The Sermon

Sermons are not the domain of leaders and preachers alone. There’s much we could say about what should be taken as literal and absolute when defining general practice and doctrine in the Church, and what might be seen as guidelines for whatever we choose. But is there a case for best practice that we ignore at our peril? In this commentary, I’m suggesting there’s a correlation between how the Church functions as a combined integrated Body with disagreement and disunity across the Church.

1Co 12:1-25 Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. But God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body. And those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other.

This commentary is not a rejection of sermons - it's about reimagining the sermon in its biblical context, the context in which God designed it to function. The authority and practice of gifts should be in submission to the Body itself, and it's fair to say that most Christians today might have vastly different perceptions of what defines biblical practice let alone best practice. I would also suggest most Christians couldn’t care less about comparing today’s Church with the Church between 30AD and 325AD. However, Church practices today emanate from the official doctrines established at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. The evolving administration of these doctrines changed the relational construct of body ministry to the religious hierarchy of today. Grammatically, a sermon is a religious speech or discourse by leaders or preachers about a moral, theological, or scriptural topic. The word comes from the Latin "sermo" and conveys the idea of a speech or a conversation. Speeches were commonplace in the early Church but were not the domain of leaders and preachers alone. They formed part of a broader integrated dialogue that emanated from a body of believers in the context of coming together. This spiritual dialogue of the early ecclesia before 325 AD gradually diminished as the official Catholic doctrine became the dominant religion of Rome. With it came the rigidity of rules and laws that completely undermined God's intention for self-regulating orderly worship (1 Cor 14:40). The early Church is portrayed as a coming together of equals, many parts of the same Body (1Cor 12:12-27) ministering to each other as the Spirit led them to do so. Sermons were not viewed as stand-alone monologues that conveyed a singular denominational theme or personal opinion because senior leaders and denominations didn't exist. Sermons could be challenged, and those who preached (1 Cor14:26-33)  included but weren't limited to Prophets, Teachers, those with prophetic songs, those with words of wisdom and knowledge, and even foreign visitors if they had interpreters. The Bible conveys a picture of diversity, where many people spoke in turn as the Spirit moved them to do so. 

https://headsupchristianity.com/home/where-are-the-prophets

https://headsupchristianity.com/home/speaking-in-tongues-part-1

Historical challenges -  For Jewish Christians, life and faith were one inclusive and extended social structure, where life and faith expressed themselves as a socially integrated community of believers. In contrast, today we have independent, isolated, single-family units where life and faith, health and finances are separated into the religious and the secular. The state provides income, housing, health, and welfare for those who need it, a point that is rarely considered. None of this existed for the early Church. On top of this, denominations are the quintessential example of religious disagreement, firstly because denominations are not a biblical construct, and second, all denominations came about because of disagreement. The aspiration for unity is used as a trope for something equating to an ideal, and even though we entertain the aspiration, we’re trapped between our religious traditions and the historical reality of the past. Churches talk about unity but the spirit behind it is corrupted by an unwillingness to change. Most Christians don't see their family and the Church as an integrated relationship, and it might be somewhat unrealistic to expect we can return to the extended relationships of the early Church. However, we could strive for a reimagined version of the NT example and see if we can move towards best practice. 

Time for change - Several areas feed into a discussion about sermons. On the whole, sermons have remained consistent in their current form over many years, but why are we complicit with the idea of one speaker, and what's led us to the point where one person is given this authority? Why is one opinion alone accepted as the pillar of truth, and this without serious accountability? Change should not threaten the function of those moved to preach the gospel, and reimagining the context adds to the robust interplay of the gifts we see present in the early Church. When the Prophet, the Teacher, and the Pastor sing from the same page, great things can happen. The sermon is one area we could start with because engaging the congregation is consistent with the aspirations of any speaker.

The Synagogue - Apart from the theme of equality demonstrated in the biblical account, we also have supporting archaeological evidence. The first thing that struck me when walking into the remains of a first-century Synagogue was that all the seating was around the interior walls and there were no rows of seating facing the front. There was no stage and there was no pulpit or high place of authority. It seemed to me this was a gathering place of equals, where a speaker moved from his seat, and spoke from the centre of the room, which also placed them in a position of vulnerability. This is something we could try, we might decide on a specific text or topic and encourage people to move spontaneously to the front and convey thoughts, a short message, prophecy, or words of encouragement related to the topic. Over time more people might rise as confidence grows through the body. If done consistently good things might happen, and at least, we are building the body as a whole, and providing space for Preachers, Teachers, and Prophets, to mature. First-century synagogues were not just places of worship, they were places that met various community needs. Nothing in the biblical account suggests a centralized group that determined what took place inside the synagogue, nor was any importance or religious significance placed on the building itself. Now we might dismiss this and argue that times have changed and we don't have to replicate the past, and to some extent this is true. So, in response, what do we fear, and where did the current theme come from?

https://auburnseminary.bibleodyssey.org/articles/first-century-synagogues/

Cream rises to the top - There were no appointed leaders in the early Church. Gal 2:9 states "James, Peter and John, those esteemed as pillars". The word "pillars" conveys the idea of being stiff like a post, but it’s not suggesting those appointed. It's used figuratively for something Paul recognised in the character of these three. Probably, the only reference to something equating to seniority, but in this case, they were men with leadership character worthy of submitting to. We all know those who have authority in our workplaces and social environments. It’s not something that changes with a title, it's imbued in the personality and character, and this authority is bestowed because others recognize it. Those that assume authority can be dangerous and idolatry is not far behind. We could try halving the message time and include two or more speakers. It's entirely unnecessary to spend the amount of time we do, on relatively simple topics, from one point of view.

Mentoring teams - We may not like the idea of sermons being held to account because we’ve swallowed the lie about the authority of a single overarching authority figure, so it has this sense of challenging authority. Ironically, we have little difficulty critiquing more disagreeable individuals such as Prophets. I would suggest there’s no difference. There's a case for improving content, theological accuracy, interpretation, and delivery. Both positive and negative feedback is beneficial. The focus of this team is to work with speakers and to consider the general tenor of sermons, from the audience's point of view. In other words, the audience becomes the anonymous critique for improvement. It might also identify types of content and communication styles that resonate better with a particular congregation. Many people don't remember the point of a message within 24 hours of hearing it, and in most cases can't recall a hook that captured their attention.

Setting the hook -  That one confronting, contentious, or inspirational statement, that grabs the audience's attention at the beginning of a message. No hook, no audience, no takeaway? The body of the message fleshes out the details, and the summary draws the audience back to the message in the hook. I sense that the reason people don't hear or understand the point of a message, is because the hook wasn't established, nor was it sufficiently demanding to catch their interest in the first place, These principles should apply to everyone, however, I believe the hook applies more to men because most messages serve the gender biases of women through song, expressions of love, feminized communication, emotional sympathies, intimate relationship, and feelings.

Illustrations and readings - fall into two categories. Using more than one story or example to emphasise the same point or truth is like treating people as if they're intellectually incapable of grasping simple concepts after one example alone. And reading long drawn-out passages of scripture does not enlighten those who have read it before, or educate those who still need to. It generally falls on deaf ears. The takeaway of a message is defined by how well the speaker lays down the hook, how well a text is interpreted and applied, and how effectively the illustration relates to the application of the main point.  Sermons can be like scripted teleprompters without personal experience, opinion or depth to the topic. They convey someone else’s theology and other people's words. No one benefits from repetition, nor do we benefit if we're NOT confronted with opposing points of view because no deep and meaningful conversation ever takes place without hearing alternative views, and running the risk of causing offence.

God's instruction to the early Church - was guidance for best practice, and needs to be reimagined, at least to the extent we might change what we can, and move in the direction of 1Cor14:26-33. At the moment everything we do runs counter to the early Church, both physically and spiritually, and therefore we constantly labor uphill. While I've heard endless excuses to justify the status quo, those who seem to hold on to it, are the same who long to see the Power of God’s Spirit moving with greater authority. The Church is stuck in its traditions, like a chair with three legs missing, it looks like a chair but it labours under its purpose. The status quo might benefit some, but it's a catastrophe for the health of the body. The basic doctrines that emanated from the Council of Nicea, shackled the Church with religious authority figures and didn’t release spiritual maturity through the Body of Christ. The way we conduct sermons today isn't wrong, it's institutionalised, and outside the biblical context, therefore it does little to encourage growth and interaction from the body as a whole (Eph4:11-13, 1Cor14:26-33). We can't recreate the social environment of the first century, but we can reimagine the biblical example. After all, we have the template and can aspire to its ideals. Many long for a greater sense of God's presence when we gather, so we might start by asking difficult questions.