Hi Karl,

In terms of objection #2, Frank Viola (Reimagining Church) argues that "In the first-century gathering [i.e church], neither the sermon nor "the preacher" was the center of attention. Instead, congregational participation was the divine rule" (p.53). So he is arguing that not in terms of participatory being better because of learning styles, but this was the biblical norm for the early church. He argues that there different types of meetings where preaching was central, i.e Apostolic Meetings where apostolic workers preached to an interactive audience with the goal to plant a church from scratch or to encourage an existing church one. Evangelistic meetings. These commonly occurred outside the regular meetings of the church (p.49-50). However, normal church meetings were participatory as described above.

I haven't had time to look into Viola's claims to be honest (hopefully I will find time one day), but he provides another view perspective which I was not aware of before.

I'll still thinking through this one. To be honest, I would have agreed completely with your comments upon leaving college and ministry in Australia. But being in Thailand and thinking over the role of the sermon, I'm wondering whether we can put too much emphasis on the sermon and that it becomes an idol of sorts (extreme example would be a pastor sending 30+ hours on his sermon to get it perfect while neglecting the congregation pastoraly) rather than emphasizing the Word of God . Is the sermon what is important or is it that people are receiving the Word of God. Can you even separate the two?

Hi Rich,

Thanks for your comments. I enjoy the dialogue. It is good to be thinking these things through and always going back to Scripture to re-examine the things we thought we knew.

It seems that Frank Viola is pressing the Biblical evidence beyond the stretching point in asserting that congregational participation was the norm and that preaching wasn't central. There is the one passage in 1 Corinthians 14:26 that indicates believers bringing their hymns, lessons, revelations, etc. when they come together but aside from this one passage, I don't see any other NT passages to support his assertion that a participatory, everyone contributes, no preacher, worship service/gathering was the norm for the NT church. It might have been more participatory than some church services today but that is speculation. I just don't see enough Scriptural evidence to back up Viola's historical reconstruction.

I would agree with you that receiving the Word of God is central in a Christian worship service and while the sermon is an important part of that, it should not become an idol and it is not the only part of the service that matters. It shouldn't be only the sermon that feeds people with the Word of God but the whole service. Everything in the service should be saturated with the Word of God but not everything is a sermon, not should it be. Our songs, our prayers, the sacraments should be the Word of God sung, prayed, and seen. The sermon is just one part of a total worship service that feeds people with the Word of God.

"Everything in the service should be saturated with the Word of God"

...in essence I don't agree, but I think we need to be careful where our focus is i.e.on "the Word" or on God himself. While God reveals himself through his word, he is so much more than that, and he reveals himself in other ways and through other people too.We must not lose sight of that. We should not limit God.

Hi Karl,

Yes, I appreciate your dialogue too.

My thoughts off the top of my head at the moment is, how much do the Scriptures elaborate on what we should be doing in church? How much of it is descriptive? Paul a lot of the time seems to be responding to problems and we are extrapolating from that what they were doing.

I am just wondering what is Scriptural and what is church tradition? Viola's big gripe is that what we claim to be Scriptural (in his opinion and research) turns out to be church traditional which has become so entrenched that our reading of the Scriptures has become biased by the church traditional. To put it plainly, when we read "teaching" in the Bible we automatically interpret that as preaching, where as an unencumbered reading (not tainted by church tradition) might suggest something apart from preaching alone.

As I said, I haven't had time to look into merit of Viola's assertions but I'm not dismissing them yet until I've had time to look into it.

Karl, in the closing paragraph of your response to Rich's comment, you talk about the current church practice and you use the words "should not" and "should" a few times. This underscores the fundamental problem - things are not right in our churches at the moment - the way we do church should be different and we're doing a lot of "stuff" which we shouldn't be doing because it has no biblical foundation.
Irrespective of the ideal (the "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts") the reality is that in most churches the entire service is often judged by the quality of the sermon and most contemporary Christians equate the sermon with Sunday morning worship.
I agree with you that the Scriptures do record men (and women) preaching, but there is a world of difference between Spirit-inspired preaching as we see it in the Bible and the present-day sermon.
You also say, "It seems that Frank Viola is pressing the Biblical evidence beyond the stretching point in asserting that congregational participation was the norm and that preaching wasn't central". Actually, the Greek word often used to describe first-century preaching and teaching is "dialegomai" (Acts 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8-9; 20:7; 24:25). (actually, the NIV uses words like "reasoned", spoke" and "had discussions" when describing Paul's activities at the synagogues and at the lecture hall of Tyrannus). "Dialegomai" means a two-way form of communication and our English word "dialogue" comes from it.
It appears, from Biblical evidence, that apostolic ministry was more dialogue than monological sermons.
I think there is plenty of Scriptural evidence to back-up Viola's "historical reconstruction" - more than there is for our modern one-man weekly monologue which takes centre stage in our churches every Sunday.

Talking about sermons... according to Brilioth in "Brief History of Preaching", the earliest recorded source for regular sermonizing is found during the late second century (the first recorded Christian sermon is contained in the so-called "Second Letter of Clement" dated between AD100 and AD150).
Clement of Alexandria, back in around AD200, saw what we're seeing today and lamented the fact that sermons did so little to change Christians. Yet despite its recognized failure, the sermon became standard practice.

The origin of the sermon can be traced back to a group of expert debaters of 5BC called the "Sophists". They were masters at using emotional appeals, physical appearance, and clever language to "sell" their arguments. According to Norrington in "To Preach or Not" and Hatch in "Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages", the Greeks celebrated the orator's style and form over accuracy of the content of his sermon and a good orator could use his sermon to sway his audience to believe what he knew to be false. The truths that the sophists preached were abstract rather than truths that were practiced in their own lives.
About a century later, Aristotle gave to rhetoric the 3-point speech. He said, "A whole must have a beginning, a middle and an end".

The Greeks loved rhetoric and when the Romans took over Greece, they too became obsessed with it. It became fashionable for the Romans to listen to a "sermonette" from a professional philosopher after dinner as a regular form of entertainment. Rhetoric became so popular that the ancient Romans viewed it as one of their greatest forms of art.

As the church became more and more institutionalized in the 3rd and 4th centuries, many pagan orators and philosophers became Christians and many of these men became the theologians and leaders of the early Christian church - among them are Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, Lactantius and Augustine i.e our "church fathers". According to Hatch, "If you compare a third-century pagan sermon with a sermon given by one of the church fathers, you will find both the structure and the phraseology to be quite similar".

In a very short time, the sermon became the elitist privilege of church officials, particularly the bishops. Such people had to be educated in the schools of rhetoric to learn how to speak and without this education, a Christian was not permitted to address God's people. And so, sadly was birthed not only the tradition of a monologue sermon, but also the unbiblical distinction between clergy and laity!

One of the greatest Christian orators of his time was John Chrysostom (which means "golden-mouthed" precisely because he was so eloquent a preacher). He learned to speak under Libanius, the leading sophist of the 4th century.
Augustine was a former professor of rhetoric and in him, the Latin sermon reached its heights. The Latin sermon was more down to earth than the Greek style and was more focussed on the common man and directed to a simpler moral point. Zwingli took Chrysostom as his model in preaching, while Luther took Augustine as his model. The Christian sermon, although biblical in content was Greek in style.

My point? The sermon as we know it and see it in our churches every Sunday does not have a scriptural basis. It is based entirely on Pagan Greek and Roman practice. One may well argue that sermons convey biblical truth and it is an accepted form of teaching - fine! But don't make the mistake of thinking that the OT priests and prophets preached like pastor Joe preaches today. Jesus and Peter and Paul certainly did not preach sermons as we hear them today. In fact in 1 Cor 1:17, 22 and 2:1-5, it seems that Paul explicitly rejects the "wise" forms, styles and oratory style of the Greeks.

The conventional sermon:
- makes the preacher the virtuoso performer of the regular church gathering. Congregational participation is hampered (if not precluded entirely) and the congregation degenerates into a group of muted spectators who watch a performance.
- stalemates spiritual growth because it is a one-way affair that encourages passivity and suffocates mutual ministry.
- preserves the unbiblical clergy mentality and it creates an excessive and pathological dependance on the clergy (let the pastor stay away from church 1 Sunday and watch the chaos).
- deskills rather than equips the saints.
- is often impractical - countless preachers speak as experts on that which they have never experienced.
And the list could go on, but I'm getting depressed and long-winded.
Cheers:-)

Nick,
I hear your concern about the weekly worships service becoming a one-man show performance that benefits nobody. People are laughing at the pastor's jokes but no life change is happening. In fact, it has become just that way in many places and it profoundly disturbing and tragic. In no way do I want to promote such showmanship but I want to rebuke it as the Apostle Paul decried the pagan preachers of wisdom of his day.

Still, I think that the Biblical evidence indicates that Paul and others did preach (monologue teaching sessions explaining Scripture and its application) as well as dialogue, discussion, and so forth. Granted, it would be anachronistic and reckless of us to assume that what Pastor Joe does on Sunday morning in the modern evangelical church is exactly what Paul did. Truthfully, given what so many Pastor Joes actually do, I am glad that Paul didn't do that.

Sure, there are cultural aspects of the preaching event that have developed over time, some good and some bad. The fact that Paul likely didn't preach 3-point sermons doesn't shake my understanding that he did preach. Whether a sermon has three points, one points, or seven doesn't matter. Maybe Paul spoke for 10 minutes, took a few questions and then went on for 20 minutes. Maybe he spoke for a hour and then had two hours of interactive discussion. Maybe he spoke so long that young men on occasion fell asleep in windowsills and needed to be resurrected. From the summaries of his preaching and teaching in Scripture, I could not tell you with certainty the duration and the degree of interaction, and at what intervals, were included in Paul's preaching and teaching. But when Paul did talk about the Bible for an extended turn, it was with humility, and in fear and trembling because of the great God that he served and the responsibility for the churches that he had been given. I don't see warrant to throw out the sermon entirely, but I do see ample warrant to call to task self-exalting preachers who make themselves the show. Lord have mercy on any church who has one of those. Any pastor's whose primary concern is not the spiritual care of his people for the glory of God has no business in the pulpit (or wherever he preaches from).

God never intended his church to be ruled by one man, but rather that a group of humble men with mature Biblical faith (M.Div not required) shepherd his flock that we call the local church. And some of those men have greater gifting and responsibility in teaching and preaching (1 Tim 5:17). But if they start showing off, then it is the responsibility of their fellow elders to rebuke them for the good of the church. I know that I am talking about "shoulds" and ideals here but if a better more Biblical model of preaching and church leadership can be presented then maybe it would catch on in some places and be an incredible blessing to the people of God. I have seen a healthy model like this in a church back in the U.S. and know that it CAN work. Not perfect, of course, but healthy and helps people grow spiritually. And with the understanding that the sermon is ONLY ONE PART of a larger whole of spiritual growth and learning. An important part but on one part of a much bigger whole.

Also, when I have a chance, I want to look up the "dialogmenoi" passages that you mentioned.

Hope you and your family are well. See you at conference, brother.

I appreciate your defense of the sermon! I understand people's frustration and criticisms of the sermon... I think we've all listened to bad sermons! But I also think we've all listened to sermons that have ministered to us deeply.

Obviously, looking at Paul is a good example, but it's a good example to look at Jesus' ministry too! Jesus dialogued often, especially with his disciples. But he didn't "dialogue" with the crowds, he taught them... he preached to them. He didn't give "The Dialogue on the Mount," it was a sermon. He mentored and discipled his "small group" of apostles through dialogue, but he preached to the masses to teach them the Word of God. I think this is pretty clear.

And if it's good enough for Jesus...

Regarding the whole "sophist foundations" for preaching... I don't think it's terrible to learn effective communication technique from the secular world. Would you want the church treasurer to disregard "secular" accounting practices? I think not! Obviously we shouldn't turn in prophetic preaching (calling people to repentance) for the sake of preaching only comforting sermons, but that doesn't mean that preachers should be unskilled men who stand up and preach disjointed, abstract, unhelpful truths from Scripture. Rather, us preachers ought to stand before our flock as shepherds and bring the Word of God in spirit and in truth through the power of the Holy Spirit to teach and to display what God wants for us and what God wants from us.

Blessings Karl,
Mike McGarry