# How should layfolk react to boring preaching?



## timmopussycat

In a thread for pastors only, Pergamum asked: 



Pergamum said:


> Is boring preaching an adequate reason to leave a church? And if so, how do you tell the pastor?



CS Lewis once prefaced an address to Divinity students by remarking that the approach he was about to take was that of "a sheep telling shepherds what only a sheep could tell them." On this question, perhaps the shepherds here need to hear our bleating. 

In my view, the first thing we ought to to if we experience preaching as boring is to examine our hearts very carefully indeed. In my time following Christ, I have found that experiencing preaching as boring is an indicator that something might be wrong with my own Christian life. So when I find myself being bored by doctrinally sound preaching, I ask myself: have I somehow grieved the Holy Spirit, either by active sinning, a passive refusal to address something he wants addressed, or by denying to myself the reality that the actions of someone in my life have so deeply hurt or offended me that "love covers a multitude of sins" is insufficient and the Matt. 18 process must be engaged in so that reconcilliation may occur? Often my answer is yes to one or more of these questions but sometimes the answers have come back no.

A second point I need to ask myself is: have I made the best use of the preaching that I can? Do I listen carefully to what is said, so much so that I can recall it later? Do I ask questions of myself? or meditate on thoughts that did catch my attention? If I have done these things, even though the preaching may be "boring" overall, it is still feeding me and I am being helped by it.

Only after we have searched our hearts, resolved any issues revealed in the process, and made certain we are doing everything possible to profit from sermons can we go on to the next step: telling the pastor? Start by saying something like: 
"I've been having a spiritual problem recently. It has caused me to search my heart and make sure that I am neither sinning actively against the Lord nor my brothers, nor passively refusing what the Lord wants me to do. Nor as best I know, am I in a state of offence against anyone. But despite practicing, as best I can, the disciplines of best profiting from sermons, and although I find your sermons doctrinally sound, there is a sense in which I find them boring. Somehow your preaching is not communicating to me the life that is in the word." After which preface, it will be easier to offer any positive criticism that you can suggest that you think may help the pastor improve.

Only after taking all the above steps and giving the pastor a measure of time to consider and improve his preaching may we consider whether or not we need to cease attending that church. Yet, even if the preaching is boring, there are other reasons to remain at a church: for example, one could be so committed to the particular evangelistic or service opportunities available to a particular local church and so spiritually helped by the fellowship within it that you can remain under preaching that is not helpful to you.

On the other hand, a stoic endurance of doctrinally accurate but personally unhelpful preaching for an extended period of time has its own dangers. Unless carefully watched, dissatisfaction with the preaching can become so settled that you find it driving you to become a critic both of the preacher and the life of the church. In such situations, if you have access to a church of similar doctrinal convictions with preaching that you and your family find challenging and invigrorating instead of boring, transferring membership is an option worth serious consideration. 

Just my


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

I would want to determine if it is boring preaching or bad preaching. I agree a 2 hour monotone sermon on the OT Law is not appealing to me. But then again neither is an exciting sermon with terrible exegesis and bad exposition.


----------



## Pergamum

Thanks Tim, I forgot that my thread was not for the general public.

-----Added 7/16/2009 at 01:50:31 EST-----

p.s. 

I think that even though "boring" is a subjective term that there really are preachers that are boring and that most sane persons would agree as such. 

One can put up and shut up, but it is not merely content that matters but also the delivery of such content. 

One can try to benefit as much as possible even from a bad preacher, of course, but I don't think one needs to feel guilty if they begin to dread sitting through another 70 minute dry monotone lecture.


----------



## timmopussycat

Joshua said:


> The whole problem with this is that _boring_ is a subjective term, not an _objective_ one. Same thing with "dynamic," etc.



Let me try to further define "being bored under doctrinally sound preaching" as "the condition where experience of the word of God rightly preached does not quicken one's mind, heart or will leading to measurable growth in grace - that is, a more faithful or joyful living of the Christian life over an extended period of time."


----------



## TeachingTulip

Pergamum said:


> Thanks Tim, I forgot that my thread was not for the general public.
> 
> -----Added 7/16/2009 at 01:50:31 EST-----
> 
> p.s.
> 
> I think that even though "boring" is a subjective term that there really are preachers that are boring and that most sane persons would agree as such.
> One can put up and shut up, but it is not merely content that matters but also the delivery of such content.
> 
> One can try to benefit as much as possible even from a bad preacher, of course, but I don't think one needs to feel guilty if they begin to dread sitting through another 70 minute dry monotone lecture.



I have sat under the teachings of Pastors who rocked the house; delivering enough entertainment, excitement, and laughter to rival the best of performers . . .who only caused me to weep all the way home.

Scriptural and doctrinal content is primary with me; I don't care how boring the presentation may be.


----------



## timmopussycat

TeachingTulip said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Tim, I forgot that my thread was not for the general public.
> 
> -----Added 7/16/2009 at 01:50:31 EST-----
> 
> p.s.
> 
> I think that even though "boring" is a subjective term that there really are preachers that are boring and that most sane persons would agree as such.
> One can put up and shut up, but it is not merely content that matters but also the delivery of such content.
> 
> One can try to benefit as much as possible even from a bad preacher, of course, but I don't think one needs to feel guilty if they begin to dread sitting through another 70 minute dry monotone lecture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have sat under the teachings of Pastors who rocked the house; delivering enough entertainment, excitement, and laughter to rival the best of performers . . .who only caused me to weep all the way home.
> 
> Scriptural and doctrinal content is primary with me; I don't care how boring the presentation may be. Does that make me insane?
Click to expand...


The OP on this thread was intended to presume sound scriptural exegesis and orthodox doctrine present in the preaching as a given. The problem being discussed is the condition when such preaching leaves one unmoved. You are not insane to note that scriptural and doctrinal content is primary, but you may not yet have experienced a truly boring presentation of such content and its effects for an extended period. If you haven't, you are blessed.


----------



## Pergamum

timmopussycat said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole problem with this is that _boring_ is a subjective term, not an _objective_ one. Same thing with "dynamic," etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try to further define "being bored under doctrinally sound preaching" as "the condition where experience of the word of God rightly preached does not quicken one's mind, heart or will leading to measurable growth in grace - that is, a more faithful or joyful living of the Christian life over an extended period of time."
Click to expand...


Is it "rightly preached" if it bores to tears?

-----Added 7/16/2009 at 02:31:56 EST-----

P.s. to say that any problem or trouble lies in the hearer seems a convenient defense mechanism that preachers might be particularly susceptible to fall into since many of us would not like to admit that our preaching is boring and that it may be a hindrance to some.


----------



## JML

There is more to the preacher than his preaching. There is also the aspect of his watching over your soul. So therefore, to answer the original question, if it is a given that the messages are doctrinally sound and he is a diligent shepherd who loves you and his flock, then I think it would be wrong to leave because he is not the best of speakers. Just because someone is boring doesn't mean that they are not apt to teach. There is no requirement in Scripture that the pastor is not to be boring. As far as being "unmoved", the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit are what move us. If our desire is to be moved by a man and his speaking ability then that is an issue with our heart.


----------



## Pergamum

John Lanier said:


> There is more to the preacher than his preaching. There is also the aspect of his watching over your soul. So therefore, to answer the original question, if it is a given that the messages are doctrinally sound and he is a diligent shepherd who loves you and his flock, then I think it would be wrong to leave because he is not the best of speakers. Just because someone is boring doesn't mean that they are not apt to teach. There is no requirement in Scripture that the pastor is not to be boring. As far as being "unmoved", the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit are what move us. If our desire is to be moved by a man and his speaking ability then that is an issue with our heart.



Very excellent point! 

A wonderful pastor of his people who visits them much but has some speaking deficiencies would still make a wonderful pastor, right? I would think so, and I would think that his people would still love him.

However, many of the reformed I know count their main activity of 30-40 hours prep per week as administering the Word from the pulpit, and visitation is left to elders.


----------



## timmopussycat

John Lanier said:


> There is more to the preacher than his preaching. There is also the aspect of his watching over your soul. So therefore, to answer the original question, if it is a given that the messages are doctrinally sound and he is a diligent shepherd who loves you and his flock, then I think it would be wrong to leave because he is not the best of speakers.



It is certainly wrong to leave without attempting to identify the source of the problem and attempting to rectify it.



John Lanier said:


> Just because someone is boring doesn't mean that they are not apt to teach. There is no requirement in Scripture that the pastor is not to be boring.



By definition "teaching" is the communication of knowledge or skills. Someone may, by sufficient weakness in presentation, fail to effectively communicate the knowledge he has attempted to pass on. Such a one is indeed not apt to teach. 



John Lanier said:


> As far as being "unmoved", the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit are what move us. If our desire is to be moved by a man and his speaking ability then that is an issue with our heart.



Biblical theology teaches that the Holy Spirit uses means to move us. One of these is the preached word. If doctrinally sound preaching is not consistently moving us into growth in grace over an extended period of time, something is wrong somewhere. It is either something wrong in us or something wrong in the preacher's presentation.


----------



## Curt

timmopussycat said:


> Only after we have searched our hearts, resolved any issues revealed in the process, and made certain we are doing everything possible to profit from sermons can we go on to the next step: telling the pastor? Start by saying something like:
> "I've been having a spiritual problem recently. It has caused me to search my heart and make sure that I am neither sinning actively against the Lord nor my brothers, nor passively refusing what the Lord wants me to do. Nor as best I know, am I in a state of offence against anyone. But despite practicing, as best I can, the disciplines of best profiting from sermons, and although I find your sermons doctrinally sound, there is a sense in which I find them boring. Somehow your preaching is not communicating to me the life that is in the word.
> 
> Only after taking all the above steps and giving the pastor a measure of time to consider and improve his preaching may we consider whether or not we need to cease attending that church. Yet, even if the preaching is boring, there are other reasons to remain at a church: for example, one could be so committed to the particular evangelistic or service opportunities available to a particular local church and so spiritually helped by the fellowship within it that you can remain under preaching that is not helpful to you.
> :



Let us not forget this step. All too often the response of folks is to quit coming to church altogether or move to another congregation - all the while bad mouthing the "boring" preacher.

Have the courtesy to bring this to his attention. If it doesn't change respectfully inform him that you are going. Then say nothing negative about what has become your previous congregation.


----------



## timmopussycat

Pergamum said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole problem with this is that _boring_ is a subjective term, not an _objective_ one. Same thing with "dynamic," etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try to further define "being bored under doctrinally sound preaching" as "the condition where experience of the word of God rightly preached does not quicken one's mind, heart or will leading to measurable growth in grace - that is, a more faithful or joyful living of the Christian life over an extended period of time."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it "rightly preached" if it bores to tears?
Click to expand...


Sorry, please read "rightly" as "doctrinally sound". I was trying to avoid repetition.


----------



## cih1355

I would try to learn as much as I can. I would not focus my mind on how boring the preacher is.


----------



## Sven

John Donne asked, "Why are Puritan sermons so long?" His answer was, "So that when the congregants wake up the preacher is still preaching to them."

Not an answer to your question, but it reminded me of John Donne.


----------



## JML

timmopussycat said:


> John Lanier said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is more to the preacher than his preaching. There is also the aspect of his watching over your soul. So therefore, to answer the original question, if it is a given that the messages are doctrinally sound and he is a diligent shepherd who loves you and his flock, then I think it would be wrong to leave because he is not the best of speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is certainly wrong to leave without attempting to identify the source of the problem and attempting to rectify it.
> 
> 
> 
> John Lanier said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because someone is boring doesn't mean that they are not apt to teach. There is no requirement in Scripture that the pastor is not to be boring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By definition "teaching" is the communication of knowledge or skills. Someone may, by sufficient weakness in presentation, fail to effectively communicate the knowledge he has attempted to pass on. Such a one is indeed not apt to teach.
> 
> 
> 
> John Lanier said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as being "unmoved", the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit are what move us. If our desire is to be moved by a man and his speaking ability then that is an issue with our heart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biblical theology teaches that the Holy Spirit uses means to move us. One of these is the preached word. If doctrinally sound preaching is not consistently moving us into growth in grace, something is wrong somewhere. It is either something wrong in us or something wrong in the preacher's presentation.
Click to expand...



1) Who is attempting to rectify the problem? Please explain. Is it the lay-person? Is it the lay-person's duty to come to the pastor and tell him that he is a lousy speaker? This is what causes divisions in churches by making people discontent. I could be way off in my interpretation of what you meant. 

*1 Corinthians 1:11-12*
11For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 

Not to say that Paul was speaking on preaching style here but if there are multiple speakers the people can choose favorites.

2) Do I only teach from the pulpit? If I have a conversation with a member after services about the Word of God, am I not teaching? Teaching is in the pulpit and out of it as well. If I communicate the truth in a way that is understandable, then I am teaching. One doesn't have to be a pulpit pounder to be apt to teach. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you meant here too. In my mind, just because someone is boring doesn't mean that I don't understand what they are saying. If I understand, then whether they are boring or not boring doesn't matter.

*1 Corinthians 2:1*
And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. 

3) I agree here that the Spirit uses means. My point is that doctrinally sound preaching can be accomplished by someone who is not a polished "speaker."

Thanks for the interaction.


----------



## Rich Koster

I would glean as much as I could from the teaching. A tall cup of coffee could be used prior to the sermon to keep alert. If I want entertainment I have a stereo & multiple sources to feed it. If I want excitement I have NJ traffic to drive in. Was Paul boring? Maybe. I think the words used was his speech was contemptible, but he laid about half of the new testament down.


----------



## Sven

BTW, if the sermon is really boring, don't sit in any window sills, you might fall out and break your neck. If you worship in a cessationist church, the minister will not be able to raise you from the dead.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## SolaScriptura

You could always do what so many Reformed folks I know do... you can dutifully sit through the scourging so that you can, with a clean conscience, publically decry as sinful all who don't... and then you can go listen to your favorite radio preacher who provides your "real" sustinence.


----------



## Skyler

Perhaps one cause of a "boring" preacher could be a lack of a praying congregation?


----------



## Idelette

I think it is noteworthy to mention that Jonathan Edwards was not a dynamic preacher and was quite monotone in his style....yet some of the greatest revivals stemmed from his preaching! And as a matter of perspective, for those of us that think preaching today is boring, during OT days they stood for hours while listening to the reading of the law! And in other countries today, they have services that are held for 4 hours straight, and the people are hungry to receive God's Word and are zealous to listen.....I wonder if we as listeners should be more zealous to hear God's Word rather than the way in which it is delivered!


----------



## Montanablue

In His Grip said:


> I think it is noteworthy to mention that Jonathan Edwards was not a dynamic preacher, and was quite monotone in his preaching style....yet some of the greatest revivals stemmed from his preaching!




Good point. When I think of "boring preaching" though, I'm not envisioning a man talking in a monotone. I think more of a preacher who, although he may be preaching sound doctrine, cannot make good connections, cannot explain his points coherently, and cannot connect to the congregation. Perhaps Edwards preached in a monotone, but I think his sermons were very coherent and understandable. I, on the other hand, have heard some pastors who, although they were confessional, simply could not communicate with the congregation.

I'm not sure its such a good idea to consider leaving a church because of an uninteresting presentation "style." However, if you're unable to make sense of the sermons or if the pastor is regularly incoherent, then I think leaving may be a reasonable option (after approaching the matter through the session etc of course)


----------



## timmopussycat

John Lanier said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Lanier said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is more to the preacher than his preaching. There is also the aspect of his watching over your soul. So therefore, to answer the original question, if it is a given that the messages are doctrinally sound and he is a diligent shepherd who loves you and his flock, then I think it would be wrong to leave because he is not the best of speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is certainly wrong to leave without attempting to identify the source of the problem and attempting to rectify it.
> 
> By definition "teaching" is the communication of knowledge or skills. Someone may, by sufficient weakness in presentation, fail to effectively communicate the knowledge he has attempted to pass on. Such a one is indeed not apt to teach.
> 
> 
> 
> John Lanier said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as being "unmoved", the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit are what move us. If our desire is to be moved by a man and his speaking ability then that is an issue with our heart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biblical theology teaches that the Holy Spirit uses means to move us. One of these is the preached word. If doctrinally sound preaching is not consistently moving us into growth in grace, something is wrong somewhere. It is either something wrong in us or something wrong in the preacher's presentation.
> 
> 
> 
> John Lanier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Who is attempting to rectify the problem? Please explain. Is it the lay-person? Is it the lay-person's duty to come to the pastor and tell him that he is a lousy speaker? This is what causes divisions in churches by making people discontent. I could be way off in my interpretation of what you meant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to the layman involved. If I am finding doctrinally sound preaching unmoving, I must advise either the preacher or the session about the problem and the stemps I have taken to make sure the problem is not on my end of the communication.
> 
> 
> 
> John Lanier said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1 Corinthians 1:11-12*
> 11For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
> 12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
> 
> Not to say that Paul was speaking on preaching style here but if there are multiple speakers the people can choose favorites.
> 
> 2) Do I only teach from the pulpit? If I have a conversation with a member after services about the Word of God, am I not teaching? Teaching is in the pulpit and out of it as well. If I communicate the truth in a way that is understandable, then I am teaching. One doesn't have to be a pulpit pounder to be apt to teach. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you meant here too. In my mind, just because someone is boring doesn't mean that I don't understand what they are saying. If I understand, then whether they are boring or not boring doesn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Generally speaking I have not found pastors "preaching" in conversations. And what is at issue as I have attempted to frame the discussion is that the preacher is not effective communicating the truth, whether by incoherent argument or dissonance between material and presentation.
> 
> 
> 
> John Lanier said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1 Corinthians 2:1*
> And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
> 
> 3) I agree here that the Spirit uses means. My point is that doctrinally sound preaching can be accomplished by someone who is not a polished "speaker."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it can. But polished speaking skills will add to the effectiveness of such preaching.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## CharlieJ

Montanablue said:


> Good point. When I think of "boring preaching" though, I'm not envisioning a man talking in a monotone. I think more of a preacher who, although he may be preaching sound doctrine, cannot make good connections, cannot explain his points coherently, and cannot connect to the congregation. Perhaps Edwards preached in a monotone, but I think his sermons were very coherent and understandable. I, on the other hand, have heard some pastors who, although they were confessional, simply could not communicate with the congregation.



Oh, by the way, the Edwards being "not dynamic" and monotone is a myth. Mark Twain once described him as a raving madman, which is probably hyperbole, but nonetheless does not comport with Edwards being a rhetorical dud. 

I think you're onto something. Most "boring" sermons are not boring because of the personality of the pastor, but because the pastor views his job as lecturing systematic theology or simply moralizes without purpose. A pastor ought to employ an audience-conscious approach that considers his congregation, considers the impact that God desires this passage to have on their lives, thinks of ways to communicate both the essence and the implication of the texts, and has a personal urgency (not fanaticism) about him that indicates that he sincerely believes that the congregation needs to hear God's Word.

If a pastor does not do this, he is not "rightly preaching" no matter what his doctrine is. BTW, Jay Adams' Preaching with Purpose is an excellent homiletical resource that addresses these issues.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Something I heard in the Systematic Theology lectures on iTunesU by Douglas Kelley sticks in my head. He stated that he was asked by a friend if he finds himself evaluating the sermon he's listening to for the purity of the doctrine and difficult to listen to the Word preached.

His reply was "No" and that he found any opportunity to sit under the preached Word to be a privilege.

I was at Church recently on TAD and found myself drifting off into the thought: "This guy is boring". I rebuked myself and tried to focus on the Truth he was proclaiming instead of focusing on my reaction to the way I wish he taught.


----------



## py3ak

Perhaps it would be helpful to divide the question a little further. Thus,

What is my responsibility when sitting under a boring sermon?
_To heed God's word and profit from it as best I may._

What is the responsibility of a preacher who realizes he is boring?
_To cultivate better elocution, delivery and organization; to limit the length of his sermon; in short, to consider his congregation._

What can a preacher do to overcome being boring?
___________________________ Read Cicero?_

What are the long-term effects of boring preaching?
_Disinterest; increased dependence on other preachers; dread of worship services;__________________________________________

"Boring" and "dynamic" are subjective terms, and personal preferences in the matter of preaching have to be mortified when they become obstacles to the means of grace, just like any other bit of self that's getting in the way. At the same time, the qualification of being "apt to teach" would necessarily seem to include, as Albert Martin put it, the ability to speak without torturing men's minds or ears.


----------



## timmopussycat

CharlieJ said:


> Most "boring" sermons are not boring because of the personality of the pastor, but because the pastor views his job as lecturing systematic theology or simply moralizes without purpose. A pastor ought to employ an audience-conscious approach that considers his congregation, considers the impact that God desires this passage to have on their lives, thinks of ways to communicate both the essence and the implication of the texts, and has a personal urgency (not fanaticism) about him that indicates that he sincerely believes that the congregation needs to hear God's Word.
> 
> If a pastor does not do this, he is not "rightly preaching" no matter what his doctrine is. BTW, Jay Adams' Preaching with Purpose is an excellent homiletical resource that addresses these issues.



Charlie thank you; you have exactly stated the omissions in pastoral practice that lead to doctrinally sound yet boring preaching.


----------



## Idelette

CharlieJ said:


> Oh, by the way, the Edwards being "not dynamic" and monotone is a myth. Mark Twain once described him as a raving madman, which is probably hyperbole, but nonetheless does not comport with Edwards being a rhetorical dud.



Actually, I beg to differ!  I've read several resources that indicate that he was, so I don't believe that it was a myth. In fact, according to witnesses that heard his sermon, "_Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God_" in Connecticut, 1741...he was quite monotone!

"Though Edwards was intrigued by Whitefield's emotional even terrifying manner of preaching, he retained his own subdued style. Even when he preached "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God in Connecticut in 1741, according to witnesses, '_he stood fixedly in the pulpit of the Enfield Church, set his eyes on the bellrope at the rear, and spoke the words in a level tone and with no high pomp of rhetoric or oratory. The feelings he aroused in his audience were not of his making; indeed, he several times admonished his listeners to stop groaning and crying aloud and to be still._'"

Jonathan Edwards: Renewed Heart - Google Books


----------



## JML

timmopussycat said:


> CharlieJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most "boring" sermons are not boring because of the personality of the pastor, but because the pastor views his job as lecturing systematic theology or simply moralizes without purpose. A pastor ought to employ an audience-conscious approach that considers his congregation, considers the impact that God desires this passage to have on their lives, thinks of ways to communicate both the essence and the implication of the texts, and has a personal urgency (not fanaticism) about him that indicates that he sincerely believes that the congregation needs to hear God's Word.
> 
> If a pastor does not do this, he is not "rightly preaching" no matter what his doctrine is. BTW, Jay Adams' Preaching with Purpose is an excellent homiletical resource that addresses these issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie thank you; you have exactly stated the omissions in pastoral practice that lead to doctrinally sound yet boring preaching.
Click to expand...



I think that I see what you are saying now. I think my concept of a boring sermon and your concept were two different things. If the sermon is boring due to lack of preparation or other things listed by Charlie above, then yes, there is a problem with the pastor. To me though, I wouldn't call that a boring sermon, just a *bad* one. But if all of those things are there and the layman just doesn't like the way the pastor speaks then the problem is with the heart of the layman. When I was considering what a boring sermon was, I was considering it a given that the pastor was doing all of those things but that the layman just didn't like the way he speaks.


----------



## Pergamum

What is being done to train preachers in stylistic matters? What do most seminaries provide? And in those classes, do they address mannerisms are merely grade the content? Delivery really does matter a lot. 

Also, do we trend towards blaming the victim when someone is bored by us rather than critical self-reflection on how to better refine our manner of delivery?


----------



## Curt

When I was in seminary, which was in another era, I grant, Dr. Bob Rayburn taught us about gestures, clothing, transitions, illustrations, etc. He even had us read _Dress for Success_.

We used an excellent old text, _On The Preparation and Deliver of Sermons_, by Broaddus.

He also videtaped us and help us critique the tapes.


----------



## Edward

My first reaction when I read the post on the other thread was that a clarifying question needed to be asked:

Is it the preacher that has changed, or the listener? 

If it's the listener (and likely in most cases it is) then the problem isn't the pastor. 

If, on the other hand, the pastor has burned out, or gotten bored, or distracted, then the root problem needs to be addressed.


----------



## Caroline

Well, I teach for a living, and so I think there certainly is something to be said for the idea that a teacher who can keep the attention of the class is a more effective educator than someone who cannot. Two teachers can present the exact same material and in one class, the students learn well, and in the other, everyone is lost. I think the same is true of pastors.

When someone is initially looking for a church, they are free to look for something that suits them, I think, and they aren't bound to continue at the first church that they wander into. So I saw no problem with what Pergamum did. We think of a lot of things whenever we first look for a church--is it close by? does it have good classes for the kids? etc. And, as a newcomer, it's not really your place to approach the pastor and say, "By the way, if I'm going to stay here, you need to work on your speaking skills."

On the other hand, if someone has been going somewhere for a while, then I think they owe it to the pastor to consider things more thoroughly and to have some compassion. Pastors get old, get depressed, develop Parkinson's disease, or whatever ... it may become more of a struggle for him. Not everyone is young and full of energy. But then, there should be a point too where someone might have to say, "Respectfully, sir, we've heard sermons on the book of Jude now for 20 Sundays running, and it's a really short book."

I think this sort of criticism goes over better though if you have a good relationship with the pastor and he knows you are not 'against him'. 

I suppose whether I would ultimately leave a church over 'boring preaching' would depend largely on other factors than the preaching style. If I was new at a church and the sermon put me to sleep three Sundays in a row, I'd look for another church. But having been faithfully fed and ministered to at the church that I now attend for 5 years (and I am a difficult parishioner--I won't lie), I can't really envision a situation in which I would leave. If my pastor gets old and not as 'together' as he used to be in his style, my husband and I will still be sitting in the pew because we know the sort of minister that he is in his heart, and that there is much that we all can learn from him, even if we have to overlook more 'ums' and 'uhs' than we used to. And our kids would know not to ever, EVER call him boring or disrespect him.

But if a pastor really cares about his flock, I think he does try to look for ways to effectively communicate with them. If he is hampered by age, ill health, etc, then that is something beyond his control. But if he just doesn't care ... well, that's another story.


----------



## Pergamum

In case anyone is wondering, this OP has no relation to my present circumstances. My home church is Rockin'...but I have encountered this in the past when I had to move around a lot. And in most cases the listener receives the blame and the rest of the congregation classifies them as "allergic to real meat", etc, "they couldn't handle the truth"or "We preached too deep for them...they ae used to light and fluffy." And this is NOT the case at all in some of the cases. 

Practically, I also want to know (since a lot of seminary questions have arisen of late) how ministers are being prepared, and also how I can better prepare my self so that not only my content can be good, but my silly mannerisms and style do not get in the way of a blessing as the Word is opened. I want to be a better preacher, not just in Message, but in the delivery of that Message.


----------



## Brian Withnell

I've got one example from life that I will not name the pastor, nor the church, but the preaching was ... shallow and did not seem well prepared.

First I will define what I believe a "good sermon" is. Good sermon: Noun; a sermon in which the word is used liberally, application is salient to the world in which the church lives, and interpretation is clearly expounded from a proper hermeneutic through exegesis. It is not a presentation style, and it can be evaluated through the reading of the words spoken from a transcript of the service.

I have been in a church plant that had a recent graduate from seminary who seemingly did not deliver good sermons unless the session that oversaw the plant was present ... then he delivered excellent preaching. It may be that because he knew when the committee was coming he worked extra hard to prepare out of a sense of nervousness (I want to give the benefit of the doubt to him as to why the difference was night and day between the two extremes). This was not my private observation, but all those that had started the church (a group of very godly men, most of them had been good reformed folk for many years). The church steering committee actually asked the session to meet with him (and us) to discuss what was happening. In this case, I think it was a matter of a pastor who had no experience having been left on his own far too often because of distance between the plant and the "mother" church. The poor man was essentially "wet behind the ears" and thrust into being pastor of what is arguably one of the hardest situation for a pastor.

(As an aside, I really think our presbyteries need to address this by making sure that "fresh pastors" do not go to new churches, but rather that seasoned pastors go to new churches until the churches are established. This ought to be until the time a session is put in place, and support ought to be at least partly from presbytery until it happens. A 20 year veteran pastor is what ought to be the norm for church plants until they are fully established, and it might help greatly to provide new churches with the footing they need to have good sessions that are well trained, which in turn sets the tone for every subsequent session, as they are the ones that approve candidates for elder. Presbyteries ought to be in the business of planting every church that gets planted, and in the business of seeking to plant churches where there are none. "And how can they hear unless someone is sent?")

The end result was good. The pastor heard what we had been saying, the session sent someone down to hear the sermons nearly every other week (but not scheduled ahead of time) to monitor the sermons. And it helped the pastor grow and the church grow as well (there was a substantial change to the quality of sermons after that--not that they were the best in the world, but they seemed to be much better prepared and thought out) and while the men in the church had been helping already, the pastor asked for and received additional help (I believe that is when the church had a volunteer secretary start working about 15 hours a week if memory serves me [I am getting old, and three different church plants start to run together!]).

So back to the original ... if the sermons are not good sermons, there may be other means for dealing with the problem than leaving. If those that can tell something is wrong leave, where does that leave everyone else? If a pastor is doing poorly, perhaps there can be correction (especially with a young pastor) that will allow them to flourish and not only will that benefit him, but the church now has another good preacher. So leaving is not right if you have a session and you have not approached them about the problem first. You might find they will let you know they are addressing lack of quality in sermons (I'm not talking error in doctrine, but "touchy-feely" mush that feeds nobody.) Then they may also be in a position to help you grow as well (the problem might be with you).

A final thought ... mostly to our elders that oversee the sheep. Please remember your charges men. We are needy and sometimes we need you to be much more careful with a church plant than what might otherwise be done. Do not allow a church plant to be run by a fresh-out without close supervision; it is a recipe for disaster.


----------



## Pergamum

Brian: Wow, that sounds like a good conclusion to a potentially disastrous situation. How can a congregational church do this? Any advice for your independant brethren?


----------



## Brian Withnell

Pergamum said:


> Brian: Wow, that sounds like a good conclusion to a potentially disastrous situation. How can a congregational church do this? Any advice for your independant brethren?



Pergy,

I just don't know how you could do it. There are problems that I see the church needing a presbytery to handle ... how does a congregational church handle a weak pastor that is just too young to do the job? Flounder? Kick him out and find another? I truly am Presbyterian by conviction, but I did attend a congregational church several times in my life and in every case (including the church in which I first heard the gospel) I was confronted by problems that would have been solved by preby polity.

I suppose if there are elders in the church, and they are good people, they could confront the pastor. The pastor answers to God, but there needs to be accountability for everyone in a church. Who holds the pastor accountable here on earth for his actions and life in a congregational church? (That is a real question ... I don't know and would love an answer to how a pastor is held accountable, I just don't know.)

If there is a session/board of elders they could certainly meet with the pastor (especially if they are viewed as equals) to discuss the perceived problem. In that particular situation, though, the were no elders in the local church plant, so who would hold the pastor accountable then? I feel for you brother ... with nobody to hold you accountable, it is a dangerous place to be in this world regardless of your standing. I certainly would not want to be without elders over me holding me accountable for my walk and life.


----------



## MW

Our generation were wisely taught by the older generation that boredom is a state of the mind. If the preaching is boring I would venture a guess and say it is probably due to the person listening not taking the appropriate interest in what is being said.


----------



## Pergamum

armourbearer said:


> Our generation were wisely taught by the older generation that boredom is a state of the mind. If the preaching is boring I would venture a guess and say it is probably due to the person listening not taking the appropriate interest in what is being said.



Your use of the word "probably" gives me the hint that even you would admit to situations where true boring-ness was the case and that style might mean something, even if we are to minimize this as we strive to be good listeners and ignore style over content?


----------



## Spinningplates2

I recently heard a sermon by Rev. Greg Harris and he said, "It is a sin to preach preach a boring sermon." In context he went on to explain that it was a sin for a Pastor to know he is boring and not care.


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> Your use of the word "probably" gives me the hint that even you would admit to situations where true boring-ness was the case and that style might mean something, even if we are to minimize this as we strive to be good listeners and ignore style over content?



I suppose so; but even in cases where I've thought the person repeated himself once too often I prayed the Lord might bless that message to an individual who might really need to hear the same thing stated repeatedly. I think we should be willing to explore the possibility that we are by nature selfish hearers and do not think of others nearly as often as we should.


----------



## Pergamum

armourbearer said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of the word "probably" gives me the hint that even you would admit to situations where true boring-ness was the case and that style might mean something, even if we are to minimize this as we strive to be good listeners and ignore style over content?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose so; but even in cases where I've thought the person repeated himself once too often I prayed the Lord might bless that message to an individual who might really need to hear the same thing stated repeatedly. I think we should be willing to explore the possibility that we are by nature selfish hearers and do not think of others nearly as often as we should.
Click to expand...


Yes, you are quite right. Thanks for your input.


----------



## Kevin

Skyler said:


> Perhaps one cause of a "boring" preacher could be a lack of a praying congregation?



I doubt it.


----------



## Pergamum

What do we do if we suspect that WE ourselves are boring? I saw a lady sleeping 4or 5 weeks ago, and it really really hurt and shook my confidence. So, I think I preached louder (ha).


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> Our generation were wisely taught by the older generation that boredom is a state of the mind. If the preaching is boring I would venture a guess and say it is probably due to the person listening not taking the appropriate interest in what is being said.



Absolutely in the sense of when in a situation you should make the most of it. Yet I would venture you have been in the presence of another person that is just boring?

The other shoe of course is that a pastor is capable of doing less than his best (as anyone else) in preparing. And while I have seen my pastor on *very* rare occasion give a sermon that seemed less than his normal challenging, informative, inspiring presentation of the scriptures, it does occasionally happen (even he gets sick at times and has less time to prepare ... yet he still delivers a good sermon even then). I know my pastor's work ethic, and that he would stay up almost all night preparing rather than give a poor sermon. Does that mean every pastor has the same level of commitment? Are humans fallible? Do we all have varying degrees of sanctification?

I teach for a living. And while I am proud of some things I do, I am not always on the very top of my "game". Is it always the student's fault when they don't learn? No. Sometimes it is my fault in either not using proper technique, or having been sick (even sick, most teachers do better than a substitute). There are a number of reasons why a teacher may do less than a perfect job for all the students. Does that mean the students don't still have a responsibility? No. They must learn and do their part as well. For some, they will learn no matter what (I don't get paid to teach them). Others are the ones that are a challenge to get them to get to class at all (they are the ones that make me earn more than what I'm paid).

It is no different for a pastor. A pastor's calling is to the lost sheep. Not the sheep that are easy to tend, but to the sheep that are difficult. The ones that are out jumping around the rocks like mountain goats, the ones that play around the edge of a stream that will sweep them away, the ones that wander out by the edge of the woods where the wolves and bears and lions roam about are the sheep for whom a shepherd needs to concern himself.

Sheep need to follow ... but those that do are not the main duty of the shepherd. He leaves the 99 and goes after the lost sheep.

-----Added 7/17/2009 at 12:42:37 EST-----



Pergamum said:


> What do we do if we suspect that WE ourselves are boring? I saw a lady sleeping 4or 5 weeks ago, and it really really hurt and shook my confidence. So, I think I preached louder (ha).



First, walk by faith. In everything, if you are doing the best you can, presume that you are doing the best, and trust that God is using his word.

Second, have someone video tape your sermons (digital cameras can do this) as a means of you looking at and hearing your own sermon. It may surprise you.

Third, this one is really hard, look at and listen to *really* good sermons. Figure out what techniques are being used. See if what you are seeing makes sense and then adapt it to your own style.

One of the things you also need to know is that you shouldn't beat-up yourself or your congregation for an occasional tired member. I've been in church after being up sick all night (food poisoning) and found myself nodding because of lack of movement and physical exhaustion. I've been tired during what I know was a wonderful sermon because one of my children has been sick. I have found myself tired and unable to concentrate because of stress (my signature line refers to when my first wife was dying ... the battle was long and hard, and I could not concentrate for more than a few minutes at a time then just from the stress).

Practical point. Have the people standing (a hymn, or during the reading of the scripture) just prior to the sermon. It helps with keeping blood pooling to a minimum.


----------



## Kevin

Why is it theat we reformed folk pretend that all of our preachers are a Spurgeon or an Edwards?

I have met many men, while I was still a member of an IFB church, that were incompetant. Some of them did not know the books of the Bible. Some of them did not know church history. Some of them could not speak our mother tongue. The sugestion that it could in some way be the fault of the audience that he gave an incomprehnsible sermon is laughable.

What makes us (as reformed christians) so special?

Is it not possible that some men enter our pulpits with only the barest preparation for a pulpit ministry? Is it always the fault of the listener that the sermon is incomprehensible? 

I would suggest that it is possible that many men in reformed pulpits are incompitent. And a knowledge of the minute details of some minor point of doctrine is not enough to consider a man qualified for the office.


----------



## Caroline

Wow, several great posts! I'm really enjoying this thread. 

Pergamum, that's an interesting point that you make (and I think Brian's answer was awesome). One other thing ... I think often, VERY often, people in the pews are not really aware of how well they can be seen. I see that as a teacher as well ... people behave as though they think you can't see them, like they are 'lost in the crowd' or something, when in fact, you can totally see EVERYTHING from the front.

Don't take it too hard, though. Sometimes people just come to church tired and think they can't be seen from the front, and it may not be really a reflection on your preaching.

But also, some people (such as my husband) close their eyes when they feel too distracted and want to concentrate more on what is being said, and it is actually not falling asleep, but being actually quite gripped by what is being said and wanting to be sure not to miss any of it. (Note to self: mention that to pastor in case he has been angsting about hubby nodding off during sermons).


----------



## Pergamum

Caroline said:


> Wow, several great posts! I'm really enjoying this thread.
> 
> Pergamum, that's an interesting point that you make (and I think Brian's answer was awesome). One other thing ... I think often, VERY often, people in the pews are not really aware of how well they can be seen. I see that as a teacher as well ... people behave as though they think you can't see them, like they are 'lost in the crowd' or something, when in fact, you can totally see EVERYTHING from the front.
> 
> Don't take it too hard, though. Sometimes people just come to church tired and think they can't be seen from the front, and it may not be really a reflection on your preaching.
> 
> But also, some people (such as my husband) close their eyes when they feel too distracted and want to concentrate more on what is being said, and it is actually not falling asleep, but being actually quite gripped by what is being said and wanting to be sure not to miss any of it. (Note to self: mention that to pastor in case he has been angsting about hubby nodding off during sermons).



Brian has given several awesome answers this past week.


----------



## MW

Brian Withnell said:


> Absolutely in the sense of when in a situation you should make the most of it. Yet I would venture you have been in the presence of another person that is just boring?



Sure, but I just can't find anything boring in what is being spoken about when the Bible is the subject of discourse. I suppose that is the point I am trying to make. If people are finding solid biblical instruction somewhat mundane then I would be inclined to locate the problem in the hearer rather than the preacher. Yes, the preacher can always be improving, and needs to be thinking how he can speak the things of God to the greatest effect. Most reformed preachers I know are conscientious in doing this. But the sad reality is that most "hearers" do not give much thought as to how they can profit most from what is being presented to them. What have they been doing on Saturday night? Have they themselves been consulting commentaries or topical books in preparation for a sermon where they know what the text or subject will be? Usually not; and often they do the precise opposite by spending Saturday night entertaining themselves in the things of this present life. It is no wonder then that their minds are not cultivated to find discussion on biblical subjects of some interest to themselves when this is their general habit.


----------



## Caroline

> Sure, but I just can't find anything boring in what is being spoken about when the Bible is the subject of discourse. I suppose that is the point I am trying to make. If people are finding solid biblical instruction somewhat mundane then I would be inclined to locate the problem in the hearer rather than the preacher. Yes, the preacher can always be improving, and needs to be thinking how he can speak the things of God to the greatest effect. Most reformed preachers I know are conscientious in doing this. But the sad reality is that most "hearers" do not give much thought as to how they can profit most from what is being presented to them. What have they been doing on Saturday night? Have they themselves been consulting commentaries or topical books in preparation for a sermon where they know what the text or subject will be? Usually not; and often they do the precise opposite by spending Saturday night entertaining themselves in the things of this present life. It is no wonder then that their minds are not cultivated to find discussion on biblical subjects of some interest to themselves when this is their general habit.




No, I'd have to disagree there. I've heard lots of boring stuff when the Bible is the subject of discourse. For example, I find Rick Warren a real snooze-fest. I can't listen to him for more than a minute or two before I'm wondering how long, seriously, is this guy going to continue to talk, because I think I can actually feel brain-cells starting to shrivel and die. (And I have no doubt that Warren thinks he gives good Biblical teaching, although I think it is the very definition of 'shallow').

But if someone is telling you that you have to study more the night before in order not to be bored, armourbearer, then I think they are just trying to weasel out of their responsibility. I see that in the teaching community, as well. It's always the most boring teachers that complain the most about how college students have no respect, never attend classes, don't listen, etc. They start putting a lot of new rules in place about class attendance and they tell students they have to read X amount in order to prepare for the lecture, etc, etc. It's always the students' fault because, of course, Dr. Smith couldn't possibly admit he needs to work on his presentation skills.

I have a severe distaste for this kind of reasoning, personally. It's circular, and there's no way to argue with it. It always reminds me of the UPCI and their attitude about women. They would tell me that I had to wear a skirt (instead of pants), and if I didn't, that showed that my heart wasn't right with God and I was trying to seduce men, and that I was rebellious. At that point, there's no way to win the argument. The only way not to be condemned is to wear the skirt. If I say that I don't think it is necessary, that just shows that I am 'rebellious' and that my heart isn't right with God. _ "Go and pray and fast, and humble yourself," _they would tell me. _"And then, when your heart is right, you will be ready to do what God wants you to do."_

This is the same kind of reasoning, armourbearer. If someone has this attitude that it is always the flock and their hard hearts that makes them unsatisfied with the preaching, then there's no way to win that argument. Anything that they say to suggest that the preaching isn't brilliant will just get the response,_ "Well, then, obviously, you are not right with God. Go pray and read the Bible more and cultivate your mind in the proper way and then you will see that the preaching is brilliant."_


----------



## timmopussycat

Sven said:


> BTW, if the sermon is really boring, don't sit in any window sills, you might fall out and break your neck. If you worship in a cessationist church, the minister will not be able to raise you from the dead.



It ain't necessarily so. God has been known to do occasional miracles in cessationist circles!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

One thing that is frustrating in such discussions is the false dilemma that is often presented:

1. Pastors need to be well equipped and adequately prepare that they might feed the congreation with the Word
or
2. People need to be attentive.

The answer is "Yes". Some are answering as if the Scriptures are completely silent on point 2 and get rankled when it is pointed out. This thread _is_ asking about how layfolk should react, Yes? I'm reminded of a scene in Full Metal Jacket where the D.I. yells at the man for leaving his locker unsecured and tells him that "...if it wasn't for idiots like you there wouldn't be any thieves."

It is not novel that we are to prepare our hearts for the hearing of the Word:


> Q. 117. How is the sabbath or the Lord’s day to be sanctified?
> A. The sabbath or Lord’s day is to be sanctified by an holy resting all the day,624 not only from such works as are at all times sinful, but even from such worldly employments and recreations as are on other days lawful;625 and making it our delight to spend the whole time (except so much of it as is to be taken up in works of necessity and mercy626) in the public and private exercises of God’s worship:627 and, to that end, we are to prepare our hearts, and with such foresight, diligence, and moderation, to dispose and seasonably dispatch our worldly business, that we may be the more free and fit for the duties of that day.628



The problem with the dialogue is that those who are pointing out that hearing needs to be conscientious are not denying that bad sermons exist but boredom is a state of mind. My reaction to bad sermons is typically not boredom but added concentration because, in some cases, I'm having to labor harder to ensure that I work through some of the dross and take things captive to the Word.

Like so many things, we can only be responsible for our own sin in a given context. If the Pastor has failed to do his diligence then we are not justified to forego our own responsibilities. Turning our minds off is not justified. It may be much easier to do and the poor preacher bears judgment for his inadequate feeding but we cannot righly condemn another for our own sin in any context.

Respondants need to stop putting premises into the presentations of others if they are talking about the responsibilities of one of the parties. 

Thus, when a person notes that people should get plenty of rest before the Lord's Day so they aren't sleepy or that they pray and meditate on the Word in preparation for the Lord's Day, it's not "blame shifting" for bad preaching but simply noting each person's responsiblity to come prepared to Worship. Even the best preaching cannot fill in the gaps for personal sloth.

This discussion is odd because I cannot think of a single passage (nor has anyone offered any exegesis) that permits boredom in the House of the Lord.


----------



## DTK

Rich,

From a pastoral perspective, I have found (especially in the church today) that, in virtually every setting, you have a congregation of people with different degrees of and appreciation for the ministry of the word. Sadly in today's culture, people are given to such complaints of boredom, even in the presence of some of the finest preaching that can be found. Moreover, even on this board, I am confident that there exists a wide range of "tastes" and "desires" (for lack of a better term) as to what people want and look for in a preacher. No one man with God-given gifts to preach is ever going to suit everyone in any given congregation today. That is a sad reality of the state of the Church today in our culture. You work and labor, as a pastor, to communicate effectively to everyone in your congregation, from the youngest to the oldest, to the most astute as well as to those who are less so. But there is always going to be a limitation on the gifts of any man, as well as spiritual and other limitations on the part of those to whom one preaches. For example, I remember one sermon I gave wherein I recited a poem that I thought was especially effective in driving home the point of the passage from which I was preaching. Afterwards, one lady who had never had anything good to say about the preaching before, commented to me how she loved to hear such poems recited from the pulpit. In other words, she communicated to me, as she never had before, that she had finally found something of interest in one of my sermons, and she was convinced that her words would be an encouragement to me, as well as communicating to me that she looked forward to more of the same in the future. In short, I felt some pity for her that such was required, from her perspective, to reach her own tastes and appreciation.

Those of us who are given to a regular pulpit ministry are so thrilled when we actually have the opportunity to hear someone else preach that we make every effort to profit from the ministry of the word of God. Pastor Winzer is right to comment that boredom has no place in the Church of Jesus Christ in any age. Even in good, sound Reformed churches today, we still face the consumer mentality, namely, that people come to church with the mindset, "what's in it for me? Are my needs going to be met? This is what I want," etc. I often wonder what ever happened to the corporate mindset, where people actually come to church to worship, offer their gifts and talents for the mutual building up of the body, and do so with the desire to give rather than to receive.

I grieve over the limitations of my own pulpit ministry, indeed mourn over the sad reality that every time I preach that I carry with me into the pulpit my own remaining sin and corruption, and would to God I could preach just once without such. But wonder of wonders, as Calvin put it...



> Those who think the authority of the Word is dragged down by the baseness of the men called to teach it disclose their own ungratefulness. For, among the many excellent gifts with which God has adorned the human race, it is a singular privilege that he deigns to consecrate to himself the mouths and tongues of men in order that his voice may resound in them. _Institutes of the Christian Religion_, Vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), Book IV.i.5, p. 1018.



We live today in the midst of such ungratefulness, and rarely pause to offer to God our gratitude that many of us, in the world today, live in nations where we still have the freedom to attend and sit under the ministry of the Word of God, even when it comes from the meanest of preachers. People have the responsibility to find a church where the word of God is faithfully proclaimed, and then to thank God for it, rather than complain about their boredom. And if we cannot thank God for where we are, then let us praise Him for where we are not.

DTK


----------



## timmopussycat

Semper Fidelis said:


> One thing that is frustrating in such discussions is the false dilemma that is often presented:
> 
> 1. Pastors need to be well equipped and adequately prepare that they might feed the congreation with the Word
> or
> 2. People need to be attentive.
> 
> The answer is "Yes". Some are answering as if the Scriptures are completely silent on point 2 and get rankled when it is pointed out. This thread _is_ asking about how layfolk should react, Yes? I'm reminded of a scene in Full Metal Jacket where the D.I. yells at the man for leaving his locker unsecured and tells him that "...if it wasn't for idiots like you there wouldn't be any thieves."
> 
> It is not novel that we are to prepare our hearts for the hearing of the Word:
> 
> 
> 
> Q. 117. How is the sabbath or the Lord’s day to be sanctified?
> A. The sabbath or Lord’s day is to be sanctified by an holy resting all the day,624 not only from such works as are at all times sinful, but even from such worldly employments and recreations as are on other days lawful;625 and making it our delight to spend the whole time (except so much of it as is to be taken up in works of necessity and mercy626) in the public and private exercises of God’s worship:627 and, to that end, we are to prepare our hearts, and with such foresight, diligence, and moderation, to dispose and seasonably dispatch our worldly business, that we may be the more free and fit for the duties of that day.628
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the dialogue is that those who are pointing out that hearing needs to be conscientious are not denying that bad sermons exist but boredom is a state of mind. My reaction to bad sermons is typically not boredom but added concentration because, in some cases, I'm having to labor harder to ensure that I work through some of the dross and take things captive to the Word.
> 
> Like so many things, we can only be responsible for our own sin in a given context. If the Pastor has failed to do his diligence then we are not justified to forego our own responsibilities. Turning our minds off is not justified. It may be much easier to do and the poor preacher bears judgment for his inadequate feeding but we cannot righly condemn another for our own sin in any context.
> 
> Respondants need to stop putting premises into the presentations of others if they are talking about the responsibilities of one of the parties.
> 
> Thus, when a person notes that people should get plenty of rest before the Lord's Day so they aren't sleepy or that they pray and meditate on the Word in preparation for the Lord's Day, it's not "blame shifting" for bad preaching but simply noting each person's responsiblity to come prepared to Worship. Even the best preaching cannot fill in the gaps for personal sloth.
> 
> This discussion is odd because I cannot think of a single passage (nor has anyone offered any exegesis) that permits boredom in the House of the Lord.
Click to expand...


In the OP my first point was that the problem of hearers experiencing bordom might be due to a problem in the hearer and that such problems must be addressed before any other action is taken. I know that in my own case, most of the time I experience boredom in sermons, the problem is in me. But not always and Charlie has given us a good discussion of the kinds of faulty preparation in the preacher that can lead to ineffective communication. 

Let's combine my OP and Charlie's post to refine the question somewhat

What happens if, despite following the preparations you describe here and the ones I described in the OP, one is sitting under the preacher who consistently gives the kind of sermons Charlie has described for us? How then shall laymen respond if the preaching we receive is not helping us to grow in grace?

In such a case, the real problem is not my boredom as a hearer but a preacher's real deficiency. How should we best encourage such a preacher to address deficiencies in his sermon preparation or preaching?


----------



## Pergamum

So then is any measure of boredom sin?

And if one is faced with having to really concentrate hard and strain at a sermon to squeeze benefit from it, and one has other alternatives (such as other churches to go to), is it weakness or stewardship of time to divert one's Sundays to a church where the Word is preached in a way that benefits the listner without as great an effort on the part of the hearer?


----------



## timmopussycat

DTK said:


> Even in good, sound Reformed churches today, we still face the consumer mentality, namely, that people come to church with the mindset, "what's in it for me? Are my needs going to be met? This is what I want," etc. I often wonder what ever happened to the corporate mindset, where people actually come to church to worship, offer their gifts and talents for the mutual building up of the body, and do so with the desire to give rather than to receive.



At the risk of sounding somewhat off the wall if not heterodox, I do not think that a measure of the attitude of "What's in it for me? and Are my needs going to be met" is necessarily a bad thing in situations where one is experiencing boredom under sermons due to preaching that is objectively bad. If, after searching one's heart and repenting from all sin revealed by the Spirit, and preparing for the sabbath with all diligence, one is still left with bad preaching as the cause, it is as legitimate ask "How is my need for the word preached going to be met" as it is for someone in a famine stricken country to ask "How is my need for physical food going to be met?"


----------



## DTK

I guess I never cease to be amazed that people who call a pastor to a church, or join such a church where he is already the pastor, then feel the need to educate the very one who usually is the only one present who has actually been educated for his job. I guess they feel that God has given him to be a part of some mission project of theirs.

That's not to say he cannot grow, learn, mature, etc. But if I were to go to someone else in the church to instruct them on how to do their job, they would be highly offended. Yet the same have no such restraints with respect to a pastor! "I know I can help him IF he'll just listen to me!!!" 

DTK


----------



## timmopussycat

DTK said:


> I guess I never cease to be amazed that people who call a pastor to a church, or join such a church where he is already the pastor, then feel the need to educate the very one who usually is the only one present who has actually been educated for his job. I guess they feel that God has given him to be a part of some mission project of theirs.
> 
> That's not to say he cannot grow, learn, mature, etc. But if I were to go to someone else in the church to instruct them on how to do their job, they would be highly offended. Yet the same have no such restraints with respect to a pastor! "I know I can help him IF he'll just listen to me!!!" DTK



Dear DTK 

A congregation's growth in grace will, to some extent, be affected by its pastor's competence or lack therof. If one or more sheep can identify that they the preaching of the word is not helping them grow in grace, and have taken all biblical and confessional steps to ensure that their problem is not rooted in themselves but is due to objective deficiencies in the pastor, letting the pastor know the problem may help not only the pastor be more effective but may increase the church's growth in grace. 

How else will the pastor know that he is ineffective feeding these members of his flock unless the sheep tell him?


----------



## DTK

> How else will the pastor know that he is ineffective feeding these members of his flock unless the sheep tell him?


By all means, set him straight. 

DTK


----------



## Semper Fidelis

DTK said:


> Those of us who are given to a regular pulpit ministry are so thrilled when we actually have the opportunity to hear someone else preach that we make every effort to profit from the ministry of the word of God. Pastor Winzer is right to comment that boredom has no place in the Church of Jesus Christ in any age. Even in good, sound Reformed churches today, we still face the consumer mentality, namely, that people come to church with the mindset, "what's in it for me? Are my needs going to be met? This is what I want," etc. I often wonder what ever happened to the corporate mindset, where people actually come to church to worship, offer their gifts and talents for the mutual building up of the body, and do so with the desire to give rather than to receive.


Pastor King,

I think I want to frame your entire post. My own limited experience with ministry and teaching echoes so much the mixture of joy and sorrow. I looked back at some things that I did 4 years ago where I grilled a seasoned Pastor over some issues in his past and have since repented of my arrogant pride because I now see how hard the ministry is. I'm not saying that ministers are above reproach but my default setting is to be a joy to my Pastor.

I also believe you have struck upon what I believe is the very root of the issue and that is how we view our place within the Church. An in-depth study of Hebrews last year literally changed my world. I was transported out of a concern for myself into Biblical community where the entire Church strives _together_ for holiness. The Pastor's heart in Hebrews comes out with constant exhortations for all of us to enter in. Let nobody fall behind.

The problem of wrong thinking then manifests itself in two ways:

1. The stronger members of the congregation may feel fed and are content that their personal needs are met

while...

2. The ignorant and going astray are falling behind but the stronger members assume that everybody is on their own program.

If we regain the sense, in our Churches, that _we_ are commanded to press in then we can never be content that we're content and others are bored. Might the congregation labor, together, to help those that don't feel fed. Certainly the Pastor plays a role but it's not a Pastor-to-individual solution but a "striving together" solution.

Again, thank you for that excellent post. It's worthy of meditation about the work of ministry as I contemplate a potential future full time.



timmopussycat said:


> In the OP my first point was that the problem of hearers experiencing bordom might be due to a problem in the hearer and that such problems must be addressed before any other action is taken. I know that in my own case, most of the time I experience boredom in sermons, the problem is in me. But not always and Charlie has given us a good discussion of the kinds of faulty preparation in the preacher that can lead to ineffective communication.
> 
> Let's combine my OP and Charlie's post to refine the question somewhat
> 
> What happens if, despite following the preparations you describe here and the ones I described in the OP, one is sitting under the preacher who consistently gives the kind of sermons Charlie has described for us? How then shall laymen respond if the preaching we receive is not helping us to grow in grace?
> 
> In such a case, the real problem is not my boredom as a hearer but a preacher's real deficiency. How should we best encourage such a preacher to address deficiencies in his sermon preparation or preaching?


What precedes flows into this response.

If the Church is corporate then the solution ought to be corporate. I think we ought to be encouraging one another and working through the issues that can be handled in ways that don't lead to gossip and even handling issues of encouraging Brothers and Sisters where we can. I've personally received phone calls from Brothers and Sisters and will try to help them see a problem from another perspective rather than being a party to a complaint about the Preacher. I'll then hang up and call the Pastor and relate the concern and let him know about the concern in a way that isn't gossip but encourages that he might contemplate and get feedback about the way certain things that are going on in the Church are being received.

Thus, if teaching needs to improve there can, I think, be a corporate and Godly way that doesn't seek to simply grumble at a man that is in a hard position but seeks to obey the injunction that we make the task of being an overseer a joyful thing rather than always a burden. The burdens from spiritual attack will always be present but whatever we can do corporately to give battle together and encourage is our privilige to participate in.


----------



## CharlieJ

*Helping the Pastor*

To answer Timmo's question, I think that the first thing a congregation ought to do when it perceives a deficiency in the pulpit ministry is to search for possible hindrances. If the pastor is expected to teach Sunday school, preach two messages on Sunday, and give a talk or Bible study on Wednesday, he cannot possibly bring his A-game to every one of those activities. Some time and effort needs to be invested in having more than one person in the congregation apt to teach, so that the teaching ministry can be delegated in some ways. 

Also, many churches don't take seriously "continuing education" for their pastors. As an unordained assistant to a pastor, I learned that there are multitudes of highly sensitive activities that a pastor engages in weekly (daily?). He needs both vacation time for refreshment and continuing education opportunities for sharpening. I've known pastors whose pulpit ministries have greatly benefited from a weekend preaching seminar, simply because it gave them certain tools or made them aware of imbalances in their presentation. Of course, pulpit ministry isn't the only area that continuing education benefits.

So, a congregation should implement delegation and education to help their pastor, rather than simply complain. If a pastor has a good heart, this should drastically improve the situation.


----------



## ReformedWretch

SolaScriptura said:


> You could always do what so many Reformed folks I know do... you can dutifully sit through the scourging so that you can, with a clean conscience, publically decry as sinful all who don't... and then you can go listen to your favorite radio preacher who provides your "real" sustinence.



Yeeee ouch!


----------



## Turtle

If one thinks the pastor is boring, perhaps they could ask for his writings. His writing could be really good.

_"His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech of no account."_ (An assessment of Paul by a few Corinthians, 2 Cor. 10:10)
.
.
.
.
.
.


----------



## DTK

Rich,

I can only pray that you find it helpful as you face the prospect of future ministry. To be sure, you have to develop rhino hide as a pastor, because we live in an egalitarian society today where people think their own perceived needs take precedence as the priority over everything else, as has been expressed in this thread. Some have the arrogance actually to presume that they are qualified to instruct the preacher on matters for which they themselves have never been instructed. Yes, it's arrogance, and often a sense of their own perceived superiority. I for one am willing to sit down and listen to criticism, and have done so on many many occasions through the years, especially from fellow elders and mutual practitioners. Your ministry will be full of critics of all sorts, types and kinds, some with pure motives, and some with impure motives who do not have the grace to admit them. But I have on very few occasions faced such a critic in the congregation who 1) had something helpful to say, and 2) had something other than his/her own interests/preferences at heart. I agree with Al Martin, if I'm going to listen to a critic, I prefer to hear it from a practitioner, and not a theorist.

Most of the people who see it as their mission in life to correct a pastor's preaching are people who also sought to correct their previous pastor as well, and were never content with the ministry of the word. If the facts were revealed as they are, such folk would complain against Christ himself, as they did in the days of His flesh. I know of no place in the Bible where the people of God are commanded to sit in judgment of *how* the pastor is to deliver his sermon...content, yes, but not how. I do think that the Bible does instruct the man of God sufficiently in those areas, and even so we all bring our differing personalities to what we do. But this is why we as Presbyterians actually have a systematic way of oversight, and steps toward ordination, that are conducted by men who know what they're doing in presbyteries. At least, in principle, we don't buy into the egalitarian spirit of our age, where everyone's counsel is deemed to be as of equal value and soundness as the next man.

When I do have the opportunity to hear another man preach, critiquing him is the last thing on my mind...I'm there as a hungry man ready for every morsel I can gather for my starving soul. 

If someone is attending a church where they think that the ministry of the word is too deficient from which to derive spiritual help, let them first look to themselves with the same judgment that they're so quick to mete-out. But if they see on a regular basis what they judge to be a deficient ministry, I want to ask them 1) then why did they call that man to preach and then complain? or 2) why did they choose to join that church and then complain?

If the man is unorthodox, or guilty of heresy, then that is another matter, and even there we as Presbyterians have procedures in place by which we deal with it biblically.

Now, I know that this is not easy for your average critic to hear, but if they're willing to dish it out, then they ought to be ready to accept the same in grace.

I will pray for you, Rich, and your future ministry. It is a relatively easy call to answer, but much more difficult to fulfill once called. Listen to your critics, especially if they have something of value to offer. If so, take it to heart, exercise yourself, stretch yourself to be clear and plain and as helpful as possible in your pulpit ministry. In fact, never be content that you've ever done the best job you can by God's grace. But for the one who is always complaining and always murmuring, do your best to love them in spite of where they are spiritually and pray for them. But in the end, we must look to God, while confessing...

2 Corinthians3:5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, 6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

and say with him...

1 Corinthians 4:1 Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. 4 For I know nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one's praise will come from God.

DTK


----------



## py3ak

DTK said:


> I agree with Al Martin, if I'm going to listen to a critic, I prefer to hear it from a practitioner, and not a theorist.



Pastor King, while I can understand that view, isn't there also quite a large place for those who are always listening to give their point of view? While other speakers can certainly be very helpful, there is a professional companionship, so to speak, that can serve to keep certain problems from even being addressed, either because both practitioners share them, or because a deep appreciation for the difficulties of the task limits the impetus to push someone towards greater technical excellence.
A person who understands the strains of proclamation, who is trained in theology, and so forth, in other words, may _not_ be the best person to tell a fellow-worker how the average simple congregant perceives him.


----------



## proverbs31woman

I enjoyed this. I know for me its easier and much more fun to listen to a fiery preacher (Paul Washer, etc.....) as opposed to a slow man who says a lot, yet NEVER puts emotion and feeling into his sermon.....Christ has the power to effect us and move us...why doesnt that show in our modern American christianity----and No, haveing a rock n' roll session does not count for church...im talking about a strong and powerful preacher moved by God!

Thanks, I did enjoy this!


----------



## MW

Caroline said:


> But if someone is telling you that you have to study more the night before in order not to be bored, armourbearer, then I think they are just trying to weasel out of their responsibility. I see that in the teaching community, as well.



Unlike the teaching community, the office of the holy ministry is sent by God, stands for God, and speaks on behalf of God. If the minister is faithfully preaching the Word then the individual hearer's sense of entertainment is irrelevant. It is the hearer's responsibility to receive the truth of what is said with accountability to Jesus Christ. Matt. 10:40, "He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." The hearer has a duty to prove all things and hold fast that which is good, 1 Thess. 5:21. If this is not enough to occupy his attention so as to absorb him in the message then other factors only serve to make him listen to the message for the wrong reasons. I might also add, that a hearer who insists on other factors to make the message interesting really only tempts God's servants to alter their course of faithful duty to God.


----------



## py3ak

Mr. Winzer, do you take "apt to teach" as including any sort of natural abilities in the realm of organizing content, speaking clearly and engagingly, etc.?


----------



## MW

py3ak said:


> Mr. Winzer, do you take "apt to teach" as including any sort of natural abilities in the realm of organizing content, speaking clearly and engagingly, etc.?



"Apt to teach" means "disposed to teach" in contrast to impatient dictating.

"Natural abilities" was a mark of a good speaker to the carnal Corinthians.

"Organising content" is something every preacher does as a matter of sanctified common sense unless he is a fanatic who thinks the Holy Spirit will use him in a mechanical way.

"Speaking clearly" is a necessity because the preacher must commend himself to every man's conscience by "manifestation" of the truth, not by hiding it behind words.

"Speaking engagingly" can be understood according to what "engages." One should be engaged as soon as a preacher states "Hear the Word of the Lord."


----------



## py3ak

So a severe lack of _mechanical_ abilities (i.e., with regard to the mechanics of speaking) would in some circumstances disqualify someone for the ministry? That seems clear enough if you consider that a mute person is unlikely to be called to be the minister of a hearing congregation; but how with finer points along that scale?


----------



## DTK

py3ak said:


> While other speakers can certainly be very helpful, there is a professional companionship, so to speak, that can serve to keep certain problems from even being addressed, either because both practitioners share them, or because a deep appreciation for the difficulties of the task limits the impetus to push someone towards greater technical excellence.
> A person who understands the strains of proclamation, who is trained in theology, and so forth, in other words, may _not_ be the best person to tell a fellow-worker how the average simple congregant perceives him.


We're not talking about "both" practitioners, but many. And I could not disagree more with the sentiment that "A person who understands the strains of proclamation, who is trained in theology, and so forth, in other words, may _not_ be the best person to tell a fellow-worker how the average simple congregant perceives him."

I understand your presupposition to be that practitioners might or could be out of touch with their task and the biblical requirements for their task. With all due respect, I simply don't buy it.

Would you want to have a practitioner as a doctor operate on you, or simply someone who knows in theory what to do? Could it be that the practitioner with the experience is the one more fit for that task?

DTK


----------



## steven-nemes

Question: how did Mark Twain describe Jonathan Edwards as a raving madman if he was born 80 years after he died?


----------



## MW

py3ak said:


> So a severe lack of _mechanical_ abilities (i.e., with regard to the mechanics of speaking) would in some circumstances disqualify someone for the ministry? That seems clear enough if you consider that a mute person is unlikely to be called to be the minister of a hearing congregation; but how with finer points along that scale?



I'm a Presbyterian and have approached this discussion from the POV that the hypothetical speaker has already been proven an able and willing preacher by those who have the oversight in this matter. The question of gross speaking skills would certainly have been addressed by the man's Presbytery.


----------



## py3ak

Thanks, Mr. Winzer. The Presbytery should not approve someone for the ministry who is not an _able speaker_. Should they also review the ordination if for some reason the speaking ability declines?

Pastor King, I can understand your point of view; I don't acknowledge, of course, that my presupposition is that a speaker is "out of touch"; but I'm fairly confident you would agree that it might be hard for a 22-year old to say if you were intelligible to an 8-year old, or vice versa. Or to use another medical example, it is an ophthalmologist who will write you a prescription for eyeglasses - but it must be the unfortunate myopic who indicates which lenses provide clearer views of the charts on the wall.


----------



## MW

py3ak said:


> Thanks, Mr. Winzer. The Presbytery should not approve someone for the ministry who is not an _able speaker_. Should they also review the ordination if for some reason the speaking ability declines?



There is no review of "ordination," nor of a man's standing in the ministry except on moral or doctrinal grounds. Speaking ability might become a subject of brotherly exhortation if it becomes an apparent problem, but generally brethren in the ministry are quite aware of their own shortcomings and accept each other accordingly.


----------



## py3ak

Thanks again, Mr. Winzer. I quite see your point. The thing I wonder about is whether it could be conceded that a presbytery may have made a mistaken judgment in originally ordaining a person: if that case is not inconceivable, is there no process for correcting such a mistake?


----------



## DTK

py3ak said:


> Or to use another medical example, it is an ophthalmologist who will write you a prescription for eyeglasses - but it must be the unfortunate myopic who indicates which lenses provide clearer views of the charts on the wall.


Then, let's be honest. The focus is all on the individual, and the individual's perception. The individual is the judge in these matters. I'm sorry, but I do not find a shred of biblical support for that sentiment. The pastor is to know his flock, and to minister to them as God enables him to do so. We speak with them, we try to understand where they are spiritually, but I don't consult them on how to preach to them. 

In other words, I don't ask a 10 year old what he/she perceives to be their wants or needs with respect to how the nourishment is to be administered. God's word directs us to what they need. 

Could it be that, given today's egalitarian spirit, every preacher is expected to fit each and every individual's perceived needs? Again, I find nothing in the word of God for such a directive. And if that were the preacher's task, then every single preacher in the history of Christ's Church has been an abysmal failure.

DTK


----------



## py3ak

DTK said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or to use another medical example, it is an ophthalmologist who will write you a prescription for eyeglasses - but it must be the unfortunate myopic who indicates which lenses provide clearer views of the charts on the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Then, let's be honest. The focus is all on the individual, and the individual's perception. The individual is the judge in these matters. I'm sorry, but I do not find a shred of biblical support for that sentiment. The pastor is to know his flock, and to minister to them as God enables him to do so. We speak with them, we try to understand where they are spiritually, but I don't consult them on how to preach to them.
> 
> In other words, I don't ask a 10 year old what he/she perceives to be their wants or needs with respect to how the nourishment is to be administered. God's word directs us to what they need.
> 
> Could it be that, given today's egalitarian spirit, every preacher is expected to fit each and every individual's perceived needs? Again, I find nothing in the word of God for such a directive. And if that were the preacher's task, then every single preacher in the history of Christ's Church has been an abysmal failure.
> 
> DTK
Click to expand...


Pastor King, I do not find that honesty requires me to admit that the focus is all on the individual. When you say "The pastor is to know his flock, and to minister to them as God enables him to do so. We speak with them, we try to understand where they are spiritually, but I don't consult them on how to preach to them" I believe we are substantially agreed. I take it for granted that knowing the flock involves remembering their intellectual capacities, considering the limits of their vocabulary, _gently leading those that are with young_, and so forth. (By the way, I greatly enjoy the memory of an elderly woman in Mexico repeating to herself the word "anthropomorphism" after the concept had been introduced and explained, so that she would not forget what she had learned.) Thank you for taking time to clarify your position. I hope mine has been a little clarified as well, and I doubt you disagree that the person best qualified to tell you if they understood something is the person in question.


----------



## MW

py3ak said:


> Thanks again, Mr. Winzer. I quite see your point. The thing I wonder about is whether it could be conceded that a presbytery may have made a mistaken judgment in originally ordaining a person: if that case is not inconceivable, is there no process for correcting such a mistake?



It might be helpful if it were clarified whether you are referring to mechanical failure or driver negligence. In the case of the former it is improbable that a Presbytery would miss a speaking disability. In the latter, where there is a distasteful mannerism, I find it hard to conceive that it wouldn't be addressed prior to licensure, but in the case that it had been left unnoticed then a Presbytery would be obliged to address it where a reasonable complaint was made.


----------



## DTK

I think that honesty does demand that, but I am very content to leave our disagreement here in Christian charity.

DTK


----------



## py3ak

Thanks, Mr. Winzer, I believe your answer sufficiently addresses the various scenarios I had in mind.


----------



## Rich Koster

This has been one of the best threads I've read on the PB. It has been a heartfelt teaching and learning tool for all.


----------



## Josiah

Rich Koster said:


> This has been one of the best threads I've read on the PB. It has been a heartfelt teaching and learning tool for all.



I concur. Its threads like this that make me very glad to be a member here. Rich, Rev. Winzer and Rev. King's posts have all been very edifying and challenging to me. I usually just click the thank button but I wanted to express my thanks to them in stimulating my thoughts on this matter.


----------



## Pergamum

py3ak said:


> Thanks again, Mr. Winzer. I quite see your point. The thing I wonder about is whether it could be conceded that a presbytery may have made a mistaken judgment in originally ordaining a person: if that case is not inconceivable, is there no process for correcting such a mistake?



How about for congregationalists/independants?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

DTK said:


> In other words, I don't ask a 10 year old what he/she perceives to be their wants or needs with respect to how the nourishment is to be administered. God's word directs us to what they need.





First to the general reader, at the risk that I don't add the 1,000,001 qualifications to my statement let me note, outright, that humility demands that we be mature enough to take criticism even when it is given to us in immature ways.

That said, I find this analogy to particularly apt.

Years ago I attended an OPC in SoCal and had very dear friends who just _loved_ the teaching of another OPC minister in the area. He was a hyper-BT preacher who had argued, in Presbytery, that the Preacher must _never_ give any application. Rather, the Preacher must only preach about what Christ has done and leave all application to the Holy Spirit.

Well, this couple would repeatedly complain about our Pastor's preaching and that he preached "the Law" any time he provided any application or admonishment or rebuke from the Word. His preaching was always capstoned by something to the effect of "...but remember that you will fail and Christ is your righteousness..." but to no avail. The damage was done because he had applied the Word to their lives and that was not the hyper-BT way.

Again, I don't say this because I disliked this couple. I loved them dearly and still do but I would urge repeatedly and gently that they consider that the Pastor was not doing what they said.

It was then that I realized that they didn't apply this same technique to their children. They didn't merely tell them that Christ had accomplished all righteousness and was a perfect child and allow the Holy Spirit to apply these indicatives to the hearts of their children.

No, they acted wisely and disciplined their children.

The problem is, I fear, that we (and notice I'm using the collective term because _we_ are striving together) are often under the illusion that we are the spiritually mature. A man who has only been a Christian for a few years may be chronologically mature but he is not spiritually mature.

Hence, I maintain, that the analogy is apt because children are not in a position to be lecturing adults about the proper manner of discipline. I simply do not tolerate my son telling me a Sermon is boring. He doesn't know what he's talking about.

Other spiritually mature individuals are good guides but is that not why we have a Session? Hence, I maintain, that a healthy balance is to not consider ourselves greater than we are and humbly remember our need for shepherding. Not blindly, because if we have a question we have a plurality of elders to take the issue to but our default position should not be to assume that our judgment of the matter is fully matured.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if someone is telling you that you have to study more the night before in order not to be bored, armourbearer, then I think they are just trying to weasel out of their responsibility. I see that in the teaching community, as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike the teaching community, the office of the holy ministry is sent by God, stands for God, and speaks on behalf of God. If the minister is faithfully preaching the Word then the individual hearer's sense of entertainment is irrelevant. It is the hearer's responsibility to receive the truth of what is said with accountability to Jesus Christ. Matt. 10:40, "He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." The hearer has a duty to prove all things and hold fast that which is good, 1 Thess. 5:21. If this is not enough to occupy his attention so as to absorb him in the message then other factors only serve to make him listen to the message for the wrong reasons. I might also add, that a hearer who insists on other factors to make the message interesting really only tempts God's servants to alter their course of faithful duty to God.
Click to expand...


Amen to all you have written about source of the minister's responsibility and authority, the responsibility of hearers and their duty to hear, but the subject of the thread concerns what to do when the boredom in self or congregation results not from sins in the hearer, but from objective shortcomings in either the content or presentation of the preaching. Entertainment by sermon has not been in view at all.

If any reader has never experienced this problem, then you are indeed blessed. Unfortunately some of us have, and it is not the easiest of situations to handle - whether in one's personal relationship with the preacher involved or in relationships with others in the church who experience the same problem. I have seen this happen 3 times in 3 different churches. In each case the church community and leadership found it difficult to deal with these matters without at least a few significant missteps.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> If any reader has never experienced this problem, then you are indeed blessed. Unfortunately some of us have, and it is not the easiest of situations to handle - whether in one's personal relationship with the preacher involved or in relationships with others in the church who experience the same problem. I have seen this happen 3 times in 3 different churches. In each case the church community and leadership found it difficult to deal with these matters without at least a few significant missteps.



If this is an oft recurring problem in an ecclesiastical system then it might be time to re-examine the system to see what can be done to fix the problem.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Winzer, do you take "apt to teach" as including any sort of natural abilities in the realm of organizing content, speaking clearly and engagingly, etc.?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Apt to teach" means "disposed to teach" in contrast to impatient dictating.
Click to expand...


Where in Scripture do you find "apt to teach" contrasted with "impatient dictating"? "Apt to teach" is translated "able to teach" by the ESV in 1 Tim 3:3. I suspect Paul had teaching competency in view since in 2 Tim 2:2, he certainly has the ability to teach effectively in view, not merely a liking to teach on the part of the "teacher". Or are you intending "disposed" in a sense that involves a capacity to teach?



armourbearer said:


> "Natural abilities" was a mark of a good speaker to the carnal Corinthians.



Since Paul mandated the capacity to teach effectively in 2 Tim 2:2 as a requirement for overseers, the above comment is something of an oversimplification. For although the carnal Corinthians had a carnal interest in natural speaking ability, powerful speaking is not always carnal. Apollos was "an eloquent man" as well as being "mightly in the Scriptures (Acts 19:24). 




armourbearer said:


> "Organising content" is something every preacher does as a matter of sanctified common sense unless he is a fanatic who thinks the Holy Spirit will use him in a mechanical way.
> 
> "Speaking clearly" is a necessity because the preacher must commend himself to every man's conscience by "manifestation" of the truth, not by hiding it behind words.
> 
> "Speaking engagingly" can be understood according to what "engages." One should be engaged as soon as a preacher states "Hear the Word of the Lord."



-----Added 7/17/2009 at 09:41:49 EST-----



armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If any reader has never experienced this problem, then you are indeed blessed. Unfortunately some of us have, and it is not the easiest of situations to handle - whether in one's personal relationship with the preacher involved or in relationships with others in the church who experience the same problem. I have seen this happen 3 times in 3 different churches. In each case the church community and leadership found it difficult to deal with these matters without at least a few significant missteps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this is an oft recurring problem in an ecclesiastical system then it might be time to re-examine the system to see what can be done to fix the problem.
Click to expand...


In the situations I saw, eccliesiology was not a problem.

I saw this problem occur in 3 separate ecclesiastical systems. All 3 churches had leadership groups within the congregations that effectively functioned as counterparts to Presbyterial sessions in addressing these concerns. In addition, 2 of these churches had outside oversight available at need as well, thus making them, in practice, similar to if not identical to Presbyterian practice on this point. The process that would have been used in a Presbyterial church to address the matter, i.e. bringing the concern to the session first was definitely used in two of these churches, and in both the congregational model and the Anglican the concerns were resolved at that level. The third situation was being discussed at the sessional counterpart level when the pastor concened decided to resign on other grounds.

In each of these cases, the pastors had objective difficulties that adversly affected their preaching over extended periods of time.

In the congregational situation the pastor had a medical problem that was affecting his overall health as well as the coherence of his preaching: in the Anglican setting an unresloved psychological problem meant that the young minister's emotional health broke as well as his preaching, (he has since recovered and is doing yeoman service among faithful prayer book Anglicans) and in the third situation the minister realized that he no longer had the engergy needed to carry the pastoral load of the church.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> Where in Scripture do you find "apt to teach" contrasted with "impatient dictating"?



2 Tim. 2:24, "And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient."



timmopussycat said:


> Since Paul mandated the capacity to teach effectively in 2 Tim 2:2 as a requirement for overseers, the above comment is something of an oversimplification.



Obviously it is if the term "apt to teach" is not understood in the pastoral context of the Pastoral epistles and a meaning from an academic context is imported into it.


----------



## Pergamum

I seem to be hearing positions which seem to say that there is really never a boring sermon, just immature Christians (i.e., the ones that get bored during a sermon), and that speaking ability is not one of the major confirmations of a calling (being apt is enough without being really able to teach well).

In the Presbyterian system there seems to be a check in place, that any preacher that could not preach his way out of a paper bag would have this addressed at his ordination. 

How about in a congregational system? 

Say for instance, a church calls a person and then, after a time, decides to pass a verdict on the man as "unfit for ministry" due to lack of eloquence.


----------



## SolaScriptura

> In the Presbyterian system there seems to be a check in place, that any preacher that could not preach his way out of a paper bag would have this addressed at his ordination.



That is not necessarily true. Maybe true in theory. But certainly not true in practice. I've personally sat in presbytery meetings (as a visiting elder) in which the candidates "preached" and it was horrible, and the elders said so in their deliberations, but nothing was addressed to the candidates at all.

Regarding "able to teach" in 1 Tim 3:2... I'll side with BDAG... it means "skillful in teaching." 

More people should read that Spurgeon quote I posted in the other thread.


----------



## Pergamum

Ben, I read the Spurgeon quote and agree with it. 



I would like to look more at that "ability/aptness/readiness to preach" passage.


----------



## William Price

How should one react to boring preaching? Let's see...

1. If the preaching is true to the Word, rejoice your spirit is being fed?

2. Maybe check your flesh at the carpet outside?

3. Quit listening to 'exciting' preachers who have not a biblical bone in their brain?

Just my thoughts. No offense meant.


----------



## Curt

Spinningplates2 said:


> I recently heard a sermon by Rev. Greg Harris and he said, "It is a sin to preach preach a boring sermon." In context he went on to explain that it was a sin for a Pastor to know he is boring and not care.



I have visted Gregg Hariss's church. it was a long trip. I have known Gregg for more than 20 years. His "charismatic Reformed" congregation was underwhelming. The sermons out there involved (necessarily) technology, and father-administered comumnion. He's a Homeschool guru. That does not make him a Refrmed pastor.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Let's give it a rest folks.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

DTK said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or to use another medical example, it is an ophthalmologist who will write you a prescription for eyeglasses - but it must be the unfortunate myopic who indicates which lenses provide clearer views of the charts on the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Then, let's be honest. The focus is all on the individual, and the individual's perception. The individual is the judge in these matters. I'm sorry, but I do not find a shred of biblical support for that sentiment. The pastor is to know his flock, and to minister to them as God enables him to do so. We speak with them, we try to understand where they are spiritually, but I don't consult them on how to preach to them.
> 
> In other words, I don't ask a 10 year old what he/she perceives to be their wants or needs with respect to how the nourishment is to be administered. God's word directs us to what they need.
> 
> Could it be that, given today's egalitarian spirit, every preacher is expected to fit each and every individual's perceived needs? Again, I find nothing in the word of God for such a directive. And if that were the preacher's task, then every single preacher in the history of Christ's Church has been an abysmal failure.
> 
> DTK
Click to expand...


I am not so sure the medical example fits does it? First off a medical doctor does not necessarily try to communicate to the psyche or soul as much as diagnose the physical and remedy something that is perceived as wrong because of symptoms. In fact an MD can have a lousy bedside manner and yet be an outstanding physician. 

On the other hand, and I have taken college courses in communication, a communicator has to determine who he is speaking to, to communicate the best possible way to illumine the mind and motivate the soul and mind to action or contemplation. He has to be able to identify his hearer and relate the message in a way that the hearer can understand and benefit from the communication. I think everyone here would acknowledge that.

If someone came up to me and said that I didn't understand anything you said because it was way over my level of understanding then a problem has been identified. If a person comes up and says that I understand that you need to condescend to some of the people some of the time but that your sermons are so basic every week that I am just finding myself reading my Bible, another problem has been identified. These are legit critiques. My point in saying this is that I do believe that there is a place to humbly submit to listening to the audience and or congregation.

Years ago we had a group called Faithful men where men who desired to go into the ministry were discipled and got the chance to test their abilities at preaching. Some good guys have been produced from that group. A few PCA guys have come from that group as well. When it was a particular persons time to preach a sermon and be judged by his peers I always told the guy to focus on the main objective. He was there to deliver God's message to the hearers. I told them that the hearers might think their job was to critique but the role for him was to let the Word of God do what 2 Timothy 3:16 says it is suppose to do. He was God's mouthpiece. He needed to worry about delivering God's message and let it do its work. I would encourage them that they need not fear the judgment of men as much as the judgment of Him whose word he was delivering.

There is a balance in all of this I think. We are all fellow servants of one another and we need to help each other out in developing our talents that have been regenerated. I recognized a long time ago that I don't have the natural abilities to speak numerous times a week to groups. I am better at one on one discipleship. I do believe that some people are naturally gifted communicators and it is a gift from God that he uses when it is regenerate. 

At the same time I want to acknowledge that some people who have the natural abilities have no business in the pulpit. Yet they are there. 

A challenge from J. I. Packer.
Holiness and Leadership - The PuritanBoard

Another thing I want to say is that the message is what should stir the soul. Not how it is delivered. When we read the word of God it stirs our souls and awakens them. There is no fluctuation of an audible voice that is involved yet we are stirred. Their is no body movement exhibited to amplify the meaning. It is just plain simple reading. And it awakens with power. So I am more inclined to say content is what matters and not how it is delivered. 

Just some thoughts.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

*Reopening this thread. 
Keep to the original topic. i.e. confine comments to "boring" preaching and do not broaden the scope of the question by bringing in criticisms based upon aberrant preaching. 
*


----------



## Pergamum

Does the qualification "apt to preach" also contain in it a presumption of the ability to preach? i.e. is natural speaking ability an evidence of the call and is lack of speaking ability an evidence of not being called?

-----Added 7/20/2009 at 07:52:42 EST-----



armourbearer said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks again, Mr. Winzer. I quite see your point. The thing I wonder about is whether it could be conceded that a presbytery may have made a mistaken judgment in originally ordaining a person: if that case is not inconceivable, is there no process for correcting such a mistake?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It might be helpful if it were clarified whether you are referring to mechanical failure or driver negligence. In the case of the former it is improbable that a Presbytery would miss a speaking disability. In the latter, where there is a distasteful mannerism, I find it hard to conceive that it wouldn't be addressed prior to licensure, but in the case that it had been left unnoticed then a Presbytery would be obliged to address it where a reasonable complaint was made.
Click to expand...


I just saw this; thanks Rev. Winzer, this makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I think the distinction that Chris made is an important one.

As Rev. Winzer pointed out in another conversation, trying to nail down "boring preaching" is like trying to nail down a shadow. Nailing down aberrant preaching is much easier.

One of the reasons there has been a talking past one another is that nobody here is defending aberrant preaching but there is a perception that this is being justified and that the listener just needs to "get over it." For instance, a man that does not prepare and does not exegete the text but merely presents personal opinions is not properly exercising the element of worship. Likewise, a man who claims that the Holy Spirit guides him and he does not exegete the Word is not, properly speaking, preaching.

Hence, we need to keep the issue under some parameters so we don't continue to talk past the issue.

1. Do people believe it is possible for a good preacher to be thought of as boring?
2. Can preaching be sound but still be boring?
3. If 2, what is the Biblical definition of "boring"?
4. If a preacher is guilty of the "sin" of being boring, how is he supposed to distinguish between the undisciplined grumbler and the objective standard for "boring"?


----------



## LawrenceU

I have to wonder at how many people are bored by a sound sermon are simply used to having their minds titillated by the massive media culture in which we live. Where in Scripture does it tell us that a preacher must be able to keep the congregation in rapt anticipation?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying 'boring' is good. But the mere phrase, 'I am bored.' is at its heart focused on self.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

LawrenceU said:


> I have to wonder at how many people are bored by a sound sermon are simply used to having their minds titillated by the massive media culture in which we live. Where is Scripture does it tell us that a preacher must be able to keep the congregation in rapt anticipation?
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying 'boring' is good. But the mere phrase, 'I am bored.' is at its heart focused on self.



[bible]2 Cor 10:10-12[/bible]
It does seem to me that there is Biblical precedent for the idea that it is carnal to merely focus on how persuasive a person is.


----------



## Curt

I'm reminded of the quote from Thomas Boston. While not absolutely on point, it certaily can be applied.



> The unconverted would find fault with heaven on several accounts.
> 
> (1) That it is a strange country. There is a peculiar sweetness in our native soil, and men are slow to be drawn from it to live in a strange land. Heaven is the "renewed" man's native country, for his Father is in heaven. He is "born from above," therefore he looks upon himself as a stranger on this earth. But the unconverted man is the man of the earth, therefore he "minds earthly things," and would not be at home away from them.
> 
> (2) There is nothing there of what they most delight in. If paradise was a place of sensual delights, that religion will be greedily embraced, for that is the kind of heaven men naturally choose. If the covetous man could get bags of gold there, and the volumptuous man could promise himself his sensual delights there, they might be reconciled to heaven, and be meet for it too. But since it is not so, though they may utter fair words about it, truly it has little place in their hearts.
> 
> (3) Every corner of it is filled with that which they like least. Holiness fills every corner of heaven. It is true there is joy in heaven, but it is holy joy; there are pleasures; there are places to stand on in heaven, but it is holy ground. And that holiness that appears in every place and in everything in heaven would mar everything and everyplace for the unconverted.
> 
> (4) They would hate their new company if they were taken there. Truly, they who care not for communion with God here and now, nor value the fellowship of His people, at least in the vitals of practical Godliness, would never like the company of heaven. Many, indeed, mix themselves with the Lord's people on earth, to procure a Christian name for themselves, but such a thing they could not endure for all eternity.
> 
> (5) They would never like the employment of heaven. To be taken up in beholding, admiring, and praising Him that sitteth on the Throne, which is the business of the saints there, would be an intolerable burden to them, seeing it is not agreeable to their natures, and seeing as they care so little for it now on earth.
> 
> (6) They would find fault that it is of everlasting continuance. If the Sabbath day is a burden to them, how could they brook the celebrating of an everlasting Sabbath in the heavens!


----------



## SolaScriptura

A few remarks concerning how layfolk should react to boring preaching...

1. I’m confident in asserting that the kind of person who is going to be drawn to participate on the PB is likely to be someone who is going to concern himself almost exclusively with content with very little interest whatsoever in style. However, as Rich has graciously posted in the past, the overwhelming majority of the PB’s visitors are one or two time guests. My comments are primarily to these people.

2. The OP asks the question of what lay folk should do in the face of boring preaching. This thread has 3 pages of comments with most of them seeming to concede that once in a “blue moon” there indeed _may_ be a boring preacher, but the overwhelming majority of the time it is the listener’s problem. In the face of this perceived statistical probability that it isn’t the preacher’s problem, but rather YOUR problem, much of the advice is centered around essentially telling the lay person to “quit being entertainment driven.” I want to camp here for a moment. First, allow me to say that this thread, and the others like it, have been a blessing to me. That is to say, they have reminded me of the importance of praying specifically for the pastor’s sermon preparation and delivery – that he would clearly communicate what it is that he is trying to say in a manner that is conducive to me and the rest of the congregation keeping our minds engaged. Second, it has reminded me that worship takes effort on my part. While it is true that the pastor and the church leadership set a tone that makes worship more or less difficult for the participants, kind of like how I as a husband can set a tone for my wife that is more or less conducive to her being “engaged” in our lovemaking, ultimately as a worshipper the onus of responsibility is not on me to worry about the pastor, but rather the onus is on me to worry about _me_. Did I act prudently by getting a full night of sleep, to be well nourished, to have a sincere desire to learn God’s Word and to meet with the living God? These are the types of things for which God will hold me accountable. He isn’t going to hold me accountable for the pastor’s actions in the pulpit as he stands like a statue with a bored expression as he reads his sermon in an uneven monotone. God will hold him accountable for how he discharges his calling. You primarily worry about _you_. It may very well be that you are earnestly striving to be an active worshipper, and it could very well be that the pastor is the one with the problem. But pay careful attention to your own heart: *If you let a grumbling, bitter spirit take hold of you, then *(as I tell the married couples I counsel) *YOU are the one with the primary problem.* So if you are suffering under dry, unengaging, “preaching,” I suggest 2 things: 1. Focus on yourself. Ask God to show you how you can be a more attentive worshipper. Strive to be an active participant in your worship services. 2. Pray earnestly for your pastor – specifically for his preaching. Pray sympathetically, trying to bear in mind that it is difficult to prepare sometimes multiple sermons each week - every week - while trying to manage all the duties inherent in the office of pastor as well as trying to be a good husband and father. I can tell you that the work of doing exegesis and forming sermon points and subpoints takes time… and when you’re under the gun and you have many responsibilities, you may not have the extra time it takes to put the additional time into having a well-polished masterpiece with seamless transitions, perfect illustrations, “text-book quality” introduction and conclusion, piercing application, etc. Remember that even the best speakers have bad days. For instance, I have on two occasions attended Bethlehem Baptist Church (Piper’s church) and listened to him preach sermons that were so awkward and poorly fleshed out that I could look around the sanctuary and see a great many people with lost, disinterested expressions. And knowing this, bear in mind that humans tend to remember and focus on the negative more than the positive... so it is at least possible that indeed some of his sermons are engaging, but you're only recalling those that aren't.

3. But to get to the question in the OP: What if your pastor isn’t just having a few “bad days,” but is chronically dry and boring and disinteresting? I’d want to push back and ask, _“Was he like that when you became a member? If so, why did you stick around to become a member in the first place?” _Your answer to that would be helpful. If you’re a member of the church, I would discourage you from simply disappearing. I would encourage you to tactfully address the subject with your pastor in private. Keep your comments about yourself, because you’re the only person whose mind you know. In other words, don’t say “Look around! Your dry preaching puts half the congregation to sleep.” First, you don't know why half the congregation is asleep. Second, such angry and inflammatory rhetoric is most certainly going to elicit a negative response... at least it would from me! Instead, humbly and gently – but not sheepishly – say, “I’m trying with all my might to be an active listener and worshipper, but consistently the way you phrase things, your tone, your “presence” in the pulpit (whatever it is) makes it almost impossible for me to stay engaged.” Now, I need to be honest with you – expect a defensive reaction. You may not get one, but you should be prepared for it. The reason is that a pastor puts himself into his sermon. When you criticize his sermon, particularly his “style,” you’re criticizing him. And he’s a man. And men get defensive when something as intimately personal as what they put into their presentation gets criticized. After you speak with the pastor, keep praying for him. Give him time. If things don’t change, share your concerns with the leadership of your church. Again, be humble and speak for yourself. If the leadership’s consensus is that the pastor’s preaching is fine and that you’re just being nitpicky, you have a couple options: 1. Prayerfully e-examine your heart to see if the assessment of the leadership is accurate. 2. Prayerfully re-assess why you’re at this particular church. Keep in mind, however, that there is more to a local church than just the preaching. Perhaps the preaching is dry and boring, but you love everything else about this church. Are you going to throw all that away to go find a church with more engaging preaching? If not, then you need to just keep your mouth shut and get what you can from the preaching. If you ARE determined that the homiletic quality of the sermons is of paramount importance, then I believe integrity requires that you formally advise the leadership of the church that you will be seeking out a new church home. In no case should you be a "trouble-maker" and try to form a coalition of malcontents within the church or simply speak ill of the man or leadership... if you do that, then again, your bitter spirit is manifest and as sure as I'm sitting here typing this... you are indeed the one with the problem. Whatever you do, let me be clear that while I am convinced that at the end of the day it is permissible to leave if you are chronically put to sleep and/or you regularly wonder what on earth your pastor spent his week doing because it “obviously” wasn’t spent in sermon prep because his sermons are so poorly constructed and/or delivered that they actually hinder you from being fed by the content of them, it should nonetheless be a last resort. Take your membership vows seriously. 

Just my thoughts. Take them for what they're worth.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

timmopussycat said:


> As the original launcher of the thread on lay responses to "boring preaching", may I make the comments I should have made, and asked the questions I should have asked when I initially launched it? Because discussing "boring preaching" sets up a straw man, not a real issue that will often need to be addressed.
> 
> Of critical importance, the thread is not intended as an attack on pastors. Rather, I believe that if congregants can learn what and what not to do when confronted with "boring preaching," 'boring" pastors and the churches they serve can only be helped.



Tim,

While the moderators and admins certainly try to keep a thread organized to respect the intent of the poster, the poster doesn't own the thread. I understand what you're after but it's the moderators who have to maintain good order here and the thread became undisciplined because it was so open ended.

This thread needs to stay upon the topic of "boring preaching" because, like it or not, it is being equivocated with "aberrant preaching". The former is a subjective apprehension and I think it is worth working people through their assumptions about the theology of "boring" and challenging people to come up with one rather than assuming their hearts are an appropriate gauge of the issue.

If you want to discuss aberrant preaching, its nature and how others respond to it, then I think we need a new thread because this thread has been too contaminated by the back and forth that existed due to the confusion in the matter.


----------



## timmopussycat

NaphtaliPress said:


> *Reopening this thread.
> Keep to the original topic. i.e. confine comments to "boring" preaching and do not broaden the scope of the question by bringing in criticisms based upon aberrant preaching.
> *



Chris, my original intent of this thread was badly put. Because I had experienced declines from competent to aberrent preaching that were intially misdiagnosed as "boring preaching" I used that term without clarifying the real question I wanted to address was how congreations and individuals ought to address one specific form of aberrent preaching which if my experience is anything to go by, will be something congregations need to address from time to time.

-----Added 7/20/2009 at 11:53:43 EST-----



Semper Fidelis said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the original launcher of the thread on lay responses to "boring preaching", may I make the comments I should have made, and asked the questions I should have asked when I initially launched it? Because discussing "boring preaching" sets up a straw man, not a real issue that will often need to be addressed.
> 
> Of critical importance, the thread is not intended as an attack on pastors. Rather, I believe that if congregants can learn what and what not to do when confronted with "boring preaching," 'boring" pastors and the churches they serve can only be helped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim,
> 
> While the moderators and admins certainly try to keep a thread organized to respect the intent of the poster, the poster doesn't own the thread. I understand what you're after but it's the moderators who have to maintain good order here and the thread became undisciplined because it was so open ended.
> 
> This thread needs to stay upon the topic of "boring preaching" because, like it or not, it is being equivocated with "aberrant preaching". The former is a subjective apprehension and I think it is worth working people through their assumptions about the theology of "boring" and challenging people to come up with one rather than assuming their hearts are an appropriate gauge of the issue.
> 
> If you want to discuss aberrant preaching, its nature and how others respond to it, then I think we need a new thread because this thread has been too contaminated by the back and forth that existed due to the confusion in the matter.
Click to expand...


I have moved that post which was #104 in this thread to start a new thread "How should layfolk react to aberrant preaching?


----------



## Pergamum

Semper Fidelis said:


> I think the distinction that Chris made is an important one.
> 
> As Rev. Winzer pointed out in another conversation, trying to nail down "boring preaching" is like trying to nail down a shadow. Nailing down aberrant preaching is much easier.
> 
> One of the reasons there has been a talking past one another is that nobody here is defending aberrant preaching but there is a perception that this is being justified and that the listener just needs to "get over it." For instance, a man that does not prepare and does not exegete the text but merely presents personal opinions is not properly exercising the element of worship. Likewise, a man who claims that the Holy Spirit guides him and he does not exegete the Word is not, properly speaking, preaching.
> 
> Hence, we need to keep the issue under some parameters so we don't continue to talk past the issue.
> 
> 1. Do people believe it is possible for a good preacher to be thought of as boring?
> 2. Can preaching be sound but still be boring?
> 3. If 2, what is the Biblical definition of "boring"?
> 4. If a preacher is guilty of the "sin" of being boring, how is he supposed to distinguish between the undisciplined grumbler and the objective standard for "boring"?



When I find myself bored it is almost always due to lack of application. Most times I am bored it is because the preacher fails to apply. I guess this could be a preaching "abberation", though there are stylistic matters and matters of mannerisms at stake also.

Also, I find I get bored when preachers (thankfully this is rare) read almost direct from manuscripts. This type of boredom is almost purely due to the style of the preacher (i.e. dry, monotone, reading, little eye contact)and not any deficiency of content. I suppose you guys might be more spiritual than I if you can get excited at such things, but if the preacher is merely going to read, why not just pass out his notes to the congregation? So, while some cases of boredom can be attributed to content, there are cases, like the monotone-sermon-manuscript-reader where the boredom is not due to content but style.


In the case of the manuscript reader, it would appear that his preaching could be "sound" and still "boring." It would also appear that efforts to blame the listener for lack of profiting much from the Word can only go so far when the listener must work that hard at it.

A biblical defintiion of boring? Poor presentation, which would cause boredom (or confusion) would be like a trumpet of an uncertain sound, which is ill spoken of in Scripture. It would appear that being apt to preach would also assume a certain ableness to preach as well (like Spurgeon's quote above), and thus a certain level of speaking ability is a prerequisite.



P.s. I know the word 'boring" is subjective. But I used it because if I used the word "deficient" preaching or "bad" praching, then most would assume that this deficiency would be a deficiency of content and not style, and deficiencies of style, presentation, clarity, mannerism, and even inflection was what I was trying to ask about, i.e., a-theological reasons that still negatively impact preaching.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> When I find myself bored it is almost always due to lack of application. Most times I am bored it is because the preacher fails to apply. I guess this could be a preaching "abberation", though there are stylistic matters and matters of mannerisms at stake also.
> 
> Also, I find I get bored when preachers (thankfully this is rare) read almost direct from manuscripts. This type of boredom is almost purely due to the style of the preacher (i.e. dry, monotone, reading, little eye contact)and not any deficiency of content. I suppose you guys might be more spiritual than I if you can get excited at such things, but if the preacher is merely going to read, why not just pass out his notes to the congregation? So, while some cases of boredom can be attributed to content, there are cases, like the monotone-sermon-manuscript-reader where the boredom is not due to content but style.
> 
> 
> In the case of the manuscript reader, it would appear that his preaching could be "sound" and still "boring." It would also appear that efforts to blame the listener for lack of profiting much from the Word can only go so far when the listener must work that hard at it.



Again, however, you are dealing with subjective points: "I get bored when...." Is that normative? Are you stating you are bored because, exegetically speaking, you are demonstrating the Scriptural marks of a boring sermon?

I get bored watching football. Ergo, football is boring.

I'm not sure why this keeps getting boiled down to "blame" the listener. We're asking the question what is boring and is there an objective standard or warrant for boring. The question of whether or not the listener might have to try "too hard" is also interesting. Precisely how hard (and no more) is the listener supposed to be attentive and, beyond that, boredom is objectively warranted?


----------



## Pergamum

Semper Fidelis said:


> Again, however, you are dealing with subjective points: "I get bored when...." Is that normative? Are you stating you are bored because, exegetically speaking, you are demonstrating the Scriptural marks of a boring sermon?
> 
> I get bored watching football. Ergo, football is boring.
> 
> I'm not sure why this keeps getting boiled down to "blame" the listener. We're asking the question what is boring and is there an objective, Scriptural warrant for boredom. The question of whether or not the listener might have to try "too hard" is also interesting. Precisely how hard (and no more) is the listener supposed to be attentive and, beyond that, boredom is objectively warranted?



If we eliminate the word boring totally.....

At what point due deficiencies of style negatively impact the listener enough and make it sufficiently hard enough to profit from a preacher's preaching such that one is warranted to seek another place of feeding on Sunday?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> If we eliminate the word boring totally.....
> 
> At what point due deficiencies of style negatively impact the listener enough and make it sufficiently hard enough to profit from a preacher's preaching such that one is warranted to seek another place of feeding on Sunday?



No, we're not going there. This thread is about "boring" sermons. The reason it's tempting to move on is because nobody can pin it down and we either need to decide we cannot and accept that and end the thread or keep trying.


----------



## Exiled_2_God

timmopussycat said:


> How should layfolk react to boring preaching?



Caffeine...


----------



## SolaScriptura

Semper Fidelis said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we eliminate the word boring totally.....
> 
> At what point due deficiencies of style negatively impact the listener enough and make it sufficiently hard enough to profit from a preacher's preaching such that one is warranted to seek another place of feeding on Sunday?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we're not going there. This thread is about "boring" sermons. The reason it's tempting to move on is because nobody can pin it down and we either need to decide we cannot and accept that and end the thread or keep trying.
Click to expand...


I think Pergy's rephrased question more accurately spells out what is intended - at least by me - when I employ the vernacular term, "boring." 

Rich - are you insinuating that if a definition can't be "pinned down" then there is no reality to it? (I am, for some strange reason, being drawn to recall a certain Justice's comments about the nature of p0rnography...)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I'm not saying that boredom doesn't exist, Ben, but that we need to define something a bit better than saying: "I think...."

p0rnography is a sin. We can find it in the Scriptures.

Is "being boring" a sin?

Also, I find many things boring that you probably find interesting. I work on servers for hours with delight. Am I boring?

I've attended lectures on terrorism where the speaker, in typical style, read his paper for the seminar. It was not delivered well but the topic was interesting. Was it a "boring" lecture or not?


----------



## a mere housewife

If one defines a 'boring sermon' as 'a sermon the _only _problem with which is the listener's spiritual interest' then by definition boring preaching is never an objective problem, and there is little left to do but (hopefully gently!) rebuke those who think it is -- thanks to Rich for trying to clarify the definitions we're working with as I think that has been very confusing to many of us who aren't sure exactly where everyone is coming from.
If 'boring' is being used to indicate a situation where there may be problems beyond the listener: where the pastor is possibly speaking as Randy mentioned, over people's heads or consistently giving the same basic material, then I think the medical analogy is actually workable one. I have several illnesses which went undiagnosed for years: the doctors would give me tests for things they thought probable, write prescriptions, and when nothing turned up and the pain didn't respond, they would tell me it was all in my head (and that I would be 'all better' if I merely preferred parties to books). I couldn't tell them how to do their job: I didn't know how to figure out what was wrong with me -- I didn't want to do their job: I was there because I wanted them to do it. But I knew that the pain I was experiencing in spite of their treatments was real; and I insisted on the reality of my symptoms until they wrote that I was a lunatic in my medical records. At length I found a doctor who listened, and figured it out. I was baffled to understand why someone would go into the medical industry if they don't care to hear whether or not a patient is being helped by their prescriptions. I'm similarly confused as to why a minister would not wish to hear from the elderly woman in the congregation whether a sermon is understandable and profitable to her in her own peculiar struggles (and in fact, I've not met a minister who genuinely has this attitude, but there is some confusion about what exactly such a woman has any right to say in the thread?). Surely she isn't at that point addressing the minister on how he ought to do his job, which is beyond her 'ken'. She's addressing him on things she herself knows and experiences and is qualified to speak of -- how the job he is doing affects her, the soul under care? Insofar as Christ said 'feed my sheep' and she is a sheep, isn't his job 'about her'? 
I think one big concern is that if we assume that a minister is necessarily, by virtue of either specialised education or higher spirituality, above selfish motivations and personal tastes in not wishing to receive such feedback from regular auditors while the congregation almost necessarily partakes of such in giving any, surely we are promoting the wrong kind of 'inegalitarianism' in the church (that one person's motivations are necessarily purer or more spiritual than someone else's merely because of specialised education, position etc)? I can't think that this is really what is being advocated, but reading as carefully as I can, it seems like it is a point that could profit from further clarification for us laypeople who have been confused? 
Certainly, given our sinful state, we should not presume on the purity and selflessness of our own motives in finding a sermon unprofitable. I think Randy is right about the balance. 
I'm also much in favor of communicating with a minister about what in his sermons has been helpful to one's faith and joy, not as an underhand attempt to tell him how to do his job, but as a natural expression of gratitude, which would hopefully help to safeguard against his being overly discouraged when he gets negative comments.


----------



## Pergamum

Traits of boring speeches:


(1) lack of clarity or volume, such that the listener is fatigued due to the strain of trying to squeeze meaning out of the mumbles

(2) lack of inflection, whereby the listener is strained from working trying to figure out what the speaker is emphasizing. Lack of movement up or down in the voice in volume pitch/inflection, along with a lack of hand or body movement makes the speaker appear to be a statue possessing the voice of an automaton.

(3) A monotone voice that does not slightly pause between thoughts strains the listeners to figure out when one point stops and the next one starts.

(4) Lack of connection with the audience, whereby the speaker fails to engage the audience by eye contact, involvement, rhetorical questions, questions or comments that incite thought in the minds of the listeners. A sermon manuscript reader might fall into this is they fail in eye contact.

(5) speech deficiences, wandering thoughts, stammers, long pauses while the speaker tries to remember what they say... this all serves to break the fluid momentum of a speech or sermon

(6) Lack of application: This may be argued to be a matter of content and not style.

(7) speaking in terms not familiar to the audience, i.e.,over their heads. While this is helpful sometimes to teach the audience new words, done too much, it may tax the reader and steal attention from the main thrust of the speech/sermon. 

Combined together, some speeches or sermons require much more energy to listen to profitably and to profit from. The combined effect of many stylistic deficiencies kills momentum, robs engagement with the audience and makes some speeches very hard to sit through. 

The normal way of describing this situation is that a speech is "boring" even though this lacks scientific precision. I suppose to qualify under this definition of "boring" one would not need 100% in atendance admitting boredom, but if a large majority of the audience finds it dificult to hear, understand, and stay engaged with the words of the speaker, then the word boring would fit this description. Poor presentation, however, ifnotalways boring but sometimes mildly distressing and amusing, but "boring" would be one sub-category under the broader category of "poor speech." 

Many definitions of real phenomenoms are nevertheless subjective to a degree, yet it makes the thing no less real if there is a measure of subjectivity in its definition. I have given some traits of "boring" where a majority of people would proably agree. I see no reason for scandal in admitting that some sermons are boring.

If one is moving to a new town and he goes to a church where the sermons normally exhibit 4 or more of the above symptoms, a diagnosis of "probably boring" might be called for and I would not fault the man if he seeks out proper feeding of his soul in a place that does not take quite so much work to gain profit.

-----Added 7/20/2009 at 01:08:53 EST-----



Semper Fidelis said:


> I'm not saying that boredom doesn't exist, Ben, but that we need to define something a bit better than saying: "I think...."
> 
> p0rnography is a sin. We can find it in the Scriptures.
> 
> Is "being boring" a sin?
> 
> Also, I find many things boring that you probably find interesting. I work on servers for hours with delight. Am I boring?
> 
> I've attended lectures on terrorism where the speaker, in typical style, read his paper for the seminar. It was not delivered well but the topic was interesting. Was it a "boring" lecture or not?



Rich, this thread nowhere says that being boring is a sin. 

I would argue that a trend of being boring is evidence of lack of ability to speak, which I would argue is a mark of being qualified to preach.

But, my original intent was to merely assert that style (non-theological factors) does matter in preaching and not bare content.

-----Added 7/20/2009 at 01:17:00 EST-----

p.s. I do find it a bit humorous that even the very existence of a single boring sermon is contested.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Semper Fidelis said:


> I'm not saying that boredom doesn't exist, Ben, but that we need to define something a bit better than saying: "I think...."
> 
> p0rnography is a sin. We can find it in the Scriptures.
> 
> Is "being boring" a sin?
> 
> Also, I find many things boring that you probably find interesting. I work on servers for hours with delight. Am I boring?
> 
> I've attended lectures on terrorism where the speaker, in typical style, read his paper for the seminar. It was not delivered well but the topic was interesting. Was it a "boring" lecture or not?



Rich - the reference to p0rnography was not about morality, it was about definition - the whole "I know it when I see it" definition. It was intended to be an allusion to the fact that somethings are very difficult to define with objective and aboslute precision, but that doesn't undermine the reality of the thing... Some things are difficult to define, we just "know it" when we see it. 

I think you're asking for too much. You're asking for an absolute definition when "boring" is inherently subjective - even when a group of people agree that someone or something is "boring" that can never be more than a collectively held subjective belief. So the best you can ask is "Am I boring to YOU" or "was the lecture boring to you?" 

I understand that conservative folks are somewhat uncomfortable with subjective things, because it smells of postmodernism, but that's the way things are on occasion. Which is why my guidance on the subject has always been relatively directed to the individual - if it is boring to YOU then consider doing this or that. Can the pastor consistently preach sermons that maintain the attention of everybody in his congregation? Well, some seem to be able to do, but most "can't." The best the pastor can do is his best. Obviously, if the subjective consensus of the entire congregation is that the pastor is boring, then the congregation can take measures to address that.


----------



## Pergamum

Under the stringent requirements placed on someone before they are allowed to use the term "boring" one could also never refer to a sermon as "exciting" either or "captivating" - one must stick to terms such as "doctrinally correct or "in error" and leave all emotionally-laden subjective terms aside.


----------



## Exiled_2_God

Many today would presumably say that Jonathan Edwards (if he were alive to speak today) is boring, due to his dynamic in speaking... 

I say "many" because obviously some of us would eat it up. So does this then point to the audience? Since "boring" is so subjective, the only telltale sign of a good message seems to be that doctrine and scriptural exposition.

(I can't talk someone into believing that chocolate is the most satisfying flavor in the world.)


----------



## a mere housewife

> (I can't talk someone into believing that chocolate is the most satisfying flavor in the world.)



You just talked me into believing it.


----------



## Pergamum

"boring" IS subjective, but not totally subjective. Beauty is subjective too, but we usually know when we see a really ugly person.


----------



## Exiled_2_God

Pergamum said:


> "boring" IS subjective, but not totally subjective. Beauty is subjective too, but we usually know when we see a really ugly person.



Isn't "totally subjective" subjective. Not trying to be cute, but one can question "totally." I'm sure the ugly person's mom always told him he was handsome.


----------



## Pergamum

I also think this thread is reaching its conclusion. I am thankful for the insights that I gained, even the insights I disagreed with. I am also thankful for the many fine sermons that I have heard which clearly and passionately proclaimed the Good News of our sovereign God.



To summarize my own view: 

(1) I think that content matters, but also style/mannerisms. 

(2) Being apt to preach also means having some measure of ability (though we need not be eloquent). 

(3) I also think that as people move churches and try to figure out where to worship that not merely doctrinal content is important but I believe that a family will be better blessed to choose a place where the delivery makes it easier to receive the truth rather than straining to make a sermon profitable. 

(4) I think that seminaries and Bible schools have a duty to teach preaching in a way that the content of sermons is not the only thing critiqued but great care is also taken to develop the preacher as a good speaker.

(5) I also think that congregations have a great duty to listen well such that they profit out of whatever sermon is given.




God bless you brothers, and thanks for giving me meat to chew on!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

SolaScriptura said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that boredom doesn't exist, Ben, but that we need to define something a bit better than saying: "I think...."
> 
> p0rnography is a sin. We can find it in the Scriptures.
> 
> Is "being boring" a sin?
> 
> Also, I find many things boring that you probably find interesting. I work on servers for hours with delight. Am I boring?
> 
> I've attended lectures on terrorism where the speaker, in typical style, read his paper for the seminar. It was not delivered well but the topic was interesting. Was it a "boring" lecture or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich - the reference to p0rnography was not about morality, it was about definition - the whole "I know it when I see it" definition. It was intended to be an allusion to the fact that somethings are very difficult to define with objective and aboslute precision, but that doesn't undermine the reality of the thing... Some things are difficult to define, we just "know it" when we see it.
> 
> I think you're asking for too much. You're asking for an absolute definition when "boring" is inherently subjective - even when a group of people agree that someone or something is "boring" that can never be more than a collectively held subjective belief. So the best you can ask is "Am I boring to YOU" or "was the lecture boring to you?"
> 
> I understand that conservative folks are somewhat uncomfortable with subjective things, because it smells of postmodernism, but that's the way things are on occasion. Which is why my guidance on the subject has always been relatively directed to the individual - if it is boring to YOU then consider doing this or that. Can the pastor consistently preach sermons that maintain the attention of everybody in his congregation? Well, some seem to be able to do, but most "can't." The best the pastor can do is his best. Obviously, if the subjective consensus of the entire congregation is that the pastor is boring, then the congregation can take measures to address that.
Click to expand...

I'm not uncomfortable with subjective things but, in the Scriptures, the subjective responses are grounded in some objective truths.

The problem, again, with pinning something down as boring is that people can only describe what factors they believe contribute to their boredom (or the people they know) but cannot pin down why it must be characterized as boring.

One of the reasons a Supreme Court Justice is forced to simply say "He knows it when he sees it" is because he is unable to objectively point to a Law where we do not have such a problem. I don't believe the analogy is apt because the Law of God makes lust and other indulgences of the flesh very clearly moral violations.

The problem here is that nobody has provided any Scriptural warrant that commands a man not to be perceived as boring. How could we apply the general equity of the Law to do so? How would we rebuke a Pastor for being "boring"?

Again, we can apply many objective criteria by which a Session could tell the man specifics about style, not being pedantic, not being prideful, expressing direct concern for the listener, etc. But, if a Session, merely told a man: "I can't tell you anything except that I think you're boring," then what, precisely, is a man supposed to do with that kind of criticism?

When you're dealing with self-improvement, you have to work on tangible qualities and that list that Pergie provided is tangible but those problems are not unique to being perceived as boring. Frankly, for many of them, my reaction would be indignation or frustration and a whole set of other emotional reactions rather than settling on boring.



Pergamum said:


> Under the stringent requirements placed on someone before they are allowed to use the term "boring" one could also never refer to a sermon as "exciting" either or "captivating" - one must stick to terms such as "doctrinally correct or "in error" and leave all emotionally-laden subjective terms aside.



See above. I would also add that the emotional criteria you mention might be dangerous if the goal of the preacher is focused upon "not being boring" but receiving the benediction from the congregation that he is "exciting."

This points, in fact, to a poverty of any other number of elements of Worship. For instance, "exciting" and "dynamic" are used as primary criteria by many to select songs and tunes and many believe they are only worshipping when they feel "excited" or "worshipful". When I'm worshipping God in song, for instance, I don't always have an emotional reaction to singing nor do I worry if I do not. Yet, when reading a Psalm responsively yesterday in Worship, I was very moved by it because it caused me to reflect on the objective Truth of my status in Christ.


----------



## Pergamum

Semper Fidelis said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that boredom doesn't exist, Ben, but that we need to define something a bit better than saying: "I think...."
> 
> p0rnography is a sin. We can find it in the Scriptures.
> 
> Is "being boring" a sin?
> 
> Also, I find many things boring that you probably find interesting. I work on servers for hours with delight. Am I boring?
> 
> I've attended lectures on terrorism where the speaker, in typical style, read his paper for the seminar. It was not delivered well but the topic was interesting. Was it a "boring" lecture or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich - the reference to p0rnography was not about morality, it was about definition - the whole "I know it when I see it" definition. It was intended to be an allusion to the fact that somethings are very difficult to define with objective and aboslute precision, but that doesn't undermine the reality of the thing... Some things are difficult to define, we just "know it" when we see it.
> 
> I think you're asking for too much. You're asking for an absolute definition when "boring" is inherently subjective - even when a group of people agree that someone or something is "boring" that can never be more than a collectively held subjective belief. So the best you can ask is "Am I boring to YOU" or "was the lecture boring to you?"
> 
> I understand that conservative folks are somewhat uncomfortable with subjective things, because it smells of postmodernism, but that's the way things are on occasion. Which is why my guidance on the subject has always been relatively directed to the individual - if it is boring to YOU then consider doing this or that. Can the pastor consistently preach sermons that maintain the attention of everybody in his congregation? Well, some seem to be able to do, but most "can't." The best the pastor can do is his best. Obviously, if the subjective consensus of the entire congregation is that the pastor is boring, then the congregation can take measures to address that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not uncomfortable with subjective things but, in the Scriptures, the subjective responses are grounded in some objective truths.
> 
> The problem, again, with pinning something down as boring is that people can only describe what factors they believe contribute to their boredom (or the people they know) but cannot pin down why it must be characterized as boring.
> 
> One of the reasons a Supreme Court Justice is forced to simply say "He knows it when he sees it" is because he is unable to objectively point to a Law where we do not have such a problem. I don't believe the analogy is apt because the Law of God makes lust and other indulgences of the flesh very clearly moral violations.
> 
> The problem here is that nobody has provided any Scriptural warrant that commands a man not to be perceived as boring. How could we apply the general equity of the Law to do so? How would we rebuke a Pastor for being "boring"?
> 
> Again, we can apply many objective criteria by which a Session could tell the man specifics about style, not being pedantic, not being prideful, expressing direct concern for the listener, etc. But, if a Session, merely told a man: "I can't tell you anything except that I think you're boring," then what, precisely, is a man supposed to do with that kind of criticism?
> 
> When you're dealing with self-improvement, you have to work on tangible qualities and that list that Pergie provided is tangible but those problems are not unique to being perceived as boring. Frankly, for many of them, my reaction would be indignation or frustration and a whole set of other emotional reactions rather than settling on boring.
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under the stringent requirements placed on someone before they are allowed to use the term "boring" one could also never refer to a sermon as "exciting" either or "captivating" - one must stick to terms such as "doctrinally correct or "in error" and leave all emotionally-laden subjective terms aside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See above. I would also add that the emotional criteria you mention might be dangerous if the goal of the preacher is focused upon "not being boring" but receiving the benediction from the congregation that he is "exciting."
> 
> This points, in fact, to a poverty of any other number of elements of Worship. For instance, "exciting" and "dynamic" are used as primary criteria by many to select songs and tunes and many believe they are only worshipping when they feel "excited" or "worshipful". When I'm worshipping God in song, for instance, I don't always have an emotional reaction to singing nor do I worry if I do not. Yet, when reading a Psalm responsively yesterday in Worship, I was very moved by it because it caused me to reflect on the objective Truth of my status in Christ.
Click to expand...


Yes, Rich, we are not saying mutually exclusive things. The preacher brings his whole person to the pulpit and the person and the delivery impacts the message...and these non-theological aspects of his preaching, too, are also important.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

For the record, I'm not a Gnostic and believe the human person soul/body is to be redeemed. We don't preach to detached souls but to men who live in bodies. Hence, I understand that certain things lend themselves to stirring men from their sloth and other things tend to cause a man to be perceived as distant. It is merely the _aim_ of the minister that I'm concerned about. I don't know that I'm as concerned about "boredom" per se as other issues like apathy.

Toward that end, however, a preacher must keep in mind that it is not his eloquence or style (no matter how gifted he is) but the Holy Spirit and being in prayer that God would use the Word toward His holy ends. The sad truth is that "boredom" or apathy to the things of God could be the judgment of God on a hard-hearted man. What is ultimately much more of concern to me is whether or not a man has an interest in the things of God - at all.


----------



## a mere housewife

I was wondering if there a better word or words that could be used than 'boring' as it seems like the objective elements that have been brought up are basic content repeated sermon after sermon, content that is way over the normal congregant's head, or a speaking manner which is not simply 'not very eloquent' but is _lacking_ in objective ways that make it very difficult for people to follow? I'm not sure if any of them disqualify people for the ministry automatically, but it seems like they would need to be addressed in some helpful way so that the minister could be better able to help his flock learn and understand?
I was also taught that 'boring' is a state of mind and would tend to agree that being bored is a subjective problem -- if these other things are recognised as not being merely part of a subjective state?


----------



## Pergamum

Semper Fidelis said:


> For the record, I'm not a Gnostic and believe the human person soul/body is to be redeemed. We don't preach to detached souls but to men who live in bodies. Hence, I understand that certain things lend themselves to stirring men from their sloth and other things tend to cause a man to be perceived as distant. It is merely the _aim_ of the minister that I'm concerned about. I don't know that I'm as concerned about "boredom" per se as other issues like apathy.
> 
> Toward that end, however, a preacher must keep in mind that it is not his eloquence or style (no matter how gifted he is) but the Holy Spirit and being in prayer that God would use the Word toward His holy ends. The sad truth is that "boredom" or apathy to the things of God could be the judgment of God on a hard-hearted man. What is ultimately much more of concern to me is whether or not a man has an interest in the things of God - at all.



Yes, we agree on all that.


----------



## Exiled_2_God

Pergamum said:


> Yes, we agree on all that.



If it's a stumbling block for the person, then why doesn't that person just find another church... assuming there is another church nearby, one he can attend and agree with. 

If the doctrine is scriptural, then I believe it's merely a matter of preference.


----------



## Pergamum

a mere housewife said:


> I was wondering if there a better word or words that could be used than 'boring' as it seems like the objective elements that have been brought up are basic content repeated sermon after sermon, content that is way over the normal congregant's head, or a speaking manner which is not simply 'not very eloquent' but is _lacking_ in objective ways that make it very difficult for people to follow? I'm not sure if any of them disqualify people for the ministry automatically, but it seems like they would need to be addressed in some helpful way so that the minister could be better able to help his flock learn and understand?
> I was also taught that 'boring' is a state of mind and would tend to agree that being bored is a subjective problem -- if these other things are recognised as not being merely part of a subjective state?



I pondered other words, and maybe should have used one that did not inflame so much. 

But I need a word that focuses on the non-theological, style-type aspects of the preacher, and not the theological content. One of my key points is that the preacher is not an automaton, spitting out doctrine. Style matters, even if we are loathe to admit this. Speaking ability is also important.

Maybe "poor presentation" might be a better use of the word, but the common usage of the term "boring" seems to fit well what happens when there is a preacher who has poor presentation and deficient style and mannerisms. I would argue that there is, in fact, such a thing as boring sermons, and that seminaries should take great care in helping a preacher's style, and that layfolk should not feel guilty for searching out good preaching in style as well as good preaching in content.

This is not to say that listeners do not have a duty to hear, nor that there is some measure of subjectivity in any definition of boring, or beautiful, or good, etc.


Heidi, you are good with words. How you would put it?


----------



## a mere housewife

I actually am not very good with words -- I don't think in words unless I sit down and try very hard. But I think 'tedious' may have more objective content? I don't know if it covers everything, though.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Exiled_2_God said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we agree on all that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it's a stumbling block for the person, then why doesn't that person just find another church... assuming there is another church nearby, one he can attend and agree with.
> 
> If the doctrine is scriptural, then I believe it's merely a matter of preference.
Click to expand...


It's not that simple. You cannot make it axiomatic that a man who is bored an prefers another type of preaching simply needs to find a preacher that doesn't bore him.

Frankly, I find that be frightening for a man to have that on the top of the list. My experience is that it normally _is_ at the top of the list with the substantive doctrinal or disciplinary concerns receiving little or no interest.


----------



## Pergamum

Exiled_2_God said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we agree on all that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it's a stumbling block for the person, then why doesn't that person just find another church... assuming there is another church nearby, one he can attend and agree with.
> 
> If the doctrine is scriptural, then I believe it's merely a matter of preference.
Click to expand...


That is one of the issues at stake. If one is a new arrival and has begun to attend one service, but finds another preacher more engaging, could he switch without being seen as shallow? 

Or suppose that one was a long-time member in a church and they changed preachers and switched to a preacher who is very not-gifted in speaking. One already has an obligation and duty to one's local church; but is this poor preacher a sufficient cause to just switch over to someone else's church, especially if the doctrine is the same and the only difference is style and ability of preaching?

-----Added 7/20/2009 at 03:25:05 EST-----



a mere housewife said:


> I actually am not very good with words -- I don't think in words unless I sit down and try very hard. But I think 'tedious' may have more objective content? I don't know if it covers everything, though.



You have a lot of wordless thoughts?


----------



## a mere housewife

Maybe I should call them 'wordless impressions' -- yes, that's the way my mind normally functions  

Is 'tedious' a better word for an objective issue? I'm sure there must be one!


----------



## Exiled_2_God

Semper Fidelis said:


> It's not that simple. You cannot make it axiomatic that a man who is bored an prefers another type of preaching simply needs to find a preacher that doesn't bore him.
> 
> Frankly, I find that be frightening for a man to have that on the top of the list. My experience is that it normally _is_ at the top of the list with the substantive doctrinal or disciplinary concerns receiving little or no interest.



Well, sure. I posted under the assumption that the guy doesn't have ulterior motives, and isn't there to be entertained, etc.

Usually, if I think a sermon is boring it is because I'm not necessarily hungry - meaning it is my fault. Though, due to our corporeal nature's, it is still possible for someone with correct motives to sit through a boring sermon... like someone alluded to earlier - an hour sermon on OT law or something (for example). I think it is necessary, though, for that person to do some soul searching before making any decisions that constitute leaving under the basis of boredom.

-----Added 7/20/2009 at 03:35:04 EST-----



Pergamum said:


> Exiled_2_God said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we agree on all that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it's a stumbling block for the person, then why doesn't that person just find another church... assuming there is another church nearby, one he can attend and agree with.
> 
> If the doctrine is scriptural, then I believe it's merely a matter of preference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is one of the issues at stake. If one is a new arrival and has begun to attend one service, but finds another preacher more engaging, could he switch without being seen as shallow?
> 
> Or suppose that one was a long-time member in a church and they changed preachers and switched to a preacher who is very not-gifted in speaking. One already has an obligation and duty to one's local church; but is this poor preacher a sufficient cause to just switch over to someone else's church, especially if the doctrine is the same and the only difference is style and ability of preaching?
Click to expand...


I think for someone in the searching phase it is different. He isn't at this point part of a body of believers... as opposed to the person who has been a long-time member. Imagine the example the later person may be to someone else. This is a tough issue nonetheless and certainly shouldn't be solved without fervent prayer and a humble heart.


----------



## Pergamum

Maybe, but all descriptions like this have a subjective element to them that could inflame those that disagree. Calling something tedious is not a lot nicer than calling something boring.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Pergamum said:


> That is one of the issues at stake. If one is a new arrival and has begun to attend one service, but finds another preacher more engaging, could he switch without being seen as shallow?
> 
> Or suppose that one was a long-time member in a church and they changed preachers and switched to a preacher who is very not-gifted in speaking. One already has an obligation and duty to one's local church; but is this poor preacher a sufficient cause to just switch over to someone else's church, especially if the doctrine is the same and the only difference is style and ability of preaching?



You've asked the questions multiple times and I am not sure if you have been given a direct answer.

In the first case - the case of visiting - my answer would be an unequivocal "YES" with no strings attached.

In the second case - the case of a long-time member - my answer would be "NO" if you mean to just simply not come back without a word... and my answer would be "YES" if after talking to the pastor, and then the leadership of the church, nothing changes... and after you've prayerfully considered the emotional and relational impact of leaving people you've come to know and love over the course of many years. (And if you HAVEN'T come to know and love the people... there's other problems...)


----------



## a mere housewife

How about, 'soporific' . 

I think actually that your idea of 'poor' or 'difficult' presentation would suit without being inflaming.


----------



## Pergamum

Exiled_2_God said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that simple. You cannot make it axiomatic that a man who is bored an prefers another type of preaching simply needs to find a preacher that doesn't bore him.
> 
> Frankly, I find that be frightening for a man to have that on the top of the list. My experience is that it normally _is_ at the top of the list with the substantive doctrinal or disciplinary concerns receiving little or no interest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, sure. I posted under the assumption that the guy doesn't have ulterior motives, and isn't there to be entertained, etc.
> 
> Usually, if I think a sermon is boring it is because I'm not necessarily hungry - meaning it is my fault. Though, due to our corporeal nature's, it is still possible for someone with correct motives to sit through a boring sermon... like someone alluded to earlier - an hour sermon on OT law or something (for example). I think it is necessary, though, for that person to do some soul searching before making any decisions that constitute leaving under the basis of boredom.
> 
> -----Added 7/20/2009 at 03:35:04 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exiled_2_God said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it's a stumbling block for the person, then why doesn't that person just find another church... assuming there is another church nearby, one he can attend and agree with.
> 
> If the doctrine is scriptural, then I believe it's merely a matter of preference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is one of the issues at stake. If one is a new arrival and has begun to attend one service, but finds another preacher more engaging, could he switch without being seen as shallow?
> 
> Or suppose that one was a long-time member in a church and they changed preachers and switched to a preacher who is very not-gifted in speaking. One already has an obligation and duty to one's local church; but is this poor preacher a sufficient cause to just switch over to someone else's church, especially if the doctrine is the same and the only difference is style and ability of preaching?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think for someone in the searching phase it is different. He isn't at this point part of a body of believers... as opposed to the person who has been a long-time member. Imagine the example the later person may be to someone else. This is a tough issue nonetheless and certainly shouldn't be solved without fervent prayer and a humble heart.
Click to expand...


I would agree with you. Things are different in the searching phase.

Also, I will note that you wrote "usually" it is your fault. That grants the point I have been trying to make all along, that sometimes real, life, actual "boringness" may, in fact, happen.


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> Traits of boring speeches:
> 
> 
> (1) lack of clarity or volume, such that the listener is fatigued due to the strain of trying to squeeze meaning out of the mumbles
> 
> (2) lack of inflection, whereby the listener is strained from working trying to figure out what the speaker is emphasizing. Lack of movement up or down in the voice in volume pitch/inflection, along with a lack of hand or body movement makes the speaker appear to be a statue possessing the voice of an automaton.
> 
> (3) A monotone voice that does not slightly pause between thoughts strains the listeners to figure out when one point stops and the next one starts.
> 
> (4) Lack of connection with the audience, whereby the speaker fails to engage the audience by eye contact, involvement, rhetorical questions, questions or comments that incite thought in the minds of the listeners. A sermon manuscript reader might fall into this is they fail in eye contact.
> 
> (5) speech deficiences, wandering thoughts, stammers, long pauses while the speaker tries to remember what they say... this all serves to break the fluid momentum of a speech or sermon
> 
> (6) Lack of application: This may be argued to be a matter of content and not style.
> 
> (7) speaking in terms not familiar to the audience, i.e.,over their heads. While this is helpful sometimes to teach the audience new words, done too much, it may tax the reader and steal attention from the main thrust of the speech/sermon.



These are all things that every preacher can and should be continually working on, some points more than others. I suppose the difficulty is in working out where the line is drawn between competency and perfection.

I'm reminded of the woman who visited at a congregation where Ebenezer Erskine was preaching. The first occasion she heard him she was greatly blessed. The next week she received nothing from the preaching. After the service she asked Erskine why she was blessed the first week but not the second. The good minister told her that on the first week she came to hear God but on the second she had come to hear the minister.


----------



## Pergamum

Thanks Rev. Winzer, those are wise words. This is a good place for me to bow out of this thread, the best has already been said!


----------



## Exiled_2_God

Pergamum said:


> I would agree with you. Things are different in the searching phase.
> 
> *Also, I will note that you wrote "usually" it is your fault. That grants the point I have been trying to make all along, that sometimes real, life, actual "boringness" may, in fact, happen*.



hey brother, can't disagree with you there!!


----------

