Letter from an Unsatisfied Churchgoer

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jack K

Jack K

Puritan Board Doctor
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 said:
What do you think gained it so much attention? The title?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Great article Jack.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I would suggest that perhaps the pastor and elders might know better what the congregation needs to hear than an out of town visitor.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.
 
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
 
Sounds like the preacher is jumping to the what before telling you the why, a strategy that will drive a church right into legalism.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Chris, wasn't it the general pattern to exegete the text and clearly state the doctrine in play before giving application?
 
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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Edward said:
A pastor doesn't have to preach the same sermon from a different verse every week.
Click to expand...

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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Preaching from Narative
Replies
13
Views
3K
Robin
R
C
  • Locked
Preaching from Joshua
Replies
2
Views
2K
Contra_Mundum
Contra_Mundum
reaganmarsh
  • Locked
An edifying article
Replies
0
Views
777
reaganmarsh
reaganmarsh
OPC'n
  • Locked
Sermon from my pastor
Replies
0
Views
1K
OPC'n
OPC'n
toddpedlar
  • Locked
A thought from Watson
Replies
1
Views
2K
VirginiaHuguenot
V
Back
Top