This is the last in a five-part series on Lloyd-Jones on Ministerial Reading. It is based on the chapter, “The Preparation of the Preacher,” from his book, Preaching and Preachers. He has given wise counsel on what and how a preacher should read in general to keep himself in shape for pulpit work. In addition to rightly reading the Scriptures Lloyd-Jones recommends reading certain types of books that will always be helpful to the preacher, and he counsels balance in reading these books so that the preacher will be well-read, well-rounded, humble, and useful.
His counsel to preachers in all things, including reading, is, “Know yourself.” The minister must know what books and authors are most likely to counteract his changing moods and help him get back to the place where he can better “understand and enjoy the Scriptures” (p. 174). What he needs most is the Word of God. Yet Lloyd-Jones acknowledges that sometimes we are dull toward the things of God for various reasons, and at such times we need the help that frequently comes from others who have struggled and found the grace of Christ sufficient.
Lloyd-Jones was a voracious reader who apparently outdid many of his contemporaries. He loved good books and consistently urged others to avail themselves of them. When he addressed the students at Westminster Seminary on this subject, he raised and answered the most logical question.
What is the purpose of all this reading? I reiterate that the object of all this reading is not primarily to get ideas for preaching…As men tend to read their Bibles in order to get texts for sermons, so they tend to read books in order to get preaching material. I would almost describe this as the occupational disease of the ministry. I remember a minister telling me in 1930 that he had been to a conference…designed to deepen people’s spiritual experiences…I was expecting him to tell me something about what he had experienced, or of what it had meant to him spiritually; but that is not what he told me. He said, “I got wonderful preaching stuff there.” Preaching stuff! Preaching material! He did not go to the conference to derive spiritual benefit, but simply to get material—illustrations, stories of other people’s experiences, etc—for his sermons…He had become a professional (p. 180).
Lloyd-Jones gives examples of preachers who got their sermons from books bought from a local bookshop. The only problem was…these preachers were frequently preaching the same sermon on the same day…and the people in their respective congregations knew each other. They were caught! There is still frequent discussion and controversy on the topic of plagiarism in the pulpit. And the discussion isn’t always limited to Christian circles.
So if getting “preaching stuff” isn’t the primary purpose for reading, what is? “It is to provide information; but still more important, it is because [reading] is the best general stimulus. What the preacher always needs is a stimulus (p. 181, emphasis added). Lloyd-Jones says that preachers are not gramophone records or tape recording machines. If that lecture were delivered today, he might have said “CDs and mp3 players.” The Doctor promoted books as an aid to our own thinking, not as a substitute for it. “What we preach is to be the result of our own thought. We do not merely transmit ideas” (p. 181).
I once heard a preacher comment on this subject. Referring to his use of books in preparing sermons he said, ”I milk many cows, but I churn my own butter!” Since I can’t remember who that preacher was, can I claim that as original, or would that be plagiarism? Lloyd-Jones says it this way: “Do not just repeat it as you have received it; deliver it in your own way, let it emerge as a part of yourself, with your stamp upon it” (p. 181). That’s good counsel. May we enjoy the constant stimulation of good books and not become mere machines with a playback button we press whenever we face a congregation. “Such a man will soon become barren…and his people will have recognized it long before he does” (p. 181).
Tim,
ReplyDeleteThanks for these quotes and thoughts. I am not a preacher, but I work for one.
ML-J's writings are always an encouragement to me. I just finished reading his "Studies in the Sermon on the Mount." There is always so much to chew on in his books, and I am always pointed back to the Scripture.
As far as plagiarizing, I just teach my Sunday school class with a lot of verbal footnotes, or I start the class with a commercial for the book I am currently reading.
I can't bring myself to preach or teach a pre-fab message. Recently, I wanted to share a chapter from Jonathan Edwards' Charity and Its Fruits. I told the class what I was doing, to make sure that Edwards received the credit for the outline, and I shared a number of quotes. I won't make a regular habit of this, but I really was glad to do this. I wanted to share the things that had challenged me, and also wanted to take advantage of the opportunity to encourage our people to read more of Edwards.
ReplyDeleteLately, most of the preaching I've done has been in an assisted living home. I always study thoroughly and take notes with me. But I try to speak as extemporaneously as I can. If I use I quote, I feel obligated to let the folks know that the words are not original to me. I agree with Lloyd-Jones, and others, that we need to have a high ethic in the pulpit. If we use someone's outline, say so. If we use someone else's words, give them credit. We're not preachers/teachers to please men, but God! It's a matter of His wisdom, not our own!
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment. I enjoyed visiting the Doctor again. He’s always been an encouragement to me. I'm all for using the great men of the past (and present) in our teaching or preaching if done properly. I think Jason made a good point. We should give credit where due and study for ourselves. And we should strive to please God, not men. I like the fact that Lloyd-Jones said to learn from these men and make the teaching our own, not just parrot things. His own ministry was described as old truths dressed in modern garb. He had absorbed and digested these doctrines so that they were a vital part of him.
It was ironic to me that as I was writing that article the other night, a feed came through my RSS reader from a blog from Southern Baptist Seminary. It was about a sermon that was preached at the Pastor's conference, which precedes their annual Convention meeting. The preacher, a respected pastor, recommended other preachers to download and preach his Father's Day sermon for free this Sunday. He runs a website that sells his sermons, complete with PowerPoint presentations. There was a lot of discussion on the blog about this, along with links to several articles on plagiarism in the pulpit. One of them was a link to the Wall Street Journal. Even the world notices things like this. For my own teaching I would find it unacceptable to present another man's sermon as my own, or to just preach it “as is” even though giving credit for it if I didn’t actually work for it. I once heard a preacher deliver a sermon which raised my eyebrows about a particular interpretation. When I got my copy of a certain religious periodical the next day, I saw where that sermon came from.
I think if we use another man's sermon or book, we should definitely give proper credit, have a valid purpose and method, and ordinarily not make a habit of it.
I agree whole-heartedly with your comments about plagiarism. When discovered, it tends to blow a preachers credibility, big time.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I do "commercials" for the books that I am reading is that often when meditating on an issue I find myself unintentionally meditating with the author's vocabulary that I am currently reading. So I give credit during a study to the book that has been most helpful to me on that particular passage or topic.
The "commercials" and quotes are also a good way for me to encourage quality reading habits and point the people in my class to solid books that say what I was trying to say in a better way.
For sake of discussion, is there a difference in preparing a sermon to preached and Sunday school lesson to be taught?
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteI think your method with books is good. I frequently recommend some good book if I'm teaching a Sunday School class and a pertinent book has meant a lot to me.
I don’t think there’s essentially a difference between preparing a Sunday School lesson and a sermon. Both are (or at least should be) some type of faithful teaching of God’s Word. The preparation and delivery of the lesson may vary somewhat from the sermon, especially considering the more intimate and interactive setting of the class. And the sermon will probably be marked by more exhortation than a SS lesson. But I think the nature of the two ministries is basically the same.
As I thought about this question I initially wanted to say that there is a difference between preparing a SS lesson and a sermon. However, as Tim answered, the heart of both matters is the exposition of the Word of God. I begin the same way doing spade work in the Scriptures and checking commentaries and other books for clarification of questions, illustrations, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe difference seems to come when I begin making my notes. The audience makes a big difference in the way I prepare my notes. I regard any speaking opportunity with fear, but I approach each setting/audience differently. I take a clearly outlined message into the pulpit. I take a thorough outline to the SS lectern, but I try to have more freedom to interact with the class. I've begun sketching notes no 3x5 cards when I speak at the assisted living homes. I often barely look at them and trust the Spirit to help me speak more extemporaneously, i.e. from a full heart.
So, I don't see much of a difference in the initial stages, but significant differences in the final stages of preparation and delivery.
Well said, Jason. I do believe the audience to be a big factor in the way we present what we've studied. That's a good point.
ReplyDeleteAnd I almost feel sorry for the preacher/teacher who settles for merely delivering a message secondhand rather than experiencing the joy of doing that spadework for himself. That's the joy of investigation and discovery. It's also the joy of seeing ourselves renewed and transformed as we bring ourselves into greater conformity to God's Word through a better understanding of it.
After the investigative preparation comes the creative preparation. That's probably where we see the big difference between preparing a lesson for SS and a sermon for preaching, where we gear our prepared material for a particular audience and setting. I'm enjoying this discussion. Good question, Anthony.
Hello again,
ReplyDeleteI have been out of town for a few days, but thank you for the well thought out responses.
Some of the best advice I got for Grad school was from Dr. Mike Barret before I was in Grad school. He said to make all your time in the Word of God "Devotional." In other words, if it did not mean anything to you spiritually it would never mean anything to any one else spiritually, academically, or otherwise. I don't remember where I heard this, and I don't want to steal it from anyone(please let me know if you guys can place the concept), but I always remind myself before entering any pulpit to preach, teach, or even sing, that it should always come from the "overflow" that is the wonderful things that float to the top of my cup that runneth over.
Another question: While the foundation (The Scripures), the investigation, (commnetaries & other preachers), and creation of a SS Lesson and sermon are the same, would there be a biblical distinction between teaching and preaching in a church setting.
Again I am asking for the sake of discussion.
The first question focused on the lesson / sermon, but this question emphasizes the delivery and deliverer. For example, I am thinking of a layman who teaches a Sunday school class, or a Preacher who is "apt to teach," but teaching is not his forte.
"would there be a biblical distinction between teaching and preaching in a church setting."
ReplyDeleteHere are some thoughts:
The NT uses a number of terms for this public activity, such as keryx "to herald", --aggellein, "to declare or to announce", euaggelizesthai, "to preach good news", keryssein, "to proclaim as a herald", and didasko, "to teach". Other words like reprove, rebuke, and exhort are also used.
All of these elements are involved in preaching. However, your message, audience and forum may cause you to lean more heavily one way or the other.
Lloyd-Jones makes these statements in his chapter on The Sermon and the Preaching:
"Any true definition of preaching must say that that man is there to deliver the message of God, a message from God to those people. ...he is not there merely to talk to them, he is not there to entertain them. He is there...to do something to those people; he is there to produce results of various kinds, he is there to influence people. He is not merely to influence a part of them; he is not only to influence their minds, or only their emotions, or merely to bring pressure to bear upon their wills and to induce them to some kind of activity. He is there to deal with the whole person; and his preaching is meant to affect the whole person at the very centre of life. Preaching should make such a difference to a man who is listening that he is never the same again."
Teaching deals with facts and formulas (i.e. indicatives). Teaching can be done anywhere--in a SS class or in a sanctuary. Teaching can stand alone, but preaching builds upon teaching. Indicatives are the platforms from which imperatives are issued. Preaching is reproving, rebuking, and exhorting (i.e. imperatives). Without sound teaching you have no basis for preaching.
I like how Lloyd-Jones explains that preaching is holistic. Preaching must address the total person; mind, will, AND emotions.
I hope that this is in line with what you were asking. (If not, we'll try again. :))
Jason,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the Greek. The one thing I regret during undergrad days was taking 2 years of German instead of Greek.
So would it be accurate however simplistic to say (in a church / Sunday school setting) that all preaching is teaching, but not all teaching is preaching.
I guess what I am getting at is the place of layman SS teachers, who truly have the spiritual gift of teaching, but are not "called to preach" There is reproof, rebuke and exhortation in their SS lessons, but they don't always bring the listeners to a decision.
Also in my mind, I see a slight difference in purpose. SS is more for instruction and addressing specific issues and topics that may not be covered in the pulpit. Not that any issue cannot be addressed biblically in the pulpit. It just seems more appropriate to address taboo topics, retell bible stories, and do in-depth inductive study in a SS class.
I do understand also that SS is a recent invention, and that SS will never and should never replace sound teaching from a pulpit. In most circle that I have been in SS was an additional time for biblical learning.
Finally, to change the direction of the discussion completely, Is it not potentially a difference in the distribution of spiritual gifts? The gift of teaching versus the gift of prophesying in differeing degrees in different individuals. Possibly resolved by a plurality of elders. (But I grew up an independent Baptist, so that is probably not the case :) )
"So would it be accurate however simplistic to say (in a church / Sunday school setting) that all preaching is teaching, but not all teaching is preaching?"
ReplyDeleteYes, I think that this is accurate.
I agree to that the SS hour is a great place to address topics that need to be discussed in a more intimate setting. I don't think that SS should be a mere lecture. The church needs a time of interaction with the Word. We need a time where we can discuss issues and specific applications. Not a free-for-all, mind you. But a directed, interactive study of the Scriptures.
Tim and I both are members of independent Baptist churches. Both churches have a plurality of elders. Our elders are able to teach, and do so. Some of the elders are not called to preach. This does give opportunity for more members to exercise all of their gifts (verbal and non-verbal).
Good thoughts.
We had an interesting time of study and interaction in our SS at Mount Calvary this spring. Our church read through Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress together, and our SS classes based our lessons on the book. We weren't sure how it would turn out at first, in a sense using a book other than the Bible. However, Bunyan's book leads us to the Bible on every page and teaches us good theology through story form.
ReplyDeleteI was privileged to teach one of the classes, and I tried to formulate several thought-provoking questions for each lesson, after which we would try to come to scriptural application together. It was a different, but (I hope) profitable way for people to ask, as well as, answer questions concerning scriptural truths and sometimes touchy issues. We had a good discussion on the topic of suicide in the lesson on Giant Despair.
I like describing SS as similar to preaching, but in a more intimate setting where the teacher tries to lead the class in guided spiritual conversation. I agree it shouldn't be merely a lecture. It should be two-way. Some people aren't as forward to take part, but at least we can provide an atmosphere where they can know they are welcome to chime in with something relevant.
Thanks to both of you for your responses. Your thoughts have been thought provoking.
ReplyDeleteTim, I appreciate your work on ML-J.
Also, this site has been a great resource and encouragement for me to read quality stuff.