Let me begin this blog with two disclaimers. First, there are many Episcopal Clergy that give their congregations good sermons that build up the faithful. I will be speaking frankly in this blog series about the state of preaching in TEC. Thank God there are notable exceptions to my general observations.
Second, there are great resources like “Backstory Preaching” that give any preacher excellent tools to shape and deliver good preaching. Speaking of resources, think on this, the average preacher today has more resources at our disposal via the internet than preachers prior to World War II could even imagine.
Having said this, I want to take on the practice of preaching, especially as it has changed over the past thirty years and the trends that have led to what I see as a general decline. Many of these trends that I will be exploring have had a negative effect on both the place of preaching in TEC and the quality. What I want to call for is nothing short of the restoration of the pulpit in the Episcopal /Anglican Church of North America. This will be the subject of my next few blogs, and I invite you into a dialog about how we can reinvigorate preaching.
As I listen to preaching in TEC, and I listen to lots of it, I want to make a distinction between what I think our clergy are doing today and what classic Anglicanism thought was the purpose of preaching. I think about 70% of the preachers that I hear understand the task of preaching to be explaining to the gathered Eucharistic community one of the lessons in the 3-year lectionary. This is almost always the gospel for the day. At conferences when I have asked, most clergy are emphatic that they are “lectionary preachers” I will be coming back to several issues related to the lectionary in a future blog but let me present the common form of this preaching.
First, there is an introduction to the passage. Next the preacher explains the passage. Then the preacher explores further the meaning or possible optional meanings of the passage indicating which of these they prefer. Finally, the preacher concludes with some thoughts and if appropriate adds application for our members. A summary conclusion at the end of such preaching seems to be either an implied “think about it” or “so, we should… with an application.” Since, most clergy in TEC are highly educated, as are many of our congregations, the sermons reflect sophisticated analytic information and insight. Often the preacher adds cultural or political points of reference. Sadly, Episcopal sermons are consistently short on stories or illustrations. At this point, several of my readers will be thinking “yes, okay what is wrong with this?”
Put alongside this the view of classical preaching. Remember that the classical view is in the context of the task of clergy to nurture congregations on “Word and Sacrament.” This view is ancient and was strongly reinforced by the Reformation. It was held in common by Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and denominations that came from these like Methodists. In this view, the task of the pulpit and preaching was to nurture and build up the faith of God’s people. Notice that I continue to use the doublet “pulpit and preaching” because in the classical view, the pulpit was symbol or place where preaching illuminated the “Word of God!” This profound phrase meant the “Word or Logos” of God that is found in the words of Holy Scripture and illuminates the Word of God, Jesus. The phrase in Eucharistic Prayer A “Christ has died, Christ is Risen, Christ will come again” reflects this classical view as expressed in the sacrament, but it also applies to the work of the pulpit. Theologically we can say that this demonstrates the unity of the work of “Word and Sacrament.” In other words, preaching was not a subset or servant of the sacrament but an equal. The division in the 79 Prayer Book between liturgy of the Word of God and the Holy Communion expressed the dual emphasis on both.
This is the viewpoint and tradition I was trained in 50 years ago. Feedback that I get from lay people is that my preaching is different, and they are right. My intention and methods serve the classical view. This does not mean that I do not understand the development of the current view or think that it is all wrong. I just think that it is inadequate for the task of preaching and the intentions of the expected results.
Now I am going to tell you something that few Episcopal clergy would ever admit, and quite frankly most of our newer ordained clergy do not even know. It is that we used to have outstanding preachers. These preachers were known not only in the Episcopal Church, but in the wider Christian community of North America.
Here are some examples and names worth remembering: John Claypool, Urban Holmes, John Coburn, John Hines, and, of course, their model, Philip Brooks. What did these episcopal clergy have in common? I would list:
All made their pulpit ministry the center of their work.
All served Churches known to call outstanding preachers that expected excellent preaching each Sunday.
All thought theologically and used preaching to engage both the Church and the culture.
All were known as outstanding preachers beyond TEC!
All followed the classical view of primarily doctrinal preaching.
None used the explain, explore, apply form for sermons.
All preached for at least 20 minutes.
The last Episcopal clergy person who fit these criteria was Barbara Brown Taylor. She was recognized by Baylor University (along with fellow Anglican John Stott) in their tribute to the Ten Best Preachers series twenty years ago.
Today, there are none! I contend that this is the consequence of factors that have led to Episcopal Preaching being what I identified at the beginning. In future blogs, I will be exploring these factors further. My aim is to inspire at least a handful of women and men to rediscover the Pulpit and Preaching from the classical view. I want to end this first evocative blog with an experience that I had more than 50 years ago.
I was a senior at Berkeley Divinity school the year it merged with Yale Divinity School. As a senior, I was eligible to take a fall course taught by our retired Dean. His name was Percy Urban. Dean Urban was in his 80s and taught this course every other year in retirement. Six of us would proceed once a week to his home where we would sit at his dining room table. There he would teach “Doctrinal Preaching.” It was an incredible experience. Each week two of us would bring a sermon on a Christian Doctrine. Dean Urban assigned the doctrine we were to preach on. We all preached twice during the term.
The method was simple. The first to preach would pass out copies of the sermon. As one student preached, the rest of us including Dean Urban would make notes on the manuscript before us. Then we would question the preacher and critique the sermon. We repeated this with the second sermon. After all the students had critiqued the two sermons, we would take a break. We headed to the parlor where Mrs. Urban would serve us tea and sherry. It felt very much like being in a Victorian home.
Following some social time, we would return to the dining room. There Dean Urban would make a few observations about the sermons we had heard. Then he would pass out his sermon on the topic. I keep dearly his sermon on “The Christian Doctrine of Human Nature.” Few today probably even know that there is a doctrine about human nature. We would sit in astonishment at his understanding and depth of knowledge of the Church’s historical teachings. For this blog, I want you to note that his expectation was that we would “go and preach likewise.” I have tried, often failed, but always remembered his example.
On the last day and in the last session, he concluded with these words. “Gentlemen, thank you for coming here this past semester. It means a great deal to me at my age. You bring me life. I thank you for it and wish all of you well.” We were speechless. He had brought us the riches of our faith.
Now that I have held up what we once had, I will share where we strayed from the task of preaching in my next blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment