What changed the historic classical approach to preaching to the lectionary centered one, and what has made the “Explore, Explain, and Apply form the standard of preaching today? And how has this led to a general decline in the quality of preaching?
The first answer is, of course, the Prayer Book of 1979. Most Episcopalians including many of our clergy do not remember or know that the standard worship of most Episcopal Churches in the 50s was Morning Prayer two to three Sundays of the month. There were High Church exceptions of course. I became a church member in 1958 in the Diocese of Dallas. I had to go to seminary to discover that I was consider “a spike from Dallas.”
The outstanding scholarship found in the 21 “Prayer Book Studies” and the “Trial Use Books” all culminated in an agreement about the re-establishment of the Holy Eucharist as the principal service of the Church on the Lord’s Day (79 PB page 13.) While seldom mentioned, the “New Prayer Book” approved in 76 and 79 marked a Prayer Book that was more Liberal and Catholic in its theological underpinning than its predecessor. The Baptismal Covenant demonstrates this most clearly.
My blog isn’t about all the changes brought by the “New” Prayer Book, but on how these changes affected preaching. Remember that the 28 Prayer Book Holy Communion had one collect, one lesson, and one gospel reading for each Sunday of the Christian year. The classical view of preaching fits this well and Morning Prayer usage reinforced it. The limited use of scripture called for the more comprehensive classical view with its emphasis on communicating the Church’s Doctrine. In six years, all these reinforcements shifted and began to work their way into our standard of today’s worship.
For the first decade or so, little changed in preaching because of two things. First, the clergy had been trained in the classical mode and kept going. John Claypool would be a prime example, but there were many more. Second, Prayer Book studies and the division of the Eucharist with “Liturgy of the Word” and “Holy Communion” reinforce the Word and Sacrament theology.
The second major reason for change and decline in preaching was the adoption of the three-year lectionary with two lessons, a psalm, and wider reading from the four Gospels. The merit of the three-year lectionary was its ecumenical nature, and we now have in the Revised Common Lectionary the reading of greater portions of the Scriptures. While the Episcopal Church is not thought of as a “bible church,” visit one of these on the internet and you will see that we hear much more scripture every Sunday than almost any American Evangelical or Bible Church.
Note: one of the most common mistakes of our clergy is attempting to explain to a congregation why how these three lessons are connected. It was not the intention of the editors of the lectionary that they be directly connected. For example, First, we seasonally have sequential lessons from the epistles, especially Paul’s letters. These seldom relate to the gospel of the day. Second, the newest revision to the lectionary has given us preachers rich readings from the narratives of the Old Testament. This was done to give preachers resources for preaching in the Pentecost Season. Of course, the connection of the lessons is most found in the high holy days of the year.
What followed from these two major changes was not more variety in preaching, the lectionary intention, but rather a greater focus on the variant gospel readings for each of the three-year cycle. This is especially true if you have a gospel procession. Few churches did this liturgical action in 1960, almost all do today. Focusing on the gospel readings, many of which are Jesus’ teachings and parables, fits the form of Explore, Explain, and apply. And once this becomes the most used form, it becomes habitual to many clergy even if the gospel reading of the day does not contain a parable or teaching. I will explore what is wrong with this overuse of a particular form of preaching in my next blog.
Lastly, these major changes in our worship in TEC led to believing the sermon was a subset or servant of the Eucharistic liturgy for that Sunday of the Church Year. The practicality of reading three scriptures and the psalm added to a tendency to shorten the sermon. Leaders developed a rationale that “people today cannot pay attention” to the more typical 20-minute sermon of classical preaching.
I noticed by the mid-80s; the term “sermon” was being replaced in bulletins with the word “homily.” Since homily is Latin for sermon what was the point? Because for many clergy, homily became a 10-to-12-minute explanation of the gospel reading for the day. Homily came to mean a short sermon based on the gospel that fit the theme for that Sunday.
I end this blog with an experience I had on a website with a clergy person from the Midwest who was explaining his use of a homily of exactly 10 minutes each Sunday. When I challenged him over what could possibly be communicated of substance in 10 minutes, he said that no one will listen longer than 10 minutes and whatever needed to be said that day could be said in 10 minutes. His caveat “and that keeps the service short!”
I responded with a comment from one of my homiletics teachers of the classical method. “Sermonettes produce Christianettes!” In other words, how can we possibly form our people through the preaching of the Word in 10 minutes? While I have heard several colleagues who are talented at such short reflections, I would point out that these are almost always thematic talks based on the priest’s reflection on the passage with no reference to any substantive biblical or doctrinal theology. What happens to Word and Sacrament when this becomes the Sunday-by-Sunday practice?
These trends are why I am arguing for the need to restore both the pulpit and preaching. In my next blog, I will present the movement from indicative preaching to imperative preaching and the serious theological crisis this has created.
No comments:
Post a Comment