Monday, October 27, 2008

Preaching or Pandering?

In one of my classes we have been tracing how different segments have interpreted the Bible and the tools and framework they brought to the text.

The early church (100-500 CE) stood in one of the most intriguing segments in human history. A common language existed (Greek and then Latin) and the Roman contributions to society allowed Christianity to flourish, even through the persecution pre-Constantine. Thus, the literacy level was quite high, and a large segment of the population – Christian and non-Christian – knew the Bible. And so, when we read some of the sermons from guys like Origin, Augustine, and Chrysostom we see a deep and profound exposition of Scripture. If a preacher in today’s society stood up and preached one of these sermons or one similar, s/he would probably loose the audience in the first five minutes and would not make it very long in pulpit of the churches I see dotting the landscape.

But back then these guys were rock stars. They would walk around and people just wanted to be near them. But it was not an easy task to preach to these audiences. There were plenty of distractions and other preachers that the audience could go hear instead. In one of Chrysostom’s sermons he basically calls out his audience and says, “I know you would rather be at the races, but bear with me.” Every week when these guys stepped into the pulpit they knew they were battling against the culture and against an audience that would not put up with any sort of half-hearted sermon. Imagine preaching in front of Bible College professors every week. These were the people hearing the sermons and if the preachers missed a reference or spouted off bad exegesis they would hear about it.

The fact is, the early fathers won their audience not by entertaining but by illuminating the text. They brought fresh perspectives on the text that were not contrived or based on bad interpretation. These guys new their Bibles and they knew that their audience knew the Bible. So they preached some amazingly dense sermons and their audiences ate them up.

Later patristic leaders were great preachers but their content and their audience were far different. Eventually literacy started to decline and fewer and fewer people had access or opportunity to study the Scriptures. Thus the preachers, though profound, had to water down their sermons to meet the audience on their level.

Not long after the Patristic Period the Middle Ages/Dark Ages came about and the distinction between the Catholic church and laypeople became even more stark. A hunger grew for “Secret Knowledge” that only the preachers could dispense. Thus manipulation and elitism ran rampant as the clergy were the only ones who knew the Bible and could properly interpret it. But even during these periods of low literacy, at least there was a hunger for hearing and understanding God’s Word.

As I look around at the state of things today I see the worst of each of these eras. Humanity is the most literate than any other time on the planet. And yet, biblical illiteracy seems to plague the church. Most Christians don’t know their Bibles well and there does not seem to be any overwhelming desire to learn more. Add to that the preacher’s uphill battle to engage the audience when and if they show up. The result is a self-fulfilling system – sermons that have little spiritual depth because the preacher seeks to entertain and laypeople that reflect the same thing. And then the preachers throw their hands up in despair as their members care more about going to the lake after church than engaging the God of the Universe during the worship service. I know that I am painting with broad strokes, and that many churches are not like this picture, but many, and dare I say the majority, are.

Is there an easy solution? Probably not. But I believe some things can be done. As church leaders, we need to expect more out our congregation and they should expect more out of us. Just as the early church fathers poured over the Scriptures and knew them intimately, so should we. And then it is the responsibility of the preacher to convey his/her findings in a relevant, engaging way. And it is the audience’s responsibility to respond by continuing the search on their own and committing to the process of maturing in Christ.

May we, together, grow in the knowledge and understanding of God’s revelation through the Word.

5 comments:

Troy said...

Great post, Sam. Although we might not agree on the "relevant, engaging" methods, I thoroughly agree that we need more meat, heart and depth in the churches/sermons today...even if I had to study hard to keep up.

Regan Clem said...

Good thoughts Sam.

I would wager that worship actually happens at the lake more than he is at many gatherings. At the lake, people experience fellowship and lift up praises to God for the beauty they encounter. These aren't just rituals, but people really enjoying God, fellow man, and creation. We've made special revelation so boring and undynamic while natural revelation can't help but be exciting.

Regan Clem said...

Sorry for the crazy and bad grammar.

Remove "he is" from the first sentence and life is good.

Sam said...

Thanks Troy and Regan.

Regan, although I agree that much of what we call "church" often consists of empty ritual, unless the hanging out at the lake is an intentional act to glorify the creator perhaps they are falling into the deficiency that Paul describes in Romans 1 - worshiping the creation over the creator. But I will agree that we have so sanitarized the gospel message that it tends to lose its power and excitement because of our presentation.

Regan Clem said...

I wasn't arguing for lake over church. I was just pointing out that the lake might be more worshipful than most church experiences. What needs to change is the church experience, not the lake.