The problem with sermons

Posted on August 17, 2006 by me

As I’ve mentioned before, I was raised Lutheran, which I consider to have been a good thing, even though I haven’t been to a Lutheran church in many, many years. It was a good thing because in this tradition, representative of what many would call “dead” religion, I was taught a very sound, living theology which has survived through waves of trends and movements.

One of the things which I now appreciate about my church and the liturgies as set forth in the “red” hymnal (I can’t speak for the newer ones) is that Scripture was highly valued – the reading of pre-chosen Bible passages from both the Old and New Testaments was given a very prominent place in the service. You may question various Lutheran interpretations of scripture, but that doesn’t mean that Scripture wasn’t shown the respect that it deserved.

One of the other things I now appreciate was that the sermon was only 10-15 minutes long.

For the last twenty-some years, I have been attending various “freestyle” churches which, to varying degrees, will claim to have a more vital and true interpretation and demonstration of the Bible. I will agree in part with this assessment; however, all is not well with the freestyle church.

One of the first things you notice when switching from a liturgical church to a more contemporary tradition is that the pastor talks a lot more; sermons can range from 30 to as much as 90 minutes long. That might not be so bad, except that most sermons only have enough quality stuff for about 10-15 minutes, and the rest is, at best, filler. (Hint: unless you’re David Letterman, let’s forget the warm-up comedy bits.)

My main complaint, however, is not the length of the sermon. My complaint is that today’s contemporary sermons do not teach the Bible, or theology; rather, they are merely an opportunity for the pastor or speaker to present their Perspective on Life. As interesting as this may be, there is no place in the Bible where you can find justification for this practice.

The Perspective on Life Sermon can’t honestly be touted as Biblical exposition; in fact, the Bible is often manipulated by quoting partial passages from a dozen different locations to support the predetermined point the pastor wants to make. Often during these speeches, verses will come to my mind which cast at least some doubt on the point being made; however, these are never addressed in the sermon (although I would bet the speaker’s aware of the same verses), for to do so would detract from the pastor’s point. The Point has somehow become inspired, if not inerrant, and the Bible is used to support The Point.

Even in cases where “through the Bible” style sermon series are given, the pastor’s perspective will usually dominate the problem texts of Scripture, if they’re addressed at all. A good speaker can slalom his way down a passage of Scripture without really dealing with it; sometimes the pastor’s need to present his perspective is so great that the Biblical text is almost immaterial. Within the last few weeks I heard a pastor completely abandon his text to insert some personal perspectives which had nothing whatsoever to do with the passage he was speaking on, and present no Biblical basis whatsoever for his perspective. This is not “preaching the Word.” What it is, to varying degrees, is manipulation and deception.

Jeremiah 31, speaking of life in the New Covenant, said:

No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the LORD.

So… why do we need to pay some guy to give us his perspective on life? (You know, I’ve never heard a pastor speak on this passage…) In my humble opinion, it’s time to elevate the Bible back where it belongs, and to put the sermon back where it belongs – into a supporting role, if we have one at all. And, if we insist on having one, let’s shorten it up a bit.

Posted in Church, My Own Personal Religion | 7 Comments

I didn’t know they could plan for that… (a bonus post)

Posted on August 16, 2006 by me

This is not my planned post for today, therefore a bonus post. Keep watching for the previously announced “the problem with sermons.” 

I read on MSNBC.com today that a new plan by the International Astronomical Union would add 3 planets to our Solar System (or 4, if you are one of the doubters who has already cast Pluto aside).  But why stop at 12? Why don’t they plan for more while they are at it?  Of course, the IAU would probably take offense at the characterization of their proposal as a “plan;” that’s MSNBC.com’s word.   

Rather, this international organization (who has authority from whom? I’m always amazed by these groups who claim to control the “sciences”) is apparently engaging in one of the favorite of post-modern activities, redefining things. The new definition of “planet” would be:

“A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet.”

Technically, they are not redefining the term; their complaint apparently was that it was never really formally defined to begin with.  Funny, I always knew what a planet was, since elementary school. I knew their names, and what color they were. We even made models out of styrofoam balls. 

I’m just glad that they didn’t devise a definition that failed to include Earth. That would have been a bummer.  As someone (perhaps Steven Wright) once said, “save the Earth; it’s where I keep all my stuff.”

Science is an amazing thing, it probably deserves a lot more study. I’m thinking that there should be an international agency for the study of science itself (rather than the scientific study of other stuff), the agency being made up of people from outside of the hard sciences (you can’t objectively study yourself).  Maybe they could even come up with a new definition for “science.”

So, keep your eyes opened; the solar system could be changing before our very eyes.

Posted in Humor and/or Sarcasm, Random Thoughts | 4 Comments

Further reflections on worship

Posted on August 14, 2006 by me

I have written before (beginning here) concerning issues of contemporary “Evangelical” spirituality; if you haven’t read the prior “My Own Personal Religion” series, I highly recommend it. This is another in that series, as I continue to read, watch, and evaluate things. 

Among other things, I have been paying close attention to the lyrics of the worship songs we have been singing and the congregation’s (I am tempted to say audience’s) response. I’ve also paid close attention to the sermons I have heard (from 4 different speakers that I’ve heard in the last 2 months), and following are some observations.

First, concerning worship: Most of the songs are theologically vacuous. That is, the songs beg for some real worship material. God, you are great…  Why?  Jesus, I love you…  Again, why?  What characteristics produce this response? What can inspire me to sing heartily along?  You’re too marvelous for words…  I think the Psalmists could disagree. Some of these songs are not far off from George Harrison’s My Sweet Lord.  Now, I am not totally against these songs; but, if that’s all you sing, it’s like eating cotton candy for every meal.

A couple of weeks ago, we sang a song by an old friend of mine, Brent Helming, Your Beloved:

Lord it was You who
Created the heavens
Lord it was Your hand
That put the stars in their place
Lord it is Your voice
That commands the morning
Even oceans and their waves
Bow at Your feet

Believe it or not, the song gets even better. One thing that I was instantly aware of was that my mind was actually engaged in worship, perhaps for the first time in months. It struck me at that moment that most of our contemporary worship songs are aimed at our emotions, actually encouraging us to disconnect our brains. 

In fact, if you actually think about many of the worship songs we sing, it actually kills worship – if the words aren’t wimpy, they’re actually wrong. There’s nothing like bad theology to kill a good worship set. That is, unless people have been encouraged to not think about what they are singing.  However, sing a great old hymn or a song like Your Beloved, and thinking about the words actually inspires worship! What a concept!

Last Sunday, this suspicion – that we are trained not to think about worship -was further supported: I watched the congregation as one wimpy song ended, and another song with a great beat and a heavy rock guitar riff started in – the people started “worshipping” without any words at all.  Worshipping? or just rocking out?  It’s really difficult to tell.  Perhaps they just anticipated the words…

Jesus told the woman at the well that “those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.”  Now, this is a somewhat enigmatic statement, at least as it is translated into English. What I understand it to mean, at least in part, is that worship is not only a liturgical/physical/emotional act, it also has to be based in truth. That means that true worship should also involve our mind.

Bottom line: I believe that it is a worship leader’s job not just to manipulate an emotional / spiritual response – although an emotional / spiritual response is not in itself wrong. It is their job (yeah, I’ve been a worship leader…) to encourage people to worship with their minds as well as their spirits. In Spirit, and in Truth.  Of course, that requires a bit more of a worship leader than just being a fair musician.

Next: The problem with sermons

Posted in Church, My Own Personal Religion, Spiritual stuff | 2 Comments

The end of the innocence (theology by Don Henley)

Posted on August 11, 2006 by me

Remember when the days were long
And rolled beneath a deep blue sky
Didn’t have a care in the world
With mommy and daddy standing by
…
But this is the end
This is the end of the innocence
– Don Henley, The End of the Innocence

I like Don Henley; Don really knows how to paint a glorious picture and then smash it to bits. But, in many ways The End of the Innocence paints an accurate picture of the “already but not yet” state the earthly inhabitants of the Kingdom of God find themselves. It’s brilliant, actually, but Henley has no answers, which makes the song so wistful and depressing. (Thank goodness for Bruce Hornsby’s wistful but bouyant piano work.)

I often think back to my childhood, spending lazy days laying on the cool grass, studying bugs, listening to the wind rustle through elm & cottonwood leaves, and watching clouds roll by. Even then, life was not always idyllic. Bad things happened: things broke, pets and people died, there were rumors of wars. I learned fairly early on that there were things outside of my control, and even outside of my parents’ control. However, for the most part, I did have my parents to rely on. I didn’t have to be responsible for much of anything except getting my homework done. I could hang out in my yard, which was miles away from the rest of the world, and life was good:

But I know a place where we can go
That’s still untouched by man
We’ll sit and watch the clouds roll by
And the tall grass wave in the wind

It’s not the same anymore. I lay out in our yard now, and I’m instantly aware that it needs mowing, or fertilizing, or something. I now have responsibility, to a lot of people. I’m responsible to my family, to everything I own, to my employer, to the hordes outside my gate to whom I have obligations. Everything comes with a bill attached.

Responsibility is the end of the innocence. The way Don Henley writes, it’s all someone else’s fault:

Armchair warriors often fail
And we’ve been poisoned by these fairy tales
The lawyers clean up all details
Since daddy had to lie
But I know a place where we can go
And wash away this sin …

Perhaps we can blame Adam (or Eve). We can pin it all on Satan. Or, if you’re one of the new liberals, on the President. But, in the long run, it doesn’t help:

Offer up your best defense
But this is the end
This is the end of the innocence

In the end, there’s really no one else to blame, or at least it doesn’t matter. Responsibility is what it is, no matter where it came from. Behind that, of course, is knowledge; more specifically, the knowledge of good and evil. That knowledge is a weight that we weren’t intended to bear, but as they say, that’s life. We know, and we are aware of responsibility.

This is the end of the song, but not of the story. If the story ended, leaving us only with responsibility, I’d be as depressed as any of the existentialists. However, as the Bible says, “He (God) gives more grace.” Grace empowers us to deal with life in the interim – the world as we know it. Grace also reconnects us with the source of all responsibility, lifting it again off of our shoulders (Come, he who is burdened …). Grace empowers us to mow the grass, as it were, and to get back to laying in the grass.

But I know a place where we can go
That’s still untouched by man
We’ll sit and watch the clouds roll by
And the tall grass wave in the wind

The end of the innocence? No – grace is the beginning.

Posted in Spiritual stuff | Leave a comment