Eric Chabot of Think Apologetics posted this on Facebook.
It’s a medium-length read. I want to highlight one problem – the problem of pastors never showing their work.
Excerpt:
Around this point, it can start to dawn on one that many church leaders have only been trained in forms of discourse such as the sermon and, to a much lesser extent, the essay. Both forms privilege a single voice—their voice—and don’t provide a natural space for response, questioning, and challenge. Their opinions have been assumed to be superior to opposing viewpoints, but have never been demonstrated to be so. While they may have spoken or written about opposing voices, they are quite unaccustomed to speaking or writing to them (not to mention listening to or being cross-examined by them). There are benefits to the fact that the sermon is a form of discourse that doesn’t invite interruption or talking back, but not when this is the only form of discourse its practitioners are adept in.
Many church leaders have been raised and trained in ideologically homogenous cultures or contexts that discouraged oppositional discourse. Many have been protected from hostile perspectives that might unsettle their faith. Throughout, their theological opinions and voices have been given a privileged status, immune from challenge. Nominal challenges could be brushed off by a reassertion of the monologue. They were safe to speak about and habitually misrepresent other voices to their hearers and readers, without needing to worry about those voices ever enjoying the power to answer them back. Many of the more widely read members of their congregations may have had an inkling of the weakness of their positions in the past: the Internet just makes it more apparent.
A system is only as effective as its weakest component in a particular operation. The same is true of the human mind and the communities formed around thinkers. Where the capacity of agonistic reasoning is lacking, all else can be compromised. If one’s opinion has never been subjected to and tried by rigorous cross-examination, it probably isn’t worth much. If one lacks the capacity to keep a level head when one’s views are challenged, one’s voice will be of limited use in most real world situations, where dialogue and dispute is the norm and where we have to think in conversation with people who disagree with us.
The teachers of the Church provide the members of the Church with a model for their own thinking. The teacher of the Church does not just teach others what to believe, but also how to believe, and the process by which one arrives at a theological position. This is one reason why it is crucial that teachers ‘show their working’ on a regular basis. When teaching from a biblical text, for instance, the teacher isn’t just teaching the meaning of that particular text, but how Scripture should be approached and interpreted more generally. An essential part of the teaching that the members of any church need is that of dealing with opposing viewpoints. One way or another, every church provides such teaching. However, the lesson conveyed in all too many churches is that opposing voices are to be dismissed, ignored, or ‘answered’ with a reactive reassertion of the dogmatic line, rather than a reasoned response.
This is probably the biggest thing that annoys me about church. Being talked at by somebody who never explains why they believe what they believe, and who never answers criticisms to what they believe. They don’t want to show their work. I really don’t like that. Being forced to sit still and silent while someone else talks.
In math class, you don’t get any marks for just writing the correct answer to a non-trivial problems. You have to show the steps that led to your answer. I think talking about why we believe, though, can be agitating to some people who are there in church to be comforted and to have feelings and emotions. So that’s probably why pastors don’t show their work, because it disrupts the comfort / happiness vibe. Still though, I think it would be a good idea for us (and I mean me, too!) to get better at hearing voices on the other side. The way I usually do this is by watching debates and reading debate books. I like there to be two sides interacting. I get annoyed when there is only one side. That’s why I prefer reading evidential apologetics to philosophical theology and I prefer philosophical theology to devotional reading (A.W. Tozer and G. K. Chesterton are the worst things to read in my view, and most men I know can’t stand reading them). The more testable something is, the easier it is on me. I don’t like to be preached at about things that can’t be tested. It annoys me, even if I agree with it.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
WK, that is because the type of discourse IS different. If a pastor is truly being carried along by the Holy Spirit, then he is preaching a sermon from God’s word and we are hearing from God(Christ) during the process. This is not a lecture, or should not be. It’s not sharing, or should not be. It is a declaration of truth about God, man and the solution to man’s problem, Christ. This is why we don’t talk back during the sermon. Yes, there is room for disagreement, but it’s not a chat, it is God’s means for bringing sinners to the saving knowledge of Christ and for building up those who are already saved. It is God’s ordained means for feeding the flock spiritually, along with communion, prayer, and baptism. This is why those of us in Reformed circles are so baffled at what so many do in churches and call it church. Things not ordained in God’s word, like plays, or videos, or puppets, or whatever. God has given us preaching to reach the lost, not any of the other junk so many churches put forth on Sunday morning.
LikeLike
My Church is Calvinist (Reformed) and it’s mostly useless, but at Christmas and Easter, he does a better job of being convincing. Still, it’s mostly insular and not something useful for non-Christians to hear.
LikeLike
Sorry to hear that.
LikeLike
Went to my wife’s Catholic Church this morning. Heard a sermon from the deacon on why most Catholics just might wake up one day to find out that they never had a relationship with Jesus to begin with! He also talked about the cultural slippery slope. (Good expository preaching too, BTW.) And he talked about why works were important – something that a lot of Protestant churches never get around to, at least not Gospel works, just “programs.” He is a deacon – and old, so he will be sacrificed next week. :-)
Then a seminarian got up and said “The first thing I do every morning is read my Bible. You all read your Bible every day, don’t you?!? Don’t let the Protestants make us look bad!”
Then a girl got up and she is joining a Jesuit Volunteer Corps to spread the Gospel and help destitute people. Not bad!
I swear – a wave of Protestantism broke out in that church since the last time I was there. I was Amen’ing left and right. :-) I am not sure how many had ears to hear, but I can tell you that it is a good day when everyone present gets their salvation questioned – and a great day when it happens in the Catholic Church! :-)
I think I am going to see if I can get an apologetics group started there. These folks seem serious – and it is a town with a lot of educated folks in it.
LikeLike
There’s more of an emphasis on losing your salvation if you don’t perform the right works, in Catholicism. That’s troubling to me, since I believe in salvation by grace, through faith, in Christ alone. Catholics add on a lot more required actions. However, I do think that Protestant churches should value being effective more – but just not think that it’s how they either get saved or keep their salvation.
LikeLike
Well, remember, this deacon said that they might wake up and find out that they NEVER had a relationship with Jesus, not that they didn’t do enough works to earn salvation through Jesus. So, yes, the general Catholic doctrine is faith plus works, but this deacon was preaching more of the “I never knew you” variety of Jesus’ teachings, which I found solid.
Furthermore, one of the reasons that I left my Bible church, in addition to the anti-apologetics feelings, was that they never seemed to do any works. Oh, sure, they taught Sunday school and everything, but they never impacted the world – in a Gospel sense or otherwise. They just hunkered down and seemed to be of the view that whoever has the best doctrine gets into Heaven, or at least, gets the best seat. I didn’t see much living out the Book of Acts going on, but perhaps I am being too harsh.
Say what you will about Catholics: nobody does better works. (Regardless of their motives for doing them and ignoring the fact that they sometimes do not emphasize the Gospel message enough in their works.)
LikeLike
I thought that Chesterton debated atheist/agnostics Clarence Darrow, Bertrand Russell, Bernard Shaw, HG Wells, and Robert Blatchford, and did quite well? I realize that he made a lot of clever assertions, and was not a strong evidentialist maybe, but I also thought he was pretty good at pointing out self-refutations and creeping post-modernism, no? Is it because he was more of a story-teller, like Lewis, that bothers you?
LikeLike
He also predicted the sexual and feminist revolutions and called out what they would do to families.
I’ve particularly liked The Everlasting Man, which despite not being a detailed historical book ends up challenging a number of popular views of human history in powerful ways. I think reading Chesterton, one has to realize that he isn’t writing detailed scholarly work, despite the topics he ends up talking about. In his writings on economics, I think he fails to grasp the issues, but overall I think he’s worth reading – and in fact his work helped convince me that Christianity could be reasonable.
LikeLike
Booo, Stephen C. Meyer and William Lane Craig for the win.
LikeLike
Apparently, he creamed Darrow, who was a pretty decent debater, no? You might have to post the re-enactment. :-) Are you bothered by his switch to Catholicism?
LikeLike
I’m an equal opportunity appreciater (is that a word?) for all good Christian thinkers, WLC to GKC and everyone in between!
LikeLike
Josh, than you for that tip! I have not read that one, and so, I will get it for sure. I read his “Orthodoxy” not long after I became a Christian, and thought it was solid. But, I am going to re-read it, to see if I can detect WK’s thoughts on this. I was definitely more feelings-oriented and a little less of an evidentialist right after becoming a Christian. Something about being rescued from the flames of Hell invokes strong passions and feelings toward one’s Savior. :-)
I listened to a re-enactment of his debate with Darrow, and thought it was solid, but I only heard part of it. I do think he is more of a “turn-the-tables-on-his-opponent” debater than a pure evidentialist. Thanks again!
LikeLike
I like science, history and analytical philosophy. Boo on people just expressing their opinions in wordy ways. However, I have read and rated (with stars) all the Father Brown mysteries.
LikeLike
We have to get you in touch with your feminine side, WK. I will lock you in a room with my radical feminist relatives for 2 hours, and we shall see what comes out of there. :-) (To be fair, even I cannot stand that long – 30 minutes max, before I head out to puke.) It will kind of be like the old Star Trek compression chamber for you. Did that appeal to Star Trek make your day – I know you love it when the a-theists do it?!? :-)
LikeLike
LOL! They love Star Trek. I would make their heads explode with my different ways of seeing love and marriage.
LikeLike
It was the book that convinced CS Lewis at last that Christianity was true, or at least that is what I’ve heard!
LikeLike
Well, THAT explains why I like it – I like Lewis too! It’s on my wish list.
LikeLike
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
(1Co 1:18-21)
A pastor shouldn’t be afraid to “show his work.” His sermon should not just make declarations, but show the process by which his conclusions were reached.This is how Paul wrote, and how he taught. He should also be open to criticism and correction. He is only a man and he will make mistakes. We all do. If your pastor doesn’t do this you need to find a new church.
That said, preaching is the method ordained by God to “save them that believe.” It can’t be dismissed simply because we don’t agree with the methodology.
LikeLike
Paul was always jumping in and out of public debates in synagogues and marketplaces debating with people. So he definitely new what they thought, and even quoted their own scholars back to them to make his points. I’ve been to lots of sermons, and I don’t think I’ve heard any where the pastor showed any evidence of having the slightest idea what non-Christians believed. It’s very focused on Christians. Just Christians who assume the Bible is true talking to other Christians who assume the Bible is true. It’s not surprising to me that so many young people tune out of this as soon as they hit college. It’s not that Christianity is deficient, it’s that pastors are deficient.
LikeLike
Yep, and you should have seen the looks I got in my VERY conservative Bible church when I talked about witnessing to atheists, and when I asked a lot of questions like “what should I say to an atheist when he brings this point up?”
Most of the time, they started quoting Scripture. Well, yes, their Scripture quotes were spot on and provided all the evidence we need for the veracity of our position and arguments – inside of the Christian faith. Just one problem: atheists would never even consider it! And this former atheist, right here, would have laughed and told them that whoever thinks the Bible has one ounce of truth in it is a complete and total idiot. (God forgive me. :-()
They thought I was expressing weakness in my OWN faith! I have news for them: no one witnesses to atheists unless they are assured of their faith. Some atheists are very good debaters, and all should be! Plus, I wanted to strengthen my faith even more by discussing the answers to these questions. What’s wrong with that?!?
The quote I kept hearing over and over again was “I haven’t witnessed to anyone in years.” Excuse me, I must go barf. Be right back …
LikeLike
SEE!!! This is what I am thinking is more the normal case. That’s the net effect of all this pastors not surveying alternatives, talking about reality outside the Bible, etc.
LikeLike
Of course WK. The church is a place for Christians to congregate and worship God. The focus is (or should be) God, His word, and what He would have us (those who have chosen to follow Him by professing belief in Him) to do.
From Thayer’s Greek Definitions:
Church-ekklēsia
1d) in a Christian sense
1d1) an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
1d2) a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order’s sake
Our work is to make the paths straight for those on the outside TO believe- i.e. evangelize (you, for instance, do this through your apologetics)
The pastor’s job is to “feed the sheep, feed the lambs, feed the sheep”. He is not called so much to evangelize (in the church) as he is to teach God’s people about God’s word and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
LikeLike
What possible justification is there for the comment about G.K. Chesterton? I constantly read/hear about how massively important he is to apologetics and apologists.
“Booo, Stephen C. Meyer and William Lane Craig for the win.”?
Well yes, they are both excellent, but this hardly justifies a comment like: “G. K. Chesterton [is one of] the worst things to read in my view, and most men I know can’t stand reading them…”
Is it simply that, by definition, what you like is read by men, and what you don’t like is not read by men? Or perhaps truth is defined by your circle of friends?
Can you also show your work on showing that “most men” don’t read G.K. Chesterton?
LikeLike
Circle of friends. We are mostly STEM people. Engineers. So we only care what can be proven with hard evidence. And we are suspicious of poetry and witty quips.
LikeLike
I’m a retired engineer, but a former feminized godless liberal who still likes French Christian devotional poetry (Marguerite de Navarre, anyone?). That might be why I like Chesterton and Lewis, as well as WLC.
Plus, WK has correctly called me out on making unsupported assertions here before. Oh, but, they WERE witty quips, were they not, WK?!? :-)
LikeLike
Very witty! You are allowed to read anything you want. I read Jane Austen and watch the BBC “North and South” series. But it’s not something I want to advertise.
LikeLike
I love reading Chesterton because he can put his finger right on the problem and press until he elicits a reaction. And even almost a century later he’s just as relevant, might even say prophetic.
LikeLike
WK, you might look at this article about the purpose of worship.
It might help.
http://ligonduncan.com/what-gathered-worship-should-look-like-evangelistic/
LikeLike
I think we are probably talking about two different purposes. You are talking about worship, and I am talking about large-scale apostasy when Christian kids hit college.
LikeLike
As an ex-agnostic, I can tell you that I wasn’t interested in hearing Scripture until after I was saved. The only pastor I ever took seriously had a degree in physics (in fact, I trusted him enough intellectually to allow him to lead me to Christ).
I work in IT and am surrounded by atheists. I recently had a discussion with a guy in my office. After a lengthy period of sharing a room he spotted on of my novels (I write Christian sci-fi and keep copies on the office bookshelf) and this sparked a conversation. He was curious how I could reconcile my “logical” work as a programmer and my (presumably illogical) religious beliefs. I told him I came to my faith through a rational decision based on the evidence. What followed was a discussion about science–particularly evolution. I actually knew more about the theory than he did, which seemed to impress him. He left the office and I heard he passed away three months later. I believe God paved the way for our discussion, allowing me to share my faith, not by quoting Scripture but by discussing science.
LikeLike
I think this is a great story, and it really shows how the hard-headed approach to faith allows guys like us to be more public about what we believe.
LikeLike
I agree. No way could I have been in a church or been quoted the Bible in order to be saved. I was a not-very-open-minded anti-Christian (I mean atheist). Good job, Andrew, on the evidential apologetics!
LikeLike
In “The Reason for God” Tim Keller talks about how at the end of all of his church services he opens the floor for Q & A. That sounds like the kind of church I would really enjoy and wish more pastors would do this kind of thing. If the pastor doesn’t feel comfortable fielding questions they could at least have a box for people to put questions into so he could choose some to answer at the end of service. That way the pastor actually deals with the problems relevant to the congregation instead of just talking at them and could keep a pulse on what the people need to hear in sermons.
LikeLike
That’s why he is so popular and respected. I just bought his DVD discussion series on “The Reason for God” for the lady I am mentoring the most.
LikeLike