Oxford Professor of Divinity George Pattison writes in his 'Short Course in Christian Doctrine':
'...if we no longer live in a golden age of Christian preaching, few Christians will not at some point have experienced something of the sacramental dimension of preaching- that preaching, no less than the sacraments more narrowly understood, is a way of God becoming present in time to the believing community. Preaching too can be a way of making-present the 'conversation in heaven' to which God is constantly drawing us. Seeing preaching as sacramental in this way goes against the widespread assumption by both preachers and congregations that preaching is primarily a form of teaching, the aim of which is simply to offer an explanation or application of the biblical text, or to demonstrate the logical, historical or psychological grounds for accepting Christian belief. On such a view the purpose of pracehing will primarily be to persuade, convince or, simply to argue a point...' p. 108
His point: that preaching ought to be done as if we are encountering God himself in the preaching of the sermon - that is, that he is communicating to us in it. I wouldn't use the word sacrament as he does perhaps (in fact, I think the sacraments are types of WORD!), but you get his drift...
Wouldn't this change the whole tone of the sermon? And for the better?
10 comments:
Wouldn't this change the whole tone of the sermon?
Mightn't it turn the preacher into a pompous ass?
But then, God has spoken through an ass before...
oh come on Byron, speaking as one pompous A to another now...
More seriously (or less seriously, but at greater length and with less humour), if preaching is encountering the divine conversation, which bit are we encountering? The bit where God speaks, or where we respond? I assume you primarily mean the former, though probably in your ever so unassumingly sneaky way will want to claim both. Fine, have them. I guess if you want to go there, then take Barth with you. That is, if preaching is to be understood as the Word of God (and not just words about God, or in his defense, or from a general supporter of team God), then this can never be assumed from the outset. This is not something that can deduced from the fact that the one speaking is (a) up the front, (b) prayed before starting, (c) is getting paid to do it, (d) is wearing a dogcollar, or defiantly wearing a t-shirt and looking like an idiot, and (e) is male. Like all our discourse, God can take it in his sovereignty and from the mouths of babes can sound the voice of the ages. He can sanctify even as ass to preach his news of an unimpressive Word born in a manger.
My reaction is the same as Byron's... Is preaching that way at all possible in our time? I might like the thought of it as an ideal, but in practicality, it would require me to listen as if the preacher was God. Which I, frankly, am not prepared to do.
In other words, having this kind of preching as an ideal would either be to say that we actually don't believe in democracy at all, or to reduce preaching to reading the gospel out loud and adding as little to it as possible by tone of voice and so on.
In other words, I probably prefer thining about something else for a while and then concentrate on the euchrist.
Hmmm, I'm not sure that's what I was trying to say Patrik. Barth certainly seemed to have an incredibly high view of preaching.
And Oliver O'Donovan has a very interesting argument is actually based on the Pentecost experience that servants and young men and women might be filled with the Spirit and saying something from God. If even the words of mere slaves can speak be taken by the Spirit and sanctified to become the Word of God, how can we afford to not listen to everyone, even the least, lest they be a prophet?
My negative point was more about never assuming that a structural role or performing certain actions guarantees God's presence so that the preacher (or priest at the eucharist, for that matter) can call God down like a magician. God is at the call of no-one. But God makes himself available to all, even and especially the least.
Oops - missed the critical word in that last post.
"O'Donovan has a very interesting argument that democracy is actually based on the Pentecost experience."
Man, you have so little respect for your preachers in Finland!! ;-) We Australians ones are used to being treated like God... [By the way, I am not especially for democracy at all either!]
I think what Pattison was talking about with the divine conversation was the divine address of us rather than the intra-trinitarian talk... could be wrong. He in particular is leaning on Bultmann in this.
I suppose: if preaching is mere teaching then it will be done merely rationally or practically and probably not aesthetically...
Also, I remember having a talk about a preacher in church that people were griping about and saying "his preaching is God's gift to us". It kinda changed the way I thought of the whole sermon experience. Especially after hearing millions of them...
Patrick mentioned..."it would require me to listen as if the preacher was God"...which seems to me to be narrowly missing the point. If I do not listen as if God was speaking through the preacher then what is the point? Am I going to congregational meetings to meet people, or am I going to meet God? If the congregation is a Body of Christ, do I not expect the Head to be present? Do I not also expect God to minister through His Body? Then why should He not speak through it as well?
I think the issue has been missed in that its not the preachers words so much as the Holy Spirit inspiring him / her to unpack Gods word in a way that makes it easier to understand, and in a way that the HS brings about rebuke, conviction, encouragement, and builds up the congregation.
I see preaching as a 3 way sacrament.
1.) The preacher seeking Gods face.
2.) The preacher being inspired by God.
3. The preacher seeks to help the congregation meet with God, a vessel for the Holy Spirit.
I have found it interesting that sometimes people have said to me, "When you said this.." and I think I never said that at all, yet the other person encountered the living God for themselves.
I believe that if the preacher has truly done their sermon preperation on their knees, then the congregation knows that they are hearing Gods word preached with power.
If the preacher does not do so, then his words are only that of a lecture and mere opinion.
Interesting discussion. Would somebody first like to argue from Scripture that preaching can be described as sacramental? An exegetical argument would help me here. I am not yet convinced that 'sacramentum verbi', a very high view of preaching, is anything more than a concept derived from a reverse hermeneutic.
Post a Comment