A fellow missionary working in Thailand wrote on his blog "In Defense of the Sermon - Part 2" dealing with 3 common objections to maintaining the sermon as a central part of the life of the Christian Church.
Objection #1 "Sermons are ineffective",
Objection #2 "People learn better in a participatory environment. Listening to a sermon is too passive.
Objection#3 “The sermon is a Western church tradition, rooted in culture and not the Bible. We should find more indigenous ways of teaching the Bible.”
To be honest, having graduated from a Bible College which is perhaps the only one in Australia to have a school of preaching, I had no doubt in my mind that it was the central and most important aspect of church. However, I now have a few questions which I expressed in my comments to my friend's post which follows:-
"Dear Karl,
In terms of objection #2, Frank Viola (Reimagining Church) argues that "In the first-century gathering [i.e church], neither the sermon nor "the preacher" was the center of attention. Instead, congregational participation was the divine rule" (p.53). So he is arguing that not in terms of participatory being better because of learning styles, but this was the biblical norm for the early church. He argues that there different types of meetings where preaching was central, i.e Apostolic Meetings where apostolic workers preached to an interactive audience with the goal to plant a church from scratch or to encourage an existing church one. Evangelistic meetings. These commonly occurred outside the regular meetings of the church (p.49-50). However, normal church meetings were participatory as described above.
I haven't had time to look into Viola's claims to be honest (hopefully I will find time one day), but he provides another view perspective which I was not aware of before.
I'll still thinking through this one. To be honest, I would have agreed completely with your comments upon leaving college and ministry in Australia. But being in Thailand and thinking over the role of the sermon, I'm wondering whether we can put too much emphasis on the sermon and that it becomes an idol of sorts (extreme example would be a pastor sending 30+ hours on his sermon to get it perfect while neglecting the congregation pastoraly) rather than emphasizing the Word of God . Is the sermon what is important or is it that people are receiving the Word of God. Can you even separate the two?"
Any thoughts?
Before They Reached Bangkok: Gutzlaff, Tomlin, and Psalm 106
-
อ่านบทความนี้เป็นภาษาไทย
On August 23, 1828, the first two Protestant missionaries arrived in
Thailand, Karl Gutzlaff and Jacob Tomlin. Gutzlaff was Germ...
4 days ago










