Sermon as a Speech: Audience Adaptation and Persuasion

Introduction: A Sunday Sermon Under Scrutiny

Last Sunday when I went to church, our minister was absent and we had a substitute. He started out by making a joke. Everybody laughed, and it seemed to warm up the audience. The only trouble was that the joke had nothing to do with the topic of his speech. I thought it should — that an attention-getting device ought to lead naturally into a discussion of the topic and the central idea of the speech. His sermon was about how we should vote for Republicans because President Bush was against abortion and stem cell research and was, in the speaker's words, "a praying man."

His real topic was abortion. The central idea was that abortion is murder and therefore a sin. I suppose he could not think of a joke for such a serious topic — and, to be fair, I have never heard anyone joke about abortion either.

Topic, Central Idea, and Organization

The minister stated that women who have abortions are murderers. He gave statistics showing that more than 1.5 million babies were killed this way in the previous year. He said every baby was a child of God and that women who have abortions are simply taking the easy way out — that they engage in irresponsible and immoral sex and then do not want to face the consequences of their behavior. He argued that women who find themselves pregnant could carry their babies to term and give them up for adoption rather than, as he put it, killing them. He also contended that the Roe v. Wade decision, which made abortion legal in the first trimester, had opened the door to sin, premarital sex, and immorality, and that stem cell research was a logical consequence of condoning murder.

I thought the speech was structured reasonably well and was generally well-organized. He did establish a central idea and stuck to it throughout — except perhaps the section on stem cell research, which seemed to drift slightly off course. That said, one could argue it was related, since the research uses aborted fetuses. His reasoning was that if society accepts research on aborted fetuses, it may make something good appear to come from something he considered very evil, and that women who had abortions might feel less guilt about their decisions as a result.

Vocal Delivery and Audience Alienation

The first thing I noticed about him as a speaker was his voice. It was deep and resonant and could be heard easily throughout the entire church. He used it skillfully to enhance his message. He sounded as though he was near tears when he spoke about the unborn children, and he modulated his voice in ways that kept people engaged and listening.

However, I did not think it was wise to call women who have had abortions murderers. There may well have been women present who had undergone the procedure, and being labeled a murderer in a public setting would surely cause them pain — and, more practically, cause them to stop listening entirely. There may also have been men in the congregation whose wives, daughters, girlfriends, or even mothers had had an abortion, and they too would likely be offended by such a label being applied to people they loved. As any student of persuasive communication knows, audiences stop listening when they feel attacked or alienated.

Conclusion: Effective for the Already Persuaded

Because church is an appropriate place to discuss moral issues, the topic of abortion was arguably fitting. But none of his arguments were new, and frankly, as soon as I knew what he was going to talk about, I wished I had stayed home. I would have preferred something more uplifting.

Overall, the speech was effective only for those who already agreed with him. For those audience members, it reinforced and maintained their opposition to abortion. But for those who carry doubts, or who see genuine gray areas where the issue is not so clear-cut, the speech offered nothing. The delivery was excellent — he has obviously practiced and knows how to use his voice. But he did not adapt his message to his audience, and in the end, that is the most important failure of the sermon as a public speech.