Seth Godin, an influential thinker and internet must-follow, posted today about “Every Presentation worth doing has just one purpose” that is making the rounds on the preacher’s circuit as well:
Every presentation worth doing has just one purpose
To make a change happen.
No change, no point. A presentation that doesn’t seek to make change is a waste of time and energy.
Before you start working on your presentation, the two-part question to answer is, “who will be changed by this work, and what is the change I seek? ”
The answer can be dramatic, “I want this six million dollar project approved.”
More likely, it can be subtle, “I want Bob to respect me more than he does.”
Most often, it’s, “I want to start a process that leads to action.”
If all you’re hoping for is to survive the ordeal, or to amuse and delight the crowd, then you’re not making a presentation, you’re merely an entertainer, or worse, wasting people’s time.
One of the things of which I had to take more initiative in my seminary “standard package” was preaching. My alma mater was terrific in 49/50 other areas, but during my years there the preacher professor was being replaced, and so the dean of the chapel taught the preaching class. It was….very theological. So I tried to supplement my mandatory education by taking another preaching class taught by a black preacher in the area, and I interned under the finest preacher I could find for my field education.
One of the tenets that I picked up from that self-laid emphasis–and continue today for every single sermon–was a “Behavior Purpose Statement.” This was taken from Frank Thomas’s seminal book They Never Like to Quit Praisin’ God, where he says in his “Preaching Worksheet” (pp.74-80) that every sermon must have a change in behavior at its core.
For Thomas, that behavior–oddly enough from the title of the book–should involve praising God in some way. Looking back over my past few sermons, “praising God” wasn’t my focus, but some level of behavior change was. For example, my last sermon on Baptism had this as its purpose statement:
Behavior Modification Purpose: To see baptism as being charged with the mission of Jesus Christ to transform the world and to be okay with uncertainty along the way.
Like Godin, I want each sermon to mean something, not to simply be “pleasing in the sight of God” but to evoke real change of behavior or opinion–and by opinion, I mean the way we live out our opinions.
But it occurs to me that others may not see behavior change as the purpose of preaching but that it is a more philosophical or spiritual exercise. This is a struggle as each person comes to the sermon with a different desire–is it right for us as preachers to want just one thing for our congregation: that they change their behaviors? Because if people’s behaviors don’t change, are we, as Godin says, just wasting people’s time?
So what do you think?
- Should sermons be about behavior change? Is that the expressed result of every single sermon?
- Are there sermons that were meaningful to you that didn’t involve behavioral change?
- Last one: Is the Sermon on the Mount about behavioral change?
For further reading: the United Methodist Clergy group is discussing Godin’s article here.
Interesting post. I’m more dogmatic about each sermon having a single point than that I am about each sermon invoking behavior change. Andy Stanley’s “Communicating For Change” is the standard text for those seeking to preach focused and memorable sermons. (Sort of like Andy Stanley does himself.)
Behavior change at the center? Many times, yes. But other times the sermon needs to be much more about God than about people and in those cases call not for change but for praise and reflection.
I can’t believe I ever preached four point, fill in the blank on the outline, sermons.
Of course, Thomas is building on the homiletic of Henry Mitchell, as well as a long line of African-American preachers. Brad Braxton (in “Preaching Paul”) suggests that the sermon have a “Gospel Claim” and “Gospel Conduct” that are roughly analogous to Long’s Focus and Function statements. But the key difference is that the Behavioral Purpose (Mitchell) or Gospel Conduct (Braxton) is not an intellectual aim. In other words, these preachers argue that it is inadequate simply to say the goal of the sermon is “to teach my congregation x” or “to foster an appreciation of y.” As Methodists, I think there is a lot here for us to remember. We are to grow in holiness of heart _and_ life. The “practical divinity” that Wesley emphasized means a change of one’s entire lifestyle, not just an intellectual learning. While I was initially taught Long’s Focus/Function model, I quickly found that my sermons in the church had function statements that didn’t actually get beyond the world of the mind into lived action. Moving toward Braxton’s Claim/Conduct model helped that. There is something similar to be gained from Wilson’s “Four Pages” homiletic, with his emphasis on one each of text, theme, doctrine, image, need, and mission (mission being the analogue to behavioral change). In each of these approaches, however, the behavioral change is subsequent to the proclamation of the Gospel Claim / Theme / Focus of the sermon as content. Every speech act has three dimensions: the locutionary (what is said), the illocutionary (having intention “to do” something”) and perlocuationary (having an effect in the hearer). Even if we think all we are doing is “stating a fact,” we are doing so for some reason (e.g., to persuade, to convict, etc.) and that illocuationary force can be summarized in the function/conduct/behavioral statement, which is either a summary of the illocution itself or the desired perlocution. Whether or not a preacher realizes it, all three are already at work in the sermon. I think it’s generally better to be aware of that and intentional about it than to simply leave those things to chance. For the foundational book (and a surprisingly easy read) on this issue, see Austin, “How to Do Things With Words.”
I read Seth’s blog almost daily and saw this article when it first hit the net. Here are my thoughts:
A sermon isn’t necessarily about behavior change in our tradition. It’s about heart change. Are our motivations changed? Is the way we view the other, the outsider changed?
I don’t mean “Act nicer” nor do I simply mean “Treat others better.” I’m talking about being motivated by a sincere heart of love. I mean viewing the strange as being as fully human as myself. Not seeing them as lesser.
So, has this sermon changed a heart? An outlook? A life? Has it broken the proud and given grace to the lowly?
This, my friend, is the change sermons should be making. As this change is wrought, behavior changes as a consequence…but that doesn’t happen until the “hearts of stone” have been changed to “hearts of flesh.”
Derek
Derek —
An alternative view is that once behavior changes, the heart then follows. Sort of like those people who stay married for lifetime don’t always love each other but by their behavior they remain committed. And then love returns in the empty nest / later years of life.
I think you’re pretty much on-target. I may want some sermons to provoke behavior evaluation first with a possibility of change later, but much of the time I am calling for a change in myself as well as in others who may be listening, based on the idea that God is speaking to me and asking me to change as well. I suppose someone at sometime might have truly encountered God and come away not feeling a call to change and growth, but those times are probably rare.
Some years back Joseph Stowell proposed that preaching should both inform and transform us by 1) deepening our knowledge of God, of God’s will, and of ourselves in relationship to God, as well as 2) fostering growth into holiness. Furthermore, if we overly emphasize knowledge at the exclusion of the transformation of the heart, we invite growth in pride over what is known. Conversely, if we concentrate on the heart without feeding the head, we encourage discipleship that is devoid of direction… like a ship with no chart or compass.
Even when the preaching focuses on God, our encounter with him cannot but transform our hearts and, as a result, bring forth more sanctified living.
So, the objective of preaching is always about deepening our relationship with God (whether through conversion or growth into holiness); changes in behavior are the byproducts of a stronger communion with God.
I would say that behavior modification should not be viewed as the only purpose of homilies. This certainly is the dominant theme in much of John Chrysostom’s work, but even then, one can see two other important purposes, which much of the time in his work surpassed any effort at behavior modification. Of vital importance in cultivating the faith amongst the laity is answering difficult theological questions; here, the pastor should not strike out on his own, but rather, refer to Church tradition, which has solved most of them (although new legitimate questions do continually arrive due to the development of human society). The other important purpose is in giving comfort to the believers. During a funeral, or at other times when the laity may be under severe stress, one should not attempt to exhort them with a fire and brimstone sermon, but rather, comfort them; John Chrysostom demonstrated an aptitude for this with his Paschal Homily, which I would very much like to see become a standard part of the UMC liturgy.
The threefold objectives of the sermon can be seen in a Trinitarian light: in the manner of the father, the pastor must clearly describe the fundamental truths as understood in Christianity, in the manner of the Son, the pastor must exhort the congregation to greater morality; in the manner of the Holy Spirit, the pastor must comfort the congregation when they are distressed.