Most pastors, preaching from a pulpit, will look to scripture to at least inform their sermons. They do this because they believe that the bible is our primary source of authority. It is how God has revealed himself to us. My guess is that almost all pastors would say they hold to the doctrine of sola scriptura.
The irony is all this should be obvious. If we scour the pages of the New Testament, we cannot find even one example of anyone preaching to the church. No one gives a monologue-style speech to a silent audience. It simply does not occur. It is foreign to the life of the church we see in scripture.
Simply put, pulpit preaching violates sola scriptura. How ironic. The very people who do the preaching from the bible are at the same time violating the principle they say they believe.
Preaching in the New Testament is almost always directed to the lost. See Peter's preaching in the early chapters of Acts. Any preaching done in the church is simply speaking the truth of the gospel in the face of false teaching. This is what Paul exhorted Timothy to do in Ephesus.
Preaching as it has been known since the Reformation is simply not biblical. Every time a pastor, or anyone else, stands in a pulpit and preaches about the importance of sola scriptura, he at that instant is violating the very idea he is proclaiming.
My purpose in this post is not to be negative for the sake of being negative. Rather, I'm greatly concerned about the state of the church in this country. There are certain sacred cows that need to be challenged. I believe we have a responsibility to lovingly engage Christian brothers and sisters in conversations about the church. The sermon is a great place to start. Most Christians assume that the modern sermon is extremely scriptural. They'd be hard pressed to support that claim.
Additionally, today's preaching simply continues to support the clergy-laity divide, elevating the pastor(s) and causing the laity to be passive. It implies that only certain people have a "special message from the Lord" for the rest of the people. This is ridiculous and harmful.
Pulpit preaching has no place in Christ's church. Rather, we are all priests of God, and we need to hear from one another. If we're going to adhere to sola scriptura, this is what we must do.
15 comments:
Your tenacity for exposing the hopelessly flawed heretical institutional church practices (though no doubt very time consuming) is certainly without question worthy of a crown of life as great as any modern martyr who ever exposed everything that is wrong with the Lord's church.
Great post, Eric.
I agree.
You know, when I was a pastor, I used to always feel guilty after preaching. I always wondered why.
I wonder if deep down inside, I knew I was doing something...dishonest?
Pulpit Bible lecturing dominated by hired men is the most expensive ministry in the church, and not supported by Gods Word at all.. Wow! What a severe corruption in desperate need of repentance. Tragic the loss of reward for those who run the race but do not follow the rules.
Scott,
I'm not sure how to respond to that. Sarcasm can certainly be an ugly thing.
Jeremy,
I understand completely. I got to the point where I just couldn't do it anymore. As I studied scripture to preach, I realized that there was no scriptural basis for my preaching!
This is not to say that there shouldn't be times of extended teaching in the church. This might even sometimes include one person doing much of the talking. However, there certainly should always be discussion. Also, multiple teachers ought to have the opportunity to teach.
On top of all that, teaching is usually most effective when it is accompanied by doing as opposed to just listening.
Tim,
You wrote that pulpit preaching is, "the most expensive ministry in the church." That's interesting. I've never quite thought of it in those terms. I agree with you.
Tradition can certainly be an ugly thing. Christ's church in this country is imprisoned by its own traditions and cannot even see it. I'm deeply saddened by the clergy dominated gatherings and the passive laity that seems all too pleased to be passive.
Only God can bring about a reformation of these practices. I pray that he does.
....also, in the one passage where it is conceivable to say there was a monologue among the saved, a guy falls asleep and dies. I sometimes wonder about whether God demonstrates a sense of humor in passages like that.
Eric,
As one who has preached more sermons than I could possible remember, largely agree with you.
Some of those sermons were used of God in remarkable ways to His glory, which reminds me that it is the treasure in the clay pot which He uses.
To my mind, it is not preaching per se, which is the problem, BUT THE TRADITION IT HAS BECOME, and the attendant corollaries, such as formalism, preaching as an art form (oratory and rhetoric) the elevation and adulation of the preacher.
Ultimately, I guess, it boils down to what we call "preaching", as it is common, at least in this country to confuse "preaching" and "teaching".
I fully agree with your comment regarding sarcasm, and with Thomas Carlyle, who said,
"Sarcasm I now see to be, in general, the language of the devil; for which reason I have long since as good as renounced it."
Jeff,
That passage is fascinating because the KJV got it wrong. While the KJV says that Paul preached, other better translations say things like discoursed. Many folks have tried to use the KJV to say that Paul preached monologue style. Ah tradition!
John,
I agree that preaching and teaching are frequently confused today. This is to the detriment of the church. At a personal level, my concern is not so much with a lengthy talk, but rather with the lack of opportunity for everyone to discuss what's been said. Additionally, it is usually the same guy preaching all the time. We need to hear from more people.
Hey Scott, your bitter comments appear to be on the rise. Eric seems gracious enough to you, but I think you're crossing the line. Here's a clue, if you don't like what's posted either post a serious challenge or stop reading! That's easy enough, and it keeps you from coming across as a jerk.
Eric,
You are spot on with your response to my comment!
John,
Thanks.
Eric,
Rusty Tounget here,
I disagree with your stance on this issue. I hope that my critique will challenge your thinking, but will ultimately be a loving one that will encourage more worship in spirit and in truth.
I think your assumptions or presuppositions are wrong.
Assumption one: The NT is exhaustive about church practice.
When we ask the wrong question, we get the wrong answer. The NT never claims to be a how to manual of church practice. The NT intentionally leaves open the form that the church takes. The NT stresses the function of worshipping God the Father through the Son by the Holy Spirit.
If you work out your assumption consistently you will be worshipping without chairs or pews, without air-conditioning and heat, and certainly without electricity. I point this out not to be nasty but to illustrate the inconsistencies of this position.
Assumption two: Sola scripture means we only do things that we see done in scripture.
Your definition of Sola Scriptura follows from your false assumption about the exhaustive nature of the NT, but it is not inline with the Reformers idea of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is the not the idea that we should only do what we can observe in Scripture, but it is the idea that Scripture is the final authority above tradition, reason, and experience. With a proper understanding of the Reformers view of Sola Scriptura one realizes that anything can be done in the church as long as it lines up with scripture and does not contradict it. Using electricity to amplify a person’s voice when speaking in the church so that all can hear and therefore be edified is certainly not found in the NT, but is certainly a good idea because if people can’t hear (or like tongues, understand) what someone is saying it is of no benefit to them.
Assumption three: Preaching as we know it, started with the Reformation.
Preaching, or encouraging the body of Christ to apply the gospel clearly and consistently to every facet of their lives as the Word and Spirit of God lead, has been going on a long time. See this work to read the homilies of Origen on Jeremiah.
Smith, John Clark translator. Origen: Homilies on Jeremiah Homily on 1 Kings 28. The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation Volume 97 edited by Thomas P Halton. Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 1998.
Assumption four: If the church does something that is not explicitly found in the NT it is unbiblical.
This again goes back to the false assumption that we should do nothing unless we find it in the NT. Maybe the tradition of explaining and applying Scripture was so ingrained that it was never mentioned in the NT. What about Neh 8:1-9?
8 So they read distinctly from the book, in the Law of God; and they gave the sense, and helped them to understand the reading.
Here are just a few of the assumptions that I think ungird your position. I think your assumptions are flawed and these false assumptions then drive you to a wrong stance on this issue. If you, or anyone else would like to respond to me, please do me a favor and email me as well, retounget@yahoo.com.
Thanks,
Rusty Tounget
Hi Rusty,
Thanks for responding. I hope you and the family are doing well. I'll post this here for all to read, but I'll send it to your email as well. You've raised some key issues; therefore, I'd like to discuss them here as well as on email.
My assumption about scripture is that it is sufficient. God has given us all we need to honor him in faith and practice. We never wonder if we should go beyond the bounds of scripture on salvific issues, so why the tendency by so many to do so when it comes to the church?
As for specifics, I certainly do not believe that God has addressed every minute detail. However, he has given us all we need in terms of theological principles and practices for church life. The key is theological significance. For example, as far as I can tell, air conditioning has no theological significance. I've never heard anyone argue that it does. Therefore, we have freedom to use it. However, when it comes to church gatherings God gives us many examples that do have theological significance. For example, the means of communication is very significant. The example we have in the life of the church is multiple participation. There is no example of modern, monologue preaching in the NT church.
It seems to me that the burden of proof should fall on those who want to deviate from the scriptural model as opposed to those who desire to conform to it.
The issue is sufficiency. Once we go beyond the bounds of scriptural principles we deny the sufficiency of the bible.
Here's a question: why does any Christian want to engage in practices for church life that cannot be found in the life of the NT church? What ideas of theological significance do we have that the apostles, who were present in the early church, did not?
This post specifically addresses lecture style preaching. If it is important enough to always be the centerpiece of Protestant worship services, then why can't we find it anywhere in the life of the NT church?
To put it simply, what things do you want to do that have theological significance that we cannot find in the NT? Why would you want to do them?
Post a Comment