I’ve noticed in recent years that, although we can make good and well-intentioned ministry decisions, when combined with other good ministry decisions, these decisions produce a poisonous gas that threatens the wellbeing of our churches. In other words, the way we’ve chosen to work out the implications of our theological commitments can come at the expense of other theological commitments.
The question I’d humbly like you to ask is this: if you are involved as an elder of your church, do you believe in the clarity of Scripture? Or, for the rest of us, does your church believe in the clarity of Scripture? I don’t mean this in an “I’ve read the Westminster Confession” (or, at least, the first chapter, anyway) kind of way; I mean it in a James 2 “belief is evidenced in its fruit” kind of way.
Let me give a fairly common scenario. I want you to imagine a church where the following happens:
- The majority of preaching is done by theologically educated people. They might occasionally relax this a little and let student ministers preach.
- In the few times in the year when they don’t preach, the person preaching is usually ‘training for ministry’. Regardless of this, they generally preach during the holidays when there are a lot less people at church.
- The New Testament reading is the passage that the preacher is preaching on.
- The Old Testament reading is a passage that is alluded to or referenced by the New Testament passage. (This is assuming that the church in mind still does two Bible readings; I know many that now only do one).
- Because liturgy has been replaced by ‘informal liturgy’, other sentences or passages from Scripture are rarely read.
- The two Bible readings take four to five minutes to read in total.
- The sermon usually goes for 30-35 minutes.
- During the week, Bible study groups study the passage that the sermon is on.
- The minister preaching the series writes the Bible studies for the Bible study groups.
- Back in church, the preacher has the habit of praying before his sermon. Because of this, the service leader drops the habit (if it ever existed) of praying before the Bible is read. That is, the prayer for us to understand God’s word happens after the Bible is read, but before the sermon.
Don’t mishear me; some of these things are really good things to do, and some are good to do for a time. Some would be great if done a little differently.
Does this sound like your church at all? If so, my question for you is this: can we really say that this way of doing church really believes in the clarity of Scripture? The teaching office ought not to be set over and against the reading of Scripture—of course not—but my suggestion is that a church like this is in danger of doing precisely that. The minister’s sermon is driving nearly everything about the church’s Bible reading. We end up producing anaemic congregations—congregations who are dependent on their ministers for the word, and congregations who see so little of the word because the minister has narrowed their communal Bible reading to 10-15 verses a week.
Here are three starter suggestions for a way forward:
- Recover Bible reading in church. Can we really only find five minutes in a 90-minute service to hear the Bible read?
- If you write Bible studies for your congregation, only do it for a time—one or two terms a year.
- Stop praying at the beginning of sermons, and have someone pray before the Bible readings.
I have some other ideas, but what are your thoughts?
The notion of a dichotomy between the teaching office and Scripture reading should be negated by two things: sequential expository preaching and sequential continuous reading (lectio continua).
This last year we’ve been through Philippians, Jonah and Romans in exposition while covering Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon through one-chapter-per-week readings.
I’d really hope that next year we’ll be more disciplined in singing some portion of a Psalm each week as well.
Topical sermons, in particular, undermine Scripture reading. One verse a week sermons can be understood this way, since they are generally topical by nature, as well.
Praying specifically before sermons and readings is helpful, but a biblical mandate is elusive.
The Bible has its own power, when we read it there will be a result, whether we pray for it or not.
Hi Scott,
Thanks for your thoughts on an important topic.
Moving away from Sunday Services for a bit, one application for the Clarity of Scripture that I’ve found has been to remind young guys that Bible study is not all about arguing over the finer points of Scripture. There seems to be a mood among some of them that when we get together the goal should be to find the controversial/hard to understand bits and then to spend an hour debating them. If Scripture is clear, then every week there should be some level of comprehension and application that is easily accessible and worthy of serious and humble reflection.
Not only is there a problem with narrowing the Bible verses studies, but in most churches, if the preacher is writing the Bible studies, there is only one person’s interpretation of the passage available… and suddenly, we’re in Watchtower territory!
continuing on from Ellen’s comment… I think if the minister is in the habit of writing the Bible studies for the church then he is witholding a great opportunity for growth from people in church – that is, learning the important skill of how to write a Bible study.
Often I’ve heard the reason given that people don’t feel like they have the skills or knowledge to prepare the study.
As a great one once said.
ppffftt
If its really true, train them. But if its not true (which is more likely I suspect) – get on and encourage it to happen!
Pete—I think you spelt “ppffftt” wrong. (Unless you’re using the Spanish spelling?)
I think that would be ppfffñt
Hi all, thanks for your comments.
Gary – you are of course right to point out that God doesn’t need our prayers to act
– which is something I thank him for, and rejoice in.
But my comment was more in the nature of what we model (ie, implicitly teach) to our congregrations by where and how we pray in church, but also, for that matter, of how we introduce the readings and sermons.
I guess I’m noticing and drawing attention to habits which tend to relegate the public reading of Scripture as something useful in its own right – self-authenticating, clear, and powerful – to ‘the thing we do before we get to the sermon’.
Marty &co; – thanks for these thoughts about Bible-study groups. I agree completely: Bible-studies have such great potential to bring the clarity of scripture to bear in church practice, but the potential to destroy it too (either through the minister hanging on too tightly, not thinking of himself as a minister who is responsible to equip others to minister – Eph 4:11f style, depending on where you put the comma – or of the argumentive culture that can develop.
Another one I’ve noticed is that study groups can sometimes develop a culture of ‘the expert’ – everyone starts to recognise one member as knowing more, and so they defer to him in everything, expecting him to answer everything.
just reflecting on your comment a little more Pete, it’s not just the skill, though that is important too? It’s all that comes with a person hunkering down and immersing themselves with God’s word.
I never grow so much, have Scripture written on my heart and mind, as when I’m actually reading it and reflecting deeply on it and praying about it – which preparing a Bible-study makes me do in a way beyond the ‘daily bible reading’.
It’d be such a shame if I conducted my ministry in such a way that only I ever got to do that because I always did it for my leaders.
I need to trust God that when the Bible is read, we don’t just meet God, but God meets us; and that that word isn’t dead, needing my help to make it live, but is living, eternal, powerful, life-changing and life-saving. God isn’t passive in the Bible-reading process, and far be it from us to limit or hinder his church’s communal listening to him.