Preaching and Worship - Anglican style Down Under

The challenge of preaching

2012-02-04T13:03:00.000+13:00

Working on tomorrow's sermon. Do not think I have the force and flow of ideas I seek. Turn to various reputable internet sites for possible catalysing assistance. No. Worthy thoughts, standard recitations of history of life and times of the text. But good news is what I seek. Where is it?!

The preacher got it

2012-01-09T14:13:00.000+13:00

Yesterday, perchance, I heard a preacher preaching whom I did not expect to hear preach and who did not expect me to turn up to hear him preaching. The self-confession of the preacher during the sermon is that he did not preach often (and it was a bit scary having a person listening, me, who made a full-time living out of preaching).

In a way it put a bit of acid on me: what would I say at the end of the sermon? With a set up like that, even saying nothing would be, so to speak, saying something. To have said nothing would be, I sensed, to have implied I did not think much of the sermon.

So I listened more intently than usual.

Fortunately for me, to say nothing of the preacher, the sermon was very good.

Why was it a good sermon? I thought it would give more substance to me saying 'That was a good sermon' if I could tell the preacher why I thought it was good. This is what I said:

1. There was a message and he stuck to it, kept coming back to it, and didn't lose track of it.

2. The opening of the sermon was touched on in the closing of the sermon.

3. The sermon connected with the passage of Scripture read before the sermon.

I have no reason to think the preacher ever reads this particular blog, but he could well have done, because the sermon, effectively, followed frequently repeated advice here.

The best Christmas sermon ever preached by an atheist?

2011-12-23T08:11:00.002+13:00

Memorable lines in a sermon

2011-12-18T16:54:00.000+13:00

From this morning's excellent (encouraging, inspiring, moving, pointing to God's power in our lives) sermon, I can just about report word for word these lines:

The rugby rules of life,

Always feed your backs,

Never go down the blindside on your own,

When in trouble, always kick for touch.

Worth thinking about why I can recall these so well. Here is my thinking:

- I am interested in rugby and could relate to each rule.

- A connection was made between 'rugby' and 'life' which made me listen intently ('what has the game to do with real life?' was the curiosity value in this part of the sermon).

- Just three rules (four and I might not remember them all!)

- The last rule has a lovely touch of humour: the rule applied on the rugby field is excellent; the rule applied to life is questionable as it sounds like being advised to run away from a problem, or to hand it over to someone else to deal with. The difference between the two contexts provides both subtle humour and food for thought: thinking about this rule meant ending this exercise in listening in the same frame of intensity as at the beginning.

I could over analyse this! But the point for preachers is straightforward: we can find words to say things in such a way that they are memorable and we can avoid doing that with the effect that our words are less effective.

Ten Steps To Better Preaching

2011-12-09T20:27:00.000+13:00

Couldn't say this better than it is said here. So read it and do it!

The liturgy of Jesus

2011-11-27T16:46:00.000+13:00

Prompted by an excellent post at Liturgy, itself stimulated by other posts on the internet, I have been thinking a little about worship and where we are going in our services as Anglicans, given that we do indeed want to achieve a lot from our liturgies: advance in mission, teaching the faith, mini-parish meetings (as sometimes our "notices" become), incorporating families (perhaps especially aiming at children, at youth, at young adults, at parents), evolving ourselves into deeper alignment with Anglicanism or (sub-)consciously moving away from that form of Christian life, as well as, lest we clergy forget, collecting the offertories to maintain stipend payments, dispensing pieces of paper, themselves sent by church and para-church officials with ambitions about what they will achieve from our congregations, building fellowship, offering hospitality. Quite a list! Oh, and had better mention the aim of worshipping God.

Rather than slate or promote this or these aims beside worshipping God, I think it useful to reflect a little on what a liturgy of Jesus might look like, i.e. if he were both the vicar and the chair of the worship committee.

We could think, for instance, of the way in which Jesus was at ease among groups and crowds of people, readily imbibed food and offered hospitality, never lost an opportunity to teach, often looked up to the Father to praise and to pray, quoted Scriptures frequently, often the Psalms, was regular at the synagogue, and at temple festivities.

Which makes me think whether one question about liturgy is wrongly framed: rather than ask whether we expect too much of liturgy, could we be expecting too little of ourselves as a fellowship of believers?

That is, make liturgy the reason primarily why we gather together, then tack various things on to the liturgy, then we may grumble that we are losing sight of what liturgy is primarily about.

What if we met together Sunday by Sunday (indeed more frequently than that) because we think meeting together is important in its own right. Then in the course of our meeting together we could talk, discuss, eat, drink, plan, prepare for other activities, and, yes, intentionally worship God through liturgy.

Bosco Peters' extraordinarily helpful e-NZPB page

2011-11-21T20:23:00.000+13:00

Bosco Peters' is offering anyone who goes to this link the possibility of downloading important parts of NZPB electronically. The digital NZPB is slowly coming into being. It is grace on Bosco's part to offer this to the church; but the grace rests, in this instance, on a lot of work.

Deo gratia!

Who to vote for this coming election: a sermon

2011-11-20T20:59:00.000+13:00

Just occasionally I will publish a sermon here which I have written and preached. On the two passages in this morning's readings, Ezekiel 34:11-16, 20-24; Matthew 25:31-46, I used the following as my text. Some aspects of it will only make sense to Kiwis who have followed the news re our forthcoming election and our post-quake struggles in Christchurch.

From Ezekiel, let me re read a few words: v. 16 “I will seek the lost, and I will bring back the strayed, and I will bind up the injured, and I will strengthen the weak, and the fat and the strong I will destroy. I will feed them in justice.”

And from Matthew I want to re read a few words: v. 35 “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me ... Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers you did it to me.”

What is at the heart of God’s message to us? What is God’s will for the world?

Justice, could be one word to sum it up. Justice and mercy, would be three words to put it in a phrase.

The gospel, the good message is that justice is possible. It can happen in life, not just in our dreams.

First, God shows mercy to us in Jesus Christ and forgives all our debts to God.

Secondly, God creates us to be a new people of justice.

Christians carry with them the story of God from Ezekiel: our God is merciful and works for justice.

Our hearts beat with the simple challenge of Jesus: someone is hungry, we feed them, thirsty we give them a drink, strange we welcome them, naked clothe them, sick we visit and in prison we go to them. The least significant is Christ in our midst.

Or that’s the way things should be.

Justice is a hot subject. Work for justice in the church and people are liable to look sideways at you; wonder if you are one of those left-wing types, or, these days, a greenie. Yet no one says we have no business with justice, that we should have nothing to do with works of mercy.

Mike Coleman is one of our priests. He is trying to give voice to the folk in the red zone. Their quest is for justice and for mercy from our government.

Jolyon White is one of our deacons. This week he has been in the news. Quite a few people, as far as I can tell, are mad with him.

His particular protest has been referred to the police by the Electoral Commission. Whatever we feel about what has happened, Jolyon’s heart beats for justice, his protest asks whether a brighter future for New Zealand is a just future or not.

In less than a week we vote in our election. It feels like a strange election to me.

A cup of tea seems to have dominated it.

Winston Peters might prove that resurrection can happen in this life.

But these are distractions.

Our votes are choices we make as Christians.

With today’s passages in mind dare we cast them in the interest of ourselves?

Dare we cast them in order to make sure our lives are better?

Of course not.

We can only vote for the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the sick and those in prison.

We can only vote for those who will work with the grain of God’s shepherd heart

A heart which seeks the lost, the strayed, the injured and the weak.

Which party,

who is the prime minister,

what are the policies which will make our country strong in order to support the weak,

which will make our country healthy so we can bind up the injured,

which will make our country a safe haven for the lost?

That is our question this week.

If we are not ‘stirred up’ on this ‘stir up Sunday’ we should be stirred up.

Stirred up knowing that when Christ comes again he comes as judge,

yet right now he is in our midst

as the one who is hungry (200000 children below the poverty line),

who is thirsty (we have issues about the quality of our water),

who is alien (we have refugees struggling to settle here),

who is naked (well we had a naked rugby star in the news this week but what a lost young man he seems to be),

who is sick (we will know many).

and who is in prison (still many there though we can be thankful the numbers are falling).

This Saturday let’s vote for Christ!

The eucharist as a seamless robe of words and movements, i.e. ...

2011-11-12T20:29:00.000+13:00

... do not, repeat NOT, put any instructions between the Great Thanksgiving//Breaking of Bread and Distribution of the Elements.

So many do this!?!?

Instructions for a meal take place before the meal not during it.

The profound fellowship with our Lord during Holy Communion is brought through the interplay of word and action, of Word and Sacrament. To intrude into the middle of the sequence instructions about wine or juice, chalice or small cups, standing to the left or moving to the right should be anathema!

Instruct (if required) before the Great Thanksgiving and let the great prayer and reenactment of the Lord's Supper be a seamless robe of words and movements.

No instructions in the middle.

Never comment, never draw attention to yourself

2011-10-30T21:13:00.000+13:00

If I could control the world of worship leading, here are two things I would control (after inventing a means of making worship leaders do what I programmed them to do):

(1) Never comment on stuff happening before or during leading (like, "I have lost my notes so I do not know where I am" or "It hasn't been a very good week, the choir had a bad practice on Thursday night so tonight will be a bit problematic.")

(2) Apart from introducing oneself by name, never draw attention to oneself while being the leader (like, "It's my first time leading tonight" or "I am feeling a bit nervous.")

Of course another way forward here is for me not to be in control and not to invent the means to programme leaders to do what I want them to do, rather, worship leaders take responsibility for not doing these two things!

Positively: "Just lead, and lead people to God."

Transitions are more important than you think

2011-10-17T06:27:00.000+13:00

If I were Robbie Deans and (another big "if"), if it was timely to have a review with the Australian players this morning about how the game went last night - I can imagine they just want to get on the plane and go home - then I would talk about 'transitions' in the game. For instance, the transition at the beginning, from nothing happening to the first interaction between players and the ball: Quade Cooper kicked off in the first second and got it wrong because he kicked the ball out on the full, handing the initiative over to the All Blacks.

But we can say similar things about liturgy, in which 'transitions' are crucial to the flow of the service.

The obvious transitions in the eucharist are at the beginning, the Peace and at the end. The less obvious transitions are from sermon to intercessions, and from breaking of the bread to the post-communion.

Rather than me say how I think these transitions should go, I encourage constant review of how transitions in your services are going. In particular, I note that some transitions are handled the same way, week after week after week, so that the transitions become embedded traditions in the liturgical life of the parish. If the transitions are, in fact, not done well, then it can become quite difficult to improve them because , like any tradition, such transitions can be all but impossible to change.

Here are some review questions:

Do the transitions serve visitors and strangers in our midst well? Transitions can be moments for 'in house' stuff (chat, jokes, notices with first names of people to see after the service) which may be brilliant for the regulars and unnerving for visitors.

Do the transitions serve God and our worship of God well? Transitions can be (so to speak) secular moments in a sacred space. For example, a notice about how to receive communion may intrude into the moment prior to receiving communion as the culmination of the grand narrative of salvation recited in the Great Thanksgiving.

Do the transitions serve the dynamics of the service well? A long transition, for instance, can destroy the flow of the service, especially if the next movement in the service does not 'pick up' the service.

Quality and quantity

2011-09-25T17:28:00.001+13:00

Getting our worship services right is a huge challenge. There is the challenge of this coming Sunday, who will preachk, preside, pray, read, distribute and so forth. Oh, and the crack organist is away so what are we going to do for an alternative? CDs again? There is also the challenge of the longer term, say, the next 52 Sundays - the next year ahead. We could lurch from week to week filling in gaps on the roster, or perhaps we are blessed with many helping hands leaving us with the question whether across a whole year we are growing and developing the quality of what we are doing? Then there is a much greater question in terms of time: what about ten years from now, what will be happening in our church?

In some ways the last question is the one which most interests me, and perhaps I have the luxury of thinking about it because I am not a vicar and thus not worried about next Sunday's worship! But that ten years from now question should be thought about sometimes, I suggest, by vicars and priests-in-charge. After all there may be some things now which could begin to change in order to be ready for ten years ahead.

If some changes are not happening now, then ten years from now you can be sure there will be some big changes! Some congregations will not exist. Some will be confronted with a new vicar or priest-in-charge pushing for tumultuous change. Some will be staring a rather large maintenance bill in the face, or may be gulping at the size of the funds which need to be raised to bring their church interior into a new age.

Evolution or revolution? If we are not evolving our worship now, are we bequeathing revolution to those who come after us?

I started off thinking about 'quality and quantity' and have ended up thinking about 'evolution and revolution.' I think the relationship is that we can overlook the importance of quantity in seeking quality (in some cases the quality of our worship keeps numbers static), so a future revolution may be needed in order to resurrect a congregation. Yet, conversely, we can be enamoured by quantity and overlook the importance of working on quality. Without quality even the largest congregations can decline. So evolution is about holding concern for quality and quantity hand in hand.

But then I could be wrong!

Common Worship article

2011-09-05T12:16:00.002+12:00

Just appearing in print in Anglican Taonga is this.

Evolution or Revolution

2011-09-05T08:25:00.000+12:00

I was struck yesterday by experiences which raised for me the question whether change in worship style is best achieved by evolution (i.e. gradual, incremental change) or by revolution (i.e. instant, dramatic, global change)?

I guess the answer is probably that in some contexts evolution works well, and in other contexts revolution works well.

In the background to my mentioning this question is that in some places there is an associated question: does the situation provide the time for evolution to take place or must revolution occur before the church doors are shut?

Introduction to Preaching

2011-08-30T07:31:00.000+12:00

On Wednesday night I am offering an Introduction to Preaching night at Theology House. I am realising that on the one hand I want to simplify preaching as much as possible so that the training is not confusing and on the other hand as I think about what the key ingredients are in the preparation and performance of a sermon I find there are many aspects to be considered!

Here are two quick ideas:

(1) There are three stages to a good sermon: first Preparation and last Performance with the second stage being the Transition between Preparation and Performance. The trap we often fall into is failing to get the second stage right.

(2) A good sermon delivers a message thus the key question in preparing a sermon is, What is my message?

What are we confirming in Confirmation?

2011-08-15T21:36:00.000+12:00

Looking like an ordination without robes and a baptism without water, confirmation is an intriguing mix of ceremonies. It involves those being confirmed saying things about faith and commitment which are similar if not the same as said at a baptism. But no water is involved. It involves the bishop laying her hands on the candidates and praying for the Spirit of God to strengthen them with “gifts of grace”. But no one is ordained as a deacon or priest – no one becomes a “Rev”!

In other words there are two sides to the coin of confirmation. On one side faith and commitment are confirmed through the candidates stating what they believe and what they will do as followers of Christ. On the other side the work of the God’s Spirit which was begun within the candidates at their baptism is confirmed through the bishop laying her hands on them. In each case, the profession of faith (e.g. 1 Timothy 6:12) and the laying on of hands (e.g. 2 Timothy 1:6) are ancient Christian actions which are carried on as a living tradition in the practice of our faith.

If that deals with the question of ‘What are we confirming in confirmation?’ what about the question, ‘Who is confirmed?’ The answer to that question is anyone who wishes to make a public profession of their faith and commitment to God and to be strengthened in God’s service through the laying on of hands by their bishop. Many then want to ask ‘What age can people be confirmed?’ Some churches confirm very young people. For several decades now the wisdom of our Anglican church is that we think young adulthood is the appropriate earliest age to be confirmed (without defining that to a specific number of years). Anyone of any age beyond that is most welcome for confirmation.

What do you think? That is three hundred or so words for a small article in a parish magazine.

The Ms of Mary

2011-08-14T06:26:00.000+12:00

Am preaching on Mary today at a 'matronal' festival. These "m"s emerge from my preparation as being associated with Mary:

Mediator, Model, Moral Standard, Mother of Jesus, Magnifier of God.

Not all these words, I will suggest, should apply to the reality of Mary's contribution to the gospel and to salvation.

There is another "m" which is then important to consider: Mary's God is the God of Mercy.

Get a projector

2011-08-07T20:21:00.000+12:00

Quite a lot of paper is involved in quite a few services these days (I am finding): newssheet, servicesheet, hymnsheet, and perhaps an additional sheet of paper promoting something or providing the music for a special song. All understandable. All individually helpful but together ... could they be just a little confusing?

There is an alternative available in many instances, but, acknowledged, not in all places. A laptop-and-projector can cut down considerably on the bits of paper required to run a modern service. They are complicated to run (yes) and things can go wrong (not too often). But they sure do simplify things if projection can take place in our churches or halls.

The Uniqueness of Sermons?

2011-07-18T09:30:00.000+12:00

Are sermons unique in our world today? Where else do we have opportunity for one person to expect a group to listen to a talk and, conversely, for a group to gather willingly to submit to the thoughts and ideas of one person? OK - I see those answers coming: Rotary dinners, school prize-givings. But are they not single focused? We would expect the speaker to concentrate on (say) their area of specialty or the immediate context ('the school and its successful past year'). In a sermon the preacher is free to range widely, from heaven to earth, around the globe, from subject to subject. Jesus is Lord of all, so his Word potentially on any given Sunday may speak to any topic under the sun.

The sermons I heard yesterday reminded me of another aspect of sermons, which, again, is possibly unique today: the preacher has opportunity to explore a range of possibilities in how her or his context is communicated. Literary flourishes, rhetorical strategies, tonal changes, theory and testimony, principles and pragmatics. As a listener we may have the experience of hearing the simple truths of the gospel expressed in the richest of imaginative language and illustrated by profoundly deep stories.

Neither Policeman Nor Examiner

2011-07-04T21:00:00.000+12:00

I quite enjoy visiting church services in the Diocese of Christchurch which I have not been to before. It gives me an opportunity to experience for myself what is happening 'on the ground' in terms of content, structure, length, and leadership of services. It also keeps my eyes open to the diversity of services on offer across the Diocese.

One thing I am conscious of is that my presence in a service will be interpreted as some kind of inspection, perhaps as a 'liturgical policeman' (warrants for arrest issued afterwards if a word is out of place) or a 'worship examiner' (marks out of 10 given for the performance). No!! I go to experience, to understand why the service is done in the way it is (as best I can), and to be continually challenged in my role as a trainer and educator.

Yesterday I was at three services in three different parishes, only one of which involved me in a role (preacher and presider, as it happened). All three were different. Each was well put together and each had an integrity to it, honed out of different parish histories. Each reflected different worshipping traditions within the Anglican church. In the course of the day I experienced three different kinds of church music, each, to my mind, representing different generational tastes.

Funny thing, the age profiles of each service corresponded to the music genre present in the service.

In sum: if you want to grow a youth service, get a bass guitar.

Gospel notes for Sunday 3rd July 2011

2011-06-24T20:11:00.000+12:00

Yesterday I delivered some material to one of our archdeaconries on the gospel reading (RCL) for Sunday 3rd July. It may be of interest to you, especially if you are preparing a sermon for that day. The context here is Christchurch city, battered and bruised as it is.

Matthew 11:16-19, 25-30 (Gospel for Sunday 3rd July, 2011)

11:16 “To what should I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces who call out to one another,

11:17 ‘We played the flute for you, yet you did not dance; we wailed in mourning, yet you did not weep.’

11:18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon!’

11:19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him, a glutton and a drunk, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ But wisdom is vindicated by her deeds.”

[Deuteronomy 21:20, ‘They shall say to the elders of his town, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard”.’ Matthew’s Greek for ‘glutton and drunk’ is not same as Septuagint for ‘glutton and drunkard.]

11:25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent, and revealed them to little children.

11:26 Yes, Father, for this was your gracious will (lit. ‘for so it pleased you well’).

11:27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son decides to reveal him.

11:28 Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.

11:29 Take my yoke on you and learn from me, because I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

11:30 For my yoke is easy to bear, and my load is not hard to carry.”

(NET: http://bible.org/netbible/ )

This passage is very difficult (e.g. around meaning of ‘wisdom’, how wisdom is acquired, Johannine character of 11:25-27, play on rabbinical and Christian discipleship in 11:28-30, meaning of ‘rest’ (is it our ‘peace and tranquillity while snoozing in the sun on a sunny January holiday’?). Suggest looking up a good commentary. Theology House has a few.

One difficulty is presented by the lectionary itself: why has 11:20-24 been omitted? Looks like a case of “difficult passage, better leave it out.” This kind of thing is ‘rough justice’ on the theological ability of the biblical writer. In this case Matthew connects 11:16-19 with 20-24 via the theme of works: God’s sending of Jesus into the world is ‘wisdom’ which is justified by its deeds or works (ergon); these works include mighty or powerful works (dynameis) of Jesus, so powerful that people should be repenting. What are our congregations missing by not hearing the whole passage?

Matthew the theologian works some authentic Jesus material differently to Luke (compare with Luke 7:31-35; 10:12-15; 10:21-22; and no comparable passage for Matthew 11:28-30), his skill and thematic interests as a theologian being betrayed by his sequencing of material and words which constitute the glue joining sections together.

Another theme worked through by Matthew is sonship. In the first passage Jesus the Son of Man speaks of himself being derided by ‘this generation’. But the language is reminiscent of Deuteronomy 21:20, in a passage about how parents are to deal with a wayward son. Ironically, whether ‘the Son of Man’ or ‘the Son of God’, Jesus is not recognised as such. In fact the opposite: he is derided with the language used of a bad son. Bad sons are recognised by their bad deeds. The generation of Jesus do not see the deeds of Jesus for what they are: deeds proving God’s wisdom is true. Rightly, Jesus the good Son addresses God as Father (11:25, 26, 27).

Wisdom is another theme Matthew is concerned with (11:19, 25, 29). Is wisdom – true, divine wisdom – received through revelation or through rabbinical learning? Revelation seems paramount, not only setting aside learning through study with rabbis (the ‘wise and intelligent’) but also judging the inanities of the crowds making their populist judgments of John the Baptist and of Jesus. Yet at the end of the passage, Jesus’ yoke is a rabbinical image: his disciples will learn from him, like other rabbis’ disciples. However Jesus continues to set himself apart: he is gentle and humble, his yoke is light and his load is easy to bear. But that means that ...

‘rest’ here is not refreshment and recreation, rather it is the result of effective learning from the true Wisdom: their souls will not be heavy burdened and weary from the demands of the Law but enjoying the peace of a mind which knows God’s will. Note the contrast between the light yoke of Jesus and the heavy demands of the Pharisees in the next chapter, Matthew 12.

Eugene Peterson’s The Message captures this understanding of ‘rest’ well in this translation:

“Are you tired? Worn out? Burned out on religion? Come to me. Get away with me and you’ll recover your life. I’ll show you how to take a real rest. Walk with me and work with me – watch how I do it. Learn the unforced rhythms of grace. I won’t lay anything heavy or ill-fitting on you. Keep company with me and you’ll learn to live freely and lightly.” (Matthew 11:28-30).

Which brings us back to sonship. When Jesus bids his disciples to take his yoke which is to walk closely beside him and learn from him what relationship is immediately behind this relationship? The Father – Son relationship described in 11:27. As the Son has been yoked to the Father, yielding complete knowledge, so disciples will know the Son and thus the Father (all of which is much expanded on in John’s Gospel).

All very interesting (with much more untouched here) but what is our message going to be when we preach on this reading?

What single theme might our words on July 3rd cohere around in a tight, focused message? There are several themes here.

From this passage what application(s) could we make to our communities around us, battered and bruised as we are?

My suggested answers to these questions

(1) Is Christchurch a city under judgement? Whether we take a view on the earthquakes themselves being acts of judgement, we are a city being tested for what makes us tick, what our allegiances are, and where our deepest values lie. There are some signs of more people coming to church. Are people turning to Christ in repentance and faith? Is there a vague upturn of religiosity and sentiment?

(2) Jesus is the centre. Every part of this passage (including the omitted passage in 11:20-24) turns on Jesus. Jesus is always looking for those who belong to him, who understand him, who come to him because he is the way, the truth and the life.

(3) The pressure of the earthquakes is immense. The challenges for many are overwhelming. We have lost our familiar treasures. Yet Jesus offers the incomparable treasure of knowing the Father through the Son (in the power of the Spirit). It is all that matters.

(4) +Kelvin Wright (http://vendr.blogspot.com/2011/06/empties.html ): empty church buildings in Otago and Southland as testimony to a former way of doing things. Our ‘core business’ is personal transformation. Those buildings were once important to that ‘business’. Now they are not. But the ‘core business’ remains the same. What do we need to do to ‘grow the business’ in today’s environment?

Our faith on Trinity Sunday

2011-06-19T14:06:00.000+12:00

Lost from NZPB is this treasure of the BCP, itself a treasure of the church of the ages, the Athanasian Creed. Let's dust it off on this most suitable of days for its recitation.

Quicunque vult

WHOSOEVER will be saved : before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith.

Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled : without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

And the Catholick Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

Neither confounding the Persons : nor dividing the Substance.

For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son : and another of the Holy Ghost.

But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one : the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son : and such is the Holy Ghost.

The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate : and the Holy Ghost uncreate.

The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible : and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible.

The Father eternal, the Son eternal : and the Holy Ghost eternal.

And yet they are not three eternals : but one eternal.

As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated : but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible.

So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty : and the Holy Ghost Almighty.

And yet they are not three Almighties : but one Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God : and the Holy Ghost is God.

And yet they are not three Gods : but one God.

So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord : and the Holy Ghost Lord.

And yet not three Lords : but one Lord.

For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be both God and Lord;

So are we forbidden by the Catholick Religion : to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords.

The Father is made of none : neither created, nor begotten.

The Son is of the Father alone : not made, nor created, but begotten.

The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son : neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons : one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.

And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other : none is greater, or less than another;

But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together : and co-equal.

So that in all things, as is aforesaid : the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

He therefore that will be saved : must think thus of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation : that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess : that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man;

God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds : and Man of the substance of his Mother, born in the world;

Perfect God and perfect Man : of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead : and inferior to the Father, as touching his manhood;

Who, although he be God and Man : yet he is not two, but one Christ;

One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh : but by taking of the Manhood into God;

One altogether; not by confusion of Substance : but by unity of Person.

For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man : so God and Man is one Christ;

Who suffered for our salvation : descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead.

He ascended into heaven, he sitteth at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty : from whence he will come to judge the quick and the dead.

At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies : and shall give account for their own works.

And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting : and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

This is the Catholick Faith : which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son: and to the Holy Ghost;.

As it was in the beginning, is now, and every shall be: world without end. Amen.

Did anyone recite it in church today?

How Long Should a Service Be?

2011-06-13T09:45:00.000+12:00

This simple question has a complex answer. I am prompted to think about it a little by my preaching in a church yesterday with three services, each of differing time lengths. While I think my third delivery of the sermon was a little longer than than the first two, overall my sermon was pretty average in delivery time, and on these three occasions didn't contribute to any undue lengthening of the services (all of which, as far as I could tell, actually kept to their planned, and customary length).

(1) There is an unstated lower limit to length! Let's face it, most people going to a mid-morning Sunday service would be puzzled if not grizzly if they were out of the church within half-an-hour. While we mostly (in my experience) talk about services being too long, it is possible for a service to be too short.

(2) When people plan services there is often an associated plan re the time (whether stated or not). If the service then takes too short or too long a time, review of the service, in the light of the plan, can lead to improved planning.

(3) Context is a significant constraint on time. If, say, there are three services on a Sunday morning, 8 am, 9 am, and 10.30 am, and some time gap between services is sought, then the first two services are likely to be constrained to 45 minutes and 60 minutes respectively. Sunday lunch is still a desirable meal, especially for hungry children and teenagers, so the constraint on the 10.30 am service will be different. What is a reasonable time for a family to get away from church in time for lunch? The above sentences presume a single centre parish. There would be other constraints in a parish where each of three services is in a different location.

(4) Personal comfort is a constraint. For what time span for a service can we reasonably expect people to engage? Expectation will vary with age and stage. Mid-week services, for example, often with 95%+ participation by people aged over 75 years, are rightly among the shortest services we hold. Young students, enjoying lots of music and a mentally-demanding Bible exposition may be very happy to come to an evening service that lasts one and a half to two hours. I suggest we do well to think about what would be comfortable for a newcomer, as well as the comfort level for regular worshippers. In some circumstances I have noticed congregational numbers dropping when service length has not been constrained.

(5) Consistency is a factor. Again, speaking from experience, and taking a hypothetical "8 am, 9 am and 10.30 am" set of services, consistency helps in several ways. Consistently tightly held deadlines for the first two services is a great help to those setting up and assisting in leading the following service. A third service in the morning is not under quite the same constraint: it could vary a little in length from week to week, but normally people appreciate knowing that they will be able to choose to leave the building between (say) 11.40 and 11.45 am.

But all this involves another set of questions: how long should the individual parts of each service take ...!

Fine tuning preaching

2011-06-06T12:07:00.000+12:00

Unfortunately I have lent the book onwards but a biography of John Stott has a very useful section on reviewing sermons. In my faulty memory these were the useful questions asked What was the message? (What message did I think I preached, What message did you hear?) and How did the message come across? (Did it patronise? Was it too simple, too clever? Was your attention held?).

A "PS" question I would add, just to check, is, Was there one and only one message? It is interesting listening to a sermon and to notice (as the hearer) that something has changed or shifted in the sermon. What has happened (I say to myself)? Ah, yes, a new message has begun (i.e. a new subject, topic or theme is being attended to). Let's say that great preachers do not do this, but good preachers notice when they do this and rescue the sermon but quickly leaving the new message, returning to the actual message for the day, and concluding promptly!

Worship, Mission, Love

2011-05-24T19:44:00.000+12:00

Quick thought re worship, mission and love. Sometimes in discussions about priorities of the church we end up with a 'worship is the most important thing' conclusion, and sometimes it is 'mission is the most important thing.'

Both are good conclusions to reach and if it was a competition between 'worship' and 'mission' it might be declared a dead heat.

Recently I have been thinking about something else and I have realised that it may be the connecting link between the two. That something else is divine love. What do we have to offer the world? The gospel of divine love: God loves the world. What is worship? Responding to God's love for us with our love sent back to God.

Mission and worship are connected inextricably in this vision. A world looking at a congregation worshipping God should 'see the love.' A congregation going out into the world goes to demonstrate God's love. Worship and mission are not in a competition, unless it is the competition to give out and give away as much love as possible.

Getting to grips with Anglican eucharistic liturgy

2011-05-19T07:45:00.000+12:00

Tonight I speak with a group of worship leaders in a parish. I have experienced their regular Sunday worship and feel there are no particular problems to address - far from it, they do everything well. It is tempting to say "You do not need me; I won't come."

So what might one say in such a meeting? First, I am going to ask questions of the group as to whether they have anything they want to raise with me. If there are problems they wish to tackle it would be better if we do before the meeting is over. Secondly, I am going to talk a little about the "inner structure" of our most used Anglican eucharistic liturgy, "page 404." (In doing so I will acknowledge the fact that some of my greatest development in learning about liturgy has been through my conversations with Bosco Peters over the years.)

What is important to me about the inner structure of page 404?

First, the service is not a shopping list to get through, each item ticked on the way. Rather, it is a service with an object, to worship God, and two main parts to it, each designed to draw us closer to God and to enable us to receive blessing from God. Part One is the ministry of the Word, and part two is the ministry of the Sacrament. In the first part we hear the Word of God proclaimed. In the second part we receive the Word of God made visible in the Sacrament of the bread and the wine.

I want to concentrate on the first part tonight, the ministry of the Word. This part has quite a few items so, again, the temptation might be to think that the aim is to get through the series of items, like ticking off items on a shopping list. I am going to propose that we think of this part of the Holy Communion as being about the proclamation of the Word so that we then think about the "items" in it as all related to that proclamation.

The initial items - Greeting, Collect of Purity, Gloria, Commandments, Confession, Absolution prepare us to hear the proclamation and (later) to receive the Sacrament. A few further items, Sentence and Collect draw us closer to hearing God's Word (for instance, by focusing our minds on the theme present in the readings and (hopefully!) in the sermon). Subsequent items of Creed and Intercessions are responses to hearing that Word.

I will also make the point that there is a lovely turning point between the preparation for hearing the Word and the proclamation of the Word when the worship leader and the congregation say,

"The peace of Christ rule in our hearts.
The word of Christ dwell in us richly."

In short, Having confessed our sins, let us hear the Word.

Lessons from the Royal Wedding service

2011-05-04T07:14:00.001+12:00

There are quite a few lessons to learn from the widely viewed wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton. Some are obvious, such as do everything well and ensure that is so by appropriate rehearsing. Some are less obvious, such as think deeply, widely and slowly about what music will go well with the occasion (and what will not). Whoever put the music together for this occasion deserves an Oscar.

One lesson to think about is the number of voices it is appropriate to have in the leadership of a service. On this occasion we can all understand that the Dean of the Abbey and the Archbishop of Canterbury needed to have a role. But what with each contributing to the leadership and yet another bishop preaching and another cleric leading the prayers, I am reminded that too many voices can fragment the overall sense of unity and continuity in a service.

But the most important lesson to learn, not just for any wedding, but for any service of worship, is that out of the ordinary staples of worship: liturgy, prayers, reading, sermon, music, ritual an extraordinary, riveting, and (dare I say it in a Christian context) magical event can be created.

E is for Engagement

2011-04-26T14:43:00.000+12:00

A friend reading my preaching 'e's challenged me to do one more, on Engagement.

I quite agree. Engagement might be the most important 'e' preaching word of them all.

I have a message to give. The congregation is open to receiving the message. But will they receive the message? When, perhaps, some are tired, others are distracted (e.g. by an accompanying child, by some anxiety), and others are entranced by something around them - a buzzing fly, a sun-filled stained glass window - what will engage attention so that the message delivered is, more or less, the message received?

I do not think there is a preferred method. Some preachers use humour effectively to retain attention and to reinforce the message. Others tell appropriate illustrative stories, the best of these placing them judiciously into the flow of the sermon. Within the story tellers are those who engage best through autobiography, others through biography (i.e. the stories of other people), and others through other kinds of stories drawn from history, nature and sport (how the war was won, how ants co-operate, how to develop a winning frame of mind). It will help if the Bible is mentioned! Often the text for the day is engaging in its own right - a dramatic episode from Israel's history, a might miracle of Jesus, a parable with a sting in its tail.

Let me stop there for now. In doing so I exemplify one further aspect of engagement: speaking for less rather than more time. The most engaging material has a time limit on it. Go beyond that limit and engagement will cease.

Another "E" of Preaching: one to avoid

2011-04-19T08:02:00.000+12:00

Here is another "E" in preaching: Explanation.

I suggest this "E" word is one to try to avoid as much as possible.

Explanations tend to give information and contribute little to transformation. Within a sermon explanations are a sidetrack down which the sermon heads, away from the main point of the sermon. By 'sidetrack' I mean: a state into which the hearers are led from which they might not come back. In my case I will probably have fallen asleep during the explanation!

'Explanation' includes explaining how the sermon came to be written, why the topic was chosen, what got in the way of its steady progress during the week of preparation. Do not do this. The sermon's purpose is to point people to the God of Jesus Christ, not to the autobiography of the preacher.

'Explanation' includes explaining technical matters. These could be matters within the biblical text itself such as what a Pharisee was, or where Pergamum is, or how big a mustard tree grows. Sometimes these explanations contribute to the impact of the point of the sermon and thus should be made, but even then, concisely! An example might be the degradation of the prodigal son in Luke 15: tending pigs was not what good Jewish boys did (or do, to this day).

Technical matters could also be about life as it is related to the biblical text. Peace and justice in this world is threatened by the decisions of world powers. A little explanation, a few illustrations will underline this point ... but please, literally "for God's sake", for the sake of drawing hearers towards God, and not towards the complexities of politicians' lives, be as brief, as concise as possible.

A third possibility re technical matters in sermons can be 'the theology of X'. Perhaps the biblical text is about the work of the Spirit in our lives. We feel a need to distinguish between that work in terms of 'gifts of the Spirit' and of 'fruit of the Spirit.' Well there are many gifts and many kinds of fruit. We could get a long way from the central point we wish to make very quickly with explanations about 'gifts' and 'fruit'. Here advice might not only be, as above, to be brief and concise in the explanation, it might also be to ask ourselves the question, "Is the feeling I have that I need to make some distinction between the Spirit's gifts and fruit a feeling which I need to act on?" That is, might there be another way to talk about how the Spirit works in our lives? There will be other opportunities to talk about the gifts and the fruit of the Spirit.

Take care when the text of our sermons has the character of 'explanation.'

PS Take even greater care when we start ad libbing explanations. They are so difficult to bring to a quick ending.

The "E"s of Preaching

2011-04-13T07:08:00.000+12:00

Some e-words to think about when considering how to preach well.

Exegesis: drawing out from the text what it is saying.

Exposition: saying what the text means for us today.

Evangelism: ensuring the good news of Jesus Christ is part of (even the whole of) our sermon.

Essay: the kind of sermon to avoid. Some longer sermons have the feel of an essay and suffer accordingly. A sermon should be more like a blog post, letter to the editor, or message on a postcard than like an essay.

Enthusiasm: sermons are not just words, they are convictions communicated through words; let our enthusiasm for what we believe be expressed.

It is not what you say but how you say it that is remembered

2011-03-27T12:58:00.000+13:00

If the title of the post is true about conversational speech it is not necessarily true about preaching. People do remember some things we say in sermons. Content matters, keep working on it! But how we say things does matter. Cheerfulness, good humour, a smile will be remembered .. as will a judgmental tone, shouting, negativity towards others, sarcasm and the like.

How do we want to be remembered as preachers?

Thinking about the National Memorial Service today

2011-03-18T20:39:00.000+13:00

It's a big thing to organise a service such as we had in Christchurch today. I imagine that the organisers (whom I know included Dean Peter Beck and Bishop Victoria Matthews but others the number, experience and Christian commitment of whom I have no idea) had quite a lot to discuss because there were quite a few parts to the service.

I guess some of the music fell into place fairly easily (Amazing Grace, Pie Jesu, Whakaria Mai (How Great Thou Art), God Save the Queen, God Defend New Zealand) and once Dave Dobbyn comes ino the picture then Loyal is the song for him to sing. Sometimes our music choices are straightforward.

Likewise the speakers were straightforward (a Maori elder, the PM, Prince William, the Mayor, the Leader of the Opposition, Bishop Victoria). Ditto for us.

Trickier, I imagine, were other elements: which readings and who to read? who to pray and how many prayers? what symbolic actions and who to perform them? How to do everything to make the service complete and how to invite a range of people so all sectors of Christchurch society were represented. Sometimes we have these challenges for parish services. The bishop is coming for an annual (combined) service ... which readers and intercessors to ask representing the different congregations, generations and genders in the parish?

Something worked really well that the organisers had no control over: the weather was brilliant for an outside service. Some parishes in Christchurch are having a few outdoor services these days and the weather hasn't always been brilliant.

Final note: something I missed at the end of today's service. There was no clear and definite signal that the service had ended. In our services these days, even our most informal ones, 'the Dismissal' is said. Not only do we leave the service with great words, we know the service has ended!

Quick reflection on worship amidst tragedy

2011-03-07T21:33:00.000+13:00

Just one thought re worshipping in the midst of tragedy - since the 22nd February 2011 earthquake here in Christchurch, NZ ... stick to the book.

We are all well meaning, and we want to do the very best we can with helpful words and caring made up prayers and so on. But it is so hard to get words right. My experience is not your experience. My intense conviction that God did not send the earthquake may not be your intense conviction (not because you believe God sends earthquakes punitively or maliciously, but because you believe God is in charge of everything and so earthquake (somehow) fit in with God's purposes).

So it has struck me that if we can bear to gather to worship together in the midst of tragedy then the simplest words to use might be the familiar words of liturgy. Such words are not specifically designed to meet us in our hour of tragic need so they are not condemned if they do not directly help us. Being familiar, such words do not require much listening effort on our part. They can wash over us and seep inside us.

We can take time to think about what to say as our wise contribution to talking about these grave matters. A month or a year from now might be the best time to speak. In the meantime, stick to the book!

Preaching with the Waiapu Academy

2011-02-12T14:36:00.000+13:00

From Bosco Peters's blog I learn something I pass on to readers here.

Rev Dr Howard Pilgrim, theological educator and academic leader within the Diocese of Waiapu, is providing (RCL) preaching resources via the web.

Link here.

From that site you go to a picture of the gospel text with verbal commentary by Howard Pilgrim.

Cool!

Getting Jesus out of the Bible into Life Today

2011-02-07T18:05:00.000+13:00

What I am about to write may not work every Sunday!

Yesterday, the gospel reading, Matthew 5:13-20, had a certain complexity: the lovely and inspiring images of salt and light combined with a potentially very complicated set of verses on the law (complicated, e.g., in relation to explaining grace and faith). What to do?

It happened that I wrote one sermon, then another. I think what drove me to ditch the first was that it led into the complexity of the verses about Jesus' fulfilling the law without making a good relevant connection to our lives today.

The helpful idea which came to mind - thank you Lord - was to begin the sermon by asking what Jesus might have said were he at Waitangi yesterday or walking about in Tahrir Square, Cairo, where thousands of protestors have been gathering through the last week or so. That led me to suggest Jesus might have talked about the law first (connecting the law of Moses as a recipe for a just, healthy and godly society, with the respective situations of Aotearoa NZ and Egypt in which not everything is just, healthy or godly), and then about being salt and light.

The simple device of asking what Jesus might say in today's situation helped enormously with moving from the gospel passage as an academic challenge (what does salt of the earth mean, what is light of the world all about, why does Jesus say what he says about the law) to the gospel as a living word for today.

If a key to great sermons is telling stories (Bible stories, real life today stories) then one possibility, as happened yesterday, is to tell the Bible story as though it is happening today: if Jesus were in situation X, then, on the basis of our gospel reading, he would say Y.

Readings Fiasco

2011-01-31T15:48:00.000+13:00

I and only I am solely responsible for the following, which I report as a reminder of the importance of not taking everything at face value and of checking and re-checking information.

Looking up my lectionary in my Parson's Pocket Book (an English sourced annual diary-cum-note-taking-cum-lectionary-resource) I came up with readings for yesterday's sermon at a church which had graciously invited me. (Relevant explanation: I chose to go with the 'ordinary' readings rather than the 'extraordinary' = Presentation of Jesus readings).

Error #1: I accepted that the lectionary is the same the world over and looked forward to preaching on John 2:1-11. But it turned out (through conversation with a colleague who has a different diary but also with English based lectionary readings) that John 2:1-11 is not the reading set down in our NZ Lectionary (i.e. Matthew 5:1-12). It further turns out, as Bosco Peters' confirms, that nowhere else in the world has this particular C of E reading!! OK. I preceded to prepare a message with good content.

Error #2: when it came time for the OT reading I noticed that the reading was from 1 Kings 7:8-16. The reading should have been 1 Kings 17:8-16. But, you guessed it, on checking my emails, it was me who had sent 1 Kings 7:8-16. No, double-checking then, on my part. (Further, to make matters worse, after discovering the discrepancy between 1 John 2:1-11 and Matthew 5:1-12, I had confirmed that the readings were to be as I had sent them.) Fortunately I was able, impromptu, to make something of the 1 Kings 7 reading in relation to my 'main text', John 2:1-11.

I have learned some lessons this weekend!

Preacher know thyself, thy temptations, and thy hobby horses

2011-01-23T20:51:00.000+13:00

I preached today for the first time for several weeks (and for the first of a sequence of invitations in the next few weeks).

I leave it to the congregation concerned to appraise the actual sermon they heard, and God is my judge for what I delivered. Here I want to reflect on how I got to what was preached. I found as I was working on the sermon that I was doing something I often do in sermon preparation. It goes something like this:

(a) oh, I see X (within the overall course of the sermon) is a potential problem in respect of offering some thinking which is logically secure and pastorally responsible. (Often X is an aspect of the problem of suffering).
(b) what if a more than averagely learned, or more than ordinarily expected sufferer of life's tragedies is present?
(c) I had better make sure I say something sensible and sensitive in respect of X.
(d) oh, and I see that a related problem, Y, needs to be mentioned as well,
(e) Let me see ... First, ... Second, ... then this means (a) .... then, (b) ....
(f) Is this becoming too complicated? A long-winded complicated argument for the listeners to follow? Are those eyes of the congregation glazing over in my imagination as I think about delivering the sermon tomorrow?

I won't tell you when I felt that (f) was definitely in view, or when I determined that a fairly substantial change would and should be made to what I had prepared, but it was fairly late in the process of preparation.

My temptation, you see, is to become convoluted. It is all in a good cause (trying to honour the integrity of people's intellectual curiosity and/or pastoral needs). But (experience has often shown me) it is not good overall. Too many of the congregation are lost to the message when I give into the temptation and a complex sermon results.

What is your temptation as a preacher? What do you need to discipline out of your sermon during the preparation stage?

You can tell when the hard yards have been done

2011-01-17T07:37:00.000+13:00

Listening to an excellent sermon yesterday morning I appreciated very much that some hard work had gone into its preparation. There was simply too much detail in the explanation of the main scriptural passage for this sermon to be anything other than a well prepared one.

Incidentally by 'detail' I do not mean 'lots of information, ultimately tedious to have to listen to as it was listed for us.' Not at all: another sign of the hard work in preparation was the way in which the detail was presented. Not too much, not too little. Relevant to the passage, interesting to the congregation. Conveyed with a light touch. A minor rather than a major part of the sermon.

A wider perspective on worship

2011-01-09T21:07:00.000+13:00

Readers - I know of at least two of you, thank you - may be pleased to know that I was back at church this morning. No earthquake swarms and no travelling exigencies (see post below). A fine service it was and just what I like: a plain, standard, no frills (and no spills) Anglican eucharistic liturgy. But I got to thinking during the service.

There is a very wide church scene in Christchurch, NZ. Many Anglican churches, with varying attendances and varying commitments to a plain, standard, no frills Anglican eucharistic liturgy; many fine Catholic churches, some with very high attendances; some strong Presbyterian and Methodist churches (but diminishing numbers of the latter); but the prize for attendance and vibrancy, I believe, goes to a number of independent, or quasi-independent churches which, by all accounts, are pentecostal-cum-evangelical in flavour. And whatever goes on their services, I am certain it is not a plain, standard, no frills Anglican eucharistic liturgy.

Thinking about this, it is no surprise that a variety of worship preferences exists in our society of many flavours and fashions (think the multitude of sports and recreations one can participate in these days compared to forty years ago; or the options in careers, to say nothing of the wisdom that says each and everyone of us will have five careers in our lifetime). Whatever the virtues of sound Anglican liturgy properly performed, in the remainder of my lifetime it is unlikely to assume some kind of dominance in worship among Christians in NZ. I certainly hope its role grows stronger than what it is, and I imagine that such growth would be accompanied by continued growth in the Roman Catholic church in NZ. But will the dominant 'bloc' of larger churches in Christchurch be Anglican/Roman Catholic in my lifetime? I suspect not.

So my thinking continued along this line: what does it mean to be Anglican in respect of worship, living in communities such as Christchurch where some clear and strong voting with their feet is taking worshippers in large numbers to pentecostal-cum-evangelical independent or quasi-independent churches? Is the most important thing the 'Anglican liturgy'? Should we broaden our style of worship services and develop the content of our liturgies to better capture the imagination of worshipping Christians? Some in our midst, of course, are already doing this (with, I hasten to observe, mixed success as measured by attendance; also, I hasten to add, in many cases with a clear sense of using the flexibility of worship style and content available according to our formularies and canons).

The answer to my last question may mean that the most important thing about being Anglican is that it is an inclusive church of the people (think back to the church of Cranmer and co being self-consciously the Church of England, meaning all England). To this aim 'Anglican liturgy' may take second place.

Much can be discussed here. Is a church of the people necessarily a church which compromises liturgical principles handed down through the ages? In the long term will a church with sound liturgy be more inclusive of more people because it will last longer. There are churches in Christchurch, after all, which seem to have great numbers today but were not even in existence 30+ years ago when I were a lad: will they still be with us in 30 years time? (They might be: one of the largest churches in Christchurch when I left as a young adult remains the largest church today).

A final thing I thought about: in yesterday's paper a young, energetic couple were pictured in a church advertisement, as pastors of one of the growing independent churches. The husband is the son of a vicar. I do not know all the reasons why this pastor is not a vicar himself. But it does make me wonder whether we ought to be a church with enough width to incorporate him into our college of presbyters. Perhaps God is working on that :)

Liturgical Hopes for 2011

2011-01-06T06:38:00.000+13:00

I have actually had two Sundays in a row not going to church. Scandalous, I know. In weak defence I proffer 'earthquake swarm' and 'travelling exigencies' as reasons for not making it to corporate worship in a building unlikely to fall on my head :) But perhaps, from time to time, a few Sundays away from liturgies reminds me of what liturgies offer. In this case, I have missed the rhythm and order which Sunday liturgies contribute to my life and the life of my family. Then there is the missing factor of the special confrontation liturgy in a corporate setting offers: in the midst of God's people, God is present in a special manner which confronts me with how I am living my life. This past week, I realise, I have lived committing sin and omitting obedience (thankfully liturgy offers confession and absolution). I have not been as attentive as I might to Scripture through my personal reading (thankfully liturgy offers proclamation of God's Word through reading Scripture and preaching). And, certainly, my mind has not thought of all things which could be given thanks for and prayed for (thankfully liturgy offers opportunity for thanksgiving and intercession).

Where the liturgy is a eucharist then there is also opportunity for that which otherwise I am forbidden to experience alone: the symbolic participation in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ through bread and wine in shared feast of thankful memory of Christ dying for the sins of the whole world.

My liturgical hopes for 2011 are simple: let me and others in Christ's body meet with the living God together through what we do and say. And may what is said and done, especially by the leaders of liturgy not (even 'NOT') inhibit that meeting!

Liturgically Happy Christmas?

2010-12-26T15:16:00.002+13:00

Not really! Not all bad, by any means, but not uniformly of a high standard either. Christmas is hard to get right liturgically. I myself have been vicar presiding over an attempted 'high standard' of liturgy, only to see the numbers drop in successive years. Tempting (in hindsight) to go for more non-standard items: drama, (these days) film clips (had a few at one service I went to), chirpy songs, more and more candles, etc. Rather than grizzle about what disappointed me, or compliment over what pleased me, it would be better to raise some questions of principle - questions which I find relevant to many services I have shared in over the last few years here in Kiwiland:

(1) Are the congregation spectators or participants? "Both" could be an answer, in which case the question becomes, "how much spectating is good for the health of the body of Christ?"

(2) How do we offer friendliness and warmth as worship leaders and as presiding priests?
(3) What is the role of the Sharing of the Peace? (One answer, more and more experienced all over the show, I am finding, seems to be that it is a liturgical version of half-time in a game of rugby: a chance for a break, a conversation, etc. Is that a good answer? Why, or why not? Is there a case in a special service (e.g. Christmas, Easter) for dispensing with the action of sharing the peace?)

Did you have a liturgically Happy Christmas? If so, why? If not, why not?

Getting the max out of the words we use

2010-12-13T07:30:00.002+13:00

I do not think one has to shift one's personal judgements as to the faults and foibles, or successes and victories of controversial politicians such as the recent sequence of US presidents, Clinton, Bush and Obama, when recognising particular abilities each has. In the following citation, written after an unexpected moment in the White House press room in which Bill Clinton was at the podium in the absence of President Obama, note the astute, clever, and exemplary communication abilities of Clinton. The background story is huge controversy over whether extending tax cuts to the rich or not would be good for America mired in recession, associated with continuing concern by Democrats as to whether Obama is communicating well, his decisions and the reasons for them:

"The contrast wasn’t as great as I might have expected, because we got the wonky Clinton, who somehow wound up talking about wind turbines in Nevada, rather than the feel-your-pain Clinton. But the body language was instructive. Obama tends to stand straight, as if addressing a law school class; Clinton kept putting his hand over his heart, as if to signal he’s speaking with sincerity.

Clinton instantly personalized the debate, saying that as a rich guy, he would benefit from the GOP’s insistence on tax cuts for the wealthy. “You know how I feel,” he told reporters. “I think people who benefit the most should pay the most—not for class-warfare reasons, but for reasons of fairness and rebuilding the middle class in America.” He made the case right there, in one sentence.

Clinton thanked the Republican leaders for their concessions, appearing gracious rather than grudging. “There’s never a perfect bipartisan bill in the eyes of a partisan,” he said." (My italics).

The exemplary notes here, in respect of preaching, are these:

(1) Finding a way to personalise doctrine.

(2) Minimising the number of words which 'make the case' for the theological argument which drives our sermon along (or, in other words, finding the shortest, most memorable way to state the message we are bringing to the congregation).

(3) Acknowledging human failings and the painful realities of life with grace (rather than, as the case may be, with complaint, condemnation, or self-pity).

(4) Doing all the above with body language that works with, not against, the tenor of what we are saying.

The preachers we judge to be 'great' will almost certainly exemplify the same great communicative traits that Bill Clinton demonstrates here.

What to preach at a wedding or an ordination

2010-12-06T05:41:00.000+13:00

This Sunday evening coming I am preaching at the ordination to the diaconate of a particularly fine set of candidates for admittance to that order of ministry: Jolyon White, James Ullrich, Chris Spark, and Spanky (Joshua) Moore. Recently I took part in a wedding at which I did not preach. Between the two events I am thinking a little about the intent and purpose of sermons at such occasions.

One line seems to be 'last minute advice'! Weddings are prepared for with marriage preparation; ordinations are preceded by training, education and, finally, a retreat. Each can have a sermone which, effectively, is 'last minute advice.'

Another line seems to be 'definition.' What is marriage all about? Why do we ordain people? What happens when we ordain someone? Some such sermons answer such questions. Quite useful this can be too, since weddings and ordinations are not regular, weekly events for the congregations, so some kind of renewal of our minds on these matters can be helpful.

What line will I take this coming weekend? I will let you know ...

Worship, Mission and Trauma

2010-11-22T11:12:00.000+13:00

The hours are stretching into days of waiting to find out whether the 29 miners trapped in the Pike River Coal Mine following a terrific explosion are alive or dead. Interestingly one of the features of the news coverage of the situation has been the focus on the work of churches in Greymouth and the spotlight has been on one Anglican church, Holy Trinity, Greymouth. On Saturday night a special prayer service was held in the church, and prayers and lighting of candles took place yesterday as well. One media report began, 'Greymouth went to church last night'.

I congratulate Anglican leadership in Greymouth in responding sensitively and boldly to the situation. I notice that one outcome has been repeated media interviews of clergy who have become part of the community leadership giving voice to people's hopes and fears. In the midst of trauma, worship and mission are being integrated as the church seeks to serve people in the name of Christ.

Preaching eternal truths

2010-11-16T07:38:00.000+13:00

Courtesy of my colleague Brian Thomas my attention has been drawn to this old but everlasting advice re preaching, republished recently in the Guardian (UK):

"Sunk in their deep armchairs, 36 Anglican clergymen were told here today about the "weary Willies" of the pulpit by the Rev. D. W. Cleverley Ford, director of the Church of England's first college of preaching, which opened here today at Scargill House, the Anglican conference centre.

Mr Ford, who was listing his "tools of the trade" for the preacher, said a congregation first considered what the preacher was, secondly how he said it, and thirdly what he said.

A preacher was his own visual aid or hindrance. "His clothes, his hands, his hair, his beard or absence of beard, his robes ? all these are important. A man who starts preparing his sermon at 10 p.m. on Saturday and finishes it at 2 a.m. on Sunday might arrive in the pulpit looking like a weary Willie. What kind of advertisement is he for the Christian faith? Many members of our congregation are women; they see people rather differently from us. They notice that a preacher has a clean collar, or that he is wearing one that might be cleaner. They spend the rest of the sermon wondering about things that need cleaning at home."

Still talking of the "weary Willies," Mr Ford said: "At some of the sermons I have heard, I would like to throw a hymn-book at the preacher and shout 'Wake up, man!'"

There had been a decline in the amount and quality of preaching. In the Church of England, preaching could not be divorced from the pastoral office.

"Don't preach at Mrs Smith who has lost her husband," he said. "But knowing her need, and near that particular time, you could take the subject of life after death, or peace of mind." Such things should be brought in as a point in the sermon.

His other "tools of the trade" for the preacher were knowledge of the Bible ("all great preachers have been great Bible students"); theology: illustrative material ("you collect this from life"); and the use of the voice.

"Realise the difficulty of your task," he said. "It is quite wrong to imagine that most people in church are dying to listen to us." The best preachers, he thought, were those who knew what it was like to be flattened, to be hit by life: "It is disappointments, hardships, and suffering that make the man: a moved man who can move people."

From one of the deep armchairs came a question that was almost a heart cry: "All you have said presupposes a congregation?"

Mr Ford said he knew what it was like to preach to an almost empty church and to feel "all this for so few". "But we must not surrender," he said. "The increase will surely come." "

Preaching Matthew

2010-11-09T21:46:00.000+13:00

The Gospel according to Matthew is coming up in the next RCL year (i.e. A). Over the weekend I was able to share some preparational material on Matthew's Gospel with preachers in Mid Canterbury and South Canterbury. Now I am working on a precis for Taonga's Advent edition. Here are some very, very brief observations about Matthew's Gospel:

Motivated by mission, from Jew to Gentile, from Israel to the world.

Setting out the Saviour at work, Jesus as his names says, saves people from their sin, through forgiveness and healing, and teaches a new way of life for saved people.

Adoring one who is more than a new David, Abraham, and Moses, Matthew draws his readers to worship Jesus as the Son of God.

Taking an opportunity

2010-11-03T07:30:00.000+13:00

On Sunday evening I went to hear an advertised sermon on the theology and geology of the (Christchurch) earthquake, to be delivered by Matt Watts, Vicar of St. Timothy's, Burnside, Christchurch. Matt's first degree is in geology and second degree is in theology. Normally I do not comment directly on an identified sermon, but in this case I feel emboldened to do so for three reasons: it was a widely advertised sermon, some 120+ people responded (that's my personal estimate), many of whom were from parishes other than Burnside, and I will not be critiquing it per se (but let me assure you it was very good!)

From a general preaching perspective these learnings struck me as worth sharing here:

(1) Sometimes events provide an opportunity to do something a little different with our preaching. In this instance the difference was (a) feeling able to advertise widely (and this being an evening service, it was not particularly 'competitive' of what was happening in Christchurch parishes as most do not have an evening services), (b) transforming the sermon (as a talk within a service) into an extended talk which, with a extensive time for questions, constituted the whole of the evening programme.

(2) Some events are well worth engaging with in a direct, public, lengthy and extra well prepared manner. The content of Matt's talk clearly involved him in much more preparation than an ordinary weekly sermon: aside from the theological preparation, and the writing of a well structured, very thoughtful address, some excellent geological slides accompanied the talk. They would have taken quite a bit of time to find (I imagine) - some were taken from a recent lecture by a Canterbury University geologist, so some emailing must have gone back and forth re accessing those slides! The talk itself was some 45 minutes in duration - longer than many 'ordinary' sermons. What other events, similar in public impact to a destructive earthquake, would be worth engaging in with similar preparation and publicity?

(3) Presuming to advertise widely that one is going to preach on public matters of the day requires appropriate prior learning and/or experience. I felt drawn to attend because Matt was going to speak on geology and theology as a geologist and as a theologian. Frankly, if I had prepared such a talk (as a non-geologist), would I have bothered to go? Probably not, because the missing element of authenticity would be my inability to speak about the geology of the earthquake with authority. Ditto if say (to take another issue or two) I advertised a sermon on 'How the war in Afghanistan should be conducted' or 'What the Bible says about resolving the economic problems of the world today.' As a preacher wrestling with the meaning of the Bible today I am entitled to preach on such subjects, but I do not think I would be entitled to expect a larger than usual attendance from the wider public when I have no additional expertise to bring to the issues than any other preacher.

(4) Sometimes opportunities present themselves to say something urgent, relevant, and of great interest about a matter of the day. Let's not miss those opportunities!

A secret to great preaching

2010-10-25T21:36:00.000+13:00

There are many secrets to great preaching. Perhaps too many to keep track of! Here is one:

Connect the details of whatever one is saying to the big picture (or, to a big picture, such as Who God Is, or Where this Parish Is Heading, or What Is the Gospel).

If we walk away from church saying, "There were lots of good things in that sermon ... but I am not sure what it was all about" then the chances are high that connection between 'the details' and the 'big picture' have not been made.

That then may provoke us to ask ourselves, 'What is my vision for this parish?' or 'What is my vision of God?'.

Preparation of sermons at that point may mean lifting our heads from the commentaries, smelling the roses, and thinking prayerfully while praying thoughtfully about what vision this sermon relates to.

Chances are then good that vision will fuel passion and passion will give the edge which means the words said will be the words heard by the congregation!

So many saints, so few days

2010-10-18T08:13:00.000+13:00

There are only 365 days in a year, unless it is a leap year, which only adds one more day. As the calendar of Christian celebration accrues more not less saints (cf. the addition this weekend past of Mary McKillop as a saint in the Roman calendar), or, if one is an NZ Anglican, more not less worthy people from our past to remember with thanksgiving, it seems only a matter of time before one's liturgical calendar is void of days to which nothing special, other than God's grace and goodness, is attached! Alternatively, since some days already have multiple possibilities for special remembrance and celebration, we face working through calendars which give us no great guidance as to which on the list for a particular day has priority in celebration over the others!

My general sense is that no great pressure should be felt by worship organisers to celebrate saints days and the like. The days we all should celebrate are the great days of our Lord's own life, death and resurrection, as well as the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Everything else should be optional. What do you think?

Of course even my approach leaves plenty of room for debate over certain days. Is the Annunciation (25 March) a day in the life of our Lord (i.e. his conception) or a Marian festival?

Flow, let it flow

2010-10-11T19:40:00.000+13:00

I return to a familiar theme for the few faithful readers here! Let the components of a service of worship flow from one to the other. Find ways to ensure this happens: print the whole service plus songs on a service sheet/booklet; put the service on a screen via laptop and projector; utterly minimise gaps in the choices made in the prayer book so the use can easily follow the service from page to page with page numbers scarcely needing to be mention. Whatever way works for you, let the service flow. Flow! No staccato, stop-start or start-stop. Be continuous not discrete, smooth not rough.

There is more to St Francis than the animals

2010-10-06T06:52:00.000+13:00

On the plus side to the tradition of have a 'pet service' in association with St Francis is that the TV cameras love it, and we can be pretty much assured each year of some TV news focus on the church - one or other of the cathedrals usually - the more donkeys the merrier!

There is a downside to this association, I suggest: it tempts us to think of St Francis in unidimensional terms. 'He's the guy who blessed the animals, isn't he?' In fact St Francis was an extraordinary multidimensional disciple of Christ: teacher, mentor, preacher, missionary, monastic, apostle, visionary.

He did not receive the stigmata because he liked animals. He became Christ-like in ways few achieve. He was instrumental in renewal of the church. He became an inspirational figure to thousands if not millions in succeeding generations.

Hopefully our sermons each St Francis' Day acknowledge the breadth and depth of this holy one of God.

Spare, constrained, concise?

2010-09-27T17:01:00.000+13:00

What makes a 'great' worship leader? I think there is certainly a place in the life of the church for a worship leader who imbues a service with their personality (hopefully, of course, a warm, lively, loving, inspiring, God-connected and God-centred personality). I know that in some places such worship leaders - if we speak honestly and frankly - are liked for how they lead services by many of the congregation but not by all. As a Kiwi I have never quite worked out whether the 'but not by all' is largely a cultural phenomenon - something about the reserved, serious, modest aspects of our culture resents the leadership which is overly enthusiastic!

I am also intrigued by leadership of worship which seeks to minimise the personality of the leader with a style of leadership which is spare, constrained, concise: minimal directions, for instance, offers less opportunity for the leader to impose themselves on the service. Sometimes moving in this direction is not 'great worship leadership': if so few directions are given, for instance, that people get lost in the prayer book, or, in a different kind of service, get caught out standing when everyone else is sitting, then some in the congregation may feel strongly that they have not been well led!

As we lead services, hopefully doing so often enough to get a sense of what our personal style of leading is, and then leading some more so that we can experiment with a different style, let's keep reflecting on what we are doing and why we are doing it. All with the aim of becoming a great worship leader!

Messy Church

2010-09-21T12:01:00.000+12:00

Messy Church could refer to the state of some Christchurch churches after the earthquakes - masonry and stone chips littering the floors; or it could refer to some Sunday morning services which are not intended to be disorderly, but with sound system breaking down, and Powerpoint via projector subject to gremlins, give the impression of messiness; but here I am referring to a new(-ish) phenomenon in which churches intentionally plan a service called 'Messy Church', picking up on a UK model (see here), in which a service for all ages and stages of life, in a flexible arena (such as a church hall, or a complex in which both hall and church are utilised), takes place.

Just this weekend past I was involved with the first NZ national conference on Messy Church, held at St John's Woolston in Christchurch. Interest in Messy Church is picking up. We even had two attending from Oz!

Balanced preaching

2010-09-13T06:25:00.000+12:00

Recently an observation was made to me which suggested that preachers often do not get the timing of sermons right - specifically, not knowing when to stop. In other words, do preachers say too much? This issue is the same whether one is preaching short, medium or long sermons. Let me explain: suppose that the timing of a particular service (e.g. an 8 am service which needs to finish around 8.45 am - 8.50 am because another service begins at 9.15 am) requires the sermon to be of 6 - 8 minutes duration. If, under these circumstances, the preacher has delivered the message (introduction, argument, illustration, application) in 5 minutes but continues talking for another 90 seconds, even though the whole falls within the accepted time limit, the congregation has heard the message-plus-flim-and-flam! Ditto a service in which it is accepted that a longer, expository sermon will be delivered between 30 and 40 minutes in length: if the message with all its points, illustrations, exegetical wrestling with the passage, and applications has been delivered in 32 minutes, but continues for another 3 minutes, the congregation may have drifted well away from the sermon by the time of its conclusion!

Balanced preaching from this perspective is getting the balance between content, duration, and expectation of duration re the character of the service. In particular it means both knowing when to stop and have the discipline to actually stop.

Some say it is good to leave the congregation wishing to hear more from the preacher ...

When all are shaken

2010-09-06T11:22:00.000+12:00

Normally I am not a fan of the preacher asking people to turn to those nearest to them and discuss matter X or question Y. But yesterday, 24 hours or so after 'the earthquake' here in Christchurch, with after shocks still happening, including two during the service itself, the preacher began the sermon by asking us to turn to one another and share our experiences of the earthquake. I think that in this instance the preacher did the right thing. As he himself explained, a previous experience of a different disaster had taught him that in the immediate aftermath of trauma, people do not remember what you say to them!

I also thought it was a good idea because talking with each other is therapeutic, and I found talking at this time was a good thing.

One of the reasons why I am not a fan of this being done 'normally' is that it makes lots of presumptions. One presumption is that everyone in the conversational group has something to say about X or Y. Often this is not the case. But yesterday was different. The preacher rightly presumed that everyone having shared the experience of the earthquake had something to say.

Abnormal times can call for abnormal methods of communication!

It can be done

2010-09-02T18:01:00.000+12:00

If there is one thing I really admire about the Roman Catholic church it is the ability to have a full mass with hundreds of people present and participating in under an hour. Having experienced this on different occasions in different parishes in different dioceses I assume this is not merely about the efficiency of one or two priests but about a culture and a custom. True, the brevity of such services, relative to Anglican/Protestant equivalents, owes much to brief homilies, and another occasion could discuss the merits of short versus longer sermons. But brief homilies is not the only explanation. It is rare, in my experience, to sing long songs/hymns (let alone turgid ones) in Roman services. We Anglicans could consider whether we are insufficiently vigilant about the length of songs/hymns, especially ones set to unattractive tunes. Prayers of the faithful are normally pretty crisp too. And, not to put too fine a point on the matter, there is rarely fluffing about with flicking through pages of prayer books and the like, or longish directions about this or that.

It is not so much that I think God is better served by shorter worship services than longer ones: one day the whole of everlasting life will be a (timeless) worship service! And I have experienced plenty of great services that last longer than an hour but which are superbly led on the basis of great preparation. But having also participated in some services which seem to 'drag' as they 'meander' through bits and bobs of service items, I do wonder if God is better served by his people being able to attend fully to all that constitutes a worship service because nothing makes our finite, all too earthbound bodies and brains tired, wearied, or simply distracted.

Repeat After Me

2010-08-22T21:48:00.000+12:00

Only preach one sermon at a time. Never preach two sermons at one sitting. Repeat after me ...

Why state this? I think a temptation in preaching to the lectionary is to preach a sermon on two or more of the readings. The challenge is to preach one sermon only. That is, to preach a sermon which majors on one reading and minors on the others; or a sermon which follows a single theme through the readings; or a sermon which combines the three readings together in one, single, pertinent message.

It is possible to preach two or more sermons within the one period of the service called, 'the sermon.' That, I suggest, is a big mistake. No matter how brilliant each of the sermons is, together they will undermine the persuasive effect of each.

Only preach one sermon at a time. Repeat after me.

Sharpen Up

2010-08-16T07:32:00.001+12:00

Trying to penetrate deep into the mysteries of preaching, including reflection on most recent sermons I have heard or preached myself, I remain convinced that being able to sum up the message of the sermon in one sentence is the key to great preaching. Allied with 'one sentence' as a methodological tool to preach better sermons, I remind myself that 'simplicity' as an aim for each sermon is vital to the most effective preaching (in the sense that effective preaching, at the least, communicates a message which is remembered when the sermon is over). Simplicity includes avoiding sidetracks (interesting though they may be) and side passages (good and true though they may be), as well as returning again and again to the message being delivered.

It is possible to deliver a non-simple, multiple messages sermon which people appreciate in a variety of ways. One of the several messages 'hits home'. One of the stories told is deliciously entertaining and memorable. The deliverer may be blessed with a tone and timbre of voice which means that just about anything they say has the effect of making the congregation feel good about life. These things are not irrelevant or unimportant to congregational life!

But, in the long-term, preachers may want to be more effective than 'thankfully something I said seemed to hit home to one or two' or 'I got some nice feedback about the sermon being very nice.' And congregations, to mature in Christ, need to be taught well, accumulating depth and breadth in knowledge of God's love for them in Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ's work in them through the Holy Spirit. Simple, clear messages, week by week, over time, will be the most satisfying preaching for both preacher and hearers.

So, our challenge as preachers: sharpen up. One sentence summary of what we say? Yes! Simplicity of overall content? Yes, please!

The secret of great preaching?

2010-08-09T07:22:00.000+12:00

Less is more.

Is that the secret of great preaching?

It is an increasing conviction of mine that a sermon should be able to be summed up in one sentence, that it should have one main point, and that it should not be overloaded with points/lessons/teachings (no matter how good, wonderful and important they are).

Less is more.

Is simplicity and conciseness the key to cracking the barrier between 'good' sermons and 'great' sermons?

The edge in preaching

2010-08-02T07:31:00.000+12:00

One of the great challenges of preaching today is preaching which is both engaging and compelling. By 'engaging' I mean 'capturing and holding the attention, interest, and heartfelt reception of the message by the hearer.' By 'compelling' I mean 'forcing the hearer to respond (at least in their heart) to the message AND pressing the hearer to choose to return for the next sermon.'

We live in a busy world, with competing demands on time, and many, many messages competing for our attention and reception. In theory Christians should come to church, week by week, save for serious illness. In practice, as many ministers observe to each other, the 'new regularity' is twice a month. (Once 'regular' was twice on Sunday!)

If this week's sermon is, "Well, okay, quite a good exposition of the readings, with some useful things to say, but, to be honest, went on a little bit long, and, if I am really honest, I kind of drifted off through the middle section, and, in the end, I am not sure how it relates to my life right now" then "Will I come back?" does not have a guaranteed affirmative answer!

Now, to head off one obvious response, there is a fine line between sermons which are entertaining in their attempt to be engaging, and unhealthily emotive in their attempt to be compelling. Nothing here is intended to direct preachers to become 'more entertaining' or 'more emotive'.

But is it too much to ask of preachers, especially of myself (!!), that in my/our preparation I keep asking myself/ourselves, what is engaging me/us? What is compelling to me/us about the message being prepared? What passionate edge do I/we bring to the importance of the message which will (to mix metaphors) both cut into the heart of its hearers and rub off from preacher to congregation?

If my review-of-progress on Friday is that the message sounds pretty ho-hum, then I need to rework it. Not inventing an 'edge' which does not exist, but finding the edge which is always in Scripture because hearing Scripture and obeying it is a matter of life and death.

If only sermons were dictated from heaven

2010-07-26T08:36:00.001+12:00

Some continuing reflection on getting sermons right.

For this Sunday past I found my sermon preparation went something like this:

Good idea for sermon re connecting it with well-known current event.

Drift through the week confident that the good idea would 'work', going over likely text in my mind from time to time.

Get to some serious writing later in the week.

Emerging feeling that the 'good idea' was not working well, but press on with draft writing.

Complete draft and feel it is not quite 'there'.

Eventually make a decision: drop 'good idea' and work the sermon in a different direction.

Incidentally, this meant allowing the text of Scripture to play a more prominent role in the content of the sermon.

Ultimately the sermon as delivered seemed to work well (praise God).

What do I learn from this?

(1) Underlining of the importance of writing down what I think I am going to say: this forces me to look at what I think is going to 'work' in a different light, to review it, and if necessary to change it.

(2) Listen to feelings sooner rather than later: on reflection my feeling that the good idea was not such a good idea could have been attended to earlier, with a decision made so that the final text was being worked on earlier in the week.

(3) The text of Scripture. The text of Scripture. The text of Scripture. Repeat after me, "the text of Scripture should drive the sermon preparation forward more than anything else!"

You can see from this that I find the greatest challenge in preaching is preparation. If only sermons were dictated from heaven ... but then, God was trying to say something to me, both through his written Word, and through prompting of the Spirit. I was not a very good listener!

Bass guitar versus written liturgy

2010-07-19T07:40:00.003+12:00

I am enjoying the opportunity Christchurch presents to participate in a large variety of evening services, something not possible in my previous diocese where (as far as I knew) only four parishes had regular evening services (though I understand the count is now up to five). Here in Christchurch city alone I have visited seven different evening services, and have at least four more to experience.

Most of the services I have been to are characterized by 'youth': youth band, youth led, even youth preachers, and lots of young people in the congregations.

It is very, very encouraging to see such a large number of young adults gathering in Christ's name to worship God and to listen to God's Word proclaimed.

Not unexpectedly most of the youth oriented services involve music bands, and the sound thumps along very nicely with bass guitar, drums, keyboard and (sometimes) an assortment of other instruments.

It may be me and the generation I grew up in, but I like this form of music, its rhythm and beat. It can transport me to heaven as well as a choir singing enchanted classical music accompanied by the organ.

Mostly, of course, the choral approach is associated with written liturgy: "Evensong" or "Choral Eucharist". Mostly the bass guitar approach is not. The songs are the liturgy. The bass guitar is the engine driving the soul heavenwards.

Ultimately the divide between the two forms can be reconciled in certain ways, not least though young people growing older and making transitions to written liturgies.

But not all make the transition. And it could be a mistake to extrapolate from "my" experience of growing older to this generation's youth and their likely future experience.

While I have argued previously here (and elsewhere) that current ACANZP's liturgical rubrics and canonical rules permits an extraordinary range of liturgical possibilities, I do continue to wonder if there is a way in which ACANZP might offer specific affirmation of the 'bass guitar' approach!

Getting Sermons Perfect

2010-07-13T10:43:00.002+12:00

On Saturday night past the All Blacks, for around 75% of their game against the Sringboks played as near a perfect game of rugby as can be imagined, and overall achieved the perfect result of a four try to nil tries, bonus point win in the Tri-Nations Series.

Perfection is possible.

I would like to preach perfect sermons. At the very least 'perfect' would mean 'I thought the sermon was perfect in every way: content, style, length, application, engagement with Scripture and life, centred on God in Christ, flowing with the Spirit, convicting, convincing, and coherent.'

Last Sunday my sermon was less than perfect. Preaching it twice on Sunday morning meant I was able to make some (impromptu) improvements between the first delivery and the second delivery.

What could have been better?

Here are some things:

- the whole sermon more tightly wound around the central idea of the sermon

- shorter sentences

- better connection between the biblical character I focused on (the lawyer asking the question at the beginning of Luke 10:25-37) and humanity today.

Well, it turns out that I have been asked to preach this coming Sunday as well, with the opportunity to continue the Lukan sequence, 10:38-end.

Another opportunity to improve.

The All Blacks, incidentally, play the Springboks again this Saturday evening. They may need to play a perfect game for 100% of the time in order to repeat their victory!

Pertinent on Preaching

2010-07-09T05:56:00.003+12:00

Lovely post on preaching, helpful on homilies, by Bosco Peters. Read here. One slight demur on my part is "eight minutes" for a sermon ... I think "ten minutes" would be fine for a shorter sermon! His main source is a fine RC publication. Here is a para with Bosco's own tips:

"Two hints: in my sermons I normally try to include something to think about, something that touches the heart, something to do.

If you use a full text, I once read the helpful suggestion that in rehearsing it you read the last paragraph, then the last two paragraphs, then the last three, until you reach the start of your sermon – that way as you get further into actually preaching it you reach increasingly well-rehearsed material."

More on Effective Preaching

2010-07-04T14:33:00.002+12:00

Thinking a bit harder this week about my sermon, and the dynamics of preparing it, in the light of my forthcoming workshop on 'effective preaching.'

Thought One: the work of the Holy Spirit enables effective preaching ... working in me the preacher ... inspiring the words I will say ... illuminating the text of Scripture in the congregation ... convicting the congregation of the truth of God's Word proclaimed through me.

Thought Two: most weeks I get so far with my sermon draft(s) and hit a kind of wall. This is not very good, I conclude. It needs improvement. Happened this week. What happened in the final revision? (1) I reread the text of Scripture (2) I let the text drive the content of my sermon more than in the drafts to date.

Summary: Word and Spirit; Spirit and Word ... ask the Holy Spirit to help, let the text speak through the sermon!

Effective Preaching in 2010

2010-06-28T22:14:00.002+12:00

In a week or so I am leading a workshop at a conference on the title of this post. As I think in preparation I am interested in what effective means; and what it means to tackle this topic in 2010.

I am going to be thinking about effective preaching being preaching which contributes to transformation such as conversion, growing in knowledge of God, deepening confidence in God, making changes in life, and .. anything else you would care to help me with? Thanks.

On 2010, I am going to be thinking about what preaching means in this year. That it is still important (effective preaching is leading to changed lives, and changed churches) but some things are changing such as inserting video material to illustrate a point, or encouraging interaction with the congregation.

But this kind of thinking raises some questions about why we can expect preaching to be effective ... because it involves speaking God's words into people's lives and because ... well, again, any suggestions welcomed!

Actually, back to 2010: I think I will also be thinking about length of sermons and content of sermons. Things might be a bit different today than in 1990.

If you are coming to the workshop, let me assure you that it will not just be a sharing of my thoughts. Together we will think about the topic, and with each other we will share learnings from our preaching experiences.

A simple form of worship which has stood the test of time

2010-06-21T15:03:00.002+12:00

"On Sunday all of us gather from far and near. We read from the scriptures and from the writings of the apostles for as long as possible. Then the one presiding at the service speaks to us, urging everyone to live up to what we have heard in the readings. Then we all stand up together and pray. At the conclusion of our prayers, we greet one another with a sign of peace. Then bread and wine mixed with some water are brought forward. The one presiding offers a long prayer giving thanks. Everyone loudly responding “Amen” concludes this. The eucharist is distributed, and everyone present receives communion. Then deacons take communion to those who are absent.

Those who can afford to contribute financially decide how much to give, and the money is used for orphans, widows, those in distress, the sick, those in prison, or away from home, and all those in need."

For the source of this form of worship and thus some sense if its antiquity, go to Bosco Peter's post on it.

Connecting

2010-06-20T20:02:00.002+12:00

The great English novelist E. M. Forster once wrote, 'Only connect.' It is a succinct description of preaching and worship leading. Only connect. Connect with your audience - your congregation. Seems simple, but quite difficult. How does one connect with children and adults, with teenagers and grandparents, with twenty something childless couples and with fifty something children-gone couples?

In my view quite a few things make the connection, and determine whether it is a quality connection or not. Content. Conviction. Tone and volume of voice. Emphases. Humour. Timely shutting up. Pauses. But perhaps primary is our own connection with God. (How do we make a quality connection with the Unseen Presence at every service?).

Pretty much everything in the above paragraph can be 'worked on'. Improvement possible with training and with experience-from-which-we-learn-in-an-action-reflection-process. But there is another factor in making quality connection. If sticking with 'c' words then it is 'charisma'. We might also call it the 'x' factor, the factor in this context which means that we feel 'xtra' good about the way she or he leads a service or preaches a sermon compared to another leader or preacher.

Can we find the 'x' factor for ourselves if we do not already have it?

I am certainly open to arguments and evidences one way or another, but I think we can find it: seek it from God as a gift; ask God to work on things in our lives which are militating against it (such as, just one example, our insecurities); look for it to grow in us through experience; discipline ourselves to cut out what inhibits the x factor (e.g. self-put downs - a custom Kiwis acquire culturally?).

Do what you do do well

2010-06-14T12:15:00.003+12:00

I am a great believer in doing things excellently when leading worship and preaching sermons. Excellently, at the least, means 'to the best of our ability'. Better is when it means what it says, 'excellently, to the highest standard'.

But often that is not possible: most of us have our limitations as preachers, pray-ers, pianists, singers, leaders of worship, readers, and so on.

And our facilities may have limitations in respect of being warm on a frosty day, or having excellent acoustics, or being a space suited to the expectations of a particular form of worship.

So, let's imagine we are doing everything as well as possible, utilizing resources and gifts to the best of our ability.

But here is a question: amidst our limitations, is there one thing we can do superbly, to the highest standard in the land?

We might be blessed, for instance, with a group of outstanding musicians, or have a couple of speech teachers who love to read Scripture, or an ex-national ballet company dancer who can choreograph liturgical dance. Let's maximise such talent!

Yesterday I came across an instance of outstanding ministry (amidst some very good quality aspects of the worship service): the best church morning tea I have ever been to in my life!!

Yum. :)

Preaching Great Long Sermons

2010-06-07T10:46:00.002+12:00

People who know me know that I have a bit of a 'thing' about long sermons! The thing is this: there is a general view within evangelical Anglican circles that long sermons are good ('sermonettes make Christianettes'), but in my experience few preachers are able to preach excellent long sermons, by which I mean sermons that throughout their length sustain interest in the content, and sustain an argument or arguments that engage the hearts of hearers. Better to preach an excellent short sermon than a boring long sermon, I say.

What is a long sermon chronologically speaking? I suggest 1-10 minutes is a short sermon, 11-20 minutes is a standard length sermon, 21-25 minutes is open to description, and 26 minutes or more is a long sermon!

It would be remiss of me not to make some suggestions as to how to preach a great long sermon. My 'thing' about long sermons has never been that they should not be preached; it has been that few preachers seem capable of preaching them well. So, what can we say? The following list of suggestions is not intended to be exhaustive.

(1) Expound a passage of Scripture rather than a topic or theme.

(2) Have three main headings and, if possible, subsume those three main headings into one memorable theme.

(3) Tell stories at appropriate points during the sermon, not only to illustrate the points you are making, but also to sustain interest and engagement with what you are saying.

(4) Marry your exposition of Scripture with commentary on daily life. In a word, be 'relevant'. Make daily life in Palestine, or Paul's concerns about Corinth, or Isaiah's preaching about Jerusalem connect to the daily lives of your hearers.

(5) Use some techniques to reinforce your message or messages. To give one instance, as you introduce point 3 you might restate points 1 and 2. In your prayer at the close of the sermon you might sum up the message.

(6) Be self-critical in your preparation. Revise and re-revise. It is very important to preach one sermon, not two or three. You will undermine the advantages of a long sermon if your 25+ minutes consists of a great 15 minute sermon and 10+ minutes of padding. (And, if that is the assessment of what you have got in your draft, it might be fruitful to preach a great 15 minute sermon rather than spend more time changing the 10+minutes of padding.

(7) Think about your audience and what works with them. It may work for you to spend 5-10 minutes working your way up to your main message, but it can be terribly distracting for your hearers (indicated, in all likelihood, by their restlessness and inattention through this period). Your opening joke may help settle your nerves, it may be enjoyed by the hearers, but what does it achieve?

(8) (also 1!!) Pray.

Sheer diversity

2010-05-31T07:02:00.002+12:00

Yesterday I experienced two different services. One prayer book. One not prayer book. One singing modern words to familiar older tunes. One singing new words to unfamilar tunes; and very loud, pulsating music at that. Both services were well-led, had good attendance, and an excellent spirit of fellowship. Each service had a sermon, though one was better than the other (mine was not the better!!). We are a diverse church.

Each service had its own integrity. Both services (as far as I could tell) sought to 'connect' with a particular community of worshippers (while also being accessible to potential 'outsiders' or 'newcomers' to that particular community). The respective connections were made excellently. A diagnostician of congregational life would, on closer examination, determine these congregations were healthy.

The differences in the two services raises intriguing 'bigger picture' questions about the life of our whole church, since each service was representative of wider phenomena in the NZ church (Anglican church, other churches) of great services with good attendance connecting with important particular communities.

What features of one kind of service could be grafted on to the other? (The answer might be 'none'!)

Is our aim in planning, preparing and executing worship services to reach, to connect with particular communities (the elderly, families, youth, Maori, Asians, Polynesians, South Africans, men, women, the townsfolk, the farmers (and within that community, the dairy farmers who have a different set of inflexible demands on their daily timetables), students) or with whole communities? ("Should" one or other be our aim?)

To what extent should we as a particular denomination include the wider church scene in our determinations? For instance, "all the twenties go to the Calathumpian Independent Church of Great Band Music in the next suburb, no point in trying to match what they do, our task it to connect with the older people of our suburb". Or, "Why should Anglican teenagers be lost to the Anglican church as an unchangeable characteristic of 21st century life? There should be a place for Anglicans of all ages and stages in Anglican churches!"

No simple answers to such questions appearing here. Church life is a challenge. But let's give thanks for the great services we experience and for the fact of the connections they are making with different groups of people in our society!

The splendour of worship

2010-05-24T07:32:00.005+12:00

Last night I had the blessing of participating in a magnificent service at Christchurch Cathedral. The occasion was the annual confirmation service of Christ's College and St Margaret's College.* Why was the service magnificent? Although a special occasion not readily reproduced in parish churches (e.g. masses of young people wearing colourful uniforms) are there things we can learn from such occasions in the life of the church?

Here are my suggested learnings!

(1) However we fill the space of our church with people, a filled church itself is a major contribution to a shared sense of magnificent worship of God. I encourage parish churches to think ahead to plan special occasions when the church might be filled to overflowing.

How about a proactive invitation to local scouts and guides, or girls and boys brigades for a joint church parade service? A celebration of marriage service or a memorial service for those who have died in the past year (often held around All Souls Day, or even closer to Christmas)? Then there are family services where possibly we can draw in extra people: Harvest Thanksgiving ... Thanksgiving for local volunteer services such as fire brigades and ambulance services ... a Christmas pageant.

(2) Make sure each and every element of the occasion is appropriate to it. The hymns, anthems, and special musical items ... the content and length of the sermon ... the character of the welcome and the quality of the dismissal ... get each of these right and all will be well (as it was last night).

(3) No technical glitches: ensure the sound system is working ... ditto powerpoint if used! Repeat after me: no technical glitches!!! (There were none last night).

(4) Have a rehearsal beforehand. The larger the service and/or the more visitors and/or the more one-off participants (e.g. baptism, confirmation, ordination, church parade) and/or the more extraordinary movements (e.g. pageant), the more necessary it is to have a rehearsal of those parts of the service that are non-ordinary. For a church parade it may require the leaders and the colour party; for a baptism the family and godparents; for a confirmation the confirmands and their supporters/companions).

Finally, why might such a service be 'magnificent'? I think it felt that way because it combined a large number of people with a shared purpose in being there along with a great sense of celebration (young people making a commitment, the end of a journey of preparation). And - most importantly - it was one of those services where a significant focus on God took place. Not only was it Pentecost, but literally, and intentionally, God the Holy Spirit was invoked as well as celebrated. God was at the centre and in the foreground of this service!

*My normal policy is not to mention specific details of location of a service. One reason for that (among several reasons) is not to promote one parish over another. But in this case the service was an extra-ordinary service, so this post is not promoting the Cathedral over other parishes! And the service was well attended by a large number of people drawn from many parishes in the Diocese ... so a very public occasion!

Anything Canada can do we can do ... not yet!

2010-05-16T17:25:00.002+12:00

The Anglican Church of Canada has just put its primary worship texts online for free download ... English and French. Links here.

Can we do better than that, Anglican Church of Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia?

Not yet!

We are working on it. That's my 'inside information'.

But it may take some pressure and some fast talking. Our copyright difficulties pertain to a relationship we have with that little known, miniscule publishing company, HarperRow ...

Great Service Last Night!

2010-05-10T10:15:00.002+12:00

Exigencies of family life meant I went to an evening service with one of our children. First time, for me I think, at an evening service in this particular church.

The sermon, incidentally, was very good. But here I want to talk about the service as a service.

First up, there was a band. Very good. Well led by a young man with verve, passion, ability-to-lead-with-voice-and-guitar, and, quite noticeable, discipline. By the latter I mean that some songs could have gone for longer with more repeats. The atmosphere (including lots of keen young people) could have induced a form of emotionalism from the song leader. But no. I noticed that everything went according to a clear, but unobtrusive order, including finishing on time.

Second up, there was an outstanding service leader. Blessed by a lovely voice, served well by a good sound system, and with an easygoing confidence in what he was doing.

What about content? I went to this service with no particular expectation of content beyond songs and sermon ... a lot of evening services in parishes work in this way (i.e. in the few that have them anymore), more formal structured services having been held earlier in the day. But this service proved to be an excellent blend of band-led worship, sermon and other things.

Other things? We began with a short reading from a psalm. The reading from Scripture, though but one reading, did not stint on length. What I initially thought was to be one short informal "follow up" prayer to the sermon turned out to be a well formed intercessory prayer, largely based on one of the intercessory forms found in NZPB. At the conclusion of the service was an appropriate closing reading from Scripture. Oh, and part way into the service, even though it was not a eucharist, there was opportunity to share peace with one another.

Very satisfying!

Half a lectionary loaf?

2010-05-10T10:12:00.002+12:00

Over at Hermeneutics and Human Dignity I recently raised a question or two about the lectionary. Among responses in ensuing discussion was this question:

"is it consistent to criticise the omission of some verses within a Biblical text in the lectionary, whilst appearing perfectly comfortable to omit half of the material that the lectionary actually does provide [e.g. by having two readings instead of four=psalm, OT, Ep, G]?"

I have said I will respond to that question here.

I want to think about it for a bit.

Any thoughts from you, in the meantime?

Accessibility of Anglican worship

2010-05-03T14:45:00.002+12:00

In my experience of Anglican worship I find most of it accessible: I am familiar with it, I understand it, and I can engage with it. But then I have the extraordinary privilege of a varied background in Anglican worship. Perhaps you do too! Like me you have been an Anglican all your life, you have worshipped in a variety of parishes, and perhaps even in your local parish you have a range of worship styles.

Today we need to ask how accessible our worship services are to folk not currently worshipping at them.

If speaking in tongues predominates, is that accessible to those who do not speak in tongues? If parts of the service are set to music which some like, but others do not (whether it is punk rock or highbrow classical), what does that mean for accessibility to Anglican worship in our patch?

To ask this question may be challenging! A large suburban parish may be able to offer three, four, even five different style services on a Sunday, but a country parish may, in an outlying centre, only be able to offer one service once a month.

What to do?

Here are three questions which may (or may not!) assist our thinking about our answer or answers to such a question.

What enables us to maintain Anglican worship for Anglicans in our parish?

What would we need to do for our worship service(s) to draw in Anglicans who currently do not participate in worship services with us?

What worship services would be appropriate for those we would like to see join our church who are not Anglican in background?

Contemporary Anglican Worship

2010-04-26T07:18:00.002+12:00

A friend posed a question recently, in the context of a conference in which much had been said, both in plenary, group and private conversations about liturgical worship conforming more closely to a notion of common prayer. The question (in my words, should my friend be reading!) was: 'if our written prayer book liturgies are the 'standard' for Anglican worship, what does contemporary Anglican worship mean today?' ('Contemporary' meaning here, relevant, in-touch-with-post-modernity, flexible-to-wants-and-desires-of-local-faith-communities-in-which-not-all-gather-to-worship-according-to-the-prayer-books).

In this post I will not attempt a 'whole' answer, but offer a few reflections. Perhaps next week there will be more!

Contemporary Anglican Worship possibilities

(1) Has some familiar resemblance to the order of authorised written liturgies

(2) Within that familiar resemblance makes full use of all the flexibility that authorised written liturgies actually make available to the church (practical note: read the rubrics in small type, note the difference between 'may' and 'shall'!)

(3) Employs music to give full expression to 'contemporary'

(4) Works collaboratively: let me express a 'frustrated observation' ... across a number of parishes (over many years, I am not talking about my experience yesterday!!) ... 'contemporary Anglican worship' means many different things to different parishes ... what might it mean for contemporary Anglican worship to share common commitments to (e.g.) having a spoken "we" confession AND absolution, at least two readings from Scripture, always including the Lord's Prayer, always having intercessions, and always being ordered 'word' then 'sacrament' rather than some services reversing that order?

(5) Educates congregations in appropriate ways as to the 'whys' of each part of services. This could include the scriptural basis for the order and content of our worship services.

Back to the Future on Liturgical Reform

2010-04-18T16:20:00.002+12:00

I won't attempt to explain how messy, how flexible, and how far removed we are from a sound and sure notion of Anglicans being Christians who worship according to 'authorised forms of worship'. But I share here a brief paper I wrote concerning the state of things in our church.

Towards review of ACANZP’s approach to liturgy with reference to ‘common prayer’, ‘authorised forms of worship’, and theological and liturgical education of clerical and lay worship leaders:

In the mid to late 1990s our church through its ‘twice round’ procedure approved a change to the rubric on page 511 of NZPB. The effect of this was that a flexible, informal eucharistic service with minimal prescribed wording could be a regular Sunday worship service in any parish church within ACANZP without fear of incurring a charge that it was not an ‘authorised form of worship’. Later our church approved ‘the Template’ which embedded the authorisation of flexible, informal forms of worship more deeply in our legislation, notwithstanding a still later attempt by the General Synod to append some wording to the Template constraining this freedom towards conformity with the prayer book!

I was part of General Synod and a diocesan synod (Nelson) approving these changes. I welcomed the change to page 511’s rubric because at that time the Diocese of Nelson (along with many other parishes in ACANZP) was finding that a key strategy for congregational renewal (i.e. drawing in families, reducing the average age of worshippers) was the provision of a mid-morning service which was not confined to a set form of words, permitted more rather than less singing of modern songs, and enabled quick adaptation to needs of the moment (or, if you prefer, enabled worship leaders to respond to the leading of the Spirit).

Strictly speaking (in my view), especially where the mid-morning service was a eucharistic service, such services prior to the change to page 511 were not ‘authorised forms of worship’ save that they could have been considered ‘experimental forms’ approved by the diocesan. Thus the change offered a way for Anglican parishes to engage with life as it was rapidly changing in the 1990s according to canonical ordering rather than against it. (There were of course a variety of other kinds of regular services in the life of our church which were also helped in this way, e.g. the rising tide of regular Taize services).

While I cannot claim intimate knowledge of all that was going on with flexible, informal services in ACANZP in the mid to late 1990s, my knowledge of such services in the Diocese of Nelson suggested that these services were ‘responsible’ in various ways: e.g. main elements of Anglican services regularly used, including confession and absolution, intercessions, the Lord’s Prayer, a creedal statement or song, eucharistic prayer drawn from NZPB, and saying of the dismissal. In short, the structure and content of these services had some common, familiar elements across parishes.

Fast forward a decade: I suggest we could profitably engage in review of the present liturgical situation in ACANZP. Anecdotally, and from personal experience, I suggest that the following features of our liturgical life point to a need for review:

(1) There is less rather than more commonality across the flexible, informal services in our parishes. This has the effect of making the vicar or priest-in-charge the chief authorising agent of liturgy rather than the bishop.

(2) There is no guarantee that important Anglican liturgical elements such as a written confession prayed together by the congregation, or intercessions and thanksgivings will be part of the service. That is, taking the example of confession, flexibility has extended from using a few forms in ACANZP to using any one of a thousand forms available in print and electronic media to not having a confession at all.

(3) There is no guarantee that the content of the words used across a whole service conforms to ‘the doctrine of Christ’ as understood in ACANZP. Generally we seem to have arrived at a point where the average educational and training attainment of both clergy and laity is less high than formerly, thus where the content of words for a service are at the discretion of the clerical or lay leaders of the service (i.e. whether considering the content of prayers chosen, or self-composed, or the content of songs chosen) it is likely that the theological depth of a given service will be shallower than that invariably found in an NZPB service.

Nevertheless, there are other aspects to also weigh in review. Many parishes in our church have not followed the pathway to the ‘main’ Sunday service being flexible and informal in style and substance. They have persisted with adherence to NZPB. But here it is often observable that
(a) the congregation is generally older and over extensive periods of time fails to draw in younger families in sufficient numbers to give confidence that ‘congregational renewal’ will take place,
(b) on close inspection the content of the service bit by bit is drawn from NZPB, but such mixing and arranging of the bits has taken place that the service as a whole is not recognisable as ‘one of the services’ of NZPB, and, sometimes it is observable that
(c) the service mostly follows an NZPB service but at an important point, such as the eucharistic prayer, the presiding priest exercises the ‘right’ to substitute another prayer, perhaps drawn from another part of the Communion, or perhaps reflecting other traditions than Anglicanism! Thus I suggest also pointing to a need for review is:

(4) The general state of congregational life across our church, with special reference to aging congregations and to the prognosis for renewal of congregations.

(5) The expectations, or otherwise, that a formal service of our church will follow the order and content prescribed in NZPB for that service.

In summary: our church rightly (in my view) empowered clergy and lay worship leaders in the 1990s to respond to the needs of the time – a time which, paradoxically, began almost the moment NZPB was published – but in the process we created a situation in which the role of the bishop as authoriser of forms of worship has been greatly diminished, any sense that we might be flexible and informal according to an agreed pattern of common worship has rapidly fallen away, and any presumptions that the forms of worship composed would be to the highest Anglican doctrinal standards have been ill-founded.

Attending to what we say

2010-04-12T07:40:00.002+12:00

Years ago I was in a well known English church and got a bit annoyed at everything in the service being introduced with 'Shall we ... pray/sing?" I felt like calling out, "No". Ever since then I have been noticing how leaders of worship introduce components of a service. Thus I hear, and you also probably hear things such as I heard that night, or,

'Would you please stand to sing ...?'

'May we pray now?'

'Could you please turn in your prayer books to page 420?'

My recommendation is that we (a) think carefully about how we will introduce 'the next thing' in the service, (b) reflect carefully on what it means to be a confident rather than a diffident leader, (c) make a decision to speak confidence rather than diffidence, and (d) do this on a group basis within a parish so that all leaders lead confidently.

Thus we should find ourselves giving a polite instruction rather than asking a question of our congregations.

"Let's stand to sing our first hymn"

"Turning in our prayerbooks to page 410, let's affirm our faith together"

"As our Lord has taught us, we pray [brief pause], 'Our Father ...'."

Note one key word is "let" in the phrase "let us" or "let's".

Baptism, eucharist, ministry and mission

2010-04-05T09:09:00.003+12:00

As we become a member of the body of Christ through baptism so we receive the body of Christ through eucharist in order to be the body of Christ in the world.

Something I heard the other day. Simply and profound. The point of our worship services is to worship God and to serve the world God loves.

Attention to detail

2010-03-29T07:10:00.003+13:00

At one level worship services are "products". People choose which product they prefer in the sense that, while Christians are obliged to gather for corporate worship regularly, none are obliged to attend St Ethelbert's in the Marsh rather than the New Wine New Wineskin church meeting in the warehouse. Now people make choices about which church to attend/participate in for all sorts of reasons. But they are more likely to choose a church where the worship service has relentlessly perfected itself from unnecessary faults. Over the months I have mentioned some of these. One simple one to notice, though often difficult to quickly sort out, is a faulty sound system (or faultily driven sound system). Here I simply emphasise again: attention to detail is important if we wish to draw people to our services and to see them return. Inattention to detail will not necessarily drive regular worshippers away, but it may mean we wonder why we see little or no growth in congregational numbers.

One of the great attenders to detail in modern life is Steve Jobs. He, in case you have not heard of him, is the driving force behind the Apple Computer company. So important that when he once left the company he was brought back to rescue it! The products of his company are wildly popular (iMac, iBook, iPhone, iPod, etc). Indeed many Christians freely admit their near idolatry concerning these products!! When we are using an iBook, say, to power up the powerpoints for our service, it could be worth asking whether we are as attentive to the detail of what we are doing as Steve Jobs has been to the making of that iBook.

Yet, that is not all that makes for a great service. It is just a necessary condition. Also required is a gifted leader of worship. I shall try to remember to post on that next week.

Cranmer on Communion

2010-03-22T14:00:00.003+13:00

Read a lovely and short post on Cranmer's understanding of communion here.

NZ Lectionary online

2010-03-12T14:13:00.002+13:00

(H/T Bosco Peters, Liturgy)

Go here for the 4 Mb PDF of the 2010 NZ Lectionary.

Common Prayer as Christ's Prayer

2010-03-08T07:11:00.002+13:00

A comment from Bosco Peters on my post below about common prayer has opened my eyes to a dimension of common prayer I had not thought of:

"the understanding that we are not merely individual humans in relation to God, but as Christians inserted, immersed, baptised into Christ and it is within Christ that we pray to God - Christ's prayer we share together."

This bears repeating ... and repeating, until we get it!

Understanding our status as Christians 'in Christ' is often overlooked but of immense importance in many aspects of Christian life, including our worship together.

Common Prayer is good

2010-03-01T07:33:00.002+13:00

Anglicans once prayed together and alone using the Book of Common Prayer. It meant that when Anglicans prayed we expressed what we believed and what we wanted to say to God via words common to us all, so we were united in belief, thanksgiving and intercession. We were clearly and unmistakeably a Communion of believers who held things together in common!

All sorts of liturgical changes have happened in the last 50 years around the Communion - most of which has been very good, some of which has been necessary because language changes, and some of which has been an improvement on the undoubted greatness of the BCP. However we have lost the precision of our common prayers and replaced it with a fuzzier sense of commonality: our prayers as global Anglicans have a familiar resemblance in many cases (and no resemblance to each other in some cases).

Here in ACANZP we have decided to have a prayer book from 1989 onwards which diminished our own sense of common prayer by providing multiple options for prayers, and in particular several options for our eucharistic prayers. Around 1996 or 1998 (I think it was) we made a further change and made it possible via a changed rubric on page 511 for significant flexibility in the composition of a eucharistic service to take place; even down to making the eucharistic prayer itself open to great variety in wording.

Now, it would take quite a bit of writing to weigh up the pros and cons of these developments, so, causa brevitatis, I just offer one thought today:

a great advantage of praying prayers in church such as the eucharistic prayer which are agreed texts of the church (and not compositions of individual priests or parish liturgical committees) is that the worshippers can allow the prayers to flow through their minds as an act of worship without anxiety about the veracity of the content; conversely, the disadvantage of flexibility in wording is the worshipper is drawn to wonder about the theology of the prayer rather than be lost in wonder and praise of God!

Our church has gone about as far as any Anglican church can reasonably go in the direction of diversity and flexibility. But the more I experience this diversity and flexibility the less I am pleased with it. Let's head back to greater commonality!

Teaser

2010-02-21T21:28:00.003+13:00

As I make my life through the church I have had the privilege of being part of many and varied occasions of worship services. I am well aware that some services I have been part of would cause at least an eyebrow to be raised if one our liturgical experts were also present. A few might even lead to that expert writing to the bishop querying whether what he had experienced constituted an authorised form of service according to the canonical requirements of our church. Generally the question which would be raised by these services is whether the service included sufficient required elements, and used wording according to the specifications of our rubrics and doctrinal requirements. Flexible though these requirements are, they have limits!

In short: I have experienced plenty of services where one might fairly discuss whether things had been omitted which should not have been.

But I have also experienced services where one might fairly discuss whether things had been added which should not have been.

Liturgical sins of omission. Liturgical sins of commission. My teaser: is one worse than the other?

The golden moment in preaching

2010-02-14T19:29:00.002+13:00

What constitutes a great sermon?

I would be interested in your answers.

It would be easy (speaking for myself) to start a list of measurements: clarity, conviction, connection with congregation; or exegetical preparation, exposition of passage, application after leaving the service. That sort of thing.

In a recent sermon something happened (at least as I discerned it) which is also part of great preaching - indeed one might need to resist describing preaching as 'great' unless this happens during the sermon.

The sermon made its way through the pathway the preacher had charted in preparation - all usual important characteristics were present (clarity, relevance, engagement with Scripture, etc). But then there came a moment when (so it seemed to me) an unusual quietness came upon the congregation, every eye and ear attentive to the preacher and what he was saying. It felt, to me, like everyone was leaning forward slightly more than usual to make sure they missed nothing of what was being said.

It was a golden moment in preaching. A moment when God and the people of God met face to face. And God was doing the talking, not God's people.

The church that has it all

2010-02-08T05:33:00.002+13:00

I recently worshipped in a church that has it all: fantastic new building, all mod cons, huge congregation, no financial problems.

Actually, that is not true. It had none of those. But it did have these desirable characteristics:

All ages and stages of life.

Tons of enthusiasm for worshipping God.

Multi-ethnic congregation.

Brilliant use of both Maori and English.

The first of these characteristics is the thing I would most pray, work and build for if I were a vicar today.

The preacher nailed it

2010-02-01T07:35:00.002+13:00

What might the "it" be that the preacher nailed yesterday and which preachers generally should aim to nail?

I suggest the "it" is the idea that there is a God who seeks relationship with people.

Nailing it means the preacher communicates that the idea has reality. There is a God, this God seeks relationship with people, in fact seeks relationship with each member of the congregation, and the truth of this reality is founded in the testimony of Scripture and given continuing expression in the testimony of God's people (including the testimony of the preacher).

At the heart of the gospel is encounter between God and humanity, the cross and resurrection being the work God has done in Christ to sweep away all obstacles to that encounter happening.

In our worship and preaching we seek (or should seek) to give expression to that encounter: celebrating what God has done, speaking about what God has done, praying about specific human difficulties based on the conviction that God wishes humanity well.

Whether our worship is simple or complex, short or long in time span, in Latin, Greek, Maori, English or other language, with orchestra or organ, it should have an identifiable and common centre: God in Christ has encountered humanity and continues to do so.

We should never leave a worship service without being renewed in both our conviction of and our gratitude for God's determination to meet with us!

Standard liturgy

2010-01-25T07:13:00.002+13:00

In theory one ought to be able to go to an Anglican parish in these islands for a service advertised as 'formal liturgy' or 'traditional communion' or 'communion (NZPB)' and expect to be able to follow the service without surprises because it will be one of the three main services provided in NZPB. In practice the service could be advertised as "NZPB" and be informal in various ways, because the flexible option on Page 511 is being exercised. But even when one of the three main services is followed, all sorts of variations are possible. One can go into a new church, pick up a locally produced communion booklet and find that this prayer is different to that set down in NZPB and that set of versicles and responses is taken from ... well, one might not be sure without looking up on Google!

Here are some questions which may stir up some thinking in our minds:

How often does our congregation follow an NZPB service by the book, i.e. have (what I call) a 'standard liturgy'?

Is it uniformly, mostly, sometimes, or rarely?

Why? That is,

(1) is the pattern in our parish driven (ultimately) by the vicar, liturgy committee, perceived expectations of the congregation?

(2) is the pattern followed a matter of informed choice or laziness/lack of time and energy or (even) ignorance? 'Ignorance' here being about our understanding of the requirements of 'authorized worship', the canonically permissible diversity of worship, and the need to 'connect' well with people through the way we worship.

Christ the beginning and end of our worship

2010-01-11T05:32:00.002+13:00

A challenge for Anglicans (and Catholics and orthodox and ...) worshipping via prayer book services is to lead-and-participate in such a manner that Christ is the beginning, centre, and end of our worship. What is the eucharist but obedience to Chrst's command to 'do this in remembrance'? Why do we gather together rather than (say) worship individually in the privacy of our own homes? We do so to give real expression to the body of Christ on earth, emboldened by the promise that where two or three gather in Christ's name he will be in our midst. Why is the Gospel read and preached in the course of the service? So that, like the disciples of old, we can sit at the feet of Jesus to learn from him. Why is the Lord's Prayer obligatory? Again, it is an obedience to Christ's own command (see Luke 11, 'when you pray, say').

You get the drift!

Are you a dull preacher?

2010-01-04T06:14:00.002+13:00

By Michael Kellahan writing on Sydney Anglicans.Net

"1. Talk longer than people listen

2. Read from full script

3. Don’t speak to the world of those who listen

4. Don’t aim for transformation of self and hearers by the renewing of your mind

5. Steal from the Piper/Driscoll/Carson/Keller mp3 on the passage

6. Start your prep on Friday

7. Don’t listen (let alone watch) yourself afterwards because ‘you don’t like the sound of your own voice when its recorded’

8. Don’t ask people to open their bibles or refer them to the text

9. Work hard on making your illustrations the most engaging part of the sermon

10. Insert “Application = go & evangelize more OR feel guilty about ‘X’ “."

Read the original post plus comments to extend the list!!

Preaching is an opportunity from God to speak God's Word for today. A sermon should never ever be dull. Sadly many are. Let's lift our game!

The objectivity of liturgy

2010-01-03T12:55:00.004+13:00

Do I want to hear what the worship leader is thinking about life, God, what I ought to do, think, or feel as a worshiper? Not really, thank you very much!! The more the worship leader speaks extempore the more subjectivity enters into the act of congregational worship. Using the prayer book liturgy of the church offers the blessing of objectivity: words, an order of words, occasions for silence, handed down through the ages to new generations of worshipers. As a worshiper I am not subject to the whims of the leader but am directed to engage with the liturgical wisdom of the ages gifted to me, to us the congregation. As I grow older I have less appreciation of subjectivity, and greater satisfaction through the objectivity of liturgy.

Seasons Greetings

2009-12-24T16:47:00.000+13:00

A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all readers!

This blog is going on holiday until the 3rd or 4th January.

I will post comments (as able) but not interact with them.

Best wishes
Peter

The power of music

2009-12-21T07:15:00.002+13:00

Being present in our packed Cathedral last night for its Nine Lessons and Carols service was a powerful reminder of the power of music to draw people into the presence of God. It is not disrespectful to Scripture being the Word of God written to presume that if the Cathedral had advertised a service of "Nine Lessons (no music)" only the faithful few would have turn up. Even "Nine Lessons (with cracker sermon)" would not have drawn the crowd which came last night.

Music has the power to move us, to draw us from our homes to go to a concert or a party or a church service. The music in a church service (some minimal requirements of tunefulness and rhythm being met) has the power to move our souls into the presence of God, to help us feel that we are meeting with God. Why? I think it is the capacity of music to take us out of ourselves and lead us to the transcendent. There the God who is God meets with us: our restless hearts, as St Augustine knew, find their rest in him.

Hold the Wise Men

2009-12-12T20:47:00.002+13:00

Reading something by Doug Chaplin on preaching the Christmas stories from Matthew and Luke (worth a look here) reminds me of a point.

My point is this, the church has a calendar, and when followed the Wise Men (i.e. Matthew 2:1-12) should be centre of attention at Epiphany (6th January). Not before. No posters, banners, or other depictions of the Wise Men before 6th January please.

An exception might be a Christmas pageant service in mid-December as the wash up for the Sunday School's year in which a whole narrative of the birth of Jesus is told.

The great advantage of holding back the Wise Men for Epiphany is that the joys and glories of Christmas are extended for greater enjoyment.

Prepare, prepare, prepare

2009-12-06T21:55:00.002+13:00

Is there any reason why a service should not flow, go well, and enable people to be focused on the Lord because they are undistracted by mistakes, clangers, and black holes of time and space occurring in a service?

Of course not. There is no reason why a service should not go well.

But it will take preparation, planning, purposive production and, well, you get the picture!

Prepare. Prepare. Prepare.

Be perfect. It's okay to be perfect in worship leading. People will be grateful.

PS For clarity: preparation includes prayer!!

Making people feel comfortable in church

2009-11-30T08:01:00.002+13:00

I went to a wedding on Saturday. It was superb, representative of the outstanding qualities the bride and groom brought to their marriage, and I could, but will not wax eloquent about the food at the reception, and the speeches which were, simply, outstanding.

Here I simply observe that the minister at the wedding, himself a relaxed leader of worship and minister of the Word, made the guests feel comfortable. He spoke to us twice before the service began. We received relevant directions (move to the front to allow for late arriving guests, where the toilets were), and up to date information (the bride was coming but was a little late). There was an element of humour in what he said - I think, in terms of making strangers feel at home in a church, we cannot underestimate humour as a means of drawing people together. But the humour was combined with clarity in his communication.

Excellent!

Portable Presentations

2009-11-22T11:02:00.002+13:00

The use of Powerpoint and other forms of electronic illustrations of verbal communication is loathed by some, useful from time to time for some, and embraced totally by others.

For the most part internally prepared communications within parishes work okay - initial problems of inadequate or insufficient software or hardware to run presentations are sorted out and life proceeds smoothly until the day when, say, a new computer or projector is purchased, or one piece of software is upgraded. But new teething problems are sorted and life goes on!

A challenge I frequently come across is externally prepared communications which do not work. A visiting speaker comes with an embedded video or a slideshow or a Powerpoint with peculiarities and, oh dear, nothing happens when the button is pushed at the beginning of the address or sermon.

Obviously some practical solutions lie at hand in a category called 'rehearsal': visiting speakers telegraph ahead of time that what they want to present requires software X and hardware Y, or a practice run is scheduled for the Saturday night before the Sunday service. There is also the possibility that a visitor brings their own laptop (though that may incur other problems such as changing from one machine to another in the course of a service).

Nevertheless speakers on the move, with busy, compressed schedules may not be able to offer 'rehearsal', and their own laptop may not be a solution, more of a problem. What to do?

Here I admit that I am no expert on these matters and thus ask: what ways of presenting visual material are portable from one environment to another with 100% guarantee of success?

I look forward to your suggestions!

Mixing genres

2009-11-16T09:15:00.003+13:00

That is, do not mix genres in worship services.

Let me explain!

The flow of a service (the smoothness with which one part connects with another) is a key to a great service (that is, a service in which God is worshipped reverently, and worshippers feel connected with God).

Various things contribute to 'flow' (including, e.g., the words/silences used by a leader to link different parts of the service). One of those things is genres appropriate to each part of the service. ('Genres' refers to the kind of content of each part: prayers, notices, songs, sermon, confession, sharing the peace, etc).

It's not rocket science to work out that a 'Go out to the world in mission' song is not an appropriate genre for the opening song of a service, or to work out that the appropriate genre to follow the 'confession' is an 'absolution'.

But genres can get mixed up, and this we do well to avoid. Here is a current 'classic': a wide spread phenomenon in our church (in my experience) in these days of hygienic anxiety about how to receive wine at communion, and other concerns such as offering both wine and grape juice, is the issuing of instructions about reception of the elements at communion.

But where and how are these instructions to be offered? Again, in my experience, it is common practice to issue these instructions at the last possible moment before reception. I suggest this is an unfortunate 'mixing of genres'! What is the eucharistic prayer but a prayer of remembrance and thanksgiving and narrative intended to lead us to a joyful, yet solemn moment of fellowship with God. What are instructions? They are 'utilities' of the service, like domestic servants of a noble house. They should be seen and heard as little as possible, and certainly should not interrupt the important moments of a service. In this particular case their announcement (it is my personal conviction) is intrusive, disruptive, and detrimental to the flow of worship and to the experience of communion with God through reception of Christ's body and blood.

What to do? Here are two suggestions. (1) Print instructions which are not otherwise announced in the news bulletin or on a media screen (2) (Where (1) is not possible) Make announcements just before The Peace.

If this is not a problem in your local church, do not worry, there are other mixing of genres to avoid ... I may post on those another time!