|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Confession of a sermon-hater
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CSL1:
Because sermons are the main issue. I've not yet heard a person say "Let's attend service X this morning because worship leader Y will be directing songs"...
All that tells me is about your church background. The very fact that you use the phrase 'directing songs' shows that you come from a tradition where that is never going to happen. Other traditions have other temptations.
It happens. All the time. In some Charismatic circles it can be quite common. Back in my student days I remember frequent conversations where someone would say something along the lines of, "Got to go to church tonight because X is leading worship."
Only slightly off subject this all reminds me of Father Ted where a running joke was applying exactly this kind of thinking to how the Mass was conducted - "Oh Father Y, he leads a lovely mass, lovely." Almost every episode has some joke based around the cult of celebrity that some Priests allegedly have for how they perform liturgy. Part of the joke is ironic (Irish Priests are hardly pop stars) and yet I think it is quite insightful.
Liturgy, sermons, worship leading, practically any part of the service is open to this. It is human nature.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I was brought up on Wm Sangster's book "The Art of Sermon Construction". As I remember he had about 13 categories of sermons ranging from the expository to the topical.
Depending on the category might well depend the length of the sermon.
Anyone who thinks a decent sermon can be knocked off on the back of an envelope in 2 minutes had better think again.
My usual M.O. with sermon construction is to read the next week's lessons after Evensong the Sunday before. Sometime on Tuesday I decide on the theme, and then start putting the material together committing my notes to paper. I brew on it Weds and Thursday. I look at it again Thuesday afternoon and usually throw out version one on Thursday evening and start over. I usually bin version two that one Saturday morning and start version three, which usually goes in the wastepaper basket Saturday evening. Therefore I usually preach without notes on Sunday morning, but by that time I have been over the material so many times that everything comes together.
I loathe bad preaching, so I tend to take pains with my own. I am told I am better than average, but from what I have heard that is not saying much! However, I am not an 'easy listening' preacher because I do not enjoy hearing that sort of sermon. I still use the good old sledgehammer technique of tell 'em, tell 'em again and then tell 'em what you've told 'em. However my version tends to be a bit of a Passacaglia in that I come at the same message from slightly different angles.
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Indeed, nobody thinks otherwise, making me wonder why you even said this. It's a straw man. Once again you are taking a "we know what's best for you" attitude. If you don't agree with Johnny S, you're a Cafeteria Christian. Thanks.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) Is there some irony I'm missing here? You seem to be completely dismissing what I'm saying and claiming to speak for everyone else while pretty much accusing me of doing the same thing?
Can you show me anywhere I implied that people are Cafeteria Christians, or indeed less of a Christian in any way, because of their attitude about sermons?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
Anselmina, I think something you and any other cleric worth their salt would be aware of is that a church is a collaborative enterprise. A sermon is an attempt to sow some sort of seed. It might strike the right note and lead to real change, especially with a bit of watering.
I like Rosa Winkel's idea of being led to a deeper understanding of the scriptures of the day by the Holy Spirit.
The worst sermons I have ever heard have been of the "Closed. That's it! Finito" variety by a preacher whose subject, thinly disguised, seems to be "I, me and myself". That sort of narcissistic self-adoration empties churches. One, amongst other events leading up to it, convinced me to quit my last place of worship. It was the coup de grace.
I think, properly used, the sermon is a valuable tool but just one of many available.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
[]My usual M.O. with sermon construction is [....]
Made me consider that there is probably a worthy classification of "sermon construction" and "sermon destruction". Some just have bad foundations, don't stand up, and need a wrecking ball, while others are quite resilient, and their architecture is beauteous.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Can you show me anywhere I implied that people are Cafeteria Christians, or indeed less of a Christian in any way, because of their attitude about sermons?
Cafeteria Christians was your term but I still don't understand what you are trying to say.
If nobody disagrees with what I was saying then, according to your original post, I'm saying that nobody is a Cafeteria Christian.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
If you can't be bothered to actually address what I said, Johnny S, then you are acting as you always have.
[ 14. July 2012, 05:14: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Indeed, nobody thinks otherwise, making me wonder why you even said this. It's a straw man. Once again you are taking a "we know what's best for you" attitude. If you don't agree with Johnny S, you're a Cafeteria Christian. Thanks.
Is there some irony I'm missing here? You seem to be completely dismissing what I'm saying and claiming to speak for everyone else while pretty much accusing me of doing the same thing?
Can you show me anywhere I implied that people are Cafeteria Christians, or indeed less of a Christian in any way, because of their attitude about sermons?
You still haven't explained yourself MT.
Above was your response when I qualified what I meant by expressing concerns over how helpful surveys asking people their ideal length of sermons were.
I don't see how I can respond to you if you won't tell me what your problem is.
Either
1. Having heard what I meant by my reservations about such surveys you agree - hence 'nobody thinks otherwise' - and therefore your complaint is that all I'm saying is a truism that everyone here accepts anyway and adds nothing to the debate.
or
2. You disagree with how I view the input from surveys and hence take issue with my alleged "we know what's best for you" attitude.
However, you seem to be trying to say both at the same time which makes no sense to me. If my view of surveys is shared by everyone on this thread then all of us must be tarred with the same brush, surely? Likewise if you don't agree with my view on surveys then what was the point of it being a straw-man because nobody would disagree? I don't see how I can reply until you make it clear which of the above you are actually saying.
All that is coming across at the moment is - "I'm disagreeing with Johnny because of past history on other threads."
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Am I alone in not 'getting' what the current MT/Johnny S spat is about?
Am I missing something?
I like both guys and equally can rub up the wrong way with both guys at times, but I haven't detected the kind of 'I-know-best' attitude with Johnny S here that MT seems to be complaining of ... although I'm aware of 'history' on other threads.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
glockenspiel
Shipmate
# 13645
|
Posted
Did anyone ever leave a church complaining that the sermon was too short??
Posts: 1258 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Am I alone in not 'getting' what the current MT/Johnny S spat is about?
Not alone at all.
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Did anyone ever leave a church complaining that the sermon was too short??
Yes.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Did anyone ever leave a church complaining that the sermon was too short??
Sermon length is often an issue when Lutheran and Episcopal churches share clergy. Lutherans (other than MartinL) like them to be 15-25 minutes. Episcopalians prefer 7-12. I usually preach 10-12.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Did anyone ever leave a church complaining that the sermon was too short??
Tee hee, me, once. But it was probably a unique situation. My first time in a Black Baptist church, he cut the sermon short at an hour+ because it was getting dark and the elderly needed to drive home. It wasn't a sermon like any of y'all are discussing. It was a black baptist sermon, the rhythm and cadences of traditional spirituals, in a voice that was as much song or chant as speech, it was all about Jesus, phrases that could fit into a gospel song, "and didn't Jesus bleed for you?" ("Amen.") "Didn't Jesus bleed for you?" ("Amen!") "I said didn't Jesus bleed for you?" ("Amen! Preach it brother!") "Didn't Jesus die for you?" ("Yes, amen.") "And wasn't he raised from the grave?" ("Hallelujah, brother! Amen!")
I could have listened another hour, and recently suggested to a friend we go visit there again.
But a first exposure to something like that -- is it like the first exposure to a great piece of music that startles with it's beauty, later repeated times it's enjoying a dear friend but that's not the element of discovery?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Did anyone ever leave a church complaining that the sermon was too short??
Interesting thought - and what Belle Ringer said above. When I was an undergrad. and fiercely anglo-catholic, I used to enjoy the preaching at the local anglican evangelical church, where they packed them in. Sermons often approached 45 mins to an hour - the oratory and story-telling was good and i was often left wanting more.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Lutherans (other than MartinL) like them to be 15-25 minutes.
Not true at all. I have been asking fellow Lutherans for almost my entire life about this. The majority will say 15 minutes, maximum. I just asked two people yesterday, and they together came to the consensus of 10-15, with an ideal of 11-12. Age is surprisingly not a big factor, and the two people I asked yesterday were both over 70 years old. In theory, clergy tend to agree with these numbers. In practice, they tend not to live up to them.
Different Lutheran denoms will have different expectations, I'm sure. I have a feeling that non-ELCA Lutherans probably expect a little bit longer, but it's less likely that they will have weekly communion, too.
[ 14. July 2012, 17:10: Message edited by: Martin L ]
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S
I quite agree but therefore have obviously misunderstood your OP - why are you picking on sermons since this could apply to any aspect of a Sunday service?
I remember noticing way back in the mid 90s that the Soul Survivor brochure gave top billing to the worship leaders and the main speakers were only found in the middle pages.
I've know several Christian contexts where the only question is "who's leading worship?" (i.e. who's at the front leading the songs.)
The reason I am "picking on" sermons is because there is a significant difference between preaching and any other aspect of a service. It concerns freedom (as in licence).
I agree that worship leaders can be put on a pedestal and that they can exert a significant influence over worshippers, but generally speaking worship operates within certain parameters and constraints (although I know that there is the very wacky end of the spectrum). How many worship songs are there that try to extract money from people? How many worship songs try to pull heavy guilt trips? How many worship songs dictate policy and direction in a church?
But the preacher often has almost unlimited freedom. Yes, he has to keep within certain doctrinal bounds, but these bounds usually provide no security against the possibility of the psychological manipulation of the captive audience (aka the congregation).
I certainly affirm freedom of speech, but only when there is the opportunity for a response or for being able to tune out. So it's great to have a debate on the internet. It's great to express one's views in a book, which people can choose not to read (or can take it at their own pace, and think carefully about what is written). But a sermon offers no opportunity to respond, and no opportunity for people to process the information at their own pace. This provides the preacher with a terrible power over people's minds and souls. We know that some preachers can effect a certain inflection and tone in their voice that can induce emotional responses in the congregation. I find this frightening.
I affirm that preaching is part of the ministry of the church, but it should operate according to very strict criteria (such as a rigid lectionary programme), and within a strict time limit. There should be a structure of accountability which prevents the abuse of the privilege of preaching. No Christian should ever have to put up with an attention seeker droning on for two hours about everything and nothing, or a vicious guilt manipulator playing on people's deepest fears.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Look that sounds bad but which is worse to be in a position where you hear something that is manipulative or that you are put in the position where you act something that is manipulative?
Just think of it, the congregation has little say in what hymns or what they say as part of liturgy. Look at the power that is there.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Yes, thanks, that helps *if* I'm guessing right that you would include in the concept of "life of the congregation as a whole" things like my concern that the tendency of SOME churches to divide people into separate demographic groups isn't exactly what Jesus had in mind, a healthy congregation would have a lot of mixing - on projects and socially - among singles and marrieds, children and adults and elders, those who like the quiet said service and those who like the happy clappy contemporary service and those who like the formal traditional service, because we are all aspects of a whole congregation and have much to gain and give by knowing each other. (Not discounting other aspects, like what is this church's mission in this community in this decade.)
Am I on your wavelength? Or have I missed the point? Thanks.
(Sorry for the delay in reply, real life caught up with me!)
No, not missed the point, you're bang on my wavelength. I know it's the hardest thing in the world (or at least in the church to do), but trying in some way to bring together all these different tensions is I think a huge part of what church is all about. And if preaching can at all help to do this, then I think it may be worth it.
The difficult bit is the "how"...
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Look that sounds bad but which is worse to be in a position where you hear something that is manipulative or that you are put in the position where you act something that is manipulative?
Just think of it, the congregation has little say in what hymns or what they say as part of liturgy. Look at the power that is there.
Exactly this. In a sermon, you're only asking people to listen to stuff they may or may not agree with. In liturgy, you're asking them to say it; in hymns, you're asking them to sing it (which, I reckon, can be even more powerful - as ken's said a few times here, if you want to know a church's theology, listen to the soundtrack). Yes there is room for manipulation is a sermon - but there's just as much, if not more, in other parts of a service as well.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
Most traditional congregations of the churches of Christ in the U.S. -- those that rose from the American Restoration Movement -- tend to have a sermon preached at least at the main Sunday morning service. They also usually meet again Sunday night, and have a gathering during the week as well.
But, frankly, if they stick to that "sermon" format, the preacher could be expected to deliver maybe as many as three full sermons a week, each as much as 30 to 45 minutes long. That's a lot of work. And only a very few very gifted people can come up with enough informative, fascinating angles on the Scriptures to supply that much material every week, every month, every year, for years, and also preach it in such a way that the assembled absorb it and learn something and maybe even enjoy it, rather than starting to snore.
I hate to sit in rows of pews and stare at the backs of people's heads while others stare at the back of my head, while someone not up to the challenge drones out a less than scintillating sermon. I really don't mind being lectured at if it's done well... but the factors above force it to very seldom be done well.
Much better is the "Bible Study" format, where people actually spend the time reading and digesting the Scripture, with someone to coordinate/ facilitate the discussion to keep it fruitful and interesting. That's what we do in my congregation and I bless God for it.
I confess that I, too, am frequently a sermon hater.
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie
In a sermon, you're only asking people to listen to stuff they may or may not agree with. In liturgy, you're asking them to say it; in hymns, you're asking them to sing it (which, I reckon, can be even more powerful - as ken's said a few times here, if you want to know a church's theology, listen to the soundtrack). Yes there is room for manipulation is a sermon - but there's just as much, if not more, in other parts of a service as well.
I accept that the musical "worship time" can be manipulative, especially if it is combined with a so called "ministry time" (as in a charismatic church). So I'll concede that point.
But when it comes to the liturgy, I have to disagree with you. The liturgy is consistent week after week and it is (or should be) a statement of what the church believes and affirms. If someone strongly disagrees with the liturgy, then I think he or she should seriously consider whether that church is for them. But sermons change from week to week, and we cannot predict what the preacher is going to say (because of the freedom he or she has). Therefore there is an element of insecurity there for the congregation. At least we know what the liturgy states, so we know what to expect.
Furthermore, most people would not feel it is right to leave the church on the basis of a bad sermon. And this is even more true of those churches with preaching rotas, such as the Methodist Church: "OK, we had a lousy sermon today, but he's not coming back here for another three months." This kind of tolerance would not surely be the case with the liturgy, which the congregation has to live with on a permanent basis. Therefore the congregation is far more susceptible to manipulation from a sermon than from the liturgy, because of the factors of surprise and tolerance, as I've explained.
The idea that people can listen to a sermon in a completely objective and dispassionate way, as you seem to suggest, flies in the face of what we know about group dynamics. The preacher can create an atmosphere by the way he says things, his tone, his inflection, his jokes, his illustrations, his insinuations etc. If we really want the congregation to assess information in a dispassionate way, then we should send them away with the sermon in writing, so that each person can read it at their own pace and consider it carefully in the quiet of their own home, rather than in the subtle (or not so subtle!) dynamics of a group situation.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie
In a sermon, you're only asking people to listen to stuff they may or may not agree with. In liturgy, you're asking them to say it; in hymns, you're asking them to sing it (which, I reckon, can be even more powerful - as ken's said a few times here, if you want to know a church's theology, listen to the soundtrack).
The difference being that the liturgy expresses the core teachings of the church, which if you don't believe you shouldn't have signed up. The sermon can be dishing out any number of opinions on any number of subjects.
Songs/hymns depend a great deal on their nature. The hymns of Orthodox churches, for example, are as set as the liturgy and indistinguishable from it.
Praise choruses (in churches that use them) can pop up from any source and are like sermons in the distinction you are making; they will reflect the opinions of the worship leader(s) as surely as the sermons reflect the opinions of the preacher(s).
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The difference being that the liturgy expresses the core teachings of the church, which if you don't believe you shouldn't have signed up. The sermon can be dishing out any number of opinions on any number of subjects.
Can be, but that doesn't mean should be. The pulpit shouldn't be a soapbox for the preacher to harangue everyone with their own views and opinions - although I appreciate it sometimes is (eg most of the "sermons" at the Baptist Assembly in London this year). They should be guided by the things you speak of as much as the liturgy, although maybe in different ways.
If preachers are just spouting off their opinions (and I've definitely heard it done) then that's a problem with preachers misunderstanding what it is they're supposed to be doing - it's not necessarily a problem with preaching in itself.
quote:
Songs/hymns depend a great deal on their nature. The hymns of Orthodox churches, for example, are as set as the liturgy and indistinguishable from it.
I didn't realise that - that's genuinely interesting, thanks!
quote:
Praise choruses (in churches that use them) can pop up from any source and are like sermons in the distinction you are making; they will reflect the opinions of the worship leader(s) as surely as the sermons reflect the opinions of the preacher(s).
I agree entirely - but if that's aproblem with worship leaders, and not necessarily with the concept of sung worhsip then, as I've said above, preachers using the pulpit to put across their own opinions is a problem with preachers, not with preaching.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
Not being especially gifted as a preacher I believe that I have talked long enough if I have talked for somewhere between 12 and 15 minutes. Much less than 12 minutes, (unless the lessons are uninteresting) and I have not really got into the material. More than 15 minutes and I will have lost 9 out of 10 of the folks sat in the congregation.
PD
[ 16. July 2012, 00:22: Message edited by: PD ]
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I accept that the musical "worship time" can be manipulative, especially if it is combined with a so called "ministry time" (as in a charismatic church). So I'll concede that point.
But when it comes to the liturgy, I have to disagree with you. The liturgy is consistent week after week and it is (or should be) a statement of what the church believes and affirms. If someone strongly disagrees with the liturgy, then I think he or she should seriously consider whether that church is for them. But sermons change from week to week, and we cannot predict what the preacher is going to say (because of the freedom he or she has). Therefore there is an element of insecurity there for the congregation. At least we know what the liturgy states, so we know what to expect.
Furthermore, most people would not feel it is right to leave the church on the basis of a bad sermon. And this is even more true of those churches with preaching rotas, such as the Methodist Church: "OK, we had a lousy sermon today, but he's not coming back here for another three months." This kind of tolerance would not surely be the case with the liturgy, which the congregation has to live with on a permanent basis. Therefore the congregation is far more susceptible to manipulation from a sermon than from the liturgy, because of the factors of surprise and tolerance, as I've explained.
The idea that people can listen to a sermon in a completely objective and dispassionate way, as you seem to suggest, flies in the face of what we know about group dynamics. The preacher can create an atmosphere by the way he says things, his tone, his inflection, his jokes, his illustrations, his insinuations etc. If we really want the congregation to assess information in a dispassionate way, then we should send them away with the sermon in writing, so that each person can read it at their own pace and consider it carefully in the quiet of their own home, rather than in the subtle (or not so subtle!) dynamics of a group situation.
I think you've put your finger on a bigger question here - namely why do we gather together for a formal service?
ISTM that liturgy is helpful in preserving continuity, a sense of reminding us what is central to our faith. That is a good thing, IMNSHO.
However, isn't a certain level of insecurity a good thing when we gather together? Do you really want to know exactly what is going to be said before you turn up.
In my tradition sermons tend to work through a book of the Bible. That seriously reduces the possibility of soapboxes and hobby horses. If the preacher gives another message on giving when it is not in the passage at all then he/she tends to get called on it. That said, I don't know exactly what the preacher is going to say when I turn up. That brings excitement and challenge into my Christian faith. A service that was only liturgy would surely become very boring wouldn't it? And I don't mean boring in an entertainment sense, I mean boring in the sense of unfulfilling, of providing no stimulus for growth.
As I said earlier, I'm all in favour of liturgy, just that I think you are expecting too much of it. It is not an either /or thing.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I don't go to church to be excited, but to be fed.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't go to church to be excited, but to be fed.
Why do you keep doing this MT? I genuine don't get it...
I specifically qualified what I meant by saying:
quote:
Originally posted by me:
And I don't mean boring in an entertainment sense, I mean boring in the sense of unfulfilling, of providing no stimulus for growth.
You appear to be deliberately misquoting me. If you haven't worked it out already "I don't go to church to be excited, but to be fed" is pretty much the strapline for my church tradition.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
How many worship songs are there that try to extract money from people?
Take my silver and my gold,
Not a mite would I withhold ...
quote:
How many worship songs try to pull heavy guilt trips?
Who was the guilty? Who brought this upon Thee?
Alas, my treason, Jesus, hath undone Thee.
’Twas I, Lord, Jesus, I it was denied Thee!
I crucified Thee.
quote:
How many worship songs dictate policy and direction in a church?
Faith of our fathers, Mary’s prayers
Shall win our country back to Thee;
And through the truth that comes from God,
England shall then indeed be free.
(Which I have heard sung in a High Anglican church.)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
Isn't one of the objections to "In Christ Alone" that's been raised on these boards that it seeks to impose a particular theology (specifically PSA, but don't go there!) on the singers? How's that different from a preacher doing that?
(ETA: That was following on from, not arguing against Ricardus' point, btw)
[ 16. July 2012, 07:28: Message edited by: Stejjie ]
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus
Take my silver and my gold,
Not a mite would I withhold ...
...
Who was the guilty? Who brought this upon Thee?
Alas, my treason, Jesus, hath undone Thee.
’Twas I, Lord, Jesus, I it was denied Thee!
I crucified Thee.
...
Faith of our fathers, Mary’s prayers
Shall win our country back to Thee;
And through the truth that comes from God,
England shall then indeed be free.
Point taken (and well researched!)
As I said in one of my posts, I have conceded the point about songs, but I still maintain that these influences are far more powerful and destructive through the medium of the sermon than locked in the rhyme (and sometimes doggerel) of a hymn or worship song.
Being hectored from the pulpit for half an hour about giving is rather more intrusive and direct than mouthing "Take my silver and my gold, not a mite would I withhold...". After all, the preacher has far more freedom to construct and fine-tune his methodology than the hymn has!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I've enjoyed many an expository sermon in a Baptist setting, Johnny S and I would add that I consider many Baptist ministers to be masters of this particular art.
That said, I don't believe that working through a book of the Bible systematically necessarily guards against personal foibles and idiosyncracies - it can even add to them.
My brother-in-law is quite happily ensconced in a large Baptist church after years and years of involvement with Pentecostal and restorationist circles. He appreciates the depth and breadth of the teaching but is worried about some of the younger guys coming out of the seminaries who seemingly simply throw proof-texts around regardless of context.
He's also concerned about incipient subjectivism as a result of Toronto-style influences - that seems to have made some headway to the detriment of proper teaching and catechesis.
Be warned.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Isn't one of the objections to "In Christ Alone" that's been raised on these boards that it seeks to impose a particular theology (specifically PSA, but don't go there!)
Bollocks objection of course because the same song also refers to half-a-dozen other descriptions of the atonement.
I think the main way to avoid manipulative and repetitive preaching is to have a wide selection of preachers. If its always the same person trouble is more likely. A church should speak to itself in many voices.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
I'm a Reader in the CoE and preach on a regular basis.
The late, great John Stott once remarked that 'sermon-ettes make Christian-ettes'. Hmm. Maybe. But it should be about quality, not quantity.
I've heard a lot of good sermons down the years. Very good ones, in fact. And I think evangelicals have been right to stress the importance of preaching. However, some minsters preach for too long. I've heard quite a few evangelical ministers make great points and then start preaching their sermon all over again. Oy. There's nothing more sanctified about a longer sermon than a shorter one, especially not if you start repeating yourself. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I was on this church growth seminar last week (Lead Academy) where there was a very lively discussion about whether preaching was needed any more, as per the OP. It was pointed out that a very gifted preacher can get caught up with their own giftedness, as if their spiritual giftedness was the point of preaching. It isn't. A sermon should help people engage with God. Through the biblical text, sure, but a sermon is meant to be an encounter with God.
I found this Grove booklet by Jonny Baker, 'Transforming Preaching', provocative and helpful:
http://www.grovebooks.co.uk/cart.php?target=product&product_id=17332
How can sermons once again unleash the power of Scripture in a way that leads to personal and corporate encounter with God? Probably not by remaining as 20-minute monologues!
Yep. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Has anyone here been involved in interactive preaching in a serious way?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Haydee
Shipmate
# 14734
|
Posted
Fortunately helping with the Sunday School means escaping from the sermon, while being seen as almost saintly...
Posts: 433 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't go to church to be excited, but to be fed.
Why do you keep doing this MT? I genuine don't get it...
I specifically qualified what I meant by saying:
quote:
Originally posted by me:
And I don't mean boring in an entertainment sense, I mean boring in the sense of unfulfilling, of providing no stimulus for growth.
You appear to be deliberately misquoting me. If you haven't worked it out already "I don't go to church to be excited, but to be fed" is pretty much the strapline for my church tradition.
Maybe you're talking at cross purposes. I didn't think your church tradition was much bothered about feeding people with the body and blood of Christ, which is the main reason many Catholics and Orthodox go to church.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That said, I don't believe that working through a book of the Bible systematically necessarily guards against personal foibles and idiosyncracies - it can even add to them.
True.
All I was saying was that in such an approach they are much more obvious to spot - i.e. if things continue like that then, in some sense, the congregation is complicit in the abuse... and in which case, they share the blame!?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Has anyone here been involved in interactive preaching in a serious way?
Not to the fullest extent that some advocates of interactive preaching suggest, no. I do sometimes ask for responses from the congregation (eg Sunday before last, I got people to share their "pictures" of Jesus, then wrote them up on the flip-chart). They seem to go down OK; less successful are the times I've got people into small groups to discuss things - the complaint there seems to be it's too much like school (though as one member of the congregation pointed out, given which generations most of our congregation come from, school was very unlikely to have been like that for them).
Once a month we have what we call "theme Sundays" where we take a break from the Lectionary readings and explore a particular theme (we've been working through a series of the basics of Christianity from our tradition). These don't have a 15-20 minute sermon as our "normal" Sundays do; they're more interactive, much more questions-and-answers, using video clips etc. I suppose they're some way to interactive preaching and people do seem to respond positively to them.
Someone else at our place once replaced the sermon with a question-and-answer session, almost a Bible study on the Gospel passage for the day. Which was an interesting idea except, after we'd given our answers, he then put his answer on the screen. That did make it feel like school, and that he was giving us the right answers. Which (IMHO) defeated the object of it slightly.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Has anyone here been involved in interactive preaching in a serious way?
Yes. Very difficult to do in any but a tiny meeting because too many people don't like speaking in public and those that do will either tend to dominate, or else deliberatly keep their mouths shut in order to avoid dominating.
Pretty much any preacher is going to ask the odd question of the congregation or seek some reaction of some sort, and that works, and now and again (especially in smaller services) someone in the congregation will interrupt/heckle/ask a question, but a more or less entirely interactive sermon sis quite rare.
We do of course have smaller prayer meetings and bible-study meetings where everyone takes part and speaks, or is at any rate encouraged to take part and speak, and at the smallest of our three churches (its very small!) people will chip in but it tends not to happen much at the larger Sunday mornnin services, which are of course the ones most peopele go to.
I guess that might leasd to the sourt of perception gap that British people have over rail travel - those of us who use the trains often, and use them mid-week, mostly think of them as reliable and convenient (south of the Thames anyway ); occasional users tend to travel at weekends and holiday periods and late at night when all the engineering works are done and they have a nightmare and swear never to come back again. Someone who goes to church at Christmas and Easter and the occasional Sunday morning will see the same bloke standing up in front of the congregation and speaking and no-one talkign back. The keenies who go to the evenoing services or the mid-week prayer meetings or to every service will see that its not always the samme bloke speaking, peopel do express contrary opinions, and if you wanted to you could be the one doing the talking yourself, at least some of the time. Or that's what they ought to see anyway - I think that if only one voice is heard in a church then there is something wrong.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Stejjie
I'm glad that you've built in a lot of variety. That in itself maintains interest!
In my experience, attempts at interaction sometimes seem a bit perfunctory, as though the lay preachers/clergy have been told at one of their meetings to make congregations feel more involved, and so they've duly gone ahead and included some origami or something, just so they could tick that off the list! This kind of thing seems a little childish to me, although if done carefully, a visual or tactile aspect can help to reinforce a point.
Sometimes the interaction gives the impression of being a test, which seems to defeat the object of an interactive sermon, as you say.
It must be possible to create interactive sermons that are more ambitious than these two options. (I know that Grove Books, mentioned above, had a book on the subject, although it's now out of print.) I like group discussion myself, although I realise that some other people don't.
The Anabaptists used to ask their preachers questions after the sermon, and I wish that was the done thing now. But what I've read is that this makes the preacher feel far more vulnerable, and more reliant on guidance from the Holy Spirit than might otherwise be the case, and I don't suppose many preachers would value this feeling!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Has anyone here been involved in interactive preaching in a serious way?
A retired clergy in my last place tried for a month to do interactive addresses with a congregation. The congregation were, in some ways, ripe for something different and challenging - people interested in church, professionals, articulate - mixture of sex, profession etc. and the clergyman was an EFM instructor and leader of seminars, small groups etc.
It's possible something would've eventually got off the ground if we'd persevered longer. But nobody wanted to make any contributions, or interact, except one or two people who said they felt obliged to help the thing along and felt sorry for the leader. It seemed all the folks wanted was an interesting ten minute talk on the scripture, the holy communion and to get home at the usual time.
They knew they could've joined an EFM group, or gone to a Bible study if they really wanted to get into seminar or small group mode.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Frank Viola, a proponent of organic church, states that attempts by the clergy to create more participatory forms of preaching are mostly doomed to fail because they neglect to address the institutional and hierarchical realities that perpetuate the status quo, officially and also psychologically. It's a pessimistic assessment, but perhaps he's right, in the majority of cases.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Its not just that, its to do with the size of the congregation. If you#ve got a hundred people present - even if you have only got thirty - they aren't going all get a fair say unless some kind of formal procedure is imposed. Doesn't matter whether its a church or any other kind of meeting.
You can have a question-and-answer session afterwards, as is common in university lectures and political meetings, but that still leaves the control of the thing with the person at the front. But that woudl make the sermon seem even more like a lecture, which of course it isn't or ought not to be (and the idea that it is seems common to the sermon-haters!)
More than that and there have to be some kinds of formal rules of debate. Which would really muck up the flow of the service.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Wasn't part of the idea of the Parish Communion movement in the 50s and 60s- as practised at, I think, places like St Paul's Bow Common- that Mass would be followed by a parish breakfast which would be in part an opportunity to discuss the sermon? Never quite came off, AFAIK, and I can see why, but interesting idea.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by CSL1:
Because sermons are the main issue. I've not yet heard a person say "Let's attend service X this morning because worship leader Y will be directing songs"...
All that tells me is about your church background. The very fact that you use the phrase 'directing songs' shows that you come from a tradition where that is never going to happen. Other traditions have other temptations.
It happens. All the time. In some Charismatic circles it can be quite common. Back in my student days I remember frequent conversations where someone would say something along the lines of, "Got to go to church tonight because X is leading worship."
Only slightly off subject this all reminds me of Father Ted where a running joke was applying exactly this kind of thinking to how the Mass was conducted - "Oh Father Y, he leads a lovely mass, lovely." Almost every episode has some joke based around the cult of celebrity that some Priests allegedly have for how they perform liturgy. Part of the joke is ironic (Irish Priests are hardly pop stars) and yet I think it is quite insightful.
Liturgy, sermons, worship leading, practically any part of the service is open to this. It is human nature.
Actually, I'll bet my "tradition" is broader than you think.
Family indifferent/agnostic, no church attendance save for once every 3 - 5 years on Easter, no table prayers, perfectly irreligious.
Long-time regular attender or member at:
Southern Baptist (baptized, first church)
Large ELCA Lutheran
Various large and small evangelical fellowships
Small nondenom charismatic fellowship
Assembly of God
United Methodist
Large Evangelical Free
Small PCUSA Presbyterian (paid staff-youth director)
Home church fellowship
New Frontiers Neo-Calvinist (the cultic church I recently left)
Is that varied enough for you?
I've also attended many fellowships as a visitor at various times throughout, including Roman Catholic and Oneness Pentecostal (one of my most distasteful experiences ever).
My church background is broad (and perhaps unsettled). I've been on this Earth almost five decades and in christendom almost three. I've seen more times than I can remember (probably hundreds) where people based their church going decisions on Pastor Pastor Pastor Sermon Sermon Sermon. I think once or twice in 30 years have I heard people base a decision on worship, and never on who was leading it.
[ 16. July 2012, 15:37: Message edited by: CSL1 ]
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
The worst sermons I have ever heard have been of the "Closed. That's it! Finito" variety by a preacher whose subject, thinly disguised, seems to be "I, me and myself". That sort of narcissistic self-adoration empties churches.
Well put, but I wish it did a better job of emptying churches, if it did, the sweet-talkers, bombasts and Super Apostles that Paul so deftly lampooned in 2 Cor would be preaching to empty rooms rather than pulling in an audience of millions on TV and filling up huge chapels, basketball arenas, etc.
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Ken
Yes, I see what you mean. Viola would say there's no need to have a large group of people meeting together every single week; they could meet in much smaller groups most of the time, and get more out of it. The reality is, of course, that even very small congregations tend to stick with the traditional monologue, led-from-the-front format.
There's a Methodist church a few miles from where I live that runs what it calls 'Parallel Alternative Worship' one Sunday a month. This involves the congregation starting off together in the usual way (for those who want to) and then splitting up into groups and worshipping differently in different parts of the building. They've been doing this for quite a while now, and it seems to work for them. There's a group of people, lay and clergy, who meet to organise these services. Apparently it's become an important part of what they do.
Of course, only a large, active congregation would have the resources, the manpower and the space to run something like this. It haven't heard of another Methodist church doing anything similar, and it's possible that they attract Methodists from other churches (or maybe even people from other denominations) when they run these services.
I've never been, but I might get up early, catch two buses and make an effort to do so in the near future!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Wasn't part of the idea of the Parish Communion movement in the 50s and 60s- as practised at, I think, places like St Paul's Bow Common- that Mass would be followed by a parish breakfast which would be in part an opportunity to discuss the sermon? Never quite came off, AFAIK, and I can see why, but interesting idea.
In our smallest church we do Communion in the context of breakfast. The congregation is small enough that we can all sit round the same table and eat tea and toast. Or even croissants and orange juice. That's the one where interaction comes naturally in the "sermon" slot. Finicky ritualists might be annoyed at the informatlity of it, and at the way we start eating before we take Communion, so have broken our fast. Well, I say "we" but I think I've only been to that serrvice three times in four years - my brain doesn't work at 9am - if I'm "on duty" at my usual church I'll probably be in the bath at that time, if I'm not I'll still be in bed.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Viola would say there's no need to have a large group of people meeting together every single week; they could meet in much smaller groups most of the time, and get more out of it.
That sounds so 1970s to me! That's precisely where churches like NFI and Ichthus came from! The idea was small house churches midweek as the regular spiritual diet, medium-sized Sunday morning or evening meetings gathering a few of the house groups together for feedback and sharing information (and parhaps a less intimidating environment to invite seekers to), and less frequent, perhaps monthly, large "celebrations" where everyone in the whole town would get together for a nice big worship session. (which is why the word "celebrate" turns up in so many of their songs, it had a sort of specific technical meaning for them)
But in the end the big worship meeting took over and became the "real" church, which members expected to attend weekly.
Come to think of it that's not so very different from the early Methodists with their class meetings and their at least occasional attendance at the parish church. Though in their case their small meetings were upgraded into chapels and then churches and replaced the parish church for them.
And yes, it might be a good idea.
[ 16. July 2012, 16:03: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Ken
Oh yes, small groups have been part of church history for a long time. But the interesting question is, what kind of theological and structural importance is given to them? For some Christians, it's merely expedient to meet in someone's living room, whereas for others, the fact of meeting in a normal, everyday, functional space is of high importance. Some commentators distinguish between a church with small groups and a church made up of small groups. Sometimes 'church' and 'small group' are deemed to be one and the same, whereas other commentators see important differences between them.
John Wesley himself wrote that class meetings were better than sermons at effecting spiritual transformation in individuals; but it's class meetings that the Methodists eventually did away with, not sermons!
I appreciate Viola's theological underpinning for what he calls the 'organic church' (i.e. a kind of small group church structure), but I'm under no illusions that his proposals would be easy to put into effect. I can understand why the 'big worship meeting' would take over in many instances.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
Hhhmmmmm... in my denomination we are trying to get back to having class meetings. These days it is called small group ministry.
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
