The Voice & Preaching

Tonight I was watching The Voice, again. Once again, I am super impressed with Usher as a judge and as a coach. His vibe seems so real and supportive of his team members. While watching The Voice, I was also on my Facebook page. A friend, Steve Fleming, recommended an article from the Ministry Today magazine and I read the article while watching/listening to The Voice. (http://ministrytodaymag.com/index.php/ministry-leadership/preaching/20795-how-much-sermon-preparation-time-is-enough)  Another friend, Jan DeVries, was wondering if anybody plans to attend the Homiletics Festival in May.

My thoughts began to combine the two media. Like many/most/all preachers, I know there are times when I think nobody preaches as well as I do. When I am in worship and hear other preachers, my mind cannot help but fill in some spaces, use some different illustrations, and exude more or less energy in the delivery. Many times, I am also collecting points on style and content to consider using myself. Also, I know other preachers do the same when I am the one preaching. It is the blessing and curse of being a preacher with other preachers present.

I wonder if we could improve the preaching, in general, if we had a periodic "preach-off" like the blind auditions, coaching and a battle round? What if instead of seminary preaching classes, with peers tearing apart each other’s sermon content and presentation, the classes were done more like the coaches on The Voice working with their team members? The idea is not to crown the best preacher, but to give improvement “notes” for each and all. (Yeah, “Preaching is not a competition,” say most preachers.) Who are we kidding?

As Teaching Elders and Commissioned Ruling Elders, eighty percent of our exposure to fifty to seventy-five percent of the congregation members and visitors happens in the worship hour. If we cannot proclaim the word with sincerity, devotion, and energy how can we expect the people to express sincerity, devotion and energy in worship? Like a song, a sermon builds to a crescendo and holds the congregation there to the end. This is true for those which are rafter shaking and those which are so tender and sensitive a profound hush is the only possible response.

There are a lot of theories on both the content and delivery of sermons. There is validity in each. Like the singers on The Voice each of us has to find our voice, our style, for sermon construction and delivery. How can we help each other improve in the construction, content and delivery of our sermons? Would working with a personal preaching coach help? Would a preach-off help, challenging preachers to bring their best stuff all the while being humble enough to take the “notes” seriously? Whatever it takes I believe we need a serious effort to improve preaching, across the board.

Council Minutes

The last two days have been given to the peer review of synod minutes. A synod, in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), is the third more inclusive geographic council. The councils begin at the local congregation (session); expanding to include all the congregations in a larger geographic region (presbytery); expanding to include all the presbyteries in a multi-state geographic region (synod); expanding to include all the presbyteries and synods on a national  level. Under the auspice of a “general administrative review,” each more inclusive council reviews the actions of the lesser inclusive councils. This is a means of ensuring the lesser inclusive council is doing things “decently and in order.”

That all seems to be a very dry and boring task. In some instances, it is. Sometimes the review seems to focus on straining at gnats and swallowing camels. Jots and tittles, sometimes, seem more important that the general flow of life and faith. Sometimes, it seems form is far more important than content. Sometimes, it seems the review is more looking for “gotchas” than encouraging.

However, the minutes of the various church councils are important because they are a continuation of the Acts of the Apostles. Council minutes not only are to accurately record the proceedings of each council meeting, the council minutes record how each council is carrying forward God’s salvific mission in that geographic area. If all which was recorded in the Acts of the Apostles is that the council met in Jerusalem, it was moved, seconded and passed to approve a mission to the gentiles, we would know very little about the spread of the Gospel.

Instead, what we have is a very lively account of the early decades of the Church. We are told, of the Council in Jerusalem, who attended, what the presenting issues were, how decisions were made and carried forward. We are told, “There was no small debate among them.” I love the understatement there. What was being proposed was a radical change for the Church. If, how and under what circumstances could gentiles be accepted into the Church were the primary questions to be answered. I imagine, from the understatement about the debate, it was an extended and heated debate. Even after the decision was reached, there were those who actively opposed it.

There were those who argued that those of the Way were a branch of Judaism and “followers of the Way” must adhere to all the rites and rituals of Judaism. On the other hand, there were those who clearly saw and experienced the movement of God’s Spirit among gentiles and who argued they should not be expected to subject themselves to practices and customs of Judaism to be included in the Church. A compromise decision was reached and gentiles could be included in the Church. Following that, we have the various accounts of the spread of the Gospel.

Minutes of our councils are, but are far more, than a record of the actions of each particular council. Council minutes continue to tell the story of God’s action with and through the Church. The review of council minutes provides a consistent form for the record of the council, and provides the continuing narrative of the Church seeking to be faithful to God’s mission. I only wish there were a way to lift up the content over the form in the peer reviews.

How Much IS Enough

This past Sunday, I worshipped at one of the more affluent congregations in a presbytery near where I live. I attend their “contemporary” Two weeks ago I worshipped with the same congregation in their “traditional” service. Two weeks ago, it was a very snowy morning; I was struck by the low worship attendance, compared to what I expected. Last Sunday, the room was packed. Usually, the seating is arranged for about 120 people. The two services are held simultaneously. The traditional service in the traditional worship area, and the contemporary service in a repurposed gym and fellowship area. The pastor told me that some folks go to the service where he is preaching.

What struck me most about last Sunday’s service was the gutsiness of the pastor. His primary verse of focus was Matthew 6:24. You cannot serve God and wealth. Remember, this is an affluent congregation in a very affluent suburb. The pastor did point out, Scripture does not say “money is the root of all evil,” but it says, “The love of money is the root of all evil.” (1 Timothy 6:10). Still in all, the sermon was bound to have seriously challenged the core of the life on many of the worshippers.

The pastor did not bludgeon the worshippers with the text. He did not point to their lavish lifestyles, opulent homes or the number of Mercedes and Cadillacs in the parking lots. (Something which was obvious to me when I parked my 2008 Pontiac G6 by a very well appointed Mercedes.

The pastor’s challenge to the worshippers was around what we do with our wealth. He pointed to the recent edition of Forbes magazine which listed the wealthiest billionaires in the world. (A decade or two ago, Forbes listed the millionaires.) What does one do with a billion dollars? How many homes, cars, yachts is enough. He point to J. D. Rockefeller, who when asked how much would be enough money, who replied, “Just a little more.”

It caused me to ask that question of myself. I have to admit, we live in a better house than I ever imagined us living in. We have greater financial flexibility than I ever imagined us having. Yes, I want to enjoy a few things in these later years which we couldn’t in earlier years. Yes, I want to leave some resources to our children and grand-children. I do, however, have to ask, “How much is enough, and what am I doing with our wealth to improve the lives of others?”

That is a question we all have to ask and answer.

Caution, Toxic Area

I just read a report about a nuclear waste dump in the area of the presbytery in which I served for 23 years. A company had established a nuclear materials facility in a flood plain and was not all that careful about the residue from their work. Some years ago the Army Corps of engineers began a toxic cleanup of the site. Over 100 truckloads of soil were hauled away to a dumping site out of the flood plain. Suddenly the cleanup stopped with the discovery of plutonium and uranium that the Corps was ill-equipped to handle. Since that time nothing more has been done with the cleanup. The dumpsite where the truckloads of material were hauled is surrounded with a tall metal fence with concertina wire atop it. At one point, military guards were stationed at the entrance with lethal firepower.

In my experience, there are some congregations which have become irreparably toxic. At some point in the past something happened. Years of effort to clean-up the mess have only removed some of the more superficial toxic residue. Perhaps the damage came in the form of sexual or fiscal misconduct within the congregation. Maybe the damage was done as the result of a congregational split. Regardless of the reason for the toxicity, in spite of rigorous efforts to remove the toxic memories, the life of the congregation has been so poisoned a thorough clean-up is impossible.

In the story of the nuclear site and the dump site, those in the town and surrounding area are fearful of the nuclear material getting into the food supply of gardeners and farmers. They are fearful further efforts to remove the even more dangerous materials might cause the materials to become air borne. This does not even begin to address how many others downstream have been or may be effected by the nuclear materials leeching into the water supply. Yet, there has been and is no mass exodus of residents. Most remain and try to carry on with their daily lives.

In toxic congregations some members hang on and hang on praying for the day a new cleanup effort might be successful. All the while, the presbytery, conference, or diocese has stopped cleanup efforts when discovering the extent of the toxicity and stuff they are ill-prepared to handle. At times members from the toxic congregation do move to a new congregation totally unaware they carry some of the toxin with them. The toxin has entered their emotional and spiritual DNA. The new congregation welcomes them with open arms. At some point in the future the toxin begins to replicate itself in the new congregation. A congregation of little conflict becomes a congregation of high conflict as members from the toxic congregation begin to react to situations or people which remind them of what happened or what might happen.

Dealing with toxic congregations is as perplexing as dealing with nuclear sites and dumps. I know of one toxic congregation which a presbytery closed, after years of trying to guide the congregation to being a nuclear free zone, and after four pastors all left within the third year of their service in the midst of high conflict. Maybe all we can do is to encase the toxicity, surround the site with high fences with concertina wire, and warn away future members and pastors.

I have no answers for this one. I have seen it in small and larger congregations; in city, suburban and rural congregations; in highly educated and barely literate congregations. There are no instant means of removing the toxicity of a nuclear site, nor of a congregation.

What Does It Mean to "Represent?"

We live in an era of what I call radical democratization, the off-spring of radical individualization. In our civic life, we expect those we have elected to make decisions which only reflect the will of the electorate or of their special interest group. If the NRA has contributed to the election of a legislator that “representative” is expected to vote in accord with the NRA. It is too bad we have perverted the true idea of a democratic republic. Preeminent in a democratic republic is not the will of the electorate, but what is best for the city, state, or country. Rather than judging the performance of a “representative” on the basis of have they acted in my/our best interest, but have they acted in the best interest of the whole. It is possible the best interest of the whole will not reflect what I think is in my personal or group’s best interest.

Our errant civic understanding of what it means to be a representative gets carried into the church. This runs through every level of the councils of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). At the local church it is expected that elders will “represent” the interest of a particular constituency (women, youth, seniors, contemporary worshippers or traditionalist and the list goes on). The same holds true as one moves through the more inclusive councils.

In a few short months the General Assembly will meet. The gathering of commissioners, at its best, is a deliberative and discerning council. In plenary there are too many items for the commissioners to enter into extensive deliberation and discernment. The majority of deliberation and discernment takes place in the committees which then make recommendations to the plenary for vote. On the floor of the plenary, the pros and cons around the particular recommendation are presented in a two or three minute sound bite appeals. When all is said and done the actions of the Assembly will be judged on how those decisions square with “my” particular perspective. We may decry, “They sure don’t represent ME, I’m out of here to join with others who think like I do.”

As members of this particular portion of the Church we have an official corrective to the common understanding of who the elders (teaching and ruling) are to “represent.” In the Foundational section of the Book of Order we find, Presbyters are not simply to reflect the will of the people, but rather to seek together to find and represent the will of Christ. (F-3.0204) This does not mean the elders completely ignore the ways and thoughts of those who elected them or of their special interest group. That voice is a piece of the data which goes into the voting of the commissioners, but it is not the only basis for making a decision. If Moses had made decisions solely on the basis of what the people wanted, he would have turned around, gone back to Egypt, and recommitted to the life of slavery under the task masters, making bricks without straw.

When the elders gather, whether as a session, presbytery, synod or General Assembly, they are to seek together to find and represent the will of Christ. That is a far weightier responsibility. We should expect the gathered elders to represent the will of Christ rather than our particular will. When their decisions do not match up with our wants, desires or expectations, we should ask, “How is Christ speaking to the church, the world and ME in the decisions which conflict with my personal perspective?”

We do not hold the decisions of the church councils as infallible. Now though it will easily be admitted that all synods and councils may err, through the frailty inseparable from humanity, yet there is much greater danger from the usurped claim of making laws than from the right of judging upon laws already made, and common to all who profess the gospel, although this right, as necessity requires in the present state, be lodged with fallible men. (F-3.0107) It is therefore, possible that a future council may consider the same issue and reach a different, if not opposite decision than previous gatherings of the councils.

In our civic and ecclesiastical life, we must drill down to the radical meaning of who and what those we elect are to “represent.”