|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Sermon
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
So what do people think is happening during the sermon. I've always thought it was an exhortation towards Christian living. In certain reformed circles there is a movement to teach that you are hearing from God during the sermon because the preacher IS teaching the very words of God-you will hear God during the sermon-not just when "the Word" is read. The handy proof text, which I find a bit dubious, even if leaving aside the dubious practice of proof texting is 1 Peter 4:11 the use of "as one" seems to me to be a call to earnestness on the part of the speaker and to respect by the listeners.
I feel really uncomfortable with this and dare I say it, it seems terribly unreformed-as though you need the preacher to tell you what God says "plainly and clearly" <ahem> in the bible.
What do you think is happening during the sermon-is there justification for claiming that you're hearing God speak?
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I would never claim to speak "the Word of God" - that is Scripture (although even there the divine Word is mediated through human writers). On the other hand, I definitely hope and pray that people will hear "words from God" as I speak. A sermon is more than mere exhortation. (I could say much more, but I'll see how the thread develops. Besides, I need to put out the washing).
[ 23. August 2016, 07:36: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I am used to hearing sermons prefaced by:
quote:
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD,
Psalm 19:14
The implication is that the preacher is doing their best to wrestle with God's word but being a fallible human may not succeed.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The Sermon (or, whatever term you prefer for that part of the service) is intimately related to the reading of Scripture. We read words from the Bible, and then we collectively meditate on those words. The preacher has the advantage of having spent time in advance of prayerfully thinking through what those words of Scripture would mean to that particular congregation on that particular Sunday morning, and leads the congregation through thinking through the meaning he or she had previously identified.
I strongly believe that God should speak to the congregation, and to individual people present, through the reading and exposition of Scripture. That doesn't require every word of the preacher to be the divinely inspired words of God. But, the combination of Scripture and preaching, and most importantly the Spirit working in the minds and hearts of the congregation (and, of course, that includes the preacher), results in God speaking.
I've always taken that 1 Peter verse to be saying that when I prepare a sermon, and when I deliver it, I should do so with all the diligence and respect that I can manage, as though the words I speak actually are the very words of God Himself.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
That makes sense to me. May I also say that, in the Reformed tradition that Alan and I come from, the whole service is built around one single theme, integrating Bible readings, hymns, sermon and even prayers into a coherent whole.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The Sermon (or, whatever term you prefer for that part of the service) is intimately related to the reading of Scripture. We read words from the Bible, and then we collectively meditate on those words. The preacher has the advantage of having spent time in advance of prayerfully thinking through what those words of Scripture would mean to that particular congregation on that particular Sunday morning, and leads the congregation through thinking through the meaning he or she had previously identified.
I strongly believe that God should speak to the congregation, and to individual people present, through the reading and exposition of Scripture. That doesn't require every word of the preacher to be the divinely inspired words of God. But, the combination of Scripture and preaching, and most importantly the Spirit working in the minds and hearts of the congregation (and, of course, that includes the preacher), results in God speaking.
I've always taken that 1 Peter verse to be saying that when I prepare a sermon, and when I deliver it, I should do so with all the diligence and respect that I can manage, as though the words I speak actually are the very words of God Himself.
Does the combination of Scripture and preaching result in God speaking:
Always?
More so than any other activity, e.g. personal prayer & bible reading, small group bible study?
Is there biblical support for the idea that the combination of scripture, preaching and the Holy Spirit working will result in God speaking?
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
What about Peter's sermons in the book of Acts?
Or even some of Jesus' (non-parabolic) addresses to the people, in the synagogue or the open air?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
I don't know what you are getting at here BTF.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Sorry. All I'm saying is that both Peter and Jesus frequently quoted Scripture in their addresses and sought to interpret it, sometimes radically, for their audience.
So Jesus quotes sections of the OT Law and then seeks to go back to the principles behind it, arguing that it should be understood in this way rather than in terms of rigid rule-keeping. Equally Peter (and later on Stephen) cites various OT passages to make the case that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the Son of God and the Messiah.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
In certain reformed circles there is a movement to teach that you are hearing from God during the sermon because the preacher IS teaching the very words of God-you will hear God during the sermon-not just when "the Word" is read.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif) Even when I inhabited Fundyland I never heard this.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
It's a learned teacher (the priest/preacher) sharing/teaching the congregation on a given topic. In my Tradition, it's generally rather short, and deals directly with the Gospel or Epistle reading that was just heard, or, perhaps, the holiday/saint being celebrated that day or within that week. the readings are not chosen by the priest (in my Tradition), so the priest matches his sermon to the reading, and not the other way around.
It's certainly not God speaking. it's a human person who presumably (based on their own education) is better informed on the subject, and thus in a position to teach others. He's not God, nor is he (or she) speaking for God, but is simply in a better position to teach than the congregation (as a whole) or even if not, is in a position to guide the thoughts of the congregation on the subject. A preacher can be dead wrong. They can be "right" but be teaching in a way which is not beneficial to the congregation. And finally, they can just be boring as heck, or in other ways bad at conveying a message.
Some priests (I speak now of my own Tradition) are better at it than others. My favorite (of those I have personally heard) is one who keeps the sermon short, to the point, with a clear message or thought, perhaps a story/example, a conclusion, and, again, short. 10 minutes is long. If you can't say what you want in a shorter time, you need to work on being more precise (my opinion, of course. YMMV). During a long service, when everyone (generally) stands throughout, including the sermon (unless there are pews, in which case the sermon is one time you can sit), having a lengthy sermon is just not effective, since people's attention span is only so long, no matter how good the preacher is. You haven't achieved your goal if you start to loose people!
As for Peter's words, I think he's saying what a preacher should do (speak, as if speaking the words of God), but that doesn't, I think, specifically apply to sermons, and in any case, is not saying what IS happening, only how the speaker SHOULD treat his/her words. I see it as general guidance for one who "has the gift of speech" (so, say, a politician who is a good orator SHOULD speak as if God is speaking.. meaning don't lie, don't say things which lead people to sin, etc... something I wish politicians would adhere to).
edited to correct Paul to Peter in the last paragraph
[ 23. August 2016, 11:22: Message edited by: Anyuta ]
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
It's a learned teacher (the priest/preacher) sharing/teaching the congregation on a given topic.
I think that most Nonconformists would tend to give it a "higher" or even "more sacramental" value than that ... they would expect to meet and hear God in the sermon.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
It's a learned teacher (the priest/preacher) sharing/teaching the congregation on a given topic.
I think that most Nonconformists would tend to give it a "higher" or even "more sacramental" value than that ... they would expect to meet and hear God in the sermon.
Interesting. I personally can't relate to that. For me, the sermon is an add-on, and not at all sacramental. In fact, while generally nice to have, it's fairly optional. and I absolutely would not expect to hear God in a sermon (it may happen, bit I wouldn't necessarily expect it). I realized that many Protestants place much more emphasis on the sermon, but I didn't know that any viewed it as anything approaching sacramental.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I may have over-egged my language a bit ... But there's definitely the expectation that one hopes to meet God in the sermon, even perhaps that it's a means of grace (although we don't tend to use that kind of language). There would definitely be a distinction made between a "religious lecture" (which would be thought of as didactic, fairly academic and cerebral, possibly done in a lecture hall rather than a church) and a "sermon" (which can only be part of worship).
Bear in mind too that most Nonconformists are fairly "memorialist" in their view of Communion itself, and that we are most unlikely to have a Communion service every week - once or twice a month is much more common. This may still be the legacy of a 16th/17th century rejection of Romanism and Transubtantiation.
[ 23. August 2016, 13:00: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
hmm. Most sermons I've heard are at least somewhat of an academic lecture, although usually with at least some element of "so what do we as Christians then DO as a result". in other words, it analyses in some way the reading, and then attempts to apply it to our lives. One of these days I should go to a non-liturgical Protestant service just to see what the heck the difference is. My only exposure to that has been via TV (I've heard a few of the "better" televangelists.. those who don't focus on asking for money), but I imagine that's not very representative.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
In certain reformed circles there is a movement to teach that you are hearing from God during the sermon because the preacher IS teaching the very words of God-you will hear God during the sermon-not just when "the Word" is read.
Even when I inhabited Fundyland I never heard this.
It sounds like a gross distortion of the Reformed understanding, which I think Alan has described well.
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
It's a learned teacher (the priest/preacher) sharing/teaching the congregation on a given topic.
I think that most Nonconformists would tend to give it a "higher" or even "more sacramental" value than that ... they would expect to meet and hear God in the sermon.
Yes, I have heard the sermon described in quasi-sacramental terms in the Reformed contexts as well. As you clarify, it is certainly distinct from a sacrament (and we are not memorialists), but there is an expectation of an active encounter with God in the sermon.
I sometimes think it is reflected in what seems to be a distinctively Reformed practice—the prayer for illumination. Prayed before the reading of scripture, it is a short prayer asking God to speak to us through the scripture and the sermon. A standard example (and my default when praying the prayer falls to me) is: "Overwhelm us with your Spirit, O God, that the words we hear will speak to our hearts as your Word, made known to us in Jesus Christ the Lord."
Karl Barth, who wrote in the context of the Reformed tradition, described that the Word of God happens* in the three distinct but unified forms: God's revelation, particularly in Jesus Christ (the revealed Word of God); scripture (the written Word of God), and what Barth referred to as "proclamation" (the proclaimed or preached Word of God). For Barth, this resulted in three interconnected realities about the Word of God:
- The revealed Word of God we know only from the Scripture adopted by Church proclamation, or from Church proclamation based on Scripture;
- The written Word of God we know only through the revelation which makes proclamation possible, or through the proclamation made possible by revelation; and
- The proclaimed Word of God we know only by knowing the revelation attested through Scripture, or by knowing the Scripture which attests revelation.
(Church Dogmatics 1/1/136).
To be clear, Barth did not suggest that the preacher was the mouthpiece of God, or that the words of the preacher must be accepted at face value as the Word of God. He opposed any such idea. Rather, he saw proclamation as a, if not the, fundamental task of the church, and he believed that to the extent the church's proclamation rests on and truly reflects the revelation witnessed to in Scripture, then God uses it as a means of self-revelation. It is always God, not the preacher (or congregation), who acts.
I think it is certainly arguable that the proclamation Barth describes can and does happen in contexts other than the sermon. But the sermon is an intentional form of that proclamation.
FWIW.
* I say "happens" because to Barth, the Word of God—whether as revelation, scripture or proclamation—is always an active event on the part of God, not simply a static thing.
[ 23. August 2016, 13:49: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
In certain reformed circles there is a movement to teach that you are hearing from God during the sermon because the preacher IS teaching the very words of God-you will hear God during the sermon-not just when "the Word" is read.
Even when I inhabited Fundyland I never heard this.
I think it's related/a response to the charismatic notion of prophesy. Charismatics (some of whom are Reformed) often think of the preacher as exercising the gift of prophesy, so that the sermon is really an extended version of speaking forth the word of God. Other cessasionist Christians (also often Reformed), otoh, reject prophesy as a present-day gift, but may try to substitute preaching and ironically give it a hear-prophetic role.
In my own experience as a neo-charismatic, formerly Reformed, preacher-- it never works like that. I have experienced occasionally what I might attribute to the gift of prophesy, but nothing as regular or predictable or controllable enough to deliver on schedule every Sunday. Similarly, I give much diligence and study to my exegesis of Scripture, but that, too, does not seem to guarantee a prophetic output.
My own experience mirrors well what Alan C has described. Preaching is an almost ridiculously privileged opportunity-- I need to undertake it most of all prayerfully and humbly. I am consciously seeking what God's Spirit wants to say to me and my congregation thru the text, but with a deep and humble appreciation that this is the Spirit, not a ouiji board.
I am also aware that the sermon is only one of many ways that the Spirit might speak in and thru the worship of God's people.
[ 23. August 2016, 14:04: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Two excellent posts from slightly differing perspectives - thank you!
[ 23. August 2016, 14:11: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
hmm. Most sermons I've heard are at least somewhat of an academic lecture, although usually with at least some element of "so what do we as Christians then DO as a result". in other words, it analyses in some way the reading, and then attempts to apply it to our lives.
While the form of a sermon and a lecture may be similar, the intent is radically different.
The intent of a lecture is to teach, to pass on previously unknown information (or to pass on information that should be known but has been forgotten). The intent is that at the end of the lecture the audience is better informed about the subject.
The intent of a sermon is to recall what is already known. It's to "tell the old, old story". It is to draw the congregation to the point of worshipping God. In the middle of Lamentations, the prophet who has been bemoaning all that has gone wrong suddenly says something like "but, this I recall ... the LORD is merciful" (sorry, no Bible on me at present to quote it properly) and proceeds to praise God, "Great is thy faithfulness" as the hymn has it. The intent of the sermon is to bring about that recollection of the greatness, goodness, love, mercy etc of God, and to bring the congregation to the point of worshipping Him - not just at that moment, but in all their actions during the week.
Imparting new knowledge in a sermon is a bonus, it is not the purpose.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
According to one survey, the sermon is the most important factor when looking for a new church. More important (just) than a warm welcome or the style of service.
I was on the search committee for when we called our current pastor. The congregational surveys and focused conversations we conducted showed that "good preacher" was easily the number one trait the congregation was looking for in a new pastor. (Many would add something along the lines of "of course, that goes without saying.")
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Imparting new knowledge in a sermon is a bonus, it is not the purpose.
I don't quite agree, seeing that for most people the sermon is the primary or only occasion in which they will learn new truths and facts about our faith. So I think that there should be information in the sermon - but not for its own sake, it has to contribute to the greater intent of the message. (Apart from anything else, people can't "recollect" what they don't yet know).
I would also hope that a sermon would help people think about things in new and "godly" ways which hadn't occurred to them before - at least sometimes.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Sorry. All I'm saying is that both Peter and Jesus frequently quoted Scripture in their addresses and sought to interpret it, sometimes radically, for their audience.
So Jesus quotes sections of the OT Law and then seeks to go back to the principles behind it, arguing that it should be understood in this way rather than in terms of rigid rule-keeping. Equally Peter (and later on Stephen) cites various OT passages to make the case that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the Son of God and the Messiah.
Well, of course, when Jesus preached his hearers did hear the Word of God.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Imparting new knowledge in a sermon is a bonus, it is not the purpose.
I don't quite agree, seeing that for most people the sermon is the primary or only occasion in which they will learn new truths and facts about our faith.
It is, unfortunately, true that the sermon is far too often the main way people learn. Therefore, I also agree that
quote:
I think that there should be information in the sermon - but not for its own sake
The information is presented, as you say because otherwise it isn't recalled, for a purpose - to lead people once more to the "isn't God great!" exclamation. Learning is a bonus, but an important bonus given how little opportunity for teaching is present in too many churches, and how few people take advantage of what is there.
It is fortunate that the sermon is not intended to teach. The format of the sermon is actually very poor for teaching, how many educationalists would recommend standing in front of a group of people and simply talking to them as an effective teaching method? Effective teaching would require additional ways of presenting the information - a university lecture or class at school (possibly the closest to a sermon in approach) would include at least text presented on the chalk board or projector, a text book to be read, very likely opportunities for questions to clarify, almost certainly course work and exercises to try and cement what has been learnt before the next lesson.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
In Orthodoxy the sermon is optional. In 19th century Russia it used to come (if at all) at the end of the service, after the last Amen. Also traveling preachers might preach without there being a Liturgy at all -- like a traveling holy TED talk that people would go to hear.
In contemporary American practice the sermon often comes in the middle of the service, right after the Gospel is read. It really is an interruption to the service. In many churches without pews people sit on the floor; the choir included. Then after the preacher (usually the priest but sometimes a deacon, a seminarian, or other gifted expositor) is done, everybody stands up and the service starts up again.
On a day when there is a lot going on (baptisms, weddings, Super Bowl, annual church camping trip) it might be omitted altogether. And in general nobody cries about that.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In many churches without pews people sit on the floor; the choir included. Then after the preacher (usually the priest but sometimes a deacon, a seminarian, or other gifted expositor) is done, everybody stands up and the service starts up again.
How do the old people cope?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In many churches without pews people sit on the floor; the choir included. Then after the preacher (usually the priest but sometimes a deacon, a seminarian, or other gifted expositor) is done, everybody stands up and the service starts up again.
How do the old people cope?
I can hear the creaking and clicking from here!
What about misericords?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In contemporary American practice the sermon often comes in the middle of the service, right after the Gospel is read. It really is an interruption to the service. ... Then after the preacher (usually the priest but sometimes a deacon, a seminarian, or other gifted expositor) is done, everybody stands up and the service starts up again.
Seeing the sermon as an "interruption", or regarding the service as "starting up again" after it, would be inconceivable to Baptists.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In many churches without pews people sit on the floor; the choir included. Then after the preacher (usually the priest but sometimes a deacon, a seminarian, or other gifted expositor) is done, everybody stands up and the service starts up again.
How do the old people cope?
Chairs against the walls.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Allan Creswell
It is fortunate that the sermon is not intended to teach. The format of the sermon is actually very poor for teaching, how many educationalists would recommend standing in front of a group of people and simply talking to them as an effective teaching method? Effective teaching would require additional ways of presenting the information - a university lecture or class at school (possibly the closest to a sermon in approach) would include at least text presented on the chalk board or projector, a text book to be read, very likely opportunities for questions to clarify, almost certainly course work and exercises to try and cement what has been learnt before the next lesson.
What you describe is almost to a T what happens at my, and many other Sydney Anglican churches:
Bible reading provided the week before so that you can be prepared.
There are pew bibles that one is commanded to open as the word is read (page numbers provided).
When the preacher gets up he reminds you to keep your bible open at the relevant passage.
We get a handy sheet, with sermon outline points on it & blank spaces so we can take notes.
There is question time at the end of the sermon.
The preacher provides questions on the passage & sermon for the small groups to study each week.
quote:
Baptist Trainfan
But there's definitely the expectation that one hopes to meet God in the sermon, even perhaps that it's a means of grace (although we don't tend to use that kind of language).
And here, it seems to me we start moving towards(not fully but towards) a problem. We have created a human intermediary between us and God with all the problems (from a Reformed perspective) that that entails.
[ 23. August 2016, 17:59: Message edited by: Evangeline ]
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
I've only been in a few parishes where people sat on the floor during the sermon. I have, however, been in many where the sermon is at the end (and believe me, most people start to leave at that point). It was that way in the parish in which I grew up. Grandma would hustle me out as soon as she heard "let us depart in peace". Dad was definitely ready to go at that point. I don't think I heard more than a handful of sermons my entire childhood, despite going to church regularly. And good heavens, there was certainly no sitting on the floor, except kids!! so I was totally shocked the first time I saw that (I was an adult by then, with kids of my own).
There are always chairs for the elderly, sick, pregnant or whatever folks who can't stand. Also, not a huge deal to just walk out for a bit and rest in the church hall if there is one. people often move about, in, out, light candles... it's really very casual in some ways (despite the formal external appearance of Orthodoxy). the Service is a communal act of worship rather than a performance with a seated audience. (I'm not saying others are, just that it sometimes may appear that way from the outside).
But yes, the sermon is certainly extra and semi-optional, and often omitted. I don't see the mid-service, post Gospel sermon as an interruption, unless the priest drones on for ever (defined as >10 min). But it is certainly a break from the normal flow of the service. It literally is a break, since it marks the end of the Liturgy of the catechumens and the start of the liturgy of the faithful, two of the three divisions of the Orthodox liturgy. (Also, it gives folks a chance to sit if there ARE pews or chairs).
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
And here, it seems to me we start moving towards(not fully but towards) a problem. We have created a human intermediary between us and God with all the problems (from a Reformed perspective) that that entails.
I read somewhere that when John Milton commented 'New presbyter is but old priest writ large', he wasn't just showing off his knowledge of Greek, but making the same point you make, i.e. that just as the mass had made the sacraments the means by which man meets God, and thus the priests into God's gatekeepers, so the Puritans made the preacher into God's gatekeeper by making the Word his primary manifestation in the world.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
And here, it seems to me we start moving towards(not fully but towards) a problem. We have created a human intermediary between us and God with all the problems (from a Reformed perspective) that that entails.
I read somewhere that when John Milton commented 'New presbyter is but old priest writ large', he wasn't just showing off his knowledge of Greek, but making the same point you make, i.e. that just as the mass had made the sacraments the means by which man meets God, and thus the priests into God's gatekeepers, so the Puritans made the preacher into God's gatekeeper by making the Word his primary manifestation in the world.
Not the way Alan C and Baptist T framed it. In both, it was clear that the sermon is one of many possible places for God to enter in-- not the only or even possibly the primary opportunity. Of course, all of life is sacramental in that way-- open to the possibility of encountering God's grace. The corporate worship service is a particular instance of that. The sermon (in all the different forms it's been discussed here) is part of the corporate worship and therefore one of those opportunities.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
hmm. Most sermons I've heard are at least somewhat of an academic lecture, although usually with at least some element of "so what do we as Christians then DO as a result". in other words, it analyses in some way the reading, and then attempts to apply it to our lives. One of these days I should go to a non-liturgical Protestant service just to see what the heck the difference is. My only exposure to that has been via TV (I've heard a few of the "better" televangelists.. those who don't focus on asking for money), but I imagine that's not very representative.
If you would like to read a selection of good sermons from a more non-liturgical, Reformed Protestant tradition, such as that being discussed by others on this thread, I could point you here
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cornflower
Shipmate
# 13349
|
Posted
Of course, I suppose that it's possible that a particular sermon may not that week be necessarily all that beneficial or inspiring to any of the congregation (could even be plain boring) - but to ONE person, it could be the very thing that makes a huge difference to them.
I've sometimes heard a couple of people say 'what a wonderful sermon that was'...but I've been left cold (that of course could be entirely my own fault...I have heard it said that one should always get something out of a sermon, that if one doesn't one hasn't predisposed oneself correctly, or something).
I wonder what would happen if Jesus Himself were preaching...would some be left cold, would some be uplifted, learn something new....would some be bewildered? Would some be plain angry?...look at the Scriptures! I imagine there would always be a reaction of some sort. I'm not sure if anyone would be bored. But obviously, preachers aren't Jesus!
Posts: 111 | From: uk | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
And here, it seems to me we start moving towards(not fully but towards) a problem. We have created a human intermediary between us and God with all the problems (from a Reformed perspective) that that entails.
I read somewhere that when John Milton commented 'New presbyter is but old priest writ large', he wasn't just showing off his knowledge of Greek, but making the same point you make, i.e. that just as the mass had made the sacraments the means by which man meets God, and thus the priests into God's gatekeepers, so the Puritans made the preacher into God's gatekeeper by making the Word his primary manifestation in the world.
Not the way Alan C and Baptist T framed it. In both, it was clear that the sermon is one of many possible places for God to enter in-- not the only or even possibly the primary opportunity. Of course, all of life is sacramental in that way-- open to the possibility of encountering God's grace. The corporate worship service is a particular instance of that. The sermon (in all the different forms it's been discussed here) is part of the corporate worship and therefore one of those opportunities.
I am unsure about Allan Creswell's position -which is why I asked him some questions upthread to try to see if he privileges the sermon as the manner in which God speaks, but he hasn't replied. It seems to me that Bapist Trainfan is framing the sermon very much as the primary way in which God speaks . I'd be happy to stand corrected.
Thanks for the stuff from Barth Nick Tamen, very helpful, .
I like Barth
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I am unsure about Allan Creswell's position -which is why I asked him some questions upthread to try to see if he privileges the sermon as the manner in which God speaks, but he hasn't replied.
Sorry, by the time I'd seen your post others had commented that largely made my answers redundant. But, if you're still uncertain,
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Does the combination of Scripture and preaching result in God speaking:
Always?
More so than any other activity, e.g. personal prayer & bible reading, small group bible study?
Is there biblical support for the idea that the combination of scripture, preaching and the Holy Spirit working will result in God speaking?
I believe that the Scriptures are the written revelation of God, that through them He communicates. Therefore, whenever the Scriptures are read God is speaking.
I also believe that the exposition of Scripture opens up the written word in a way that makes that message clearer.
When that is done in the context of a service where the hymns, the prayers, the liturgy for Communion (if served), the "childrens' address" and whatever else goes on around the reading and exposition of Scripture, then that also adds to the scope for God to speak.
Though I also believe that it is possible for the sermon, the hymns and even the texts themselves to obscure the word God is saying. That is why it is beholden on the preacher to come to the pulpit in humility, to have spent time in prayerful study of the texts, to quake in her boots with the awesome responsibility to handle holy things.
Like seed that is sown, some falls on stones, among weeds or on the path. Some falls on good soil. I believe God is always speaking, I also believe that in certain places His words are more likely to take root in good soil.
Whether God speaks more often, or more clearly, through a sermon, or through other activities is a moot point in many ways. On a Sunday morning in the middle of the service the Sermon is there, the other activities aren't. As followers of Christ we should desire to hear his voice as often as we can, and to follow.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
I realized that many Protestants place much more emphasis on the sermon, but I didn't know that any viewed it as anything approaching sacramental.
One of the distinguished Congregationalist Principals of Mansfield College Oxford certainly held that the sermon in his tradition fulfilled the same function as the elevation of the Host at High Mass: the people are shown Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
[Was it Marsh? Or his predecessor? I cannot recall.]
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
It seems to me that Bapist Trainfan is framing the sermon very much as the primary way in which God speaks . I'd be happy to stand corrected.
Perhaps not primary (that must be through Scripture), but certainly very significant.
I very much agree with Alan's post.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
According to one survey, the sermon is the most important factor when looking for a new church. More important (just) than a warm welcome or the style of service.
I wonder how far this is reflected in clergy training? I've heard a few Anglican sermons recently where some potentially interesting material has been lost due to atrocious delivery. This seems to me something that could be fixed, if the Church of England wanted to.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Mind you, that research is focused on American churchgoers, not English or British ones.
A high percentage of American Christians identify as evangelical, which means that many American church switchers are likely to want a particular kind of engagement with the sermons they hear.
Over half of English churchgoers are attending CofE or RC churches, so their expectations of the sermon are likely to be rather different.
What British non-churchgoers who attend church might want, or expect, to hear is probably something else again.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Thanks for the stuff from Barth Nick Tamen, very helpful, .
I like Barth
Glad you found it helpful.
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
And here, it seems to me we start moving towards(not fully but towards) a problem. We have created a human intermediary between us and God with all the problems (from a Reformed perspective) that that entails.
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
If you would like to read a selection of good sermons from a more non-liturgical, Reformed Protestant tradition, such as that being discussed by others on this thread, I could point you here
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I also believe that the exposition of Scripture opens up the written word in a way that makes that message clearer.
When that is done in the context of a service where the hymns, the prayers, the liturgy for Communion (if served), the "childrens' address" and whatever else goes on around the reading and exposition of Scripture, then that also adds to the scope for God to speak.
If folks will bear with me, I've had some thoughts knocking around my head that I think bear on these various comments.
I do think that we Reformed types have a predilection for reading or listening to sermons that isn't necessarily shared by folks of other stripes. I know I do. (And I had to do it a lot when we were looking for a new pastor.) But what I have found is that reading a sermon, or listening to a recording of one, isn't really the same as experiencing it in worship. Sure, the sermon may still be good, and I may recognize that it is well-crafted and structured, and that it "lays open" scripture well. But it's just not the same.
For example, a few weeks ago our minister preached what I thought was a wonderful and moving sermon. (Not out of the ordinary for her, I should add.) When she was done, the reaction in the congregation was palpable—you could hear and feel the collective breath, as if we all had just shared an experience with the divine. That is literally what it felt like.
My wife was out of town that Sunday, so the following Sunday I picked up a copy of the sermon for her—copies of the previous week's sermons are always available in the narthex. I read through it again, and while it was the same sermon (though I could detect where there had been a few ad libs) and while it still was quite good, it didn't have the same "punch," if that's the right word. Now of course, part of that may have been because I'd already heard it. But I think part of it was that I was reading words on a page. I was not hearing something framed by other aspects of worship, as Alan has described. And I was reading it as an individual, not hearing it as part of a gathered community.
I have also learned over the years that the relationship between the preacher and the congregation can be a really important component of a sermon. When the preacher knows the people and their lives, and the people know the preacher and who he or she is, the sermon can take on an immediacy that might not otherwise be there.
Where these observations have brought me, to echo some of the Barth I cited above, is that a sermon is not a thing. It is an event, an activity or experience, that happens in and involves a gathered community. It is not just the preacher speaking; it is the congregation actively and expectantly listening, and the Spirit working through everyone gathered to enable the Word of God to be heard—sometimes differently by different people, depending on what they need to hear. It can be described later, or the "script" can be read, but it is only in the actual experience that the full import happens. And it can happen, I have learned, whether the preacher is magnificent or so-so.
There is one other thing I want to be very clear about: I do not believe nor am I suggesting that the sermon is the only place or way that something like this can happen. Likewise, I do not believe nor am I suggesting that we Reformed-types who approach the sermon this way are doing it "right," while everyone else is doing it "wrong." All of us, due to conditioning, personality, and other factors respond differently to (for want of a better way of putting it) styles of worship. At most, I would claim that we're doing it the way that fits for us.
But I think the God who wants to relate to us and reveal God's self to us, is happy when we just show up, and is more than willing to use whatever form our gathering takes to speak to us, if we're willing to pay attention.
FWIW.
[ 24. August 2016, 13:19: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I have also learned over the years that the relationship between the preacher and the congregation can be a really important component of a sermon. When the preacher knows the people and their lives, and the people know the preacher and who he or she is, the sermon can take on an immediacy that might not otherwise be there.
Where these observations have brought me, to echo some of the Barth I cited above, is that a sermon is not a thing. It is an event, an activity or experience, that happens in and involves a gathered community. It is not just the preacher speaking; it is the congregation actively and expectantly listening, and the Spirit working through everyone gathered to enable the Word of God to be heard—sometimes differently by different people, depending on what they need to hear. It can be described later, or the "script" can be read, but it is only in the actual experience that the full import happens. And it can happen, I have learned, whether the preacher is magnificent or so-so.
Very much agree.
The church I currently serve in went thru an interim period awhile back when they were searching for a lead (preaching) pastor. In our system this can take more than a year. During this period, instead of calling an interim (the usual pattern) they had a succession of pulpit supply. We happen to live in an area where there are a lot of seminary profs and other well-educated theologians. We had extraordinary sermons-- well crafted, thoughtful, well delivered. Easy to do in a one-off like pulpit supply where you can pull out your gem-- your version of a "stump speech".
But, while it was excellent in it's teaching and exposition of Scripture, in the long run I found in unsatisfactory for precisely that reason-- there was no engagement with the congregation, our story, our current challenges. What we rec'd would have been excellent in small doses (e.g. filling in for someone on vacation)-- the equivalent to going on retreat. But as a steady diet over a long period of time with it lacked relationship. Most of all, it lacked a particularlity. The sermons were well thought out and applied to us as Christians in general and individually, but because the preachers didn't know us, they lacked any application to our particular congregation and who were are corporately-- where we have been and where we are going. I think that hurt us in the long run and hampered the ability to heal from the past and regroup around a shared mission for the future.
It also, IMHO, indicated a rather minimalist view of the corporate aspect of worship and the role of the sermon in that in particular.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Where these observations have brought me, to echo some of the Barth I cited above, is that a sermon is not a thing. It is an event, an activity or experience, that happens in and involves a gathered community. It is not just the preacher speaking; it is the congregation actively and expectantly listening, and the Spirit working through everyone gathered to enable the Word of God to be heard—sometimes differently by different people, depending on what they need to hear. It can be described later, or the "script" can be read, but it is only in the actual experience that the full import happens.
And that's why it's not just a lecture. Beautifully put, if I may say so. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
In my experience, so many sermons are just a waste of time. There are very few sermons that are worth listening to and few people with the required gifts to preach effectively. I would be perfectly happy to attend services at which there were no sermons preached except on special occasions. I must admit to sitting flipping through my hymn book or pew sheet during the sermon and notice many others doing much the same.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
What I've found is that MOTR sermons, although always thoughtful and carefully prepared, are better if they're short. Few are sufficiently engaging or meaty to justify going on for over 10-15 minutes.
Preachers in other traditions obviously face different expectations and training. For example, I've never been part of a church where the sermons were routinely made available in written form. It wouldn't be advisable in most churches, either because the sermons are mostly basic, repetitive or anecdotal in content, or else because the orality that some preaching traditions highlight would be mostly lost.
I did go through a phase of trying to take notes as I was listening to sermons, but again, that only made sense at certain kinds of churches.
[ 24. August 2016, 13:51: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
And here, it seems to me we start moving towards(not fully but towards) a problem. We have created a human intermediary between us and God with all the problems (from a Reformed perspective) that that entails.
I read somewhere that when John Milton commented 'New presbyter is but old priest writ large', he wasn't just showing off his knowledge of Greek, but making the same point you make, i.e. that just as the mass had made the sacraments the means by which man meets God, and thus the priests into God's gatekeepers, so the Puritans made the preacher into God's gatekeeper by making the Word his primary manifestation in the world.
Not the way Alan C and Baptist T framed it. In both, it was clear that the sermon is one of many possible places for God to enter in-- not the only or even possibly the primary opportunity. Of course, all of life is sacramental in that way-- open to the possibility of encountering God's grace. The corporate worship service is a particular instance of that. The sermon (in all the different forms it's been discussed here) is part of the corporate worship and therefore one of those opportunities.
I take your inclusive response to Ricardus cliffdweller, but there does seem to be a massive aggrandizement, arrogation going on, even in Alan's HUMBLE description, wrongly taken; I'd love to be there for his sermons: CLAIMS are being made. I'm allergic to ALL claims. Apart from those reported of Jesus of course. I'm happy with the exaggerated claims of liturgy, poetry, theatre, but there is such appalling theology in the low church, without exception in my experience. Apart from Oasis of course. That's why I've stayed off this thread until now and stay away from services bar once since moving from the village to the city.
City churches with NO community (apart from with the ill-led chaos of the dispossessed). With highly managed home groups where damnationism is de rigueur and challenging it is heresy. With endless Sunday school services where the target age is 6. Or endless hymn singing ones in the evening, where the target age is 16 and the sermon is by a boy.
Moan, whinge.
I STRUGGLE with all services, ESPECIALLY the sermons, apart from the oxygen, the waters of Oasis. I can't hold my breath for a year and in fact for years ahead now.
I struggle with theology without suffering, without want, without cancer, without depression, without loneliness, without confusion, without the greatest sermon ever said, 'Me too.'.
But including sermons on heterosexual marriage based on misinterpretation of less than a handful of Jesus' sayings to a church full of divorced and remarried people. Sermons on giving ... to church building projects and I don't mean for communal living. With the odd 'word' or 'tongue' thrown in, like a Jilly Goolden wine tasting. Sermons on healing, on renewal, on mass conversion on the streets. And a rare gem by a lovely RE teacher on Chagall!
Inspired exposition of Scripture? I don't think so. Apart from his. Two, the ONLY two good ones I can remember in three years. The other was on Saints Popiełuszko, Luwum and Romero. The village was good on little homilies, the shorter the better. With NOTABLE exceptions ...
I'm probably just an insufferable snob as cathedral services are great. And ours has a PEREGRINE!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
