Ship of Fools: Father Forrest on sermons

Thread: Father Forrest on sermons Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030514

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

As Fr Forrest’s poems are in copyright, here is a summary of Beware of the dogma.

Each stanza tells how a preacher tries to instruct his congregation in the basics of Christianity. In the first one he tries to teach the basic doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation “And tried to show their relevance to modern human needs”.

The response is “He’s far too theological and quite above our head”

Then he tries to teach the means of grace – the sacraments, the Bible and prayer with “Practical instruction on the value of retreat”.

“And everyone agreed that it was logical enough,
But only suitable for those who like that kind of stuff.”

Then he tries to teach about the practicalities of Christian life and ethics, based on the Ten Commandments, the Beatitudes and the seven deadly sins.

“They felt a little slighted to be led across this ground
For morals in suburbia are basically sound”.

Finally he gives up and preaches a sermon filled “With sentimental platitudes that meant precisely NIL”.

The response “Oh, Vicar, it was lovely! Quite the best we’ve ever heard!”

I can only too well imagine it.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I would say his big mistake was thinking the sermon is primarily intended to teach and instruct.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Which rather begs the question as to what exactly the sermon (presumably in the context of the Sunday Eucharist) is supposed to do...

...which may or may not be an Ecclesiantical matter!

FWIW, my own thought is that the sermon in this context should try to relate the day's Gospel and/or other readings to the situation of the parish and people in today's world....YMMV.

IJ

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Fr Forrest was writing before the 3 year lectionary.

Teaching is certainly an important aspect of the sermon.

It was "the sentimental platitudes" which struck a chord with me.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Which rather begs the question as to what exactly the sermon (presumably in the context of the Sunday Eucharist) is supposed to do...

Aye, that's the question ...

I would say that within the context of Christian worship, the sermon is a proclamation of the good news of Jesus Christ. Therefore, it should (IMO) is some way develop from the readings of Scripture that precede it, leading the congregation in reflection upon what has been read, opening up the text in application to the life of the congregation (and, application should be a combination of what we believe and what we do), but primarily and most importantly leading the congregation in corporate and personal worship of God in thanksgiving for the gospel. The sermon is an act of corporate worship, as well as leading the congregation into worship - both within the context of that time together, and beyond into the rest of the week. And, worship is a sacrificial giving of self, in words and deeds, to the service of God and all people.

The sermon would include several elements, which together bring the congregation to worship. There would be a recollection, a joint remembering of what is already known. "Tell me the old, old story" as the hymn goes - of course, that would (for most people) be retelling what they already know (and, hence, not teaching or instruction - though if there are people present to whom that aspects of the old story recalled are new, then there is some teaching involved). There would be some "therefore ...", an application of what has been recalled. There should be something to encourage the congregation to renew their faith and their lives, a spur to seek forgiveness for their failures to live upto the gospel that they know so well and to seek to live in the power of God to his glory.

I think that a preacher who approaches the sermon thinking that there is something new that the congregation should learn is skating on thin ice. Our cultural expectation to have the newest thing, to seek novelty, to experience something new is a dangerous place for the preacher to be. Much better to stand on the firm foundation of the old, old story of Jesus and the Cross. Novelty is prone to error and leading people astray. It is what modern ears twitch to hear.

I'd say all that is true whatever the form of the service. I think in a Eucharistic service there is possibly a slightly different emphasis, which is in part going to depend upon how a particular tradition views the Eucharist. Probably all traditions would consider it to be at least a memorial, we all repeat the words of Jesus "do this in memory of me", which fits in very well with a sermon that brings what we already know back to mind, which is a remembering and proclamation of the gospel message. Most would say that the Eucharist is more than just an intellectual remembering, but a very real bringing the past into the here and now. I would say that the sermon should, likewise, be more than an intellectual remembering but making that historic truth a present reality. The Eucharist and the sermon together can, indeed should, be a powerful way of remembering the gospel of Christ and bringing that into a present reality.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Teaching is certainly an important aspect of the sermon.

An aspect, yes. But, it should be part of the journey, not the destination.

quote:
It was "the sentimental platitudes" which struck a chord with me.

I'm not sure if there's a place for sentimental platitudes in a sermon. Or, anywhere else for that matter ... maybe attached to pictures of kittens and shared on Facebook.

Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
...it should (IMO) is some way develop from the readings of Scripture that precede it, leading the congregation in reflection upon what has been read, opening up the text in application to the life of the congregation (and, application should be a combination of what we believe and what we do)...

So... it's "intended to teach and instruct" then?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Finish the quote "primarily and most importantly leading the congregation in corporate and personal worship of God in thanksgiving for the gospel". Any teaching or instruction is accidental and secondary, potentially part of the journey to the destination of worship.

I'm not saying sermons shouldn't teach. Even in the absence of more appropriate teaching opportunities (some form of catechism, for example, even an alpha curse) active listening to sermons will result in people learning about the Christian faith. What I'm saying is that a sermon is not a lecture to instruct the congregation in the faith. Instruction is not the primary purpose of the sermon.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

[I know I can edit my posts. But I think that typo should remain]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Love it!
[Overused]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Which rather begs the question as to what exactly the sermon (presumably in the context of the Sunday Eucharist) is supposed to do...

...which may or may not be an Ecclesiantical matter!

More purgatorial, perhaps? [Biased]

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Hosting

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Which rather begs the question as to what exactly the sermon (presumably in the context of the Sunday Eucharist) is supposed to do...

...which may or may not be an Ecclesiantical matter!
More purgatorial, perhaps?

Yeah ... but that was so last August.

Nevertheless the ecclesiantical hosts may huddle behind the iconostasis for an arcane converse of divine mysteries.

/ Hosting

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

But this thread wasn’t meant to be about sermons!

Alan seems to have totally missed Father Forrest’s gently expressed but devastating satire – the point is not the sermon at all but that a congregation (a specifically suburban *, English 1950s congregation) doesn’t want to be at all challenged in their complacency by the Christian faith. Their ideal sermon is “sentimental platitudes which mean precisely NIL”. And I’ve heard enough sermons which fit that description.

* Non-English readers may not pick up on the connotations of “suburbia” where “morals are basically sound”.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Point taken - and it does seem that leafy suburban parishes are often the places where numerically-successful Anglican churches are to be found. Is there a connection? Enquiring minds need to know...

[Ultra confused]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Sorry. Who is/was Father Forrest?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Stanley Forrest was an Anglican priest who wrote light verse but whose poems can't be quoted here in full as they are still in copyright.

I paraphrases one of his poems in the OP.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

And there are links to some of his poems in my first post on the 'Ideal CofE Clergyman' thread in Heaven.
Important thing to remember about Fr Forrest is that on the evidence of his poems he was right about everything .

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Since I started this thread in Ecclesiantics and mentioned the sermon in the title, fair enough to discuss sermons.

But the interesting thing is the response of the laity to the presentation of Christian orthodoxy.

It confirms my belief that liberal theology goes hand in hand with social and political complacency or conservativism.

Schleirmacher, the father of liberal theology, was an enthusiastic supporter of the Prussian state.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

Sorry, but you lost me. What confirms your belief—the poem(s) or the responses on this thread? And how do they confirm your belief?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

The poem confirms my belief....

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

Thanks.

But I guess I'm still having trouble with how a poem can "confirm" anything, particularly something like the correlation between liberal theology and social or political complacency or conservatism.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

Homiletics instructors have some very curious ideas about what the sermon is for.

These days, catechesis is so spotty (and willingness to attend Christian education so low) that you have to grab your opportunities to teach where you can find them. If that happens to be the sermon, then you teach in the sermon if need be.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0