Ship of Fools: Preaching from Notes

Thread: Preaching from Notes Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=022950

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

Not sure if this is right for Purgatory, or whether it should be in Ecclesiantics or elsewhere. I notice that Mystery Worshippers are quite often a bit sniffy about those who preach from notes. But what is wrong with using notes, or even a script, if the sermon content and delivery are good? Not everyone has a gift for extempore preaching (or a direct feed from the Holy Spirit) - though there are not a few who think they do.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

No problem at all but make sure you give all that you do some life. You may need nots if you are quoting someone else or if you want to make sure you say something with a very specific form of words.

I use very brief notes for most sermons these days but sometimes it's in full and at otheers about 3 words on a piece of paper.

Whatever your approach it's no excuse for a lack of preparation or for pinching other people's work.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

People who preach without notes might not be extemporising, just very well prepared. They could have made notes and grown familiar with the points they want to make. Perhaps rehearsed it a couple of times. It often comes across better if the preacher is speaking directly to the congregation.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Preaching from notes is fine, as long as that is what you do. Reading a sermon from notes is tedious. And I often find that preachers who have notes are more coherent than those who try to make it up as they go along.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I think the key is to use notes or a script but not to give the impression that you are reading an essay! I find preparing the script helps me organise my thoughts and vocabulary beforehand.

One important thing is to realise that spoken and literary English are different. So, if you do write out your sermon, cultivate a "spoken" rather than a "written" style. And keep eye-contact with your listeners.

I come from a Free Church tradition where the sermon probably occupies a more significant position in the liturgy than it does in some other traditions.

[ 31. March 2012, 14:33: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Not everyone has a gift for extempore preaching (or a direct feed from the Holy Spirit) - though there are not a few who think they do.

Yes, I know a few who use no notes. They are good speakers - but after a while I find they begin to repeat themselves.

Far better to write the sermon/speech/whatever first, but then only glance at the notes rather than reading from them. In my view.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

I tend to use a full script, or nothing written at all. I find it difficult to preach from "bullet-point" style notes, mainly because I easily forget how I got from one point to the next.

When I use a script, its usual purpose is to sit on the lectern in front of me, while I rarely look at it - by the time I've typewritten it, it's got into my head anyway. When I preach without a script, I have to be much more careful not to stray off-topic, or ramble.

I put a lot of work into crafting a script, but then performing it so that it doesn't sound crafted.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

When I use a script, its usual purpose is to sit on the lectern in front of me, while I rarely look at it - by the time I've typewritten it, it's got into my head anyway. When I preach without a script, I have to be much more careful not to stray off-topic, or ramble.

When I was active, that was my approach as well. The principle seems to be as follows. The harder you prepare, the freer you become in delivery.

There's an old story (from the Anglican environment I believe) about a young priest preaching with a bishop present. The bishop buttonholed the young priest afterwards and inquired about his preparation. On being informed that the young priest prepared quite thoroughly but always left spontaneous room for the inspiration of the Spirit, the bishop observed. "Well, on this occasion, I think the Holy Spirit was more evident in your preparation than your spontaneity". Something like that, anyway. Ouch!

The story also seems to teach a good principle.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

As I was told it it went more like this:

Curate: "I was praying for a word from the Holy Spirit"

Bishop: "And what did the Spirit tell you?"

Curate: "He told me to prepare my sermon next time".

Back to the OP, as others have said there is a difference between an unprepared sermon, and preaching without notes, and preaching with a script. Personally I can't easily use a script as I am short-sighted. So to read from a script I'd have to take my glasses off and if I do that I can't see the people I'm talking to, which is a lot worse. So I keep my glasses on and look at the people and occasionally glance at notes.

I've said this before, but a long time ago my Dad told me how he liked to prepare a talk (not a sermon, he never darkened the door of a church other than for weddings and funerals). I don't always do this but it does work:

1) Write out the talk in full

2) Put down the main headings as bullet-points on small cards.

3) Take both the full script and the cards to the lectern.

4) Don't look at either of them while you are talking.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

The advice in Fulfilled in Your Hearing* can be summarized "write, but don't read." They recommend writing a complete manuscript as part of your preparation, but not taking it into the sanctuary with you. This is what I do, but there's no need to be doctrinaire about it.

Reading from a manuscript can allow greater precision of language and can help preachers who are more naturally wordy contain themselves. For some, it will make them much more comfortable which will generally give the congregation a more comfortable experience. The downside is a certain aloofness and inability to adapt to reactions from the congregation.

--
* The USCCB document on preaching.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

It's more a general thing for whenever I'm speaking in public (only an occasional preacher, but it's just as applicable in any setting), but I tend to go for a bit of everything. Dot points in huge type on the left 1/3 of the page, written in full on the right 2/3, and practiced.

The "page" is my iPad, used in landscape mode, which helps avoid rustling of paper or plastic sleeves, and with the cover I have it looks just like a classy bound folder when I'm carrying it. I know of a couple of regular preachers who use an iPad app which shows the pages and also controls the projected slides with the Bible verses on them for those people who absorb read information better than spoken.

I find that the dot points help me avoid getting bogged down explaining something in too much detail, the full text helps with statistics and direct quotes and the practice helps with making sure I speak to the people and not to my page. The dot points and the text are both useful for the times that something interrupts the talk and you need to pick it up again without repetition or omission.

I'm yet to come across a preacher who goes without notes on a regular basis and never gets sidetracked or loses their place. The last time I experienced a good sermon without the preacher having notes or their tablet computer in front of them, they actually had their dot points on the digital projector pointed at the back wall!

On the issue of spontaneity and preparation, I think both are equally valid. You must prepare the talk well, and be equally well-prepared to abandon that and speak to the people instead if needed.

[ 31. March 2012, 16:47: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

On the issue of spontaneity and preparation, I think both are equally valid. You must prepare the talk well, and be equally well-prepared to abandon that and speak to the people instead if needed.

Yes, when I speak in public I find the 'off piste' comments are the ones which tend to be remembered.

[Smile]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I preach one or two 20 minute sermons every week and I type them out in full and 'read' them.

People are always surprised when i tell them this - they say they never knew I had more than just notes.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

In a culture that isn't necessarily tuned into listening to anything for more than five minutes before changing the channel, some clergy write out their sermons word for word for fear that someone will come back and say 'You said such and such', which of course they never said, or 'I found what you said offensive and you meant this', when of course there was nothing offensive and they heard something that wasn't even there. It happens regularly enough and so I can quite understand clergy writing out sermons word for word and then reading the script as it were. Will it not be an absolute necessity in the future anyway with people having to be more responsible for what they say in public - particularly from a pulpit?

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

The great advantage of having notes is that one can see where one is supposed to stop.

Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :

I don't think our vicar reads his sermon although we do occasionally have students from the local Bible College who invariably do. I suppose that as newbies this is a safe way to start. The vicar does clearly have notes and there are some quite specific phrases which he works in to very great effect.

We have a projector and some of the preachers put up pictures. If you wander away from the plan at all I guess that these become useless and working out whether and how to skip some slides must be pretty tricky, especially if you are still talking at the same time. It is even worse in our church because we don't have a gadget for the preacher to change the pictures so it is down to the laptop operator (I'm one of them) to work it out. The students generally do use pictures and they provide a script which would make going off topic potentially disastrous, especially as there is usually someone from the college who is there to assess them.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Personally I can't easily use a script as I am short-sighted. So to read from a script I'd have to take my glasses off and if I do that I can't see the people I'm talking to, which is a lot worse. So I keep my glasses on and look at the people and occasionally glance at notes.

A few weeks ago I went to a different optician, who turned out to be a Jewish lay preacher. She immediately suggested that I needed varifocal glasses so that I could read my notes and still see the congregation. She understood, as most people wouldn't, that seeing the congregation is, as you say, Ken, at least as important as seeing your notes.

And the specs are great.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Our priests, and particularly our readers, keep sermon booklets with their sermons printed out word-for-word inside. It is possible to ask them for a copy if you wish to read them over again, if you missed something or would like to refresh your memory. The best ones, of course, put enough expression in their voice to make it sound as if they are talking freely without notes. Some are better at that than others.

Recently, someone who usually has very good people skills gave a sermon which she just read out very woodenly. It was so unusual that I began to wonder whether someone had asked her to preach on a particular topic and had maybe even told her what to say - it was very obvious her heart wasn't in it. Fortunately, that is very rare.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

I have a small question, tangential to the opening post.

Everyone, except for Hart, has spoken of a "script". Hart used the word "manuscript".

I've never heard "script" used to describe the document to aid the delivery of a sermon, only the word "manuscript".

When I hear the word "script," it brings to mind artificiality and theatre.

Am I a fossil? Is this a longstanding change in usage? Has 'script arisen from manuscript in the same way that 'phone arose from telephone?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

On script/manuscript, I think manuscript originally meant hand-written text and was often used to distinguish between author's original and printed copy. That's all got blurred, now, since "by the author's hand" is much more likely to refer to text produced on a PC/laptop. Script in common usage very often did mean the text of a play, hence I guess its use to describe sermon text may produce a certain queasiness.

I think the obvious reading of sermon notes does produce a kind of disconnect from listeners. In the political world now, to avoid that kind of disconnect, there are transparent projection systems which give the impression of spontaneous "eye-contact" delivery, while in practice the politician is reading a script!

Behind these hopes and subterfuges are some interesting hopes and expectations in the audience/congregation, when listening to a sermon.

1. That what is said will convey something directly to us.

2. That it comes from the heart.

3. That it is genuine in intention, not crafted to manipulate.

Eye contact has I think some importance in all of that.

If we have those expectations, or something like them, they are probably worth some reflection about just how realistic they are.

If a sermon is being delivered without visual aids, I tend personally to close my eyes as a kind of aid to hearing the words. So these issues of visual cues and non-verbal messages don't mean much to me. But I think I'm unusual in that.

[ 01. April 2012, 13:39: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

This discussion is interesting to me, since I'm a frequent public speaker, but in a different format. Modern scientific speaking basically consists in talking through a series of slides that illustrate the research with graphics and comments in terms of short bullet points. I am rather good at this (also in the judgment of others...), but I do rely heavily on the visual / textual hints provided by the slides. I do not read the slide contents off, but I use them to remind me of what I wanted to say about these matters. The slides also serves as a convenient way of timing, with every slide taking about 1.5-2 minutes to discuss. In scientific speaking you often have a precisely limited time allotted to you, getting more or less politely stopped if you go on for too long. With the slide system, I can time myself to an accuracy of less than a minute for short and less than five minutes for long talks, without needing to look at a clock.

I'm not sure that kind of "slide presentation" would work in the religious context, but it could take away quite a lot of the difficulties being discussed concerning preaching, I think.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Prepare, Pray, Preach. No notes, gut wrenching, from the heart, balls out, tight rope walking.

FTW.

AtB, Pyx_e

Posted by Jenn. (# 5239) on :

I'm a beginner so I like to write the entire thing out. Prepare, pray, write, preach. It is still heartfelt, I just put it on paper first. Apparently it comes over ok when I preach it, and I'm not ready to do away with the script yet.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Prepare, Pray, Preach. No notes, gut wrenching, from the heart, balls out, tight rope walking.

Yep - I know preachers like this. But, like I say, over time they tend to repeat themselves.

Ask around - see if you do it too, it's possible that no-one told you?

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
But, like I say, over time they tend to repeat themselves.

Proof that writing it down dont stop it happening. Irony?

AtB, Pyx_e

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I wonder if I might take this discussion in a different direction.

Might it be that those of us who preach frequently need notes to help remind us of what we are saying, or to stop us repeating ourselves; while those who preach rarely find thisless necessary as they have had a long time to prepare and mull over what they are going to say?

Whatever the case, deciding not to use notes is no excuse for "relying on the Holy Spirit", especially if that simply means "winging it"!

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

What we are not discussing so far is the spiritual gift of preaching. Everyone called to preach can get better at it but are we prepared to accept that there is a gift of preaching and that not everyone has it?

I am not musical. I took guitar lesson and can bang out, somewhat un-tunefully, chords and a poor version of 12 bar blues. I could practise more and get more proficient but I will never raise spirits, shake the house down of ever take great joy from it myself. I do not have the gift. And God knows I wish I did. Every band needs band members but someone does the solo.

AtB, Pyx_e

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I have a small question, tangential to the opening post.

Everyone, except for Hart, has spoken of a "script". Hart used the word "manuscript".

I've never heard "script" used to describe the document to aid the delivery of a sermon, only the word "manuscript".

When I hear the word "script," it brings to mind artificiality and theatre.

Am I a fossil? Is this a longstanding change in usage? Has 'script arisen from manuscript in the same way that 'phone arose from telephone?

Notice that as well as using the word 'script', I also used the word 'performance'. I say 'script' because the text in front of me in the pulpit is more or less the words I say. Sometimes I'll depart from it as a stage actor might depart from their script - a few words here or there. (Thankfully I don't have other actors or a director to answer to for doing it.)

This is why 'crafting' the sermon is important. I pay attention to the shape of the whole thing, and the shape and development of the different 'movements' within it (to use a musical metaphor). I look at my use of language, not only for accuracy but for expressiveness, cadence and rhythm. All of this while maintaining an appropriate level of colloquial speech. And let's not forget the silences.

I normally start work writing a sermon about a week before it's due, though I'll usually have the texts in my head for a few days before that. (I have a bizarrely good memory for texts, but for very little else.) However, I'll usually leave writing the last paragraph until the evening before, and may then go back and make a few minor adjustments to the rest. Throughout the whole process, I have to keep clear in my mind how I'm going to deliver it. I went through a brief phase a few years ago of using marks in the text to indicate pace, inflexion and cadence, but I soon found I was better off without them.

All of this feeds into my personal dislike of using visual aids of any kind. If a half-way decent actor can keep an audience's attention for ten minutes without special effects (and they can), a half-way decent preacher ought to be able to do the same with a congregation.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I once attended a service at which a visiting trainee preacher from another denomination was down to preach. She read from her notes, head down, and didn't try to develop any rapport with the congregation. It was a thoughtful sermon, but unfortunately, because of her body language, the congregation got rather fidgety. Our minister was rather cross about the congregation's lack of attention when he heard about it. I think part of the problem is that the people just weren't used to trainee preachers; most preachers in our area/denomination have been doing the work for decades - longer than this trainee had been alive! Also, there was a cultural mismatch that she probably hadn't been prepared for.

I hope the experience didn't put her off! But I hope she learnt from it as well. I was rather surprised that such a young person was being trained to offer such a traditional kind of format rather than being encouraged to try something a bit different, but that's for another thread, perhaps.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

I write, with a pen, a fairly full script. It's usually in complete sentences and I could deliver it as it is, but in practice I rephrase some of it as I go along, changing word order and vocabulary to something that seems more natural, and sometimes amplifying it if I judge people need a bit longer to get the hang of what I'm saying.

If I use a word-processor, I become verbose, and I find it easy to lose my place when reading print. Handwriting is more irregular and easier to follow. I only ever glance down, and my eye can find the place more easily on a page of messy handwriting, I also feel that writing with a pen helps me think. It certainly slows me down and gives me time to consider how to phrase things.

What matters far more than these matters of technique, is writing and delivering it with the hearers in mind.

A sermon can be a carefully crafted thing, a little creation, like a piece of music, with structure and internal and external references, allusions and word choice supporting the content.

It must also, though, be written for a certain group of people on a particular day. I picture place and people as I write and imagine how they will receive what I say. It's like playing chess where you think what your opponent's response to your next move might be: if I say such and such, they will expect me to go on to say this, but if instead I say that .. aha! They will be surprised.

And then, in the delivery, it must be performed as Adeodatus said. If you read the text people can tune in if they wish, but there's no real communication. The preacher must burn with the desire to tell the people the message they prepared, must believe it is worth saying and that it will delight or disturb the congregation. It must be spoken with directness.

If you were to tell someone 'Get off the tracks, a train is coming,' or 'Don't move to Scotland, I want to marry you,' the content of your message would be so strong that it would communicate perfectly. A sermon will go all round the houses as well, but it should have at its core, a message of similar directness that the preacher is desperate to share. That means, for me, something I have only just discovered this week. A sermon's main content has to be something I've only just seen for the first time, and am still excited about.

Unfortunately, having done this on Sunday morning, I'm expected to do it all over again on Sunday evening. A stupid idea. I can't manage it, so my evening sermons are preached from a page of jottings. They are sometimes terrible, and rarely good.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Unfortunately, having done this on Sunday morning, I'm expected to do it all over again on Sunday evening. A stupid idea. I can't manage it, so my evening sermons are preached from a page of jottings. They are sometimes terrible, and rarely good.

Lots to agree with in your post (and even to raise a hat to!) Unlike you I do use a Word Processor as it helps me do my preparation, and anyway my writing is terrible. I use a large 14 point font for legibility and I do not "justify" the line ends (or else I do get really lost!)

But - as a fellow Baptist - I have to ask WHY we have to do it again in the evening? Especially if the folk present were there in the morning too (and I realise they might not have been). Do they need a full sermon with all the twiddles? Or might a brief thought or even a more meditative service be more appropriate? All depends on your situation, of course.

This morning I was preaching in the Parish Church (joint service) - this made me more constrained due to the different environment and also the knowledge that I had to be briefer than normal. A very awkwatd pulpit to preach in as the lectern was not deep enough for my usual A4 sheets, so I had to be very careful not to knock them down.

[ 01. April 2012, 15:15: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I wonder if I might take this discussion in a different direction.

Might it be that those of us who preach frequently need notes to help remind us of what we are saying, or to stop us repeating ourselves; while those who preach rarely find thisless necessary as they have had a long time to prepare and mull over what they are going to say?

Whatever the case, deciding not to use notes is no excuse for "relying on the Holy Spirit", especially if that simply means "winging it"!

Whatever method one adopts, there's no excuses for not preparing. As I get older I may know the texts well but I prepare more. The process of preparation brings greater freedom in delivery which means I often appear to be speaking extempore - I'm not as I'm sharing what I believe God has already given me and because I've then worked on it. I remember it.

I agree with other posters: if you write it down, write in "spoken speech" - don't use a way of speaking that is alien to how you normally talk, otherwise people will look for your pulpit voice.

As for writing vs WPing it, I can't read my own writing, so it doesn't help at all. It's OK though if its just a few words like tonight - present, pursue, prove

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
[QUOTE]But - as a fellow Baptist - I have to ask WHY we have to do it again in the evening?

Because Spurgeon said so!

Between wood and water we had 2 very different congregations am and pm. AM was families, people on the fringe (av cong 160 ish) - PM was people from a wider geographical spread 30% of whom went somewhere else in the AM (av. cong 70-80).

AM was multimedia etc, PM an old style teaching service. i enjoyed the variety of both, preaching at least 45 weeks a year.

Different now in the new jerusalem but enjoy exploring new ways of presenting the gospel and reflecting on dsicipleship. Seems to be attractive as PM congs have doubled.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

I have for my thesis been going over the Reformed attitude to Church, what becomes clear is what is important about a sermon is not that it is preached but that it is heard.

Jengie

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
One important thing is to realise that spoken and literary English are different. So, if you do write out your sermon, cultivate a "spoken" rather than a "written" style.

But what's wrong with speaking literary English out loud? Fine preaching rhetoric is an art, and I feel cheated when I hear a excessively colloquial sermon.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I have for my thesis been going over the Reformed attitude to Church, what becomes clear is what is important about a sermon is not that it is preached but that it is heard.

Jengie

Preach it Sister!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
One important thing is to realise that spoken and literary English are different. So, if you do write out your sermon, cultivate a "spoken" rather than a "written" style.
But what's wrong with speaking literary English out loud? Fine preaching rhetoric is an art, and I feel cheated when I hear a excessively colloquial sermon.

True, but lengthy sentences with several subordinate clauses are difficult to follow when heard. When they are written on a page one can go back and read them again.

Different congregations will be different anyway.

Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :

Different congregations are in some senses easier because you can repeat a lot of the text work, just vary the application (and possibly some of the delivery). If I had to do two sermons a week to overlapping congregations, I'd probably do a series of 4/5 at one, then 4/5 at the other, and use the one I wasn't preaching at to train new preachers...

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
One important thing is to realise that spoken and literary English are different. So, if you do write out your sermon, cultivate a "spoken" rather than a "written" style.
But what's wrong with speaking literary English out loud? Fine preaching rhetoric is an art, and I feel cheated when I hear a excessively colloquial sermon.
True, but lengthy sentences with several subordinate clauses are difficult to follow when heard. When they are written on a page one can go back and read them again.

Different congregations will be different anyway.

Another thing to consider is that formal spoken English and 'fine rhetoric' are still forms of spoken English. Just because it is a spoken form rather than a literary form does not make it "excessively colloquial."

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I script mine in blank verse - one verb per phrase, no sub clauses, no sentence longer than one line - written for the ear, not the eye - it stops me rambling and also means that if I have a headache or a hangover, I can use the script.

I read it aloud every day during the week preceding so i know it almost off by heart.

I print it in a large pitch so that I don't need reading glasses and can maintain eye-contact with the congregation whilst occasionally glimpsing at the script.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

I suppose its each to his/her own.

My practice is to take a full mss into the pulpit but not refer to it. (Unless something bad happens which never has).

Its all in the preparation and a decent memory helps.

My reason for doing this was after reading a Reader's Digest quip. It told of someone coming home from Church and complaining that the preacher had read his sermon. "If he can't remember it how the heck does he expect us to?"

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I meant to add that a script enables me to give copies to those who ask - rarely a sermon goes by without some asking. It also means it can go on the churches' websites and my own.

[ 01. April 2012, 16:49: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Personally I can't easily use a script as I am short-sighted. So to read from a script I'd have to take my glasses off and if I do that I can't see the people I'm talking to, which is a lot worse. So I keep my glasses on and look at the people and occasionally glance at notes.

A few weeks ago I went to a different optician, who turned out to be a Jewish lay preacher. She immediately suggested that I needed varifocal glasses so that I could read my notes and still see the congregation. She understood, as most people wouldn't, that seeing the congregation is, as you say, Ken, at least as important as seeing your notes.

And the specs are great.

Like Adeodatus /\ I am a full script person - but the art is in delivery. A full script can be delivered like one. is. reading. the. telephone. directory. or imbued with energy, life, and perhaps even the Spirit.

Funnily enough I use 'conceptual eye contact' - I never eyeball anyone but sort of vacuously roam around the congregation. In the last couple of months I've moved from over-the counter reading specs to vari-focus prescription. But in the wet season in the tropics it makes bugger all difference - glasses fog up and one is lucky to see the script, let alone the people beyond it.

As you can see (sig) I now blog my sermons and some people do read them, but I think they become stolid as written word. Delivery is an imbuement with energy.

I can ad lib till the cows come home, even with beginning, middle and end, but on the whole find it to be a lazy option - and as leo has suggested, there are those who like to tackle the script in their own leisure at another time.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

I script mine in blank verse - one verb per phrase, no sub clauses, no sentence longer than one line - written for the ear, not the eye - it stops me rambling and also means that if I have a headache or a hangover, I can use the script.

I read it aloud every day during the week preceding so i know it almost off by heart.

I print it in a large pitch so that I don't need reading glasses and can maintain eye-contact with the congregation whilst occasionally glimpsing at the script.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
I script mine in blank verse - one verb per phrase, no sub clauses, no sentence longer than one line - written for the ear, not the eye - it stops me rambling and also means that if I have a headache or a hangover, I can use the script.

I read it aloud every day during the week preceding so i know it almost off by heart.

I print it in a large pitch so that I don't need reading glasses and can maintain eye-contact with the congregation whilst occasionally glimpsing at the script.

You are clearly an erudite preacher Leaf. I sit at your feet in awe.

Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :

Of course people get sniffy about preaching from notes. They know that for the Holy Spirit to speak through you that preparation gets in the way. The Holy Spirit is incapable of inspiring you during the preparation phase.

Scrub that. God knows who will be attending next week, if you start preparing now the Holy Spirit can still inspire you now.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
I script mine in blank verse - one verb per phrase, no sub clauses, no sentence longer than one line - written for the ear, not the eye - it stops me rambling and also means that if I have a headache or a hangover, I can use the script.

I read it aloud every day during the week preceding so i know it almost off by heart.

I print it in a large pitch so that I don't need reading glasses and can maintain eye-contact with the congregation whilst occasionally glimpsing at the script.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

TSA

Its Leo not Leaf

Jengie

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

No,no, no, don't you see? Leaf was plagiarising Leo [Killing me]

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
TSA

Its Leo not Leaf

Jengie

It was both - Leaf copying verbatim Leo's post (presumably as a satire on all that's being discussed on this thread.

Edited to add - cross-posted with Chorister

[ 01. April 2012, 20:15: Message edited by: Stejjie ]

Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on :

I find if I don't write in full, I skip bits I needed to say in longer sermons. There is potential at our shack for someone to sign which demands a full script.

I always do school assembly from brief notes as a pulpit/lectern doesn't really work for years 1 to 6.

3F

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

I'm at a church where we get really good sermons on a regular basis. And they're all pre-written, typed and printed out. Some preachers make changes to what they've written, others don't. The delivery style is what might convince someone that they're using notes rather than a "script."

In fact, a Mystery Worshipper report once mentioned one of our former preachers and really panned her sermon. That perplexed me, because she was always an outstanding preacher here. Then I remembered that she preferred to preach without notes, but because of the practice here, she always wrote out her sermon in advance and preached from the script.

And unlike Pyx_e, I prefer that preachers keep their balls (or boobs or ovaries or whatever they have) well-hidden under their vestments. Literally and figuratively.

Yes, there is a gift of preaching, and many clergy don't have it - yet they have to preach. It's probably best not to dictate a "one-size-fits-all" approach. However a preacher works best is how that preacher ought to work. (Except I still say balls in please.)

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Accursed art thou, O Leaf, that makest me to snort tea all over my keyboard.

Dang, forgot the blank verse.

<glances at hosts> Nope. Ain't gonna do it. Here.

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

When preaching, I write it all out and read it. I might change a word or two here or there on the fly, but for the most part I stick to the (manu)script.

When teaching, however, I have a page of bullet points. I see teaching as something quite different than preaching -- much less rhetorical and much less a kind of ritual.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

When I was trained in “Presentation Skills” some twenty years ago we were advised to make bullet point notes on small (3” x 5”?) cards. Only wordings that needed perfect accuracy should be written in full and read out.

And number the cards sequentially so that when you drop them you can repair the damage accurately and quickly.

Practice at least five times in front of a full length mirror – checking your timing.

Make regular eye contact around the group (2/3 seconds per person is enough).

If given to expansive gestures don’t be surprised if the choirboys bring cricket scorecards to the game.

Don’t read aloud anything displayed on a screen – read it silently twice and switch it off before you develop the thought for your audience.

Don’t do as my last CEO did – become so proud of the ability to add clever movements/characters to a PowerPoint show that everyone ignores the content because they’re making a book on what the next distraction will be.

PS - my father used to give the best sermons ever - "If I can't get the idea across simply in five minutes there's no point in confusing the issue for half-an-hour".

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
When teaching, however, I have a page of bullet points. I see teaching as something quite different than preaching -- much less rhetorical and much less a kind of ritual.

That came out weird. [Confused]

I can see that the style difference between (informal!) class teaching and preaching could be called "rhetorical". But I do not see preaching as a kind of ritual at all (though embedded in, and thereby part of a ritual, I guess). And I would say that inspiration supervenes on teaching.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

An important point for me is that having the notes in front of me is important for structuring what I say (my latest incursions in public speaking were evening Bible classes where I was going to teach for a good hour or so).

This is particularly important in France because French education majors on the importance of structuring composition. People want to know that there is an introduction, x number of illustrated points in the middle, a drawing together of the various strands, and a conclusion. This kind of structure makes it much easier for people to access the content because they know exactly where they are with it.

An example I like is showing people round the museum - "today we are in the Louvre museum. This museum contains classical antiquities, Egyptology and painting of various periods. But we don't have time to look at all of it, so today we're going to focus on Italian painting. These are the pictures we are going to look at and the order that we're going to look at them in, and these are the main elements that we are concentrating on." This sets people at ease so that they can easily absorb the content, and I couldn't successfully do it without my notes in front of me to keep me in the right place.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
But what is wrong with using notes, or even a script, if the sermon content and delivery are good?

Nothing. Content and delivery (having something worthwhile to say, and getting it across) are what count. In general, I think notes are better than either a script or nothing, because using notes well ensures that all the important points are covered without unduly hampering the delivery, but that's not true for everyone. Some people are liable to get flustered without something close to a full script, and so obviously should use one. Some people can deliver a script so well that no one would think that they are reading, and would gain nothing by switching to notes. Some people find that any notes are a constraint, or have so good a memory that they can safely dispense with them. There is nothing wrong with any of these approaches.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
When teaching, however, I have a page of bullet points. I see teaching as something quite different than preaching -- much less rhetorical and much less a kind of ritual.
But I do not see preaching as a kind of ritual at all (though embedded in, and thereby part of a ritual, I guess). And I would say that inspiration supervenes on teaching.

I don't think the word ritual properly carries the freight you seem to give it. "Ritualistic" and "ritualize" certainly carry pejorative connotations, but preaching is, solidly, a ritual activity.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I don't think the word ritual properly carries the freight you seem to give it. "Ritualistic" and "ritualize" certainly carry pejorative connotations, but preaching is, solidly, a ritual activity.

I disagree. The only thing that is ritual about the homily is its embedding in the liturgy. You can say when and where it will occur, and what will precede and follow it. Furthermore, you can have a very rough idea about the content thanks to the mass readings. That's it. Other than that you can tell me very little about what will happen in any particular homily. You do not know the style of delivery, the content, the pace, the intention, the references made, ... Anything to do with the actual speech act itself is essentially left to the speaker. You may guess from experience how a certain preacher will handle things, but that is not insight due to a "ritual".

For better or worse, the homily is a kind of "creative space" inserted into the liturgy. That is the near opposite of ritual, except that its embedding into an outer ritual does impose some rules of continuity onto that creativity. And the preacher is not acting "in persona Christi" there as in the rest of the mass. Rather, he acts in a pastoral and personal function, with his own individuality playing a significant role (again for better or worse). The homily itself is a ritual if, and only if, I can generally predict what will be said next. Since I can't, it simply isn't one. That a homily will occur after the gospel reading is part of the ritual, because I can generally predict that: that is a prescribed procedure.

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :

My intermittent presence on the Ship usually coincides with me not getting down to the business of writing a lecture [Hot and Hormonal]

so this is a very interesting topic for me. I'm a perpetual student of faith-related public speaking, so thanks to all who've shared tips so far.

Given free rein, I'm an inveterate rambler. But my most recent spurt of Ship-posting has come about while preparing my first foray into speaking alongside a sign-language interpreter, further complicated by the whole thing being relayed by video link into a second auditorium (ooh, get me!). So the written draft had to be presented to the interpreter in advance and then stuck to pretty tightly.

Leaf's advice to write the script as simply as possible then read and re-read it is something I certainly endorse after this experience. This way, I was able to do the whole thing (40 minutes' worth) with no more than a few downward glances to sub-topics — and still managed to keep the interpreter (and apparently even the remote audience) happy.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The only thing that is ritual about the homily is its embedding in the liturgy. You can say when and where it will occur, and what will precede and follow it. Furthermore, you can have a very rough idea about the content thanks to the mass readings. That's it. Other than that you can tell me very little about what will happen in any particular homily.

You do not know the style of delivery, the content, the pace, the intention, the references made, ... Anything to do with the actual speech act itself is essentially left to the speaker. You may guess from experience how a certain preacher will handle things, but that is not insight due to a "ritual".

As someone who's not a preacher but who has listened to many sermons, I would have to disagree. The (British) Methodists used to have what's called a three point sermon. It's less common now, but still, I find that, personal style notwithstanding, there's certainly a tone, a certain kind of approach that one can identify in most Methodist sermons. (And since there's usually a different person in the pulpit every week, it's easy to see this illustrated.)

Different denominations have their own style. Some expect longer sermons, others expect shorter. Some require call and response, and others don't. The content also varies to the extent that different denominations have different emphases. But this variety just proves the point that there are expectations as to what a sermon should 'look like'.

But what unites the vast majority of sermons is that they're delivered as monologues. (The interactive sermon doesn't seem to have taken off, except in a highly controlled form.) And especially within the Protestant churches, that monologue has become indispensable. Apparently, for Calvin, the sermon had a sacramental quality. Luther referred to a Protestant church building as a 'Mundhaus' - a 'mouth house'.

All this suggests to me that the sermon could certainly be described as a ritual. It may be a "creative space", but it certainly seems to exist in a well-defined form.

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I do not see preaching as a kind of ritual at all (though embedded in, and thereby part of a ritual, I guess).

I suppose I was using "ritual" in a loose sense. Sure, it's not a ritual in the sense of a repeated pattern of words and actions. I guess what I was trying to get at is that a homily is embedded in a ritual action and therefore I approach it differently than I would a discourse in another setting. I don't want to seem as if I am coming up with the words on the fly; I actually want to seem as if I am following a script. To me, this seems to better accord with the ritual nature of the occasion in which the homily is embedded.

I realize that others have different approaches (e.g. the "balls out" approach mentioned earlier), and I have been edified by homilies/sermons that took a different approach, but this is the one that makes sense to me.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The only thing that is ritual about the homily is its embedding in the liturgy. You can say when and where it will occur, and what will precede and follow it. Furthermore, you can have a very rough idea about the content thanks to the mass readings. That's it. Other than that you can tell me very little about what will happen in any particular homily.

Coming from another tradition, I would see things differently. To most Baptists, it is the sermon which is the "high point" of a service, even one which includes Holy Communion. It has indeed become a quasi-sacramental act and an occasion in which one hopes to encounter God.

More than that, in many churches the whole service (hymns, prayers, children's talk) will be built up around the sermon and the Bible reading(s) from which it is derived. So whatever comes before or after is intimately linked and sheds lights on (or allows space to reflect upon) the sermon.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The homily itself is a ritual if, and only if, I can generally predict what will be said next. Since I can't, it simply isn't one.

I don't agree with this equating of ritual with predictability. Now I'm going to have to think about what the content of the statement "the liturgical homily is ritual" is, because I'm not sure I can give an account of it on the fly. I'm not sure I agree with FCB that it's a "looser" use of the term, though.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
I guess what I was trying to get at is that a homily is embedded in a ritual action and therefore I approach it differently than I would a discourse in another setting.

OK, agreed.

quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
I don't want to seem as if I am coming up with the words on the fly; I actually want to seem as if I am following a script. To me, this seems to better accord with the ritual nature of the occasion in which the homily is embedded.

Hmm. I know what you are getting at. Problem is that the best - and consistently best - preacher I've ever heard does not read off, except for verbatim quotes, and he sure does not lack "gravitas" in his delivery. So by experience I know that this is not where "it" is at, at least not in general.

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Coming from another tradition, I would see things differently. To most Baptists, it is the sermon which is the "high point" of a service, even one which includes Holy Communion. It has indeed become a quasi-sacramental act and an occasion in which one hopes to encounter God.

Well, if you were saying here that what is being said in the sermon is of no relevance to the quasi-sacramental value it will have for the audience, then I would agree that this kind of sermon is a ritual. Just as the ornaments on the altar cloth do not determine the sacramental value of the consecration, the words of such a sermon then become empty, since the religious effect is brought about simply by saying some words, any words. Thus that the words are not predictable would not matter. However, I don't think (or rather: I hope) that this is not quite what you mean.

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
I don't agree with this equating of ritual with predictability.

I'm not equating the two. I'm saying that predictability is a necessary feature of ritual. I guess one could have a kind of "jam session" with religiously symbolic actions, but then I would still consider as "ritual" in repeated "jam sessions" whatever part of these doesn't seem to change much.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

There is a heck of a lot of ritual involved in giving a sermon, the words may change but...

It comes in a set place in the liturgy, the climax in many services amongst non-conformists.
it happens from a set place within the room often clearly marked by ceremonial objects. Using or not using that place has theological significance and the congregation understand it.
It takes a fairly standard form, this varies according to tradition and time but in any one time and place there are a limit of forms. An hour long exegetical sermon fairly common a century or so ago amongst non-conformist would have the congregation objecting seriously today.
there are set codes of behaviour during it although these vary from tradition to tradition. I really can't see most URC congregations coping with some one shouting "Amen Brother" everytime the preacher makes a good point.

It seems to me only fair to consider it as part of the ritual of the service.
Jengie

[ 02. April 2012, 18:43: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
There are set codes of behaviour during it although these vary from tradition to tradition.

Of course, there is the aphorism which states that, if you were to take all the people who fall asleep during sermons and lay them end to end ... they'd be much more comfortable.

Speaking quite seriously, the "ritual" in certain situations seems to be that the sermon is "something to be endured", a preconception which even the best preachers struggle to overcome in some settings. It strikes me as strange that some Christians just don't want to be taught about their faith.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This discussion is interesting to me, since I'm a frequent public speaker, but in a different format. Modern scientific speaking basically consists in talking through a series of slides that illustrate the research with graphics and comments in terms of short bullet points.

I speak at scientific meetings using the slides with illustrations and short bullet points approach. I also occasionally preach at church. For me, the two settings are completely different. It would be no more appropriate to proclaim the gospel message as though it was the latest results of my research than it would to present my research as though I'm proclaiming the gospel.

A scientific presentation is presenting something new, hoping to do so in a way that the audience understand it and appreciate the importance of what I've done. Unless it's a lecture in which case it might not be new, but would be new to the students who will need to understand it enough to pass the exam and apply it in other parts of the course. A sermon rarely, if ever, presents something new. The congregation expect the preacher to "tell me the old, old story". The purpose isn't to teach something new, but to encourage a renewed response of praise and faithful obedience to the good news. Constantly seeking novelty isn't, IMO, healthy for a church or a preacher - although it's the lifeblood of scientific research.

When presenting scientific results I don't write a text (well, OK there will be some form of report I've written, or paper I've drafted), indeed I'll rarely have any notes with me beyond the content of the slides being shown. When preaching I write a complete text, which I print out in large font and line spacing and have in front of me - although I'm not actually reading it by the time I preach it.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
There are set codes of behaviour during it although these vary from tradition to tradition.
Of course, there is the aphorism which states that, if you were to take all the people who fall asleep during sermons and lay them end to end ... they'd be much more comfortable.

Speaking quite seriously, the "ritual" in certain situations seems to be that the sermon is "something to be endured", a preconception which even the best preachers struggle to overcome in some settings. It strikes me as strange that some Christians just don't want to be taught about their faith.

I am not sure this true everywhere but I wonder if you removed the sermon, if the very same people who "endure" it now, wouldn't be up in arms about this.

Jengie

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
[b]Speaking quite seriously, the "ritual" in certain situations seems to be that the sermon is "something to be endured", a preconception which even the best preachers struggle to overcome in some settings. It strikes me as strange that some Christians just don't want to be taught about their faith. [/QB]

I think it's partly because the sermon form is a fairly artificial way of being 'taught'. Studies show that many people don't learn best by listening to a monologue. Most sermons are quickly forgotten.

Also, the truth is that great oratory in preaching seems to be a thing of the past. Perhaps today's sermons are just less easy to enjoy from a rhetorical perspective. I'm not trying to criticise any particular preachers, because there are clearly sociological reasons for this. But the problem is that with such high standards set by TV, film, radio, etc., the average sermon, despite its vastly more important content, doesn't seem to measure up.

Of course, some preachers see church attendance as primarily a 'duty'. From this perspective, a sermon doesn't have to be 'enjoyed' but simply endured, like unpleasant medicine.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

I think it is a mistake to think of the sermon primarily as a vehicle for teaching (in the generally used sense of the word). Rather it is intended for encouragement, exhortation admonition etc. - that is it is a hortatory discourse. Some 'teaching' needs to underlie that to give grounds for the exhortation. But if teaching is the main focus then it needs to happen elsewhere than in the sermon.

A sermon always needs to respond to the question "So what?"

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Brojames

Yes, I've heard some preachers comment that there's a distinction between 'preaching' and 'teaching'. But Baptist Trainfan implied that if people didn't positively welcome the sermon then they were revealing a reluctance to be taught. This may not be so - they might simply not find the average sermon a tool that helped them to learn.

But I also agree that many people who don't find sermons helpful in that specific way might nevertheless expect to hear a sermon when they go to church, and complain if they don't. From that point of view, the sermon surely is a ritual, if its unchanging presence becomes more important than its variable content in the minds of listeners.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A sermon rarely, if ever, presents something new. The congregation expect the preacher to "tell me the old, old story". The purpose isn't to teach something new, but to encourage a renewed response of praise and faithful obedience to the good news.

That's a pretty good summary why much preaching is so incredibly boring and why it so often destroys rather than inspires faith. Frankly, if you don't have anything to say that sheds new light on the gospel for at least some in the audience - then why don't you just sit down and shut up? We have listened to the scripture readings with our own ears, and we can think the same old thoughts we have about those verses just fine by ourselves (and actually, more clearly by meditating in silence rather than having them droned out by someone else).

A sermon need not be new in the way that a research seminar has to be, sure. That's because research seminars are terribly limited in their scope, whereas preaching can find new heights and depths across all of human life. We don't need to get strikingly new (yet non-heretical...) theological insights, for example - though boy, I for one would be jumping up and down shouting "hallelujah" if I ever experienced that! It can be about how to set priorities in one's life. It can be about understanding our place in the historical continuum of faith. It can be about motivating charitable action. It can be about enhancing prayer life. It can be about opposing or supporting certain social changes. Whatever.

But don't just tell me the "old, old story". The Lord that I follow is not the God of the dead, but of the living. If I bury my face in my hands during your sermon, it's not because I'm overcome by spiritual passion. It's because I pray to God that he may insert some remotely interesting thought into your head, or strike you with lightning, as He pleases...

Lucky that I think the homily pales into insignificance as compared to the Eucharist. Because I likely would not have become a Christian, gone to mass (pretty much) every Sunday since, and remained a Christian if I thought that that is the "highpoint" of the proceedings. Frankly, the majority of all sermons I've ever heard in real life were more taxing to my faith than inspiring it. And thanks to the power of the Internet I do know that it is entirely possible to preach every week something that I can appreciate. So perhaps I'm asking too much, yeah. But perhaps not. Perhaps preachers just deliver too little, on average.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

IngoB, I find your most recent post a bit confusing! You want to listen to the exposition of ancient scriptural texts, no doubt within the context of a received and immutable deposit of faith, and within the exercise of a tradition that must not change - but you don't want to hear anything you've ever heard before; it must be new!

Well, here's something new. If preached afresh for our generation, affirming the ongoing movement of a living God and a developing society, scripture could be understood as affirming women's priestly ministry and gay rights. Would that alleviate the boredom you would otherwise suffer when listening to all those 'same-old-same-old' messages you seem to find so tedious? But I suppose that would be considered 'heretical'?

As for your own examples. Aren't all those things just typical ingredients of most ordinary sermons, anyway? When you suggest 'setting priorities for life' and 'encouraging charity work' and 'prayer life' - well, aren't these kind of subjects the standard topics of sermons on a Sunday? [Confused]

The challenge, frankly, isn't so much giving something new to people who know it all - or think they do. The challenge is trying to get people to accept the basic principles of what Christ taught. Love your neighbour as yourself. It's been being preached for 2000 years and we still don't seem to have got the message, it seems to me.

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :

Quote

Evangelicals have usually dismissed this but liturgy has something to do with modeling the way God puts the world to rights and then glimpsing it in the dramatic action of both the Eucharist and the morning and evening prayer in the Anglican tradition. These are really such simple things. It includes a reading from the Old Testament, a reading from the New Testament, and it is all framed and flanked with prayer and Scriptural responses. It’s pretty much the Bible from start to finish. The bits that are not Bible are the creed and some of the key prayers and collects that are all cloaked in Scripture. There’s a sort of a liturgical time and space here. When you step into this you are glimpsing the way God actually intends the world to be and envisioning it in a powerful sense. This is actually what I think Revelation 4 and 5 are all about. The elders are casting their crowns before the throne. This is the heavenly reality that corresponds to the church worshipping on earth. This is not a vision of the future. This is a vision of the spiritual depth of the present.

Again and again, I come back from the details of worship, with something fresh. Suddenly, for example, a passage of Scripture read at Matins by one of my colleagues grabs me and I say, “I’ve never seen that before. I never heard it like that before.” I’m very fortunate. I get lots and lots of Scripture coming at me all day long.

http://www.hornes.org/theologia/travis-tamerius/interview-with-n-t-wright

1 Corinthians 14:26 NET
What should you do then, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each one has a song, has a lesson, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all these things be done for the strengthening of the church.

ETA crossposted with Anselmina

[ 03. April 2012, 12:13: Message edited by: footwasher ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
but you don't want to hear anything you've ever heard before; it must be new!

I didn't say that at all, of course. And as mentioned, the Internet for better or worse removes the illusion that preaching has to be as crap as it generally is. I've listened to probably over a hundred sermons that contained thoughts new to me, which I found inspiring. Perhaps a dozen of them came from preachers that stood before me in the flesh.

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Well, here's something new. If preached afresh for our generation, affirming the ongoing movement of a living God and a developing society, scripture could be understood as affirming women's priestly ministry and gay rights. Would that alleviate the boredom you would otherwise suffer when listening to all those 'same-old-same-old' messages you seem to find so tedious? But I suppose that would be considered 'heretical'?

Dead horses manage to combine contention with tedium, which is why I usually ignore them. Anyway, that's all you have on the gospel, yeah? I mean, that sort of stuff neither particularly interests me (heresy in bed with concupiscence is rarely news) nor the people out there (this is their Zeitgeist speaking, after all).

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
When you suggest 'setting priorities for life' and 'encouraging charity work' and 'prayer life' - well, aren't these kind of subjects the standard topics of sermons on a Sunday?

Sure. These are the kind of topics one can talk about (among many others). The question is, can you say something about any of that which is both obedient to the gospel and not trite?

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
The challenge, frankly, isn't so much giving something new to people who know it all - or think they do. The challenge is trying to get people to accept the basic principles of what Christ taught. Love your neighbour as yourself. It's been being preached for 2000 years and we still don't seem to have got the message, it seems to me.

It's the good news, OK? Why do you expect people to pay attention while filling their ears with the same blather that they have heard for decades? Do you expect that some magic will transform their stupor into action? If people don't get the message, your suggestion is to say the very same thing over and over again until they give in?

Here's something to try. At the end of the service (and unannounced!), select ten people at random, put a pen and a sheet of paper in their hands, and ask them to write down what they found remarkable, what they remember, of the sermon. If that doesn't depress you enough, try asking next day. If you don't have a "take home message", then people will not take the message home. And that's a fail. Really, that is a serious fail...

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I'm not sure that it matters whether people remember the content of each sermon. I've heard it likened to eating. You are nourished but you don't remember the menues of the past month.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I'm not sure that it matters whether people remember the content of each sermon. I've heard it likened to eating. You are nourished but you don't remember the menues of the past month.

I've heard this idea too and I suspect it's cobblers, sorry leo! We obviously have evidence that eating food is necessary - if people don't eat food then their health deteriorates and they eventually die. But is there any evidence of the same being true with hearing sermons?

I'm with IngoB regarding the need for a take-home point. Indeed, I'd state it more strongly - if there's nothing that I can take home and do something about then my listening and the sermon-giver's talking (not to mention preparation) have probably been a waste of time.

Analogies to eating suggest to me that listening to sermons is mainly just about maintenance of our current state. Call me idealistic but I want more - I want to be part of a church community where people are helping one another (through sermons and many other activities) to grow in faith and goodness. If sermons aren't doing that then, in my view, something needs to change.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
if there's nothing that I can take home and do something about then my listening and the sermon-giver's talking (not to mention preparation) have probably been a waste of time.

I agree, which is why I think the vast majority of sermons are a complete waste of time, and that sermons could easily be dispensed with as part of the average church service.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
if there's nothing that I can take home and do something about then my listening and the sermon-giver's talking (not to mention preparation) have probably been a waste of time.
I agree, which is why I think the vast majority of sermons are a complete waste of time, and that sermons could easily be dispensed with as part of the average church service.

The trouble is, if the sermon were removed from the average Protestant service, you'd be left with a song-fest. The sermon would have to be replaced with some kind of mutual exhortation, with tangible ideas for Christlike living and understanding that people could comment and act on and commit to memory.

We seem to have forgotten mutual exhortation, which is impossible when only one person is allowed to express their ideas. The clergy complain that the people in the pews don't know any theology, but if the preacher/priest is expected to know everything so the others can rely on them totally, that's hardly an encouragement for ordinary Christians to become more aware and engaged.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The trouble is, if the sermon were removed from the average Protestant service, you'd be left with a song-fest.

A few songs, a few prayers, a Bible reading or two and Communion. Job done [Smile]

Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on :

A quick question, then:
Do you think that what happens at a worship service blesses people based on what those attending have done, what the person leading the service has done, or what God is doing during that service?
Could the answer to that possibly affect the way people listen impatiently for something they could mentally wrap up in newspaper and carry home with them like fish and chips, a gift or baggage taken home from the service that matches their individual wishes, desires, or needs?

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
if there's nothing that I can take home and do something about then my listening and the sermon-giver's talking (not to mention preparation) have probably been a waste of time.
I agree, which is why I think the vast majority of sermons are a complete waste of time, and that sermons could easily be dispensed with as part of the average church service.

Out of genuine interest, what would count as the sermon telling you to "do something about"? How specific are you both being?

For example, would you appreciate a sermon which told you quite definitely to make time to study your Bible every day, or to go and apologise to that neighbour you are having the dispute with? In other words, do you like a sermon to give you practical hints and advice about being a better person or Christian?

Or are you meaning something broader? For example, would a sermon about loving your neighbour count as giving you "something to do"?

And where (if anywhere) do you fit in sermons about God's love for us, or God's grace, or God's forgiveness? What might you expect to "do" with a message like that?

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :

John 16:12 NET
“I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.

When the Apostles planted churches , they knew that the teachings they left would take time to settle in. Some would be understood correctly, some not. There was a plumbine, an indicator of the churches that heard right (Macedonian church?) and those that didn't (the churches that were addressed in the Epistles?).

The methodology for the self feeding churches are outlined here :

1 Corinthians 3:9-15 NET
We are coworkers belonging to God. You are God’s field, God’s building. According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master-builder I laid a foundation, but someone else builds on it. And each one must be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than what is being laid, which is Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, each builder’s work will be plainly seen, for the Day will make it clear, because it will be revealed by fire. And the fire will test what kind of work each has done. If what someone has built survives, he will receive a reward. If someone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss. He himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

The congregation meets in a member's house. Each person brings forth an understanding. It's made to run the gauntlet of scrutiny by God's Word:

Acts 17:11 NET
These Jews were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they eagerly received the message, examining the scriptures carefully every day to see if these things were so.

Wrong teachings were filtered out:

Jeremiah 23:29 NET
My message is like a fire that purges dross! It is like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces! I, the Lord, so affirm it

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The trouble is, if the sermon were removed from the average Protestant service, you'd be left with a song-fest.
A few songs, a few prayers, a Bible reading or two and Communion. Job done

I don't think this would be the best improvement, because it wouldn't be about mutual edification and encouragement(Romans 14;19-21). I mean, you can sing, pray and read the Bible at home! What's the point of being in a group of other people if there's no spiritual benefit to be gained from being in community?

In fact, this is what I see as one of the big problems with church life - we don't nurture spiritual community in the gathering that we consider to be the most important. Churches that are considerered to be 'active' hive it off to house groups and prayer meetings, or to social events where talk of religion is not expected. So it's downgraded in importance.

It's not surprising that some people think there's little to be gained from going to church that they couldn't get from their own private devotions and study. The only reason to go, in your scenario, would be for Communion. And some churches don't have that very often anyway!

What we need is a church life that fosters mutuality at different stages, I think. The sermon, as currently understood, doesn't do that.

But don't the Anglicans have some Sunday services without sermons? What about 9am Holy Communion? (I'm not an Anglican.)

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Silver Faux:
Do you think that what happens at a worship service blesses people based on what those attending have done, what the person leading the service has done, or what God is doing during that service?

All of those things, I'd have thought, in proportions varying from service to service and person to person.

quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
Out of genuine interest, what would count as the sermon telling you to "do something about"? How specific are you both being?...For example, would a sermon about loving your neighbour count as giving you "something to do"?

And where (if anywhere) do you fit in sermons about God's love for us, or God's grace, or God's forgiveness? What might you expect to "do" with a message like that?

I'd definitely include sermons about loving your neighbour, yes. But as long as they give me concrete advice on how to love my neighbour better, or on how I might get support from others so we can help each other love our neighbours better. It's got to be practical, in my view - I mean, the problem is rarely that we don't know how we're supposed to live; the problem is that we don't actually live it out!

And yeah, I think there can be a place for sermons about God's love for us, his grace, his forgiveness and so on. But I think all these things are much better experienced than preached about. I'm just down on the whole idea of sermons being an effective method of discipleship (i.e. helping us becoming more as God intends us to be). Sorry for the thread hijack. [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

Thanks for the explanation, SCK. I appreciate that you are looking the practical applicativeness (if that is a word!), and as a preacher, take that fully on board.

I am a little confused about this, though:

quote:
I'm just down on the whole idea of sermons being an effective method of discipleship (i.e. helping us becoming more as God intends us to be).

Because it sounds like what you expect sermons to be is precisely that - an effective method of discipleship, providing practical help and advice to those trying to be more Christ-like. Or are you simply saying that sermons are ineffective per se, whether they have a practical application or not? If so, fair enough.

If I can also pick up on this:

quote:
I think there can be a place for sermons about God's love for us, his grace, his forgiveness and so on. But I think all these things are much better experienced than preached about.

I don't disagree that these things are better experienced. However, in my experience as a preacher and minister, people are often unable to accept God's grace and forgiveness, maybe because of issues in their past, life-long feelings of guilt, some kind of mental block, or even previous very damaging preaching. One of the jobs of the sermon, it seems to me, is to break through some of these barriers, precisely so that people are freed to experience God's forgiveness.

Leo's analogy of the sermon as a meal is not quite the nonsense you think it is, although I accept that it can be used to justify a nonsensical position. The preaching that is done in a church is one of the principal ways that a church's whole ethos and outlook is established. Such an outlook is rarely an instantaneous reaction to a one-off sermon, but is (as leo's analogy suggests) a very long-term process of feeding and building-up. In other words, if you walk into one of those churches that seems warm and welcoming, you can be sure that there has been sermon after sermon about hospitality, about God's grace and welcome of us. On the other hand, if sermon after sermon has been about legalistic points of doctrine, or exhortations to be better Christians (because you are not yet good enough for God), then I would predict a great feeling of oppression and anxiety.

In my experience, sermons that say "God loves you, God forgives you, God thinks you are flipping brilliant," are precisely the ones that most need to be heard. When people get their relationship with God sorted, that is when the loving your neighbour bit becomes a whole lot more practical.

I am now pondering an image of the sermon as chisel, chipping away at people's walls and barriers spiritual, emotional, doctrinal, and yes, practical ...

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
I am a little confused about this...

quote:
I'm just down on the whole idea of sermons being an effective method of discipleship (i.e. helping us becoming more as God intends us to be).
Because it sounds like what you expect sermons to be is precisely that - an effective method of discipleship, providing practical help and advice to those trying to be more Christ-like. Or are you simply saying that sermons are ineffective per se, whether they have a practical application or not? If so, fair enough.

I guess I'm down on sermons for a couple of reasons. Firstly, when I look back at what's helped me in my journey of faith, sermons don't feature highly at all. Obviously other people learn and grow in different ways, but here's my second reason: I don't often see people taking notes during sermons and neither do people seem to recall much of what they hear. And as I said, I'm dubious about the sermons-as-food theory which states that it's okay if we don't remember the content or impact of most sermons.

quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
...In my experience as a preacher and minister, people are often unable to accept God's grace and forgiveness, maybe because of issues in their past, life-long feelings of guilt, some kind of mental block, or even previous very damaging preaching. One of the jobs of the sermon, it seems to me, is to break through some of these barriers, precisely so that people are freed to experience God's forgiveness.

Oh yes, I accept that sermons can accomplish a great deal in the lives of those listening. It's just my feeling is that more can usually be accomplished through other activities, like peer-mentoring, learning together, going on mission (local or further afield) together. Christianity is ISTM about learning to do all that Jesus did, and for most people (ISTM!) sermons or lectures are not such an important factor in learning how to do something.

quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
The preaching that is done in a church is one of the principal ways that a church's whole ethos and outlook is established. Such an outlook is rarely an instantaneous reaction to a one-off sermon, but is (as leo's analogy suggests) a very long-term process of feeding and building-up.

For sure. But is there anything unique about sermons here? Isn't it rather that a church's whole ethos and outlook are established by the way in which everything is done within that church community? If a church didn't have sermons as a main part of what happens when the people meet together, then the ethos would be established through whatever else happens instead.

PS - Love your sig, Cottontail! I read Watership Down again a few weeks ago; what a wonderful book it is. Can I give a shameless plug for something I wrote after finishing it?

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Oh yes, I accept that sermons can accomplish a great deal in the lives of those listening. It's just my feeling is that more can usually be accomplished through other activities, like peer-mentoring, learning together, going on mission (local or further afield) together. Christianity is ISTM about learning to do all that Jesus did, and for most people (ISTM!) sermons or lectures are not such an important factor in learning how to do something.

Personally, I don't think the point of a sermon is necessarily to act as a lecture that improves a person in that way that other things such as you mention do. As you admit yourself, a sermon can accomplish good things in the lives of the listeners - put presumably in other ways, than sermons, and self-improvement seminars or psychotherpeutic activity. I don't see why this means sermons are to be despised, because they do not do good in the same way other things do good. If I want a seminar on practical ethics, self-development skills, or want some profoundly challenging theological firework set off in my brain - there are plenty of places which specialize in these things to choose from.

But in my church community, I want just that. Community. So long as the sermon serves (or fairly attempts) its purpose, as an element of reflection within worship, and so long as the cumulative effect is one of community, developing relationship, understanding and scriptural guidance, the sermon is doing what is required of it. We are free the other six and a half days of the week to actually act and do the stuff our worship has hopefully reminded us we should be doing.

I grew up, and now minister, in a Church which doesn't celebrate communion at every main act of worship. So the Word - in the sense of preaching - listening to and reflecting on scripture via a short address or something similar - is important and expected. (Though also preferred to come in at under ten minutes, unless you're very special!) A bible based address tying into the life of the congregation is pretty indispensable to our tradition.

As I've stated above, it's really as much to do - if not more - with the community of the church people who live, work and worship together.

I appreciate we all have different kinds of church community; but I think I can honestly say that most of the congregations in this part of the world would rather have a ten minute ramble of trite sameness from the kindly old rector they know will be there in an emergency, doing the stuff that needs to be done, facing the crap with them; than some tour-de-force of exhortation regardless of how 'practical' or 'fresh' it seems, from a minister who doesn't visit.

In other words, the average parish priest acquires their true authority to speak (and preside at communion, for that matter) from their own people, earning it by service and servanthood. I'm all for the best kind of preaching being offered to congregations. But over-rating the supposed excellence of the epicurean approach adopted by IngoB, or the 'banning of worship addresses because they're not functional' approach of Marvin both totally overlook the fact that in many church communities, the sermon acts as a strengthening strand, among many, of the relationship between people and minister.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I don't think the word ritual properly carries the freight you seem to give it. "Ritualistic" and "ritualize" certainly carry pejorative connotations, but preaching is, solidly, a ritual activity.
I disagree. ... The homily itself is a ritual if, and only if, I can generally predict what will be said next. Since I can't, it simply isn't one.

Wow.

So, the extemporaneous Eucharistic prayers of the primitive church were not ritual. That assertion would never have occurred to me absent this thread.

If predictability is your sine qua non for what is ritual and what is not, then there isn't much else to say.

What a cramped sense of liturgy you have.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
So, the extemporaneous Eucharistic prayers of the primitive church were not ritual. That assertion would never have occurred to me absent this thread.

If they always occurred at the same time in the proceedings, then that was part of the ritual. If they had a prescribed length, then that was part of the ritual. Etc. But whatever part of these prayers they made up on the fly is not itself part of the ritual, i.e., of a prescribed procedure of actions with symbolic (here: religious) meaning. By definition.

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
If predictability is your sine qua non for what is ritual and what is not, then there isn't much else to say.

Indeed. The power of reasonable definition at work... What is prescribed can be predicted.

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
What a cramped sense of liturgy you have.

Liturgy is more than a ritual, as indicated by using a different word.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The "sermon as a meal" analogy isn't perfect - but it captures what to me seem important points. Personally, I'd extend the analogy to "church as a meal" - the service as a whole feeds us, the sermon is one course in the meal. In some places it might be the main course, in others an appetiser or desert. And, of course Christ serves other meals for us, not always through the Church - if the only time we eat is one hour Sunday morning then we're not going to be healthy.

Like I expect most people there are very few meals I can remember the details of. But, they fed me, sustained me, helped me grow. And, those meals that are memorable fall into two broad categories; those where the food was special and well prepared, and those where the company was what made the meal. A dish you've had hundreds of times can be very special if you're sharing it with a special friend, the best cooked meal in the world can be ordinary if eaten alone.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A sermon rarely, if ever, presents something new. The congregation expect the preacher to "tell me the old, old story". The purpose isn't to teach something new, but to encourage a renewed response of praise and faithful obedience to the good news.
That's a pretty good summary why much preaching is so incredibly boring and why it so often destroys rather than inspires faith. Frankly, if you don't have anything to say that sheds new light on the gospel for at least some in the audience - then why don't you just sit down and shut up? We have listened to the scripture readings with our own ears, and we can think the same old thoughts we have about those verses just fine by ourselves (and actually, more clearly by meditating in silence rather than having them droned out by someone else).

You could easily say the same of everything the church does. Week after week (or whenever depending on our tradition) we say the Lords Prayer, recite the Creed, repeat the words of Jesus "this is my body..., this is my blood...", distribute the same bits of bread and sips of wine/juice, we'll sing hymns that have been sung countless times before, by the time you've been in church more than 3 years the lectionary turns over and the readings have been read before. Why hold the sermon in a different category from the rest of the service? Why should the sermon say something new if everything else is simply telling the old, old story?

Personally, I have no problem with telling the old, old story thoughout the service - I find that in the retelling it's made alive and new, there is new light shed on the old. We don't need novelty in content for the gospel to become real and new in our lives. That goes for the sermon as much as it does for the rest of the service. Although, novelty can also be illuminating it isn't required for illumination.

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

Strikes me there's 2 problems with the idea that the sermon should give practical application points to people's lives. Firstly, it suggests that Scripture is primarily about telling us what to do, the old "the Bible is a manual for life" idea. I'm not sure that this is what Scripture primarily is - but that's probably a topic for a different thread.

Secondly, and more practically (the irony!), it's hard to do in a way that goes beyond bland generalisations: "Speak to your neighbours! Give money to charity!" etc. I preach to a congregation of about 30-40 each week; I can't possibly know the ins and outs of their lives and how the reading in question will speak into each of their lives. And to give advice beyond the general in a practical way into those lives would take forever. The problem would be even worse with bigger congregations.

But... Anselmina's focus on the communal nature of the sermon holds (to me at least) a possible solution. Perhaps the point of the sermon isn't to shape individuals' lives, but the life of the congregation together. And in this way I think it does work like the meal image (or the chisel image, which I really like!); it isn't alwways hugely memorable as an event, but (hopefully) over time it does good, feeding and building up the body.

(Not sure if this has any bearing on the sort of notes you use, but there you go...)

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The "sermon as a meal" analogy isn't perfect - but it captures what to me seem important points. Personally, I'd extend the analogy to "church as a meal" - the service as a whole feeds us, the sermon is one course in the meal.

Mmm, I get what you're saying and I agree to an extent. But I fear the whole analogy can encourage one to think of a church service (and any organised church activity) as an opportunity to be fed instead of to feed one another. The whole ethos as indicated in the New Testament should be, I think, about mutual support, building up and encouragement; the traditional western church sermon sends the coded message that one person is an expert and has a special role to spiritually feed the congregation. That doesn't sit well with my take on ecclesiology.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

As the one who started this hare running, I should mention before we get too far from the OP that a previous Vicar here informed me that no sermon should last longer than 8 minutes, and that he had a push-button on the Vicar's Stall to press if any sermon exceeded the time limit, which would open a trapdoor in the pulpit and plunge the occupant into a tank of hungry piranhas.
I managed to avoid this fate by writing out a full script and timing myself. Our present Vicar says the ideal sermon is no more than 1,250 words long, though I notice she doesn't stick rigidly to this herself.
I have never found the trapdoor, but we have an adjustable reading desk on the pulpit. By putting this up to its fullest extent, I find I can easily refer to my notes but still make eye contact with people sitting in the back row - or at least appear to.
I think the story of the priest and the bishop mentioned earlier is the anecdote about Archbishop Frederick Temple (father of the great William Temple), recounted in Trevor Phillips' book 'The Bishops'. As Archbishop of Canterbury, F.W. Temple had an unpleasant habit of dropping in unannounced at churches in his Diocese and sitting quietly at the back listening to the service. After one of these visits, he asked the priest: 'Tell me, do you preach extempore or from notes?' 'Well, your Grace, I used to make very full notes, but one day I left them at the Vicarage and had to preach extempore. And, do you know, people told me afterwards that it was the best sermon I had ever preached. So then and there I vowed never to preach from notes, and I have stuck to that ever since.' The Archbishop raised his hand. 'I, Frederick William Temple, by Divine permission Archbishop of Canterbury, hereby release you from your rash vow!'
Do carry on.

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Mmm, I get what you're saying and I agree to an extent. But I fear the whole analogy can encourage one to think of a church service (and any organised church activity) as an opportunity to be fed instead of to feed one another. The whole ethos as indicated in the New Testament should be, I think, about mutual support, building up and encouragement; the traditional western church sermon sends the coded message that one person is an expert and has a special role to spiritually feed the congregation. That doesn't sit well with my take on ecclesiology.

I'm a preacher so I perhaps have a vested interest in all this. I can see where you're coming from and agree up to a point. But I wonder whether it's not so much a problem with the sermon in itself, it's the fact that, in most churches (including my own), there's little or no opportunity made to take the discussion any further. We have the sermon, then whatever in our particular tradition comes after that (Eucharist/the end of the service/some form of response) and that's it. It's almost as if the prayer at the end of the sermon should be: "Let us never speak of these things again".

Instead, I wonder if a possible solution is for us to find ways to enable the congregation to continue talking about what was said in the sermon. So the sermon itself isn't the final word on the matter, it's the first word, it's (to stretch a metaphor to breaking point) the starter for the meal. This would probably vary depending on the particular church: it might be midweek groups; or groups meeting after the service; or some kind of discussion during the service; or something for people to take home and pray/reflect on/study.

The precise method doesn't matter; what would matter would be for people to explore what's been said for themselves and practice some of the mutual building-up that you talk about and which is, I agree, essential. It might also help people to begin to apply it to their individual lives in a way that isn't possible during the sermon itself.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The "sermon as a meal" analogy isn't perfect - but it captures what to me seem important points.

Oh, it could indeed serve as useful analogy. Yet if, and only if, we determine first what is analogous to the nutritional content of food. Because in the end we eat to still our hunger. But what stills our mental and spiritual hunger when listening to a preacher? If you are content with repeating the same thing endlessly, then in my opinion you are serving thin gruel. Perhaps people manage to survive on that. Perhaps people even consider that as perfectly "normal", if they have lived in poverty for a long time. But is that the way it should be?

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You could easily say the same of everything the church does. Week after week (or whenever depending on our tradition) we say the Lords Prayer, recite the Creed, repeat the words of Jesus "this is my body..., this is my blood...", distribute the same bits of bread and sips of wine/juice, we'll sing hymns that have been sung countless times before, by the time you've been in church more than 3 years the lectionary turns over and the readings have been read before. Why hold the sermon in a different category from the rest of the service? Why should the sermon say something new if everything else is simply telling the old, old story?

Are you quite serious?

Because the content of your sermon is not part of the ritual. The ritual grants you a creative space to get across your insights concerning the gospel in order to edify and inspire your community to follow Christ better. If your sermons lasts 20 minutes and 30 members of your congregation are listening to you, then you are occupying 10 hours worth of human cognitive attention. You are grabbing a massive amount of spiritual mind-share there, and if all you have to give back for that is the same ole, then I for one would much prefer if we replaced you with two minutes of silent meditation.

Is this really news to you? I mean, what do you do when "preparing a sermon"? Do you go to a shelf and pull out the appropriate sheet of paper that you will read off verbatim, as always at this time of the year? Well, fine. Then your sermon is indeed a pure ritual, and if you like it that way, then I have nothing bad to say about that. I'm not against ritual at all. But if you actually sit down in front of an essentially empty sheet of paper (or screen), then you are the author and you will sign responsible for the words people will have to listen to. If there is a creative process, your creative process, then you can't just hide behind the ritual within which you present your creation. If I were in your congregation, then your sermon would not just be another part of the liturgy. I would be listening to you, to what you came up with. And if that's trite shite, then nothing in the ritual saves you from having wasted my time, if not worse.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Personally, I have no problem with telling the old, old story thoughout the service - I find that in the retelling it's made alive and new, there is new light shed on the old.

Magically... Because if I say "garbage bin" a million times, it comes to mean "rose garden".

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A few songs, a few prayers, a Bible reading or two and Communion. Job done
I don't think this would be the best improvement, because it wouldn't be about mutual edification and encouragement(Romans 14;19-21).

Neither is a sermon. At best, a sermon is about one person giving edification and encouragement to the rest of the congregation - hardly "mutual"!

quote:
I mean, you can sing, pray and read the Bible at home! What's the point of being in a group of other people if there's no spiritual benefit to be gained from being in community?

Whoever said there's no spiritual benefit to being in community?

quote:
In fact, this is what I see as one of the big problems with church life - we don't nurture spiritual community in the gathering that we consider to be the most important. Churches that are considerered to be 'active' hive it off to house groups and prayer meetings,

Those are the places where it can be fostered in a more productive way, though. Remember, all of the early churches were "house groups".

quote:
or to social events where talk of religion is not expected.

Community - even spiritual community - doesn't always have to be about religion.

quote:
The only reason to go, in your scenario, would be for Communion.

quote:
What we need is a church life that fosters mutuality at different stages, I think. The sermon, as currently understood, doesn't do that.

Agreed.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
So long as the sermon serves (or fairly attempts) its purpose, ... and so long as the cumulative effect is one of community

I can't see that it is. Except possibly that sense of community that comes through a group of people enduring the same thing at the same time.

quote:
...the 'banning of worship addresses because they're not functional' approach of Marvin

More because they're so tediously boring.

As for "functional": in terms of community, developing relationships and scriptural understanding I've gained far more from the midweek house groups I've been part of for the last year or so than I have in thirty-plus years of Sunday sermons.

quote:
both totally overlook the fact that in many church communities, the sermon acts as a strengthening strand, among many, of the relationship between people and minister.

My current church has several preachers, some ordained and some not, who operate on a rotational basis. Our vicar rarely preaches because - as he would admit - he's just not that good at it. I think that's a better way of doing it than having the same person at the front every single week, but I'd still happily dispense with the twenty-minute snoozefest altogether.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I wonder if a possible solution is for us to find ways to enable the congregation to continue talking about what was said in the sermon.

That's why God invented Sunday pub lunches.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
My current church has several preachers, some ordained and some not, who operate on a rotational basis. Our vicar rarely preaches because - as he would admit - he's just not that good at it. I think that's a better way of doing it than hang the same person at the front every single week, but I'd still happily dispense with the twenty-minute snoozefest altogether.

So do we - but 20 minutes is far too long.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I wonder if a possible solution is for us to find ways to enable the congregation to continue talking about what was said in the sermon.
That's why God invented Sunday pub lunches.

Not as far as the Strict Baptists or Methodists are concerned, I presume ...

Anyway, everyone knows that Roast Preacher is the commonest dish at Sunday lunchtime.

[ 04. April 2012, 13:38: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I wonder whether it's not so much a problem with the sermon in itself, it's the fact that, in most churches (including my own), there's little or no opportunity made to take the discussion any further. We have the sermon, then whatever in our particular tradition comes after that (Eucharist/the end of the service/some form of response) and that's it. It's almost as if the prayer at the end of the sermon should be: "Let us never speak of these things again".

Ha, yes! How to encourage people to 'take the discussion further' though? Probably a range of approaches, I suppose... More detailed discussion in smaller meetings, practical coaching (for anyone who wants it) to follow up a sermon on something like being patient, generous or whatever.

I think here is an area where we can gain from the secular sphere - why not look at how teaching and learning (both in terms of knowledge and, I think more importantly for Christianity, practical matters) are done in workplaces, schools and colleges? Let's be discerning, sure, but let's be open to ideas from these other sources.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Mmm. It strikes me that there are many preachers - and I have been here myself - who discourage interaction with the spoken message because they believe, in a very real sense, that it is "God's proclaimed Word" and not up for debate. In other words, they are claiming a certain divine authority for what they have said, transcending the very obvious limitations of human understanding and speech. To argue with the sermon is to remove yourself from the authority of Scripture. The danger of abuse is, of course, apparent.

Now many of us will not take that view; we will say that the message we preach is our best shot at understanding the Biblical passage we may have in mind, given our limited wisdom, comprehension of our current context, and sensitivity to the Holy Spirit. Thus we can come with an approach which is more provisional and thus open for discussion. Here the danger is that we reduce the authority of the message and make it easy to ignore.

There must be a balance somewhere in between!

[ 04. April 2012, 14:44: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I wonder if a possible solution is for us to find ways to enable the congregation to continue talking about what was said in the sermon.
That's why God invented Sunday pub lunches.
Not as far as the Strict Baptists or Methodists are concerned, I presume ...

I know quite a few Methodists and none of them is teetotal.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
To argue with the sermon is to remove yourself from the authority of Scripture. The danger of abuse is, of course, apparent.

You mean, 'Thus says the Lord'? Yikes, danger of abuse indeed...

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Now many of us will not take that view; we will say that the message we preach is our best shot at understanding the Biblical passage we may have in mind, given our limited wisdom, comprehension of our current context, and sensitivity to the Holy Spirit.

In seeking the balance in between these two views, I'd prefer an erring towards the latter as with the former there is such a danger of spiritual abuse. But then I've never given a sermon so I don't know the frustration of spending hours preparing a talk only for it to be ignored by some / many!

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Keeping mostly quite here because I agree with pretty much everything that Alan and Anselmina said.

But feel moved to repeat:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

I think here is an area where we can gain from the secular sphere - why not look at how teaching and learning (both in terms of knowledge and, I think more importantly for Christianity, practical matters) are done in workplaces, schools and colleges?

Well, yes, for teaching. But sermons are not only or mainly about teaching. They are part of the worship. Or should be.

Ideally there would be other times in the week to do Christian teaching outside the Sunday worship. In practice 90% of the church members won't (or can't) go to anything that isn't on Sunday. So what teaching does happen happens at the main service. But it would be wrong to allow it to take over all the preaching.

Also unfortunately there are too many preachers too focused on the practical and every-day so who spend half their sermons talking about all sorts of good stuff rather than the Word of God. I don't want to hear a five-minute homily telling me I should be good rather than bad, I already know that. I don't want a tricksy little "thought for the day" that builds up to some tired old anecdote like a semi-humorous punchline. I don't want to be exhorted to give money to the church steeple fund. (That's what the notices are for. Ideally printed not spoken). I want to hear the living word of God expounded, and I want to have some time to think and pray about it as well.

Yes, and "tell me the old old story" sums it up well. As it also sums up the more repetitive parts of the liturgy (I think that is a safer word than "ritual" which IngoB seems to have given a strange private definition). The readings, the hymns, the set responses, the seasonal variations, the Eucharist, and the sermon, are all telling the old old story. Or ought to be.

Also (and getting off-topic as well as repeating myself from a few months ago) I think the church - that is the particular church, the gathered community - should speak with many voices. There ought to be more than one preacher, and members of the congregation who do not normally preach ought to be able to preach at least now and again. And a sermon doesn't have to be one person speaking continually for ten or twenty or thirty minutes - you can have different people sharing the speaking, or different ways of presenting the sermon. And sometimes preachers ought to disagree with each other. They should certainly be allowed to. The church ought not to speak with only one voice, it ought not to be monotonous.

[ 04. April 2012, 15:36: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I wonder whether it's not so much a problem with the sermon in itself, it's the fact that, in most churches (including my own), there's little or no opportunity made to take the discussion any further. We have the sermon, then whatever in our particular tradition comes after that (Eucharist/the end of the service/some form of response) and that's it. It's almost as if the prayer at the end of the sermon should be: "Let us never speak of these things again".
Ha, yes! How to encourage people to 'take the discussion further' though? Probably a range of approaches, I suppose... More detailed discussion in smaller meetings, practical coaching (for anyone who wants it) to follow up a sermon on something like being patient, generous or whatever.

I think here is an area where we can gain from the secular sphere - why not look at how teaching and learning (both in terms of knowledge and, I think more importantly for Christianity, practical matters) are done in workplaces, schools and colleges? Let's be discerning, sure, but let's be open to ideas from these other sources.

That's already quite common. Many churches, mine included, center their small group curricula around the sermon. It provides a point of commonality, with everyone focusing on the same common theme/text; as you say, an opportunity to go deeper and raise questions. Many will also look for some "hands-on" application, e.g. serving the community as a group, etc. depending on the theme at the time.

otoh it can also cause your small group program to devolve into such a negative nit-picking assemblage that at a certain point people start to question why they're coming-- to either the worship service or the small group.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

Also unfortunately there are too many preachers too focused on the practical and every-day so who spend half their sermons talking about all sorts of good stuff rather than the Word of God. I don't want to hear a five-minute homily telling me I should be good rather than bad, I already know that. I don't want a tricksy little "thought for the day" that builds up to some tired old anecdote like a semi-humorous punchline. I don't want to be exhorted to give money to the church steeple fund. (That's what the notices are for. Ideally printed not spoken). I want to hear the living word of God expounded, and I want to have some time to think and pray about it as well.

Yes, and "tell me the old old story" sums it up well.

But the "living word of God" and the "old old story" both contain quite a bit of exhortations to right living. Indeed, as other theologians more profound than I have noted, the biblical understanding of "salvation" is much more than just "getting into heaven when I die" but rather "saved from a fruitless way of life here and now". I don't know how you can preach the "old old story" without delving into the "stuff" you seem to want to avoid.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
So long as the sermon serves (or fairly attempts) its purpose, ... and so long as the cumulative effect is one of community
I can't see that it is. Except possibly that sense of community that comes through a group of people enduring the same thing at the same time.

quote:
...the 'banning of worship addresses because they're not functional' approach of Marvin
More because they're so tediously boring.

As for "functional": in terms of community, developing relationships and scriptural understanding I've gained far more from the midweek house groups I've been part of for the last year or so than I have in thirty-plus years of Sunday sermons.

quote:
both totally overlook the fact that in many church communities, the sermon acts as a strengthening strand, among many, of the relationship between people and minister.
My current church has several preachers, some ordained and some not, who operate on a rotational basis. Our vicar rarely preaches because - as he would admit - he's just not that good at it. I think that's a better way of doing it than having the same person at the front every single week, but I'd still happily dispense with the twenty-minute snoozefest altogether.

Well, I've explained pretty clearly how preaching fits into the customs and expectations of the church communities I know about. You can believe it or not - it's your choice. Either way you evidently don't value what we value. But as you're not us and vice versa - I daresay we can live with that.

FWIW, I've been in my present place over three yeras and am still trying to find a method of preaching that feels right for this area. I'm obliged - through circumstances mainly - to preach 48 weeks out of the 52. I'm not going to satisfactorily tickle the itching ears of the panel judges. Or the connisseurs, or the mighty philosophers.

However, the folk here are kind, warm-hearted and (I'm hoping!) forgiving; and what I can try to do with a weekly address within worship is demonstrate that their rector knows something about how they live, what the problems are, and that they're not alone or unloved. Sure, I could do a notice at the beginning of worship - or we could all sing a jolly little hymn about it. But, for us, there is some value in the pastor of the parish making regular updated connections with his flock within the freedom of an address (albeit limited).

Your post, in fact, makes me reflect on my last place where I rarely if ever spoke to the same congregation twice in a row, sometimes as little as once in three or four weeks. The pastoral continuity was impossible, let alone trying to follow a coherent theme or method of address.

But worse than that, the congregation began to adopt the attitude of an epicure; if Joe Bloggs was down to preach, they might make the effort to go to service; if it was John Doe they'd pop the snooze button and stay in bed, or I'd get complaints about how long the sermon went on for and could I please make sure that John Doe wasn't allowed to preach again? In my view, that was an unhealthy and unspiritual attitude and bad for the congregation.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
At best, a sermon is about one person giving edification and encouragement to the rest of the congregation - hardly "mutual"!

Indeed. I would prefer to remove the monologue sermon and replace it with something more mutual and interactive.

quote:
Whoever said there's no spiritual benefit to being in community?

I think we underuse the spirituality of church gatherings by always focusing on one person at the front - the preacher. What about the contribution of everyone else?

quote:

Remember, all of the early churches were "house groups".

Yes, but those early house groups were church. They weren't treated as an appendage to church, as they usually are today.

quote:
Community - even spiritual community - doesn't always have to be about religion.

True, but I'm talking about the most important spiritual meeting that Christians have, in most cases the Sunday morning meeting. Why shouldn't the spiritual contributions of everyone be a part of that meeting?

quote:
The only reason to go, in your scenario, would be for Communion.

Not true - there's also the songs and prayers! Songs, because very few house groups have either a worship band or an organ, and prayers because house groups are often too small to know all the prayer needs of the wider community.

Songs and prayers are important, of course, and should provide good opportunities for members of the congregation to contribute.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Because the content of your sermon is not part of the ritual. The ritual grants you a creative space to get across your insights concerning the gospel in order to edify and inspire your community to follow Christ better.

The form of the sermon is part of the 'ritual'. And, yes it is a creative space for reflection on the Scriptures. I'd hope it's a reflection by the gathered community guided by the preacher, though I can't force members of the congregation to follow the guidance offered by the preacher (there have been plenty of times when an apparently throw away comment at the start of a sermon has sent my mind along a track very different from the preacher - and, if I was the preacher and that happened to others I'd be delighted). I hope my sermons, and the rest of the service I have crafted (though selection of hymns, the prayers I've written, the way I've decided to celebrate Communion etc), inpsire the congregation to follow Christ better. That's certainly my intention. But, in the vast majority of cases that's best achieved by reminding the congregation of what they already know, reminding them that the gospel is relevant to their everyday lives, exhorting them to live up to what they already know. Imparting new facts or knowledge is very low on the list of what is needed to encourage people to follow Christ more. Besides, it would be very presumptious of me to think I can tell them something new - the majority of the congregation at our church have at least 3 decades more Christian experience than I have, and I assume know more about the faith we share than I do.

quote:
If I were in your congregation, then your sermon would not just be another part of the liturgy. I would be listening to you, to what you came up with.

Yes, of course. Well, maybe. I could, of course, go online and find the vast number of sermons that are there on every conceivable passage and select one to read instead of writing one. But, the selection would be on the basis of what's most appropriate for the congregation. So, they would still be listening to what I thought they should hear. That's not how I prepare a sermon, of course, I start by copying the texts into a wordprocessing document and reading them prayerfully, then seeing what it is after some contemplation on the texts seems to be the message most appropriate for the congregation. And, I then end up with something that hopefully leads the congregation through the Scriptures to a renewed, faithful life following Christ.

quote:
And if that's trite shite, then nothing in the ritual saves you from having wasted my time, if not worse.

Well, trite shite is not good. And, I hope that that's not what I offer to the congregation. But, shite trite can be something new and novel as easily as the old story. Actually, probably something new is potentially more likely to be trite IMO - especially if it's the product of a desire to always provide novelty. The phenomenum is especially well known in worship songs, but works in sermons too.

My last sermon was preached from the serpant in the desert and John 3. I basically preached "God loves us more than we can imagine, and provides us with a means to be healed. We need to share that love with others". It's a message I could have preached for far longer than the 10 minutes I had, it's the 'old, old story', but one that should never ever get old.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Personally, I have no problem with telling the old, old story thoughout the service - I find that in the retelling it's made alive and new, there is new light shed on the old.
Magically... Because if I say "garbage bin" a million times, it comes to mean "rose garden".

Well, if you think the story of how God created and loves all things, how he became flesh and lived among us, died for our sins and rose again etc can be called a "garbage bin" then I think our faith has very little in common ...

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Well, I've explained pretty clearly how preaching fits into the customs and expectations of the church communities I know about. You can believe it or not - it's your choice. Either way you evidently don't value what we value. But as you're not us and vice versa - I daresay we can live with that.

I believe you [Smile]

. I'm not saying my personal experience or preference is somehow normative, but it's still my personal experience and preference.

quote:
But worse than that, the congregation began to adopt the attitude of an epicure; if Joe Bloggs was down to preach, they might make the effort to go to service; if it was John Doe they'd pop the snooze button and stay in bed, or I'd get complaints about how long the sermon went on for and could I please make sure that John Doe wasn't allowed to preach again? In my view, that was an unhealthy and unspiritual attitude and bad for the congregation.

Maybe John Doe just wasn't a very good preacher? Is there anything inherently wrong with some form of quality control over preaching?

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Well, I've explained pretty clearly how preaching fits into the customs and expectations of the church communities I know about. You can believe it or not - it's your choice. Either way you evidently don't value what we value. But as you're not us and vice versa - I daresay we can live with that.
I believe you . I'm not saying my personal experience or preference is somehow normative, but it's still my personal experience and preference.

quote:
But worse than that, the congregation began to adopt the attitude of an epicure; if Joe Bloggs was down to preach, they might make the effort to go to service; if it was John Doe they'd pop the snooze button and stay in bed, or I'd get complaints about how long the sermon went on for and could I please make sure that John Doe wasn't allowed to preach again? In my view, that was an unhealthy and unspiritual attitude and bad for the congregation.
Maybe John Doe just wasn't a very good preacher? Is there anything inherently wrong with some form of quality control over preaching?

Well, here you raise a very pertinent point.

Undoubtedly there are the occasional John Does who are difficult to listen to. But in the Team Ministry/CofE situation, readers and clergy are given licenses which permit them to preach at certain churches (as well as do whatever else their role demands). It is virtually impossible to exclude even bad preachers from rotas that demand everyone is used in order to cover all worship venues; and also to provide opportunites that these folk are legitimately entitled to exercise - even if they aren't that talented!

They have, after all, the authority of the Bishop to preach in those specific parishes, and some, ime, will complain if not given the chance to do so. The quality control thing is a desirable - but tricky thing. Discreet feedback and advice is hard enough, but could be fruitful. But a lot depends on the personality of the John Doe.

I have observed at least one preacher through a progressive illness, affecting the delivery of his sermons, becoming a trial to an impatient and uncharitable congregation, despite the general quality of the content.

Equally I've observed clergy - of long-standing and great confidence in asserting his 'rights' to the pulpit - being much complained of by most, but lauded to the skies by the occasional listener.

You can perhaps guess the effects of 'feedback' on these gentlemen.

You see, I think the congregation (well, some of them) sometimes felt that they were there to hold up the judges' score cards on the sermon; as if they where there to be entertained and diverted. Rather than to work with their fellow Christian in uncovering the Word for them from that day's Scripture.

That's what I mean about the community thing. In any family/community setting we often become who we are - hopefully for the better - by what we have to work through together. Still, it's all a work in progress and I think more rigour in my own case is required if I am to find an effective way to preach regularly and helpfully.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Your post, in fact, makes me reflect on my last place where I rarely if ever spoke to the same congregation twice in a row, sometimes as little as once in three or four weeks. The pastoral continuity was impossible, let alone trying to follow a coherent theme or method of address.

But worse than that, the congregation began to adopt the attitude of an epicure; if Joe Bloggs was down to preach, they might make the effort to go to service; if it was John Doe they'd pop the snooze button and stay in bed, or I'd get complaints about how long the sermon went on for and could I please make sure that John Doe wasn't allowed to preach again? In my view, that was an unhealthy and unspiritual attitude and bad for the congregation.

This strikes me as the situation that British Methodists often have to face. Clergy routinely have 2,3 or 4 churches in their care, and lay preachers are frequently in the pulpit. In a large Methodist circuit, one might have a large number of different people pass through a pulpit every 3 months and every year. Despite the lectionary, I think this makes continuity very difficult.

Methodists are very aware of the attitude whereby people chose whose sermons to turn up for and whose to avoid. (Of course, this is not appreciated by church leaders.) All Methodists ministers receive occasional complaints about the idiosyncracies of certain lay preachers or non-stipendary ministers on the rota. But it seems quite difficult to prevent certain preachers from preaching at particular churches. Our minister refused to recommend that one long-term but uninspiring preacher be requested not to come back. Ministers often try to avoid potential upset and conflict, and this can mean letting unhelpful situations continue.

As a result of all this, the response has been to stress churchgoing as a duty. Is it wholesome to see listening to sermons as a 'duty'? I think there are disadvantages to this approach.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

I think sermons can and should be something new every time, and also the old, old story. They should have a sense of rediscovery. It's a bit like revisiting a favourite place. It's the same, and you remember it well, but memory isn't as good as seeing. The grass is so green, the hills so beautiful, the air so fresh. It astonishes even while you greet it again as a place well known.

The gospel isn't something that can be written down, taught and remembered. It's more like something that happens to us, a personal movement of response to God and turning towards God. It's like falling in love again, or finding yourself again. 'You were within me all along, but I was outside myself.' That realisation is where the sermon should try to take us every week.

It has to proceed surreptitiously. You can't just tell people about the love of God in the same words every week. We soon make antibodies to clichés. You have to lull people into a false sense of security. They'll try to guess where you're going, so it's easy to fool them, to lead them up hill and down dale. You might, along the way, want to stir up anxieties and hopes, to make their expectations a bit keener. Then, when the time is ripe (and I agree that 20 minutes is usually a bit long) you turn a corner and there, all at once, is the gospel. You and they have never seen it from quite this angle before. They didn't know you could get there from here. But there it is in all its joyful goodness, an old friend met anew, like Kisdon every time I see it again.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

As a result of all this, the response has been to stress churchgoing as a duty. Is it wholesome to see listening to sermons as a 'duty'? I think there are disadvantages to this approach.

I suppose it depends whether you see a sermon as a natural part of the worship which is one of the basic duties required of Christians.

It doesn't necessarily follow that it is. Some acts of worship don't have sermons - though I imagine most main acts of Sunday worship will usually have an address or 'input' of some sort.

The 'duty' part is, perhaps, more about our duty to publicly witness to God, and worship him, than our duty to be piously bored! I guess if one finds oneself in a situation where one cannot be accomplished without the other, maybe finding another form or place of worship should be on the cards? I know (not least from these boards) that some people choose mid-week communions or early Sunday services because there are no sermons (or no music for those who don't like that kind of thing).

I guess one can only decide for oneself whether or not one is genuinelly avoiding some demanding element of worship from good or bad motives.

Posted by Philip Charles (# 618) on :

In my last parish I had five churches and on occasion I would have services at 8:45am, 10am and 11:15am. The congregations were different. I would preach from notes in an informal way. This enabled me adapt my sermon to each congregation. Reasonably often I would discover that I had left my notes with a previous congregation and preached from memory, but this was a strain.

The services were timed for 50 minutes, people forgave me for starting late provided I finished one hour after the official starting time. So the sermon had to be short, typically eight minutes.

My sermon would be based on the readings for the day, usually the Gospel. During my preparation I would discover that i had far too much material and the main task was to determine what to leave out. I do not care if people do not remember my sermons, but I pray that they have a better understanding of the Gospel for the day.

Christ is Risen! - (I am in NZ.) [Yipee]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The form of the sermon is part of the 'ritual'.

In general, even that is not the case. If you want to render your sermon in dramatic verse, you can. If it is a homily, then we can guess (a little bit...) about the content. As for the outer form, it is mostly just a continuation of the ritual framework: who, where, how long and what attire tends to be determined by the general setting, rather than by anything specific to the sermon.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, in the vast majority of cases that's best achieved by reminding the congregation of what they already know, reminding them that the gospel is relevant to their everyday lives, exhorting them to live up to what they already know. Imparting new facts or knowledge is very low on the list of what is needed to encourage people to follow Christ more.

New thoughts do not have to be about "new facts and knowledge". I doubt that it would hurt in most places to increase the fraction of catechetical material, but I'm not talking about turning sermons into Sunday school lectures.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Besides, it would be very presumptious of me to think I can tell them something new - the majority of the congregation at our church have at least 3 decades more Christian experience than I have, and I assume know more about the faith we share than I do.

If you feel out of your depth, then pass the job on to someone who isn't. It is not any less presumptious to stand up in order to bother people with trivialities. It is just a lot more annoying.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, I then end up with something that hopefully leads the congregation through the Scriptures to a renewed, faithful life following Christ.

Well, fine. But we are asking ourselves here how to do that. Grace perfects nature, it does not abolish it. That we - by and large - are not rushing along a straight path to sainthood does not mean that it is helpful to repeat the same basics over and over again in the same way. By the third repetition, people will start to switch off or even grow resentful. That's human nature, and if you fight it, you will lose. If you want to "renew" people's interest in something they "know", then you have to offer them a fresh perspective in some way or the other. Otherwise basic psychology (indeed, neuroscience) will turn you into so much background noise.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Actually, probably something new is potentially more likely to be trite IMO - especially if it's the product of a desire to always provide novelty. The phenomenum is especially well known in worship songs, but works in sermons too.

Worship songs serve a different function than sermons. They are much more a community building exercise, and their content tends to be limited and prescribed (often by having an approved book of worship songs to choose from).

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
My last sermon was preached from the serpant in the desert and John 3. I basically preached "God loves us more than we can imagine, and provides us with a means to be healed. We need to share that love with others". It's a message I could have preached for far longer than the 10 minutes I had, it's the 'old, old story', but one that should never ever get old.

Obviously, I cannot judge from this brief summary whether your sermon made this get old. (Though personally I would say that "God provides us with means to be healed" is enough. We do not need a specific focus on how much God loves us, if we are already discussing His healing. And we do not have to bring some unspecific missionary activity into this as "action plan". We can specifically talk about the action of us and others actually turning to God for healing. If one has only 10 minutes, then the KISS principle rules.)

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, if you think the story of how God created and loves all things, how he became flesh and lived among us, died for our sins and rose again etc can be called a "garbage bin" then I think our faith has very little in common ...

The actual point was that repetition is a limited tool. It is good for ingraining, hence the Creed. It is not well suited for changing matters.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, in the vast majority of cases that's best achieved by reminding the congregation of what they already know, reminding them that the gospel is relevant to their everyday lives, exhorting them to live up to what they already know. Imparting new facts or knowledge is very low on the list of what is needed to encourage people to follow Christ more.
New thoughts do not have to be about "new facts and knowledge". I doubt that it would hurt in most places to increase the fraction of catechetical material, but I'm not talking about turning sermons into Sunday school lectures.

What then would you mean by "new thoughts"? The latest archaelogical findings relating to the stories in the lectionary, recent insights from theologians and commentators etc all seem to me to fall under "new facts and knowledge". And, I agree that a sermon needs some "catechetical material", but of course a catechism is just a repackaging of the "old, old story" increasing that content won't introduce any novelty to the sermon. I'm not sure what you'd be looking for in a sermon that imparts something new.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Besides, it would be very presumptious of me to think I can tell them something new - the majority of the congregation at our church have at least 3 decades more Christian experience than I have, and I assume know more about the faith we share than I do.
If you feel out of your depth, then pass the job on to someone who isn't. It is not any less presumptious to stand up in order to bother people with trivialities. It is just a lot more annoying.

Well, I don't feel out of my depth preaching. It's just that I don't feel capable to impart new knowledge to a congregation who are already more than sufficiently familiar with the gospel message. What I can do is encourage myself and the congregation to live out that gospel message in our lives. That isn't trivial, in fact I can't think of a less trivial thing than the gospel message.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, I then end up with something that hopefully leads the congregation through the Scriptures to a renewed, faithful life following Christ.
Well, fine. But we are asking ourselves here how to do that. Grace perfects nature, it does not abolish it. That we - by and large - are not rushing along a straight path to sainthood does not mean that it is helpful to repeat the same basics over and over again in the same way.

Who said anything about repeating "the same basics over and over again in the same way"? I'm talking about retelling the gospel message. Yes, it will be the same message because the gospel doesn't change. But, for it to be the gospel it has to be told anew. It's not a dead statement of intellectual facts, but a living life changing message of hope. Every preacher will have their own way of preaching that message. Every congregation will have different ways of hearing that message. With the help of God the preacher and congregation will meet in the same place and time to tell and hear the message anew.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Actually, probably something new is potentially more likely to be trite IMO - especially if it's the product of a desire to always provide novelty. The phenomenum is especially well known in worship songs, but works in sermons too.

Worship songs serve a different function than sermons. They are much more a community building exercise, and their content tends to be limited and prescribed.[/qb][/quote]Yes, they serve different functions. But, there are similarities too. The sermon is also a community building exercise. And, the sermon content also tends to be limited and prescribed - time is one constraint, the passages preached on are another, and also the sermon is constrained by being a proclamation of the gospel so it should not wander too far from orthodoxy.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, if you think the story of how God created and loves all things, how he became flesh and lived among us, died for our sins and rose again etc can be called a "garbage bin" then I think our faith has very little in common ...
The actual point was that repetition is a limited tool. It is good for ingraining, hence the Creed. It is not well suited for changing matters.

Repetition of the gospel is a liberating tool, not a limiting one. And, although it should be written on our hearts as a living, empowering, deep rooted, life changing message it isn't one that can be learnt by rote. The Creeds aren't the gospel message, merely simplified formulations that put boundaries around the central gospel facts. Learning the Creeds by rote is, possibly, a good thing. But, if that's all that the gospel means to you then your understanding is deeply impoverished. The phrases of the Creeds are great, but the important question is "what do they mean?". The sermon asks the same question of the passages read, "what does this mean?" which includes not just intellectual knowledge but (more importantly for a sermon) "how does it affect us? how should we respond? what does this call on us to do? how does this change us?". The preacher may (and, probably should) offer guidance - but it is the task of the congregation to answer those questions.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you want to render your sermon in dramatic verse, you can.

In a lifetime of churchgoing, I can't remember ever coming across this. Probably because most preachers aren't poets, and would be risking ridicule to a greater extent than usual.

It sounds like the sort of thing a minister would have to get from a book. Probably for all-age worship. Mostly to amuse the kiddies.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

My childhood vicar used to write books of Christian limericks and regularly used to read out little excerpts of his poetry, or verse he had made up to popular tunes. Yes, it was fun when you were 8 or 9 years old.

Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on :

A poet who was also a famous preacher was John Donne, who was Dean of St Pauls (London) in the 17th century.

He was also a graduate of one of the colleges at which I was a student about 400 years after him. Said college used to honour his memory by each year on or around his birthday using one of his sermons as part of the chapel service. Many of his sermons were published in full text. When I was there, the Donne sermon would be read/ preached by a mature student who had been a professional actor for many years. He read every word, but with truly professional timing and emphasis.

The sermons were still good when presented in this way, but I was glad they were scripts in the hands of a good performer, as they were very long by modern standards - about 60 minutes as read! What made them so long was that each point was illustrated by not one but three or four examples. But they were all in prose, though very flowing euphonious prose it was.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0