A critique of today's sermon

[velvetpage]

The service started off very well. There was one of the old school of hymns, "All Hail the Power of Jesus' Name," which has a very repetitive and upbeat chorus. In the Salvation Army, we sing and clap to upbeat choruses. Elizabeth is a sixth-generation salvationist. By verse three, she was clapping and singing along, "Crown Him! Crown Him! Lord of aaaaaaallll!" If she wasn't quite on key, she was pretty much right on the beat.

The praise and worship team (excuse me while I smother a wince at that term. . . okay, I'm better now) did better than usual, mostly because a different person was leading it. I still am not crazy about the selection of songs, but it's better than the other leader's slightly off-key double-forte shouting into a mic. I look forward to the day that guy decides he's done enough for the Lord - or at least to the day he realizes his talents lie elsewhere.

The problem didn't come until the sermon. It was about miracles. That should have been a heads-up, but I let Piet take Elizabeth to the nursery and decided to stay, figuring that, since Major Boone was on vacation, I might as well take advantage of the change. Big mistake.

He started with two illustrations. I was considering picking up my things and leaving before he actually got to the three main points. The two illustrations were, in order: the plane crash at Pearson two weeks ago, where no one was killed; and the live birth of a baby to a brain-dead mother.

I kept listening, waiting for the point. Was he going to point out that these were a combination of luck and the medical/technical skill of human beings, and that miracles required a much more remote probability than that - say, 1:10 x a number with half a dozen zeros after it? No, he was not. He was using them as examples of actual miracles. Deciding that getting up and leaving would be unbearably rude, I settled in to listen and refute mentally every point he made.

He gave a list of the time periods in which miracles happen. All well and good; quite scriptural. No complaints. Then he settled in to analyze these miracles, and came up with three commonalities. First, there was a genuine, demonstrable need in all of them. Clearly, the people for whom Christ multiplied the loaves and fishes needed food. Do you have a need today, to bring before the Lord? My blood started to boil with the urge to stand up and debate with him. But I'm a good little churchgoer and stayed firmly on my padded pew. I comtemplated the floral pattern of my new skirt to calm myself. Second, there was an offering of some sort, no matter how small it was. The loaves and the fishes were the offering. In some cases, faith was the offering. The rebuttal is starting to form in my mind at this point. Third, they came to God in utmost faith that if they presented their problem and their offering before Him, he would do as they asked.

Now, first of all, I don't like his definition of a miracle. Basically, if it happens to me, a Christian, and it's really good, and it's unexpected, it's a miracle. Um, NO!!! A miracle is something with such an incredibly low probability of happening on its own that even given the parameters of all of space and time, it would be nearly impossible. In order for it to happen, God would have to step in. If it doesn't meet that criteria, it's not a miracle. So right off the bat, his definition is seriously lacking.

Secondly, I'm sure there have been many people of faith who have brought their needs and their offerings before God, and have not experienced a miracle. In many cases, something in the world intervened through probability and they got their "miracle." In other cases, their faith that their situation would improve probably did the job without any direct interference from a deity. In other cases, God answered, and the answer was no. (That's a classic pastor's response to unanswered prayer, btw. I take no responsibility for it.) In still other cases, the faithful probably felt that they hadn't been faithful enough, or something enough, to get an answer from God and get their miracle. In still other cases, they may have thought they got their miracle, or were unwilling to admit that they didn't, but the problem was still there being ignored, and came back to bite them. Bottom line: don't give how-to advice that isn't guaranteed to work, without a disclaimer.

Lastly, the idea of an offering, no matter how small, grated on me. If he were to look a little closer, he'd realize that all of those offerings put EVERYTHING THEY HAD on the line; it's just that everything has different meanings for different people. You can't put a price tag on an honest-to-God miracle. Life isn't like The Princess Bride, and God doesn't employ Billy Crystal. At least, not the last time I checked.

So, he encouraged a faulty definition, claimed that any Christian could claim a miracle from God by following three simple steps, reduced those steps to a simple barter arrangement, and topped it all off with a classic altar call, complete with prayer chorus and some mature Christians armed with kleenex boxes for those who came to pray.

I guess Major Boone is no worse than some of his colleagues.

How scary is that??

Comments

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

Actually I kinda like the praise and worship bit, although the team word is what might make me wince (but then on Sundays/First Days, there is a Meeting for Worship that is the 'regular' service. They also have Meetings for Business and sometimes other sorts...)

I especially like it because too many people associate religion with asking for things, and not praising, and it's easy for some (like me!) to forget.

And oooo I'd have a hard time listening to what you did. I think that's why I like silent worship -- if anyone does bother talking, its not for long, and they aren't a leader, so I dont feel as much pressure as I did at Mass to take their word as law.

(Mental note: see Princess Bride)

That sermon mustve hurt, could have hurt people who needed a miracle and did not get one, I would be wounded I think hearing that at the wrong time. :(

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

My problem with the phrase "praise and worship" stems from the fact that praise is a form of worship. Separating them like that is bad theology. Also, I don't like the way they're used. They get up sometime after the opening prayer but before the band selection and lead the congregation in singing two or three upbeat praise choruses, from a selection of maybe twenty similar choruses in their reperatoire. Then they ask everyone to "quieten their hearts" (another wince for that one) and they sing one or two prayer choruses from their list of about twenty similar choruses. Then the lights come back up, the team sits down, and we have the band selection and the choir sings and we go on as if it had never happened. It has no connection to the rest of the service, and it's not like your services where it is in itself the point of the service. It's just there, plopped into the middle of the liturgy for no good reason, like an elephant in an eagle's nest.

If you've never seen Princess Bride, you have missed an important part of your cultural education. Your daughter is old enough to appreciate it now, too. There's nothing in it that's particularly inappropriate for anyone in your household, and it's screamingly funny. Rent it. Like, tonight. :)

I am very grateful for the MIRACLE that kept the congregation small today - a combination of late-summer and rain. :)

[paka.livejournal.com]

I'll resist the urge to be cranky, or to spew old and overly cutesy Jewish or Buddhist parables about miracles, and instead just say that I like reading your musings on Christianity. It gives me more perspective, and perspective is what I desparately need.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

You're welcome. Perspective is, after all, part of what I'm trying to achieve by writing them.

[purplkat.livejournal.com]

I would have screamed. Right there in the church. Or else I would have left hurriedly and screamed.

Jon Stewart did a great piece on the whole 'Miracle Crash' bullshit on the Daily Show, complaining that everyone talks about what a "miracle" it is that everyone survived and no one mentions the highly trained staff who made it possible -- except the people who escaped.

The other thing that ticks me off is: What about all of the plane crashes where everyone dies? There was one in Greece just yesterday, I believe. Are these people less "holy"? Does God not love them? Why does God intervene directly to save one plane and ignore the next? Sorry, I can't accept that. You try and tell that to the families of all of the people who died on the plane in Greece and see how they react. Either God lets all the chips fall where they may, or else he saves all the planes. Clearly, he doesn't do the latter, so it must be the former.

I don't like talk of divine intervention, miracles, or divine healing. It implies that A) if you're a good little Christian, nothing bad will happen to you and B) if anything bad happens to anyone, it's ultimately their fault because they weren't a good enough Christian.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

I wrote a post a while ago about my view of this issue. You can find it here:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/velvetpage/238282.html#cutid1

I should forward it to the pastor who did the sermon.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

Yes, you should.

[sassy-fae.livejournal.com]

"Was he going to point out that these were a combination of luck and the medical/technical skill of human beings, and that miracles required a much more remote probability than that"
An argument could be made that the luck is divinely guided, and that the medical skill is in the right place at the right time also because of God's intervention. You're never going to be able to logically refute an argument which has the actions of an unknowable omnisicent being at its center.

I admire your slef-restraint at sitting for the whole thing. We had a similar instance at the memorial for Ian's Gran. Her favourite song was "Bridge Over Troubled Waters" and everyone thought of Gran as the bridge, as she was always there for anyone who needed her.
The pastor for the nursing home was at the memorial, introducing speakers and so on. Before playing the song, she said "And we all know who the bridge is"
We all nodded. It was Gran.
"Jesus!" she exclaimed.
I'm pretty sure that wasn't what Simon and Garfunkel had in mind, and I'm just as sure it wasn't what Gran was thinking either.
But everyone smiled politely then sang the song, each thinking of it their own way.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

"An argument could be made that the luck is divinely guided, and that the medical skill is in the right place at the right time also because of God's intervention. You're never going to be able to logically refute an argument which has the actions of an unknowable omnisicent being at its center."

I know, and that's part of what bugs me. If you really want to, you can see God's hand in every aspect of your life with no trouble at all. It's a huge comfort to be able to do that, but I no longer believe it. It doesn't stand up to the tests of consistency that I'd like an argument to have before I apply it to my life. Also, it has the effect of absolving people of personal responsibility, and I'm not a big fan of any system that does that.

[sassy-fae.livejournal.com]

"Also, it has the effect of absolving people of personal responsibility, and I'm not a big fan of any system that does that."
All I can really say is "Yup."
I'm unhappy with a lot of the prevailing views in Christianity, this being one of them.
I do hope you take it as a compliment when I say that you're certainly not the average church-goer!

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Oh, I do. :)

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

You know, my mom made an argument similar to this yesterday, but in her view, it was good people following the will of the Lord in their lives, developing the skill set necessary that when a potential tragedy crossed their paths, they were able to do something to mitigate it. Not intervention, so much as people taking responsibility for their part in the Big Plan. I must confess I liked it better when she explained it. It didn't absolve people of responsibility - it encouraged it, both towards God and towards his creation.

I still don't see this as really defining a miracle, though. It needs to be called something else.

[sassy-fae.livejournal.com]

I like your mom's persepective, it sounds good.
It can't be called a miracle. It casts a dim view of he fellow faithful if you call their doing the expected thing miraculous.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Exactly.

[kesmun.livejournal.com]

You nearly always articulate some of the things that I wish I could. That's one reason I'm a fan of Fr. Paul. He emphasizes personal responsibility as well as the relationship, both vertical (us and God) and horizontal (us and others).

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

I kind of wish Piet's relationship with my mother's church were not steeped in horrible history, because I think I'd get along better with her pastor.

My mother pointed out that there is another, potentially valid definition of a miracle: something that happens because people who have been following the Lord's will for their lives are in the right place with the right skill set to do the right thing and make things turn out well. I have somewhat more respect for this theory than I do for the "hand of God in the plane crash" one. It at least acknowledges that human skill had a role to play.

[kesmun.livejournal.com]

I have to subscribe to your mother's definition. *Nod*

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Yes, but I don't like calling it a miracle. It's God working through his people, but it's not a miracle. To call it that is to cheapen miracles and undervalue everything those people did for themselves to be where they are.

[kesmun.livejournal.com]

Come down to it, every breath is a miracle, for all that it's an automatic function of our bodies. I don't think it cheapens miracles to see the way God works through his people and brings them to the right point to use what they're given as a miracle.