THE LUTHERAN SERMON FROM THE RECEIVER'S VIEWPOINT

This is my scientific article presented as the final paper for my Social Communication Degree in 2011. It is written not from the Theological, but rather from the Communication perspective, particularly in the field of Reception Studies.

 

ABSTRACT

This article verified how a contemporary Lutheran sermon in a Sunday Worship Service is accepted and perceived by the receivers, members of St. Paul Lutheran Church in Canoas, RS, observing how the sermon content was identified and what is the interpretation of the message. Authors from both Theology and Communication fields represented the theoretical approach. The methodological approach was qualitative using a questionnaire and an in-depth interview. Results indicated that Lutheran Christians identified the main content of a sermon however with both redefinition and amplification of its intended meaning within their personal experience.

 

KEYWORDS: Lutheran sermon, Audience, Reception.

 

THE LUTHERAN SERMON FROM THE RECEIVER'S VIEWPOINT [1]
A case study at “São Paulo” Lutheran Church in Canoas, Brazil

Lucas André Albrecht

 1.       INTRODUCTION

 

Lutheran preaching, speaking specifically of the sermon, is seen by many in religious circles as one of the central moments of congregational worship. Consequently, the preparation for this task receives emphasis in the Concordia Seminary, the school for pastors of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Brazil (IELB) in São Leopoldo, Rio Grande do Sul. Guided by theological concepts, delivery methods, as well as communication and oratory, Lutheran Pastors emit their weekly speech aiming to effectively transmit its content to the receivers, the members of their community.

As a general concept, it is believed that the sermon, when well-grounded in the Bible and properly written and delivered, reaches the intended result in its receivers. It relates to the doctrine of the action of the Holy Spirit as being the one who produces faith and the meaning of the message in people's hearts is as taught by the IELB. However, sticking only to the communicational point of view, it is possible that the content of the Lutheran sermon is not entirely identified as it was conceived, with different interpretations, losses, resignification and expansion of meaning. The response of members of a given community to the content of the sermon they heard from their pastor may differ from the original content. To investigate this process, the Comunidade Evangélica Luterana São Paulo(CELSP), in Canoas was taken as a case study. Founded in 1905, Celsp is one of the oldest IELB communities. Today, it has approximately two thousand baptized members.

In the area of Lutheran Sermon production, the academic material is expressive, with, in addition to Martin Luther himself, authors such as Walther (1998) and Caemmerer (1959). Theological magazines such as Igreja Luterana, by the Concordia Seminary, publish textual aids for the preparation of sermons – in this case, every six months. There are also studies in the search for understanding the audience, as in Okamoto (2001), Hughes and Kysard (1997) and Nielsen (1999). There is, however, a gap in the IELB in relation to the theme addressed here, thus justifying the exploration of this complex intersection between communication in the sermon and studies of reception in contemporary society.

The objective of this article, therefore, is to verify how the contemporary Lutheran sermon delivered during the Sunday Service is received and perceived by receivers who are members of CELSP. Therefore, it is necessary to observe how the content of a sermon is identified by the listeners and what is the interpretation given to the message heard. In order to achieve the proposed objectives, theoretical contributions were sought in the fields of Theology and Communication.

For the conceptualization of a Lutheran sermon, Walther (1998) and Caemmerer (1959) were selected from the theological bibliography used by the IELB placing the sermon as an integral part of the celebration of worship in the community and demonstrating the preponderance of content over form in the preaching. According to Walther (1998), fundamental in Lutheran preaching is to make the correct distinction between Law and Gospel. The author points out that a Lutheran theologian cannot be satisfied with teaching biblical doctrines correctly. It is also necessary to know how to differentiate between what is Law and what is Gospel. The confusion and mixture between the two concepts can lead the pastor to fail in his purpose of announcing the Word of God correctly to his listeners. Caemmerer (1959) emphasizes that the content of preaching is to tell the story of Jesus Christ, that is, that He died for sins and rose from the dead. This author also confirms the idea of Walther (1998) when he points to Law and Gospel as essential for the sermon. Also, that predominance of the Gospel must be evident.

In the communicational field, following Jacks and Escosteguy (2005), the theoretical-methodological contribution of reception analysis is used, which understands the receiver as an active individual. The media message is a cultural form that can be subject to analysis and interpretations that may be different from the original intention, since the audience is composed of people who produce meaning. Thus, what characterizes the analysis of reception is a comparison between the content of the media and that of the audience, confronting the structure of the content with the audience's response to it (JACKS; ESCOSTEGUY, 2005). In this context, Reception Analysis differs from uses and gratifications by focusing on the message, making predominant use of qualitative and interpretive methods (MCQUAIL; WINDHAL apud JACKS; ESCOSTEGUY, 2005). Stuart Hall (1980), when addressing reception studies, describes the audience as composed of people who do not passively receive the message. They are active people who produce meaning. Which also leads to a comparison between audience and media discourses (HALL apud HOFFMANN; CID; RIBEIRO, 1993). Escosteguy (2002) shows that reception studies in Latin America, initially influenced by Martín-Barbero (1987), began to indicate, from the late 1980s onwards a receiver-subject. In this new perspective, the receiver came to be seen as someone who gives new meaning to what he receives, within a complex process in which negotiations, and resistance to the media proposal is identified as well (ESCOSTEGUY, 2002).

To obtain the interpretation of the audience, interviews and participatory observation are used, then comparing the evidence obtained with the structure of the content of the media. This helps to understand how a certain theme is understood by a specific group (JACKS; ESCOSTEGUY, 2005). It becomes evident, however, that it is not possible to generalize from this method, as it “works with representative samples of the population” (2005, p.45).

As for the methodology used, it is qualitative research, of a descriptive nature, which sought to analyze the receiver's view from two perspectives, using different instruments. Initially, a quantitative questionnaire with one semi-open question, seven closed questions and one open question was applied. This was available to all members who attended the service on the date of the field survey. On the same date, right after the service, a qualitative interview with open and discursive questions was carried out with a focus group of eight people who were previously invited. The discussion was conducted inside the Church where participants could verbally express their opinions and interpretations of the message heard.

The article is divided into three parts. Initially, it deals with the definition of the Lutheran sermon and the existing tension between Theology and Reception. It then describes the applied methodology, as well as the research procedures. Finally, it addresses the perception of sermon elements, presenting the reception analysis and addressing the subjectivity present in the listeners' interpretation.

 

2.       The conception of the Lutheran sermon

Since the beginning of the Protestant Reformation preaching has been one of the primary duties of a pastor. Proclaiming the Gospel from the pulpit was the most common means of teaching doctrine. Even the functions of pastoral work were redefined, seeking to create more space for preaching (BURNETT, 2007). However, according to Burnett (2007), Luther himself never clearly expressed a position on how exactly the form of a Lutheran sermon should be. He soon abandoned the formal and thematic mode of the Middle Ages in preaching. He created his own style, with sermons focused on biblical expositions (BURNETT, 2007).

The process of learning to prepare sermons takes place in the academic discipline known as Homiletics, which deals with Christian preaching and, in a particular way, with the sermon within worship (KIRST, 1985) [2]. The task of Homiletics is not just to deal with theoretical principles, but includes practical training (KIRST, 1985). The sermon is distinguished from preaching in the broadest sense by the fact that it is one of the liturgical parts of community worship (KIRST, 1985). And it is in this context that this article articulates its use.

Walther (1998) is a Lutheran theologian of the 19th century, one of the founders of the Missouri Synod (the North American denomination from which the IELB originated). He is the author of one of the reference works of this discipline at the Concordia Seminary, the book “Law and Gospel”, republished in Portuguese in 1998. In his book Walther composed 27 theses on Law and Gospel, highlighting that to work properly, the theologian necessarily needs to know how to differentiate between what is Law and what is Gospel. This is a task, however, that is not considered easy. Walther (1998) points out that Martin Luther, expressing the complexity of this differentiation, wrote that he would willingly give the title of Doctor to anyone who knew how to do it properly (LUTERO apud WALTHER, 1998). Weirich (2002) also highlights that this tension is never resolved, citing the third thesis in which Walther (1998) states that the major task of Christians in general, and particularly of theologians is to correctly establish this distinction. And he adds: “This art is taught exclusively by the Holy Spirit, in the school of experience” (WALTHER apud WEIRICH, 1998, p.46).[3]

Even so, Walther (1998) seeks to determine that difference in his 27 theses. The Law shows what the Christian should do but he cannot; the Gospel reveals what only God is doing. The Law refers to human works, the Gospel, to the works of God. The Law confronts the human being with what he should have done or failed to do; the Gospel presents only the promises of God. The Law has the threefold effect of telling men what to do, revealing their sins and bringing them to contrition (WALTHER, 1998). Based on this assumption, he makes his warnings about the danger of confusion between the two concepts. For the Lutheran theologian, therefore, the starting point of the content of Lutheran preaching is to announce to its listeners the Law and the Gospel. They are different, and must be correctly distinguished, but not separated, being in the message in a complementary relationship (WALTHER, 1998).

Another leading author on Lutheran Homiletics is Richard Caemmerer. He affirms that the pastor's task is to announce a message that is not his, but God's (CAEMMERER, 1959). He states that the content of preaching is to tell the story of Jesus Christ, the Messiah who came to save his people, as God had already predicted in the Old Testament of the Bible (CAEMMERER, 1959). Thus, the content of the Lutheran sermon needs to address:

1. Jesus is the Messiah promised by God;

2. He died, but is risen, lives and rules Christians;

3. His followers proclaim to the world and to one another the story of his death and resurrection;

4. This message has the power to change and transform listeners;

5. The message has power because it speaks of forgiveness of sins, which is the purpose of Jesus Christ's death and resurrection. (CAEMMERER, 1959, p.5-6)

The focus of the Lutheran sermon on the person of Jesus Christ was already present in the thought of Martin Luther. Lotz (1983) shows that, for the Protestant Reformer, preaching the Word of God is not just talking about Jesus Christ because he is the object, but also because he is the active subject of proclamation. Luther makes it clear that "the preaching of the gospel is nothing else than Christ coming to us, or us being brought to him" (LUTHER apud LOTZ, 1983). He points out that, for Luther, the hearts of listeners will not find satisfaction and consolation if they do not hear, in preaching, the correct proclamation about Jesus Christ (LOTZ, 1983).

Caemmerer (1959) also points out that each sermon that is produced should have only one goal, for as the pastor seeks to persuade the listener, trying to achieve more than one purpose in a single sermon weakens this attempt. However, every sermon should generally always have this mission: to present God's plan to the listener, to show God's judgment for failure in following this plan (Law), and to speak of God's grace (Gospel) (CAEMMERER, 1959). Regarding the listener, he recalls that the preacher has a commitment both with the Bible, teaching it correctly, and with the listener, in helping him to understand the Word (CAEMMERER, 1959). Caemmerer (1959) is also a reference author for the formal structure (theme and parts) and for writing sermons by many Lutheran pastors.[4]

In this way, it is possible to infer that the Lutheran sermon must present in its content: preaching of the Law and the Gospel, speaking about the person and work of Jesus Christ, only one goal and it must offer consolation.

What about the listener? He is considered by Theology as an important part and the target of this process, since the Bible states, in the book of Romans 14.17: “faith comes by hearing”. It takes someone to preach for someone else to hear and thus receive the message. However, the listener as an active subject of the process, giving meaning to the content, is a point of tension in Lutheran Theology. Vilson Scholz (1997), when discussing postmodernity, mentions the critique of reader response/reception theory:

 

Before you start hating the criticism of the reader's response, it is good to remember the positive aspects that result from this approach. More than ever, it is clear that no interpreter is tabula rasa. Strictly speaking, he already has a text or texts in his memory (in computer language one could say that the "environment" or the "program" pre-exists working with different texts or files). This environment or text determines how new texts will be read. In practice, one only hears what the mind is prepared to hear (SCHOLZ, 1997, p.162 ).

 

Contrasting modernity, which centered on the author and objectivity, the postmodern moment has the reader and subjectivity as the main actor, which can bring some tension to Theology.

Prieto (2003) reinforces the importance of knowing the audience for the application of teaching. In his text “Communication skills for postmodern times”, he reports a series of challenges that the preacher faces before the audience in postmodernism. It highlights the change in the concept of relevance, the consumerist mentality, the need to experience and not just listen, the abandonment of commitment, the desire to see and participate, tribal individualism, immediacy and the relativization of the concept of “truth”. About the latter, Prieto points out:

 

Postmodernists have their own stories, their own truth. As preachers, we need to confront them with the metanarrative of Scripture. Through the narrative story of the Gospel, the Holy Spirit can make history their story. The truth of the Bible their truth. (2003, p.3)

 

The preacher will confront the receiver’s possible relativization of “truth” with the established truth that stems from the Bible.

What is evident so far is the fact that the concern lies in getting to know the listener as a function of the elaboration of the sermon, with greater emphasis on production and delivery.

Turning to Reception analysis, it is possible to notice some tension. Kirst (1985), for example, looking at the sermon from the perspective of communication processes, mentions the receiver's expectations. For him, the listener has well-formed ideas about what should or should not be preached, normally waiting for the pastor to confirm his convictions. If this expectation is frustrated, he will be considered a non-preacher, which ends up breaking communication (KIRST, 1985). On the other hand, the preacher cannot only confirm what the listeners expect, under penalty of not taking the listeners beyond where they are. This causes the loss of critical stamina and does not push them beyond a certain level of accommodation. Thus, the intentions of the preacher's speech must be transmitted, while considering, as far as possible, the expectations of the listener (KIRST, 1985).

This view contrasts with Luecke (1999) regarding the sermon and communication relationship. Using research carried out with pastors from the two main Lutheran churches in the United States on the behavior of listeners towards Lutheran sermons, he states:

 

The hypothesis of the study carried out is that the commitment to more effective communication can lead to a departure from the Lutheran norm of approach in preaching and worship, since it places greater emphasis on the needs and interests of listeners and participants. (LUECKE, 1999, p.22)

 

Luecke believer that consideration to the receiver’s expectations or needs may compromise the preacher’s task and commitment.

This contrast is even more evident in Schaibley (1992), who further problematizes the issue. He points out, already in the title of his article, that Lutheran preaching is proclamation, not communication. For him, the pastor has an office given by God and, because of it, performs in the sermon a unilateral announcement of biblical truth, to be accepted or rejected. Preaching involves the listener's presence, but not necessarily their cooperation (SCHAIBLEY, 1992). Even if the listener comes to deny what he heard, the proclamation happened if the Word of God was announced (SCHAIBLEY, 1992). The author identifies, in his article, only production and emission as the factors that define the effectiveness of communication in the sermon.

This tension highlights, therefore, the importance of investigating the way in which the Lutheran audience receives, decodifies, and continues to produce meaning after the sermon is over.

 

3.       The reception of the sermon at Celsp-Downtown

The CELSP was founded in 1905, one year after the official foundation of the IELB. Like all Lutheran communities at the time, it was the result of the mission of the Missouri Synod (USA) to bring together German Lutheran immigrants in Brazil who wanted pastoral care provided by that Church body from the United States (STEYER, 1999). Thus, the American Henry Stiemke became the first pastor of the congregation (Site da Celsp, 2011). One of the fruits of this period of 106 years of activities by Celsp is the Lutheran University of Brazil (Ulbra), the largest Lutheran University in the world (MAIER, 2009).

The congregation has places of worship in four districts of Canoas as of 2011: Downtown, which was chosen as the object of analysis for this study because it is the oldest of them. From there others originated: Igara, Ulbra Campus Chapel and Guajuviras. In the nearby municipality of Nova Santa Rita there is another congregation in the Berto Círio neighborhood, which started a new mission in Porto Garibaldi, a district of the municipality of Montenegro, RS in 2009 (Celsp website, 2011). To promote the spiritual growth of its members, the congregation carries out, in addition to services, activities such as study groups, groups for youth, women, men, couples, as well as different committees such as social action, evangelism and integration, and events (Celsp website, 2011).

As for Services, Celsp-Downtown has three weekly times: Thursdays at 8 pm, and Sundays at 9 am and at 8 pm. Once a month there is a service on Saturday at 8 pm (Celsp website, 2011). To carry out the field research the Sunday 9:00am service was chosen, as it is the one that mobilizes the largest number of members and because it is also the oldest and most traditional time. These services normally last from an hour and a half to two hours. The most used liturgical sequence is the main order of Lutheran Worship. In it, the sermon appears at a central feature right after the biblical readings, confession of faith and hymn (ROTTMANN, 1986). In the Celsp-Downtown Church the altar and the pulpit are located at an elevated level in relation to the church's nave. The pulpit is to the right side of the altar, from which the sermon is normally delivered. However, preachers are free to make use of the area in front of the altar or even go down to the nave, staying at the level of the pews. During preaching, members remain seated.

The date of the field research fell on June 5, 2011. That day it was not one of the pastors of the congregation who led the sermon, but a guest preacher, the Brazilian pastor Walter Ries Júnior, who has worked since 2005 as a missionary in the Dominican Republic. It should be noted, however, that all IELB pastors are formed and trained under the same sermon construction guidelines. The guest preacher did not know that on that Sunday there would be a survey being carried out on the service and the sermon, to keep the material collected be free of angulations. The sermon took place as is traditional in the liturgy of the Lutheran Service (ROTTMANN, 1986), and it lasted 25 minutes. The pastor did not speak from the pulpit, but in front of the altar. No illustrative resources were used other than a slide projecting the theme of the day on a screen.

Two instruments were chosen to carry out the research: a quantitative questionnaire and a qualitative interview. The questionnaire contained nine questions, seven objective, one semi-open and one open, available to all members present at the service which would like to participate with their opinions. These were mainly aimed at gauging the main content of a sermon as described in this article, namely: Law and Gospel, only one goal/theme, some of the life and work of Jesus Christ, and offering comfort. In addition, we sought to understand how respondents would summarize the sermon of the day in a paragraph. Some youth from the congregation distributed the forms and collected them later. 30 questionnaires were completed, which represents about 25% of the attendance. Of these, eighteen were women and eleven were men. One form returned without indication of gender.

The qualitative instrument consisted of an interview with a focus group of eight previously invited people, gathered in the balcony after the service for a discussion about the sermon. Five men and five women had been invited, of different ages and different times of affiliation to the IELB. Two men were unable to attend, making the group a total of eight - five women and three men, aged between 22 and 72 years. Their affiliation time to CELSP range from three to fifty-two years, five of which have been Lutherans since their first months of life. When the invitation to the focus group was extended it was not mentioned that it would be a conversation about the sermon only, but a discussion about the Service as a whole. The goal was to avoid specific attention to this part of the service, aiming to get as close as possible to the level of regular attention in a Sunday Service. The questions leading to the debate were the same as those used in the quantitative instrument, to assess the listeners' perception of the content of the sermon and its interpretation and application.

The service, which began shortly after 9:00 am, and ended at 11:30 am. The group met right after it, which was about two hours after hearing the sermon. The author of the article directed the questions and asked the participants to express their opinion. There were also moments of spontaneous exchange of ideas among the participants. Around 1:00pm, the work was completed.

 

 

4.       Decoding and reframing in the Lutheran sermon

The sermon of the day, given by Pastor Ries Júnior, had the theme “Distributing the water of life". The use of Law can be observed, for example, in the mention of the difficulty of human beings in recognizing their sin, and the Gospel in the continued mention, at various times, of the forgiveness of sins. (RIES JÚNIOR, 2011). The preaching presented aspects of the life and work of Jesus Christ by using the text of the Gospel of John in which Jesus states: “If anyone is thirsty, come to me and drink.” Following the explanation, Ries Júnior (2011) states that “... it says that rivers of living water will flow from within the hearts of those who believe in Jesus!” (RIES JUNIOR, 2011). In an email interview, Ries Júnior (2011) defined the purpose of the sermon this way: “That the gift given by God (forgiveness, life and salvation) through the water of life, Jesus Christ, is distributed by the Holy Spirit and manifested through works of love for others” (RIES JUNIOR, 2011). To illustrate this, he told two stories, at the end of which he highlighted this objective, stating: “What was the heart of those people already full of? Of living water... and they began to donate what they had to others” (RIES JÚNIOR, 2011). Later, relating the theme and purpose of the sermon, he highlighted: “we want to distribute this water of life. What is it that is distributed? Forgiveness of sins. It means talking about this unconditional love of God for us every day.” (RIES JÚNIOR, 2011). The presence of consolation can be verified in the mention of Jesus Christ as the Saviour of all (RIES JUNIOR, 2011). For the full content of the sermon, see Appendix 1.

Analyzing the thirty responses of the quantitative research, it is noticed what Escosteguy (2002) highlights about the studies of reception in Latin America in the 1980s which celebrate a receiver-subject who “re-signified media messages, identifying their negotiations ” (2002, p.135). In the first question of the quantitative instrument, for example, when asked if they had been able to perceive the central theme of the sermon, 100% of the participants answered yes. However, still in the same question, when asked to define the theme, the answers were diversified, such as: "water of life with a focus on the mission", "forgiveness", "propagation of the Gospel", "encouragement, certainty of faith" and " Pentecost". In the qualitative instrument, this same diversity in understanding is evidenced in statements such as “Christ is the way and with him we find salvation.” “to have more faith” and “maturity in faith.” None of the thirty-eight participants in the two survey instruments mentioned the phrase Distributing the water of life, which was displayed on a slide in front of listeners throughout the sermon, and there were at least twenty different responses. This highlights the different elaborations of meaning produced by an active audience in the reception process (JACKS; ESCOSTEGUY, 2005).

In the second question of the quantitative instrument, respondents opined on the content of law and gospel:

 

TABLE 1 - Do you think that in today's sermon there was more:

Law	Gospel	Balancing Law and Gospel	I don't know the difference	In blank
1	16	12	0	1

Source: Prepared by the author, based on the research.

           

In question five of the same instrument, they defined how much they understood about the sermon of the day:

 

TABLE 2 - How much did you understand from today's sermon?

All	Most of it	Half	Very little	Anything
10	18	two	0	0

            Source: Prepared by the author, based on the research carried out.

 

Observing the relationship between them, it is evident that, although twenty-eight participants (93%) stated that they understood “all” or “most” of the sermon, for sixteen of them (53%), there was a predominance of the Gospel while for twelve (40%) there was a balance between Law and Gospel. In the qualitative instrument, one of the members stated that the sermon of the day “left no doubts”. Adding to the already mentioned fact that everyone claimed to have understood the theme of the sermon, however with different formulations and meanings, it is clear, as pointed out by Jacks and Escosteguy (2005) that the media messages are cultural forms that are not closed. They may undergo different interpretations, and the audience as “composed of subjects who also produce meaning” (2005, p.42).

As for the content “life and work of Jesus Christ”, twenty-three members claimed to have understood it in the quantitative instrument. In the qualitative, it was mentioned that the sermon “did not speak so much about the life of Jesus, more about his work”. For the focus group, because it was Pentecost Sunday, the emphasis of the sermon was on the Holy Spirit, not Jesus Christ. Therefore, the presence of the five items about Jesus Christ manifested by Caemmerer (1959) regarding the content of each sermon is not evident here.

Addressing consolation, this content was identified by twenty-eight of the thirty participants in the quantitative instrument. However, in the qualitative instrument, despite being perceived in the message, it was highlighted that there was “more encouragement than consolation”.

The open question of the quantitative instrument was about how listeners would summarize, in a few words, the sermon of the day for someone else. On one hand the answers presented fragments of the pastor's speech, indicating the importance of sharing the water of life and the forgiveness of sins with people, as in "that we have to forgive people as Jesus did with us". On the other hand, they portrayed active participation in the construction of meaning, in answers such as “the importance of helping others, even with the little we have”, “without water we die and without the word of God we also die inside” and yet “the sermon was very beneficial”. In the qualitative instrument, other elements are added, such as the statement of one of the participants: “Today we had the opportunity to meet someone who, in a stronger way, is able to witness the action of the Word in a different place.” “I was impressed that there are still people out there who have nothing.” Another member verbalized her personal application without mirroring any direct fragment of the sermon: “I am very grateful for being here in the Church, in my life, because here I got to know what the Word of God is.” This points to what Scholz (1997) finds, that the receiver seems to already have a kind of preexisting “program” in memory, where the message will be received, and this determines how the new contents will be received (SCHOLZ, 1997).

Regarding the goal of the sermon, there is some connection to it in the qualitative instrument, such as “that the way is Christ and that, with him, the water of life, we find salvation”. “Our life is very peaceful, there is a lot of work and a mission to be done.” And still in expressions such as maturity in faith, practicing the word and sharing. Caemmerer 's suggestion (1959) is contemplated in part, when listeners report the objective in different ways. At the same time, the variety in the decodifying process and interpretation remains in evidence, compared to what has already been mentioned, expressed by Ries Junior (2011). The continued construction of the meaning of the sermon was also confirmed by the participants in the qualitative interview, who stated that negotiation and production of meaning also took place in a group. This connects to Soares and Pignatari (2007), when they consider:

 

It is by sharing, by socializing the evangelical sermon to each other, that the meaning(s) of interaction is built. In other words, it is in the circulation of discourses that a sermon for a given social group will have its constructed meaning. (2007, p.4)

 

The receiver interacts not only with the message and with the communication devices, but also with the other social actors.

The family was mentioned as the main locus of dialogue, construction and expansion of the sermon that was heard, in expressions such as “I go straight home and comment it” and “it is the first place”, highlighting that meaning continues to be produced as they talk. The perception that they felt enriched by the fact that each of the eight members expressed a different opinion about the sermon was mentioned. Also, that contents were presented in the discussion that had not been perceived in the sermon. Asked if they saw any danger for the IELB in this joint construction done after the service, they answered negatively, stating that this is growth, since everyone has the same objective and, if there are mistakes, they can be corrected.[5] It was also suggested that this moment of discussion could take place at the end of each Service. This goes back to Stuart Hall (1980), who describes the audience as people who do not passively receive the message. They are active people and produce meaning (HALL apud HOFFMANN; CID; RIBEIRO, 1993). On the other hand, it differs from Schaibley's view (1992), when he states that, with the listener's cooperation, there is a negotiation of which communication is the result, a power that should not be with the audience (SCHAIBLEY, 1992).

Regarding content losses, it should be noted that “Pentecost” received only four mentions in both surveys. And in both instruments, none of the participants mentioned the systematization of “the three works of the Holy Spirit”. Still, there was no direct connection between “Distributing the water of life” and “forgiveness of sins”, as made by the preacher.

As a complement to the theme, the participants of both surveys were invited to express their opinion about a possible participation in the production of the weekly sermon. The expressive number of 63% of participants in the quantitative instrument expressed willingness to help the preacher with suggestions, themes and concerns that could help him to produce his sermon. The preferred form for this participation is the e-mail, indicated by 56 % of respondents. In the qualitative instrument, all members stated that this participation was important, and the two forms mentioned were e-mail and personal contact with the pastor. The practice opposes Schaibley (1992), who states that the sermon should not be the voice of people in what they want to hear, nor should it be based on surveys and interviews, serving as a “barometer of what was recorded as the needs felt by people” (1992, p. 10,11)

Some further reflections could be proposed in the tension between Theology and Reception. One deals with the identification and application of Law and Gospel. In the qualitative instrument, expressions such as “10 commandments” and “Norm” are used to define law. This reflects Walther's (1998) indication that the law shows what people should do. However, “revealing the sins of men” and “effecting contrition”, two other basic effects of this content, are not mentioned (WALTHER, 1998, p.21). For the dogmatic Lutheran Muller (1964), the law demands perfect obedience and pronounces condemnation on those who disobey (MUELLER, 1964). Another aspect is in twelve of the quantitative responses, pointing out that there was a balance between Law and Gospel, and Walther (1998) states that both are confused and even perverted when “there is a balance of Law and Gospel, and the Gospel is not given the predominance in preaching” (WALTHER, 1998, p.143). From the fact that the correctness of the teaching of a Lutheran pastor's sermon may be in question  without distinction and correct application of Law and Gospel, even if based in the Bible (WALTHER, 1998), there could be clues her for a theological reflection assessing whether a pastor's teaching is being called into question when members of his audience do not correctly decode and identify both, as well as the predominance of the Gospel.

Another point of reflection is that Reception Studies may add subsidies for understanding how the transmission of content and teaching happen from the receiver’s standpoint for Lutheran Theology. Qualitative instrument participants reported that the sermon of the day continued to be worked in the post-service conversation, going beyond what was said. It was mentioned that each member gave a different opinion about the message, so that “the ideas were clarified”. They also highlighted that this generates understanding and teaching, because “the sermon reaches each one in a different way.” This fact contrasts with the teaching that the Lutheran Church preaches the pure truth (MUELLER, 1964), clear and correct (MARQUARDT, 2010), and with Schaibley (1992), which does not grant the listener the epistemological capacity to work meaning. The study, however, reveals receiving subjects who actively participate in the construction of this meaning (JACKS; ESCOSTEGUY, 2005), showing that the content and its interpretation go beyond what was intended by the pastor, even outside of his control.

Other indications point to a specific reception in the Lutheran context. In the study at CELSP-Downtown, the “resistance to the logic of the means” is not clearly perceived (ESCOSTEGUY, 2002, p.135). All research participants have been members of CELSP for at least one year, with most of them participating in the community for over ten years and some belonging to it since childhood. It was observed that they receive the content with the assumption that it comes from a reliable means. In both surveys, there was no manifestation of doubt, distrust of the preacher or resistance to the logic of the environment or the ambient. This can be understood in the light of Mueller (1964), when he shows that the public ministry – that is, the work of the pastor – is of divine institution. Therefore, all believers must obey pastors as they obey God (MUELLER, 1964). The decoding, reframing and personal application presuppose as authoritative and reliable the proclaiming source and the means in which the sermon is issued, in an a priori trust that the preacher will speak only what is correct according to the doctrine of the IELB. Listeners share confidence in the means that send the message to which they are exposed, giving new meaning to it, and applying its meaning without questioning the means or the speaker. This goes back to Escosteguy (2002), who mentions the receiver's connection to a broad spectrum of social and cultural relationships.

The culture of trustworthiness also appears in the fact that many responses approach directly the preferred meaning of the preacher's content, or just expand it, as in “be filled with the water of life” and “the forgiveness of Jesus Christ”. That is, they are reproductions of the theme and content of the sermon in different words. This tendency is evidenced by phrases from the interviewees such as “the pastor said that the source of life is Jesus, but that this source that fills us, when we look for this source, it fills us so much that we overflow and do not hold it for ourselves.” It is noticed, as stated by Jensen and Rosengren (2005), that the results of an audience analysis must be taken in the light of “a historical configuration of social practices, contexts of use and interpretive communities” (apud ESCOTEGUY, 2005).

Thus, the data point to an active reception in the Lutheran environment, an audience that expands and reframes what it heard, interpreting the sermon, and sharing their understanding in the interaction with other believers and with people in the ambients in which they live.

 

5.       CONCLUSION

The CELSP-Downtown case study showed that receivers identified the elements of the Lutheran sermon, the main theme and goal of the message. However, they interpret and reframe this content within their personal context, both amplifying and distancing themselves from the original objective. Based on the analysis and interpretation of the data, it is evident, according to Reception Studies, that the receiver is a content producer. While identifying a preferred meaning in the sermon, he also interprets, produces meaning from what he received, and has losses of content in the reception process.

Another piece of evidence from the study was the finding of previous confidence of the listeners in the institution, in the pastor and in the means used to send his message. Resistance to the logic of the media was not evident, which provides clues for further investigation of reception in the Lutheran and ecclesiastical ambient.

Finally, the research also pointed out what may become the subject of further investigation in greater depth: the preference for illustrative sermons. Asked which style of message would be the most appropriate, "spoken only", "spoken with illustrations" or "participative", only six (20%) members chose the first in the quantitative instrument. In qualitative terms, none of the eight participants did so, and all were unanimous in supporting sermons with visual illustrations, or at least with illustrative language, as the most suitable for assimilating the content at the reception. Otherwise, when the message is just spoken, the greatest opportunities for daydreaming, reframing and negotiation of meaning outside the original purpose of the sermon arise.

 

---

[1]This article was produced in first semester of 2011 as a partial requirement to obtain the Bachelor’s Degree in Social Communication - Journalism, by the Lutheran University of Brazil, under the guidance of Prof. Ms. Jamile Dalpiaz.

^[2] The author also adds that the term originates from the Greek HE HOMILIA, with HOMILEIN meaning to relate, to talk. HE HOMILIA designates, in the New Testament of the Bible, being together, relating to others. It was in the first centuries of the Christian era that this term came to be used for the sermon, from which the expression homiletic is derived (KIRST, 1985)

^[3] Even so, Weirich (2002), quoting Walther, mentions the second thesis on Law and Gospel in which he the American theologian declares: “Although one could indeed claim 'My sermon contained no heresy', it is possible that your sermon was false. The correct theologian is only the one who, among other requirements, knows how to correctly differentiate law and gospel” (apud WEIRICH, 2002, p.46). The tension is established, therefore: to seek a distinction that, in practice, is difficult to achieve.

[4]While Walther (1998) focuses more on the content of the sermon, Caemmerer (1959) also emphasizes the formal aspect. As for the single objective of each sermon, it shows that this can be an “objective of faith”, that is, to strengthen the listeners' faith in Jesus Christ, or “objective of life”, encouraging the listener to live his faith in practice. Based on the theme, it suggests how to work the parts of the sermon, with sub-themes and specific applications, a kind of 'skeleton' for the message. It is not the focus of this article to approach the sermon from its form, that is, the theme, the parts, the outline and the composition. However, it is important to mention that Caemmerer (1959) remains a reference in Lutheran Homiletics, which leads many pastors to make use of this proposal for a standard “framework” when crafting their sermons.

[5]The question becomes relevant because IELB is a Confessional Church, in which the teachings of the Bible receive an interpretation that is considered and consolidated as correct, as for example in Mueller (1964). All congregations that join the IELB, therefore, agree to unconditionally accept its doctrinal foundation (MARQUARDT, 2010). In this way, the construction of meaning in the sermon and the reframing could, eventually, threaten this desirable confessional unity.

 

 

REFERENCES

 

 

BURNETT, Amy N. How to Preach a Protestant Sermon: A Comparison of Lutheran and Reformed Homiletics. Department of Faculty Publications, Department of History . v. 63, Lincoln, 2007. n. 2, available at : http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1106&context=historyfacpub Access on 24 Apr. 2011.

 

CAEMMERER, Richard Rudolph. Preaching for the Church . Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959.

 

ESCOSTEGUY, Ana Carolina. Reception studies and gender relations: some provisional notes. Ciberlegenda , n.7, Rio de Janeiro, 2002. http://www.uff.br/mestcii/carolina1.htm Accessed on 15 Apr. 2011.

HALL, Stuart (1980) 'Encoding, decoding in the television discourse' . Hall, S. Hobson, D. and Lowe, P., ( eds ) Culture, Media, Language . London: Hutchinson , 1993. In: HOFFMANN, Adriana, CID, César Netto and RIBEIRO, Lúcia Gomes. Audience reception and decoding (audience/spectators) Denis McQuail and Sven Windahl . 1993. Available at: http://wwwusers.rdc.puc-rio.br/imago/site/recepcao/textos/mcquail2.htm Accessed on 25 Apr. 2011.

 

JACKS, Nilda; ESCOSTEGUY, Ana Carolina. Communication and Reception . São Paulo: Hacker Editores, 2005 .

 

KIRST, Nelson. Rudiments of Homiletics . São Leopoldo: Sinodal, 1985.

 

LOTZ, David. The proclamation of the word in Luther's thought . Word and World , vol. 4, New York, 1983, n.3. Translated by Clóvis Jair Prunzel (2004). Available at: http://www.seminarioconcordia.com.br/Artigos_Prunzel/A%20Proclamacao_na_Teologia_de_Lutero.mht Accessed on: 25 Apr. 2011.

 

LUECKE, David S. Trends among Lutheran Preachers. Word and World , Volume XIX, Winter 1999. Available at: http://www2.luthersem.edu/Word&World/Archives/19-1_Preaching/19-1_Luecke.pdf  Accessed on 21 Nov. 2010.

 

MAIER, Paul. ULBRA the unbeliavable . The Lutheran Witness , St. Louis , Feb. 2009. Available at http://classic.lcms.org/pages/wPage.asp?IssueID=30&ContentID=470 Accessed on: 23 Jun. 2011.

 

MARQUARDT, Rony R.(Org.) Statute and Rules IELB 2010 . Porto Alegre: Concordia, 2010.

 

MUELLER, John. T. Christian Dogmatics . v. II. Translated by Martinho L. Hasse . 3 ed. Porto Alegre: Concordia, 1964.

 

PRIETO, Ely. Communication skills for postmodern challenges . San Antonio ; 2003, Work presented in the classroom for a graduate course.

 

RIES JUNIOR, Walter. Distributing the water of life . Canoas: Comunidade Evangélica Luterana São Paulo, 2011. (oral communication).

 

______. Purpose of the June 5, 2011 sermon . Dominican Republic: 2011. (communication via email).

 

ROTTMANN, Hans. G.F. ( org). Lutheran Hymnal . Porto Alegre: Concordia, 1986.

 

Celsp website . Available at www.celsp.com.br Accessed on: May 25, 2011 .

 

SCHAIBLEY, Robert. “Lutheran Preaching: Proclamation , Not Communication,” Concordia Journal , St. Louis, v.18, n.1, p. 6-27, Jan.1992.

 

SCHOLZ, Wilson. Postmodern hermeneutics. Revista Igreja Luterana , v.56, n.2, p.159-163, 1997

 

SOARES, Maria Antônia Vieira; PIGNATARI, Rosa Malena . Communication, negotiation of meaning(s) and the ecclesial universe: a reading of the conceptual plot around reception studies . Eclesiocom , São Paulo, 2009. Available at http://encipecom.metodista.br/mediawiki/images/1/12/ECLESIOCOM_-_03_-_A_comunicacao.pdf  Accessed on: 12 Apr. 2011.

 

STEYER, Walter O. German immigrants in Rio Grande do Sul and Lutheranism . Porto Alegre: Singulart , 1999.

 

WALTHER, CFW Law and Gospel . Porto Alegre: Concordia, 1998.

 

WEIRICH, Paulo P. Meaning and Content in the Christian Proclamation: Subsidies for a Reflection from the Reading in Luther in Chapter 1 of the Gospel of John . Revista Igreja Luterana , São Leopoldo, v.62, n.1, p.35-54, jun. 200

 

 

_______
  

Photo by Kevin Gonzalez on Unsplash