My intention here is to challenge small group leaders not to ask what is probably the most common first question in small groups. It seems like a fair-minded, open-ended, potentially profitable question, but it rarely is, if ever. The question goes, “So, what did you think of the sermon?” I cannot recall hearing a good initial answer to this question. But I do not blame the answerers. It is difficult to give a good answer to a bad question. Poor questions prompt poor answers.
Before moving on, I should admit that I still ask this question. It slips through my lips like a bad habit. I am hoping that by writing this article, I will further discipline myself not to keep asking it.
Reasons “What Did You Think of the Sermon?” Is not a Good Question
Why is asking what the small group thinks of the sermon a bad question? I offer four reasons here.
It reinforces emotionalism. In our context, to ask what someone thinks about something is all but the same as asking how someone feels about something. Why is that wrong? It is not wrong for the students to feel, is it? Of course it is not. However, by asking how students think, and therefore feel, about the sermon, that translates in our culture to the same way of thinking that the culture promotes. It has been called “expressive individualism,” and it refers to the expression of feelings for personal fulfillment. In other words, the most important step for me to be happy is to express how I feel without judgment.[1] First responses are often emotional, not critical, and the students need to learn to think critically.
It assumes the students already know how to think. You aren’t as interested in knowing what they think as teaching them how to think. Students do not know how to think about sermons. They may know how they feel about it, but they do not know what to make of their feelings. Asking them what they think of the sermons puts them in the place of deciding the criteria they will use to evaluate the sermon. But students do not know what criteria should be used to evaluate sermons. Our questions should model the proper criteria for evaluating sermons rather than implicitly placing the onus on them to know without ever learning.
It assumes the students have an answer ready. What they think is precisely what students often don’t know. Students rarely know what they think about a sermon. Their observations are often half-shaped and rarely thought out. Small group leaders should use questions that helps to draw out assumptions, intuitions, and presuppositions that the students do not realize that they have. They need help to articulate them.
It places the students in a position to criticize the preaching rather than in the position of being examined by Scripture. The preacher could always do better. But the students are not there primarily to criticize the preacher. Instead, the students are there to hear the word of God preached so that they may respond appropriately. The emphasis in small group should be on the impact of God’s word on their heart and lives rather than their critical evaluation of the manner in which it is delivered to them. The preacher is like a server at a restaurant. The server’s job is to make the dining experience as seamless as possible, making the time spent in the restaurant about the food. The server may bring the wrong dish, or spit in the food, or have a funny walk when he brings it to the table, but if the server is doing his job, then he will ensure the people at his table receive their order in a timely and efficient manner without making the experience about him. It is all about the food. So it is with preaching. A server who makes it all about himself is annoying. A restaurant that is best known for something other than its food is gimmicky. It is no different with preaching.
The final argument I offer is that the question is just too vague. Every time I am asked the question, the first word in my head is either “Uuh…” or “Good.” If that is my response, do I expect students to do much better?
On Sermons, Sermonizers, and the Sermonized
Before moving on, I should acknowledge the fact that not all sermons are created equal. Preachers sometimes flop. Sometimes they misinterpret passages. Sometimes their illustrations don’t make sense. Sometimes they misspeak and say something funny, or even offensive, by accident. Sometimes the sermon is in poor taste, and sometimes it is poorly delivered. Nothing I am writing here is meant to detract from these facts. Bad sermons should be recognized as bad sermons. Good sermons should be recognized as good sermons. Some sermons will seem good to some and bad to others. This is the nature of things. It is unavoidable. However, in all these things, the nature of preaching must be understood. It is not finally about how someone feels, but about whom it is supposed to reveal. Paul charges Timothy in Second Timothy 4 to preach the word. Paul reminds the Colossians that he and his companions proclaim Christ. Paul also tells the Corinthians that he determined to know nothing among them except Christ and Him crucified. Paul also describes in Second Corinthians 4 how what people need to see through preaching is the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. This does not come through a glimpse into heaven, but it occurs as the Spirit opens the eyes of people to perceive Christ truly through preaching.
What, then, are reasonable alternatives to this question? Is there a form of the question that is worth asking? I suggest that there are good alternatives. I include the same initial questions for each small group discussion. Those questions form the focus of future articles. For the purpose of this article, I restrict myself to offering a couple categories on which to base questions. The two categories of questions are interpretation and application.
The first category is interpretation. Questions about interpretation prompt students to consider the sermon’s argument. They ask the student to consider what the sermon claims about the text that was preached. We should all seek to be like the Bereans, who are described in Acts 17 as noble because they listened to preaching and then went back and checked the Scriptures themselves to see if the things they had heard preached were so. In other words, the Bereans checked that the preaching they heard was accurate. So should we. Any question that prompts the listeners to consider the validity and accuracy of what they heard is profitable. After all, just think of the alternative. If the text they heard preached distorted or ignored the text, then insofar as Christ is supposed to be preached and known through the text, the vision of Him will be distorted. If that is true, then the image painted by the sermon needs to be corrected.
The second category is application. Questions about application prompt students to consider the effect of the sermon on their thinking, desiring, or doing. In a word, application is about the heart. A review of passages like Psalm 1, Psalm 19:7-11, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, or Hebrews 4:12 reminds us that Scripture does things to us. Hearing Scripture preached should have a positive impact on listeners’ lives. Listeners may find themselves instructed where they were ignorant or reinforced where they were already knowledgeable. They may find themselves strengthened where weak or challenged where they thought they were strong. They may find themselves rebuked or admonished for sins or comforted by the hope and forgiveness offered in the gospel. The list of potential impacts is endless, which is no surprise, based on the passages listed above.
Conclusion
I will consider specific questions that can be asked, or that I recommend asking, in future articles. For now, I hope I have convinced leaders that asking “What did you think of the sermon?” is not a good opener. It sounds innocent enough, and I assume nothing but good intentions behind it. However, its usefulness all but dies on the lips of the person who asks it. It is an easy and obvious thing to ask, but that is no reflection of its appropriateness, only of its normalness.
[1] The term “expressive individualism,” according to my research, was coined by Robert Bellah in a 1985 book, then popularized further by Charles Taylor in his well-known 2007 book, A Secular Age, then brought into the Evangelical world through Carl Trueman’s The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self in 2020.