# Matt Chandler @ SBTS



## Kevin (Nov 18, 2009)

This is a very good message by Matt Chandler preached during a chapel service @ SBTS.

He has a powerfull way of emphasising the need for holiness & seeking a faithful ministry even if it does not seem "successful". Aimed at pastors it is a challenging message for all christians.

SBTS – Resources – Hebrews 11


----------



## Ivan (Nov 18, 2009)

I watched it live via the internet. It was a great message. The chapel was packed.


----------



## jogri17 (Nov 18, 2009)

how wonderful another trendy preacher...


----------



## Ivan (Nov 18, 2009)

jogri17 said:


> how wonderful another trendy preacher...



JP, did you listen to the sermon?


----------



## jogri17 (Nov 18, 2009)

Ivan said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> > how wonderful another trendy preacher...
> ...


Not to this specifique one but I have listened to many others by him and seen him speak in person and subscribe to the podcast. I would call him a theologically sound equivalent to Rob Bell.


----------



## Andres (Nov 18, 2009)

jogri17 said:


> how wonderful another trendy preacher...



Brother, you are fully entitled to your opinion, but I must say I find your off-handed remark to be a bit offensive. Perhaps you would like to back-up why you feel Mr. Chandler is just another "trendy preacher".


----------



## TrueConvert (Nov 18, 2009)

jogri17 said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> > jogri17 said:
> ...



Wow, that's harsh.


----------



## jogri17 (Nov 18, 2009)

Let me try to defend that comment. I am not saying he is a heretic. I am not saying he is a false prophet. I am not saying he is not a brother in Christ. I am not saying I could never sit under his preaching. 

BUT

There is nothing reformed about him outside of a mere intellectual assent a paraphrasal version of the Canons of the synod of Dort. His views of worship are terrible. he constantly over uses emotions and sounds soo phoney when he preaches. He comes accross as a sort of real and sincere version of Jimmy Swaggert in my opinion. He has a jokity-jokester mentality in his preaching that I just find trivial. His philosphy of ''being missional'' has many good aspects but at the end of the day I just gotta call it the latest evangelical fad that is not new but we have seen a million times before in the past. Just my thoughts and opinions, but this is a young guy whom is becoming more and more famous due to the blessed-annointed hands of John Piper and Mark Driscoll and has alot of theological issues that ought to keep confessional Christians with their discernment walls up a bit higher than usual.


----------



## Ivan (Nov 18, 2009)

Andres said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> > how wonderful another trendy preacher...
> ...



Yeah, a little evidence would be in order.

-----Added 11/18/2009 at 10:00:35 EST-----



jogri17 said:


> Let me try to defend that comment. I am not saying he is a heretic. I am not saying he is a false prophet. I am not saying he is not a brother in Christ. I am not saying I could never sit under his preaching.
> 
> BUT
> 
> There is nothing reformed about him outside of a mere intellectual assent a paraphrasal version of the Canons of the synod of Dort. His views of worship are terrible. he constantly over uses emotions and sounds soo phoney when he preaches. He comes accross as a sort of real and sincere version of Jimmy Swaggert in my opinion. He has a jokity-jokester mentality in his preaching that I just find trivial. His philosphy of ''being missional'' has many good aspects but at the end of the day I just gotta call it the latest evangelical fad that is not new but we have seen a million times before in the past. Just my thoughts and opinions, but this is a young guy whom is becoming more and more famous due to the blessed-annointed hands of John Piper and Mark Driscoll and has alot of theological issues that ought to keep confessional Christians with their discernment walls up a bit higher than usual.



Thanks for your opinion. I see no evidence.


----------



## Andres (Nov 18, 2009)

jogri17 said:


> Let me try to defend that comment. I am not saying he is a heretic. I am not saying he is a false prophet. I am not saying he is not a brother in Christ. I am not saying I could never sit under his preaching.
> 
> BUT
> 
> There is nothing reformed about him outside of a mere intellectual assent a paraphrasal version of the Canons of the synod of Dort. His views of worship are terrible. he constantly over uses emotions and sounds soo phoney when he preaches. He comes accross as a sort of real and sincere version of Jimmy Swaggert in my opinion. He has a jokity-jokester mentality in his preaching that I just find trivial. His philosphy of ''being missional'' has many good aspects but at the end of the day I just gotta call it the latest evangelical fad that is not new but we have seen a million times before in the past. Just my thoughts and opinions, but this is a young guy whom is becoming more and more famous due to the blessed-annointed hands of John Piper and Mark Driscoll and has alot of theological issues that ought to keep confessional Christians with their discernment walls up a bit higher than usual.



Basically you cited that he appears to be too emotional, phoney, and funny, which in your opinion, you do not care for. I still don't find these to be valid reasons to write a preacher off if his message is solid (and everything I have heard from Chandler has been). Basically, you seem to not prefer him, which of course is your prerogative, but I don't think its fair in calling him "phoney". Now, I might agree that he is not confessional, but he is certainly reformed in his doctrine. My wife attended his church before we met and Chandler is how she came to be introduced to calvinism and the doctrines of grace.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 18, 2009)

jogri17 said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> > jogri17 said:
> ...



Ok... but isn't Rob Bell's problem due precisely to the fact that he is theologically _un_sound? So if this guy is a "theologically sound equivalent," then what's the problem?


----------



## Kevin (Nov 18, 2009)

That message is solid. 

He makes a great point that God blessed his ministry with numbers, but if he had preached the same word & God had not sent numbers but rather the people left, then no one would know of him & ask him to speak at conferences.

God will not bless all of you with numbers, but faithfulness is more important.

Holiness is your most important asset as a preacher.

Some of you are not called by God, but are doing this for you own sinful reasons. (and by the way your 'good' sins are just as evil in God's eyes as "the bad ones").

That is not (In my humble opinion) a very *trendy* message to deliver to a seminary audience. I just saying.


----------



## raekwon (Nov 19, 2009)

SolaScriptura said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> > Ivan said:
> ...



Precisely.


----------



## Herald (Nov 19, 2009)

I listened to the message linked in the OP and I found nothing wrong with it. Yes, a bit contemporary and geared towards the audience he was speaking to, but I found the message sound.


----------



## Romans 9:16 (Nov 19, 2009)

I have heard Chandler sermons about 5 or 6 times. He is funny, effective communicator, blah, blah, blah (all that good stuff). However, though one cannot fault him for this or for his orthodoxy (at least not from the examples I took in), his manner of communicating seems particularly tailored to sound ‘inculturated.’ He sounds like a guy that wants to appear ‘relevant’ to the God-hating 13 year olds in the congregation. No doubt, if asked, he would defend himself by way of the usual garbage about ‘contextualization’ that has become so popular today. I recall what I heard R.C. Sproul say on one occasion. It bears remembering and heeding. Here it is (I am relying on memory so this is a paraphrase):

“the form is part of the message.” 

He was speaking with particular reference to art, but it has equal bearing on homiletics. It is simply inappropriate to preach the propositions of scripture (spiritual thoughts mixed with spiritual words) in a fashion that seems a thousand miles below sublime. If you read Edwards, John Donne, Calvin, etc., you find a sweet correspondence content and form. There is a sober, serious, fear of holy things in their words. I recall hearing a performance of Mozart’s Don Giovani performed the English National Opera in London. They kept the sublime music but translated the original Italian libretto into vulgar English (that is, adding *&%# and &%4& and *#^$, etc.). I feel the same way about much modern preaching (whether Chandler, Driscoll, etc.) as I did when I heard that terrible performance. It is not enough to be orthodox. Or, if you will, we must speak of an ‘orthodox form’ to marry orthodox content (however difficult this task may be). Sproul is right about form and content and their relation. Let the jesters quit their pulpits and flirt no more with sacred things. Let the ‘contextualizers’ try their hand at the deep fryer or whatever other vocation will not waste the time of the saints. The church doesn’t need preachers who want desperately to be cool (dropping dumb jokes every second, making infinite references to popular films and technology, using street jargon, etc.). 


“He ordered us to preach to the people, and *solemnly *to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42)


----------



## Herald (Nov 19, 2009)

Romans 9:16 said:


> I have heard Chandler sermons about 5 or 6 times. He is funny, effective communicator, blah, blah, blah (all that good stuff). However, though one cannot fault him for this or for his orthodoxy (at least not from the examples I took in), his manner of communicating seems particularly tailored to sound ‘inculturated.’ He sounds like a guy that wants to appear ‘relevant’ to the God-hating 13 year olds in the congregation. No doubt, if asked, he would defend himself by way of the usual garbage about ‘contextualization’ that has become so popular today. I recall what I heard R.C. Sproul say on one occasion. It bears remembering and heeding. Here it is (I am relying on memory so this is a paraphrase):
> 
> “the form is part of the message.”
> 
> ...



I am not going to castigate a preacher who is orthodox and speaking the truth in love. There is room in the pulpit for a myriad of styles. There is no room for compromised truth or a self-driven agenda. Chandler's style may not be your thing, but even you admitted you cannot fault him for his orthodoxy.


----------



## raekwon (Nov 19, 2009)

Y'know, the more criticisms I hear that assume a preacher is trying to "contextualize" (as if they're substantially changing their delivery for their audience), the more I'm convinced that most of them are just being themselves. Lloyd-Jones called preaching "truth through personality set on fire by the Spirit", right? Let's consider that many of these men are simply preaching truth through the filter of their own personalities.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 19, 2009)

Steve, I think that there is a very high likelyhood that you have confused an old style with solomnity.

Just because old-fashioned writing sounds more serious to modern ears does not mean that it is so.

If you hear dthat sermon that I linked & you think that pastor Chandler does not "fear holy things", then I would suggest that you give it another listen.


----------



## Ivan (Nov 19, 2009)

Although much older and not near as hip or popular, my style of preaching can sometimes be similar to Chandler's.

There, I said it.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 19, 2009)

Thanks Ivan, are your sermons online?


----------



## Ivan (Nov 19, 2009)

Kevin said:


> Thanks Ivan, are your sermons online?



Yes, click on the link in my signature. I don't know about the sound quality. The ones I've listen to are poor in quality. Also, there is nothing recent either.


----------



## Marrow Man (Nov 19, 2009)

Just downloaded it, put it on the mp3 player, and now am headed to the gym. I'll give my definitive critique when I return.


----------

