Thread: How to make Church teaching more interesting 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=025178

---

Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :
 
I've been a training instructor for my company for about a year now, and it is slowly dawning on me that many of the learning and engagement techniques we use could actually appeal to the Congregation on a Sunday. We have a fairly standard Sunday morning: Half hour sing and share, Sunday school go out, Bible reading, Half hour sermon, Coffee time.

Because top down 'preaching' has it's limitations, I'd really like to hear about other ways of doing things - especially intereactive Sermons/ Bible teaching to help the congregation engage with and learn from the Word.

Any experiences/ ideas to share?

[ 26. February 2013, 08:28: Message edited by: Stoker ]
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Liturgy? That's interactive

Seriously, though...

What's the demographic of your congregation?
 

---

Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :
 
Quite wide -

Middle class toddler based families are probably the core, with a good helping of Older couples (just retired through to 80's), Singles, 'unchurched' types on the fringes.
We usually have 40-60 on a Sunday morning.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Any of this http://www.theworkofthepeople.com/index.php?ct=site.home any use to you?

If you're locked into a long half hour "sermon" spot, you might break it up with material of that ilk.

[ 26. February 2013, 08:59: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 

---

Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :
 
Thanks, looks interesting....I'll need to be at home to check some of that stuff out.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stoker:
Because top down 'preaching' has it's limitations, I'd really like to hear about other ways of doing things - especially intereactive Sermons/ Bible teaching to help the congregation engage with and learn from the Word.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
To be honest, I think an awful lot of Christian discipleship doesn't happen in church services at all, but rather in friendship groups, mission or service projects and other things that actually get us to share our lives with one another and see what God is doing. So our church services should encourage all of that stuff, and what we currently do in our church services should be examined to see whether it is helping us draw nearer to God and be changed more into his likeness.

---

This is the key for me - sermons need to be linked in with all the other situations in which Christian discipleship is happening throughout the church community. They should encourage and enhance what else is happening, not exist on an island that is perhaps only linked to the rest of what happens during that hour on Sunday morning.

A suggestion as to what that might look like? Perhaps a series of linked sermons across a themed series (for example going through a book of the Bible in chunks which may or may not follow the conventional chapter/verse divisions) which each last no longer than 10 minutes and use an inductive approach that asks open-ended questions rather than a top-down dictatorial approach. Leave chapter and verse numbers out of it so the text can be read as it was meant to be read (instead of how some bloke in the 13th century thought it should be read) with the number-free text provided in printed and online formats.

Then you throw it to your small groups to discuss during the week, and get the leaders to bring back responses and further questions which the preacher can discuss in a 20 minute time slot at the next Sunday (i.e. replace your 30 minute sermon with 20 minutes discussion and 10 minutes of the next content) before the 10 minute introduction to the next bit.

This can be expanded to use a variety of different communication methods - for example asking a few different people in the congregation to each post a short video blog during the week (one each day from Monday to Friday) where they talk about their response and questions that come from it, making sure you get a cross section of ages including one 15-20 youth and one 60+ senior, and no more than one person who has done formal theological study. That blog can in turn be opened up to moderated comments from others, which might give a clue as to who could be a good person to ask to do video pieces for future series so as to mix up the voices being heard.


ETA - this happened at my church. Many people really got into it and grew through it. It also annoyed the hell out of some others because the normal "good sermon Bob" was met by the pastor asking them a question of it. Still others were annoyed when small group leaders told them to put their commentaries and concordances away and engage with the word themselves.

[ 26. February 2013, 12:58: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I couldn't say how effective a sermon is for "training people in living a certain way," but it's a perfect way to present and explicate the Gospel for the edification of the faithful.

On the other hand, keep it under 20 minutes. There's a reason movies always have an explosion at the 20 minute mark.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I don't see the sermon as primarily "teaching", let alone "training". Plenty of time during the week for that sort of thing, for me. I see preaching primarily as "proclamation" - the proclamation of the Gospel. Might that put a rather different spin on the issue?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I don't see the sermon as primarily "teaching", let alone "training". Plenty of time during the week for that sort of thing, for me. I see preaching primarily as "proclamation" - the proclamation of the Gospel. Might that put a rather different spin on the issue?

---

I don't think it does, really. IMO, the main context for the 'proclamation of the Gospel' is with non-Christians, and even then I'm doubtful as to whether a lecture-type scenario is the best approach these days. Public oratory is, on the whole (rightly or wrongly), a thing of the past.

Adeodatus, if you see the proclamation of the Gospel as a valid, important thing to take place within church services, what would you say is the purpose of such proclamation? What results are intended?

---

quote:

---

I agree. That old "it's about proclamation, not teaching" line is just a meaningless old chestnut useful purely for fluffing up the self-esteem of poor preachers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I don't think it does, really. IMO, the main context for the 'proclamation of the Gospel' is with non-Christians,

---

quote:

---

and even then I'm doubtful as to whether a lecture-type scenario is the best approach these days. Public oratory is, on the whole (rightly or wrongly), a thing of the past.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The sermon occupies different functions in different traditions. I'm guessing from what Stoker describes as "normal" he's from an evangelical tradition with didactic and quite long sermons. Not my cup of tea, but that's me. Obviously he's going to be looking for ways to reinvent what happens within that tradition and with that approach and intention.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Nothing much to add, except to say that people pay to listen to comedians because they're funny and enjoyable to listen to for that reason.

Sermons often... erm...

---

Did think that when I was ranting just then... didn't want to undermine my own point, though...
 

---

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
I knew of a church in Canada that had a very short introductory sermon followed by an open platform for people to ask questions and to 'discuss' in a slightly stilted way. It was a format described to me back in the mid 90's by about four or five different visitors - sadly I didn't retain the name of the church, but what did stick with me was one comment by one of the visitors when they asked the priest how they got to this stage. His response was that they wanted to have a new format for the sermon, but he told the visitor that the congregation had gone through a lot of pain and struggle to get there as the format demanded quite a lot of openness and honesty and a good deal of risk too, changing the whole dimension of 'being at church'.

The other thing that stuck with me was the increased length of services. Now I'm no stickler for being a slave to time, but the length of their services would have certainly put me off attending every Sunday, yet time was needed for that format.
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I don't see the sermon as primarily "teaching", let alone "training". Plenty of time during the week for that sort of thing, for me. I see preaching primarily as "proclamation" - the proclamation of the Gospel. Might that put a rather different spin on the issue?

---

I don't think it does, really. IMO, the main context for the 'proclamation of the Gospel' is with non-Christians, and even then I'm doubtful as to whether a lecture-type scenario is the best approach these days. Public oratory is, on the whole (rightly or wrongly), a thing of the past.

Adeodatus, if you see the proclamation of the Gospel as a valid, important thing to take place within church services, what would you say is the purpose of such proclamation? What results are intended?

---

I agree. That old "it's about proclamation, not teaching" line is just a meaningless old chestnut useful purely for fluffing up the self-esteem of poor preachers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
tgc - thanks for sharing your experience; it's great that plenty of people in your church found it helpful and productive!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The sermon occupies different functions in different traditions. I'm guessing from what Stoker describes as "normal" he's from an evangelical tradition with didactic and quite long sermons. Not my cup of tea, but that's me. Obviously he's going to be looking for ways to reinvent what happens within that tradition and with that approach and intention.

---

Mmm, good point. But for all the different functions a sermon occupies from tradition to tradition, does the sermon really fulfil that function well? For contexts where a sermon's function is to edify the faithful (as Zach82 said), do most sermons actually achieve this? Likewise for other contexts - does the typical sermon achieve its purported aim or is there scope for significant development?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stejjie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

I'm doubtful as to whether a lecture-type scenario is the best approach these days. Public oratory is, on the whole (rightly or wrongly), a thing of the past.

---

Then why do people pay goodness-knows-how much to go and sit and listen to stand-up comedians? If you go to a comedy gig, you have even less input than in even the most non-interactive service: at least there you'll get to sing some hymns or songs, you might even get to pray. At a comedy gig, literally all you're expected to do is laugh and applaud at the right moments - you don't get any say in what happens, you don't particularly get to interact (unless it's on the comedian's terms), you don't get to argue or say "yes, but". You're just expected to sit and listen and laugh in agreement. And yet people will pay silly money to go and do it, to listen to one person talking for much longer than even the most long-winded preacher.

---

quote:

---

Preaching is a lousy way of teaching. But the Christian life is not all about learning to be better disciples - that's a huge part of it, yes. But I think there's more, much more to it than that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Any of this http://www.theworkofthepeople.com/index.php?ct=site.home any use to you?

If you're locked into a long half hour "sermon" spot, you might break it up with material of that ilk.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
So quite often, the sermon is the only chance we have to communicate an understanding of what the Church believes. I wish that weren't where we are, but it's where we are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Imma guess that weekly church-goers and sermon hearers are the least likely to get it into their heads that Christianity is merely a Sunday affair.

---

quote:

---

We could always try what Jesus did. Preach the gospel. And make it so. For EVERY ONE

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Good question, Kevin. I suspect that it's because many people have the mindset that "Church is for Sundays"--this is the reason that only a sub-group of the church turns up for services on holy days during the week... So I'm still unwilling to pull the didactic rug from under their feet...

---

Fair enough, and I love your 'didactic rug' phrase! However, I didn't particularly have in mind that greater engagement would be evidenced by more attendance at official church activities. It could be, but it could also be about people engaging with God through the rest of the week, both on their own and informally with others.

But if the format of the main Sunday (for most churches) gathering involves lots of teaching-type activities - the few feeding the many - then I suspect that discourages and disempowers the many from taking action to engage with God outside the main gathering.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I used to be in a tradition which valued preaching very highly. Some of our preachers were very good - they were witty, engaging, 'relevant', inspiring ... but - and it's a big BUT - a lot of it was pulpiteering and rhetoric.

It could be way, way, way over the top with the result that expectations were raised - revival, 'multitudes saved and healed' and so on - only for them to be cruelly dashed.

I'm exceedingly wary of the giant platform approach - the sort of thing that so many preachers in that kind of tradition see and hear and try to emulate.

So, I'm with South Coast Kevin on their being a 'more excellent way'.

I've mentioned elsewhere on these boards how the local RC ladies here seem to be nourished and sustained by their weekly lay-led 'lectio divina' sessions. They use notes circulated around the parishes from some bishopric or other and these study notes are very good indeed. They are well grounded, sensible and have useful background notes and suggested discussion questions.

These old girls know their stuff. They'll tell you that catechesis was pretty poor in their youth and that it's only recently that they've taken to studying the Bible in small groups. I've yet to hear any of them come out with iffy Trinitarian formularies and statements in the way that I've heard them in Protestant circles - including evangelical ones.

I suspect it's a case of both/and not either/or. I've heard preachers I could happily listen to all day. Others would give me the screaming ad-dabs after about 30 seconds.

Liturgy helps too. It's passing in so many circles is a sad loss because by-and-large it's being replaced by subjectivism and the-thoughts-of-chairman-whoever-happens-to-be-leading-that-week.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think we're talking about what the more Catholic traditions call 'spiritual formation' here, South Coast Kevin.

In the more Catholic traditions there's an emphasis on a 'rule of life' - a regular rhythm of prayer, devotion, alms-giving etc etc.

That's not to say that everyone in those traditions takes advantage of the opportunity - but the opportunities are there.

I don't know how you can encourage and embed these things into people's spiritual lives. I've got all on trying to incorporate them into my own.

Pressure and 'holy days of obligation' and so on can't be the answer surely ... rather like the old RC thing of Mass attendance being compulsory on pain of jeopardising one's soul.

I've been involved with groups where house-group attendance was compulsory too. It's not compulsory, of course, in our local parish church but it's encouraged to the extent that you are seen as being outside of things if you don't go to one. I don't. I've not been to a house-group in my own church for four years. They annoy me too much.

I s'pose I live on my hump and also sustain myself through the Lenten groups at this time of year and through a regular pattern of personal devotion that has gradually taken on a somewhat Anglican/Orthodox form. It does mean that I'm ploughing something of a lone furrow, but that's how it is.

It's not for me to say whether or not it's working nor to evaluate the extent that I live out my faith week-by-week. Perhaps I ought to find a 'spiritual director'. For various reasons I don't trust the discernment levels in my own parish to look for that sort of thing there.
 

---

Posted by Uriel (# 2248) on :
 
Responding to Stoker's request for how things have been done differently, here's something I've tried in my church. I am a reader in an Anglican church, about 130-150 congregation and fairly low evanangelical and used to trying things differently. We are lucky in having one pirest, two retired clergy and three readers, so the congregation are used to different voices at the front.

One method we occasionally use is to interview someone from the congregation about something. It would be presumptious of me to assume that I knew better than the 150 odd people listening to me, and for applied issues (faith at work, in a family context, etc.) it comes across much better to talk over the issues with someone living out their faith in that situation. I have also done the "sermon" slot as an interview, where I talked about the Bible passage with the priest for 10 minutes, and after a song had someone from the congregation lined up to come and talk with us both about what the passage meant to them.

I do this from time to time because people are much more used to listening in to conversations than they are being talked to directly for 15 minutes.

That said, the norm is the standard sermon, although often done in different ways, partly due to having different people who preach week by week. And I think there is much, much more to preaching than just imparting knowledge. Sometimes you have to try and inspire people, lift their eyes towards heaven, connect emotionally. It's not just about pouring facts into their head.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
You are low church evangelical and refer to 'priests'?

Our low church evangelical vicar refuses to be referred to as a priest - other than in a 'priesthood of all believers' sense.
 

---

Posted by Uriel (# 2248) on :
 
Priest, Rector, Vicar, Minister - all pretty much the same to me. Not sure how the vicar would refer to himself. But I worked for a while in Diocesan administration, and enjoyed working with Anglican clergy from across the spectrum, irrespective of what they called themselves.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel: You are low church evangelical and refer to 'priests'?

Our low church evangelical vicar refuses to be referred to as a priest - other than in a 'priesthood of all believers' sense.

---

That's fair enough if he's talking about the Temple "priesthood". Jesus is our only individual "priest" in the Old Testament sense. The "priesthood of all believers" is our communal and collective participation in the priesthood of Jesus.

But the personal "priesthood" of an ordained Christian minister is something different. Such priests are presbyters, elders of the chuch. They are not intermediaries between God and his people, they are not Temple priests. (As us low-church evangelicals know well, but them Catholics over there get very mixed up about )


We don't all have that ministry of eldership, any more than we are all preachers or all teachers or all cleaners or all archdeacons or all van drivers or all PCC secretaries or all deacons or all musicians or all in the Mother's Union or all prophets or all speakers in tongues or all missionaries or all archdeacons or all singers or all doorkeepers in the house of the Lord.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Lots of good discussion here. Just one bit of feeble wisdom to add: Be sure that whatever creative elements you add-- whether that's a video clip, a skit, a funny or moving story, whatever-- is directly related to your MAIN point, not just a side point or image.

I worship at a church where a lot of "industry" people attend ("industry" in LA = film industry). For awhile they had a team of highly creative professionals doing video announcements-- and they were amazing. Often quite funny, brilliantly acted, well scripted and filmed. Problem was... that's what you remembered-- the date of the youth car wash-- rather than whatever the point of the sermon was. Then they figured that out and had them doing film clips to introduce the sermon, but the problem was the creative team didn't have the sermon outline, so all they could do was riff of the general theme. So a series on relationships began each week with hilarious send-ups of prime-time soap operas that were quite memorable, but really didn't connect to the message itself, and so didn't help reinforce the main point.

Most of us are visual learners. Our church services, and particularly the sermon, are mostly auditory. It's a good idea to add visuals, to add movement, to add creative elements. Just remember to place it wisely, because that's what will be remembered-- to the point of overshadowing all else. Make it count.

[ 27. February 2013, 19:31: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'm just waiting for an Anglo-Catholic to come along and try to put you straight, ken ...
 

---

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I didn't say Christianity, but church. What I refer to is the attitude that going to church (for whatever reason) is what we do on Sundays, and why on earth would you need to go there on any other day of the week?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

If you have a 30 minute preaching slot, a ten minute video clip followed by discussion in small groups (no more than 6. 4 is preferable) with some carefully worded questions that lead to a 'how does this apply to our lives? can be very good.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I have yet to encounter a small-group discussion at church that I have derived any benefit from.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I have yet to encounter a small-group discussion at church that I have derived any benefit from.

---

Can you say why this might be the case?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Uriel:
One method we occasionally use is to interview someone from the congregation about something... I have also done the "sermon" slot as an interview... I do this from time to time because people are much more used to listening in to conversations than they are being talked to directly for 15 minutes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Basilica:
For my part I don't find a group of people sitting around sharing their common ignorance enhances my faith.

There's a reason why most traditions require preachers and teachers to have training and to be licensed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm just waiting for an Anglo-Catholic to come along and try to put you straight, ken ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Basilica:
There's a reason why most traditions require preachers and teachers to have training and to be licensed.

---

Other than it being an attempt to ensure that novel ideas are marginalised and all preachers will follow the 'party line', you mean?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
In which case, leo, I stand corrected. I did put in a smilie though.


 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Basilica:
There's a reason why most traditions require preachers and teachers to have training and to be licensed.

---

Other than it being an attempt to ensure that novel ideas are marginalised and all preachers will follow the 'party line', you mean?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Puh-leeze. There is no greater impediment to orthodoxy and common sense than the average systematic theology course in a seminary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I have yet to encounter a small-group discussion at church that I have derived any benefit from.

---

Can you say why this might be the case?

---

For my part I don't find a group of people sitting around sharing their common ignorance enhances my faith.

There's a reason why most traditions require preachers and teachers to have training and to be licensed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The thing is, South Coast Kevin, 'experiences' can be deceptive and one of the reasons why I no longer attend a house-group at our parish is because I got fed up of dominant personalities at the house-group taking over and blarting on about how God had said this, that and the other to them every five minutes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The question is, though, if people have been sat listening to sermons for 10, 20, 30-odd years, why is it that none of this 'training' has rubbed off on them? Why is it that none of this great wisdom and insight filters down to folk in the pews, to the extent that they can profitably deal in mutual edification rather than 'common ignorance'? If these teachers are so wonderful, why are we failing to learn?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I have yet to encounter a small-group discussion at church that I have derived any benefit from.

---

Can you say why this might be the case?

---

They always seem to result in people retelling anecdotes about times when they have felt close to God, and times when they have felt less close to God. It's more like a coffee morning than an attempt at serious discussion (and usually without even the coffee).
 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
Sermons: short is best.

Pews: an invention of the devil designed to facilitate the hearing of long boring sermons.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I have yet to encounter a small-group discussion at church that I have derived any benefit from.

---

Can you say why this might be the case?

---

They always seem to result in people retelling anecdotes about times when they have felt close to God, and times when they have felt less close to God. It's more like a coffee morning than an attempt at serious discussion (and usually without even the coffee).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Basilica:
There's a reason why most traditions require preachers and teachers to have training and to be licensed.

---

Other than it being an attempt to ensure that novel ideas are marginalised and all preachers will follow the 'party line', you mean?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Puh-leeze. There is no greater impediment to orthodoxy and common sense than the average systematic theology course in a seminary.

---

Sadly true.

And Martin, the problem is that when those novel ideas aren't restatements of heresies the Church rejected hundreds of years ago, they're irrelevant speculations based on personal anecdotes triggered by random keywords in the lessons. If I hear one more sermon about the Prodigal Son suggesting that the point is how we all need to stray away, I'm gonna kick somebody's ass.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I think every time I speak with someone who seems to be particularly holy and full of the Spirit, it turns out they have some kind of life pattern through which they actively engage with God on a basis far more frequent than once a week.

---

quote:

---

ISTM the pattern of from-the-front teaching at one gathering per week is simply not effective in producing people who hear the word of God and obey it.

---

quote:

---

And what's more - as I said upthread - I suspect that the once-a-week pattern of input from a professional actually discourages us from connecting with God more frequently.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE]The question is, though, if people have been sat listening to sermons for 10, 20, 30-odd years, why is it that none of this 'training' has rubbed off on them? Why is it that none of this great wisdom and insight filters down to folk in the pews, to the extent that they can profitably deal in mutual edification rather than 'common ignorance'? If these teachers are so wonderful, why are we failing to learn?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stejjie:
[QUOTE]Perhaps part of the problem is sermons that seek to give all of the answers: perhaps if preaching is to continue, it needs to raise the questions and then find ways to enable people to work out the answers for themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't think Svit is actually literally claiming that the people in the pews learn nothing. I think the point was rather contra the idea that one can only learn from ordained preachers; there is an internal contradiction - if Lay Person X learns from ordained preacher Y, why is it then impossible for Lay Person Z to learn from the learning that X gained from Y?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I'd agree but with the proviso that preaching can provide some of the answers because the answers are there. By all means encourage the listeners to respond to questions but if we are to base our preaching on the life and claims of Jesus, then we are going to be propositional and give answers (he was and he did - and they're pretty clear to me).

Deconstruction through questions can go too far to the point where it hits intellectual anarachy - ie it's broken down so much that only a small part remains and that isn't enoiugh to be the foundation for a reconstruction. The broken remain broken. (It does rather remind me of the claims for homoepathy: most people dismiss the idea of a miniscule part being able to have any impact).

People need certainties alongside the questions. Everyone else is asking questions - it's all so Po mo now - but just how counter cultural is it to give an answer that it obviously there? Exactly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stejjie:

quote:

---

And what's more - as I said upthread - I suspect that the once-a-week pattern of input from a professional actually discourages us from connecting with God more frequently.

---

Genuine question: is there any evidence for this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stejjie:
If I have one hope from my preaching (apart from that it makes some kind of sense and isn't too boring) it's that it does actually give the congregation something they'll want to think about and pray about and perhaps do something about; that it's scratching an itch somewhere, in someone, that they'll want to go away and scratch. I don't know how effective I am in this, but I want my sermons to spur people to engage with God more not do it for them.

Perhaps part of the problem is sermons that seek to give all of the answers: perhaps if preaching is to continue, it needs to raise the questions and then find ways to enable people to work out the answers for themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

Like Chorister, i dislike interactive stuff (too reminiscent of bad in-service training days) but I am in a minority and it isn't for me to dictate what best suits a congregation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

Like Chorister, i dislike interactive stuff (too reminiscent of bad in-service training days) but I am in a minority and it isn't for me to dictate what best suits a congregation.

---

I would be interested to see research on what proportion of people learn about spiritual matters best through which type of teaching style. If it is true that introverts on the whole prefer to sit and listen and extroverts prefer to be part of the action, then I'd have thought it was 50/50 - a very good reason not to ditch the didactic sermon approach.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stejjie:
[QUOTE]

1. .... however I also think that it does need to give some space for further exploring and praying and reflecting by the congregation. If not, then it can becoming patronising and infantilising (sp?) towards the congregation.

2. (Plus there's a practical issue: given that a given Bible text, and even a given sermon, will register with different people in very different ways, no one sermon can give all the "answers" that are directly applicable to everybody. There will always have to be some "space", some need for people to take it away and chew it over for themselves).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not surprised at the response from EE's congregation to the interactive thing. I don't think this is because people simply want to be spoonfed but interactivity, particularly in a public place and a large-ish gathering can be intimidating. People feel put on the spot and wary of saying anything in case they appear foolish.

What tends to happen then is that the loud-mouths tend to hog things.

---

Help Gamaliel - I'm not EE!
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Doh! Apologies EM, sincere apologies, very sincere apologies ...


 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

Like Chorister, i dislike interactive stuff (too reminiscent of bad in-service training days) but I am in a minority and it isn't for me to dictate what best suits a congregation.

---

I would be interested to see research on what proportion of people learn about spiritual matters best through which type of teaching style. If it is true that introverts on the whole prefer to sit and listen and extroverts prefer to be part of the action, then I'd have thought it was 50/50 - a very good reason not to ditch the didactic sermon approach.

---

No way do i want to ditch sermons - because i enjoy preaching them!

There is a generic learning style book aimed mainly at school teachers but there is also a couple of books that apply MBTI to Christians, including worship, spirituality and Christian learning styles.

I have done a copy and paste job on these, for my own needs when pastoring - it would breach copyright to post here but I could send as a PM to anyone interested.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
What an interesting thread! I'll try to respond to a few comments.

John Wesley - who was no armchair general - found that class meetings were more effective than sermons when it came to helping ordinary people understand the faith and to transform their lives. It's harder to coast along, to drift off, to start thinking about your Sunday dinner, etc., if you're in a small group that's interacting. Wesley had challenges, of course. He found it hard to keep the class meetings 'pure', while future generations found it hard to keep them going. Not all 'small groups' will have the same effect, because their effect depends on their goals and their context.

I don't understand the worries about Chinese whispers, i.e. claims that if a message is passed around by too many people it'll get distorted. Doesn't that argument nullify the historical transmission of the gospel itself??! That leaves me speechless!

Once I read that the best way to learn something is to teach it to someone else, and this really struck a chord with me. It also explains why the clergy love preaching sermons. The trouble is, the system only allows an elite few to teach. So how will the rest truly learn? I love a good sermon as much as the next Christian, but I just think the emphasis on high priests with secret knowledge is unhealthy. It makes congregations flabby - no wonder they don't want anything to change! Frank Viola would say that the clergy/laity divide makes this outcome inevitable, but it would be nice to prove him wrong.
 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
As far as the liturgy is concerned, I think it is good that the bishop, priest or deacon expound on the scripture for that particular day. However, short is sweet as far as this is concerned. Outside the liturgy more in depth teaching can be employed but it should be with authority and never without the permission of the bishop who governs the Church in the person of Christ.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'm sure I'm not the only one here who is wondering what it is we are expecting people to learn? Is it doctrine? How to live the Christian life? Both?

It strikes me that there's something of an over-expectation thing going on here ... as if whatever happens on a Sunday morning is going to be of the utmost significance.

I agree that it's important - but our respective mileages will vary when it comes to the sacramental aspect, say, as much as the didactic aspects, the fellowship aspects etc etc.

I also wonder about the 'more interesting' tag. More interesting to whom? Me as an individual? I might find the sermon incredibly boring. Someone else might be gripped by it. Or vice-versa.

I'm becoming more sacramental/eucharistic in my focus so I'm not really that concerned these days about sermons - I've been involved with church life since my evangelical conversion at the age of 19 and had been an occasional attender as a boy - I went to Sunday school until I was 11.

I'm now 52 and reckon I've probably heard enough sermons to last me several lifetimes. The issue isn't how interesting they are but whether I'm putting these things into practice.

That's where I suggest that the 'spiritual formation' emphases one finds in the more catholic and sacramental traditions ought to be able to help. If that's not your bag, though, then there are alternatives such as the evangelical practice of the 'quiet time' first thing in the morning with prayer and Bible study (do people still do that?) or the small-group/house-group thing.

Ultimately, whatever church we're in or whatever tradition we've come from we have to feed ourselves to some extent. If we want to read theology there are plenty of resources available. If we want to read devotional books there are plenty of those. If we want to go on-line and discuss all kinds of issues in an unrestful fashion with people we've generally never met then I understand that there are certain sites which cater for that ...

I don't think there's a magic bullet out there. What ministers/priests/church leaders etc can do is to create a framework, preach and teach the Gospel and give counsel, direction and so on if they are that way gifted. You can't expect any one person to have all of those gifts.

I don't think our problems are generally caused by a lack of teaching - although some problems can be - rather it's a lack of application and a lack of following things through and working them out. That's certainly my problem at any rate.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I don't know who these 'high priests with secret knowledge' are - although I'm sure some can act as if that's the case. Most RC, Orthodox and Anglo-Catholic priests I've met don't come over like that at all ... if anything the guys I've met who give the impression that they have some special hotline to heaven and know it all come from the opposite end of the ecclesial spectrum.

I'm sure there are dorks and elitist types in all traditions.

That said, I think the heirarchical thing can militate against congregational and individual 'learning' and spiritual growth - but the same can be said for a more laid-back or free-for-all approach as it can go to an equal and opposite extreme - either of encouraging pet theories and individualism or exotic and far-fetched personal hobby-horses.

I've been a Baptist in the past so can certainly appreciate the congregational way of doing things and, by and large, I've found the Baptist ministers I know/knew to be very good communicators as well as expositors in the traditional Protestant sense.

I sometimes think that a combination of engaging evangelical style preaching (at its best) with a rule-of-life approach taken from one or other of the more sacramental traditions combined with regular eucharistic practice, fasts, feasts, almsgiving and social engagement would be the best way to go ...
 

---

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
One thing that's struck me for a while is how few people take notes while listening to sermons and how many of us (I'm the same - the flesh is weak...) quickly forget what we've heard in a sermon, never mind actually doing something about it. And this all fits what educational theorists say - most of us don't remember much of what we hear, if there's no observing and doing alongside the listening.

---

• I'm allowed to take notes without looking Odd
• I have to listen all the way through
• I have to [try to] understand
• Others can have a second listen (repetition - see?)
• Prospective visitors can check us out (mission)
• The other preachers can do Reflective Practice (ministerial review)
• I know what not do when I preach

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm just waiting for an Anglo-Catholic to come along and try to put you straight, ken ...

---

What Ken said is completely in line with anglo-catholic teaching - indeed Roman Catholic teaching as set out in lumen gentium's section on the constitution of the church.

---

quote:

---

The ministerial priest, by the sacred power he enjoys, teaches and rules the priestly people; acting in the person of Christ, he makes present the Eucharistic sacrifice, and offers it to God in the name of all the people.

---

quote:

---

Although ... all the faithful can baptize, the priest alone can complete the building up of the Body in the eucharistic sacrifice.

---

?
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Gamaliel

It's not matter of individual ministers beings 'dorks and elitists'. I'm talking about the aura and the expectation created around them because they're the only ones with the spirituality and the understanding; the rest of us are only good enough to listen.

I hear that some Catholics go to church principally to take Communion, then they leave. I have to say, that attitude has something to recommend it. No hope or expectation of 'getting something out of the sermon', no chance of being disappointed or going home inadequately fed; the drama and power is all in the body and the blood, and what the priest says is of lesser importance. In a different context, the alternative is to be like you, expecting to receive little from sermons that you haven't already had. Unfortunately for many Protestants, reaching that point could mean they may as well stop going to church, because there may be few other compelling reasons for them to be there.

[ 02. March 2013, 22:09: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
That sounds great, Qoheleth! Maybe every church member / attendee should be made to update the website or Facebook page in order to give us an external motivation to pay close attention to the sermon...
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Doh! Apologies EM, sincere apologies, very sincere apologies ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm just waiting for an Anglo-Catholic to come along and try to put you straight, ken ...

---

What Ken said is completely in line with anglo-catholic teaching - indeed Roman Catholic teaching as set out in lumen gentium's section on the constitution of the church.

---

Before Gamaliel stands corrected, can I ask if this would be the same Lumen gentium that proclaims:

quote:

---

The ministerial priest, by the sacred power he enjoys, teaches and rules the priestly people; acting in the person of Christ, he makes present the Eucharistic sacrifice, and offers it to God in the name of all the people.

---

and

quote:

---

Although ... all the faithful can baptize, the priest alone can complete the building up of the Body in the eucharistic sacrifice.

---

?

---

quote:

---

a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people . . Christ the Lord, High Priest taken from among men, made the new people "a kingdom and priests to God the Father".

---

quote:

---

He distributes special graces among the faithful of every rank. By these gifts He makes them fit and ready to undertake the various tasks and offices which contribute toward the renewal and building up of the Church….He also gives them a sharing in His priestly function of offering spiritual worship for the glory of God and the salvation of men….priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by the ministers and by the faithful

---

quote:

---

The ministerial priest, by the sacred power he enjoys, teaches and rules the priestly people; acting in the person of Christ, he makes present the Eucharistic sacrifice, and offers it to God in the name of all the people. But the faithful, in virtue of their royal priesthood, join in the offering of the Eucharist

---

quote:

---

….priests of the New Testament. Partakers of the function of Christ the sole (sic) Mediator, on their level of ministry, they announce the divine word to all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
We could always try what Jesus did. Preach the gospel. And make it so. For EVERY ONE.

---

Seven days a week, yay!

I know a few had got into the Sunday mindset, but how about getting out of your minds(insert pun here)et?

Are teaching and worship mutually exclusive?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Right - I've clocked who Galadriel is now ...



@South Coast Kevin

'That sounds great, Qoheleth! Maybe every church member / attendee should be made to update the website or Facebook page in order to give us an external motivation to pay close attention to the sermon... '

Leave me out! That sounds positively Hellish or at least Purgatorial! I'd actually have to listen to the darn things!

@SvitlanaV2. Yes, that is the case. If there's anything that would tempt me to become a Catholic it's that.

The problem is, I quite like sermons. Most sermons I've heard in Orthodox settings have been very short and pretty 'thin' - although one or two priests I know can preach well.

I've only heard a small number of RC sermons so I can't comment.

But I think you're right, the focus is different.

I didn't go to church yesterday but my wife did. She said I'd have hated it. It wasn't a communion service and the sermon went on and on and on and they all had to get into groups to discuss something or other without it being made very clear what it was they were supposed to be discussing ...



It's the blind leading the blind. It's pants.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
To be frank, the only 'decent' sermons I've heard recently have been Methodist ones.

The Baptists used to do it well - at least in the circles in which I moved.

The Anglican sermons round here are either too long, discursive and in dire need or editing or else generally very vague and wishy-washy - let's be nice to everyone and everything will be alright ...

Most sermons I've heard in the last four or five years have been shite.

At least the Methodists use the lectionary and bring some chewy material in and not just the pietist pap you get at the evangelical Anglican parish nor the liberal pap you get a the liberal Anglican parish
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
It's interesting that a question on making Church more interesting has ended up with a discussion about sermons.

Why, I wonder? Is it because we're acknowledging that they're frequently the boring bit?

Mind, so are the intercessions IMNAAHO. May just be my attention sp... oo look, a butterfly!
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I didn't go to church yesterday but my wife did. She said I'd have hated it. It wasn't a communion service and the sermon went on and on and on and they all had to get into groups to discuss something or other without it being made very clear what it was they were supposed to be discussing ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think one of the problems with the trendy interactive approach is that too many preachers try to squeeze it in around a traditional didactic style sermon.

Our vicar does the 'break into small groups and discuss' thing but it doesn't work at all. I've seen it done better in other settings, though.

One Sunday all he got back from most of the groups was rank heresy ...

He and I had a slight contretemps because I didn't think he dealt with it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To be frank, the only 'decent' sermons I've heard recently have been Methodist ones.

The Baptists used to do it well - at least in the circles in which I moved.

The Anglican sermons round here are either too long, discursive and in dire need or editing or else generally very vague and wishy-washy - let's be nice to everyone and everything will be alright ...

---

There's an Anglican church near me that I go to sometimes, and one of the clergymen they have there preaches ridiculously short sermons. When I saw him pop up on Sunday evening I promised myself I was going to 'catch' the end of his sermon before he suddenly stopped. But no! I didn't see the end coming! Very strange. Even his colleague seemed to think there was something slightly amusing about it, judging from the chuckle on his face.

A Methodist preacher couldn't get away with a 5 minute 'sermon' on a regular basis. In fact, sometimes they indulge in padding, which is a bit silly. But on the whole, Methodist sermons are very thoughtful and well-prepared. Too well-prepared, actually. What's impressive is the uniformity; despite the many different people passing through the pulpit, the final impression is often remarkably constant.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'd agree with that, SvitlanaV2. I don't often attend Methodist services - but the Churches Together post-Christmas service is often held at the Methodists. I also attended a Methodist baptism of the then eight-year old daughter of one of my wife's cousins and that was great. She'd decided on it herself and it was very moving.

I have heard Anglican clergy who can preach short, punchy 8-minute sermons. I used to know a very liberal female vicar who could say more in 5 to 8 minutes than most people I know who preach for 20 minutes+ ... but it was the content that I'd take issue with!

On the issue of our vicar's toleration of rank heresy that time ... he's scared of frightening people away so didn't intervene on this occasion. I've seen him intervene on others - not on doctrinal issues but when someone used the intercessions to promote their own views on women bishops etc. And I don't blame him, it was almost a sermon rather than a series of prayers.

I was pretty taken aback with the incident in question. An old bloke gave feedback as a spokesperson for the small group he was involved with and the gist of it was that we can approach and relate to Jesus because he 'isn't God.' This got a round of applause from some of the newbies.

The vicar blanched but let it slide. Annoyingly, perhaps, I tackled the old guy afterwards and referred him to the creeds and ended up being gently reprimanded by the vicar for taking matters into my own hands. He thought I'd frighten the old boy off and he wouldn't return.

There are a number of new converts around from Alpha courses and so on and - at the risk of sounding like the doctrine-police, I'm not entirely convinced how 'sound' they are on basic Christian doctrines.

It's similar to the vicar's approach to so-called 'words' and 'prophecies' and so on. A small, self-selecting (or vicar selecting) group get together before the 11am service (which is meant to be more 'lively' in tone) and pray and 'seek God' for 'words and pictures' and so on. These are then announced or read-out during the service - and a load of old bollocks they invariably are. I've had words with him on this too and also sounded off on these boards.

There's a kind of evangelical charismatic short-cut thing going on which will turn around and bite the vicar on the arse eventually.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


I was pretty taken aback with the incident in question. An old bloke gave feedback as a spokesperson for the small group he was involved with and the gist of it was that we can approach and relate to Jesus because he 'isn't God.' This got a round of applause from some of the newbies.

The vicar blanched but let it slide. Annoyingly, perhaps, I tackled the old guy afterwards and referred him to the creeds and ended up being gently reprimanded by the vicar for taking matters into my own hands. He thought I'd frighten the old boy off and he wouldn't return.

There are a number of new converts around from Alpha courses and so on and - at the risk of sounding like the doctrine-police, I'm not entirely convinced how 'sound' they are on basic Christian doctrines.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


I was pretty taken aback with the incident in question. An old bloke gave feedback as a spokesperson for the small group he was involved with and the gist of it was that we can approach and relate to Jesus because he 'isn't God.' This got a round of applause from some of the newbies.

The vicar blanched but let it slide. Annoyingly, perhaps, I tackled the old guy afterwards and referred him to the creeds and ended up being gently reprimanded by the vicar for taking matters into my own hands. He thought I'd frighten the old boy off and he wouldn't return.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I was pretty taken aback with the incident in question. An old bloke gave feedback as a spokesperson for the small group he was involved with and the gist of it was that we can approach and relate to Jesus because he 'isn't God.' This got a round of applause from some of the newbies.

The vicar blanched but let it slide. Annoyingly, perhaps, I tackled the old guy afterwards and referred him to the creeds and ended up being gently reprimanded by the vicar for taking matters into my own hands. He thought I'd frighten the old boy off and he wouldn't return.

---

As a parish priest, I can't imagine hearing something like this in a church meeting and not correcting it. Of course, as Svitlana mentioned, you start with what they got right and then correct their mistake--but that's a golden opportunity to remind those present of what the faith actually is.

---

quote:

---

I would be less concerned by the danger of "frightening the old boy off" and more concerned by the dangers of false teaching and turning off those who have a better grasp of orthodox Trinitarian theology. And Gamaliel, I don't think you went beyond the bounds by talking to the guy; as Christians, we are supposed to correct each other when we go wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I agree with all of that Giant Cheeseburger and yes, I do think it was the vicar's fault and not the guy in question who didn't really understand. What surprised me was the round of applause he got.

The vicar seems to think it's ok for people to have all sorts of wierd and wonderful dreams and visions and so on - and there have been a small number of those - and whilst he agreed with my concern he didn't do anything about it.

The fault is the cool churches' really. Or trying to emulate them without having a proper infrastructure in place to support an open-mic policy.

---

What's bizarre here is the rather lackadaisical attitude towards fairly fundamental Christian doctrines (and if I think it's fairly fundamental then it's probably not a mere fringe evangelical concept), compared with your description of how everyone was rather, erm, expected to to sign a petition to stop teh gays from marrying.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, I find that bizarre too. The vicar's a bright bloke but some things don't quite seem to occur to him and if I'm bluntly honest, I'm not sure the kind of trajectory he's followed provides the best available platform for dealing with these issues.

We're talking growing up in a charismatic evangelical vicarage, university CU, a few years out of the CofE and among the Baptists before the 'call' to ministry, training at St John's, Nottingham and heavy involvement with New Wine.

I s'pose that's fine as far as it goes but it does lead to rather circumscribed horizons, I would suggest. The same might be true in reverse of ordinands who went in a more 'Catholic' direction.

I'm not saying he's 'unsound' on the Trinity and so forth but he sits very lightly by Anglican formularies, the lectionary and so on and appears to do the minimum he can get away with to comply with being Anglican ...

I sometimes think he'd have been better off and happier in a charismatic Baptist or a Vineyard setting ... although, to be fair, he's beginning to realise the expectations that are traditionally placed on vicars in suburban areas on the edge of the countryside ... he will now take communion to old ladies' homes for instance. He wouldn't have done that at one time.

I wouldn't have had as much of an issue with the incident if it'd taken place in a small group setting or a mid-week study or something but this was during public worship on a Sunday morning. The irony is that he prefaces the recital of the creed each week by saying that we should only say it if we mean it ...



I don't know what's worse, that or clergy who say it blithely week-by-week and yet don't believe a word of it. The liberal vicar at t'other parish doesn't believe in the virgin birth and probably wouldn't sign up to any creedal statement in the traditional sense. Yet there he is blithely reciting it week-by-week.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:


The biggest mistake here was clearly the open mike. If discussion had been happening in mid-week small groups instead of during the service, any responses and questions arising could have been vetted and only a handful of the most helpful ones read out or those people invited to speak. The blame for that fiasco belongs exclusively with the priest who tried copying ideas from cool churches without understanding what goes on behind the scenes.

I agree that it's a good opportunity to gently clarify and correct in that space, again as I suggested above starting with what is right. The real golden opportunity would seem to be that of planning a good solid teaching series on the core foundations to start straight after Easter, even deviating from the lectionary for a time in favour of more directly addressing the community's pastoral needs.

---

In a Methodist church service an ordained minister or an official lay preacher or deacon always has to be present, even if they're not preaching. This is to ensure that the content of the sermon always accords with Methodist teaching. In reality, though, how do such precautions work in a context where mainstream Christians - including the clergy themselves - often believe a variety of different things?

As Gamaliel says, it's possible to be an Anglican priest (or indeed a Methodist one) who doesn't believe in the Virgin Birth. But what does discarding the Virgin Birth do to the doctrine of the Trinity? Does it potentially render it null and void? If it's tolerable for a clergyman to be known to hold such beliefs and still enter the pulpit, why is it distasteful for a layperson also to challenge orthodox perspectives of the Trinity? He may be expressing himself during a church service, but he's not in the pulpit. In no sense is he claiming to be the leader.

This man's comments may actually serve a useful purpose in the long run, by forcing members of the congregation to give some thought to doctrines that they might otherwise have taken for granted. I agree that it would provide an excellent opportunity for the minister to create a 'feedback' sermon or talk to reflect on what was learnt during this service.

I do think that cafe style worship, when it involves group interaction and not just chairs around tables, can be really interesting and valuable when it's well-prepared, and when the preacher has given due consideration to helpful ways of responding to the challenging ideas that could easily crop up as a result of the conversations. It's those challenges that help people learn. But it's not the kind of worship that can be developed on the hoof.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well ... yes. The issue here is that it was being done on the hoof. As I've said, if it had been a 'cafe-church' style session with room for discussion and alternative views etc then it would have been fine. As it was, it was simply plonked in the middle of loosely Anglican-format service.

My wife gets cross with me for pointing out the next issue ... but our vicar will sometimes go on holiday leaving the services in the hands on unlicensed lay-people and even, on occasion, make no provision for holy communion at any time on a Sunday in either of the two churches in his charge.

Should I report him? Tell the Bishop?
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0