godthoughts.net

Can you hold someone accountable if they have no desire to obey God anyway?

So, does accountability really only matter for those who wish to follow after and obey God?  If a person isn’t going to obey God, does accountability really have any impact?

That’s 3 questions to equal one big question.

In a previous post, I thought out loud regarding whether the current huge use of space, money, staff, time on preaching in worship services is worth.  I thank you for the wonderful discussion your comments brought forth!

Now I ask perhaps an opposing question:

What if preaching/proclamation is, in fact, the best way for people to begin transformation?  And does it matter what type/style of preaching it is?

 For instance, I heard/received preaching prior to going to seminary from a former dean of theology, so his preaching was full of great theology and biblical truth.  But I couldn’t recall to this day any of his sermons, the title, or even the specific subject.  But I do know that the overall content of his preaching saturated my brain and influenced my thinking and learning about God, so the “preached word” he preached over those 4-5 years sunk in, in an overall influential way–much of what I believe is impacted by his preaching from long ago.

Contrast this with 3 sermons I’ve heard/received from Louie Giglio, founder and leader of the Passion Worship Movement.  I first heard him in 1999, again in 2004 and again in 2007.  I can tell you the subject, the theme, the point of each message with great clarity, and tell you how each sermon’s point influenced my thinking of God.  I can do the same with many of the sermons of TD Jakes, which I have heard.  Giglio and Jakes tend to preach expository sermons, which seem to resonate more in my memory, it appears.

My home church pastor did not preach expository sermons, but rather what I like to call “teaching sermons, or teaching preaching.”

Both were and are influential in my life and thinking of God.  Both styles impacted my spiritual growth toward God.  Both styles required a great deal of energy and money and staffing and space in order for me to get to hear them.

So, I guess my question is this:  Can such great, impactful, influential preaching be delivered in a more cost-effective way?  Given the downward slant of the economy and the fact that giving in churches is way down and it takes money to build those big sanctuaries and all the hoopla that great preachers tend to have before the message, is there a better way? 

If the great preaching could be delivered cost-effectively, then the all the money previously going toward the “show/performance,” etc could be spent in helping those in need and giving life.

Preaching would still be magnified and powerful, and the resources of the church would be better focused.

Possible?  Probable? 

Shaking hands is an everyday thing.  You probably engage in this cultural greeting several times a day.  It’s expected if you meet someone or are introducing yourself to another person.

But, if you have a poison ivy breakout on your hands, as I do, then shaking hands is not something you can do, or should do, unless you wish to spread it to everyone else.  So I have to be quick to tell people when they see me and have that hand extended that I have poison ivy.  Oh the recoil of their arm back!  You would have thought I told them I had leprosy or something.

And while they don’t say it, I know they are thinking it… “Unclean, he’s unclean, don’t touch him!”

Did I mention I was at a conference all week where I will see and meet many dozens of people I know and wish to greet?  Uh, yeah… gonna be an interesting week.

Can you be moral, without becoming moralistic?

I wonder….

What would happen if churches weren’t structured for the big deal on Sunday mornings?  Typically, a lot of money, staff effort, energy, time, building space, etc go into the worship experience/service.  More often than not, at larger churches and especially at megachurches, people come to hear the preacher/the message.  It’s centered around the 20-25 minutes, maybe even 45 minutes of a guy(and it’s almost always a guy) speaking.

The worship “space” is designed to hold as many people as possible. The sermon/message/talk is usually the last thing (the closing act if you will).  Everything is typically centered around the message.  The music is lined up according to the message’s theme and so forth.

So, communication theory says that people remember (at best) about 10% of what they Hear, then why is so much effort, money, time, and space focused on the act of speaking, given the results of it?   If you went to church in the past week or two, do you remember the sermon/message?  Any part of it?  What about the message/sermon from a month ago?  Anything?  I barely remember what I preached in the past two weeks, to be honest.

Yes, I know about the verse in Isaiah that speaks to the word of God not returning void. Yep, know the one in Romans about how will they hear if no one preaches.  That’s not what I’m talking about here, necessarily. (But on a side note, if you look at American society, it has not gotten better overall, which says that all this speaking/preaching is not making a dent in the transformation of people’s values and how they actually live out their lives, generally speaking.  If all these Christians were being so affected by “biblical preaching” then there should be a noticeable change in the society as those same people live differently, spend differently, save differently, act differently, etc than those in society who had not heard God’s word….wouldn’t you think?).

If we don’t remember what we hear that much and we’re only exposed to (and I’m being generous here) a half hour out of 168 hours a week to the proclaimed word of God, then aren’t we being just a tad bit egotistical to think that our preaching really has that much impact.  It makes some impact, I believe that, but I don’t think it’s in proportion to the amount of time, energy, space and money that gets spent in churches to make sure it happens. 

Don’t get me wrong, I have enjoyed preaching to 30 people and all the way up to several hundred (and then another several hundred back to back).  I know the buzz that comes from preaching to a lot of people and having them react to what you’re saying and laughing at your jokes and being pin-drop silent when you’ve hit a massive point of the heart.  I get the attraction to wanting to building bigger sanctuaries so more people can hear what I have to say (along with the logic that says that spending millions of dollars to do so is doing “kingdom good.”).  But isn’t it out of proportion?

Wouldn’t that money and space be better utilized to helping those in need in very tangible ways?  Wouldn’t gathering for a “worship service” once a month really cap it off each month and the rest of the “worship” time the congregation does is actually outside the church, as they worship by caring for those in need, as they worship by being a Christian presence in secular settings like little league games and PTA and the local bistro and so forth?

Have we become addicted to “worship experiences” that we construct and organize our churches around getting that need met?  That may be something to explore in a different post.

So, what do you think?