A. Biblically, the jurisdiction of elders to rule or govern is shown by the
following New Testament words:
1. Exousia – a term that connotes delegated right and duty to exercise
authority over something or someone. In the New Testament, the contexts
refer to the authority that issues from the Head of the Church, King Jesus and
is delegated to His ruling officers. It is an authority that is subject to Christ and
His Law or Word.
Principles:
a. This delegated authority is the duty and right to think, decide, act and govern
within the sphere of authority to which the officers are placed (session,
presbytery, or general assembly). This delegated authority is the duty and
right to make policies that determine the direction and emphases of Christ’s
church that are in keeping with God’s revealed will. We have illustrations of
this:
(1) Jesus Christ (in Matt. 9:6-8; Mk. 6:39)
(2) The Roman Centurion (Mt. 8:9)
b. In a general sense, all believers are subject to all God-ordained rulers and
authorities (Lk. 10:19; Rom. 13:1ff; Ti. 3:1-2; etc.)
c. This leadership authority is given to officers for the purpose of building up,
and not for tearing down (2 Cor. 13:10).
d. This position is a stewardship from God Himself. Officers are answerable to
the Lord for their faithfulness:
(1) Officers are accountable to the Lord under the biblical authority God has
assigned (local, regional or national church rule).
(2) However, officers are not answerable to the people or congregation
(1 Cor. 4:1-5; Ti. 1:7).
Note: It is often asked, “What about the command for all believers to be
subject to one another?” (Eph. 5:21; 1 Pet. 5:5).
(a) First, this subjection is to be done “in the fear of Christ” meaning that
all are ultimately subject to Him, and all are to be subject in Him.
(b) Secondly, Scripture never teaches that the sheep or congregation has
authority. In fact, many passages, such as 1 Thess. 5:12 and Heb. 13:17,
teach otherwise.
(c) The subjection to one another is qualified by the context(s). It is a
subjection under Christ, out of love, for the highest good and need of
God’s people. God’s sheep place themselves under subjection of the
God ordained authorities of His Church, and God’s officers are subject
to the Lord, and demonstrate subjection to Him by loving and serving
His people.
e. Scripture defines for us the manner in which this authority is to be exercised:
(1) From a motivation of love (John 21:16)
(a) making appeals from love for Christ’s sake (Philemon 8-9)
(b) with compassion for distressed sheep (Matt. 9:36; Mk. 6:34; Jas. 5:14)
(c) sacrificially, willingness to lay down their lives for the sheep
(John 10:11,15)
(2) With a servant’s heart (Matt. 20:25; Lk 22:26)
(3) With a watchful care for the flock (1 Tim. 3:5; Heb. 13:17).
(4) Voluntarily as shepherds (1 Pet. 5:2).
(5) Examples as shepherds (1 Pet. 5:3).
(6) Guarding themselves and the church (Acts 20:28).
f. Scripture also informs us how officers are not to be characterized:
(1) Having uncontrolled home (1 Tim. 3:4,5,12).
(2) Desertion of the office and/or church in times of distress
(Jn. 10:12).
(3) Not to serve under compulsion or greed (1 Pet. 5:2ff).
(4) Not abusively, ‘lording it over the sheep.’ (Matt. 20:25; Mk 10:42;
Lk. 22:25f; 2 Cor. 1:24; 1 Pet. 5:3) (for more, see below)
2. Hegeomai – a term that means to “lead” or “guide.”
a. Of a political ruler (Mt. 2:6; Acts 7:10)
b. As chief speaker (Acts 14:12)
c. As church leaders (Heb. 13:7,17,24)
3. Proistemi: literally, “to stand before” as a leader stands before the people.
a. To have a charge over (1 Thess. 5:12)
b. To lead (Rom. 12:8)
c. To manage (1 Tim. 3:4,5,12)
d. To rule (1 Tim. 5:17)
B. What does it mean to ‘lord it over’ the sheep?
1. What it does not mean:
a. It does NOT mean that God’s officers should not reprove and rebuke
(2 Tim. 4:2).
b. It does NOT mean that God’s officers should never at times reprove or
rebuke severely (Ti. 1:13; 2:15).
c. It does NOT mean that God’s officers should not “come with a rod” when it
is appropriate (1 Cor. 4:21).
2. What it does mean:
a. Abuse – (from Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English
Language)
(1) To use ill; to maltreat, to misuse; to use with bad motives or to wrong
purposes.
(2) To violate; to defile by improper sexual intercourse.
(3) To deceive; to impose on.
(4) To treat rudely, or with reproachful language; to revile.
(5) To pervert the meaning of; to misapply; as to abuse words.
b. “Lord it over” is translated “subdue” in Acts 19:16.
c. Two verses that demonstrate the abuse of authority are
(1) Matt. 20:25
(2) Luke 22:25
d. Therefore, to “lord it over”
(1) Is the excessive or coercive use of authority for unbiblical, sinful, and/or
self-serving purposes rather than for the glory of God and the edification
and loving welfare of God’s people.
(2) Hence, officers of God’s Church are not to “lord it over” His sheep by
ruling abusively or coercively (1 Pet. 5:3). The abuse of authority happens
when leadership steps beyond the boundaries defined by the Word of God.
C. Here are some practical questions to consider:
1. Has the pastor or have the elders acted in any way that has clearly violated
Scripture?
2. Has the session (elder board) developed policies that are out of sync with their
delegated authority to determine the direction and emphases of the local church
according to Scripture?
3. Have the policies or actions of Session built up or torn down the church
(2 Cor. 13:10)?
4. Is there anything session has said or done that demonstrates or proves they
have NOT acted:
a. From a motivation of love for the sheep (John 21:16)?
b. With compassion for distressed sheep (Matt. 9;36; Mk. 6:34; Jas. 5:14)?
c. Sacrificially (John 10:11,15)?
d. With a servant’s heart (Matt. 20:25; Lk 22:26)?
e. With a watchful care for the flock (1 Tim. 3:5; Heb. 13:17)?
f. Voluntarily as shepherds (not under compulsion or greed) (1 Pet. 5:2)?
g. By guarding themselves and the church (Acts 20:28)?
5. Have the elders led or guided the church down the wrong path doctrinally
or behaviorally (sinned)?
6. Have they failed or abused their role by having a charge over, leading,
managing or ruling?
7. Have the elders sinfully mistreated or subdued any member or members
of the church?
8. Has there been any excessive or coercive use of authority for unbiblical,
sinful, and/or self-serving purposes rather than for the glory of God, and
the edification and loving welfare of God’s people?
9. Can any of these questions be factually, truthfully, and Scripturally
demonstrated?
Monday, June 22, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
What Pastors are supposed to consider when developing a sermon
Everyone knows good preaching - when they hear it. The problem often is, "good preaching" is rarely defined, but is almost always based upon each person's preferences. The pastor, who normally has to go through some sort of training, whether Bible school and/or seminary, is taught how to preach. The problem there is, "good preaching" is defined by the instructor and the books he uses as references.
I had three professors in seminary, and two in my doctoral program, who taught preaching (homiletics is the technical term). Each of the three seminary professors had quite different philosophies and methodologies for preaching. They did, however, agree on the basics of communication (voice projection, speed, volume, posture, eye contact, etc.).
In three of the churches I served there were many armchair professionals who insisted on critiquing (sometimes not a bad thing), criticizing (always a bad thing), or telling me how I ought to preach - and this coming from those who never studied the subject of preaching, or learned the art of communication, or had any experience in either!
About seven years ago, armchair professionals who were also elders, embarked on a mission to make me the best preacher ever. Problem was, they had not defined what good preaching was, let alone what best preaching was, and they had no training in either preaching or communication. They did know that they wanted me to preach like their favorite preacher; and they each had one who were about as different from the others as you could get.
They did me a favor, though. It provoked me to go back and get my doctorate, take additional classes in preaching and communication, and embark on a three year mission to learn all I could about both subjects and perhaps improve in the skill and art of "good" preaching.
By the end of those three years, I had read well over fifty books, subscribed to several magazines, evaluated famous and popular preachers, read well-known sermons of those good but dead guys (and some living ones too), and kept notes and journals. I can say that there was indeed improvement! About a 5% improvement, if one could actually measure it that way.
From this rigorous time of training I put together all the main points from all the resources. Thankfully there was quite a bit of redundancy, otherwise this blog would be about a thousand or so pages.
Well, the first point of all this is to relate how difficult preaching really is for the majority of pastors (and other ministers). It's tough! The second point is to share what things a person is supposed to consider when putting together a sermon or message, and what is supposed to be done while communicating the message. So, with that, I give you a summary of those must have considerations:
1. Read the Scripture with expression
2. Read the Scripture with clarity
3. Give an introduction:
a. That engages and gets the attention of the audience
b. Lays the foundation for the sermon theme
c. Makes obvious the sermon theme
d. Arouses their interest
e. Touches upon a need directly or indirectly
f. Is it relevant?
g. Does it have a ministry sentence (summary and main point that includes what the expected response should be and an element of appeal or challenge).
4. Make sure this is expository preaching
Which is “Bible-centered preaching. That is, it is handling the text ‘in such a way that its real and essential meaning as it existed in the mind of the particular Biblical writer and as it exists in the light of the over-all context of Scripture is made plain and applied to the present-day needs of the hearers.’” (S. Greidanus)
5. Concentrate on the original message, but recognize the discontinuity of progressive revelation, kingdom history and culture.
6. Does the sermon recognize the overarching continuity?
a. One faithful God
b. One covenant people
7. Focus upon the goal of the text
8. “To understand a text is to understand the question behind the text, the question that called the text into being” (Richard Palmer)
a. Redefine the specific issue
b. Search for the underlying principle
9. The form of the sermon
a. The main point of the sermon is clearly derived from the main point of the text
b. “An oral topical sentence must do far more. It must state the idea clearly, tersely, descriptively and formulaically so that not only does the thought become memorable by being part of a larger pattern; it must also have an intrinsic memorable quality in its own right, such as sharply descriptive nouns and verbs that make the milestones of the speech’s progression stand out clearly.” (Wilbur Ellsworth)
c. The sub-points of the sermon flow naturally from the main point and coordinate with each other? Are the transitions fluid, clear, obvious and helpful?
d. The content of the sub-points are adequately developed?
e. The content includes:
i. The person and work of Jesus Christ
ii. Salvation by grace in Christ alone
iii. An appeal to the conscience about sin and guilt
iv. A focus upon eternity
v. Accountability to God
vi. A call for a specific response of repentance and faith
f. The biblical passage is explained adequately?
g. Is it obvious that good exegesis has taken place?
h. Are the big themes of the Bible (God’s rule, covenant, grace, people, plan of redemption, His glory and the fulfillment of all these in Jesus Christ) reflected upon or touched by the sermon?
i. Does the original message to the original audience inform our current circumstances?
j. Use illustrations that help the audience get the point
k. Don’t use illustrations that detract from the main point
l. Does the sermon reflect the dialogical nature between God and his people?
m. Does the sermon convey the sense that the audience is one with the original hearers of the Scripture passage?
n. Does it employ gracious invitation?
o. Does is admonish with sober warnings?
p. Will it preach perseverance to believers?
10. Application
a. Is application spread throughout the text or is it placed at the end?
b. “What application does, then, is to “attach” to the simple interpretation of the passage the meaning for the congregation today in the context of their modern life situations…[w]hat this means is that not only must the preacher study the passage for its historical/grammatical meanings, but he also must:
i. Study the present situation(s) that the congregation faces,
ii. Study the various members of the congregation, who are facing it,
iii. Abstract the truth or principle that the Holy Spirit intended to teach from the passage,
iv. Discover how the writer applied this principle to his readers, and
v. Do the same today for his own congregation in their modern setting.” (Jay Adams)
c. Does the application flow from the text itself?
d. Does the application address people where they live?
i. Is it interesting?
ii. Is it for today?
iii. Does it address issues of the day?
e. Is the application evangelical (not moralistic), flowing from the grace of God in Christ?
f. Is the application specific, pointed and aimed at the conscience?
g. What difference will this sermon make?
h. Does it commend the Good News of God’s grace to the hearers?
i. Does the sermon take into consideration the various needs of the hearers in the congregation?
i. Unbelievers who are both ignorant and unteachable
ii. Some who are teachable, but yet ignorant
iii. Some who have knowledge, but are not as yet humbled…
iv. Some who are humbled
v. Some who believe…
vi. Some who have fallen…
vii. That the congregation is made up of mingled people (William Perkins in the Art of Prophecy)
j. Be careful not to communication that only the application of the text is relevant. “…[A]pplication is based on a proper comprehension of the passage’s meaning and they will probably not take the application to heart unless this is clear to them.” (Stuart)
11. The conclusion
a. Does it flow from the sermon?
b. Is it a well-rounded wrap-up of the sermon?
c. Is the purpose of the sermon obviously achieved?
d. Is the focus of the conclusion appropriate to the sermon?
e. Does it challenge the audience to think or do something specific?
12. Delivery and style:
a. Will it be effective (what is said and how it is said)
b. “Apart from life-related, biblical content we have nothing worth communicating; but without skillful delivery, we will not get our content across to the congregation. In order of significance the ingredients making up a sermon are thought, arrangement, language, voice and gesture. In priority of impressions, however, the order reverses.” (Haddon Robinson)
c. Preach in understandable vocabulary (be careful about using difficult theological terms unless you define them)
i. Is there varied and imaginative language?
ii. Is there sense appeal?
1. Is it visually effective?
2. Does it describe and employ the senses of taste, smell, see, hear, or feel? (Jay Adams)
3. Is there a vivid description?
4. Does it paint a picture for them?
d. Are the verbs active or passive? Is there action?
e. Consider verbal aspects:
i. Use good voice inflection and clarity
ii. Make sure the volume is varied and appropriate
iii. Is the voice clear and easy to listen to?
iv. Are there fresh or abundant metaphors, similes or good use of pictorial language?
v. Is there unnecessary verbiage?
vi. Does it respect everyone in the congregation, all levels of physical, mental and spiritual maturity?
f. Announce your points in the sermon only if is will help the audience understand or more clearly remember the Holy Spirit’s purpose of the text (Jay. Adams).
g. Is the sermon animated conversation?
h. Use appropriate body language
i. Do not lean on the pulpit
ii. Do not use any habitual physical actions that can be distracting
i. Is the overall appearance attractive or distracting?
j. Use facial gestures and expressions that are appropriate
k. Have good eye contact with the audience
l. Have a commanding presence in the pulpit
m. Is the sermon oral English or written English? (re: Jay Adams)
i. Oral English is more concrete, looser, less grammatically exact, more repetitious, more limited in use of vocabulary – especially in terms or jargon. It must be comprehended at the speaker’s rate – the first time over.
ii. Written English can be more compressed and concise, more technical.
iii. Is the sermon going to be presented in oral English or bookish English?
n. Consider the length of sermon (25-35 minutes):
i. “The true way to shorten a sermon is to make it more interesting” (H. W. Beecher)
ii. “Brevity may be the soul of wit, but the preacher is not a wit. A Christianity of short sermons is a Christianity of short fibre.” (P. T. Forsyth)
o. Is it relevant? Is the congregation involved?
i. Address general needs
ii. Address the whole person
iii. Use dialogue
iv. Use concrete and vivid language
p. Is there a love and zeal for preaching that at times can be described as a mania? (Acts 26:24; Jn. 10:20; 2 Cor. 5:13)?
q. Are you being authentic or trying to mimic someone else?
r. Take into consideration the manner of power preaching (Acts 4:29; 20:31)
i. Submit to the Holy Spirit in prayer
ii. Be full of zeal, intensity and boldness
iii. Proclaim with fear toward God and fearlessness toward man
iv. Anticipate God’s protection in the midst of suffering and opposition to the Word
v. Expect the Word to grow by God’s sovereign appointment
vi. Preach with compassion and tears (Acts 20:19,31)
13. Effectiveness
a. Speak with confidence and boldness
b. Speak with fire, conviction and unction
c. Will the sermon move or persuade the audience?
d. Was the audience taken into consideration? Think analytically about the audience:
i. How much do they know about the message?
ii. What, if any, are some misconceptions and/or prejudices that they may hold?
iii. What are some of the obstacles that may intrude in:
1. Communicating the message,
2. Persuading people of its truth, and/or
3. Motivating them to act on it?
iv. Are there any reasons why I might turn them off?
v. What technical terms will I need to use and to explain?
vi. How would I best illustrate the truth to this group?
1. What are the best areas from which to draw illustrations?
2. What sort of language should I use with this group to make my illustrations clear?
vii. What do I need to say in order to demonstrate how to implement the action(s) required?
viii. Is the audience varied enough in the above matters that I shall have to approach the question from more than one angle?
ix. Given the general spiritual condition of the congregation, how much truth can I communicate, and to what depth?
x. Is my problem with this group fundamentally to give them information, to persuade them to believe or disbelieve something (or both), or to get them to do what they already know and believe? Or is it a combination of two or more of the above? (Jay Adams)
e. Does the sermon consider that the people might be expectantly waiting for God to speak to their problem from it, or does it merely analyze the scriptural passage? (Jay Adams)
f. Will the sermon teach anything?
i. It is good, solid doctrine?
ii. Does it touch the mind?
iii. What will they know they did not know before?
iv. Will their faith be challenged?
g. Will the sermon offer hope?
i. Will it touch their lives?
ii. Will the sermon awaken wonderment?
iii. Is the preaching fresh and in a surprising way?
iv. Does it underscore the victory of the Kingdom of grace in our moment of time?
v. Does it tell them what is expected of them?
h. What kind of emotional response might the sermon evoke?
i. Is it warm or cold?
ii. Is there a sense of trust, courage, peace or guilt?
iii. Does it convey trust, assurance, confidence and love?
iv. Does it convey a sense of intimacy?
v. Does it speak to their personal relationship with Jesus Christ?
vi. Is it moving?
i. Is this an oral speech, a sermon? Or is it reading literacy? “Orality requires more use of illustrations, comparison, contrast and figurative language to stir the imagination and set up mental pictures in order for the listening ear to take in and process what is being heard.” (Wilbur Ellsworth)
j. If after people have listened to the sermon, will they come away anxious about themselves or reflecting on themselves? (D.M. Lloyd-Jones)
k. Does the sermon address the total person, so that the hearer becomes involved and knows that he has been dealt with and addressed by God through the preacher? (D.M. Lloyd-Jones)
l. Will this sermon humble the sinner?
i. Will this sermon exalt the Savior?
ii. Will this sermon promote holiness?
iii. Does this sermon glorify God?
14. Other considerations:
a. Does this sermon have the three essentials of truth, clarity and passion? (Dr. G. Campbell Morgan)
b. Does the sermon do justice to and profitable for the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:20, 27)?
c. Be sure that in all the sermon, from Old Testament and from the New – Christ and His death and resurrection condition everything else that is said. (Jay Adams)
d. Is the sermon Spirit-guided? (Jer. 1:9, 17: 26:2)
e. Is the sermon faithful to God (“…let him who has my word speak my word faithfully” Jer. 23:16, 28; Ez. 13:2,3).
f. Does the sermon “disturb the comfortable and comfort the disturbed?” (Rev. Chad Walsh) or “break a hard heart and heal a broken heart?” (John Newton).
g. Does it add to God’s Word (like the Pharisees) or subtract from it (like the Sadducees)?
h. Is there exposition, application and exhortation in the sermon (ex: Deut. 31:30; 32:44; Deut. 1:5; 4:1; 5:1-21; 8:1; 10:12ff)?
i. Does the sermon aim for corporate edification, unity, maturity and growth (Eph. 4)?
“…the explanation and application of the Word to the congregation of Christ in order to produce corporate preparation for service, unity of faith, maturity, growth and upbuilding.” (Rev. Peter Adam; p. 83).
j. Is this sound preaching or sound doctrine? “To be sound is to be healthy; healthy doctrine is doctrine which is not only true but also productive of godliness. Sound doctrine is healthy teaching; that is, it changes people’s lives.” (Peter Adam, p. 84).
k. Will this sermon help people to understand and receive Jesus Christ and Him crucified?
l. Recall that preaching well is not the objective, but rather the means to the end.
m. Is it theologically weighty and also pastorally appropriate?
n. Is the sermon tied to literacy or orality? “…when a listener to a speech or sermon is compelled to take careful and copious notes to comprehend and retain what the speaker has said, the result, whether consciously or not, is to return communication from orality to literacy as quickly as possible.” (Wilbur Ellsworth)
o. Don’t make the mistake of preaching the Gospel and hardly anything else but the Gospel, nor preach the rest of the counsel of God as if it were unrelated to the Gospel (Jay Adams)
p. Don’t preach in a way that resembles the lecture format by which aspiring young theologs almost exclusively are trained in seminaries. It may be fine for theological halls (at times), but it is not fine for the pulpit – IT IS NOT PREACHING! (Jay Adams).
q. Be careful not to “inadvertently convey the impression that the key to understanding the mind of God is found in the acquisition of an arsenal of highly technical and scientific skills. Over time men may come to regard the scriptures the way a biology student regards his proverbial frog; as a thing to dissect, rather than a source from which to hear God’s voice.” (A. G. Azurdia III)
r. Has regard been given to the “three essential principles of apostolic ministry…: the message, method, and means for ministry ordained by Jesus Christ? The divine message? Jesus Christ. The divine method? Authoritative proclamation. The divine means? The power of the Spirit of God.” (A. G. Azurdia III)
s. Which style of preaching is this: Reformational or Puritanical?
i. “For the Reformers, the whole sermon was application; what was added, attached, or folded in was done naturally, organically, as an integral part of the whole. From start to finish, as they interpreted the Scriptures for the congregation, at the same time, they preached what the text had to say about the people sitting before them. Application was made all along.
ii. In contrast, the Puritans exposited the text…they tacked on at the end of the sermon various and sundry ‘uses’ or ‘improvements on the text’ by way of application.” (Jay Adams)
iii. The form of the Puritan sermon would be Declaration, the Explanation, and the Application. The first two divisions were to convince the reason, while the last division was aimed at warming the heart’s affections into accepting the doctrine of the first division… The preacher’s aim should be first to convince the understanding and then to engage the heart. Light first, then heat.” (R. Bruce Bickel)
t. What is the aim? “If the aim of Christian preaching is more than intellectual enlightenment and moral reformation, but is, instead, the thorough-going transformation of people dead in trespasses and sins, then Christian preachers must rest their dependence solely upon the Spirit of the living God because such a transformation requires a power of an altogether supernatural kind. Stated simply, the power of the Holy Spirit is the sine qua non of gospel preaching, the one thing without which nothing else matters.” (Azurdia III)
u. Is the sermon merely expounding the text or does it preach Jesus – a living person with a living voice? (Wilbur Ellsworth).
v. Is the sermon a dissected transcript of the Biblical text rearranged into a lawyer’s brief with propositional truths? If so, is this faithful to the Scripture? (Don Wardlaw)
i. “If the text ‘makes its point’ in story form then we ought to seriously consider constructing a sermon that is faithful to the content and the form of the biblical text…” (D. Wardlaw)
ii. “…the goal is to study carefully the form of the text and how it, in its literary context, plays its part in carrying the message to its intended effect with the hearers…the example of miracle stories which ‘were designed to evoke a wow! from listeners. The wise preacher will guess that a turgid apologetic for miracles or, worse, any rational explanation of miracles may scuttle the sense of wow and, therefore, be homiletically inappropriate. If a passage wants to provoke amazement, it would seem homiletically respectful to aim at the effect.” (David Buttrick)
w. Don’ts:
i. Allegorize – searching beneath the literal meaning of a passage for the ‘real’ meaning.
ii. Spiritualize – discarding the earthly, physical, historical reality the text speaks about and crosses the gap with a spiritual analogy of that historical reality.
iii. Imitating – seeing biblical figures as merely individuals whose qualities we are to shun or mimic. It “tends to transform the biblical author’s description into prescription for today.” (S. Greidanus)
iv. Moralizing – “…means drawing moral inferences, usually things to do or become.” (Keck)
v. Apply “[u]nless you are convinced that it is the intention of the Scripture that it be applied in a certain way, no suggestion as to application can be confidently advanced.” (Douglas Stuart)
15. Personal considerations
a. Do I through this sermon serve God in Christ and the people well?
b. Is there humility, recognizing that in myself I am unable to speak for God? (Ex. 4:10ff)
c. Am I serving biblically?
d. “The Lord God has given me the tongue of a teacher, that I may know how to sustain the weary with a word. Morning by morning he wakens, wakens my ear to listen as those who are taught.” (Isa. 50:4)
e. Am I aware that it is God who makes me competent and sufficient to the task (2 Cor. 2:16; 3:5-6; 4:7)
f. Do I recall that I am powerless and that it is the Spirit and the Word that is effective?
g. Is the sermon preached from the heart to hearts?
h. Am I preaching this sermon as never sure to preach again, and as a dying man to dying men? (Richard Baxter)
i. Remember that “every passion in the preacher does not constitute unction. While it does not expel intellectual activity, authority, and will, it superfuses these elements of force with the love, the pity, the tenderness, the pure zeal, the seriousness, which the topics of redemption should shed upon the soul of a ransomed and sanctified sinner.” (Dabney)
I had three professors in seminary, and two in my doctoral program, who taught preaching (homiletics is the technical term). Each of the three seminary professors had quite different philosophies and methodologies for preaching. They did, however, agree on the basics of communication (voice projection, speed, volume, posture, eye contact, etc.).
In three of the churches I served there were many armchair professionals who insisted on critiquing (sometimes not a bad thing), criticizing (always a bad thing), or telling me how I ought to preach - and this coming from those who never studied the subject of preaching, or learned the art of communication, or had any experience in either!
About seven years ago, armchair professionals who were also elders, embarked on a mission to make me the best preacher ever. Problem was, they had not defined what good preaching was, let alone what best preaching was, and they had no training in either preaching or communication. They did know that they wanted me to preach like their favorite preacher; and they each had one who were about as different from the others as you could get.
They did me a favor, though. It provoked me to go back and get my doctorate, take additional classes in preaching and communication, and embark on a three year mission to learn all I could about both subjects and perhaps improve in the skill and art of "good" preaching.
By the end of those three years, I had read well over fifty books, subscribed to several magazines, evaluated famous and popular preachers, read well-known sermons of those good but dead guys (and some living ones too), and kept notes and journals. I can say that there was indeed improvement! About a 5% improvement, if one could actually measure it that way.
From this rigorous time of training I put together all the main points from all the resources. Thankfully there was quite a bit of redundancy, otherwise this blog would be about a thousand or so pages.
Well, the first point of all this is to relate how difficult preaching really is for the majority of pastors (and other ministers). It's tough! The second point is to share what things a person is supposed to consider when putting together a sermon or message, and what is supposed to be done while communicating the message. So, with that, I give you a summary of those must have considerations:
1. Read the Scripture with expression
2. Read the Scripture with clarity
3. Give an introduction:
a. That engages and gets the attention of the audience
b. Lays the foundation for the sermon theme
c. Makes obvious the sermon theme
d. Arouses their interest
e. Touches upon a need directly or indirectly
f. Is it relevant?
g. Does it have a ministry sentence (summary and main point that includes what the expected response should be and an element of appeal or challenge).
4. Make sure this is expository preaching
Which is “Bible-centered preaching. That is, it is handling the text ‘in such a way that its real and essential meaning as it existed in the mind of the particular Biblical writer and as it exists in the light of the over-all context of Scripture is made plain and applied to the present-day needs of the hearers.’” (S. Greidanus)
5. Concentrate on the original message, but recognize the discontinuity of progressive revelation, kingdom history and culture.
6. Does the sermon recognize the overarching continuity?
a. One faithful God
b. One covenant people
7. Focus upon the goal of the text
8. “To understand a text is to understand the question behind the text, the question that called the text into being” (Richard Palmer)
a. Redefine the specific issue
b. Search for the underlying principle
9. The form of the sermon
a. The main point of the sermon is clearly derived from the main point of the text
b. “An oral topical sentence must do far more. It must state the idea clearly, tersely, descriptively and formulaically so that not only does the thought become memorable by being part of a larger pattern; it must also have an intrinsic memorable quality in its own right, such as sharply descriptive nouns and verbs that make the milestones of the speech’s progression stand out clearly.” (Wilbur Ellsworth)
c. The sub-points of the sermon flow naturally from the main point and coordinate with each other? Are the transitions fluid, clear, obvious and helpful?
d. The content of the sub-points are adequately developed?
e. The content includes:
i. The person and work of Jesus Christ
ii. Salvation by grace in Christ alone
iii. An appeal to the conscience about sin and guilt
iv. A focus upon eternity
v. Accountability to God
vi. A call for a specific response of repentance and faith
f. The biblical passage is explained adequately?
g. Is it obvious that good exegesis has taken place?
h. Are the big themes of the Bible (God’s rule, covenant, grace, people, plan of redemption, His glory and the fulfillment of all these in Jesus Christ) reflected upon or touched by the sermon?
i. Does the original message to the original audience inform our current circumstances?
j. Use illustrations that help the audience get the point
k. Don’t use illustrations that detract from the main point
l. Does the sermon reflect the dialogical nature between God and his people?
m. Does the sermon convey the sense that the audience is one with the original hearers of the Scripture passage?
n. Does it employ gracious invitation?
o. Does is admonish with sober warnings?
p. Will it preach perseverance to believers?
10. Application
a. Is application spread throughout the text or is it placed at the end?
b. “What application does, then, is to “attach” to the simple interpretation of the passage the meaning for the congregation today in the context of their modern life situations…[w]hat this means is that not only must the preacher study the passage for its historical/grammatical meanings, but he also must:
i. Study the present situation(s) that the congregation faces,
ii. Study the various members of the congregation, who are facing it,
iii. Abstract the truth or principle that the Holy Spirit intended to teach from the passage,
iv. Discover how the writer applied this principle to his readers, and
v. Do the same today for his own congregation in their modern setting.” (Jay Adams)
c. Does the application flow from the text itself?
d. Does the application address people where they live?
i. Is it interesting?
ii. Is it for today?
iii. Does it address issues of the day?
e. Is the application evangelical (not moralistic), flowing from the grace of God in Christ?
f. Is the application specific, pointed and aimed at the conscience?
g. What difference will this sermon make?
h. Does it commend the Good News of God’s grace to the hearers?
i. Does the sermon take into consideration the various needs of the hearers in the congregation?
i. Unbelievers who are both ignorant and unteachable
ii. Some who are teachable, but yet ignorant
iii. Some who have knowledge, but are not as yet humbled…
iv. Some who are humbled
v. Some who believe…
vi. Some who have fallen…
vii. That the congregation is made up of mingled people (William Perkins in the Art of Prophecy)
j. Be careful not to communication that only the application of the text is relevant. “…[A]pplication is based on a proper comprehension of the passage’s meaning and they will probably not take the application to heart unless this is clear to them.” (Stuart)
11. The conclusion
a. Does it flow from the sermon?
b. Is it a well-rounded wrap-up of the sermon?
c. Is the purpose of the sermon obviously achieved?
d. Is the focus of the conclusion appropriate to the sermon?
e. Does it challenge the audience to think or do something specific?
12. Delivery and style:
a. Will it be effective (what is said and how it is said)
b. “Apart from life-related, biblical content we have nothing worth communicating; but without skillful delivery, we will not get our content across to the congregation. In order of significance the ingredients making up a sermon are thought, arrangement, language, voice and gesture. In priority of impressions, however, the order reverses.” (Haddon Robinson)
c. Preach in understandable vocabulary (be careful about using difficult theological terms unless you define them)
i. Is there varied and imaginative language?
ii. Is there sense appeal?
1. Is it visually effective?
2. Does it describe and employ the senses of taste, smell, see, hear, or feel? (Jay Adams)
3. Is there a vivid description?
4. Does it paint a picture for them?
d. Are the verbs active or passive? Is there action?
e. Consider verbal aspects:
i. Use good voice inflection and clarity
ii. Make sure the volume is varied and appropriate
iii. Is the voice clear and easy to listen to?
iv. Are there fresh or abundant metaphors, similes or good use of pictorial language?
v. Is there unnecessary verbiage?
vi. Does it respect everyone in the congregation, all levels of physical, mental and spiritual maturity?
f. Announce your points in the sermon only if is will help the audience understand or more clearly remember the Holy Spirit’s purpose of the text (Jay. Adams).
g. Is the sermon animated conversation?
h. Use appropriate body language
i. Do not lean on the pulpit
ii. Do not use any habitual physical actions that can be distracting
i. Is the overall appearance attractive or distracting?
j. Use facial gestures and expressions that are appropriate
k. Have good eye contact with the audience
l. Have a commanding presence in the pulpit
m. Is the sermon oral English or written English? (re: Jay Adams)
i. Oral English is more concrete, looser, less grammatically exact, more repetitious, more limited in use of vocabulary – especially in terms or jargon. It must be comprehended at the speaker’s rate – the first time over.
ii. Written English can be more compressed and concise, more technical.
iii. Is the sermon going to be presented in oral English or bookish English?
n. Consider the length of sermon (25-35 minutes):
i. “The true way to shorten a sermon is to make it more interesting” (H. W. Beecher)
ii. “Brevity may be the soul of wit, but the preacher is not a wit. A Christianity of short sermons is a Christianity of short fibre.” (P. T. Forsyth)
o. Is it relevant? Is the congregation involved?
i. Address general needs
ii. Address the whole person
iii. Use dialogue
iv. Use concrete and vivid language
p. Is there a love and zeal for preaching that at times can be described as a mania? (Acts 26:24; Jn. 10:20; 2 Cor. 5:13)?
q. Are you being authentic or trying to mimic someone else?
r. Take into consideration the manner of power preaching (Acts 4:29; 20:31)
i. Submit to the Holy Spirit in prayer
ii. Be full of zeal, intensity and boldness
iii. Proclaim with fear toward God and fearlessness toward man
iv. Anticipate God’s protection in the midst of suffering and opposition to the Word
v. Expect the Word to grow by God’s sovereign appointment
vi. Preach with compassion and tears (Acts 20:19,31)
13. Effectiveness
a. Speak with confidence and boldness
b. Speak with fire, conviction and unction
c. Will the sermon move or persuade the audience?
d. Was the audience taken into consideration? Think analytically about the audience:
i. How much do they know about the message?
ii. What, if any, are some misconceptions and/or prejudices that they may hold?
iii. What are some of the obstacles that may intrude in:
1. Communicating the message,
2. Persuading people of its truth, and/or
3. Motivating them to act on it?
iv. Are there any reasons why I might turn them off?
v. What technical terms will I need to use and to explain?
vi. How would I best illustrate the truth to this group?
1. What are the best areas from which to draw illustrations?
2. What sort of language should I use with this group to make my illustrations clear?
vii. What do I need to say in order to demonstrate how to implement the action(s) required?
viii. Is the audience varied enough in the above matters that I shall have to approach the question from more than one angle?
ix. Given the general spiritual condition of the congregation, how much truth can I communicate, and to what depth?
x. Is my problem with this group fundamentally to give them information, to persuade them to believe or disbelieve something (or both), or to get them to do what they already know and believe? Or is it a combination of two or more of the above? (Jay Adams)
e. Does the sermon consider that the people might be expectantly waiting for God to speak to their problem from it, or does it merely analyze the scriptural passage? (Jay Adams)
f. Will the sermon teach anything?
i. It is good, solid doctrine?
ii. Does it touch the mind?
iii. What will they know they did not know before?
iv. Will their faith be challenged?
g. Will the sermon offer hope?
i. Will it touch their lives?
ii. Will the sermon awaken wonderment?
iii. Is the preaching fresh and in a surprising way?
iv. Does it underscore the victory of the Kingdom of grace in our moment of time?
v. Does it tell them what is expected of them?
h. What kind of emotional response might the sermon evoke?
i. Is it warm or cold?
ii. Is there a sense of trust, courage, peace or guilt?
iii. Does it convey trust, assurance, confidence and love?
iv. Does it convey a sense of intimacy?
v. Does it speak to their personal relationship with Jesus Christ?
vi. Is it moving?
i. Is this an oral speech, a sermon? Or is it reading literacy? “Orality requires more use of illustrations, comparison, contrast and figurative language to stir the imagination and set up mental pictures in order for the listening ear to take in and process what is being heard.” (Wilbur Ellsworth)
j. If after people have listened to the sermon, will they come away anxious about themselves or reflecting on themselves? (D.M. Lloyd-Jones)
k. Does the sermon address the total person, so that the hearer becomes involved and knows that he has been dealt with and addressed by God through the preacher? (D.M. Lloyd-Jones)
l. Will this sermon humble the sinner?
i. Will this sermon exalt the Savior?
ii. Will this sermon promote holiness?
iii. Does this sermon glorify God?
14. Other considerations:
a. Does this sermon have the three essentials of truth, clarity and passion? (Dr. G. Campbell Morgan)
b. Does the sermon do justice to and profitable for the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:20, 27)?
c. Be sure that in all the sermon, from Old Testament and from the New – Christ and His death and resurrection condition everything else that is said. (Jay Adams)
d. Is the sermon Spirit-guided? (Jer. 1:9, 17: 26:2)
e. Is the sermon faithful to God (“…let him who has my word speak my word faithfully” Jer. 23:16, 28; Ez. 13:2,3).
f. Does the sermon “disturb the comfortable and comfort the disturbed?” (Rev. Chad Walsh) or “break a hard heart and heal a broken heart?” (John Newton).
g. Does it add to God’s Word (like the Pharisees) or subtract from it (like the Sadducees)?
h. Is there exposition, application and exhortation in the sermon (ex: Deut. 31:30; 32:44; Deut. 1:5; 4:1; 5:1-21; 8:1; 10:12ff)?
i. Does the sermon aim for corporate edification, unity, maturity and growth (Eph. 4)?
“…the explanation and application of the Word to the congregation of Christ in order to produce corporate preparation for service, unity of faith, maturity, growth and upbuilding.” (Rev. Peter Adam; p. 83).
j. Is this sound preaching or sound doctrine? “To be sound is to be healthy; healthy doctrine is doctrine which is not only true but also productive of godliness. Sound doctrine is healthy teaching; that is, it changes people’s lives.” (Peter Adam, p. 84).
k. Will this sermon help people to understand and receive Jesus Christ and Him crucified?
l. Recall that preaching well is not the objective, but rather the means to the end.
m. Is it theologically weighty and also pastorally appropriate?
n. Is the sermon tied to literacy or orality? “…when a listener to a speech or sermon is compelled to take careful and copious notes to comprehend and retain what the speaker has said, the result, whether consciously or not, is to return communication from orality to literacy as quickly as possible.” (Wilbur Ellsworth)
o. Don’t make the mistake of preaching the Gospel and hardly anything else but the Gospel, nor preach the rest of the counsel of God as if it were unrelated to the Gospel (Jay Adams)
p. Don’t preach in a way that resembles the lecture format by which aspiring young theologs almost exclusively are trained in seminaries. It may be fine for theological halls (at times), but it is not fine for the pulpit – IT IS NOT PREACHING! (Jay Adams).
q. Be careful not to “inadvertently convey the impression that the key to understanding the mind of God is found in the acquisition of an arsenal of highly technical and scientific skills. Over time men may come to regard the scriptures the way a biology student regards his proverbial frog; as a thing to dissect, rather than a source from which to hear God’s voice.” (A. G. Azurdia III)
r. Has regard been given to the “three essential principles of apostolic ministry…: the message, method, and means for ministry ordained by Jesus Christ? The divine message? Jesus Christ. The divine method? Authoritative proclamation. The divine means? The power of the Spirit of God.” (A. G. Azurdia III)
s. Which style of preaching is this: Reformational or Puritanical?
i. “For the Reformers, the whole sermon was application; what was added, attached, or folded in was done naturally, organically, as an integral part of the whole. From start to finish, as they interpreted the Scriptures for the congregation, at the same time, they preached what the text had to say about the people sitting before them. Application was made all along.
ii. In contrast, the Puritans exposited the text…they tacked on at the end of the sermon various and sundry ‘uses’ or ‘improvements on the text’ by way of application.” (Jay Adams)
iii. The form of the Puritan sermon would be Declaration, the Explanation, and the Application. The first two divisions were to convince the reason, while the last division was aimed at warming the heart’s affections into accepting the doctrine of the first division… The preacher’s aim should be first to convince the understanding and then to engage the heart. Light first, then heat.” (R. Bruce Bickel)
t. What is the aim? “If the aim of Christian preaching is more than intellectual enlightenment and moral reformation, but is, instead, the thorough-going transformation of people dead in trespasses and sins, then Christian preachers must rest their dependence solely upon the Spirit of the living God because such a transformation requires a power of an altogether supernatural kind. Stated simply, the power of the Holy Spirit is the sine qua non of gospel preaching, the one thing without which nothing else matters.” (Azurdia III)
u. Is the sermon merely expounding the text or does it preach Jesus – a living person with a living voice? (Wilbur Ellsworth).
v. Is the sermon a dissected transcript of the Biblical text rearranged into a lawyer’s brief with propositional truths? If so, is this faithful to the Scripture? (Don Wardlaw)
i. “If the text ‘makes its point’ in story form then we ought to seriously consider constructing a sermon that is faithful to the content and the form of the biblical text…” (D. Wardlaw)
ii. “…the goal is to study carefully the form of the text and how it, in its literary context, plays its part in carrying the message to its intended effect with the hearers…the example of miracle stories which ‘were designed to evoke a wow! from listeners. The wise preacher will guess that a turgid apologetic for miracles or, worse, any rational explanation of miracles may scuttle the sense of wow and, therefore, be homiletically inappropriate. If a passage wants to provoke amazement, it would seem homiletically respectful to aim at the effect.” (David Buttrick)
w. Don’ts:
i. Allegorize – searching beneath the literal meaning of a passage for the ‘real’ meaning.
ii. Spiritualize – discarding the earthly, physical, historical reality the text speaks about and crosses the gap with a spiritual analogy of that historical reality.
iii. Imitating – seeing biblical figures as merely individuals whose qualities we are to shun or mimic. It “tends to transform the biblical author’s description into prescription for today.” (S. Greidanus)
iv. Moralizing – “…means drawing moral inferences, usually things to do or become.” (Keck)
v. Apply “[u]nless you are convinced that it is the intention of the Scripture that it be applied in a certain way, no suggestion as to application can be confidently advanced.” (Douglas Stuart)
15. Personal considerations
a. Do I through this sermon serve God in Christ and the people well?
b. Is there humility, recognizing that in myself I am unable to speak for God? (Ex. 4:10ff)
c. Am I serving biblically?
d. “The Lord God has given me the tongue of a teacher, that I may know how to sustain the weary with a word. Morning by morning he wakens, wakens my ear to listen as those who are taught.” (Isa. 50:4)
e. Am I aware that it is God who makes me competent and sufficient to the task (2 Cor. 2:16; 3:5-6; 4:7)
f. Do I recall that I am powerless and that it is the Spirit and the Word that is effective?
g. Is the sermon preached from the heart to hearts?
h. Am I preaching this sermon as never sure to preach again, and as a dying man to dying men? (Richard Baxter)
i. Remember that “every passion in the preacher does not constitute unction. While it does not expel intellectual activity, authority, and will, it superfuses these elements of force with the love, the pity, the tenderness, the pure zeal, the seriousness, which the topics of redemption should shed upon the soul of a ransomed and sanctified sinner.” (Dabney)
Friday, January 2, 2009
A Pastor and the Elders Beating (woops, Meeting)
The month before the elders confronted the pastor about his and his wife’s decision regarding schooling options for their child, and where they told the pastor he needed to control his wife’s speech, these elders brought up another concern of theirs. Specifically, they noticed that he was under stress and in their opinion that was sinful and a mark of a bad leader.
“We are concerned that you are burdened down with something. People have noticed. The trustees have even talked about how you seem to be stressed and burdened. It shouldn’t have to be a topic for discussion. It’s causing you to be ineffective” Elder Claude declared. He then proceeded to bring up another matter of concern to them: “We believe you and your wife should get counseling.” Quite puzzled the pastor asked, “For what?”
“You and your wife take separate vacations. I have to say that that is selfish and unloving. You are not loving your wife.”
Now quite troubled by the two accusations, he paused to collect his rattled thoughts. “What do you mean I am unloving?” he defended.
“Who ever heard of a husband and wife taking separate vacations?” said the other elder. “I’ve never heard of such a thing. It’s not normal. Something must be wrong!”
“Plenty of couples take time away! It’s not that unusual!” The pastor was too befuddled to think and respond to their judgment. But that was beside the point. Of the four weeks allotted vacation time the pastor would often take five or so days to be alone. The remaining three or so weeks was spent vacationing with the family. Sometimes the pastor’s wife would take off for several days to visit her family in another state, or take their child on a special trip. The pastor determined that something else was going on here since the elder’s wife also took trips to see her relatives in another state. In fact, most of the couples in the church practiced the same thing, so the pastor could not see what the real issue was.
The elder leaned toward the pastor with a look of compassion, “It would be good for Frank to come and meet with us to strategize how to deal with your problems with you. I suggest that you call and have him come to meet with you and your wife and then with us.” Frank was a seasoned pastor and counselor.
The lead elder waited for the pastor to respond - for about twenty seconds. “No, we need to insist that you meet with Frank,” as he turns again to look at the other elder and continues, “So, Herb, if you concur…” turning back to face the pastor, “We direct you to contact Frank and arrange for meetings with him!” Now the pastor was stunned. He couldn’t think through the implications or didn’t know if they had the authority to order the pastor to see a counselor, let alone a particular counselor. Sheepishly he nodded in the affirmative. The meeting ended shortly thereafter.
Over the next couple of weeks the elder took the initiative and arranged a meeting with Frank. He told the session that it was urgent for all of them to meet with Frank. But the week before the arranged meeting the pastor called for a special meeting. The pastor had consulted with several other pastors and counselors. What these two elders were wanting appeared quite irregular. At minimum they had no authority to order the pastor to do something that violated his conscience. So he determined to try and dialog with the elders to resolve the issue.
“Are you denying that you appear burdened and stressed?” the elder asked, five minutes into the meeting. “Two of our trustees noticed you’re stressed out and brought it to our attention at a meeting.”
“I’m not denying it at all. What is so wrong that trustees or anyone else should notice?” replied the Pastor.
The question was met with silence. “If they were so concerned, why did they not come to me first? That’s the proper and biblical thing to do.” More silence. “If it is such a big problem, why did you two not just come to me personally and ask if there was anything wrong, or if there was something you could do to encourage me?”
“That’s why we need Frank to come and help sort this out when he meets with us” said the dominant elder.
“Are there any particular things about me or about my being stressed that are of such a great concern to you that you had to order me to get counseling?” the pastor inquired.
“Yes. There is a list.”
“Could you not just simply tell me? Why not just help me as a brother and friend rather than making accusations and imposing some counselor I don’t want to see upon me? Why not start now?”
“Being stressed and burdened is a sin. It is wrong to let other people see you, as a pastor, stressed. Besides, you are to bring your burdens to the elders, which you haven’t done.” declared the elder.
“A sin? What?” said an astonished pastor. “What’s going on here? Why the urgency? Why do you believe we as a session must meet with Frank? What’s the objective here?” insisted the pastor.
“We’re very concerned for you ministry. We love you and want to see you grow in your ministry and be assisted in every way possible. Perhaps we can help you see areas in which to better you in ministry, to seek counsel to better you in your work. We believe it is best to discuss this matter in formal counseling.”
“I concur.” piped up the quiet elder.
“Well and good, but that is NOT what you originally presented. You brought up the matter of me being stressed and burdened and now say it is a sin and …”
“Do you deny you are stressed?” objected the elder.
“Not at all. Is being stressed a problem in itself? Am I sinning in any particular way?”
The elder returned, “Hmmm, no. I don’t know. But it is affecting your ministry.” He went on to explain how being stressed is the mark of a bad leader.
“How so? In what way?”
“That is what we need to talk about in the presence of a counselor. We urged you to have this meeting with Frank and us to work through these things in order for us to learn how to best help and assist you in ministry. Second, to learn as a session how to communicate with one another.”
A dialog ensued rehearsing the past few meetings.
Pastor: “You still have not given me any specific issues as to what you intend to bring up with Frank. Do you have particulars written down?”
“No.”
“But you have concerns you’ve registered mentally?”
“Yes.”
“So why can’t you divulge them to me now? We need to be biblical here.”
Elder: “Are you saying you don’t want counsel?”
The dialog continued along this vein without resolution.
“I’m willing to tell you in the presence of godly counsel…” defended the elder. “There are areas in your ministry that would benefit from Frank’s counsel. Are you saying that you can’t benefit from counsel? I thought Frank was someone you admired?” explained the elder.
“I do. But not when my hand is forced to get counsel about some nebulous matters. You are not making it clear to me at all what your concerns are and what the objective of the meeting is?”
Silence.
“You already agreed to the meeting with Frank. You can’t back out now.”
“That is true I did agree to meet – under duress! Yet I have had time to seek other counsel with pastors and counselors. I’ve had time to think this whole thing through. There is something going on here that is very troubling to me. I am not willing to come to some meeting where the two of you wish to sit down with a counselor of your choice and begin to accuse me of things, or begin to correct me about these so-called areas of concerns or sins. I refuse to be blindsided. I’ve been there and done that and vowed never to go through that again. And it is not the process of Matthew 18 and it is not acceptable for you to order me to do something that violates my conscience.” clarified the pastor.
Silence.
It seemed a trifle matter. Why not just sit with the elders and the counselor and get it over with? The pastor did not want to get into the history of his previous encounters with Frank. Pastor-counselor Frank had been helpful in the past about church matters and even some personal issues. However, Claude and the elder had a particularly close relationship, and the manner and language the elder was using, such as ‘directing’ or ordering the pastor to be counseled was Frank’s mode of operation. It was clear the elder had been told what to do by Frank. He seemed to be calling the shots. At the church where Frank served it was a practice that when he or the elders ordered someone to get counseling and they refused they would proceed with charges and put the individual under discipline. Many had gone through that agony at their church. This pastor did not trust the men and feared things would get worse by inviting Frank; especially since the elder was keeping particulars a secret and was declaring stress to be sin.”
“I don’t see the problem. Why are you changing your mind now? Why the resistance? You seem to be very defensive.”
“Of course I’m defensive! You are putting me in an awkward situation. You’ve made statements about me, my wife, my child and schooling, and now about stress and being defensive as sins? These are all problematic for me.”
The elder then proceeded to declare that the pastor had an exaggerated defensiveness and it was sinful. The list of sins were slowly being divulged. Getting frustrated the pastor announced he strongly objected meeting with Claude under the circumstances.
“I take note of your objection to that…So are you saying you will NOT meet with session and Frank this Thursday?” the elder asked.
“No. Not under these circumstances!”
The elder now red faced and surprised pronounced, “I’m stunned. You will not meet with the elders if we ordered you to?”
“Especially so. I deny that you have any right to do that whatsoever.”
“You will not receive a charge to you to meet for a session with Frank?”
“No!!”
“I don’t know what to say?” (long pause) “Why not? Even if we made it official or brought a charge against you?” the elder insisted.
Quite saddened and yet angry, the pastor said, “Go ahead. You have no foundation to stand on in this! I’ve already consulted with our denominational parliamentarians. Let me say again, here is the proper way to deal with this…” the pastor outlined what he had said before, instructing more carefully on Matthew 18, but putting special emphasis upon how much more effective the elders would be if they simply came to him informally and asked what things were burdening him and how they might be able to come alongside and help.
The elders and pastor studied each other. It was an impasse; that is until the elder changed his tact. He broke the silence, “We need to know how to work more effectively together as a session. This is a perceived need on session’s behalf. Can you agree we can stand to improve?”
“Of course we can always improve. This is fine for counsel, but this is not the matter you brought up.”
The elder, “We believe that there are areas in your ministry that could benefit from session’s encouragement. Are we effective in encouraging you? Do you think we encourage you in your ministry?”
Laughing, the pastor remarked, “Not at all!”
“So there is another thing we all could benefit.”
“It is my preference to address any other issues in the presence of Frank. Can you not agree that we all could use his help in working through communication, or encouragement and other things too?”
“Perhaps.”
The elder pleaded, “Will you please, for the sake of our relationship, the sake of your ministry, the sake of our effectiveness as a session, for the sake of this church, consider meeting together with us and Frank?”
There was a very long pause as the pastor was trying to contemplate his proposal.
“If you don’t want his counsel about the problem with your wife and child or schooling we can accept that. You can seek anyone you wish. This is for us and our sake. I’m asking you to do this.”
Another long pause. Given what the elder had spelled out and the very nature of the conversation certainly underscored a big problem here. On that basis his argument was legitimate.
Against his better judgment the pastor gave in. “I VERY reluctantly agree to the meeting with Frank this Thursday. You must note that those areas you mentioned are off limits and will not be discussed….”
Both elders sighed with relief. The one sat back in his chair while the leader smiled and said, “Thank you. Will you call Frank and confirm the meeting or should I?”
“I most certainly will talk with him about this.”
After prayer the meeting adjourned. The pastor did call Frank and confirm the time and place of the meeting, but he was also very candid about his reluctance and the reasons why. His intuition would later turn out to be correct.
“We are concerned that you are burdened down with something. People have noticed. The trustees have even talked about how you seem to be stressed and burdened. It shouldn’t have to be a topic for discussion. It’s causing you to be ineffective” Elder Claude declared. He then proceeded to bring up another matter of concern to them: “We believe you and your wife should get counseling.” Quite puzzled the pastor asked, “For what?”
“You and your wife take separate vacations. I have to say that that is selfish and unloving. You are not loving your wife.”
Now quite troubled by the two accusations, he paused to collect his rattled thoughts. “What do you mean I am unloving?” he defended.
“Who ever heard of a husband and wife taking separate vacations?” said the other elder. “I’ve never heard of such a thing. It’s not normal. Something must be wrong!”
“Plenty of couples take time away! It’s not that unusual!” The pastor was too befuddled to think and respond to their judgment. But that was beside the point. Of the four weeks allotted vacation time the pastor would often take five or so days to be alone. The remaining three or so weeks was spent vacationing with the family. Sometimes the pastor’s wife would take off for several days to visit her family in another state, or take their child on a special trip. The pastor determined that something else was going on here since the elder’s wife also took trips to see her relatives in another state. In fact, most of the couples in the church practiced the same thing, so the pastor could not see what the real issue was.
The elder leaned toward the pastor with a look of compassion, “It would be good for Frank to come and meet with us to strategize how to deal with your problems with you. I suggest that you call and have him come to meet with you and your wife and then with us.” Frank was a seasoned pastor and counselor.
The lead elder waited for the pastor to respond - for about twenty seconds. “No, we need to insist that you meet with Frank,” as he turns again to look at the other elder and continues, “So, Herb, if you concur…” turning back to face the pastor, “We direct you to contact Frank and arrange for meetings with him!” Now the pastor was stunned. He couldn’t think through the implications or didn’t know if they had the authority to order the pastor to see a counselor, let alone a particular counselor. Sheepishly he nodded in the affirmative. The meeting ended shortly thereafter.
Over the next couple of weeks the elder took the initiative and arranged a meeting with Frank. He told the session that it was urgent for all of them to meet with Frank. But the week before the arranged meeting the pastor called for a special meeting. The pastor had consulted with several other pastors and counselors. What these two elders were wanting appeared quite irregular. At minimum they had no authority to order the pastor to do something that violated his conscience. So he determined to try and dialog with the elders to resolve the issue.
“Are you denying that you appear burdened and stressed?” the elder asked, five minutes into the meeting. “Two of our trustees noticed you’re stressed out and brought it to our attention at a meeting.”
“I’m not denying it at all. What is so wrong that trustees or anyone else should notice?” replied the Pastor.
The question was met with silence. “If they were so concerned, why did they not come to me first? That’s the proper and biblical thing to do.” More silence. “If it is such a big problem, why did you two not just come to me personally and ask if there was anything wrong, or if there was something you could do to encourage me?”
“That’s why we need Frank to come and help sort this out when he meets with us” said the dominant elder.
“Are there any particular things about me or about my being stressed that are of such a great concern to you that you had to order me to get counseling?” the pastor inquired.
“Yes. There is a list.”
“Could you not just simply tell me? Why not just help me as a brother and friend rather than making accusations and imposing some counselor I don’t want to see upon me? Why not start now?”
“Being stressed and burdened is a sin. It is wrong to let other people see you, as a pastor, stressed. Besides, you are to bring your burdens to the elders, which you haven’t done.” declared the elder.
“A sin? What?” said an astonished pastor. “What’s going on here? Why the urgency? Why do you believe we as a session must meet with Frank? What’s the objective here?” insisted the pastor.
“We’re very concerned for you ministry. We love you and want to see you grow in your ministry and be assisted in every way possible. Perhaps we can help you see areas in which to better you in ministry, to seek counsel to better you in your work. We believe it is best to discuss this matter in formal counseling.”
“I concur.” piped up the quiet elder.
“Well and good, but that is NOT what you originally presented. You brought up the matter of me being stressed and burdened and now say it is a sin and …”
“Do you deny you are stressed?” objected the elder.
“Not at all. Is being stressed a problem in itself? Am I sinning in any particular way?”
The elder returned, “Hmmm, no. I don’t know. But it is affecting your ministry.” He went on to explain how being stressed is the mark of a bad leader.
“How so? In what way?”
“That is what we need to talk about in the presence of a counselor. We urged you to have this meeting with Frank and us to work through these things in order for us to learn how to best help and assist you in ministry. Second, to learn as a session how to communicate with one another.”
A dialog ensued rehearsing the past few meetings.
Pastor: “You still have not given me any specific issues as to what you intend to bring up with Frank. Do you have particulars written down?”
“No.”
“But you have concerns you’ve registered mentally?”
“Yes.”
“So why can’t you divulge them to me now? We need to be biblical here.”
Elder: “Are you saying you don’t want counsel?”
The dialog continued along this vein without resolution.
“I’m willing to tell you in the presence of godly counsel…” defended the elder. “There are areas in your ministry that would benefit from Frank’s counsel. Are you saying that you can’t benefit from counsel? I thought Frank was someone you admired?” explained the elder.
“I do. But not when my hand is forced to get counsel about some nebulous matters. You are not making it clear to me at all what your concerns are and what the objective of the meeting is?”
Silence.
“You already agreed to the meeting with Frank. You can’t back out now.”
“That is true I did agree to meet – under duress! Yet I have had time to seek other counsel with pastors and counselors. I’ve had time to think this whole thing through. There is something going on here that is very troubling to me. I am not willing to come to some meeting where the two of you wish to sit down with a counselor of your choice and begin to accuse me of things, or begin to correct me about these so-called areas of concerns or sins. I refuse to be blindsided. I’ve been there and done that and vowed never to go through that again. And it is not the process of Matthew 18 and it is not acceptable for you to order me to do something that violates my conscience.” clarified the pastor.
Silence.
It seemed a trifle matter. Why not just sit with the elders and the counselor and get it over with? The pastor did not want to get into the history of his previous encounters with Frank. Pastor-counselor Frank had been helpful in the past about church matters and even some personal issues. However, Claude and the elder had a particularly close relationship, and the manner and language the elder was using, such as ‘directing’ or ordering the pastor to be counseled was Frank’s mode of operation. It was clear the elder had been told what to do by Frank. He seemed to be calling the shots. At the church where Frank served it was a practice that when he or the elders ordered someone to get counseling and they refused they would proceed with charges and put the individual under discipline. Many had gone through that agony at their church. This pastor did not trust the men and feared things would get worse by inviting Frank; especially since the elder was keeping particulars a secret and was declaring stress to be sin.”
“I don’t see the problem. Why are you changing your mind now? Why the resistance? You seem to be very defensive.”
“Of course I’m defensive! You are putting me in an awkward situation. You’ve made statements about me, my wife, my child and schooling, and now about stress and being defensive as sins? These are all problematic for me.”
The elder then proceeded to declare that the pastor had an exaggerated defensiveness and it was sinful. The list of sins were slowly being divulged. Getting frustrated the pastor announced he strongly objected meeting with Claude under the circumstances.
“I take note of your objection to that…So are you saying you will NOT meet with session and Frank this Thursday?” the elder asked.
“No. Not under these circumstances!”
The elder now red faced and surprised pronounced, “I’m stunned. You will not meet with the elders if we ordered you to?”
“Especially so. I deny that you have any right to do that whatsoever.”
“You will not receive a charge to you to meet for a session with Frank?”
“No!!”
“I don’t know what to say?” (long pause) “Why not? Even if we made it official or brought a charge against you?” the elder insisted.
Quite saddened and yet angry, the pastor said, “Go ahead. You have no foundation to stand on in this! I’ve already consulted with our denominational parliamentarians. Let me say again, here is the proper way to deal with this…” the pastor outlined what he had said before, instructing more carefully on Matthew 18, but putting special emphasis upon how much more effective the elders would be if they simply came to him informally and asked what things were burdening him and how they might be able to come alongside and help.
The elders and pastor studied each other. It was an impasse; that is until the elder changed his tact. He broke the silence, “We need to know how to work more effectively together as a session. This is a perceived need on session’s behalf. Can you agree we can stand to improve?”
“Of course we can always improve. This is fine for counsel, but this is not the matter you brought up.”
The elder, “We believe that there are areas in your ministry that could benefit from session’s encouragement. Are we effective in encouraging you? Do you think we encourage you in your ministry?”
Laughing, the pastor remarked, “Not at all!”
“So there is another thing we all could benefit.”
“It is my preference to address any other issues in the presence of Frank. Can you not agree that we all could use his help in working through communication, or encouragement and other things too?”
“Perhaps.”
The elder pleaded, “Will you please, for the sake of our relationship, the sake of your ministry, the sake of our effectiveness as a session, for the sake of this church, consider meeting together with us and Frank?”
There was a very long pause as the pastor was trying to contemplate his proposal.
“If you don’t want his counsel about the problem with your wife and child or schooling we can accept that. You can seek anyone you wish. This is for us and our sake. I’m asking you to do this.”
Another long pause. Given what the elder had spelled out and the very nature of the conversation certainly underscored a big problem here. On that basis his argument was legitimate.
Against his better judgment the pastor gave in. “I VERY reluctantly agree to the meeting with Frank this Thursday. You must note that those areas you mentioned are off limits and will not be discussed….”
Both elders sighed with relief. The one sat back in his chair while the leader smiled and said, “Thank you. Will you call Frank and confirm the meeting or should I?”
“I most certainly will talk with him about this.”
After prayer the meeting adjourned. The pastor did call Frank and confirm the time and place of the meeting, but he was also very candid about his reluctance and the reasons why. His intuition would later turn out to be correct.
Friday, November 21, 2008
An attempt to commiserate (an open letter to a family in pain)
Dear Friends,
I am so sorry you have to go through yet another injury inflicted on your souls, again by those who are supposed to give aid and comfort. No doubt it is emotionally painful. All the more so since it comes at a time when you were seeking respite and help for the beatings and bruising you have had to endure for so long.
There really is no excuse for your pastor-in-law (as opposed to your pastor-in-grace) to have avoided you during your trials, neglected you during your absence, and betrayed you during your move. What's more, there really is no excuse for the pastor of the church where you had a happy anticipation of joining, to so quickly reject you (assuming by his actions he really did) on the basis of your pastor-in-law's report. I can only suspect that a negative report was given about you since the new minister went from a willing and ready spirit to receive you to advising you find another church, all within the space of a day or two.
Certainly, you haven't been the simple or ideal Christian family who fits the box (whatever that is), who is without any hint of flaws, warts, trials or baggage. You have had far more than the average share. Perhaps that is why some families don't have such problems - you apparently got theirs?
Now, lest I come across as yet another self-righteous, judgmental pastor, I can say that I relate to those two ministers. Looking back in time, I too have avoided, neglected and evidently betrayed people. The neglect came from trying many times to help, but without any ounce of "success" I gave up. I admit ignoring a few people who so easily monopolized my life and tried so hard to manipulate me and my family. Ignoring them was a simple, but sinful way of handling them. I have since learned my lesson. The ones I have been accused of rejecting or betraying are those to whom I boldly spoke the truth (at least what I believed was truthful) and they took offense. They've never tried to clarify what was said, never forgiven me, and have never been willing to reconcile. Very sad.
From a pastor's viewpoint, I understand how easy it is to avoid people who aren't free from trouble and trials. I'd rather not deal with other people's baggage. I mean, some of them have baggage over the 50-pound limit. Some of them have lots of heavy bags. Lots and lots of bags. And I have enough of my own baggage. So, I can relate to wanting a church filled with holy angels who will neatly fit into my image of a perfect, peaceful, problem-free church.
However, the fact of the matter is those of us who are called to minister in the name of Jesus Christ are called to roll up our sleeves and get dirty. I can recall years ago a pastor, who was a brilliant, earthy, former blue collar worker, complaining that too many of his fellow pastors never got dirty. No rough hands, tough skin or dirt under their nails. Of course, he was also speaking metaphorically. He was right. But that's the nature of our work.
We ministers are called to get
into the trenches like soldiers (Phil 2:25; 2 Tim. 2:3-4),
down and dirty like farmers (2 Tim. 2:6),
tough and smelly like fishermen,
sore and exhausted like athletes (1 Cor. 9:24-25; Phil 3:14; 2 Tim. 2:5; 4:7-8; Heb. 12:1), and
humiliated and abused like servants (Matt. 20:27; Jn 10:11, 15; Luke 10:34, 35).
Those are biblical descriptions, and they run contrary to contemporary descriptions and models of ministers (CEOs, coaches, university professors. I'm afraid we have adopted worldly portraits and exchanged them for God's models all to the detriment and injury of God's people.
We are called to apply heavenly truth to life's dirty, earthy issues through the means of the good news of Christ. As pastors we are called to be gentle (2 Tim. 2:24-26), patient (1 Tim. 3:3), and marked by the fruit of God's Spirit (Gal. 5:22-24; Eph. 5:9), just like Christ. Think about him - no doubt he was patient with his stubborn, ignorant, at times belligerent, messed up disciples. He was pure and yet patient and gentle with the lowly scum of the world (the prostitutes, beggars, infirm, and handicapped). He was patient and kind with those who received so much from him but who were so ungrateful. He was sympathetic and a great help to those in need.
Christ has redeemed, gifted and called us to be servants to God's people. Servants filled with the kind of humility that is not always self-serving or rewarding (Luke 14:10; Rom. 12:1-3, 10, 16: 1 Cor. 10:31-33; Titus 1:7; Jas. 4:10; 1 Pet. 5:5), just like the Servant Jesus (Phil. 2:3). And just like Jesus we are called, gifted and empowered to practice and model true hospitality (lover of strangers) which goes above and beyond loving our neighbors as ourselves (Rom. 12:13; 1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:8, 9; Heb. 13:2; 1 Pet. 4:9). Our calling is to genuinely love others, especially those of the household of faith (1 Cor. 13; Gal. 5:25; 1 Thess. 2:7-8). Like it or not we must be gracious, merciful (Matt. 25; 1 Cor. 12:28) and proactively, unquestionably kind (Matt. 11:29; Acts 24:4; 2 Cor. 10:1; 1 Thess. 2:7). What's more, God does not give us a choice about who it is with whom we are to be loving, merciful and kind.
Jesus was lowly, meek and gentle. All believers in Christ should also be lowly, meek and gentle, but particularly ministers. As brought out in the book, The Perfect Pastor?, "Gentleness, a very important feature in a godly leader, is the quality of being gracious, kind, mild, patient and reasonable. A gentle person is caring, considerate and has an ability to sympathize (Rom. 15:1; 1 Pet. 4:8). The gentle one shows carefulness in choosing words and expressions so as not to unnecessarily offend (Gal. 6:1)" (p. 352).
In the book's Appendix F, which is a self-examination of godly character, the potential deacon, elder, pastor, and other church leaders are encouraged to test themselves. One of the questions probes whether, "I reflect care, affection and good-will toward others (2 Cor. 10:1; 1 Thess. 2; Eph. 4:2)" (p. 352). The implication from the Bible is that I do so, not only with those who have it all together, or who are apparently absent any challenges or "issues," or only when I feel like it (which admittedly is rare). I or we are to reflect care, affection and good-will toward others as gentle leaders - always! Especially toward those who need it the most!
This is the very nature of the redemptive work of Christ. He came to save sinners, not saints. He came for the infirm, not the healthy; the poor, not the self-sustaining rich; the prodigal, not the pious. His grace is extended to the chief of sinners, for grace abounds more where sin seems to flourish. As ministers we must never forget that. But, dear friends, it appears that some ministers have indeed forgotten just that.
Certainly, when I reflect on what is required of me in character and action, I too fall far short. Yet, these are the qualities of godliness and ministry this unique calling requires. If I, or any other person who has taken on the yoke of shepherd ministry, refuses to press toward these high and heavenly goals and refuses to practice them, then we need to step down and step away from the office called the pastorate. May God daily spare me of my pride and keep me from falling into such pious worldliness. May the Lord grant to such men the grace of repentance to change and become more like our Master who faithfully served us.
I am so sorry that you have had to endure men in the name of Christ, but do not minister in the spirit of Christ. Frankly, they have failed you. Their actions, their sins, mostly of omission, say quite a bit about their character and philosophy of ministry. But in this sense, be encouraged that God has used this "rejection" of you as a grace to spare you of their miserable orthopraxy, horrible hypocrisy and intolerable misdeeds.
With affection;
Don
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Some Things You Should NOT Do To Your Pastor
1. Don't love your pastor more than you love the Lord God.
2. Don't idolize or worship your pastor. He is neither God nor Messiah.
3. Don't be a living contradiction to the name and person of Jesus Christ in you.
Don't be a hypocrite, trying to convince your pastor that you are "good" and wonderful believer when you are thinking and behaving like the devil.
4. Don't overwork your pastor.
Don't rely too heavily upon him either.
5. Don't neglect the honor and respect, duty and obedience you owe the pastor in Christ that is concordant with God's Word.
6. Don't kill your pastor.
I could write a book, "1001 Easy Ways to Kill Off Your Pastor!" Of course, I don't mean physically murdering the minister; though that has happened. I mean to say, don't murder him by mouth through gossip or slander. Don't beat him into the ground with the innumerable ways people can verbally assault the minister. It is also possible to over work the pastor or place too much stress upon him.
7. Don't allow your pastor or put your pastor in a situation that could tempt him or provoke him to immoral, unchaste thoughts, words, or deeds.
8. Don't steal from your pastor.
Don't rob him of his devotional time, study time, down time, family time, or vacation time. Don't rob him of the double honor he is due. Pay him well so that he may be free from material concerns. Don't forbid him to exercise his God-given talents and gifts. Too often ministers are pressured or commanded not to do the things they are talented, equipped or find pleasure in doing.
9. Don't injure the pastor's good name, and don't lie to him.
10. Don't covet another pastor when you have God's minister in your midst; and do not compare or contrast him with other pastors, especially high profile, popular ones.
Here is a quick way to discourage or defeat your pastor: compare him with another minister or leader. It doesn't matter who. It could be a previous pastor, a celebrity, or even a famous dead one. Just don't compare! It's demeaning and demoralizing when you communicate that your pastor isn't like Pastor X in preaching, or Pastor Y in serving, or Pastor Z in personality. If you love that other minister so much that you have little room for the pastor the Lord has provided you and your church, then pack your bags and go where your hero is serving.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
