A novel idea for churches — read the Bible

This could be about misunderstanding of words again - I’d assumed ‘text’ to mean a single verse or couple of verses. Perhaps I got the wrong end of the stick. Even so, I’d normally expect there to be two or three Bible readings in a normal service

Any time, Randy. But if you came regularly, I’d have to chastise you for your carbon footprint. We wouldn’t want that.

Not to double post,

I also echo Randy’s concern with regard to churches not mentioning Scripture enough in the service. I too think it is sad.

Just like Randy’s question, Richard, would I be welcome in your church for one service, since I’m across the “big lake”.

At my local church there have been grumblings from a few (maybe more) that the lead pastor uses the Bible too darn much in his sermons.

At a recent meeting to discuss our new youth pastor (which I did not attend) at least one parent objected to the practice of regular Bible study during the Sunday night youth group activities. Seems the kids don’t like it.

I guess I’m like Wood in that I don’t seperate SCripture mentioned in a sermon from public Scripture reading as part of the service outside of the sermon. I just don’t see too many services where there are no Scripture mentioned at all. I have been to a liberal Evangelical service where no Scripture was mentioned at all.

Steve, have you been to churches where no passage of Scripture was mentioned at the pulpit or for the entire service for that matter? I think if one doesn’t do this “seperation” like the author did here one can see that among Conservative Evangelical churches Scripture IS (not in anger but for emphesis) mentioned and is the focal point.

John, that is so sad that your congregation doesn’t like the Bible mentioned much and that the youth don’t like regular Bible study. I think the premise of the heart of the original post author is confirmed by the attitude of the congregation toward the Bible, Bible reading and Bible study. At least it appears, John, that your pastor is trying to do something by having regular Bible usage and youth Bible study at your church. I will pray for you and your congregation that there would be more of a positive attitude toward Scripture.

There is a famous book by the American theologian James D. Smart entitled The Strange Silence of the Bible in the Church. When was it written? 1970!

Of course if the scriptures - including the Old Testament, including the Psalms, unexpurgated - are not read in church - well, it’s “beyond” (as we say in Wales), indeed it’s the “back of beyond”. And there is no doubt that biblical illteracy is a HUGE problem in the church. But the problem is more (as it were) text-ured than just the absence of the reading of biblical texts, large or small, in worship, or even crap sermons - if, that is, you get a sermon rather than, say, a power-point presentation.

There is the absence of not only disciplined but also informed attendance on the the scriptures, which - let’s be honest - is largely due to the failure of nerve among some (many? most?) church leaders to lead their people beyond a Sunday School understanding of the nature of the Bible, their failure to share the insights and results of biblical and hermeneutical scholarship (and I am not referring just to the so-called historical-critical method, and I don’t mean sharing in a pedantic and ponderous way). Instead of being cultures of learning, many of our churches are cultures of ignorance - and some are even proud of it!

There is the absence of acquaintance with our theological traditions. Some folk boast, with a spurious humility, “I’m not Baptist/Reformed/Anglican/Methodist/Whatever, I’m just Christian - I’m ecumenical.” But the only way to be truly ecumenical is via being specifically confessional. You can’t approach everywhere if you come from nowhere. The present is what the past is doing now; if we don’t know where we’ve come from, we won’t know where we’re at, let alone where we’re going. And again, not only don’t many folk not know their church’s histories, they don’t think they need to know their church’s histories. They’re guilty of what C.S. Lewis called “chronological snobbery”, as Luther, Calvin, Wesley, et. al. were “dated”, as if there were such a thing as a “dead” Christian.

And there is the the absence of regular theological reflection at all levels of the church life, so that we know not just what to think doctrinally but how to think theologically, and thus how theologically to interpret the world.

Put all these absences together and what do you get? Chronic Christian insecurity, the absence of a sense of firm Christian identity, of being able to relate our personal stories to the great love story of God and the world, of finding our sense of self “in Christ”, and of being able to give a responsible account of the hope that is in us. We become like mad King Lear on the heath, who cried, “Can anybody tell me who I am?”

They are dancing around Jesus as boyfriend, Jesus as CEO.

There is an amazing immaturity, insecurity. This is a sub group that relies heavily on hyper-masculinity by the sound of it, but I could be wrong.

Passive, willing to buy anything leaders tell them, some grew up.
I think a fair number of Dan’s readers do the mega-church thing -it doesn’t appear from reading him for some time that Christians in his world are taught critical thinking.

The men come across as quite confused about who ‘they’ are, and there is a tendency to blame women, take the victim role, blame culture, blame generational differences. Very American, very human.

oh, I attend two churches Anglican (ugandan diocese) and a conservative Presbyterian church. Kim, did you see that both believe in baptism of babies. I choose not to divide over something that doesn’t really affect ones soul in that both of these churches strongly believe that one must personally accept Christ as ones Savior for Salvation. That is the basis for Christianity.

My experience is that most contemporary-style worship services have no scripture reading other than the verse(s) used in the sermon. I’m Methodist, but my wife is non-denominational/Baptist, and I think the denominational affiliation is less relevant than the worship format in terms of how much scripture is read in the services.

Several weeks ago I visisted my aunt’s church (Episcopalian), and was surprised at the amount of Scripture read during the service. They must have spent at least 10-15 minutes just reading from the Bible — no commentary, just reading. The Bible reading lasted longer than the sermon.

We can’t be understanding the author correctly. Surely there can’t be a worship service with no Scripture reading at all. I don’t think any church could so fall off the wagon and still assemble regularly.

At my church, we have two Scripture readings: one free-standing and the other as part of the sermon. I think that the liturgy was originally created with the idea that the pastor would preach from the first Scripture reading. But I prefer to integrate the reading into my sermon. I always select the first reading to reflect the theme of the sermon.

The best advice I was ever given about choice of scripture readings was to be guided by the lectionary.

This morning, I was complimented on having preached on the lectionary’s Gospel reading; the person making the comment appreciated the fact that I was tackling difficult passages. They then went on to suggest that it would be better to not use the lectionary; I don’t think I would ever have chosen today’s Gospel reading on my own. (Luke 14:25-33)

As our Circuit’s Local Preachers tutor, I have to argue with that. The discipline of preaching to the lectionary is especially valuable for new preachers. Really — try it!