Ship of Fools: For Preachers

Thread: For Preachers 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=024883

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

This is a question that I usually circulate among my other seminary friends. In preaching sermons, do you always preach on the passage of the gospel? Or do you sometimes preach on the OT and the Epistle. I heard the following reasons for preaching on the Gospel only:
1) The Gospel is the last reading and so most people would be thinking of that passage as the homily begins.
2) The sermon should be preaching about Jesus. Why focus on anything other than his acts and teaching?

On the other hand, some have offered reasons for preaching on the OT/Epistle
1) All Scripture is inspired and are for the edification of the faithful, we say something problematic when we focus exclusively on the Gospel.
2) The gospel in terms of the message of God's saving love is found in places other than only the Four Gospels. One can preach the gospel message from the OT and/or the Epistles.
3) In some cases such as David's adultery with Bathsheba which was read a few weeks ago, an OT story might conceivably stick in the head of a congregation. In which case a preacher would be wise to address their questions/confusion headon.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I have heard some very fine sermons on OT and Epistle readings. Heck, I wouldn't be opposed to a sermon on the Psalm if it was edifying- but then, I used to be a Methodist. [Biased]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Considering my Christian journey as a whole, most sermons have NOT been on a Gospel reading. This is mostly because in my first church, that I was in for 5 or so years, the service that I mostly attended was an evening service with only one reading. The Gospels were for Christmas and Easter, pretty much. Although I have since been attending churches with more than one reading, I still feel that a preacher should get through most of the Bible in a year, including less widely-known books. I think anything less is feeding the congregation milk and not meat. Of course the Gospels are vital but the Gospel message can be found elsewhere in the Bible, and I do believe all of the Bible to be divinely-inspired.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Although I have since been attending churches with more than one reading, I still feel that a preacher should get through most of the Bible in a year, including less widely-known books. I think anything less is feeding the congregation milk and not meat.

A standard liturgical three-year cycle is better, IMHO. Getting through the entire Bible-- or even "most" of the Bible-- in a year requires reading 4 chapters a day-- or 28 a Sunday. Theoretically that's do-able-- if your goal is simply to speed read the Bible so you can cross it off your to-do list. But if your goal is to drink in God's Word deeply, to be immersed in it so it can change and mold you from the inside out, I find a much slower pace is essential. It takes time to reflect, contemplate, pray, and apply Scripture.

As John Ortberg says, "the goal is not to get through Scripture, but to get Scripture through you."

Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :

Mostly the Gospel but sometimes one of the other readings. I quite often use the Gospel as the main focus but refer to one of the other readings if it's relevant.
If the gospel reading has a similar theme to the one last time I preached (I preach about once a month) I'd be more likely to use a different reading so the congregation doesn't have to put up with me repeating myself.

Posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic (# 12722) on :

I have never understood the convention about preaching on the Gospel reading alone. If people only ever hear the Gospel reading expounded, how are they to be expected to approach with confidence other genres of Scripture?

The argument that the whole of Scripture is inspired seems to me overwhelmingly persuasive. There is a trend, I gather, for Bibles to be printed with 'words of Jesus in red'. I much prefer word of God in black.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

Surely a good sermon often brings out the links between all the readings? They are chosen for that Sunday for a reason--often a connection between them, a foreshadowing in the OT of what happens in the Gospel, or an Epistle that bridges the worlds of the old covenant and the new....

Apart from that, as a member of the congregation I'm happy to hear a sermon on any one or all of the readings, or even on something completely different, if it enhances my spiritual life.

Cara

Posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic (# 12722) on :

That cannot be the case, because the readings in the CW Lectionary (or the RCL) are not intended to go together. There is no connexion between the Epistle and the Gospel, because both are read in sequence. Therefore to try to tie them together will probably result in an eccentric, or at least ingenious, sermon.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

With respect, Anglican_Brat, I think that the principle ought to be one of conversion.

What useful words can I say that leads to repentance?

What word of comfort can I speak that urges my listeners to renounce the idols of life? What is it in today's complex of readings that the Holy Spirit is urging upon me that will lead to repentance?

After this question is considered, the principle is simply that the Gospel pericope ought to be privileged when considering the text for the address, but not exclusively so.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic:
That cannot be the case, because the readings in the CW Lectionary (or the RCL) are not intended to go together. There is no connexion between the Epistle and the Gospel, because both are read in sequence. Therefore to try to tie them together will probably result in an eccentric, or at least ingenious, sermon.

During Ordinary Time, this is true, though on major feast days there is a stronger connection between the readings.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I am preaching on the epistle tomorrow - 'Be angry....and sin not.'

Whenever I can, I try to preach on the OT as many never do it.

Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :

As a Reader (Trans: Anglican Lay preacher) I generally preach in Morning Prayer. There will not necessarily be a Gospel reading in the course of the service. There will be two readings, one OT, one NT but, apart from certain seasons, the second reading is usually from one of the letters. So, perforce, most of my preaching is not from the Gospels.

I also take the view that the OT is important. It is too easy to forget that the OT was Jesus' Bible, all He had. If He could preach and teach from the OT, then it follows so can we, and so should we. I find that the OT tends to be overlooked in certain traditions, or dismissed as less important. OK, I can see where that argument comes from, but I question it. The roots of our faith lie in the OT; we do well not to forget it.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I'd soon stop listening to sermons altogether if they kept banging on about repentance, or repetitively going over old ground [Snore]

As the words of Jesus are nearly all reflections of the OT, and the words in the epistles reflections of Jesus, there are connections between the readings. I like it when the readings are brought to life, so that not only do I understand a bit more about the original context but I'm also given to think about its message and its potential for application in my life and faith and in that of the church community.

I hate it when the readings aren't mentioned at all, or when a tenuous link is made to try to justify the preacher's sermon on his pet topic for the day.

Posted by orinocco (# 5083) on :

I try to use both readings. I also always try and set them in a bit of historical / political context.
If the whole bible contains God's word and God's message fur us then surely we have to study and learn from all of it. For most people the gospel is likely to be the story they know most well so it can be good to look at something people are less familiar with.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

What Darlienwr said.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:
Originally posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic:
That cannot be the case, because the readings in the CW Lectionary (or the RCL) are not intended to go together. There is no connexion between the Epistle and the Gospel, because both are read in sequence. Therefore to try to tie them together will probably result in an eccentric, or at least ingenious, sermon.
During Ordinary Time, this is true, though on major feast days there is a stronger connection between the readings.

Ah whoops, ok, thanks for these clarifications.

Guess I was wrong, though it seemed to me I'd noticed connections on more than just the major feast days...but anyway, as Raptor Eye says, there often are natural connections between the readings due to the interdependence and interweaving of all the themes.

And it's satisfying when a sermon links them (if possible without too much strained ingenuity!) and brings out the meanings in them all.

Cara

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Our new vicar has preached several times on the Psalm, mostly about praise and thanksgiving, and trust in the Lord. I find it rather refreshing.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I'd soon stop listening to sermons altogether if they kept banging on about repentance, or repetitively going over old ground

...

I hate it when the readings aren't mentioned at all, or when a tenuous link is made to try to justify the preacher's sermon on his pet topic for the day.

Amen.

My personal feeling is that there are many who need to be delicensed from preaching. [Votive]

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Speaking as a lay preacher in the ELCA -- I will generally stick with the Gospel lesson unless I feel a compelling reason to focus in on one of the other lessons. I have occasionally been able to incorporate two lessons into a sermon. IMHO it would be quite a trick to get all three lessons into the sermon somehow, but not impossible if the overarching theme is strong enough to tie them together in a 10-15-minute sermon.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Speaking as a lay preacher in the ELCA -- I will generally stick with the Gospel lesson unless I feel a compelling reason to focus in on one of the other lessons. I have occasionally been able to incorporate two lessons into a sermon. IMHO it would be quite a trick to get all three lessons into the sermon somehow, but not impossible if the overarching theme is strong enough to tie them together in a 10-15-minute sermon.

The last time that this was done successfully in my experience was Thanksgiving Day when the preacher brilliantly weaved all three lessons into a theology of gratitude.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I've never heard of any such rule. May be I move in the wrong circles. It seems a very odd thing to be dogmatic about.

Incidentally, in addition to sermons from readings, our usual practice, or the psalm, I've also heard sermons explaining other parts of the service, the commandments, the Creed, the nature of the Eucharist. Is the OP suggesting these also are forbidden?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I try to preach from the passages given. Fortunately, I rarely (practically never) find that the OT, Epistle and Gospel presented in the RCL don't lend themselves to preaching from all three. I'm preaching next week; I have part of John 6 with Jesus talking of eating his flesh, Proverbs with Wisdom laying out her feast and Ephesians with "always giving thanks". So, it's natural to preach on what Communion is (briefly - 15 minutes is not long enough to cover that subject in depth!). I preached a few weeks ago on three passages about God providing (2 examples of miraculous feeding of multitudes from OT and John, and a matching epistle) - although in that case I picked up other themes including an OT passage from a few weeks earlier and what I'd seen in the trip to Fukushima I'd just got back from to talk about God providing even when there's no evidence of his provision.

I always struggle with people who say "the three readings don't connect, so I preach on just one (usually the Gospel)." My experience has always been different, and when given three readings that support each other and give greater depth they should all get at least a mention. Sometimes that may be more appropriate within other parts of the service (the "childrens address", hymns, prayers, liturgy for Communion etc). A sermon is not isolated from the rest of worship.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Lyda*Rose: Our new vicar has preached several times on the Psalm, mostly about praise and thanksgiving, and trust in the Lord. I find it rather refreshing.

I heard some good sermons about Psalms. Many of them are about David struggling with God, reflecting the struggles and questions we often have in our own lives.

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

After consulting with the hosts of the Ecclesiantics board we have determined this topic is better suited to their territory (worship practices etc) so please fasten your seatbelts and enjoy the ride as we move you to Ecclesiantics. Continue to enjoy discussion there.

Trudy, Scrumptious Purgatory Host

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

In the year of St Paul, I preached on the Pauline reading whenever possible. With the introduction of the new English translation of the Roman Missal last year, I have preached almost exclusively on the propers of the day. That means today the plebs sancta Dei have been given homilies on divine filiation.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

I always preach on the Gospel. I think it is important to follow Jesus' example, and it's difficult to do that if we don't know what his example was.

I'm working on learning how to incorporate themes from OT, Psalm, and Epistle into the sermon, but as someone pointed out above, 15 minutes isn't long enough to chase rabbits (actually, I'm trying to shorten mine to 10-12). So I have to be to the point.

We will get coverage of the Epistle and OT readings, though, in Bible studies later in the week, when we can look at them in light of the Gospel reading and look at them in depth. I like to do Epistle on Sunday evening and OT on Wednesday evening.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
I always preach on the Gospel. I think it is important to follow Jesus' example,

Your argument defeats itself: Jesus preached on Isaiah. Follow his example and do the same occasionally!

Seriously, I'll preach on whichever reading I feel most called to. I always have a primary reading, and sometimes draw in a secondary reading. I would say that the gospel is normally among those two. The psalm and the proper prayers don't normally take first place but sometimes take second place.

When we preach vespers, we always preach on a non-gospel NT reading.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I've never heard of any such rule. May be I move in the wrong circles. It seems a very odd thing to be dogmatic about.

I once heard that it was a 'rule' to preach on the Gospel as far as catholics were concerned. However, I am glad to break some rules.

But it clearly isn't a rule since Trisagion mentioned, above, preaching on Paul.

n the wider issue of preaching on all three lessons, the only times i ever encounter that tends to be students from the nearby evangelical seminary and they go on for about 45 minutes.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

leo, at paragraph 66 the GIRM reads:

quote:
65. The homily is part of the Liturgy and is strongly recommended, for it is necessary for the nurturing of the Christian life. It should be an exposition of some aspect of the readings from Sacred Scripture or of another text from the Ordinary or from the Proper of the Mass of the day and should take into account both the mystery being celebrated and the particular needs of the listeners.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

It's bits like that that make me wish to be a Roman Catholic.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

After the other thread, I could never wish to be Roman Catholic...

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I have absolutely no intention of doing so. I just wish I didn't have to put up with sentimental platitudes so much of the time.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
It's bits like that that make me wish to be a Roman Catholic.

It's the short masses and short homilies that occasionally make me wish to be so.

Posted by Chap (# 4926) on :

I preach from the Gospel reading the majority of Sundays but will preach from either OT or Epistle if I think a message more suited to the congregation can be drawn from them. when there is a good connection between the texts (rare) I will try to weave them together.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

A priest I knew when I was at university told me his rule on the subject: "Always preach on the Gospel, unless you have a better idea."

I was very disappointed yesterday when the preacher made no reference to the OT reading. The story of Elijah being fed by bread from heaven in order to sustain him for his journey to Horeb, the mountain of God, where he encounters God in the sound of sheer silence.

That seemed to me to be a very helpful illustration to "I am the bread of life."

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
leo, at paragraph 66 the GIRM reads:

quote:
65. The homily is part of the Liturgy and is strongly recommended, for it is necessary for the nurturing of the Christian life. It should be an exposition of some aspect of the readings from Sacred Scripture or of another text from the Ordinary or from the Proper of the Mass of the day and should take into account both the mystery being celebrated and the particular needs of the listeners.

Brilliant - as is often the case, the RCC has it spot on, and manages to be so without the long sentences and paragraphs with which my church evades issues.

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

I'll try my darnedest to find a common thread linking OT, Psalm, Epistle and Gospel together. There always is. The RCL gives almost too much Scripture to be digested. But the past few weeks have been beautiful words, wonderful words of life. They all need to be hammered home.

But honestly, I can see a couple of generations down the pike and we'll revert to Epistle and Gospel and the Peace with be simply a versicle and response. Pendulum swings and all that.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

A bit tricky since I don't use a lectionary .... but I aim to allow scripture to interpret scripture which might be along the lines of the same thing.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

It used to be dollars to donuts that I would preach on the Epistle, but the rising cost of donuts has not been reflected in an alteration in the likelihood of me preaching on the Gospel. I keep a note of my texts and in the last year I preached eleven times on the Gospel, 36 times on the Epistle and 3 times on the OT. This reflects the relative rarity of OT lessons in the traditional BCP lectionary.

PD

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
A priest I knew when I was at university told me his rule on the subject: "Always preach on the Gospel, unless you have a better idea."

I was very disappointed yesterday when the preacher made no reference to the OT reading. The story of Elijah being fed by bread from heaven in order to sustain him for his journey to Horeb, the mountain of God, where he encounters God in the sound of sheer silence.

That seemed to me to be a very helpful illustration to "I am the bread of life."

I certainly thought it was when I preached last week; my sermon started with the OT and then I linked it to the gospel. If you're using the Related readings it's what they're there for, surely.

Posted by Polly Plummer (# 13354) on :

It's usually the O.T. reading that's most likely to puzzle or upset the congregation - which seems a pretty good reason to preach on it and explain what it's doing in the service.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
The Silent Acolyte spouts:
With respect, Anglican_Brat, I think that the principle ought to be one of conversion.

What useful words can I say that leads to repentance?

What word of comfort can I speak that urges my listeners to renounce the idols of life? What is it in today's complex of readings that the Holy Spirit is urging upon me that will lead to repentance?

That part of my post is sententious and slightly ridiculous. I'm sorry I wrote it.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0