I'm re-reading Schaeffer's book of the name of this post. Third time, I think, and worthwhile.
I like the way he addresses the pivot of Christian spirituality being in our inward movement, naturally, away from godliness, and Christ's turning of that.
But then I think of typical evangelicalism, where spirituality gets short shrift, as though the entirety of Christian life and experience is in the new birth. This touches on the earlier series of posts on sermons: do they help us, encourage us to live as though not of this world? as though thinking in a renewed manner about everything that can be thought about? do they point us to live as those who will live forever, and make decisions, adopt attitudes and join relationships with that as our theme: to be able to sacrifice, forgive, love and extend to others?
These are all places I am exposed in...but there seems to be a poverty of thought in these places to aid the Christian walk.
Showing posts with label sermons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sermons. Show all posts
3 January 2010
27 December 2009
Sermons and thought
One of the aspects of sermonising that I have found frequently distressing is that sermons are often removed from the cultural and intellectual milleu in which I move (I know, that might be just that my particular pathways are byways of interest to no one else); now, I don't expect a sermon to become a journalistic comment on the affairs of the world, but I would like it to equip me to think in a godly or spiritual way in the world in which I live. Some connects, even if contrary ones, could be interesting. There are usually none (see my earlier comments on my experience at the cathedral).
Although I do remember one minister using a current opera as his point of departure to take us into the scriptures: was good, as I was quite interested in opera at that time.
Another thing I notice is that sermonisers seem to think that their hearers (a) don't think, or are (b) obsessed by the intellectually banal. I expect sermons to have some content that will appeal intellectually, and keep me in some touch with theological trends of the day...but rarely does this occur either.
It is as though the average semoniser is keen to keep his or her hearers away from the intellectual life of the church; but that's not all: it is also, it seems, to keep our thoughts away from anything of practical value.
I reflect on a time whcn my family was facing significant challenges, and the sermons we were hearing were so 'thin' and one-dimensionsal that they were irrelevant in practical terms to equip us to deal with the struggles we were facing. They didn't need to speak directly to our specifics, but they did need to lift us to God, to give us an eternal perspective, and to help us put our thoughts towards our Lord, and away from the details of our concerns, while recognising the struggles that life brings. There was none of that!
As a family, we felt sadly let down as we heard a bunch of 'teaching' on a gospel, I think it was, that seemed stuck at the lexical level, and failed to see the looming glory of the Spirit's presence amongst us.
That was the saddest neglect of opportunity I could contemplate. It came close to driving us from church attendance.
Although I do remember one minister using a current opera as his point of departure to take us into the scriptures: was good, as I was quite interested in opera at that time.
Another thing I notice is that sermonisers seem to think that their hearers (a) don't think, or are (b) obsessed by the intellectually banal. I expect sermons to have some content that will appeal intellectually, and keep me in some touch with theological trends of the day...but rarely does this occur either.
It is as though the average semoniser is keen to keep his or her hearers away from the intellectual life of the church; but that's not all: it is also, it seems, to keep our thoughts away from anything of practical value.
I reflect on a time whcn my family was facing significant challenges, and the sermons we were hearing were so 'thin' and one-dimensionsal that they were irrelevant in practical terms to equip us to deal with the struggles we were facing. They didn't need to speak directly to our specifics, but they did need to lift us to God, to give us an eternal perspective, and to help us put our thoughts towards our Lord, and away from the details of our concerns, while recognising the struggles that life brings. There was none of that!
As a family, we felt sadly let down as we heard a bunch of 'teaching' on a gospel, I think it was, that seemed stuck at the lexical level, and failed to see the looming glory of the Spirit's presence amongst us.
That was the saddest neglect of opportunity I could contemplate. It came close to driving us from church attendance.
23 December 2009
Learning by sermon?
So, if a sermon is an unlikely vehicle for learning, what is to be done?
I think that Erkel's article contains some helpful tips, but to encourage learning requires giving learners a structured experience that goes from context to detail...and back and forth between those levels.
Engagement is critical but the psychological coolness of a sermon, the level of arousal it stirs, or even requires (that is, none, actually) is not conducive to learning, to either transfer of information, building knowledge or transforming belief or behaviour.
For this there is the need to expose one's assumptions, thoughts and beliefs to scrutiny: one's own and others'. This suggests that discussion, dialogue of some form, putting up argument and counter arguments are all required.
The simple idea of pre-reading, using a study guide (and one that doesn't cause bare 'comprehension' level answers to be given), then having those concepts developed challenged in discussion, followed by consolidating reading or even writing up a journal of reflections would be of assistance.
For a biblical example of this, see Acts; where Paul reasoned daily in Tyrannus' hall. This was no one-way discourse, imposed on people, but didactic discussion, where people could test their understanding and its implications with the teacher. For some reason we don't do this in most church contexts. Although, I must say, that at the York St lunch time Bible talks, Justin does invite discussion, and 'tis a great thing.
Linking reading, hearing, reflecting (conversing) and acting are all parts of learning. Just listening is so attenuated as to only allow the very keen to gain anything, IMO.
I think that Erkel's article contains some helpful tips, but to encourage learning requires giving learners a structured experience that goes from context to detail...and back and forth between those levels.
Engagement is critical but the psychological coolness of a sermon, the level of arousal it stirs, or even requires (that is, none, actually) is not conducive to learning, to either transfer of information, building knowledge or transforming belief or behaviour.
For this there is the need to expose one's assumptions, thoughts and beliefs to scrutiny: one's own and others'. This suggests that discussion, dialogue of some form, putting up argument and counter arguments are all required.
The simple idea of pre-reading, using a study guide (and one that doesn't cause bare 'comprehension' level answers to be given), then having those concepts developed challenged in discussion, followed by consolidating reading or even writing up a journal of reflections would be of assistance.
For a biblical example of this, see Acts; where Paul reasoned daily in Tyrannus' hall. This was no one-way discourse, imposed on people, but didactic discussion, where people could test their understanding and its implications with the teacher. For some reason we don't do this in most church contexts. Although, I must say, that at the York St lunch time Bible talks, Justin does invite discussion, and 'tis a great thing.
Linking reading, hearing, reflecting (conversing) and acting are all parts of learning. Just listening is so attenuated as to only allow the very keen to gain anything, IMO.
21 December 2009
A visit to the Cathedral
Family and I went to St Andrew's Cathedral for a pre-Christmas service (20 December 2009), at the invitation of a friend.
For some reason, I had thought that the choir (one of the choirs?) would be singing, and so was looking forward to a feast of traditional Christmas choral festivities. Alas, that is to be on Christmas eve, so I experienced instead something called 'city church' which was not really church as I thought I knew it!
A few things stood out; some about the premises, some about the service, others about the sermon, and then there's the 'atmosphere'.
Sermon
I have heard Phillip Jensen give sermons in the past, and this one was consistent with my memories of his work.
However, I thought that I’d remembered his sermons to have more ‘content per unit time’ than I think this one did. That is, he took too long to address what he did; could have been shorter, or on the other hand, the sermon was relatively content free. It was about the prodigal son…about repentance…and drifted to a few other topics.
My distinct feeling though, was that the sermon was disconnected (ironic being as it is the year of being connected…“Connect 09” being the diocesan slogan for the year); it did attempt to touch on things that made reference to my life experience, but this was slender; over all it was a ‘theoretical’ sermon that didn’t touch anything that I could make sense of: of course, I could understand it as a work of English speaking; but it failed beyond that for me, a believer, and moreover an evangelical one! I wonder how it would have been received by a non-believer.
I certainly agree as to the importance of repentance as the motion of the will that opens us to God, but without showing any recognition of people’s life struggles, concerns or interests, it was more than cold, remote and uninviting. This nature was reinforced by Phillip referring to his “work with alcoholics”. I hope I’m not quibbling over words, but labelling people as such, instead of talking about “people who struggle with alcohol addiction” or “people who struggle with substance abuse”, for example, suggests a basic disinclination to meet and know people, as people with feelings, hopes and struggles. Instead it seems to regard people as occupants of a category, and let’s deal with the category, not the people. The references to ‘repentance’ were of this ilk, I thought.
By comparison, read how Jesus encountered people: it was in the midst of their lives, in relationship with them, and getting involved with their concerns and interests. He did not apply a de-personalised rhetoric, but engaged them to show them their relationship to the kingdom of God.
One good thing in the sermon was that Phillip talked about God as creator and that he created by speaking the creation into existence (see how far and wide the sermon ranged!).
With this I certainly agree, and I read it as consistent with the Bible in Genesis 1, etc.
God’s speaking the creation into being demonstrates his ‘god-ness’ in that he relies upon no secondary causes, or functional intermediaries (which must then be ‘givens’ and independently existent, as he doesn’t mention creating them) to bring about his will. Nothing stands between God and his creation, except, of course, Christ! His word also has immediate effect: in opposition to those who think that the Genesis 1 account is a kind of topical representation of naturalistic/evolutionary development, the account rather represents the creation as entirely responsive to God’s will and that will is totally effective. I can’t think how un-godlike it would be for God to speak, and a few billion years later, lo and behold, there it is! Nor is this consistent with Genesis 1 and the intimacy it shows between God and his creation, including us; time is the great killer of intimacy and given that we live in a Biblical framework, time interposed between God and us would kill that theological intimacy, as well, I would suggest; the consequence being that to so add to the Scripture undoes it and mis-represents both the creator and his relationship to his creation in a fundamental manner as to reject the capacity of words to convey reliable meaning.
Of course speaking and its effect must have time and space coordinates, as our time-space experience is indicated by the scriptures as being continuous with it: the genealogical links make this plain as does the setting of Genesis 1: this is not off in another ‘world-experience’ accessible only by mystic rejection of the real world, but in this world: locatable (at least in principle), dateable and existentially accessible to us: that is, the result of determined will, not caprice, chance or ‘fate’.
The Service
My general impression of the service was that it was 'mechanical'. This was also my recollection of services at a previous church that Phillip had served at. The Bible reading, the prayer, the break for tea or coffee mid-way through the service (who would get thirsty in 20 minutes? don't people have kettles at home?)...all struck me as mechanical, perfunctory, uninvolved. Most delivered in a flat manner. The music was the only difference: the musicians seemed to be into it, and one of them sang her own song, which was quite lovely.
The welcome to the service was like that to an RSL club, joyless and impersonal. There was no farewell to speak of, when it would have been good for someone to shake one's hand and wish one the best for the evening, if not Christmas.
I have no urge to return.
The welcome to the service was like that to an RSL club, joyless and impersonal. There was no farewell to speak of, when it would have been good for someone to shake one's hand and wish one the best for the evening, if not Christmas.
I have no urge to return.
The Building
My view had been that buildings were a convenience for the work of the gospel; but my experience here changed that.
The interior was disheveled, and looked un-cared-about. Reflecting on this, I thought that it demonstrated an attitude to people (because it is people who sit in, listen in, and see the inside of the building) that bordered on the contemptuous: "listen to what we say, agree with us, but we don't give a fig for your experience of sitting here, seeing the mess of disarranged choir stalls".
I think that a building whose interior invited the eye, indicated care for the experience of the people within it, would show the attitude 'we want you to be here, enjoy, feel comfortable and respected, so we might earn the right to be heard'. But none of that.
15 December 2009
Sermons and not learning
The great failure of the sermon as a vehicle for learning is that as a medium it is not conducive to the changes required for learning. On one level if learning is about skill or knowledge development, then there are approaches that have nothing to do with sermons. I refer to the work of Sweller at UNSW, as an example, and here.
If we want to use the sermon to transform people's attitudes, then it may or may not work. To bed down change, I think we need to reflect on the work of Stephen Brookfield, for instance.
But, what about for people new to Christian faith? Do sermons help them? Well, no. A more structured induction to the life of faith is needed. The early church approached this through a structured path into participation in the church, marked by such tools as the didache, or later, Augustine's enchiridion.
These days we do it differently. If one is lucky (blessed?) one will be able to spend time with a more experienced Christian reading the Bible together and praying and chatting, but this is usually short lived and fails to help a new Christian to the transformation of life and thought that flows out of conversion (and also this on thinking and this too on thoughts). Something better is needed, in my view to help the adult reorient her thought life, her assumptions about relationships and serving others, and taking up one's cross daily.
This thread started here.
If we want to use the sermon to transform people's attitudes, then it may or may not work. To bed down change, I think we need to reflect on the work of Stephen Brookfield, for instance.
But, what about for people new to Christian faith? Do sermons help them? Well, no. A more structured induction to the life of faith is needed. The early church approached this through a structured path into participation in the church, marked by such tools as the didache, or later, Augustine's enchiridion.
These days we do it differently. If one is lucky (blessed?) one will be able to spend time with a more experienced Christian reading the Bible together and praying and chatting, but this is usually short lived and fails to help a new Christian to the transformation of life and thought that flows out of conversion (and also this on thinking and this too on thoughts). Something better is needed, in my view to help the adult reorient her thought life, her assumptions about relationships and serving others, and taking up one's cross daily.
This thread started here.
12 December 2009
Sermons and teaching
Often Christians of an evangelical bent look for "good teaching" in the sermons they hear. Do I also look for this?
In one way, yes. But I don't want a lecture, or a training discourse. Rather I want the speaker to engage with the Bible, or a theme, with reference to the Bible that is consistent with the orthodox reading of the Bible, or even challenge it, if this reading itself can be challenged from the Bible, to promote a few things:
a godly life; to bear the fruit of the Spirit, be cncouraged to live to the beat of a different drummer; also to think differently about self and relationships, about action and plans; to think Christly about such things.
Then, as one whe strives in this way, to be encouraged, and 'lifted up'; to see heaven, if in a small way.
Of course, this should be, has to be embedded in a Biblical sermonising, and sometimes, and even often, through expository sermons, so that I am helped to think about what the Bible says in relation to living as a Christian. So with this line of prophetic speaking I expect to learn, but learning as changed experience, in some degree, learning for the new life I seek to live; not learning as an abstract reference to the Bible, but learning as an existential encounter with Christ in the pages of his word, learning that will change me.
The trouble is, a sermon can't do this. I think it can encourage and show some parts of the way, but in a small way. Thus, it is one component of the Christian experience, but we must harness it with others: prayer chiefly, prayerful conversation with each other, reflection on service to those around us.
This thread started here.
In one way, yes. But I don't want a lecture, or a training discourse. Rather I want the speaker to engage with the Bible, or a theme, with reference to the Bible that is consistent with the orthodox reading of the Bible, or even challenge it, if this reading itself can be challenged from the Bible, to promote a few things:
a godly life; to bear the fruit of the Spirit, be cncouraged to live to the beat of a different drummer; also to think differently about self and relationships, about action and plans; to think Christly about such things.
Then, as one whe strives in this way, to be encouraged, and 'lifted up'; to see heaven, if in a small way.
Of course, this should be, has to be embedded in a Biblical sermonising, and sometimes, and even often, through expository sermons, so that I am helped to think about what the Bible says in relation to living as a Christian. So with this line of prophetic speaking I expect to learn, but learning as changed experience, in some degree, learning for the new life I seek to live; not learning as an abstract reference to the Bible, but learning as an existential encounter with Christ in the pages of his word, learning that will change me.
The trouble is, a sermon can't do this. I think it can encourage and show some parts of the way, but in a small way. Thus, it is one component of the Christian experience, but we must harness it with others: prayer chiefly, prayerful conversation with each other, reflection on service to those around us.
This thread started here.
5 December 2009
A sermon hearer's hopes
Over at Justin's blog, he some time ago did a series on 7 things he's learned about preaching in 7 years. Nice blog idea!
As a sermon listener, I thought it would be a suitable exercise for late on Friday evening to set down some thoughts about 35 years of sermon listening (well, more actually, but let's not go into that!).
I liked Justin's seven, but I don't think I could distil my thoughts to seven points. Still, I'll try.
One thing I hope to bring to my observations is many years experience of public speaking, training, leading seminars, technical teaching (for a few years) and formal studies in adult education and training facilitation; maybe that'll provide a different perspective. At least I hope it may be of some benefit to...well, someone!
Firstly, I wonder, and have always wondered, what a sermon is to achieve. Is it meant to teach, transform attitudes, change behaviour, comfort, encourage, rebuke, build community, entertain, impress?
Some might say all of those things (except the final two!), but in practical terms, based on what I hear people discuss after sermons, it is the final two that count; at least subconsciously!
If the sermon is meant to do anything other than comfort or encourge, then it is misplaced. It is not the right vehicle to teach, transform, change behaviour...just the wrong medium entirely.
We have the tension also of the use of the idea 'preach'. Does one 'preach' a sermon, or is preaching in the NT restricted to proclamatory discourse, with discourse intending to transfer information, build knowledge or change lives being 'teaching' or 'prophesy'; and neither need to, or maybe can occur in the liturgical setting that is the sermon.
This leads me to think that the sermon is a liturgical gesture, almost part of a rite, rather than anything that is truly educational. A web search on 'sermon' lead me to an interesting critique of sermonising that is worth a look, I think.
But, also what Paul has to say about discourse in the church: that is, amongst the company of believers, also bears consideration.
In I Corinthians 14:1-5, he sketches the range of this discourse, and its function. It is multifarious, but I like the words he chooses: "But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation... one who prophesies edifies the church.
It would seem that these are significant components of discourse within the community of believers, yet sermons are emphasised as 'teaching' sessions, particularly in the evangelical tradition. But, as one who has been an educator, I might suggest that they are not such that learning is likely to occur; particularly if transformative learning is expected.
As a sermon listener, I thought it would be a suitable exercise for late on Friday evening to set down some thoughts about 35 years of sermon listening (well, more actually, but let's not go into that!).
I liked Justin's seven, but I don't think I could distil my thoughts to seven points. Still, I'll try.
One thing I hope to bring to my observations is many years experience of public speaking, training, leading seminars, technical teaching (for a few years) and formal studies in adult education and training facilitation; maybe that'll provide a different perspective. At least I hope it may be of some benefit to...well, someone!
Firstly, I wonder, and have always wondered, what a sermon is to achieve. Is it meant to teach, transform attitudes, change behaviour, comfort, encourage, rebuke, build community, entertain, impress?
Some might say all of those things (except the final two!), but in practical terms, based on what I hear people discuss after sermons, it is the final two that count; at least subconsciously!
If the sermon is meant to do anything other than comfort or encourge, then it is misplaced. It is not the right vehicle to teach, transform, change behaviour...just the wrong medium entirely.
We have the tension also of the use of the idea 'preach'. Does one 'preach' a sermon, or is preaching in the NT restricted to proclamatory discourse, with discourse intending to transfer information, build knowledge or change lives being 'teaching' or 'prophesy'; and neither need to, or maybe can occur in the liturgical setting that is the sermon.
This leads me to think that the sermon is a liturgical gesture, almost part of a rite, rather than anything that is truly educational. A web search on 'sermon' lead me to an interesting critique of sermonising that is worth a look, I think.
But, also what Paul has to say about discourse in the church: that is, amongst the company of believers, also bears consideration.
In I Corinthians 14:1-5, he sketches the range of this discourse, and its function. It is multifarious, but I like the words he chooses: "But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation... one who prophesies edifies the church.
It would seem that these are significant components of discourse within the community of believers, yet sermons are emphasised as 'teaching' sessions, particularly in the evangelical tradition. But, as one who has been an educator, I might suggest that they are not such that learning is likely to occur; particularly if transformative learning is expected.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)