I think it is indeed true: I have officially given up on the church.
Now what do I mean when I say “church”? Surely that is too broad, and it is. I mean: The Western church, the traditional type of church with which most of us are familiar. I do not mean necessarily “conservative” or “liberal” churches, but I include both really, as both are in many ways products of—and reactions to—Enlightenment modernism. One can be equally dogmatic and be a fundamentalist conservative or a fundamentalist liberal.
So does that mean I am saying, “There should be no more churches, ever?” We should just do away with all churches period? Surely that sounds a bit harsh, doesn’t it? Actually I am not saying there should never be any more churches. So technically I am not saying that churches should be done away with. No, I believe there is a need for churches. One cannot get away from the reality that God decided, for some reason, to create this thing called “the church” and that it exists to fulfill his purposes somehow in establishing his kingdom. Kinda hard to argue with him, isn’t it?
So what is my point here? I guess that what I am saying is this: My argument is that by and large, the way church is being done in the West, is not really working. I believe that when nonbelievers take a look at the church, their reaction is that the message of the church is not in the least relevant to their lives or situations. And because it is not relevant, it is—by definition—not compelling in any way, shape or form. If something is not relevant then it will not be compelling. Conversely, if something is relevant, then it will be compelling.
I think it has become a very tough sell for churches, this idea of “How do we relate to the world?” The issue has become one of points of contact. Ask yourself honestly, if you have any nonbelieving friends: Would I—could I—invite my nonbeliever friend to my church without feeling embarrassed for him or her at some point during the service? Maybe some would say that they could, and that would be great. But I think the majority would say that church is for “in-house people,” people who are already believers. I mean, the language used in a service is oftentimes highly theological (and thus obscure and irrelevant). And how many of your nonbelieving friends out there sing in any kind of corporate gathering, unless they are part of some Welsh men’s choir or something?
So then the question becomes: “Why would I invite a nonbeliever to my church?” What indeed would be the point of it? Now I grant you, there are lots of Christians out there who somehow found their way into a church and got saved. I know of one friend personally who has that story. Clearly it was a God thing. In fact I think that ultimately church growth must be a God thing, otherwise we would formulize it (though we have certainly tried—pick up some books on church growth methods) and every church would use the formula and grow.
But in giving up on the church, I have found a wonderful thing has happened. I no longer have to defend the church, which tends to be a large part of the conversation when talking with nonbelievers. I have had recently two conversations with avowed atheists, and each one was surprised when I told them I had given up on the church. They said much the same thing, for a lot of the same reasons I cite above. When I mentioned that I am on a quest personally to find out what it means to have a relationship with a God that one cannot see or communicate with person-to-person, they said much the same thing. The only difference between them and me is that I’m asking those questions from a perspective of faith while they were not. Though I have given up on the church, I have not given up on God.
Funny thing though, that I have perhaps more in common with atheists these days than other believers.
So what can be done about these problems? Of course there is no surefire “answer”—that would be too easy. I just wonder if we had the courage to ask these kinds of questions--and to act on them: Why are we doing what we are doing, at any point in our church? And if you can’t come up with a compelling answer as to why, then seriously think about scrapping it.
Where does it say that we have to have a church building? Think about how much money gets spent every year simply on maintenance and building upgrades, just to keep things looking nice. Where does it say that we have to have a service every Sunday morning (and/or Wednesday nights) complete with the following: Announcements, worship music, special music, and a sermon, followed by “fellowship time?”
Seriously, where does it say all this? Not in the Bible. All I can find is that it says not to forsake the regular gathering together, but it doesn’t indicate that gathering takes place in a multi-million dollar facility every Sunday, with all the other accoutrements we feel are so necessary to have in order to “do church.”
Margaret Thatcher a few years ago took a look at the British economy and decided that it was too dependent on manufacturing and coal mining. She reasoned that in 20 years or so, if things were left the way they were, the UK’s economy would not be internationally viable. So she simply closed down mills and coalmines. It was a brutal time for the country, for those who depended on those jobs. But she knew it had to be done, or within a few decades the UK would be in serious trouble.
Sometimes we need to cut our losses when we finally see the reality, that things aren’t working, that within 20 years the church as we know it will not be viable any more. Would it be difficult? Absolutely.
Painful? Yes.
But I ask: What is the alternative if things stay the way they are now?
18 comments:
I agree with most of the comments on Kris' blog (xanga.com/sinkingfoster), especially that the church is for "in-house" believers. That is, in fact, how the church was started -- a bunch of believers gathering to pray and worship! However, your point of dogma can be applied to believers. I know a widow who happens to be a believer and was shunned because she has children and the church members assumed things about her. Isn't that shameful? But as they say, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I DON'T agree giving up on our concept of church is giving up on God but I agree that giving up on other believers is, well, not the advice given at the end of Romans. :) I'm not sure that's what you're saying, but there you go, just so everyone knows. :P
You bring up another good point, about getting along with atheists and other nonbelievers. It's good social practice to find common ground. If someone doesn't like something or other about the church and you don't either, what's wrong with admitting it? People are drawn to honesty and those like them. It's just like admitting, "Yes, I AM a sinner." You're just adding, "And organized religion can really miss the point at times." That's where you have a real conversation about the point, whatever that is. People really do get the wrong idea from churches at times; it's up to US to clear things up.
Found out about this on Kris' blog, and I also agree with the comments on there.
I just want to say that I think we often forget an important thing: nonbelievers are never going to believe unless they are called by God. He chooses who will believe. So changing a service in order to reach out to nonbelievers is worthless, I believe. We could make services completely contemporary, and speak in the simplest of languages about who God is, what Christ has done for us, but unless God chooses to open their hearts to Him, it will make no difference.
The church needs to help believers grow so that we can be there to encourage and lift-up when God chooses to bring someone new to Him.
In the meantime, keep fostering relationships with people who do not believe; you never know when God is going to use you to bring them to Christ. I spend a lot of time with non-practicing Christians, atheists, and others due to my current location/situation, and we've had many conversations (not arguments) about God, church, and religion (all religions). I find I usually gain from those conversations - probably more than the other people, sometimes.
Oh, and yes I would bring a non-believer to church. If it's what God was telling me to do; if they ask to come, it means God is working on them. We don't need to change anything about our church - we just need to listen to/trust God.
Sorry this was a bit long/rambly. Just woke up and haven't had my coffee yet!
Hi Nichole and Angi
Thanks for taking the time to post responses on my blog. I read some of the other responses on the xanga site and was surprised to hear how harsh they were.
As I posted on the other site, none but you two have tried to interact with me personally, so thanks for that.
I found this through Andy's xanga. This is a truly interesting topic that I have been wrestling with over the past 8 or 9 months. I attend, serve in the youth ministry of, & am actually employed by a fairly large church that is preparing to start a building campaign.
I studied fairly extensively the emerging church movement last winter/spring & have found myself torn. I see in Psalms (or is it Proverbs?) many places where it says not to forsake ancient cornerstones. At the same time, though the relevancy of the Gospel of Jesus Christ never changes, we human beings have a tendency to change through the generations. With each major shift, there also begins a new shift in the way church is done. The seeker-sensitive church (such as the one I go to) is actually a relatively new invention.
I fully agree that there must be a shift, and soon in a fraction of churches if we are to reach my generation of 20-30somethings. There is a place for the church as it is now, but it is not the end all be all. I love that the current seeker-sensitive church has reached a certain generation...it's important for them. But it is equally important for another movement within the church to really begin. Not out of rebellion or even frustration, but out of hope.
It's funny. I am a person of balance. A peacemaker. But this topic gets me all fired up. I am actually losing my job at the church due to organizational restructure within the staffing that is happening in preparation of the growing project. This church has a huge heart, not for numbers, but for housing more people who need Jesus. I love that. Go for it!
But I need to do something else that will reach my friends. Friends who grew up in the church and then got disillusioned, stopped going, slowly started compromising, and now a few years after college are in really dark, desperate places. Those are the people that I am want to reach. And those are the people that aren't likely to set foot in a church anytime soon due to personal guilt, bitterness, conviction, etc.
Okay. Sorry. Guess I kind of exploded words there. I want to go to Europe and see how the relevant churches are doing church, because I know it is way different than here & the American church is on the same path as the European one. They have underground churches. Churches disguised as community centers. I like that idea. Afterall, if the church of Acts is our model for what Jesus meant as the Church, then that simply means meeting together, encouraging each other and doing a whole lot of hands-on ministry. They also ate alot together. Mmm...koininia.
Hi Joann,
You sure raise a whole bunch of issues that I think are great. I am thinking more and more these days that it is about learning to ask questions more so than coming up with "answers" necessarily.
I agree, that everybody is in a different place, that churches do meet the needs of some, and they have done OK in some contexts. There is no perfect church out there, but that wasn't what I was talking about.
Those friends of yours who have drifted away from the church--why? Could it be that the church in its present state isn't working? And further proof of that is the reality that they wouldn't/couldn't come back to it.
I have said in other articles that the Western church (both liberal and conservative) has so identified itself with modernism that it has become its very identity. When methodology becomes identity there is a deep-seated problem, mainly to do with unexamined presuppositions.
Why should the church change? Does it even need to change? What's the problem? Ask most people in established churches and they will give you a blank stare. Surely everything is fine... but we know it ain't.
Hi nichole, just to clarify what you said:
"I DON'T agree giving up on our concept of church is giving up on God but I agree that giving up on other believers is, well, not the advice given at the end of Romans."
To be clear, that is not what I say in the post. I said actually the opposite, that I have given up on the church but not given up on God (or other believers). Actually it's been quite freeing.
Hi Clint,
My name is Dan, and I am the guy who probably left the most harsh comment about your original article. And I apologize for that without reservation. Asking legitimate questions should not be met with hostility.
My wrong (arrogant?) assumption was that you weren't actually asking any questions--that you were in actuality advocating a position in the guise of asking questions. Many do this, and then duck behind their curiosity as a defense from actually discussing any valid counterpoints. But I can see from the rest of your blog that you aren't that way--and I apologize for my assumption and the tone of my letter.
In truth, I was reacting more to a broad mindset/movement than I was to you specifically--but that doesn't excuse my churlishness, and I reiterate my apology.
Moreover, I agree with you unreservedly that the Western church has too closely allied itself with philosophical modernism, as if you had to convert to it before you converted to Christianity; but I digress.
Regarding the content of my response, I stand by what I said. You asked, "Where is it written that the church is for in-house people only." It isn't. That's the short answer.
The long answer is that it is strongly implied from beginning to end. Everytime that the church met together in Acts, there is no mention of unbelievers present (please don't confuse "church" with the acts church's many evangelistic activities, the Lord had to "add to their numbers daily" somehow). Moreover--the epistles are always addressed "to the saints in ____" or "to the churches in _____," at best, it would be a very strained argument that the bible writers had on their minds unbelievers when they addressed "saints," especially when you consider that virtually every book has passages that deal with church discipline, or the priesthood of all believers, our position in Christ, the administration of the sacraments, or ecclesiology at large. I can't really imagine Paul saying, "Expel the immoral brother" but meaning--unless he's an unbeliever, then he can continue to come to church. Don't offer communion to sinners, unless they're unbelievers, then it's fine. Ditto Peter. And John probably didn't mean to say to unbelievers "let us not love in word or in tongue, but in action and in truth."
So I believe the implication is there throughout.
Church forms change. I have no issue with that. I'll admit to some bias, in that I a personally enjoy some aspects of a traditional service--but I'd like to think that I can somewhat live up to my ideals. In fact, I know I can, as I attend the contemporary service at our church because I so enjoy the community there as opposed to our traditional service.
My issue is with the idea that church should be targeted towards unbelievers.
Biblically I find this argument unconvincing (see above). Theologically, I find the argument unconvincing--there is simply no ecclesiology to support the idea that God wants churche services to be evangelistic outreaches. Linguistically, I find the argument unconvincing--"ekklesia" (the Greek word most often translated 'church') literally means "called out ones;" it's difficult to be called out if you aren't emphasizing your difference from the culture at large. Sociologically, I find the argument uncovincing--the alleged growth of seeker sensitive churches is by and large a poaching of those who already believe from other communities and results in the stultification of its members (and they admitted as much at the most recent Willow Creek Leadership Summit which had a satellite branch on the campus where I work).
Historically, I find the argument unconvincing--The pietists, reformers, great awakening, three waves of missions, methodism, and early evangelicalism all stared with emphases on personal and corporate holiness. The ecumenical movement and "progressive" evangelicalsim both focus on theological inclusivism, resulting in mealy-mouthed milquetoast churches which theologically affirm little, and wield no moral authority whatsoever.
And finally pragmatically, I find the argument unconvincing. Why are our children leaving the church? Why do we have the same divorce/crime/incarceration etc. rates as unbelievers from similar socioeconomic backgrounds? Assuming that the Spirit of God is not impotent, we are left with the proposition that the church is failing. On this point we agree. But we disagree as to how; my belief is that it is not holy enough--we don't exercise church discipline, and we aren't willing to tell a relativistic culture that they are absolutely sinning (sorry to go into modernism there); I would imagine your belief is that we aren't loving enough--we don't communicate the gospel of Christ in a holistic, consistent way.
We can probably agree that there are elements of truth in both our views (if I have accurately guessed your view). So the question becomes one of methodology. Which fault do we focus our efforts on correcting, and how?
Now that is a discussion worth having.
This is quite a long comment--so much for my "digression"--and thanks for the discussion.
Hoping that you find a good church,
--dan
Andy suggested this article. As I read, these thoughts kept running through my head.
Thought series 1: What about the model that God created during creation, work for 6 days rest on the 7th? It doesn't have to be Sunday, but it seems definite to me that it is every week. And then there is the commandment to keep the Sabbath holy, as well as, the reference in the New Testament to congregate with fellow believers. And please, don't overlook the concept of "fellowshipping" with other believers. Yes, I know, Christianese, but it was succinct and I couldn't come up with a better word or phrase. When we stop going to Church we run the risk of isolating ourselves and when we are isolated we are vulnerable to so many errant ideas and philosophies that cannot be checked by our fellow christians.
Thought series 2: I agree that "Church" does not have to mean what it means now, even though I love the song service and the messages that my Pastor shares. I would miss things from that if it changed but that doesn't mean it can't change. Honestly, I think that when churches get too big, people start to fall through the cracks. Our churches solution has been to have small groups but not everyone is involved in those. There are many different people in the world and many different types of "Church". Paul said to be all things to all people and maybe some people need the big and majestic to fully see God. Afterall, God's temple was made from precious metals, woods, jewels and had a hierarchy that didn't include all people. Jesus' model was to speak in the synagogues or to have assemblies in the open.
I think that we need to have an environment that is different than the norm. Something that makes people stop and say "Why do you spend so much of your free time going to church? What's so great about singing with a crowd?"
I also thing that we too often think of christians as perfect. We are still human, we are still fallible, we still have the ability to make mistakes... We live in an imperfect world with hurting people and it's our job to help them see God's work through our imperfect lives.
Hi Dan
Thanks for the long reply! I appreciate the willingness to dialogue as well.
What to say by way of response? Just to clarify, when I say I am giving up on the church, in the same breath I will defend the concept of "the church" as both biblical and necessary. I think I made that point in the article.
I am essentially giving up on the idea of church as we know it, knowing that is probably too broad of a statement to make, as must be churches out there that are doing a great job. But when I go to my church here in the UK and week in and week out I hear the same types of messages--like how I'm not reading my Bible enough, not praying enough, not doing enough witnessing (meaning, quoting Bible verses at people, being "bold for Jesus," etc.),--I have a hard time with that.
To me, it is not what I read in Ephesians 4, where church leadership is to equip the saints to do the works of ministry. As I understand it, this has to do with leaders helping people discover who they are, who God made them to be, and how to serve in that capacity. Somehow in this equation the church grows, both spiritually and numerically.
So basically for me, I think it comes down to a leadership problem in the church, not necessarily as you say about Christians not being loving enough--though I agree that is a problem. I trace it back to a lack of equipped leadership in churches, leaders who only maintain the status quo as they've been taught in Bible College and Seminaries.
What are your thoughts?
Hey Clint,
If it makes you feel any better, I think Dan is arrogant, and I would consider him one of my best friends :). He would also say it doesn’t count as arrogance if you are correct. So maybe you are on to something. Please look at the fact that we are responding to your blog is a compliment rather than an insult. I haven’t heard this much out of these guys in a while, you must have struck a cord some how. But now that we know that you are listening, we will try and be a little more thoughtful. But still, when you put out an article like you have, it is gunna get kicked around a bit to test its strength.
I’m going to point out some things more in depth, I think we need keep this conversation going…
You said…
“One cannot get away from the reality that God decided, for some reason, to create this thing called the church”
I’m going to assume that you know the reason God has made the church but you are using rhetoric to help the flow of thought. However, this could set it up for a reader to believe you don’t understand the reason for the Church and it would be hard to tolerate any further thoughts you have about the Church. So in your mind, what is the job of the Church? You do say, “I believe there is a need for churches.”
You also say, “…the way church is being done in the West, is not really working.”
I agree to an extent, but how is it not working in your mind? How much of that is the fault of the Church, and how much of that is the fault of a world that is growing colder to the word of God?
Again you said, “How do we relate to the world?”
Would it be wrong of me to say that relating to the world is what has us in the trouble we are in, in the first place?
You told us to, “Ask yourself honestly, if you have any nonbelieving friends: Would I—could I—invite my nonbeliever friend to my church without feeling embarrassed for him or her at some point during the service?”
I said that I could invite a person to my church. Why could I? I can because the Word of God is preached with the centrality of Christ being the focus. This focus is something I could never be ashamed of. If this focus is lacking in your church, it is your responsibility to encourage, pray, and preach the Word back into your church, not abandon it.
Which brings me to the next thing you said that I want to comment on, “But in giving up on the church, I have found a wonderful thing has happened. I no longer have to defend the church, which tends to be a large part of the conversation when talking with nonbelievers.”
This is where you started to really loose me. Not so much in that I did not understand, but in the fact that God needs no defense. If your church is truly preaching the word (and I’ll agree that is hard to find nowadays) then the word will defend itself. Do I feel the need to defend my church? No, I don’t. Is that because we have lots of great programs and a kicking music program? No, in fact, it kind of stinks. The reason I feel no need to defend my church is because we preach the word of God, and God needs no defense.
You have also said, “Though I have given up on the church, I have not given up on God.”
What I said before still stands. If you give up on God ordained institutions, you give up on God. Now if by “give up on church” you mean, traditions of meeting on Sundays or in an official church building, fine, ok, I’m alright with house churches. There does, as you have mentioned, need to be an assembling of believers. Sunday is the most convenient for me and all the people that come to my church won’t fit in my house. The point is, if it is on Sunday or Monday, house or hotel lobby, as long as the word of God is preached I’m satisfied to call it church.
This next comment is hard to take, “Funny thing though, that I have perhaps more in common with atheists these days than other believers.” More clarification is welcome on this comment, but I’m not so sure, when all things are considered, that you would say this again, especially if you are referring to true believers
“Why are we doing what we are doing, at any point in our church? And if you can’t come up with a compelling answer as to why, then seriously think about scrapping it.”
I will allow Dan’s answer to be sufficient.
Finally, God is not surprised at the lack of quality churches. He is not setting up in heaven wondering if He should cut His losses on the church. If His grace and power were dependant on the church, He would have had to close-up shop a long time ago. This “problem” with the church is nothing new and I quote my original statement, “The Church, no matter how bruised or battered, is still the body of Christ. The solution is the same as it has been from the beginning of time and will be to the end of the age, repent and turn to God through the work of Jesus.”
P.S. The conversation continues on my blog
Clint,
Good point about the equipping of the saints; it's always nice to see scripture enter these online discussions, as opposed to a litany of opinions. Myself included in that condemnation :)
And I hope I'm not as arrogant as when Kris new me in college. I'd like to think I've changed--I know he has. I guess I'm not the most qualified person to make that call though.
I'm reasonably confident that I've never been to your church (I've only been to the UK once--so unless you attend Westminster Abbey...), so I"m afraid I can't comment on the way it runs. In general, if a pastor is always preaching convicting sermons, there is a segment of the population that will praise him and call him "prophetic," but he is probably missing an element of grace or encouragement. Even the reluctant prophet, Jonah, and the ascetic John the Baptist had some hope mingled with their condemnation of sin.
I agree with you about the problem of the equipping of the saints--but I think the problem is deep and multi-faceted. The professionalization of ministry is a huge disservice to the body. Everyone likes to quote Paul talking about the oxen treading out the grain--no one likes to bring up when he says "if I am paid, I have received my reward in full." The converse problem exists in the laity. "I pay my tithe--doing ministry is your job." I call it the vicarious Christian life.
I would be remiss if I didn't point out that many of the activities your pastor preaches on (bible reading, prayer, etc.)
ARE methods of equipping of the saints--but as I said--I've never heard him speak and so can't comment on whether or not it's done and a productive or loving way.
My guess is that you think not. :)
I'm glad to see that you reiterated the need for the church. And that you obviously get the distinction between church universal and church local. Although there are numerous pragmatic reasons for it, I think the most simple justification for the church is that she is God's bride. Older styles of church may have her acting as a waspish, prudish old hag; and newer models may have her dressing like a tramp, but at the end of the day she is the bride of Christ, and if Jesus were standing next to me, I don't think I'd tell him that I want nothing to do with his wife and the she is beneath me.
That's directed at those who harshly and unfairly criticize the church--i.e. not you, so far as I can tell.
Well, I should do some work at work today, and so I bid you good day. Thanks for the discussion.
dan
Hi Dan
Just a question about the preaching thing, when you say that preaching is equipping the saints, what does that mean? For that matter, what does "equipping" mean?
I am thinking more and more lately that the typical structure is highly ironic. Think about it: A pastor sits in his or her office for hours--alone--preparing for a sermon on Sunday. No interaction with others except books.
Then on Sunday, the sermon is preached--downward and authoritative--and then it's over. The basic message? "You need to read your Bibles and pray more," which in reality hardly anybody ever does (at least consistently).
Where is the relational element? Where is the investment into people's lives on a consistent basis? Ahh--you see, most churches won't pay somebody to hang around with people and just invest into their lives. It's a question of priorities and maintaining the status quo.
So, again I ask: What is equipping? Is it done in the context of a sermon?
And how did we get from giving up on the church to this?
Also sinkingfoster,
Just to be clear, what I said about having more in common with atheists should be clear from the article. Just because I've given up on the concept of church--as it's currently being done by most traditional churches--does not in any way mean I've given up on God, which I say in the article.
So if giving up on God-ordained institutions means giving up on God, then I guess Luther was in serious trouble too.
Hello, I'm "woobit" Dan's mom. I read where you state that pastors sit in their study all alone with books and then they present the downward and authoritative sermon. You need to meet my husband who is all about interacting with people ALL the time. He is available to anyone 24/7 and is generally happy and willing to be called upon at any time. He still has time to give challenging sermons that encourage the church to come together as a body, and he is simultaneously studying for his Master of Divinity degree. He loves the Lord with all his heart and is a true servant of God.
Hi Woobit
Thanks for the comment. Of course there are exceptions to every statement. I am sure that your husband is a great guy, but I think you miss the point I'm trying to make, and that is this:
In terms of most churches, what are their priorities? In other words, do they pay their pastors to spend time with people, to study for sermons, do administrivia, etc? How much money and leadership time is spent on issues around the physical building itself?
How much leadership energy is spent on things other than on directly investing in people? You can discern a church's priorities by examining the way it spends its money, and what it requires its leaders to spend the bulk of their time doing.
When I was a pastor it was the same way, and I thought everything was just fine. I'm sure your husband is a great pastor, but I would ask: How much time and energy is he allowed to spend investing directly into people's lives?
It's a hard one, because "investing in people's lives" bears little tangible results. Besides, sitting at a Starbucks having coffee with people from the church doesn't seem like "work" does it? Yet some of the most meaningful ministry time takes place in those moments.
And one other question: You didn't answer the point... are his sermons downward and authoritative, or dialogical?
As far as my husband's sermons being "downward & authoritative".... I don't think downward applies in that my husband's philosophy of ministry is that ministry should trickle up from the congregation to the leadership (in many cases). Our congregation has just experienced the loss of their former pastor from cancer in 2006 (whose father founded the ministry), and his style was almost a dictatorship, as was his father's style. (please excuse my grammatical errors; I'm usually known for one liners on these sites and I'm only a high school graduate) At any rate, I don't believe my husband speaks "down" to the congragation. As for being authoritative; My husband's sermons always are formed from scripture, not from the news, or aimed particularly AT any problem or person in the church. So....authoritative? Yes, because God's Word is the final authority. So many times the sermons end up "hitting the nail on the head" for our church and I don't believe that's a coincidence. His sermons on Sunday morning don't allow for others to interrupt him and run their mouths. They are part of the whole worship experience. Actually, when I hear his sermons, I am inspired to read my Bible and learn even more in many cases. On Sunday nights, a large group of us go to a local diner and we discuss all kinds of things including the sermon, the music, the programs, and we also just enjoy each other's company and talk about how to make the church better and even just talk about "whatever". We do not use that time to gossip. I feel our time at the diner is extremely important to the health of our church. Anyone can come, and it's never exactly the same group week to week, although there is a core group who rarely miss our "Sunday night diner time". On Wednesday nights, we have a Bible study where people can dialog with the teacher (usually my husband) and sometimes we get such a conversation going that we have to save the original teaching material for the following week. I know I probably sound a bit defensive, but I feel like people stereotype pastors as unapproachable, holier than thou prudes who don't have a handle on "real" life. Like saying all football players are like OJ Simpson and all pro wrestlers take steriods and all pit bull terriers are bad. My dog is half pit bull and is definitly not vicious. My husband worked as a house painter and then worked for the department of motor vehicles (for almost a decade) before he became a pastor, so I believe he is in touch with the concerns of the public at large. Speaking of work, I gotta get going. Thanks for the interesting conversation(s)
Hi woobit
Thanks for the interesting dialogue too!
Also, I guess I should clarify by what I mean when I say "downward and authoritative" sermon models. The concept comes from Fred Craddock's excellent book "As One Without Authority." In there he describes two basic models:
1) Propositional, point-by-point, linear sermons, which tend to be downward and authoritative. He uses "authoritative" not in the sense of the authority of Scripture but the position of speaker --> audience. The audience is viewed as passive recipients of the message, and the authority of the speaker as an expert is reinforced. The aim is to drive listeners to the wall with irrefutable logic, and then they will comply (hopefully anyway).
2. Dialogic, inductive sermons. This model invites the listeners to be a part of the sermon by viewing them as active participants in the process. This can be dialogical during the sermon time itself or dialogical beforehand (or afterwards, maybe like your diner group).
But the essence of it is this: The speaker invites the audience along the journey, to experience the very inductive process of study that he/she used to study the text, rather than coming to the pulpit with a pre-determined "point" in mind that needs to be explained or defended.
Craddock says the first model is counter-intuitive because the process by which one studies for a sermon generally is inductive, but then the way it is presented to the audience is the exact opposite. So why not duplicate the process and help the audience to discover it for themselves?
That is what I am talking about when I say "downward and authoritative."
Also I understand your defensiveness. I was a pastor and an elder in the States and believe me, no one has my sympathy more so than pastors.
This is exactly why I am doing what I am doing now. My goal is to get into full-time teaching to equip men and women for ministry and in the process help them avoid some of the mistakes I made.
All the best to you...
Post a Comment