Skip to content

Homiletical Reflections: Brutally Honest Observations About the 10 Types of Sermons (Part I)

by Carson T. Clark on April 17, 2012

Broadly speaking, my experience in an array of churches is that American preachers pretty well stick to 1, or perhaps some combination of 2, of 10 major categories in their homiletical approaches. They are:

  1. Entertainment. Ranging from the comedian to the whooper, the intention is clearly to have the people leave feeling like they had such a good time that their tithe can double as recreation in the monthly budget  since it basically paid admission to a family-friendly show.
  2. Meditation. This group, which is unusually recognizable by their widespread affinity for St. Francis of Assisi, prefers homilies to sermons and usually offers some sort of pious reflection exhibiting a sort of devotional quality toward things that were probably written in their private journal.
  3. Inspiration. Motivational speakers with dramatic flair and a nice suit whose goal is to pump you up on some sort of church camp-like high in order to love Jesus and defeat the devil in the upcoming week; they’re like cheerleaders at the assembly before the homecoming game.
  4. Conversation. Typically the sort of person who professes to “hate religion but love Jesus,” so they try to mask this overt oratory ritualism by walking down among the congregation, asking people questions, using everyday language, and all sorts of other subtle gimmicks.
  5. Rambler. This is usually the pastor who didn’t do his prep work or the poor layman who’s filling in last minute, but either way he or she walks up to the pulpit and tries to alleviate internal worry by saying, “I guess I don’t have much to say” before offering almost incoherent improvisation for at least an hour about whatever spiritual thing comes to mind.
  6. Scholarship. Academics, often of the absent-minded professor ilk, who’ve failed to realize or don’t care that they’re no longer in their ivory towers, so there’s little discernible difference between their sermons and what they’d present at a theological conference.
  7. Seminarian. The student or recent graduate who must go by the book, so he or she not only gives you the precise title of their talking points for those taking notes but actually enumerates the whole thing with comments like “Roman numeral II is…”
  8. Business. The ecclesiastical CEO’s sermons are, for all intents and purposes, baptized corporate presentations complete with Powerpoints, data conveniently laid out in charts, easy-to-remember acronyms, feel good video clips, and the all-important mission statement.
  9. Rally. Preachers who come across like politicians in both content and style, which usually features phrases like “Is he the Lord over all your life?” instead of “Do you believe in a future for the America we know and love?” and offers a sort of interactive dynamic where the people are expected to holler back “Yes!” or “No!” to rhetorically triumphalist questions.
  10. Debate. Usually these are pseudo-intellectuals who feign accurate representation of other groups like atheists, Muslims, socialists, or Catholics, then, to the people’s self-congratulating delight, proceeds to logically rip apart these straw man arguments before offering oversimplistic assurance of their own view’s trustworthiness and alignment with Scripture.

I’m gonna be honest with ya. About 97.3% of this country’s preachers continuously make my mind alternate back and forth between ‘You’re killin’ me, Smalls!” and ‘For the love of all that is good and holy, when is this going to end?’ Now, don’t get me wrong. Most of these dudes (and a few dudettes) are good folks with whom I’d enjoy striking up a conversation. It’s their homiletics that are awful. Unfortunately, they’re simply a) content with their particular model, b) are like a fish swimming in water in that they aren’t self-aware enough to consider an alternative, or c) aren’t rogue enough to challenge the people’s cultural expectations for what a sermon should be, which in turn may put him or her in financial jeopardy.

This is why I get so frustrated when I tell people I, as a future pastor, am passionate about exegetical sermons. Even when I ask them to please think outside the bun, they almost always unconsciously import all sorts of assumptions about what must I mean by that. They presume what they’ve experienced rather than challenging their schema. For example, even my friends think I:

  • Intend to preach for 60+ minutes rather than 15-20ish.
  • Will strangely revert to being a fundamentalist biblicist who constantly proof-texts Scripture, i.e. rampant eisegesis, to justify his assorted views on politics, economics, child rearing, the superiority of my own (Anglican) tradition, and whatever else rather than a guy who doesn’t thrown Scripture around lightly and whose stubborn certitude on contested matters has been beaten out of him through repetitious correction.
  • Am suddenly going to undergo metamorphosis and emerge as an intellectual hardass devoid of humor who waxes poetically about Greek participles rather than the dude who communicates exactly the same on my blog as I do in person.
  • Buy into the cult of the pastorate where a local body lives or dies depending upon whether this guy is a charismatic communicator rather than a guy who passionately holds that the ordained ministers are merely the first among equals in servanthood.

I often think, ‘What in tarnation causes you to think I’d do that? It’s the exact opposite of everything you know about me.’ *slowly rubbing temples*

Whether this holds psychological, pedagogical, or neurological water I couldn’t begin to tell you, but my experience tells me that the best way to break a person’s schema is through negation. That is, you describe what a thing is not instead of focusing your attention on what it is. Then, having cleared away the conceptual baggage, you can start to either start anew or discerningly glean the positive elements without throwing the baby out with the bath water. And that, my friends, is the purpose of this post.

See those 10 sermon types above? I can’t stand them. Right here and now I pledge to avoid them like the plague when I preach.

  • http://nailtothedoor.blogspot.com Dan Martin

    You missed one of the most popular styles in many Evangelical churches…it goes under the name “expository sermon,” and it’s usually an attempt to imitate Piper or MacArthur or similar by going verse-by-verse through an entire book–usually a Pauline epistle and >50% of the time Romans–in a series that can last from months to years. No real exegesis is done in these sermons, as they are usually a recitation of the stuff the pastor learned at Dallas Theological Seminary or read in Grudem’s or Spurgeon’s commentaries.

    • Anonymous

      teehehehe

    • Anonymous

      Seems to me like they might be some combination of 6 and 10.

    • Anonymous

      I chaired a search committee in which one of the elders kept saying he wanted expository sermons from the future pastor and when I asked him what he meant by that, all he could offer was someone that uses the scripture. Well, a lot of people use the scripture. I’m convinced that some sitting in the pews, even church leaders, don’t really know what they want and often don’t recognize it when they get it because they’re blinded by one image–namely that of their favorite radio or t.v. preacher.

  • Anonymous

    I think a lot of pastors fall into not wanting to go against people’s cultural expectations, because it is a high hill to die on and one better have brought some reinforcements with them to conquer it.

    • Anonymous

      Wise words.

  • http://www.facebook.com/derek.rishmawy Derek Rishmawy

    I have no idea which one of those I fall under. I’m going to guess I’ve managed to pull together the worst of all 10 and lump them in together. If I’m lucky. ;)

    Honestly, I really struggle with this every week. I want to honor the text, be understood, hit my college students where they’re at, and overall be a faithful Gospel preacher. The pressure to entertain is huge in college, but let’s be honest, I’m not a comedian. 2-5 make no sense with my personality/I hate these. 6-7 are dangers, but I’ve reeled it in. Sometimes I wonder if I’ve done too much reeling in. Again, 8-9 make no sense with my personality/I hate these. 10 is probably a danger for me. That’s kind of why I don’t like going into other intellectual positions much in sermons because you don’t have time to do them justice. That said, I wonder what species my own teaching is most prone towards.

    If I had to list the 3 biggest influences preacher-wise that I have, they’d be A. Tim Keller. His preaching lectures and sermons are gold. I try to consciously steal from him as much as possible and his Christ-centered preaching model is the substructure of pretty much every lesson I give. B. Mike Erre. He’s not know much outside of Orange County but I went to his church in college. Phenomenal teacher who just handled the text, especially narrative, so well. C. Matt Chandler. This has basically meant an increase in my propensity towards playful sarcasm, volume modulation, and slang. Also bluntness. I do find that bluntness is needed with college students.

    Well, that’s my rambling comment…

  • Gill

    We (husband and I – he’s an Anglican priest) have done a lot of thinking about this over the years! We were especially challenged when working in a mainly working-class parish where most people hadn’t gone to school beyond 16. Hub reckons he was making the mistake of preaching like Paul. I suggested we took a leaf out of Jesus’ book, who was preaching and teaching to crowds with, possibly, a similar background to ours. Stories. Connection with the ordinary things of everyday life. And not necessarily ALWAYS spelling out the implications – Jesus took a big risk with that!

    Our priorities were: begin where your people are. If you don’t know them you won’t be able to preach consistently and relevantly to them.

    Use but do not over-use humour. A good laugh to make a point more striking is very welcome.

    Use stories. People remember the stories more than they remember your 3 points with alliterative headings. So make sure the stories carry the meaning you intend.

    Strong openings and closings – leave them something to remember and take home with them.

    Strong but simple structure. Again, helps memory. The purpose of the sermon, after all, is not to ‘preach a good sermon’ but to help your people live their lives in greater faith and love for God.

    This is practical but hope it’s useful somehow, somewhere, sometime!

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=163800401 Carson T. Clark

      I like the stories bit. Although not my approach, I think it most helpful for the sorts of audiences/congregations you described.

  • Dan Boal

    Carson, I believe you are neglecting a very important Truth in your analysis of sermon types. You are focusing on the communicator, and not what is being communicated. When it comes to communicating the word of God, it cannot be analyzed by the same stipulations as somone delivering a state of the union address or pep-rally cheer. Instead, it has to be understood that the material itself is “living and active”. As such, there comes a point of faith in which you either a. believe that the individual is communicating the words of God, in the style God deems appropriate for that audience or b. the the individual is communicating their thoughts in their style that they think people should know. If the truth is option a. then the style does not matter. The communicator is simply a vessel. Much like each person in the body has certain spiritual gifts, and each person is a hand or a foot or in this case a mouth so we must believe that God in eternity passed has chosen that communicator, their style, their message, at this time for the purpose of reaching people for Jesus Christ and edifying the body. Otherwise, it is a sham. I refuse to believe that the styles above are lesser than your ideological style of preaching. I do believe that God has placed a desire in your heart to communicate his truth in your unique style that will be perfect for an audience that you get to preach/teach to.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=163800401 Carson T. Clark

      Boal,

      Thanks for your feedback. ‘cuz I’ve gotta run, I’m gonna copy over 7 comments I made to another friend elsewhere. Although they don’t totally align with your own, I do think there’s a good deal of overlap that I addressed:

      First, do keep in mind this is Part I.

      Second, as an Anglican mentor of mine has noted, “It is hard to distinguish between true, redemptive, spiritually and emotionally healthy biblical Christianity and its doctrinal and culturally fundamentalist distortions when you have been conditioned by your home environment to embrace the distortions as true.” I resonate more with that each reading.

      Third, you must pardon me, but my Pentecostal background has made me *incredibly* skeptical.

      Fourth, just ‘cuz one is in the pulpit and is preaching does not mean they’re communicating God’s Word. A great many times I’ve heard people say they’re preaching the Word of God, and the claim is false. All too often the eisegetical message they’re importing and transposing upon Scripture is a far cry–often even an outright abuse–of the biblical text. I’m sitting there thinking, ‘It doesn’t even say that in the immediate literary context, let alone the cultural-historical context!’ Or in more charismatic circles they’ll say they’re offering a “Word from the Lord” when it’s quite often it’s clearly just their own views or sentiments that they’re trying to attribute to God.

      Fifth, I believe there’s a healthy middle between self-preoccupation and a total lack of self-awareness.

      Sixth, we’ll all occasionally run across this amidst incredibly low church people who dismiss education and the importance of ordained ministry, but among Anglicans I’m yet to meet someone who’s opposed to expositors of God’s Word taking courses in such crucial things as hermeneutics and homiletics. In the latter, a great deal of thinking goes into the art, techniques, objectives, and the like of preaching. Again, probably no one here would say that’s a bad thing. So why is it bad if we look at this same topic with the same critical eye but in a non-academic context?

      Seventh, admittedly, my strong preference is for exegetical sermons that aren’t foreign to Anglicanism, but certainly are uncommon if not rare.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=163800401 Carson T. Clark

      Boal,

      Building upon my above comments, I wanted to reply to what you wrote:

      “I believe you are neglecting a very important Truth in your analysis of sermon types. You are focusing on the communicator, and not what is being communicated.”

      Part I, my friend. I’m reminded of N.T. Wright’s frequent comment, “When you’re writing theology, you have to say everything all the time, otherwise people think you’ve deliberately missed something out.” But, yes, your point is well taken, and that’s the important thing.

      “When it comes to communicating the word of God, it cannot be analyzed by the same stipulations as somone delivering a state of the union address or pep-rally cheer. Instead, it has to be understood that the material itself is ‘living and active’.”

      It seems to me this is almost a false dichotomy. Almost. Certainly I agree that the Word of God is living and active. Absolutely. Certainly I would affirm that a sermon’s objective differs from that of a pep rally or political address, so the criteria or stipulations by which the thing is evaluated will necessarily differ in some crucial ways. (An odd criticism since a major point was that a sermon *shouldn’t* be like those things… but I digress.) Yet I most certainly don’t think we need to say that communication theory or related medium criticisms ought not be used in this context. Our faith will influence the way we utilize these tools, and perhaps in some ways even change the tools, but the tools most certainly aren’t rendered useless. Of course, I don’t think that’s what you’re saying.

      “As such, there comes a point of faith in which you either a. believe that the individual is communicating the words of God, in the style God deems appropriate for that audience or b. the the individual is communicating their thoughts in their style that they think people should know.”

      Yeah, I definitely think that’s a false dichotomy. Where do you account for error and departure from the Spirit’s leading, whether intentional and malicious OR unintentional and well-meaning?

      “If the truth is option a. then the style does not matter. The communicator is simply a vessel. Much like each person in the body has certain spiritual gifts, and each person is a hand or a foot or in this case a mouth so we must believe that God in eternity passed has chosen that communicator, their style, their message, at this time for the purpose of reaching people for Jesus Christ and edifying the body. Otherwise, it is a sham.”

      Sure. Let me be clear. I’m not a Finney-esque sorta dude who thinks preaching (or revival, in the specific context he said the following) is “not a miracle or dependent on a miracle” but is merely “a purely philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means.” Barf. I’m not looking to swing the pendulum from one extreme to the other. What I’m suggesting is that most preachers simply are not self-aware to their cultural, temperamental, ecclesiastical… presupposition. If I may offer another quote without coming off like a pretentious d-bag, I think this comment by Herbert Butterfield really captures my perspective: “[T]he blindest of all blind are those who are unable to examine their own presuppositions, and blithely imagine therefore that they do not possess any.”

      “I refuse to believe that the styles above are lesser than your ideological style of preaching.”

      I’m unclear as to what you mean by that.

      “I do believe that God has placed a desire in your heart to communicate his truth in your unique style that will be perfect for an audience that you get to preach/teach to.”

      Gracias.

  • http://leorningcniht.wordpress.com/ Matt Brench

    I’m curious about your distinction between “homily” and “sermon.” The closest to a distinction I’ve ever heard is that a homily is shorter and a sermon is longer. Where/how have you heard them defined more specifically?

    Also, when you start moving toward step 2 and building a positive-statement “theology of preaching” as it were, I’d be happy to share my thoughts towards that discussion. http://leorningcniht.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/proclaiming-the-truth-of-god/

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=163800401 Carson T. Clark

      Good question. I’m not saying Merriam-Webster is always a good source for matters in ecclesiastical contexts, but in this case I think it does a pretty adequate it:

      Sermon
      1: a religious discourse delivered in public usually by a clergyman as a part of a worship service
      2: a speech on conduct or duty

      Homily
      1: a usually short sermon
      2: a lecture or discourse on or of a moral theme
      3: an inspirational catchphrase; also : platitude

  • Donald Williams

    Yes. Simply yes.

    One point I would like to see you hit again with more thought and detail in the future is your passing comment about economics, which is IMO one of our biggest hurdles to effective ministry. If you don’t give people what they are willing to pay for, you are out of a job. In order to KEEP his job, the average pastor cannot fully DO his job. It’s a real catch-22, because of course if you get fired you aren’t doing anybody any good–but how much good can you do if you make the compromises necessary to stay? Nothing prepares the young neophyte pastor who actually wants to do better for this reality. When he encounters it, he tries (at first) to find a compromise he can live with without completely abandoning his integrity; but this is not really possible in the long run. So he either leaves the ministry or gets corrupted by it. Either way, the church ends up with your10 options.

    The rare guy who does not succumb to this syndrome and manages to be successful anyway (e.g., Keller) leaves me asking, “How does he get away with it?” I haven’t found any answers to that question that will make such men anything other than the exceptions that prove the rule. If you do, I will rise up and call you blessed!

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=163800401 Carson T. Clark

      Yeah, the devil is in the details…

      It seems to me that the problem is the entrenched church culture (largely just undiscerningly reflective of the larger culture) that exudes a seemingly infinite quantity of anti-intellectualism, pragmatism, individualism, consumerism, and the like. Collectively, these things create this self-replicating and self-defending system that are nearly impenetrable. On top of that, our seminarians are foolish. They’re idealistic in seminary then they ought to be focusing more on the realistic and they’re realistic in local churches where they should be focusing on the idealistic… Oy vey.

      As you might imagine, I’ve dedicated a great deal of time and thought to this dilemma. And what I’ve tentatively come to is the view that as an insider within a long-existing church with a cemented culture, the situation is genuinely hopeless. However, if you’ll grant some grace and allow me to quote Cornel West, “I cannot be an optimist but I am a prisoner of hope.” I do think a prophetic (forthtelling) voice is possible from outside those fortified walls. Think of it as a lifeboat and the Titanic, I suppose… Although that analogy breaks down because here we’re trying to save the ship, not just rescue the people… Hmmmm… let’s stick with the boat but describe the traditional American church model as the land.

      Anyway, my solution? The University Church with built-in L’Abri-like ministries, and a crap ton of ‘em. While speaking prophetically into the larger church community, they will be making disciples whose express intent is to a) plant more of these churches or b) lead an amphibious assault back to the motherland, if you will. Will this transform the American church during my lifetime? Highly unlikely. Could it make a huge difference over the course of a century? Absolutely. You wrote, “I haven’t found any answers to that question that will make such men anything other than the exceptions that prove the rule.” I disagree, for it was you that introduced me to what I believe is the solution. Could it fail? Yes. Absolutely. But, Lord help me, I’m gonna succeed or die trying. The good news is that the plan is well now underway…. Muhahaha <– sinister laugh

  • Charles T.

    More and more, I’ve heard good preaching that is “textual,” not in the expository sense but in the sense of the preacher speaking from a (gasp!) manuscript. (Shhh! I’ve done this myself, some say to great effect.)

    The trick is to write the sermon as if it were a talk and not an essay–and then to deliver it accordingly (lots of contractions, at least a few rhetorical questions, the repetition of important phrases). It can be done, and some of the very best preachers do it. The advantage is that a well-constructed sermon eliminates rambling.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=163800401 Carson T. Clark

      You’re in my head! That’s *precisely* what I intend to do.

  • Ethan McCarthy

    Carson, I really appreciate this and resonate with it. That said, I think your list is a little bit cynical. (By the way, I have read all the comments, including your responses.) It’s not that these aren’t real categories, and it’s certainly not that they aren’t flawed approaches to homiletics. It’s just that God uses deeply flawed sermons all the time, and always has…and while they may annoy you and me to the extreme, they may simultaneously be the Word of God to someone else just a pew away. In other words, I think it behooves us to affirm and commend the gospel as it goes forth, even as we graciously hold up a higher standard in our own preaching. This obviously doesn’t apply to those who have perverted the gospel in any way.

    I think you probably agree with this, just as I agree with your post whole-heartedly. Just offering a little nuance. Cheers

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=163800401 Carson T. Clark

      Yeah, man. Nothin’ but love.

      I see what you mean. Your comments have given me occasion to pause, assess my heart, and reread this post to see if I failed to communicate rightly.

      I don’t know that I’d agree with the cynicism. Maybe that’s true. I’ll have to think on it, but to me cynics are like the punks who stand against the wall at the dance and make fun of everyone else rather than taking part. They’re the apathetic goons who love to criticize but never offer nothing helpful or constructive. It’s more than being critical. They’re just the Bob Bummers of the world. Ya know?

      For me, I tend to delineate the admittedly fine line between dissatisfaction and disillusionment. I’m plead guilty to the former but innocent to the latter. And maybe you and I see things differently, but to me it’s those who are disillusioned who are almost always the cynics. I’m not standing back and criticizing, but jumping in, taking ownership, and trying to make a different. As I just quoted Cornel West to Dr. Williams, let me repeat: “I cannot be an optimist but I am a prisoner of hope.”

      Does that make me a cynic? Eh, I’ll let you answer that. Does what I say here align with this post? Maybe not. But there’s always Part II :)

    • Ethan McCarthy

      Yeah, maybe cynical wasn’t the right word…And don’t get me wrong, much of today’s preaching really is dreadful.

      I like your terminology of being a “prisoner of hope.” I think we have a duty as believers to be “prisoners of hope”: to recognize the gospel where it’s going forward and to rejoice in that, even as it goes forward through flawed people and flawed means. I quickly get tired of those who love to moan about the “biggest problem in the American church today” or how horribly the church is screwed up. Well of course it is, and guess what, it always has been. But Christ still inhabits his church, and he still loves it… It’s our job to joyfully recognize and commend the many places where the kingdom is being lived out, and if we look with the right eyes, we’ll see plenty to rejoice about.

      Not that you’re one of those people, Carson. And not that there still isn’t a great need for those who point out where we’re going wrong – the curmudgeons and cantankerous, OT prophet types. I read this post as part of that tradition, and thus: well done.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=163800401 Carson T. Clark

      I feel ya. When I start to lean to the curmudgeon side of things you’re offering a gentle push back in the other direction… or, perhaps better, highlighting the other more hopeful side of the ledger. Nothin’ wrong with that, and is part of being in the Body of Christ. I just appreciate that you take the time, and have the balls, to raise the yellow flag. Love it.

      “I think we have a duty as believers to be ‘prisoners of hope’: to recognize the gospel where it’s going forward and to rejoice in that, even as it goes forward through flawed people and flawed means.”

      Amen.

      If we must employ such a c-word, can we go with contrarian? Curmudgeon for some reason brings up images of the old man in tighty whities in Billy Madison who stops out the flaming poop in his boots, then says, “Don’t tell me my business, devil woman!” And cantankerous? Those people aren’t even amusing to watch like the curmudgeons. They’re just annoying… Of course, you might think the word applies ;)

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=163800401 Carson T. Clark

      I feel ya. When I start to lean to the curmudgeon side of things you’re offering a gentle push back in the other direction… or, perhaps better, highlighting the other more hopeful side of the ledger. Nothin’ wrong with that, and is part of being in the Body of Christ. I just appreciate that you take the time, and have the balls, to raise the yellow flag. Love it.

      “I think we have a duty as believers to be ‘prisoners of hope’: to recognize the gospel where it’s going forward and to rejoice in that, even as it goes forward through flawed people and flawed means.”

      Amen.

      If we must employ such a c-word, can we go with contrarian? Curmudgeon for some reason brings up images of the old man in tighty whities in Billy Madison who stops out the flaming poop in his boots, then says, “Don’t tell me my business, devil woman!” And cantankerous? Those people aren’t even amusing to watch like the curmudgeons. They’re just annoying… Of course, you might think the word applies ;)

    • Ethan McCarthy

      How about Carson Clark? There’s two C words right there

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=163800401 Carson T. Clark

      You’ll rue the day you crossed me.

  • http://twitter.com/tonydahlman Tony Dahlman

    Unlike the vast majority of your commenters, I have not attended a day of seminary and I have not had any study in the area of homiletics. However I have had a fair amount of training in the area of (amateur) public speaking, and that influences how I listen to sermons and how I read your post. I agree with your sentiment that there are a lot of bad sermons out there (I think 97.3% figure is probably high, but I also acknowledge that 82.6% of statistics are made up on the spot).

    My only comment is that I believe that your portrayal of the “Seminarian” is a bit harsh. I was trained heavily in the importance of organization in public speaking. I find the lack of organization is almost always the greatest weakness when I am listening to inexperienced speakers. The first thing I tell inexperienced speakers is to start with the structure of of the introduction, preview, main points, review, conclusion. It may sound stiff at first, but if you don’t start with that, you are never going to learn how to disseminate information in a way that the audience will actually remember. I would never criticize someone for sounding like a “seminarian”, because any amount of practice will eventually turn them into a more polished speaker with less awkward transitions and a more comfortable speaking style.

    I look forward to future posts on this topic.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=163800401 Carson T. Clark

      Your statistical analysis is superb.

  • http://leftcheek.blogspot.com Jas-nDye

    What, no screamers? What about the preachers who focus on hell and sin and damnation?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=163800401 Carson T. Clark

      Ehhh… Maybe some combination of 1 and 10?

  • Donald Williams

    Carson, I agree that the UC model and its replication is the solution–but there’s the rub. It has not replicated itself. I tried in Toccoa, and it was just too radical for the town (and for most of the campus), and it didn’t fly. The original plan was to grow by planting satellites with the same vision. Well, UC has survived without losing its vision (a miracle in itself), but there are no satellites. None. Almost all the people who leave have a better vision for having been there, but they then get absorbed by culturally “normal” churches and nothing really changes. Will you be an exception? I hope so. But if you are, you will be a drop in the proverbial bucket of necrotic Christianity surrounding us. (Your remark about the influence of the larger culture on the whole process is part of the reason why, no doubt.) So there has to be an addendum to the answer that tells us how to make the replication actually happen. I haven’t found that part yet. I’m still looking.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=163800401 Carson T. Clark

      I’ve been thinking a lot about that, too. Before responding, however, I should like to know more about the UC’s original plan to grow my planting satellites with the same vision. Who, what, when, where… skip why, that’s obvious… and how? Haven’t heard of this before.

  • Donald Williams

    Carson, the plan was never worked out in any detail. It was just understood that if the Lord granted us growth in numbers, we did not want to change our personality by becoming a mega-church, but that we would identify leaders for an outlying geographic concentration of attendees and plant another church instead. (This was Dan’s idea, embraced by all the leaders.) Divide and conquer! Well, the numbers have never grown to the point where such cell division actually made sense. A University oriented church has to grow by about 25% a year just to stay the same size.

  • Cam

    I like it. I also like Ethan’s caveat; it put me in mind of this: “Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will; the latter do it out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice, yes, and I will rejoice. (Philippians 1:15-18)” Some good, stubborn Pauline nuance.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=163800401 Carson T. Clark

      Indeed.

%d bloggers like this: