Not in clerverniss of speech...
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void. - 1 Corinthians 1:17
Formal recitation is to liturgy as reading manuscripts is to preaching. Both are helpful, particularly for beginning pastors. Charles Simeon read his manuscripts for the first five years or so. But at some point, a preacher should preach in a way that allows him to speak to his flock and specific sheep on the fly. And this is to depend upon the Holy Spirit to illumine the needs of the day rather than simply the needs of the race or of believers or of his flock annually or monthly.
The pastor who pastors knows how often family members he's heard about in counseling will show up unannounced on a Sunday morning and place themselves under the preaching of the Word. Shall he simply read the sermon he prepared with no thought of them? Is that pastoral? The pastor who pastors knows how often he will see the eyes and posture and faces of the souls in his flock and know...
the man is back in adultery that week; the woman is rebellious against her husband again; the student is thinking of abandoning the Lord and His Church for an unbelieving woman he's started dating and been warned against by his college pastor; and so on.Shall the pastor stick to his manuscript while prattling about how it's not his own responsibility to apply the Word and convict the souls--that's God's job? Has God not called and ordained and set apart this man known as the pastor to shepherd his (but really His) flock, and shall that man not make every effort to be helpful? The pastor who thinks it's abuse of the pulpit to form his words preaching the Word in such a way as to take into account that, for instance, he's in Athens; he's speaking to a marriage on the verge of divorce--he sees it in their eyes; he's preaching to a man who is on the edge of apostasy--he's been counseling the man and knows he's in play; that man is not a pastor. He's a hireling milking what he hopes is a sinecure.
The words and sentences of church officers should be helpful; and not simply cosmically, but also locally and in a timely way. Prayers of confession, explanations of the Sacraments, encouragements and warnings at the Table, contextualizing statements during the bride's vow explaining to the sanctuary containing many pagans and Reformed Evangelicals why she's vowing to "obey" her husband, benedictions chosen for the people's courage after the conclusion of the sermon, pastoral prayers after Doug Wilson's visit shook the community and the formal liturgical recitation for that Lord's Day service is oblivious, stuff like that.
Words, sermons, litanies, collects, explanations of vows, fencings of the Lord's Table, and homilies at weddings should all be contextualized, and not simply for English-speakers (so one chooses a book of united prayer that's in English), but also for American English speakers and Midwest American English speakers and Midwest university community American English speakers, and Protestant and Reformed and Evangelical university community Midwest American English speakers; and Dick and Jane fighting again and on the edge of despair this morning Protestant and Reformed and Evangelical university community Midwest American English speakers. You get my drift?
Formal repetition of liturgy can be a fine place to hide when one doesn't want to shepherd his flock. Formal reading of a sermon can be a fine place to hide when one doesn't want to shepherd his flock.
And finally, rote repetition of books of united prayer as the liturgy, and reading of manuscripts as the sermon, can be the ways a pastor not wanting to look to the Holy Spirit for inspiration and application covers up his lovelessness, sloth, or rather his spiritual decline or death. How often we pastors resort to rote repetition long after it has become vain repetition because we have nothing to say ourselves to our own flock.
Can you imagine what the Apostle Paul's letters would have been if he'd simply copied into the letter some good prayer from the five-hundred year old Hebrew forms book; if he'd studied the rabbinical insights and inserted a few shaggy dog stories of hymn lyrics for affect? If he'd had a principle of avoiding naming anyone or being specifically helpful? There are explosions of helpfulness all over the Apostle Paul's letters and prayers. Is this one more place where we hide our sloth and fear behind the statement, "That was Paul. You are not Paul. That was Scripture and the Holy Spirit was inspiring him. You and I are not Scripture and the Holy Spirit is not inspiring you or me."
Poor pastor. Poor church.
A true shepherd will often have something pastorally helpful to say because of his hard work the previous week and day and hour, and also because the Holy Spirit is leading and guiding him--just as in court (Mark 13:11). Do we all remember that Calvin himself refers to the preaching of the Word as "the Word of God" to the people? Sounds blasphemous to those of us wasting our lives reacting against Pentecostalism.
A pastor is set apart to be helpful in his prayers, Scripture selections, words before and after the Sacraments, and of course his sermons.
(TB)
Clearnote Churches
Clearnote Fellowship
Christ the Word
Monthly archive
- May 2013 (21)
- April 2013 (33)
- March 2013 (43)
- February 2013 (28)
- January 2013 (41)
- December 2012 (31)
- November 2012 (37)
- October 2012 (38)
- September 2012 (21)
- August 2012 (28)
- July 2012 (46)
- June 2012 (50)
Popular Posts
Tags
Recent Comments
- David J. Wegener on Some pics for your enjoyment...
- Emily Burlingham on Why move to Bloomington?
- Robert Woodyard on Some pics for your enjoyment...
- Tim Bayly on Some pics for your enjoyment...
- Christopher Lee on Some pics for your enjoyment...
Comments
Jonathan Edwards read "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." People wept under the conviction of sin. I don't think of Edwards badly for that.
>>I don't think of Edwards badly for that.
And you think I do?
But keep in mind that, when the men of his church forbade Edwards to preach his pastoral conscience on the Lord's Supper controversy, he gave in--as one Pastors College student pointed out in our Edwards class, yesterday.
Love,
Tim, this may not be where the Devil is prowling in the Reformed world, but this approach to preaching, taking the recent counseling sessions into the pulpit, seems to be rife with spiritual abuse and the crushing of souls. I admit that my perspective may be a bit colored by the size of the flock here in Pensacola (around 100), but our shepherding (as it pertains to specific sins in specific saint's lives, is carried out in homes and over coffee.
The Church gets told of unrepentant sin as the penultimate event in Church discipline, not in the midst of taking two or three with you to confront a sinner in his sin. I know you are not for pastors to call anyone out by name, but if a man's sin is known by more than a few others in the congregation your sermon may easily identify them.
As an aside, if a pastor in a 2nd century Church was in the middle of preaching on series on the significance of Temple worship, because he knew his flock to be ignorant, and he received a copy of Paul's letter to the Ephesians for the first time, does he press forward with the "needs" of his flock or with Paul's letter? With the exception of the completed canon I wonder if there is much difference in force.
Blessings brother,
al sends
>> I know you are not for pastors to call anyone out by name, but if a man's sin is known by more than a few others in the congregation your sermon may easily identify them.
Actually, I think there are times to call someone out by name. Rare, but not never. One friend of mine did it when a rich doctor wrote a letter saying he'd stop giving money if the pastor did such and such or didn't do such and such. The man had been destroying the flock for a decade or more and my friend was the new pastor and had tried to work with him privately. When he received the letter, he read it from the pulpit and, at the end, stated that no rich man would control Christ's church. The man left the church, the congregation fasted and prayed, the church was healed and began to grow, the sheep began to safely graze, and a year or so later the man himself came home and repented just before he died.
But such things are extraordinary, it's true.
Keep in mind that I'm not thinking of such explicit statements in the sermon that everyone would be able to identify the person. There are ways of cloaking the identity while being personal, both at the same time.
Love,
>>And you think I do?
No, that's why I brought up Edwards... :)
>>:)
Thanks for your vote of confidence.
Love,
>>And you think I do?
Unlike David Gray, I don't know how else to apply what you've written -- apply it to Edwards, or anyone else who manuscripts his sermons -- except to understand you to equate "cleverness of speech" to something written down before the pastor enters the pulpit.
As for taking cues from the faces of my flock as I preach to them, I can't do that either. I'm too blind to at this point to even recognize who it is sitting out there (except, most of the time, to know that it 's a man or a woman or a child). My clerverly crafted speech lays before me in 32 point bold san-serif type, illumined by a 100 watt lamp positioned six inches above the sheets of paper.
This is not, by the way, a vote of no confidence in you. I must, of course, wonder if your words amount to a vote of no confidence in someone like me.
>>I must, of course, wonder if your words amount to a vote of no confidence in someone like me.
No, dear brother. And yet I stand by the warnings above. Maybe they only pertain to me.
Love,
Let's look at the warning about hiding behind the liturgy to see if it stacks up. The BCP 1662 begins with an invitation to confess on ones own when not in a service, as well as present confession with the congregation. The confession and absolution speak of true repentance and sincere faith, followed by the Lord's Prayer. After a short litany taken from a Psalm, Psalm 95 is read, wherein the hearer is warned not to imitate the wicked and unbelieving conduct of Israel in the wilderness, who erred in their hearts, to whom God swore in his wrath that they would never enter his rest.
Pretty hardline so far.
Then follows set readings from the lectionary, which do not beat about the bush by excluding hard readings about judgement, like so many modern lectionaries do. In fact, this is the only lectionary where you are likely to hear about Sodom and Gomorrah, as we did in Lent.
The set prayers ask God to guide the King and Government in the way of truth, ditto for the church, and to clothe ministers with righteousness. The collects are full of humbling remarks about our sinful inability to obey, and requests that God would enable us to serve him properly.
If the Minister wishes he may read a sermon from the Homilies, which pull no punches regarding sin, repentance, and the need for obedience to God's law.
It is my opinion that this liturgy is neglected precisely because it is so uncompromising on sin.
When I was a Baptist I never once heard the congregation confess their sins, or heard the congregation called to repent, and those were both Arminian and Reformed Baptists. I never heard the Ten Commandments read out, or explained. Also, we never heard much scripture read out to the congregation, maybe a verse that the Pastor would allegedly preach from. Lots of testimonies, singing, musical items, very short prayers to which the congregation listened without ever praying themselves.
Honestly, do you two pastors know it at all? Your ministry is a great blessing to me, and your knowledge of your particular field has greatly enabled me to fight with you. Get to know the real thing and you will want to embrace it.
There are surely many heretical and worthless liturgies, but the original one from which they all descend is unsurpassed in its godliness and scripturality.
>>There are surely many heretical and worthless liturgies, but the original one from which they all descend is unsurpassed in its godliness and scripturality.
I'm not warning against following what you refer to as "the original one," Scripture. I am warning against reading liturgies from books and sermons or mini-sermons from manuscripts as the primary form of liturgy. We follow the Geneva order of worship and there's likely as much Scripture in our services as in any high formal liturgy followed by men here. For instance, in addition to the sermon texts, we read consecutively through Scripture a chapter at a time each Lord's Day. Our call to worship and assurance of pardon are Scripture. We regularly sing the Ten Commandments. Our services of witness to the resurrection of the dead in Christ are close to Cranmer and our weddings almost verbatim Cranmer. (Here's a piece I've written explaining why we follow Cranmer--but really, Cranmer simply copied the historic practice going back to the eleventh century Sarum Rite--in our weddings and what the significance is of each part of the liturgy.
http://www.baylyblog.com/2005/01/marriage_ceremo.html
And yes, we have all, I think, been in services like you describe, dear brother Roger. In fact, when I began serving my call to my prior church back in 1992, it was as you describe and reforming that horror was one of the chief works I have myself to, there.
Love,
One of the most uplifting services I have been in was Dutch Reformed, or, Continental Presbyterian. They read scripture, read out the Ten Commandments, confessed their faith using the Apostles' Creed, sang Psalms, prayed well, and had a good sermon.
One of Cranmer's best points was his conservatism in keeping as much of the old that was also good as possible, out of respect for those who had gone before. He stripped out the Popery, and what was left was gold, the inheritance that had been handed down through the centuries.
Even if your minister is weak, this liturgy on its own will challenge you to examine yourself to see whether you have truly repented and believed. It was designed for a church that could not possibly train enough men for all the churches in the land, through a lack of educated men and money. Many churches could not keep a man with enough to eat and stay dry, so they had to share a minister with other parishes. Many of the clergy were unfit to teach the scriptures, so they gave them a liturgy that gave them everything that needed to said and done, and provided prewritten sermons to boot.
Can you honestly say that we are better off for suitable clergy today? If only they would read the Homilies instead of foisting their incompetence in scripture upon the poor, long-suffering congregations.
Tim, may I vere off topic for a moment and ask about the use of the word "obey" in Cranmer? Can you provide me with some reference to the history of a wife vowing to obey her husband? Our current model follows the BoP pretty closely, but I changed obey to submit in light of Colossians 3 and Ephesians 5.
This seems more appropriate given that children and bond servants are commanded to obey following the husband's and wife's commands.
Thanks brother,
Al sends
>>vere off topic for a moment and ask about the use of the word "obey" in Cranmer?
Six of one, half dozen of the other, I think. Somewhat different meanings, but in 1Peter 3:6, Sarah is commended in that she "obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord." So there's clear Biblical precedent for the word in bride's vows and it's the word we use.
The important thing is that vows aren't unisex, but reflect the unique commands given husbands on the one hand, and wives on the other. Ninety-nine percent of Reformed weddings today have unisex vows without Scripture's commands. Thus ninety-nine percent of Reformed weddings connive at rebellion against God and are sub-Christian.
For years I've been saying all that's needed for churches with pastors like Tim Keller to be removed from their claims to be confessional is for their fellow elders to require them to confess Christian faith in their wedding ceremonies by requiring the word 'obey' for brides' vows.
But no one does it. And no one does it because we're not willing to confess Christian faith today, and we're really not willing to be connectional.
Love,
Dear Tim,
So how does preaching led by the Holy Spirit relate to a how such a pastor writes a book? I can see a lot of ways it would be different and a lot of ways the same.
This isn't really important, I know, but is no one going to point out the misspelling of cleverness in the title of this post, or was that done on purpose for some reason? Sorry, I can't help it. ;)
Intentional, Malorie.
Love,
Add new comment