Listening and Preaching

Brian Comery at Sycamore is blogging about dialogue in preaching. I appreciate the "boundaries" he suggests for defining community participation in preaching. The first one is a reminder that "it is possible to participate in the sermon without being an authoritative voice in the sermon-giving."

I'm looking forward to the rest of his series, but I'd like to take his thought about participating in the sermon "without being an authoritative voice in the sermon-giving" a little further. Specifically I think we should re-emphasize the skill and art of active listening as the community's primary participation in the sermon.

Several years ago, I read a book by Joseph Stowell on Following Christ. At a time when so much was being said about leadership, Stowell wrote:

As clear as Scripture is about the priority and preeminence of following, it is somewhat amazing that we still don't seem to get it. Churches hold leadership training courses, but rarely get around to talking about following. We fill our preaching agendas with calls for men to be leaders in their homes and leaders in the church, when what we really need are people who are first and foremost fully devoted followers (p. 39).

I'd like to transfer that idea to the current talk about preaching. It's not that preaching isn't important nor that we shouldn't get people more involved. But it seems what we need first and foremost are fully-involved listeners.

I am reading a book about the Puritans and just finished the chapter about preaching. Here's how the Puritan preachers got their listeners "involved":

The Puritans taught their congregations to memorise the sermons they heard, looking up references and taking note if need be, so that they could 'repeat' the messages afterwards and meditate on them during the week. The ministry of the word was thus a co-operative activity, in which the laity were to learn just as hard as the minister laboured to teach. A sermon that was needlessly hard to remember was for that very reason, of necessity, a bad sermon (Packer, A Quest for Godliness, p. 285).

I have no idea how the Puritans got their congregations to memorize their sermons. I'm not sure if that would work today. But the point is, they believed it was important for people to actively listen to God's word proclaimed - presumably that included applying what they heard as they meditated on it.

One of the reasons I've been thinking along this line is because I'm reading through Jeremiah. Jeremiah was filled with the fire of God's word. It burned within him such that he couldn't keep it in (Jer. 20:9). But what some times gets overlooked is that the people refused to listen. God didn't rebuke Jeremiah for his methodology. He rebuked the people for their responsibility (i.e. failure to listen). So in addition to our talk about the word of God burning within preachers, we also need to help people become more active listeners. If dialogue and debate and Q&A contribute to that, great. But I suspect humility and submissiveness and hunger for God (internal attributes rather than just external exercise) will go further to produce good listeners.

Of course, all this implies that the preacher himself must be a good listener ... because if he can't hear the word of God, what does he have to say really?

Update: Jesus Creed is blogging about dialogue in preaching as well.

Church Planting Resources

Kevin Cawley has added a Church Planting Resources Sidebar to his site.

Pathfinders: An Association of House Churches

Pathfinders Fellowship - based in London, Ontario, Canada - has a new website. Ross Rains (former president of The Navigators of Canada) is giving field leadership to this networking ministry for house churches. They are planning a "bootcamp" for house church ministry on October 14-16, 2005. Here are links (.pdf format) to their material:

• Pathfinders Fellowship brochure.
  
• Vision and mission and values.
  
• How to become an affiliated house church host.

Praying for Persecuted Christians

My son visited China last year. My parents are presently on a tour in China. If you had asked me about the state of religious freedom there, up until recently I would have said, "I think there will be greater freedom as China prepares to host the Olympic Games." It appears I know little of the ruling Chinese mindset: "CHINA: DEFIANTLY INTENSIFYING PERSECUTION."

Two recent news releases from China Aid Association (CAA ) document a shocking escalation of persecution in China. There seems (to RLP) to be a direct correlation between increasing Russian-Chinese-Central Asian solidarity and growing persecution of unsanctioned Protestant Christians in those states. The dictators are uniting to protect their totalitarian regimes through alliances that reduce the influence and leverage of Western human rights and religious liberty advocates. Furthermore, China is systematically strengthening its assault on 'cults' (which includes house churches) through ideological training of cadres. These are very concerning developments. But God is in control of his-story for his glory! So we will confidently and dependently approach his 'throne of grace' (Hebrews 4:14-16).

I admit that my praying for other countries is spotty, including persecuted Christians in some of these nations (I've been trying to follow Operation World's daily prayer calendar). Although there is a place for discipline and scheduling, I don't think merely trying harder is the answer (at least, not for me). Rather, I need to confess my lack of compassion and seek grace to pray fervently and faithfully. How do you maintain a passion in praying for the nations?

(HT for China news: Christian Persecution Blog).

Better Ambassadors - Follow Up

A follow-up to yesterday's post about being better ambassadors. Greg Koukl writes:

There are two specific attitudes Christian ambassadors need to cultivate.

The first is the vertical attitude, God-ward. We have a part to play in evangelism, and so does God. We do our part, and God does His part. That’s the balance. It’s 100% God and 100% man. We employ the biblical methodology, using evidences and persuasion, but that’s not enough. We trust God to do what only He can do, draw people into the kingdom.

I’m looking for the person who’s looking for God (i.e. the one God has already been making hungry for the Gospel). Only God can draw people into the Kingdom.... It’s Jesus’ job to call His sheep. Our job is to communicate the message as clearly, as persuasively, and as graciously as possible, and then let the Holy Spirit do His work.

The second attitude is the horizontal attitude, man-ward: How to approach those you witness to. We are not to be bullies. Our manner should be gentle, reverent, patient, not quarrelsome, gracious, wise, and tactical....

As fishers of men, we use different approaches for different circumstances. Human beings are individuals. Treat them that way.

Don’t add any more offense to it, by conduct, attitude, or extra rules. But also don’t remove the offense inherent in the Gospel message.

Better Ambassadors for Christ

A few links on moral persuasion and defending our faith in a pluralistic society:

1. Steve Wagner references Mary Ann Glendon’s “The Women of Roe v. Wade” for a great answer to those who say "You're imposing your view on me":

....when people advance their moral viewpoints in the public square, they are not imposing anything on anyone. They are proposing. That’s what citizens do in a democracy—we propose, we give reasons, we vote. It’s a very strange doctrine that would silence only religiously grounded moral viewpoints.

2. In reading the comments to Wagner's post, I was disappointed by some of the ones left by presumably Christians to an agnostic who had also posted comments. Unfortunately, I see and hear this kind of unwinsome witness too often. It underscored for me the importance of what Greg Koukl had to say about being A Better Ambassador (which Wagner, I thought, exemplified in his response):

There are three aspects of doing Christian defenses. The first deals with content, offering specific responses to particular questions. That's knowledge. The second deals with wisdom, how best to interact with a person so they understand the message. The third is your character, cultivating virtue that makes you an attractive ambassador for Christ.

It's the wisdom part that I sense is so often lacking, which then tends to impugn on the character of the speaker/writer - at least to the unbeliever listening to us.


3. Tim Challies has a review of Talking About Good and Bad Without Getting Ugly by Paul Chamberlain. Challies writes:

Chamberlain believes that meaningful dialogue on the difficult moral questions is not only a possibility but is a responsibility. It is crucial that Christians engage the culture with this issues for two reasons. First, this allows us to hone our own positions on these issues. It is easy to think we have all the answers, but a good challenge can benefit us by forcing us to think through the deep and difficult issues. Second, this can be our way of contributing to our culture as it struggles with new questions of morality. "My hope is that this book will be something of a map, or should I say an atlas, to help us talk about good and bad without getting ugly; a guide for engaging issues that so often leave us confused and exasperated" (page 13).

Sounds like a book worth getting.

Xenos Christian Fellowship

A few Sundays ago, on our way home from Florida, we made it a point to stop in Columbus, OH and attend the Central Teaching at Xenos Christian Fellowship. According to their history, this is how Xenos views what it means to be the church:

Xenos leadership had clarified their vision for the church during their time of study in California, settling on the central values that continue to characterize Xenos to this day: That the church is people in community, actively growing through using their gifts in ministry and reaching out to those outside the church. The group shared a dread of shallowness, of outward "churchy" piety, and of formalism. [Dennis] McCallum and [Gary] DeLashmutt envisioned a radically involved church where everyone took part in ministry, virtually erasing the usual clergy-laity distinction in western Christianity. They saw the importance of keeping the church outward focused, and sought to avoid what they perceived as a tendency in the American church to be inward-focused and out of touch with contemporary culture. Evangelism and personal discipleship were the means for building the church. In Xenos, all leaders sought to disciple younger believers, and that was supposed to lead to duplication. Duplication of mature Christians would hopefully lead to duplication of house churches. And as house churches multiplied, a church planting movement would erupt. To the present day, Xenos strives to be a church planting movement.

The format of their Central Teaching is simple: As the name suggests, they have a teaching time, followed by questions and answers, and prayer (for an explanation of their practice, go here and click on "No Worship Services"). I wasn't sure how my children would feel about not having music and "worship," but they seemed to appreciate the teaching time - at least it provided for some interesting discussion. Someday I'd like to get back and sit in on a house church meeting.

Large and Small Gatherings

David Gilmour proposes "A Two-Strand Model for the Contemporary Congregation." Here's what he has to say about public and house settings for church meetings (and the need for both):

The public setting recognizes that the church of God is not meant to be sectarian, but open to all who wish to enter its meetings. The use of public buildings since the fourth century testifies to their practicality for fostering a biblical concern for gospel communication to outsiders through intelligible yet Spirit-filled worship.

The theology behind this accessibility is found in Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 14. Verses 1-17 reveal the necessity for communication and edification; verses 18-25 reveal the necessity for intelligibility to outsiders; implicit in verse 23 is the idea of the church gathering in a larger setting, where unbelievers were likely to have been present; and verses 26-40 reveal the necessity for order in worship, of a kind which promotes peace in the church.

Public worship on Paul's view needs to be formal in a sense that is different from, but which is easily confused with, the formality that results from atrophied tradition. Correct formality is such as will allow for good order and godly peace to prevail at a large gathering where trust is based more on predictability than on intimacy.

Such formality will also be natural. It is important that the historic liturgy be conducted in a way that takes account of the needs of contemporary people. Concern for the contemporary must not be excluded from this strand, thus keeping the distinction between the two strands from appearing artificially sharp. The church will be then preserved from the ravages of antiquarianism.

Despite these arguments, the actual use of public buildings for large gatherings was not an intrinsic part of New Testament teaching about the church. On the other hand, even though the churches described in the New Testament met in homes, there is no evidence to suggest that this was for any greater reason than convenience. What was of enduring significance was not the type of building used but the set of relationships that existed within the church.

This model works on the premise that in modern technological society two types of meeting are needed to achieve the same thing as was achieved by the household alone in the first century. We need the formal but natural meeting in public buildings, and the informal but structured (having some degree of appropriate order) meeting based around the household. A certain primacy belongs to the household context, provided it is not seen as restricted to the nuclear family.

This should further encourage the small church as a structure of equal significance alongside Sunday worship. It is in the home that the highly significant ministry of hospitality is exercised. The family-type relationships that ought to exist between Christians can be developed as a powerful means by which church members build one another up into Christ.

Another Apologetics Resource

Douglas Groothuis at Culture Watch mentions a new website called TrueU.org. Their welcome panel says:

You've heard it before: Students enter college Christian, but graduate atheist, Buddhist, Jedi, whatever.

TrueU.org is a community for students who want to know and confidently discuss the Christian worldview. Our hope is that you'll graduate with your faith not only intact, but stronger than it was before.

Sounds like it has the potential to be a good resource. I've added it to my list of apologetics websites, which includes: Apologetics Index, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, and Stand to Reason.

As my first taste of TrueU.org, I read a series of articles from the site by Blake Roeber on "Anselm's Ontological Argument" (part 1, part 2, part 3). As much as I am not a philosophy kind of guy, I actually read through the articles. Turns out I couldn't quite get my mind around it, especially point (5) in Roeber's outline of Anselm's argument ... my brain hurts! So why did I read the articles - and late at night, at that? Here's what hooked my interest:

The ontological argument — first formulated by Anselm but reformulated many times since — is 927 years old and still attracts the attention of the smartest people on earth. In contrast, the articles in this morning's newspaper are only a day old and they'll be largely forgotten by tomorrow — completely forgotten in a year. Da Vinci Code will be forgotten in 10. If you have to choose between them, you'd be better off reading Anselm than the newspaper or Da Vinci Code, I'd say.

Preparation for Church Planters

I've come across a couple of on-line training resources for church planters. I haven't had a chance to read through the materials but I thought I'd link to them for future reference.

First, the Church Planting Group of the North American Mission Board has a Preparation for Church Planting Self-Study Guide. Its purpose is "to help the church planter confront three issues: (1) Whose kingdom am I building? (2) What is the church as the body of Christ? (3) Am I a church planter?"

Second, Elmer Towns has a manual called Getting A Church Started (pdf) that is geared - from what I can see - to the traditional church model. Towns comments: "I do not consider myself an authority on establishing new churches. I have interviewed men and have written their stories. They are the authorities. I am simply the channel through which the story is told."

Finally, while I'm on the topic of church planting, let me link to my friend Gary Carter's Church Creation Toolbox software program that is designed to help church planters with ideas, administrative tools, and other resources.

Navigating the Dangers of the Blogosphere, Part 3

I have no idea what's been happening in the blog world for the last week, having been disconnected for that time. Now, what was I saying? Oh yeah. Some of the dangers of blogging:

1. The false intimacy of anonymity.

2. The unrestraint of self-discipline.

3. A medium for misunderstanding. I left a comment on a blog a few weeks ago, fearful that I would be misunderstood. I was trying to address an issue with the blogosphere, namely that you can pretend to be anybody and if that "anybody" is relatively well-known, you can actually do a fair bit to malign their name. But instead I came across like I was attacking the person (I admit that a sarcastic statement I inserted in my comment didn't help matters).

Communication at its best is open to misunderstanding. I think it happens even more in blogs. The tendency (from what I've seen in comment boxes) is to read what a person writes and then to react to what they say. Blogging is not a medium for clarification. It's generally not a dialogue. People tend to talk past one another. And when comments are left, we don't usually want to write a novel, which means short comments that are prone to misunderstanding.

So what we do about it? As bloggers, I think we do need to work at being wordsmiths - to keep on developing our ability to communicate well. We'll all have our own style and way of expression. I'm not saying we have to be great writers. But we should strive to get our point across clearly. And on the other end, we could all use a large dose of grace in how we read. David Ponter, in a comment at Triablogue, expresses it well (BTW, his suggestion is that people email each other when they have an issue to discuss):

The reason I am sceptical of blogs is that one can easily slip into a lack of grace and also imagine that a simple comment solves and settles the matter. Intellectual engagement is always a process.

Navigating the Dangers of the Blogosphere, Part 2

As I said in my previous blog, I'm a rookie at this. But these posts are my observations of some problem areas or dangers that I've encountered in the use of blogs (including my own failings).

1. The false intimacy of anonymity (blogged about yesterday).

2. The unrestraint of self-discipline. One of the first blogs I read was Challies.com. He did a review several months ago on Jerry Jenkin's book Hedges, and summarized the premise of the book like this:

The book is premised on Paul’s admonition to Timothy, found in 2 Timothy 2:22 that he "flee youthful lusts." Jenkins tells us that this verse teaches that "We are to run. To flee. To get out. To get away" (page 45). He believes that God does not give victory over lust in the same way he allows victory over other sins, such as temper, greed and pride. While we can learn to avoid stealing, gossip and lying, he contends that no man will avoid a peek at pornography if he was convinced that no one would find out.

As we all know, fleeing lust on the Internet is one of the big challenges of our age (personally we use the BSafe filter on our home computer). But sexual temptation is not the only threat. In the blogosphere we struggle with the destructiveness of pride, jealousy, impatience, anger, arrogance, self-justification, strife, divisions, etc. I'm sure you've seen it. Why is this? Why does the Christian blog world seem to have such a lack of self-discipline in controlling the sin nature? I suggest that we have a mistaken concept of blogs. Many of us were introduced to blogs as a personal journal and told that we write for ourselves. So we think we can write whatever we want (after all, it's my blog).

But there's two errors, as I see it. First, I believe even in a personal journal/diary what we write should be true, honorable, pure, lovely, commendable. We may be writing about personal struggles and voicing doubts, but as followers of Jesus we can still exercise self-discipline in what and how we write (see the Psalms).

Second, unless yours is totally private, blogs are for public consumption. We may forget that as we sit alone in front of our screen. But we are not just writing for ourselves. Thus we have a responsibility for building up others in our posts. I'm not saying we should be superficially cheerful all the time. We can be real, but also be self-disciplined.

I know how tempting it is to write that comment or post that blog that's bursting inside of you ... especially in such a fast-moving medium as the blogosphere (things become old news pretty quick). And sometimes our words seem so witty or justified. But there are many times when we should think twice before we press "enter." I like what Scot McKnight said in one of his posts. While I haven't reached the same conclusion that he has after studying Hebrews, I appreciate his approach to blogging about "Post-Calvinism":

I want to thank the many who have responded to this series. I sat on the idea awhile because I thought it could divide more than unite. What I do think is that an autobiographical approach is less divisive, though our differences do remain.

"Sitting on an idea" or getting another opinion can be helpful when we know our words will be controversial or even incendiary.

Next: A Medium for Misunderstanding.

Navigating the Dangers of the Blogosphere, Part 1

My limited experience with blogs is with about 35 blogs that I read either through my blogroll or bloglines ... plus whatever links they generate. I've only been at this for a few months and I've been enjoying the time on line, for the most part. But there are some things that have bothered me lately, including a comment I left elsewhere. Others, such as Dan Edelen at Cerulean Sanctum, have also been bothered. He even included this plea: "Can we all just take a deep breath and hold it for a few seconds? Can we count to ten before we post the latest flame bait or character assassination?"

I see at least three problems with the blogosphere that should cause all of us to "use with caution." I'll write about the first problem here and then write about the other two in future blogs:

1. The false intimacy of anonymity. On the Internet we can feel bold to talk to or about people that we don't even know. Maybe for some it's because they can express themselves better behind a curtain (like the Wizard of Oz). Now, I know that most bloggers love to have others leave comments on their blogs, especially something of substance that interacts constructively with what they've written. And after reading a blog for a while, we begin to think we have a relationship with the writer and that we can actually enter a comment on their site. But we really don't know each other. My teenagers' blogs are mainly for their friends to read and comment on; I think they would find it weird for a total stranger to leave comments (or their dad). Of course, almost all Christian blogs invite anyone to leave comments, but the point is we are strangers for the most part. Unless we know the person in real life, the relationships we have in the blogosphere are pretty superficial.

So what? Mark Devers was recently asked how a church can start taking church discipline seriously. His advice:

My basic advice is not to do it—that is, do not do church discipline until your church membership is meaningful.

With most evangelical churches today, the membership is fairly meaningless. And it would be weird to have two deacons turn up on your front doorstep to confront you about adultery or gossip, because there's been no natural conversation about your spiritual life. Not only should we be talking about football and the weather after worship, but also about our own self-denial or lack thereof, our response to the Word just preached, the way we choked up at that older member's testimony, how we've cared for a distressed family, about our concern to evangelize Muslims in the area, and so on.

When it's natural to have serious conversations about real life with each other, that's when you can start practicing corrective discipline. And once you start doing these other things, once you see the culture of the congregation changed where it really is the shape of your discipleship and the center of your life, church discipline is as natural as can be.

The blogosphere is not the church, and we're not exercising church discipline on anyone. But I think the principle is applicable. Without a relationship, confronting people is "weird" and "unnatural." Yet people do it on blogs all the time, even though we don't even know each other. How come we don't see it as weird and unnatural? We may think we know each other, but we don't. Generally speaking, it's a false intimacy.

BTW, despite what I've just said, I do maintain that there is a place not only to criticize ideas but sometimes also the people who hold those ideas. I don't think we necessarily need a relationship with someone to interact with public statements they have made. I also maintain that heated arguments are OK, even with people we don't know - if we believe something, we're naturally going to be passionate about it. But maybe it would help temper our writings and responses if we remember that it's a real person we're blogging about. We may think we know them, but we don't. How would we treat them in real life?

Next: The Unrestraint of Self-Discipline.

Tolerance: Love and Truth

Douglas Groothius wants us to "Think Straight About Tolerance" and concludes with this statement:

How should Christians tolerate members of other religions? We should do so by loving them and bringing the truth to them. We endorse their religious freedom, but the gospel never allows us to be indifferent to their eternal destinies.

On a different note and yet similar, Randy Alcorn talks about "A Lesbian Responds to Grace and Truth":

Birds need two wings to fly. With only one wing, they're grounded. The gospel flies with the wings of grace and truth. Not one, but both.

The apparent conflict between grace and truth isn't because they're incompatible, but because we lack perspective to resolve their paradox. The two are interdependent. We should never approach truth except in a spirit of grace, or grace except in a spirit of truth. Jesus wasn't 50% grace, 50% truth, but 100% grace, 100% truth.

Truth-oriented Christians love studying Scripture and theology. But sometimes they're quick to judge and slow to forgive. They're strong on truth, weak on grace.

Grace-oriented Christians love forgiveness and freedom. But sometimes they neglect biblical study and see moral standards as "legalism." They're strong on grace, weak on truth.

Countless mistakes in marriage, parenting, ministry and other relationships are failures to balance grace and truth. Sometimes we neglect both. Often we choose one over the other.

Dealing with Addiction

Eternal Perspective Ministries has an article by David Eckman about addiction. He describes a five-step addictive cycle:

Through addressing the five-step addictive cycle, the mirror opposite of spirituality, the pastor has a tremendous tool. The cycle begins with unaddressed pain. The person takes the first step by avoiding the pain and pursuing some pleasure. To get this pleasure the second step is to go into isolation. Isolation allows the person to focus on the intended high from sex, food, drugs or something else.

The third step is into a fantasy world of false identities. This is a world where: calories do not count, eroticism does not degrade, drugs cause no harm, and the person becomes nothing more than a sensation. The fourth and fifth step is to initiate a "robotic like behavior" (like driving to a grocery store or turning on a computer) and to carry it out.

I found steps 2 and 3 in this description most helpful. Still it is challenging to help people with addictions. I've known those who say they want help, and yet the lie of the fantasy world is so strong that they aren't willing to let go.