ideas from the edge –
Preaching Act 3
– by David Allis
Here is the 3rd ‘Act’ in the discussion (debate) about preaching which has been
appearing in the NZ Baptist magazine.
Act 1 was a shortened version of my article ‘The Problem With Preaching’ which
was published in the July magazine.
Act 2 was 3 responses from Baptist lecturers, plus a few critical letters in the
August magazine.
Act 3 is my response to their responses, published in the September magazine hot
off the press…. here is the full response – the last 2 paragraphs don’t appear
in the NZ Baptist version.
Blessings
David Allis
‘ideas from the edge’
is an email series of articles from a variety of authors, designed to stimulate
thought / reflection / change. For previous articles, see
www.edgenet.org.nz/articles.aspx
If you don't want to receive this email every week or so, just reply & put
‘ideas
from the edge – I love you but no more thanks' or something similar in the
subject line .
If you or anyone else want to get 'ideas from the edge' regularly, send their
email address to
info at edgenet.org.nz
I’m
impressed by the way NZ Baptists welcome healthy discussion and debate, in order
to become more effective in today’s world. My article ‘The Problem with
Preaching’ prompted strong response and much discussion. Raising challenging
questions about preaching is rather like waving a red rag to a sacred cow. The
responses in last month’s Baptist from Ian Kemp, David Richmond & Paul Windsor
were gracious and thoughtful, yet somewhat unconvincing.
In
response, I need to clarify some aspects of my original article. In critiquing
preaching, I focussed on the specific form of preaching commonly used in modern
western churches - monologue preaching to a church congregation. Some people
seem to raise this form of preaching onto a ‘pedestal’ above other forms of
communication, seeing it as Biblical, essential and prescriptive for us today
and presumably for all churches of all times. This perspective effectively
raises this form of preaching to a level near baptism and prayer. It is regarded
as a spiritual mystery beyond question.
This view
seems evident in last month’s responses through phrases like “the sermon … is
the voice of God to be obeyed”, “the high calling of the preacher”, “the divine
encounter in the preaching” and “preaching is a spiritual gift and a
God-given vocation”.
I find no
convincing evidence of this form of monologue preaching to a church congregation
visible in the NT – hence my statement that this form of preaching is
extra-biblical (I didn’t say or imply that it is un-biblical or necessarily
wrong). Even if examples of this form of preaching are perceived in the NT (eg 2
Tim 4), these examples don’t make preaching prescriptive or essential for all
churches at all times.
In my
original article, I attempted to differentiate the form of preaching we practice
in churches today from what is seen in the NT. The key point is that there is no
essential identifiable difference between the wide variety of communication
forms seen in the NT, including preaching and teaching. As Paul Windsor points
out with his reference to 34 different words and overlapping circles, the
concepts overlap.
Unfortunately many people see the ‘preach’ words, which appear about 140 times
in an English NT, and assume that this ‘preaching’ they read of is the same form
as the preaching they hear in church today, and hence that the form of preaching
that occurs in their church has a strong (essential) biblical basis and we have
to keep doing it. They see preaching as a specific God-given form of
communication, and its effectiveness shouldn’t be questioned.
As
Christians, including those exercising leadership, we need to communicate the
messages of Jesus and His kingdom to all people, including those outside or on
the edge of the kingdom, and those within. A wide variety of forms of
communication are available. Some of these forms are clearly visible in the NT,
others might be implied, and others are definitely not seen in the Bible (eg
emails, Denominational newspapers). These communication forms are not distinct,
but rather they overlap. They include teaching (to large groups, small groups
and individuals), dialogue, discussion, debate, evangelistic preaching,
preaching to church congregations, and questions and answers. None of
these forms is inherently on a pedestal above the others. None of these forms is
‘biblical & normative & inherently spiritual’ - ie ‘it is in the Bible and we
have to do it and it is a communication form that is inherently more spiritual
than other forms’. All of these communication forms can be either
effective or ineffective, depending partly on how they are implemented and
whether the form & content are relevant for the recipients. Sometimes these
forms of communication impart some sort of spiritual life, renewal, revelation,
insight, inspiration or encounter – but this is not automatically inherent in
any of the forms. This spiritual impartation is more likely to occur when other
factors are involved, including prayer, study, good presentation, accurate
Biblical interpretation, and people having expectations. On occasions, the form
chosen is inappropriate or the communication is poor, yet God chooses to ‘move’
anyway.
Communication is essential. I am not calling for preaching to be abandoned. Nor
am I saying that any other form of communication is always better than a sermon.
A monologue sermon to the congregation on Sundays is one form of communication.
It should be more accurately described as ‘teaching’, ‘inspiration’,
‘thought-for-the-day’, ‘reflection’, or ‘motivational talk’, depending on its
intention and characteristics. Monologue preaching might even be the best
communication form in a particular situation – preaching has historically been
very effective in many situations. However, we have a wide range of
equally valid forms of communication available. If we understand their
strengths and weaknesses, become proficient in their use, and evaluate their
effectiveness, we will become better communicators.
Throughout much of church history, monologue sermons have been a predominant
form of communication. There are many historical and sociological reasons for
this reliance on sermons. There are also many spiritual, pragmatic and
educational reasons for questioning the effectiveness of monologue preaching in
our society. These include that it is often ineffective, expensive, can limit
learning, discussion and debate, foster biblical illiteracy, and disempower
people. Monologues silence the voice of the people. Educational studies
repeatedly demonstrate that people learn more through interactive teaching and
self-learning. Rather than just trying to pass on information, we should be
creating life-long spiritual learners.
David
Richmond suggests that if people can’t feed themselves, we need to keep feeding
them. In contrast, I’m convinced that for normal healthy people, we should stop
spoon feeding them, let them get hungry and then they will become motivated to
learn to feed themselves. They might even learn to how to cook, plan their own
menu, and begin teaching others to feed themselves.
Its no surprise to hear ministers defending preaching. Professional ministers
usually love preaching and are paid to do it. Preaching is typically part of the
‘package’ of this form of church leadership. A minister questioning preaching
and other aspects of professional ministry is like the proverbial person who
saws off the branch they are sitting on. It is as rare as beef farmers promoting
vegetarianism.
I told my
children that I’ve invented a new school – it has only one class with hundreds
of students aged from 5 to 18. They meet for one half-hour class each week,
where a quality teacher gives an amazing non-interactive lecture to the class.
Students never graduate from the class. The 18 year-olds, who have been hearing
these lectures for 13 years, stay in this class with more new entrants for the
rest of their lives. The only way to graduate is to become the lecturer or die.
My children say this school is stupid and will never work. I agree … but it’s
what we do in churches … let’s look for good alternatives.