Posted by Justin Mulwee in Features, Reforming the Church | 36 Comments
Why You’re Bored in Church, Part 1: Sermons
We all know it, but not enough Christians are saying it: sermons are usually boring, and don’t really teach anything. Sermons should be inspiring, intellectually challenging and morally convicting. But they’re usually not.
Above: the resultant boredom after a typical (lame) sermon.
Go to your favorite protestant church and watch for these sermon points.
- Icebreaker gimmick: the pastor tells a joke, pulls out some rediculous prop, gets the audience to do the wave, whatever.
- Pointless anecdote: some mildly interesting story for entertainment value.
- Ultra-serious moment: wherin the pointless anecdote is obtusely related to an actual point.
- Altar call: the moment where everyone’s lives are changed forever in a burst of emotion.
The main problem with these predictable checkpoints is they’re used in place of actual content. Alongside this 4-step outline you will probably find one or more of the following, if you pay attention:
Use of scripture out of context, resulting in mangled meaning. “Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!” – Psalm 137:9
Unfounded and questionable generalizations about God. “God always wants you to follow your heart.” Where is that again? Disney 3:16?
Bizarre, unorthodox, unresearched interpretation of scripture. Adam ate eve’s apple, and became sinful. Therefore, do not listen to women or eat apples.
Non-use of the bible altogether.Giving generic, wishy-washy life-coach advice instead? We can find pointless inspirational fluff anywhere. The church should offer something else. I’m looking at you, Joel Osteen.
- If you haven’t yet settled on a church, find a better one.
- Read your bible for yourself. Carefully. In context. With commentaries, if you’re ambitious.
- Read http://blackbirdpress.org/category/oldhat
Why are you posting a link to Joel Osteen’s book on Amazon?! Do you WANT people to buy it???
Great post. But where’s the author tag? And is that Corey Beebe in the photo?
I think I made some similar points before about the dull, pointless, non-biblical, religion-unspecific anecdotes. Some of these circuit speakers would actually have to be raised to the intellectual level of a human being before they could even be accused of heresy. As it is now, they merely trivialize Christianity by peddling their watered-down, common-sense wisdom in its name.
Today I was sitting in a membership meeting at the real estate association I work for, listening to the motivational speaker and wondering whether, if he said “Jesus” a few times and took a couple of verses out of context, he could pass for a chapel speaker.
Never mind about the author tag. I see it now. (Perhaps you could make it more prominent?)
Yay, feedback. No, it’s not Corey Beebe. Though it does look like her; I thought the same thing. And if someone buys Joel Osteen’s book BECAUSE I made fun of it, then there’s no hope for the world.
I think that these points are more relevant to SAU chapels that to churches in general (I assume that this applies to other “chapel” settings as well, but I haven’t been in that many). I think in a chapel-style setting, a sermon like this is more common as a person only gets ~30 minutes to make all the points that they want. At a real church, a pastor at least has the option of doing a series.
Note: I am not trying to excuse any of the faults (and there are many) of sermons. I just think that this is too much of a simplification. I feel that sermons are one of the more important part of church and I think there is still hope for them (and have heard quite a number that are very meaningful). Therefore, I think “well the homily is only 5 minutes, so it does matter if it’s terrible” is a really bad reason to become Catholic, Orthodox, etc..
You lost me at “favorite protestant church”…
I personally like most of the sermons at my church.
I have heard pastors use that roadmap, though.
While there are a few exceptions, by and large I think Justin’s portrait of sermons is fairly accurate.
I would expand Matt’s comment that, at least in all Magisterial Reformation or Wesleyan/Methodist protestant ecclesiastical communities, the sermon is the high point and summit of the entire service. While this itself constitutes a minor travesty, it does make a statement about the state of American protestantism when what should be the heart and summit of worship is as questionable as it is.
One interesting factor that deserves further exploration in the relative lameness of sermons is the general demands placed on protestant clergy. Especially in small churches, they essentially function as CEO of a minor enterprise, on-call councilor to 100-300 odd people, and are expected to maintain a high standard of family life, plus any denominational and communal/political duties. That’s all on top of preaching duties. A rethinking of the role of the cleric – perhaps one less obviously patterned on the priests in more liturgical traditions, and consequently more in line with the theology of the reformers – would be a place for those interested in the integrity of the sermon to start.
@ Matt: As a brief aside, I have actually heard some aspects of this pattern used in Catholic homilies. But I will agree with you that this post may be a bit oversimplified.
On the other hand, I do appreciate this post causing the reader to consider the question: is the modern American sermon truly bringing glory to God?
I don’t smart enough to make much of a comment other than to claim credit for the argument Matt dislikes in his noted section. Yes! Notoriety! On that note, it is true that bringing up particular people such as Joel Olsteen can lead to drawing interest to him, either out of rebellion against your point or otherwise, so I would not make that too consistent a habit. Maybe picking on different people so as not to bring up the same people too often would be wisest…let me put it this way: if you go on about the same people too much, a reader would think “This blogger just has a grudge against Joel Olsteen.” and if said reader thinks that then you lose credibility with them consciously or unconsciously.
Another thing I will point out is that indeed it does matter what the point of church is perceived to be. Catholics and Orthodox don’t consider the sermon to be the high point, or even that it is of any special value per say, so when we say it is bearable because “it is only a few minutes”, we are looking forward to what we really value, which of course is the Eucharist. At a Protestant church, the only thing to look forward to by the time you are midway through the sermon is leaving afterward.
From my experience, and I am not sure what other reliable measure there is for comparing Protestant churches, I think that church sermons tend to be about as good or bad as chapel sermons, only more consistently so, because the speaker is consistent. Here meaning that if your church has an above-average preacher, then you will be better than the average-speaker chapel crowd. If your preacher is bad…heaven help you. Because I don’t think the average preacher is beyond these tactics, I think this article is fitting. Also, I am not sure that giving most of the preachers I come by more time is the way to solve the fact that the sermons tend to be unimpressive.
I find Dan’s closing observation fascinating, but I am the wrong person to ask if you want an answer outside of the liturgical traditions. If I were going to venture an attempt at answering the “what is wrong with the sermon?” problem, I would say simply that too much is put on them. Modern churches are intellectualized because it is easier to create a God to understand and then speak about than it is to try to cope with the mystery of God. The mind is not the greatest means of communion. More silence, less talking. That has always been my position, I suppose, and I haven’t found cause for changing it.
Finally, I might suggest, to carry Lauren’s point a bit further, that a good conclusion to this might be to suggest that people should consider what the highest point of their church’s services seem to be: sermon, worship, etc., so that before asking about the quality of particular parts, we ask if the point of the church service is in the right place.
Oops. I accidentally left the longest comment after calling it short by way of not thinking with a spelling error in the same sentence. Wonderbar.
Not to be anti, but I’ve seen a pastor who comes up with meaningful sermons (well, meaningful to me anyway) fairly often. Actually, every one I’ve ever heard has been thought provoking. I haven’t heard them all sure, but from my person experience, I have to question the pervasiveness of this problem.
That said, part of the problem might be congregations. If the people who go to church don’t read the bible, then the pastor has to keep it basic to be relevant.
I know one professor who’s suggested testing congregations every year to see how much they know. Granted, he’s a teacher, but it’d be interesting to see in practice. (Although it might hurt someone’s feelings…)
That’s interesting Mark.
@ David I think a big part of it is congregations. My pastor is new at our church and has a lot less preparation to do because our congregation isn’t well educated in the way of Scripture. Sermons are very basic right now, however she’s working to get people reading their Bibles (with success!) so they can go to another level.
Hey, wait a second Mark. A note of clarity if I may. The sermons in an Orthodox Church is not, as you say, of little or no special value (though it may be for Roman Catholics). And please, forgive me if I have misinterpreted your statement. The sermon is the high point of the first portion of the Liturgy, that is, the Liturgy of the Word, also called the Liturgy of the catechumens. The first half to the Liturgy is focused on teaching, and this includes the hymns alongside the sermon as a teaching tool. Of course, the Eucharist is the high point of the entire Liturgy, that is an obvious fact. I’ve heard sermons in Russian, ROCOR, Greek and American Orthodox churches these last two years and it certainly does have a special value and the length of time is often far greater than 5 or 10 minutes. The sermon (and hymnography) is of great value in the teaching of catechumens and the rest of the laity. Some hymns are so packed with theological material (such as those on the Sunday of Triumph of Orthodoxy, the first Sunday in Lent) that trying to sort it all out and probe their depths would give any scholar a headache.
John
I tend to surrond myself with people who preach the word on Sunday so other than chapel I have seen a smaller portion of these surface level thematic sermons. However I generally agree with what you have to say, however at the end with your suggestions I might add that as many of the commentators have said, we need to know the purpose of the service. My oppinion is that a purpose of gather is to bring God glory and honor, fellowship and meet needs (acts2) and encorage and admonish one another towards Christ. With that said, if a persons pastor is bringing lame sermons there may be other functions in the church to glean from. Then as a participant in that local body, they should be able to confront the pastor on the weakness of content, if I were a pastor and heard that I would be hurt and offended but I would also recognize the need and try to humbly accept my flaw and either work on it or question if I really am whee I sm supposed to be.
This is brilliant! I can totally relate to all of the above.
@ John
John, while it is true that the homily (sermon) is at the high point of the Liturgy of the Word, it is still nothing more than a marginal teaching tool in preparation for the Liturgy of the Eucharist. While as a general rule Orthodox services tend to be longer than Catholic services, and therefore more time is devoted to the homily (sermon), the main point is not that homilies are per se bad, only that when they are bad, they do not become as bad as bad sermons.
As to John (because I am not savvy enough to have an “in response to” box), I think the question is regarding the vague adjective “special” in the phrase “special importance”. Of course the whole liturgy is important, that is why it is the liturgy. However, I think (and this is perhaps the more specific meaning of “special”), that in the same way that the Orthodox and Catholics would both say the Eucharist is the climax of the liturgy, the sermon is in many ways the climax of a Protestant service.
To put it another way, the Liturgy of the Word of both the Orthodox and the Catholics is based on the synagogue services of the Jews, and the Liturgy of the Eucharist was added by the Christians for obvious reasons. It is true that the sermon (or homily) was and is the climax of the Liturgy of the Word, but the image I like most for the time before Christ is the darkness of the church before we light candles at Easter. The Liturgy of the Word reflects the service of that time, and so, while I think the sermon all very nice, it is the light in a dark time, the light in the darkness of human understanding, and it is utterly out-shined by the light of a bright place, Christ Himself, the Eucharist. I am tempted to put Matthew 9:15 in here and say that the sermon is of special consequence in the times when Eucharist cannot be celebrated, such as in private devotion. All this to say that I personally would not say that the sermon is of “special importance” compared to the Eucharist, though I share your respect of it.
Sorry if that got dramatic, I realised that this idea might make a good piece in itself and just began to put ideas down.
@Mark: If Jesus spent his time on earth repeatedly having the Last Supper with his disciples, rather than teaching them his sermons that they might pass on his teachings and the knowledge of Himself, I might be convinced by your argument. As it is, a knowledge of the content of the Christian religion must be passed on if it is to continue, and that’s not going to happen at Eucharist. So the sermon must take precedence.
@ Travis
You have, inadvertently, pointed why the sermon can never take precedence over the Eucharist.
The sermon teaches you about the Christian religion. The Eucharist is the heart of the Christian religion. The sermon teaches you how to worship; the Eucharist is the crowning summit of worship. The sermon points you to God, the Eucharist unites you with God.
Now, this is not to bash the concept of sermon. I am all in favor of education. However, education only goes so far – at some point, you must step beyond learning about things to actually participate in them.
This has nothing to do with the current thread of comments, but I think it’s important to point out that I just noticed an add for Joel Osteen’s website on the side of this article and I laughed.
I concur with Dan’s most recent comment. While I see Communion as a symbolic act rather than a sacrament (a discussion for another day), it is a way to actively identify with Christ’s sacrifice. In that sense it is indeed the heart of Christianity. Or at least, it’s one way for us to get at the heart of it. If all you do is learn, you can fool yourself into thinking you are becoming closer to Christ when you are not. Frankly, I wish communion was done more often, and I wish less people complained about exactly how it was conducted.
@Justin, Dan: Eucharist cannot be the height of anything unless its partakers know what it is that they are doing. Thus, sermon again. Otherwise, all they are doing is eating and drinking (worse, because unworthily).
Well, yes. You have to know something about Christianity before you can participate properly in it. The point is, once you have some knowing, you should get on with the participating. And the participating is, ultimately, more important than the knowing.
@ Travis
I take issue with your comment that ‘the Eucharist cannot be the height of anything unless its partakers know what it is they are doing.’
To assume such is to assume that things depend on ourselves entirely, rather than the nature of the ceremony or the God behind. In keeping with the Augustinian principle of Ex Opera Operandi, I would argue that the very act of Eucharist has self-contained meaning. Knowledge only heightens the conscious appreciation of the participant; ignorance cannot deny the power inherent to the Lord’s Table.
Furthermore, by your own argument, a sermon is nothing more than an act of self-perpetuation. Even if this were true – and as the oldest and largest branch of Christianity has no sermons, I would question its veracity – it would not prove your point. Self-perpetuation is inherently limited by its type, and a sermon can no more be the crowning glory of the Church than sex can be the highest thing in human existence.
@Justin: Participation presupposes knowledge. The act of knowing is (more often than not) an act of participation. To participate is, in some sense, to know. Whether that knowledge comes by teaching from a pastor or some mysterious union with the Spirit I don’t care to discuss. It all amounts to the same thing.
@Dan:
1 Cor. 11 (emphasis mine)
23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.
To take His body and blood in ignorance of its meaning, to do so without examining oneself, is to do so unworthily. We must take communion “in remembrance of Him.” But how can we do that if we don’t know who He is?
Who is Jesus? Is He the Messiah? What does that mean? What prophecies foretell His coming, and what do they tell us about Him? Is He created or uncreated, Maker or made? What is His teaching, and the proper mode of worshiping Him? What is His relation to the Father and to the Spirit? What historical acts can we attribute to Him? And what do they signify? What are we to consider his canonical teachings? Did he speak to the founders of the other major religions? Did he speak at all? How are we to consider Him in relation to other religious leaders? etc. etc.
Again, how shall we eat and drink in a worthy manner, since this presupposes we do so “in remembrance of him,” if we do not know who He is? Doesn’t this qualify under the “We do not think faith is an excuse for ignorance” clause of our creed?
@ Travis
Oh I am not disputing the value of religious education in the slightest – it seems a bit of a strawman tactic to simply present the case for an educated laity.
The argument I have made is one of comparative value. While religious education is valuable, it is a means to the end of worship, and the Eucharist is the crowning summit of faith and worship. As Plato will remind us, a means cannot be greater than the end to which it leads. Consequently worship – and, by extension, the Eucharist – takes precedence over religious education (note here how sermon has morphed into religious education – I would contend that there is a strong difference, and am simply allowing the use of a placeholder because I don’t think it effects the argument).
I was reading “In keeping with the Augustinian principle of how incredibly smart I am…” (Or something like that, words from dead languages always throw off my concentration)
And suddenly someone burst into the room, throwing the door open and spilling everyone’s papers to the floor.
He said, “Hey guys, you’ll never believe it, but I just heard there are still people starving to death while we’re in sitting here talking!”
No doubt this was very rude, but I wonder if he’s right?
@ David
John 4:7When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, “Will you give me a drink?” …
9The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.[a])
10Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”
11″Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?”
13Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
___
Matthew 4:4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’[a]“
@ David
I used the latin term in debating Travis because I know he understands a) the language and b) the theological treatise I am referencing with it
@ Travis – Are you using these verses to minimize the importance of caring for the physically needy? Remember, sometimes Jesus took care of the physical needs of others, like when He fed the five thousand.
I think Travis’s point is that using the needy as a bludgeon against people who are doing things other than helping the needy is not an illegitimate use of the concept of charity.
Agreed. Minus the double-negative.
@ Daniel – Good. That I will agree with.
Yeah, I’m also tired of the same cookie cutter sermon I’ve been hearing for the past 3 months. The title is different, the story is a bit different (if you’re lucky), but it all seems the same. That’s because it doesn’t matter how many times or ways you say nothing, it’s still nothing!
That aside, (and I know, its quite a bit to place aside) I would caution us against placing so much emphasis on what we find challenging or spiritually igniting in a given sermon. I understand the frustration of not feeling challenged or intellecutally stimulated over the course of 45 minutes of what seems like fluff and rambling. Trust me, I’ve sat through it too. But I think one thing that happens when we place so much emphasis on what we found unchallenging, we forget something more important.
The church is a place to serve, and regardless of what the Pastor says in his sermon, there is room in every church and ministry to serve and be Christ to people. Granted that opportunity exists everywhere else in the world, and at church, at the very least we should be able to count on a challenging sermon right? Yeah, in many ways I’d like to think so to. But I get nervous when too much weight is placed on what “I” get out of a given church service. I just can’t ever imagine Jesus being okay with that. After all, He is the one that we should find infinitely challenging and spiritually inspiring. And regardless of what kind of nonsense that blessed servant of his is slobbering from the pulpit, Christ is all the content, challenge, and intellectual and spiritual stimulation we could ever ask for.
By the way, I’m thrilled that I found this site. Stumbled upon it for the first time tonight. Interesting stuff. Great writing. I think I’d like to have coffee or share a cheese pita with Justin Mulwee sometime because I have the feeling we’d like each other.
Yeah, I think you are right. This was my first post and my perspective has matured a little since then. My complaints are still true, but being a servant is something that needs more emphasis. Actually, a good friend called me out on that last week, and she was right, too. If we go to church asking “how can I honor God,” instead of “what can I get at this place?” then the whole thing becomes less frustrating. That’s one thing I do appreciate about Catholic mass, though I’m not Catholic: emphasis is on the Eucharist (communion) and thus on honoring and identifying with Christ.
But in many church services, it’s hard to even find “room” to serve others. Everyone comes together and sings a few songs, listens to a sermon and then leaves immediately, with 5 minutes of meet and greet time in between. Serving those in the church still usually has to happen outside of the church setting.
Lord Byron, glad you’re here. I’m up for some coffee. But we might not even live in the same state. Where are you?