I’ve just finished a series of messages at my home church. Each message was recorded and I took the time to listen to them again. This allowed me to edit start and finish, as well as any particularly disturbingly loud sneezes from folks in the congregation. It also allowed me to review my messages. One thing stands out – my mental review and my audio review were different. For example:
1. After preaching certain elements seemed big in my memory, but were minimal in the audio. That is, a passing comment that took three seconds in reality actually became a thirty second major issue in my mental recollection of the message. When we look back on a message and one comment or detail stands out, let’s not assume it was “as bad” or “as major” as our minds might tell us.
2. After preaching my overall impression of the message could be very different from reality. For instance, I might look back and think, “that was rushed.” However, in review of the audio it might sound anything but rushed. This kind of thing happened several times in this series.
3. There is much to learn from both kinds of review. While I am saying we shouldn’t trust our mental review too much, it is good to take stock and learn from the experience of preaching a message. At the same time, let’s not miss the opportunity to learn from the experience of hearing that same message. Preaching and hearing are different experiences. Learning from both will aid our preaching.
Do you review your preaching? By memory? By audio? By video? By feedback?
Biblical Preaching 
I always find myself reviewing mentally for a couple of days after a sermon, and this usually translates into verbal feedback from others simply because I like to talk, and have the blessing of a housemate who is willing to feedback honestly with me!
I also try to review by audio around a week after I preach. My Church records every sunday sermon, and I try to ensure that I have access to a recording when I speak elsewhere if possible. I find review particularly useful when I have spoken in a different setting than usual, especially if the talk takes a different form such as a brief lunchtime evangelistic talk, or an evening event aimed at youth and 20-somethings. It’s in those different contexts where good verbal feedback is more difficult to get, so any other kind of review is important to me.
I don’t speak very often, and so feedback and review are high priorities for me, and easy enough to make time for. I wonder if people who speak regularly find it more difficult to honestly review talks. Perhaps it is harder to make time for it when you’re already preparing your next message? Perhaps the importance of review seems to fade after you have been going for a while?
I can’t speak for people who’ve been going for thirty or forty years, but I’ve been preaching for a couple of decades and I think the need remains the same. It is probably dangerous to feel like you are settled or arrived in some way.
I know the feeling much too often. What I hear myself saying when I am preaching and what I hear as I listen to my self often are two different sounds and ideas. Why is that?
Great question, Charles. There is a very complex set of thinking that goes on while speaking. Thinking about what you’re saying, how they’re receiving it, what you’re going to say next, what you just said that came out poorly, what time you have left, not to mention the ongoing prayer that hopefully is part of the internal dialogue during the external monologue. I suppose it is not surprising that there may be some inconsistencies in there. Plus, for some, the sense of nervousness that freezes and confuses. I suppose what we are thinking about as we preach is something worth thinking about!