A worldwide epidemic has been sweeping through the Church of Jesus Christ for decades now, as if aliens have abducted every believer and reprogrammed our brains with identical logic that says, "If you are really serious about following the Lord Jesus Christ, you must become a seminary-trained pastor or missionary." It's so automatic that it's scary, at least from my perspective. Against the backdrop of Humdrum Community Church and the sleepy Christians who file into the HCC worship center every Sunday morning for their weekly dose of religious obligation, anyone whose spiritual heartbeat rises above the level of "comatose" is quickly encouraged to pursue vocational ministry.
It's just so obvious—or is it really?—that God must be calling them to "full-time ministry." It doesn't seem to matter that God has strategically placed them within their own unique culture and community, with a career path (potential or realized) that could amply provide for their family and put them in touch with so many people who don't know Jesus. And no one tells them about Paul's crystal-clear injunctions to Christians in Corinth concerning the practical impact of the new birth: that it should not affect their current vocation or employment situation. He says it three times, so how do we miss this?
Each of you should continue to live in whatever situation the Lord has placed you, and remain as you were when God first called you. This is my rule for all the churches. For instance, a man who was circumcised before he became a believer should not try to reverse it. And the man who was uncircumcised when he became a believer should not be circumcised now. For it makes no difference whether or not a man has been circumcised. The important thing is to keep God’s commandments.Yes, each of you should remain as you were when God called you. Are you a slave? Don’t let that worry you—but if you get a chance to be free, take it. And remember, if you were a slave when the Lord called you, you are now free in the Lord. And if you were free when the Lord called you, you are now a slave of Christ. God paid a high price for you, so don’t be enslaved by the world. Each of you, dear brothers and sisters, should remain as you were when God first called you. ((1 The Apostle Paul, 1 Corinthians 7:17-24, New Living Translation))
But we know better than Scripture, so our churches are drained of their brightest and most energetic young leaders; the secular workplace and the community end up with spiritual zombies as their only examples of Christianity; and those passionate followers of Jesus go off to Bible college or seminary without a second thought. How could it NOT be the Lord's will? We have given them guidelines to discern such things, like:
- Do you desire to serve the Lord in full-time ministry?
- Do you meet the biblical qualifications for pastoral ministry?
- Have your spiritual gifts and abilities been a blessing to others?
- Has your local church and its leadership given confirmation of your calling?
I'm convinced that we have such an artificial system of "church" that we can't even process Paul's logic. We have created a mythical category of Christian service, known as "full-time ministry"—supporting the unbiblical clergy/laity division within the body of Christ—and then raised it as THE standard by which all other forms of ministry are compared. If you qualify and the church says "Yes!" to your interest in this exalted status, then you have the green light to proceed directly to your nearest seminary or Bible college.
Does this resonate with anyone? Maybe I'm the one who experienced an alien abduction; and everyone else is "normal" while I dance around on the "thin edge of the wedge." I would love to hear some dialogue on this matter, whether you are considering future ministry, preparing for such a role right now, or have years of "full-time ministry" under your belt.
Dear Bill,
I think it`s a little inaccurate to describe those left in the local church as “spiritual zombies”. Some of the most inspirational Christians that I have ever had the honour of knowing have been such folk. It’s easy to put up straw men to prove our points, but the use of such offensive terms as “zombies” to describe those for whom Christ died creates a situation where your provocative language makes it difficult to take your points seriously.
Do you seriously believe that the vast majority of Christian men and women fall into the category of “spiritually comatose”? Again, such blanket phrases do nothing to further your arguments, they simply turn some of us off. Please my brother, in the words of Oliver Cromwell, “I beg you, in the bowels of mercy—think it possible that you may be mistaken.”
Hi, Chris. Welcome to my blog! I think you’re the first Welshman to leave me a comment.
Looks like you have already discovered what I meant toward the end of the “About Me” section:
I’m glad you are willing to state your objections, as you are always welcome to do that here. We may or may not agree, but I still love you as a brother in Christ! If you find things too offensive or provocative, and you are simply “turned off” by this sort of thing, then no one would expect you to continue hanging around. I certainly wouldn’t.
In response, I would say that you’re right about the caricatures and straw men. But I’m exaggerating my points deliberately to stress a more important one regarding the “idolatry” of “full-time ministry” in the minds of so many. That’s kinda what bloggers do, because it’s difficult to blast through the centuries of hardened tradition to think about God’s Word and church and ministry from a fresh perspective.
Regarding your last question: I believe that the vast majority of “church-goers” are spiritually comatose, but not those who are truly born again Christians. There’s a huge difference! In America, surveys have indicated that many who attend evangelical churches—not the liberal churches—cannot give credible responses to indicate their understanding of the very basics of the Christian gospel.
Look into the eyes of those you preach to and tell me what you see: a glazed over look in their eyes, betraying either their lack of sleep or their lack of interest in the Truth. Maybe evangelicals have a better track record in Britain, but I doubt it.
Hi Bill.
I don`t mind stimulation; in fact, I think my desire for spiritual stimulation has got me into more than a few scrapes in my journey in life! But I do look into the eyes of those I preach to and, in many of them, I see a hunger to know more of God. As far as lasting spiritual benefits are concerned, I often think of the words of Al Martin, “The day will tell it”. I appreciate that our views on the place of preaching and what constitutes preaching may differ—but viva la difference brother.
If the truth be told, I’m not sure any of us can accurately gauge people’s spirituality by their facial expressions; and that’s one of the reasons I believe monologue preaching is ineffective in promoting long-term spiritual growth. No room for reaction, interaction, and questions, which is why one could argue that a blog is more effective than many pulpit sermons!
Thanks for the gracious exchange, Chris!
Hey Bill,
I understand what you’re saying. I’ve been at a youth camp, years ago, where they actually had an altar call for full-time ministry. It was quite scary. I truly believe we have a lot of “Mama called preachers” rather than “God called preacher.” That’s a huge reason pulpits are so weak today. I do think that even in many churches who possibly try to be more discerning that when they see zeal they associate that with a call. I think we should be like Spurgeon who said that one of his greatest accomplishments was talking (I think around 200) men out of the ministry.
However, the passage you used to prove your point seems like there would be no pastors. Because really no one would be qualified before conversion.
Hi Bill.
I heard a quote once which said, “if you have got dunderheads in the pulpit you will get dunderheads in the pews.†I don`t think that the description of preaching as monologue is strictly accurate. While the delivery may be, the aim should always be the interaction of the Holy Spirit using the words delivered to create a long term effect in the hearers; also, to speak into current situations. I can only speak from my own experience and say that sermons that I heard over 20 years ago are still affecting my life today. I appreciate the fact that society is changing very rapidly today, but do not feel that one of the answers to being effective communicators is to do away with so called monologue preaching. If there is passion and truth in what we have always (rightly or wrongly) regarded as preaching, I believe that our God will continue to honour it and produce effects both for time and eternity. God bless you, brother.
KPcalvinist:
Thanks for jumping into the conversation! I’ve been traumatized by such altar calls, too; and I’m familiar with the term, “Mama-called preachers,” although I would suggest that mothers aren’t the only ones pushing people into vocational ministry.
My understanding is that Paul’s statement would certainly curtail what we currently know as “professional clergy,” but it would never remove Christ’s gift of “pastors and teachers” from operating within the body of Christ. There is a huge difference between someone who has been supernaturally gifted to shepherd God’s flock or to teach His Word in an effective, engaging way versus someone who has simply pursued the traditional “credentials” for a paid position in a local church.
In other words, I’m advocating a complete paradigm shift in our thinking about “church” and “ministry,” based upon what I see in the New Testament. And what I don’t see there is an emphasis on professional clergy, sermons, or even reverently-choreographed “worship services” held in special buildings on Sundays, and yet we claim to be “New Testament” churches? Isn’t it interesting how silent the Scriptures are regarding the things we have come to believe are absolutely necessary to the definition of “church” and “ministry”?
Chris:
I had to Google “dunderhead” to see what it meant.
Shall we examine the NT and look for examples of “monologue preaching” to ensure that our practice is biblical and not based on culture or tradition? I would challenge anyone to do a careful study of the Greek words normally translated as “preach” or “preaching” in the NT and then, based on the contextual meaning of those words (not the meaning we often impose on them), provide a comprehensive picture of what it should look like. It simply means “to herald” or “to proclaim” or “to declare the good news,” with no mention of the physical posture or style of delivery.
Why not use a more effective form of communication—rather than one unsupported by the NT—like Paul’s all-night dialogue with the believers in Acts 20? You could just as easily expect the Holy Spirit to interact through dialogue or a Q&A approach, in terms of impacting your hearers: at least they could stay awake long enough for such an effect to take place You may want to examine my reasoning for this in another post I wrote a couple of months ago, just to make sure I’m not being unfaithful to Scripture.
So, my dear brother, Chris. Do you any biblical arguments to put forward on this subject, because I would really like to hear them. I am really glad God has used “pulpit preaching” to impact your life: I could say the same thing, but the Lord also used a jackass to speak to someone in the OT. That hilarious fact doesn’t mean we keep a resident jackass in every church…well, not intentionally, anyway.
Hi Bill.
Liked the straw man again (or should I say, jackass). Why the argument from the negative? Are you saying definitively that the heralding or proclamation or the declaration of the good news was not done in the way that has been accepted down through the centuries? I accept that we can have differing views on the whole subject of what constitutes effective communication, God has, can and does use a wide variety of ways of speaking to people. Why stop at a talking donkey? He uses dreams, visions, debate, dialogue and, dare I say it, even preaching. Because a particular viewpoint is in vogue or fashionable at the moment doesn`t negate the way that God has moved in the past and looking at the past can often be profitable in avoiding repetition of mistakes and errors. I too have heard a few talking donkeys (without the voice of god), but they have been vastly outnumbered by men of God that have thrilled my soul down through the years. Got to thank you for waking me up and getting me thinking again. Maybe I was getting a tad comatose!
Chris,
I’m not sure I understand your meaning of arguing “from the negative,†whether you are referring to my most recent comment or my original post. And I doubt anyone would accuse you of being comatose!
Actually, I would just like to see someone (anyone) put forward a BIBLICAL argument for requiring God’s people to passively sit in neat little rows, listening to one man speak uninterrupted for 30-60 minutes while standing behind a pulpit or lectern. That’s all I’m asking for! And in numerous posts and comments, the best anyone can do is argue from tradition or talk about how much they (or others down through history) have appreciated or been impacted by pulpit preaching. Is that the best we can do? If so, that’s really sad. It shows how far we have drifted from “church†and “ministry†in the First Century.
YES, I am suggesting that our entire approach to the crafting and delivery of monologue sermons “from the front†of a large, gathered congregation in a purpose-built church or chapel building has no foundation in Scripture or in the practice of the early church for the first 300 years of its existence. I am willing to be proven wrong, so get your Strong’s Concordance or whatever else you have available and show me the light.
So, how was teaching and preaching accomplished in the NT? You can read my longer post, but I’ll briefly summarize here. It was done primarily in small groups that met in homes, although it was sometimes done one-on-one (as in Philip & the Ethiopian eunuch), in the public square (the Day of Pentecost), and quite rarely in other venues like the temple courts (limited to Jewish Christians in the city of Jerusalem, prior to the persecution after Stephen’s martyrdom), large upper rooms (Paul’s farewell dialogue in Acts 17), and a few Jewish synagogues, until Paul’s welcome finally wore thin.
I’m not advocating something because it’s “in vogue or fashionable at the moment,†to use your words. Yes, God can speak to individuals in a myriad of ways, but we have chosen “one way†(monologue preaching) and made it the de facto “gold standard†of Christianity.
Sometimes following the trail of history can perpetuate heresy and/or error in our theology or practice. The Reformers finally woke up to the errors of Rome, but it took inquisitive, fiercely Berean Christians over 1,000 years before they were willing to break with tradition and go a new (actually, old) direction. But they didn’t go far enough, in my opinion, and we have the opportunity to pick up where they left off.
I really appreciate your responses! Iron does sharpen iron!
Bill,
The point I was making was that terms like “to herald†or “proclaim†or “declare†may or may not have referred to (to use your phrase) “monologue preaching.” The absence of evidence one way or another does not preclude that from being so. From a personal viewpoint I think the disciples would have continued to meet in the synagogues if their welcome had not worn thin, Peter proclaimed by way of a monologue on the Day of Pentecost, he repeated this on another occasion when many were converted, Stephen did the same in the most logical and structured way before his accusers as did Paul at Athens. The fact that these were in the open air doesn’t negate the effectiveness of “monologue preaching.” The Scripture teaches us “that God honours those that honour him.” And down through the centuries He has done that, He has honoured preaching, He has honoured dialogue, He has honoured small group teaching and one to one. I`m not a “preaching or nothing†man, but I do not see it as one or the other. I love the quote you used in an earlier entry from Dr. Lloyd-Jones on what he felt was the most urgent need in the church today. He felt it was true biblical preaching. I`m sure we both agree with that, our only difference is what constitutes preaching. From your comatose brother!
Could someone please get the crash cart and resuscitate my comatose, brother? Chris? Chris? Please, don’t leave us! Are you there? No…wait…he’s alive, he just got distracted by the picture of my jackass!
It doesn’t make a lot a sense for a First Century elder to stand up (in his best robe, I might add) and wax eloquent before his little house church, composed of ten or twelve people, meeting in his living room. Do you see my point? This WAS the early church from week to week…in some cases daily. No three-point sermons. No choirs. No special “order of service” or liturgy. Just real Christians meeting together for mutual encouragement and figuring out ways to creatively spur one another on to love and good deeds (Hebrews 10:24-25). And that godly elder certainly didn’t need to quit his job, go to seminary, find a denomination to ordain him, so he could huddle in his “study” for hours on end, putting sermons together. Which brings us back to the original reason for this post.
Dear Bill,
It’s ok, the braying of the jackass brought me back from deep slumber! Never been a three pointer…more a five pointer myself. I still feel that you are labouring the point about this poor wretched man huddled in his study for hours on end. You agree (I think) that God has given us all different gifts and one of those is teaching within the body, which requires preparation both in prayer and within the Word of God so that the saints are built up. For me and countless others sown through the centuries these sermons have built us up. Your comment on choirs intrigues me—should we not sing together? Is it wrong to be led in worship in song? Maybe I’m misunderstanding you here, but how do you see the place of singing as we meet together? No more talking donkeys, please!!!
Bill,
Should we turn off the lights, put away all electrical instruments, turn off the air conditioning and, by the way, kill blogs? Because they didn’t have those things then either.
Maybe you’ve been burnt in the past or something, but I’m not getting the problem with preaching monologue sermons to a congregation, I don’t know. There are small churches and large churches. There are church plants that start in garages and living rooms. Some of those grow into actually needing a building. Should we refuse the fact that people want to join together in larger groups and have a building?
I understand your frustation about the whole professional clergy deal, but I’m not getting your problem with church buildings and monologue preaching.
You do realize that many churches have small groups which hold discussions and talk practically about doctrine in everyday life. Churches have groups that meet in homes. There’s many elements to a church, not just the monologue preaching.
Are you saying there’s no room for monologue preaching at all?
Great post and dialogue, Bill! If we go to house churches can I still use my plexiglas pulpit?
Chris: Glad you’re back among the living! Five point sermons, huh? Wake me up when it’s over. Did my ass look too big in that last comment?
KPC: I think you’re overreacting just a tad. I’m not asking for a reversal of technology and cultural advancements and I haven’t suffered any sort of ecclesiological trauma that has rendered me spiritually paranoid. But thanks for your concern. What I am getting at is this: the buildings, the sermons, the large congregations…and a lot more…have contributed to the breakdown of relationships, community, spiritual growth, and THUS stunted the power and effectiveness of the body of Christ. I have planted three churches and facilitated the planting of nearly forty churches in the Panhandle of Florida, and I can tell you that with every stage of numerical growth comes a significant loss of intimacy and relationship.
John: No, I’m sorry about the pulpit. Could we trade it for a smaller but equally comforting security blanket and a hot cup of tea?
Everyone:
Should it really take an entire week to prepare an encouraging and equipping word for God’s people? The answer is “Yes” ONLY if you have bought into the traditional concept of Christian speech-writing (we call it “homiletics” today). Been there, done that, but someone stole my t-shirt.
Hang with me just a second…and imagine the church meeting in the household of Priscilla & Aquila on a Sunday…Christians gather for a meal, some really sweet fellowship, and lively discussion of the Word. Aquila gently guides his friends to consider something he remembered the Apostle Paul saying on his last visit. Someone else recalls a passage from the Psalms or the prophets as being particularly germane to Aquila’s remarks. Another brother in this small house church tells the group how God has been dealing with him regarding his need to be more trusting of Father’s providential care, rather than worrying about the future; and then unexpectedly a young woman begins weeping. It turns out that the unscripted confession about trust touched her deeply and it opens up an amazing time of sharing God’s grace and comforting this new believer in the Lord. We have just witnessed the mysterious work of the Holy Spirit in the midst of these precious saints, using ordinary people and their spiritual journeys to minister one to another. After some time in prayer, a little boy asks about singing his favorite song before everyone goes on their way. God has once again met with His church and they depart more encouraged than ever to be salt and light in their community.
Does anyone see the need for a 45-minute expository sermon in the above scene…one that required Aquila to spend 10-15 hours in preparing? Most of you guys (those hanging around for this discussion) already know more about the Bible, systematic theology, and practical ministry than you could ever share in a thousand conversations. So forget the lengthy micro-study sessions behind a pile of books, get out into the marketplace with people who desperately need to hear what you’ve already stored up in your heart and mind!
Hi Bill,
Cannot accept that the way that we meet is a major cause of stunting growth. What is a “large church?” Perhaps our experience of church life has been different, but all along the way I have been encouraged to develop and use the gifts God has given me within the community, to be salt and light on the shop floor among over 500 people that I work with and interact with day by day. I am in the marketplace, and the expository sermons that I have heard down through the years (maybe not all of them!) have equipped me to live my Christian life. You paint a picture of a house group that may meet your needs—why do you deny (by implication) that meeting as a congregation can both thrill and bless us? I love to be part of a large group, praising God in song, and being stirred in the depths of my soul by the Word of God being preached in a “monologue fashion.” It doesn`t always happen that way, but I do not believe the House Group model that you project would fit my particular personality: rightly or wrongly, it ain’t for me. About the five points, I love the quote attributed to John Newton: “I love my Calvinism like the sugar in my tea, well stirred, sweetening the whole cup, not left stuck at the bottom like a soggy mass”. Pretty neat that, I hope it`s true of me.
Bill,
I can understand how the largeness of a church CAN hinder a more intimate atmosphere. But I would hasten to say that it does not have to. Again I stress that large churches can have small groups where your idea of ministry takes place.
There’s nothing wrong with a 45 minute monologue sermon. There are ample examples in the old and new testament. Ezra preached half a day (monologue) so the people could understand the Word of God.
God has called some to labor in the Word to equip the saints for the ministry. We should labor to show ourselves aprroved. We will be judged accordingly.
You take an example of a first generation church and lay it as the template of what should take place forever. Most, if not all, church plants start off small. That does not mean they must stay that way.
A lot of New Testament baptisms took place in the river do we mainatain that as well? Can baptism only be legitimate in the river?
You blame largeness for the lack of intimacy. I blame lack of sound, biblical preaching!
NO ONE has yet offered biblical evidence to support the way we have “done church” for the past 1,700 years! So it’s just a “free for all,” is it? There’s NO New Testament pattern for our gatherings as the ecclesia of God, so whatever “feels good” or “meets my needs” or perpetuates the status quo is okay with God? Just because they did it a certain way in the First Century has NO bearing on us? Really?
Come on, guys! I am more interested in TRUTH than my own vested interests in the ways things currently exist or what I find comfortable; after all, my ministry is supported by a number of churches where buildings, traditional Sunday worship services, professionally-trained ministers/staff, and expository preaching are the norm. Some of them may read this and say, “Well, if that’s the way Bill feels about it, then we’ll stop sending our support.” And that would make life and ministry quite difficult for us: we might even have to return to the states. So I am willing to be vulnerable in this and question the way we do things, for only one reason: to make sure that I am building according to the pattern I believe God has given us in Scripture.
We’ve really gotten off topic regarding sermons and music and the size of churches and teaching, but I salute you all for the impassioned debate!
Hi Bill.
Sorry but the way you portray house groups just sounds like a free for all to me. I hope we are all concerned for truth, but you seem just as obsessed with your perceived correct way of “doing Church” as those you are at odds with. For Jesus the important thing about our worship was that it should be “in Spirit and truth” whatever way we meet together to express that—that’s the bottom line. Still love you brother.
Bill,
I guess I was waiting for some Scripture from you that condemns what we do now. Instead I was having flashbacks of the last chapters of Strom’s “Reframing Paul.”
There aren’t restrictions in the Word of God on building sizes, pews or chairs, short sermon or long sermon, etc. I believe that we have liberty to do church (as long as we don’t violate Scripture) as individual churches see fit. There are no commands to keep the church in the house and small in size.
There are commands to preach the Word, fellowship, prayer, songs of praise, etc.
It has not been my intention to condemn my brothers and sisters who are following a different pattern than I see in Scripture. Jesus Christ is Lord and King, transcending history and culture, so there is certainly no benefit in bringing guilt or condemnation to anyone. I am a “recovering Pharisee,” as I heard someone else describe themselves, and that often causes me to “should” on other people rather than take a more laid-back posture. Add to that a strong “prophetic edge” to my overall spiritual gift mix, verified over and over by various “spiritual gift assessments,” and you have the ingredients of someone who has a very “black and white” approach to Christian ministry…often not welcomed by my fellow believers.
I have never read Strom’s book, although it is listed as a “featured book” on my blog. It has been recommended by a number of highly respected theological educators and it’s at the top of my “must read” book list, whenever it arrives on my desk. If Strom and I think alike, then it’s strictly providential and it would be a blessing to discover someone with a PhD in Pauline theology and praxis who supports my wildly intuitive thinking (that I hope is based on my reading of the NT).
KP, your response suggests that you do not hold as strictly to the Regulative Principle (RP) of worship as I do. Maybe you don’t embrace it at all, since I don’t know you personally. Not that you can find such a phrase in Scripture, but I believe God has sovereignly provided written revelation—birthed in the context of the unfolding NT church’s life and infallibly recorded by Luke, the consummate historian—as a prescriptive model for the church. So from my perspective, the burden is on you to justify why that NT model is insufficient, flawed, or just one approach among a smorgasbord of viable options. It’s a bit unrealistic to expect God’s Word to say, “No pews…no buildings…no expository sermons,” when a perfectly sound model has already been communicated in the book of Acts. The Puritan framers of the Westminster Confession put it this way:
Most Reformed evangelicals only apply the RP to what they consider to be biblical components or elements of a traditional “order of service”; such as prayer, Scripture reading, preaching/teaching, singing, and the observance of the two ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. This is a failure, in my opinion, to consider the patterns of how the early church lived out the Gospel in community and it dramatically reduces worship to “what happens between the opening prayer and the last ‘Amen’” at the meetings at a particular address. This reductionist approach contributes to a plethora of other debilitating ailments in today’s church.
Hey Bill,
I appreciate your black and white approach and your passion. I feel I’m the same way. As far as Strom’s book, “Reframing Paul,” I thought many parts were good but when he gets into what he thinks the new testament church should look like I disagree.
Here’s my thoughts. You say were doing church wrong today, in your opinion. You say that church in the NT was small groups in homes not big buildings. I say that’s not a principle for how TO do it it was the fact that that WAS the way they did it.
The question then arises, WHY did they do it that way?
My contention is that they were church starts and when you only have a few families meeting together you don’t have bigger buildings and lots of people singing. You do with what you have and be content.
You use the WC on worship and I don’t disagree with it at all. But it’s speaking about worship not the facilities of worship. They’re not speaking about buildings or homes. They’re speaking about worshipping God in Spirit and in Truth. Which is the only way to worship Him.
I think there are guidelines in the Scriptures on worship. Songs need to be scriptural or else they’re worthless. Teaching needs to be biblical or they’re in vain. Fellowship needs to be Christian or it’s not worship.
But there’s nothing that tells us or gives us a principle that says you must be small and in homes.
How about this, since you want to deconstruct how we do church – show me scriptural evidence that we’re sinning in how we do it!
Hey Bill.
I read the blog about “full time ministry” and it seems to me that the “other guys” have taken offense and are drawn off course by their emotions or whatever. I have not been to seminary so I don’t feel “qualified” to make a blog entry but I would like to say this:
People who seek the truth will be drawn to people who speak the truth (we are drawn to Christ). You could say this coalescing happens on its own when really it is God who is directing His sheep to better pasture, but in His way and time. I hear what you are saying about the buildings, the choir, etc. etc. etc. What I think I hear is that God simply does not care about “how” the truth is delivered and I agree. It is THAT the truth is confessed as an individual led by Christ. His (Christ’s) truth is the salt of the Earth.
I mention this in view of what God has shown me:
I see the delivery issue as an issue of repentance from doing it “the right way.” If they think they are doing it in a way that is “right” or in a way that they think “pleases” God it would be a matter of repentance to turn from such idolatry. And as you know we don’t have the ability to induce repentance, whether by scripture or by point. If they are not hearing it is because they don’t want to hear it and we get to the place of jamming the square peg into the round hole.
I think God showed you this stuff because you desired something better than the nonsense of the “right method.” He led you to something better through repentance. But as we well know, we could easily attempt to give someone else what God has given us, even in the best of motives. But the square peg (the gift) will never fit the round hole (a heart that is not prepared by God to hear it). So I hear what you are saying but I don’t believe it will be received at all unless they are already complaining of the “method.”
I think it would be best to simply put it on the blog that the “method” is crap. Lay out the method of buildings, podiums, and choirs as the “norm” for what constitutes a church and then say what you believe in your heart in “all” its mule-kicking glory. If they hear you on this there will be dialogue, if not there will be resistance to what is obviously idolatry. It just means that God is not working that way in their hearts.
So call it for what it is and then dance! If they don’t want it, they don’t have to have it! You’re free. I’m with you but I’m not a major league player here (pastor) so I won’t get into the mix. Terminology is being used that is over my head.
Anyway, I could be totally screwed on my perception of what I think is happening. But I at least can tell they don’t want it for some weird reason. There’s a lot of resistance out there to truth and people hang on to their authorities like security blankets for “safety.”
Pingback: The Thin Edge of the Wedge » Blog Archive » Hi, my name is Bill and I’m a “recovering Pharisee”
Pingback: The Thin Edge of the Wedge » Blog Archive » Hi, my name is Bill and I am a “recovering Pharisee”
Bill, seems to me if we define the church as in any of the confessions, it is basically an organized body of baptized believers in covenant relationship for gospel purposes. Where the body meets depends on the size, and the desire of the church. When we started Spurgeon Memorial Baptist church in Anchorage Alaska several years ago, we met in our home. When the Lord saved some of the GIs and space became a problem, we rented the Presbyterian church on Sunday afternoon from 1-4 p.m. Wherever we met we engaged in the apostle’s doctrine, in fellowship, in breaking of bread and in prayers. There were a couple of us who were looked on as elders and were on active duty with the Air Force. After our teaching ministry we would open the discussion for questions and comments, which sometimes went on for a long time. (No one fell out of the windows though!) Those who were members still comment on the hot dogs and chili and sometimes suarkraut and oatmeal cookies which we enjoyed as a group.We contributed to mission work including David Straub in England at the time. We used the technology available at the time, mostly cassette tapes and memographed handouts. We went door to door in the barracks on base and in the surrounding community. I’ll comment more later. My computer is acting up. By His grace alone Cap
Please forgive the delay in replying to these excellent comments, but we’re on a 10-day holiday trip to Ireland. Yippee!! And I’m not sure how much access (if any) I’ll have for blogging. So, if you don’t hear from me soon, it’ll be after July 3rd.
Blessings to all!
Bill
Bill -
I’ve been wanting to comment on this post for a while, but time has been quite pressured. Now at last I get to it, and there’s some 27 comments to have to wade through as well! Phew!
I think your strong stance here has at least helped to polarise and clarify the positions at stake. Theology is best done in community, and that makes it an organic thing. It grows, it changes, it adapts. Dare I suggest we see that very model of theology in the NT – a theology ‘hammered out’ in the realities of everyday life, not in some academy. Bottom line: your strongly-stated position enables the debate to be had. And it enables us all to refine and sharpen our theology of church and preaching. We may not end out where we began.
While I am in general agreement with your thesis on the preaching of monologue, I don’t know that I want to exclude monologue either. I’m not entirely convinced that it is excluded from the NT church – though I admit any arguments have to be from silence or inference. Others have made the valid point in other places that most of those speech acts which are ostensibly monologues in the NT are directed at unbelievers. Fair enough.
I, like you, feel a strong allegiance to the Regulative Principle – I swore vows on that principle. Because there is nowhere in the NT that actually gives us a statement for or against monologue, I think we’re compelled to work this question from two angles: firstly, what DO we actually have in terms of models of ‘church-speak’ (speech among / to a body of believers)? Secondly, what kind of ‘church-speak’ does a community grounded in something as radical as grace produce?
The reason I will not exclude monologue would have to be argued from these questions. I believe, firstly, that at some points the text leaves the options open-ended: was it monologue or dialogue or what? (Though the text often argued, Acts 20 with its use of the ‘dialogizomai’ verb, would seem to indicate discussion, not monologue.) At some points, we cannot know. And so we are compelled to argue from silence or inference. Are there incidences of monologue preaching to the unconverted in the NT? It appears so. Are there incidences of monologue preaching to the converted in the NT? It is not unreasonable to choose to read some texts that way.
I do think, however, that the second question is an important one: what sort of ‘church-speak’ does a grace-community engage in? I think the NT compels us to answer: many forms. You would also have to include in here prophecy, words of knowledge, tongues. Do you EXCLUDE monologue? I think we have to say ‘no’. Grace has to supersede the creation of a new legalism. Do you then ENSHRINE monologue? I think we also have to say ‘no’. Grace, in all its radical outworking, moved past the creation of status-building rhetoric (1 Cor), and led to ‘conversation’ (forgive the Mark Strom-ism).
When I say ‘conversation’ I mean so much more than a Sunday morning dialogue. I believe the ‘church-speak’ of the NT is an outflow of the kind of community it is; grace-filled, Spirit-filled, every-member empowered, prophetic, mutually edifying. Whatever else this produces, it has to produce ‘conversation’ – genuine and rich discussion that weaves us deeper into grace and the riches of the knowledge of Christ. At the very least, this has to mean that any monologue is FRAMED by gracious dialogue; that is, church structures and authority are not vested in some ordained college-trained individual and his final pronouncements from behind a box.
I don’t think a community of grace excludes monologue, but I don’t think it enshrines it either as an end in itself. We are a community formed out of grace. And that means all our speaking yields to something greater than THE MAN (to borrow the line from ‘School of Rock’) behind the box. We yield ourselves and the life of our gatherings to Jesus and to what it means to live in his grace and wisdom. And we work it out together; bibles open, hearts open, minds open, ears open – and probably mouths open as well.
Thanks Adriaan for that thoughtful grace-filled response. It was very helpful.
Bill,
Plus, I have sat in Cafe New Orleans with you discussing the word. A pulpit, microphone, and lighting are not required for a monologue to take place. 
You keep asking everyone to make a biblical argument for the “traditional and historical” methods. I’m waiting for you to make an argument against them. A narrative description of activity during the NT times doth not a didactic prescription make.
You are correct that 15 hrs. isn’t always required but that doesn’t negate the actual proc. Also, the reason some people have the biblical knowledge to spare is because they have been doing hours of exegetical work over the years.
HOWEVER, you are so correct on your original intent of pointing out that we manufacture vocational calls every time someone gets serious about their faith.
Just ran across this today… not sure if the conversation is “dead” yet or not, but I’ll post anyway.
A related but somewhat divergent point about “building” churches: they tend to place all burden of proof on those with a non-traditional stance. If you “tow the line” then you never have to give any answers as to why you hold your beliefs. However, if you don’t, then you must become a theologian. In the parlance of my career field, “no one ever got fired for recommending IBM.”
Agree or disagree with Bill as you will. However, I do think (if I have him right!) that Bill is correct in arguing that the “burden” of argument/proof should *always* fall to the person whose model has the least *positive* backing from scripture, and not to the person whose position is furthest from current practice. Remember, in Martin Luther’s time, indulgences were common practice, and there is nothing in the New Testament saying sacrificial giving isn’t a token of repentance. Now, I’m not arguing for indulgences, but if I was given the rhetorical higher ground, then I could make it difficult for an someone to argue that indulgences were unbiblical.
Read Thomas Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions” for a detailed yet readable description of the problem.
Thanks for posting, Tom. This conversation probably died prematurely, because I left some loose ends hanging when I went to Ireland for a ten-day holiday. Since the comments were chasing a related but definitely off-topic issue related to church organization and structure, I decided to leave it for now. Hopefully, when I get around to posting something on church structure, we can pick this discussion up in a fresh way.
I do appreciate your support! For awhile, I was beginning to think it was me against everyone else.
What an interesting dialogue. Below is an idea that may go along with the dialogue that I find quite interesting and tend to agree.
Bubba: It probably freaks out some people that there really are two Lollars engaging in this comment stream; so for those who didn’t read “Family Matters” and you want to find out who this “Bubba Lollar” really is, have a look and see if there’s any family resemblance.
While I agree with most of what Ellis says, he starts out with an unfounded assumption (and you know what they say about “assumptions” don’t you?):
Why would he use Hebrews 10:25 as support for his statement? Methinks he simply assumes—just like many of us—that the inspired writer had Sunday morning at 11:00 in mind when he penned those words; however, there is NOTHING in that verse about worship!
Yeah, I know. It blew my mind when I first realized it, too. The verse says (in various translations):
So if Hebrews 10:25 is the only support Ellis can muster for the traditional concept of “gathered worship,” can you think of any other verses in the New Testament that might back it up? I’ve been searching for months now. Nothing so far. Not a single command anywhere in the NT. Take a look at “Going to Church This Sunday” just to show you that I’ve been asking questions like this since May. Also you might want to read “Moving Beyond Church Services” as well.
I have posted a separate article on this whole subject, so that hopefully we can have an online dialog about it.