Would I be an A-Grade student?

World War 1 was caused by the ignition of the four primary conditions rife throughout Europe leading up to “The Great War.” These conditions - militarism, alliances, imperialism and nationalism - combined to form the kindling which would be set alight by the two primary triggering events - The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and the initiation of the Schlieffen Plan by the Germans.

This is how I would start the year 9 essay that was due from my history classes week.

Now, I’m marking 45 responses over the next few days.

This is on top of the 100 or so essays I had to mark during the last school holidays.

But, what mark would I receive if I wrote my 800-word response and slid it, anonymously, in with one of the classes of my fellow teachers?

Would they notice any significant difference in the essay?

If a reciprocal event occurred, would I detect the inclusion of another faculty members’ submission?

The question is intriguing.

Would I get full marks? You’d hope so.

Would I give out the full compliment of marks to a teacher who has been instructing on the topic a half-dozen times?

Could you conduct such an experiment without becoming dreadfully unpopular due to the addition of a half-dozen essays on top of the workload your colleagues already juggle?

To an extent, the practice would be of great benefit to new teachers, fine-tuning the instructions they give to their students.

If only I had the time to pen my responses…

What should you say about the previous week’s sermon?

When you’re preaching, you’re not an island.

You’re connected to the congregation.

You’re connected to those in the wider church whom you’ve read and listened to in preparation.

Importantly, if those present were attending last Sunday, you’re connected to the person who preached the previous week.

So, if you reference the previous speaker, what should you say?

To begin with, it all depends what you thought of the sermon last Sunday? 

Did you agree with what they said? Is there a natural connection to what you are currently saying?

Frankly, I think that the majority of the time, you won’t reference who spoke seven days prior. You just won’t need to. 

They will have done a perfectly faithful, adequate, job. They used the text well. They shared the message of Jesus. They applied their points so they would impact beyond the few hours on a Sunday morning or evening. 

But, what if you have something to add?

While there’s nothing wrong with chipping in to the sermon last week, I’d hope you have enough to say about the passage before you currently to forego the addition.

Furthermore, if you intend to correct something said the week prior (unless it is a simple factual mistake that can be addressed within 30 seconds) then the majority of criticisms are better touched on in person with the preacher, not flaunted at the pulpit without the ability for a response.

Let’s face it, it would be foolish to start an ongoing theological debate cross-crossing  a number of weeks.

The pulpit should primarily be for the edification of the congregation, not a place for academic arm-wrestling or chest-puffing.

The best thing you could do, if you’re pointing people back to the previous week, is to say that you agree with what you heard. Declare that you genuinely agreed. Say where you saw God move as a consequence. Share how the message inspired you. Better yet, tell the congregation how this previous message helped shape your current sermon.

These are the best ways, if you have to at all, to share the spotlight with the preacher the week before.

Beware of the whisperers

Some people love to whisper.

They delight in hushed conversations.

They love muttered debriefs.

And the two places they reside the most are churches and staff-rooms.

This is when they are in their element.

But, the danger is, if you get sucked into the whispered diatribes - given enough time - you will be the one whispered about…

The harm of having a window for taboo topics?

How often does your church preach on controversial issues?

How often do they intentionally speak about current trends?

How often will they directly address the questions you’re most likely to have?

In youth ministry, these are must-hit targets.

You must teach on the things at the both core and cutting edge of youth culture.

But, I’m not sure that these targets are as intentionally hit from most pulpits.

Will they speak on taboos if the intersect with the biblical passage they were preaching on nonetheless? You’d hope so. But, these hot-button issues are often touched on by happenstance than design.

What effect does this have?

If a church tiptoes around controversial issues, surely this risks putting it out of touch, for the messages from the pulpit won’t intersect with the water cooler in the workplace.

This evasion not only paints the church as irrelevant, but fails to equip church members to engage with uneasy topics.

Furthermore, if their church shys away from the meatier topics, this weakens those who are new to the faith.

It would be a tremendous detriment if the taboo window slammed shut after, say, the age of 25.

If a church wants their people to live fruitfully in the world then they shouldn’t  remain silent on Sunday about the issues discussed on Monday.

The essential interview mindset

It’s not unusual that an element of a church service will involve an interview, be it with an invited guest or a member of the congregation.

Most times, it is a refreshing change from the regular church service format.

But, the church interview must come with a few m generally understood, disclaimers.

1 - You’re only getting a part of the story. Be it a snippet of a wider series of events or the slant which the interviewer wants to investigate.

2 - You’re only getting a few minutes. Tying closely with my first point, there will be more story for the speaker to tell. You’re only getting a taste.

3 - You’re only getting one side. It should be obvious, but you’re Primarily getting the point-of-view of the interviewee.

4 - The story isn’t finished yet. No matter where the one holding the microphone is on their journey of life and faith, it is still ongoing. 

5 - The speaker may still be working everything out. Depending on the proximity of the event being discussed, the speaker may be still processing what has occurred.

6 - You’re not getting a complete theology of the interviewee. They are there for a purpose, and open unpacking of their systematic theology isn’t it. We should never expect one nor walk away thinking that we’ve heard one.

7 - Finally, an interview is vastly different from a book. The later is throughly prepared. Each chapter, paragraph, phrase and word can be scrutinised over. A interview, is off-the-cuff. It is impromptu. 

So… while interviews are excellent, everyone should go in with their eyes and ears open to avoid disappointment and misunderstanding.