Should Preaching be Hard and Scathing?

[C. Matthew McMahon]

SCATHING implies attacks delivered with fierce severity.

Most of the time, I find Presbyterian preachers afraid of being scathing or rebuking. They say (and I quote) "The Holy Spirit is the one who does the application, not me."

Personally, I think Reformed Baptist ministers have it ALL OVER Presbyterians as a general rule on this issue of hard, sin searching applications in sermons (reminded of Al Martin, etc.). Exceptions to the rule for Presbyterians are Ed Donnelly (who is exceptional overall) and Don Kistler at times.

What do you think is the problem here? Why are Presbyterians not like the sermons we read in old books? Why ARE Reformed Baptists this way and Presbyterians generally not?

Think of it this way - when we read Rutherford, Gillespie, or Watson, or Vincent, why are THEY preaching in that way? (Even Augustine, Chrysostom, et al do!)

Thoughts?

[Edited on 6-6-2005 by webmaster]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

It isn't P.C.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Presbyterians use to be this way. Just look at the Calvinistic preachers from the Awakenings and the Puritan Era.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Edwards ...

 

[daveb]

I wonder what caused Presbyterians to change from this type of preaching? Concerns one might be "offended"? Is it cultural? I have no idea myself.

I know when my wife and I we looking at Presbyterianism this was a concern. Where was the "fire in the belly"? Where was the hard, piercing, make-you-feel-very-uncomfortable searching from the pulpit?

Should preaching be hard and scathing? Absolutely.

[Edited on 6-6-2005 by daveb]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

What do you think is the main cause of it not being that way GENERALLY?

 

[D Battjes]

There obviously has to be a balance. But the same could be said that many who preach "turn or Burn" Sermons too much, become too focused on the Law and works with no help from Christ.

We cannot tell a drowning man he is going to die, and not provide the life jacket of Christ.

Spurgeon is a great example of this. Regardless if you agree with everything he said, of which I do not, his method of preaching always encompased the Cross and what Christ has done for His elect.

 

[D Battjes]

Originally posted by webmaster
What do you think is the main cause of it not being that way GENERALLY?

Matthew, my opinion only is that we are less polemic these days of ecumenicism.

I believe some like Knox and others who preached fire 99% of the time, could have done more work for the cause of Christ if they were more compassionate and loving.

 

[sastark]

Is the problem the words or the way they are being delivered?

I am reminded that Edwards, when he preached "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" is said to have spoken calmly, barely looking up from his notes the entire time. His words were powerful, but the manner in which he delivered them was humble.

Perhaps, Matt, you are looking for more "action" in the pulpit, by way of raising one's voice, etc? (And I truly mean that as a "perhaps", not trying to make accusations.)

When we read the Puritans today, it is easy for us to think of how they must have delivered the sermons, but in fact, we know very little about that. For all we know, they could have been like Edwards - calm and humble.

Just my

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I would welcome calm and humble if I was listening to a sermon that was deep and penetrating (I am reminded of Donnelly).



[Edited on 8-4-2005 by webmaster]

 

[kceaster]

I think it boils down to dispassionate preachers.

And I'm not talking about the guys who have to dab their hankies to their foreheads, who writhe and spit. That's not passion, it's acting. It is emphatic, but not the proper emphasis.

If a man truly loves the sheep of his flock, he can preach emphatically and passionately. If a man truly loves the Word he's expounding, he will give it the proper emphasis.

But I've seen too many preachers, probably including myself in former days, who seem to be employing the same act as others who have gained "success" in the pulpit. In the end, it's no different than Robert Duvall in "The Apostle." Have you ever seen it? He's pretty convincing as an evangellyfish pastor. So, one has to assume that the way some preachers preach can be "put on," so to speak.

In the end, if the Spirit isn't the fire in the preaching, then it is useless. It is a clanging gong, a resounding cymbal.

In Christ,

KC

 

[sastark]

Ok, Matt, you need to download a couple of sermons from my Pastor. They are available for free, in mp3 format here: http://external.pasco.com/farschman/

Then, when you are done with that, download a couple from my Dad (a Presbyterian minister in Redding, CA). They are available for free, in RealAudio format, here: http://www.gpcredding.org/sermons.html (make sure you download one that has no asterix next to it - the ones that do are good, but they are not by my Dad).

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Try out the AM sermon below as well. MP3.
http://www.fpcr.org/fpdb/OOW/2005/06052005.htm

 

[AdamM]

Matt, I think *some* of it has to do with the rise in our circles of the redemptive historical method of preaching. I am not going to argue for better or worse, but I just don't find most rb semons to be nearly as rh focused.

 

[daveb]

Originally posted by webmaster
What do you think is the main cause of it not being that way GENERALLY?

Lack of zeal.

 

[Augusta]

John Wagner in "God's Hell" is awesome. He is probably the best balance of fierceness with love in that sermon. He so severe, yet he is plaintive much of the time almost in tears it sounds like when he tells how we everyday trample underfoot God's Holy laws. And how we deserve this most awful punishment. He was alternately exercised that we do this and heartbroken that we grieve our Holy God so often and yet He is longsuffering.

You can listen to the entire sermon or 3 short clips at the following link.

God's Hell

 

[CalsFarmer]

Edwards' Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God turned my 16 year old daughter AROUND.

We could all use one of those sermons that leave us scootched down in the pew covering our faces.

Sermons like this tend to keep us (at least ME) on track. In my humble opinion.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by webmaster
What do you think is the main cause of it not being that way GENERALLY?

Could it have something to do with Presumtive Regeneration?

(running away and ducking Shenk quotes....)

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by puritansailor

Originally posted by webmaster
What do you think is the main cause of it not being that way GENERALLY?

Could it have something to do with Presumtive Regeneration?

(running away and ducking Shenk quotes....)

Patrick,
Statements like this make me cringe! Please understand this. I will never neglect warning my daughters, daily, of the gospel and Christs salvation. Did the author of Hebrews neglect warning his children?

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by puritansailor

Originally posted by webmaster
What do you think is the main cause of it not being that way GENERALLY?

Could it have something to do with Presumtive Regeneration?

(running away and ducking Shenk quotes....)

Patrick,
Statements like this make me cringe! Please understand this. I will never neglect warning my daughters, daily, of the gospel and Christs salvation. Did the author of Hebrews neglect warning his children?

Scott,

They should. Both Bushnell and Schenck were opposed to this kind of preaching. It is {insert very scary music} Puritan subjectivism! {insert shock and alarm}

Look at who the Shenck/Bushnell crowd hate: the Scots (Rutherford), the Puritans, Edwards, the "revivalists" of the Great Awakenings (Tennet, Whitefield, etc are two rungs above Baptists), Baptists (Al Martin et al., who are just about as low as you can get in their eyes), the Southern Presbyterians (who are just barely one rung above Baptists - in fact Dabney and Thornwell might even BE baptists!).

All of these are marked by experimental, applicatory preaching. For the Schenck/Bushnell crowd, the WORST thing you can do to ANYONE in the Church (including children) is to act as if they are not perfect Christians. That is, unless perhaps they murder someone.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by puritansailor

Originally posted by webmaster
What do you think is the main cause of it not being that way GENERALLY?

Could it have something to do with Presumtive Regeneration?

(running away and ducking Shenk quotes....)

Patrick,
Statements like this make me cringe! Please understand this. I will never neglect warning my daughters, daily, of the gospel and Christs salvation. Did the author of Hebrews neglect warning his children?

Scott,

They should. Both Bushnell and Schenck were opposed to this kind of preaching. It is {insert very scary music} Puritan subjectivism! {insert shock and alarm}

Look at who the Shenck/Bushnell crowd hate: the Scots (Rutherford), the Puritans, Edwards, the "revivalists" of the Great Awakenings (Tennet, Whitefield, etc are two rungs above Baptists), Baptists (Al Martin et al., who are just about as low as you can get in their eyes), the Southern Presbyterians (who are just barely one rung above Baptists - in fact Dabney and Thornwell might even BE baptists!).

All of these are marked by experimental, applicatory preaching. For the Schenck/Bushnell crowd, the WORST thing you can do to ANYONE in the Church (including children) is to act as if they are not perfect Christians. That is, unless perhaps they murder someone.

Doing a lot of clearifying.............You know this is not how I feel. Anyone aluding to this idea and aligning it w/ the PR I embrace, is misguided. Having said that, lets cease with the false accusations. Unless of course, you know someone whom is doing this that is on this board.

 

[fredtgreco]

Scott,

I am not referring to you. But you need to realize that there are dozens (hundreds perhaps) of advocates of Schenck and Bushnell besides you and Matt. Without exception (now I would have to include Richard Bacon, whom I respect and who is sharper than I am theologically) they fit into the mold that I describe.

You simply cannot ignore it. It would be like saying, restaurants that serve hamburgers don't do X, when McDonalds, Burger King and Wendys all are rapid advocates of X.

I think you need to think about why 99.99% of Schenck/Bushnell advocates - AND Shenck and Bushnell themselves hate this kind of preaching, calling it "baptistic," "revivalistic," "non-covenantal," and the like.

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by webmaster
What do you think is the main cause of it not being that way GENERALLY?

They don't care about the Three Forms....???

R.

 

[fredtgreco]

Having said other things, I believe that the answer to Matt's question is again one of balance. The majority of Reformed Presbyterian preachers today are imbalanced in respect of redemptive-historical preaching, which is typically (one might even say characteristically) light on pointed application in favor of typology.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Fred,
I understand. I must admit though that my treatment of my PR child (yuk yuk yuk) is a horse of a different color when contrasted w/ my previous theology. So, in that, I can agree with plenty that Bushnell provides in his excellent book, "Christian Nurture".

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

I think the main reason, in our culture here in America, is fear of losing congregants. Honestly. I believe that too many of us have this mentality that a bigger church = a stronger church, and when people start to leave (if we, for example, start preaching "hellfire and brimstone" every week), we assume we are failing or out of God's will. We shouldn't be so afraid to ruffle people's feathers and bring them the ad hominem truth that is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is GUARANTEED to offend people - get used to it! We can, of course, preach in love and sincerity of heart, but unless God's Spirit is at work, according to God's Will (not ours), our preaching is likely to ... well ... tick people off.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
I think the main reason, in our culture here in America, is fear of losing congregants. Honestly. I believe that too many of us have this mentality that a bigger church = a stronger church, and when people start to leave (if we, for example, start preaching "hellfire and brimstone" every week), we assume we are failing or out of God's will. We shouldn't be so afraid to ruffle people's feathers and bring them the ad hominem truth that is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is GUARANTEED to offend people - get used to it! We can, of course, preach in love and sincerity of heart, but unless God's Spirit is at work, according to God's Will (not ours), our preaching is likely to ... well ... tick people off.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by puritansailor

Originally posted by webmaster
What do you think is the main cause of it not being that way GENERALLY?

Could it have something to do with Presumtive Regeneration?

(running away and ducking Shenk quotes....)

Patrick,
Statements like this make me cringe! Please understand this. I will never neglect warning my daughters, daily, of the gospel and Christs salvation. Did the author of Hebrews neglect warning his children?

I think Fred said it better than I. But, I don't think PR is the only problem mind you. I do think Redemptive Historical preaching has something to do with it. And, I do think the fear of man is another problem. People don't want to offend.

But I also think that the severity of the "scathing" should also in some ways be determined by the text itself. Some texts are not intended to be scathing but encouraging.

 

[pastorway]

we need balance in our preaching, using the Word foor doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. When the text callls for scathing - turn up the heat. But do not turn up the heat just to look passionate and make people uncomfortable.

Truly scathing preaching while it hurts also helps - and is as a result welcomed by people whose ears don't itch!

Phillip

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by puritansailor

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by puritansailor

Originally posted by webmaster
What do you think is the main cause of it not being that way GENERALLY?

Could it have something to do with Presumtive Regeneration?

(running away and ducking Shenk quotes....)

Patrick,
Statements like this make me cringe! Please understand this. I will never neglect warning my daughters, daily, of the gospel and Christs salvation. Did the author of Hebrews neglect warning his children?

I think Fred said it better than I. But, I don't think PR is the only problem mind you. I do think Redemptive Historical preaching has something to do with it. And, I do think the fear of man is another problem. People don't want to offend.

But I also think that the severity of the "scathing" should also in some ways be determined by the text itself. Some texts are not intended to be scathing but encouraging.

Exactly. He is a bad preacher who spends every week beating up his congregation because, "I'm not afraid of men! Let 'em leave!"

If we preache the Word - and not our own hobby horses - there will be sharp application and comfort as well. Take 1 Peter 1:22-25 for example. Peter is giving huge comfort to his flock about their rebirth by the Word of God, and the comfort of the gospel. But there is also pointed application in the text as well. How? If you are not showing sincere and fervent love for the brethren - and that means the people in Church who annoy and frustrate you, not just those whom you like - then you need to check yourself. Pretty pointed. And that is nothing special, it just happens to be a text I looked at and preached a couple of weeks ago.