Comments on: Good preaching?

By: Backyard Missionary » Blog Archive » The Process of Untransformation

Backyard Missionary » Blog Archive » The Process of Untransformation — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:48:35 +0000

[...] “One was a conservative evangelical church replete with a good teaching ministry, while the ot… [...]

By: Jenno

Jenno — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 03:34:58 +0000

I’m glad I provoked your response then, Steve, as I can see we are using terms quite differently. I understand Biblical expository preaching to happen when the preacher takes a passage of Scripture and goes through it, applying exegetical techniques to expose the meaning of the text. Of course, interpretation is always subjective, and so I would also expect the preacher to admit her or his own bias, and also whether or not she or he found the text difficult or even untenable. An example of the latter, personally, would be the prohibitions in St Paul against women in ministry, or the scattered references (mostly Paul’s again) forbidding homosexuality. Were I preaching such a passage in an expository manner, I would feel duty bound both to state what the Bible was actually saying (rather than what I wish it were saying), and also to admit that I disagreed.

Personally, and I think this relates to your original point, I find this sort of preaching edifying in that there is an implicit recognition that I have a brain and I am not merely bound to slavishly follow the preacher’s interpretation of the Bible – I am required to make my own mind up. I’m not sure if that works for others in real life – I think pastors like yourself are in a much better position to assess that than I am. But I find being treated with that level of respect is a motivating thing. Then whether or not I am a “qualitatively better Christian” is up to me.

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:47:36 +0000

Interesting comments.

A few replies to them,

First Jenno – I guess when I talk about Biblical preaching I am talking about preaching that both takes biblical theology seriously, and sees the ultimate role of the Bible to bring us to God only and ever through the person and work of Jesus, thus enabling us by the Spirit to be the people of God from now on right on into God’s future.? That puts people like Creflo Dollar out of the picture immediately!? But to be fair I think it puts the Dean out of the picture too, if only by his own stated beliefs. I find it hard to believe that his preaching is expositional in the sense that its ultimate goal is to unveil Jesus.? In fact the Dean may be uncomfortable coming under my def. given the comments frequently attributed to him in The West Australian newspaper are any indication – he prides himself on having non-orthodox views on just about every central Christian tenet. I would be interested to hear the sermon you are talking about. Is it available?

I have heard some great biblical preaching from evangelical ministries and some pretty dodgy stuff too. But I have NEVER heard someone who does not have a high view of the Bible ever preach anything other than the most inane homilies from the Scripture and I worked in a denomination and in a church which held a low view of Scripture, so I have had plenty of opportunity to hear it.

An anecdote only: a self-avowed atheist told me that he often went to the Cathedral because he liked the spectacle of the event, but the thing that really put him off was the aforementioned Dean’s preaching because it was so inane.

Cam – my statement “qualitatively better Christian” is perhaps a rather lazy way to describe what I am talking about. The real question is whether there is a process in churches for Christians to corporately enact what they hear from a sermon or other form of Bible teaching, and whether there is a tangible measure of this. I guess I need to get some empirical evidence on this one – though that would seem to be difficult because of the subjective nature of t

By: Jenno

Jenno — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 04:12:26 +0000

There is a lot to comment on here, not least the perjorative way in which you talk about liberal christianity. But there appears to be an illogical assumption implicit in the comparison between the fund…sorry, conservative evangelical and liberal evangelical churches you mention.

This assumption is that “liberal” churches(whatever that means) do not practice biblical preaching. As you will no doubt be aware, Steve, the dean of the Anglican cathedral in Perth is often labelled as “liberal” in his theological views (whether or not he would accept this designation is unknown to me). However, he is a very good biblical preacher. I had thought that perhaps expository preaching had disappeared forever, but the last time I heard the Dean preach he presented one of the best expository sermons I have ever heard.

The assumption seems to be that a high view of Scripture is required to produce “good” Biblical preaching. I think this is dubious.

By: Goblin

Goblin — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:46:59 +0000

A few thoughts:
The actual impact that Bible teaching has on us will usually be measurable or discernable only in the way we go on to interact with others, both inside the church and particularly those outside. This is hugely affected by how we view our identity in Christ and how our church ’structures’ reflect or are shaped by this identity.
If we understand every Christian to be a minister and every Christian to be a missionary, it is much more likely we will focus on applying our teaching in each of our lives. If we understand our identity as ‘individuals in community’ then our way of doing church will be community focused and teaching will tend to be focused on interactive relational behaviour rather than individualistic behaviour. Our teaching mechanisms will be more interactive and participative, with many people contributing and sharing their understanding, rather than relying on a series of monologues by someone else paid to do the job. Our evangelism will be seen as a way of life each of us lives EVERY DAY, in whatever job or role God has placed us, rather than as something done in a specific evangelistic meeting in a specific place by someone else paid to do the job.
If we essentially regard someone else to be ‘the minister’ or ‘the missionary’, then it is likely our church will be based on one man paid to stand at the front and deliver monologues to a largely passive audience congregation. “Treat your congregation like an passive audience – and that’s exactly what you’ll get!”

By: Cam H

Cam H — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:17:09 +0000

It begs the question Steve, by what criteria are we using to measure a “qualitatively better Christian”?

By: Mick Porter

Mick Porter — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 00:41:00 +0000

Steve,

All good points.

I think that small groups are great for “working out” application of a lot of personal/moral implications of the gospel (I’m assuming the sermon has been gospel-based). But they’re a terrible format for applying the social implications of the gospel.

That gets me back to my comment on your other post regarding WHAT is preached. Lots of “great preaching” in evangelical circles is about the implications of the gospel in a personal/moral context.

A while back when I was starting to see the magnitude of this problem I wrote this post:
http://unveiledface.blogspot.com/2006/10/on-mission-part-3-missional-and.html

I think the book “A Call to Conversion” by Jim Wallis absolutely whacks the nail on the head regarding the left wing/right wing divide.

All that to say that I think preaching can be great but can easily push us along just one trajectory. Small groups are useful for dealing with some kinds of gospel application. Small groups in comfortable lounge rooms, however, won’t get us in contact with the truly poor and marginalised.

BTW, have you noticed how some of these big evangelical preaching-centric ministries use marketing with pictures of big oak desks and massive leather-bound bibles and stuff? I can’t imagine a better way to ensure a disconnect with the marginalised…