PREACHER, GIVE THEM YOUR BEST!

C. Philip Slate

Public preaching is only one slice of important communications in a good local church. Especially in the “one another” texts in the New Testament, it is clear that rank-in-file in a congregation should engage in exhortation, comfort, instruction, correction, edification (up building), confession, and many other valuable acts of communication. That is part of the reason for assembling. Since preaching is public, prominent and church wide, however, it needs to be done well, even though only one communicative act in the church.

Someone has observed that “it is a sin to make the Word of God boring,” presumably in classes as well as from the pulpit. (This applies to both men and women who teach but do not preach.) Obviously, boredom may arise as much from disinterest and self-centeredness on the part of the hearers as from ill-prepared teachers and preachers. For a preacher to avoid boredom on his part, however, he should strive for three minimal things: be diligent in ascertaining the truth of Scripture, seek to shape that truth into a “hearable” message for a specific audience, and endeavor to keep his own life from standing in the way of the message. How are these things achieved?

Who is this Person Speaking to Me?

Paul exhorted Timothy to “keep close watch on yourself and on the teaching” (1 Timothy 4:16, ESV) because he needed to “preach” through his life as well as through his lips (v. 12). Because of the message-messenger connection, it is difficult for most people to accept a good message from a bad person. Though Jesus told the Jews to “practice and observe” valid teaching from the hypocritical scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 23:2-3), it is hard for most people to do that where message-messenger discord is present. Throughout 2 Corinthians Paul sought to answer his detractors partially by pointing to his own behavior as evidence of sincerity. Essentially, he was saying, “If I am a deceiver and insincere, why would I endure all of this mistreatment and suffering, especially since I gain from it nothing of a worldly nature?” In our own day hearers usually can determine whether a man takes seriously in his own life what he preaches to others; hearers will form opinions of whether the preacher has lived with and under the texts he preaches.

On the other hand, the intrusion of “self” can be an unwanted and negative feature of preaching. We have all seen it. The famous Italian artist, Michelangelo, was known to have fashion a thick paper hat on which he fixed a candle so the shadow of himself would not get in the way of his work. Preaching involves the self, but it is not the occasion to display self.

All public address, preaching included, is culturally regulated. In the North American context, Thom Rainer’s research in thirty-five States takes much guesswork out of the question, “What kind of preacher makes sense to outsiders?” In his Surprising Insights from the Unchurched (Zondervan, 2008) he devotes two chapters to that subject, but the bottom line is that outsiders hear the Word of God best from one who is authentic, sincere, and serious about what he teaches. It is likely the same for insiders.

A few years ago, and in the same year, I heard disappointing and tragic reports about two preachers. One stated from the pulpit, unfortunately not as a confession, “No, I don’t study; I studied in college.” Another said he wanted people to review books for him since he didn’t have time to read books. His sermons (on the Internet) indicate he may have had too little time to spend with The Book. In cases like these the preachers, their sermons, and the congregations suffer. The ministry of preaching deserves better than that.

Men can get ideas for sermons from many sources, not least the people to whom they preach. It is very permissible for men to get seed ideas from substantive books, published sermons, sermon outline books, and the Internet, but three cautions are important. First, there is the danger of plagiarism, of dishonestly presenting others’ material as one’s own. This is a cardinal sin in academic circles; professors have been reprimanded or dismissed for it. Preachers also have been dismissed because of it! Second, borrowing heavily from others and failing to wrestle with the text reduces the preacher’s facility with Scripture. Authenticity cannot be borrowed but borrowing too much material from others can thwart authenticity. Third, men cheat themselves out of spiritual growth and the right to be heard when they fail to wrestle with both the meaning and implications of Scripture. William Barclay rightly contended, “Preaching is the art of making a preacher and delivering that. Preaching is the outreach of the soul in speech. Therefore, the elemental business in preaching is not with the preaching but with the preacher” (Fishers of Men [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966], p. 37). Striving for personal holiness is deeply involved in preaching effectively, but crafting a sermon is also important.

Isn’t it possible for a good, sincere man to preach poor sermons, or at least inferior to his own life and ability? Certainly so, but what can be done about that?

What is this Man Saying to Me?

Logically, sermons ought to flow out of a man’s theology, and especially his view of the text of Scripture. Achieving consistency between solid biblical theology and the way that theology is dressed for presentation to others can be aided considerably by studying the best of thought on preaching. For many years, the printed versions of the Lyman Beecher Lectures at Yale and the Warrack Lectures in Scotland have well served those who have read them. More recent books on preaching can be helpful.

From the early 1970s to the early 1990s writers on preaching were particularly fruitful. Men like Fred Craddock, Haddon Robinson, Thomas Long, David Buttrick, Elizabeth Achtemeier, John Killinger, Sidney Greidanus and others were producing thought-provoking works out of a variety of theologies. Their books were stimulating and at times challenging to men who wanted to grow in their preaching skills. Paul Scott Wilson has given a useful description and critique of many of the writers on homiletics over the previous fifty years, and his book is a useful digest of that thought (Preaching and Homiletical Thought [St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 2004]). A conscientious preacher will do well to process works like this in order to learn how others get their ideas across. There is wisdom in the suggestion that preachers should read annually one good book on preaching, homiletics, or public address, just to remind him of the nobility and challenge of standing before people to mediate the Word of God.

Several of us who studied with Batsell Barrett Baxter in the 1950s felt his own preaching was flawless, the kind of winsome communication that caused people to act on the Word. My impression of him, however, was that as long as he was able to preach, he was trying to improve his skills, especially in his television work. What a testimony to his belief in the integrity and importance of preaching!

Preaching, like all public address, is somewhat regulated by the cultures in which it takes place. Vocabularies, pressing needs, levels of initial interest, media, and human expectations vary over time. People still quote an old statement by theologically liberal Harry Emerson Fosdick: “Only the preacher proceeds still upon the idea that folk come to church desperately anxious to discover what happened to the Jebusites” (Harper’s Magazine, July 1928). The discerning preacher will begin at different places with different types of people, but over time he is obligated to preach the “whole counsel of God.” He has a big challenge to put the appropriate dress on the storyline of Scripture, on God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, on biblically rooted ethical thought, on a life of worship, the last things and so forth. His task is both to preach good news and to show how that message is to reshape the worldview of his hearers so they will become disciples of Jesus and learn to “think Christianly,” to use Harry Blamires happy term.

It is clear that several types of preaching (textual, topics) may be valid, but given our view of Scripture it appears most appropriate for our preachers to major in exposition of the text in such a manner that it engages the hearers in a profitable manner. Accurate exegesis must be the basis of all good preaching; where that is absent one is in grave danger of “speaking falsely for God” (cf. Job. 13:7).

Deep commitment to preach the truth as found in Scripture should be the bedrock of profitable preaching. George Beasley-Murray repeated a story about the Swiss New Testament scholar, Adolf Schlatter, a hard-working man of few words who was theologically fairly conservative and spoke English with a broad accent. When he went to Berlin as the successor of the famous Adolf Harnack, the Kulturminister said, “I am delighted, Herr Professor, that you have come to Berlin to represent orthodox theology in our university.” “Ah baint coom here to represent anything,” replied Schlatter. “Ah coom here to work!” “I meant, Herr Professor, that I am delighted at your coming because you take your stand on the Word of God.” “Sir, Ah don’t stand on the Word of God,” he replied, “Ah stand under the Word of God. Good morning!” The preacher’s integrity and preaching will be much better when he stands under the Word.

The thrill that comes when one gets inside of an extended biblical text or book often creates the temptation to give oral commentary. Valuable as that may be as a written document (a commentary), it is not good preaching fare. Most people are not like the community associated with the Dead Sea scrolls. A teacher would give a line of Scripture and then say, “The meaning is . . .”, then give another line, and so forth. Likely, many people want you to explain what the text means, but they also want to know what difference it makes to them or anyone else. Reading about the use of developmental materials (illustrations, statistics, metaphors, similes, etc.) can help immeasurably in the engagement facet of preaching. Jesus did it. The application part of the sermon, though decidedly less important than the biblical concepts involved, is usually where a sermon succeeds or fails in the perception of the hearers. People need windows into application and mirrors for reflection on the Word. Help them. This raises the question, however, of what people desire, at best, when they sit there and listen to a sermon.

What is it that I Expect or Want?

People may not want what they need or need what they want, but if preachers do not begin where people are it is unlikely that they will lead them where they need to be. That requires both general cultural sensitivity and familiarity with the group addressed. One great challenge in preaching is how to make a given sermon appeal to a broad spectrum of people. There they sit, from early teens to the closing years on earth, diversely educated and with varying interests in life, and with diverse levels of understanding the way of God. It is not possible to appeal equally to all of them in each sermon. It may be appropriate to mention that a given lesson will not apply to everyone equally, but that others will do well to be “listeners in” on the sermon.

On the other hand, there are likely some common needs that people feel when they sit before a preacher. I wonder how many identify as Edna Hong when she wrote, “May I plead that every time you step into the pulpit you remember me? Please see me in the sea of faces. I will be there, down in the pew. Not by force or habit, not against my will, but eagerly, joyfully, the ears of my heart pricked to hear the message of the truth . . .. Don’t let me go; leaving as the same person I was when I came. Send me home with a new vision of the possibilities of the life lived in Christ” (“Plain Talk from the Pew,” Word & World 3:2 [Sp. 1983]:167). Yes, we preachers would like to achieve that for hearers like Hong. The task is not easy, but it is worth the effort. After all, preaching is for them, isn’t it?

I remember Batsell Barrett Baxter’s giving a chapel talk at Lipscomb in the mid-1950s. On the way home that day a young woman among those who rode with me to and from college, commented, “Honestly, I think if Dr. Baxter were to tell me to jump off the Administration building I would do it!” Exaggeration? Yes. But she was referring to the way in which Baxter’s moral earnestness, his transparent integrity along with his presenting vital ideas from Scripture motivated her to act accordingly. That was a happy combination of biblical truth dressed in such a manner as to achieve a behavioral result.

The hearers, the act of preaching, and the preacher himself deserve the best he can give to the preaching event. As we sing about the Christian life in general, so for peaching: “Give of your best to the Master . . .”

_______________________

This is a revised and expanded article that appeared in the Gospel Advocate (January 2009).

Truth

Conspiracy Theories, Fake News, and Truth

Joel Stephen Williams

We have witnessed some amazing and tragic events in recent days that have been the result of people believing conspiracy theories and fake news. Unfortunately, many Christians do not think in a critical and reasonable manner, and they get caught up in believing untruths, obsessing over them, and passing them along in conversations and on social media. Very often Christians want to believe these false narratives, because they dislike certain individuals or groups of people. Instead of checking out a story line, Christians often pass it along, because it supports their bias and prejudice. Not only is this sinful because it goes against the second commandment to love your neighbor but also it is antithetical to the principle of truth. Notice how important truth should be to Christians.

Christianity is a religion of truth, because “the fruit of the light is found in all that is good and right and true” (Eph. 5:9). Christ came to us as one who was “full of truth” (John 1:17). He was and is “the truth” (John 14:6). The “truth is in Jesus” (Eph. 4:21). The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth and his purpose is to lead us to the truth (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13; 1 John 5:6). God's word is “truth,” and it is truth which can make us holy (John 17:17, 19; 2 Thess. 2:13) and give us new life (Jas. 1:18). God judges us according to “truth” (Rom. 2:2). Although the world may have little concern for “truth” and may even mock it (John 18:38), “suppress” it (Rom. 1:18), exchange it “for a lie” (Rom. 1:25), “obey not the truth” (Rom. 2:8), “refuse to love the truth” (2 Thess. 2:10), “not believe the truth” (2 Thess. 2:12), be “bereft of truth” (1 Tim. 6:5), “swerve from the truth” (2 Tim. 2:18), “never arrive at a knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 3:7), “oppose the truth” (2 Tim. 3:8), “turn away from listening to the truth and wander away to myths” (2 Tim. 4:4), or “reject the truth” (Titus 1:14), nevertheless, “truth” ought to be a high priority for Christians.

Paul preached “the sober truth” (Acts 26:25; cf. 2 Cor. 6:7; 7:14; 11:10; 12:6). He taught that we ought to live according to the “truth” (1 Cor. 5:8). Our ministry should not be “against the truth” but “for the truth” (2 Cor. 13:8; cf. 3 John 8). We ought to “obey the truth” (Gal. 5:7), because our souls can be purified by “obedience to the truth” (1 Pet. 1:22). We should be “established in the truth” (2 Pet. 1:12) and “do the truth” (1 John 1:6). We need to be “walking in the truth” (2 John 4; 3 John 3–4) and make sure that we do not “wander from the truth” (Jas. 5:19). By right living we can make sure that we are “from the truth” and that the “truth is in us” (1 John 1:8; 2:4, 21; 3:18–19). The gospel is “truth” (Gal. 2:5, 14; Col. 1:5), and everyone of us ought to “speak the truth to our neighbors” (Eph. 4:25). “Truth” ought to be as much a part of our lives just as a belt is an essential element to our clothing (Eph. 6:14). The mission of the church is to uphold and proclaim the “truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). We need to “rightly explain the truth” to others (2 Tim. 2:15). Truth is more than sincerity. It is opposed to that which is false. It is the opposite of error. Search for the truth and hold to it, even if you must abandon a traditional belief or suffer opposition or endure persecution. Learn the difference between the “spirit of truth and the spirit of error” (1 John 4:6). Follow the truth. Jesus said to his followers, “You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (John 8:32).

HAD HELEN HEARD . . .

C. Philip Slate

Married people at times wonder, “What difference would it have made had I married ____ rather than my spouse?” One might ask, “How different might the USA and Great Britain be today if there had been no World War I and II? Another might ask, “If the USA and her allies had lost the war in the Pacific, what would life here be now?”

There is a mantra that runs, “It is futile to dwell on the ifs of history.” Indeed, it can be a waste of time. On the other hand, it might not be an entirely fruitless venture since those who are willing can learn from the past.[1] Take one case in point.

Most of us see differently as to who are our heroes and heroines. Indeed, one person’s hero might be another person’s villain. Despite such differences, most of us will take off our hats to the remarkable achievements of a woman who as a child became both deaf and blind, and soon thereafter, became mute. The little girl from Tuscumbia, Alabama lost her sight and hearing at 19 months through something like meningitis or measles. Helen Keller (1880-1968) eventually graduated from Radcliffe College as the first deaf and blind person to earn a B. A. degree in the United States. As extraordinary as that was, earning a college degree was not what chiefly gave Keller her worldwide reputation.

Her first autobiography[2] recounts those initial years when she lived “at sea in a dense fog.” With the help of a remarkable teacher, Anne Sullivan, she learned to read, write, and speak. Eventually, she authored a dozen books and several articles. She worked in numerous political and social causes and was especially interested in helping people with disabilities. Worldwide, she is known for what she did for the blind. Reading her biographies is an edifying and educational—even rebuking—exercise. It evokes a sense of both awe and appreciation.

Perhaps it is one of my futile “ifs of history” to wonder what difference it would have made in Helen’s life had she not lost sight, hearing, and speaking at a young age. Her accomplishments demonstrated she had enough native intelligence to accomplish those many important things, but would she have been inclined to do them had she been more normal? Would there have been an Annie Sullivan to believe in her? Would she even have cared about the blind and deaf? Who knows?

Few things excite my pity more than seeing a blind child! What light is shut out, what joyous views are cut off—sunsets, butterflies, smiles, flowers, and the friendly behavior of a puppy! Happily, Keller enjoyed animals. It might be some character flaw in me that I don’t feel the same outrage at a child with a twisted leg or a withered arm. The social consequences are not as severe for those maladies as for blindness and deafness; these life-limiting activities are of a different sort. Even now as I think of that triple-challenged little girl my stifled weeping hurts my throat.

What difference would it have made had Helen been able to hear and see? I wonder what would have tickled her fancy, what would have challenged her energies? Would she have desired to study at Radcliffe, or even care about the art in Europe? Would she have done any more for the blind than to put a dime in a plastic seeing-eye dog? What a tragedy it would have been if she grew up with aims no loftier than being a high school cheerleader or having dates with boys who drove old pickup trucks with gun racks in the back? Would she have been a spoiled little debutante?

What she might have become is indeed idle speculation, but it is clear that much of what she became and accomplished came through at least two things: her abject adversities and her teacher. Both elements are worth thinking about philosophically.

As a human being, there is no way I can bring myself to say or even feel it was good for little Helen to have been cut off from normal life. It may be a good line for me to say, in retrospect, that I am glad I was in that car wreck, or had that disease, or experienced that big disappointment since I grew through all of them; but it is not a line I can bring myself to say about another. I can rejoice and thank God for what Helen Keller did for the disadvantaged and do so without being glad she suffered her maladies.

Often people accomplish valuable things through what the British historian, Arnold Toynbee, called "the challenge of adversity" that can be observed in both nations and individuals. A multitude of individuals argues by their lives that the experience of adversity and setbacks is not irremediable. They are not the ultimate defeats. A person can fight back, to overcome, to build, to do things she or he might never try as long as life is lived in the cult of softness.

What I am stating here may function for you like the second factor in Helen Keller’s life, her teacher and fifty-year companion. One wonders how many potential scientists or preachers, physicians or teachers, counselors or pharmacists, writers or architects, skilled machinists or nutritionists there are in poverty-stricken neighborhoods, city ghettos, or little cabins in the mountains; people who could grow and achieve if someone were to be an encourager, a dream-creator for them? Adversity can demoralize and stultify the human spirit unless there is some kind of intervention of idealism and encouragement! The ability to overcome, to bring order out of chaos, must somehow be ignited by an external spark—an Annie Sullivan, a book, or a school. Two once-popular movies make this point: “Stand and Deliver” and “October Sky.”

Here we are, one hundred and forty years since Hellen Keller was born. Her life achievements can be assessed better than they could when she died in 1968, but I wonder how different things would have been if Helen had been able to hear and see.

Encourage people! Use written notes, letters, email, phone calls—in sermons, classes, and personally in the foyer--any way to say, “I think you would do well to. . . .You can do it." (see Eph. 6:11; Col. 4:8; 1 Thess. 5:11, 14; 1 Tim. 5:1; Heb. 10:25). Encouraging is a part of Christian living and ministry.

_____________________

[1] Joseph Edgar Chamberlin, The Ifs of History (1907; republished); Andrew Rogers, editor, What Might Have Been: Leading Historians on Twelve ‘What Ifs’ of History (2004).

[2] Hellen Keller, The Story of My Life. New York: Doubleday, Page & Company, 1903. This work covers the first twenty-one years of her life.