“There is no one activity that a pastor does that can have a greater influence on the vitality of the congregation than preaching,” Adam Hamilton wrote in his book Leading Beyond the Walls: Developing Congregations with a Heart for the Unchurched. Hamilton is profiled in the July-August 2003 issue of Good News magazine.
“If a pastor is a poor preacher and does not devote sufficient time to preparing sermons, the entire congregation will suffer,” Hamilton says. “If a pastor prepares well-researched and thoughtful sermons with clear relevance and application for her or his congregants and delivers them with passion, conviction and clarity, the entire congregation will reap the benefits.”
The Good News article goes on: “This is never more true than when the church’s aim is to draw the unchurched or non-religious person into a committed relationship with Christ. Yet preaching carries a negative connotation and is often one of the deterrents to non-believers in their search for faith. At Church of the Resurrection (COR), where 70 percent of the 12,000 members report that they were previously unchurched or nominally religious, one of the top reasons often given as a reason for joining the congregation is the preaching. According to Hamilton, laypeople are looking for sermons that are interesting, relevant, biblical, understandable, offer clear application to the hearer’s daily life, address real-life issues and are preached with conviction, passion, love, integrity and humility.'”
I disagree with the premise f the article. While preaching is vital if a pastor can not touch individuals in the name of Jesus Christ he will have a very diminished ministry.
I have heard over 10,000 sermons and remember a few. I have been met one-on-one with a pastor and it is an indelible memory.
Don
Of course if you have 12,000 people in your congregation as Hamilton does, meeting one-on-one with the head pastor isn’t going to happen too often.
I do not attend a 12,000 member congregation. I wonder at the motives and practices of the majority of those that do attend such congregations.
[blockquote]According to Hamilton, laypeople are looking for sermons that are interesting, relevant, biblical, understandable, offer clear application to the hearer’s daily life, address real-life issues and are preached with conviction, passion, love, integrity and humility.[/blockquote] I still read my homilies and sometimes I sound like I’m dictating to a stone cutter. They are about 15 to 18 minutes which is a merciful length when you are also celebrating the service of the table. My stories and examples transfer best to those in my age group. Most of the folks I preach to don’t know who Lindsay Lohan is. I have a lifelong friend who is an atheist that I send my sermons to. He critiques me and is quite blunt. I hope God reaches him. Mark Driscoll seems a little fast for me. I like John Piper’s delivery and content.
Perhaps this is true in an environment that elevates preaching to the level of sacrament. But, there is a reason our church fathers couched the sermon between the scripture readings and the Creed. It is, plain and simple, the most dangerous moment in the liturgy. By placing the sermon between the inspired Word and the Creed the potential damage is minimized. Lest you preachers take offense, remember the men who did this were themselves preachers, and well aware through experience of their own shortcomings. A word to the wise.
The article sounds very sensible and consistent with apostolic teaching.
The funny thing about talking about sermons is that sermon jokes are part of the landscape, even for people who chose a church because of the preacher. It’s sort of the way mother-in-law were 40 years ago — even people who were genuinely fond of their mothers in law laughed at them and made them. People will joke about wishing the sermon could be skipped this morning because it’s so hot, say, even though the sermon is one of the main reasons they’re there.
#5. Tired of Hypocrisy,
You make an interesting point. The Scripture readings were also intended to inform the homily. When I think of giants of our faith, even St. Paul’s preaching led to a parishioner sleeping and falling to his death. Thankfully, St. Paul raised him from the dead. That was quite a sermon in and of itself!
The real danger of elevation of preaching to such a high level to me is that the church becomes dependent on it or on the preacher for its interest and membership, i.e. danger of making idol out of preacher. When the preacher and the dynamic preaching is no longer there for any reason, what happens to the congregation.
One of the reasons I love the fact of a church having a liturgy is that the sermon becomes simply a part of the service – if it is good, it’s an added benefit – the cream on the top. If the sermon is bad, the congregation simply picks up and goes on with worshiping the Lord. I think that is what may be forgotten in many of these evangelical mega churches, built around a mega preacher. We are in church to worship – not just to be stimulated by emotion or even by intellect, though either can also be a part – but not the main part – or our worship.
One of the things I appreciate about our current order, with the homily between the lessons and the creed, is that the creed sort of stands as a corrective: after the preacher says what he thinks, the people stand as one and say “(but) We believe…”
A friend once told me, “I’ve many times been dissapointed by the sermon, but never by Holy Communion.” Amen.