Mark Dever on the Symbol and Significance of Preaching
Below are my notes taken today from Rev. Mark Dever’s first plenary address at the Westminster Theological Seminary conference “Preaching that Builds a Healthy Church.” Rev. Dever is the senior pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC. He is also the executive director of 9Marks Ministries and author of Nine Marks of a Healthy Church and The Deliberate Church. Some initial comments of mine follow the notes.
Disclaimer: The following are my personal notes from Rev. Devers talk. As such, they represent only my understanding of his content.
———————–
The Symbol and Significance of Preaching
What makes a good sermon?
Must be aiming at the right target. Hauerwas called it “preaching as if we had enemies.” Pastors seek to “manage” congregations by avoiding all conflict, preaching “insights.” We are comfortably removed from the biblical world, ensconced in a consensual culture built around affluence. The preacher’s job is to confront such comfort, not support it.
Why does the sermon exist in the first place? What is it meant to do? Too often the main concern of preachers is that the sermon be “appreciated.” They go for the immediate response through humor (with the resulting laughter). Spurgeon and Luther defended and exhibited humor. Lloyd-Jones dissented, seeing his position as being standing between souls and heaven/hell, too serious a place for humor. Is there a problem with humor? Christ used it in the parables, but there is a temptation to use it too often to get reassuring responses from the congregation. Spurgeon could use humor because his sermons were overall gospel-saturated. Doubtful someone would walk out of Spurgeon’s church with some joke he told as their most abiding impression. But today we seem to approach the most serious of topics with humor. We feel we need to make the message of the gospel acceptable to this generation.
Not wrong for the preacher to want his preaching appreciated, if it is because he has brought them face to face with the living God. Today we assume that casualness is the height of intimacy, but in the Bible, intimacy meant the awe of Moses on Sinai, the silence of Job after God’s correction, and the prostration of John before the Ancient of Days. By contrast, Sarah’s laughter showed her disbelief.
The Symbol of Preaching
Preaching symbolizes God speaking to us.
Is preaching necessary in a church? Is it oppressive and dehumanizing for Christians to assemble to be quiet and listen to the monologue of the preacher? Is this a legacy of the Enlightenment with attendant struggles for power and appeal only to the rational? Certainly congregations must be involved in active listening, sometimes (where appropriate) responding. But the sermon as monologue is both an accurate and powerful symbol of our spiritual state. It is a depiction of God’s self-disclosure and our salvation as a gift. Whenever God speaks lovingly to men it is an act of undeserved grace. We come to a worship service primarily not to give to God but to receive from Him. God’s greatest gift to his people is his Word; the preacher’s preaching and the congregation’s attentive listening symbolize this gift.
The first sermon in Acts was not a planned event. Peter explained passages from Joel and Psalms. For some amount of time he spoke to the crowd of things they did not know or understand.
Ezekiel 37 - Vision of the valley of dry bones which had to be breathed upon by God in order to live is typical of God’s approach to the spiritually dead. Jesus spoke with imperative verbs, calling people to act. In Mk 7 Jesus speaks to a deaf man, giving him his hearing. Preaching is a symbol to the congregation that we were created as people of God by hearing and believing the Word of God. It symbolizes that we must come to God empty-handed, ready to receive from Him.
The Significance of Preaching
Christianity’s focus on words and persuasion was viewed as odd by other religions of the time. Christianity was often seen more as a philosophical movement because of its de-emphasis on imagery and statues. God’s word is central to the Christian congregation
Sermon should be central in the service:
- The planning of the service should be the responsibility of the elders and shaped (mostly) around the sermon text.
- No normative guidance on the length of sermons, but the historic shortening of sermons has reflected cultural capitulation and internal changes of emphasis in our churches. We have lowered expectations and desires of both preachers and congregations. Doctrinal emphasis is sacrificed to church growth in numbers.
- Listening to a sermon must be taught; it takes energy on the part of the congregation. Preachers need to demand more of their listeners, teaching them to work at listening to the sermon, for the glory of God and maturity of the saints. Congregations get the preachers they deserve.
Sermon should be central to the congregational life
- Sermon titles and texts announced in advance
- Bible study/small group leaders discussing and applying the sermon
- Allowance of sufficient prep time for the minister; time that is honored by the congregation
The context of preaching
We should lament the culture of celebrity preachers. It tempts the preacher to be thinking beyond his local congregation in his preaching. The sermon, though in its content is truth not dependent on the local circumstance, must speak to the situation of the local congregation. Hence, the value of longevity in the pastoring of a church: the relational knowledge and the ability to move across the span of topics in Scripture. The minister’s life should augment the impact of his preaching.
The center of preaching
The gospel must be the center of every sermon. The pulpit is not a place for disinterested information, a lectern like that in a university. Christ taught his disciples after his resurrection, beginning with Moses and all the prophets and all the scriptures how they concern himself.
Only rich people can afford liberal preaching; they can be removed from the concerns of life and death.
Never preach without calling sinners to repentance from their sins and to trust in Christ.
—————-
My initial thoughts:
I’m particularly interested in hearing comments from anyone who has read my review of Mark Strom’s Reframing Paul (or even better, who has read the book!). Dever’s presentation certainly seems to present a view strongly contrasting to Strom’s. What do you think of Dever’s assertion that the sermon must be the central purpose of the worship service (and even of the life of the church). Is there anything that Rev. Dever’s misses in this approach? I for one was struck by the complete absence of any mention of worship (outside of exegetical preaching) as one of his “Nine Marks of a Healthy Church” (although he does include a chapter on worship in his more recent book, The Deliberate Church).
Is a “fleshing out” of the Gospel in sacrificial, grace-filled, Spirit-empowered living at least as important as preaching? Has Dever over-emphasized one aspect of the church’s life at the expense of others? What about the sacrements?
Share on Facebook
October 18th, 2005 at 11:03 pm
From listening to Mark preach and speak, I think that he would answer your question by saying that the preaching of the word helps people understand what the sacraments are. He argues frequently that the preaching of the word sets the tone for the church in worship and other areas. So he would probably say that he emphasizes preaching because everything else flows from that.
October 18th, 2005 at 11:16 pm
Scott:
A friend of mine (who preferred to email me his comment rather than post it here) said much the same thing after hearing Dever’s afternoon seminar on Richard Sibbes. I would encourage Dever, then, to make that more clear; it is certainly a position I could endorse.
My concern is based on the two exposures to Dever that I have had: his Nine Marks book and the talk I outlined above. If one heard/read only those, one would be led to think that Dever emphasizes the cognitive/rational at the complete expense of the relational/experiential. Witness his “Nine Marks of a Healthy Church.” The first two are “expositional preaching” and “Biblical theology.” Th remainder all begin with “A biblical understanding of…” All of them are valid and important, but it seems to communicate a message that if we just have the right set of mental assentions, properly taught, sancitification will take place. Where is prayer, worship, the sacraments, the fellowship (for mutual encouragement and admonition) of the saints?
On the last point, witness Hebrews 10:24-25
What is mentioned there as essential to the preservation of the saints as they gather together? “Encouraging one another” in order to “stir up one another to love and good works.” Yet where is that in Devers Nine Marks?
I did notice that he includes chapters on prayer and worship in his latest book (The Deliberate Church), at least according to the table of contents. But I still do not see the koinonia described in the above passage, nor do I see such things as mercy ministry as a testimony to the surrounding community. Guess that’s optional. And perhaps we can attribute Dever’s lack of interest in the sacraments to his Baptist heritage. Calvin always spoke of the Word and sacraments.
October 19th, 2005 at 1:34 am
First of all, I think these would be some great questions to ask Dever at the lunch on Thursday. I’m sure a lot of students are thinking along similar lines.
In venturing my own answer I would say that having a biblical understanding of the gospel, conversion, church membership, discipleship, and church leadership are all keys to fostering the kind of koinonia and one-anothering that you describe. These “mental assentions” are not all that is required, but that is where we begin (working from the premise that the word of God is powerful and transformative in the life of Christian people).
In other words, for Christians to truly fellowship and encourage one another they need to be taught (probably with proposition appeals to their cognitive faculties) that this is one of the highest responsibilities and priveleges of church membership. This is what the Bible teaches us to be. For church leaders to encourage this, they need to be taught from Scripture that the Christian life does not end after you answer the alter call, and they need to grow in discipling the flock and exercising wise and loving pastoral care.
If you read 9 Marks of a Healthy Church closely, you will see that most of the things you mentioned are there, and they are presented in a challenging and thought-provoking way. Here’s an example from the chapter from church membership in the 9 Marks booklet,
A little further on he says,
And he concludes the chapter this way,
Those words of propositional truth about church membership were spoken in a sermon that Mark Dever preached to his church. But they seem to me to be powerful words that will challenge the congregation to become just the type of community that we desire our churches to become. Interestingly (at least to me), Dever does this without using any post-modern buzz words, but by appealing to a rather old idea. He’s doing so with the presupposition that the Word of God is what creates and transforms his people.
Finally, I would say that if you have any questions about Dever’s passion for these things, then visit his church. Sign up for one of the weekenders they sponser to get an inside look at how they approach many of these issues. There the Word of God has worked mightily in the lives of many believers so that they are radically committed to upholding one another in love and reaching out to their community.
Note: You can download the entire 9 Marks of a Healthy Church booklet from their web site: http://www.9marks.org
October 19th, 2005 at 7:42 am
Thanks, Kyle. Late last night I reread 9 Marks and noticed some of the same quotations you posted above. It is certainly encouraging to see that Dever includes fellowship and mutual encouragement in his assessment of a “healthy church.” And I certainly understand and agree with his contention that good preaching/teaching is the essential foundation of a proper church life. My question then becomes, “Why are those “marks” subsumed so deeply under the ones he puts forth as his bullet points?” Perhaps I would be happier if he had titled his book “9 Foundations of a Healthy Church,” for I think that is what he is really teaching. In other words, expository preaching, biblical theology, and the seven other “proper understandings” he lists in 9 Marks produce, undergird, and maintain a healthy church, but they are not (exclusively) the biblical marks of a healthy church!
I think the discussion is really coming down to “what is a church?” or “what constitutes a biblical church?” I would contend that the NT knows of no church other than an entity that not only proclaims but manifests before the surrounding community, however imperfectly, the already/not-yet kingdom of God breaking from the future into the present.
While I agree with Dever’s assertion that you cannot properly do sacraments, body life, prayer, etc. without the foundation of good preaching/teaching, I would contend that the NT knows of no church apart from all of those things. How was it that it was said the world would know (read “mark that”) we are his disciples? By our love one for another (not just our proclamation). What does the writer to Hebrews say is most essential about our gathering ourselves together? Mutual encouragement so we will not succumb to the devil’s lies (which encouragement certainly would include preaching, but if it is “one another” encouragement it is certainly more than that). What marked the first church in Acts?
Acts 2:42-47 they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. 43 And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. 44 And all who believed were together and had all things in common. 45 And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. 46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.
Teaching is in there, but so are sacramental life, fellowship and acts of mercy. My reading of the NT describes a church that is meant to not only proclaim but display the gospel. So I would contend, perhaps, that only such a church (proclaiming and displaying) is a church at all, and what Dever called in his lecture on Richard Sibbes a (minimally) “true” church (one that has a true proclamation of the true gospel, but little else) is in actuallity a parachurch evangelistic ministry, which might become a church if through the teaching/preaching it begins to manifest the other biblical “marks.”
October 19th, 2005 at 1:22 pm
What does he mean by “Biblical Theology” in his Nine Marks? Is he talking about theology that is Biblical (=Reformed)? Or is he talking about that thing that the RTS crowd is shouting down as the enemy of Truth (the Vos-Ridderbos-Gaffin thing that WTS does (used to do))?
October 19th, 2005 at 2:10 pm
Daniel, from the 9Marks website (http://www.9marks.org):
By biblical theology, we simply mean the main lines of the Bible’s great story: What is God like? Are people basically good or bad? What did Jesus do by dying on the cross?
Biblical theology differs from Systematic theology in that the former traces developing themes historically, whereas the latter investigates discrete topics logically.
The operating assumptions for doing Biblical theology are therefore that the main theological lines of Scripture’s story are discernable, and that we are called by God to learn, teach, and apply them in our churches.
These assumptions are so essential to the fabric of Christianity that, if we refuse to grant them, we call into question the functional validity of God’s self-revelation, and we replace the authority of God’s Word with our own finite and fallen reason.
October 19th, 2005 at 2:58 pm
Mark,
Dever doesn’t claim that what he offers an exhaustive list. I think the preface to the new edition clarifies some of the confusion surrounding his goal in writing the book. If I recall correctly, what Dever intends to do is provide a sort of prescription designed to heal some of what ails the church.
I think one could argue that the essential point of this book is that the Spirit-wrought result of recovering the 9 marks will be a church that is thriving, fellowshipping, serving community of radically transformed followers of Jesus. Focusing on things such as church membership or church discipline are a means to the end of producing Christians that are healthy in the sense that they take holiness seriously, and they show real, spiritual care for their brothers and sisters in the church and for the lost outside her doors. So while these other “marks” you mentioned may seem to be buried, they are actually part of the end goal - a church which glorifies God and reflects the beauty and love of the bridegroom.
Dever could have written about the importance of sincere fellowship and incarnational ministry. Something like that is probably needed. But in the marks he chose he gives church leaders and church members some concrete and biblical concepts to grab hold of.
Dever’s statement about the distinctions of “true” and “irregular” churches occurred in the context of a historical discussion. This is what the Reformers taught about the church (Dr. Trueman agreed with him at this point): An “irregular” church is not a parachurch evangelistic ministry, rather it is a church where the sacraments are not administered in the way that your tradition teaches that they should be. From my Baptist perspective, I would say that Tenth PCA in Center City is a true church because the gospel is preached faithfully, but it is irregular because baptism is offered to children of believers. I would suspect that Dr. Ryken would think the same way about my Baptist church. I believe that the point is not to say that the sole component of a true church is the faithful preaching of the word, but only to say that without faithful preaching a true church can’t exist.
Daniel,
I’m pretty sure Dever is speaking more in the Vos-Ridderbos-Gaffin tradition (for what it’s worth, Dever studied under Kline at Gordon Conwell). If you read his chapter entitled “Biblical Theology” you will see that it is acutally a short biblical theology itself. He begins by saying that we can summarize the main story line of the Bible by saying, “God is creating, holy, faithful, loving, and sovereign,” (pg. 60, 2nd edition) and then he briefly traces these themes throughout Scripture.
October 19th, 2005 at 6:07 pm
Kyle, thanks for your continued interaction…I really appreciate it! Some comments back at ya:
Some might think I’m excessively picking a nit here, but if he has to “clarify some of the confusion” (which a student who is a fan of his told me today Dever has to do rather often) then there is something wrong, as I’ve been saying, with calling these the “marks” of the church. I stand by my assertion that they are foundations, not marks, the latter being commonly understood as “that by which something may be identified by outsiders.” But maybe I should let that one go. The Dever-fan student told me that Rev. Dever dismisses that question with a wave of his hand; he considers it “easily refuted,” so I guess I won’t bother asking it at the luncheon tomorrow.
I think the key phrase in that paragraph is “Spirit-wrought.” Again, I am nervous about the implicit “cognitive education in right doctrine is all that matters” mentality that comes across in all too many modern Reformed ecclesiologies. Can’t remember if I already shared this anecdote, but I thought something that happened in my Orientation to Ministry class the same day I heard Dever speak was interesting. Dr. Diane Langberg, a counselor who works with pastors and church members who have abused each other, spoke to the class that day. At the end she took questions. A student shared how he found himself getting angry at homeless people he tried to minister to because they didn’t change right away. Dr. Langberg responded that such ministry takes a great deal of time, perhaps years, and change is only brought about by the Spirit. Then she commented that one of the problems with us Reformed folk is that we think if we just tell people what to believe, they’ll be all fixed. So yes, we need proper preaching and teaching, we need the foundations outlined in the 9 Marks, but not those alone. The mutual encouragement and admonition of the saints and the means of grace granted in the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Table are not “signs following” our getting all of our doctrinal pieces correctly on the board, they are biblically essential “partners” with preaching and teaching for the building up of the saints.
Is that really how you want to say that, Kyle? He “could have written” about things the Bible sees as essential (see my previous paragraph). Those things are “probably needed”?? Preaching/teaching are “concrete and biblical” but the other things are not?? See, the way you spoke in that last quotation makes my point. We see one-another encouragement and admonition and missional emphasis as “add ons,” when I would propose that at least the former is a biblical essential. The latter (incarnational ministry), it could be argued, is indeed a result, not a means…but if we are talking not about “foundations” but rather “the marks of a healthy church,” then I would say that incarnational missional ministry is an essential mark, not an option.
If the distinction of “regular” and “true” only involves squabbles over the sacraments, then I stand corrected. I did not attend that lecture but was going on a report of it from a friend.
No argument there…as long as it is not being portrayed that faithful preaching (and correct mental assenting toward certain key doctrines) are the only essentials, the only “marks” of a “healthy church.” To do so is to propose a Greek civic organization (see Strom’s Reframing Paul) rather than God’s New People, his Spirit-produced and Spirit-led civitas that stands against the empires of this world. I’m not saying that the former is Dever’s aim–you’ve assured us that it isn’t–but it may be what too many people take away when you are proclaiming that your “9 Marks” are the marks of a healthy church.
October 20th, 2005 at 1:17 am
Hey Mark,
I’m enjoying the back and forth. I think these are some of the most important things we can discuss as future leaders of Christ’s church. I’ll try to address some of your concerns below.
Let me expand on what I meant. There may or not be a need for a book that expounds on the importance of fellowship or “missional” ministry in the local church. I am not well enough acquainted with the literature out there to say. My point is to say that Dever self-consciously chose not to write that type of book.
I think I am beginning to pick up on a key difference between the way you and I read Dever. When you see a chapter titled, “A biblical understanding of X,” you seem to automatically reduce it to the category of bare “mental assentions,” and then dismiss them as being too modernistic (I suppose). But I look at a chapter titled, “A Biblical Understanding of Church Membership,” and see Church Membership. I’m coming from the point of view that God has ordained to work through His Holy Spirit working through His (taught/preached) Word to transform lives. So, yes we begin with persuading and teaching people what the Bible says about church membership (propositions), but we don’t do this so that they will simply believe the correct set of facts. Instead we believe that God intends to use His Word to change them. When Dever instructs his congregation what church membership is, it is so that they will grow in taking responsibility for edifying one another, and so that they will repent of their failure to do so. And they will do this for the glory and honor of Christ.
By keying in on something like church membership (or any of the other marks), Dever is helping us to see that instructing people in how the Bible expects Christians to act in their local churches will produce real, transformative fellowship. Thus, true edifying fellowship is not just an extra add-on to Dever’s ecclesiology (or good Reformed ecclesiology in general), it is one of its goals.
When I say that these marks are something concrete, I mean that they are concepts or frameworks that we can deduce from Scripture which will help pastors and church members grow in fellowship. These marks are helpful entry-points into the great task of leading and being the church. It might be true to say that we need more books on fellowship or more sermons taught on it specifically. But I’m saying that a sermon on church membership is, in a real way, a sermon on fellowship (perhaps a sermon that produces fellowship), but it is also much more. It has implications for church discipline, giving, accountability, our corporate witness, and even the way we approach the sacraments.
In regard to your problem with the term “marks,” think with me about what would happen if a church lacked these marks Dever uses.
Expositional Preaching: I think we would both agree that a church which loses this mark is at the very least unhealthy. The Reformers would tell us that it ceases to be a true church.
Biblical Theology: We don’t have to go very far to find churches who miss this mark. We all know of examples of churches who routinely moralize the Scriptures. It is clear that such chronic misinterpretation will lead to confused Christians and a sickly church.
A Biblical Understanding of the Gospel: If a church gets the gospel wrong we can think of many negative results. The two extremes are probably legalism and liberalism. Churches characterized by either one of these traits are unhealthy or perhaps already dead.
A Biblical Understanding of Conversion: How many Evangelical churches do you know of that practice altar calls on Sunday morning? Is there any doubt that the false assurance offered to those who walk the aisle is misleading and harmful? Misunderstanding conversion will likely result in churches full of false converts. Diagnosis: Unhealthy.
A Biblical Understanding of Evangelism: As Dever points out in this chapter, Evangelism is the task of every Christian, not just the church leaders. If a church is full of people who don’t understand this basic New Testament command to make disciples and to always be ready with a reason for their hope, then they will be complacent pew-sitters with no passion for their lost friends and relatives. Can such a church be considered healthy?
A Biblical Understanding of Church Discipline: Church discipline is a powerful tool that God gives to churches to help them lovingly restore lost sheep, and to guard the purity of the church. Churches that don’t practice discipline will likely be full of gross hypocrites, while churches that abuse church discipline are harming children of living God. If you don’t understand it, you can’t practice it correctly, and losing this mark has resulted in an ecclesiastical pandemic that makes avian flu look like the common cold.
A Concern for Promoting Christian Discipleship and Growth: If a church lacks this concern it is failing its members. If church leaders don’t purposefully disciple and pray for the growth of their members, the result is a churh full of immature believers or possibly even false converts. Needless to say, such a place would be an unhealthy church.
Biblical Church Leadership: Churches who lack godly elders are full of vulnerable sheep. Many of our churches today are run by committes or corporate structures that fail to provide any real pastoral care and guidance to the church members. Godly elders are a gift of Christ to his church, and should a church refuse that gift because of ignorance or error, they would be in terrible shape.
The title Dever chose is meaningful because these things really do mark out a Healthy church. A church that has these marks is healthier than a church that doesn’t. I think that is all the title is meant to convey. I think confusion results when people read more into this than they should. It isn’t a comprehensive ecclesiology, and it doesn’t claim to be.
If the discussion is to move further on the front of “missional” or “incarnational” ministry, I would like to get your precise definition of these terms. They are always a little fuzzy to me.
Dever says in the new edition of 9 Marks that if he were going to add a Mark it would be that a healthy church should be outwardly focused. What I think he means by this is that a healthy church is actively seeking ways not only to evangelize the lost, but also to join with other churches in gospel ministry where polity and theology allow for it. I would see the “mission” of the church to be a spiritual one. We are to preach the gospel so that the believers may be edified and the lost converted. The church as church only confuses its mission if it begins to take on projects of social justice for example. This is not to say that individual Christians should not be involed in loving their neighbors, but it is not the role of the church to manage a soup kitchen. I think Dever would agree with the substance of my position, although I’m sure that he would say it better.
October 20th, 2005 at 1:19 am
I just realized I ommitted membership in my litany of the marks, but I’m sure you get the picture.
October 20th, 2005 at 5:50 am
***Edited for additions at 8:10 a.m.***
Thanks again, Kyle. Hearing the thoughts of someone who obviously is quite supportive of Dever’s position is helpful for me. Frankly, it’s part of the reason I posted this (or any other ‘controversial’ posts on this blog)…I want the opportunity to hear from and interact with people who may have a different take from me. What those pesky “emergents” call the theological conversation.
You’ve been especially helpful in elucidating Dever’s intentions, some of which might not have been obvious to some of the rest of us.
I think we’re probably at or close to the ‘agree to disagree’ stage on this. Some issues may come down to technicalities or semantics, such as whether these are “foundations” or “marks.” You see one-another minsitry as a “goal”; I see it as a “mark.” Perhaps on that one, we’re both right (i.e., it’s both a “mark”–something that identifies a “healthy” congregation–and a “goal”–it is produced out of correct teaching brought to life in the people by the Spirit). On other matters, well, perhaps we just have different concerns on our personal front burners.
One area I want to make clear: I am not trying to accuse Dever himself of making exclusively modernist, rationalist, cognitive-only “mental assents” as what he is arguing for. I apologize if I left that impression. Rather I am concerned with that being the impression left upon too many Reformed readers of books like his: “If we just preach it, it will be.” Neither am I excluding the value of propositional truth per se. I’m not that postmodern. My wife won’t let me grow so much as a soul patch on my face, and I’m afraid of needles so the tattoos and piercings are out
Let me summarize my ‘concern’ with Dever’s approach. (I put that in quotes because I’m really not as worked up about this as I might sound. I’m not anti-Dever; I think he’s done a lot of good for a fat and unfaithful evangelical church.) First of all, though, let me repeat that I am not arguing against any of Dever’s 9 marks considered by themselves. I might quibble with details in his books as he fleshes them out, but I would agree with all of them as being essentials for a biblical church. My concern remains, though, that in the way he states and presents them, they come across as “this is all you need to do,” and as I’ve already stated, I definitely think these are NOT all that is needed. ’nuff said from me on that!
Your final thought about the church’s mission being “spiritual” (which I agree with) but that “spiritual” excludes the church as a community being involved in things such as social justice or mercy ministry I vehemently disagree with…but that should be another discussion, another day.
Anyway, thanks again Kyle for a very stimulating and worthwhile discussion. I agree that there are few things seminarians can be wrestling with more important than what is the church and what should she be doing?
October 20th, 2005 at 9:42 am
I’ve not read Dever’s book and haven’t attended the preaching conference, but I’m familiar with Dever’s overall outlook and this conversation sure makes for interesting reading. Thanks, guys.
A couple thoughts, not particularly insightful:
I doubt Dever would want to limit “irregular” simply to how the sacraments are understood and administered. Church government might also fit in there. Dever likely thinks that episcopal hierarchy would render a church “irregular” while a Presbyterian would see a polity of independence or congregationalism as “irregular.” At least, historically, those sorts of questions also came into discernments of “irregularity,” I believe.
Now, I agree with Kyle that Christ works by his Spirit through the Word and I would agree that, the proclamation of the Word, in particular, is the ordinary means by which people are brought to actual faith in Christ (WCF 10.1; WLC 155; and we all know that it is axiomatic that if the Westminster Standards say it, it must be true
).
But, I also believe that the sacraments are effectual means of salvation, that the communion of saints involves a fellowship in gifts and graces unto salvation, and that there is no ordinarily possibility of salvation apart from these graciously-given means. Moreover, all these realities are not merely rooted in the Word but manifestations and communications of that Word in tangible form, and in and through that, the saving presence of Christ himself.
It seems to me that such an outlook is largely absent from Dever’s remarks, though perhaps that is a function of his “evangelicalism” (taken in the popular sense of that term). I’m not sure.
October 20th, 2005 at 10:06 pm
Today the conference ended with a student luncheon Q&A session with Rev. Dever. Most of the student’s questions centered around either the nuts and bolts of how Dever prepares sermons (hey, this is a trade school for pastors, after all!) or biographical tidbits about his life or the history of his church.
I asked my $64,000 question: “Do you conceive of the Nine Marks as being the essentials for a “healthy” church? In other words, if you have these, do you have it all?” Dever responded that he is often asked that and, no, he never meant to imply that they were the exclusive and complete qualifications of a church. He admitted that calling them “marks” was probably unfortunate because that word has certain fixed connotations in both Reformed and Catholic history. He also said (as Kyle had told us earlier) that in the new preface to the 2nd edition of Nine Marks of a Healthy Church he wrote about others that he would include in any list attempting to be complete, such as worship and sacraments.
I also appreciated his comment (in response to a question about his churches pastoral intern program) that seminary alone does not make a pastor; churches make pastors. He added that seminaries make good “finishing schools” for things that most local churches can’t provide, but if a church has not already recognized pastoral gifts in a person, that person should not waste his time and money on seminary. I wanted to stand and applaud!
However (you knew I’d have a however, didn’t you?), I was a little dismayed at his dismissal of house church groups as “virtually worthless.” He favors one-on-one discipleship relationships where the one being discipled can’t hide among a group of polite people. I think that misses something important in assuming that the primary (or only?) function of a small group is discipleship. First off, while he may be right that small groups are not the most “efficient” means of discipleship, I have seen great value in the mutual and diverse encouragement that takes place in small groups. In such settings it may be true that a “weaker” member may be mostly passive, but he or she is still benefiting from hearing and observing God’s grace and growth from the other members, something that she or he may not be ready to pursue in the intensity of a one-on-one relationsihp. Furthermore, such groups exist for far more than discipleship. What about mutual encouragement, prayer, service? What about the value of more deeply knowing at least some group of people within the church than you will ever have the opportunity to know in Dever’s model of Sunday morning preaching service, Sunday evening Bible study, and Wednesday congregational prayer meeting.
October 21st, 2005 at 1:27 pm
I’m glad you had a chance to ask Dever your question head on. It is always better to get a good answer straight from the horses mouth than a muddled one through a former intern.
I think you’re right that there is a fundamental divide between the way you and I see the church’s role in social justice and other related issues. In some ways I wish it were a disagreement that were had more openly at the Seminary. Not for the sake of arguing, but I think students would be helped by being able to see the pro’s and con’s and theological reasoning behind each side. That being said, there’s a lot we do agree on about the church, and I’m grateful for that. I join with you in applauding Dever’s description of seminaries as “finishing schools.” Most of all we all desire to see our churches become living, breathing reflections of the glory of Christ in the world, edifying Christians and evangelizing the lost. Perhaps we have different conceptions of how we should get there, but at least we are working toward the same goal.
October 21st, 2005 at 4:57 pm
Amen, Kyle…and I’m blessed to serve the Lord with brothers like you by my side!
October 21st, 2005 at 6:36 pm
Kyle, didn’t we talk about forming an ecclessiology club at Westminster to figure all of these things out?
Of course we would have to kick you out at our first meeting for being a Baptist so that might put a damper on things…
October 21st, 2005 at 7:39 pm
I have one more issue with Dever’s list. I think making the sermon THE central aspect of the worship service contributes to the celebrity pastor syndrome. In the part of the service that his church values and promotes most, the congregation is passive. Everyone is taught to look forward above all else to what one man has to say to the rest of the church each week. As a church gets bigger and bigger, and less and less people know the pastor personally, it will contribute to celebrity-style view of the pastor. I saw this in my own church that we left 8 months ago to join a small PCA church.
Shouldn’t the corporate aspects of the service be placed alongside the sermon? I think the the sermon is extremely important, but no more important than the sacraments, corporate confession of sin, corporate reading of scripture, etc. The worship service as a whole is important and critical to the church. And as I mentioned in my last blog entry, most people remember the elements of the service that are repeated each week rather than the sermon, i.e. the songs, liturgy, etc.
I like a lot of what Devers has to say, but I think at the end of the day his Baptist heritage is going to present a lot of ecclesiological differences that Presby’s will find bothersome. Same thing with Piper, who I greatly admire and respect.
Thanks for posting these notes Mark.
October 21st, 2005 at 10:53 pm
Tommy, you really need to read Mark Strom’s book Reframing Paul that I linked to at the end of the notes above. I’m not sure I agree with all Strom’s assessments, but you would definitely resonate with his thoughts about how we got to this exaltation of the preacher.