Part III, Crafting Liturgical Prayer: Types of Public Prayer – Confession

03 Tuesday Jan 2012

Posted by in Views from the Street

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

In the next few posts, I want to provide some thoughts regarding crafting three types of prayers for worship. In this post, I’ll discuss prayers of confession. In the next two posts, I’ll say a few things about prayers of intercession and prayers of thanksgiving. Although confession, intercession and thanksgiving do not exhaust the riches of public prayer in worship, they at least cover the primary types.

Prayers of Confession

Paradoxically, the confession of sin is one of the most positive prayers in worship. In essence, it says “I can’t do it without help!” This is at the heart of Christian faith, which relies on God’s mercy and grace in Jesus Christ, and not on our own merit. Week after week in worship we confess that we can’t save ourselves, and need a helper to reconcile us to God and to one another. At the same time we express that we have such a helper in Jesus Christ – who declares us forgiven and reconciled to God in and through his healing and saving work on our behalf.

Dynamics  

The basic movement of a prayer of confession follows a shift from contrition to petition.

Contrition is the expression of lament, remorse, or sorrowful acknowledgment of one’s sinfulness. In common prayer, this is corporate sin, and is rooted in the doctrine of original sin – that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

Petition is an expression of need, a cry for help, a call for some action on the part of God in Christ on behalf of the petitioner.

Types of contrition and petition

Many of us, when crafting prayers of confession, will focus our attention on only one aspect of confession to the exclusion of others. It is best, in my opinion, to cast the net more broadly. Here are a few types of contrition and petition that will help in this process.

1. Theological

In this model, contrition expresses the separation, distance, alienation, between Creator and Creature. The prayer acknowledges the human condition and marks the emptiness of our being apart from God. Petition appeals for a mediator, a helper, an act of grace and mercy.  The classical petition at this point is the Kyrie Eleison, Christe Eleison, Kyrie Eleison (Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy).

2. Existential

In this model, contrition expresses our sin, guilt, fallen-ness, unworthiness, “ommissions or commissions.”  We acknowledge that to some extent our human condition is our own fault. Classically, in the liturgy, this was known as the mea culpa “Through my own fault, through my own most grievous fault…” Petition appeals for forgiveness, which overcomes guilt and becomes the power, ultimately, to act and to change one’s thoughts, decisions and actions.

It is absolutely crucial to remember, when confessing fault and guilt (existential sin), that sin takes different shapes for men than for women, and for those with “too much self” as opposed to those with “too little self.” Instead of being guilty of “pride, self-centeredness, etc.” existential sin might wear the face of “denying the gifts God has given, hiding behind stereotypes or roles given by church and society, etc.”

3. Contextual

In this model, contrition expresses our idolatries, our allegiance to “lesser contexts” than that of God’s Realm and purpose. This is our often unwitting conformity with environmental, cultural, social and political evil. Petition appeals for a new order, a new pattern for human dwelling, a new allegiance and new loyalties. (Calvin included the 10 commandments immediately following the prayer of confession to stress the ORDER of God’s world in relation to all other orders).

4. Epistemological 

In this model, contrition acknowledges the limits and distortions of human knowledge, wisdom, art and science. The self-sufficiency of all human meanings is called into question. Epistemological confession also expresses a profound sense of the limitations of human language and science when confronted with both the depths of human experience and the mystery of the nature and character of God. Petition appeals to God for wisdom, truth and new meaning, for art and science that express and interpret faithfully, for understanding and new symbols and language to approach God and proclaim God to others faithfully.

Invitation to Confession: 

Confession was first part of a preparatory rite done by the priest (mea culpa) at the foot of the altar.  Many of the later Reformers made this confession public, congregational and included it within the Sunday Service after the entrance psalm or hymn. The Invitation to Confession is best taken from Scripture, to indicate that this kind of prayer is warranted by our common belief in a God of grace and mercy. For instance:

 The proof of God’s amazing love is this while we were sinners Christ died for us. Because we have faith in him, (Rom. 5:8) we dare to approach God with confidence.(Heb. 4:16)

Forms of Confessional Prayer 

a.Collect Form. 

This prayer is usually in the form of a revised, multi-sentence collect (see Part II for more on the collect form). Traditionally, confessional prayers slightly expand this form to include a 6th element, confessional sentences, (contrition), between the relative clause and the petition. For example:

Eternal God (invocation),

 our Judge and redeemer (relative clause),

 We confess that we have tried to hide from you and from ourselves. We have turned from the gifts that you have given to us. Hiding from your presence in our own lives, we have failed to see your face in others. We have avoided the pain of the world, passing by the hungry, the poor, and the oppressed.(confessional sentences/contrition)

 O God, in your mercy forgive our sin

Turn us toward the life you have given to us in Christ (petition)

 So that we may live more fully into your grace and purpose;(statement of purpose)

 through Jesus Christ our Savior. Amen (conclusion) 

b.Litany Form  

It is appropriate to use a litany form for the confessional sentences each ending with a recognizable cue followed by the corporate petition. For example, the prayer above might be re-cast in this way:

Leader:  Eternal God, our Judge and Redeemer, (Invocation)

because we have tried to hide from you and have done wrong, we pray

 People:  Forgive us, Lord (confessional sentence/contrition)

 Leader:  because we have lived for ourselves and turned from our neighbors, we pray

 People:  Forgive us, Lord (confessional sentence/contrition)

 Leader:  because we have passed by the poor, the hungry and the oppressed, we pray

 People:  Forgive us, Lord (confessional sentence/contrition)

 All: O God, in your great mercy forgive our sin and free us from selfishness, (petition)

that we may choose your will, and obey your commandments; (result clause)

through Jesus Christ our Savior. Amen. (conclusion)

 c. Silent Prayer 

It is appropriate that confessional prayers provide opportunity for the confession of individual sins in silence.

Declaration of Pardon 

A Scriptural declaration of pardon can immediately follow the prayer of confession. The Presbyterian Directory for the Service of God (PCUSA) offers excellent advice about this declaration, noting that this is a declaration, not a procurement:  “Following the confession of Sin, a declaration shall be made to the people of the assurance of their forgiveness in Christ.  This declaration is not to be made in words that seek to procure forgiveness but rather in words that strongly affirm the reality of the divine mercy promised in Holy Scripture and assured by Jesus Christ to all who “come in penitence and faith.”

Expression of Gratitude 

Following the declaration it is appropriate to offer an expression of gratitude in the form of a choral response, gloria, hymn of praise, spoken response, or affirmative Kyrie (You are the Lord, Giver of Mercy, You are the Christ, giver of mercy).

The Peace 

Expressions of gratitude may also be fulfilled in expressions of reconciliation, forgiveness and love in the passing of God’s peace.

Part II, Crafting Liturgical Prayer: Forms

02 Monday Jan 2012

Posted by in Views from the Street

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Forms Of Prayer 

Liturgical prayers are crafted primarily in one of three forms: the collect, the litany, and bidding prayers. These prayers have a long and venerable history, and are easily adapted for use. The key to all of these forms is that they are designed to be participatory in nature. Liturgical prayer at its best involves the whole congregation.

The Collect

The Collect is the common form for prayer across all traditions. Though its form is not often known as the “collect-form,” its five-part structure (see below) is easily recognized as the standard form for most prayers. The meeting of the Latin collectio is not certain.  It means literally “assembly,” but it may refer to either a prayer in which devotional themes are assembled, or to any prayer that is spoken when the congregation is assembled.  Both interpretations are complementary, and throw light on the function of the prayer.

There are standard collects in many liturgical traditions, often appearing as transitions between units of worship. In free church and directory of worship traditions in which there is a “Pastoral Prayer,” (or several such prayers) the collect has also prevailed as the guiding form. As the pastor crafts each petition, the collect form gives shape and unity to prayer. The collect follows a five-fold form:

1. Invocation.

2. A relative clause.

3. A petition.

4. A statement of purpose.

5. A conclusion (usually in the form of a doxology).

In its purist form, the collect is one sentence, expressing a single petition and theme followed by a vigorous “AMEN” by the entire congregation:

Example:

“Almighty God, (invocation), Lord of heaven and earth, (relative clause), pour out your blessings, we pray, upon this land, and give us a fruitful harvest; (petition), that we, constantly receiving your gifts, may always give thanks to you everywhere and in all things; (statement of purpose), through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. (conclusion)

Example of a Collect-Type Prayer  (adapted)

M    O God Our Creator, you have graced us with the gift of life and a world to live in. Empower and strengthen the witness of your church that, true to its calling, it may proclaim your radical and boundless love, in word and deed. We pray in Jesus’ name.

C     Amen.

M     O God, Source of our life, you have adopted us in the waters of baptism and made us your own in love. We pray that we may embrace our lives and the lives of others with courage and compassion, unafraid of joy and pain, sickness and health. May your care be made known in our care. We pray in Jesus’ name.

C     Amen.

M     God of Justice, you revealed your power in the servanthood of Jesus. May those who govern the nations use their authority in wisdom, kindness and peace. Awaken in all who govern a thirst for justice that embodies your care for this earth and the human community. We pray in Jesus’ name.

C     Amen.

ETC.

The Litany

From the Greek litaneia derived from litaneuein, meaning “to pray,” the litany is a prayer where fixed responses are made by the people to a series of short biddings or petitions said or sung by a leader.

Example:

Leader: For the peace of the whole world, for the well being of the holy Church of God,and for the unity of all, let us pray to God.

People: God, hear our prayer.

Leader: For the leaders of the nations, and for all in authority, let us pray to God.

People: God, hear our prayer.

Etc.

The litany is sometimes used in adoration and thanksgiving, but is primarily used in intercessory prayer.

Bidding Prayers

The bidding prayer is a series of invitations to pray about particular concerns, followed by silence, and then concluded with a collect and Amen.  The sequence might be as follows:

The leader says “Let us pray for …” (the sick).

A time of silence prayer follows in which the congregation offers personal prayers for people with that need either generally or by name.

The leader then prays a summary prayer or collect.  This collect may conclude with “Lord, in your mercy” which is then followed by the congregation, “Hear our prayer,”

or, the leader may simply offer a collect ending with “Amen.”

Crafting Liturgical Prayers: Part I, Finding the Right Language

28 Wednesday Dec 2011

Posted by in Views from the Street

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Crafting Liturgical Prayers: Part I, Finding the Right Language

I have the opportunity to visit many churches and participate in worship across many traditions. In non-prayerbook churches, prayers in worship are either crafted extemporaneously during worship, or crafted ahead of time before worship. This places tremendous responsibility on the worship leader who has to understand at least four things:

1) the kind of language that is appropriate for public prayer as opposed to private, devotional prayer

2) the forms of prayer that are possible for offering public prayer (collect, bidding prayers, litanies, etc.)

3) the genre of prayer that is being offered at a particular moment in public worship (adoration, confession, petition, thanksgiving, intercession, etc.).

4) the theological elements that go into each genre of prayer.

Over the course of the next few posts, I will address these questions.

Finding the Right Language

The goal with liturgical English is to preserve richness, dignity, and aesthetic power while also speaking of and to the realities of daily life in our world.  When we craft prayers for worship, therefore, we should use forms of speaking that arise from both the biblical and theological language widely used in our tradition, and the broad idiom of the community to which we belong.

Begin by listening.  When crafting prayer we listen to the heartbeat of the world around us: its pain, fears, joys, hopes, and celebrations.  This heartbeat is larger than our congregation. It is crucial that we read the newspapers, reflect deeply on current events, and know the pastoral concerns and issues that are present in our congregations.  As we reflect on all of this, we can ask questions that are relevant to the categories of prayer that we will be praying:

  •  What sins need to be confessed? (Prayers of confession)
  • What are the deepest supplications (desires) in our midst? (Prayers of                      supplication)
  • For what must we intercede? (Prayers of intercession)
  • For what can we offer thanksgiving? (Prayers of thanksgiving).
  • etc.

General vs. Specific Language.  This is one of the toughest issues for those crafting liturgical prayer. In our prayers, we need to find a way to be neither too general nor too specific.  In order to do this, we can begin by finding what Paul Brown calls “middle language.”  Middle language gathers our prayer into a very general category.  This is a helpful starting point. The language of public prayer, however, needs to go one small step further towards specificity, naming more specific concerns that are included in a larger category. These concerns are broad enough to include as many persons as possible, while narrow enough to focus the attention of those who are praying on specific concerns.

Example: “Save us from complacency and make us bearers of compassion, (general categories). Move us beyond the walls of our homes; tutoring, assisting the homeless, calling and visiting the lonely and forgotten.” (slight bit more specificity)

It is crucial to avoid too much specificity. This turns public prayer into a coercive ritual – forcing others to say things that may be common to our experience as crafters of prayer, but are not part of their experience or world view. For example:

“Free us from our twittering and texting and inspire us to teach ESL, drive the bus to the women’s shelter at Downtown Lutheran Church on Wednesday nights, and go to West End nursing home and see Bill, after his open heart surgery on Tuesday.”

Inclusive Language

God language. In order to achieve more richness in our awareness of the character and nature of God, it is a good idea to reserve father-language for God to the Lord’s Prayer and to prayers that are adapted to the Trinitarian form.

In other prayers, we can begin with an invocation of God that indicates the kind of prayer we are offering, and then follow that invocation with a relative clause that broadens our understanding of God beyond gender-specific terms. Remember the many symbols out of human experience that were used in the Bible when speaking of God:  Creator, Covenant Maker, Liberator, Judge, Redeemer, Shepherd, Comforter, Sovereign, Begetter, Bearer, Rock, Wellspring, Fire, Eagle, Hen, Lion, and Light.

When doing this, it is important to avoid stereotyping.  For instance, many common attempts to use feminine imagery for God represent only maternal, nurturing, soft and gentle, comforting pictures of God, and forget other images for women, notably women as agents of justice and judgment, who courageously use their power to challenge the mighty on behalf of the poor.

For example:  “God of all nations (invocation), who, like a mother hen fiercely protecting her children…(relative clause).”

People language: All of us will need to have a strategy for change in the area of inclusive language for the people in our church context. No matter what level of change we desire, we will need to be aware of the kinds of language that are problematic and the stereotypes that we should avoid. I can only mention a few in this brief post (see PCUSA website).

Avoid words that exclude:                              Choose words that include:

brothers, brotherhood (in the faith) Friends, kindred, family of faith, neighbors, humankind
man, men, mankind People, all people, humanity, persons, everyone, all of us, we, one
sons (of God) Children of God, people of God, God’s people, heirs
forefathers Ancestors, forebears, forebearers
disabled person Person with a disability, differently abled
clergyman Clergy, minister
layman Laity, layperson, member of the congregation, congregant
fellowship Community, communion, friendship, “koinonia”
man-made Constructed, not natural, human-made, synthetic
stand as able Stand at your discretion
foreigner, alien Visitor from another country, immigrant
man and wife Married couple, spouses, partners
kingdom Kindom, realm
third world Developing nations

Stylistic Concerns:

Overuse of sentimental or figurative language.  One of the most common issues for those who craft liturgical prayer is the tendency to use books of devotional prayers as resources for crafting public prayer. At the same time, many books of prayers written supposedly with public worship in mind would be better used in the prayer closet. When crafting public prayer, it is best to use resources that have been carefully vetted by theologians and liturgical experts. There are many excellent resources available. Many are published by denominations. Here are a few pointers:

  • Avoid all artificial sentence structures, rhetorical flourishes and sentimental digressions.  Look for constantly recurring language about things like thunder, the earthquake, the ocean, the splendor of the solar beams, the mighty flood, the lofty mountain, the verdant meadows, the kaleidoscopic butterfly, etc.
  •  Avoid the use of amatory expressions  (expressions pertaining to intimacy or love-making):  “sweet Jesus”, “dear Jesus”, “Lovely Savior”, etc.  (our prayer is not to Jesus anyway)  Also look for “dear God”, “lovely and wonderful creator”, etc.  Any hug-fest language in addressing God should be carefully evaluated.  The familiarity of the humble child is different than the familiarity of the presumptuous sentimentalist.
  • Avoid lots of adjectives. Overuse of adjectives is a clue to sentimentality. Adjectives tend to move toward sentimentality and decoration and away from substance and energy.

Repetition:  The too frequent occurrence of favorite words or phrases:

  • favorite names or titles for God – “O God!,” “Great God!,” “Our Heavenly Father,” “Holy Father,””Father God,” “Creator God,” etc.
  • favorite petitionary formulas – “we just,” “we pray you,” “we beseech you,”etc.
  • the interjection “O” prefixed to almost every sentence.
  • the use of the diminutive endearing “we just.”
  • the use of “opportunity.”  “We just thank you for the opportunity to….”

Non-grammatical and archaic expressions.

“grant to give us….” ;”grant to impart to us…”; “we commit us to you…”; “solemnize our minds…”; “we resign us…”; “we pray you give us…”

Prayers that are too long 

There are no hard and fast rules on this. Length is context-specific.  It is important to conduct a proportional evaluation of each prayer in relation to the rest of the liturgy.

Making prayer a forum for party politics or church administration

Prayer is not the place for soapboxing, political debate, or church administration (“we just pray that someone will donate a new church van…”).  This does not mean that prayer is not worldly and concerned with political processes.  But it is concerned to open these processes up to God, not to present and defend party positions or manipulate church members into action.

Lack of appropriateness

Be aware of the liturgical, seasonal, and occasional aspects of prayer. For instance, we might avoid crafting a prayer bearing the structural pattern of the Last Words of the Cross on the first Sunday of Advent.  Or we might avoid praying that all may come to Christ and be saved at the interfaith prayer breakfast. Appropriateness!

Lack of linguistic energy

This is not the same things as “volume” or “flourish”.  Here we mean force … the strength of the language and the mental energy it conveys.  One of the keys here is clarity and precision in energy.  Look for dangling participles, pronouns that lack antecedents, main thoughts that end up in subordinate clauses, confusions of past, present and future tense, subjects that disagree with predicates. Look especially for long, complicated, rambling sentences. All these sap energy and promote confusion.

Preaching and Penn-Gate

14 Monday Nov 2011

Posted by in Views from the Street

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

The allegations of childhood sexual abuse at Penn State last week call for a response from the pulpit. The statistics are clear: one in three girls and one in seven boys are sexually molested before the age of eighteen. If one adds the striking numbers of those who are experiencing domestic violence, the situation looks even worse. This means that most congregations have many members and visitors who are survivors of childhood sexual abuse and/or domestic violence. At that same time, if statistics are correct, many congregations unknowingly harbor perpetrators of sexual or domestic violence. And to make matters worse, as the Penn State situation suggests, our congregations are certainly replete with bystanders – those who are potentially part of the larger “culture of complicity” that prefers silence on these matters, moves perpetrators from one place to another unchecked, and, in worse case scenarios blames victims and survivors.

Some years back, pastoral theologian Nancy Ramsay and I co-edited a book entitled Telling the Truth: Preaching About Sexual and Domestic Violence. The book, originally published with the United Church Press (Pilgrim) is now available free as a pdf file from Google Books. Here are just a few thoughts taken from that book.

First of all, it is important to remember that we have three audiences when it comes to sexual violence: (1) victims and survivors, (2) perpetrators, and (3) bystanders. The bottom line, then, is that we must preach, over time, three fundamental messages.

  • Message One to Victims and Survivors. To victims and survivors we preach words of welcome, which includes words that listen, lament, resist, seek justice, offer compassion, and convey hope. Victims and survivors need to know that our worship services and sermons are safe holding environments for their pain and suffering. They need to know that their innermost selves, often haunted by shame, fear, helplessness, and sometimes hopelessness are welcome, heard, and honored. They need to feel genuine solidarity, not only in suffering, but in resistance, the struggle for justice, and the difficult process of re-creating lives that have been de-created by violence.
  • Message Two to Perpetrators. For perpetrators, we preach clarity. The goal is to assess with stark clarity the damage that they do, and to state in no uncertain terms that the damage cannot be undone. Nothing they can ever do can restore fully what their victims have lost. No rationalization or self-deception is possible. This is not so much the voice of judgment or condemnation as it is the voice of clarity. Even if we hope in our heart of hearts for eventual transformation for perpetrators, there must be no cracks through which they can slip as they listen to our sermons. Only this kind of preaching brings the possibility of genuine self-confrontation that could, perhaps, lead to change.
  • Message Three to Bystanders. To bystanders, we preach breaking ranks with the status quo. Listeners can be encouraged to bind their allegiance to a higher authority than the culture of complicity around them, and to make clear decisions to speak up and speak out in situations of known or suspected sexual violence. They can also be invited to re-create their church as a genuinely safe place and become a force for resistance, justice, compassion, and healing.

Here are a few more homiletical encouragements:

  • I encourage us to avoid the isolated sermon on this subject, to build messages to these different audiences into the fabric of many sermons on a variety of subjects, including sermons on human sexuality, creation in the image of God, justice, compassion, family relationships, marriage, forgiveness, judgment, hope, power, healing, anger, relationships, and violence. It is not always possible or advisable to address all three of these audiences simultaneously. Over time, however, it is crucial to do so.
  • I encourage us to develop a consistently nonviolent theology. A nonviolent theology is a theology in which violence is clearly identified as evil and in which, in the last analysis, neither the ways of God toward people nor the ways of God’s people toward others are implicitly or explicitly violent. By saying “in the last analysis,” I mean to imply that we do not remain unaware of and uncritical of the biblical tradition’s collusion with the violence that we, as interpreters, ultimately refute. We cannot avoid the “texts of terror” in the Bible or the entire violence-laden sacrificial system that undergirds much of the Old and New Testaments.
  • I encourage us to examine our illustrations for subtle ideologies that are complicit with violence and abuse. Many illustrations encourage family roles, relationships, gender stereotypes and attitudes that subtly feed violent or abusive attitudes.
  • I encourage us to avoid illustrations that place the experience of sexual violence “out there.” Statistics, and references to “Penn State” or “the Catholic sex scandal” have the effect of turning our gaze outward and away from the reality of sexual violence in our own midst. Brief narratives that particularize rape or battering as an everyday occurrence in a world identical to that of our congregation will underscore that this problem is immediate and “in our midst.”
  • I encourage us to use language that names sexual violence appropriately as a sin of volition. Carol J. Adams invites us to avoid “eliding agency” when speaking about abuse. We subtly let people off the hook when we only speak about “violent relationships,” “incestuous families,” or “battering couples.” Better to say “when a man molests a child…,” or “when a man batters his wife…,” or “for abusive men….” This may sound terrible to our ears, but this is precisely the reason for such language – to make us aware of the terror we are naming.
  • Finally, I encourage us to develop a delivery that is non-violent. There is a cartoon in which a preacher is in a tall pulpit hovering over the first few pews, ranting and raving like a barely chained beast. About four pews back, a young child is whispering to his mother;” What are we going to do if he gets out of there?!” The cartoon identifies another way in which the church and its preaching can be unwittingly complicit with violence. Our nonverbal communication often conveys messages that can be abusive and prevent those who have been abused from seeking our help. Why would a victim or survivor of violence seek help from a violent communicator? I’m not asking us to take the energy from our delivery. Just to assess it for messages portraying hostility, manipulation, or coercion.

There are many other aspects of this topic: the need to create a community of education and accountability around sexual violence within our congregations, the need to develop our own clear sexual boundaries as a part of our own professional ethics as clergy, the need to develop and create pastoral and theological resources around these realities in our midst. Again, for much more on these topics the reader may want to read chapters from John S. McClure and Nancy Ramsay (ed.), Telling the Truth: Preaching About Sexual and Domestic Violence.

Don’t Re-hash the Bible. Exposit or Interpret it.

11 Friday Nov 2011

Posted by in Views from the Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In my previous post, I focused briefly on sermons that incorporate “wind-ups” that actually “wind-down” sermons. I asserted that one such wind-down occurs when the preacher begins the sermon by re-hashing the biblical text. I made it clear that by “re-hashing” I was referring to a non-interpretive, non-expository walk through the text – sort of a “tour-guide” approach, pointing out this over here, and that over there as we go, providing more background for this, identifying the original significance of that for the ancient community. The kind of thing one finds in a good non-thematic, verse-by-verse Bible commentary.

A shift toward exposition, however, will put the preacher into a slightly different posture – one that allows the text to interpret us. Theologian Karl Barth was a proponent of this approach. According to Barth:

“I have not to talk about scripture but from it. I have not to say something, but merely repeat something. If God alone wants to speak in a sermon, neither theme nor scopus should get in the way….Our task is simply to follow the distinctive movement of thought in the text, to stay with this, and not with a plan that arises out of it.”

Barth’s approach is not far from “re-hashing.” Those who know Barth’s theology will know that he’s worried about too much interpretive intervention by the preacher. He seems to want something fairly close to simply repeating the text. Notice, however, his reference to the ‘movement of thought’ in the text. This is crucial. The preacher doesn’t just “walk through” the text, but does so, over the course of the entire sermon, in a way that helps the listener discover how thought moves in the text, how the semantic motion within the text captures our thinking and re-shapes it in some way.

A shift toward interpretation (hermeneutic) will put the preacher in yet another posture – one that interprets the text by moving the listeners attention toward a particular aspect or dimension of the text in order to draw out a particular meaning for today. In this regard, I posted a few weeks back on five “places” to find a sermon in relation to biblical texts. Each approach assumes that sermon listeners are invited to take a particular perspective or angle of vision on the text. Is the preacher drawing my attention to some analogy to my life in the text (place 1), to a profound historical continuity between Matthew’s church and our church (place 2), to the way the language works and wants to shape us (place 3), to a timeless theological truth (place four), or to a hidden trajectory of meaning we could never have seen, if it weren’t for what’s happening right now in our church or world (place 5). No matter which of these interpretive models is at work, the biblical text will be heard in its fullness, but from a particular hermeneutical perspective.

Re-hashing gives the sermon listener little or nothing of either exposition or interpretation. Re-hashing is largely movement-of-thought-less, and perspective-less, and leaves the listener groping for an angle of vision on the text. When this occurs listeners will provide several of their own…or just check out altogether for lack of focus and direction from the preacher. From great biblical preachers you’ll always hear the text (its content, world, context), but from a particular perspective – one charged with theological meaning and energy.

Some of us are correctly concerned that our listeners don’t get to hear the biblical text often. In a biblically illiterate world, it is natural to feel that by repeating the text in slow motion, we create a better opportunity to hear Scripture and let it soak in.

I have two things to say to this. First, we need to counter the assumption that “front-loading” scripture is the best way to get the text heard. With most biblical texts there’s a lot going on – a lot to take in and process! For the sake of both memory and understanding, it is better to introduce the biblical text in dynamic ways throughout the sermon. Each movement of thought in a sermon can capture some aspect of the text and bring it to life – creating a picture of the whole. For the biblical preacher, there shouldn’t be a single thought communicated that can’t be pegged to something in, under, behind, or in front of the biblical text. We can allow our listeners to re-hear the text dynamically throughout the sermon, instead of at the beginning only. Here’s a picture of this:

Sequence 1 Sequence 2 Sequence 3 Sequence 4
Theology
Message
Experience
Scripture

In this model, each sequence of thought in a sermon contains four things (see The Four Codes of Preaching): 1) a biblical warrant (again, see the five places to get a sermon), 2) a message to our listeners, 3) theological shaping, and 4) some kind of experiential connection or illustration. In this way, scripture is heard strongly throughout the sermon.

Second, we need to work on interpretive reading. If a unit of scripture is read aloud in worship service each week, we can work hard to make it a dynamic, energized, and interpretive reading – one that accents and emphasizes those elements in the text that will be crucial for the sermon. If we are those who read the text aloud, we can provide clues regarding what to listen for and how to hear the text. If we use lay readers, we can work with them each week to insure that this is occurring. A good reading should stand alone, and will do far more than a tour of the text to bring the Bible alive in the hearing of listeners. Even an intervening children’s sermon or anthem between scripture reading and sermon will not dull the impact of Scripture well-read!