City to City Blog

Decentralized Preaching

21 May 2012 by Al Barth

In North America, we have an unhealthy fascination with celebrity preachers. Building a church (or a movement) around a celebrity pastor/preacher has inherent dangers and gives rise to certain problems. Let me list a few:

1. Celebrity pastors/preachers de facto become unaccountable even if they voluntarily submit themselves to a group of brothers. In the worst cases they become uncontrollable. As long as the man is humble, and remains humble, it can work. But the temptations to lose humility are almost irresistible.

2. A steady diet of one man’s preaching, one man’s perspectives on and means of approaching and applying the text, even if it is excellent, is unhealthy. Eating steak at every meal may sound good at first. But after just a few days of beef at every turn, you start to feel sick (that’s right vegans!).

3. Reliance upon one preacher, even in the best cases, inevitably tends to promote the man rather than the message. Oddly, the Word itself can become less the focus than the one doing the exposition of the Word or the particular way the Word is exposited.

Several years ago, when I first encountered the approach to preaching at a prominent church in London (a church, by the way, known across Great Britain for exemplary word ministry), I was fascinated. Rather than having one dominant preacher, they had four men that equally shared the responsibilities of the pulpit. At that time each of the four would prepare a sermon series that they would then proceed to preach at the various services of the church—Sunday mornings, then Sunday evenings, then Tuesdays at lunch and then Thursdays at lunch, each in his turn, using each sermon at least four times. The other day when I was talking about it with the Rector of the church, I called the approach “platooning”. He chuckled and said, “Leave it to you Americans. You have a unique ability to come up with a name for everything.”

The beauty of the system was that, while one of the four was (and is) the Rector (and definitely the leader), the system diminished the focus on personality while elevating the centrality of the word itself. People in the congregation were sure that no matter who was preaching they would hear good exposition of the word at every meeting of the church. They didn’t come to hear one or another of the particular men; they came to hear the Word. Their interaction was not so much with what the man said as with what the Word said.

We make a grave mistake when we focus on the preacher rather than what is being preached. And that is what I fear we are doing in the States. The church is weaker for it. Nowhere in the New Testament do we see the phenomenon of a preacher/pastor being exalted as we do in North America. The only place there is a hint of it is in 1 Corinthians 1 & 3 where Paul decries the tendency of people to rally around cults of personality: "One of you says, 'I follow Paul'; another, 'I follow Apollos'; another, 'I follow Cephas.'" It is the first (and arguably since it is the first, the most grievous) error Paul addresses in the letter. It is the message of the cross that is important, not the messengers and how cleverly they use words. There is always shared leadership and shared Word ministry. In Paul’s ministry the “preachers,” members of the apostolic team, seem almost interchangeable. It almost didn’t seem to matter who took charge of a given church or for how long. It was the centrality of the Word to the ministry of the church that was important, not the one bringing it.

In our case, Tim Keller has been one of the greatest strengths of Redeemer as a church. But in an odd way his very strength as a preacher creates a weakness. (Currently Redeemer is transitioning to a collegiate model with three lead pastors for three different locations, partly to address this.) It is a strange thing to figure out how to use to the maximum benefit the most gifted leaders the Church has today—more accessible to the masses than ever via the Internet—and yet not deform the local church, a place to be known and discipled in community, in the process.

In no way do I want to limit the ministry of the best and brightest men we have available for gospel ministry today. Please don’t hear me saying that. But I do think that in most "normal" churches and church plants, it is wise to have more than one regular preacher and deliberately to raise up cadres of preachers and teachers that can rightly handle the Word in all situations where it should be proclaimed.

Comments
07 Jun 2012

by mcolflesh

Team approach to preaching - so much healthier for the listener AND the preachers!

07 Jun 2012

by cotcsm

Al, Could you provide some additional resources that discuss "platooning"? Thanks for the article.

07 Jun 2012

by dclaire

Al, Thanks for the article. This has been our approach since we first planted Church of the Resurrection on Capitol Hill in DC, and I continue to prefer it. We currently have 3 preachers on rotation at Rez, and while I serve as Rector, I do not have more air time than the other two. In addition to the benefits you mentioned, I'll also note: -People come to Rez with more of an expectation of meeting Christ in worship, rather than coming to hear Brother So-and-so "bring the message." -The flexibility from Sunday to Sunday allows our pastoral staff to serve in other church plants meeting simultaneously. -As pastors, we learn a lot from one another as we work together through the Scriptures. On the other hand, there are a few disadvantages: -Series continuity is sometimes more difficult, depending upon individual preaching styles and abilities. -Some preachers prefer to build momentum through a weekly series. (We have addressed this by doing 4-week blocks with individual preachers from time to time.) In our experience over the past 8 years, the advantages have far outweighed the disadvantages. Dan Claire

08 Jun 2012

by arevans74

Thanks for this Al, I think it's very insightful. Having read a book in which a pastor said he learned from being ill that he needed to video his sermons so that they could be played if he was ever sick I realised that the right answer to this problem is to train more preachers! But how will those preachers ever be good if we don't let them preach? At Christ Church we try to have at least 4 regular preachers and 5 or 6 other men in the church who are "in development" - preaching occasionally at CCL and encouraged to take preaching opportunities elsewhere as well. One thing you don't mention, which I think is important, is that however gifted a preacher is he will not appeal to everyone - different people just like different things. So a variety of preachers also broadens the general appeal of the church gathering to different types of people, which is an importnat part of what it means to be a church! Andrew Evans Christ Church Liverpool www.andysstudy.org

08 Jun 2012

by Charles Lee

This team approach is exactly what Peninsula Bible Church, Palo Alto, California (www.pbc.org) has been doing for many years, at least since the late 1970's. An advantage to this approach that was not mentioned in the article is that this gives the preacher more time to prepare since they don't have to preach many weeks in a row. Let's say they have three preachers who rotate preaching a month each and than two months off. This means the pastor can have a whole two months to prepare one month's worth of sermons. During the Sundays they don't preach, they can be involved more in other aspects of the Sunday ministries, thus helping them keep connected with their congregation, many who may only go to church on Sunday.

08 Jun 2012

by timlyg

More than 1 pastor is definitely good, better. The problem is people will often go listen to sermons of the "Best" ones. I think it is good not to deny them this right. Meanwhile it is a good challenge, not for preachers to compete with each other, but to improve amongst themselves, after all Christians are to be improving everyday. As for 1 Corinthians 1, I have often thought the most grievous one is the last "I follow Christ". Not in the sense that following Christ is as problematic as following an imperfect human being, but to put it in the context of Paul's letter, saying "I follow Christ" is just as bad as saying "You don't follow Christ, because you say you follow Tim Keller, etc.".

08 Jun 2012

by arnyk

Two big reasons for rotating preaching through every staff member who can reasonably do so: (1) Preacher fatigue (2) Congregation fatigue

08 Jun 2012

by daveains

Thanks for this article. Our church has practiced this since starting a couple years ago, but we are the only church we know who rotates regularly. We often feel like weirdos, but it has served us really well. I recommend it. Here's our story: We have four pastors - one is the lead staff, three are bi-vocational. Because we wanted to be a church-planting church, we didn't want our people to become too attached to one preacher. If there arose an opportunity to plant a church in another place, we didn't want members to be hesitant to move because they weren't familiar with a certain pastor or too dependent on the lead. By rotating preaching responsibilities, I believe our church is better prepared for church multiplication and planting. So, the staff pastor preaches at most 4 Sundays in a row, often less. We plan a couple months ahead of time so that bi-vocational pastors can prepare ahead of time. We're in conversation regularly, so one pastor can "set up" the other well. Other churches regularly ask us about momentum, consistency, etc. We've found that it supports momentum and consistency in all the right ways -- we preach the same story, the same truths, the same vision from many different perspectives. It probably does slow our individual progress in preaching. Isn't it Tim Keller that says you have to preach 3000 times before you're any good? It's going to take us longer to reach that number. But we help each other a lot, as we work through our strengths and weaknesses together. The most important benefit, though, is how it supports our role as a plurality of pastors. Even though I personally may not have a lot of weekly interaction with some members, I'm able to regularly pastor them with God's Word in preaching. Because of that, each member sees me pastor and considers me their pastor. There's a reason that celebrity pastors exist. Members naturally grow attached to the pastor who most visibly pastors them. By preaching regularly, I'm not just some guy who advises the real pastor in elder meetings. I'm not just a pastor to those I work most closely with. All four of us are pastors to the whole congregation.

08 Jun 2012

by pdfamily

AMEN Al!! I could not agree with you more, I believe the Spirit is at work convincing more and more pastors/preachers of the rightness of this. The church needs to detox itself of some unhealthy cutural values and this is one of them. In my situation I am sharing the pulpit with a young man whom God is molding to one day give leadership to his church and the experience has been liberating and a joy.

13 Jun 2012

by pwdennis2

I share your concern about the celebrity preacher phenomenon. And I love your desire to magnify the word over the preacher. But I also have concerns about this platooning concept. First, I wouldn't agree that it's unhealthy, as you say, to have a steady diet of one man's preaching. That has been the norm in most of Christian history, and Christ has certainly built his Church and many particular local churches through the preaching of one solitary man. Perhaps it would be more healthful to have more variety, in the same way that cross-training might be more healthful than just running or cycling, but probably none of us would say that cycling or running alone is actually unhealthy. Second, what is truly unhealthy, dangerous in fact, is for a Christian not to have the regular personal oversight of a pastor/elder. Christians are sheep, and we get ourselves in trouble. The shepherd has got to notice that one of the sheep has gone missing or gotten injured and spring into action. My concern here is that a church big enough to have several rotating preachers is too big to provide that kind of oversight consistently. I have seen that in a number of large churches--excellent preaching, very poor and inconsistent pastoral oversight. Decentralization is a good idea, but I recommend decentralizing into a number of a small local churches, each with its own pastor. Let me build on your idea by suggesting something that may achieve your goals and also strengthen the connection between churches: start a regular practice of pulpit exchanges between pastors of sister churches, maybe round robin. Phillip Dennis, New Hope Christian Church (PCA), Monsey, NY

14 Jun 2012

by stradingerm

In a small church, the option of several paid preachers isn't practical. But with the help of the laity, preaching, teaching and small group leadership help to give this diversity and keep everyone involved who is gifted with this. I think a more serious problem is preachers and teachers who do so without being gifted by Holy Spirit to bring the Word in power and with anointing.

22 Jun 2012

by josephO

Al, Jesus frequently wanted intimacy and relationship as a context for the Good News. And love is a message that would seem to demand authentic presence; not something you get by leveraging a celeb preacher, which would mean that a preacher has to strive for intimacy. Can a team do that?

24 Jun 2012

by rbplains

I don't agree. Certainly celebrity is a danger. I saw the benefits of being at a church for 22 years. The benefits of long term ministry and teaching at a church can be tremendous. What about the small churches that do not have the resources of a Redeemer? And, most of Christianity is small churches. The pastoral ministry must vary according to the church. There is nothing wrong with a pastor being popular. He can do that without becoming a celebrity.

02 Jul 2012

by S Conner Baldwin

I greatly appreciate this article, Al. I've seen this model, implementing it in the last church plant with which I was involved, and find it not only practical and enriching but strangely biblical (Acts 13:1). @rbplains I sympathize with the issue of the smaller church and relative lack of staffing resources, but if one have a mind to do so, working closely with gifted lay preachers to help them develop their gifts has the effect of multiplying one's own preaching gifts and the sharing the responsibility in a safe and healthy way. This was the model of World Harvest Mission in the early 1990s in Dublin, Ireland and it was used to form at least one pastor, who continues in ministry there, as well as other leaders with him.