Quick thoughts and questions on Christian education in the church setting.

My credentials to addressing this topic are neither impressive nor overly deficient. I've been a youth pastor for the last 4 years at a relatively small (about 120) congregation, so I do have a good deal of first hand experience, but I've very little exposure to big churches or various denominations/traditions contexts. In other words, my resume is deep but not wide. I suspect that much of what I have to say will be relevant in a variety of settings, but some of it will be rather useless. Regardless I would very much like to hear your thoughts and feedback.

1) Is expository preaching really sufficient?

In the church contexts in which I grew up, asking this question amounts to heresy. I think I understand and can sympathize with the arguments for it. John MacArthur, one of it's most famous proponents, answers a question in regard to why he has has remained committed to expository preaching:

Well first, because it is a biblical mandate. It doesn’t fluctuate with culture, with expectations, with times or seasons. Expository preaching is the best way to preach the Bible. If every word of God is pure, if every word of God is true, then every word needs to be dealt with. And expository preaching is only way you actually come to grips with every word in the Scriptures.

Secondly, expository preaching familiarizes people with the Scripture itself instead of simply giving them a speech, as true and as reflective of biblical teaching as that speech may be. With expository preaching, people become familiar with the Scripture. They can go back to the passages that have been addressed, and they can be reminded by the text itself of what it means. So you give people the Word of God in a way that has long-term impact, because it makes them familiar with Scripture.

Thirdly, it makes the authority unequivocal, and that authority is the Scripture. That’s very clear no matter how powerful or gifted the preacher might be. In consistent, expository preaching, the people always know what the authority is. It’s not about homiletics. It’s not about personal viewpoints and insights. It’s about relentlessly affirming the true authority of Scripture, which is the most critical thing that anybody can ever learn. It isn’t about, “Wasn’t that a great sermon?” It isn’t about, “Wasn’t that a great outline? Wasn’t that clever?” It’s always about, “What did the Word of God say?” And that makes it truly authoritative, because the Word is from God. No other preaching paradigm does this.
Source

I respect John MacArthur, even though I may complain about him from time to time, because I think he really does try to be a faithful minister of the Word of God. I'm becoming more and more convinced, however, that expository preaching is not enough. I've been getting the distinct impression that people who sit exclusively under expository sermons have a very difficult time with synthesis and in understanding the meta-narrative of Scripture. This approach tends to chop the Bible up into pericopes, or in some cases smaller than that, which the preacher can preach as a unit. It fails, however to put it all together. Texts, even pericopes are meaningless outside of their context within the larger argument of the book at hand or even the whole of Scripture. I also think exclusive expository preaching tends to weaken people's ability to think theologically, but I won't go into that for now. I also feel as if the vast majority of Christians have no concept of our historical-theological context. Again, not now. I may post on this at some later time. I'm not sure I agree with any of Johnny Mac's above points, but I do, at least, respect them and I think I understand where he's coming from.

What do you think?

2) & 3) Do we tell people "what" too much? Do we tell them "how" enough?

We tell people to read their Bibles, but do people really know how? We tell people to share the gospel but are they really equipped to do so? We tell parents to raise their children for the Lord, but do they even have a clue what that means or how to go about it? We tell the laity that being a Christian on Sunday is not enough, but do we help them understand what it means to be a Christian in their workplace, in their home, in school?

4) We tell people that they need to use their spiritual gifts and/or contribute to the church's ministry, but how well do we facilitate this? I get the feeling that a lot of people would be willing to serve in some capacity but aren't sure how or feel like they aren't "good enough Christians." I've run into this attitude among mature Christians that certain people aren't really "qualified" to be involved in the church's ministry because they aren't mature enough spiritually. Although it is certainly true that some level of spiritual maturity is needed for certain roles, I have found that people often grow in spades when they become involved within their church's ministry. If they feel like they aren't good enough yet, they won't become involved, however.

5) Have we become too soft on our own sins and too hard on the sins of others? 99% of all church discipline that I've seen or heard of has been in regards to sexual sin. Is this appropriate? Is this the only sin Christians struggle with that can ever be confronted? What about greed? Or idolatry (depending upon how you define this)? How about not loving your wife? I'm not trying to be funny, it just seems as if we've singled out a certain sin area because it's easier to quantify, more "black and white" if you will. But if we single out this sin I'm afraid it's far too easy to become self-righteous if you've never committed adultery. I also feel like the way church discipline is applied is rather unfair to women, but I won't go into that right now.

5) How confidently should we preach difficult passages or theological concepts?

6) How guilty are we of syncretism? Is singing patriotic american songs idolatrous? I think so. Have we put our concept of "family" in too high a place (see Jesus' statements about the family...)? Have we become too republican? Have we idolized a culture in which we were comfortable instead of learning how to live in the culture in which we find ourselves?

7) Have we been tickling people's ears because we don't want to sound judgmental or legalistic?


Tackle or respond to whichever ones you feel like.

I'll have a Baptist Distinctive post up soon.

Back again, with thoughts on preaching and teaching with integrity.

My blog may begin to evolve into something more like a real blog. My previous blogs has been much more like mini-research papers than actual blogging. Hopefully they were beneficial for someone, but they were so very long that I suspect they took far longer to read than many of you had time for. My intention is to write shorter blogs and to write them more often. I'm not sure if I'll be any better. There is something within my nature to be long-winded and, quite frankly, in this format I don't care too much. I write for whoever wants to read and for myself. If I was preaching or writing for mass audiences I would have to care a lot more about being reader-friendly, but, alas, such is not the case.

My thought for today is about preaching and teaching with integrity. I was talking to my brother today (for the first time in about 7 months) and he was of the opinion that the Bible is not applicable to us, really at all. It was not written to us but to the Colossians, the Jews, the Ephesians, etc, etc.... He thinks preachers go off by even trying to apply the Bible to people it wasn't written to. I didn't really go much into answering him, not because I didn't have an answer but because I very much doubt he cares to hear what I think about it, but I understand and agree with some of his sentiments. It maddens me when preachers "rape" the Bible for the sake of finding suitable applications for their congregations. The more often I hear them abuse the Bible the more I feel the way my brother does. The sermon feels false and forced. It seems like the speaker is grasping to find some way to make it fit a contemporary context but you know that his application is really not legit.

When a pastor misuses the text for the sake of application, he is not only abusing the text of Scripture, he is substituting the Word of God for the words of Pastor "Fill-in-the-blank". I am sick of the words, "This isn't me saying it, but God, so if you have a problem take it up with him!" when it really isn't God's Word at all, just God's words twisted into someone's poorly constructed replica. Furthermore, if preaching really is going to be the center focus of our services, which it is in most cases, we are wasting a good chunk of time. I used to believe, because I HAD to in order to make it through some bad sermons, that I could get something out of any sermon, no matter how awful. I don't believe that anymore. If people are misrepresenting God's word, let's not try and twist it into something positive!

Why does this happen? Does it happen because it's impossible to apply 2000-4000 year old texts to the twenty-first century? No, it happens because we're either lazy or without integrity. It is much harder work to construct a good sermon than most people think. If it's easy, then you aren't doing it right. It's not easy to analyze the social and political context of the Ephesian church, the literary context of Ephesians 5-6, our own political and social context and apply properly and carefully discern principles relating to husbands, wives, children, slaves, and masters. Pastors often make it look easy, not because they're good, but because they're lazy.

Other times this happens because they lack integrity. They push their predetermined political or societal views on how they think things should be on the text. If they are republicans, they magically find anti-welfare, pro-gun, anti-big government, pro-capitalism, anti-Obama passages. If they are democrats, they somehow manage to find anti-capitalism, pro-labor, anti-gun, and pro-welfare passages. If a pastor doesn't like drinking or cussing, he will find ways to present the text as anti-drinking or cussing. You get the point. This is a lack of integrity. It doesn't deal honestly with the Word of God but uses, abuses, and rapes the text.

In defense of pastors and preachers and teachers, it is hard work. Pastors have a lot on their plate and it's hard to get everything just right. It will often be impossible to be sure on what exactly the text is saying and thus extract the right principles. I'm not asking for perfection, just integrity. If a text is difficult to understand and there are several possible views, BE HONEST and say so instead of pretending that you have it all figured out. If you demonstrate how much work you put into getting it right, perhaps that will help others to understand that they too need to read their bibles slowly and carefully. Perhaps it will show others how important it is to get the Word of God right. Expressing absolute confidence when you do not have absolute confidence is not rendering a service to people, it is an extreme disservice.

I'm sorry my first post back was so negative. Maybe next post will find me in a happier mood.

So I'm a "Nervous Complementarian"... and that means what... practically? (yikes!)

I should have posted this earlier. Nate Duriga, in his last blog post, just stole a good deal of my thunder. Oh well, I'll have to continue without it. Because of some complaints concerning the overwhelming length of my blog posts of late, this will be more or less in "list format" and will hopefully be less wordy. This is more of a guide to applying these issues than an exploration into how these things should be applied. I'll be more specific about how I think it should be applied later.

Applying Nervous Complementarianism (these are all applications from a Complementarian perspective. If you are not a Complementarian they may not apply)

For women in the church:

1) If you are uncomfortable using the title "pastor" for a woman on staff, do not use this as an excuse to pay her less than you would for a man with the same job but different title)! This is grossly unfair and unjust and is a horrible testimony to the rest of the world.

2) Define clearly what a woman can and cannot do within your church and stick by it. If you do not clearly define her role, you either create the impression that she can't really do anything or that you are not a complementarian at all- then what's the point?

3) Women Deacons: Define, decide, and apply. I believe women can be deacons (I Timothy 3:11) and many complementarians agree with me. But there are not women as deacons in our churches. Let's fix that. But, if your church is "not there yet" don't force it (Romans 14?), but with patient teaching bring them there.

4) Women Teachers:

a) If you are going to go with I Timothy 2, Clearly define what "teaching" is and what "authority" is. Although this may seem odd, you must also clearly define what "a man" is. Age? Can she teach and have authority over 6 year old boys? We would probably all agree she could. 15 year olds? 19 year olds? etc....
b) Keep in mind that women are commanded to teach women. Does your church practice this in an "official capacity"? Or is it just something you assume will happen on its own?

5) Women in other capacities: Just because you are a complementarian does not mean that women are not important or that their insights are not needed! Intentionally seek their input on everything. Be balanced here though. A lot of churches, though officially run by men, are completely run by women and are thus uncomfortable for most men. Our "church decisions" must be made thoughtfully, the ramifications upon all members of the congregation should be considered, both genders, all "marriage statuses", all races, all ages, etc, etc, etc.

6) Here's a good question that I used to think was a stupid question (I guess I grew up): What are mature Christian women to do when no men take spiritual leadership? Should they find a "puppet man" to "lead" while they pull a Priscilla and coach him from the sideline? Should they just pray and hope that some good men come and save the situation?

7) Is there any distinction for the average "pewsitter"? How (if you do) do you apply "women must be silent and learn at home" and the headcoverings issue? I'm not saying you have to apply these strictly literally but you still have to deal with it and apply it. If you say that headcoverings are cultural then is there a cultural equivalent that does apply?

For Women in the Home:

1) Like Nate said in his blog, what about the nontraditionals? In affirming, teaching, making applications for, and praising women who stay home and raise their children, let's not exclude and isolate women who cant because they have no children, are widowed, are divorced, are unmarried with or without children (remember, God uses and loves people who make mistakes too!), have grown children, whose husbands can't work, or who just have to work to support their family. If you only teach gender roles for 20, 30, 50, or 70% of the congregation, what about the rest?

2) What does submit mean practically, day to day? Does this mean that the man unilaterally makes all of the decisions? That's stupid! Does it mean he has the last say? Does it just apply to "spiritual leadership"?

3) Weird question but I think its a good one (though it might REALLY get me into trouble): What role should psychology, sociology, and biology play in defining gender roles? If sociological/psychological studies show (for instance) that women do a far better job at caring for young children or that children need their mothers more, should these help inform our gender roles? I think we can use these sources with care and discernment to help us better understand gender and how God designed us. We are different because God made us different. Studying human psychology and biology to understand ourselves better seems to be a legitimate way to better understand our God given gifts and roles.

Oops!

I said I'd be short. I'm long again. Forgive me please. I only have one more on this topic. The last entry will include my own application of the issue and some interaction with Austin, Nate, and Jim.