I want to take an opportunity to thank those of you who have been praying for me on Fridays as I attempt to write The Discipline of Discernment. I look to Fridays with equal excitement and dread—excitement to be working on the book and dread that I will end the day downtrodden and feeling like I just can’t make this book work. There have been times when I’ve felt, almost literally, picked up while struggling with writing it. I’ve been feeling down and have been about ready to give up, when I’ve just felt a surge of strength. I know that this is God’s answer to your prayers. So thank you. And please continue. It means the world to me.
The State of Preaching
I don’t often read The Southern Seminary Magazine but noticed an interesting article in the most recent edition. In the “President’s Journal,” Al Mohler writes a brief commentary on “The State of Preaching Today.” As he reflects on this, he writes “On the one hand, there are signs of great promise and encouragement. On the other hand, several ominous trends point toward dangerous directions for preaching in the future. The last few decades have been a period of wanton experimentation in many pulpits and preaching has often been redefined and reconceived as something other than the exposition and application of the biblical text.”
He considers five points relevant to the downgrade of preaching:
A loss of confidence in the power of the Word - Our culture is gravitating towards images as the preferred mode of communication. Words are, then, necessarily losing their power and this in turns impacts preaching. But “the audacious claim of Christian preaching is that the faithful declaration of the Word of God, spoken through the preacher’s voice, is even more powerful than anything music or image can deliver.”
An infatuation with technology - “We live in a day of technological hubris and the ubiquity of technological assistance. For most of us, the use of these technologies comes with little attentiveness to how the technology reshapes the task and the experience. The same is true for
preachers who have rushed to incorporate visual technology and media in the preaching event.” While technology is not inherently bad, it has allowed the visual to overcome the verbal. And yet God has chosen to be heard and not seen. We know God not through what we see but what we read and hear. We know God through the Word.
An embarrassment before the biblical text - “Many preachers simply disregard and ignore vast sections of Scripture, focusing instead on texts that are more comfortable, palatable and non-confrontational to the modern mind.” There is much in the Bible that makes us uncomfortable and maybe even a little bit embarrassed. But the Bible, from cover to cover, is the Word of God and must be taught. It all exists for our edification and we must not dismiss those parts that are more difficult to understand and reconcile.
An evacuation of biblical content - “Another problem that leads to an evacuation of biblical content is a loss of the “big picture” of Scripture.” Rather than preaching the big picture of the Bible and rather than pointing to the story of redemption, many preachers focus instead on only individual passages, treating them much like fortune cookies and acting as if they are disconnected from the rest of Scripture.
An absence of the Gospel - “The clear presentation of the Gospel must be a part of the sermon, no matter the text. As Charles Spurgeon expressed this so eloquently, preach the Word, place it in its canonical context and ‘make a bee-line to the cross.’” Too few preachers speak of issues of morality and practical living, but omit a clear presentation of the gospel. In so doing they eviscerate the power of preaching.
Too many churches and too many preachers have made preaching something it was never meant to be. Mohler’s conclusion presents the simplicity of preaching. “In the end, the Christian preacher simply must confront the congregation with the Word of God. That confrontation will be at times awkward, challenging and difficult. After all, this is the Word that pierces us like a sword. The evangelical preacher must set his aim at letting the sword loose, neither hiding it nor dulling its edge.”
An excellent article, it is well worth reading and sending to others.
Ripping Up Roads
An article in the Edmonton Sun caught my eye. A reporter discusses his favorite childhood game which involved groups of boys constantly scrapping to attain the privilege of being King of the Hill. It sounds like a great game and exactly the kind of game I loved playing as a boy. But it’s also the kind of game that schools are now forbidding. According to this article, some schools in Edmonton have now banned the game of tag.
Apparently for the first time in human history, some children have been spotted getting overexcited and carried away.In the words of one public school official, “When tag escalates to a punch or a karate chop, it’s not fun anymore.”
Well, duh.
But blaming the game because some kid is not playing by the rules is like ripping up roads to eliminate drunk driving.
It’s absurd, isn’t it? I half expected that tag would be banned because of concerns for the fragile egos of children who are always chasing and never being chased. I would imagine that this is coming as well.
Comments (19) »
1. Jamie
October 20, 2006
11:54 AM
Tim,
Thanks for the post. Your quoting from Al Mohler and your writing about discernment made me think of something you wrote the other day. You mentioned that you and your family had recently relocated to a new church. Could you elaborate on why you found a new church? Was it because you recently moved to a new house so you wanted a church close to where you live or was it something more spiritual like Mohler’s emphasis on preaching? The reason I ask is because I’m struggling with discerning whether to leave my church of 7 years or to just realize that the preaching will never be expository and to just be thankful for the fellowship and warmth of Christian love that is exhibited. I do download sermons from various churches so that I am fed, but if I’m supposed to be in community with my fellow church-goers shouldn’t we be growing together and together be challenged by the scriptures so that we may become more Christ-like as a congregation? Any thoughts you many have are much appreciated.
2. Andrew Wheatley
October 20, 2006
1:34 PM
“But blaming the game because some kid is not playing by the rules is like ripping up roads to eliminate drunk driving.”
It’s liberal legalism. It believes in fixing the externals instead of the mind. It’s what happens when you don’t think biblically. You think like a moron.
Romans 1,
Andrew
3. Dallas Pymm
October 20, 2006
1:45 PM
“It’s what happens when you don’t think biblically. You think like a moron.”
I love it Andrew!
Jamie,
I have been there myself. My wife and I just left our church of, strangely, 7 years for the same reasons you mentioned. The preaching was weak but the fellowship was great. We began not looking forward to Sunday and as a result went to Church a lot less, although we attended Bible studies. It was a tough decision but we left our church and began looking for another. We found a church after about a year of searching. We found warm fellowship, great preaching, and a renewed desire to hear the Word preached and hate to miss out on any gathering of our Church. You can still fellowship with your previous church, but it is important to be passionate about what your Pastor is preaching. May God lead you to a church that will feed you.
Blessings,
Dallas
4. donsands
October 20, 2006
3:02 PM
“ignore vast portions of Scripture”
If that ain’t the truth.
This generation has a weak desire to read, study, and meditate on the entirety of the Bible.
Very sad.
It is hard work. But it’s so essential and fulfilling. From Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21: man must live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.
5. David
October 20, 2006
4:30 PM
Good post. The comments on preaching (and the Mohler cites) recalled 9again) to mind william Willimon’s piece in Leadership magazin, almost a decade ago, “This Culture is Overrated” (William Willimon, Leadership Magazine, Winter of 1997).
Willimon stated the case rather clearly, I thought:
“…The other day, someone emerged from Duke Chapel after my sermon and said, ‘I have never heard anything like that before. Where on earth did you get that?’
I replied, ‘Where on earth would you have heard this before? After all, this is a pagan, uninformed university environment. Where would you hear this? In the philosophy department? Watching Mr. Rogers’s Neighborhood? No, to hear this, you’ve got to get dressed and come down here on a Sunday morning.’
It is a strange assumption for Americans to feel they already have the equipment necessary to comprehend the gospel without any modification of lifestyle, without any struggle — in short, without being born again.
The point is not to speak to the culture. The point is to change it. God’s appointed means of producing change is called “church”; and God’s typical way of producing church is called ‘preaching’…”
Attempting to be “relevant” to “relate” to a sick culture… by adopting its own methods, is a recipe for “preaching” a “different gospel” other than the one of scripture.
6. Tim Challies
October 20, 2006
4:58 PM
“Could you elaborate on why you found a new church? Was it because you recently moved to a new house so you wanted a church close to where you live or was it something more spiritual like Mohler’s emphasis on preaching?”
Jamie - I’d be glad to talk about this via email. If you send me an email, I’ll be glad to share a few more details.
7. Bill Burns
October 20, 2006
5:58 PM
Tim, great post (as usual). I too, have recently had to leave a fellowship (it’s going way off the Emergent deep end, sad to say; no adults in leadership/adults in leadership too jaded to believe in Christianity anymore).
I couldn’t agree more with Mohler re: the current (sad) state of preaching in churches today. However, even with my aversion to things emergent, I think Al’s narrowing preaching beyond what the scriptures do when he says,
“And yet God has chosen to be heard and not seen. We know God not through what we see but what we read and hear. We know God through the Word.”
Before anyone draws and quarters me for speaking out here, let me just point out things like, “The heavens declare the glory of God…” “the firmament showeth His handiwork…,” etc. Surely, there is the preaching of the word, as well as the preaching of the conscience, informed by God’s own handiwork. Maybe it’s not entirely off the mark to use a well-designed graphic or video presentation to assist getting the ‘word’ out…y’think?
Don’t we also know Him by his creation? Is the knowledge of God and His attributes not also “manifest” in us (Rom 1, KJV/NKJV)? Otherwise, Mohler’s spot on. He just seems to have missed a spot.
Grace & peace.
8. Joe
October 20, 2006
7:52 PM
So many so-called “topical” preachers fall into the trap of using Scripture to bounce to their own personal brand of theosophy.
Good post.
9. James
October 21, 2006
12:06 AM
“Don’t we also know Him by his creation? Is the knowledge of God and His attributes not also “manifest” in us (Rom 1, KJV/NKJV)? Otherwise, Mohler’s spot on. He just seems to have missed a spot.”
You are referencing what is termed general revelation. For example:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. - Rom 1:18-23
All humans know God exists because of general revelation but they supress the truth which is why Paul states “they are without excuse” on the day of judgment. What Dr. Mohler is specifically addressing is termed special revelation. Special revelation basically tells of God’s saving grace, the plan of redemption, etc.
I know I’m glossing over a lot of this but Tim actually did a write up on this subject located here.
http://www.challies.com/archives/000082.php
10. Jamie
October 21, 2006
9:13 AM
Dallas,
Thank you for your words of encouragement.
Tim,
Thank you and I’ll email you offline.
Jamie
11. Terry Tiessen
October 21, 2006
10:18 AM
Tim,
My brother in law, who attends a Reformed Baptist church in Toronto told me about your blog and I’ve been enjoying it. The live blogging at “Desiring God” was very helpful.
Re: your work on discernment, have you come across Gordon Smith’s _The Voice of Jesus_ (IVP). I have found it excellent.
12. Jane
October 21, 2006
5:17 PM
Tim
I read your blog everyday so please don’t take what I’m going to say as criticism, at least not mean spirited criticism. I noted Mr. Burnes reference to “emergent.” Yes, I’ve been reading McLaren’s stuff. I find it stimulating and thought provolking. All this choosing up sides between Arminianism and Calvinism is depressing. Don’t we have enough trouble?
I attend a small SBC church in the Midwest. I expect I could cound on one hand, with digits left over, the number of people in the church who could even come up with a simple definition of these theological terms. Let’s face it, Joe Christian really has no clear idea of what he believes, or if he does, why he believes it.
As for Spurgeon’s tack of making a bee-line for the cross and always preaching the Gospel: pray tell, what was the good news the deciples were preaching before Christ went to the cross??
Forgive me, I’m in a bad mood today.
13. Bill Burns
October 21, 2006
5:46 PM
James, I’m aware of the difference between general and special revelation. I appreciate the refresher, but I was simply taking issue with the accuracy of Mohler’s general statement about how we know God. Whether or not he’s talking about the state of preaching in the churches today or not, the statement that we “know God not through what we see but what we read and hear,” is inaccurate. It’s clear, as you point out, that we also know God (to the degree that we “are without excuse”) by general revelation, and this apparently apart from special revelation. I’m not trying to be argumentative with Mohler. Matter of fact, I tend to agree wholeheartedly with his criticism of an unthinking dependence on technology to deliver the message of the Gospel. I just think he’s over (or under)stated his case. Nothing more, nothing less.
Jane, I hear what you’re saying about “Joe Christian” not knowing what they actually believe. I would simply submit that it’s because of the essentially anti-intellectual influence of folks like McLaren & company that Joe (and Jane) Christian remain in the dark about what they believe. The content of their faith is reflective of what’s been passing for Christianity from evangelical pulpits over the past 40+ years, which includes, sadly the past 5-10 years or so of increasingly vacuous and rootless ‘theologizing’ TO the surrounding popular culture, rather than the transformation that comes from biblically informed & faithful preaching.
14. Jane
October 21, 2006
6:35 PM
Bill,
Thanks for your reply. I would never have thought to characterize McLaren’s group as “anti-intellectual.” I don’t know if you could discern it from what I wrote, but I’m starving for intellectual stimulation. Please address the question of exactly what the disciples were preaching about the Kingdom of God before the Crucifiction, which was a complete surprise to them until the last few hours. I would really be interested in what you have to say about this.
Thanks, Jane
15. Bill Burns
October 22, 2006
5:47 PM
You’re welcome, Jane.
Ok, here’s a go at your question, then.
First, re: McLaren and anti-intellectualism – BM’s main thrust, to which I believe you’re referring when you insist on this what-were-Jesus-and-the-apostles-teaching-is-the-Good-News-BEFORE-the-cross-Hmmm?? angle is:
‘it’s the KOG, stupid!’ (ala BM’s “The Secret Message…”/apologies to Bill Clinton)
To which the orthodox Christian response is, ‘yes, you’re quite correct that He and they did in fact come preaching, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,’ and “repent and believe the good news of the kingdom…” To that, there can be no argument.
However, what BM & Co seem to be saying in works like TSMoJ is that, contra not just Jesus’ own teaching about the necessity of his impending death, but also contra the bulk of the rest of the New Testament teachings, that their message is only and simply “repent and believe the ‘good news’ of some form of works righteousness” (known popularly as the KOG). This is evident in the diminishment, if not outright denial of the substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross by BM & company.
They’re also teaching, essentially, that they (ala Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church before them) are restoring a gospel long lost to penal substitutionary atonement and that they, in all their Gnostic glory have found the secret (and will share it with you for a mere $19.95). All that vicarious atonement blather by Paul & the rest of the New Testament is just so much bloviating and, even IF it were true, would be nothing short of ‘divine child abuse.’ (Thank you, Steve Chalke).
Yes, it’s true, God in His infinite wisdom has hidden things from people (see Deuteronomy 29:29 & Matthew 13:10-17). The message of the Gospel isn’t one of them. Moreover, what God has hidden, will remain hidden, unless He chooses to reveal it. I submit to you (2Peter 1:3) that the Church has what is needful, and that BM hasn’t come up with any ‘secret.’
Your misspelling of ‘crucifixion’ above is ironic. That is, of course, what McLaren & company apparently think about the atonement: that it is a fiction of the cross that Christ’s death was vicarious, and that instead, we are simply to live out the Kingdom.
Specifically with regard to the notion of McLaren & Co being anti-intellectual, I’ll grant that no one seriously thinks BM’s not a bright fellow. The same could be said for a lot of folks in leadership in emergent circles. But for the emergent brand of neo-liberal do-gooder theology to thrive requires a perpetuation of the 40+ years of anti-intellectual non-engagement of evangelical leadership & constituency that Mark Noll has decried so effectively in his “Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.
Yes, we need to live out the gospel, but in order for that to happen, it needs to be preached. But it won’t be, as long as folks like BM & company keep telling us it’s not true (and thus not important). And if people aren’t actually hearing the good news that Christ died for them, pretty soon, there won’t be any Christians left to live it out, either. The power of the Gospel is realized in its proclamation.
But now, we’re getting way off topic from the original thread here. Suffice to say, an over-reliance on technology is to be avoided, and yet, technology isn’t always wrong in service to the Gospel. God reveals Himself in general AND special revelation, and we should use whatever means brings Him the greatest glory in communicating the Gospel to His world. Finally, we shouldn’t shortchange people by diminishing what He accomplished and still is accomplishing through Christ’s life, death and resurrection and now intercession for the saints. Keeping the focus on God is what will bring about the realization of His kingdom both now and forevermore.
16. Jane
October 22, 2006
11:47 PM
Well, Mr. Burns, you out did yourself. I feel like the ignornant, uninformed rube that I surely am. As for BM’s group being Gnostics, I hadn’t considered that. It’s clear you are far over my head on all fronts. Thanks, too, for showcasing my spelling error. Yep, you really put me in my place, Bill. You are one smart cookie and everyone who reads this will be blown away by your obvious intellectual superiority and stunning vocabulary. (Is that spelled right?) I’m still looking for my dictionary. Say, is that a little drop of venom lingering at the corner of your mouth? You may retract your fangs now. I must go. I’m bleeding all over my keyboard.
17. Bill Burns
October 23, 2006
1:15 AM
Jane, I’m sorry you feel like you were blasted. But I’m honestly interested in what you think about my arguments.
That poison you detect isn’t dripping from any ‘fangs’ of mine. It is rather, the poison of neo-liberalism in the writings of McLaren & company that you apparently have ingested by osmosis from handling too much emergent reading material.
You asked why I thought BM & co were anti-intellectual, and I simply answered you. You asked what Jesus and the apostles were teaching before the cross, and I answered you.
I’m still waiting to hear what you think they were teaching, (aside from a works righteousness KOG message). I’m also interested in just what it is you think Jesus meant when he said the Son of God “MUST” suffer and die.
If all we need to do is “live out the gospel,” I wonder what your take is on 1Corinthians 15:3 is, since Paul says something there about Christ’s death being ‘of first importance.” What is so good about the emergent “good” news? What about preaching the penal substitutionary atonement is it that emergent types find that abrogates the teaching of the Kingdom of God? When I listen to the preaching of the cross, I still hear the command to repent and believe the Good News of the kingdom of God. If one has ears to hear, it should be clear.
There’s no doubt that the appearance on the scene of folks like BM & co have renewed the debate about the meaning of the Gospel, and that (in God’s grace) will turn out to be a good thing. And the Church has definitely missed the boat frequently (because we are deeply flawed beings, i.e. ‘sinners’). But what emergent theologies have done and are doing today goes beyond healthy ‘conversation,’ as evidenced by your response to my answer above, for instance. It is neither generous, for it robs and diminishes Christ’s atonement from the Church, nor is it orthodoxy to do so.
18. Jane
October 23, 2006
11:06 AM
Bill, Forgive me for my knee jerk reaction. You pushed a few buttons, I guess. I admit I need someone like you to help me think through the implications of BM’s teaching. I certainly NEVER meant to demean the redeeming work and efficacy of Christ’s work on the cross. I didn’t glean this from what I’ve read of BM’s books. Perhaps I just assumed that work is a given for everyone, as it is for me. I would like to discuss this further, if you can be patient with me. Can we do it with regular email? This is cumbersome. jcb1238@earthlink.net
Note: Yes, I am a lousy speller. Managed to get through college anyway. The advent of the spell checker is one of the greatest advances of the modern age for me :-) The experts say it is a problem with my visual perception, or some such. Anyway, I’m sensitive about it. Sorry for the blow up. Jane
19. Bill Burns
October 23, 2006
9:18 PM
No offense taken, Jane. I’m glad you weren’t completely put off by my tone. I know I can come off high & mighty easily enough. I have a similar kneejerk reaction to emergent thought, not that I think a negative reaction to it, even a strong one, is out of line.
It sounds like you’ve read a few of McLaren’s books, and yet haven’t seen some of the more glaring aspects and associations that come along with it that I see, and that others also see. My own experience with EC thought isn’t so much from McLaren’s writings, as direct from its influence in my own (now former) fellowship.
If all you’ve encountered is his books, or maybe an article or interview, you may not get a full sense of where what he and other EC leaders are headed. However, taken as a whole, there are a lot of red flags, including my aforementioned concerns about an anti-intellectualism (perhaps a more accurate term would be pseudo-intellectualism) that sustains it, but especially an underlying appeal to what I refer to as a ‘gnostic’ impulse.
If you still would like to talk more offline, I’ll shoot you an email and we can take it off this forum, since we’re way OT by now.