Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Danger! Ministry is too Good.

An expression I find myself using a lot in ministry is: ‘your strengths are also your weaknesses’. So, for example, someone whose great strength is getting things done and being very efficient can often have the downside of not being very sensitive to the opinions or feelings of others as they plough ahead with their projects – but if they were then they probably wouldn’t get so much done etc etc.

This is one of life’s paradoxes and dilemmas – being great in one area often comes with a cost in other areas. However, where this kind of trade-off becomes too much – is when we trade the most important thing for some secondary aspect of it. Let me try and explain….

I’m a great fan of the '5-Live Film Review' podcast with Mark Kermode & Simon Mayo. It's a popular programme due to the wit, dry banter, and eloquence of the presenters. However, despite its acclaim the presenters noted to one guest that their verdicts on films didn’t seem to affect whether listeners went to see them or not. The guest (Jeremy Isaacs) commented in response, ‘you’ve transcended your subject matter’. That is, people just listen to enjoy the chat and comment rather than to be informed by its content.

I think, as a preacher, I experienced an almost physical pang on hearing that observation. In other words the performance was so good that the content had become irrelevant. There is a big danger here for our churches – a pursuit of excellence in presentation that supercedes content. So what matters most is style, professionalism, slickness, feel and experience – and the subtlety of this danger is that whereas we think a preoccupation with ‘excellence’ faciltates the communication of truth – it actually in many cases obscures it.

I note, with some concern, a fixition in some places that preachers should preach without notes. The thinking being that the message will be communicated much more effectively by a person able to walk the platform, have uninterrupted eye contact and speak without apparent reference to memory aids. I have seen this done and then cringed when the listeners applauded at the end – clearly more impressed by his ‘no hands’ skill than challenged by the content of what was said. It was said of Jonathan Edwards that he preached holding his notes about an inch from his nose (he was short sighted) holding a candle in the other hand so as to read them in the evening gloom – but as he preached men clung to the pillars of the church such was the fear of God that came upon them.

What is a danger in preaching ministry is also true in 'praise ministry' – so that the sensation and experience of the medium becomes more important and valued than its content. A similar thing happened in some Charismatic circles where just having spiritual experiences, such as speaking in tongues, effectively became the most important factor in people’s faith. So Charismatic Catholics, Anglicans, Baptists etc could all get together irregardless of their views on justification or sanctification – because such beliefs effectively became secondary to the experience of spiritual gifts. We can see the same potential danger with music & praise in some quarters – serious doctrinal issues can be ignored because what ultimately matters is just enjoying the same worship and music ‘experience’.

But the doctrinal content of the gospel matters – as does it being understood. Great preaching or praise is not ultimately about delivery, eloquence, skill or sensation – it must be about the comprehension of truth or it is dust. So let’s be wary in all our ministries that we aren’t trying to be so good that we leave behind what matters.

14 comments:

John Thomson said...

Excellent. A very helpful blog. Character trumps charisma every time in Scripture.

Donald Ferguson said...

I very much enjoyed reading your blog and agree whole heatedly that substance is more important than style. I was, however, a little confused by your reference to the pursuit of excellence. Once we have defined what we mean by preaching then excellence is exactly what we pursue - and preaching is more than content - it is 'truth on fire' [MLJ]; it is building bridges from God's word to our world [Stott]; it is explaining and applying scripture [Nehemiah]. It is content explained, illustrated, applied and delivered with passion [by which I don't mean shouting!].

When reflecting on our preaching it is not the content that I find wanting but that other stuff! That, I believe is where our weakness lies. I know that we are discussing a difference of emphasis here but I thought it might be worth considering a slightly different perspective.

John Thomson said...

Was 'whole heatedly' a Freudian slip?

Donald Ferguson said...

undoubiously!

Anonymous said...

Another perceptive blog, Andy. Thanks.
The problem is pernicious: often when the content of the preaching has been sound and even scolding, the modern hearer only appreciates the delivery style and rationalises to destruction what was actually delivered.

Ian Watson said...

I fear this comment will be as disjointed as the original blog, but here goes...
The opening paragraph I can do more than agree with - I can identify with it! No excuse, of course, for the weakness being the opposite side of the strength coin, but at least it means you only have to turn over to find it - and there it is... reminding you again of your failings!
But from there on my agreement, for the most part, passes from Andy to Donald. There is a big difference between the 'pursuit of excellence' (which I would advocate) and a 'preoccupation with excellence' (which is unhealthy and misguided). But... who is saying that the "preoccupation of excellence facilitates the communication of truth"? And where is this "fixition (sic) in some places that preachers should preach without notes"? I know of only ONE preacher who does that regularly (perhaps he does it all the time, I don't know) and I do acknowledge from that one example how easy it is to be impressed by 'style' and a theatrical command of the platform. But that, as long as it doesn't become for us a preoccupation, is not in itself a bad thing - it's only natural. Every preacher has a style and we, as listeners and onlookers, cannot help but notice if one shirt collar is in and the other out... or if he repeats his lines... or looks often at the clock. Hopefully we find a way past these distractions and hear the God speaking to us through His Word?
The ONE occasion I heard a congregation applaud at the end of a preacher's message - and I don't recall whether or not he spoke without notes (if he did, then it left no lasting impression) - was at an outreach event when a few visitors started to clap, in the same way that they had applauded every other item on the programme that night! Some of the rest of us joined in so that our visiting friends wouldn't feel awkward.
I will need to leave the references to Praise for another time. New songs are being prepared for both church and choir... and the instruction to "play skilfully and shout for joy" is my guide.
Final comment: If we produce excellence in some of our services, that's excellent, but it's not our goal.

T GM said...

Andy hits the point right at the heart! Preaching with conviction, knowledge and the power of the Holy Spirit is what is needed today more than ever.

We need to live in the 21st Century, however, it was direct, unvarnished, preaching and teaching that built the church in the 1st Century!

The message was "come see a man that showed me all things I ever did"

The people should be saying "Sirs we would see Jesus".

David Wylie said...

I have never engaged with blogs. I am not a blogger, a blogee or a blogette, especially an anonymous one! However, I feel compelled to contribute for two reasons. I have been deeply involved in preaching and praise leading for half of my life, and I listen to sermons and participate in praise as musician and singer. My observations, therefore are subjective and objective. 1 EXCELLENCE. Excellence and sensitivity are not two sides of the same coin. That would be excellence and mediocrity - or sensitivity and insensitivity. Scripture encourages both excellence and sensitivity in ministry. With respect to excellence, 2 passages nudge us in that direction Colossians 3:23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart 2 Timothy 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. Surely these are not a call to excellence in ministry. There is no virtue in mediocrity in the daily work or ministry of a Christian. A sermon may be theologically correct, but spiritually desolate. I have heard many such sermons. I have preached many such. The problem is not whether a preacher uses notes or extemporises (I have heard many good and bad from both genres). Donald's logic on fire quote from Lloyd-Jones is right. It is indefensible to defend or promote any preacher who is not preaching carried along by the Spirit, leaving listeners unaffected, bewildered, cold, empty and despairing. If you want to know who the people are with the gift of preaching in the church - ask them! Gifts are affirmed by the people of God. They know a preacher when they hear one - notes or no notes! Worst of all is dull preaching that doesn't get under your skin - that isn't sharp and incisive - that uses the double edged sword of the Word of God like a white plastic party knife. It is still classified as "preaching" but it is a safe, harmless, facsimile. Praise leading is much the same. Musical mediocrity is just as bad as preaching mediocrity. Out of tune instruments and wrong chords just say lack of effort. Doesn't matter. But it matters from the standpoint of 1 Corinthians 14:40 "everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way." THAT is the Gospel model. The second point here is that the best way to lead others in praise is to praise yourself. Much as with preaching it is about the individual being carried along by the Spirit. 2 ENGAGEMENT. Preaching and praise leading are similar in that genuine connection is required before any real ministry can take place. How is that achieved? People flocked to hear Jesus because he spoke with authority. His teaching was "logic on fire" not theological correctness on its own. People skills are important too. There needs to be empathy. Engaging as humans is a divine gift that enables us to communicate deeply and we need to see it in our public people - notes or no notes. 3 THE EMPERORS CLOTHING. Isn't it time to stop kidding ourselves? We can be self congratulatory but dry and dull orthodoxy will kill people spiritually. In order to survive people need something that connects - gets under their skin - relevant and applicable to their world. Style alone is not the issue. Power is. Conviction is. Passion is. Vulnerablity is. Connection is. Application is. Edwards' candlelit sermon reading shook the congregation because it connected. Jeremy McQuoid connected earlier this month using notes to preach from a very difficult narrative passage. Why? Because he is a PREACHER. Preachers should preach and ONLY preachers should preach. As Bill Hybels put it a duck can run but you wouldn't put it up against a cheetah in a race! So the quest for excellence should continue. We mustn't call poor good. That is not truthful. The quest for sensitivity should also continue. Phillipians 2 tells us that we must all look to each other's interests and not only to our own. Excellent and sensitive praise and preaching in a church is in everyone's interest, and therefore we should strive for that and nothing less.

Nick Mackison said...

I think it's good and right that we seek to do things decently and in order in our assemblies. Cringe-factor chairmen, turgid hymns, dry preaching and other abominations certainly undermine the cause of the gospel when they occur in the midst of the people among whom the life-giving Spirit is supposed to dwell.

I think too that badly played instruments are worse than having no instruments at all. There must be a certain level of instrumental competence if one is to assume responsibility for facilitating corporate worship.

But I feel compelled to ask, do China's underground house churches give a rip about pursuing musical excellence? How about the persecuted churches of the Sudan? Or closer to home, how about the struggling wee brethren church with 50 members (40 of whom are female) where the singing is out of tune yet heart-felt?

I think that what Andy's getting at is an expression of concern that our citeria for excellence and our expectations for what church should be have been shaped by some very un-churchly forces, for example by what emanates from Hillsongs or from Joel Osteen's Lakeland or indeed from secular concerts. I quote Carl Trueman (and I apologise for the length of it):

"I worry that a movement built on megachurches, megaconferences, and megaleaders, does the church a disservice in one very important way that is often missed amid all the pizzazz and excitement: it creates the idea that church life is always going to be big, loud, and exhilarating and thus gives church members and ministerial candidates unrealistic expectations of the normal Christian life....
...it is tempting amidst the circumstances of ordinary church life to forget that this, the routine of the ordinary, the boring, the plodding, is actually the norm for church life and has been so throughout most places for most of the history of the church; that mega-whatevers are the exception, not the rule; and that the church has survived throughout the ages not just - or even primarily - because of the high profile firework displays of the great and the good, but because of the day to day faithfulness of the mundane, anonymous, non-descript people who constitute most of the church, and who do the grunt work and the tedious jobs that need to be done."

John Thomson said...

Simply to say that I belong to a church where I believe we regularly get excellent preaching and praise. Praise God.

The big thing however, is how God sees it. Only he can judge the hearts of those who lead (and those who are led).

Donald Ferguson said...

Dear Brothers and sisters [the gender of anonymous remains open to question rather like some athletes] I think we might be getting a little overheated. There is undoubtedly a degree of divergence of opinion - something I hope we can live with - but it may be that we are faced with, as I originally suggested, a question of emphasis and an element of confusion.

As to the confusion - I found aspects of the original blog and some subsequent comments difficult to relate to my own experience of church. For example Nick says:

'I think that what Andy's getting at is an expression of concern that our criteria for excellence and our expectations for what church should be have been shaped by some very un-churchly forces, for example by what emanates from Hillsongs or from Joel Osteen's Lakeland or indeed from secular concerts.'

Who in Greenview is this referring to? What is the source [in our church] of this concern? I am sorry if I am out of touch but I haven't even heard of Hillsongs and Lakeland is where we buy our plastic tubs. Perhaps we could all agree that we are not a mega-church and don't want to be.

As to the preaching and praise - it can be good and it could be better. Is there anyone in the Church thinks we have 'already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect' and have no need to 'press on'?

Nick Mackison said...

Donald, my comments about mega-church slickness were not necessarily related to GV but to a temptation all faithful evangelicals (including those of us at GV) face when considering the best way to 'do church'.

I realise that not everyone has been exposed to the Hillsongs or Lakeland models, but many of us nevertheless have through Satellite or actual attendance. After witnessing such exhilarating beauty and soaking in the power of worship in numbers the temptation to judge church by this unrealistic gold standard can be blinding.

David Wylie said...

Any church in any culture should strive to be the best that it can be for the gospel. Many Christian believers do not have access to music at all, as Nicky points out and of course it is not of the essence of the faith. Where music is available and where it is used - it should be used as well as it can be. But this isn't really a blog exchange about music. It is about connection and engagement and the place, if any, that excellence has in that process. If I were in an undergound church in China, then I would be grateful for any contact with Christians I could have at all. Ones - Twos - whatever. However, that is not my normative experience of church, and it is not unreasonable therefore, within the context of a structured, planned programme of praise and preaching to ensure that those participating therin are not simply filling a slot. Yes, 90% of any church's life is in the "plodding" domain, in much the same way as 90% of the meals I eat are unspectacular staple fare - however, it is not unreasonable for me to expect that the 90% of unspectacular meals I eat in order to keep me alive are tasty, appetising and attractively served. So - I am not suggesting that every
sermon or praise time at Greenview is in the Michelin 3 Rosette domain, but I am asking for it to be prepared by the equivalent of someone who can actually cook!!!

My old friend Donald is correct again (did I ever think I would find myself agreeing so much with DF!) it can be good - it could be better. I suppose the problem lies in the fact that there will always be differences in the degree to which good and better will be perceived. John and I have differed about this to some degree over many years, and those deeply held views are unlikely to change now.

I am sure we all agree that we long for praise and preaching that inspires us, challenges us and changes us. Whenever we receive that - we are grateful. Whenever we feel that we don't we must hope that others have had a different experience.

However - let me close off my contributions by asking if we are beginning to transcend our subject matter? Mind you - better that than not dealing with it in any meaningful way at all......?

Over and out.

D

Donald Ferguson said...

Thanks Nicky. Perhaps the confusion could be avoided by being more specific. When the Greenview church blog refers to 'we', 'our' or 'us' it is not unnatural to take that as having at least some reference to Greenview itself. Perhaps if we took care to distinguish between trends we observe in the wider evangelical world and trends that have evidenced themselves in Greenview we might find there is little we [that is those of us in Greenview!] actually disagree over.

Personally, I spent a wonderful week at Keswick and wasn't tempted for a moment to think that we could [or should] replicate that experience at Greenview. To be honest, I am a bit fed up being bombarded with the faults and failings of the Evangelical world and wish we would address how we can better glorify God in our own patch be that preaching, praising or blogging.