|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Preaching from Notes
|
3rdFooter
Shipmate
# 9751
|
Posted
I find if I don't write in full, I skip bits I needed to say in longer sermons. There is potential at our shack for someone to sign which demands a full script.
I always do school assembly from brief notes as a pulpit/lectern doesn't really work for years 1 to 6.
3F
--------------------
3F - Shunter in the sidings of God's Kingdom
Posts: 602 | From: outskirts of Babylon | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
I'm at a church where we get really good sermons on a regular basis. And they're all pre-written, typed and printed out. Some preachers make changes to what they've written, others don't. The delivery style is what might convince someone that they're using notes rather than a "script."
In fact, a Mystery Worshipper report once mentioned one of our former preachers and really panned her sermon. That perplexed me, because she was always an outstanding preacher here. Then I remembered that she preferred to preach without notes, but because of the practice here, she always wrote out her sermon in advance and preached from the script.
And unlike Pyx_e, I prefer that preachers keep their balls (or boobs or ovaries or whatever they have) well-hidden under their vestments. Literally and figuratively.
Yes, there is a gift of preaching, and many clergy don't have it - yet they have to preach. It's probably best not to dictate a "one-size-fits-all" approach. However a preacher works best is how that preacher ought to work. (Except I still say balls in please.)
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Accursed art thou, O Leaf, that makest me to snort tea all over my keyboard.
Dang, forgot the blank verse.
<glances at hosts> Nope. Ain't gonna do it. Here.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
When preaching, I write it all out and read it. I might change a word or two here or there on the fly, but for the most part I stick to the (manu)script.
When teaching, however, I have a page of bullet points. I see teaching as something quite different than preaching -- much less rhetorical and much less a kind of ritual.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
When I was trained in “Presentation Skills” some twenty years ago we were advised to make bullet point notes on small (3” x 5”?) cards. Only wordings that needed perfect accuracy should be written in full and read out.
And number the cards sequentially so that when you drop them you can repair the damage accurately and quickly.
Practice at least five times in front of a full length mirror – checking your timing.
Make regular eye contact around the group (2/3 seconds per person is enough).
If given to expansive gestures don’t be surprised if the choirboys bring cricket scorecards to the game.
Don’t read aloud anything displayed on a screen – read it silently twice and switch it off before you develop the thought for your audience.
Don’t do as my last CEO did – become so proud of the ability to add clever movements/characters to a PowerPoint show that everyone ignores the content because they’re making a book on what the next distraction will be.
PS - my father used to give the best sermons ever - "If I can't get the idea across simply in five minutes there's no point in confusing the issue for half-an-hour".
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
When teaching, however, I have a page of bullet points. I see teaching as something quite different than preaching -- much less rhetorical and much less a kind of ritual.
That came out weird. ![[Confused]](confused.gif) I can see that the style difference between (informal!) class teaching and preaching could be called "rhetorical". But I do not see preaching as a kind of ritual at all (though embedded in, and thereby part of a ritual, I guess). And I would say that inspiration supervenes on teaching.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
An important point for me is that having the notes in front of me is important for structuring what I say (my latest incursions in public speaking were evening Bible classes where I was going to teach for a good hour or so).
This is particularly important in France because French education majors on the importance of structuring composition. People want to know that there is an introduction, x number of illustrated points in the middle, a drawing together of the various strands, and a conclusion. This kind of structure makes it much easier for people to access the content because they know exactly where they are with it.
An example I like is showing people round the museum - "today we are in the Louvre museum. This museum contains classical antiquities, Egyptology and painting of various periods. But we don't have time to look at all of it, so today we're going to focus on Italian painting. These are the pictures we are going to look at and the order that we're going to look at them in, and these are the main elements that we are concentrating on." This sets people at ease so that they can easily absorb the content, and I couldn't successfully do it without my notes in front of me to keep me in the right place.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
But what is wrong with using notes, or even a script, if the sermon content and delivery are good?
Nothing. Content and delivery (having something worthwhile to say, and getting it across) are what count. In general, I think notes are better than either a script or nothing, because using notes well ensures that all the important points are covered without unduly hampering the delivery, but that's not true for everyone. Some people are liable to get flustered without something close to a full script, and so obviously should use one. Some people can deliver a script so well that no one would think that they are reading, and would gain nothing by switching to notes. Some people find that any notes are a constraint, or have so good a memory that they can safely dispense with them. There is nothing wrong with any of these approaches.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
When teaching, however, I have a page of bullet points. I see teaching as something quite different than preaching -- much less rhetorical and much less a kind of ritual.
But I do not see preaching as a kind of ritual at all (though embedded in, and thereby part of a ritual, I guess). And I would say that inspiration supervenes on teaching.
I don't think the word ritual properly carries the freight you seem to give it. "Ritualistic" and "ritualize" certainly carry pejorative connotations, but preaching is, solidly, a ritual activity.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I don't think the word ritual properly carries the freight you seem to give it. "Ritualistic" and "ritualize" certainly carry pejorative connotations, but preaching is, solidly, a ritual activity.
I disagree. The only thing that is ritual about the homily is its embedding in the liturgy. You can say when and where it will occur, and what will precede and follow it. Furthermore, you can have a very rough idea about the content thanks to the mass readings. That's it. Other than that you can tell me very little about what will happen in any particular homily. You do not know the style of delivery, the content, the pace, the intention, the references made, ... Anything to do with the actual speech act itself is essentially left to the speaker. You may guess from experience how a certain preacher will handle things, but that is not insight due to a "ritual".
For better or worse, the homily is a kind of "creative space" inserted into the liturgy. That is the near opposite of ritual, except that its embedding into an outer ritual does impose some rules of continuity onto that creativity. And the preacher is not acting "in persona Christi" there as in the rest of the mass. Rather, he acts in a pastoral and personal function, with his own individuality playing a significant role (again for better or worse). The homily itself is a ritual if, and only if, I can generally predict what will be said next. Since I can't, it simply isn't one. That a homily will occur after the gospel reading is part of the ritual, because I can generally predict that: that is a prescribed procedure.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
My intermittent presence on the Ship usually coincides with me not getting down to the business of writing a lecture ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) so this is a very interesting topic for me. I'm a perpetual student of faith-related public speaking, so thanks to all who've shared tips so far.
Given free rein, I'm an inveterate rambler. But my most recent spurt of Ship-posting has come about while preparing my first foray into speaking alongside a sign-language interpreter, further complicated by the whole thing being relayed by video link into a second auditorium (ooh, get me!). So the written draft had to be presented to the interpreter in advance and then stuck to pretty tightly.
Leaf's advice to write the script as simply as possible then read and re-read it is something I certainly endorse after this experience. This way, I was able to do the whole thing (40 minutes' worth) with no more than a few downward glances to sub-topics — and still managed to keep the interpreter (and apparently even the remote audience) happy.
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The only thing that is ritual about the homily is its embedding in the liturgy. You can say when and where it will occur, and what will precede and follow it. Furthermore, you can have a very rough idea about the content thanks to the mass readings. That's it. Other than that you can tell me very little about what will happen in any particular homily.
You do not know the style of delivery, the content, the pace, the intention, the references made, ... Anything to do with the actual speech act itself is essentially left to the speaker. You may guess from experience how a certain preacher will handle things, but that is not insight due to a "ritual".
As someone who's not a preacher but who has listened to many sermons, I would have to disagree. The (British) Methodists used to have what's called a three point sermon. It's less common now, but still, I find that, personal style notwithstanding, there's certainly a tone, a certain kind of approach that one can identify in most Methodist sermons. (And since there's usually a different person in the pulpit every week, it's easy to see this illustrated.)
Different denominations have their own style. Some expect longer sermons, others expect shorter. Some require call and response, and others don't. The content also varies to the extent that different denominations have different emphases. But this variety just proves the point that there are expectations as to what a sermon should 'look like'.
But what unites the vast majority of sermons is that they're delivered as monologues. (The interactive sermon doesn't seem to have taken off, except in a highly controlled form.) And especially within the Protestant churches, that monologue has become indispensable. Apparently, for Calvin, the sermon had a sacramental quality. Luther referred to a Protestant church building as a 'Mundhaus' - a 'mouth house'.
All this suggests to me that the sermon could certainly be described as a ritual. It may be a "creative space", but it certainly seems to exist in a well-defined form.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I do not see preaching as a kind of ritual at all (though embedded in, and thereby part of a ritual, I guess).
I suppose I was using "ritual" in a loose sense. Sure, it's not a ritual in the sense of a repeated pattern of words and actions. I guess what I was trying to get at is that a homily is embedded in a ritual action and therefore I approach it differently than I would a discourse in another setting. I don't want to seem as if I am coming up with the words on the fly; I actually want to seem as if I am following a script. To me, this seems to better accord with the ritual nature of the occasion in which the homily is embedded.
I realize that others have different approaches (e.g. the "balls out" approach mentioned earlier), and I have been edified by homilies/sermons that took a different approach, but this is the one that makes sense to me.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The only thing that is ritual about the homily is its embedding in the liturgy. You can say when and where it will occur, and what will precede and follow it. Furthermore, you can have a very rough idea about the content thanks to the mass readings. That's it. Other than that you can tell me very little about what will happen in any particular homily.
Coming from another tradition, I would see things differently. To most Baptists, it is the sermon which is the "high point" of a service, even one which includes Holy Communion. It has indeed become a quasi-sacramental act and an occasion in which one hopes to encounter God.
More than that, in many churches the whole service (hymns, prayers, children's talk) will be built up around the sermon and the Bible reading(s) from which it is derived. So whatever comes before or after is intimately linked and sheds lights on (or allows space to reflect upon) the sermon.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The homily itself is a ritual if, and only if, I can generally predict what will be said next. Since I can't, it simply isn't one.
I don't agree with this equating of ritual with predictability. Now I'm going to have to think about what the content of the statement "the liturgical homily is ritual" is, because I'm not sure I can give an account of it on the fly. I'm not sure I agree with FCB that it's a "looser" use of the term, though.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
I guess what I was trying to get at is that a homily is embedded in a ritual action and therefore I approach it differently than I would a discourse in another setting.
OK, agreed.
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
I don't want to seem as if I am coming up with the words on the fly; I actually want to seem as if I am following a script. To me, this seems to better accord with the ritual nature of the occasion in which the homily is embedded.
Hmm. I know what you are getting at. Problem is that the best - and consistently best - preacher I've ever heard does not read off, except for verbatim quotes, and he sure does not lack "gravitas" in his delivery. So by experience I know that this is not where "it" is at, at least not in general.
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Coming from another tradition, I would see things differently. To most Baptists, it is the sermon which is the "high point" of a service, even one which includes Holy Communion. It has indeed become a quasi-sacramental act and an occasion in which one hopes to encounter God.
Well, if you were saying here that what is being said in the sermon is of no relevance to the quasi-sacramental value it will have for the audience, then I would agree that this kind of sermon is a ritual. Just as the ornaments on the altar cloth do not determine the sacramental value of the consecration, the words of such a sermon then become empty, since the religious effect is brought about simply by saying some words, any words. Thus that the words are not predictable would not matter. However, I don't think (or rather: I hope) that this is not quite what you mean.
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
I don't agree with this equating of ritual with predictability.
I'm not equating the two. I'm saying that predictability is a necessary feature of ritual. I guess one could have a kind of "jam session" with religiously symbolic actions, but then I would still consider as "ritual" in repeated "jam sessions" whatever part of these doesn't seem to change much.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
There is a heck of a lot of ritual involved in giving a sermon, the words may change but...
- It comes in a set place in the liturgy, the climax in many services amongst non-conformists.
- it happens from a set place within the room often clearly marked by ceremonial objects. Using or not using that place has theological significance and the congregation understand it.
- It takes a fairly standard form, this varies according to tradition and time but in any one time and place there are a limit of forms. An hour long exegetical sermon fairly common a century or so ago amongst non-conformist would have the congregation objecting seriously today.
- there are set codes of behaviour during it although these vary from tradition to tradition. I really can't see most URC congregations coping with some one shouting "Amen Brother" everytime the preacher makes a good point.
It seems to me only fair to consider it as part of the ritual of the service.
Jengie
[ 02. April 2012, 18:43: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
There are set codes of behaviour during it although these vary from tradition to tradition.
Of course, there is the aphorism which states that, if you were to take all the people who fall asleep during sermons and lay them end to end ... they'd be much more comfortable.
Speaking quite seriously, the "ritual" in certain situations seems to be that the sermon is "something to be endured", a preconception which even the best preachers struggle to overcome in some settings. It strikes me as strange that some Christians just don't want to be taught about their faith.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This discussion is interesting to me, since I'm a frequent public speaker, but in a different format. Modern scientific speaking basically consists in talking through a series of slides that illustrate the research with graphics and comments in terms of short bullet points.
I speak at scientific meetings using the slides with illustrations and short bullet points approach. I also occasionally preach at church. For me, the two settings are completely different. It would be no more appropriate to proclaim the gospel message as though it was the latest results of my research than it would to present my research as though I'm proclaiming the gospel.
A scientific presentation is presenting something new, hoping to do so in a way that the audience understand it and appreciate the importance of what I've done. Unless it's a lecture in which case it might not be new, but would be new to the students who will need to understand it enough to pass the exam and apply it in other parts of the course. A sermon rarely, if ever, presents something new. The congregation expect the preacher to "tell me the old, old story". The purpose isn't to teach something new, but to encourage a renewed response of praise and faithful obedience to the good news. Constantly seeking novelty isn't, IMO, healthy for a church or a preacher - although it's the lifeblood of scientific research.
When presenting scientific results I don't write a text (well, OK there will be some form of report I've written, or paper I've drafted), indeed I'll rarely have any notes with me beyond the content of the slides being shown. When preaching I write a complete text, which I print out in large font and line spacing and have in front of me - although I'm not actually reading it by the time I preach it.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
There are set codes of behaviour during it although these vary from tradition to tradition.
Of course, there is the aphorism which states that, if you were to take all the people who fall asleep during sermons and lay them end to end ... they'd be much more comfortable.
Speaking quite seriously, the "ritual" in certain situations seems to be that the sermon is "something to be endured", a preconception which even the best preachers struggle to overcome in some settings. It strikes me as strange that some Christians just don't want to be taught about their faith.
I am not sure this true everywhere but I wonder if you removed the sermon, if the very same people who "endure" it now, wouldn't be up in arms about this.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
[b]Speaking quite seriously, the "ritual" in certain situations seems to be that the sermon is "something to be endured", a preconception which even the best preachers struggle to overcome in some settings. It strikes me as strange that some Christians just don't want to be taught about their faith. [/QB]
I think it's partly because the sermon form is a fairly artificial way of being 'taught'. Studies show that many people don't learn best by listening to a monologue. Most sermons are quickly forgotten.
Also, the truth is that great oratory in preaching seems to be a thing of the past. Perhaps today's sermons are just less easy to enjoy from a rhetorical perspective. I'm not trying to criticise any particular preachers, because there are clearly sociological reasons for this. But the problem is that with such high standards set by TV, film, radio, etc., the average sermon, despite its vastly more important content, doesn't seem to measure up.
Of course, some preachers see church attendance as primarily a 'duty'. From this perspective, a sermon doesn't have to be 'enjoyed' but simply endured, like unpleasant medicine.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
I think it is a mistake to think of the sermon primarily as a vehicle for teaching (in the generally used sense of the word). Rather it is intended for encouragement, exhortation admonition etc. - that is it is a hortatory discourse. Some 'teaching' needs to underlie that to give grounds for the exhortation. But if teaching is the main focus then it needs to happen elsewhere than in the sermon.
A sermon always needs to respond to the question "So what?"
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Brojames
Yes, I've heard some preachers comment that there's a distinction between 'preaching' and 'teaching'. But Baptist Trainfan implied that if people didn't positively welcome the sermon then they were revealing a reluctance to be taught. This may not be so - they might simply not find the average sermon a tool that helped them to learn.
But I also agree that many people who don't find sermons helpful in that specific way might nevertheless expect to hear a sermon when they go to church, and complain if they don't. From that point of view, the sermon surely is a ritual, if its unchanging presence becomes more important than its variable content in the minds of listeners.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A sermon rarely, if ever, presents something new. The congregation expect the preacher to "tell me the old, old story". The purpose isn't to teach something new, but to encourage a renewed response of praise and faithful obedience to the good news.
That's a pretty good summary why much preaching is so incredibly boring and why it so often destroys rather than inspires faith. Frankly, if you don't have anything to say that sheds new light on the gospel for at least some in the audience - then why don't you just sit down and shut up? We have listened to the scripture readings with our own ears, and we can think the same old thoughts we have about those verses just fine by ourselves (and actually, more clearly by meditating in silence rather than having them droned out by someone else).
A sermon need not be new in the way that a research seminar has to be, sure. That's because research seminars are terribly limited in their scope, whereas preaching can find new heights and depths across all of human life. We don't need to get strikingly new (yet non-heretical...) theological insights, for example - though boy, I for one would be jumping up and down shouting "hallelujah" if I ever experienced that! It can be about how to set priorities in one's life. It can be about understanding our place in the historical continuum of faith. It can be about motivating charitable action. It can be about enhancing prayer life. It can be about opposing or supporting certain social changes. Whatever.
But don't just tell me the "old, old story". The Lord that I follow is not the God of the dead, but of the living. If I bury my face in my hands during your sermon, it's not because I'm overcome by spiritual passion. It's because I pray to God that he may insert some remotely interesting thought into your head, or strike you with lightning, as He pleases...
Lucky that I think the homily pales into insignificance as compared to the Eucharist. Because I likely would not have become a Christian, gone to mass (pretty much) every Sunday since, and remained a Christian if I thought that that is the "highpoint" of the proceedings. Frankly, the majority of all sermons I've ever heard in real life were more taxing to my faith than inspiring it. And thanks to the power of the Internet I do know that it is entirely possible to preach every week something that I can appreciate. So perhaps I'm asking too much, yeah. But perhaps not. Perhaps preachers just deliver too little, on average.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
IngoB, I find your most recent post a bit confusing! You want to listen to the exposition of ancient scriptural texts, no doubt within the context of a received and immutable deposit of faith, and within the exercise of a tradition that must not change - but you don't want to hear anything you've ever heard before; it must be new!
Well, here's something new. If preached afresh for our generation, affirming the ongoing movement of a living God and a developing society, scripture could be understood as affirming women's priestly ministry and gay rights. Would that alleviate the boredom you would otherwise suffer when listening to all those 'same-old-same-old' messages you seem to find so tedious? But I suppose that would be considered 'heretical'?
As for your own examples. Aren't all those things just typical ingredients of most ordinary sermons, anyway? When you suggest 'setting priorities for life' and 'encouraging charity work' and 'prayer life' - well, aren't these kind of subjects the standard topics of sermons on a Sunday?
The challenge, frankly, isn't so much giving something new to people who know it all - or think they do. The challenge is trying to get people to accept the basic principles of what Christ taught. Love your neighbour as yourself. It's been being preached for 2000 years and we still don't seem to have got the message, it seems to me.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
Quote
Evangelicals have usually dismissed this but liturgy has something to do with modeling the way God puts the world to rights and then glimpsing it in the dramatic action of both the Eucharist and the morning and evening prayer in the Anglican tradition. These are really such simple things. It includes a reading from the Old Testament, a reading from the New Testament, and it is all framed and flanked with prayer and Scriptural responses. It’s pretty much the Bible from start to finish. The bits that are not Bible are the creed and some of the key prayers and collects that are all cloaked in Scripture. There’s a sort of a liturgical time and space here. When you step into this you are glimpsing the way God actually intends the world to be and envisioning it in a powerful sense. This is actually what I think Revelation 4 and 5 are all about. The elders are casting their crowns before the throne. This is the heavenly reality that corresponds to the church worshipping on earth. This is not a vision of the future. This is a vision of the spiritual depth of the present.
Again and again, I come back from the details of worship, with something fresh. Suddenly, for example, a passage of Scripture read at Matins by one of my colleagues grabs me and I say, “I’ve never seen that before. I never heard it like that before.” I’m very fortunate. I get lots and lots of Scripture coming at me all day long.
http://www.hornes.org/theologia/travis-tamerius/interview-with-n-t-wright
1 Corinthians 14:26 NET
What should you do then, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each one has a song, has a lesson, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all these things be done for the strengthening of the church.
ETA crossposted with Anselmina
[ 03. April 2012, 12:13: Message edited by: footwasher ]
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
but you don't want to hear anything you've ever heard before; it must be new!
I didn't say that at all, of course. And as mentioned, the Internet for better or worse removes the illusion that preaching has to be as crap as it generally is. I've listened to probably over a hundred sermons that contained thoughts new to me, which I found inspiring. Perhaps a dozen of them came from preachers that stood before me in the flesh.
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Well, here's something new. If preached afresh for our generation, affirming the ongoing movement of a living God and a developing society, scripture could be understood as affirming women's priestly ministry and gay rights. Would that alleviate the boredom you would otherwise suffer when listening to all those 'same-old-same-old' messages you seem to find so tedious? But I suppose that would be considered 'heretical'?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) Dead horses manage to combine contention with tedium, which is why I usually ignore them. Anyway, that's all you have on the gospel, yeah? I mean, that sort of stuff neither particularly interests me (heresy in bed with concupiscence is rarely news) nor the people out there (this is their Zeitgeist speaking, after all).
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
When you suggest 'setting priorities for life' and 'encouraging charity work' and 'prayer life' - well, aren't these kind of subjects the standard topics of sermons on a Sunday?
Sure. These are the kind of topics one can talk about (among many others). The question is, can you say something about any of that which is both obedient to the gospel and not trite?
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
The challenge, frankly, isn't so much giving something new to people who know it all - or think they do. The challenge is trying to get people to accept the basic principles of what Christ taught. Love your neighbour as yourself. It's been being preached for 2000 years and we still don't seem to have got the message, it seems to me.
It's the good news, OK? Why do you expect people to pay attention while filling their ears with the same blather that they have heard for decades? Do you expect that some magic will transform their stupor into action? If people don't get the message, your suggestion is to say the very same thing over and over again until they give in?
Here's something to try. At the end of the service (and unannounced!), select ten people at random, put a pen and a sheet of paper in their hands, and ask them to write down what they found remarkable, what they remember, of the sermon. If that doesn't depress you enough, try asking next day. If you don't have a "take home message", then people will not take the message home. And that's a fail. Really, that is a serious fail...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I'm not sure that it matters whether people remember the content of each sermon. I've heard it likened to eating. You are nourished but you don't remember the menues of the past month.
I've heard this idea too and I suspect it's cobblers, sorry leo! We obviously have evidence that eating food is necessary - if people don't eat food then their health deteriorates and they eventually die. But is there any evidence of the same being true with hearing sermons?
I'm with IngoB regarding the need for a take-home point. Indeed, I'd state it more strongly - if there's nothing that I can take home and do something about then my listening and the sermon-giver's talking (not to mention preparation) have probably been a waste of time.
Analogies to eating suggest to me that listening to sermons is mainly just about maintenance of our current state. Call me idealistic but I want more - I want to be part of a church community where people are helping one another (through sermons and many other activities) to grow in faith and goodness. If sermons aren't doing that then, in my view, something needs to change.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
if there's nothing that I can take home and do something about then my listening and the sermon-giver's talking (not to mention preparation) have probably been a waste of time.
I agree, which is why I think the vast majority of sermons are a complete waste of time, and that sermons could easily be dispensed with as part of the average church service.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
if there's nothing that I can take home and do something about then my listening and the sermon-giver's talking (not to mention preparation) have probably been a waste of time.
I agree, which is why I think the vast majority of sermons are a complete waste of time, and that sermons could easily be dispensed with as part of the average church service.
The trouble is, if the sermon were removed from the average Protestant service, you'd be left with a song-fest. The sermon would have to be replaced with some kind of mutual exhortation, with tangible ideas for Christlike living and understanding that people could comment and act on and commit to memory.
We seem to have forgotten mutual exhortation, which is impossible when only one person is allowed to express their ideas. The clergy complain that the people in the pews don't know any theology, but if the preacher/priest is expected to know everything so the others can rely on them totally, that's hardly an encouragement for ordinary Christians to become more aware and engaged.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The trouble is, if the sermon were removed from the average Protestant service, you'd be left with a song-fest.
A few songs, a few prayers, a Bible reading or two and Communion. Job done ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Loquacious beachcomber
Shipmate
# 8783
|
Posted
A quick question, then:
Do you think that what happens at a worship service blesses people based on what those attending have done, what the person leading the service has done, or what God is doing during that service?
Could the answer to that possibly affect the way people listen impatiently for something they could mentally wrap up in newspaper and carry home with them like fish and chips, a gift or baggage taken home from the service that matches their individual wishes, desires, or needs?
--------------------
TODAY'S SPECIAL - AND SO ARE YOU (Sign on beachfront fish & chips shop)
Posts: 5954 | From: Southeast of Wawa, between the beach and the hiking trail.. | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
if there's nothing that I can take home and do something about then my listening and the sermon-giver's talking (not to mention preparation) have probably been a waste of time.
I agree, which is why I think the vast majority of sermons are a complete waste of time, and that sermons could easily be dispensed with as part of the average church service.
Out of genuine interest, what would count as the sermon telling you to "do something about"? How specific are you both being?
For example, would you appreciate a sermon which told you quite definitely to make time to study your Bible every day, or to go and apologise to that neighbour you are having the dispute with? In other words, do you like a sermon to give you practical hints and advice about being a better person or Christian?
Or are you meaning something broader? For example, would a sermon about loving your neighbour count as giving you "something to do"?
And where (if anywhere) do you fit in sermons about God's love for us, or God's grace, or God's forgiveness? What might you expect to "do" with a message like that?
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
John 16:12 NET
“I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
When the Apostles planted churches , they knew that the teachings they left would take time to settle in. Some would be understood correctly, some not. There was a plumbine, an indicator of the churches that heard right (Macedonian church?) and those that didn't (the churches that were addressed in the Epistles?).
The methodology for the self feeding churches are outlined here :
1 Corinthians 3:9-15 NET
We are coworkers belonging to God. You are God’s field, God’s building. According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master-builder I laid a foundation, but someone else builds on it. And each one must be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than what is being laid, which is Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, each builder’s work will be plainly seen, for the Day will make it clear, because it will be revealed by fire. And the fire will test what kind of work each has done. If what someone has built survives, he will receive a reward. If someone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss. He himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
The congregation meets in a member's house. Each person brings forth an understanding. It's made to run the gauntlet of scrutiny by God's Word:
Acts 17:11 NET
These Jews were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they eagerly received the message, examining the scriptures carefully every day to see if these things were so.
Wrong teachings were filtered out:
Jeremiah 23:29 NET
My message is like a fire that purges dross! It is like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces! I, the Lord, so affirm it
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The trouble is, if the sermon were removed from the average Protestant service, you'd be left with a song-fest.
A few songs, a few prayers, a Bible reading or two and Communion. Job done
I don't think this would be the best improvement, because it wouldn't be about mutual edification and encouragement(Romans 14;19-21). I mean, you can sing, pray and read the Bible at home! What's the point of being in a group of other people if there's no spiritual benefit to be gained from being in community?
In fact, this is what I see as one of the big problems with church life - we don't nurture spiritual community in the gathering that we consider to be the most important. Churches that are considerered to be 'active' hive it off to house groups and prayer meetings, or to social events where talk of religion is not expected. So it's downgraded in importance.
It's not surprising that some people think there's little to be gained from going to church that they couldn't get from their own private devotions and study. The only reason to go, in your scenario, would be for Communion. And some churches don't have that very often anyway!
What we need is a church life that fosters mutuality at different stages, I think. The sermon, as currently understood, doesn't do that.
But don't the Anglicans have some Sunday services without sermons? What about 9am Holy Communion? (I'm not an Anglican.)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Silver Faux:
Do you think that what happens at a worship service blesses people based on what those attending have done, what the person leading the service has done, or what God is doing during that service?
All of those things, I'd have thought, in proportions varying from service to service and person to person.
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
Out of genuine interest, what would count as the sermon telling you to "do something about"? How specific are you both being?...For example, would a sermon about loving your neighbour count as giving you "something to do"?
And where (if anywhere) do you fit in sermons about God's love for us, or God's grace, or God's forgiveness? What might you expect to "do" with a message like that?
I'd definitely include sermons about loving your neighbour, yes. But as long as they give me concrete advice on how to love my neighbour better, or on how I might get support from others so we can help each other love our neighbours better. It's got to be practical, in my view - I mean, the problem is rarely that we don't know how we're supposed to live; the problem is that we don't actually live it out!
And yeah, I think there can be a place for sermons about God's love for us, his grace, his forgiveness and so on. But I think all these things are much better experienced than preached about. I'm just down on the whole idea of sermons being an effective method of discipleship (i.e. helping us becoming more as God intends us to be). Sorry for the thread hijack.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
Thanks for the explanation, SCK. I appreciate that you are looking the practical applicativeness (if that is a word!), and as a preacher, take that fully on board.
I am a little confused about this, though: quote:
I'm just down on the whole idea of sermons being an effective method of discipleship (i.e. helping us becoming more as God intends us to be).
Because it sounds like what you expect sermons to be is precisely that - an effective method of discipleship, providing practical help and advice to those trying to be more Christ-like. Or are you simply saying that sermons are ineffective per se, whether they have a practical application or not? If so, fair enough.
If I can also pick up on this: quote:
I think there can be a place for sermons about God's love for us, his grace, his forgiveness and so on. But I think all these things are much better experienced than preached about.
I don't disagree that these things are better experienced. However, in my experience as a preacher and minister, people are often unable to accept God's grace and forgiveness, maybe because of issues in their past, life-long feelings of guilt, some kind of mental block, or even previous very damaging preaching. One of the jobs of the sermon, it seems to me, is to break through some of these barriers, precisely so that people are freed to experience God's forgiveness.
Leo's analogy of the sermon as a meal is not quite the nonsense you think it is, although I accept that it can be used to justify a nonsensical position. The preaching that is done in a church is one of the principal ways that a church's whole ethos and outlook is established. Such an outlook is rarely an instantaneous reaction to a one-off sermon, but is (as leo's analogy suggests) a very long-term process of feeding and building-up. In other words, if you walk into one of those churches that seems warm and welcoming, you can be sure that there has been sermon after sermon about hospitality, about God's grace and welcome of us. On the other hand, if sermon after sermon has been about legalistic points of doctrine, or exhortations to be better Christians (because you are not yet good enough for God), then I would predict a great feeling of oppression and anxiety.
In my experience, sermons that say "God loves you, God forgives you, God thinks you are flipping brilliant," are precisely the ones that most need to be heard. When people get their relationship with God sorted, that is when the loving your neighbour bit becomes a whole lot more practical.
I am now pondering an image of the sermon as chisel, chipping away at people's walls and barriers spiritual, emotional, doctrinal, and yes, practical ...
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
I am a little confused about this...
quote:
I'm just down on the whole idea of sermons being an effective method of discipleship (i.e. helping us becoming more as God intends us to be).
Because it sounds like what you expect sermons to be is precisely that - an effective method of discipleship, providing practical help and advice to those trying to be more Christ-like. Or are you simply saying that sermons are ineffective per se, whether they have a practical application or not? If so, fair enough.
I guess I'm down on sermons for a couple of reasons. Firstly, when I look back at what's helped me in my journey of faith, sermons don't feature highly at all. Obviously other people learn and grow in different ways, but here's my second reason: I don't often see people taking notes during sermons and neither do people seem to recall much of what they hear. And as I said, I'm dubious about the sermons-as-food theory which states that it's okay if we don't remember the content or impact of most sermons.
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
...In my experience as a preacher and minister, people are often unable to accept God's grace and forgiveness, maybe because of issues in their past, life-long feelings of guilt, some kind of mental block, or even previous very damaging preaching. One of the jobs of the sermon, it seems to me, is to break through some of these barriers, precisely so that people are freed to experience God's forgiveness.
Oh yes, I accept that sermons can accomplish a great deal in the lives of those listening. It's just my feeling is that more can usually be accomplished through other activities, like peer-mentoring, learning together, going on mission (local or further afield) together. Christianity is ISTM about learning to do all that Jesus did, and for most people (ISTM!) sermons or lectures are not such an important factor in learning how to do something.
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
The preaching that is done in a church is one of the principal ways that a church's whole ethos and outlook is established. Such an outlook is rarely an instantaneous reaction to a one-off sermon, but is (as leo's analogy suggests) a very long-term process of feeding and building-up.
For sure. But is there anything unique about sermons here? Isn't it rather that a church's whole ethos and outlook are established by the way in which everything is done within that church community? If a church didn't have sermons as a main part of what happens when the people meet together, then the ethos would be established through whatever else happens instead.
PS - Love your sig, Cottontail! I read Watership Down again a few weeks ago; what a wonderful book it is. Can I give a shameless plug for something I wrote after finishing it?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Oh yes, I accept that sermons can accomplish a great deal in the lives of those listening. It's just my feeling is that more can usually be accomplished through other activities, like peer-mentoring, learning together, going on mission (local or further afield) together. Christianity is ISTM about learning to do all that Jesus did, and for most people (ISTM!) sermons or lectures are not such an important factor in learning how to do something.
Personally, I don't think the point of a sermon is necessarily to act as a lecture that improves a person in that way that other things such as you mention do. As you admit yourself, a sermon can accomplish good things in the lives of the listeners - put presumably in other ways, than sermons, and self-improvement seminars or psychotherpeutic activity. I don't see why this means sermons are to be despised, because they do not do good in the same way other things do good. If I want a seminar on practical ethics, self-development skills, or want some profoundly challenging theological firework set off in my brain - there are plenty of places which specialize in these things to choose from.
But in my church community, I want just that. Community. So long as the sermon serves (or fairly attempts) its purpose, as an element of reflection within worship, and so long as the cumulative effect is one of community, developing relationship, understanding and scriptural guidance, the sermon is doing what is required of it. We are free the other six and a half days of the week to actually act and do the stuff our worship has hopefully reminded us we should be doing.
I grew up, and now minister, in a Church which doesn't celebrate communion at every main act of worship. So the Word - in the sense of preaching - listening to and reflecting on scripture via a short address or something similar - is important and expected. (Though also preferred to come in at under ten minutes, unless you're very special!) A bible based address tying into the life of the congregation is pretty indispensable to our tradition.
As I've stated above, it's really as much to do - if not more - with the community of the church people who live, work and worship together.
I appreciate we all have different kinds of church community; but I think I can honestly say that most of the congregations in this part of the world would rather have a ten minute ramble of trite sameness from the kindly old rector they know will be there in an emergency, doing the stuff that needs to be done, facing the crap with them; than some tour-de-force of exhortation regardless of how 'practical' or 'fresh' it seems, from a minister who doesn't visit.
In other words, the average parish priest acquires their true authority to speak (and preside at communion, for that matter) from their own people, earning it by service and servanthood. I'm all for the best kind of preaching being offered to congregations. But over-rating the supposed excellence of the epicurean approach adopted by IngoB, or the 'banning of worship addresses because they're not functional' approach of Marvin both totally overlook the fact that in many church communities, the sermon acts as a strengthening strand, among many, of the relationship between people and minister.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I don't think the word ritual properly carries the freight you seem to give it. "Ritualistic" and "ritualize" certainly carry pejorative connotations, but preaching is, solidly, a ritual activity.
I disagree. ... The homily itself is a ritual if, and only if, I can generally predict what will be said next. Since I can't, it simply isn't one.
Wow.
So, the extemporaneous Eucharistic prayers of the primitive church were not ritual. That assertion would never have occurred to me absent this thread.
If predictability is your sine qua non for what is ritual and what is not, then there isn't much else to say.
What a cramped sense of liturgy you have.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
So, the extemporaneous Eucharistic prayers of the primitive church were not ritual. That assertion would never have occurred to me absent this thread.
If they always occurred at the same time in the proceedings, then that was part of the ritual. If they had a prescribed length, then that was part of the ritual. Etc. But whatever part of these prayers they made up on the fly is not itself part of the ritual, i.e., of a prescribed procedure of actions with symbolic (here: religious) meaning. By definition.
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
If predictability is your sine qua non for what is ritual and what is not, then there isn't much else to say.
Indeed. The power of reasonable definition at work... What is prescribed can be predicted.
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
What a cramped sense of liturgy you have.
Liturgy is more than a ritual, as indicated by using a different word.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The "sermon as a meal" analogy isn't perfect - but it captures what to me seem important points. Personally, I'd extend the analogy to "church as a meal" - the service as a whole feeds us, the sermon is one course in the meal. In some places it might be the main course, in others an appetiser or desert. And, of course Christ serves other meals for us, not always through the Church - if the only time we eat is one hour Sunday morning then we're not going to be healthy.
Like I expect most people there are very few meals I can remember the details of. But, they fed me, sustained me, helped me grow. And, those meals that are memorable fall into two broad categories; those where the food was special and well prepared, and those where the company was what made the meal. A dish you've had hundreds of times can be very special if you're sharing it with a special friend, the best cooked meal in the world can be ordinary if eaten alone.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A sermon rarely, if ever, presents something new. The congregation expect the preacher to "tell me the old, old story". The purpose isn't to teach something new, but to encourage a renewed response of praise and faithful obedience to the good news.
That's a pretty good summary why much preaching is so incredibly boring and why it so often destroys rather than inspires faith. Frankly, if you don't have anything to say that sheds new light on the gospel for at least some in the audience - then why don't you just sit down and shut up? We have listened to the scripture readings with our own ears, and we can think the same old thoughts we have about those verses just fine by ourselves (and actually, more clearly by meditating in silence rather than having them droned out by someone else).
You could easily say the same of everything the church does. Week after week (or whenever depending on our tradition) we say the Lords Prayer, recite the Creed, repeat the words of Jesus "this is my body..., this is my blood...", distribute the same bits of bread and sips of wine/juice, we'll sing hymns that have been sung countless times before, by the time you've been in church more than 3 years the lectionary turns over and the readings have been read before. Why hold the sermon in a different category from the rest of the service? Why should the sermon say something new if everything else is simply telling the old, old story?
Personally, I have no problem with telling the old, old story thoughout the service - I find that in the retelling it's made alive and new, there is new light shed on the old. We don't need novelty in content for the gospel to become real and new in our lives. That goes for the sermon as much as it does for the rest of the service. Although, novelty can also be illuminating it isn't required for illumination.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
Strikes me there's 2 problems with the idea that the sermon should give practical application points to people's lives. Firstly, it suggests that Scripture is primarily about telling us what to do, the old "the Bible is a manual for life" idea. I'm not sure that this is what Scripture primarily is - but that's probably a topic for a different thread.
Secondly, and more practically (the irony!), it's hard to do in a way that goes beyond bland generalisations: "Speak to your neighbours! Give money to charity!" etc. I preach to a congregation of about 30-40 each week; I can't possibly know the ins and outs of their lives and how the reading in question will speak into each of their lives. And to give advice beyond the general in a practical way into those lives would take forever. The problem would be even worse with bigger congregations.
But... Anselmina's focus on the communal nature of the sermon holds (to me at least) a possible solution. Perhaps the point of the sermon isn't to shape individuals' lives, but the life of the congregation together. And in this way I think it does work like the meal image (or the chisel image, which I really like!); it isn't alwways hugely memorable as an event, but (hopefully) over time it does good, feeding and building up the body.
(Not sure if this has any bearing on the sort of notes you use, but there you go...)
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The "sermon as a meal" analogy isn't perfect - but it captures what to me seem important points. Personally, I'd extend the analogy to "church as a meal" - the service as a whole feeds us, the sermon is one course in the meal.
Mmm, I get what you're saying and I agree to an extent. But I fear the whole analogy can encourage one to think of a church service (and any organised church activity) as an opportunity to be fed instead of to feed one another. The whole ethos as indicated in the New Testament should be, I think, about mutual support, building up and encouragement; the traditional western church sermon sends the coded message that one person is an expert and has a special role to spiritually feed the congregation. That doesn't sit well with my take on ecclesiology.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
As the one who started this hare running, I should mention before we get too far from the OP that a previous Vicar here informed me that no sermon should last longer than 8 minutes, and that he had a push-button on the Vicar's Stall to press if any sermon exceeded the time limit, which would open a trapdoor in the pulpit and plunge the occupant into a tank of hungry piranhas.
I managed to avoid this fate by writing out a full script and timing myself. Our present Vicar says the ideal sermon is no more than 1,250 words long, though I notice she doesn't stick rigidly to this herself.
I have never found the trapdoor, but we have an adjustable reading desk on the pulpit. By putting this up to its fullest extent, I find I can easily refer to my notes but still make eye contact with people sitting in the back row - or at least appear to.
I think the story of the priest and the bishop mentioned earlier is the anecdote about Archbishop Frederick Temple (father of the great William Temple), recounted in Trevor Phillips' book 'The Bishops'. As Archbishop of Canterbury, F.W. Temple had an unpleasant habit of dropping in unannounced at churches in his Diocese and sitting quietly at the back listening to the service. After one of these visits, he asked the priest: 'Tell me, do you preach extempore or from notes?' 'Well, your Grace, I used to make very full notes, but one day I left them at the Vicarage and had to preach extempore. And, do you know, people told me afterwards that it was the best sermon I had ever preached. So then and there I vowed never to preach from notes, and I have stuck to that ever since.' The Archbishop raised his hand. 'I, Frederick William Temple, by Divine permission Archbishop of Canterbury, hereby release you from your rash vow!'
Do carry on.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Mmm, I get what you're saying and I agree to an extent. But I fear the whole analogy can encourage one to think of a church service (and any organised church activity) as an opportunity to be fed instead of to feed one another. The whole ethos as indicated in the New Testament should be, I think, about mutual support, building up and encouragement; the traditional western church sermon sends the coded message that one person is an expert and has a special role to spiritually feed the congregation. That doesn't sit well with my take on ecclesiology.
I'm a preacher so I perhaps have a vested interest in all this. I can see where you're coming from and agree up to a point. But I wonder whether it's not so much a problem with the sermon in itself, it's the fact that, in most churches (including my own), there's little or no opportunity made to take the discussion any further. We have the sermon, then whatever in our particular tradition comes after that (Eucharist/the end of the service/some form of response) and that's it. It's almost as if the prayer at the end of the sermon should be: "Let us never speak of these things again".
Instead, I wonder if a possible solution is for us to find ways to enable the congregation to continue talking about what was said in the sermon. So the sermon itself isn't the final word on the matter, it's the first word, it's (to stretch a metaphor to breaking point) the starter for the meal. This would probably vary depending on the particular church: it might be midweek groups; or groups meeting after the service; or some kind of discussion during the service; or something for people to take home and pray/reflect on/study.
The precise method doesn't matter; what would matter would be for people to explore what's been said for themselves and practice some of the mutual building-up that you talk about and which is, I agree, essential. It might also help people to begin to apply it to their individual lives in a way that isn't possible during the sermon itself.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The "sermon as a meal" analogy isn't perfect - but it captures what to me seem important points.
Oh, it could indeed serve as useful analogy. Yet if, and only if, we determine first what is analogous to the nutritional content of food. Because in the end we eat to still our hunger. But what stills our mental and spiritual hunger when listening to a preacher? If you are content with repeating the same thing endlessly, then in my opinion you are serving thin gruel. Perhaps people manage to survive on that. Perhaps people even consider that as perfectly "normal", if they have lived in poverty for a long time. But is that the way it should be?
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You could easily say the same of everything the church does. Week after week (or whenever depending on our tradition) we say the Lords Prayer, recite the Creed, repeat the words of Jesus "this is my body..., this is my blood...", distribute the same bits of bread and sips of wine/juice, we'll sing hymns that have been sung countless times before, by the time you've been in church more than 3 years the lectionary turns over and the readings have been read before. Why hold the sermon in a different category from the rest of the service? Why should the sermon say something new if everything else is simply telling the old, old story?
Are you quite serious?
Because the content of your sermon is not part of the ritual. The ritual grants you a creative space to get across your insights concerning the gospel in order to edify and inspire your community to follow Christ better. If your sermons lasts 20 minutes and 30 members of your congregation are listening to you, then you are occupying 10 hours worth of human cognitive attention. You are grabbing a massive amount of spiritual mind-share there, and if all you have to give back for that is the same ole, then I for one would much prefer if we replaced you with two minutes of silent meditation.
Is this really news to you? I mean, what do you do when "preparing a sermon"? Do you go to a shelf and pull out the appropriate sheet of paper that you will read off verbatim, as always at this time of the year? Well, fine. Then your sermon is indeed a pure ritual, and if you like it that way, then I have nothing bad to say about that. I'm not against ritual at all. But if you actually sit down in front of an essentially empty sheet of paper (or screen), then you are the author and you will sign responsible for the words people will have to listen to. If there is a creative process, your creative process, then you can't just hide behind the ritual within which you present your creation. If I were in your congregation, then your sermon would not just be another part of the liturgy. I would be listening to you, to what you came up with. And if that's trite shite, then nothing in the ritual saves you from having wasted my time, if not worse.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Personally, I have no problem with telling the old, old story thoughout the service - I find that in the retelling it's made alive and new, there is new light shed on the old.
Magically... Because if I say "garbage bin" a million times, it comes to mean "rose garden".
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A few songs, a few prayers, a Bible reading or two and Communion. Job done
I don't think this would be the best improvement, because it wouldn't be about mutual edification and encouragement(Romans 14;19-21).
Neither is a sermon. At best, a sermon is about one person giving edification and encouragement to the rest of the congregation - hardly "mutual"!
quote:
I mean, you can sing, pray and read the Bible at home! What's the point of being in a group of other people if there's no spiritual benefit to be gained from being in community?
Whoever said there's no spiritual benefit to being in community?
quote:
In fact, this is what I see as one of the big problems with church life - we don't nurture spiritual community in the gathering that we consider to be the most important. Churches that are considerered to be 'active' hive it off to house groups and prayer meetings,
Those are the places where it can be fostered in a more productive way, though. Remember, all of the early churches were "house groups".
quote:
or to social events where talk of religion is not expected.
Community - even spiritual community - doesn't always have to be about religion.
quote:
The only reason to go, in your scenario, would be for Communion.
Not true - there's also the songs and prayers! Songs, because very few house groups have either a worship band or an organ, and prayers because house groups are often too small to know all the prayer needs of the wider community.
quote:
What we need is a church life that fosters mutuality at different stages, I think. The sermon, as currently understood, doesn't do that.
Agreed.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
