AH! We finally get rolling on this project.
As one who enjoys historical perspectives I found this first chapter interesting in a few ways. The evolution of the structure of preaching through the ages in particular. One thing we rarely talk about is how the ministers of the early church preached. We talk about what they preached about, but not how they delivered or structured the messages. Most of what we do know is based on the written epistles. Things written and things orated are not structured the same. As such we don't really know what sermons preached by Paul, Peter, Barnabas, Thomas, John, Bartholomew or any of the NT preachers sounded like. We can surmise that they reflected Christ's own delivery and the cultural dynamics of the day.
We all have our own ideas about how sermons should be today, often in the modern church preachers are accepted or rejected more on the style rather than the substance of the preaching. As Quicke states prophetic preaching is more measured on sweat and noise. It would seem to me that the term "prophetic" as applied here is more akin to what we Apostolics (likely most American Churches) would call anointed.
The fact is that time, place, and audience would really dictate the type of preaching called for. In other words do i need to "herald" "bring good news" "hold discourse" "pronounce" or "dictate and argue" my message.
In the jail I may herald or bring good news, however in a church I may pronounce or hold discourse. Even with in the later it may well depend on what my function as preacher in that setting is, as well as my relation to the hearers.
One thing that particularly struck me is the concept of antagonistic preaching. If we all agree that preaching is God's word in human words then why are we modern preachers so afraid of offending those we preach to? Jesus offended many but some where saved, likewise with all the early preachers. It requires an act of boldness. In ACTS 4 we read of the boldness of Peter and John as their preaching antagonized the elders, they were threatened and commanded to stop preaching in that name "Jesus". Upon testimony of this to the church prayer was offered on their behalf that they continue preaching boldly. If our preaching is truly anointed we must preach it. We can not interpret rejection of our message as being a lack of anointing. It is said that Jeremiah never won a convert, he was rejected by his own church (people of God) yet we today call him a prophet and a preacher even though by our own standards today we would consider such an outcome to mean that he is not called. To make sure that I am called by my church I will be sure to preach messages that are well acceptable.
I was a little confused by the correlation between OT prophets, NT apostles and modern preachers in that Quick cites that both those in the old and new testaments represent God, speak God's word, and understand that God's word is God' deed, but he then cites Greidenus statement that modern preachers share the last two characteristics as if to imply that modern preachers do not represent God. Yet he goes on to state that Preachers are "God's sent persons" and he alludes to the passage of scripture that states we are the ambassadors of Christ. I would argue that today all Holy ghost filled Christians "represent" God. I will take it one step further to say that it is all Holy Ghost filed persons job to "proclaim" their good news as a witness. When any of us witness to the lost we are speaking God's word in Human words and representing the almighty himself in that time, place and situation.
I did strongly agree with the final pages of this first chapter in that the delivery of the message much be relative maybe even innovative to the times and the field in which it is to be delivered. Dr. James Littles delivered a beautiful "discourse and argument" two years ago at Mo Dist conference on this dynamic entitled "the changing of the field" Both Quick and Littles argue that we must be commensurate with the times and culture in delivery and application of our sermons and mission. Quick also makes reference to this matter earlier in the chapter when he equates the prophetic application of the word with the term "today-ness" or how this applies to us today.
Making use of trends in speaking, and in medium is vital. Just as the early protestants took full advantage of the print medium so must we use all the tools at our disposal to day to propagate the transformational message of Jesus Christ. At the end of the day isn't that what our job really is all about?
Monday, June 22, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
The last shall be first!
I received the Holy Ghost at nine year old. During my teen years, I went to church but did not live for God like I should have. When I was 21 years old the Lord began to deal with me and I gave my life to Him once and for all. There have been some real hard times but the Lord saw me through and He still does. I cannot tell anyone the very moment God called me to preach but I can tell the year I accepted the call, in 1992. Bro. Forbes and I feel we will pastor a church one day but until then we are both happy in the ministry He has us in. It is very rewarding to be in the will of God, where you know you are called and it is a restful place, if you know what I mean. I like the way the Lord give us the desires we desires of Him but will give another desire to attain in Him. Word of advice, an important fruit of the Spirit that needs to be cultivated in a minister's life is patience, waiting on the Lord.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
The "Voice in the Wilderness" in the Wilderness of Voices
Summarizing Chapter 1: "Preaching Roots"
When you think about it, it's really a counter-intuitive claim. That retelling stories from an ancient Book is key to transforming modern peoples' lives. Yet, that's exactly the claim made for Christian preaching! And even Paul seems to recognize the almost-irrationality of the statement when he speaks of the "foolishness of preaching."
Preaching is foolish. And effective. As Quicke says, every great spiritual revival has been led by a revival of preaching! (In a sense, Jesus' use of parables represented a revival of preaching that had degenerated in the synagogue into mind-numbing squabbles amongst scribes).
Really, what Quicke wants to offer in this first chapter is a definition of preaching. But what I think is most obvious is that "a" definition of preaching might be as impossible as finding "a" word to describe the character of God. Preaching is multifaceted; no one definition can completely explain what preaching is.
Instead, Quicke offers three biblical descriptors of preaching that, while not "defining" what it means, sort of set the boundaries for the discussion. Preaching, according to the Bible, is prophetic, transformational, and incarnational.
Preachers as Prophets
I'm prejudiced here by my ongoing love for the Old Testament prophets . . . but I think that the picture of the "preacher as prophet" very accurately describes the task of preaching today. I would go so far as to say that the entire mission of the Church could be described as prophetic . . . but more on that later.
Pedagogical theory claims that lecture is the worst form of information dissemination available . . .at least, it has the lowest information-retention rates of any learning method. In many respects, a sermon is a lot like a lecture (and maybe this is something wrong with our contemporary understanding of the "sermon" but, again, more on that later . . .)
But, if the analogy between lectures and sermons is even only slightly correct, then we are forced to ask ourselves: "Why did God choose 'the foolishness of preaching' as His preferred means of sharing the saving Gospel?" If passively listening to someone else speak means low retention of information, why would God communicate the life-or-death message of Jesus Christ in this manner? Does God not remember how our cognitive capacities are designed?
"God's Word in Human Words"
I think the answer to this question lies in the simple fact that preaching (unlike lecturing) is not about our words but about God's words! And God's words are very unique in that, as Quicke says, "God's words are God's deeds!"
There's this whole thing called "speech-act theory" which attempts to understand the ways in which words "do" things. For example, when the pastor says, "I now pronounce you husband and wife," just by virtue of saying those words, that couple is now married. The pronouncement of the words actually performs the marriage. Though the pastor led them through the vows, if he does not pronounce them "husband and wife," they are not considered married.
Granted, not all words "do" things. But, in the Bible, God's word is always "doing" something. From the beginning, God does things with His word. "And God said, 'Let there be light!' and there was light!" God uses His word to create the world because His word has creative power. It brings into existence something that wasn't there before.
And that's exactly why Christian preaching literally "produces" (or "creates") conviction in the soul of the sinner, peace in the mind of the troubled, motivation in the heart of the discouraged. God's word has literal power to transform lives.
So, that's my definition of "preaching": God's Word in human words. For me, this helps to remind me of the importance of being faithful to the text . . . of focusing not on what I think the congregation "needs to hear" but on what the Word of God says to that congregation. So often, I find myself looking for a text to support a "thought". . .but that's completely backward. I am trying to make the Word of God fit my preaching agenda rather than shaping my sermon to fit God's agenda for the service. Instead, I should allow the "thought" to lead me to the text, but then I must allow the text to "challenge" my thought and reshape my perspective.
This is the real reason much of contemporary preaching is powerless: they are human words POSTURING as "God's word" not God's Word expressed in human words! What this world needs is not more "creative" sermons but more authoritative sermons where the hearer can be certain that he or she has heard the voice of God in the words of the preacher! The voice of God is the only power in preaching!
So, that's my thoughts . . .how would you define preaching?
When you think about it, it's really a counter-intuitive claim. That retelling stories from an ancient Book is key to transforming modern peoples' lives. Yet, that's exactly the claim made for Christian preaching! And even Paul seems to recognize the almost-irrationality of the statement when he speaks of the "foolishness of preaching."
Preaching is foolish. And effective. As Quicke says, every great spiritual revival has been led by a revival of preaching! (In a sense, Jesus' use of parables represented a revival of preaching that had degenerated in the synagogue into mind-numbing squabbles amongst scribes).
Really, what Quicke wants to offer in this first chapter is a definition of preaching. But what I think is most obvious is that "a" definition of preaching might be as impossible as finding "a" word to describe the character of God. Preaching is multifaceted; no one definition can completely explain what preaching is.
Instead, Quicke offers three biblical descriptors of preaching that, while not "defining" what it means, sort of set the boundaries for the discussion. Preaching, according to the Bible, is prophetic, transformational, and incarnational.
Preachers as Prophets
I'm prejudiced here by my ongoing love for the Old Testament prophets . . . but I think that the picture of the "preacher as prophet" very accurately describes the task of preaching today. I would go so far as to say that the entire mission of the Church could be described as prophetic . . . but more on that later.
Pedagogical theory claims that lecture is the worst form of information dissemination available . . .at least, it has the lowest information-retention rates of any learning method. In many respects, a sermon is a lot like a lecture (and maybe this is something wrong with our contemporary understanding of the "sermon" but, again, more on that later . . .)
But, if the analogy between lectures and sermons is even only slightly correct, then we are forced to ask ourselves: "Why did God choose 'the foolishness of preaching' as His preferred means of sharing the saving Gospel?" If passively listening to someone else speak means low retention of information, why would God communicate the life-or-death message of Jesus Christ in this manner? Does God not remember how our cognitive capacities are designed?
"God's Word in Human Words"
I think the answer to this question lies in the simple fact that preaching (unlike lecturing) is not about our words but about God's words! And God's words are very unique in that, as Quicke says, "God's words are God's deeds!"
There's this whole thing called "speech-act theory" which attempts to understand the ways in which words "do" things. For example, when the pastor says, "I now pronounce you husband and wife," just by virtue of saying those words, that couple is now married. The pronouncement of the words actually performs the marriage. Though the pastor led them through the vows, if he does not pronounce them "husband and wife," they are not considered married.
Granted, not all words "do" things. But, in the Bible, God's word is always "doing" something. From the beginning, God does things with His word. "And God said, 'Let there be light!' and there was light!" God uses His word to create the world because His word has creative power. It brings into existence something that wasn't there before.
And that's exactly why Christian preaching literally "produces" (or "creates") conviction in the soul of the sinner, peace in the mind of the troubled, motivation in the heart of the discouraged. God's word has literal power to transform lives.
So, that's my definition of "preaching": God's Word in human words. For me, this helps to remind me of the importance of being faithful to the text . . . of focusing not on what I think the congregation "needs to hear" but on what the Word of God says to that congregation. So often, I find myself looking for a text to support a "thought". . .but that's completely backward. I am trying to make the Word of God fit my preaching agenda rather than shaping my sermon to fit God's agenda for the service. Instead, I should allow the "thought" to lead me to the text, but then I must allow the text to "challenge" my thought and reshape my perspective.
This is the real reason much of contemporary preaching is powerless: they are human words POSTURING as "God's word" not God's Word expressed in human words! What this world needs is not more "creative" sermons but more authoritative sermons where the hearer can be certain that he or she has heard the voice of God in the words of the preacher! The voice of God is the only power in preaching!
So, that's my thoughts . . .how would you define preaching?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)