Here’s a holiday surprise that only the dictionary can provide. Do you find the word “Xmas,” as an abbreviation for Christmas, offensive? Many people do.
You won’t find Xmas in church songbooks or even on many greeting cards. Xmas is popularly associated with a trend towards materialism, and sometimes the target of people who decry the emergence of general “holiday” observance instead of particular cultural and religious ritual.
But the history of the word “Xmas” is actually more respectable — and fascinating — than you might suspect.
First of all, the abbreviation predates by centuries its use in gaudy advertisements. It was first used in the mid 1500s.
X is the Greek letter “chi,” the initial letter in the word Χριστός. And here’s the kicker: Χριστός means “Christ.” X has been an acceptable representation of the word “Christ” for hundreds of years. This device is known as a Christogram.
The “mas” in Xmas is the Old English word for “mass.” The thought-provoking etymology of “mass” can be found here.
In the same vein, the dignified terms “Xpian” and “Xtian” have been used in place of the word “Christian.”
As lovers of the alphabet, we are transfixed by the flexibility of “X.” The same letter can represent the sacred, the profane (“rated X”), and the unknown (“X-ray.”) What does the “X” in Xbox stand for? Find out more about the 24th letter of the alphabet, here.
What other holiday-related words would you like to know more about? Let us know, below.
Source: Dictionary.com
Sabtu, 25 Juni 2011
Do names prejudice how others perceive your status? A study suggests yes
Are you a Samuel or a Travis, a Katherine or an Amber? According to a recent study conducted on 89 undergraduate students, a person’s socioeconomic and educational standing may be in direct correlation with a person’s name. While researchers point out that a person’s essence, status, and general fatecannot possibly be defined based on the nature of a name alone, they do, however, suggest that expectations towards others tend to be closely associated with individual names. This provocative hypothesis inspired exploration of that most personal aspect of language, the proper nouns and names.
Onomastics is the study of the origin, history, and use of proper names. Derived from the Greek onomastikos meaning “of or belonging to naming,” onomastic scholars focus on the personal naming-systems used in different cultures and the pattern of those systems. Researchers point out that people of certain social and educational backgrounds prefer different names, surmising that a person’s given name can in fact determine their level of academic achievement. This is not an exact science, but according to the results of the referenced study, certain names tend to correlate with various levels of academic performance.
(Learn about anthroponymy, the study of personal names, and a baby named “Like” here.)
Participants of the study were asked to guess the success of students with various names on a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the most successful. The highest scoring names turned out to be Katherine, scoring a 7.42, and Samuel, scoring a 7.20. With a score of 5.74, Amber ranked lowest among female names while Travis ranked overall lowest with a score of 5.55. As John Waggoner, a researcher from Bloomberg University, points out: “Katherine goes to the private school, statistically; Lauren goes to a public university, and Briana goes to community college. Sierra and Dakota, they don’t go to college.”
Perhaps etymology is at play here. After all, the name Katherine is derived from Greek katheros meaning “pure” and the name is a direct reference to Saint Catherine of Alexandria and of course, Catherine the Great, Empress of Russia. In addition, the name has been among the 100 most popular names in United States since 1880.
Before you go re-thinking your name, the study also suggests that the results may be relative and that our destinies are not predetermined by our names. Proof in point is the omission of names such as Robert and Benjamin – two names that, not so long ago, were closely associated with high academic and socioeconomic status.
What do you think? Does this study resonate with your personal experience, or does it feel like a bunch of silliness?
Author: Hot Word | Posted in Uncategorized
Source: Dictionary.com
Onomastics is the study of the origin, history, and use of proper names. Derived from the Greek onomastikos meaning “of or belonging to naming,” onomastic scholars focus on the personal naming-systems used in different cultures and the pattern of those systems. Researchers point out that people of certain social and educational backgrounds prefer different names, surmising that a person’s given name can in fact determine their level of academic achievement. This is not an exact science, but according to the results of the referenced study, certain names tend to correlate with various levels of academic performance.
(Learn about anthroponymy, the study of personal names, and a baby named “Like” here.)
Participants of the study were asked to guess the success of students with various names on a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the most successful. The highest scoring names turned out to be Katherine, scoring a 7.42, and Samuel, scoring a 7.20. With a score of 5.74, Amber ranked lowest among female names while Travis ranked overall lowest with a score of 5.55. As John Waggoner, a researcher from Bloomberg University, points out: “Katherine goes to the private school, statistically; Lauren goes to a public university, and Briana goes to community college. Sierra and Dakota, they don’t go to college.”
Perhaps etymology is at play here. After all, the name Katherine is derived from Greek katheros meaning “pure” and the name is a direct reference to Saint Catherine of Alexandria and of course, Catherine the Great, Empress of Russia. In addition, the name has been among the 100 most popular names in United States since 1880.
Before you go re-thinking your name, the study also suggests that the results may be relative and that our destinies are not predetermined by our names. Proof in point is the omission of names such as Robert and Benjamin – two names that, not so long ago, were closely associated with high academic and socioeconomic status.
What do you think? Does this study resonate with your personal experience, or does it feel like a bunch of silliness?
Author: Hot Word | Posted in Uncategorized
Source: Dictionary.com
Jumat, 15 April 2011
Obvious Virtues of CWM
Christ-centered or God-centered. CWM is devoted to the adoration of God, to praise Him. As a matter of fact, CWM is youth music. Young people have the reputation of being self-preoccupied and self-indulgent, and certainly those traits have often appeared in the history of Christian youth music. However, they had learned to praise!
Scripturality. CWM is also, for most part, scriptural, and strikingly so. It is not necessary to reproduce the biblical phrases and cadences, but as an application of God’s Word, not a mere repetition of it. It is therefore legitimate for song in worship to use words, phrasing, and cadences different from those of Scripture itself. CWM does not, certainly, in itself give sufficiently broad coverage to sustain all aspects of evangelical worship over many years. The use of both CWM and traditional hymns are advisable.
Freshness and Communication. CWM has a contemporary, fresh feel to it. And most everybody grants that freshness is something good. These songs tend to communicate especially vividly with young Christians and un-churched visitors, and, communication to those groups is biblically important. There should also be concerted efforts to challenge mature believers, and CWM is less useful for that purpose, though not entirely irrelevant as we have seen.
Reference:
John M. Frame, Contemporary Worship Music: A Biblical Defense. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1997, p. 30-42.
Scripturality. CWM is also, for most part, scriptural, and strikingly so. It is not necessary to reproduce the biblical phrases and cadences, but as an application of God’s Word, not a mere repetition of it. It is therefore legitimate for song in worship to use words, phrasing, and cadences different from those of Scripture itself. CWM does not, certainly, in itself give sufficiently broad coverage to sustain all aspects of evangelical worship over many years. The use of both CWM and traditional hymns are advisable.
Freshness and Communication. CWM has a contemporary, fresh feel to it. And most everybody grants that freshness is something good. These songs tend to communicate especially vividly with young Christians and un-churched visitors, and, communication to those groups is biblically important. There should also be concerted efforts to challenge mature believers, and CWM is less useful for that purpose, though not entirely irrelevant as we have seen.
Reference:
John M. Frame, Contemporary Worship Music: A Biblical Defense. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1997, p. 30-42.
Senin, 11 April 2011
Pendapat Kaum Liberal mengenai Homosex
"These arguments among intellectuals--whether art critics or political philosophers or, say, research scientists--treat homosexuality more polemically than it deserves and, under the guise of being socially progressive, go a long way in darkening our already benighted, though deeply believed, sexual thinking. In the end, such "liberated" views continue to imprison desire in the dark cells of "gay" and "straight," rather than freeing our hearts and genitals to the fullest expression of human affection, which ought to be the unabashed ideal of any sexual liberation movement."
Darell Yates Rist, "Are Homosexuals Born that Way?" as quoted from Homosexuality : debating the issues / edited by Robert M. Baird & M. Katherine Baird. Amherst, N.Y. : Prometheus Books, 1995. p. 71-72.
"My dream was that you slept with people you liked and would not know about their sex until you undressed them." Nan Goldin in Mother Jones as written by Darell Yates Rist, "Are Homosexuals Born that Way?" as quoted from Homosexuality : debating the issues / edited by Robert M. Baird & M. Katherine Baird. Amherst, N.Y. : Prometheus Books, 1995. p. 71-72.
"I'am personally for the right of happy heterrosexuals to "experiment" with same-sex love and perhaps find that they like it. I'm for the right of bisexuals to opt for gay relationships, even though they dont have the excuse that they have no other choice. And I'm for the right of gay people to choose to act on their sexuality, whether society approves of it or not." Lindsy Van Gelder, The "Born That Way" Trap, as quoted from Homosexuality : debating the issues / edited by Robert M. Baird & M. Katherine Baird. Amherst, N.Y. : Prometheus Books, 1995. p. 82.
Darell Yates Rist, "Are Homosexuals Born that Way?" as quoted from Homosexuality : debating the issues / edited by Robert M. Baird & M. Katherine Baird. Amherst, N.Y. : Prometheus Books, 1995. p. 71-72.
"My dream was that you slept with people you liked and would not know about their sex until you undressed them." Nan Goldin in Mother Jones as written by Darell Yates Rist, "Are Homosexuals Born that Way?" as quoted from Homosexuality : debating the issues / edited by Robert M. Baird & M. Katherine Baird. Amherst, N.Y. : Prometheus Books, 1995. p. 71-72.
"I'am personally for the right of happy heterrosexuals to "experiment" with same-sex love and perhaps find that they like it. I'm for the right of bisexuals to opt for gay relationships, even though they dont have the excuse that they have no other choice. And I'm for the right of gay people to choose to act on their sexuality, whether society approves of it or not." Lindsy Van Gelder, The "Born That Way" Trap, as quoted from Homosexuality : debating the issues / edited by Robert M. Baird & M. Katherine Baird. Amherst, N.Y. : Prometheus Books, 1995. p. 82.
Finish Your Sermon Strong: 10 Mistakes To Avoid
Finishing a sermon is neither easy nor natural. There are plenty of ways to crash a good sermon; I’d like to offer a few I’ve observed in myself and others.
1. The “Searching for a Runway” Conclusion — This is a common one that we fall into when we fail to plan our conclusion before starting to preach. As the sermon wears on, we become aware of the need to land the plane but have to search for a decent runway on which to land it. Consequently, as we’re coming in to land, we remember that we haven’t reinforced a certain element of the message, so we pull out of the descent and circle around for another attempt. Next time in, we think of half of a conclusion that might work better and so pull out again, circle around, and turn in to another possible landing strip. Needless to say, passengers don’t find this pursuit of a better runway to be particularly comfortable or helpful. When the message drags on a couple of minutes (or ten) longer than it feels like it should, any good done in the sermon tends to be undone rather quickly!
2. The “Just Stop” Conclusion — There are some preachers who don’t seem to be aware of the possibility of a strong finish and so don’t bother to land the plane. It simply drops out of the sky at a certain point. Once all has been said, without any particular effort to conclude the message, it's suddenly over. This is a particular danger for those who go on to announce a closing hymn, I find.
3. The “Overly Climactic” Conclusion — At the other extreme are those who know the potential of a good finale and so overly ramp up the climactic crescendo in the closing stages. After preaching a ho-hum message, they suddenly try to close it off with a fireworks display that will leave everyone stunned and standing open-mouthed with barely an “ooo-aaah” on their lips. Truth is that if the message hasn’t laid the foundation for such an ending, then people will be left stunned and unsure of what to say: “Uuuugh?”
4. The “Uncomfortable Fade” Conclusion — Perhaps the domain of new, inexperienced, and untrained preachers, this follows the general comfort rule of preaching: If you are not comfortable in your preaching, your listeners won’t be either. So the message comes to what might be a decent ending, then the speaker, well, sort of, just adds something like, “That’s all I wanted to say, I think, yeah, so…” (like this paragraph, 20 words too long!)
5. The “Discouraging Finale” Conclusion — Another tendency among some is to preach what might be a generally encouraging message but then undo that encouragement with a final discouraging comment. People need to be left encouraged to respond to the Word and to apply the Word, but some have a peculiar knack for finishing with a motivational fizzle comment.
6. The “Machine Gun” Finish — Wildly fire off a hundred different applications in the final minute in the hope of hitting something—no depth, very shallow, badly aimed, rarely hits the target, and often has nothing to do with the passage.
7. The “Salvation by Works” Finish — After preaching the wonders of God’s grace in Jesus Christ, undermine that grace by throwing doubt on their own salvation because of their sin or not doing the application you suggest.
8. The “Left Field” Finish — Where the conclusion and/or application has very little to do with the passage, your sermon, or anything else.
9. The “Not Again” Finish — Where (for some funny reason) the conclusion is the same as every other conclusion you’ve given for the last three years. It also happens to be your hobby horse and is often one of “pray more, give more, evangelize more, read the Bible more, and come to church more.”
10. The “Gospel out of Nowhere” Finish — Where the preacher feels the absence of the gospel in the message and so levers it in at the conclusion without any sense of connection to what has gone before. (To a thinking listener, this may feel a little forced and intellectually inconsistent.)
And while I'm at it, here's a bonus:
11. The “Tearjerker” Finish — Where the speaker seeks to cement emotional response by throwing in a random and largely disconnected tearjerker of a story (perhaps involving a child, an animal, a death, or whatever). Strapped to this emotional bomb, the preacher hopes the truth of the message will strike home (even though in reality, the truth will probably be smothered in the disconnected emotion of the anecdote).
Landing the Plane
Since I’ve now offered examples of how to finish weakly as your sermon finishes weekly, let’s now ponder what makes a conclusion strong:
As someone who has flown once or twice, let me continue with the airplane analogy since there are several thoughts that can be shared here. Passengers who have had a great journey with a bad landing will leave with their focus entirely on the bad landing. Passengers want the pilot to know where he is going and to take them straight there. They don’t particularly want the pilot to finish a normal journey with a historic televised adrenaline landing. Passengers like a smooth landing, but they’ll generally take a slight bump over repeated attempts to find the perfect one. Once landed, extended taxi-ing is not appreciated. A good landing that takes you by surprise always seems to have a pleasant effect.
The conclusion is a great opportunity to encourage response to and application of the message. Sometimes it is helpful to review the message flow, the main idea, and intended applications. But remember, the conclusion has to include, at some point, the phenomenon known as stopping. Review, encourage, stop.
Standard teaching it may be, but worth mentioning nonetheless: Generally it is not helpful to introduce new information during the conclusion. A concluding story? Maybe that’s OK. But don’t suddenly throw in a new piece of exegetical insight into the preaching passage or rush off to another passage for one last bit of sight-seeing.
Haddon’s Runway—One approach that I particularly appreciate and find hard to emulate is Haddon Robinson’s oft-used approach. It is evident after most Haddon sermons that he carefully planned his final sentence. He flies the plane until he gets there, and then quite naturally the plane lands on that landing strip of just ten to fifteen words and the journey is over—smooth, apparently effortless, immensely effective. As he teaches in class, it’s much better to finish two sentences before listeners think you should than two sentences after!
Post-Landing
Now a few thoughts relating to the post-landing phase of the journey. Sometimes it is helpful to have a closing song, sometimes it is helpful to have a whole set of responsive songs, and sometimes it is better not to allow the singing of a song to help people switch back into their “real world” and leave the sermon behind. Sometimes it’s helpful to leave space for silent response; sometimes that is just plain uncomfortable and overkill. Sometimes quiet music played after can help the contemplative mood; sometimes music blasting out after the meeting can switch people into a frenzied chaos of raised voice fellowship (and the journey is forgotten, I fear!).
After the sermon is over, but still within the confines of the service, sometimes it is helpful to have another person wrap things up—then again, sometimes it can be disastrous. (I can’t help but think of the “helpful” MC who undoes the impact of a global missions thrust with the typical and deeply annoying “and we can all be missionaries right where we are!” . . . thankfully no one added that to the end of Matthew’s gospel or we’d never have read the New Testament!)
Whether the analogy continues to work or not is somewhat unimportant, but these thoughts are worth pondering in our churches:
Some passengers want to get out of the plane and airport at breakneck speed. Like it or not, some people just want or need to flee from the church once things are over. It doesn’t help them to make that difficult. At the same time, no airline I’ve been on will let you leave without a friendly goodbye. Some churches put a lot of energy into greeting/welcoming teams (a very good idea) but let people slip away without human interaction after the service. On the other hand, some churches seem to put barriers to people leaving, or create an environment where people are rushed out before they need to be (the preacher at the door shaking hands with everyone can sometimes create an urgency to vacate the building).
Some passengers need to sit down and let it all sink in. This may be a slight stretch, but some airports (I’m thinking more of the U.S. ones) have seats at the gate so passengers can sit down if they need to. In churches sometimes, there is nowhere for someone to sit and soak for a while. I mentioned the music signal in some places that blasts out an indication that it’s all over now and it’s time to interact (at high volume if you want to be heard). This creates an environment very non-conducive to post-service reflection.
Some passengers need to access further information. I suppose it’s a bit like finding out about connecting flights, but how do people in church know who to go to in order to find out more? Is the preacher accessible, or is he stuck at the door shaking hand after hand and smiling at polite feedback? Is there a way to get someone to pray with? What about finding out about other aspects of church life that could be the next step after this service?
Most passengers will want to talk with someone about their journey. In the travel world, it seems like everyone is ready to say something about what they’ve just experienced (or endured) when they meet a human who actually knows them. In the church world, it often seems like everyone is ready to talk about anything but what they’ve just experienced. But actually, people need to reflect and reinforce and respond in community rather than in isolation. Does your church encourage that kind of interaction?
Today we’ve pondered the art of sermon-stopping. We have thought about weak finishes, and then about the elements in finishing strong. We’ve also considered the elements included in the service after the sermon is over. It certainly is not easy to get the plane down comfortably and effectively. I pray I have offered some constructive alternatives.
Peter Mead is involved in church leadership at an independent Bible church in the UK. He serves as director of Cor Deo—an innovative mentored ministry training program—and has a wider ministry preaching and training preachers. To find out more about Cor Deo, please visit CorDeo.org.uk or Peter's preaching blog at BiblicalPreaching.net.
Reference:
http://www.sermoncentral.com/articlec.asp?article=peter-mead-finish-sermon-strong&Page=1&ac=true&csplit=9060
1. The “Searching for a Runway” Conclusion — This is a common one that we fall into when we fail to plan our conclusion before starting to preach. As the sermon wears on, we become aware of the need to land the plane but have to search for a decent runway on which to land it. Consequently, as we’re coming in to land, we remember that we haven’t reinforced a certain element of the message, so we pull out of the descent and circle around for another attempt. Next time in, we think of half of a conclusion that might work better and so pull out again, circle around, and turn in to another possible landing strip. Needless to say, passengers don’t find this pursuit of a better runway to be particularly comfortable or helpful. When the message drags on a couple of minutes (or ten) longer than it feels like it should, any good done in the sermon tends to be undone rather quickly!
2. The “Just Stop” Conclusion — There are some preachers who don’t seem to be aware of the possibility of a strong finish and so don’t bother to land the plane. It simply drops out of the sky at a certain point. Once all has been said, without any particular effort to conclude the message, it's suddenly over. This is a particular danger for those who go on to announce a closing hymn, I find.
3. The “Overly Climactic” Conclusion — At the other extreme are those who know the potential of a good finale and so overly ramp up the climactic crescendo in the closing stages. After preaching a ho-hum message, they suddenly try to close it off with a fireworks display that will leave everyone stunned and standing open-mouthed with barely an “ooo-aaah” on their lips. Truth is that if the message hasn’t laid the foundation for such an ending, then people will be left stunned and unsure of what to say: “Uuuugh?”
4. The “Uncomfortable Fade” Conclusion — Perhaps the domain of new, inexperienced, and untrained preachers, this follows the general comfort rule of preaching: If you are not comfortable in your preaching, your listeners won’t be either. So the message comes to what might be a decent ending, then the speaker, well, sort of, just adds something like, “That’s all I wanted to say, I think, yeah, so…” (like this paragraph, 20 words too long!)
5. The “Discouraging Finale” Conclusion — Another tendency among some is to preach what might be a generally encouraging message but then undo that encouragement with a final discouraging comment. People need to be left encouraged to respond to the Word and to apply the Word, but some have a peculiar knack for finishing with a motivational fizzle comment.
6. The “Machine Gun” Finish — Wildly fire off a hundred different applications in the final minute in the hope of hitting something—no depth, very shallow, badly aimed, rarely hits the target, and often has nothing to do with the passage.
7. The “Salvation by Works” Finish — After preaching the wonders of God’s grace in Jesus Christ, undermine that grace by throwing doubt on their own salvation because of their sin or not doing the application you suggest.
8. The “Left Field” Finish — Where the conclusion and/or application has very little to do with the passage, your sermon, or anything else.
9. The “Not Again” Finish — Where (for some funny reason) the conclusion is the same as every other conclusion you’ve given for the last three years. It also happens to be your hobby horse and is often one of “pray more, give more, evangelize more, read the Bible more, and come to church more.”
10. The “Gospel out of Nowhere” Finish — Where the preacher feels the absence of the gospel in the message and so levers it in at the conclusion without any sense of connection to what has gone before. (To a thinking listener, this may feel a little forced and intellectually inconsistent.)
And while I'm at it, here's a bonus:
11. The “Tearjerker” Finish — Where the speaker seeks to cement emotional response by throwing in a random and largely disconnected tearjerker of a story (perhaps involving a child, an animal, a death, or whatever). Strapped to this emotional bomb, the preacher hopes the truth of the message will strike home (even though in reality, the truth will probably be smothered in the disconnected emotion of the anecdote).
Landing the Plane
Since I’ve now offered examples of how to finish weakly as your sermon finishes weekly, let’s now ponder what makes a conclusion strong:
As someone who has flown once or twice, let me continue with the airplane analogy since there are several thoughts that can be shared here. Passengers who have had a great journey with a bad landing will leave with their focus entirely on the bad landing. Passengers want the pilot to know where he is going and to take them straight there. They don’t particularly want the pilot to finish a normal journey with a historic televised adrenaline landing. Passengers like a smooth landing, but they’ll generally take a slight bump over repeated attempts to find the perfect one. Once landed, extended taxi-ing is not appreciated. A good landing that takes you by surprise always seems to have a pleasant effect.
The conclusion is a great opportunity to encourage response to and application of the message. Sometimes it is helpful to review the message flow, the main idea, and intended applications. But remember, the conclusion has to include, at some point, the phenomenon known as stopping. Review, encourage, stop.
Standard teaching it may be, but worth mentioning nonetheless: Generally it is not helpful to introduce new information during the conclusion. A concluding story? Maybe that’s OK. But don’t suddenly throw in a new piece of exegetical insight into the preaching passage or rush off to another passage for one last bit of sight-seeing.
Haddon’s Runway—One approach that I particularly appreciate and find hard to emulate is Haddon Robinson’s oft-used approach. It is evident after most Haddon sermons that he carefully planned his final sentence. He flies the plane until he gets there, and then quite naturally the plane lands on that landing strip of just ten to fifteen words and the journey is over—smooth, apparently effortless, immensely effective. As he teaches in class, it’s much better to finish two sentences before listeners think you should than two sentences after!
Post-Landing
Now a few thoughts relating to the post-landing phase of the journey. Sometimes it is helpful to have a closing song, sometimes it is helpful to have a whole set of responsive songs, and sometimes it is better not to allow the singing of a song to help people switch back into their “real world” and leave the sermon behind. Sometimes it’s helpful to leave space for silent response; sometimes that is just plain uncomfortable and overkill. Sometimes quiet music played after can help the contemplative mood; sometimes music blasting out after the meeting can switch people into a frenzied chaos of raised voice fellowship (and the journey is forgotten, I fear!).
After the sermon is over, but still within the confines of the service, sometimes it is helpful to have another person wrap things up—then again, sometimes it can be disastrous. (I can’t help but think of the “helpful” MC who undoes the impact of a global missions thrust with the typical and deeply annoying “and we can all be missionaries right where we are!” . . . thankfully no one added that to the end of Matthew’s gospel or we’d never have read the New Testament!)
Whether the analogy continues to work or not is somewhat unimportant, but these thoughts are worth pondering in our churches:
Some passengers want to get out of the plane and airport at breakneck speed. Like it or not, some people just want or need to flee from the church once things are over. It doesn’t help them to make that difficult. At the same time, no airline I’ve been on will let you leave without a friendly goodbye. Some churches put a lot of energy into greeting/welcoming teams (a very good idea) but let people slip away without human interaction after the service. On the other hand, some churches seem to put barriers to people leaving, or create an environment where people are rushed out before they need to be (the preacher at the door shaking hands with everyone can sometimes create an urgency to vacate the building).
Some passengers need to sit down and let it all sink in. This may be a slight stretch, but some airports (I’m thinking more of the U.S. ones) have seats at the gate so passengers can sit down if they need to. In churches sometimes, there is nowhere for someone to sit and soak for a while. I mentioned the music signal in some places that blasts out an indication that it’s all over now and it’s time to interact (at high volume if you want to be heard). This creates an environment very non-conducive to post-service reflection.
Some passengers need to access further information. I suppose it’s a bit like finding out about connecting flights, but how do people in church know who to go to in order to find out more? Is the preacher accessible, or is he stuck at the door shaking hand after hand and smiling at polite feedback? Is there a way to get someone to pray with? What about finding out about other aspects of church life that could be the next step after this service?
Most passengers will want to talk with someone about their journey. In the travel world, it seems like everyone is ready to say something about what they’ve just experienced (or endured) when they meet a human who actually knows them. In the church world, it often seems like everyone is ready to talk about anything but what they’ve just experienced. But actually, people need to reflect and reinforce and respond in community rather than in isolation. Does your church encourage that kind of interaction?
Today we’ve pondered the art of sermon-stopping. We have thought about weak finishes, and then about the elements in finishing strong. We’ve also considered the elements included in the service after the sermon is over. It certainly is not easy to get the plane down comfortably and effectively. I pray I have offered some constructive alternatives.
Peter Mead is involved in church leadership at an independent Bible church in the UK. He serves as director of Cor Deo—an innovative mentored ministry training program—and has a wider ministry preaching and training preachers. To find out more about Cor Deo, please visit CorDeo.org.uk or Peter's preaching blog at BiblicalPreaching.net.
Reference:
http://www.sermoncentral.com/articlec.asp?article=peter-mead-finish-sermon-strong&Page=1&ac=true&csplit=9060
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)