Of different styles
I had a discussion with a sister last week on this topic and thought I would like to expand the thought a little further. We were on this topic on different styles of preaching and services across different churches, after attending a devotion session at SAC.
From what I know, there are generally two types of preaching that a church can adopt: expository and topical. Hope adopts the expository style mainly, which is preaching from a passage, instead of a topical one, which mainly scans the bible for relevant verses for a particular topic. The advantage of expository preaching is such that it forces the listeners and the preacher to look at what the bible says about a particular issue, given the content and the context of a particular passage. The danger of a topical preaching (though it can be mitigated by more vigilant bible study into the topic) is that people can quote verses out of context. However, even within the genre of expository preaching, different preachers and churches can do it differently. In Hope, it is generally more structured and tends to be three points with practical applications and other illustrations to drive home the points. I have seen expository preaching (with the definition being stretched to the limit) that touches the verses and then the preacher just went on to say a lot of things without really going into the bible anymore. I have seen expository preaching which took extended passages (a few chapters) and extracted common themes across the passages (rightly so, since the passages were not originally written with indexing).
It was here when we started discussing which style is better, because the sister seems to think the last example I gave had more depth, which I questioned what's her definition of 'depth'. Depth, like free speech, can mean a thousand thing to a hundred people. But is there really no depth in other expository preaching? That was another question I asked. In Hope, sometimes the criticism I received is that our preaching seems so much lack of depth compared to other churches... but hello, start telling me that the preaching needs depth when you start applying the preaching in your life first. This reflects a deeper issue, which I think is prevalent in churches nowadays - the attitude of consumerism. It means I will go wherever my needs can be met and wherever I feel that I will benefit. Sometimes I wonder, if you are already not that consistent in your living, then why bother about depth and all these biblical things?
For people who start thinking about different types of worship and preachings, I have only one thing to say. Do you expect to receive from God in whatever setting/services you attend? Sometimes, we go to a healing rally, or something like FOP, or a church conference and we tell people to set objectives, and ask what we expect to hear from God... as if we do not hear and receive from God in our regular services and LG meetings. If one thinks he can only hear from God in a camp, then may I ask what have you been doing in every week in service and LG? To qualify a bit, I have read quite a bit of people who really hear from God in camps... concentration camps but that's another issue altogether. I sometimes also hear stories (which I think I have been talking about in some of my previous posts) that people start comparing different services and decide which services they want to be transfered to, all these based on the PnW styles and who the preacher is. Not to say that they have not tried to hear from God, but it seems that the decisions normally are derived from personal preference masqueraded as divine direction... Not to judge them prematurely, but things people say do reflect a lot of deeper issues that are involved.
Ok, to be fair, personal preference is important as well. A preacher from Hong Kong by the name of Enoch Lam once commented that some people like different settings, which is fine. He has a pastor friend who once told him that his responsibility every Sunday is to ensure his congregation can sleep peacefully on Sunday night. Ps Enoch then went on to say that his responsibility every Sunday is to wake his congregation up and he said that if you want to sleep peacefully on Sunday night, dun go to his church. That is a tongue in cheek joke, but it illustrated a point, that personal preference can come into the picture, though I will question again if the personal preference is based on correct understanding. And also, when divine direction comes into the picture, are we able to lay down our personal preference and flow along with the divine direction, if the divine direction is in total conflict with our personal preference? By the way, the video is below for your laughter. It's in Cantonese with Chinese sub:
At the end of the day, I believe that there is no right or wrong style of preaching. Not the style but the content. Not who the preacher is, but the heart of the listeners. Let those who have eyes see and those who have ears listen. I think seriously we need to rethink about our attitude towards preachings and services.
From what I know, there are generally two types of preaching that a church can adopt: expository and topical. Hope adopts the expository style mainly, which is preaching from a passage, instead of a topical one, which mainly scans the bible for relevant verses for a particular topic. The advantage of expository preaching is such that it forces the listeners and the preacher to look at what the bible says about a particular issue, given the content and the context of a particular passage. The danger of a topical preaching (though it can be mitigated by more vigilant bible study into the topic) is that people can quote verses out of context. However, even within the genre of expository preaching, different preachers and churches can do it differently. In Hope, it is generally more structured and tends to be three points with practical applications and other illustrations to drive home the points. I have seen expository preaching (with the definition being stretched to the limit) that touches the verses and then the preacher just went on to say a lot of things without really going into the bible anymore. I have seen expository preaching which took extended passages (a few chapters) and extracted common themes across the passages (rightly so, since the passages were not originally written with indexing).
It was here when we started discussing which style is better, because the sister seems to think the last example I gave had more depth, which I questioned what's her definition of 'depth'. Depth, like free speech, can mean a thousand thing to a hundred people. But is there really no depth in other expository preaching? That was another question I asked. In Hope, sometimes the criticism I received is that our preaching seems so much lack of depth compared to other churches... but hello, start telling me that the preaching needs depth when you start applying the preaching in your life first. This reflects a deeper issue, which I think is prevalent in churches nowadays - the attitude of consumerism. It means I will go wherever my needs can be met and wherever I feel that I will benefit. Sometimes I wonder, if you are already not that consistent in your living, then why bother about depth and all these biblical things?
For people who start thinking about different types of worship and preachings, I have only one thing to say. Do you expect to receive from God in whatever setting/services you attend? Sometimes, we go to a healing rally, or something like FOP, or a church conference and we tell people to set objectives, and ask what we expect to hear from God... as if we do not hear and receive from God in our regular services and LG meetings. If one thinks he can only hear from God in a camp, then may I ask what have you been doing in every week in service and LG? To qualify a bit, I have read quite a bit of people who really hear from God in camps... concentration camps but that's another issue altogether. I sometimes also hear stories (which I think I have been talking about in some of my previous posts) that people start comparing different services and decide which services they want to be transfered to, all these based on the PnW styles and who the preacher is. Not to say that they have not tried to hear from God, but it seems that the decisions normally are derived from personal preference masqueraded as divine direction... Not to judge them prematurely, but things people say do reflect a lot of deeper issues that are involved.
Ok, to be fair, personal preference is important as well. A preacher from Hong Kong by the name of Enoch Lam once commented that some people like different settings, which is fine. He has a pastor friend who once told him that his responsibility every Sunday is to ensure his congregation can sleep peacefully on Sunday night. Ps Enoch then went on to say that his responsibility every Sunday is to wake his congregation up and he said that if you want to sleep peacefully on Sunday night, dun go to his church. That is a tongue in cheek joke, but it illustrated a point, that personal preference can come into the picture, though I will question again if the personal preference is based on correct understanding. And also, when divine direction comes into the picture, are we able to lay down our personal preference and flow along with the divine direction, if the divine direction is in total conflict with our personal preference? By the way, the video is below for your laughter. It's in Cantonese with Chinese sub:
At the end of the day, I believe that there is no right or wrong style of preaching. Not the style but the content. Not who the preacher is, but the heart of the listeners. Let those who have eyes see and those who have ears listen. I think seriously we need to rethink about our attitude towards preachings and services.
Comments
Post a Comment