Preaching

[Philip_B]

One of the things I have observed, and I think it follows the adoption of the three year cycle of readings - be it the Roman Lectionary, The Revised Common Lectionary, or one of a number of Anglican Lectionaries that have evolved from these sources, and that is that preaching has become predominantly Biblical Exegetical Preaching, pretty much to the exclusion of all else.

Sometimes it is hard to pick the difference between a Bible Study and a sermon. Recently in one parish there was a call for interactie sermons so that there would be a discussion time in the context of the liturgy.

I would be interested in the views of others about preaching in the contemporary context.

 

[Tree of Life]

I think the use of lectionaries actually discourages verse-by-verse, book-by-book exposition because the preacher is encouraged to use multiple texts in his sermon.

There are many advantages to expository preaching as opposed to topical preaching. But there are also some advantages to topical preaching. Why couldn't a church employ both approaches?

 

[Paidiske]

Certainly I was taught to preach on the text (although Dorothy Lee was my preaching teacher, so what do you expect from an NT scholar, I suppose?)

(Occasionally I do something different - recently preached a short reflection on St. Francis Xavier and used something he wrote in a letter as the focus, rather than any Biblical text - but felt slightly guilty, like that's not what you're really supposed to do!)

I do think the sermon is meant to be different to a Bible study. It's primary aim isn't that you would understand the text better, but that what you understand of the text would inspire or encourage or exhort or otherwise move you closer to God in some way.

 

[zippy2006]

One of the things I have observed, and I think it follows the adoption of the three year cycle of readings - be it the Roman Lectionary, The Revised Common Lectionary, or one of a number of Anglican Lectionaries that have evolved from these sources, and that is that preaching has become predominantly Biblical Exegetical Preaching, pretty much to the exclusion of all else.

Sometimes it is hard to pick the difference between a Bible Study and a sermon. Recently in one parish there was a call for interactie sermons so that there would be a discussion time in the context of the liturgy.

I would be interested in the views of others about preaching in the contemporary context.

Why do you think the three year cycle leads to exegetical preaching? I suppose a one year cycle discourages exegetical preaching, but beyond that I'm not sure I see the connection.

In Catholicism the first reading and the gospel reading will cover a common theme in the Sunday cycles, so this may help discourage excessively exegetical preaching. But by and large I have not noticed this problem in our Church.

 

[Tree of Life]

Why is exegetical preaching a problem?

 

[Albion]

I must be thinking somewhat like Zippy did. The Continuing Anglican churches use the old BCP with a one-year cycle, but I have never heard the same complaint about the preaching that we have been reading about here. However, it seems to me that the three-year cycle would be less likely to induce that kind of exegetical preaching, not more. Could it be that some other factor is responsible?

 

[Paidiske]

Albion, I wonder whether the move to a 3-year cycle and a shift in preaching style are both symptoms (for want of a better word) of an underlying cause? That is, a desire to take Scripture more seriously in the liturgy?

So we shift to a lectionary which deliberately covers more of Scripture, and at the same time it becomes fashionable for seminaries etc. to inculcate a more expository preaching style?

 

[Albion]

I'm at a loss when it comes to identifying the cause (if it is not the lectionary itself).

Still, the idea that something else is at work, not just the three-year cycle vs. the one-year cycle, seems probable to me.

 

[com7fy8]

(Occasionally I do something different - recently preached a short reflection on St. Francis Xavier and used something he wrote in a letter as the focus, rather than any Biblical text - but felt slightly guilty, like that's not what you're really supposed to do!)

For all I know, he might have written what is a paraphrase of what is in the Bible; and so it would be Biblical. You could include scriptures as part of your reflection on what he says. And Christians ourselves are the epistle of Christ, aren't we? So, we could say and write things which are not exact quotes of the Bible, but they say what God means by His word.

I do think the sermon is meant to be different to a Bible study. It's primary aim isn't that you would understand the text better, but that what you understand of the text would inspire or encourage or exhort or otherwise move you closer to God in some way.

Paidiske, I think the best understanding of any text is what brings us closer to God And it may not be an explanation but how you act on what is written. And I now think of how Paul said the Thessalonians became "examples" > how we become examples can be included in what is really right understanding, maybe deeper than words, how we become like the Word Jesus, as the meaning.

So, your humble and caring attitude while you are preaching could be what people are getting as the main message

 

[zippy2006]

I must be thinking somewhat like Zippy did. The Continuing Anglican churches use the old BCP with a one-year cycle, but I have never heard the same complaint about the preaching that we have been reading about here. However, it seems to me that the three-year cycle would be less likely to induce that kind of exegetical preaching, not more. Could it be that some other factor is responsible?

I suppose I was thinking that an exegetical approach is going to yield more or less the same result given the same reading. Therefore if preachers desire variation from year to year they will have to abandon an exegetical approach in a one year cycle, but not in a three year cycle. Hopefully that isn't too terse to make sense.

Albion, I wonder whether the move to a 3-year cycle and a shift in preaching style are both symptoms (for want of a better word) of an underlying cause? That is, a desire to take Scripture more seriously in the liturgy?

So we shift to a lectionary which deliberately covers more of Scripture, and at the same time it becomes fashionable for seminaries etc. to inculcate a more expository preaching style?

That makes sense to me.

 

[Philip_B]

Why is exegetical preaching a problem?

Firstly let me say I have no problem with exegetical preaching, however there are other styles of preaching which may also be relevant.

Why couldn't a church employ both approaches?

This I think is the point, and I suspect that it has been lost.

Albion, I wonder whether the move to a 3-year cycle and a shift in preaching style are both symptoms (for want of a better word) of an underlying cause? That is, a desire to take Scripture more seriously in the liturgy? So we shift to a lectionary which deliberately covers more of Scripture, and at the same time it becomes fashionable for seminaries etc. to inculcate a more expository preaching style?

I think that is true to a point.

Could it be that some other factor is responsible?

Some of you, and I suspect @Albion to be one of them, will be familiar with the first and second books of homilies. They are clearly not exegetical preaching, yet they take scripture very seriously. I know that is unlikely that many will find the Homilies as useful as they were in time past, for a number of reasons, including language, length of sermons, length of paragraphs, length of sentences, contemporary issues, much of what they assumed as common knowledge our people would need to ask google about.

When to was a single year of readings, it made it more difficult for preachers not to be repetitive, and so they looked for other ways to address the congregation. The three year cycle of readings has exposed our people to a much wider reach of scripture over time, and that is a good thing. In BCP Communion you got Epistle and Gospel, in the 3 year cycle you get OT, Psalm, Epistle, Gospel. Some of the reading sets in the APBA (A Prayer Book for Australia) are difficult to blend, and preachers are better not to try to harmonise them.

All I am really saying is that a three year cycle is good. Exegetical Preaching is good. However we are forgetting about the alternatives.

Occasionally I do something different - recently preached a short reflection on St. Francis Xavier and used something he wrote in a letter as the focus, rather than any Biblical text - but felt slightly guilty, like that's not what you're really supposed to do!

Apart from the notion that guilt may be a wasted emotion, I suspect you may be better to connect with the issues that people are facing. If something is happening in the world it may be as worthwhile to discuss how the Gospel impacts on that issue, even if it is not the reading for the day.

Does anyone have any thought on 'interactive' or discussion-style preaching?

 

[Paidiske]

Some of you, and I suspect @Albion to be one of them, will be familiar with the first and second books of homilies. They are clearly not exegetical preaching, yet they take scripture very seriously. I know that is unlikely that many will find the Homilies as useful as they were in time past, for a number of reasons, including language, length of sermons, length of paragraphs, length of sentences, contemporary issues, much of what they assumed as common knowledge our people would need to ask google about.

Yes, you couldn't just preach the homilies today. At one point I started a blog series analysing each of them; one day I must get back to that (in my copious spare time!)

Apart from the notion that guilt may be a wasted emotion, I suspect you may be better to connect with the issues that people are facing. If something is happening in the world it may be as worthwhile to discuss how the Gospel impacts on that issue, even if it is not the reading for the day.

Well, I'll give you the quote from Francis Xavier, and you see if you think if it relates to any issues people are facing:

"And if you wish to bring forth much fruit, both for yourselves and for your neighbours, and to live consoled, converse with sinners, making them unburden themselves to you. These are the living books by which you are to study, both for your preaching and for your own consolation." (From a letter to a missionary father in Persia).

Does anyone have any thought on 'interactive' or discussion-style preaching?

I've done it a bit. It was very well received when the congregation was mostly university students; less well received by an older congregation.

I think maybe there's a time and place for it. I also think that simply the act of doing something different can itself convey important messages about what we value, what's "normal" in church life, about the place of creativity, and so on, which are often sorely needed.

 

[Philip_B]

I've done it a bit. It was very well received when the congregation was mostly university students; less well received by an older congregation.

I think it may depend on the group dynamics as well. I know that some groups would have some who would love to speak (a lot) and some who would groan (inwardly).

I am generally open to something different that focuses attention and importance. I am opposed to the use of 'so called teaching aids' which they are simply distractions. I am also a little wary these days of the 5 minute Youtube Video inserted in the sermon, which often leaves me feeling that I have been spoken down to.

For the most part I am not critical of preaching, as I generally believe if I have not got enough out of it, it is probably because I did not put enough into it. So I am asking the the general vain of things, not in terms of specific examples.

 

[Paidiske]

Oh, no, the YouTube video doesn't sound great at all.

I meant more things like... so I did a sermon talking about power. And to start with, I had a whole series of statements about power, and I asked the congregation to each place themselves on a line from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree" down the aisle. It got them thinking about the issues (and realising that other people might think very differently to them!) before they then sat down and I said what I was going to say.

 

[Albion]

I suppose I was thinking that an exegetical approach is going to yield more or less the same result given the same reading. Therefore if preachers desire variation from year to year they will have to abandon an exegetical approach in a one year cycle, but not in a three year cycle. Hopefully that isn't too terse to make sense.

What you say here had crossed my mind and I did think on it. Of course we are all guessing to some extent. My experience, however, has been that preachers are prepared to offer different analyses or explain different aspects of the same story. That comes with the pastoral territory, you might say.

 

[Philip_B]

The 39 Articles speak of expounding scripture. In some sense I see that as a different word to exegeting scripture. I am not sure they understood Biblical Criticism the way we do.

 

[Paidiske]

What you say here had crossed my mind and I did think on it. Of course we are all guessing to some extent. My experience, however, has been that preachers are prepared to offer different analyses or explain different aspects of the same story. That comes with the pastoral territory, you might say.

Well, by the time three years have gone by, even if you're talking to the same group of people, the issues that will be live for them in their context will have shifted (one hopes!) Perhaps that's less true after one year?

Where we do tend to get less variation in readings are for things like Easter and Christmas, and I do find it challenging to think, "What am I going to say this year that I didn't say last year?"

The 39 Articles speak of expounding scripture. In some sense I see that as a different word to exegeting scripture. I am not sure they understood Biblical Criticism the way we do.

Well, how could they? But is any of that bad?

 

[Philip_B]

Well, how could they? But is any of that bad?

Yeah. I think my point is we can have for criticism, sitz en leiben, literary criticism, and greek conjugations, but if we are not expounding the text what do we achieve?

 

[Paidiske]

But isn't the point that those things inform how we expound the text?

If a sermon sounds like an exegetical essay, the preacher has misunderstood the purpose of preaching (imho). But if a bit of exegetical awareness better helps you grasp and make alive the point of the text as it relates to the lives of your congregation... isn't that a good thing?

 

[Philip_B]

I don't disagree