What Church?
The Reformation of Preaching
Only Christ can build His church, and the gates of hell
shall not
prevail against it (Matthew 16:18). All those who are true
members of
this church (which only God knows the members of, because they are all
the ones whose hearts the Lord has renewed and who have been adopted as
His children into His family), will reach heavenly glory, are chosen by
Christ and cannot be lost.
However, whilst we are on this
earth, the Lord has ordained that this true church should be invisible,
i.e. undetectable by our senses. We can’t see other people’s
hearts.
Only God knows who are truly His. Visible churches (ones we can see
with our eyes) are groups of people made up of all those who profess to
be Christian. This is not the same as the true (invisible) church,
because many people who are truly God’s children will be outside of a
visible church, and on the other hand, many people who are not God’s
children will be within the visible church. No visible manifestation of
the church is perfect, and all of them are of varying degrees of purity.
The
Protestant Reformation in the 16th Century was a good thing, because
the old Roman Catholic church had gone well astray. It thought that it
was perfect, not believing that there was an invisible true church, but
believing that the one true church of God was the visible church, i.e.
itself, and that there was no salvation outside of itself, putting
itself, the visible church, in place of God. It really thought that it
had the power in itself to open and close the gates of heaven and hell
to people. And they bled people dry of all their money and frightened
them to death with this false doctrine. Because of this terribly wrong
view of the church, a reformation was vital in order to (a) get rid of
this wicked idea, and (b) put the Word of God back in the primary,
authoritative place it should have in the church, which the church
leaders (particularly the pope) had usurped.
The Roman
Catholic church believes that the rituals have the prime place in
worship. The Reformers, on the other hand, believed in what they called
“the primacy of preaching” in worship. This was good, because true
religion is not blind superstitious ritual, but rather it is the people
learning and applying the Word of God to their souls. The problem
today, however, is that we have exalted preaching so much that it has
(a) overshadowed the Word of God and (b) exalted men too highly.
Preaching
in every church today involves someone standing in a pulpit giving an
oration, usually with no formal recourse in the church for anyone to
ever respond to the discourse, or ask questions. It is a one-way
lecture that the congregation is supposed to blindly follow passively
and agree with whatever is said. The preacher is taught to speak
dogmatically, as though he was always right, even
though no man can
ever always be right. The minister is elevated to a level where nobody
dare challenge him, or question him publicly on spiritual matters. The
“primacy of preaching” has been replaced by the “primacy of the
preacher.”
This idea of preaching today is more like an
oration, where the object of the exercise is for the preacher to move
the audience emotionally. That is what an Eisteddfod is – a competition
where oratory is judged. Go to the Evangelical Movement of Wales
conference in Aberystwyth, held every August, and you will hear people
comparing preachers, just as though they were contestants in an
Eisteddfod.
God condemns oratory (Acts 12:21-23). So, far
from us having true preaching in the church today, we rather have a
false façade of preaching, which only exists in an attempt by the
church and preacher to try to recreate revivals of the past, in which
they wrongly equate emotionalism with salvation.
Authoritarian manner
This wrong idea that we must preach dogmatically and authoritatively,
results in many problems:
Members
of the congregation become too afraid to talk about the sermon
afterwards or ever disagree with the minister, because they know that
if they did they would be thought to be troublemakers and sidelined in
the church.
People will think that the authority of the
message comes from the preacher, whereas it actually comes from the
Word of God alone. The preacher is merely a conduit for the Word.
Preachers
today cannot be as forthright as the prophets and apostles, who could
say, “Thus saith the Lord” and mean it. We do not
have direct
revelation like that any more. A preacher (who is a fallible man, and
can and will make mistakes) who behaves in a similar manner as the
prophets and apostles is being a little “cocky” to say the least.
I
have heard a lot of sermons where the preacher speaks in a very
authoritarian manner, and yet he is wrong!! It does not matter how hard
he bangs on his pulpit or assertively shouts and stares, trying to make
the congregation feel guilty for disagreeing with him; if he’s wrong,
he’s wrong! But the church insists he must
preach authoritatively. The
preacher has to speak in an authoritative, forthright manner as
though
he were ex cathedra (in
the pulpit) infallible.
Anyone who hears a
preacher preaching in this manner, will think to themselves, “The
Protestants have just exchanged and infallible pope for an infallible
preacher!” This is very difficult to tolerate for ordinary Christians.
We must therefore conclude that an authoritative attitude in preaching
does not convert or actually help people in the faith at all. In fact
it turns a lot of people away from Christianity altogether. They would
come away from a sermon thinking to themselves "Who does that man think
he is?! He thinks he knows it all!" and consequently would not be
encouraged to read the Bible for themselves, but would just leave the
church and never come back (although if the Holy Spirit is working in
their hearts, they will become true believers, despite the preacher!).
In reality, all men make mistakes in their logic and understanding,
including preachers. They do this because they are fallible men, and
because, as in all of us, we grow in grace and knowledge and change our
views as we receive more and more light from the Scriptures. Yet
preachers are expected to preach dogmatically, authoritatively and
forthrightly all the time, as though
everything they say is right, when
in actual fact this is not necessarily so. They might, for example,
change their views at a later date (as they receive more light on the
subject) and realise they made a mistake before. Therefore, all
preachers who insist on preaching in a forthright, dogmatic manner
inevitably propagate error,
thus misleading many people.
Preaching
tends to idol worship. People tend to follow the most eloquent
preachers. Preaching is not eloquence, persuasive, smooth talking, like
selling a soap powder. Neither is it using emotional blackmail in
trying to get the people to believe the preacher.
No matter
how good the preaching is, and how right the doctrines presented are,
preaching is only ever merely a suggestion,
and should never be
presented in an authoritarian manner. If the preacher has done his
studying well, he will try to present truth in the best way he can, and
then pray that the Holy Spirit might (a) use the truth presented to
convince people in their hearts, and (b) forgive any errors that have
been preached. In my thirty years as a Christian, I have only ever
heard one man who actually prayed at the end of his sermon, "If I have
said anything wrong, please forgive me, Lord." That is how much
authoritarian preaching has engrained itself in our churches today.
The
Bible is where we get all our authority from, so preaching is only
authoritative in as much as
it sticks to the Bible, so that it is the
Bible that is authoritative, never the preacher. [N.B. This does not
mean we can have women preachers, because of 1 Timothy 2:12: “But
I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but
to be in silence.” The Bible has spoken elsewhere on this
issue.]
Some
Christians I know met some people from another church in their village
through their contact with their children at the local school. When
they found out that these people were Christians, they befriended them
and gave them a sermon tape of one of their church’s ministers, which
they took home with them. Next time they met these people, they asked
what they thought of the tape. The reply was an embarrassed silence.
That answer indicated that there was something wrong and they were too
embarrassed to say. Even now, nobody knows the real reason for them not
liking the tape, but several suggestions come to mind:
(a.)
Most people in the churches would answer that the reason these people
did not
like the tape was because they were convicted of their sins by the
message, but I don't think so. That would be the standard pat answer of
the church, because they think it ought to be like that. They would say
also that this is the reason that generally visitors do not come more
than once to church, namely, because they are convicted of their sins
by the preaching. I think this is just an excuse to use, because if it
were true, these people would have shown a lot more serious concern in
their reaction, rather than merely embarrassment.
(b.) Maybe they
didn’t agree with what was said. But this is unlikely too, because most
people don’t know enough theology to know whether they agree or
disagree with anything these days.
(c.) I make the suggestion that
the real reason for their disapproval was that they didn’t like the
preacher’s dogmatic attitude, and that the tone of the preacher’s voice
suggested that he wouldn’t allow you to disagree with him. Their
natural reaction would be, “Why should this arrogant little man be
right?” This is most likely to be the true reason and would explain
embarrassment, because they simply didn’t want to upset the people that
gave them the tape unduly. But most people in the church will not agree
with me on this, because it isn’t the answer they want to hear.
Nobody
is right all the time, especially a smooth talker who can present
something as though it was far better than it actually is. It is far
better to have someone genuine, honest and open speaking, than a smooth
presenter. Now, that would be good preaching!
To take
advice, yes, but to hang on to the every word of a preacher…. They
love
to have it so! (Jeremiah 5:31). We should teach people to
look after
themselves not just in physical things but in spiritual things as well.
They are responsible to God as individuals directly themselves, not to
the minister.
It is interesting to note in passing that
Christ sat down when He explained Scripture, as though not wishing to
lord it over the people (cf. Matthew 5:2; Luke 4:16,20; Luke 2:46;
Matthew
26:53; Matthew 23:2).
Preaching as magic
Another
problem with the standard view of preaching is that it is thought of as
some kind of magic. People reckon this (but do not admit to
such)
who agree with any of the following:
(a.) That preaching is
the only ordinary means of salvation. This is not so. The
Word of God
is. Only when the preaching coincides with the truth of the Word of God
does God use it as a means to effectually call sinners to repentance
and faith.
(b.) That in times of spiritual dearth, we believe we
should continue preaching as normal, and wait for a time
when the Holy
Spirit moves the preacher to wax so eloquent that many
people are
converted. C.f. the 1904 “revival” in Wales, when
an ordinary, mediocre
preacher was suddenly taken up with the “hwyl.”
Many were supposedly
converted in the next few months, then the preaching lost its “unction”
just as suddenly, and the preacher “became plain old Dafydd
Morgan
again.”
(c.) That there is a difference between preaching and
exhorting. Only fully ordained ministers “preach.” Anyone
else (who
prepares the sermon in exactly the same way!) merely “exhorts.” The
difference between a minister and the rest of the congregation is that
the minister has “ministerial grace,” or “unction,” i.e.
a magic power
to convert sinners through “preaching,” whereas nobody else has this
magic power. This is no different from believing the superstition that
a priest can magically turn the bread and wine into the body and blood
of Christ.
(d.) That taped sermons are not the same as live
preaching. This view sees something magic in live
preaching. Live
preaching is considered to be ordinarily the only ordained means of
salvation, because tape recorders are not mentioned in the Bible so it
must be against the Regulative Principle to use them. This is nonsense.
There is indeed a major problem with listening to a sermon on a tape,
and that is that we have more things to distract us whilst hearing than
we would do if we were listening in church. Apart from this however,
the message remains exactly the same, whether we hear it live, hear it
on tape, download it from the internet, or read it in a book. If the
message is exactly the same, so God can use it to the same effect in
the hearer.
(e.) Some people “feel a call” to the ministry.
These people just fancy
themselves. Too much self-love is the problem here.
Who should preach?
There are two extremes to avoid here:
(1.) Only those licensed by the Presbytery should be allowed to preach.
(2.) Anyone who fancies their hand at it can do so.
Both of these extremes are wrong.
(1.) Only
licensed ministers allowed to preach
It
is understandable for churches to want to fence their pulpits to stop
people stepping in and preaching any old rubbish. But how strictly
should it be fenced? Should everything be preached dogmatically as
though the preacher was right in everything (even though he never can
be}? No, because it immediately appears false to everyone.
We don’t need to have ministers “licensed by Presbytery” to “keep the
testimony.” Christ said, “I will build my church…”
(Matthew 16:18). Testimony to the truth is kept by the Holy Ghost.
(a.) Matthew 23:8-10 “Call no man father / master / Rabbi”
(b.) 1 John 2:27 “Ye need not that any man teach you”
(c.) Luke 12:11,12; Luke 21:12-15 “Take no thought what ye
shall say….” the Holy Ghost will give you the words to say.
(d.) Acts 9:19-30; Galatians 1:16-2:1: Paul, upon conversion, did not
approach the church for support because he had a “call to the
ministry.” Rather, “straightway” he started
preaching that Christ was the Son of God (Acts 9:20), confounding the
Jews, “proving that this is very Christ” (v.22).
He was so convincing that the Jews “took counsel to kill him”
(v.23), so “the disciples took him by night and let him down
by the wall in a basket” (v.25). At this point, I suggest
that he “conferred not with flesh and blood”
(Galatians 1:16), but went into the desert of Arabia for three years.
Presumably he had his Bible with him in the desert, and there spent the
time re-educating himself from the Jewish interpretation he had learned
from Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). After this, he went to Jerusalem and “assayed
to join himself to the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, and
believed not that he was a disciple” (Acts 9:26), but
Barnabas “took him and brought him to the apostles”
(v.27). We see from Galatians 1:18,19 that he was there fifteen days
and only actually met Peter and James. During this time “he
spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus and disputed against the
Grecians; but they went about to slay him”
(Acts 9:29). So the brethren sent him off to Tarsus (v.30). He then
avoided the churches in Judea for fourteen years, and dwelt in Syria
and Cilicia (Galatians 1:21). Here, in Antioch of Syria, he was “separated”
by the Holy Ghost “for the work”
whereunto He had called him (Acts 13:2). This is NOT Paul’s “call to
the ministry,” as he had been ministering for a long time before this.
He remained away from the churches in Judea until circumstances in the
Lord’s providence took him to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders
there about a particular problem regarding circumcision (Acts 15). Then
the apostles and elders immediately accepted him as a true believer,
without any examination. He was not compelled to ask the Synod to
licence him first before beginning to preach. He wasn’t “sent” to
preach by any church. Cf. Romans 10:15 “How shall they preach
except they be sent” is often interpreted as meaning sent by
the church, but it doesn’t say that. It means sent by God.
A
preacher who is licensed is NOT the only one who is a true ambassador
of Christ, the only official source of truth, as is popularly taught.
This teaching elevates him far too highly. All
true believers are
ambassadors for Christ whenever what they say coincides with the truth
of Scripture. Scripture is our ultimate authority, we should not have
to rely on an ambassador telling us what to believe before we can know
and embrace truth. We can embrace truth wherever we find it. Of course,
ministers are not to be lightly disagreed with, because they should
know the Bible better than most of the rest of us, as they are
supposedly set apart for the teaching of the Word of God, and have more
time to study it than the rest of us. But other than that, they are no
different from any other believer.
When people are training
for the ministry, one of the things they are required to do is to
prepare a “popular” sermon. In other words there is a distinct type of
sermon for the riff-raff who turns up in church every week, and another
for the likes of clever people like ministers. Just feed the riff-raff
the cheap fodder (i.e. “popular” sermons) and they
will be all right.
Well, we’re not all right. There should be no difference between a
“popular sermon” and any other type, otherwise you have a difference
between a “popular” sermon and an “academic” or a “theological” sermon,
as though the true believer in the pew shouldn’t be hearing these. This
is again a façade put on by ministers before the people, to make them
appear cleverer than they really are, which isn’t right. I want one
minister to be genuine, and I have never met one.
Another
problem with most ministers is that they tend to be “people people” –
i.e. worldly, wanting an enormous social life, and
not necessarily as
steeped in Scripture as they should be. Most ministers go into the job
in the first place because they want a job connected with people, not
because they love the Word of God. Consequently, they only interpret
Scripture in a man-exalting context, giving the people what their
itching ears want to hear, to keep themselves in favour with them.
(2.)
Anyone allowed to preach who feels like it
A
person two years in the faith can edify. He does know something, but
not much. He is quite right in sharing what he knows in informal
fellowship after church, and should be encouraged to do so, like a
small child should be encouraged when he says his first words. But for
sermons in a worship service, he is not suitable. It seems popular
these days to mistake a youthful zeal for a great gift in the church,
and people very young in the faith are put into leadership positions in
the church very, very quickly. This not only puffs them up with pride,
but also will not satisfy the congregation because of the person’s
relative ignorance in spiritual things. A bishop (elder) should be: “Not
a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation
of the devil” (1 Timothy 3:6).
(3.)
Correct view
I
would suggest that the only men who should be allowed into the pulpit
in Sabbath worship services are men ideally 20 years in the faith
minimum, or if this is not possible, the most mature Christian you can
find. Even in these cases, we should always be very aware that he could
make mistakes. He should be educated in the Scriptures, but someone of
that maturity in the faith should already have this qualification by
experience. He shouldn’t have to have some kind of training under the
auspices of a church. It is not wrong to have this as such, but the
problem with this is that in the training process, churches will always
fill their students with the church’s propaganda (after all, they are
probably paying for the training!), which is always a mixture of truth
and error. Of course all men are a mixture of truth and error, but if
we are trained by a church or external organisation, we are more
tempted to have engrained into us that what the church teaches is
right, and our outlook for the rest of our lives becomes permanently
stained by the errors imbibed (except, despite the training, the Holy
Spirit corrects this, of course).
Bad preaching
With regards the preaching itself, it is a degradation of Scripture
when the preacher:
- goes off the point.
-
tries to twist Scripture to convince people that Scripture teaches
particular tenets (usually those of the church), when it teaches no
such thing.
- uses the opportunity he has of
having an audience to try to impress people with his eloquence to
attract followers.
- expects to be followed. “You shut up
and listen to me.”
All
these things (and many more) happen in churches, and to what degree
they happen is proportional to the degradation of Scripture found
therein.
The manipulation of people is a very serious
business. To be effective, it must be performed without the
congregation realising they are being manipulated, otherwise they would
naturally rebel against it. All management training courses (and there
are plenty of them around today) have this as their primary element.
Good management is the art of manipulating people into doing what you
want them to do, whether they want to do it or not and without them
realising that they are being manipulated in any way.
But we
must ask ourselves, is this right? We must look at the morality of this
process and we must not just blindly accept everything people tell us
to do. This is not a manifesto for anarchy. Of course we need good
leaders, but rather we must be aware of the times when people are
manipulating us, so that we can think for ourselves and then decide
what is right or not.
We are being manipulated all the time.
We may not admit to being manipulated, but the fact is that, for
example, advertising works. People do buy products they see in
advertisements, and they do pass by other products which may be better
in an objective sense but which are not advertised as well. This is not
right. The better product gets sidelined into oblivion, whilst the
weaker product that has had the swish advertising campaign to promote
it gets the accolade. We must reach into the heart of how the human
mind works if we are to understand the many ways in which we are all
manipulated.
Let us examine a few techniques that are used,
and maybe you can discover them in the preaching you attend, so that
you can avoid being taken in by them.
The gap
theory
In
this means of manipulation, there is a steady, logical, correct
progression of argument in the discourse that nobody can fault and
which is absolutely sound. This carries the audience along with the
speaker for a while. Then, when the speaker is sure that the audience
are with him and hanging on his every word, he introduces a “gap” in
the logic and quickly, with sleight of hand, jumps across it and
continues his logical progression on the other side of it, hoping that
nobody has noticed. After the speech, everyone will agree what a
marvellous sermon it was, but upon closer examination of the text or of
a recording of the address (here is an advantage in recording the
sermon!), the logic “gap” can be clearly seen. Not only that, but it
can also be clearly seen that the “gap” has been deliberately
down-played and skimmed over quickly by the speaker because he knows
himself that his argument is weak at that point.
The straw
man theory
In
this type of manipulation, the speaker sets up a caricature of the
thing he is trying to shoot down, and then he shoots it down. The
caricature is given in such a way that it is simple to shoot it down
using correct logic, and then the speaker suddenly generalises to bring
his point home. I heard an example of this once when a minister was
wanting to refute pre-millennialism. He set up a caricature by telling
us all about the Dispensationalist pre-millennialism common in Brethren
circles, then he quite easily, and quite rightly and correctly, shot it
down in his argument. So far, so good. But then he immediately jumped
to his conclusion that “therefore all pre-millennialism is
wrong.” This
is a generalisation, and one lady in the meeting immediately cornered
him at that point by telling him that she agreed the Brethren view was
wrong and was easy to refute, but there are other more sober
pre-millennial views that are nowhere near as wild as the Brethren’s,
and he said nothing about them! The minister was duly put in his place!
(Please note that I am not here arguing for or against any form of
pre-millennialism, I am merely using this as an example of the use of
the straw man theory).
The
humble worm
When
a minister in conversation is cornered and can find no logical way out
of the position that he has been put in, he will suddenly change tack.
He will suddenly tell us how “humble” he is and how great God is and
that we should not go into things too high for us. This is deliberately
done to make the opponent feel small and guilty for trying to disagree
with him, whereas in fact the opposite is the case – the opponent has
actually won the debate, but he is never allowed the satisfaction of
being told he is right!
Blind
people with Bible references
This
technique uses copious Bible references. It is most commonly used in
written articles. This gives a veneer of scriptural authority, but if
one actually takes the time to look up all the references mentioned,
one sees the problem. A lot of verses are either completely mistaken
references, or at least taken out of context and/or do not say what the
minister is trying to tell people at all! Of course, the minister
relies on the fact that people will not bother to actually look the
references up, because there are so many of them; which makes the
minister appear so spiritual and learned. It is always good to look up
every reference, no matter how tedious this is, in order to ascertain
if a minister is really correct or not.
Give
people a wrong impression, without actually saying anything wrong
Two examples:
(a)
One minister I know of tried to corner a friend of mine, and using
Hebrews 2:9, started to promote the heresy of Amyraldianism. In the
course of conversation he said, “I’ve read Arthur Pink and John Owen on
this text,” and then carried on to say what he thought about it. At no
time did he ever actually say what Owen and Pink wrote about it, which
was exactly the opposite of the opinion he was trying to get across! He
said that he had read these authors, solely to give the listener the
impression that Pink and Owen agreed with
him, without actually telling
an outright lie by saying that they did.
(b) Another minister I
know of, knows full well that it is wrong to preach from the pulpit
“God wants to save all men.” So he would never actually say those
words. But if you come away from his preaching, you would always come
away with the impression
that God does indeed want to save all men,
even though he never ever actually says so.
These people can get
away with what they are saying because they could honestly stand in a
court of law, if they had to, and say, under oath, that they spoke the
truth. But the impression
they give is altogether different!
Exaggerated
impression
We
see this particularly in Charismatic churches, whereby they exaggerate
the truth to try to get the listener to believe the church is growing,
or being more successful, than it actually is. They could do this by
downright lying, but the usual technique is, as above, to make people
think these things are so, without actually saying so in as many words.
Pretend
to listen, then pound to death
This
technique is usually used in cases of one-to-one contact, particularly
if there is a dispute. The person spoken to is allowed freely to
present his point and given an opportunity to say everything he wants
to say with no opposition from the manipulator. Then once he has said
his piece (and thereby given the false sense of security that he is
getting a fair hearing for his grievance) he is harangued by the
manipulator for a long period of time, wherein he is made to feel
guilty, small and pathetic. The elongated harangue is not stopped until
the manipulator is sure that the person has become a quivering heap on
the floor. Then it is assumed that he is broken and will not cause
trouble again. This is very common with dominating personalities on
weak people. Most crack under this pressure. However, there is one
golden way of never succumbing to it. That is to realise at the outset
that it is purely a technique of manipulation. If you actually start
believing what is being said in the harangue, you will believe all that
is said; but if you realise from the outset that it is purely a
manipulation technique, you will have no problem in being able to
overcome it.
Sound
bites
An
assertive use of a dominating phrase, particularly if it is repeated
several times, can sound so profound on hearing it, especially if it is
spoken by a dominating, assertive personality. However, on actually
going away and thinking about it, the phrase used is actually
meaningless!
Emotive
language
The
use of emotive language is brought in by manipulators when their logic
is defective, in order to try and bring their point home forcibly. If
you stir the hearts of the audience emotionally, so these manipulators
think, they will believe anything you have to say. If however they
should go away and actually think of what was said in the cold light of
day, they would find that what was actually said wasn't very much, or
worse, was very wrong.
Make them
feel guilty
I
heard this from a pulpit once. The speaker said that people going down
into hell will be turning around and crying to the Christians, “Why
didn’t you tell us about Jesus?” So in this view, the unbelievers think
it is the Christian’s fault they are in hell, not their own! And, what
is worse, the Christians will be in heaven, eternally feeling guilty
that they didn’t tell the ones in hell about Jesus! This is blasphemy.
Nobody is going to feel guilty in heaven, and those in hell will know
full well that it is their fault they are there. But you see the guilt
tactics from the speaker. They make you feel guilty if you (a) dare
disagree with them; (b) don’t aggressively evangelise; (c) “split” the
church. But we must do what is just and true and right, whether we
cross swords with the minister or anyone else or not.
So we
see some of the techniques that are used in the manipulation of people
in churches. True religion is far from any of this kind of activity.
Manipulation is very, very wrong, and anyone who calls himself a pastor
of the flock is going wildly astray if he thinks he can use devious
techniques such as those outlined here in order to manipulate his flock
into doing what he wants them to do, and into believing what he wants
them to believe. We must be aware of these conjuring tricks if we are
not to be taken in by them and used by the many unscrupulous ministers
there are in the church today.
So what is true
preaching?
Acts 17:1-3 – here preaching is defined as reasoning “out of
the Scriptures.”
Reasoning with people is a two-way thing, with members of the
congregation asking questions, and a two-way discussion going on. We
have a message to get across, so we need to concentrate on getting it
across and making sure people understand it.
True preaching is:
- presenting the truth.
- persuading others to embrace the truth.
- reasoning with people in favour of the
truth.
- Making sure they understand the truth.
All
these include a two-way conversation between the preacher and the
hearers. Not just a one-way lecture with nobody being allowed to say
anything afterwards. Of course, it is off-putting to a lecturer for him
to be interrupted all the time, so lecturing as such should not be
condemned. The speaker should be allowed to continue uninterrupted
until he has finished what he has to say. But afterwards, there should
be a public facility to ask questions to aid understanding and learning
for both parties, the speaker and the congregation alike. Once people
understand the truth
they can begin to practise it in their lives,
which should be our ultimate aim.
We have a message to
proclaim and get across to others, but we are not to do it by waxing
eloquent, in a dominating manner, with no facility of reply. Preaching
is not a lecture / discourse which nobody is allowed to respond to,
with no formal means of asking the preacher questions if you are unsure
of anything. Under these circumstances, nobody is encouraged to learn
or understand the Scriptures for themselves. This leads to an army of
blind followers. Two-way communication is vital for understanding. If
ever the two-way conversation gets out of hand for any reason, you can
always simply take your leave and continue the conversation elsewhere
(Acts 19).
Now let us look at a few New Testament Scriptures to see what preaching
actually is.
Luke 2:46 – Joseph and His mother found the twelve-year-old Christ “in
the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and
asking them questions.”
Note He was not assertively telling them what to believe (even though
He was actually right all the time, unlike all other men!), neither was
He
sitting passively listening to them. Preaching is two-way communication
so both parties can learn from the other.
Acts 17:2,3 – it is “reasoning with them out of the Scriptures”.
“Opening and alleging…” Note that this is called
preaching: “Christ, whom, I preach unto you.”
Acts 17:17 – Paul “disputes” with “the
Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them
that met with him,” and this is called “preaching”
in v.18.
Acts 19:8 – disputing and persuading.
Acts 20:7 – Could a one-man “speech” last several
hours, until midnight, without some time for response? Note v.11 he
talked until break of day.
Acts 20:21, 25 – Testifying is equivalent to preaching.
Acts 28:23 – expounding, testifying, persuading
from morning until
evening. Reasoning (v.29), preaching
and teaching (v.31).
2 Timothy 4:2 – preaching, reproving, rebuking, exhorting.
Titus 1:3 – “manifested His Word through preaching”.
2 Peter 2:5 – Note Noah was a “preacher of righteousness”,
but no sign of a pulpit or waxing eloquent.
Whereas
we have a Scriptural warrant for some people being set aside for the
Word of God (Acts 6:2,4), and indeed that we should pay them for their
services (1 Corinthians 9:9-11; 1 Timothy 5:17-18), Paul still “wrought,”
earning a living by making tents (Acts 18:3). The problem we have with
full-time ministers, is that, in church courts, they tend not to vote
according to truth and righteousness, but rather, because their
livelihoods are at stake and they fear the stalwarts in the church,
they vote in political blocks, not wishing to disturb the status quo
under any circumstances. Similarly, evangelical bookshops with a full
time manager to pay, have to descend to selling trash in order to
survive. Is not the Scriptural warrant for payments to ministers to
give them expenses, but not to pay a full salary???
Primacy of the Word
of God
You
can never over-emphasise the Word of God. If the central part of the
worship service is a long Scripture reading, that wouldn’t be a bad
thing. The reader may be exalted for his eloquence, but this problem
would be minimised, because the reading would be the Word of God, not
the word of the reader. If the central part of a service is the sermon,
this is all well and good if the minister is doing what he should and
simply explaining the sense of the passage; but invariably he strays,
and it becomes a means of his being thought too highly by his
followers. There is nothing wrong with a three-hour sermon, but if the
sermon is the central point of the service, it does at least tend
towards the exalting of the preacher unduly.
We are “born again, not of corruptible seed, but of
incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever”
(1 Peter 1:23).
The right way of preaching is given in Nehemiah’s teaching (Nehemiah
8:8):
“So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and
gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.”
Pure
logical deduction is the only way we are to come to a knowledge of the
truth, never by emotional appeals or emotive language. Most preachers
use emotion in their sermons simply to try to get the people to believe
the Bible forcibly – a kind of emotional manipulation or blackmail if
you like. I remember one minister saying about a passage in the Bible
once, “I believe that; do you believe that?” As though, “well actually
we don’t believe it, but we’re trying to whip each other up into
thinking we all do believe it really”! I can't help thinking that
people who like this sort of preaching do not really believe at all
because they have to have this emotional crutch all the time to keep
them going, whereas the true believer really does believe the truth, he
simply would like it to be explained logically to him and opened up in
the preaching. Proper preaching is not trying to persuade people that
the Bible is true, it begins at assuming the Bible to be true and
explains the meaning from there.