As I have traveled these past few years, I’ve heard the repetitive refrain from despondent pastors: “I always thought that if I preached a good sermon the church would grow.” I heard it again last week so I thought I’d comment on it along with two other beliefs about preaching that get me disturbed. Here’s 3 dying myths (IMO) of Christendom about Preaching.
If You Preach A Good Sermon The Church Will Grow (in Numbers)
Many a despondent preacher has discovered that this notion is no longer true. It has become a dying myth in post Christendom. Nevertheless, this notion gets reinforced by mega churches who leverage (by video screens etc.) one (or two) charismatic gifted teacher to build crowds who come to consume a good sermon. This, I contend, is largely drawing on the leftovers of Christendom, people still looking for “good teaching” that is portable and user friendly to somehow improve their Christian lives. I take no offense in ministering to those of us who are leftovers from Christendom, we need to be fed and nurtured too! I just want all pastors who aim their ministries in this direction to realize the pie is getting smaller and the competition hotter. Anyone therefore still holding onto the premise – if I just preach a good sermon, they will come – and ministering in post Christendom- must either compete or be grossly disappointed with the continued dwindling of his/her congregation.
I fully grant that good teaching is necessary and it feeds the soul. (I regularly defend the 9 a.m. communal teaching hour at our church as essential) Certainly consistent doctrinal exposition of texts is important on an interpersonal dialogical level in a smaller class room type setting Unfortunately in larger arenas, the retention rate is next to nil from week to week. Good charismatic (entertaining?) preaching soothes the soul as opposed to feeds the soul. It can become a consumer item, even if it is expository preaching. Under these conditions, Christians, who are told to connect to the local church for the sake of their discipleship (as opposed to being part of a politic of mission in the world) – will naturally gravitate towards the most exciting preacher. They will leave the previous church because “I wasn’t getting fed.” For the small community churches of modernity therefore, whose members are graying, who are seeking new and younger members to replenish the dying saints, they must compete for the remainders of Christendom by presenting the Bible in as compelling and entertaining a way as they can muster. To those who can’t compete, they are in a quandary.
Having said all this, the “great halls” (stadiums) of preaching distribution” will not connect to the lost souls of post Christendom. Post Christian people are not attracted to “the sermon” as the first place to go out of their spiritual distress. We must help the leaders of the Mission in America therefore to understand, that if you spend 35-40 hours a week in your office preparing a good sermon on Sunday – making it not only theologically competent (which is worthy) but slick, you are ministering to the dying vestiges of Christendom. And don’t just expect that if you preach a good sermon on Sunday your church will grow.
Who You Preach To Is Who Will Be In Your Congregation
I have heard it said repeatedly “who you preach to is who will come.” This has worked within Christendom for centuries. Today, in post-Christendom, it has become another dying myth that IMO should be dispelled. It says that if you preach to unbelievers in your service your members will start inviting their unbelieving friends to “hear” what you’re saying. But if you don’t preach to unbelievers you’ll have a worship service full of believers. But here again, this feeds on the impulses of Christendom – that the way to bring non-believers into the Kingdom is through inviting them to hear a good sermon. Although, frankly, this still works with what I have been calling the “leftovers of Christendom,” this simply will not make any sense to those who can think of nothing more irrelevant and disenchanting than to go listen to someone “preach at me” (often their perception). Many within Christendom, are trained into the discipline of the sermon. Instinctively, this is the place where we can go and learn about God. I don’t want to disparage the work of ministering to the “leftovers of Christendom.” It is however a shrinking pie. And more people are competing for a piece of it. Therefore it is just not necessarily as true as it once was that “Who You Preach To Is Who Will Be In Your Congregation.”
The Goal of Preaching is to Make the Bible Relevant
We pastors, who are at the end of our wits in the fields of post-Christendom, will often -as a last ditch effort- try to make our preaching more relevant. Caught between the winds of the Neo-Reformed who argue “we just need to preach the truth and they will come,” and the mega church gurus who argue that we need to make the Bible relevant, we make a last ditch effort to do the latter (because we already tried the former). Sadly however, this is a Christendom attitude that attempts to pull in the Christendom leftovers with a more updated gospel ready made to fit their already Christianized lives. As more and more churches try to “out relevant” each other, and the leftovers of Christendom become anesthetized to relevancy, “making the Bible more relevant” is revealed as yet another dying myth in post Christendom.
The Kind of Preaching We Desperately Need in Post-Christendom
The task of preaching is to proclaim truth. It is the moment that brings the truth into the present. Much like anamnesis in the Lord’s Supper is much more than intellectual recall of the Lord’s death and resuurection, so preaching is more than recalling and teaching information from the past (in the Bible) about God. Preaching is a speech-act. It is the proclaiming of the truth out of Scripture over us so as to bring the truth into being – by the Spirit. Preaching is a truth making event – not in the sense that the truth is invented here – but that the Spirit – through the gifts – brings it into reality. (I’ll have to defend myself against the accusation that I’m a Bultmannian sometime). Much like Jesus said in Luke chapter 4:21 – “today this Scripture has been fulfilled in its hearing” – proclamation is a speaking forth of an interpretation (from Scripture) of our lives in terms of who God is, the gospel and what He is doing to bring it about in our lives and thru us into the world. If anything then, far from trying to make the Scriptures relevant – the goal of preaching is to make everything else irrelevant. It is the renarrating of our selves corporately into God.
The bottom line is, even if you only have ten people left, once we preach for formation, where God’s truth is birthed in and among us, we become shaped for His Mission in the world. We can see things we didn’t see before. We act out of assumptions we didn’t have before. We imagine what God is doing in ways not possible before. And the little congregation of “ten” becomes a powder-keg for Mission and the harvesting of fields ready for the gospel (the mission will grow!). Such preaching is essential to the missional community because it is the means by which the Spirit shapes a community into the reality of God, the Lordship of Christ and His Mission.
Bottom line is I think churches trying to enter post Christendom need to look at preaching totally differently. And I think Missional gatherings need to nurture this gift named proclamation. Comments?
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Three cheers (?), David. May these myths find the oblivion they so richly deserve. I wonder though if there is not a remnant of modernism/Christendom still clinging to the notion that “The task of preaching is to proclaim truth.” In my reflection on my practice of preaching, I have discovered that the task of preaching is telling, re-telling, telling again the Bible’s story as an invitation for listeners (Christian or not) to find their identity, take up their destiny, and find the equipping necessary for such a step of faith. Preaching the lectionary certainly inclines me in that direction as the first half of the church year retells the story of Christ as the climax and culmination of Israel’s story. “Truth” suggests something else and something less to me. Just a thought.
Peace,
Lee Wyatt
hey dave,
I would slightly demure regarding #2 (who you preach to is who will come) because it is not so much that we would want to become an attractional church to which one brings unbelieving friends. Rather it is building into the congregation the perspective of the unbeliever and an impulse of always receiving the gospel themselves. If you only preach sanctification type sermons for those already in the “know” it will never help the congregation understand how to communicate/live the gospel as their own continual conversion.
Of course we always want to be moving our churches from the milk to the meat of Scripture (which will mean treading in waters too deep for the unbeliever), but at the same time gospel should be a pool of refreshment even for the non-swimmer.
Amen…thank you.
Hi David,
A thought-provoking post.
Could you say a bit more about what you mean by “preaching for formation?” And could you maybe provide a brief example of this? Thanks.
Len,
I use Truth … and truth making … in ways I think you are already comfortable with given your comment. Thanks for the warning though.
geoff … it’s the Christendom “impulses” that this 2nd myth feeds into that worry me. Of course we always want to shape our preaching so that even the unbeliever (idiotes in 1 Cor 14:24-25) encounters God…
thomas … preaching for formation means we go beyond the distribution of information, three points and an application, something I can then go home and use as I see fit. Formation happens as we hear from God, submit to the Truth, and respond right then and there… in an act of obedience, affirmation of truth, submission, faith confession, trust and faith. It is the inter-dialogue vall and response that all relationships have that happens as we meet God and are then shaped by Him … From preaching as information .. to formation into Christ … and living n His KIngdom
great conversation … thanks
Maybe this is stating the obvious but it seems to me the contrast between the myths and the kind of preaching you advocate is found in the goal. In the myths, the goal is to attract and gather (even, subtly, in the neo-reformed camp). Therefore, the quality of one minister’s preaching is judged according to it’s ability to gather effectively – and for some the use of preaching itself is questioned based on it’s diminishing ability, post-Christendom, to attract and gather pagans. In the kind of preaching you advocate you identify “formation” as the goal. Therefore, how many we attract and gather is largely irrelevant. The question would be, “are we making disciples?”
Personally, I’m drawn to this distinction because it appeals to my re-constructionist nature, but I have to admit I’m disturbed by the fact that the preaching I see largely occurring in the NT is publicly evangelistic (true of both Jesus and Paul, I think). Given that perspective, the attractional church model seems to be more in spirit with the NT approach, with the one (debilitating) exception that they retreated from the public square into the closed walls of a church. The emerging model, on the other hand, seems to have either dressed-up this same practice, or abandoned it altogether in favor of discipleship-aimed “teaching” (which, admittedly, is what we do in my newly forming church) plant.
But what about the kind of “preaching” I mentioned above – the kind that occurs in public space? Is there still a place for that? It would seem the only folks who practice this are fundamentalists who rail against culture, apparently confusing themselves with OT prophets who are warning the people of God. Is there a culturally savvy model for reclaiming “preaching” in the public square as a herald to the pagans, or is this role too fraught with Christendom baggage?
Jason,
I’d say that the preaching I see most often in NT is to the people of Israel, proclaiming the coming of the Kingdom. Jesus preaching to the Jew first … Peter at pentecost preaching to the disaspora gathered in Jerusalem, Paul always went to the synagogues in the Gentile mission … to proclaim the coming of the Messiah, the Kingdom has begun. This is within the ecclesia, in that sense. In Acts 17 .. Mars Hill… this is hardly preaching right? Outside of the ecclesia context … it is not evangelistic preaching , but witness (martyrion) that takes place from the life of the church in NT.
I think preaching has this proclamatory task … this does not mean it cannot take place on the streetcorners of post Christendom … but it will need a context …Billy Graham’s crusades had a context .. largely addressed to people within Christendom who had that context … The possibility of this kind of preaching making sense today is getting more and more difficult …
That’s my quick take …
DF
Good stuff to chew on David, thanks. I agree…I think it’s the context that I wrestle with most, or perhaps identifying a meaningful intersection of post-Christendom culture and genuine public proclamation.
Dave,
I don’t mean to put Driscoll up on a pedestal (I’m not a “Driscollite”), but would his ministry context in Seattle represent what you consider “the leftovers of Christendom”? As far as I’m aware, Mars Hill’s growth, at least at certain phases, has been largely conversion growth (50% is the number I recall). Granted, you can’t attribute all of Mars Hill’s growth to Driscoll’s preaching, but I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that it has played a pretty big role. Driscoll is an obvious proponent of “preach to those you want there, not those you have there” (that’s basically a quote from an Acts 29 bootcamp I attended), and his experience seems to bear this out. Yet he’s obviously not preaching psychological or moralizing fluff. (You might take issue with his cultural arrogance, but that’s another issue.)
Sticking with Mars Hill as a case study, I would concede to your point about preaching, however “relevant,” being insufficient to draw a significant number of post-Christendom unbelievers. It takes a lot more than that. But I would suggest that it will not take less than that (assuming that we are not merely dispensing a commodity). Using the “on ramp” metaphor, I think the large gathering model is feasible in post-Christendom contexts if the on ramps are effective. and what people experience when they arrive is worthwhile (engaging, coherent, inspiring, authentic, quality, etc.).
Interestingly, in the numerous emerging church stories I’ve read (mostly from the Appendix of Gibbs & Bolger’s 2005 book), one prominent thread was “creating an experience where we can bring our friends.” Granted, this was the starting point, and these emerging leaders later developed more sophisticated ways of talking about their experience, but I think the “friend-friendly” component still stands, even if it has taken a back seat in the conversation.
Yeah Matt, I don’t think it’s evil to preach to draw crowds although th assumptions that undergird it need to be examined … for the ways it not only encourages Christendom thought but depends upon Christendom social conditions that are dwindling.
As for Mars Hill in Seattle and Redeemer in NY … I’ve pretty much said what I have learned about that at this post here – http://www.reclaimingthemission.com/church-planting-assumptions-of-the-neo-reformed-some-observations-for-testing/
and another one here
http://www.reclaimingthemission.com/the-gospel-coalition-and-post-christendom-will-it-be-a-coalition-or-expedition-some-reflections-and-concerns/
Some of it is fleshed out int he comments if you have time…
Thanks for the interaction!!
DF
Ahhh Dave, I feared that you would leave yourself open to comments like Matt’s
IMO, what you are saying about preaching needs to be couched in terms of faithful biblical practice, not what is most befitting Christendom vs. Post-Christendom – cause when it is, you’ll have people who want to then advocate for current practices because they “make sense” when they are practiced in a Christendom context.
If Christendom needs to be rejected out of hand as a cultural situation which distorts the nature and purpose of the Church, which I think it does, then it does us no good to talk about allowing for church practices which are contingent on it. Just because what you are warning against actually does “work” in certain times and places, doesn’t make it right or ok.
I’d think that what you’re really taking about isn’t “The Kind of Preaching We Desperately Need in Post-Christendom,” it’s simply, “The Kind of Preaching We Desperately Need.” The end. Yeah?
JR
I think I buy what you’re saying … and I don’t know if I see that much difference between “The Kind of Preaching We Desperately Need in Post-Christendom,” and “The Kind of Preaching We Desperately Need.” I do think churches are more desperate in postChristendom.
I think what I was aiming at here more is to expose how certain ideas about preaching have been sustained by Christendom. I don’t see Christendom as totally unredeemable. I’ve read enough of O’Donovan to be more careful than that. Yet it does have its drawbacks -big drawbacks! Nonethless, I am willing to concede there can be a faithfulness in Christendom.
I think there’s little debate that the role of preaching changed as the west advanced into the Enlightenment.. who could deny that? And the fact is, in Christendom, the RC shaped homily that fit within the Roman liturgy leading to the Table is quite different than teaching about that, explianing it in the pulpit, for an hour every Sunday. Yet both fulfil the “liturgy of the Word” … I think both were being faithful right? As we head into the enlightenemnt, language and its place and role changed (the Bible actually took print) and what it meant to preach and teach and the need quotient for each changed. We could say it worked? Yet I have no desire to dishonor the Reformation, even the Neo-Reformed and go back to RC liturgy. In the same way today, language, society, cultural assumptions which we can depend upon, have all changed … This means the way we comunicate-speak a language changes … we need to adjust which of the many functions of preaching must come to the fore. Yet I think you’re right .. and I shoud be more explicit (the post was already too long) on what makes this a faithful practice versus the next new thing (it has its roots in Scriptural/ Roman Catholic – as well as some more recent Continental hermeneutical insights)
So .. your question is a great one … and it provokes me to clarify here… that yeah some one could say this is another attempt to contextualize preaching … make it more relevant – not something I’d be excited about. But I see it as digging into the depths of the Tradition .. and emphasizing what is most in need in our times and contexts …
Peace …
Dave,
I remember the two posts you referenced, but need to review them when I get the time.
I think JR hit the nail on the head with the gist of his comment. Whether something works or not is irrelevant if the method is predicated on faulty values or principles.
I’m not quite as quick to dismiss long, expository messages (given the breadth of forms that someone the likes of Steve Mathewson, Libertyville E-Free, would encourage) as either relegated to Christendom or as unbiblical. Nor, of course, do I think weekly expository sermons are sufficient for Christian formation… not in the least. Yet I’m doubtful that they are dispensable, at least in the long run and for many people (not just “Christendom types”).
I know this is, in a sense, capitulating to our ill-bent society, but one problem I consistently encounter is the tyranny of an increasingly globalized society on personal time, and the obstacles this presents to the “educational” ministry of the church. People of school and working age don’t have time in their schedules for all of the things we idealistic pastors (myself certainly included!) are convinced they need in order to attain to the kind of maturity of which the apostle Paul speaks, including involvement in mission.
Witness can and should happen everywhere and always, but the parts of Christian maturity relative to the intellect (acquiring and processing knowledge of Scripture and other things important to a holistically Christian life) are simply not given enough attention. Sermons plus Sunday School (or small groups or life groups or whatever you choose to call them) are simply insufficient. But that goes to show all the more how indispensable they are. That is, if people are not cultivating the love of God and neighbor with their minds throughout the week (which it is safe to say they are not), then our weekly gatherings and educational meetings ought to focus on this as much as possible.
Perhaps you prefer to leave the didactic stuff in the “classroom” and do more exhortation/big picture stuff in the pulpit. But do you think this potentially facilitates an unhealthy separation of spirit, mind, and body (or however you want to parse the ontological metaphysics)? It seems to me that Scripture models a more integrated approach involving doctrine, exhortation, practical instruction, and edification (etc.).
All this is to say, I find the task of the teaching pastor to be fundamentally the integrated implementation of these tasks, and that requires a pretty hearty approach to preaching. Of course, “preaching,” like any communication style, has to be contextualized, but I do not think “public address” is going to fall out of fashion any time soon. It has existed for thousands of years, and it is a fundamentally human form of (certain types of) communication. Does it need to be supplemented with smaller, more interactive teaching and growth experiences? Definitely. But I’m still not sold on the idea that one out of every dozen believers is equipped to be a pastor/elder/overseer (which is an assumption of the organic/cell/house church movement).
Hey, just wrestling alongside of you guys. I’ve got a lot to learn, and have a huge heart for post-Christendom America. Just trying to be critical, in the good sense.
Thanks for keeping the kindling for the fire of thoughtful discussion coming, Dave.
Shalom.
P.S. Sorry for the long comment. I don’t have a lot of time to blog these days, so don’t worry about me making a habit of this.
Matt, thanks again for checkin in … I’m not sure if we disagree … but I’d like to clarify … When you say “perhaps you prefer to leave the didactic stuff in the “classroom”… well not entirely .. but there must be a regular practice of it … and when you say that I prefer “more exhortation/big picture stuff in the pulpit” – I think that I am pushing for something different … having to do with the nature of preaching as formation within the spiritual discipline of worship – what has been historically referred to as proclamation … the bringing into the present – into reality – like when in 1 Cor 11.26…whenever we enact the Table it says “you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes…” To me this proclamatory act of preaching becomes more important in a post Chrsitendom context because of way we need Truth to become materialized in our lives, given all the other narratives/cultural forces competing to shape other lives our lives (some of which are God ordered – others not). Given – we need all the teaching functions … and given we shouldn’t try to pragmatize a new kind of preaching for the current cultural context … yet (IMO) this all important function of preaching has become lost – even dormant in evangelicalism as modernity and Christendom weaned us away from it … I’m suggesting a return/ or a heightened awareness of this function around the Table … I’ve got to go because I’m at my in-laws in Connersville Indiana .. and we’re getting ready to go … so if this reply appears incoherent – rushed – forgive me
)
But thanks to both you and JR for engaging this impirtant issue !! thanks for your contributions ..
This discussion reminds me of a quote I read on another blog by a Catholic priest. It seems fitting to Dave’s last comment and the concerns I hear expressed in general in this thread on the limits of preaching:
“The strength of evangelicalism is also its weakness. Its driving force is preaching the gospel…this creates a culture where *communication* is the primary value – not *worship*. Even if worship is nearly all you see it is repackaged into something whose highest value is *acceptability*. This will ultimately cause the evangelical movement to compromise the gospel. In order to balance this, evangelical churches need to to recover a Eucharistic praxis. Reorienting the covenant meal as central in the worship service will help keep the movement theologically integrated and from selling out.”
- Fr. Matt
A friend of mine, having read this quote, took it a step further and commented:
“And this focus on communication weighs heavily on the *communicator*. The Lord’s Table, however, is the antidote for the cult of personality in evangelism. The Table is where the communicator and the communication (and the communicant) dwell.”
Matt – this is why i think Driscoll’s church is so “successful” – the man has definite charisma, personality, thinks quickly on his feet, is funny, courageous, etc. But he, like all of us evangelicals, are in danger of a “cult of personality”…Fr. Matt’s caution and one of the solutions is a reorientation in worship on the Lord’s Supper…
One thing I have learned in my preaching and teaching is that when it comes to proclamation of the word, what encourages, convicts, and challenges myself and other Christians to greater discipleship is being immersed in scripture. The means of communication may change over time but it will always involve a good theological exposition of scripture that brings our world and the world of scripture to an intersection. What I wonder is what this looks like (form?) in a missional community. We all know what this looks like in a christendom community but what about the missional community?
Rex!!!
)
Great stuff there … and that question – what does this look like in a missional community?” is what I am trying to answer (evidently failing miserably at this point
Thanks
and thanks Matt .. is Father Matt really you?
I would like to think that “Fr. Matt” is meant as Friar Matt rather than Father Matt. Don’t you think? :_)
Maybe my question would be a good D.Min disertation at some point down the road.
David,
Lot’s to chew on here. I agree with the idea of preaching being a speech act. I also believe preaching is meant to move us closer to the world of Scripture and form us more in the likeness of Christ, but I scratch my head about our expectation that this be achieved in the space we give for preaching during Sunday worship? Yes, there are theological reasons for the proclamation when the community gathers regularly, but there’s the limited attention span to consider, as well as the monotonous nature of expositing Scripture line by line, if that tack is taken. Also, I wonder if there is a deeper, theological problem with our expectations.
Do you see any conceptual difference between teaching scripture (let’s say for an hour long class) and proclaiming the gospel through the act of preaching? For many of us preaching means Sunday like Sunday means NFL. Perhaps part of our problem with how to understand preaching comes from it being attached at the hip to Sunday worship. If we were to uncouple the two, what would preaching mean then?
Funny to read this today because I woke up thinking that both worship and word as we traditionally saw it in our gatherings were co-opted by consumerism – only reinforced the Cartesian self as center. But one of the pieces that will have to be in place to move beyond this has not been mentioned above, and it is an expression of covenant. Whether this is by virtue of a missional order or some similar structure, without it we won’t escape this Cartesian reality we live in.
[...] usual, David Fitch offers some great wisdom on facing the dying myths of Christendom preaching in the Church. Well worth the [...]
[...] Fitch: IF I JUST PREACH A GOOD SERMON- THEY WILL COME: Three Dying Myths (of Christendom) About Preaching. Some of these just really need to die… something about an overused citation on the [...]
One way this kind of preach may happen in a missional community is by reversing the old adage of “practicing what we preach” and making it “preaching what we practice.” This was my D. Min. project a few years ago: engaging in a variety of missional practices, in a communally reflective way, then preaching on those practices with reference to what was actually happening in the community. The members of the congregation who were already engaged in the practices were then asked to reflect together on the scripture and sermon after the preaching event. Nothing earth-shattering, but a good wholesome experience of missional praxis that IMO strengthened us as a missional community.
I wonder how much of this hangs on our understanding of the “preaching and teaching” ministry as attested by Paul. While there’s undoubtedly some flexibility in the use of these two terms, the predominant impression Paul gives is that these two functions are performed in one act (a “speech act,” heheh), expressed by a hendiadys (cf. Acts 5:42; 1 Tim 5:17). I know some (esp. in the missional literature) have argued that preaching = proclamation in the public square, so to speak, but the evidence strongly suggests that kerusso and euangelizo(mai) refer to proclamation without regard to setting. E.g., in Luke 20:1, “preaching the gospel” is done in the midst of, or as a subset of, Jesus’ “teaching” in the temple. Ironically, 2 Tim 4:2-3 seem to portray teaching as a subset or function of preaching.
Again, I’m not sure the distinction between preaching and teaching is quite as neat as we sometimes conceive. While they definitely have distinct nuances, the New Testament seems to join them almost inseparably together (after all, a content-less gospel is no gospel, and gospel-less teaching is vain).
I like the term “proclaim” so much better than “preach,” though, because we associate certain verbal styles with “preaching” that are often unhelpful.
On a related note, I’ve been wrestling with what it would mean in 21st century America to “preach the gospel” in the public way that many missional thinkers recommend. Does that mean street preaching, cinema, music, and the like? It seems to me that if preaching is ever isolated from “teaching,” it is in the context of the “public square” rather than the local assembly of believers.
[...] Will Come: Three Dying Myths (of Christendom) about Preaching Author and blogger David Fitch has a great entry on preaching. Not only does he identify three myths about preaching, but gives some great thoughts on the kind [...]
[...] interesting post by David Fitch, “If I Just Preach a Good Sermon, They Will Come: Three Dying Myths (of Christendom) About [...]
Matt, isn’t that public proclamation actually intended to be an explanation for something surprising and visible? So, for example, someone is healed.. and we say “this is the presence of the kingdom” or someone gives generously to the poor and we say, “the kingdom of God is among you.” And so maybe the problem we too often run into is that there is no reason to offer an explanation.. no reason to proclaim unless something is first performed..
[...] Fitch most recent post has been a discussion on preaching in post-Christendom. Essentially David has made the point that [...]
Len,
your last comment nailed it … public proclamation (in post Christendom) requires something socially compelling out of which and for which it can make sense…
Testimonies to the inbreaking of the kingdom are way needed indeed. Praise God that He’s not just a God of the past!
Len and David, the requirement of “something socially compelling” is a central theme of Scot McKnight’s book “A Community Called Atonement” However, I’m not sure that our culture always has the eyes to see or ears to hear what is truly “surprising and visible”, therefore the task of preaching is to proclaim “Look, there! God is at work!” For example, a colleague of mine tried to get the Pittsburgh Post Gazette to cover his church’s mission trip to Honduras. The religion writer said it wasn’t really news because “these trips happen all the time. Now, if there happened to be a revolution or a war where you’re going, that would be news.” Then, while the group was in Honduras this summer, a military coup took place and they chose to continue with the mission. Upon his return he had voicemails, emails, and texts from the religion writer hoping to cover the story. But wasn’t there something “socially compelling” happening in that trip already? This begs the question, who are our listeners when we are interpreting the socially compelling events, and who gets to define what’s socially compelling?
Thank you for your post. I think biblical “preaching” can only happen when, as a community, we gather to reflect on what our common effort to be the salt and the light of the world have resulted in.
Biblical “preaching” is putting words on struggles, questions, events, actions, social dynamics that are there, right in front of our eyes; it is framing our actual experiences so we are brought back to the salvific work of Christ, through which we partake in the Kingdom.
The thing is, we are educated and we are reading a book that provides us with tons of things to reflect upon. So, very naturally, we ask the preacher to be our guide. We don’t want to get lost in the maze. But this exercice, too often, is disconnected to our life and our ministry as a community.
I live in Montreal and I am surronded by a culture that as a deep mistrust of any public discourse, specially one coming out of institutional christianity. Good preaching simply will not do. The work is cut out for us: we need to rebuild from the ground up Christianisty’s reputation by being communities that
1) very humbly go where it hurts so as to share the pain and encourage/help those who are crushed by life.
2) celebrate life and bring life in the larger community through all the means at our disposal: the arts, hospitality (featuring our own version of slow food),
promotion of public policies that foster a sense of community, etc.
3) learn the art of carefull listening and gentle proding, so as to invite people to pay attention to the wispers of God’s Spirit that is stirring their souls.
Hey David – It seems to me that there is a bit of an irony here – that the leaders are not ‘ministering to the dying vestiges of Christendom’ – in fact they are contributing to what is killing it – for at the end of the day “presenting the Bible in as compelling and entertaining a way as they can muster” risks fostering a narcissistic group of people, who are not all that attractive to anyone other than fellow narcissists! who are bereft of understanding that he who loses his life shall find it.
Not only ironic, but also, short-sighted. The culture of competitive, consumerist Xianity is kinda like Easau selling his birthright to fill an immediate need that he let dominate his vision for the future, while forgoing the rights and responsibilities that were his calling:
Esau said, “I’m starving! What good is a birthright if I’m dead?”
Jacob said, “First, swear to me.” And he did it. On oath Esau traded away his rights as the firstborn. Jacob gave him bread and the stew of lentils. He ate and drank, got up and left. That’s how Esau shrugged off his rights as the firstborn.
The Message, Gen. 25:32-34
Scary when you think about it.
[...] If I just Preach a good sermon – People will Come: Another post in my ongoing attempts to rethink preaching for communal formation into [...]
hey guys, i just came here after a good yahoo search. Fine site you have here! Keep it up!