PHOTO: Aziz A. Shariff/BTS Media
By Prof Dr Mohd Tajuddin Mohd Rasdi
I believe that sermons can shape the hearts and minds of the followers of a faith. And that sermons can either build a humane nation or destroy one.
I would like to discuss the three types of sermons I have encountered on my spiritual and religious journey. Note that to me, religion and spirituality are two different things that are miles apart.
Religion is now mostly associated with its own institutions of political and administrative power – by administration, I mean the machinery of engagement while politics is the driver.
The three types of sermons I have encountered thus far in my life are these administrative sermons, political sermons, and personal sermons.
At various stages of my life, I believed in each of these types of sermons and they definitely affected my world view. I’m sharing my experiences here because I would like readers to look deeply into what we call informal education, and sermons fall under this category.
Although I am a Muslim by belief, tradition and politics, I love listening to sermons and talks of other faiths. I have mostly listened to Buddhist talks that resemble sermons as well as Christian sermons by personalities not related to mainstream orthodoxy.
I have always chosen the academic perspective of a free form framework of spirituality as well as the idea of spiritual humility to free myself from any kind of political, historical or cultural classifications of religion.
That way, I am rooted in my own faith but still free to flow into the knowledge, experiences and perspectives of other faiths in a complementary construct of spiritual, political and social growth. Personally, I think that is the best way to treat faith within a modern and democratic nation construct.
My first classification of sermons is the administrative type. I have listened to this type of sermons most of my life. The characteristic of an administrative sermon is that it is emotionally flat, full of facts and scripture, and I find them boring most of the time as well as impersonal because they are carefully prepared like a minister’s speech for a serious and formal occasion.
Because it is usually prepared by an official far away from where it is being preached, this type of sermon has the disadvantage of causing congregants to feel disassociated from it.
For instance, a sermon on the health hazards of smoking is difficult to take to heart when the person delivering the sermon is seen smoking after prayers.
It’s evident then that neither the person who wrote the sermon nor the one who delivered it has any real life experience that would allow them to speak with conviction about the abuse of drugs, prostitution or corruption in leadership. Although this type of sermon is useful to provide structure, form and order among the faithful, the message is often lost immediately after prayers are over.
The political sermon is more exciting and invigorating. When I supported a political party that has a religious ideology, I felt alive and full of fire to right the wrongs in government and punish the corrupt.
The downside of this type of sermon is that it can do both good and bad. When it does bad, it is the nation-destroying kind of bad. Not only that, it can incite people to carry out deeds of unfathomable destruction. Because of this potential threat, political sermons are carefully monitored by governments on the look out for potential incendiary remarks that could spark the fires of chaos and mayhem.
I listened to many of these political sermons in my younger days and I can see that they are still prevalent, nowadays appearing on YouTube.
This type of sermon is positive in that it sends a strong message that stays with you for the rest of your life – but depending on the message, it could also destroy your life. I was lucky that this kind of sermon shaped only my political direction and did not push me towards any extreme acts of destruction. The fact that I am writing this article reveals their lingering influence.
The third and final type is the personal sermon. What I mean by this is a sermon delivered by someone who has actually gone through the experiences that he is speaking about. Whether that is poverty, sadness, health challenges or career issues, he is the right person to speak to congregants about such subjects as they can relate to him and his words.
The sermon becomes a window of communication that has a direct line to the congregation, and this is the most effective means of reaching the very depths of human consciousness and awareness. When I listen to these sermons by individuals with the experience and the scholarship to back them, I feel alive, rejuvenated and humbled.
I feel strongly that sermons can serve all three goals, administrative, political and spiritual. What is needed is a more personal approach rather than a purely administrative one.
Religious institutions should train speakers to write and deliver sermons and not just let them simply stand and read words out.
I understand that there is an element of national security as well as the juristic concerns of certain religious perspectives or positions, but the fundamental message of religion is to encourage all humans to do moral good. And that can only be done effectively if both the message and its deliverer have a personal position.
The lack of this is perhaps why many feel that religion is more destructive than constructive when it comes to building a nation of many religions. The message is too impersonal, extremely formal and completely isolated.
Building a nation is a personal and inspiring endeavour. Likewise, a good sermon is one that makes an emotional connection and is backed by experiential knowledge.
Prof Dr Mohd Tajuddin Mohd Rasdi is Professor of Architecture at the Tan Sri Omar Centre for Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Studies at UCSI University.
