The fact that we have much religion in our land today means nothing to God, and does not remove His judgement from us. The main denominations are riddled with liberalism and theological compromise, and even though they can keep the church machine running, the real thing that makes religion acceptable and that attracts God's pleasure is not there. In Jeremiah's day, the people had turned away from the revelation of God, and had substituted for it their own thinking, the acceptability of their God of has been destroyed.
This is a most uncomfortable message to preach. It does not attract the applause of men, nor heap upon us the honours of the church. We are very likely to be regarded as 'odd bods,' as angular individuals, as trouble-makers, or as ....whatever. We will be criticised, stared at, alienated, and ostracised. People will hate us and say all manner of bad things against us, solely because we are the servants of Christ! This is our 'reward' in this world. We cannot expect any more from a secular world and a backslidden church.
But soft sermons are effective! They lull those who hear them to sleep. They give them a false sense of security. The churches are full of such people. Their preachers are not telling them the whole truth. They preach soft messages that are designed to win the approval of the world in the church. These sermons keep the world coming to the churches, and more importantly, keep the money rolling into the coffers. May, the treasurer is delighted that the money keeps rolling in; and our preacher must not preach any other message than the one he is preaching at present, because this keeps the world coming into the church, and with it, the money!
And now we are happy all the day!
Whilst I agree with much of the conetnt of this message, I think underlying it is an assumption about preaching that needs to be seriously re-examined in ALL our churches.
ReplyDeleteIt is an assumption to posit the idea that the antidote to "soft" preaching (I presume what is meant is a fuzzy message devoid of solid biblical content) is more, or better, preaching.
Is not the practice itself of preaching (to and for Christians) questionable? I suggest four reasons why:
1. Today's custom of making the sermon the centre-piece of a weekly gathering for Christian is basically flawed. There is no NT support for this, and neither was it the norm for the church for the fist two centuries.
2.The regular sermon event became a regular feature in Christian gatherings by the 3rd century, along with other non biblical practices - elaborate buildings, a hierarchical leadership pattern (clergy), which in turn prevented the practice of mutual ministries amongst believers, and the exercise of the priesthood of ALL believers.
3.I Cor. 12-14, Eph. 4 with its pictures of the organic nature and functioning of the church, develop the theme that the primary task of edifying the church is not a monologue "sermon", but rather the effective functioning (potentially) of every member of Christ's body when gathered.
Why else would Paul devote so much time and space to treach and instruct on the importance of 'body ministry? cf. 1 Cor. 14:7, and Eph.4:16 - i.e. "every part".
4. As a method of edifying the church and maturing believers, the monologue is about the least effective means of doing so.
Teaching of course is vital, but that can take many forms other than the sermon monologue.
You are correct to identify the real antidote to 'soft' or 'fuzzy' preachiung as more biblical preaching that not only explains the Word, but applies its luife-transformng message to those who hear, and not to some third party will does not hear it.
ReplyDeleteIn reformed Christian thought, there are three vitally important things to bear in mind; (1) that the true preaching of the Word, that is, the Gospel, is God's chief and primary means of convincing and converting sinners, of building them up in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation. This is the means that God has consistently used to advance His Kingdom in this world.
(2) The proper administration of the two New Testament sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper; these preach exactly the same message as the actual proclamation of the Gospel, but are subordinate to the Word.
(3) The proper discipline, that is, organisation, of the church as visible. When this is in place, the ptreaching of the Word has primary place, the Gospel sacramemnts are properly administered, and the membership of the cdhurhc is as pure as it is humanly possible to make it.
I think it would be, at best, misplaced to degrade the preaching of the Word, given that this was primary for Jesus and the apostles, for the English and European reformers, the Huguenots, the Covenanters, the Puritans, the time of the great awakening in America and also during the great Methodist awakening in the British Isles. This is God's chosen instrument in building His church.
I think you misunderstand what preaching is. To the outside, it certainly does look very much like a monologue. In reality, of course, it isn't. It is truly dialogical in effect; that is, when what is listened to is not a read essay in orthodoxy, but a living, Spirit-anointed ministry of the everlasting Gospel. When it is thiss, it engages mind, heart and will of the auditor, thus making it dialogical and not a monologue. When God's Word is preached biblically, it engages both believer and unbeliever; there is a conversation going on between the preacher, the listener and the living God. This is the proper functioning of the Body of Christ when gathered for worship.
I agree that the church is not about elaborate buildings or hierarchical church structures. yet it is just possible to discern that even in allegedly non-hierarchical churches, there are always those who are esteemed higher than others, thus creating an unrecognised church hierarchy.