For a long time, laity and clergy have been complaining about the poor quality of preaching in much of the Episcopal Church. One cleric I know spent his sabbatical going to as many church services as he could each weekend (some would consider this penance, not study!). Each Sunday he attended two, and sometimes three, services. By the end of his study time, he had been to almost 60 worship services. Often the liturgy was well done. The music was good most of the time. But the preaching! Far too often it was awful.

The list of indictments was long: Multiple messages. Poor organization. Sermons which bore little or no connection to the text. Sermons which were inaudible. Sermons which were too long. Tirades on a particular issue. One sermon, he told me, was a sales message for Cursillo (we are both supportive of this movement), but a sermon it was not.

Yet preaching is one of the most crucial ministries of the church. In what other setting does a group of people voluntarily sit still for 10 or 20 minutes and hope to hear some message which will help them live a better life, be inspired by the mighty works of God, and give them comfort or challenge? The Church Deployment Office tells us good preaching is one of the most important criteria used by congregations in selecting a new rector.

Clearly preaching is important. Then why is it done so badly so often? I do not know. I do know that most of the clergy of my acquaintance try very hard. And if my congregation's experience with supply clergy is any indication, they often fail. What shall we do? Many would suggest that we improve preaching by improving the clergy's skills at this task.

I have an alternative suggestion: Let the laity preach. Perhaps not every Sunday, but at least one a month. After all, the Episcopal Church has many educated and godly people who speak before groups every day: Business people, college professors, lawyers and teachers, to name some of the most obvious. Laity involved in Cursillo give serious talks about spiritual topics, and these are well received. Sometimes, simply because they are not from the "hired help."

I fear this may be seen as a slap in the face by many of my colleagues, but as many of us have experienced when laity talk about "stewardship" each year, people often are more impressed by the sincerity, if not the polish, of messages from fellow "pew sitters."

I believe the same could be said for a formal sermon upon the texts. In my congregation, there are many lay persons who have been a part of Bible study groups for many years. They know the scripture well. Some have taught adult education classes. Others have been to schools of spiritual direction or taken diocesan courses in ministry. In other parishes the EFM program is educating many in the ways of our Lord far beyond the "norm." Why not have such persons address the congregation?

I can think of a few objections. These people are not trained. They are not licensed. What happens if they are terrible? Are not the clergy specifically charged with seeing to the spiritual needs of those under their care? What about heresy?

I do not believe any of these problems is insurmountable. The key lies in two areas, selection and monitoring, with a lot of guidance included in the latter.

The first step would be to announce that such a ministry was beginning and see who might volunteer. My guess is that most of those who express a willingness to preach would be well prepared by life for such a task, and would be among the most godly members of a congregation. If a person clearly had no voice or was a well-known malcontent, the rector could simply not select them. But I would want to be cautious. After all, we cannot be sure who may or may not have the gift.

Then I would have some required training. This would include having a class on basic sermon preparation, the use of scripture in preaching, a discussion and practice session on the use of the voice. Even if a cleric has lost the inspiration, he or she should be able to prepare others. It is true that formal theological training could not be provided, but my sense is that most people are not looking for complex arguments, just a clear interpretation of what scripture is saying to them. Then each person would prepare a practice sermon and present it to the group.

Those whose practice sermons are adequate would become part of a pool of "local lay preachers." Then a lay person would be scheduled from the pool of those who have volunteered and have been trained to give the sermon once or twice a month. The congregation would benefit from hearing from another person, and the clergy would have more time to devote to other tasks during the "off" weeks, and perhaps be inspired to work harder on the message for the weeks they do preach.

Such persons should be licensed by the bishop, but our current requirements for licensing lay preachers are so rigorous that one practically needs to have a divinity degree to fulfill them. This makes sense if a person were to be preaching without monitoring, but I feel we could go to a simple, annual, local license based on the rector or vicar's recommendation, much as we do with chalice bearers.

If a person preaches heresy (although some would ask how could we know?) the license would be suspended. If they were awful, they might not be recommended for renewal at the end of the year. A rehearsal, say the Friday or Saturday before a person were to preach, might allow the clergy, and perhaps the others who give sermons, to provide a helpful critique and prevent disasters.

While multi-staff parishes might use "local lay preachers," this suggestion is really for the vast majority of parishes with a sole cleric on a Sunday morning.

I believe poor quality of preaching is due more to fatigue and burnout than to an absence of skill.

Many clergy preach a sermon every week for 20 or 30 years, getting a respite only when they take a vacation, when the bishop visits or when a pastoral letter must be read. Given a little break, I believe many clergy would preach better, and that the church and our Lord would be better served.

This suggestion also might benefit those few clergy who simply cannot preach but are skilled in the other tasks of ordained ministry. These persons will then have an opportunity to do what they do best while others do what they do best.

What I have outlined seems to me to be a helpful suggestion toward solving a common dilemma, the poor quality of many of the sermons given each week. Many of our laity are devout, good speakers, and well versed in the scripture. We seek the opinion of the laity in every other aspect of our common life, why not let them share in this ministry as well? We would all benefit.