 |
|  |
|---|
|
1990 Should the Churches in our parish tithe 10% of their income from Gift Days? 1993 How Long Should a Sermon Be? -A letter to the editor and a reply by the Rector (February) 1993 How Long Should a Sermon Be? -A comment by David Smith (April) 1993 Inhibition: or an individual's choice? (June) Should the Churches in our parish tithe 10% of their income from Gift Days? (December 1990 edition of magazine) As a member of St. John's D.C.C. I have recently taken part in the annual procedure for allocating ten per cent of church income to Missions and Charities. It has always bothered me that a committee should be regarded as a normal channel for the allocation of charitable giving -there is a stronger case for it with missionary giving, perhaps - but I felt this had become a really serious problem when the P.C.C. started to discuss the distribution of £7,000 or so in January 1990. This sum was available because the P.C.C. treated the proceeds of the Gift Day in October 1989 - which had as its object the building of a Church Centre at St. John's -.as ordinary income and therefore subject to ten percent deduction. In January the P.C.C. was on the point of allocating the £7,000, and a small subcommittee was formed. After many weeks of hard work fact finding, canvassing opinion, visiting, discussing and praying they recommended to the P.C.C. two projects which seem to have found fairly general approval. These are the local scheme in Holmewood and the distant one in Peru. This particular story thus has a happy ending. But I am writing now to alert church members and the P.C.C. to a very much larger problem which may arise if the present policy is continued. When in due course a Gift Day for St. Thomas' own re ordering/building project is held, there could be a ten percent levy amounting to £100,000 to be disposed of. Do we really want this particular responsibility? What possible objective criteria are available to any group charged with the task of spending £100,000 in such a way as to give fair consideration to an unlimited number of deserving causes? Does not the sheer scale of the problem in this instance point to the general truth - that individual members of the church are perfectly capable of making their own charitable giving decisions and do not need committees to relieve them of the trouble? Yours sincerely, Michael Doughty The Editor has asked me (the Rector) to comment on Michael Doughty's letter. It raises profound issues that are good to grapple with, two in particular. First, how do we find the right balance between seeing our church as a collection of individuals, making their own responsible decisions, and seeing it as a single body, the body of Christ, trying to act corporately? I tend to think we should prayerfully aim more for the latter. In the case of supporting projects beyond our parish, it is obvious how much more potential there is for making a noteworthy contribution when we act corporately - and this can and should be a continuing involvement - than if everyone gives in a different direction. Secondly, how do we as a church practice what we preach and set an example to our members? All church members are encouraged to give back to God (through His Church) a proportion of what a., receive. Some years ago, the P.C.C. adopted this same biblical principle and decided to tithe its income. This in no way restricts members from giving away more, we hope many will. But it builds a giving-away attitude into the whole life of the Church and its effect seems to be wholly constructive. Michael asks if we would really want the responsibility of giving away £100,000 in the case of a million pound project. I have a hunch that, after taking a deep breath, we would! Certainly, after asking a similar question to the P.C.C, before the Gift Day in 1989, Michael had the uncomfortable experience of discovering that the Council almost unanimously endorsed the principle of giving away 10%. I heard recently about a Church attempting to marry the two ideals of corporate generosity and individual responsibility. When members indicate the total of their giving, they also say what percentage they would like to be given away beyond their own parish, and to whom. Perhaps we should investigate something like this. I have another hunch that we might end up giving away more! A final point: God is no one's debtor. He has a wonderful way of ensuring that the truly generous never go without. Many of us have proved this time and again. What is true for individuals must surely be true of Churches. Christopher Frith How Long Should a Sermon Be? (From the Rector's Letter in the February 1993 edition of magazine) A letter to the editor and a reply by the Rector Anonymous letters are not usually to be included in Ploughshare, unless the Editor knows who they are from. There follows, however, an exception to prove the rule. It raises an important issue and many readers will have views about it. To the Editor of Ploughshare In Pause for Thought and Thought for the Day on the radio, the speakers get their message across in five minutes. Why does it take our clergy approximately twenty minutes to do the same? Do they feel we have not had our money's worth? I believe if a sermon is short and to the point, it is more memorable. The Rector replies: Several years ago, short sharp sermons were fashionable. Ten minutes was the maximum and services were over in an hour. Gradually it dawned on people in many different places that something important was being lost. Sermonettes, it was being said, were producing Christianettes. We preachers can easily be boring. May God forgive us for it is a dreadful sin to make the vibrant Word of God boring. We are often ill prepared and clumsy in expression. We sometimes confuse the Bible's message with our own prejudices. In short, we do not preach well. The answer however is not to preach short sermons but better ones. The task of sermon is to explain God's Word, as found in the Bible, and to seek to apply it relevantly. Preaching is a way in which God has chosen to make himself and his way known, to bring about faith and authentic Christian discipleship. This cannot be done by relying on 'Thoughts for the Day, however good and thought provoking they may be. Our age is TV conditioned. We are not used to concentrating for long. The prevalent mood is one of challenging authority. The odds seem to be stacked against the preacher - and the listener. Despite this, however, God is still calling people to preach; there are few higher callings. When preaching his Word is taken seriously, supported with prayer and addressing the contemporary scene, people gladly come to hear and respond. I can assure you that in our parish the ministry team of clergy and readers is seeking to preach better. We all, listeners and speakers, need to pray to be able to hear, learn and follow God's Word. It is vital if we really are Going for Growth in Christ. Christopher Frith How Long Should a Sermon Be? (April 1993 edition of magazine) David Smith comments: I must confess to being somewhat provoked by the comment on preaching quoted by Christopher in his letter to your last issue, (February/March 1993). It reflects very poorly on those of us who sit in the pews. The inference seems to be that we sit inert as fledglings in a nest with our mouths wide open waiting for some acceptable morsel to be dropped in. Or, to change the metaphor, that sermons must take the form of pre-packed meals which require no more from us than to be warmed with a few moments of our attention. Now some of us are fledglings in the faith and we do have difficulties in grasping all that we hear at one go. Nevertheless, it is both unfair and untrue to speak as if the onus rests entirely with the preacher. We ourselves have a great deal of responsibility for getting something out of sermons. The Bible says some very pertinent things to me on this subject. 1) I must genuinely wish to know the Christian faith better and its implications for my daily life. I cannot expect to receive what I do not wish to receive. It is all too easy to "construct" a gospel which I want to hear because it suits me and my way of thinking; but how far does it correspond to the faith that was once entrusted to the saints" that I need to hear (Jude verse 3)? Am I one of those people Jude goes on to talk about? "godless men, who change the grace of our God into a licence for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Saviour and Lord"? (Jude verse 4) What do I really want to hear from the pulpit? It seems to me that the first responsibility on our preachers will be at this point. What are they feeding us, not how long does the meal last. 2) I must be thoroughly serious about trying to live my daily life as God wishes. There is no 'take it or leave it' involved here. I am accountable to God both now and at that final day. Jesus really puts me on the line in Matthew 7 verse 21: "Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord' will enter the Kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven". Interestingly enough, Paul starts and finishes his great doctrinal letter to the Roman Christians with this thought. In Chapter 1 verse 5 he speaks of calling people to "the obedience that comes from faith" and in the next to the very last verse in Chapter 16, "so that all nations might believe and obey him". Jesus promised that God will honour my honest desire to be right. "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled". I must bring this hunger to my listening. 3) I must make sure that the 'soil' is prepared for the seed of preaching. Since the preacher is helping me to hear God's word to me from the Bible, I need to have done some prayerful digging myself. Knowing something of the Bible ourselves, does make a world of difference to the effectiveness of a sermon, as I'm sure many people know. But if the preacher is expounding the unknown to the unknowing, then I'm likely to struggle, I fear. Jesus put it rather potently in Matthew 13 verse 12: "Whoever has will be given more, and he will have abundance; whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him". 4) That I honour those whom God calls to minister the Word and Sacraments. Of course our clergy and readers have their limitations, as indeed do we - perhaps not least in my impatience, unforgivingness and pride toward them. I am very unlikely to learn much from them if I think myself so much wiser and more spiritual than they. I must believe that God has placed these people "over us in the Lord" (1 Thess. 5 verse12), not because they are "wise" or "influential" but because they are "weak" and 'foolish", and for that reason are fit vessels to be filled and used by God (1 Cor. 1 verses 26-29). Not all of every sermon is going to speak to me, but the amazing thing is how God blesses a ready listener. I readily admit from experience that if a sermon goes flat on me, it is far more likely to be my fault than the preacher's. Jesus was quite right "He who has ears, let him hear". (Matthew 13 verse 43). David Smith Inhibition: or an individual's choice? (June 1993 edition of magazine) The writer, identified to the Editor, has asked to remain anonymous. Is it just me, or are there occasions when other people feel uncomfortable about how some of our services are conducted? At a recent service I was not sure if I had arrived in church or at a toddlers play group, as plastic shakers and tins full of beans were handed round, with the encouraging suggestion that we all "Join In!" I appreciate that some of the congregation are happy with the singing, dancing and arm waving that accompany this form of praise, and I am pleased for them for I have no wish to disrupt their worship. However, I have never been comfortable with this type of praise, and I do not particularly wish to "Join In!" Consequently, I am tired of being told how 'inhibited' I am when I refuse. I am not inhibited, and I am sure there are many people who prefer to be self contained and reserved, who are at ease with themselves and their own responses to praising the Lord. I would like to relax when I come to church but this is becoming increasingly difficult to do without being pressured to participate or be labelled 'inhibited' by those who prefer to be more extrovert. I do not wish to have to be selective about the services I attend for fear of having a plastic shaker thrust into my hand, or to feel uncomfortable because I am not 'joining in' with the crowd. Please can we remember that we are all individuals, and should be treated as such. After all, isn't that how the Lord sees us? Comments from the Rector It happened to me several weeks ago. I was handed a shaker and your correspondent could hardly be less adept at shaking in time than I am. Fortunately no-one called me inhibited and I don't recall ever hearing anyone described that way as a result of not joining in during a church service. Everyone always has the right not to join if they wish and certainly, the clergy and readers in this parish respect that. Unlike your correspondent, I can describe myself as inhibited; I know I am, but that's the way God has made me, and I gladly accept that. Yes, we are all different, all individuals, the Lord does see us as such and judgmental labelling of each other, as described in the letter above, is not right. However, I have to say that for every complaint I receive about more "extrovert" liveliness I must receive two objections about how "dreary" our hymns often are. You can't begin to please everyone! Incidentally, the occasion when I was given a shaker was a midweek evening Praise and Prayer, when the theme was Psalm 150. I really couldn't complain, seeing the Psalmist's encouragement to praise the Lord: "Praise him with tambourine and dancing...praise him with resounding cymbals ...," I have a hunch that God enjoys uninhibited praise even if it doesn't come naturally to me! Whether we worship noisily or quietly, waving our arms or standing to attention, it's our hearts that matter. We seek to show God that we love Him. Christopher Frith |