I was on my way back from getting some quick groceries tonight when I walked past a bus stop. There I saw about twenty kids and adults of mixed race waiting for their bus. As the cigarette smoke drifted up my nostrils, I was saddened suddenly by the thought that most of these people have no idea that there is far more to life than what they know.
This morning I opened the Baptist to find numerous articles and letters regarding an article published previously in the magazine called The Problem with Preaching, by David Allis (read it on Paul Windsor's blog). I dug the article out to see what the fuss was about. After a long read (many millions of words), I was struck by it, obviously as many others have been.
Allis effectively advocates that churches, or ministers, should stop preaching, as it is ineffective. He makes some very valid points, but also some uninformed assumptions.
I agree that preaching does not teach someone how to personally learn from the Bible (point 5). Preaching is not used to demonstrate how one should read the Bible and apply it to their own lives. This causes what Allis describes a dependency on being 'fed' each week. I believe this to be true, that most Christians come to church not to learn, but to feel as though they have reconnected with their spiritual side for at least another seven days. It's kind of like a validation process.
He goes onto explain how expensive preaching is. He calculates that preaching (at a total cost to the nation of about $1 million per week) is a waste of money. Allis wants to redirect that money to the poor of the world. While I feel that preaching may be less effective than most preachers or academics believe, it serves as 'training' for Christians who regularly have to refix their training wheels. I think Allis forgets that there are two goals of a church; one to empower, encourage and equip Christians to; two; go and make disciples. Without the first part, the second would be pretty thin. How can the church save the poor if we're all relying on our own interpretations and theology instead of that of the Bible?
Allis makes one huge assumption that has been proven to be incorrect. He assumes that Christians read their Bibles (regularly). They do not. Only 21% of Christians in New Zealand read the Bible everyday. Just because it is available doesn't mean people read it. He rightly says that study material is cheap and widely available, but wrongly assumes people actually use them.
Much of what he is writing about is evident in today's society because of the shift between modernism and post-modernism. Some of us are modern, some post-modern and some are in between. So, no one thing is going to please all.
However, having said all this (and this is hopefully the longest post I'll ever write!), I commend Mr. Allis for what he's done. He's stirred the pot, shaken the stick and opened the can. The worms that have popped out need to pop out. We can't bury our heads and do the same thing over and over because that's how it's always been done.
I am sad for those bus stoppers. They're not interested in preaching, or church, even if they became Christian. The church of today doesn't stand much of a chance with them. They need something totally different. Maybe some of them need something like Oxygen? Maybe others something else.
My final word is this; I think he wrote this article to get a reaction. He did it to provoke. He did it because change is happening and this is part of moving everyone along. Don't shoot the messenger.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hi
You might be interested in a followup repsonse I wrote, which was published in the NZ Baptist magazine. (My original article on "The Probelm with preaching was published, then the following month 3 Bible College lecturers wrote responses disagreeing with my article, then I wrote this response (limited by space)
David Allis, 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."
Post a Comment