Steven Hovater

Tag: homiletics

  • What Is a Sermon?

    “Sermon” is a common enough word, and it’s used in lots of different ways. We gain something by examining the word a little more clearly though.

    In my view, a sermon is a moment that occurs when a person leads a worshipping congregation in listening to the word of God. That definition excludes some things that we commonly call sermons, but puts a little more shape on the essence of the practice.

    First, note that what I’m calling the sermon refers to the moment itself; the moment in which the congregation receives the word of God. There is a distinction between the moment itself and a couple of things which we might commonly call a sermon, such as the manuscript that is used to prepare for the moment, or perhaps an audio recording of the moment. Those things are artifacts of the moment, but they are not the thing itself.

    The thing itself is the moment when the word is preached and received by a worshipping, gathered church. That context is the second critical feature, and it is at the heart of the difference between a sermon and an essay, or even a speech. A sermon is a moment shared by a group of believers who are worshipping—they’re engaging in the practice of submitting themselves to God. They are particularly primed to receive the word because of their worship posture, and the presence of the spirit in the congregation.

    This “moment” based description of the sermon’s essence also holds another way that sermon differs from other speech acts: because it is in the context of worship, it is given in a space in which all present—speaker and hearers—are subjecting themselves to God. The preacher is just as subject to the word proclaimed in the sermon as the hearers. The word is for the whole gathered church, including the preacher! Indeed, the same spirit which moves the preacher to preach is also moving the church to receive the word! As a part of the congregation, the preacher does not stand apart, delivering a word as an outsider. Rather, it is as a part of the body that the preacher speaks, and necessarily the preacher must receive the sermon along with the rest of the congregation.

    I know it’s quibbling, but If someone sends me a document, and says “Hey, read this sermon.”, in my own head I think it’s important to expand the shorthand a bit, because I don’t think that technically, I can read the sermon either before or after it’s moment. I can read the manuscript of the sermon, and I think maybe very usefully. But it’s not the same as the thing that happens when the church gathers together, and listens for a word from God.

  • Homiletical Mirror-talk: Cleaning the House

    Cleaning-the-House.001.jpg

    Homiletical Mirror-talk: Cleaning the House(I’m working on doing a bit of analysis on my own preaching, as a way of improving. So this is kind of like a preacher doing film-study…I want to catch the places where I need improvement, and also just be able to look back and learn from the sermons themselves.)I’ve been working on migrating this site, and part of the process for doing so has meant moving over a bunch of sermon files. I’m trying to do a bit of archival work on some of those, so I can have easier access to them later. While I’ve been doing that, I’ve been listening to a few of my own sermons, which I think is an underutilized practice for most preachers, myself included. Doing some reflective critique on your own recordings can be an intensely formative exercise. (Also, doing so with another person! Basically, I’m in favor of most forms of intentional reflection.)Cleaning the House.001 This morning, I listened to a sermon from this summer, called “Cleaning the House” (July 20, 2014). It’s from the Luke series, and revolves around the episode in Luke 19:41-48 where Jesus laments over Jerusalem and then clears the temple. I chose to include that lament with the temple story, rather than with the preceding account of the triumphant entry, because I think together the lament and the temple clearing create a fierce critique of the power plays of Jerusalem. Here’s the sermon audio:Here’s a little bit of what I see in the sermon, looking back.

    1. There’s a lot of wind-up. I chose to illustrate the idea of “Place as symbol” in multiple ways, and I think there might be a layer too many. I think it works okay, but I probably could have pared that down to be more efficient without really losing too much of the punch. As it is, it takes a while to really get to the heart of the text. The sermon weighs in at 27 minutes, and it could have perhaps lost 5 here.
    2. This sermon is a bit pedagogical, and relies on a nuanced interpretation of the text. While I generally avoid selling the exegesis in the sermon, I think in a case like this it’s a little more important. I think one of the places this sermon needed a little more was in showing how the temple was a symbol that carried multiple meanings (as a sign of economic oppression, for instance). It’s implicit in the sermon, but I’m not sure if it would have really carried for someone who wasn’t already on board with that particular interpretive line.
    3. I think the bit towards the end where it moves to talking about prayer as dependence on God is pretty useful. I also like that it returned to that piece of the text with the language of “the things that make for peace”. I think that the sermon gives that phrase the space to have some resonance. Ultimately, that’s the kind of thing I think I’m trying to do with a lot of my preaching…carve out some space for the text to echo around in, letting it play and find a place to do some formative work.