%20NEW.jpg)
The NewCity Orlando All of Life Podcast
The All of Life podcast, hosted by Nate Claiborne, provides weekly episodes that help further our mission to call, form, and send disciple-makers. At NewCity, we want to see Orlando flourish by filling it with people who say "Follow me as I follow Jesus in all of life."
The NewCity Orlando All of Life Podcast
The Place of Preaching in the Reformed Tradition with Dr Michael Allen
In this episode, Senior Pastor Damein Schitter and Theologian in Residence Michael Allen tackle the question, "can Scripture truly govern the conscience, and what does that mean for preaching?" By diving into the Westminster Confession of Faith, they emphasize the immense responsibility preachers carry in conveying God's word accurately. They also uncover the advantages of expository preaching and discuss how the symbolic clerical collar reflects a preacher’s submission to divine authority. Additionally, they provide historical insights to help you understand how the Westminster Confession sought to clarify pastoral roles amidst the tumultuous mix of 17th-century culture, politics, and religion.
The challenge, in navigating contemporary issues like sexuality and politics, is to offer practical wisdom without overstepping bounds. By balancing guidance with humility and leaning on the Christian community, study, and prayer, Damein and Mike emphasize the collaborative effort it takes for believers to grow in wisdom and navigate life's complexities. They also reflect on the ongoing work of Jesus as prophet, priest, and king, highlighting His resurrection power and the importance of relying on the Holy Spirit. By recognizing God's strength through our weaknesses, we find faith and assurance in the transformative power of divine intervention in our lives.
Well, in 20-2, the Westminster Confession of Faith makes this powerful statement about the authority of Scripture over the conscience. So, mike, first of all, can you start by unpacking what it means when the confession says that God alone is Lord of the conscience and how that principle plays out in the context of preaching?
Speaker 2:Yeah. So preachers are playing with fire. We speak, people listen and they take it seriously. They don't always like it, they don't always follow it and they take it seriously. They don't always like it, they don't always follow it, but preaching purports to be the word of God spoken to the people of God, and that's a dangerous thing. And what we see here is this cognizance of that reality that a preacher can exploit that right calling, if they seek to say what they think, as though that were what the Lord says.
Speaker 2:Now, of course, the preacher does mean to convey what he believes the Word says, how he's interpreted it, how he's prayerfully studied it, how he believes it's meant to build up that particular congregation of the Church of Christ. But there's always that moment where you can press beyond, you can add or supplement, you can tweak or modify. And it's telling how often in the Bible there's a warning, whether it's in Deuteronomy or again at the end of the entire Bible, at Revelation, the warning about adding or subtracting even the smallest element. And that's crucial for preachers to remember, to the extent that we go beyond what the Word says and bind someone's conscience so that they feel that God demands something of them If we go beyond what God actually authorizes us to do and to say, we're taking the Lord's name in vain, we're breaking the third commandment, we're purporting to treat our opinions, which may or may not be informed and wise, but nonetheless aren't divine, and that's dangerous stuff.
Speaker 1:Yeah. So if you think about it, then it seems like this is one of the reasons why, in many traditions, choosing a passage and preaching through the passage as a regular diet of preaching, as opposed to primarily topical sermons, would help us stay in our lane, I would imagine.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and there's a way we can think about that that the Bible provides both a norm and a limit, as one theologian put it. It provides a norm. We're called to teach all of it. Paul models this, the idea that he conveys to the church in Ephesus, in Acts 20. He doesn't feel good leaving a young church till he's taught what he calls the whole counsel of God.
Speaker 2:So we want to cover all of it, not just our favorite things, not just the hot topics of the day. On the other hand, it provides a limit hear and know further, and I and most preachers, we have thoughts on other things. Some of them are informed, some might even be accurate, others aren't and surely won't be. But more importantly, we're not called, we're not equipped and we're not authorized to offer or dispense our mere opinions, however good they might be. And so routinely sticking to preaching through books of the Bible is kind of the bread and butter, as you put it. That's a great way to make sure we're covering the norm. Yeah, and it's not a guarantee, but it's a help that we would stick to the limits of Scripture too.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I'm thinking of the clerical collar right now, and my limited understanding is that at least part of the reasoning for wearing the clerical collar would be to remind the preacher or the pastor and others that we are bound with the words we speak to the word of God and not our own opinion. Is that pretty accurate?
Speaker 2:Yeah, I mean the symbolism of it is very much this idea that one's mouth and voice is in fact governed by another. It's a very humbling thing. It's not terribly ancient, that's no knock on it, but it's symbolic of something that even traditions that don't tend to go to wearing the collar they find other ways to celebrate. The fact that Presbyterians, for instance, in the 16th and 17th centuries, made a point of referring to their elected, ordained leaders as ministers was really intentional. A minister is a secretary. A minister is someone under the authority of another, in the same way that there's a difference between executive and administrative exercise. And that's simply meant to shape the mentality of the minister themselves, knowing that they're someone who comes in the name and authority of another, of Jesus, and to shape the perceptions of the congregation To realize this isn't a genius, this isn't someone who's just got the most sanctity or the most intellect or all the right answers. This is someone who I listen to because Jesus has sent him to do certain things and to speak certain things to me.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's so helpful. And when we think about the historical context of the Westminster Confession of Faith, it's probably important to say as well that the Westminster Confession of Faith, in this instance and in all of the documentation that it's speaking to, is summarizing the Bible's teaching, right, of course, the Bible is the one that teaches us that. It is the authoritative voice in the life of the Christian, and so the preacher, which is a gift to the church, as you said, their role is to be a minister, not some genius to infuse their ideas above and beyond the scriptures themselves. So, with that little bit of caveat, can you give us some more historical context here, like, for example, what historical or theological concerns might have driven the Westminster divines to include this protection of the conscience in the confession?
Speaker 2:Yeah. So I mean, this was one of several times in church history when the religious and the political and the cultural and the economic are very much entwined and not surprisingly, people always run to pastors and priests, to bishops and to popes to sort of encourage a cause. To sort of encourage a cause. And this is trying to kind of demarcate or draw lines between what's appropriate instruction and not just appropriate but necessary and what's inappropriate not just inappropriate but actually sinful and blasphemous In a real sense. The clergy need to teach the whole counsel of God. They're duty bound to it.
Speaker 2:Failing to do so is negligence, it's pastoral malpractice, and that means there are going to be some uncomfortable things political disagreements regarding things like monarchy and republicanism, a host of different liturgical beliefs about what worship and piety should look like. And the key thing here is trying to delineate what's a pastor absolutely essentially going to say and when are they going to stop. And then, as now, I think we could say you know, in modern terms, a microphone is a terribly seductive thing. Other people want someone who's going to be a guru, and those of us who talk behind microphones find that they keep asking for more and we keep wanting to pontificate, and that's as true for a Protestant as for any Roman Catholic bishop or pope.
Speaker 2:And so this is really meant to constrain and to shape the expectations of the clergy. At the same time, there's an unstated sort of flip If the clergy aren't supposed to do something, that doesn't mean that thinking doesn't matter. So this also presumes a certain view of lay people that Christian men and women who aren't ordained pastors they're not bishops, they're not ministers they're nonetheless instructed by God's Word, built up and equipped by their pastors, and they're given the gift of the Holy Spirit to help them discern. And this presumes an educated laity who are going to connect dots. If a pastor is not going to develop every policy statement for you and your family or you and your nation, that means Christian men and women need to be standing in the gap and doing that further work.
Speaker 1:Yeah, well, what I love about that is that it shows the beauty of the entire body of Christ, and the preacher, the minister, has a very important but narrow role in the ministry of the laity, as you said, in the world.
Speaker 1:As you know, at New City we end the benediction every week with you are sent, and there are a lot of reasons why we do that.
Speaker 1:But one of these realities is that we believe that God is sending his people out to take what they've just heard and work it out in faithfulness as they pursue loving their neighbor in all the various places that he sends them.
Speaker 1:And you know, one of the things that fascinates me, I'm thinking about some studies that I've read in the last handful of years that show that even the younger generations, who are still coming to church, when surveyed they say the reason that they are attracted to a church and stay at that church is the preaching, and in one sense, that makes sense to me. In another sense, there are a lot of cultural realities that might surprise us, especially at a church like New City that does more than a 15 to 25-minute sermon. And so when we think about the fact that people do value preaching, they value coming and hearing someone, hopefully, preach the Word of God To your point earlier. There's this reality that the person speaking behind a microphone that can puff us up in a sense, and you mentioned already some of the historical realities that were at play, of why the Westminster divines found it important to put this in the confession. So, when we think about today, what ways do you think preachers could overstep these boundaries?
Speaker 2:Yeah. So I mean, I think if we talk about the word is both norm and limit, there's ways we can go wrong on both sides, aren't there? I mean, on the one hand, we might fail to address things the Bible does and people in our own tradition. They've done this in remarkable fashion and I don't think that's a sign they're uniquely heinous. That's them giving in to what probably all of us in various ways do.
Speaker 2:So infamously in the 19th century Southern preachers and many others. They believed that you ought not preach against the institution of slavery, for instance. And the Bible doesn't lay out a specific program for exactly how you end slavery in its various forms, but the teaching of the image of God, the notion of how you care for the least of these, those and other beliefs. They remarkably shape the Christian imagination for how you would think about reacting to that kind of sad, corrupt cultural reality. And not surprisingly, christians were the first to challenge it and to lead to its abolition in so much of the world. Sadly, many in our circles in the American South they believe that was wrong. They believe that was to get out of the church's lane.
Speaker 2:And they were wrong when they thought that, because the Bible teaches things that challenge the foundations of that, an error by getting too specific or too particular, as if there's but one policy as a way to faithfully fulfill what the Bible teaches. So the Bible does tell us that we're to raise our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. That's not a complete educational program.
Speaker 2:And so even at a relatively small part of the global Church of Christ like New City, we have folks going about it in a bunch of different ways Public school, private school, homeschool, you name it and sometimes that's shaped by resources and opportunities, but often it's judgments by parents about the best wise way to do a common concern with regard to a particular kid.
Speaker 2:They may even make different decisions about various kids in their family, still believing they're going after the main concerns but finding sort of particular policies for each child to enflesh that the dangers. If you say this one approach, this is the one way we can get into that. When we talk about dating and marriage, when we talk about budgeting and finance, when we talk about education and schooling or politics and voting, and to the extent that we're going beyond what the Bible actually says and we're including our judgment, our read of circumstance, our approach to opportunities, we're writing checks in the Lord's name and account, not our own, and that's a serious pastoral error, precisely because we can't presume that every person in the room will observe the distinction.
Speaker 1:Yeah, there's so many helpful things about that. Naming both pitfalls that could easily be fallen into by the preacher, one you said was failing to speak to what the Bible actually does clearly speak to. So you had mentioned slavery. The reality is, is that the right thing to do when preaching the Bible, particularly the doctrine of the image of God and other things, was to condemn the notion that we can own people or that certain human beings were more valuable than other human beings? Now, how the institution of slavery, of which many nations was a significant part of their revenue, to speak to the complexity of that, that was for Christians in government and policy, not to the preacher.
Speaker 1:Maybe some common issues today might be how do we speak to issues of sexuality? The Bible speaks very clearly about those particular issues. We should be increasingly articulate. I think we should be increasingly bold, but also loving. To speak against the fact that God has created human beings in such a way and to go against his design is actually not good for you. It's not good for society. Well, there's a lot to say there without getting into what that means for particular policies, at least from the pulpit. So there are other issues we could speak to, but that might be a modern day issue, and when I continue to think about that, I think about the beauty of Christians wanting to come to church and hear their pastors give guidance on how to follow Jesus in various areas of life. And right now, in this season, we just finished a series on following Jesus in politics. We're in an election season and so, on the one hand, I can see that people would want to hear from their pastors. They would want something more directive, and I think there's something good in that.
Speaker 1:But the thing that I don't think we want is actually the other pitfall you said, which was getting outside of our lane. It would be speaking to things that we don't have the expertise, experience or calling to speak to. And what I actually think and you can tell me if this analogy works or not or where it might break down but I actually think when I've had some conversations in the past where people have challenged me or honestly just been curious why don't you speak more directly to the specifics, even like who should we vote for that type of thing my response has been twofold. One that's outside of my lane, and I'll quote the passage here that we're talking about in the Westminster Confession of Faith. The other thing is I try to let them know I don't think you really want this.
Speaker 1:In other words, like you don't want me speaking to things I have no idea what I'm talking about, but just because I read a few articles and have an opinion that I can speak to, and, like another example would be, you don't want me giving you medical advice, for example. In the same way I can speak on the goodness of the body, I can speak on how the incarnation teaches us that I can speak about the goodness of the body. I can speak on how the Incarnation teaches us that. I can speak about the reality of prayers of healing. I can speak to what the Bible says as it relates to what might be parallel to medical advice. But as soon as I go into medical advice, I'm out of my lane. So how would you speak to that? I mean, do you think that's a decent analogy? How would you add to that?
Speaker 2:Yeah, I mean, I think that is a common problem and I think people, when they express frustration, in reality the frustration under the voiced question or protest is really. We live in a complex world. And these are challenging things.
Speaker 1:And we really do need help.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that's right, these are challenging things and we really do need help. Now the pastor can't be all the help, right, and that's sadly a little dispiriting to some people who thought coming to church would do the trick. Yeah, but the pastor can be a part and the Christian community and study of the Bible and prayer and over time God uses those things to make people wise. And over time God uses those things to make people wise. And the reality is, you know, you think of what Paul says in Romans 12.
Speaker 2:He describes how you're not to be conformed to the world and its ways. You're to be transformed by the renewing of your mind. And it doesn't say so you'll immediately know all the right things to do, but it rather says so that by testing, you might be able to discern the will of God. In other words, the end goal is not intuitive, immediate awareness of all the right answers, but it's being so transformed and being so actively unconformed to the world that you're capable of this active responsibility that will be with you the rest of your life. I mean, the reality is most of our serious questions, almost all the time, they're not black and white. The black and white ones, thank God, are so clear that even when we do wrong, we at least know that we've done something that's dire and evil. The reality is so much of life involves discernment and mature judgment.
Speaker 2:And that's tiresome. That's something that many of us struggle with, especially people who desire greater sense of certainty. And some people are heavily wired and predisposed that way, and a pastor wants to be aware of that. They need to be aware of that. They don't want to deliver false certainty that might sort of make people think as though, because they've heard a right trope or cliche, they've arrived. The pastor wants to lead them as pilgrims on the way so they grow in discernment and invite them to be a part of the church body discerning. Grow in discernment and invite them to be a part of the church body discerning.
Speaker 2:So at a place like New City, we're gifted with people who have a much better eye than I do as to the economic facets of public policy, people who have a much better understanding than I do of the inner dynamics of the healthcare system or family dynamics, and they can speak into and be resources as I and others try and wrestle with complex issues for my personal life, for public life. And the takeaway doesn't have to be that we have to agree on everything, but that we can bless one another and help one another. Good households and families, good cities all these metaphors for the people of God in the New Testament. They involve give and take and people bringing various gifts, and that can shape the way in which a people equipped by pastors bring their own gifts and strengths and knowledge to bless one another.
Speaker 1:Yes, well, I love that, and I think that something you said in the middle of that has concerned some people, which is what do you mean that we can disagree? I just think it's so amazing that you spoke to the complexity of the world, and I regularly find people shocked that Christians can disagree on very important things. And the word you used was discernment, and I think that one thing that is true of all Christians, of all people, is that in order to discern well, your desires have to be ordered properly. I do think that that is part of the beauty of preaching is that every week, when we experience it, one of the things that should be happening is the Word of God, reordering our desires. The Word of God and its proper application, not only reordering our desires, but also reminding us of the goodness of God, of His gifts to us and the task to be sent out into the world to do the work of discerning.
Speaker 1:But the reality is, desire comes first, discerning comes next, and then, of course, we would discern things based on the different gifts, training and experience we have, and it seems that there are so many obvious examples where we see this as a good thing. For example, if an administration, a government administration. If they have to decide on a policy, we would hope that they actually create a team with a multidisciplinary approach. This is why think tanks exist in some measure is how do we get people together to think about really complicated issues that are serving the same mission but have different training and therefore opinions, and may disagree.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and I mean you can just take one case study. There are some things Christians need to agree on, and we're aiming at conformity. There are other things that being a Christian in no way guarantees conformity. So just take a case study example. Like immigration.
Speaker 2:There's some basic beliefs that the Bible instills that Christians ought to all own as theirs. We care for those whom God has given us a special responsibility for. So I have a responsibility to my family, to my town and to my nation that I don't for every other family in town. That's appropriate. At the same time, we're called to have a remarkable sympathy and a generous spirit toward the other, the stranger, the migrant and especially the particularly vulnerable. How those two things are going to balance gets remarkably tricky, though, and not surprisingly.
Speaker 2:Economists might have different takes on how much a given country or municipality can receive immigrants before you're actually not blessing them in the same way and caring for your own. Some might think you can handle far more. Others be a little more cautious and less. That's not a theological judgment, that's an economic judgment, something I'm utterly incapable of personally. So we're going to want to treat people and speak of people in a Christian manner.
Speaker 2:We're going to want to uphold Christian principles, both of caring for those God has specially given us responsibility for, as well as generosity so far as we can offer to others. But I'm not going to be surprised that we're going to have different reads of the current situation, of what would be optimal, what would be possible and the best pathways to get there. And, like you said, that's where we're going to need people with different perspective and expertise, the kind of expertise the average Christian much less pastor sure can't have on everything. We're going to need people with the expertise of law enforcement, what they can and can't manage, local jobs, economies, what's possible, social services, a host of issues that are going to shape, hopefully, how people think about applying those biblical principles and actually enacting policy. And so much of that is going well beyond the basic biblical teachings that are challenging enough about loving not only your own but also the other.
Speaker 1:That's right, so good, so it's a really helpful case study.
Speaker 1:So, in summary, it really speaks to a number of things that we've spoken to, and this is how I think.
Speaker 1:One is that, in order for us to rely on Christian principles, that when we hear of immigration issues, these are image bearers, these are human beings, and so there's a way in which we can hear or read or watch on the news that is actually designed to evoke fear in us, and in that place, it's easy to view that human being as other and less than a person to be defeated, a person to be defended against. But when we come to worship and we have our hearts reordered, we begin to see them as human beings again, image bearers, and then, all of a sudden, we see that love is really what we're called to love of neighbor. But to go from that to working out the policies, working out all the dynamics that you talked about, that is something altogether different, something that ought not be worked out from the pulpit and from the preacher alone, of course, but there's something really important about this dynamic and, I think, really wise, and I think we want this.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and I think that fits with something that, with some regularity, we talk about a good deal at New City this idea that goes back into the Reformed tradition that the church is not only gathered but also scattered and sent. Yeah, and a lot of people assume that if the preacher in the public gathering isn't saying something, this is our take then the church is disengaged Right, and that's to presume that the church exists only in as much as we're gathered together.
Speaker 2:The preacher's forming people, the service is shaping people by God's grace, so that they can go out, be scattered, they can be sent by God, they can be carrying their formation, their gifts, their resources, the capital they've got in every possible sense to discern, to make prudential judgments and hopefully to love sacrificially in wise and well ways. And that won't all look the same, but that kind of scattered and sent reality is the final goal here.
Speaker 1:That's right, absolutely, yeah, all right.
Speaker 1:So one of the reasons we wanted to record this podcast was because I think that many people in general and certainly in our congregation they haven't been introduced to these types of categories, and so some people might not think about it.
Speaker 1:Others might be curious as to why we don't speak more directly to these issues than others, and then there may be some people who are frustrated that we don't and, to your last point, may think that by not speaking to it, we're somehow skirting an issue or backing away from boldness. So, all of that to say, I want to affirm some of that. Insofar as people are frustrated, I want to affirm some of it in that I think it gets to something important, which is that the church should be a prophetic voice in society, and the thing is, is that thing we should be able to agree upon? But many people believe that in order to be a prophetic voice, that requires speaking directly to political and social issues that affect our daily lives, from the pulpit or from up front. So when we think about that, how do we reconcile the need for moral clarity on certain issues with the confession's stance that we've been speaking positively about on not binding consciences on matters where the Bible is silent or at least not prescriptive. How do we manage that tension?
Speaker 2:Well, I think one help is the way the Bible itself models this. There are spots, of course, where there is just a straightforward command. On the other hand, you read Philemon. When Paul is addressing this situation, he does not offer a global principle. He rather, in teaching basic beliefs about not just human identity but Christian identity and shared identity in Christ, even between the elite and the poor, or slave masters and slaves, he's leading people to imagine their situation differently so they can take ownership and responsibility for doing what he doesn't exactly name, that is, that a slave ought to be freed.
Speaker 2:And so often we'll see the Bible addresses a matter by going underneath it or around it. There are moments for hit the nail on the head. It gets old if that's the only tool in the toolkit. So it's not surprising that Jesus, far more often than he, will overturn tables and call people a pit of vipers, he will rather provide parables and his model, and that seems to have caught the apostles and the writings of the New Testament. They seem to use different tools of instruction to shape and form people, and that's meant not just to be the content we look at and pass on, but a model for how we do so.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, it's so good.
Speaker 1:I think that looking at different parts of the scripture that are normative, that teach us normative ways of engaging the culture, particularly as preachers, is a really wise thing to do, while also recognizing there are moments where the prophets and Jesus, as you say, speak directly, sort of nail on the head, on the nose sort of thing.
Speaker 1:But it seems to me that to make those examples normative is honestly very tempting, and there's something attractive about it, especially in our moment where pundits are winning the day and we all can struggle at times, no matter where we fall politically, to feel that our view of the culture as being stolen from us as Christians. It sort of brings up at least in me, there's a weird attractiveness to be able to have that zinger, to be able to have the tweetable phrase, and so I wonder if we think about that as a common temptation, but maybe one that's even more tempting now. Maybe the last word we could say is to anyone listening, but maybe especially to preachers and to those training to be preachers what should we particularly be mindful of in the coming months and years?
Speaker 2:along those lines, Well, I think the most important thing is to have hope. The reason that we tend to go beyond what we should, the reason that it feels really good to have a zinger and to castigate somebody, is, ultimately, it's coming from a place of fear. Not all fear is bad, but this is a kind of fear that's unproductive. It's a fear of man, not of God. It's a fear of circumstance that's beyond my control and it's it's a feeling as though, because it's out of my control. It is therefore out of control, and that's where we need to remember. Jesus is alive and active. He is still the prophet, priest and king. He is the lord of the church this very day, and he does authorize and deputize me to do certain things, but he is not restricted to the few things that I or you, as a pastor, can say and do. He's still working. Resurrection in this world.
Speaker 2:And so I think, being reminded of his ongoing grace and mercy and the promises of how he's going to bring his kingdom to pass fully and, finally, that's what gives me the faith to shut up at a certain point and to know that it can still be okay and that God, by his Holy Spirit, can actually work so much more life and newness and repentance and change, well beyond what I might berate people into or shame people into. And so oftentimes, less is so much more, because his strength is shown in our weakness. Yeah, I love that.
Speaker 1:I think that's a great place to end. Thank you for your time, Mike. I hope this is helpful.
