The following is my response to a blog from someone that I know...
...you should be able to tell from the context, but the original post was about author Brian McLaren, and why his ideas are dangerous...
-----
Thought I’d toss in a couple of pennies on this one…
…McLaren is intentionally vague, I like that. It seems in keeping with the pedagogy of our Master. Why should our preaching be held to a standard that Jesus never held himself to?? This is frightening, I admit, but also freeing. This is one of the primary things I credit McLaren with illuminating for me.
It seems to me that Jesus was not all that concerned with communicating “propositional truths” or disseminating information. This is of course, set within the context of twelve men (and all of the camp followers), spending twenty-four hours a day with Jesus. It is this transmission of life that Jesus was primarily concerned with, and it is ultimately only truly possible in a “life-on-life” setting, such as the one Jesus created for his disciples.
When I think of the things my pastor taught me, the things of influence, what tops the list are not the sermons he preached. The way he read the Bible, and the questions he brought to it (and the questions he DIDN’T bring to it), have drastically effected my understanding of God, and yet this was not a result of a sermon on “how to read your Bible” but rather a result of spending five years watching him read his, watching him interact with the text…
…I said to a friend once, and was severely reprimanded for it, that preaching is one of the least important things a pastor does. I still believe it. I don’t think of the sermon’s I’ve listened to, but rather the way someone treated me; I don’t remember illustrations used, but rather the fact that what was preached was also lived. Simply put, the job-description of a pastor-teacher has never been about information. (Ephesians 4:11-16)
I would never say that preaching and teaching are unimportant, or unecessary, only that they are simply not central. There are many things “emergent” that I find overly reactionary (throwing out proverbial babies…) yet I find the common critiques of gentlemen like Carson to have missed the point of what someone like McLaren is trying to accomplish.
It is not that the altar should be in the center and the pulpit off to the side….
…it is rather that the altar and the pulpit, BOTH, should be peripheral to a life lived. Not unimportant, simply not central. The pulpit and the altar are places of catalyst, as well as places of manifestation, of the life of Christ. But it is my heartfelt contention that it is this life present within ours that is the central aspect of the gospel (Mark 1:15 you have to check out D. Willard’s translation of this verse in Conspiracy, although you probably already have, Luke 17:21)
It is along the lines of your second point…
…are we inviting someone to perform religious exercises (pray this prayer, read this passage, listen to this sermon) or are we inviting them to a mystical experience of the life of Christ? If we are inviting them to experience the life of Jesus then they will certainly participate in religious events along the way, they will pray prayers of repentance, they will participate in the consumption of religious education, etc…
…they will live the lifestyle as a result of trusting in Jesus. (Matthew 12:33)
It is to this end that I believe McLaren is working. If he makes statements that you or I disagree with, or even that are not totally correct (as, of course, anyone who disagrees with us must consequently be), I don’t think he minds…
…in fact I think he would be happy to play the role of provocateur, prompting people to think beyond the accepted ideas that they have never truly considered, and so, never truly held.
2 comments:
I enjoy your blog, and I enjoy interacting with you. We may be closer than we think on the whole McLaren issue... but I do respectfully, lovingly disagree on preaching. I think it is by far the most important thing IN THE PUBLIC WORSHIP TIMES OF A CHURCH.
That doesn't make it the most important thing on every day of the week.
When I read that preaching is overrated, I have to assume that you mean in worship services, because I don't know when else there is formal preaching.
Jesus himself ratified the preaching in a synagogue. He himself preached and taught. The gospel writers give us the content of his message thru stories... they don't give us transcripts. But do a search on the word teach (didaskalos, etc) in the gospels; it's the main thing Jesus did... not only in formal times in the synagogue, but also in his day to day life.
The strength of of the church during the week rises and falls with the depth of the teaching on weekends.
My respectful opinion for anybody's consideration.
Thanks,
Bill
www.maxgrace.com (the origin of this post)
Perhaps some of this is semantics, I have run up against this with others...
...I recognize that a parable is truly a "teaching." I often however, shy away from using the word "teach" because the word connotes (although does not actually signify) a formal lecture for the purpose of information transfer. It is this that I feel is fairly unimportant.
This must also, however, be contextualized. I wouldn't say that information transfer is as unimportant to the cultures who are devoid of the wealth of information that we westerners enjoy.
I would however, say that in all situations there is precious little in the way of information that people need, and a lot more in the way of simple trust in what "information" they already have...
I see my role on the podium as primarily one who provokes, as opposed to one who informs. So it is not that the spoken word is unimportant, rather that I don't believe that people need more information...
...so perhaps I should choose my words more carefully. But, again, I shy away from the word teach, because I believe people drink deepest from the wells they dig themselves. I would provoke someone to read the Bible over explaining to them my interpretation of a text.
Post a Comment