This is from a church bulletin quite some time ago:
While I hope my friends through the years of my church history would be glad to know I had presented on that topic, the same ones might be mildly amused to find that I’d requested a change in the format/sequence at this early point. I would do that kind of thing steadily for the next couple of decades. Not falling prey to assembly patterns became sort of a theme in my earlier, public-leadership life; I espoused the notion that habits get in the way of meaning, so it is better to do things purposefully than ritually. I myself am amused that, after the mention that I had requested a change in the order, the congregation was encouraged to pray for the return of the regular preacher. Of course the folks at St. Elmo, Tennessee didn’t mean anything by that, but I suppose I was a thorn in the side of some preachers, elders, and church administrations in later years. I have a tough time leaving things alone when they are broken or just need shaking up a little!
Now to the content . . . I have delivered fewer than ten sermons per se in my life. (I am better at, and more interested in, “class” types of settings and general assembly planning and leadership.) The topics of the sermons for which I have records are as follows:
- So What? (about human response to God’s grace)
- What For? (about the Christian assembly’s purposes)
- Remembering the Lord
- Hearing and Doing
- The Sectarianism Within Us
- What Are We Waiting For?
- John 9: the Blind Man, the Jewish Establishment, and Jesus
Looking back, I’d say that at least five of the eight (#2, #3, #4, #6, and #7) have a distinct focus on the Father and/or the Son. I’m proud of that. A couple of them (#2, #5) challenge rutted, traditional thinking. I got in a mess of hot water over #5, but I would preach it again today, more than 20 years later, with only a couple of sentences toned down (if I thought anyone who needed to hear it would hear it).
The last two sermons reflect my still-growing interest in textual basis (as opposed to topical or traditional, etc.). Not that I didn’t say reasonable, or reasonably provocative, things in #s 1-6, but I’d now prefer #s 7 and 8, for the most part. Generally speaking, we will all be more solid and grounded if we stay with the text—and not mere prooftexts, either! We must pay attention to the original documents, attempting as best we can to honor the original literary and historical settings. That is what I tried to do with #s 7 and 8.