Off on holidays for a couple of weeks tomorrow - here is something to be getting on with.
I was speaking with a prominent English conservative evangelical not so long ago, and we were talking about preaching. He had a gripe: the phrase 'bible teaching' (and the idea of 'bible churches', too). It has crept into the evangelical vocabulary to describe what used to be called 'preaching'. A church is great, we will say, because 'the bible teaching is excellent'. But, he said, the vocab change is significant: it represents a shift to a more cognitive, flat and explanatory style of discourse. The hearers will not be exhorted or edified so much as 'taught'. What's more, and perhaps more seriously, we talk less of preaching Christ, but of teaching the Bible. A subtle but significant difference perhaps?
Is this vocabulary to be encouraged, or is the English preacher right?
The Perfect You?
-
Once we have an idea of what reality is, could be or will be, there are
other pressing questions that arise in the search for the Spirit’s
worldview. With ...
Posts
44 comments:
Michael,
I can relate to this as I've noticed some American churches replacing "Jesus" with "Bible" in their confessions. Incidentally, I once talked to an Anglican Priest who said about the Sydney Anglicans that they believe, "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Bible". A bit of a low blow, but I think this could genuinely apply to some groups I know of.
This is the first time I've commented here in a while.
I agree wholeheartedly with the English preacher.
The mentality you describe also shows through when we're told things along the lines of, "We meet supremely to hear the Bible read and explained."
Talking about Bible teaching or explanation implies that when we gather, what is happening is merely imparting information. This is what the text means and here is what you should do. The emphasis on teaching or explanation alone can I think have a tendency to create something of an atmosphere of priestcraft. We need the guru to tell us what the Bible means. Yes, the preacher should set forth the next and clear up any confusion from it, but that is not his primary goal. Through the exposition of the text, he is to go through the minds to the hearts of the hearers and show forth Christ and thus stir up love for him, contrition for failing him, trust him and renewed commitment to him. In preaching, truth is felt as well as understood.
You use the adjective 'flat' and I think that's on the mark. Explanatory teaching, while being true and leaving the hearers understanding the meaning can nevertheless be one-dimensional and fail to impact the will and the heart.
"Bible teaching" and "preaching" are not synonymous. What now takes place in many evangelical churches under the name of "Bible teaching" is not preaching by another name, but something different.
I agree with the English preacher. The change is definitely to our detriment. We need to recover the art of preaching in our churches and recovering the vocabulary would be a big step in the right direction.
Methinks English preacher is right.
Yes, of course. But who is going to disagree with you? Who is going to choose and defend 'flat' over preaching that moves the will??
But it is worth asking the question- 'Why did the language shift happen in the first place?'
What were those responsible for this shift (whoever they are!?) trying to communicate and protect?
And is it worth protecting those things?
I'm thinking about the fact that when churches pursue 'good preachers' over 'bible teachers', (and I have that 'flat' feeling already coming) what do we end up with? What do we lose?
Just asking questions.
Why did the language shift happen in the first place?'
With all the major denominations breaking up saying that you are an Anglican or Uniting can mean anything, but being bible-believing and going to a church where the bible is taught means that you are a real Christian.
I think that the shift is more about polemics and less about vocabulary. Every church preaches something or other - good, bad , indifferent. But a Bible-teaching church teaches the Bible in the way that it is suppose to be taught - the right way. Putting bible in front of church, teaching, preaching, believing is a dog-whistle for the those have ears to hear - a wink and a nod for those who have eyes to see.
Sorry for the length - basically I agree with the Englishman.
What is the difference between preaching the scriptures and preaching Christ? I would have thought preaching the scriptures was preaching Christ?
Acts 8 Now those who were scattered went about preaching the word. Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed to them the Christ.
Di
Putting bible in front of church, teaching, preaching, believing is a dog-whistle for the those have ears to hear - a wink and a nod for those who have eyes to see.
I thought you were done with cynicism? :)
Di - there ought not be a difference, so why not say 'we preach Christ', and 'we are a church of Christ'?
I just saw a video on a church website where congregation members were asked why they liked the church. They all without exception said 'the good bible teaching'. Nothing about God or Jesus!
Thanks Michael
My hunch is that churches/people are keen to separate from the 'man-made Christs' so common today, and therefore refer to the Bible as a short-hand way of drawing attention to this. I suggest it is helpful in some contexts.
I think it may be better to consider preaching separate to this issue.
Re preaching, I would have thought it should be cognitive and explanatory but not 'flat'.
Di
Michael the content in that video you mentioned sounds like a tell-tale sign to me. My guess is that if I interviewed numerous people in my own church and a number of the other churches in my denom and asked the same question their answer would be the same.
What do you propose as a way forward with this issue? I get the feeling from some of my colleagues that its a sensitive one.
I'd agree with anonymous said - the problem with saying that "we preach Christ" is that Jefferts-Schori would claim to be doing the same thing. Calling yourself a "Bible-teaching" church does distinguish a conservative evangelical congregation from other groupings within their denominations.
I understand the reasons for this, and I agree that we ought not to replace faith in Christ with faith in the bible as the overarching confessional statement.
However, like Di, I'm not convinced that 'preaching the bible' (or at least 'preaching the Word') and 'bible teaching' are less biblical terms to use than 'preaching Christ.' I haven't done a thorough study on it, but I suspect you'd find that the bible itself mostly applies the word 'preaching' to proclaiming the gospel to unbelievers, and mostly speaks of 'teaching' believers in churches.
Could one reason be that conservative evangelicals (certainly the Anglican ones) tend to market themselves to a predominantly upper-middle class market, and so don't want to offend upper-middle class values. It's quite acceptable to have a half-hour expository lecture, with people going away knowing more and having a few suggestions as to things they might like to do in the week, but it's another thing to get through to the emotions and convict, or humble, or stir up, or excite, or to exhort people that they actually need to change and let go of their sins and actively pursue holiness.
I wonder if another issue has to do with what we think we're doing when we gather together. Is it merely about us - we're a bunch of people who get together every week to encourage one another, and the talk (the transition from sermon to Bible talk or even just talk is another symptom of what the English preacher is identifying) is about what we can get out of it before we go back out into our individual lives to be Christians. (I'm caricaturing slightly.) Or is the foucs on God, with the family of God assembling in God's presence, with God himself addressing us through the preacher, humbling us, rousing us and sending us out to live as his people in the world.
That will affect what the preacher thinks of his task and how he goes about it - simply informing and suggesting, so that people can make up their own minds, or pressing home and exhorting, as someone who has a message from God.
Well he has to have something to gripe about- he's English!
Can one not have Bible teaching that is cognitive and explanatory but also exhorts and edifies? I would've thought that regardless of what you call it it should always have those elements. I mean, what do we make of preaching that seeks to exhort and edify but is so often nothing but hot air?
Having said that however, I do think we should talk less of teaching the Bible and more of preaching Christ as the purpose of teaching the Bible is in order to proclaim Christ- as that is where the Bible itself always leads to.
Just preached on Matt 9.36 where Jesus 'taught, preached and healed'. One set of commentators (Davies and Allison) suggested there is little to distinguish teaching from preaching.
I think that the real difference here is not one of 'flat' verses 'moving' but one of what you are trying to achieve with your sermon. What gets me is when preachers say they are trying to 'teach people how to read the bible' when they preach. This leads to the flat style mentioned above. Personally, I'm trying to help people leave church changed/challenged/affected by the word of God.
But, I'd adgree with Roger re why this shift in approach has taken place. The 'teaching' language is there to protect and promote the historico-grammatical exegetical method. It's also become a focus because people feel they have a responsibility to help others fend for themselves, ie 'teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a life time', and as such reflects our 'every member a minister' principle.
Over at NYC Justin's blog this discussion took place a couple of months ago, and most comments came out in favour of the 'teaching' approach. But of course it's all how you frame the question. Justin asked "Do you prepare a meal for people or teach them to cook?" Most peope will respond favourably to the latter. Here the negative emphasis points the other way. As a comment said above, who wants to be 'flat' when didactic speaking is described that way???
Teaching people to cook can be thrilling, Martin. And life changing.
Haven't you watched a reality cooking program?
:)
It used to be that "Bible teaching" in churches did NOT refer to preaching sermons. It referred to adult Bible study classes.
I would think both would be necessary in any healthy congregation. I wouldn't want to choose.
" it represents a shift to a more cognitive, flat and explanatory style of discourse"
These three may abide in lots of preaching, but that doesn't mean they naturally or necessarily belong together. The problem with lots of "dry" or "flat" sermons, it seems to me, is not too much thinking but too little, especially in the sense of reflection and integration. And if that's the problem, then making the sermon more exhortatory is just going to make it worse.
Michael I think most of us have some idea of what your English colleague is complaining about --- we can at least define it ostensively --- but characterising it accurately is difficult. And it's important to at least try, since something tolerable was presumably envisioned when people made the change, as Justin says. But if you want a one-line opinion: yes, I think the shift of language is both signal, and pernicious.
Michael, I've always had a hunch you wanted to see the end of biblical teaching.
There is a big problem with the terminology of the North American evangelical church (the context I know best). I blame it on the Fundamentalist penchant for absolute truth claims that no one is allowed to deconstruct. I've said often that as a movement we've really not taught people how to think on their own, but we are masters of the slogan. Biblical Preaching is yet another of these slogans that really doesn't mean anything precise, although it seems to evoke a sense of solidity.
Saying "Bible Teaching" squarely places the authority in the bible.
I think that is right. Been thinking about that ever since I saw that Paul in the book of 2 Timothy seems to make a distinction himself between the office of preaching and teaching. I have seen an enormous shift away from exhortationary preaching in my circles. At some points it has even gone to extremes where gifted preachers are criticised when they begin to exhort gatherings in the church.
Preaching should include Bible teaching. But there should be an additional element of gospel proclamation in the power of the Spirit.
I agree with Exiled Preacher and much of what D Newman says above.
There are many ways into the issue - the heart of the matter seems to me to be whether or not there is something about modern evangelical preaching that is somewhat weaker or flatter than it ought to be. That weakness may be evidenced by the use of particular terms and the reluctance to use others.
I tried to broach these issues in an article available at
http://www.theologian.org.uk/pastoralia/embersofpreaching.html
another way to consider the issue, may to read Stott's book on preaching and also Martin Lloyd Jones' book. I believe we need the insights of both - but could it be that many today feel safer only with the teachings of Stott??
Expository bible preaching need not be dry or lecture-like or flat, because the bible is not those things.
Interestingly, we have just had a Pentecostal family come to us because they were sick of sermons that were all exhortation with no substance, or 'meat' as they put it. They specifically said they liked my preaching because it was expository, explaining and applying the message of the text of the bible, not just giving my opinions or personal anecdotes or the prosperity gospel like their preachers. And they are from a 'working class' not a middle class background. I don't think it's true that preaching that majors on 'teaching the bible' only appeals to middle class intelligentsia who merely want to store information rather than engage in transformation. And I think the history of evangelical preaching backs me up on that.
A wise man once said, of the section of the sermon titled; "Application" that there is nothing more practical than theology - the knowledge of God.
I know what you're thinking: When did Edmo say that? But brace yourself - 'twasn't me.
I do worry that people go to Bible Studies instead of Jesus Studies, though I concede it would be hard to do much meaningful study of the later without the former.
I think I've presented a non-commital response.
Michael W-W pointed out that bible teaching is a potentially broader term than preaching, and while "Preaching Christ" clearly does not just describe Sunday sermons, I will happily describe myself as being involved in the bible teaching at our church (where I help lead a bible study group) I would never describe myself as being involved with the preaching - and when I say that I appreciate the bible teaching at my church, that includes the Sunday sermons, but perhaps even more so the way I've been taught the bible one-to-one or in small groups. I definitely see the English Preacher's point though.
wow, I go away for two weeks and I miss this!
Just briefly to clarify: I am not opposing expository preaching, nor am I suggesting that expository preaching is by nature 'flat'. On the contrary. And, of course, exposition of the Bible in the power of the Spirit is the way in which the real Jesus is encountered.
What I am raising is the language shift - what does the label 'Bible teaching' do for us?
I have heard that the reason this label is used is because it differentiates the product - any old liberal can say 'we are a Jesus church' and it can mean anything. Is the problem really solved by saying 'Bible'? Aren't further problems added? And why should the devil have all the good music? It seems that this is a defensive reason, and that while it may help at the level of reminding us how Jesus' authority is mediated to us (ie, in Scripture), it doesn't help to remind us that it is a 'who' that we are worshipping.
A related difficulty I note is the way in which 'the gospel' has replaced 'Jesus' in evangelical language sometimes.
In both cases I think a grave danger is that we forget the powerful and converting reality of Jesus himself. I don't want to preach 'the gospel', unless it is 'the gospel of JESUS', and that means something much more terrifying to me...
I don't want to preach 'the gospel', unless it is 'the gospel of JESUS', and that means something much more terrifying to me...
And much more beautiful!
Still with you all the way here, particularly on the gospel replacing Jesus (linguistically, particularly liturgically - I have been to some services in Sydney where the gospel was mentioned more than fifty times and Jesus' name only once or twice).
Dear Gentlemen,
My name is 'Ostrasized' and I represent a generation of clergyman and lay person a deal older than most of you. In fact I new most of your fathers and was in churches sitting under the preaching of your fathers and was in Moore College under the principalship of Broughton Knox.
Michael et. al. it seems to me that the term biblical-church or biblically-based church became a term which contrasted 'Matthias' related churches to non-Matthias related churches. It was a term used by people who used to attend the lunch time bible studies at Uni of NSW to refer to those churches that followed the teaching of Phillip Jensen and others at University of New South Wales.
It became a term that divided between those churches that were considered to be 'bible based' which included churches like St Matthias, Centennial Park and those that followed their particular methodology and style of preaching which was generally polemical and confrontationalist which often portrayed 'others' that they didn't agree with in terms of caricature and ridicule.
The so-called 'non-biblical' churches did not follow the 'Matthias' line and although they considered themselves to be biblical in their own preaching and faithfulness to the scriptures they were not considered to be 'biblical' by the leaders and members of the Matthias group of churches.
The term 'biblical based' church then provided a rationale for seeking to plant new congregations alongside other Anglican churches which may have had older congregations and who didn't espouse to some of the ideas that were coming from 'St Matthias'.
I believe that often the use of this term exalts self and is perjorative of others. It often indicates a particular view of what constitutes a 'biblical church'.
What amazes me is that just about every flavour of evangelical churches and even some Catholic churches believe themselves to be doing the best job they can and often better than others and they would generally say that they are 'gospel-centric' and 'bible-believing' churches.
Thank you Michael for bringing up this topic - It is about time that we had a decent discussion on what exactly constitutes a bible-based or bible believing church. It is a debate that we would all benefit from being engaged in whether we are attending an Anglican or in my case a Church of Christ church.
May the Lord Jesus encourage us all to speak with humility on this matter - generating more light than heat
Yours,
Ostracized
Ostracized: there is of course more than a little caricature in your post here. Though, granted, people have pointed out that 'bible teaching' is a term of differentiation - it is meant to distinguish a church from another church that holds the Bible as less authoritative.
Interestingly, in the Sydney Diocese mission, which deploys the controversial term 'bible-based churches', the term is meant to be quite inclusive of any church that holds itself to be primarily under the authority of Scripture.
Dear Michael,
Thank you for such a quick response. That was certainly quicker than grease lightening.
I was perhaps more personal Michael than I needed to be but I guess I felt like it was important to ground this debate within our present historical context within the diocese within which we have both grown up.
The point I am making Michael is not that your definition is incorrect but I guess my concern is the way that we use terms that readily divide without sometimes understanding what is truly going on in the church that we are saying is 'unbiblical'.
It is easy to be perjorative when we have only a little understanding of what is going on in other churches. Often it seems to me that we make grand claims without fully appreciating what is going on in other churches.
I served as a missionary overseas working with Christians from many different backgrounds and although we had point of difference we rejoiced in the fact that we understood the gospel and we were all fellow-shipping in the task of sharing the gospel of Jesus with others. In such circumstances rejoicing in the commonality that we share is better than focusing on the differences and magnifying them at the expense of our common love of the Lord and preaching of the gospel.
The term 'bible-based churches' is a term that is used by the Sydney Diocese and I really wonder what it actually means?
Perhaps you can help me out with this one?
Ostracized
Well. A more historical perspective enriches the discussion, and I'm all for it. But if we're going to go this path we need to allow for space to open up between the use of some language in the past, and its use in the present, along the lines of Michael's reply.
We also need to allow for a difference between intent and effect, perhaps contrary to what you just wrote, Michael. Language has its own momentum and logic apart from purpose (or, what we tell ourselves is our purpose) and since by its nature "bible-based" is a term of differentiation, I'm suspicious of how it is (and will be) used. To take an historical example, along Ostracized's line: if one wrote a list of excesses of so-called Matthians in the past (and you may add "alleged" before excesses if you will, because the matter is at a tangent to my point), I don't think most people would claim that all of them were willed, let alone "centrally" mandated. But does anyone really doubt that the rhetoric of that movement let some of its excesses loose?
[Like everyone, I use the term "Matthian", because it is in use and there is no replacement for it, but I don't care for the term much and it is misleading if taken too literally. Disclaimer ends.]
We have previously discussed a lack of perspective and critical self-understanding in this town. Along these lines, I think "bible-based" is a bad term because it's a differentiating slogan that gets mistaken for a piece of description, and drives out other more neutral language that might be more helpful for understanding what we are actually doing. Because whatever Sydney is, all accounts agree on it being highly particular. How can so apparently generic, but actually charged a term as "bible based" help in understanding that particularity?
Also, and Michael I must apologise for nitpicking: "holds the Bible as less authoritative". Where do I even start? Approaches to Scripture do not sit on a linear scale. Once one starts talking like this, the trap where "more authoritative" (whatever that means) is "better" looms, and distinctions are lost.
To illustrate with an example not directly related to one's approach to Scripture: I am a congenital layman, and was on the losing side of the argument over "full-time ministry" in the 80s/90s, but would probably have a more traditional (less opportunistic) view of ordination and its importance and role in the church than most clergy of my generation. Do I have a "higher" or "lower" view of the clergy than my contemporaries? I claim that the language is intrinsically unsuitable to the case.
Accounts of Biblical authority, and (what is more to the purpose) practical hermeneutics, are both more complicated and more opaque than in this analogy. How much more then should we avoid "X holds the Bible to be more/less authoritative" when describing some position?
Well, if Matthian is a label, it is a label I must own. I am a Matthian of Matthians! I went there for my most formative years. I am a Jensen for heaven's sake! I didn't start this discussion in order to find a stick to beat others with: I rather wanted to reflect on habits which are my own as much as anyone else's.
Bruce: I think you are nitpicking a little here. All I meant to say was that 'bible-based' means that these churches hold Scripture to be supremely authoritative, as opposed to say, reason or tradition. In other words, they take the classic conservative Protestant position. It is intentionally a broad term, and actually I do think functions as such, unless you are quite cynical about it. I think the fact that some churches did not like the label means that the term enabled self-selection, too.
I think it is just a necessity of life that slogans and phrases develop that are shorthand ways of saying 'us' and 'them'. These terms however ought always to be up for discussion and revision, because of the pernicious effect they can have, especially when it is no longer clear what the term actually meant in the first place.
Michael you wrote "I didn't start this discussion in order to find a stick to beat others with: I rather wanted to reflect on habits which are my own as much as anyone else's." This is understood. And appreciated.
But at the risk of crossover with another thread, I think you tend to naïveté on how some words, or actions, can play out in practice. If there's history, and differences of power, and imperfect trust, then language and actions pick up extra resonance quite apart from intent. And again, I think intention is opaque.
There are some "us" groups I am never going to be a part of. That may be life, but I do not have to like it, and if I am twitchy about differentiating slogans then I can only claim some reasonable fear of ending up on the wrong end of them. You may have no intention of beating anyone over the head with a stick, but not everyone is so restrained.
To be a bit less dramatic about it, I repeat my assertion that "bible-based" risks closing the analysis down when it really should be opening up. The intention, or (perhaps better) the intention at its best, is to be Scriptural, with the understanding that competing approaches fail at this. Well and good. But what then? What is distinctive about the approach (or the intention) here in other ways? What common ground do we still have with other approaches with which we differ?
And what account do we give on matters secondary to "the classic conservative Protestant position": the role of extra-Biblical material, say? To people like me this is an urgent, daily issue, and I claim that thinking on this subject here is (a) implicit, (b) confused, and (c) likely to be indefinitely postponed as long as the conservative church keeps dwelling on how Biblical it is. Just because I am foolish enough to agree that an issue like this is secondary, I don't want it to be neglected.
"You may have no intention of beating anyone over the head with a stick, but not everyone is so restrained."
Well, I was referring to the (often perjorative) use of the term 'Matthian', rather than 'bible teaching' or what have you.
Now, to rewind just a little: in fact, the intention of this post was to point exactly to the fact that a term like 'bible teaching' has a resonance that is perhaps unhelpful (at least, my English preacher friend thought so). What has also come out is that the term has intentionally been deployed to differentiate, by shorthand, a way of doing church. I am asking for a little less naivete when it comes to our group-language.
Very good. To unify our most recent posts with an example:
There is amongst us a certain failure to take things outside the Bible seriously: actually I think this is a better (because more precise) criticism than accusing sermons of "flatness" or "dryness".
There are people here, more conservative than myself, who regard this with the same dismay that I do.
Yet the common shift of language to "bible teaching" does nothing to challenge this weakness: in fact, it feeds it.
Yes, although I would say that in fact the bible itself gives this more support!
Dear Michael & Bruce,
Thank you both for coming with me on this slight digression.
Hopefully the pursuit of this digression in the long run will
prove fruitful.
Bruce thank you for pointing out so many helpful things.
I found your raising of the distinction between intent and effect in language to be most useful. What we think we say and what ultimately is heard
can be two different things - and this confusion can lead to all sorts of problems when we are seeking to promote harmonious relationships between members of our community.
The term 'bible-based' is a loaded statement that automatically carries a sense of judgment. The term does certainly close
down discussion rather than open it up which is the opposite of what we are seeking to achieve.
Many churches that I have been in - whether Baptist or Anglican or Church of Christ would all consider themselves to be "Bible-based" or "New Testament" based. The only denomination that more overtly seeks to place tradition on an equal footing with
the bible seems to be the Roman Catholic denomination but we all in our own way reflect the tradition of our denonmination. It
seems to me that we only become aware of this when we mix with people from other denominations and start to see their particular
tradition making itself felt. I can still remember listening to a sermon from a baptist preacher in Liverpool who was adamant that in John ch.2 Jesus turned the water into grape juice which flies in the face of the normal meaning of the Gk. word 'oinos' but which fits in very neatly with the Baptists traditional prohibition on alcohol consumption.
If we were to turn the looking glass on ourselves for a moment perhaps we could see that the way we carry out ordination and
use the terms 'bishops', 'priests' and 'deacons' to refer to roles in the modern day Anglican Institution is perhaps different
to the way these terms are actually used in the New Testament. I was told some years ago that an Anglican Archdeacon taught his congregation that
the Anglican Church is the only truly biblical denomination because it follows the biblical pattern of Bishops, Priests
and Deacons. I am not sure that the way we understand these roles today would be the sort of thing that Paul ever had in mind when he
was writing the Pastoral Epistles.
Then there is also the issue of Infant Baptism and Confirmation - I think I am in danger of causing great distractions with these subjects but they are a case in point.
Michael you mention 'bible-based churches' and say that this term is meant to be quite inclusive of any church that holds itself
to be primarily under the authority of Scripture. On reflection especially in todays world where people are
suspicious of mere doctrinal statements and confessions it seems to me that the true test of a bible believing church is the moral conduct of its attendees. A group of people who say that they believe in the authority of the bible might find themselves facing a wall of incredulity from a highly suspicious and cynical world who say that they have heard it all before. The only truly convincing way that this is proven is when the world looks at our behaviour and sees that it is in line with what the bible is actually saying. There would be no doubts then about the degree of authority if our lives matched our lips or to use modern parlance - we not only talked the talk but we also walked the walk.
It was disturbing for me to hear recently that a mature lay person who is paid to coordinate Small Group ministry at a leading church in the diocese said, "Young clergy these days seem to have no conscience about their behaviour when found guilty of sexually inappropriate behaviour - they have all sorts of excuses and seem to feel no need for contrition or
repentance?"
In the light of such a statement any discourse or argument about the degree to which a church believes in the Authority
of Scripture seems hollow and meaningless by comparison.
Michael thank you for this statement, "I am asking for a little less naivete when it comes to our group-language." It is
so refreshing to hear this when people in their thinking do nothing more than just use worn out phrases and evangelical
epithets which may win acceptance and good will but do nothing in our quest to discern truth and promote self-understanding.
Getting back to the 'dryness' and 'flatness' and the way that this might be related in some way to 'bible-teaching' or 'bible-churches'. This debate sounds similar to the debate in the 50's where people were saying that the teaching of 'doctrine' was leading to boring, tedious and irrelevant teaching. In a recent book that I have read by Dorothy Sayers [cant remember the title] her point is that there is nothing more
exciting than an understanding of true Christian doctrine with its great truths of Incarnation and Atonement. Her argument is that
church had become dry and flat for the very reason that we have forgotten great Christian doctrines and don't understand them properly so we are at a loss to know how to apply them relevantly to our present situation.
Some of the best preachers/teachers that I have heard today have a depth of spiritual understanding and breadth of academic understanding
that is far from 'dry' and 'flat'. Some of these include Don Carson, Bruce Smith and David Pawson. For me some of the most influential have been John Stott and Philip Jensen. It was Philip's sermon series on Sermon on the Mount in the 70's that has been one of the most influential in my life - and I can still remember his illustrations to this day some 25 years later. It seems to me that 'Dry' and 'Flat' is more likely with poor preparation and lack of biblical understanding.
Perhaps another time we can talk about'dryness' and 'flatness' of sermons in regard to the audience that we are seeking to address.
Perhaps this debate ought to extend to preaching and "Post Modern" hearers. Perhaps the use of the traditional spoken address no longer has currency with post-moderns who are strongly "image-based".
Yours in Him,
Ostracized
One shouldn't be surprised that someone with such a high C personality as Bruce is good at finding the pupae of ectoparasitical Phthiraptera encsconced in hirsuite places. After all, who else would go to the trouble to spell naïveté with the accents in the right places! :) (Don't worry Bruce, it takes one to know one, and I plead guilty too). The world needs more 'C' types to tell the High I's why they can't do things.
"Matthian" is a synomym for fifth columnist in some quarters of my denomination. Also pejoratively known as Jensenites. Unfortunately though I'm afraid I have to raise my hand and plead guilty to that too. I attended Matthias in the late 70s and early 80s.
Hmm, I posted but it seems to have disappeared into the ether, despite being emailed to me. So I'll try again. If it duplicated perhaps you can just delete one of them Michael.
One shouldn't be surprised that someone with such a high C personality as Bruce is good at finding the pupae of ectoparasitical Phthiraptera encsconced in hirsuite places. After all, who else would go to the trouble to spell naïveté with the accents in the right places! :) Don't worry Bruce, it takes one to know one, and I plead guilty too. Don't apologise for it, the world needs more 'C' types to tell the High 'I' types why they can't do things!
"Matthian" is a synomym for fifth columnist in some quarters of my denomination. Also pejoratively known as Jensenites. Unfortunately though I'm afraid I have to raise my hand and plead guilty to that too. I attended Matthias in the late 70s and early 80s. So I probably know you 'Ostracized,' whoever you are, masked pariah! :)
- Greg
For reasons of historical accuracy, I thought I might post an extract from Peter Jensen's 2002 Presidential address to the Sydney Synod, where our Diocese adopted the diocesan mission, with its initial goal of seeing 10% of the population of the Diocese in Bible-based churches.
It's worth noting that originally, the goal referred to Bible-believing churches, as per Peter Jensen's statement, but it was amended to Bible-based (if I recall rightly, with Peter's agreement).
You will see that in Peter's own public words he was trying to be inclusive with the phrase as well strong on the authority of Scripture. And if I also recall correctly, some people and rectors from non-evangelical parishes in our diocese were happy to sign up to the goal with its phrase!
Here's what Peter said...
I have suggested that we use the phrase 'Bible-believing' for this reason: so that we may have inclusion without confusion. There are all sorts of churches which will want to be involved with this Mission. Some Anglican churches may not wish to be called 'evangelical' because it suggests to them a party name; others may not be Anglican, belonging to another denomination or to none at all. I am suggesting that we be as inclusive as possible with those who accept this self-description gladly. Our inclusiveness suggests co-operation in mission and a willingness to see that others besides Anglicans are doing the work of the gospel. It may well mean a willingness to help other churches including ethnic ones, without thinking that they will necessarily become Anglican churches. It may even be that we will see new, more genuinely Australian forms of Anglicanism emerge!
But I do not endorse theological confusion or laxity. 'Bible-believing' is a qualitative assessment as well as a collaborative one. By 'Bible-believing' I have in mind in particular the churches which owe their theological structure to the Reformation, and who thus see their fundamental authority in the great 'scripture alone' of the Reformation. They give scripture the priority over the traditions of the church and the findings of human experience whether rationalistic or spiritualising. From the scriptures they preach a gospel that is shaped by salvation through Christ alone, by faith alone, through grace alone, to the glory of God alone. This is the Reformation understanding of the gospel. As I indicated last year, in inviting collaboration within classical Christian orthodoxy, I believe that this gospel itself is at stake in some of the disputes we have with our fellow Christians, and we cannot, even for the sake of mission, allow inclusion to become confusion. 'Bible-believing' is not an invitation to theological and pastoral irresponsibility.
The reference is http://www.sds.asn.au/site/100986.asp?ph=sy.
Post a Comment