Sermons in the Modern Church

I have been corresponding with my son lately about sermons and how they should be preached in the modern church. My son is a pastor of a smaller typical evangelical church. I have been a pastor for over forty years, now semi-retired. This issue of the sermon came up as to how to preach to modern ears. We ended up agreeing for the most part, but disagreeing about style and sermon content. A bit of background is in order.

I have been trained in expositional preaching and teaching from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, with a 1973 M.Div and a 1979 Th.M in systematic theology along with post seminary course work at Gordon-Conwell Seminary in Massachusetts. My son has been trained at Bethel Seminary as well as mentored by leadership trainers from a large, mega-church in the area. We approach this area of the Sunday sermon differently. I have always maintained a thoroughly exegetical approach to the message, with taking a text of Scripture and going through it intentionally and carefully, noting the context, words, language issues and so forth. My son uses a broader sweep for a message and has been attracted to story-telling and other means for sermon delivery. We both agree that sermons must be biblically based, but the delivery is up for grabs because of the different audiences that hear sermons today, especially young adults and unchurched people.

I would maintain that the minister's job is to communicate God's Word contained in the Scriptures. To say that church people have "enough information," and all they need to do is to "act upon the years of sermons they have already had" is beside the point, I believe. God's Word is always fresh, always convicting, always modern and always relevant because it is God's inspired declaration that we are seeking to get across to people. People deserve to know what the text of Scripture says and means, without assuming that personal or group Bible studies will fill that gap. In fact, most Bible study periods are people sharing their own, sometimes misguided, insights to Bible passages and stories. This sharing of one's ignorance is no substitute for trained and careful declaration of Scripture. And the internet is even less helpful giving a variety of ideas and "takes" on modern topics and claiming biblical proofs for them.

I believe that congregations need to be able to go home after a sermon or teaching and able to open their Bibles to the message given and understand the passages referenced and tell their children and others the meaning and application. It has been claimed that people hear "differently" today than beforehand and learn better by story-telling and group interaction. Perhaps. But the issue in preaching a sermon is the declaration of the written Word of God to a person's mind and heart and conscience. Citing different learning styles and people not hearing the message because of their sinful desires does not diminish the job of the biblical preacher or teacher. He or she is to declare faithfully and fully the text of Scripture, not their own considered "relevant" ideas and topics and try to find biblical passages to line up with those ideas.

Moderns will claim that this often considered "outdated" method of preaching or teaching does not reach a modern audience. I would rather contend that moderns, especially younger moderns, are biblically illiterate and need the careful and faithful rendering of the text of Scripture and then apply it to their situations and needs. No one is saying that application is unimportant, but it must be application that is not merely timely and relevant, but true to the text of Scripture. 

I have heard and preached hundreds of sermons to thousands of people in my career. My most gratifying comment to a message has been, "Thank you for helping me understand and live out this passage of the Bible." That is what we are called to do. That is our task in sermon delivery under God.

1984 Again!

 People thought that George Orwell's 1984 book was fictitious and could never come true in a democracy. It was about the State taking over the minds of its citizens with what it called "doublethink." Orwell defined "doublethink" this way — "To know and to not know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them. to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy is impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy. To forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed and then promptly to forget it again, and, above all, to apply the same process to the process itself." It was a chilling proposal of what could happen in a democracy look-alike controlled by the Party.

I would maintain that we are moving toward doublethink in our construct of society today. And I am certainly not the only one who maintains this construct. In a lecture at the conservative Hillsdale College, Christopher Rufo, director of Battlefront, noted that "critical race theory" is fast becoming America's new institutional orthodoxy. (https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/critical-race-theory-fight/) While many Americans have possibly heard about such a theory, it is much more than just another way to look at race and equality in America. It is a Marxist-style political theory asserted by the radical left inserted into the discussion of racial equality that engages, I believe, in doublethink. Rufo sys that "Critical race theorists, masters of language construction, realize that “neo-Marxism” would be a hard sell. Equity, on the other hand, sounds non-threatening and is easily confused with the American principle of equality. . . . To them, equality represents “mere nondiscrimination” and provides “camouflage” for white supremacy, patriarchy, and oppression."

"Equity" in such a theory is simply reformulated Marxism, according to Rufo. But we are increasingly to understand "equity" as "equality" under law, a rethinking of the Constitution. And when someone tries to argue against "equity" they are simply arguing against our Constitutional guarantees. Rufo again says, "An equity-based form of government would mean the end not only of private property, but also of individual rights, equality under the law, federalism, and freedom of speech. These would be replaced by race-based redistribution of wealth, group-based rights, active discrimination, and omnipotent bureaucratic authority."

Lest we think this is a tempest in a teapot, Rufo goes on to say giving examples — "When I say that critical race theory is becoming the operating ideology of our public institutions, it is not an exaggeration—from the universities to bureaucracies to k-12 school systems, critical race theory has permeated the collective intelligence and decision-making process of American government, with no sign of slowing down."

So, here we go with doublethink —The 14th and 15th Amendments and Civil Rights Acts of 1954 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 = mere non-discrimination; camouflage for white supremacy and oppression. Rejection of these Constitutional laws = true equity and antiracism. "White male culture" = white supremacy and white privilege, even mass killings. The solution is to renounce white privilege and write letters of apology to people of color. White teachers are guilty of "spirit murder" against black children.

Rufo says "Disagreement with their program becomes irrefutable evidence of a dissenter’s “white fragility,” “unconscious bias,” or “internalized white supremacy.” and instructors in this critical race theory when confronted with disagreement "should adopt a patronizing tone and explain that participants who feel “defensiveness” or “anger” are reacting out of guilt and shame. Dissenters are instructed to remain silent, “lean into the discomfort,” and accept their “complicity in white supremacy.” This is Orwell's doublethink in action today.

Modern media will dispute such findings as overreach and conservative fodder not worth challenging. The Party (radical Leftists) wants to control our minds, our language, our institutions, our children and our way of life. It is hard, however, to negate the facts and examples Rufo gives. He suggests conquering this "take over" with employing moral language built on moral principles, a grass roots rejection of critical race theory in all of its tentacles, and courage to stand and speak out against Orwellian doublethink. 

Will you take a stand?