We are only meeting fortnightly, and once a month our minister is planned, so
the chances for anybody else are few. In fact, recently I have myself been the
“anybody else” through a combination of circumstances, so I doubt I shall
absent myself.
However, the things that irritate you irritate me. I have long felt that we
have “bent over backwards” too far in trial services. The pro forma almost
prohibits negative comment and encourages insincere positive comment so as not
to cause too much hurt to the on trial preacher. I feel we should be more
honest.
Best Wishes
JOHN E STATON
Scarborough, North Yorkshire, UK
www.christianreflection.org.uk
Sent from my iPad
On 28 Aug 2021, at 09:52, John Barnett <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Having worshipped virtually for a year and a half I am getting back into the
habit of attending church and sometimes preaching to a congregation myself.
I have to confess that I sometimes find myself doing what I often frowned on
in the past; that is, looking at the Plan and wondering whether I really want
to make the effort of going to church to hear a particular preacher.
One of the strengths of Methodism is the varied diet of worship given to us
by the Plan, but that can also be a weakness. If I find myself staying away
from church because of the person who will be leading worship, or, worse
still, wondering if I would dare take along someone who is exploring the
faith, because I fear they'll be put off, something is wrong.
Often what deters me from going to church is something pretty basic: too many
old anecdotes and jokes, too much beating the congregation over the head
because of our failures, but, above all, sermons that go on too long. Some
preachers who do not appear to use notes combine length of sermon with a
rambling style that goes off at tangents and leaves you wondering where the
sermon is going and even forgetting where it started.
Often the problem appears to be one that could easily be corrected with a bit
of gentle direction to the preacher. Methodism is supposed to have systems of
continuing assessment in place, but I wonder how much that happens in
practice. Ideally every preacher should be listened to annually by two other
preachers who will then meet with him or her for a constructive discussion on
the service and sermon. This should be a no-holds-barred session and the
listeners should feel free, for instance, to comment that they first heard a
tale the preacher told back in the 1960s and that the message would have been
a lot clearer if it had taken half the time to deliver it. Members of the
congregation are usually too polite to point out this sort of thing.
Supernumeraries should definitely be part of the arrangement and we should
have the grace to accept it when we reach our "best before" dates.
I find preaching a great joy and love leading worship, but if I am having a
negative effect on congregations I need to be told, so I can make changes to
the way I do things, and if I can't change, retire.
John Barnett
