Let me hazard a response to Nick Macdonald (No Notes). I’m afraid that his premise represents a false dichotomy, namely: “We can either have written notes or manuscripts, or we can be focused.” I simply don’t see these as polar opposites, and there are several factors which mitigate against such an outcome. First, there is such a thing as writing for the ear. There is such a thing as writing with cadence. Practicing these things helps the preacher condense where necessary, and thus simplify what is being said.

That said, however, I think there is a positive case to be made for extensive notes or manuscript. In my own mind, the most important reason is the ability to answer the question, “How will I recognize my hobby horses? How will I recognize my overworked words, phrases, sentences, and even illustrations? I would maintain that it’s only in seeing these on paper that we recognize how tendentious we can be.

Here’s my own bottom line: notes and extensive writing are no more inimical to the sermon anymore than a score is to a symphony performance. The performance is more than the score, but the score guides the movement of the performance through time, using repetition, inverted melody, variations on the melody, all with the end in view. So it can be with sermons. Sermons are more than the words or outline you have produced, but if you’ve done your writing well, you have a guide from beginning to end.

I’ll be interested in reading other responses.

Brad Hansen