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 ?

[zippy2006]

Perhaps; and I might respond that he is probably rather ignorant of ministry.

Well I guess Jesus was rather ignorant of ministry. I'm not sure why progressives continue to use his image. They clearly disagree with it.

The problem here is that you reject even the weakest sense of "controlling." In your mind you say, "Controlling is overt and constant coercion, and I am not called to that." But you also reject Paul and John's examples of bringing moral claims to bear in sermons; you also reject even that weak form of "control."

 

[Paidiske]

Well I guess Jesus was rather ignorant of ministry. I'm not sure why progressives continue to use his image. They clearly disagree with it.

Spare us the cheap shots, zippy. They don't add anything to the discussion.

The problem here is that you reject even the weakest sense of "controlling." In your mind you say, "Controlling is overt and constant coercion, and I am not called to that." But you also reject Paul and John's examples of bringing moral claims to bear in sermons; you also reject even that weak form of "control."

It depends what you mean by "bringing moral claims to bear." For example, this morning I preached on the parable of the talents. I talked about its basic message, that we should use what resources we have and be willing to "give it a go" in doing good, and I reflected on various reasons why people might be reluctant to do so. And I know, from conversations afterwards, that at least some congregation members found that helpful food for thought.

What I didn't do was tell people, "The gospel says this, so you must do abc or else!"

 

[zippy2006]

Spare us the cheap shots, zippy. They don't add anything to the discussion.

It's not a cheap shot. It's time you considered the arguments. The analogy of sheep, in your mouth, does not "limp." It's much worse than that. This is simply obvious. If Jesus had not used the metaphor of sheep, progressives would have never, in their wildest dreams, decided to use that example.

It depends what you mean by "bringing moral claims to bear." For example, this morning I preached on the parable of the talents. I talked about its basic message, that we should use what resources we have and be willing to "give it a go" in doing good, and I reflected on various reasons why people might be reluctant to do so. And I know, from conversations afterwards, that at least some congregation members found that helpful food for thought.

I think that's a start.

What I didn't do was tell people, "The gospel says this, so you must do abc or else!"

You've also claimed that the New Testament approach is no longer applicable in our own time. Well, maybe the New Testament metaphors are also inapplicable, no?

 

[The Liturgist]

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.

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.

Indeed, as I see it, the level of control exerted by the Apostles over the early church was necessary, and over time the episcopate has lost some of that authority due to misconduct and schism, and other degrees of that authority they do not really possess in the sense that they did not know our Lord personally, have not written inspired Scripture, etc. Any time I see a denomination pop up that calls its leaders Apostles I immediately suspect it of being a cult - there is a huge difference between bishops, whose job it is to maintain the course set by the original Apostles, and the Apostles themselves, who set the course, through the canonical scripture they either authored or influenced.

We are also warned in Scripture and elsewhere in the tradition of the early church that as clergy we will be held to account for our decisions on the Day of Judgement, so by exerting an excess of control, we are more likely to cause harm and exceed the mandate given to us by the church. One reason why I prefer an episcopal polity where the episopals are more than mere administrators who do not have strong personal relations with the clergy in their diocese (which is unfortunately often said to be the condition in the Church of England, particularly where the clergy and the bishop have different affiliations in terms of churchmanship, and might actively resent each other, but put up with it as part of the status quo; we also see this in Catholic churches where there is occasionally a fraught relationship between diocesan bishops and churches in their diocese operated by members of religious orders, for example the relationship between the Franciscans in the Diocese of Mostar and the bishops of that Diocese, where the Franciscans on occasion would brick up the entrance to the St. James Church in Medjugorje to keep out the bishop, except when they needed him for confirmations, because ot the diocese’s well known (and in my opinion, justified) objections to the alleged Marian apparitions associated with that parish), is that when there are good, positive relations between the bishop and the priests, it becomes like the relationship between a good general and his officers, in that you have someone who will guide you on how to handle situations while accepting responsibility for the impact of his guidance, and who can be counted on to be a positive part of the life of your parish and yourself. Unfortunately even in churches where this is common, it does not always work out due to the inherent instabilities of human relationships; as much as I dislike the Methodist idea of moving everyone around periodically, perhaps they had a point in terms of avoiding the potential for bad blood to develop between incompatible clergy. At any rate, I do feel that episcopal polity does more good than harm, particularly because of its ability to provide oversight and ensure pastors do not abuse their flock but feed them properly.

 

[The Liturgist]

Spare us the cheap shots, zippy. They don't add anything to the discussion.

It depends what you mean by "bringing moral claims to bear." For example, this morning I preached on the parable of the talents. I talked about its basic message, that we should use what resources we have and be willing to "give it a go" in doing good, and I reflected on various reasons why people might be reluctant to do so. And I know, from conversations afterwards, that at least some congregation members found that helpful food for thought.

What I didn't do was tell people, "The gospel says this, so you must do abc or else!"

We need to revive the thread for sharing sermons in the ministry forum, which died largely because I became sick and in my illness forgot where in my directory structure I had put the files containing the records of services I had conducted, including the final drafts of the homilies (which are timed, but actual delivery might vary), which I since remembered with the help of slocate, both on my NAS and on icloud. Although first I had to fix part of the slocate software (a UNIX program which I had failed to correctly configure on my NAS to search the relevant directories). My own private network tends to be lacking because frequently I feel poorly and most of its computers normally sit unused, as they exist for development purposes.

 

[zippy2006]

We are also warned in Scripture and elsewhere in the tradition of the early church that as clergy we will be held to account for our decisions on the Day of Judgement, so by exerting an excess of control, we are more likely to cause harm and exceed the mandate given to us by the church.

The first problem here is that the logic simply does not follow. Scripture is explicit that we will be judged for our omissions, and the implication is that it is much easier to omit what is necessary than to overcorrect (e.g. Ezekiel 3:17-21). In our own age this is true a fortiori.

The second problem is that we are not speaking about an "excess of control," unless you believe that Paul and John exercised an excess of control in their churches. This is a strawman. We are speaking about control simpliciter. A shepherd is called to control and guide his sheep, not to do so excessively.

 

[Danny&Annie&theChristmas]

That is a quite a generalization. I believe the Christian women I know are just as receptive of the Word as men. Ya'll must have some unusual sermons and some unusual women in your churches. Go figure.

I grew up in the Episcopal Church. It has no more corner on morality than any other denomination.

 

[Paidiske]

The analogy of sheep, in your mouth, does not "limp." It's much worse than that. This is simply obvious. If Jesus had not used the metaphor of sheep, progressives would have never, in their wildest dreams, decided to use that example.

Perhaps if Jesus had not used that metaphor, we would not now use it (although I note it has a long tradition in the Old Testament as well; it hardly originated with Christ). But we do have a long tradition of that metaphor, from the Old Testament right through to contemporary times (I might, for example, note the line in the service of ordination for priests in my own tradition: "Be a pastor after the pattern of Christ the great Shepherd, who laid down his life for the sheep.")

But as a metaphor - and especially one with such rich resources of history and tradition to reflect on - it's not one we receive in a simplistic or literalistic way. One thing I might point out, for example, in relation to this thread, is that this thread is about preaching, but preaching is not the only, or even necessarily the primary, activity of those in ministry.

You've also claimed that the New Testament approach is no longer applicable in our own time.

Not exactly. I said that the way Paul wrote to his congregations might not be the most appropriate way to speak to our congregations today. We have to look at what's actually helpful to the people in front of us.

Well, maybe the New Testament metaphors are also inapplicable, no?

All Scripture is god-breathed.... I don't think it's that the metaphors aren't applicable, but we might need to do a fair bit of work with some of them in order to apply them in life-giving ways.

@The Liturgist the sermon thread was a good one, but I stopped posting in it when nobody else was... I would be happy to participate in it again if it were revived.

 

[The Liturgist]

The first problem here is that the logic simply does not follow. Scripture is explicit that we will be judged for our omissions, and the implication is that it is much easier to omit what is necessary than to overcorrect (e.g. Ezekiel 3:17-21).

The second problem is that we are not speaking about an "excess of control," unless you believe that Paul and John exercised an excess of control in their churches. This is a strawman. We are speaking about control simpliciter. A shepherd is called to control and guide his sheep, not to do so excessively.

I do not believe that the Holy Apostles exercised excessive control; they were Apostles. They had more authority, by definition, than the bishops who replaced them, who do have most of the authority of the Apostles, but unlike the Apostles, a bishop cannot, for example, author an encyclical which is doctrinally definitive or infallible (in the Orthodox church, at least); rather, such an encyclical would need the approval of an ecumenical council. And the one time this happened, the Tome of Leo, it caused a massive and unnecessary schism at Chalcedon since the Oriental Orthodox bishops interpreted it, along with the rehabilitation of the sinister figure of Ibas, as being a capitulation to the Nestorianism St. Cyril had fought to extinguish. So all in all, that was a disaster, and aside from the Fifth Ecumenical Council adopting the controversial Three Chapters of Justinian (which may or may not have occurred, but the Three Chapters themselves caused a schism, albeit a temporary one), this never again happened at an ecumenical council.

 

[zippy2006]

Perhaps if Jesus had not used that metaphor, we would not now use it (although I note it has a long tradition in the Old Testament as well; it hardly originated with Christ). But we do have a long tradition of that metaphor, from the Old Testament right through to contemporary times (I might, for example, note the line in the service of ordination for priests in my own tradition: "Be a pastor after the pattern of Christ the great Shepherd, who laid down his life for the sheep.")

But as a metaphor - and especially one with such rich resources of history and tradition to reflect on - it's not one we receive in a simplistic or literalistic way. One thing I might point out, for example, in relation to this thread, is that this thread is about preaching, but preaching is not the only, or even necessarily the primary, activity of those in ministry.

Not exactly. I said that the way Paul wrote to his congregations might not be the most appropriate way to speak to our congregations today. We have to look at what's actually helpful to the people in front of us.

All Scripture is god-breathed.... I don't think it's that the metaphors aren't applicable, but we might need to do a fair bit of work with some of them in order to apply them in life-giving ways.

Okay, and do we agree that if someone feels compelled to abandon a traditional metaphor, then at least at some point they will have abandoned the tradition itself? That at some point the use of the metaphor is inapt in light of actual practice?

I mean, if pastoral practice evolves to the point where it is abhorrent to think of parishioners as sheep, even in a metaphorical sense, then clearly the metaphor should no longer be used, and clearly the tradition that once supported the use of the metaphor has been lost. Or, if the metaphor is to be legitimately retained, then pastoral practice must be reformed. I assume we are in agreement on this point?

 

[zippy2006]

I do not believe that the Holy Apostles exercised excessive control; they were Apostles. They had more authority, by definition, than the bishops who replaced them, who do have most of the authority of the Apostles, but unlike the Apostles, a bishop cannot, for example, author an encyclical which is doctrinally definitive or infallible (in the Orthodox church, at least); rather, such an encyclical would need the approval of an ecumenical council. And the one time this happened, the Tome of Leo, it caused a massive and unnecessary schism at Chalcedon since the Oriental Orthodox bishops interpreted it, along with the rehabilitation of the sinister figure of Ibas, as being a capitulation to the Nestorianism St. Cyril had fought to extinguish. So all in all, that was a disaster, and aside from the Fifth Ecumenical Council adopting the controversial Three Chapters of Justinian (which may or may not have occurred, but the Three Chapters themselves caused a schism, albeit a temporary one), this never again happened at an ecumenical council.

Right... There are differences between a bishop and an Apostle, but a bishop still has authority. For example, I assume we agree that a bishop can and should preach against the evil of abortion, when necessary? (This is an easy example of "moral preaching".)

 

[The Liturgist]

the sermon thread was a good one, but I stopped posting in it when nobody else was... I would be happy to participate in it again if it were revived.

Yes and it was my fault no one else was posting; I was seriously unwell at that point, and i am still unwell now, but at least I have the files, so I can post, albeit not for what I preached at the previous Sunday, since right now I am only able to serve intermittently. Note that it will probably be Wednesday at least before I am up to posting anything for medical reasons, but you should expect to see me posting material by advent. We don’t use the RCL, but an older lectionary, however the sermons denote what the appointed lessons were and other liturgical details and if it would help to see the entire lectionary I can do that also. Specifically, it is a modified version of the 1964 Methodist Episcopal lectionary with borrowings from the Ambrosian Rite lectionary, for the simple reason that the latter also has an Old Testament lesson, an Epistle and a Gospel at each service, in order to fill in for certain feast days which the Methodist Episcopal church of 1964 did not observe, but it also follows the Western liturgical calendar mostly (aside from having the usual six sunday Advent rather than the shorter four Sunday advent of the Roman Rite, which I retained, because people in the Western church don’t know how to fast joyously, and also they do not make advent wreaths with six candles).

 

[zippy2006]

I am sorry to hear that, @The Liturgist. Know of my prayers.

 

[Paidiske]

Okay, and do we agree that if someone feels compelled to abandon a traditional metaphor, then at least at some point they will have abandoned the tradition itself?

I think it depends on how central that metaphor is to the core of the faith, but I can agree with you that if one were to entirely abandon the metaphors which have been central to our traditions over millennia, at some point you'd have to say that was abandoning the tradition itself.

However, that's completely moot here, since nobody is abandoning any metaphors at all, but we are reflecting on how they apply to particular practices (in this case, preaching).

I mean, if pastoral practice evolves to the point where it is abhorrent to think of parishioners as sheep, even in a metaphorical sense, then clearly the metaphor should no longer be used, and clearly the tradition that once supported the use of the metaphor has been lost. Or, if the metaphor is to be legitimately retained, then pastoral practice must be reformed. I assume we are in agreement on this point?

Sure, I can agree with that. But again, it's completely moot, because nobody is arguing that it's abhorrent to think of parishioners as (metaphorical) sheep. But we're discussing what that means, and what the limits of that metaphor might be.

I am, for example, quite comfortable to use the metaphor while insisting that the point of the metaphor is not a relationship of control.

 

[zippy2006]

I think it depends on how central that metaphor is to the core of the faith, but I can agree with you that if one were to entirely abandon the metaphors which have been central to our traditions over millennia, at some point you'd have to say that was abandoning the tradition itself.

Yes, I meant that the tradition of the traditional metaphor would be abandoned, not that the Tradition would be abandoned (some convey this difference with a proper noun).

Sure, I can agree with that. But again, it's completely moot, because nobody is arguing that it's abhorrent to think of parishioners as (metaphorical) sheep. But we're discussing what that means, and what the limits of that metaphor might be.

I am, for example, quite comfortable to use the metaphor while insisting that the point of the metaphor is not a relationship of control.

The metaphor itself has an internal logic, and in the case of the shepherd/sheep metaphor, someone who posits a relationship of control will be more comfortable with the metaphor than someone who doesn't.

Of course in my opinion you have already gone too far and corrupted the metaphor beyond recognition, but although we disagree on this, it seems that we can at least agree that there is some point at which the metaphor would be corrupted beyond recognition. That seems good enough for me.

Edit: So thanks for the chat, and for your patience with my brusqueness. As a rule I only go on CF when I am too exhausted to do anything actually productive, which is probably not a good rule.

 

[The Liturgist]

Right... There are differences between a bishop and an Apostle, but a bishop still has authority. For example, I assume we agree that a bishop can and should preach against the evil of abortion, when necessary? (This is an easy example of "moral preaching".)

Well obviously, yes. Although if someone is preaching about that every Sunday, that would be overkill, and preaching to the choir, since abortion is rightly despised by Christians, and thus the more pressing issue to preach on how to practice our Christian vocation in the sickness of a world which accepts evils such as abortion, on a rotating schedule. The fight aginst evil is a bit like whack-a-mole; the 19th century church abolished, to a great extent slavery, but then racialism and eugenics cropped up; the 20th century church was instrumental in making these ideas being understood as evil, but then abortion cropped up, and while we have won some battles, we have not won the war, and additionally, people have abused the rhetoric Christians used to promote the evils of racism to advocate for the toleration of sexual immorality. The church has always been a vehicle for social change but that is not its primary function, which is the cure of souls.

 

[zippy2006]

The church has always been a vehicle for social change but that is not its primary function, which is the cure of souls.

Sure, but opposition to abortion saves souls and effects social change. It is not either/or. All of the moral preaching the Apostles engaged in also did both.

 

[The Liturgist]

Sure, but opposition to abortion saves souls and effects social change. It is not either/or. All of the moral preaching the Apostles engaged in also did both.

I agree. However, it would not be appropriate to preach about abortion on all liturgical occasions. On the feast of the Annunciation? Absolutely. And the Holy Innocents, and the Nativity of the Theotokos and the Nativity of John the Baptist, although the feast of the Nativity itself is tricky, in that there is too much theological ground to cover that most people don’t, for example, the fact that the creator of all is now in wrapped in swaddling clothes in a cave used to house livestock, since the inn was full. Bethlehem is also a Eucharistic reference. But it can certainly be mentioned in passing, and my opponents at heretical conventicles such as the Unitarian Universalists are certainly not above making political points in passing during their sermons, but these can feel like cheapshots, and I prefer not to descend to their level, but to stress the joy of the incarnation, but a natural window for mentioning not abortion, God forbid I should mention such a horror on the feast of the Nativity itself, but rather, the sanctity of life from conception being stressed by the Incarnation, can appear.

However, on Pascha, I will always preach only the Paschal Homily of St. John Chrysostom, which is used in all Eastern Orthodox services, or the lesser known Paschal Homily of St. Athanasius, which is used in some Oriental Orthodox churches.

The other problem with mentioning abortion frequently, aside from the fact that we must avoid becoming a single-issue church like Westboro Baptist Church, which made the mistake of hating the sinner and not the sin, which is itself a grave sin, is that the Church Fathers while extremely opposed to it, did not themselves mention it with extreme frequency. My preferred approach to preaching is to take Patristic homilies and repackage them to fit within a fifteen minute window and so as to follow the train of thought of contemporary minds, insofar as I am capable of doing that (I might be the wrong person to make the Fathers extremely accessible given my preferred style of writing is pedantic by Victorian standards). Nonetheless I am convicted that the early church fathers have more important things to say than I do about every issue, and thus I endeavor to incorporate as much of their material into my homiletics as possible, and also to keep my homilies focused on the appointed lectionary materials, following an expositional style. These two constraints greatly limit my freedom to discuss contemporary moral issues, and I like that, because my own experience of Christianity was negatively affected in my youth by Methodist ministers preaching moralistic therapeutic deist sermons that were intended to entertain the congregation rather than exegete scripture, and i’ve heard even worse.

 

[zippy2006]

I agree. However, it would not be appropriate to preach about abortion on all liturgical occasions.

No one has claimed that it would be. Some have claimed that there are no circumstances in which moral preaching would be appropriate. That is the discussion at hand.

 

[Paidiske]

Some have claimed that there are no circumstances in which moral preaching would be appropriate.

If that's what you think I meant, then I have not been clear. "Moral preaching" - preaching which reflects on moral issues - is fine and even necessary. The issue is about how you do that.