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]

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.

Moral preaching = prescriptive preaching

E.g. "Do not commit abortion."

 

[Paidiske]

Moral preaching = prescriptive preaching

E.g. "Do not commit abortion."

Seems to me that you're confusing content with delivery, there. It's quite possible to preach on morality without being prescriptive; and in general, I would say that congregations do not respond well to prescriptiveness from the pulpit. I'll grant you that there might be some cultural differences - Americans being quite different from Australians - but that's my observation after 16 years or so of preaching regularly.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

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 hear many sermons about ladies, modestly for example.

 

[bbbbbbb]

One thing I have found puzzling has been an extraordinary focus on sexual and gender issues in sermons and publications. If you look at the selection of Christian books today, there is a plethora which go into great detail about family life and various gender issues.

It has been my experience that sermons in churches track general trends in society. I cannot remember the last time I heard a sermon on such matters as the undivided trinitarian nature of the godhead. However, listening to sermons today I hear a consistent refrain condemning homosexuality and, most recently, transgendered individuals. One is easily led to think that the Ten Commandments specifically condemn these things and that the focus of the Bible is gender centric.

Curiously, these current issues were of little to no theological interest historically. In the seventeenth century it was on witchcraft and inappropriate behavior with animals. In the eighteenth century it was on the general lassitude of the clergy. In the early nineteenth century it was on slavery. Following the Civil War in the United States the limelight shifted to demon alcohol, going in the early decades of the twentieth century. In the first half of the twentieth century the focus was on divorce and remarriage. In the second half of the twentieth century, it was on abortion. My questions are rather simple. Do demons and evil spirits no longer exist and there is no such thing as witchcraft and devil worship? Has inappropriate behavior with animals disappeared entirely from society? Has racism been eliminated? Are there no longer drunkards (aka alcoholics)? Does marriage between one and one woman last until they get divorced and decide to remarry? Has abortion been eliminated in society?

If one perceives the divine commandment to the church to reform society, why is it all the moralistic preaching has not yet created the Millennium of Christ's divine rule as eagerly embrace in post-millennial theology?

 

[seeking.IAM]

One thing I have found puzzling has been an extraordinary focus on sexual and gender issues in sermons and publications.

Reading this makes me glad I attend a church where sermons expound on lectionary readings of the day and their applications to our lives rather than reliance on whatever a pastor feels inspired to talk about.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Reading this makes me glad I attend a church where sermons expound on lectionary readings of the day and their applications to our lives rather than reliance on whatever a pastor feels inspired to talk about.

That is a very positive aspect, indeed. However, my experience has been that the portion of scriptures covered is usually quite minimal resulting in a minimal sermon of about ten minutes. The leave vast portions of the Bible which are rarely, if ever, addressed. Also, some denominations engage in an annual cycle of the same readings with the result being that the congregation gets to hear these limited sermons over and over. I visited a Lutheran church with a friend who accurately predicted the sermon of the day.

 

[PloverWing]

That is a very positive aspect, indeed. However, my experience has been that the portion of scriptures covered is usually quite minimal resulting in a minimal sermon of about ten minutes. The leave vast portions of the Bible which are rarely, if ever, addressed. Also, some denominations engage in an annual cycle of the same readings with the result being that the congregation gets to hear these limited sermons over and over. I visited a Lutheran church with a friend who accurately predicted the sermon of the day.

Typically, it's a 3-year cycle of readings, so that over those three years, a large portion of the Bible is read in church. I agree that I can predict what the reading is going to be this coming Sunday in my church and in other churches that follow the Revised Common Lectionary. As to the sermon...hmm, if I were the preacher, would I be tempted to reuse my sermon from 3 years ago when we last read this passage? Maybe....

When you say "the portion of scriptures covered is usually quite minimal", do you mean that we should read more than our usual 1-2 chapters in church each Sunday, or do you mean that the cycle of readings should include more of the Bible, so that we eventually read even the obscure bits like Obadiah and Nahum as part of our Sunday worship?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Typically, it's a 3-year cycle of readings, so that over those three years, a large portion of the Bible is read in church. I agree that I can predict what the reading is going to be this coming Sunday in my church and in other churches that follow the Revised Common Lectionary. As to the sermon...hmm, if I were the preacher, would I be tempted to reuse my sermon from 3 years ago when we last read this passage? Maybe....

When you say "the portion of scriptures covered is usually quite minimal", do you mean that we should read more than our usual 1-2 chapters in church each Sunday, or do you mean that the cycle of readings should include more of the Bible, so that we eventually read even the obscure bits like Obadiah and Nahum as part of our Sunday worship?

There is an difficult balance to achieve in achieving the goal of enabling a congregation to have a well-rounded understanding of the Bible. One must admit that there are very large passages, such as the genealogies at the beginning of I Chronicles which are simply mind numbing. For the Christian the New Testament takes obvious precedence, sometimes to the complete neglect of the Old Testament. It is a challenge to balance the New with the Old Testaments.

Although large passages might be read during a service, it requires a really diligent listener great effort and intelligence to make sense of the passages. This is where, of course, the homily fits in. It is, in my opinion, an impossible task to elucidate a lengthy passage of scripture in the space of ten minutes. In my few visits to Catholic churches I was quite amazed to discover that all but one priest devoted the homily to the topic of money, specifically the necessity for the congregation to step up their giving. My even fewer visits to Episcopal churches have served me with a variety of homilies, some very good and some quite distant from the Bible passages.

 

[zippy2006]

Seems to me that you're confusing content with delivery, there. It's quite possible to preach on morality without being prescriptive

Sure, if you're preaching on meta-ethics. Other than that, no. It's just disguised prescription or soft prescription, not non-prescription. I realize many conflate such things.

 

[Paidiske]

Sure, if you're preaching on meta-ethics. Other than that, no. It's just disguised prescription or soft prescription, not non-prescription. I realize many conflate such things.

I disagree, but perhaps that's the only kind of preaching you've experienced.

 

[The Liturgist]

Reading this makes me glad I attend a church where sermons expound on lectionary readings of the day and their applications to our lives rather than reliance on whatever a pastor feels inspired to talk about.

I agree. As I see it, Dr. James Kennedy already preached the definitive sermon on the subject, which I cannot improve, and to continue to harp on about it would be a bit Westboro Baptist, and conversely, when the opposition goes on ad nauseum about how it is not sinful, well suffice it to say there’s a reason why St. Thomas Fifth Ave despite having two curates who are of that lifestyle (which I only found out about when reading their biography), is among the churches in my liturgical playlist whose services I generally enjoy, whereas Old South Church in Boston is not, since their homiletics are insanely political, moreso than the Unitarian Universalist King’s Chapel, which makes me sad, given how far the UCC has fallen, and given that this beautiful Byzantine Revival church is being misused, with an under emphasis on the Gospel and an over-emphasis on politics. Or perhaps on alternative theologies that are highly political by nature, a mix of influences from Queer Theology and Liberation Theology and Postmodernism and the “Social Gospel.”

 

[bbbbbbb]

Technically, the New Old South Church in Boston was built in the Ruskinian Gothic Revival style in its pure form, which is quite rare in the United States, although elements were used profusely in many buildings of the time. What sets it apart from the Byzantine Revival style, which we see frequently used in Eastern Orthodox Churches, are elements such as round domes and onion domes. This style intentionally avoids steeples because of their association with mosques. Also, the style is relative unadorned on the exterior whereas the New Old South Church is quite lively. In addition, the plan of the New Old South church is completely different from the Byzantine plan. It has a relatively typical auditorium with a flanking vestibule which might termed a narthex, but only in the broadest sense of the word.

St. Thomas in New York City is an amazing essay in late Gothic Revival architecture by the famed firm of Cram and Goodhue. Traditionally, there has been jostling for the position of social preeminence among the Episcopal churches in New York City starting with Trinity on Wall Street which overtook St. Paul's in the early nineteenth century. Grace Church gained the position in the mid-nineteenth century. After St. Thomas burned and was replaced by the present building it took the strategy of developing a choir school and music program, which remains quite outstanding. With the decline of Grace Church the mantel seems to have passed to St. Thomas. In all of these churches Christian orthodoxy played a secondary role, at best.

 

[The Liturgist]

In all of these churches Christian orthodoxy played a secondary role, at best.

Nonsense. The Episcopal Church was, at the turn of the 20th century, the most Orthodox of the Western churches in America, to such an extent that St. Rafael of Brooklyn directed the Antiochian Orthodox immigrants to attend their churches if an Eastern Orthodox church was unavailable. At present St. Thomas Fifth Ave. Is a bastion if liturgical and theological orthodoxy within the Episcopal church, and its choir school and music program, combined with truly exquisite liturgics and exquisite taste when it comes to the aesthetics of liturgy, is a major contributor to that orthodoxy. And the clergy keep their mouth shut about irrelevant political issues.

Also, a great many Orthodox churches do have steeples or slender belfries.

By the way, Old South Church specifically resembles the Byzantine churches in Ravenna and Byzantine-influenced churches in Venice, and contrary to what you are saying, there is not a single unified plan for Byzantine churches, with some being cruciform whereas others having a square or rectangular interior, and baptistries tending to be round, as in the West. Also I would assert that St. Thomas Fifth Ave is actually on an architectural level greatly limited by its lack of open space outside of the fifth ave facade, and the result is a space that, much like the Sistine Chapel, depends on decoration rather than its natural shape, as is the case with Westminster Abbey or Yorkminster or especially Gloucester Cathedral, and like the Sistine Chapel suffers from less natural light than would be preferable, but to an even greater extent. I would argue that architecturally it is less interesting than Old South Church or Holy Trinity Wall Street due to the external constraints placed upon it. The most majestic church in New York City is surely the Roman Catholic St. Michael’s Cathedral.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Nonsense. The Episcopal Church was, at the turn of the 20th century, the most Orthodox of the Western churches in America, to such an extent that St. Rafael of Brooklyn directed the Antiochian Orthodox immigrants to attend their churches if an Eastern Orthodox church was unavailable. At present St. Thomas Fifth Ave. Is a bastion if liturgical and theological orthodoxy within the Episcopal church, and its choir school and music program, combined with truly exquisite liturgics and exquisite taste when it comes to the aesthetics of liturgy, is a major contributor to that orthodoxy. And the clergy keep their mouth shut about irrelevant political issues.

Also, a great many Orthodox churches do have steeples or slender belfries.

By the way, Old South Church specifically resembles the Byzantine churches in Ravenna and Byzantine-influenced churches in Venice, and contrary to what you are saying, there is not a single unified plan for Byzantine churches, with some being cruciform whereas others having a square or rectangular interior, and baptistries tending to be round, as in the West. Also I would assert that St. Thomas Fifth Ave is actually on an architectural level greatly limited by its lack of open space outside of the fifth ave facade, and the result is a space that, much like the Sistine Chapel, depends on decoration rather than its natural shape, as is the case with Westminster Abbey or Yorkminster or especially Gloucester Cathedral, and like the Sistine Chapel suffers from less natural light than would be preferable, but to an even greater extent. I would argue that architecturally it is less interesting than Old South Church or Holy Trinity Wall Street due to the external constraints placed upon it. The most majestic church in New York City is surely the Roman Catholic St. Michael’s Cathedral.

I had a good reply going yesterday and when I returned to complete it tonight it had disappeared. Oh well. I will reinvent this interesting wheel.

John Ruskin, the famous English author and art critic (John Ruskin - Wikipedia) is responsible for the particular formula of High Victorian Gothic Revival which bears his name. Unlike Byzantine churches, it is closely related to the late Gothic churches of Venice and the Veneto, which he adored. The windows shape is pointed, being Gothic, and not round, as with the Byzantine Revival churches. Here is an excellent Wikipedia article on Neo-Byzantine architecture with superlative illustrations - Neo-Byzantine architecture - Wikipedia As you can see, there is virtually no correlation between Neo-Byzantine architecture and the New Old South Church in Boston.

Various branches of Christianity have utilized various styles of architecture in their history. When the New Old South Church was constructed in the late 1870's the church style du jour was Ruskinian Gothic. Neo-Byzantine architecture is rarely found outside of Eastern Orthodox Churches, although John Bentley utilized a variety of it in the Westminster Catholic Cathedral in London. That church is fondly known as the church of the greasy bacon style.

In New York City, there is a plethora of interesting church buildings, all having their various merits and demerits. I find the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church to be quite interesting, especially with its connection with Lowell Mason, the famed church music composer.

St. Patrick's Cathedral, which is not far away, is quite impressive, as is its predecessor by the same architect (James Renwick), Grace Episcopal Church which, in its day, was the locus of the New York 400 - the creme de la creme of New York Society.

St. Paul's Chapel is a glorious survivor which has been modified (mutilated?) over time, but still retains its Georgian style of architecture.

Not far away, on Wall Street is the progenitor of Gothic Revival style churches in New York City, and one of the earliest of the type heralded by A. W. N. Pugin in England - Trinity Episcopal Church by Richard Upjohn who went on, as did Ralph Adams Cram in his day, to design numerous Gothic Revival churches for the Episcopalians. Trinity, like Grace Church, has had the wonderful benefits of an enormous financial endowment, primarily generated from ground rents in the Financial District, such that neither church has had a significantly-size congregation for over a century, but maintain a regular schedule of services.

Far uptown, in Harlem to be precise, there is the amazing St. John the Divine, which will probably remain in its crude and unfinished state as far in the future as anyone can see, unlike its sister, the Cathedral Church of St. Peter and St. Paul (aka National Cathedral) in Washington, D. C. which was eventually completed in 1984 and has had on-going maintenance issues ever since.

Back to Harlem, I would be remiss if I failed to mention the fantastic Gothic Revival complex of Riverside Church (aka the First Church of John D. Rockefeller) which continues steadily on its course thanks, of course, to the generous endowment supplied by Mr. Rockefeller and his family.

I will stop here for now. Do have a wonderful Thursday.

 

[zippy2006]

I disagree, but perhaps that's the only kind of preaching you've experienced.

Related: Toward a Rhetorical Crisis in the Catholic Church

 

[bbbbbbb]

Related: Toward a Rhetorical Crisis in the Catholic Church

Thanks for the great article. Although it is quite lengthy it was otherwise very perceptive. It has been my observation that Catholic homilies play a much smaller role in the mass than the sermons do in Protestant services. Catholic homilies are usually relatively brief and, in my experience, quite focused on exhorting the congregation to contribute more generously.

 

[zippy2006]

Thanks for the great article. Although it is quite lengthy it was otherwise very perceptive. It has been my observation that Catholic homilies play a much smaller role in the mass than the sermons do in Protestant services. Catholic homilies are usually relatively brief and, in my experience, quite focused on exhorting the congregation to contribute more generously.

You're welcome, I found the article interesting as well. I think this question of rhetoric or persuasion is an important one for our culture, whether with sermons, evangelization, or even politics and domestic life.

I think the contrast you draw between Protestant and Catholic sermons is accurate. Catholics have been trying to get back to more Biblical sermons, but even if this were to occur the sermons would remain much shorter and less elaborate than Protestant sermons.

 

[Paidiske]

Related: Toward a Rhetorical Crisis in the Catholic Church

I think the comments there about power, and how it is exercised in speech, go to the heart of the discussion here. Preaching that becomes an exercise of power over the congregation, rather than an invitation to them to take up what is being offered, is where "rhetoric" becomes unhealthy.

 

[The Liturgist]

Thanks for the great article. Although it is quite lengthy it was otherwise very perceptive. It has been my observation that Catholic homilies play a much smaller role in the mass than the sermons do in Protestant services. Catholic homilies are usually relatively brief and, in my experience, quite focused on exhorting the congregation to contribute more generously.

I’ve never heard a Catholic homily that exhorted the congregation to contribute more generously. I will say they are a mixed bag, although those associated with the Traditional Latin Mass communities, which are in the vernacular, and follow a repeat of the scripture lessons (which are sung in Latin along with the other propers, and a vernacular translation of these is included in missals, and most Traditional Latin Masses are served in parishes which provide hand missals for use by the laity; indeed, even vernacular masses feature, in those dioceses which have unwisely neglected to order traditional hymnals, missalettes, which are published by the various Nashville-based church music companies and are non-reusable, having to be replaced after each year, in one of the greaatest scams an industry has yet perpetrated against a major Christian denomination, on a par with Yamaha’s marketing of obscenely overpriced synthesizers like the Clavinova which were sold for the price of a Steinway and have electronics that were mass produced, leading to generous profit margins for an early digital synthesizer whose quality leaves much to be desired, and is in many respects worse than the Hammond organs it replaced, but I digress. The current rip off, par excellence, is in overpriced licensing for vacuous praise and worship music in styles such as Christian rock, which lacks the theological depth of the traditional hymns which are mostly in the public domain.

One thing I love about the Traditional Latin Mass, and the Divine Liturgy of my church and the other Orthodox churches and the Assyrian Church of the East, is that in the case of the former the average age of the hymns is about 800 years, and in the latter, about 1200 years.

 

[zippy2006]

I think the comments there about power, and how it is exercised in speech, go to the heart of the discussion here. Preaching that becomes an exercise of power over the congregation, rather than an invitation to them to take up what is being offered, is where "rhetoric" becomes unhealthy.

True, but the central argument is that rhetoric and persuasion are always at play, whether we admit it or not. Once this is recognized it becomes incumbent upon us to undertake "sustained and serious reflection on both the art and the ethics of persuasive religious speech." Or in other words, I would say that the first step towards ethical homilies and evangelization is admitting that persuasion and rhetoric are at play. Once that occurs the most egregious abuses have already been avoided.