Why A Sermon?

Over the years in the Church of God I have heard numerous individuals “put down” those who blindly accept the teachings of their church or group without ever questioning it. They have ridiculed or made light of those who observe Christmas or Easter without ever questioning their origins or without ever asking why they celebrate these holidays. And, yet we of the Church of God are just as guilty of following the “traditions” of men, accepting without question the way we do things. I think the term for such is “hypocritical.” I want to address one such “tradition” that we have accepted without question that has stifled spiritual growth within the Body of Christ for decades.

A major, and I would suggest, the primary stumbling block for most of us that has kept us from striving for spiritual maturity and growth and from developing relationships of helping and mentoring others is the format of our assemblies--particularly as it is presently focused around an event we call the “sermon.” I dare say that few if any have ever asked, “Where did we get the idea we must have a ‘sermon?’” Most have never realized that the “sermon” can’t be found in the New Testament. My study has led me to conclude that the “sermon” as we know it is a Greek invention–coming to us from the Greek Philosophers and not from the New Testament.

If the Apostle Paul were to be raised to life and was to come into one of our meetings and saw only one man give an oration patterned after the Greek philosophers of his day, with absolutely no interaction with the individuals in the congregation, I feel certain he would demand to know “What is going on here?” This modern pattern we follow bears no resemblance to the New Testament pattern at all. The “sermon” is an unscriptural tradition, imported from Greco-Roman paganism.

The concept of hearing a sermon has been so ingrained into us that many, if not most, of us have felt that we haven’t attended “church” until we have sat through an hour or maybe an hour and a half sermon. But, by its very structure, the “sermon” given as a monologue fails to fully challenge people--it allows us to get our “religious fix” without any meaningful contribution on our part. Sadly, we sit through years of sermons and show very little spiritual growth. It can be said about many of us, as it was said to the Hebrews, “For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God;...” How much do we really gain by sitting on a hard folding chair in a drab hall or auditorium, staring at the back of someone’s neck, and listening to a lecture presented by a “professional” who is often more interested in keeping us entertained than in truly teaching us?

What was the N. T. pattern? It appears clear that in the assemblies of the early Christians the communication was two-way. Let’s look at a few scriptures. A very familiar passage is found in Acts 20:7-9. “And upon the first [day] of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together. And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.” Our impression has been that the young man fell asleep due to Paul droning on and on. However, that was not the case, merely that it was getting quite late, it was midnight.

The same word is used in Acts 17:2. “ And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,” He was teaching them, giving them understanding, but it was a discussion. They had the opportunity to contribute and to ask questions. We see this again in Acts 18:4. “ And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.” Down in verse 18 it says he came to Ephesus and “reasoned with the Jews.” Paul did not deliver what we would call a sermon. He spoke to them, he taught them, perhaps even “preached” to them BUT it was two-way communication. (As a side study you will find that when the N. T. speaks of “preaching” it generally means proclaiming the gospel to the unconverted. “Teaching” is what was done to those responding to the “preaching” and to those within the assemblies. See Preaching and Teaching)

In Acts 6:9 we find another Greek word used. There were, it says, certain individuals of the synagogue “disputing” with Stephen. This word is #4802 in Strong’s, suzeteo. It is defined by the lexicon “1.) To seek or examine together 2.) In the NT to discuss, dispute, question.” Once again we find discussion, questions and answers, two-way communication taking place.

The Apostle Paul gives us some general guidelines for conducting our meetings in I Corinthians 14. He talks about “prophesying” or what we might call “inspired speaking.” It makes it clear that it should be for “edification, and exhortation, and comfort.” (Verse 3) It was to edify the church (verse 4). Verse 22 makes it clear that the “prophesying” was for the believers, not outsiders. In verses 26-28 he indicates there may be many speaking or singing but he emphasizes all must be done to edify. In verse 29 Paul says to let 2 or 3 “prophets” speak. And, if someone sitting by has something revealed to them, has something to add, Paul says “let the first hold his peace.” (Verse 30) He was to give others the opportunity to contribute. Verse 31 clearly say that “all,” everyone in the congregation, should be able to speak, one at a time, so “that all may learn, and all may be comforted.” The bottom line is found in verse 40. Everything, all things, was to “be done decently and in order.”

Then where did we get the practice and tradition we know as “the sermon?” I’d like to quote from an excellent article entitled “Problems and Limitations of the Traditional ‘Sermon’ Concept” by Mr. Darryl M.. Erkel. “The very notion of a formal and professionalized ‘sermon’ comes not from the New Testament, but from Greek culture. With the rise of the Constantinian mass church (4th century A.D.), all sorts of paganistic and Greek ideas entered into Christian thought and practice. One of those practices brought into the church was that of Greek rhetoric. With the conversion of such men as Chrysostom, Ambrose, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, Lactantius, and Augustine - all of whom were trained in rhetoric and were quite popular as orators within the Greco-Roman culture of their day prior to their conversion - a new style of form of communication began to occur within Christian assemblies (it is interesting to note that Paul, in 1 Corinthians 1:17, 22 and 2:1-5, refused to allow the communication patterns of his pagan contemporaries to dictate the form or manner of his delivery).

“This new form of speech was marked by polished rhetoric, sophisticated grammar, and an undue emphasis on eloquence. Corporate teaching, within many congregations, was no longer delivered in normal or raw language, but began to take on a artistic form of expression. In some instances, the content of the teacher’s message was less influenced by biblical truth and more by abstract Greek philosophy.

“Within time, corporate teaching became more of a form designed to entertain and display the speaker’s oratorical skill or colorful wit, rather than instruct and equip the saints for ministry. Eventually, when the ‘clergy-laity’ division was solidified, only those who were officially ‘ordained’ and trained in the new forms of speech were allowed to address the assembly. This did much to render the saints inactive and helped to promote the idea that only the ‘professionals’ have anything worthy to say.” (This article in its entirety can be found on the internet at: http://home.earthlink.net/~ddcerkel/sermon_cncept.html )

Sadly, without any thought being given to it, we have accepted this “tradition” of having a “sermon” and of not allowing any discussion, questioning of the presenter, of not allowing additional or different understanding being put forth. We have, at least in practice, placed the”ministry” in the position of “knowing all” and being the only ones able to teach and mentor others. I think we can agree with most of the reasons given by Mr. Erkel in his article as to why the “ministry” is reluctant to entertain questions or engage in dialogue. (The following quote is from the same article quoted above.)

“Unfortunately, many pastors will not allow it because they are threatened or intimidated by any form of return dialogue within a public setting. At least five reasons can account for this: (1) Return dialogue is offensive to the man who sees himself and his opinions as above the right of anyone to question, particularly coming from mere ‘laymen’; (2) Return dialogue may expose the speaker to the possibility of embarrassing questions that he may not be able to answer. It may reveal that his studies and preparation were shallow. It may reveal that he is not necessarily the Bible ‘authority’ that he parades as; (3) Return dialogue removes the spotlight from one man and brings others into its realm, which can be very disconcerting to the man who has an ego to feed; (4) Return dialogue is offensive to the man who wants his congregation to be dependent upon him for all the ‘answers.’ If people are allowed to voice their disagreements or perhaps even articulate an answer better than he can, it tends to remove their dependence upon his wisdom for understanding the text of Scripture; (5) Allowing a Q&A period after the sermon poses structural or organizational problems for church leaders who have set their ‘order of worship’ in concrete, allowing exact time limits for everything with no flexibility or spontaneity within the corporate meeting.”

Nehemiah 8:1-8 KJV “ And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that [was] before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel. And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month. And he read therein before the street that [was] before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people [were attentive] unto the book of the law. And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose; and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Urijah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand; and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchiah, and Hashum, and Hashbadana, Zechariah, [and] Meshullam. And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people;) and when he opened it, all the people stood up: And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the LORD with [their] faces to the ground. Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people [stood] in their place. So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused [them] to understand the reading.”

We are aware of the setting. Nehemiah had come back to Jerusalem with a number of the people to rebuild Jerusalem. In verse 1 of chapter 8 we find them on the Feast of Trumpets gathered together in the street. Ezra the priest was asked to bring the book of the law and read the law to them, which he did from morning until midday. He stood on a tower (the Hebrew word is translated tower 47 times but “pulpit” only this one time.) with 13 other individuals. Verses 7 and 8 have been explained as the “modern sermon.” It says that the 13 people named, plus the Levites, “caused the people to understand” and “gave the sense and caused them to understand the reading.” Was this a “sermon” as we know it?

What was happening? The people had not heard the law read to them for some time. Ezra did this. (It was also a requirement that every 7th year the book of the law was to be read during the Feast of Tabernacles [Deut. 31:9-12]. Verse 18 of Neh. 8 shows this was done.) But what was happening with the 13 and the Levites (verses 7 and 8)? Let me quote from some recognized reference books. From the Companion Bible, “Neh. 8:8 So they read in the book of the law of God (i.e. the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch) distinctly (a distinct reading, i.e. [according to the Talmud] translating and interpreting it in the Chaldee paraphrase.) and gave the sense (i.e. divided the sentences, etc. according to sense) and caused them to understand the reading (i.e. gave the traditional pronunciation of the words [which were then without vowel points].)

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary on the Whole Bible, “7, 8, caused the people to understand the law...gave the sense–Commentators are divided in opinion as to the import of this statement, some thinking that Ezra read the law in pure Hebrew, while the Levites, who assisted him, translated it sentence by sentence into Chaldee, the vernacular dialect which the exiles spoke in Babylon; while others maintain that the duty of these Levites consisted in explaining to the people, many of whom had become very ignorant, what Ezra had read.”

John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, the Book of Nehemiah Chapter 8, “8:8 They-Ezra and his companions successively. Sense-The meaning of the Hebrew words, which they expounded in the common language. They gave-So they gave them both a translation of the Hebrew words into Chaldee, and an exposition of the things contained in them.”

I believe it is very plain that this was NOT a “modern sermon.” It was a reading of the law, translating it so the people could understand what was being read and with some explanation. In our “modern sermons” we would never have 13 or 26 or more people involved. And, seldom is it a reading of the law, but a monologue type lecture with much non-biblical material interspersed with “proof texts.”

Not only is there no Biblical pattern for our modern “sermon,” and there is evidence that it comes from Greek philosophy, it has caused disobedience to many of God’s instructions and commands. We are told over and over to help one another, to mentor one another, to teach one another. Our format has kept us from fulfilling that God given responsibility. Again, let us look at a few Scriptures.

Hebrews 10:24-25 “And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some [is]; but exhorting [one another]: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.” We’ve often used this verse to say we need to be attending services. But, have we obeyed the last part of verse 25? “But exhorting one another?” I know that “one another” is not in the original but it very definitely implied. Verse 24 does say “one another.” In our tradition we leave all “provoking” and “exhorting” to one individual.

What does “exhorting” really mean? The Greek word, parakaleo (# 3870 in Strong’s) can mean “to address, speak to, which may be done in the way of exhortation, entreaty, comfort, instruction, etc.” Other definitions are “to admonish, exhort, beg, entreat, beseech, to console, to encourage and strengthen by consolation, to comfort, to encourage, strengthen, to instruct, teach.” And, again, notice “exhorting” is something EVERYONE is commanded to do. When we look at other passages we find this is not only on the Sabbath. Hebrews 3:13 “ But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.” “One another” is definitely in this verse. How much exhorting, instructing, teaching, admonishing have we done, or been allowed to do? Virtually none. Our format does not permit it. We have left it all up to the “professional.”

What is the conclusion? Should we NEVER have a “sermon?” Perhaps listening to a lecture from your favorite speaker in and by itself isn’t a sin. But, having “sermons” as we have known them is not necessary. In fact, with our reduced chances for becoming dependant upon one man and our increased chances that we are able to “search the scriptures” for ourselves we may be much better off without the professional, trained orator. I know that some of the smaller independent/interdependent fellowships are instituting discussion periods after their presentations. A number are doing interactive studies regularly. But, I fear these are in the minority among God’s people.

One well-known individual recently commented in his newsletter about interactive studies. He said, “For all those people who are enamored of interactive Bible studies...many people (I know this will come as a surprise to some) find interactive Bible studies as boring as other people find sermons.” Perhaps he assumes it is boredom. I would suggest it isn’t boredom but merely a reaction to the fact that many of us are, as Hebrews 5:13 says, “unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is babe.” The “sermon” concept and our traditional “Greek philosophy” based service has left too many of us “as have need of milk, and not strong meat.” (Verse 12)

Will we see any changes in the “traditional” service within the churches of God? Not likely! Some COG organizations have already made a point of trying to maintain their “identity” by having the familiar and comfortable format established by decree. One individual has borrowed a label from C.S.Lewis and calls any change in format the “liturgical fidget.” (One of the questions raised by this article is, “Where did we get this “liturgy?”) What then shall we do? Each of us must take personal responsibility for our own spiritual growth. We may have to establish small, intimate, interactive, in-home Bible study groups. These do accomplish more in a short amount of time than years of traditional “sermons” ever will.