Over the past several posts, I have written a lot about preaching and teaching, and what the Bible has to say about both. Starting tomorrow, in the interest of tying it all together, I want to provide some practical thoughts on how preaching and teaching could look within church life today.
But before we get to that, I want to answer one criticism that you might have. The question is this:
It seems like you are so opposed to preaching sermons in church. Do you hate preaching?
The answer is simple:
No. I Do Not Hate Preaching. I Love Preaching!
I love listening to good preaching, and I love preaching to others. I listened to a great sermon this morning on Colossians 1 from Frank Viola. You can check it out here.
My only concern is that far too often, I hear pastors justify the modern practice of preaching because “the Bible tells us to preach.”
But we have seen in this series that there is not a single passage in Scripture which commands or even provides an example of the current popular pattern of gathering in a building on a certain day of the week to listen to one person stand up and talk about the Bible for thirty or forty minutes.
It is just not there.
This doesn’t mean that a monologue sermon from a pulpit on Sunday morning is wrong, evil, or sinful. Far from it! There may be a place for such sermons in today’s Christianity.
But if there is, then we must provide reasons for such a practice other than “the Bible says so,” because the Bible doesn’t say so.
What other reasons for preaching are there?
There are numerous possible reasons why a pastor or church leader may decide to give monologue messages. Maybe a monologue sermon is the best way to get a bunch of people encouraged all at once. Maybe it the best way to spread a visionary message quickly. Maybe for the group you are working with, listening to a monologue is their primary learning style.
I don’t know what the reason might be, but we must not think that our modern method of preaching is the “Biblical model.” It isn’t.
So in the end, I am not opposed to preaching monologue sermons if you can explain why, in your situation, it is the best approach. But part of that explanation must also show how you are getting the people who hear the message to put it into practice. Otherwise, all you are providing is “unhealthy teaching” which results in nothing but more teaching.
So How Should we Then Preach?
In the next several posts, I am going to make some practical suggestions for how churches can practice healthy teaching, and not only learn the Scriptures, but also put into practice what has been learned in tangible ways in the community.
Are you familiar with the history of the Plymouth Brethren movement? In particular, the anti-clerical emphasis.
No. I am not aware of this emphasis.
from A Brief History of the Brethren
N.B., This is not an endorsement. I am a member in EPC.
I attended something similar to this once when I was in Dallas. I don’t think they were Brethren, though.
But still, this is very interesting. I wonder what stopped them from becoming a larger movement?
Jeremy, I currently fellowship with the Plymouth Brethren. Although I was not raised such, I have come to the strong biblical conviction that these simple meetings with no clergy (but multiple elders) and emphasis given to the Lord’s Supper rather than preaching are much more in line with the New Testament model.
It is very interesting how I came into contact with them as well. I had previously heard very little about them. They were just that “crazy group without a pastor.”
Totally separate from them, the Spirit led be to begin really studying what the Bible states about the church, and I came to mostly the same conclusions they had.
Shortly after coming to these conclusions, I was “by chance” (yeah, right) introduced to five different people from three different brethren assemblies. It’s amazing how God leads when we are willing to follow!
I’ve been in fellowship with them for multiple months now, and it’s fantastic!
The group I met with in Dallas was a bit too… formal… for me. The meal was very somber, and eaten in silence. Then one of the elders presented a message, and others (but only men) were allowed to ask questions and interact with the teaching.
I am not sure if all are like that.
I do like the teaching over a meal idea. I think there is something sacred about food, which we miss in most American churches. We get a glimpse of it at the doughnut and coffee table where sometimes the “true ministry and teaching” takes place on a Sunday morning.
I came to the Lord in college through a group that you could call a descendant of the Plymouth Brethren. It was a network of home fellowships that practiced what you described.
Dan,
Are you not still a part of that group? What were your experiences with them?
The only sermons that say much to me are the ones I see being lived out in the “preachers'” lives.
Sam,
I think that is true of many other people as well. The sermons we see are often more effective than the sermons we hear.
Just to be a turd:
Less than 20% of what is heard in a message will be retained, and after Monday, it will be completely forgotten about.
Most people learn visually by seeing it done, or by repetition doing it themselves. Instead of hearing an explanation, you have to do it yourself and probably do it often to “get it”. Example Faith without Works is dead.
So this week at bible study (on a Wednesday, low attendance, at the the building, reeking of boredom etc) we are studying evangelism and how to follow Jesus example. So as to not be a hypocrite we are going a “calling”. We are getting up and going outside to go talk to people.
I have heard tell that there are trees outside, grass, and even PEOPLE! We will find out Wednesday!
Johnny,
That is great. Let me know how it goes, and what you think about “people.” Ha!
I haven’t read your series so you may have touched on these thoughts/points.
Barna says that most people, 70 percent, I think, can’t even remember the general topic of a sermon two hours later, let alone be able to rattle off the three or four points of the sermon. Yet pastors devoted 60 percent or more of their time each week to preparing sermons. Lecturing is the poorest form of communication. Seems like a waste of time for the most part to me. People learn best through dialogue and doing/practice.
Sermons also seem to me to be a form of control. The pastor and others who feel sermons are important don’t trust the Holy Spirit to work or speak through the “common” people so they don’t want to give them the opportunity to speak or share. They want to decide what’s most important for people to hear and think. This attitude is reflected in the common objection to home/simple churches when they say these groups lead to heresy, when in fact heresy is more likely when there’s one dominant leader who thinks he knows best. A small group of sincere believers studying and discussing scripture together does not lead to heresy.
Dan,
You hit the nail on the head.
Your last point there is excellent. So few people realize that in the history of false teaching, more has come from a dominant, seminary-trained pastor or professor, than from a group of people who study God’s Word and serve in God’s World together.
Thanks so much for being bold and prophetic.
I sometimes say in meetings, “All American pastors know the Bible knows nothing of a weekly meeting where a pastor preaches a sermon.” But I wonder. Do you think they (we) all know the Bible says that, or are we so blinded but what we think it says that we eisegete?
Trackback:http://davewainscott.blogspot.com/2011/11/preacher-is-not-in-bible.html
Thanks for linking to my post. I read yours and commented there.
I think this is a great question, but that most of us pastors fear to face it, because if we discover that the Bible doesn’t support the professional, full-time, paid pastor, we would be faced with a tough decision: quit our jobs or ignore Scripture.
Lois,
Yes, those are good arguments showing what Jesus did and what the early church did (and why). I do not disagree.
I just don’t see these necessarily as “prescriptive” for the whole church. but descriptive of what Jesus and the early church did. I am not against people doing similar things in their church setting today.
So do you see the church nowadays as having a widespread knowledge of the Bible and Christian practice? So if you take the pastor’s leadership out, don’t you just have people sitting around sharing half-baked thoughts with each other? I don’t think the situation is better nowadays in the church than it was in the first century, that now we don’t need a central voice speaking anymore.
No, people’s knowledge is definitely worse. Just in the last several decades it has declined rapidly.
But I don’t think that the problem is knowledge, but with people obeying what they do know. Even with the limited knowledge people have, most of us don’t even obey that. I don’t think the answer to this is more (and better) preaching.