TILL HE COMES Blog

One of the things I love most about being a pastor is preaching the Word. For years, I have thought that a church can get by without music, without a building, without programs, without youth groups and children’s programs, but a church is not a church if it doesn’t preach the Word.

But upon deeper reflection, I think this is partly due to the fact that preaching and teaching the Word is my gift. I am a teacher, and so naturally, believe that teaching is the most important part of church. And better yet, I even have a verse! 2 Timothy 4:2 says “Preach the Word.”

But recently, I have undertaken the practice of questioning absolutely everything the church does in light of Scripture and effectiveness. (By the way, I define “effectiveness” as “making disciples.” Something is “effective” if it is helping people become more like Christ.)

And the stats and studies are in. As much as it pains me to admit it, preaching is one of the most ineffective ways of making disciples. So along with me asking “Why?” about every other aspect of church, I have had to painfully face that tough questions about my own passion as well. Why do I preach, especially when it is so ineffective? Should we abandon the sermon altogether?

So I set out to figure out what Paul meant in 2 Tim 4:2, and if it was meant as a universal command for all who lead part of church. For various reasons, I do think it is a universal instruction for all pastors. All pastors are to preach the Word.

As I studied what Paul might have had in mind when he told Timothy to “Preach the Word” I learned that preaching in Paul’s day was not much like “preaching” in our day. There are few (if any) accounts of a monologue sermon where one person gets up, and teaches for 30 minutes or an hour, and then sits down. ”Preaching” in Paul’s day was closer to what we would think of as “Teaching.” There was frequent interaction between the main teacher and the students.

When you read the Gospels and Acts, you see hints that this is the way Jesus, the apostles, and Paul taught. When you read the sermon transcriptions of the early church fathers, especially those of St. John Chrysostom (aka “Golden Tongue”) when he taught through books of the Bible, it becomes clear that while the “Teacher” did most of the speaking, there was a lot of interaction with those who were there to hear him.

And guess what? Those same studies that have proven the ineffectiveness of preaching have also shows that interactive teaching is incredibly effective. Interactive teaching engages the mind, helping the learner not only learn the text, but also how to study it on their own, and then apply it to their lives.

This is not to say that there is never a place for one person standing up in front of a crowd and delivering a monologue. In fact, that may be the only way to teach in some large-group settings (though even then, wise teachers may include a Q&A time after the message). But for the most part, I am convinced that some sort of interaction should be a normal part of “preaching.”

Looking back to the times I have taught this way, I now realize that it is in these interactive studies that I have most often felt the electric presence of the Holy Spirit. Do I love “Upfront-on-the-stage-in-the-spotlight” preaching? Sure. Who wouldn’t like that? But I love being used by the Holy Spirit to make disciples more.

3 Comments »

One question I have been mulling over recently is “Who is the church service for - believers or unbelievers?” Those who answer “believers” will often have church services that cater to the needs and desires of Christians. There will be an emphasis on programs and teaching that meet the needs of Christians. The sermons will often center on teaching Christians what they need to know to be better Christians. The songs will often use terms and ideas that Christians are familiar with. The programming will center around issues that Christians are dealing with. In the churches I have pastored, this is the approach I used. But we always did a poor job of reaching unbelievers, as do most churches who follow this model.

Unbelievers who visit a church that is focused on “making disciples of Christians” will often be confused and weirded out by what goes on: “What’s with all the teaching from Romans? What does ‘justification’ mean? You say Jesus is coming back? That sounds a bit like the legends that say King Arthur is returning. Why do I want to learn ‘Christian business principles’? I don’t really want to be ‘washed in the blood of the lamb’ or be the ‘bride of Jesus.’ ”

Some churches have understood that much of what the church does and says is a little strange to unbelievers, so they try to look at things from the perspective of an unbeliever, and make the church more “seeker sensitive.” They gear the church service not toward the Christian, but toward the non-Christian who knows next to nothing about the Bible or church traditions. This tends to attract lots of crowds, and even generates lots of new believers, which is great, but ends up allowing most of these new believers to remain in relative immaturity. Bill Hybels and Willow Creek have recently announced this fact for their own church. The “seeker sensitive” model, while it attracts large crowds, does a poor job of bringing those crowds to spiritual maturity.

Is there a balance or middle ground between the two? I think there is, which we will begin looking at tomorrow. We will see that the solution to the problem begins by reassessing who the church service is for.

3 Comments »

One of the blogs I read daily is The Ongoing Adventures of the ASBO Jesus. The author is a pastor in the UK who writes a comic strip about Jesus, Christianity, and the church. Most often, I find his strips spot on.  The one below is true on multiple levels.

This is true first of all as he has shown it. The “church” has made so many additions to what the church is supposed to be and do, that we barely represent the church any more. We need to strip all this away, and get back to being and doing what Jesus intended.

But also, this strip could be true of the offer of eternal life, how to be a follower of Jesus, and just life in general. Simple is always best.

No Comments »

I sometimes hear pastors say that they don’t have systematic theology, they have pastoral theology. As a pastor myself, I used to nod my head in agreement. I too am concerned with the way some theologians seemed too caught up with dotting every theological “i” while neglecting the task of serving others. However, in recent years, I have come to develop some reservations about the pastoral theology concept.

With today’s postmodern mindset, a person who claims to have a pastoral theology is often just saying that his theology is not fixed, but adjusts it to the pastoral concern being faced. This approach often leads to contradictions in theology. Like the situation ethics of the 70s, many pastors have a different theology depending on the situation they find themselves in. It might be better to call it situational theology.

This was brought to my attention through a recent conversation I had with a regional leader of a particular denomination. He and I did not see eye to eye on certain issues of soteriology, and it was not long before I caught him in some serious logical contradictions. When I pointed these out to him, he said that he lived with these contradictions because he had pastoral theology, not systematic theology.

When pressed to explain the difference, he relayed the following story which he said actually happened to him:

I was in my office and a man came in who was a serial adulterer. He shared that although he is married, for the past seven years he slept with at least one different woman every month. I asked him if he thought he was a Christian, and the man said, “Yes, I accepted Christ as my personal Savior when I was in high school. They told me I was secure forever, and so I know that even though I’m sinning, I’m still going to heaven.”

I would have stopped and asked the man for further clarification on what he thought he had done in high school. Why did he say, “They told me I was secure forever”? Why didn’t the man point to Jesus’ promise? And what did he mean when he said, “I accepted Christ as my personal Savior”? Until these questions are answered, it is still uncertain whether or not he has believed in Jesus Christ alone for eternal life. But this leader thought that answer was fine, and so his story continued:

In such a case, my pastoral heart tells me to put the fear of hell into the man. I told the man that if he was ever saved, he certainly wasn’t saved now. Such adultery was a serious pattern of sin. Unless he repented of his sin, and returned to a monogamous lifestyle, he would not enter heaven.

This is classic Arminian loss-of-salvation theology. It was a little surprising for me to hear these words coming from this man who claimed to be a Calvinist. But he continued his story:

Later that day a different man came into my office. He too admitted to being an adulterer. He was married for seven years, and in that time frequently looked at pornography and had committed adultery twice. He sat in my office with tears streaming down his face, worried that he had lost his salvation and that God would never forgive him.

But I saw that this man had a repentant heart, and he knew that what he had done was sinful. He was a genuine Christian, not in need of chastisement and the fear of hell, but in need of love and forgiveness. I told him that God still loved him, and Christ died for all of his sins—past, present, and future—and that there was nothing which could separate him from God. He was secure in the hand of God. Of course, I warned him that he needed to turn from his sin, or else it may prove he was never saved in the first place.

So in one day, this man’s pastoral theology led him to espouse Arminian theology to one person and Calvinistic theology to another. The two systems are in blatant contradiction, but he didn’t care, for his theology was pastoral. He admitted the two views were contradictory, but only if viewed apart from the individual situations. He molded his theology to fit what he thought the person in front of him needed to hear. This was his pastoral theology.

Far from actually helping his congregation, such contradictions will only lead to confusion. Such pastoral theology does more damage than good, because it allows love for people to drown out the truth of God’s Word. And when truth gets neglected in the name of love, love dies too. It is not loving to tell a lie in a kind way, even if we think the lie is what a person needs. It is far better to “speak the truth in love” (Eph 4:15). It is also far better to be Biblical, rather than pastoral.

Consider the first man. Not only was he not given the clear saving message, but he was given a false message. If this man was indeed unregenerate, he went away with a message in his head that would make it harder for him to be born again. How practical, how pastoral, was that? Doesn’t God know best?

And what about the second man? He also was given a false message. He may have gone away feeling better, but if he wasn’t already born again, he left this encounter more confused than ever. So this situational approach to theology is neither loving, nor pastoral.

What is the loving thing to do? Give people what God said! For example, Jesus gives everlasting life to anyone who believes in Him, and a life of obedient discipleship is important for fellowship and rewards. That is an encouraging, loving, and pastoral message. Best of all, it’s true. 

-appeared in the Sept/Oct 2007 issue of Grace in Focus

2 Comments »

Imagine yourself in church, and as the service starts, a young couple sits down in front of you. You are a bit surprised to see them in church, because you know one of them from work. He is not the kind of guy you think would come to church. But here he is!

As the service starts, the worship leader invites everybody to stand and greet those around them. You do, and warmly greet the couple in front of you. The guy you know from work says they came because you are always talking about how great your church is. You are excited he came because of that, but are a little nervous because you know he isn’t the church type. The couple isn’t married, but is very sexually active, and don’t have any qualms about public displays of affection. You hope they don’t hold hands or kiss during the service.

But wouldn’t you know it…as the music starts, each puts one arm around the other and they hold each other close. Then, after a few minutes, they start holding hands. You look around nervously. Not even many married people hold hands when they are in your church, and you are afraid how this couple’s affection will be taken, especially since you know most people know that they are not married.

During the sermon, they sit close enough to each other that they are touching, but that’s about it.

After the service is over, they turn around to greet you again, and say, “You were right! We really liked attending here. I think we will come again next week.”

What would you say to them? Who would you introduce them to? Would you tell them to not hold hands next week? Would you tell them about a six-inch rule for unmarried couples? Would you tell them that sex before marriage was a sin and God did not approve of fornication?

Oh, and before you answer, I forgot to tell you…The couple is gay. It’s two guys.

Now, with that information, what would you say?

12 Comments »

I visited Willow Creek while I was living in Chicago in the late 90’s. And while it is always dangerous and unwise to criticize a ministry you have little firsthand knowledge about, I remember thinking, “This is fantastic for the unchurched…but what are they doing for the believers?” I heard they had Saturday and Wednesday night services for the maturing believers, but was not able to attend one of these. I heard they had small groups, and leadership training tracks. At the time, I felt this was satisfactory.

But guess what? Hybels now says that it isn’t working. Here is the link: Watch Bill Hybels.

Also, here is a blog link about it.

I have great respect for Hybels for admitting (thirty years into ministry!) that what he and Willow Creek have been doing is not working. I truly hope that they can make the necessary changes.

The lesson for the rest of us is to make sure we are learning from this. How are we doing in training our people to feed on the Word for themselves? How are we doing in helping people learn to follow Jesus? How many of the people in our church are trained well enough, that they themselves could train others also (2 Tim 2:2)?

If you have a website or a blog which shows how your church (or a church you know) is teaching and training believers to be fully devoted followers of Jesus Christ, please post these links in the comments section below.

4 Comments »