Ok, so in my last post I talked about the problem with preaching being that it often elevates the gifts of one over the gifts of others and it’s important that we have everyone’s gifts for the Word to be more fully expressed. (If you’ve not read it already, you should read it first as the following comes from within it’s context.)
Another problem with the way churches typically go about preaching is that it often comes at the cost of the preacher’s other gifts.
For example, my head of staff J. is an incredibly gifted preacher. (I’m not just saying that, person after person, friend after friend, repeatedly tells me how much they connect with her preaching.) In addition to gifts in preaching, she is an incredibly gifted theologian, pastor, teacher, church visionary, mother, wife, writer, disciple-maker, and the list goes on…
Sermons take a huge amount of time to prepare and are best prodded by the Holy Spirit instead of a weekly rhythm (IMHO). When our expectation is that J. preaches every week, we must realize that that comes at the cost of her using and developing some of her other gifts.
The problem is that, generally, communities assume that someone must preach each week.
My point is that churches need to examine whether that is truly the best use of the preacher’s time. Are there other gifts we want them to explore themselves and impart to our community?
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
Though I agree with many things you are saying. When I read some of your comments I wonder to myself, ” What DO YOU find the organized church doing right”?
Though the organized church has many problems (it is made up of imperfect people) it has many great qualities about it. Sometimes I think they need people who are willing to help the church change rather than bad mouthing it or starting other churchs saying that “We are not like such and such, we do this and this”.
Just some thoughts.
I
I’m actually on staff with an institutional church where I help lead an emerging community called Holy Grounds. I also live in a New Monastic/intentional Christian community.
Many of my friends aren’t big fans of churches, but have a deep and abiding love for the Church. Few if any of my friends have abandoned the institutional church, many are currently or were formerly on church staffs and none that I know of have stopped being a part institutional churches. The reality, though, is that we have found that most of our growth as followers of Jesus has come out of strong relationships, scripture study, and prayer, rather than institutional church worship and programs and, more often than not, our work to bring transformation to institutional churches has been strongly rebuffed.
That said, we cannot put our hope in creating a better “church” (something that my friends and I fall into all too often), rather we must put our hope in God (manifest in the trinity).
I agree with the fact that most growth happens through relationship with Christ, Prayer, scripture study rather than the institutional church.
To many times people who have been hurt by the institutional church end up in places like holy ground because they find something there that they did not get in institutional churches (maybe a since of community, love, The Gospel lived out). But as church leaders is not our job to bash the institutional church to comfort those who have been hurt by it. And say that our way is the right way. It is to show and tell them that “yes the church does make mistakes like anything”, but it is our job to show and tell them about the Gospel.
Yes, the world longs to be in some sort of community, relationship where they are accepted and loved and cared for. Sad to say that mamy times the institutinal church has abandoned its call to LOVE GOD, and LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR.
Do you accept the possibility that a church might prayerfully consider the question, and decide: “Yes, the preaching is such powerful food for us that we’re willing to pay the price!?”
One person can’t be all things for all people. But if a pastor has a gift for preaching, I would not want to see that gift restricted because it happens to be old-fashioned. Not everyone is ready for the discussion format proposed by the younger generation.
I, myself, am ready for the discussion, but as an addition, not as a replacement. I’ve seen first-hand how much goes into preaching (my mother is a certified lay preacher), but I also have seen how the discipline of preparing and delivering sermons has caused her faith and understanding to grow exponentially and unlocked other gifts for her along the way.
But it almost sounds like people are just trying to find an excuse to abolish the sermon because it doesn’t suit their personal preferences. Maybe I’m reading ‘between the lines’ too much?
I don’t want to abolish the sermon–in fact I’m preaching at Holy Grounds in a few weeks and at Georgetown a couple of weeks after that.
What I’m calling for is exactly what you are saying… church communities need to prayerfully examine the (at least de facto) stance that preaching is the best/only/primary way to reveal the Word of God.
How can we help the church change if we are not able to talk about what needs to change in the first place? I am not necessarily in the same place as Matt but I appreciate his thoughts, as I do those in a more traditional place. We need to hear people’s concerns before we can make the change take place.