# Letter from an Unsatisfied Churchgoer



## Jack K (Dec 31, 2014)

I wrote this article last night while I couldn't sleep and I posted it this morning, and suddenly my site has record visitors. I'm getting numerous Facebook and Twitter comments, too. Many are attaboys, but also some flak for judging a preacher based on a single sermon. I figure the PuritanBoard might as well join the fray.

A Letter from an Unsatisfied Churchgoer | Gospel Teacher

I really wasn't out to be critical of anyone other than myself, though I do think preachers and Bible teachers need reminders not to lose their focus on Christ. Thoughts?


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 31, 2014)

What do you think gained it so much attention? The title?


----------



## Jack K (Dec 31, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> What do you think gained it so much attention? The title?


Maybe the title. The premise. The senior pastor of a large church (several thousand members) noticed it and posted the link on Facebook, so that probably explains a lot of the attention. Perhaps the title caught his eye.


----------



## Nomos (Dec 31, 2014)

> I know the service is not supposed to be all about me and what I get out of it, but I do think it’s supposed to be about Jesus.



Great article Jack.


----------



## Matthew1344 (Dec 31, 2014)

good blog


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 31, 2014)

Do you think God was glorified in this public posting, especially given that the letter contained enough information for someone to identify the church in question as well as its Pastor? Do you think your letter assumed the very best about the Pastor before you took him to task? You could have made your reminders without the specifics of a particular service, church, or Pastor, no?

WLC #144, #145 came to mind when reading your post.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Dec 31, 2014)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Do you think God was glorified in this public posting, especially given that the letter contained enough information for someone to identify the church in question as well as its Pastor? Do you think your letter assumed the very best about the Pastor before you took him to task? You could have made your reminders without the specifics of a particular service, church, or Pastor, no?
> 
> WLC #144, #145 came to mind when reading your post.



I didn't notice anything in Jack's post that would clearly identify the church or the pastor, and I know where Jack lives.


----------



## Jack K (Dec 31, 2014)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Do you think God was glorified in this public posting, especially given that the letter contained enough information for someone to identify the church in question as well as its Pastor? Do you think your letter assumed the very best about the Pastor before you took him to task? You could have made your reminders without the specifics of a particular service, church, or Pastor, no?
> 
> WLC #144, #145 came to mind when reading your post.



Patrick, I take your concern seriously.

I think it's highly unlikely the pastor/church could be identified by anyone but my wife and my son, and we've already discussed the service. No one else knows where we attended, and I strongly doubt anyone at the church in question will make the connection. If I thought the church/pastor might be identified, I would not have posted this. (And for all you know, I may have altered a few details in my story to further protect those identities. We authors sometimes do that.)

Besides, although the article does point out a shortcoming in the service, I was serious when I said I that was grateful to have worshiped there and that my purpose is not to condemn but to take a look at myself and my own teaching.

I take very seriously the responsibility not to publicly criticize churches and pastors by name. In fact, those who frequent this board may recall that I sometimes take heat here for refusing to join in criticism or for defending unpopular pastors who're being criticized. So if you have reason to think that the pastor at the church I attended will be identified, please explain your thinking to me. I will quickly remove my post if I agree. I want no part in anything like that.


----------



## matt01 (Dec 31, 2014)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Do you think God was glorified in this public posting, especially given that the letter contained enough information for someone to identify the church in question as well as its Pastor?



Maybe someone who either knows Jack or the area he was visiting could figure it out, but I didn't see enough details to identify the church.


----------



## ProtestantBankie (Dec 31, 2014)

Jack, I think it's a good and valid letter and I am happy for you to have posted publicly because I have no clue who the person is, and if I did - your introduction covers that base. You've posted out a love and zeal for my Lord Jesus. So I can warmly accept this. I hope many who are going to churches where the Gospel isn't preached in a similar way (neglect by a Pastor to make sure message is Christ-centred) will take courage to grab a word with an Elder or Pastor and ask to hear more about the Lord and Saviour.

However, perhaps when we are kept up late at night we ought not to post things.

I never post a letter as soon as it is written.


----------



## Jack K (Dec 31, 2014)

ProtestantBankie said:


> However, perhaps when we are kept up late at night we ought not to post things.
> I never post a letter as soon as it is written.



That's wise advice. I actually caught some sleep between writing and posting, so I took care of that. And of course it isn't actually a letter aimed at an identifiable person, or I would have been much more careful. The "letter" is really just a device to give the writing some punch and make the reading more interesting.

I like the article. If I have any concern, it's that I played on people's interest in criticizing pastors (which I find distasteful) to get them to read the article. Then again, writing that works best often works because it is provocative.


----------



## Edward (Dec 31, 2014)

I would suggest that perhaps the pastor and elders might know better what the congregation needs to hear than an out of town visitor.


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (Jan 1, 2015)

Edward, Jack indicated that Jesus wasn't mentioned and the gospel wasn't preached. Assuming Jack's is accurately representing the service, would you still suggest they know better?

I'm only asking in case I've misunderstood your post.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 1, 2015)

What I thought was particularly... _clever_... was the repeated employment of demurring language and apologetically saying that you didn't want to nitpick, etc.... meanwhile, in the face of saying that in general you liked worshipping there... you proceed to nitpick.

Hmmm.

But then again, I'm sure that every church wants nothing more than to hear the freely given, unsolicited complaints and criticisms of their worship service given by one-time visitors from out of town.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 1, 2015)

Now that you've been duly smacked by a variety of folk for a variety of reasons , I will simply take to heart what you wrote, because teachers and preachers must labor hard always to preach Christ and to apply Him to the hearts and lives of our hearers.

The best of us, whoever that is, fail to do this from time to time, but that does not mean that because we mostly do it, we can be excused in any one instance for failing to do it. It is particularly easy to preach on something like the need to spend time in the Word in the coming year and do so in a way that misses the kinds of things that you mentioned in your letter.

While it is quite true that we are to preach the text in its context, and recognize that some texts do not lend themselves as readily as others explicitly to preaching Christ, we are to preach all that we do in the context of Scripture as a whole so that we are always able and called to preach Christ. Even if your letter is not quite fair in the particular instance, and this seems ultimately beside the point, your concerns are nonetheless valid in the larger picture. Surely this is a problem that afflicts the church more broadly and, even if you were a bit quick on the trigger with this particular church, what you point out is valid and something that we need to hear and remember both as preachers and as auditors. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 1, 2015)

Let me note first that I know a lot of people who teach about the ethical "oughts" of Chrsitianity a lot. It's seen as, primarily, a way of life. I participate in a roundtable with some Christians regularly and they're always mining the Scriptures for how it has practical value for specific leadership situations. That's not bad in itself but it becomes quite apparent that there are some who only mine the Scriptures for such things and I've been part of Churches that teach the Scriptures as maxims for daily living and have relatives that live in Churches that teach that way.

Thus, I can appreciate the concern.

---Break---
Jack: What follows is my own personal pet peeve. It's not aimed at you but your post gives me occasion to meditate upon it.

Let me offer something that I've noticed among my fellow PCA folk, however. I am the chair for our Presbytery's candidates and credentialing committee. Part of that duty not only involves examining men theologically but ensuring they preach before Presbytery. On a few occasions I've had to ask them to limit their sermons to 15 minutes because there are a few people that have to preach before the meeting. After one such sermon (which I thought had done a fine job exegeting the passage) I heard a TE friend mutter that he didn't hear the Gospel. I reminded the TE that the particular pericope covered didn't deal precisely with what some would narrowly call the Gospel but was faithfully preached and would otherwise assume what came before (unless we were uncharitable).

I bring this up because I think there is a certain formula expected in some preaching. Unless there is the indicative (Jesus died for you) then the Gospel wasn't preached. Many of the debates around the canonicity of the Epistle of James, for example, have focused on the lack of "Christo-centric" doctrine in the text. James pretty much gets right into it. One might argue that James could be read by a Mormon or a Roman Catholic and have them walk away from it not having any sense that we are _simul justus et peccator_. Yet we have more than pericipes or chapters or books of the Bible. We have the entire Scripture. Thus, in the context of the whole Scripture James is "gospel" in the same sense that Paul calls more than just his indicative passages "gospel". In light of what Christ has done, James' writing is gospel. The gospel is more than justification. It is sanctification as well. Insofar as it is used properly by the preacher, the Spirit uses the Scriptures as means of conversion (taken in its broadest sense to include both initial and the continuous life of repentance and faith).

Sadly, many Christians do not know even the sweetness of the Law because they've never truly heard what Christ has accomplished for them in putting their sin to death on the Cross and rising for their sanctification. Thus, it all sounds like the same: apply these principles to become a better Christian. I'm thankful to Christ for freeing me from such bondage so that I saw the glory of my Savior in saving me from my sins so that I could see the entire Scriptures not as burdensome but sweet.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 1, 2015)

I chose to say what I did in my post because I think that it's true that we always need to be challenged to preach Christ and it's too easy too often not to.

Having said that, I also thought about saying the kind of thing that Rich did as well. This is something that arises especially these days and that needs to be addressed as well.

While some fail to preach Christ, others have too constricted a view of what it means to preach Him and regard that which addresses sanctification as "moralism" and not preaching Christ. None of us here think Jack means that so I didn't address it. But I agree with Rich that such a view is out there and needs as well to be addressed.

What we need now, as we've always needed, is preaching that truly sets forth the whole counsel of God. We need preaching that convicts of sin, leads us to Christ, and then shows us the way of gratitude in the normative (or third) use of the law. We do need to be those who see the commandments, as those justified and adopted, not as burdensome but as sweet, as the way of life and liberty as opposed to the way of death. 

So I say a hearty "amen" both to what concerns Jack and also to what concerns Rich. I share both concerns and as I said in a recent sermon, it is a false dichotomy to think that we must pit one against the other: we as Christians can, and must, walk and chew gum at the same time. The law drives us to Christ and then we turn and sing, both for its convicting power and life-guidance, "O how love I Thy law!"

We don't need every sermon reducing the gospel to justification nor do we need every sermon speaking only in the imperative. We need always the indicative and the imperative properly preached and properly received.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 1, 2015)

Sounds like the preacher is jumping to the what before telling you the why, a strategy that will drive a church right into legalism.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 1, 2015)

Whatever the text, Puritan preachers always made application (Use 1, Use 2 ......), and I don't think one could even mistaking miss that Christ was preached so long as their is such application to the hearer.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 1, 2015)

I am frankly a bit perplexed as to why so many of you are being so critical of Jack and his letter. As far as I can see, he is simply expressing a concern that many of us have oft lamented right here on the PB. Perhaps we can fault him for not reserving judgment until he had attended several services, but the fact remains that a lack of gospel centered preaching is a major problem in churches today and we all know it. While it is certainly true that the exposition of a particular text may not lend itself to a clear gospel presentation, the application of the text should. The Bible is a Christ-centered document, and thus every part of it ultimately applies to Christ and the gospel.


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 1, 2015)

Chris, wasn't it the general pattern to exegete the text and clearly state the doctrine in play before giving application?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 1, 2015)

Thee was some variance to the pattern but that is right, text exegeted, doctrine/use or doctrines, uses. The puritans didn't think you'd fully preached if there was no application.


----------



## Edward (Jan 1, 2015)

Ryan J. Ross said:


> Edward, Jack indicated that Jesus wasn't mentioned and the gospel wasn't preached. Assuming Jack's is accurately representing the service, would you still suggest they know better?



A pastor doesn't have to preach the same sermon from a different verse every week. I'd want to skim 3 to 6 months of a pastor's sermons to see the context of this message. The complaint may or may not be well founded, but you can't really judge from a one-off sermon. 

While I would agree that a good sermon on reading the Bible would deal with the 'why' as well as the 'what' (John 5:39, WCF I: VIII), I'd also want to parse the text of this sermon before I'll jump on the bandwagon.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 1, 2015)

Edward said:


> A pastor doesn't have to preach the same sermon from a different verse every week.



This is a very important point. While pretty much everybody would agree with this in principle, in reality it seems a very opinionated and vocal minority believe that every sermon should boil down to "believe in Jesus." 

I preached a 3-part series on David and Goliath (1 Sam 17). The first sermon was a David-points-to-Jesus sermon (I did this one first because I do believe it is primarily what the passage is about). The second sermon was on discerning principles from the passage for dealing with sin. The third was an overview of various models of masculinity - Saul, Goliath, and David are remarkable representatives of the three basic models of masculinity - and I issued a call for godly manhood. Now, only one of those 3 sermons boiled down to "believe in Jesus." (Though I believe I at least mentioned Jesus in the other two messages.) Anyway, as a minister who believes that glorifying God - you know, that thing we say is our chief end - is not only a _believing_ and _trusting_ issue, but also a _doing_ matter, the practical sanctification type lessons we can glean from Scripture certainly have their place. 

We all have our opinions, and Jack is certainly entitled to his. Who knows, maybe the pastor in question really does seldom include the Gospel in his sermons. I don't know. But I prefer to cut the man a little slack, especially since he's affiliated with a trusted organization (whatever that might be).


----------



## Jack K (Jan 1, 2015)

Rich, your comment about hearers who approach a sermon with a one-item checklist, looking for the preacher to utter the shiboleth that "Jesus died for you" in order to qualify as having preached the gospel, is a good concern to consider. I think the one-item checklist is counterproductive to good preaching. It both tends to relegate other things a preacher might say to secondary status and to turn the atonement into a throwaway catchphrase mentioned to get it checked off. Yuck.

I agree that there is some of that in the PCA and elsewhere. It's an easy trap to fall into when reminding preachers that they are ministers of the gospel. I think the core of that error is a too-small understanding of the gospel, particularly a mindset in which our sanctification is seen only as a _response_ to the gospel and not also as a _part_ of Christ's saving work. We need a broad view of the gospel rather than a narrow shiboleth. This solves the problem of the "same sermon from a different verse each week" syndrome.

Yet, we may not make it too broad. A commenter at the article site insisted I was being too hard on that church because surely Jesus and the gospel were present in the welcoming handshake I received and the freshly vaccuumed floors, and so on. I appreciate comments, but I decided to push back in that case and insist that the gospel can't be the good news about Jesus unless it is communicated in words and has something to say about Jesus. It doesn't have to focus on the atonement, but it does have to point to HIM.

Can a talk that assumes the gospel but fails to mention it still be part of gospel ministry? No doubt it can, or every comment a pastor made, no matter now brief, would be burdened by cumbersome reminders about Jesus. But if the gospel is assumed too often it is quickly forgotten. The particular pastor at the particular church I visited may have his congregation so Christ-saturated that he could get away with the sermon he gave last Sunday, which is one of many reasons why I'm serious when I say my aim is not to criticize him. But MY students need to hear more, more, more about the many saving graces and diverse excellencies of Jesus, and so that sermon served as a good reminder to me to give them what they need.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 1, 2015)

Jack,

At the site of your blog you pointedly noted in response to the blog comment: "_And it is news about Jesus, so he must be mentioned_." While you quitclaim any notion of _shibboleth_ in the above post, the statement in your response to the blog's comment seems contrary to your "one item checklist" above. 

In your response to my initial post above you focused on the matter of the public information being hard or impossible to determine, but overlooked my other questions implying your points could have been made just as easily without the hinted references to the worship service in question. When I pointed to the WLC's summary of Scripture on the matter I meant to note that the issue of public bearing of witness is important, but just as important is that the WLC herein speaks to what we think in our own minds. Clearly you feel the Pastor in question, known to you, was in error. Yet you used this personal opinion to make a public case. While your public post may shield the Pastor and that local church from being held to ridicule, you have clearly done so personally. I can imagine that the Pastor in question in reading your post remembering your face (which is posted at your blog), as well as others who may have greeted you that day you visited the church. Your post then becomes a direct complaint to the man as well as potentially scandalizing him in the eyes of other who recall you...despite your obfuscations. I know as a Pastor I paid particular attention to new faces within the pews. It is for all these reasons that I have a quibble with your blog post, even granting you the editorial license your claim provocativeness and what not.

Had your post been a genuine hypothetical I doubt this discussion would have taken the turns above. Instead, by indicating it is not, much remains to be seen. And, brother, you solicited others to "join the fray".  We regularly demand specific context for generalizations being made about this or that person in this forum. While I assume the very best in your conclusions of what you heard that Sunday, I would want more specifics such as the actual sermon in question, before I could be persuaded absolutely no _Good News_ was preached.


----------



## Jack K (Jan 1, 2015)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> At the site of your blog you pointedly noted in response to the blog comment: "And it is news about Jesus, so he must be mentioned." While you quitclaim any notion of shibboleth in the above post, the statement in your response to the blog's comment seems contrary to your "one item checklist" above.



I said wouldn't insist that a mention of the atonement has to be made. But, yes, I do think it's very difficult to be distinctly Christian without some acknowledgement of Christ. I don't like Christ-less sermons. If that bothers people, so be it. I'll take the position that speaking of Christ is absolutely necessary, and others may take the position that an implied Christ is good enough. I like where I stand on that one. I wouldn't want to be the preacher who gives a sermon that a Jewish rabbi could say "amen" to.

Your concern about my personal thoughts toward the preacher are exactly the reason I invited folks here to "join the fray" (not to join in criticism of someone they've never met, but to join in the conversation about ME—the article, as it stated, is really about me). I don't think I've labelled the man as a bad preacher in my mind. I tend to be pretty forgiving of preachers, and I meant it when I said he reminded me of myself. It would take more than one sermon, I think, before I wrote him off. Yet, I certainly am capable of unkind and hasty judging, so your rebuke is a good one for me to hear and take to heart.

Oh, and he's not going to recognize me.


----------



## Free Christian (Jan 1, 2015)

Hi Jack. Im not sure if I am missing something here but aren't we told if we have ought against someone to go to them personally first, like the Word tells us to, before publically? Ill be blunt, I think its wrong.


----------



## whirlingmerc (Jan 1, 2015)

I don't like to criticize a pastor or church service unless 1) it's a pronounced pattern over a long period of time or 2) something was seriously out of kilter like a seriously questionable herneuetic or misquoting scripture, but it would have to be fairly bad

so I probably would not have usually have brought that criticism up. On the other hand I might to see how they reacct if I was interested in coming back often. it's sometimes interesting to see how a church reacts to criticism. Are they dismissive? so... if I was thinking about going somewhere for a prolonged period of time I might deliberately float a criticism to see how they handle it as a test.

I do lean toward the view not to take too much time in a passage to get to Christ and it's hard to say how fair that particular criticism was


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 1, 2015)

"And it is also said, 'Go not to the _elves_ for counsel, for they will _say_ both _no_ and _yes._'"
--------Frodo Baggins.


----------



## Jack K (Jan 1, 2015)

Free Christian said:


> Hi Jack. Im not sure if I am missing something here but aren't we told if we have ought against someone to go to them personally first, like the Word tells us to, before publically?



Ah, but I have nothing against him. In fact, I'm appreciative of him. My article says as much.

And I said nothing about him publicly, as I did not identify him.

I merely used a misstep I perceived in a man I otherwise appreciated as an example of how I need to take care. This hardly is cause for me to contact the man and hand him an unsolicited critique of his sermon. That _would_ be unkind, and out of place.




NaphtaliPress said:


> "And it is also said, 'Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both no and yes.'"
> --------Frodo Baggins.



Indeed. Yet, the process may still be enlightening.


----------



## Free Christian (Jan 1, 2015)

Dear Pastor, that was the person you heard right? You were unsatisfied, and tell him "you didn't preach the gospel and said nothing about Jesus" say he could have substituted the word Koran for the Bible etc. Regardless of how you word things you have made it public and do show that you have something against him, his preaching. I really don't get your logic Jack.
I agree with Ask Mr Religion in much of what he has said.


----------



## Jack K (Jan 2, 2015)

Free Christian said:


> You were unsatisfied, and tell him "you didn't preach the gospel and said nothing about Jesus" say he could have substituted the word Koran for the Bible etc. Regardless of how you word things you have made it public and do show that you have something against him, his preaching. I really don't get your logic Jack.



I can't see how it's a good idea (nor a command) to confront others just because we think they've done a particular job poorly. That's usually neither kind nor helpful. If there were bitterness between me and a fellow church member, then, yes, I need to go to him. But if I observe some guy in another church who doesn't know me from Adam doing a job poorly, and I think I and others might learn from this, but I harbor no personal bitterness and can use the example without identifying the man.... well, then I see absolutely no kindness in going to the fellow to tell him his work wasn't good enough. Yes, the sermon seemed largely unsatisfying to me, but it's not like I'm angry about that. I wouldn't have even noticed except that it's my practice to take some time on Sunday afternoons to mull over the morning's sermon. I may be mildly disappointed with my choice of a church to visit, but I'm not bitter. My chief reaction is to learn from it, that's all.

I'm a mentor to other teachers. I use examples all the time, because examples make an impact in mentoring. I seldom identify the subject of a poor example (unless it's me, which it often is), because that would be gossip. And I seldom try to correct the subject of an example, especially if I don't know the person, because that would make me a self-important buttinsky.

I _am_ becoming a bit concerned that people have read this article and think I'm advocating gossip against preachers. I tried hard to make it clear that this is not what the article is about, but if people still read it that way then this is a problem.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 2, 2015)

Oh, another gripe:

Your article title is misnamed. By calling it "Letter from an Unsatisfied Churchgoer," you give the impression that in the article that follows you are going to give vent to some of your long-standing frustrations from observations about church life in general, or more probably of the church to which you are a "goer." 

However, in reality, this is a "Letter to a Pastor from an Unsatisfied One-Time Visitor." 

Notice the difference in connotation?


----------



## Warren (Jan 2, 2015)

> I preached a 3-part series on David and Goliath (1 Sam 17). The first sermon was a David-points-to-Jesus sermon (I did this one first because I do believe it is primarily what the passage is about). The second sermon was on discerning principles from the passage for dealing with sin. The third was an overview of various models of masculinity - Saul, Goliath, and David are remarkable representatives of the three basic models of masculinity - and I issued a call for godly manhood.


Is your series available anywhere?


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 2, 2015)

Jack:

You've done nothing wrong here in my estimation. 

You've adopted the convention of an open letter (while concealing all identities) to express what a one-time visitor got out of a particular visit to a congregation. And that's perfectly legitimate. I took it to mean to preachers (and as a reminder to yourself) that you were saying, in effect, "Gentlemen, remember that we always need to preach the gospel."

Now if you had an overly narrow view of this (as some of us have talked about herein)--in which. for instance, you required some particular form of expression about the person and work of Christ in every sermon--that would be one thing. But you've given no evidence of such, or that you think that the preacher should be all indicative and no imperative. No, you said in your letter, that Jesus was not even mentioned. And if that is so, and you are not asking us to join you in analyzing the sermon, you are asking us to assess what you are saying assuming accurate reporting, then I think that your concerns are well-founded.

Brothers and sisters, whether you like it or not, and I tell my students this all the time, every sermon has about it, and must have about it, a certain integrity, so that every sermon must, in some sense, stand on its own. It will not do for the preacher to say to someone who says "that sermon lacked Christ," something like "well, you have to hear the other sermons in the series." No, folks, that simply will not do--every sermon must, in some measure, be able to stand on its own. Sometimes, it's just a sentence or two needed (in a sermon on sovereignty, for example, to mention responsibility or vice-versa). The point is this--we may not preach imbalanced sermons and we may not preach sermons that do not properly preach Christ. If Jack has an overly narrow view of what it means to preach Christ (and I don't see a shred of evidence that he does), this still does not mean that in any given sermon the preacher is excused from preaching Christ.

The best of us sometime simply fail in this. We need to recognize it and resolve to do better. This is what I take from Jack's letter and am, frankly, surprised at all the push-back that he is getting for daring to mention such as a one-time visitor. Do I think it fair as a gospel preacher to have a one-time visitor assess my sermon? Yes, I do and I think the rest of you are missing the boat, for some reason, on this one. Every sermon is due assessment and as a gospel preacher I am thankful for someone like Jack who takes the time to remind me of my calling: to preach Christ properly in every sermon that I preach. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## KMK (Jan 2, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Yet we have more than pericipes or chapters or books of the Bible. We have the entire Scripture.



Good point. When preaching through the book of Romans, for example, I spend a great deal more time on indicatives in chapters 1-11, and more on imperatives in chapters 12-16 because that reflects the text. A visitor might erroneously assume from some of my later sermons that I am moralistic because I didn't review all of the material from the last several months.


----------



## Jack K (Jan 2, 2015)

SolaScriptura said:


> Oh, another gripe:
> 
> Your article title is misnamed. By calling it "Letter from an Unsatisfied Churchgoer," you give the impression that in the article that follows you are going to give vent to some of your long-standing frustrations from observations about church life in general, or more probably of the church to which you are a "goer."
> 
> ...



Yes, I simplified the title to make it punchy and provocative. Perhaps "visitor" would have been a good word to use. But I'm happy to report that my own pastor, at the church I regularly attend, was pleased with the article. He may indeed have seen the title Wednesday morning and choked on his corn flakes for a moment, imagining I was about to unleash a string of complaints about him on the Internet. But I trust he knows me better than that, and in any case, he can handle it. The man needs a little excitement in his life now and then.


----------



## JoannaV (Jan 2, 2015)

To me, the main point appeared to be the reminder to yourself (and thus the reader) to keep the Gospel central when teaching children's Sunday School.


----------



## Free Christian (Jan 2, 2015)

SolaScriptura said:


> What I thought was particularly... clever... was the repeated employment of demurring language and apologetically saying that you didn't want to nitpick, etc.... meanwhile, in the face of saying that in general you liked worshipping there... you proceed to nitpick.


Exactly how it came across to me too.
Im just kidding here though as its like this to me......
"Jim I don't have anything against your shoes, in fact I really appreciate you wearing them, they are nice shoes, really, and I have nothing against them..but..I don't like the colour, yellow doesn't work for me, they are nice though very nice in fact, but I think the heel is a bit too high, real pretty shoes those, nice ones, but.. im not sure the laces do them justice, id have gone buckles instead...but having said that Jim, they are awesome shoes you have there." 
Light hearted intent Jack, im not nitpicking.


----------



## BGF (Jan 2, 2015)

Jack, forgive the comparison I'm about to make. 

Recently I've attended several funeral/memorial services. Each one prompted me to reflect on the nature of death and the Christian's appropriate response. While I cherished the moments spent pondering, I certainly did not take any pleasure in the deaths that birthed those moments. Your article struck me the same way. My initial reaction was negative for many of the same reasons already put forth by others on this thread. Yet it led to some profitable introspection. Our own pastor preached on the necessity of God's people being in the Word this past Sunday (I started to become paranoid that maybe you were writing about our church!). I began to wonder, "Did my pastor mention Jesus in his sermon?" Surely he must have. Sadly, although I heartily approved of the sermon at the time, I could not remember a single detail! Thankfully we live in the digital age and I can replay the podcast at will. To my relief I discovered you had not visited my church (although you would be very welcome). Our pastor clearly tied the gospel to the exhortation to read (and live) the bible. 

I still don't know if your article was the most appropriate but it did make me think. And so I must thank you for reminding me to:
1. Pay attention to how the Word is preached. Is my pastor reflecting the gospel in his message? Is Jesus preached and God glorified?
2. Reflect on the sermon so that I gain lasting benefit. It is not good to hear the Word just to walk away and forget it.
3. Give encouragement to my pastors and elders. These men bear heavy responsibilities and it does them no good for me to be unfairly critical.
4. Question, with trepidation, that which may seem to be antithetical to the gospel.


----------



## tabrooks (Jan 2, 2015)

SolaScriptura said:


> Oh, another gripe:
> 
> Your article title is misnamed. By calling it "Letter from an Unsatisfied Churchgoer," you give the impression that in the article that follows you are going to give vent to some of your long-standing frustrations from observations about church life in general, or more probably of the church to which you are a "goer."
> 
> ...



Bingo. This bothered me as well.


----------



## senjui19 (Jan 4, 2015)

In my humble opinion,the message in your letter is relevant. I personally feel unsatisfied with "moralistic", "legalistic", gospel-less sermons. I used to attend a very good baptist church in the capital of my country where the gospel was present in almost each and every preaching. It doesn't mean the preachers reiterated the same thing over and over using the same words,like:Christ died for you, believe in Jesus as your Saviour,etc,etc. However, the emphasis on Christ and His work was ever present. 
Now that I have moved back to my hometown I go to a different church,and though theoretically it holds to the same beliefs as my former one, there's VAST difference. Legalism running rampant. There are some good sermons but at times the things that are said from the pulpit are not Christ-centred at all. I'm sure my church MEANS to be a true Christ's church, but reformation is needed. It is a baptist church by the way. So, Jack, I think you did a very good job, though I would agree with the others here that it is not always fair to judge on the basis of one single sermon. Just my two cents.


----------



## Chase t (Jan 4, 2015)

senjui19 said:


> In my humble opinion,the message in your letter is relevant. I personally feel unsatisfied with "moralistic", "legalistic", gospel-less sermons. I used to attend a very good baptist church in the capital of my country where the gospel was present in almost each and every preaching. It doesn't mean the preachers reiterated the same thing over and over using the same words,like:Christ died for you, believe in Jesus as your Saviour,etc,etc. However, the emphasis on Christ and His work was ever present.
> Now that I have moved back to my hometown I go to a different church,and though theoretically it holds to the same beliefs as my former one, there's VAST difference. Legalism running rampant. There are some good sermons but at times the things that are said from the pulpit are not Christ-centred at all. I'm sure my church MEANS to be a true Christ's church, but reformation is needed. It is a baptist church by the way. So, Jack, I think you did a very good job, though I would agree with the others here that it is not always fair to judge on the basis of one single sermon. Just my two cents.



Just interested to know, what do you mean by "legalism is running rampant" in this new church?

When I hear these terms, they seem to be applied to anything that resembles godly standards for dress, what people watch as far as video, or other standards of righteousness.

Legalism, which would be a belief in being saved by these or other means, is difficult to pinpoint. As it is a heart condition.


----------



## senjui19 (Jan 5, 2015)

Yeah,you are right, I didn't mean legalism as belief in being saved by works. My new church is biblical in its theology fully relying on Christ and His saving work. And yet, some preachers (not all) seem to be too engrossed in the visible aspect of faith. There is a preacher who harshly criticises all who stay in their seats rather than bow the knee during prayer time. I was shocked to hear those words,really. Now what if I have backache and just can't physically endure standing on my knees? He also criticised the position of the choir (which faces the attendants) because it diverts one's attention from the preacher  and these are just two examples out of many. Sometimes he says the weirdest things of which there is no mention in the Bible at all! As far as I heard, people even pointed out the problem with him to our pastor (we have one pastor and many different preachers,in fact any brother can preach), but the pastor didnt pay any attention. I m sure "the strange preacher" means well, and there are some good points in his sermons, but still.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Jan 5, 2015)

*Moderation*

*Chase t* , 

Please take a moment to review the link below in my signature and then take a few minutes to set up your own signature that is compliant with board rules.

Thank you.


----------

