sermon responses and preferences in pentecostal and ... · the need for evaluations of sermon...
Post on 17-Oct-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Pre-print version, Sermon responses
Pre-print, post refereed version
Sermon responses and preferences
in Pentecostal and Mainline churches.
by
William Vaughan Jenkins and Heather Kavan
Formatted version in Journal of Empirical Theology, 22(2), 142-161
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 1
Sermon responses and preferences
in Pentecostal and Mainline churches.
William Vaughan Jenkins and Heather Kavan
ABSTRACT
While research over the last 30 years has shown that sermons have a minimal
influence on listeners, denominational differences in sermon effectiveness have
been unexplored. We surveyed Anglican and Elim members (representing
Mainline and Pentecostal Christians respectively) to compare their responses to
sermons, and the sermon features and themes they prefer. The results revealed
higher sermon effectiveness responses from Elim participants. The data also
showed that Anglicans desired significant intellectual content and discussion of
social issues compared with Elim members who gave higher ratings on almost
all other features and themes. However, participants from both churches
responded to sermons in a predominantly emotional (rather than cognitive or
behavioural) way, and most wanted to hear sermons on grace and forgiveness.
We conclude by noting the need for evaluations of sermon effectiveness that
reflect preachers’ and listeners’ motivations.
Key words
sermon effectiveness, sermon themes, preaching, Pentecostal, Anglican
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 2
1. INTRODUCTION
Sermons are usually goal orientated: they are intended to induce and
reinforce the experience of being a Christian. Yet researchers continue to
question the effectiveness of the sermon as a communication tool, and several
studies have shown that sermons have a minimal influence on listeners (e.g.,
Greene, 1998; Price, Terry & Johnston, 1980).
To determine the factors that may impact on sermon effectiveness, some
researchers have concentrated on characteristics of the sermon and the preacher
(Maybury & Chickering, 2001; Joseph & Thompson, 2004), but most have
emphasised the characteristics of the receiver (e.g., Howden, 1989; Newman &
Wright, 1980; Pargament & Silverman, 1982). To date, no study has examined
denomination as a factor, even though there are strong variations in theology
and preaching styles across denominations. Given that tailoring messages to
listeners is essential to good communication, it is important to know if people
from different church affiliations, (especially fundamentalist and liberal ones)
vary in their responses to sermons, and the types of sermons they prefer.
This study examines the extent to which affiliation to a Mainline or
Pentecostal denomination affects reports of sermon effectiveness, and preferred
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 3
features and themes.1 By Mainline we refer to large historic denominations,
such as Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian and Baptist, which were brought to
the United States by the early European settlers. By Pentecostal, we mean
churches that arose from the revivals of glossolalia at the turn of the 20th
century in the Unites States and Wales, which encourage converts to seek the
baptism of the Spirit and speak in tongues.
Specifically, we compare the responses to sermons of two Anglican and
two Elim churches. The Anglican church is the third largest Christian
community worldwide and represents a middle ground between Roman
Catholicism and Protestantism. Elim is a Pentecostal denomination which has
almost 9,000 churches worldwide. We look at how the two churches differ in:
(1) sermon effectiveness, measured by reported responses to sermons, (2)
members’ desire for features commonly used in sermons, e.g. gestures, stories,
anecdotes, intellectual content, and (3) members’ desire for sermon themes, e.g.
the grace and forgiveness of God, social justice and peace issues, the believer in
the work place.
The paper takes the following format: First we discuss the research on
sermon impact. Then we present the reasons why we expect higher sermon
1 The authors acknowledge Dr Nicola Murray and the referees for their helpful suggestions to
the manuscript.
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 4
ratings from Pentecostals than Mainline members, and the types of themes and
features that members of each religious affiliation may favour. Next, we outline
the New Zealand context of our research, followed by our method in which we
present our sermon inventories. In our results section we examine both the
mean rank differences and median scores of sermon responses and preferred
features and themes in the respective denominations. We close by discussing
the need for evaluations of sermon effectiveness that reflect preachers’ and
listeners’ motivations.
2. SERMON IMPACT
Over the last 30 years researchers have not found any evidence to
suggest that sermons are significantly beneficial to the majority of listeners.
Greene found in a survey of 400 English parishioners who were actively
involved in their churches that 47% viewed the preaching as irrelevant and
lacking in life-giving insight (1998). Newman and Wright (1980) developed a
sermon effectiveness questionnaire, which they used to survey Catholic
participants’ responses to sermons in areas such as Bible reading, prayer and
social service. They found that sermons had only a poor to moderate effect,
with 75% of their sample “never, seldom or sometimes” responding to sermons.
Similarly, Price, Terry and Johnston (1980) found that sermons are relatively
ineffective at changing knowledge and behaviour, even over short periods of
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 5
time. Also, studies testing sermon recall show that listeners have poor to
modest recollections of the messages (Joseph & Thompson, 2004; Pargament &
De Rosa, 1985).
Nevertheless, several church members rate sermons positively, and these
tend to be people with strong religious beliefs and high religiosity who are
more familiar with religious messages—although listeners often distort
messages to make them more acceptable (Eckstein, 2005; Pargament & De Rosa,
1985; Ragsdale & Durham, 1986). Those who are single, less highly educated
and more involved in parish activities also give positive ratings (Newman &
Wright, 1980). Sex and age are additional factors, with older people and
females evaluating sermons more positively (Howden, 1989). The sex of the
speaker makes a difference too, with males rating high status females lowly
(Maybury & Chickering, 2001).
Features of the sermon itself also contribute to its effect. The content
must be personally relevant to the listeners’ life experiences if they are to
respond positively (Eckstein, 2005; Pargament & Silverman, 1982). Related to
this, listeners are more likely to remember and be persuaded by sermons that
are vivid (Joseph & Thompson, 2004). Also, the perceived preaching style of the
clergy—speaking at a natural pace, good tone, eye contact, a clear central topic
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 6
and good preparation—are highly predictive of sermon impact (Pargament &
Silverman, 1982).
Both Newman and Wright (1980) and Pargament and Silverman (1982)
recommend researching a wider range of variables than the usual demographic
ones when measuring sermon impact and effectiveness. In particular, Newman
and Wright suggest that their sermon effectiveness questionnaire should be
replicated among Protestants, for whom the Bible and preaching are typically
given greater emphasis and higher levels of sermon effectiveness might be
expected. They also predict that this effectiveness would be greatest in less
liturgical denominations. These comments point to a need for research that uses
denomination as an independent variable to reflect the churches’ differences in
theology, preaching and worship styles.
3. PENTECOSTAL AND MAINLINE DIFFERENCES
In this section we provide the background to our hypotheses. We begin
by outlining the key differences between Mainline and Pentecostal churches.
Then we explain why we expect higher sermon ratings from Pentecostals than
Mainline members, and why we anticipate that participants from each religious
affiliation will favour certain types of sermon themes and features.
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 7
The central difference between Mainline churches and other churches
(both Pentecostal and non-Pentecostal) is that they are less likely to have a
conversion message as their focal point. They tend to be at the ideological left
of Christianity, more inclined toward social service than proselytising. As they
are large, hierarchical institutions, they are more liturgical ― prayers, scripture
readings and the order of service for a given day may be prescribed by service
books. Sermons similarly may be drawn from written materials, and tend to
reinforce the church’s role as a community of believers who uphold ideals of
love, hope and peace.
In contrast, Pentecostals view the ‘born again’ experience as the heart of
Christianity, and Pentecostal leaders are more concerned with winning people
to Christ than with welfare provision. Few would use the word ‘liturgy’. Their
tradition is primarily oral, and church services are relatively non-hierarchical,
characterised by spontaneous utterances from participants, including
glossolalia, singing in the Spirit, prophecy, praise, prayer, and testimonies.
Similarly, sermons are usually extemporaneous, and the messages aim to
reinforce the participants’ experiences of the church as a spiritually empowered
community.
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 8
3.1. Sermon effectiveness
We expected higher sermon ratings from Pentecostals than Mainline
members for several reasons. First, non-Mainline Christians tend to have
higher religiosity, as measured by frequency of prayer, church attendance, and
self ratings of the importance of God in their lives (Webster & Perry, 1989), and
highly religious people tend to give more positive sermon ratings.
Second, Pentecostal preaching is optimistic: the preacher approaches the
task with “awe and wonder for what God will do” and the congregation has an
expectation that preaching will be accompanied by “signs and wonders”
(Gordy, 2001, p. 94). As people who listen to optimistic sermons are likely to be
more optimistic themselves (Sethi & Seligman, 1993), we expected that
Pentecostals would be inclined to rate sermons positively.
Third, Pentecostal preaching is directed towards the perceived needs of
the audience. Speakers are expected to be open to the Spirit’s leading and are
therefore more likely to change direction when they feel that the Spirit is
steering them to topics that listeners need. Pentecostal preachers often walk
around engaging the audience in a dialogue about their relationship with God
(Taiwo, 2005), albeit a dialogue in which the audience’s responses may be
limited to affirmations like ‘Amen!’ and ‘Praise the Lord!’ As people tend to
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 9
respond to sermons that they believe fill their needs (Eckstein, 2005) we
anticipated relatively high sermon ratings from Pentecostals.
3.2. Sermon features
We also expected Pentecostals to prefer strong emotional appeals, and
Mainline members to prefer more intellectual content, because the Pentecostal
preaching style is more experiential and active than Mainline styles. Most
Pentecostal preaching contains little exegesis and incorporates vivid language
and an imploring altar call. As scholar of church growth, C. Peter Wagner
wrote, “The result of hearing Pentecostal preaching is not that you learn more,
but rather that you feel better" (Wagner, 1973, p. 118).
It also seemed likely that Pentecostals would be less interested in
intellectual content because religiosity is negatively related to complexity of
thought for existential issues (Eckstein, 2005; Hunsenberger, Pratt & Pancer,
1994). Also, Pentecostals rely heavily on the New Testament Acts of the
Apostles, which is descriptive and not overtly reflective. While an intellectual
Pentecostalism has emerged (with Pentecostal scholars like Gordon Fee and
Mark McLean), by far the majority of Pentecostals would be more interested in
experiencing the Holy Spirit than intellectual analysis.
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 10
We further anticipated that Pentecostals would favour sermons with
significant Biblical content more than Mainline members would favour them
because of the high status the ‘Word of God’ is given in Pentecostal churches.
People tend to prefer the types of sermons that they are used to (Eckstein, 2005),
and Pentecostal preachers often use Bible verses as proof texts and re-enact
stories from scripture with various additions to make them more entertaining
and accentuate the message.
3.3. Sermon themes
We expected Pentecostals to prefer spiritual themes in sermons and to be
less interested in themes of worldly engagement, such as social justice and the
transformation of society, unless the themes were framed in the context of
Biblical authority, such as “Biblical attitudes towards the poor”. It would seem
unlikely that Pentecostals would be highly interested in social justice issues as
most believe that the best way to solve problems is by personal salvation
through Jesus. Rokeach (1970) found that people who strongly value salvation
usually do not want the church to be involved in social justice issues. Although
Rokeach’s finding is dated, and Pentecostals today are less ardently millennial
and therefore less inclined to simply wait for Jesus to return and set right all
injustices, Pentecostal ideology still gives a stronger priority to church planting
than to political and economic efforts to alleviate oppression.
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 11
Regarding the theme of “hell and damnation”, we could not predict
whether Pentecostals would like this incorporated in sermons because there is
no consensus in the literature. Ragsdale and Durham (1986) found that
fundamentalists rate such messages more positively than non-fundamentalists;
however Eckstein (2005) found that although participants believe the messages
are important for others to hear, they themselves are bored by them.
4. THE NEW ZEALAND CONTEXT
This study was carried out in New Zealand, a country that is officially
secular, but is mainly comprised of nominal Christians, i.e. people who self-
identify as belonging to a Christian denomination but do not attend church. In
the early 1900s, 41% of the population were Anglicans, and—even though
membership drops by tens of thousands each census—the Anglican church is
still the largest denomination in New Zealand, comprising 13.3% of the
population (Statistics New Zealand, 2006).
In contrast, only 2% of the New Zealand population identify a
Pentecostal church as their religious affiliation. However, Pentecostals are one
of the fastest growing religious groups in New Zealand, and it is likely that
Pentecostals are among the additional 4.5% of New Zealanders who describe
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 12
their religion simply as ‘Christian’ (Statistics New Zealand, 2006). Of the
Pentecostal denominations in New Zealand, Elim is one of the fastest growing.
Elim has Welsh rather than American roots (like the Apostolic church), and
these two churches in New Zealand tend to have less exuberant services, but
they are theologically similar to Pentecostal churches of American lineage.
New Zealand Anglican churches have more theological diversity than
most Mainline churches, ranging from High Anglican (similar to Catholic) to
evangelical, Charismatic, or liberal (Brookes, 1998), with most members in the
middle ground. In large Anglican churches there can be four services on a
Sunday, each with a different style. Anglicans who experience Pentecostal
phenomena such as glossolalia, but prefer Anglican services, may not need to
move to Pentecostal churches as there is tolerance within their own
denomination for Christians with diverse theologies and experiences. In fact,
most New Zealand Mainline members who experience Pentecostal phenomena
stay within Mainline Christianity, although they may change churches or
supplement services by joining Charismatic groups, such as the Full Gospel
Business Men’s Fellowship or Women’s Aglow (Kavan, 1995).
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 13
5. METHOD
5.1. Hypotheses
Our hypotheses are:
1. Pentecostals will rate sermons within their denomination more highly than
Mainline members rate sermons within their denomination.
2 a. Pentecostals will give a higher rating than Mainline members for preferring
strong emotional appeals in sermons.
b. Mainline members will give a higher rating than Pentecostals for
preferring significant intellectual content in sermons.
c. Pentecostals will give a higher rating than Mainline members for preferring
significant Biblical content in sermons.
3a. Pentecostals will show a higher preference than Mainline members for
spiritual themes in sermons.
b. Mainline members will show a higher preference than Pentecostals for
themes of social justice and peace issues, and the transformation
of society.
5.2. Sample
The sample comprised 148 church members, 18 years of age and over,
who were present at the two Anglican and two Elim churches on the days that
the research was conducted. The churches are in adjacent cities in the Hawkes
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 14
Bay region of New Zealand. The two Anglican churches had a membership of
100 members each, while the two Elim churches comprised 60 and 160 members
respectively.
There were 71 Anglican and 77 Elim participants. 42.5% were male and
57.5% were female. 2.7% were aged 18 to 24, 12.8% were 25 to 34, 22.3% were
35 to 49, 23.7% were 50 to 64, and 38.5% were 65 and over. 46% of the sample
had a university qualification and 64.2% were married. 66.2% were not
working—they were either home makers or retired—and this is reflected in
their relatively high church attendance: 59.5% reported that they attend church
more than three times a fortnight.
5.3. Materials
A questionnaire was developed, which contained sections on: (1) sermon
effectiveness, (2) preferred features, (3) preferred themes, and (4)
demographics. For the first three sections, a seven point Likert scale was
employed for all three measures, ranging from 1 = never to 7 = always. In
between these polarities were: 2 = very rarely, 3 = occasionally, 4 = about half of
the time, 5 = quite often, and 6 = frequently.
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 15
Sermon effectiveness was measured by Newman and Wright’s (1980)
scale, consisting of 10 questions measuring how frequently people respond to
sermons. These included questions about how people respond emotionally, for
example, “Do sermons provide you with a sense of God’s love?” and “Has a
sermon made you want to praise and thank God?” There were also questions
about cognitive responses, such as: “Do sermons answer your important
questions about God and religion?” and “Do you think that your knowledge of
Jesus Christ has improved due to sermons?” Finally, there were questions
about behavioural responses, for example, “Do the guidelines in sermons
actually change the way you live?” and “Have you ever read a part of the Bible
because of a sermon you heard?”
The preferred sermon features were assessed by an inventory of 12
features generated from Pargament and Silverman’s (1982) research, plus
interviews with church leaders and members. Participants were asked how
often they would like to see these features in sermons. Three of the features
explicitly referred to content: “a lot of Biblical content”, “significant intellectual
content”, and “the gospel followed by an altar call”. The remainder referred to
presentation: “good eye contact between the speaker and the congregation”, “a
clear central topic with easy to follow points”, “strong emotional appeals”,
frequent use of gestures”, “drama and other visual presentations”,
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 16
“opportunity for questions and other two way forms of feedback”, and “a
sermon containing humour” .
The preferred sermon themes were assessed by an inventory of 12
themes, developed from online searches of sermon material and interviews
with church leaders and members. Six of these were spiritual and Biblical
themes, (“grace and forgiveness of God”, “life and times of Jesus Christ”, “work
of the Holy Spirit”, “judgement of God”, “heaven and the afterlife”, “hell and
damnation”). Two were worldly (“social justice and peace issues”,
“transformation of society”) and three were worldly but Biblically framed
(“Biblical attitudes to sex”, “Biblical attitudes to money”, and “Biblical attitudes
to the poor”). “The believer in the workplace” was added to take into account
Greene’s (1998) finding that church members wanted sermons to be more
relevant to everyday life.
The questionnaire concluded with a demographic section containing
questions on age, gender, occupation, educational qualifications, marital status,
denomination, and number of church meetings per fortnight. Participants were
also asked to identify the theological outlook that best described them, for
example: Liberal (willing to interpret the Bible as a cultural document rather
than a statement of facts), Evangelical (primarily focused on spreading the
gospel and personal salvation through Jesus), Fundamentalist (primarily
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 17
focused on the Bible as a historically and scientifically accurate document),
Pentecostal/Charismatic (incorporating the experience of the baptism of the
Spirit and spiritual gifts) or Orthodox (following traditional church beliefs and
practices).
5.4. Procedure
The lead researcher attended morning services at each of the four
churches, and during the meetings the Minister gave him the opportunity to
explain the research purpose and invite members to fill out a questionnaire at
the end of the service. The researcher explained that the questionnaire would
take about ten minutes to complete. He emphasised that he was not asking
participants to rate the sermon they were going to hear, but to rate sermons in
general within their denomination. At the end of the services he distributed
the questionnaires and collected the data.
However, at Elim church A a ‘move of the Spirit’ at closing time resulted
in an extended altar call, and many participants were too immersed in spiritual
experiences to fill out a questionnaire. Therefore most of the members of this
church received and returned the questionnaires by post. The written
instructions reinforced the request that participants focus on sermons in general
within their denomination.
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 18
Almost half of the participants of all four churches responded. Therefore
the response rate was in keeping with typical survey response rates: 54.3% for
Elim members and 44.1% for Anglicans.
6. RESULTS
6.1. Data analysis
SPSS version 16 was used to analyse the data. Demographic differences
between the Anglican and Elim samples were determined using Chi-square
tests of independence, with Yates continuity correction used for the gender
difference. The differences between the two denominations’ responses to
sermons and sermon preferences were analysed by Mann-Whitney U tests. For
all data p = .05 was used as the level of statistical significance. Effect sizes were
also calculated to measure the magnitude of the observed effects of the
variables.
6.2. Demographic differences
Looking first at the comparison between Elim and Anglican participants,
the Chi-square tests of independence revealed no significant differences for age,
occupation, educational qualifications and marital status.
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 19
There was, however, a significant denominational difference in
theological outlook: χ2 (4, n = 139) = 122.6, p = .001, Cramer’s V = .94. Not
unexpectedly, all Elim participants described their theological outlook as
Pentecostal/Charismatic, Fundamentalist or Evangelical, compared with
Anglicans who tended to describe themselves as either Liberal or Orthodox. So
strong was the magnitude of the relationship between theological outlook and
denomination shown by the Cramer V score, that the two variables almost
seemed to be measuring the same concept. However, the similarity was less
marked in Anglican church B where 20% of participants identified themselves
as Evangelical or Pentecostal/Charismatic, compared with Anglican church A,
which had no Evangelical, Pentecostal/Charismatic or Fundamentalist
participants.
There was also a strong significant difference in how frequently Anglican
and Elim participants attended church, χ2 (3, n = 146) = 28.82, p = .001, Cramer’s
V = .44. Elim members were more likely than Anglicans to report attending
church frequently, and 21% of Elim participants claimed to attend church more
than six times a fortnight.
Additionally, there was a significant (but moderate) gender difference in
the denominational samples: χ2 (1, n = 148) = 8.43, p = .004, phi = -.25. Elim
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 20
congregations had a higher proportion of males than the Anglican
congregations (54.5% and 29.6% respectively). These percentages are
disproportionate to the census statistics of Pentecostal and Anglican adherents
in New Zealand, in which there are 45.4% males and 44% males respectively
(Statistics New Zealand, 2006). However, they are in keeping with Kavan’s
(1995) research based primarily on fieldwork and questionnaires distributed in
New Zealand Pentecostal and Mainline churches.
6.3. Sermon effectiveness
On all variables, Elim members rated sermons as more effective than
Anglican members rated them, and on all but two items (“Do sermons provide
you with a sense of God’s love?” and “In reality, do sermons affect the way you
see God?”) these differences were statistically significant. Table 1 shows the
mean rank sermon effectiveness scores for the denominations and the statistical
significance of the differences (measured by Mann-Whitney U tests). Of the
statistically significant items, the effect size was small to moderate, ranging
from -.194 to -.432.
(Table 1 here – see page 34)
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 21
While on average Elim members chose the high end of the sermon
response scale, the spread of Anglican and Elim responses was similar.
Participants from both denominations gave high ratings when answering
questions about the emotional effects of sermons. Even though, by self report,
participants did not greatly change their attitudes or behaviours after hearing
sermons, 83% reported that sermons “provided [them] with a sense of God’s
love” and made them “want to praise and thank God” half of the time or more.
With the exception of the item “Do you think that your knowledge of
Jesus Christ has improved due to sermons?” there were relatively moderate
ratings for items assessing cognitive responses to sermons, such as “Do sermons
answer your important questions about God and religion?” The lowest ratings
were for behavioural responses, such as “Have you ever read part of the Bible
because of a sermon you heard?” and “Do the guidelines on sermons actually
change the way you live?” and these were especially lowly rated by Anglicans.
Table 2 compares the sermon effectiveness scores with the Catholic data
obtained by Newman and Wright (1980). Unfortunately, the comparison is not
exact because Newman and Wright’s Likert scale is unknown. However,
Newman and Wright’s data summary shows the broad categories they used,
and we have grouped our data into similar categories. The results show that
the Elim sermon ratings were the highest of the three denominations. The
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 22
Anglican ratings were second, (with Anglican church B’s responses close to
Elim church A’s ratings.) Newman and Wright’s Catholic sample gave the
lowest sermon ratings.
(Table 2 here – see page 35)
6.4. Desired features
Table 3 shows the denominations’ median scores and mean rank scores
for each desired sermon feature. As with the sermon effectiveness ratings, Elim
members chose the high end of the sermon preference scale and were more
likely than Anglicans to desire the listed sermon features “quite often” and
“frequently”. The only exception was the item “significant intellectual
content”, which Anglican participants were significantly more likely than Elim
participants to desire. The strongest difference between Anglican and Elim
participants was Elim members’ higher preference for sermons that include the
presentation of the gospel followed by an altar call, which was significant at the
p < .01 level and had a large effect size. Of the ten remaining Elim preferences,
seven were statistically significant, and the effect sizes were small to moderate,
ranging from r = -.163 to r = -.403.
(Table 3 here – see page 36)
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 23
The two features that participants most desired in sermons were the
same for both denominations. Both Elim and Anglican members most wanted a
presentation of a clear central topic with easy to follow points, and good eye
contact between the speaker and the congregation (the latter feature was
especially important to Elim participants). There was also common agreement
that participants were keen for sermons to include a lot of Biblical content,
storytelling, anecdotes and humour.
6.5. Desired themes
Table 4 shows Anglican and Elim members’ median and mean rank
ratings for each sermon theme. The Mann-Whitney U tests demonstrated that
Elim members were significantly more likely than Anglicans to desire sermons
on spiritual themes: God’s grace and forgiveness, Holy Spirit, judgement,
heaven and the afterlife, and hell and damnation. Elim members also rated
two of the three items that were Biblically framed significantly higher: Biblical
attitudes to money and Biblical attitudes towards sexuality. However, there
was no significant difference in preferences for sermons on Biblical attitudes to
the poor.
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 24
In contrast, Anglicans showed a stronger preference than Elim
participants for sermons on social justice and peace issues and questions
concerning the transformation of society, although the latter was not
statistically significant.
(Table 4 here – see page 37)
The most and least desired sermon themes were the same across
denominations: both Elim and Anglican members most wanted to hear sermons
on the grace and forgiveness of God and the work of the Holy Spirit in the
believer’s life. Despite the large effect size of the item “hell and damnation”,
participants from both denominations least wanted to hear sermons on this
theme—with Anglicans more inclined to choose the “never” or “very rarely”
option, and Elim members tending to choose the “occasionally” option.
The item “questions concerning the believer in the workplace” did not
shed light on the desire for sermon relevance as hoped because an unexpectedly
high proportion of the sample (66.2%) were not in the work force. Both
Anglican and Elim members rated this theme moderately (with median ratings
of “about half of the time” and “quite often” respectively).
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 25
6.6. Variations within denominations
Analysis of the individual church responses reveals that the responses
from the Elim churches were similar. This suggests that the results were not
significantly affected by the unanticipated ‘move of the Spirit’ that delayed the
questionnaire distribution at Elim Church A. However, the responses from the
Anglican churches showed more variation. Anglican church B (where 20% of
the participants described themselves as Evangelical or
Pentecostal/Charismatic) had five significant differences in sermon responses
and preferences to Elim church A and eight to Elim church B. Conversely,
Anglican church A (which had a strong liberal membership) had 23 significant
differences to Elim church A and 28 significant differences to Elim church B.
Nevertheless, members of both Anglican churches gave higher ratings
than Elim members for preferring sermons with significant intellectual content
and social justice and peace themes, while the Elim ratings were higher for
almost all other variables.
7. DISCUSSION
The findings provided support for our prediction that Mainline and
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 26
Pentecostal Christians would differ in their evaluations of sermon effectiveness
and in the types of features and themes they prefer in sermons.
Our first hypothesis, that Pentecostals would rate sermons within their
denomination more highly than Mainline members rate sermons within their
denomination, was supported for all variables. The high Pentecostal sermon
ratings are reflected in frequent Pentecostal church attendance and increasing
numbers nationwide, highlighting the usefulness of research on sermon
effectiveness to those concerned with church growth.
Hypotheses 2A , 2B and 2C were also supported. Pentecostals gave a
higher rating than Mainline members for preferring strong emotional appeals in
sermons and significant Biblical content, and Mainline members gave a higher
rating than Pentecostals for preferring significant intellectual content in
sermons. That this trend occurred despite (a) no significant differences in the
educational qualifications of the members of each denomination, and (b) 8.5%
of Mainline members identifying their theology as Evangelical or
Pentecostal/Charismatic, lends support to Eckstein’s (2005) finding that people
prefer the types of sermons they are used to.
Hypotheses 3A and 3B were also supported. Pentecostals showed a
higher preference than Mainline members for spiritual themes in sermons, and
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 27
Mainline members showed a higher preference than Pentecostals for preferring
themes of social justice and peace issues. Although, as predicted, Anglicans
rated the item “transformation of society” higher than Elim members rated it,
the difference was not statistically significant. Most likely this reflects the
enthusiasm of the Pentecostal sample. With the exception of the two themes
(“social justice and peace issues” and “the transformation of society”), Elim
participants wanted sermons on every theme—spiritual and this-worldly—
either equally or more frequently than Anglican members wanted them. An
additional explanation is that the phrase “transformation of society” is open to
interpretation and could be construed, for example, in apocalyptic terms.
Despite the differences in denominational mean rank scores, when the
data was interpreted by median scores there were considerable parallels.
Participants from all the churches showed a relatively high emotional (rather
than cognitive or behavioural) response to sermons. They also wanted to hear
most often sermons on “the grace and forgiveness of God” and sermons that
were comprehensible, direct, and made them feel good (features we would
expect to be preferred in most types of communications, religious or secular.)
The high preference for sermons on grace and forgiveness may explain why
participants from both denominations least wanted to hear sermons on hell and
damnation. Most likely members who believe in hell did not favour these
messages because hell and damnation are the opposite of the grace and
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 28
forgiveness sermon themes they desire. The lack of personal relevance may
also be a factor, given that none of the participants were likely to believe they
were going to hell.
An unexpected finding was that 83% of the whole sample reported that
sermons “filled [them] with a sense of God’s love” and made them “want to
praise and thank God” half of the time or more. This positive response presents
a challenge to 30 years of scholarship in which researchers have not found any
evidence to suggest that sermons are significantly beneficial to the majority of
listeners. This indicates that research on sermon effectiveness, with its focus on
recall and behavioural change, does not fully capture the value of sermons for
participants. Religious speech, perhaps more than other communications,
depends strongly on what scholars call the communication climate (i.e. the
emotional atmosphere that is experienced instinctively), which participants
might call the ‘movement of the Spirit’. This variable does not lend itself easily
to academic research and is often beyond the scope of sermon studies.
8. CONCLUSION
In this study we attempted to move beyond sermon effectiveness studies
based on characteristics of the speaker and listener, and explore denomination
as a factor reflecting different theologies, preaching and worship styles. The
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 29
first contribution of this paper is that we have offered preliminary evidence that
sermons are not as ineffective as previously supposed. The second contribution
is that we have provided material on preferred sermon features and themes that
can be used by preachers who wish to be sensitive to the theological
underpinnings of the faith traditions. Our third contribution is that we have
extended Newman and Wright’s study of Catholics to Anglicans and
Pentecostals, and provided an empirical base for their theory that reported
sermon effectiveness will be higher in the less liturgical churches.
Several limitations to this study preclude in depth interpretation. The
data was based on a low non-representative sample of churches, and small sizes
in the demographic sub-samples made it difficult to fully assess the impact of
the different theological outlooks. There was also a variation in the
denominational response rates within the study and limited information on
how participants interpreted sermon themes. Additionally, there is no way of
knowing whether participants really did rate sermons in general within their
denomination and not their specific experience during the sermon they had just
heard. Replication and refinement of this kind of study across churches is
needed to validate, extend and develop the findings.
Further study is especially important because the major research of
Pargament and Silverman (1982) and Newman and Wright (1980), is now over
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 30
25 years old. There have been significant changes since the 1980s: more
involvement of the laity, increased ordination of women, expanded access to
other services via televangelism, the rise of the electronic church, and the
growth of the Charismatic movement.
One of the paradoxes of previous studies showing that sermons have
minimal effects on listeners is that millions of people throughout the world
voluntarily listen to sermons and believe that they are benefiting from them.
Our relatively positive findings suggest that this contradiction may be due, in
part, to the discrepancy between what researchers and participants believe to be
the purpose of sermons. We submit that, to be truly beneficial, future
discussions of sermon effectiveness should take into account both the speakers’
aims and the listeners’ hopes and expectations. If Christians perceive sermons
not as lessons to be remembered and applied to daily life, but in terms of
spiritual, emotional and mental stimulation, and primarily as opportunities for
divine love to fill their hearts, then the findings may offer insights not just for
preachers, but for anyone concerned with people’s existential needs.
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 31
REFERENCES
Brookes, N. (1998). Shaping a future, incorporating lifting the lid on the New Zealand
church. Auckland, N.Z.: Omega Distributors.
Eckstein, J. L. (2005). “Conversion conundrums: Listener perceptions of
affective influence attempts as mediated by personality and individual
differences”. Communication Quarterly, 53(3), 401-19.
Gordy, J. (2001). “Toward a theology of Pentecostal preaching”. Journal of
Pentecostal Theology, 10(1), 81-97.
Greene, M. (1998). Is anybody listening? Retrieved Sept. 12, 2006, from:
http://www.licc.org.uk/pdfs/isanybodylistening.pdf
Howden, W. D. (1989). “’Good sermon, preacher’: The effects of age, sex, and
education on hearing response to preaching”. Review of Religious
Research, 31(2), 196-207.
Hunsenberger, B., Pratt, M., & Pancer, S. M. (1994). “Religious fundamentalism
and integrative complexity of thought: A relationship for existential
content only?” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 33(4), 335-46.
Joseph, S. A., & Thompson, T. L. (2004). “The effect of vividness on the
memorability and persuasiveness of a sermon: A test of the elaboration
likelihood model”. Journal of Communication and Religion, 27, 217-44.
Kavan, H. (1995). “Glossolalia and altered states of consciousness”. PhD diss.,
Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand.
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 32
Maybury, K., & Chickering, S. (2001). “The influence of pastor status and sex on
evaluations of sermons”. Review of Religious Research, 42(4), 415–24.
Newman, W. M., & Wright, S. A. (1980). “The effects of sermons among lay
Catholics: An exploratory study”. Review of Religious Research, 22(1), 54–9.
Pargament, K. I., & DeRosa, D. V. (1985). “What was that sermon about?
Predicting memory for religious messages from cognitive psychology
theory”. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 24(2), 119–236.
Pargament, K. I. & Silverman, W. H. (1982). “Exploring some correlates of
sermon impact on Catholic Parishioners”. Review of Religious Research,
24(1), 33–9.
Price, D. L., Terry, W. R. & Johnston, B. C. (1980). “The Measurement of the
Effect of Preaching and Preaching plus Small Group Dialogue in one
Baptist church”. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 19(2), 186–97.
Ragsdale, J. D., & Durham, K. R. (1986). “Audience response to religious fear
appeals”. Review of Religious Research, 28, 40-50.
Rokeach, M. (1970). “Faith, hope and bigotry”. Psychology Today, April 1970, 33-
58.
Sethi, S., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1993). “Optimism and fundamentalism”.
Psychological Science, 4, 256–9.
Statistics New Zealand. (2006). “Quick stats about culture and identity”. Table
28 (Religious affiliation) & Table 29 (Age group and sex by religious
affiliation). Retrieved Nov. 15, 2008, from:
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 33
http://www.stats.govt.nz/census/2006-census-data/quickstats-about-
culture-identity/quickstats-about-culture-and-
identity.htm?page=para014Master
Taiwo, R. (2005). “Forms and functions of interrogation in Charismatic
Christian pulpit discourse”. Nebula, 2(4), 117-131.
Wagner, C. P. (1973). What are we missing? Carol Stream, IL: Creation House.
Webster, A. C. & Perry, P. (1989). The religious factor in New Zealand society.
Palmerston North, New Zealand: Alpha Publications.
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 34
Table 1: Sermon effectiveness: Anglican and Elim.†
Sermon effectiveness
questions
Anglican
median
Anglican
mean
rank
Elim
median
Elim
mean
rank
Significance
p =
Effect
size#
r =
Has a sermon made you
want to praise and thank
God?
Do you think your
knowledge of Jesus
Christ has improved due
to sermons?
Do sermons provide you
with a sense of God’s
love?
Do sermons relate the
message of Christ to the
problems in your life?
In reality, do sermons
affect the way you see
God?
Do sermons answer
your important
questions about God
and religion?
After a sermon do you
ever feel like telling
others about God’s love?
Have you ever changed
your attitude to another
person because of a
sermon you heard?
Have you ever read a
part of the Bible because
of a sermon you heard?
Do the guidelines in
sermons actually change
the way you live?
5
5
5
4
5
4
3
3
3
3
58.11
64.62
71.30
62.44
68.42
65.99
56.74
58.79
55.76
59.58
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
89.62
83.61
77.45
85.62
80.10
82.35
90.88
88.99
91.78
88.25
.000*
.006*
.366
.001*
.091
.018*
.000*
.000*
.000*
.000*
-.379
-.227
-.074
-.278
-.139
-.194
-.405
-.367
-.432
-.345
† 1 = never, 2 = very rarely, 3 = occasionally, 4 = about half of the time, 5 = quite often, 6 =
frequently, 7 = always.
# r < .10 no effect, r = .11 - .29 small effect, r = .30 – .49 moderate effect, r > .50 large effect.
* Significant result at the p. < 05 level.
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 35
Table 2: Sermon effectiveness: Anglican and Elim, compared with Newman and Wright’s Catholic responses
Anglican A† Anglican B† Elim A† Elim B† Catholic*
1 - 2 3 – 4 5-7 1 – 2 3 – 4 5-7 1 – 2 3 – 4 5-7 1 - 2 3-4 5-7 1 – 3 4 - 5 6 - 7
n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
praise 2 5 20 49 19 46 0 0 5 17 25 83 0 0 8 27 22 73 0 0 5 11 42 89 259 48 216 40 60 11
knowledge 3 7 15 37 23 56 4 13 6 20 20 67 2 7 7 23 21 70 0 0 8 17 39 83 179 34 271 50 85 16
love 6 15 9 22 26 64 0 0 3 10 27 90 3 10 7 23 20 67 0 0 6 13 41 87 129 24 234 44 173 32
problems 2 5 26 63 13 32 1 3 10 33 19 63 0 0 10 33 20 67 0 0 9 19 38 81 133 25 234 42 178 33
see 5 12 18 44 18 4 3 10 5 17 22 73 3 10 9 30 18 60 2 4 11 23 34 72 251 47 183 34 100 19
questions 6 15 23 56 12 29 1 3 9 30 20 67 3 10 13 43 14 47 1 2 11 23 35 75 147 28 205 38 182 34
tell 18 44 17 42 6 15 3 10 15 50 12 40 2 7 12 40 16 53 3 6 15 32 29 62 253 48 170 32 113 21
attitude 7 17 28 68 6 15 5 17 14 47 11 37 2 7 9 30 19 63 4 9 18 38 25 53 229 43 170 32 136 25
read 20 49 16 39 5 12 4 13 16 53 10 33 2 7 16 53 12 40 2 4 16 34 29 62 187 35 182 34 91 17
live 10 24 25 61 6 15 5 17 11 37 14 47 2 7 14 47 14 47 3 6 17 36 27 57 244 45 158 29 57 10
% mean 19% 48% 33% 9% 31% 60% 7% 36% 59% 3% 25% 72% 36% 38% 22%
N.B. Some proportion figures do not add exactly to 100% due to rounding.
† 1 = never, 2 = very rarely, 3 = occasionally, 4 = about half of the time, 5 = quite often, 6 = frequently, 7 = always.
* 1 - 3 = never or seldom, 4 – 5 = sometimes, 6 - 7 = often or very often.
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 36
Table 3: Desired sermon features: Anglican and Elim†
Desired features
Anglican
median
Anglican
mean
rank
Elim
median
Elim
mean
rank
Significance
p =
Effect
size#
r =
Good eye contact
between the speaker
and the congregation.
6
67.58
6
80.88
.046*
-.163
The presentation of a
clear central topic
with easy to follow
points.
6
77.53
6
71.71
.380
-.072
A sermon with a lot
of Biblical content.
5 60.27 6 87.62 .000* -.327
The presentation of
the Gospel, followed
by an altar call.
2
48.94
6
98.06
.000*
-.580
The use of story
telling and other
anecdotes during the
sermon.
5
69.38
5
79.22
.143
-.120
A sermon containing
humour.
5
74.03
5
74.94
.894
-.010
Wide-ranging
variation in the
speaker’s voice.
4
65.82
5
81.64
.021*
-.189
A sermon with
significant intellectual
content.
5
87.27
5
62.72
.000*
-.292
A sermon containing
strong emotional
appeals.
3
64.87
4
83.38
.007*
-.222
The frequent use of
gestures.
3 63.96 5 84.21 .003* -.242
The use of drama and
other visual
presentations during
the sermon.
3
66.23
4
82.13
.019*
-.192
Opportunity for
questions and other
two way forms of
feedback.
3
57.13
4
90.51
.000*
-.403
† 1 = never, 2 = very rarely, 3 = occasionally, 4 = about half of the time, 5 = quite often, 6 =
frequently, 7 = always.
# r < .10 no effect, r = .11 - .29 small effect, r = .30 – .49 moderate effect, r > .50 large effect.
* Significant result at the p < .05 level.
Pre-print version, Sermon responses 37
Table 4: Desired sermon themes: Anglican and Elim†
Desired themes
Anglican
median
Anglican
mean
rank
Elim
median
Elim
mean
rank
Significance
p =
Effect
size#
r =
The grace and
forgiveness of God.
5 67.00 6 81.42
.036* -.017
The work of the Holy
Spirit in the believer’s
life.
5 63.29 6 84.84 .002* -.025
The life and times of
Jesus Christ.
5 70.96 5 77.76 .322 -.08
Biblical attitudes
towards the poor.
5 73.42 5 75.50 .761 -.02
Questions concerning
the believer in the
workplace.
4 70.68 5 78.02 .283 -.089
Biblical attitudes
towards money.
3 63.79 4 84.38 .002* -.025
The judgement of God. 3 62.14 4 85.90 .000* -.029
Questions concerning
the transformation of
society.
4 77.96 4 71.31 .334 -.079
Heaven and the
afterlife.
3 61.19 3 86.77 .000* -.319
Biblical attitudes
towards sexuality.
3 60.83 3 87.10 .000* -.327
Social justice and
peace issues.
4 87.16 3 62.82 .000* -.290
Hell and damnation. 2 51.27 3 95.92 .000* -.537
† 1 = never, 2 = very rarely, 3 = occasionally, 4 = about half of the time, 5 = quite often, 6 =
frequently, 7 = always.
# r < .10 no effect, r = .11 - .29 small effect, r = .30 – .49 moderate effect, r > .50 large effect.
* Significant result at p < .05 level.
top related