How Long Should a Pastor’s Sermon Be?
Pastors
Audio By Carbonatix
8:00 AM on Tuesday, January 20
By Mike Leake, Pastors
The late Pope Francis once made an important plea to pastors: “Please, do not go longer than ten minutes, ever! This is very important.”
His point was that people tend to lose their attention after 8 minutes or so. If they aren’t paying attention anymore, why should you keep rambling? Though he allowed for rare 20 to 30-minute sermons, he argued the less time, the better. “One idea, one sentiment, and one invitation to action,” that’s all, he said.
Was he right? Should we have sermons under 10 minutes? I don’t know many evangelical pastors who are going to agree with this. But if not 10 minutes, how short is too short? Or how long is too long? Today, I want us to consider the history of sermon length and the factors that contribute to answering this question. Then, I’d like to make as compelling of a case as I can make for both longer and shorter sermons. Then, we’ll conclude with a call to find the right balance in our preaching.
A History of Sermon Length
Scripture is filled with stories, prophecies, histories, and many letters. But one thing that is rare within the Bible itself is the sermon. Some consider the book of Hebrews to be one lengthy sermon. Others might consider some of the prophetic books as a collection of sermons. We’ve called Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5-7 the Sermon on the Mount. We do have sermons, but likely not in the form in which they were originally delivered.
If we take the Sermon on the Mount as being a full manuscript, it could likely be delivered at least close to the time-frame which the Pope asked for. Some estimates have it at around 12 minutes to deliver. But there is also evidence that Paul preached until some guy fell asleep and plummeted out of a window. There doesn’t seem to be a set length of time for a sermon.
The same is true throughout church history. Some of the sermons of John Chrysostom and Augustine (both born in the mid-4th century) were likely preached in about 30 minutes, though some might have gone on for close to two hours. But as the period of the Early Church Fathers came to a close and the church put more of an emphasis on the sacraments, the time allotted for preaching diminished.
Prior to the Reformation, some worship gatherings might have been entirely void of a sermon. The focus was on the administering of sacraments and following an established liturgy. This changed once again during the Reformation. To inform a largely biblically illiterate congregation, many Reformation churches would go well over an hour in sermons.
Some seemed to believe, though, that the pendulum swung too far the other way. As early as 1587, the Edinburgh Presbytery of the Church of Scotland said "that preachers exceeding an hour in their sermons be fined 18 pence." During this period and the Puritan era in England, it was not uncommon for sermons to hit or exceed this one-hour mark.
But by the 19th century, perhaps brought on by the emphasis of the Second Great Awakening, sermon length began to decrease across many denominations. A recent study by Pew Research Center found that for sermons preached between April and June of 2019, the median sermon length in the US was 37 minutes. But this still differs across different Christian traditions. If you attend a historically black Protestant church, the average length is 54 minutes. Evangelicals came in at 39 minutes, with mainline Protestants at a 25-minute average. Perhaps to the pleasure of the Pope, Roman Catholic homilies were the shortest at 14 minutes.
What seems to be the greatest determiner in today’s church is whether the table or the pulpit is central. If the observance of the Lord’s Supper is central—as you might find in a Catholic, Anglican, or Episcopal service, you’ll find shorter sermons. But in those where the pulpit is central, you’ll likely have a sermon of greater length.
But who is right? Should our sermons be 10 minutes like the Pope said, or do we need much lengthier sermons to be considered biblically faithful? I’ll try to build a brief case for both.
Photo Credit: ©GettyImages/SeventyFour
The First Question
The fundamental question to consider is, “What position should the sermon have in the gathering of believers?” Let’s think about this in the context of a concert. Most concerts have the band that you came to see, but they also have opening acts. If the opening act goes for 45 minutes and the main event plays three songs and then walks off the stage, you can almost guarantee that the congregation will be upset.
If I am in a tradition that views the sermon as the “main act”, I’m going to be sorely disappointed if it’s only 10 minutes long. But on the other side, if I believe the observance of communion (or other aspects) is central to our gathering, then a 10-minute sermon will be appropriate. In this case, the sermon is meant as an opening act to the main event, sharing at the table.
This, in my mind, is what you need to prove before anything. Is the table or the pulpit meant to be central in the gathering of the body of Christ? If the pulpit is central, expositing a text of Scripture to feed the congregation, then I’d better make sure I’m doing a good job of actually feeding people. How long does it take to accurately explain and apply a passage of Scripture? I’d argue that it takes far more than 10 minutes.
But if the table is meant to be central, then am I getting in the way of my exposition? Am I drawing attention to my words about the act of Christ, instead of enjoying and experiencing the act of Christ itself? How long does it take to point to the finished work of Christ as shown through the ordinance (or sacrament, if you prefer that word)? Well, I might be able to effectively do that in 10 minutes.
I say all of this because I think those within my tradition (evangelical Protestant) might have a tendency to mock those within table-centered traditions for their shorter sermons. We’ll shake our heads at the thought of a 10-minute sermon, wondering how in the world anyone could think that a sufficient usage of time to bring honor to God’s Word. But someone in that tradition doesn’t view things through the same lens. To them, they are honoring God’s Word through the observance of sacrament—a representation (or experience) of the crucified Christ. They don’t want human words to get in the way of the Word Himself.
There are, then, two different debates happening. The Pope is talking about 10-minute sermons vs 20-minute sermons. That’s why he says that a priest should rarely entertain the thought of giving a 20 to 30-minute talk. Because from that tradition that would be like an opening act playing just as long as the main-event. In our lingo that debate is like saying, “should we preach for 30 minutes or 50 minutes?” And it’s to that debate I now turn.
Is a Longer Sermon Better?
Whether you mean by “longer” a twenty-minute sermon or one closer to an hour (depending on your tradition), I think there are a few things to govern our thoughts here.
First, how long does it take for me to do my job effectively? The job of the sermon, regardless of your tradition, is to faithfully exposit the text. Even if you are in a table-centered tradition, your goal is still faithful biblical exposition. After all, it was John Stott, an Anglican, who said, “Sermonettes produce Christianettes.”
I’ve heard some guys talk about taking enough time to cover the passage adequately. While that’s a noble goal, I think we sometimes give the impression that we could never adequately deal with the inexhaustible Word in a week. I think our goal should be a bit more modest. How long does it take me to explain the one point of the passage (preferably the main point) in a way that can be understood and applied?
But that’s not the only question that needs to be asked. There are also questions about sermon introductions. If I have a congregation that is already geared up to hear the word, I likely don’t need a ton of work in building bridges to their mindset. But if I’m in a place with many unbelievers, I’ll need to spend a decent amount of time helping them even get into the world of the Bible.
Yet, we also have to consider where our congregation is at in terms of hearing a sermon. The ear will only last as long as the bottom. If you’ve lost the audience, there is nothing holy about continuing on just so you can reach some self-prescribed minute mark.
When we put all of these factors together, I really think Mark Dever’s maxim might be best: “A sermon should be as long as a preacher can well preach and a congregation can well listen.” If you can be faithful in 25 minutes, do it. If it takes 45 and your congregation can handle it, do it. I wouldn’t get too hung up on the particular time it takes. Just take the amount of time to do your job, no more and no less.
But I would argue for shortening rather than lengthening. I say that only because sermons tend to have more clarity, the shorter they are. I don’t think we can have TED talks, because we are doing something different. However, there are some principles there that do apply. Challenge yourself to go as short in length as you can to pack the biggest punch possible. It’s harder to preach for 25 minutes than it is for 50. At the end of the day, my goal is that the sermon would feel like 20 minutes, no matter what the clock actually says.
Photo Credit: ©GettyImages/Wirestock
