Lesson Goal
In this lesson I hope to teach you how to subvert a popular notion.
Lesson Intro
The sermon on the mount (Matthew 5-7) is subversive, but wise in avoiding hot political issues. Many preachers around the world get themselves into political trouble by trying to subvert the legally constituted government of the day. In some countries that will even land you in jail. That is NOT the purpose of this sermon, though it is structured in a similar fashion. This sermon seeks to subvert popular notions and religious ideas that are contrary to the gospel. This sermon is similar to the rebuttal, but uses more mutinous language.
Lesson Plan
We will examine some revolutionary sections of scripture to see what they tell us about subversive preaching. We will see that this is a type of sermon which is best given by seasoned and wise preachers, and that sometimes best not given at all if a congregation is too immature to receive it. We will also look at what I call the Luther and Erasmus crisis and see how ordinary disagreements are handled in healthy churches.
Lesson Body
1. Subversion
To subvert is to destroy or ruin something, to undermine or overthrow. A subversive sermon is similar to a rebuttal, except that it does not have to attack the bad logic of an idea, merely contradict it. A lot of ideas are easy to contradict by simply quoting scripture which is at odds with them. So, the subversive sermon can basically be a list of ideas or urban myths, which one by one are knocked over by scripture. This is similar to what Jesus did with a list of topics: murder, adultery, divorce, oaths, lawsuits and enemies.
2. Jesus
Parts of the Sermon on the Mount are subversive. The structure, "You have heard that it was said... but I tell you..." in Matthew 5 is subversive. What is Jesus trying to undermine? Religion had become a formality which denied the power of God. It needed to be sabotaged. Jesus did not try to point out the bad logic of popular culture. He merely contradicted it, showing a more profound way.
When it came to murder, people thought they were okay spiritually, but Jesus subverts this shallow thinking with the idea that unjust anger and verbal abuse are murder at heart. When it came to adultery, the religious establishment thought that it was above that, but Jesus challenges this self-righteous thinking by pointing out that lust is adultery at heart. When it came to easy divorce Jesus destabilizes this by saying that divorce papers are worthless except for marital unfaithfulness. When it came to making elaborate oaths to God, Jesus undermines this idea by saying not to be involved, except for answering yes or no. When it came to seeking just compensation in a lawsuit, Jesus sabotages this by saying that we should take the loss and be the more generous one. When it came to hating enemies, Jesus contradicted that entirely, by saying that we should love our enemies and do good to them.
3. Paul
Parts of Paul's writings such as Galatians are subversive. The Galatians had been fooled into believing they must return to the Old Testament law and syncretize it with Christianity. Some modern Christians also believe something similar. Paul specifically mentioned the laws regarding circumcision, observance of days and food restrictions. He opposed another Christian leader, Peter, for not eating with gentiles. He says that the law was temporarily put in charge to lead us to Christ. He subverts the mandatory observance of religious days as slavery, that circumcision has no intrinsic spiritual value, and quite bluntly suggests a drastic answer for those who preach circumcision. This kind of subversive material is real meat and not the easily digested milk designed for new Christians.
4. Meat
You may wonder why this sermon is in the advanced category. Structurally, it is an easy sermon to prepare. However, ingredients such as spiritual maturity and tact are essential. It is not a sermon for a novice preacher, or even one who has the teenage attitude of "everything I was taught in the church is wrong." Granted, modern Christianity can easily have just as many faults as Pharisaism or Galatianism. The making of lists of do's and don'ts did not stop with the Jews, nor did the reliance upon the letter of the Law of Moses. However, we are dealing with a very delicate topic here, the sacred cows of Christianity.
I could give you my list of sacred cows and thoroughly offend almost everyone who reads this. Most of us would find it easy to subvert such ideas as the mandatory removal of buttons in favor of a hook and eye because buttons are supposedly "vanity" or the outright banning of TV. However, those are the easy sacred cows to subvert. Every single denomination has erected sacred cows, ideas which are not in the Bible, ideas which are the invention of some 18th century church leader, or some vain tradition of men passed down over many centuries.
This sermon is meat indeed, and not for the faint hearted, nor is it for those congregations which can only swallow the milk of the word. The danger of subverting a long cherished, dead tradition is that you will lose everybody.
5. Wisdom
What are sacred cows for? They are meant to be sacrificed, and that is the purpose of the subversive sermon. However, wisdom is in order here. People often criticize Christian politicians for not standing up more strongly against abortion, or some other evil of our society. Some even accuse them of being liberals or compromising. That may not be the case at all. The thing that naïve Christians do not understand is that you cannot lead people where they don't want to go. If a politician stood up and said outright that his position regarding abortion is that it is murder of the innocent, how long do you think he would stay in office? The people don't want to hear that today. So, the end result of such tactless politics could be that no Christians could have any influence in public office at all.
The same is true in the local church. Many theologically well-educated preachers realize that their denomination is wrong on this or that. I know a Baptist pastor friend with two doctorates who quite bluntly told me that his denomination's position on alcohol was unbiblical, a Quaker theologian who quite openly admitted that his denomination's position on baptism and communion was untenable, and a Catholic priest who admitted that we ought not to forbid anyone who preaches Christ.
Most pastors keep quiet about their private beliefs, especially when they are in opposition to their denomination, and over a minor matter. Sometimes however, there is a time for a preacher in good conscience to speak up. This would involve a major matter. Sometimes a tradition or other sacred cow of the denomination or the local church must be challenged. This is a scary thing to do. In some churches it may involve the preacher being fired, demoted or overlooked for later promotion. The preacher must ask himself who he serves. The question has an easy answer, but it is not always an easy decision.
My heart goes out to those local churches which have taken a stand against moral compromise, only to lose the use of their building to a denomination which is becoming more like Babylon than New Jerusalem. It is not easy for a preacher to stand up for what is right, when his family's income and life's ministry is on the line. Subversion for the kingdom of heaven is not an undertaking for the queasy or the novice.
6. Luther and Erasmus
Every preacher may eventually face a Luther and Erasmus crisis. It often does not occur for the first couple of decades, but some kind of crisis of conscience can eventually confront the preacher. I call this a Luther and Erasmus crisis because the two men responded to their crisis of conscience in opposite ways. Luther, as we all know, bluntly and vitriolically attacked the leadership of the church. He called the pope horrible names and eventually had to take himself and his conscience outside the church. That is the decision faced by some preachers today as well.
It even occurs in relatively mild matters. For instance, in one church you may be asked to promise to teach that "the initial evidence" (emphasis on the word the as if no other initial evidence will do) of being filled with the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues. You may believe that sometimes speaking in tongues is from God, but other times it is merely a human emotional response similar to that found among many non-Christian religions. Your theology and your conscience may not allow you to force people into a fake experience by any kind of inadequately proven dogmatic or manipulative peer pressure. So you have a decision to make. Do you stay and sign an application for ordination, pretending to agree with something you really don't believe, or do you look elsewhere to serve God? The same could be said of many denominational mandates, such as bans on dancing, bans on alcohol, liturgical prayers to Mary, adherence to the Westminster Confession, immersion versus sprinkling baptism, and so on. Depending on your theology, these could either be a non-issue or a major stumbling block.
Erasmus was different to Luther. He agreed with many of Luther's criticisms, that the western church needed to be reformed, but instead of causing a schism, Erasmus remained Catholic and fought for reform from within. His best known work was The Praise of Folly, a satire attacking church traditions and popular superstitions. The two men had deep respect for each other, even though Luther chided Erasmus as a coward. Yet, Erasmus continued as a Catholic and became a voice of moderation between Lutherans and Catholics.
Most preachers are more like Erasmus than Luther. They consider loyalty to their denomination to be very important and any disagreements to be minor or at least something that they can live with. However, from time to time, the tension built over disagreements sometimes explodes into a major church split and people are forced to choose sides, whether they want to or not.
7. Subversion in a Healthy Church
Some churches are so healthy that preaching a subversive sermon is easy and inoffensive. Disagreements are treated as non-issues and with friendly humor. Some large denominations have been forced by circumstances to be quite open to diverse opinions over a large number of issues. I remember a story of a Methodist preacher in West Virginia, who shared a pulpit with a more senior pastor. He stood up one Sunday and teasingly said something along the lines of, Why is it that when this topic is to be addressed, it usually falls my turn to preach, because everyone knows that I disagree with the denomination on this topic. Everyone laughed and apparently enjoyed the candor. This is a mark of a healthy local church, when differences of opinion can be aired openly, but nobody gets upset and can even laugh it off.
Example Sermon
Title: "The Homosexual Dilemma"
Goal
Discover balance on the homosexual issue, instead of the two common extremes.
Intro
There are two extremes in the church today regarding homosexuals: inclusion and exclusion. What are the biblical issues regarding this delicate topic?
Plan
Let's look at the Bible's view of homosexuality and a Christian's proper response.
Body
1. Born that Way
The homosexual lobby claims that these individuals were born that way and therefore we must not judge. First of all, there is other evidence that suggests this scientific research is in error, but because of political pressure contradictory research has been buried. And secondly, most of us were born with a proclivity towards adultery, which does not give us any excuse to indulge in that sin either. The argument is shallow and silly. A natural proclivity to sin is not an excuse for engaging in sin.
2. 1 Corinthians 6:8-10
A lot of the controversy surrounding homosexuality in the church centers on interpreting this passage. The homosexual lobby claims that this verse is talking about an ancient sin of having sex with boys, and that anyone who bothers to do the historical research would clearly see that pedophilia which was common in Corinth is the meaning and not homosexuality. The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids mentioning that the plain meaning of a word is the first choice in any interpretation of the Bible. The plain meaning of the word translated as homosexual here is male-coitus or bedding a male, NOT boy-coitus or bedding a boy. The word homosexual is clearly the correct translation, not pedophile.
3. Ordination
The idea of ordaining practicing homosexuals today comes from either the sanctioning of this as somehow no longer being a sin or the idea that we all sin. Yet, it clearly is a sin. Some have argued to compare homosexuality to someone who has a problem with slander, gossip and other verbal sins committed by preachers in the pulpit. Clearly sins of the tongue are wrong and ought to be addressed too, but this is not a correct comparison. We ought to compare sexual sin with sexual sin. Should we now allow practicing prostitutes, gigolos, adulterers and those who practice bestiality into the pulpit as well? Of course not.
4. Jesus' Example
On the other hand, Christians who realize that homosexuality is a sin, treat it as a special case. The church may be full of fornicators, but don't dare any homosexual enter! That is ridiculous reasoning. Fornication and homosexuality are both sins. Sexual sin is sin. What is the right attitude towards sexual sinners? On the one hand, Paul excommunicated a man who was openly practicing sexual relations with his father's wife (1 Corinthians 5:1-5). On the other hand Jesus received sinners (Luke 15:2) and said that many prostitutes (sexual sinners) would enter the kingdom of heaven ahead of a number of religious leaders and elders (Matthew 21:31-32).
The balance between exclusivism and inclusivism is not always an easy one to find. In the churches, often the two opposite extremes are not the answer. One church may exclude any and all who are not yet completely moral, while the opposite extreme may exist in another church, where open sin is tolerated. The balance is somewhere in the middle. Are our churches a haven for the people of God away from the evils of the world, or a forum for the preaching of the gospel? It's really a bit of both in most cases, isn't it?
Outro
Homosexuality is a sin, just like any other sin. It ought not be compromised and accepted. It certainly ought not to be allowed into the pulpit. On the other hand, no Christian ought to be a gay basher, or found to discriminate against homosexuals in the work place. Sin is sin, and all employees have sinned. Jesus set us the example of welcoming sexual sinners into his midst so that they could learn repentance and be forgiven.
Suggested Assignment
Choose a topic that suits the situation you are in. Make sure that in your first attempt at a subversive sermon, you do not choose a topic that will destroy any opportunity for effectiveness that you may have in the future. Pray for wisdom and tact and subvert ideas not people.
Lesson Outro
We examined some revolutionary sections of scripture to see what they tell us about subversive preaching. We saw that this is a type of sermon which is best given by seasoned and wise preachers, and sometimes best not given at all if a congregation is too immature to receive it. We also looked at what I call the Luther and Erasmus crisis and saw how ordinary disagreements are handled in healthy churches. Remember, revolutionaries are often martyrs. Are you willing to pay that price for a relatively minor issue? Are you willing to put your life on the line for Jesus and major issues of the Christian faith?
