Saturday, January 15, 2005

In his book The Reformation: A History, Diarmaid MacCulloch writes:

Calvin's preaching represented an intensive examination of the details of God's Word that few other expositors would equal, sucking the last drops of meaning from every last syllable and turn of phrase: 189 sermons on Acts between 1549 and 1554, 174 on Ezekiel form 1552 to 1554, and 200 on Deuteronomy in 1555 to 1556. This could be liberating to an audience precisely because it was so demanding. Calvin and the preachers who followed him asked a lot of their audience and were thus taking them seriously as adults in the faith. Reformed congregations were expected to absorb and understand complex and abstract material and therefore were encouraged to see the value of education. (MacCulloch 239)

This sort of demanding teaching is missing in the church today. Are the sermons you suffer through listen to demanding and challenging, or are they merely platitudinous and thus lacking practicality or applicability?* Is the text itself examined and wrestled with, or is the text referred to simply as a starting point for some sort of tangential “deep thought” that somehow makes everyone listening feel better?

Christians are capable of critical thinking; the intelligence of a fair portion of those assembled for the teaching is insulted when preachers/teachers simply shoot for a lowest common denominator. Do pastors today make demands of their congregants similar to those described above? Are sermons just to be listened to, or are they to be understood?

Calvin had his problems (yes, you heard me say that — now get up off the floor!) but in his favor, he strove to work though the text, understand it and apply it and teach others what was in the Scripture. His commentaries are still valuable to consult today because of this drive.

Too often (and I'm guilty of this) important arguments (either supporting or contradicting) are dulled or glossed over because of concern over the ability of the students/congregants/whomever to understand. Instead of being cause to skip over something, this should be cause to slow down and examine the issue in greater detail, working through the seemingly tough problem so that those on the receiving end can — with some work and effort, don't get me wrong — come to an understanding of what's going on.

The problem has many sides. Passivity on the part of the student/congregant is a real problem. I have no silver-bullet solution for it. But what motive does one have to break free from passivity if one is not challenged?

Ok, I've ranted enough. You may now return to your normally-scheduled blog reading.


* Clarification: I'm not speaking of the teaching in the church I currently attend, though I have in the past “suffered through” some truly horrible sermons. I've dutifully forgotten their content though I do have memories of their occurrence.

Post Author: Rico
Sunday, January 16, 2005 7:36:55 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]
Monday, January 17, 2005 7:43:54 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Heh. A man's reach should exceed his grasp ...

I agree 100%. Without challenge, a student cannot learn. I would rather a preacher taught to a high or mid-high level, and let those who are at the bottom end of the experience/learning curve catch up at their own rate. Let them ask questions afterward! (1Co 14:35?) As it happens, when the sermon is pitched to the children and new believers, the folks who are ready to move on from milk to solid meat (Heb 5:11-6:2) grow bored and restless.

On the other hand, many churches are set up so that the main teaching doesn't come from the pulpit on Sundays, it comes in the form of targeted Sunday school classes.

PS - I think the same dynamic (lowest common denominator) applies to singing worship songs rather than hymns. ;-)
Comments are closed.