Thanks for bringing the point back to the discussion, Keith.
I hear what you are saying, and at the same time just have to mention that as a solo pastor I get about one Sunday night off a month. Since that has become my pattern, I have to say that I haven't heard a bad sermon. I have always been able to get something edifying out of anything that has been preached. I am eager to hear the word of God preached by someone else than myself, to be a receiver, and so I find myself taking in the sermon more like a hungry man and less like a foodie. So yes, there is definitely a congregational component. There can be bad listening as well as bad preaching.
That isn't meant to be a dodge, just an observation.
But to reflect on your question, as well as Roger's rhetorical question about Peter's sermon, we might say that yes, it had substance, or exegetical integrity. We might also say that it had homiletical skill. But it had more. It had what older writers such as EM Bounds or Martyn Lloyd Jones referred to as "unction". While hard to pin down, Lee Eclov defines unction as "the anointing of the Holy Spirit upon a sermon so that something holy and powerful is added to the message that no preacher can generate, no matter how great his skills." We have all had those times when the Spirit "takes things out of our hands" and does something with a sermon that we would not say is our best. At the same time, we may preach a sermon that is exegetically sound and homiletically skilled but that falls, as one of my professors put it "from the pulpit like a wingless duck."
Is unction the thing that our sermons are lacking? Fred Craddock talks about the two chairs of preaching. There is the hard, straight chair of exegetical legwork, what we are to say. Then we are to move to the more comfy homiletical chair, where we formulate how we are to say it. But there is a third chair, that perhaps must be paid more attention to, and that is the chair at which we kneel and beg God to add to our work what only He can. I would be interested in hearing how preaching classes intentionally emphasize the Spirit's role in sermon preparation and delivery.
Thanks, Roger, I'll take your words and reflect on them more deeply. I realize, looking at my comment, that it might be a little hyperbolic. Yes, I've heard (and preached) some stinkers too, but I've been able to be edified even by those that I've heard. I recall a poem that Rog Van Harn had in one of his books about "Pew Rights" that talks about "listening for the one sentence", and found that to be true. There is always that "one sentence" in every sermon.
And by asking about unction I'm certainly not trying to say that God has somehow "turned his back" on the minister or congregation. If that was my view, how could I have said that I was edified in the first place? The Spirit will do what he wants with our work, whether that is through a greater display of his power or through his ordinary operations, but his work is a vital part of sermon preparation and delivery, and should be intentionally attended to.
The line in seminary was that it was OK to raise hands as a student long "as you didn't do it above your shoulders." :) When I was ordained and installed and everything was kosher, we came to the end of that service, and I raised 'em so high I probably hit the ceiling.
The blessing is one of those parts of the service that our pragmatic "doing" culture doesn't always seem to connect with, and probably thinks the service can do without. Yet as I continue to pastor, I find myself remembering blessings more often...giving the last one to a congregation you're departing, after caring for them for years, or giving one to someone hours before they pass away. It's closer to the heart of what we do as pastors then we often realize.
It seems that we're in a time of flux when it comes to church planting; older models of "birthing" a new church and bringing it to full independence within a few years do not seem to be working as well in our current economic realities. Multisite seems to be a model that is gaining ground nationally. How friendly do you think our church order is to a mutlsite model? Would we consider this one church in several locations, or a group of believers that *chooses* not to constitute a council?
In our church the way that we do it is through going around the room and answering the following questions:
1. In your opinion are the office bearers of our church carrying out their duties to the best of their abilities?
2. In your opinion, are the various programs and ministries of our church being maintained faithfully and is the church fulfilling the Great Commission through them?
3. Do you have any ideas about how our church ministries or church leadership can be encouraged or developed?
I've found that such a structure allows for a climate of improvement without pointing the finger at any one individual. It also tends to encourage discussion "in the confessional mode". We're not accusing each other, we're sharing our shortcomings, our struggles with time and focus, and the need for mutual encouragement.
The book "Studying Congregations:A New Handbook" by Nancy Ammerman may be helpful to you, especially the chapter by Robert Schreiter that speaks about surfacing the "implicit theology" of a congregation. My first thought is that this is the kind of question that lends itself to a qualitative method, not a quantitative "check this box" type. "Ethnography as a Pastoral Practice" by Mary Clark Moschella may also be helpful.
Good point on the print vs. online nature of all this, Paul. That's an element that will continue to develop. In some ways it may be that in this day and age a site like the Network is better suited for being the "kitchen table" of the denomination than the Banner. Also, because of it's highly democratic nature, open discussion in this format is less likely to be seen as "pushing an agenda".
I find that in the new setup I tend to stay in my "silo", whether that be church order, pastors, or whatever. The older top ten setup encouraged me to investigate what areas across the board were generating discussion and interest. Now those discussions are hidden, unless one goes through each catagory individually. Have you found a drop or an increase in posting has happened since the new rollout?
This specific topic aside, the bracing back and forth of this format reminds me of a quote from CS Lewis about different types of friends:
The First Friend is the alter ego, the man who first reveals to you that you are not alone in the world by turning out (beyond hope) to share all your most secret joys. There is nothing to be overcome in making him your friend; he and you join like raindrops on a window. But the Second Friend is the man who disagrees with you about everything. He is not so much the alter ego as the antiself. Of course he shares your interests; otherwise he would not become your friend at all. But he has approached them all at a different angle. He has read all the right books but has got the wrong thing out of every one. It is as if he spoke your language but mispronounced it. How can he be so nearly right and yet, invariably, just not right? When you set out to correct his heresies, you will find that he forsooth to correct yours! And then you go at it, hammer and tongs, far into the night, night after night, or walking through fine country that neither gives a glance to, each learning the weight of the other's punches, and often more like mutually respectful enemies than friends. Actually (though it never seems so at the time) you modify one another's thought; out of this perpetual dogfight a community of mind and a deep affection emerge.”
New Tagline: The Network: A Place for First and Second Friends.
Posted in: Our Biggest Problem: Poor Preaching
One humorous subtext in all this discussion is the assumption that if the sermon "moves" people, there must be something wrong with it.
Guess the Apostle Peter really let down the team when those 3000 people responded on Pentecost.
Posted in: Our Biggest Problem: Poor Preaching
Thanks for bringing the point back to the discussion, Keith.
I hear what you are saying, and at the same time just have to mention that as a solo pastor I get about one Sunday night off a month. Since that has become my pattern, I have to say that I haven't heard a bad sermon. I have always been able to get something edifying out of anything that has been preached. I am eager to hear the word of God preached by someone else than myself, to be a receiver, and so I find myself taking in the sermon more like a hungry man and less like a foodie. So yes, there is definitely a congregational component. There can be bad listening as well as bad preaching.
That isn't meant to be a dodge, just an observation.
But to reflect on your question, as well as Roger's rhetorical question about Peter's sermon, we might say that yes, it had substance, or exegetical integrity. We might also say that it had homiletical skill. But it had more. It had what older writers such as EM Bounds or Martyn Lloyd Jones referred to as "unction". While hard to pin down, Lee Eclov defines unction as "the anointing of the Holy Spirit upon a sermon so that something holy and powerful is added to the message that no preacher can generate, no matter how great his skills." We have all had those times when the Spirit "takes things out of our hands" and does something with a sermon that we would not say is our best. At the same time, we may preach a sermon that is exegetically sound and homiletically skilled but that falls, as one of my professors put it "from the pulpit like a wingless duck."
Is unction the thing that our sermons are lacking? Fred Craddock talks about the two chairs of preaching. There is the hard, straight chair of exegetical legwork, what we are to say. Then we are to move to the more comfy homiletical chair, where we formulate how we are to say it. But there is a third chair, that perhaps must be paid more attention to, and that is the chair at which we kneel and beg God to add to our work what only He can. I would be interested in hearing how preaching classes intentionally emphasize the Spirit's role in sermon preparation and delivery.
Posted in: Our Biggest Problem: Poor Preaching
Thanks, Roger, I'll take your words and reflect on them more deeply. I realize, looking at my comment, that it might be a little hyperbolic. Yes, I've heard (and preached) some stinkers too, but I've been able to be edified even by those that I've heard. I recall a poem that Rog Van Harn had in one of his books about "Pew Rights" that talks about "listening for the one sentence", and found that to be true. There is always that "one sentence" in every sermon.
And by asking about unction I'm certainly not trying to say that God has somehow "turned his back" on the minister or congregation. If that was my view, how could I have said that I was edified in the first place? The Spirit will do what he wants with our work, whether that is through a greater display of his power or through his ordinary operations, but his work is a vital part of sermon preparation and delivery, and should be intentionally attended to.
Posted in: Our Biggest Problem: Poor Preaching
Thanks very much for your testimony, Keith.
Posted in: Non-CRC Pastor Raising Hands for Blessing and Benediction
The line in seminary was that it was OK to raise hands as a student long "as you didn't do it above your shoulders." :) When I was ordained and installed and everything was kosher, we came to the end of that service, and I raised 'em so high I probably hit the ceiling.
The blessing is one of those parts of the service that our pragmatic "doing" culture doesn't always seem to connect with, and probably thinks the service can do without. Yet as I continue to pastor, I find myself remembering blessings more often...giving the last one to a congregation you're departing, after caring for them for years, or giving one to someone hours before they pass away. It's closer to the heart of what we do as pastors then we often realize.
Posted in: Classis and the Smaller Church
Norman,
It seems that we're in a time of flux when it comes to church planting; older models of "birthing" a new church and bringing it to full independence within a few years do not seem to be working as well in our current economic realities. Multisite seems to be a model that is gaining ground nationally. How friendly do you think our church order is to a mutlsite model? Would we consider this one church in several locations, or a group of believers that *chooses* not to constitute a council?
Posted in: A Strange Practice With a Strange Name
In our church the way that we do it is through going around the room and answering the following questions:
1. In your opinion are the office bearers of our church carrying out their duties to the best of their abilities?
2. In your opinion, are the various programs and ministries of our church being maintained faithfully and is the church fulfilling the Great Commission through them?
3. Do you have any ideas about how our church ministries or church leadership can be encouraged or developed?
I've found that such a structure allows for a climate of improvement without pointing the finger at any one individual. It also tends to encourage discussion "in the confessional mode". We're not accusing each other, we're sharing our shortcomings, our struggles with time and focus, and the need for mutual encouragement.
Posted in: Expressed Values Lacking Integrity with Lived Values
Pete,
The book "Studying Congregations:A New Handbook" by Nancy Ammerman may be helpful to you, especially the chapter by Robert Schreiter that speaks about surfacing the "implicit theology" of a congregation. My first thought is that this is the kind of question that lends itself to a qualitative method, not a quantitative "check this box" type. "Ethnography as a Pastoral Practice" by Mary Clark Moschella may also be helpful.
Posted in: What Do We Want from The Banner?
Good point on the print vs. online nature of all this, Paul. That's an element that will continue to develop. In some ways it may be that in this day and age a site like the Network is better suited for being the "kitchen table" of the denomination than the Banner. Also, because of it's highly democratic nature, open discussion in this format is less likely to be seen as "pushing an agenda".
Posted in: A New Network Site
I find that in the new setup I tend to stay in my "silo", whether that be church order, pastors, or whatever. The older top ten setup encouraged me to investigate what areas across the board were generating discussion and interest. Now those discussions are hidden, unless one goes through each catagory individually. Have you found a drop or an increase in posting has happened since the new rollout?
Posted in: A New Network Site
Thanks, it works great!
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
This specific topic aside, the bracing back and forth of this format reminds me of a quote from CS Lewis about different types of friends:
The First Friend is the alter ego, the man who first reveals to you that you are not alone in the world by turning out (beyond hope) to share all your most secret joys. There is nothing to be overcome in making him your friend; he and you join like raindrops on a window. But the Second Friend is the man who disagrees with you about everything. He is not so much the alter ego as the antiself. Of course he shares your interests; otherwise he would not become your friend at all. But he has approached them all at a different angle. He has read all the right books but has got the wrong thing out of every one. It is as if he spoke your language but mispronounced it. How can he be so nearly right and yet, invariably, just not right? When you set out to correct his heresies, you will find that he forsooth to correct yours! And then you go at it, hammer and tongs, far into the night, night after night, or walking through fine country that neither gives a glance to, each learning the weight of the other's punches, and often more like mutually respectful enemies than friends. Actually (though it never seems so at the time) you modify one another's thought; out of this perpetual dogfight a community of mind and a deep affection emerge.”
New Tagline: The Network: A Place for First and Second Friends.