Quote: "Modern-day Preachers"
" It is true, there are some holy, godly and God-honored ministers here and there in our day who have something like an apostolic unction in their preaching, and who have good success in winning souls to Christ. But then a vast majority of modern preachers are more like "wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest" [1Pe 2:17], than like the ministers of the gospel.
We have a numerous class of man-made ministers, now-a-days, who have both learning and talent, and who preach a great many good things in fine style; but alas! their preaching carries with it no saving knowledge of God and the power of His gospel. Their religion seems to consist entirely of theory and forms; whilst the life and power of godliness they have no concern for, and no belief in at all."
John Winebrenner
posted by Dan Masshardt at 12:57 PM
13 Comments:
Preach it, brother John!
One more reason to love JW...
"preaching carries with it no saving knowledge of God and the power of His gospel."
I still believe in preaching, but I think that how the 'sermon' has been conceived today (nice alliterated points of moral, self-help fluff) is well indited by by this quote.
And I'm sure that the first century church would have nothing of it, whether in public evangelistic preaching or for the edification of the body gathered.
in your words, how would you describe the God-honoring alternative?
Good question walt. I'd like to hear your thoughts as well.
For me, preaching is proclaimation, more than explaination. Explaination has a part, but that is the teaching component.
The proclamation ought to be bold - and it ought to be about Jesus, not us, primarily.
Most than suggest, it ought to demand a response. Expect a response. It seems to me that people either followed Jesus, or left (or wanted to kill him). I can't stand it when people's reaction is, 'that was nice.'
Additionally, the message - the word preached ought do be deeply compelling for the preacher. Something burned into our own heart first during our time of study, prayer, communion with God.
I think that real preaching begs God for that unction that Winebrenner speaks of. That Holy Spirit annointing that only he can provide. The Spirit to empower and to convict the hearts of those hearing the Word - including the 'preacher.'
Finally, it should be evident that God is the authority - Jesus - and that it is God's Word with authority over our lives, not any man or woman ultimately. People should see and worship God, not become dependent on any one person solely.
I have a feeling that bill is going to say all of this is priestly. :-)
Under the APEST leadership spectum, it would seem that perhaps, either an apostle, prophet, or evangelist (or all) could take up this task.
Y'all,
Lots of good stuff being said on several threads. I've got a lot of real life taking place right now and not much time for these conversations.
However...
M,
I have a feeling that bill is going to say all of this is priestly. :-)
I'll just say that I see no New Testament evidence of preaching (the Greek verb kerusso) taking place when Christian congregations meet. The word doesn't appear in Acts 19 or 20 in places where what took place in Ephesus and Troas when believers gathered is described and it appears not once anywhere in 1 Corinthians 11-14 in Paul's detailed treatment of how the Corinthians worshiped.
In fact, I do think that the notion that preaching takes place in Christian gatherings demands the notion of a clergy class set apart of the laity. That notion is not biblical. What I see in Scripture is people with APEST callings and certain spiritual gifts carrying out their callings and living out their gifts as priests in a community of priests, not as priests ministering to the common people of the congregation.
The NT word that most often describes the style of communication is dialegomai, i.e., to discuss, to argue (a point).
When you preach in a Christian gather, as far as I can tell from the 'New Testament plan,' you are assuming a clergy-laity division in the Body that is not biblical.
Perhaps I've lost the ability to tell the completely honest comments from the intentionally ironic, sarcastic, or tongue-in-cheek. If so, let me know, otherwise in response to Bill's post: When there was any spoken interaction, it wasn't in English. Nor was the Bible as we accept it today fully formed (or, even, written)...In other words, at what point does tradition factor in? We can't fully recover a "New Testament plan" for the contemporary church without allowing for some interpretation and adjustments. And, the minute we allow for interpretive differences, we are back to a never-ending conversation about what constitutes the "plan" (if such a thing does or should exist).
Brent,
In other words, at what point does tradition factor in? We can't fully recover a "New Testament plan" for the contemporary church without allowing for some interpretation and adjustments.
Adjustments? Certainly, every serious Restorationist knows that to recreate perfectly primitive Christianity in any other place and time than in the New Testament world is an, well, impossible dream.
That said, I think that, in the Restorationist understanding of church, TRADITION is nearly synonymous with sin. It was tradition that Winebrenner fought with his utmost passion. Of all things, tradition never factors in in a movement that is true to the founding vision of John Winebrenner.
dan m.,
And I'm sure that the first century church would have nothing of it, whether in public evangelistic preaching or for the edification of the body gathered.
amen, brother. and we who are their brothers and heirs of the gospel should have none of it either.
bill, if i may be a bit pauline.
In fact, I do think that the notion that preaching takes place in Christian gatherings demands the notion of a clergy class set apart of the laity.
if that's true, then why doesn't preaching outside of Christian gatherings demand the same clergy class set apart from the laity, whose duty it is to preach to the those under judgment?
every serious Restorationist knows that to recreate perfectly primitive Christianity in any other place and time than in the New Testament world is an, well, impossible dream.
is "primitive" Christianity really to be strived for? did not the apostles pray for us to grow into maturity, and the full knowledge of Christ? is it not possible that our grasp of the things of God are, at least in some ways, better than our earlier brothers? or was humanity supposed to be stagnant from that point forward?
and are not most of the letters of the new testament expressly written to correct the things that were errant in the early church? there was much good there, but ought we not to strive as they did, and as all our brothers from that time hence, toward greater Godliness and knowing our Dad and Savior more deeply?
walt,
if that's true, then why doesn't preaching outside of Christian gatherings demand the same clergy class set apart from the laity, whose duty it is to preach to the those under judgment?
I think this may be the best question I've ever seen on this blog but I'm not sure that you're asking what I think you're asking. Could you restate this question?
is "primitive" Christianity really to be strived for? did not the apostles pray for us to grow into maturity, and the full knowledge of Christ? is it not possible that our grasp of the things of God are, at least in some ways, better than our earlier brothers? or was humanity supposed to be stagnant from that point forward?
For John Winebrenner primitive Christianity is what is to be striven for.
For the CGGC, now that we have this Mission Statement, it is what it is to be striven for.
And, for me, it is also in the belief (and it is merely a belief, deeply held) that the Lord will bless the same sort of obedience that He blessed in those days.
My search for primitive Christianity is attached to the conviction that the first Christians, trained by Jesus and led by His first disciples, got it as close to right as the church ever has. There is a holistic and interconnected purity to what early disciples believed and did that I don't think any of us can improve on.
For example, I think that the fact that preaching certainly was practiced by early believers but never is mentioned in connection with Christian gatherings is connected to a much larger and critically essential truth about what the church really is in Christ. My experience in the shepherd dominated church is that the difference in the way truth is communicated in the Body is seen as a fluff issue--a matter only of style and technique--but for me, it is intimately tied to how disciples are made and who disciples are. Disciples are not easily made when they are asked to ingest truth passively through being preached at. Disciples were made in great numbers in the early church and, based on New Testament evidence, they never never preached into discipleship.
So, to me, New Testament faith and practice are a nearly perfect whole. If you take one component out of the Swiss watch that is the teaching and practice of the first incarnation of the church, you have impaired the function of the entire instrument so that it cannot be what it was designed to be.
Now, I may be wrong about that.
But, the reality is that I am a part of the CGGC and, as such, I'm obligated to submit to its Mission Statement, particularly now that the Mission Statement calls us to act upon our founding vision.
As I see it, those who don't embrace the Mission Statement and our history have three choices:
1. Change your mind.
2. Try to change the church.
3. Leave.
and are not most of the letters of the new testament expressly written to correct the things that were errant in the early church? there was much good there, but ought we not to strive as they did, and as all our brothers from that time hence, toward greater Godliness and knowing our Dad and Savior more deeply?
Yes. Amen. Is this either/or?
I've appriciated this discussion very much.
A couple thoughts:
It is evident that we began a resorationist church and our mission indicates that we are still one. If so, and I think this needs to be stated for us in much clearer terms, that make this obvious, then exploring what restorationism looks like will be essential. I don't think that we'll ever all agree on everything.
It's evident that Winebrenner was a restorationist. It's also evident that he believed strongly in preaching. He saw it as an important facet of the N.T. church and one of the things he longed to be restored, as the quote above indicates.
BUT, as we have agreed upon, Winebrenner is not all that important compared to what the N.T. teaches, and he may have been mistaken on things while at the same time setting us on the right trajectory.
So, what the New Testament teaches and sees to be normative concerning this question of preaching is what's most important. I will engage in a fresh study myself before wholly agreeing or disagreeing with what bill said.
One question that's been raised before is 'what does the Spirit bless?' So, does the Spirit bless preaching? I say, Yes! It has been my experience that I have been stimulated greatly to further study, obedience, conviction of sin, etc through preaching and have seen others bear fruit, come to faith, grow through preaching - my own and others.
Now is preaching all that's needed? Certainly not. It is not all that is needed to make disciples.
Additionally, I don't think that preaching needs to take the forms that we know as the only way. I think certain types of dialogical preaching can be very effective.
I have a conviction that the Spirit usually blesses when we proclaim and make much of Jesus and his word and the exact way that's communicated is less important. Also, it seems to me that N.T. practice was less monolithic than any of us might like it to be.
I have a belief that shepherds are often not gifted preachers / proclaimers and because we do have so many primarily shepherds, is part of the reason why preaching stinks in so many churches. Not becaue preaching is ineffective, but because people are ministering outside of their calling/gifting because of preconceived notions.
bill,
my style in questions is probably because i've been in galatians for most of this year, and paul tends to make his points in that book by rhetorical questions. to clarify my question, if we think that preaching* in an ekklesia necessitates a "clergy" (some "higher" class of believer which are set apart from ministry to the Body), then why doesn't preaching to the world require an equally set-apart class of Christians? this question is based on the assumption that, since you are so adamant about no preaching in a Christian gathering, that you have relegated it to an audience of unbelievers.
*preaching i'll define as a Christian giving a monologue expounding the gospel, the Scriptures, and the faith once for all delivered unto the saints, for the purpose of instruction and/or correction.
bill,
as to my comments on tradition and primitive Christianity, is that i don't think it is correct to chuck most of the last 1900 years of Christian thought and practice, assuming that those who were in the churches of the NT period were somehow closer to what God had envisioned. i think that assumption is false. i believe this mostly because of all the disobedience we see in them, which is why i point out the purpose of the NT letters, and much of Acts.
the church in Acts 2-5, which we often look to as some sort of heyday of the faith, was unfaithful to the command to take the gospel to the nations, which i think is why God allowed persecution to break out in jerusalem, to scatter His people.
a large portion of every letter in Scripture is given over to correction of the beliefs and practices of the early church. jude's letter even states that he changed the topic he wanted to write on because of the necessity to "contend for the faith"!
i am a strong believer in following the prescriptive teachings of the Scriptures, and to generally follow the precedents set in the descriptive passages, especially where they are tightly interwoven.
but i do not believe that we are bound by what some would call the regulative principle, nor that there is no need to contextualize our methodology. there are some things from the early church that are to be imitated, and others to be avoided.
therefore, i must strong disagree with the idea that we are to get back to some sort of "primitive" Christianity. we are to be faithful where and when we are, and to learn from the good and bad of every era of our past.
Post a Comment
<< Home