Why I Preach Anyway

I was a guest preacher at a friend’s church this Sunday, and this is always an ambivalent experience for me.  Those who have some history with me will know already that my relationship with the institutional Christian church is not exactly orthodox, and they will probably know also that I am particularly uncomfortable both with the function of the Pastor and, to a lesser degree, with the function of the sermon, as these things have come to be understood in most Protestant churches.

This begs the question, of course, and there are several of my friends who have not left it begging, why do I still preach when I am asked.  Dave Humphrey posed this question to me the last time we were together for coffee, and I must confess that I had no very good answer for him.  I had to admit the extreme unlikelihood that my preaching would have any substantial influence on the church culture to which I am so opposed, and also had to admit, to myself, after Dave had gone home, that my preaching was much more likely to actually reinforce this culture by using the kinds of traditional forms that it finds familiar and reassuring.

I realized yesterday, however, as I was actually preaching, that this whole line of reasoning is wrong in the extreme, because it assumes that I have to be concerned with discovering the correct form and time and place of my speaking, when any medium and any time and any place will always be the wrong medium and the wrong time and the wrong place.  It is not a question of finding how I might speak appropriately.  It is a matter of recognizing that whatever I speak, especially if it presumes to speak about God, will always be inappropriate, in every case, by definition.

It is not my responsibility to speak rightly.  It is not my responsibility to accomplish anything through what I speak.  It is only my responsibility to make my speech open to what God might do through it.  If there is a God, something I believe but that I refuse to insist upon by any knowledge or by any guarantee, then it will always be up to this God to do what is necessary through me, whether I am speaking from a pulpit or from anywhere else.

The invitation to preach, therefore, at least to me, is an invitation to make myself available to what God might do through me.  It is an opportunity to see what might be accomplished, even if I do not actually see that anything has been accomplished.  It is an opening where I can do the best with what I have and offer this without expectation, just because it has been asked of me, and where I can do nothing else but hope that God will fulfil what God wills to fulfil.

This does not mean that everyone must preach, of course, or even that everyone who is asked must preach.  It means only that I must preach, beacuse I am asked to do so, not by any church, but by an obligation to something that I do not hope to understand but nevertheless hope to believe.

  1. TC said:

    What does ‘preach’ mean?
    How is it different to speak?
    Apart from the generic or everyday
    definition, that, I think, implies that the
    speaking is assumed to be ‘true’ and ‘right’

    If as you say, it is not your responsibility to
    speak rightly, why do you say that you
    ‘preach’ rather than speak?
    Is it just contextual and the
    nature of the invitation?

    Or something more?
    This not from you (which you?)
    but from God via and through ‘you’?
    Is this what ‘preach’ is?

    Might someone ‘preach’ then, without
    knowing it?

  2. Curtis said:

    I see a problem in this reasoning simply on the level of ethics and excellence in your preaching. Shouldn’t there exist a president or some sort of standard, which is universally applied here; which, responsibility of correctness and intent are already active participants to the former desire, of being open to the movement of God?

    I would agree more with you on the level that you are saying that, your intent is not to convey your conviction, and your responsibility is not to cleanse the pallet of personal awareness or certain irritability, in what itches your indignity. Perhaps this is what you were saying. That you bear a responsibility not to inject your own findings, if you have any, unless discernibly sure, or confirmed in it. Else wise you have this responsibility of excellent and correct mandates in all that you say, but not to always present your case on the matter, in fact not always to address That matter. Such as your perturbation with certain caricatures of church these days/ in this particular era.

  3. TC,

    Yes, to the extent that I preach truly, rather than just occupy a pulpit, I would say that my preaching is a speaking that has opened itself to the possibility that God will speak through it, and this absolutely means that I might preach without realizing it, especially as I begin to practise this kind of openness in my speaking to the point that it becomes habitual and instinctual.


    I would argue that there should never be, can never be, in fact, any kind of precedent or standard that might be applied in advance to the kind of preaching that I am describing here, not beyond the essential act opening myself toward God. Anything else that I do must come from this openness and will always appear as unique in the world, unsubstitutable and unrepeatable, because it will not have come from me in the first place.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: