Sunday, August 31, 2008

Pointless Perpetuative Preaching

For those of you who "preach" or "teach" on Sundays, do you ever wonder what the point is? Far too often, I hear the comment, "I really liked your message - I actually remember what you said Sunday", as if that's a shocking thing. Don't hear me as saying I get those comments a lot, because I've preached plenty of bombs in my young career, but doesn't it get you to thinking: if people don't remember the message of your message or remember the words of one of the songs you sang, what's it really worth?

I was reflecting on the passage from Isaiah which talks about honoring the Sabbath by not speaking "idle words". How would you define idle words? How about half hour sermons that no one remembers 10 minutes after they're given or that don't give any impact to their lives. How about songs that are comfortable or eradicate our white guilt because they're in a different language? Come to think about it, I've sat through quite a few worship services that were chock full of "idle words" - its why there's some churches (and even the chapel at my own school) I have trouble sitting in, even though I affirm a universal Church. The words just seem so empty, as if they're being said for the sake of the words themselves. And yet, there's a strange normalness to it that reassures you that this is "just how it is". Its also why I'm disillusioned more and more with doing pulpit supply. How can someone coming into an unknown church, picking 5 hymns at random and preaching a "canned" message be anything but idle words?

For Pete's sake: if reading the newspaper is as spiritually transformative as going to church, why are we surprised that people don't want to come?

In being frustrated about sermon-giving and sermon-receiving throughout my lifetime (and especially my seminary career), I've often thought that maybe, just maybe, the redemptive panacea for sermonizing was some sort of combination of dynamism and content. After all, people remember when you suck as a sermon-giver (usually more than if you're marginally talented). And when preachers suck, its usually because they lack dynamism or content. Some preachers lack both, and while that's a topic for another day, just consider the main criteria we look for in future pastors: academic excellence (yes, the same academic excellence most churches could care less about).

However, I think that maybe non-idle preaching (or teaching) is more than just personal dynamism or content and I'd like to propose something new: How about if the words you're about to speak or the words you're about to lead people in singing are not passionate, authentic and transformative, keep them to yourself. Seriously....if it comes down to Sunday morning and you haven't got something that meets that criteria, just don't speak or sing. Would it really alter the course of anyone's spiritual direction? Other than make you look like you're not working your 40 hours, would people's lives be any different than if you would have spoken or sung?

I think what Isaiah is getting at in 58:13 is that God's day is not the time to waste time on our own fruitless measures. It sickens me when preachers preach messages that only benefit themselves. It troubles me when preachers try to impress their congregation by what they have to say or what research they've done. I think its unfortunate that so many preachers stand up on Sunday mornings to deliver a message because its what's supposed to be done to continue their "ministry of maintenance". There are a lot of well-educated, talented orators that just need to get off their high horses (or high pulpits), wake up and realize that their speaking is just noise because the chief beneficiary is the self. That is anti-Sabbath.

I've stopped repeating sermons. I hope if you're reading this, you do, too. Unless you really reshape the sermon to fit the context, you run a very high risk of speaking idle words. Preaching/teaching should always be driven by the unique situation to which you are addressing your words. We're far too often tempted to just do things the way they were done in our home church or in a church where we saw it work or how they told us to in school. The disciples were not charged with perpetuation, they were charged with innovation. They didn't do ministry exactly the way Jesus did it in exactly the same places - they each used their gifts and took the message to transform lives where the Spirit led.

I think we all (as speakers and worship leaders) need to own up to the fact that we've spoken "idle words" - words that are just words - with no power to evoke passion, no power to transform, and with no innovation. There might be times when we need to challenge the perpetuation norm. There might be times when we need to just shut up.

6 comments:

preacherman said...

Wonderful post and thoughts.
I love it when you start preaching the Holy Spirit takes over. It is defintely inspiring to the listeners. I want you to know that you and your ministry is in my prayers. God has great plans in store for you as you serve Him. Keep up the great work you are doing.

P&R said...

What renders words idle? What makes them not idle?

Is it possible that the idleness of the words - which you seem to equate with ineffective - is due less to the speaker than to the hearers?

Is it not also possible that different people need to hear the same message? Colossians and Ephesians, for instance, are remarkably similar as are the synoptic Gospels.

You draw firm lines where boundaries are in fact blurred - an error common among the young. Be careful.

Mark Hilbelink said...

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.....but I find it interesting that you're accusing me of "drawing firm lines where boundaries are blurred". Considering the fact that most people think young postmodern people blur too many lines, I guess I'll take that as a compliment!

P&R said...

This is a bit lengthy, but since you asked...

"How can someone coming into an unknown church, picking 5 hymns at random and preaching a 'canned' message be anything but idle words?"

"How about if the words you're about to speak or the words you're about to lead people in singing are not passionate, authentic and transformative, keep them to yourself."

"I think its unfortunate that so many preachers stand up on Sunday mornings to deliver a message because its what's supposed to be done to continue their 'ministry of maintenance'."

"Preaching/teaching should always be driven by the unique situation to which you are addressing your words."

"I think we all (as speakers and worship leaders) need to own up to the fact that we've spoken 'idle words' - words that are just words - with no power to evoke passion, no power to transform, and with no innovation."

***
Think about these statements for a moment. In all of them, you are assuming that your response is definitive of what is happening in the worship service. While it is not uncommon for the connection between the hymns, the liturgy and the sermon to be less than obvious, that does not mean they are random. Nor does the fact that one is only lightly acquainted equate to "unknown". And the fact that the message is the same as a message given to another does not render it “canned”. You’ve made a hard and fast rule that may or may not apply.

Similarly, you equate “passionate” with “authentic” and “transformative” but they are not the same. I have met quite a few passionate liars, and I have seen dull truths transform lives. But because you have a hard time connecting to one who is not what you consider “passionate” you immediately suppose it is a “ministry of maintenance.” Again, you set up your own self as the rule by which all else should be measured.

Oh yes, what exactly is wrong with maintaining what is there? If the truth of the Gospel has been held for 100 years in a congregation, I should think that eminently worth maintaining. It may be dull in some ways, but it is essential.

Perhaps preaching and teaching should always be driven by the truth of the Gospel, which is not driven by the situation but by the eternal, unchanging God who called us out of darkness into his light. And I am not addressing my words to a “situation” but to people in community – a community and a people far larger than this one small piece of it that is the congregation here.

Non-idle words in your rule “evoke passion, [have] power to transform,” and are innovative. But passions may themselves be idle, and innovation for its own sake is empty. Entire nations have been transformed by idle words and transnational cultures have been founded on trite 4-piece bands with redundant refrains.

As I said, you set up hard and fast lines that are dangerously simplistic – a hazard of youth.

Mark Hilbelink said...

P&R:

I appreciate you reading and interacting with this blog, but please refrain from making absolutist claims about people because of their age. It's just as discriminatory as commenting on someone's race or gender. I can't make myself older - but you can make yourself more respectful. Keep absolutist discriminatory comments to yourself, or I'll be forced to delete your comments.

peace.

P&R said...

It is not my intent to be "disrespectful," as you put it. Age, race, gender and culture have an influence on ideas. Some of those influences are dangerous - whatever the age, race, gender or culture. This is not absolutist or discriminatory. It simply is. Whether it is offensive or not is up to you, but one ought not flee from truth simply because it offends. And the truth is, the assumptions made in your posts reflect inexperience and impatience common to the young. Perhaps my own reflect the comfortable complacency you attribute to idly spoken middle-aged preachers. It is well for us and for the Church to challenge one another in these opposite dangers.

Whether you delete or do not delete my comments is up to you - it's your blog.

Dominus tecum