Sermons
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
Another thread asks Shipmates to tell us what sermons they heard in their place of worship. A recent post states that a sermon was "disappointing". This makes me want to ask some more serious questions.
For instance, there seems to be a general thought - not necessarily here on the Ship - that sermons are "a necessary evil to be endured" (a caricature, but you know what I mean) and that "the shorter the sermon, the better".
Given that Sunday sermons are probably the only teaching that most Christians receive, shouldn't we place a higher priority on good, provocative and content-filled preaching? I appreciate that I come from a tradition which tends to emphasise preaching rather than the sacraments. I also appreciate that longer sermons can still be dull, superficial and full of waffle; and that different people have different attention spans. Nevertheless, shouldn't sermons be more than simplistic "blessed thoughts"?
Or am I being unfair?
For instance, there seems to be a general thought - not necessarily here on the Ship - that sermons are "a necessary evil to be endured" (a caricature, but you know what I mean) and that "the shorter the sermon, the better".
Given that Sunday sermons are probably the only teaching that most Christians receive, shouldn't we place a higher priority on good, provocative and content-filled preaching? I appreciate that I come from a tradition which tends to emphasise preaching rather than the sacraments. I also appreciate that longer sermons can still be dull, superficial and full of waffle; and that different people have different attention spans. Nevertheless, shouldn't sermons be more than simplistic "blessed thoughts"?
Or am I being unfair?
Comments
For what it’s worth, I like speakers to stick to the twenty minute rule, and no more than three points as that really is as much as many people can concentrate on, especially if one is conveying an uncomfortable message.
Attempts to tell the congregation what is wrong with other people's theology, either liberal or conservative, should be firmly subordinated to the above.
A pile of interesting facts that the preacher found out while researching the sermon doesn't count either.
Wrestling with the question how is this piece of scripture the word of God, when it is not obvious, is within limits fine.
I think the danger in the evangelical tradition is for preachers to feel that the sermon "ought" to be half-an-hour long and thus waffle on with little to say and (sometimes) rather empty attempts at inculcating the emotional response they feel "ought" to be there. Whereas in some other traditions the danger seems to be that the sermon (sometimes) becomes rather detached from Scripture and/or a bit lightweight, both in terms of time, content and significance to the liturgy.
I do also get teaching/learning from a mid-week small group and from my daily (but brief) bible reading with notes. The good thing about these is that I can respond and ask questions which doesn't happen in a sermon. Preachers sometimes say they don't mind being interrupted but I have never know this to happen except once when the fire alarm went off.
I have occasionally spoken at church and as long as the entire congregation isn't obviously falling asleep I presume they are listening. This is why I throw the odd joke in.
I never really understood the determination to include teaching in a service of worship. The idea of separate schools or classes for the education of young (and not so young) Christians isn't exactly new.
Trying to make connections from the scripture readings to devotion makes more sense to me.
True. It's hard enough to get anyone to attend the services, let alone Bible study classes, home groups etc., though there are, of course, churches where these are popular IYSWIM.
I quoted the two bits above because, for me at least, they both get at thoughts that I think are both good but maybe not enough. I’d say I think a good sermon does teach and does connect to theology, but I’d also say if that’s all they do, then they probably fall short for me. In my mind, and I think in the understanding of my tradition, neither of those things is the primary point of a sermon.
I’d say my tradition primarily understands the sermon as an event of encounter between God (or Christ) and those gathered. It has been said, both by those inside the tradition and those outside it, that we tend to a quasi-sacramental view of sermons—that Christ is present in the sermon in a particular way, and that the divine actually speaks to us through (sometimes even despite) the words of the preacher.
That understanding would say that what the sermon is “about” is encountering the Gospel and the God/Jesus/Spirit we read about in the readings, and as a result of that encounter, growth and/or change.
This view places demands not just on those preaching, but also on those listening. And it makes the sermon a very time- and place-specific thing—this preacher and this gathered congregation in this place at this time.
This. As long as what they're telling me isn't a bunch of hooey.
But we have a different problem at my host congregation, which is that our formerly good preacher has started using AI--and now his sermons really suck. And for reasons I can't specify here, I can't tell him so. So I'm stuck.
Couldn't agree more! Thanks.
Yesterday’s disappointing sermon as mention in the OP, merely talked about St Luke’s Day, how we used to commemorate it by inviting local medical and care staff ( the only time they attended church) and that we should value and pray for them. That was it. No Biblical exposition, no teaching, nothing ‘spiritual’ as such.
There's rarely a sermon at our midweek Liturgy but I still believe we encounter Christ there.
In the more sacramental traditions the whole thing enacts what it's all about and the sermon is simply one aspect of that.
Which isn't to disparage or downplay its importance.
I think it was King Henry III who received communion several times a day rather than listening to sermons. When asked why he said it was better to meet with a 'friend' than hear someone else talk about him.
Not that I'm advocating receiving communion several times a day, of course. No more than one is 'allowed' in the Orthodox tradition.
But to all intents and purposes the whole corporate action or 'event' becomes or re-presents Christ in a sacramental understanding of these things.
We become the Body of Christ as we partake of the Eucharist in the company of the angels and Saints.
And yes, it is God speaking to us in the readings and heck, even through the sermons at times.
Fancy that.
All that said and as a fully signed up sacramentalist, I must confess I miss good, solid, expository evangelical sermons. I don’t miss the more ranty, whip-up-the-emotions style sermons. I shudder at those.
But I've heard excellent sermons in Baptist and Methodist churches in particular which wear scholarship lightly and which engage the mind and the heart.
The best Orthodox 'talks' I've heard have been at conferences of one form or other rather than in parishes on a Sunday morning. Our priest would never win a preaching competition.
If anything he's reacted against his highly conservative evangelical Anglican background - a very 'Reform' style parish it would seem (not in the Farage sense) - first by heading into Anglo-Catholicism at university and later into Orthodoxy.
Consequently, although he'll allude to the lyrics of old evangelical choruses and speak warmly of his father's very striking conversion in that setting, he's never been particularly good at catechesis or teaching - although there are occasional helpful insights and flashes of unction.
Our deacon runs regular catechesis classes and we have had Bible studies which have sadly rather run out of steam - and people seem all over the place in terms of levels of understanding.
Our deacon should be 'priested' soon and it'll be interesting to see how the sermons will develop then.
We can't have everything of course, and I'd like to hear more sermons of the 'best sort' from the Protestant traditions I was familiar with before I became Orthodox.
By which I don't mean the ranty emotional revivalist type nor the very dry sermons you get in some hyper-Calvinist circles.
But those of you who preach or who are fortunate enough to have decent preachers will recognise the sort I mean. Scriptural. Engaging. Pithy illustrations and if there are jokes or anecdotes they serve the point of the sermon and are not ends in themselves.
I worry about small o orthodoxy at times. I worry about Big O Orthodoxy too, for different reasons.
With so much nonsense online and with the difficulties @Baptist Trainfan alludes to in terms of getting people to study groups etc we need to ensure that our Sunday sermons count - in whatever tradition we are involved with.
Aargh! What a frustrating situation!
I think this is it. Some people come to worship hoping/expecting to learn something from the sermon; others resent such efforts. The latter may perceive an educational aspect as boring, or pitched at an inappropriate level (too high or low), or irrelevant, or even insulting ("Don't tell me how to be a Christian, I've been a Christian for a hundred and fifty years!") Maybe they come to worship for the music, or fellowship, or peaceful meditation, or to experience communion.
In my tradition, the purpose of the sermon is proclamation of the grace of God through Jesus Christ. If the church doesn't announce to the assembly that they are beloved and redeemed, who will? Trump? SpaceX? No other institution has that commission. People get enough and more than enough Law and instructions and commandments directed at them. The church, in the sermon, has the duty to announce what God has done for us in Jesus.
My homiletics prof's instructions: If your sermon is not at least 50% grace, it is an automatic fail. She meant it too. Some of my more legalistic comrades - on both the conservative and progressive sides, because Law can come from either - found that in their marks.
"The sermon is how the Risen Christ walks among his people." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer
On the grace thing ... yes, I've come across a few Orthodox priests whose homilies seem to consist of a few obvious observations drawn from the Gospel reading and the Epistle for that day, followed by some arcane instructions on how to perform this, that or the other ritual correctly.
That said, grace is there even if it isn't explicitly preached at times and the words of the Liturgy are shot through with it.
'Save us, help us and keep us by your grace ...'
Equally, I've known the same priest who has banged on about whatever is liturgically-correct in one sermon come out with something that puts all that in its proper place and perspective in their next sermon.
We can get hung up on ritualistic detail but we don't tend to have the kind of faith/works / law/grace dichotomy that seems to have galvanised much of Western Christianity in one direction or another.
It's not that we don't understand the concepts but we approach them in a different kind of way. It's taking me a long time to get used to that.
Quite apart from anything else it makes for somewhat different sermons to what Christians in other traditions might be used to.
Those of you who have studied these things will have names and categories.
I don't know all the names and technical terms but some preachers seem to have a more 'narrative' style, others a more expository approach whilst others seem to have a rather discursive delivery that seems to have little to do with the text.
I was quite struck by the style of a priest who sadly died unexpectedly when only in his 40s. I only heard him preach twice, once on a Sunday and once by way of a short exhortation at a 'family retreat'.
On each occasion he applied the Gospel passage to himself in a kind of inclusive and self-effacing way rather than an accusatory way towards anyone else - 'some people do this ... some people do that ...' as it were.
It had a kind of 'Everyman' effect that conveyed the sense that he too, like all of us, struggled with things and that he wasn't floating six inches above the ground on a cloud of sacerdotal sanctity.
His sermons were quite 'mannered' in one way but his parishioners appreciated them and told me that they conveyed a sense of 'we're all in this together'.
'Some of us are too holy for this world,' an older priest observed to me after his death.
This thread has also set me thinking of a Baptist minister friend whose sermons were generally very engaging and of a very high standard. He had the humility to recognise when they weren't quite up to scratch and to my astonishment once asked me for advice and feedback when he felt he'd 'blown it.'
That was never anything I could imagine some of the leaders in my former 'restorationist' set-up doing as they were convinced they carried 'the anointing' and so on.
Bless 'em.
There were some excellent preachers within those set-ups though, although it could get all sound and fury at times.
Things could get gimmicky. I heard of one pastor in a 'network' which was generally noted for good quality preaching, who ate dog food on the platform to illustrate a point about whether anyone would believe accounts of the resurrection.
Hmmm ...
Underlying it is my view of oratory as a means of education, enlightenment and persuasion. Sermons are a particular form of oratory. There are, as pease indicated, a few exceptions but most fall into the “I hear and I forget” category.
There is a justifiable distrust of oratory and orators. The gift of oratory has, and continues to be, abused as a means of gaining and maintaining power.
By contrast I prefer the traditional Jewish approach of hearing the Torah then discussing its meaning and relevance. It’s been described as akin to wrestling. The sacred texts are in general better wrestled with communally than interpreted by a single orator, no matter how gifted.
You may argue that is because I’m naturally argumentative. Which is true. The lesson I learned from J John many years ago that the question “Yes but how” is key to looking for answers to the challenge to all Christians. “How then shall we live”.
What?
I took it as a spiritual equivalent of the saying, 'Only the good die young.'
I'm not sure what to make of it to be honest. The dead priest's father, a retired cleric, asks why the Lord took his son and not him.
All sorts of theodicy issues here.
@Barnabas62, you think you're argumentative?
There are a few Christians I've met who I'd have happily punched on the nose. Or at least blown a raspberry at.
J John is one of them.
Perhaps he's grown up since then.
I hope I have.
I'm afraid I'm going to do my 'both/and' thing ...
We're talking about sermons here rather than one-to-one discussion and debate. We need both.
It seems to me that the kind of rabbinic style debate that @Barnabas62 favours requires some kind of 'critical mass' or some kind of society where a particular religion - Judaism or Christianity - is the main paradigm.
Rather like the situation one of the Fathers claimed existed in Constantinople where the bloke drawing water for your bath, or cutting your hair or feeding your horse would suddenly start a discussion about the hypostatic union.
That was hyperbole of course.
We don't live in medieval Europe or Puritan New England or Tsarist Russia.
In practice, and irrespective of which Christian tradition we adhere to, I suspect that most of us learn more from interacting with one another than we do from sermons. Which isn't to disparage sermons. I've heard hundreds and hundreds of sermons in my time and although I obviously can't remember that many of them it doesn't mean they haven't affected or moulded me in some way - rule on rule, a little here, a little there.
It all adds up.
At a rough estimate, I’ve eaten something in the neighborhood of 70,000 meals in my lifetime. Relatively few of them were memorable or made any long-lasting impact on me.
But there were lots of ordinary, unmemorable meals that helped me grow or heal, gave me energy for the daily tasks at hand and just kept me alive. That I don’t remember their details has nothing to do with their importance.
One of my favourite ministers will sometimes begin his sermon with something quite outrageous. Those of us who like that approach will then sit back happily in our pews while he spends fifteen minutes or so digging himself out of the hole he has dug for himself. And of course, he always does; Bible in one hand and metaphorical shovel in the other.
Anonymous note?
Not that simple really. But a three point sermon best summed up by Goal, Malady and Means.
I will use yesterday's sermon. Render to Ceasar what is Ceasar--includes taxes and other civic responsibilities
Asked what Is God's--You. You are made in his likeness
Malady: How we get distracted
Means God is still calling you. Christ reaches out. Affirmation.
I used three bridge illustrations
Talked about a guy who paid his taxes--not that spiritual--but his taxes paid for the road he took to the church where he had volunteered to hand out groceries.
Talked about a man who was so tied up with work he did not realize how he had forgotten what it means to give to God what was Gods
Used the illustration of all the images on our refrigerator and how they Remind us of who belongs to us--grand children and children Talked about how God keeps us on his frig too.
I will often use three illustrations. Simply put, it is a technique Jesus often used with his parables. We tend to remember stories.
I often like to find something in the story I had not thought about. Often times I will use either the first reading or the second reading for the sermon.
A few months back there the First Lesson was Proverbs 8 the call of wisdom--presented as a woman of light. In and of itself I could have made a fairly good sermon. But I noted Proverbs 7 talks about a woman of the night, Then in Prov 9 both women are compared.
I printed out all three chapters to show how the writer of this section of Proverbs was saying how attractive the woman of the night (folly) can only lead to death; where as the woman of the light (wisdom) leads to life.
A number of times I will go into a first person narrative. Did that with Jeremiah. I usually do this a couple times a year
In June. I introduced a word, I did not think people knew very well. The word was cruciform, meaning cross like. I encouraged the congregation to count how many times I would use the word in the sermon. A total of nine times.
I happen to think I am a pretty good preacher, but my son blows me away when I hear him preach. He was invited to preach at our congregations 100th anniversary (I know, we are young). He trained as an actor and you can see that when he preaches. You can have a taste of his preaching on this video starting at the 39th minute.
I am more sympathetic to what you wrote here: My experience, across a variety of traditions, is that these times come few and far between. They often seemed somewhat happenstance - not especially related to whatever preparation had occurred, and occurring when those involved were comfortable relinquishing control.
In this regard, I think the best preachers are the ones who get out of the way.
It's a little bit like the difficulty in learning a sport from someone who doesn't even have to think about how to hit a ball. You can't identify with them when they're talking about applying spin or getting it into a part of the court your opponent can't reach or varying your serve speed when its more than you can do to make contact with the ball or perform a legal serve*.
The sort of people who end up preaching don't tend to be people with the hang ups, profound fundamental doubts and lifelong experience of the hiddenness of God some of us have, at least in my experience. I can't identify with where they're coming from when they say "but of course, we know God is real/Christianity is true/God is in control" and talk of "times when God seems absent" as if they're anomalies.
I don’t know how this can be addressed. The sermon on Sunday nearly got it, but then lapsed into a fundamental certainty.
*my tennis serve was either very slow or out - or both. When my opponent served it was usually an entire game of aces.
When I later chatted to the Pastoral Studies tutor, he simply said, "He'll learn".
Sure, there are sermons recorded in the gospels. But there is lot more teaching by stories , by example. By provocative questions, relationships with the disreputable, challenging complacent authority.
Of course from very early Christian writings it is clear that the written word and its writers had important places. We would have no tradition and no sacred texts without that. They exist to communicate ideas, experiences, understandings, interpretations.
Nevertheless, in our current global village, how well do they work? I still get excited by ideas and their value. In my 80’s I’m still happy to keep on digging and pursuing to get to the bottom of things. Maybe this has always been a minority pursuit? It seems very much to be a minority pursuit today.
People here enjoy debate and asking questions. They wouldn't be here if they didn't.
Not everyone does.
I'm not convinced the 'era of the sermon' is over, but historically it had a less prominent role in the overall scheme of things than it acquired in the post-Reformation churches.
Yes, there were great preachers and teachers before that - St John Chrysostom and so on (if we can ignore his anti-semitism) butwhat I think we need is the sermon in its 'proper place' alongside everything else.
Neither too high an expectation placed upon it nor too low.
@KarlLB - forgive me, but you seem to be describing a particular style of preaching in a particular tradition. I certainly don't think most preachers fall into the 'I've never had any doubts' category, even if they act as if they do.
However we cut it and whatever forms our sermons take in our respective traditions there is no substitute for meeting and interacting with one another.
Sermons can help but they aren't the only 'means of grace' to borrow a Reformed term.
I meant to point out that he observed this to you after his death according to you. Must have been a great saint, indeed
I really appreciate this metaphor. Thank you.
I only agree with the minister's contention that there is a difference between a sermon and a lecture. But everything else is just weird and sad. "Endless Biblical proofs" given as a sermon... that just sucks. Learning, being challenged, or finding the sermon courageous or provocative, is consistent with the "at least 50% grace" guideline I had learned.
I'm a sucker for social science commentaries. Ancient Mediterranean culture was different enough from our own, that what we think we understand about daily life, relationships, conflict, taxation, etc. as recorded in the Bible simply were not then what they are now. (For example, the primary bond in an ancient Mediterranean family relationship was not between husband and wife, but mother and eldest son.) I have to remind myself not to geek out over what I've picked up, and make sure it's relevant and meaningful in the homiletical task.