Thread: What is a sermon for? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029611

---

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
I have trouble listening to sermons, I drift away to some extent at the best of them. When I think of how long it might have taken to prepare them, I feel a little ashamed to admit this truth, but there it is.

Is a sermon supposed to make a difference to me, to inspire me into action, to inform me, to make me feel a part of it all, to challenge me, to challenge those outside of the church I'm in (who, after all, cant hear it?), to try to make sense of the scripture reading, to try to make sense of what's happening in the world, to worship and praise God ......?

Perhaps it's all of these things, in general? But what specifically do you think a sermon is for? What impact if any should it have on those hearing it?
 

---

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I don't think every sermon need have an impact on every listener. I think if a sermon helps one person love God or love their neighbour more, then that's a success. At times that one person can even be the preacher.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Those are not uninteresting questions. I know some ministers and congregations which make a distinction between "teaching" - seen as explaining the Bible and imparting knowledge of the faith - and "preaching", which they regard as more inspirational or devotional. I'm not sure if this is a useful distinction, for surely the preacher hopes to inform their hearers and derive inspiration and challenge from that information.
 

---

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I have to say, even when I was preaching I was not convinced by the value of traditional preaching (in the sense of a talk delivered in the middle of a service). Even with very good preachers, I am not sure that the process is a good one for either communicating information or encouraging a congregation.

For me, I think churches should consider what they want the "sermon slot" to do - is it teaching, is it inspiration, is it information? Then they need to use that time to perform that task in the most appropriate way.

So if it is inspiration, then forget the depth of theology, it is a time to tell people how important they are. If it is teaching, then talk to people, identify what they need to know and teach in groups to engage with people. If it is information, then maybe a powerpoint presentation, available in printed form later.

Or whatever. The traditional preaching style has become outdated as other teaching styles have taken over. So many people now hold onto the "preaching" style as something distinctly "Christian". It isn't, it is just outdated.
 

---

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
On my annual trip to church this Christmas Eve I found that the sermon had been replaced by a 'talk' in the order booklet. Is that a trend these days?

I tried to follow the vicar, but when she said that the shepherds were the Facebook of their day I switched off.
 

---

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :
 
A very good question indeed. And I sometimes wonder if the preacher knows the answer herself or himself.

I have heard excellent sermons. I have heard very poor sermons. But I can think of very few whose point I recall, indeed about which I recall anything (apart from maybe an amusing story) five minutes after it has ended.

That may say more about me than about the sermons I have heard, of course.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I want to be inspired.

Inspired to be a better person. I think the best sermons do this, but they are becoming rare, very rare.
 

---

Posted by Jenn. (# 5239) on :
 
I try to lift peoples eyes beyond themselves, so that they glimpse the presence of God among them. I am not sure I ever succeed.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I feel both sympathy and admiration for preachers ... it's a hard call. How do you pitch something that will contain 'something' for everyone there on a Sunday morning or evening ... ?

For people who've been round the block so many times they're sermoned out ... for people who've hardly heard any sermons, for people with a good, basic grasp of the Christian narrative, for those with hardly any grasp at all ...

I'm afraid I'm like Raptor Eye - I tend to 'zone out' in sermons these days - no matter how good, bad or indifferent they are.

In fact, I'm not at all interested in sermons any more. I'd rather have the liturgy and nothing else.

Partly, I think, it's because I'm a contrary so-and-so and as soon as someone says something - anything - I'm immediately thinking of a counter-argument against it or looking for the loopholes ...

Perhaps it's Ship of Fools that has ruined the sermon for me ...

I've become Debate Man ...



That said, even though these days I feel 'higher' in my spirituality than the Baptists tend to be, I've long said that the best and most memorable sermons I've heard have tended to be in Baptist settings here in the UK.

That isn't to say that all Baptist preaching is wonderful -- but at its best it manages to be both informative and inspirational at one and the same time. I've known several Baptist ministers who 'wear their learning lightly' - and who are able to present even quite complex theological ideas in an engaging way.

Sadly, I find Anglican sermons generally disappointing. I've heard some good cathedral sermons though ...

At the 'higher' end of things you at least know that all you're going to get is a very short homily. Some of the best preachers I've heard at that end of the candle are able to pack a lot in to a short space ... but by and large all you get are short musings that you could have easily mused for yourself at home ...

There's no easy answer, I don't think.

There is, I believe, a great need for good, solid, well-rounded preaching.

Step forward the preachers ...

We need you.
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
Maybe it's important that we don't know and can't say what a sermon is for.

There are lots of good things it might be doing, most of which could be done better in other ways. I would describe it as an attempt at honesty in the presence of God's people and in relation to the liturgical calendar, scripture, news, and life of the congregation that provides a context.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
To my mind, a sermon exists primarily as a unifying symbol of tradition in any given (Protestant) church. There's been increasing doubt about the sermon for a while now, but I think the force of tradition is such that little can be done, regardless of the content or quality of modern preaching.

Unfortunately, the alternatives are problematic. The 'talk', as someone has said above, can be very lightweight. More controversially, I think relatively few British Christians are now receiving spiritual instruction from other sources. Some Christians have their small groups and Bible studies, and intellectual types read challenging books, have spiritual directors and go on retreats, but these represent a minority. For the rest of the churchgoing public, the loss of the sermon would probably represent yet more spiritual impoverishment.

(I realise that RCs and Orthodox Christians have other priorities in worship, so presumably this topic wouldn't be very meaningful to them.)
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
There are some preachers who seem to spend ages presenting some thought which they think is profound but which is patently obvious and banal; there are others who seem to finish their sermons just as they're getting to the interesting bit and so leave one unsatisfied ....

I would hope that - at the very least - the preacher would present me with something that made me think a bit about some aspect of my faith. And (vide Gamaliel) the very best of them seem to have a way of communicating on several different levels at once.

[ 30. December 2015, 13:15: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I like what both hatless and Baptist Trainfan have said here ...

Context is everything.

I would suggest that the 'best' sermons occur when the particular conditions that both hatless and Baptist Trainfan have identified are in play ...

Namely, it 'fits' with the tenor and context of the particular congregation - whether they are following some kind of liturgical calendar or are passing on 'news' or addressing something topical and pertinent to them ...

And when, by some special alchemy, the sermon (and response?) is somehow greater than the individual sum of its constituent parts ...

Great preaching is like great poetry in that respect.

That doesn't mean that we should expect The Four Quartets or Paradise Lost every week ... nor that we couldn't benefit from Pam Ayres every now and again ...


 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Sermoned-out, hymned-out and prayered-out me. What's left?

Apart from Communion of course.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I wouldn't like to think I'd ever get 'communioned' out ... but then, there'd still be the Quaker silence even if I did ...

Nor do I think that there is no longer a place for sermons. Baptist Trainfan's are very good. I've read one on-line and I'm sure the others are equally as good.

I do believe there is a role for preaching and it's the sort of thing you 'recognise' when you see it ... as hatless says, you can't easily define and 'distil' these things ...

We can't put a magic bottle on a shelf with a label on which says, 'Drink twice a day and your sermons will be fine ...'

On a tangent for a moment -- whilst I agree with SvitlanaV2 that RC and Orthodox sermons seem to operate in a different kind of way to Protestant ones ... I've found that whenever I've heard RC or Orthodox clergy speaking at inter-church conferences they don't sound in any way dissimilar to Protestant speakers at those same conferences ...

They even use Power-Point slides, crack jokes, use anecdotes etc.

Some do 'preach like Protestants' in their own services to a certain extent ...

What I've found from those particular traditions isn't so much pithy or thought-provoking things said in set-piece sermons as such - but some pithy and memorable remarks when introducing a Bible study or lectio-divina or something of that kind ...

Or something that resembles a scene in a Dostoyevsky novel ... 'It was said of St Zosimas, you know, that whenever he ...' etc etc

In fact, I've heard the same kind of points made in Orthodox sermons as I've heard in Protestant ones - only with examples/illustrations from hagiography or the Desert Fathers, say, rather than Moses, Samson, King David or some other OT character ... which would have been more likely in a Protestant setting.

It wasn't a sermon as such, but I was once blown away by a Bible study on the Transfiguration led by Bishop Kallistos Ware which he used to 'model' the Orthodox approach. He used an icon of the Transfiguration alongside the NT accounts - which he compared and contrasted in the sort of way Protestants would be familiar with ...

I can't quite put my finger on it, but 'that happened' if you know what I mean. We've all been there when 'that happens'.

Well, 'that' happened for me on that particular occasion.
 

---

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
Years ago I decided to try to discuss the sermon with friends at coffee, opening the conversation with "which point in the sermon do you think most important?"

Answer 1: I don't listen to sermons, I use that time to look around the hall and pick out people I think need prayer, and pray right then.

Answer 2: I don't listen to sermons, that's the time I plan my coming week.

Answer 3: I don't listen to sermons, I just sort of veg or daydream until it's over.

OTOH some Non-D friends choose a church by the sermon, wanting to be "fed" by a "meaty" 45 minute Bible-based sermon.

And I've visited a Black church where the preacher's sermon was well over an hour and I could have stayed for more, captivating sing-song
encouragement that tells the story and insists God loves YOU and punctuated with frequent "amen, brother!"

So it appears what a sermon is for depends on the culture of the specific church.

In mainline, I'm not sure it has a purpose that wouldn't be better served with ten minutes of silence, or of praying for the people near you in the pews.

I occasionally ask someone at lunch after church (when I don't go to church) "what was the sermon about?" and usually get some variation of "I don't know." But they can tell you the hymns.
 

---

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
Our sermons tend to be a meditation on the readings for the day, and encourage the listener to think more about certain topics in the coming week. If the reading contains ideas that the congregation might be uncomfortable with (Jesus talking about divorce, for instance,) the sermon will usually address that topic head on, and explain why our church teaches something different from what we heard in the reading.

Often, the tone of the sermon is changed by who is giving the sermon, and what their particular position is in the church. The Rector is far more likely to give a sermon about how our members might respond to a reading in the spirit of our mission statement. The Deacon is likely to show how a social issue addressed by Jesus is still a problem today in our neighborhood, or to highlight invisible social issues in the neighborhood. Our Curate is still learning how to deliver a great sermon, and part of our job, I think, is to be patient as she works through the commentaries and thoughts and themes that don't always tie together smoothly.

My brother, my parents, and I all attend different Episcopal churches, and part of our Sunday afternoon or Monday morning routine is telling each other about the sermon we heard. It's a good way to make sure that you pay attention, although there is no judgment if anyone admits that they can't remember a word of it.
 

---

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Sermoned-out, hymned-out and prayered-out me. What's left?

Apart from Communion of course.

---

Re-define "church." A walk in the woods, an art canvas and brush, sitting down with a homeless person and listening appreciatively to what he or she says; these can be church.

Or find/form a group that encourages its participants to actively fulfill who God made them each to be by bringing a song, a poem, a story or drawing or new-to-you understanding God finally got through your thick skull.

Get away from the traditional "conform, sit, do as you are told, avoid revealing any personality or creativity" style of church. It may work for some but it's spiritually deadly for others.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
A sermon is an act of worship. a meditation and a reflection on how the day's readings apply to daily living. More thoughts here.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


Sadly, I find Anglican sermons generally disappointing. I've heard some good cathedral sermons though ...

At the 'higher' end of things you at least know that all you're going to get is a very short homily. Some of the best preachers I've heard at that end of the candle are able to pack a lot in to a short space ... but by and large all you get are short musings that you could have easily mused for yourself at home ...

There's no easy answer, I don't think.

There is, I believe, a great need for good, solid, well-rounded preaching.

Step forward the preachers ...

We need you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think if a sermon helps one person love God or love their neighbour more, then that's a success. At times that one person can even be the preacher.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On a tangent for a moment -- whilst I agree with SvitlanaV2 that RC and Orthodox sermons seem to operate in a different kind of way to Protestant ones ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Perhaps it's Ship of Fools that has ruined the sermon for me ...

I've become Debate Man ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think if a sermon helps one person love God or love their neighbour more, then that's a success. At times that one person can even be the preacher.

---

I'm sorry, but I think this is trite nonsense. I'm not saying it isn't a good thing if a sermon helps one person love God or their neighbor more... But in a sermon, you are addressing a specific gathering of the people of God, and your job is to say something that is relevant, inspiring, or challenging to that gathering...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I'm sorry, but I think this is trite nonsense. I'm not saying it isn't a good thing if a sermon helps one person love God or their neighbor more. That's a very good thing, in fact. But in a sermon, you are addressing a specific gathering of the people of God, and your job is to say something that is relevant, inspiring, or challenging to that gathering. This is different from one-on-one pastoral care or private meditation. If the entire congregation is left wondering "what on earth was that about?" but you feel better at the end of the sermon, you missed the mark.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I would say that there are times when the preacher is the one who needs it most, and I would count it as a success in comparison with no-one benefitting from it. Of course it would be even better if it impacted more people in a positive way, and that will always be the goal, but I don't think it should be considered a complete failure if it brings the preacher to a place where they can better offer pastoral care, or better share the Gospel in the rest of the week.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Those who write and give the sermons are at a slight disadvantage nowadays, I imagine, since they can no longer thunder about the fires of hell and damnation for sinners, can they?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Those who write and give the sermons are at a slight disadvantage nowadays, I imagine, since they can no longer thunder about the fires of hell and damnation for sinners, can they?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Those who write and give the sermons are at a slight disadvantage nowadays, I imagine, since they can no longer thunder about the fires of hell and damnation for sinners, can they?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:

If hell and damnation isn't part of what you believe, explaining why it isn't part of what you believe can be an endless source of material.

---

Interestingly, I don't think moderate mainstream British clergy spend much time critiquing hell fire and damnation preaching from the pulpit. Not IME, anyway. I think this is because hell isn't a discourse that dominates the public face of Christianity here. Even evangelical clergy spend less time on it, so I understand.
 

---

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
Og and Belle Ringer

thank you for your replies
I have just googled 'Sermons hell damnation' and I see there are quite a few links! I'll have a look tomorrow.
 

---

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
I might suggest this is another time where taking a longer walk would be better for your well-being...
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
leo. Accepted! An inclusive, deconstructed, best case, postmodern presentation all-embracing of all tradition on anything that pops up in the calendar. Fair dos. Or best still, just Taizé it.

And Belle Ringer, yep. As Gamaliel would say, not either/or: and.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
A few quick observations/responses:

@Baptist Trainfan - yes, I agree. The sermon does play a more 'sacramental' role within non-conformist churches ... although it does play that kind of role too in very low-church Anglican settings where one can get the impression that the communion is some kind of bolt-on extra ...

@Belle Ringer. I know you have a thing about creativity - but if I want to be creative I get involved in arty activities - that way I also meet non-churchy people. I may try to inject a bit of creativity into the things I do in church services from time to time - but that's a secondary aspect ... YMMV.

@SvitlanaV2 - I don't get around that much these days ... most of my observations are based on past experience where I got around a lot more than I do now.

On the Methodist thing ... I've heard some very good Methodist sermons. Intriguingly, my brother-in-law and sister-in-law are enjoying church life in a Methodist church in Yorkshire - after years out in fairly 'out-there' charismatic land. They particularly appreciate the sermons - and also the social-justice emphasis.

The other week my brother-in-law felt moved to join Amnesty International after one such sermon. He told me that it made a change from dipping into his pocket to found a health/wealth pastor's next 5-Series BMW ...


 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
On a rough calculation, I must have heard tens of thousands of sermons during my lifetime, but I could count on one hand the ones I remember.

Whether all the others have penetrated and affected me to varying degrees by some process of spiritual osmosis, only God knows.
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
I would miss a sermon if I went to a service that didn't have one. I think that it gives my intellect something to exercise it, even if it then goes off on a tangent.
 

---

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I would miss a sermon if I went to a service that didn't have one. I think that it gives my intellect something to exercise it, even if it then goes off on a tangent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I wonder whether they have lost out to all the other means of obtaining advice, help and encouragement, etc. In earlier times - and that includes my early years - the church service was part of the week's entertainment! There must be fewer and fewer people who, needing some help and personal advice, would choose to go to the local priest, as there are other services available on the phone, on line, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I would miss a sermon if I went to a service that didn't have one. I think that it gives my intellect something to exercise it, even if it then goes off on a tangent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I am suspicious of those who whip out their smart phones at the beginning of sermons, allegedly to look up, and follow, the Bible reading.

I suspect that they use the opportunity to look up other things, and am jealous that I, with my ordinary phone, have to struggle to stay awake and concentrate on the sermon, while they are enjoying following the football scores.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
(c) be suitable for a wide range of ages from, the youngest chorister to people perhaps 80-90 years older.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On a tangent for a moment -- whilst I agree with SvitlanaV2 that RC and Orthodox sermons seem to operate in a different kind of way to Protestant ones ...

---

I once read that there was a "sacramental" aspect to Protestant Nonconformist preaching which is quite different to what you'd expect in an Anglican or RC church. In other words, the "spiritual trajectory" of the service is different.

---

quote:

---

The preached Word or sermon is to be based upon the written Word. It is a proclamation of Scripture in the conviction that through the Holy Spirit Jesus Christ is present to the gathered people, offering grace and calling for obedience.

---

No, I don't specifically remember every good sermon I've heard, just as I don't specifically every good conversation I've had with my wife. But I believe I can say that I have regularly encountered Christ through the Word proclaimed. Sometimes, it had been a comfort, sometime a challenge, sometimes a new insight, etc. Sometimes, I have experienced one of these while those around me have heard something different. But my experience is that if I do my part listening, there will be something I can take as what God wanted me to hear that day, and something that we can take as what God wanted us as a community of faith to hear. (And sometimes, neither are what the preacher would have predicted.)
 

---

Posted by Uriel (# 2248) on :
 
I preach in my church about 6 or 7 times a year. When I give it the time, energy and enthusiasm that it deserves, a good sermon aims to be many things. Primarily I hope it connects with people on a spiritual and emotional level, that people feel the content relates to their personal circumstances and helps them to find space to think about their lives and how it connects with the bigger picture. I hope it also has some theological content for them to take away, so that over the months and years of hearing sermons they will gradually build up more knowledge about theology, the Bible, Christian history, etc. I also hope that the sermon will help some people to lift their eyes towards heaven. Most people have heard the sort of things I am going to be saying, but they also need to be reminded, and often we need to preach to the soul, not the intellect. A sermon should sometimes seek to challenge people, sometimes offer comfort, sometimes just be a pleasant part of the overall service that makes a person feel glad that they came to church that day.

Occasionally a sermon will respond to something that has happened in the news (e.g. 9/11, the Asian tsunami, the Paris attacks - all of which I was on for the following Sunday). For the Paris attacks I had prepared a sermon during the week, and on the Sunday morning 2 hours before the service decided I had to tear it up and just speak about Paris from a few bullet points on the back of an envelope. While it wasn't at all polished, the raw and honest response to the situation was very much appreciated by people who were themselves asking the sort of questions I was deliberating from the front of church.

To try and be memorable I will try and craft the sermon to be a manageable length (about 15 minutes), with a novel opening that makes people sit up and listen, a good finish that will hopefully stay with them, and occasional signposting in between so it doesn't just seem like a long screed of words. I will work hard on making sure the language is natural and flows, sometimes working hard on the specific phrasing of a particular idea so that it is more likely to stand out and be remembered at a later date. I try and vary my delivery - some times I will use pictures with a Powerpoint, sometimes I will create imagery just with words, sometimes I will act out a narrative, sometimes I offer deliberately practical, down to earth advice. I might involve the congregation, or I might just stand and talk. Whatever happens, I hope I am never predictable and that helps people to pay attention. My congregation are good at giving positive feedback, and I get different people responding well to different approaches. I have found the most important thing is that I am honest and try to connect with what really matters to me about faith - if I'm just engaging intellectually it isn't doing the whole job. And it is always satisfying when someone tells you of something you said several years ago which meant something to them and they carried with them and made their own.

As I am fortunate in only preaching about once every 6 weeks, I am able to put a lot into preparation. By the time I stand up to preach I have usually put in several hours reading, praying and thinking, several more hours structuring, writing, editing and then preached through the sermon at least 6 or 7 times so that it feels natural and comes over as if I am having a conversation. Even though I have notes with every word written down, I often have people asking how I preach without notes, so the work put into getting the delivery right must be paying off.

One final thought - I recognise when I preach that many people won't listen to every word. Trying to give a consistent chain of reasoning, where missing one link makes the rest unintelligible, wouldn't work for me. I prefer to see my sermons as a buffet, I lay out ideas, images, stories, whatever content I have and the congregation are welcome to take as much or as little from it as they wish, and make of it what they wish. I try and think of three or four people in the church when I am composing the words (e.g. an elderly lady who has been coming for 60 years, a teenager asking hard questions, a new parent trying to re-connect with faith, a person recently bereaved) and see if there can be something in the layers of the talk that will be of value to each of them. It's not easy, but if you manage it it's very satisfying.

And if someone just needs to sit quietly for 15 minutes, ignore me droning on and just have some space, then I am happy for that as well.

As I said, that's the ideal, and my busy working life doesn't always afford me the time to build in innovation, theology, emotional content, relevance, layers of meaning, variation in delivery, etc. etc. But when it all comes together, people do respond. If someone says "nice talk today" I know I have fallen short. When they say "what you said today, that was for me", or they come to you with a tear in their eye and just say "thank you", or when they track you down a few weeks later and say "what you said the other week, I've been thinking about it and..." then you feel you've served them well.
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Haven't bin Somerset for years.
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
A less-than-devout organist friend knows exactly what sermons are for: tidying the organ loft and mapping out future music lists.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think that Kaplan's right that sermons tend to work by 'osmosis' - and I'd suggest that spiritually speaking, we are all largely the product of whatever the main emphases and practices are in our respective traditions - be it hymn-singing, Bible study, spome kind of eucharistic discipline, saying the rosary, contemplative prayer or whatever else.

No preaching or teaching happens in a vacuum and however it's done it will both shape what's going on in our particular contexts and be shaped by it.

That applies as much in a context like Nick Tamen's where the sermon is a big deal and the highlight - if you like - of the service as it does to one where the sermon simply sits alongside other elements or plays a 'lesser' role in some way

It's often been said that churches get the preachers they deserve ... I think there's something in that ... in a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy type way.

Meanwhile, I rather wish that preachers would address me as if I were an intelligent 12 year-old ...

To be fair, not all the sermons I hear these days are dumbed down ... but still ...
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Uriel:
As I am fortunate in only preaching about once every 6 weeks, I am able to put a lot into preparation. By the time I stand up to preach I have usually put in several hours reading, praying and thinking, several more hours structuring, writing, editing and then preached through the sermon at least 6 or 7 times so that it feels natural and comes over as if I am having a conversation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No preaching or teaching happens in a vacuum and however it's done it will both shape what's going on in our particular contexts and be shaped by it.

---

quote:

---

That applies as much in a context like Nick Tamen's where the sermon is a big deal and the highlight - if you like - of the service . . . .

---

Only if there is no Communion, or in a congregation that does it up like mine, baptism.
 

---

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I have tried listening to quite a few sermons this afternoon, but I'm afraid I didn't get very far!! They were, though, American so rather too many flourishes for me. I'll see if I can find some English ones.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Kelvin Holdsworth of www.thurible.net puts his online pretty frequently, both text and audio.

---

Thank you - I'll have a look.
There were two from St Paul's Cathedral I have listened to. An Advent one talkng about Mary and the angel/birth/mystery/truth managed to skate round any need for reality here.


I have followed the link and listened to the sermon about the crib etc. I see there is a space for comments, but, although I can think of plenty of things to say, I am not motivated enough to write and post them there just at the moment.
 

---

Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :
 
I rarely preach these days, mainly because I can also play the organ and we're better off for preachers than organists at the moment, but I have given some thought to what the sermon is for.

Personally I can't see any point in a sermon as a collection of Christian platitudes that simply reinforce your vocabulary of the Christianity club while bypassing your brain.

Assuming you have one or more Bible readings in the service, the sermon could tackle difficult aspects of one of them (e.g. why was Jesus so rude to the woman in this story?) or something that people have preconceptions about (e.g. what does "born again" actually mean?).

Ideally, a sermon should balance several aspects. Some teaching and/or interesting facts and background, but not just that; it's not a lecture. A story somewhere, because a lot of people need a story to hang the rest on; not everyone has the ability to concentrate on reasoned argument. A structure and a certain amount of logical progression, that doesn't skip around all over the place. A link to something happening now, in your life, work, the church, the world. A spiritual dimension; that should go without saying, and shouldn't be shoehorned in during the final few sentences. A conclusion that sums up some of the ideas, preferably in a sentence that's memorable, and one that gives you something to think about further yourself.

It is hard work to do that in ten minutes but it is possible. I wouldn't like to have to attempt that twice a week though and I have the greatest admiration for those who do so.

I have positive feedback when I do preach. Not always from the same people.
 

---

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :
 

[/qb][/QUOTE]For me, it is not debate I want, it is discussion. I want to be listened to, and, if someone is going to tell me what they believe, I want to know why, and I want to be able to challenge this and be responded to.

I don't want someone "encouraging" me, unless they have first heard why I am discouraged. I don't want someone trying to explain how I should live my faith out in the 21st century when they have no idea how I already live in the 21st Century. Or, as so often, they have no idea how to live in the 21st Century, because they are completely stuck in a 19th century version of their faith.

I do find a problem with other peoples sermons, because they are not the message I would preach from them. So I tend to spend my time thinking about what I would preach from the same starting point. So I have my own internal discussion.

So yes, sermoned out, churched out. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Then you want the college lecture model. Where you benefit not only from the questions you ask, but also from the questions other students asked.

Strangely, that's how it used to be:

1 Corinthians 14:29
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I preach occasionally, at present about 6 times a year. I think a sermon fills many roles, and so therefore what it's for is a very complex question.

But, for me, I would say that the sermon slot is the primary time for the congregation to reflect on the text(s) of Scripture that have been read. It's not the only time - the choice of hymns/songs, a "children's address" or similar, the prayers and collects, and so on should IMO reflect those passages. Now, that could be achieved by a period of silence for everyone to think about what was read. But, ultimately church is collective, and therefore our reflection on Scripture should be collective.

In that light, I tend to see the sermon as a guided reflection or meditation on the texts read. A sermon should follow a path, and do so that allows the congregation to come along with the preacher. The preacher is like a guide taking a group of people up a mountain. We prepare in advance so that we know the route, we identify where we may need to slow down to let others catch up, where the difficult scrambles where we need to help others along are, where we can take a short detour from the main path to have lunch with a great view. We need to plan the route knowing there are some who will want to stop at the bottom and just watch the stream tumbling down the hillside through the woods at the valley floor, and some who may want to stop part way and rest, and we need to make sure we pick them up on the way back down. Sometimes a sermon will take people to the mountain top, and a good sermon will bring them back down to earth again. Sometimes it will be a pleasant stroll along the canal towpath. Sometimes just a time at the beach hanging out. The skill of the preacher is to know the area well enough to guide the congregation on a walk that will be what they need.

And, sometimes the sermon slot is just a chance to sleep. It's Biblical - just avoid the space by the window.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Indeed, as my namesake can attest.
 

---

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I am suspicious of those who whip out their smart phones at the beginning of sermons, allegedly to look up, and follow, the Bible reading.

I suspect that they use the opportunity to look up other things, and am jealous that I, with my ordinary phone, have to struggle to stay awake and concentrate on the sermon, while they are enjoying following the football scores.

---

I've only become aware of this fairly recently, because the churches I usually go to are mostly attended by old people who don't have flashy phones, but do have a fairly high boredom threshold.

How, I wonder, do the rarer churches with middle aged and younger congregations deal with the ubiquitous smart phones? Is this something that church leaders are starting to get concerned about?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Their church leaders are probably preaching from ipads so I doubt they're concerned - following the Bible passage on your phone has been normal for quite some time in such circles, since smartphones arrived really. Definitely the norm in wealthy young churches.

---

I don't think that the preacher using an ipad stops the congregation from using their smartphones for other purposes - which was presumably the OPs point.

Up thread, I think Gamaliel is correct about the osmosis factor, and this goes as much for the more 'word' centred denominational groupings as everyone else.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Pomona

Using a smartphone to follow readings makes sense, but I was wondering if there's any concern that individuals might be using their phones for the purposes of distraction. I've had glimpses of phones being used in this way, but perhaps it's one of those things that ministers just have to let slide.

Going back to sermons, I think it's interesting that John Wesley realised that they were very limited in effecting transformation. This doesn't just apply to Wesley's hot evangelical concerns. I've heard it said more than once (and often with frustration) that congregations often fail to absorb and act upon the messages of kindness, open-mindedness and willingness to accept change that they hear from the pulpits of moderate churches. What this highlights for me is that although sermons can be very good and even inspiring to listen to, they can't carry the burden that some preachers (and some congregations) put on them.

For Wesley, the answer to this problem was class meetings. Modern evangelical churches have their small groups. This is because people are better able to grapple with challenging teachings and the process the relevance of spirituality in their own lives when they can explore these in a hands-on way, in a more intimate setting. In this kind of church, Sunday sermons can be inspiring and thought-provoking, but they're not expected to achieve the outcomes that are being worked on in smaller groups in the broader life of the church.

By contract, in churches that place a low priority on small groups the sermon bears a much greater burden to serve a whole bunch of different purposes. Unfortunately, the likelihood of success in most cases is lower, and the chance of clergy frustration higher.

This is how ISTM anyway.

[ 01. January 2016, 14:17: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 

---

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
The replies are giving me a great deal of food for thought, thank you all.

To add another dimension: someone recently suggested to me that the Holy Spirit only works spontaneously, so that sermons prepared in advance would exclude God's input - but surely sermons that are not prepared beforehand ramble on, and are less likely to be listened to by anyone. It occurs to me however that one of the purposes of a sermon must be to help people to encounter God, whether or not in the sacramental way that some have suggested.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
God the Holy Spirit only works spontaneously?





I think I'd have had some strong words to say to that particular individual ...

I expect they thought the scriptures were 'dictated' in some form of automatic-writing type way too ...

On the efficacy or otherwise of sermons, coming back to the 'osmosis' thing - I suggest that ALL spiritual disciplines work that way - whether it be listening to sermons, congregational hymn-singing, engaging in Bible study in a small group, whether lectio-divina, contemplative prayer, saying the rosary, fasting, venerating icons, engaging in Quaker 'gathered silence' or whatever else Christians of various stripes get up to ...

It's interesting, historically, to see how voluntarist groups like the Freemasons came along to fill a gap left by the Reformation dismantling of religious guilds and 'confraternaties' ... or how some of the more radical reformed groups tried to create almost monastic communities (albeit in a non-celibate way) in the way they withdrew 'from the world' ...

Sermons have their place, of course - but not in a vacuum. They have their place alongside personal and corporate spiritual disciplines.

I was struck recently listening to an RC ecumenical worker - with an Maltese background - observe how the gradual disappearance of 'domestic' piety among RCs was having an effect on younger generations of Catholics ...

Time was when RC mums would make the sign of the cross over their offspring when tucking them up in bed at night - or would pray with them or invoke some Saint or other ...

Now they simply switch off the light just like anyone else.

However we 'do' these things and whatever 'outward forms' we use (or choose not to use) it's a case of 'line upon line, rule upon rule, here a little, there a little ...'

http://biblehub.com/isaiah/28-10.htm

This applies as much to 'word' based settings as to what we might call more 'sacramental' ones - as Chris Stiles observes.

The evangelical practice of a 'quiet time' or the use of 'memory-verses' or 'read the Bible in a year' plans and aids are all part and parcel of the same thing.
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
Children's sermons (or kids' talks) on the other hand, are a doddle.

You just think of some story or incident which will amuse them, append the inevitable: "You know, boys and girls, we're all a bit like that....[person, animal, object, whatever]" and draw some trite spiritual or moral lesson.

Come to think of it, there are some adults who don't object to that approach either....
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
The 'osmosis' theory makes sense up to a point, but it does assume that simply hanging around in churches is going to make you a certain type of person. But what churchgoing actually does for us morally and spiritually is of course debatable.

As I've said, plenty of Christians on this website and elsewhere grumble about fellow churchgoers who don't seem to have absorbed the 'right' messages despite decades of churchgoing and listening to sermons.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I wasn't saying that the 'osmosis' thing is sufficient in and of itself ... 'faith comes by hearing' but we still have to put it into practice in some way ... whether in a church / congregational context or beyond it - or, preferably, both.

What I'm suggesting is that we pick up the 'core' of whatever belief system or tradition we are part of by osmosis - by hanging around in church, by singing hymns, listening to sermons, lighting candles or whatever else ... but we still have to 'appropriate' that or act upon it in some way.

A Greek Orthodox lad once told me - with sadness - that many of his fellow Greeks 'know how to behave' in church - in terms of the 'moves' and gestures/behaviours expected - but don't necessarily understand what they are doing as it's never been explained to them, they've never been catechised and the Liturgy is presented in a language they barely understand (a form of medieval Greek).

I would suggest that osmosis takes them some distance ... and it wouldn't be for me to judge or assess how far - but equally, they'd need more than that -- forms of instruction, some regime of spiritual reading and participation in spiritual exercises beyond occasional church attendance.

It's like anything else ... I hung around charismatic style meetings and services for a while before I took the plunge and got fully immersed in it all. I would have picked up some of the ethos and atmosphere, as it were, by osmosis, but I wasn't fully involved until ... well, until I was fully engaged and involved.

I've picked up a fair bit about Orthodoxy by hanging around with Orthodox people over the years, by attending the occasional Vespers and Liturgy. Whilst I know a fair bit 'about' it, I wouldn't fully know it from the inside unless I plunged in and committed myself to it ...

The same applies to any Christian tradition. I can say what I think about Roman Catholicism, but unless I became a Roman Catholic and immersed myself in it I wouldn't understand it as fully as the RC faithful do.

The point I'm making is essentially that we learn by doing ... sermons, hymn-singing, the eucharist - all these things are valuable ... but I've still got to 'apply' all that in my daily, everyday life - the way I relate to people, the way I interact, my attitude towards the world and people around me ...

It's a bit like Peter Bohler's advice to John Wesley, 'Preach faith until you have it ...'

I'm not talking about some kind of blind rote repetition - some kind of spiritual two-times table - but I am talking about cultivating a way of life which 'embeds' whatever we do in church contexts into the way we live.

As for complaints that people who habitually listen to sermons don't 'get' it - or don't 'change' visibly or tangibly as a result of hearing sermons week by week ... that's always going to be difficult to assess.

I'm still as much of a prat and as much of a sinner now as I was when I underwent an evangelical conversion at the age of 19 - back in 1981.

Does that make the last few decades a complete waste of time?

I have no idea how to answer those MoTR preachers you're telling us about, SvitlanaV2, who complain about the apparent lack of 'results' from their preaching in people's lives.

At the risk of platitudes, we don't always see the results - and ultimately it's beyond this life that the fruits will be seen ...

So, at the risk of annoying everyone with another both/and statement ... it's both/and ... we absorb things by osmosis and yet we still have to 'work out our salvation with fear and trembling.'
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Children's sermons (or kids' talks) on the other hand, are a doddle.

You just think of some story or incident which will amuse them, append the inevitable: "You know, boys and girls, we're all a bit like that....[person, animal, object, whatever]" and draw some trite spiritual or moral lesson.

Come to think of it, there are some adults who don't object to that approach either....

---

Whaaat?

Kaplan, when I first read what you'd said, I thought you must be either a very unusual person, or spectacularly un-self-aware. It wasn't until I spotted the word 'trite' that I realised you were taking the p**s.

[ 02. January 2016, 11:08: Message edited by: Enoch ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sadly, I think Kaplan's comment is truer than many of us would like to think ...


 

---

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sadly, I think Kaplan's comment is truer than many of us would like to think ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:


I also have a theory that preaching is primarily for the good of the preacher. I often quip that God called me to preach, because it was the only way he could be sure of getting me to open a Bible - and come to church - with any regularity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But those who are asked to sit in the pews week after week

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
...the very problem with preaching...
those who are asked to sit in the pews week after week...are more like eternal schoolchildren who never learn their lessons and pass their leaving exam. For many of them there's inevitably going to be more ambivalence about the whole thing.

...I'm wondering if perhaps what we see as normative preaching these days is itself running out of steam. Or it would be if preachers themselves didn't get so much out of it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sadly, I think Kaplan's comment is truer than many of us would like to think ...

---

Having grown up in a tradition without these children's talks, I find myself at a bit of a loss as to how to approach them. I'm fairly sure they're the thing I do least well in planning for worship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
...the very problem with preaching...
those who are asked to sit in the pews week after week...are more like eternal schoolchildren who never learn their lessons and pass their leaving exam. For many of them there's inevitably going to be more ambivalence about the whole thing.

...I'm wondering if perhaps what we see as normative preaching these days is itself running out of steam. Or it would be if preachers themselves didn't get so much out of it?

---

Several years ago some Shipmate offered a link to a talk or essay that said church treats its members like perpetual children. In real schools, you progress, then you graduate, you don't know anywhere near everything but you know enough to leave school and go out in the world and start doing stuff. Church, you are expected to continue sitting in class your whole life, you are never told "you graduate, get up, go out, and do."

He said church follows the academic model where you sit in class until you move up to leading class that others sit in, but that model requires most people to take the role of perpetual student.

The essay ended with "I declare you graduated. Get off the chair, leave the school, go out do Christianity instead of sitting and studying it."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer

He said church follows the academic model where you sit in class until you move up to leading class that others sit in, but that model requires most people to take the role of perpetual student.

The essay ended with "I declare you graduated. Get off the chair, leave the school, go out do Christianity instead of sitting and studying it."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But those who are asked to sit in the pews week after week [might be ambivalent about sermons.]

---

Nobody's asking them to. They can always up and leave - some do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
A less-than-devout organist friend knows exactly what sermons are for: tidying the organ loft and mapping out future music lists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Which must beg the question: what, in a sermon, will attract your attention?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


I've certainly heard sermons laying out very 'peaceful' principles ... I'd argue, though, that sermonising about such things is one thing - actually living that out in practice is something else again ...

---

I wonder whether simply reminding people of those principles may be one of the purposes of a sermon? 'You brood of vipers....' comes to mind....
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, except that seems to have been uttered in some kind of street confrontation rather than in a cosy sermon in a church or synagogue ...



Which might also tell us something ...
 

---

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Sermons ( like the liturgy in the Anglican tradition) shape your worldview.

You may not remember details of a sermon but you will be (often subconsciously) influenced by the preacher's worldview.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Perhaps everyone could be given some building blocks as an alternative to the sermon. If asked to connect what we made to the Bible readings, we might learn as much?

---

Isn't that how Messy Church works?
 

---

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
For my 2p - whether the preacher was any good or not, their attention to the readings for the week (I'm assuming there were bible readings...) is sometimes my only prompt to remember what they were, and maybe to fish out my lectionary or use one online, re-read the passage, and work out why I thought the sermon a bit smelly. I do this more and more, only starting once into my 40s.

More fundamentally, the sermon is where I get to exercise thought. Thought (about God) isn't necessarily my main reason for being in church - I might value something more contemplative like silent prayer, or the emotional engagement I sometimes get from congregational hymn singing - but without it, part of me remains un-engaged, and neglected bits of me tend to come around and bite me on the a**e.

Perhaps that's a Methodist heritage, wanting (but not necessarily getting!) it all - in a charismatic setting I'll likely be thinking 'have you *thought* about this at all?', but if the 'thought' part is all there is, I'll be feeling a bit dry and shrivelly by the end, something else in me remaining un-addressed and resentful.

Remembering the content need not be the point - the fact it happened may have helped to engage my whole person, and may have oiled the wheels for some other aspect of myself to experience God's love during, or after, the service.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
That makes sense to me, Mark.

Increasingly, though, I find myself drawn to worship in settings where there are aesthetic elements - stained glass, interesting architecture, iconography ... then at least I've got something to look at and contemplate if the sermon's leaving me cold ...


 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Texting with my youngest son just now about love and pain and feelings and lust and betrayal and dissatisfaction I do it as an EQUAL. Admit to him I'm making it ALL up as I go along. Confess EVERYTHING. We're ALL in this together in the gutter reaching for the stars. The clergy are my, our EQUALS. At best. Highly privileged and politicized and compromised and insulated equals. Actors. Servants. ANY pretence that they know ANYTHING more than ANY of us makes us ... fools. And them. Insults ALL our intelligence.

There can be NO us and them. They know NOWT. Like us. A sermon is for inclusion, confession, sharing yearning ignorance. Anything else, ANYTHING else, is deception.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:


There can be NO us and them. They know NOWT. Like us. A sermon is for inclusion, confession, sharing yearning ignorance. Anything else, ANYTHING else, is deception.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:


There can be NO us and them. They know NOWT. Like us. A sermon is for inclusion, confession, sharing yearning ignorance. Anything else, ANYTHING else, is deception.

---

Fuck that. If my pastor does nothing but share his ignorance and has nothing hopeful whatsoever to say to my situation, it was a total waste of time sending him to seminary. I have enough angst of my own, thank you. I don't want him dumping a megaton of his own on top of me. I want to hear God's word.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Texting with my youngest son just now about love and pain and feelings and lust and betrayal and dissatisfaction I do it as an EQUAL. Admit to him I'm making it ALL up as I go along. Confess EVERYTHING. We're ALL in this together in the gutter reaching for the stars. The clergy are my, our EQUALS. At best. Highly privileged and politicized and compromised and insulated equals. Actors. Servants. ANY pretence that they know ANYTHING more than ANY of us makes us ... fools. And them. Insults ALL our intelligence.

There can be NO us and them. They know NOWT. Like us. A sermon is for inclusion, confession, sharing yearning ignorance. Anything else, ANYTHING else, is deception.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Sorry, Footwasher, but that link only lets non-subscribers to the magazine see the first paragraph or so of the article. So it's impossible for us to evaluate what it is saying - or what you are saying about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:
Oops! I'm not a subscriber, but the cookies don't block my access.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If the purpose [of the sermon] is to aid the congregation in reflection upon the texts then it is entirely appropriate for the preacher to come to the pulpit with an "I don't understand this fully, let us explore it together" attitude. M[ore] like a supervisor for a research project than a lecturer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
A sermon is a monologue, not a discussion. One person gets to share their reflections while the others can think quietly - but no one cares to hear what their 'explorations' might be!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Ultimately, church services are a dialogue between the church and God. The sermon isn't there for the preacher to teach, the sermon is there to allow the words of Scripture to speak more clearly. The preacher is, IMO, closer to being a prophet than being a teacher. And, therefore, the most appropriate response from the congregation to the sermon should be a response to God, not to the preacher. The sermon should lead to the congregation responding to the word of God in repentance, in praise, in living lives more worthy.

It's a very peculiar kind of dialogue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The preacher is, IMO, closer to being a prophet than being a teacher.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The preacher is, IMO, closer to being a prophet than being a teacher.

---

Interesting as this statement is, it comes across as a bit grand! It puts preachers on a pedestal, and I don't think that's very wise.

There would be more humility in being a teacher, and at least there would be an expectation that one's students would learn something.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The preacher is, IMO, closer to being a prophet than being a teacher.

---

Interesting as this statement is, it comes across as a bit grand! It puts preachers on a pedestal, and I don't think that's very wise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

In my experience, those who approach preaching more as teaching are more likely to think it's all about them and what they are bringing to the pulpit for the benefit of others. Those who approach the sermon as Alan describes are more likely to do so with humility . . . and perhaps healthy doses of fear and inadequacy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think OT prophets didn't receive a lot of training.

---

quote:

---

SvitlanaV2: Going back to your previous post, can you explain how your post-sermon discussions in Brazil functioned, and what made them successful or otherwise? Were these discussions a long term thing, or were they a recent innovation, introduced to meet a modern need?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think OT prophets didn't receive a lot of training.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

In my experience, those who approach preaching more as teaching are more likely to think it's all about them and what they are bringing to the pulpit for the benefit of others. Those who approach the sermon as Alan describes are more likely to do so with humility . . . and perhaps healthy doses of fear and inadequacy.

---

Having grown up in churches where the preachers saw themselves as prophets, I don't recognise your characterisation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
These discussions are still happening. I haven't attended this church long enough to know the origins, but it was heavily involved in the Liberation Theology movement in the seventies, so I guess it goes back to those days.

I guess it's a subjective thing; I don't like group discussions in Latin America much. I tend to lose my patience when some people talk for a long time. But I guess others get a lot out of it. I always avoid group discussions in my training work also.

---

quote:

---

SvitlanaV2: I don't know if this is your perspective, but one objection to cafe church type discussion groups is that group members have to put up with too much lay ignorance when they'd rather be listening to the well-informed, educated words of a qualified preacher.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I don't know if this is your perspective, but one objection to cafe church type discussion groups is that group members have to put up with too much lay ignorance when they'd rather be listening to the well-informed, educated words of a qualified preacher.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:
Calvin called the sermon a sacrament. I have a problem with that view. Not only is it grandstanding and making grandiose the activity, it ignores the fact that we already have a sacrament to represent externally what is happening internally: Communion, eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood, taking His words to heart, having His commands abide in us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:
I find the statement that lay speakers lack edifying words, words that give life, a little misrepresentative, or maybe premature would be a better word. The effort may not have been what was required: a little bit more effort perhaps, with a little bit more enlightenment about the process?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
As far as I can recall, Calvin never called the sermon a sacrament. He did describe preaching of the Word as being, in some sense, sacramental.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:
Umpteen years in Seminary and now I learn this?

Quote
..Paul was not worried about where believers' souls would go after death.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/april/surprised-by-n-t-wright.html?start=8

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Liberal churches aren't much better. Everyone goes to heaven but it's a boring sit on a cloud doing nothing but play a harp for God, as a kid I was repelled by that sermon-proclaimed passive image of heaven. Still am.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:
Calvin called the sermon a sacrament. I have a problem with that view. Not only is it grandstanding and making grandiose the activity, it ignores the fact that we already have a sacrament to represent externally what is happening internally: Communion, eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood, taking His words to heart, having His commands abide in us.

---

I think this perhaps misses what Calvin said. It also ignores that Calvin was quite clear that there are only 2 sacraments, and that Calvin described the marks of the true church as being wherever the Word is rightly preached and the sacraments are rightly administered.

As far as I can recall, Calvin never called the sermon a sacrament. He did describe preaching of the Word as being, in some sense, sacramental. His point in describing the Word this way is to say that in proclamation of the Word, as in the sacraments, Christ is presented to the worshipper. It's about how he believed that God uses preaching of the Word. In other words, if the Word is rightly preached, the worshipper effectively hears Christ speaking to him or her, not just the words of the minister.

---

Calvin and Luther both taught that Christ was present in the sermon, making a parallel with the Eucharist. As mentioned, it is God's voice which is heard. Several scholars have mentioned their observation of these views in the writings of both the men. Here is an electronic version of a publication I once read:

http://www.midamerica.edu/uploads/files/pdf/journal/10-beach.pdf
 

---

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :
 
Excuse the double post, to answer some queries.

A pastor friend tells me of a trend in Congregational churches on the West Coast (California) which have done away with the preacher AND the sermon (those Congregationalists!) and play a video of Wright or Piper, or whatever is being debated at the moment, on the projection screen, in lieu of the two.

Another trend is the noticeable rise in the critical attitude of the flock, manifested in the comments about the errors in the sermon to their companions, sometimes during the hearing of the latter! Chee, it would appear that this is the purpose of the church visit!


A movement by Frank Viola and George Barna (noted statistician of church data) is currently going through a second phase, after a rocky first attempt at duplicating the principles described in 2 Cor 14:29. The experiences are recorded in their books, Pagan Christianity and Reimagining Church. Lay speakers are trained to be familiar with Biblical material through a prayer partnership program as the first phase experienced the rambling and unprofitable situations mentioned by some in this thread. Prophesy is hard unless the raw material utilised is marshalled to work with, both in the proclamation as well as the critiquing. Bereans need Scriptural chops, to know if the currency passed is counterfeit or genuine.

The initiative is still in the nascent stage and only time will tell if it will emerge as a viable alternative to the preacher congregation face off model, and establish its claim to be a retrieval of the NT norm.

[ 12. January 2016, 16:39: Message edited by: footwasher ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
In my experience, SvitlanaV2, people from 'sectarian' groups who can quote the Bible backwards still come out with 'strange things' ...

Indeed, many of them are probably more likely to come out with 'strange things' than people with a lower level of biblical literacy ... why? Because largely they'll be proof-texting or coming at things left-field.

That's by no means always the case, of course, but as well-versed as groups like the SDA might be, they are often well-versed along particular tramlines.

But I take your point ... I've heard it said that one of the reasons that marginal groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses do so well in predominantly Catholic countries like Spain and Poland is that there's a low level of catechesis among the RC laity, as it were - so when someone comes along saying, 'I can show you what the Bible means ...' they're already half-way up for it, as it were.

I've heard similar reasons given to account for explosive Pentecostal growth in South and Latin America ... the Pentecostal churches drew from cultural or largely uncatechised cradle Catholics who saw the exciting things the Pentecostals were doing and how they used scripture to support it and thought, 'Wow! We'll have some of that ...'

Although I have heard that a lot of Pentecostal converts in South America soon get disillusioned or else return to Roman Catholicism ... presumably pressing ice-packs to their foreheads as they do so ...
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Footwasher - what NT norm?

There was never any such thing as a NT norm ...


 

---

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:
Calvin and Luther both taught that Christ was present in the sermon, making a parallel with the Eucharist.

---

quote:

---

SvitlanaV2: TBH, I think it can be hard to get small group worship (also known as cafe style worship, etc.) discussions right. It's not what clergy and congregations are used to. I know it makes some preachers nervous, and there's not much support and advice to help them to do it well. (Have any books been published on the subject recently?) But at least a few churches ought to persist with it, because we do need more options for the Christian service than the monologue sermon.

---

I'm attending CofE services when I'm here in England, and this has been my first acquaintance with cafe church. I'm mildly positive about it, as long as it stays in the small groups, with perhaps a small summary in the larger congregation. At least it's a way to get to know each other better.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
To quote someone you won't often hear me quote, 'I agree with Nick ...'


 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I came across this cartoon ...
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:
Umpteen years in Seminary and now I learn this?

Quote
According to the NPP (a phrase coined by Wright), Paul was not worried about where believers' souls would go after death. Christians of the late medieval period were worried about hell and felt they had to earn entry to heaven with works. This is the theology Martin Luther taught and wrote against, helping to ignite the Protestant Reformation.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/april/surprised-by-n-t-wright.html?start=8

I never though that the Bible would be speaking to this situation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:
I find the statement that lay speakers lack edifying words, words that give life, a little misrepresentative, or maybe premature would be a better word. The effort may not have been what was required: a little bit more effort perhaps, with a little bit more enlightenment about the process?

---

quote:

---

First, Scripture, 1 Corinthians 14:29 specifically prescribes lay participation.

---

quote:

---

Second, this isn't just group discussion, this is discussion with God in the equation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've heard it said that one of the reasons that marginal groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses do so well in predominantly Catholic countries like Spain and Poland is that there's a low level of catechesis among the RC laity, as it were - so when someone comes along saying, 'I can show you what the Bible means ...' they're already half-way up for it, as it were.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In my experience, SvitlanaV2, people from 'sectarian' groups who can quote the Bible backwards still come out with 'strange things' ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In my experience, SvitlanaV2, people from 'sectarian' groups who can quote the Bible backwards still come out with 'strange things' ...

Indeed, many of them are probably more likely to come out with 'strange things' than people with a lower level of biblical literacy ... why? Because largely they'll be proof-texting or coming at things left-field.

---

quote:

---

I had a conversation with a delightful young (they looked about 20) JW couple on my doorstep the other day, in which they offered to show me something from the Bible, which they then had great trouble in finding.

I eventually worked out that they were looking for John 3:16, and showed them where it was.

---

quote:

---

I have heard that a lot of Pentecostal converts in South America soon get disillusioned or else return to Roman Catholicism ... presumably pressing ice-packs to their foreheads as they do so ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:
Umpteen years in Seminary and now I learn this?

Quote
According to the NPP (a phrase coined by Wright), Paul was not worried about where believers' souls would go after death. Christians of the late medieval period were worried about hell and felt they had to earn entry to heaven with works. This is the theology Martin Luther taught and wrote against, helping to ignite the Protestant Reformation.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/april/surprised-by-n-t-wright.html?start=8

I never though that the Bible would be speaking to this situation.

---

In the interview in Time Magazine Belle Ringer has linked us to, Tom Wright doesn't seem to me to be saying quite what you impliedly seem to be accusing him of. Yes, he has a different perception of salvation, heaven and hell from widespread misunderstandings of popular culture in the west since the Middle Ages. But I don't think he's saying the first 50 years' Christians weren't concerned about salvation or that they didn't believe it related to life in the resurrection and not just life in the here and now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:
I find the statement that lay speakers lack edifying words, words that give life, a little misrepresentative, or maybe premature would be a better word. The effort may not have been what was required: a little bit more effort perhaps, with a little bit more enlightenment about the process?

---

Can you unpack that a little bit? You start by saying that lay speakers can deliver life giving, edifying words. Then that they would benefit from more effort. Each of us, lay or ordained, could benefit from a bit more effort and receiving more enlightenment.

---

quote:

---

First, Scripture, 1 Corinthians 14:29 specifically prescribes lay participation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

---

Actually, it says exactly the opposite. First off, there's no suggestion that the prophets mentioned are ordained (even if there was any form of ordination in the Corinthian church at that time). Even if they are ordained, there is still the requirement that all others present carefully weigh what was said - that's hardly prescribing participation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Second, this isn't just group discussion, this is discussion with God in the equation.

---

Absolutely. As I said earlier, a church service is a form of dialogue between the congregation and God. That includes the sermon and any discussion between members of the congregation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:

I'm looking for strong, consistent, practical, irenic benevolence in Christian leadership lectures, i.e. sermons. Only Steve Chalke has that. Rob Bell and years before him John Polkinghorne have something else, something gobsmackingly excellent in its own more truly limited way (as talk is cheap). Christian intellect reaching for the stars from dust.

So here's the very best I heard in person last year, by a man who walks the talk, in language and with memes that cannot work for me but which are transcended; one does not have to work that hard at making this work at all: Prison Without Bars

The former terrorist with whom he fellowships is as good actually. Both men who's useless lives are completely redeemed. I mean the useless stuff. The choking, bitter, vile stuff. Turned to blessing.

I read this in a day: Prison Without Bars

I know one can't have this every week. Or Ted Talks of this quality: Emotional Hygiene - but that's a crying shame.

We need THIS and more and the exploration of it in sermons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It seems that inspiring stories, liberation theology and high oratorical skill (or however you might describe the mixture you're looking for) are always going to be a rare combination. Then again, the Church doesn't particularly try to find and nurture such a combination, does it?

The other problem, I suppose, is that individuals who have all of these advantages tend to be whisked away from ordinary church life sooner or later. They have some special mission to accomplish, so they're not likely to be readily available at your normal, local parish church to preach week after week.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Raptor Eye

We're not living in an age of pulpit 'eloquence', certainly not in the mainstream churches. There must be different cultural reasons for that. The decline of doctrinal certainty must be one. The loss of morale as Christianity becomes marginal to the culture is surely another.

Some say that if a lone popular entertainer on an empty stage can hold a rapt audience in his hand for an hour then it shouldn't be impossible for a trained preacher (lay or ordained) to do the same. But that's a whole different ballgame, isn't it?

Talking of entertainers, it might make an interesting reality TV show to send a bunch of ministers to a voice coach/speech writer/drama teacher, etc. to see what might be done to make their homilies more arresting. But the ministers would have to provide their own 'material' (though perhaps a famous theologian could provide them with a theme). Then of course, there'd be the matter of who would be the audience. Preaching to a specially invited congregation, or to a TV camera reaching 1000s of homes isn't the same as doing what you normally do for the 40-odd usual suspects down at Albert St. Methodist Church, or wherever. But it might be an instructive experience nevertheless!

Martin60

Yes. If you want something doing, you have to do it yourself. That's the long and short of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Talking of entertainers, it might make an interesting reality TV show to send a bunch of ministers to a voice coach/speech writer/drama teacher, etc. to see what might be done to make their homilies more arresting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
SvitlanaV2 - I'm being a spoilt brat. My cockeyed optimism has gone and I realise that there is no Christian leadership but we ourselves. Nobody knows nuthin. And that's OK.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0