That’s not to say what I wasn’t taught a disciplined exposition of Scripture. I was. I was shown how to seriously study the text, to mine and plum the depths of the Divine Word. But then to add filler.
Regardless of how useful you think sermon filler may be, my argument here is not with the filler itself. I’m not condemning sermon illustrations, but I do wonder about our reliance on the Word of God to do what it say it will do. If we truly believe that God’s Word is efficacious without our trite stories and comic relief, then it seems that we spend too much time learning and developing what is just filler, either to satisfy our own desire to be creative or as a desperate attempt to keep people it the pew. On one hand, we teach that the sermon is, in fact, God's own Word, but on the other hand, a great portion of the sermon is filled with stories, jokes, and illustrations of which we cannot say "Thus says the Lord."
Again, I'm not arguing against sermon illustrations. But rarely do I hear an illustration that supports the delivery of the Gospel, rather than hinders it. In order to develop an appropriate illustration, and not just something thrown in to give the hearers a mental break, it takes a lot of time and energy. It's work spent on something that’s not actually the Word of God, but the filler. It's time that could be better spent on studying the depths of Scripture in order to deliver that to the people.
For, in the end, what will a cute story or a cleaver joke do for the people of God? Are they to survive and combat the sufferings of this world, the temptations of their flesh, and the assaults of Satan, with sermon filler rather than Christ and Him crucified?
We live in a world where people are lacking the nourishment of God’s Word and they don’t even know it. They have been fed a steady diet of life improvement lessons and therapeutic dribble. They’ve been given a buffet of so-called "spiritual truths" from which they are free to pick and choose as they like. A Pastor has the ears of his flock for 15-20 minutes a week. Should he not spend that precious time giving them nothing else than Christ and Him crucified?
“We must have no illusions about the fact that the Divine Service, as it has developed since the time of Pietism and the Enlightenment, no longer seizes souls. The average sermon no longer fills churches. The reason for this is not that the Word of God has lost its power over minds, nor that the natural man rejects the Word of God. The reason is that in so many of our sermons the Word of God is drowned out by our human words and therefore no longer heard.”
Hermann Sasse, “The Lonely Way: Selected Essays and Letters, vol II,” 314.
As sinners, we need to hear the declarative condemnation of the Law that points out our wretched condition and kills us in it. We need to hear the sweet comforting words of the Gospel that are not overrun by sentimentality or even sacred living, but are the pure proclamation of forgiveness, life, and salvation won in Christ Jesus and imparted in Word and Sacrament.
We need Christ not filler.
Pushed to its absurd extreme, your concern "about our reliance on the Word of God to do what it say[s] it will do" would see the sermon eliminated entirely in favor of the lectionary readings alone. I think the real need is to properly discern the difference between "filler" as just that, versus "filler" as the proper and useful depiction of the listener's horizon in his interaction with the biblical text, and/or epexegesis of the text's own horizon (to use Thiselton's metaphor).
ReplyDelete@Eric, I’m not sure how relying on the Word of God can ever become an “absurd extreme.” I’m not arguing against illustrations. Using them is not necessarily antithetical to faithful preaching. Neither am I suggesting that we must only read the Bible from the pulpit. But I can’t say that reading the Bible to people would be wrong! The issue at hand is that of proclaiming Christ crucified for sinners. Any words used from the pulpit either support that or hinder this proclamation. As such, your explanation of “filler as the proper and useful depiction of the listener’s horizon in his interaction with the biblical text,” is helpful. However, in the cultural context of the American Lutheran Church, I see more Pastors worrying about the need to be creative with the text (adding “filler as just that”) rather than worrying about actually proclaiming the text. And apparently, this concern isn’t anything new, i.e. Sasse's comment.
ReplyDeleteFiller also goes beyond trite anecdotes copy/pasted after an extensive Google search. I am convinced that some pastors spend more time searching images on Google in order to fill the foolish screen plastered in the front of the church. I don't need to see an image or three, four or five of a sheep when referencing Christ as the Good Shepherd.
ReplyDeleteLess attention to visual entertainment and more attention to filling the ears, minds and hearts on the benefits of clear Law and Gospel is what we need.
Less time discerning the use of fades, checkerboard patterns and crawls and more time spent on discerning the difference between the doctrines of Law and Gospel is what we need. We don't need filler we need the clarity of God's Word taught in all its truth and purity. We need the harsh condemnation of the Law and the cleansing, healing and motivating message of the Gospel.
Pastor, if you are ever in the Macomb, Michigan area would you consider being a guest speaker for chapel at Lutheran High School North? I teach English there and we have chapel every day. I would love to give our students the opportunity to hear you preach.
@JBrandt, Yes you're right. Too much time spent on the wrong things. We're often too naive thinking that our current age requires such changes, but sadly Pastors departing from the Word in order to itch the ears of the people is nothing new. Sadly.
ReplyDeleteIt would be a privilege to speak to the students at your school! I'm not in Macomb very often but I could always make the trip.
God's Blessings!