting yourself on par with the Holy Spirit claiming that what he does in the inspiration of holy Scripture is appropriate for you or me.
This has nothing to do with egalitarianism. The only reason a Spurgeon or a Broadus is worth hearing is becuase of God's use of him. The men themselves are sinners deserving of Hell. The Bible never speaks of men who are "great" Christians. David's mighty men and even Gideon were called great for their valor and service. Jesus told the same APOSTLES who wrote much of the New Testament that they were little when it came to faith.
And, yes, my parents gave me the name Augustine when I was born.
Respectfully, I believe you are arguing for a unbiblical egalitarianism that the bible does not teach.
David did not just have "men" he had "men" and "mighty men" some of them were greater than others, and the bible even goes on to rank those mighty men according to their accomplishments (2 Sam. 23:8-39). This is not humanism, merely an acknowledgement that God gifts men differently. You yourself have tacitly acknowledged the truth of this by using "Augustine" as your online tag (unless that is really your name). By doing so, you honor Augustine, who was indeed a giant of the Christian faith.
There is a reason why we take the advice of a Spurgeon or a Broadus on preaching more seriously than the average preacher. We acknowledge that God particularly gifted them and made the mighty men of the faith in a way that he does not often do. I don't mean to be argumentative, but I am not going to deny that Spurgeon was a great preacher, any more than I would argue with the word that Gideon was a mighty man of valor.
Pastor Webb wrote: "What makes a man "great in the kingdom?" Not pomp, or titles, or ambition, but Love for God, Love for his Pure Gospel, Love for Christ, Love for His Commandments."
Absolutely!! But you chose to distinguish certain men from others by calling them great. Did you mean that they love God more than others? Why use the distinguishing title if you didn't intend to say that these men were different than others. Are there no other faithful men (or only few others) who love and serve God as much? Or are these just more famous for having drawn a crowd?
It is a shame to hold any man out as great. For all you that you wrote in your response that is correct (as Job's friends often spoke what was right, but misapplied truth) you appear to be defending a humanistic error. It sounds like you are justifying a mistake after the fact rather than admitting it was a mistake.
Surely if these men can be called great it is because they had hearts devoted to God and to the pure preaching of his gospel. For instance, Van Til, in his tribute to J. Gresham Machen wrote:
His great learning was ever in the service of the Lord.” Still further: “Dr. Machen was a great teacher.” Ministers of the gospel “must be equipped to preach the whole counsel of God in the midst of a modern, hostile world.” Dr. Machen was a great preacher.”
What makes a man "great in the kingdom?" Not pomp, or titles, or ambition, but Love for God, Love for his Pure Gospel, Love for Christ, Love for His Commandments, and a willingness to humble oneself and to serve faithfully that one might be exalted by God. I think we should thank God that he has given us great Apostles, Prophets, Teachers, and Preachers, in the past and continue to pray that he would send us more!
It is not wrong to acknowledge that a man has been greatly gifted by God or greatly used by Him or that a man has a been given a "Great Heart" for the gospel, for it is God who exalts, and God who casts down. I certainly was not saying that these men were "great" in some sense independent of God, but was commenting on the way God used them in the ministries they were given.
Is there anything wrong in saying that Spurgeon had a great faith in God? Now Spurgeon was too humble to have called himself "great" but he himself did not hesitate to call others great preachers, and I sense he would have agreed with E.M. Bounds when he wrote:
"The heart makes the preacher. Men of great hearts are great preachers. Men of bad hearts may do a measure of good, but this is rare. The hireling and the stranger may help the sheep at some points, but it is the good shepherd with the good shepherd’s heart who will bless the sheep and answer the full measure of the shepherd’s place."
Once we classify ourselves (or others) as "Great" (preachers or whatever) haven't we shown a lack of understanding for the authority of Christ and the total depravity of man?
This is not a criticism as much as it is food for thought
Older
Top
USER COMMENTS | 
7/10/06 4:15 PM
