Sunday, May 08, 2005
To Whom Should We Then Preach?
My post from last weekend about who is the audience for preaching sparked some discussion. I actually got more agreement than I thought I would, but of course, there was disagreement as well. The agreements seem to be in my comments and the disagreements in the comments to Adrian Warnock's responsive post. Just yesterday The Broken Messenger put up a post that agreed with Adrian. Adrain says:
One point I want to clarify, I think there is preaching to the unsaved -- Graham crusades, revivals, Young Life clubs, all of these would fit into that category. I am discussing preaching within the confines and context of the congregation, the Sunday morning worship if you will. I think in the church is for the saved, I think evangelism, an activity for which preaching is a valuable tool, is something that happens out in the world, visitors to the church not withstanding. Consider Messenger's point that the early church did not have the luxury -- I disagree. Paul, in I Corintians 12, distinguishes between gifts of preching and evangelsim, he clearly viewed them as different roles. Moreover, Paul never established a congregation for himself -- he travelled and evangelized, but left the congregations to others.
When I visit say, China, the Chinese do not suddenly speak English for my sake, I must either 1) learn Chinese fast, or 2) find a translator, or some combination thereof. An unsaved visitor to a church is truly a foreigner in a foreign land. I have been to China and the Chinese were most welcoming and did everything in their power to make me feel at home, but they did not stop being Chinese, or doing what Chinese people do. While we want visitors to our churches, we do not need to stop being the church to accomodate them. In fact, much as I said in my defense of liturgy earlier this week, that very foreign nature of attending church as an unchurched person forces a reaction from the visitor.
Now I'd like to issue a challenge to those in the "preaching can do both in the same context category." It's twofold. Please provide an exegesis of Hebrews 6:1-2 as quoted in my original post linked above and apply that to preaching within the context of regular Sunday worship. Also, what model would you have a church follow in terms of organization and structure to provide for both outreach and maturity within the context of a Sunday morning.?
Much of my conviction in the area comes from experience. I have seen churches focus on maturity, they are ususally small and vibrant, and I have seen churches focus on "seekers" they are usually large and media-driven. I have never found both in one place -- I am convincable on this matter if I could see it work.
UPDATE 9:00AM
I think John over at Sheep's Crib may be helping me make my point with this post? Consider:
Please remember, I have not defined what I mean by "maturity." Certainly the denial of self and admission of sin on ever deepening levels is a big part of that.
My growing conviction is that every sermon I preach needs to be targetted at both groups. I want a child who knows nothing about God to be able to understand AND a theology professor to benefit in some way from the same sermon.Messenger put it this way:
This begs the question: Is there some reason why we cannot do both? The early Church certainly did not have the luxury.I understand the sentiment, and Adrian seems to be in more agreement with me than Messenger because Adrian does point out the need for churches to find a way to build maturity.
One point I want to clarify, I think there is preaching to the unsaved -- Graham crusades, revivals, Young Life clubs, all of these would fit into that category. I am discussing preaching within the confines and context of the congregation, the Sunday morning worship if you will. I think in the church is for the saved, I think evangelism, an activity for which preaching is a valuable tool, is something that happens out in the world, visitors to the church not withstanding. Consider Messenger's point that the early church did not have the luxury -- I disagree. Paul, in I Corintians 12, distinguishes between gifts of preching and evangelsim, he clearly viewed them as different roles. Moreover, Paul never established a congregation for himself -- he travelled and evangelized, but left the congregations to others.
When I visit say, China, the Chinese do not suddenly speak English for my sake, I must either 1) learn Chinese fast, or 2) find a translator, or some combination thereof. An unsaved visitor to a church is truly a foreigner in a foreign land. I have been to China and the Chinese were most welcoming and did everything in their power to make me feel at home, but they did not stop being Chinese, or doing what Chinese people do. While we want visitors to our churches, we do not need to stop being the church to accomodate them. In fact, much as I said in my defense of liturgy earlier this week, that very foreign nature of attending church as an unchurched person forces a reaction from the visitor.
Now I'd like to issue a challenge to those in the "preaching can do both in the same context category." It's twofold. Please provide an exegesis of Hebrews 6:1-2 as quoted in my original post linked above and apply that to preaching within the context of regular Sunday worship. Also, what model would you have a church follow in terms of organization and structure to provide for both outreach and maturity within the context of a Sunday morning.?
Much of my conviction in the area comes from experience. I have seen churches focus on maturity, they are ususally small and vibrant, and I have seen churches focus on "seekers" they are usually large and media-driven. I have never found both in one place -- I am convincable on this matter if I could see it work.
UPDATE 9:00AM
I think John over at Sheep's Crib may be helping me make my point with this post? Consider:
This is the mistake the Hebrews made in their Exodus and wilderness journeys; they tried to dot every eye and cross every tee to please the God of Israel, rather than admitting they were worms, incapable of ever keeping even The Big Ten. They should've done what we've all (I hope) done ... thrown themselves at the feet of Jehovah, and beg for His mercy and grace, confessing sin with genuine remorse and regret.Many would say, "See this just makes the point that the message is the same for believer and unbeliever." I think not. The messge of repentance and forgiveness is pretty easy to get across to the profligate sinner. But the self-satisfaction that comes from a long time committment to Jesus is much more difficult to overcome.
Please remember, I have not defined what I mean by "maturity." Certainly the denial of self and admission of sin on ever deepening levels is a big part of that.
