Sermons – not how we learn best?

The sermon is generally the most important element of most Protestant church services, but there are serious doubts about its effectiveness and Biblical basis. Here is a summary of research and expert opinion I have found on the subject.

Adult learning

There is plenty of research and conclusions on how adults learn best. One of the most respected experts on adult education was the late Malcolm Knowles, who came to these conclusions:

Adults do not need so much to be taught as to have someone facilitate their self-learning, leaving them able to learn in their own way. (People learn in different ways, some visual, some verbal some experiential.)
Learning should be related to life experiences and current knowledge.
Adults learn best when they have a clear goal and the learning is relevant and practically useful.
Adults learn best when they are motivated to learn and the process is positive and encouraging.

Much of the research has been done at universities, where researchers have found:

Two weeks after learning, students remember only 10-30% of what they see, read or hear, 50% of what the see and hear, but 70-90% of what they say and/or do.
Katie Driver gives similar statistics – adults retain 90% of what they learn if they teach it to someone else, and have immediate application of what they learn; 75% of what they learn when they practice it; 50% of what they discuss in a group; 30% of what they see demonstrated; 20% of what they see and hear in audio-visual teaching; 10% of what they learn through reading; and 5% of what they learn through lecture.
Student concentration time was about 15 minutes. Immediately after a lecture, students remembered 70% of what was presented in the first 10 minutes, but only 20% of what was presented in the last ten minutes.
As a general rule of thumb, most experts consider that adults can concentrate in a learning situation for a maximum of 20 minutes.
Information retention can be significantly improved by adopting teaching methods that provide opportunities for students to pause and reflect/discuss briefly at times during a lecture, or at the beginning and end, to work collaboratively or to participate interactively.

Most of these principles are quite clear and understandable. But secular educators have recognised that they need to be developed into programs and curricula. And so the concepts of active learning and participatory learning have been developed and implemented in many ways:

School learning has been modified from the older passive listening and ‘rote learning’ to more active, experiential and involving forms of learning.
Many universities and other tertiary institutions now encourage and assist staff in such diverse fields as Chemistry and Philosophy to use active learning techniques – and also undertake research.
Teachers and educators are commonly trained in these approaches.
Business and community training also uses these approaches.
Many textbooks have been written on the subject – including How People Learn, Experience and Education, Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning and Learning in Adulthood.

Learning in churches

Similar studies have been done in churches:

A study of Catholics in Germany found that “most of the audience tended to pay attention to the sermon in its entirety, although relatively few people actually remembered what they heard”. 60% attended to the sermon in its entirety, 34% gave partial attention) while 6% gave almost no attention. But only 22% had substantial recollection later, 35% had moderate recollection and 43% had little recollection.
In a 2009 New Zealand study, Jenkins & Kavan reviewed the research and commented: “studies have shown that sermons have a minimal influence on listeners”. However they found that while listeners did not learn a great deal, or change their behaviour greatly (objective measures used in some other studies) because of a sermon, they responded positively to sermons which appealed to them emotionally.
This US study obtained similar results. Listeners valued sermons and considered them the part of the service most likely to help them in their spiritual growth; the study found that sermons aimed at specific changes in the listeners are the most effective, but nevertheless, “it’s the rare sermon that creates lasting change” while informative sermons are even less effective.

So it seems that teaching sermons are a very poor means of teaching, sermons seeking behavioural change are not very successful, and only sermons which encourage and comfort seem to achieve their goal. This Anabaptist blog suggests that changes in our western culture (“from passive instruction to participatory learning, from paternalism to partnership, from monologue to dialogue, from instruction to interaction …. from linear to non-linear methods of conveying information”) require changes in our teaching methods.

Sermons in the New Testament

Are sermons recommended in the New Testament, and were they commonly used? The evidence is against them:

The ‘sermon on the mount’ (Matthew 5-7) was almost certainly not a sermon in the modern sense. Luke’s gospel gives a lot of the same teachings, but not all in one place, and scholars are generally agreed that Matthew has gathered all Jesus’ teachings (including this so-called sermon) into several places throughout his Gospel. Jesus’ characteristic teaching methods were parable and dialogue (argument or question and answer).
Jesus did not send his disciples to Bible College, but taught them in the situations of life, as he conducted his ministry (e.g. Mark 9:26-29, Luke 11:27-28, 13:1-5) and by letting them learn on the job (Luke 10:1-12).
Paul’s missionary work was characterised by a similar two-way method of communication – the Greek word used in Acts 17:2, 17, 18:4, 19, 19:8-9, 20:7, 9, 24:25 indicates dialogue – and he urges all members to be involved in the gatherings of the christian community (e.g. 1 Corinthians 14:26-33). Paul’s talk in Acts 20:7-12 was certainly long (he spoke for most of the night), but it was the last time they would see him, and one listener fell asleep with disastrous results!
The several different Greek words translated “preach” in many Bibles are generally better translated as “proclaim” or “declare”, and do not necessarily refer to anything like a modern sermon.
While Paul clearly valued the knowledge of God and given by the Spirit, he regarded ‘knowledge’ on its own (what we would call ‘head knowledge’) with some suspicion (see e.g. 1 Corinthians 8:1-11) and of less value than other gifts and attainments (e.g. 1 Corinthians 13:2-8). Both Jesus (Matthew 21:28-31) and James (James 1:22-25) condemned knowledge or talk without an appropriate response.
I know of no reference in the New Testament to exegetical preaching as we know it today.
David Norrington (Preach or Not to Preach) investigated the New Testament and early church history and concluded that “monologue preaching was present in this period but was used only occasionally rather than regularly. Much more common were discussion, dialogue, interaction and multi-voiced participation.”

According to some scholars (e.g. David Norrington), the sermon as a form of oratory first entered the church after christianity became the state religion under Constantine in the early fourth century and the clergy vs laity divide began, perhaps reinforced in the Middle Ages, and emphasised by the Reformation emphasis on teaching the word. It is argued by some that the sermon originated as a way of showcasing the preachers oratical gifts rather than teaching the congregation.

So there is little (if any) New Testament justification for monologue, exegetical (knowledge-based) sermons, and some good arguments against them.

Learning vs Discipling

Jesus gave us ‘the great commission’ (Matthew 28:18-20), to “make disciples” and “teach them to obey” his teachings. So our conclusions on sermons should not be based on whether they ‘faithfully teach the word of God’, but whether they are useful in making disciples and assist them to obey Jesus’ teachings. A disciple who is one who follows, under the discipline of his master, not just one who knows the facts.

The evidence from the educators and experience is clear. Monologue sermons keep people passive, do not teach or disciple them very well and thus do not do a lot to fulfil the great commission. Their main virtue seems to be that they are an efficient way to ensure that the paid minister keeps control of the teaching and speaks to as many people as possible at one time. It has the appearance of efficiency, but is not effective. Exegetical sermons appear to have the virtue of teaching the Bible, but may fail to connect to daily lives. A New Testament Professor wrote:

“But I wonder if we really are helping people be giving them a prepackaged Bible lesson every week. Are we preparing them for what life will bring their way? Are we teaching them to read and study the Bible for themselves?”

Suggestions to improve or replace monologue sermons include:

Teach and disciple using mentoring, which is two-way and experiential).
Active Learning: “some sort of engagement between the speaker and the audience especially in the form of what some call ‘student active breaks’.”
Replace the monologue sermon with something that is learner-focused, multi-voiced, open-ended (“be prepared to leave loose ends and to live with uncertainty, to run the risk of allowing people space to think, to reflect, to explore”) and dialogue-based.
Have several shorter talks on different, practical subjects by different people.
Primary discipleship could be done one-on-one (as practiced by the Navigators), in small groups or simple churches (where everyone can contribute), or by apprenticing within ministry teams.

the Way?