How much of your religious education (%) would you estimate was taken up by homiletics?

How much of homiletics (%) is directed towards the form I mentioned above and cannot be transferred to another form?

I wonder what would happen if pastors who wanted to explore new forms went back to their institutions to ask for a refund for all the stuff they didn’t want.

I think its important to look at how much it would grieve preachers to see that market dry up for a while. I have a retired preacher friend who basically said the same thing several months ago.

What does that mean? Does it mean that the preaching becomes such a personal expression that it ends up being more about the preacher than about the hearer or about Jesus? Y’know that song by delirious? (or Matt Redman) “It’s all about You”. I don’t want it to sound like I’m pointing my fickle finger of shame, because I don’t think it’s necessarily bad to invest so much in what you do. My purpose in asking this question is to open it up for examination and find what’s real before we make statements about the value of things. Y’know? The church is really good at parroting what it values without really looking under the hood at the human process of assigning value.

I think one of the things Harry did for reading was present a previously taboo subject – evidenced by the outcry from the religious sectors. I’ve done a little pot-stirring in my day and I’ve become familiar with some of the places preaching won’t go. I was told outright that “blood” was not to be discussed. I’ve watched conservative friends talk about how they don’t like hearing any kind of earthy or gritty details when people give personal testemonies. “It’s okay if you come to the Lord from some vague bad place, but I don’t want to hear how many men you’ve slept with or abortions you’ve had or drugs you’ve whored for…” Aparently if all we hear are pleasantries, then our tendency to be judgmental jerks won’t be exposed. We don’t want to be made to have bad feelings. Especially “in the sanctuary”. You see what I mean? This is so far away from the experience of the early church and the dynamic that Jesus was initiating. It irks me.

What if…?

I guess my current thoughts are that as a preacher I would be very sad if I didn’t preach again, but most preachers we have in my church bore me senseless and I could quite easily do without listening to 90% of sermons I ever hear. Perhaps a break would be a good thing.

I’m always wary of pronouncing no future for anything – a couple of years ago the publishing industry was moaning that no-one was reading any more, then a certain Harry Potter came along and since then I’ve not heard anyone complain about the lack of people reading books.

“Why does the job depend on it?”

…and it’s prequel should be considered close by, “What do we mean by the word ‘preaching’?”

Methinks Jason doesn’t mean what Randy spelled out. There are many ways to “preach” the gospel. Using words is one of them.

I for one, would be glad to see the kind of preaching I’m thinking of – the standing in the pulpit or even walking in and amongst the listeners and talking to them about what the Bible says about God and all the usual homiletic stuff that we’re used to – go bye-bye for a while. Like going back-packing or travelling to another country, it’s a good exercise in identifying what we take for granted and learning about what the necessities really are. From what I understand about Luther, he was open to that. I’m sure Sivin knows that too.

If we lose the forms, what will we have left?
Content.
What happens if we pour the content into another form?

Anything I have read by Leonard Sweet has also been very thought provoking.

This question I has occuppied my thoughts for the last few years. I was raised Methodist but spent about 15 years in the a Charismatic type church. After being burnt, I’ve spent the last 2 years wondering what I am…where I fit in.

Second — preaching (telling the message) is key to our future, Sivin is right, again. The transmission of the story is near and dear to my heart, not just as an art form but as a pathway for individual transformation (…how will they know unless they hear…), can’t wait to see your stuff

Great to hear from you, and glad you hav eenjoyed Brian’s book. In answer to your questions:
1. I suspect most of the emergin church response is akin to previous “revival” movements of charismatic church. A sociological response that won’t be revival at all, but wishful thinking for the church to be different.
2. I think you are onto something profound here stay with it. To move ahead church needs to change, but many of us need to do that where we are, and some, a few need to start new forms of church. Insead of all leavingh church complaining about what church doesn’t do, we should be starting to be and do the things that are needed to move church forward. So if your church doesn’t do the ministry to drug addicts you think it needs to you do it…don’t leave and bitch about your church.

When we do church and change by affirming what is good, and take on the challenge of adding the things we need to do better, health is going to happen. Read Brian’s new book and you’ll see that this is our manifesto for emergent. Keep in touch and come and visit when you are around. Warmly, Jason