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?