Deepak,
It sounds like I do what Mike does, I use a manuscript but it is in outline form. Most of what I want to say is on the page, but I like the outline format because it forces me to keep one main idea in each bullet point, it helps me see clearly where the idea fits into the overall message, and it makes skipping a point easier. I'd like to think that the longer I preach, the less tied I will be to a manuscript, but it is still pretty early for me. I know that writing forces me to think carefully about how I am going to say what I'm going to say--and I need all the help I can get.
Now the fun part (at least for me!). Your question reminded me of some articles I read from Baptist papers in the nineteenth century. It shows that there is nothing new under the sun! Here is a little background for those who are interested.
Around 1820, Henry Ware Jr. began serving as Unitarian minister in Boston. He wasn't a Unitarian as those we tend to think of today--the ones that believe nothing and preach sermons on Mother Earth. He said he believed the Bible was true (as many liberals of that day did) and went on to attempt to biblically argue against the Trinity.
In any event, he published in 1824 a little booklet for seminary students called "Hints on Extemporaneous Preaching." Perhaps he was inspired to write this tract after being impressed by the oratorical skills of his senator, Daniel Webster. His booklet gained a wide reading, even among orthodox Christians.
Soon after publication, Christian pastors began arguing over which was better: preaching with or without notes.
Those for preaching without notes argued it had some serious advantages:
The extemporaneous speaker, who has perfect command of himself and of his subject, has more warmth and earnestness in his address, more expression in his countenance, more freedom and meaning in his gesture, and infuses more of his own feelings and spirit into his hearers, than it would be possible for him to do by the delivery of a written discourse. [Boston's Christian Watchman, 1824]
Those who argued for preaching with notes, tended to equate preaching without notes to preaching without studying:
The truth is, almost any body could extemporize, while comparatively few men can compose. A well-written sermon is only the fruit of a thorough education, and is one of the highest efforts of the human mind. [1826]
This debate took place in the 1820s. Thirty years later it was still a topic of conversation among pastors. I particularly like the approach taken by one writer who sounds a bit like Thabiti on this point:
Some, who preach with notes the first part of their ministry afterwards find they can do better without. Others who begin without, on experiment, find they can use notes to better advantage. [1853]
He closed with the excellent point that good preaching is not finally related to whether you forsake notes (assuming serious preparation) or use them. I'll end this historical aside with his comments:
It is required of every minister that he advance in knowledge and capacity to speak. If he do not, his preaching will fail long to interest, even as an itinerant. Above all, increasing piety, spiritual-mindedness, devout activity, are the great secrets of energetic preaching. The closet has power in the pulpit. [1853]
I teach a regular Bible Study, and for it, I prepare a full manuscript.
I find it has a few minor benefits, in that I don't miss nuanced and complex discussions of the text, and I avoid being too tangential.
But there is another benefit, which seems to go unmentioned.
We have a deaf man join us on a semi-regular basis. He is able to participate in the study because of the rough draft manuscript, which I print for him before the studies, and the slideshow presentation (I automatically generate this from the document using a specific style for Scriptures), which helps to synchronize the progression of the study to the document.
Some people preach without notes for good reason. But it's a tragedy if their are less honourable motives for preaching without one, since it excludes the deaf.
With the manuscript, this man still shows up.
Posted by: Mike J | May 20, 2009 12:23:05 PM
I've found a good strategy to be the composition of a manuscript for clarity of thought but noteless delivery to better serve listeners.
Posted by: Andy Wayne | May 20, 2009 1:39:42 PM
I'm glad you brought some of these quotes out, Aaron. I don't use notes (and certainly not manuscripts!) and recommend that others do the same. I think I could benefit in some ways from outlines or manuscripts, but I think the drawbacks would outweigh the benefits.
Some of the posts have made it sound like preaching without notes is some kind of mental achievement, but its really not. The key is having a simple outline that follows the text - the text itself ends up being your 'outline.'
Like the quotes you mention above, Aaron, there is a level of authenticity and connection that comes from someone speaking without aids. It works on so many levels with any kind of human communication. From the President of the U.S. (who has a manuscript but also has thousands of dollars worth of equipment to make it LOOK like he doesn't) to a door-to-door salesman, you trust the words better of someone who is not looking down at a page of notes - someone who needs help remembering this life-changing truth they are trying to explain to you.
I wouldn't buy a mop from someone who needed a note card to tell me why I should buy it. I know that analogy stretches the limits when we're talking about preaching the word of God, but isn't there a basic principle of human communication seen there? If its important enough for you to tell me and important enough for me to listen, shouldn't you be able to remember it?
Posted by: Brent Hobbs | May 20, 2009 3:39:39 PM
Aaron,
It sounds like I do what Mike does, I use a manuscript but it is in outline form.
I was wondering and tried to peek a few times. I knew it was a little more than an outline. However, you do not sound at all like you are reading even when you are. :)
I love the history lesson too!
Thanks,
Mark
Posted by: Mark Lamprecht | May 20, 2009 8:34:32 PM
Brent,
At least for me the text is not always the outline of the sermon. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. I think you are right about authenticity, though. There is something compelling about someone not tied to notes at all. These early Baptists who were in favor of preaching without notes pointed to the "experts" of oratory of their day: the Websters, the lawyers, who made public arguments.
I would just add that just as a noteless sermon can be carefully memorized so a scripted sermon can be carefully delivered to be compelling.
Posted by: Aaron Menikoff | May 21, 2009 6:39:12 AM
As I was preparing to do my first sermon my biggest concern was whether to use notes or not. I read many blogs, talked to many pastors and discovered everything from complete manuscripts with bold words when the preacher was to use emphasis to a basic outline not used but kept in the pocket. Josh harris has posted PDF's of several pastors notes from actual sermons on his blog. Search for sermon notes on his blog. I did my first sermon on sunday and my biggest concern is I get nervous when I'm standing behind the pulpit. Off to the side I'm Fine. SO I wrote my outline on post it notes and stuck them in my bible. This allowed me to move around evertime I read a verse I could refresh on what my next few points where.
Posted by: Scott Warren | May 21, 2009 9:24:00 AM
I also use a manuscript/outline when I teach. It's all written out but I try to speak as "extemporaneously" as possible, but the notes are there to keep me on track whenever my mind goes blank- which happens waaay too much!\
Posted by: Ron | May 23, 2009 5:28:13 PM
Thanks for the article. I teach a bible study as well and have been debating he i should prepare at least some broad notes to give me talking points. My job constantly requires me to go without notes or a manuscript and i have been approaching teaching the same way
Posted by: eric ethridge | May 24, 2009 6:11:41 PM