Doug Wilson responds to “Why Courtship is Fundamentally Flawed"

It’s a world of difference between on the one hand not verbally citing every resource used to prepare a sermon (while at the same time the sermon itself—its structure and primary content—is original with you) and the other hand preaching a complete (or almost complete) sermon that you didn’t originally prepare. Most people have the expectation that the pastor prepared the essence of what he is presenting, or else he would state otherwise.

When I was in Bible college and volunteering at a local church, a missionary preached a sermon on Is. 49:16 about how God has “graven thee on the palms of my hands.” It was pretty good. Not soon after that I had missed some sessions of our Bible college Bible conference and so to make it up I had to listen to tapes (yes, cassette tapes) of archived sermons in the library. I picked one from a well-known preacher in our circles from yesteryear, and what do you know…it was pretty much the exact same sermon as what the missionary speaker had preached. Same illustrations and everything.

Our church once had a guy come and teach on music and he ripped off a big section of the only John Piper sermon I have listened to. It was a pretty good sermon but it was funny because the guy teaching it would say that we should not have anything to do with John Piper.

That’s pretty much what I meant to write.

There’s a difference between saying in your introduction

Folks, when I was back at XYZ Conference, I heard Brother de Blanc preach efg. So, I’m going to borrow his outline.

and off you go into your message. This is what I meant by proper footnoting.

And not saying anything at all, thus letting your hearers believe the whole message was original to you.

[Greg Long]

It’s a world of difference between on the one hand not verbally citing every resource used to prepare a sermon (while at the same time the sermon itself—its structure and primary content—is original with you) and the other hand preaching a complete (or almost complete) sermon that you didn’t originally prepare. Most people have the expectation that the pastor prepared the essence of what he is presenting, or else he would state otherwise.

When I was in Bible college and volunteering at a local church, a missionary preached a sermon on Is. 49:16 about how God has “graven thee on the palms of my hands.” It was pretty good. Not soon after that I had missed some sessions of our Bible college Bible conference and so to make it up I had to listen to tapes (yes, cassette tapes) of archived sermons in the library. I picked one from a well-known preacher in our circles from yesteryear, and what do you know…it was pretty much the exact same sermon as what the missionary speaker had preached. Same illustrations and everything.

More on “originality”: The pastorate is more than formulating catchy messages. In my mind correct “teaching” (1 Tim. 4.13) is much more important and warranted in scripture. Was Paul just saying that “reading”, “exhortation”, and “teaching” were temporary things? No, the force of Paul’s instruction to Timothy was that these things were to be the primary features of the assembly. The apostle was going to give further information when he arrived but described the functioning elements of a gathering. In my mind, “teaching” does not have to be “original” and by its nature really can’t be “original.” The sermon preserves the “teaching” and, so, in my mind, it doesn’t need to be “original” in its basic framework. How am I wrong? Isn’t it a danger to be ‘too original’?

Going back on the topic of finding and being a good marriage partner, the boys’ vocations is probably the key (“vocations” since the timeless book of Ecclesiastes counsels a dual track-“let not your hand be idle at night”). The girls probably needs security and commitment is how God made them (I know I am sounding very ‘traditional’ here).

However, boys need time to grow up and can’t be pushed too hard (it took me 44 years “to grow up” before I got married). In my mind this is where all the “breaks” in the bible come in: the Sabbath, the first day of the month (New Moon), the festivals which praised God for His bounty, and the fasts which recognized our deficiency. So the daily task of pursuing two possible vocations is tempered by rest, diversions (I find this in other places in scripture), and maintaining perspective. This daily grinding out to get ahead is probably counterproductive and leads to burnout.

I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned Gothard’s influence. He has had an enormous influence within the homeschooling community which goes well beyond those he directly influences. Of those that I know of having marriage or other family relationship problems within the homeschooling community, they have all been heavily influenced by Gothardism. Dropping out of church and following recipes promoted by parachurch ministries, or allowing them to be the primary authority in your life, is no substitute for genuine Christian living accountable to a healthy body of believers. Too often, that is the approach taken by the Gothardites and those that have accepted much of his teaching without knowing the source. This seems to be more a problem of free-range “Christianity”. They supposedly know a better way, generally lack respect for the authority of the church and pastors, and eventually suffer the consequences. Courtship followed by divorce just happens to be a more public manifestation of the problem. If you look closer, you’ll find many other examples of business and relationship issues related to a refusal to accept outside authority/accountability. Homeschooling is the natural schooling choice for people with this mindset and our homeschooling communities, for the most part, are blind to the problem. (btw, I’m a homeschooler. This isn’t a criticism of homeschooling. It is a criticism of a certain mindset of some homeschoolers.)

I genuinely want some feedback on whether so-called ‘Gothardism’ is overblown. My wife and I homeschool our kids, and have been in many different churches over the course of my military career, and now we’re in ministry ourselves.

• We’ve never seen anything by Bill Gothard
• We’ve never read anything by Gothard
• He’s just a name to me, and my wife doesn’t even recognize the name
• No church we’ve been to has ever carried any of his stuff in the bookstore or recommended it at all - he’s never even been mentioned

We’re in our 30’s. I suspect that “Gothardism” is something that people of an older generation would know more about. That may mean that fears of “Gothardism” are overblown. As another example, Jack Hyles is also meaningless to me. Never heard him preach. Never read a book. Never listened to a tape. I understand his legacy intellectually very well, but all he is to me personally is a dead guy with a bad rep.

• By the way, that should be a lesson to all wannabe Christian celebrities - all the hubris and selfish ambition in the world will get you in the end is to have some younger preacher years later call you a dead guy with a bad rep who he’s read about in a book …

I think Gothardism is a bit overblown, but even amongst people who don’t know who Gothard is, I see the influence of his teachings. Ditto Hyles - I know churches that never heard of Hyles that somehow picked up the flavor of his soulwinning methods, church promotions, and operating bus routes. When someone makes a big splash, don’t underestimate the ripple effect.

[TylerR]

I genuinely want some feedback on whether so-called ‘Gothardism’ is overblown. My wife and I homeschool our kids, and have been in many different churches over the course of my military career, and now we’re in ministry ourselves.

• We’ve never seen anything by Bill Gothard
• We’ve never read anything by Gothard
• He’s just a name to me, and my wife doesn’t even recognize the name
• No church we’ve been to has ever carried any of his stuff in the bookstore or recommended it at all - he’s never even been mentioned

We’re in our 30’s. I suspect that “Gothardism” is something that people of an older generation would know more about. That may mean that fears of “Gothardism” are overblown. As another example, Jack Hyles is also meaningless to me. Never heard him preach. Never read a book. Never listened to a tape. I understand his legacy intellectually very well, but all he is to me personally is a dead guy with a bad rep.

• By the way, that should be a lesson to all wannabe Christian celebrities - all the hubris and selfish ambition in the world will get you in the end is to have some younger preacher years later call you a dead guy with a bad rep who he’s read about in a book …

Gothard is not as influential as he was but believe me, he is still influential. For example, consider the Duggars who are hugely influential and are very closely connected with Gothard.

Gothard waned after the Northwoods scandal

Read about

http://www.recoveringgrace.org/tag/northwoods-scandal/

Appreciate the feedback

Most of my sermons come from borrowed outlines, very few from my own original outlines.

I seldom if ever use illustrations, instead I quote dead guys (Spurgeon among my favorites to quote), and lyrics of songs. I footnote everything that is not original. When I was in Jamaica last year and preached in a church my missionary daddy used to pastor, a gentleman asked me for my outline (original to me) and I gladly handed it to him.

On the decline definitely, but it still takes awhile for the stench to evaporate and the stain is left behind.