"Docent has been invaluable to me. I think I have had them do nearly everything but cut my grass. They have saved me hundreds of hours of work and multiplied my effectiveness. I have recommended them to lots of friends because any ministry that serves leaders who serve God’s people is a great gift."
Mark Driscoll
If you saw the photo of Mark Driscoll's new church at the top of our previous post, you will remember the Jonah banner strategically placed in front of the building. One of our commenters, Judas Maccabeus, remarked that he thought he had seen a similar sign at another church and wondered if Driscoll's messages would be a "packaged" series of sermons. Our friend Todd Wilhelm chimed in with this response:
Suddenly, I remembered a post Dee wrote several years ago about the Docent Group. Todd Wilhelm also wrote about them at this link. I have decided to re-publish Dee's enlightening post because our readership has increased. Looking forward to reading your responses regarding this interesting pastor resource…
Deb and I hold MBAs. We believe, in general, in the free market and have confidence that businesses will arise to meet a particular demand. Therefore, it is our purpose, with this post, not to critique the existence of this business but to look at those who have created the demand for such a service. We will look at some of the marketing techniques in order to fully understand what this company perceives to be the needs in today's megachurch machine.
I remember a conversation that I held with my now husband, Bill, late one night when we were dating. He told me that he was interested in high intensity medicine like cardiology. He liked the pace and enjoyed focusing on one particular system as opposed to being a generalist. As the daughter of a family doctor, I suggested he look at something like dermatology since the lifestyle was a bit less demanding. But that was not his interest. Throughout the years, as he got the inevitable 3 AM emergency calls, requiring his immediate presence, I would often express my sympathy. But, he always replied, "This is what I signed up for." He would never think about complaining about the "relentless frequency" of heart attacks. This job is what he wanted to do.
How much time does sermon preparation take?
We have read that most pastors believe that the sermon part of their job takes priority. Here is something that Ed Stetzer said:
At Grace Church, there are three things and ONLY three things that I do: I meet with the staff/apprentices, I preach about 70% of the time, and I lead a small group in my home.
Ed doesn't do funerals, hospital visits, etc., because his priority is preparing for the Sunday service.
Thom Rainer did an informal survey of pastors on how much time some pastors spend in preparation for their sermons.
- 1 to 3 hours — 1%
- 4 to 6 hours — 9%
- 7 to 9 hours — 15%
- 10 to 12 hours — 22%
- 13 to 15 hours — 24%
- 16 to 18 hours — 23%
- 19 to 21 hours — 2%
- 22 to 24 hours — 0%
- 25 to 27 hours — 1%
- 28 to 30 hours — 2%
- 31 to 33 hours — 1%
Furthermore, in the same post, he says:
70% of pastors’ sermon preparation time is the narrow range of 10 to 18 hours per sermon.
The median time for sermon preparation in this study is 13 hours
This does not appear onerous if the sermon is considered the highlight of the week. When we talk about megachurch pastors, we know they get great salaries. Many of them live in expensive homes and travel frequently and well. I would say that this leaves about 27-37 hours a week (big salaries usually result in work schedules that are in excess of 40 hours.)
Digression: Are pastors expected to volunteer at church?
Most people in the congregation work in excess of 40 hours a week and then are expected to give time to the church by ushering, leading groups, etc. Some elders are known to spend 20 hours a week on church business. This is addition to their work outside the church. Do pastors also give that volunteer time or are they exempt from the expectations for non-pastors? Thoughts? Also, why are there rarely any blue collar workers who are elders? Off topic-I know.
Is book writing and conference speaking considered part of the pastor's duties?
I would not expect that pastors will write books or speak at conferences on church time. Both of these activities are usually reimbursed by the outside business entity.
Now back to the topic of the post. A reader, Peter, let us know that there is a group used by high powered pastors to "help" with sermon preparation. We had not heard of this and were a bit surprised.
Docent Research Group
This is a not-for-profit group which earns its keep by doing research for pastors. Here is an overview of what they do.
- Research briefs which are primarily geared to sermon preparation. They offer everything from stories with a hook, statistics, to exegetical analysis of Scripture.
- Book summaries. Docent says that this is to help the pastor to understand the contents of the books when the pastor doesn't have time to read them. Is this how these guys get through their vaunted "What I am reading" lists?
-
Book projects which involve research and collaboration. Hmmm.
Did you know that the weekly sermon is relentless and that Sunday, which occurs on a weekly basis, is akin to tyranny? link to Docent Group
The pressure from high expectations, combined with the relentless frequency of weekly services, creates for many pastors "the tyranny of the coming Sunday." Add the countless, diverse demands on a pastor, and too many weeks there simply isn't time to get it all done. Let Docent help.
Is this the way pastors view their chosen profession? Relentless? The tyranny of the coming Sunday? What in the world did these pastors sign up to do? Sit around Starbucks and write books? Thirteen hours of preparation is considered rigorous?
Do they not understand that every single person in their congregation must deal with the unbending expectations of their jobs? The bank teller, the nurse, the sanitation worker, the construction worker, the mother, etc. all have to work hard, often doing backbreaking labor. I have a question. If the pastorate is so relentless and Sunday is so tyrannical than why do they do it? Could it be that they are mixing conferences, book deals, and speaking engagements into their church responsibilities?
It take a team to raise a sermon.
Better yet, have pastors raised the expectations of their congregation that he is a superstar who is able to hit home runs every Sunday? Maybe, just maybe, they are just like us and that is something that they do not want us to discover?
I was absolutely shocked by this statement at Docent's website. Pastors need a team of dedicated researcher to write research the weekly sermon. A TEAM!
Our Approach
Because preaching is highly personal, Docent’s approach is relational. We start by forming a relationship with pastors to determine their research needs. Then dedicate a team of seminary-trained researchers to provide weekly research briefs according to a pastor’s specific instructions.
As I watch one megachurch involved with this group spread its tentacles around a metropolitan area, I wonder how the average pastor can compete with a team of scriptwriters who churn out awesomely cool sermons week after week? No wonder the average church pastor's sermons can't compete. That is why he is losing to the predatory church satellite planter. Hollywood professionalism has invaded the pulpit.
Who utilizes the service?
I bet you think that the most frequent user of this service is some poor pastor, killing himself, maintaining an outside job and also being a pastor? If you do, you are wrong. It is the pastors of the wealthy megachurches who have tons of staff to help them. Go to the home page here and see who does endorsement videos at the Home Page. It reads like a Who's Who of the au courant megachurch pastors.
- Mark Driscoll
- Matt Chandler
- Jon Ortberg
Look to the bottom right of the home page to the section called Pastor's Stories link.
Have you ever wondered why Mark Driscoll can prepare his sermon in two hours while watching the sports channel? Could this be the answer?
Docent has been invaluable to me. I think I have had them do nearly everything but cut my grass. They have saved me hundreds of hours of work and multiplied my effectiveness. I have recommended them to lots of friends because any ministry that serves leaders who serve God’s people is a great gift.
Mark Driscoll, Founding and Preaching Pastor, Mars Hill Church, Seattle
Driscoll was so excited he contacted his good buddy Craig Groesche.
Mark Driscoll first contacted me about Docent Research. After his glowing recommendations of how Docent had improved his sermon preparation, I decided to give them a try.
Mark was right. Docent proved to be exceptional at scholarly research. I was especially impressed at the speed at which they could gather information. I've found their work most useful when I give them specific requests to help in my preparation for sermons.
Craig Groeschel, Lead Pastor, LifeChurch.tv, Edmond, OK
Who pays for this service?
Is the pastor, who uses this service for his sermons, also expecting his church to pay for the research help? If so, the pastor has truly become a talking head. You get to pay him a great salary, let him do his book and conference thing and pay for his scriptwriters. Then you can pretend you have a pastor. You may as well go to a satellite where they beam in the pastor's well groomed visage since church increasingly appears to be in the process of becoming the latest released movie.
Is this process honest?
Craig Groeschel, utilizer of the sermon for hire, says the following (quote has been removed – wonder why?)
It isn’t plagiarizing if you’re given permission.
I think it is time for pastors who use these services, including websites which reprint sermons, to tell the folks that they use them. Be honest. Let them know that you really aren't who you pretend to be.
It is OK to plagiarize because it all belongs to God excuse.
A commenter, Blake Wingo, on Groeschel's site, said the following. (link no longer works)
I think we put to much value in whether something is “ours” or not. It seems to me that everything we know is something we’ve learned from somebody either through their verbal instruction or their writings. Isn’t this true? No matter how original and creative something might sound, it’s still just a regurgitation of the collective knowledge that a person has accumulated. All we’re doing is coming up with more ways to say what God has already said. I don’t think a message belongs to anyone, I think we are stewards of the message “all things were created by him and for him”. Having said that, I agree 100% with Craig, giving credit is a great thing. Especially when it introduces people to great communicators that will have an impact on their lives.
I have heard this excuse over and over again. There are copyright and trademark laws. The Bible tells us to follow the law of our land, even if we don't like them. Remember, even Mark Driscoll utilized these laws and got himself a pack of attorneys who went after a church whose trademark resembled his vaunted enterprise.
Carl Trueman thinks something is wrong with utilizing services such as Docent link.
I think I have agreed with Carl Trueman several times in the past week which is pretty astonishing.
Speaking of wealthy churches, this brings me to my next point. Third, seeing the names who endorse this product, I was perplexed. The ones I recognize are pastors of large, wealthy churches with big ministry teams to support them. So why is their time being so squeezed that they find this service helpful?
the nature of some of the commendations disturbs me. Just a little too much about how 'my' time is saved by this ('saved' from what exactly? Carefully preparing to preach God's word to those whom He has entrusted to me?) and how 'I' am improved and made to look good. Perhaps they were ironic comments. I do hope so.
Jared Wilson who used to be a Docent employee disagrees with Trueman link.
I agree with Trueman and Wilson does not. Things are indeed strange.
Wilson used to work for Docent and claims that Docent does not write sermons for pastors. He says that they would be fired if they did so. He says that they save the pastor the "grunt" work. We now have three adjectives for the weekly sermon: relentless, tyrannical, and grunt work. Good night! How awful it all sounds!
Docent serves much like an on-site research assistant would — gathering resources, summarizing them, paraphrasing them, etc — so that a pastor is saved this “grunt work” and may spend more of his time doing the actual “wrestling.”
Wilson claims that some of the employees of Docent get hired away by the pastors. I bet they do! It saves the phone call and email.
No, client-pastors and team captains talk regularly and develop friendships. There are some researchers and captains who have actually eventually been hired by pastors full-time to their church staffs as research assistants or even associate pastors.
Thoughts and Suggestions for Pastors
- Consider listing all sources used for each sermon and have it available for the congregation.This would be a wonderful way to share your materials with those who listen to you. They could learn along with you and could consult the same books, commentaries, etc.
- Tell your congregation if you use Docent Research Group or any other group.
- Make sure the amount of money that is spent on this resource is reported to the members of your church and not hidden under some subcategory.
- If you consider your job relentless and look at the coming of each Sunday as somehow tyrannical, get some counseling. Maybe you shouldn't be a pastor.
- Examine yourself. If you rely on such groups to make you seem awesome, theologically heavy, incredible, etc. ask why? Do you really need to build your church so that it has tens of thousands of members?
- Examine why you need to expand satellites which beam your visage into localities that already have good churches. Is it about the gospel or you?
- Do you really read those books on your "list of books your pastor is reading" or do you read a synopsis of the books? If you use a synopsis, stop the pretense. Better yet, give out the paid for synopsis to your congregation.
I understand that these groups claim not to write sermons. However, with a "team" and "team captain" assigned to the pastor's sermon each and every week, it sure sounds like the bulk of the pastor's preparation work is done. No wonder Mark Driscoll can write his sermons in 1-2 hours. The secret is out and frankly, I am not impressed.
If you attend a megachurch in which the pastor must buy services (and charge the congregation) in order to preach a knockout sermon, stop giving money to that church. Give it to a homeless shelter. And why get out of bed? Watch it on TV. Isn't it all a show anyway?
@ Christiane:
So are you saying that in your opinion Paul did not agree with Jesus and therefore people should read Paul with a skeptical eye?
Or are you saying that Paul did agree with Jesus and people should accept Paul’s conclusions as consistent with Jesus’ teachings?
This seems to be the heart of the matter, if I am understanding Gram3 correctly, with the conservatives choosing one side and the moderates the other side.
@ okrapod:
To me, any time somebody makes a change it is suspicious.
So I start from that perspective. Why did they make this change? I think others have offered reasons above. Jesus it too nice and squishy, if you interpret through him you can’t go around lording your authority over everyone. Problem.
@ okrapod:
Hi OKRAPOD,
I come from people who bow their heads at the mention of the Holy name of Jesus, who stand up for the reading of the Gospels, which testify to Him, and for whom the Gospels are considered the most important part of sacred Scripture and Our Lord Himself to be at the heart of sacred Scripture because He spoke and acted in the very Person of God.
So I’m not in a position to evaluate how a Southern Baptist person might see what happened and understand it in the same way, and I know this.
But I believe this to be true for all Christian people:
that no one can take any part of sacred Scripture and interpret it in any way that goes against Our Lord and His teachings OR what we know of God from the revelation of Him through Jesus Christ.
So if people INTERPRET what St. Paul has written in a way that would violate the Royal Law of Christ, then their interpretation is wrong.
It’s not St. Paul I would blame, no. Never him.
I hope this helps.
If one has to interpret the writings of Paul, Peter et al ‘through’ Christ is that not saying that Peter and Paul et al were not themselves doing that and therefore the modern reader must make up for that lack with his own thinking? Like, we are in a better position to know what Jesus said and meant than the apostles? Do we have to second guess scripture like this? The problem I have with this is that basically no two of us agree with what Jesus actually meant on a lot of things. And of course Amy-Jill says that we gentiles have it wrong about Jesus right much. That approach just seems rather shaky to me.
@ Flathead:
Comment anyway. The last time you did it was uncanny in how it paralleled my own experience.
Christiane wrote:
Yeah, we do all that too, and bow when the cross passes in procession and the priest kisses the book after the reading of the gospel passage. But I have to say, for the benefit of those here who do not do that in church, that this can easily be mere routine and the mere doing of it does not make anybody better than anybody else because God judges the heart, not the ecclesial gymnastics.
elastigirl wrote:
Yeah I wonder about that too. I think there is a plurality of elders indicated in the N.T., but I don’t see elders as necessarily the decision makers, more overseers and guides, leaders because of the quality of their character and experience, not because they have a title. The popular term “pastor-elders” gives me the shudders, as does the oxymoronic “servant-leader” because it is usually pastors referring to themselves or other pastors with this term and I’m not convinced that they get the servant part.
But the word “ekklesia” has it’s roots in Athenian democracy and I don’t see that as just a coincidence. Apparently when the ekklesia was gathering for a meeting in Athens to discuss some decision that had to be made, slaves would go around the town with ochre-stained ropes with which they would whip anyone who was not at the meeting, not to cause injury but to stain their clothes red. People with red-stained clothes were subject to a penalty.
Is it carrying an analogy too far to say, we have all been bought and paid for by the stripes laid on Jesus to set us free, and perhaps are paying the penalty of abuse at the hands of domineering church leadership, because we have not been taking our rightful place in the assembly?
siteseer wrote:
I think you nailed it. And I think other subtle changes play into that. In many ways it bothers me to even talk about the BFM because I am non credal. But for the last 10 years of blogging that is all the Neo Cals could talk about. I never heard of it growing up and we were involved in convention stuff state and national.
Mohler also insisted on adding an “s” to priesthood of believer. No big deal, right? Seems rather silly to make any issue of that at all. But it follows an important pattern of subtly changing people’s thinking and now all they do is refer to the BFM …..and you can see why.
A very important concept In this Baptist circle was soul competency and priesthood of believer. And it was hard to kill even after the CR. . It was pretty much drilled into our heads. This is a belief that you are personally responsible for your relationship with Jesus Christ no matter what happens around you. That as a believer you are more than capable to have that relationship. So we are individuals indwelt who come together.
Adding the “s” was a strike at “standing alone” if need be.
I can look back now and see exactly where this was going. There is a lot of teaching in those circles against being a Lone Ranger Christian, individualism is sinful and people are sinfully obsessed with it. That You need to be a member of a local church under the authority of elders. They interpret scripture for you. I honestly do not think the keys teaching out of nine marks would’ve lasted a minute 30 years ago. Now, people have been more conditioned.
That is what I think they were subtly pushing for: They (the pastors trained at our seminaries) interpret scripture for us. Period. And that is exactly where it went. You can even be church disciplined for disagreeing.
Soul competency is dead. The Priesthood has been defined in a more Protestant way.
okrapod wrote:
I’m saying that upon encountering the claims that ESS was ‘orthodox’, I immediately knew there was a very wide gap between my own understanding of that word and the understanding of those who thought they could get away with calling it ‘orthodox’ and who were not even challenged for ten years by some of the Calvinist folk who knew better.
And I’m saying that you can have seminary officials interpreting sacred Scripture and using it to break the Royal Law of Christ in their brutal treatment of Dr. Klouda and her family, and claim that they are standing on solid ‘conservative’ ‘orthodox’ ground;
and I know immediately they have done something so wrong it must be confronted or the people who tolerated it or said nothing must repent for their silent affirmation of the wrong doing.
I feel strongly about this. So I am strident in how I word my thoughts.
But I am not Southern Baptist, and I cannot know how it was all perceived other than to understand that in spite of all that was done by ‘authoritarian’ leaders in those days,
some very good people DID speak up and DID advocate for victims and then, these good people themselves paid a severe price for their courage. These people ARE Southern Baptists. And they were and are on the side of the angels, you bet.
@ Gram3:
Your last line is basically what I outlined in a comment –in line. I see now how they did it. You gotta eat your Wheaties to outsmart Mohler.
Flathead wrote:
I’ve only heard teaching elder apparently.
Side note, I joined my nice liberal church. Apparently the elders voted me in, which is sort of amusing.
@ Lydia:
In this whole interpretation business though, it’s not just that they ignore Jesus in interpreting Paul- they also ignore Paul! When he tell them we are all equal. When he commends the many many female leaders in the church. They ignore all of that, because they like their interpretation best even when it doesn’t fit.
@ Lydia:
I appreciate the response. can’t think of an ‘irenic’ way to say ‘i’ll leave you 2 alone.’
(first and ONLY time to ever use the word irenic…. blechhhh!!)
@ Flathead:
very interesting comment. all i know for sure about the assembly is that people lose touch with reality. and take themselves far too seriously.
GSD wrote:
I think the table that Christianity began around is important. And I think it is important that it is a real table with real food and drink on it.
I don’t know that the N.T. says that much about what Christians are supposed to do when they gather themselves together, but for the little it does say, we do pretty much the exact opposite:
1) Older Christians of proven character and even temperament are like shepherds to the rest of the Christians.
We appoint twenty-something’s straight out of seminary or the officially sanctioned 2-year bible school to be pastors over us.
2) Jesus wants to live with us and through us everyday in our homes and wherever we go.
We build a special building where we go to meet Jesus a couple times a week.
3) Everyone comes together regularly and shares spiritual things out of the supply the Holy Spirit gives them. Jesus Himself leads this meeting.
We sit in pews and a hand-picked few people on a stage share gifts that the Holy Spirit or Docent has given them. The Head Pastor or his delegate leads this meeting.
4) Money is collected to help Christians struggling with persecution or hard-times and to help send Christians out to evangelize and plant other groups of Christians. Also money is used to help the poor in general.
We collect money to pay the mortgage on a building, build a new building, expand the wing of a building and pay the salaries of clergy. Sometimes there is money left over to help the poor or for missionaries.
5) Everyone comes together to share food and drink and remember Jesus and look forward to having a great celebration meal with Him in heaven.
We take communion, which mustn’t have any connotation that it has anything to do with real food and drink. For that reason a wafer made from something like edible Styrofoam and a very tiny cup are used. No one would think of eating the wafer if they were hungry, and no one would think they could quench their thirst with such a small cup.
We call them communion elements because they are more likely coming off the periodic table than a real table where people eat real food. You can’t buy the wafer or the little cup at a grocery store, so you have to go to a church supply store. It’s sort of a platonic meal in the sense that we don’t want anyone to think any of this bears the stains of real life, which is unclean and unspiritual.
Please understand me, I am not mocking anyone taking communion or celebrating Mass or the Eucharist. I will gladly do that with my brothers and sisters if invited. It’s just very odd to me what much church practice has become – something quite divorced from daily life, an artificial construct. But Jesus still works through all this stuff we do now, because He loves us so much.
@ elastigirl:
I love that word. Reminds me of my mom.
@ Lea:
That is the truth! I sometimes wonder if it wouldn’t be beneficial to have ancient history classes at church. They tend to ignore the historical context which means they lose sight of the overall theme.
I can’t ever remember bring taught Eph 5 in the way it has been taught the last 25 years or so.
@ Flathead:
You describe it beautifully. I just can’t do it anymore but don’t have a problem with those who can.
We have been on a denominational adventure of sorts checking out more liturgical churches that are not familiar territory. I figured I could better handle places right now where the “lead” pastor was not the star of the show. I am so done with that. And the music is serene and worshipful, to boot.
I am not joining, though. :o)
elastigirl wrote:
Yes, they do take themselves too seriously, everyone should relax and lighten up a little. I know I’ve been guilty of that. Also I didn’t mean to imply that people should really be punished or really deserve abuse, if anyone got that idea from what I said, more that the assembly itself should be the decision-makers, not elders or pastors, etc.
@ Flathead:
“Also I didn’t mean to imply that people should really be punished or really deserve abuse, if anyone got that idea from what I said, more that the assembly itself should be the decision-makers, not elders or pastors, etc.”
++++++++++++++++++++
no, not at all. and, totally.
it’s like, opportunities for power for a few (‘wow! i’ve got power!’) and everyone else suddenly assumes the learned helplessness trajectory.
yuck
@ Lydia:
i’m sure your mom (Irene, I presume) is a great person. If i knew her myself, the adjectival form would be my new word for cool.
Lydia wrote:
Yeah, I visited my Dad’s denominational church once for a Father/Son spaghetti dinner. They seemed to have a real sense of community there in that church basement, which I missed and envied. One thing about being “Done” with the institution, is it’s kinda lonely. There seems to be a surprisingly small number of Christians that want to just get together for fellowship, and people may say churches are glorified social clubs but for an introvert like me, I could use a social club of some kind. That would be the only real enticement for me of going back to church be it denominational or non-denominational. Just don’t think I could handle dealing with everything else involved.
okrapod wrote:
I think it is a little more complicated than that looking back on it (these were discussions that happened in the mid ’90’s at this particular church.) I don’t think it is favoring either Paul or Jesus but rather a desire on the part of the CRs to slam the door shut on any possibility that female ordination could slip in using the Jesus lens. Therefor, that language had to be changed in an acceptable way. The CRs would deny they elevate Paul over Jesus. That is why I think the changes need to be viewed as a package in order to understand what the intent was for each change.
okrapod wrote:
I don’t think it is necessary to say Paul and the others were not writing what they wrote with Jesus in mind. The problem for the modern interpreters is to reconcile the places where the modern interpreter’s interpretation of Paul seems to (or can be seen to) conflict with the modern interpreter’s interpretation of Jesus. So, those who wanted to ordain females were able to make an appeal that Paul had been misinterpreted by prior interpreters, not that Paul and the others had misunderstood Jesus. They were saying that Jesus’ life and words toward women were inconsistent with the *interpretations* given to Paul’s writing.
Some people resolved that by dismissing Paul as the author of certain books. Others tried to reconcile the perceived conflicts by appealing to Jesus. Still others said, in effect, Paul explains what Jesus meant. I’m sure there were even more ways to resolve those issues, but it has been a long day for me.
okrapod wrote:
I really appreciate that comment, and I think it applies also to the hand-raising sway in certain evangelical churches and other customs and liturgical styles. Easy to point fingers at the people who do things the “wrong” way.
@ Flathead:
The church I just joined uses honest to god real bread, which you break off a loaf. It’s tasty too. I think it’s the first church I have ever been to that does that!
Gram3 wrote:
This is true.
‘Sursum Corda’
Christiane wrote:
Credit goes to Okrapod for that helpful insight.
@ Flathead:
really enjoyed what you wrote. and the detail you went into. i agree completely. i feel like we’ve been sold a bill of goods. at least, i feel that way concerning myself.
@ elastigirl:
No. Hee hee. She used the word, irenic, a lot. Spell check really wants Irene!
Lydia wrote:
For the Collective, Comrades.
Party First, Comrades.
@ okrapod:
No, but they didn’t have the Gosprls in written form, either.
I think this is all pretty complicated, really. And i love reading what A-J Levine has to say about it.
Flathead wrote:
This is very true. I haven’t read all 600+ comments so forgive me if I’m repeating something already stated.
This is the church as I see it. It lives in a parallel universe. The churchiverse.
I no longer try to understand it anymore. It’s anti-human rights, anti-science, anti-intellectual.
What’s happening in Louisiana, that’s the real world.
Flathead wrote:
… and, if I may be frank, the “none/done community” (for want of a better title, but you know what I mean) isn’t immune from weirdness either, certainly here in Scotland. Not only has it been hard to find meaningful Christian fellowship, but we’ve frequently found quite the opposite: we’ve met people who refused to join churches because they themselves were obnoxious and socially dysfunctional, and we’ve found their “fellowship” corrosive and toxic.
Loosely on that topic, I wonder whether other Wartburgers have found significant negative experiences within what I will continue loosely to call the none/done community.
The individual I was thinking of in my @ previous comment saw us merely as people whom she could milk for company and attention, whilst believing and behaving exactly as she pleased. Unfortunately, she showed as little respect for our marriage and our home as she does for any kind of church. Indeed, we later discovered that even while we were welcoming her weekly into our house for food and “fellowship”, she had been spreading some very nasty and slanderous allegations about our marriage, and about me personally, to some of our mutual Christian acquaintances. These allegations actually gained some traction, which they only lost when she alienated those other people as well as us. From the outset, she constantly tried to divide me and Lesley so that, essentially, she could have Lesley all to herself. In other words, she showed all the characteristics of narcissism and sociopathy that have become so familiar in authoritarian leaders of congregations.
(It reminds me to some extent of the work of Broken Rainbow – a UK charity I came across a while back that works with the LGBT community and specifically addresses the often-overlooked issue of domestic abuse within same-sex marriages/partnerships.)
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Yikes. That must have been terribly painful, as well as just… weird.
I’m sorry that you’ve had to put up with such hurtful foolishness, Nick, especially after dealing with abusive churches. But I’m glad that her machinations didn’t succeed.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Ah, one of those! Creepy. Not limited to nones and dones, sadly.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
I’m sure you are right, this is why I hesitate to officially get involved with a group.
@ Flathead:
Amen Flathead! That’s why I refer to most religious gatherings as doing church without God. Jesus seems so distant from our meetings.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Well, we saw one person single handedly wreck utter havoc with a ‘ministry’ that she and her husband had started in the form of a support group for parents of internationally adopted children. She personally decided, apparently based on her ‘experience’ of a couple of years as a social worker with a different population, that the children all had issues that neither the parents or the schools were handling the way she thought they ought to. So she started going around to the schools and telling administration that these children were all damaged people and needed to be identified as such and treated differently than the other children. You can imagine the fury as the parents reacted against this threat to their children.
This woman and her husband later divorced, she affiliated herself with a lesbian ‘friend’ and the group now continues to meet with a mere smattering of people who were not themselves here for the debacle but moved here later. At the time of the divorce this woman also went to the pastor of counseling at SBC mega here and accused her husband of all sorts of stuff, none of which could either be verified or proven false. To this day her former husband is struggling with the continued damage of having to keep dealing with this. Among other things.
So, yes, we have seen this pattern and been damaged by it, except that my g’kids mom is both a teacher and a tiger so the damage was less for us than for some. In dealing with these situations it helps to quit being bound by the conventional doctrinal position of salvation by niceness alone and deal with these people and the damage they do by using more secular and perhaps medical nouns and adjectives. I am with Lydia on this, all the way, in that the first concern is for the victims.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Yes we have encountered this I have written a rather longish description of it in which I included some specific terminology which I feel was necessary for the story. Please check back later when it is available.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
If you are so inclined, I would be curious to know how you all separated from this person. These types often have a tendency to seek revenge by painting themselves as a victim.
mirele wrote:
Love this!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Many of the none/done are exploring the home church movement, fleeing from religious institutions where they have been burned by one thing or another. Unfortunately, authoritarian leaders like to camp out there, too. The root problem in church these days, whether it meet in a building or a home, is that ungodly people find their way there and try to control. It’s tough to find a group of folks who take Jesus seriously and worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. As soon as you find something that looks like that, the devil dispatches a trouble-maker to disrupt the fellowship.
@ Jack:
…anti-common sense, anti-intuitive.
Re: anti-human rights, i can hear it already: “We have no rights. Our lives belongs to God.” –says the person not abused in their marriage, not abused by church leaders & those who follow suit. Says the person not aware that they themselves are owned, operated, & controlled by christians with power. Says the person brainwashed enough not to know that these things are unhealthy & wrong, if not crimes.
@ elastigirl:
Says the person in the Comfortable Position at the top of the heap, holding the whip and ready for any threats from below.
@ Max:
Perhaps then home churches should adopt the Jewish model of open debate and dissent when it comes to ‘Bible’ study rather than the ubiquitous teacher and ‘teachee’ format. I’ve heard Lydia advocate for the Jewish model (open debate and dissent) which I heartily endorse too.
One of its advantages is that it makes it much harder for an alpha-human strong man or strong woman to take over and set up shop.
Max wrote:
I remember JMJ from Christian Monist speaking on his home-church experiences. They seemed to attract the real Crazies who couldn’t find anywhere else and all seemed to drift into Jonestown Cult territory given enough time.
Thing is, a home church is a small-group version of the Lone Ranger Christian, i.e. “Just Me and Jeesus!”
There is NO outside reality check if you start drifting into Crazyland.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I think home groups can be a good thing, but am very resistant to the idea of home church.
@ Max:
Nick Bulbeck wrote: “I wonder whether other Wartburgers have found significant negative experiences within what I will continue loosely to call the none/done community”
Max wrote: “…The root problem in church these days, whether it meet in a building or a home, is that ungodly people find their way there and try to control. It’s tough to find a group of folks who take Jesus seriously and worship Him in Spirit and in Truth.”
+++++++++++++++++++++
I think there’s another root problem: a narrow view on how things should be done. (which is always “MY way!”, and “how WE have always done it”)
Because of GOD (in all the hugeness of the concept and the person), i think the general tendency is
-to take ourselves very seriously
-to take our way of doing things very seriously
-to take our secondary doctrinal beliefs very seriously
to take them far too seriously. way out of proportion.
5 years into my church dysfunction detox, i started a prayer group in my neighborhood. those who came represented charismatic, baptist, catholic, eastern orthodox traditions. I quickly realized i needed to dial it way back in method and approach, to focus on what we had in common. Which was much, much more than what separated us in perspective.
at first it was like, “THIS is how were going to do it and it’s going to be GREAT!”
then it was, “Hmm…. ok… I’ll SHOW THEM how to do it and they’ll see how GREAT it is!”
then finally, “i’ll impose nothing but a general format, and people approach God as they are accustomed to doing.”
I found that the final format resting place opened up an exciting world of spiritual and charitable things, all very productive. and it freed all of us up to keep the main thing as the main thing.
which, to boil it all down, is God/Jesus/Holy Spirit and people — the value, wonder, & beauty of each.
but it took time for me to let go of my narrow way of seeing & doing things, specific to my own faith tradition, and to broaden to appreciate and experience for myself the good in other approaches and perspectives. and, again, doing so made the main thing the main thing.
@ elastigirl:
The beauty of organized chaos. :o)
It is downright hard for groups of grown-ups not to over organize themselves. We used to send groups off to do specific brainstorming …….just to point out this problem. (I am not saying organization is bad but too much is stifling)
We would go back in and they had spent three quarters of their time organizing themselves….. to death I might add. They would have an org chart for the group but no creativity. No free flow of ideas. No ideas piggybacked on, etc. (They were doing what they were taught to do)
I am not saying that there should not be any ground rules at all, but adults taking on a big challenge Will tend to police themselves once they settle in and agree they are adults. ( there are always exceptions)
@ Muff Potter:
In a Tel Aviv cafe with very strong coffee. :o)
Lydia wrote:
I recently got invited to ‘young adults’ thing at church. I responded that I thought I was more of a ‘regular’ adult, age wise. Which got me separated into a different group, that basically does nothing.
Why not a generic ‘adults’ group, without age limits? Maybe that’s another overorganize thing!
@ Lea:
Oh, that drives me nuts. I have a teen who would rather be in a senior adult women SS full of women she knew and loved but staff shamed her back to the youth group. Really? What was the big deal?
Glad to be out!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
This isn’t a none/done thing. This is an abusive person thing. I know an older pastor’s wife who is just like this.
Having said that, there are a lot of really broken people in this world, who have little in the way of supportive families or friends. Many of those are people who can pretend to be “good Christians”, but some just can’t. Some of them are a bit nuts. I used to be involved with a ministry where there were a lot of people like this, not to mention led by someone with many of the same issues. Most of the church people they knew totally snubbed them because they couldn’t pretend to be normal.
Please pray for the people of Louisiana.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/louisiana-flood-loss-gain/
ishy wrote:
It’s a shame. You have to be more cautious around “church family” than in most other venues.
Lydia wrote:
Man o’ Manischewitz ya’ got that right! You’re a libertarian and I’m an old socialist (FDR style), we could have some barn-burner arguments just like two Jews. And through it all? We’d probably remain friends anyway, regardless of vastly divergent views, just like Ginsberg and Scalia were.
elastigirl wrote:
Amen! If we keep the Main thing the main thing, our relationship with Jesus will supersede religious tradition and we can have fellowship one with another.
Flathead wrote:
So true, flathead. I visited a church where they had the communion bits prepackaged, so you would peel back the first lid to release the styrofoam wafer, and the peel back another to get to the tiny bit of grape juice. These individual containers were kept in a cardboard box back by the sound board. They called them Happy Meals. How very American.
It’s called the Lord’s Supper, not the Lord’s frustratingly small snack. [I heard that from someone, wish I could remember where.]
elastigirl wrote:
Just a few months ago at a recent non-profit start-up. The newly minted temporary president came in with a plan already figured out, asking for just an up/down vote. Without asking for discussion and calling for the vote I interrupted and objected, the question should have been brought and not the answer. The predetermined answer does not evoke much or any input. If this decision making was to be the norm the new board would end up being just a rubber stamp committee.
Just about everyone in the room assured each other they would never let that happen, the president saying he would never do that. It was not until the next day it hit me, he did do that and they were about to let it happen.
This recent experience is not an exception and seems to be the universal pattern, at least here in Western Civilization. It appears leaders are not expected to facilitate or moderate, they should lead, they should take charge. The rest are just advisory at best but I have found that 75% will just go along without thinking and only one in five of the remaining 25% will say anything if they disagree. That person who is the one in twenty soon gets labeled and discarded. If there is repression the ratio becomes one in a hundred.
Bill M wrote:
That pretty much describes what is going on in SBC, as Calvinization sweeps through the ranks without a whimper from millions of non-Calvinist Southern Baptists. Of course, SBC’s New Calvinist leaders (Al Mohler, etc.) knew that few Southern Baptists would rise up to challenge the reformed agenda, making the largest non-Calvinist Protestant denomination in America easy pickins’. When I put up a fuss about it at the local level, long-time SBC members look at me like raccoons caught in car headlights; inertia has set in as SBC slips into the hands of the new reformers.
Max wrote:
I truly feel there is no hope for the SBC. It is a shell of what it once was.
@ Bill M:
“Just a few months ago at a recent non-profit start-up. The newly minted temporary president came in with a plan already figured out, asking for just an up/down vote. Without asking for discussion and calling for the vote …
…seems to be the universal pattern, at least here in Western Civilization. It appears leaders are not expected to facilitate or moderate, they should lead, they should take charge.”
++++++++++++++++
is this an especially christian culture thing? are those steeped in christian culture more likely to behave this way as opposed to people not steeped in christian culture?
just a cynical old fart here (well, not really that old).
‘cynical’ insofar as I expect nothing good to come out of christian culture
(which, like velveeta, takes something raw and good — the goodness of cow’s milk — and subjects it to all kinds of tortuous processes, mixing in all kinds of manufactured strangeness. and which, like velveeta, is simply not what it purports to be, according to definition [it is not cheese; it is not Christ]).
…nothing good aT’all.
but really, i’m just realistic.
__
“John Calvin’s Cerebral House Of Cards; R U Game?”
hmmm…
Check these verses (examples) out from the New Testament Bible…
“For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have ALL men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” – Paul the Apostle; (1 Timothy 2:3-4)
“The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance.” Peter the Apostle; 2nd Peter 3:9
Now check out a bit of what John Calvin says about salvation:
…it is clear that the doctrine of salvation … is falsely debased when presented as effectually profitable to all. -Institutes 3.22.10.
huh?
(but that is exactly what Jesus did when his message to the Jews was rejected at the stoning of Steven, He shortly thereafter raised up Saul of Tarsus, changed his name to Paul and sent him to preach His (Jesus’) message to the gentiles. Now all the world had an opportunity to hear the good news of Jesus Christ and believe! And they did in record numbers!)
John Calvin, like Augustine, believed so many things that were false. He had to ‘force’ so much holy scripture into his theological system that it became ‘bent’, a theological and intelectural house of cards.
What?
…want a bit more?
(here are a couple of examples) John Calvin simply got it into his head (possibly via Augustine’s 4th cent. writings) that God predestined some to salvation, and others to distruction: that God did this before the foundations of the world. John Calvn’s idea of God’s Sovereignty simply would not allow for man to have free will. therefore man could not possably choose Jesus Christ’s offer presented in John 3:16 because John Calvin’s idea of man’s relationship with God simply would not allow for it.
Did you know concerning salvation, that God entertains entrance to some, yet exclusion for others? This is what John Calvin teaches in his book, “Institutes Of The Christian Religion” (ICR)
The next part involves a bit of reading… (grin). Sorry.
See: John Calvin’s ICR, BOOK 3 [1] :
Ch. 21. Of the Eternal Election, by which God has predestinated some to Salvation and others to Destruction.
Ch. 22. This Doctrine confirmed by Proofs from Scripture.
Ch. 23. Refutation of the Calumnies by which this Doctrine is always unjustly assailed.
Ch. 24. Election confirmed by the Calling of God. The Reprobate bring upon themselves
the righteous destruction to which they are doomed.
***
” Study to show yourself approved unto God as a workman that need not be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth” -Apostle Paul
ATB
Sopy
__
[1] “Institutes Of The Christian Religion” (ICR)
http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/Calvin%20Institutes%20of%20Christian%20Religion.pdf
—
Bill M wrote:
And 5% is easy to Purge and Silence.
Remember the 80/20 Rule — when consensus within a group reaches 80%, groupthink locks in and the 20% thought-criminals are purged or destroyed.
Max wrote:
Firstly, Max, I must acknowledge that I’ve taken this quote somewhat out of context, and the rest of this comment isn’t intended as a reply to you so much as it is a response to a similar idea that is often assumed by well-meaning churchgoers at least here in the UK.
The default assumption here is always that nones are running away from something. We may perhaps be running from hurt, and we’re frightened to be hurt again. In which case we’re not in any sense like soldiers fighting the good fight, or athletes running as if to win the prize, who would persistently face hardship and pain with fortitude, determination and faith that it was all worth it. Or, we may be rather petulantly “looking for the perfect church”, running away from tedious obligations that didn’t tickle our tummies and that therefore we couldn’t be bothered with any more.
By contrast, some of us (perhaps many of us, and perhaps even most of us – I genuinely don’t have the figures here) are running towards something. More specifically, we’re pursuing what we’ve always been pursuing ever since we first followed Jesus, which is – in however many senses – more of him. I don’t think any mainstream Christian really believes that Jesus intended his Church to be splintered into many separate, mutually-exclusive fragments. We all know that’s not what the New Testament means by “church”. Some are able to ignore that elephant in the room, but some aren’t.
elastigirl wrote:
Kind of like the “cheez” in Cheez-Whiz?
Canada’s own Red Green once did a commentary on that kind of “food”. Can’t remember the whole bit, and finding the video online would take forever, but I recall him saying something like, “Anything we eat today is at least a hundred steps removed from any farm.”
Today’s Christendom might be much like that — 100 steps removed from Christ, or anything He taught or did.
Pingback: Linkathon! | PhoenixPreacher
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Agreed! I have found most members of home churches in my area to be “pressing toward the goal for the prize of the upward calling of God in Christ Jesus.” Religion offered by church-as-usual is not satisfying, but relationship with Jesus is. The home church model more closely resembles the early church where fellowship with other believers was genuine. Of course, there are organized churches where this can be found but there is so much stuff flowing in and out of them that it often distracts worshipers from worshiping in Spirit and in Truth … e.g., New Calvinist belief and practice.
The first time the topic of Docent emerged on this blog, I brought it up to my undergraduate homiletics class (I teach undergraduate and graduate homiletics at a midwestern Christian college). While I condemned the practice, a student gave me pause. He mentioned if, because I thought this was unethical, if using a commentary was unethical, given that someone else did the research and pastors paid for it. While I noted the vast different, the philosophical comparison gave me cause to wonder –
Do I dislike Docent because of what it does, or because people I don’t approve of utilize it?
This is not a loaded question, nor a gotcha moment – just an honest point of reflection for Dee and Deb (and for me). Would I be mad that my local church pastor used this service (if the price was reasonable)? Or is it the context that megachurch pastors, whose time is usually more free than local church pastors, utilizing an expensive service to give them more free time?
Derek wrote:
I think this is a fair question, Derek.
To my mind, the qualitative differences between a static commentary that puts information into the public domain, and a private service specific to one person, is significant. The context you mentioned yourself is also important.
But I did have a thought while pondering your comment (I have to say, I haven’t read the whole thread, so if anybody has already suggested this then they can have dibs on it!). What if a pastor/teacher engaged, quite openly, one or more trusted and rigorous members of the local congregation to do the research. By “openly”, I mean that everyone would know who they were, and have reason to trust their independence, honesty and rigour. Better still: what if the congregation were involved in picking them? C.f. Acts 6: “Choose from among yourselves [seven men] who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom”. This would also resonate strongly with Paul’s assertion to the Corinthian believers that “When you come together, everyone has [some meaningful contribution]”.
Derek wrote:
P.S. Sorry – missed this one.
I don’t know whether I’d be mad per se, but I would certainly consider it a missed opportunity to involve people locally. Dinnae ken how things are over in the west, but here in Blighty, too many church organisations are too ready to download or import programs from elsewhere, and not enough create the space for their own creative and strategic thinkers to serve.
Derek wrote:
Writing something is greatly different from buying something ghost written.
When I promise homemade chocolate chip cookies for a potluck, I don’t show up with Chips Ahoy. I also don’t show up with flour, butter sugar, eggs, chocolate chips, etc.
The difference is the process of writing. If I look something up in a research volume, I think about how it applies to my readers or hearers, and I make it part of an original work written for a specific group on a particular day. No preacher would just read a commentary entry.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
That’s an interesting idea. In my church, there is a plethora of biblical studies/theology faculty as members. It would be fairly easy for the pastor to “lean” on us for research and resources. However, in my experience, pastors feel “insecure” around Bible/Ministry faculty, and perhaps would be too afraid to show weakness? Maybe not.
@ Friend:
Remove the ghostwritten sermon – what if it was a brief containing a collection of the latest research gathered. Does this change the discussion?
I am not defending Docent (I would never use it, even if I had the opportunity), but I want to be fair to it.
Derek wrote:
I have no idea how a writer would use such a thing: somebody else’s outline, sources, and notes, lacking any acquaintance with the congregation. If the researcher sent me a sheaf of 15 articles, how many would fit my audience and my way of thinking? Two?
The above omits something that I as a lay person cannot understand about sermon writing: prayer, contemplation, awaiting the Holy Spirit, as the sources lie spread out on the desk. The loving commitment of time to pull thoughts together: It’s Easter, a joyous time, but our best soloist is in the hospital, and a local employer is closing down; we have many more children in church than we did last year…
I don’t see how a research service would serve the needs of the congregation, and I doubt that anything short of ghost writing would free up the preacher to do (ahem) more important things.
@ Derek:
“Remove the ghostwritten sermon – what if it was a brief containing a collection of the latest research gathered. Does this change the discussion?”
++++++++++++++++++
the latest research…. who decides on how broad a scope of sources? docent? who vets such a process? docent?
how many times have i heard a sermon with statistical fallacies and urban legend put forth as truth…. perhaps these sermons came via docent.
@ Derek:
“Do I dislike Docent because of what it does, or because people I don’t approve of utilize it?”
+++++++++++
i dislike Docent because it’s like the final step from independent to franchise.
prefab everything.
@ Derek:
I dislike Docent because of how cheated i felt when i heard a pastor at my church preach a sermon Mark Driscoll already gave. It was delivered as if it was the product of his preparation and considered thoughts. I felt deceived. (as if the content wasn’t bad enough)
@ Derek:
I dislike Docent because it reduced raw God down to a microwaved big mac in a styrofoam box.
@ Derek:
so, i’m totally showing up here too much, but in short, i dislike Docent not because of the ethics of what it does or because people I don’t approve of utilize it, but because of how it impacts people in church.
my perspective comes from being at ground zero on the receiving end of the impact from decisions made from on high, from the lofty realm where theoreticals are the prime consideration. where principle trumps people.
elastigirl wrote:
It may well be universal that when you do the research to teach a subject you will first be the student and will learn a much greater lesson than those who will hear you. I think the idea of a pastor or teacher buying pre-packaged sermons will prevent or stunt such self-development. If there is any authority I would grant a pastor or a teacher it would be their knowledge or expertise when they have dedicated a life to research and study around their beliefs. Otherwise I have little respect for authority in the church strictly from power or position.
@ Friend:
Such a thing is relatively common in the academic world. My research assistant will gather/organize the needed data (grunt work – but necessary training in academic research) freeing me to “play with” with data in order to create a publishable work. The reason this scenario works is that I have put my time in (7+ years of graduate school) doing “grunt work,” so I know the drill.
So my concern with Docent, is that pastors may be getting the benefit of research without understanding the various research processes, including analyzing primary sources and critiquing secondary sources. Perhaps if a pastor using Docent (my hypothetical Docent – no ghostwriting) held an earned Ph.D, I would feel less concerned about someone else doing the “research,” for I know that he/she will critically engage the data.
elastigirl wrote:
They might as well get on with it by going public, selling stock, and declaring fiduciary responsibility to the share holders.
@ okrapod:
Finally spotted the comment whereof you spake!
The example you described was a particularly nasty one; it’s one thing to hop from place to place milking people for personal attention, but when a person’s need for attention motivates them to attack people’s families – that’s when we most miss the proper authority of the Local Church. By which I mean, not a para-church organisation calling itself “a local church” (or even, deludedly, the local church) but comprising only a small proportion of local believers and not in any way locally answerable. I mean, the whole company of believers in a locality.
elastigirl wrote:
One of the listings someone mentioned above has cutesy personal anecdotes from seminary. If those are not the pastor anecdotes, that is lies coming from the pulpit, really. That’s way beyond research.
Bill M wrote:
Yes, this too. The pastor is also accepting at face value the research of someone else. That process has not been done and the pastor may not be engaging with the material enough to fully understand it. I would rather hear a passage preached without research, than a canned sermon.
@ Derek:
Astute observations, thank you.
You’ve actually compounded my concerns about Docent. The preacher may well lack the academic training to use the research assistant’s product; and a sermon is an inspired message to the group, not a journal article. I don’t see much room for the Holy Spirit to breathe life into the congregation through such sermons.
I know some fine academics who preach, and they do their own research with deep joy. The balance between scholarship and simple teaching is a wonderful thing. Jesus provides quite good examples.
Muff Potter wrote:
If I’m a mere sheep, can I buy stock in my own leg of mutton?
elastigirl wrote:
Hear-hear.
Maybe some preachers buy sermons because they aren’t good writers. That’s still cheating the congregation.
I’m just catching up with the comments on this post, and had some thoughts about what I find particularly bothersome about what happens when church leaders-teachers-preachers use research and/or sermon services without understanding. A few commenters have been spot on about the problem of when the purchasers don’t understand enough about primary and secondary sources, their uses, and the research process. So, don’t want to duplicate that. [And apologies in advance that this is sort of rambling, with ideas not quite congealed yet, as I’m still recuperating from being out of town for a memorial service.]
The point I find myself vexed by also deals with an important process, and that’s contextualization — the process of applying the information to a relevant local congregation or situation. I have to wonder how well training programs do in equipping mentally and mentoring through experiences those who need to apply God’s Word to a specific group of disciples in a particular cultural setting. Well, back it up even farther, and I’m not sure how much the average seminary or training school graduate understands culture.
And so, how often does the “preaching event” end up a generic Bible/theology message that could be given anywhere? That still functions on assumptions about uniformity of “christian culture” and therefore doesn’t make room for local needs, multicultural congregations, differences in generational cultures, etc. In other words, it ends up being the opposite of “missional” — i.e., “non-carnational” instead of incarnational. Rather general / conforming / abstract / platitudes, not specific / transforming / concrete / practices.
Seems to me that relying on outsourced research and sermon outlines draws from the same well of assumptions as mega-church with its outsized audience, and multi-campus systems with a single teacher broadcast in from the main branch instead of anything from the local “chaplain.” Dood — why not just hand out copies of the sermons, or give people a link to the online source, and go play golf or something. Don’t set people up to think you’ve done the real work yourself.
And *systematic* theology has been decontextualized in the process of dividing everything up and assigning it to particular categories. The setting, the culture, the originating system all have been lost in the dissection, and what remains are supposed universals. Well, good as some of those abstract points might be, that doesn’t mean there is any personalized-localized-congregationalized application given in their presentation. Which means there is no actual pastoral element involved. True pastoring involves knowing a specific, concrete flock of sheep, but this whole thing is just teaching. Or, actually, just info communication, giving out generic info that applies to anyone/everyone.
I agree, I had a pastor who read sermons word for word. Got really mad when all his sermons were found online and he got exposed. He wasn't honest in other areas either. Split the church, said he was being persecuted, and they all used the "old touch not" line. @ bc:
brad/futuristguy wrote:
“Expert systems” were somewhat of a rage ten or fifteen years ago. It was an attempt to capture the analysis and decision making of an expert and replacing them with a computer program. Anyone who has had to deal with tech support personnel who can only read off the menu, trying to get them to understand their programmed advice is not applicable, will realize the limitations of such systems. The expert systems I’ve dealt with, or I should say dealt with the people plugged into them, were a poor substitute for the real thing, experience, judgement, and hard work.
The driving force behind the expert systems was cost cutting, that benefit to a church would only come if they fired the preacher and just have parishioners present the per-packaged messages.
Bill M wrote:
Yes indeed.
It is impossible to write clearly without thinking clearly.
The writing process forces people to improve and deepen their thinking skills.
Daisy wrote:
What you hear and see depends on your sources. In my Facebook newsfeed, aggressive, angry, pejorative posts are primarily (as in about 9/10) from my left-leaning Facebook friends.
Ken F wrote:
Eve is not “twisting the word God had revealed”. She is “building a hedge around the Torah”, that is, substituting a more stringent requirement for a less stringent one. If one conscientiously cleaves to the more severe stricture, one steers well clear of violating the actual law. Eve does good Jewish exegesis to resist temptation, while the feckless man just goes along with what his companion urges – he isn’t put into the position of having to face the Tempter himself. Then he blames his mistake on her. Typical.