I Need to Hear Amens
by Mark Gutman
One of my company’s associate directors was recently conducting a training session with the team at my office. He had planned to conduct the session in person, but a bicycle accident changed his plans, so he resorted to the phone. Phoning saved money but it had its disadvantages. Communication was more awkward. Every few minutes he would ask, “Any questions on that?” or “Anyone having any problems doing that?” His questions were usually followed by long periods of silence. At one point he told us about an enthusiastic preacher who was preaching to a rather quiet congregation. Frustrated at their apparent unresponsiveness, the preacher burst out, “I need to hear some amens.”
I can sympathize with the comment. I gave a talk at a school gathering recently and struggled with the lack of feedback. Humorous lines barely seemed to draw a smile, although smiles may have been hard to see because I had trouble seeing the listeners very well. I think I’d have given a better talk if I had heard a few amens, or something similar. My concern, though, is not that we want feedback; it’s a problem that can accompany the wish for amens. Needing people to say or holler, “I agree with you” can limit your topics and even what you say in the topics you choose.
A column I wrote a few months ago, “Reading into Isaiah,” is taken from a sermon I preached in a small church. Not a good idea. Oh I think the sermon was a good idea, but preaching it in that church that day apparently wasn’t. They haven’t asked me back, whereas before they wanted to line me up to speak often. More caution on my part would have probably helped, so I’m not blaming people for reacting in an understandable way, but where do I draw the line? Should I make sure all my messages pass the “safe” or “popular” test? Do I filter my sermons so that they are unlikely to offend anybody? A Your Church article reported that over half of pastors could name one or more topics on which they would preach little or none because hearers might be less likely to attend church in the future.
I could have preached from a different passage in Isaiah. In Isaiah 30:10, the “congregation” is quoted as telling the prophets, “Tell us pleasant things (NIV).” People will overlook a lot of problems with a sermon or a message if it is “pleasant” or humorous or reaffirming. We like to hear speakers who tell us that what we thought is true is true. We want to hear reminders that people who have a viewpoint differing from ours are either stupid (or ignorant or uninformed) or wicked. We prefer familiar music, books, friends, and sermons (and articles).
The Ellen White comment about many things to learn and many to unlearn and giving up cherished views is apparently not considered to be a guideline for sermon topics. Of course people should be willing to change their views, but don’t expect me to change a religious belief. Especially not by your talking about it in a sermon. (Or an Adventist Today column.) We listen to sermons in church to be encouraged, to be confirmed in our beliefs, or to be entertained. Being confronted with the idea that we might be mistaken is not one of our reasons for church attendance. We can listen to sermons that say we aren’t perfect as long as they don’t touch on how our theology might be mistaken.
Some people in Nazareth felt that way one time. Luke 4:15 (NIV) says that Jesus “was teaching in their synagogues, and everyone praised him.” And when he started his sermon in Nazareth, the congregation “spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips” (verse 22). But the amens quickly turned into “We’ve had enough of you!” Where did Jesus go wrong?
If Jesus had planned on ministering to that congregation for another year, I suspect he would have started out with a different message. He may have figured that he wasn’t going to be around Nazareth very much, so he might as well cut to the chase. Maybe the ones who give “tough” messages should either be visitors or people who have ministered to (or written for) a group for years and won the right to say things that would be considered offensive if spoken by anyone else. Or should tough messages just be dropped into sermons a bit at a time?
.jpg)
“Birds of a feather flock together.” We stick around people who are similar to us, which makes it easier for us to think that everyone thinks as we think. After all, we don’t know people who think differently. And it’s irritating to have someone tell us (or remind us) that our way of thinking might not be put together as well as we think.
The problem of needing amens works two ways. Preachers (and writers) who want amens will sometimes fail to speak out on topics that need voicing. And people who only want to take in what they can happily say amen to will avoid what might challenge them or stretch (or change) their thinking. Some people limit their listening to right-wing radio stations (or television programs), while others limit it to left-wing. Of course the folks in each group think it sad that the other group won’t listen to the other side.
What are some topics that might not be preached from pulpits for fear of a Nazareth replay? How about overweight (which is a less safe preaching subject than smoking and drinking)? How about time wasted on the internet (a matter which is ignored in favor of warning about the danger of movies and television)? How about helping people in need of money or time (rather than a focus on calling for money in the offering plate, freeing us to otherwise ignore hurting people around us)?
Sermons on any topic need to present hope. A listener who is stunned at the change represented by a message might not notice the hope. And we find ways to explain away or forget messages we don’t like. But if I’m suggesting that you should see things the way I do instead of the way you do, I will probably make my case better if I can show how my belief can help you in everyday life.
On the listening end, if you want to grow and improve, you’ll probably be more willing to listen to someone who sometimes makes you uncomfortable. If you’re only listening to “safe” material, you’re probably missing out on growth opportunities. (Same thing for reading material.) On the teaching end, if you only preach harmless material, you and your hearers will miss out. Preaching challenging material may force you to find new angles, and the process alone means stretching your brain, not to mention the new thinking that comes from such pressure. As Dag Hammarskjold (former Secretary-General of the UN) put it, “It is when we all play safe that we create a world of utmost insecurity.” We need to hear amens, but let’s show some courage.
Mark,
I'll take your challenge and show some courage by asking the question: Why preach at all? Yes, it is traditional. But it is also one of the least effective forms of communication known. Quiz someone an hour later about the sermon and you'll find they probably can't remember a Bible verse that was used or much about what was said. Two or three days later they may not even remember who spoke. What is more, if your sermon is like most I've heard preached, it isn't going to motivate them to make a change in their life. So you've wasted part of your life and their lives.
Sermons are justified on the basis of several objectives:
One is to teach from the Bible. But that is also the primary purpose for the Sabbath School, so we're duplicating efforts with different approaches. Since most Sabbath School classes are uninspired reviews of the lesson in the quarterly ("Let's turn to Tuesday's lesson where it says…") we're doubled-down on failure.
Another is to persuade people to make decisions leading to a closer relationship with God. Again, neither is very effective.
We need something far better than sermons. We need effective presentations of the Gospel. There is nothing more effective than personal testimony. No, I'm not talking about the "Forty years ago God saved me from demon alcohol" testimonies we've all heard. I'm talking about reports of what happened yesterday or last week and how God's action in their life gave that person a deeper understanding of a scripture or brought them into a closer relationship with God. People can relate to that because it is real, it is current, it is powerful and it is personal. It isn't theoretical. It is experience with God that assures listeners about God's love for them and the power He offers to work in their life.
We need to demonstrate real courage by stopping our use of worn-out methods that don't work and adopting the time-proven things that do work. In Revelation 12:11 we find a concise formula for victory over sin: "They overcame him by the blood of the lamb and the word of their testimony…" Redemption is the basis for the Christian life. But after being redeemed we are told to do one thing: go and testify to others about what God has done in us so they will be drawn to Him. Testimony is powerful. Preaching is not.
Why preach at all? Because, according to Paul, that's one of God's chosen methods of articulating the gospel message. I Cor. 1:21 I'm not discounting personal testimony, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. We need balance.
It is my opinion that a good sermon should step on someone's toes–or it hasn't accomplished anything. The Holy Spirit came to convict us of sin, for one thing. If all we here from a sermon is "hope and change," we may not realize our spiritual poverty. An ideal sermon, while focusing on Christ, should have repentance, reformation, hope, and many other elements to be effective. Jesus preached and taught a lot. He included all of those elements in His presentations.
Jean,
The Greek word translated "preach" simply means "to proclaim." The modern definition of "preach" is to deliver a sermon, which is a spiritual presentation delivered by a member of the clergy class in a formal setting that is typically delivered from a pulpit in a dedicated structure called a "sanctuary." There is absolutely no model of this in scripture.
There are many ways can you "proclaim." None are more powerful than personal testimony and none less effective than traditional sermons. Instead of defending tradition, how about helping us break our allegiance to tradition and failure and finding more effective ways to communicate the Gospel?
No offense intended, but it appears quite evident that preaching is deficient in some cultural settings and/or communities.
For you to reside anywhere near Huntsville, AL, and be an Adventist, and “proclaim” that preaching is not powerful is evidence that you need to visit some ‘other’ churches on Sabbath.
Personal testimony is powerful; as is preaching (or should I say, it should be?).
I agree why does it have to be either preacher or witnessing? But I do agree with William's sentiments. In parts of the world which are not Adventist meccas, the sermon is often a waste of time where almost no one listens. By big gripe is that sermons are usually too 'safe' and full of cliches, and thus do not empower. I also agree with William's sentiments insofar as the sermon should be a pep talk to motivate the footsoldiers of Christ for the coming week – not an end in of itself.
Stephen,
I live in the Huntsville area. The number of churches can lead a person to the conclusion that preaching must be powerful. But that would be incorrect because the combined seating capacity of all the churches in Madison County is less than 12% of the population. (The seating capacity data was drawn from building inspection records.)
A non-scientific survey of the area ministerial association a few years ago revealed a surprising observation. Most of the pastors in the association reported rarely having full attendance at any time other than Easter or Christmas and generally declining attendances.
If preaching were powerful, why are attendances declining? Why is such a small percentage of the population attending church? Clearly, something is very wrong with how we're "doing church" if we're being so ineffective.
"Clearly, something is very wrong with how we're "doing church" if we're being so ineffective."
Indeed. Did Martin Luther change services so the sermon became the primary focus instead of the ritual of the Eucharist (so preaching essentially replaced ritual as #1importance). But then didn't the liturgy of the Eucharist somewhat dogmatize in a highly ritual way the Lord's Supper, which originally was very much a more informal communal meal (in the same way Passover is 'worship' with ritual elements, and even the sharing of the Exodus story.)
So you see an evolution don't you in what originally began as a more relaxed informal meal, to a highly ritualized ceremony to ritualized preaching. Perhaps there needs to be another evolution (or devolution) of these rituals?
With the rise of the internet age, are we really suprised that people are finding it hard to be engaged passively sitting in a pew for an hour listening to the same cliches? For me personally, Sabbath School has always been a major success of SDA worship systems. How many other denominations extend the notion of Sunday School to adults?
I think we should raddically think and experiment with different ways of 'doing church'. If they don't work then that is fine – we know the outcome. But we need to be open to new ideas.
Chris (and Nathan),
There are a number of science professionals who disagree with the evolution consensus. (What exactly does “barely disputed” mean anyway?) Do they not qualify as scientists simply because they disagree with the consensus?
If so/yes, the same might be said of the minority scientists who disagree with the anthropogenic climate change majority opinion.
Sorry…I pasted the wrong post above.
If you consider attendance or the percentage of occupied seats as a barometer of the effectiveness of preaching, then you should consider that the South Central Conference of SDA churches in the Huntsville area are packed each Sabbath; so much so that at least one of them had to go to two worship services—both of which are consistently at/near full seating capacity.
From all indications, there clearly seems to be a problem with white Adventist preaching. The problem isn’t with the format or medium—Jesus, Peter, and Paul effectively used it—it’s more likely with the message.
Of course that could be as easily the fault of the receiver(s) as sender(s). Perhaps the receivers’ are rejecting the message; or if the senders’ don’t believe the message they should be delivering, they won’t.
Attendance at Huntsville-area churches is impacted by Oakwood, which has a student body that has become more mobile and has grown to where they cannot be contained on the campus. This combination of factors is the largest contributor to attendance growth at South Central Conference churches in the Huntsville area. What would attendance be without the Oakwood influence?
Applying your local observations of an unusual situation across a wider geographic area will only lead you to an inccurate conclusion. If you want to measure the effectiveness of preaching you will need a larger and more diverse sampling set.
My concern is the preaching that is omitted, whether the sermons are powerful or pitiful. If I only preach "safe" sermons, I may very well draw a crowd. I am not criticizing preachers in Huntsville. I'm just pointing out some preachers who draw a crowd are afraid to speak out. A large church attendance doesn't tell me what's not being addressed. People can attend because they enjoy the show.
William,
There are at least two other large South Central Conference churches in Huntsville, besides Oakwood; and the one I had reference to (with the full two services) was one of the other two.
It is true, Oakwood is the reason there are so many Adventists in greater Huntsville. However the same phenonmenon is true in many of the urban areas of the U.S., including Atlanta, Washington, D.C., Orlando, Nashville, New York, Dallas, and in southern California.
For the most part, these are places where I have either lived, visited, or with which I am otherwise quite familiar (with southern California being the notable exception).
You are right Mark about preaching that is often omitted, and people coming to enjoy the show. These are valid observations.
The thing is, when preaching fails to be relevant, the show is generally never good enough to make up the difference. Over time (and not much time, at that) irrelevant preaching is exposed as such—especially if and when relevance can be heard on the other side of town.
Stephen,
I'm not a total opponent of preaching because I believe in using what works. When I logged-on a minute ago I saw a news item about a crusade in Papua, New Guinea attracting ten thousand and baptizing 4,500. I praise God for that. It worked there. But justifying continued use where it does not work is a prescription for failure. I remember almost 40 years ago attending a crusade in Huntsville where Ken Cox was preaching to two packed houses a night and baptized over a hundred. Today we're lucky to get 50 non-members to the opening night of a crusade and baptize two or three (at a huge multiple of the cost).
We need to be wise enough to recognize where preaching is failing and be ready to adopt other approaches.
Preaching presents us with some distinct problems. It cultivates the habit of being fed spiritual food rather than learning to find it in a growing relationship with God. It tends to turn people into sheep who have no idea what to do or which way to go unless they are directed by a preacher. It stifles the discovery of Holy Spirit empowerment because people look to the preacher to be the one empowered instead of each believer. Out of the people attending those two services, how many of them are involved in any ministry or overtly spiritual activity outside of Sabbath morning? How many are creating new believers and bringing people into the church?
Another problem with preaching is found an Adventist eschatology. We teach that the day is coming when it will not be possible to preach the gospel openly. Don't you think it would be wise for us to be following the guidance of the Holy Spirit and learn other ways to share the Gospel so that each member knows they are empowered to minister for God?
Perhaps more important than how we share the gospel is what comes after. When the new believer comes to church after baptism, what will s/he find? Will there be a warm welcome every time, or just when s/he is new? Will the 'training in righteousness' continue? Will there be a place in a ministry that will be a blessing rather than something that 'has to be done'? Will someone be there when help – of any kind – is needed? Something that has burdened me lately is the realisation that even many long-time members who have a range of friends/acquaintences in the local church often have to – or choose to – face problems alone. Everyone should have a few people they can trust with any problem or issue. Caring for each other is something we are to do as individual members, and not leave it to the deacon/esses or pastors to do. There is a place for organised, corporate help, but also a real need for one-to-one caring. In our modern world where we are all so busy, we all often need someone just to hear us 'whinge' and know we have been heard, even if no help is given or needed. We often feel we have no expertise in counselling, or are unsure of how to help, but just the gift of time to listen takes no real qualifiactions and can be very valuable. And if giving time to listen seems like 'wasting time', then maybe we need to reassess our values.
A big problem is when friendship with a new attendee is based on winning another member. I have a friend who became a SDA member (he attended an SDA school but was not an SDA) but has commented that at time he felt people treated him like the latest 'project'. I wonder if our attempt to be too friendly with people can actually backfire when it is almost a fake kind of friendship aimed at evangelism?
Fake friendship is not friendship. Caring for someone should be predicated on their need of care, not whether it will result in a baptism or retention of a member. None of us wants to be a 'project', no matter how long we have been a church member.
Kevin,
Getting new members connected into a nurturing fellowship is a real challenge, in particular where the church does not have much fellowship to share. Some years ago I was going through a very difficult period of financial distress and needed help. Going to the church was a painful experience where I suffered the "third degree" of questioning about my character and suffered the judgements of the decision makers. More halp came from Christians in other churches. I came out of that time wanting to do something that would build the fellowship of the church and help address the needs of members when they arose. God's leading into the Angel Team ministry that I now lead was a direct answer to that wish. The contribution to fellowship has been beyond anything I could have ever imagined as blessings received keep getting paid forward. That fellowship creates a foundation of trust that stimulates many other things including greater study of scripture and a desire to grow into gift-based ministry.
I have been on both sides of the pulpit. If, while in the pew, I'm not hearing convicting truth, I get drowsy. And when I'm in the pulpit I try to get people to think; sometimes I get a bit provocative. But, then, those who proclaimed (to use the proper term according to William) truth in the Bible tended to get rather provocative at times. Some got stoned for it. I'd rather get stoned for preachng truth than applauded for telling people what they want to hear.
William says there's no model for modern preaching in the Bible. So all those great preachers of the past were wrong in their methodology? Dwight Moody, Charles Spurgeon, Billy Sunday, etc. What Peter did on the Day of Pentecost wasn't a sermon? How about Paul? The Sermon on the Mount wasn't a sermon?? I'm not convinced that "traditional" preaching is a failure. Mediocre preachng is a failure, of course, but when a preacher makes you pay attention so you don't miss any point (or you'll get lost), I don't call that failure. Preaching isn't just oration, it should be teaching and interacting with the congregation, if possible.
The problem in all sermon is that only "amens" are appropriate. Many times, a statement has raised a question, but never asked. If there was an opportunity for a pastor to hold small group conversations (probably limited to small churches, but
there are many associates in large churches) with discussions: listening as much or more than talking.
As it now is, all the questions raised in a public SDA forum are buried except for such forums as AToday where doctrinal questions can be discussed. More and more, members are realizing that their duties are to listen, obey, and pay.
Very much agree.
In our church in California, we have our worshipp service first and then Sabbath School afterwards. One of our largest Sabbath School classes is called "A Second Look". With the pastor leading out, the members get to dissect the sermon, discuss it, ask questions and also answer them. Our pastor is very willing for us to disagree with him if we want to. It works well.
Sounds great. But, have you discovered the ministry God wants you to be doing?
In my own humble opinion (and this has happened to me), you know you are saying what needs to be said when you have people heckle you! You will recall Jesus' own home church went to kill Him. Even if people don't agree with you, if they are passionate enough to speak out against you, at least you have made them think. IMO, that is far better than the usual sermon, which is so 'safe' that everyone's eyes glaze over and no one really hears anything.
Stephen,
Great observation! Learning should be an interactive experience. We have record of some of this interaction with Jesus at times like when the rich young ruler asked "What must I do to be saved?" Interaction permits testing of both the questions and the answers and often answers unspoken questions.
I believe we need to take the term "worship" out of the name "worship service" because it is a misnomer. Worship is our expression of adoration and praise to God after having an encounter with Him. How can we worshipping God when when the most essential element of that meeting, the sermon, does not allow for personal expression of adoration and praise to God?
Also perhaps it is a cultural thing, but when preachers ask for 'give me an amen', it kind of makes my skin crawl. I really don't like overt preaching styles that try to use emotional crescendos to rev me up – often when the preacher is actually saying not much at all. I would say I prefer 'university lecture style' with a very interesting topic, where the preacher is presenting information I have never heard before, rather than some sort of emotional trick.
But of course that is just me. Everyone has a personal preference.
Yes, I think the difference in personalities, background, and even groups enters in here. We might also try to sample different styles, and we may get more than we expected. Loud speaking is not my favorite, while some find this dynamic.
I find it a spiritual feast to enjoy different worship styles though. I like gospel and contemporary music and drums; I like quiet music and a subdued mood as well. I like choral and classical music. We need to step out of our boxes once in awhile! There is beauty when you look for it.
Sermons that make one uncomfortable? Yes, but not every week. I pastor needs variety to feed all his members. But every sermon must focus on Christ, His life, death, and resurrection and mostly what it means to us–what God is like.
Sermons that are continuously negative and make us feel guilty even when we aren't involved in what they are condemning, is not good news. First of all, every person in the audience is in a different circumstance. I heard sermons all the time I couldn't relate to from one pastor. At another church, we heard mourning sermons. Right after my mother died I came to this church to be uplifted but heard sadness. I like the intelllectual sermon that teaches most of all, but I also need the testimony as well. (We have them periodically at our church.) I like stories in sermons; that is how Jesus taught. In conclusion–variety, even dramas can tell stories and give the message, probably more than a sermon if done well. But a pastor does have to speak to his audience in a manner they will understand.
There are a lot of lazy preachers (I'm a PK — my dad was not among them).
Oh, many seem to be working hard. But too many resist serving steak while focusing our attention on the sizzle. The core subjects of Christianity are often avoided: Christ's death and sacrifice for our sins, the critical path to salvation, the New Covenant, being led by the Spirit, and love and the Royal Law (admittedly my favorites) are conspicuously avoided. Sin (in its many forms), Adventist traditions, and unpopular social trends are emphasized to yield loud and easy "Amens." The Bible is often, a secondary source or used, selectively — and out of context, to "confirm" a point of view not that is not scriptual. In my critical thinking class, I urge students to examine what is being avoided as much as what is being said.
Mark has uncovered an important issue.
Are we being "played" and unfed from the pulpit?