# Preaching in the Vernacular



## JDKetterman (Feb 10, 2008)

I'm not sure if any of you have ever dealt with this problem. The content of the sermon you hear will be very Reformed and very Orthodox, yet the preaching will be so academic that no one knows what you are talking about unless you are part of a Reformed circle. 

While I don't believe a sermon should be dumbed down, but it should be understandable enough for a non-Reformed person to come in and understand what the Preacher is saying. Whether it be consciencally or unconscioually, the church functions as if the culture is a Christian culture and that Christiandom is still alive and well. We live in a post-modern culture, why is it that some Reformed preachers speak in this language that only Reformed elites really know about?

There's no question that there a great deal of orthodox and Reformed teachers out there, but my question is why don't many of them speak in language that the common Christian can understand?


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 10, 2008)

It is because people do not understand the true definition of scholarship. This is the true definition of scholarship: to be able to take the most difficult subjects and explain in such a way that anyone can understand. So, anyone who spouts off a mouthful of mumbo-jumbo is not a scholar: anyone can do that. All they would have to do is use a dictionary. The fact is that only a true master of the material can explain it without the jargon. This needs more attention in seminary preaching classes.


----------



## PilgrimPastor (Feb 10, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> It is because people do not understand the true definition of scholarship. This is the true definition of scholarship: to be able to take the most difficult subjects and explain in such a way that anyone can understand. So, anyone who spouts off a mouthful of mumbo-jumbo is not a scholar: anyone can do that. All they would have to do is use a dictionary. The fact is that only a true master of the material can explain it without the jargon. This needs more attention in seminary preaching classes.



I agree with that whole-heartedly. It has been my experience though that such a high number of seminary professors are not really practitioners but theoreticians. How can you teach something you have never done outside of the classroom?


----------



## Herald (Feb 10, 2008)

JD, this EXACTLY the quandary I have dealt with in my preaching. Do I stay in the clouds and hope that my audience catches what falls through, or do I come down to their level and lose some of the majesty that is contained in God's word? What I elected to do, and I pray it is working, is to stay in the clouds but reach down and bring the hearer up to that level. I will take opportunity to explain certain comments that may tend to confuse or lose those listening. I do so while remaining cautious of pride. I tend to define terms. This summer I preached on justification by faith and spent a great deal of time defining these terms. I think it helped to bridge the gap between where I was going in my preaching and where the hearer was at that moment. This type of preaching will eventually result in the hearers getting used to that type of preaching. Their ability to listen and comprehend will increase and the work of the Spirit will become clearly evident.



...of course I could be completely wrong and have a flock that just nods their collective heads to humor me.


----------



## PilgrimPastor (Feb 10, 2008)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> This type of preaching will eventually result in the hearers getting used to that type of preaching. Their ability to listen and comprehend will increase and the work of the Spirit will become clearly evident.



I see Sunday morning as a time to "build bridges" in a sense from higher theological principals to practical "livable" principals. I would rather hear things from my parishioners like I hear today from one gentlemen who said, "as you taught about temptation I felt convicted of my own sin... but thanks for doing it, I need to be challenged!" rather than hearing things like, "wow you sure are smart" or "I wish I knew the things you know." 

I think we can be relevant without abandoning the highest elements of the Scriptures.


----------



## JDKetterman (Feb 10, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> It is because people do not understand the true definition of scholarship. This is the true definition of scholarship: to be able to take the most difficult subjects and explain in such a way that anyone can understand. So, anyone who spouts off a mouthful of mumbo-jumbo is not a scholar: anyone can do that. All they would have to do is use a dictionary. The fact is that only a true master of the material can explain it without the jargon. This needs more attention in seminary preaching classes.



Do you believe this is a common problem particularly in Reformed seminaries? Is the problem that most Reformed seminaries are training students in Reformed terminology, but not training them on how to explain this to common people in the preaching?


----------



## Amazing Grace (Feb 10, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> It is because people do not understand the true definition of scholarship. This is the true definition of scholarship: to be able to take the most difficult subjects and explain in such a way that anyone can understand. So, anyone who spouts off a mouthful of mumbo-jumbo is not a scholar: anyone can do that. All they would have to do is use a dictionary. The fact is that only a true master of the material can explain it without the jargon. This needs more attention in seminary preaching classes.



Lane: this is perfect. You should print this comment somehwere for all to see just as you have it.

The other reason is because the average lay-person likes a pastor to sound 'more educated''. SOme people like a Gospel they cannot understand as if it contains so many intricacies that faith by proxy is the norm in so many churches rc and protty alike. 

The holy Spirit will have none of this 'scholarship' The thermometer creates some algorithm that sounds so important that the plowman has no clue, but thinks this is what they should believe. Throw in a little greek , hebrew or latin, and you have them in the palm of your hand. Then one wonders why the Lord is not adding to the body.

Repent and believe the Good News, that's what the Holy Spirit says.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Feb 10, 2008)

I think it was Spurgeon who once remarked that many preacher try too hard to be like God, for "they are invisible all week and incomprehensible on the Lord's Day."

Someone said, "If you put a giraffe in the pulpit the sheep will starve."


----------



## KMK (Feb 10, 2008)

I have been guilty of this myself. And my lovely crown/wife, my help-meet lets me know about it in no uncertain terms. It is not easy to hear that the sermon you spent hours and hours on over the week was not fully understood, but I am thankful for her honesty.

I have found that it is in the sermon illustration that those 'lofty' truths are brought low enough for the human ear to hear. That is why I admire Spurgeon so much. He is the embodiment of the definition of 'scholarship' that Rev Keister provided above.

I have also found that through practice, I get better at the sermon illustration. Sometimes I rack my brain for days but I can always count on the HS to provide. After all, it is His desire that the sermon is understood by His sheep!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 10, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> It is because people do not understand the true definition of scholarship. This is the true definition of scholarship: to be able to take the most difficult subjects and explain in such a way that anyone can understand. So, anyone who spouts off a mouthful of mumbo-jumbo is not a scholar: anyone can do that. All they would have to do is use a dictionary. The fact is that only a true master of the material can explain it without the jargon. This needs more attention in seminary preaching classes.



Agreed! R.C. Sproul has stated that if you can't explain a topic in words that a child will understand then you really haven't mastered a topic.

Seriously, the hardest thing I've had to do recently when I was teaching the adults was to prepare a synopsis of what I was going to teach so that a child could get the "main point" of what I'm saying.

Every technical field has it's "vocabulary". It's often not that people are incredibly intelligent and brighter than others but they've been around the vocabulary a long time. I can't tell you the number of times that I've been initially impressed by the seeming brilliance of a man only to later learn his technical vocabulary and realize he didn't have any idea what he was talking about.

Acronyms and technical terms are useful time savers when you're talking to your technical group but you shouldn't be talking that way to others. If you can't move from your "group" to the rest of the world then you lack maturity in that field.

Likewise, a Pastor that does not know how to speak to his people reveals just as much about how well he is shepherding his people as he does about his maturity in expression. In other words, an under-shepherd should know his sheep. He should understand their capacities. It doesn't mean he doesn't push them occassionally and challenge them by expanding their vocabulary but a man should know what terms his flock will understand and explain those they don't or use simpler words (perhaps more) to explain the same concept.

Want a challenge? Try visiting my Church some day where only 1/3 are native English speakers and try to teach on the imputation of Christ's righteousness that the Japanese, Filipino, Chinese, African, Iranian, and American listeners will understand!


----------



## kvanlaan (Feb 10, 2008)

I think it was Joel Beeke who I heard speak on this who said "I didn't have time to write a simple sermon, so I wrote a complicated one." (Or something to that effect. Basically, that complex truths presented in a simple and effective sermon is the mark of a good minister.)


----------



## Herald (Feb 10, 2008)

This is not necessarily a good barometer, but when people come up to afterwards and discuss your sermon it's encouraging because you can see them "getting it." Conversely when weeks go by and they just filter out of the sanctuary without comment it may give you an indication that you're not "getting it.'


----------



## Davidius (Feb 10, 2008)

Some things are just hard to understand. As much as our pragmatic, sophistic, anti-intellectual cultural would like it to be so, not everything can be reduced to a child's level. 



Peter re: Paul said:


> He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.





Paul said:


> If they want to inquire [ask a question about something they didn't understand] about something, they should ask their own husbands at home;



I know what you'll say: "I'm not talking about that. I'm referring to ministers who are always talking over everyone's head." Okay, I agree with you there. My main point is that I disagree with those who say nice-sounding things like "anyone who has mastered a subject can explain it to a five year old."


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Feb 10, 2008)

"...and I like ministers always to know what they are talking about, and to be sure that there is something in it worth saying..."

C. H. Spurgeon, The Soul Winner, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1963), page 98


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 10, 2008)

Every sermon, on every topic should have material that is understandable to a 5-6 year old. That does not mean that everything said should be in 5-6 year old's terms.

The concept of the category of hearers (see William Perkins' _The Art of Prophesying_) is critical here. The man who preaches just to a section of his congregation (whether they be 40 year olds or 6 year olds) and lets the rest starve is a fool.


----------



## Herald (Feb 11, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Some things are just hard to understand. As much as our pragmatic, sophistic, anti-intellectual cultural would like it to be so, not everything can be reduced to a child's level.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Can you provide and example of a theological topic that cannot be explained to a five year old while maintaining the truth of that topic?


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 11, 2008)

I think we have to make an important distinction here. There are words that are vitally important that we need to use, words like imputation, propitiation, expiation. etc. However, it is how we explain those words that is important. The reason those words are important is that the Bible uses them. So, we use these words, but we explain them so that they are understood, whatever that takes. Usually it takes careful explanation in easy to understand terms. So, I'm not in favor of dumbing the message down. I'm in favor of bringing the whole congregation up.


----------



## Herald (Feb 11, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> I think we have to make an important distinction here. There are words that are vitally important that we need to use, words like imputation, propitiation, expiation. etc. However, it is how we explain those words that is important. The reason those words are important is that the Bible uses them. So, we use these words, but we explain them so that they are understood, whatever that takes. Usually it takes careful explanation in easy to understand terms. So, I'm not in favor of dumbing the message down. I'm in favor of bringing the whole congregation up.



E-x-a-c-t-l-y.


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 11, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > It is because people do not understand the true definition of scholarship. This is the true definition of scholarship: to be able to take the most difficult subjects and explain in such a way that anyone can understand. So, anyone who spouts off a mouthful of mumbo-jumbo is not a scholar: anyone can do that. All they would have to do is use a dictionary. The fact is that only a true master of the material can explain it without the jargon. This needs more attention in seminary preaching classes.
> ...



Thanks for the suggestion. I have done so (stealing some good thoughts from others as well, most notably Fred Greco's) here.


----------



## JohnTombes (Feb 11, 2008)

Doesn't Peter say there are some things in Paul that are hard to understand? Some great men do not have the native ability to make things plain & simple. God gives different measures of grace and a variety of gifts. He then fits the gifted man to the need. We trust in him to do his work. 

Mike


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 11, 2008)

Yes, you are right that Paul has difficult things. But isn't that ultimately because God wanted us to stretch and learn? After all, if God had wanted Paul to say everything in an easy to understand fashion, He could have done so. But the difficulties in Paul are for our stretching, I believe. I don't think that means that we should not help our congregations to understand (which I'm sure is not what you meant). 

I am reminded of something that Gaffin said in Acts and Paul. What is true of Paul's missionary journeys can be said about the study of Paul's theology as a whole: shipwrecked, beaten, imprisoned, stoned, robbed, etc.


----------



## JohnTombes (Feb 11, 2008)

People hear on different levels, too. Shouldn't some, at least, be stretched by what they hear? If the Word preached is to be the basis of a life of devotion throughout the week anticipating the next sabbath meal, we need to give people a lot of meat to chew on. I know that idea of a meditative life based on public ministry is a very puritan one. It is, however, a motivator in how I preach, especially to those over whom I have been made an overseer.

You can't say everything, everytime you say something, for if you did, there would be nothing left to say. 

Mike


----------



## christianyouth (Feb 11, 2008)

Who are some preachers who you feel do a good job at bringing complex topics down to layman's terms?

I think :

_Ligon Duncan_


----------



## KMK (Feb 11, 2008)

christianyouth said:


> Who are some preachers who you feel do a good job at bringing complex topics down to layman's terms?
> 
> I think :
> 
> _Ligon Duncan_



John Weaver
Robert Morecraft III


----------



## KMK (Feb 11, 2008)

Here is a good example of what we are talking about in this thread that I just stumbled across. Spurgeon, in his sermon, "Barriers Broken Down" preaches about 'submitting to the righteousness of God' from Rom 10:3. He is basically preaching about 'Duty-faith', but he uses illustrations to bridge the gap.



> Observe my text, dear friend, if you forget everything else. I say, remember what the Lord says: "They have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." This is a strange word. "Have not submitted themselves." Do you not wonder that such a word is used? Here is a criminal who will not submit to be pardoned. Here is a sick man who will not submit to be made well. Here is a man with a broken leg who will not submit to have it healed. Here is a poor beggar in the street who will not submit to be made into a gentleman. Why, the word seems quite out of place, does it not? It shows you the monstrous absurdity of self-righteousness, that men will not submit themselves to that which is the greatest blessing that heaven itself can bestow. It is a matter of submission.


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 11, 2008)

JohnTombes said:


> People hear on different levels, too. Shouldn't some, at least, be stretched by what they hear? If the Word preached is to be the basis of a life of devotion throughout the week anticipating the next sabbath meal, we need to give people a lot of meat to chew on. I know that idea of a meditative life based on public ministry is a very puritan one. It is, however, a motivator in how I preach, especially to those over whom I have been made an overseer.
> 
> You can't say everything, everytime you say something, for if you did, there would be nothing left to say.
> 
> Mike



Got anything more to add?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 11, 2008)

KMK said:


> christianyouth said:
> 
> 
> > Who are some preachers who you feel do a good job at bringing complex topics down to layman's terms?
> ...



Do you not mean Joe Morecraft III?


----------



## KMK (Feb 11, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > christianyouth said:
> ...



Yes. I wonder why I had the name 'Robert' in my head?


----------



## py3ak (Feb 11, 2008)

I have a very happy memory of an 86-year old woman standing in her row in church between the Bible class and the morning service mumbling to herself over and over "antropomorfismo" (I know how to spell it: that's Spanish).


----------



## JohnTombes (Feb 11, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> Got anything more to add?



If I did, I might refute myself, sort of....

There is always so much to say.... 

I need self-restraint with self-control even when preaching. One of my problems has to do with the final draft. I edit, but everything I've studied comes back in somehow.... Sometimes a sermon turns into a series. Our people don't mind. After all these years, they know my quirks. Anyone else have this problem? 

Mike


----------



## kvanlaan (Feb 11, 2008)

True, bring the congregation up, don't dumb it down. 

That being said, I do appreciate pastors like Beeke who, though they use complex language at times, have usually explained the concept earlier in the message to the point where all listeners are ready for the more complex terms he introduces. It seems to me that in his sermons, so long as you have a decent knowledge of the bible, the message would be interesting and profitable to even a 10 year old.


----------



## kvanlaan (Feb 11, 2008)

> The concept of the category of hearers (see William Perkins' The Art of Prophesying) is critical here. The man who preaches just to a section of his congregation (whether they be 40 year olds or 6 year olds) and lets the rest starve is a fool.



I was just reading "Puritan Reformed Spirituality" and in it, it has a very nice section on Theodorus Jacobus Frelinghuysen, who used some concepts put forward by Verschuir's writings to classify his congregation (_sterk_ - strong, _bekommerde_ - concerned, _letterwyse_ - letter-learned, and _onkunde_ - ignorant) to make sure that he was getting through to all that sat in church. Now that's the sort of 'felt needs' preaching that I can get on board with.


----------



## KMK (Feb 11, 2008)

JohnTombes said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > Got anything more to add?
> ...



Absolutely! As I have mentioned, my wife's feedback is essential. (If not hard to swallow sometimes)


----------



## bookslover (Feb 11, 2008)

KMK said:


> I have also found that through practice, I get better at the sermon illustration. Sometimes I rack my brain for days but I can always count on the HS to provide. After all, it is His desire that the sermon is understood by His sheep!



John MacArthur once remarked that the longer he has been in the ministry, the fewer sermon illustrations he uses. And most of the illustrations he does use tend to come from Scripture.


----------



## bookslover (Feb 12, 2008)

JohnTombes said:


> I need self-restraint with self-control even when preaching. One of my problems has to do with the final draft. I edit, but everything I've studied comes back in somehow.... Sometimes a sermon turns into a series. Our people don't mind. After all these years, they know my quirks. Anyone else have this problem?



I've become convinced, based on my own preaching experience, that the Holy Spirit edits a preacher's sermon even as he's in the act of preaching it. I've had other preachers say the same.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 12, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> I think we have to make an important distinction here. There are words that are vitally important that we need to use, words like imputation, propitiation, expiation. etc. However, it is how we explain those words that is important. The reason those words are important is that the Bible uses them. So, we use these words, but we explain them so that they are understood, whatever that takes. Usually it takes careful explanation in easy to understand terms. So, I'm not in favor of dumbing the message down. I'm in favor of bringing the whole congregation up.





fredtgreco said:


> Every sermon, on every topic should have material that is understandable to a 5-6 year old. That does not mean that everything said should be in 5-6 year old's terms.
> 
> The concept of the category of hearers (see William Perkins' _The Art of Prophesying_) is critical here. The man who preaches just to a section of his congregation (whether they be 40 year olds or 6 year olds) and lets the rest starve is a fool.



I agree with both of you. Hence, my contention that a teacher has got to know who he is speaking to.

Sonya once commented to me that she's sometimes afraid that I use large words (because I still do) but then she said that I'll re-tread the ground to make sure that the word is used more than once and with enough explanatory notes to make the point.

Let me give you an example of some of the vocabulary that I'm familiar with and see if you understand what I'm trying to tell you:

Today I was supposed to go to White Beach to get on an MH-60 to visit an LHA and check out their C4 infrastructure. It turns out the MEU was in the middle of quals, the air was crushed. The S-4 and the XO were trying to make it work but it just couldn't happen so it got cancelled. I re-sheduled. This meeting is very important because I've been working C2 issues with the MEF and the MLG for some time and the MEU CO had expressed some interest in our visit.

Did you get any of that?

I could bring that to a High School educated man who barely reads and he would understand everything I just said.

The problem is not with the words but your familiarity with them. I "live" in several different worlds that have their own lingo: Marine Corps, DOD, U.S. Government, IT, Communications, and theology among others.

I can navigate all of them. I can bring an issue from one field of specialty to another because, over many years, I've had to make sure that when an issue of critical importance came to the fore that I could communicate that issue to a group that doesn't know the lingo of my field.

I can't simply walk into a meeting with my CG (Commanding General) tomorrow where we're asking for $1.2 million for some battle cabin upgrades and talk in language where he cannot understand me. I have to explain it in such a way as to ensure that he understands why it is relevant to his mission and will enhance success. In other words, not only must he understand what I'm saying but I have to understand enough about him to know what he knows and what his priorities are.

I completely agree that people rise to the level of the expectations you place on them. Far be it from me to suggest that every topic is suitable for a five year old. Some concepts cannot be grasped by the immature but the germ of those ideas can be understood. I can provide the seed of understanding for my five year old on Christ's righteousness for him by explaining it in his terms or I can just say: "Christ's righteousness is imputed to you if you place your faith in Him."

My point about mastering a topic above is that many "technical people" (and I include theology among those disciplines that has its own technical language) prove their lack of mastery in a subject or their lack of maturity in that subject by being unable to express themselves in anything other than the language of their field. Part of the reason I exist on my CG's staff is as much that I can give mature and cogent expression to a large audience on what the C4 priorities are for my unit as I am to direct and organize the people that are performing it.

Thus, I've sat through excrutiating sermons from young men who were trained in Seminary but present its doctrines to people as if they're in a lecture hall. They actually succeed at the unthinkable: they make these grand truths sterile and boring when they are nothing of the sort.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 3, 2008)

This is an awesome thread! Thanks guys.


----------



## DTK (Mar 4, 2008)

bookslover said:


> JohnTombes said:
> 
> 
> > I need self-restraint with self-control even when preaching. One of my problems has to do with the final draft. I edit, but everything I've studied comes back in somehow.... Sometimes a sermon turns into a series. Our people don't mind. After all these years, they know my quirks. Anyone else have this problem?
> ...



Indeed, this is so. A helpful rule is as one wise pastor put it: “When God gives you light on your feet, follow the light! Your notes will be there next week, but the light won’t!”

DTK


----------

