quote:

---

Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD,

---

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :
 
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 ]
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anyuta:
It's a learned teacher (the priest/preacher) sharing/teaching the congregation on a given topic.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

• 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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Imparting new knowledge in a sermon is a bonus, it is not the purpose.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

I think that there should be information in the sermon - but not for its own sake

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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).

---

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 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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
Thanks for the stuff from Barth Nick Tamen, very helpful, .
I like Barth

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
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 ]
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
I struggle with theology without suffering, without want, without cancer, without depression, without loneliness, without confusion, without the greatest sermon ever said, 'Me too.'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
I struggle with theology without suffering, without want, without cancer, without depression, without loneliness, without confusion, without the greatest sermon ever said, 'Me too.'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm allergic to ALL claims.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
How Christ speaks is a mystery, and you are right that I wouldn't want to align my words (from the pulpit, or elsewhere) with His. Yet, however He speaks, His sheep know His voice and follow.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eirenist:
To my mind the point of a sermon is, or should be, to encourage, the congregation to think about what they have just heard (the Gospel for the day, usually).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
I find it bizarre that one would do anything else. And even then we have to struggle to make the NT relevant apart from on the greatest and simplest, big picture scale. Why would we want to go further back in to an even more alien culture? A culture that Jesus was enculturated from, in, by by an alien epistemology, one that CANNOT work for us, in which He nonetheless CORRECTLY saw His story.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
THAT is never addressed. Why not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I do think that in some (?Anglican) circles there is a tendency to privilege the Gospels above all else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I do think that in some (?Anglican) circles there is a tendency to privilege the Gospels above all else.

I also suspect that in some Reformed circles there may be too much concentration on the Pauline epistles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think there is a difference between a sermon and a lecture (although some sermons do seem to essentially be lectures) in that sermons are intended to touch/change/engage the congregation whereas a lecture is intended to impart information.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I do think that in some (?Anglican) circles there is a tendency to privilege the Gospels above all else.

---

I think doing anything else is a modern invention.

---

In the Reformed tradition, it goes back to the Reformation. Of course, I realize that to the Orthodox, that may qualify it a modern invention.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I do think that in some (?Anglican) circles there is a tendency to privilege the Gospels above all else.

---

I think doing anything else is a modern invention.

---

In the Reformed tradition, it goes back to the Reformation. Of course, I realize that to the Orthodox, that may qualify it a modern invention.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
In the Reformed tradition, it goes back to the Reformation. Of course, I realize that to the Orthodox, that may qualify it a modern invention.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't think it is a provable position that a "preaching tradition" goes back to the reformation, that all the reformation reformers believed in preaching (in the sense that many modern Evangelicals talk about it at least) or that all the churches which grew out of the reformation had or developed rhetorical preaching traditions.

---

A few things:

1) I was responding to mousethief's post on primacy of the Gospels vs. other portions of scripture, noting in in the Reformed tradition, treating the OT and the rest of the NT on a more equal footing with the Gospels goes back to the Reformation. I was not referring to a so-called "preaching tradition" in the post you quoted, though it certainly does relate to preaching in that it led to preaching on all portions of scripture.

2) I can't speak from personal knowledge to how many modern Evangelicals talk about preaching or preaching tradition, never having been an Evangelical.

3) I didn't say anything about "all the reformation reformers" or "all the churches that grew out of the reformation." I referred only to the Reformed tradition, not to Lutherans, Anglicans, Anabaptists, Wesleyans, etc.

And I do think it is a rather provable position that the role and understanding of preaching, if that's what you mean by "preaching tradition," that Alan, I and others within the Reformed tradition have described can be traced back to Calvin, Zwingli, Knox and others from whom that tradition grew.

[ 26. August 2016, 13:17: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
There was a preaching tradition in the medieval RC church too, of course - the Franciscans for instance.

And in the pre-Schism Church of the first millenium, St John Chrysostom wasn't called 'silver-tongued' for nothing ... although some of his stuff about the Jews wouldn't fall into that category ...

On the Gospels having pre-eminence ... yes, that appears to be a very ancient tradition and one which the Anglicans have inherited from Rome - who presumably shared it with the Orthodox when the two Churches were One back in the day ...

Sadly, as with much else, some Anglicans have been flinging that one out in favour of themed preaching in a non-conformist style.



I mean no disrespect to Baptists and others in that respect. Some of the best preaching I've ever heard have been in Baptist and other 'Free Church' settings ...

But, at the risk of establishing a canon within a canon, I do think there is something in keeping the Gospels at the centre of things.

It's a caricature of course to see all non-conformists and particularly evangelicals as being overly Pauline and obsessed with Romans and Galatians - but I'm afraid there's a lot of truth in that nevertheless.

The Gospels are a particular type of literature - they function in a different way to an epistle. They are less propositional, there's Mystery there ...

All too often - and this is a Reformation/post-Reformation trait I can understand - there seems to be this rush within Protestantism to explain everything, to reduce everything down to a set of points ... whether it be a 3-point sermon or the five tenets of Calvinism (TULIP) and so on or the 16.752 tenets of something else ...

With a Gospel reading the text is allowed to 'breathe'. It stands on its own - or rather, set in its place or 'setting' like a jewel in the liturgy. It's simply laid out there and we have to deal with it.

Sure, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have expository preaching or anything like that.

There's a balance here somewhere.

It used to frustrate me when attending Orthodox or High Church Anglican services when nothing was explained and everyone was expected to pick things up and know their way around the liturgies and so on.

But I find an equal frustration with those very low-church evangelical Anglican services where the vicar seems to feel the need to explain every single dot and tittle as they go along just in case there's someone there who is unfamiliar with the service ...

It drives me scatty when our local vicar does that, particularly if there are only 'regulars' present.

The thing is, though, whether we use a lectionary or our own preaching-plan and programme we are always going to be selective. That is inevitable.

But quite frankly, I've been around the block too many times to be the slightest bit interested in what this, that or the other preacher's individual 'take' is on things. I couldn't care less. I couldn't give a flying fart - particularly when all he's doing is trying to lay guilt trips on people or exhort them to be more pious (as he sees it) in some way. I say 'he' because fellas are more guilty of this in my experience and female ministers less so.

No, give me the proper Gospel and epistle or OT readings for the day, thank you very much. Give me the lectionary. Every time.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Church architecture will often reveal a lot about the prominence different aspects of Christian worship hold. And, in many Reformed churches that prominance is given to the pulpit, which would stand above the congregation to a place where the preacher can see all, and be seen by all. Many older Presbyterian churches would have a sounding board above the pulpit, to amplify the voice of the preacher. Of course, in newer churches the availability of electronic amplification has increased the options for the architect - and, indeed for the preacher who may sometimes choose to preach from a different location (there is considerable symbolism in preaching from the lectern where the Bible is, or from the Communion Table - whether preachers consciously consider that symbolism is a different question).
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

And I do think it is a rather provable position that the role and understanding of preaching, if that's what you mean by "preaching tradition," that Alan, I and others within the Reformed tradition have described can be traced back to Calvin, Zwingli, Knox and others from whom that tradition grew.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
There was a preaching tradition in the medieval RC church too, of course - the Franciscans for instance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:

I don't EVER hear it Nick. I have NEVER heard a Christ-centred trajectory deconstruction of the God the Killer texts...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Then he's 15 years behind Brian and Rob.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
I don't EVER hear it Nick. I have NEVER heard a Christ-centred trajectory deconstruction of the God the Killer texts in Anglicanism.

---

That's of course different from an assertion that it is "never addressed."

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

And I do think it is a rather provable position that the role and understanding of preaching, if that's what you mean by "preaching tradition," that Alan, I and others within the Reformed tradition have described can be traced back to Calvin, Zwingli, Knox and others from whom that tradition grew.

---

Yes, I take your points and provisos, although of course some of these "Reformed" people were some temporal distance from the reformation itself.

---

Calvin, Zwingli or Knox were at some temporal distance from the Reformation itself?

quote:

---

I suppose it is a bit about how one views history from within one's own tradition: the Reformed believe they have antecedents right back to the earliest split with the RCC.

---

quote:

---

And they were just a subset of the various styles and ideas which bloomed in the reformation period.

---

quote:

---

But that's quite a long way from identifying the point (even amongst church traditions which subsequently became "Reformed) at which expository preaching of the bible became a thing which was very widespread.

---

quote:

---

As far as I can tell, very few churches had regular (weekly etc) sermons at the reformation. And I think few really did until the period of Wesley.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:

---

As far as I can tell, very few churches had regular (weekly etc) sermons at the reformation. And I think few really did until the period of Wesley.

---

If they were among the churches I'm talking about, they did, unless hindered from doing so by a lack of ministers. These are the churches that considered the true preaching of the Word to be, along with right administration of the sacraments, to be a mark of the true church. The centrality of preaching was, well, central to these churches. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
If they were among the churches I'm talking about, they did, unless hindered from doing so by a lack of ministers. These are the churches that considered the true preaching of the Word to be, along with right administration of the sacraments, to be a mark of the true church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
I don't EVER hear it Nick. I have NEVER heard a Christ-centred trajectory deconstruction of the God the Killer texts in Anglicanism.

---

That's of course different from an assertion that it is "never addressed."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Ok, the Zurich Reformation really did start with preaching on the Gospel of Matthew replacing the Mass. This is NOT Calvin and NOT Geneva.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
*flashback to ordination exams* only time we American Presbyterians sound Scottish, when we're talking about the marks of the "true kirk" (often with dreadfully faux Scottish accent).

*end tangent*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
*flashback to ordination exams* only time we American Presbyterians sound Scottish, when we're talking about the marks of the "true kirk" (often with dreadfully faux Scottish accent).

*end tangent*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Then he's 15 years behind Brian and Rob.

---

McLaren & Bell? Or someone else?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Ok, the Zurich Reformation really did start with preaching on the Gospel of Matthew replacing the Mass. This is NOT Calvin and NOT Geneva.

---

Well, I did specifically mention Zwingli and Switzerland generally, not just Geneva.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie jon:
I was not getting at you, but the people on the ship who blame Calvin for everything they find wrong with Christianity. Calvin was actually a high churchman by preference and would have had the Mass (albeit Protestant) every week. Much Reformed worship practice is pure Zwinglian.

---

Ah! Well then, by all means please carry on.

(Though I will admit I'm counted among those who wish Calvin had won the fight on weekly communion. I'm thankful that in my lifetime, my corner of the Reformed world has taken significant moves in that direction.)
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Then he's 15 years behind Brian and Rob.

---

McLaren & Bell? Or someone else?

---

Who else?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
The point, as Brian said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie jon:
I was not getting at you, but the people on the ship who blame Calvin for everything they find wrong with Christianity. Calvin was actually a high churchman by preference and would have had the Mass (albeit Protestant) every week. Much Reformed worship practice is pure Zwinglian.

---

Ah! Well then, by all means please carry on.

(Though I will admit I'm counted among those who wish Calvin had won the fight on weekly communion. I'm thankful that in my lifetime, my corner of the Reformed world has taken significant moves in that direction.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie jon:
It is not solely the preaching that is important but the hearing. It is only when it is heard that it becomes the vehicle for the Word in context. The congregation as hearers become active participants in the reception of the Word.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie jon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Ok, the Zurich Reformation really did start with preaching on the Gospel of Matthew replacing the Mass. This is NOT Calvin and NOT Geneva.

---

Well, I did specifically mention Zwingli and Switzerland generally, not just Geneva.

---

Nick

I was not getting at you, but the people on the ship who blame Calvin for everything they find wrong with Christianity. Calvin was actually a high churchman by preference and would have had the Mass (albeit Protestant) every week. Much Reformed worship practice is pure Zwinglian.

Jengie

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie jon:
It is somewhere in the works of Barth, but I actually traced it back as far as Calvin's Institutes. Oh, the joys of my thesis. I once asked my father for the Reformed understanding of sacred space and he said, "There is a line in Barth".

---

When someone says "there is a line in Barth" or "I think Barth said..." or even "is Barth heterodox?" I usually respond "how would we know?". The man had some great things to say, but seriously, were they rationing punctuation in post-war Germany???
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Eh?

[ 28. August 2016, 22:47: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Eh?

---

quote:

---

Whenever the literary German dives into a sentence, that is the last you are going to see of him till he emerges on the other side of his Atlantic with his verb in his mouth.

...mastery of the art and spirit of the Germanic language enables a man to travel all day in one sentence without changing cars.

It is easier for a cannibal to enter the Kingdom of Heaven through the eye of a rich man's needle that it is for any other foreigner to read the terrible German script.

-all Mark Twain

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It's like periods are being severely rationed and must be used only when absolutely necessary-- while commas grow on trees and are free for the asking. I used to use a highlighter to mark the subject of a sentence and then highlight the object half a paragraph later after the 7 or 8 intervening subordinate clauses it took him to get to his point.

---

I had the same problem with Melville in eighth grade when I tried to read Moby Dick on my own.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
This is what I think of Henry James. Melville, at least, has occasional bright spots (such as the discussion of how one uses a whale's penis as a jacket).

AND returning to the OP--A good sermon will hopefully open up the Bible text so that I see more of what God is saying in it, whether that's something I never knew before or whether it's something I need to be reminded of (usually this ).

I am currently cranky with the sermon-giver I have to listen to most often, who apparently doesn't trust the Bible text to be clear or interesting enough to keep our attention; instead he must string together a zillion random anecdotes, mostly from the 60s and 70s, and with very little unpacking of what they have to do with the main point. It's getting worse now; last year he would start with a single anecdote, but now he gives us three in a row before every saying a word as to what he intends to preach about!

If I wanted that sort of thing I'd read Chicken Soup for the Terminally Inattentive.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

If I wanted that sort of thing I'd read Chicken Soup for the Terminally Inattentive.

---

Quote file!

 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Eh?

---

You never noticed the excessive run-on sentences? It's part of the German language itself, of course

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Whatever the case, I'm no expert but I've always thought of Calvin as fairly 'high' and sacramental by inclination in a high and dry kind of way - and yes, with some sense of mystery in his interestingly distinctive eucharistic theology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Eh?

---

You never noticed the excessive run-on sentences? It's part of the German language itself, of course

---

Thanks, I see now.

All this (and having the verbs at the end of sentences) would, I imagine, make German a very difficult language to interpret into another unless the speaker was very careful to break up their discourse into short, precise sentences. (As a preacher I have to watch my own syntax as I tend to use too many subordinate clauses, which are hard for a congregation to follow).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Then he's 15 years behind Brian and Rob.

---

McLaren & Bell? Or someone else?

---

Who else?

---

I didn't recall either of them addressing the conquest passages-- what did I miss?

---

How Brian addresses conquest in Everything Must Change, Chapter 19' end:

"To be a follower of Jesus in this light is a far different affair than many of us were taught: it means to join Jesus' peace insurgency, to see through every regime that promises peace through violence, peace through domination, peace through genocide, peace through exclusion and intimidation. Following Jesus instead means forming communities that seek peace through justice, generosity, and mutual concern, and a willingness to suffer persecution but a refusal to inflict it upon others. To follow Jesus is to become an atheist in regard to all bloodthirsty, tribal warrior gods, and to become a believer in the living God of grace and peace who, in Christ, sheds God's own blood in a manifestation of amnesty and reconciliation.

To repent, to believe, to follow ... together, these mean nothing less than defecting from Caesar's campaign of violence to join Jesus' divine peace insurgency."

You missed it by somehow not reading it in his works in which it is a repeated, relentless, unavoidable confrontation.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
But, that doesn't address the problem with the conquest passages, it simply highlights the problem.

If we are to join Jesus' "peace insurgency" and reject violent methods, then that creates an enormous problem when it comes to the conquest, and other occasions, where the text says that God commanded genocide. The problem to be addressed is the diamterically opposed positions of a) God commanding genocide and b) Jesus commanding love and forgiveness. That problem is not addressed simply by repeating what Jesus taught and did, and ignoring the very uncomfortable message in Joshua and elsewhere.

I'm facing a similar issue preparing my sermon for a couple of weeks, with Jeremiah prophecying destruction of Jerusalem and God acting without mercy because of the greatness of the sins of the people of Israel. Contrasted with Jesus eating with "sinners" and seeking the lost, and Paul declaring the love of God in redeeming even the worst of sinners. I can preach the love and mercy of God from the epistle and Gospel, but am I being true to the written testimony of Scripture if I ignore the uncomfortable message of Jeremiah?
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
I fail to see the problem. Now. But that's me. I now fail to see how a postmodern deconstruction of Bronze-Iron Age religious myth (i.e. of stuff that never happened), from where Jesus, entangled in it, nevertheless picked it up and kicked it out of the ground and where it's still going in to higher orbit, is a problem.

And the problem was Alan, not that it creates a problem, which it doesn't, unless one has a problem, to bring to the party, which I certainly did, the problem was that 270-15 years of this theology has passed cliffdweller by until Greg Boyd decides to incorporate it in to his Gnosticism.

And I DO see the problem. Yours. Because I had it. Unless you're toying with me, and you don't actually have it. But I suspect that your question is genuine.

The answer is staring you, as it did me, in the face. Of Christ, mutely, on the cross.

There's no going back Alan.

Scary as it is.

[ 29. August 2016, 11:02: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Personally, I don't have a problem with dismissing the 'plain reading' of the OT passages as inadequate in the light of the witness of Christ. I have no problem with Christ superceding the earlier revelation.

But, I'm not going to assume that no one in the congregation in a couple of weeks is not going to see a problem there when those passages are read one after the other. Therefore, as a preacher given those passages I can not simply dismiss the problem, even if it's not a problem for me.
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Ah HAH! Then you have a problem THE problem. How to sell the new truth ... to those that already have the old.

No chance Alan Nice, decent, even well educated, kind people will INSIST in believing the wrong things in the face of ALL persuasion. The more persuasion, the more they dig in. They even WANT the persuasion to sharpen their iron.

I did.

My experience is a tiny minority one and took twenty years of deconstruction. Partly because the tools weren't available.

We have to find ways of swimming with the far larger shoals, increasing the meme pool.

A postmodern preacher in a modern (and evangelicalism is modern) congregation has to compromise. Has to find what we have in common. And subtly SUBVERT.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Martin how did you come to unearth my secret mission statement?
 

---

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
...Greg Boyd decides to incorporate it in to his Gnosticism....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Ah HAH! Then you have a problem THE problem. How to sell the new truth ... to those that already have the old.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, that doesn't address the problem with the conquest passages, it simply highlights the problem.

If we are to join Jesus' "peace insurgency" and reject violent methods, then that creates an enormous problem when it comes to the conquest, and other occasions, where the text says that God commanded genocide. The problem to be addressed is the diamterically opposed positions of a) God commanding genocide and b) Jesus commanding love and forgiveness. That problem is not addressed simply by repeating what Jesus taught and did, and ignoring the very uncomfortable message in Joshua and elsewhere.

I'm facing a similar issue preparing my sermon for a couple of weeks, with Jeremiah prophecying destruction of Jerusalem and God acting without mercy because of the greatness of the sins of the people of Israel. Contrasted with Jesus eating with "sinners" and seeking the lost, and Paul declaring the love of God in redeeming even the worst of sinners. I can preach the love and mercy of God from the epistle and Gospel, but am I being true to the written testimony of Scripture if I ignore the uncomfortable message of Jeremiah?

---

If you read the Bible from oldest to newest as the record of a maturing human perception of God, grounded in the evolving culture and experience of the successive societies that perceived God, it is not difficult to recognize the evolution of Joshua's early perception of a tribal war god who helps defeat tribal rivals, into Jeremiah's perception of a covenanted national god who sternly guards the moral foundations of the nation, into Jesus's and Paul's perceptions of a reconciling god of all nations who harmonizes all differences and discord. It is also not difficult to see in the older texts both lessons that can remain relevant to a more cosmopolitan, diverse society (like imperial Rome or our own in the 21st century) as well as lessons that no longer serve their original function.

But that requires a hermeneutical approach that invests the text with the temporal limits of the authors' own human perceptions. That approach is not consistent with an approach that supposes every word of the text to reflect divine truths that are unconstrained, absolute, and timeless.

The conquest and vengeance passages of the Hebrew scriptures are only problematic to the extent that the reader infers that they tell us something about God's character that remains eternally true even in our own context today, notwithstanding changes in tie, culture, and human perception -- as opposed to something about the context in which they first arose. But that is a subjective hermeneutical suppostition that is vulnerable to skeptical examination.

[ 29. August 2016, 12:28: Message edited by: fausto ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Baptist Trainfan ... Benjamin Franklin is supposed to have said that, 'Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.'

Whether he did or not is a moot point. I'm sure he didn't have Budweiser or Miller-Lite in mind if he did ...

Luther was fond of his beer too.

Alsatian wine? Sure. I'll have some ale too (although not at the same time, never mix grain and grape).

Surely another of these both/and not either/or things ...


 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
...Greg Boyd decides to incorporate it in to his Gnosticism....

---

In what way do you see Boyd's theology as Gnostic?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Ah HAH! Then you have a problem THE problem. How to sell the new truth ... to those that already have the old.

---

It's part of a general problem that most, if not all, preachers face. That of taking the pulpit with a different understanding of the faith from the congregation. It may only be a small difference, it may be very large (and, the difference will vary from subject to subject). And, of course, the congregation is also heterogeneous with considerable variation between members.

If you consider the purpose of the sermon to declare what the Church (ie: the preacher) believes and convince the congregation the truth of those beliefs this may not be a problem.

But, when you consider the sermon to be a communal activity of the entire congregation, exploring together the meaning an application of the texts before them, then those differences may be a strength (in that it allows the congregation to assess alternative views, and either learn from them or learn from the experience of rejecting them, and hence improve the understanding of what they already believed), or a problem if it means the preacher doesn't bring the congregation with her on the exploration of the passages. There is a fine line between challenging the congregation to examine their own beliefs, and making sure the congregation stay with you for the journey.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Ah HAH! Then you have a problem THE problem. How to sell the new truth ... to those that already have the old.

---

It's part of a general problem that most, if not all, preachers face. That of taking the pulpit with a different understanding of the faith from the congregation. It may only be a small difference, it may be very large (and, the difference will vary from subject to subject). And, of course, the congregation is also heterogeneous with considerable variation between members.

If you consider the purpose of the sermon to declare what the Church (ie: the preacher) believes and convince the congregation the truth of those beliefs this may not be a problem.

But, when you consider the sermon to be a communal activity of the entire congregation, exploring together the meaning an application of the texts before them, then those differences may be a strength (in that it allows the congregation to assess alternative views, and either learn from them or learn from the experience of rejecting them, and hence improve the understanding of what they already believed), or a problem if it means the preacher doesn't bring the congregation with her on the exploration of the passages. There is a fine line between challenging the congregation to examine their own beliefs, and making sure the congregation stay with you for the journey.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:

The conquest and vengeance passages of the Hebrew scriptures are only problematic to the extent that the reader infers that they tell us something about God's character that remains eternally true even in our own context today, notwithstanding changes in tie, culture, and human perception -- as opposed to something about the context in which they first arose. But that is a subjective hermeneutical suppostition that is vulnerable to skeptical examination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
All Anglican preachers in my experience, and that's ALL, play safe. I don't blame them, their pay packets depend on it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
All Anglican preachers in my experience, and that's ALL, play safe. I don't blame them, their pay packets depend on it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Here is a sermon by a colleague of mine which surely doesn't play it safe. (Scroll down past the prayer at the beginning of the blog).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I don't and it doesn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But then maybe I'm also misunderstanding your point. If so, apologies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK, well, I wouldn't preach this. I probably wouldn't sit around and listen to anyone else preaching it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
That's no doubt normal, because you are not coming from where I am nor preaching to the constituency I am*.

But even if you don't preach, as I see it you either have to throw away the text entirely or try to make some sense of it. As a preacher you have all the more responsiblity to do so.

---

quote:

---

I'm not convinced by those I know who have done the former (throw it all away), thinking in particular of a pastor from one of the first churches I attended in this country who has gone from being a dyed-in-the-wool evangelical who first introduced me to John Piper to being an out-and-out Dawkins atheist.

[*ETA again, Gamaliel, the constituency is important, I think]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
For me, whilst I can't help but embrace the reality that the writings are there, that people understood their deity in terms of blood revenge and that people at times have justified their own bloody campaigns by referring to them, I really don't need to keep repeating them to myself, to other adults or to children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've certainly taken the mickey out of people in the wrong way (is there ever a right way?) and been a first-class pain in the backside, so it's just as well I'm nowhere near a pulpit.

---

The instance that particularly sticks in my mind was a "meditation" for the service staff during a Brethren kids' camp.

The speaker took the text in Kings somewhere where it says something like "Saul was [ ] years old when...". He had clearly just discovered there were bits missing in the Hebrew MS* and delivered a tirade on setting too much store by the Bible to the bemused bunch of knackered helpers, late teens early 20s that we were.

At the same meeting in another week a different speaker took Hebrews 12 "lift up your tired hands and strengthen your trembling knees". Way out of context, terrible exegesis, but certainly an exhortation that had a more meaningful and immediate impact on us and that I still recall, um, goodness, more than 35 years later.

==

*He was later floored by Mrs Eutychus-to-be in another, similar exchange when she asked him straight out "do you know Greek [she does] or are you just pretending?", which over time has proved to be one of the closest things to a Word of Knowledge™ I have ever witnessed...

[ 29. August 2016, 21:17: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
I'm there mr cheesy, I'm there. And there's nowt wrong with your interpretation or inference.

Aye Anselmina, including those. ALL of them. I.e. none of them have ever deconstructed it. No. Not. One.

Apart from leo of course. For free. I'd like to see you try in ANY of the Anglican congregations I've been a member of leo.

It's ALWAYS in the background, assumed, unchallengeable. The best that is EVER managed in response to damnationism, the jewel in the crown of violent religion, is "we don't know". And yes, better than best, of course, there are MANY excellent preachers who IGNORE IT, who give inspiring sermons. In over ten years I remember two by the same guy.

Eutychus. Close. But no cigar If one HAS to find evidence for the progressive revelation of God, the stumbling toward light in darkness, in Numbers 31, and one has, it HAS to be done in LESS conciliatory tones. I feel you're held back by 2 Timothy 3:16. Trying to square Bronze Age myth through Iron Age faith.

Paul was WRONG. It can't be done. Rather Paul IS wrong. He was right for his time, he couldn't have been righter. It's MEANINGLESS for now.

It's ALL got to go mate.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I share your views on the imagery of war, and hardly preach on this every Sunday.

But the way I see it, bringing that kind of uncomfortable issue out into the open at least once in a while is at least sending a message that people are allowed to think about it, not just gloss over it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Here is a sermon by a colleague of mine which surely doesn't play it safe. (Scroll down past the prayer at the beginning of the blog).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
it HAS to be done in LESS conciliatory tones.

---

I think that depends on your audience.

Jesus wasn't exactly conciliatory with the religious leaders of his day; I would let rip most strongly in my circles against people who secretly harbour more "liberal" theology and keep up a "fundamentalist" stance in their preaching as being "good for the punters".

Jesus was conciliatory ("do not fear, little flock...") with those who were simply desperate for some reassurance from God, which is where I think most poeple are at. I can't stand preachers who do nothing but berate their hearers and exude supposedly superior knowledge.

And philosophising on your own is not at all the same as having a responsibility before a congregation. Why do you think prophets are distinguished from pastors and teachers (or is that too "Iron Age" for you )?

Again, I have no desire to tie a millstone round my neck.

quote:

---

Trying to square Bronze Age myth through Iron Age faith.

---

quote:

---

Paul was WRONG. It can't be done. Rather Paul IS wrong. He was right for his time, he couldn't have been righter. It's MEANINGLESS for now.

It's ALL got to go mate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It further seems to me that Jesus Christ himself takes a quote unquote "modernist" approach in the gospels with a position that is "everything you think you know about God is wrong".

---

quote:

---

I can't think of a passage in the gospels where Jesus refers to any of these violent OT passages.

---

quote:

---

Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I've heard decades of sermons and have generally got to the point where I don't want to hear another.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think he was supremely qualified to do so, and not because he was a modernist.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town

---

springs immediately to mind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Is that because (a) you've got tired of the format; (b) they always seem to cover the same old ground; or (c) because you feel they are superficial and trite?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
if we're modelling ourselves after Jesus Christ then it seems reasonable at least attempt to follow his example.

---

Challenging people to take a fresh look at what they thought they knew about God ("You have heard it said")? Sure.

Asserting that we have the definitive take ("But I say to you")? Not so much.

There's a difference between following Jesus' example and thinking we're Jesus, a mistake plenty of our charismatic brethren seem to make (and indeed, they often don't seem to bother much with Scripture at all in their preaching. Is that the truly postmodern way forward ?)
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Challenging people to take a fresh look at what they thought they knew about God ("You have heard it said")? Sure.

Asserting that we have the definitive take ("But I say to you")? Not so much.

There's a difference between following Jesus' example and thinking we're Jesus, a mistake plenty of our charismatic brethren seem to make (and indeed, they often don't seem to bother much with Scripture at all in their preaching. Is that the truly postmodern way forward ?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I find the Evangelical/Baptist model of expository preaching (which is really the only one I'm familiar with) to be fundamentally flawed in that it attempts to explain away the inexplicable and attempts to bring a coherence to something that isn't coherent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
By the way, I don't think that all Evangelicals are "caught in a rut" of "the blustering nonsense that is inerrancy" - not the good ones, anyway. They will indeed take a "high" view of Scripture (and, without Scripture, what basis of authority do we have in our preaching?). But their view is not necessarily an uncritical or literalistic one.

---

quote:

---

The problem, perhaps, is that they are unwilling to expose the difficulties in their preaching, possibly for fear of confusing their hearers or making the sermon sound too much like an academic lecture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
That's harsh. I never said I was Jesus Christ, I simply said that I thought that the model I've put forward with respect to the murderous passages in the OT was consistent with the path.

---

quote:

---

It seems quite telling to me that evangelical thought is caught in such a rut - influenced by the blustering nonsense that is inerrancy - that there doesn't seem to be any space for thinking of alternative ways to handle these stories.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I know that Eutychus took a dig at our charismatic brethren and their apparent neglect of Scripture (which, if true, is fair enough - I don't know enough to comment). But perhaps they have discovered a Postmodern approach to ministry which others need to take heed of?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
You implied that we would be justified in following Jesus' example - in asserting that everything our hearers thought they knew about God was wrong.

As I say, I've been on the receiving end of "enlightened" speakers saying exactly that kind of thing, from all sorts of quarters, and it doesn't do it for me. It's patronising.

---

quote:

---

My anecdote about the fundamentalist Christian turned fundamentalist atheist was not intended to serve as an example. I think there is plenty of space for alternatives, but personally I find it difficult to inhabit this space in the face of Martin saying things like "it's ALL got to go" and "Paul IS wrong".

And again, inhabiting this space in one's personal musings is one thing, doing so as someone preaching to a congregation towards which one has pastoral responsibilities is quite another.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The "rut" is the idea that all of the bible is equally inspired and useful and worthy of teaching or preaching on. (...)
The bizarre thing to me is that there are massive sections of the bible that nobody ever even opens, never mind teaches on. Why anyone thinks that it is appropriate to make any reference to the blood-thirsty passages but totally ignore the minor prophets is beyond my understanding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

I have a problem with anyone who believes something different in private to the thing they profess in public.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It isn't intended to be patronising, Eutychus, it is intended to be an explanation of my view on the topic.

---

quote:

---

I have a problem with anyone who believes something different in private to the thing they profess in public.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The bizarre thing to me is that there are massive sections of the bible that nobody ever even opens, never mind teaches on. ...
If one really believed that all of the bible was inspired equally and was useful for teaching, we'd be hearing Obadiah at least as often as Samson. That never happens.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:


And again, there's a difference between opening up some space for people to question things and clobbering them over the head with some supposed "insight" that may cause them to stumble, and on which one might change one's mind six months later.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[I'm going to separate meat from gristle and refuse to waste my time on the latter unless there is space for some serious contextualising.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:


If I really have to hear those [violent] passages, I want to be shocked by them. I don't want to listen to some preacher smiling as they try to explain them away or rationalise them. I want to be thinking "no, that isn't how God is". I want to be thinking "no, that's not the way. I will not wish that my enemies cast their infants against rocks, that is not the way of Christ, that's the path of hatred not the path of peace".

---

quote:

---

There is a lot of space and latitude in the Anglican system, but I suspect there would be rather a lot of resistance to the idea that God was not, in fact, acting in the OT when the text says that he was. I suspect one would get rather short shrift if the point was made that certain passages should not be taught as being having a theological message to us today, should not be taught in Sunday school and should not be used in preaching.

---

I'm sure that many Bible passages wouldn't be deemed acceptable for use in Sunday Schools. But I suppose it's subjective, dependent on a particular congregation and church leaders. MOTR church leaders would try hard to avoid anything that would cause distress or conflict in the group.

With regard to God acting or not acting in the OT, the sermon is not deemed to be the best place for such expositions. That kind of debate would occur in a theology class, or in a fairly liberal church discussion group.

You do occasionally hear sermons in which there is some acknowledgement of the inadequacy of orthodox theology. I recently heard a vicar say she wished we didn't have to recite the Creed, because she felt that it limited God.

The thing is, most Christians are not intellectuals who go to church to have their faith de-constructed. You don't attend an evangelical - i.e. 'Bible-believing' - church to be told which bits of the OT not to believe! And I suspect that many non-evangelical churches are attended by people who intend to be loyal to their denomination rather than to the radical theology of their minister.

However, some British churches do promote themselves as spaces for liberal theological thought. One CofE church in Oxford invited a well-known atheist to preach last year. But you have to look for such churches. The Ship has taught me that some parts of the country have a dearth of them.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Canon? Which canon? Are we including the Deutero-canonical books?

As far as I'm aware, all churches which use a lectionary have certain passages that aren't used in public worship. So, for instance, the Orthodox obviously include the Book of Revelation in the NT but they don't use it Liturgically - nor, as far as I am aware, preach on it ...

Although I've heard it quoted in a short Orthodox Bible meditation.

That doesn't stop them mining it for proof-texts about how liturgical worship was back in the 1st century ...

But the Anglicans and I'm sure the Lutherans and others have tended to exclude some of the lengthy genealogies and some of the more violent bits from their lectionary readings.

The Orthodox qualms about using Revelation publicly was all down to a concern that people would develop whacky ideas from it all. Which is, of course, exactly what HAS happened across the conservatively Protestant world at least.

FWIW, I don't have so much of an issue with the Baptist/non-conformist non-lectionary approach - provided it doesn't descend into the preaching of favourite passages over and over again.

What I do have an issue with are Anglican vicars who fling out the lectionary in favour of themed preaching series in a more 'Baptist' style if you like, when they aren't anywhere near as good at it as the Baptists and others tend to be.

Some of the best Anglican preaching I've heard - to return to the theme of the OP - has been in the form of short, pithy observations in homily form. This holds true of liberals and conservative types alike. One of the best people I've heard like this had a rather Spong-like theology that I disapprove of, yet because she'd regularly had to give 'thought for the day' type talks on local radio was very good at conveying a great deal in a short time.

It's all down to context.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't borrow from other traditions nor that there shouldn't be cross-fertilisation, but there are distinctive features in each.

Yes, there are problems with the traditional Baptist/non-conformist expository style, but give me that any day of the week rather than some spiritualised self-help guff from contemporary charismatic pulpits on the one hand or a kind of bland, 'My brother Esau is an hairy-man' type Alan Bennett spoof sermon on the other.

There's a balance somewhere.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't have so much of an issue with the Baptist/non-conformist non-lectionary approach - provided it doesn't descend into the preaching of favourite passages over and over again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Martin how did you come to unearth my secret mission statement?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

There's a difference between following Jesus' example and thinking we're Jesus, a mistake plenty of our charismatic brethren seem to make (and indeed, they often don't seem to bother much with Scripture at all in their preaching. Is that the truly postmodern way forward ?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
By the way, I don't think that all Evangelicals are "caught in a rut" of "the blustering nonsense that is inerrancy" - not the good ones, anyway. They will indeed take a "high" view of Scripture (and, without Scripture, what basis of authority do we have in our preaching?). But their view is not necessarily an uncritical or literalistic one.

---

You've mangled what I wrote. The "rut" is the idea that all of the bible is equally inspired and useful and worthy of teaching or preaching on. This idea is influenced by the idea of inerrency even if the individual evangelical doesn't actually believe in inerrency.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The problem, perhaps, is that they are unwilling to expose the difficulties in their preaching, possibly for fear of confusing their hearers or making the sermon sound too much like an academic lecture.

---

I think it is a much deeper systematic problem than that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

The bizarre thing to me is that there are massive sections of the bible that nobody ever even opens, never mind teaches on. Why anyone thinks that it is appropriate to make any reference to the blood-thirsty passages but totally ignore the minor prophets is beyond my understanding.

If one really believed that all of the bible was inspired equally and was useful for teaching, we'd be hearing Obadiah at least as often as Samson. That never happens.

Indeed the fact that we want to talk about Samson and even teach the story approvingly to our children says something really significant and important about us and our theology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You have a faulty definition of "charismatic" and of "charismatic preaching"

---

quote:

---

And no, "charismatic" is not even remotely synonymous with "postmodern"

---

quote:

---

And the very real problem you're identifying-- confusing Christ's authority with that of the preacher-- is not at all limited to charismatic preachers.

---

quote:

---

Even in liturgical churches, where you have that rich tradition of multiple Scriptures being read, I've heard many a sermon where the Scripture was treated as sort of an "inspirational moment" before the preacher launched into a completely unrelated discourse of his/her own choosing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Now I'm confused-- are you arguing for more exposure to the hard passages or less? Perhaps I need more coffee-- I'm having trouble tracking your argument.

For the record, I've been attending and serving in evangelical churches for more than 40 years, and can't recall ever hearing a sermon on Samson. I have heard a lot of sermons from the OT prophets. I have heard a few kids' Sunday School lessons on Samson-- not many, none recently. And would agree it's certainly not age-appropriate. Again, the sort of thing that would need to be unpacked in a small group or other setting where you can deal with all the inevitable fall out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I can't remember the last sermon I heard on Samson, with one exception. A few months ago I was preaching on an Epistle about following the example of Paul, and turned to Hebrews 11 and that list of exemplars of great faith. Which is a fascinating list, because basically none of them were actually outstanding people. So I mentioned Samson, who is in that list and everyone knows - a man of uncontrolled rage, prone to affairs with foreign women (that would be "consorting with the enemy") and several other unsavoury character flaws. David who effectively rapes Bathsheba and murders her husband to hide it. And, so on ... a list that takes us inexorably to some of the worst people in the OT, yet they're commended for their faith. There's hope for the rest of us, if even that crowd of villains gets such an accollade.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You have a faulty definition of "charismatic" and of "charismatic preaching"

---

Well, I didn't actually define either. But as it happens I was thinking partly of Bethel preaching I have heard and partly of local neopentecostal preaching and teaching which is often, as I describe, focused on overblown NT typology and/or personal development under the guise of spirituality.

quote:

---

And the very real problem you're identifying-- confusing Christ's authority with that of the preacher-- is not at all limited to charismatic preachers.

---

That is true, but the over-realised eschatology of the Kingdom Now movement in particular, and the implications both for the concept of "anointed leadership" and the authority of contemporary "prophecy" (rhema versus logos, the "'now' word of God", etc.), lead to a corresponding decrease in Sola Scriptura that in my view is more dangerous the more charismatic and leader-centric a church is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Even in liturgical churches, where you have that rich tradition of multiple Scriptures being read, I've heard many a sermon where the Scripture was treated as sort of an "inspirational moment" before the preacher launched into a completely unrelated discourse of his/her own choosing.

---

This is also true, but at least you get the Scriptures being read. Which is not always the case in evangelical churches, let alone charismatic ones. And liturgical churches don't place the same emphasis on preaching and the Bible as non-conformist ones claim to.

---

quote:

---

That was a suggestion Baptist Trainfan offered, not me; I was answering tongue in cheek.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This just makes me wonder whether [parts of the] epistles were even written by someone familiar with the stories or just the fabled names of the characters. And certainly makes me wonder whether all of the epistles are really worth of being preached.

---

Yes, they were so stupid and uninformed in those days, weren't they? Scholars have been so dumb not to notice these glaring inconsistencies earlier and come to the right conclusion. And all those church councils that fiercely debated the matter of the canon were a huge waste of time, too.
 

---

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 

quote:

---

Gamaliel:
I don't have so much of an issue with the Baptist/non-conformist non-lectionary approach - provided it doesn't descend into the preaching of favourite passages over and over again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Yes, they were so stupid and uninformed in those days, weren't they? Scholars have been so dumb not to notice these glaring inconsistencies earlier and come to the right conclusion. And all those church councils that fiercely debated the matter of the canon were a huge waste of time, too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Now I'm confused-- are you arguing for more exposure to the hard passages or less? Perhaps I need more coffee-- I'm having trouble tracking your argument.

For the record, I've been attending and serving in evangelical churches for more than 40 years, and can't recall ever hearing a sermon on Samson. I have heard a lot of sermons from the OT prophets. I have heard a few kids' Sunday School lessons on Samson-- not many, none recently. And would agree it's certainly not age-appropriate. Again, the sort of thing that would need to be unpacked in a small group or other setting where you can deal with all the inevitable fall out.

---

Well see I would make a distinction between passages which are "hard" and those which are "unchristlike".

I don't really consider the minor prophets to be "hard" to contextualise in the same sense that Samson and the violent passages are. At worst if one got the idea that the "right way" to be a prophet was to emulate one of those characters, you'd be writing weird stuff about spinning wheels, you'd be making models out of poo and you'd be growing a beard, waving your hands about and declaring that the Day of the Lord is near and that you all need to get your shit sorted out right now. The one thing you definitely wouldn't be doing would be thinking that you are a weapon of God and that you are justified in behaving violently towards those you identify as being enemies.

To me, books like Amos make a lot more sense and seem to point to the God we see in Jesus Christ far more than books like Judges.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

I think you are probably right about Samson - but I further think that this is a sign of the bizarre way we tend to compartmentalise stuff. Maybe it is true that the "adults" have already tended to avoid the violent passages, but if that's the case why is it appropriate to teach to children? And it isn't even just about Samson - it is about Gideon, Samson, parts of the David story, etc.

In fact many of the characters we give to small children to colour in during the service (look at his pretty armour and spear, Daddy) are the very people and ideas we shouldn't be teaching them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't know, Eutychus, if Calvin and Luther were allowed to have opinions as to the worth of different parts of the New Testament canon - and remain as figureheads of the Reformed (and parts of the Evangelical) tradition - then I think I am.

---

You're welcome to your opinion. But I think their arguments went a bit beyond "well that bit's obviously stoopid".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the context of this thread about sermons (which you say you have generally had enough of listening to anyway) you have yet to produce any definitive statement of which parts of the Bible you think should be preached on, beyond a vague criterion of focusing on the "christlike" bits, apparently.

Whatever that means, I somehow suspect it doesn't include, say, Revelation 19:11-16.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Cliffdweller, can you explain what you mean by a "red letter rubric" (at first I thought you meant you were an aficionado of the "red letter Bible"...)
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I can't remember the last sermon I heard on Samson, with one exception. A few months ago I was preaching on an Epistle about following the example of Paul, and turned to Hebrews 11 and that list of exemplars of great faith. Which is a fascinating list, because basically none of them were actually outstanding people. So I mentioned Samson, who is in that list and everyone knows - a man of uncontrolled rage, prone to affairs with foreign women (that would be "consorting with the enemy") and several other unsavoury character flaws. David who effectively rapes Bathsheba and murders her husband to hide it. And, so on ... a list that takes us inexorably to some of the worst people in the OT, yet they're commended for their faith. There's hope for the rest of us, if even that crowd of villains gets such an accollade.

---

This just makes me wonder whether [parts of the] epistles were even written by someone familiar with the stories or just the fabled names of the characters. And certainly makes me wonder whether all of the epistles are really worth of being preached.

---

It doesn't look like that at all to me. It seems apparent to me that the NT authors, even the presumably less-educated/working class authors like Peter, were incredibly biblically literate. They seem to have a pretty substantial working knowledge of the OT-- the sort that is common in preliterate societies where large portions of sacred text is committed to memory.

What it DOES seem to indicate, though, is that the NT authors were not well-trained in our beloved historical-grammatical method. They break all the rules-- pulling texts entirely out of context, proof-texting, dramatically ignoring the "original intent of the author".

Which should give those of us who are so well-trained in modern scholarship some pause. I certainly can't feel comfortable engaging in the sort of free-wheeling, incautious use of the OT that, say, Matthew feels free to employ. Maybe that goes to the view of inspiration. But it certainly leads me to feel justified in employing some sort of "red letter" rubric which suggests (contrary to my colleagues next door in the OT dept) that Christians can and do read the OT thru the lens of the NT.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
You're welcome to your opinion.

---

quote:

---

But I think their arguments went a bit beyond "well that bit's obviously stoopid".

---

quote:

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the context of this thread about sermons (which you say you have generally had enough of listening to anyway) you have yet to produce any definitive statement of which parts of the Bible you think should be preached on, beyond a vague criterion of focusing on the "christlike" bits, apparently.

---

quote:

---

It's part of the canon, so people are going to see them, and have questions, and those questions should be affirmed and answered. But sometimes you have to ask, "how much time/attention is this worthy of? Will this 'edify'?" It's hard to fault a pastor/teacher who chooses to spend that limited time/attention exploring in greater depth something we DO think is relevant/authoritative-- like the prophets or Jesus' teachings.

---

quote:

---

Whatever that means, I somehow suspect it doesn't include, say, Revelation 19:11-16.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But it's a much narrower group than just "charismatic", which is quite diverse, especially globally. I know it's hard to unpack such a precise definition in this forum, but when you're making the sort of accusations you made here, it would be helpful-- the term "plenty of" really does not seem to convey that.

---

quote:

---

Ymmv, of course, but that's not really a characteristic of evangelical churches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Cliffdweller, can you explain what you mean by a "red letter rubric" (at first I thought you meant you were an aficionado of the "red letter Bible"...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It doesn't look like that at all to me. It seems apparent to me that the NT authors, even the presumably less-educated/working class authors like Peter, were incredibly biblically literate. They seem to have a pretty substantial working knowledge of the OT-- the sort that is common in preliterate societies where large portions of sacred text is committed to memory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm rather amazed to find that I'm almost totally in agreement with cliffdweller on this point.

---

quote:

---

It doesn't look like that at all to me. It seems apparent to me that the NT authors, even the presumably less-educated/working class authors like Peter, were incredibly biblically literate. They seem to have a pretty substantial working knowledge of the OT-- the sort that is common in preliterate societies where large portions of sacred text is committed to memory.

---

quote:

---

This just makes me wonder whether [parts of the] epistles were even written by someone familiar with the stories or just the fabled names of the characters.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Whatever that means, I somehow suspect it doesn't include, say, Revelation 19:11-16.

---

Is it useful or relevant? If no, then I'd waste very little time on it.

---

quote:

---

Any more than I'd spend any time preaching through Numbers. Pointless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Cliffdweller, can you explain what you mean by a "red letter rubric" (at first I thought you meant you were an aficionado of the "red letter Bible"...)

---

Although it's a term I've not encountered before, I took it to be that method of reading Scripture that prioritises the words of Christ (which, in some Bibles appear in red letters) and using those as the key to interpreting the rest of Scripture. Invariably, IME, that leads to a simple acceptance of the bits of the Bible that conform to the words of Christ (OT prophets talking about God loving merct and justice, for example) and largely ignoring or explaining away the rest. Ultimately, ISTM, it's a version of taking the plain reading of Scripture, in this case just using conformity to the recorded words of Jesus as the filter for what we read as the "plain meaning" and what we feel the need to interpret. Whereas, I would say we need to apply all the interpretive tools of context, linguistics etc to all of Scripture, including those words of Jesus which we would read plainly.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Which, of course, assumes that Peter actually wrote the Petrine epistles that bear his name ...



Backing up a bit, this may be contentious but I've long been of the view that where you do get sound and sensible preaching in charismatic contexts it's generally where they draw from, or remain closer to, older traditions ... whether Wesleyan, Presbyterian or small r-reformed.

So, for instance, in the UK at least, and I'd imagine in the USA too, there was a strand of old-style Wesleyan expository preaching that persisted into Pentecostalism. Ok, it may not have been as rigorous as that found on the more Reformed side of the spectrum, but it was there.

I think what concerns me most is that the charismatic scene is steadily (or rapidly in some cases) losing its moorings and drifting off from aspects of the received tradition that are reflected more strongly in the older evangelical traditions.

Large swathes of the charismatic scene are sinking into a kind of sub-Christian spiritual self-help ya-ya land quagmire.

Sure, that doesn't mean that individual congregations or leaders have yet to be drawn down that particular plug-hole, but that's where the whole thing seems to be heading from my perspective. Give it a few years and a few generations and I suspect some of this stuff won't even be recognisably Christian in any meaningful sense.

Of course, the same can be said of the more radically liberal end of things - liberal Episcopalians getting into whoopy-loopy Earth Mother worship and so on and so forth.

There are some signs of hope but where the charismatic scene remains sane and healthy - or relatively sane and healthy - it's generally because they've got one or two feet placed firmly on the quayside rather than on a leaky ship sailing off out to sea on a tide of subjectivism, charismania and the quest for the 'next big thing.'

That isn't to say that the charismatic scene doesn't bring anything to the table and that it can only function if it has some kind of diver's breathing tube attached to the Grand Tradition ... well, actually, yes it is. I do maintain that.

The charismatic scene is only healthy to the extent that it retains some kind of rootedness in the received tradition or where it actively seeks out the older spiritual paths - however much it may adapt or reinterpret them.

Left to its own devices it puffs up and explodes or farts off into the ether like a released balloon.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Cliffdweller, thanks - the term doesn't seem to have come up on this thread before. At first glance, I'd go along with much of that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So my personal "red-letter" rubric is: the closer a text is (chronologically and otherwise) to the Christ-event, the more authoritative it can be understood to be.

---

So in your scheme of things do the epistles trump the Gospels, or not?

quote:

---

So when there is a conflict-- as in the conquest passages-- we can lean on what we see in Jesus far more than the blurry image in the OT. As Luther said, "let clear passages illumine the unclear".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Is that aimed at me? Because if it is, you're the one making this personal right now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It doesn't look like that at all to me. It seems apparent to me that the NT authors, even the presumably less-educated/working class authors like Peter, were incredibly biblically literate. They seem to have a pretty substantial working knowledge of the OT-- the sort that is common in preliterate societies where large portions of sacred text is committed to memory.

---

I'm not sure how it is possible to tell that. The thing is not a "whole cloth", it is entirely possible that the epistles were written by multiple authors, that this particular section was cut-and-pasted in, and so on.

Anyway, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me - if the writer of that epistle knew about the detail of the OT characters and thought that they were indicative of the kind of thing that people of faith do, then he's wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[qb]

quote:

---

Whatever that means, I somehow suspect it doesn't include, say, Revelation 19:11-16.

---

Is it useful or relevant? If no, then I'd waste very little time on it.

---

Personally I'll be interested to see how that passage fits into cliffdweller's "red rubric".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Cliffdweller, can you explain what you mean by a "red letter rubric" (at first I thought you meant you were an aficionado of the "red letter Bible"...)

---

Although it's a term I've not encountered before, I took it to be that method of reading Scripture that prioritises the words of Christ (which, in some Bibles appear in red letters) and using those as the key to interpreting the rest of Scripture. Invariably, IME, that leads to a simple acceptance of the bits of the Bible that conform to the words of Christ (OT prophets talking about God loving merct and justice, for example) and largely ignoring or explaining away the rest. Ultimately, ISTM, it's a version of taking the plain reading of Scripture, in this case just using conformity to the recorded words of Jesus as the filter for what we read as the "plain meaning" and what we feel the need to interpret. Whereas, I would say we need to apply all the interpretive tools of context, linguistics etc to all of Scripture, including those words of Jesus which we would read plainly.

---

I would agree (despite what I've said here about how the NT authors don't do this) in using all the interpretative tools of the historico-grammatical method in interpreting all of Scripture.

But, as others have noted, we do all have a canon-within-the-canon. We usually deny it, but it is true, and admitting it is the first step to being more consistent. And there are parts of Scripture, particularly the OT, that just flat out don't fit with Jesus' teachings, no matter how many interpretative tools we use. That's what we're talking about here. Add to that Jesus's sometimes explicit re-interpreting/realigning of OT Scripture ("you have heard it said...") and I think you have got a canon-within-the-canon. I'm suggesting that rather than leaving that implicit and unstated, we go ahead and get rid of the pretense that Christians (even 1st c Christians, apparently!) read the OT in the same way Jews do. That we confess and admit right out loud that we read the OT in the light of the words of Jesus.

Of course, that's much easier (professionally) for me to do in an anonymous online medium.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I can only assume that it is something to do with the weather that means we are both saying things that the other takes as being personal.

---

quote:

---

If you've preached through Numbers

---

quote:

---

I wouldn't because I think it has very little to do with Jesus Christ in it and very little other useful and relevant content.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
In any event, I do not feel that Heb. 11 means that I need to take Samson's, or even David's, life as exemplary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Cliffdweller, thanks - the term doesn't seem to have come up on this thread before. At first glance, I'd go along with much of that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So my personal "red-letter" rubric is: the closer a text is (chronologically and otherwise) to the Christ-event, the more authoritative it can be understood to be.

---

So in your scheme of things do the epistles trump the Gospels, or not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
In any event, I do not feel that Heb. 11 means that I need to take Samson's, or even David's, life as exemplary.

---

For light relief, I can note that I have a book on my shelves from a very conservative evangelical author who, by an exegetical tour de force, manages to make every single "hero of the faith" in Hebrews 11, including Jepthah and his vow, into a paragon of virtue...

---

sometimes my evangelical brethren make me go


even as I am quite sure I often make my evangelical brethren go


I often use that as an explanation of what it means to be a part of God's family.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Which, of course, assumes that Peter actually wrote the Petrine epistles that bear his name ...



Backing up a bit, this may be contentious but I've long been of the view that where you do get sound and sensible preaching in charismatic contexts it's generally where they draw from, or remain closer to, older traditions ... whether Wesleyan, Presbyterian or small r-reformed.

So, for instance, in the UK at least, and I'd imagine in the USA too, there was a strand of old-style Wesleyan expository preaching that persisted into Pentecostalism. Ok, it may not have been as rigorous as that found on the more Reformed side of the spectrum, but it was there.

I think what concerns me most is that the charismatic scene is steadily (or rapidly in some cases) losing its moorings and drifting off from aspects of the received tradition that are reflected more strongly in the older evangelical traditions.

Large swathes of the charismatic scene are sinking into a kind of sub-Christian spiritual self-help ya-ya land quagmire.

Sure, that doesn't mean that individual congregations or leaders have yet to be drawn down that particular plug-hole, but that's where the whole thing seems to be heading from my perspective. Give it a few years and a few generations and I suspect some of this stuff won't even be recognisably Christian in any meaningful sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Almost thou persuadest me. The sudden thought I have is that this is beginning to sound like the "rightly dividing the word of truth" so beloved of the (shudder) dispensationalists (who manage to consign, say, the two halves of some declarations of Jesus to two different dispensations to suit their hermeneutic...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

But rather than start with the 'red rubric' criteria, if I've understood them properly, the difference is that I'd take pretty much any biblical text as my starting point, even if I'm bound to use the kind of NT/'red' filter cliffdweller is talking about subsequently.

The reason I do this is firstly because as Martin has detected, I probably do have some notion of "all Scripture is inspired by God", but again along the lines I mention in my linked sermon rather than along inerrantist lines.

Secondly, I find that for me at least, this actually works. It puts me "under Scripture" in the sense that having chosen a book of the Bible for a series, I let it set my agenda.

This works well for me in the creative (preaching) process and I think it provides at least some degree of objectivity as opposed to just cherry-picking.

And from my perspective, it allows me to gain fresh and surprising insights that I would not get if I just stuck with the passages I deemed "worthwhile" by some self-imposed standard.

Of course I'm going to relate these back to Christ, but I find my picture of him is deeper and richer as a result of having to grapple with difficult texts such as Numbers 30. That can't happen if I simply look at a challenging passage and think "no, this obviously doesn't fit".

---

quote:

---

And practically, in terms of preaching, how does this "red rubric" affect your choice of material?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
That nearly answers my earlier question...

quote:

---

And practically, in terms of preaching, how does this "red rubric" affect your choice of material?

---

(I mean, how does your preaching programme actually get determined?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
On the basis, then, that the lectionary has at least a one in three chance of doing something of a "red rubric" preselection?

Does this mean that in practice you'd never preach on, say, Numbers 30?

(Genuinely curious here)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
it HAS to be done in LESS conciliatory tones.

---

I think that depends on your audience.

---

quote:

---

Jesus wasn't exactly conciliatory with the religious leaders of his day; I would let rip most strongly in my circles against people who secretly harbour more "liberal" theology and keep up a "fundamentalist" stance in their preaching as being "good for the punters".

---

quote:

---

Jesus was conciliatory ("do not fear, little flock...") with those who were simply desperate for some reassurance from God, which is where I think most poeple are at. I can't stand preachers who do nothing but berate their hearers and exude supposedly superior knowledge.

---

quote:

---

And philosophising on your own is not at all the same as having a responsibility before a congregation. Why do you think prophets are distinguished from pastors and teachers (or is that too "Iron Age" for you )?

---

quote:

---

Again, I have no desire to tie a millstone round my neck.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Trying to square Bronze Age myth through Iron Age faith.

---

This is indeed where we part company. You might be historically correct, but the terminology you use implies inherent contemporary superiority (which, I would venture, is a terribly modernist outlook. What the 19th century mistakenly thought about its science you seem to be mistakenly applying to contemporary belief).

---

quote:

---

It implies (to my ears at least) "we know better now". I think that is hubris. We know differently, and taking due note of how other ages "knew" I think is an important part of self-understanding, an exercise in humility, and where a lot of contemporary thinking goes astray.

---

quote:

---

It's too easy to trip over some difficult stuff in the Bible, especially the OT, and simply dismiss it on the basis of a mental picture of man that's not far removed from the hominids at the beginning of 2001 - A Space Odyssey, rather than grapple with it.

---

quote:

---

Just because they had, say, little scientific knowledge of cosmology doesn't mean their metaphysics was all wrong or badly thought out. I think that dismissing the latter on the grounds of the former is tempting - but fallacious.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Paul was WRONG. It can't be done. Rather Paul IS wrong. He was right for his time, he couldn't have been righter. It's MEANINGLESS for now.

It's ALL got to go mate.

---

Well that would have to include preaching, it would seem to me. If what you say is true, what can you preach on, on what authority, and for what purpose?

If it's all got to go, how do you rescue even Christ from the wreckage?

How is it that people have been managing to preach on the Bible ever since the days of the early church and at least some of their hearers have been finding it meaningful?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
The vast majority of religious people are wedded to the myth of redemptive violence, of just war, Christians being far from the exception and in fact the worst offenders since becoming institutionalized by the state. Ones preaching audience is invariably Christian and one needs to start again with the beatitudes with them it seems.

---

quote:

---

It seems we have to preach to them as if they were spiritual gentiles.

---

quote:

---

warn those who are idle and disruptive, encourage the disheartened, help the weak, be patient with everyone.

---

quote:

---

Before the church can subvert the state, it has to be subverted. It has been castrated.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Jesus wasn't exactly conciliatory with the religious leaders of his day; I would let rip most strongly in my circles against people who secretly harbour more "liberal" theology and keep up a "fundamentalist" stance in their preaching as being "good for the punters".

---

Didn't you wrestle with that reality over Numbers 31?

---

quote:

---

So we can't preach what Christ preached?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Again, I have no desire to tie a millstone round my neck.

---

What is the risk of that? How could that happen? How, by delivering little ones from fear and ignorance, from VIOLENCE, ... by preaching the gospel to the poor; ... by healing the brokenhearted, By proclaiming liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, By setting at liberty those who are oppressed; ...

---

quote:

---

Paul was wrong. To make him right one has to look down the wrong end of the telescope and project 'spiritualization', a modernist Pollyana error, on to the Bronze and Iron Age subject matter.

---

quote:

---

So Jonah didn't know better than Isaiah? Amos didn't know better than Jeremiah?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

It's too easy to trip over some difficult stuff in the Bible, especially the OT, and simply dismiss it on the basis of a mental picture of man that's not far removed from the hominids at the beginning of 2001 - A Space Odyssey, rather than grapple with it.

---

That is grappling with it. We then have to grapple with that REALITY.

---

quote:

---

Your four whats are answered by Jesus' first sermon above.

The Rescuer needs no rescue. He is ALL that's left. Tried by deconstructing fire and NOT found wanting. Even in, despite and BECAUSE of His full, weak, ignorant humanity. THE baby, still the most mysterious entity in the known universe, still with a caul, an umbilicus leading to, implying a very weird supernatural realm, survives the dumping of the bathwater. To suggest otherwise is on the same spectrum as YECs who say that if you deny YEC you deny Christ.

---

quote:

---

The gospel IS preached despite very flawed preachers. Which is why I don't any more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
The gospel IS preached despite very flawed preachers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Go back to my example of the guy who simply set out to disrupt his hearers' supposed (on his part) blind confidence in Scripture by pointing out the missing words in the Hebrew. I don’t think he was doing any of the above. He was projecting his own anger at being led astray onto hearers who were not in the least bit responsible. It was far more likely to break than amend a fundamentalist belief system. Preachers need to search their motives and consider the impact of their words.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

But admittedly, I find it hard to see how you can be so sure that the words of Jesus are somehow right, intact, and valid, not culturally bound, incapable of being deconstructed by some more enlightened descendants of ours – when you are so sure the words of Paul aren’t.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
The common difficulty I see with Martin's approach, and to a lesser degree with your "red rubric" approach (for slightly different reasons), is that it seems to be broadly acknowledged that the epistles pre-date the Gospels, so as a minimum they were chronologically closer to Jesus, which is genuinely held to be A Good Thing in terms of authenticity/reliability.

---

quote:

---

And if the epistles do predate the Gospels, then it's a fair assumption that the Gospel writers were aware of and/or had access to the epistles.

---

quote:

---

Claiming "superior" or "more authentic" content for the content of the gospels over and above the epistles therefore seems to require a degree of special pleading.[/qupte]

First, I'd say no, the gospels stand alone so need no special pleading. But I'd also say yes, ok maybe there is a form of special pleading, but then isn't there also special pleading needed to marry up the gospels with the epistles to form a coherent theological position? To me it makes a lot more logical sense to read the epistles in the light of the gospels than to try to argue that they're all the same really.

[quote]It's my perception that in recent times Paul in particular has come "unglued" from the Gospels, rightly or wrongly, largely because of a whole herd of Dead Horse issues ranging from inerrancy to homosexuality. I'm not sure if these are a cause or an effect.

But I'm beginning to think this whole "Was Paul wrong?" debate deserves a separate thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
The common difficulty I see with Martin's approach, and to a lesser degree with your "red rubric" approach (for slightly different reasons), is that it seems to be broadly acknowledged that the epistles pre-date the Gospels, so as a minimum they were chronologically closer to Jesus, which is genuinely held to be A Good Thing in terms of authenticity/reliability.

And if the epistles do predate the Gospels, then it's a fair assumption that the Gospel writers were aware of and/or had access to the epistles.

Claiming "superior" or "more authentic" content for the content of the gospels over and above the epistles therefore seems to require a degree of special pleading.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

It's my perception that in recent times Paul in particular has come "unglued" from the Gospels, rightly or wrongly, largely because of a whole herd of Dead Horse issues ranging from inerrancy to homosexuality. I'm not sure if these are a cause or an effect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm beginning to think this whole "Was Paul wrong?" debate deserves a separate thread.

---

 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I think there is an entire thread on the relationship between the Epistles and the Gospels that is tnagential to the question of preaching on one or the other, or both. Give me a few minutes to harvest some quotes from the last few posts, and then I'll start a new thread in Kerygmania.
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Eutychus

Generalisations, oooh I'm generally sure of mine I realised when I wrote it that your context was going to be a bunch of convicts. Your little ones. Pastoral concern comes first, second and third I agree. But I fail to see the relevance. There is NO RISK. What do a bunch of convicts have to lose in being told that God is not Killer? Especially the non-Christians. That God is found as directly as possible in Jesus ALONE. He is present by His Spirit in our social evolution, our thinking, our story, our responses, including the 700 years worth of The Books, indirectly. The Christians - predominantly Roman Catholics I'd have thought? - certainly won't be movable in their denominational beliefs at all of course. So you probably have to play to that lowest common denominator. Hmmm. Never mind the theology, the orthodoxy; orthopraxis is the ultimate orthodoxy. Damn. I totally agree. Carry on that man.

Prophet, pastor, teacher ... see above.

We are the church is the kingdom, I thunder. But damn and BLAST man. See above.

Holding back. I can thunder against that too ... and then the still small voice of pastoral care whispers.

Preaching Christ. We ARE Him. We are the only arms and ears and mouths of Christ they will know in this life. We ARE His body. He has OBVIOUSLY given it ALL over to us.

Oh bugger, here we go.

Damnitman! Why do a bunch of criminals - which is all of us one way or another - need molly-coddling in violent religion, for God's sake?! Most of them AREN'T Christians. We mustn't offend the Christian minority who are marinated in violent religion? And by Christian we mean those that can go along with the creed even with fingers crossed.

Sigh. I know, I know. It's no use telling them. SHOW them. Have you seen the awesome Starred Up? Have they?

There is no projection of anger in the way offered in that. I know it's Hollywoodized (I watched it the second time with a Category B guard), but it's one of the best films I've ever seen.

Paul wrong, what's right? God in Christ. ONLY. Not His apologists. OOOOOOOOH!!! (John Clees' Gumby). Let's reverse it shall we. Paul is right, NOW. Numbers 31, the genocide of the Midianites (substitute any horror you can easily think of, especially in Judges), is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

How? Pollyana found something good in everything. There's NOTHING good in genocide. Ever.

Majors and minors. The God of the Book of Jonah, just a few decades on from the God of the Book of Isaiah is ... humane. Their editors mellowed by the Babylonian exile. By suffering.
2001. The difficult stuff in the OT didn't happen because humans weren't brilliant 13, 50 (when speech MAY have genetically evolved), 80 (or developed socially), 200,000 years ago. They were. It didn't happen because it's made up. And as with Jonah, it's irrelevant. Part of me would LIKE to believe it's true. But that is COMPLETELY irrelevant. As with Abraham under the Terebinth Trees at Mamre. As with Job. Which I HAVE to believe are not true. But their BEAUTY in their Bronze Age beastliness IS divine.
Jesus unbound. I'm too gnomic. I CONSTANTLY go on about Jesus' FULL humanity. His IGNORANCE. His words ARE culturally bound. Even His being tempted of the Devil is easily deconstructed as projection (not everything else is). And He breaks the bounds. Even while being killed by them. He believed the TaNaKh. In God the Killer. And He distanced Himself from Moses. He transcended the bounds ENOUGH, while He lived, even while He submitted to their lethal embrace in faith. As only God in the flesh could do.

Paul was a GREAT, none greater, man of his time wrestling as we do with the impact of the Incarnation. He is a giant upon whose shoulders we INEVITABLY see further.

No deconstruction in a thousand years of further intellectual development or a hundred thousand of actual evolution of 'better' brain can take away the proposition that is Jesus.

And I don't PREACH any more.
 

---

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
The common difficulty I see with Martin's approach, and to a lesser degree with your "red rubric" approach (for slightly different reasons), is that it seems to be broadly acknowledged that the epistles pre-date the Gospels, so as a minimum they were chronologically closer to Jesus, which is genuinely held to be A Good Thing in terms of authenticity/reliability.

And if the epistles do predate the Gospels, then it's a fair assumption that the Gospel writers were aware of and/or had access to the epistles.

Claiming "superior" or "more authentic" content for the content of the gospels over and above the epistles therefore seems to require a degree of special pleading.

---

Again, the "red letter rubric" could be applied either way-- and has been by those who advocate it. My argument for gospels over Paul (to the extent you need such a rubric-- see below) is based on my belief that the gospel writers, while later than Paul, are providing an authentic record of what Jesus truly said & did. Which would make the gospels "closer to the Christ event" in terms of content if not chronology. Of course, if you don't share my assumption you're not going to share my conclusion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
What do a bunch of convicts have to lose in being told that God is not Killer? Especially the non-Christians. That God is found as directly as possible in Jesus ALONE.

---

quote:

---

Never mind the theology, the orthodoxy; orthopraxis is the ultimate orthodoxy. Damn. I totally agree.

---

quote:

---

Damnitman! Why do a bunch of criminals - which is all of us one way or another - need molly-coddling in violent religion, for God's sake?!

---

quote:

---

Let's reverse it shall we. Paul is right, NOW. Numbers 31, the genocide of the Midianites (substitute any horror you can easily think of, especially in Judges), is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

---

quote:

---

The God of the Book of Jonah, just a few decades on from the God of the Book of Isaiah is ... humane. Their editors mellowed by the Babylonian exile. By suffering.

---

quote:

---

I CONSTANTLY go on about Jesus' FULL humanity. His IGNORANCE. His words ARE culturally bound. Even His being tempted of the Devil is easily deconstructed as projection (not everything else is).

---

I think you believe in the inspiration of deconstruction . You can read it that way, but how can you be so sure you’re right ?

quote:

---

Paul was a GREAT, none greater, man of his time wrestling as we do with the impact of the Incarnation. He is a giant upon whose shoulders we INEVITABLY see further.

---

This bit of the discussion is now happening here (note to fausto also).
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Eutychus.

Starting and ENDING with Jesus is as good as it gets. Even though He DID home in on God the Killer and all sorts of awkward stuff. He single-handedly created Hell after all! And fulfilled PSA. As for preaching Numbers 31, you had the WISDOM not to go there. If you believe in God the Killer or not. I understand the Old Testament as the library of a unique culture that God interacted with more than any other, hopefully MINIMALLY as the numinous, transcendent, transpersonal attractor, Love. I see it glimpsed shining in the very dark.

We're the incarnation now. And THE Incarnation, no matter whether God is Killer or not, wasn't. He NEVER abused His power in context. He still said some very uncomfortable, threatening, violent things, and I don't just mean in parable: He was unbelievably insulting, racist, exclusive to the Syro-Phoenician woman by our (correct) politically correct criteria, to a beautiful outcome. He threatened the disciples with eternal annihilation if they denied Him. Evangelism is done in that light NOW.

This, to me, shows Him working with all of the materials to hand AND being inevitably limited by them in His thinking, despite transcending their bounds in spirit, according to his God nature. He was still tethered, to the TaNaKh, enculturated, Jewish, male. He distanced Himself from Moses, but how could He completely distance Himself from God the Killer as we now CAN.

I'm glad your little flock of little ones latch on to Jesus. But He comes with baggage. He comes with violent religion. Even His peerless non-violence in practice isn't matched by His words. I'm intrigued that they aren't bothered by God the Killer. There again I'm intrigued that most Christians AREN'T. I certainly wasn't for 40 years. They have no problem with gentle Jesus meek and mild being God the Killer on steroids either side of the Incarnation. I LOVED Him! As you say, it's just me, now

As for the things written for our example, how was Numbers 31 a mistake in Biblical terms? How was it a mistake to Jesus? How was The Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Exodus? Witch burning? Gay stoning? They are mistakes to US, because we stand on the greatest shoulders of ALL. His. He gives us THE bunk up. We see over the wall that He COULDN'T except in spirit.

I believe that deconstruction REVEALS inspiration. Of this I AM certain. Taking a 'plain reading', that God Himself changed as society evolved, that God got nicer and nicer then ever so much nicer as Jesus (still with a razor's edge) and returns to being Hell on wheels the second time around as He was ITCHING to do as Jesus, is not for me any more. I couldn't care less if I'm wrong.

If God is the bastard of the Bible, and I don't mean the One conceived out of wedlock, I do not want to know. I loved Him for 40 years. That's the job we do on ourselves. It's not our fault. Or His. I now love another.
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
For me the sermon has to be grounded in the big picture of the incarnation and the atonement.

Alongside that, there needs to be a varied diet (covering aspects from all parts of scripture) over the year.

We don't follow the lectionary but themes are important alongside the festival and seasons of the church. An emphasis on teaching "What kind of God?" is accompanied by application "So what?"

There's no rocket science in preaching as in anything to do with church. IME it's a matter of knowing your context, not being violent with the bible and making sure you pray as well as listen.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
However we cut it, though, whether we use a themed teaching series or pattern or use a lectionary, each presupposes that people are going to be around fairly regularly to get the benefit of that.

I'm not sure that can be guaranteed these days, if it ever could.

I'm not sure what the answer is to that one.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
However we cut it, though, whether we use a themed teaching series or pattern or use a lectionary, each presupposes that people are going to be around fairly regularly to get the benefit of that.

I'm not sure that can be guaranteed these days, if it ever could.

I'm not sure what the answer is to that one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
All Anglican preachers in my experience, and that's ALL, play safe. I don't blame them, their pay packets depend on it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Arguably a salaried Anglican minister's pay is far less dependent on the sermon content than a non-conformists. I imagine it is quite rare to get even a stern letter from a bishop over sermon content and, to pluck an example from nowhere, I doubt for instance that a sermon on radical pacifism would ever merit disciplinary proceedings, and there's no performance-related pay that I'm aware of.

On the other hand a disagreeable (or over-challenging) note from the pulpit of a non-conformist place could have an immediate impact on the collection that week.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
SvitlanaV2, I've only ever known one non-conservative environment in 38 years, only the last 11 as a born again Anglican admittedly, and you can guess what that is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You make it sound as if becoming an Anglican vicar is some kind of regular career choice for disaffected ministers of other denominations.

'Bugger this, I'm fed up of being a URC minister. I know, I'll become a vicar instead ...'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
The classiest services are at cathedrals. Most artistic. Profound. Beautiful. Unchallenging. Meaningless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You make it sound as if becoming an Anglican vicar is some kind of regular career choice for disaffected ministers of other denominations.

'Bugger this, I'm fed up of being a URC minister. I know, I'll become a vicar instead ...'

---

Not necessarily ministers from elsewhere, but ISTM that quite a few vicars were raised in other denominations. I don't know if there's been any research on this, but it makes you wonder.

I'm aware that the CofE is short of ministers. (This is the case for the Methodist Church as well.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You make it sound as if becoming an Anglican vicar is some kind of regular career choice for disaffected ministers of other denominations.

'Bugger this, I'm fed up of being a URC minister. I know, I'll become a vicar instead ...'

---

Not necessarily ministers from elsewhere, but ISTM that quite a few vicars were raised in other denominations. I don't know if there's been any research on this, but it makes you wonder.

I'm aware that the CofE is short of ministers. (This is the case for the Methodist Church as well.)

---

The CofE may want Vicars but they make it VERY hard to join from another denomination unless you have some kind of special pleading.

You have to be reordained which isn't the case for a transfer from the CofE to say Baptists.

---

In that post I wasn't suggesting that ministers moved from one denomination to another, rather than laymen might do so, and then then enter the ministry from their new denomination.

Of course, unless there has been research on it it's hard to know if the numbers are significant.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure, that does happen. For what it's worth, my own take on this is that the CofE is so unused to 'lay-people' expressing an interest and getting involved in theology and so on that as soon as anyone does - and you'd expect that to be the case from someone who may have held a ministry or leadership position - then the first and immediate reaction is, 'Quick, quick, quick, let's get them ordained!'

A number of female clergy (and I'm not singling out women vicars here, simply noting where this came from) have suggested ordination to me over the years. Why? I suspect it's partly because they aren't used to people like me who are generally interested in theology and so on but without being in some kind of pastoral or ministry/leadership role anywhere ...

On the CofE wanting to re-educate or re-programme ministers from other denominations ... well, can you blame them ...

More seriously, yes, that must suck if you've been a Baptist minister, say, and perfectly capable of doing all (and probably more) than vicars generally do.

The Orthodox generally require clergy from other churches to step-down for a bit and simply go with the flow and learn how to do things, but there have been cases of them fast-tracking clergy from other churches - with mixed results I'm told.

As far as the CofE goes, though, I'm not convinced there's anything so esoteric about it that it'd require Baptist, URC or Methodist or whatever else ministers to undergo a whopping big dose of further training. I could understand that if, for instance, it involved them learning all the moves and twiddly bits to become an Anglo-Catholic priest, perhaps ... but even there, I'm not sure it'd need a full scale college course.

I'm sure it could be picked up over a few months and with a few glasses of gin ...
 

---

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


... but even there, I'm not sure it'd need a full scale college course.

I'm sure it could be picked up over a few months and with a few glasses of gin ...

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0