May I suggest that being “unprepared” in the sense of not coming with a preconceived sermon/talk/lesson can be valuable as well?
I have found that an unscripted, unprepared meeting where brothers open the Word, comment on Scripture, request songs that are not picked out and practiced ahead of time and pray spontaneously brings out the best in others and in me. It takes some getting used to. The silence can be deafening at times to ears that are you used to the constant hum of something always going on “in church”. Sometimes you are going to get a clumsy talk or someone may get up and then lose their train of thought. It may end early or it may go longer (almost always longer in my experience).
Where is the room for the Spirit in a highly planned out meeting? When everything is planned out based on a minute by minute schedule, the presence of the Spirit is relegated to a feeling instead of a leading. In far too many cases we are either full of what we perceive as the Spirit and utterly lacking in the Word, or we are steeped in the Word and the Spirit is locked away. It doesn’t have to be this way, it should not be this way.
I don’t think that many ministers outside of a few kooks on the fringe of the “Truly Reformed” extreme would disagree that there needs to be some sort of participatory component in the gathering of the church. The reality of it is somewhat different because typically there is little opportunity for the average Christian man to be involved with the gathering of the church because those gatherings are tightly compressed time-wise and subsequently rigidly scheduled.
One of the greatest preachers in the church was the English Baptist Charles Spurgeon. Spurgeon is known for his lack of “sermon preparation”, famously not even starting to prepare until Saturday night for a Sunday morning sermon and not preparing his Sunday evening sermon until Sunday afternoon. That seems incomprehensible in the church when it is not uncommon for men to spend 10, 20 or more hours a week in deep study and preparation of their sermons. So how could Spurgeon pull off sermon after sermon with such minimal preparation? Well he was of course a rare intellect and had an amazing gift with words. It may be that he was more concerned about who he was preaching about than how he sounded to the audience. More importantly though he was deeply immersed in the Word. The Word seems to have come naturally to him because he spent a lot of time in it. Well, you may say, not everyone is Charles Spurgeon. I would agree that he was an extremely gifted man. That doesn’t mean that other men in the church can replicate what Spurgeon did by spending half of their week in their studies. It does mean that we need to spend more of our time in prayer and in the Word.
I think there is a place for a planned, prepared talk in the church. I appreciate systematic Bible studies and expository sermons. But if that is all we have, if the church gathers and 99% of the Body has no voice, how can they truly be a part of “worship”? The Holy Spirit isn’t obligated to abide by our schedule. God is a God of order but God is also a God of Spirit. An orderly service without the Spirit, if I may be so bold, is not a Christian worship service at all. A worship service where we watch is not a worship service because it gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling. Worship cannot be something I watch someone else doing, can it?
There is so much that the Body of Christ has to offer but it rarely gets a chance. So much power, so much service, so much love and so often wasted. Little wonder that a small segment of the Body is wounded and weary and the rest of the Body is atrophied and lazy. Participatory meetings are neither an anachronism that “doesn’t work” today nor a sign of new fangled emergent practices. It is an ancient path that has command and example in the Scripture and that is more than we can say about an awful lot of what passes as “Christian worship” in even the most conservative evangelical churches.
Preacher, take a chance. Let the Body worship as the Body. You might be pleasantly surprised.
22 comments:
Amen! Preach it, brother! ;)
The Quakers don't generally have pastors, so I guess no one has to get prepared, they just meet, sit silently, in the Quaker Silence, and if anyone feels moved by the spirit to speak, they do so. I have often wondered what it would be like to experience a Quaker meeting, it is certainly different to most Sunday church services.
That said, does everything have to be lesson, how about spending time in adoration and wonder of God, just think how amazing it is that each of us matter to Him, each of us are created by Him, and each of us are LOVED by HIM! We should always be in awe of our Lord and Saviour!
Another
"Not many people are going to fault brothers for spending too much time preparing a sermon or a lesson." I would... especially if all of that preparation time kept the person away from his family or friends too long.
I've learned that coming "prepared" doesn't always mean having an intro, three points, and a conclusion (along with the requisite illustrations and quotations). My preparation comes through my own desire to know God and His Scriptures more... to see the Spirit work in my own life. This happens every week, not just when it is my time to teach (i.e. scheduled or planned).
I'm very concerned about the person who will spend 10... 20... 30 hours studying for a sermon one week, but then spend very little time studying when it is not his time to "preach".
By the way... I've often come together with the church with something "prepared" which I never deliver.
-Alan
You like many others assume that following the Spirit equals spontaneity. Yet, I do not see this in Scripture. In fact, the church that was "most spontaneous" was told to do things decently in order because God is a God of order (this would include the Holy Spirit). I don't disagree that there should be participation by the entire congregation nor do I disagree that spontaneity. However, we must not make the mistake that spontaneity equals the Spirit's work or presence.
Jeremy,
In your normal Sunday service, do you see the entire Body participating?
In 1 Corinthians 14: 33, Paul says that God is a God of order but Paul also says that each should bring something to the meeting. In an orderly manner and not chaos yes, but I fear that in our desire for order we have restricted the general point of 1 Corinthians 14. We can get so consumed by order, and assuming that being unconfused means rigid scheduling.
Arthur,
I agree with what you said about participation, but I am weary of hearing that spontaneity equals the presence of the Spirit. It was the Protestant churches that began congregational singing as opposed to Catholics who had only "choirs" sing. It was Protestants who started responsive readings and simultaneous readings of Scriture. These things were done to encourage participation by the entire congregation. Maybe we need to plan more particapatory aspects into our worship; however, planning and the Holy Spirit are not mutually exclusive entities.
The main argument of your post, I thought, was that we need spontaneity rather than planning. That is why I addressed that issue.
I am very pleased at our Church. We always leave room at the end of the sermon for worship and the moving of the Holy Spirit. We are not so ordered that the Holy Spirit cannot move.Many times worship before the Sermon is prolonged or the Sermon takes a different turn even though it was prepared for in a certain way. I would say "Be Prepared, but let the Spirit have His way".
Everyone in our congregation can participate in the liturgical responses and in the hymn singing, and in partaking of the Lord's Supper.
Other than that and you could be asking for trouble.
People have a way of bending the whole thing to fit their feelings, notions, whatevers.
I like the structure and order of a traditional litugical servive.
Sure, we don't have to do it that way, but it acts as an anchor to Christ, that we don't float hither and yon with every whim of Joe and Mary in the pew.
"Of course they're free! We let those inmates exercise twice a day--and we even let them choose between basketball and weight lifting! Certainly you aren't suggesting we just let them leave their cells whenever they like... it'd be complete chaos!"
Being a "layman," I don't like being spoken of as if I'm a convicted felon; that is, not when other men (pastors, elders) get to play warden.
These most recent comments all imply that the "enlightened few" (the leaders) must exert tight control over the unenlightened masses, because apparently pastors (and "music ministry team leaders") were given a different spirit than the rest of us when they believed?
This is what happens when you kick the Holy Spirit out of your meetings. You're left with the task of trying to take over His work.
Steve,
Everyone in our congregation can participate in the liturgical responses and in the hymn singing, and in partaking of the Lord's Supper.
Other than that and you could be asking for trouble.
So the average Christian in your services “participates” by singing songs selected by someone else, responsive readings and eating a little bit of bread and wine? I am not sure that really counts as participation and I don’t think that fulfills either the letter or the spirit of what Paul wrote about in 1 Cor 14 or in Ephesians 4:11.
How does one “get in trouble” when the Body of Christ is active within the life of the church? I think one gets in far more trouble when the Body relies on one man to study and interpret and lead. Cults don’t get started because of unprepared meetings, they get started because people rely on one man for their spiritual formation. It is far healthier (and more Biblical) for the whole Body to grow into maturity and I don’t see a single Scriptural rationale for limiting the vast majority of the Body to observers. Being orderly doesn’t mean sit down, shut up and listen.
Christian Praise, I like the way you put that. We cannot be so "prepared" that we shove the Spirit aside in deference to our schedule.
Jeremy,
I am not saying that the meeting should be completely unprepared and spontaneous. I am saying that there needs to be a place for it and honestly in virtually every church I have been in there is no place for it and an exhibition of it would get you asked to leave. Throughout the church we pray for the presence of the Holy Spirit in our services but we have already decided what we will talk about and what time we will allow Him to be present. So He can come, but only on our terms.
I can make the case far more easily that the New Testament church met together without programs and liturgy and a set agenda than I can that they met for a particular, set time to hear a prepared talk by one person while everyone else listened. Congregational singing and responsive reading are fine but that is at best barely participating because it is not a sign of Biblical maturity that you can sing along with the “worship leader” and read out loud.
Travis, that is a great point. When people talk about being "called to ministry" I guess that asumes that everyone else is NOT called to ministry.
There is a big question here regarding the Trinity. Shoving the Holy Spirit aside? Allowing the Holy Spirit? Letting the Holy Spirit work? Leave room for the Holy Spirit to work? These remarks are not Scriptural. Each time the Word of God is read or spoken the Holy Spirit is at work, in every event of past history and future history God is at work, where God is The Holy Spirit is, where these are Christ is, the Trinitarian God cannot be broken up and none is weaker than the other they are one in strength, in number, and in presence
. The work of the Holy Spirit was present in Creation even with out the help of man. Gen. 1:2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
The word of God is powerful dividing soul, Heb. 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
No one can make the Word of God, the Son God or the Spirit to go here or there. So to say the Holy Spirit is under control of a congregation of believers is not Biblical.
Ken Clouse
I was not going to respond anymore to this blog because I felt we had beat the dead horse enough; however, I was compelled to write when I read the offensive analogy of prisoners and wardens. Travis has turned this into a battle between pastors and laypersons, which it is not. Travis jumped to the unfounded conclusion that if there is some control; it is tyranical. None of the comments lead to the conclusion that lay persons are unenlightened or are subservient to the elders or the pastor. He dreamt it up.
In my experience, when the floor is opened up for comments, I am put in the uncomfortable position of having to rebut someone's obviously false views thereby embarassing them in front of a crowd. Or, I say nothing and allow people to think the comment is correct even when there are serious theological errors. I am not suggesting that every minor theological error be openly rebuked, but quite often a lay person may "innocently" believe serious error, which has to be corrected or others may be lead into error. I have many godly lay persons in my church and know some from other churches who are theolgically sound whom I respect greatly(Arthur happens to be one of them).
What we are suggesting is that while participation is good. It is not absolutely good. Some order must be given as directed by the Apostle Paul, who was guided by the Spirit, in 1 Corinthians. The suggestions we have given as to appropriate participation have been shot down without any biblical or rational reason given. It seems that Arthur has his mind made up what participation is, and if it does not fit his definition, it does not count as participation.
I will restate my original objection that it is a false assumption to argue that spontaneity equals the presence and work of the Holy Spirit. No one has demonstrated from Scipture that spontaneity is a sign of the Spirit's power or presence.
Ken,
I think you are missing my point. I am in no way underestimating the unity or power of the Trinity. I am questioning the way in which we try to "help" Him along with overly rigid and regimented "worship services" where there is no room whatsoever for meaningful participation by the Body as a whole. There is more to the Spirit than reading the Scriptures. Virtually every mormon church will read some part of the Bible tomorrow morning and I can say without hesitation that the Spirit is absent from those meetings. The appearance of order and godliness in our eyes does not mean that the Spirit is at work.
Jeremy,
In my experience, when the floor is opened up for comments, I am put in the uncomfortable position of having to rebut someone's obviously false views thereby embarassing them in front of a crowd. Or, I say nothing and allow people to think the comment is correct even when there are serious theological errors.
Brother, that strikes me as the perfect example of why the church is failing so miserably in her mission to see the whole Body come to a spiritual maturity. If the Body is so theologically inept that they cannot be trusted to speak, what does that tell you? It tells me that the Body is not maturing in the faith. Little wonder. I don't see the problem so much tyrannical pastors as much as lazy "laity" who are spiritually dependent on paid staff to do the heavy lifting. Your job and calling, if I may be so bold, is not to save them from their own ignorance, it is to equip them for the work of ministry.
And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love. (Eph 4:11-16)
The great mistake of the traditional church (for our purposes, the "non-plymouth brethren churches) is that they only allow a selected few to teach God's word and minister to God's people. This HAS caused the laity to be lax, inept, and spiritually immature.
The great mistake of the Plymouth Brethren movement is to assume that just because you are a Christian (and a male) then you have a right to stand and teach God's Word and how dare one think that someone else is in "charge" or in "authority" over you.
There is a distinction between the "teachers" and the "taught" in Scripture. Sometimes the PB movement forgets that (and can easily drift into a radical anti-authoritarianism----which really is more about American individualism than 1st century biblical Christianity).
There is also a clear call in Scripture for the entire body to exercise spiritual giftedness and join Christ's mission. Sometimes the traditional (non-pb) church forgets this (which leads to what I mentioned above).
In the end, you overzealous PB'ers need to stop condemning the traditional church and quit criticizing the office of pastor. It has less to do with scripture than ya'all are admitting.
As for you traditional church types, there is some truth to the argument that the office of pastor is far more like the medieval Roman Catholic office of priest than you care to admit.
Perhaps this is why Scripture emphasizes eldership. The elders teach (not the people, contra the PB). The elders teach (not just the pastor, contra the traditionals).
Over the past few years, in all the times that we have allowed anyone to speak during our church meetings (every week), we have never had anyone say something that was heretical, that is, contrary to the gospel. We have had some people say some things with which I personally disagree. But, since the church meeting is about the church and not about me, who am I to say that the person cannot say it. If I feel it is so bad that I need to respond, I will offer my understanding of the issue as well - as one understanding for the church to consider - not as THE proper understanding.
-Alan
Alan,
My experience is similar. In my limited experience with participation by the entire Body, I have heard lots of things I didn't care for, or disagreed with or thought were said sloppily. I have not heard anything even approaching a false teaching. I have also heard lots of stuff I thought was in error coming from men in a pulpit delivering a sermon.
Josh,
My issues have less to do with overzealous and controlling pastors than it has to do with lazy and apathetic laity.
In most Baptist churches, including yours, there are a) no elders except the pastor or b) a few elders that don't teach anyway and are more administrative. So the de facto result is that one man does all of the teaching every week. The primary cause for that is a lack of interest on the part of most men in the church to share the burden. I understand a bit of the struggles you face in IR, so I am not condemning. My point is that the situation you are in is due in large part to no one being willing to step up to help lead because they expect you to do all of the leading. After all, that is what they pay you to do.
The principles Paul is speaking of in 1 Corinthians 14 are to the general Body as near as I can tell, not to just the elders. As you probably know, our primary teachers at carriage Hill are different each week but selected by the elders ahead of time. We do have an opportunity though for the entire Body to participate through prayer and opening the Word. I am confident that if something heretical came up, one of the elders would intervene (or I would!).
We are not as dogmatic about the plymouth brethren movement as perhaps it appears. I find the unquestioning dispensationalism troubling, there is a pretty mixed bag of doctrinal stances and there is still a lot of rituals and formalism. But for a conservative, evangelical gathering that conforms most closely to the NT model, it is the best we have run across.
Arthur,
I agree with most everything you said in your last comment. Namely, my own church context is problematic and the ill effects of decades long rejection of spiritually mature eldership is all too easily seen (though praise God we are beginning to course-correct and get back to scriptural practice, albeit slowly).
Also, perhaps my comments about the PB movement----for those who don't know my background----may have come across harsh. I consider myself very much part of the PB movement. If I were to leave the "professional" ministry today (don't start with me, I just used the term for convenience) I would most likely attend a PB congregation. All in all, I agree that for the most part they most faithfully represent 1st century church practice (well, maybe not the closed-Brethren, LOL).
In practice, i've never heard of a PB church that allows a believer to say anything unchecked. Allowing men to share publically from the word is a good thing---but only if the eldership is active, mature, and sees themselves responsible for what is taught within the assembly. In my own experience in PB church I have witnessed elders lovingly correcting points of doctrine. Much of the time this is done privately. As a former elder in a PB church, I remember several conversations where the elders discussed what was said during the Breaking of Bread service (for you non-PB'ers, that's the time when such open sharing occurs) and we would pray and decide how best to deal with odd, theologically absurd, or nearing-heretical statements. We did, at times, tell certain individuals that need to refrain from speaking until they had been discipled further from one of the elders.
Thus, open sharing---as radically as it is being advocated for by some in the comments section---is only useful for the body and appropriate when it is intimately tied with a mature, responsible, and active eldership.
In a sense this is no different than the traditional church---though the PB movement more correctly invest this responsibility within the plural eldership rather than with the singular pastor.
Post a Comment