|  Forgot password?
New Living Translation now on SermonCentral »
Home » All Resources » Articles on Preaching » Ed Cyzewski , Would a Ten-Minute Sermon Work?

Would a Ten-Minute Sermon Work?

Ed Cyzewski  more from this author »

Ed Cyzewski.com

Date Published: 5/25/2012
One parishioner said, "If a sermon were a practical, 10-minute exposition of scripture, I’d be happy." Would you be happy, Pastor?

I don’t like sermons. I blame Sesame Street and video games for my short attention span. I blame hockey for teaching me to love speed and action. I blame my parents who gave me the genetic trait that resists stationary, sequential learning—like math.

If a sermon were a practical, 10-minute exposition of scripture, I’d be happy. In fact, the homily, which is sermon-lite for Catholics and Episcopalians, was the part of the liturgy that I used to enjoy the most. The reverend at this Episcopal church in Vermont that we visited a few Sundays wandered up and down the aisle like a lost puppy, sharing a few things that he must have jammed onto a sticky note the night before. If he only had better content, it would have been perfect.

The first time I attended a Baptist church where the people really belted out the hymns, I stood in wonder at the beauty of their joy and energy. When the pastor hit the 45 minute mark of his sermon, I slumped in boredom. That has not changed for me—though today I bring “toys” to church, as in, my journal.

I honestly think I went to seminary, in part, because I realized that if the sermon had to be 45 minutes, I should be the guy walking around a bit and doing something. Who wants to listen to 45 minutes of information and anecdotes? Not me. If Jesus wanted a 45-minute lecture, I wanted to be the guy sharing it.

For all of my talk about disliking sermons, I can also point to a few sermons that were particularly life-changing. I don’t doubt the power of biblical teaching among God’s people. And I don’t begrudge it to those who feel the need for it in certain contexts.

I think the problem with sermons is the way they’ve become so standardized and laden with expectations we attach to them. I suspect the nature of the sermon will also change depending on what kind of church we attend.

People expect a sermon to teach biblical truth. Many pastors preach that way. However, I think that’s too narrow a goal for a sermon. We can accomplish these ends much more efficiently and completely by picking up a commentary. Sermons that only teach, whether for 15 or 45 minutes, are missing a golden opportunity.

Sermons are a chance for pastors to bring their people on the same page, to rally them around the things God is speaking to their community through scripture. Communicating a message like that could take 10 minutes or 60 minutes.

I see pastors straining themselves, taking hours to write sermons. I’ve heard lots of sermons in many, many churches, and let’s face it: we’ve probably heard more average to below average sermons than we’ve heard good to excellent ones. We place a ton of pressure on our pastors to knock it out of the park each Sunday, and that is a burden no one woman or man should bear.

I’m not so much opposed to the sermon as I’m opposed to its narrow role in the church and the way it strains many pastors. I know some pastors who specialize in sermons, and for them, it makes sense to emphasize the role of a sermon. However, even in that case, does the pastor draw a crowd more for the sermon than for the community? Is that even healthy?

As for the pastors who don’t specialize in writing sermons, what will we do with them? Are they able to lead according to their gifts without preaching? Will we accept them in our communities?

If a congregation is relying on a pastor to draw a crowd with her sermon or to open the Bible for them with his Bible-knowledge-rich sermon, are we possibly relying too much on one person for 45 minutes each week? It’s my role as a member of the congregation to invite people to our community. It’s my role as a follower of Jesus to study the scriptures. More than anything else, I need a pastor to point me in the right direction, to help me see the big picture of the Kingdom and our church’s role.

Pastors are often placed under way too much pressure each Sunday. The sermon is treated as the climax of the entire service, and if the sermon isn’t amazing, everyone goes home wondering why the pastor can’t be more like Charles Stanley or Rob Bell or T. D. Jakes.

This is where our liturgical friends have something to teach free-wheeling evangelicals like myself who make up our worship services on Friday afternoon, rather than following a tradition passed down for nearly 2,000 years that places communion at the end of each and every worship gathering.

I want my pastors to know they can preach for 10 or 60 minutes. I want my pastors to know they don’t have to attract a crowd or take on the burden of teaching me everything I need to know about the Bible. They just need to hear what God wants them to say, say it, and then point us to the body and blood of Jesus as we celebrate communion together.

Our pastors can’t always heal us with their words. That’s not a fault or a problem. That’s just a reality. The source of our healing talked about bread and wine, the symbols of a life broken and bled in order to conquer sin and death.

Sermons can be long or short. That doesn’t really matter. What matters is where we’re looking for our life. Sunday morning does not have to always rise and fall on the power of the sermon. No person should have that kind of burden. No Christian should rely on so flimsy a form. Nothing we can say can ever trump the power of these words, “This is my body, broken for you.” “This is my blood… poured out for you.”

That is a sermon we need to hear every Sunday.


Ed Cyzewski

Ed Cyzewski is the co-author of The Good News of Revelation and Unfollowers: Unlikely Lessons on Faith From Those Who Doubted Jesus. He shares sarcastic/imperfect thoughts on following Jesus at http://edcyzewski.com/  Learn more about Revelation in The Good News of Revelation by Ed Cyzewski and Larry Helyer.

Michael James Monaghan
May 31, 2012
Ed , re your comments on page num 9 that you thought 'there was something worth sharing in that meal ' ?. But the part of that meal you refer to may not have been as it appears to have become , a licence for a sacrificial mass and a sacerdotal priesthood , or an opportunity to worship bread or a means for a christian memorial service - was it ?. The Lord spoke of the New Covenant , which again shows that Meal as originally , was for Israel ?. For Jeremiah 31 shows that God was to make a new covenant with The House of Israel... . And it is repeated again in Hebrews 8 and probably elsewhere. And we are told , The covenants belong to Israel . Soooo How did all this become the big thing that it has become in Christendom ? and yes , the christian church . ?? [delete comment]
Michael James Monaghan
May 29, 2012
Fernando , I would also turn to Acts ch 21 which may show evidence that the Jews only would or should have participated in the Passover meal and broke bread and drank of the cup to remember the Lord's death 'till He come'. Paul went to James to give an account of what the Lord was doing among the Gentiles . Then they gave an account of what God was doing among the Jews ?. " and said " thou seest brother how many thousands of Jews believe. And they are all zealous of the Law ". Acts 21:20 Further more , some had accused Paul of teaching the Jewish believers to forsake the Law of Moses. But the accusation was not true. Now as the Jewish christians still followed the Law of Moses kept to their obligations and obedience , then they would not and could not let Gentiles (' the uncircumcised ') participate in the Passover . You mentioned things changed as the Temple was destroyed and the Jews dispersed . But something happened before this and is rarely recognised or preached about. Or it's significance recognised . ' The salvation of God was taken from Israel and given to the Gentiles '. Also , in Ephesians , The Jews were released from keeping the Law . Gentiles and Jews were now co-equals , Co-sharers together in the Gospel . :) [delete comment]
Randy Willis
May 29, 2012
Thanks for the article, Ed. Whether a sermon is 10 minutes or 45 minutes, it should be clear, focused, concise, and engaging! (Note to self! :-)) [delete comment]
Michael James Monaghan
May 29, 2012
Fernando , Your summarising of what I was saying was so correct . And thank you . No 23. I think at this point I should show that Paul though a christian and Apostle still kept the Law , though strongly opposed to Gentiles being forced to . Acts 13:14, Acts 16:3 Acts 17:2, Acts 18:4 , Acts 18:18. " I was ceremonially clean when they found me in the Temple courts "Acts 24 , We sailed from Phillipi after the feast of unleavened bread " . It was necessary that Paul and the Jewish christians maintained their Jewishness at this time , so as to be able to witness effectively about Christ to their brethren . ?. I may have misinformed about the Jews being told to keep their Jewishness , But Gentiles were certinly absolved from becoming under the Law . ?. [delete comment]
Michael James Monaghan
May 29, 2012
Well John . Your language -" mystifies surprised " - shows what i say may be a culture shock ?. I once believed as you do (I think) but as I was brought up a rcatholic I was taught from earliest days that the elements of bread and wine were t changed into the very body and blood of christ and those elemnts were then adored as God . Oh bread of heaven ,beneath this veil , thou dost my very God conceal ' ' Down in adoration falling , lo the sacred host (wafer) we hail ' But after a conversion experiience I then attended and believed the evangelical understanding that it was a memorial and the elements did not change into 'God 'and were not to be adored . Also it was not a sacrifice etc etc . But since then I have come to my present understanding with which I'm very comfortable and grateful - though I realise the long embedded traditional beliefs of this in its varying forms , do not allow for the fact it should not , or maybe should not be practised by the Gentile christian church !! ?. [delete comment]
Michael Monaghan I believe that you are deeply mistaken in your understanding of 1 Cor.11. Not only that but what you believe runs contrary to the understanding of Paul's teaching in that chapter that has been embraced by the Christian church all through its history. In verse 20, when Paul says that when they came together it was not to eat the Lord's supper, he was not saying that they should not gather to eat it. He was condemning their corrupt version of this most holy Christian priviledge, to remember the Lord Jesus in His sacrificial and atoning death; to participate in the ceremony of eating the bread, a symbol of His body, and drinking from the cup, a symbol of His blood. So in v.26 Paul encourages them to take part rightly in the sacred ceremony, suggesting that it was to be done often or regularly. In v.28 he underlines the solemnity of being a partaker of the Lord's supper by demanding deep and thorough self-examination prior to doing so and warning of the serious nature of failure to follow this instruction. I cannot say anything further about this here because your position mystifies me. I have never before encountered anyone who calls themselves a Christian and denies that the Lord's Supper belongs to His church. [delete comment]
Michael James Monaghan
May 29, 2012
Hello , Fernando and all . I will be replying to your posts , thank you . But v-quickly a reply to John ... We do have the accounts of the introduction of the 'supper' in three of the gospels . But this one in Corinthians may be Paul writing to the Corinthian christians to tell them what they were practicing was NOT the Lord's Supper . ? Why ?. Because of 'divisions' and unchristian dispositions and also that Paul had not given them permission to celebrate it in this way . It belonged to the Passover meal and only their could it be properly celebrated and put in the proper context ?. Ch 11:26 ? [delete comment]
Michael Monaghan I am surprised at your belief that the Lord's Supper is not for the christian Church. Had we only been given the accounts of the Supper in the Gospels it might have been a legitimate argument that Jesus intended it only for His followers in His earthly pathway. However the Spirit of God inspired Paul to present the order of the Lord's Supper in a letter to the church at Corinth. The issues that Paul had with Corinth were immorality, idolatry and refusal of his Apostolic authority. Judaism was not an issue. His presentation of the Supper differs from the gospels in that there is no mention of the passover. He writes that he received these instructions from the ascended Christ and had already passed them on to the church in Corinth (ch.11:23). This indicates that he was repeating in this letter what he had told them in person as he ministered in the city. I think that it would be likely that this would have been part of Paul's ministry as he moved about preaching and planting churches. It is therefore clear that the Spirit of God through Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles has placed the Lord's Supper in the Christian church. It is only "till He comes" (v.26). [delete comment]
Fernando Villegas
May 28, 2012
michael, you brought up Acts 15. I figured you were alluding to that chapter, but I wanted to wait to see if you brought it up explicitly. It was decided in that council that Gentile Christians were not obligated to keep the Mosaic law. Here, you and I agree. I don't know if this is what you were referring to when you wrote: "Why was it then a matter of need to counsel that though christian (sic) Jews were to carry on observing the Law[,] Gentile Christians were absolved?" But you will notice if you re-read Acts 15 that the Jewish Christians were NOT counseled to carry on observing the Mosaic law. Although many Jewish Christians probably did, it is my argument that they were no more bound by that law than were the Gentiles. That's the point of the whole book of Hebrews. In fact, not only were Jewish Christian no longer obligated to keep the Mosaic law, but they were literally unable to do so after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. Now, as far as the Lord's supper is concerned, it would seem strange to me that Jesus would have intended to limit its use only as a part of the Passover, especially considering the fact that he knew that the Temple (which was the foundation of the Mosaic law) would be destroyed within a generation of his death and resurrection (cf. Matt 24, Mk 13, Lk 21). However, if it is your conviction that we who are Gentile Christians are not obligated to keep the Lord's supper, I can certainly respect your belief. As Paul writes in Rom 14, this is an issue where we should not pass judgement on each other. "So then each of us will give an account of himself to God " (v. 12). [delete comment]
Fernando Villegas
May 28, 2012
michael, I think I'm getting a better idea of what you are trying to say, so I appreciate your continued clarifications. Let me see if I can summarize your argument concerning 1 Cor 10-12 to make sure I understand you: 1 Cor 10 begins with references to "our fathers" and their experience of the Exodus story. Since the ancestors of the Gentile Christians were not part of the Exodus, it would appear that here Paul is addressing specifically the Jewish Christians in Corinth. Therefore, it could be inferred that Paul's instructions in 1 Cor 11 regarding the Lord's Supper do not apply to the Gentile Christians, only to the Jewish ones. This inference is supported by the fact that Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper in the context of the Jewish feast of Passover, in which Gentiles were not allowed to participate. Then, in 1 Cor 12, Paul seems to switch focus to the Gentile Christians, indicated in verse 2 where he writes, "You know that when you were pagans you were led astray to mute idols..." This description would not fit the post-exilic Jews of 1st century Palestine, so it appears that the Gentile Christians are now being addressed. Is this a fair summary of your position? If so, it does seem to make sense, at least on the surface. One would have to look closer at the details of the text to determine whether the interpretation holds up. Obviously, you have put more time and thought into this interpretation than I have, so I will defer to you as to its validity. However, it does beg the question, then, as to whether the instructions Paul gives in 1 Cor 12-14 (which is clearly a connected unit) concerning spiritual gifts applies only to Gentile Christians and not to Jewish Christians, as is argued vice verse for 1 Cor 10-11. That would be a very strange position to take--why would the topic of spiritual gifts, their context of love, and their use in worship, not be relevant for Jewish Christians? On the other hand, if the instructions regarding spiritual gifts are indeed relevant for both Jews and Gentiles, despite the fact that the unit begins by addressing Gentile Christians; then, is it not possible that the instructions regarding the Lord's Supper could ALSO be relevant for both Jews and Gentiles, despite the fact that that unit begins by addressing Jewish Christians? I'm curious as to your thoughts regarding these questions. [delete comment]
Michael James Monaghan
May 27, 2012
Fernando - The Jewish christians didn't keep the Law 'to be Justified' , but because they were Jews. Paul kept the Law. Acts Some Jews wanted the Gentile believers to be circumcised and others for them to 'keep the Law ' as the Jews . But a Counsel was convened which decided No. Gentiles were not bound by the Law. But that Counsel gave four rules that Gentile christians should keep . ???. Acts 15:28 As you appear to insist that when Paul addresses the Jewish Christians he included the Gentile christians 1Cor 10 - 11, then you may think Paul addresses the Jewish christians when he addresses the Gentile christians 1Cor 12:1 too ?. Jewish christians were 'zealous of the Law ' and would NOT have allowed Gentile christians to particiapate in ceremonies that belonged to the Jews . And their was NO obligation for Gentiles to do so . :). ps which includes participation in the 'Lords Supper' part of the Passover meal . ?????. [delete comment]
Fernando Villegas
May 27, 2012
michael James Monaghan, I'm not quite following some of your arguments, so if I don't respond to what you're saying, please feel free to clarify yourself a bit more. I want to make sure we're both on the same page. Also, some of the issues may come down to differences in hermeneutical methods, so that's something to keep in mind as well. With that said, I don't know what counsel you are referring to that "christian Jews were to carry on observing the Law." I think both Romans and Galatians are pretty clear that no one is justified by works of the law (Cf., e.g., Rom 3:20, 28; Gal 2:16). Also, you wrote: "Special instructions were given to the Gentile christians so as to make them ceremonially clean and so Jewish christins (sic) could fellowship with them." Again, I don't know where you're getting that from. But the point of Galatians, especially chapter 2, is that Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians could fellowship together, not because the Gentiles had been made ceremonially clean by means of some special instructions, but rather because BOTH Jew AND Gentile Christians "have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law" (Gal 2:16). On a final note, I can see where you are coming from when you claim that Paul is addressing Jewish Christians in 1 Cor 10:1ff: "For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea..." I'm assuming that your interpretation is based on the use of the word "fathers" and the telling of the Exodus story; and that the argument is that since the Gentile Christians were not physical descendants of the Israelites who crossed the Red Sea, they are not being addressed in this passage. However, I invite you to consider Rom 9:6 and 8, for example: "...For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel...[I]t is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring." Therefore, in 1 Cor 10:1, when he refers to "our fathers" and their experience of the Exodus, Paul is addressing both Jews and Gentiles; because both Jews and Gentiles who have been justified by faith in Christ belong to the true Israel. Anyway, I look forward to hearing your response, and again, if there is something that you wrote that I misunderstood, please do let me know. Blessings to you this day! [delete comment]
Michael James Monaghan
May 26, 2012
So then their was no difference between Jew and Gentile as regards sin and salvation and the saviour . But their were differences concerning the Law and Jewish practices that Gentiles were excluded from . No uncircumcised person was allowed to participate in the Passover meal , did not have to be circumcised , and were not bound by the Law. Special instructions were given to the Gentile christians so as to make them ceremonially clean and so Jewish christins could fellowship with them . Paul speaks to Jewish christians 1 Cor 10 v1 and then begins counselling Gentile christians at 12 v1 for instance . Search the scriptures and see whether these things are so . Don't hang on to traditions and practises without scriptural reasons ?. [delete comment]
Randy Hamel
May 26, 2012
Jesus preached a message and then said go and do likewise. I want sermons that are application based so I know what to do. When I prepare a sermon I think so what? What difference does it make in their lives? What do I want them to do? My mentors Dr. Henry Schorr, Centre Street Church; Rick Warren Saddleback. [delete comment]
David Howells of Church Of The Living Christ
May 26, 2012
In the end, it comes down to being open to the direction and guidance of the Holy Spirit. THis is the advantage that we as NT Christians have that Jesus gave us when He left this earth and gave the Spirit. Preach, teach, deliver, do whatever it is you do on Sunday morning, but never do it out of your own desire, but out of the leading and guidance of the Holy Spirit. [delete comment]
Michael James Monaghan
May 26, 2012
Fernando V . So you don't see anything in the text (Corinthians) to show that Paul addresses Jewish christians and Gentile Christians seperately on occasions ?. Paul does the same in Galations . Remember , it was many years before Gentiles other than God-Fearers were evengelised with the christian gospel . The reason then was to make Israel envious and perhaps stimulate them to believe. Why was it then a matter of need to counsel that though christian Jews were to carry on observing the Law - Gentile Christians were absolved ?. If there was to be no distinction between Jews and Gentiles it must have been on a matter other than this ?. [delete comment]
E. L. Norman
May 25, 2012
While gentile's where not Jesus' focus at the time of the last supper, his disciples where. Jesus was their mentor and was preparing them to go and teach all that he had passed on to them, to all nations! For these reasons, it is understood (at least I thought it was), that this would included the gentiles, and not just Jews correct? As for Paul and Corinth, it is clear that this church was a problem child and Paul needed to instruct them further. Remember Paul's letters where meant to instruct, guide and mentor; Paul planted these churches, and instructed their leaders; if there was a problem he addressed it in a letter. To assume that he did not find communion important, because he only mentions it in Corinthians is foolish. Paul's epistles certainly cannot be considered the total end all of his thinking, only what he felt needed addressing to each church. Nowhere in scripture does instruct on the frequency of communion. Therefore, the Eucharist can be given yearly, monthly, weekly or daily, it is not a Passover celebration, but rather a remembrance of the death of of Jesus as a sacrifice for all, as foretold in Isaiah 49:6. As long as it is delivered in this spirit is all that matters. In John 6:58 Jesus said that all who feed on this bread will live forever, and I believe Him. [delete comment]
Steven Farless of Richland Baptist Church
May 25, 2012
I tried the liturgical route but found it as anemic as anything else. I have learned over the years that there are only two kinds of sermons: those delivered by people who have something to say, and those delivered by people who have to say something.-- [delete comment]
Nathan Goodpaster
May 25, 2012
I also have heard hundreds of different men preach sermons, due to my job I traveled and visited many churches. I have heard some preach who were not bombastic did not use any picture/video illustrations- I lost track of time because the Holy Spirit was working. I have heard other men who were very charismatic and bombastic but I bored to death because the Spirit was not working (the man had no liberty) I believe many "Christians" including some pastors Christianity is anemic and that is why no one wants to listen to their sermons (regardless of how long, short, exciting, educational, deep, or simple) it does not matter. There is no shortcut for walking with God (spending much time in prayer and in the Bible) I would not be surprised if the average pastor says he has no "time" of praying like he should or meditating on the Word like he should. No surprise that his church folk have no "time" to listen to his sermon (regardless of the long or short sermon) [delete comment]
Fernando Villegas
May 25, 2012
michael James Monaghan, you might want to re-examine Paul's teachings, especially as expressed in Galations, where he is quite adamant that in Christ there is no longer to be any distinction between--among other things--Jews and Gentiles. Paul's instructions concerning the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor 11 was given to all the "church in Corinth", not just the Jewish Christians. I don't see anything in the text to indicate otherwise. [delete comment]
John Modgling
May 25, 2012
HER sermon? [delete comment]
Michael James Monaghan
May 25, 2012
Ed I do concur that the gospels mention the Passover Supper where Jesus broke the bread and blessed the wine . But remember , Gentiles were not primarily Jesus the Christ's mission at that time. And the 'supper' was instituted during a Passover memorial - a Jewish feast . As for 1Cor 11 you may note that that church was composed of Jews and Gentile christians . At times Paul addresses the Jews and at times the Gentiles and at times simultaneously . The Passover should be celebrated once a year and the feasts in Corinth with the memorial , was NOT the memorial of Christs death as Paul tells them . ?. [delete comment]
James Dale
May 25, 2012
I feel the same way.........about long articles [delete comment]
Ed Cyzewski
May 25, 2012
David, I'm curious which part of my article elicited your sarcastic remark. If I had to point at the heart of my article, this is it: "I want my pastors to know they can preach for 10 or 60 minutes. I want my pastors to know they don?t have to attract a crowd or take on the burden of teaching me everything I need to know about the Bible. They just need to hear what God wants them to say, say it, and then point us to the body and blood of Jesus as we celebrate communion together." And Michael James, you may want to check out 1 Corinthians11 for Paul's take on the last supper and take note of the simple fact that all of the Gospels spend A LOT of time on it. They could have just jumped to the crucifixion, but there was something about that meal Jesus shared that was worth sharing in each Gospel account. [delete comment]
Richard Given
May 25, 2012
Overall, an astute observation. I wonder why though so many of us say "the body broken for you" instead of "given for you"? Does not Ps. 34:20 apply? Just wondering. [delete comment]
Richard Given
May 25, 2012
Overall, an astute observation. I wonder why though so many of us say "the body broken for you" instead of "given for you"? Does not Ps. 34:20 apply? Just wondering. [delete comment]
Michael James Monaghan
May 25, 2012
I wonder if David Parks comment is a tongue in cheek criticism ? :) But I would be hesitant to agree with Ed's comment that nothing could trump the words spoken at the last supper; or that we need to hear them 'every Sunday '. The Lord Jesus Christ said many things whilst on earth; and when He is ascended in the Glory . I don't think the 'supper' was meant for the Gentile church and I don't think Gentiles participated in the Jewish ritual in scripture ?. Also , if as Ed makes such a selective importance of the words and ceremony , Why is it not even mentioned in the last seven epistles by Paul written to the new revealed Church , The Body of Christ . ?. Like Baptism there are many and varied meanings and methods of these ceremonies which have in part may have causes of contention in Christendom ?. [delete comment]
If only the Apostle Paul could have been blessed with this wisdom. imagine how much better off the church would be today. [delete comment]
Amen. Very good. The Lord be praised! [delete comment]
Hank Hudson
May 25, 2012
My preferred time in church is: One of the old standby Gospel songs, followed by 3-5 minutes of a meaningful prayer, then ending with 50-60 minutes of a deep, challenging sermon or Bible teaching lesson. On my computer I have 4 favorite sites where I can listen to 60 min. sermons/lessons by outstanding preachers worldwide . Thank God for the internet! [delete comment]
Chet Gladkowski of Gladassociates
May 25, 2012
A couple of quick questions; 1. what is a sermon? 2. What is it's purpose? 3. Who is it addressed/aimed at? 4. What culture/people group is the audience? 5. What does God want to say and to what purpose (repentance, service, missions)? A sermon here in North America will be wildly different than one in a different place/culture. Fortunately (or unfortunately - depending on your perspective) I can find no Scriptural direction on this. It is an "open hand" issue where God has given us Spirit-let flexibility. [delete comment]

May 25, 2012
It is not an issue of time but of Spirit. Most peachers don't listen to the guidance of Spirit as they preach, teach, or deliver a homily. What you call it doesn't matter it is are you letting Spirit work through you. I heard a man preach for 2 hours once and it felt like 10 minutes and I didn't want him to quit, none of us did. Then I have heard others whose mear 20 minutes felt like an hour. The real question is who is preaching the preacher or Spirit speaking through him. [delete comment]

Join the discussion

  |  Forgot password?
Sign in to join the discussion New to SermonCentral? Create an account
New Better Preaching Articles
Featured Resource
Today's Most Popular
Sponsored Links