June 2, 2009

Preach Dirty to Me

For a couple of years now, long-time pastor and theologian John MacArthur has been critical of Mark Driscoll's use of crude language in the pulpit. In the end, MacArthur believes Driscoll has crossed a line, and it's time for him to step down from ministry. MacArthur's comments have ignited a heated debate in the blogosphere (as you might suspect).

At the 2009 Basics Conference last month, another long-time pastor and theologian, John Piper, fielded a question about this debate. Piper, who along with Driscoll, is a card carrying Calvinista, offered a measured and thoughtful response. While strongly disagreeing with Driscoll's language and dismissing the necessity of swearing to be relevant, he does not believe the Mars Hill pastor needs to resign. You can listen to Piper's response here.

In related news, Ed Young posted a video on his blog yesterday about pastors using profanity.

In the video Young says:

We must be very, very careful not to offend anyone with bad language. The Gospel is offensive enough without having to throw in the "hells," and the "damns," and the "sucks," and the "I'm screwed," and the "crap" every other breath.

What do you think? Is cussing in the pulpit ever justified?

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 2, 2009 | Comments (91) | TrackBack

April 13, 2009

Sermon Prep Survey

By Url

Our friends over at PreachingToday.com are doing a little research. They're eager to know how sermon preparation differs from one generation to the next--in particular, how do folks under 35 and over 35 approach their sermon prep?

So they've created a survey. It's straight--click some boxes and type in a few names. I just took it, and it only took me 3 or 4 minutes, tops. Plus at the end, there's a little something special for those of you who complete the survey.

Click here to take the survey.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at April 13, 2009 | Comments (1) | TrackBack

January 6, 2009

A Good Text is Hard to Find

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at January 6, 2009 | Comments (1) | TrackBack

May 27, 2008

Why We're Rethinking the Gospel

Our friends over at Preaching Today have launched a new series on preaching the gospel. They're asking, "Is our gospel too small, or is it too big?" and "What does it mean to preach the gospel in today's culture." They've begun with an interview with Leadership's own Skye Jethani. Below is an excerpt. You can read the entire interview here.

Preaching Today: A number of Christian authors, pastors, and theologians are raising critical questions about our understanding of the nature of the gospel. What do you think has stirred such passion?

Skye Jethani: A lot of passion has been fueled by the angst produced from conversations about how to reach younger, postmodern generations. Two schools of thought emerged from the beginning. One group opted for the conservative approach: we just need to be more relevant, repackaging the same gospel message in a manner or style that's going to be appealing to the next generation. Another group insisted the church needed to go deeper than repackaging the content. They felt we needed to rethink the content. A lot of today's conversations about the gospel were born out of the early tension between the two schools of thought.

Our gospel arsenal is a lot bigger than it used to be. We can choose to preach the Good News from a number of different angles, according to the audience we've been given.These two groups were not unlike the two groups that formed during the modernist/fundamentalist split that happened a hundred years ago. Think about the massive cultural changes that were going on: Darwinism, Marxism, textual criticism of the Bible, psychology. Many Christians looked at that tangled mess and concluded they needed to adjust the gospel. In doing so they ended up forming mainline, liberal theology. The fundamentalists among them said, "I don't care what's happening to the culture. The gospel's the gospel, and we're not changing it!"

It's quite similar today. One side prides themselves on not changing the gospel but only the style in which it is preached. In their eyes, anyone who adjusts their perspective on the gospel represents a new liberalism. The other side responds with a certain degree of disdain over what they feel is stodgy fundamentalism blind to its own modernist bias.

Another factor that explains why we're currently engaged in gospel-oriented conversations is the revival of interest in spiritual formation. Decades ago, Richard Foster and others at Renovaré were not asking, "How do we reach younger generations?" They were asking questions like: "Why aren't we seeing Christians living in Christ-like ways?" "Why is the church so culturally captivated?" "If we've been preaching the gospel all these years, why aren't we seeing much change in people?" Their conclusion was that we had been preaching a limited gospel—one that didn't bring about radical transformation. Foster and others were questioning whether or not we were preaching a gospel of transformation for the here and now and not just for life after death.

Read the full interview at PreachingToday.com.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 27, 2008 | Comments (18)

February 21, 2008

Canadian Sermon Types, eh?

And now for something completely different...

Neil Young, who pastors Erindale United Church in Mississauga, Ontario, sent us this inventory of sermon styles in the Great White North.

The Maple Syrup: Boils source material down to about 1/50th its starting volume.

The Mountie: When it's most dressed-up, it doesn't arrest anybody.

The Igloo: Goes 'round and 'round until a final capstone is dropped in.

The Curling: Kind of incomprehensible, but everybody seems to have a good time.

The Lacrosse: Fast, hard-hitting, and it's hard to see the points as they're made.

The Hockey Fight: Staggers unsteadily, swinging wildly, but lands a punch or two.

The Canadian: Overly apologetic.

The Snowmobile: Loud and a bit obnoxious, but takes you places you otherwise wouldn't go.

The Beaver: Dams everything in sight.

The Maple Leaf: Has 11 points; always ends up falling to the ground.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at February 21, 2008 | Comments (8)

November 15, 2007

Preaching to Express, not Impress

Fred Smith was featured in the very first issue of Leadership published in 1980. Since then the businessman, Bible teacher, and sage as written more than 37 articles, and his insights have guided thousands of pastors. Fred’s definition of leadership was succinct: “A leader is not a person who can do the work better than his followers; he is the person who can get this followers to do the work better than he can.” Fred Smith died in August, days before his 92nd birthday.

Fred’s wisdom has been compiled into a recently released book, Breakfast with Fred (Regal, 2007). The book also contains thoughts from many other Christian leaders impacted by Fred. Below is an excerpt.

Fred’s Observation
Good communication is more than presence, delivery or even content. A truly great communicator understands three important principles.

First, he or she understands that it is crucial to have the spirit of communication. The speaker should be motivated to express, not impress. My friend Dr. Jim Cain accepted an invitation to speak in front of 2,000 key executives about stress. He was preceded at the podium by a renowned cardiologist and a famous psychiatrist who got caught in the competition of impressing each other. When Dr. Cain spoke, he used a simple analogy to describe what the audience needed to know. This distinguished Mayo Clinic physician understood the spirit of communication. He expressed, not impressed.

Second, great communicators understand that they should avoid registering shock. When a person shows shock, it automatically says to the other individual that their value systems are obviously in conflict, and unpolluted communication immediately becomes impossible. Clearly, teenagers use the shock factor as a way to avoid communication entirely. Wise parents listen while keeping physical and mental control—”never let them see you sweat.”

Third, good communicators display interest, not curiosity. Interest through listening and skillful questioning opens understanding. Each of us wants to feel that another is sincerely interested, but none of us wants to be the target of curiosity. I see the difference this way: Interest gives you information for the other person’s benefit; curiosity is helpful simply for you. Let me give you an example. I was on the phone with a young woman who was obviously crying. A curious question would have been, “Why are you crying?” An interested question begins with asking permission, “Do you want to tell me why you are crying?” Interest, not curiosity, opens a door.

A true communicator has a message and a mandate. An adept communicator knows that energy, passion, skillfulness and experience follow the gift that is used wisely and well.

Reflection: Mac Brunson
Senior Pastor, First Baptist Church, Jacksonville, Florida

Without sounding gratuitous, this is the genius of Fred Smith. There are three principles here that are critical to every good communicator, but only one of those deals with speaking. The other two principles deal with our listening and how we listen. Effective communication is only one- third what we say and two-thirds how we have connected with those to whom we are speaking. How many times can you remember your mother saying, “Listen twice as much as you speak”?

When you listen, you make a connection. How you listen, as Fred has suggested, impacts your communication. It is critical to listen to those to whom you are going to communicate. How you listen to them either builds a bridge or erects a wall.

As a pastor, whenever I preach, I know that my listeners are people who are one decision away from moral, financial, marital or personal ruin. The others are considering options that will follow them the rest of their lives. The question is not Are they listening? but Have learned the right to be heard in order to effectively communicate God’s Word? Only then has communication taken place.

Fred also speaks of the spirit of communication. My wife always tells me, “Speak to the heart and not the head.” What she is saying is what Fred has stated—don’t try to impress others, but speak to their needs. Someone once said, “It is impossible to impress them with Jesus and yourself at the same time.”

Three Questions to Think About
1. When am I guilty of impressing, not expressing?
2. What steps can I take to develop my message and mandate?
3. How do I move toward interest and away from curiosity?

Breakfast with Fred by Fred Smith, Sr. pp. 160-62.
© Fred Smith, Sr. Published by Regal Books, Ventura CA, 93003.
Used by permission.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at November 15, 2007 | Comments (7)

October 15, 2007

Glimpses of Glory

We live in a dark world. Our hearts long for goodness, beauty, justice, and peace, but they are often hidden behind the shadow cast by evil and sin. This is why preaching is so necessary. Whenever the kingdom of God is proclaimed, it is like a bright burst of light. In those brief moments, the shadows recede and we are given a glimpse of a world behind the darkness. It is a sublime vision that reorders our perception of reality and leaves us hungry for more.

This understanding of preaching, the unveiling of an inspiring vision of God's kingdom, is not the one I've always held. I was formed to think that the primary purpose of preaching was instruction. This view of preaching expects the informed, articulate person behind the pulpit to teach the congregation divine truths and skills. The pupils are then expected to bury these seeds of biblical knowledge away in their brains where in time they germinate into godly values and behaviors, although few people seem surprised when they don't.

In Dallas Willard's V.I.M. model of spiritual formation, he differentiates three parts: vision, intention, and means. Instructional preaching falls under the third component—means. It teaches people the methods through which they can obey Christ. These "how to" sermons usually have clearly articulated, often alliterated, application points relevant to one's life.
I never questioned this "preaching as instruction" view until I stepped behind the pulpit myself. What I discovered disturbed me.

Despite my hours of preparation, thoughtful use of visuals, and tangible takeaways, most people retained very little of the nutritious content offered to them. Like my lactose-intolerant son who spat up every ounce of milk we gave him, how would people thrive if they couldn't retain biblical knowledge? How would they live differently?

What I have since discovered is that lecturing a passive audience for 20 to 40 minutes, what Doug Pagitt calls "speeching," has been repeatedly proven to result in a very low retention of content. Likewise, adult education experts testify, along with a multitude of unregenerate pew sitters, that passive learning rarely transforms values. Does this mean we should abandon instruction in the church? Of course not. After all, we are commissioned to teach people to obey everything Christ commanded. It simply means traditional preaching is not the best medium for skill training and instruction.

But preaching is wonderfully designed for the prerequisite component of Willard's spiritual formation model—vision. Preaching this way will not always have the end goal of application, but rather inspiration. As Willard says, "It's the beauty of the kingdom that Jesus said was causing people to climb over each other just to get in." Only after people have a vision of God (the love, beauty, justice, and power of his kingdom) will they be ready to intentionally seek and employ the means to experience him through obedience—an aspect of spiritual formation that occurs most effectively in smaller settings through the medium of relationship.

Preaching to inspire rather than instruct is a differentiation we see in Jesus' own ministry. The Greek word for "preach" (kerusso) means to announce. This is not the same as the word for "teach" (didasko), meaning to instruct. In Mark's Gospel we learn that Jesus came "preaching the gospel of God" and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand." Jesus' preaching was a revelatory act. He announced the kingdom. He turned the lights on so people could see the kingdom that lay "at hand" just behind their present darkness.

Even Jesus' most celebrated and lengthy sermon was intended more to inspire than to instruct. The Sermon on the Mount paints a vivid image of a life lived within God's kingdom—a life that does not lust, lie, or manipulate; a life full of love, charity, and prayer. But the sermon includes very little "how to." Jesus' purpose is to reveal the kingdom; to illumine a sublime vision of a life in intimate communion with the Father.

Early in the gospel narratives, Jesus sends his new apostles out to proclaim the kingdom. Have you ever found that odd? These fishermen and tax collectors understood so little, and later chapters show the magnitude of their ignorance. Would you have put one of these guys in the pulpit?

But Jesus does not send them to "teach" (that command comes after his resurrection). Rather, he sends them to "preach." Teaching requires proficiency with a set of knowledge—knowledge these men did not yet possess. But preaching is different. Announcing the kingdom only requires one to have seen and experienced it. It's the difference between announcing that Flight 544 from Cleveland has arrived (kerusso), and teaching people the aerodynamics that enabled the aircraft to land (didasko).

Understanding the difference is crucial. If we see the purpose of preaching as primarily instructing, then it will be confined to an individual exercise; a responsibility granted only to the most biblically educated, articulate, and proficient in the congregation. But if we believe preaching is primarily the announcing of the kingdom, unveiling a vision of God's glorious reign and our life in it, then the responsibility to preach cannot lie solely with the pastor, but with all of God's people—even ignorant fishermen.

Read the full article at www.LeadershipJournal.net.

Posted by Skye Jethani at October 15, 2007 | Comments (12)

September 21, 2007

The Gap between Rhetoric and Reality

You may think writing a sermon every week is challenging work, but imagine writing speeches everyday for the leader of the free world. That was Michael Gerson’s job for six years under President George W. Bush. Last night I attended a benefit dinner in Chicago where Gerson was the keynote speaker. Prior to the dinner I participated in a small roundtable discussion with Gerson about his time in the White House and his perception of current challenges—domestic and international—facing the country.

Much of the conversation focused on Gerson’s responsibility in crafting the President’s response in the days following 9/11. Leading a nation in shock and grief is not easy, but simultaneously showing strength and resolve is a challenge few presidential speechwriters have faced. Gerson was almost universally praised for shaping Bush’s tone in a way that comforted the nation and rallied the world. The President’s address at the National Cathedral, which Gerson and his team wrote with less than one day’s notice, has been celebrated as one of the finest moments of the Bush presidency.

A theology grad from Wheaton College, Gerson’s faith has been a factor both in Bush’s speeches and policy. U2’s Bono, a friend of Gerson’s, has said, “Mike is known as a ‘moral compass’ at the White House.” As a senior policy advisor to Bush, Gerson was instrumental in the push to triple aid to Africa, and he’s filled the President’s remarks with passionate rhetoric about compassion, the spread of democracy, and the God-ordained dignity of freedom for all people. But at Thursday night’s gathering Gerson was critical of the administration’s execution of these ideals.

Gerson said his worst day at the White House was when the Abu Ghraib prison story hit the wires. The criminal actions of a handful of US soldiers were graphically displayed for the world to see. One of Gerson’s speechwriting colleagues at the White House commented that Abu Ghraib, “undid everything we’ve done.” The President’s rhetoric was contradicted by the images coming from Iraq.

Similarly, Gerson believes the administration’s policy of detaining enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay has become an obstacle throughout the world. He said virtually everywhere administration official travel to advance the President’s ideals of democracy and freedom they are assaulted with questions about Guantanamo Bay. Critics believe the holding of enemy combatants without access to legal representation or oversight by multinational agreements (the Geneva Convention) contradicts the President’s desire to bring democratic liberties to the Middle East. Once again, the rhetoric doesn’t match reality.

This was the thrust of Gerson’s remarks. As a speechwriter for the most powerful political figure on Earth, he takes seriously the impact and transforming power of words. But he says, “The facts on the ground always trump words.” It has been the administration’s inability to translate its rhetoric into reality that has led to the President’s unpopularity both at home and abroad. Nonetheless, Gerson is proud of the major advances made by this White House in humanitarian efforts, and he still believes strongly in the President’s agenda to spread democracy as a way of securing peace for future generations.

As a pastor, not a politician, I realized Michael Gerson was reminding us of a basic truth—we’ve got to practice what we preach. Eloquent sermons, well-composed articles, and even popular podcasts are not enough. Ultimately our credibility as communicators of the gospel is displayed by the content of our characters—the fruit of our lives. In an age when pastors are becoming increasingly isolated from their flocks—whether by the enormity of our sanctuaries or the psuedo-intimacy of video preaching—the temptation to separate rhetoric from reality is more seductive than ever before.

Posted by Skye Jethani at September 21, 2007 | Comments (7)

August 14, 2007

The Tech Effect

Twenty-five years ago, the film Tron was a revolution—the first movie to use digital animation extensively. But critics almost universally panned the movie. One said, "Tron is loaded with visual delights but falls way short of the mark in story and viewer involvement."

How can preachers avoid that same trap? With our increasing ability to produce "visual delights," can we forget what matters most? How can we use technology to help, not hinder, the proclamation of God's Word? At the most recent National Pastors Convention, we brought together three pastors to discuss these questions. Below is an excerpt from the conversation. You can find the full interview on Leadership's website.

How important is it to use 21st-century technology when communicating the gospel in the 21st century?

Shane Hipps: It's important only if we understand their innate bias, because media are not neutral tools. The media are messages in themselves, and every single medium you use carries a different message embedded in it.

I occasionally use visual media and technology as a crutch to help keep what I'm saying interesting. But when an 80-year-old woman who lived through the Great Depression stood up in my congregation and told a story, she didn't use any technology, and everyone was on the edge of their seats listening to her suffering and what she lived through.

As the medium, she was infinitely more powerful than any technology I could bring.

John Palmieri: I agree, to a point. Trying to more media-savvy than the world around us—that is a battle we will lose. And if I'm just trying to be "relevant," I'll probably miss the mark every time.

But it is our responsibility to be resourceful and creative. If some technology is effective for communication, like a movie clip, great—use it. But if there's a story from a person within the community, a testimony, use that instead.

We use imagery. We use technology, but only to the extent that it enhances the message. If used too often, it can become more of a distraction.

What does it mean to be incarnational as we communicate God's Word? Can incarnation happen with technology?

Jarrett Stevens: Most weeks we do video interviews. That's incarnational. Bringing someone out for a live interview is much more raw and dynamic, but you have way less control. For example, we had a woman who'd recently been saved interviewed on video. She was telling her story and whenever she messed up, she dropped the f-bomb. Thankfully we could edit the video. If that had been live in the worship service, it might have been a great moment, but I doubt we could have fully recovered from it.

Hipps: Do I believe certain technologies preclude incarnational ministry? Absolutely. God came embodied in Jesus. He didn't just project his likeness. Embodiment means human physical touch; presence. And there are certain technologies that disembody us, like video.

I'm not opposed to using video in church, I just think we should recognize that it may inadvertently send a message that is counter to the incarnation.

We hear a lot about shorter attention spans. How long are your sermons?

Stevens: If I preach more than 35 minutes, I've gone too long.

Hipps: About 15 minutes.

Palmieri: We rarely preach for under 40 minutes. For a long time, I thought attention spans were shortening. I don't think so anymore. People still engage in movies, books, and television shows and never break concentration. Instead I think attention spans are widening. We've learned to pay attention to multiple things at once.

Is that why visuals are so popular—people now expect multiple forms of communication to happen at once?

Hipps: Whether attentions spans are wider or shorter, one thing is clear: the way we think has changed. In the 1980s the average cut in a TV program was about seven seconds. There was seven seconds of uninterrupted footage followed by a camera cut. By the mid-1990s it had dropped to two seconds. Images now change rapidly. Whether you know it or not, that actually re-forms neural pathways in your brain. For my generation in particular, the way we engage things has been fundamentally altered.

How do you get people to do linear abstract thinking, which is what Scripture demands in many ways, when those people's minds are not wired for it? I've responded by dramatically shortening my sermons.

I try to ground people in the text, and I can only do it for about 15 minutes. After that, it's easy to lose people.

Stevens: A story or image is powerful, and it's going to do its own thing. It might take on a life of its own. So it must clearly fit the point I'm trying to communicate. If I use multiple images to illustrate multiple points, it's going to overwhelm people. So I try to have one idea and one image to illustrate it. Anything more is just going to get lost.

Read the entire article at Leadership's website.

Shane Hipps is pastor of Trinity Mennonite Church in Phoenix, Arizona. Prior to pastoral ministry, Shane had a career in advertising.

John Palmieri is a pastor of multi-cultural, multi-site, New Life Community Church in Chicago. Prior to pastoral ministry, he was involved in the food business.

Jarrett Stevens is director of the college and singles ministry, and teacher for 7|22 at North Point Church in Alpharetta, Georgia. Previously he served as a teaching pastor for Axis at Willow Creek Community Church.

Leadership will be hosting another conversation on preaching at the National Pastors Convention, February 26-29, 2008. See www.nationalpastorsconvention.com for more information.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 14, 2007 | Comments (5)

February 7, 2007

The Ten Deadly Sins of Preaching

Monday was a great day to leave Chicago. The wind-chill was thirty degrees below zero and the Bears had just lost the Super Bowl. This week I’m in sunny San Diego for the National Pastors Convention. Although the main sessions don’t start until later today, on Tuesday I attended a five hour “Critical Concerns” course on preaching.

John Ortberg, pastor of Menlo Park Presbyterian Church in Menlo Park, CA, and the author of numerous books with really long titles, presented about preparing the soul to preach. His focus was not simply getting spiritually juiced for Sunday morning, but rather becoming the kind of person that preaching flows out of that pleases God. It was really about character formation.

Part of Ortberg’s discussion included a list of the ten deadly sins of preaching. (John said he originally intended to create a list of seven deadly sins, but preaching offered so many temptations that he had to expand the list.)

1. The temptation to be inauthentic
We want to present an image to others that makes us appear more holy, intelligent, or godly than we actually are. In the end this is a foolish pursuit because the truth of who we are will always leak out.

2. The temptation to live for recognition
After finishing a sermon the question that runs through most of our minds is, did they like it? But we need to learn to root our identity in something other than applause. Ortberg cited Dallas Willard’s ability to present his material and give no thought to people’s reactions. He’s like a child who releases a helium balloon. He says what God’s given him to say, and simply lets it go.

3. The temptation to live in fear
What if I fail? That question plagues many pastors. But there is a difference between failing at something and being a failure. You are not a failure. Again, our identity must been hidden in Christ and not our accomplishments.

4. The temptation to compare
With the radio, television, and the internet our generation faces this temptation more than any previous generation. Our culture of celebrity pastors causes us to compare ourselves to others. This does nothing good for the soul.

5. The temptation to exaggerate
This seems closely linked to temptation number one. Overstating facts is how we often try to manage our image and appear better than we are. John also linked this to plagiarism—passing someone else’s story, sermon, or idea off as our own to win approval.

6. The temptation to feel chronically inadequate
(I couldn’t write fast enough to take notes on this point. Does that make me an inadequate blogger?)

7. The temptation of pride
Having people listen to you give a monologue every week can make you prideful. The antidote? A wife. (Ortberg’s joke, not mine.)

8. The temptation to manipulate
Having a pulpit and speaking the words of God might give some a power rush. We mustn’t use our position to manipulate people into doing what we want them to do.

9. The temptation of envy
This seems related to number four, the temptation to compare. But envy carries the nuance of desire and ambition. We not only compare ourselves to another preacher, but we seek to achieve what they have. Such selfish motivations will undermine our spiritual health.

10. The temptation of anger
John read this quote from Henri Nouwen that says it all:

Anger in particular seems close to a professional vice in the contemporary ministry. Pastors are angry at their leaders for not leading and at their followers for not following. They are angry at those who do not come to church for not coming and angry at those who do come for coming without enthusiasm. They are angry at their families, who make them feel guilty, and angry at themselves for not being who they want to be. This is not an open, blatant, roaring anger, but an anger hidden behind the smooth word, the smiling face, and the polite handshake. It is a frozen anger, an anger which settles into a biting resentment and slowly paralyzes a generous heart. If there is anything that makes the ministry look grim and dull, it is this dark, insidious anger in the servants of Christ.

An article based on John Ortberg’s presentation will be published in a future issue of Leadership. And more reflections from NPC will be coming later this week on Out of Ur.

Posted by Skye Jethani at February 7, 2007 | Comments (25)

January 31, 2007

Preaching the Word in an Image–Oriented Culture

My childhood church had a silver cross suspended in the sanctuary. It was the visual focus of our worship. I recently returned to the church and the cross was still there, but few people notice it anymore. A large screen now hangs in front of it.

We live in an image-oriented culture, and that reality has impacted the way we worship, the way we design our churches, and even the way we preach. But how do we reconcile the discipline of preaching—a traditionally verbal form of communication—with our culture’s captivity to images—a visual form of communication?

Next week thousands of church leaders will descend upon San Diego for the annual National Pastors Convention. Marshall Shelley and I will be there to facilitate an open dialogue with three church leaders on this subject. We’ll be talking mainly about the use of visuals and technology in preaching—both the dangers and the opportunities. Each of the participants reflects a different ministry setting, but all are committed to faithfully communicating the gospel.

The panel participants are:

Jarrett Stevens is director of the college and singles ministry, and teacher for 7|22 at North Point Church in Alpharetta, Georgia. Previously, he served as a teaching pastor in Axis, the Next-Gen ministry of Willow Creek Community Church in suburban Chicago.

Shane Hipps is the lead pastor of Trinity Mennonite Church—a missional, urban, Anabaptist congregation. Prior to pastoral ministry Shane had a career in advertising as a strategic planner where he gained expertise in understanding media and culture.

John Palmieri is pastor of the multi-cultural New Life Community Church in Melrose Park, IL. Prior to his pastoral ministry in urban Chicago, he was involved in the business world.

We invite you to share your stories of using images and technology in worship. What has worked well? What was a disaster? And what questions do you have for our panelists? Questions submitted by Out of Ur readers, along with the questions of pastors in attendance, will help direct the conversation. We will publish portions of the conversation in an upcoming issue of Leadership.

Posted by Skye Jethani at January 31, 2007 | Comments (14)

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

August 1, 2006

Word for Word: what is driving pastors to plagiarize?

The New York Times ran the story last week of a high-profile pastor busted for plagiarizing sermons, and his congregation’s willingness to forgive him. Trying to explain what led to his behavior, Rev. Jackson says:

“It’s a pattern you get into,” he said, explaining he was struggling at the time with issues of self-esteem. “It happens bit by bit. You end up using more and more. You’re using a little material maybe initially, and then using more. It’s really not rational.”

In recent years I’ve been alarmed by how frequently I’m hearing reports of pastors plagiarizing sermons. Clearly, the internet has contributed to the problem. Sermons in both written and audio form are quickly accessible, and the temptation to plagiarize is easier than ever before to indulge. In this regard the sin differs little from the epidemic of internet pornography.

But accessibility alone cannot account for the problem. Just as many believe porn is an unhealthy way of coping with a lack of intimacy, there must be some underlying issue that drives pastors to plagiarize. Rev. Jackson’s comments above are revealing. Is a lack of self-esteem among pastors on the rise? And if it is, what is the cause?

A few months back Shane Hipps posted about the impact of video venues on preaching. Hipps says multiple-site churches that use video preaching communicate that:

“Only a preacher with a golden tongue has authority to preach the gospel. It conveys the unspoken belief that no one in the satellite congregation has the authority to speak to their context because preaching requires unique talents that only a few actually possess. Like the wizard in The Wizard of Oz, only the larger-than-life giants, painted by pixelated light, and hovering above the congregation, possess these elusive talents.”

This exaltation of one teacher leads to what Hipps calls “the papacy of celebrity.”

Celebrity preachers are nothing new, of course. In the 18th century everyone knew the name George Whitefield. In the 19th century it was Moody. And no history of the 20th century church will fail to include the name Billy Graham. But with the advent of digital media technology and savvy church marketing in the 21st century, celebrity preachers have become omnipresent brands.

Unlike the past, gifted speakers are not merely heard by their congregation or those attending the revival or crusade. Today’s “best preachers” are broadcast daily on radio and television, and their sermons resonate through cyberspace via podcasts and streaming audio.

Recently, The Church Report issued the Top 50 Most Influential Churches of 2006. Tellingly, the visual layout of the article (especially the print version) isn’t dominated by the churches’ names, but by headshots of the senior pastors. Remove the text and the article could have been titled the Top 50 Most Popular Pastors of 2006. Christians in America cannot hide from the celebrated shadows of Hybels, Warren, Osteen, Stanley, Young, and Jakes—and neither can pastors.

With a celebrity church culture is it any surprise that less celebrated pastors may lack self-esteem? With parishioners consuming excellent preaching Monday thru Saturday, it’s understandable why their expectations for Sunday are high. I can also understand why churches are happily adopting video venues to keep quality high and religious consumers satisfied. Some churches are even forgoing a preaching pastor altogether. Opting instead to use the previously recorded video messages of a celebrity pastor from across the country.

Of course, none of these realities justifies plagiarism. There is no excuse for deceitfully accepting credit for what is not your own. We all must take responsibility for our actions and our insecurities. But, we would be foolish to ignore the factors contributing to the problem.

Posted by Skye Jethani at August 1, 2006 | Comments (65)

July 28, 2006

The Myth of Expository Preaching (part 3): responding to Scripture as a community

In his final post outlining an alternative to expository preaching, David Fitch invites us to think differently about how we respond to Scripture. Rather than three alliterated application points, why not a liturgical response? And instead of preaching that targets the individual’s life, why not a communal interaction with the text? Fitch also shares practices at his own church as they move beyond commodified preaching.

3. FROM APPLICATION POINTS TO LITURGICAL RESPONSE
By “liturgical” I mean the activity of responding to God, who He is, what he has done, and what He has said. It is what shapes us into relationship with him. It makes no sense for the preacher who proclaims the Word of God to conclude with more notes of applications and "to do" lists. Instead the Word invokes postures of response: silence, submission, obedience, affirmation in faith, confession, and of course the Eucharistic celebration of participating in receiving the Body of Christ. Slowly I am formed through the faithful preaching of the Word and ever hearing, responding, submitting, obeying, confessing, affirming and acting in faith.

This means our understanding of sanctification in preaching might have to change. For what is happening to the hearers is not a.) the cognitive digestion of some information about God and moral life, from which we b.) understand and assent and then c.) tell our body to do it. Instead we hear proclaimed the reality of the world through the good news, a declaration of the way the world is, and we are invited to enter in through submission, confession, repentance, and affirmation.

Through this, over time, we cannot help but be changed and engage the world differently. Our character changes, our view of the world changes, the way we see the poor, our money, our children—everything changes. In Christ, by the Holy Spirit, “the eyes of our imaginations are opened, and we receive a new self.”

4. FROM INDIVIDUALISM TO COMMUNITY
If preaching starts and ends with the sermon on Sunday, and if the Word is distributed to individuals as portable property to be taken home in notes or a cassette tape, it cannot help but be the means of fostering interpretive violence. The violence comes when we put our own meaning or agenda onto Scripture. The violence comes when the preaching of the Word separates us as individuals each 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 that allow us to submit to one another as the Spirit works to interpret the Scriptures. We do this not as a democracy, but as a Spirit filled community where we submit to each other’s authoritative gifts. Of course, to even think of doing church this way requires a new imagination.

At our church many of us meet in small triad fellowships to read the texts from Sunday, confess sin, listen, and practice speaking truth with love and submission. We have a B&B (Bible and Brew…uh…coffee) session every Sunday morning to read the texts together and ask what these texts speak about God, his mission in Christ, and how we must respond. We need to create more places to read and listen and speak into each other’s lives out of the preaching of the Word.

I believe each local Body of Christ is fertile ground for the forming of our imaginations through the interpretation of Scripture. Here in community we learn the virtues necessary to interpret Scripture for the local challenges of the Christian life. Stephen Fowl calls these communities “vigilant communities” in his book Engaging Scripture. He says faithful interpretation requires vigilant communities that engage in regular practices of truth telling, forgiveness, and reconciliation with people who posses both humility and the ability to listen well.

Without becoming vigilant communities I fear we all fall into the modernist temptation of believing Scripture is perspicuous (to me), its meaning is automatically self-evident to each individual (as long as they agree with me), and I know Scripture (well enough to justify my life to myself) which is the ultimate denial of the hermeneutic task.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 28, 2006 | Comments (15)

July 25, 2006

The Myth of Expository Preaching (part 2): proclamation that inspires the imagination

David Fitch is back to explain why he believes expository preaching is a myth that is hindering the full potential of the pulpit. In part one of his post Fitch said expository preaching has led to the commodification of Scripture. As he promised, he’s back to offer suggestions for reclaiming preaching from the influence of consumerism.

Two weeks ago I wrote a post on “Expository Preaching.” On the one hand, I was surprised with the number of sympathetic comments and excellent discussion that recognized the problem of “commodification of the Word.” On the other hand, there were some folk who implied that I was either denigrating Scripture, diminishing the importance of preaching, or making “meaning” unstable so much so that it wasn’t worth preaching anymore. To me, these were the very things I was working against by alerting us to the danger of commodifying the Word. And so I promised a second post that would explore how we might preach more faithfully in our times.

1. FROM EXPLAINING TO PROCLAIMING
We will no doubt need to explain some things in the text, but the primary task of preaching on Sunday morning is “proclaiming” the reality of the world as it is under the good news of the gospel that renders all things new. This means our first task as preachers is to describe not prescribe.

The primary move of preaching will not be sentence-by-sentence exposition & explaining, then an application. Instead the primary move of the preacher will be to describe the world as it is via the person and work of Jesus Christ, then invite the hearers into this reality by calling for submission, confession, obedience, or the affirmation of a truth.

In Brueggemann’s words, we preach to “fund imagination.” Through proclaiming the Word, the Spirit reorganizes perception, experience, and even faith to enable hearers to live in the reality of Christ’s work, respond to Christ, and obey. This kind of preaching subverts the dominant habits of thinking and the ways our imaginations have been taught to see the world. Instead of dissecting the text, making it portable, and distributing it to people for their own personal use, the preacher re-narrates the world as it is under the Lordship of Christ and then invites people into it.

When I preach I see my role as the herald of the new world that has been inaugurated in the death and resurrection of Christ. Whether in the Old or New Testaments, I am unfurling the world as it is under the work of God down through history and ultimately in Jesus Christ. I always start by narrating a common experience from a personal story, a movie, a piece of literature. I try to expose the way we might be living under an alternative interpretation of the way things are. But then I move to the text for the day, read it and start to unfold the reality as it is in God thru Christ. Finally, I then move to invite the gathering into this Christ-reality, looking for responses we can all make to live more faithfully out of who He is, what He has done, and where He is taking us and the world.

2. FROM TEXTBOOK TO DRAMA
Preachers must resist all modernist temptations to see the Scriptures as a propositional textbook of religious facts. Scripture is real accounts, testimonies, and witnesses of God’s people. It is alive. So let’s read and speak as ones invited to participate in the continuation of all this story! This means seeing the Bible as a Narrative Recently, von Balthazar, Sam Wells, and Kevin Vanhoozer have all taught us to think of Scripture as Theo Drama where we become the participants. This is the metaphor I believe we must follow in our preaching.

If this is true, then we need to put historical exegesis in its proper place. It a tool grounded in history that must be submitted to the traditions and history of God's work in the church. We need not spend countless hours translating each text thinking we have reached the original meaning by our own brilliance. Instead, we stand in a long line of preachers and the vast theological realities that have been interpreted and shown out of Scripture down through the ages.

Authorial intent is not the main issue although it may be of importance for understanding the text at certain times. What is important is the reality being unfurled about God in Christ and how we can best respond so as to live into it until He returns. The hubris of pastors thinking they can exegete a text better and more accurately than the thousands that have gone before gets in the way of the Main Thing, the glory of his majestic work and what he is working for in history. This is where our imaginations will be fed. This is where we will be formed as missional people.

In the final part of David Fitch’s discussion of preaching will be posted soon.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 25, 2006 | Comments (26)

July 3, 2006

The Myth of Expository Preaching & the Commodification of the Word

The summer issue of Leadership, due in mailboxes soon, will focus on the impact of consumerism on our faith and ministries. To get the conversation started, in this post, pastor/professor and regular Ur contributor David Fitch discusses how expository preaching can make Scripture into a commodity that people consume. You can read more about Fitch’s critique of consumer driven ministry at his blog, The Great Giveaway.

There is a myth surrounding expository preaching among North American evangelicals. It goes like this: if the preacher follows the text more closely in his preaching, both he/she and the congregation will stay true to the Word of God. No other agendas or human wisdom will slither into the preaching. Implied is, if the preacher but applies the exegetical historical-critical skills learned in seminary and studies the text in its original language, (s)he can arrive at the meaning of the text all by him/herself. This is the mythology I believe is behind expository preaching in the evangelical world.

Why do I label this a mythology? Well first of all, the historical-critical method in the hands of individuals has not yielded a singular meaning as “intended by the author” in over 100 years. Instead what we have is thousands of commentaries on the Bible that present numerous unresolved options for interpreting practically every verse in the Bible. Historical-critical exegesis hasn’t generated more unity over Scripture; it has generated less.

In reality what guides interpretation is not individual analysis of the text. It is the broad consensus interpretation for the biblical texts found in the ongoing history of church doctrine. The myth that expository preaching is more faithful to the text is simply not true. There is plenty room for all kinds of human interpretation even within expository preaching.

Even if we could agree that each individual mind under the Holy Spirit can come to the one propositional meaning for the text using exegesis, we cannot assume then that these truths as communicated by the preacher will necessarily be heard as the same to every listener in the pew. As Derrida reminds us, repetition never leads to the "same." Each idea is heard in terms of each hearer's context. The person in the pew takes notes, selects what he or she hears for special notation, and walks away with "the nugget" for the day that can best support his or her current life or context.

Every preacher has had the experience of greeting people after church who thank him/her for what the sermon said. Then the preacher is stunned to hear they took something from the sermon totally different than (s)he had intended. So even if there were a stable authorial meaning inherent to the text, it still could not be communicated intact in the ways expository preaching assumes.

Most disturbing about the myth of expository preaching is the excessive individualism that is promoted by the assumptions that undergird it. Expository preaching can actually encourage the person in the pew to be isolated from further conversation and testing of the Scriptures within the congregation (1 John 4:1). This is because expository preaching commodifies the Word. It carefully dissects the text into three (stereotypically) points and an application, which is then offered to the parishioner as the means to further her Christian life. The person sits isolated in the pew encouraged to take notes, analyze, digest the sermon, rarely giving the Amen. Expository preaching operates under the assumption that the congregation (or radio listener) is composed of individual Cartesian selves isolated and separated from each other, yet capable of listening and receiving truth as information from the pulpit.

By default such a sermon cannot help but situate the parishioner so that (s)he is in control of the Scriptures because it is the parishioner who decides whether, how, and what to accept in the preaching. Ironically, as the expository preacher carefully follows the text in his preaching, the center of control for the meaning of Scripture has shifted from the Bible to the autonomous mind of the listening parishioner. Meanwhile the preacher seeks comfort that somehow the Holy Spirit works in mysterious and unsuspecting ways and His "word shall not return void."

Expository preaching assumes that Christian growth happens individually and cognitively: the believer in the pew hears the sermon, takes notes, and acknowledges an application. (S)he then goes home to apply it in everyday life. Sanctification happens through the cognitive mind digesting a “truth” which then enables the mind to tell the body to do it. And so I fear, that in the large evangelical lecture halls of our day, thousands sit and listen, take notes, and selectively hear what they will hear. The Word has become information to be used for my life as it is. Many times they leave having never confronted the life-changing reality of the Lordship of Christ over their lives.

What I have said above is a pretty heavy indictment. Some might imply that I don’t believe preaching is any longer possible in the postmodern worlds. But nothing could be further from the truth. Others might argue the same problem plagues topical preaching. There are those who respond to all of this by dismissing the role of traditional preaching altogether. And some respond with attempts to democratize preaching.

I believe we desperately need the preaching of the Word in the church today. But we need preaching done, not as isolated individuals, but in and through the community of the Spirit. And so in my next post, I will discuss how we can reshape and restore the proclamation of the gospel in the church gathering amid postmodernity.

David Fitch is pastor of Life on the Vine Christian Community in Long Grove, Illinois, a professor of ministry, theology, and ethics at Northern Seminary, and author of The Great Giveaway: Reclaiming the Mission of the Church from Big Business, Parachurch Organizations, Psychotherapy, Consumer Capitalism, and Other Modern Maladies (Baker 2006).

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 3, 2006 | Comments (33)

June 28, 2006

Video Venues and the Papacy of Celebrity: Why changing the methods always changes the message

Most people spend a significant part of the week looking at screens; television screens, movie screens, computer screens—in fact, you’re looking at one right now. But traditionally Sunday morning was not a screen-time. Then came PowerPoint. First the hymnal was replaced and now many churches are substituting 3-D preachers with 2-D digital projections. Shane Hipps, Lead Pastor of Trinity Mennonite Church in Phoenix, Arizona, has written a new book that asks us to explore the implications of new technology on our ministries. Below is an excerpt from The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture: How Media Shapes Faith, the Gospel, and Church (Zondervan, 2006). To get more background on Hipps' understanding of how mediums impact our message be sure to read his previous post.

One of the increasingly popular initiatives in the North American evangelical church is the use of multi-site, video-venue worship services. This is a model where multiple congregations are sprinkled throughout a city or campus, but one preacher is piped in to each gathering via video. Its proponents argue such a method offers the best of both worlds—you don’t have to commute, you get to worship your way, and you don’t have to sacrifice great preaching.

I was visiting a church recently on the day they were launching their multi-site service. I watched the sermon live, while two other gatherings in other parts of the city watched via a large projection screen. It was a stellar sermon by an extraordinarily gifted preacher well-known in the Christian subculture. But the most striking feature of the sermon was that his message was being directly contradicted by his medium—the video venue.

Here’s how. The pastor was speaking on the difference between talent and character and how too often we emphasize talent in ministry more than character. He began with an object lesson. There on stage next to him was a huge dictionary set on a high stool. As he spoke he began to dispense several cans of whipped cream on top of the dictionary, creating a white fluffy mound. When he finished he told us that the dictionary was our character, the firm foundation. The whipped cream was our talent, something very attractive but lacking substance. After this set up he concluded by saying, “If your ministry is based on character it will last, but if your ministry is based on talent…” he paused, and then swatted the mound of whipped cream. In one swoop it was all over the floor “…your ministry will suffer when times get tough.”

His message was excellent and told an important truth—ministry is supported by character, not talent. However, the medium of the video venue had a subliminal message of its own. The message of a video venue sermon is that the authority to preach is derived from talent and celebrity not character or communal affirmation. A televised event doesn’t communicate anything about a person’s character. It can only affirm or deny talent and attractiveness. We don’t generally watch movies or TV shows because we respect or want to know the personal character of the actors. We watch because we are attracted by their beauty, talent, or celebrity.

Character requires some personal knowledge of one another. This personal knowledge is impossible for the satellite congregations who only see the pastor’s performance. The congregation witnessing the sermon via video can only assess whether the preacher has talent, not whether he or she has character.

Not only did the medium undermine this particular preacher’s message, the extensive financial outlay required to pull off a video-venue service communicates to the congregation that only a preacher with a golden tongue has authority to preach the gospel. It conveys the unspoken belief that no one in the satellite congregation has the authority to speak to their context because preaching requires unique talents that only a few actually possess. Like the wizard in The Wizard of Oz, only the larger-than-life giants, painted by pixelated light, and hovering above the congregation, possess these elusive talents. The medium itself nurtures an elite priestly class in which the preacher is set apart from the people. With video venues, we can say goodbye to the priesthood of all believers and hello to the papacy of celebrity.

Even if this attitude is explicitly denied by the preacher, the very medium reinforces the belief that only talented people with some degree of celebrity can or should preach. Even if lay people were encouraged to share a word from God before the church, the pressure is too much for most of us. Few people possess the confidence and charisma to preach before thousands, let alone the unflinching gaze of the camera vicariously channeling the eyes of others who witness and study every amplified movement or mistake.

My critique of this situation has nothing to do with the preacher’s message, character, or intention. In fact I have great respect and admiration for this person. The problem comes from a lack of awareness for how media shapes our message in worship. When we ignore the power of the chosen media, its effects often go undetected. As a result, we fail to perceive the unintended consequences of our decisions and the ways our media undermines our message.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 28, 2006 | Comments (37)

April 25, 2006

Drama King: one pastor drops preaching entirely for dramas

For decades churches have been experimenting with forms of communication, and one of the hallmarks of seeker churches has been the use of dramas in worship gatherings. It should come as no surprise that a church named Hot Metal Bridge Faith Community has chosen to push this experimentation to its logical end. The church has chosen to communicate biblical truths and narratives entirely through dramas—the sermon is no more.

Hot Metal Bridge has been getting a lot of press for its unusual worship format. Both The Wall Street Journal and the Today Show have run stories. Here is what some other media sources are reporting:

No one preaches at Hot Metal Bridge. Plays are its liturgy. Mr. Walker, a soon-to-be ordained United Methodist minister, leads the church with his friend Jeff Eddings, a Presbyterian seminarian. "Instead of coming to our church and listening to a sermon, you can be part of the sermon," Mr. Walker says.

Most of Mr. Walker's plays explore Bible themes flavored with pop culture and modern-day skepticism. "Sticking With Fishing" ponders what would have happened had Peter not dropped his net to follow Jesus. Elijah joins a man on the ledge thinking about a last leap. The archangel Gabriel kills time as he awaits news of Christ's birth.

Beyond dramas, Hot Metal Faith also hosts a Bible Fight Club to debate theological and social issues:

On Tuesday, the church and shop host Bible Fight Club, a rollicking debate about social issues, heaped with New Testament. About 25 people sat on lumpy couches in the basement, discussing paranormal phenomena, debating whether children are more in touch with angels and whether prayer helps?

Continue reading the full article about Hot Metal Faith’s unique ministry here.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at April 25, 2006 | Comments (17) | TrackBack

February 28, 2006

What Would Jesus Preach?: Telling the Truth in Church

If Jesus walked into your church this Sunday and preached, what would he say? That's a question pastor Jim Martin has asked on his blog, A Place for the God-Hungry. Jim is pastor of Crestview Church of Christ in Waco, Texas, and below he shares his thoughts about what Jesus might say to the "mature" in his congregation.

I am thinking about my teaching/preaching. I am thinking about my words, my sermons, and the over all message these people hear.

I am thinking even more about my own life. At times, I feel like I have gotten lost in a system that has eaten me alive. At other times, I think that I am simply coming back to what really matters most to me. This is why I am thinking about the following two questions:

What if Jesus were the guest speaker at our church this Sunday? What would he say?

Oh I would like to say that it would be a wonderful day. I suspect our numbers would go up. Adult children would call their parents to come visit. Children of our members would drive in from the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex to hear Jesus speak and then have lunch together afterward. I suspect our members would be a bit more eager to invite friends in our community.

The question is: "What kind of day would this be?" You say, "Why Jim, it would be a great day! Jesus loves us. Why wouldn't it be a wonderful day to hear him speak?" OK, you've got a point. Yes, I do know he loves us. I have no doubt that Jesus would be tender with the broken, the poor in spirit, and those who are genuinely seeking him.
Let me be real honest. I am afraid of the remarks that he might direct toward me. You've read the Gospels. You know how he could be very candid with religious leaders.

In fact, anyone who is a church leader of any kind might want to think about this. What will he say to those of us who have been a part of the church for a long time and who see ourselves as "mature?" Let me be even more specific. What if he preaches the material in the Gospels?

What would he say? I wonder if he would evaluate things differently than we do? He might say something like the following:

You do not evaluate your lives the way I do. I am more concerned about whether or not these people love God and people than anything else.

You do not evaluate your church the way I do. I am more concerned about you being my presence in this community rather than whether or not you may be happy with the way things are going.

You do not evaluate spiritual maturity the way I do. Some of you have been Christians for a very long time. You need to be more mindful of the younger and less mature. Some of you have been Christians for a lesser amount of time. You need to be grateful that your forefathers pointed you to me. All of you need to remember that the bottom line is loving God and loving the people who you interact with.

You do not evaluate truth the way I do. Sermon messages are not good if they seem to pass the popularity contest. There were times when I spoke and people walked away, wanting nothing more to do with me.

You do not ask the right questions. You need to be asking in your families, in your church meetings, and among your leadership these questions: "What does Jesus want us to do? What would he do? What do we know about him that might help us know what to do?"

Maybe you too, need to think about this in light of your own life.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at February 28, 2006 | Comments (26) | TrackBack

February 16, 2006

Tivo Tyranny and Preaching to Consumers

I just read about the latest form of oppression: Tivo Tyranny. It’s the burden of having recorded too many TV shows, and now finding there’s no way you’re going to be able to watch them all.

Tivo has a feature that automatically records preselected shows week after week, or day after day, and that's created for some people a backlog that they’ll never get through. The convenience of easily recording something now for viewing later has produced it’s own overstuffed feeling.

It’s just the latest example that, yes, we live in a “consumer culture.” And whenever we consume, whether goods, products, or services, we’re inclined to overindulge. And each new convenience, promising new kinds of freedom, can lead to its own form of bondage.

How can preachers effectively address people who are surrounded and saturated by their consumer culture?

Next week, this will be the topic as Leadership hosts a live interview at the National Pastors Convention in San Diego. And you can pose questions to the panelists, including:

John Ortberg, teaching pastor at Menlo Park Presbyterian Church, and author of lots of books, including “The Life You’ve Always Wanted” (Zondervan).

Efrem Smith, pastor of The Sanctuary Covenant Church in Minneapolis, and author of “The Hip-Hop Church” (InterVarsity Press).

Doug Pagitt, pastor of Solomon’s Porch in Minneapolis, and author of “Preaching Re-Imagined” (Zondervan).

Will Willimon, bishop of the North Alabama Conference of the United Methodist Church, and author of “Pastor: a reader for ordained ministry” (Abingdon).

Most people, upon hearing the phrase “Preaching in a Consumer Culture,” think about sermons on money. That’s certainly one area we’ll include in the interview, but the spiritual issues at stake in a consumer culture go far beyond putting a percentage of your income into the offering plate.

What would YOU like to ask the panelists? Post a response with your questions, and we’ll not only post them online, but some of them will find their way into the interview, and then, into the pages of Leadership, when we publish this interview in the Summer issue of the journal.

We hope to see you there, or stay tuned here as we'll be blogging from the convention.

Posted by Marshall Shelley at February 16, 2006 | Comments (12) | TrackBack

October 13, 2005

Should I Rock the House or Preach the Word?

Ben Folds’ song “Rock Star” includes these lyrics:
You need their approval
To tell you you're cool
Hey, but look how you pay for it
Give the people what they want
You’ve got to give the people what they want
Got to give the people what they want
Rock star

I’m a pastor and not a rock star (despite the blurring of those roles in recent years). Still, every time I retreat to the bookstore coffee shop to write another sermon I face the subtle temptation to tickle ears, to preach for approval, to be cool, and give the people what they want.

Next Sunday I have the responsibility to preach on one of the most challenging and disturbing texts in the New Testament. Matthew 7:21-23 has nothing to do with how to have a better marriage, discipline your kids, or any other felt-need people want scratched. It is a bold warning about the “many” who will be turned away from God’s kingdom.

My struggle in preparing this message has not come from interpreting the text, or wrestling with theology and doctrine. My struggle comes from seminary instructors, church consultants, ministry books, and other pastors who have told me, explicitly and implicitly, to “always preach positive!” Decades of market research have shown that people don’t like being told “thou shall not commit adultery,” but rather “marriage is a blessing from God.” They are put off by God’s “commandments” and would rather ponder his “instructions.”

It may be popular to keep things positive, but is it right? Are we handicapped in the pulpit by limiting the breadth of scripture’s emotions to the uplifting and happy? A famous English sociologist/nanny taught us that a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down. But are we in danger of focusing so much on sugar in the American church that we neglect to add the medicine?

In the end I find myself fleeing from the temptation to people-please with the aid of two convictions. First, I am not ultimately accountable to the people I teach, but to the One in whose name I teach. And secondly, God has not only inspired the content of Scripture, but also the form it takes. Matthew 7:21-23 is a sober warning from Jesus about the danger of missing his kingdom. The form of this passage should also direct the manner in which I teach it. After all, I’m a pastor and not a rock star.

Posted by Skye Jethani at October 13, 2005 | Comments (24) | TrackBack