Thread: Yet saints their watch are keeping, Their cry goes up 'How long?' 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=030474
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on
:
A previous Vicar of this parish claimed that beneath the pulpit there was a tank of hungry piranha fish covered by a trapdoor, and that if any preacher (myself included) went on for more than eight minutes flat he would press a button and the trapdoor would open.
Would any shipmate care to express an opinion on the length of the ideal sermon (and suggest any method to ensure that preachers stick to it)?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
There is no ideal length for a sermon. It depends upon the Scriptures being preached on, the particular congregation and the message that is laid upon the heart of the preacher. It also depends on the rest of the service - the selection of hymns may, for example, be used to supplement the sermon.
Different churches will have different expectations for the sermon, which will cover both style and length.
If I'm preaching, my sermon will usually be 15-20 minutes (possibly longer if there will need to be time for interpretation). On the otherhand, a good preacher can be just warming up at that point.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
10-12 mins maximum for a Parish Communion with a congregation of mixed ages.
20 for Evensong or a weekday eucharist when it's mainly, if not excluively adults.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
If a sermon were to go on for more than hour an hour would any of the congregation still be awake to notice that the pulpit had been inexplicably vacated?
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
Within reason, I think length matters less than organization. Last Sunday, our preacher spent the first five minutes or so talking about the wealth of preaching opportunities in the readings, and gave short hints as to what he would have preached on had he not settled on Acts.
That's unnecessary filler, father. Pick a text and preach. If you talk about what you aren't preaching about, guess what? You just preached about it.
Honestly, as long as I can tell that the priest went through and culled bits that weren't on the main point, chances are I'm not checking my watch.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
A previous Vicar of this parish claimed that beneath the pulpit there was a tank of hungry piranha fish covered by a trapdoor, and that if any preacher (myself included) went on for more than eight minutes flat he would press a button and the trapdoor would open.
Context is everything. I simply don't think that is long enough to develop a complex and sophisticated examination of a text or topic, which is what I would want to do in a normal "main" service.
Conversely, nothing in an "All-age" service should be more than 5 minutes long - although one may take more than one bite of the sermonic cherry (and present it in varied ways).
And a "devotional" thought at a more reflective service (e.g. Maundy Thursday Communion) should be relatively brief.
P.S. We do have a tank (= baptistery for full immersion) under the platform at the front of our church. Last time I looked the piranhas were hiding - or had been eaten by the crocodiles.
[ 30. April 2016, 15:33: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Ten minutes, fifteen a a push. Any more than this is pure waffle.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
Normally the preacher has lost me if the sermon goes over 10-12 minutes.
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
But a lot depends on the preacher (and the situation). Our Presiding Bishop can hold my attention for over half an hour and leave me wanting more.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Normally the preacher has lost me if the sermon goes over 10-12 minutes.
But a lot depends on the preacher (and the situation).
It also depends on the particular flavor of Christianity and what the worshipper, or the congregation, expects from the sermon.
Given my particular background (Presbyterian), I rarely find a 10 minute sermon to be, for want of a better term, filling. I feel like I've been served an appetizer when I'm hungry for meat and potatoes. Generally speaking, I'd say Episcopalians or Catholics would find Presbyterian sermons to be too long, while Presbyterians would find Catholic or Episcopal sermons to be too short. Then there are the Baptists, who might well find Presbyterian sermons too short.
I'd say the neighborhood of 20 minutes is the expected norm for us, sometimes a little shorter.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Then there are the Baptists, who might well find Presbyterian sermons too short.
Depends on the Baptists, depends on the Presbyterians!
Seriously, there is something to do with the preacher's organisation, content and delivery; and also with the target audience. I once read a book (possibly by John Stott) in which the author cited the most inappropriate sermon they'd ever heard, delivered by the Curate "at a church in a working-class Birmingham parish at Evensong": "The Significance of Recent Archaeological Discoveries in our Understanding of the Inter-testamental Period".
Sounds riveting!
I also remember reading about Michael Saward, when a curate in London in the 1960s, taking issue with his Rector's lengthy and highly-detailed Bible expositions in the style of Martyn Llloyd-Jones. In particular there was one interminable series for which he was asked to find interesting titles. As he placed the notice on the board, a frustrated parishioner said, "He can give 'em whatever fancy name he likes, they're still bloody 1 Peter!"
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I rarely find a 10 minute sermon to be, for want of a better term, filling. I feel like I've been served an appetizer when I'm hungry for meat and potatoes.
Me, too. On the other hand, some "lengthy" preachers spend far too long fussing around with the napkins, arranging the cutlery and discussing the menu before they serve you any "food" at all!
Posted by Urfshyne (# 17834) on
:
A retired Salvation Army officer (Now deceased) of my acquaintance used to say, "If you haven't struck oil in ten minutes, stop boring."
Personally, I find it depends entirely upon the content and the presentation.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
the most inappropriate sermon they'd ever heard, delivered by the Curate "at a church in a working-class Birmingham parish at Evensong": "The Significance of Recent Archaeological Discoveries in our Understanding of the Inter-testamental Period".
Sounds riveting!
Sounds like a Curate sermon.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
No, you need practice to get good. I don't expect you to come right out of seminary and be able to preach a perfectly organized sermon. That's part of the responsibility of the parish that takes on a Curate, to help them learn the ropes.
(I remember hearing a Curate giving a fairly poor sermon at a weekday afternoon mass in NYC, at a place where homeless people were welcome to come off the street to have a moment of peace inside. One particularly troubled man stood up in the middle of the sermon and yelled, in classic New York fashion, "YOU SUCK!" I wouldn't have gone that far in my criticism, but he kind of had a point...)
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:
the most inappropriate sermon they'd ever heard, delivered by the Curate "at a church in a working-class Birmingham parish at Evensong": "The Significance of Recent Archaeological Discoveries in our Understanding of the Inter-testamental Period".
Sounds riveting!
Sounds like a Curate sermon.
But it's SO much easier to use a paper you wrote in Seminary rather than actually write a sermon.
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on
:
I asked one of my supervisors this when I had just started my training. Her reply was, "Some sermons are too long at five minutes, and some are too short at fifty-five."
Ministering to a wealthy liberal congregation, she taught me to get to the point in 10-12 minutes. However, my next church was conservative charismatic, in one of the poorest areas of Scotland. Many of the congregation had problems with substance abuse, and with their mental and physical health. Yet the minister there regularly spoke for an hour, without notes, and he never lost his listeners once.
The problem was that the other members of the ministry team would attempt to replicate this, and they didn't quite have the skill that he did. Neither did I. But I did hit 35 minutes once, and found it a freeing experience! And the congregation politely accepted such a short sermon because I was a rookie after all.
These days I aim for around 15 minutes.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Then there are the Baptists, who might well find Presbyterian sermons too short.
Depends on the Baptists, depends on the Presbyterians!
Indeed! My familiarity and experience is with (American) Southern Baptists. Mileage may certainly vary.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I used to say that Rabbi Lionel Blue set the standard (BBC R4 Thought for the Day) at three minutes. Within which he nearly always managed to find something informative, helpful and funny to say.
But seriously folks ...
It is always better to err on the short side.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I rarely find a 10 minute sermon to be, for want of a better term, filling. I feel like I've been served an appetizer when I'm hungry for meat and potatoes.
Me, too. On the other hand, some "lengthy" preachers spend far too long fussing around with the napkins, arranging the cutlery and discussing the menu before they serve you any "food" at all!
Without a doubt. And then what they do serve us overdone.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Urfshyne:
A retired Salvation Army officer (Now deceased) of my acquaintance used to say, "If you haven't struck oil in ten minutes, stop boring."
That's a beauty ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
Have a good opening, have a good closing, and make them as close together as possible. (Although a good joke or two may be allowed.)
Has anyone read "The Great Sermon Handicap" by Wodehouse?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Ideal sermon length: 0 minutes.
Ideal homily length: 10 minutes tops.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Has anyone read "The Great Sermon Handicap" by Wodehouse?
Of course! (But then again, I've read virtually everything Plum ever wrote.)
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Our church is a busy one, and there are 3 services on Sunday morning. This means that each service must end on time, if the next one is to start on time. And this is a powerful motivator for everybody to keep things on track.
It is invisible from the pews, but on the front of the first pew (on the panel that hides the front-pew sitters knees) our previous Rector mounted a clock. It is a foot in diameter and easily visible from anywhere in the altar area or pulpit.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
It is extremely common for Nonconformist chapels to have clocks mounted in a place where the preacher (but not the congregation) can see it.
This caught the BBC out some years ago in a "Songs of Praise" programme. Having been recorded in several takes and reassembled later, the programme showed the time varying wildly. I noticed that, next time they did the programme in a similar chapel, the clock was discreetly covered.
I have known the (mains electric) clock stoop in the middle of the sermon ... with predictable results!
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Depending on how choral your services are, sometimes all the time is sucked up not by the sermon, but by that extra chorus. For festivals our choir rehearses and times everything. (That tradition of singing the Hallelujah Chorus always calls for tinkering with the schedule.)
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Open-evo church about 30 years ago. 630pm Sunday service - full ASB Evening Prayer with hymns etc. I was tired - assisting at 8am BCP Communion, leading Pathfinders at 1030am service, lunch with in-laws, tea with parents......I looked at my watch as the Vicar began his sermon, and looked at it again when Mrs. I. woke me up at the end FORTY-SEVEN (47) minutes later......
I.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Open-evo church about 30 years ago. 630pm Sunday service - full ASB Evening Prayer with hymns etc. I was tired - assisting at 8am BCP Communion, leading Pathfinders at 1030am service, lunch with in-laws, tea with parents......I looked at my watch as the Vicar began his sermon, and looked at it again when Mrs. I. woke me up at the end FORTY-SEVEN (47) minutes later......
I.
I doubt that you were the only one who dozed off.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
I wish people would stop obsessing with the length of sermons. Some preachers can only mouth platitudes in ten minutes; they need 20 minutes to get into the substance of their subject and say something meaningful. Others get waffly and unfocussed if they preach for more than 8 minutes; they need the miniature form and the discipline it gives to bring their thoughts into focus.
It also depends on the relationship between preacher and congregation, and between the congregation and their worship.
The right length for a sermon is what the preacher needs to say what they want to say and to take the congregation on the intended journey/exploration.
Of course, if the elements don't fit together the sermon isn't going to work, whatever length it may be.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
It depends on audience and context (type of service). I'm doing all age worship tomorrow on the "Great Banquet" and there's several slots of no more than 4 minutes each. A couple of these will be unpacking the bible story.
Normally I'm 25 to 27 minutes and am told I can hold the attention well: I focus a fair bit on practicalities and application. I don't use a lot of jokes (I'm not naturally funny) I do use pictures/slides quite a bit to emphasise the points. Lots of people take notes: I also get dynamic feedback from people during preaching which can affect the timing. I'm working on in sermon tweets too
If we are to grow as disciples we need to be fed. Feeding means something going in - and I work generally on a 3 P service - prayer, praise and proclamation in balance. In a previous curch I often preached for 40 minutes with many young people present who told me they could understand what I said.
If the church wanted me to speak for 8 minutes each week, I think I'd have to ask them to get another pastor.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
A quote from Spurgeon - not known for his brevity!
"The subject will not complain of you, but the people will. In some country places, in the afternoon especially, the farmers have to milk their cows, and one farmer bitterly complained to me about a young man — I think from this College — “Sir, he ought to have given over at four o’clock, but he kept on till half-past, and there were all my cows waiting to be milked! How would he have liked it if he had been a cow?” There was a great deal of sense in that question. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ought to have prosecuted that young sinner. How can farmers hear to profit when they have cows-on-the-brain?"
[ 30. April 2016, 20:10: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I wish people would stop obsessing with the length of sermons. Some preachers can only mouth platitudes in ten minutes; they need 20 minutes to get into the substance of their subject and say something meaningful.
Such a preacher would have lost my attention before he got onto saying anything meaningful. I'd suggest that he go into writing articles that he can then edit the opening crap out of. I don't go to church to be told what to think; a few pointers to make me think, yes, but stuff I can read up in any theology book? Nah.
[ 30. April 2016, 21:57: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Clearly the response to loquacious preachers is to stand up and sing at them.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Urfshyne:
A retired Salvation Army officer (Now deceased) of my acquaintance used to say, "If you haven't struck oil in ten minutes, stop boring."
But, if you strike oil don't you then go and pump it from the ground? I'm not sure what would be more frustrating, a sermon that fails to strike oil or one that as soon as it does caps the well. Neither provide anything for anointing.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Urfshyne:
A retired Salvation Army officer (Now deceased) of my acquaintance used to say, "If you haven't struck oil in ten minutes, stop boring."
But, if you strike oil don't you then go and pump it from the ground? I'm not sure what would be more frustrating, a sermon that fails to strike oil or one that as soon as it does caps the well. Neither provide anything for anointing.
You don't cap the well. Once the oil's flowing you leave it to get on with it, rather than carrying on digging.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I'm another of those who think that overlong sermons are unnecessary when the preacher could just give you a reading list!
One of the reasons why I appreciate Evensong at the church I attend is that the sermons are fairly short. 10-12 minutes, I'd say. That's long enough for a mainstream, MOTR preacher. Longer than that and you may get padding. (Several years ago I went through a phase of trying to take notes at churches of this sort, and found a lot of repetition and extraneous material that didn't seem worth writing down.)
Of course, the listeners (i.e. the likes of me) are a problem; our attention spans are shorter than they were, so the modern preacher's skills and material have to be even more gripping now than they probably would have been in the past. It's a big ask, to be fair.
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
With many preachers I've found that anything after about 15 minutes goes in one ear and out the other.
Myself, I aim for 15 minutes, or 20 minutes max.
BTW, what's the difference between a sermon and a homily? I kind of thought that homily was the Catholic name for a sermon.
GG
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I find the sound of a steady male voice impossibly soporific. I can snooze through anything -- sermons, political speeches, lectures. (This is why I was a terrible political reporter, but politicians do give you speech transcripts.) It takes a good speaker to keep me conscious, and I knit quietly in the pew to keep from dozing off during the sermon. I don't have to look at my hands as I knit, so i doubt if the preacher cares.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
BTW, what's the difference between a sermon and a homily? I kind of thought that homily was the Catholic name for a sermon.
AIUI, a homily is a commentary or reflection on the day's scripture readings. It's aim is to explain and place the scripture into context.
A sermon is more of a moral lecture. It will usually draw on scripture, and often on the scripture of the day, but its aim is to teach a particular point of faith, encourage a particular behaviour and so on.
So if you have a wedding, and the priest spends ten minutes talking about marriage and how to love one another, it's a sermon. If he spends 10 minutes explaining 1 Cor 13, it's a homily.
When a speaker from a charity that your church supports shows up and spends ten minutes talking about the work of his charity, it is neither a homily nor a sermon. It's probably a "talk".
(This is the cue for a queue of priests to show up and tell me I'm talking nonsense.)
Brenda: I've sat in lectures near knitters. They're very annoying - I'm trying to pay attention to the speaker, and I get a rhythmic clack-clack-clack in one ear. They're almost as bad as people who bounce their pen on their pad of paper.
[ 01. May 2016, 03:06: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
BTW, what's the difference between a sermon and a homily? I kind of thought that homily was the Catholic name for a sermon.
AIUI, a homily is a commentary or reflection on the day's scripture readings. It's aim is to explain and place the scripture into context.
A sermon is more of a moral lecture. It will usually draw on scripture, and often on the scripture of the day, but its aim is to teach a particular point of faith, encourage a particular behaviour and so on.
I've heard this distinction made before by some, but your description of a homily is the definition of a sermon in my tradition. Among my folk, the two words are used synonymously, except that if it's called a homily, it is typically expected to be shorter.
[ 01. May 2016, 03:37: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
My own denomination makes no difference between sermons and homilies, though the latter word is rarely used. We get "message" occasionally, which only means the pastor is hoping to fool us into believing he's going to run short that day. Heh.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
BTW, what's the difference between a sermon and a homily? I kind of thought that homily was the Catholic name for a sermon.
AIUI, a homily is a commentary or reflection on the day's scripture readings. It's aim is to explain and place the scripture into context.
A sermon is more of a moral lecture. It will usually draw on scripture, and often on the scripture of the day, but its aim is to teach a particular point of faith, encourage a particular behaviour and so on.
I've heard this distinction made before by some, but your description of a homily is the definition of a sermon in my tradition. Among my folk, the two words are used synonymously, except that if it's called a homily, it is typically expected to be shorter.
Expository preaching is the pride of Sydney Anglicanism. The sermon is a very lengthy lecture in which we are told how to interpret (in its plain and literal sense of course) a particular bible passage of the Presbyter's choosing. Often a book of the bible is preached through for a number of weeks. A sermon of only 20minutes would be extremely rare in Sydney,
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
My own denomination makes no difference between sermons and homilies, though the latter word is rarely used. We get "message" occasionally, which only means the pastor is hoping to fool us into believing he's going to run short that day. Heh.
"Message", for a lay preacher, can mean: "I am not a theologian. I am a member of the congregation who has studied and given thought to a topic/bible passage and am sharing such insights as have come to me."
GG
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Expository preaching is the pride of Sydney Anglicanism. The sermon is a very lengthy lecture in which we are told how to interpret (in its plain and literal sense of course) a particular bible passage of the Presbyter's choosing.
I would be perfectly interested to read her sermons, or listen on the radio while doing something else. Sit and listen on a sunny Sunday morning? Nah, never.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Expository preaching is the pride of Sydney Anglicanism. The sermon is a very lengthy lecture in which we are told how to interpret (in its plain and literal sense of course) a particular bible passage of the Presbyter's choosing.
I would be perfectly interested to read her sermons, or listen on the radio while doing something else. Sit and listen on a sunny Sunday morning? Nah, never.
I just choked on my coffee, the presbyter is never a "she" ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I do wonder if you're right-sitting on a sunny Sunday morning to listen to an ordinary preacher-when you can download a gifted preacher from the net and listen at your leisure. Methinks the church service is an anachronism and may now be hindering the gospel.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I would be perfectly interested to read her sermons, or listen on the radio while doing something else. Sit and listen on a sunny Sunday morning? Nah, never.
Leaving aside the identity of the preacher, I have a wee problem with reading/listening to sermons outwith actually being in the congregation - or, at least, getting our only exposure to preaching that way.
My issue is that the sermon is a particular, participatory proclamation. By which I mean:
- It is proclaimed word, the medium is the spoken word. The written word is a very different medium, and reading the transcript of a sermon is very different from hearing it.
- It is proclaimed to a particular gathering of the people of God, in a particular place, with their particular history. It is prepared for that particular situation, and heard by that particular gathering of the people of God.
- The particular gathering in the people of God participate in the proclamation of the word. It isn't a passive listening to someone speak, but an active participation in corporate worship. In some traditions it would be acceptable for the congregation to exclaim agreement, in others to follow the Scriptures referenced. In some traditions the sermon is followed by silent reflection on the message, in others a call to recommit lives to Christ by coming forward to the altar rail (especially common in High Church settings, it's called the Eucharist). In most traditions the word is enacted through liturgy and hymns. It's even permitted to discuss the sermon during the fellowship over coffee after the benediction.
All of that is missing when sitting reading a transcript of a sermon, or watching it on YouTube on your own. Not that there's anything particularly wrong with reading/watching on your own, it is just a lesser experience than being at church. It can complement attending worship and participating in the particular proclamation of the word, but only in extremis would be a replacement for that.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by Brenda Clough quote:
I knit quietly in the pew to keep from dozing off during the sermon.
When I was a young chorister we were instructed to use the sermon (which at Matins used to be anything up to 20 minutes) as an opportunity to learn a psalm. Yes, yes, I know we shouldn't have been encouraged to not listen, but in fact a surprising amount went in, along with the psalm being committed to memory.
Later in life I learned the value of choristers knowing the words of psalms in that it makes the singing of them far better, not just musically but also the meaning of the words.
So of course, I recommend the same 'use' of a sermon to my choristers now.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The particular gathering in the people of God participate in the proclamation of the word. It isn't a passive listening to someone speak, but an active participation in corporate worship. In some traditions it would be acceptable for the congregation to exclaim agreement, in others to follow the Scriptures referenced. In some traditions the sermon is followed by silent reflection on the message, in others a call to recommit lives to Christ by coming forward to the altar rail ...
Yes - but I tend to see this as an exercise in persuasion through the charisma of the preacher rather then the 'word' speaking for itself. I'm no longer worshipping in Church, merely observing.
I know, I'm bringing my own problems with faith and my skepticism to the experience and I'm sorry about that in more ways than one. These days if the sermon goes on too long or is too obviously 'selling' a line I find the pup urgently needs the loo and go out for a walk with her.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Expository preaching is the pride of Sydney Anglicanism. The sermon is a very lengthy lecture in which we are told how to interpret (in its plain and literal sense of course) a particular bible passage of the Presbyter's choosing.
I would be perfectly interested to read her sermons, or listen on the radio while doing something else. Sit and listen on a sunny Sunday morning? Nah, never.
I just choked on my coffee, the presbyter is never a "she"
Oooops, sorry! Our last three ministers have been female so I tend to default to 'she'! ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Leaving aside the identity of the preacher, I have a wee problem with reading/listening to sermons outwith actually being in the congregation - or, at least, getting our only exposure to preaching that way.
My issue is that the sermon is a particular, participatory proclamation.
I couldn't agree more. There is also the sense - certainly in a Nonconformist or Reformed service - that the whole liturgy is devised and built up around the sermon and the text it is based on, thus highlighting and amplifying what the preacher is trying to say.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I don't think most sermons are especially 'participatory', though. Not in the sense that anyone would recognise outside a church service. Yes, they give us food for thought - but so do lots of things. So would reading a copy of a sermon.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I don't think most sermons are especially 'participatory', though.
I would suggest that that reflects a problem with how sermons are commonly delivered and received. Which calls for a correction of the problem, rather than ditching the whole idea of proclaiming the word in worship.
And, as far as I'm concerned "as short as we can get away with" is effectively to ditch the proclaimed sermon.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
... I do wonder if you're right-sitting on a sunny Sunday morning to listen to an ordinary preacher-when you can download a gifted preacher from the net and listen at your leisure. Methinks the church service is an anachronism and may now be hindering the gospel.
Is to sit and be preached to what we are mainly there to do?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Some years ago I took part in a fascinating linguistic study on the ways in which preachers seek to draw their hearers into their discourse. (I think the author managed to get several papers out of his research!)
I did comment that one flaw of the research was that it depended on written texts, whereas preachers may use other "markers" in their actual delivery.
[ 01. May 2016, 14:00: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Alan Cresswell
I agree that there's a problem with how many sermons are delivered and received. But rectifying that would be very difficult.
Shorter sermons are also problematic, though. For many British churchgoers, the sermon is likely to be their most regular and focused experience of communal Christian teaching, as I would guess that the majority don't attend small groups. Unless lay Christians are seriously encouraged to study and reflect on their own then the sermon is likely to be where they get most of their 'meat' about the faith. Short sermons might not serve this purpose very well.
Again, it's hard to address this in the context of moderate, mainstream, pluralistic Christianity. There's no guarantee that longer sermons will contain more serious teaching or more opportunity for deep reflection than short ones.
[ 01. May 2016, 14:05: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I do wonder if you're right-sitting on a sunny Sunday morning to listen to an ordinary preacher-when you can download a gifted preacher from the net and listen at your leisure. Methinks the church service is an anachronism and may now be hindering the gospel.
I read or listen to sermons from time to time. It is, for me at least, only a partial experience, especially if the sermon was preached in a community unfamiliar to me. That is because, for me, sermons are both intended for individuals and for the entire community. I think lack of community would be a much bigger hindrance to the gospel.
But again, context matters. What is expected of a sermon/homily will vary from tradition to tradition, region to region, and even congregation to congregation. Those varying expectations will inform how seminarians are taught to prepare and deliver sermons as well as how worshippers receive them. They will inform how the sermon is understood to fit into the service as a whole.
Diversity is not a bad thing necessarily; people are diverse. What "works" for someone else may not work for another. I try not to think that we "do" sermons better than other traditions. But I think it's okay to say that the way we do sermons works for me better than the way some other traditions do them would. And vice versa.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Or there are people like me who were subjected to a considerable period of political and borderline insane/abusive sermons (I have in past threads thrilled shipmates with the account of the 35-minute sermon warning us about the practical dangers of anal sex), and who now seek out those church services (hello! 8.00 am!!) where we get very short addresses, if anything at all. I figure that I may have heard well over a thousand sermons over my life, and can only recall about 4 or 5 with any edification.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I figure that I may have heard well over a thousand sermons over my life, and can only recall about 4 or 5 with any edification.
I calculate that I've eaten in excess of 60,000 meals in my lifetime. If I can remember as many as a couple of dozen of them now I'm doing well (and it's not generally the food I remember so much as the occasion). All of them nourished me though, even ones that I didn't enjoy!
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
All of them nourished me though, even ones that I didn't enjoy!
No - some sadly gave you constipation, diarrhoea or food poisoning.
It's the same with sermons. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Yes. Fair point about food poisoning - but it was definitely a minority.
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Leaving aside the identity of the preacher, I have a wee problem with reading/listening to sermons outwith actually being in the congregation - or, at least, getting our only exposure to preaching that way.
My issue is that the sermon is a particular, participatory proclamation.
I couldn't agree more. There is also the sense - certainly in a Nonconformist or Reformed service - that the whole liturgy is devised and built up around the sermon and the text it is based on, thus highlighting and amplifying what the preacher is trying to say.
This.
Apart from studying the text and meditating on it as I compose the sermon, much time goes into writing prayers and choosing hymns that are just right. I hope the congregation feels the intended effect!
I was sad when a worship leader at a church with no minister, remote enough to have difficulty finding visiting ministers, chose a rather boring sermon from the internet and read it badly. He is a dear soul, but I had no idea afterwards what it was all about.
GG
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I remember reading about some research that was carried out among some French Protestants from various churches in the 80s, and it involved asking them on the very same day what the focus of the day's sermon had been. 40% couldn't or wouldn't give a response. Most couldn't or wouldn't say which biblical text had been preached on.
The worshippers were surely nourished in several ways, but one sociologist felt that with direct communication so weak, the act of gathering together to share in a religious ritual and to reinforce their shared identity in a largely secular culture was more important to these worshippers than the actual content of the sermons they heard.
I don't know what the results of such a survey would be in other parts of the Western world, in the same or similar denominations, but they might not necessarily be very different. Whether or not this is a problem depends on your point of view.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I would be perfectly interested to read her sermons, or listen on the radio while doing something else. Sit and listen on a sunny Sunday morning? Nah, never.
Leaving aside the identity of the preacher, I have a wee problem with reading/listening to sermons outwith actually being in the congregation - or, at least, getting our only exposure to preaching that way.
My issue is that the sermon is a particular, participatory proclamation. By which I mean:
- It is proclaimed word, the medium is the spoken word. The written word is a very different medium, and reading the transcript of a sermon is very different from hearing it.
- It is proclaimed to a particular gathering of the people of God, in a particular place, with their particular history. It is prepared for that particular situation, and heard by that particular gathering of the people of God.
- The particular gathering in the people of God participate in the proclamation of the word. It isn't a passive listening to someone speak, but an active participation in corporate worship. In some traditions it would be acceptable for the congregation to exclaim agreement, in others to follow the Scriptures referenced. In some traditions the sermon is followed by silent reflection on the message, in others a call to recommit lives to Christ by coming forward to the altar rail (especially common in High Church settings, it's called the Eucharist). In most traditions the word is enacted through liturgy and hymns. It's even permitted to discuss the sermon during the fellowship over coffee after the benediction.
All of that is missing when sitting reading a transcript of a sermon, or watching it on YouTube on your own. Not that there's anything particularly wrong with reading/watching on your own, it is just a lesser experience than being at church. It can complement attending worship and participating in the particular proclamation of the word, but only in extremis would be a replacement for that.
I don't disagree but that just isn't the reality of the sermons (more of an expository lecture I guess than a sermon) in my tradition. The only context they talk about is where the passage fits within the bible.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I would say that, although preaching should definitely be thoughtful, scholarly and accurate, those qualities alone are not sufficient to lift it above the level of an abstract discourse. It must also have that extra element of immediacy, of the humble but authoritative suggestion by the preacher that "this is what God is saying to us gathered here". This can only be arrived at through prayerful meditation and knowledge of where the congregation is "at".
To put it in a different way, I think that sermons generally ought to include something expository (= "this is what the Bible means"), something of careful application (= "this is what the Bible may mean today") and even something prophetic (= "I believe that this is what the Bible may mean for us today").
I accept that, in the wrong hands, this could mean the preacher wielding undue influence and power over their auditors; in extreme cases this could become cultic. It is therefore vital that the congregation carefully assesses what is being said and decides whether it really is "God's living word" or not.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
It must also have that extra element of immediacy, of the humble but authoritative suggestion by the preacher that "this is what God is saying to us gathered here".
And, the humility of suggesting that God is saying something to the gathered people is matched by the participatory testing of that word by the congregation.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I would say that, although preaching should definitely be thoughtful, scholarly and accurate, those qualities alone are not sufficient to lift it above the level of an abstract discourse. It must also have that extra element of immediacy, of the humble but authoritative suggestion by the preacher that "this is what God is saying to us gathered here". This can only be arrived at through prayerful meditation and knowledge of where the congregation is "at".
To put it in a different way, I think that sermons generally ought to include something expository (= "this is what the Bible means"), something of careful application (= "this is what the Bible may mean today") and even something prophetic (= "I believe that this is what the Bible may mean for us today").
I accept that, in the wrong hands, this could mean the preacher wielding undue influence and power over their auditors; in extreme cases this could become cultic. It is therefore vital that the congregation carefully assesses what is being said and decides whether it really is "God's living word" or not.
Well said. Spot on.
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on
:
In my experience:
A sermon has gone too long the first time I look at my watch.
A sermon has REALLY gone too long when I start reading through the hymnal.
Actual times may very considerably, of course.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
It seems fitting that as my namesake fell asleep and thus to his death during an over-long sermon by Paul, it should be me that finally moves this thread to its rightful place in Ecclesiantics.
Hold tight and move away from the window sill.
/hosting
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
In my experience:
A sermon has gone too long the first time I look at my watch.
A sermon has REALLY gone too long when I start reading through the hymnal.
A sermon has REALLY, REALLY gone on too long when you put the watch to your ear to see if it's still going.
Or consult a calendar.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
It's also a fairly bad indicator if you wake up and it's still going on.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
(Also applicable to Wagner operas).
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I figure that I may have heard well over a thousand sermons over my life, and can only recall about 4 or 5 with any edification.
I calculate that I've eaten in excess of 60,000 meals in my lifetime. If I can remember as many as a couple of dozen of them now I'm doing well (and it's not generally the food I remember so much as the occasion). All of them nourished me though, even ones that I didn't enjoy!
Point taken. If we use the nourishment rule, I would say about a quarter to a third of them fit the bill. By way of an attempt at a comparison which might be useful to some shipmates, I would say a bit more than half of the sermons heard on BBC3's Choral Evensong would fall into the nourishing category, which would suggest that Anglican pew fodder in Canada is not doing that well (I also found that RC sermons were far worse, and Presbyterian ones far better-- I found UCC sermons roughly at an Anglican level, although usually a lot more carefully prepared).
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
(Also applicable to Wagner operas).
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
You can't fall asleep during a Wagner opera!
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
...however much you might want to.
[No, in fairness Wagner is great, except when somebody is singing.]
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
Mark Twain once said that no one ever got saved after the first 20 minutes of a sermon.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Yes but sermons are not means of conversion. I am only really settling into a sermon after ten minutes. Before that my mind is busy with all sorts of other stuff. So anyone who thinks they need to say the important stuff in the first ten minutes has missed me.
I find silences of less than ten minutes equally annoying for much the same reason. Deep listening for me whether it is in silence or in a sermon takes time to settle into.
Jengie
[ 03. May 2016, 08:05: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
I'm always suspicious of "sermons" that less than 10 minutes. You just can't develop any great depth in so short a time and is better described as a short talk. The term sermon carries with it connotations of depth and gravitas.
Anything over 40 minutes is likely to stretch the capacity of the congregation to remember the key points (providing there are some, of course).
My ideal length is then 20-30 minutes, which is sufficient to get in:
1. An exposition of the passage including any cultureal, historical, religious, political, etc. context to help put it in it's place.
2. An encouragement from it
3. A practical challenge, applying it to the needs to the needs and situations faced by today's community.
Posted by JeffTL (# 16722) on
:
I've heard well upward of a thousand sermons but haven't had the occasion to preach any. This is what I can distill:
On Sunday, long enough to make the point but not so long that the congregation misses it. This can be anywhere from seven to fifteen minutes, roughly speaking. Longer than that and it really becomes more of a lecture that is probably better suited to a non-liturgical context so you can dig a little deeper and take questions. There is certainly nothing wrong with in-depth public speaking about theology, but at a certain point it should be its own event rather than an aspect of public worship. But the key point - there is no shame in being brief if you don't have much to say. No one is grading by weight and filler only makes it harder for people to remember what you said. If it's shorter than usual, perhaps it's a good time for whatever your particular church's more lengthy prayer options are.
At a weekday service, five minutes is fine - just something to elaborate on the scriptures and/or commemoration of the day. At one of these you don't want to have to rush the intercessions or the Eucharist, but still get non-retired attendees to work (or back to work, if it's a lunch hour service in a business district) on time. I've known some clergy who will just read a hagiography out of Lesser Feasts and Fasts, which is fine, but a short sermon is more edifying to hear when it is feasible.
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
What is the difference between a sermon and a homily - not necessarily two different names for the same thing? As I understand it, a homily is short and a sermon is long. How long or short, is not defined.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I think it's to do with one's tradition. Baptists might have sermons, messages or even (in more informal settings) talks - but never homilies.
I suspect, on the other hand, that Catholics might have homilies and even sermons, but never messages ...
And so on: "Brother Smith will now bring us this evening's 'Word'", etc.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I've never heard the word 'homily' in a Methodist setting. The alternative to a 'sermon' would be a 'talk' or a 'reflection'.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
What is the difference between a sermon and a homily - not necessarily two different names for the same thing? As I understand it, a homily is short and a sermon is long. How long or short, is not defined.
Roman Catholic shipmates might correct me, but I rather think that pre-Vatican 2 the usual term was 'sermon', meaning a moral/theological discourse within the liturgy which may not have had a close relationship with the readings of the day. With the advent of the new lectionary, and a greater stress on reading and studying the Scriptures, the aim was to expound on the scripture texts (primarily the Gospel) of the day. To distinguish it from the more generalised 'sermon', this was called a 'homily'.
Even in Anglican circles, the 'sermon' up to the 1950s or 60s was often based on a specific 'text' (maybe just a verse of scripture) that might or might not be taken from the lectionary. For some reason Anglicans and some others have got into the habit of using the word 'homily' for a shorter-than-average (and often casual off-the-cuff chat) sermon.
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on
:
RC usage: A sermon is a religious discourse that is preached as part of a worship service. A homily is a sermon that is based on specific scripture(s). Thus, all homilies are sermons, but not all sermons are homilies.
Further muddying the waters is:
The art of preaching is called homiletics.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
A priest I knew a long time ago used frequently to introduce the sermon at the evening eucharist (with hymns and a small attendance) with the words "As you know we do not have a sermon at these services, just a few words."
He proceeded to preach a short sermon.
He went on the be dean of a distinguished cathedral.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
In Anglican terms, where does this leave the books of homilies that accompanied the first BCPs?
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
In Anglican terms, where does this leave the books of homilies that accompanied the first BCPs?
You can Google THE BOOK OF HOMILIES and Wikipedia comes up with very factual information. I can go into this more fully later, if no other shipmate has done so in the mean-time.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
I don't remember the word 'homily' when I was a child, but I was always intrigued by the word 'panegyric', usually used only at the funeral of a priest.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
You could even have an Encomium.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Most sermons are rather predictable. I'd gladly listen longer if they told me something interesting and challenging, but mostly my limit is around 10 minutes.
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I don't remember the word 'homily' when I was a child, but I was always intrigued by the word 'panegyric', usually used only at the funeral of a priest.
That word is used in conjunction with any funeral. Fortescue and O'Connell use it.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Somebody does need to point out that there are different styles in Sermons. There is rather a nice sermon type prezi from a more conservative perspective.
I am pretty sure there are more. Two options you might like to consider; the relationship between Scripture and the Sermon and the presentation style. Some combinations lend themselves to short sermons and others almost require longer ones. An Ignatian imaginative exploration of a parable can easily take thirty plus minutes just to get you atmosphere.
Jengie
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
An Ignatian imaginative exploration of a parable can easily take thirty plus minutes just to get you atmosphere.
Jengie
Would that be appropriate in the context of a celebration of the Eucharist? I would find that it would fit better at a Quiet Day or Retreat rather than in a worship service.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
I am thinking of a very specific sermon and I can assure you it would have been highly appropriate to have a Eucharist after it.
Quiet days and retreats are for those into them. Sermons are for the whole community.
You are making assumptions about Sermons that for those whose spirituality is more strongly connected with the Word do not exist.
Jengie
[ 05. May 2016, 15:58: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
An Ignatian imaginative exploration of a parable can easily take thirty plus minutes just to get you atmosphere.Jengie
Not necessarily - I've done them in 10 minutes with a congregation.
And with young people in the classroom.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
Surely length is irrelevant to content?
And a profound address can be short and more impressive for the lack of padding (feeble joke, personal anecdote, Trivial Pursuit info, gossip, etc.)
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
You can Google THE BOOK OF HOMILIES and Wikipedia comes up with very factual information. I can go into this more fully later, if no other shipmate has done so in the mean-time.
I have seen and looked at a Book of Homilies but never heard it read from. I suspect it has not been used since 1642.
In more modern usage, I would definitely regard 'the homily' as an RC expression. I wasn't aware until this thread that in RC circles 'homily' and 'sermon' have different meanings.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Surely length is irrelevant to content?
And a profound address can be short and more impressive for the lack of padding (feeble joke, personal anecdote, Trivial Pursuit info, gossip, etc.)
Yes, but it can also be superficial because it does not have space or time to deal with things properly. It can mean that you only communicate with some of your audience. What is more, that padding your refer to so derisively is a very important part of communication for many people. Let me tell you how I know.
Many years ago I was on Iona when there was a deaf-dumb visitor F as well. My signing is highly limited but I did have the alphabet which was more than anyone else had that week. F did have a machine that allowed her to communicate but it meant someone had to type and it ever so often ran out of electricity. Therefore, I became one of her interpreters for the week. Writing or signing when you only have the alphabet is much slower than spoken communication. I would, therefore, try to cut out all padding. This came naturally to me as I am both mathematical and write relatively slowly compared with other people. I developed a concise, precise use of language. The only thing was F insisted that all the extras I had cut were put back in. Only when they were there could she understand what had been said.
The result of this realisation is that I have had to train myself to pad because my highly precise economical use of language is not prized outside poetry. Typically I will mix communication style to try and connect with a wider audience.
Jengie
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Would anyone who wants a short sermon also say that they should have a barebones eucharist?
If not why not?
Why is the Word allowed to be for shortened and not the sacrament?
Jengie
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I think that's a very interesting point.
I take a midweek service in a Sheltered Housing complex and, once a month, it's Communion.
Although the details of the Eucharist part of the service varies (mainly because it's unscripted), we always include prayer (including thanksgiving, an epiclesis and some kind of humble access/confession) and the Words of Institution.
It never takes more than 10 minutes.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Would anyone who wants a short sermon also say that they should have a barebones eucharist?
If not why not?
Why is the Word allowed to be for shortened and not the sacrament?
Jengie
Within the Anglican tradition it certainly can be shortened when required, and I expect in other traditions too.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
Compared to the Copts or the Syrians,the sacrament is certainly shortened by the Romans.
A few powerful words are more worthwhile than half an hour of waffle.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
But, how about half an hour of good words? Why assume that because a sermon exceeds 10 minutes (or, whatever arbitrary length is deemed the right amount) that it is waffle?
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
I would be only too glad to listen to forty minutes or more of imaginative, informed, passionate, witty and humane exposition of the human condition in the light of the scripture and Christian orthodoxy (and that is perfectly possible). But I would rather listen to five minutes of imaginative, etc exposition rather than forty minutes or more of platitudinous drivel.
Just because an address is brief, doesn't mean it is not powerful. Indeed it can be more so.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Of course, a short sermon can be powerful. But, a long sermon can also be something other than drivel. Why the assumption that the only way of extending a sermon beyond ten minutes is to fill it out with drivel and irrelevancy?
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
For goodness' sake, I'mm not assuming that the only way of filling it out is with drivel - I specifically said so.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Sorry, I read your statement as a description of something you didn't seem to think existed quote:
I would be only too glad to listen to forty minutes or more of imaginative, informed, passionate, witty and humane exposition of the human condition in the light of the scripture and Christian orthodoxy (and that is perfectly possible).
Why did I think that? Because your other posts (and the rest of that one) seemed very dismissive of the elements that give a sermon length beyond ten minutes
quote:
And a profound address can be short and more impressive for the lack of padding (feeble joke, personal anecdote, Trivial Pursuit info, gossip, etc.)
quote:
A few powerful words are more worthwhile than half an hour of waffle.
quote:
I would rather listen to five minutes of imaginative, etc exposition rather than forty minutes or more of platitudinous drivel.
Padding, waffle, platitudinous drivel. All your words about longer sermons.
Of course "platitudinous drivel" is subjective, and a 2 minute sermon can be 100% platitudinous drivel as easily as a 2 hour sermon. Indeed, by failing to take the time to explore a text it may be more likely that a short sermon is platitudinous drivel than an longer one.
As for the "padding", and possibly "waffle" depending on what you count as waffle, that can form a very important part of the structure of an address - whether that's a sermon, or another form of public speaking (like a lecture, or a presentation at a conference). If you want your audience to maintain attention for more than a few minutes you need to break up the talk, an anecdote or joke, or piece of trivia, gives time for your audience to take a mental break, and at the start gives an easy in too the talk. There's never a place for gossip within the church.
If you want your audience to remember and learn from what you're saying, it's usually necessary to say the same thing a couple of times in different ways. If you have an audio visual display (which would include lectures and conference presentations, but also things like TV news and documentaries) then you can do that with images and words displayed as you talk - and a good talk will be something other than just reading the words you've put on the screen. In a sermon that might be by giving a personal, relevant anecdote, then expounding the Scripture, then lead some reflection on what that means to the church you're addressing, then a recap over what's been said and finally some call to respond. There's something to be said for a "three point sermon", but sometimes making one point three times works even better.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
When I first started to preach, half to three quarters of an hour was expected. People complained of being short changed otherwise. And waffle or mere padding was strongly criticised. I was expected to be accurate, interesting, to the point, and relevant to people's daily lives. That, of course, is just as important for shorter sermons too.
What tends to get squeezed out with less time, in my experience, is putting the sermon text into its textual and historical context, with the preacher's conclusions and assumptions about that being the only ones presented. Or if that is done thoroughly, then the relevance/applicability to daily life gets skimped.
I have heard the "If you don't strike oil…" saying with a wide variety of times attached to it. And certainly there's no point in banging on if one way or another you've lost your hearers. OTOH, if you do strike oil, don't just dash off. Make sure you clear away your equipment, properly finish the well-head, and put in a decent infrastructure so the oil can be used, and not just left as a spreading puddle to blight the landscape.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Would anyone who wants a short sermon also say that they should have a barebones eucharist?
If not why not?
Why is the Word allowed to be for shortened and not the sacrament?
Jengie
Within the Anglican tradition it certainly can be shortened when required, and I expect in other traditions too.
Yes but I do not hear anyone routinely calling for it to be shortened. That is what I hear with sermons.
Jengie
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
You can certainly have platitudinous drivel in sermons of any length.
My plea is for quality, not necessarily quantity.
But if you can have a worthwhile long sermon, fine.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
My views may possibly be coloured by my experience.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
My plea is for quality, not necessarily quantity.
And, IMO, there is a place for both. There is a place for fine dining, there is a place for filling basic fare. Both nourish and sustain, both satisfy in their own way.
Personally, I think church should be more like a large family gathering with lots of decent homemade grub, a buzz of conversation and the kids running around. In many ways a much more real community than a small group dining at a Michelin starred restaurant. The fine dining is the treat, the something very special. But, it's the family meal eaten on laps in front of the telly that's life.
And, in church that means that the homegrown sermon, with all of it's overcooked veg and stodgy tatties and probably a dessert that has way too many calories, is what we sit and eat togther as a family, food that fills us and sustains us. Even if we have to put up with dad's bad jokes, and granddad rambling on about how things were so much better when he was young. Then maybe on special occasions we get a preacher who shares the finer fare. But, if all we ate was fine dining we'd not notice how good it was and just take things for granted.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I wonder if one of the problems is that churches expect ministers to be good at a whole raft of things: i.e. wonderful visitors, great with the old folk, an excellent worship leader, an able Chair, a fine preacher and so on. Well, you can't have all of those qualities in one person - and, if Paul's expositions on charismata are to be taken seriously, you shouldn't expect to.
Which leads me to another point. If you expect your Minister to spend lots of time doing all those things, possibly in several churches, then there will be an impact on sermon preparation time. If a church really wants two "meaty" and thoughtful sermons every Sunday (and some do), then they need to allow time for them to be prepared.
[ 06. May 2016, 10:28: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Would anyone who wants a short sermon also say that they should have a barebones eucharist?
If not why not?
Why is the Word allowed to be for shortened and not the sacrament?
Jengie
Within the Anglican tradition it certainly can be shortened when required, and I expect in other traditions too.
Yes but I do not hear anyone routinely calling for it to be shortened. That is what I hear with sermons.
Jengie
Even the shortest sermon takes longer than the longest eucharistic prayer.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I've known churches where the way Communion is distributed gets discussed, with usually the time it takes being a factor. "It would be quicker if instead of [current method] we did [something different]".
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I've certainly heard quite a few waffly, padded sermons. I even told my former minister so at his exit interview, and he didn't disagree (although I wasn't thinking of his sermons, which were actually quite good).
The positive thing is that there's a range of churches, preachers and types of sermon, and no one type dominates universally.
Expectations of sermons also differ. In the MOTR traditions I've belonged to, the idea of the sermon as 'the Word' doesn't seem to be dominant. The sermon is more of an exploration. The focus is on the human effort to understand and explain, rather than a divine gifting of wisdom that needs time to be fully enunciated. That being the case, there should be no need to drag out a straightforward point just to satisfy some presumably 'traditional' notion of how long a sermon should be.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Would anyone who wants a short sermon also say that they should have a barebones eucharist?
If not why not?
Why is the Word allowed to be for shortened and not the sacrament?
Jengie
Within the Anglican tradition it certainly can be shortened when required, and I expect in other traditions too.
Yes but I do not hear anyone routinely calling for it to be shortened. That is what I hear with sermons.
Jengie
Even the shortest sermon takes longer than the longest eucharistic prayer.
The eucharist with all its ceremonial is much longer than the longest Eucharistic prayer.
Jengie
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
But you don't have to have ceremonial. (Not even the Nonconformist version).
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But you don't have to have ceremonial. (Not even the Nonconformist version).
That is my point. I see nobody saying here that the service went on too long because of the ceremony at the Eucharist. Yet a lot of congregations have very elaborate Eucharists far more than is strictly necessary.
Jengie
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
That is my point. I see nobody saying here that the service went on too long because of the ceremony at the Eucharist. Yet a lot of congregations have very elaborate Eucharists far more than is strictly necessary.
Jengie
Those of us from a liturgical perspective tend to find more "nourishment" (if you will) from the sacramental part of the liturgy, rather than the sermon. Many of us also get more from the Scriptural readings than from someone's interpretation of them. YMMV, etc. etc.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I've known churches where the way Communion is distributed gets discussed, with usually the time it takes being a factor. "It would be quicker if instead of [current method] we did [something different]".
...and when we have a "big" service where the church is bursting at the seams (Christmas and Easter, generally), we change the way we distribute Communion so as to reduce the overall time. Whilst nobody wants an undignified rush, nobody wants to spend too long waiting either.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
The eucharist with all its ceremonial is much longer than the longest Eucharistic prayer.
Jengie
But 'the eucharist' includes the sermon. And if the Sunday lectionary is followed, three scripture readings and a psalm (more than is customary in many 'evangelical' places.) Ceremonial, in the sense of movement, actions etc, does not take longer than the words in most cases; censing is usually done during a hymn or anthem which most churches have anyway. I'm not trying to score points, just point out that in Anglican understanding word and sacrament have equal billing. And 'word' includes more than the actual preaching.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Yeah
And I am pointing out that when you talk about cuts it is always in one section. I have been to plenty of Anglican Communions where there was no sermon.
I know because for me when that happens there is no "Eucharist" as well.
Jengie
[ 07. May 2016, 10:55: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
By the way my impression is that the hymn is used to cover the censing not that it would be there anyway.
Jengie
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
And I am pointing out that when you talk about cuts it is always in one section. I have been to plenty of Anglican Communions where there was no sermon.
I know because for me when that happens there is no "Eucharist" as well.
Christ said "do this in memory of me". Whatever else Communion is, at a minimum it is an act of remembering Christ and all that he said and did. It is, IMO, therefore essential that a Eucharist includes a reading of a Gospel passage, and an act of reflection on that.
So, yes - no sermon = no Communion. Without the act of collective remembrance then the minimal requirement of Communion ("do this in memory of me") isn't met, and therefore no other requirement is met. It's a bit of bread and a sip of wine, just that and nothing more.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Of course, a sermon isn't the same thing as a reading from the Gospels. You're surely likely to have the latter even if not always the former. And what if the vicar asks the congregation to engage in a silent 'reflection' of the text, or to contemplate a painting, for example?
[ 07. May 2016, 12:25: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
A sermon isn't even the same as remembering Jesus collectively.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, yes - no sermon = no Communion. Without the act of collective remembrance then the minimal requirement of Communion ("do this in memory of me") isn't met, and therefore no other requirement is met. It's a bit of bread and a sip of wine, just that and nothing more.
If I understand this correctly, how bizarre! The majority of masses I go to are without sermons - weekdays. Am I to believe that all of these are invalid?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Most midweek (and 8am) services I've attended have had a short talk following the readings. Those services tend to be said, so there is substantial amount of time saved as there are no hymns and the small numbers attending also reduce the time taken for communion (and the Peace). Even if everyone shakes everyone else's hand, if only 20 people attend that doesn't take long.
Although many denominations are fairly scathing about liturgy, it's mostly based on scripture. I've seen service booklets referencing the scripture quoted throughout the Eucharistic prayer and other sections of the service.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, yes - no sermon = no Communion. Without the act of collective remembrance then the minimal requirement of Communion ("do this in memory of me") isn't met, and therefore no other requirement is met. It's a bit of bread and a sip of wine, just that and nothing more.
If I understand this correctly, how bizarre! The majority of masses I go to are without sermons - weekdays. Am I to believe that all of these are invalid?
From a Reformed perspective, which is where I believe Alan is speaking from, not invalid necessarily, but definitely incomplete. In Reformed understanding, Word and Sacrament go together, and one is incomplete without the other. (And yes, I readily acknowledge how miserably we Reformed-types have lived up to this understanding with our historically infrequent communion.) I have attended Episcopal Eucharists with nothing but readings. I readily understand that from an Anglican understanding that is perfectly acceptable. But for me, coming from a a Reformed background, it does indeed seem incomplete.
This doesn't mean a 20 minute, 3-point sermon is required at every mid-week Eucharistic service. But it does contemplate more than simply reading Scripture; it contemplates some further reflection on the readings, some form of proclamation of the Word now. This might take the form of a homily, or it might take some other form. In some churches with an early morning or mid-week Eucharist with only a handful in attendance, I have seen it take the form of spontaneous reflection and conversation from worshippers. Of course, it also highlights one reason why regular mid-week Eucharists are rare in Reformed churches—you can't get by just with readings.
Once again, this shows how the different expectations and even ecclessiological understandings of our various traditions inform how the purpose of the sermon is perceived, and as a result, how length (or over-length) is perceived.
[ 07. May 2016, 14:35: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, yes - no sermon = no Communion. Without the act of collective remembrance then the minimal requirement of Communion ("do this in memory of me") isn't met, and therefore no other requirement is met. It's a bit of bread and a sip of wine, just that and nothing more.
If I understand this correctly, how bizarre! The majority of masses I go to are without sermons - weekdays. Am I to believe that all of these are invalid?
In some churches with an early morning or mid-week Eucharist with only a handful in attendance, I have seen it take the form of spontaneous reflection and conversation from worshippers.
I am not talking 'mid week' but daily - 7.30 am before getting the bus to work. 20 minutes is needed to say mass - anything extra and church becomes a leisure activity for pensioners.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
And I doubt that churches in the reformed tradition don't have daily mass because of a lack of preaching.
They don't believe in eucharistic sacrifice - those of us who do want to offer the holy sacrifice rather than to be edified.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
In some churches with an early morning or mid-week Eucharist with only a handful in attendance, I have seen it take the form of spontaneous reflection and conversation from worshippers.
I am not talking 'mid week' but daily - 7.30 am before getting the bus to work. 20 minutes is needed to say mass - anything extra and church becomes a leisure activity for pensioners.
The services I was referring to typically lasted 25 minutes.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And I doubt that churches in the reformed tradition don't have daily mass because of a lack of preaching.
They don't believe in eucharistic sacrifice - those of us who do want to offer the holy sacrifice rather than to be edified.
Which is why I said "one reason." Doubt all you want to, it is indeed one reason. Rejection of a Catholic understanding of the Eucharistic sacrifice and the implications of that understanding is of course another. There are other reasons as well.
As to wanting to offer the holy sacrifice rather than to be edified, you're trying to fit an Anglo-Catholic peg into a Reformed hole. For you, the sermon may be about edification. For us, it's not. For us, proclamation of the Word has something more akin to a sacramental character, because our understanding is that through the Holy Spirit Jesus is actually present in the proclamation, offering forgiveness and new life and calling us to follow him. So for us, omitting the proclamation in a Eucharistic service is ignoring the host of the meal.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
The host of the meal is in the host on the altar.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Leo
Read for what the other person is saying. He did not say "for you", he said "for us". We are not required to understand the Eucharist as you do!
The Eucharist is perhaps best understood in Reformed terms as a participation in the heavenly banquet. The "host" is the Word present within the community. This is enacted/signified by the ministry of the Word. Otherwise, what is to distinguish us from a secular gathering of people?
Jengie
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The host of the meal is in the host on the altar.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
In Catholic and Anglo-Catholic understanding, yes. But that understanding is not shared by all Christians. And that's the point—any discussion of how long a sermon needs to be, or whether there needs to be one at all, is a comparison of apples to oranges if divorced from the context of the broader liturgical and ecclesialogical understands of a particular Christian community.
I am not saying that Anglo-Catholics are "wrong," at least not with regards to omitting a sermon or other exposition of Scripture at daily Mass. Doing so is consistent with and makes sense in the context of the foundational understanding of what the Mass is, what the Eucharist is and what a sermon is. I'm not suggesting you should be doing anything differently.
I'm simply stating that omitting some form of sermon may not be consistent with and may not make sense in the context of other traditions, where the foundational understanding of Eucharist and sermon is different from the Anglo-Catholic one. And I'm trying to explain why, for some of us, an Anglo-Catholic Mass where there is no form of homily or sermon at all seems incomplete—not because it is wrong per se, but because we operate out of a different foundational framework.
The host of the meal is the host at the table. For us, given our understanding of the role of proclamation in worship, omitting some form of proclamation of the Word before communion is akin to saying to the host, "we don't care what you have to say; just be quiet and give us the food." It's skipping the conversation on the road to Emmaus. For us. For others, this is not the case. I can live with that diversity.
Edited to add: Jengie Jon said it much more succinctly than I did.
[ 07. May 2016, 18:36: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Leo
Read for what the other person is saying. He did not say "for you", he said "for us". We are not required to understand the Eucharist as you do!
The Eucharist is perhaps best understood in Reformed terms as a participation in the heavenly banquet. The "host" is the Word present within the community. This is enacted/signified by the ministry of the Word. Otherwise, what is to distinguish us from a secular gathering of people?
Jengie
Jengie, and indeed Nick, would you mind expanding on that a little. I have my own understanding of what you are saying, but inevitably (for me) it shades into sacramentalism very quickly, and I want to be more sure that I am that this is reasonable. What I am reading is that they are both ways of making God present to and within the gathered faithful. Is this what you have in mind?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Nick, on the basis of what you have just said, it would be improper for someone else to preach other than the celebrant.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
What I am reading is that they are both ways of making God present to and within the gathered faithful. Is this what you have in mind?
Yes, both are ways in which Christ is made present to the church, and both are means of grace. And in Reformed understanding, they are related to each other and (liturgically) incomplete without the other; the sacraments are often understood as the Word enacted.
That is not to say one cannot be saved without the sacraments at all. But in the context of worship, the sacraments are the "seals and signs" of the Word that has been proclaimed.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Nick, on the basis of what you have just said, it would be improper for someone else to preach other than the celebrant.
No, partially because ministers in the Reformed tradition are not viewed as acting in persona Christi, and partially because we don't think in terms of the minister as celebrant. The church celebrates the Eucharist; the minister of Word and Sacrament is the one designated by the church, for reasons of order, to preside on behalf of the entire community at the table. Our understanding is that Christ is present in and acts through the entire community, both in the proclamation of the Word and in the sacraments.
In congregations with more than one minister, it is not unusual for one minister to preach and another to preside at the table, or for both to preside together. By tradition, though, the benediction is pronounced by the minister who preached.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
The host of the meal is the host at the table. For us, given our understanding of the role of proclamation in worship, omitting some form of proclamation of the Word before communion is akin to saying to the host, "we don't care what you have to say; just be quiet and give us the food." It's skipping the conversation on the road to Emmaus.
The quality of a meal is ultimately the people you dine with, not just the food on the table. We can sustain our bodies with a quick breakfast as we dash out the door for work. But, it is in sitting down together to eat and drink, and to talk, that we nourish our whole being. In really interesting, and interested, company even the most basic of fare would be a far more memorable meal than a fine dinner eaten alone.
And, at Communion we dine with Christ, who is the most interesting person to listen too and is infinitely interested in us. Even if the food on the table is just a bit of bread and a sip of wine*, that makes Communion the greatest feast imaginable. Why would anyone want to miss the opportunity of dining with our Lord, of hearing what he has to say to us? And, yes that does mean that we might need to take more than a few minutes to gather together, to hear the Gospel read and proclaimed and the sacrament administered. My memory of lunch-time Communion at the Anglican Chaplaincy while at university was that there was always a Gospel reading and a very short (2-3 minute) reflection on it before Communion - and, it was not unusual for the reflection to continue as some stayed on afterwards to discuss it.
* of course, it isn't just bread and wine. By some mystery we are nourished by the very body and blood of Christ himself even as he sits at the table with us.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Isn't the most interesting person we could invite to our table the homeless guy around the block?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
It's not our table. We have been invited by Christ, who has also invited the homeless guy from around the block.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Well I grew up in a very motr reformed tradition, and your explanation says nothing to me.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Firstly you need to know two things. I am at the sacramental end of the Reformed spectrum and I have mystical tendencies. The language and description I use below are my understanding and are in tone distinctly different from how most Reformed theologians would put it. The emphasis in Reformed theology is on the rational and thus, that will be normally be brought to the fore. When the mystical occurs a sleight of hand is used to hide it from clear perception as it would break the rules of the debate. I am not here abiding by those rules.
A metaphor for a the local congregation in Reformed tradition is a workshop in worship. Before people start grumbling, I do not pretend to write poems when I attend a writers workshop, I write poems. We learn by focusing on what we are doing. Thus, we learn how to participate in the worship of heaven (or in the dance of the Trinity if you prefer) precisely by attempting to engage in it.
Equally, the Reformed understanding sees the gathering of the people around the Word as essential. The local congregation is a hermeneutical community of the Word. This is why preaching is not just teaching, it is the giving voice to the hermeneutical action of the community within worship. Pastoral visiting, mid-week Bible study, and such, other actions are the breathing in for this breathing out of the Word. Who does this breathing? It is Christ. Indeed, a major focus of Reformed understanding of the Church is that it is the body of Christ. The local congregation is a partial actualization of this and through worship seeks to become a truer actualisation. However this worship is not limited to the public services the local congregation puts on, it should shape the whole character of the community drawn together around this hermeneutical activity. Thus, the fellowship and the quality of that fellowship becomes the sinews of the Body of Christ.
Now let me take you to the upper room. The Reformed perspective would see the bread broken as standing for the fellowship of the disciples in the upper room Christ's crucifixion and resurrection are going to destroy that set of relationships so they can never be what they were, just as surely as the bread broken and eaten cannot be put together. However, if the disciples are to enter into the Worship of heaven rather than stay disciples of Jesus it has to happen. In this context, the covenant of the blood makes sense as the inception of the new community where there is a blurring between the divine and the created so that there is one great dance of love and worship. The leap John Calvin makes is to realise that if this is the nature of the last supper then that meal and thus all re-creations of it, are participants in the great feast.
Thus, for the Reformed the quality of the lives lived together of those who gather around the Word and Sacrament is as important an element as the physical bread and wine are to Aff-Caff.
Jengie
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
For me personally I see little difference, apart from possibly emphasis, between the Reformed ideas and the Catholic ones.
The Roman Mass is divided into two major parts :
1. The Liturgy of the Word and 2. The Liturgy of the Eucharist. Both of these are integral parts of the Roman Mass.
The Liturgy of the Word contains normally , a Scripture Reading from the Old Testament, a Scripture Reading from the writings of one of the Apostles, a Psalm which is sung or spoken and all this leads up to the Proclamation of the Words of Jesus in a passage chosen from one of the Gospels.
In recognition of the belief that Christ is truly present in the Proclamation of the Word it is surrounded on festal days with a certain amount of ceremonial. The Gospel book is held aloft just as later on the Sacred species are. The Gospel book may be greeted with incense and surrounded by candles and the people stand out of respect for the Word of God.
After the Proclamation of the Word the rubrics specify a period for reflection which may be either in silence or through the words of a preacher who directs our thoughts towards elucidation of the meaning of the Gospel.
Even when Communion is brought outside of Mass to those who cannot come to the celebration, there is usually a Proclamation of the Word before the distribution of Communion.
Surely this is much the same as what some of our Reformed friends have been saying ?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Like I said, I grew up in a very motr Reformed congregation in the Netherlands. (I'm still a member.)
My experience is that yes, a sermon normally precedes the Holy Supper (Heilig Avondmaal; we definitely wouldn't call it Communion). However, this seems to be more a consequence of how things are organised than a theological need. Most churches have Holy Supper once per month during their regular Sunday morning service, and that will naturally have a sermon.
There are services without a sermon sometimes; Christmas carols for example. But those won't have Holy Supper. I guess part of that is that they're supposed to be 'low-threshold'. But also, we already have HS once per month.
So, in practice a sermon and HS always coincide. And they normally follow a liturgical order that has both. But is there a theological need to have a sermon first?
There is definitely a need for preparation before taking part in HS. The only thing I normally hear that's a necessary part of this preparation is the liturgical Confession of Since. There's a text in the NT somewhere that says we need to make amends before going to the table, right? I can't find it so quickly.
But the sermon? A sermon is useful as preparation for HS, but I've never heard that it is necessary. Most preachers I know (once again very mainstream) would shudder at the idea that during the sermon, they would be some stand-in for Jesus speaking.
Also, we believe that God is present throughout all of the service ("where two or three are gathered …). I've never heard that Jesus would be more present during the sermon. Holding the Gospel book or waving incense at it would be seen as papist idolatry.
The whole idea that a sermon is a necessary condition for Holy Supper is alien to me.
[ 08. May 2016, 14:35: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
The external rubrics are similar, but the web of meaning in which they are engaged differs. It is highly patronising, therefore to tell us Reformed that because we behave similar we must hold the same understanding. It matters in all sorts of complex ways whether the focus for Christ's body is the elements or the community.
Jengie
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
... For you, the sermon may be about edification. For us, it's not. For us, proclamation of the Word has something more akin to a sacramental character, because our understanding is that through the Holy Spirit Jesus is actually present in the proclamation, offering forgiveness and new life and calling us to follow him. So for us, omitting the proclamation in a Eucharistic service is ignoring the host of the meal.
I've been puzzling about that statement since yesterday, and I still think, that either I don't understand it at all, or it's didactic nonsense. I don't see how one can claim 'of course other inferior ecclesial households may edify or expound, but we proclaim'. It's a little bit like somebody who said a year or two ago on these boards, I can't remember who or where, that at the Eucharist, the sermon/homily/exposition/proclamation/(choose preferred term) had to be on the gospel passage and not one of the others.
It is also much narrower than Justin Martyr's description of preaching at the Eucharist c 150 AD (Apology I 65-7).
Where I was this morning, the sermon was on the Acts reading about the Philippian gaoler. It was not conducted as a 'proclamation'. The congregation was encouraged to engage with what happened and to give feed back. Jesus was presented, 'offering forgiveness and new life and calling us to follow him'. The intercessions drew inter alia on the passage we had just looked at. We then proceeded to Communion in the normal way.
So, I'm sorry, but unless someone can persuade me otherwise, I think the distinction between 'proclamation' and 'edification' or even 'just preaching' is illusory.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
... For you, the sermon may be about edification. For us, it's not. For us, proclamation of the Word has something more akin to a sacramental character, because our understanding is that through the Holy Spirit Jesus is actually present in the proclamation, offering forgiveness and new life and calling us to follow him. So for us, omitting the proclamation in a Eucharistic service is ignoring the host of the meal.
I've been puzzling about that statement since yesterday, and I still think, that either I don't understand it at all, or it's didactic nonsense. I don't see how one can claim 'of course other inferior ecclesial households may edify or expound, but we proclaim'. It's a little bit like somebody who said a year or two ago on these boards, I can't remember who or where, that at the Eucharist, the sermon/homily/exposition/proclamation/(choose preferred term) had to be on the gospel passage and not one of the others.
It reminds me of people who say, "Other people have religion. We have Jesus." Or similar twaddle.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Alright, a conversation with my father, in the middle of my thesis. I had just stumbled into the realisation that Reformed services nearly always start with a very precise formula. When the meeting place is set up and the people gathered a Call to Worship* is issued. What is more, I interpreted that behaviour as marking the boundary between the secular and the sacred. This next bit is often denied
Me: What is the Reformed Theology of Space
Dad: That where the people are gathered around the Word and the sacraments are administered there the sacred is encountered.
Me: So where do I find this?
Dad: Well there is a passage in Barth
Me: Which passage?
Dad: I came across it when a student in Edinburgh and thought it interesting.
Me:
Actually, it was not as difficult as it then sounded. The classic definition of the Church from the Augsburg confession had been given a particular twist so as to create a ritual process by which symbols of the elements of the Church are brought into a conjunction before worship every Sunday. The emphasis as in much Reformed takes is placed on the Word (proclaimed and heard) but it is understood that the sacraments are also present if only symbolically in the font and table.
Jengie
*Call to Worship - usually one or two Bible quotes that mark the start of worship.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Conversely the Word would be present symbolically at a Communion service if an open Bible was displayed at the front of the church, even if there was no sermon. (Of course Scripture is always read as well.)
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
Dear all,
A general reminder that robust discussion and challenging of assumptions are very welcome, but there is also a need to remain respectful of other posters' beliefs.
Terms that may come across as dismissive and which generate more heat than light (such as 'twaddle') are starting to appear. Please keep it polite!
Your cooperation is appreciated, as ever.
dj_ordinaire, Eccles host
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Conversely the Word would be present symbolically at a Communion service if an open Bible was displayed at the front of the church, even if there was no sermon. (Of course Scripture is always read as well.)
No because the Word must be "heard", there is not the simple mapping that allows for that.
Jengie
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Jengie jon: When the meeting place is set up and the people gathered a Call to Worship* is issued.
Services in the Dutch Protestant Church usually start with reading Psalm 124:8, Psalm 138:8 and 1 Corinthians 1:3 in a row.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Isn't the most interesting person we could invite to our table the homeless guy around the block?
Quite possibly, which may be why Jesus went to such pains to make sure we knew that homeless guy got the same invitation we did, and that failure to welcome him was rejection of Jesus himself.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
So, in practice a sermon and HS always coincide. And they normally follow a liturgical order that has both. But is there a theological need to have a sermon first?
I can't speak to other Reformed bodies, but at least for us, it is actually a requirement. The Directory for Worship of the Presbyterian Church (USA) specifically provides: "Whenever the Lord’s Supper is observed, it shall be preceded by the reading and the proclamation of the Word."
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I've been puzzling about that statement since yesterday, and I still think, that either I don't understand it at all, or it's didactic nonsense. I don't see how one can claim 'of course other inferior ecclesial households may edify or expound, but we proclaim'. . . .
So, I'm sorry, but unless someone can persuade me otherwise, I think the distinction between 'proclamation' and 'edification' or even 'just preaching' is illusory.
Enoch,
I have tried to balance clarity about what I am saying—and not saying—with not being long winded. Your post makes clear to me that I have failed on the goal of clarity. (I've likely failed on not being long winded as well.) My apologies. Let me try to do better.
I am absolutely not suggesting that inferior households edify or expound, but we proclaim. I am not even really trying to draw a distinction between edification, expounding, proclamation, or any other way of looking at the "preaching event" per se. Throughout this thread, I've been operating with a basic premise—that different traditions understand the place of preaching differently and have differing expectations of it, and that those understandings and expectations inform a simple question like "how long should a sermon be."
I really don't view one understanding as superior to another, nor was I taught that one is superior to another. I tend to agree with Forthview's post above, comparing how some of us have described the Reformed view with the Catholic view. I would liken it to the proverbial elephant and say that all of us are trying to describe the elephant, but we do so from different perspectives. No perspective is wrong (though all may be incomplete). I don't think my/our perspective is superior. But I do think it's valuable and has something to offer the wider church, just as I think the perspectives of other traditions have something to offer us (too often too-cerebral) Reformed-types.
And, I think that for all of us, our particular perspectives inform other things about our practices, such as considering the role of a sermon in a Eucharistic service. The reason I kept using the phrase "for us" was to make clear that I was talking about why we do things the way we do. I was in no way trying to suggest that our way is superior. It was simply a matter of "we require proclamation (more about the word in just a minute) whenever the Lord's Supper is celebrated, and this is why." Not a case of others are wrong; just a case of this is why we do it how we do it.
As for "edification" and "proclamation," I intended no value judgment or distinction. I used "edification" simply because leo had used it, when he mentioned those who wanted to offer the holy sacrifice, not be edified. I took him at face value. I intended no disregard of edification.
Likewise with "proclamation," I did not intend any superiority or value judgment. I used that word because in my particular tribe of Presbyterians, that is the generic, all-encompassing word we use to describe what might be called the ministry of the Word apart of the reading of Scripture itself. (See the quote from the PC(USA) Directiry for Worship in my response to le roc above, which refers to reading and proclamation of the Word.) 95% of the time, this proclamation will take the form of a sermon, which will as need be be edifying, challenging, comforting, instructive, etc. Sometimes it will take another form—music or discussion, for example. So really, by "proclamation" I only meant "that thing that happens after the Scripture reading that is related to them, whatever form it may take."
Finally, when I say that some services have felt "incomplete" to me without the kind of sermon I'm used to, I want to be clear I don't mean those services are inferior. I simply mean this: it's like being raised in a culture that eats bread at every meal, where bread is the staple food. Then one finds oneself in a culture that dorsn't eat bread at all; perhaps rice is the staple. The meals without bread maybe just as filling, nutritious and delicious as meals with bread. (Maybe even more so.) But if one has been raised to expect bread at every meal, it may took some time before a breadless meal still feels like a complete meal. Does that make sense?
I've definitely failed at being concise now, but I hope this clarifies where I'm coming from—and where I'm not coming from.
[ 08. May 2016, 20:59: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I'm sorry. I'm even more mystified. In what way would I perceive a sermon that you would classify as a 'proclamation' as different from a run of the mill one that wasn't? How would I know whether it passed the test?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm sorry. I'm even more mystified. In what way would I perceive a sermon that you would classify as a 'proclamation' as different from a run of the mill one that wasn't? How would I know whether it passed the test?
if it's a sermon, it is proclamation, at least as my tribe uses the term, and as I'm it using here. To follow on the homily-sermon idea mentioned above, all sermons are proclamation, but not all proclamation is in the firm of a sermon. Again, I was simply using "proclamation" as a more expansive and more inclusive term than "sermon" or "homily."
[ 08. May 2016, 21:33: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
"Proclamation" is bringing the Gospel message to the hearts and minds of the congregation, which includes the preacher*. The method by which that is achieved is secondary, so a sermon (of whatever duration), discussion, guided meditation etc all count as proclamation.
The ultimate test is that the Gospel proclaimed in worship leads to the Gospel proclaimed by the congregation in word and deed for the rest of the week.
* similar to presiding over Communion, the Reformed preacher is leading the proclamation of the Gospel, inorder to ensure good order, but stands as part of the congregation in needing to hear the proclaimed Gospel and collectively to proclaim it. We have an aversion to elevating individuals to positions which sets them apart from the congregation.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Church of England rubric 13 only requires a sermon of Sundays and feast days.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Is it possible, for Reformed Christians, for the words of the Gospel text to reach by the powers of the words alone, the hearts and minds of the community ? Or is it essential to have an 'interpretation' of the meaning of the text provided by a preacher ?
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
There is always interpretation even if with just the plain words. The words are never without interpretation. At the very least which words are chosen, the context in which they are spoken and how they are spoken all give a layer of meaning that people read when they interpret.
The Reformed emphasis on informed interpretation is rather to counteract ill-informed interpretation than because the Word is solely heard through it. Ideally, it is an informed preacher talking to an informed congregation who are weighing his words.
You are dealing with a tradition that is hyper-sensitive to the malleability of symbols (hence the absence of many) long before post-modernism came about.
Jengie
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Is it possible, for Reformed Christians, for the words of the Gospel text to reach by the powers of the words alone, the hearts and minds of the community ? Or is it essential to have an 'interpretation' of the meaning of the text provided by a preacher ?
Strictly speaking, interpretation by a preacher is not required. It may be the norm, but it is not the only option.
To add to what Jengie Jon said, and to what Alan Cresswell said a few posts earlier, I'd say that what is considered essential is that there be some sort of engagement by the gathered community with the Scripture that has been read. Again, a sermon is the most common way this is done, but it is not the only way.
And when talking about what would be considered "essential," I at least am talking only about the context of a Eucharistic service specifically, or of a Sunday service generally. I have attended many (Presbyterian) services of Morning Prayer or Evening Prayer, for example, where the Scripture readings stand alone. It's only when the Lord's Supper is celebrated, or in the Lord's Day Service, that something more than reading the Scripture is deemed essential.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
My understanding of the Dutch type of Reformism is that what's really required before going to the table is beproeving . I guess you could translate this as '(self-)examination' but in orthodox Reformed circles it has stricter overtones. Beproeving is like a physical test: it's going to hurt, whether you pass or fail. Beproeving is spending 40 years in the desert.
Now, in very strict congregations this will typically take the form of a hell and brimfire sermon, but I've looked through all church orders and ordinances and I've found nowhere that it has to take the form of a sermon.
[ 10. May 2016, 09:31: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Church of England rubric 13 only requires a sermon of Sundays and feast days.
I actually read the rubric as being much stronger, not far from the classical reformed position, "The sermon is an integral part of the Liturgy of the Word". All that comes after in the rubric (only on Sundays is this a norm, and various other activities may be occasionally be permitted) is a concession to human weakness!
(On weekdays I am grateful for the concession.)
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0