“Sitting through” Sermons

Recently, I heard a story about a youth pastor telling a group of students that the last thing they need is to “sit through” another sermon. This immediately struck me as funny, clearly the aim of the story teller. But the more we joked about it, I couldn’t help but find truth in the sentiment that may or may not have been poor judgment in sharing to teenagers under the guise of spiritual formation. Alas, I have “sat through” many, many sermons in my life, some great, some breathtaking, some formative, some challenging, some inspiring and some, well, awful. For the record, at present, I “sit through” many an eloquent, intellectual and finely-polished sermon administered with a fair dose of charisma. What is that adage about not biting the hand that feeds you?

But alas back to the pastor’s seemingly counter-pastoral instruction, indeed I wonder if our contemporary construct of church has put too much emphasis on sermons? Is this some vestige of modernism we can’t seem to shed? I suppose this argument could be made for the whole of our higher education system as there is very little difference between a lecture and a sermon if you really think about. Perhaps pre-literate cultures required oral traditions for the masses to understand the basic tenets of Christianity, but I wonder if we post-moderns might be better inspired by a different means other than the traditional sermon? Or to throw in a dash of Rob Bell, are we simply preaching the wrong kinds of sermons?

And/or how much of the actual goals of discipleship can be learned through a one-sided forum like a sermon? Isn’t applying scripture to our lives best accomplished through didactics with other Christ followers or through acts of obedience and service to others? Add on the layer, was Christianity ever intended to be head knowledge? Instead aren’t we told to live out our beliefs as they form the foundation for our lives (okay that is the Jen Hicks paraphrase of the Sermon on the Mt.)?

Johnny Wooden & Tommy Lasorda

A few years ago, I had a chance to meet Pete Carroll. I was leading a group of at-risk children on a tour of USC and one of our campus hosts had an in with him. I am pretty sure it meant more to me than it did to the kids who described as “some white guy.” But we didn’t exchange contact info and the clandestine meeting, which many of my friends have heard me exaggerate, really was little more than 10 minutes and I was part of a group tour.

Then why am I so upset about his departure?

I started asking this question when my brother called me at work Friday with the scoop – he knew I would be upset. My dad knew I would be upset. Most of my friends knew I would be upset. Why do I have such an emotional attachment to man who by all technical definitions of the word is a stranger?

Is there something bigger than Pete Carroll’s departure to be written about? It is my dysfunctional attachment to sports celebrities (everyone has heard me go on and on about Brett Favre) or is a larger issue with the changing face of sports? What happened to the days of John Wooden(or Johnny Wooden as he was known in my house growing up) when a coach built a dynasty and saw it through?

Johnny Wooden is said to attend as many UCLA home games as his health will allow for Pete’s sake (no pun intended) a team he hasn’t coached in nearly four decades! That is loyalty, that is devotion, that is a bygone era. He didn’t leave in the middle of the unmatchable streak of National Championships to coach the Lakers lured by a higher paycheck. I don’t doubt he might have at times wanted to, but he was faithful to a setting that suited him well.

Or consider another L.A. Sports Personality – Tommy Lasorda. He goes to many, many Dodger games. Moreover, last year during the playoffs he was acting like a freaking cheerleader – out of his seat, jumping around, waving a towel all in a clear effort to rally the fans because he himself is a fan. I highly doubt Pete Carroll will be singing “Fight On!” clad in cardinal and gold in fifteen years. I know your counter is that in the case of Tommy Lasorda he remains an employee of the LA Dodgers, but still, I think paycheck aside, he is very invested in the team he not only played all of his games with but one he helped earn its last championship ring.

But bigger than sports trends, do the untimely and painful departures of guys like Pete Carroll remind of us a profound shift in our culture? Have we become transient consumers not unlike Pete Carroll prone to flee when the going gets tough (NCAA violations, a terrible season, players leaving early, etc) and frankly a better offer is on the table? And so maybe we hope for those moments when he had success at USC that he, Pete Carroll would be better than us, the exception to the rule the noble one who boldly and nobly stands face to face with all that is bad in our culture and draws a line in the sand instead of well, cashing out for a bigger paycheck and less hassle?