Author: Soon-Hock Lim

Engaging Retired Pastors as Interims

Soon-Hock Lim 6 Comments

by Lim Soon Hock

One of the resources that is not tapped by the Malaysian church is the pool of retired pastors. Many of them often end up in an itinerant ministry that is generally limited to preaching at worship services. Their knowledge and experience of leading and pastoring a church remain largely unutilised. Could they be better engaged? I believe they can—as interim pastors.

Benefits of Engaging a Retired Pastor as an Interim

1. General pastoral ministry.  A church will greatly benefit from the services of a retired pastor as an interim. The first and most obvious benefit is that the church has someone who is able to handle much of the ministry that had been carried out by the former pastor. These include organising the pulpit programme and preaching; coordinating the ministries of the church; visitation and counselling; and assisting the leaders to provide leadership for the church.

2. Specific and intentional ministry.  Indeed, the interim can do more. Apart from the traditional pastoral services, the interim may also be tasked to address certain issues affecting the church, such as conflicts. Perhaps, it was precisely this reason that the former pastor left the church. Understanding, healing, closure, and restoring unity would then be absolutely necessary if the church were to move on without being shackled by the trauma.

Another area an interim might specially be entrusted to do is to implement and manage change in the church, such as reorganising the ministries of the church. Each ministry may be operating in its own silo, and the ministry of the church as a whole has become unwieldly and ineffective. Aligning the ministries to the purpose and vision of the church would be necessary to unite the church, and forging the different ministries to work in collaboration with one another would enhance the church’s effectiveness.

The interim’s role in this regard, then, is not simply to keep the church going from Sunday to Sunday—a maintenance-type ministry. Rather, his role is intentional—to help the church progress during a period of transition. The expected outcome is that the next tenured minister has a healthier church to pastor, and perhaps, one that is poised for greater things.

I am certain that a church will benefit from the ministry of an interim. Conversely, the retired pastor will also benefit from his new role as an interim.

Benefits to a Retired Pastor Engaged in Interim Ministry

1. Sense of purpose.  Many pastors become anxious when they approach retirement age primarily due to two reasons. The first has to do with their life-purpose. Being a pastor of a church is a defining-identity for most pastors, especially if they have been at it for a long time. When a pastor stops being a pastor, he starts to question the purpose of his life. Even the occasional itinerant preaching ministry will not give him a great deal of fulfilment.

However, if he were engaged as an interim, whether full-time or part-time, the service, the ministry, the work, and the new relationships will give him a sense of purpose, usefulness and fulfilment. He is still able to use his gifts, knowledge and experience to serve the Lord and His church. The new role might indeed invigorate him because it’s a little different from his previous responsibility as the pastor of a church.

2. Financial security and dignity.  The second reason a pastor might be anxious as he approaches retirement has to do with finances. Most churches in Malaysia don’t provide any kind of financial support for their pastors when they retire. How then would he support himself? This is a real-world concern (notwithstanding the faithfulness of the Lord to provide for His servant). Living off one’s savings and EPF1 contributions can last only so long. Honorariums from speaking engagements in Malaysian churches are not, generally speaking, generous.

A definite monthly income as an interim will cushion the drastic change in his financial position. A regular income will give him a sense of financial security and dignity.

3. Limited duration of engagement.  Further benefits to the interim minister include the limited duration of his commitment to the church. A pastor in his senior years may no longer want to be engaged for an indefinite period of service. A six to 24 months stint to help a church might be ideal. At the end of the engagement he can assess whether he wants to continue in the interim ministry in another church.

4. Limited hours of service.   A pastor in his senior years may also not want a full-time job. A part-time engagement as an interim might indeed be ideal for both him and the church. He is able to find purpose for his life and ministry, and at the same time be assured of some financial support. On the other hand, a church may not have the finances to support a full-time interim; and yet if they engage an interim in a part-time capacity they can still benefit from his pastoral maturity and experience.

I truly believe that empowering the retired-pastor as an interim is a good move in the right direction for the Malaysian church. Regardless of language group or denominational make-up, pursuing the understanding and practice of the interim ministry will bring great benefits to both the church and the pastor.

(You may want to read a previous article, “Some Churches in Malaysia May Need Interim Pastors.” Click here.)

A Call to the Church in Malaysia to be a Peacemaker (Part 2)

Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

by Lim Soon Hock

A critical book review of Peter Rowan’s Proclaiming the Peacemaker: Malaysian Church as an Agent of Reconciliation in a Multicultural Society (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2012).

Click her for Part 1

  1. The Malaysian Church and the Theology of Reconciliation

From a survey among Malaysian Christians, the author concludes that while the respondents see peace-building as part of the church’s mission, there is, however, a gap between belief and practice.2 Empirical evidence from the reviewer’s observation bear out the foregoing.

Malaysian Christian national leaders,3 pastors, and church leaders are yet to have a handle on a theology of reconciliation, much less ordinary Malaysian Christians.

Moreover, living out the implications of the biblical expectation is challenging because of the demand of the Malay-Muslim majority to keep Islam dominant in Malaysia. Rowan is aware that Muslims in Malaysia consider Islam to be above other religions.4 For example, Islam is not part of the MCCBCHST.5 Discussions addressing common issues affecting religious sensitivities are not held on equal footing, often prejudiced against non-Muslim religions, and dialogues are not encouraged by some Muslim clerics.6

One of Rowan’s seven key themes for missiological reflection7 is “interfaith co-operation.”8 Living Lee calls for dialogues.9 However, it does not appear that CFM10 or its component bodies have used MCCBCHST as a platform to pursue peacemaking.11

In fact, the other religions perceive Christians to be divisive rather than reconciliatory because of the latter’s evangelistic efforts to convert adherents from other faiths.12 On the flip-side, Malaysian Christians are suspicious of other religions.13

Indeed, reconciliation should begin within the church. Rowan’s second theme is “multiracial congregations.”14 The author advocates for a multi-ethnic expression of the church.15 The reality in the Malaysian church is that congregations are defined by language and ethnicity.

The author seems to imply that the foregoing reality is due to church planting strategies.16 While it may be so, the strategies are likely to be influenced by two other significant factors that are peculiar to Malaysia.

One, the diversity in the language of preference for worship, teaching, and communication in the church. Two, the impact of ethnic separation in Malaysian society on the church. If the latter is to promote a theology of reconciliation in the public square, it has to first practise it within the church.

  1. The Identity of Malaysian Church and the Willingness to Suffer

Rowan hinges his thesis on the Malaysian Christian’s perception of his or her identity.17 The author understands that Malaysian Christians generally do not have a kingdom identity nor a Malaysian identity;18 rather, they lean toward a Western-Christian identity.19

The reviewer contends that the influence of a Western-shaped Christianity is inevitable since it was missionaries from the West who planted the first churches for most, if not all, denominations (including the vernacular churches).

Second, churches in Malaysia are shaped by teaching from the more developed Western church. Malaysian theologians, teachers, and pastors are yet to provide a distinctive Malaysian-shaped Christianity.20

For there to be a Malaysian Christian identity there must first be a definitive Malaysian identity. However, there isn’t one—a bangsa Malaysia.21 Hence, the former is a difficult task to prescribe.

A second challenge stems from the multi-ethnic composition of the national Malaysian church. Rowan writes that Christian identity is inseparable from who we are in our cultures and societies. That is, kingdom identity should not make us culturally less Chinese or Indian.22

The qualifier for kingdom identity must also be a qualifier for a Malaysian Christian identity.  That is, having a Malaysian Christian identity should not make an Iban Christian any less Iban, or a Kadazan Christian any less Kadazan.  The concept of a Malaysian Christian identity that does not take away anything of an individual’s ethnic particularities needs to be explored.23

The author cites Hwa Yung who describes Malaysian Christians as having “no clear sense of who they are in Christ,”25

However, the lack of boldness among Malaysian Christians is not because they do not have kingdom identity, rather it is because they fear the consequence of thus living out their identity in a Malay-Muslim dominant country that has shown significant hostility towards the church. Rowan quotes Lim Kar Yong that Malaysian Christians are not prepared to suffer for the sake of the kingdom of God and the gospel.26 The foregoing is evident from emigration statistics.27 There are few like Pastor Raymond Koh who are willing to pay the price for a mission of reconciliation.

Conclusion

Rowan’s Proclaiming the Peacemaker is an important read for all Malaysian Christians, especially pastors and church leaders. The theme of reconciliation and peacemaking as kingdom agenda that is inseparable from the gospel needs to be understood by all Christians.

However, it needs to go further—beyond the theological level.  The implications and the applications have to carefully worked out and fleshed out so that Malaysian Christians (and churches) know how to live and act as peacemakers in a multi-ethnic and fragmented Malaysia.

A Call to the Church in Malaysia to be a Peacemaker (Part 1)

Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

by Lim Soon Hock

A critical book review of Peter Rowan’s Proclaiming the Peacemaker: Malaysian Church as an Agent of Reconciliation in a Multicultural Society (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2012).

The book review was an assignment for a course on Christian Theology, Culture and Church which I did as part of my DMin studies in 2022. Please forgive me for the academic style in which it is written. I hope reading my review will whet your appetite to read the book yourself.

Thesis of the Book

Proclaiming the Peacemaker is about the church’s mission to proclaim Jesus as the Peacemaker and to act as an agent of reconciliation.28

It includes both vertical reconciliation with God and horizontal reconciliation with people29 (and ultimately with all things).30

The church’s effectiveness to fulfil the mission is predicated on its self-identity31 and readiness to suffer.32 Rowan’s thesis is discussed in the context of the multicultural but divided society of Malaysia.33 The author has a personal interest in the subject because of his life-experience in Northern Ireland where society is deeply divided.34

Secondly, he had lived and worked in Malaysia for about ten years as a seminarian, and had seen the relevance of the subject for Malaysia.35

Critical Review of Issues Raised in the Book

  1. The Theology of Mission and Reconciliation

In Chapter 1, the author concludes that reconciliation is a central theme in the New Testament36 that has both vertical and horizontal dimensions; with God and man respectively.37 He contends that theologians and missiologists have tended to emphasise on the former but failed to explore the latter.38

He explicates the foregoing with relevant Scripture,39 especially, from the Pauline epistles.40 His study of terms, such as “peace,” “forgiveness,” and “salvation,” further underscores their connectedness with “reconciliation.”41

Rowan states that reconciliation with God must necessarily mean reconciliation with people.42 His point is supported by public theologians, such as Paul S. Chung.43

Reconciliation, then, is first, vertically with God, and second, horizontally with His people.  In Ephesians 2:14-18, Paul teaches that peace between Jewish and Gentile believers is only made possible because what used to be two peoples have become one new man in Christ.44 Hence, while peacemaking by Christians with non-Christians may be attempted, it may not, however, be easily achieved; simply because the primary vertical reconciliation with God is missing in one party.

The author, quoting Howard Marshall, is aware of the difficulty.45 Marshall’s answer is for Christians to acknowledge their shortcomings in promoting reconciliation, to repent of their hostile attitudes and actions toward others, to speak out against revenge, to know that they have the gospel of peace that the world needs, and to know that there are non-Christians who value reconciliation.46

Nonetheless, the reviewer maintains that in the context of Malaysia’s cultural diversity and dominance of Islam, the pursuit of reconciliation without compromising the gospel is challenging.

Click here for Part 2

Some Churches in Malaysia Need Interim Pastors

Soon-Hock Lim 9 Comments

by Lim Soon Hock

The interim pastor or minister is a very much studied and well-developed practice in Western churches. Not so in Malaysia, and I suspect, in Asia. In my 40 odd years of church ministry I have not heard it being mentioned. When I started to research on the topic I was, however, surprised to find a dissertation on the internet by a Malaysian pastor on the interim ministry.47

By its simplest definition, an interim pastor is a minister who is engaged by a church after the departure of its previous pastor and before a new pastor arrives.48 By definition, the period of engagement of an interim is short—usually a year to two. His (or her) role is also defined by the place he stands in the timeline between two tenured pastors—to transit the church from the ministry and leadership of one pastor to the next.

Why Malaysian Churches Don’t Engage Interims

With the above understanding about the interim minister, let’s go back to the question, why isn’t it practised among Malaysian churches? The first and most obvious reason is because they don’t know that there is such a thing as an interim pastor. Engaging an interim would not have crossed their minds. They don’t know they need one and they don’t know what to look for.

Secondly, many evangelical churches in Malaysia, more so among the non-denominational type, are not heavily dependent on a full-time pastor or a Senior Pastor to lead the church. The group of lay-leaders can capably (albeit with the constraints of time) minister and lead the church.49

Thirdly, churches don’t perceive the transition period between tenured pastors as an opportunity to work on critical issues facing the church. The sad truth, from my personal experience and observation, is that most churches don’t believe they have any serious issues. If they do, they don’t want to deal with them. Much less, to engage someone from the outside to guide it through the process.

When Malaysian Churches Should Engage Interims

It would be right to say that not all churches going through a transition between two tenured pastors need to engage an interim for the intervening period. For example, when the succeeding pastor has already been identified, lay-leaders are able to carry out pastoral functions, there aren’t any issues that the church cannot effectively resolve itself, and the church is generally quite healthy and united.

However, many churches are far from that ideal condition. When such a church is without a pastor for a long or indefinite period it usually leads to a worsening of its condition. One answer is to engage an interim pastor to help the church through at least two basic issues.

One, to address any effects from the departure of the former pastor. The former pastor could very well be a beloved pastor whose departure is not due to any negative reason, but simply because he is retiring from full-time pastoral ministry. Nonetheless, the church might be experiencing grief as a result of the pastor’s retirement and/or anxiety about the future of the church.

If the departure of the former pastor is due to some issue like sin, conflict, or poor performance, there will be an even greater need for an interim. In such cases, the latter is needed to help the church deal with the residual effects of the former pastor’s departure, including the reason for and the way his tenure had been terminated. The goal of the interim is to bring healing and closure for the church.

Secondly, if a church has had a difficult experience arising from the departure of its former pastor, it may be ill-prepared to look for the next pastor. And I add, who is a right fit for the church. In another instance, a church might have been searching for a pastor for a long time, but without success. An interim can fill the ministry and leadership gap while guiding the church to search for and prepare it to receive its new pastor.

In an era when there is a short supply of full-time pastors, an interim might also be instrumental to raise up a full-time or bi-vocational pastor from within the church.

The above points are just two of the most basic reasons why and when a church needs to engage an interim pastor. We will look at other critical reasons in subsequent articles as we discuss the unique role of an intentional interim. I believe many churches in Malaysia could do with the services of a trained intentional interim and greatly benefit from his (or her) ministry.

(Go to the next article on the interim pastor: “Engaging Retired Pastors as Interims.”)

Who Leads the Church?

Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

Of course, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church leads the church. That’s not the issue. The issue is, who is or are the Lord’s appointees to lead a local church? That is one of the most common problems that have led to conflicts and disunity in churches.

Is it the pastor? The chairman? The Board (Council, Committee)? The Eldership? They are all legitimate possibilities. I am certain that the New Testament does not provide us with a blueprint for a Presbyterian, Episcopalian or Congregational church polity. What it does give us are some broad strokes of church leadership, especially the character, qualifications, roles, and functions of church leaders (1 Tim 3:1-13, 1 Pet 1:1-5). Guided by a biblical framework each church has the legitimacy to develop its own form of church governance.

Many books have been written and many scholarly discussions have contributed to the debate over church polity, and by extension, church structure. It is not my intention to revisit the arguments. From the broad strokes provided by the Bible, and especially the New Testament, I intend to argue for, one, team leadership, and two, “all things being equal”, for the pastor to lead the leadership team; and then, together they lead the church.

Team Leadership

“Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely,” is a sad fact; even in the church. Regardless of who is in charge. If too much power is coalesced in one person, the dangers of such abuse of power is very real. The leadership of the church should always be in the hands of a team of leaders with equal leadership authority.  Nobody gets veto rights. Decisions are made collectively after careful deliberation and much prayer (not necessarily in that order). Plurality of leadership should be the order of the day.

The New Testament is clear about the plurality of leaders. Paul instructed Titus to appoint “elders in every town” in Crete (Tit 1:5). Similarly, on their return leg of their first missionary journey, Barnabas and Paul “appointed elders for them in each church” in the cities of Lystra, Iconium and Antioch (Acts 14:21-23).

Church polity and structure differ from denomination to denomination, and from church to church. While there is no one-size-fits-all, there are however, good, better and terrible structures that either enhance or hinder the life and ministry of the church. Some church structures are so complicated that they literally smother the church; all in the name of “check and balance”.

There is no perfect system. In the end it boils down to the human factor. The spirituality, maturity, wisdom, and capability of the appointed church leaders is critical. And if they are the best men and women in the church, based on the foregoing criteria, then they must also be given the mandate to lead the church. While there are no guarantees, the church must trust the plurality of leaders to provide their own “check and balance”.

Team Leader

If having the leadership of the church vested in one person is wrong and dangerous, it is also just as wrong, and a reflection of poor leadership, to have a leadership team without a team leader. I believe that “all things being equal” the pastor should lead the leadership team.

By “all things being equal” I mean that the pastor is just as capable, mature, spiritual, knows his Bible, and has leadership qualities as any of the other leaders in the church. If the pastor isn’t, relative to one or more of the other leaders, then, it is possible that another elder who is more qualified be appointed as the team leader.

There are good reasons for the pastor to lead the leadership team. First, the time factor. The typical pastor serves full-time. He (or she) is thus able to dedicate time to think, pray, and work through the issues of the church. Second, he has received formal training for the ministry. Third, because he is full-time, he is able carve out time to read, attend seminars, and avail himself for continual training so that he can further develop his shepherding and leadership skills. And fourth, his interaction with pastors of other churches allows him to learn from fellow-practitioners.

As I pointed out above, there is no full-proof system. However, based on the above reasons I believe the pastor makes the most suitable team leader for the leadership team and the church.

The Dynamics of a Group Bible Study Discussion

Soon-Hock Lim Leave a comment

Elsewhere I have written that a small group Bible study is best conducted through discussion, and the role of the study leader is not as a teacher but a facilitator (see here). It may be helpful to understand how a discussion works by visualising the dynamics at play in a small study group.50

Teaching

Let me begin by contrasting a teaching situation and a small group discussion. In the classic teaching set-up, the students sit in rows; everyone faces forward and looks at the teacher. They don’t see each other’s faces, only the teacher’s.

The “conversation” is primarily one-directional and a monologue—from teacher to students. The students may raise questions, but only the teacher is expected to give the answers. The teacher is the primary (and often, the only) source of learning for the group.

Discussion

A discussion is depicted diagrammatically (and literally) with all the participants sitting in a circle. The study leader is part of the circle. Sitting in a circle allows everyone to see each other, look into each other’s eyes, observe expressions, engage, and relate with one another.

It is not a good idea to have more than one layer of people. No one should be sitting behind another person. Everyone should be able to have eye-contact with every person in the group.

This is especially necessary for the leader who uses eye-contact to convey connection and attention as well as understanding and acceptance to the other participants. More than that, when he (or she) is able to see everyone’s face he is able to read their body language. Are they lost, bored, engaged, or ready for an opportunity to contribute to the conversation?

In a discussion, the study leader leads and facilitates the dialogue (depicted by the solid lines). However, the goal is to get everyone to participate and contribute to the discussion (depicted by the dotted lines).

What is important to note is that the lines of communication are not just between the leader and the others, but also between the members of the group. If the conversation were just between the leader and each member, then the dynamics would be a “quiz”. The leader asks a question and someone responds. Then, back to the leader who follows up with a comment and/or another question. The cycle is then repeated. In this case, the leader is not functioning as a facilitator but a quiz master. However, a discussion, by definition, is only assumed to have taken place if members of the group interact with one another. One of the key jobs of the study leader then is to facilitate this interaction between members.

Discussions are Tailored-Made for Cell Groups

Preaching, teaching, and discussion have their particular usefulness. All these means of learning should be employed in the church. Which method is used, however, depends on one, the purpose of the engagement and two, the setting of the learning environment. I won’t repeat what I have written elsewhere (see here).

In the context of a small group or cell group, I believe the primary means of learning should be through discussion—not preaching or teaching. Churches would do well to train all who are tasked with the job of leading the cell group Bible study to ably facilitate good discussions. Discussions that are interesting and engaging. Discussions that help members discover and uncover what the Bible says about the subject under study. And discussions that provoke personal reflection and encourage life application.

The Critical Point when Facilitating a Group Bible Study Discussion

Soon-Hock Lim 2 Comments

In my previous blog post I explained why conducting Bible study through small group discussion is a good thing (see here). For one, it fosters active learning. Secondly, it has the advantages of group learning. And thirdly, it is more interesting than listening to a monologue.

The Role of the Study Leader

The role of the study leader then, is not that of a preacher or teacher, but a facilitator. He or she facilitates a discussion around (or about) the topic (or Bible text). But it is not a conversation that just goes around in circles. A discussion has progression (or direction) that ultimately leads to a clear outcome (or conclusion).

In this regard, the study leader steers the conversation around the topic. He guides the members to make contributions that are relevant to the focus of the study. If the discussion goes awry, the leader brings it back on track. If the discussion gets stuck, he moves it along. If a member of the group isn’t contributing to the conversation, he encourages him or her to participate. If someone is hogging the conversation, he tactfully gets others to share. At the end of the study, he brings the discussion to a close with a clear conclusion; including a take home point from the study.

The Method of the Study Leader

The study leader has many tools at his disposal to accomplish the above. It bears repeating that the leader’s job is not to preach or teach; his job is to facilitate a group discussion. As the group does this, they discover together; the meaning of a Bible text or what the Bible has to say about a certain topic. To aid the group in the process of discovery and to enable the facilitator to carry out his role, one of the most important tools the leader uses are questions.

Questions to help the members study the Bible text; questions of observation, interpretation, and application. Questions to move the conversation along. Questions to get a member to clarify his point or expand on what he said. And questions to get the group to think more deeply about a certain point.

The study leader is often temped to answer his own questions, especially when the group is slow to respond. But he must strongly resist! It wouldn’t be a discussion if the leader were to pose a question only to supply the answer himself. This does not mean that the leader does not come prepared with answers. He does. But he only shares it when it’s necessary to do so or by way of rounding off a segment of the discussion and as a conclusion to the study.

Question Techniques

Here are some dos and don’ts for discussion leaders regarding asking questions:

  1. Avoid questions that assume an answer.
  2. Avoid questions that can be answered with a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.
  3. Avoid questions that are too simple.
  4. Ask one question at a time. Ensure that the question is clear and focused on one specific item.
  5. Don’t be afraid of some silence. Resist answering your own questions too quickly.
  6. Ask questions, then direct them.
  7. Answer questions coming from the group with another question.
  8. Redirect questions.
  9. If questions come in a rush, sort them out and deal with them individually.
  10. Respond to wrong and irrelevant questions tactfully.
  11. Respond to difficult questions or questions asked at a wrong time by deferring them.
  12. Keep the discussion going by:
      • Asking for further responses from others.
      • Follow up on responses with another question.
      • Look out for members who show signs of wanting to say something, especially if they are usually quiet, and give them an opportunity to contribute to the discussion.

Bottom line: The group Bible study leader facilitates a discussion by asking good and relevant questions.

You may want to read my article “The Dynamics of a Group Bible Study Discussion.“

Same Word, Different Ways

Soon-Hock Lim 2 Comments

Christians grow in the Word through four primary ways: sermons, Bible classes, small group discussion, and personal study (including daily devotional reading). They are all important, and none should be neglected.

They have the same ultimate objective – a believer’s growth in the Word (understanding) and through the Word (transformation). However, they don’t do it in the same way. The failure to distinguish them is one of the main reasons why sermons or small group Bible studies don’t impact people as much as they could.

The Sermon

For example, the main purpose of a sermon is not about piling onto the listeners loads of biblical knowledge. Growth in Bible knowledge is more in line with teaching. This is not to say that a sermon has no teaching content. A sermon cannot qualify as a sermon if it is not biblically sound. A sermon must be based on teaching (biblical teaching); but a sermon is not teaching. The purpose of a sermon is to convey God’s message from the Bible. It is a word from God from the Word of God—a message from the passage. The purpose of a sermon is to speak into lives; to encourage, inspire, and correct; leading to life transformation (2 Tim 3:16-17).

If that is the case, then preachers should not pack their sermons with loads of teaching material filled with multiple points and sub-points. To those who do, they should teach less and preach more. Conversely, preachers who tend to preach a point rather than from the biblical text, should make sure that their sermons are based on and derived from the biblical text; preferably from one main passage of the Bible.

Another mark that differentiates preaching from other forms of Bible learning is that a sermon does not allow for much, if any, “conversation” between the preacher and the listeners. This is simply because the nature of a sermon is proclamation rather than dialogue. Secondly, the setting of speaking to a crowd limits any kind of actual dialogue between preacher and listener.51

The Bible Study Discussion

On the other hand, the small group Bible study functions in the opposite way. The study leader is not a preacher; not even a teacher. The role of the study leader is to facilitate a discussion where all the members of the group are encouraged to contribute. The operative word is “discussion”.

There are many good reasons for the use small group discussion to study the Bible.

  1. A discussion is active learning through participation. Listening to sermons and Bible teaching are passive forms of learning. It is well documented that people learn better through active participation rather than passive listening.
  2. In a discussion people are made to carefully think, or closely observe the Bible text before they respond. Similarly, they have to intently listen to what the others in the group are saying in order to meaningfully participate in the conversation.
  3. A discussion affords group learning as the members weigh each one’s contribution to the discussion.
  4. A discussion is more interesting than listening to a monologue. This is especially true if the Bible study leader, say, for a particular cell group meeting, is not a gifted teacher.52 In a discussion, however, regardless of the leader’s level of gifting as a teacher, everyone is invited to participate. It inevitably creates more interest. For example, a view may be shared, which may be affirmed, refuted or refined by others. All this leads to a vibrant group conversation.

I believe most people are able to lead a discussion. Training on how to conduct a group Bible study discussion will certainly help. Following some key pointers on how to conduct a discussion is sufficient for anyone to comfortably lead a discussion. I will write more on this in my next blog post.

You may want to read my article “The Critical Point when Facilitating a Bible Study Discussion.”

Is Your Sermon Predictable?

Soon-Hock Lim 14 Comments

What is a Predictable Sermon?

Predictability is foreseeing an expected outcome. In the case of a sermon, it becomes predictable when listeners can generally foresee what the preacher is going to say. It may be due to the sermon’s obvious content. Or it may be because the sermon is not only about a well-known Bible subject or text, it is also approached in a rather usual or common way. Or it may be because the preacher has already disclosed the sermon’s main point or points very early in his presentation. All the above scenarios make the sermon predictable.

An example of a predictable sermon comes from the fairly common sermon structure that goes like this:

  • Introduction: Tell the listeners what you are going to say
  • Body: Tell them in a more detailed way what you told them you are going to say (elaboration)
  • Conclusion: Tell them what you just said (summary)

The above structure might be good for teaching—but not for preaching. In the main, teaching is to provide information and understanding about a biblical subject or text. Hence, the above structure is useful to give clarity to the student about what is going to be taught, what is being taught, and what has been taught. This is not to say that preaching does not provide understanding about a biblical subject or text, but the understanding is meant to inspire, encourage, challenge, and change the listener. A sermon must engage both the mind and heart of the listener. Thus, creating and maintaining the interest of the listener is critical.

What’s the Problem with a Predictable Sermon?

The problem with a predictable sermon is that it takes away the listeners’ sense of anticipation for what the preacher has to say (because they already know what he’s going to say). There isn’t a “wait for it…,” intrigue, or a surprise element. When there is little or no sense of anticipation, there will be little or no interest to listen to the sermon.

If a listener is quite well acquainted with the subject matter or has little or no immediate interest in the subject matter, the preacher would have already lost him by the end of the introduction. It is likely that the listener will only wake up when the preacher tells a story, gives an illustration, or cracks a joke! The sermon as a whole does not hold the listener’s attention (that is, interest) because he (or she) is not given any reason to listen with any sense of anticipation.

I believe it is important for every preacher to ask, as he (or she) prepares his sermon, if what he’s going to say next in the flow of his sermon, predictable?

How to Break Predictability in the Sermon?

If predictability is unhelpful to create and maintain listener-interest, then, a preacher must find ways to move away or break the listener’s sense of sermon-predictability. A good starting point is to stop using the sermon structure cited at the beginning of this article. Instead develop sermon structures that do not give away the main thrust of the sermon (namely, the message) until much later. That is to say, there is a “wait for it” element in the movement of the sermon. Some teachers of homiletics have called this movement, “tension and resolution.”

It can be easily seen that predictability is broken and interest is created when a sermon contains a tension to be resolved, a mystery to be uncovered, or a question to be answered. To maintain listener-interest, the resolution should not come too soon. The first part of the sermon should be given toward building up the tension. And the later part of the sermon, to the resolution of the tension. It is even possible to have the resolution right at the end—as the key message of the sermon.

To be sure, the tension, the mystery, the question nor the resolution are plucked from the air; they arise from the Bible text that the preacher is speaking from. In other words, Bible-centred preaching is not compromised in any way.

I believe that if a preacher wants to create and maintain listener-interest, his sermon cannot afford to be predictable. His sermon structure and presentation must be such that it causes his listeners to lean in with an anticipation of discovery.