What I Would Do (3)

Section One of this series dealt with what I miss now that I am doing "secular" ministry after thirty years as a parish pastor. Section Two was about what I don't miss. Section Three was talking about "secular ministry." Section Four looked at what I've learned in these three years in "secular ministry."
Links to earlier sections:
Introduction
1. What I Miss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
2. What I Don't Miss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (1)
3. Secular Ministry: Part 1, Part 2
4. What I've Learned: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (2)
5. What I Would Do: Part 1, Part 2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Time now to think about preaching- the proclamation of the Word. It is fairly obvious from the Book of Acts as well as Paul's letters that preaching goes back to about as early a stage in the church as there is. Or, more to the point, the proclamation of the Word goes back that far. I am not enough of a Biblical scholar to know what the real difference is between what they did and what we tend to do. But somehow it seems to me that there is something quite different.

I think we can actually see that difference when we compare the "sermons" recorded in Acts and the fairly wide content of the different letters. The sermons tended to be given as an explanation of Jesus and the Good News, most often for those who were outside the church. They often included an outline of what we call salvation history in a kind of proof development. Peter's sermon in Acts 2 is the first such example, but far from the last. There is a formality to such things.

The letters are more like dissertations on Scripture. They seek to explain and dig and interpret the Word for people who are already within the church. While they may seem formal to us in style and language, they had a much more informal and less rigid style.

I have a hunch that there was a third style that is often referred to as being "devoted to the Apostle's teaching." They didn't have formal preachers. They didn't have formal teachers. They didn't even have informal ones- at least not in the way we think about them. It was not "The Expert" informing "The Unknowing" about the Word. It was a community event. It was a give and take. It was one sinner helping another sinner discover salvation.

Which reminds me- again- of the 12 Step movement. I am no longer surprised when I end up back in the AA or NA or Al-Anon rooms when I think about the church and its style. Way back in the earliest years of AA people were noticing the apparent similarities between the fledgling movement and the First Century Church. In essence the 12 Step movement was modeled upon the original small group movement.

You go to a 12 Step meeting and you will find amid all the different styles a basic approach that works quite well. Not perfectly, but overall, quite well. There is the basic text, the big book of Alcoholics Anonymous or whichever group you are attending. They read from portions of it. Some groups read larger portions. Others just the basics of the 12-steps and How It Works. Then they talk about a paricular step, topic, or problem related to being sober. You may or may not have announcements and prayer and concerns. Sometimes there is only a speaker and no discussion. Sometimes you break up into small groups for discussion of the lead or step and sometimes you remain in a large group and some get a chance to share.

But people walk out feeling better than they walked in. They also leave wit a deeper undrestanding of the step or topic. Some meetings will stick to the steps, repeating them every 12 weeks so in a year you will have covered the essentials and heard differing opinions on them 4 times. There is only one primary purpose of these groups- helping those who are still suffering under the effects of addictions. People attend these "religiously" - regularly. Several times a week. Some start recovery by going to 90 meetings in 90 days.

Now I realize this was a long detour but in that detour is, I believe at least a partial answer to the why and how of preaching. It is first and foremost a community event, shared by those who have gathered. Preaching, then, comes out of that life. One of the problems I have often seen with some preaching styles is that they are often "generic" or evangelistic. I think it is essential that in this postModern age such contextual opportunities for living and preaching the word become standard. Pastors cannot be "The Experts" who give "The Word". They are the mediators of the Word within the context of the community.

One way to experiment with this is for the pastor to gather a Prayer and Word group to look at the lessons upcoming and reflect on them in the light of the congregation's life and mission and within the greater issue of the missio dei. In that the pastor hears and responds and becomes aware as he or she works on the message how this passage might have an impact. Having personal messages from individuals on particular issues would also add to this. I have a hunch that a broad discussion of this within a congregation could have an impact in ways that we all would be surprised.

Sermons, though, are also ways to reinforce the mission and meaning of the Christian faith on a regular basis. A talk I heard the other day reminded me that of all those attending a workshop only 10% put what they learn into practice. Most have only an inspirational time and then go back to the ways they used to do things. I have a hunch that for many events, 10% may even be too high a number. The speaker commented that this is why he sees it essential to go to church weekly. It is to reinforce the message and build the possibilities of living it in daily life.

He's right. It can be so easy on Wednesday morning to forget how to live as a Christian. The time span from Sunday to then is too great. The way to get to a deeper commitment to growth is repetition. AND to practice the things we learn. One of my discoveries is how much more I have to think about my faith in the secular world. In the church I was surrounded by it day in and day out. Now I know that working in the church isn't a guarantee that one will be more faithful, but at least I thought about it more often.

So preaching for me, then, would attempt to be intentional about sharing the Word within the context of the community and the communities needs. Then it would be to reinforce the calling of each of us to live as Christ-followers in what we do all week. Somehow in this there may also need to be the opportunity to reflect and discuss about our own lives, but that is a response to the sermon, not the sermon itself.

As I wrote this I wondered how different this might be from what I used to do. From feedback I have received over the years, I think this has been my style for most of my ministry. But I can't say I was intentional about it. The intention now would be to reinforce the mission, not to make people just feel better. It would be the ongong challenge to see everything within the life of the church as going in that single, missional direction.

Next week I'll jump into the fray of leadership, management, and how to work in a church.