Other Sites I Recommend
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are my own personal opinions and do not represent anyone else's view in any way, including those of my employer.
© Copyright 2008
The opinions expressed herein are my own personal opinions and do not represent anyone else's view in any way, including those of my employer.
© Copyright 2008
This post comes as a response to accusations that I wanted to address clearly and directly.
So, why preach? As much as I’m getting sick of making lists, I’ll do so for the sake of simplicity for readers.
1) Preaching has been a staple in Protestant congregations since the 16th century. The sermon has more foundation in Greco-Roman Rhetoric than any Biblical form, but that hardly provides a suitable basis for disposing of the practice. Despite the love-hate relationship the Church has with it’s long, boring sermons, the Church doesn’t WANT to give up the sermon.
2) Formal, public communication is a great method of communicating foundational doctrinal basics as well as issuing public exhortations and challenges.
As much as I’d love to give a longer list, that’s really it. Public address is still a valuable part of the American culture, but if it is to remain relevant in the American Church it needs to be reevaluated and modified to become more ‘open-sourced’ and less didactic.
Doug Pagitt presents a good starting point for discussion in his book ‘Preaching Re-Imagined‘ but how our sermons will allow dialogue and deconstruct the concept of a central ‘correct’ opinion remains to be seen.
Just because the sermon in its current form is ineffective does not mean we need to do away with it, it simply needs to be reconstructed to fit a contemporary context.
Earl
More Options ...
Categories
Tag Cloud
Blog RSS
Comments RSS
Void « Default
Life 
Earth 
Wind 
Water 
Fire Light
Previous 
Next 
Comment Meta:
Last 50 Posts
Back
Earl! Haven’t had a chance to read you in a while, but I’ve come across a few interesting tidbits I’d like to hear your opinion on. Firstly, what do you think of Deism? Can Someone be Deist and still align with Catholicism? Is being Deist just a cop-out to explain and over-simplify the existance of evils in the world without attributing them to supernatural sources?
Secondly, I read a great article by Steven M Cahn titled Religion Reconsidered. Im trying to track down a copy of it online, but have had no such luck. Anyways, in the essay, he outlines an approach to religion in which one takes a naturalistic approach, sidestepping from the supernatural elements of religion. He outlines the existance of an afterlife and the existance of a God are contingent commitments. He outlines his necessary commitments in five categories:
1) Rituals. When approached from a supernatural standpoint, Cahn views rituals as mere superstition. However he aknowledges that they are necessary in forging a community through a commitment to common values. He sees supernatural rituals as prescribed symbolic action, and that in this context, rituals become more ineffective.
2)Prayer. Cahn takes on a view of language which states that since language itself is a human artifact, that the words in the Bible, or any sacred text for that matter, are not literal. They are merely allusions and metaphors. Cahn’s definition of prayer is more akin to meditation, affirmation, and reflection on one’s values. When prayer is approached from a supernatural mindset, asking a supernatural being to intervene in the physical world to help our cause, Cahn finds it ineffective and describes it again as “superstition”
3)Philosophical framework. Cahn believes that a philisophical framework, be it supernaturalistic, or naturalistic, is necessary to form the foundation of any meaningful religion or religious activity.
4)Commitment to moral principles. Cahn paraphrases Socrates: Are certain actions right because God says so, or does God say so because certain actions are right? Cahn goes on to say that in his opinion, appeals to the supernatural are no more than appeals to power. He claims that supernatural appeals allow the circumventing of moral obligations.
5)metaphysical beliefs. A framework from which to approach the basic nature of all things is necessary. There are many examples (creationist, et al.) of the supernatural frameworks available, but Cahn outlines some naturalist frameworks which may work. Two specifically were Spinoza’s view of “God is Nature” and Dewey’s pragmatism.
what do you think? I thought it was interesting that in the way he outlined his views, you could still practice any number of organized religions, but from a different angle. One can still go to church, pray, be active in a religious community, but go about it in a different philisophical way which allows the co-existance of two completely different schools of thought: naturalist and supernaturalist.
take care Earl!
Evan – You easily win the ‘longest comment’ award. I’ll see what I can do to answer your questions…
Diesm- I don’t know enough to evaluate it. I’ll read see what I can get my hands on and write about it over the next day or so.
Cahn’s perspective via your description:
1) I don’t think I understand. What’s a supernatural ritual as opposed to a natural ritual? I’d agree that rituals build community and I understand that they can be ineffective, but elaborate more for me.
2) This is an interesting concept. Language may be just a representation of a larger idea. Anthropologists go ’round and ’round deciding if language represents or limits one’s thoughts- I’m still out to lunch on which view I subscribe to.
The concept of a representation of a transcendent idea because even more interesting when we view it in light of how we interact with the ‘inspiration’ of the Bible. But as far as prayer goes I think we have to answer the question of how we’re going to interpret the Scriptures. There is absolutely no doubt that the authors of Scripture fully believed that if you ask God for stuff He gives you stuff. Were they mistaken? If they were mistaken, then I think Cahn provides a helpful model for re-interpreting the cultic practice. If not, I don’t see a need for the re-interpretation- although I don’t think that it needs to be a dichotomy because there are meditative, cognitive restructuring aspects of prayer as well.
So I guess I said all that to say, ‘what do you think?’
3) If by ‘philisophical framework’ we mean ‘doctrinal beliefs’ or something of the sort then I think Cahn is right on
4) I’d say that while Cahn’s assertions touch upon the longstanding liberal answer to how faith interacts with culture he’s onto something. I don’t think there is a single correct answer, but I agree that often conservatives call upon ‘divine authority’ to simply pull rank and not have a justifiable defense for their beliefs.
I’m still currently wrestling with how to intersect personal and communal morality. I’ve recently surveyed 5 models of interaction, you should read those or search Niebuhr’s book ‘Christ and Culture’.
5) I’d like to explore this more, it sounds fascinating. I’d encourage you to survey the possibilities and decide which seems best to you. I would also encourage you to constantly ask yourself ‘have I gone too far?’. I think asking questions is a trait to be encouraged and applauded, but in that process we may slip too far from what the message of the Gospels are.
I would say that any faith that rejects the Apostles’ Creed or Nicene Creed is going ‘too far’.
I’d love to read that article if you ever find it. If you’re in Binghamton, I’d even be willing to get some coffee and get it from you. I think Cahn has a lot of good ideas, but I would push back and say that we shouldn’t try to approach the supernatural and natural as two seperate entities but more akin to two sides of the same coin.
So I win 2nd place for longest comment.
Earl
I’d be interested in your take on my blog about preaching:
The Perfect Church, Part 1: the Sermon