Comments on: Stories (again)

By: John

John — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:10:52 +0000

David,

That would be my ideal and, if not 'academies', at least a sort of 'house group plus'. I am all for better education, even if it's only to veer us away from the fundamentalism that is found in the 'just tell me what to think' camp (that's a tongue-in-cheek remark aimed firmly at someone who suggested my strong Biblical focus simply meant I was a closet evangelical - you know who you are!).

Evan,

My apologies - in the flurry of replies I forgot to welcome you to my blog. Thank you for your contribution as well. And I very much like your expression that the sermon should be aimed at the heart of the congregation. It's only then that it becomes truly relevant and no number of anecdotes will overcome a sermon that has no relevance or applicability to those who would hear it.

By: David

David — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 09:32:54 +0000

I completely agree about deep theology not being avoided. My concern would be that I am trying to lead as many as possible forward and don’t want any left behind. On the other hand, (and I can hear you saying this to me) spiritual growth can only happen when people are stretched a little and this always risks some missing out. It’s a pastoral balancing act and ultimately it’s down to how the Spirit leads at a given moment.
On a wider thought… maybe we can pick up on what some of the biffer US churches do by way of congregational education and run ‘academies’ where people can explore matters at a deeper level. Churches can work together (in the Church of Scotland ???) to provide such academies by pooling resources and colleagues might be encouraged to take part not just leading but learning too.

By: John

John — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 22:48:59 +0000

Thanks for all the comments folks.

I think I may have given a slightly false impression of my reaction to this particular comment. It came in the context of welcome, useful and constructive criticism (in the proper sense of the word). I didn't see it as an isolated negative comment but it was made simply as an observation about this particular sermon. The last one I delivered was considerably more 'anecdotal' - because it lent itself to that style (and because I wanted to experiment). The observation triggered off a number of reflections about why I approach things the way I do and why I prefer the style I do. Anyone who knows me knows that I am quite self-critical (again in the 'rounded' sense, not in the sense of doing myself down) and like to think through why I am the way I am and how I might change or broaden my experience and knowledge. (It's why I am a bit of a fanboy of the current manifestation of the candidates' training/formation process.)

David, I know we've discussed the 'level' before and I still struggle a little with pitching it 'down there'. I have no issue with explaining theological or faith issues in simpler terms, but for a sermon on a deeply theological passage then I'd probably want to pitch it a little higher. Of course, that doesn't mean that all sermons need to be dealing with deep theology and where the context/content is more about encouragement or 'lifestyle' then the more anecdotal approach is unquestionably correct. It also means that the deep theology shouldn't be avoided simply to avoid losing people.

By: David

David — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 21:28:38 +0000

‘mant’ should be make…. oops

By: David

David — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 21:27:27 +0000

All good comments…. For some people the anecdote is the only doorway they have to get at the theology. I appreciate hearing the occasionally straight interpretation sermon and have done so every so often. However, when it becomes a theological treatise I look for ways to make it practical for me, and that will involve an anecdote of some kind.
I know you love theology and I got a real sense of the passion you have for it. I also know that you have a real desire for people to have a close relationship with their Saviour and ours. As Mrs G points out above, if anecdotes get the people really thinking and understanding, then use the stories. Bear in mind that some folks are not quite ready for the theology and need to be prepped for it to take hold.
It begs the question as to what level sermons should be pitched at. I think I’m erring towards the lowest common denominator but not going quite that far. I want as mant people to move along the spiritual road with me and not lose too many on the way. Does that make sense ?

By: Crabbit Besom

Crabbit Besom — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 20:24:31 +0000

It would have been appreciated at you-know-where, where anything other than a “bible study” is not welcomed by the vociferous few. At least that comment is better than the “nice sermon, minister” which is no help to anyone. Also, it wasn’t an essay, which is what my “bible study” sermons turn towards.
I do think you were probably right in this instance – the story telling can be overdone for passages like this, and we need to get behind it. The Women at the well is another one which has dangers of becoming a story as is the temple cleansing. The Bible tells us more than what is apparent in these! Chin up – one man’s meat etc, or you can’t please all the people..etc and other cliches. Good thoughts wending your way.

By: Mrs Gerbil

Mrs Gerbil — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 19:07:49 +0000

I agree with what’s already been said. When I listen to sermons I like the anecdotes if they are appropriate. If not, why bother? Yes, it may lighten the mood, but does that get the congregation thinking – really understanding the bible and how it relates to their life? If the anecdote does that, use it. If not, don’t.
Perhaps the person saying this to you is trying to get a reaction to make you really think why you don’t use anecdotes all the time. It may be they approve, but are challenging your thinking – making you really appreciate (and think) about your style. By the sounds of things, if that is their mission, it’s worked. But you have obviously thought through the comment and concluded how you’d approached the sermon was appropriate for the passage. Just remember that when challenged again. And remember the positive comments too.
At least the commments you’re getting aren’t just the “nice sermon” type, as they aren’t constructive at all.

By: Nik

Nik — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 15:53:32 +0000

John, we both know that not every sermon should have the same approach: some texts are much more suited to delivering within a narrative context, others more to almost sitting there with your bibles going verse by verse working through the text, and others lend themselves to being split over the course of worship into smaller mini-sermons, and of course not forgetting the old 3-point alliterative sermon as well!
I believe at Princeton students of homiletics are pretty much drilled in ‘start the sermon off with a personal humorous anecdote/ a wee joke’ approach. All very well but you do end up with a congregation pretty much trained to laugh politely at the wee intro. almost automatically. A friend of mine was doing a pulpit swap with a minster who does use the ‘wee funny starter’… She began preaching and at the finish of the intro, the congregation laughed… however, she hadn’t done the ‘warm up funny’, she was being perfectly serious! They were laughing because they were used to laughing at that point in the sermon. Are empty anecdotes really the way to go… I don’t think so either – and while Jesus did a great line in humour and story-telling it was with the purpose of pointing to the message, not distracting from the message. The difficulty is, as you point out, when the anecdote becomes the master and not the servant….

By: Evan

Evan — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 15:47:35 +0000

In my opinion, it is far better to err on the side of too much exposition. However, I also believe that application is important. Whether through anecdotes or not (because both are possible), a preacher should not only explain a bible passage, but point it at the heart of their congregation. I agree, though, that if anecdotes are not expositing or applying scripture, then they are of little use.

By: John

John — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 13:43:00 +0000

Thanks Mary,

I also got supportive comments so I wouldn't want to give the impression that it was entirely negative. In truth, the 'bible study' comment wasn't really intended in a negative way either, but I picked up on it in the context of my previous reflections on this issue. This post was really intended as a way of thinking through some of the issues, not as a swipe at how people heard my service.