Thanks for that point, I agree completely. Let me clarify what I am and am not endorsing:
First of all, too many churches are not concerned with being fed and nourished by the word of God at all; they would rather have a good self-help talk (Bible is optional, and if used, is only proof-texted). I wholeheartedly endorse the rigorous study, exegesis, and exposition on the part of the preacher. As well, I think a church must have serious Bible study times, sunday school, Discipleship groups, etc.
What I am not endorsing is using the sermon as a time to do all of the exegesis, nor is it a time to get so scholarly that no one ends up being fed. As I have stated before, I think a good preacher/teacher is one who makes difficult things easy to understand. I think the primary aim in the sermon is to be fed by the undershepherd, and the primary aim of the Lord's Supper is to be fed by the Good Shepherd.
Like a good many things, there are ditches on either side of the road, and both ditches are dangerous.
So in sum, the word of God must be preached robustly, convictingly, encouragingly, and correctly. It should not be marginalized, nor should it be exploited.
I agree. I, sadly, preached a lot of the kinds of sermons that cartoon lampoons. This kind of pulpit ministry was my model early in my pastoral ministry.
Once in a great while -- say every five years or so -- I listen to one of antique expositions from my salad days. Sooooooooooooo embarrasing!
As you may have noticed from a link I provided you offline, my pulpit labors today are dramatically shorter. It's not because I think pulpit ministry unimportant -- rather, the sermon in the context of an Anglican Morning Prayer and Eucharist is NOT the center of gravity, as it was in my earlier non-Anglican ministry. Consequently, it must be shorter, and it must serve a purpose other than being the parish' primary dose of Christian Education.
We do have serious Bible study for the parish. But, the sermon -- while it may teach and expound -- now serves a far more immediately pastoral function.
Aaron, 1) I remember hearing from a Baptist preacher (Alabama Southern Baptist) that the Baptist tradition is 3 points, a poem and a joke (not necessarily in that order).
2) I think from the spoken word, people are more apt to remember 1 point (think of how many multipoint sermons you can recall in detail). For example, many times when Jesus spoke, even at length, he often had one underlying point.
So, I tend to agree that 1 point sermons - or at least 1 thesis sermons with subpoints - have a place.
The optimal content and structure of a sermon, homily, meditation, devotional, and whatsoever else thou listeth, is pretty much the same in each and every case. I was taught how to do this in seminary and what I learned has served me well. Here are the rudiments:
I. Outline of the sermon
An introduction that ... well, introduces the subject, creates interest in it, and gives the listener a stake in what you are about to say.
An exposition of the subject, in which you either explain the subject, defend the subject, or apply the subject (these pretty well exhaust the possibilities).
A conclusion that includes some action points, ideally one which is immediately at hand.
Please note that this outline works no matter what amount of time is devoted to the sermon, homily, or whatever.
II. Relationship to the Bible
The Bible was not composed so as to spontaneously generate these kinds of outlines. Sermons which attempt to follow the Bible text slavishly will turn into commentarys, not sermons. Commentaries are good and useful, but they're not for a pulpit.
On the other hand, the validating, illustrative, probative, applicational, or other aspects of a sermon need to arise in an obvious way from the Biblical text, so that no one may think you are twisting the text to say (or support) something that is not actually there.
Balancing these two features of preaching the Bible is the part I find the most challenging.
III. How Many Points?
The sermon needs to have ONE idea, though you may say several things about that idea.
As to how many things (sub-points, if you will) you have, remember that this medium (speaker:listener) has fairly limited range for complexity. Far better to say one thing three different ways than to say three different things. There are times and places for complexity and subtlety, but a pulpit is never one of them.
In seminary, we had several semesters work fleshing out the very general ideas above, but those were the general ideas. Knowing them is a start, but there's nothing that will replace endless weeks of applying the theory.
The best preacher I ever heard was not a flashy rhetoritician. He was an 80 year old retired Anglican priest who only preached as pulpit supply. He was at the place in his life that Janis Joplin made famous in a line from one of her songs "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." His 12-15 minute homilies were dense, pointed, lucid, and they penetrated as deeply as sharpened lances. He read every one of them, but they were riveting.
Thanks, everyone; I think this is a very good discussion.
BQ: your first response pretty much summed up what I was trying to say. In fact, the way you used to preach is exactly how I had always thought a sermon was to function, up until VERY recently. My world has been turning upside down for a couple of years now, and it has strangely been both scary and comforting at the same time. I'm sure many of you know exactly what I'm talking about.
If I have been unclear in any way to anyone, I refer you to BQ's first comment. He said better what I was attempting to say.
I think much more discussion is needed on this topic, so keep it up, and perhaps I'll post more later either here or on the B & B.
Well, I just walked in the door from a whirlwind tour of Southern California, and I have to get ready for church in the morning, so I'll have to sign off for now.
7 Comments:
It is hard to relate when many pastors hardly ever use the Bible in their talks.
...or they talk from the Message.
Thanks for that point, I agree completely. Let me clarify what I am and am not endorsing:
First of all, too many churches are not concerned with being fed and nourished by the word of God at all; they would rather have a good self-help talk (Bible is optional, and if used, is only proof-texted). I wholeheartedly endorse the rigorous study, exegesis, and exposition on the part of the preacher. As well, I think a church must have serious Bible study times, sunday school, Discipleship groups, etc.
What I am not endorsing is using the sermon as a time to do all of the exegesis, nor is it a time to get so scholarly that no one ends up being fed. As I have stated before, I think a good preacher/teacher is one who makes difficult things easy to understand. I think the primary aim in the sermon is to be fed by the undershepherd, and the primary aim of the Lord's Supper is to be fed by the Good Shepherd.
Like a good many things, there are ditches on either side of the road, and both ditches are dangerous.
So in sum, the word of God must be preached robustly, convictingly, encouragingly, and correctly. It should not be marginalized, nor should it be exploited.
Do you agree?
Hi, Drewdog,
I agree. I, sadly, preached a lot of the kinds of sermons that cartoon lampoons. This kind of pulpit ministry was my model early in my pastoral ministry.
Once in a great while -- say every five years or so -- I listen to one of antique expositions from my salad days. Sooooooooooooo embarrasing!
As you may have noticed from a link I provided you offline, my pulpit labors today are dramatically shorter. It's not because I think pulpit ministry unimportant -- rather, the sermon in the context of an Anglican Morning Prayer and Eucharist is NOT the center of gravity, as it was in my earlier non-Anglican ministry. Consequently, it must be shorter, and it must serve a purpose other than being the parish' primary dose of Christian Education.
We do have serious Bible study for the parish. But, the sermon -- while it may teach and expound -- now serves a far more immediately pastoral function.
bq
Aaron,
1) I remember hearing from a Baptist preacher (Alabama Southern Baptist) that the Baptist tradition is 3 points, a poem and a joke (not necessarily in that order).
2) I think from the spoken word, people are more apt to remember 1 point (think of how many multipoint sermons you can recall in detail). For example, many times when Jesus spoke, even at length, he often had one underlying point.
So, I tend to agree that 1 point sermons - or at least 1 thesis sermons with subpoints - have a place.
The optimal content and structure of a sermon, homily, meditation, devotional, and whatsoever else thou listeth, is pretty much the same in each and every case. I was taught how to do this in seminary and what I learned has served me well. Here are the rudiments:
I. Outline of the sermon
An introduction that ... well, introduces the subject, creates interest in it, and gives the listener a stake in what you are about to say.
An exposition of the subject, in which you either explain the subject, defend the subject, or apply the subject (these pretty well exhaust the possibilities).
A conclusion that includes some action points, ideally one which is immediately at hand.
Please note that this outline works no matter what amount of time is devoted to the sermon, homily, or whatever.
II. Relationship to the Bible
The Bible was not composed so as to spontaneously generate these kinds of outlines. Sermons which attempt to follow the Bible text slavishly will turn into commentarys, not sermons. Commentaries are good and useful, but they're not for a pulpit.
On the other hand, the validating, illustrative, probative, applicational, or other aspects of a sermon need to arise in an obvious way from the Biblical text, so that no one may think you are twisting the text to say (or support) something that is not actually there.
Balancing these two features of preaching the Bible is the part I find the most challenging.
III. How Many Points?
The sermon needs to have ONE idea, though you may say several things about that idea.
As to how many things (sub-points, if you will) you have, remember that this medium (speaker:listener) has fairly limited range for complexity. Far better to say one thing three different ways than to say three different things. There are times and places for complexity and subtlety, but a pulpit is never one of them.
In seminary, we had several semesters work fleshing out the very general ideas above, but those were the general ideas. Knowing them is a start, but there's nothing that will replace endless weeks of applying the theory.
The best preacher I ever heard was not a flashy rhetoritician. He was an 80 year old retired Anglican priest who only preached as pulpit supply. He was at the place in his life that Janis Joplin made famous in a line from one of her songs "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." His 12-15 minute homilies were dense, pointed, lucid, and they penetrated as deeply as sharpened lances. He read every one of them, but they were riveting.
bq
Thanks, everyone; I think this is a very good discussion.
BQ: your first response pretty much summed up what I was trying to say. In fact, the way you used to preach is exactly how I had always thought a sermon was to function, up until VERY recently. My world has been turning upside down for a couple of years now, and it has strangely been both scary and comforting at the same time. I'm sure many of you know exactly what I'm talking about.
If I have been unclear in any way to anyone, I refer you to BQ's first comment. He said better what I was attempting to say.
I think much more discussion is needed on this topic, so keep it up, and perhaps I'll post more later either here or on the B & B.
Well, I just walked in the door from a whirlwind tour of Southern California, and I have to get ready for church in the morning, so I'll have to sign off for now.
Cheers
Post a Comment
<< Home