• Mashup Religion
  • Jonymac Studio
  • The West End Rhythm Kings

Otherwise Thinking

~ a blog by John McClure

Otherwise Thinking

Category Archives: Connecting the Dots

My Sermon Organization Method: Sermon Sequencing and the “Multi-Track Sermon”

01 Wednesday Jul 2020

Posted by John McClure in Connecting the Dots, improvisation

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

Four Codes, Four Codes of Preaching, John McClure, Mashup Religion, Multi-track sermon, multitrack, sermon, sermon organization, sermon preparation

In my book The Four Codes of Preaching: Rhetorical Strategies I identify the sermon as a unique composition (oral, written, etc.) that includes four “codes” or expected elements of communication. These are:

(1) a “scriptural code” (people expect to hear some interaction with the world expressed in the Bible)

(2) a “semantic code” (people expect to hear a preacher organize and generate messages or “meaning”)

(3) a “theosymbolic code” (people expect to hear the preacher place them within a theological narrative or universe)

(4) a “cultural code” (people expect to hear the preacher connect with their experience and culture).

I adopt the language of “sequencing” a sermon from the world of music-making and music recording where digital audio workstations (DAWs) and midi “sequencers” rule the day.

In chapter three of my book Mashup Religion: Pop Music and Theological Invention, I boil down much of what is said in The Four Codes of Preaching. In that chapter I speak about “the multi-track sermon,” and encourage preachers to think of the four codes of preaching as if they were tracks of audio recorded into a digital sequencer (DAW). In other words, sermons might be said to have four “tracks” (the codes) that are sequenced together to create a sermon. This is actually a very simple analogy and can be very helpful for preachers who are wanting to get a handle on sermon organization better.

I created a couple of short YouTube videos to demonstrate how this works, and revised these videos recently. If you are interested, here are links to both of these short videos. Enjoy!

Long-Range Preaching

25 Thursday Apr 2013

Posted by John McClure in Connecting the Dots, Views from the Street

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

communication, communication model, communication theory, Four Codes of Preaching, homiletic method, homiletic theory, homiletics, long-range planning, plan, preaching, sermon, sermon preparation, strategic communication, theology and preaching, transmission

Many of us view preaching as a short-term (tactical) practice of transmitting information. Communication theorists, however, have drawn attention to the inadequacies of the sender-message-receiver or “transmission” model of communication, inherited largely from classical rhetoric. There are a whole host of other elements at work in any communication situation: conventions of listening, worldviews, local history, felt needs, language repertoire, physical setting, and so on. J. Randall Nichols calls this the larger “communicative field” for preaching.

Communicative Field 1

The “long range preacher” develops a preaching plan that contains certain goals for changes within this “communicative field” in the future. As a long range preacher, I see preaching as part of a process that takes time to complete, a process designed intentionally to promote over time certain themes, messages, doctrines, approaches to scripture, attitudes, theological worldviews, core values, or understandings of the relationship between Christ and culture. Preaching is a shared journey, and I am in it for the long haul.

theo

This journey, of course, involves the entire communication life of the church and is most effective when the goals for my preaching are integrated with similar goals in religious education, congregational meetings, publicity (newsletters, website) and so on. In this way, preaching is seen as a part of what Seward Hiltner once called the larger “communicating perspective” on ministry.

In order to develop a long-range vision, I might want to engage in congregational study or careful critical reflection and try to discern theological gaps, inconsistencies, issues, or aspirations within the congregation. After such study or reflection, I might establish long-term goals for the communication life of the church, perhaps in consultation with my church board or leaders in the congregation.

For instance, my congregation might be ready for diversity of membership, increased knowledge of biblical history, a more socially-conscious approach to theology, a firmer knowledge its heritage, and more openness to the certain cultural and social changes. From this list, I can develop a list of concepts, messages, values, attitudes, and forms of communication that will, over time, contribute to bringing about these changes in the congregation.

It is probably too bold to say that sermons actually construct the way that a listener is situated within a communicative field. Listeners are participants in multiple subcultures and negotiate messages from the pulpit at the intersection of many overlapping discourses.

Ritual Communication

Over the long term, however, preaching can provide new categories of thought and encourage new forms of speaking and practice. Preached messages push, pull, nudge, encourage, and cajole listeners. If these messages are consistent and strategic, they can, over time, shift the position that listeners occupy within this complex communicative field, opening up new possibilities for thought and action.

Several approaches to preaching have attempted to take into account the ways preaching has the potential to re-shape the signs, symbols, theological worldviews, and conventions of listening within congregations over time. (see for instance, McClure, The Four Codes of Preaching: Rhetorical Strategies, Tisdale, Preaching as Local Theology and Folk Art, Nieman, Knowing the Context: Frames, Tools, and Signs for Preaching).

“It’s Not About You” – or is it? Self-disclosure and Preaching

02 Thursday Aug 2012

Posted by John McClure in Connecting the Dots

≈ 5 Comments

Whether we like it or not, people are watching and listening. And if current research on sermon listeners is correct, they are watching and listening for ways to relate meaningfully with their preacher. The “Listening to Listeners to Sermons Project,” a massive empirical study of sermon listeners resulting in four books and countless articles, discovered that sermon listeners hear more and hear better when they believe they can relate to their preacher in meaningful ways. Overall, the study seems to indicate a shift in the nature of the authority of the pulpit in America away from forms of authority such as office, expertise, charisma, and expository genius to a relational form of authority, a trend anticipated years ago by Jackson Carroll in his book As One With Authority. In other words, sermons today are granted authority (authorship in listener’s lives) when listeners feel that they can relate and connect with the preacher.

Historians of preaching sometimes trace a similar paradigm shift toward an accent on the preacher-listener relationship in homiletic theory to Phillips Brooks’ definition of preaching in the late nineteenth century in his Lectures on Preaching:

What, then, is preaching, of which we are to speak?” It is not hard to find a definition. Preaching is the communication of truth by man to men (sic). It has in it two essential elements, truth and personality. Neither of these can it spare and still be preaching.

Of course, Brooks had a very different understanding of the word “personality” than we do. The pulpit personality he felt was so important was a form of Christian character shaped profoundly by Christian faith and doctrine. Brooks knew nothing of the winsome personality deemed essential for successful interpersonal communication in the late modern period.

Others pin the homiletical shift toward the preacher-listener relationship on Harry Emerson Fosdick, with his ideas about preaching as “personal counseling on a group scale.” One need only listen to Fosdick’s sermons, however, to discover that establishing relationships with listeners was not one of his primary concerns, unless one means relating to a benevolent dictator.

It was inductive homiletics, under the leadership of Fred Craddock and others, that really brought this interest in the preacher-listener relationship to fruition as a homiletical method. Craddock invited preachers to create sermons as shared journeys toward meanings that were rooted in common forms of experience. His ideas ran directly parallel to the great rhetorician Kenneth Burke, who appealed for “identification” or “consubstantiality” with one’s listeners as the key to successful communication in the modern context.

Building on this homiletic of identification, it appears that many preachers today have decided to travel a good deal further than Craddock and Burke, going out of their way to appear down to earth, authentic, and “one of us” with listeners, often including lengthy stories about themselves, revealing all kinds of intimate details along the way.

Teachers of preaching in the modern context have been deeply divided on this issue. On one extreme, John R. Claypool has appealed for the confessional use of the preacher’s life story, especially inasmuch as the preacher has experienced suffering. He argues that such stories encourage others to bring the fullness of their experience into the preaching moment. On the other extreme, David Buttrick discouraged any self-disclosure in preaching on the grounds that personal illustrations always “split consciousness.” The listener’s consciousness will split and focus on the person of the preacher instead of the gospel message.

In response to Buttrick, Tom Long points out that listeners can usually tell when the preacher intends to split consciousness and focus on the preacher. This observation is borne out by the Listening to Listeners Project, in which interviewed listeners demonstrated remarkable skills for discerning when preachers are intentionally talking about themselves, and when, in fact they are using their own lives to help listeners better understand the gospel.

Years ago, Myron Chartier anticipated this interest in self-disclosure in the pulpit. According to Chartier, modest forms of self-disclosure can signify a healthy personality in the pulpit and promote vital forms of solidarity and relationship between the preacher and congregation. Chartier outlined several guidelines for appropriate self-disclosure.

  • First, according to Chartier preachers should be consistent, practicing self-disclosure in all areas of life and ministry. If the pulpit is the only place where people are permitted to see into the preacher’s life, self-disclosure will be perceived as manipulative.
  • Second, Chartier argued that self-disclosure should always be in service to the sermon’s message. Even when the primary goal is to promote authentic relationship, the illustration should be message-focused. Preachers should never simply tell stories about themselves in the pulpit.
  • Third, Chartier encouraged self-disclosure that is other-centered, rather than self-centered. In other words, sharing information about oneself should be genuinely designed to encourage the congregation’s self-exploration, instead of the preacher’s personal catharsis. Preachers can accomplish this by immediately telescoping outward from their own experiences to similar experiences of others.
  • Fourth, preachers should anticipate the impact of self-disclosure. Premature self-disclosure, too much depth, and too much confession of personal details or vices, can amount to homiletic voyeurism. According to Chartier, preachers should “assess the timing, depth, and emotional tone” of self-disclosure so that listeners will not be overwhelmed or shocked by what is said.
  • Fifth, Chartier encourages a “balanced self-picture,” incorporating both strengths and weaknesses, past and present. This will discourage either a totally negative view of human experience, or an idealization of the preacher’s experience as a one like us in every way, but without sin.
  • Finally, Chartier warns self-disclosing preachers that they should expect self-revealing responses from listeners. Sharing oneself encourages others to do the same. Preachers should also be ready for listeners to assume counseling, parental, or even antagonistic roles in relation to what has been disclosed. Many people enjoy meddling in the lives of others and will use this as a chance to care-take or play games with the preacher.

When it comes to self-disclosure, the majority of teachers of preaching occupy a middle ground, encouraging moderation. J. Randall Nichols draws what is perhaps the most helpful distinction for us to bear in mind: the distinction between self-display and self-disclosure. It is very different to talk about one’s self and one’s feelings than to tell a story or provide an image in which the preacher is primarily an observer, narrator, or reporter. According to Nichols, when using self-disclosure the general rule is for the preacher to stay behind the lens of the camera or in the peripheral vision as much as possible. The closer the preacher moves to the camera lens, the more self-disclosure is preacher-focused. In short, self-disclosure can be done modestly, seeing the gospel through the lens of the preacher’s life, rather than focusing on the preacher’s life itself.

At the end of the day, preaching does necessarily come through us as “clay pots.” Whether we like it or not, preaching is an embodied event – and our lives are disclosed through our bodies as much as our words – through gestures, facial expressions, clothing choices, tone of voice, etc. And our choices of messages to preach, illustrations, biblical references, etc. betray our priorities, interests, and passions – beyond and before we actively and intentionally “self-disclose” in the pulpit. Whether we like it or not, therefore, it is “about us” – which raises all the more intensely the question of how we can also be certain that it is not only and primarily about us, but ultimately about the God we worship in and through Jesus Christ.

For more on this issue, and for further reading, see my book Preaching Words: 144 Key Terms in Homiletics.

Part IV, Crafting Liturgical Prayer, Types of Public Prayer: Intercession

05 Thursday Jan 2012

Posted by John McClure in Connecting the Dots, Views from the Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

bidding prayer, crafting liturgical prayer, intercession, intercessory prayer, pastoral prayer, prayers of the people, the collect, types of prayer, worship prayers, writing prayers

The intercessor is one who “stands between” or “goes between” an individual, or community and God.  Intercession is prayer “on behalf of” another and addresses itself to concerns, issues, problems, conflicts, or suffering that require God’s special attention. Intercession is the priestly prayer of the body of Christ and in intercession it is the congregation, the people of God who are intercessors – not the priest, minister, or leader. For this reason it is often called the “prayers of the people.”

Open Prayers of the People – Intercession is sometimes offered in a less formal way, with the pastor or priest asking openly for prayer concerns, attempting to gather them into a prayer on the spot. This practice is often a wonderful experience of community prayer. Often, however, it ceases to be prayer, and becomes “announcement time,” or a time when the congregation is not “at prayer” but simply sharing concerns, as they might in a small devotional group. It is important for the leader to use a form that will encourage the congregation to remain in a state of prayer. One of the best forms to accomplish this is:

1. invite the congregation into prayer, asking for prayers.

2. while the congregation remains in prayer, move among the congregation (with a hand held microphone if possible) and stand at a particular pew or row of chairs (or have someone else do this) and receive both the person’s name and brief prayer of intercession.

3. before moving on, repeat in a short sentence form a bidding prayer,  (“Let us pray for”…) followed by a category of prayer (“healing and comfort”) followed by the specific object of the congregation’s intercession (” for Jim Smith’s mother, Mary), followed by an invitation for response in an attitude of prayer (“Lord in Your mercy”)

full example: Let us pray for healing and comfort, for Jim Smith’s mother Susan. Lord in your Mercy:

4. followed by a congregational response: “Hear our Prayer.”

5. Then move to the next person with a petition.

This process can then be concluded with a collect, or with one of the forms of prayer below. The entire process is done in an attitude of prayer. 1) We hear the prayer, 2) we rephrase the prayer, 3) we ask for the congregation’s prayer, 4) they respond with prayer.

Forms

When a form of open prayer is not used, there are many other forms for intercessory prayer. Since intercession is “on behalf of,” it will include petitions. Since it is corporate, it is important that these petitions be included in a form that is participatory as possible. Some possible forms of intercession include:

A. Bidding Prayer Form

  • Invocation and Introductory sentence focusing on the nature of the prayer – for example: “Almighty God, in Jesus Christ you taught us to pray for the many needs of others.
  • Bidding Prayer – “Let us pray for the world.”
  • Collect – Remember, a collect is a single sentence prayer, expressing a single petition or theme.  It is rendered in a five-fold patter which includes invocation, relative clause, petition, statement of purpose, conclusion:

“Creator God, (invocation) you made all things in your wisdom, and in your love you save us. (relative clause)  We pray for all creation.  Order unruly powers, deal with injustice, feed and satisfy those who thirst for justice, (petitions) so that your children may freely enjoy the earth you have made, and cheerfully sing your praises; (statement of purpose) through Jesus Christ our Lord.”  (conclusion)

  • Response – “Amen”: or “Hear our Prayer, O God.”

Then you return to the next bidding prayer.  The prayer ends with a concluding collect

B. Litany Form – 

  • Invocation and Relative Clause – Almighty God, (invocation) who answers the prayers of the faithful and hears the cries of the distressed, (relative clause)
  • Series of petitions that end with identical words or other recognizable cues.

L: For peace in the world

for the welfare of the church of God and for the unity of all peoples,

let us pray to the Lord

P: Lord, have mercy

  • Concluding collect

C. Congregational Bidding Prayer Form

This form of prayer is divided into categories.

  • Enumerative Bidding Prayer – Member of congregation or deacon lists a series of concerns representing one category such as the church:

“We ask your prayers for God’s people throughout the world:

for church leaders in Iraq, China, Europe and throughout the world, and for this gathering.”

  • Bidding Prayer – Leader summarizes with a  call to prayer indicating the broad category of prayer to be followed:

“let us pray for the church”

  • Silent Prayer A moment of silent prayer follows.
  • Concluding collect (repeat pattern)

D. Litany Form including silent prayer

  • Bidding Prayer – Leader suggests category for prayer:

“Let us pray for the church and for the world.”

  • Petition – a brief prayer:

“Grant almighty God, that all who confess our name may be united in your truth, live together in your love, and reveal your glory in the world.

  • Silence
  • Responsive Cue – “Lord, in your mercy”
  • Congregational response – “Hear our prayer”
  • (repeat pattern)
  • Concluding Collect – Ends with a concluding collect

E. Pastoral prayer with concluding Amen 

  • Bidding Prayer – Having gathered together the concerns to be prayed for, the minister offers calls the congregation to prayer indicating the category to be addressed in prayer:

“Let us pray for those who are ill.”

  • Petitions – which lists and addresses the concerns gathered and others.
  • Response – Congregation responds with “Amen” after each section.
  • Concluding Collect – Ends with concluding collect.

F. Pastoral Prayer with one concluding Amen

  •  Pastor offers a number of petitions in connected collects.
  •  People respond with a concluding “Amen.”

The Place Where God is Revealed!

03 Saturday Sep 2011

Posted by John McClure in Connecting the Dots

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Bible and Preaching, Biblical Hermeneutics, catechism, Christology, formation, historical revelation, preaching, propositional revelation, Revelation, symbolic revelation

Over time, most of us as preachers have a typical “place” where we find most sermons. (See the previous two blogs for common options) If you were to look carefully at the past year of sermons you’ve preached, you could identify the usual place you travel to to get your sermon messages. If you go to a particular place over and over again, you are tacitly telling your listeners that this is the place where God “speaks” or reveals God’s self – not only in preaching, but in our lives.

If you go to Place One, finding the bulk of your sermons in the obvious words and sentences on the page of the Bible (in English translation) you are, in essence, telling your congregation over time that God reveals God’s “Word” through biblical propositions. This is sometimes called a propositional view of revelation. If you find your sermons mostly “behind the text” in the history to which the text witnesses (Place Two) you are telling your congregation over time that God is revealed in history. This is sometimes called a historical view of revelation, or revelation as history. If you find your sermons mostly “in front of the biblical text,” in the way the language works (Place Three) you are telling your listeners that God is revealed in symbolic forms. This is sometimes called a symbolic view of revelation. If the place where you find most sermons is a theologically charged moment rumbling beneath the text that makes a claim on our lives (Place Four), you are telling your congregation that God is revealed as a sovereign reality transcending history to which the text bears witness. This is sometimes called a theological or Christological view of revelation. If you tend to find your sermons at a place deep within your current historical and cultural context where fresh ideas and insights about God are sparked by the ways in which biblical symbols and contemporary events interact (Place Four), you are telling your congregation that God is revealed within your context. This is sometimes called a contextual view of revelation.

What is important to see is how the way in which you use the Bible (sometimes called your biblical hermeneutic) shapes an understanding of God’s revelation within your congregation over time. Of course, no one will call it this! Lay persons do not go around saying things such as: “Our congregation has a contextual view of revelation.” Or, “My way of interpreting scripture is grounded in a propositional view of revelation.” Regardless of this, congregations are being formed, or “catechized” over time, by the way you preach – in this case by the way you use scripture in relation to God’s revealed “Word.”

Now, if you were to see yourself as a conscious an intentional practical theologian, you might work backwards from the view of revelation you want to support and shape in your church toward your preaching. In other words, you might ask yourself: “What view of revelation is needed in my congregation?” Or, “What understanding of revelation would help this congregation grow as people of God? Then, once you have answered that question, you might decide on the best “place” in relation to the biblical text from which to preach in your community of faith.

At the end of the day, I would argue that all of these views of revelation have some truth in them. They are not mutually exclusive. Not all of them, however, will be helpful at a given time within the life of a congregation, and sometimes too much of a good thing breeds problems.

For instance, if your congregation has a long history of always going to Place One, and your listeners have, therefore, learned a propositional view of revelation, they will encounter serious limitations when it comes to interpreting difficult issues in our context that were not addressed head on in the biblical text – ordination of gays and lesbians, ordination of women, sexual and domestic violence, etc. A simple dynamic equivalence approach to the words on the page of the Bible (in translation) will not be helpful for understanding women’s role in first century Christianity, or biblical words like “pederast”  that are commonly (and wrongly) confused as being similar to homosexuality in today’s world. In such a congregation, it might be helpful to shift the focus and preach more often from Place Two. This will begin to teach a more historical view of revelation, lessening the grip of what “seems obvious” on the surface of the biblical text. You might also consider the ways in which a contextual view of revelation (Place Five) could be helpful.

On the other hand, for a church that has, for a long time, imbibed a historical view of revelation (Place Two), the text may seem far removed for ordinary life today. For years sermon listeners have been told (tacitly) that they need a special interpreter, with knowledge of the ancient historical context in order to get to the place where God is revealed. This may have taken the Bible away from laity in the congregation, giving them the feeling that there is nothing in scripture for them – unless, of course, you tell them where and what it is. In this situation, preaching sermons from Places One, Three, or Four might be helpful as a way of returning the Bible, and access to God’s revelation, to ordinary folk.

It is possible, therefore, to think of any number of practical theological reasons to change your usual homiletical practice, choosing the best place to find each Sunday’s sermon in your congregation.

For more on this see “Word of God” and “hermeneutics” in Preaching Words: 144 Key Terms in Homiletics

← Older posts

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 192 other subscribers

John McClure

Recent Posts

  • My Sermon Organization Method: Sermon Sequencing and the “Multi-Track Sermon”
  • Transcript: Jeremiah Wright’s 9/11 Sermon
  • Getting Sermon Feedback
  • Sermon Logic in a Hyperlink Generation
  • Multimedia Preaching
  • Humor and Preaching
  • Extemporaneous Preaching and the Art of Improvisation
  • Long-Range Preaching
  • The Frustrated Preacher
  • This Sabbatical: Trying On A Few (Old) Shoes

Categories

  • Connecting the Dots
  • improvisation
  • Musings
  • Views from the Street
  • Who is this?

Archives

  • July 2020
  • September 2016
  • July 2014
  • December 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011

Buy Speaking Together and With God

Speaking Together and With God: Liturgy and Communicative Ethics

Buy Under the Oak Tree

Under the Oak Tree

Buy Mashup Religion

Buy Otherwise Preaching

Buy Preaching Words

Buy Claiming Theology in the Pulpit

Buy The Four Codes of Preaching

Buy The Roundtable Pulpit

Buy Listening to Listeners: Homiletical Case Studies

Download Telling the Truth: Preaching about Sexual and Domestic Violence (free)

Buy Best Advice for Preaching

Buy New Proclamation: Year C; Advent Through Holy Week

Blogroll

  • I P Prospective
  • Leslie Rodríguez Photography Blog
  • Los Rodriguez Life
  • Mashup Religion
  • Ministry Matters
  • Peer Pressure is Forever
  • Rock and Theology

Websites

  • Academy of Homiletics
  • Captured by Leslie: Leslie Rodriguez Photography
  • Homiletic: A Journal of Religious Speech Communication
  • Otherwise Thinking facebook page

RSS Mashup Religion

  • Sherry Cothran’s “Strange Woman”: Popular Music as Parahomiletic
  • New Blog about Artists in my Recording Studio
  • Para-homiletics and video games
  • From "Air Guitar" to "Air Preaching"
  • Wound 3: The Wounding of “Spatial” Desire
  • II. The Second of Five Wounded Desires: The Wounding of Ethical Desire
  • I. The First of Five Wounds/Five Desires: the Wounding of Our Desire for God
  • Caveats
  • Join me in a theological mashup
  • Musicians Might Learn a Thing or Two from Theologians

Otherwise Thinking

  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • Otherwise Thinking
    • Join 192 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Otherwise Thinking
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...