Second in a series trying to find theological significance in typical elements of Unitarian Universalist worship services.
In Protestant days of yore, the sermon was straightforward. The preacher expounded the word of God: “Warrant for regarding preaching as word of God is found in Jesus’ declaration, ‘Whoever hears you hear me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me'” (The Study of Liturgy, ed. Cheslyn Jones et al., rev. ed. [Oxford, 1992]). Doubts about God grew in liberal religious circles, and the old death-of-God theology of the mid-20th C. meant Unitarian Universalists couldn’t depend on everyone affirming God’s existence any more — but once God is gone, what then is the purpose of the sermon? We had better figure out what exactly the sermon is, if it’s not the word of God.
I’d like to think the sermon could be an expression of the gathered, covenanted community, but all too often it has become an opportunity for self-indulgence by the preacher, as when the preacher presents us with slice-of-life vignettes, using his or her life to (allegedly) make some religious point. Or the sermon becomes entertainment, as when the preacher is under the mistaken impression that Garrison Keillor represents the sine qua none of preaching (he doesn’t, and many of us feel he isn’t even a particularly good entertainer). Or, most dreary of all, the sermon becomes an “address” or a “talk,” and is reduced to being a mediocre lecture by a mediocre intellect.
Our problem with sermons is compounded by a mistaken understanding of “freedom of the pulpit.” Preachers and congregations interpret “freedom of the pulpit” to mean license to say whatever the hell you want. Call it cowboy preaching: the preacher rides into town, two six-guns slung low on the hips, ready to shoot it out with anyone who dares tell him or her what to preach. In the old days, freedom of the pulpit meant the preacher had license to speak truth to power, like the prophets of old; with the understanding that speaking truth to power was done under divine inspiration. Since God can no longer be relied upon, we can no longer rely on the justification for freedom of the pulpit. As one old Unitarian Universalist minister said to a bunch of new ministers, “There’s no such thing as freedom of the pulpit, so just forget it.” Unfortunately, too many preachers still say whatever the hell they want.
No wonder so many people are trying to eviscerate the sermon. The “Soulful Sundown” crowd wants to replace the preacher with the singer-songwriter (at least the signer-songwriter is entertaining). The fellowship crowd wants to turn the preacher into an adjunct faculty member of the nearby university (too bad you can’t get academic credit for attending church). The NPR-loving crowd listens to “Prairie Home Companion” instead of bothering to come to church at all.
Instead of eviscerating sermons, think of the sermon as one installment in a long conversation. The evolving conversation takes place within a covenanted community; the sermon should offer a snapshot in time of the conversation’s evolution; the purpose of the conversation is a search for truth and goodness. The preacher has the holy trust of accurately reporting the concerns of the convenanted community as one participant in the community of inquirers. And the preacher should remember that she or he is responsible for furthering the conversation based on careful listening, deep reflection, and participation in the wider conversation going on between congregations. The congregation has to do its part: listen carefully, reflect deeply, participate in the wider conversation outside the congregation, and carry on the conversation outside of the Sunday morning worship service.
If we’re not all going to affirm God, then it’s up to all of us to co-create the sermon, by doing the hard work of actually talking about religion with each other, and with the preacher.
Hmmm…. not sure about this one. Some of my best sermons are
“slice-of-life vignettes, using his or her life to (allegedly) make some religious point”.
Now, I’m not claiming to be the best preacher around–
but those are also the sermons that most often speak to me and cause me to
“listen carefully, reflect deeply, participate in the wider conversation outside the congregation, and carry on the conversation outside of the Sunday morning worship service”
…and by that 2nd part, I was referring to other people’s sermons.
(Otherwise that would be an awfully egotistical thing to say, now wouldn’t it.)
Bravo, Dan.
Doubts about God grew in liberal religious circles, and the old death-of-God theology of the mid-20th C. meant Unitarian Universalists couldn’t depend on everyone affirming God’s existence any more — but once God is gone, what then is the purpose of the sermon? We had better figure out what exactly the sermon is, if it’s not the word of God
Dan, you believe the sermon should depend on the congregations affirmations? That if some of the congregation no longer affirms God, the sernom can no longer God’s words?
If it’s evolution, than to what end is the minister leading when she/he gives the sermon?
Where would you put emergent worship in here? (Not that there are any UU ones.)
Bill — The sermon doesn’t depend on the congregation’s affirmations, any more than any conversation depends on affirmations. As for what end the minister aims at, it’s improper to speak of the minister doing this alone because it’s done with the congregation. But as a community of inquirers (minister and congregation together), I believe the end we aim at is truth and goodness — just as it says in your congregation’s covenant.
Chutney — Emergent worship is a whole different subject, and I can’t say that I full understand what they’re driving at — nor is the Emergent Church a monolithic organization that’s driving at one single thing. However, the books I’ve read about emerging/emergent church put the sermon right at the center of worship, they say or imply that the sermon does get at the word of God, and they are not afraid to preach in the 45 minute range. Some of them hand out sermon notes because they really really want people to understand what is being said. I’ve seen no reports of 15 minute slice-of-life sermons in Emergent Church materials I’ve read. (A friend and I are going to an Episcopal Emergent Church service next week, so maybe I’ll have more to say then.)
“If we’re not all going to affirm God, then it’s up to all of us to co-create the sermon, by doing the hard work of actually talking about religion with each other, and with the preacher.”
The last time I tried something like that the “preacher” preached that I am psychotic and that Creation Day is a cult. . .
Robin — Sorry, but I don’t buy that. I have heard your diatribe against the Montreal church repeatedly, but as far as I am aware you have yet to engage in a reasoned conversation on the topic. One of the points implicit in what I say in the post is that we have to listen hard to other people, and if lots of other people tell us we’re full of beans, then we had better rethink our positions. And if you don’t want to rethink your position, fine, but take it somewhere else.
And do me a favor — don’t let loose with one of your patented blasts against the injustice of your treatment by the Montreal church. For once, see if you can actually listen to what I just said, and not get all defensive. I am not addressing your personal religious beliefs here, nor am I addressing what happened in your conflict with the Montreal church, but I am addressing your use of invective and ad hominem attacks — and I’m referring here to your use of quotation marks to denigrate your former minister. Not cool. Do it again, and you will be banned forever from this blog.
Got that? Now be nice.
How interesting to find your discussion of the topic of worship for Unitarian Universalists. It has recently been a big topic of conversation by many in our congregation. I liked the responsive reading because it gets to the heart of some of the friction I’ve seen between people when the topic of changing any part of our service is brought up.
I keep asking myself what worship is for someone who doesn’t believe in the traditional view of God. I’m not even sure I would call what I am looking for on Sunday morning a “worship service” because worship means to pay homage or respect to a higher power and I don’t think I am there to do that as much as to connect with the spiritual side of myself and the spiritual in other people. What you wrote about “the purpose of the conversation is a search for truth and goodness” seemed to be more what I am after. I want to connect with the truth and goodness in myself and in other people.
I kind of like the “slice-of-life vignettes” because they are part of the conversation and the connection when they come from the daily struggles of people trying to live by our principles. I usually remember those sermons more than the ones that are more intellectual in nature and certainly more than the ones where the speaker seems to feel they are the being used as the voice of a higher power.