Letter from an Unsatisfied Churchgoer

[Jack K]

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.

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

Bingo. This bothered me as well.

 

[senjui19]

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]

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]

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]

*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.