In Defense of the Sermon - Part 2

In the previous post, we looked at the Biblical precedent for preaching and saw that sermons are not merely a Western cultural tradition but have their foundation in the pages of Scripture. In this post, I would like to wrap up by responding to some objections to maintaining the sermon as a central part of the life of the Christian church.

Objection#1 “Sermons are ineffective”
Perhaps you will grant to me the fact that preaching is important in Scripture but would go on to add that times have changed and sermons just don’t “work”. In some ways, I agree. I have heard lots of sermons that just don’t work. But it is not because the idea of preaching a sermon is a bad one but rather because the sermon that someone decided to preach was a bad sermon. It was boring. It was irrelevant. It was mostly the preacher’s own ideas and hobby horses with little reference to Scripture. It explained the meaning of the passage for ancient Israelites but failed to show how it applies to modern listeners. It was all puffed up emotion or moralistic platitudes with little reference to Scripture. It did nothing to address the misunderstandings and objections of the listeners, failing to make people see what God is saying and how it intersects with their life. It is just a collection of observations about the passage that the preacher thought were interesting but there is no overall coherent message. The preacher, fearing that he will lose people, fills his sermon with too many irrelevant funny stories that at the end of the day make people laugh but fails to feed them with the Word of God. There are lots of examples of bad sermons but that is not any justification for getting rid of the sermon. It is every reason to raise the bar for our preachers, making clear to our preachers that assembling some cool stories and a token passage of Scripture on Saturday night is not an acceptable way to feed the flock of God with His Word.

We shouldn’t be surprised if a bad sermon is not effective. However, when a sermon is Biblically grounded and speaks directly to the people where they are, we should expect it to be much more effective. Of course, we must not forget the God factor. It is possible to preach a good Biblical sermon and get little response, through no fault of the preacher but through the hardness of the listeners’ hearts and the sovereign decision of God. But when the preaching is Biblical and the Holy Spirit is moving, look out! Peter preached at Pentecost and three thousand people repented in one day. I’d say that that was an effective sermon.

Objection#2 “People learn better in a participatory environment. Listening to a sermon is too passive.”
God knows about different learning styles. He invented them. The people in ancient Israel and the New Testament church had a variety of learning styles too because people are people no matter what century they live in. And for that reason, we should not fail to have Bible study groups, Sunday school classes, and personal conversations that help people understand God’s Word in an interactive two-sided way. But God has still given us the sermon in the pages of Scripture as a central way to proclaim God’s Word and teach His people. As for the sermon being too passive, I want to suggest that the problem may not be with the preacher but with the listener. Are you as a listener paying close attention to what the preacher is saying, looking back at the passage being preached to see if the Scripture really says that, and actively thinking about what is being said and what it means for you? A lot of people have not been instructed as to how to listen to a sermon, so they just sit there expecting their weekly dose of encouragement to be served up on a silver platter without any thinking required on their part. Sometimes I will take notes on a sermon so that I can look back at them and be reminded of the content of the sermon and can think upon it later. We need to train people to be active listeners. And the listeners themselves need discipline themselves to pay careful attention. For those coming from a Thai Buddhist background, the idea that it is important to pay attention to the content of the sermon may be difficult to grasp at first. If a Buddhist goes to the temple and at least physically hears the monk preaching, then the listener earns merit and has derived religious benefit from the exercise even if they spent the majority of the time whispering to their friend or examining the paint on the wall of the temple. However, if someone wants to hear what God wants to say to them in the Bible, it would seem natural that they would want to pay attention to what is being preached. Someone is not going to get much out of the sermon if they are fiddling with their mobile phone or doodling inside the back cover of the songbook. It takes work to get something out of a sermon. If someone is not willing to do a some work in their listening and pay attention to the sermon, then I am not surprised that they don’t get anything out of the sermon.

Objection#3 “The sermon is a Western church tradition, rooted in culture and not the Bible. We should find more indigenous ways of teaching the Bible.”
We have already covered the Biblical foundations for preaching and observed that preaching is rooted in Scripture. It may have become Western church tradition but with good reason - it is in the Bible. From a cultural and pragmatic point of view though, I would say that preaching is a culturally appropriate and indigenous form of speech in many cultures. It is here in Thailand. Buddhist monks preach. They give sermons. I went to the book shop at the local shopping center, and there is a big tall shelf with tons of MP3 CDs and VCDs of Buddhist monks preaching. Some are more serious conservative preachers and some look like popular youth speakers, trying to connect Buddhist teachings to the lives of modern young people. The fact that they sell Buddhist sermons in the book shop means that someone is buying them. Many nights when I go out to buy food at the fresh market across from the big temple here in town, there is a monk preaching on a loud speaker for all the surrounding community to hear. Granted, I have my doubts as to how many people are listening but he is preaching nonetheless. Monks preach on the radio and on TV, besides at the temple. So, just from a cultural contextualization point of view, the sermon is a very valid form of indigenous Thai speech that is used to communicate religious truth. Truthfully, it is the interactive participatory discussion around the Bible that feels more foreign to Thai people than the sermon. Although I wouldn’t go this far, if you wanted to be really indigenous in your church planting, then you should cut out the participation and question-and-answer time because that has more of a foreign feel to it than a sermon.

The institution of the sermon is rooted in Scripture and is an important model of communicating God’s truth that he has given to the church. Granted, we need to use a range of methods to communicate God’s truth, but I would seriously question anyone who would want to jettison the sermon from the life of the Christian church. To get rid of or sideline the sermon in churches today, either Thai or Western, would be to ignore both the Biblical precedent and the common cultural conventions of religious communication.

In Defense of the Sermon - Part 1

I’ve heard some missionaries say that the sermon is not all that important for the spiritual growth of believers. Others have suggested that the sermon be done away with all together. Isn’t the sermon merely a cultural tradition of the Western church anyway? Shouldn’t we find some better, less passive, and more culturally appropriate way to help believers understand and apply the Bible?

Hearing statements like this have concerned me because in the name of contextualization and better spiritual growth, we are about to throw out something that not only has a firm Biblical basis but is also an appropriate and contextual form of religious speech in Thai culture. In this first of two posts about the sermon, I would like to lay out some Biblical arguments for why churches should retain the sermon as a centerpiece of Christian worship and teaching. Not only churches in the West, but churches everywhere.

The Biblical Precedent for Preaching
If we look through Scripture just briefly, we’ll see lots of examples of preaching. The idea of the sermon was not developed in some Puritan think tank in 16th century England. When the people of Israel had newly entered in the land of Canaan, Joshua expounds to the people the history of what God has done for them (Joshua 24:1-13) and upon that basis goes on to challenge them to choose whether they will serve the God of Israel or some other gods (Joshua 24:14-15). Here we have two fundamental components of a sermon: explanation of God’s words and actions and application of that to the lives of the listeners. Prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel stood up in the public square, bringing God’s word to the people, and exhorted them to turn back to God. In the book of Nehemiah, we see a wonderful example of this as Ezra the priest stands up to expound the law of God to all the people who are gathered in the public square (Nehemiah 8:1-8). Ezra stood up on a wooden platform and read the Law of God to the people from morning until midday and the other priests with Ezra helped explain what Ezra was reading so that the people could understand it. The Bible and it’s explanation and application were central for Ezra (Ezra 7:10) because that is what the people needed most - to hear from God. And the sermon was the appointed vehicle for doing so. If we skip over to the New Testament, we see that Jesus preached. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) he starts from the people’s misunderstanding of the Word of God and goes on to explain its true meaning, which had been distorted by the Pharisees. Some missionaries say that Jesus used stories so therefore we should emphasize stories over exposition of Scripture. Granted, Jesus did use stories but that is not all he did. He also explained Scripture and applied it to people’s lives. That’s preaching. Although it wasn’t a sermon per se, Jesus even engaged in systematic theology with the two disciples on the Emmaus road. “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). In other words, Jesus went through the Scriptures systematically drawing out all the relevant parts to explain the doctrine of Himself. The apostle Peter picked up on this on the day of Pentecost, preaching to the people about the person and work of Jesus Christ from the Old Testament (Acts 2:14-36), applying these truths to his listeners (“you killed Jesus”). Three thousand were convicted to the heart and repented. The apostle Paul’s common method of evangelism was to visit the synagogue in the city he was visiting and preach to the people gathered there (Acts 19:8 is just one example). Sure he taught from house to house, but he also taught publicly (Acts 20:20). When Paul was booted out of the synagogue in Ephesus, he started preaching in the hall of Tyrannus. Paul certainly knew the value of teaching people at home and speaking with individuals and small groups, but he also preached to large groups.

Please don’t misunderstand me here. I am not saying that small groups in homes are bad or that people should not circle up the chairs at times and have a discussion around the Bible. I think that both of these are great. Personal evangelism and small Bible studies have been greatly used of God to advance his church over the centuries. But God has also used the sermon to mighty effect throughout history and there is a strong Biblical precedent for continuing to preach sermons today.

The Preacher as Prophet
There is a sense in which the New Testament preacher takes up the mantle of Old Testament prophet. I don’t mean to say that there is a continuing gift of prophecy but rather that as the preacher stands in the place of God in speaking to the people (as Moses did), their is a certain commanding authority and one-sidedness that is derived from the Word of God. In Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, Mark Dever writes, “Permit me to suggest that the one-sidedness of preaching is not only excusable but is actually important. If in our preaching we stand in the place of God, giving His Word by His Spirit to His people, then surely it is appropriate that it be one-sided - not that it should be one-sided in the sense that the one preaching is never to be questioned; but, in the event of preaching itself, the univocal character of God’s Word comes as a monologue to us, not hoping to solicit interest and participation but requiring that we respond. Something of this character must be retained.” (Dever, Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, p.33). If the sermon is done away with than the church misses out on that prophetic voice of God made visible in the act of preaching. In Scripture, a high place is given to the prophetic exposition of God’s Word in the act of preaching, and we would do well to uphold and maintain it.

In the next post, we’ll take a look at, and respond to, some objections to the continuing use of the sermon in the life of the church.

Karl's First Thai Sermon

This past Sunday I preached for the first time in the Thai language and I praise God that my Thai brothers and sisters in the congregation at Lopburi Church understood the message and were blessed by it. I made sure I read over the sermon text (sections of Psalm 119) a number of times and had a Thai teacher at our language school help me read over the text to get the correct pronunciation and rhythm of the text. At the very least, I wanted to read the Scripture well and clearly because even if the rest of the sermon were to be a disaster, God’s people would at least hear the inspired Word of God read clearly.

I recorded the sermon with Sun’s phone and when I started to listen to it later that night I immediately knew that I had started off speaking too fast. I was nervous. I had the whole manuscript typed out in Thai although I have trouble reading off a manuscript even in English. However, I wanted to type out the whole thing to help me think through how exactly I would say things in Thai when the time came. Also, I wrote out a manuscript so I could show it to one of the church elders to check the overall flow of the sermon to see if it would make sense to a Thai congregation. English thought patterns and Thai thought patterns are often structured differently and I wanted to make sure I was phrasing things in a more or less Thai way to facilitate understanding. In the end, I didn’t use the manuscript that much when I was preaching because I just am not accustomed to reading off a page verbatim when preaching. The up side of that is that I had good eye contact. The downside is that I wandered around looking for the right word more often than I would have liked.

I know that I made pronunciation and grammatical errors, and that my overall fluency and use of language could use significant improvement. My first foray into Thai preaching reminded me of how I felt the first time I drove stick shift. I more or less knew how I wanted things to go, but there was more stalling out and restarting than I would have liked. However, I am greatly encouraged by the words of the Apostle Paul who wrote to the Corinthian church, saying “And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom… my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.” (1 Corinth. 2:2-5)

Certainly Paul’s mastery of Greek was much better than my ability in Thai, but it is greatly encouraging to know that even the Apostle did not depend upon his ability to convince and persuade with human language, but upon the Spirit and power of God. In the coming years, I will certainly have many more opportunities to teach and preach in Thai, and my language ability will certainly improve and become more fluent over the years. It is important to learn how to speak clearly and fluently so that people will understand well the message of the cross but even if thirty years down the road I turn out to be a brilliant Thai speaker, the work of convincing and converting sinners is still the realm of the Holy Spirit of God. It is Christ who is building his church, not I.

Praise God that it is Christ building his church but that earthen vessels like myself have the privilege of taking part in that building. Here are a few pictures from the worship service this past Sunday.

I am not sure why there are white blinking lights in the shape of star (cross?) on the curtain behind me. Is it a leftover from Christmas time? The Thai also liberally use strings of Christmas lights to decorate the coffin and adornments at funerals, which I have yet to ask anyone about.

Lopburi Church is the oldest church in Lopburi, started about 50 years ago. It has had it's ups and downs and is currently without a pastor. Besides Lopburi Church, there is one other evangelical church in Lopburi, and then a couple Pentecostal churches. None of them are more than 50 members or so, as far as I know. For a provincial captial with probably more than 100,000 people or more, that's not much for churches. Gospel witness in this city and solid Biblical teaching in the current churches is very needed.

If anyone is concerned that I might take myself to seriously, I have included below some "blooper" type photos that Sun took during the sermon. They are not really bloopers but merely those odd facial expressions that cameras tend to catch when somebody is in motion. It is somewhat embarassing to think that I actually looked like this at some point during the sermon, but the camera doesn't lie. The phrase "the foolishness of the Gospel" comes to mind although these pictures highlight the foolishness of the messenger.

"What did I just say? Your wife is a water buffalo? I'm so sorry - I really need to work on my tones and pronunciation more."

"Hmmmm.... I have no idea what to say next. This would be so much easier if I was preaching in English"

"And this is how Jim Bakker looked. Thus concludes our sermon on false repentance."

"So, I really just said that, huh? Yes, I am aware that 1 Timothy 5:1 does not say to extort older men as fathers. Yes, that is a serious pronunciation error. Exhort. Yes, thank you."