Confession
October 14th, 2007 | by Scott |I’m excessively hard on preachers. I nit-pick and can be extremely unkind in my analysis of others. Volunteer preachers, not so much. But paid guys I can be merciless.
I repent of that.
But I still hold to the notion that to preach well you must be theologically responsible.
18 Responses to “Confession”
By R-Liz on Oct 14, 2007 | Reply
I wonder what you would’ve thought of the ladies who spoke at the Women of Faith Conference I went to this past weekend. I’m trying to think if there was any tangible theology to any of it.
By Scott on Oct 14, 2007 | Reply
Ruthie, it seems that there is a movement that views theology as an impediment to relevance. Maybe that is overstating it but I do know that I can look back on sermons I preached years ago that were well received but sorely lacking in biblical exposition.
By R-Liz on Oct 14, 2007 | Reply
I hate to say it b/c it sounds cliche, but is it our entertainment-expectant culture that’s cut off the brain paths of biblical exposition?
This weekend was very entertaining, but the talks themselves were purely anectdotal. It could’ve very well been an Oprah show: Five ladies sharing how they overcame some obstacle. The only difference was at the end of the talks this weekend, when the gal would flash up a Philippians 4:13-like verse, and that somehow made it Women-of-Faith-worthy.
And of course the books they pushed were more of the same.
It’s nice to empathize with someone every now and then, but this very popular and renowned Women of Faith Conference did virtually nothing in giving me any practial advice in understanding the Scriptures better or differently. I was so disappointed– not only in the people who put on this conference, but probably more so in my fellow sisters in Christ who chalk this up as a pinnacle spiritual point to their year.
Sorry to vent. The timing of this post fell right into this thought I’ve been spinning since the end of the conference yesterday.
By Scott on Oct 15, 2007 | Reply
It’s interesting in our visits to area churches over the past two Sundays: one was intentionally theological but not exactly contemporary. The one we went to yesterday was contemporary but not theological.
There must be greater attempts at being theologically honest while also being relevant to the culture.
By Tracy on Oct 15, 2007 | Reply
I wonder if these messages are meant for seekers and those who have are babies in their faith. You know ‘milk and honey’ vs. ‘meat’. I could never be a preacher or speak at one of those conferences, I mean how can you deliver a message that will profoundly touch and challenge every single person in one talk? I can’t even get all 3 of my girls to agree on what to eat for lunch; I can’t imagine how hard it would be to personally impact a large number.
And how can you share deep biblical exposition without going over the heads of your audience when most people don’t even know the books of the bible? You have to start somewhere.
By Scott on Oct 15, 2007 | Reply
I would think it would be rather easy to share deep biblical exposition without going over the heads of people. Jesus did it routinely in the guise of parable. Sure, the application is very difficult but the meaning was clear, especially to the irreligious.
I think this is an interesting discussion in light of the Osteen clip above.
As I’ve said I can be especially critical on preachers and these are temptations that I fight when I prepare a sermon. I know that I can go on an illustration website and string together some stories that might bear some passing resemblance to the scripture but I have failed to properly engage the text.
I wonder if part of our problem might be the temptation to touch the congregation rather than letting the Spirit do that.
I’m not sure. Just feeling this out a bit.
By Scott on Oct 15, 2007 | Reply
OK, I repeat: I’m too hard on preachers. Sorry.
By Justin on Oct 15, 2007 | Reply
I have the same issues, but not just with preachers. I almost can’t bear to listen to people’s prayers any more since they are so chalk full of ridiculousness. Granted, not all of that is their fault, as they’ve listened to other people pray and teach and then reuse their words, but at some level, I imagine if you think a little bit, you’d realize that what you are saying is completely ridiculous.
Good example. This weekend at a wedding… a guy was talking about the bride and groom. He first said, “God had ya’ll picked out for each other from the very beginning” (which, I will say in the interest of full disclosure, is a pov I disagree with). He then said “its just so unbelievable that ya’ll found one another cause you’re so perfect for each other”. I asked my wife if she had heard him previously say that God had them picked out for each other, and why he should be surprised if that were the case.
Its sad, but it makes me loathe going to Christian functions, unless I’m with people who study. I know that is completely terrible, but I’ve yet to develop a tolerance for people who obviously accept what their told without questioning, to the point that half the crap that they say doesn’t make a bit of sense.
End Rant.
By Scott on Oct 15, 2007 | Reply
I don’t have a problem with the prayers of sincere Christians. Sure, we all might say some things that aren’t theologically correct in our prayers but that is the point of being in community.
I realize that my critical nature is not healthy and not of God. I tend to “justify” it when it comes to those of us who fall under the professional titles. I can use James 3 even to back it up. But at the end of the day it is just a judgmental spirit.
By Phil Wilson on Oct 15, 2007 | Reply
We all judge things harder when we’ve been in the field. If i’m visiting a church that has media, I tend to notice the flaws rather than all the stuff that goes well.
Now of course, for preachering, theologically responsible can mean something different for each congregation. Being theologically responsible in a Catholic church would look very different than being theologically responsible in an Assemblies of God. If there’s a singular definition of “Theologically Responsible,” then that flies out the window, but experience has shown me that there really isn’t.
By Scott on Oct 15, 2007 | Reply
That’s true, Phil. And that is where the missus is hammering me on this issue right now. I think part of my problem at the moment is an itching to get back in the pulpit and realizing that I would handle the passage quite differently.
But, hermeneutics aside, I think we run the risk of not properly engaging the text when we rely too heavily on commentary, illustration and stats.
By JTB on Oct 16, 2007 | Reply
Sometimes I think we mystify the word “theology” too much. It’s really not a lot to ask of one’s spiritual leaders and teachers to be theologically responsible…all that really means is, think about the implications of the claims and assertions you’re making on God’s behalf to your listeners. Does this statement contradict some other anchoring point of faith? Does this statement run counter to the character of God? Does this statement reflect the kind of doctrine that leads to praxis of mercy, justice, love? I don’t know how anyone could preach without asking themselves these kinds of questions about the things they say. Basically, asking for our leaders to be theologically responsible just means “please don’t be incoherent.” Unfortunately this standard seems a bit high in a lot of cases. Because the problem with theology, as a discipline (dare I claim spiritual discipline? I don’t know) is that–as Tillich (I think, or maybe Schleiermacher?) observed–everywhere you start leads you everywhere else…that is simply the nature of systematic theological thinking.
I shall end this critical comment with a happy observation: I’m one of the lucky ones…Joe Hays is theologically uber-responsible! Yay CCfB!
By JTB on Oct 16, 2007 | Reply
Ruthie–I think all too often women’s gatherings tend to lack theological depth and responsibility…because, in our context and other similarly conservative denominations, no one (male or female) has ever expected women to deliver anything but feel-good fluff. And there has been little opportunity or support for women educating themselves in the same ways we encourage our male ministers to do. This is changing a bit–I’m thinking in particular of the encouraging number of women in the ACU MDiv program. But these women, now uniquely situated to teach/preach in a theologically responsible and spiritually nurturing way…how will they get their start? The situation for them is unfortunately exactly what a certain CofC brother prophesied for me: “all dressed up with no place to go.” Until women and women’s voices are recognized and welcomed within our churches as conduits for God’s word in the same way men can be, women’s conferences and meetings and retreats will inevitably be second-rate…because they are self-consciously organized as gatherings for the second-class citizens of God’s kingdom.
Just one woman’s opinion.
By JTB on Oct 16, 2007 | Reply
P.S. to Ruthie: if you can make it out to the East Coast in May, there’s a women’s conference in the planning that should be very, very different…
By Scott on Oct 16, 2007 | Reply
JTB, great thoughts. I’ve tried to wrestle with whether or not the sermon in question received my criticism because it is not the way I would have handled the text. If honest, I must admit that there is some element of truth in that. However, I think that a huge segment of what the passage was about was never addressed. There was no putting the passage in it’s larger context.
And I’m really interested on your thoughts on women and theological depth. Makes perfect sense to me.
By R-Liz on Oct 17, 2007 | Reply
Tracy– I hear what you’re saying. I know it can be tough to appeal to a wide number of folks, but I feel like SO many gatherings I go to appeal to the lowest common denominator of biblical understanding, and that’s been frustrating. Women of Faith was definitely entertaining, but not necessarily insightful.
JTB–Although I don’t know if I can make it, I’d LOVE to hear more about this Women’s Conference in May. And let me get your opinion on something– in general, what distinguishes a women’s conference from a men’s conference? Or what SHOULD distinguish a women’s conference from a men’s conference? Or is it simply a matter of the organizers, speakers, and attendees being women? I guess I wonder what the overall value is of single-sex conference (not saying their isn’t value, but I’ve had a hard time figuring it out myself without making massive generalizations about each sex that I don’t necessarily subscribe to– does that make sense?).
Thanks.
By JTB on Oct 19, 2007 | Reply
I think at the moment, the value of a women’s conference is pragmatic: there are issues and challenges that women face that men do not. At a women’s conference these can be explicitly named and constructively discussed. These sorts of challenges and issues are more the result of the historical/social situation of women in our culture rather than the result of any kind of essential nature of woman (which I also philosophically eschew). A lot of the dumbing down, I think, happens because of a persistent and implicit view of women as essentially experiential, nurturing, warm and fuzzy and therefore not so rational–once we get over that sort of crap, we can both address the specific needs that are apparent in a way that is just as theologically sophisticated, challenging and truly edifying as anything men offer to each other.
I would love to see a conference organized and presented by women to entirely male attendees…
By Scott on Oct 19, 2007 | Reply
I would sign up for that conference.