Coffee Hour

Steve Caldwell says:

"Spiritual" and "spirituality" are like the southern expression "tacky." Both deciding if something is "spiritual" and deciding if something is "tacky" is all a matter of personal perspective.

A former co-worker of mine from Chicago married a southerner from Charleston, South Carolina. When hearing his southern spouse call something "tacky," she wouldn't (couldn't?) explain why ... she just sensed that it was somehow in violation of southern cultural norms.

He decided that there was no such thing as "tacky" ... it was just another way of saying that you disapproved of something (without saying your disapproval as an "I" statement as far as I can tell).

Maybe "spiritual" is the same sort of word ... it another way of saying "I feel what you said in the worship didn't move me in any significant way" without making it an "I" statement.

Scott Wells says:

Oh, tacky exists. But that's a different subject from inarticulate preaching.

Scott Wells, Georgia native

Sean Dennison says:

I think a better word than "spiritual" is "meaningful." Did the sermon/talk touch on things that help a person live a more meaningful life? A sermon can be quiet intellectual and still do so. It can be full of emotion and stories and NOT do so. What would make your friend's sermon more meaningful?

We often allude to needing "more of you (the preacher)" in the sermon. Usually, we're asking, "Why is this important? How did this touch you enough to want to write a sermon? Why should I care?" So, if your friend's sermon just seems like a fine intellectual argument or analysis, but doesn't tell us why that matters, you're probably left wanting more--and looking for something "spiritual" or "meaningful" within it.

So, does your friend's topic matter? Why does it matter? Why does it matter to the preacher? Why should it matter to the listener?

Sean

James Field says:

I have heard John Buehrens talk about the difference between preaching and teaching. A sermon should do more than just transfer information from person A to audience X. I tend to use the words "depth" and "connection" to evaluate my sermons. I also use Tillich's term "ultimate concern." Like some other UUs, I tend to be stronger on contemporary concerns than on issues of ultimacy.

Chalicechick says:

SO MANY good responses, here and at my blog.

Thanks, y'all

CC

chutney says:

I think a good sermon changes its hearers (or at least those who have ears to hear). It speaks to a community on behalf of that community, about that community's highest values.

RevThom says:

Laurel Hallman made a great point in her 2003 Berry Street Address when she differentiated between something being "interesting" and something that points to a truth beyond itself. Her example was a religious education lesson plan where they wanted the children to explode a pinata. Even though this seemed like a fun, interesting activity they decided against it: it did not point to any depth beyond itself; it was merely interesting.

The pinata example is analogous to so much of what passes for "preaching," both lay and ordained, especially in university towns where there is no shortage of gown-wearers qualified to say interesting things on assorted subjects to an audience for thirty minutes.

That could be the test for a sermon: it is really about something more than what is being talked about.

Chris Walton says:

The very fine address RevThom mentions is published in "A Language of Reverence," a collection of essays edited by Dean Grodzins. As I mention in an upcoming brief review of the book, Hallman's essay is the best thing in the collection.

Estela Eaks says:

Hey there would you mind sharing which blog platform you're working with? I'm looking to start my own blog soon but I'm having a difficult time deciding between BlogEngine/Wordpress/B2evolution and Drupal. The reason I ask is because your design and style seems different then most blogs and I'm looking for something completely unique. P.S Apologies for being off-topic but I had to ask!