Thread: Confession of a sermon-hater 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=023304
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
OK. I admit it. I'm wrong. Throw the Book at me, if you want.
But I'm sick and tired of preaching. (Listening to it, that is. My career in dishing it out ended a long time ago).
On dear Gammy's latest thread Jengie wrote something that struck a chord with me: "...I will accept services that have only the Word in them but object to services with only Eucharist without preaching." It made me realise how much I don't miss the sermon, hence my response here.
Due to work commitments I can only get to a Wednesday morning communion service at my local Parish Church, which lasts about half an hour. When I first started going to this, there was a very short sermon lasting about three minutes, and I assumed that this was the norm (after all, I had been brought up on church services which revolve around the sermon). The second time I went there was no sermon, and it seemed really weird, as if I'd been shortchanged somehow. But did I miss it? You bet I didn't!
Most of the time there is no sermon at all, and I come away from those services feeling strangely liberated. Instead of thinking of the service in terms of what was said in the sermon, I can actually focus on the unchanging truths expressed so well in the liturgy.
To be honest, preaching can often be a diversion. How many times have I been to a church service or meeting, where the entire event revolves around the question of who is speaking and what he or she will be speaking about? Times without number. And yet the service / meeting is supposed to be about Christ! The identity of the preacher shouldn't even feature! Surely!?!
I wonder at times whether much of the Church is infected with a Greek ideal of rhetoric. It's performance driven, personality driven and even (minor) celebrity driven.
I'm sick of it. Utterly.
That is why I love to do without it.
Go on, get your old Victorian KJV family Bibles out and give me a good bashing...
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Er ... I sympathise. I never hear the gospel preached either. I sat with a very broken guy on Sunday listening to a torrent of allegedly 'challenging' words. At least during one of the 'me, me, me' Jesus-is-my-boy/girlfriend hymns I was able to invert the verses to express God's love for him.
Gimme Taizé every time!
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
I'm a preacher, in the sense that it's the one thing I'm confident I do unusually well. I preach twice a week and have done so for more than thirty years. Nonetheless I agree with you.
I often find I really enjoy communion, because that's when my personality can take a rest and I can worship; even I get tired of me sometimes. I'm not good at listening to other people preach. They have to be on good form to keep my restless attention.
I'd like to hear a sermon once or twice a month when it could muster a sense of occasion, but the rest of the time something less controlling, less arrogant, less individualist, less preachy would be really good.
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
OK. I admit it. I'm wrong. Throw the Book at me, if you want.
But I'm sick and tired of preaching.
I'm tired of bad preaching.
Every once in a while (and with certain preachers, almost always) there is a sermon which is to the point and really helps to explain the content of some biblical passage which might be shrouded in some ancient cultural context that doesn't relate easily to our modern culture, or which introduces some theological concept which those of us who didn't go to seminary might never have heard of. I really enjoy those sermons.
But the vast majority of sermons I've heard boil down to several of the following parts:
Dull joke.
Silly anecdote from one's childhood
Silly anecdote from some mundane event
Re-read a bible passage
Whitewash God's uglier behavior
Facile analogy
God loves us
Reminder that this is stewardship season and the parish is over-budget
Mention of some petty internal political matter that means nothing if you're not on the vestry
(On Christmas and Easter) How nice to see you, you should come back on other Sundays
When I was in the choir growing up, I would listen to the rector's sermon for about a minute and then start doodling things on my leaflet to amuse my friends sitting next to me.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
What a pity nobody ( so far) seems to have heard a decent sermon.
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
I like sermons and I think (hope!) I did before preaching them became my job. I don't mind long ones, as long as they're not too long, though I'd struggle to define that: there are some sermons I get very disappointed when they finish, there are some which I'm desperate for them to stop ASAP. Like Jengie, I find services without some form of sermon difficult, like there's something missing.
I want something that's more than a collection of points; I want it to move and flow naturally rather than, "here's my first point... now on to point 2... in point 6, we can say...". Sermons are not lectures or corporate presentations and should never be presented as such. I do want them to challenge me, but I want them to reassure me there's good news as well. I want them to be warm and witty, but avoid cliches. I want them to engage with the Biblical text and not just be a collection of vaguely related, religious-sounding points, much less an extended rant by the preacher on a particular bug-bear of their's. I want the preacher to send me away with something ringing me in my ear, or nagging in my mind (and not just "they got that wrong...").
The sad truth is, I suspect most of my own sermons are nothing like this, but it's what I aspire to me in my own preaching. And if I hear a sermon that ticks just some of these boxes, I'm happy.
Thought I'm not sure that's the point...
[ 11. July 2012, 20:40: Message edited by: Stejjie ]
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
What a pity nobody ( so far) seems to have heard a decent sermon.
Oh, I've heard wonderful sermons. At their best they are sacramental: the breaking of the Word. Not the chatty ones, and not the didactic ones, but the ones that spin a narrative and catch you up in its questions and longings, and take you somewhere new from where you can see life differently and encounter God freshly, vividly, painfully and joyfully.
They come once in a while, and they are wonderful.
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
quote:
EtymologicalEvangelical:
Most of the time there is no sermon at all, and I come away from those services feeling strangely liberated. Instead of thinking of the service in terms of what was said in the sermon, I can actually focus on the unchanging truths expressed so well in the liturgy.
I feel the same way. Don't get me wrong, I expect a sermon at services with music on Sundays and festivals. On a simple weekday, I can easily do without.
If this were the 1500s and I had the necessity of having the Bible read to me and explained, then I would understand why sermons would be expected. In this day and age, when the people who show up at weekday liturgies are almost invariably the "choir" to which one proverbially preaches anyway, then there isn't much point of pathetic off-the-cuff sermons that, truth be told, we aren't really listening to anyway. I am perfectly confident in the ability of Holy Scripture to speak for itself on occasion.
I blame seminaries. In my denom, the majority of the coursework seems to focus on translating, putting into context, breaking down, and preaching scripture. They are very much "Preacher Factories," and with the importance placed on it, one wonders why the Sermon is not considered a Sacrament. I could never dream of a service without a sermon in my denom, and I can rarely dream of one less than 10 minutes long. (Even 10 minutes is just wishful thinking in most cases.)
I certainly don't advocate for ending sermons altogether, but they definitely need a reconsideration:
1. 10 minutes, time's up. Too bad.
2. If you can't deliver well, manuscript.
3. Weekday service? No sermon.
For what it's worth, I have one special church that I visit when I want a good sermon. That's right...out of the dozens of churches in the area that I have visited, of multiple denoms, I have ONE place I can count on.
[ 11. July 2012, 21:08: Message edited by: Martin L ]
Posted by CSL1 (# 17168) on
:
I'm sick of sermons also. Want to puke when I hear most!
And no, I don't think you're wrong and will not throw any book at you.
The problem is we've gotten away from what ought to be The Church:
1). Each part of The Body bringing something to the table, each gift brought to the fellowship considered invaluable, bestowed by the Almighty,
2). With multiple people (preferably gray haired curmudgeons beyond the enticements of youthful ambition) having charge of the whole (but only in the sense that they're the ones who are most subservient and willingly do the undervalued jobs, at most leading by example, not out of any sense whatsoever that they've been specially anointed beyond the rest of The Body), but constantly checking each other's weaknesses in a messy manner reminiscent of the Book of Acts.
We've dumped that model for one Big Shouting (and too often prideful) Mouth and several lazy, subservient Buttocks sitting in pews. The whole Body of Christ reduced to Mouth-Buttocks.
If I hear from a another preacher about "My Calling", I might resort to violence. We all have A Calling if we're in Christ, no one's being any more or less special than any other.
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on
:
I've heard some excellent sermons in certain contexts, namely in a few Anglo-Catholic parishes where the preaching is generally of a high standard, and also in the University Sermons that I sometimes attended as a student. However, I try to avoid sermons preached by clerics of a MotR persuasion, especially if they are also liberal. Such preachers are often good Christian people, but their sermons have a pronounced tendency to follow the schema laid out by Shadowhound.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
I wonder how much our own prejudices against the people who are preaching affect how we hear what they say?
If we already think that they're bound to be jumped-up egotistical better-than-thou's trying to tell us what to do before they open their mouths, our critical eyes will be upon their every word if we bother to listen at all.
If we think that they can't tell us anything as they've only just finished their training or we think that they're past it, will we bother to listen?
I do want a sermon, one which will engage me and hold my attention, introduce new connections in my mind between what's already in there and the text, and inspire me into taking action which will further my own faith and share it with other people.
What I usually get is my mind switching off within the first few sentences and returning from time to time only to switch off again. Whether this is me or them I don't know. Perhaps it's both.
I have been known to pray for a long sermon to end soon:rolleyes:
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
However, I try to avoid sermons preached by clerics of a MotR persuasion, especially if they are also liberal. Such preachers are often good Christian people, but their sermons have a pronounced tendency to follow the schema laid out by Shadowhound.
I think you mean Mockingale - same avatar. But that sounds like the identikit Evangelical preacher, to me.
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
I've heard some excellent sermons in certain contexts, namely in a few Anglo-Catholic parishes where the preaching is generally of a high standard, and also in the University Sermons that I sometimes attended as a student. However, I try to avoid sermons preached by clerics of a MotR persuasion, especially if they are also liberal. Such preachers are often good Christian people, but their sermons have a pronounced tendency to follow the schema laid out by Shadowhound.
Sorry, I meant by Mockingale. They have the same avatar, which confused me.
ETA: x-posted with hatless, as may be obvious.
[ 11. July 2012, 21:47: Message edited by: (S)pike couchant ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I've had an issue with sermons for a long time, but when I was committed to a congregation I could make myself put that to the back of my mind. Now that my church has closed, it's very hard to do that elsewhere.
I don't intend to criticise preachers, because their job must be much harder than it once was. Clergy and laity alike have many (conflicting) sources of religious information today, so it's difficult for a sermon to attempt to offer definitive answers; in addition, it's now impossible for preachers to try to compete with the highly polished forms of secular speechifying that's available everywhere on the TV, radio, internet, etc. So the preacher is left with the more low-key job of sharing their anecdotes and reflections, leavened with some theological learning - but not too much, because everything must be accessible to 'the lowest common denominator', despite the fact that most people are far better educated than would have been the case 150 years ago.
Evangelicals tend to be the most engaging preachers, IMO, but they face similar challenges and temptations as the rest.
I don't think the right attitude is to remove the sermon and then look to 'fill the space' with something else; we need to ask what various purposes we're actually trying to fulfil in our church services. I don't think the sermon suits our purposes, on the whole, but we stick with it because it's heritage, and it's familiar.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Provided that the preacher doesn't give the same message time after time, illustrating it with the same examples using a small selection of pet texts, I'm a happy bunny.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Having been an USAF Chaplain I have heard all types of preaching. I learned a lot from preaching to a black congregation (I am not black myself). If I heard "Uh Huh," "Amen," "Preach it, brother" I knew I was reaching my listeners. If I heard "Help him, Jesus." I knew I was way off course. I did not hear the latter all that much, thank God. Would that all congregations felt more comfortable responding to sermons maybe preaching would get better.
To be sure, I have heard good ones, and I have heard poor ones. I have preached good ones, and ones that are not so good.
In the Lutheran tradition the spoken Word is where the power of God is unleashed. I like ones that challenge my thinking and take me to new insights. But I have to admit I see the sermon as the appetizer for the meal that is to follow.
[ 11. July 2012, 21:58: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I've heard good sermons. Some of the best have been in Baptist settings.
I'm less interested in them than I used to be, though, but I wouldn't ditch them entirely. I do avoid some services because I can see from editing the church magazine who is on the roster ...
But I wouldn't throw anything at EE over this one. I can see his point.
I think that a short sermon would be better than no sermon though...
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
I think Martin L is right in designating seminaries "Preacher Factories".
There is, I think, in most discrete churches, a double expectation, from both congregation and the priest/minister that a sermon will be part of the "show". Sometimes that is all it is.
A good sermon could, just, change things. That is the not-quite-eternal expectation. It could be a long wait.
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
I too dislike bad sermons, or sermons that drone on & on where the preacher goes over his points multiple times.
Now in the Anglican Church of Canada sermons run maybe 10 minutes and generally very good. Though on 1 occassion we had a new curate and went on & on & on. I had just returned to the Anglican fold after 25 years in fundie land and was thinking this guy would be more at home in my old church. But thank God nothing lasts forever.
So here to brief ,sermons that you think on the content. peace love & joy all
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by CSL1 (# 17168) on
:
Used to attend a church where sermons would sometimes drone on for nearly 2 hours. Preacher loved the sound of his own voice. Helps explain my cynicism about sermons.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
How ironic that I opened this thread when I was writing my sermon on the beheading of John the Baptist.
In terms of constructive comments, I actually might be one of the few people who would prefer a homily during a weekly low mass. I think a short reflection is a good thing, especially if it is a Feast of Our Lord or Our Lady. If the only mass for the Blessed Virgin Mary (August 15th) is a simple low mass, then it just requires a few minutes of reflection.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
I'm tired of bad preaching.
There, it is has been said.
More than that has been said before.
Preaching is not the only ministry of the word but it is one ministry. Baby. Bathwater.
[ETA I've heard many, many really great sermons.]
[ 12. July 2012, 03:32: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on
:
I love sermons!
The good ones because I leave church all fired up to be a Person of God in The World.
The bad ones because I leave church all fired up to be a Person of God in The World.
[ 12. July 2012, 03:48: Message edited by: Galilit ]
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
Some observations:
1. Public speaking of all kinds is a dying or dead art. There are skills in being understood, in emphasizing points, in repetition, in embedding ideas within phrases, and rhythm of language.
2. Preachers often don't know how to go from an outline, to avoid reading, and to adapt to what is unfolding in the 2-way conversation that a sermon should be. By 2 way, I mean the preacher understanding what he/she observes in the context of the liturgy (or service), the people's response, and what the spirit of the gathering guides.
3. Preachers sometimes seem to feel that they competing with the various forms of media, and have to try to be in synch with, in reaction to, or ahead of what is in the various popular media. And they may fail to speak in the captivating ways.
4. Preaching may lack the necessary balance between assisting in understanding, and application to daily life.
5. Music and hymns may lack thoughtful integration with the sermon.
6. Those who are listening may lack the touchstones of knowledge of bible stories, and key elements.
One final note. As a priest's warden almost 20 years ago I was in charge of a survey. This survey indicated that a sermon should ideally be 12-15 minutes in length (this was the mean ± 1 standard deviation). A repeat 5 years ago said 11-13 minutes. (This is liturgical Anglican church at about the middle for Canada.)
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
As a priest's warden almost 20 years ago I was in charge of a survey. This survey indicated that a sermon should ideally be 12-15 minutes in length (this was the mean ± 1 standard deviation). A repeat 5 years ago said 11-13 minutes. (This is liturgical Anglican church at about the middle for Canada.)
Was this survey part of the wider piece of research which also included such key questions as, "Teenagers, what time do you think you should go to bed?" and "Smokers, how many a day do you think you should smoke?"
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CSL1
We've dumped that model for one Big Shouting (and too often prideful) Mouth and several lazy, subservient Buttocks sitting in pews. The whole Body of Christ reduced to Mouth-Buttocks.
Spot on.
As I said in the OP "I admit I'm wrong", meaning that, of course, there is a place for preaching in the life of the Church. But what I question is the idea that every service (or "act of worship") has to have a sermon, no matter how short. Why??
A bit of background... I am the son of a preacher. I have (willingly and unwillingly) sat through thousands of sermons, and remember very few of them. I am sure I am not alone when I say that... I have seen preachers use the pulpit as their own personal platform. I have witnessed the pulpit being used as an opportunity for a truly nauseating one man stand-up comedy routine. I have heard unsubstantiated opinions and prejudices spouted from the pulpit. I have witnessed the pulpit abused as a fundraising pitch (quite how you get tithing from the parable of the Prodigal Son still beats me. One of the few sermons I still remember, though fail to understand!). And, of course, I have heard a few truly anointed sermons. (I have also done a spot of preaching myself).
What concerns me is the culture in which the sermon is regarded as the focal point of an act of worship. Maybe this is just a problem of my own upbringing, but so often the church service seems to revolve around "who's preaching?" And if I ask myself what the service was about, then almost instinctively I think "what was the sermon about?" That is why I think that the sermon can, on occasions, be a distraction. I should ask: "What was the liturgy about?" "What were the hymns and songs about?" "What were the prayers about?" And even "What were the readings about?" (given that sometimes the sermon doesn't even relate to what was read from the Bible!)
I am not arguing against the "ministry of the Word". I am not advocating any form of anti-intellectualism. After all, the liturgy is the ministry of the Word. What I am concerned about is the subtle (or often not so subtle) personality cult that seems to have infected the Church, which is often expressed through preaching. Sometimes it's good to go without the sermon, and for us all to have some space to work things out for ourselves. Perhaps a decent period of silence in the liturgy might be a good thing.
One has to ask the serious question as to whether the church is really about the risen and living Jesus Christ or about the great personality at whose feet we are required to sit (and Jesus can please sit quietly in the corner and listen like everyone else!)
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
1. ..... but the rest of the time something less controlling, less arrogant, less individualist,
2. ......less preachy would be really good.
!. With you there
2. What do you mean by preachy? I've heard the term - perjoratively - used in various contexts where the mainissue seems to be "no one is going to suggest to me how I could behave/live/(substitute whatever instruction you like here)"
3. Without good preaching how will we really proclaim good news or speak prophetically to our generation? [Ok, I know, live prophetic lives but like "good" preaching, I don't see much of that anywhere].
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Sermons are like rap songs. There are good ones, but they're so rare, and the rest are so painful, that it's not worth putting up with the bad ones to get to the good.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
As a priest's warden almost 20 years ago I was in charge of a survey. This survey indicated that a sermon should ideally be 12-15 minutes in length (this was the mean ± 1 standard deviation). A repeat 5 years ago said 11-13 minutes. (This is liturgical Anglican church at about the middle for Canada.)
Was this survey part of the wider piece of research which also included such key questions as, "Teenagers, what time do you think you should go to bed?" and "Smokers, how many a day do you think you should smoke?"
This reeks of paternalism. We know what's best for you. Now shut up and drink your sermon.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
I'm going to go out on a limb and put in a defence of long sermons.
It seems to me that the vapidness of many sermons is a direct consequence of insisting that they shouldn't be more than ten minutes long. Ten minutes isn't usually long enough to express any complicated idea.
Ten minutes is long enough to express one of those profound, gnomic insights, startling in their simplicity yet far-reaching in their consequences. But most people don't have them very often. Preachers aren't mini-Buddhas manufacturing four koans a month. Hence the resort to greetings-card platitudes.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think you missed the irony of what Johnny S was saying, Mousethief. He was wondering whether the survey formed part of what's known in the trade as an 'omnibus survey' where all sorts of issues - such as smoking, drinking, teenage bedtime habits and so on - are crow-barred in. I've done both telephone and door-to-door market surveys and believe you me, it's jolly hard work ... and you feel a heel when someone has agreed to answer questions about particular issues only suddenly to be confronted immediately after that section with questions about smoking, drinking or their views on particular products or services ...
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I'm going to go out on a limb and put in a defence of long sermons.
It seems to me that the vapidness of many sermons is a direct consequence of insisting that they shouldn't be more than ten minutes long. Ten minutes isn't usually long enough to express any complicated idea.
Ten minutes is long enough to express one of those profound, gnomic insights, startling in their simplicity yet far-reaching in their consequences. But most people don't have them very often. Preachers aren't mini-Buddhas manufacturing four koans a month. Hence the resort to greetings-card platitudes.
Ten minutes probably isn't long enough for a satisfactory explanation of a complicated principle especially when some reference to scriptures is necessary.
Twenty minutes however is probably most people's limit for sustained concentration. If you go over that, people will forget material you delivered earlier.
I realise that this leaves no time for anecdotes, jokes, pet themes and tangents, but that is surely a Good Thing.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Like Ricardus, I do think there is a place for longer sermons. They may be better delivered as 'talks' or studies in smaller study or mid-week groups rather than in the context of weekly Sunday worship.
Among my pet peeves are lengthy sermons in evangelical Anglican settings that either truncate the eucharist - or in some instances I've seen - lead to it being postponed to another Sunday ... ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
The reason, I think, that I've enjoyed/engaged with sermons more readily in Baptist and other non-conformist settings is that they seem to fit the context more easily - both culturally, as it were, and theologically. Not all Baptist ministers are engaging preachers, of course, but some of the best sermons I've heard have come from people in that particular tradition - and not necessarily the traditional expository style either.
That said, I've suffered under lengthy line-by-line expositions when visiting Reformed Baptist or other more Calvinistic Baptist settings. That isn't to say that there are always dud sermons in such settings, simply that there were/are too many Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones acolytes who couldn't quite carry expository preaching off with the same aplomb as he (and preachers like him) could.
At our evangelical CofE parish there's a strong emphasis on preaching. The trouble is, it's rarely any good. In fact, it's generally quite naff, although I have heard a reasonable sermon there every once in a while.
I'm glad I wasn't there last Sunday. For one thing the vicar doesn't follow the Lectionary and for another he seems hell-bent on getting us all to 'imagine' things or write things down as a means of interacting with the sermon.
Last week, apparently, they gave out sheets of paper and pencils and invited everyone to write down what they thought that Jesus might write to them if he were writing them a letter in the same way that he apparently dictated letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in the Book of Revelation (the chosen text for the day).
WTF ...
My inclination would simply to have been to read the seven letters to the Seven Churches or give an answer like, 'What the heck is Jesus going to say to me that I couldn't find in scripture (or tradition?) in the first place?
My wife was there and spent the time doodling and thinking about the many things she had to do at work.
I can understand why modern preachers feel the need to make their sermons/homilies more interactive or engaging but ... puh-leeese ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think you missed the irony of what Johnny S was saying, Mousethief. He was wondering whether the survey formed part of what's known in the trade as an 'omnibus survey' where all sorts of issues - such as smoking, drinking, teenage bedtime habits and so on - are crow-barred in. I've done both telephone and door-to-door market surveys and believe you me, it's jolly hard work ... and you feel a heel when someone has agreed to answer questions about particular issues only suddenly to be confronted immediately after that section with questions about smoking, drinking or their views on particular products or services ...
1. I am not familiar with that kind of survey, so I may be out of my depth there, but
2. Both of Johnny S's examples were of the "people cannot be allowed to decide what is best for themselves" variety. The emphasis of "you" with italics strengthens this perception.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, I can see that Mousethief, but I didn't read it as being representative of Johnny S's own views on these issues ... surely he was having a go at paternalistic approaches whether they appear in sermons on in surveys?
That, I think, was the point he was making, but he can answer for himself.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
Some observations:
1. Public speaking of all kinds is a dying or dead art. There are skills in being understood, in emphasizing points, in repetition, in embedding ideas within phrases, and rhythm of language.
2. Preachers often don't know how to go from an outline, to avoid reading, and to adapt to what is unfolding in the 2-way conversation that a sermon should be. By 2 way, I mean the preacher understanding what he/she observes in the context of the liturgy (or service), the people's response, and what the spirit of the gathering guides.
this. this this this this.
How many clergy out there get any of their training in speaking or drama or writing or plain storytelling?
I was reading the thread and kept thinking about the one priest I used to listen to who could captivate me every time. Every Time. He was amazing. (and no doubt still is. St. Matthew's, Fairbanks AK. go listen)
But all he was was a storyteller. just like the traditional storytellers. he took you somewhere else with his words, captivated his audience. he knew how to deliver with the right voicing, pacing, and projection. His stories had the proper structure (pretty standard short story format) and their message didn't need to be stated - it was clear.
and fairly short, too. though I never noticed time.
in my current life, I now can recognize those things for what they are. and it's not easy to master. (believe me!) just knowing your scripture and having a message to pass along doesn't mean you have a riveted congregation who leaves after the service blinking in the light as if they've woken from a powerful dream. but that IS possible. and worth it.
it seems to me, it would worth it if seminaries gave a semester or two of public speaking, short story crafting, oral story telling, dramatic improvisation, and even basic debate.
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on
:
I can handle sermons of varying length, as long as they are well presented and interesting, but I hate the ones where the speaker hasn't checked his anecdotes out on snopes.com first ...
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
After 40 years of listening (and only very occasionally delivering) I prefer intercessions, communion, sung worship, participatory liturgies. A "sound of many voices" thing. I think.
After 40 years of listening (and only very occasionally delivering), far too often these days the sermons I hear remind me too much of a line from this haunting Moody Blues song.
"I sit down and lend an ear, yet I hear nothing new".
It's good to hear insightful and relevant sermons, Lovely when it does happen. Wish it happened more.
But I think that's more my problem. The weight of years - and all those previously heard words. It's a challenge to avoid "grumpy old geezer".
[Anyway, the Moody Blues song is worth listening to, particularly if you haven't heard it before. Or even if you have]
[ 12. July 2012, 08:32: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I guess there are anecdotes and anecdotes. When a preacher uses an off-the-shelf anecdote to lighten up her sermon a bit, then my toes would start to curl up a bit. But when she uses some event that happened to her and that made her see the Bible text in a completely different light, I would be all ears. I'd even allow her to embellish the anecdote a bit.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
...Preaching is not the only ministry of the word but it is one ministry. Baby. Bathwater...
Um. "Ministry of the Word". I think there are those who would see priesthood/ministry as being something different. They would not see it as being solely involved in explication of the Bible. It's a big Post-Reformation gap in the West.
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on
:
Ouch. One of the advantages of being in a 'new' church is that the pattern of worship can be tweaked. At the moment we have a speaker three Sundays out of four - the 4th being an open worship - without a formal speaker - where there may be many who speak or none - pretty much as it happens. Generally the standard of the planned speakers is high - people obviously spend a long time preparing, and because none are 'professionals', and only speak occasionally, tend not to repeat material. There is still room for the spontaneous in the 4th week. Not sure it would work in a more formal set up - but i like it this way.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This reeks of paternalism. We know what's best for you. Now shut up and drink your sermon.
Actually it was halfway between this and Gamaliel's comment:
1. As Gam points out these generic surveys never seem to be much use. (The +/- 1 minute was the give away for me ... any survey that tries to analyse something subjective and yet gives such apparently precise scientific results (IMNSHO) goes straight in the bin.)
2. There was an element of paternalism in there though. I was not disputing that feedback from the listeners was very important, just wondering why it was being offered as stand alone information. Surely 'how long people want sermons to be' is one factor to consider, but only one. Only people who view church as consumers could possibly think otherwise.
However, the real irony here is that EE compared sermons to liturgy. I wonder what would change if we had exactly the same discussion about the Eucharist...
"I don't see why we need it every service. Apparently surveys show that the preferred periodic repetition is twice a month ... I'm sure the Orthodox (or RC, or CofE, or Pentecostals, or whoever...) will not be so paternalistic as to disagree with changing their practice accordingly." ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by parm (# 9287) on
:
Crappy sermons was at least one of the reasons I got exhausted and fed up with my old free-evangelical-charismatic church. Every single week, we'd turn up and the preacher would clearly have a bee in his bonnet about... well, something. He'd launch into his loosely prepared sermon with a Bible verse and some limited exposition and then... 45 minutes to an hour later he'd still be going and I'd have no clue what he was saying, how it tied in with the original passage, or what we were supposed to get out of it apart from a vague sense that I was supposed to be fired up and looking for some vague and unspecified "new thing" that God was supposed to be doing. So I thought I hated sermons, too.
Turns out, I don't hate sermons. I hate badly prepared, tedious, rambling, unfocused sermons with overrealised theology and all the thoughtfulness of a brick to the face. Since we started attending our small local Methodist church, we've heard a number of wonderful, thoughtful, well-crafted sermons from a number of excellent preachers who (as no_prophet lamented) really understand public speaking and how to hold a congregation's attention.
(now, don't get me wrong, we also get a fair number of less good speakers - although rarely anything like our old place - but this being a Methodist church, you come back the following week and it'll be someone else, so it bothers me far less also)
Posted by Beethoven (# 114) on
:
I've never quite understood the idea of an 'ideal length' for a sermon. It's all about the quality. I've heard many 10-minute sermons that would have been vastly improved if they'd been cut to 2 minutes - and some that would have still been excellent if they'd been twice as long as they were. IMO, if as a preacher you have something worth saying, then say it properly. If not, then don't. There's no point in waffling on for x minutes just because that's what's expected. How much better if the preacher can just deliver their message without padding and fluff - and what does it matter if some weeks it's 5 minutes and others it's 15?
Posted by Mary LA (# 17040) on
:
On the whole I have sympathy for most preachers because I think they now have to try and hold the attention of people used to being able to browse the Internet or amuse themselves with text messaging in a more participatory if virtual world.
A number of years ago I attended Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve at the small Catholic chapel in Pilgrim's Rest, Mpumalanga. We sang Adeste fideles with gusto and then a Franciscan priest stood up and talked in a quiet voice about the Incarnation, quoting Flannery O'Connor's lines about the boy who "saw Jesus move from tree to tree in the back of his mind, a wild ragged figure motioning him to turn around and come off into the dark where he was not sure of his footing."
It was unforgettable, that quietness and the conviction -- I still remember everything he said and I could have gone on listening for hours.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
A number of commentators have criticised the sermon (or 'preaching') as a form of communication. They say it's unbiblical in its current form and usage, that it's a poor way of transmitting knowledge, and that it hinders congregational participation and spiritual maturity.
Here's an example of the kinds of issues that are understood to be problematic:
http://www.facingthechallenge.org/whatis.php
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mary LA:
On the whole I have sympathy for most preachers because I think they now have to try and hold the attention of people used to being able to browse the Internet or amuse themselves with text messaging in a more participatory if virtual world.
This is the point, for me. For most of us, certainly in the western world, listening to someone speak for an extended period of time is not a regular part of our life any more. Most of us learn more effectively through other means, especially if you're talking about learning how to do things (like bless those who curse us, think of others' needs before our own...) not just about taking in knowledge.
So, albeit noting MaryLA's wonderful Midnight Mass experience, I think it would be better if less time were spent on preparing, giving and listening to sermons, and more time on other activities that stand more of a chance of helping us to be doers of the word, not just hearers of it.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
Back to the OP, it is extraordinary that EtymologicalEvangelical has come to the same conclusion as me, except with me it was accidental.
I never realised that my Orthodox church didn't have much in the way of sermons, and at first I thought it was a bit strange. I was hoping for magnificent sermons, the like I'd never experienced before.
But it wasn't long before, as EtymologicalEvangelical has noted, I started to understand that the main stuff is indeed all in the liturgy.
Don't get me wrong, I love a good sermon - but in my experience, they are few and far between. Even then, we can easily fall into the trap of saying, "Oh, I'm really looking forward to Church, because so-and-so's preaching." Who do we then go to church to be in the presence of?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
...the 2-way conversation that a sermon should be. By 2 way, I mean the preacher understanding what he/she observes in the context of the liturgy (or service), the people's response, and what the spirit of the gathering guides.
The people's response? You mean sitting quietly and listening to what is said?
Sermons, even good ones, are many things but they're manifestly not two-way conversations. For that to be true, there would have to be at least two people speaking.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
If this were the 1500s and I had the necessity of having the Bible read to me and explained, then I would understand why sermons would be expected. In this day and age, when the people who show up at weekday liturgies are almost invariably the "choir" to which one proverbially preaches anyway, then there isn't much point of pathetic off-the-cuff sermons that, truth be told, we aren't really listening to anyway. I am perfectly confident in the ability of Holy Scripture to speak for itself on occasion.
The thing is, I'm not convinced people do have much knowledge of the Bible. I think a fairly high proportion of people in the pews get by with the easier bits of the Gospels, the most immediately applicable bits of the Epistles, and a vague collection of Sunday school stories based on Old Testament episodes.
I have known people who have gone to a supposedly Evangelical Anglican church for years and still have no concept of the Exile, no real ability to put (say) Abraham, Moses, David and Jeremiah into any kind of sequence, and who are totally thrown by a reference to John's Epistles as opposed to his Gospel.
Part of the problem, I think, is that there is an insistence that a sermon has to be based on the ten-verse snippets of the Bible read out in the appointed reading for the day - which isn't how you'd read any other book (at least not exclusively). So overarching themes and narratives get ignored, and the aim of the sermon is to turn every Biblical incident into an improving little anecdote with a moral.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Marvin the Martian: The people's response? You mean sitting quietly and listening to what is said?
I have to say that there does exist a good indicator in the people's feedback about the quality of your sermon. It's the number of people falling asleep.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
Marvin, you should go to the church Gamaliel referred to with its 'interactive' pen and paper thing during the sermon. No doubt it has a whole ream of ideas for 'engaging' with people who like to participate in ways other than just listening and reflecting (or snoozing, if it's boring). Loads of churches must do 'active' things with their congregations during the address.
Personally I tend to see these things as small-group activities or workshops, not actually a scripture-reflecting-sermon within the context of an act of worship. But I'm not much of a multi-tasker!
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on
:
Agree TOTALLY richardus !
Why - when you are doing an exposition of a historical passage , do people rarely give context to the culture and time of writing?
Its easy enough to slot into a relative timeline, even if the actual dates are debatable. We all know about the Romans of the NT, because they invaded us , but when you get into Kings, Exile etc it would really help.
That said I had the same beef about lower school History - which did tend to be exerpts from various Kings and Historical events - without much in the way of context.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
...the 2-way conversation that a sermon should be. By 2 way, I mean the preacher understanding what he/she observes in the context of the liturgy (or service), the people's response, and what the spirit of the gathering guides.
The people's response? You mean sitting quietly and listening to what is said?
Sermons, even good ones, are many things but they're manifestly not two-way conversations. For that to be true, there would have to be at least two people speaking.
I used to find it funny when the children would come back into the main service after attending Sunday school, and after asking them what they'd been doing the preacher would then say, 'In here, we've been talking about such-and-such'. I'd think to myself, 'No, YOU'VE been talking, and we've been listening very quietly!'
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
...people who like to participate in ways other than just listening and reflecting.
Whether listening and reflecting is participation isn't what I was getting at. That it's not conversation is.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I envy the Jewish approach = rabbis only preach when they believe they have something worthwhile to say.
I try to keep my sermons down to 10 minutes by reading them aloud every day during the preceding week and cutting out all tangents and repetitions - this cuts them to half their original length.
I sometimes preach in the chapel of an anglo-catholic old folks' home - there, I am only allowed 7 mins. 'because of their bladders.' All preachers should be faced with this discipline - also they should try doing a 2 minute radio 'thought for the day'. I have done some of these and find it an ideal way to learn to be concise.
I wish clergy would desist from preaching at weekday low masses (perhaps with the exception of those which attract as congregation who are unable to attend on Sundays).
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
...people who like to participate in ways other than just listening and reflecting.
Whether listening and reflecting is participation isn't what I was getting at. That it's not conversation is.
I would've understood the original reference to the word 'conversation' - within the context of no_prophet's point - rather less literally than that, myself. I don't think 'conversation' need always be understood as two or more people talking at each other. I converse with my dog all the time - often without a word. Surely, most people converse inside their heads during almost every sort of interaction with others; whether it's being given instructions by the football coach, lectured by a doctor or politely listening to a boring friend?
In terms of a metaphorical conversation, when listening to a sermon, I find it quite easy to continue dialogues with speakers using my own thoughts and reflections. I find it useful - whether I agree with them or not usually makes little difference.
However, I suppose if I wanted to share those personal thoughts etc with everyone around me, or voice an immediate objection at what's being said in front of the congregation I might find it frustrating not having an opportunity to do that there and then. Not being able to take the preacher up on a certain point that seems to me to be wrong, or badly expressed, can lead to bitten mouths and indignant snorts!
But if it's really important for me to express myself to that person, or make a point of my own ideas, in opposition or addition to the speaker, to a wider audience than myself, there's nothing, presumably, to stop me arranging that, in some way?
Just not during an act of worship, though.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm with Anselmina ...
As much as I can see the point of the interactive pencil and paper thing ... it would leave me cold.
My brother in South Wales has been out of churchy things for a good few years and is trying to feel his way back in. He went to the Family Service at his local parish church the week before last and found it too 'happy-clappy' for his current frame of mind. A full-time yoof worker type running on the spot and trying to get everyone involved in the 'actions' for the chorus 'Be bold, be strong ...'
So I suggested he went to the 9am Sung Eucharist instead.
So he goes to that this last Sunday and what does he find? Virtually the same crowd who were there at the 11am Family Service the previous week and a visiting vicar who tried to get them all to hold their noses and make snorkelling gestures in the kids' ditty which contains the lines, 'He's higher than a skyscraper/He's deeper than a submarine ...'
Not only that, but in preparation for the sermon which was all about the disciples being sent out 'two by two' they arranged three two-legged races down the aisle, with the contestants bound by ties at the ankles - one race for men, another for women and one for the kids who were present.
By the time the actual sermon came he had lost the will to live. The service had begun to eat away his brain ...
If this is what passes for interactivity and engagement in the contemporary church then I'm off to join the Buddhists ...
Posted by CSL1 (# 17168) on
:
People should never preach beyond their anointing. Some maybe 10 minutes, on rare occasions perhaps 30. Most should just sit down and shut their mouths and go find some widow or orphan to serve.
Paul didn't drone on too long on Mars Hill (but the time he did drone on into the night, it resulted in a young guy falling asleep and dying!)
Elijah called down fire from heaven and defeated hundreds of prophets of Baal and Asherah with a public prayer that couldn't have lasted more than a minute (and the hundreds of hapless pagan prophets had screamed on all day long, drawing their own blood in the process--which is actually quite similar to what goes on with most of the screaming preachers I've seen: they go on all day, at least it feels that way. Only difference is they seem more adept at drawing the blood of the flock rather than their own.
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
As a priest's warden almost 20 years ago I was in charge of a survey. This survey indicated that a sermon should ideally be 12-15 minutes in length (this was the mean ± 1 standard deviation). A repeat 5 years ago said 11-13 minutes. (This is liturgical Anglican church at about the middle for Canada.)
Was this survey part of the wider piece of research which also included such key questions as, "Teenagers, what time do you think you should go to bed?" and "Smokers, how many a day do you think you should smoke?"
No. It was all about the parish, and secondly about where the parish felt it was amid the community and the wider church. It was part of a wider stewardship visitation with a church that had served a local neighbourhood for 70 years, but with demographic changes was becoming a destination church for people from much farther afield. We'd thought we'd better understand who we were becoming and figure out responsibly what we should be doing. Out of it came a series of additional initiatives, mostly outreach and a few additional supports for old and new parishioners.
I referenced it only because the question was actually asked about how long a sermon should be. BTW, a service apparently should not exceed 1˝ hours, preferably about 1 hour 15-20 mins. Another outcome was removable cushions for the hard old church pews and new padding for kneelers.
Posted by CSL1 (# 17168) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm with Anselmina ...
As much as I can see the point of the interactive pencil and paper thing ... it would leave me cold.
My brother in South Wales has been out of churchy things for a good few years and is trying to feel his way back in. He went to the Family Service at his local parish church the week before last and found it too 'happy-clappy' for his current frame of mind. A full-time yoof worker type running on the spot and trying to get everyone involved in the 'actions' for the chorus 'Be bold, be strong ...'
So I suggested he went to the 9am Sung Eucharist instead.
So he goes to that this last Sunday and what does he find? Virtually the same crowd who were there at the 11am Family Service the previous week and a visiting vicar who tried to get them all to hold their noses and make snorkelling gestures in the kids' ditty which contains the lines, 'He's higher than a skyscraper/He's deeper than a submarine ...'
Not only that, but in preparation for the sermon which was all about the disciples being sent out 'two by two' they arranged three two-legged races down the aisle, with the contestants bound by ties at the ankles - one race for men, another for women and one for the kids who were present.
By the time the actual sermon came he had lost the will to live. The service had begun to eat away his brain ...
If this is what passes for interactivity and engagement in the contemporary church then I'm off to join the Buddhists ...
Reminds me a bit of a pastor at a Lutheran church at which I was a member (he was the graying, slightly longish-haired, goateed, mischievous grin, vaguely scholarly/vaguely ex-hippyish-type).
He delivered an entire sermon on the Triumphal Entry from the perspective of the donkey upon which Jesus rode: (hunched far forward, in a slightly donkeyish voice) "So who's this guy on my back?...Why the palm leaves?...Snort snort...What's this 'Son of David' stuff? He must be awful important...Heehaww...etc. etc. etc." However, coming from him, as gentle and fun a guy as he was, it was strangely touching. Also helped that he didn't drone on forever.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
I've heard some good sermons, but as others have said they are rare.
Reminds me of Dottie Rambo, she wrote maybe 2000 songs, of which maybe 400 were recorded, of which half a dozen or so are well known. I suppose sermonizers can't expect better odds than a few out of several thousand being gems.
I guess one question is whether sermons are a great way of sorting through several thousand efforts to identify and circulate the gems.
I guess another question is what is the best use of clergy time. Sermons require time to prepare. Do they contribute enough to justify the use of time for that insead of for other options, such as using the time to offer an alternative worship format or teach a class? No one right answer for all.
Posted by lilyswinburne (# 12934) on
:
The fact that Christianity is in decline shows that most people in the world are sermon haters (including myself).
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
A happy thing is occurring in American Mainline Protestantism--the increasing celebration of Holy Communion. Many churches of my own denom (ELCA Lutherans) are approaching a once-a-week habit. The United Methodist Church recommends it, and the new Presbyterian hymnal/worship book that is coming out recommends it.
The trouble is that seminaries still seem to be training preachers to preach in the same way that they trained them fifty years ago, when they would have had much longer of a sermon time in each service due to the absence of Holy Communion.
Am I willing to trade 10 minutes of sermon for the privilege of weekly Holy Communion? Without a doubt, absolutely, certainly, definitely, 100% yes.
Catholics and Episcopalians, who have had weekly communion for longer than us, seem to understand that something has to give, and that the sermon is a big time-sucker, erm, variable.
Would it be nice if we didn't have to worry about time? Sure, but good luck explaining that the service is now two hours long, and good luck retaining any members.
[ 12. July 2012, 17:51: Message edited by: Martin L ]
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S
However, the real irony here is that EE compared sermons to liturgy. I wonder what would change if we had exactly the same discussion about the Eucharist...
"I don't see why we need it every service. Apparently surveys show that the preferred periodic repetition is twice a month ... I'm sure the Orthodox (or RC, or CofE, or Pentecostals, or whoever...) will not be so paternalistic as to disagree with changing their practice accordingly."
No, there's no irony at all.
The liturgy is unchanging and there is no room (well, very little room) for the personality of the celebrant to be interposed in proceedings (although one neurotic rector I knew tried his darndest to make his mark even in the eucharist by saying all sorts of rather inappropriate prayers over each of his "captives" at the communion rail). The liturgy is not performance driven beyond merely being able to recite the words, it is not personality driven (as I've just said) and it doesn't encourage the cult of minor celebrity - all points I raised in the OP. The same cannot be said about the sermon.
So in the context of the concerns I expressed in the OP I see no irony in saying that we can sometimes do without the sermon, while perhaps implying that we cannot do without the eucharist (although actually I never said any such thing). The eucharist is consistently focused on Christ crucified (and risen), whereas the sermon is focused on what exactly? Errm... everything under the sun it seems, sometimes depending on what the preacher had for breakfast.
When I go to church I am not terribly interested in the person up the front (beyond a general interest in other people in which the person next to me is as equal as the pastor).
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
So he goes to that this last Sunday and what does he find? Virtually the same crowd who were there at the 11am Family Service the previous week and a visiting vicar who tried to get them all to hold their noses and make snorkelling gestures in the kids' ditty which contains the lines, 'He's higher than a skyscraper/He's deeper than a submarine ...'
Not only that, but in preparation for the sermon which was all about the disciples being sent out 'two by two' they arranged three two-legged races down the aisle, with the contestants bound by ties at the ankles - one race for men, another for women and one for the kids who were present.
By the time the actual sermon came he had lost the will to live. The service had begun to eat away his brain ...
If this is what passes for interactivity and engagement in the contemporary church then I'm off to join the Buddhists ...
I remember when the rector (at a previous church) preached on the subject of "salt of the earth". Admittedly it was one of those "family services", but 80%+ of the congregation were adults. This is how he began his sermon: "I want all of you to lick your hand. What does it taste like? It's salty, isn't it? Well, that's because you're the salt of the earth!"
"Pathetic" is just too kind, generous and merciful a word to describe such crap.
And it's because of years of this kind of nonsense that I have become rather formal and sacramental in my churchmanship (which perhaps may surprise you, given our recent "debate" about things charismatic.)
Perhaps if preachers had to keep to a very strict lectionary programme, and had to deliver their homily within a limit of 20 minutes in a mature and sober way, then I might feel a bit less extreme about this issue. But there is far too much freedom (i.e. licence) for preachers to do their own thing in the pulpit, and I don't think that is right. In fact, I think it can become a form of psychological abuse of the congregation.
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
In fact, I think it can become a form of psychological abuse of the congregation.
I know for a fact that it can. It happened at my place, and it happened at the church down the road.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
it seems to me, it would worth it if seminaries gave a semester or two of public speaking, short story crafting, oral story telling, dramatic improvisation, and even basic debate.
Yes yes yes!
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Part of the problem, I think, is that there is an insistence that a sermon has to be based on the ten-verse snippets of the Bible read out in the appointed reading for the day - which isn't how you'd read any other book (at least not exclusively). So overarching themes and narratives get ignored, and the aim of the sermon is to turn every Biblical incident into an improving little anecdote with a moral.
Yes to this too, and it seems to sometimes allow the 'sermon' to be recycled every few years ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
Yep, also agree completely with comet and no_prophet about storytelling & public speaking skills. When I was training, all the teaching about preaching was to do with theologies/models of preaching first and foremost, and something about sermon construction as well. So it did touch on the storytelling comet mentioned, but only briefly - and given the times I've tried it in my own sermons people seem to have warmed to it, I think it definitely should be pursued more.
Some people may remember a "point" - nearly everyone remembers a story. But there seems to be a huge suspicion of stories, especially amongst those who promote "Expository preaching". There seems to be a fear that people would enjoy the stories more than the particular point the story's supposed to make. So preaching books are stuffed full of warnings about making sure the story is subservient to the "point", making sure the story is not too vivid, lest it detract from the point etc.
Which is to miss the point: stories are going to be more memorable and vivid than "points", which is why preachers should embrace them. It's (probably) why Jesus used them so much, and perhaps why He sometimes seemed so reluctant to explain them - because that might destory their power (like explaining a joke). If we preachers embraced stories and their incredible power, so many of the problems highlighted on this thread might be overcome.
As for public speaking skills, was never taught this at college. Not once. In fact, given that part of my ministerial recognition process was to be assessed while I was preaching, it was kind of assumed I already had these, so I had to self-learn. I doubt I'm the only one who'd have really valued some proper coaching on this.
Posted by CSL1 (# 17168) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
In fact, I think it can become a form of psychological abuse of the congregation.
I know for a fact that it can. It happened at my place, and it happened at the church down the road.
Ditto. I've cataloged in this thread and a number of others on The Ship how I've seen it happen in more than one congregation. Often the most power-hungry, narcissistic and abusive knaves are drawn to positions of power. This tends to give us some real clunkers in government and the pulpit.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
Several things have come to me treading this thread.
Firstly different people find different types of sermons enjoyable – at a previous church there was one regular preacher who thought well knowledged and scholarly talked for a lonnnngggggggg time. Some people loved it when she preached while others avoided her Sunday.
In the same church a lot of people thought that the reader was a wonderful preacher - she was a story teller and people really enjoyed her sermons. She weaved a great tale but sadly when you actually listened to what she was saying she didn’t always know what she was talking about and at times even heretical.
So if we are only to listen to the ‘good preacher’ how do we decide which is the sermon/preacher that we don’t have?
And thirdly a clergy friend said to me once, that often when they felt that a sermon had been hard to do or pedestrian often somebody would thank them, as it was the message that they had needed to hear that day.
Lastly it was a surprise to me, when I found out just how few of the regular congregation actually owned a bible, their bible reading and knowledge was limited to what they heard in church.
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on
:
I've always disliked the way that non-conformist churches (in which I grew up) regarded the sermon as more important than the Eucharist. (There would be a 20-minute sermon as the focal point of the Sunday service, and a communion service tacked on as an optional extra once a month.)
I'm quite happy with a Eucharist without a sermon, and don't feel there is anything missing, but a Sunday service with a sermon but no Eucharist - something missing there. I recall that Jesus commanded his followers to eat his body and drink his blood in remembrance of him, not sit and listen to a sermon in remembrance. If it was the reformers who exalted the sermon and sidelined the Eucharist, I think they got it wrong.
Angus
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
Long post! It even has footnotes!
Before I start, I just want to say that the curate in the Anglican church I go to gives awesome sermons. Ten minutes of wisdom and decency and benevolence and truth. She is great. Really.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The liturgy is unchanging and there is no room (well, very little room) for the personality of the celebrant to be interposed in proceedings
Unchanging, and -- I think this is a Really Good Thing -- yes, not about the personality of the celebrant, but it's still very flexible.
One morning, when the Bishop rocked up and (irony warning) gave a long rambly sermon, I worked out that the little 20-page booklet that excerpts from the most recent version of the CinW liturgy, from which the communions come, can offer something like 12,000 variations on the communion service (not counting the Easter changes). Which I thought was sort of awesome actually.
By the time I left the Baptist church that had been my spiritual home for so many years, I had seen off four ministers, all of whom were pretty long-winded, and I pretty much had given up on listening to the sermons, treating the forty minutes or so as a perfect regular private time to work on my poetry composition.
I guess I owe that church the beginnings of the residency I'm about to take up. People thought I was taking notes. I know that there are people -- yes, they still remember me and even talk of me sometimes* -- who still do.
When I left, one of my friends told me how glad he was to see me make that move, and how he had been so saddened to see me writing poetry rather than let the sermons kill my faith dead. He was sort of right.
Of the ministers in my old church, the chap who was there when I arrived was Old School Expositor, a guy who worked on the example of Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Not emotive, but forceful. But that was when I was still an enthusiastic evangelical.
There was an interregnum, and a sort of Flying Minister then, and after him came Spring Harvest Huckster. Who'd do a forty minute sermon based on the Bible passage, but only in the sense that he'd just tell you what the passage said, over again, in a very shallow way, so you could have saved thirty-five minutes of your life if you'd just read out the scripture again.
I have several reasons for disliking the man, but one of his most egregious practices was where he'd shoehorn in a Call to Faith in every single sermon, no matter how inappropriate, and he'd do the thing where he'd tell everyone to bow their heads and close their eyes and if they felt moved to come to Saving Faith in Christ, they should put their hands up, and when he'd done this, he'd spot the people and say "thank you" so they could put their hands down. He told me once, while I worked for him as church administrator**, that he would say "thanks" a few times even if no one had put their hands up, in order that the people who were nervous or shy might feel that it was OK. Or something like that.
He didn't see why that was a problem.
SHH was replaced by the Old Hand who was near retirement, and who had been around the block a few times. He was a tireless pastor, someone who really went out of his way to look after the people under his care, and not in a scary way, in a good, caring way. He drove himself into the ground visitng people and listening to folks. He cared. I don't think I'd agree with everything the man did or thought, but he gave a damn. He brought a lot of healing after the right piece of work that was his predecessor.
But his sermons? See, he'd been a minister for decades, right. Did he need to take notes? Of course not! He spent so much time looking after folks he didn't have time to prepare, so he would make it up. on the spot, every Sunday. I recall listening to the man deliver a ninety minute sermon on Hell***. Lovely, lovely man. But his sermons were like improv jazz in the pulpit. Sometimes revelatory fireworks. But an awful lot of noodling.
Of the two current ministers, well. Better not to say anything incriminating. Suffice to say that I am not going there any more and would rather not comment publicly on how things are going there, for all sorts of reasons.
tl;dr: I don't think any of the regular evangelical styles are particularly good. Sure, if you can find a way to do sermons that are super-long that works, by all means. But I do not think such exists.
____
* The current assistant minister and one of the elders rocked up on my doorstep the other day while on a door-knocking expedition to see how I was. "Hi." "We're knocking on doors and we thought we'd knock on your door. To see how you were." "Oh. I'm fine." *awkward silence* "How about you guys?" "Oh, we're all fine." "OK." *Another awkward silence* "Well, nice to see you. We'll let you get on."
Weird experience.
** Working for that man, then a regular on the Spring Harvest stage, is probably the single moat important factor that moved me right out of evangelicalism.
*** To head off the jokes, yes, it very nearly was.
[ 12. July 2012, 20:19: Message edited by: Wood ]
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
I've always disliked the way that non-conformist churches (in which I grew up) regarded the sermon as more important than the Eucharist. (There would be a 20-minute sermon as the focal point of the Sunday service, and a communion service tacked on as an optional extra once a month.)
Oh, and also this. I've said nonsense about "participatory drama" and that, but whatever I meant, I have found, to my surprise, that having the Communion/Eucharist/whatever you want to call it as central and the sermon as the thing that is part of it is somehow so much more powerful. It gives it, in a strange way, a point.
Does that make sense?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I've never attended churches where Communion every week was a normal thing, so I don't really expect it to be. If you want to celebrate it ever week there needs to be an ordained priest available (in the historical churches), and in the British Methodist church, for example, this wouldn't be possible.
I've often thought it would be cool if Communion were celebrated as an actual meal, rather than a solemn ritual with a tiny wafer and a thimble of wine. In fact, every Sunday we could roll the whole thing into one and have an interactive sermon during the Communion meal!
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on
:
I've kind of gone off sermons in the last few years. Maybe after 20+ years of long evangelical sermons (40 minutes or more regularly in the church I attended for years of that) I just feel I've heard a lot of it before, although that maybe sounds a bit arrogant.
Living as an expat in a Muslim country we don't really have the luxury of a big choice of churches, ie do you want to worship in English, French or Arabic or be a Roman Catholic largely determines your choice. I must admit my enthusiasm for the sermon depends very much on who is preaching. Our main incumbent I find fascinating, I would go to the church just to listen to him. He is very good at giving context and historical background and I frequently come away with something new and interesting to think about. The others, well it varies considerably. Thankfully the time limit is 20 minutes.
What I do find interesting to observe is how American, European, African and Arab preachers contruct their sermons. There seem to be significant differences in structure which I think may be partly due to cultural background. Linear versus more circular styles.
Overall I appreciate some sermons but others, well I don't come away with much sense that I gained by sitting through it. I think maybe I'm just at a bolshy stage of life where I no longer exactly fit the box and so am easily irritated by things I would have quite readily agreed with a few years ago but now have doubts about.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Lastly it was a surprise to me, when I found out just how few of the regular congregation actually owned a bible, their bible reading and knowledge was limited to what they heard in church.
Assuming this to be indicative of a wider issue among Christians of various denominations, is there something about the way we 'do' faith and church that unintentionally encourages such shallow engagement with the Bible? Why on earth should our only / main engagement with the Bible be at a Sunday church meeting? Could we 'do' faith and church in a different way that would encourage more people to develop a more active engagement with the scriptures through the week?
Not that reading the Bible is the only way we engage with God, far from it, but still...
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
An anecdote. I heard an old Irish Anglican priest spoke on Amos 7:14-15. Amos says what he wasn't, that he was no one impressive, and the sermon emphasized the first part of v 15 "but the Lord took me". This was woven into the entire sermon, that God can take each of us. He wove this into Matthew mustard seed story, where the smallest seed becomes a big tree. But returned to the phrasing.
I recall vividly how he keep repeating "and the Lord took me". He repeated the words enough that he was no longer reading Amos, he was talking of his lifetime as a priest, and the manner in which he said it made everyone listening consider that God was taking each of us. Simple and spell bound. Would any of us really be tired of preaching if this was what we heard?
I get the sense that this may have been like it was to listen to some of Jesus' parables or the sermon on the mount. Just to hear the rhythm and cadences of words draws me in. What does it mean anyway that 'in the beginning was the word?" (have I convinced anyone further?)
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
What does it mean anyway that 'in the beginning was the word?" (have I convinced anyone further?)
Keep reading... "and the word was made flesh."
I dislike the phrase "Service of word and sacrament," because I feel it rather redundant. The Word comes to us in different ways. Reading and preaching scripture is merely one.
I think there is a clerical tendency to overdo. Anyone who has experienced seminary liturgy knows what I mean.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The liturgy is unchanging and there is no room (well, very little room) for the personality of the celebrant to be interposed in proceedings (although one neurotic rector I knew tried his darndest to make his mark even in the eucharist by saying all sorts of rather inappropriate prayers over each of his "captives" at the communion rail). The liturgy is not performance driven beyond merely being able to recite the words, it is not personality driven (as I've just said) and it doesn't encourage the cult of minor celebrity - all points I raised in the OP. The same cannot be said about the sermon.
I didn't say that the irony rests in the comparison between liturgy and preaching but rather in why you would question the existence of one without the other.
The answer to both questions ("why celebrate the Eucharist every service?" and "why have a sermon every service?") will largely depend on your tradition.
As it happens I don't think that we have to listen to a sermon every time we meet nor do I have any strong feelings about the frequency of the Eucharist.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So in the context of the concerns I expressed in the OP I see no irony in saying that we can sometimes do without the sermon, while perhaps implying that we cannot do without the eucharist (although actually I never said any such thing). The eucharist is consistently focused on Christ crucified (and risen), whereas the sermon is focused on what exactly? Errm... everything under the sun it seems, sometimes depending on what the preacher had for breakfast.
Considering Paul (in 1 Corinthians) specifically said that preaching is all about proclaiming Christ crucified there is more irony here.
As others have said on this thread, your problem is with bad preaching, not ISTM with preaching per se.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Surely 'how long people want sermons to be' is one factor to consider, but only one. Only people who view church as consumers could possibly think otherwise.
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Yes to this too, and it seems to sometimes allow the 'sermon' to be recycled every few years
I knew an Episcopal campus priest at (mumble mumble) university in Chicago, who had one sermon for each of the Sundays of the 3-year lectionary. He trotted them out in turn and put them back in his hanging folders when the week was over. He figured the odds were slight that the same people would both be in the pews their Freshman and Senior years, and remember the sermons from 3 years prior. And he felt that wasn't where his ministry was anyway. He was a wonderful man, and I don't begrudge him this method at all.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
In fact, I think it can become a form of psychological abuse of the congregation.
I know for a fact that it can. It happened at my place, and it happened at the church down the road.
Yes that is certainly a possible abuse of preaching.
However, I'd argue that is precisely why we need sermons. A sermon acts like a kind of manifesto - this is what we stand for here. Much as we get bored by political speeches at least they put into the public arena things we can hold politicians accountable for.
At least sermons are in public so that (if there is abuse going on) it is heard by all. Without sermons churches are only being led by discussions and decisions made behind closed doors.
Therefore I see preaching actually as a healthy check and balance to watch out for possible abuse of authority. Of course it can be abused too but at least there is some kind of direction and vision coming from the front with which personal conversations and decisions can be compared. If the preacher uses the pulpit to bully people then it is likely that he/she will do that 1-2-1 as well.
A sermon tells you a lot about the culture of the church and the pastoral care there. For good or ill it is a weekly statement and re-statement of what church is supposed to be all about.
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?
[ 13. July 2012, 03:47: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posted by St.Silas the carter (# 12867) on
:
I have found that the only sermons I can find any interest in are catechetical sermons. Maybe it's because Catholic sermons in the U.S. are notoriously thick on applications to the spiritual life and comfortable words, and light on doctrinal content.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
Actually, Mark, there have been great Orthodox preachers, such as St John Chrysostom "John of the Golden Mouth", as well as great Catholic ones, it's just, as you say, not the tradition.
This is a really big question in comparative Christianities: What transforms?
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
...Paul (in 1 Corinthians) specifically said that preaching is all about proclaiming Christ crucified...
I suspect Paul was referring to public proclamation here, not what we would nowadays refer to as preaching.
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
This is a really big question in comparative Christianities: What transforms?
My thoughts exactly, and it seems to me that listening to sermons does not, on the whole, produce much transformation. Especially when you think about how much time the typical western Christian (is it the same in developing-world Christianity, I don't know) puts in to preparing, giving and / or listening to sermons.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think JohnnyS has made an interesting point about the public nature of sermons ... but a corollary of that - and something that might be so axiomatic that it doesn't need to be said - is that churches which tend to harbour abusive sermons are going to be abusive in other ways too.
So what goes on in public - and is accepted publically, if it wasn't these churches would quickly close down - is only an outward manifestation of an inner malaise.
I've seen sermons used to brow-beat people. Lots of times.
Woods's Baptist experience is an interesting one ... I recognise all the ministerial types he's listed. Congregationalism can be a defence against abuse but it's not fail-safe.
I'm finding this an interesting thread ... for one thing I'm beginning to appreciate more of where EE is coming from and how he and I are on similar pages on a lot of things (such as this one) and how I've definitely moved to a more sacramental/liturgical position. That doesn't mean I'd diss everything I've been involved with hitherto.
I remember telling an RC priest that my most memorable 'Oh, I get it ...' moment in a communion service came in an unprepossessing Baptist chapel in South Wales (which had all sorts of problems and issues) where something about the breaking of the bread one particular Sunday morning 'took' me somewhere else again ... a genuinely transcendant moment yet grounded in the reality of where we were and what was going on.
I digress ...
I agree that the issue isn't with preaching per se but bad preaching ... but then, the same thing could be said about any spiritual (or secular) practice - there are classic football matches and so-so ones, inspiring poems and naff ones, good novels and bad novels, classic films and also-ran films ...
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I remember when the rector (at a previous church) preached on the subject of "salt of the earth". Admittedly it was one of those "family services", but 80%+ of the congregation were adults. This is how he began his sermon: "I want all of you to lick your hand. What does it taste like? It's salty, isn't it? Well, that's because you're the salt of the earth!"
"Pathetic" is just too kind, generous and merciful a word to describe such crap.
There certainly is a lot of pap at times when it comes to sermons. However, being a contrary kind of person (!), I both agree and disagree on your examples; a lot depends on how well the preacher knows his crowd. I love the idea of the three-legged race as a sermon illustration at a family service! And I know many of our congregation members would love to see the kids doing this, and enjoy the message behind it. And similarly, they would much rather learn the lesson of the sermon by licking their hands, than by listening to any number of minutes of 'sound' exegesis or learned speaking on the subject. And, believe me, that is not because they are easy to satisfy - far from it!
In fact, the 'licking hand' thing is only a very short step from 'the kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed', or 'a man went out to sow...' or 'a housewife lost a coin one day.....'.
The 'character' of a congo is hard to pin down because it is bound to be a mixture of as many things as individuals. But I know that while a previous parish loved the learned quotes and exegesis and theological profundity, the current bunch will not thank you for such teaching.
The attitude is more, 'this is how I live, what my challenges are - can you show me a picture or tell me in a few short sentences that are relevant to how I live, how to make life more bearable or more content?' One would not address the same sermon to a group of SOF posters as to a typical group of people in, say, one of my parishes.
I honestly struggle to communicate my sermons to my current lot, in a way that I never did with previous congos. And even now can't quite put my finger on why that is. Ironically, I think it's related to the much more pastoral relationship one has with parishioners here - I know them so much better, you'd think it would be easier to preach according to their needs. But it's not. Maybe I'll have caught on a bit better a few more years down the line?!
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
...I honestly struggle to communicate my sermons to my current lot, in a way that I never did with previous congos. And even now can't quite put my finger on why that is. Ironically, I think it's related to the much more pastoral relationship one has with parishioners here - I know them so much better, you'd think it would be easier to preach according to their needs. But it's not. Maybe I'll have caught on a bit better a few more years down the line?!
It sounds as if your previous parish was much more a city, even a university city, parish, Anselmina, where the good professional burghers required something "challenging" and with "intellectual content" but kept their distance.
Sounds like you are in more of a rural community, where people have less of those pretentious middle class barriers up and let you into their lives a bit more.
Strangely, even though a sermon is supposedly preached at a "sitting duck" audience, it does, over time, become an interactive thing. It is, in many ways, the tip of the iceberg, as far as seeing where the priest is coming from.
I think you would be very careful about what you preached because you would see it as being just part of your life and interaction with the church community. The initial invitation as it were. The Church of Ireland, even though traditionally "Low", does have a sacramental life and I think you would see this as part of the essential balance.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I remember when the rector (at a previous church) preached on the subject of "salt of the earth". Admittedly it was one of those "family services", but 80%+ of the congregation were adults. This is how he began his sermon: "I want all of you to lick your hand. What does it taste like? It's salty, isn't it? Well, that's because you're the salt of the earth!"
"Pathetic" is just too kind, generous and merciful a word to describe such crap.
I must admit that I cringed when I first read this... but thinking about it, at least he got his point across. You won't forget that experience, nor what it symbolised will you?
But, like most things, there's a time and a place. I think you can only do something like this in certain churches, and even then only once in a while. I'd be interested in hearing what the preacher had to say just after the hand-licking experiment, hopefully more than just "It's salty, isn't it? Well, that's because you're the salt of the earth!"
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S
As others have said on this thread, your problem is with bad preaching, not ISTM with preaching per se.
Not quite.
It is not just about bad sermons, but the whole culture that seems to revolve around preaching. How many times do we think of church services in terms of "who's preaching"? When we think back to a particular service, do we instinctively think about what was preached? Even if the sermon was absolutely excellent, it does not - and should not - define any act of worship. It's just one item on the agenda - nothing more.
So it is wrong to say that my problem is just with bad preaching. That is a misreading of my comments. Even "good preaching" can be viewed in a deeply unhealthy way, and can create a psychological dependence on "the great preacher".
If any aspect of worship can occasionally be dispensed with, then so can preaching. That, of course, is not to say that we should do without it altogether.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
Sir Pellinore, yes, two very different constituencies of parish, I suppose. Both great areas and wonderful people - but very different in some ways.
I think the point about 'over time' is a good one. If the regular preacher is also the main pastor, relationship with the church-goers develops over time which can affect one's approach to preaching, and how people 'listen'.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I suspect Paul was referring to public proclamation here, not what we would nowadays refer to as preaching.
True, but reinforces my point that it is not only the Eucharist which can have 'focussing on the death of Christ' as its main aim.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
It is not just about bad sermons, but the whole culture that seems to revolve around preaching. How many times do we think of church services in terms of "who's preaching"? When we think back to a particular service, do we instinctively think about what was preached? Even if the sermon was absolutely excellent, it does not - and should not - define any act of worship. It's just one item on the agenda - nothing more.
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.)
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
I'm absolutely with EE on this.
I've been to many a Low Mass where no sermon was given. As EE said, this enabled me to enter deeper into the mystery of the sacrament. It's not like the word was left out; we had the Gospel and other bible readings as well.
I don't actually think that sermons should always be remembered. Like brushing my teeth, they're good for me, but I don't need to remember them. In any case, I tend to try to work out my own meaning of the texts anyway. Sometimes I am lucky enough to hear a sermon that can enlighten the text, but a Mass without a sermon can enable me to reflect for myself.
I take the old Quaker view that the Holy Spirit can lead me into understanding what the bible readings are saying.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
It is not just about bad sermons, but the whole culture that seems to revolve around preaching. How many times do we think of church services in terms of "who's preaching"? When we think back to a particular service, do we instinctively think about what was preached? Even if the sermon was absolutely excellent, it does not - and should not - define any act of worship. It's just one item on the agenda - nothing more.
So, two aspects, one is the quality of the preaching, the other is whether preaching itself is getting a disproportionate share of the definition of "what is a church gathering?" or "what is worship?" Both bad preaching and over-emphasized preaching can distract attention from God. (Is that a fair summary?)
In which case, music could sometimes raise parallel concerns. If when the organist is on vacation and the substitute plays piano or guitar some people stay away because "it just isn't church without an organ" then maybe the organ has taken too dominant a place in their concept of church?
As to a comment above that even a less-than-good sermon can be "just what someone needed to hear," doesn't that reasoning apply not because "sermons are an important tool, see, even a bad one is just right for one person (out of the 75 suffering thru it)" but because God is creative enough to bring some good out of anything, even a poorly thought out sermon, or a "Jesus is my boyfriend" song, or a reading of the epistle so mumbled no one can hear more than a random word?
God can make all things work to the good (if we allow it), even mediocre or abusive sermons, that doesn't mean all things are good.
(Don't think I've heard any abusive sermons. Well, I did go to a Benny Hinn event out of curiosity, but I'm not counting that as church.)
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
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.)
I agree, which suggests that the problem isn't necessarily with preaching per se, but with certain sections of Christianity that have fallen into a sort of Christianity celebrity culture - whether those celebs are preachers, musicians, worship leaders or whoever.
On a more general note, a lot of this discussion has focussed on our individual experience of preaching and whether sermons have done anything for us as individuals. Which is important, but I wonder whether it's the whole thing. I wonder whether preaching is better when it speaks to the life of the congregation as a whole, rather than trying to speak to us as individuals.
On average, we have a congregation of 30 or so at our place. Even if I knew them all perfectly (which I don't) there's very little chance I could say something in a sermon that would speak into each of their individual circumstances and situations, without it being utterly vague and meaningless (a bit like horoscopes that are so utterly vague they may well come true because they're so wide open they cover about 99% of your life). But maybe, just maybe, I (or if we're lucky, God) might just say something that speaks into the life of the church, that has some significance for our life together?
Because, as Thomas Long points out, it's the church that calls and sets aside someone for the role of preaching. If this calling is a collective activity, then shouldn't the preaching be speaking to the sermon as a whole?
Which isn't to say that individuals don't matter, or that sermons should never speak into individuals' lives, or that it doesn't matter what we "get out" of a sermon - just that perhaps the main point of preaching in church is to speak into the collective life as a whole. Where we too often fall down is finding ways for the church as a whole to chew over what's been said, work out whether God's said something through it, and (on the off chance that He might) work out what we might do about it.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I wonder whether preaching is better when it speaks to the life of the congregation as a whole, rather than trying to speak to us as individuals.
Can you develop this a little? I'm not clear what you mean by the "life of the congregation as a whole." Too often I hear "church" spoken of as meaning the projects to which we are begged to volunteer hours, I don't think you mean sermons should be about Vacation Bible School needing donations of craft supplies or increase your donations so the congregation can "grow" by adding physical space.
What is the "congregation as a whole"? How does a "congregation as a whole" have a "life"? I may have heard those phrases before, but not what they mean.
Posted by CSL1 (# 17168) on
:
quote:
why are you picking on sermons since this could apply to any aspect of a Sunday service?
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" or "...because Usher Z will be directing traffic"
Sermons tend to dominate, at least in the vast majority of evangelical services. I've personally seen and known of pastors cancelling out other activities, such as fellowship meals, mid-week bible studies, men's group meetings because they distracted people from the sermon. I've seen sermons that droned on for nearly 2 hours (never seen any other part of the service take up nearly that much time).
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Can you develop this a little? I'm not clear what you mean by the "life of the congregation as a whole." Too often I hear "church" spoken of as meaning the projects to which we are begged to volunteer hours, I don't think you mean sermons should be about Vacation Bible School needing donations of craft supplies or increase your donations so the congregation can "grow" by adding physical space.
What is the "congregation as a whole"? How does a "congregation as a whole" have a "life"? I may have heard those phrases before, but not what they mean.
Sorry, yes, that was horribly vague (I'm good at vague - you should hear some of my sermons!)
I didn't mean the things you mentioned - and I'm dead against using sermons as guilt trips to get people to put more in the offering plate. What I meant was the sermon speaking into how we treat each other as Christians, how we as a church seek to share the Gospel with others, what our priorities might be as a church etc (this is not an exhaustive list!). It might be sometimes a specific situation the church is facing; when the church was considering asing me to be their full-time minister, there was at least one sermon (not by me I hasten to add!) that explicitly had something to say about that.
I don't know if that helps clarify things or not - but no, I definitely don't mean guilt -tripping people from the pulpit into doing stuff or giving more money.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Can you develop this a little? I'm not clear what you mean by the "life of the congregation as a whole."
What I meant was the sermon speaking into how we treat each other as Christians, how we as a church seek to share the Gospel with others, what our priorities might be as a church etc (this is not an exhaustive list!). It might be sometimes a specific situation the church is facing;
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.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
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.
Posted by PD (# 12436) on
:
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
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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?
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
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.
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
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.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
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."
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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.
Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on
:
Did anyone ever leave a church complaining that the sermon was too short??
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
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.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
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?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
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 ]
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
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.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
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
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
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.
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on
:
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.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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).
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
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.
Posted by PD (# 12436) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I don't go to church to be excited, but to be fed.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
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.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
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.)
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
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 ]
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
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!
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Has anyone here been involved in interactive preaching in a serious way?
Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on
:
Fortunately helping with the Sunday School means escaping from the sermon, while being seen as almost saintly...
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
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.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
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!?
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
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.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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!
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
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.
Posted by CSL1 (# 17168) on
:
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 ]
Posted by CSL1 (# 17168) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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!
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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 ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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.
Posted by PD (# 12436) on
:
Hhhmmmmm... in my denomination we are trying to get back to having class meetings. These days it is called small group ministry.
PD
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0