Preaching in the first person
I tried something different last night in my sermon on Psalm 137. The purpose of the sermon was to help us feel the emotion of the Psalmist as he laments being in exile (v1-4), as he pledges himself to Jerusalem (v5-6) and as he longs for God to bring justice to avenge His name (v7-9).
I spoke in the first person, as though I was the author/composer of the Psalm. In preparation it seemed like a great way to communicate more strongly the feelings, the inspiration and the desire of the Psalmist as he expresses himself in song. While this is all achieveable, and there a few other differences which contributed to this as well, I still had a few concerns before the night.
How much poetic license do I have as a preacher as I step into the shoes of the Psalmist? There’s a quite a bit we can determine about the context of this particular Psalm. I think it’s written just after the return from exile in Babylon, reflecting on their time there (v1).
Most of all, I was wondering whether a different means of communication would overshadow the message communicated. It was easier to try funny lines as an Old Testament character observing the world today. It was easier to make the experience for those in church more ‘fun’. Yet, would it be a help or a hindrance for those listening to hear God’s word and the challenge for them today?
In the end, I ran the idea by a few people beforehand – other preachers from other churches, a few of the more mature members of evening church and even gave a practise to Jo and a friend in the afternoon.
If you’re a preacher, would you do it? More importantly, if you were there, what did you think of it?
Unlike a normal Sunday, there were a few other differences.
Firstly, there was no lecturn. I think this heightened the personal nature of the sermon. It also meant that I had to be more aware of my whole body language, not just thinking about how I use my arms and face.
Secondly, I sat on a stool, instead of standing up. I’ve preached sitting down before and felt that it lowers the authority with which I have as a speaker. Yet, in this case, it seemed to help as I felt more relaxed and less uncomfortable about ‘playing the part’ of someone else.
Thirdly, I had a cardboard cutout of a lyre for a prop. While the prop was neither here nor there in terms of how I used it while I spoke, it did give me something to hold on to in the absence of a lectern. More importantly, I made it big enough to fit two landscaped A4 pages on the back, which contained all I had for the Bible passage and my notes. (I normally print out my notes on landscape A4 with two columns, ie two A5 columns) Therefore I had a lot less notes than usual for a sermon.
Lastly, there was no Bible reading of Psalm 137. Instead we played the Sons of Korah composition of the Psalm with the lyrics on the data projector.
I’m sorry I missed it, Josh. Sounds like something I would do! Good on you for blogging by the way.
Hi Josh. I said I’d post some thoughts, so here they are.
I thought the change from a normal sermon was great! The way which you brought out the emotion of the Psalm through the interview style really worked. The comedy definatley helped me get into it, but I cannot comment whether others found it helpful. I felt that there was a more realsitic understanding (for me at least) of the mindset and context of the Psalmist, definately helped by addressing it from a first person perspective rather than looking on as observers, which helped me get to grips with the psalm.
My only gripe was that I didn’t realise that the interview was replacing the sermon until a few minutes in, so was a little lost at this point. Also, I felt that the application was a tiny bit lost (again, at the start) as we were still in an ‘interview mode’. I suppose announcing that it would be that style would have ruined it, as would changing suddenly to yourself for application.
Other than those (minor!) things, I thought it was a great change that helped stimulate my thinking on the Psalms.
Thanks Josh!
Anton, thanks for the encouragement to keep blogging.
Luke, thanks for the same. It felt you answered your own concerns about the difference. You’re right. I was thinking about explaining what I was about to do, but then thought that would lose the effect of it all, as would stepping out of character at the end. I’m glad it was helpful for you.
Hey Josh,
As it turns out I’m considering preaching this Sunday in the first person. Have you got any useful resources that I might be able to read on this? I’m interested particularly in thinking through application and first person preaching.
Steve, no, sorry. I’m not sure where the idea came from, except that I was keen to not be so abstract and propositional about this Psalm. I had two bits of application in my talk. A bit more background info, I acted as though I was interviewing the Psalmist on a radio show. This meant I stood up a few times and asked myself some questions.
The first time I asked something along the lines of, ‘Can you see any relevance of this in the 21st century?’ This was intended to give me the chance to show how to understand the Psalm in the light of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. I could then apply it directly as an observer looking on. I think this made it more powerful and direct as I said ‘You(s)’ instead of ‘We’ in application.
The second time was just before the end and without stepping out of character said something like, ‘Before the interview Josh was telling me about …’ and fleshed out details of an evangelistic night I wanted to plug as well as an upcoming sermon series.
So, both times I did the application ‘in character’. I practiced the talk in the afternoon with Jo and a friend at SMBC. Our friend had recently heard a first person talk with the application at the end ‘out of character’. She said it was less powerful and the shift lost something along the way.
Hope these thoughts help. Let me know how it goes.