You make some interesting observations, Gerrit, in regard to Christmas. You make mention of the “weak influence of Christians in our culture.” In Western culture, Christianity has continually been losing its influence for many decades. It’s loss of influence isn’t as much the fault of Christians, as much as in our more developing society, Christianity itself is not seen as reasonable or relevant. So increasingly our culture looks elsewhere for meaning and relevance. So almost naturally the Christmas story of Jesus doesn’t take hold of hearts and consciences. Whereas the story of Santa (with an emphasis on being good), generosity, family, good friends and wishes for the well being of others does take hold of people in our culture. And such an emphasis, in our society of many diverse religions, fits well with the nomenclature of “happy holidays,” rather than simply merry Christmas which in the minds of many is representative of only one religion that focuses on Christ (hence Christmas). As to Rev. McKinney’s idea of incorporating a new and different date for a secular Christmas, the only way that could possibly work would be for the Christian church to change the date of their own Christian celebration. December 25th has already been taken over by our Western culture which would never be willing to change. Do you think the church might be willing to change its date for celebrating Christ’s birth. Probably not. So I think we are still left with every individual or family celebrating Christmas or Santa’s day in a way that seems appropriate to them. Maybe a day celebrating both good will for all and Christ’s birth does make sense to many Christians. It’s all a matter of what you want to make of it.
Thanks Louis for an interesting article on God’s favoritism. For the Christian, the Bible does offer a lot of comfort in regard one’s own well being and acceptance by God. Indeed the Christian is favored, but not because of anything within themselves. As you imply, if I scrutinize your comments correctly, the Christian’s favored position is only because of Christ. That is evidenced by the fact that those apart from Christ are sentenced to eternal damnation. There is nothing, apparently, that God sees in the person apart from Christ worth saving or of receiving a good commendation, even though by our human standards a person may be a very good person. Our judgments of a person’s character mean nothing to God. Does it frustrate you a bit that God has shown his favoritism (election) only to the few while leaving the many to a destination of eternal damnation, as determined by God? “Many are called, but few are chosen.” I realize your audience is basically those who are Christians, much in the same way as when Bible authors speak of the “we” or “us” or “our” or “my” they are speaking of the Christian community and not of those outside of that community. And your article is a comfort when one thinks they are God’s favorite child. But I can’t help but to question, doubt, feel terribly frustrated, even angry at a God who despises the majority of the world’s population when he could have saved "all", or at least the many instead of the few. As long as you are speaking to (and of) a Christian audience, your article offers comfort indeed. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that's what happens when you are a product of Reformed teachings. Thanks for your many good articles.
You are likely aware, Gerrit, that in the past (as little as 40 years ago) many of our Dutch (CRC) immigrants celebrated a Sinterklaasa Day on Dec. 5/6 with the exchanging of gifts or with gifts delivered by Sinterklaas himself. Christmas was a separate Christian celebration of Jesus’ birth on the 25th. . I doubt that such celebration is hardly recognized today. Also some 40 years ago, many of our CRC churches in Canada (ones established post second World War) would not decorate their churches for Christmas because such decoration was associated with Sinterklaasa day and not Christmas. Sinterklaas was not considered a Christian figure so why paganize Christmas with such decoration. It did make for a rather austere celebration of Christmas. I doubt that such a distinction is made in any of our Canadian CRC churches today. So goes Rev. McKinney’s idea of separate celebrations. I will refrain from commenting on Donald Trump and his Merry Christmas pronouncement. Wishing you well and all good will as we are soon to enter the spring season. Chicago's weather has been wonderful.
Thanks Rachel for a very good article about where in the circle we sit or stand. Certainly standing on the outside looking in can give the impression of aloofness to those on the inside of the circle. And as you suggest, there is so much to gain by moving to the inside. I would imagine if you had not moved to the inside of the circle, there could be irreparable damage. But isn’t that what Christian communities and individuals do in regard to the many who are not Christian? We all to often stand on the outside, judgmentally, looking in, with no attempt to understand who they are, or what makes them tick. We don't "share experiences, perspectives, a meal, worship, laughter, coffee and a donut," as you suggest. At times we may make an attempt to integrate, but only with ulterior motives. I like your article a lot, but you could broaden the circle to include many others who may be different from us. I think that could be why Christianity often gets a bad rep. Thanks for making us think.
Thanks Christy for your article on meaningful worship. I have to agree, though, with Robin on his comments in regard to worship. I think you may have jumped the gun on writing your article before giving full thought to your comments. Personally, I think worship is a very subjective matter, one that varies with individuals. What makes worship meaningful to one is not the same as for another. That’s why there are worship wars in so many churches. What meets the needs of an eighty year old is not likely the same for a twenty year old. What moves the heart strings is different for all of us. We have to do better at accommodating each other in worship. So good luck on finding the one authentic form of worship. Nice try, Christy, but I’d say, you need to go back to the drawing board.
Thanks Pete for your latest comment. I think you are onto something here when you speak of the emotional dynamics involved with preaching. I’ve seen, as may have others, a preacher to be considered terrible in one congregation, and then all of sudden be wonderful in another new congregation. It can go from “we hate his/her preaching” in one setting, to “we love his/her preaching” in a different setting. This just goes to show the very subjective nature of evaluating a preacher and his/her preaching. I remember, from the past, a minister with a great singing voice, who would interject a song as part of his sermon occasionally. One congregation loved this occasional practice, the next hated it and wanted him discharged from ministry. There were definite emotional dynamics involved. And yet, in both, the actual preaching was the same. Again the evaluation of preaching is, in big part, subjective. Even when using objective evaluation forms to evaluate a particular sermon, the comments from different evaluators will vary greatly, from high grades to failing. Again it’s very subjective.
And it also seems to me that popular Christianity, including the CRC brand, is moving increasingly to a more experiential expression of it’s faith. Increasingly, our creeds and confessions are getting lip service while my personal experience is getting front stage. (What is happening to catechism preaching or the second service?) So what may have been considered solid substantial preaching in the past is not nearly as appreciated as a heart wrenching and moving sermon today. Or the three point sermon of the past doesn’t get as high marks as a moving narrative that tugs at the heart. Again, this says something to the subjective nature of evaluating what goes into a good sermon. It doesn’t depend as much on the quality of the sermon as the perspective of the listener. Other times it may simply be the age or personality of the minister that determines the quality of the sermon in the mind of the listeners. Again, subjectivity.
It also seems to be true that Christianity itself is very subjective. Increasingly, you can make the Bible say what you want. Hence, the thousands of different Christian denominations. I even hear voices, from within our own CRC, voicing that the blending of different Christian groups, or accommodating them, is a good thing. Of course that broadens the scope of what many CRC people will fit into what they believe. And so the base by which you evaluate a minister and his preaching also broadens, causing one member appreciate a particular sermon, while another devalues it. Again, subjectivity. This just shows that the evaluation of sermons is no easy task and there will always be differences of opinion. I doubt that the problem will go away, even with the sincere and genuine efforts made by our seminary and denomination.
Hey Jeff, nothing wrong with being moved as long as there is substance. I think what I picked up in Keith's original article is that sermons today are often lacking in substance. And likewise, Christianity that is based on an emotional experience without substance does not go the distance in giving a solid foundation for life and thought. Do you think there was substance to Peter's preaching at Pentecost? That's a rhetorical question.
Apparently, Keith, you haven’t heard (or read) a response that quite satisfies you. You still think that (in general) the preaching in the CRC has become poor and is the main culprit for people leaving the denomination. Apparently “pew sitting CRC members know a good sermon when they hear one.” So I’m guessing that the constant in this equation is your hearing. Your judgement (of sermons) has remained the same, as it has for most pew sitting CRC members. What has changed in the formula is only the sermon. And according to your original comments, sermons today (in the CRC) are little more than fluff. You even have questioned whether some of the safeguards along the way have become relaxed or removed so that today poor preachers are allowed to enter through the starting gates of ministry, and hence unload sub standard sermons on CRC congregations.
You mentioned your recent retirement as the stated clerk of a Classis. Then you know, as well as anyone, that the last safeguard, the last gate, that these ministers (or wanna-be ministers) must pass through is the Classical examination before entering into ordained ministry. And of course, a key element of these examinations is sermon evaluation (New Testament, Old Testament, and Catechism). As many of these exams that you have sat through, Keith, how many candidates did you see fail because of a poor sermon? Probably not many. Perhaps someone should point the finger at that final safeguard, and say, there lies the fault. Perhaps it is these pew sitting CRC members who should tighten the reigns on who gets through that final gate. After a student has finally made it through all the intermediary safeguards, it’s the final, and perhaps the most comprehensive, safeguard that has let the candidate and our churches down. So perhaps your concern should be presented to our Classes before they examine new candidates.
I also think, Keith, that there likely has been a shift, over the last several years, as to the criteria for judging a good sermon. What you (or the average pew sitting CRC member) may judge to be a good sermon, may no longer hold true for the new and perhaps more evangelical church member. What you consider “fluff” may be a gripping illustration for the newer and less traditional member. And it does seem likely that the target audience the CRC is trying to reach has changed over the last several years. In the past, growth from within our churches was where we set our sights. Now that our churches are experiencing much less growth from within (even a backward trend) our sights have been set on our communities and the world out there. We have become more evangelical. And that will have an impact on preaching, and the training of preachers. Hence the disappearing act when it comes to catechism preaching, especially in new church plants and churches that are trying to become a vitalizing force in their communities. With the changes that are taking place in our denomination, it would seem natural that this change will impact preaching as well. And such change or impact on preaching may constitute poor preaching in the minds of some.
Keith, it seems that you have written an article that has touched some nerves out in the CRC audience. There’s been several interesting and good responses. Jeff’s and my latest response must have been sent in at about the same time, because (even though Jeff’s response came in prior to mine) I didn’t see that post before I had posted. I appreciate, Jeff, your thoughts and wanted to respond, but I do think you are standing on a slippery slope as you comment. I don’t expect many others to agree with me as to my forthcoming comments, but I’ll say them anyway. And Jeff, I imagine your comments resonated with many readers.
A comment about bad and good listening. It seems as though you are saying, if you come to church in the right spirit, a spirit of hungering and thirsting for the word of God, then you’re much more likely to receive from the Holy Spirit’s bounty. I love the minister at the church I attend regularly. As far as I can discern I come to church with the same hope and expectation weekly. But let me tell you, I’ve heard some real pearls and some real lemons from the same beloved preacher. Now it might be true that there is truth in all the sermons I hear but some definitely are lacking in inspiration and take home value. But apparently that isn’t true for you.
Now, a word about this “unction” or “anointing by the Holy Spirit.” As you suggest, Jeff, it’s hard to pin down, which means, to me, that you are now standing on the slippery slope. You have crossed over into the area of subjectivism. It seems to me that you, as a preacher, do your utmost to do your exegetical and homiletical diligence and then leave your sermon with God to make it effective with your congregants. What minister doesn’t pray that God will bless his efforts? You make it sound like this kneeling and begging God to add to your sermon the anointing of the Holy Spirit is something that the minister can promote somehow by his actions. Can we manipulate the Spirit into making our efforts even better? And why would it require some profound exercise by the minister for the Holy Spirit to use this sermon in the lives of the congregation? Doesn’t the Holy Spirit want to bless all those coming to church to hear a meaningful sermon; and if the minister has done his due diligence, why would God turn his back on the minister and congregation? What would you expect a seminary homiletical class to teach as far as being Spirit filled preachers? Is there some kind of Holy Spirit wizardry that many (if not most, according to Keith) ministers are missing out on in seminary? Is the absence of this unction or anointing by the Holy Spirit what makes CRC ministers poor preachers? Your comments raise some red flags and muddies the water when it comes to evaluating effective preaching. But I’m sure you don’t stand alone.
Well Keith, it sounds like the right nerve may have been touched upon, at least by you Keith, Pete, and Jeff and perhaps others. Keith: “When a preacher truly experiences God, that is bound to profoundly affect the content of the sermon.” Pete: “Spiritual poverty may well be the adaptive issue that is creating the symptom you name as poor preaching.” And Jeff: “The Spirit will do what he wants with our work, whether that is through a greater display of his power or through his ordinary operations, but his work is a vital part of sermon preparation and delivery, and should be intentionally attended to.” I may be reading into your collective comments, but I’m sensing an opinion that our CRC ministers today could well be lacking in a spiritual vitality and even commitment to God, and when such vitality is lacking so will sermons be lacking in vitality and unction (the anointing of the Holy Spirit). So Keith, is this where our CRC ministers are falling down on the job of being effective preachers? Do you think this is the reason for what you see as poor preaching? Lack of commitment to God, a lack of spiritual vitality? A lack of imploring the Holy Spirit to bless the ministers work?
I suppose the same could be said of any job, especially in roles of leadership and high responsibility. If there is not a high level of commitment to the company and to the responsibilities that you hold, you will not likely achieve a high level of accomplishment. But of course, in the church, we couch these sentiments in the working of the Holy Spirit and commitment to Christ, and spiritual vitality. How would you define this root cause of poor sermonizing? You must find a way to define this deficiency so it can be addressed.
I hope you realize that this concern is not new, even at the seminary level. From my understanding of what’s happening at our seminary, the spiritual development of each student is a key and core concern throughout the seminary program. It seems to me that more is being done today than ever has been done in the past to address this issue. The nurture of the student’s spirit has been given a priority as never before. If anything ministers of the long past in our denomination came up short on the spiritual shepherding aspect of their education. In the past academics was the main concern, not spiritual vitality. Spiritual vitality was just assumed.
And as candidates sit before Classis to be examined, the candidates spiritual vitality and commitment is never glossed over. You must be well aware of that, after having witnessed many examinations yourself. And isn’t the spiritual well being of the minister one of the significant concerns of the elders in their role of serving the church? So where does this lack of Christian commitment and love for the Lord creep into the minister’s life that causes substandard sermons?
And how would you measure the proper level of commitment to the Lord and the high calling of being a minister? If you were a southern Pentecostal, you might point to the ability to handle snakes with your bare hands. If you were a more moderate Pentecostal, you might say that the ability to speak in tongues validates your commitment to Christ and his Spirit. If you were a committed Baptist Christian you might point the Lord’s guiding voice directing you, even in the small decisions of life. If you are a Reformed Christian you might point to one’s willingness to give at least a full tenth of one’s salary to the work of the church. Pity the minister who doesn’t set the standard for the rest of the congregation. For some others a commitment to a Christian Sabbath observance and celebration of such Sabbath is an indicator of one’s love for the Lord. Others will point to their personal relationship with Christ through his Spirit as a significant affirmation of one’s spiritual vitality. By this close and personal relationship it becomes much easier to discern WWJD (What Would Jesus Do). Other Christians, of whatever stripe, will point to one’s devotional life as an indication of commitment to God and his word. How many devotional hours a day do you spend in the word? Others will want to know what kind of prayer life you have and do you really believe in the power of answered prayer? Or what are you willing to sacrifice for the Lord, a second car, a bedroom for each of the kids, stylish clothes, time with your family so you can spend more time at church? You see this is really where the slope gets slippery. We might all suggest something different that would validate ours or the minister’s commitment to the Lord. It’s very subjective, and is based on my own opinion as to what validates real commitment to the Lord.
The minister you mentioned, Keith, that was offended by the woman asking about his spiritual walk with God, may have actually been fearful that he might not meet this woman’s criteria of spirituality and therefore was hesitant to answer. And probably an answer of “my walk is fine. Thank you for asking,” would not have satisfied her.
My mom, several years ago was in the hospital and attended by a nice nurse. My mom, being a committed Baptist Christian, asked this nurse if she was a Christian, to which the nurse said, yes, I am. My mom, not quite satisfied, asked further, “what I mean, are you a Bible believing Christian, to which the nurse said, yes I am. But still not quite satisfied, my mom asked further, what I really mean are you a “born again” Christian? And then do you have a personal relationship with Jesus? My mom explained to me that she just knew in her heart that this nurse was not a true Christian and wanted to pin her down so she could witness to her. We all have our subjective criteria as to what constitutes true commitment to God and spiritual vitality, and I know I will not pass the test of many Christian critics. And probably many of our ministers will fail these tests, as well.
So if the problem of poor preaching is caused by a lack commitment or not fully experiencing God what standard will you apply in determining a minister's spiritual fitness for ministry and the difficult task of preparing weekly sermons that are spiritually uplifting?
Anita, it may be logical to say that after looking at the diversity and balance of creation one must acknowledge a creator. But it's not logical to say that he created it in seven consecutive days only some 8,000 years ago when science argues for a much longer process.
Good thoughts John. The only hesitation I would have would be making mandatory a public testimony of faith for a new professing member. A written testimony, as you suggest, could be a step up for some people, in lieu of a spoken testimony. Some have a heightened fear of talking, even reading, in front of people. The fear is no different for some people as telling a person who is afraid of heights that they have to dive head first off the high dive into a swimming pool. Getting in front of people, other than a few friends, creates real panic for some people. It has nothing with their sincerity and dedication to God. Otherwise, good suggestions.
Posted in: Time to Reform Christmas by Unblending or Disentangling?
You make some interesting observations, Gerrit, in regard to Christmas. You make mention of the “weak influence of Christians in our culture.” In Western culture, Christianity has continually been losing its influence for many decades. It’s loss of influence isn’t as much the fault of Christians, as much as in our more developing society, Christianity itself is not seen as reasonable or relevant. So increasingly our culture looks elsewhere for meaning and relevance. So almost naturally the Christmas story of Jesus doesn’t take hold of hearts and consciences. Whereas the story of Santa (with an emphasis on being good), generosity, family, good friends and wishes for the well being of others does take hold of people in our culture. And such an emphasis, in our society of many diverse religions, fits well with the nomenclature of “happy holidays,” rather than simply merry Christmas which in the minds of many is representative of only one religion that focuses on Christ (hence Christmas). As to Rev. McKinney’s idea of incorporating a new and different date for a secular Christmas, the only way that could possibly work would be for the Christian church to change the date of their own Christian celebration. December 25th has already been taken over by our Western culture which would never be willing to change. Do you think the church might be willing to change its date for celebrating Christ’s birth. Probably not. So I think we are still left with every individual or family celebrating Christmas or Santa’s day in a way that seems appropriate to them. Maybe a day celebrating both good will for all and Christ’s birth does make sense to many Christians. It’s all a matter of what you want to make of it.
Posted in: To Be God's Favorite
Thanks Louis for an interesting article on God’s favoritism. For the Christian, the Bible does offer a lot of comfort in regard one’s own well being and acceptance by God. Indeed the Christian is favored, but not because of anything within themselves. As you imply, if I scrutinize your comments correctly, the Christian’s favored position is only because of Christ. That is evidenced by the fact that those apart from Christ are sentenced to eternal damnation. There is nothing, apparently, that God sees in the person apart from Christ worth saving or of receiving a good commendation, even though by our human standards a person may be a very good person. Our judgments of a person’s character mean nothing to God. Does it frustrate you a bit that God has shown his favoritism (election) only to the few while leaving the many to a destination of eternal damnation, as determined by God? “Many are called, but few are chosen.” I realize your audience is basically those who are Christians, much in the same way as when Bible authors speak of the “we” or “us” or “our” or “my” they are speaking of the Christian community and not of those outside of that community. And your article is a comfort when one thinks they are God’s favorite child. But I can’t help but to question, doubt, feel terribly frustrated, even angry at a God who despises the majority of the world’s population when he could have saved "all", or at least the many instead of the few. As long as you are speaking to (and of) a Christian audience, your article offers comfort indeed. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that's what happens when you are a product of Reformed teachings. Thanks for your many good articles.
Posted in: Time to Reform Christmas by Unblending or Disentangling?
You are likely aware, Gerrit, that in the past (as little as 40 years ago) many of our Dutch (CRC) immigrants celebrated a Sinterklaasa Day on Dec. 5/6 with the exchanging of gifts or with gifts delivered by Sinterklaas himself. Christmas was a separate Christian celebration of Jesus’ birth on the 25th. . I doubt that such celebration is hardly recognized today. Also some 40 years ago, many of our CRC churches in Canada (ones established post second World War) would not decorate their churches for Christmas because such decoration was associated with Sinterklaasa day and not Christmas. Sinterklaas was not considered a Christian figure so why paganize Christmas with such decoration. It did make for a rather austere celebration of Christmas. I doubt that such a distinction is made in any of our Canadian CRC churches today. So goes Rev. McKinney’s idea of separate celebrations. I will refrain from commenting on Donald Trump and his Merry Christmas pronouncement. Wishing you well and all good will as we are soon to enter the spring season. Chicago's weather has been wonderful.
Posted in: Sitting Down in Other People’s Circles
Thanks Rachel for a very good article about where in the circle we sit or stand. Certainly standing on the outside looking in can give the impression of aloofness to those on the inside of the circle. And as you suggest, there is so much to gain by moving to the inside. I would imagine if you had not moved to the inside of the circle, there could be irreparable damage. But isn’t that what Christian communities and individuals do in regard to the many who are not Christian? We all to often stand on the outside, judgmentally, looking in, with no attempt to understand who they are, or what makes them tick. We don't "share experiences, perspectives, a meal, worship, laughter, coffee and a donut," as you suggest. At times we may make an attempt to integrate, but only with ulterior motives. I like your article a lot, but you could broaden the circle to include many others who may be different from us. I think that could be why Christianity often gets a bad rep. Thanks for making us think.
Posted in: Participation Is Everything
Thanks Christy for your article on meaningful worship. I have to agree, though, with Robin on his comments in regard to worship. I think you may have jumped the gun on writing your article before giving full thought to your comments. Personally, I think worship is a very subjective matter, one that varies with individuals. What makes worship meaningful to one is not the same as for another. That’s why there are worship wars in so many churches. What meets the needs of an eighty year old is not likely the same for a twenty year old. What moves the heart strings is different for all of us. We have to do better at accommodating each other in worship. So good luck on finding the one authentic form of worship. Nice try, Christy, but I’d say, you need to go back to the drawing board.
Posted in: Our Biggest Problem: Poor Preaching
Thanks Pete for your latest comment. I think you are onto something here when you speak of the emotional dynamics involved with preaching. I’ve seen, as may have others, a preacher to be considered terrible in one congregation, and then all of sudden be wonderful in another new congregation. It can go from “we hate his/her preaching” in one setting, to “we love his/her preaching” in a different setting. This just goes to show the very subjective nature of evaluating a preacher and his/her preaching. I remember, from the past, a minister with a great singing voice, who would interject a song as part of his sermon occasionally. One congregation loved this occasional practice, the next hated it and wanted him discharged from ministry. There were definite emotional dynamics involved. And yet, in both, the actual preaching was the same. Again the evaluation of preaching is, in big part, subjective. Even when using objective evaluation forms to evaluate a particular sermon, the comments from different evaluators will vary greatly, from high grades to failing. Again it’s very subjective.
And it also seems to me that popular Christianity, including the CRC brand, is moving increasingly to a more experiential expression of it’s faith. Increasingly, our creeds and confessions are getting lip service while my personal experience is getting front stage. (What is happening to catechism preaching or the second service?) So what may have been considered solid substantial preaching in the past is not nearly as appreciated as a heart wrenching and moving sermon today. Or the three point sermon of the past doesn’t get as high marks as a moving narrative that tugs at the heart. Again, this says something to the subjective nature of evaluating what goes into a good sermon. It doesn’t depend as much on the quality of the sermon as the perspective of the listener. Other times it may simply be the age or personality of the minister that determines the quality of the sermon in the mind of the listeners. Again, subjectivity.
It also seems to be true that Christianity itself is very subjective. Increasingly, you can make the Bible say what you want. Hence, the thousands of different Christian denominations. I even hear voices, from within our own CRC, voicing that the blending of different Christian groups, or accommodating them, is a good thing. Of course that broadens the scope of what many CRC people will fit into what they believe. And so the base by which you evaluate a minister and his preaching also broadens, causing one member appreciate a particular sermon, while another devalues it. Again, subjectivity. This just shows that the evaluation of sermons is no easy task and there will always be differences of opinion. I doubt that the problem will go away, even with the sincere and genuine efforts made by our seminary and denomination.
Posted in: Our Biggest Problem: Poor Preaching
Hey Jeff, nothing wrong with being moved as long as there is substance. I think what I picked up in Keith's original article is that sermons today are often lacking in substance. And likewise, Christianity that is based on an emotional experience without substance does not go the distance in giving a solid foundation for life and thought. Do you think there was substance to Peter's preaching at Pentecost? That's a rhetorical question.
Posted in: Our Biggest Problem: Poor Preaching
Apparently, Keith, you haven’t heard (or read) a response that quite satisfies you. You still think that (in general) the preaching in the CRC has become poor and is the main culprit for people leaving the denomination. Apparently “pew sitting CRC members know a good sermon when they hear one.” So I’m guessing that the constant in this equation is your hearing. Your judgement (of sermons) has remained the same, as it has for most pew sitting CRC members. What has changed in the formula is only the sermon. And according to your original comments, sermons today (in the CRC) are little more than fluff. You even have questioned whether some of the safeguards along the way have become relaxed or removed so that today poor preachers are allowed to enter through the starting gates of ministry, and hence unload sub standard sermons on CRC congregations.
You mentioned your recent retirement as the stated clerk of a Classis. Then you know, as well as anyone, that the last safeguard, the last gate, that these ministers (or wanna-be ministers) must pass through is the Classical examination before entering into ordained ministry. And of course, a key element of these examinations is sermon evaluation (New Testament, Old Testament, and Catechism). As many of these exams that you have sat through, Keith, how many candidates did you see fail because of a poor sermon? Probably not many. Perhaps someone should point the finger at that final safeguard, and say, there lies the fault. Perhaps it is these pew sitting CRC members who should tighten the reigns on who gets through that final gate. After a student has finally made it through all the intermediary safeguards, it’s the final, and perhaps the most comprehensive, safeguard that has let the candidate and our churches down. So perhaps your concern should be presented to our Classes before they examine new candidates.
I also think, Keith, that there likely has been a shift, over the last several years, as to the criteria for judging a good sermon. What you (or the average pew sitting CRC member) may judge to be a good sermon, may no longer hold true for the new and perhaps more evangelical church member. What you consider “fluff” may be a gripping illustration for the newer and less traditional member. And it does seem likely that the target audience the CRC is trying to reach has changed over the last several years. In the past, growth from within our churches was where we set our sights. Now that our churches are experiencing much less growth from within (even a backward trend) our sights have been set on our communities and the world out there. We have become more evangelical. And that will have an impact on preaching, and the training of preachers. Hence the disappearing act when it comes to catechism preaching, especially in new church plants and churches that are trying to become a vitalizing force in their communities. With the changes that are taking place in our denomination, it would seem natural that this change will impact preaching as well. And such change or impact on preaching may constitute poor preaching in the minds of some.
Posted in: Our Biggest Problem: Poor Preaching
Keith, it seems that you have written an article that has touched some nerves out in the CRC audience. There’s been several interesting and good responses. Jeff’s and my latest response must have been sent in at about the same time, because (even though Jeff’s response came in prior to mine) I didn’t see that post before I had posted. I appreciate, Jeff, your thoughts and wanted to respond, but I do think you are standing on a slippery slope as you comment. I don’t expect many others to agree with me as to my forthcoming comments, but I’ll say them anyway. And Jeff, I imagine your comments resonated with many readers.
A comment about bad and good listening. It seems as though you are saying, if you come to church in the right spirit, a spirit of hungering and thirsting for the word of God, then you’re much more likely to receive from the Holy Spirit’s bounty. I love the minister at the church I attend regularly. As far as I can discern I come to church with the same hope and expectation weekly. But let me tell you, I’ve heard some real pearls and some real lemons from the same beloved preacher. Now it might be true that there is truth in all the sermons I hear but some definitely are lacking in inspiration and take home value. But apparently that isn’t true for you.
Now, a word about this “unction” or “anointing by the Holy Spirit.” As you suggest, Jeff, it’s hard to pin down, which means, to me, that you are now standing on the slippery slope. You have crossed over into the area of subjectivism. It seems to me that you, as a preacher, do your utmost to do your exegetical and homiletical diligence and then leave your sermon with God to make it effective with your congregants. What minister doesn’t pray that God will bless his efforts? You make it sound like this kneeling and begging God to add to your sermon the anointing of the Holy Spirit is something that the minister can promote somehow by his actions. Can we manipulate the Spirit into making our efforts even better? And why would it require some profound exercise by the minister for the Holy Spirit to use this sermon in the lives of the congregation? Doesn’t the Holy Spirit want to bless all those coming to church to hear a meaningful sermon; and if the minister has done his due diligence, why would God turn his back on the minister and congregation? What would you expect a seminary homiletical class to teach as far as being Spirit filled preachers? Is there some kind of Holy Spirit wizardry that many (if not most, according to Keith) ministers are missing out on in seminary? Is the absence of this unction or anointing by the Holy Spirit what makes CRC ministers poor preachers? Your comments raise some red flags and muddies the water when it comes to evaluating effective preaching. But I’m sure you don’t stand alone.
Posted in: Our Biggest Problem: Poor Preaching
Well Keith, it sounds like the right nerve may have been touched upon, at least by you Keith, Pete, and Jeff and perhaps others. Keith: “When a preacher truly experiences God, that is bound to profoundly affect the content of the sermon.” Pete: “Spiritual poverty may well be the adaptive issue that is creating the symptom you name as poor preaching.” And Jeff: “The Spirit will do what he wants with our work, whether that is through a greater display of his power or through his ordinary operations, but his work is a vital part of sermon preparation and delivery, and should be intentionally attended to.” I may be reading into your collective comments, but I’m sensing an opinion that our CRC ministers today could well be lacking in a spiritual vitality and even commitment to God, and when such vitality is lacking so will sermons be lacking in vitality and unction (the anointing of the Holy Spirit). So Keith, is this where our CRC ministers are falling down on the job of being effective preachers? Do you think this is the reason for what you see as poor preaching? Lack of commitment to God, a lack of spiritual vitality? A lack of imploring the Holy Spirit to bless the ministers work?
I suppose the same could be said of any job, especially in roles of leadership and high responsibility. If there is not a high level of commitment to the company and to the responsibilities that you hold, you will not likely achieve a high level of accomplishment. But of course, in the church, we couch these sentiments in the working of the Holy Spirit and commitment to Christ, and spiritual vitality. How would you define this root cause of poor sermonizing? You must find a way to define this deficiency so it can be addressed.
I hope you realize that this concern is not new, even at the seminary level. From my understanding of what’s happening at our seminary, the spiritual development of each student is a key and core concern throughout the seminary program. It seems to me that more is being done today than ever has been done in the past to address this issue. The nurture of the student’s spirit has been given a priority as never before. If anything ministers of the long past in our denomination came up short on the spiritual shepherding aspect of their education. In the past academics was the main concern, not spiritual vitality. Spiritual vitality was just assumed.
And as candidates sit before Classis to be examined, the candidates spiritual vitality and commitment is never glossed over. You must be well aware of that, after having witnessed many examinations yourself. And isn’t the spiritual well being of the minister one of the significant concerns of the elders in their role of serving the church? So where does this lack of Christian commitment and love for the Lord creep into the minister’s life that causes substandard sermons?
And how would you measure the proper level of commitment to the Lord and the high calling of being a minister? If you were a southern Pentecostal, you might point to the ability to handle snakes with your bare hands. If you were a more moderate Pentecostal, you might say that the ability to speak in tongues validates your commitment to Christ and his Spirit. If you were a committed Baptist Christian you might point the Lord’s guiding voice directing you, even in the small decisions of life. If you are a Reformed Christian you might point to one’s willingness to give at least a full tenth of one’s salary to the work of the church. Pity the minister who doesn’t set the standard for the rest of the congregation. For some others a commitment to a Christian Sabbath observance and celebration of such Sabbath is an indicator of one’s love for the Lord. Others will point to their personal relationship with Christ through his Spirit as a significant affirmation of one’s spiritual vitality. By this close and personal relationship it becomes much easier to discern WWJD (What Would Jesus Do). Other Christians, of whatever stripe, will point to one’s devotional life as an indication of commitment to God and his word. How many devotional hours a day do you spend in the word? Others will want to know what kind of prayer life you have and do you really believe in the power of answered prayer? Or what are you willing to sacrifice for the Lord, a second car, a bedroom for each of the kids, stylish clothes, time with your family so you can spend more time at church? You see this is really where the slope gets slippery. We might all suggest something different that would validate ours or the minister’s commitment to the Lord. It’s very subjective, and is based on my own opinion as to what validates real commitment to the Lord.
The minister you mentioned, Keith, that was offended by the woman asking about his spiritual walk with God, may have actually been fearful that he might not meet this woman’s criteria of spirituality and therefore was hesitant to answer. And probably an answer of “my walk is fine. Thank you for asking,” would not have satisfied her.
My mom, several years ago was in the hospital and attended by a nice nurse. My mom, being a committed Baptist Christian, asked this nurse if she was a Christian, to which the nurse said, yes, I am. My mom, not quite satisfied, asked further, “what I mean, are you a Bible believing Christian, to which the nurse said, yes I am. But still not quite satisfied, my mom asked further, what I really mean are you a “born again” Christian? And then do you have a personal relationship with Jesus? My mom explained to me that she just knew in her heart that this nurse was not a true Christian and wanted to pin her down so she could witness to her. We all have our subjective criteria as to what constitutes true commitment to God and spiritual vitality, and I know I will not pass the test of many Christian critics. And probably many of our ministers will fail these tests, as well.
So if the problem of poor preaching is caused by a lack commitment or not fully experiencing God what standard will you apply in determining a minister's spiritual fitness for ministry and the difficult task of preparing weekly sermons that are spiritually uplifting?
Posted in: Slogan-eering for Life
Anita, it may be logical to say that after looking at the diversity and balance of creation one must acknowledge a creator. But it's not logical to say that he created it in seven consecutive days only some 8,000 years ago when science argues for a much longer process.
Posted in: Judgemental
Good thoughts John. The only hesitation I would have would be making mandatory a public testimony of faith for a new professing member. A written testimony, as you suggest, could be a step up for some people, in lieu of a spoken testimony. Some have a heightened fear of talking, even reading, in front of people. The fear is no different for some people as telling a person who is afraid of heights that they have to dive head first off the high dive into a swimming pool. Getting in front of people, other than a few friends, creates real panic for some people. It has nothing with their sincerity and dedication to God. Otherwise, good suggestions.