Lim Soon Hock

Discovering Your Church’s Purpose (Part 1)

Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

Most churches would say that their mission is guided by Jesus’ Great Commission, “All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me. Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I’ve commanded you.” (Mt 28:18-20).  It is impossible, however, for any one local church to make disciples of all the nations of the world. That is simply the general commission to churches everywhere by which each church is to determine its specific calling about the “where?”, the “whom?” and the “how?”; and maybe even the “when?”. 

How a church determines all that is what we want to explore in this discussion.

If a church is not clear about its specific purpose it is likely to end up doing “anything and everything”, and accomplishing “nothing”. It may even try to muster up spiritual gifts and resources it doesn’t have to meet a need that it has no real passion for; while the talents it does have are not fully utilised. Inevitably, this will result in ineffective ministries and less than fruitful missions.

On the other hand, if a church is clear about its purpose it can focus its resources and energy on it. The result is obviously going to be much greater. It has the same effect as using a magnifying glass to train the rays of the sunlight onto a specific spot on a piece of paper. Very quickly the concentrated energy of the sunlight on that one focussed point will cause the paper to catch fire. That’s the power of a clear purpose when a church has it (or, for that matter, any organisation or individual).

Three Components That Help Determine Your Church’s Purpose

How can a church know what its specific purpose is? Three important components come into play: 1. Need, 2. Passion, and 3. Ability.

What needs do you see around your church?  You can be absolutely certain that the Lord is calling your church to meet one or more of those needs. You may contend that the Great Commission points us to make disciples of all the nations of the world. That is correct. However, the fulfilment of the Great Commission worldwide begins with a ministry to the community where the Lord has established your church. That’s the principle of Acts 1:8; our witness begins with our Jerusalem and spreading further afield till it reaches the ends of the earth.

Needs alone, however, cannot define the calling of your church. For the simple reason, there are so many needs out there; even just within the community where your church is located. So, how do we determine what needs the Lord is calling us to meet?

One important guiding factor has to do with our affinity to the need. Which needs tug at your heart? Which needs do you identify with? Which needs are you passionate about? When we feel strongly for something or are convinced that this is something we have to do we will be much more enthusiastic about meeting that need.

Nonetheless, passion alone is insufficient. Passion may drive us but it cannot meet the need. Only a corresponding ability will enable us to meet that need. In the economy of God’s Kingdom, if the Lord is directing you to minister to a certain need He will also give you the ability and resources to meet that need. To quote the renown missionary of the 19th Century, Hudson Taylor, “God’s work done in God’s way will never lack God’s supply.”

Hence the three components: Need, Passion and Ability; when they align together, they give you the Purpose of your church.

Nehemiah is a great example of an individual who knew his purpose in life. After receiving the report about the sorry condition of Jerusalem he went into his prayer closet to seek the Lord. Jerusalem had to be rebuilt (Neh 1:1-4). Not only did he see the need, he also felt compelled to take personal responsibility to lead the charge (Ch 2:5, 17). The subsequent details in the story paint a picture of a man who was driven with intense passion. The condition of the city either glorified or reflected badly on the Name of the Lord. He could not allow Jerusalem to remain in its deplorable condition. Jerusalem had to be restored; beginning with the rebuilding of the walls that provided protection for the city.

Nehemiah was God’s man.  The Lord had already prepared Nehemiah by giving him a certain amount of political clout (Ch 2:1, 7) and immense leadership, administrative and organisational skills (Ch 2:7-8, 11-6, 17-18) to fulfil the calling that He had laid upon his heart.

These three components that were operating in Nehemiah’s life are also present in every church. To determine the purpose of the church the leadership needs to spend time seeking the Lord for His leading while asking themselves the following questions:

  1. What needs do we see in the community where our church is located?
  2. What are we passionate about?
  3. What abilities and resources do we have?
  4. Where do the needs, our passion and our abilities align?

After more than forty years of its establishment an English-speaking middle-class church in Penang started a work among the lower-income dialect-speaking people in the community around their church. This was because they could see that that was what the Lord was telling them to do. They were also willing and able. Today, since 16 years ago, the church has a thriving Hokkien-speaking congregation and a life-changing ministry to the needs of the people in that enclave.

(Click on the link to Part 2)

Dynamic Balance

Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

There is a tendency for churches to be strong in either the Word or the Spirit. Few churches are strong in both. If the Church in Malaysia is to make an impact in the lives of people (and the nation) I don’t see how this can be an option.

Jesus was clearly both strong in Word & Spirit. When He was tempted in the wilderness He quoted Scripture, “It is written….” In order to quote the right Scripture you got to know the Bible well. To wield the Sword of the Spirit effectively you need to imbibe the Word of God. The Lord obviously did.

While Jesus was teaching in a synagogue in Capernaum the people noted that He taught with authority—not like the religious teachers of the day. Then, when, in the same instance, He cast out a demon from a man His spiritual authority became even more evident (Mk 1:21-28). Clearly, the Lord was both strong in Word and Spirit.

When you study the life and ministry of the apostles and the early church you see the same thing. As a result of their strength in both Word and Spirit the early church grew phenomenally (Acts 2:42-47).

While it is not as bad as it used to be; there is, however, still a tendency for churches to emphasise on one to neglect the other. I know this may be a bit of a caricature, but generally speaking, Evangelical churches emphasise on the Word, the fruit of the Spirit and character formation; while Pentecostal and Charismatic churches emphasise on the Spirit, spiritual gifts and power ministries. It is heartening to see that more churches have begun to understand that it is not “either or” but “both and”. We need to be balanced in both Word and Spirit.

However, that is not yet the complete picture. It is not just about being balanced—it is also about being as strong as we can in both Word and Spirit. On a scale of 1 to 10, a church can be perfectly balanced when it is at level 1 for both the Word and the Spirit. But the awful truth is that it is also neither strong in both. This is not the condition any church should want to be in, or continue to be in—it must want to be balanced and dynamic in both Word and Spirit.

As illustrated in the diagram below, it means a church must keep growing and developing and pushing to the utmost levels of empowerment in both these critical aspects of its spiritual life.What is your church doing to move towards that reality? How is it praying for this? How is it equipping the members to be strong in both? How is it stepping out in faith to be effective in the ministry of the Word and in the things of the Holy Spirit? If the church in Malaysia is to recapture the power and effectiveness of the church of Acts it needs to be conscious of growing simultaneously in both Word and Spirit.

Change or Plateau

Soon-Hock Lim 6 Comments

Many churches in Malaysia [1] that had their heyday in the ’80s and ’90s have plateaued or declined over the last decade (probably longer). Each church may have its own unique reasons, but I suspect that there are common causal factors.

They may be due, in part, to a waning in critical areas such as prayer, evangelism and dependence on the Holy Spirit. I think, however, one of the biggest factors is the churches’ failure to change: to connect with the young, the new and the unchurched and to pursue a culture that enables them to adapt, be fresh and progressive. From my observation, only those that have embarked on change have been able to buck the trend.

Generally speaking, the newer churches are doing better—those that were planted in the last 20 years by younger people to reach their own generation and the next. They are more successful because, in part, they appear to be more attractive to them. And the reason for this is because they are more in sync with the younger generation. This is seen in the form of worship they have adopted, the way their sermons are preached, and even how the announcements are presented. These are just the more noticeable things because they happen at the worship service; the primary place of church attendance. As you go deeper, you will realise that its more than just about the lights and sound; it’s about culture. These newer churches have a culture that appeals to the younger generation.

It might help if I drew your attention to a similar situation a few decades ago. At that time many of the traditional and conservative churches were already experiencing a plateau. Some even lost their members to the up-and-coming newer or revived evangelical churches. Why? A large part of the reason was because the former refused to change. Their inflexibility to change their church culture prevented them from moving with the new things that the Lord was doing during that time. On the other hand, the latter, knowingly or unknowingly (as they were moved by the Spirit of God) made changes that brought freshness to the church, they became attractive, and relevant even to those who were outside the church.

It is my observation and opinion that, unfortunately, many of these evangelical churches that had their heyday in the ‘80s and ‘90s are repeating the same mistakes of the traditional and conservative churches of the past. If they don’t change—which primarily means changing their church culture—they will continue to plateau and eventually decline. And that’s sad, when you think of how they were once riding high on the wave of God.

I sincerely believe that all churches ought to prayerfully consider what they need to do, including what they need to change, so that the young, the new and the unchurched of today can relate with them much more readily.

There are a number of related matters that need addressing, and I’ll take them up in my following blog posts.

Let me end by pre-empting a question in your mind. I know that some are going to argue that the Christian faith and good news are about Jesus. It is He whom we are to faithfully lift up; and He will draw people to Himself. I will not contend with that; Jesus is the centre of it all. But the Church is never far from Him. Jesus is the Head; the Church is His Body. When people see Jesus they will also very quickly cast their eyes on the Church. More than that, it is the Church that makes Jesus known to people. And so, how a church presents and represents Jesus will colour people’s perception about Him.

This statement still rings true: The message is the same, but the method must change.

Apply this to the larger context of the whole church. Many of the methods, forms, structures and even church culture need to change if we want to be able to continually connect and reach the young, the new and the unchurched of today and tomorrow.

—————————-

[1] I’m limiting my comments to the English-speaking churches as I do not have much interaction with the vernacular churches.

The Rookie, Leadership & Culture

Soon-Hock Lim 5 Comments

Most pastors believe that when they were called by the Lord to be pastors it came with the mandate to lead the church. On the other hand, most lay leaders believe that the pastor’s role is simply to provide pastoral or spiritual care for the members. Leading the church, especially with regards to organisational matters, finance, direction of the church, policies and staff issues are supposed to be under the purview of the Board or Council. In the end, the pastor has a very limited leadership role.

One way to mitigate the clash of expectations is for both pastor and church leaders to iron them out before the pastor comes on board. Candour and honesty are indispensable elements. Terms and conditions, role and expectations, and especially the leadership role of the pastor, need to be spelt out and agreed upon; and put into writing. This is not a guarantee that there won’t be problems later. Still, it is better to have this done. If all parties are people of integrity, the agreement will be honoured. If not, the parties will know where they have erred.

Clarity and agreement are vital if the pastor, the leadership and the church are to avoid confusion and second guessing about the pastor’s role. What is his leadership mandate? Who leads the leadership team? Who sets the direction for the church? Who is the staff accountable to? Who determines how the resources of the church are to be utilised? And more.

That’s a lot of ground to cover. And most churches have not even begun to consider these things, or, think it necessary to deliberate on them. But they will still function—according to the culture of their church—the set of beliefs and values they hold in common that causes them to do things in a certain way.[1]

If culture is so critical to the life of a church, the most sensible thing to do, then, is to establish a good church culture; including a culture of leadership that honours the leadership role of the pastor.

How does this work out for a rookie pastor? It is unlikely that a church would be prepared to entrust leadership to a newbie. I can understand that. So, what should he do? For starters, a rookie pastor shouldn’t join a church where he is the only pastor. Rather, he should work under a Senior Pastor who is serving in a church that has given the latter the mandate to lead.

Following his time of apprenticeship, one of two things can happen. One day, the Senior Pastor may move on or retire. The rookie pastor has blossomed and come into his own. If he is suitable he may be asked, either by the Senior Pastor or the Church Board, to take over as the new Senior Pastor, in a church that already has a culture that understands the leadership role of the pastor.

A second option for the rookie pastor is go out and plant a new church. After having served a number of years under a Senior Pastor he is no longer a rookie. He knows how to “do” church and lead the church. It is very likely that his fellow-lay church planters will give him the mandate to be the lead man. If this happens, the culture of leadership by the pastor is already set at the beginning of the church plant.

While it is not impossible to change the culture of the church, it will, however, take a lot of hard work, patience, grace, wisdom and prayer—if we don’t want to see a church-split, people leave the church or the pastor’s services prematurely terminated. Getting it right—right at the beginning—is a far better way of tackling this problem. But it calls for Senior Pastors, rookie pastors and church leaders in these “enlightened churches” to understand and work together on this.

[1] Read my blog posting dated 29 Feb 2016 on Church Culture

Dealing with Your Church History

Soon-Hock Lim 4 Comments

Has your church experienced a season when everything seems to be going really well, and then—Boom!—something happens? It could be sudden or gradual, and the church starts to reel and loses its spiritual dynamism and momentum.

That problem may be a conflict within the leadership or between the leaders and the members. It may be fear, as members are called not only to accept change but to change as the church ventures into new “territories” of ministry. Perhaps, it is financial sacrifices they are challenged to make as the church embarks on enlarging its facilities to accommodate its growth. The problem could even be marital unfaithfulness especially of someone at the primary leadership, such as the pastor or elder.

However, when the leadership starts to deal with the problem they discover that a similar problem had happened before. Maybe, not only just once before; perhaps, even a few times. The situations may be different in the details but you can’t miss the similarities between the past and present episodes. If I may be permitted to be a little melodramatic, it would be the case of: Different actors but the same story line!

What usually happens is that the church will deal with the presenting problem. If it’s a conflict in the leadership, then it will deal with the parties concerned to bring clarity, forgiveness, healing and reconciliation. (The honest truth is that even this is often not done; most times it is simply swept under the church carpet!)

Doing the above is good; but, not good enough—if the present issue is just the latest in a series of a same type-problem that has manifested itself over and over through the history of the church. The problem needs to be addressed at its root. It may be spiritual, structural or systemic. It could be due to the culture, values or practices of the church. Likely, it is a combination of two or more.

Certainly, the spiritual dimension must never be overlooked. Corporate prayer is critical. Corporate repentance beyond the present issue and into past episodes and how they have been inadequately addressed (or not addressed at all) is needed. And finally, a deliberate change in the corporate mind-set of the church to live and work in the opposite spirit needs to be affirmed.

I know of a church that has gone into its history and made right what had been wrong, and since then, for many years now, it has been making good progress. And I also know of churches that have not been willing to address the issues that have been etched in its history, and so continue to be weighed down by the spiritual consequences.

All churches hope to do well and make great advance for the Kingdom of God. They may embark on all kinds of programmes and work at reviving the church. However, if they fail to realise that the history of the church plays a vital part in the present health or ill health of a church they will not go far. If there is an unaddressed pattern of sin, it will forever plague the church. No matter what strategy the leadership uses to move the church forward, this problem will come back to kill it.

I believe every church needs to look at its history; and see if there’s anything it needs to address—to set it free to be the church that the Lord has destined it to be.

Know Your Philosophy of Ministry

Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

One of the most important things I ever did was to write out my philosophy of ministry. It was an assignment for a refresher course I took at a Bible school in Penang. By then, I had been in the pastoral ministry for 14 years; doing ministry from out of convictions that were being developed during those early years in the full-time ministry. In fact, some of the convictions had already begun to form while I was studying in a Bible school in Singapore, and even going further back to the time as a new Christian that was influenced by both the Charismatic renewal in New Zealand (where I was converted) and the Navigators (that I had been a part of for a while).

Sometimes I was conscious of my philosophy of ministry. Other times it was operating at my sub-conscious level. Writing it down was immensely helpful because it made me see more fully and clearly my philosophy of ministry.

What is a Philosophy of Ministry? Simply put, it tells us why we do what we do in the way we do it.

All Christians who have been serving for some years (paid and volunteer) do it from out of their philosophy of ministry. Whether they are conscious of it or not, whether they have thought through it or not, it is there. It guides them when they make ministry decisions and it directs them on how they do ministry. Where did it come from? General speaking, it was likely passed on to them by their church and ministry leaders and/or picked up from books they read which influenced them, and eventually internalised along the way of service.

Unfortunately most Christians have not thought about their philosophy of ministry, much less worked through it. At no point did they consider whether it is Biblical or not, and whether it is the best approach to their service or not. This becomes critical for those who are in positions of influence like leaders of a ministry or a church; more so if they are the lead pastors or the key leaders of a Christian organisation.

Why is knowing your philosophy of ministry important? For starters, knowing why is critical for clarity; not only just for yourself but also for those who are working with you. If you are clear, it will help you to be consistent in applying your philosophy of ministry in every situation. In fact, this is one of the most important keys to help you work through difficult situations; because you know why you are doing what you are doing in the way you are doing it. When you are consistent your fellow-workers will value you as a person of integrity and likely, to be happy to follow your lead. On the other hand, if your philosophy of ministry is fuzzy and you are often flip-flopping, they will be very uncertain about how you make ministry decisions and eventually you will lose their trust in you.

This does not mean that a Philosophy of Ministry is written in concrete. It can be modified or even overhauled if you are convinced that another philosophy is better (and “more” Biblical). Mine has not significantly changed since that time when I wrote it down, but it has certainly developed further.

If you are a ministry or church leader, and especially, if you are the lead pastor or a leader in a Christian organisation, you need to write down your philosophy of ministry. You may begin with something broad and general vis-à-vis your approach to ministry. Then, you may single out some specific areas of ministry to work through. If you are a pastor of a church you will want to look at the role of the pastor, leadership structure, finance, church growth and discipleship, to name a few.

Start working on it and enjoy the journey. I know for a fact that the value that you will get from doing this will far outweigh the effort you put into it.

A Critical Factor When Engaging New Staff

Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

The usual things that church leaderships look into when getting a new pastoral staff is his (or her) character, his beliefs vis-à-vis the doctrinal distinctives of the church, and the match between his giftings with the specific role to be filled. Let’s just call them Character, Convictions and Competencies. If these are rated at a good level, the new staff is engaged and then, thrusted upon the Pastor to manage. In some cases, over time, it becomes clear that the new staff cannot work with the Pastor. This could be due to a number of reasons, such as differences in vision and philosophy of ministry, and a fourth “C” element, Chemistry.

This must be avoided. A gifted staff who cannot “flow” with the Pastor is counterproductive.

To pre-empt this, it is critical that the candidate understands and accepts the church’s direction and way of doing ministry. Which, presupposes that the church leadership have already worked out, agreed on and are clear about where the church is going and how it’s going to get there. The potential staff’s recruitment is to help the church meet those goals, not to go cross grain to them. If he does not buy into it, it is suicidal to recruit him. A staff disaster is simply waiting to happen.

Furthermore (and this is hardly ever taken into consideration in most churches), since the vision and philosophy of ministry of the church are largely shaped and communicated by the Pastor, it follows that he should have the determining say in the recruitment of a team member. Another reason is because the Pastor is the primary person who will be relating, working and managing the new staff; not the church leaders. He must feel that he is able to work with the prospective staff and vice-versa.

This does not mean that the Pastor alone has the responsibility and authority to hire and fire. The input and opinions of the other leaders are equally important, but the Pastor should never be pushed to accept a candidate whom he views negatively. To force a staff on the Pastor will inevitably lead to poor staff relationships and poor ministry performances all round; and eventually a crisis in the church when things blow up.

If you are a Pastor, don’t take on a new pastoral staff out of desperation. You have to make sure that he (or she) is a good fit with your team, and with you in particular; that he is able to flow with you. If you are a church leader, don’t compel your Pastor to take on a person whom he has reservations. Finally, if you are a candidate for a pastoral staff position be very certain that you can flow with the Pastor’s vision and philosophy of ministry. If you can’t, then don’t accept the position even if it is offered to you. It will save everyone, including yourself, a lot of headache and heartache.

 

Preaching the Same Sermon Again (…and again)

Soon-Hock Lim 2 Comments

When I was pastoring a church I preached largely to the same people each Sunday. Obviously, it had to be a different sermon. That’s the challenge of a pastor: to bring a fresh message from the Word to the same faithfuls. The upside is that it keeps you studying and growing, besides stretching your creativity so that the faithful won’t find you boring.

Now that I am no longer a pastor of a church, I get to preach in different churches. The temptation for me is to choose my “better” sermons and recycle them. After all, as someone said, “If a sermon is not worth repeating, it is not worth preaching in the first place!” The downside is that it can make a preacher lazy; you don’t study as much anymore, so you don’t enlarge and grow. Furthermore, recycled sermons will not come out as fresh as when you first prepared and preached it to the original group.

I believe the same applies to seminars. Something that I am doing much more now than I used to when I was pastoring a church. Usually it will be a seminar from among my repertoire that you find listed in the website’s Seminar page (http://empoweringchurches.my/seminars/). But just as often I will be asked to do something that’s not in the list. My first reaction would be, “Oh boy, more work!” But, inevitably it will turn out to be better for everyone, including me.

It’s good for those at the receiving end because they get something fresh; not something that I just pull out from the files. It will be material that I have taken time to research and study, thought and worked through from almost ground zero. “Almost”, because I can only teach on areas that I am fairly well versed in; I will not teach on a subject that I have little understanding or experience.

Furthermore, as I am preparing to teach this new material I will inevitably be thinking of the people or the church, and the context of their experience. In other words, I tailor-make the content, structure and style of the seminar to them.

The bottom line for all of us preachers and teachers of the Word is that we need to keep ourselves spiritually fresh so that there is a freshness when we preach and teach, even if we might be reusing a sermon or seminar material. If a sermon or seminar doesn’t excite you anymore, even if has a proven track record, don’t preach or teach it. It won’t come-off in the same way—it won’t take off. We are short-changing the people who have come to listen to us.

If I were to repeat a sermon or seminar material I would rework it; throw out the not-so-useful stuff and add in new and better material. I would ask the Holy Spirit to tell me what I should emphasize for this particular group of people or church. I would try and tailor-make it for the people who have so graciously invited me to minister to them. Most of all I want to honour Jesus who called me to this awesome service!

Please Train Me

Soon-Hock Lim 4 Comments

Preaching takes place in all churches, as part of the weekly worship service. Additionally, most churches have programmes such as Bible Classes and special seminars to teach their members the Bible, doctrines of the Christian faith and principles of Christian living. However, not as many churches have regular programmes to train their members for Christian service. From what I have observed, “training” is one of the factors that marks out a church that is doing better from a church that is not doing so well.

EmpowermentPreaching, teaching and training have different functions. Preaching is largely to inspire; teaching is to instruct; training is to equip. Preaching is directed at the heart; teaching shapes the mind; training empowers the hands. All three are important. The church cannot stop at preaching and teaching; it cannot afford to neglect to train its members for ministry if it wants to develop the church and advance the Kingdom of God.

In many cases, members are enlisted but not empowered. Someone (anyone) is conscripted simply because there is a need to be met. He is not shown what to do and how to do the job. He is, very likely, not told why he has been asked to serve in a particular ministry, which is important to motivate him. This is unfortunately true for even such basic ministries like teaching in the Sunday School and leading a Cell Group. Training for “simple” jobs like greeting and ushering are usually glossed over. Inevitably, if none or inadequate training is provided, the workers will not be able to do a good job with passion and skill.

Preaching may inspire, but without the complementary training, members may know what they ought to do but they will not be empowered to do it. This often leads to guilt. For example, in the area of personal evangelism, sermons are often filled with exhortations to evangelise the lost; with Bible quotes, statistics and stories of the eternal destiny of unsaved loved ones. However, there is no follow-up to help the average Christian overcome his fear of sharing his faith, nor to empower him with tools for witnessing. He is not paired-up with a more experienced member for on-the-job training. And even before all that, to pray for him to be filled with the Spirit (Acts 1:8).

The pastor who does not equip his members ends up doing everything by himself. Sometimes it is the fault of the church. Tradition expects the pastor to do everything; preaching, counselling, visitation, intercession, printing the bulletin, and the list goes on. Sometimes it is the fault of the pastor himself; he wants to do all the ministry himself. He may focus on his strongest ministry like preaching or prophesying or ministering to people in prayer, but he does not train others to do these ministries.

Ephesians 4:11-12 makes it clear that the primary job of the apostle, prophet, evangelist and pastor-teacher is to equip God’s people for service. Does the evangelist preach the Gospel? Yes. But his primary job is to raise up more evangelists who can in turn reach more people with the Gospel. Does the pastor-teacher provide pastoral care and teaching? Yes. But his primary job is to multiply himself via the people in his church so that more can provide spiritual nurture. When this happens the capacity of the church increases and more can be reached and discipled.

Churches need to correct this bottle-neck syndrome; and training is a critical part of the solution. When the “specially gifted man of God” and the “ordinary people of God” carry out their respective Ephesian 4-prescribed roles the church will grow.

Preaching and Teaching are Not the Same Thing

Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

Preach the WordI believe that the failure to make a distinction between preaching and teaching is one of the key reasons for poor sermons. Sermons that are more teaching in content and style of presentation but attempt to pass off as preaching is a serious cause of disconnect between the preacher and the people in the congregation. The what and the why of preaching and teaching are different, and hence, when  a speaker employs them depends on whether he is preaching or teaching.

To understand the difference between the two we must first look at their respective purpose. The purpose of teaching is to help people understand the Bible and it’s truths; to help the listeners know about God and what He has said. Broadly speaking, teaching addresses the mind more than the heart. This does not mean that the teacher does not challenge his students to apply the Word into their lives. He does, and he must, as teaching of the Bible has to lead to life-change.

On the other hand, the purpose of preaching is to help people hear what the Word of God is saying to them now. It targets the heart; to inspire, challenge and cause the listeners to apply God’s Word in their lives—leading to life-change.

The sermon at a worship service is where preaching ought to take place. However, in many churches (across all denominations, but especially among conservative evangelical churches) teaching makes up the bulk of the sermon. Explanation is given by the preacher about how he had arrived at his interpretation. He may go into the original language, provide the historical context of the Bible text, take the listeners on a tour of the geography, give the different possible interpretations as he quotes this and that scholar, and refers to other Bible references to underscore his interpretation, but he never gets to the address the question, So what?

What? is what teaching focuses on. So what? is what preaching should focus on. It is the message of the passage; the big point of the sermon. It cannot be left to the last five minutes of the sermon; the preacher would have lost his listeners to the message because he had lost them with his elaborate explanation of the text. The message may be hinted at early in the sermon;  certainly it must be developed as the sermon is preached, with plenty of time for amplification and application after the thrust has been stated. For a sermon to have been effective, the listeners must go away knowing clearly what the message was about and be impacted by it.

Is teaching not important in a sermon? It certainly is—very important, because the message is based on the Bible. In other words, teaching must be the basis of the preaching; teaching must inform the preaching. However, in a sermon the teaching content cannot take a disproportionate amount of time. The preacher does not do his exegesis at the pulpit; he does that in his study. At the pulpit he preaches the message that he has distilled from his study, having sought the Lord in prayer, and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The pulpit at the weekly worship service is not the place to do teaching (I should qualify that with the word “elaborate”). Bible classes and special seminars are the places where more in-depth Bible teaching happens. And that, we must have in our churches. Christians must be know the Word of God; they must be taught the Bible. But not through the sermon at the weekly worship service (don’t take this sentence out of context!). The purpose of preaching is to bring a message from the Lord based on the Word of God to the listeners that they need to hear now.