Preaching and Local Theology

In a posting back in September 2012 entitled, "All Theology is Local," I suggested that our geographical and social locales play a role in how we understand God.  Different cultures also play a powerful role in our perception of the divine, as does the language we speak.  As a rule, preachers and local churches, however, devote little thought to the particular nature of their local theology and its spirituality.  The truth is, most preachers most of the time call on a mixture of personal experience, the Bible, personal theology, and pop culture to shape their preaching.  Some will draw on literature or the arts from time to time.  And preachers will more-or-less naturally draw on local images and stories for their sermons, especially if they have been in the same locale for a longer period of time.

There is less evidence of preachers consciously reflecting with the church they serve on the ways in which they experience God in their setting including their natural environment and local culture.  In Lewis County, New York, for example, many people continue to reside here because of its proximity to the northern wilderness.  Many hunt and/or fish.  Others are hikers or ride horses or engage in other outdoors activities.  Many live in the forest as a conscious choice, and in all of this there is often enough a spiritual component to their decision to live in or near the wilderness.  It is quite possible to speak of a "north country spirituality," which spirituality should inform the content of preaching in north country churches and from time to time be addressed directly.

In many locales, there would be a combination of local theologies and spiritualities, such as a farm country spirituality that combines with a Great Plains theology or a hillbilly theology.  An urban theology could well also encompass black theology or hispanic spirituality perhaps in tandem with a North Atlantic costal theology.  The larger point here is that we always experience God through our culture, local history, and natural environment and that fact should be incorporated into local preaching in a conscious way.  Amen.

Lectionary Rant

Yesterday's posting quoted Jesus as asking scribes who were critical of his forgiving the sin of a paralyzed man, "Why let all of this wickedness fester in your hearts?"  I took it from N.T. Wright's recent translation of the New Testament,  The Kingdom New Testament (HarperOne, 2011).  The quotation comes from the story of Jesus' healing a man virtually in defiance of the religious authorities, and it concludes with the people feeling fear of Jesus while thanking God for him (Matthew 9:1-8).  It is a beautiful story and an important one, but here's the thing: it is not in the Revised Common Lectionary, which (for the uninitiated) is the list of weekly scripture readings used by most denominations and a large percentage of mainline Protestant preachers.  The Catholic Church has its own lectionary.  The common lectionary runs through a three-year cycle, and if a passage, such as Matthew 9:1-8, isn't in the lectionary it won't be preached on in that cycle.  For preachers who stick to the lectionary, this means that they will never reflect on this passage with their congregations—this one and many other important passages that failed to "make the cut" of the lectionary.

Evidently, mainline seminaries are pushing the use of the lectionary, and many liturgical resources websites tailor their contents to the lectionary.  It has become almost ubiquitous in the mainline denominations.  That means that in a pastoral career of 30 years, a preacher will "work through" the lectionary 10 times, basically going over plowed ground again and again.  There are two things that I personally really, really don't like about the lectionary: first, as I've already suggested, it leaves out much of the Bible including many important passages; secondly, it focuses the preacher's attention on the text in the context of the lectionary rather than the context of the congregation.  Preaching should always be in, to, and for the congregation hearing the sermon.  There are times when a church needs to hear a particular message, and sometimes the lectionary passages for that particular week might prove useful to that end.  Other weeks, the preacher has to ignore the needs of the church, or mangle scripture to make it fit those needs, or ignore the passage.  All of these are bad choices.  They are lazy choices.  The lectionary, if used slavishly as evidently many do, can create a barrier between the preacher and parish.

It can also relieve the pastor of the necessity of wrestling with the meaning of the Bible for the church.  The Monday morning question is not what parts of scripture are relevant but rather what are the lectionary readings for this week?  Now, it is true that one rationale for the lectionary is that it keeps preachers from just going back to their favorite passages and narrow parts of the Bible week after week.  It "forces" preachers to  preach from many parts of the Bible.  That is a problem,  but this particular solution is no better than the disease itself.  In fact, it is a palliative approach.  It also limits the preacher to what parts of the Bible are used for preaching, and because it always includes passages from the gospels, the rest of the New Testament, and the Old Testament, preachers can focus on what type of material they like to preach from—the popular choices are the gospels or the letters of Paul.

At the end of the day, however, the key point is not whether or not to use the lectionary.  The point is, rather, that preachers preach a message relevant to the current life and needs of the congregation based on relevant passages.  It is not "wrong" to use the lectionary frequently or even regularly so long as the option to ignore it for a week or a year is always on the table—and so long as the preacher is ready to use non-lectionary passages that are equally as valuable and pertinent as those contained in the lectionary.  Used circumspectly, the lectionary can be an aide to worship rather than a crutch or like blinders.  That's the point.

How We Think About God Matters

A team of Harvard researchers have found (here) that those who rely on intuition more than reflection tend to show more confident belief in God and to report more experiences they attributed to God.  In the summary of their research, they state:

Three studies—two correlational, one experimental—showed that intuitive thinking predicts belief in God. Study 1 showed that people who exhibit thinking styles that are more intuitive and less reflective are more likely to believe in God and to believe in God with greater confidence. These results held while variables related to education, socioeconomic status, and political orientation were controlled. Study 2 showed that these results held while cognitive ability and personality were controlled. In both studies, we found that cognitive style predicted self-reported changes in belief since childhood but was uncorrelated with religious influences during childhood. This suggests that cognitive style is not only predictive of one’s beliefs but also a critical factor in the evolution of one’s beliefs over time. Consistent with this hypothesis, we demonstrated a causal relationship between (induced) cognitive style and belief in God in Study 3, showing that the induction of mindsets favoring intuition (or opposing reflection) significantly increased self-reported belief in God.

People who step back and think more intensely about the "question of God" tend to be less sure about God while those who "go with their gut" tend to be more certain in their belief in God.  In other words, people who have a tendency to question and to doubt show a tendency to question and doubt beliefs about God.  The researchers make it clear that this is not a matter of intelligence but of what they call "cognitive style," that is the way we think.

These findings are hardly surprising.  In a sense, all they seem to amount to is to confirm that people who question and doubt actually do question and doubt.  Still, they are a helpful reminder that have important implication for preachers and pastors.  Pastors will themselves tend to be either more intuitive or reflective, and they need to remember that many of their parishioners are the opposite.  If, for example, a pastor is one who reflects, then issues of doubt and making sense of faith in the contemporary context will be important; but those issues may well not be so important to many members of the congregation she serves.  Indeed, one would expect that—all other things being equal—those who  are more intuitive will predominate in the congregation on an average Sunday morning.  An intuitive pastor, conversely, will more likely fail to address key issues concerning the difficulties of believing in the 21st century.

Responsive to God (xi)

FPC, Lowville, NY

This is the eleventh posting in a series working on what it means to be a church, based on eight criteria the Mars Hill Church uses to define its branch congregations as churches. The series began (here).  We are still working on the third criterion used by the Mars Hill Church to define its branch congregations as "churches," which is, "The church regularly gathers to hear God’s Word rightly preached and to respond in worshipful ways."

There's a final point I'd like to make, which is superficially "just" a wording issue with the third criterion.  As written, it seems to suggest that congregations are to respond to preaching in worshipful ways.  They regularly gather to listen to a sermon and then "respond in worshipful ways."  Worship, however, is something more than responding to a sermon worshipfully.  The focus is on, the response is to, and the worship is of God not the sermon or the preacher.  We are there on a Sunday morning because we feel or want to feel God's presence in our lives and experience that presence as grace.  And when worship is at its best all of its elements work together to help us worship God, not just the sermon.  Indeed, some come to worship for the music, some for the prayers, and some just to be with their church friends.  Preaching is important, but it is not the be all and end all of our praise.  Nor should it be.  Amen.

Right Preaching (ix)

FPC, Lowville, NY

This is the ninth  posting in a series working on what it means to be a church, based on eight criteria the Mars Hill Church uses to define its branch congregations as churches.  The series began (here).

We are still working on the third criterion used by the Mars Hill Church to define its branch congregations as "churches," which is, "The church regularly gathers to hear God’s Word rightly preached and to respond in worshipful ways."  There's one more thing I'd like to deal with in terms of preaching: the phrase "God's Word rightly preached."

The first has to do with God's "Word," capital "W."  We have to be clear that God's Word is Jesus Christ (John 1:1) and not the Bible, which is "the word of God written," small "w," to quote the Confession of 1967 of the Presbyterian Church (USA), section 9.27.  (I dealt with this in a previous posting, "here").  While we preach from the Bible, what we always preach is Christ.  It is important to remember that Christ constrains and binds scripture, and where the Bible contains things that do not reflect the love of Christ (e.g. the mass murder of non-Hebrews) we must reject the words of the Bible in the name of God's Word, Jesus Christ.  It is for this reason that the PC(USA) ordains women in spite of clear teachings in the Bible forbidding us from doing so (see I Corinthians 14:34-35).  We are constrained to do so by the Word of God, whatever the words of the Bible might say.

Second, we must also be clear about the idea of "right preaching."  It sounds as though there is one kind of preaching that exhibits God's Word "rightly preached" and other kinds that don't.  Actually, that might be the case, but if so not in the way probably intended by the authors of the Mars Hill criteria.  "Right preaching" is best understood to be contextual preaching—that is, where the preacher reads the Bible in light of the congregation that will hear the message and seeks to deliver that message in ways that will be readily understood by the congregation.  Good preaching translates the Bible into the local idiom using local images that reflect local concerns and needs.  In a sense, then, "right preaching" is not biblically based but rather church based, applying the teachings of scripture to the situation of the church in light of the person of Christ.  "Right preaching" does not impose an outside and infallible word on a church but, rather, shares the person of Christ in the local language.  So then, "God's Word rightly preached" is churched-based and Christ-focused.  Or, it is church-focused and Christ-centered.  Or, good preaching arises out of the real needs of the real people of Lowville, NY, bringing God's Word, Jesus Christ, to bear on those needs.  Amen.

Preaching Challenges (vii)

FPC, Lowville, NY

This is the seventh posting in a series working on what it means to be a church, based on eight criteria the Mars Hill Church uses to define its branch congregations as churches, which are listed in the first posting of this series (here).

As we've already seen, the third criterion used by the Mars Hill Church to define its branch congregations as "churches," is, "The church regularly gathers to hear God’s Word rightly preached and to respond in worshipful ways."  We've also seen that preaching "is in our blood" as Protestants.  It's what we do.  It's what we've been doing for centuries, and it's worth asking why we keep doing it—apart from the fact that we tend to keep on doing what we've always done.

Preaching today is challenging.  In the past, the Sunday preachers dominated the local media aside from printed newspapers.  They were the only regular, weekly game in town when it came to listening and watching public media.  They could preach for 60 minutes or more and hold people's attention.  In the old days, New England families devoted hours of table conversation to dissecting Sunday's sermon.  Then came radio, and now, of course, preachers are only one small voice in the overwhelming daily bombardment of public media.

So, the challenge is to say something on a Sunday morning that is entertaining, intelligent, and relevant to the lives of a congregation.  The entertaining part is crucial.  In education circles, there is a term, "edutainment," which means using entertainment media and techniques to communicate educational content.  The highly popular and effective children's TV show, Sesame Street, is the industry standard for quality edutainment.  How does one compete with that?  But, preachers have to try.  If we aren't entertaining, we won't be heard.

Preaching a relevant, meaningful, and thought-provoking message is also important—more so than ever, actually, in our world where soccer dominates Sunday mornings, worship attendance is on the decline, and our Protestant churches still want quality preaching as they always have.  Speaking personally, some weeks this feels daunting.  How does one stay fresh, interesting, and relevant week after week?  Still, it's not quite that grim.  Local churches continue to value preaching excellence, and the weekly sermon is important to them.  Preachers have an amazing array of resources, many of which the Web puts at their fingertips (literally).  Where there is great challenge, there is also great opportunity.  Amen.

Preaching & Worship (vi)

FPC, Lowville, NY

This is the sixth posting in a series working on what it means to be a church, based on eight criteria the Mars Hill Church uses to define its branch congregations as churches, which are listed in the first posting of this series (here).

The third criterion on the Mars Hill list is, "The church regularly gathers to hear God’s Word rightly preached and to respond in worshipful ways."  The fourth criterion reads, "The church is where the biblical sacraments of baptism and Communion are performed regularly."  Both of these criteria focus on worship, and while the order and wording may not have been intended to be important, it is worth noting that in this Protestant description of the role of worship preaching comes first, worship generally second, and the sacraments are third (although they do warrant their own separate criterion).  In Protestant worship, we emphasize preaching.  In my own preparation time for worship, I devote much more time to sermon preparation than to the overall "performance" of the worship service.  Whether for good or for ill, I'm not sure.

So, let's start with preaching.  Why do we put it at the center of Protestant worship?  Historically, I suppose, the early Protestants partly reacted to the high church "ritualism" of Roman Catholicism.  We didn't want to "be like them."  But, going back in time, early Protestant clergy faced congregations that generally had little or no Christian education background, no knowledge of the Bible, and hardly any sense that they were responsible for developing their own understanding of their faith.  They desperately needed teaching, and the reality was that the best time to do that teaching was during worship.  Protestant sermons became long, learned discourses aimed at teaching the rudiments of Christian faith to the ignorant.  We Presbyterians, in the good old days, even called our pastors "teaching elders," a term that the recent revision of the Presbyterian Church (USA) Form of Government has revived.

In a sense then, preaching is in our Protestant blood.  It defines who we are, at least in part.

In terms of the third criterion, there is one point that needs to be made about its wording, which says that one mark of the church is that it regularly gathers to hear preaching and "to respond in worshipful ways."  This is not a good choice of words.  It implies that the worship service doesn't begin until after the sermon and that it is the sermon that inspires worship.  I am sure the authors of these criteria did not mean to imply such, but the wording carries us to that conclusion.  Take it as further evidence of how deeply the centrality of preaching has seeped into Protestant worship.  Preaching, of course, is but one element in worship, and what congregants experience on a Sunday morning is not just the sermon but the whole worship package.

The Future of Entertainment?

Maybe it's just a fad, but maybe not.  Hatsune Miku, the Japanese singing sensation who has performed on stage in Los Angeles, is a hologram that uses the synthesized voice of a real singer.  She has her own fan club and has become a genuine star in Japan.  At least one commentator (here) thinks that Hatsune Miku will revolutionize the music industry as well as the international pop music culture.  Another describes (here) as "a singing, digital avatar."  She can be bought by anyone and then programmed to sing whatever song one chooses.  Her music can't be copyrighted.  And evidently she is all the rage not only in Japan but also in Europe, especially France.

If this sort of thing does take hold, as does seem more than possible, why stop with singers?  Why not newscasters, professors, and even preachers?  In the not too distant future, pastors might not preach themselves but, instead, program a spiffy, exciting, challenging, bring the house down avatar instead.  Small churches would be able to receive just as good a preaching as the megachurches.  Who knows what the future holds?  But do take note of the reaction of the young American crowd in the video clip and the skill of the performer.  She blurs the boundary between animation and reality, no question.  (When I linked to this YouTube video clip it had well over 8,700,000 hits.  That's popular!).