This is brilliant. Chris Wright talked more on this at Lausanne in 2010, which you can see here. In light of some of the events of the past week in the evangelical world, what he's saying here is really important.
Over the past month, I have (very) slowly been making my way through William Willimon's book, Pastor: The Theology and Practice of Ordained Ministry. In a section discussing different images and models of pastoral ministry, Willimon suggests the recovery of a classical form of Christian ministry:
There is much to be said for the pastor being educated in the classical forms of Christian ministry. The church has much experience as a minority movement. We need to draw from that experience today. In that regard, I predict a recovery of the classical shape of ministry: to teach, to preach, and to evangelize through the ministries of the Word, sacrament, and order. I sense the end of a proliferation of ministerial duties and a reclamation of the essential classical tasks of Christian ministry. Because so many of our people have not been well formed in the faith, pastors must now stress doctrine, the classical texts of our faith, our master narratives, the great themes. The culture is no longer a prop for the church. If we are going to make Christians, we must have a new determination to inculcate the faith. In some ways our age parallels that of the Reformation, in which the church was faced with a vast undereducated, uninformed, unformed laity and clergy. Pastors need to be prepared to lead in catechesis, moral formation, and the regeneration of God's people.
He argues that we no longer live in a culture where Christianity holds a prominent place. As Christians, we are now living in a context in which the idea of being aliens and strangers in the land must be recovered. This was the situation of the early church, and it shaped the way they carried out their ministry. In particular, they invested a great deal of time and energy into the formation of believers. As we now find ourselves in a similar context, Willimon suggests that
more of our pastoral time, in this missionary situation, will be spent in catechesis, the formation of Christians who have the equipment they need to survive as Christians.
I often hear people react against the idea of catechesis because of an assumption that it is mere indoctrination, drilling purely intellectual and academic theological propositions into the heads of children. This, unfortunately, may have been the experience of some – to be honest, this was partly my own experience – but Willimon helpfully points out that catechesis instead is about the holistic formation of believers, equipping them with the tools necessary not only to think rightly, but to live rightly in the world.
In order to understand more fully what catechesis is supposed to entail, it is helpful first to have a well-rounded definition of the practice. The Catechism of the Catholic Church provides one such definition:
Catechesis...[includes] especially the teaching of Christian doctrine imparted, generally speaking, in an organic and systematic way, with a view to initiating the hearers into the fullness of Christian life....catechesis is built on a certain number of elements of the Church's pastoral mission...[including] the initial proclamation of the Gospel or missionary preaching to arouse faith; examination of the reasons for belief; experience of Christian living; celebration of the sacraments; integration into the ecclesial community; and apostolic and missionary witness (II, 5-6).
Catechesis is not just about intellectual matters, but it is about the whole of the Christian life. Recovering this sort of ministry is crucial for discipleship, and thus of great importance for pastoral ministry.
A few weeks ago, I preached on the parable of the sower from Mark 4, and the week following one of our other ministers, Lee, preached on the parables of the growing seed and the mustard seed. Shortly afterward, I found the video below, which I thought really brought to light some of the things we had said in our sermons, especially emphasizing that when we sow the seed, we just never know where or how it is going to grow. But we have confidence in knowing that God, by the power of the Spirit, will cause it to grow when and in whom he pleases.
We showed it in our evening service last night as a way of encouraging our congregation to be eager to take up the task of proclaiming the Gospel. We wanted them to have that same confidence that when they tell of the good news of the Kingdom of God, it will produce fruit, often even beyond what they could imagine.
This is just so encouraging and uplifting. It is absolutely amazing the way that God works in people's lives.
I've argued this in the past before, particularly when I have discussed the problems with the celebrity pastor phenomenon in modern evangelicalism. And as I have preached on a more regular basis over the past year, I have found this to be true from experience. While there are always exceptions to the rule, in general there will be something lacking from your preaching when you do not know who you are preaching to.
Preaching derives part of its power because it is done by pastors. The one who stands in the pulpit to speak on Sunday is the one who has been with the flock, in a variety of settings, throughout the week and over the years. The lonely, detached preacher, cloistered away in the pastoral study for much of the week, is not the most fruitful image for faithful preaching. It is the pastor who stands at that fateful intersection between the biblical text and the congregational context, the one who rises each week in service to the congregation's, 'Is there any word from the Lord?' A sermon is not a perfectly prepared and delivered oration suitable for later publication. The sermon is an act of corporate worship within the gathered congregation. The pastor...[listens] to the biblical text on behalf of the congregation, so that the congregation may better hear the text. Therefore, the metaphor of the pastor as preacher is best employed within the context of the pastoral work within a parish where it is clear that the preacher is also pastor.
As I said above, it would not be fair to conclude that someone should never preach to people they don't know. But those who preach on a regular basis to the same congregation should be intimately familiar with their local context and the people they are preaching to. When the pastor really knows their parishioners, that is when the preaching will connect most deeply with them.
Over the weekend, I was made aware that Mars Hill Church in Seattle is hosting a preaching contest tomorrow to determine who will fill in for lead pastor Mark Driscoll on weeks that he is not preaching. Like those who pointed me to the news, I was hoping it was a joke. But it's not. The description on the Facebook event page reads as follows:
Tuesday, November 15th from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m., we'll be hosting our first ever Preaching Qualifying School (Q School) at Mars Hill Ballard. This event will be a pressure-cooker preaching competition a la American Idol between 3 Mars Hill elders with the prize of being part of our preaching rotation to fill the pulpit on weeks Pastor Mark is out of the pulpit.
The three candidates are: Pastor Thomas Hurst of Mars Hill Bellevue Pastor Scott Mitchell of Mars Hill Everett Pastor AJ Hamilton of Mars Hill Albuquerque Judging the candidates will be: Pastor Mark Driscoll (playing the part of Simon Cowell—minus the v-neck) Pastor Justin Holcomb Pastor Dave Bruskas Pastor Scott Thomas Emceeing and playing the part of Ryan Seacrest will be Pastor Tim Gaydos of Mars Hill Downtown Seattle. We're hoping to get a big crowd of folks to come cheer on these guys and make a event of it. So, come on by and cheer on your favorite contestant.
It's hard to know where to begin with this, but a few things immediately come to mind. First, the use of the phrase 'a la American Idol' is obviously not arbitrary because the aim of this exercise is to see who will preach the most like Mark Driscoll. He is really the standard against which these other preachers are being judged. If that were not the case, they'd simply put together a rotation of preachers to fill the slots.
Second, and more signifcantly, holding an event like this speaks volumes about the theology of preaching at work here. This is what concerns me most. For one, when you pit three preachers against each other like this and turn it into a spectacle, all the weight and responsibility of the task of preaching is removed. No longer is your concern to address the spiritual needs of the congregation and to apply the Word to the specific context you're ministering in, but it's to impress four men who are determining whether or not you'll get a chance to preach in the most prestigious pulpit in the Mars Hill world. Needless to say, the dynamics of preaching in such an environment will completely alter how these three guys preach.
What's more, the church is making a public declaration in judging between the 'contestants' that one preacher is better than the other two. What will happen as a result is that a very low view of preaching will be fostered among the members of the church because they are being taught that it is more worthwhile to listen to one preacher than another.
Quite frankly, this is disastrous for the ministry of the Word. Believers need to have the conviction that, when the Bible is expounded faithfully in the pulpit, God is speaking through the preacher, regardless of whether or not he is as animated, humourous, or gripping as another preacher. Without that conviction, they will not come before the preached Word with humility. They will approach preaching with the consumeristic mindset of our culture, only giving ear to the preacher who entertains and captivates them most.
There is much more that could be said about this, but for now, all I hope is that Mars Hill recognises these problems and cancels this event.
Preaching is not a game or a contest. It is serious business.
No medium is neutral. The medium shapes and reforms the message, transforming the message even as it purports to be delivering it. An entertainment culture tends to consume Christian worship. The sincerity and concern conveyed by the media preacher are only apparent. Among the media mogul's failings is an inadequate ecclesiology. The virtual church made through electronic media is less than church, where, to extend Paul's corporeal analogy, the eye has no opportunity ever to meet the foot. There is no flesh for incarnation. The fundamental form of the Christian church as a participatory body, the character of the pastor as one who knows the flock and is known by the flock, is changed by immersion into the modern 'entertainment culture.' The primary function of television is entertainment, whereas the purpose of the gospel is transformation. Furthermore, when we are holding the TV remote control, we are in control of what can be said and shown to us. There is thus little opportunity to be jumped from behind by grace.
This post comes far too late, but as the saying goes, better late than never.
About a month ago, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, invited comedian Frank Skinner to Canterbury Cathedral to have a discussion on Christianity. I really don't know what the purpose or premise to the conversation was, but it ended up being really a rather interesting discussion to listen to. Skinner is a practising Roman Catholic, and raised a number of different issues that are worth taking the time to think about. If you follow this link, you can find links to the conversation, three mp3's available for download on the Archbishop's website.
I found the most interesting part of their conversation to be the discussion about preaching. Skinner began by lamenting the state of most preaching today, saying that when he goes to church, he expects a lot from a sermon because, as Christians, they are dealing with the most important, serious, and profound thing in the world. "I go there to be given something that I can take with me into the rest of the week," Skinner added. "I'm a tough crowd; I go there expecting a lot. I really want something important."
Skinner recognises the importance of preaching, which is an emphasis that is increasingly lost in our day. And I think the point that sermons should be something significant and substantial (in quality, not necessarily quantity) should be heeded. He suggested that a lot of preachers approach their sermons with a sense of obligation. They do it because they have to, and because they know they'll have a captive audience for a few minutes on Sunday, they don't put in a lot of effort. Skinner's proposition was that the responsibility for preaching by turned over to a special group of folks who are trained to be highly skilled preachers, and then sent around on rotations to different churches or piped in via audio/video so everyone can hear them each week.
I can appreciate his point, and I think he's probably right that there are a lot of pastors who don't put a lot of effort into their preaching. This comes in large part, I'm sure, from a lack of conviction of the power of preaching. But I really cannot get on board with Skinner's suggestion that we have a collection of über-Prediger (I opted for the German instead of saying super-preachers; words like that always sound better in German) that meet the need for better preaching, for a number of reasons, one of which is that it turns preaching into more of an oratorical performance.
A much more significant reason to avoid this model, however, was raised by the Archbishop. He made a very important point that may have been the best thing said in the whole discussion on preaching. Emphasizing the importance of a minister being a part of a specific community, he said that the local preacher is able to key in to what is going on in that particular community at that particular time. So while they may not always produce memorable, penetrating, or powerful sermons, they might have something which strikes that community for that day.
This is one of main reasons I cannot understand the celebrity pastor phenomenon. You simply cannot preach effectively to your congregation if you are disconnected from their lives as individuals and the life of the community as a whole. Williams is exactly right that the local minister's preaching will have a unique ability to connect with people because of their sensitivity to the circumstances of that community's life.
Skinner's concern is something that certainly should be addressed. One of his other suggestions was that preachers should be better trained, which is something worth evaluating as well. But I think that unless a conviction of the transformative power of the Word is recovered, and we recognise that faith comes from hearing the message, a lot of this bad preaching that Skinner laments will continue.
This is just one portion of their 90-minute discussion, however, and I would encourage you to listen to the rest of the conversation. It's worth your time.
I have been a fan of The Society for the Advancement of Ecclesial Theology ever since I first heard of them. Their mission, as stated on their website, is 'to [assist] pastor-theologians in producing biblical and theological scholarship for the ecclesial renewal of theology and the theological renewal of the church.' To that end, 'armed with the conviction that pastors can – indeed must – once again serve as the church’s most important theologians, it is the aim of the SAET to provide a context of theological engagement for those pastors who desire to make ongoing contributions to the wider theological/scholarly community for the renewal of orthodox theology, for the renewal of the church.'
I've only recently discovered that they have a short introductory video talking about what they do, which you can watch below:
In a time when many Christians are suspicious of theology or treat it as something secondary or even non-essential ('All that's important is that we love Jesus!'), it is great to see that there are organisations like this thoroughly committed to the idea that theology is for the church and coming up with practical ways to turn that idea into reality. Perhaps their plans for the future include setting up a fellowship here in the UK?
