About preaching :

• Preaching: a history of forms.

•  How people preached throughout the history of Church.

•  The oral expression in church.

•  Pauses and rhythm when addressing a congregation.

Here is the opening chapter of a historical study by Alain Combes. Judging the book by its title might be deterring. But Alain Combes never loses his practical sense.

The various forms of preaching

We will not deal with what preaching was and is about. From the very beginning such a study almost exclusively belonged to books about "sacred eloquence", sermons or preaching.

We merely intend to focus on some samples. They will help us to see HOW the faithful were addressed to throughout the centuries. Those examples will show that preachers have always tried to improve communication. We have also found quite a few pieces of advice and analysis written to train the ones who preached in the Church.

In the early days, the purpose of preaching was to teach an assembly, comment the Gospel, and explain the rites. Originally it was the bishop's role. It went on like that for centuries.

Such teaching varied a lot throughout history. It could either be an improvised sermon, or a homily read by a priest who had not written it; an informal talk in which announces, moral or spiritual reflections were mixed; or a public teaching by a clerk, or an oratory display by a priest that was to be seen more in literary salons than in a church, and so on...

Three different ways of delivering a sermon are to be found in the past-

• reading
• reciting after learning it off
• improvising

Augustine (4 th century) would improvise. Reformers did likewise. Bossuet (17th) improvised but from a sketch that was written. Massillon (18th) learnt his sermons by heart and many a reformed church pastor did so as well.

READING A SERMON:

It has often been the most disparaged form of address. Basile did not read his sermons, neither did John Chrysostome, Luther, Zwingli and Calvin. Reading occurred sometimes during religious strifes as a written proof of what had been said. Anyhow, some highly-esteemed preachers have read their sermons. Among those, some found it particularly difficult to keep the liveliness and quality of the communication when reading.

And it's true that the less easy way is reading someone else's sermon, then comes an easier way - reading one's own text, then saying one's text by heart, and last, the easiest technique - improvising.

2.IMPROVISING:

Several preachers state that a person who is improvising does know what he is going to say but does not know how.

Some think a sermon has to be prepared a long time, things being jotted down, whereas others are convinced it has to be written entirely and then left aside. An improvised sermon is oviously not made off the cuff.

Fénelon disagreed with the 17th century custom of reciting. He was of opinion that in an improvisation, speech is unaffected and that the words come out smoothly. Witnesses reported that Fénelon spoke with ease, efficiency and warmth.

Half way between improvising and reading lies a means that has been used to quite an extent - reciting one's sermon. The preacher would learn the whole text by heart.

Many blamed such a method for its cold, stilted delivery. Those who commended it stated that when perfectly memorised, the sermon was as hearty and lively as any improvised one. Elaborating a sermon was not only a matter of memory. One also had to work out the best way to express the core of the feelings and situations, that is: sticking to the meaning.

Quite frequently and every week, some preachers would learn by heart thirty to sixty minutes' long sermons. That proceeding went on amidst reformed Christians right to the beginning of the twentieth century.

Bishop's addresses were colloquial and practical, in the early centuries. They lasted several hours. Bishops improvised from previous thinking and a written outline.

Augustine speeches were lifelike and John Chrysostome's were full of go. Ambroses from Milan (4 th century) wanted a "sacred orator"'s voice to be clear, loud, but not too rich; his tone should be earnest and modest but with plain authority; the preacher is to choose a dignified attitude, and natural, though scarce and skillfully restrained gestures."

It is believed that the means of address differed greatly owing to personality and culture. Situations were manifold and Church had been splitting for many centuries, which were quite a hindrance to imitating a pattern or keeping traditions in oral matters. "

We do hope you enjoyed that excerpt. The whole book is full of precious knowledge and practical teaching.

And in addition if you wanted to make friends with the French language again, get the book!