Question for Protestants, regarding sermons

[Joanne]

The question and the thread make me twitch and predispose me to facial tics. ;)

 

The irony of having a preference (name one) that has more biblical integrity - in a man made, arbitrary structure - cracks me up.

 

I like my bible study in small, informed groups. I am "eh" about sermons in general, anyway.

 

My denominational heritage follows the lectionary, and I still find myself comfortable with the liturgical seasons.

[Heather in Neverland]

The question and the thread make me twitch and predispose me to facial tics. ;)

 

The irony of having a preference (name one) that has more biblical integrity - in a man made, arbitrary structure - cracks me up.

 

I like my bible study in small, informed groups. I am "eh" about sermons in general, anyway.

 

My denominational heritage follows the lectionary, and I still find myself comfortable with the liturgical seasons.

 

Interesting... Bible study groups generally make me twitch. I've been in more than I can count and it always ends up with the group playing a game called "what does this verse mean to YOU?"... as if every verse written in the Bible was written with the purpose of having multiple meanings that we are free to impose upon them. Cracks me up.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Interesting... Bible study groups generally make me twitch. I've been in more than I can count and it always ends up with the group playing a game called "what does this verse mean to YOU?"... as if every verse written in the Bible was written with the purpose of having multiple meanings that we are free to impose upon them. Cracks me up.

 

:iagree:

[Colleen in NS]

The irony of having a preference (name one) that has more biblical integrity - in a man made, arbitrary structure - cracks me up.

 

I like my bible study in small, informed groups. I am "eh" about sermons in general, anyway.

 

Will you please elaborate your thoughts on this? It sounds to me like you are saying that, because of being used within a man-made structure (church?), either style of preaching is non-important. And if I read you correctly, I wonder what your thoughts are behind that.

 

Also, it sounds to me, when you say "informed groups", that you are thinking of something different than a typical, cultural N. American Bible study. When I first read your comment, I was picturing small groups, doing something WTM/WEM-like - studying the Bible together systematically (with perhaps a really knowledgeable person or two to guide us along), for what is actually in it, instead of what we might extract from it. Am I reading you the way you intended? Will you elaborate on this, too?

[Joanne]

Interesting... Bible study groups generally make me twitch. I've been in more than I can count and it always ends up with the group playing a game called "what does this verse mean to YOU?"... as if every verse written in the Bible was written with the purpose of having multiple meanings that we are free to impose upon them. Cracks me up.

 

I actually think that the bible IS that living, nuanced, complicated, sophisticated, timeless, applicable, and malleable.

 

However, I also think most verses of the bible were written in specific setting, by specific people, to specific people and applying many of those verses to us us dumb.

[tntgoodwin]

:lurk5:

[Joanne]

Will you please elaborate your thoughts on this? It sounds to me like you are saying that, because of being used within a man-made structure (church?), either style of preaching is non-important. And if I read you correctly, I wonder what your thoughts are behind that.

 

Also, it sounds to me, when you say "informed groups", that you are thinking of something different than a typical, cultural N. American Bible study. When I first read your comment, I was picturing small groups, doing something WTM/WEM-like - studying the Bible together systematically (with perhaps a really knowledgeable person or two to guide us along), for what is actually in it, instead of what we might extract from it. Am I reading you the way you intended? Will you elaborate on this, too?

 

I would not say I believe that the church is man-made. I think the *idea* of church is divinely inspired. I think our construct of us is man-made.

 

Within that man-made, arbitrary structure to debate what style of preaching is best strikes me as funny.

 

I think discourse over spiritual and Christian bible ideas should be varied, and over the course of spiritual growth, "be" a lot of things, including theory, application, personal, global. I think it should demand personal reflection AND social gospel.

 

Of course, I just spent 2.5 years in a seminary and I still work there, so my view is absolutely warped by that lived experience.

[Virg]

I prefer expository but am glad that different pastors to different things as I am sure there are people who aren't just like me :lol:

[3peasinWa]

the reality is expository also leaves room for a pastor to interpret according to his opinion. I don't think one is better then the other - I just found going from a topic style to expository a nice change.

 

I do agree though, that bible study groups (the right ones) are more important to me. I'm actually becomming increasingly annoyed with our modern sunday service format....

[SonshineLearner]

how do (for example, your truly gifted preacher) pastors/ministers go about doing this?

 

You take the classes where they practice their preaching. I think my dad had 17 minutes, or something like that, to give a sermon. He also was trained to preach, with as much effort as any other job. He learned to read hebrew and greek in the original text, and how to pull it all apart and deliver it to others. I love the way that he's studied, so he can share. He preaches, teaches in seminary, and also has a law degree. I'm proud of him and how he's used his brain!! :) He's someone who can honestly say that he's "studied so hard his brain has hurt".... It's funny that your brain can hurt... because of study. :)

I haven't often heard pastors who sound like they were schooled in how to deliver a sermon that is proper. I really believe that classical education is one way to learn to properly deliver a "speech"..... or in my a pastor's case a "sermon".... and the study of original language is essential to the important responsibility in delivering sermons. Not every pastor can be as fluent as my dad in languages... but they can be studying! :)

Edited February 15, 2012 by NayfiesMama

[jewellsmommy]

My husband is a preacher and he prefers to preach expository. He doesn't mind a topical sermon (and even gives them from time to time), but most preachers/pastors dive headfirst into prooftexting by preaching topically which is one of my dh's pet peeves. Recently he's been preaching from the book of Isaiah. He just starts at the beginning and goes straight through a book.

 

I like expository preaching better just because it lends itself more to a combination of history and religion. You need to set up the circumstances of the people and their lives at that time to understand why xx chapter or xx verses were written. But I love to study history and religion in context.

 

 

 

I very much agree! My greatest moments of understanding have come through this method vs topical sermons. I don't mind topical sermons, but I feel as though I "get it" more going through the ins and outs in a step by step process with the added historical context and original language study as well.

[acurtis75]

Interesting... Bible study groups generally make me twitch. I've been in more than I can count and it always ends up with the group playing a game called "what does this verse mean to YOU?"... as if every verse written in the Bible was written with the purpose of having multiple meanings that we are free to impose upon them. Cracks me up.

 

:iagree: too. We recently left a small church we attended for fifteen years. I often taught in the women's ministry and hated when I was instructed on occasion to make it an informal discussion becaus it always ended up with "what does this verse mean to you" which leads to spending the entire time listening to opinions that may or may not have anything to do with what the verse actually means.

[Colleen in NS]

I would not say I believe that the church is man-made. I think the *idea* of church is divinely inspired. I think our construct of us is man-made.

 

Within that man-made, arbitrary structure to debate what style of preaching is best strikes me as funny.

 

I think discourse over spiritual and Christian bible ideas should be varied, and over the course of spiritual growth, "be" a lot of things, including theory, application, personal, global. I think it should demand personal reflection AND social gospel.

 

Of course, I just spent 2.5 years in a seminary and I still work there, so my view is absolutely warped by that lived experience.

 

Thank you, Joanne, for explaining. You've given me some food for thought.

 

You take the classes where they practice their preaching.

 

I wonder what these classes are like. I think I need to figure out what the differences are among seminary/Bible school/Divinity (?) school. Investigate some schools to see exactly what they are all about.

 

I really believe that classical education is one way to learn to properly deliver a "speech"..... or in my a pastor's case a "sermon".... and the study of original language is essential to the important responsibility in delivering sermons. Not every pastor can be as fluent as my dad in languages... but they can be studying! :)

 

More food for thought - thanks!

[Colleen in NS]

As far as how people learn to preach, typically seminaries and training colleges for ministers and such teach it. ...

 

People who are really interested in homiletics will spend time studying great sermons.

 

How to know if they are giving you good stuff is a hard question - it would be easy for a new Christian to be led astray I think. Gut feelings are one way and important, but some preachers know how to appeal to us in a deceiving way but knowing what we want to hear.

 

But I think one aspect that is kind of boring but important is what person or organization stands behind or oversees the preacher.

 

And some more good food for thought for me - thank you!

 

Now, what if you feel strongly one way on this issue, and your spouse felt strongly the other way?? What do you do?

 

I saw your popcorn bucket up above. :D

 

What do you do about what? Choosing a church to attend together? My dh and I would tend to stay together in attending a church, and we would probably "give in" to the one who felt more strongly about whatever the issue was. "Feeling strongly about an issue" also changes over the years, so it's not as though the person who feels less strongly about the issue is going to be short-changed.

[Carol in Cal.]

So, I like small group and large pastor-led Bible studies when they DON'T devolve into 'what does this mean for me?' I like the ones that celebrate how cool God is, teach/learn more about Him, and focus on 'what does this mean?'

 

And I like the liturgical year and value preaching that follows the lectionary. That leaves plenty of room for variety, and ensures that the pastor does not get into a rut. I remember in some C. S. Lewis book a description of a non-lectionary pastor unconsciously cycleing through the same handful of favorite psalms without even realizing that he was doing so, and imagining that he was free, free, free. Although lectionaries and ordinaries and propers can be stifling, they can also be broadening.