# Should Preaching be Hard and Scathing?



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 5, 2005)

SCATHING implies attacks delivered with fierce severity.

Most of the time, I find Presbyterian preachers afraid of being scathing or rebuking. They say (and I quote) "The Holy Spirit is the one who does the application, not me." 

Personally, I think Reformed Baptist ministers have it ALL OVER Presbyterians as a general rule on this issue of hard, sin searching applications in sermons (reminded of Al Martin, etc.). Exceptions to the rule for Presbyterians are Ed Donnelly (who is exceptional overall) and Don Kistler at times. 

What do you think is the problem here? Why are Presbyterians not like the sermons we read in old books? Why ARE Reformed Baptists this way and Presbyterians generally not?

Think of it this way - when we read Rutherford, Gillespie, or Watson, or Vincent, why are THEY preaching in that way? (Even Augustine, Chrysostom, et al do!)

Thoughts?

[Edited on 6-6-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 5, 2005)

It isn't P.C.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 5, 2005)

Presbyterians use to be this way. Just look at the Calvinistic preachers from the Awakenings and the Puritan Era.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 5, 2005)

Edwards ...


----------



## daveb (Jun 6, 2005)

I wonder what caused Presbyterians to change from this type of preaching? Concerns one might be "offended"? Is it cultural? I have no idea myself.

I know when my wife and I we looking at Presbyterianism this was a concern. Where was the "fire in the belly"? Where was the hard, piercing, make-you-feel-very-uncomfortable searching from the pulpit?

Should preaching be hard and scathing? Absolutely.

[Edited on 6-6-2005 by daveb]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 6, 2005)

What do you think is the main cause of it not being that way GENERALLY?


----------



## D Battjes (Jun 6, 2005)

There obviously has to be a balance. But the same could be said that many who preach "turn or Burn" Sermons too much, become too focused on the Law and works with no help from Christ.

We cannot tell a drowning man he is going to die, and not provide the life jacket of Christ.

Spurgeon is a great example of this. Regardless if you agree with everything he said, of which I do not, his method of preaching always encompased the Cross and what Christ has done for His elect.


----------



## D Battjes (Jun 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> What do you think is the main cause of it not being that way GENERALLY?



Matthew, my opinion only is that we are less polemic these days of ecumenicism.

I believe some like Knox and others who preached fire 99% of the time, could have done more work for the cause of Christ if they were more compassionate and loving.


----------



## sastark (Jun 6, 2005)

Is the problem the words or the way they are being delivered?

I am reminded that Edwards, when he preached "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" is said to have spoken calmly, barely looking up from his notes the entire time. His words were powerful, but the manner in which he delivered them was humble.

Perhaps, Matt, you are looking for more "action" in the pulpit, by way of raising one's voice, etc? (And I truly mean that as a "perhaps", not trying to make accusations.)

When we read the Puritans today, it is easy for us to think of how they must have delivered the sermons, but in fact, we know very little about that. For all we know, they could have been like Edwards - calm and humble.

Just my


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 6, 2005)

I would welcome calm and humble if I was listening to a sermon that was deep and penetrating (I am reminded of Donnelly).



[Edited on 8-4-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## kceaster (Jun 6, 2005)

I think it boils down to dispassionate preachers.

And I'm not talking about the guys who have to dab their hankies to their foreheads, who writhe and spit. That's not passion, it's acting. It is emphatic, but not the proper emphasis.

If a man truly loves the sheep of his flock, he can preach emphatically and passionately. If a man truly loves the Word he's expounding, he will give it the proper emphasis.

But I've seen too many preachers, probably including myself in former days, who seem to be employing the same act as others who have gained "success" in the pulpit. In the end, it's no different than Robert Duvall in "The Apostle." Have you ever seen it? He's pretty convincing as an evangellyfish pastor. So, one has to assume that the way some preachers preach can be "put on," so to speak.

In the end, if the Spirit isn't the fire in the preaching, then it is useless. It is a clanging gong, a resounding cymbal.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## sastark (Jun 6, 2005)

Ok, Matt, you need to download a couple of sermons from my Pastor. They are available for free, in mp3 format here: http://external.pasco.com/farschman/

Then, when you are done with that, download a couple from my Dad (a Presbyterian minister in Redding, CA). They are available for free, in RealAudio format, here: http://www.gpcredding.org/sermons.html (make sure you download one that has no asterix next to it - the ones that do are good, but they are not by my Dad).


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 6, 2005)

Try out the AM sermon below as well. MP3.
http://www.fpcr.org/fpdb/OOW/2005/06052005.htm


----------



## AdamM (Jun 6, 2005)

Matt, I think *some* of it has to do with the rise in our circles of the redemptive historical method of preaching. I am not going to argue for better or worse, but I just don't find most rb semons to be nearly as rh focused.


----------



## daveb (Jun 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> What do you think is the main cause of it not being that way GENERALLY?



Lack of zeal.


----------



## Augusta (Jun 6, 2005)

John Wagner in "God's Hell" is awesome. He is probably the best balance of fierceness with love in that sermon. He so severe, yet he is plaintive much of the time almost in tears it sounds like when he tells how we everyday trample underfoot God's Holy laws. And how we deserve this most awful punishment. He was alternately exercised that we do this and heartbroken that we grieve our Holy God so often and yet He is longsuffering. 

You can listen to the entire sermon or 3 short clips at the following link.

God's Hell


----------



## CalsFarmer (Jun 6, 2005)

Edwards' Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God turned my 16 year old daughter AROUND. 

We could all use one of those sermons that leave us scootched down in the pew covering our faces. 

Sermons like this tend to keep us (at least ME) on track. In my humble opinion.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> What do you think is the main cause of it not being that way GENERALLY?



Could it have something to do with Presumtive Regeneration? 

(running away and ducking Shenk quotes....)


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by webmaster_
> ...



Patrick,
Statements like this make me cringe! Please understand this. I will never neglect warning my daughters, daily, of the gospel and Christs salvation. Did the author of Hebrews neglect warning his children?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...



Scott,

They should. Both Bushnell and Schenck were opposed to this kind of preaching. It is {insert very scary music} Puritan subjectivism! {insert shock and alarm}

Look at who the Shenck/Bushnell crowd hate: the Scots (Rutherford), the Puritans, Edwards, the "revivalists" of the Great Awakenings (Tennet, Whitefield, etc are two rungs above Baptists), Baptists (Al Martin et al., who are just about as low as you can get in their eyes), the Southern Presbyterians (who are just barely one rung above Baptists - in fact Dabney and Thornwell might even BE baptists!).

All of these are marked by experimental, applicatory preaching. For the Schenck/Bushnell crowd, the WORST thing you can do to ANYONE in the Church (including children) is to act as if they are not perfect Christians. That is, unless perhaps they murder someone.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Doing a lot of clearifying.............You know this is not how I feel. Anyone aluding to this idea and aligning it w/ the PR I embrace, is misguided. Having said that, lets cease with the false accusations. Unless of course, you know someone whom is doing this that is on this board.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 6, 2005)

Scott,

I am not referring to you. But you need to realize that there are dozens (hundreds perhaps) of advocates of Schenck and Bushnell besides you and Matt. Without exception (now I would have to include Richard Bacon, whom I respect and who is sharper than I am theologically) they fit into the mold that I describe.

You simply cannot ignore it. It would be like saying, restaurants that serve hamburgers don't do X, when McDonalds, Burger King and Wendys all are rapid advocates of X.

I think you need to think about why 99.99% of Schenck/Bushnell advocates - AND Shenck and Bushnell themselves hate this kind of preaching, calling it "baptistic," "revivalistic," "non-covenantal," and the like.


----------



## Robin (Jun 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> What do you think is the main cause of it not being that way GENERALLY?



They don't care about the Three Forms....???

R.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 6, 2005)

Having said other things, I believe that the answer to Matt's question is again one of balance. The majority of Reformed Presbyterian preachers today are imbalanced in respect of redemptive-historical preaching, which is typically (one might even say characteristically) light on pointed application in favor of typology.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 6, 2005)

Fred,
I understand. I must admit though that my treatment of my PR child (yuk yuk yuk) is a horse of a different color when contrasted w/ my previous theology. So, in that, I can agree with plenty that Bushnell provides in his excellent book, "Christian Nurture".


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 6, 2005)

I think the main reason, in our culture here in America, is fear of losing congregants. Honestly. I believe that too many of us have this mentality that a bigger church = a stronger church, and when people start to leave (if we, for example, start preaching "hellfire and brimstone" every week), we assume we are failing or out of God's will. We shouldn't be so afraid to ruffle people's feathers and bring them the _ad hominem_ truth that is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is GUARANTEED to offend people - get used to it! We can, of course, preach in love and sincerity of heart, but unless God's Spirit is at work, according to God's Will (not ours), our preaching is likely to ... well ... tick people off.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I think the main reason, in our culture here in America, is fear of losing congregants. Honestly. I believe that too many of us have this mentality that a bigger church = a stronger church, and when people start to leave (if we, for example, start preaching "hellfire and brimstone" every week), we assume we are failing or out of God's will. We shouldn't be so afraid to ruffle people's feathers and bring them the _ad hominem_ truth that is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is GUARANTEED to offend people - get used to it! We can, of course, preach in love and sincerity of heart, but unless God's Spirit is at work, according to God's Will (not ours), our preaching is likely to ... well ... tick people off.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...



I think Fred said it better than I. But, I don't think PR is the only problem mind you. I do think Redemptive Historical preaching has something to do with it. And, I do think the fear of man is another problem. People don't want to offend. 

But I also think that the severity of the "scathing" should also in some ways be determined by the text itself. Some texts are not intended to be scathing but encouraging.


----------



## pastorway (Jun 7, 2005)

we need balance in our preaching, using the Word foor doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. When the text callls for scathing - turn up the heat. But do not turn up the heat just to look passionate and make people uncomfortable.

Truly scathing preaching while it hurts also helps - and is as a result welcomed by people whose ears don't itch!

Phillip


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Exactly. He is a bad preacher who spends every week beating up his congregation because, "I'm not afraid of men! Let 'em leave!"

If we preache the Word - and not our own hobby horses - there will be sharp application and comfort as well. Take 1 Peter 1:22-25 for example. Peter is giving huge comfort to his flock about their rebirth by the Word of God, and the comfort of the gospel. But there is also pointed application in the text as well. How? If you are not showing sincere and fervent love for the brethren - and that means the people in Church who _annoy and frustrate_ you, not just those whom you like - then you need to check yourself. Pretty pointed. And that is nothing special, it just happens to be a text I looked at and preached a couple of weeks ago.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 7, 2005)

I remember John Gerstner's sermon "How to Escape Hell." Utterly astounding. I still have clips of that memorized for my own edification. That was Gerstner in his younger days. If anyone can find the audio clip to that I will be very much in your debt.

Great discussion, btw.


----------



## daveb (Jun 7, 2005)

I like the correlation between delivery type and text; I think this may be it.

There are some texts that necessitate being preached in a scathing manner (sermons on the wrath of God or judgment day). If one preaches by the tone of the text (encouraging, doctrinal, scathing, etc) then all one has to do is avoid those texts that require a harsher delivery or misapply them. 

Personally I've never heard a sermon on wrath or judgment day, but if I did I cannot see how it could not involve passion from the pulpit and uncomfortable people in the pews. There is a tendency to preach sermons that will not offend, which will make people feel good and try to send people off in a "positive" manner. This is why we don't see much scathing.


----------



## alwaysreforming (Jun 7, 2005)

I think so many of the answers thus far discussed are accurate. I would like to add, however, that perhaps the root cause "could" be lack of empowerment by the Holy Spirit.

We know that MANY pastors are really just CEO's of a church. They spend all of their time with administration, marketing, networking, seminars, programs, etc. When do they REALLY have time for Bible study and a serious devotional life of their own? I heard Al Martin say in a talk one time that out of ALL the pastors he's come in contact with through his ministry, only a dozen or so truly have a devotional life. 

When do these pastors spend any time on their knees? Perhaps 5 minutes per day? So this brings us back to the original question: Why is there no unction in the preaching?

- Perhaps because the pastor hasn't developed a "burden" for the members of his congregation through prayer
- Perhaps he's ignorant of his congregation-at-large's true needs because he spends no time counseling them personally about spiritual things
- Perhaps he's begun to be persuaded (through lack of courage) that his congregation's FELT needs are in fact the most pressing and crucial needs
- Perhaps he never gives one minute's consideration to the REALITY of Hell, and the prospect of anyone actually going there
- Perhaps he's surrounded by a team of elders who are perfectly satisfied with fluff and offer him no exhortation to preach with any true Spirit leading
- Perhaps he stays so completely busy that he's never really gotten around to making the priority of the sermon one that is pleasing to GOD, not man.

Just my humble opinion that one or more of these things could be taking place. All I can say is, Thank God my pastor does not fall into the above! I really wish the same for everyone...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by sastark_
> Ok, Matt, you need to download a couple of sermons from my Pastor. They are available for free, in mp3 format here: http://external.pasco.com/farschman/
> 
> Then, when you are done with that, download a couple from my Dad (a Presbyterian minister in Redding, CA). They are available for free, in RealAudio format, here: http://www.gpcredding.org/sermons.html (make sure you download one that has no asterix next to it - the ones that do are good, but they are not by my Dad).



Very good sermon on hell. That's the way they should be preaching!


[Edited on 8-4-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## D Battjes (Jun 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by sastark_
> ...



Pray for the Holy Spirit to bring the Power Matt.

From reading Peters sermon on pentecost, it was not very eloquent, nor scathing, it was brought with the power of the Spirit though. And look at the result.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jun 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Edwards ...



Actually, I heard Edwards gave some of his vivid imagery in sermons like Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God with a great measure of composure and without dramatization and powerful voice inflexion (like you hear in audio renditions of the sermon), but in a more monotone public speaking voice. Maybe that style of delivery actually broadened the impact all the more as what was being said was taken to heart....


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jun 24, 2005)

If my memory is not failing Ian Murray takes a little different view to this in his bio of Edwards


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jun 24, 2005)

*Ministerial Boldness*

What kind of boldness must the minister´s be? First, a _convincing_ boldness. How forcible are right words, saith Job; and how feeble are empty words, though shot with a thundering voice. Great words in reproofing an error or sin, but weak arguments, produce laughter oftener than tears . . . Secondly a _wise_ boldness. The minister is to reprove the sins of all, but to name none. Paul, being to preach before a lascivious and unrighteous prince, touched him to the quick, but did not name him in his sermon. Felix´ conscience saved Paul that labour . . . Thirdly, a _meek_ boldness . . . Let the reproof be sharp as thou wilt; but thy spirit must be meek. Passion raise the blood to him that is reproved; but compassion breaks his heart. We must not denounce wrath in wrath, lest sinners think we with their misery; but rather with such tenderness, that they may see it is no pleasing work to us, but we do it that we might not, by a cruel silence, be accessory to their ruin, which we deire [_sic_] to prevent . . . Fourth, an _humble_ boldness; such a boldness as is raised from a confidence in God, and not from ourselves, our own gifts or ability, courage or stoutness . . . Fifthly, a _zealous_ boldness. Or reproofs of sin must come from a warm heart. Paul´s spirit was stirred within him when he saw a fir in his bones; it broke out of his mouth like a flame out of a furnace. The word is a hammer; but it breaks not the stony heart when lightly laid on. King James said of a minister in his time, that he preached as if death were at his back. Ministers should set forth judgment as if it were at the sinner´s back to take hold of him. Cold reproofs or threatenings are like the rumble of thunder afar off, which affrights not as a clap over our head. I told you the minister´s boldness must be meek and merciful; but not to prejudice zeal . . .

Some helps to produce this boldness. First, _a holy fear of God_. We fear man so much, because we fear God so little. One fear cures another. When man´s terror scares you, turn your thoughts to the wrath of God; this is the way Jeremiah was cured of his aguish [_sic_] distemper, fearing man: Jer. 7:17 . . . Second, castle thyself within _the power and promise of God_ for thy assistance and protection . . . Our eye, alas! Is on our danger, but not on the invincible walls and bulwarks which God has promised to set about us. The prophet´s servant that saw the enemy army approaching, was in a panic; but the prophet that saw the heavenly host for his life-guard about him, cared not a straw for them all . . . Thirdly, _keep a clear conscience_: he cannot be a bold reprover, that is not a conscientious liver; such a one must speak softly, for fear of waking his own guilty conscience . . . Unholiness in a preacher´s life will either stop his mouth from reproving, or the people´s ears from receiving. O how harsh a sound does such a cracked bell make in the ears of his audience! . . . Good counsel from a wicked man produces no effect . . . Fifthly, consider, if thou be not now bold for Christ in thy ministry, _thou canst not be bold before Christ at His judgment_; he that is afraid to speak for Christ, will certainly be ashamed to look on His face then. "˜We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ´ 2 Cor. 5:10. Now what use doth Paul make of this solemn meditation? "˜Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men.´ . . . A serious thought of that day, as we are going to preach, would shut all base fear out of the pulpit. It is a very small thing to be judged by men now for our boldness, but dismal to be condemned by Christ for our cowardice . . . Sixthly, _consider how bold Christ was in His ministry_ . . . I Tim. 6:13 Seventhly, _pray for this holy boldness_. Thus did the apostles come by it . . . it was the child of prayer, Acts 4:29f . . . Mark, they do not pray to be excused the battle, but to be armed with courage to stand in it; they had rather be lifted above the fear of suffering, than have the immunity from the suffering . . . If this be thy sincere request, God will not deny it. William Gurnall, 1616-1679


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Sep 25, 2005)

I earnestly charge you to hold all studies as only a means to this end, the glory of God in the salvation of souls. The day is near when your whole ministerial life will seem to you very short in retrospect . . .. That which we all need is to magnify our office, to recognize the sublimity of our work . . .. 

My dear young friend, if there is anything you would rather be than a preacher of the gospel; if you regard it as a ladder to something else; if you do not consider all your powers as too little for the work; be assured you have no right to hope for any usefulness or even eminence. To declare God's truth so as to save souls, is a business which angels might covet; acquire the habit of regarding your work in this light. Such views will be a source of legitimate excitement; they will lighten the severest burdens, and dignify the humblest labour, in the narrowest valley among the mountains. They will confer that mysterious strength on your plainest sermons, which has sometimes made men of small genius and no eloquence to be the instrument of converting hundreds. Think more of the treasure you carry, the message you proclaim, and the heaven to which you invite, than of your locality, your supporters, or your popularity . . ..

Each instant of present labour is to be graciously repaid with a million ages of glory.

"“ J.W. Alexander (1804-1859)


----------



## BJClark (Sep 25, 2005)

webmaster,


I guess my biggest concern would be do THEY believe what they are preaching/teaching? Do they believe Jesus has really died for ALL of their sins? Do they believe they are no longer condemned? Do they believe they too are sinners in need of a Savior?

This goes on both sides of the fence, the Baptist and some within the Presy. 

I know pastors within the PCUSA who do not believe the Whole of the Bible, they come across as if they don't believe they are really condemned as sinners, and that Jesus really can't forgive ALL Of their sins.

And I know many Baptist preachers, who only preach condemnation, as if there is no grace, sure they preach you need Jesus, but they don't really preach that Jesus washes away ALL your sins. It's like even with Jesus your still condemned.

I also know Pastors within the PCA who teach both, they don't preach (harshly) they teach, because they know the words themselves with the work of the Holy Spirit convict. They don't need to beat it into them that as sinners they are condemned without Christ.

I personally prefer to have a teacher teach me, than have someone preach at me, to where even as a believer I still felt condemned, and that even with Christ as my Savior there was no hope.

The Bible teaches that many will give lip service to Christ, but don't really believe it in their hearts. I believe The book of Revelation calls them lukewarm. They only want the numbers in the pews bringing in money, but they don't believe they really are sinners within the depths of their hearts and that Christ died for the whole of their sin.

I couldn't tell you how many times I have heard Christians, even Preachers say "that men are basically good in their hearts" when the Bible clearly teaches the opposite. 

So I say the real problem is they honestly don't believe what the Bible says.


----------



## Poimen (Sep 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BJClark_
> I guess my biggest concern would be do THEY believe what they are preaching/teaching? Do they believe Jesus has really died for ALL of their sins? Do they believe they are no longer condemned? Do they believe they too are sinners in need of a Savior?



Abraham Kuyper once had an old woman come up to him after a sermon and she said "How did you know to speak to me so directly?" He answered "I preached it to myself first."



> I couldn't tell you how many times I have heard Christians, even Preachers say "that men are basically good in their hearts" when the Bible clearly teaches the opposite.



That is a sure road to hell if there ever was one. It is only when sinners recognize their utter inability to save themselves that they will bow the knee to Christ and recognize Him as the Savior of their sins.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Oct 20, 2005)

Just for cogitating. I think we are afraid of such words:



Baxter, Richard. The Reformed Pastor. 1656 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1983).



"œ"¦yet is there nothing more unsuitable to such a business, that to be slight and dull. What! speak coldly for God, and for men´s salvation? Can we believe that out people must be converted or condemned, and yet speak in a drowsy tone? In the name of God, brethren, labour to awaken your own hearts, before you go to the pulpit, that you may be fit to awaken the hearts of sinners. Remember they must be awakened or damned, and that a sleepy preacher will hardly awaken drowsy sinners."

- p. 148.



"œA sermon full of mere words, how neatly soever it be composed, while it wants the light of evidence, and the life of zeal, is but an image or a well-dressed carcase."

p. 149.


----------



## BrianBowman (Oct 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by default2_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BJClark_
> ...



. . . this is the way it must be for hard, authoratative preaching to not smell of smugness and "hollier than thou". Jonathan Edwards preached with great conviction, tempered with even greater personal examination and humility. This is how it must be. 

Now for my 2 cents. Younger preachers should especially take care not to come across as doctrinaire or smug. There are those older folks under such men's preaching that often have far more years meditating in the Book, scars from life, etc. Without despising any man's youth, I can get pretty aggravated when a young guy steps "into his fleshly personality" and "starts blasting" just because he can.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 21, 2005)

I think some of it is an excessive reaction. While I think the other motives mentioned have a great deal to do with it (fear of man, redemptive-historical focus, etc.) some of it is that many people have spent years in churches that tried to motivate them with guilt. These churches preached the law (unlawfully) without real reference to Christ. Christianity was reduced to moralism --and when it was impossible to conform guilt just increased. So when you see through that; when you come to see that guilt cannot motivate the way love can, you are very hesitant to return to that kind of preaching. Now that is not to say that someone like Al Martin or Ed Donnelly is preaching guilt --I don't believe that at all. But I think some people who are Reformed are afraid to preach like that because of their past. They know what imbalanced preaching did to them, or to people they know --and they are so afraid of doing that to their own congregations that they go too far in the other direction.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Oct 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> I think some of it is an excessive reaction. While I think the other motives mentioned have a great deal to do with it (fear of man, redemptive-historical focus, etc.) some of it is that many people have spent years in churches that tried to motivate them with guilt. These churches preached the law (unlawfully) without real reference to Christ. Christianity was reduced to moralism --and when it was impossible to conform guilt just increased. So when you see through that; when you come to see that guilt cannot motivate the way love can, you are very hesitant to return to that kind of preaching. Now that is not to say that someone like Al Martin or Ed Donnelly is preaching guilt --I don't believe that at all. But I think some people who are Reformed are afraid to preach like that because of their past. They know what imbalanced preaching did to them, or to people they know --and they are so afraid of doing that to their own congregations that they go too far in the other direction.



Guilt? Love? They are not motivators at all. I may not be following, but it seems to me that it is not a question of motivation as much as it is a question of our present need in all of our churches. We have pabulum in most churches today. I am not convinced that most churches have been given a good dose of "guilt" so called in some time. I am not talking about so-called balance here as much as what the hour requires. The problem now is that there is no balance and as one well known radio show host is want to say to those who are always complaining about wanting equal time, "I am equal time." Whatever you want to call it, guilt, law, etc., the hour demand equal time for the law and its use in preaching. I always find it interesting that in the passage that is so often quoted about the heart of flesh also contains the following words: "œThen shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall lothe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations." Done any self-loathing lately?


----------



## cupotea (Oct 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I think the main reason, in our culture here in America, is fear of losing congregants. Honestly. I believe that too many of us have this mentality that a bigger church = a stronger church, and when people start to leave (if we, for example, start preaching "hellfire and brimstone" every week), we assume we are failing or out of God's will. We shouldn't be so afraid to ruffle people's feathers and bring them the _ad hominem_ truth that is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is GUARANTEED to offend people - get used to it!



I think there's a lot of validity to this. Many (if not most) pastors and congregations have either forgotten - or never truly understood - the radical nature of justificaion by grace alone. And when it's explored in its depth, its VERY offensive. Believe me, I know from personal experience. Just preaching the reality of sin and the graciousness of God has run out about 1/3 of my congregation. 

And there was no hellfire-and-brimstone (as far as I could tell). Just a constant, week-by-week hitting upon the same theme - Christ came to save sinners. It was devastating to the congregation.

And yes, I often wondered if it was something I was doing wrong. Much agonizing prayer goes into each sermon though. Yet people are still angry, turned off, complain that they're "not being fed," etc. 

I also think it's true that we're often afraid of losing members. The mega-church is thrown up in our faces so often that we can be intimidated into feel-good, self-help, 5-steps-to-a-happy-life, Joel Osteen-type sermons. When such things threaten we need to go back and read Edwards' evangelism sermons.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Oct 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Globachio_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



This is why we are afraid of the quotes of a Baxter, et. al., because we are afraid. There is simply no stomach for it partly because the revolving door mentality of all our churches whether Lutheran, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc. All anyone has to do is get up, leave the church, and another church will open their arms wide for you no matter where you come from or what the situation you left is like. Why did you leave is a question never asked by elders or any other church officer. We need members, you are here, so welcome is the over arching mentality if not in actual fact, certainly in action.


----------



## BrianBowman (Oct 22, 2005)

... if the American Church is ever going to recover from its tail-spin we must have men in the pulpit willing to declare the whole counsel of Scripture with conviction and power (and I don't mean "power" in the sense that Charismatics use it). It is my belief that this can only happen when, one, we have a well educated, Clergy throughly grounded in the Doctrines of Grace (as taught by hisorical Reformed Evangelicals) and two, when these Pastors spend as much time praying on their knees and preparing their messages from _first principles_ of Bibical Theology (i.e. NOT populists books) as they do doing anything else. Of course such men *must* be accountable to Church government as well.

From my observation, Matt McMahon is one such man. May his kind increase!!


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Oct 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> ... if the American Church is ever going to recover from its tail-spin we must have men in the pulpit willing to declare the whole counsel of Scripture with conviction and power (and I don't mean "power" in the sense that Charismatics use it). It is my belief that this can only happen when, one, we have a well educated, Clergy throughly grounded in the Doctrines of Grace (as taught by hisorical Reformed Evangelicals) and two, when these Pastors spend as much time praying on their knees and preparing their messages from _first principles_ of Bibical Theology (i.e. NOT populists books) as they do doing anything else. Of course such men *must* be accountable to Church government as well.
> 
> From my observation, Matt McMahon is one such man. May his kind increase!!



I would agree, but do you see any difference between power and earnestness? Assume all things are as you want them to be in the closet and the study, does that mean a man still preaches these truths with power if he is not *earnest* in their presentation? I really do not know how much you are responding to the quotations of Baxter, but it seems to me that he is, with others, placing some premium on the way a sermon is delivered.


----------



## LawrenceU (Oct 23, 2005)

Preaching, if it is real, will have an earnest tone. We are dealing with eternal truths in the light of eternity. Men's souls are either convicted and fed by the Word or damned by the word. Pity be upon the man who enters the pulpit with a lackidasical attitude or pride. The most humbling thing I do each week is to prepare sermons and then to deliver them. At times the conviction is so severe it is nauseating. If a pastor truly is redeemed, loves the Lord, loves and serves his flock there will be times of intense emotion pouring forth in his preaching. Scathing? sometimes; but only under the unction of the Holy Spirit. Trust me earnest, passionate, yet measured words can bring more force than any rant. If you don't believe that then you've never been brought up short by a Sr. officer who was very sure of his position and command.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Having said other things, I believe that the answer to Matt's question is again one of balance. The majority of Reformed Presbyterian preachers today are imbalanced in respect of redemptive-historical preaching, which is typically (one might even say characteristically) light on pointed application in favor of typology.


----------



## BrianBowman (Oct 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Michael Butterfield_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> ...



Michael, I would assert that "if all things are as they *should be* (really *"must be"* if we consider the responsibility God demands of those who proclaim His Word) in the closet and the study then the man of God's preaching will be filled with earnestness. When I speak of "power" it is then this sense:

_1Corinthians 2:1-5 And I, when I came to you, brothers,* did not come proclaiming to you the testimony* of God with lofty speech or wisdom. 2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, 4 and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God._ - ESV


----------



## BrianBowman (Oct 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> John Wagner in "God's Hell" is awesome. He is probably the best balance of fierceness with love in that sermon. He so severe, yet he is plaintive much of the time almost in tears it sounds like when he tells how we everyday trample underfoot God's Holy laws. And how we deserve this most awful punishment. He was alternately exercised that we do this and heartbroken that we grieve our Holy God so often and yet He is longsuffering.
> 
> You can listen to the entire sermon or 3 short clips at the following link.
> ...


----------



## bond-servant (Oct 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> 
> Michael, I would assert that "if all things are as they *should be* (really *"must be"* if we consider the responsibility God demands of those who proclaim His Word) in the closet and the study then the man of God's preaching will be filled with earnestness. When I speak of "power" it is then this sense:
> 
> _1Corinthians 2:1-5 And I, when I came to you, brothers,* did not come proclaiming to you the testimony* of God with lofty speech or wisdom. 2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, 4 and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God._ - ESV



Well spoken.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Oct 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Michael Butterfield_
> ...





> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Having said other things, I believe that the answer to Matt's question is again one of balance. The majority of Reformed Presbyterian preachers today are imbalanced in respect of redemptive-historical preaching, which is typically (one might even say characteristically) light on pointed application in favor of typology.




Do not misunderstand, because I do not fundamentally disagree with your post or the post you have quoted. I do understand what is meant about men like Carl H. Stevens and Jack Hyles, but I am not sure in the present thought that they count as an example pro or con. My query is not along the lines you or the quoted post raise. Additionally, I believe the 1 Corinthians passage has a great deal to say to us, but it is not really getting at what I am talking about. In other words, I do not believe in this case that 2+2 will necessarily equal 4. I think Scott in pointing to Fred´s post has more closely raised the issue. You likely know and I do know people who are preaching in a context that is redemptive-historical in nature and they do characteristically avoid pointed application. I would even go so far as to say that redemptive-historical preaching is not necessarily inimical to earnestness. However, the men I am referring to I would in no way question their place in the closet, but would say their sermons are not earnest. In this way, then, 2+2 does not equal 4 and I am not prepared to speak about their godliness. John Angell James wrote a whole book on this issue so it must have been a concern in his day. I am just wondering if we have become so feminized in our public utterances that to even talk like a man or in this context preach like a man is to ask for such a great amount of trouble you could quickly be shown the door in what would be considered some pretty conservative Presbyterian churches within the PCA. Obviously, I cannot speak to other denominational situations, but this is happening in the PCA.



> "œLet it be seen what ministers have to contend with in this day; not indeed the spirit of persecution, not sanguinary laws, not the amphitheater, the axe, or the stake; but obstacles in some respects more formidable; for the trials I have just mentioned, if they lessened the number of professors, raised those that stood firm into the devotion of seraphs, the courage of heroes, and the constancy of martyrs; but our obstacles are the emasculating influences of ease and prosperity; the insidious snares of wealth, knowledge, and fashion; the engrossing power of trade, politics, and secular ambition; and then let it be considered what kind of preacher and pastors we want for such an age." - John Angell James (p 254)


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Oct 24, 2005)

"œIt is, however, incumbent upon us not to mistake grossness for fidelity; nor harshness for earnestness. The remarks of Mr. Hall on this, are as correct as they are beautiful:"”

"˜A harsh and unfeeling manner of denouncing the threatenings of the Word of God, is not only barbarous and inhuman, but calculated, by inspiring disgust, to rob them of all their efficiency. If the awful part of our message, which may be styled the burden of the Lord, ever fall with due weight upon our hearers, it will be when it is delivered with a trembling hand and faltering lips.´

. . . Real earnestness is the result of deep emotion, and the emotion excited by the sight of a fellow-creature perishing in his sins, is that of the tenderest commiseration, which will express itself not in stormy declamation and thundering denunciations, but in solemnly chastened expostulation and appeal." 
- John Angell James (p 85)


----------



## py3ak (Oct 24, 2005)

*Motivation*



> > Originally posted by py3ak
> > I think some of it is an excessive reaction. While I think the other motives mentioned have a great deal to do with it (fear of man, redemptive-historical focus, etc.) some of it is that many people have spent years in churches that tried to motivate them with guilt. These churches preached the law (unlawfully) without real reference to Christ. Christianity was reduced to moralism --and when it was impossible to conform guilt just increased. So when you see through that; when you come to see that guilt cannot motivate the way love can, you are very hesitant to return to that kind of preaching. Now that is not to say that someone like Al Martin or Ed Donnelly is preaching guilt --I don't believe that at all. But I think some people who are Reformed are afraid to preach like that because of their past. They know what imbalanced preaching did to them, or to people they know --and they are so afraid of doing that to their own congregations that they go too far in the other direction.
> 
> 
> ...



Michael,

I think that either I am not following you or you are following me. My point is not to defend a deficiency in preaching the law. My point is simply that some people have become fearful of doing so because their only exposure to preaching of the law has been in the context of the abuse of the law. I know people who have been savaged by preaching that was very fierce, that may even have gotten some purely practical points right, but that did not use the law "lawfully". Now that does not justify not preaching the law properly. But I think it is possible to understand that when someone has been tortured by guilt (much of it false), it can be difficult for them to appreciate the grace of law. Again, that does not make it right: it is not an excuse. It is however, an explanation, of how a weakness in preaching God's requirements has arisen in some churches. The solution, I think, is to maintain the Scriptural balance --to learn to treasure God's commandments; to come not to be afraid of conviction of sin because we are sure of the reality and the freeness of access to the fountain opened for sin and for uncleanness. In short, to pay attention to John's words which were written to us so that we might not sin --but to know that if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. If there is either of those two parts without the other, I believe it will ultimately result in weakness in our lives and consequently in our churches.

And, to answer your last question, yes.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Oct 25, 2005)

> Michael,
> 
> I think that either I am not following you or you are following me. My point is not to defend a deficiency in preaching the law. My point is simply that some people have become fearful of doing so because their only exposure to preaching of the law has been in the context of the abuse of the law. I know people who have been savaged by preaching that was very fierce, that may even have gotten some purely practical points right, but that did not use the law "lawfully". Now that does not justify not preaching the law properly. But I think it is possible to understand that when someone has been tortured by guilt (much of it false), it can be difficult for them to appreciate the grace of law. Again, that does not make it right: it is not an excuse. It is however, an explanation, of how a weakness in preaching God's requirements has arisen in some churches. The solution, I think, is to maintain the Scriptural balance --to learn to treasure God's commandments; to come not to be afraid of conviction of sin because we are sure of the reality and the freeness of access to the fountain opened for sin and for uncleanness. In short, to pay attention to John's words which were written to us so that we might not sin --but to know that if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. If there is either of those two parts without the other, I believe it will ultimately result in weakness in our lives and consequently in our churches.
> 
> And, to answer your last question, yes.



 First, I appreciate your answer to the question I posed, and believe you understand that the question is rhetorical. Nevertheless, I do appreciate your answer and hope you did not see it as a personal question.

As for your "œexplanation," I do appreciate it and believe it to be as right an explanation as any other that can be advanced without turning it into a Ph.D. project. I am not certain, though, that it is really addressing my whole concern. My last posting of John Angell James gets at my concerns and issues better than anything that I might say. If we are still speaking about preaching that is scathing, then I think James gets closer to the answer than most anything else I have read or seen. Certainly, you are correct, but my goal is to get back to the proper balance of the "œform" of preaching in a way that it is not divorced from the "œcontent" of preaching. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be speaking from the perspective of the hearer. What I am attempting to do is to speak from the perspective of the preacher or proclaimer. If you take what I posted from Gurnall and Ministerial Boldness and couple it with the last post from James, then I think that is what I am getting at while wondering how to go about it in my own opportunities for preaching.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 25, 2005)

Michael,

No offense taken. 

I certainly agreed with John Angell James quote (I read that book a few years ago). Speaking as one who often hears and regularly speaks, I think that earnestness is the great thing to be desired. Of course, it presupposes a real belief in the truth of what one is saying. Of course it involves an earnest desire to glorify God in the proclamation of His word to the edification of the body and the conversion of sinners. If one is earnest, I think that will work out into the style of preaching --but it will work out in accordance with the personality of the preacher. Two men may come to a very searching text (a word I prefer to scathing) and both preach it faithfully. For the one man, that means a lot of steam as he makes detailed application and pursues people into the different dodges they try to escape the law's requirements; the other person may make equally detailed application and likewise pursue people with the truth, without ever breaking a sweat. In other words, earnestness is going to be modified; 1.) by the personality of the preacher, 2.) by the content of the message, 3.) by the preacher's estimation of the audience's ability (not listed in any particular order). And because of these things I think we cannot equate earnestness with heightened emotion. The two may go together; but for a variety of reasons they also may not.


----------

