the postmodern pop pastor

My initial “calling” came through the mouth of a good friend and mentor. I entered preparations for the ministry because I was asked to. I backed away from ministry several times during my years of school and internship in order to be sure of my direction. The first time was when my internship ended while I was still in the middle of the program, the next when I met a group of young men living on the streets of Torrance, CA. I spent the year working a swing shift job while helping them get their lives together. Each time that I parted ways with ministry in the church the Lord confirmed my calling by providing unsought opportunities to teach, lead and evangelize.

The deviations between my call to ministry and those of the grand Old Testament ministers are significant, though fewer than the parallels. In reading several calling narratives [1], priority was given to the actual supernatural invitation by the Almighty. God addressed Moses through the burning bush (Exod. 3:2f); Isaiah by opening his eyes to the heavenly throne room (Isa. 6:1-8); Jeremiah through the prophetic word (Jer. 1:4); and Ezekiel by means of exalted views of God being worshipped by the angels (Ezek. 1:1). My experience has not been so incredibly dramatic, nor has it been prophetic. God did not speak audibly by any means and I did not see any visions from heaven. I do not regard my calling as any less dramatic than theirs. I am amazed that God can use the invitation of a human servant to move the heart of another in His chosen direction. Another deviation exists between my calling and that of Moses, whom I also find more similarities with than the others. God granted Moses a partner in the ministry to make up for the great man’s weaknesses or fears. While I have had several short-term mentors that have been very influential in my life and ministry, a significant portion of the task has been spent alone.

Parallels exist between my calling and all of the Old Testament ministers. Similarities with Moses begin with rearing in a ministerial family line. I committed one of the same youthful faults that Moses did, we both attempted self-initiation into a place of influence while we were young that resulted in a time of fleeing until God deemed the time ready to call us back. We both manifested reluctance and fear at being called and both found some gracious effectiveness to our ministries.

Isaiah’s story narrates the experience both he and I had in coming to realize our sinfulness. The prophet then expresses our willingness to go as God would lead out of gratitude for what He has done in offering forgiveness and out of awe for who He is as the sovereign of the universe.

Jeremiah and I share the experience of our young age when called and the struggles that come along with that. Those struggles in my life included wondering if the calling was true, not being taken seriously by older men and women, and the difficult decisions to take the time away from active ministry to be better trained and prepared to do the work that I have been called to.

I, like Ezekiel, needed to learn an exalted view of God to provide the proper foundation for involvement in His work. We also needed to be given a message to teach when we opened our mouths. It would not have been proper for either Ezekiel or myself to speak a message that we did not receive or to represent a God that we did not understand to be the high and exalted king of heaven. The exalted God spoke a message and called each of us to deliver it. Ezekiel’s view of God and receipt of message took place through prophetic vision. For myself, I learned to see God as exalted through the life and teaching of my mentors. The message was delivered primarily through my education. Ezekiel and I both ate the word with eagerness and have been transformed by the way that the Spirit uses it in our stomachs, our hearts and in our mouths.

The final similarity between my own calling and that of each of these men is that I too have been sent to speak the message of the exalted God, the words that I have eaten to those who are already His people. The words we speak are those of hope and deliverance. At times, we must preach repentance, but we always proclaim that God is highly exalted, residing in glory, who has seen the affliction of his people and has sent a deliverer to set them free.
[1] Exodus 1-4; Isaiah 6:1-8; Jeremiah 1:1-19; Ezekiel 1-3.

I have thought about this myself for some time now. But have not have yet gotten to the place where I can assess suburbia well.

Here is a series of posts by Scott Birkhimer on this very topic at Theopraxis.net. Fantastic!

Theology of Suburbia

Benjamin felt a nose nuzzling at his shoulder. He looked round. It was Clover. Her old eyes looked dimmer than ever. Without saying anything, she tugged gently at his mane and led him round to the end of the big barn, where the Seven Commandments were written. For a minute or two they stood gazing at the tatted wall with its white lettering.

"My sight is failing," she said finally. "Even when I was young I could not have read what was written there. But it appears to me that that wall looks different. Are the Seven Commandments the same as they used to be, Benjamin?"

For once Benjamin consented to break his rule, and he read out to her what was written on the wall. There was nothing there now except a single Commandment. It ran:

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS

After that it did not seem strange when next day the pigs who were supervising the work of the farm all carried whips in their trotters...No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

George Orwell, Animal Farm

I am done with apologies. If contrariness is my
inheritance and destiny, so be it. If it is my mission
to go in at exits and come out at entrances, so be it.
I have planted by the stars in defiance of the experts,
and tilled somewhat by incantation and by singing,
and reaped, as I knew, by luck and Heaven's favor,
in spite of the best advice. If I have been caught
so often laughing at funerals, that was because
I knew the dead were already slipping away,
preparing for a comeback, and can I help it?
And if at weddings I have gritted and gnashed
my teeth, it was because I knew where the bridegroom
had sunk his manhood, and knew it would not
be resurrected by a piece of cake. "Dance" they told me
and I stood still, and while they stood
quiet in line at the gate of the Kingdom, I danced.
"Pray" they said, and I laughed, covering myself
in the earth's brightnesses, and then stole off gray
into the midst of a revel, and prayed like an orphan.
When they said "I know that my Redeemer liveth,"
I told them "He's dead." And when they told me
"God is dead," I answered "He goes fishing every day
in the Kentucky River. I see Him often."
When they asked me would I like to contribute
I said no, and when they had collected
more than they needed, I gave them as much as I had.
When they asked me to join them I wouldn't
and then went off by myself and did more
than they would have asked. "Well, then" they said
"go and organize the International Brotherhood
of Contraries," I said "Did you finish killing
everybody who was against peace?" So be it.
Going against men, I have heard at times a deep harmony
thrumming in the mixture, and when they ask me what
I say I don't know. It is not the only or the easiest
way to come to the truth. It is one way.

Wendell Berry
from Farming: A Hand Book

Is the professional preacher/teacher at a disadvantage in trying to cultivate spiritual growth among people who are not "ministry professionals"?

I have two responses to this question, yes and no. Both are true and both should be lived into full in the present cultural context. Pastors have a recognized place in society and in the church. This brings both advantage and disadvantage.

No, there is actually great advantage to being a professional preacher.
There is still great respect for the office of pastor/ preacher in our post-Christian North American society. While working as a bi-vocationally I would get the uncomfortable apology any time a co-worker uttered an ordinary garden variety profanity. "Sorry Pastor," they would say, even though they had never known me in that role. This unearned reverence provides great advantage in speaking formatively into people's lives. We can begin our conversation at a level that would take years to gain without the title.

There is also great advantage to receptivity that most have to the professional clergy. Neighbors tell you their marital troubles and young restaurant servers ask for prayer for their upcoming end of term exams. We have access to engage formative issues that would normally be reserved for close friends and family. The preacher in the corporate setting or one on one over coffee can speak more frankly because of his professional status. To not take advantage of this would be foolish and irresponsible.

There is a way in which we can authentically act on advantages without manipulation and at the same time overcome some of the disadvantages. These take much time and effort and be necessity limit one's sphere of influence. We can care.

Caring will begin with time. We can spend time with our people in their contexts, where they live, work and play. After all, we are paid to have the time to dedicate to their spiritual formation and that pay comes from their own pocketbooks. Much pastoral time is taken up with maintaining the organization, but are we called to form an organization or to form individual believers in the image of Christ in a Trinitarian community? While there, an authentic preacher who cares for his people hurts with the hurting, laughs with the rejoicing and cries with the grieving. We are Wounded Healers, as Henri Nouwen calls us. Combining unearned respect for the office with time earned confidence creates the perfect platform for preaching the gospel. By adding hard fought trust that was wrought through suffering to the natural openness to the professional office holder amplifies the message louder than any microphone available.

We do well to work with what we have and who we are in society. By just being "one of the guys" we forfeit very much. In honesty, we never really are one of the guys, our congregation never has and never will see us that way.

Is the professional preacher/teacher at a disadvantage in trying to cultivate spiritual growth among people who are not "ministry professionals"?

I have two responses to this question, yes and no. Both are true and both should be lived into full in the present cultural context. Pastors have a recognized place in society and in the church. This brings both advantage and disadvantage.

Yes, there is a disadvantage to being a professional preacher.
First, there is a great disadvantage in the expectations that people have for Pastors. Even though we protestant evangelicals decry the clergy/ lay distinction, it exists none the less. Our true struggles to be godly in this world are take for granted. That's what we get paid to be. God forbid that we be less than expected. We are expected to know what we are talking about, especially in relation to the Bible and theology. While I pursue a knowledge of these out of a desire to build my own faith in Jesus, this has little modeling affect because it is taken for granted. The problem is only compounded in that we usually (not always) do have more knowledge. Hopefully we understand that more knowledge does not equate with more godliness, but it does get confused at times. There is also an expectation that preachers do what Christians ought to do. Our service could truly be motivated out of a faithful heart, but it is at times received like the insurance agent calling when you have a claim. It is our job.

It is a disadvantage to speak to men and women who live in the real work-a-day world when we move and live and have our being within the walls of the monastary, metaphorically speaking. Our work has clear missional purpose and our interactions are primarily with believers. This makes for a significant disconnect in the minds of some, I am certain. "There is no way he can understand what I am going through." However, the separation of the preacher away in the cloister in not, in reality, what others think it is. AND, there is probably much more confrontation with actual sin and sinners than for workers who ply their trade in business or art or service. The preacher's business is the art of servicing sinners.

Then there is the disadvantage of relationships between preacher/ teacher and congregation. They are largely artificial. For one, the preaching/ listening dynamic does not facilitate relationship in the slighest. Most of us are different in the pulpit than in person, as we should be. We do not speak to a crowd as we do to an individual and never to an individual as we do to a crowd. So we are not truly known and do not truly know the majority of our hearers. What they believe they know of us is not real knowledge either. Most church goers are not real with their pastors. They speak to their families differently when we are around and they very seldom cuss in front of us. Finally, the relationship will always be clouded by the shepherd/ sheep dynamic. Praise the Lord that some can get past it, but most relationships that people form with their Pastors come to an end when that person is no longer serving them in that capacity.

This is a questions posed to me with this example:

How does my own practice of spiritual disciplines affect and inform my homiletic choices? Is it irresponsible, for instance, to use my sermon or lesson preparation (professional work) as a primary means of personal spiritual formation?

Here are my rambling and ranting thoughts in response.

My own practice of the spiritual disciplines (which I find great pleasure in because of my monastic tendencies) has very great affect on my preaching, but should not have a great deal of affect on my homiletical choices.

It affects me.
My own faith is strengthened through practicing the spiritual disciplines. I grow in the knowledge of God, I grow as I respond obediently to my Lord and I develop an awareness of the work of the Spirit in my own life. A more faith filled and faithful preacher is a better preacher.

Sermon or lesson preparation is a very important means of spiritual formation. I don't understand why it would be otherwise. Where do find reason to make a separation between reading and "devotional" reading? Does the Spirit not work through his word when I am studying to teach? If there is not the potential for personal formation in sermon preparation then how can there be in preaching the same material?

There is a danger here that I read/ study my Bible only for teaching others. There have been times where I found myself reading for what I might say to "them" rather than what the Spirit is saying to me. Another danger is allowing my personal experience in times of the disciplines to affect the choice of topic or text for preaching to the congregation. I cannot assume that what the Spirit is saying to me is what the Spirit is saying to the congregation. I also cannot assume that I get it. Congregations are too often erratically fed according to a preachers whim and then there starvation is blamed on the Spirit.

It should not affect my choice of topic.
I preach expostional sermons through books of the Bible. Therefore, the topic of Sunday's text is never at my discretion and never on Saturday night! Of course, I am involved in choosing the book as a part of leadership team. Homiletical outlines are determined grammatically as much as possible so that the emphasis of the sermon is likewise chosen by the inspired authors. It is important that I/ we preach the Word and let the Spirit work with his Word in the lives of his people.

It does affect my illustrations.
I find that my sermons are often riddled with cross references from the Bible book I am reading for my own personal formation. The preaching pastor in my church is going through the book of Luke and still constantly refers to Ephesians, the last book we studied together. This is good and important. My own intake of the Bible shows the Bible's importance in my own life. These type of cross references demonstrate a consistent belief in the authority and consistency by pointing out how each part works so well with the others.

This last post on preaching considers the effect of the DMin program at ACTS Seminaries of Trinity Western University of which I am a part.

ACTS Seminaries

The program began with a course under Dr. Stan Grenz who guided his students into a more consistent theological reflection. This mentorship provided groundwork to build the program upon. Dr. Phil Zylla exposed us to the power of words as words. By being introduced to Rainer Maria Rilke and Rubem Alves poetry took a more prominent role in my preaching. I consider myself a poet, but my prior education had certainly downplayed its value in the theological task. This certainly fits well with my artistic tendencies as explained under experiences. Closing out year one, Dr. Ron Toews emphasized the gardening metaphor in the life of the minister. I came to see a greater necessity for promoting health in the congregation than for measuring health in the congregation. As a result, I can focus the task preaching on the feeding rather than on the counting.

Second year courses began with studies under Dr. Gordon Smith whose mystic leanings were inspiring. His thoughts on the lengthy process of conversion encourage a patient approach to preaching in that the desired results are not necessarily punctilier. The greatest asset of that course in my life came with the final project in which I considered the practice of spiritual community among the early German Pietists as seen in the writings of Philip Jakob Spener. Spener made very clear emphasis on the fact that the Word has formative power in the life of the believer, not in and of itself, but because of the miracle of illumination. Finally, learning under Daniel Block could probably be considered an experience as well as an education. Dr. Block taught us that the Word was meant to be heard with the ears. On the final day of classes, which was in a retreat setting, Dr. Block had the cohort read the Word out loud to each other. As the brothers and sister spoke the words of God, each in their own style and with their own accent, it became alive in a glorious new way. The reading and hearing of the Word has become much more prominent in my preaching thanks to Dr. Block.

John Mark Rutter has posted his thesis written for DTS on small groups in the Emergent Church. It's good work well done. I would recommend taking advantage of his efforts. Good bibliography also.



A brief summary/abstract:
The emergent church is attempting to organize church structure and activities in new ways in its attempt to reach postmodern individuals. A question that arises within this reorginization is how they perceive and structure small groups. In many ways, the traditional emergent approach to small groups is similar. However, there are also significant areas of difference in regard to approach. For instance, the emergent approach places greater emphasis on careful/cautious leadership than traditional approaches. The emergent emphases seem to promise on some levels significant improvements. However, in other areas, there seems to be the potential for negative results from their advocated methods.

A COMPARISON OF TRADITIONAL AND EMERGENT SMALL GROUP MINISTRY APPROACHES

Let's be honest. All experiences are not positive, some are negative and some are, in fact, devastating. It is often true that our enemies define us more than our friends do. There are times in my preaching life when not being like preacher X is the most prominent motive in my work. I don't think this is a good thing, but a reality. Here is my acknowledgement of where I have seen it happen in me.

First, I have reacted strongly to my educational upbringing that saw teaching as the ends of preaching rather than the means. I've already stated that I see information as the means of transformation but to stop with transferring an explanation of the text does little to move the soul, to bind the community or to express the gracious mercy of God that is being extended to the congregation. I recall visiting a family member not long ago and listening to their preacher go verse by verse and never get to the point.

On the other side, I am tired of hearing preachers opinions. Now, I want to hear the preacher's opinion on how the truths of God implicate me and call me to belief, obedience and participation in the Gospel. It has been an extremely negative experience in my Christian life to have to recover from a preacher that sees either no authority or no meaning in the text. If the preacher is not extending God's authority to the congregation then it far too quickly becomes his own. I see preaching without an authoritative text as a Nieztschian will to power.

The last negative experience is somewhat connected to the last, but the time, place and preacher was different. When hearing an emergent preacher speak I resonated strongly with his willingness to ask good and relevant questions. It was with him that I understood finally how different postmodern questions are from those asked by moderns. After a few more sermons, I began to wonder if he ever came to a conclusion. A few more pass and I began to get angry. I wanted to stand up and ask, "What the hell was that all about." I still think all who hear him would benefit if he would just admit he doesn't have a point.

There you are. Full disclosure. My theology of preaching reacts to preaching that does little more than teaches, preaching that dismisses the authority and meaning of the Biblical text and postmodern preaching that has no point.

It is honest to recognize that experiences shape our actions (in this case, the action of preaching) as much as our thinking does. I've already acknowledged that I had not developed a sophisticated theology of preaching prior to assuming the task. Here are a few positive experiences that have shaped both the content and the form of my preaching.

Sentence diagramming (Yes, I said sentence diagramming) was a very positive experience in preaching. One of the most difficult parts of preaching (and the most difficult to listen to) is the shape of a preacher's outline. How do you decide what points to emphasize apart from your own preference? I consider myself creative but not inspired. Looking back at some sermon outlines I wonder what in the world I was thinking. Then I did it, I diagrammed a Biblical passage. (Note: this doesn't work too well with narrative). I could see Paul's outline in front of me. I knew that I could emphasize what Paul emphasized. (Logos bible software has a diagramming tool)

The next positive experience for me came in a conversation with a screenwriter over coffee. He was speaking to me about his task of writing scripts for films and taught me about a logline. A logline summarizes a movie in few simple sentences. it includes the hero, the problem the hero faces, allies, and the story climax. Here is a logline someone wrote for The Terminator: "A young woman is stalked by a killing machine sent from the future and learns she is marked for death because she will bear a child who saves mankind from extermination." My friend suggested that I, as a preacher, think about how the logline of the Biblical story collided with the logline of our congregation.

Sometime later I was speaking to a group of artists about the value of their creativity in the church and made the side comment that I am not an artists and have little artistic skill. They took great offense to that and sat me down to explain that they saw my preaching as art and that I should as well. Education taught me to think about the content of preaching but very little about the delivery. After that day some of my preaching mentors became Jerry Seinfeld, Emeril Lagasse and Bono.

Last thing. I was standing on the steps where John Calvin preached in Geneva. I wanted to sit in his chair, but the docent had other ideas. There was an illuminating experience for me on those steps where the knowledge I had of reformed preachers as ministers in the stead of God before the congregation became a reality for me.

These positive experiences have made preaching into an exegetical art in which I attempt to connect the story of the Bible with the story of my congregation on behalf of God who appointed me to preach.

The final issue I see as influencing my theology of preaching in regards to spiritual formation is how the Word works in transformation. The question concerns the role of information, what the Word says, in relation to the transformation. When I preach, do I preach to communicate information or facilitate transformation. While some will want to make a clear distinction between approaching the Scriptures for information as opposed to transformation, I don't see that as a possibility. Not even a possibility. M. Robert Mulholland, whom I have much respect for, addresses the issue this way:

God asks to be loved with all our minds and all our hearts. The informational aspect relates to primarily (though not exclusively) to our minds. It must be balanced with the formational aspect, which relates primarily (though not exclusively) to our hearts.[1]

My presupposition (perhaps my prejudice) hears the idea of reading with our hearts as nonsense. I am a whole human person. I cannot read with one part of my being and not another. I understand and agree wholeheartedly that we often read for information only. True transformation, however, will always take place as a result of the Spirit of God illuminating a true knowledge of the Word of God, which is information.

I preach the inspired information for Spiritual transformation.

[1] M. Robert Mulholland Jr., Shaped by the Word: The poorer of Scripture in Spiritual Formation, (Nashville, TN: Upper Room Books, 2000), 63.

Hermeneutics has also shaped my theology of preaching. I was fortunate to learn the science and art of hermeneutics from very level headed men. While they had their presuppositions, of course, but each attempted to honestly keep them from becoming predjudices. Grant Osborne sees this as a very real possibility:

I must distinguish between presupposition and prejudice. The key is to follow Ricoeur's suggestion and place ourselves in front of rather than behind the text, so that the text can have priority. This allows us to determine which types of preunderstanding are valid and which are not, as the text challenges, reshapes and directs our presuppositions…My basic point is that they can be identified. When prejudices become subconscious and are taken for granted, the interpreter never examines them and they become hermeneutical tool, determining the meaning of the text. While this often happens and does indeed obfuscate the possibility of discovering the original meaning of the text, this is not a necessary occurrence. [1]

I maintain a historical grammatical system of hermeneutics, taking every care to ensure that the authors intent is discerned to the best of my ability. By refraining from both a wooden literalism and unfettered spiritualization, the inspired text once again takes center stage. I seek to model in my preaching a manner of interpretation facilitates the Spirit of God's use of the Word of God in the hearts of the people of God.

[1] Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1991), 412.

I am preparing for a class on Preaching for Spiritual Formation (I am part of the DMin program at ACTS Seminaries at Trinity Western University).

Part of the intro to the class is accessing my own theology of preaching. I dont know if I have a clarified theology of preaching. I certainly have one, de facto, but not intentionally laid out. So I thought I would take a few days to reflect on the issues and experiences that have become the foundation for my theology of preaching. I am fully open to the possability that when I put it all down in writing there may be inconsistencies...I am willing to change...if I have to...I guess (any Red Green fans?)

The first issue in preaching for me is my Bibliology or my view of the Bible. What I believe about the Bible will determine the content of my preaching and the form of my preaching. Call me old fashioned, but I believe that the Bible is God's revelation in written form, breathed out and inscripturated by the superintending of the Holy Spirit. I also believe that, as inspired revelation of my wholly trustworthy God, it is the means by which God exercises his authority in my life. Let me unpack those two a bit and the impact they have on my preaching.

Because the Bible is inspired revelation by God in written form, I preach the Bible, there is the content. My opinion is not important, though hopefully it is helpful. God has breathed out these words and promises to illuminate them in the believing heart, mind and soul. My role is to explain and to clarify. If I preach anything other than the Bible (even for 40 days) I rob God's people of their great treasure and fed them instead cheap filler and preservatives that may lead to rapid and unnatural growth, which we all know is just another way to desribe cancer.

Because the Bible is the means by which God exercises His authority in our lives, the role of the preacher is also to implicate the hearers. I like that word, implicate. Doug Pagitt used it and I cannot think of a better description of the preachers task, its the present version of Nathan to David, "You are the man. This is your story, pick it up from here."

So my reformed leanings find me authoritatively preaching the words of the inspired text. The reformed preacher acts as God's spokesman so he can point one finger at the text and another at the congregation and say,"Thus says the Lord." My Free Church tradition finds me clarifying the words so that believing people may have the words in their heart for the Spirit to make alive and then pressing the authority of God home for life and godliness. Finally, my postmodern tendancies keep me speaking to the present aliveness of the inspired words of Scripture. What was spoken under inpiration to the early church through the apostles is our story. I am not the "you," of Ephesians, but they are my people, their God is my God and I, and those who hear me preach, are the living members of the church of the Firstborn, purchased with the blood of the precious lamb from every tribe, tongue and nation to declare the manifold wisdom of God to the watching world.

Just started reading Ehrman's book. He's a good writer, most readable I've seen on the topic. So far, there is nothing new. Except maybe a few mountains where there use to be molehills.

I cracked up at John Stewart's slip of the tongue at the end.