Voice volume is certainly highly susceptible to practice and training. My voice registers at a harmful decibel level at 0.5m when at close to full volume.
I think Wesley did have a tendency to over-estimate the size of the crowds who came to hear him. Estimating crowd numbers is a difficult thing to do.
That doesn't mean he didn't get sizeable crowds. He undoubtedly did.
The present resident of the White House also has a tendency to over-estimate the size of crowds. Unlike Wesley, however, I'm not so sure he gets sizeable crowds.
In relation to preaching from the Sermon on the Mount, on the two occasions I've had the start of the sermon to preach from I've started "Blessed are the Cheesemakers" (and, that's two different congregations, so they didn't have to endure that sermon from me twice).
I suspect that those at the back didn't hear it all clearly. But they would all have heard just about - all the things people have already said. People were used to listening to speakers.
I have a friend who gives voice lessons as well as singing lessons. He once coached an actress who was playing a role that involved giving several blood-curdling screams at each performance. If she has done these screams the normal way, her voice would have been gone by the end of the first performance. He taught her to scream using the power of her diaphragm and using her vocal cords only to control the pitch. The play went to many performances and her voice held out.
Hehe! I'm not questioning the power of proper voice-production! Of course in the days before artificial amplification people learnt how to project etc. And maybe Wesley and his ilk were supernaturally blessed! But I think it's overestimated how well heard they really were beyond a certain level - especially outside of an auditorium. And in order to make the words properly heard, you can only imagine how SLOWLY .... AND... CLEARLY... AND.... LOUDLY.... YOU... WOULD... HAVE.... TO .... SPEAK etc! A whole other different kind of delivery and preaching. It probably took an hour and a half of preaching in that way to deliver two sides of an A4 sheet!
Even in auditoriums - like theatres etc; there's a reason why, pre-amplification, the old Victorian/Georgian buildings were comparatively cosy in style and lay-out, compared to today's big halls. The poor seats were in the gods and slips because the sound quality was so feeble that far away (and vision, too, admittedly). Some orators and singers no doubt hit the wall at the back of the hall, but a lot of the time - judging by contemporary reports - it wasn't a pretty sound!
In at least 2 accounts the crowd are vaguely in some form of preparation, he's not speaking through them.
With S.C I suspect there were grades of listening from those beyond the back being vaguely aware someone was speaking. Those at the back hearing the 'key point' equivalents (but blessed be the cheese-mongers having an element of plausibility to it)
I suspect there was also a fair bit of inter and intra occasion repetition. The sermon given in Lukes version is also relatively small.
Also regarding the events
In Lukes 5000 we don't know what was said (so could have involved some movement)
Matthews 5000 has him healing but no mention of sermon, in his 4000 people had been there 3 days
Marks 5000 has teaching and while the 4000 has no details
While the Sermon on the Plain was to a great crowd Of disciples, Matthew's Sermon is given to disciples who came to him, but occurs pre-Matthew, so clearly disciples not Disciples.
Clearly what we need to do is find 5000 people, a soap box and experiment
I know it's different - but opera singers in opera houses don't use microphones but have to sing from behind an 80-piece orchestra.
We don't need no stinkin' microphones. We do have to be properly trained.
And even then, you have to be able to alter your voice to suit a large audience or a face-to-face chat. You can or you can't. I can - perhaps cadet training taught me how to bark out orders leading a company around the parade ground, but I could stand on the stage of the Opera Theatre and be heard clearly in the back row of the gallery. And a real test is that I can speak clearly enough to be heard throughout the parish hall without a microphone, that hall having dreadful acoustics. (I don't have a good singing voice, it's cracked and weak)
To be fair, when the acoustics suck the preaching is likely to be hard to hear even with mikes. My in-laws' church is tiled everywhere (as are many buildings in the South of France where it's 35° for a large part of the summer) which makes the sound bounce off every surface interminably. The first time I went there, the combination of the horrible acoustics and Southern accents you could cut with a knife meant that I had a very hard time following. They've tried to improve things since but it's still pretty rough.
Isn't the Albert Hall a venue where it was said any composer could be sure of hearing his own work - at least twice...?
Anybody else been to the amphitheatre in Ephesus, scene of the biblical riot? It seats 25,000 and you can easily hear someone on the stage from the cheap seats.
Otherwise, I'm with Spurgeon on these matters. One of my favourite bits in his Lectures to my students is this bit on the perils of the pulpit:
when you stand up and would come to the front there is often a curious gutta-percha bag interposed between you and your pulpit. This gummy depository is charitably intended for the assistance of certain deaf people, who are I hope benefited; they ought to be, for every evil should have a compensating influence. You cannot bend forward without forcing this contrivance to close up, and I for my own part usually deposit my pocket-handkerchief in it, which causes the deaf people to take the ends of the tubes out of their ears and to discover that they hear me well enough without them.
Isn't the Albert Hall a venue where it was said any composer could be sure of hearing his own work - at least twice...?
Anybody else been to the amphitheatre in Ephesus, scene of the biblical riot? It seats 25,000 and you can easily hear someone on the stage from the cheap seats.
I sang some of Engelbert Humperdinck's 'Please Release' and got some applause!
I could stand on the stage of the Opera Theatre and be heard clearly in the back row of the gallery. And a real test is that I can speak clearly enough to be heard throughout the parish hall without a microphone, that hall having dreadful acoustics.
Though, regardless of your assessment of your ability to be heard without a microphone, if there is a microphone use it.
Yes but the reason for using a microphone is not simply to be heard by a person with normal hearing in the back of the room. It is in part to cope with those who would not hear you if they were standing next to you and partly it is to allow a more natural speaking experience. When using a microphone you still need to SLOW DOWN and ENNUCIATE. Otherwise, all you get is a loud mumble. As this is closer to natural speaking I also expect it is kinder on your own vocal chords.
I could stand on the stage of the Opera Theatre and be heard clearly in the back row of the gallery. And a real test is that I can speak clearly enough to be heard throughout the parish hall without a microphone, that hall having dreadful acoustics.
Though, regardless of your assessment of your ability to be heard without a microphone, if there is a microphone use it.
I've done it, admittedly rather younger than I am now.
Those of us with deficient hearing, who use hearing aids, appreciate the 'loop' facility supported by microphone usage.
As the person responsible for the sound system at our place I'm glad to hear it is valued. Now if only I could get all the preachers to actually pay some attention to the location of the microphone. Bonus points if they tell me they want to wander around or us pulpit to address 20 people so I can wire them up properly. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to gently explain to a preacher that while, yes, they may well not need the microphone to make themselves heard, several members of our congregation rely on the hearing loop and won't hear you without it.
Though it now occurs to me that this would not necessarily be a bad thing.
And also, preachers do need to realise that if they are using the radio mike to wander around, they do need to remember to turn it off when "off stage" in the vestry or toilet.
I can be heard at the back of the church here, practice at being heard by rowdy classes, but anyone relying on the hearing loop won't hear. One disastrous morning the lectern was set up with a dodgy microphone, which kept cutting in and out. It was my turn to lead intercessions and I ended up pitching up and down as the mike cut in and out - so there'd be a word missing or very loud here and there as I had to hear the feedback to know if the mike was picking me up or not and then respond.
When I used to preach, I was told to use it as an enhancement device. So I needed to make myself heard as well as I could, but the microphone would then make sure I could be heard clearly everywhere.
And yes it is important to use the mic. For the loop, for the clarity of everyone (at the back, and at the front). And to not use it seems arrogant ("I am so good, I can be heard without these new fangled toys"), and unfair - as has been pointed out, some people need the cound system.
Arethosemyfeet - yes tell people to use it poperly. And sound people do a great job, all the better if they are not noticed.
Someone who lived next door to my sister's church was able to hear the service from her bed by turning her hearing aid to the T-setting.
The church where I grew up and the URC maybe 400 yards down the road used radio mikes tuned to the same frequency. Not a problem, except, for some reason, when the bus went along the road between the two churches.
And also, preachers do need to realise that if they are using the radio mike to wander around, they do need to remember to turn it off when "off stage" in the vestry or toilet.
Allegedly confessions (in those churches which practice it) can be fascinating.
The week after that came up in the lectionary last year I was preaching on the parable that follows (wheat and tares), but I linked them together because in both cases there is good soil. That good soil being something that took a lot of work by the farmer to prepare - removing stones, digging out weeds before sowing, digging in fertiliser etc.
The message of the wheat and the tares also includes the farmer taking the effort to sort out his seed, so that it's good seed that is sown onto good soil. It seems to me that a common theme of the bizarre preaching reported here is a preacher who doesn't take the time and effort to make sure the seed sown from the pulpit is good seed.
What's particularly daft is that if you wanted fuel for claiming that a lot of churchgoers are not saved there's plenty to be had. You could go with "many are called but few are chosen" or "not everyone who says to me 'Lord! Lord!'..."
Those of us with deficient hearing, who use hearing aids, appreciate the 'loop' facility supported by microphone usage.
Very, VERY important point. We had a little dramatic interlude in church recently. I managed to get one of the actors to use a body-mic; but the other two refused even to use a lectern mike. 'The loop users will need it, and the rest of us would appreciate it, too.' But, no. What did I know about being heard in a huge building, with a congregation including some hearing-impaired folk?! 'We think we can project our voices well enough!' came the reply. I tried to tell them that they could scream till they're blue in the face, but the point of the loop is that it puts their voice directly into the ear of severely hearing-impaired people, so they would be, in effect, ensuring that those people wouldn't hear what they're saying, if they didn't use the PA system.
I might as well have been speaking to a brick wall! Oh the irony of the feedback from one of our loop users: 'It was really nice. But couldn't hear two of them at all!' Guess which two?
The loop system in our church was broken in the various quakes that have hit Christchurch😭. I really miss it, although it has been replaced by a new sound system it's not helpful to those of us who need the loop technology. I have been told that "the loop system is old technology", which may well be true, but at least I could hear every. single. word. and nothing else has had that effect. I was absolutely delight to find that when the repairs are done we will again have the loop.
So he was back again yesterday. Not quite so many obvious howlers, though the claim that the Old Testament never mentions God's grace strikes me as a bit iffy "the Lord is gracious and compassionate...". Likewise the complaint that the "ministry of Word and Sacrament" is unbiblical because the Bible only mentions the ministry of the Word.
I'm sure I've seen stuff in the Bible about baptism and sharing bread and wine in an orderly manner.
Yeah, but the word 'Sacrament' isn't in there! You know the attitude some people have about the Bible; what's the phrase: Some people treat it so literally, if the Bible were a menu, they'd try to eat it?
Some of my Baptist colleagues would use "ordinance" rather than "sacrament".
In my experience, all Baptists on this side of The Pond would use “ordinance” rather than “sacrament.” Many would consider this a matter of theological import rather than just a matter of preference.
Rather fewer than there used be, after ++Peter Jensen and ++Glenn Davies have done their bit , albeit in different ways. ++Glenn appointed a mate from an interstate parish to one we know of here - that has been disastrous despite a pretence of keeping the old style. OK, the mate's prepared to wear vestments and carry on the sacramental pattern in which the parish had worshipped, but on our visits his heart is clearly not in it and his preaching is not good in either style or content.
So today was Groundhog day at our church. Preacher was back. Preaching on the parable of the sower again. Making the innumerate and theologically dubious claim that it means only a quarter of churchgoers are saved. Again. I did at least find out the reason - he was ordained as an evangelist and doesn't (if I understood him right) have any theological study under his belt. And thinks "devices" are all about living in a fantasy world so presumably thinks googling is sinful. I don't know whether the Church of Scotland continues this practice of ordaining people without educating them first but I hope not. He also enlightened us of his opinion, stated as fact, that Charles Spurgeon was the greatest preacher in Britain ever. The main topic today was about how wonderful testimony is. Having heard a fair amount when the Faith Mission come to visit I'm... not convinced. Genuine stories of God at work in people's lives? Sure. Formulaic "I was a terrible sinner but I had a conversion experience and now my life is wonderful" speeches from people it turns out were raised in Christian households and conditioned to expect their "conversion" experience? Not so much.
I don't know whether the Church of Scotland continues this practice of ordaining people without educating them first but I hope not.
No, they don't and I would doubt that they ever did. It is a long, long time since evangelists were appointed, and if they were ordained, you can reasonably bet that they had some education first. Of course your guy might be one of the last of them, or he might have been ordained by another denomination, since you don't have to be CofS to do pulpit supply, as you know.
It did used to be that a person could be ordained to various ministries of the Kirk, such as to teaching in a divinity faculty, or to overseas missionary service, but now ordination is pretty much only to Word and Sacrament and there is a lot of education to go through first, even for an Ordained Local Minister.
(However, the important role of youth worker carries no compulsory education or checks and balances....)
Comments
In relation to preaching from the Sermon on the Mount, on the two occasions I've had the start of the sermon to preach from I've started "Blessed are the Cheesemakers" (and, that's two different congregations, so they didn't have to endure that sermon from me twice).
Even in auditoriums - like theatres etc; there's a reason why, pre-amplification, the old Victorian/Georgian buildings were comparatively cosy in style and lay-out, compared to today's big halls. The poor seats were in the gods and slips because the sound quality was so feeble that far away (and vision, too, admittedly). Some orators and singers no doubt hit the wall at the back of the hall, but a lot of the time - judging by contemporary reports - it wasn't a pretty sound!
With S.C I suspect there were grades of listening from those beyond the back being vaguely aware someone was speaking. Those at the back hearing the 'key point' equivalents (but blessed be the cheese-mongers having an element of plausibility to it)
I suspect there was also a fair bit of inter and intra occasion repetition. The sermon given in Lukes version is also relatively small.
Also regarding the events
In Lukes 5000 we don't know what was said (so could have involved some movement)
Matthews 5000 has him healing but no mention of sermon, in his 4000 people had been there 3 days
Marks 5000 has teaching and while the 4000 has no details
While the Sermon on the Plain was to a great crowd Of disciples, Matthew's Sermon is given to disciples who came to him, but occurs pre-Matthew, so clearly disciples not Disciples.
Clearly what we need to do is find 5000 people, a soap box and experiment
And even then, you have to be able to alter your voice to suit a large audience or a face-to-face chat. You can or you can't. I can - perhaps cadet training taught me how to bark out orders leading a company around the parade ground, but I could stand on the stage of the Opera Theatre and be heard clearly in the back row of the gallery. And a real test is that I can speak clearly enough to be heard throughout the parish hall without a microphone, that hall having dreadful acoustics. (I don't have a good singing voice, it's cracked and weak)
Anybody else been to the amphitheatre in Ephesus, scene of the biblical riot? It seats 25,000 and you can easily hear someone on the stage from the cheap seats.
I sang some of Engelbert Humperdinck's 'Please Release' and got some applause!
I've done it, admittedly rather younger than I am now.
As the person responsible for the sound system at our place I'm glad to hear it is valued. Now if only I could get all the preachers to actually pay some attention to the location of the microphone. Bonus points if they tell me they want to wander around or us pulpit to address 20 people so I can wire them up properly. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to gently explain to a preacher that while, yes, they may well not need the microphone to make themselves heard, several members of our congregation rely on the hearing loop and won't hear you without it.
Though it now occurs to me that this would not necessarily be a bad thing.
I can be heard at the back of the church here, practice at being heard by rowdy classes, but anyone relying on the hearing loop won't hear. One disastrous morning the lectern was set up with a dodgy microphone, which kept cutting in and out. It was my turn to lead intercessions and I ended up pitching up and down as the mike cut in and out - so there'd be a word missing or very loud here and there as I had to hear the feedback to know if the mike was picking me up or not and then respond.
And yes it is important to use the mic. For the loop, for the clarity of everyone (at the back, and at the front). And to not use it seems arrogant ("I am so good, I can be heard without these new fangled toys"), and unfair - as has been pointed out, some people need the cound system.
Arethosemyfeet - yes tell people to use it poperly. And sound people do a great job, all the better if they are not noticed.
The church where I grew up and the URC maybe 400 yards down the road used radio mikes tuned to the same frequency. Not a problem, except, for some reason, when the bus went along the road between the two churches.
We occasionally got the pub down the road.
That and he seemed to be assuming that the four destinations for the seed have an equal probability. Which is... not supported by the text.
The message of the wheat and the tares also includes the farmer taking the effort to sort out his seed, so that it's good seed that is sown onto good soil. It seems to me that a common theme of the bizarre preaching reported here is a preacher who doesn't take the time and effort to make sure the seed sown from the pulpit is good seed.
If I had been paying more attention, I would have walked out.
Come to many Anglican churches in Sydney today and you'll get that.
Very, VERY important point. We had a little dramatic interlude in church recently. I managed to get one of the actors to use a body-mic; but the other two refused even to use a lectern mike. 'The loop users will need it, and the rest of us would appreciate it, too.' But, no. What did I know about being heard in a huge building, with a congregation including some hearing-impaired folk?! 'We think we can project our voices well enough!' came the reply. I tried to tell them that they could scream till they're blue in the face, but the point of the loop is that it puts their voice directly into the ear of severely hearing-impaired people, so they would be, in effect, ensuring that those people wouldn't hear what they're saying, if they didn't use the PA system.
I might as well have been speaking to a brick wall! Oh the irony of the feedback from one of our loop users: 'It was really nice. But couldn't hear two of them at all!' Guess which two?
That could make for some...interesting...activity in the pews after the service!
It's certainly what I grew up with, in a US fundamentalist church.
Yeah, but the word 'Sacrament' isn't in there! You know the attitude some people have about the Bible; what's the phrase: Some people treat it so literally, if the Bible were a menu, they'd try to eat it?
[edited by Alan Cresswell at Gee D's request]
So today was Groundhog day at our church. Preacher was back. Preaching on the parable of the sower again. Making the innumerate and theologically dubious claim that it means only a quarter of churchgoers are saved. Again. I did at least find out the reason - he was ordained as an evangelist and doesn't (if I understood him right) have any theological study under his belt. And thinks "devices" are all about living in a fantasy world so presumably thinks googling is sinful. I don't know whether the Church of Scotland continues this practice of ordaining people without educating them first but I hope not. He also enlightened us of his opinion, stated as fact, that Charles Spurgeon was the greatest preacher in Britain ever. The main topic today was about how wonderful testimony is. Having heard a fair amount when the Faith Mission come to visit I'm... not convinced. Genuine stories of God at work in people's lives? Sure. Formulaic "I was a terrible sinner but I had a conversion experience and now my life is wonderful" speeches from people it turns out were raised in Christian households and conditioned to expect their "conversion" experience? Not so much.
No, they don't and I would doubt that they ever did. It is a long, long time since evangelists were appointed, and if they were ordained, you can reasonably bet that they had some education first. Of course your guy might be one of the last of them, or he might have been ordained by another denomination, since you don't have to be CofS to do pulpit supply, as you know.
It did used to be that a person could be ordained to various ministries of the Kirk, such as to teaching in a divinity faculty, or to overseas missionary service, but now ordination is pretty much only to Word and Sacrament and there is a lot of education to go through first, even for an Ordained Local Minister.
(However, the important role of youth worker carries no compulsory education or checks and balances....)