Jeremiah Lawson writes:
I distrust the hubris of anyone who would tweet such a silly idea more than I distrust the custom of the sermon. I’ve seen people who at one point promoted a more “Midrash” approach to things go so far the other way that the people committed to the traditional sermon as something that can be beneficial to others are less likely to have God-complex problems than the people who think they’re smart enough to come up with something new who are going to more likely arrive at a lesser reinvention of the wheel.
Jake Stone writes:
Well assuming by “sermon” you mean “A teachable moral exhortation” or something along those lines, I guess it can be a sort of call and response/Q & A situation, but I don’t really see the point in holding a conversational sermon. Nowhere in Scripture or the early Church does that happen and the whole idea, as far as I can tell, is for learned clergy or teacher to rightly instruct the faithful. I just don’t see that happening when everybody’s got a voice. I feel like it would turn corporate worship into the equivalent of a relativistic bible study or just a debate.
Really, to me, trying to get people to see “sermon” as anything OTHER than “didactic monologue by one ‘authorized’ leader” smacks of “let’s stay relevant” pop-worship.
So this went out on twitter a few days back:
“There is a long-held assumption that sermon = didactic monologue by one “authorized” leader. That assumption needs to die.”
Like many twitter comments, there is much unstated that lies behind. That said, play with the idea a little. What do you think?
Matthew Johnson writes:
I’ll take my hugs like most everything else – don’t call, email, or text. Just show up in person.
What if I was gonna email ya for a hug? [sad face]
Matthew Johnson writes:
FYI – just got an email from Bluehost. They’re doing server maintenance tonight and the BHT may be down for 15-30 minutes at some point between 9PM and 5AM. You may think that something’s wrong, but there’s not.
So don’t email me.
I couldn’t bring myself to listen or watch. Neither Nye or Ham are exactly tops in their league and are better at soundbytes and entertainment, kind of like listening to a political debate between Bill O’Reily and Rachel Maddow.
If there needs to be a Creationist vs. Evolutionist debate, I’d be more interested in hearing Francis Collins and Ben Carson. Ben Carson’s not in the same field as Collins, but he is well respected and didn’t get the “Doctor” in his title
from a set of box tops from conservative schools handing out honorary degrees. At the least it would be more interesting and probably a bit more insightful.
Yeah, I listened through it. I might blog some thoughts later, but I didn’t find it very satisfying. Ham basically demonstrated that his entire story is based on reading Genesis literally as a history. Nye laid out basically what I expected him to – that science is the be-all, end-all, and that we don’t have a good answer for what caused the Big Bang.
Nye loses points for reframing the debate topic to be “Ken Ham’s creation model” rather than “creation”. I understand why he did that, I think, but it made him look bad. Ham loses points for steadfastly refusing to accept that we can use evidence from current observations to reason backward to what must have happened in the past. You can’t consistently hold that position, but he doesn’t have any other way to argue some of the data, so he persists.
In the end it was disappointing to me; the debate format didn’t let them dig into the actual assertions of fact where they appeared to disagree, and the rest of the time they just talked past each other. More valuable to the Christian community would’ve been Ken Ham vs. Francis Collins, but that wouldn’t have accomplished Ham’s goal of demonstrating the war of worldviews.
Has anyone managed to stomach the Ham/Nye “debate” yet?
Continuing my use of this forum for people who (a) know what I mean when I say it and (b) I have ideas too long for Twitter (to which John H thinks to himself “There are ideas too long for Twitter? Huh?” jn)
Wright’s hope came blazing through to me like never before this morning (I’m still working my way through Surprised by Hope. Goodness I wish I read as fast as ChrisH). The hugeness of the gulf between “I can’t wait to go to heaven when I die” and the vision that Wright and the New Testament paints is so dramatic. Creation groaning, not just in pain, but waiting for us, to come and live in His kingdom and work in the New Creation, as originally intended. A home prepared “up there”, but that will come down here. I’m probably not saying it well. Wright says it best–go figure. But I think, for the near future, when I hear someone say “go to heaven when you die”, I’m going to want to respond like this.
On a different, but related note, I was discussing with my wife the pain we experienced when my son had cancer last year. (He’s fine right now, btw.) As I was considering some overly-simplistic teaching I once sat under, I was struck by how thoroughly a huge trial can rip apart and improve one’s theology. It feels (to me at this point in my walk) that it takes a real period of suffering to form a robust theology that doesn’t take things like prayer, God’s will, the Holy Spirit, etc… for granted. I don’t know how many of you in ministry have or have not experienced a serious time of suffering. It would be interesting to hear Jared’s thoughts on this, having had a number of terrible illnesses in his congregation recently. I’m not saying that one can’t have a decent theology or compassionate ministry without having suffered. I went 46 years without a significant trial and I don’t think I was a complete idiot until then. And goodness knows that us humans can have a trial and come through it still a dunderhead. But it does seem that a period of suffering can forge one’s emotions and theology in a way that little else can. Most personally, I’ve noted that it has dramatically changed the way I interact with my students who are suffering, much for the better.