Re-establishing Gospel Relevancy in Contemporary Ecclesiology
To many, the title of this paper may seem odd or even nonsensical. However, this issue has certainly become appropriate in the past thirty years and is growing even more so in the present age. More and more churches are grappling with the issue of how they can become more relevant to the modern, or post-modern (depending on whom you ask) culture. Whether the problem is due to over-saturation of churches, declining attendance numbers, old philosophies of ministry, or a reaction to boredom in the pews, a growing number of church leaders seem to be adamant that the Gospel is losing its relevancy. The aim of this paper is to state that the problem is not that the Gospel is losing its relevancy, but rather that the majority of preachers are not preaching the Gospel. The Gospel, if expounded correctly, is extremely relevant.
The “Problem” of Relevancy: North Point Community Church
There are two main advocates of the belief that the Gospel has lost its relevancy and consequently, needs to be repackaged and reorganized. The first proponent of this philosophy is the Willow Creek Association/North Point model. This paper will focus solely on the North Point model; however the Willow Creek model, as well as many others, are all loosely related.
In November 1995, Andy Stanley, son of First Baptist Church, Atlanta longtime pastor, Charles Stanley, announced to a gathering of people that, “Atlanta does not need another church. What Atlanta does need is a safe environment where the unchurched can come and hear the life-changing truth that Jesus Christ cares for them and died for their sins.”[1] With that announcement, Stanley created the culture that is North Point Community Church.
A quick dissection of the preceding statement leads to several immediate observations. First, is the startling assertion that the city of Atlanta does not need another church. Why not? He then states that instead of a new church, Atlanta needs something different: a safe environment, a seeker (unchurched) friendly atmosphere, and the news that Jesus Christ cares and loves people. With these statements, Stanley is obviously implying that the city of Atlanta, which is very similar to most Southern cities and towns, is overly-saturated with churches. He also is implying that the current churches are not safe, whatever that means, or are not welcoming the un-churched. Additionally, North Point apparently has no interest in the currently-churched. Furthermore, Stanley is claiming that traditional churches must not be getting the message across that Jesus cares for everyone and that He died for their sins. My immediate response to these assertions is that if there is any church that is indeed functioning in these ways, then they are not functioning biblically.
The model that Stanley has invented is an intriguing one. His belief is that to get the unchurched into church, one must first get them into the “foyer,” or entryway of the church. He does this through topical preaching of broad biblical themes. Many other churches have sense adopted this method and very seldom do they ever thoroughly expound Scripture. The foyer experience is “the first step, and it’s often your only chance to make your guests feel comfortable enough to return” states North Point’s website. The second step in the strategy happens after an unchurched person has felt comfortable enough in the foyer that he voluntarily moves into the “living room.” States the website, “This is where you connect with people like yourself. Smaller and more interactive than the foyer environment, these gatherings offer genuine opportunity to begin friendships...just like the living room in your home.” What exactly this experience encompasses, I am not sure. I believe it includes some type of fellowship activities. The third room in the house is the “kitchen.” Is this where the potluck takes place? Not in Stanley’s model. North Point’s website states, “Where do you end up when friends or family come over? The kitchen. This is where lasting friendships are made. And that’s the kind of environment we are striving for in our small groups.”[2] Hence the place where the Gospel is finally preached, maybe, is in the small group setting. Obviously, this approach is problematic and marginalizes the power of the Gospel.
The “Problem” of Relevancy: The Emerging Church
The second proponent of the belief that the preaching of the Gospel is not relevant is the Emerging Church culture. Who are these Christians? D.A. Carson has written a very informative assessment of this “conversation,” as Emergent leaders refer to their movement, in his book, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church. As Dr. Carson points out, this movement is characterized by the term, “protest.” The leaders of this conversation are protesting against three areas of church culture. The first area they are protesting against it the established church itself. Many of the leaders come from “conservative, traditional, evangelical churches, sometimes with a fundamentalist streak”[3] and tend to vilify the church as an institution and are reacting against a perceived ecumenism. They despise structure and traditionalism.
The second protest is against modernism. The leaders of this movement simply believe that anything modern is extinct and state that people do not think along linear lines anymore. Therefore, a didactic sermon is not conducive to how people think or react. Finally, the third and most intriguing protest that encompasses this movement is a protest against the seeker-sensitive and/or the mega-church movement. Not only are the leaders of the Emerging Church movement rejecting the background by which they came, they are also rejecting the seeker movement, which, as noted above, is also trying to make the Gospel relevant to its audience. Therefore, the Emerging church movement is reacting against a reaction (the seeker movement) that the modern presentation of the Gospel has become irrelevant.
The Crossroads
With all of this being said, it is important to note that the “church” as we know it is
changing. There is a common thread that both the seeker movement and the Emerging Church movement have noticed and this is the fact that the traditional church experience has been deemed in-authentic. The problem with in-authenticity is an area which I believe both of these movements have correctly identified as being a problem with some traditional churches.
There are no doubt many churches where many visitors and church members have no idea what the church’s vision, mission, or reason for existing is. This factor is one of many that lead the two aforementioned movements to declare that traditional churches are not being relevant and not meeting the needs of the changing times. Indeed, the current generation of younger believers craves authenticity. I would agree with this claim. I crave authenticity as well. I do not enjoy going to a church service and cringing at the display of inauthentic traditions that seem out of place, out of date, and indeed, irrelevant.
However, the traditions are not the worst part. The worst part of these services are where the preachers dance around a text and deliver some type of “biblical” message that tries to meet perceived needs of the audience. The church member leaves the service with no real need of theirs having been met, and may not even be able to summarize what the preacher’s message was about. I went to a service a few years ago where the pastor’s message was entitled, “Why Christians Should Vote.” What does this topic have to do with the Gospel and what scripture is this based on? It is easy to see how members who grow up in churches that preach sermons like the one mentioned above, never have their real needs met by the thoroughness of the preaching of text-drive sermons, and therefore claim that the Gospel is irrelevant to them. Therefore, they believe, the Gospel must be repackaged and presented in a different light.
The Solution
I think Paul said it best: “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.”[4] What our seeker-sensitive and emerging church brothers have hit on is very important. The current generation of younger believers are not having their problems met, and therefore solved, in the pulpit. Why not? Because many men occupying the pulpit are not preaching the Bible. Even at chapel, I have had the displeasure of sitting though many sermons which did not expound, illustrate, exhort, or apply the text to my life. The preachers did not make a biblical attempt to impart those divine words into my heart and mind.
If preachers will preach the whole canon of Scripture, the Gospel will indeed be relevant to the lives of its hearers. One can preach expositorily through books of the Bible, through passages dealing with major doctrines, and through topical expositions (for instance preaching a 6-week series on the family by going through the texts that discuss that topic). The beauty of the Bible is that through it, God has given us everything we need to sanctify our lives through reliance of Him and to further His kingdom. Not preaching the entirety of the Bible will indeed lead to irrelevancy in the pews.
[1] This quotation may be found at: http://www.joshhunt.com/mail82.htm.
[2] The preceding quotations may be found at the home page of North Point Community church: http://www.northpoint.org/home.
[3] D.A. Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church. (Grand Rapids: Zodervan, 2005), 14.
[4] 2 Tim. 4:2 (ESV).
The “Problem” of Relevancy: North Point Community Church
There are two main advocates of the belief that the Gospel has lost its relevancy and consequently, needs to be repackaged and reorganized. The first proponent of this philosophy is the Willow Creek Association/North Point model. This paper will focus solely on the North Point model; however the Willow Creek model, as well as many others, are all loosely related.
In November 1995, Andy Stanley, son of First Baptist Church, Atlanta longtime pastor, Charles Stanley, announced to a gathering of people that, “Atlanta does not need another church. What Atlanta does need is a safe environment where the unchurched can come and hear the life-changing truth that Jesus Christ cares for them and died for their sins.”[1] With that announcement, Stanley created the culture that is North Point Community Church.
A quick dissection of the preceding statement leads to several immediate observations. First, is the startling assertion that the city of Atlanta does not need another church. Why not? He then states that instead of a new church, Atlanta needs something different: a safe environment, a seeker (unchurched) friendly atmosphere, and the news that Jesus Christ cares and loves people. With these statements, Stanley is obviously implying that the city of Atlanta, which is very similar to most Southern cities and towns, is overly-saturated with churches. He also is implying that the current churches are not safe, whatever that means, or are not welcoming the un-churched. Additionally, North Point apparently has no interest in the currently-churched. Furthermore, Stanley is claiming that traditional churches must not be getting the message across that Jesus cares for everyone and that He died for their sins. My immediate response to these assertions is that if there is any church that is indeed functioning in these ways, then they are not functioning biblically.
The model that Stanley has invented is an intriguing one. His belief is that to get the unchurched into church, one must first get them into the “foyer,” or entryway of the church. He does this through topical preaching of broad biblical themes. Many other churches have sense adopted this method and very seldom do they ever thoroughly expound Scripture. The foyer experience is “the first step, and it’s often your only chance to make your guests feel comfortable enough to return” states North Point’s website. The second step in the strategy happens after an unchurched person has felt comfortable enough in the foyer that he voluntarily moves into the “living room.” States the website, “This is where you connect with people like yourself. Smaller and more interactive than the foyer environment, these gatherings offer genuine opportunity to begin friendships...just like the living room in your home.” What exactly this experience encompasses, I am not sure. I believe it includes some type of fellowship activities. The third room in the house is the “kitchen.” Is this where the potluck takes place? Not in Stanley’s model. North Point’s website states, “Where do you end up when friends or family come over? The kitchen. This is where lasting friendships are made. And that’s the kind of environment we are striving for in our small groups.”[2] Hence the place where the Gospel is finally preached, maybe, is in the small group setting. Obviously, this approach is problematic and marginalizes the power of the Gospel.
The “Problem” of Relevancy: The Emerging Church
The second proponent of the belief that the preaching of the Gospel is not relevant is the Emerging Church culture. Who are these Christians? D.A. Carson has written a very informative assessment of this “conversation,” as Emergent leaders refer to their movement, in his book, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church. As Dr. Carson points out, this movement is characterized by the term, “protest.” The leaders of this conversation are protesting against three areas of church culture. The first area they are protesting against it the established church itself. Many of the leaders come from “conservative, traditional, evangelical churches, sometimes with a fundamentalist streak”[3] and tend to vilify the church as an institution and are reacting against a perceived ecumenism. They despise structure and traditionalism.
The second protest is against modernism. The leaders of this movement simply believe that anything modern is extinct and state that people do not think along linear lines anymore. Therefore, a didactic sermon is not conducive to how people think or react. Finally, the third and most intriguing protest that encompasses this movement is a protest against the seeker-sensitive and/or the mega-church movement. Not only are the leaders of the Emerging Church movement rejecting the background by which they came, they are also rejecting the seeker movement, which, as noted above, is also trying to make the Gospel relevant to its audience. Therefore, the Emerging church movement is reacting against a reaction (the seeker movement) that the modern presentation of the Gospel has become irrelevant.
The Crossroads
With all of this being said, it is important to note that the “church” as we know it is
changing. There is a common thread that both the seeker movement and the Emerging Church movement have noticed and this is the fact that the traditional church experience has been deemed in-authentic. The problem with in-authenticity is an area which I believe both of these movements have correctly identified as being a problem with some traditional churches.
There are no doubt many churches where many visitors and church members have no idea what the church’s vision, mission, or reason for existing is. This factor is one of many that lead the two aforementioned movements to declare that traditional churches are not being relevant and not meeting the needs of the changing times. Indeed, the current generation of younger believers craves authenticity. I would agree with this claim. I crave authenticity as well. I do not enjoy going to a church service and cringing at the display of inauthentic traditions that seem out of place, out of date, and indeed, irrelevant.
However, the traditions are not the worst part. The worst part of these services are where the preachers dance around a text and deliver some type of “biblical” message that tries to meet perceived needs of the audience. The church member leaves the service with no real need of theirs having been met, and may not even be able to summarize what the preacher’s message was about. I went to a service a few years ago where the pastor’s message was entitled, “Why Christians Should Vote.” What does this topic have to do with the Gospel and what scripture is this based on? It is easy to see how members who grow up in churches that preach sermons like the one mentioned above, never have their real needs met by the thoroughness of the preaching of text-drive sermons, and therefore claim that the Gospel is irrelevant to them. Therefore, they believe, the Gospel must be repackaged and presented in a different light.
The Solution
I think Paul said it best: “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.”[4] What our seeker-sensitive and emerging church brothers have hit on is very important. The current generation of younger believers are not having their problems met, and therefore solved, in the pulpit. Why not? Because many men occupying the pulpit are not preaching the Bible. Even at chapel, I have had the displeasure of sitting though many sermons which did not expound, illustrate, exhort, or apply the text to my life. The preachers did not make a biblical attempt to impart those divine words into my heart and mind.
If preachers will preach the whole canon of Scripture, the Gospel will indeed be relevant to the lives of its hearers. One can preach expositorily through books of the Bible, through passages dealing with major doctrines, and through topical expositions (for instance preaching a 6-week series on the family by going through the texts that discuss that topic). The beauty of the Bible is that through it, God has given us everything we need to sanctify our lives through reliance of Him and to further His kingdom. Not preaching the entirety of the Bible will indeed lead to irrelevancy in the pews.
[1] This quotation may be found at: http://www.joshhunt.com/mail82.htm.
[2] The preceding quotations may be found at the home page of North Point Community church: http://www.northpoint.org/home.
[3] D.A. Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church. (Grand Rapids: Zodervan, 2005), 14.
[4] 2 Tim. 4:2 (ESV).
posted by Charlie Wallace at
1:14 PM
12 Comments:
Amen!
Some very interesting a and helpful thoughts, Charles.
Is Gospel preaching at the centre of Church life?
Gospel preaching should be the center of church life, if it is not.
Charles,
As a member of North Point, I must tell you that you simply have not done your homework before writing these assertions. Allow me to correct a few of your foundational arguments that I believe to be inaccurate:
1. We at North Point do not believe that the Gospel is irrelevant. Quite the opposite, we believe that the Gospel is always relevant; it is the majority of churches in this country and around the world that have become irrelevant. A definition is in order. A relevant environment is about 3 things - an appealing context (the environment should enhance and not distract), engaging presentation (if people fall asleep from boredom during your service/event it doesn't matter what you say), and helpful content (this includes the most helpful message of all, the life-giving message of salvation through Christ we know as the Gospel). When we talk about making our environments more relevant, it is never about altering the message of Scripture. Instead we want to encapsulate the timeless truths of Scripture in a manner that is more receivable by our culture.
2. The statement about Atlanta not needing another church simply addresses the fact that when North Point started, Atlanta did not need another church that would operate like the hundreds, maybe thousands, of nearly-empty churches around the area. Atlanta has plenty of places that Christians feel comfortable going worship, but any non-believer would never want to go there.
3. We are interested in the currently-churched. We are interested in the believers who want to grow in a relationshp with God, with other believers, and to invest their lives in non-believers. Moreover, we wanted to create a place that would be a partner with believers in evangelism. We wanted to create a place that you would be excited to bring your unchurched family members, coworkers, and friends.
4. You assume that the Gospel is not presented in our foyer environments, and you could not be more wrong. In addition to the Gospel being presented through the message in our worship services by Andy or other communicators multiple times throughout the year, nearly every week we have baptism videos from people in our congregation that share their testimonies. Their lives and confessions proclaim the Gospel in a way that is extremely powerful and undeniable to the skeptic. You can argue with a message, but you cannot argue with someone else's story - the story of a life transformed by Christ.
You are not the first from outside our church to make these assumptions, and I certainly understand how you could be confused. However, if you take the time to visit us, or even listen to some messages online, I think the concerns you stated will be addressed.
-Stephen
Stephen,
Thanks for visiting the site.
Let me try to answer your claims. First off, let me state that I have experience with your church and Northpoint-like models.
1. "When we talk about making our environments more relevant, it is never about altering the message of Scripture. Instead we want to encapsulate the timeless truths of Scripture in a manner that is more receivable by our culture."
I believe in being relevant. However I believe the way to being most relevant is by preaching the entirety of Scripture, (not just topical sermons or sermons based on some principle of Scripture) and showing how it applies to one's life. Furthermore, I believe, like Martin Luther and many other great men of the faith, that there is a scarlet thread through Scripture and every passage ultimately points to our greatest need, Christ. Your pastor disagrees with me on this point.
2. As I state in my post, Northpoint is a positive reaction to dead churches. The reason Northpoint exists, in my opinion, is because of dead churches not preaching the Gospel. I agree with you on this premise.
3. "We wanted to create a place that you would be excited to bring your unchurched family members, coworkers, and friends."
I agree with you here as well. As long as the entire Bible is preached, I don't disagree with that many methadological approaches to styles of worship, as long as they are not heretical.
4. I believe the way that the baptisms are presented at Northpoint are excellent. I am seeking to do the same at my church. The presentation of the Gospel I am referring to, again, is taken from Scripture, called Expository Preaching. EP is when the pastor derives the main idea, as well has his main points, from the passage of Scripture and does not use the text to try to get his own message across. I strive to preach the divinely-intended meaning of all Scripture.
Hope this clears things up and thanks again for taking the time to comment.
In Christ,
Charlie
Hey Charlie,
Thanks for your responses. They're helpful in understanding your position. I think we may have to have another clarification of definition necessary. I think when you say expository preaching you mean going systematically through and expositing whole books, correct?
I would argue that expository preaching happens at North Point, because I think I am operating under a different definition. When I refer to expository preaching I mean teaching the principles of Scripture by expositing verses - giving the context within the book, within the fullness of Scripture, and interpreting the meaning of the passage.
I would argue that going verse-by-verse through entire books in an environment created for believers and non-believers works against its relevance. I think that the entirety of Scripture should be taught within a church, but I don't necessarily agree that it should all happen in a Sunday morning worship service. Part of the 'helpful' dynamic of relevance means teaching the right information to the right audience. For example, you probably wouldn't teach the story of David and Bathsheba to young kids. It's true, and at some point it is something they need to hear, but not yet. The same is true for non-believers sitting in a Sunday morning worship service. There's lots of things in Scripture that they need to hear...eventually.
-Stephen
Stephen,
There are many definitions out there of what expository preaching is or is not. Therefore, you are correct in stating that I hold to going systematically through and expositing whole books as well as doctrine and even topical expositions at times. Let me now respond to the rest of your comment.
"I would argue that going verse-by-verse through entire books in an environment created for believers and non-believers works against its relevance."
I disagree with you here. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 states, 'All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.'
Therefore, all Scripture is relevant. As for the issue of non-believers, I believe that when the Gospel is preached in every sermon, the Holy Spirit will convict a lost person and leave him with a decision to make. This decision, is, of course the most important decision a person will ever make in their life. I believe it needs to be presented as often as possible. After all, this is a HUGE part of our calling.
"I think that the entirety of Scripture should be taught within a church, but I don't necessarily agree that it should all happen in a Sunday morning worship service."
I also disagree here because the Sunday morning worship time is the ONE time where you have the largest audience and the chance to make the greatest impact on your listeners. Modern evangelical church goers and members are alarmingly biblically illiterate. Teaching the truths of the Bible (all parts of it) on Sunday morning is invaluable to the listeners' salvation as well as spritual life. Every church is filled with people who only go to the Sunday morning service. Therefore, it is the only time we have a chance to effect their lives.
"Part of the 'helpful' dynamic of relevance means teaching the right information to the right audience. For example, you probably wouldn't teach the story of David and Bathsheba to young kids. It's true, and at some point it is something they need to hear, but not yet."
I would not teach the story of David and Bathsheba to kids. However, I would teach it to the Sunday morning worship service. A kid will either a) not understand certain parts of that story and it will go over his head, or b) understand completely those certain parts of that story. As long as one does not go into graphic and needless detail of what adultery is, I see no harm in tastefully and respectfully relaying the message and consequences of sin. In David's case, it was a certain sin.
"The same is true for non-believers sitting in a Sunday morning worship service. There's lots of things in Scripture that they need to hear...eventually."
I think that as long as God's plan of salvation is preached every Sunday morning, it does not matter what part of Scripture one preaches through, since I believe it all points ultimately to Christ anyway, since the main idea of the Bible is to show God's redemptive plan for mankind. We have sinned, sin cannot exist in Heaven with a perfect God, but he has given us a way to cleanse ourselves from this sin and it is through His Son. That's what I believe it is all about. Christ will meet, and indeed has met, our every need and I believe the non-believer should have a chance to hear that as much as possible. I think the most loving thing we can do for unbelievers is to lovingly tell them the Truth.
Charlie,
The problem I have with your "jam it all into Sunday morning" approach is that Barna research statistics have shown that within a day most people do not remember what is preached in most churches on Sunday. So what's the point? Why not try to "teach less for more" (one of North Point's seven core ministry practices) to make sure that what is taught is remembered and compels people to come back for more?
You quote 2 Timothy 3:16-17 but fail to notice for whom the verse says all Scripture is effective - the man of God. He's talking about teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, the believers. Now before you pop a blood vessel, I certainly believe that all of Scripture points to Christ, and God can use any verse of Scripture to illuminate the non-believer's mind to his need for salvation. I also believe that God can make a donkey talk, cause the sun to stand still in the sky, rain manna from heaven, and rain down fire from the sky in order to reveal Himself to people...I just don't think it's normative nor should we presume on Him to do so when simpler more direct means are at our disposal.
Now certainly I am employing a little hyperbole to make my point, but I contend that if churches paid more attention to choosing messages on Sunday morning that were challenging and edifying for believers and non-believers, the church might be a more compelling and desirable experience.
As for the David and Bathsheba announcement, I never said you shouldn't teach that to adults in a Sunday service. I just used that as an illustration of my point that we are already selective about which parts of Scripture we present to certain audiences, why not use that same principle when considering what's presented in adult worship services? If you leave people wanting to learn more, hopefully they'll get connected in a smaller environment, like a small group or Bible study where they can learn more.
I believe in the total sufficiency of Scripture as much as you and am equally concerned about Biblical illiteracy. But the model of just dumping information on people every week that they have proven they will not retain nor apply seems pointless to me.
-Stephen
Stephen,
Forgive me for just getting back to you. My wife and I just moved into our new house. Barna's research may be correct, but I don't see how Mr. Stanley's less is more approach is beneficial. In fact, my expository sermons only run around 30 minutes. Stanley's sermons are longer and seem full of information that the brain cannot process.
I think you are stretching it a bit when you say that God making a donkey talk and the sun stand still to using Scripture to illuminate the non-believer's mind. The Holy Spirit's work IS normative. After all, that is how you were saved...by the Holy Spirit's conviction.
As far as being selective, I think we should be selective in that we preach all of Scripture - that's right, every book, that way one will eliminate pastoral hobby-horses and the pastor will continue growing in his walk by preparing sermons from all aspects of Scripture.
Again, I do not believing in dumping information on people. Clearly explaining Scripture is not dumping information...especially when the pastor makes biblical and life-changing application. If you'd like to read an example of a sermon manuscript, read my latest post on Mark 4.
Charles,
If you think that Andy's sermons are "longer and seem full of information that the brain cannot process" then I don't think that you're listening to the right Andy Stanley. I don't think I've ever heard a more gifted and clear communicator in my life. Andy chooses one section of Scripture, one principle, one core idea and then thoroughly explains why the application of that principle is so difficult. He is not teaching to simply give information but to affect life change in the lives of those who hear him, both believers and non-believers. I am blessed to be able to listen to the baptism testimonies at NP every weekend and hear over and over and over again how people come here having grown up in church and for the first time really understand the Gospel and what it means to have a relationship with Christ.
To your other point, I do believe that you can preach the Gospel from anywhere in Scripture, because all of Scripture is about Christ. I just don't think that all of Scripture is equally compelling or engaging. If you think it is then you have never read the book of Numbers! I think all of Scripture is beneficial and should be studied over and over and over throughout the life of the believer. I just think that there are other environments that are better suited for that than a Sunday morning gathering where believers and non-believers are present. I think Sunday morning should be about engaging people with the truth in a relevant manner that leaves them eager for the next week and for getting plugged into smaller environments where they can dig in and learn more in the context of authentic community.
-Stephen
Well, I have heard Andy's sermons and he is a gifted speaker but i still stand by my claim. Maybe if I heard him every week I would 'get it' more often.
"He is not teaching to simply give information but to affect life change in the lives of those who hear him, both believers and non-believers"
That is exactly what I try to do as well. I recommend you listen to Dr. Stephen Rummage at Hickory Grove Baptist Church in Charlotte, NC. His sermons are online - listen to him (he is textbook expository and perhaps the most gifted preacher I've ever heard) and let me know what you think.
"I just don't think that all of Scripture is equally compelling or engaging"
Again, we agree here. Obviously the book of Nahum about God's judgment on the nation of Edom is not as engaging or beneficial for one's life as 1 John However, it should be preached, because let's face, people are not (some are, but most are not) going to take the time to read that book and sift through all of the Hebrew writing devices. Therefore, it is up to the preacher to try to guide and explain what's going on and how that book applies to our lives. With that said i agree with your last statement as well
I'll try to take a listen to Stephen Rummage. It's so hard to keep up these days - Podcasting has really opened up a wealth of great communicators. Actually, I really need to just stop listening anyway since I hear way more than I'm currently able to apply! Which come to think of it brings us back to the teach less for more idea again.
The point that I think we still differ is that I see Sunday morning differently. I think books like Nahum, Numbers, and all the others that are difficult to do practically in an engaging manner need to be done in a different context - preferably a small group environment where people can wrestle through the text and interact as opposed to a one-to-many Sunday morning experience.
-Stephen
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home