Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
(I can't talk someone into believing that chocolate is the most satisfying flavor in the world.)
"boring" IS subjective, but not totally subjective. Beauty is subjective too, but we usually know when we see a really ugly person.