There is a church practice that I have encountered where, at the beginning of the sermon, the pastor asks the entire congregation to “stand up now for the reading of God’s word.” Then when the pastor says that, everyone stands up and listens while he reads a Bible passage. First of all, I don’t see what particular benefit anyone could derive from standing up. God created chairs for a reason. Some people might argue that standing is a show of respect, but I don’t really buy that line. If we seriously wanted to show respect, it seems like we would salute, or kneel to the ground, or something. The other argument that a proponent of the technique might offer is that standing up causes us to be more attentive. But since when is that the case? Do children stand up while they are learning mathematics in school, or do they sit at their desks? Standing up just makes you uncomfortable. I focus best on God when I am comfortable and not annoyed.
But of course, these prior arguments concern merely peripheral issues. The real question is, Why in the world is God’s word read only at the beginning of the service?? I think a sermon is not even a real sermon at all unless it contains at least ten Bible verses. And I’m being fairly lenient when I offer a number even that low. Moreover, it’s a pretty cheap way to beat the system if you just pick ten verses that are all in a row and then read them all at the beginning of the sermon. The correct method is to spread the verses out throughout the sermon.
Once the pastor makes sure he has the requisite number of verses and that they are properly spread out, then he can either explain what each one means (expositional preaching) or use the verses to buttress a broader biblical argument (topical preaching). Or of course, he can always do some of both. Personally I think the congregation is safest if the pastor just sticks mainly to expositional preaching – because with topical preaching the risk is greater that the preacher will yank verses out of context to support some ridiculous extrabiblical viewpoint — but topical preaching does come in handy for establishing coherent theology.
But aside from these legitimate strategies, there’s also the method I’ve been ranting about, where the pastor just picks half a dozen verses, and then he reads them all at the beginning, and then he rambles on for the rest of the sermon with his own opinions. To finally bring things back to the initial point of my post, if you think it is good to stand up for the reading of God’s word, then you should remain standing for the entire sermon! Otherwise, you are admitting that your preacher is not preaching God’s word.
If you have never been to a church that engaged in this practice and have absolutely no idea what I am talking about…well, just ignore this post and count your blessings.
It annoys me too, though I only experienced it once in a church we no longer attend. I agree it’s stupid; a peer-pressure induced faux show of respect, completely meaningless, and as you say, a hindrance to teaching. In our current church, bible verses are referenced and read all thoughout the sermon, and there’s no nonsense about standing up for them – most of us are busily taking notes anyway.
And – off topic, but as long as I’m ranting – none of this in-and-out-in-an-hour crap, either. Service starts at 10am, and most days we wrap up between 12 and 12:30. A good half hour of worship, then announcements and send the kids over to children’s church, then a sermon that is seldom less than 70 minutes long, and another worship song or two. I hate it when churches act like it’s a race to get you in and out so you can hit the Shoney’s buffet before the crowd does, or be home in time for the kickoff.
Heh, now that’s funny– that seems to have been borrowed from Catholic services, just without any of the other symbols.
(The respect thing makes more sense there, since there’s a whole range of stand/set/kneel, cross yourself, etc. When Father does the gospel reading– before the sermon– we make the sign of the cross on our head, lips and over our heart.)
Since we got stuck holding hands the same way, I gotta giggle here. ^.^
Foxfier recently posted..Black And White Morality
Laura, I don’t have quite as strict an opinion about the length of sermons, but I would probably say that the pastor should talk for at least 40 minutes, which is almost the length of a standard television show minus commercials. That might not seem like much to you, but it would be an improvement for some of these pastors who only speak for 20-25 minutes and then kill time for the rest of the hour with singing and announcements. (For example, the guy that I’m referencing in the initial post does also have fairly short sermons, although I haven’t timed them.) At big churches where the pastor gives the same sermon twice in a row, I can see how he might get tired having to give a 70-minute sermon twice.
I dunno, Drew, if the pastor isn’t hearing from God enough to at least beat out the writers for CSI, I think he’s got a real problem.
In all seriousness, I’m not suggesting an actual, legalistic time quota that a sermon has to reach in order to “count.” I just mean that I’m weary of these shallow, short sermons – there’s no meat in them. It’s just milk. When the priority of the church is getting people out by a certain time – and I’ve been on staff somewhere that was a priority, and I know people at other churches who made similar comments – then that church has a serious problem. Most people at my church make comments along the lines that they’d rather have an intermission than to have the pastor cut back the time – if he wants to go long, they’re willing to have him go long. I think that’s a good indicator of the health of the church. Not the only one, but an important one.