THE PREEMINANCE OF PREACHING
THE PREEMINANCE OF PREACHING
"Dr. John Owen, who from his Oxford days had connections with many in high places, was once asked by King Charles II why he listened to an uneducated tinker. His reply: ‘Could I possess the tinker’s abilities for preaching, please your Majesty, I would gladly relinquish all my learning.’" (Christian History. Issue 89: Winter 2006, pg. 30) The tinker here referred to was John Bunyan. Such a statement by such a leaned and respected hero of the faith should cause us all to stop and reflect upon the end for which we are pursuing theological education. All the learning in the world would be to no avail if we should fail to communicate it to others.
The communication of God’s truth is, of course, a serious task. It takes place through three primary mediums: teaching, exemplification, and preaching. All three of these methods are important and without them the church would fail in its mission to build up the Body of Christ. But preaching alone, enjoys the unique and powerful working of the Holy Spirit to the conviction of sin and the conversion of sinners.
The Reformers and Puritans insisted that there were at least two marks that identified the true church of Christ, and those were the right preaching of God’s Word and the right observance of the ordinances. Calvin stood upon these two marks. During the second generation of Reformers, some began to add a third mark, i.e. church discipline. From the very beginning of the Protestant tradition until today, the identification of the right preaching of God’s Word as a central mark of the true church of Christ has not been in question. UNTIL NOW!!
I am sickened today by the variety of different discourses taking place within so called "churches." Many are moving away from the powerful exhortation issued to heart and head through expository sermons preached under the unction of the Holy Spirit. What is being embraced now are methods of communication, which are foreign to the preaching task. Pulpits are being removed and replaced with clear lecterns; Bibles held in hands are being replaced by Power-Point presentations; the oral presentation of God’s Word is being displaced by video and image clips displayed over-head. In all of this the church is demonstrating just how deeply influenced it has become by the age of entertainment and informational seminars. But God is no source of entertainment; and the preaching of His Word is no informational seminar. The preaching of God’s Word is the Biblical means by which God’s truth pierces the hearts of lost sinners and impresses itself so powerfully upon the minds of Christians as to conform them more into the image of Christ.
If you wanted to drive a nail into a piece of wood, you wouldn’t try to drive it in with a saw blade. If you wanted to paint your living room, you wouldn’t try to spread it on with a screwdriver. If you wanted to screw in a screw, you wouldn’t try to do it with a hammer. No, you would utilize the proper means by which to accomplish the task. Incidentally, another Puritan of old once said that preaching was the principal means of "screwing the truth into men’s minds." Why did he say this? Because he recognized that preaching is the primary Biblical, God-ordained, Holy Spirit-empowered means by which the Kingdom is built up and the church is conformed to the image of Christ. God have mercy on us if we change the medium through which God has established to communicate His truth. Get rid of the lectern and bring back the pulpit! Encourage your people to bring their Bibles to church! Get rid of all the video and image clips and for God’s sake people PREACH THE WORD!!
In all of our education, we had better not become too sophisticated to use the age-old method that God has prescribed. Preaching has always been and always will be the principal means by which God works in His people. If we use it, we will be instrumental in the building up of Christ’s Church. If we turn to some other medium, we will be instrumental in the building up of Christian flavored Country Clubs. Let us all agree with Dr. Owen and aspire to be like the tinker of Bedfordshire who preached the Word of God in the power and unction of the Holy Spirit with such power and conviction that his name lives on three and a half centuries later. Let us do all that we must do to honor the preeminence of preaching.
Soli Deo Gloria,
Shane Morgan
posted by Shane Morgan @ 1:11 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Hey brother!
While I find myself in lockstep agreement with your sentiment, due to my own ministry situation I can't agree in practice.
Many of these things (pulpits, reading directly out of the Bible rather than having it projected, etc.) actually hinder preaching in a Deaf church, oddly enough. It removes the congregation's focus from the speaker for crucial seconds or even minutes at a time.
Besides, pulpits tend to block the view of those trying to see what is being signed! We use music stands or a small wooden lectern.
Where do we need to draw the line between practicality and the old-school methods? Certainly we shouldn't glamorize the preaching of the Word, but in some contexts things like Powerpoint and video clips are the only way to get Scripture across.
Let's discuss this a bit!
Good point bro,
I must admit, I failed to take the deaf community into consideration when I penned this post. Not a new phenomena to you I'm sure. But I apologize.
Well then, where to draw the line. I thoroughly defend my position as outlined in the post in the vast majority of circumstances. In any and all circumstances where the Biblical method of communicating God's truth can be used, it ought to be. But there is a higher priority than the medium here and that is the effective communication of God's Truth. For without effective communication, both the meaning and the message are rendered null and void.
Consequently, I think the place to draw the line would be in cases where people don't have the necessary perceptory faculties to learn through conventional preaching methods (e.g. within the context of a deaf church). If a pulpit gets in the way of your signing, then you should replace it with something a bit more unabtrusive. For the hearing, however, the pulpit is a visible sign for the priority and centralization of the preaching of the Word of God. Now as far as the people reading Scripture from their Bibles, I can see how it would be difficult to keep a deaf congregation's attention focused on the preacher since the hearing rely strictly on verbal cues. In regard to this I would say go ahead and use power-point but encourage your people to bring their Bibles as well and follow along as you point to the screne. This may seem unnecessary to some, but I'm concerned that people will develope the mentality that the Bible must be spoon-fed to them by the pastor. This will lead eventually to a disconnect between them and their Bibles and could possibly lead them to forsake even private reading.
These are my primary concerns. In all cases, we must keep the main thing the main thing and that is the effective communication of God's Word. In cases where we must use unconventional medium, I councel caution and warn against over-dependence lest the people actually be hindered instead of helped.
Peace and Grace,
Shane Morgan
Certainly true. But what about in a postmodern context (to leave the Deaf world for a while) where the listeners likely don't have Bibles? Where a pulpit is offensive because it represents "the oppression of religion" and other such caricatures?
When we can put the Word on a Powerpoint slide and show it to them visually, someone who has a bit of biblical common sense can "spoon feed" the listeners until it gets to the point that they are hungry, and then the time is ripe to encourage that they start whipping out those Bibles their grannies gave them in kindergarten.
Many of these newfangled young pastors (like us, though you and I tend to lean more towards old school) don't have any of the old school stuff, yet their preaching is the most anticipated moment in their churches. Have they sacrificed the preaching of the Word for the form of that preaching, or has the form enhanced their preaching?
Now I'm upset. It's Friday. We could have discussed this over the Friday sort, but no, we had to go and get promoted! *wink* ;-)
So true,
This would have made EXCELLENT Friday night, over-the-belt conversation. Shame we should mess it up by getting promoted!
Anyway, I am totally against accommodating the culture on the points you mentioned. In order to explain wny, let me take them one at a time.
1.) To say that we shouldn't ask them to bring their Bibles just because they are post-moderners and likely don't have one is like telling a fireman not to bring his fire suite because he's new to the job and likely doesn't have one yet. The idea of a Christian without a Bible is as nonsensical as a police officer without a gun. Or a UPSer without a badge. Ha Ha!!!! The answer is that we should alwayse encourage our people corporately to bring their Bibles and explain why it's important. Those who are serious about their relationship with Christ will get one and begin to bring it. Those that aren't serious about their relationship with Christ are lost and still in need of evangelism. With this issue we encourage corporately and allow maturity to happen individually.
2.) With regard to post-moderners seeing the pulpit as an offensive symbol of the oppression of religion, they simply need to be re-educated. The pulpit represents the centralization and priority of the preaching of God's Word, not the domineering oppression of religion wrongly used. Furthermore, I would argue that those who see religion as oppressive don't limit their association of oppression only to the pulpit. They are offended at any semblence of what they like to call "organized religion." In the vast majority of cases these people won't be in church anyway, regardless of whether they have a pulpit or not. And by the way, the removal of the pulpit only panders to the false idea that Christianity IS an oppressive system. Lord knows, we don't need to pour any more fuel on that fire.
3.) With regard to what you call "newfangled young pastors who don't have any of the old school stuff," I'm going to take issue with your frame of reference. I don't think it's fair to call a pulpit "old school." I would call the pulpit "common place." After all it is only very recently that post-moderns have jettisoned the pulpit from their midst. It is the lack of a pulpit that is an aberration within Christianity, not the presence of one!
4.) You said that in spite of their jettisoning of the pulpit and their rejection of bringing Bibles to church, "yet their preaching is the most anticipated moment in their churches." It is here that I really want to challenge you. I think you have misread the the post-moderners and the emerging church in this area. What we have today is what I like to refer to as Existential Christianity. A Christianity that places the highest priority on a warm fuzzy feeling. Granted there may be a few who get a warm fuzzy from the preaching and for them the preaching may be the most anticipated moment in the service, but for the vast majority it is the singing of man-centered songs that brings the emotional high and consequently this is the high point of the worship service for most. But people need to be taught to rest their faith upon the comprehension of solid Biblical truth, not the fickle, unreliable, haphazzard commings and goings of human emotions. And by the way, this is the whole foundation for the emerging church. Although this may not be the ideal that Mark Driscol was aiming for, emotionalism has become the foundation of the emerging church. It is made up of people who are emotional thrill seekers and religious leaders who have become skilled at providing emotional thrills. This is NOT what Christianity is about. People need to be taught to rest in the truth of God's Word regardless of whether it gives them a warm fuzzy or not. Away with emotionalism! It is a fickle foundation at best and a total and utter deciever at worst.
4.) Finally, you ask: "Have they sacrificed the preaching of the Word for the form of that preaching, or has the form enhanced their preaching?" Unless you are simply playing devils advocate, your assumed answer to this question is that the form has enhanced their preaching. I want to challenge you here too. It would be far more accurate to say that their form has enhanced emotionalism and Biblical compromise than to say it has enhanced their preaching. If you look closely at what is being taught in most of these post-modern and emerging churches, you will see that it is certainly NOT solid expositional preaching. It is more along the lines of a christian self-help seminar, and a very short one at that. Now I want to be clear at this point: this is NOT preaching! This is bunk! And so I would answer your question with a resounding NO, their form has NOT enhanced their preaching, but rather replaced it with a modern form of discourse that is foreign to the preaching task. And YES, they HAVE sacrificed the preaching for the form, again in favor of some modern form of self-help discourse.
In all of this, I want to be clear about one thing. The problem isn't the lack of Bibles or the lack of a pulpit. These are only symptoms of a larger problem and that is a rebellion against the historical Christiam faith, a rebellion against authority, an embracing of radical autonomy and the search for high emotionalism. I submit to you that when people are genuinely seeking Christ and growth in Him, they won't have a problem bringing their Bibles and they won't have a problem seeing a pulpit. These things will only serve to bolster their respect for God's Word, God's preacher and central event within the worship service, which is the solid exposition of God's Word.
All right, here we go!
1. I'm not saying they shouldn't bring their Bibles, I'm saying they likely don't have Bibles, or otherwise don't even know they ought to bring one to church. I get these kinds of folks all the time in our church. In this instance, having Scripture up on Powerpoint and making it clear that it's "from the Bible" gives the implication that a Bible is a necessary part of the experience. I agree that it should also be explicitly encouraged (perhaps to the point of beating a dead horse), but what I meant was that when you have a church or event full of these folks, one has to be willing to cultivate a hunger for the Word in them.
2. I agree they need to be re-educated, but why put such as inconsequential a stumbling block as a pulpit in front of them? If it gets in the way of the Word of Life, shouldn't we be willing to temporarily put it aside? I love dressing nicely for church, but if it turns off my listeners I ought to be willing to put the ties away for a while. In fact, this is starting to become an issue I am uncovering in my own church, because my pastor and I are the kind who believe we ought to preach with a dress shirt and tie. Unfortunately, such "nice" clothes creates the false perception that we are "rich" when the vast majority of our community is dirt poor. :-p
Of course, I'm talking about peripherals, not essentials, just in case anyone other than us browses here and misses the point.
3. I'd agree that the lack of a pulpit is an abberation, but more and more churches do not have them. Those that do are in older churches, so to speak. I know of very few new (read: after 1990) church buildings that were built with a pulpit. Many people in our generation would feel out of place in something like Broadus Chapel, and Alumni Chapel would be at the minimum uncomfortable.
A place like Valley View Church would be extremely appealing to them, however, with its open stage and glass lectern in place of a pulpit. I know it appeals to me, since it's very Deaf-friendly, but it also appeals to me as someone raised in hearing culture with a hearing mindset.
4. Granted with an Amen.
5. I think for those of Mark Driscoll's mindset, the goal is for the form to enhance preaching. I'd wholeheartedly agree that the Brian McLaren strain of the emerging church does exactly what you say. Even Driscoll says what you and I say, that everything in a worship service ought to point towards, give anticipation for, and enhance the message. The form ought to build expectation.
I certainly agree that people who genuinely seek Christ shouldn't have a problem with pulpits or Bibles, but what I'm after is to say that oftentimes we need to cultivate that desire in our listeners.
Hey,
Good to hear from ya. Good responses to my points too. Once again, when we get finished hashing it all out, you and I end up on the same page. I would, however, add one last comment with regard to pulpits. My primary point with pulpits is that they represent something. When you first walk into a church, what is it that immediately strikes your eye? Is it the beautiful pews which say that this is a place to kick and relax? Is it the beautiful stained glass widnows which say that this is a place where Christian art is expressed? Is it the music being played in the background which says this is a place of entertainment? Is it all the people standing around talking which says that this is a place to make friends? Or maybe it's a big bold cross that says, HEY, YOUR IN A CHURCH! Or will the prominant eye catcher be a big bold pulpit situated in the very center of the platform, elevated a bit for prominance, which says, THIS IS A PLACE WHERE THE PREACHING OF GOD'S WORD IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING! I know which one of these messages I want my sanctuary to communicate. While all of the other things I mentioned are certainly part of church life, if the preaching of God's Word is truely the central focus, then that ought to be immediately evident to all who walk through the doors.
Peace,
SM
Post a Comment
<< Home