This post by Philip Sudworth, first published by Theology Everywhere on June 23rd caught my eye for the interesting perspective it provides on preaching and the impact we can have on our congregations.
When Paul went to Athens, he soon realised that the preaching approach that had been successful amongst his fellow Jews was not going to work there. He wandered around the city, got to know it and then presented his message in a form tailor-made for those people. That sense of the need to cater for people with differing experiences, interests, education and religious background when presenting the message seems to be lacking in some of our churches.
It didn’t matter so much in the 1950s when there was much greater consensus on key social and religious issues and the potential conflict between the biblical literalism and developments in scientific ideas was hardly publicised. These days with so many people with little religious background, so few used to listening to long talks, and the church no longer such a strong focus of social activities, it matters a great deal. The ethos of education has altered in our schools over the last two generations. Pupils are no longer expected to sit quietly, absorb what they are told and to regurgitate it in examinations.
They are encouraged to investigate, to question, to formulate their own theories, as well as to learn the latest theories. They are aware that knowledge is developing, that new discoveries and new ideas are changing perceptions. Just look at how rapidly information technology has progressed over the last 30 years. Yet many of our local churches seem to take a single approach, which is based primarily on the minister’s personal theology and his/her own worship preferences.
Too many of the clergy seem to view their role as getting their entire congregation and as many others as possible to the point of faith that they have reached, by the same route – creating Christians in their own image. Some of the clergy appear to struggle with the idea that there are personal paths to God and that the next best spiritual step for some individuals may be outside the cleric’s own experience.
Many evangelical leaders are particularly good in providing clear and confident structure of faith for those who need to feel certain that they have the only truth. However, if their only response to those with questioning minds is to tell them that they lack faith, if they don’t hold the “right” beliefs, they are failing them. A literalist approach to scripture supports those who want an infallible guide to life but leaves others dismissing a religion that believes that the stories of Adam and Noah are factual history and rejecting a God who could, according to Numbers 31, order genocide and the rape of 10-, 11- and 12-year-old virgins (13- and 14-year-olds would be already married in those days).
Liberal preachers need to appreciate that, while they may cope well with those open to new religious ideas, other people with problems want clear answers not philosophy. The pulpit is not the place for pondering out loud. If people come seeking answers to life’s problems but leave with more questions than they had before, their needs are not being served. The problem with both the evangelical and liberal approaches is that they can become introspective and two-dimensional. The liberal may become absorbed in his personal musings about the nature of God and what following Christ means in the reality of the 21st century.
The evangelical may become wrapped up in the intensity of her love for Jesus – “Just you and me, Jesus” – and in her own personal salvation and in the personal salvation of members of her flock. Neither is a healthy spiritual situation. Christianity is supposed to be an active three-dimensional faith, expressing love of God and love of others in practical terms. It is when we start to put this into practice that we can include and respond to a wider range of people. Provided that a loving outreach to others through practical projects is genuinely altruistic and not an evangelism strategy, it can be a unifying way of allowing people with all shades of theology to participate in a common service to God and expression of their faith.
Once we discover in practical situations that we can embrace all those who seek to live in response to God and find a role that suits their individual circumstances, perhaps we shall be more able to take account of individual differences when it comes to worship, pulpit pronouncements and pastoral and spiritual support.
Humans are not designed to fit into a mould. Our differences are there for a purpose. Let’s celebrate them, respond to them and so allow God to make effective use of them!