|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eccles: What is preaching for?
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
Or, calling Doublethink to Eccles.
I'll apologize now for starting a new thread before I go away to a conference for the weekend, but something DT said on another thread piqued my interest:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Then church and worship become about how you derive the strength to be who you aspire to be. Also the person you are called to be.
...Why preach to those who already believe, it is not as if the end of the nativity story comes as a huge shock each year ?
... And preaching is usually about how do we use what we know/believe to deal with situation x in life. Or perhaps why concept x is important (which then goes on to influence how we deal with situation x.)
I like the first paragraph but really disagree with the last, so I wanted to see what other people thought. Church and worship is definitely about how we become who we're called to be. The answer to that how-question is a who: God.
I don't preach about how to deal with situation X or why concept Y is important. I preach the good news of God's action in our life. We preach to people who already know how the story ends, because the old old story is worth re-telling. (We should also do evangelistic preaching, but that's another issue).
Of course, I think people should discern how to deal with situation X and wrestle with the big questions like Y, but especially with the discernment, I can't do that for you in a homily. If you need human help to do that, then that's one of the things pastoral counselling (or possibly confession) is for, as well as various forms of small Christian communities, including the one that has pride of place: the domestic church.
Most bad preaching that I hear has too much moralism and too small a Gospel. I want to hear the words of everlasting life.
[ 29. April 2013, 22:05: Message edited by: seasick ]
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I've said before that preaching is part of an act of communal worship. It should be something that actively engages the whole worshiping community, not something with one active preacher and a group of passive listeners. Something that is worship and leads to worship.
Preaching should the an integral part of the whole service. The aim, for me at least, is through the sermon, choice of hymns and prayers to allow a space for the words of Scripture to feed each member of the congregation, and the congregation as a whole. I often find that the service imparts fresh insights into the faith, but more often than not those insights are gained as I let the words of the readings, the sermon, the hymns mix together (and, of course, part of that would be in conversation after the service finishes) - and it is not unusual for those insights to be something that the preacher didn't mention at all.
As an occasional preacher I don't aim to tell the congregation something new, to teach them. The members of the congregation have been regular church goers for 30, 40, 50, 60 years longer than I have; I'm not going to pretend that a young whipper snapper can come along and tell them something they've not heard before. What I aim to do is retell part of the old, old story, to crack open the text a little way and let some light out. And, then pray that that light might show something to the congregation, and each member of the congregation, that makes sense of something they are dealing with. And, more importantly to guide the congregation to the point where they once again hear something of the gospel and go "wow! God is just so good"
--------------------
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
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Preaching as I've experienced is usually talking about how these readings apply - in context, what they could mean to us now, what was being said at the time.
The sort of talk and discussions about applications and ideas is something we have tried building into evening sessions, both Sunday and mid week in Lent. There have been Lent sessions and a monthly sort of café church. These have aimed at providing a forum for anyone interested - not particularly Fresh Expressions or outreach, more a way of providing Christian education, somewhere for adults in the congregation to explore ideas further. And in theory it's what the teenagers do in their Sunday morning group.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
Most bad preaching that I hear has too much moralism and too small a Gospel. I want to hear the words of everlasting life.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Agreed.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I've said before that preaching is part of an act of communal worship. It should be something that actively engages the whole worshiping community, not something with one active preacher and a group of passive listeners. Something that is worship and leads to worship.
Yes! More important than any expository, exegetical or moral aspect is that the sermon must be doxological, that is to say, it must give praise, worship and adoration to God.
The sermon is part of the worship of the whole congregation. It is not a bolt-on addition to do a little bit of teaching.
quote:
As an occasional preacher I don't aim to tell the congregation something new, to teach them. The members of the congregation have been regular church goers for 30, 40, 50, 60 years longer than I have; I'm not going to pretend that a young whipper snapper can come along and tell them something they've not heard before. What I aim to do is retell part of the old, old story, to crack open the text a little way and let some light out. And, then pray that that light might show something to the congregation, and each member of the congregation, that makes sense of something they are dealing with. And, more importantly to guide the congregation to the point where they once again hear something of the gospel and go "wow! God is just so good"
Thank you for this. I am 23, and find that my biggest obstacle to preaching. What hard-won wisdom do I have compared to Mrs X, who has worshipped in this church three times as long as I've been able to go to the loo by myself? The danger is slipping back into academic theology, which I can do.
What you say is a very helpful way for me to think about what I can be aiming for.
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
Most bad preaching that I hear has too much moralism and too small a Gospel. I want to hear the words of everlasting life.
Agreed.
The bad preaching I hear too often is not obviously moralistic. It just reduces the gospel to "all you need is lurve" without indicating how God shows his love in a mortal and vulnerable world. And that's just as much moralistic (in so far as it is reduced to "how to live your life") and ignoring the gospel).
As a churchgoer of over forty years, I would be only too happy to hear an intelligent and sensitive whipper-snapper make my faith come alive and not reduce it to vacuous sentimental platitudes.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Personally I quite like a few short random starters for independent thought. I'm an advocate of the "young lady's skirt length" formula for sermons - long enough to cover the essentials but no longer.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Personally I quite like a few short random starters for independent thought. I'm an advocate of the "young lady's skirt length" formula for sermons - long enough to cover the essentials but no longer.
Speaking as one who preaches occasionally I completely agree: Long enough to cover the essentials, short enough to be interesting...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Personally I quite like a few short random starters for independent thought. I'm an advocate of the "young lady's skirt length" formula for sermons - long enough to cover the essentials but no longer.
Speaking as one who preaches occasionally I completely agree: Long enough to cover the essentials, short enough to be interesting...
AFZ
I only really posted so's I could make that joke.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
Alan, Basillica etc... some really good stuff in there.
Everytime I preach, I pray these words before I start:
Lord, your words and not mine. And may everyone leave here different to how they walked in because they met with you.
Amen
I very recently (this year) realised that any preacher worth listening to will never be worthy of the message. I know, I should have realised that a long time ago... but it is both challenging and liberating.
Vanbebe, I think I know EXACTLY what you mean. I think. And that is not love. That is silly sentimentalism. Love - Agape - is tough and challenging and grapples with a very broken world with overwhelming grace. May the preaching I hear inspire me to worship and follow a God who literally embodied that. And may it make me a little more like him.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I've said before that preaching is part of an act of communal worship.
I've said before, that I don't think there's any such thing as an 'act of worship'. But leaving that aside, I don't think it's enough to think of preaching as a 'liturgical ingredient'.
To be in any way effective, I think the person preaching must want to get a message across to his/her hearers, to teach, explain, persuade, inspire, cajole, enthuse or whatever. These words have in common that they are all verbs. The preacher needs to intend to do something by preaching, to want to achieve a result.
Sadly, I've sat through a lot over the years, where either the preacher hasn't had any clear intention, or hasn't managed to get me to listen, or both. I suspect some preachers assume that if I switch off, its my sin.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
"Liturgical ingredient" just sounds dismissive. The sermon is part of the liturgy. If you can take the use of long words seriously, it should be doxological.
It's good if it is also informative, makes me understand the Christian tradition better, challenges me in my faith and life and inspires me. But ideally all that comes from the experience of worship.
And preaching is a two way process. I criticized platitudinous sermons. But it depends on the platitudes. As Screwtape says, the Enemy likes platitudes. If I'm attentive, I can gain something from the tritest sermon.
In a sense it is my sin if I don't give the Christian faith expressed in that sermon (rather than that particular in adequate expression of it)the attention it deserves.
Equally, I hope I have the gift of discernment to ignore the misleading bits.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
I'll re-quote Terry Fullam's take on preaching.
quote:
Preaching is a word about the word about the Word
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
"Liturgical ingredient" just sounds dismissive. The sermon is part of the liturgy. If you can take the use of long words seriously, it should be doxological.
Explain please. The word makes sense on its own, but I don't see what you mean by it in this context.
quote:
It's good if it is also informative, makes me understand the Christian tradition better, challenges me in my faith and life and inspires me.
How can something be 'doxological' if it does not do that?
quote:
But ideally all that comes from the experience of worship.
Isn't worship a verb, something we do, rather than watch, hear or experience?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I've said before that preaching is part of an act of communal worship.
I've said before, that I don't think there's any such thing as an 'act of worship'.
I take your point about the phrase 'act of worship'. But, my main point is that a sermon is (as has been said) doxological - it is a form of worship). And, perhaps more often forgotten it is given in a communal setting. A preacher doen't just proclaim the gospel meesage, the congregation actively engage with that message. Or, they should anyway.
--------------------
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
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
It's so nice when the bishops agree with me:
quote:
New USCCB preaching document:
The ultimate goal of proclaiming the Gospel is to lead people into a loving and intimate relationship with the Lord, a relationship that forms the character of their persons and guides them in living out their faith. ... An effective homily would show the faithful just how much the Son of God loved them in taking our human flesh upon himself.
Make your gospel big enough and character formation will happen.
I didn't know this document would be coming out today when I started this thread; I can't wait to get my copy.
I would agree with people who say that platidunous sermons are bad (I just don't happen to hear many of them). I love what AfZ had to say about preaching challenging love, what Bonhoeffer called 'costly grace.' I also very much agree with the idea of preaching as a doxological act: more 'wow' than 'why' please.
Of course, all this assumes you have somewhere for people to go to apply all this to their lives. A midweek or evening series, some small Christian communities, a pastoral team who are available to meet with people.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Since Enoch asked, I reply. What part of "the sermon is part of the liturgy" don't you understand?
Others have used the word "doxological". I leave them to explain.
Singing "Shine Jesus Shine" is doxological - it is giving glory to God. It doesn't inform me of much.
And I've just looked up the OED online. The earliest use of the noun worship to mean "Reverence or veneration paid to a being or power regarded as supernatural or divine; the action or practice of displaying this by appropriate acts, rites, or ceremonies" is from c1330
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A preacher doen't just proclaim the gospel meesage, the congregation actively engage with that message. Or, they should anyway.
Sometimes I wonder if I'm using the same definitions of words as other people. What does "actively engage with" mean in this context?
I would take it to mean either discussing or actually ("actively", if you prefer) doing something about the message. Neither of which is particularly compatible with just sitting there quietly listening to it and trying not to fall asleep.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Neither of which is particularly compatible with just sitting there quietly listening to it and trying not to fall asleep.
Listening critically, intelligently, imaginatively and humbly. I don't have to let other people know how intelligent, imaginative and humble I'm being.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Listening critically, intelligently, imaginatively and humbly. I don't have to let other people know how intelligent, imaginative and humble I'm being.
"Letting others know how smart I am" wasn't what I was talking about. And what you describe still isn't what I'd call "active", at least not any more than the "activity" involved in trying to concentrate on a lecture.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
You are clearly a more humble person than I am Marvin, as I would always fear I would fall into the temptation in discussion groups of showing off.
If listening intelligently etc and prepared to act on what you hear isn't active, what is? Do I have to jump up and down in my pew?
When I have a conversation with some else, isn't active participation listening to the other person and taking them seriously? Which usually means learning to shut up most of the time. Or do I only count active conversation when I do all the talking and they react to me?
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
When I have a conversation with some else, isn't active participation listening to the other person and taking them seriously? Which usually means learning to shut up most of the time. Or do I only count active conversation when I do all the talking and they react to me?
Active participation in a conversation means listening to the other person and taking them seriously, and then replying while they listen to you and take you seriously in return. Without that second bit it isn't a conversation!
In short, when you have a conversation with someone you both talk. Not at the same time, sure, but there's a definite back-and-forth aspect to it that simply isn't there in any sermon. And it's that back-and-forth aspect that makes a conversation active for both participants rather than passive for the one who never gets to speak.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
For social small talk that is undoubtedly the case.
ken has been magnificently trenchant on the subject of replacing the sermon with discussion with your neighbour.
I find discussion groups embarrassing and boring.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
For social small talk that is undoubtedly the case.
It is the case for any conversation. If all but one of the participants are silent then you've got a speech, not a conversation.
quote:
ken has been magnificently trenchant on the subject of replacing the sermon with discussion with your neighbour.
I'd replace it with nothing. Or possibly a time of free reflection on the day's reading, in which people can speak (and respond to those speaking) if they wish or remain in meditative/prayerful silence if they prefer.
quote:
I find discussion groups embarrassing and boring.
And I find sermons boring to the extent that I often quite genuinely can't keep my eyes open.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A preacher doen't just proclaim the gospel meesage, the congregation actively engage with that message. Or, they should anyway.
Sometimes I wonder if I'm using the same definitions of words as other people. What does "actively engage with" mean in this context?
I would take it to mean either discussing or actually ("actively", if you prefer) doing something about the message. Neither of which is particularly compatible with just sitting there quietly listening to it and trying not to fall asleep.
Well, exactly - the one thing the congregation shouldn't be doing is "just sitting there quietly listening to it and trying not to fall asleep."
A sermon should spark the imagination. It should result in the congregation thinking about the readings and the gospel. If the preacher offers a story from her own experience then it should be implicit that they could recall experiences they have had that illustrate the truth being preached (sometimes I've made it explicit, especially during the 'childrens address' where asking the congregation for an actual response to a question is more usual). If the preacer proclaims the mercy and love of God, the congregation should be saying (in their minds, or out loud if they wish) "Halleluia! Praise God!". If the preacher brings to mind failings in their lives, then "Lord, have mercy!". If the preacher mentions a concern for the world, the church, the local community then a short prayer for that situation is appropriate. At our church, we celebrate Communion every Sunday, and so I try to make sure the sermon also guides the members of the congregation to reflect on the Gospel reading so that when I say "Jesus said 'Do this in remembrance of me'" there's one part of the story of Jesus fresh in people minds - and, usually make sure there's reference to that in the rest of the prayers in preparation for Communion.
It may well be that a 20 minute block of just the preacher speaking fails to do that, and some other form of proclamation would work better. It should, IMO, certainly include members of the congregation thinking through the readings and sermon themselves, either individually or in groups, after the formal conclusion of the service.
--------------------
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
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
As this discussion is on the Ship, many of the participants are themselves preachers, and this affects their replies. If you asked the title question on a forum of lay folk, I think you might hear different responses.
I sometimes hear sermons saying I should give much more money to the church; I have heard a few sermons selling political points; I have often heard autobiographical sermons, sometimes repeatedly from the same individual (and I was not much interested the first time); and most of all I heard sermons that are boringly repetitive. Many preachers seem condescending. Some are obsessed with historical trivia (without a historian's training) and present speculation as fact. I have met preachers who were quite insecure and could not abide questions or criticism. I sometimes joke that a good sermon should have a good beginning and a good end, and the two should be as close together as possible.
Of course, I have also sometimes heard really excellent sermons.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, exactly - the one thing the congregation shouldn't be doing is "just sitting there quietly listening to it and trying not to fall asleep."
The trouble is, if I have to just sit still and listen that's exactly what happens. I can't concentrate. My mind starts wandering, then my eyes start closing, and then I drop off. It even happens in meetings at work, if I'm not directly involved in the active discussion.
Maybe I have an abnormally low boredom threshold.
quote:
It may well be that a 20 minute block of just the preacher speaking fails to do that, and some other form of proclamation would work better.
It most certainly does fail to do any of what you said. There may well be moments at which I'm supposed to say "praise the Lord!", but by those points I'm usually far too bored to notice.
quote:
It should, IMO, certainly include members of the congregation thinking through the readings and sermon themselves, either individually or in groups, after the formal conclusion of the service.
See, what I'm hearing from that is "the congregation's opinions about the text are fine for small groups in the week, but not for the proper Sunday worship time".
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, exactly - the one thing the congregation shouldn't be doing is "just sitting there quietly listening to it and trying not to fall asleep."
The trouble is, if I have to just sit still and listen that's exactly what happens. I can't concentrate. My mind starts wandering, then my eyes start closing, and then I drop off. It even happens in meetings at work, if I'm not directly involved in the active discussion.
I'm not sure it is necessary for every member of the congregation to hang on every word of the preacher. If they find themselves following an unconnected line of thought to the preacher, that doesn't seem to be a problem to me. I preach to provide some guidance for people to think about the gospel, specifically about the texts that have been read. If people don't need that guidance to think about the gospel that's fine with me. And, I define "think about" quite broadly - if the preacher is droning on about how God provides and you are remembering an occassion when he came through for you, or "well, most of the time he doesn't provide - what the feck does that say about God then?" ... both of those are good. Even thinking about how God provides this quiet spot on a Sunday morning to catch up on a bit of missed sleep.
--------------------
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
|
|
Oblatus
Shipmate
# 6278
|
Posted
What I'm not a fan of is when the preacher "takes as my text" the narrowest slice out of the readings of the day. I guess it's one way to do things, but sometimes I fear the preacher is going to start, "I take my text from the Epistle of James: 'The.'"
Posts: 3823 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Marvin the Martian, I'm totally with you on this. I think there are two lines of argument, which come together to give a compelling case for greatly reducing the amount of time spent on sermons.
First, AIUI most people don't learn very effectively when being talked at without the invitation to take part in the conversation there and then. Dialogue is better, multi-sensory even more so, and best is learning-by-doing. Which seems appropriate to me, given that Christianity is rooted in real life - it doesn't matter how much knowledge I have, if I'm not being transformed to live a more godly life.
And then, if we look at the New Testament there is very little evidence of preaching happening in the context of believers' meetings. There's plenty of public preaching (because this is how ideas were spread and weighed up, in the 1st century Roman empire) but maybe just one clear occurrence of someone giving a talk to an audience of mainly believers. And even then, someone fell out of a window having dozed off!
--------------------
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
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
But what many were saying here was the preaching is not just teaching. It is part of the worship of the community.
The speeches at a wedding reception don't tell anyone anything they don't know or need to know. But they are part of the celebration.
I get the impression that Enoch, Marvin and Kevin all think that worship (and I don't know what else to call it, Enoch) is primarily verbal and didactic: the congregation are the passive recipients of information they haven't got.
I don't think like that. It is the occasion when we are united sacramentally, on an equal footing irrespective of our levels of articulacy or sophistication.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I find discussion groups embarrassing and boring.
And I find sermons boring to the extent that I often quite genuinely can't keep my eyes open.
One of the great things about the Ship is that you find unexpected areas of agreement with people you disagree vehemently with on other things. Sermons? If I'd ever heard more than 3 really good ones, I might have a different opinion. Evangelical, Catholic, Orthodox, mainstream Protty -- they are all a wonderful pause in the service to catch up on much-needed rest.
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
The speeches at a wedding reception don't tell anyone anything they don't know or need to know. But they are part of the celebration.
And are usually at least mildly interesting, and never more than 2 or 3 minutes. Plus, they end with a swig of champagne. Make sermons more like that, and I might enjoy them.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
Hate to use bizspeak, but I'd say that preaching is drawing the "line of sight" for the congregation--helping them understand how it all comes together and what it means for them as individuals and as a group.
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Since Enoch asked, I reply. What part of "the sermon is part of the liturgy" don't you understand?
Others have used the word "doxological". I leave them to explain.
Sorry Venbede. To put this as politely as I can, that is a cop-out. You are the one who has chosen to use the term. All I did was to ask you to explain what you meant by it. quote:
Singing "Shine Jesus Shine" is doxological - it is giving glory to God. It doesn't inform me of much. ...
The function of those who lead worship is to serve at the altar so as to enable others to worship. If you are saying a preacher's role is to give glory to God, it must be more accurate to say that it is to cause others to do so.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I get the impression that Enoch, Marvin and Kevin all think that worship (and I don't know what else to call it, Enoch) is primarily verbal and didactic: the congregation are the passive recipients of information they haven't got.
For me, worship is not confined to one particular time, place, or group of activities. I think to 'worship God' means something like to give him praise and due honour, which applies to our whole lives - as per Romans 12:1. That's sort of a tangent, but it impinges on this discussion around the purpose of and appropriate activities within our church services.
Basically, I don't think there's anything special about sermon-giving that means it must be part of what happens when we meet together as a community of (mostly) believers. Let's examine the aim of preaching / sermon-giving and see if there might be more effective ways of achieving that aim.
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I don't think like that. It [the worship service] is the occasion when we are united sacramentally, on an equal footing irrespective of our levels of articulacy or sophistication.
Okay, but my view is this need not involve any kind of preach. When did Jesus institute anything like a sermon or homily as something we should have in our gatherings together? Teaching, for sure, but it should be mutual and interactive, ISTM.
--------------------
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
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
I'll re-quote Terry Fullam's take on preaching.
quote:
Preaching is a word about the word about the Word
I find that extremely profound (but don't let it go to your head ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) ). When I prepare a sermon (which I should be doing now) I wrestle with texts that have inspired and directed a select(ed) people for millenia. The scriptures are not the Word, but they are as I think Barth said before Pratchett) the word or words in which the Word is found.
My job, then, as the Lutherans like to say, is to break open the word about the Word. While I understand the difficulty of preaching as a young person to "learned" older persons that thought has to be put aside: you or I or who ever preaches is chosen in that moment to do justice to that spririt-filled process of breaking open - that is to say making connections, joining the dots between the experience yesterday's People of God and today's People of God.
Like Barth I like one hand or eye on the scriptures (and commentaries) and one hand on the newspaper (more likely to be on-line news these days). My task is then to draw threads, and to ensure they are delivered with enough belief that the congregation can draw their own threads (which often differ, gloriously, idiosyncratically, to mine). And so a tapestry is woven.
The written word of my sermons does not smile. In the delivery comes the smile or gesture that breathes life into moribundity. In the end probably only 5% of what I say in my roughly 16-18 minutes will register. So it is my prayer that this 5% inspires thought or action, combined as it will always be with the themes woven through lectionary and liturgy.
I probably err towards the academic in my approach - I like to think I am one - but hopefully not the merely cerebral. A sermon is not a lecture, so yes, it should be doxological, but also a little didactic. I aim for that. I hope one day I attain it.
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
What I'm not a fan of is when the preacher "takes as my text" the narrowest slice out of the readings of the day. I guess it's one way to do things, but sometimes I fear the preacher is going to start, "I take my text from the Epistle of James: 'The.'"
I avoid doing that--well, at least saying that. To me it smacks of the same by-the-numbers speechifying as "Unaccustomed as I am to public speaking" and "To conclude : ".
--------------------
"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
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
When did Jesus institute anything like a sermon or homily as something we should have in our gatherings together? Teaching, for sure, but it should be mutual and interactive, ISTM.
The farewell discourses in John? Calvin may have believed that we can only have elements in our services that are directly sanctioned by the Bible (so no Christmas) but I prefer to go by the accumulated wisdom and experience of the church.
Sorry, Enoch, I just don't understand. We will have to accept mutual incomprehension, but I thought I was in line with much that had been said up thread by hart and others.
I have a very, very low expectation of sermons indeed. To express my criticisms in the community would be uncharitable and disloyal. I am writing about what they would be ideally. As someone said up thread, the best sermon is by someone who realises she will always be inadequate.
(I'm always interested by a thread where it seems all the contributors are male.)
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Sorry, Enoch, I just don't understand. We will have to accept mutual incomprehension, but I thought I was in line with much that had been said up thread by hart and others.
My regrets also, but that seems to remain the case.
I'm puzzled at being accused of thinking worship is primarily verbal or didactic. Obviously Sermons are verbal. They are often didactic. Worship as a whole isn't. I certainly am not one of those who think the sermon is the most important part of the service, with the rest being just what prepares people to hear the scriptures expounded, or recover afterwards.
Can anyone else help? quote:
I have a very, very low expectation of sermons indeed. ...
At least there, sadly, we can agree. I value preaching. I've heard some wonderful sermons. I've also heard some very sleep inducing ones, often from clergy with inspiring pastoral qualities. How many hours has one spent looking at stained glass or reading the table of kindred and affinity?
I wish so many people didn't feel they have to produce something. If you haven't got anything to say, don't say it. If two minutes of pi-jaw at a weekday service or an 8am Communion is not necessary, five or ten minutes certainly isn't. I've occasionally heard good examples, but most could have been left out with nothing lost.
If the sermon adds nothing, people can worship perfectly well without it.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
Keeping sermons/homilies short is also a good way to minimize alienating people who find it hard to actively engage with a sermon. (To me, "actively engaging" with anything depends on what that thing is - it's the nature of a sermon that you listen to it; active engagement, then, is active listening. I think it's comparable to when you actively watch/engage with a movie or TV show v. when you passively watch a movie or TV show.)
I'm in the "preaching is doxological" camp. Discussion, IMO, may work in some settings, but if it isn't part of a worship service that isn't because no one's opinion besides the preacher's is valued. The worship service has to be a communal activity, and opening the floor to discussion in some settings might jeopardize that - in some cases, it might bring debate, or disruption, or one or more participants might hijack the discussion. Just as we're content to feast on a bite of consecrated Bread and a sip of consecrated Wine in the Eucharist rather than insisting on having a full meal, we ritualize the response to the Gospel, usually as a homily. Discussions are more appropriate, IMO, in classes or after-service settings, just as a full meal is more appropriate outside the worship service - although a meal can be worshipful, and so can a discussion. So can doing the dishes, but we don't do that in the service (although we might ritualize it by doing ablutions after the Eucharist!).
I used a phrase above, "response to the Gospel" - that's actually the term we use where I work in the leaflet for our 6pm service, which is small and meditative. More often than not, we get a repeat of the sermon from the 11am service, but not always. One really nice departure recently was when a priest gave a guided meditation, Ignation-Exercise-style, of the Gospel passage we had just heard. That worked because it was a small congregation, gathered in a circle, in an evening setting, while the church was relatively quiet and dark. It might not work at a principal Sunday morning service. It also worked because this particular congregation is used to intentional silence, including not being distracted during the silence by children in the congregation or the tourists who are present in other parts of the building.
But I really like the idea of thinking of a homily/sermon as a response to the Gospel. First of all, doxology is in fact the most natural and appropriate response to the Gospel. But it also reminds us that the preacher doesn't have the Gospel in their own possession to preach to the congregation; rather, their job (IMO) is to guide the congregation in reflecting on the Gospel (present in the Gospels and in the epistle, psalm, and OT readings) all have just heard proclaimed. Often this does involve some element of life application, but not in the moralistic sense, I think. Many times I've heard effective preachers tie the readings in to current events. But the key is they do it by placing the event and the readings side by side, affirming the priority of the Gospel, and raising and/or acknowledging questions and Mystery. I've also heard really bad preaching where the preacher was trying to inform listeners that the Bible says xyz about the current situation, leaving little if anything for listeners to continue pondering, 'cause they seemed to have it all worked out.
Sorry, I'm going on way too long. I'll stop for now. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Thank you very much, churchgeek, thank you.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Keeping sermons/homilies short is also a good way to minimize alienating people who find it hard to actively engage with a sermon. (To me, "actively engaging" with anything depends on what that thing is - it's the nature of a sermon that you listen to it; active engagement, then, is active listening. I think it's comparable to when you actively watch/engage with a movie or TV show v. when you passively watch a movie or TV show.)
Keeping them short also alienates those who need time to settle to listening. You have just got yourself into careful listening and the preacher announces the Amen. A service that jumps between this and that I find distracting. Even with twenty minute sermons I get there in the last ten minutes when I make the effort.
Yes, the alteration you want can be the exact opposite for others.
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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
(To me, "actively engaging" with anything depends on what that thing is - it's the nature of a sermon that you listen to it; active engagement, then, is active listening. I think it's comparable to when you actively watch/engage with a movie or TV show v. when you passively watch a movie or TV show.)
I don't understand the distinction you're drawing. I either watch TV or I don't - what's all this "active watching" and "passive watching" stuff?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Actually, there's science in this one. You can passively listen - all the noise that surrounds us that we don't listen to, it's just background noise and sermons can be tuned out to be background noise. Active listening is when you pay attention and tune in, try to engage and make sense of it.
[There's a whole programme about it here]
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Actually, there's science in this one. You can passively listen - all the noise that surrounds us that we don't listen to, it's just background noise and sermons can be tuned out to be background noise. Active listening is when you pay attention and tune in, try to engage and make sense of it.
[There's a whole programme about it here]
This is self-contradictory. If we tune it out, we aren't listening at all. You're saying we "passively listen" to things by not listening to them. To listen is "to give attention with the ear to some sound or utterance" (OED)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Keeping sermons/homilies short is also a good way to minimize alienating people who find it hard to actively engage with a sermon.
Keeping them short also alienates those who need time to settle to listening. You have just got yourself into careful listening and the preacher announces the Amen.
In the context of my brand of Lutheranism, people prefer shorter sermons (meaning roughly 10 minutes), but rarely get them. One can look around my own church and see checkbooks being reconciled, Facebook being checked, hymnals being flipped through, conversations taking place...Our place has the blessing of many young people, but Sunday morning commitments to long services seem to be tougher and tougher to make for some people, and long sermons certainly don't win over the young children or the parents who spend the whole sermon trying to occupy them.
I suggested to the pastor that if he wanted to preach so long, he should teach an adult class on the day's readings, and use the sermon as a summary.
[ 18. November 2012, 15:44: Message edited by: Olaf ]
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Thank you Churchgeek. I think I might now have understood what Venbede means by doxological, though if so, I think we actually don't agree rather than don't comprehend one another. I'll try and explain my thinking. I hope this helps, even though it may have some shipmates squealing in horror.
First thought
In Hebrew and Greek there are two different sorts of words which most modern bible translations, NRSV, NIV etc render as 'worship'. The AV assiduously distinguishes between them. One means 'worship' in the sense, 'come let us worship and fall down'. If one has access to an electronic Bible, in both languages it seems to exist only as a verb. The other means 'serve' or 'service'. It is what the priests do in the Temple. In both languages, it is both a verb and its equivalent noun.
I take that as strongly suggesting that the role of those at the front, clergy, choir etc is to serve at the altar so as to enable the people to worship in the first sense. I also happen to think this is more likely to happen if those at the front are also worshipping in the first sense, rather than just performing.
Second thought
This may sound an odd way of putting this if one hasn't encountered it before, but it seems to me that in the average service, there are some elements which are primarily going up, and others that are primarily coming down. Even if both directions are present simultaneously, there is usually a predominant direction of motion.
It can also help to ask two other questions.
First, 'which direction would this be going in, before church functionaries (especially clergy or musicians) got their hands on it?' and
Second, 'leaving aside what I've been taught I'm supposed to think, which direction does my heart really feel this is going in,?'
Thus, prayers, music, incense and collection are going up. I think that is the reason why many of us get irritated by prayers and hymns that preach at us. Readings from scripture are coming down. IMHO a key difference between Protestants and Catholics, is that Protestants tend to think of Holy Communion as predominantly coming down, whereas Catholics tend to think of the Mass as predominantly going up. I would imagine though that everyone thinks of the distribution of the elements as coming down.
Application
If we describe the sermon as a response to the gospel, I do not think that works. Whether as a reading, or in the more general sense of the message, the gospel is coming down. So anything we describe as a 'response' to it, is going up.
I would have thought that however one looks at it, if one applies this analysis to the sermon, it is part of the service of the minsters, and has to be predominantly coming down.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
I believe in preaching. And not just homilies. Preaching as in wrestling with the Word so as to understand its meaning and its application to today. Jengie John would say this is the Reformed tradition. I am in it boots and all.
It works for me. And for my congregations.
I dont think it is a response to the Gospel. It elucidates the Gospel/ and is therefore part of the Ministry of the Word.
The response to that Ministry comes in dedication and intercessions and offertory.
[ 18. November 2012, 16:23: Message edited by: shamwari ]
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This is self-contradictory. If we tune it out, we aren't listening at all. You're saying we "passively listen" to things by not listening to them. To listen is "to give attention with the ear to some sound or utterance" (OED)
This came from David McAlpine, a professor of audiology, talking about hearing and listening, and the need. He was using words technically to explain what he meant, but he was saying that listening is in the brain, not in the ear, and we hear a lot more than we listen to. He has moved from studying the ear to studying the auditory parts of the brain as being more important in hearing.
It struck a chord because, going back to sermons, I sometimes will hear a sermon with full engagement, and sometimes I won't be quite so actively listening.
[ 18. November 2012, 16:21: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
Here are some of the outcomes I'd associate with when I've actively listened to decent preaching (sometimes I don't; sometimes that's my fault, sometimes the preachers):
1) At the end, or after reflecting further on it for a while, I can give a precis. What was the good news heard in a nut shell? What stories or images did the preacher use to make this come alive (and not just be a platitude)? What scripture was it on and how did the connection arise?
2) During the preaching, I noticed emotional reactions in myself. Maybe it was appreciation at a beautiful point, awe for God's grace, sorrow for my sin, gratitude for some gift, anger at a structure of sin that exists, compassion for someone brought up as an illustration.
3) I might be left with questions. Maybe they're head-level questions (scripture scholarship is my thing, so I might want to go and check if some historical detail the preacher mentioned really holds up, or if a double meaning of a word works in the original); maybe they're personal questions (eg. what am I meant to do differently in response to this?).
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
