Is digging into the Scriptures central to a regular church service?
What is your view on this matter? The trend toward shorter sermons and more music has not caught on everywhere. Likewise, many pastors still preach expository sermons that dig deeply into the Word, as well as well-studied topical sermons that are grounded in Scripture. In some churches, the Scriptures are read with little meaning, and texts are never expounded. Others emphasize theology and church history, but do so at the expense of actual Bible content. What are your views on the matter? All the aspects of a service matter, but do they matter equally? What is your view?
- 255 views
I went with important but equal to the other elements of the service.
Of the main reasons I see it that way is that think the ability of gathered believers to ‘dig into’ the Word is mostly likely a relatively recent blessing. For a lot of years, individuals didn’t have copies and probably many churches lacked a complete copy.
Old Testaments would have been more available in the early decades. Slowly, copies of epistles.
But the answer depends somewhat on what is meant by “digging into.” I picture lots of people turning pages (or scrolling/tapping) in their Bibles to look closely at words, phrases, and contexts and comparing passages with other passages. This wasn’t going on until well after the printing press.
So do we say the church failed to worship properly for a thousand years?
In the overall life of the church, there needs to be ‘digging in.’ But humans have always needed to bow before God and seek Him just as much as they need the Word. There is interdependency there, and the whole thing tends to fail without all of it—at least in the long run. Like a three legged stool… but there are more like half a dozen ‘legs’ here, so I guess the analogy doesn’t work super well.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron wrote:
So do we say the church failed to worship properly for a thousand years?
I would say undoubtedly yes. That is part of why we needed the Reformation. They also worshiped Mary for a thousand years, sprinkled infants for the remission of sins for a thousand years, and put great effort into praying people lesser times in purgatory for a thousand years.
I think the very early church was absorbed with the Scriptures, based upon the Jewish Roots of the faith that placed a heavy emphasis on teaching the Word and an obvious fluency in the Old Testament that the New Testament presupposes.
"The Midrash Detective"
I’ve now successfully preached every sermon for the past two months under 30 minutes, which I think improves them immeasurably. I think 20-25 mins is the ideal, and I’m trying hard to get there on a regular basis. I’m researching making prayer a more meaningful part of the service to replace the time gained by sermons not running 40-45 mins. My record the past two months was one sermon I did in 19:47.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
TylerR wrote: I’ve now successfully preached every sermon for the past two months under 30 minutes, which I think improves them immeasurably. I think 20-25 mins is the ideal, and I’m trying hard to get there on a regular basis. I’m researching making prayer a more meaningful part of the service to replace the time gained by sermons not running 40-45 mins. My record the past two months was one sermon I did in 19:47.
What makes 20 minutes the ideal? Why not just shoot for 5-10? There must be some extra fat that can be trimmed, leaving time for other elements in the service.
Dave Barnhart
I think prioritizing the teaching and preaching of the Scriptures should be the top priority of a Sunday morning service (or its equivalent). That should not be confused, however, with quantity of time.
When discussing — as the two posts above — what is the ideal sermon length, we are in the realm of the subjective. Modern attention spans are shorter than those of our forefathers, on one hand. On the other hand, we have tools our forefathers did not, like hand out sheets with fill-ins and corresponding power point outlines.
I personally and subjectively like a 30 minute sermon, and think there is little trouble holding the attention of those interested in the Word if these new tools are utilized. But, then again, I prefer a sermon that is heavy on teaching and less motivational, although good preaching needs some of both. I like to be reasoned with, but that is me. The particulars are certainly variable, but, in my assessment, I think the priority of teaching and preaching the Word is a clear emphasis in the pastoral epistles (I Tim. 4:13, 16, 5:17, 2 Tim. 4:1-2; 3:16-17, Titus 2:1,7), which are the letters specifically written to tell us how to do church (I Tim. 3:15).
While the pastoral epistles do address prayer (1 Timothy 2:1-8), there is only a little about music (namely, quoting from some possible hymns). Acts 2:42 is another key verse; teaching is listed first which does not prove it as a priority, but accommodates the idea (Acts 2:42 is not the ideal model in that this is the very very early church in Jerusalem and not the established church of the pastorals).
"The Midrash Detective"
Ed Vasicek wrote: I think prioritizing the teaching and preaching of the Scriptures should be the top priority of a Sunday morning service (or its equivalent). That should not be confused, however, with quantity of time.
I generally agree with this. My somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment above was basically a version of argumentum ad absurdum in case that wasn’t obvious. Clearly time is not the main criterium for a sermon. However, at some point, shortening a sermon will indeed reduce both quality and quantity of information, motivation, etc. I guess I’m having a hard time seeing how a message that is only 20 minutes long will be significantly better than a 5-10 minute challenge with how little “digging into the word” can be presented.
A 20-minute “summary” may seem to have all the essential parts present to a pastor that has spent hours reading, praying, distilling, and preparing that sermon. However, I think that such a short presentation will be lacking in heft or depth to someone who hasn’t spent that kind of time with the material.
Ed Vasicek wrote: I prefer a sermon that is heavy on teaching and less motivational, although good preaching needs some of both. I like to be reasoned with, but that is me.
I agree. I want to be reasoned with too, and doing so well will definitely require a non-trivial amount of time. I don’t actually disagree with Tyler that many sermons can certainly use tightening up, but I’m not convinced that shorter is always (or even usually) better.
Dave Barnhart
I have a feeling I’ll never routinely stay in the 20-25 min range. My personal experiment is that I suspect I can take anything from a 40 min sermon and do it under 30, and it will be better. I think it’s working, but we’ll see. I’m doing parables right now, so it’s easier. If I were doing Romans … maybe not!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
The ministry of the Word is central to gathered worship since worship is a response to God’s revelation. While length of the sermon can vary based on a number of factors, at some point, too short becomes a summary of the Word rather than a proclamation of it. It could lead to telling people what to do but omitting the scriptural foundation because of time. So I share Dave’s concerns above but also agree that a lot of preaching, my own included, could be considerably tighter.
It reminds me of the line from someone (I have forgotten who) who said, “I apologize for being so long. It would have been shorter if I had had more time to prepare.”
Aaron wrote:
If we want to prioritize one of those things over all others, we are taking on quite a heavy burden of proof.
I guess we disagree on this. I think it is easy to make the point. The Book of Psalms, which some consider to be the “worship manual” for the church / Israel begins with an obsession with the Word, and the longest Psalm, 119, is extremely obsessive with the Word. Crazy obsessive. God has exalted above all things His Name and His Word. Whether prayer, how we worship with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, what we teach, how we show Christ’s love, the Lord’s Super, baptism — all this is sourced in the Scripture and flows from its observance. As I also mentioned, the pastoral epistles — which tell us “how to do church” (to at least a large degree) — emphasize the teaching of solid doctrine/Scripture much more than the other elements of church practice. My suspicion is that some of our disagreement over this is a matter of semantics.
"The Midrash Detective"
Discussion