There has been some hullabaloo around the Synod over a couple of sermons. They featured Detroit pizza and a comfort dog, among other things. Sadly, the content of those sermons has been less of interest than the, well, visual images that accompanied them (gimmicks, if you are mean). I am not in a mood to heap scorn upon the preachers or to resurrect the whole issue. But I am of a mind to remind folks that the primary goal of preaching is faithfulness. It is not even connecting with your hearers. If we believe that the Holy Spirit is at work in faithful preaching, the Spirit will engage the hearers. In some cases, the best we can do is to get out of the way of the Word.
I am pretty much a failure at preaching -- at least according to much of what I have read. Every time I preach I think of things I could have said or should have said or how I might have said it all better (or more concisely). I seldom use illustrations but generally jump right into the meat of the Word for the day. I tend to preach bluntly and so it some times offends even though I do not try to be offensive. Maybe I am getting old but I am at the point of realizing that there are precious few moments in the pulpit and it is better to preach the Word and apply directly that to find witty or winsome or humorous ways of saying it. Because people do not listen like they once did, it is easier if I preach rather direct sermons in which the pathway is clear and not wandering words that need a road map to find your way from beginning to end. Where once I tended to shy away from the rather controversial things Jesus said, I tend to face those hard words of the Lord that sort of make you want to turn the end of the Gospel reading into a question, rather than a statement (This is the Gospel of the Lord?). I do listen to many sermons and read them. But the ones I tend to listen to and the ones I generally read are less literary creations than blunt, faithful, and direct preaching of the text. And in this listening and reading I have discovered that there are many great preachers out there. But to be an effective preacher, you do not have to be a great one. All you need to be is faithful.
I listened once to a member (not my own) who was complaining about their pastor's preaching. It is too long, too boring, and repeats itself. He does not know when to quit and it is clear he did not spend enough time preparing. Even when he preaches the sermons of others, he does not let their words stand but adds stuff that does not even make sense. Okay. I get it. But I asked the people complaining, Does he preach the Word faithfully, dividing Law and Gospel? Does he preach the Word textually, sticking close to the Word of God? Does he preach the Word every Sunday and every service? The grudging acknowledgement revealed that faithfulness was not enough. Now, I am not at all excusing the poor preaching and poor preparation of their pastor (bad preaching is more often the result of not preparing well or trying to do too much in the sermon), but.... What were the people expecting? Were they expecting more than faithfulness? Maybe that is part of the problem. Our people have been taught to evaluate preaching less on content than on style, less on substance than on literary or oratorical skills.
In the end, however, if you can get past poor preaching skills, I honestly believe most folks would prefer a reliable pastor who preaches honest sermons, faithful to the Word of God, and applies that Word to them in their own circumstances. . . over a star who left them spellbound every Sunday. I might be wrong in this but I don't think so. In fact, we have had some stars preach here and I have found it most rewarding to hear my people say they loved hearing so and so but they were even happier to listen to me Sunday after Sunday. Preaching is learned. Listening to preaching is also learned. Preachers need to bone up on their craft and their people need to learn how to listen as well. Together both will discover that faithful preaching, the Law and the Gospel, the whole counsel of God's Word, seasonally directed by the church year, flowing from the lectionary -- well, that is really good preaching!
10 comments:
I am sure you do a good job of preaching the word, as one can tell from reading this blog ,that you are thoughtful and discerning, and concerned about faithfulness and truth. We in the pews do want solid preaching, not entertainment, not side jokes, not ramblings about nothing. Unfortunately, even in our own churches, there are pastors who want to be contemporary and socially relevant instead of just preaching the Gospel, and teaching about Law and Grace. Keep doing what you do, and let God's word be shared.
Anyone complaining from the pew needs to at least teach ONE Sunday School class to teenagers (the world’s “best” critics). THANK YOU (and Pastor Ulrich) for being faithful! If someone has itching ears, there are plenty of pulpiteers (neither real preachers nor pastors) willing to scratch where a person itches. Scripture clearly shows we don’t itch where our true wounds lie.
Thank you also for preaching the Law as well as the Gospel. Many preachers think there is no need to preach the Law, as we in the pews already know we’re hurting. Sure we know when we’re hurt, and also know we sin, but we are not aware of the depth of it, and we try to excuse it or pass blame. God Kors forget our sin in His great mercy, but we need to be reminded of it, or we will no longer seek repentance and forgiveness.
Being a Christian is not supposed to be easy (read St. Paul’s letters). Being a member of Christ’s Church is not a fulfillment of our dreams, nor Divine Service time to have a pep rally for the week. Being a pastor is all of the difficulties multiplied by 1000s!
You are in our prayers! Daily!
It's interesting that liturgical maximalists are sermon minimalists in this brouhaha. At issue is to what degree we reach out to the contemporary American culture in our worship. Are dogs and pizza irreverent? Is not wearing a tie to church irreverent? Are praise bands irreverent? Are the disheveled commoners kneeling to receive the sacrament in the paintings of Caravaggio irreverent? Does God embrace us as we are, or should we elevate ourselves to present only the best image of ourselves to God?
Missouri's tradition places her on the side of formality and old Lutheranism. It can be a bit dour. New American Lutheranism appeals to the blue collar evangelical side of Missouri, which has no tolerance for history, shuns isolationism and engages with American Protestantism in a way that would make Benjamin Kurtz proud. The ELCA is more white collar, formal, and progressive, and to my knowledge doesn't have these issues as the LCMS does. To what extent can the LCMS reconcile the low church DNA of her mainly middle American, lower middle income congregants with the stringently orthodox, high church aspirations of her clergy? It looks like at present we are doing both, with traditional, blended, and contemporary services.
"It's interesting that liturgical maximalists are sermon minimalists in this brouhaha"
I am not sure you understand this. The liturgical maximalists are on the side of real and faithful preaching and are not sermon minimalists at all. In fact, they are challenging those things that would make the sermon shallow and do anything less than preach the full and faithful Gospel.
Here is the question that needs to be asked, but what if we can do both (be true to the word of God AND present sermons that use rich imagery or stories or other devices to illustrate points that are memorable)? The prophets certainly never made the distinction between being faithful and being "boring." They did such "irreverent things" such as build a model of a city and laid siege to it, preached while laying on one's side, walked around naked while carrying a yoke, even using the life experience of marrying an unfaithful wife as prophetic illustrations of Israel's unfaithfulness and God's steadfast love for his people. The prophets used rich imagery easily understood and recognized by their audience to make points, such as referring to plumb lines used to measure the straightness of a wall, swarms of locusts to represent coming judgement, threshing sledges, vineyards, etc. Christ himself often spoke in parables using examples of the sowing of seed and growing of crops, bridesmaids awaiting a wedding party, shepherds caring for flocks of sheep, etc., in order to make points that were faithful to scripture yet highly memorable to his audience. Given that most of the "brouhaha" was raised by people who couldn't be bothered to even listen to the full sermon in question, the complaint seems to have less to do with being faithful and more to do with the adiaphoron of preaching style. Maybe, just maybe, grace should also be exercised toward our pastors.
So are you advocating for pastors to build models, preach while laying on their sides, walk around naked, etc.??? I don't think Pastor Peters was being so hard on those preachers as he was challenging them all to be faithful. A successful sermon is always faithful but not necessarily gimmicky or memorable for its quirkiness. I am not sure you need to win over people's attention. It is church and what else are they there for??? Maybe on the street corner you might have to grab their attention but in church the sermon is a given.
No, I’m not. I’m saying that the sermon in question wasn’t out of bounds. I’m saying that people who didn’t attend the sermon and who probably haven’t even taken the time to listen to it need to stop finding excuses to be scandalized by it.
Also, I’m guessing your church has a children’s lesson most sundays wherein the pastor will frequently use a prop or some other device to deliver the word to our children. Are you saying that somehow this kind of preaching and teaching is less effective for adults?
Nope, no children's sermons. Where did Pr Peters say the sermon was out of bounds? I did not read that he was "scandalized" by it but was making a proper reminder that the goal of every sermon is simply faithfulness. I don't think effectiveness is an objective criteria. What measures effectiveness? We may hate sermons that were mighty effective in hitting a nerve that needed to be hit but we would not necessarily say that such a sermon was effective (probably because we did not like it).
Ah, I see where the confusion is coming from. I did not say that Pastor Peters made a comment one way or the other. I am familiar with where the story being referred to is coming from and have seen the "brouhaha" he is referencing. The first part of my post was addressing the fact that there are many ways to deliver the word. The means by which pastors deliver the word doesn't necessarily make them any more or less faithful to the scriptures. I agree with Pastor Peters in saying that the only good sermon is one that is faithful to the word. The last part of my post was addressing those who were raising the issue, most of whom readily admitted they did not watch the sermon, yet felt the need to cast negative aspersions toward the pastor who delivered it. My apologies for the confusion.
Post a Comment