Folk Preaching

[Jared]

I think this is an interesting topic; Folk Preaching. What I mean is preachers who have a folksy style of preaching. Why is it that you don't find very many reformed preachers nowadays who engage in folk preaching?

There have been reformed preachers who had that style in the past like John Bunyan, George Whitefield, and Charles Spurgeon. But it seems that most preachers now that have that style are Arminian. I think of people like T.D. Jakes, Rod Parsely, Jerry Fallwell, Tony Evans, Jentezen Franklin, etc; most of whom are a.) heretics, b.) Pentecostal, c.) Arminian, (with the possible exception of Tony Evans). Anyway, does anyone know why this style of preaching has fallen into disfavor with reformed preachers? I think that it could be used to reach people who might not 'get' most reformed preaching.

 

[T.A.G.]

I am not sure what Folk preaching is but Tony Evans is very Arminian besides his heretical once saved always saved view.

looking to read more of this thread

 

[Jared]

Tony Evans is very Arminian besides his heretical once saved always saved view.

He has a number of connections to reformed circles. He is a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, he recommends the ESV Study Bible, and he also recommends Voddie Baucham's latest book "Family-Driven Faith." And Eric Mason who spoke at this year's Desiring God pastor's conference and pastors an Acts 29 church attended Tony Evan's church for a while.

As for "folk preaching", I am trying to contrast the difference in style between someone like George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards. Or Jack Hayford and Jentezen Franklin. I have in mind styles of preaching on one hand that are more complex in terms of verbiage and so forth. And on the other hand, preaching that "common" people can understand. For instance, I live in the south and have tried to let people listen to John Piper. Many people here are uneducated and they can't understand him. On the other hand, if you let them listen to someone like Jerry Fallwell or Jentezen Franklin, they understand them perfectly (I mention Franklin him because most people here are familiar with him since his church isn't very far from where I live).

 

[Andres]

Why is it that you don't find very many reformed preachers nowadays who engage in folk preaching? Anyway, does anyone know why this style of preaching has fallen into disfavor with reformed preachers? I think that it could be used to reach people who might not 'get' most reformed preaching.

"Reformed preaching" is biblical preaching. If people can't understand biblical preaching then it is because God has shut their heart to His truth.

 

[heartoflesh]

If you say "folk preaching" I think of J. Vernon McGee. I love listening to J. Vernon on the radio, even though he was staunchly dispensational and would lean toward being arminian, but to me he's proof that not only 5 point calvinists will make it to heaven.

 

[Jared]

"Reformed preaching" is biblical preaching. If people can't understand biblical preaching then it is because God has shut their heart to His truth.

I don't know that we can put it all into that category. For instance, uneducated slaves could understand George Whitefield, but they may not have been able to understand John Owen.

 

[T.A.G.]

Tony Evans is very Arminian besides his heretical once saved always saved view.

He has a number of connections to reformed circles. He is a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, he recommends the ESV Study Bible, and he also recommends Voddie Baucham's latest book "Family-Driven Faith." And Eric Mason who spoke at this year's Desiring God pastor's conference and pastors an Acts 29 church attended Tony Evan's church for a while.

As for "folk preaching", I am trying to contrast the difference in style between someone like George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards. Or Jack Hayford and Jentezen Franklin. I have in mind styles of preaching on one hand that are more complex in terms of verbiage and so forth. And on the other hand, preaching that "common" people can understand. For instance, I live in the south and have tried to let people listen to John Piper. Many people here are uneducated and they can't understand him. On the other hand, if you let them listen to someone like Jerry Fallwell or Jentezen Franklin, they understand them perfectly (I mention Franklin him because most people here are familiar with him since his church isn't very far from where I live).

Tony Evans is a proponent of the heretical free grace movement, he is an inclusivist, and he denies the T.U.L.I. and has a perverted view of the P.
LOL and the esv bible does not make him reformed or along those lines

 

[Gage Browning]

If you say "folk preaching" I think of J. Vernon McGee. I love listening to J. Vernon on the radio, even though he was staunchly dispensational and would lean toward being arminian, but to me he's proof that not only 5 point calvinists will make it to heaven.

I love J Vernon. I get on the "Bible Bus" all the time. The thing I love about his preaching was that he made a homeletical point. He pointed out the point of the text! I know he wasn't "Reformed" but I grew to love the Bible listening to him. So many "Reformed" guys I listen to now, have sooo much to say, they wind up not ever getting around to the point of the text! So I love it when guys who preach get to the point of the text!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

"Reformed preaching" is biblical preaching. If people can't understand biblical preaching then it is because God has shut their heart to His truth.

I don't know that we can put it all into that category. For instance, uneducated slaves could understand George Whitefield, but they may not have been able to understand John Owen.

Maybe the real issue is "audience." Girardeu, the Southern Presbyterian, preached to a huge congregation in ante-bellum Charleston. The place was so packed with black slaves and freedmen that in that segregated era, the whites sat in the balcony.

Pastor G. had made an effort to learn good communication techniques, to speak to that audience. And God blessed it.

Now, I don't know whether there is an actual "style" that is the model of Reformed preaching. I doubt it. There is simply effective or ineffective communication. And one style doesn't fit all. So, not every man is fit to preach to every congregation.

A young man goes to seminary. Already, before he ever gets there, his preaching style is the result of his "training" under all the men he's listened to over the years. He is further molded by those to whom he listens, in person and on audio; and to some extent those whom he reads.

If there is a "folk style" (whatever that means), it sounds popular and broadly appealing. A man can be orthodox, and have a style that is just that way. Good preaching is informative, captivating, and urgent. It isn't an intro, three points, two illustrations, and a gripping conclusion. It isn't a prooftext every three sentences. It isn't anything other than the Word of God come to the ears of the listeners.

It is (as someone has said) conversation from God, in the name of God, with the people of God. But it is more than that, because it is authoritative speech. If a man can be authoritative and "folksy," and that makes him effective to communicate God's truth, then he's faithful to his calling.

But if he's "folksy" rather than "fiery," when the brand is called for instead of the breeze, then he's not the man for the job.

 

[Jared]

It is (as someone has said) conversation from God, in the name of God, with the people of God. But it is more than that, because it is authoritative speech.

I heard Bryan Chapell talk about this in a video from The Gospel Coalition. He said that if as far as a preacher is faithful to the text, his words are the very words of God to the congregation. Is this a common view in reformed circles? If so, how does this square with cessationism? I'm not saying that you can't be a cessationist and believe this. But to many charismatics and pentecostals, this would seem to contradict cessationism.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

One of the most explicit statements I know of is from 2nd Helvitic Confession The Second Helvetic Confession - The PuritanBoard (16th cent), ch.1, para.3

THE PREACHING OF THE WORD OF GOD IS THE WORD OF GOD. Wherefore when this Word of God is now preached in the church by preachers lawfully called, we believe that the very Word of God is proclaimed, and received by the faithful; and that neither any other Word of God is to be invented nor is to be expected from heaven: and that now the Word itself which is preached is to be regarded, not the minister that preaches; for even if he be evil and a sinner, nevertheless the Word of God remains still true and good.

It is Reformation doctrine. However many people either receive it, or understand it aright, it is true to say that a faithful exposition of the mind of God from the text of Scripture carries with it all the authority of the original declaration.

There is no new revelation, hence cessationism is affirmed, not denied. There is no equating the preacher's word with the prophetic Word. But divine truth is divine truth, and the duty to teach accurately only enforces the gravity of a preacher's calling. If he will speak for God, then he will be judged with greater severity, James 3:1.

The congregation isn't called and gathered to hear the musings of a man's mind, or a peroration on a text of Scripture that goes off on a tangent. The preacher is rehearsing and elaborating the prophetic Word. He unpacks and explains the text accurately: the text unfolded. He ransacks the rest of Scripture for related matter. He enforces his statements on the text by the rest of Scripture. His message ought to be as much as he can make it God's own Word.

 

[Rich Koster]

I listened to one last week. He was a story teller. However, he was a Biblically accurate story teller. He was a missionary to a Moslem nation for over 30 years. This is they way he learned to communicate with the people. We do not have to compromise accuracy to explain things to those we would consider "uneducated".

 

[jambo]

Why is it that you don't find very many reformed preachers nowadays who engage in folk preaching? Anyway, does anyone know why this style of preaching has fallen into disfavor with reformed preachers? I think that it could be used to reach people who might not 'get' most reformed preaching.

"Reformed preaching" is biblical preaching. If people can't understand biblical preaching then it is because God has shut their heart to His truth.

There are preachers and there are preachers. You can be full 5 pointer but if you preach using terms no one can understand then is there any point preaching? John Owen once said that he would exchange all his learning to be able to preach like Bunyan which would indicate to me that for all Owens theological prowess when it comes to preaching Bunyan was the one who really communicated with the people. Though I would imagine the listeners of both would be quite different.

One of the things I have come to realise is that congregations are not as well taught as what we think. We should not assume the terms we use in our preaching are understood by everyone. If you look at the teaching of Jesus it was very clear, very simple and he used concepts people understood.

I would quite often read the following whilst I am preparing a sermon as I find it keeps me focused on the people within the congregation. It is found in Dr James Kennedy's excellent book 'Days of the Fathers in Ross-shire' a book which is well worth reading.

As preachers, they were all remarkable. There are some who preach before their people, like actors on a stage, to display themselves and to please their audience. Not such were the self-denied preachers of Ross-shire. There are others who preach over their people. Studying for the highest, instead of doing so for the lowest, in intelligence, they elaborated learned treatises, which float like mist, when delivered, over the heads of their hearers. Not such were the earnest preachers of Ross-shire. There are some who preach past their people. Directing their praise or their censure to intangible abstractions, they never take aim at the views and the conduct of the individuals before them. They step carefully aside, lest their hearers should be struck by their shafts, and aim them at phantoms beyond them. Not such were the faithful preachers pf Ross-shire. There are others who preach at their people, serving out in a sermon the gossip of the week, and semingly possessed with the idea that the transgressor can be scolded out of the ways of iniquity. Not such were the wise preachers of Ross-shire. There are some who preach towards their people. They aim well , but they are weak. Their eye is along the arrow towards the hearts of their hearers, but their arm is too feeble for sending it on to the mark. Superficial in their experience and in their knowledge, they reach not the cases of God's people by their doctrine, and they strike with no vigour at the consciences of the ungodly. Not such were the powerful preachers of Ross-shire. There are others still, who preach along their congregation. Instead of standing with their bow in front of the ranks, these archers take them in line, and, reducing their mark to an individual, never change the direction of their aim. Not such were the discriminating preachers of Ross-shire. But there are a few who preach to the people directly and seasonably the mind of God in His Word, with authority, unction, wisdom, fervour, and love. Such as these last were the eminent preachers of Ross-shire....(p32-33)

Their preaching was remarkable for its completeness. It combined carefulness of exposition, fullness and exactness of doctrinal statement, a searching description of experimental godliness, and close application of truth to the conscience. The admixture of these elements, in wisely adjusted proportions, constitutes the true excellence of preaching. Careful to assertain the mind of God in his Word, they were not content merely to prefix a passage of Scripture as a motto for their sermon....Their zeal for sound creed was at least equalled by their desire for a godly experience and a holy life. They loved 'the form of sound doctrine,' but they also loved 'the power of Godliness'. They insisted on a clear understanding of the former, but they also insisted on a deep experience of the latter. It is in fashion so to speak of objective and subjective preaching, and to commend each by itself as excellent in its own way; but surely that preaching is defective, that presents a statement of doctrine without any description of the experience which the application of that doctrine produces or of the fruits in which that experience results; and preaching without doctrinal statement is like attempting to built without a plummet or a plan. (p33-34)