Table of Contents |
|---|
|
(page 5 of 13)
The pulpit is central for most traditional churches, and the sermon is seen as the high point in the worship meeting. Christians will often go to a church solely on the basis of a good preacher (which, incidentally, does not always equate to good preaching). I would be the last to question the need for sound teaching in the church, but is the weekly sermon the best and only means of communicating God's truth? Is a one-way monologue (often by the same person week after week) an effective pedagogical method of imparting instruction? (I'm not disregarding the role of the Spirit in both the speaker and the listeners.) In the NT, there seems to be room for a variety of gifts for communicating a word from God:
Why then, are we so hung up about the traditional sermon? The NT seems to allow for variety, depending on the nature of the message and the gifting of the speaker. Some may bring a very systematic teaching, while another many bring a word of exhortation, and another may bring a testimony of how God has been working in his/her life. And what about responding to the message (cf. 1 Cor.14:29)? Are we allowing enough freedom and flexibility for this sort of interaction to take place?
But it is clear that speaking words of edification in the local church is not limited to one "minister." Where is any opportunity given to others to speak unto edification in our services? What grounds are there in the N.T. to limit public speaking to the elders, especially the "pastor"?
Most churches solve this problem with small groups, but this is at best a bandage solution. For one thing, not everyone attends them, so they will miss out, and we will be impoverished without their contribution. The fact remains that Paul's instructions about spiritual gifts are given in a corporate context (i.e., the gathered assembly), and while our gifts are obviously not just for the meeting of the whole body, this is the primary focus. On this note, I also lament the lack of cross-generational interaction in our church gathering. The older believers have so much life experience and wisdom and yet they are often overlooked. Likewise, are we not missing out on the "out of the mouths of babes" insights from our children?
Not only are pews unbearably uncomfortable, they are a hindrance to fellowship, dialogue and active participation. In his aptly titled book, Passive in the Pews, Darryl Erkel writes:
|
Our pews imply that those sitting in them are to silently and passively observe the ministry of a select few. The very fact that the pews all face toward the front, rather than in a circle, demonstrates that Christians are not to interact with one another during the "service", but to merely watch the performance of others (e.g., the pastor, minister of music, choir, etc.). Think about it: when you are staring at the back of someone's head, are you really interacting with that person? |
Books and journals on traditional homiletics abound. Here I will give some further references to provocative alternative views that should generate some lively discussion!
(For some specific examples of alternatives to the traditional sermon, please click here)
To reiterate: I'm not saying there is place for preaching. I'm simply saying that we shouldn't restrict ourselves to the traditional 3-point sermon that is so common in most churches. Also, too often the content of sermons are merely moralistic or devotional: verses are hijacked from the biblical-historical context to suit the preacher's pre-determined agenda. I have heard preachers who were very eloquent orators, told very warm stories and funny jokes, but totally abused the text. In fact, the text was often used merely as a springboard, and no attempt was made to actually teach what the text means. In contrast, Paul's ethical teaching flows from an indicative-imperative pattern reflecting the "already, not yet" eschatological framework of the NT: his call for duty is always grounded in doctrine (the gospel and all that it entails).
