Skip to main content

Craig Brian Larson on listening to preaching

Craig Brian Larson is editor of PreachingToday.com, and pastor of Lake Shore Church in Chicago. At the Christianity Today site, he's posted an excellent short article on the spiritual discipline of listening to sermons. Here's some gems:

If preaching is so important, how can some Christians listen to it for decades and not be transformed? ... [I]n some inadequate preaching, the Bible plays little to no role or the pastor preaches without authority...

But the explanation for un-transformative preaching may also be that people don't naturally know how to listen to a sermon. They listen for the wrong reasons: to be entertained (Mark 6:20), to justify their wrong actions (2 Tim. 4:3), or to earn God's favor (John 5:39). They seek knowledge rather than transformation (Rom. 12:1-2; 1 Cor. 8:1-2). They listen without paying careful attention (Mark 4:23-25). They listen without prayer (James 1:5). They listen without an awareness of the deceitfulness (James 1:22) and hardness of their own hearts (Mark 8:1-21), or with an attitude of selective obedience (Matt. 23:23-24). They are not regularly warned of the dangers of a rebellious attitude (Heb. 3:7-16) and unresponsive hearing (James 1:21-25).

For decades the training of preachers has focused on how to preach better... [but] little attention has been paid to training preachers to train Christians to listen properly to a sermon... [S]piritual transformation comes not only from... excellent, anointed biblical exposition, but also from the spiritual discipline of listening correctly with the help of the Holy Spirit.

Labels:

Comments

Mark said…
The article sounds good Kamal. Definitely a major deficit: teaching an audience to listen to God's word in order to be transformed by it.
28 September 2008 at 18:25
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The different distractions of secularity and spirituality

There has been a lot of discussion about the recent 'vibe shift' away from radical atheism back towards an openness to the supernatural. I don't think this new spirituality is necessarily an openness to the unique claims of Christ. It will more probably replace one set of commonly-accepted misunderstandings about Jesus with another.  Under radical atheism, people dismissed the Biblical claims about Jesus' resurrection because they 'knew' that it was impossible. Jesus hadn't really died. He just passed out (after being beaten and whipped and crucified) and then woke up in the tomb (and rolled away the stone himself and overcame several guards). Or the disciples hallucinated that they saw him (even though Jewish beliefs of the time didn't expect one person to rise possessing eternal life himself; they expected a general resurrection at the end of time - see John 11:24 ). Or something else.  The so-called 'explanations' of Jesus' non-resurrectio...
Post a Comment
Read more

A better understanding of nonbelief

The Nones Project is an ongoing study into the belief systems of people who call themselves non-religious. A few weeks ago one of the project leaders,  Ryan Burge  of Washington University,  posted some really interesting preliminary results  on his Substack.  1. We've probably heard of people who are spiritual but not religious (SBNRs). SBNRs were "the largest group of nones" in the sample. They believe in the supernatural realm but not necessarily in "a God." They are "deeply skeptical of religion but highly interested in spirituality," therefore individualistic and anti-institutional.  2. But this study differentiated SBNRs from people they called Nones In Name Only, NiNos. They different to SBNRs by being religious about their spiritual. They believe not just in the supernatural but in "God." And they tend to engage in traditional communal religious practices while SBNRs practice individualised eclectic bespoke spiritual practices. The s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Wax and Wright on the definition of "mission"

Trevin Wax has written a clear, simple, and charitable introduction to a debate about the nature and boundaries of the kinds of Christian activities that validly should be called "mission." In brief:  Should we use a broad definition, where "mission" encompasses all the various purposes which God calls Christians and the church in general to perform, e.g. being ethical at work; general acts of care and charity; standing against systematic oppression and working towards justice instead? If so, "evangelism" is only one part of the church's mission - a central, necessary, and irreplaceable part, but only one part nonetheless. The latter kinds of activities don't save anyone for eternity, but they do genuine good in this world which please God. And that kind of good makes a real difference in many parts of the world which have not benefited from the kind of Christian moral transformation which the West benefited from - the kind of moral transformation...
Post a Comment
Read more