|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: How to make Church teaching more interesting
|
Stoker
Shipmate
# 11939
|
Posted
I've been a training instructor for my company for about a year now, and it is slowly dawning on me that many of the learning and engagement techniques we use could actually appeal to the Congregation on a Sunday. We have a fairly standard Sunday morning: Half hour sing and share, Sunday school go out, Bible reading, Half hour sermon, Coffee time.
Because top down 'preaching' has it's limitations, I'd really like to hear about other ways of doing things - especially intereactive Sermons/ Bible teaching to help the congregation engage with and learn from the Word.
Any experiences/ ideas to share?
[ 26. February 2013, 08:28: Message edited by: Stoker ]
--------------------
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Liturgy? That's interactive ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Seriously, though...
What's the demographic of your congregation?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoker
Shipmate
# 11939
|
Posted
Quite wide -
Middle class toddler based families are probably the core, with a good helping of Older couples (just retired through to 80's), Singles, 'unchurched' types on the fringes.
We usually have 40-60 on a Sunday morning.
--------------------
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stoker
Shipmate
# 11939
|
Posted
Thanks, looks interesting....I'll need to be at home to check some of that stuff out.
--------------------
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
Because top down 'preaching' has it's limitations, I'd really like to hear about other ways of doing things - especially intereactive Sermons/ Bible teaching to help the congregation engage with and learn from the Word.
Ah, an issue close to my heart! I'm a bit of an extremist in that I think most sermons are a waste of time for all concerned - not that most sermons are bad (although some surely are), but that a half-hour lecture is very ineffective at training people in living a certain way (which is what Christianity is all about).
We learn how to do new things or live in a different way by a combination of inspiring talks, observed practising of the tasks, one-to-one support, group encouragement, regular targets and so on - think of work-based apprenticeships, learning a new language, weight-loss programmes etc.
So if part of the goal of church attendance is to help us live better, more godly lives then I'd say there should be a similar approach - maybe in our church meetings there might be time to share stories with one another, sessions where we set and review targets (i.e. spiritual disciplines) for changing how we live, plenty of time to pray with one another.
To be honest, I think an awful lot of Christian discipleship doesn't happen in church services at all, but rather in friendship groups, mission or service projects and other things that actually get us to share our lives with one another and see what God is doing. So our church services should encourage all of that stuff, and what we currently do in our church services should be examined to see whether it is helping us draw nearer to God and be changed more into his likeness.
Of course, some will say our church services are an act of worship to God, so my thoughts about whether or not we are transformed into God's likeness are a red herring. But IMO the New Testament is clear that our whole lives are (or should be) an act of worship; there is no such thing as 'Sunday worship', 'worship services', 'attending worship' and suchlike.
Um, sorry about the rant. As for concrete suggestions that are still kind of similar to sermons, I quite like short videos with discussion and prayer afterwards. But it's all largely a waste of time, I think, unless there's follow-up afterwards, or at least a mechanism provided so that people can take their thoughts from the teaching and actually do something about 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
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I don't see the sermon as primarily "teaching", let alone "training". Plenty of time during the week for that sort of thing, for me. I see preaching primarily as "proclamation" - the proclamation of the Gospel. Might that put a rather different spin on the issue?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Stoker
Out of interest, are you a preacher or minister? Do you have a lot of influence in your congregation?
You should realise that it's likely to be difficult to convince your congregation to change the patterns that they've become accustomed to. If you're not the minister/preacher then whoever is will probably be fairly doubtful about making the proposed changes. They'll assume that making things significantly more interactive will create more work for them, and will make them more vulnerable. Any significant change to the 10-30 minute monologue format will represent a challenge to their authority. What works in your weekday job is unlikely to be of great interest to them, unfortunately.
I was 'only' a church steward, and I realised that my dreams of movement in this direction were not going to happen, for the above reasons. The books I was reading confirmed that these are real issues for many congregations, not just my own.
(It must be much easier for church plants and Fresh Expressions churches to be 'alternative', because they don't have an established congregation to convince.)
On a more positive note, I'd love to hear of established congregations engaging in more participatory church practices. This sort of thing is more likely to happen in mixed congregations where morale is high, where the workload doesn't always fall on the same, small number of people, and where there's a strong desire to promote spiritual growth. This might be your church....
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
To be honest, I think an awful lot of Christian discipleship doesn't happen in church services at all, but rather in friendship groups, mission or service projects and other things that actually get us to share our lives with one another and see what God is doing. So our church services should encourage all of that stuff, and what we currently do in our church services should be examined to see whether it is helping us draw nearer to God and be changed more into his likeness.
This is the key for me - sermons need to be linked in with all the other situations in which Christian discipleship is happening throughout the church community. They should encourage and enhance what else is happening, not exist on an island that is perhaps only linked to the rest of what happens during that hour on Sunday morning.
A suggestion as to what that might look like? Perhaps a series of linked sermons across a themed series (for example going through a book of the Bible in chunks which may or may not follow the conventional chapter/verse divisions) which each last no longer than 10 minutes and use an inductive approach that asks open-ended questions rather than a top-down dictatorial approach. Leave chapter and verse numbers out of it so the text can be read as it was meant to be read (instead of how some bloke in the 13th century thought it should be read) with the number-free text provided in printed and online formats.
Then you throw it to your small groups to discuss during the week, and get the leaders to bring back responses and further questions which the preacher can discuss in a 20 minute time slot at the next Sunday (i.e. replace your 30 minute sermon with 20 minutes discussion and 10 minutes of the next content) before the 10 minute introduction to the next bit.
This can be expanded to use a variety of different communication methods - for example asking a few different people in the congregation to each post a short video blog during the week (one each day from Monday to Friday) where they talk about their response and questions that come from it, making sure you get a cross section of ages including one 15-20 youth and one 60+ senior, and no more than one person who has done formal theological study. That blog can in turn be opened up to moderated comments from others, which might give a clue as to who could be a good person to ask to do video pieces for future series so as to mix up the voices being heard.
ETA - this happened at my church. Many people really got into it and grew through it. It also annoyed the hell out of some others because the normal "good sermon Bob" was met by the pastor asking them a question of it. Still others were annoyed when small group leaders told them to put their commentaries and concordances away and engage with the word themselves.
[ 26. February 2013, 12:58: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I couldn't say how effective a sermon is for "training people in living a certain way," but it's a perfect way to present and explicate the Gospel for the edification of the faithful.
On the other hand, keep it under 20 minutes. There's a reason movies always have an explosion at the 20 minute mark. ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I don't see the sermon as primarily "teaching", let alone "training". Plenty of time during the week for that sort of thing, for me. I see preaching primarily as "proclamation" - the proclamation of the Gospel. Might that put a rather different spin on the issue?
I don't think it does, really. IMO, the main context for the 'proclamation of the Gospel' is with non-Christians, and even then I'm doubtful as to whether a lecture-type scenario is the best approach these days. Public oratory is, on the whole (rightly or wrongly), a thing of the past.
Adeodatus, if you see the proclamation of the Gospel as a valid, important thing to take place within church services, what would you say is the purpose of such proclamation? What results are intended?
--------------------
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
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I don't see the sermon as primarily "teaching", let alone "training". Plenty of time during the week for that sort of thing, for me. I see preaching primarily as "proclamation" - the proclamation of the Gospel. Might that put a rather different spin on the issue?
I don't think it does, really. IMO, the main context for the 'proclamation of the Gospel' is with non-Christians, and even then I'm doubtful as to whether a lecture-type scenario is the best approach these days. Public oratory is, on the whole (rightly or wrongly), a thing of the past.
Adeodatus, if you see the proclamation of the Gospel as a valid, important thing to take place within church services, what would you say is the purpose of such proclamation? What results are intended?
I agree. That old "it's about proclamation, not teaching" line is just a meaningless old chestnut useful purely for fluffing up the self-esteem of poor preachers.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
I agree. That old "it's about proclamation, not teaching" line is just a meaningless old chestnut useful purely for fluffing up the self-esteem of poor preachers.
I tend to find that it's the poor preachers that try to get creative with their sermons.
[ 26. February 2013, 13:17: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I tend to find that people drawing easy correlations between particular styles, practices and approaches and quality of the people adopting them are a complete pain the arse and too interested in point scoring.
The sermon occupies different functions in different traditions. I'm guessing from what Stoker describes as "normal" he's from an evangelical tradition with didactic and quite long sermons. Not my cup of tea, but that's me. Obviously he's going to be looking for ways to reinvent what happens within that tradition and with that approach and intention.
There's a tendency, which we all easily fall for, and which we all need to try to avoid (and I nearly did it when my first response was "liturgy?") to try to turn these sorts of threads into attempts to make the OPer a bit more like us.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I don't think it does, really. IMO, the main context for the 'proclamation of the Gospel' is with non-Christians,
The Bible, the Old Testament isfull of re-statements of God's wonders, God's acts, God's character, God's love and mercy, God's defeating of Israel's enemies - all by God's people and towards God's people. What is Passover if not, at least in part, a re-telling of the Exodus story? What are so many of the Psalms if not telling of what God has done, of who God is, of the promises God has made to Israel? They already know this stuff - although they're quite liable to forget it - but it keeps being repeated time and again.
Why? Perhaps because they do forget it, they forget who they and what God has done for them and turn to other gods instead. The story is re-told to draw them back to God.
Or perhaps because this is their story, this is what makes them who they are. It's not just important, it's central and crucial to their life together- without that story, with those acts of God, without those experiences of God's love and salvation and protection and deliverance, they wouldn't exist.
Isn't it the same for us Christians? The Gospel is our story, of how God saved us, delivered us, made us His people through Jesus Christ (however we understand those terms working out in practice). Without that story, we wouldn't exist as God's people and we wouldn't have the hope that the Gospel brings us (again, however we understand that hope).
Surely our corporate, Sunday morning worship, is remembering that, confessing it, declaring it to ourselves and to God as much as to the outside world. We tell our story, remind ourselves of who we are together as God's people as part of the way we train ourselves to be God's people during the rest of the week. It's not, or shouldn't be the whole of it, but it's part of that proclamation, that declaration of who God is and what He's done for it.
And the sermon is part of that. As are the hymns. As are the prayers (for surely even our intercessions are offered up in the hope of the Gospel, in the light of all God has done for us). As is Communion/Eucharist/Mass/Lord's Supper.
It may well have a utilitarian usage, in terms of helping us be better Christians. But that's not the main point of it. The main point of it is surely to proclaim God's love and grace shown in Jesus Christ, because this is a good and important and crucial thing to proclaim.
And surely our discipleship can only happen in response to the Gospel, to the Good News of Jesus Christ. If we don't hear that Gospel, then how do we live in response to it? Even the best Christians have this tendency to forget, never mind the rubbish Christians like me! Don't we need to hear and to proclaim together what we believe, what God has done for us?
quote:
and even then I'm doubtful as to whether a lecture-type scenario is the best approach these days. Public oratory is, on the whole (rightly or wrongly), a thing of the past.
Then why do people pay goodness-knows-how much to go and sit and listen to stand-up comedians? If you go to a comedy gig, you have even less input than in even the most non-interactive service: at least there you'll get to sing some hymns or songs, you might even get to pray. At a comedy gig, literally all you're expected to do is laugh and applaud at the right moments - you don't get any say in what happens, you don't particularly get to interact (unless it's on the comedian's terms), you don't get to argue or say "yes, but". You're just expected to sit and listen and laugh in agreement. And yet people will pay silly money to go and do it, to listen to one person talking for much longer than even the most long-winded preacher.
Sorry, that's a bit heat of the moment. I do honestly think Adeodatus is right, though. Preaching is a lousy way of teaching. But the Christian life is not all about learning to be better disciples - that's a huge part of it, yes. But I think there's more, much more to it than that.
--------------------
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
tgc - thanks for sharing your experience; it's great that plenty of people in your church found it helpful and productive!
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The sermon occupies different functions in different traditions. I'm guessing from what Stoker describes as "normal" he's from an evangelical tradition with didactic and quite long sermons. Not my cup of tea, but that's me. Obviously he's going to be looking for ways to reinvent what happens within that tradition and with that approach and intention.
Mmm, good point. But for all the different functions a sermon occupies from tradition to tradition, does the sermon really fulfil that function well? For contexts where a sermon's function is to edify the faithful (as Zach82 said), do most sermons actually achieve this? Likewise for other contexts - does the typical sermon achieve its purported aim or is there scope for significant development?
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Nothing much to add, except to say that people pay to listen to comedians because they're funny and enjoyable to listen to for that reason.
Sermons often... erm...
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Nothing much to add, except to say that people pay to listen to comedians because they're funny and enjoyable to listen to for that reason.
Sermons often... erm...
Did think that when I was ranting just then... didn't want to undermine my own point, though... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
I knew of a church in Canada that had a very short introductory sermon followed by an open platform for people to ask questions and to 'discuss' in a slightly stilted way. It was a format described to me back in the mid 90's by about four or five different visitors - sadly I didn't retain the name of the church, but what did stick with me was one comment by one of the visitors when they asked the priest how they got to this stage. His response was that they wanted to have a new format for the sermon, but he told the visitor that the congregation had gone through a lot of pain and struggle to get there as the format demanded quite a lot of openness and honesty and a good deal of risk too, changing the whole dimension of 'being at church'.
The other thing that stuck with me was the increased length of services. Now I'm no stickler for being a slave to time, but the length of their services would have certainly put me off attending every Sunday, yet time was needed for that format.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I don't see the sermon as primarily "teaching", let alone "training". Plenty of time during the week for that sort of thing, for me. I see preaching primarily as "proclamation" - the proclamation of the Gospel. Might that put a rather different spin on the issue?
I don't think it does, really. IMO, the main context for the 'proclamation of the Gospel' is with non-Christians, and even then I'm doubtful as to whether a lecture-type scenario is the best approach these days. Public oratory is, on the whole (rightly or wrongly), a thing of the past.
Adeodatus, if you see the proclamation of the Gospel as a valid, important thing to take place within church services, what would you say is the purpose of such proclamation? What results are intended?
I agree. That old "it's about proclamation, not teaching" line is just a meaningless old chestnut useful purely for fluffing up the self-esteem of poor preachers.
Thanks a flaming bunch.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
We could always try what Jesus did. Preach the gospel. And make it so. For EVERY ONE.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
tgc - thanks for sharing your experience; it's great that plenty of people in your church found it helpful and productive!
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The sermon occupies different functions in different traditions. I'm guessing from what Stoker describes as "normal" he's from an evangelical tradition with didactic and quite long sermons. Not my cup of tea, but that's me. Obviously he's going to be looking for ways to reinvent what happens within that tradition and with that approach and intention.
Mmm, good point. But for all the different functions a sermon occupies from tradition to tradition, does the sermon really fulfil that function well? For contexts where a sermon's function is to edify the faithful (as Zach82 said), do most sermons actually achieve this? Likewise for other contexts - does the typical sermon achieve its purported aim or is there scope for significant development?
Three points (because we're talking about sermons)
1. How well you do something is quite a different question to whether you should do it or how it should be done. I was just addressing all the "you don't want to do it like that, you want to do it like this!".
2. If there's one thing I've learnt over the last few months, and especially the last few weeks, it's not everyone is like you, and not everyone should do things the way you like them done.
3. A hell of a lot of the arguments we put forward for doing things the way we like them are post hoc justifications for our personal preferences, rather than cast-iron reasons why we're right and those Carflicks/happy clappies/Evangelicaloonies/High and Dead traditional nominal Christians/Shallow charismatics/[fill in the blank here] are wrong.
We're all as bad as each other.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I'm doubtful as to whether a lecture-type scenario is the best approach these days. Public oratory is, on the whole (rightly or wrongly), a thing of the past.
Then why do people pay goodness-knows-how much to go and sit and listen to stand-up comedians? If you go to a comedy gig, you have even less input than in even the most non-interactive service: at least there you'll get to sing some hymns or songs, you might even get to pray. At a comedy gig, literally all you're expected to do is laugh and applaud at the right moments - you don't get any say in what happens, you don't particularly get to interact (unless it's on the comedian's terms), you don't get to argue or say "yes, but". You're just expected to sit and listen and laugh in agreement. And yet people will pay silly money to go and do it, to listen to one person talking for much longer than even the most long-winded preacher.
One rather cruel answer to that is that comedians are usually experts of winning oratory and delivery, but the clergy are not. There was a time when actors used to attend sermons to pick up tips, but those days are long gone. Without great skills a comedian won't make a living; an average or even fairly poor preacher can remain in ministry so long as s/he has tolerable skills in other areas. A declining congregation is far more acceptable than a declining audience!
quote:
Preaching is a lousy way of teaching. But the Christian life is not all about learning to be better disciples - that's a huge part of it, yes. But I think there's more, much more to it than that.
What purpose does the sermon serve? One clergyman described sermons as food, keeping us spiritually healthy without our understanding the biological reasons why, and without requiring that we remember everything we've eaten. A sociologist said that since many sermons are forgotten so quickly, they're hardly about content at all but have a communal, ritualistic purpose, helping to reinforce group identity and cohesion. There are probably many other explanations.
I don't know. All I can say is, in the UK, where church life is increasingly unattractive to many, there's no special reason why the sermon should dominate church gatherings.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I think it very much depends on personality - I really, really hate (in a secular as well as sacred context) interactive forms of learning. And doubt if I'm the only one. Perhaps there needs to be different kinds of services - ones which involve more interaction and ones which don't - and be advertised as such. So that people can make an informed choice, based on personality type.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
In a perfect world, the sermon would be the occasion for informing (or reminding) the congregation what the implications of the lessons are for their lives. In reality, it often happens that most of the congregation has been poorly catechized and are ignorant of basic Christian doctrine, and these people are not the ones who will come to a Bible study or other educational offering. So quite often, the sermon is the only chance we have to communicate an understanding of what the Church believes. I wish that weren't where we are, but it's where we are.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Any of this http://www.theworkofthepeople.com/index.php?ct=site.home any use to you?
If you're locked into a long half hour "sermon" spot, you might break it up with material of that ilk.
There are some very good speakers on that site.
Like Chorister, i dislike interactive stuff (too reminiscent of bad in-service training days) but I am in a minority and it isn't for me to dictate what best suits a congregation.
If you have a 30 minute preaching slot, a ten minute video clip followed by discussion in small groups (no more than 6. 4 is preferable) with some carefully worded questions that lead to a 'how does this apply to our lives? can be very good.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
So quite often, the sermon is the only chance we have to communicate an understanding of what the Church believes. I wish that weren't where we are, but it's where we are.
For sure. However, I wonder if using the sermon like this simply reinforces the pattern whereby most Christians get no doctrinal instruction apart from the Sunday meeting / service. People get just enough 'input' that they carry on as they are, neither seeking nor being encouraged to grow and develop their faith in between Sundays.
--------------------
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
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
Good question, Kevin. I suspect that it's because many people have the mindset that "Church is for Sundays"--this is the reason that only a sub-group of the church turns up for services on holy days during the week. I also suspect that if my sermons presumed more doctrinal knowledge on the part of the congregation, many of them would be lost. So I'm still unwilling to pull the didactic rug from under their feet; I think it's the most useful thing I can give them where they are, so that's what they'll get.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Imma guess that weekly church-goers and sermon hearers are the least likely to get it into their heads that Christianity is merely a Sunday affair.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Imma guess that weekly church-goers and sermon hearers are the least likely to get it into their heads that Christianity is merely a Sunday affair.
I didn't say Christianity, but church. What I refer to is the attitude that going to church (for whatever reason) is what we do on Sundays, and why on earth would you need to go there on any other day of the week?
That doesn't necessarily mean that they're not Christians other days of the week, of course, which is a separate issue.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I wasn't speaking about you in particular, Fr Weber. Sorry for not making that clear. There seems a general concern here against reinforcing what we'll call "Sunday Christianity." But it doesn't seem to me that sermons have the effect. It's probably the people that only go to church a couple times a year that are more likely to limit their Christian experience in that way.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
One of the reasons to focus on Sunday is that, at least here, the chances of getting anyone out to do anything on any other occasion are next to nil. Our building is driving distance away from almost every member's house: no car, no attending. People work until at least 6 in the evening, 5 days a week. They're not free to get to anything at the church (travel home, eat a meal, get to church) until at least 8. And that's assuming they have no children (and many do) with homework, activities and so on. It also assumes they aren't over about 65, when peole generally are reluctant to come out after dark, especially in our winter -- which conveniently covers the bulk of the year outside summer vacations. And it assumes they do nothing outside church, family and work.
I remember reading a book on evangelism by Michael Green. WHole bunches of what it said were applicable if you lived in an English village or similar, but weren't so helpful if you lived in a city. One thing he said struck me as critical. People should limit involvement in church and related activities to one night (or afternoon) a week in addition to Sunday service -- so that they can spend time with their families, their friends, and their other activities -- which is where they will find non-CHristians, make friends with them and, perhaps, in the long run, interest them in coming to church (or the equivalent).
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Felafool
Shipmate
# 270
|
Posted
Martin PC wrote [/B] quote:
We could always try what Jesus did. Preach the gospel. And make it so. For EVERY ONE
I think it might have been J John who wrote: Jesus spent most of his time telling stories and asking questions. We spend most of our time preaching sermons and giving answers.
I heard the recently retired ABC Rowan Williams give a model lesson of a sermon - exactly 8 minutes long, biblical, deep, inspiring, challenging.
I heard Rob Bell speak without notes or powerpoint or illustrations for 90 minutes...biblical, deep, inspiring, challenging.
( and, incidentally, 2000 others queued to pay to hear him)
But I have heard 8 minute homilies that have gone on too long by ...8 minutes, as well as 40 minute sermons that should have been foreshortened.
I have been in interactive sessions (not yet met many people who like those at all - let's all talk about our ignorance)
Merely to say it's more about substance and style than timing or method IMHO.
Having said that I know that there are people who do tend to appreciate it when I speak (including Mrs Felafel). And I know there are some who look forward to a good snooze when I'm on the rota!
--------------------
I don't care if the glass is half full or half empty - I ordered a cheeseburger.
Posts: 265 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Good question, Kevin. I suspect that it's because many people have the mindset that "Church is for Sundays"--this is the reason that only a sub-group of the church turns up for services on holy days during the week... So I'm still unwilling to pull the didactic rug from under their feet...
Fair enough, and I love your 'didactic rug' phrase! However, I didn't particularly have in mind that greater engagement would be evidenced by more attendance at official church activities. It could be, but it could also be about people engaging with God through the rest of the week, both on their own and informally with others.
But if the format of the main Sunday (for most churches) gathering involves lots of teaching-type activities - the few feeding the many - then I suspect that discourages and disempowers the many from taking action to engage with God outside the main gathering.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I used to be in a tradition which valued preaching very highly. Some of our preachers were very good - they were witty, engaging, 'relevant', inspiring ... but - and it's a big BUT - a lot of it was pulpiteering and rhetoric.
It could be way, way, way over the top with the result that expectations were raised - revival, 'multitudes saved and healed' and so on - only for them to be cruelly dashed.
I'm exceedingly wary of the giant platform approach - the sort of thing that so many preachers in that kind of tradition see and hear and try to emulate.
So, I'm with South Coast Kevin on their being a 'more excellent way'.
I've mentioned elsewhere on these boards how the local RC ladies here seem to be nourished and sustained by their weekly lay-led 'lectio divina' sessions. They use notes circulated around the parishes from some bishopric or other and these study notes are very good indeed. They are well grounded, sensible and have useful background notes and suggested discussion questions.
These old girls know their stuff. They'll tell you that catechesis was pretty poor in their youth and that it's only recently that they've taken to studying the Bible in small groups. I've yet to hear any of them come out with iffy Trinitarian formularies and statements in the way that I've heard them in Protestant circles - including evangelical ones.
I suspect it's a case of both/and not either/or. I've heard preachers I could happily listen to all day. Others would give me the screaming ad-dabs after about 30 seconds.
Liturgy helps too. It's passing in so many circles is a sad loss because by-and-large it's being replaced by subjectivism and the-thoughts-of-chairman-whoever-happens-to-be-leading-that-week.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think we're talking about what the more Catholic traditions call 'spiritual formation' here, South Coast Kevin.
In the more Catholic traditions there's an emphasis on a 'rule of life' - a regular rhythm of prayer, devotion, alms-giving etc etc.
That's not to say that everyone in those traditions takes advantage of the opportunity - but the opportunities are there.
I don't know how you can encourage and embed these things into people's spiritual lives. I've got all on trying to incorporate them into my own.
Pressure and 'holy days of obligation' and so on can't be the answer surely ... rather like the old RC thing of Mass attendance being compulsory on pain of jeopardising one's soul.
I've been involved with groups where house-group attendance was compulsory too. It's not compulsory, of course, in our local parish church but it's encouraged to the extent that you are seen as being outside of things if you don't go to one. I don't. I've not been to a house-group in my own church for four years. They annoy me too much.
I s'pose I live on my hump and also sustain myself through the Lenten groups at this time of year and through a regular pattern of personal devotion that has gradually taken on a somewhat Anglican/Orthodox form. It does mean that I'm ploughing something of a lone furrow, but that's how it is.
It's not for me to say whether or not it's working nor to evaluate the extent that I live out my faith week-by-week. Perhaps I ought to find a 'spiritual director'. For various reasons I don't trust the discernment levels in my own parish to look for that sort of thing there.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uriel
Shipmate
# 2248
|
Posted
Responding to Stoker's request for how things have been done differently, here's something I've tried in my church. I am a reader in an Anglican church, about 130-150 congregation and fairly low evanangelical and used to trying things differently. We are lucky in having one pirest, two retired clergy and three readers, so the congregation are used to different voices at the front.
One method we occasionally use is to interview someone from the congregation about something. It would be presumptious of me to assume that I knew better than the 150 odd people listening to me, and for applied issues (faith at work, in a family context, etc.) it comes across much better to talk over the issues with someone living out their faith in that situation. I have also done the "sermon" slot as an interview, where I talked about the Bible passage with the priest for 10 minutes, and after a song had someone from the congregation lined up to come and talk with us both about what the passage meant to them.
I do this from time to time because people are much more used to listening in to conversations than they are being talked to directly for 15 minutes.
That said, the norm is the standard sermon, although often done in different ways, partly due to having different people who preach week by week. And I think there is much, much more to preaching than just imparting knowledge. Sometimes you have to try and inspire people, lift their eyes towards heaven, connect emotionally. It's not just about pouring facts into their head.
Posts: 687 | From: Somerset, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
You are low church evangelical and refer to 'priests'? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Our low church evangelical vicar refuses to be referred to as a priest - other than in a 'priesthood of all believers' sense.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uriel
Shipmate
# 2248
|
Posted
Priest, Rector, Vicar, Minister - all pretty much the same to me. Not sure how the vicar would refer to himself. But I worked for a while in Diocesan administration, and enjoyed working with Anglican clergy from across the spectrum, irrespective of what they called themselves.
Posts: 687 | From: Somerset, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel: You are low church evangelical and refer to 'priests'?
Our low church evangelical vicar refuses to be referred to as a priest - other than in a 'priesthood of all believers' sense.
That's fair enough if he's talking about the Temple "priesthood". Jesus is our only individual "priest" in the Old Testament sense. The "priesthood of all believers" is our communal and collective participation in the priesthood of Jesus.
But the personal "priesthood" of an ordained Christian minister is something different. Such priests are presbyters, elders of the chuch. They are not intermediaries between God and his people, they are not Temple priests. (As us low-church evangelicals know well, but them Catholics over there get very mixed up about ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) )
We don't all have that ministry of eldership, any more than we are all preachers or all teachers or all cleaners or all archdeacons or all van drivers or all PCC secretaries or all deacons or all musicians or all in the Mother's Union or all prophets or all speakers in tongues or all missionaries or all archdeacons or all singers or all doorkeepers in the house of the Lord.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Lots of good discussion here. Just one bit of feeble wisdom to add: Be sure that whatever creative elements you add-- whether that's a video clip, a skit, a funny or moving story, whatever-- is directly related to your MAIN point, not just a side point or image.
I worship at a church where a lot of "industry" people attend ("industry" in LA = film industry). For awhile they had a team of highly creative professionals doing video announcements-- and they were amazing. Often quite funny, brilliantly acted, well scripted and filmed. Problem was... that's what you remembered-- the date of the youth car wash-- rather than whatever the point of the sermon was. Then they figured that out and had them doing film clips to introduce the sermon, but the problem was the creative team didn't have the sermon outline, so all they could do was riff of the general theme. So a series on relationships began each week with hilarious send-ups of prime-time soap operas that were quite memorable, but really didn't connect to the message itself, and so didn't help reinforce the main point.
Most of us are visual learners. Our church services, and particularly the sermon, are mostly auditory. It's a good idea to add visuals, to add movement, to add creative elements. Just remember to place it wisely, because that's what will be remembered-- to the point of overshadowing all else. Make it count.
[ 27. February 2013, 19:31: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm just waiting for an Anglo-Catholic to come along and try to put you straight, ken ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I didn't say Christianity, but church. What I refer to is the attitude that going to church (for whatever reason) is what we do on Sundays, and why on earth would you need to go there on any other day of the week?
Speaking personally, I usually don't manage to go to church mid-week because I have a young family, and our mid-week services are usually at bed-time (and for something special, like Easter, Mrs. Cniht sings in the choir, so I'm the babysitter.) I don't think I'm terribly unusual.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If you have a 30 minute preaching slot, a ten minute video clip followed by discussion in small groups (no more than 6. 4 is preferable) with some carefully worded questions that lead to a 'how does this apply to our lives? can be very good.
I have yet to encounter a small-group discussion at church that I have derived any benefit from. I still live in hope.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I have yet to encounter a small-group discussion at church that I have derived any benefit from.
Can you say why this might be the case?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I have yet to encounter a small-group discussion at church that I have derived any benefit from.
Can you say why this might be the case?
For my part I don't find a group of people sitting around sharing their common ignorance enhances my faith.
There's a reason why most traditions require preachers and teachers to have training and to be licensed.
[ 28. February 2013, 11:37: Message edited by: Basilica ]
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
One method we occasionally use is to interview someone from the congregation about something... I have also done the "sermon" slot as an interview... I do this from time to time because people are much more used to listening in to conversations than they are being talked to directly for 15 minutes.
I like the sound of this; thanks for sharing. And that's a really good point about conversations beting more familiar to most people than monologues.
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
For my part I don't find a group of people sitting around sharing their common ignorance enhances my faith.
There's a reason why most traditions require preachers and teachers to have training and to be licensed.
If the goal is to impart knowledge about a particular passage or topic from the Bible, then I agree that a sermon given by someone trained is likely to be much better than a small-group discussion without such a person ('sitting around sharing their common ignorance' indeed).
But small-group discussions can be about people sharing the impact a particular passage has had on them, or about their experiences of God in some context or other. I've taken part in really fruitful, inspiring discussions where people talk about a Bible passage that's been particularly meaningful for them, not focusing on the academic side of things at all but on their experience of God through his word.
After all, much of Christianity really is pretty simple, isn't it? We read, understand and fail to obey far more than we read but don't understand, ISTM. We don't need knowledgeable teachers to learn from so much as wise and holy leaders to emulate (not that these are mutually exclusive categories, of course).
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The thing is, South Coast Kevin, 'experiences' can be deceptive and one of the reasons why I no longer attend a house-group at our parish is because I got fed up of dominant personalities at the house-group taking over and blarting on about how God had said this, that and the other to them every five minutes.
I think the RC Lent Group I've been attending gets over that because whilst there's clearly an individual/experiential element in what some of the people share it's all done within a framework and context that keeps things on track.
It's not for nothing that some of the older traditions have 'rules and regulations' if you like - such as the strict rules and procedures that govern Orthodox iconography for instance or the caveats that surround the practice of RC spiritual direction ... these might always be adhered to but at least they exist.
For my own part, I'm far happier these days working my way through a Lectionary and observing the traditional feasts and fasts (to an extent) rather than going to a small group and listening to other people's subjective experiences and how God has shown them this that or the other - when half the time it's simply the bleedin' obvious.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm just waiting for an Anglo-Catholic to come along and try to put you straight, ken ...
What Ken said is completely in line with anglo-catholic teaching - indeed Roman Catholic teaching as set out in lumen gentium's section on the constitution of the church.
[ 28. February 2013, 15:14: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
There's a reason why most traditions require preachers and teachers to have training and to be licensed.
Other than it being an attempt to ensure that novel ideas are marginalised and all preachers will follow the 'party line', you mean?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
