Friday, November 11, 2011

Discernment in church

Hokey dinah it's been a long time since I blogged.

Anyways, Alan Knox writes:

But, let’s be honest. For the majority of Christians who gather together (at least in the Western world), discernment is not and cannot be part of their gatherings. Usually, only one person speaks. If someone else speaks, that person must first be given permission to speak. Then, if someone has a question about what is said, or if someone disagrees, there are few avenues of asking questions, much less discernment. (Yes, I understand that some “preachers” or teachers allow for questions and disagreements. But, for most Christians in America and the west, this is not allowed or encouraged.)

I agree with Alan. How can this be remedied? Should someone teaching invite comments and questions during or after he teaches?

Read the rest of Alan's post.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Brother,

Nice to see you back in the blogosphere.

As to your question, I really like a Q&A after a sermon to clarify and/or express agreement/disagreement with the sermon.

I don't really agree with Alan though. I've been in a number of church settings within the last few years and there are plenty of opportunities when the church is gathered in small groups during the week to ask questions relating to the previous week's sermon or other teachings. Admittedly, my experience is limited, but I'm not resonating with Alan on this one.

Blessings,

Joel

MJK said...

thanks for your comment Joel. I'm glad Alan's experience doesn't resonate with yours!

Have you found that you have had good access to the teacher himself to clarify and express (dis)agreement? Also, when you had contributions that advanced the discussion, would you say that most of the rest of the community was able to benefit from them, or only a small pocket?

Thanks!
Mike

Kevin Minnett said...

It has been awhile Mike! Thanks for posting. I have sometimes found it helpful during a sermon to solicite some feed back. By helpful I mean will it add clarity to what I have said and will it help me to ensure I am being understood.

One of the issues I have found with this is getting your audience to the point where they are comfortable with a level of dialogue. Most of the time people are not familiar with it. However, if you slowly introduce the opportunity you eventually get to a point where people almost expect that you will give some opportunity for feedback.

Often when I am speaking I will simply pause after a main point where I am trying to explain something and ask, "Are there any questions or need for clarification about what I have been saying to this point?"

One the other hand, one thing that I have found can be problematic is where you have someone who always has a comment and seems to want to take centre stage. Almost to the point where you feel like this person thinks he should be the one behind the pulpit :-)

MJK said...

Thanks Kevin. I too have found it helpful, and try to approach such times with a desire to learn from others.

There are potential pitfalls. This is where assemblies need to be taught what the NT itself teaches about teaching: (1) contributions are to be true, (2) helpful, and (3) shared out of a motive of love. Once this foundation is laid, you would be set to gently confront someone who is abusing the opportunity.

Anonymous said...

Hi Mike,

Again, my experience is not of sufficient power to be generalizable to the whole, but I have had access to teaching pastors. Sometimes the access is to the benefit of the entire church, but other times only to those who actually are interested in the issue under consideration.

I've belonged to larger churches where a weekly "round table" is carried out via podcast to address questions about the previous week's teaching. I've also belonged to a church where questions about the sermon could be texted in to a phone number during the sermon and would be answered/addressed immediately following the sermon.

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure there's room for improvement when it comes to discernment. But I get the feeling one prong of Alan's criticism is directed at one-man ministries within the church, which I think may be a bit of a herring.

On a somewhat-related note, I wonder if we need to be careful to avoid the "ditch theory" of church history when seeking to incorporate more discernment into the church? For example, should all teachings be "game" for questioning? Or should be those who entered the fellowship of a church be required to assent to certain beliefs, which are assumed fundamental beliefs?

Blessings,

Joel

MJK said...

Again Joel, thanks for the push back. I don't want to end up in either ditch. Some truths are not up for questioning, not because they are too weak to withstand testing, but because they are so strong they test us (e.g., the incarnation as a test for John's community in 1-3 John to apply to teachers). When we weigh what is said in our churches, surely it is not to question the incarnation, but to ensure that the person's teachings conform to the truth of the incarnation. Thus we are not questioning Christian doctrine, but Christian doctrine is questioning Christians.

Perhaps the one-man ministry thing is a red-herring for this discussion. However, I do think that it is important that believers meet together in some way that resembles 1 Cor 14. This time of interaction and participation could take place in small groups and house churches, though, even if the typical Sunday morning "event" didn't readily allow for it.

In both cases, emphasizing the need for participatory gatherings and the need for discernment sends the same message: we are interdependent. If one stands out as "the teacher" in a church, he can demonstrate his submission to the Truth, and his need for the rest of the body, by inviting both their correction and their teachings, illustrations, applications, insights, etc.

You can appreciate my situation, Joel, where a teacher who is teachable can be a real breath of fresh air!

Do post if you have further thoughts Joel!

Mike

Anonymous said...

Great thoughts, brother, and expressed with enviable eloquence. :) I think we enjoy a very large level of agreement on this issue. I think my main contention centers on how churches with a discernible (no pun intended) lead teacher are characterized. There are unquestionably some badly-operated churches with lead teachers. But there are unquestionably some well-run, discernment-friendly churches with lead teachers as well.

To push the discussion a little further, what are the foundational tools for discernment, in your view? Since the Bible is not a self-interpreting book (despite veracity of the Analogy of Faith doctrine), appealing to "what the Bible teaches" is not always an easy trump card to pull out of the back pocket.

Blessings,

Joel

MJK said...

Great question Joel. I haven't given much thought to that before. My quick response: Our tools for discernment are the Lord, his teachings, and his gospel, as given to us by his authorized apostles in their verbal (Rom 6.17; 1 Cor 1; 1 Cor 15.1f; Gal 1.6-9; Gal. 2.11-14; Php 4.8-9; 1 Tim 1.3, 6.3; Titus 1.9; 1 John 2.22-4, 4.2-3, 4.15, 5.1; 2 John 7-11; Jude 3) and written (2 Tim 3.15-6; 2 Pet 3.12-21, 3.16) forms. Furthermore, we have gifted members of the church (Eph 4.11-16; 1 Tim 3.15) and the Holy Spirit (1 John 2.20), who will guide us in the knowledge of truth (John 16'ish and 1 Cor 2). Also, we can watch the behavior of those who are teaching (lots of verses, can't look them all up now, but Rom 16 and John's and Peter's letters bear this out).

It's true that Scripture is a difficult trump card to bring out in light of their need to be interpreted (2 Pet 3.16), but I think the multi-pronged basis above provides some help with this, especially the emphasis on the person of Christ and his gospel, even though his revelation is only available to us now through the Scripture itself.

Can't develop this further now. Thanks for the question. Please let me know your thoughts on this.

Thanks
Mike

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the response, Mike.

I guess I wonder if a large part of discernment today should perhaps take place prior to joining the fellowship of a church? The Lord's teaching and his gospel are not "brute facts," so appeal to them as tools of discernment is effective only to the degree that they are beyond the pale of discernment, if you know what I mean.

I've witnessed a lot of "discernment" in non-creedal churches, for example, where everyone questions everyone with appeals to the gospel, etc., but rarely have I witnessed resolution of these discernment exercises.

See what I'm getting at?

Blessings,

Joel

MJK said...

First, my apologies that my previous comment was incomprehensible. I read it again the following day and vowed never again to write so quickly so late at night!

I agree with you on having a creedal foundation for later discernment to be based on. I'm guessing we would disagree a little on how big that creed should be, and on what coming into membership looks like.

2 questions:

(1) Do you think the creed should address not only what truths we believe but also what behaviors we should practice? I realize that "truths" can be defined to include behaviors, but most people don't think that way.

(2)Is there an assumption behind your comment that all discernment exercises should be resolved? Is that assumption valid?

Blessings
Mike

Anonymous said...

Brother,

Re: your questions:

(1) Yes, a creed should address practices, within reason of course. At some point, principles will have to be stated as short-hand.

(2) I don't believe that all disagreements have to be settled, but I'm not sure that I've ever witnessed the settling of a disagreement in "real time" in a non-creedal church, which is a concern of mine.

I think there's plenty of flexibility in terms of the scope of a creed, but the point is, there should be some kind of covenantal commitment when one enters a fellowship, including a commitment to adhere to the church community's perspective on basic issues of belief, practice and interpretation. From a pastoral perspective, this makes discernment possible and discipline much more manageable.

Blessings,

Joel