Amens

[dwayner79]

Read any one of the New Testament epistles, or read any of Jesus' discourses. They don't sound anything like a "sermon". That is because they are designed to communicate the truth rather than to engage an audience.

I also would vehemently disagree with the notion that unless one uses rhetorical devices, illustrations that have nothing to do with scripture, and histrionic delivery, that somehow the Spirit will not be involved!? The Spirit does not need our help. And the Spirit uses the truth. If I tell you something that is true and biblical, the Spirit makes the truth of this thing I told you real to you. If I tell you a story that has nothing to do with the Bible, there is nothing for the Spirit to work with. If I use a rhetorical device or flourish, I am operating in the energy of the flesh and you are responding in kind with the result that the Spirit's ministry will be limited to that extent, even if what I said happens to be by way of aside "true". If I rant and rave (i.e., "preach"), all I am doing is stirring you up emotionally - and it is inevitable that these emotions will get in the way of any hearing/learning of anything that might be true. Some people mistake this sort of emotional disturbance for the ministry of the Spirit. They couldn't be more wrong. The Spirit moves us with His "still, small voice" in the quiet of our hearts (1Kng.19:11-13), not by means of big noisy rallies where we get all worked up by the speaker. That is how politicians work. If we are teaching the truth, the truth will produce an impact far beyond anything imaginable, and not just a momentary emotional "rush", but a powerful, sustained and sustaining closeness to the Lord through the only true means of getting closer to the Lord: hearing, understanding, believing and living the Word of God.

Love,
Madeline

You are saying polar opposites without the ability to have a happy middle ground. Having sat in years of theological classrooms, I can assure you there is a difference between proper biblical teaching and proper biblical preaching. They are closely related, for sure, but they are not the same.

BTW, the epistles were letters not sermons, but while you mention it, rhetorical devices and illustrations were used all the time in the epistles, not to mention Jesus' sermon on the mount, the sermon on Mar's hill, and Steven's pre-stoning sermon.

[Colin Stolzer]

Amens don't matter one way or the other to me either when I'm listening or when I'm preaching or teaching. I believe what God says and he says his word won't return void. The way I approach it though is I try to preach the Gospel and teach the doctrine.

C

[sarcrew]

:goodpost:

[JerryNumbers]

18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
Rev 1:18 (KJV)

14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
Rev 3:14 (KJV)

14 And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.
Rev 5:14 (KJV)

12 Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen.
Rev 7:12 (KJV)

4 And the four and twenty elders and the four beasts fell down and worshipped God that sat on the throne, saying, Amen; Alleluia.
Rev 19:4 (KJV)

20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
Rev 22:20-21 (KJV)

Cool, the Bible says even the prophet Jeremiah said amen, so why are so many against amen and or to bashful to say amen?

6 Even the prophet Jeremiah said, Amen: the LORD do so: the LORD perform thy words which thou hast prophesied, to bring again the vessels of the LORD'S house, and all that is carried away captive, from Babylon into this place.
Jer 28:6 (KJV)

72 or 73 amens in the Bible, Yes, amen is of the Bible! Thanks be to God for His grace and that wonderful Amen, Jesus Christ. Will anyone amen that?

[Jerry]

Amen! :coffee

[sarcrew]

:amen:

Wayne

[Madeline]

You are saying polar opposites without the ability to have a happy middle ground. Having sat in years of theological classrooms, I can assure you there is a difference between proper biblical teaching and proper biblical preaching. They are closely related, for sure, but they are not the same.

BTW, the epistles were letters not sermons, but while you mention it, rhetorical devices and illustrations were used all the time in the epistles, not to mention Jesus' sermon on the mount, the sermon on Mar's hill, and Steven's pre-stoning sermon.

You have a point, in both paragraphs; however, I would still stand by my comments. We are talking in generalities here, and by definition that means that to some extent these things are going to be a matter of degrees unless we take up specific examples.

On the issue of teaching versus preaching, on the one hand I am not arguing for turning the pulpit into a theological class room. On the other hand, it is absolutely true that if one starts with the idea of sermonizing, one will never produce a product that does what scripture intends for a pastor/teacher to do for his flock: teach them what is in the Bible. The sermon as a form is incapable of genuine communication and education because is what the Greek rhetoricians called an epideictic speech; that is, a speech designed to entertain, to amuse, and to show off the capabilities of the person giving it (content is only gratuitous and always secondary). The difference between a "good sermon" and a "bad sermon" in the eyes of anyone attending church is ever going to be how entertained, how motivated, how guilty or giddy they "felt" when they listened to it: not whether or not they learned anything about Jesus Christ and His Word.

On the issue of forms, it is true that the epistles are clearly different means of communication, but they have in common with what a pastor/teacher is supposed to be doing the purpose of edifying the listener rather than entertaining the listener and glorifying the speaker (as in sermons). If one would look at the "speeches" in the book of Acts, for example, one would also see just how far removed biblical practice is from sermonizing. To some degree, everything is rhetorical. But there is a point where communication and persuasion in a good cause become mere devices for entertainment and for propagandizing a bad cause. The line between rhetoric and sophistry is not always drawn razor-sharp, and there is certainly nothing sinful about communicating in a good and pleasing style, but when style and substance compete, it is always better to go with the latter. My complaint is about the complete or nearly complete removal of substance for the sake of style (that is what I mean in my previous post when I say "rhetoric"). And I do think that it is absolutely fair to say that Christians have an expectation about what sermons should be. As long as pastor/teachers cater to these expectations, even if they are good men trying to put some content into this form, it is impossible to achieve what we ought to be striving for: the edification of the Body of Christ through the substantive teaching of the Word of God.

Love,
Madeline

[Jerry]

Well, Madeline, how does a preacher preacher without a sermon? You got some weird ideas there! Don't compare some secular speaching with God's way of bringing His Word across to a congregation - which is through preaching a sermon. No doubt some do abuse their preaching, but that makes the problem with them, not with sermons themselves.

[sarcrew]

Madeline, perhpas you should leave San Francisco and take a trip down South to a country church. I can assure you the preacher is not trying to entertain you in most of them!

Wayne

[Madeline]

Madeline, perhpas you should leave San Francisco and take a trip down South to a country church. I can assure you the preacher is not trying to entertain you in most of them!

Wayne

Interesting...because just TODAY in bible study and prayer session I was told how the devil would want me to leave a city in need of hope. A city that needs to hear the Gospel, and a city which needs cleansing of sin and wickedness (violence, prostitution, homosexuality, pornography, drug abusers and drug dealers, etc.).

And should I leave my church, too? Have you ever been to my church? I can assure that my preacher does not entertain his congregation in any respect. Way to go, sarcrew! :roll

Love,
Madeline

[John81]

Interesting...because just TODAY in bible study and prayer session I was told how the devil would want me to leave a city in need of hope. A city that needs to hear the Gospel, and a city which needs cleansing of sin and wickedness (violence, prostitution, homosexuality, pornography, drug abusers and drug dealers, etc.).


Love,
Madeline

What major American city doesn't that describe?

[sarcrew]

Madeline - please read slower - I said take a trip - not move and leave your church. :puzzled:

Wayne

[dwayner79]

The difference between a "good sermon" and a "bad sermon" in the eyes of anyone attending church is ever going to be how entertained, how motivated, how guilty or giddy they "felt" when they listened to it: not whether or not they learned anything about Jesus Christ and His Word.
...
My complaint is about the complete or nearly complete removal of substance for the sake of style (that is what I mean in my previous post when I say "rhetoric"). And I do think that it is absolutely fair to say that Christians have an expectation about what sermons should be. As long as pastor/teachers cater to these expectations, even if they are good men trying to put some content into this form, it is impossible to achieve what we ought to be striving for: the edification of the Body of Christ through the substantive teaching of the Word of God.

Both of these are, IMO, incorrect. There are many in my church (we were discussing this last night infact with some friends) who think a good sermon is one they walk away from having learned something, no matter the form given, and that they expect a theological meal from the pastor, not a pep talk.

I suppose we all have our experiences, but I do not think that what you describe represents a majority.

[chev1958]

Scripture separates teaching and preaching - they are not the same thing.

Matthew 4:23 - And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.
Matthew 9:35 - And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.
Acts 15:35 - Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.
Acts 28:31 - Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

I think Madeline is focusing more on styles of preaching, rather than the differences in preaching and teaching.

Mitch

[Madeline]

Both of these are, IMO, incorrect. There are many in my church (we were discussing this last night infact with some friends) who think a good sermon is one they walk away from having learned something, no matter the form given, and that they expect a theological meal from the pastor, not a pep talk.

I suppose we all have our experiences, but I do not think that what you describe represents a majority.

I reallly don't have anything more to add. As I mentioned in previous posts, without specifics, we are starting to talk past each other here in a pretty pointless way. To use an example, somewhere around 90% of the sermons I have seen/heard/heard about in the last few years have dealt with the same subject: love, marriage, relationships, and family. Now since you can tell anyone what the Bible says about how we should treat our families/spouses/friends in about five minutes, and in doing so would only be telling them what they know in their hearts anyway, this ought to demonstrate what I mean about sermons being designed to entertain. The fact that subject matter is limited shows that the form is limited. But the notion that "God's way of bringing His Word across to a congregation is through preaching a sermon" is something I would have to disagree with. There aren't any sermons in the Bible, and wherever one sees the word "preach" et al. in English translations, it doesn't mean "preach" in the sense of "deliver a sermon of the sort we are familiar with in 21st cent. USA". Far from it. I am certainly not arguing for conventional churches to change their stripes, their m.o.'s and the like. I think we are at a point where if a pastor/teacher actually started putting the Word of God first in his communication with his congregation he would either be fired or people would vote with their feet and leave. No man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. I certainly hope and pray that there is some point to what most contemporary churches are doing - I don't see much but I hope so. But I am certainly not going to put my imprimatur (for what little it is worth) upon the conventional way of doing things since this conventional way has led us into this apathetic place where contemporary US Christianity now finds itself. It is hard to place blame. Entertainment pastors entertain Because that is what congregations want; congregations want to be entertained because that is what they are used to from generations of entertainment pastors. Whether the chicken or the egg came first, I don't believe it is possible to fix this leaky hen-house. Given the imminence of the Tribulation, we, the generation of Laodicea, are destined to enter that time of testing largely unprepared. The Word is available (I am trying to do my part to make it so through a ministry), but is, generally speaking, not to found in the vast majority of local churches, and the standard worship service wherein the standard sermon is the centerpiece is a big part of the reason why this is so. When we send the message that ten to fifty minutes of an entertaining message that is not even designed to teach anything is the focal point of what Christianity is about, it is not surprising that so many Christians are spiritually underfed. Most of these organizations claim to feed the body in other venues (like Sunday school et al.), but the church takes its cue from the pulpit, and if Sunday morning is superficial, then ipso facto everything else dished out will be as well. Indeed, as a rule, only a very small percentage of the Sunday crowd ever shows up at the other venues, so that really they are only acting as a sort of sop to the guilty consciences of those who realise that there ought to be some sort of Bible teaching going on.

So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. (John 21:15-17 KJV)

Love,
Madeline