What do you think of this article?

[recessive redundancy]

Recently I read this article by Msgr. Charles Pope entitled “The Ancient Biblical Sermons Break All the Modern Rules – Maybe the Rules Should Be Re-Examined”. I find myself agreeing with it strongly. I find it refreshing that someone is saying these things.

Part of me feels like I shouldn’t be agreeing however. I tend to think that many of the pastoral strategies pursued in our time have been failures, and are failures, and I feel frustrated that they are clung to tenaciously despite emptying pews and shuttering parishes. And, as Msgr. Pope points out, these strategies sometimes seem to clash with the approach and messaging that Scripture itself uses. I suppose that one could argue that what worked to reach people in St. Paul’s day would drive them away now, and God was making use of what is essentially a matter of prudence to reach the immediate audience of the epistle, or of one of the apostles exhortations.

But mostly, I wonder if I am prideful in judging modern pastoral strategies to be failures. After all, I am just a layman. Perhaps it is not my place to make these judgements. After all, I don’t know what pastors and bishops deal with. I only know about my own preferences.

Finally, while I enthusiastically support the message of this article, I do think, “perhaps this is not the last word on the matter. Perhaps he is wrong and there are good reasons why we shouldn’t try the strategy he outlines.”

What do you think of the article?

[Bruce]

First of all, I have no idea what "modern rules" of sermons he's talking about.

I regularly preach that if we were back in the days of Christ, we would both be the ones cheering on Jesus when He entered Jerusalem and the ones crying "Crucify Him!". The bad news is that we are just a homicidal (and deicidal) as the people of Jesus' time. The good news is that God knows this and is willing to forgive us if we will only reach out to Him. It's a regular topic of mine.

I don't think I've ever heard a "God loves you just the way you are" homily. Apart from the really awful homilies that say nothing, most of them point out flaws in our way of living and call us to repentance.

Oh, and the "why do we use 'we' instead of 'you'" objection, the answer is simple: Because I'm in the same boat as my congregation. In fact, I often use my own failings as examples in my homilies. Why on earth would I consider myself above my own advice? The days of being considered holy simply by dint of ordination are well and truly over... at least I hope they are. I'm struggling along the path to Christ just like everyone else in the pews. This isn't "softening" or "dumbing down" the Gospel. It's just recognizing reality. I don't see how using "you" helps get the message across.

The one thing I do take care to do (or not do) in my homilies: If I take a poke at "one side" of the political divide, I take a poke at the "other side", too. I make fun of pro-Trump people (as an example for my American friends) then I'm careful to also make fun of the liberal Left. My goal is that everyone should walk out of the church thinking, "He's right. I could do better." If anyone walks out feeling self-satisfied, as in "I'm OK... it's that other guy who has a problem," then I've failed. Some of the worst homilies I've heard in my life garnered great praise from the congregation because the homilist played to them and gave what amounted to a political speech about how "other people" were not living the Gospel. Thanks be to God, those homilies have been few and far between.

I will say one thing in defense of the article: I think that the fire-and-brimstone, shape-up-or-be-damned homilies were much more common in the past, because the Church had what was in effect a captive audience of committed Catholics. Now many (most?) of the people in the congregation would be just as happy out shopping or watching sports instead of coming to Mass. If I insult them from the ambo, they'll leave and not come back. This doesn't mean that I soft-pedal the Gospel, but it does mean that I present it in a different way. Instead of hollering, "You're all going to hell!" from the ambo, I calmly demonstrate how none of us is living our Faith well, and how we should all be doing better. Generally, people appreciate the message and, I hope, try to improve their lives as a result.

I'll give you an example: I have a brother deacon who worked very hard in his community to bring people back to Mass. He built bridges and strove to build community, and he was successful. The church gradually started filling more and more with people who wanted to be there. He made a special effort to get people to come at Christmas, a very special celebration. The priest who came to say Mass at Christmas looked at the church and said, "There are so many of you here. Where are you the rest of the year?" and gave a homily on how it was a sin not to come to Mass every Sunday. Most of those new people whom my brother deacon convinced to come to Christmas Mass left and never came back. My point is that a homilist must know his congregation and know their needs. Those people needed to be told that they were welcome in the church community, not that they were headed for hell by not coming the rest of the year. That may have worked in a small town 200 years ago when people had nowhere else to go, but it doesn't fly today, especially when people have just decided to give Mass a try again.

St. Peter's sermon worked because he knew his audience... or, if you will, the Holy Spirit knew the audience. He said what he needed to say to provoke a change of heart. The only thing that blasting the congregation with fire and brimstone does is to make the regular attendees feel smug and self-satisfied. Again, "He's not talking to me; he's talking to those other people who need to shape up," and, as I said, that is one of my definitions of a bad sermon.

[jtum1]

First of all, I have no idea what "modern rules" of sermons he's talking about.

I regularly preach that if we were back in the days of Christ, we would both be the ones cheering on Jesus when He entered Jerusalem and the ones crying "Crucify Him!". The bad news is that we are just a homicidal (and deicidal) as the people of Jesus' time. The good news is that God knows this and is willing to forgive us if we will only reach out to Him. It's a regular topic of mine.

I don't think I've ever heard a "God loves you just the way you are" homily. Apart from the really awful homilies that say nothing, most of them point out flaws in our way of living and call us to repentance.

Oh, and the "why do we use 'we' instead of 'you'" objection, the answer is simple: Because I'm in the same boat as my congregation. In fact, I often use my own failings as examples in my homilies. Why on earth would I consider myself above my own advice? The days of being considered holy simply by dint of ordination are well and truly over... at least I hope they are. I'm struggling along the path to Christ just like everyone else in the pews. This isn't "softening" or "dumbing down" the Gospel. It's just recognizing reality. I don't see how using "you" helps get the message across.

The one thing I do take care to do (or not do) in my homilies: If I take a poke at "one side" of the political divide, I take a poke at the "other side", too. I make fun of pro-Trump people (as an example for my American friends) then I'm careful to also make fun of the liberal Left. My goal is that everyone should walk out of the church thinking, "He's right. I could do better." If anyone walks out feeling self-satisfied, as in "I'm OK... it's that other guy who has a problem," then I've failed. Some of the worst homilies I've heard in my life garnered great praise from the congregation because the homilist played to them and gave what amounted to a political speech about how "other people" were not living the Gospel. Thanks be to God, those homilies have been few and far between.

I will say one thing in defense of the article: I think that the fire-and-brimstone, shape-up-or-be-damned homilies were much more common in the past, because the Church had what was in effect a captive audience of committed Catholics. Now many (most?) of the people in the congregation would be just as happy out shopping or watching sports instead of coming to Mass. If I insult them from the ambo, they'll leave and not come back. This doesn't mean that I soft-pedal the Gospel, but it does mean that I present it in a different way. Instead of hollering, "You're all going to hell!" from the ambo, I calmly demonstrate how none of us is living our Faith well, and how we should all be doing better. Generally, people appreciate the message and, I hope, try to improve their lives as a result.

I'll give you an example: I have a brother deacon who worked very hard in his community to bring people back to Mass. He built bridges and strove to build community, and he was successful. The church gradually started filling more and more with people who wanted to be there. He made a special effort to get people to come at Christmas, a very special celebration. The priest who came to say Mass at Christmas looked at the church and said, "There are so many of you here. Where are you the rest of the year?" and gave a homily on how it was a sin not to come to Mass every Sunday. Most of those new people whom my brother deacon convinced to come to Christmas Mass left and never came back. My point is that a homilist must know his congregation and know their needs. Those people needed to be told that they were welcome in the church community, not that they were headed for hell by not coming the rest of the year. That may have worked in a small town 200 years ago when people had nowhere else to go, but it doesn't fly today, especially when people have just decided to give Mass a try again.

St. Peter's sermon worked because he knew his audience... or, if you will, the Holy Spirit knew the audience. He said what he needed to say to provoke a change of heart. The only thing that blasting the congregation with fire and brimstone does is to make the regular attendees feel smug and self-satisfied. Again, "He's not talking to me; he's talking to those other people who need to shape up," and, as I said, that is one of my definitions of a bad sermon.

yes, all are welcome. But how many thieves were told that they would be in Paradise with our Lord.
Yes, preach to the congregation - the Truth. The truth is needed. But even then, Paul, all things to all' people, did not have much luck with the Atheans.

[Bruce]

yes, all are welcome. But how many thieves were told that they would be in Paradise with our Lord.
Yes, preach to the congregation - the Truth. The truth is needed. But even then, Paul, all things to all' people, did not have much luck with the Atheans.

Agreed, and in my city, the vast majority of people would never bother coming to Mass, and, even if they did, would be looking to take offense so that they could leave. I see no value in watering down the Message to make it palatable to people who are already set against it.

A friend told me about an atheist family member who finally agreed to try coming to Mass. In my friend's parish, the Eucharist is distributed to the congregation kneeling, at the altar rail. This person saw people kneeling in front of the priest, and stormed out saying, "This is all about control! You're trying to control me!" My friend did all she could inviting him to Mass. No homily would have made him come back... his mind was already made up before he crossed the threshold.

On the other hand, there is the great temptation to play to the egos of committed Catholics, to say—directly or indirectly—that "those people over there" are doing wrong and headed for hell. This gives the people who do not identify with whatever behaviour is being discussed a sense of self-satisfied superiority. A homilist can tear a strip off of women who have had abortions, and most of the congregation will be cheering him on... while the woman in the back who had an abortion and is struggling with the idea of confessing that and how to move forward will be crushed like a bug. This is true whether the homilist rails against the women who had abortions or rails against abortion itself in harsh terms. The win is that 95% people in the pews will all but jump to their feet and yell, "Yes!" as they also yell, "...and I'm not one of those!" A small number will be completely gutted. In my opinion, such a homily serves neither group.

Filling ten minutes with anodyne platitudes is lazy homiletics, but then so is whipping up the crowd and bashing "bad people".

For me, a perfect homily is one in which every person walks out of Mass having heard something that calls them to task, but in a way that they can handle and use to improve the way they live their Faith in the world. A pill that is not too bitter to swallow, but is useful medicine nonetheless. I doubt I've ever achieved it, but that's what I shoot for.

[jtum1]

I never understood fire and brimstone sermons. It seems to me that it is not the sin that sends us to hell but rather the lack of repentance and accepting our God's forgiveness. We need to strive to keep the commandments and repent our failures. And keeping in mind Ja 2:10 and Mt 5:19, along with the logs in our eyes, the Pharisee and publican. How can a homilist talk about other's sins.

PS I think that the 10 minute sermon is one of those modern rules.

[Bruce]

I never understood fire and brimstone sermons. It seems to me that it is not the sin that sends us to hell but rather the lack of repentance and accepting our God's forgiveness. We need to strive to keep the commandments and repent our failures. And keeping in mind Ja 2:10 and Mt 5:19, along with the logs in our eyes, the Pharisee and publican. How can a homilist talk about other's sins.

I've never heard a homilist talking about a specific other person's sins, but I have heard homilies about how heartless Republicans are (putting it in an American context) or how Democrats aren't following their Faith, or how corporations are destroying society. I disliked all of those homilies, because all of them put the blame (sin) on "someone else" and didn't challenge the congregation, except in the trivial sense of "don't be like them". That's not a challenge, because the implication is that "you're already not like them", so there's nothing to do but feel smug and self-satisfied. What an awful message!

PS I think that the 10 minute sermon is one of those modern rules.

The 10 or 15 minute sermon is a cultural adaptation. I hear that in Africa the sermons are a minimum of 30 minutes or the people feel ripped off. Apparently an hour is normal there. I haven't been to a Catholic church in Scotland, but someone told me that if the celebrant talks for more than 5 minutes people start looking at their watches. The length of the homily is dependent upon the culture and the Mass schedule. (If you want to really annoy a pastor, give a 20 minute homily when the next Mass is scheduled a half hour after the current one, and so when the next group of people arrives the parking lot is still full. Traffic chaos ensues.)

I was trained to keep homilies to 10 minutes (I usually go to 15) for practical reasons, not because of any diocesan mandate.

[Sottovoce]

In our area Diocesan priests and deacons are trained to give 10 minute homilies (max) and political parties and political Iduviduals are not to be addressed by name. Church teachings are addressed and congregants are to take that information into their lives, including their voting lives. Along those same lines, they are not to visually display political leanings - homily, yard signs, bumper stickers, social media posts, etc.

[CCF_Denise]

In our area Diocesan priests and deacons are trained to give 10 minute homilies (max) and political parties and political Iduviduals are not to be addressed by name. Church teachings are addressed and congregants are to take that information into their lives, including their voting lives. Along those same lines, they are not to visually display political leanings - homily, yard signs, bumper stickers, social media posts, etc.

It seems to me there is plenty to preach on from Church teaching and how we might consider applying those teachings in our daily lives, even addressing the issues of the day and yet never mention political parties or candidates. People are smart, even if they don’t always show it. Most know, even if they choose not to apply.

[CCF_Carol]

I never understood fire and brimstone sermons. It seems to me that it is not the sin that sends us to hell but rather the lack of repentance and accepting our God's forgiveness. We need to strive to keep the commandments and repent our failures. And keeping in mind Ja 2:10 and Mt 5:19, along with the logs in our eyes, the Pharisee and publican. How can a homilist talk about other's sins.

PS I think that the 10 minute sermon is one of those modern rules.

Certainly, St. Paul didn't keep that rule!

Acts 20:
Eutychus Restored to Life. ⁷ On the first day of the week when we gathered to break bread, Paul spoke to them because he was going to leave on the next day, and he kept on speaking until midnight. ⁸ There were many lamps in the upstairs room where we were gathered, ⁹ and a young man named Eutychus who was sitting on the window sill was sinking into a deep sleep as Paul talked on and on. Once overcome by sleep, he fell down from the third story and when he was picked up, he was dead. ¹⁰ Paul went down,^[b] threw himself upon him, and said as he embraced him, “Don’t be alarmed; there is life in him.” ¹¹ Then he returned upstairs, broke the bread, and ate; after a long conversation that lasted until daybreak, he departed. ¹² And they took the boy away alive and were immeasurably comforted.

[Ruth]

Recently I read this article by Msgr. Charles Pope entitled “The Ancient Biblical Sermons Break All the Modern Rules – Maybe the Rules Should Be Re-Examined”. I find myself agreeing with it strongly. I find it refreshing that someone is saying these things.

Part of me feels like I shouldn’t be agreeing however. I tend to think that many of the pastoral strategies pursued in our time have been failures, and are failures, and I feel frustrated that they are clung to tenaciously despite emptying pews and shuttering parishes. And, as Msgr. Pope points out, these strategies sometimes seem to clash with the approach and messaging that Scripture itself uses. I suppose that one could argue that what worked to reach people in St. Paul’s day would drive them away now, and God was making use of what is essentially a matter of prudence to reach the immediate audience of the epistle, or of one of the apostles exhortations.

But mostly, I wonder if I am prideful in judging modern pastoral strategies to be failures. After all, I am just a layman. Perhaps it is not my place to make these judgements. After all, I don’t know what pastors and bishops deal with. I only know about my own preferences.

Finally, while I enthusiastically support the message of this article, I do think, “perhaps this is not the last word on the matter. Perhaps he is wrong and there are good reasons why we shouldn’t try the strategy he outlines.”

What do you think of the article?

I think this man has anger issues.
Jesus is not remembered as a person who spewed invective upon the crowds as a means to gather people to him.

In fact just the opposite is the case. If we examine the Sermon on the Mount, we discover what scripture scholars called the "Gospel within the Gospel", which means that the blueprint of who Jesus exalts and honors as privileged is outlined within this sermon.
Jesus touches upon the poor, the suffering, those who are mourning, the peacemakers as being those who are the most Blessed.
To the crowds hearing this message it was absolutely a shocking message.

Even today, we place scorn upon the weakest, the poorest, the homeless, the stranger, those who are in harms way, those who offer peaceful encounters rather than the sword.
Today, Jesus sermon on the Mount would be exalting the people who are most scorned and criticized. And today, like in the early days of the Church, throngs would be flocking to hear that magnetic message.

Jesus attracted enormous crowds to Him because he flips the scales on who are the most beloved in God's eyes and he empowers those who are marginalized. Back in the days of the Early Church, the vast majority of people, Gentile and Jew were in some state in some form of weakness and fragility. There was little a person could do to not live in some form of freedom of oppression.

If we have a problem in our time it is that we are so comfortable that we have forgotten that our lives are all on a tether and that we absolutely need God for everything.
Our comforts, which are an abundance are both a blessing and a curse. God does not desire suffering for humanity to know him, but the lack of suffering and the increase of comforts has made us more distant from God rather than closer.

In summary, my take on this article is that this priest like many others who echo similar themes, is frustrated and angry and thinks the answer to getting people back is to tell them off. Well, that certainly will not work and I am comfortable making that bet ( if I were into betting..).