The most effective illustrations are real life experiences of the preacher. Little captures and holds the attention of hearers more than a preacher who is willing to share from his or her life. The practice suggests an identification with the listening audience, and a transparency that makes for authenticity. Knowing that self-disclosure does not come easily in today's culture, audiences tend to be drawn to preachers who are open and candid, especially as it relates to the struggles of life.

In addition to stories of the preacher's personal life, those of other people, whether living or dead, also make for good listening. Such stories engender identification, placing the listener in the presentation. Of course, every preacher knows that it is a breach of ministerial ethics to share from the pulpit information that is confidential, and that even changing the names and locations of stories to "protect the identity" of individuals is sometimes not good enough. As such, preachers should exercise extreme caution is sharing stories of others, doing so only when they have received permission from the parties involved.

Advertisement

Should preachers ever concoct stories to make a point? Most of my colleagues think it is unethical to do so, while a few see nothing wrong with the practice. Like most things in life, I guess it depends. One thing is for sure, and that is that telling a story as though it were true when it wasn't is unethical.

In a sense, ours is an age of story, an era of induction. Never before have people identified as much with story. As a consequence, in this day and age some sermons are a quilt of stories, one told after the next, with the preacher driving home his or her point at the end. That practice is all well and good if the stories are tied together so that the listener is not left scratching his or her head, wondering what the stories were all about.

Organization/Structure

Was the sermon well organized? Was the material laid out in a logical, coherent, sequential form? Were hearers able to follow the preacher without getting lost? Were the transitions in the sermon smooth and unobstrusive? As a teenager, I once listened to a sermon that was nothing but a hodgepodge of loosely connected ideas. The preacher seemed to be going in every direction all at once, and when he was done, not a few of us had a burning headache. Sadly, many preachers, like that one, can be indicted for confusing and confounding their hearers due to their lack of organization.

Organization is more than an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. What goes into each and how the content of each develops and flows is the crux of the matter. There must be unity, order and progression in a sermon, and transitions ought to be smooth and imperceptible. Transitions are most powerful when they are least noticeable. And because people tend to "listen up ahead," anticipating the next point or act in the sermon, the preacher should package the sermon in such a way that tension and interest are sustained. All that is said ought to reflect Athe big idea@ of the sermon, it being understood that a sermon should only have one "big idea."