conjectural navel gazing; jesus in lint form

Love that song... well played.

you can't go wrong with the muppets! and i agree with you on the quality preaching & the implications... and that this week's sermon is here too "meh" thus far. percolating but nothing is filling the cup yet...

What leads you to believe that good preaching is essential? (Asks the person who would be just fine if she never heard another sermon...)

Hotcup, good luck with the preaching. I was reading a lectionary help that reminded me that 1 Peter, when it speaks to slavery, is speaking to family structures. Hmmm...What does this verse say to families? Can it be restated in such a way that does not send the DCFS into fits? I dunno.

Megan,

I am likely brainwashed on some level. But I have understood preaching as the liturgical act of "proclaiming the day of the Lord." It reminds all in worship of a shared theological center or connection or vision. And, for visitors, it is often a way to take the theological temperature of a congregation. It's not the only way, certainly, but it is one...and an important one.

Plus, Jesus preached. It's not a bad thing to emulate.

Good point about what a sermon's angle of approach signals to visitors to a church, who might be looking for a church to join. That whole side of things is so foreign to me, it doesn't leap to mind unless someone (like you!) reminds me.

My experience is also colored by my native impatience about being in a captive audience.

Church is all about the captive audience. That's what the fancy maroon ropes are for in some congregations. We are "roping them in" in the name of Jesus! Alleluia! Amen!

;-)

I probably say it too often here at CCW, but I think that liturgy is the face of the church...at least to visitors. It's the cover of the book. And people do judge books by their cover. It may as well be a good one with an excellent leaf synopsis.

I think that social justice work is the face of a church. What gets said inside the walls doesn't matter anywhere near as much as what gets done outside.

I've so frequently experienced the words of liturgy having nothing to do with the church's actions in the world, even actively opposing them, that I come down on the side of "talk is cheap. Let's see what you DO."

signed,
there was a reason that unprogrammed Quaker Meeting worked for me...

Ah.

Worship takes many forms. Liturgy (leiturgia, gk. "the work of the people") takes many forms. And churches struggle with showing their faces to the world...and not revealing their hypocrisy. I am not disagreeing with you. Sometimes (likely often) the liturgy judges us and we are found (extremely) wanting.

But as people are getting to know a specific gathering of Christians, the worship service is the first encounter they have with the community. And in this way the service is the face. From there, the Body must reveal itself. And I think this is the kind of stuff that you are talking about. The Body has to perform acts of justice and mercy.

Hopefully, the face and the body are on the same page.

You keep coming back to the phrase "work of the people," and every time you do, I think:

That's a translation, not a definition.

I can see how its poetry appeals to you. You're a poetic kind of guy.

But for my money, the work of the people is the WORK of the people. Feeding the hungry. Visiting the sick and imprisoned. Etc. etc.

Liturgy is fine for those who want it. But, liturgy without work-in-the-world is meaningless. I would submit that work-in-the-world without liturgy, still has meaning.

All of which I'm free to think, in my circumstance of not trying to maintain or enlarge a church.

Love your comments on church. In my current class of my doctoral program, we're talking about music as the chief expression of a church's theology. And maybe, in an established congregation that's happy with maintenance growth, it is. But when you are intending to also speak to those who aren't familiar with the songs/themes, we need to invite and explain...and the sermon has to make sense to someone who doesn't have all our church language.
I'm enjoying your conversation with Megan...

Agreed...and I know I am reacting against (Too strong a statement? Maybe.) my own background...un-religious humanism. It never really played out for me. The symbol that liturgy can be gives justice and mercy context for me. Otherwise, honestly, I simply could not find a reason to be just, merciful or kind...well, other than how it smooths out relationships. Heh.

I'm only speaking for myself there, not for others. So, I need the liturgy. I get what it is after there. And thus the translation serves as a definition for me. Liturgy is the whole work of the people. Or the work of the people is rightly called liturgy.

Feed the poor, feed Christ.

So then, you need it personally, liturgy may be "the work of Tripp."

But not everybody is Tripp, or even Tripp-like. :-) You shouldn't speak of "the people" when you just mean You.

Mmm...

Well, I don't think of myself as a solitary. That's you. I understand myself as part of a collective, a community, by spiritual necessity. So, I have discovered/embraced strains of Christianity that speak to the collective work of the people...not the work of the person...but both the individual and the community together and separately. We are a Body. We act individually and communally. Well, that's how I understand it at least. I understand and accept that there are various approaches to being Christian. No problem there, I just find the communal to be the better fit. So, liturgy is the work of the people and not only the work of the person...or the Tripp.

And I wish I had not been so short in my last comment. I did not grow up without a moral compass. My parents would be mortified if they thought I believed that. Of course they offered morals. Needed to make that clear.

No problem, I took as a given that you received moral guidance from the people who reared you.

However, I object to "That's you." It's very presumptuous of you, even after many years of friendship, to think you could boil "me" down to two words.

Let me further point out that there's a very significant difference between "the people," which is an absolute term -- it means ALL of the people, and if you don't fit into this definition you can't be one of The People -- vs. "one of the works of the people" or "the work of many of God's people," which are communal and inclusive without being absolute.

The absoluteness shuts people out. And that seems to be the opposite of what you're after.

wonderful play. i love the metaphor that you are done packing boxes--it will be wonderful to see how you unpack and re-set up shop!

ps...i was quited moved by your later post on the need to craft a sermon and being on the right path when you get nervous. absolutely beautiful. i don't preach every week but i hope to give myself over to the scriptures each week in the same way--thanks for the inspiration!

I would submit, my dear Tripp and Megan, that if the Word is correctly given in the liturgy/sermon, then good works *should* flow from that Word. :)

Of course, if St. Paul himself bemoaned how often what he knew was right conflicted with what he actually did, you are going to find church people everywhere who are not always consistent in their works. (Amy is pointing to herself.)

BTW, Tripp, the quote: Is Nouwen arguing *against* defending life? I'm a little confused.

Peace,
Amy

Amy,

Hey there. How's the thesis? I hope well. I enjoy reading what's happening with you.

I think that Nouwen is not against defending life. I think he's actually advocating for it. We often kill others out of fear. We mistake defending ourselves for "destroying the serpent in the egg." He's seeking out the root of that confusion.

Hi, Tripp! What thesis? :)

Doh! Sorry, Amy. Wrong Amy! But it is great to see you commenting on l'blog! Say hey to Rich for me!