Creative preaching

In a 1991 speech, John Cleese famously tried to say how we can be creative. He said not much could be said. Have a playful childhood was a good suggestion. But he did conclude that creativity is not a talent (e.g. not a gift correlated with intelligence). Rather, it tends to come from a certain mode of operating – a way of doing things, which he called the open mode. By contrast, the closed mode tends to say that there’s lots to be done and I have to get on with it. Perhaps we’ve all prepared sermons with that thought in our mind? It may be a little anxious. Or that anxiety might give a kind of exciting energy to get on with the task. But the task is not likely to be done in the most expansive, creative way. For creative preaching, try to take away the pressure to get something ready and be more contemplative and open to humour and curiosity. Explore the text. Play with ideas. What seems irrelevant might be a clue. If we relax, different ways of doing it might come. Then we will need the closed mode to get our sermon outline down and done. Then, switch back to the open mod. Are you content with what you’ve prepared?

To help yourself get into an open mode you will need limited secluded play: a bounded oasis of quiet undisturbed space, a set amount of time away from the closed mode and other distractions. You will also need confidence and humour. Do not be afraid to make mistakes. Experiment. It’s okay. Don’t be paralysed by fear of getting it wrong. Risk something silly or illogical. You cannot be rigidly spontaneous. Any drivel may lead to a break through. Preaching is a serious important business, but that does not rule our humour. It does not have to be dull, pompous or self-important.   

The quick trivial things will try to distract you from the important business of thinking, but you need to just wait and allow yourself to quiet down. You probably need about an hour and half, and after that you probably need a break. But don’t give up too soon. Sit with the problem, tolerate the discomfort, and you will probably come up with something more creative. Don’t decide too soon. Put in more pondering time and you will be more creative.

In this open mode, you need to bring yourself in a gentle and friendly manner back to the subject. Ideas will come. Perhaps in the shower tomorrow or on a walk on Wednesday.

Is there someone (who doesn’t make you feel defensive) you could talk to about it in a free and positive manner?

Creativity might be described as connecting ideas in a way which generates new meaning. Does X + Y produce something fruitful we might use? Generate connections and see if any of them are interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvKeu46jgwo

On kingdoms, spheres and divides

 It is sometimes claimed that the sacred / secular divide is a product of Christianity. 

Some contemporary Christians are very much against the idea. God is Lord of All. He cares about Wednesday as well as Sunday. 

True enough. 

But there is place for a more sophisticated sacred / secular divide, even if the terms are not ideal.

It is true that the church is not the state and vice versa. The King is not a Bishop and the Bishop is not a King. 

There are, or should be, ecclesiastical courts and secular courts. 

The vocations of the clergy and people are both similar and different, related, but not the same. 

The family, the church and the state should support one another but stay in their lanes. 

The family is perhaps the most basic and fundamental. It might be seen as a mini-church and a mini-state.  

Parish Magazine Item for September

From The Rectory

 

I hope you’re enjoying our explorations in Matthew’s gospel a little bit, if not as much as I am. We recently spent three weeks in church looking at the parables of Jesus from Matthew chapter 13. One of the things that I hope the children of Dallington school have learnt is that parables are “stories with a meaning.” Jesus made up these images or tales to teach about the Kingdom of God or of heaven (interchangeable terms: likely the Jews said “heaven” as proxy for “God” so as to avoid any risk of misusing his name and so breaking one of the Ten Commandments).

 

Some people think that parables are good stuff for the kids – or perhaps for simple country folk, or the primitive people of Jesus’ day. But the Bible’s attitude is rather different. Instead of being supposedly easy to understand, Jesus’ hearers often dislike his parables. The disciples ask for them to be explained. People always want Jesus to speak more plainly, without metaphor, and he often refuses.

 

The parables communicate, certainly. But in a way they also conceal. They are hostile to a superficial interest. They almost ask to be dismissed as nonsense. But Jesus says they work rather as a test, a filter: they are like cryptic crossword puzzles for us to chew over.

 

Matthew 13 contains the following parables, some almost allegories, some a one sentence idea:

 

·       The parable of the sower, the good seed and the four types of soil

·       The parable of the weeds and the wheat growing together until harvest

·       The parable of the smallest mustard seed growing into the biggest tree in the garden

·       The parable of the hidden sour dough starter that transforms all the great batch of flour

·       The parable of the treasure discovered hidden in the field, for which one should sell everything

·       The parable of the pearl of great price

·       The parable of the good and bad fish in the net which need sorting out in the end

 

And the tales are told and arranged with the complexity of a Christopher Nolan film. Sometimes they are sandwiched together with the explanation delayed. Or one flashes back to another. There are a series of pairs or even triples. What does each one add? Is Jesus merely repeating himself with different illustrations, or could there be further treasure hidden a little further down?

 

I commend to you reading and reflecting on these great stories or vignettes, which live on in our culture. But can we sum up something of the meaning in more prosaic terms?

 

The kingdom of God (his rule and reign) is powerful and productive. But it depends on a good response: on listening, and hearing, understanding and believing, putting into practice and sticking with. Much of the growth of the kingdom in hearts, churches and societies is slow and secret. We can be rightly or wrongly impatient for “justice”. But Jesus calls us to wait. Our part is to scatter the word, to fish for souls. The harvest is God’s job and awaits the final day and his alone perfect discernment and discrimination. For now, the great thing is to seek Jesus and his word. He is of infinite and everlasting value. Well, I couldn’t really do it without slipping back into the metaphors!

 

One other point worth making is that Jesus must have known these were tall tales. Some of the details are wrong – we must think deliberately so. Mustard seed: not really the smallest. Not really a tree. Not the biggest. The farming (chucking seed around with abandon) is odd. So is the gardening (Jesus hates weeding!). A large and precise amount of flour (alluding to Genesis 18): perhaps more than one woman could knead. Maybe enough for the needs of a village. A quibble about the morality or legality of treasure trove. These things are to miss the point, as we so easily do. And the great point is to hear Jesus. His kingdom is not only remarkable but supernatural. It changes everything. He might even transform us for the better.          

The Revd Canon Marc Lloyd 

On a Christian Nationalism Consensus?

What are we to make of so-called Christian Nationalism?

Well, we can all see some far right people waving flags and we know that we are against THAT!

But what are the in principle objections to Christian Nationalism as such?

Let us take each word in turn. 

Christian. 

Obviously some people are against Christ. 

Or against Christianity. 

Or against sharing Christ with others. 

Nationalism. 

Some people are against nation states. 

But these would be pretty extreme objections for a Bible student. 

Should nations be Christian? What would this mean? Would it even be possible?

And by what means might it be achieved?

Is Christianity only an inward personal spirituality, or does it speak to the public realm? What if the public realm listens and the PM asks the pastors what he ought to do in the day job?

Granted nations may be idols, may they also be instruments of God?

So aren't we all Christian Nationalists now? The question is what we mean by the terms. 

If, by the grace of God, the King and 95% of the cabinet and people became evangelical and reformed Christians and thought wisely about how we might apply the Christian faith to our national and collective life, would we not be a Christian Nation? Is that desirable, even if some might think it unlikley any time soon or ever. 

Granted of course we would want to give some rights to minorities etc. We might say, we are and want to be a Christian Nation, but others are welcome. No one is forced to be a Christian. You may practice your religion, but we will have a national church and pray in Parliament and crown the king with hymns and prayers to Jesus as God and so on. The King's courts will contain the words "God is my right" - by which we mean the living and true God of the Bible, Father, Son and Spirit - but all may expect even handed justice from him.  

We can never go back in time or repeat history. And it would be undesirable to do so. 

Christendom had many problems, but many triumphs and treasures. 

On this Lesser Festival of Oswald, King of Northumbria and Martyr, died 642, might we not dare to pray for some kind of Chistendom 3.0 a few thousand years from now?

I think we can get behind a proper minimalistic Christian Nationalism and perhaps discuss next steps / hopes and dreams from there. 

But maybe you'll correct me! 

On style

 The kids are sometimes encouraged to use WOW words in their writing. And of course a rich and varried vocabulary is a wonderful thing. 

Though sometimes they over reach. And the writing can be a little sophomoric. And some writers never grow out of this. 

After all, what is the point of the writing? To impress or communicate?

Big or unusual words can be splendid, but you want to know exactly what they mean and how they feel. What will their effect be? If you are not careful, you might pen an unitentional parody. Deliberately using a word in an unusual context can be show stopping or show stopping. 

In general, it is better to try to write as simply and plainly as possible, and then embelish. If you know exactly what you want to say, there is plenty of scope for thinking about how you will say it well. But maybe start with the Anglo-Saxon and let it flower from there. 

If you are just throwing a thesaurus at it (or indeed putting in any big words you can think of) it might not go so well.  

The minister's working week

 There was an old adage, perhaps especially in free church circles, that the minister should be never out of his study in the morning and never in it in teh afternoon. 

Probably he was also expected to have several meetings in the evenings, but that's another story. 

And the idea was that in the morning he would write his sermons, and in the afternoons he would visit his people. 

He would preach twice on a Sunday and he would lead the mid week meeting. 

And he should have a day off. 

So he has five mornings for study and preparation. Say 9 am to 1pm. Four hours per session. Perhaps two sessions each for the Sunday sermons. And one for the midweek meeting. Or manybe three for Sunday morning and one for the midweek meeting and one for Sunday evening (when he may re-use material), or something. Or perhaps one session is given to more general background study. The exact division might depend from week to week and doesn't matter too much.

The pastor thus gives the bulk of his best time to study. 

Maybe there are night owls, but I know I find it hard to study say, 7pm - 10pm on a Thursday after a full week, though I can find the energy to go out to PCC, weirdly! 

Sometimes, of course, the pastor might mix it up. After all, not all his people are free at 3pm on a Wednesday. 

Did this pattern basically hold in 1980 before the days of mobile phones and emails? Could the Vicar give an hour a week to his correspondence?  

And today, the pastor would ask, I guess, is that how we think of his role today:

(1) Study to preach and teach

(2) Pastor and evangelise when you can

Today we would add admin and leadership. 

When does the Vicar sort out the church building, and do his online safeguarding training, and the return to the diocese about net zero and...? 

Is the life of the Vicar just one thing after another and think about your sermon on the way to church, or can we say what healthy patterns would be between morning and evening prayer? 

On preaching preparation

Certainly the preacher should prepare. 

He (or she) should prepare himself. He should pray. 

He should prepare his material. He should study God and his gospel, and the texts, and his people. He should know the big idea(s) and the aim(s) of his sermon.

Should he prepare his manuscript? 

And if he does should he read it out?

If you write a dull text and read it dully that's a double disaster. 

For some, there will be a great gain from in the moment spontaneous natural communication. 

For some, there will be great gain from the telling well contructed headings and phrases over which you sweated. Preparation may allow for conscion, and light and shade. 

Perhaps the ideal is some kind of half way house:

Prepare your material, but also prepare some of your matter or manner of delivery. 

Know how you will begin and end. 

Have some things that you will put pithily. 

Have that word play or alliteration, sometimes. 

What are your main points and how do you go from one to another?

Maybe even write a full manuscript, but try not to have to read it.  

What would your sermon look like on one usable page of A4? It might be a useful test as well as a help to delivery.