Thoughts on Expository Preaching

Yesterday as we were driving back from St. Louis where we attended the Acts 29 regional network the topic of expository preaching came up between me and a guy who had been a missionary to Azerbaijan for 10 years. Let me say up fron in this post that I don’t have an axe to grind, I’m part of an Acts 29 church where expository preaching is the norm and is done is a great way, and heck, I even got an expository preaching award in college and if I remember right it included a small scholarship.  I simply want to tease out some thoughts and get your feedback.  Here we go …

In the conversation with my friend who spent 10 years overseas in a Muslim country one of the first things that came up was this form of preaching/teaching in light of church planting movements happening (CPM).  Could this form of in-depth sermon prep and delivery with all the pouring over commentaries and parsing Greek words be rapidly reproduced to keep pace with these CPM’s? Is this a viable template to place on, say Chinese rural Christians where almost all of those who plant we’d classify as bi-vocational?  Also, is it a good use of time for a church planter whether here or abroad to spend 25-50% of their week preparing for a 35-45 minute talk?

For CPM’s to take place it seems like all things need to be streamlined to all to multiplicative reproduction.  What I heard yesterday and saw exemplified by Darrin Patrick at the Journey was awesome and I’m still meditating on what he shared but I don’t think that outside a culture that’s Western-influenced I don’t know if we could reproduce it.  We know that preaching ought to be contextual.  What sets me squirming a little is when people with passion exlaim that this is the only way preaching/teaching should be done. Now hear me clearly, OBVIOUSLY THE BIBLE MUST BE TAUGHT, by the way we go about doing it should be contextualized to culture.

Another question that came up, does our current mode of expository preaching have a basis or foundation of examples set forth by the early church?  The answer is “no.”  We honestly don’t know how teaching was done in these churches …. a.k.a. house churches.  All we know was the “the teaching of the Apostles” was done but we’re not too sure what that looked like.  I’m sure for the Jewish Christians it probably looked like the way it was done in the synagogues and for the Gentiles I’m sure it was more influenced by Socratic teaching methodology of dialogue and interaction.  It’s hard when we apply our Greek-influenced didactic Western template of teaching pedagogy to everyone else.  I’ve heard the figure that only 50% of the world even learns by the “sit down, shut up, and listen” way of teaching while the other 50% learns by more doing first and then apply teaching to that.

So yes, since as a culture here in the U.S. where there’s still the hangover effect of Christendom still at play, I suppose expository preaching like we see exemplified does make sense to some degree for guys in “full-time” vocational ministry, but if we want to see rapid church planting movements take place we need to stream line and release “preaching” from academia and return it to the common man.  We still need to teach the Bible and proclaim Christ, but methodologically done in ways that are easy, transferrable, and reproducible.

Life in the Food Chain

Every morning and every night my dog has this ritual … pooping.  I’ve finally got him on a good schedule where he goes last thing before bed and the first thing in the morning.  That still baffles me because after he’s gone at night what does he have left for the morning?  What exactly happens at night when I’m sleeping …

Anyways, I’m the least biggest fan of our dog (whom I affectionately call mutt-dog) but I’m the one who takes these long walks through the park just so he can answer the call of nature.  I still wonder why nature doesn’t call him between our front door and the mailbox at the street.  Why does it always entail a 30 minute walk?  In the middle of this arctic winter that meant on some days -20 degree weather and now in the spring it means pouring rain.

Tonight it was pouring like a summer monsoon in the desert when I walked the dog.  Since I wear Crocs my feet are wet by the time I’m out of the driveway and pants are soaked by the end of the block even before we get to the park.  Walking at night at the park is fun because no one is there and I have it all to myself. It gives me a great chance to pray, reflect and talk to Wilson … I mean “mutt-dog.” As I was trying to prevent rain from running down my back I thought about stepping stones and moving up the “Christian food chain.”  Sometimes I wonder how much is even worth it for many because it seems like each successive step up is also a step away from people.

I cannot think of anything grander than working with people.  I remember in college one of my Bible profs would always say, “there are only 2 things that’ll last forever … the Word of God and the souls of mankind.” Interesting. I guess that means there’s nothing greater than the “people business.” I started reading a new book today and one of the first points made is that most of us will never be the rock stars but instead it’s okay to realize that God made many of us as 2nd chair violinists.  We’re created for a supportive role.  It does take humility to realize that most of us are at best mediocre but that’s okay because God still has amazing plans for us.  Our job isn’t to push and shove our way to the top but instead yield, surrender, and let God live through us.  That way when great things do happen we definitely know it was God …

The Rise of the City-State and Implications for Church Planting

The term city-state has always carried historical implications in my thinking and experience.  Remember studying Greek history in 8th grade?  I know, that was way back when and since Junior High was awkward for many of us there’s a reason why we don’t think about it.    Anyways, city-states were found in great ancient civilizations like Greece … Athens, Sparta, etc.  So why the talk today?  Because of the effects of globalization issues like power, wealth, networking, communication, and so on are more driven by mega global cities than individual countries.

There’s an “axis of power” of sorts (wealth and influence) shared among 4 elite cities that form a network that impacts and influences the rest of the world.  New York, London, Paris, and Tokyo.  These are first-tier or first-level cities of greatness.  New York in many ways has more in common with those 3 other cities than say, Albany or Syracuse in its own state.  On a side note, the same is true with mega-churches.  Even across denominations and geographical lines mega-churches have more in common with their “kind” (other mega-churches) than other local churches of their same tribe.

So if these 4 cities influence the world on a magnificent scale then how does this affect the way we do church planting or even where?  You can arbitrarily rank cities on a global scale to see their importance.  This is all subjective and different people have different lists but here’s an example.  1st-tier: NYC, London, etc.  2nd-tier: Chicago, Hong Kong, etc. 3rd-tier: San Fran, Berlin, etc.  Once you hit 2nd tier and below you can argue how cities ought to be higher and lower but this is more to get us thinking along these lines.

Here’s my theory … the higher you go up on the tier the less church planting activity there is.  In other words the cities that are the largest and most influential have the least amount of church planting compared to lower tiers.  So my next question is, how do we change this?

Practical Deism in Church Planting

Most of the time I think I function and think like a practical Deist.  We talk of the nearness of God, His presence, His ongoing work, but in the end we often act and think like He’s not around other than “somewhere up there.”  I am guilty as charged.  Since we live in a secular culture where most of life only goes skin deep then to attempt  to march to a different drummer seems odd to not only others but to ourselves.  I mean, I can’t see God, I haven’t heard Him audibly speak to me so it’s easy to slip into rationalism.

I think this plays out most often in decisions and especially in church planting. Again, we do know of the nearness of God, His indwelling Spirit, His moving in hearts around us, and from time to time it’s as though we see the veil torn in the cosmos and we see miracles that only can be explained by God. Here’s where I see one of the battles  in church planting.  How do you balance rationalism and God’s mysterious ways?  I know MANY who felt God leading them to plant and did the “irrational” … quit jobs, raise funds, move across the country leaving family and loved ones behind, traverse oceans, and in some cases walk away from great successful careers. To the onlooker who only sees things rationally that seems totally absurd.

I know the difficulty of trying to follow God as a church planter.  You hear it when you overhear conversations from family or peers in whispered tones who say things like, “You know, he should have gone into business” or “why doesn’t he get a real job and career” or “why is he moving away from us” or “I wish he’d be rational and not live on handouts (fundraising)” or “why does he move so much?”  Have you ever heard or felt those things?

Church planters in so many ways lay it on the line to plant a church because God has so burdened them that they cannot do anything else.  Is it hard?  Yes!  But is it worth it?  I think you know the answer …

Earthy People Unite!

Finally, I’ve found some culture. I’m in a coffee shop by Eastern Illinois University and they first guy I saw has dreadlocks.  I grabbed my mocha and sat down by the window and listened to the conversation between the barista and the patrons as they talks about Darfur and the hypocrisy of Christians.  Aaaahhh, feels good to be around earthy crunchy people again.  Since moving from Tucson my constant frustration is that I’m living surrounded by too many conservatives and not enough dreadlocked hippy-like people like you’d find all over Tucson and other cities in the West.  When I saw the dude I almost wanted to give me a hug to say thank you … thank you for reminding me of some of my favorite people to hang out with.

Of course this brings to my immediate attention church planting again.  My initial thoughts is, “why do we mainly plant churches among people who’re most like us?”  Who is the typical evangelical?  White, middle-class, and part of the family-values segment of society.  When you exegete a city where do you find most of that classification of people living?  The suburbs.  Where is the MAJORITY of church planting taking place?  The suburbs.

We need more apostolic types … more missionaries in our own culture and nation to be willing to invest in and do life with people they may not naturally relate to.  Instead we opt for what’s easiest and plant among people who look, act, smell, and think like us valuing the same things we do.  Obviously we need MORE churches among this segment but at the same time we need to branch out to other cultures, subcultures, and population segments.

The Non-Verbals of Your City

In the few mandatory communications classes I was forced to take throughout my educational trek I remember vividly the power of non-verbal communication. In fact, if you remember right your non-verbals comunicate more than your words do.  So true.  This morning as I’m reading over the history of cities and having a great time following their development from present day Iraq to the city-states in Greece to the majestic Alexandria in Egypt I’ve been thinking a lot about how cities are planned and created.

So what does your city say to you?  What are it’s “non-verbals?”  Think about it, in a sense your city is “talking” to you in the way it is laid our and it’s built structures.  If you could give it words what do you think it’d be saying?  Let’s try this with a few examples.

Tucson – what’s it saying? It’s neglected especially in the downtown core but there are the beginnings of signs of revitalization.  As a whole the city that has reached a million inhabitants needs to ensure that the way it reaches 2 million is better planned both visibly and in infrastructure.

Los Angeles – Bloated … kinda like fitting an elephant into a tutu. Needs to control sprawl.  Sense of out of control. The downtown isn’t necessarily the hub as it feels small for a city that size.

Santa Fe – Creative space, strict adhernace to building codes where the city seeks to compliment and not diminish the natural surrounding beauty and the Southwest culture.

Portland – concern for the environment and the people’s impact on it which is displayed by controlling sprawl, building up and making the downtown core distinct, functional, and energizing, retaining the character and personality of its many neighborhoods, etc.

Does that make sense?  What is your city saying to you?

Mortality in Church Planting

Let’s face it, mortality among we humans still hovers at around 100% and it doesn’t look like it’ll change anytime soon.  I wonder what life would’ve been like in Old Testament times when people lives hundreds of years?  Does that mean we’d all be subjected to puberty lasting 50-75 years?  Yikes, I wouldn’t want to battle acne for that long!  I know for me I’ve been thinking a lot about death lately.  Not a morbid fascination but just maybe noticing more and more the passing of time and the brevity of life (plus more grays hairs being discovered doesn’t help).

I then begin thinking of church planting in terms of the organic nature of it.  Organisms have normal life cycles … birth, infancy, adolescence, adulthood, reproduction, etc. In church planting lingo we like to use those phases for the development but there’s always one phase we seem to gloss over or not mention altogether.  Death.  I know we don’t like to think about it as humans because it reminds of our frailty and mortality.  As a culture we do everything we can to prolong life and the appearance of youth.  Are we any different in the church?

It seems that the bulk of our churches in the U.S. are in the last stages before death (remember … 85% of churches are plateaued or dying). We do everything we can to keep them on life support.  Maybe the best thing we can do is to help them realize their own mortality and place in the life cycle?  Maybe like in the story of Abraham and Sarah that instead of dying these old churches can give birth one last time … hope, a new beginning.  No doubt about it there really is a “baby boom” in that new churches are springing up all over the place.  There’s so much excitement surrounding new births and this is needed.  At the same time as we give birth we need to keep in front of us that the goal is reproduction but eventually there will be death.

Is that so terribly wrong? Does a church need to live forever?  How many churches in the New Testament are still around today?  I believe that the best legacy we can leave is to produce as many baby churches we can, train them up, and hand the baton off to them for succcessive generations.

Reformation 4.0

It’s been said that since the Reformation of 1517 there have been anywhere from 1-3 other “mini-reformations.” Today, I know we’re in the beginning of a new Reformation, say … we’ll just call it 4.0.

Some talk of the great missions movement in the 1800-1900’s as a reforming time whereby the church trekked the globe and the mission fields were coastal regions spreading then inland (2.0).  Some say there was a reformation beginning in the early 1900’s where the church “rediscovered” the Holy Spirit and the pentecostal/charismatic/spiritual gifts movement took off which realigned the church (3.0).

Beginning in the 1500’s then we’ve had a Reformation of soteriology (justification by faith), missiology (global missions), pneumatology (work of the Holy Spirit), and now it’s a Reformation of ecclesiology … the church’s forms and structures (4.0). It seems like almost weekly now I hear of some new church somewhere in the U.S. innovating and experimenting with new ways of doing and being church that goes way beyond the assumed lines of house church vs. platform / attractional church.  Now there’s a whole new breed of hybrids spreading like wildfire sharing characteristics of both ends of the spectrum but not really aligning with either.  The fun part is that many aren’t definable as we’ve yet to come up with trendy labels.

The more the church interacts in a postmodern urbanized culture in a globalized world the more we’ll all constantly be exposed to new forms and ways of doing and being the church.  I think of just my day today.  I’m in an online class studying the nature of cities and today I talked to a student from Taipei and one from Ethiopia.  What’s fun is that even when you talk about “cities” we all have such a different view and perspective on it.  The same with the church.  While the Bible does spell out principles of church leadership there are so many other things that are simply left up in the air … how do you gather?  How often? What do you do when you gather?  Where do you gather? Do you gather corporately or always in smaller clusters? Is there music?  Does there have to be? Can you be a church without a corporate gathering and an “offering?” If not, then what constitutes a church?  The best part about these questions is that it really forces us to figure out how we even define church and just 15 years ago I’d say there wasn’t much debate on how we defined it.

So … here we are.  Reformation 4.0.  Kind of fun isn’t it?

The Pinnacle of Man’s Creativity? The City

“The city is the most significant invention in the history of the world; indeed, it is the mother of all other inventions. The city may well be humankind’s greatest achievement; it is certainly the primary engine of change (Ron Boyce).”

Wow, chew on that for a while!  Have you ever looked at the city in that light?  That the greatest invention, the most prolific piece of living and structural poetry, the highest acclaimed work of art is the city?  Not only that but cities are the engines in which all other works of art, innovation, and inventions stem from.  Interesting.  Do you buy it?

If you were to agree that this is indeed true then what does it mean? We know the whole world is going urban … flooding to the cities at a rate of over 200,000 people PER DAY.  Why? “In the past 25 years or so the prime factor in the movement of vast numbers of people has been the allure of contemporary urban life with its promised economic opportunities and material amenities (Michael Mata).”  The diversity, complexity, and creativity of the city puts one on sensory overload.  Yet where is the church? Meeting only on one hour on Sunday morning somehow thinking that will transform the city.

People move to cities because of the opportunities, amenities, culture, diversity, creativity, and relationships yet when you look at the church you see a stark contrast.  In a block you can eat at a number of restaurants … Thai, Chinese, Mexican, Cuban, American, Korean, Indian. There are countless coffee shops, numerous shopping stores, a 24/7 lifestyle … it is multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, and multi-lingual.  What do we find in the church?  They offer one gathering a week in one language and that’s it.  Are we missing something?  I’m not talking about the church being some programmatic machine that is driven by consumers but simply to say are we truly indigenous to our communities?  We may verbalize God loves people and so do we but we quickly limit our access to people.  Maybe we’ve so narrowly defined our “Target Group” that we’re locked into one ethnicity or generation.

Cities are indeed hotbeds of creativity and innovation.  Isn’t it time the church be as well?

To Strategize or Not …

I’ve been chewing on the idea of strategies lately especially in urban contexts.  Here’s the tension (and I know I’ve blogged on this several months ago): How much do we pre-strategize as far as church planting vs. simply immersing ourselves in our context and let the strategy then bubble-up naturally as we exegete the city?

I’m afraid that all too often we have our plan/strategy all nailed down before we even move to our setting.  I know much of this is driven by fundraising and presenting a compelling plan whereby people can get on board and support your new church.  How silly would it be to say, “Well, I’m not too sure what or how I’ll do it but once I’m there I’ll figure it out on the fly.”  On the flip side … it does seem really odd to carve out of plan that is void of really knowing the community.  Often times we create our church plants in our minds before we even land in the new location.  We would never do that going over the pond somewhere, right?  Would someone going to Congo, China, or Azerbaijin carve out this amazing plan without having ever lived in one of these countries and getting to know the people?

What if our strategies were looked something like this …

Move to your new setting and begin exegeting it.  You’re looking for “signs of hope” where God is already at work.  You’re getting to know the people, the subcultures, your “parish,” the history, the present, the trajectory of culture, and so on.  You become an “insider.”  Then out of that the way you go about church planting is worked out in context.  Yes, it’ll be messy and unorthodox in methods/styles but I believe that when we commit to doing this it allows for innovations and ideas that have yet to be seen.  I’m afraid that without going this route this all we’ll be doing is importing non-indigenous models and expressions of church / faith community.

Maybe instead of being great strategizers we need to become better listeners.  Strategy is indeed important but it should naturally flow out of relationships and intimately knowing your context and city.  You need to love your city first and allow that love for the people to drive everything you do.

Your thoughts?