# Surprised by Reformed Spirituality



## Jared (Sep 18, 2010)

I come from a Pentecostal/Charismatic background. And though I am Reformed now, I have to confess that I still tend to gauge spirituality in much the same way that I did before. 

That is, I see a spiritual depth in certain parts of Charismatic Christianity. All of you can stone me for saying that if you want to, but hear me out.

My purpose for posting this thread is not to lift up Pentecostal spirituality and tear down Reformed spirituality. My purpose for posting this thread is to say that I have been surprised by a couple of PCA ministries lately.

I am talking about R.C. Sproul and Tim Keller. I have been listening to both of them lately, and to be perfectly honest, I see in them much of the same spirituality that I saw in Charismatic ministries. I have felt that some of the things they have said have drawn me into a deeper, more intimate relationship with Christ.

Why is it that so many Reformed ministries seem so dry? There are plenty of exceptions like Tim Keller, R.C. Sproul, John Piper, and Russell Moore. But, there are so many Reformed preachers that seem dry to me.

So, like I said, I'm not trying to tear down Reformed spirituality and lift up something else. But, I think that the Reformed tradition has a much fuller spirituality than what some ministries that will go unmentioned offer. 

I think of the Puritans and those that came after them and I think of what shining examples they are in this regard. Why has the love of so many in the church grown cold? Maybe I'm being too harsh, but I really feel like there needs to be more of a change than mere reform. I can listen to someone who is dry and I can agree with their theology and I can learn from them. But, if what I perceive is true, they're not where they need to be with God and they need to draw closer to the Savior.


----------



## Andres (Sep 18, 2010)

Jared Hanley said:


> I come from a Pentecostal/Charismatic background. And though I am Reformed now, I have to confess that I still tend to gauge spirituality in much the same way that I did before. That is, I see a spiritual depth in certain parts of Charismatic Christianity.



Could you please explain how you see spiritual depth in those that teach false doctrine?



Jared Hanley said:


> Why is it that so many Reformed ministries seem so dry? There are plenty of exceptions like Tim Keller, R.C. Sproul, John Piper, and Russell Moore. But, there are so many Reformed preachers that seem dry to me.



The key words here are "seem to me". Your above sentiments are your opinion and I would challenge you as to how you arrived at this opinion that Pentecostal ministries are "spiritual" and Reformed ministries tend to be dry. I would also challenge you as to what you are gauging good preaching to be. Is it because Reformed men do not literally hoop and holler emphasizing words and working up a sweat like Pentecostals? There is nothing dry about preaching the whole counsel of God, expouding scripture, and rightly proclaiming the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is what the Reformed preachers that I listen to do. 



Jared Hanley said:


> I can listen to someone who is dry and I can agree with their theology and I can learn from them. But, if what I perceive is true, they're not where they need to be with God and they need to draw closer to the Savior.


 
So you say you can learn sound theology from these Reformed teachers. What more do you want from them? Seriously, I fail to see how after you admit that point, you still say they are insufficient ministers. Also, I'm not sure why you think you can determine that these ministers are not where they need to be with God and need to draw closer to the savior but I think it wise to refrain from making statements like this in the future.

To conclude, your purpose for posting this thread may not have been to lift up Pentecostal spirituality and tear down Reformed spirituality, but I think that is exactly what you did. To be honest with you, I am scratching my head to understand what use a man who claims to be Reformed such as yourself, has for Pentecostal doctrine and theology. Again, I challenge you to reconsider what is most important when listening to a preacher and/or following a ministry.


----------



## jayce475 (Sep 18, 2010)

Jared, if what you really mean is that there are many Reformed ministers out there who are lacking good homiletics, then please phrase what you are saying more clearly without using terms like "spiritual" and "dry". I would give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not preferring Charismatic doctrines over Reformed ones. 

There are probably plenty of Charismatic preachers out there with rather poor homiletics, so unless you can really qualify how Reformed ministers tend have poorer homiletics with Charismatic preachers, it's not a very fair observation. Yes they often need to show a bit more flash to cover their lack of substance, but does that really mean they have "spiritual depth"? On the other hand, what we can be sure about, is that Reformed ministers do not preach the heresies that Charismatic ones do. 

I don't wish to be harsh, but could it be possible that when one perceives more "spiritual depth" in Charismatic preachers who propound heresies than in the typical Reformed minister, the problem does not lie with the Reformed minister, but with the hearer wanting his ears to be tickled rather than receiving sound instruction? The issue with tickled ears isn't always confined to prosperity preaching, but may also have to do with wanting entertaining sermons. 

By the way, at least by the reckoning of many of us here, Piper is not Reformed and TULIP alone does not make one Reformed.


----------



## Jesus is my friend (Sep 18, 2010)

Jared,well said in much of your post,esp.,as you pointed out the Puritans and thier love for the Truth,you are right, there are some in the Reformed community that could be percieved as dry in their love of God,but that may be a snap judgment on our part,just as thier are some in the Charismatic community that are "whacked out".please dont be discouraged if you are "called to the mat" here,all of us here like you are passionate for the Truth,so as you clarify your points to the previous posters remember,this is a great place to learn truly Reformed Theology and many folks to gain much Godly wisdom.it's a radical but wonderful transition of where you've come from,and I look forward to reading your posts!


----------



## Scott1 (Sep 18, 2010)

Jared,

You are growing in the Lord, informed by His Word.

As you continue using the "ordinary means of grace" God has appointed for His people (Word, sacrament, prayer), you will come to see things more clearly, important things.

Having been in a church like that years ago, I now have perspective to see some things critically, clearly from the standpoint of Scripture.

There are certainly some Christians in those communions. And some people who are compassionate, gifted in mercy, music, and some genuine sincerity.



> Romans 10:2
> 
> 2For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.



Emotion, sincerity, "religious talk" are only a small part of the equation.

These communions are Arminian influenced (man centered theology), dispensational, and without accountable confession.

That's before one gets to a low view of the sacraments, and of the church (e.g. no church discipline), and centering on extra-biblical revelation or experience as an ordinary means of truth, "the prosperity gospel," "positive confession," and using prayer as a means for man to command God.

These are serious things, not ones that can be ignored in light of a holy God who commands His creatures to worship Him according to the way He has revealed Himself.

Your challenge, as with us all, is be faithful with the people and experiences God has given you to influence them for His Kingdom, sharing and living what you know is true- and trusting a sovereign God for the results.



> Hebrews 4:12
> 
> 12For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


----------



## tlharvey7 (Sep 18, 2010)

i think i know where Jared is coming from..... this is an important issue and a discussion that can truly be edifying if hashed out properly...
please please patient with this brother.

Jared... it may sound strange, but I've actually seen an elderly reformed saint or 2 weep while reading the liturgy. 
there are preachers/teachers from all views that have lost their first love. some may have never had it to begin with!
you and i know that that many charismatic pastors/ect. need to rely on emotionalism and manipulation to validate their "ministry" . if you were to converse one on one with many of these "dry" reformed preachers, you would find men who
have such a love for God's word.... such an appreciation for what Jesus has done, and commitment to their calling that 
their eyes would well up telling you of what Christ has done in their lives
the Christians who have truly delved into the "spiritual depths" as you described are those of us who have discovered 
the truth about ourselves and our sinful condition.... and have fallen in love with the God of the bible and His word

at least that's what i have learned since becoming reformed in 2006

hope that helps


----------



## christiana (Sep 18, 2010)

I am blessed to have been brought by our Lord from a pentecostal background as my father was my pastor!
I am forever grateful to Him for bringing me to His truth of scripture in the doctrines of grace.
A great difference, besides the theology is that their focus is emotionalism. God knows our heart and desires for them to be pure and to know His word. Mostly, the pentecostal preachers have favorite topics and are repeated over and over, hence leaving their congregations without knowledge of the whole counsel of God, which He requires of them. I have also come to learn as noted in scripture that the gifts ceased when their purpose was fulfilled and the canon was closed. Coming to a much clearer understanding of the sovereignty of God and His providence were life changing for me! This is scripture; this is His truth! Soli deo gloria!! The more you read the puritans the more you appreciate their devotion to God! The Sovereignty of God by A.W.Pink was the main book that brought me to His truth! Blessings to you for sharing your heart with us and may He continue His guidance of your life!


----------



## TimV (Sep 18, 2010)

Strong emotions seem to be like an addictive drug. I did some work for a pentecostal lady recently and when there was no drama she went out of her way to create it. A truly unnerving experience for someone like me who's never been pentecostal. It didn't seem to matter what the emotions were, as long as they were strong. Joy, anger, impatience, vengeance, gratitude, loyalty, betrayal, it didn't seem to matter, and they'd switch in an instant.

But it stands to reason. The one pentecostal service I attended was a constant manipulation of emotion. I'm sure there are chemicals released that become addictive, and there may not be much a person can do about it, at least for some time. One of my best friends is a former pentecostal, and even though it's been years since he's been to one of their churches, we were watching a video some months ago by a pentecostal preacher. The guy was mixing blasphemy with meaningless slogans interspersed with implausible stories like the illiterate woman in Africa who had a Bible verse magically put into her mind and immediately founded a denomination with 50,000 members.

And as I was physically getting sick, my now Reformed friend kept murmuring "We Reformed NEED more of this".

Any way, just an hypothesis based on personal experience. The longing for "spirituality" coupled with the observable life styles of most Pentecostals make me wonder if spirituality in the pentecostal mind is synonymous with a chemical release.


----------



## Mushroom (Sep 18, 2010)

I attended a debate between a Church of Christ evangelist (no original sin, etc.) and a reformed apologist. The apologist was scripturally decimating the evangelist. A man I know came up to me during the intermission to say that the evangelist was obviously in the right because he said what he had to say with more 'passion'. Ridiculous.

I was once a certified tongue-talking pentecostal, so I speak from real experience. I have heard the most ludicrous things propounded 'passionately' from pentecostal pulpits, such that my policy has become, as told to many Pastors who bemoaned their own 'dryness' to me, that they can be as dry as a desert and droning as a diesel as long as what they say falls soundly within the pale of orthodoxy. I'd much rather be bored than deceived.

I believe the desire for 'passion' is a byproduct of an existentialist bent to our culture. "Man is a meaningless passion" after all. Truth is a far cry more valuable.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Sep 18, 2010)

I don't think orthodoxy requires an absence of passion.


----------



## christiana (Sep 18, 2010)

True, but that isnt the primary focus and measuring rod as it can become in pentecostalism! If you dont show exuberance you can be counted spiritually dead in some of those churches. God reads hearts!


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 18, 2010)

_"To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: 'The words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands." 'I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false. I know you are enduring patiently and bearing up for my name's sake, and you have not grown weary. But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent. Yet this you have: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.' (Rev 2:1-7, ESV)
_
You can get a dead and dry and unloving orthodoxy but it will soon lead to other errors. If Christ's love isn't there it means that the congregation is unconverted or seriously backslidden.

A wise Reformed minister and eldership will be aware of the danger of a dead orthodoxy, but a dead orthodoxy doesn't remain orthodox for long, in fact it by definition isn't orthodox.

The Pentecostal approach, apart from being filled with error, promotes an often artificial demonstration of "love" which may or may not be the genuine article, depending, and the praise involves the artificial manipulation of the emotions and promotes an insincere sentimentality.

Having said all this, I'm sure many Pentecostal Christians in spite of their errors are far ahead of the Reformed in sanctification, and _vice versa_.

It's God in Christ that makes Christianity exciting and fills God's people with passion. When we as individual Church members lose sight of Christ, or our love for Christ becomes cold, no amount of frippery can make up for our backsliding and coldness of heart. 

Orthodox praise and preaching are better than frippery and error, but without being blessed by the Spirit, or the blessing of the Spirit being sincerely sought, they will not _alone_ revive our dusty hearts. 

But they will lead to revival when God's people get a taste for them. Pentecostal _error_ is a mockery of Christ, a red herring and a dead end.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Sep 18, 2010)

christiana said:


> True, but that isnt the primary focus and measuring rod as it can become in pentecostalism! If you dont show exuberance you can be counted spiritually dead in some of those churches. God reads hearts!


 
I was going to reply, then I read Richard's post. I cannot really add to his thoughts.


----------



## lynnie (Sep 18, 2010)

nice post Richard, except I'm not sure about the sanctification comment. Plenty of immorality in charismatics. 

Jared, you might like reading Lloyd Jones. He shared your concerns about dry orthodoxy. He was a brilliant, intellectual Calvinist, and a cessationist as far as tongues and some gifts go, but also believed in subsequent "baptisms" or outpourings of the holy spirit such that people come to deep assurance of biblical truths...what the mind grasps penetrates more deeply to the heart, destroying doubts and fears and unbelief, bringing assurance, comfort, repentance, etc. "Joy Unspeakable" is one book that come to mind, or maybe "Revival." 

I am charismatic doctrinally but most of what I see now is dry and dead, and hype and noise is the substitute. We must be devoted to scripture and dependent on God, not techniques. Charismatics can be so technique driven. Likewise, a Reformed church where they "do it right" but are not praying fervently, knowing that the Lord has to move by His holy Spirit in our minds and hearts, can also be dry and dead.

I no longer think it is about cessationism or non cessationism, for love to grow cold. I think it is about an awareness of dependency on God, He must move, we need to pray and depend on Him in humility that we can't "do it right" and get results. And we must truly love scripture. I've been in PCA with life, and in charismatic with worked up slick hype covering over deadness. 

One problem in my opinion is that we need structures that allow for the Lord to move. Presbyterians are so against "altar calls" that you can have a sermon that almost screams for a response, but afterwards there is no encouragement to go up front and admit that you need to repent and ask for prayer. Some Presbyterians have elders always available up front after, some do not. I think it would help for there to be a structure for us to confess our sins one to another when a sermon really pierces your heart. That is a plus of charismatics ( and yeah, I totally hate the word " altar" for the front of the church, we have an altar and it isn't a place down here).

I was in a PCA church with deep teaching, right to the heart, and it often called for repentance, but there was no structure for asking for prayer and the laying on of hands ( a foundational doctrine) for healing or anything else. You'd have to chase down and interrupt an elder. But another PCA always had guys up front after and you could go ask for prayer about anything, and that church was full of life and zeal (and new converts too.). My current church has this structure; if the sermon applies and you know God is getting at you about something, you can easily get prayer after, it is well facilitated. That is one plus of the charismatics.


----------



## jayce475 (Sep 18, 2010)

QIRE, Syncretism, Kingdom Confusion, and Evangelical Niceness « Heidelblog

Read this today and thought it might be helpful to this discussion. Mormonism in under consideration in the article, but are charismatic heresies all that different?

---------- Post added at 11:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 AM ----------




Richard Tallach said:


> A wise Reformed minister and eldership will be aware of the danger of a dead orthodoxy, but a dead orthodoxy doesn't remain orthodox for long, in fact it by definition isn't orthodox.



I agree. And it's rather unfair to charge Reformed ministers of dead orthodoxy just because one thinks that their sermons are not interesting enough. Thing is, we will never ever find dead orthodoxy in charismatic circles as they never possessed orthodoxy in the first place, so why are we even making comparisons between the Reformed and charismatics in such a manner?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Sep 18, 2010)

I did not think we were comparing orthodoxy between the two, but rather passion.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 18, 2010)

Is it possible that Jared is simply trying to say something like Dr. Trueman made mention of a little while ago?



> It struck me as ironic that, in a place where talk of law-gospel was common, where Luther was honoured, where justification was a central doctrine, the lecturing could be so far from Luther's preaching -- not in terms of its exegetical method (no comparison -- Luther's exegesis was often completely nuts by modern standards), but in terms of its absolute lack of existential confrontation, of any element of surprise and wonder, and of the awesome bringing home of God as God rather than simply as an idea. Everything said was right and true, but only in the way that, say, the laws of gravity, or the advice that it is advisable to change one's underpants on a daily basis, are good and true. So what? Sadly, the modern Reformed penchant for cliched phrases and blather such as `the indicative is the imperative blah-de-blah-de-blah' seems more often used an excuse for boring lectures pretending to be sermons than as a basis for passionate, confrontational preaching of the Luther kind, a kind truly built on an understanding of the doctrine of justification as a living, personal reality, not a mere concept, and which in turn actually built a Reformation. And before somebody trots out the old `we don't do legalism' line, nobody can accuse Dr Martin of confusing the gospel as good news with the gospel as inspirational pep talk. The law and gospel were objective declarations -- and yet they tore hearers apart and put them back together again as they were preached, a point of which Luther was only too personally aware and which flavoured everything he did in the pulpit, from overall sermon structure to tone of voice and all points in between.



Not all preaching by those who are Reformed is worthy of being defended.


----------



## jayce475 (Sep 19, 2010)

Chaplainintraining said:


> I did not think we were comparing orthodoxy between the two, but rather passion.



Point being that comparing passion is pointless if they differ on orthodoxy anyway.

---------- Post added at 05:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:35 PM ----------




py3ak said:


> Is it possible that Jared is simply trying to say something like Dr. Trueman made mention of a little while ago?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
He could very well be. At the same time, it would have been better if the preaching of Charismatic preachers had not been raised up as the shining example of passionate and biblical preaching.


----------



## kvanlaan (Sep 19, 2010)

I found the comments on the strong emotions quite interesting. I remember hearing somewhere (I think it was WHI) that 'what you get them with is what you keep them with'. So yes, it will take passionate displays every service to keep them in their benches who were taken in by a display of passion. If it was the Gospel that brought you in the door, then that is what it will take to keep you there, and that's what faithful churches are for.


----------



## Jack K (Sep 19, 2010)

I'd hazard to guess the OP did not mean strong emotions or passionate displays when bringing up the topic of reformed "spirituality." The preachers mentioned are not particularly emotional in the pulpit. What those guys (Sproul, Keller, Piper) do have in common is a passion to preach in such a way that their listeners don't merely learn some theological point or or some rule for living, but are engaged in their hearts.

Reformed preaching, with its admirable emphasis on correct doctrine and proper handling of the Scriptures, _has_ at times resulted in dry, purely academic preaching that fails to speak to the heart. And I too have heard reformed preachers whose sermons would be considered "solid" on theological grounds but who seem completely untouched by God's Spirit as they handle his Word, which _should_ be alive and active and speaking to the heart.

I am very, very appreciative of the reformed tradition that insists a sermon's content matters. But a reminder that preaching also must never be spiritually dry—that is, there must be a sense that the Word is living and active in our lives by the Spirit's power—is a good and necessary critique.


----------



## MW (Sep 19, 2010)

Jared Hanley said:


> there are so many Reformed preachers that seem dry to me.



I am very sorry to hear this. Please consider some important principles of biblical spirituality which were written in answer to the problems faced by the Corinthians in this area:

"No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." It is very important to discern the work of the Holy Spirit in the very content of the Christian message.

"The manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal." It can be the case that an individual receives little of the Spirit because he is thinking how the ministry is profiting him alone rather than the way the body as a whole is being edified and equipped.
 
"All these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will." It is possible that little benefit is received from the ministry of the Word because too much is expected from a single individual.


----------



## jwithnell (Sep 20, 2010)

Mr. Piper is more familiar to me than some of the other preachers you mentioned. I believe he would agree when I say that what should truly inflame the Christian heart is love for God. 

Now think about a romantic relationship; at first, the name of another person sets the heart a-twiter. But even at that stage, saying the name over and over with your arms waving in the air would seem a bit odd. You want to know all about that person -- what pleases her, what interests her, what she delights in. _Solid_ preaching (even if it's not charismatically presented) should teach you these things and feed your brain and heart as you grow more in love with God. 

What's more, preaching is one element in worship -- what you read and meditate upon all week, what you do to prepare for the Lord's day (one much loved reformed preacher shared once that he reads Revelation 5 each Sunday morning as he prepares for services) should be like a dam unleashed in your praise and adoration for God during worship. Much of this is what's going on in your own heart, but it is enabled by being part of the larger congregation and by being in the special presence of Christ.

I think the real difference here, is that it involves preparation by the individual, and may largely be expressed inwardly, although not exclusively so. (You wanna get knocked off your feet? Come hear us sing _A Mighty Fortress_ or recite one of the creeds!) From my understanding, much of the charismatic church requires little other than showing up and showing a lot of outward emotionalism and being led in some vague way by the spirit. This is an easy "spirituality" that doesn't accord itself with the scriptures, nor does it provide the meat necessary for long term growth by individuals or the church.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Sep 20, 2010)

Jared,

I understand your thoughts as you and I have a similar background. What I would like to ask you, is how do you define "dryness"?


----------



## Mushroom (Sep 20, 2010)

My Pastor, Dr. Cortez Cooper, preaches with plenty animation and feeling, and yet has no need to resort to emotionalism to engage the hearers. An awe for the power and holiness of our God who condescended to such unworthy specks of dust as we are exudes from his sermons, because it exudes from the scriptures. As for emotions, I don't know why anyone would need emotional preaching to be made emotional themselves. When I hear the Gospel of my Beloved Redeemer proclaimed, whether in droning cadence or excited crescendo, either way it makes the water stand in my eyes. My kids were embarassed at my sniffling at the quintiple baptism celebrated Lord's Day a week ago as I was honking up a storm blowing my nose.

I laid aside a long time ago the desire for emotional externals, Jesus is enough. His Word makes me tremble, His sacrifice makes me weep, His redemption makes me rejoice, and the beauty of His holiness makes me sing. Who needs anything more than that?


----------



## TomVols (Sep 23, 2010)

The definition of "dryness" is critical. If you mean "lacking substance in the pulpit," then I'd agree that I've heard some who call themselves Reformed who are dry. If you mean "lack of emotional engagement," I'd probably agree there, too. But if you "mean lack of fire," that "logic on fire" the Doctor called (which was coined first by Finney, ironically), then there we might have to part company. 

No amount of theological substance should elbow passion and solid delivery out of the way - there is room for both. But no amount of theatrics, emotionalism, or manipulation can make up for shoddy doctrine and exposition. Sadly, some measure passion by the volume of the preacher or the oratory. Preaching is (to tweak Finney/Lloyd-Jones's definition) is doctrine on fire. You have to have *both.*. Not all fire looks or sounds alike. Remember that.


----------



## Jared (Oct 4, 2010)

I want to add some balance to what I said in the OP. Jonathan Edwards was greatly used by God during the Great Awakening. And yet, the people who heard him preach said that he preached in a monotone voice. But, people were so moved by what he said that they would fall to the floor shaking (out of fear) and cry out to God to save them. Obviously, Jonathan Edwards's sermons were bathed in prayer.

In the sermon that Francis Chan preached at the recent Desiring God National Conference, he asked the question "When is the last time you wept over the lost?" I believe that if we have God's heart, if we carry His burden, there will be something of heaven in our preaching.

BTW: Tom, it's good to see you on here again. I've been meaning to get back over to Jacksboro First Baptist Church. Send me a message sometime or something and we'll talk.


----------



## jwithnell (Oct 4, 2010)

Jared, I respect what you are saying. We should all guard against a cold or unmoving heart toward God. If someone were to walk into our church, one is not likely to notice much of the depth with which we are affected, except for the general heartiness in worship. However, I can see the reaction during the rest of the week as we respond to what has happened during the service. We have often been inspired in our (fill in the blank) life, sought to meet needs within or without the congregation, cried together, laughed together, prayed together ...


----------



## Andres (Oct 4, 2010)

Jared Hanley said:


> In the sermon that Francis Chan preached at the recent Desiring God National Conference, he asked the question "When is the last time you wept over the lost?" I believe that if we have God's heart, if we carry His burden, there will be something of heaven in our preaching.



This is all part of Chan's gimmick - he guilts people into being super-emotional in their walk with God. No thanks.


----------



## Ivan (Oct 4, 2010)

Andres said:


> Jared Hanley said:
> 
> 
> > In the sermon that Francis Chan preached at the recent Desiring God National Conference, he asked the question "When is the last time you wept over the lost?" I believe that if we have God's heart, if we carry His burden, there will be something of heaven in our preaching.
> ...


 
How do you know it's a gimmick? 

BTW, I enjoyed the message, but wasn't moved to be super emotional. Is what he said true? If so, what are you going to do about it? No need to be super emotional.


----------



## Gforce9 (Oct 4, 2010)

I can say for myself, that the issue has more to do with the training of the hearer. When I was exposed to sound, Reformed preaching, there were two things I observed. First, I asked, 'Why haven't I heard this before?' and, second, 'These guys don't yell (usually)'. Upon repeated exposure, the former fell by the wayside wanting. The content is the matter. Good or 'exciting' delivery is only icing on the cake.........


----------



## Jack K (Oct 4, 2010)

Andres said:


> This is all part of Chan's gimmick - he guilts people into being super-emotional in their walk with God. No thanks.



If it is a guilt-based gimmick I agree. And I think it might be, at least on some level.

But we also ought to realize it's good for pastors to speak from their hearts and to challenge our hearts. My pastor gets weepy in the pulpit now and then. The first couple of times I saw it happen I was suspicious, thinking he was trying to make me get emotional with him. But I learned that in his case it isn't a gimmick. He's just an emotional person, speaking about things that are dear to him. He isn't getting emotional as a tactic to try to ellicit something from us. Since I realize this I don't mind it, and in some ways even appreciate him for it.


----------



## lynnie (Oct 4, 2010)

I know of a pastor who got very dry and even dull. Turns out he had accepted a call in the educational realm but kept it secret for a while. I think his heart had gone out of his pastoral calling. It happens. Sometimes there are secret marriage problems or other issues. I would not just brush off people thinking a pastor is dry and dead as a problem with the listener. Maybe, maybe not.


----------



## Jared (Oct 4, 2010)

Andres said:


> Jared Hanley said:
> 
> 
> > In the sermon that Francis Chan preached at the recent Desiring God National Conference, he asked the question "When is the last time you wept over the lost?" I believe that if we have God's heart, if we carry His burden, there will be something of heaven in our preaching.
> ...



Speaking about George Whitefield the Rev. Mr. Winter had this to say:

"I hardly ever knew him to go through a sermon without weeping more or less... It was only by beholding his attitude and tears, that one could well conceive of the effect."


----------



## ChariotsofFire (Oct 5, 2010)

"What is Preaching? Logic on fire! Eloquent reason! Are these contradictions? Of course they are not. Reason concerning this Truth ought to be mightily eloquent, as you see it in the case of the Apostle Paul and others. It is theology on fire. And a theology which does not take fire, I maintain, is a defective theology; or at least the man's understanding of it is defective. Preaching is theology coming through a man who is on fire. A true understanding and experience of the Truth must lead to this. . . . A man who can speak about these things dispassionately has no right whatsoever to be in a pulpit; and should never be allowed to enter one. "

Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers


----------



## Jared (Oct 5, 2010)

ChariotsofFire said:


> "What is Preaching? Logic on fire! Eloquent reason! Are these contradictions? Of course they are not. Reason concerning this Truth ought to be mightily eloquent, as you see it in the case of the Apostle Paul and others. It is theology on fire. And a theology which does not take fire, I maintain, is a defective theology; or at least the man's understanding of it is defective. Preaching is theology coming through a man who is on fire. A true understanding and experience of the Truth must lead to this. . . . A man who can speak about these things dispassionately has no right whatsoever to be in a pulpit; and should never be allowed to enter one. "
> 
> Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers



Amen!


----------

