Has Preaching Seen It’s Day?
There’s a lot of talk today concerning the end of preaching. Many churches have moved from preaching to dialogues to conversations to something. Others are advocating more old school forms as the only appropriate means of teaching. And in many ways one is left to wonder what to do with these observation.
Those who affirm preaching as a necessary and God ordained act decry any such of move away from preaching as sub-biblical, culturally driven, and relativistic. Those who are conversing say they’re communicating the gospel in a culturally relevant way something these old schoolers know nothing about. One group says they have the Bible on their side. One group says they have missiology on their side.
Surely there are extremes on both sides of this aisle. There are some who say the only true outworking of inerrancy is expositional preaching (meaning any form of topical preaching can’t faithfully and logically affirm inerrancy). There are others who say if you want to gather a crowd you better not talk about controversial subjects…like Jesus. But these are certainly extremes (and there are probably views even more extreme than these on either side).
But the question still remains, has preaching seen it’s day? Is there any place for the preaching act in 21st century churches? If so what form should/must this take? What does preaching even mean, for that matter?
So what’s your take? Has preaching seen it’s day?
December 18th, 2007 at 11:55 am
In a sermon preached Nov. 10, 1861 CH Spurgeon said:
The moment the Church of God shall despise the pulpit, God will despise her. It has been through the ministry that the Lord has always been pleased to revive and bless his Churches.
If you want to entertain, then do it. If you want to draw crowds, do whatever it takes. But if you want to be faithful to our Scriptural call, then Preach the Word, in season and out.
December 18th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Is that meant as a sort of rebuke or correction?
Do you think it’s possible to be faithful to “our Scriptural call” and still communicate in such a way that people are attracted? Or is your bifurcation deliberate, that is do you think no one can possibly be faithful to the gospel if they have a larger church?
Just curious on your take.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Wow…I gotta echo Jason on this one. Scott, in the midst of your rather open ended statements are you saying that the church is forced to choose betweeen staying ‘faithful to our scriptural call’ and attracting crowds. Wasn’t Jesus attracting crowds?
December 18th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Jason and Matthew
I apologize for coming across so short. Here’s the thing. Yes, Jesus attracted crowds, but most were drawn to the wrong thing. Once He put things on the line, they left. I guess you could say He would have had a “big” church, but it wouldn’t have lasted long enough to pay off the building loan!
I’m not trying to be critical of large churches. My point is rather that having big crowds has become our goal instead of truly making disciples. Jason, having just plugged Mark Dever’s book, I hope you’ll see where I’m coming from. We have lowered ourselves to entertaining just to draw crowds. The problem is we’ve filled our churches with unregenrate people because we’ve tried to please them, not God. Jesus made it clear what the demands were, and the crowds thinned.
Again, I’m all for big crowds. I’d love to have a building full every week. But that’s not up to me. We are to preach the Gospel and let God do the drawing and convicting. I got caught up in the dog and pony show for a few years, and we did see the numbers. But now, 10 years or so later I look back at that church and see very little lasting fruit. Folks only came for the show. When a better show came along, the crowds followed.
Again, I’m not saying all large churches are evil. I’m just saying that our goal is to preach the Gospel. In some cases, God will draw large crowds to that church. In others, God will chose to do something else (consider Carey, Hudson Taylor, etc.; all those missionaries who labored for years with little “visible” results).
I thought the question was on whether preaching was a thing of the past. I was simply saying that God called us to preach the Word. Spurgeon had a lot more to say about giving in to “amusements” over the Word, and I think he saw the coming storm even in his day. And yet, look at the large crowds who came to Christ through his preaching ministry.
The foolishness of preaching is God’s chosen method so that the results are clearly that of God, not of man-mad or man-manipulted efforts.
I’m not a theologian or the son of one; just a poor preacher (in more than one sense of the word, probably). I was just offering a response to the “death of preaching” idea. I pray we will faithfully communicate the Word of God, not seek the popularity or acclaim of men, and to God be the glory for any and all results.
Hope that clarifies.
December 18th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Thanks for your additional thoughts Scott. I think you’re prayer is a great reminder for all that we do in ministry. It’s quite easy to lose sight of whom we are doing this for and let the light shine on us for a while.
December 18th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Just trying to get a more accurate picture of Jesus’ ministry… so did the crowds really leave when Jesus “put things on the line” or did Jesus leave to move on and/or seek seclusion? I know that everyone left when Jesus was about to be crucified, but i thought it was usually Jesus who left/hid, not the crowds. Schoolboy error from an autodidact?
December 19th, 2007 at 8:00 am
Good thoughts Scott, I just wanted to press your line of thinking a bit to see what you would say. It would seem we put ourselves in a bad place if a crowd is our goal.
So with that a new question that comes is, “if we’re to commit to the preaching of the word what form must/ought that preaching take?” (Which is some of what you seen in the subsequent preaching posts…)
December 19th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Mark, the crowds leaving I had in mind comes from John 6. Jesus begins telling the folks the hard truth about following him and verse 66 tells us that the crowd left and never followed again.
Jason, it seems clear to me that “preaching” has since the beginning refered to the expository presentation of the Word. We see it all through Scripture, especially in instances like Nehemiah 8, and all through the NT. (And I”m sure the above Spurgeon comment referring to the “pulpit” had expository preaching in mind as well)
I refuse to buy into the whole “cultural” argument, that the style of preaching we see in Scripture is a slave to a particular time and place. After all, didn’t Jesus come in the “fullness of time” (Ephesians and Galatians, etc.) Don’t we believe that God was smart enough to send His Son at a time when the “culture” was right for what He was trying to do? Is God so small that He is bound by such things? Just a few thoughts.
December 19th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Scott,
Before I can know what to think of your comment I must have you define “expository preaching.” That’s the key to your logic.
Not sure I follow your last paragraph at all. Maybe you could clarify. thanks for your comments.
December 20th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Now, now Jason, don’t play like that. You know what expository preaching is. The straightforward proclamation of the Word in which the point of the text is the point of the message. I referred to the Nehemiah passage where the Word was read and then the elders explained the text. That’s what I mean.
As for the last paragraph, I may have read another discussion into this one. I constantly hear that preaching is passe; that standing and expositing the Word is old school and we have to do something new and different. I’m just saying that God sent Jesus at the exact moment in time He was inteneded to come; in that culture; with it’s unerstanding of preaching, etc. He could have done it differently. This is how He chose to do it. So to say that preaching is culturally outdated is foolish. Preaching transcends the culture. Expositing the Word has always been done in this way (with only slight variations) and should continue this way. Again, the point is in the power of God, not the flash of the presentation. Sorry if that’s not clear, but hey, it’s almost Christmas and I’ve got a few other things on my mind right now! Merry Christmas everyone!
(By the way, I know the truth of Christmas because the Bible told it to me and I heard the truth of it exposited from teachers and preachers.)
December 20th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
I think you mis-read my tone on this… I’m not playing any games. It’s just that depending upon you who speak with (or listen preach) expository preaching is vastly different.
For instance, if you listen to MacArthur and then you listen to Driscoll and then you listen to Piper and then you listen to Keller you hear very differently end products that are all called “exposition” by the preacher. That’s the reason I ask.
For instance, I hear a lot of “expositors” who are doing nothing more than running commentary. That’s different.
With that, if exposition is the straightforward proclamation of the word in which the point of the text is the point of the message what does that say for instances when we don’t get the text right? Or to say it another way, has there ever been a point in your preaching where you’d look back and say you missed a bit here or there? And if you have missed it here or there does that mean that exposition didn’t take place?
And finally, if you have would say you’ve never missed it (you’ve always been correct in your interpretation and application) isn’t that an extremely arrogant statement? I mean can I always say that I have proclaimed the God intended meaning of the text (ala MacArthur’s definition)?
December 20th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Jason, I think you missed my tone as well. I have this nasty habit of sarcasm that doesn’t come accross on the keyboard, since you can’t hear tone, etc. My apologies. I’m just havng a little fun.
I admit that there are times we don’t “get the text.” But at that point, I usually simply admit that. We preach through books on Sunday morning. Every once in awhile I’ve had to say “look, folks, honestly I’m struggling with this one, so we’re going to skip it for now while I do more study.” Folks seem to appreciate the honesty.
However, that doesn’t keep us from continuing to explain the texts we understand and studying to further understand those we struggle with.
I think I’ve made all this harder than I intended. I am merely saying that “No, preaching has not seen it’s day.” God has chosen the foolishness of preaching to impart grace and truth. When we get it right, God is honored. When we get it wrong, God often corrects it for us (I’ve had people come up after a service telling me what God said to them through the message and I’ve thought “were you in my church?! I didn’t say that!”)
Although I do remember reading at one point that Spurgeon said at the end of his life that looking back he wouldn’t change a word of what he had preached. I don’t think it was arrogance. I think God just kept him more faithful to the text than many of us. Why, I don’t know.
Again, the main point is simply an answer to your question: Is preaching done? No. To quote those eminent theologians, the OC Supertones: “I will keep preaching till I’m took out, till I’m in heaven en route. No sell out.”
Thanks for the discussion, and sorry again for sounding harsher than I intended.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Good thoughts. I agree, preaching has surely not seen it’s day.
I hope to get up some more posts on this issue next week.