Expositional Imposters (Expanded)

[Bert Perry] Tom, to be sure, Acts 17:11 does not per se address one’s delivery, but I’d argue that 1 Tim. 3:2 clearly does.

1 Tim 3:2 isn’t really about delivery or style either. Rather, it’s about one’s skill in handling the Word of God (i.e. 2 Tim 2:15; Titus 1:9).

Tom, I’m sorry, but if you think delivery and style are not an important part of the message, you need to talk to any good teacher or anyone who relies on communication for a living. For that matter, even engineers like myself are increasingly learning that the “soft skills” are just as important as technical prowess and ideas for maintaining a career path.

Worth noting as well; the verses you cite do absolutely nothing to buttress your argument. Nothing. You would be looking for something indicating that “apt to teach” does not in fact not include these other factors.

Put more bluntly, yes, “apt to teach” does mean that the teacher needs to have an idea how his audience is going to respond. There are times it is appropriate to use various tools; volume, cadence, silence, and the like. A good example; many people tend to fill silence with words like “um”, “like”, and “you know”. Skilled communicators, on the other hand, understand that the silence is a tool that is used to allow the audience to process (or “critique”, if you will) what is being said.

All too often, it seems as if too many in “our tribe” think that you can just walk into the pulpit like a bull into a china shop and have no idea how those words are going to impact people. That’s not what Jesus did, and there is a ton of beautiful “art” in how He did things. We won’t get all of it, but if we start asking “why did He do it that way?”, we’re going to start cluing in.

[Bert Perry]

Tom, I’m sorry, but if you think delivery and style are not an important part of the message, you need to talk to any good teacher or anyone who relies on communication for a living. For that matter, even engineers like myself are increasingly learning that the “soft skills” are just as important as technical prowess and ideas for maintaining a career path.

Worth noting as well; the verses you cite do absolutely nothing to buttress your argument. Nothing. You would be looking for something indicating that “apt to teach” does not in fact not include these other factors.

Bert, my point was “apt to teach” doesn’t speak to style or delivery but to ability to rightly handle God’s Word. You can do that without having to be a public speaker. That being said, Paul didn’t think too highly of human wisdom and eloquent speech when it came to preaching the gospel. 1 Corinthians 1-3 is pretty clear about that. So, put most bluntly, you’re wrong about “apt to teach” having to do with style and delivery. That was not Paul’s concern.

[Bert Perry]

Mark, maybe address the reality that the example of the Bereans, as well as various other comments made by Christ, Paul, and others, which clearly commend the practice of analyzing/critiquing the sermon.

Bert,

I spent too many years getting my spiritual exercise by jumping to conclusions and running down the pastor… Now, I just enjoy what I get. If he asks me my opinion, I give it. If not, so be it. If I were on a committee reviewing a potential hire, or in a church hearing the pastor who is being considered, I’ll do it. Other than that, I enjoy what I can.

If I don’t like what I hear, I am free wo go to another church. That is the what the Bereans were doing… not running down Paul.

But going onto a blog and complaining about other people’s sermons is pointless.

Now, I can look at my own sermons and improve. I think that is more important.

I’ve always understood this to be an umbrella term that means the guy can (1) understand Scripture, and (2) can actually communicate effectively. Does this communication include style and delivery? Yes, of course it does. This is why any reasonable person could (1) look at two guys with identical sermon notes, (2) see one guy read from the notes in a monotone and rarely look up from his paper, then (3) look at another guy actually preach the text, and (4) recognize the second guy has the gift to teach and the other does not.

[TylerR]

I’ve always understood this to be an umbrella term that means the guy can (1) understand Scripture, and (2) can actually communicate effectively. Does this communication include style and delivery? Yes, of course it does. This is why any reasonable person could (1) look at two guys with identical sermon notes, (2) see one guy read from the notes in a monotone and rarely look up from his paper, then (3) look at another guy actually preach the text, and (4) recognize the second guy has the gift to teach and the other does not.

I understand that is what you think “apt to teach” means, but delivery and style during public oration is not what Paul had in mind with this qualification. Again, it’s referring to how one can rightly handle God’s Word to instruct and refute others. Delivery and style in preaching aren’t in view. That being said, yes, the person needs to be able to communicate in order to teach, but that can take place as written or oral communication, before a group or one-to-one.

At the 9 Marks church I served as a pastor, we had sermon reviews during our elders meeting, which was every other week on Monday evenings. The Sundays I preached I found the sermon review helpful and craved the insights and critiques from my fellow pastors. The Sundays I wasn’t preaching, knowing that I had to critique/review the sermon changed how I listened. While understanding the need and value, I wasn’t a fan. I’d rather listen and be fed God’s Word. Yes, we need to “judge” sermon’s based on God’s Word, but that doesn’t require listening with even any hint of the motive to critique.

Having been trained in both public speaking and theatre/stagecraft, I have learned that the VAST majority of church goers who critique and criticize the preaching style, delivery, etc. have no idea what they’re talking about and should be ignored. Whenever a young guy would preach, I would make sure that I positioned myself next to them after the service so that I could hear the critiques and criticisms (it’s almost always the same people who believe it’s their job to give homiletics lessons upon the conclusion of the service). After any wanna-be professor would walk away, I would invariably and quietly say, “Don’t pay any attention to that, you did fine. The elders will give you some notes later.”

On the flip side, I dislike hearing compliments about my preaching style and delivery. I want to hear how the Spirit used/is using the preaching of God’s Word in their heart.

it is clear that Paul did not consider oratorical skills a qualification to preach. He considered himself a weak public speaker, but insisted that his level of knowledge was superior and that was the reason why he was qualified to preach.

It has been claimed that Jonathan Edwards read from a manuscript and was lacking in oratory. Yet his sermons had unusual spiritual power.

Wouldn’t we all prefer to listen to a skilled orator? I know I would. Doesn’t Scripture indicate that we should prefer message content over communication skills? I’m afraid we have been spoiled in modern American Christianity, and have adopted the attitude that its the preachers responsibility to grab my attention and hold it with his oratory. Wrong. It’s our responsibility as listeners to focus upon the message even when doing so is less than highly enjoyable.

Would I rather hear a polished orator? Yes. Would I rather be a polished orator? Yes. Is that a necessary qualification for ministry? No.

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?

You’ve got me there, Tyler. I can’t say that I would. But does that mean that neither you nor I would recommend ordaining the Apostle Paul?

While Paul personally claimed that his preaching was far from eloquent, a study of the Biblical accounts of his public speaking reveal him as a skilled orator who was familiar with classical oratorical rules and skillful in his use of rhetoric. I was in a state university taking a graduate level course called “The Analysis and Criticism of Oral Rhetoric” and the unsaved PHD who taught the class agreed.

I’ve always understood Paul to mean he was uneloquent according to the standards for oratory of the day, in that culture. Much like Augustine, as he recounts his study of rhetoric. Not that he REALLY WAS a poor speaker.

For they say [about Paul] “His letters are weighty and strong, but his personal presence is unimpressive and his speech contemptible.” (2 Cor 10:10).

That may have reference to the oratorical approaches of the day. It may not. It is hard to read much into Paul’s speaking ability based on the written accounts of messages (the few that there are).

It is, on the other hand, easy to see Paul’s concern for an overreliance on methodology in speaking in 1 Cor 2 where he cautions about “persuasive words of man’s wisdom.” Duane Litfin’s article on this is worth reading, as are some other sources. It is good to be a good teacher in terms of presentation. But we must be careful not to lean on presentation too heavily.

Ron and Tyler, I’ve long suspected that Paul was vastly underrating himself when he claims that his speaking skills were weak. Still he says so often enough that it’s hard to dismiss his words completely. His critics certainly considered him lacking in verbal communication skills. “”For his letters,” they say, are weighty and powerful, “but his bodily presence is weak and his speech contemptible.” (II Corinthians 10:10) Paul himself said, “Even though I am untrained in speech, yet I am not in knowledge.” (II Corinthians 11:6)

But I agree, the descriptions of his preaching, given by Luke in the book of Acts, seem to portray a very effective public speaker. So, what shall we say then to these things? That Paul was probably a decent public speaker, but not as eloquent as Apollos or Peter, to whom he and others may have been comparing him.

Like Jonathan Edwards, its impossible to know how to understand the accounts of others. We would really have to be physically present to hear them for ourselves. Enough already!

Regarding 1 Cor. 1-3—really specifically 1 Cor. 2:1—let’s start with the main point; that Paul is noting that his wisdom and eloquence is not that of the great pagan philosophers of the time. That doesn’t mean that ordinary rhetorical skills are somehow optional, and if you look through the lives of Paul, Christ, and others, you’re going to see a ton of cases where they deliberately used these rhetorical skills to appeal to their hearers. When before Romans, Paul appeals to Roman law. When before mixed Pharisees and Sadducees, he picks at their theological differences. When before Judiazers, he appeals to the audience’s knowledge of written and oral Torah. When before Greeks, he quotes their authors.

In the same way, Jesus speaks very differently to ordinary Jews than He does to Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Sanhedrin. He speaks yet differently to Gentiles like the Samaritan woman or Roman soldiers.

We should take heed. Not that we ought to speak like philosophers—“if I wished to punish a province, I would have it governed by philosophers” (Frederick of Prussia)—but rather we ought to insist that our teachers actually be “apt to teach”, and if you think that doesn’t include communication skills, well, I guess you deserve what you get.