Just finished reading this article titled The Problem with Preaching from The Baptist Magazine of New Zealand. The author enumerates the problems he sees with traditional preaching.
Preaching as it is practised in modern churches is extra-biblical, a poor form of communication, and creates dependency.
And here’s where the argument started from:
Recently I studied the biblical passages about preaching, and was surprised at what I found – that the preaching that is referred to in the New Testament (NT) bears little resemblance to the practice of preaching in churches. I also looked through the shelves of a good Bible college library. There were about 1000 books on how to preach a good sermon, yet I could find nothing that attempted to clearly justify why sermons should be preached. The vast majority assume and perpetuate the sermon concept, and there is rarely any investigation or justification of its legitimacy.His point is mainly that sermons are not in the bible, and there’s no great reason why we should still do them.
Personally, I have listened to over 1000 sermons in my life, and frankly there are only a handful of memorable ones. I do think that the sum total of all those hours of thought-out biblical teaching has—at the very least—pounded some sort of Christian world-view in me. But is that the best way of doing it? I know I learned far more about Christianity from other sources like small groups and classes.
Do you think sermons are biblical? Are they a necessary component to the Christian life or weekly service?
Any preachers want to defend the weekly sermon? Any preachers want to do away with it?
Another article worth reading on sermons in the bible: Challenging Times.
Note: no one is saying that we don’t need to interact with each other and God’s word in some capacity. The challenge is against traditional monologue preaching.
(HT: Kouya Chronicle)
Loading ...
December 28, 2007 at 13:44
To answer your question – I would say that the preached word on Sunday morning has had comparatively little significant impact that I can recall. “That I can recall” I think is an important qualifier. Has it had an impact? Sure it has, but I can only specifically remember a few sermons that I can say, “wow, that impacted me”.
I think perhaps a lot of the positive effect is through a kind of constant “soaking” of the word through good Bible teachers (much like we do in our own Bible study). One is not really cognizant of it having an impact, but it does for sure. To what degree? I’m not really sure.
But the overwhelming thing I think about in terms of my own personal spiritual growth is my time in the word and prayer, my own personal teaching of the word, serving, and relationships where older believers have invested in me.
Jesus did a lot of sermon like teaching, but it seems like it was always in the context of relationships, life on life. This is partly why I am leaning towards smaller church ecclesiology. I have only worked in big churches and have grow to see the draw back of how impersonal it can be.
My executive pastor tells me about how he has asked this same question to many many people over the course of his years and he has told me that he has never once has someone say that the preached word on Sunday was the #1 thing that contributed to their sanctification. Should we throw out the preached word on Sunday? Never, the Biblical emphasis on preaching is too strong, but I think it is good to challenge and question our current modes of ecclesiology since the NT gives very few rules for how our worship service is to be conducted.
It’s easy to see how we got here…
(years are rough)
500-1500 – Catholic church dominates and there is a thousand year void (for the most part) of any solid, accessible, gospel preaching for the lay person
1500 – Reformation takes place – Luther and Calvin and others push back really hard on this and greatly emphasize the preached word for the lay person.
We still are reaping the benefits of this today, but I would say that I think it has, in our current culture, created churches full of spectators that I don’t see in the NT for the church. We have so many different structured contexts for listening, but we have very few structured contexts
for serving and doing. This is a problem. Both should be mandatory. But in our culture, the listening is mandatory and the doing is not. Big problem in my view.
This is really hard stuff. There are no hard preaching rules in the Bible for the amount or the form. I would personally like to see structured elevation of the preached word in the context of home groups by qualified teachers.
But to say that there are no sermons in the Bible is a completely wack statement. Do I need to provide the Biblical evidence? Now, maybe he means, sermons, like they are currently given in our churches…
Just my first reaction, knee-jerk response… Take it for what it’s worth.
December 28, 2007 at 14:10
Amen! Amen! I’m not a preacher, but I have heard plenty. Does that count?
I’m not sure that I agree that debate and discussion is for everyone in a congregation. But I think I agree with Allis on most of his points.
I’m a serious fan of J. Vernon McGee, who taught all 66 books of the Bible expositionally. McGee once said that the Bible is God’s picture book for God’s children. He also said that he spent a lot of his time as a pastor burping spiritual babies. I’d be willing to bet that the problem in his church wasn’t his style, but it was probably the tendency of Christians to neglect personal study. McGee had a radio ministry, which is still going strong almost 20 years after his death. Anybody can download MP3 files of the daily broadcast and go through the Bible in 5 years with McGee.
How well could any preacher cover 66 books in 5 years with weekly sermons? How long would it take for a believer being fed by that preacher to get the whole counsel of the Bible?
I admire John MacArthur’s expositional style very much, but I’ve heard him say that he has essentially built his career around teaching the New Testament. While I know that he brings the OT into his NT preaching, I feel that too many preachers think the OT is second rate. That kind of thinking has led to a gap that leads to a broad misunderstanding of correct OT theology in our congregations.
I think that all 66 books of the Bible are essential. I also think daily study of some sort is crucial to growth. Evangelism is for reaching the lost, not for growing believers toward maturity.
December 28, 2007 at 14:19
Nehemiah 8:3 ”[Ezra] read [the Book of the Law] aloud from daybreak till noon… in the presence of the men, women and others who could understand. And all the people listened attentively to the Book of the Law.”
So much for monologues being unbiblical…
Seriously, the article’s author throws out a lot of unsubstantiated “it doesn’t work” and “studies show…”. One can find a study to validate virtually anything.
It’s true, Chris – I also don’t remember a lot of the specifics of “monologue” sermons. But one of the author’s primary contentions is that interactivity necessarily leads to greater retention. Could just be my own faulty noggin, but I also don’t remember many specifics of interactive Bible studies. I believe the Spirit can and does work through both, and I and others have been blessed by both. I grew tremendously as a new Christian in particular under gifted preaching.
Another of numerous problematic points: He writes, ”[Weekly sermons] implies that church members will always need to hear more sermons.”
Well, perhaps… do weekly Bible studies imply that attenders will always need to study the Bible? Does weekly worship imply worshippers need to keep worshipping? I sure hope so!!!
See also Acts 20:7b “Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.” He was “talking”, maybe/maybe not interacting. Should the article’s author have schooled Paul in proper communication? Granted, it did put one guy (vs 9) to sleep!
December 28, 2007 at 14:55
Sermons aren’t biblical, fine. But what “Biblical” things should we do when we meet as a church body.
I guess this really brings up the question, “what ought the chuch to be doing when it congregates.” What Mr. David Allis says in his article may be true enough, but what does his ideal “Biblical” church meeting (I won’t say service, because that is an extra-biblical idea too) look like? Are his brothers and sisters sharing words of prophecy? Are they speaking and interpreting tongues? Do they pray lifting holy hands? That’s what happened in the Biblical New Testament church. But because Mr. Allis is writing in a Baptist document, I wouldn’t suppose this is what he imagines.
I am not trying to be antagonistic, but as an fledgling finger-pointer myself, I challenge myself to challenge any use of the word “Biblical”.
That being said, when the article gets to the conclusion, it has several excellent suggestions. Mr. Allis ideas of what to change about “preaching” are near to my own thoughts of the matter. A shift to more small groups and meaty subjects of study is just the thing that I’ve often wished for in my church life.
In a cessasionist world-view, the talking head at the pulpit can only regurgitate pre-digested information into the waiting mouths of the congregation. How much more valuable would it be to teach the church to teach itself? What about a break-up group time for Q&A after the message? What about just worshiping and testifying for three weeks of the month so the pastor can come up with an intensive lesson once a month? How married are we to the format over the function?
Final word: good article by Mr. Allis. You should read it.
December 28, 2007 at 15:39
Like it or not, the age of the sermon is coming to a close. We should not lament its passing, though. Biblical content, learning, discussion, growth, etc. will continue and flourish in the forms that have always been the most effective. Dialogue, discourse, debate, and discovery will be fleshed out in relationships, though various media and in various forms.
The sermon as we know it today really only came into existence a few hundred years ago and as such was an innovation of latter days rather than an early church precedent. Liturgy, ritual, readings of Scripture, prayer constituted the majority of time in Christian “services for the first 15 centuries of Christianity – and we are actually seeing a resurgence of the reflective, contemplative liturgical styles in emergent churches – which will probably continue to grow – further pressing back the idea of a spoken word/talking head sermon.
In actuality, if it weren’t for the professional clergy, the traditional sermon would have already gone into the dustbin of history. But even with that somewhat recalcitrant constituancy in tow, the writing is on wall.
December 28, 2007 at 16:04
danr: Thanks for pointing towards Ezra. I would argue that this was a particularly special circumstance though, not something they did every week.
For interactive teaching I’d point towards Jesus. He regularly was involved in question and answer sessions. Sometimes these interactive sessions are just as easily forgotten, but on the whole I guess my experience is that I learn quite a bit more from being able to interact immediately with what I’m hearing. However, any teacher will tell you that there are different learning styles. It also doesn’t take much of a study to see how bored a lot of people look during sermons. I personally don’t think it’s totally their fault.
Thankfully neither you nor the author think that worship or bible study should be done away with, but I didn’t quite catch your point. Do you think that weekly sermons are necessary like these other parts of a weekly service?
December 28, 2007 at 16:18
I don’t think the problem is with preaching per se. It serves a purpose, especially as the number in the community grows. The problem is over-reliance on preaching combined with what is often a passive audience mentality in the hearers. In the West, we live in an over-communicated society where we often don’t time to reflect on or talk about what we here. For a sermon to be effective, there has to be a context where we do more with it than just passively listen to it and then go on to the next thing afterwards.
December 28, 2007 at 16:43
It’s hard to fit all of my criticisms of this article into a comment, but I’ll go ahead and sketch out why I say “No.”
1. Monologue is not dead. Jay Leno continues to entertain us, presidential candidates continue to inspire us and Steve Jobs’s keynote addresses continue to excite us through the monologue. I’d like to see support for how this medium is as dead as the author says.
2. Preaching is more than teaching. If your sermons are didactic only, then you are missing the point that the sermon is an echo of the Incarnation of Christ, whereby heavenly things and earthly things are joined in one place. To paraphrase Karl Barth, preach with a Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other.
3. In a year, one can hear 52+ sermons with only a few being especially memorable. In a year, I eat probably 1000+ meals and only a few of them are memorable. Do I give up eating? Do quit cooking dreary meals for myself and dine out three times daily? No. I remain thankful for the daily bread that sustains body and soul.
4. Biblical evidence does occur in Acts 20:7-12. Paul speaks all night to Christians gathered in a meeting room. This passage speaks so clearly about contemporary preaching that one listener falls asleep.
5. It’s quite easy to throw stones. Few alternatives are offered and even fewer schemes to implement them. The worship schemes of every denomination, the curricula of our seminaries and the history of the church can all be discarded and replaced with a vaguely defined “group bible study.” The sermon preached among the Christian faithful has been with the church since at least Paul’s visit to Troas and there is not reason to abandon it now.
Just a few sketchy thoughts. I’d like to hear more from the author, especially more support his unusual claim that monologue is a dead medium.
December 28, 2007 at 18:13
Hi Chris,
My point was that repetition (daily, weekly, whatever) isn’t inherently bad. Allis proposes weekly sermons create “dependency” – but dependency on good teaching in the form of preaching (like dependency on good group Bible study/worship/fellowship) can be a “good dependency”, IF good fruit comes of it. Allis failed to convince me that it (mostly) fails to.
Allis: [one-person sermons] reverse the words of Paul in 1Cor 12:14 and “suggest that the body is not many members, but one.”
Not quite… Paul says in Eph 4:11 that only “some are to be pastors and teachers”. The Body of Christ recognizes all are gifted, but not in everything. Teachers should be the ones teaching – though admittedly, not necessarily without any opportunity for feedback/response.—Also, glad to see Jason Wells above also picked up on Paul’s “monologuing” in Acts 20.
Allis: “Many preachers seem unable to relate the Bible and theology to the world of work or to issues in public life – these are areas of profound weakness in most churches.”
That’s a profoundly broad brush he’s preaching with (“most” churches… in NZ perhaps? How can he know?). One of the primary duties of a preacher is to “bring it home” – many (not all) good/gifted ones in my experience have done so.
Allis: “Sermons are expensive.” Not necessarily more so than church meeting places, audio/video equipment, food/retreats/activities/materials etc. Life is expensive. God provides.
Yes there are bored people at sermons, but also bored people at interactive Bible studies. Conversely I’ve also seen some of the most excited, engaged, and attentive people listening to Spirit-led sermons. The problem isn’t necessarily with the sermon format, but perhaps with the quality and giftedness of the sermon giver.
Not to say monologue sermons are necessary at every service of every church. I’m not one to beat the drum for repetition/tradition/convention for its own sake. But we needn’t throw the sermon baby out with the bad preaching bathwater.
(confession – I’m on the defense as a once-every-few-weeks (unpaid) lay preacher at my church. Yes, we’re mostly monologuers.
)
December 28, 2007 at 19:26
After reading the article, I just realised how ironic that the author is preaching against preaching with a sermon on why not to preach. I guess the real problem with preaching is not in preaching itself, but in the quality of preaching that is seen nowadays. If so, then problem will diappear when preachers come out with better and more relevant sermons that relates Bible principles with daily reading. Nevertheless, without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, no amount of sermons will sustain the heart of the Christian. It is God whom we should seek, and not just the sermons alone. Think Matt Redman’s “Heart of Worship”, and I hope you will know what I mean.
December 28, 2007 at 23:53
Here are some positives that come to mind for preaching:
-The entire congregation hears preaching from someone with a great background in Scripture and theology
-The entire congregation hears preaching from someone who prepared many hours for the sermon
-The entire congregation is moved in the same direction by the spiritual leader of the church since they all heard the same thing
-The entire congregation has the opportunity to evaluate the preaching for error
-The entire congregation has the opportunity to discuss the message since they all heard the same thing
-The preaching can be integrated well into the rest of the worship service, which can make it more effective as hearts are prepared by worship songs and prayer
-Preaching in the pulpit by a good orator often is highly motivational
December 29, 2007 at 04:18
“Preaching as it is practised in modern churches is extra-biblical, a poor form of communication, and creates dependency.”
Sorry – I disagree with all of this…!
First, preaching as is practiced in modern churches (if by that the author means a herald who proclaims and explains God’s Word) is not extra biblical. Such a suggestion is plainly unfounded and easily refuted by just a cursory reading of Scripture. Moses restates, explains and applies God’s law in Deuteronomy. Ezra gives ‘the sense’ of God’s precepts when the temple is rebuilt. Jesus expounds God’s law and applies it more fully in the Sermon on the Mount. Paul’s life and teaching are replete with Old Testament exposition (even Acts 17 can be shown, in its ‘content’, to be founded on several key OT passages). Last but not least, the author of Hebrews performs detailed exposition from the Law, prophets and psalms.(see some basic support for all this here: http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T5088).
Secondly, even if preaching were a poor form of communication, this would be primarily a cultural, pragmatic and experiencial argument – not a biblical one. Having questioned the supposedly ‘monologue’ sermon myself in past years, looking back I can see that the underlying issue was that I didn’t want to sit ‘under’ God’s Word. Such would involve one’s mouth being shut, ears being open, and heart being ready to embrace whatever challenge or correction God would bring. Furthermore, I’m not sure that even the pragmatic argument works. On the one hand, I could point to secular audiences (congregations!) who listen to stand up comedians for an hour straight – and twenty somethings at the likes of Mars Hill, Seattle and Redeemer, New York who sit with rapt attention for long periods (at Mars hill, for an hour and a half). On the other hand, it can as easily be argued – ‘experiencially’ – that dialogue can be less than helpful. My common ‘experience’ of discussion without a firm lead has been pooled ignorance, not a growing understanding of God. That said, discussion and questions as a ‘response’ to God’s Word is imperative, not least if we are going to listen to the bible AND ‘do what it says.’
Thirdly, preaching need not necessarily create dependence. Certainly it can do, if preacher’s only show the fruits of their study and never how they worked to get there. Also there is a kind of preacher who tries to assert that they have some special interpretive ability that no other in the congregation posesses. In such a situation congregants become like parrot’s: ‘pastor______ says…’ Nevertheless, in churches where clear exposition occurs, the opposite is often the case. Precisely BECAUSE good interpretation is modelled, church members become more able to handle the bible themselves. Almost without fail, Christians who transfer to our chrch from other good bible expositing churches are the most capable in handling their bibles.
December 29, 2007 at 08:55
While I am sympathetic to the many points being raised here, I would say that preaching is not a thing of the past. Please consider the following:
1. Most churches still have “monological” preaching on Sunday. Many of those churches are growing. Preaching must still “work” for plenty of folk.
2. Traditional preaching does not mean that one cannot utilize “non-traditional” elements in the sermon. I have a Powerpoint presentation every week during my sermon, I utilize video clips, and brief dramas either before, during, or after the sermon are quite helpful.
3. While “dialogical” moments when the Word is studied and discussed are essential, it seems to me that those who are touting “the death of the sermon” risk falling into letting the fads of the culture influence what we do. Karl Barth counseled many years ago that it is not the task of the church to make the gospel credible to the world, but to make the world credible to the gospel. I fear we are in a time where certain elements in the church want to be so contemporary and relevant, that agenda unwittingly becomes the the major consideration over the truth of the gospel when it comes even to how the church communicates the Good News. I am not suggesting that anyone posting here wants that to happen, but the temptation always is how does one proclaim the gospel in contemporary ways without making the gospel irrelevant.
It seems to me that we must avoid proclaiming the gospel in a way that it is simply one more mode of interactive therapy.
While the sermon is not the be all and end all of proclamation, it is still a critical part, and, by the way; for all of our discussion, the sermon is not going anywhere anytime soon. The news of its death is greatly exaggerated.
Perhaps we would better use our energy is not trying to find way to kill the sermon, but to train and develop effective preachers.
December 30, 2007 at 11:13
Haven’t had the chance to read all comments yet but very interested in this discussion. One bone I’ll throw out in the meantime:
Perhaps people in the pews are too comfortable (read “opposed to change of any kind”) to attempt anything other than the status quo? And preachers of the common variety are, perhaps, also too comfortable to step out on a limb and offer something different, possibly putting themselves out of a job (I don’t personally think this would need to be the case . . . ).
I for one am ready for something different. I don’t know what that is, but I’m trying to figure it out. I love my pastor as a person and preacher, but the only part of Sunday morning services that seem sincere and that I look forward too on a weekly basis is communion (which is unusual to have in a non-denom church on a weekly basis, but for which I’m very grateful).
December 30, 2007 at 14:46
After reading through several of these comments today and reading through the article I wanted to share a few thoughts. I disagree with what the article had to say regarding the effectivness of monologues. I think much of the discontent in the actual sermons is not the delivery or even the style but I think the larger issue is the content.
Churches are all about teaching on topics and things that they think are going to be realitive to their church congregation. REB has a great point when he talks about teaching the 66 books of the Bible!
To illustrate what I am talking about I will use an example that I see on a weekly basis. I teach in a public high school and am the faculty sponsor for the Fellowship of Christian Ahtletes huddle that meets at my school. One of the most dissapointing things that I have see are these students who are from solid Christian families that have little knowledge of what the Bible says. They will be leading a lesson and when a question is raised they answer with what they think rather then what the Word of the Lord says. They are not well versed in the Bible. But you ask these same students about topics concerning them and they can pull out verses that fit what they think no matter how out of context they may be!
So lets go back to the original topic that was presented in this post. That is the preaching of pastors. I personally think there is biblical backing for teaching to others a passage no one has mentioned yet is fouind in James 2 where he lets people know that teaching is not for everyone. But like it was said earlier everyone has a gift and not everyone has the gift of teaching. When listening to sermons that are topical I can see where the author might be coming from but when listening to preachers take verse by verse explaining the content and the current application of it I don’t see how one can walk away without being impacted in some way.
December 30, 2007 at 15:50
Listening to my friend (the pastor) at his church today, I realized the difference in style between him and the pastor of the church I’ve been attending for a couple years now. One is energetic and “on”. The other is reflective and low key. They are both good communicators and good Christian men. I’ve told the quieter one before that he should have more guest speakers for a “change-up” in style to keep interest up, but his church can’t afford it. Afford it? Why are we paying guest speakers?
Reading the above comments cements a thought I had this morning listening to him (the quieter one). There’s a built in time period these guys must “fill”. They can’t go over and they can’t go less.
Why not have other people with gifts contribute in the same service? I remember getting a song during a service once and having been given the freedom to share it. I don’t mean a Christian variety show (which some services have become), but a freedom (with oversight) for people to engage their gifts.
It’s my opinion that the American church is way too pastor-centric. That’s why we have to have a sermon every Sunday and critique the pastor on it.
And his first name is “Pastor”. What if the pastor is not a great orator, but a great pastor? One who leads and guides and administrates.
December 31, 2007 at 01:01
I think the most effective sermons are the ones people watch in our daily lives. Nothing wrong with preaching from the pulpit or preaching in the marketplace. As an evangelist I seize every opportunity. But I know that the way I live is the best sermon I can give. We are living epistles and people are watching everything that we say.
December 31, 2007 at 06:32
Short and sweet, and not to sermonize to defend a sermon,I offer this. God directed His law through Moses through preaching. The OT is replete with examples of God’s law preached to His people. Emmanuel preached, then appointed Peter to “Feed My Lambs”. Paul preached, and made preachers of Timothy and Titus, who were taught to preach. The Word teaches us with preaching prose through 1500 years of authors. Preaching is God’s way, and it will not die. Fad’s die out. The Word is His, and He is eternal. God Bless you and thanks for the question.
December 31, 2007 at 11:57
Obviously, we are to preach the gospel. But does this mean sermonize the church? Or are we to find a different venue to preach in and at church teach the congregants how to do it instead of depending on the pastor to do it. Most peoples idea of evangelism is to get others into church to hear their pastor, instead of having a ready explanation of the gospel at the moment.
December 31, 2007 at 15:26
woah, lots of replies to this one! I haven’t read the Purpose Driven Church, but I’m on my second time through the Purpose Driven Youth Ministry (assignment to hand in at the end of January
). I think the answer is not to do away with preaching entirely, but to look at your potential audience and plan programmes to target those audiences. You should all read PDYM, I think it’s great.
January 1, 2008 at 13:30
Having lived in New Zealand and attended a Baptist Church there I’m not surprised at the comments made by David Allis. The Baptists in that country are doing lots of progressive things with their various ministries. This ties into New Zealand’s reputation as a sort of ‘social laboratory;’ It was the first country to have universal suffrage for women and the first country to have sign language as an official language. The list cited from Murray is actually the sort of thing that my own church in Vista, CA is doing with its 20Something group right now.
I’m interested to see if other churches adopt Allis’s methods. From my own viewpoint, I think a lot of youth in New Zealand could use this sort of style.
January 2, 2008 at 09:26
David R has made a good observation. My personal experience has shown that many young people who call themselves Christians, in my town, are actively involved in drugs, sex, partying, and some even homosexuality. These same young adults and high schoolers are active in their youth groups and christian camps. Their Christian peers know this and seem OK with it. I tried telling these facts to various people in the community but they don’t want to hear it. Apple cart theory. A lot of kids/younger gens have heard the Gospel over and over and over again in church. They either ignore biblical “teaching” or see no difference between Christian peers and non-Christian peers. Being a “Christian” is seemingly just a trendy label just like being emo or bisexual on MySpace. It is just another “brand” for the bio. This is a topic in itself. SO preaching might help or it can go in one ear and out the other. I firmly believe that small group and one to one discussions and CONTINUAL check-ins and encouragement is needed to keep us on track and actively being a disciple.
January 2, 2008 at 17:21
Boy do I agree with this author. I made the comment in an earlier blog that Biblically, preaching was almost always Evangelism to the unsaved, never a weekly topical lecture to the church and some folks got very upset. I decided to drop it instead of responding. One person commented that Paul tells Timothy to preach the word in 2nd Timothy 4:2 but Paul sums up in verse 5 to do the work of an Evangelist. Timothy was primarily an Evangelist. He was not a local pastor, he was an evangelist who traveled with Paul and usually never stayed longer than a year at any one place. Local churches also had evangelists.
I looked at every one of the 109 references to preaching in the New Testament and considering the contexts, it seems that in every case preaching is an oration outside the Church addressed to unbelievers. The two greek words translated preaching are kerusso (which means to make a proclamation) and euaggelizo (where we get our word for evangelizing). Preaching was a mighty gift usually accompanied by signs, wonders, healings and great repentance. It rarely if ever, is a function of a church service for believers. In fact, I think the very act of preaching to the converted week after week is stupefying. The ministry inside the body of believers is more participatory, more democratic, not autocratic.
I don’t know how many more sermons I can take on Leadership, What Makes a Godly Man, Parenting or you name the topic. My daughter stopped going to church because she was tired of someone talking at her and telling her what to do every Sunday. Wrong thing to do, but I understand. Of the 5 fold gifts to the Church, preaching is not one. It is a competitive atheletic event that the pastor does. Adding power-point, videos, telling better jokes almost makes it worse. Church is not all about the superstar pastor/preacher.
January 4, 2008 at 07:16
Could this disagreement be, in part, to different learning styles? As a teacher, I know that some people are visual learners, others are kinesthetic (active) learners, while others are auditory learners. Although I’m a kinesthetic learner, I love sitting in our church while my pastor is speaking. Maybe it’s his teaching style, maybe it just fits my learning style. But I know the pews are full every week. I also know that the Spirit works in people in those pews every week, so something is happening.
Please forgive my ignorance, but I just read Matthew 5-7, and I wonder why Jesus’ sermon here (which is topical, by the way) isn’t a positive example of didactic preaching.
January 4, 2008 at 14:39
April:
The word Sermon is not contained in that passage of scripture. Because it wasn’t a sermon as we think of it. In the last article Chris cites the author who says:
“What do you mean? Of course there are sermons in the Bible! What about the Sermon on the Mount, for a start?
Well, yes, except that the Bible doesn’t actually call it a sermon at all. At the beginning of Matthew 5, it says:
‘When he (Jesus) saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them…’
And at the end, it says,
‘When Jesus had finished saying all these things, the crowd were amazed at his teaching…
Even with events that we think were sermons – like the Sermon on the Mount, or Paul’s long talk in Troas (Acts 20:7-12), we should almost certainly imagine them as being broken up by interruptions, questions, spontaneous discussions, people milling about, breaks for food, and so on.”
January 8, 2008 at 10:56
Thanks for hosting this discussion. I found it through Catalyst’ link to you. Most of the people who’ve commented have covered the feild of back and forths pretty well. Thank you to everyone who’s shared some great thoughts. I’ve learned from them and been matured.
As a pastor and preacher my take on the article is that its pretty much a straw man, a mid-level theological discourse that as a medium is self-defeating being in a print journal with no dynamic discourse allowed like say a blogsite with comments. But the author has picked up on at least one thing of importance – differing contexts call for differing mediums.
Did the NT authors preach 20th century sermons? No, their context was largely the 2nd Temple Judaic period as well as the Greco-Roman world. Their mediums were influenced by their times, not ours though there are many similarities. Expecting them to embody the modern approach to sermons would be about as ridiculous as expecting them to embody the article authors list of conclusion/suggestions at the end. They won’t and they shouldn’t have if they were going to be contextual to their times.
I preach not because I think I have to have a one-to-one biblical evidence for it as a practice (The NT wasn’t meant to be only prescriptive, like all of scripture it offers us trajectories to be informed by with many precepts but not only precepts), but rather because its a meduim that has been Spirit lead and Spirit born IN CULTURE not against it in the modern period. Culture is certainly shifting today, which in my mind means that the meduim needs re-evaluation.
Doing this with care and thought both to the tradition behind the modern sermon as well as the cultural needs of our moment is where the burden lies for pastors and ministry practicioners alike. Improvision is built off of thoughtful appropriation of the past, not merely its denegration like the author expressed in his piece.
What does this look like in our local churches context…well to be honest we’re not a very progressive church (but I’m a team member and not a team leader in this, and regardless I think we’re reaching our people in a biblical and relevant way). Some of the things we do is connect our small group/home fellowship meeting discussions around the sermon. So that it becomes the focal point of discussion and the focal point of spiritual change and growth. Other things we do is offer adult sunday school classes where many of the themes we stick to in our sermons are aligned; not to mention discipleship series around major themes.
In the end I think the author of the piece misses the biblical picture of lasting change by trying to force it through preaching alone. It doesn’t only come from monologue teaching or dynamic conversations, but rather it comes from Christ, Community, and Mission appearing continually in people’s lives. Sermons are just one part of presenting Christ, recalling/retelling the stories of community and mission from both the local church and the catholic churches history. No form of discourse can replace Christ, Community, or Mission; it can embody it but discourse was never meant too be the pleroma of it…most pastors I know take this for granted more than the biblical basis of our current meduim of preaching…