So call me a pagan... 5

In chapter five of "Pagan Christianity?" Viola takes on the "sermon." And again, here is probably where we are closest. I've written a lot about recovering interactivity and dialogue in sermon. We try to do this weekly-
sometimes more, sometimes less. But we always try to do what the people did in Nehemiah: "So they read distinctly from the book, in the Law of God; and they gave the sense, and helped them to understand the reading."-Neh 8:8

Our elders try to do what Paul instructs  in 1 Tim 4:13: and "devote [ourselves] to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching."

We follow Paul's example and use dialogue (Acts 20:7- the word for talk there is "dialogue"), but we try to avoid his example and speak for so long that people actually die (Acts 20:9).

We generally follow the New Testament pattern of "one will sing, another will teach, another will tell some special revelation God has given..." (1 Cor 14:26)

I'm not going to work through all of Viola's assertions in this chapter- some are good, some seem silly (like calling the sermon "unscriptural"- again, I know he says he MEANS extra-biblical... but does he not realize how the vast majority of people read this??? Unbiblical= wrong= sin), but I will say this:

The idea that teaching did not occur except on special occasions in early church gatherings and that true NT gatherings should be (to qualify as truly "biblical") free-form, allow-anyone-to-speak-on-whatever is just as much of an unfounded assumption as the idea that "real" preaching is a strict monologue that contains three points and an invitation to "trust Jesus" at the end.

Here's what I think: Both by apostolic command (1 Cor 14:26, 1 Tim 4:6-13) and example (Acts 6:4, 20:7-12, 1 Cor 2:1-5) can we say that teaching should be a part of "New Testament" church gatherings. The elders and others who have been given the gift of teaching should use that gift to build up the community. No, it shouldn't be strictly monologue (Acts 20 is a great example- showing Paul dialogued ("dialegomai") with the people, but took the lead in the discussion). Neither should it be a free-for-all (1 Cor 14:27-40) or NEED it be without agenda or planning (2 Tim 4:1-4).

I'm not going to argue for the status quo of preaching to crowds of thousands (or even hundreds) who are consistently kept from interaction by either size or social convention as being healthy. It's not. And the current trend towards things like video venues only exacerbates everything that's unhealthy in the current state of things.

But bomb-throwers like Viola aren't helping either. The truth of the matter is that the New Testament is long on principle and short on specifics in terms of how our community life should be organized. So yes, we can declare strongly- church practices which hinder every-member functioning and the development of the spiritual gifts of this community of priests should be minimized. We can also say, just as strongly, that the NT seems to place a good deal of emphasis on the role of elders in teaching, equipping, correcting and encouraging the people. In the context of a community who overall have the right and responsibility to teach , correct, encourage, etc each other, some have been given particular gifts in that respect (Eph 4:11) and those people have a special responsibility to serve the body (Eph 4:12, 1 Tim 4:6, 11) and we do this by obeying the NT command to "focus on reading the Scriptures to the church, encouraging the believers and teaching them." (I Tim 4:13). That this dynamic should work itself out in our corporate gatherings as well as in the other areas of our lives together seems pretty self-evident to me.

This whole chapter is a run down of the "pagan" origins of preaching. (As though if the Greeks hadn't thought of it first, no one would ever open the Scriptures and teach in a church meeting?) Its critique of polished oratory and univocal teaching ministries is fine and its history of preaching through the church ages is helpful.

But as is Viola's style, he just can't leave it at that. He MUST move it from the question of "What is healthy for the church" to "What is lawful for the church?" and that's where he again, oversteps.

Honestly, Viola's question that ends this chapter "How can a man preach a sermon on being faithful to the Word of God while he is preaching a sermon?" is so patently ridiculous and insulting  it boggles my mind. Once again, Viola has taken some good ideas (encouraging the church back towards interaction and dialogue in its teaching) and layered it over with a nice topping of overstatement and bluster.

"And how can a Christian passively sit in a pew and affirm the priesthood of all believers when he is passively sitting in a pew?"

Seriously- is that the whole sum and measure of NT priesthood of the believer? If I speak in the meeting, I get it. If I don't then, my priesthood has been robbed?

Please. To answer Frank's question of "how" let's imagine that the same person who might not speak a word on Sunday, is busy praying all week long for other members of her community, participates in or even teaches a theology discussion a few times a year, takes care of and lives in community with those in her home group, serves the poor and so preaches Jesus to the city in which she lives...

Get the idea?  But that person has no right to affirm the priesthood of the believers if she can't speak on Sunday? (I'd love to see Violas exegesis of 1 Cor 14: 34-35)

And this is fun: "How can you claim to uphold the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura ("by the Scipture only") and still support the pulpit sermon?... Is there really any room in the church's corral for sacred cows like the sermon?"

Sheesh.

Am I in favor of people sitting "passively" in pews? No. Absolutely not. But neither am I going to make the extreme statements that Viola is making that imply (and in other places in Pagan Christianity state explicitly) the idea that a church who has a more traditional sermon and (perhaps because of size) little interaction is somehow "unbiblical" (his word) and illegitmate (no "biblical or historical right to exist to function as it does.")

Do you really want to explore this issue? Then check out Doug Pagitt's book, Preaching Re-Imagined. It will move your thinking in this direction without all the needless insults and division that Viola seems to be shooting for (and if it's not what he's shooting for, it sure is what he's hitting).

Comments

[rich]

It's been fun watching all my emerging bretheren who are bothered by this book back up and defend some of the things they fought the last few years when someone comes along with a whole new spin that is not really emerging or institutional. I am NOT saying that you are doing that Bob, but I you are getting some of what you've thrown out there thrown back at you with a spin. I have too.

I think with all of it's generalities and overstatements, this book may just end up being very important because it is making all camps take a step back and it is making some people from every camp a bit angry.

One point, you say:

"Honestly, Viola's question that ends this chapter "How can a man preach a sermon on being faithful to the Word of God while he is preaching a sermon?" is so patently ridiculous and insulting it boggles my mind."

Not so much when you go back to how he defines sermon. I think you and too many other Pastors may be taking this book harder than you should. You and your community are trying to do it right and I don't think this book really even applies to you.

[Bob Hyatt]

Ha! Glad I could provide some entertainment... :)

I recognize that I'm not in the crosshairs here. I think
a. That's exactly WHY I'm reviewing this book as I am- I have critiques of many of the same things Viola is critiquing- but (I hope) mine are a bit more reasoned and methodologically sound. In other words, I feel a vested interest in making sure these arguments get out there, but get out there in a healthy way, accessible to the majority of church folks. I think (as others have noted) Viola's tone is needlessly antagonistic and ridiculously black and white, and I think that hurts the overall "movement" of those who would like to move away from strict monologue and towards more dialogical methods of teaching in our worship gatherings.

b. Again, what I see as issues of more or less healthy for the church in general, Viola is positioning as issues of biblical/unbiblical.
C'mon people- suggesting that preaching a sermon is being unfaithful to the Word of God? I've got NOTHING but contempt for that kind of tactic/rhetoric.

c. I think while I/we may not be in the crosshairs, we're certainly at risk from the flak. We may have a lot more interaction than your average church community, but we're still a far cry from the "open" house meeting Viola holds up as being the "biblical" model.

[Bruce Gerencser]

Bob,

I know adding a simple "do you have any questions or comments" at the end of the sermon helps tremendously. If people feel free to ask questions they will.

I also had a regular "ask any question" service. Fun times. Scary times.

As a pastor I believe in personally getting involved in the lives of those I pastor. Regular home visits. Regular fellowship with every PERSON who wishes it. Once the pastor/laity wall is broken people are more willing to trust their pastor and are willing to ask the REAL questions they have. There is something about sitting in someone's living room. that is conducive to honest, open talk.

I,in no way, have all the answers. I am learning by trial and error, error, error, error, hey I got it!

I appreciate your blog.

Bruce

[matybigfro]

Hey bob
I’ve been saving reading your PC 1,2,3,4 and now 5 properly for a couple of weeks due to Christmas, work and then being away at a work conference last week.

At first you were coming over pretty harsh and aggressive in your criticism (nearly hitting Driscol levels of verbal ball busting) and having read a fair few positive reviews from the like Alan Hirsch, Andrew Jones and Kingdom grace, I was wondering what your problem was thinking you would be in similar camp to those mentioned above.

Having got to part five I’m starting to come round to your opinion on the book. I think he’s still got some points and I kinda wonder whether the books more of a apologetic for the house church movement that he seems to be a bit of a figure kinda trying to hit back at those who have hit out on the organic/simple/house church movement.

I just think for many people of Viola’s generation kinda making the adjustment from a institutional way of doing church is so great that it can only go to an almost opposite position of doing church i.e. the house church, and almost seeing no way in-between is almost natural, I guess for younger generations some having left church or been less encultured/engrained in the institutional church we can more easily deal with the need to deconstruct and reconstruct much of modern Christianity without having to necessarily through the baby out with the bath water.

[matybigfro]

Hey bob
I’ve been saving reading your PC 1,2,3,4 and now 5 properly for a couple of weeks due to Christmas, work and then being away at a work conference last week.

At first you were coming over pretty harsh and aggressive in your criticism (nearly hitting Driscol levels of verbal ball busting) and having read a fair few positive reviews from the like Alan Hirsch, Andrew Jones and Kingdom grace, I was wondering what your problem was thinking you would be in similar camp to those mentioned above.

Having got to part five I’m starting to come round to your opinion on the book. I think he’s still got some points and I kinda wonder whether the books more of a apologetic for the house church movement that he seems to be a bit of a figure kinda trying to hit back at those who have hit out on the organic/simple/house church movement.

I just think for many people of Viola’s generation kinda making the adjustment from a institutional way of doing church is so great that it can only go to an almost opposite position of doing church i.e. the house church, and almost seeing no way in-between is almost natural, I guess for younger generations some having left church or been less encultured/engrained in the institutional church we can more easily deal with the need to deconstruct and reconstruct much of modern Christianity without having to necessarily through the baby out with the bath water.

[Pistol Pete]

I believe good preaching is "interactive" not in the sense that more than one person is speaking (I despise "dialogue" sermons), but in the sense that the preacher has listened to and knows well what the people are going through. S/he can then raise these questions, address these issues, and use these illustrations within a Biblical framework.

I do think, as a rule, every preacher except the absolutely most gifted should keep his/her sermon to 12-15 minutes. The exception would be if you are a great storyteller and can capture the congregation as a performer of a monologue might. I don't include myself in this group.

[Vivian]

Bob,
I don't have any incredible insight on the topic and haven't read Pagan Christianity (yet?)
But, as a newcomer to your church, I want to mention that I love love love the dialog that follows the "sermon" (which by itself is very conversational). If only all my classes in college were that way, I might have learned a lot more! It also says a lot to me that you've got a community there that feels confident and accepted enough to add their two sense, on your blog, on Sunday, etc.
So whatever you're doing, I think its working.

[Bob Hyatt]

Thanks Vivian... I'm glad you and Chris and little Ethan are around :)
And reading my blog! Whoa :)