Ship of Fools: Justin Welby and claptrap sermons

Thread: Justin Welby and claptrap sermons 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=028879

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

Justin Welby encourages tougher sermons.

Is he right? Are sermons too nice?

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

I'm with the Archbishop.

But given that the sermon was in the USA, whose Anglicans are known to be, on average, further down the liberal road than the, average in the UK, and that JW is an evangelical could this be read as a passive-aggressive attack on liberal theology?

ETA - on second thoughts it isn't very passive.

[ 01. February 2015, 19:10: Message edited by: balaam ]

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

There is no reason that liberal sermons need to claptrap! One can be very serious about the obligations of say the Sermon on the Mount, or what does it mean to reallylove your neighbor. Some of the most striking/scary/impressive sermons I've heard the ones that reminded me of my duty to others and of the people I don't notice.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

I would not describe that as being nice.

Welby was talking about God's bias, "to use the old phrase of liberation theology, is God’s bias to the poor."

The Telegraph article is selective. The full text of the sermon is here.

The main thrust of the sermon is God's bias to the poor, delivered on Wall Street. That is what I find amazing, and why I agree with the Archbishop.

And I am pleased to hear that there are liberal churches already preaching what an Evangelical ABC is talking about.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think he has a point. However, I think that evangelical pulpits can be just as susceptible to this as liberal ones - full of easy solutions and platitudes about the rewards of piety and faith.

I think there are pulpits that fit the stereotype at both ends of the spectrum ... the kind of 'nice' Anglican wishy-washy stuff that the Archbishop rightly deplores on the one hand, but equally a kind of 'believe in Jesus and everything will be ok' reductionism that bedevils many evangelical pulpits - both Anglican and otherwise.

Thankfully, there are plenty of people who don't fit the stereotype in either of these camps.

Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on :

Considering his most recent interview where he refused to be drawn into commenting on TEC/ACNA, I doubt he'd start making jabs in his sermons.

x

AV

[ 01. February 2015, 20:34: Message edited by: Ahleal V ]

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :

I agree with Balaam that the context of the homily makes it impressive. And there are parts of it I like "Do not moralize, but bless; do not hate, but include."

But to me, the thing is, the world would be a nicer place if we were all a bit nicer to each other. That's not incompatible with "getting your hands dirty" and doing big brave things either. It's quite possible to do that, and to be nice. Ultimately, being nice, genuinely nice, is about considering other's needs, and preferring them to your own. It is being humble, valuing others, and being willing to work with them. I think "nice" gets a bad press, and I would like to reclaim the word. Hoorah for niceness! I mean niceness to others outside of the church, but goodness only knows a bit of niceness to others in the church wouldn't go amiss.

I get the ABC's point about the big, dramatic interventions, but some of the language baffles me a bit. It's a bit management-speaky. And it's all well to have a call to (nonviolent) arms, but a person can only maintain the sort of intensity he seems to be speaking of for so long. Sometimes, one just wants to hear, "Hang on in there, keep trying, be nice, swallow those unkind words". Or I do, at any rate.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, indeed, I think the 'intensity' thing is an evangelical failing ... which isn't to deny evangelicalism's inherent strengths.

There's an expectation that everyone can sustain a particular level of spiritual intensity over extended periods.

Life isn't like that. Nor are we.

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :

Alternatively, perhaps the Archbish has been watching Eddie Izzard. Cake or death?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Justin Welby encourages tougher sermons.

Is he right? Are sermons too nice?

Yes.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Jemima9:

quote:
I get the ABC's point about the big, dramatic interventions, but some of the language baffles me a bit. It's a bit management-speaky.

Give the man a break. He WAS in management, and in this case he is speaking to people who USE management-speak. Why would he phrase things in church-inner-circle jargon? (Why does ANYONE speak "Christian" to outsiders?)

Business-people don't do empathy very well, so speaking in their language might help, particularly if JW can get the point across that keeping your workers at poverty level will eventually affect the bottom line.

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :

Yep, fair enough, good points. It's not the language that speaks to me (but, to be fair, or perhaps, nice [Biased]

to the man, it was only a few bits that grated - the micro & macro, speaking of policy & implementation etc). But it's not actually about me, is it?

There's a link on his own website to a lecture he gave, I'd quite like to follow that up.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

ISTM that JW's comments took up only a tiny part of a good sermon which was really about other issues.

However I do feel that a lot of sermons do lack real challenge or intellectual rigour. The problem is that most congregations contain a diversity of people from differing educational, social and emotional backgrounds: some will want a simple word of comfort while others will want to have something with which they can mentally grapple.

So how does one satisfy everyone? JW seems to be hinting that sermons often go for the "highest common factor" - which may, in fact, be pretty low. Contrast this with (I think) Stuart Blanch's comment that, in a sermon, "the hay should be set just a little bit higher than people find comfortable", so they have to "stretch" to reach it.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Justin Welby encourages tougher sermons.

Is he right? Are sermons too nice?
Yes.

In what way? Should a preacher come across as tough, rather than friendly? Istm that it's important to identify with the preacher. I wouldn't do so if he or she wasn't being 'nice' in the sense of having empathy with me, as well as with those more in need of help (whether physical, mental or spiritual) than me.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

You can be 'nice' and still say tough things. Good cop/bad cop ...

A lot of it is down to attitude and demeanour.

There's an old story of a Baptist chapel which was in between ministers ... in standard Baptist fashion, they invited candidates in to 'preach with a view.'

One of the deacons was walking down the road mid-week, following the visit of the first candidate. A friend stopped him and asked him how it'd gone. What was the candidate like? What had he preached on?

'Oh, it went very well, I think,' said the deacon. 'He preached that sinners would be pitched into everlasting torment ...'

A week later, after the following Sunday when the second candidate had preached, his friend spotted him walking down the same street and stopped to enquire how things had gone. What was the second preacher like? What had he preached on.

'Oh, it went very well I think,' said the deacon. 'He preached that sinners would be pitched into everlasting torment ...'
'He preached on the same subject?' the friend asked, incredulously. 'Which one did you choose?'
'The first,' said the deacon.'
'Why was that?' asked his friend, 'When they both preached on the same subject - that sinners will be pitched into eternal damnation?'
'Well, the second seemed rather pleased about it ...'

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

/Tangent:

Sounds like Sir Thomas Beecham conducting a rehearsal of "Messiah", when he ticked off the choir for sounding too satisfied as they sang "All we like sheep have gone astray" ...

/Tangent ends.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
... So how does one satisfy everyone? ...

I thought a sermon was meant to mediate something of God to those present. Until now, it hadn't occurred to me that the purpose of a sermon was to try and please as many people as possible. [Razz]

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

It would be a goof thing if the sermon at least engaged most peoples' attention.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
... So how does one satisfy everyone? ...
I thought a sermon was meant to mediate something of God to those present. Until now, it hadn't occurred to me that the purpose of a sermon was to try and please as many people as possible.

No, a sermon isn't about "pleasing people" - indeed, if it does that, it may well have failed in its purpose.

Nevertheless, different people will surely interact with God in different ways and levels, simply because their background, education and life experiences vary. This surely means that a sermon which "mediates something of God" to one person present may fail to connect with the person sitting next to them. It may even exasperate them and induce quite ungodly reactions!

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
It would be a goof thing if the sermon at least engaged most peoples' attention.

Are you quite sure that's what you meant to type? [Smile]

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
/Tangent:

Sounds like Sir Thomas Beecham conducting a rehearsal of "Messiah", when he ticked off the choir for sounding too satisfied as they sang "All we like sheep have gone astray" ...

/Tangent ends.

Well, Handel's at least partly to blame for that; the music is too damn jolly.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Albertus: A good goof in the course of an otherwise bland sermon would also help a lot!

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Too many sermons are claptrap. Overly acedemic, all head and no heart. All what it means and not what it means in real life. Or Sunday school simplistic. Or an attempt to quietly show off. Often a random choice of verse to bang on about the group thinks latest petty foible.

How can you preach good news if you are not tryin, by grace to live that good news? How can you preach God when we worship so many false gods?

Most preachers reach a secret compromise with their congregations. I won't bother you, and you don't bother me.

I have never preached a too challenging sermon and I have tried. Of course if unkindness and pride sneak in then the smell of a sermon is more sulphurous and less heavenly.

TBH people come to hear the Gospel and that is the most challenging thing in creation.

Fly safe. Pxy_e

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I think that was pretty much what JW was saying, Pyx e. Give them the gospel. In words and action.

Are preachers that insecure, out of touch, or ineffectual? I've heard a lot of intellectual sermons, or sermons that included stories, that have kept me thinking. The parables did that. Challenging, so that our minds are active. Thoughts stimulate action.

I've been bored or irritated or disappointed by sermons that were delivered in a way that had no obvious passion or conviction behind them. Sometimes they seemed to be old sermons dusted off for the day, not necessarily connected to the day's scripture readings. Regurgitated, rather than delivered.

In the end, perhaps it doesn't matter so much what is said, which I'll accept or reject as will everyone else, as the way it is delivered?

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

Surely the first question to ask here is "what is the point of preaching?" What is actually intended? Is it to stir up the congregation? Is to inform and teach? Is it to reassure?

In many ways, I think that the point of preaching is to do all of the above and much much more. But not all at once. The "impact" of preaching needs to be seen on a long term level. Individual sermons actually achieve relatively little. Over time, is the congregation having their faith deepened, informed, invigorated etc? So I think we need to look at the overall "diet" that a preacher provides. Is it varied and balanced?

Some preachers say pretty much the same thing, week in and week out, whether it is "God weally weally wuvs you" or "you're all going to burn in hell for eternity unless you come to the Lord Jesus."

(I have to say that most of the really "claptrap" sermons I have heard, have come from bishops)

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Not entirely sure what the Archbishop was getting at.

Firstly, he was talking about the sermons he heard in the past, so perhaps his concerns are more historical than current. Secondly, what does he mean regarding a willingness to be 'messy' and to participate in real life? A sermon is a monologue to which a mainstream church congregation is expected to listen in silence. This doesn't seem to be the environment for 'messiness'; that requires action, not words.

Moreover, we don't live in an age of great pulpit oratory. It must be hard to preach with authority when we're all aware of how theologically pluralistic our congregations and denominations are.

IMO the average church should leave sermons more or less as they are and focus on developing other aspects of church life instead.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

As I've mentioned before, I'm in my sixties. I've attended church a lot of Sundays in my childhood and virtually every Sunday since my teens. That's therefore at least 52 sermons p.a x c60. So it's over 3,000. How many can I remember specifically? Probably about 10.

I do, though, recognise that cumulatively the ones I can't remember have had an effect, have laid foundations even if I can't identify individual sermons with individual bits of my life of faith.

Oscar, you are being unfair to bishops. Yes, they can be platitudinous and bland, but for me, two of the most memorable sermons in the last 10 years, which I recognise as having said something important that I remember, were by bishops.

Mathematically and genuinely, that reduces the rest to about 8.

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
/Tangent:

Sounds like Sir Thomas Beecham conducting a rehearsal of "Messiah", when he ticked off the choir for sounding too satisfied as they sang "All we like sheep have gone astray" ...

/Tangent ends.
Well, Handel's at least partly to blame for that; the music is too damn jolly.

Ah the Welsh national anthem .... [Big Grin]

I think that in general sermons should be like a good buffet - a bit of something for everyone, pleasant on the whole and nutritious.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

...rather than like a bad bring and share supper, composed of various bits and pieces, some good and some not, thrown together with minimal planning and concern for proportion but justified by those who like that sort of thing on the grounds that people meant well.

Posted by Jude (# 3033) on :

I don't know what constitutes a good sermon. A bit of teaching, a challenge and encouragement, I suppose.

Having heard many sermons over the years, I can cite some memorable ones. One, by a bishop who was renowned as a preacher, included something about "aim high, I'll try". This was to newly confirmed young people. On the other hand, he also preached on "Judas went and hanged himself" at a vicar's installation.

I liked the late Dean Eyre of Exeter's sermon that I once heard on being different - "I like being different," he concluded. I liked our new vicar's sermon/sketch on the Nativity, about Jesus being born "round the back" and that when he comes next time "it won't be round the back."

I don't like it when vicars use the sermon space to have a go at the congregation about their financial giving. There is a place for appealing for funds, and during the service may be the time when most people will be around to listen, but I prefer a sermon to be spiritually edifying. I recently heard a "sermon" on the subject of giving to church funds, and as soon as the screen with the title "Finances" went up, I could see the people around me switching off.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

Albertus: that post went to the Quotes File. [Overused]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Thanks! [Big Grin]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Pretty much the only sermon I remember from getting on for 39 years in the church (including, incidentally, a while when I heard Justin himself preaching) was a 'claptrap' sermon on Stir-up Sunday. I'm not sure memory is a very good measure of quality nor length/solidness a measure of good teaching.

I think I think that sermons are a pretty rubbish way of teaching anything spiritual, on the whole.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0