Educational Ministries of the Church October 4, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Church, Ministry, Spirituality.add a comment
I did a guest lecture at City Seminary (a non-traditional seminary in Chicago that our denomination sponsors, part of the LAMP training program) back in August on the “Pastor as Teacher.” In this lecture, through the discussion with the gentlemen, I uncovered 5 reasons why I think that church struggles in its educational ministries today. Since this is a passion of mine, I might begin to try to understand these things more and help the church to overcome these. Here they are:
1. It takes hard work
Teaching is much more difficult than we think. It takes a lot of time to understand the material, to understand the students, and to understand how to bring the material to students. Most people don’t have the time or the training to do these effectively, so they resort to whatever works for them, what has worked in the past, or whatever is easiest (lecture, information dump, etc.).
2. True gospel teaching confronts our own hearts and the world
We like to be liked. However, when I teach the grace of God that teaches us to say no to ungodliness, I begin to have to say things that I do not like to hear and things that the listener will not like to hear. Since teaching is life-change, by definition the teaching of the Bible is threatening to us. We need this…but we recoil when we have to do it.
3. There is an anti-intellect attitude prevailing in the church—because of a misunderstandings of intellectualism and a past (false) emphasis on it
In the past, educational ministries just sought to communicate information and had this idea that the more you know, have memorized, big theological words you can use in an average conversation, the more spiritual you are. This simply is not true. Therefore, educational ministries have moved away from some of this focus. In doing so, though, the baby has been thrown out with the bath water, as it has led to biblical illiteracy. Knowing the order of the books of the Bible is not spiritual, but it is an important thing to do so that you can better understand the words of the Bible—the words of God. Therefore, the anti-intellectual climate has found a valid criticism but has not rectified it correctly.
4. Lack of connection between life and knowledge
Building on the previous note, we often do not show that ideas matter. That is, what we think affects what we believe is important and what we do. Therefore, theology is practical by definition. Showing how the “rubber hits the road” can be difficult, but we need to do it!
5. Misunderstanding about teaching
We think that teaching happens in Sunday School, or small group Bible studies, or formal curriculum. In truth, we always are teaching and education. Thus, we often do a bad job by communicating things without knowing it that are not helping the gospel. In addition, we assume that we have to have certain programs in place to be an “educating” church. A better thought out view of “informal curriculum” will strengthen the educational ministries of the church.
Like I said, some initial thoughts—and things that I have seen in myself. May we overcome these lackings as we seek to be an entity that helps transform minds into conformity with God’s will.
Influences on my Approach to Preaching September 28, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Church, Ministry.add a comment
I was reflecting a bit this summer on the different voices who have influenced how I preach (as well as teach at church), remembering that I “eat in everyone else’s pastures and then produce my own milk” as Dan the Man taught me years ago. I don’t try to imitate these people, but I do think through the text and communication of it through some lens that I have learned from others. So, here are about 10 people who I would say have influenced me (and I know others will as well):
1. Chris Hodge
He is the preacher I have sat under week in and week out the longest (3 years). From our conversations and his sermons, I developed a firm conviction that I need to clearly present the gospel each week; I can’t assume that people know the gospel. This does not have to be an altar call or the exact same way each week, but as the gospel emerges from the text, take time to explain it. As well, I can be convinced of expository preaching while also being relevant.
2. Dave Schutter
What I learned the most from Dave Schutter is the power of illustrations of moments where we get it and don’t get it; some of his illustrations still stick with me (Rock, Paper, Scissors, God!). Everyday life experiences (and the ability to laugh at ourselves) is when we are starting to get and communicate the gospels. In addition, he modeled and helped me think through what it means to be a pastor-teacher-preacher, to do all of them and have all of them go together.
3. Crawford Lorrits
Of my seminary professors on preaching, he best helped me approach the preaching moment, the power of preaching, and the need to approach it for transformation, with “windows and mirrors” and helping people move towards responses. And above all, remember that there is a difference between a preacher and a communicator!
4. Tim Keller
While I am very mindful not to try to hold him up as a model or the “ideal,” there are very specific philosophical elements of his style and approach that I have adopted. His thoughts on preaching to believers and non-believers, of preaching to irreligious, religious, and grace, and ideas on how to read outside and how to prepare have really helped me. And as Dr. Carson pointed out, he gets the text and also moves to application really well, something I am trying to learn and do myself.
5. Bryan Chapell/Dennis Johnson
Chapell’s Christ-Centered Preaching and Johnson’s Him We Proclaim helped me to understand how to think through preaching Christ (which is what makes a Christian sermon) but to do so appropriately, i.e. how it emerges from the text. These are my two favorite books on preaching.
6. Stuart Latimer
As I have listened via PodCast to Stuart over these past couple of years, I have recognized that I can learn and admire things in different styles. Stuart seems more “big-picture” minded in a way that analysis the gospel message in the text and how it comes and is different from our culture. The gospel is also clear and the struggle that we have to see the gospel in our lives because of its counter-cultural elements are something that I always hear in his messages. And a guy who likes Calvin and Hobbes and John Calvin can never go wrong!
7. Steve Constable
Another guy I listen to via podcast who has a different style than mine. In bringing in culture from movies to books to plays, etc., he opens up new ways of looking at the text that I do not normally do. I know that I will not do this in the same way that he does, but it has fed my soul and also gives me of another “tool in the shed.” And his accent is cool.
8. D.A. Carson
While the man has more brains in his pinkie than I have in my head and brings that knowledge to the text (which he has helped teach me to do), he is also, somehow, able to bring it to life and make it practical. I want to do so, to bring a high understanding and high view of the text to people.
9. Kirk Heldreth
My pastor while I was in college introduced me to the writings of Philips Brooks and Charles Spurgeon on preaching. That always helps. But the passion that he always brought to the text, the tears that filled his eyes as he preached the wonderful grace of the gospel is something that I need to remember; I can’t forget the gospel while I preach it!
10. Brian Regan
If Mark Driscoll can say that Chris Rock has influenced his preaching, I can say Brian Regan has. Not that I try to be funny or want to communicate as opposed to preach, but Regan’s ability to find the things in life that are weird and funny and GET THEM TO STICK IN OUR MINDS is something that I think I need to in preaching. It’s amazing how often we quote Regan, but how often do we quote a sermon because something in life reminded us of it. That is, because we see the truth of it later in the week or the months or the years. That is the way that comedians need to challenge the preacher.
Studying the Bible….without Prayer? September 26, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Church, School.add a comment
One of the first things I noted when I started classes at Loyola was that we do not begin classes in prayer. That was not surprising in the sense that it is an “academic” as opposed to a “church” school; that is, it is training people to teach in higher ed, not move into pastoral ministry. However, as the semester has gone along, it has made me wonder if it is possible to study the Bible without prayer. Augustine’s Confessions was doing theology as a prayer. Anselm also did “faith seeking understanding.” But we don’t do so in our classes. Can the Bible be studied purely on its own merits, without an attempt to application? Can one engage in theology without being textually rooted and driven (as many of the theologians students have seemed to be)? The Bible wasn’t meant to just be comprehended, it has a worldview that was meant to invade the life of the reader; one cannot move into its unbiased or unattached. As I was listening to a Podcast today, a Christian scholar noted how those in the sciences are captured by the science (some might even say worshipping it), but there is a perception that a true Bible scholar cannot do this, as he is no longer objective. A Bible scholar is not supposed to say that he believes that the biblical perspective on life and faith is authoritative (unless he teaches at a “conservative” Christian school).
I guess this confirms that I want my scholarship to be for the church. I want to talk about application. I want to stand under, not over, the texts that I study. I want to pray over the text and ask God to help me understand what He wrote and has given us. May I do so in my own heart as I study, even if the professors don’t. And may I do this no mateter what it means for my future as a “scholar” in the academic sense. This is being formative as I see my future as a Bible scholar and teacher.
Of Providence and Prayer August 17, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Church, Spirituality.add a comment
It is always amazing hte things that that God merges together. Yesterday, I was thinking about some of the struggles I have had lately in maintaining the vibrancy of my prayer life and, lo and behold, the sermon at church on Sunday was about prayer–by one of my favorite professors. While it was not a “ground-breaking” sermon that revolutionaries my prayer life or practice, it was a good confirmation, a subtle rebuke and encouragement, at what I should be thinking about as I ned to spend some time thinking through my prayer life and digging deeper into it. Amazing how you get what you need 
Shopping for God August 4, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Books, Church, Spirituality.add a comment
I have been pondering the book Shopping for God by James Twitchell since I picked it up at the library. While Twitchell has been implicated in plagarism in this book, it does not rule out his analysis (it only means that it is not just Twitchell that thinks some of these things). The sub-title of the book is “How Religion Went from In Your Heart to in Your Face” and it essentially is an analysis of the recent marketing (branding) of the church that has resulted in making Christian music, publishing, T-shirts, and other items such a profitable industry over the past couple of decades. He analyzes both the mainline church and the evangelical/mega-church, noting the decline of the former and the rise (and potential fall) of the latter. Twitchell is an apathetic person when it comes to religion; therefore, I appreciated what he would see in terms of the churches and their use of marketing, etc.
I’ll try to give the book in a nutshell. Instead of this “in your face” religion being a revival or awakening, it is really more of a “market distribution” shift like we have had in American religion before; the same number of people are going to church but their attendance patterns are changing (less churches, bigger churches) and their cultural expressions are changing too. This has happened, as before, by seeing the shifts in culture and new patterns of communication/distribution of information. There has always been a connection between marketing and the Protestant church, as they all basically give interchangeable products (Coke vs. Pepsi) so, like with products, it has been the narrative or the idea attached to the product (like Episcopal is elite, etc.) that caused people to shift (and they usually went to the church that they were then raised in). However, this has changed in some ways due to divorces (people no longer have a family church), the change in social prestige (now Lexus is the sign of privilege, not church; you don’t have to go to church), mobility (changing jobs), and ministry advancement (pastors moving on to bigger and better calls), and a lack of passion in the mainlines that occurs in the the evangelical churches; these changes have led to mainline churches mostly of old women, with few men and few young men. The attempt by mainlines to advertise (United Methodist on TV) is a last ditch and desperate attempt to get back in the market but it probably won’t help.When men come back to church with their families (as before, at the urging of their wives and “Victorian” sort of social standards), they are attracted to the mega-church with its bells and whistles (the lastest in technology), pastor-preneur leaders (guys you would follow in the business world as well), and less “telling you what to do.” (Quote: Men don’t like to be lectured to, and they had to be shamed. Don’t call them sinners. Call them strivers….Men like the idea of seeking, of leading, of doing things, of engagment, of danger. Call it “Bible study” and they won’t appear. Call it “Ion on the Forge” and they may” on p.206. But doesn’t the gospel have to call us sinners?). These churches are built on the rock concert/sports mentality, of busy parking lots and of high energy based upon people; they sell growth and focus on helping us find our “purpose,” which is found in Christ (he does not say that Willow and Saddleback miss the gospel but package it differently than it used to be….Osteen on the other hand…..). These mega-s have seen the movement to “big-box” retail and have become the Wal-Mart of the church world. They might be a ticking time bomb, though, as these pastors might not be able to be replaced (yet to be seen), have the danger of celebrity, and sell growth (which eventually sets you up for failure). They have good , too, as they are understanding the world in which we live and seeking to do something with it. In some ways, it is the model of what we have today, just as the country church, etc. was the model we had earlier. What will come next might be the better question.
It was interesting to think about this as I “church shop.” In many ways, it seems that his analysis is pretty spot on, though I would disagree at points. The megachurch is a different type of church that is tied to our current culture; there are good and bad with it. I think smaller churches, more gospel preaching, and more community is the way forward, helps to keep the gospel as opposed to technology, personality, etc. Something I would have been interested in would be his experience and thoughts on places like Redeemer in Manhattan (Tim Keller) and Briarwood in Alabama (strong PCA); even churches like Mars Hill Seattle (Mark Driscoll), Bethlehem Baptist (John Piper) in St. Paul, or College Church in Wheaton. Are these churches built upon the bells and whistles of high-technology, not focusing too much on sin, and bringing “purpose” into our lives? Would you say that they do not emphasize doctrine, our sinfulness, and submission to God? Even looking at Mars Hill Grand Rapids (Rob Bell) would have been interesting.
One thing I realized at the end is whether the new evangelical mega-church is becoming like the old Catholic church of the Middle Ages (pre-Reformation). Leaders are celebrities (almost bishop-like with Bill Hybels and Rick Warren serving as co-popes for the evangelical), “Jesus junk” can function as “relics,” and it is a consumer mentality in some ways (but different from before), and the big buildings with high technology are “cathedrals.” It can be a religion of convenience and in some ways syncretism to the cultulre (Want to go to the Bears game on Sunday?…then go to the Saturday night service….want to feel okay about your sin, well then we won’t spend a time of reflection and confession) and one in which the pastor does not REALLY know the people in the congregaton. We have seen the fall of many megachurch pastors. Could there be something here?
Interesting book, still thinking about it.
Church Shopping….Lutherans July 14, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Church, Ministry, Spirituality, Theology and Ministry.1 comment so far
Addendum to the post: I have listened to a few other sermons (including week 1 of the series) and the gospel was there; they do preach the gospel message. That being said, when there is a week when the gospel is not explained, I (as a Christian) miss the good news and fall back into my own works mentality. Just wanted to add that remark.
So, this past weekened Beth and I started our “process of church shopping.” While we think we know the church we will be fellowshiping with over the next few years, we thought it would be good to take some time to look around and see what else is out there. We can learn about other churches, ourselves, and, hopefully, God as well. Of course, my wife is very patient with me because I have my own peculiar ways of researching and considering churches [I am getting better]. I don’t want to be critical as much as learn and consider things, better defining who I am as a minister and how to help others in ministry. On the whole, it is a bit strange to go to church as an “outsider” and to simply go, but now I remember what this is like! That aside, here are some observations on our visit to a conservative Lutheran church this past week (I won’t name names).
-Lutherans have always been a bit strange to me. I haven’t really known a conservative Lutheran (at least one who is studying theology). One thing I realized in doing a bit of research that morning is that Lutheran-Missouri Synod seems even more conservative doctrinally than myself in the PCA, as they deem 6 day creationism and amilliennialism to be points of doctrine that pastors must hold. In addition, it sounds like one of the reasons I didn’t run into many Lutherans at Trinity (where I ran into just about everything else), was that their pastors have to go to one of their seminaries (I belive there are 2). I realized that in the PCA, we have Covenant, Westminister (2 campuses), Reformed Theological Seminary (multiple campuses), in addition to those of us who go to places like Trinity or Gordon Conwell. You even get the occasional Fuller, Beeson, or grad of another seminary. It seems a lot more eclectic in terms of training; while there is a stream, there are also multiple places people go. In addition, I realized I don’t know of any LCMS in the Gospel Coalition; they are also not in the National Association of Evangelicals. While NAE has its own issues at times, it almost seems that LCMS is even more separatistic, not necessarily in the conservative baptist sort of way, but that this church is almost outside of the usual evangelical circuit. Interesting thoughts that someone like me, not someone like my wife, would probably care about
-The service was not liturgical (they have traditional and contemporary services), it was contemporary. In many ways, it reminded me more of my roots than where I have landed now; while NPC is contemporary, I always feel that it is a different sort of contemporary than other services I have been a part of. The sermon was more topical, though the pastor did do some exegesis (though, being the NT scholar, I am not sure if I agree with some conclusions). Something I realized is how I have grown used to KNOWING the musicians personally; when you don’t know musicians in a contemporary service, you wonder sometimes if they are performing or worshipping. When you know them, you usually know that they are worshipping. So I had to think through my heart on it. The songs were mostly Vineyard and Contemporary Christian (had they done some Redman, Tomlin, Crowder, Sovereign Grace, etc., I probably would have been more comfortable! But that’s not the point). I worshipped, but I also wondered if all the songs are simply “happy” songs; they were all upbeat, etc. As I have learned by hanging out with worship leaders, we need these songs but we also need doctrinal songs, reflective songs, songs of confession, thanksfulness, and (maybe someday we will do these) lament songs. I would need to go back multiple times to see if this is a usual style. I continue to wrestle in my heart with whether I am more liturgical or contemporary; I feel like I am somewhere in between. I want creeds, confessions of faith, etc. but I also don’t want a pipe organ. And bottom line: I can worship God through whatever! God was glorified in the worship that morning.
-The sermon had some good content; the pastor is a good communicator. As he spoke, though, I wondered about Dr. Lorritis’ distinction between communicators and preachers. There is a difference; not sure if he really was a “preacher” in the true-est sense. While there were some good challenges–to love others, not judge them–the thing it missed was the gospel. Beth and I both said this after the service. Why don’t we need to wear masks? Because we can’t before God and we are saved by His grace alone. Why is it so difficult? Because in my heart, I think I am better than others. If there is something that I have seen grow in my heart over the past few years, it has been the need to ground everything in the gospel and when giving a challenge, to ask why it is difficult (which is because we DON’T believe the gospel in our hearts). I discovered some of my preaching style and what I want to hear in a sermon in this process.
-On the whole, there was some irony in that the sermon was about being welcoming to others and we really did not feel welcomed. While we got a few “hello”s and “good morning”s, no one seemed to ask for our names, stories, or take an interest in us as PEOPLE. We know that there were some regular attenders in our area as well. As Beth and I talked about this experience, in addition to being ironic, it was also challenging to us as we plan on being regular attenders somewhere.
-Communion was a bit confusing. I thought through some logistical elements for my own administration. In addition, though, I still don’t understand what Lutherans expect a person to believe about the real presence of Christ in communion. I am a “sign and a seal,” a “spiritual presence” in a special way guy. Is that good enough for them? Interestingly, at a PCA church, since we don’t say whether you do or don’t believe in the “real body and blood,” a Lutheran would probably feel more welcome to come to the talk. Once again, I see the need for myself to be more clear in the gospel conent and the logistics of the meal.
God is using this church, I am sure. I just don’t think we will be joining His work there (other issues: we are looking for a smaller church and I am not a big fan of churches that have different styles of worship in the multiple services, so it already had some strikes against it), but I will pray for them, recommend them to those who are looking for a church, and hope to understand the Lutherans a bit better.
