The Sermon as Temple
There’s a striking passage in 2 Chronicles 6 that powerfully describes the instinct in humans to hijack the ways of God.
After the temple is built, Solomon calls the people of Israel together and prays to the Lord. In his prayer— after years of planning the building of the temple, after the donation of an incredibly large portion of the wealth of the kingdom, after the devotion of what must have been tens of thousands of hours of human labor—Solomon finally speaks to the Lord saying,
“May your eyes be open toward this temple day and night, this place of which you said you would put your Name there. May you hear the prayer your servant prays toward this place. Hear the supplications of your servant and of your people Israel when they pray toward this place. Hear from heaven, your dwelling place; and when you hear, forgive.” (20-21)
How quintessentially human!
The Lord had his own paradigm for the way His people would engage Him. He called it the tabernacle.
He designed it. He wrote its dimensions into His very Law. He laid out the whos and the hows of the way His people would meet Him and serve Him and live in relationship with Him through the tabernacle. He designed specifically for that purpose. But Solomon’s father, David, had a better idea. That idea never pleased the Lord. The Lord sent Nathan to David to say,
‘This is what the LORD says: Are you the one to build me a house to dwell in? I have not dwelt in a house from the day I brought the Israelites up out of Egypt to this day. I have been moving from place to place with a tent as my dwelling. Wherever I have moved with all the Israelites, did I ever say to any of their rulers whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, “Why have you not built me a house of cedar?’
Yet, because our Lord is merciful and gracious beyond measure, when Solomon took up David’s idea and built the temple and, after completing it, asked the Lord to bless it, the Lord blessed it.
Friends, understand the compelling passion of my heart:
The hijacking of the Lord’s plan for worship in the humble and mobile tabernacle for the sake of a humanly designed, edifice which breeds institutional worship is a metaphor for the way the institutionalized church has debased the Spirit-empowered gatherings depicted in the New Testament.
The cornerstone of that act for today's Evangelicals has become the ‘worship service’ which reaches its apogee with the preaching of the 'sermon' by a priestly mediator given the title, Pastor.
The New Testament describes a different sort of encountering God’s truth—one through which the Spirit Himself spoke truth to disciples as a matter of course.
The Word paints a vivid picture of disciples hearing directly from the Lord through prophecy and words of wisdom and knowledge and revelation and interpreted tongues presented by men and women speaking in and through the Spirit Himself.
Tabernacle!
I think that it was Dan H. who pointed out that God blesses sermons and I know that God does bless sermons.
But, friends, what’s the rationale for thinking that a human design for worship, that has no root in Scripture, is superior to the way empowered by the Lord Himself and depicted on the pages of the New Testament?
What theology supports the planning a sermon preached by a member of the priestly class?
What spiritual end rationalizes not allowing for the Spirit to speak directly to us in the way He once did as a matter of course?
I want the tabernacle. I want the Spirit. I want God's design for the gatherings I attend.
I want to hear from the Spirit directly.
I don’t want to imbibe of a human institution that a gracious and merciful Lord might, nevertheless, honor second hand.
I want His Word first hand. I don’t want left-overs, no matter how gifted the chef who prepared them may be.
And, while I can see from history and from church life all around me that the idea of temple over tabernacle appeals to the human species, I can’t understand why anyone would want temple over tablenacle or sermon over words from the Spirit
posted by bill Sloat at 9:56 AM
11 Comments:
Sorry for the lousy formating.
bill,
i'm beginning to really get what you're saying, especially of "our" current patterns of presenting a service for the people, who rarely participate, either with mind or body. every time i hear a comment now about the way a service was run, or how nice it was, or how they present things a certain way, i feel significant disquiet in my heart, as if the ekklesia is a spectator sport.
on the other hand, i see Biblical mandate for preparation in teaching. i would be interested in how you handle many of the commands in the Letters to Timothy, like "command and teach these things [the words of faith and good doctrine]...devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching...keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching." (1 Tim. 4:11-16) or the more well-known "preach the Word; be ready in season and out of season, reproof, rebuke and exhort with complete patience and teaching." (2 Tim. 4:2) how do they fit with your ecclesiology?
thank you for keeping at this. your passion for faithfulness honors our great God.
Interesting connection. I agree that God does use and even bless human efforts that are not necessarily from God's own desire.
The temple itself did become an idol for many people. I agree that the sermon can become an idol as well.
The New Testament was not formulated and compiled as we have it today for first century believers.
It seems like we are continually appealing to the Bible as our authority and yet I hear you saying that our primary desire needs to be to hear from the Spirit directly through various means (prophecy, tongue interpretation etc).
The sermon (in it's best sense)is about the Word (the Scripture) not the preacher.
I think you are forcing an either/or that need not exist. I believe that the total participation of the body makes for the fullness that God desires. This builds upon the written word read and preached. Word and Spirit together.
I do not believe that the written Word proclaimed is second best. It is an important part of the whole.
I do not believe that the Word preached *requires* a priestly mediator.
It is God's people desiring as one whole and equal body to hear from Him through the Word and the Spirit that is the best.
M,
I believe that the total participation of the body makes for the fullness that God desires. This builds upon the written word read and preached. Word and Spirit together.
I do not believe that the written Word proclaimed is second best. It is an important part of the whole.
I do not believe that the Word preached *requires* a priestly mediator.
I believe that Ben Roethlisberger is going to take a vow of celibacy and join the priesthood during his week off so don't count on the Steelers in the playoffs.
I do not believe that the Patriots are going to win the Super Bowl in 2011.
It's why I believe those things that makes my believing them important.
I'd be blessed to know the whys of what you believe and do not believe in the context of this thread.
The most common response I receive when I am being prophetic is the, "Well, that may be in the Word but I don't believe it anyway" response. "That's is the Word but I don't like it so I'm not going to do it anyway" is first runner up.
I'm not accusing you of either but, as I said, it would bless me to have you break down how you arrived at what you believe and don't believe. And, because you are a loyal ordained CGGC pastor, I'd be even more greatly blessed it you could couch your explanation in the context of our universal pledge to commit ourselves to establishing churches on the New Testament plan.
walt,
on the other hand, i see Biblical mandate for preparation in teaching. . ..
Good question.
Frost and Hirsch call the prophet 'the questioner.' I think that prophets ask the best questions as a matter of spiritual giftedness.
I'm not certain how adequate my answer to your question will be but I'll take a shot at it.
I spend more time in prayer and meditation over the Word and in seeking His will for my life than I ever have. I have made it a discipline in my life to memorize every verse and passage He places on my heart. Therefore, all of that Scripture is immediately 'meditatable' for me. One of His gifts to me is insomnia and I invest much of my sleepless time in meditation on the truths He brings to my mind.
I do prepare to teach and prophecy. What I do very little of is 'process' the truths and passions and insights He gives me. I am convinced that there is power in presenting what He gives to me in as raw a fashion as possible. Therefore, I don't spend much time refining what He gives me for the purpose of making it presentable. I trust the form of the presentation to Him.
I try to offer gouda, not Cheese Whiz. Seminary homiletics classes, I believe, are, to a great extent, designed to help priestly mediators turn cheese into a cheese food product.
Rest assured that shifting paradigms does not mean that one is less serious about the presentation of truth only that one thinks differently about what presenting truth involves.
Feel free to ask more questions about this. It's a very good question.
Is Bill suggesting that we are spending 90% of our time preparing for a Sunday morning one-shot gathering rather than spending 90% of our time on building a multiplying discipleship ministry?
Even as I say this, there is something in me saying we (The Crossover Church) aren't spending enough time on our Sunday morning gathering.
Bill,
I actually thought the rationale for the two things Dan said he believes were fairly obvious. He said:
"I do not believe that the written Word proclaimed is second best. It is an important part of the whole."
"I do not believe that the Word preached *requires* a priestly mediator."
As to the first, if we hold a high view of Scripture, then I would say we hold the written word in at least as high esteem as word given by the Spirit through someone in a gathering.
As to the second, since the NT speaks of teaching and preaching the word, and implores us to be careful how we do it, then God expects that, and it is not therefore inherent in the task that the one doing it does it in a way that makes him a priestly mediator.
These seemed obvious to me, Bill, so what were you asking for?
Brian,
Is Bill suggesting that we are spending 90% of our time preparing for a Sunday morning one-shot gathering rather than spending 90% of our time on building a multiplying discipleship ministry?
I'm not saying that at all.
What I tried to say is that the typical Western Protestant gathering is as foreign to the Lord's design for believers' gatherings as the temple is from the tabernacle.
I tried to suggest that what we often call a 'worship service' is an institution of human construction which we use as a base line and then, after we take the humanly designed institution for granted, we invite--and even implore--the Lord to bless it. And, I acknowledge that, because He is gracious beyond measure, He does sometimes bless it.
I tired to ask why we would settle for a human institution and not seek to experience gathering as He blessed it among the first disciples of Jesus.
Fran,
... if we hold a high view of Scripture, then I would say we hold the written word in at least as high esteem as word given by the Spirit through someone in a gathering.
Wow!
And, I don't. We need to talk this through! This is extremely important, in my opinion.
Our issue might be rooted in the definition of terms.
But, I'd ask you why, if what you believe is true, early gatherings were not characterized by, as Dan described it, 'the written Word proclaimed," but by messages (logoi) of revelation, knowledge, prophecy, teaching and interpreted tongues?
How could a prepared sermon, even one empowered by the Spirit, be superior to a logos directly from the Spirit when the speaking of that word is empowered by the Spirit?
...since the NT speaks of teaching and preaching the word, and implores us to be careful how we do it, then God expects that, and it is not therefore inherent in the task that the one doing it does it in a way that makes him a priestly mediator.
I agree that teaching, which commonly occurred in New Testament gatherings does not imply a priestly mediator. The forms of communication that Paul describes as taking place when disciples come together are revelation, knowledge, prophecy, instruction (AKA teaching) and interpreted tongues. (1 Cor. 14:6 and 26).
Clearly teaching CAN be done by someone not in the role of a pastor/priest and I know that it is done that way sometimes now in the Western Church. But, today, in our churches, when teaching is done, the person who does it in a 'worship service' normally is a pastor/priest.
As to preaching, because that form of communicating truth was most often conducted in the New Testament among people who were not disciples (for instance Paul preached to the Gentiles not to disciples), and because the notion that every disciple is a saint and a priest in the New Testament, I think that preaching certainly does imply a priestly mediator and that that is why the verb kerusso never appears in connection with the gathering of disciples.
In the New Testament, when preaching takes place a priest is communicating to someone who is not a priest. That can't happen when saints gather.
bill,
i'll save a longer spiel for when i have more time, but how do we not hold the written Word in at least as high esteem as a word of prophecy/knowledge/etc.? doesn't paul even teach that the Scriptures are above these, saying "Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.", showing that the authority of his words were higher than that of the prophets in corith? and indeed, is not the test of a prophet his allegiance and faithfulness to the "faith once for all delivered unto the saints" that we find most well preserved in the Scriptures?
what I am talking about when I defend preaching/proclaimation for me is even deeper than the New Testament plan.
It is the New Testament itself.
Friends, the preaching of the gospel - the message about Jesus - is not only for not-yet-believers, it is for believers as well. The existence of Paul's epistles (among others) show this to be undeniably true.
These letters, written to churches - gatherings of believers in Jesus are rich with gospel content. The book of Romans is a prime example of course. Building out a rich theology of the wonders of the gospel and then showing how it ought to change the way we live - written to a Christian audience.
Consider one of my favorite verses from Colossians: "We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone fully mature in Christ." 1:28
The New Testament letters are proclamation = preaching - to believers.
The first century church had only the Old Testament, possibly some written teaching of Jesus (but not likely) and whatever letters or instruction received from the apostles. Paul obviously knew and studied the OT extensively and used it frequently.
How can we, who now have recorded the very Words of God incarnate recorded in the Gospels, not give them priority time in our gatherings and scatterings.
I'm not defending 3 points and an application here. I'm defending to public proclamation of Jesus the Christ and the outworking of all that entails - proclaimed by anyone and everyone who has been transformed by that power and seeks to share it with others. That message is more important (1 Corinthians 15) than anything else - gift or otherwise.
It's what saves us, what keeps us and grows us.
It's all about a priest - but not me or you. It's about Jesus and we open the book that contains his very words and make much of Him. Lead people to total dependence on Him. Remind ourselves collectively on our continual need for God's saving grace and the Lordship of Jesus over our lives.
If the Churches of God are not first are foremost about that, God help us all.
Post a Comment
<< Home