Call it what you will: preaching, teaching, sermonizing, instruction or simply lectures. The modern church is obsessed with one man (and very rarely women) standing up in front of a group with something to say.
Granted, part of the function of a body of believers is to equip believers to do the work of the ministry AND to preach the gospel to the ends of the earth. However, are these functions best accomplished through the lecture method?
The “lecture method” of teaching has become so commonplace with the modern church and society that most people can’t even name another method. Can you name another method of teaching?
Here are two for your consideration:
The teacher as a guide and stimulator, not a lecturer, nor a dispenser of information. For much of human history, educational methods were largely informal, and consisted of children imitating or modelling their behavior on that of their elders, learning through observation and play. Call that “learning by example” or the “demonstrative method”. This is probably what is referred to in Deuteronomy 11:18-21.
The teacher as one who presents questions and stimulates debate, not just giving easy or simplistic answers to often complex questions. Plato describes a system of instruction that he felt would lead to an ideal state. In his Dialogues, Plato describes the Socratic method. This method is dialectic. Meaning there is a dialog (back and forth) between people exchanging ideas and arguments about a topic or idea.
As I sit there ever Sunday morning and squirm in my seat like a 3 year old, I ask:
What’s with the Church’s obsession with lectures?
- It’s efficient - conducive to mega church ministry building.
- It works well under time constraints - other methods simply take too long and we don’t have that kind of time to burn.
- It’s comfortable - one guy does all the work, the rest simply sit there, listen and then off to the super buffet.
- It can be kept “light and fluffy” - and palatable for the masses.
The bottom line
The Sunday Morning Lecture may not be the best way of teaching, but it’s here to stay. Change always comes slowly, especially with religious institutions. The Church’s obsession with lectures will not end until we come to terms with the following:
- our obsession with experts - and what I call The Reverse Reformation back to Papal/Pastoral (read Pope) authority.
- our obsession with knowledge - knowing does not necessarily lead to doing, but it’s a heck of a lot easier.
- our obsession with spiritual gift of teaching - if I hear one more time how much so-and-so just loooooves Pastor Jeff’s teaching (substitute Pastor Tom, Dick or Harry) I’m gonna [censored]. Man, nobody liked Jesus’ teaching. He caused major division and discomfort every time He spoke.
Until we lose our obsessions, I’ll see you at the Sunday morning lecture. I’m the one that’s fidgeting like a like a 3 year old.
3 responses so far ↓
George Cannon // April 29, 2008 at 12:53 am
Interesting
George Cannon // April 29, 2008 at 8:55 pm
The following is an excerpt from a message (lecture) that John Piper gave at a conference in 2006.
“Preaching is not conversation. It is not discussion. Preaching is not casual talk about religious things. Preaching is not teaching. Preaching is the heralding of a message permeated by a sense of the greatness and majesty and holiness of God. It can be any topic under the sun. And that topic is taken into the blazing center of the greatness and glory and holiness of God in the Word of God. That was (George) Whitefield’s view of preaching.
And in the last century, the man who embodied it best was Martin Lloyd Jones. Who served Westminster Chapel for 30 years in London. J. I. Packer, you have read his testimony perhaps, when he was 22 years old, a student, said that he had heard Lloyd-Jones preach every Sunday night in the year 1948-1949. And he said ‘I had never heard such preaching.’
Which, by the way, is why today so many people say so many minimizing and foolish things about preaching. THEY HAVE NEVER HEARD IT. THEY DON’T KNOW WHAT IT IS. THEY HAVE NO BASIS FOR JUDGMENT AS THEY BELITTLE IT AND CALL FOR ALTERNATIVES THAT ARE MORE EFFECTIVE.
Packet said ‘It came to me with the force of electric shock. Bringing more of a sense of God than any other man he had known.’”
John Palm // April 29, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Thanks.
1. I don’t think I belittle preaching or teaching in my post. My point is that of all the functions of a healthy church body, we seem to esteem preaching and teaching above other functions for the reasons I stated.
2. Piper is a preacher and I’m sure he must believe in what he is doing.
3. Some churches preach/teach up to 3 - 4 times a week and do communion once a quarter. Or have fellowship times once a month. I’m just asking if this is out of balance.
4. Jesus example is interesting vs. what we do now. There was a great balance between intimate relationship, exampling, and teaching/preaching.
5. Preaching: I thought referred to preaching the gospel and therefore would be more effective with an audience who needed to hear the gospel.
6. Teaching: I thought was focused on believers with an aim to equip them to DO the work of the ministry.
7. Prophesy: I thought was revealing/illuminating the Word of God as found in scripture to all people.
8. I’m not anti-preaching. It just seems to me we are obsessed. Why are we not obsessed with serving, administration, helping, giving, etc.? That’s my question.
Leave a Comment