Expositional Imposters (Expanded)
“I have heard (and preached!) sermons that intend to be expositional, yet fall somewhat short. Below are a dozen pitfalls: five that don’t make the message of the passage the message of the sermon and thus abuse the text, five that fail to connect the text the congregation, and two that fail to recognise that preaching is ultimately God’s work.” - 9 Marks
- 10 views
I think able to teach does include communication skills. My caution is about overdependence on communication skills.
Ecclesiastes 12:9 And moreover, because the preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yea, he gave good heed, and sought out, and set in order many proverbs. 10 The preacher sought to find out acceptable words: and that which was written was upright, even words of truth.
NAU Ecclesiastes 12:9 In addition to being a wise man, the Preacher also taught the people knowledge; and he pondered, searched out and arranged many proverbs. 10 The Preacher sought to find delightful words and to write words of truth correctly.
NET Ecclesiastes 12:9 Not only was the Teacher wise, but he also taught knowledge to the people; he carefully evaluated and arranged many proverbs. 10 The Teacher sought to find delightful words, and to write accurately truthful sayings.
דִּבְרֵי־חֵ֑פֶץ (Eccl. 12:9 WTT)
Holladay, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the OT (HOL)
Hol2748
חֵפֶץ: sf. חֶפְצוֹ; pl. חֲפָצִים, sf. חֲפָצֶיךָ: — 1. joy, pleasure, w. l® in 1S 1522; w. b® in Je 2228; dibrê µ¢feƒ words that give pleasure Ec 1210, b®µ¢feƒ kappéhâ w. her eager hands Pr 3113; — 2. wish 1K 524; — 3. °abnê µ¢feƒ costly jewels Is 5412 > µ¢feƒ treasure, jewel Pr 315 & 811; — 4. affair, business Ec 31•17, pl. Is 5813; ±al-haµ¢feƒ about it Ec 57. (pg 112)
Under inspiration, Solomon teaches that a wise preacher seek to find “delightful words,” “words that give pleasure.”
A preacher is responsible both to handle the Word accurately and to present in it the way Solomon teaches here (“delightful words”)—he is to concern himself with both the content and how he presents the content.
thumbs downs for supporting my pastor and not running him over with irrelevant and warranted critique.Wow.
It seems some think Paul was telling generations of church members to constantly hyper-analyze their pastor’s sermons for any sign of deviation from accepted theology, or worse, a dangling participle, or, even more tragic, a bad illustration, or a run on sentence. Gasp at the thought of a poorly formed exegetical outline and let him know that will not be tolerated! YES! Sign me up! And only God Himself can have mercy on a pastor that might perform one of the umpteen logic fallacies out there. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED… Tread carefully sir!
[Mark_Smith]If this comment is in response to my comment from Eccl. 12, it is entirely unwarranted. I did not say anything about “hyper-analyzing,” critiquing, etc. I only pointed out what the Spirit Himself teaches us in Eccl. 12 about what a wise preacher does.thumbs downs for supporting my pastor and not running him over with irrelevant and warranted critique.Wow.
It seems some think Paul was telling generations of church members to constantly hyper-analyze their pastor’s sermons for any sign of deviation from accepted theology, or worse, a dangling participle, or, even more tragic, a bad illustration, or a run on sentence. Gasp at the thought of a poorly formed exegetical outline and let him know that will not be tolerated! YES! Sign me up! And only God Himself can have mercy on a pastor that might perform one of the umpteen logic fallacies out there. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED… Tread carefully sir!
My own thoughts on 1:17s “Not in cleverness of speech” (NASB) has been that he is contrasting the simplicity, and seemingly paradoxical nature, of the gospel message with the oratory and philosophy of the Corinthian culture. I especially see it in “Jews ask for a sign and Greeks seek wisdom.” Open to correction though.
[RajeshG]If this comment is in response to my comment from Eccl. 12, it is entirely unwarranted. I did not say anything about “hyper-analyzing,” critiquing, etc. I only pointed out what the Spirit Himself teaches us in Eccl. 12 about what a wise preacher does.
I didn’t read your response, so I wasn’t talking about you.
[TylerR]To take this down to brass tacks, will anybody here actually recommend a local church ordain a young man who can do wonderful exegesis but is a terrible communicator?
I sat on a pastor search committee in 2011. Though our church was not numerically large, we still had a fairly wide selection of candidates to sort through before we presented one to the congregation. From the recorded sermons we listened to as part of this process, a number of these men (though not all) could handle the scriptures well. That gave us the chance to evaluate things like speaking ability, presence on a phone interview, etc. to be able to make a choice. I most certainly would NOT have voted for presenting a man who could handle the scriptures well, but was a poor speaker, unless EVERY other candidate had disqualified himself in other ways.
Having sat through a lot of dry lectures in grad school, I learned to eat the meat and spit out the bones, and I have found that unless my own heart is not right, I can get something valuable out of nearly any message that is not preached by a heretic. However, I would not want to put before the congregation a man who knew his stuff but could not communicate it well. I would agree with Mark S. that clearly it’s on each one of us to let the Holy Spirit use the Word in our lives as he would see fit, even if the speaker is very lacking. However, knowing human weakness, it would have just been asking to send our members elsewhere to choose a man who is weak in preaching, even if he is solid in every other way.
Dave Barnhart
[Mark_Smith]thumbs downs for supporting my pastor and not running him over with irrelevant and warranted critique.Wow.
It seems some think Paul was telling generations of church members to constantly hyper-analyze their pastor’s sermons for any sign of deviation from accepted theology, or worse, a dangling participle, or, even more tragic, a bad illustration, or a run on sentence. Gasp at the thought of a poorly formed exegetical outline and let him know that will not be tolerated! YES! Sign me up! And only God Himself can have mercy on a pastor that might perform one of the umpteen logic fallacies out there. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED… Tread carefully sir!
Mark, you seem to be under the impression that objecting to bad logic, false analogies, and bad grammar amounts to nitpicking. For my part, I’ve learned that when someone uses bad logic, they only come to a sound conclusion in the same way a blind squirrel finds a nut; purely by accident. It should also be added that most people using bad logic do not have the luck of that proverbial blind squirrel, and they use nonsense logic to generate nonsense conclusions. Really, bad logic isn’t just bad communication skills; it’s a lack of ability to handle the Word of God in any context, not just pastoral.
In the same way, it also matters whether one’s grammar and analogies (which are, after all, logical constructs as well) are reasonably sound as well. Otherwise, you end up like Arlo Guthrie at the Group W bench, listening to the sergeant talk for 45 minutes without anyone understanding a word he said, but having fun filling out the forms.
Sorry, brother, but communication skills matter. If you are indeed accepting poor logic, grammar, and selection of analogies from your pastor, you’re not protecting him. You’re preventing him from becoming a better pastor. What we’ve got in too many churches today, in my view, is the same thing that afflicts too many universities; you have men with extensive credentials in pulpits and at teaching lecterns who, despite extensive knowledge, cannot teach their way out of a wet cardboard box. Students and parishioners suffer as a result.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
You have no respect for your pastor do you? At some point the man has demonstrated his ability enough for you to relax and enjoy the sermon, hasn’t he?
Whew.
Your fallacy would be the “ad hominem” fallacy, Mark. No, desiring that my pastor develop the logical and rhetorical skills to be good at what he does does not mean I lack respect for him. It means just the opposite; I don’t want him to fail in his role because he drives people away with personal attacks, other bad logic, and other bad communication habits. And in your position, you may not want your pastor to fail specifically, but that will be the end result of people adopting your view. It will isolate the pastor from the feedback he needs to succeed.
Again, Acts 17:11. Paul and Luke commend the Bereans for checking Paul’s logic. 1 Tim. 3:2; Paul commands that the pastor be “apt to teach”. What’s worth noting about that is that the Hebrew concept of teaching (see Strong’s 3925) is not merely that the material is presented; it is that the material is learned.
Like I said, “apt to teach” includes communication skills by the very definition of the word.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry] Again, Acts 17:11. Paul and Luke commend the Bereans for checking Paul’s logic. 1 Tim. 3:2; Paul commands that the pastor be “apt to teach”. What’s worth noting about that is that the Hebrew concept of teaching (see Strong’s 3925) is not merely that the material is presented; it is that the material is learned.Like I said, “apt to teach” includes communication skills by the very definition of the word.
Bert, please consider the following:
First, Acts 17:11 says that the Bereans were asking Paul questions about the Scriptures and how his teaching cohered with what they knew about them. It does not say the Bereans were “checking Paul’s logic.”
Second, 1 Tim 3:2’s qualification “apt to teach” does not mean an elder must be an eloquent orator, a dynamic lecturer, or a highly gifted teacher. In fact, this is exactly what Paul downplays in 1 Corinthians 1-3. “Apt to teach” simply means that an elder must know the Bible and be able to instruct others from it. Yes, this includes the ability to communicate, but one’s style and delivery are not what Paul emphasizes. These qualities are what he referred to as “words of eloquent wisdom” and “lofty speech,” and he says that when we preach the gospel using these things, we actually empty the cross of Christ of its power. Why? Because we’re relying on our persuasive eloquence, logic, and rhetoric to transform people’s lives rather than the gospel itself.
… never mind. You just don’t get what I’m trying to tell you do you? Have a pleasant evening.
….I understand all too well, having experienced the business end of the attitude you describe many times, and for that matter on this very thread from you. It’s a mild variant, really, of “don’t touch the Lord’s anointed”, and the sooner this attitude dies, the better.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Tom, so you’re telling me that the Bereans examined very carefully the premises Paul took from Scripture, but paid no attention to the logical forms/syllogisms Paul used on combining his references into his conclusions? And then, despite the fact that establishing the Christian faith from the Old Testament is a far more complex task than most pastors attempt today, the Bereans made no attempt to understand the communication tools Paul consistently uses to communicate these concepts?
I’m sorry, Tom, but I can’t buy that one, and you shouldn’t, either. If you (again) put the first few chapters of 1 Corinthians in context, what is really being said is that the message of the Gospel doesn’t resemble the discussions of the philosophers on the Areopagus; that’s precisely what Paul describes in chapter 1. You can only get to your position by taking 1 Cor. 2:1 completely out of its context , by ignoring the definition of Strong’s 3925, and for that matter by ignoring the rhetorical tools that are clearly described being used by Christ, John the Baptist, the Apostles, the prophets, and others in Scripture.
(classic prooftexting, really)
Now you would be correct to say that “apt to teach” does not mean someone must be a Sophocles or Plato or Cicero (Churchhill, Reagan, whoever) in oratory, sure, but at the same time, it means that “style and delivery” are far more crucial than your interpretation of 1 Cor. 2:1. Again, try to establish New Testament doctrine from the Old Testament without a far greater command of logic and communication skills than is typically seen on a Sunday morning in our churches. You would just confuse the congregation to no end. Style and delivery go hand in hand with premises and logic.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]….I understand all too well, having experienced the business end of the attitude you describe many times, and for that matter on this very thread from you. It’s a mild variant, really, of “don’t touch the Lord’s anointed”, and the sooner this attitude dies, the better.
Not at all. Its called leave the man alone after he has proven himself. He doesn’t have to pass your approval every week. My goodness. Do you really ride your pastor like you suggest? Every week you give him a report on what he did right and wrong in his sermon?
Discussion