when a preacher becomes a caterer.
Tonight I met with a very kind man who has retired from a lifelong occupation of being a pastor. We were meeting to go over the sermon I'd be delivering at the Lenten service at my church this Sunday evening, and for him to give some feedback. It was a good meeting overall, and I felt like I got a lot of feedback that will be really helpful in making my homily more effective and more well-received. But a few things really struck a chord in me that made me remember why it is I have such strong negative feelings against the insitutional church (on the whole), and especially against how most people in authority within the church view what church should be like and what pastors/preachers should be like.
1. I tell a story in the sermon that took place when one of my best friends (Jose) and I were driving back to California last summer after I graduated from seminary. He mentioned that for some people of his generation, saying that I went on a cross-country road trip with a person of the opposite gender might raise some concerns. And honestly, I think he's right about that. And part of me feels like I should take out the name just to avoid that--because there is no reason to keep them from hearing the message of the sermon based on a minor, insignificant detail. BUT...the other part of me thinks, screw that! Partly, I think, because just this morning I read an (unfortunately protected) post by someone I won't name (since it's protected)--but the gist of it was that the way the church is on issues of sexuality and sexual sin promotes deception and lack of honesty within the community. So I'm like, why don't I go ahead and raise concerns then? If people want to get bogged down in some stupid thing like that, well, then too bad for them. Damn those prudes, anyway! I hate that I have to hide something about myself (especially since Jose and I are just friends). But at the same time, I want to have grace for people in a different generation, and to understand limitations, and not to keep them from hearing the good news I hope to bring. Because I'm preaching for other people, not for myself.
2. My interpretation of the text is not the way people have interpreted it in the past. So, it was suggested to me that I make sure to include the usual interpretation also in the sermon, just so I can tell people what the text is really about. But it's hard, because I honestly don't see that traditional, widely-held interpretation actually IN THE TEXT. In fact, I see evidence against the traditional interpretation in this specific text. But again, if people are going to be put off by that, and get distracted by me not presenting the usual interpretation, I don't want that to happen. It just is hard to me that I can't just be honest about what I see. I know I have to take my listeners into account, and I try to. So I'm going to go look at some commentaries and see if I might be able to be at least open to seeing how the traditional interpretation might work. I want the message to be heard, and I want people to hear whatever God is going to say to them, and I don't want to get in the way. But at the same time I want to be able to honestly be myself. It's a hard balance, and truthfully, I mostly don't want to do it. But I will, because I think it's kind of selfish just to be like "I have to be authentic and true to myself. Who gives a damn if you can receive the message or not!" At the same time, though, I think that the more authentic people can be, the more it frees other people to also be honest and authentic. Argh.
3. In terms of my style, I was told that my level of intensity is too high throughout; that I need to space out my moments of intensity and use them for when I really want them. Also, that people can't handle that level of intensity for too long, so I need to give them a break. Again, back to the question of catering to the people. Certainly some amount of taking into account listeners' limitations is totally valid (for example, when I speak too quickly, it is hard for older people and/or people with hearing impairments to catch what i'm saying. point taken, and needed.); however, sometimes I just want to be like--hey, if they can't handle the intensity, maybe they need to learn to. Maybe it's not me that has to turn it down all the time, but them that have to be willing to rough it out. Because honestly, and maybe it's just because of the types of people I gravitate to and who gravitate to me, I hear way more about how soft and fluffy and devoid of real message sermons are these days, than that they are too intense. I don't know if I've ever heard someone say they wanted the sermon to have LESS intensity. It's like--hey a story! hey, a joke! hey, something from the text! hey, a mostly unrelated anecdote! hey, a loosely related Christiany life lesson! hey, a nice, gentle closer! and it's another sermon that helps people feel satisfied with themselves and their own individualistic, consumeristic faith and relationship with God. That, to me, is not church.
Okay, I'm done with the rant. I just really struggle with this issue--because I realize a lot of people love those sermons with fluffy bunnies and nice morality tales. But does that make it right to preach like that? Yes, the ability of the people to hear a certain message or a certain delivery should play into deciding how to give a sermon. But it should not promote dishonesty or holding back something that needs to be said. So the question about catering to the listeners is...how much should you do it?
1. I tell a story in the sermon that took place when one of my best friends (Jose) and I were driving back to California last summer after I graduated from seminary. He mentioned that for some people of his generation, saying that I went on a cross-country road trip with a person of the opposite gender might raise some concerns. And honestly, I think he's right about that. And part of me feels like I should take out the name just to avoid that--because there is no reason to keep them from hearing the message of the sermon based on a minor, insignificant detail. BUT...the other part of me thinks, screw that! Partly, I think, because just this morning I read an (unfortunately protected) post by someone I won't name (since it's protected)--but the gist of it was that the way the church is on issues of sexuality and sexual sin promotes deception and lack of honesty within the community. So I'm like, why don't I go ahead and raise concerns then? If people want to get bogged down in some stupid thing like that, well, then too bad for them. Damn those prudes, anyway! I hate that I have to hide something about myself (especially since Jose and I are just friends). But at the same time, I want to have grace for people in a different generation, and to understand limitations, and not to keep them from hearing the good news I hope to bring. Because I'm preaching for other people, not for myself.
2. My interpretation of the text is not the way people have interpreted it in the past. So, it was suggested to me that I make sure to include the usual interpretation also in the sermon, just so I can tell people what the text is really about. But it's hard, because I honestly don't see that traditional, widely-held interpretation actually IN THE TEXT. In fact, I see evidence against the traditional interpretation in this specific text. But again, if people are going to be put off by that, and get distracted by me not presenting the usual interpretation, I don't want that to happen. It just is hard to me that I can't just be honest about what I see. I know I have to take my listeners into account, and I try to. So I'm going to go look at some commentaries and see if I might be able to be at least open to seeing how the traditional interpretation might work. I want the message to be heard, and I want people to hear whatever God is going to say to them, and I don't want to get in the way. But at the same time I want to be able to honestly be myself. It's a hard balance, and truthfully, I mostly don't want to do it. But I will, because I think it's kind of selfish just to be like "I have to be authentic and true to myself. Who gives a damn if you can receive the message or not!" At the same time, though, I think that the more authentic people can be, the more it frees other people to also be honest and authentic. Argh.
3. In terms of my style, I was told that my level of intensity is too high throughout; that I need to space out my moments of intensity and use them for when I really want them. Also, that people can't handle that level of intensity for too long, so I need to give them a break. Again, back to the question of catering to the people. Certainly some amount of taking into account listeners' limitations is totally valid (for example, when I speak too quickly, it is hard for older people and/or people with hearing impairments to catch what i'm saying. point taken, and needed.); however, sometimes I just want to be like--hey, if they can't handle the intensity, maybe they need to learn to. Maybe it's not me that has to turn it down all the time, but them that have to be willing to rough it out. Because honestly, and maybe it's just because of the types of people I gravitate to and who gravitate to me, I hear way more about how soft and fluffy and devoid of real message sermons are these days, than that they are too intense. I don't know if I've ever heard someone say they wanted the sermon to have LESS intensity. It's like--hey a story! hey, a joke! hey, something from the text! hey, a mostly unrelated anecdote! hey, a loosely related Christiany life lesson! hey, a nice, gentle closer! and it's another sermon that helps people feel satisfied with themselves and their own individualistic, consumeristic faith and relationship with God. That, to me, is not church.
Okay, I'm done with the rant. I just really struggle with this issue--because I realize a lot of people love those sermons with fluffy bunnies and nice morality tales. But does that make it right to preach like that? Yes, the ability of the people to hear a certain message or a certain delivery should play into deciding how to give a sermon. But it should not promote dishonesty or holding back something that needs to be said. So the question about catering to the listeners is...how much should you do it?
Labels: authenticity, Church, preaching
posted by bethany at 10:51 PM
3 Comments:
I see your struggle with this, but I have to say, Jesus did speak in parables so that he could get through to the crowd... I don't think Scriptured should be watered down to make it more palatable, but I think delivery is important! Good luck, Bethany! You are creative with a willingness to serve, so I know things will go well.
hqhey misha. thanks for your comment. you and i have very different ideas about what a pastor/church should be like, so it's good to hear your perspective.
i can see how parables are stories that people can wrestle with and relate to, especially in our day. and that is good. but i also think of the passages in matthew, mark, and luke, where it seems like the parables are not necessarily about "getting through to the crowd" at all; but maybe sometimes the opposite even. right after the disciples ask him why he speaks in parables, he says: "'The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables: 'Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.'" (Matt. 13:10ff, Mark 4:10ff, Luke 8:9ff).
Bethany! I'm so sad I'll be away and I'll miss your sermon! Will it be recorded? Really, I would love to hear it.
Hope everything goes well! I'll be praying for you.
--Dana
Post a Comment
<< Home