Is it me or MOST Churches in America will preach about how Men & kids should honor God specifically but no sermons about how Women should act ?

[RDKirk]

Oh, heavens. I did not misconstrue @PloverWing and I did not misconstrue you. Here is what you said:

This mimicked and defended Plover's earlier claim:

Then it's a comprehension issue.

 

[zippy2006]

Then it's a comprehension issue.

I think it's a validity issue with your enthymeme. "The landscape is different than it was 100 years ago, therefore..." Therefore what? You are reaching for the conclusion, "Therefore the preacher no longer has grounds for discrimination on the basis of sex." But as I've pointed out to both you and Plover, he does have a basis, just as he did 100, 200, 1000, and 3000 years ago (to use the data points you both have provided). In each age the sermons will look different, but the OP's question will remain relevant.

And of course the preacher must balance specialized advice in mixed congregations, but that is a separate consideration. The OP's strange experience is worth reflecting on.

 

[Margaret3110]

I find it strange that the preacher is using his sermon to lecture people on how they should behave, but ok ...

 

[Paidiske]

For what it's worth, most of the sermons I've heard in Episcopal churches don't separate people by gender at all. Most sins -- selfishness, greed, hurting people with words, being insensitive to people's needs, being lazy about one's prayer life, and so on -- can quite easily be committed by people of any gender. Most virtues also -- being kind, being welcoming, being courageous, persevering through adversity, being faithful to one's spouse, etc. -- can apply to people regardless of gender.

Granted I'm not in America, but this is the approach I'm used to, as well. The main reason for commenting on gender differences would be if it's relevant to the Scripture passage being preached on (the valiant woman of Proverbs comes to mind, but even then, when I preach on that passage I point out that the virtues being extolled for women, are virtues for men as well).

The main social problem which is highly gendered which I see strongly represented in my context is domestic violence, and so some of my preaching does touch on issues of power and control. But even then I don't tend to put gender in the forefront.

That said, I don't think the function of a sermon is to tell people how they should act. It is to invite reflection in light of Scripture, not to engage in moral micro-management.

 

[PloverWing]

Let's say, for the moment, that there are sins or virtues that are somewhat correlated with membership in a particular demographic group. (I'm not conceding that point right now, but for the sake of argument...)

I'd still recommend that a preacher stay away from calling out demographic groups, where possible. If, say, the passage from James about the tongue is what's in the lectionary this week, I'd feel very uncomfortable hearing from the pulpit "I know how you ladies like to gossip." The preacher could talk more generally about how gossip hurts people, and leave it to the listener to decide whether that's a sin they're prone to.

Similarly, when I hear a preacher talk about "you young people" or "you baby boomers" or "you men" or "you <whatever-group>", I get totally distracted by the stereotype and I lose track of what the preacher was trying to say.

Much better, I'd say, to stick to whatever virtue or vice or spiritual discipline is being described in the week's lectionary reading, and describe it without the troublesome stereotypes. If necessary, to make it less abstract, the preacher could tell a story about a particular person (him/herself, even), without making it about all women, or all teenagers, etc.

 

[RileyG]

For what it's worth, most of the sermons I've heard in Episcopal churches don't separate people by gender at all. Most sins -- selfishness, greed, hurting people with words, being insensitive to people's needs, being lazy about one's prayer life, and so on -- can quite easily be committed by people of any gender. Most virtues also -- being kind, being welcoming, being courageous, persevering through adversity, being faithful to one's spouse, etc. -- can apply to people regardless of gender.

Different churches have different preaching styles, I suppose.

I'm in the same boat from hearing Catholic homilies.

 

[zippy2006]

Much better, I'd say, to stick to whatever virtue or vice or spiritual discipline is being described in the week's lectionary reading, and describe it without the troublesome stereotypes.

I am curious as to whether those who are making this argument or the argument against "moral preaching" have ever read the epistles of the New Testament. It's a curious assumption that the "lectionary reading" will not itself contain the sort of thing you object to.

 

[RDKirk]

Granted I'm not in America, but this is the approach I'm used to, as well. The main reason for commenting on gender differences would be if it's relevant to the Scripture passage being preached on (the valiant woman of Proverbs comes to mind, but even then, when I preach on that passage I point out that the virtues being extolled for women, are virtues for men as well).

The main social problem which is highly gendered which I see strongly represented in my context is domestic violence, and so some of my preaching does touch on issues of power and control. But even then I don't tend to put gender in the forefront.

That said, I don't think the function of a sermon is to tell people how they should act. It is to invite reflection in light of Scripture, not to engage in moral micro-management.

The letter-writing apostles sure talked a lot about how people should act, so I guess inviting reflection in light of Scripture is going to get to "how they should act" one way or another.

 

[RDKirk]

Let's say, for the moment, that there are sins or virtues that are somewhat correlated with membership in a particular demographic group. (I'm not conceding that point right now, but for the sake of argument...)

I'd still recommend that a preacher stay away from calling out demographic groups, where possible. If, say, the passage from James about the tongue is what's in the lectionary this week, I'd feel very uncomfortable hearing from the pulpit "I know how you ladies like to gossip." The preacher could talk more generally about how gossip hurts people, and leave it to the listener to decide whether that's a sin they're prone to.

Similarly, when I hear a preacher talk about "you young people" or "you baby boomers" or "you men" or "you <whatever-group>", I get totally distracted by the stereotype and I lose track of what the preacher was trying to say.

Much better, I'd say, to stick to whatever virtue or vice or spiritual discipline is being described in the week's lectionary reading, and describe it without the troublesome stereotypes. If necessary, to make it less abstract, the preacher could tell a story about a particular person (him/herself, even), without making it about all women, or all teenagers, etc.

I think at least talking about different kinds of circumstances is relevant where women and men find themselves more often today in the same kinds of circumstances inviting the same temptations.

However (and I know not all here agree with me), there are still physiological and physiology-based psychological differenced between men and women that cause them to react to temptations--even the same situations of temptations--differently, and in those cases they will need different kinds of teaching.

That's even true secularly. The ways an enemy espionage agent can wheedle classified information out of a man are different from the ways it can be wheedled out of a woman.

 

[Paidiske]

I am curious as to whether those who are making this argument or the argument against "moral preaching" have ever read the epistles of the New Testament. It's a curious assumption that the "lectionary reading" will not itself contain the sort of thing you object to.

It's not that I object to what's in the epistles, but I don't, generally, talk to my congregations the way Paul (for example) wrote to his. Different people, different social context, different needs, different role.

The letter-writing apostles sure talked a lot about how people should act, so I guess inviting reflection in light of Scripture is going to get to "how they should act" one way or another.

Maybe, but I don't see it as my role to tell people "how they should act." That's for them to decide in conversation with the Holy Spirit. Or to put it another way, in preaching I can invite them to reflect on what Scripture says, but how they respond to that invitation is up to them, and not for me to control.

 

[RDKirk]

Maybe, but I don't see it as my role to tell people "how they should act." That's for them to decide in conversation with the Holy Spirit. Or to put it another way, in preaching I can invite them to reflect on what Scripture says, but how they respond to that invitation is up to them, and not for me to control.

Is everyone in the congregation in conversation with the Holy Spirit as you tell them, "It's for you to decide?"

Was the man in 1 Corinthians 5 listening to the Holy Spirit? There are all kinds of evil being done in congregations...is everything permissible even if it's not beneficial or edifying?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I hear plenty of sermons about how children should honor their parents.

I hear plenty of sermons about how men should be respectful and not live in lust and be sexual immorality

But for women………….. I rarely hear anything specifically about them in most church sermons.

I hear more Churches talk about the LGBT community sin more than I’ve heard sermon’s talk about them.

But I could be wrong and it could be me so correct me if I'm wrong and tell me if im right

I've never heard my pastor preach a gendered sermon at all.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RDKirk]

I've never heard my pastor preach a gendered sermon at all.

-CryptoLutheran

My pastor preaches lots of gendered sermons, but the gender war is hottest and openly declared in the black community. It is not ignorable.

 

[Margaret3110]

I am curious as to whether those who are making this argument or the argument against "moral preaching" have ever read the epistles of the New Testament. It's a curious assumption that the "lectionary reading" will not itself contain the sort of thing you object to.

I have read the epistles many times. There are moral quandaries discussed, as well as how we should and shouldn't live, yes. No problem. I just don't want to hear a sermon all about how adultery is bad every time I go to church. I already know adultery is bad. I'm not committing adultery and have no desire to commit adultery. I don't mind it being mentioned but if that's the focus of the sermon every time I go, I personally wouldn't find that edifying in my walk with Christ.

 

[Paidiske]

Is everyone in the congregation in conversation with the Holy Spirit as you tell them, "It's for you to decide?"

That is not my responsibility. What I am getting at here, is the need for preachers to relinquish control of their congregations. We are not here to control our flock (which is spiritual abuse), but to feed them.

There are all kinds of evil being done in congregations...is everything permissible even if it's not beneficial or edifying?

There are boundaries, yes. And there are ways to deal with people who are damaging the community. Not usually from the pulpit, though.

 

[RDKirk]

That is not my responsibility. What I am getting at here, is the need for preachers to relinquish control of their congregations. We are not here to control our flock (which is spiritual abuse), but to feed them.

Your use of that analogy fails because shepherds do, indeed, control the flock. Shepherds don't permit their sheep to wander wherever they want.

 

[Paidiske]

Your use of that analogy fails because shepherds do, indeed, control the flock. Shepherds don't permit their sheep to wander wherever they want.

Every metaphor has limits. Congregation members are not literal sheep, and can't be treated as such. I note, again, that my concern here is to avoid spiritual abuse, which is both rampant and deeply destructive in churches.

 

[tall73]

The main reason for commenting on gender differences would be if it's relevant to the Scripture passage being preached on

Yes, if the text addresses it, then it should be addressed in sermons.

There are boundaries, yes. And there are ways to deal with people who are damaging the community. Not usually from the pulpit, though.

Agreed, If texts address a particular issue, then it should be addressed. But the sermon is not the place to single out specific cases. Matthew 18 spells out a process, for instance that addresses issues, but also allows the person to repent or reconcile, without the whole congregation being aware--which makes it easier for them to actually take the right action without digging in because of other people's comments.

In very public cases that need to be addressed in public, such as the I Corinthians 5 situation, it would likely not be done during the sermon time. And it would be good to also publicly restore the person after any corrective action as we see in 2 Corinthians so they are not overwhelmed with sorrow.

 

[zippy2006]

Every metaphor has limits.

But the metaphor seems to have no relevance to your approach to ministry, and this is a sign that something is amiss. If a real shepherd heard you speaking about "feeding sheep but not controlling them," he would assume that you are wholly ignorant of shepherding. All analogies limp, but this one seems to have three broken legs.

 

[Paidiske]

But the metaphor seems to have no relevance to your approach to ministry, and this is a sign that something is amiss.

No relevance? And yet I brought it up to point out the responsibility to feed Christ's sheep. Which I take seriously in my ministry.

If a real shepherd heard you speaking about "feeding sheep but not controlling them," he would assume that you are wholly ignorant of shepherding.

Perhaps; and I might respond that he is probably rather ignorant of ministry. The ethics of caring for people, vs. caring for literal sheep, are actually quite different.