Following the theme of my last post, I want to take several posts and simply raise questions. You don’t reinvent the wheel by setting out to reinvent the wheel. The first step is to simply raise questions about the current model, and dream about what could be. In the next few posts, I will share some of the questions I have been asking myself.
Since in years past, I saw “preaching” as the central function of the church, I will begin by questioning it. Please understand that my questions are NOT statements of what should be, but simply “What if?” questions…what would happen if…?
What if Preaching and Teaching were Different?
What if we didn’t preach…at all? This is near heresy for some of us (it was for me a few years ago), but really, what would happen? I imagine at first, all those people who are used to showing up on Sunday to hear a 45 minute sermon would sit around staring at each other, asking, “What are we supposed to do now?” Exactly. If we didn’t spend 30-45 minutes on a Sunday with the sermon, what would we do instead? On a related note, what if we stopped telling people how important it is for them to read the Bible daily? It wasn’t until about 500 years ago that people even had the option, and even then, it wasn’t until about 100 years ago that there was widespread literacy. I’m not suggesting we jettison preaching and Bible reading from our churches. The opposite in fact. But I wonder what would happen in our churches if we fasted from gorging ourselves on Scripture for a while?
What if, when we did preach, instead of trying to be funny and cute in three easy-to-remember points, we simply taught the Word of God? What if we didn’t mask what we were doing by changing a book series into a topical series (calling Preaching through Psalms, “How to Praise God.”), or trying to be more “relevant” by speaking to people’s needs, or mask that we preaching a text by giving lots of illustrations, stories, and images? What if we just said, “Today we going to study Ephesians 1:1-10.” What if, in doing so, we taught as long as it took to adequately explain the text, whether 10 minutes or two hours? Would this be a wise use of time? Would this be an effective way to teach Scripture? Who would it be for? All people or just some? Who gets to decide what “adequately explain the text” means?
What if we didn’t apologize for biblical terminology, but used it and explained it? Are simpler translations of Scripture actually better? Or do they tend to dumb us down?
What if the preaching/teaching was more dialogue/interactive than monologue? Would this depend on group size?
What if we used movies and art and music to teach from, and bridges with culture to direct us to Scripture? What if instead of condemning movies and art and music, we looked for ways to redeem them?
What if the teaching and preaching was not done only by those with seminary degrees and formal education? Who else would do it?
What if we stopped trying to make sure a person was “orthodox” (by our standards) before we let them teach? If the argument is that we need to protect our churches from false teaching, just look at our churches. Can we honestly say that preaching and teaching only by the “seminar-trained and ordained” has kept false teaching at bay? Would allowing “untrained lay persons” the opportunity to teach really introduce heresy (by our definition) or would it open up more streams for dialogue? Would doing this be too dangerous in some settings? Would it make a difference if the teaching setting was set up as a dialogue instead of a monologue?
What if, after every time we opened the Bible to read and study it, we wouldn’t move on until we had asked “What is this passage telling us to do, and how can we as a church do it?” What if we didn’t move on to the next passage until, as a community, we obeyed the first passage? Week 1: Teach. Week 2: Obey. What if obedience and service were built in to the teaching aspect of the church?
What if, as we taught, we added humility to everything we said? Everything. What if, rather than say, “This is the way it is” we said, “This is my current understanding”? Do people really learn better from teachers who are certain of their beliefs, or do all the conflicting certainties from various teachers just confuse them further?
What if we refused to draw lines of orthodoxy about which people were in and which people were out?
What if in our teaching, we refused to judge a group of people unless/until we actually were friends with some people from that group? Would this keep us from judging them? Is that wise?
————————
Feel free to offer suggestions to the questions above, or to ask a few questions of your own below.
Hi Jeremy,
Great subject. I belong to a church that does a lot of what you say. It’s here in California- called Church of Hope. Our pastor has been in the book of James for a number of years now. We vary it and have other topics on different Sundays but we have an interactive sermon with questions asked and answered as well as a second hour where we study lewis Sperry Chafer’s book on 52 topics from the Word. Its been tremendous for me as I have learned about hermaneutics and exegesis and reading the scriptures in context. I could go on and on about it, but bottom line is for some its a real difficult transition, but once done is great.
MarkR,
I have read that book by Chafer. It’s good. It interesting that you bring it up, because I was thinking of using it to help disciple a men’s group I’m part of.
That’s great to hear about your church! Does it have a website?
if you had a church with a waiting period before the next sermon so that people would need to ‘obey’ so that preaching would continue to ensue…your church would die more quickly than a straw house matched with kerosene, fire, and a pressurized oxygen stream. The depth of personality involved in relaying the information required to interact the message of a) what obedience is to ‘me’, and b) what exactly I did this week to pursue obedience to God…is way to complex and lengthy to be covered in the general audience of any sizeable church. Unless your message is that every church should downsize to the size of a small group, or every small group encorporate to the status of an organized church, I can fairly say that I am confused. The reason for my confusion; indeed, the reason for my |point|counterpoint| comments to your blog is that I have thoroughly thought through most of the ideas and suggestions that you are bringing to the table. My conclusions are revealed through my comments, and while I thoroughly agree with the originating ideology, I cannot convince myself to the natural conclusions that these ideologies represent down the line if placed into the realm of practical application.
In this specific example, the radicality that you propose, while mild in comparison to the Scriptures, is definitely radical enough to be foreign to any church born Christian. If we can respectfully acknowledge that a majority of todays’ generation of believers are taught into the faith by their parents, we reluctantly must conclude that the theology base of *a lot* of these believers is not upon careful reflection and personal choice upon the fervent divulgence of the Scriptures, but rather a hodge-podge compilation of ‘feel good’ thoughts that have no biblical or moral grounding other than vague references. I am most certain you know of these people I speak of, the Sunday morning warriors. You mention the value or disvalue of Sunday sermons; contemplating reinventing Christianity without a Sunday service is to deprive yourself of those people who would never come into contact with your thoughts and wisdom of your very own personal growing relationship with Christ…which in my opinion would be a waste of an opportunity. If you disagree and believe these people without a chance for further discipleship (and thus worth ditching the ‘sunday morning service’ for), I hope you do so a) intentionally and b) with a detailed plan of how you will reach these individuals without using conventional methods.
I am not favoring the commonplace instead of risk. Instead, I am fearful of losing opportunities in the name of ‘change’. Yet, last time I checked, ‘change’ in any situation where the outlook is less positive than it was before was usually considered ‘bad change’ whereas any outlook that is more positive than before was ‘good change’.
I’m simply hoping you make wise decisions through my magical (this is a joke, I don’t believe in magic but I believe in making jokes) phrase ‘intentionality’. I believe a lot of clarity can ensue through intentionality, both in identity and relationships, which can be some cornerstones of dynamic success in all surrendered areas and pursuits of life as God has given to us. This is the antagonist of the vague, tepid, lukewarm climate of the churches I have visited throughout the United States and Canada. In my 9 moves over 4 years, I have tasted the great american church, and my conclusion is that bodies/bucks/buildings still remains the guiding factors for many of our churches todays instead of sacrifice/risk/faith for Christ that is necessary for growth and change. Without personal spiritual growth, as well as the movement of the Holy Spirit within the person for change…the mind and the spirit grow restless as the same repeats itself over and over and over and… you guessed it.. over and over.
Andrew,
I love your way of thinking, and even the way you word it. I sense an author in you…
I agree with what you say. There is no way we can incorporate most of this into the way church is being done here in America.
Whether we like it or not, change is coming, and I think that only those who are thinking through the issues will be able to help navigate the church through the turbulent waters ahead. What will the church look like on the other side? I don’t think anyone really knows yet. But if we hold on to our traditions with a loose grip, it will be easier to throw them overboard before they sink our ship.
Also, while it is true that some opportunities are lost when change occurs, if the change brings greater opportunity, it is well worth the cost. I believe that the coming changes will provide greater opportunity than can be found in the present state of many churches.
True, there are lots of what ifs in our lives. On teaching and preaching, it is better though and I agree with you that it oughtta be interactive and not be a monologue kind.
I still think there is a place for monologue, but even there, some sort of interaction would be good.
Excellent conversation! Thank you Andrew for your well put view and your great reply Jeremy. I too struggle to know how to reconcile where we are with how it ought to be.
Jeremy,
What if, when we did preach, instead of trying to be funny and cute in three easy-to-remember points, we simply taught the Word of God? What if we didn’t mask what we were doing by changing a book series into a topical series (calling Preaching through Psalms, “How to Praise God.”), or trying to be more “relevant” by speaking to people’s needs, or mask that we preaching a text by giving lots of illustrations, stories, and images? What if we just said, “Today we going to study Ephesians 1:1-10.” What if, in doing so, we taught as long as it took to adequately explain the text, whether 10 minutes or two hours? Would this be a wise use of time? Would this be an effective way to teach Scripture? Who would it be for? All people or just some? Who gets to decide what “adequately explain the text” means?
You wrote: Are simpler translations of Scripture actually better? Or do they tend to dumb us down?
The latter.
YES!!! Can I get an amen?!?! I hate preaching. Hate, hate, hate it. I’d rather be equipped with knowledge and let the Holy Spirit do His work. For me, preaching is just a waste of time. Dial a cliche.