Does Anglican Liturgy Inhibit Bible Teaching?

Our Archbishop has told us numerous times that a sermon from the pulpit for teaching that lasts more than ten-minutes loses listeners as the time goes beyond those ten-minutes. He feels that at a half-hour, most listeners have wandered away from the lesson and were contemplating other things, hoping the sermon would cease soon. I do have to agree with him.

 

Our rector's homilies tend to run about 20 minutes, I think. (They could be less cerebral and more practical-application oriented IMO, but it's not up to me.) And then we have Sunday school afterward on most Sundays, which is an hour of teaching for those who stay for it.

It is rather easy to 'zone out', not just during a dry homily but also during various portions of the liturgy because one hears them, exactly the same, every - single - Sunday. I'm just making the observation. My mind wanders, and I doubt I am unique in that. It's human nature, I guess. Yet I recognize the value of standardization; it prevents important details from being left out, and it keeps priests from ad-libbing themselves into perilous waters. I see in the liturgy a sort of stylized 'snapshot' or 'pattern' of how a person comes to faith in Christ. There's guidance concerning the key elements of our faith which any Christian needs to believe, confession that one is a sinner in need of salvation, sorrow and repentance from sin, emphasis of God's forgiveness, coming into union with Christ, etc. There is an element of evangelism (it's subtle, but it's there) threading its way through the entire liturgical service. The thing is, any time you reduce something to a level that can beckon to an unbeliever and teach a new Christian, it is bound to be repetitive and therefore somewhat mind-numbing to those who are well-versed in the faith.

 

I think that misses the point of the service. We are worshipping God not there for teaching per say. Yes teaching is important and we need it but the liturgy is a teacher also. Listen to the words, follow the service, you will see that it is a wonderful instruction. Yes the sermon is important but that is not the true point of the service. With that being said my priest usually preaches for 20-30 minutes and our services are almost always over an hour long and that is ok.

 

We are far gone from the days of Morning Prayer and the 50 minute sermon.

 

Our Eucharist takes routinely 1 hour, sometimes 1 hour 10 minutes. My homily is nearly always based upon the Gospel reading and often on BOTH Gospel and Epistle showing why they compliment one another. Occasionally I explain the OT reading in historical context and expound it's relevance to our experience in service of Christ today. My homily is very rarely more than 4 pages of A5 at 14 point. This always equates to just 10 to 12 minutes. My vicar, when I was a young choir boy said once, "Preaching is like drilling for oil. - If you haven't struck oil after 10 minutes, better stop boring". He often didn't take his own advice though and sometimes went on to twenty after looking at his watch on 10.

I read a good book once which advised trying to put information for speeches in 30 second, (or so), packages. Give people time to take it in by adding dramatic pauses after every important piece of information or statement, and never go on for more than 12 minutes. Winston Churchill was an expert at carrying people with him in rhetoric, so was John Wesley. You'd be surprised how much valuable discipleship information it is possible to deliver in just 12 minutes based just on the gospel for that day.

Sermons are a different matter. They need a different context than the Eucharist provides. They are more like lectures in length and content and usually are intended to make numerous points sequencially rather than leading the hearer to a better understanding of an important aspect of living the Christian life today. I agree there has definitely emerged in the Anglican tradition a need for services of The Word which can provide a more suitable context for a more in depth expounding of scriptural truth than that provided by The Eucharist alone.
.

 

My priest is ok but tends to read the sermon which is also printed in the pew sheets, so one could just read it and ignore the speaker, which I often do. I prefer our Bishop's sermons because he doesn't use any notes and seems to speak from the heart, connecting with the people in the seats. He also seems to relate back more to the readings and gospel than our priest does.

I try to stay focused during our priest's sermons but must admit that it isn't always easy for me. And when our Deacon does the sermon I just tune out and think about something else, which probably isn't very nice, but he wanders a lot and puts in lots of personal opinions. The whole Mass only lasts an hour though, so at least no one is droning on forever. Being a good speaker isn't an easy thing and not everyone has the talent so I try to be accepting of even the 'bad' ones.

 

A good homily or sermon should be the result of three different factors.

(1) Obtaining the content: This should come from study of The Word, which is in itself a twofold action.
(a) An understanding of The Scriptures and
(b) An understanding of Jesus's directives, through the Holy Spirit. (i.e. feed my sheep).

(2) There are talented preachers and teachers who are able to project the enthusiasm they have for their subject seemingly without effort, however there are techniques available to almost anyone which can render a delivery of the information to the hearer an enjoyable experience. Enthusiasm has to be there to start with though, even the enthusiasm to learn the techniques and principles.

(3) A good homily should be the impartation of knowledge that one has learned oneself and appreciated the value of. It is the impartation of knowledge that has come through the Holy Spirit from Christ to his people. Jesus's preaching was not like the Pharisees and Scribes, their's was boring. His preaching was direct, immediate and often amusingly in the form of stories. It did not just ram facts into the ears of his hearers but rather encouraged them to think things through for themselves to find meaning in what he had said in the stories he told. That became the hearers 'own wisdom they had discovered', it had merely been shared with them by the preacher, through the stories.

If one or more of these is lacking, then you have a boring sermon.
.

 

I took a course called something like "Studying and Teaching the Bible." The professor was the only professor I had who called me to ask how I was and if I needed any help. The final project was to make a Sunday school curriculum for Philippians.

 

What is the historical basis for this statement?

 

Matt.7:28-29. Matt. 16:11-12

 

Neither passage cited substantiates (or even addresses) your earlier claim. What we know of the Tannaitic midrashim paints a rather different picture.

 

Seems I stand corrected then.
.

 

At least you're still standing!

 

My armour is only slightly dented.