Donald Sunukjian

How Long Is Just Right?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I’d like to answer a question offered in a comment a few days ago by Peter D:

“I have heard a couple times that people tune out after about 20 mins in hearing a speech or sermon. With that being said do you think that there are times we can force a text to be longer than it needs to be? It seems like most sermons I hear are bewteen the 45-and hour long mark. That being said do you feel that sometimes they might be more effective if they were shorter (still keeping the context in full view) or is there something internal that tells us they need to be so and so long?”

This is an important question for us all to think about.  Some sermons would be more effective if they were shorter, while some would always feel too long no matter how quickly they finished!  We have a tendency to simply preach to the standard length for our own context and personal comfort (our own more than the listener’s).  But it is not a bad idea to consider what would be most effective.

1. There is no “right length” of message, but there is an appropriate length for any specific context. Tomorrow I am preaching in my home church and I know it will need to be slightly shorter than usual.  If I go ten minutes longer, on this occasion, it would not be appropriate.  Not only does the specific church influence this, but so does the culture in which that church exists.

2. Listeners do not have shorter attention spans, but listeners struggle to concentrate beyond a very few minutes. Is that not contradictory?  Sort of.  So many harp on about today’s listener being unable to concentrate beyond 15 or 20 minutes – yet the movies of this generation are considerably longer than most were twenty or thirty years ago.  Actually though, listeners struggle to concentrate beyond 3-5 minutes at a time, so even a 15 or 20 minute sermon can easily be 10-15 minutes too long, unless . . .

3. The preacher needs to engage and re-engage the listener regularly in the message. Some speakers are engaging in content, manner, delivery, energy, empathy, etc. and listeners who regularly declare they simply aren’t able to concentrate beyond fifteen minutes, will listen fully engaged for an hour and then act surprised at how much time has passed!  Other speakers can make the briefest of devotional thoughts feel like the most tedious of hours.

4. Thus we can’t “blame” the listeners if the concensus is that our preaching is too long! Every speaker should do a self-evaluation, and then get some honest input from others, to determine areas of strength and weakness in respect to their ability to engage the focus and attention of the listeners.  These are weaknesses worth addressing, for without attention, there is no communication – at least not the kind you are trying to achieve.  Disinterested listeners are receiving a message, often one reinforcing negative associations between the Bible and words like “boring” and “irrelevant.”  What a tragedy that some who preach are, somewhat inadvertently, communicating the very opposite of what they intend!

5. Finally, I appreciate Don Sunukjian’s point about explanation and application ratios. If a passage requires lots of explanation, thus only leaving a short time for application, so be it.  But if a passage is relatively easy to understand, don’t pad the time with unnecessary explanation, instead use the time for lots and lots of application.  It is often the lack of application that undermines the effectiveness of our preaching.  More qualifiers are needed, but this post has gone on too long now!

Examining the Extent of Explanation

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

Biblical preachers should study to a higher level than they preach.  In the days, or even weeks, that we have to study a passage in anticipation of preaching it, we should probe and study and push and delve.  The study should incorporate all appropriate study methodology (appropriate to the genre, to the text, to our own abilities and skills).  The study should also appropriately consider the input of others (a variety of “experts” in printed form, or in real conversation if you have access).

The result of all that study should be more fodder for explanation than you have time to preach.  Even if you could cram it all in, what about emphasizing the relevance for today’s listener in terms of application and support materials, etc?

It is an important skill to learn to limit the extent of the explanation given in a sermon.  I suppose the best measure I’ve come across is what Donald Sunukjian said . . . “as much as necessary.”  That is in no way a negative comment on explanation (like I might say “let’s have as much vegetable as necessary in a meal, but unlimited meat”).  It is a comment demonstrating the high value that needs to be placed on emphasized relevance.  In Sunukjian’s terms, “explain as much as necessary, then apply, apply, apply.”

So how do we determine the necessary extent of explanation (and background information, demonstration of exegesis, etc.)?  A couple of key values come to mind, you may add others too:

1. A commitment to serve, not to show off. Every preacher faces constant temptation from insidious pride.  It is so easy to show off all the study you’ve done, all the skills you have, all the extra information you’ve gleaned.  Value service rather than display.  Value people over performance.  We all need to make sure our motivation is as much “for their sake” as possible, and as little “for my sake” as possible.

2. A sense of personal security, rather than insecurity. Insecurity abounds in the human race.  If our antenna are attuned we can spot it all around us, all the time.  An insecure preacher (for personal reasons, or as a result of criticism, etc.) will try to establish their right to be preaching in various ways.  One is to demonstrate excessive exegesis to undergird their ministry (and even personal worth).  A secure preacher is not concerned with how they look, or even if they’ll be criticized, but is concerned primarily with pleasing the Lord as they handle His Word for the sake of His people.

Let’s examine the extent of our explanation.

3 DQ’s – Dynamite Questions

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Okay, that should be “developmental questions,” but they are dynamite.  Sunukjian and others have followed Robinson in making quite a fuss of these three questions.  I would encourage you to do the same.  The questions represent the three ways in which a stated idea can be developed.  There are no other ways to develop an idea than in these three directions:

1. What does it mean? (Explain)

2. Is it true? (Prove)

3. What difference does it make? (Apply)

The great thing about knowing these three questions is that they are so versatile:

Use them in studying the passage – Unless the writer is moving on to a new idea, these three questions can help you understand what is going on in the passage.  Not only do they move you toward an understanding of content, but also authorial intent – which is so valuable as you wrestle with a passage.

Use them in developing your main idea – Consider your listeners in order to determine which of the three developmental questions are needed to develop your message.  If they don’t understand the idea, there’s no point jumping to application without further explanation.  Just because people understand what you are saying, it doesn’t mean they are convinced – perhaps proof and support is needed?

Use them in developing each movement in the message – What works on a macro level also works in the chunks.  With these three questions as keys to developing your ideas as you communicate, you need never scratch your head for things to say (few of us struggle with that), or simply pad the message with pointless filler materials (some of us may struggle with that!)

I don’t advocate a predictable and slavish repetition of these three questions under each point of a message.  I know some that do and the result is both predictable and often unengaging, not to mention how it can turn every genre into a dissected discourse.  However, it is not a bad discipline to be asking yourself these three questions, both in study of the passage and in preparation of the message.

Do We Get It Backwards?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Here’s a provocative quote from Charles Kraft:

The amount of crucial information involved in Christianity is, I believe, quite small.  The amount of Christian behavior demanded in response to all that information is, however, quite large.  We have, however, given ourselves over to a methodology that emphasizes the lesser of the two ingredients. (Jesus Model for Contemporary Communication, 123)

I essentially concur with this and want to make a couple of comments.  Obviously Kraft is not saying that Christianity is simplistic or lacking in content.  I’m sure he’d agree that we will never exhaust the riches of God’s Word.  However, for each truth in that Word, there are numerous necessary applications to real life behavior.  As preachers we tend to explain, explain, explain some more and then finally squeeze in a couple of minutes of application.  Perhaps we would do well to follow the advice of Don Sunukjian along the same lines, when he says we should explain as much as necessary, then apply, apply, apply.

In reality I find a lot of preaching is lacking in application, but not really because the text is being over-explained.  I would suggest, perhaps provocatively, that I rarely find a text even decently explained.  What many preachers tend to do is fill time with talk.  Random details in the text, other texts, illustrations lacking in defined purpose, filler words and noise.  I find it so refreshing when a preacher actually explains a text, and it is time to celebrate when there is specific and substantial application added to the mix.  I know there are still some exegetically heavy lecturers getting into pulpits, but probably far less than in the past.  However, it would be wrong to flatter many preachers who lack in application by suggesting they explain too much.  In reality many preachers neither explain nor apply well.

Many preachers tend to feel they have not done their job if they only preach one text, one main idea, one truth and then apply it well.  They perhaps feel that such preaching might be too lightweight or thin on content.  So they try to pack in more information, more texts, more truths, etc.  What could have been a powerful, penetrative, convicting, focused, applicational and memorable sermon becomes an overwhelming speedboat charge through the jungle of the catechism, or through systematic theology, or through all things Bible (complete with the resulting spray in the face that makes you do that squinting, blinking thing with your eyes!)

If it means actually seeing lives changed, let’s preach lightweight.  Actually, I don’t believe that.  Let’s preach one text well.  Well focused, not going anywhere else without good reason.  Well explained, but not an information dump.  Well applied, specific and with the appropriate grandeur for such a biblical truth.

Do We Preach a Distant God?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I made a passing reference to the fact that our God is not the deity of the deists.  That is to say that He didn’t wind things up and then sit back disinterested with His arms folded.  Before we start pointing the finger at famous deists like Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein or even Antony Flew, let’s check our preaching.  Is it possible that we inadvertently preach deism?

We are right to both study and present the author’s meaning in a passage.  The first stage of effective Bible study has to look at the inspired text “back then.”  Once we have understood the author’s idea in the passage, then we can consider how to legitimately apply that idea in our world today.  However, there is a potential danger in solid exegetical methodology.  The danger is that we present God’s work as “back then” but not “today.”  There is a real risk that we imply a God at work in the days of Moses, Matthew or the preacher to the Hebrews, but today we have only the reflected benefit of careful application.

The truth is that God is at work today.  He is as intimately concerned about each life as He ever has been.  Some err by emphasizing the direct revelation of God today to the neglect of His Word which He inspired long ago.  Likewise, some of us may err by emphasizing the act of inspiration long ago to the neglect of His present concern, sovereignty and involvement in the world today.  I appreciate Don Sunukjian’s shorthand definition of preaching for this particular reason.  He states that preaching is “Listen to what God is saying . . . to us!”  An absolute commitment to sound exegesis.  A clear commitment to a divine involvement in the act of preaching.

We must get both the “back then” and the “today” aspects of our preaching on target, otherwise we risk preaching a diminished deity.  An emphasis on “today” at the expense of “back then” leads to a subjectively defined experiential deity.  An emphasis on “back then” at the expense of “today” might lead to a distant deity.  God inspired the Word back then, and His Word still speaks with force today.  We preach an ancient text . . . relevantly.  Let’s beware that we neither preach an overly imminent experiential God, nor an excessively distant historical God.  Let’s be sure to preach the God who inspired the Bible, the God who still speaks through His Word today!