I think there's two parts to it.

Part of it is what training they receive for sure. Hopefully someone has sufficient knowledge of the state of teaching homiletics to comment on this.

Part of it is, dare I say, personality. Some people are simply better, more dynamic public speakers than others. You can teach public speaking techniques and how to organize and write a sermon but some people will still be better than others even given the same amount training and experience. You see this in politics, too. Barack Obama is a relative newbie and yet can talk rings around people who've been in the game for decades while Stephen Harper, who's been in politics at least as long, though not continuously, is an average and somewhat uncomfortable speaker at best.

David

Preaching should be treated as theatre. One of the problems with doing away with a lot of the ritual of the Catholic Churches, is that Protestants now have lost much of what made church worth going to.

For most of my life I've been used to UCC ministers standing on a slightly raised platform, behind the pulpit, preaching from their notes.   That is the style I follow when doing supply.  Except when I go down in front and sit with the children during the "Conversation with the Children", I don't wander more than a few feet from the pulpit. 

Recently I heard someone say about their new minister  "He just talks to us.  He stands up front and talks."   I know him.  I can imagine him, having done his preparation, going in without notes and talking to the fairly small congregation as though he were sitting in their livingroom. 

At another pastoral charge I'm aware of.  Small, historic church in what was once farm, but is now cottage country.  She talked the congregation into moving the old pews around the perimeter of the room, so the people sit in two semi-circular rows.  And she stands, or walks around, in the centre - also without notes.  She engages the congregation, asking them questions and telling them stories.  They hear about her husband, her son, her cat, the problems she had making bread.  She laughs a lot.  She has a message that comes through.  They love her. 

I think I would enjoy occasionally attending either of these services.  But on a regular basis I think I would prefer the traditional style with the minister up front behind, or near the pulpit.

What do I look for in a preacher?

Knowledge

Preparation

Focus

Involvement

Personality

And a good speaking voice.

What I don't want:

Somebody 'winging-it' with little or no preparation

Repetition - same old stories, interpretted the same way

Stumbling over words, phrases - going back and forth, or on and on

Lack of focus- no beginning, middle or end 

Muttering

Reading from a script in a monotone without eye contact

Shouting

Having little or nothing to say, yet taking a long time saying it. 

Filling up time by reading "Chicken Soup" 

Part of the problem with preaching today is that for decades, frankly, the church has chosen to undervalue preaching as if it didn't matter; it wasn't important. In three years at Emmanuel College I was required to take one preaching course. I don't think it's any different today, in spite of the fact that Emmanuel College has Paul Scott Wilson as its Homiletics professor - and Wilson is truly one of the giants in North American homiletics today. But one course with him is enough. And yet, preaching always ranks high on surveys of what people want out of a minister - good preaching. And preaching is what the minister ends up being judged on most often.

As Witch says, preaching should be treated as theatre. It's a performance. We don't like saying that, either, but it is. I spend lots of time working on simple things like what hand gestures to make at what point, and where the pitch of my voice should go up or down and all sorts of other things. In other words, I rehearse, because it is a performance. Acknowledging preaching as a performance doesn't make it insincere; it means that we understand that preaching is far more than just the words we commit to paper and then speak. It's how we speak them; it's how we offer the good news.

I preach with notes, but I don't preach from notes. By that I mean, I have my notes with me, but I use them as a guide to keep me on track more than as a script, to try to prevent myself from going off on a tangent. I stick to the pulpit mostly, leave it occasionally if it's appropriate. But good preaching can be with or without notes; in the pulpit or not. Good preaching is passionately believing what you're saying and it's learning how to say it with passion and it's saying things that are important. As Harry Emerson Fosdick once wrote, "only the preacher proceeds upon the idea that people are desperately yearning to discover what happened to the Jebusites." In other words, preachers need to deal with the important stuff that touches people's lives in some way. And preaching is not teaching. It's not an academic discourse or a lecture. It's a proclamation of good news, so the preacher has to know that there's good news somewhere.

I've spent the last three years doing a doctorate in preaching. I learned in those three years how truly "skimpy" was the homiletical education I received in my M.Div. years.

How true. It was only when I started attending Festival of Homiletics and learned how to preach in the particular sanctuary style we have that I realized just how bad preaching education is in Canada. And I was in my MDiv at Emmanuel with Paul Scott Wilson!

It is only when preachers hear great preaching, understand the theatrical nature of preaching and apply it weekly does change happen. That's one of the reaons I despair over the increasing use of video projection in church. Using projection is not preaching but lecturing and good preachers doesn't need to use it.

Hi crazyheart,

I can speak to my education experience in preaching.

It was slightly more difficult than my education in Greek at Seminary.  My education in Greek at Seminary was a quiz sheet which basically wanted to know how well I could transliterate Greek to English and English to Greek.  The ability to tansliterate is minimally useful.

I received better training in preaching and Greek in my undergrad at Redeemer.

As others have pointed out there is a theatrical element to preaching.  I had a lot of experience performing prior to being ordained so I can bring certain skills from the stage to pulpit.

Others here have experienced me deliver a sermon, they would be a better resource for determining my success than I am.

I will note that the physical layout of this sanctuary allows me to roam about freely and the hand's free mic means I don't have to worry about being tethered to the pulpit.  I'm also a bit of a story teller so I am very aware of modulation of pitch to avoid monotone.

Again, none of that is knowledge passed on to me at Seminary and to be completely honest, while I had to pass to sermon competencies I didn't take the courses offered in the art of preaching because the instructor was not an inspiring preacher (why learn from meh) and I was considered fairly solid in that skill set.  So, I looked at the areas where I wasn't so solid and devoted time to shoring up those weaknesses.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Who chooses the curriculum at the Theological colleges?

Also I have heard many Lay preachers  and designated lay preachers. Some are very good - some not so much. The preachers spend their time ,I believe, learning to preach. Seems like some kind of a problem with the course when they can not even pronounce words properly.

Much of the discussion upthread has been about style. Then there's content. I have now had two ministers whose approach to content is so similar that I have to wonder if theological schools have instructed them to do it this way. Specifically, their sermon consists of retelling the lectionary reading, perhaps more dynamically, and then in the last 2-3 minutes squeezing in some comtemporary connection. Almost as if the assumption is that the congregation hasn't just heard the reading or that it must have been in a different language, and now it's necessary to retell it in "simple" language that everyone can understand.

  Now I've been through the lectionary at least seven times over the last two decades and none of the readings are new to me. I've heard them multiple times before. Retelling them is not where the inspiration is going to come from. The real insight will come from where they intersect with our lives (and not explaining what happened to the Jebusites - love that line!). And the description of that intersection should be different for every preacher and at different points in their lives (if a preacher's life hasn't changed at all since the last time they preached a lectionary lesson, they haven't been doing much living.  Children grow up, parents die, people move away, friends lose their jobs. Each of these should bring fresh insight).

I realize that it's a lot less effort to simply retell a story, especially when the week has been filled with pastoral obligations.  But being more reflective is a trait that I would expect to be obligatory for a preacher, and one that would take less time as one becomes more experienced. I've put together sermons myself (I'm lay), and I can do so more quickly and with greater insight than I would have been able to do 20 years ago - mainly because I have so many more life experiences to draw upon. (Side note here - I find the sermon starters in the UCCan's Gathering resource a good starting point, even if I don't end up using them. And this resource is now available online even to lay preachers when they have to "fill in", making preparation easier than it used to be).  So I expect nothing less from a trained professional than I would expect from myself - and that's less than I'm getting.

Paul was my Homiletics professor as well. I've always said that it was one of the very few courses I took at Emmanuel College that was actually of practical use almost right away. It was before he wrote "The Four Pages Of The Sermon" (which is a classic homiletical resource today, and every preacher lay or ordained should read it even if you end up not using the structure he outlines) but the way the course was structured it was clear that he already had "Four Pages" in his mind.

I'm not saying my other courses weren't valuable. They instilled knowledge, but little of it was knowledge that helped me as a pastor. My biggest criticism of Emmanuel when I was there was that they seemed most interested in turning out either Ph.D. candidates or therapists. Not pastors who would spend more of their time preparing and preaching sermons than any other single thing.

It seem to remember reading somewhere that the apostle Paul himself was not a gifted preacher and that by his own admission.

What I am drawn to is heart ....... first and foremost ..... do I sense a heart of love...

I respond to a preacher that can meet me where I am in the daily ordinary jumble of life.   Someone that can relate to me and my everyday struggles.

I am keenly aware of my faults, weaknesses, and willful misdeeds and the last thing I want is to be beat over the head with them.    I have had quite enough beating all week thank you and alone with myself at 3:00AM I do a fine job of beating myself up.

What I want is a preacher that gets that ..... that can relate .... and we admit together.

I want a preacher that goes beyond the usual God this and that prattle and platitudes that so often I find so very far beyond my reach.   This preacher takes my hand and we walk together toward God.   This preacher actually helps me see a step I can handle and take .... something my size for where I am at.....   This preacher encourages me on even though I cannot measure up to the ideal.   The reality of my situation is acknowledged and slowly an deliberately together we work it out.    That is how it feels.

Thankfully ..... right now I have such a preacher....   She is far from perfect but when I hear her speak I sense the perfect and I feel encouraged and welcomed to come closer to the one she is speaking of.  In a curious way ... as she speaks... her imperfections seem to fade away as do mine and for a while all things seem possible (by that I mean the deep heart yearnings I have been struggling with).   Perhaps this is grace???   I leave feeling more at peace ... more at peace with God ... more at peace with others .... and increasingly more often... more at peace with myself.   That peace seems to open me up more to love.... and to be able to love...

Preaching from the heart ..... I don't know if it can be taught .... but I have experienced it firsthand and it is indeed wonderful....

Hugs

Rita

Interesting that training ministers has remarkable similarities to training teachers - very little time actually spent on instructing how to teach. That's the nature of universities, though. Professors aren't hired for their ability to teach; they're hired for their research abiities. When I was hired at my university for a 100% teaching position, the ad stated that "teaching experience would be useful". Useful, mind you, and not required! To paraphrase GB Shaw "those that can - do; those that can't - teach; and those that can't teach - teach teachers" - with exceptions, of course

Who has the authority to change the way preachers are taught and also what about the final interviews. What questions are asked? Does this help a preacher excel when he or she hits their first charge. Just some wonderings.

Hi crazyheart,

Yes, and no.

There are competencies that denominations expect.  The colleges are free to meet those competencies as they wish.  This means that graduates from all the colleges will have demonstrated a level of competency.  How they were taught will vary and some of those teaching methods may do more than just meet the competency level required, they might actually surpass it by a wide margin.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi crazyheart,

That is up to the individual colleges.

The questions asked typically depend on the material submitted for each student.  I am a Substitute interviewer for Hamilton Conference.  Interview teams are set up in advance of the actual interviews and members of those teams get only the material that pertains to the student they will be interviewing.  As a substitute who can be called in at the last moment for any student I get all the material for everybody.

There are set questions that each student is asked to answer and there are a couple of case studies each student is asked to work through.  There are also evaluative comments from the school the student attended.  Typically a member of the student's E&S Committee will meet with the interview team prior to the actual interview and provide a brief overview of any areas of concern they have had with the student.

And depending upon the team the interview plays out as it does.

This round I had six students that I had to prepare to interview and I was called upon to interview only one.  While there was material in the case studies which I felt all students missed it was by no means a fatal mistake and was easily corrected by pointing out a manual provision.

All of the six had some areas of weakness, only one disturbingly so and that interview team decided that particular student was not ready to proceed to ordination at this time.  Which is likely what I would have recommended if the interview didn't address concerns.

The final interview will be no help to a student's preaching ability.  If the instruction from E&S is that it is a significant problem and we note that in the comments from the college we would certainly address it in the interview to see what work the student has done to correct that deficiency.  If the work to correct is missing then we might agree to defer ordination for that student.

Of the 13 student's whose material I have had the privilege of reviewing and the two I eventually interviewed I cannot recall any having their preaching ability flagged as a concern.

As an aside, one of the better preachers (IMO) in my graduating class was the first to wash out in ministry.  I'm sure his preaching did him in eventually, I suspect it was more a problem of what he was communicating than it was his ability to communicate.  Judging by the hole this classmate dug I suspect that their ability to communicate clearly exacerbated their way out the door.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I don't know what they teach at the various theological colleges, but my lay sermons have always been about God as the creative power or force of the universe and an innate part of us.

I preach with a full manuscript in front of me. While my sermons needed evaluated(in LLWL program), people wrote that I preached without notes. Ha! Poeple do not seem to notice. When I tell them, they do not believe that I have it in front of me. Maybe it is perhaps because of how I do it.

IMO Preaching well can be done with notes, without, with manuscript or without...trying to do something when you cannot do it well or effective is not wise.

So, I am pretty much "what you see is what you get". I am down to earth and relaxed with taking it very seriously. I am myself, with the gifts I have.

I have seen too many ministers who do a performance, act or pretend to be someone they are not. To try to have a gift they do not have or do not have in spades. It turned me off and I did not/do not want to be that. I have felt  manipulated or that they were holding a congregation in their hand and playing them like a violin. It can be nothing underhanded but it can feel icky. It can be nothing more than having a goal in mind or an emotional response that is being sucked out....

I want worship to be authentic. IMO God deserves that.

No pedestals for clergy. So, I am also willing to be seen, with clay feet and vulnerable if you will. I have been blessed by many clergy who have spoken to me, held my hand, hugged me or patted my back and told me to never change.

So, because of what I feel about clergy, I do not "rehearse" like it is drama or a speech. I am no actor and I do not "try" on deliveries or tones or try for effect. I do read and reread so I am prepared. I do not want people to feel I am working them or manipulating them. Whatever happens in worship, my hope is that it is genuine and that includes me and my sermon.

The feedback I have been given has been
that it is like I am talking just to them
that my ethos is UCC and yet my delivery is Baptist or Pentecostal  (meaning there is passion and inflection, etc - I asked about that one)
that there is an easy smile and sense of humour
that it comes from the heart
 

I have been blessed to hear great preachers. I do not hold a candle to them. I do not even try. I am called as I am. I may never be a great preacher. An ok one, maybe. I will always strive to be authentic, to worship God and to spread the Good News. . That is, always has been and may it always be, good enough.

Two three-day seminars (a couple of weeks apart)

Twice delivering the message, followed by once leading the entire service - being evaluated by my minister, a lay supervisor, and selected people in the choir and congregation

That was the training I got in homiletics before being licensed for pulpit supply (now LLWL - that was 20 years ago). 

A bit of advice I picked up shortly after was from a minister who told me that when he was newly ordained and in a pastoral charge he asked the congregation "What do you need from me?"   He was told, "We need to hear that God loves us."  

It sounded like good advice for me.  Every service, no matter what the lesson, I try to get across that message - God loves you.  God calls you by name.  You are precious in God's sight.  God walks beside you through the desert, providing manna and water.  God is your shepherd.  God goes with you into exile.  God so loved the world that God gave ... 

God loves us unconditionally.  We cannot get away from God.  "Although I flee to the furthest reaches ... thou art there."  Nothing can separate us from the love of God. 

Whatever the lectionary reading, whatever the news of the day, whatever the season of the year -  I try to reflect the gospel - the good news that God is love. 

I prepare a script, every word, every sentence, every paragraph carefully thought out, reviewed, revised, reviewed again.  Practiced out loud.  I have the script in front of me at all times.  I might just glance at it now and then, but by the time I'm in the pulpit it is familiar to me.  I might ad lib a bit.  I might leave something out  (doing two services I might find that some phrase didn't sound right, some illustration didn't work).  I might add something at the moment.  (A sermon about bread might remind me of the smell of new baked bread at my aunt's home when I was little.)  But generally I stick to the script, glancing down every now and then - sliding the pages over rather than turning them (never staple them together, I was told during my first practice sermon). 

Congregations seem to like me.  They keep inviting me back.  But I've never been in the same pulpit for more than six consecutive weeks - that may help.

Oh yes - I've never in 20 years preached the same sermon twice.

Seeler,

I was comparing your homeletics training to mine. As far as the LLWL requirement, they are not really much different.

In the Five Oaks program of two years, we preached four times (once during each of four weekends) for each other and the instructors and they were evaluated. We also did a Children's Time at each weekend. We also had to lead worship four times (once in each interval) to a congregation of our choosing and had to have 5 evaluations done by people of that congregation.

During that time, I was blessed to have preached almost every single Sunday as pulpit supply in more than five different pastoral charges. As most of them were three-point charges, it means in 16 different congregations.  I was pulpit supply in one three-point charge for an extended period.

The gift was invaluable.

I don't really mean to derail the thread, but would just like to comment on Seeler's point about God loving unconditionally. As true as this is, I think the difficult part comes next. That is, how do we share God's love. Much of the time receiving is so much easier than giving. Especially when we are disappointed, angry, distracted, when we've been hurt by others, are unaware of the needs of those around us, shy..... and so the list goes on. It's not easy, and I think that there is a limitless number of sermons that could flesh out this seemingly small point.

Yes Spiritbear, that is the more difficult part.  God loves us.  How do we respond?  How do we pass God's love on to others.  Especially when we are hurt, angry, bewildered?   Especially when a member of the congregation has just lost a child.  Or when the mill has closed down.  Or you yourself are feeling very upset about a situation in your life? 

There are scripture passages.  Right now I am hurting because someone I considered a friend seems to have turned bitterly against me.  I keep reminding myself of that passage - whatsoever things are ...of good report ... think on these things.   Forgiveness - the protigal son, or the readings from Hosea when God contemplates how Israel deserves punishment but how "I am God and not mortal" and instead decides to gather the people in like a parent its children. 

There are difficult times.  They must be faced.  But somewhere in the message - usually near the end - I try to come up with a message of hope, a promise of the rainbow, a reason for joy, and assurance of love. 

I am also aware that everything doesn't have to be in the message.  There are the prayers and the hymns.  I try to plan the service to work together as a whole.  Sometimes I succeed.

Growing up in the church, my remembrance of the minister and sermons what that raised pulpit on a riser above the rest of the congregation.  I remember a lot of what I simply called "bible talk" that often times was hard to understand, never mind listen to with focus.

Returning to the church after a long 'absence' I don't know if things have really changed or if I've just grown up.  I'm thinking the former (as I still have a lot of growing to do).  I am impressed week after week by my minister who interprets scripture in its historical context and makes it relevant to my life.  She is a 'story teller' with a great speaking voice that never loses my attention. 

One of her practises I don't remember from my early years but really like... the call to worship is a short telling of the scriptural story that the sermon is based on.  So call to worship flows towards reading of the scripture that moves towards the sermon, not excluding hymns and prayers.  So I very much appreciate the entire service.