September 29, 2006
Old Men Will Dream Dreams (Revisited): Was it really the voice of God?
Last month we shared the disturbing late night experience of Pastor Nick Overduin. While sleeping in his study Overduin had a frightening encounter with "The Voice." His experience started a conversation about our openness and skepticism toward the supernatural. Nick Overduin is back to respond to many of your comments and concerns, and to keep the conversation going.
I appreciate the comments that were made in response to my Aug. 18, 2006 article "Old Men Will Dream Dreams." I have searched the links regarding "sleep paralysis," and definitely resonated with those descriptions. I think, physiologically, this was my experience. However, according to my understanding of God as the Creator, such a scientific diagnosis does not eliminate the possibility that God was saying something to me precisely at such a time.
I believe God reveals himself through the normal processes of the world he made. If God would speak to us at all, it would usually be through phenomena that already exist, and that could include psychiatrically-tinged events such as "sleep paralysis."
People mentioned numerous reservations and red flags. I too have many. If everyone would start reporting events like this, I would likely become very skeptical of the whole business. One writer said, "What if it was the devil, trying to keep people from praying?" Good question. But as another writer said, the issue is "How did the experience stack up against the word of God?" The verse about God being irritated by long hypocritical prayers was, for me, a confirmation of the Voice's authenticity. But I concede, of course, that I will never know.
One writer asked, "What did you DO about it?" I emphatically refrained from using the experience as a piece of ammunition. At the time it happened, I was in the middle of an intense denominational controversy that lasted about four years. I did not feel it would be fair to bully anybody with what I thought I heard. I kept totally quiet about this experience. Now that the battles have subsided, I feel more comfortable with sharing.
Did I have a vested interest in my experience, e.g. was it my own subconscious speaking to me? Was I elevating my internal conviction to the heights of Sinai? I do not think so. I had not had this thought on my own (namely, that the official "Prayer of Repentance" was too long). Also, please note that God does not actually commit himself to any viewpoints or particular sides in our church conflict during the experience that I had. He simply demonstrates (if this was God) a loathing of hypocrisy, which is consistent with the character of Himself that he reveals in Holy Scripture.
What did I do with this experience? Personally, I have allowed myself to be deeply affected by a God who can love us so very much that we are not consumed by his anger. Also, I felt more brave in the midst of the conflicts. My conviction was confirmed that God cared deeply about authenticity and compassion regardless of people's opinions on the issues at stake.
In conclusion, I like the line one writer gave, "We need a consummate, complete, grounded theology on the supernatural." That would be wonderful. It is absolutely amazing how many people, of many faiths, have bizarre experiences. I'd welcome a more systematic study of this. Every pastor knows parishioners who have gone through strange things. And Christians should be more encouraged to share how they've encountered God, and in such honest comments, we will find wisdom.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 29, 2006 | Comments (19) | TrackBack
September 28, 2006
Out of Context: Donald Miller
"The church has bought into this idea that if we make Jesus look cool, we win. But we're really trying to make ourselves look cool, not Jesus. We certainly need to repent of that."
-Donald Miller, author of Blue Like Jazz and speaker at the 2006 Catalyst Conference
Taken from "Not Here to Make Jesus Cool" in the Summer 2006 issue of Leadership Journal. To see the quote IN context, you'll need to see the print version of Leadership. To subscribe, click on the cover of Leadership on this page.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 28, 2006 | Comments (10) | TrackBack
September 25, 2006
Pop Justice: Is social action the latest church trend?
What do a pastor, a politician, and a pop star have in common? Until recently, not much. But Bono, lead singer of the band U2, has managed to unite these unlikely groups around the issue of social justice. As a self-appointed ambassador for the poor, Bono has helped the evangelical church in America become more sensitive to those in need around the world and awakened our marginalized, or in some places forgotten, call to seek justice. But, is the new focus on social justice just another pop-Christian trend? This week Dan Kimball, pastor of Vintage Faith Church in Santa Cruz, California, ponders that question.
I had a very, very haunting conversation with a good friend who is a pastor at a church in southern California. We hadn't seen each other for awhile and as we were catching up he was excited about a ministry he was starting with used clothing stores where all the profit goes to orphanages. My friend has had social justice and compassion ministries as major part of his church ethos since it began many years ago, definitely in the PB (pre-Bono) dispensation.
As he was showing me photos of his latest venture with the clothing stores he stopped and said, almost with embarrassment, "This sounds really trendy, doesn't it?" What was haunting to me and what I have thought about since the conversation I had with my friend, is what if it is true? What if social justice and compassion projects are simply the latest trend?
In recent years many churches have become involved in social justice issues, or at least talking about it. Saddleback and Willow Creek have both jumped onboard very strongly, including being a global voice for AIDS. I rarely ever go to a Christian concert, but during the last two I attended videos were shown of the band members in Africa talking about helping with Compassion International and the Invisible Children. And lately it seems at every leaders now bring attention to some international compassion or social justice project they are supporting. This is all so wonderful and must please Jesus so incredibly much.
Bono has certainly caused us all to really evaluate the "sleeping giant" (what he called the church several years ago) and how the church was ignoring the poverty, injustice, and AIDS crisis. He recently said the church has woken up and has now taken notice. But, will it last or will it fade like every other trend?
My friend's comment got me thinking because over the years I have seen the church get excited about "small groups", or about being "seeker sensitive," or "Vineyard worship music" and other various bandwagons the church jumps on for a season. And there have been many other trends that I wasn't a part of like cell churches, or using the baseball diamond for assimilation, or the breakouts of laughing in the Spirit by certain types of churches, or radio preaching, or whatever it may be. Whatever the trend the routine is the same. First there is excitement, then early innovators adopt them (maybe not the laughing in the Spirit), then in time most churches may do it. But eventually, it passes and we wait for the next "new" thing.
I keep wondering if all the attention the church at large is now rightfully and biblically giving to social justice could fade through time. Will we still see Christian bands showing videos of themselves in Africa five years from now? Will conferences spend time promoting compassion ministries and AIDS awareness five or ten years in the future? Will all the pastors and church leaders who today are such strong voices justice to the people in their churches still maintain that voice in the years ahead?
Of course, even if for some Christians and churches it is only a short-term trend even doing something short while still helps people and is greatly needed. So, I don't want to dismiss those who jump in while the conversation is prominent, as any help is very, very welcomed. But it seems horribly sad if this rising interest in justice is only-short term. I hope that is avoided, and the rising interest in compassion for the poor, AIDS, and caring for those with needs locally will not simply be a "trend." Hopefully it won't fade away, but instead we will come to see it as central to what it means to be a disciple of Jesus. I guess time will tell.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 25, 2006 | Comments (17) | TrackBack
September 21, 2006
Out of Context: Will Willimon
This month Out of Ur is starting a new feature called "Out of Context." Each week we will post a quote from an article in the current issue of Leadership Journal that may cause you to ruminate, cogitate, or possibly regurgitate. As always, your comments and responses are encouraged.
"I love the statement by G.K. Chesterton who said that we could have a really good argument over whether or not Jesus believed in fairies. But we cannot have any debate over whether or not Jesus believed rich people were in big trouble. There's just too much evidence that he did."
-Will Willimon, bishop of the North Alabama Conference of the United Methodist Church
Take from "Preaching Past TiVo" in the Summer 2006 issue of Leadership Journal. To see the quote IN context click on the cover of Leadership on this page.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 21, 2006 | Comments (12) | TrackBack
September 20, 2006
Eat, Drink, and Be Merry: Clergy holiness codes miss the point
Last week a study was released by economists called "No Booze? You May Lose." Researches found that people who drink alcohol make more money and may have an advantage in social settings. But does the same hold true for pastors? Author, professor, pastor, and regular contribut-Ur, David Fitch is back to discuss the popular restriction on clergy to abstain from alcohol and tobacco. Are such rules helpful, and could they possibly be making us fat?
On August 25th, Chicago Sun Times religion columnist Cathleen Falsani wrote a piece entitled "Weighty Matter: Is religion making us fat?" In the piece, she recited Adam Ant's lyrics in the 80's "Don't drink, don't smoke, what do ya do?" She raised the question whether those Christian denominations that prohibit drinking and smoking are abusing food as a substitute for these other prohibited pleasures. For support, Falsani quotes a Purdue University study that concluded (after accounting for several other factors) that some kinds of churches seem to encourage the problem of obesity. In fact, the study states that churches where drinking alcohol, smoking, and even dancing are prohibited, "overeating has become the accepted vice."
My denomination, along with others rooted in the old holiness movements, still hangs on to the holiness codes that prohibit alcohol and tobacco for its clergy. I consider this to be "an adventure in missing the point," to quote Brian McLaren, and I believe Falsani helps us see why. Let me explain.
If we prohibit certain behaviors for pastoral ministry, are we not really revealing the fear that we lack the mature character for ministry in the first place? If drunkenness and chemical addiction is what we fear, why not name drunkenness and addiction as the symptoms that require discernment? By totally prohibiting alcohol and tobacco we are not really dealing with the issue of whether our clergy has mature character. We are just providing conditions to displace the lack of character (if it exists) to some other object that is safer, i.e. from tobacco or alcohol to food.
I want to be careful here about painting a broad-brush stroke across all of us who have struggled with weight. That's not my point. I am someone who's had food and weight problems. And I've had my own recent crisis with diabetes as a result. Rather, what I am trying to show here is how the holiness codes of my denomination and others do not address the issue, they merely reveal the symptom of the "Real" underlying problem.
Slavoj Zizek, post postmodernist (if there is such a thing) cultural critic, is famous for helping us see the ways cultures can manifest symptoms of the "Real" in ways that surprise us. I might just suggest a Zizekian view of our denominational holiness codes - over eating is the symptom of the Real. The zeal of evangelicals to be different than culture by forbidding alcohol and tobacco, has in essence revealed that nothing is really different. Instead the "hard kernel of the Real" has erupted in the obesity epidemic in our holiness coded churches. As a result, the holiness codes reveal the Truth. In Zizek's words, "we overlook the way our act is already part of the state of things we are looking at, the way our error is part of the Truth itself.
In the end, character is about the ordering of one's appetites towards God's purposes in creation through a purified vision of Christ and His glory. If such desires are not ordered, if such desires are not integrated, holiness codes can only cover up the existing problem. The holiness codes then become a case of misrecognition. And as Zizek states, "the Truth arises from misrecognition." Thus we have obesity as an epidemic in our churches.
More and more, the new generations cannot stomach these holiness codes. I have regularly met with outstanding candidates for ministry who raise their eyebrow at my denomination's persistence on its holiness codes for clergy. This is because these codes are not holy. Instead, they trivialize holiness. The real question for us holiness denominations, if we are ever to be taken seriously by the postmodern generations (and our credibility slips everyday we hold onto to these "legalistic and unbiblical" codes of behavior - e.g. there is no Bible verse prohibiting drinking alcohol, quite the contrary), is whether we have the wherewithal to be sanctified in such a way as to be trusted with a drink or a stogie.
The real issue that our denominational leaders should focus on concerning the fitness of clergy is the commitment to a holy life and what that looks like in community. Obviously this refers to issues like drunkenness, addictions that reveal our lack of dependence upon God including tobacco, pornography, gambling, and yes, food! But this should also include how we handle money, how we engage the poor, how we speak to our neighbors, whether we engage in conflict in holy and Christ like ways. We should not resort to legalism! To the postmodern generations, "no alcohol, no tobacco" speaks only of rules, not holiness.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 20, 2006 | Comments (50) | TrackBack
September 18, 2006
Jesus Leaders Part 2: Pastors at their best
What makes a good pastor? In seminary I was told a good pastor knows Greek and Hebrew. Church elders told me a good pastor keeps the budget in the black and people in the pews. In part two of his post, Jim Martin, pastor of Crestview Church of Christ in Waco, Texas, continues his thoughts on good pastors (a.k.a. "Jesus Leaders").
We are at our best when we help move men and women toward the kingdom of heaven. Contrast this with Jesus' observation that some teachers of his day seemed to get in the way of people moving ahead toward kingdom living. In far too many churches there is a disconnect between the men and women in the pews and those who are leading the church. How tragic when the church appears to be ahead of the leaders. How tragic when those who lead no longer have a genuine pastoral heart for people. Not so with Jesus leaders. They shepherd people like Jesus.
We are at our best when men and women in the community can really be better off because of our ministry. How sad when human beings are worse off for having come in contact with a church leader. People get short changed and hurt when they are used and manipulated by ministers. Far too often, ministers' actions are fueled by personal insecurities instead of the Gospel. Meanwhile, Jesus leaders bring the security, joy, and peace of the Gospel.
We are at our best when the people in our church can trust our integrity. Jesus speaks of the importance of integrity in regard to what one says. Integrity means that we speak truth both publicly and privately. You can count on what we are saying. We quote people accurately. We do not present someone else's material as our own. We do not promise to repay a debt and then "forget" about it. Integrity is not about what we said in that last five-part series (complete with a nice PowerPoint presentation). Integrity is who we are when no one is looking.
We are at our best when we, as leaders, stay focused on what is most important. Jesus makes it clear that loving God and loving people are at the very heart of the law (Matt. 22:34-40). Yet, it is so easy to get focused on things that are relatively small in the grand scheme of things. Jesus leaders are focused on what is front and center. They will not be guilty of worrying about a gnat in the soup while they swallow something the size of a camel (Matt. 23:24). Do our ministries reflect that we are investing our time in what matters most to God?
We are at our best when through our ministry the hearts and lives of the people are changing. Unfortunately, too many of us are overly conscious of numbers. How many bodies were in the big room on Sunday? Meanwhile, Jesus spoke of his concern for the way things were inwardly. Are lives being changed? Are marriages and families being healed? We were never meant to be a people who merely looked the part while inwardly as corrupt as anyone else.
What kind of leadership ought to be present in a church? The answer is going to be found as we get serious about being Jesus leaders who both teach and do. That is when we are at our best.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 18, 2006 | Comments (6) | TrackBack
September 14, 2006
Purpose-Driven Conflict: churches split over the popular ministry model
The Wall Street Journal recently ran an article discussing conflicts caused by pastors seeking to implement the popular Purpose-Driven Church model in their congregations. Scot McKnight, professor of New Testament at North Park University in Chicago, and one of our favorite bloggers writes here about the WSJ article and asks some important questions about the Purpose-Driven philosophy of ministry.
The gist of the Wall Street Journal article is that some churches split or experience serious tension when pastors try to implement the Purpose-Driven Church model. The pastors who are trying to implement such changes seem to have good reasons: they want their churches to gain a clear mission and to grow, but it always comes at the cost of change for the parishioners.
The Purpose-Driven model focuses on these five elements: worship, fellowship, discipleship, ministry, and evangelism. It also seeks to move people from community, to crowds, to congregation, to committed, and then to the core. Thus, it leads from knowing Christ to growing in Christ to serving Christ to sharing Christ.
Here are the questions that come to mind for me from this article about churches struggling over adapting the model, and I'm keen on hearing what you have to say.
And this "keen" comes with the bonus requests to behave yourself and to avoid calling people names.
Does the five-fold scheme of the Purpose-Driven model adequately reflect the central concerns of the New Testament's understanding of what the Church is all about? What would you do differently in coming up with five central themes?
Does the use of surveys to discern need and audience and strategy trouble you?
Is there an inherent marketing strategy in all of this, and what is wrong with "marketing" the Church? If the essence of evangelism is declaring good news and "persuasion" of its truth - both in dependence on the Spirit and in the use of everything we can muster - and if marketing is about persuasion, and if there are commonalities between all acts of persuasion, what is the distinction between Church persuasion and marketing persuasion?
Do the criticisms of the changes being made in some of these comments in the newspaper article suggest to you that some of these folks just don't want to see their church change? How do we deal with the older folks who simply don't like it that the younger Christians want changes in the churches?
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 14, 2006 | Comments (20) | TrackBack
September 12, 2006
Jesus Leaders: What pastors were meant to be
Pastors have an image problem. Despite the growing number of celebrity pastors on television, radio, and bookstore shelves, the wider culture's respect for clergy has been declining for generations. Jim Martin, pastor of Crestview Church of Christ in Waco, Texas, reflects in this article about Jesus' words to religious leaders and how they can help us
The plane was about to take off from Dallas-Fort Worth Airport. I noticed the man in the seat across the aisle, one row up, as he began to read The Dallas Morning News. On the front page of the paper in bold letters was a jarring headline. A local pastor had been found guilty of sexually assaulting three women. I watched my fellow passenger as he began reading the story. I wondered what was going through his mind.
Many people are cynical about the church. That's not news. There are many reasons for this cynicism. Some are cynical because of a basic mistrust of the people leading these churches. Some feel burned after learning a leader was living an immoral lifestyle. Others have been burned by placing their confidence in some church leader only to be severely disappointed due to displays of anger, ego, manipulation, etc. In contrast to these experiences, many people today would find genuine Jesus leaders to be quite refreshing.
I honestly believe most preachers, pastors, ministers, and church leaders in general want to do what is right. We get bogged down in systems and models of ministry that are choking the life out of the body of Christ. It might be helpful if we think about preachers, pastors, ministers, and church leaders the way they were meant to be. I want to refer to all of these roles as "Jesus leaders." So, what were Jesus leaders meant to be?
(You may recognize these as Matthew 23 in reverse.)
We are at our best when we practice what we preach. Jesus once scolded the Pharisees and teachers of the law. Yet he told the people to obey them and do what they say to do. He then told his hearers not to follow their example. He bluntly said they did not practice what they preached. Imagine this conversation today: "You are going to visit XYZ Church? Oh, you will enjoy the sermons! One warning: Beware of the preacher's personal example; it's lousy!"
Jesus paints a stark picture of a people who tell others what to do while they sit by aloof and distant, watching the people struggle with their lives but offering no help. It is not enough to have a church full of talkers. Theology and practice are not two separate issues. They are one. Credibility for ministry is not found in talking alone but in doing the Gospel as well. Jesus leaders both talk and do the Gospel.
We are at our best when Jesus ? rather than our own ego ? is front and center. Jesus leaders model service instead of seeking ways for their egos to be massaged. The pastor I mentioned earlier was just sentenced to fifteen years in the penitentiary. State District Judge Scott Wisch said in the sentencing, "You manipulated ? (religion) for the worst possible purpose." He went on to say that this showed the danger of abandoning Christian self-sacrifice for self-gratification.
Far too many ministers allow ego to get in the way. While we may be critical of some who are much too focused on church size, others of us get just as focused on how many hits our blog might be getting compared with someone else's. Ego has a way of revealing its ugly head in a variety of forms.
In contrast, Jesus leaders are to model self-sacrifice, not self-gratification. They understand that the son of man did not come to be served but to serve. Jesus leaders do not see service as a path to greatness. Rather, the service itself is greatness.
Part 2 of Jim Martin's article will be posted soon. To read more of his reflections on the church and ministry visit his blog here.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 12, 2006 | Comments (11) | TrackBack
September 7, 2006
The Danger of Practical Preaching Part 2: Allowing scripture to civilize our thinking
Lee Eclov thinks people need more than helpful applications in a sermon. Rather than being told what to do in three easy step, Eclov argues that good preaching should teach people how to think differently. In the first part of his post he discussed the "bottom line fallacy." In part two Eclov uncovers the second danger - the practical fallacy.
I only vaguely recall the world of geometry - axioms, theorems, conclusions. I do remember the inevitable question: "Why do we need to know this stuff?" And I remember Mr. Cermak's answer: "Whether or not you use these formulae, geometry teaches you to think logically."
Some preachers are afraid of the question, "Why do we need to know this stuff?" so they try to make every sermon "practical," meaning it is about everyday issues like money or kids. Doctrinal preaching, or the week-by-week exposition of a biblical book appears not to scratch where people itch. People want sermons about things they can use on Monday. Like the sophomores in my geometry class.
But Paul tells us, "All Scripture...is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." All Scripture. All Scripture is practical. It is practical, not because it all addresses everyday concerns, but because it all "civilizes" our thinking.
As I preached my way through Colossians, for example, we gradually tromped out a wide path to the truth that simply trusting Christ equips us with greater wisdom and righteousness than any counterfeit wisdom can offer. Put that way, it seems like an esoteric, impractical truth, far removed from the water cooler and van pool. But it was Paul's purpose, and therefore mine, to show just how practical this is for the believer. How freeing, simple, and safe. When we eventually arrived at the "practical" passages later in the epistle - "clothe yourself with compassion," for example - we could see not only the command but we had come to better understand the spiritual thinking that makes Christian compassion possible.
The Bible spends much more time on shaping the spiritual mind than commanding particular behavior. We need far more training in the ways of grace, of spiritual perceptions, and of what God is really like, than we do in how to communicate with our spouse. Understanding the glory of Christ is far more practical than our listeners imagine. Properly preached, every sermon based on a passage of Scripture is fundamentally practical. Every author of Scripture wrote to effect change in God's people. It is our job as preachers to find the persuasive logic of that author and put that clearly and persuasively before our people through biblical exposition.
The Ready Mind
It may seem to us sometimes that the Christians to whom we preach are not interested in the truth trails of Scripture; or worse, that they won't get it. We hear so much about the postmodern mind that we assume our postmodern people will reject the absolute logic of the Bible. It is true that our listeners are susceptible to relativism. It is true that we must not only make clear what is true from the Word, but also demonstrate that other ideas they may hold are not true. But we may forget that converted people have transformed minds. Preaching biblical truth to unbelievers (in a seeker service, for instance) is an entirely different matter than preaching to believers. The truth isn't different. The capacity of the listener is.
God promised Jeremiah that in the New Covenant he would "put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts." New believers, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, almost immediately begin to understand spiritual realities that eluded them before. It is like a gifted child. Sometimes, even before a child starts school, we realize "that kid has a mind for numbers," or music, or science. We say that because when they are introduced to something new in that sphere they understand it much more quickly than other children. It is like they are already wired for that kind of information. Christians are, from the moment of their new birth, wired for spiritual, biblical information. We "have a mind for it."
Thus, when a preacher stands and opens before them the logic of the Scriptures - the contemplations of a psalmist or the doctrinal logic of an epistle - they understand it, like a gifted child. And the logic of that text gradually becomes the logic of their own minds.
Truth trail preaching, the careful and persuasive exposition of Scriptural thinking, shapes ready Christian minds for the everyday decisions unscripted in Scripture. When we face an ethical dilemma at work or a discipline problem at home, our minds walk the truth trails we have learned and we are able to reason our way, by the help of the Holy Spirit, to a biblical conclusion, even when no verse of Scripture directly addresses our situation.
When we preach only the principle, the bullet points, the bottom line, or when we try to make every sermon about an everyday problem, we may set truth in the minds of our hearers, but we do not set the logic and pulse of God into their minds and hearts. On the other hand, biblical exposition that lays out the Lord's own logic and heartbeat shapes "doers of the Word and not hearers only."
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 7, 2006 | Comments (14) | TrackBack
September 5, 2006
The Danger of Practical Preaching: Why people need more than the bottom line
Many of the largest and "most successful" churches have built their ministries on the value of practicality. As a result, Christians today have come to expect spiritual formation by numbers: 5 love languages, 7 steps to healing, 40 days of purpose. But has our demand for a practical faith paradoxically limited the Bible's effectiveness in our lives? Lee Eclov, pastor of Village Church of Lincolnshire in Illinois, shares the dangers he sees in practical preaching.
Rob, a stockbroker, thought sermons should be 20 minutes. No longer. To him, a good sermon was what others call the conclusion. "Cut to the bottom line," he said. "That's what I expect at work, and that's what I want at church."
Stan, a preacher, didn't see length as the issue, but he was determined every sermon be "practical." He preached on five principles of friendships, six secrets of managing money, and four ways to win over worry. He believed in sound doctrine, but he felt he had to give people something they could take to work on Monday morning.
These men illustrate two fallacies about biblical preaching: The Bottom Line Fallacy and the Practical Fallacy. Both reveal a misunderstanding, not merely of preaching, but of the workings of Scripture.
Rob, a stockbroker, thought sermons should be 20 minutes. No longer. To him, a good sermon was what others call the conclusion. "Cut to the bottom line," he said. "That's what I expect at work, and that's what I want at church."
Stan, a preacher, didn't see length as the issue, but he was determined every sermon be "practical." He preached on five principles of friendships, six secrets of managing money, and four ways to win over worry. He believed in sound doctrine, but he felt he had to give people something they could take to work on Monday morning.
These men illustrate two fallacies about biblical preaching: The Bottom Line Fallacy and the Practical Fallacy. Both reveal a misunderstanding, not merely of preaching, but of the workings of Scripture.
Picture a wilderness. A pioneer carves out a path, chopping away brush, felling trees, marking the way to a new outpost. As years pass, that path is traveled a thousand times till it becomes a wide, paved road. From it, other trails branch off, leading to other new outposts. Trails intersect, becoming crossroads. More outposts become towns. More trails become roads. More links are made till what was once wilderness is civilized.
Preaching is the work of spiritually civilizing the minds of Christian disciples. Preaching - especially expository preaching - cuts truth trails in the minds of our listeners. Our task is not only to display God's "point," but to instill God's logic? - how he gets to that point.
For example, we do not simply preach the conclusion of 1 Corinthians 13 - that "the greatest of these is love" - but we move people through the dimensions and definitions of love in that great chapter. We show that Paul intended such love be not only at weddings but also at church meetings as well. In other words, we not only establish the outpost - "the greatest of these is love" - but the truth trail as well. But here is where we confront the fallacies.
Bottom Line Fallacy
When our goal is to "bottom line" our preaching, we look in our text for the "so" and preach that conclusion. For example, our sermon drives home the truth that we need not be afraid. If we have been effective, our brothers and sisters go home with this outpost of truth established or enlarged in their thinking. But here's the rub. On Tuesday, when some frightening crisis looms in their lives, they may remember, "the Bible says we are not to be afraid," but they don't know how to be strong. They don't know the trail, the process the mind and heart follow to fearlessness. We exposed them to the conclusion without the thinking that makes that conclusion work.
Perhaps you have read an abstract of an article - a short summary of a longer work. After you read it, you know what the article is about. You know what the point is. But you haven't been exposed to the careful reasoning, to the illustrations, to the step-by-step logic and careful writing of the author. The abstract may interest you, but without the author's careful development, it is not likely to convince you. Nor is it likely to be important or memorable in your thinking. And you can be sure the author will not think you know what he wrote.
Sermons that are abstracts of Scripture may properly summarize a biblical truth, but they are unconvincing. They do not reorient our thinking. We may know the bottom line, but we don't know how to live what we know. Without a truth trail, people cannot find their own way to the outposts of truth in their own hearts. Sometimes laying down that truth trail, showing the step-by-step thinking of a text, simply cannot be done in 20 minutes.
In part 2, to be posted soon, Eclov discusses the "Practial Fallacy."
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 5, 2006 | Comments (22) | TrackBack
