Missional Order vs. Church Planting

In the introduction to this Allelon netcast, Pernell Goodyear says, "The way that we've done church planting for the past number of decades has been about moving rock stars into neighborhoods and marketing this big attractional thing that people come to, growing our division of the church as an organization."

David Fitch, pastor of Life on the Vine, talks about church planting in post-Christendom:

We are no longer living in a Christian society.

We used to plant churches as organizations. You pay somebody to go set up shop.

Now the issue is survival. I do not believe that you can plant a church in three years in post-Christendom.

We're going from extending an organization to survival.

A missional order says we will gather together people and we will commit to being a body and we will embed ourselves in this location. We will incarnate Christ in this location. We will build relationships with those—we will look for those who are hurting. We will look for the poor. We will look for the struggling. We will look for ways of connecting. And we can take forever, if we have to.

He has more to say. Check out the video.

Pastor Rod

"Helping You Become the Person God Created You to Be"

What the ________?

Many pastors have adopted the foolish practice of using fill-in-the-blank outlines when preaching.

This is a bad idea on so many levels and needs to be stopped immediately.

First, it assumes a misguided understanding of the purpose of a sermon. I've discussed this in some detail before. But the bottom line is that the bottom line of preaching is not to pass on information. It is to allow people to experience God and his grace. Tim Keller explains this well:

The "informational" view of preaching conceives of preaching as changing people's lives after the sermon. They listen to the sermon, take notes, and then apply the Biblical principles during the week. But this assumes that our main problem is a lack of compliance to Biblical principles, when (as we saw above) all our problems are actually due to a lack of joy and belief in the gospel. Our real problem is that Jesus' salvation is not as real to our hearts as the significance and security our idols promise us. If that's our real problem, then the purpose of preaching is to make Christ so real to the heart that in the sermon people have an experience of his grace, and the false saviors that drive us lose their power and grip on us on the spot.

The purpose of preaching is to make Christ real.

Second, these ________ outlines violate the principles of learning. Even if the purpose of the sermon were to convey information, this approach is terribly ineffective. When people are given fill-in-the-blank sheets, their focus is on the individuals words that belong in the _________. Not only does not help people process or remember the "point" the preacher was hoping to make, but it distracts the mind of the listener (or note taker) from the "point."

Let me give you an example. Have you ever followed a friend's car to get to an unfamiliar place? If you simply concentrate on staying with the car and turning whenever it turns, you will have no idea how you got to the final destination. You were so busy keeping your eye on the car, that you could not pay attention to the street names and surrounding landmarks.

Third, the activity of filling in the _________, causes the listener to "objectify" the sermon, to keep it at a distance. A good sermon is personal. Taking notes, especially this way, reduces the Gospel to "timeless principles" that can be manipulated according to the laws of logic and stored away along with the value of pi and the number of feet in a mile.

Fourth, this approach encourages the preacher to focus too much on the structure of the sermon. Structure is good—to a point. But how many times have you heard (or preached) a sermon where the preacher forced the "points" to rhyme, or all start with the same letter? Beginning painters learn to use the principles of composition when sketching out their canvases. But a master uses a composition as a starting point to emotionally connect with the viewers. Imagine going to an art museum to view a masterpiece and seeing that the artist has marked up his painting with a ballpoint pen to show the underlying structure.

Fifth, __________________ demand to be __________. People _______ cheated if they don't ________ the _______ that goes into every _________. When all the ___________ are ________ the listeners (cum stenographers) __________ that their job is done.

So what do you think? Do you think my view is too strong? Do you agree with Keller's view of the purpose of a sermon? Can you think of other reasons why this approach is bad?

Pastor Rod

"Helping You Become the Person God Created You to Be"

Web 2.0 & Wiki-Sermon

Great ideas are not as rare as you might think. Most people are filled with them.

But a great idea that is never implemented is worthless. And a great idea that is implemented weakly is of little value.

I had a reasonably good idea of harnessing the power of Web 2.0 to enhance the development of sermons based on the lectionary readings.

(There are several different ideas about what is at the heart of Web 2.0. I believe that the key component is that the users are also the developers. I think Wikipedia is an excellent example of the power of Web 2.0.)

But here's the problem. My implementation of this idea has been clunky, at best.

So let's use the Web 2.0 paradigm to refine (or completely redo) the way this concept is implemented. In other words, let's work together to decide how to make this work for all of us.

Let me explain some of my thinking behind Wiki-Sermon.

• I am not trying to replace exegetical commentaries. There are many resources already available to help in understanding the basic meaning of the text.
  
  
• I am not looking for a shortcut to getting at the "meaning" of a text. The Bible is not a mathematical formula to be computed so that we can arrive at the "correct answer." Much of the value of exegesis is in struggling with the text itself. It is no more possible to understand the meaning of a passage without some hard work than it is to learn a foreign language without focused concentration.
  
  
• I am looking for a way that each person's unique experience can contribute to the collective understanding of the text. The Bible speaks to us as people, not computers.
  
  
• I am not trying to trick people into doing my work for me. If this is a one-sided project (where the readers do all the work and I reap all the benefit), then it will never work. Everyone must benefit.
  
  
• I am looking for creative ways to connect the message of the text with the culture we live in. It is of little value to keep repeating the same tired clichés. Even profound truth can become boring through familiarity.
  
  
• I am looking for resources that can be used to "preach to the imagination:" stories, books, movies, songs, art, etc.
  
  
• I want this to enhance the preaching experience for listeners. My idea is that someone who participates in the development process will find listening to a message from the lectionary readings much more engaging. A good analogy is classic music. Those who appreciate the nuances of a Bach composition will find a concert more enjoyable. Those who understand what's going on in jazz have a much richer experience than casual listeners.
  
  
• I want to change the dynamic of preaching from conveying information to creating an opportunity for people to know God more intimately. Christians generally have plenty of information. They don't need to know more facts. They need to know God better.
  
  
• I want build in a "feedback loop" before the sermon is given. It is good to find out what people think and feel after hearing a sermon. (Communication is not a precise process.) But it is even better to get "feedback" in advance.
  
  
• I want to change the sermon from the product of an individual to a product of a community. The sermon is too important to leave its development to a single person.
  
  

So I need your help.

• Do you see value in this idea?
  
• Do you agree with my assumptions?
  
• Do you want to add a few of your own?
  
• Do you have some ideas how the process and result might be more useful for you?
  
• What suggestions do you have for how to implement the idea?
  

Thanks for taking the time to think about this.

Pastor Rod

"Helping you become the person God created you to be"

Wiki Comes to Church

I was reading Tom Peter's blog and ran across a link to Wikinomics. I asked myself, "How can this be applied to the church?" Then I thought about some of the things that David Fitch had said about interpretation being done in the context of a community.

Why not use a "wiki" approach to sermon development?

So I decided to do just that. I started a new blog Wiki-Sermon where I will post the upcoming lectionary readings. Readers can make observations and suggest possibilities for the shape of the sermon.

I am especially interested in any pop cultural connections to the themes of the Scriptures. If there is a link with a book or a movie, that would be especially helpful. Readers can add their own comments or respond to comments by someone else.

This is not just a research tool for me to use in preparing the sermon. I want to use this to shape the direction of the sermon.

My intention is that this will be specifically for use by the Wesleyan Community Church. But since we are using the standard lectionary readings (with a few adjustments here and there), the information can also be used by others following the lectionary.

The benefit of this depends completely upon the degree of participation. If this sounds interesting, why not join in and see how it develops?

I can't promise to use everything that is submitted. But I will use all the comments as background for the sermon I finally prepare.

Pastor Rod

"Helping You Become the Person God Created You to Be"

An Evening with Doug & David

Last night I visited the up/rooted north meeting at Life on the Vine in Long Grove to hear Doug Pagitt speak. I also got to meet David Fitch for the first time.

It was an interesting evening. It was good to be with people who have a passion for "missional" ministry. But I want to write about what Doug had to say.

He talked about "optimistic, hopeful Christianity." His point was that we tend to think that some places and some situations are "difficult." We have the idea that the gospel can't really flourish there (usually wherever we happen to be).

We say to ourselves, "If only I were in Seattle…" Or, "If only I were in Barrington…" Or, "If only I were in Grand Rapids…"

But the reality is that the gospel can thrive in any situation, in any place, at any time.

We can learn from others who are seeing God work among them. But we cannot recreate what they are doing. We need to pay attention to our own time, our own place and our own situation. We need to learn to recognize the hand of God at work there.

Familiarity tends to weaken faith. Jesus expressed this when he said, "Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor" (Mark 6:4).

But it is not only people who suffer from this prejudice.

We become so focused on the particular problems we face in our situation, our time and our place that we begin to think that God cannot work there. When the problem is that we just don't have the eyes to see that God is already working.

We tell ourselves that God could work here and now if only things were a little different.

In other words, we put limits on God.

And so we feel sorry for ourselves. We wish that our past was different. We wish that we had resources that we don't have. We wish that we cold replicate what God is doing somewhere else. We wish that we were more like ________ (insert the name of the current object of our jealousy). We wish that we were surrounded with people who think exactly like us.

Meanwhile, the people who are participating in God's kingdom all around us are praying to the Lord of the harvest for some workers, because the opportunity is so great.

Lord, give us the eyes to see what you are already doing. Give us the faith to trust in your power to build your kingdom right here and right now. Give us the courage to step out of our comfort zones to participate in that work.

Pastor Rod

"Helping you become the person God created you to be"

Don’t Try This at Home

I have been trying to develop a missional mindset and, more importantly, a missional lifestyle. I’m trying to lead my church into a missional approach to ministry.

As I mentioned previously, this is a huge gamble. And it should be.

I maintain that following Christ should feel like a gamble. If it doesn’t feel like a gamble then we’re probably not really following him. We are probably just trying to get him to bless us as we pursue our own way.

It is important, however, that people in a congregation know what they are getting themselves in for when they become “missional.”

David Fitch, author of The Great Giveaway, has compiled a list of warnings about the cost of doing missional ministry. I have included it here along with some of my comments (and a few minor edits):

Ten Things Anyone Who Joins In a Twenty First Century Missional Church Plant Should Not Expect

David participated in starting a missional congregation “from scratch.” These are his observances from what he experienced. I suspect, however, that any congregation that seeks to operate missionally will have similar experiences.

1.) Should not expect to regularly come to church for just one hour, get what you need for your own personal growth and development, and your kid’s needs, and then leave till next Sunday. Expect mission to change your life. Expect however a richer life than you could have ever imagined.

Missional life is demanding but also deeply fulfilling.

2.) Should not expect that Jesus will fit in with every consumerist capitalist assumption, lifestyle, schedule or accoutrement you may have adopted before coming here. Expect to be freed from a lot of crap you will find out you never needed.

Some times we will feel like the rich young ruler who was told to sell all his possessions.

3.) Should not expect to be anonymous, unknown or be able to disappear in this church Body. Expect to be known and loved, supported in a glorious journey.

4.) Should not expect production style excellence all the time on Sunday worship gatherings. Expect organic, simple and authentic beauty.

Some times the “commitment to excellence” gets in the way of true excellence.

5.) Should not expect a raucous “lights out” youth program that entertains the teenagers, puts on a show that gets the kids “pumped up,” all without parental involvement. Instead as the years go by, with our children as part of our life, worship and mission (and when the light shows dim and the cool youth pastor with the spiked hair burns out) expect our youth to have an authentic relationship with God thru Christ that carries them through a lifetime of journey with God.

This seems like a landmine to me. Parents really need to think this through.

6.) Should not expect to always “feel good,” or ecstatic on Sunday mornings. Expect that there will ALSO be times of confession, lament, self-examination and just plain silence.

7.) Should not expect a lot of sermons that promise you God will prosper you with “the life you’ve always wanted” if you’ll just believe Him and step out on faith and give some more money for a bigger sanctuary. Expect sustenance for the journey.

8.) Should not expect rapid growth whereby we grow this church from 10 to a thousand in three years. Expect slower organic inefficient growth that engages people’s lives where they are at and sees troubled people who would have nothing to do with the gospel marvelously saved.

9.) Should not expect all the meetings to happen in a church building. Expect a lot of the gatherings will be in homes, or sites of mission.

10.) Should not expect arguments over style of music, color of carpet, or even doctrinal outlier issues like dispensationalism. Expect mission to drive the conversation.

This doesn’t mean that there will be no arguments or disagreements.

O AND BY THE WAY Should not expect that community comes to you. I am sorry but true community in Christ will take some “effort” and a reshuffling of priorities for both you and your kids. Yes I know you want people to come to you and reach out to you and that you’re hurting and busy. But assuming you are a follower of Christ (this message is not for strangers to the gospel) you must learn that the answer to all those things is to enter into the practices of “being the Body” in Christ, including sitting, eating, sharing and praying together.

Jesus said that potential disciples should count the cost of following him. (Do most of us experience any “cost” of following Jesus?) Those who seek to live missionally need to take a similar inventory.

As for me, I’m all in.

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Preaching to the Imagination

I’ve discussed the problems with Expository Preaching pointed out by David Fitch in his book The Great Giveaway. I also suggested that one of the reasons that most people resist acknowledging these problems is that they have a hard time imagining an alternative to expository preaching that doesn’t have even more inherent problems.

I made a feeble attempt to sketch out some possible alternatives in this post. Fortunately, David Fitch has made an excellent post at his site that gives a much more complete answer.

I’ll give you a summary here along with a few of my comments. He makes four suggestions for finding an alternative to expository preaching.

1.) QUIT EXPLAINING AND START PROCLAIMING.

The primary task of the preacher is to proclaim the truth, not to explain it. It is interesting to know the details behind the making of a movie (as in a director’s commentary on a DVD), but we cannot enjoy a movie while someone is explaining how and why everything was done. The explanation gets in the way.

“Instead of dissecting the text making it portable so as to be distributed to isolated Cartesian selves for their own personal use, the preacher renarrates the world as it is under the Lordship of Christ and then invites people into it.”

2.) PLEASE, LET’S COME TO SCRIPTURE AS DRAMA NOT A TEXTBOOK

We tend to see the Bible “as a propositional textbook of religious facts.” Instead, we should see it as “living and active” (Hebrews 4:12). The Bible is properly seen as a great drama.

3.) FORGET THE APPLICATION POINTS! GO FOR THE LITURGICAL RESPONSE

Instead of giving individuals a list of steps, principles or lessons, we should be giving the assembled congregation an opportunity to respond liturgically to the Word. One of the best forms of response is the Eucharist (Communion).

“Each time I respond, each time I submit, each time I affirm the truth about the reality as it is under Christ, I am changed and I grow. Slowly I am formed over time through the faithful preaching of the Word and the ever hearing, responding, submitting, obeying, confessing, affirming and acting in faith.”

4.) THE ACT OF PREACHING CAN ONLY BE THE TIP OF A COMMUNAL ICEBERG

If preaching is disconnected from the community, it encourages each individual to handle the sermon as another commodity to be taken home in the form of notes or an audio recording. We take what we find helpful and set aside the rest.

“The violence comes when we put our own meanings or agenda onto Scripture. The violence comes when the preaching of the Word separates us as individuals over against one another armed with the interpretation we want because we do not come together in mutual submission to discern the Scripture’s meaning for our lives today. If preaching is to avoid this violence, it must foster communal practices among us that allow us to submit to one another in the work of the Spirit to interpret the Scriptures.”

I think David is on the right track. We read Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost and see it as a long explanation of why Jesus was the true Messiah. But Peter was, in fact, telling the story of God’s dealings with the descendants of Abraham. And he was proclaiming the truth that Jesus of Nazareth fit into that story in a surprising way. Stephen’s message to the Sanhedrin is even more obviously a retelling of the story of Israel.

Of course there are facts behind the story. And those facts are of ultimate importance. But we have been called to proclaim the story, not to give a commentary on the facts.

Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings works because it is a great story, a great story build upon the foundation of an abundance of facts. But those facts are not engaging; just ask anyone who ever tried to read the Silmarillion.

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Sacred Hamburger

In many churches Expository Preaching is a sacred cow. But David Fitch has reduced it to hamburger in his book The Great Giveaway.

I have made several posts in an attempt to explain his argument. (Here is the initial post.) But the discussion has taken several turns and had become somewhat confusing. So I thought that I would do a quick summary.

First, expository preaching assumes that the text has an obvious, objective meaning once the work of exegesis is done. Because of this assumption, those who take a different interpretation are considered ignorant or heretical. (If you need examples of this look here, here, here, here, and here.)

Second, expository preaching gives the false security of objective truth. There are several subjective elements that are hidden to the producers and the consumers of expository preaching. There is cultural bias read into the text. There are modernist assumptions built into the method. There are personal agendas that seem to be “right there in the text.”

Third, expository preaching treats the text as an object. The preacher operates on it through exegesis. The listeners consume it as a lecture or a motivational speech. This has the effect of robbing the Bible of its authority.

I also presented the case that the historical-grammatical method is not the “perfect method” for discerning biblical truth. It most certainly has its place. But the writers of the New Testament did not use this method when interpreting the Old Testament. And meaning cannot be calculated by plugging grammatical and etymological data into an equation.

I also argued that the meaning of the Bible must always be determined within the context of the Church. This is not to say that individuals should not be doing interpretation, but it is to say that they should not be doing it as “Lone Rangers” disconnected from participation in the Body of Christ.

All this is to describe the problem(s) with expository preaching. I haven’t yet begun to suggest a solution to the problem(s). One reaction might be, “But what other reliable method is there?” Another might be, “So anyone can make up any interpretation he wants without reference to the objective meaning of the text?”

I’ll do my best to answer these and other questions.

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Problem 3

To understand this aspect of the problem, you have to put on your post-modern glasses. (I’m not suggesting that you keep them on so long that you get a headache. But you need to see how the post-modern person is able to expose some serious flaws in the modernist view.)

First, let me make some “quick-and-dirty” definitions. By “modernism” I mean the philosophy that grew out of the Enlightenment. Most Christians are so deeply immersed in modernism that they cannot imagine any other way to view reality. They can’t imagine Christianity without a modernist foundation. (And some theologies are so entwined with modernism that it may not be possible to extract the modernist assumptions without “killing” the theology.)

And “post-modernism” is the reaction against the assumptions of modernism. The extreme expression of post-modernism proclaims that there is no objective truth (except, of course, this objective truth).

The modernist view is that a text is an object that can be examined objectively by a scholar and then explained to a listener or reader. The post-modern view takes the other extreme and says that a text has only subjective meanings that change with each new context: the culture, the examiner, the student, etc.

While the post-modern view is essentially self-refuting, it does help us to see that modernism has some glaring problems.

Here is Fitch’s analysis:

“The text becomes an object in the hands of the preacher as it is broken down into three points to be given out as something the listener can use. Once the sermon is given, the text becomes an object to be consumed by the parishioner, who in turn listens, analyzes, takes notes, and goes out to be a doer of the information just heard, which consequently distances the listener from the text” (p. 137).

As long as the text is an object, it has no authority and no power to transform lives.

Here is the great irony. While the preacher and the congregation are proclaiming the superiority of their high view of the Bible, they are shifting the control of the meaning of the Bible from the Bible itself to the autonomous (Cartesian) minds first of the preachers and then of the listeners.

The listeners are able to keep their egos firmly in place as they manage their consumption of God’s Word. They return home with what they think they heard or what they wanted to hear.

The method that was devised to give authority to the Bible has deftly robbed it of its authority and power.

So what do you think?

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Problem 2

The second problem with expository preaching grows out of the first one.

Because the expositor believes that he is proclaiming the “true meaning” of God’s Word, he does not realize that he is bringing to the text his own agenda. Because he sees exegesis as a straightforward, “scientific” process, he is not aware of the subjective element he adds to the “equation.”

Or even worse, he may believe that his personal agenda is God’s agenda.

I addressed one variation of this some time ago. Going sentence by sentence, or even paragraph by paragraph, is no guarantee that the preacher is presenting a faithful interpretation of the text. Rather, it can lead to false confidence and even laziness.

Again, the objection could be raised that this is just bad exegesis and bad preaching. And I agree. But the important point is that expository preaching gives preachers and congregations a false sense of security that faithful interpretation is being presented. It also does not facilitate a healthy resolution when there is a disagreement over the “true meaning” of God’s Word.

I really appreciate your interest in this issue and all the tough questions you’ve been asking. (Some of you lurkers may want to ask your questions.) I believe this is a very important issue. It would be good to struggle with it for a while.

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Problem 1

There was some surprise over my previous post about expository preaching. And I admit that not long ago I would have reacted the same way.

There are several issues addressed in this critique of expository preaching. I’ll deal with them one at a time to make this less confusing. It will also allow you to agree or disagree with each point of the argument.

The first point seems to me to be rather uncontroversial. One of the problems with expository preaching is that it assumes that the text has an objective meaning that is self-evident to every individual.

While this is sometimes true, there are many texts that intelligent, spirit-filled, skilled Christian expositors disagree about. They find different meanings in the same text.

Whether one takes a post-modern position and says that an objective meaning does not exist is irrelevant to this argument. (I personally do not accept the post-modern view. I believe that a particular text of the Bible has a single objective meaning, at least in most cases.)

The key word here is “self-evident.”

One person quotes a text as “proof positive” of his particular theological distinctive. Another person reads the text with an entirely different meaning. In some cases, a text may have four or five competing interpretations. In any case, there is (not always) an objective, self-evident meaning that is obvious to any serious student of the Word.

Expository preaching starts with this assumption, which I think we have seen is clearly false.

So why is this a problem?

The major problem here is that whenever there is disagreement over the meaning of a portion of Scripture, people assume that the “other side” is either ignorant or guilty of heresy. We’ve seen this play out again and again in the blogosphere. There are even self-appointed watchblogs who spend all their time and energy trying to stamp out “heresy” and “biblical ignorance” wherever they think they find it.

In a local church, serious disagreement about the meaning of the Bible usually leads to a church split.

With expository preaching, individuals sequester themselves in their studies and use “scientific tools” to determine the precise meaning of a text. Then they emerge with the interpretation etched in stone to proclaim to the church as “the true meaning” of God’s Word.

Consequently, there is little opportunity to develop humility about one’s interpretation. It is self-evident after all. A child of six could see it.

Now, if you’ve followed the argument this far, you might be inclined to say, “Good exegesis is not arrogant. Good expository preaching does not act this way.”

I would respond that good preachers do not act that way. But this arrogance is the inevitable result of the assumption that the text has an objective, self-evident meaning. Besides, there are other problems with expository preaching that I will address in further posts.

I welcome your comments.

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Dangerous Preaching

What is the greatest danger in preaching? Most Christians would answer that it is substituting anything for the Word of God. And of course, the best way to avoid this is through expository preaching. This idea is so widely accepted, that to question it causes heresy detectors to go off all over the blogosphere.

A group of theologians recently addressed this and other issues at a conference they called Together for the Gospel. They published a declaration of 18 articles. Here’s article 4:

We affirm the centrality of expository preaching in the church and the urgent need for a recovery of biblical exposition and the public reading of Scripture in worship.

We deny that God-honoring worship can marginalize or
neglect the ministry of the Word as manifested through exposition and public reading. We further deny that a church devoid of true biblical preaching can survive as a Gospel church.

On guy expressed the appeal expository preaching had for him this way, “What I like is that he sticks to the Bible verses, their meaning, and nothing else.” What could be better than that?

Albert Mohler says, “Expository preaching is authoritative because it stands upon the very authority of the Bible as the Word of God.”

Controversial material follows!

But could it be that “expository preaching” is the problem rather than the solution?

David Fitch in The Great Giveaway warns, “Many evangelicals take comfort in the fact that their church preaches the Word because they have expository preaching. Because their preaching follows the text sentence for sentence, this somehow ensures them of a more faithful interpretation of the text.... Verse for verse, sentence by sentence, preachers read their own agenda into the text unaware that they even have an agenda, or worse, believing their personal agenda is directly from God” (p. 139).

Expository preaching actually robs the Bible of its authority. It is dominated by the subjectivity of the preacher or by the subjectivity of the hearer, often by both. The preacher dissects the text according to his hidden or “God-given” agenda. The hearer analyses the message according to her theological and philosophical grid.

“Expository preaching relies on the assumption that meaning is self-evident to every individual. Many times in evangelical churches, therefore, disagreement over Scripture automatically signifies, to one side or the other, the other’s ignorance or even heresy” (p. 137).

The result is that there can be no discussion about the meaning of the text. It is self-evident after all. And humility becomes a scarce quality in most churches (and blogs).

“The text becomes an object in the hands of the preacher as it is broken down into three points to be given out as something the listener can use. Once the sermon is given, the text becomes an object to be consumed by the parishioner, who in turn listens, analyzes, takes notes, and goes out to be a doer of the information just heard, which consequently distances the listener from the text” (p. 137).

“Ironically, as expository preachers carefully follow the text in their preaching, the center of control for the meaning of Scripture has shifted from Scripture to the autonomous minds of the listening parishioners. The parishioners’ egos remain firmly intact, governing their consumption of the Word as they return home with what they think they heard or wanted to hear” (p. 133).

So is this just another one of those post-modern problems with no solution?

Hardly. The solution is that biblical interpretation must take place within the context of the Body of Christ. “It takes a community of Christ to faithfully interpret the Scriptures” (p. 138).

“Expository preaching therefore alters the hearing of the Word from being a gift we respond to and obey to being another lecture from which we seek some ‘take-home points’ or a motivational speech from which we seek some inspiration. It ‘gives away’ Scripture’s transforming power to be replaced as another form of self-help” (pp. 140-141).

Let him who has ears hear!

(I have added some bold text in the quotations to make them easier to process.)

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Church CEO

The world is obsessed with leadership. And so is the church.

Unfortunately, the church often adopts the values and methods of leadership from Donald Trump rather than from Jesus.

After James and John try to secure the most important positions for themselves, Jesus calls all the disciples together and tells them, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:42-45).

But how well are we implementing this command of Jesus? Do we really follow Jesus’ example? Or do we read into the narrative a modern view of leadership?

David Fitch in The Great Giveaway explains, “Christians have a different purpose for and a different understanding about the way the world works, which fundamentally alters our understanding of what it means to be a leader” (p. 79).

Not only does this cause unnecessary strife within the church, but it also sets up the pastor for moral failure. “Pastors fail because they have character molded for success more than character for following Christ in marriage, work, ministry, and every other calling in life. And because their character is trained toward effectiveness, effective pastor-leaders are prone to deep emotional lows and emotional egotistical ecstasies with each failure or success because their emotions are formed in relation to success not faithfulness” (p. 83).

But there is enormous pressure on pastors to produce. “We should seek to structure pastoral ministry so that it is not just one more entrepreneurial occupation” (p. 90).

The leader who truly follows the example of Jesus will not look like, Donald Trump, Ken Lay or J. P. Morgan. “This leader acts out of obedience to Christ not personal gain, in servanthood to his church not vocational success, and in submission to God’s sovereignty over his people, not personal goals and visions” (p. 94).

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Good Business

Charles E. Wilson has been quoted (incorrectly) as saying, “What is good for General Motors is good for America.” For the past few decades, many have assumed that “what is good for General Motors is good for the church.”

But the church is not a business.

Yes, there are some aspects of church life that resemble business. And we can learn principles from business that we might choose to apply in the church. But to run the church as if it were a business is somewhere between dangerous and blasphemous.

David Fitch in The Great Giveaway explains, “Effectiveness and efficiency draw their agendas from American cultural forces that define success in terms of numbers, size, and capital. This kind of effectiveness may be alien to Christ’s church” (p. 28).

Here is another powerful statement, “The church is much more than the machinery that produces decisions for Christ” (p. 39).

He suggests some ways to measure “faithfulness to God’s call to be the church.”

He suggests that we count baptisms rather than decisions, that we develop qualitative measures of community, and that we focus on planting new churches rather than on growing big churches.

I find his identification of the problem spot on. However, I find his answer sketchy at best.

This is an issue that has concerned me for some time. I admit that I have no easy answers. But I do know that much of the church is headed down the wrong road using the wrong roadmap and is keeping track of how many miles it has gone as a measure of success.

What do you think?

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”