John Stott, in discussing the necessity of pastors to be sincere in what they preach, cites a story in his book, Between Two Worlds, about the 18th century philosopher, David Hume:

A friend once met [Hume] hurrying along a London street and asked him where he was going. Hume replied that he was going to hear George Whitefield preach. 'But surely,' his friend asked in astonishment, 'you don't believe what Whitefield preaches, do you?' 'No, I don't,' answered Hume, 'but he does.' (269-270)

Whitefield had a transparent sincerity that attracted Hume. So it must be with us. John Poulton has said, "The most effective preaching comes from those who embody the things they are saying. They are the message."

That couldn't be more true.

Loading mentions Retweet

John Stott is well-known for his advocacy of expository preaching. In his book, Between Two Worlds, he says that to "expound Scripture is to bring out of the text what is there and expose it to view. The expositor prizes open what appears to be closed, makes plain what is obscure, unravels what is knotted, and unfolds what is tightly packed." The intent of such preaching is nothing more than setting forth the truth of Scripture in a manner that is plain – and excuse the buzzwords  – relevant and applicable.

Stott goes on in his book to set out what he feels are some of the strongest arguments for expository preaching, one of which is the recognition that exposition imposes limits upon the preacher. He writes,

It restricts us to the scriptural text, since expository preaching is biblical preaching. We are not expounding a passage from either secular literature or a political speech or even a religious book, let alone our own opinions. No, our text is invariably taken from God's Word. The very first qualification of expositors is the recognition that we are guardians of a sacred 'deposit' of truth, 'trustees' of the gospel, 'stewards of the mysteries of God.'

Not many people like the idea of being confined by something, or being limited by something external to themselves, but when it comes to preaching, there really is no other option if we are to faithfully proclaim the truth of Scripture. Stott quotes Donald Coggan, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, who noted that it was, in fact, a joy to be confined as a preacher by the Word of God:

The Christian preacher has a boundary set for him. When he enters the pulpit, he is not an entirely free man. There is a very real sense in which it may be said of him that the Almighty has set him his bounds that he shall not pass. He is not at liberty to invent or choose his message: it has been committed to him, and it is for him to declare, expound and commend it to his hearers... It is a great thing to come under the magnificent tyranny of the Gospel!

I quite like that, the "tyranny of the Gospel." It is, indeed, an absolute authority that we come under when we submit ourselves to Lordship of Jesus Christ and his Word. It demands our complete and unfailing loyalty. But yet it is under that authority that we find the most faithful and the most powerful preaching.

Loading mentions Retweet

I began to read John Stott's book on preaching, Between Two Worlds, this morning. He opens with a brief historical sketch examining the place of preaching in the thought and practice of some of the notable church leaders down through history. I was a little surprised to read this about some of the great Catholic figures in the Middle Ages:

'The Age of Preaching', wrote Charles Smyth, 'dates from the coming of the Friars... The history of the pulpit as we know it begins with the Preaching Friars. They met, and stimulated, a growing popular demand for sermons. They revolutionzed the technique. They magnified the office.' Although Francis of Assisi (1182-1226) was a man more of compassionate service than of learning, and insisted that 'our acting and teaching must go together', he was nevertheless 'as committed to preaching as to poverty: "Unless you preach everywhere you go", said Francis, "there is no use to go anywhere to preach." From the very beginning of his ministry, that had been his motto.' His contemporary Dominic (1170-1221) laid even greater emphasis on preaching. Combining personal austerity with evangelistic zeal, he traveled widely in the cause of the gospel, especially in Italy, France and Spain, and organized his 'black friars' into an Order of Preachers. A century later Humbert de Romans (died 1277), one of the finest of Dominican Ministers General, said: 'Christ only once heard Mass...but he laid great stress on preaching.' And a century later still, the great Franciscan preacher St Bernardino of Siena* (1380-1444) made this unexpected statement: 'If of these two things you can do only one – either hear the mass or hear the sermon – you should let the mass go, rather than the sermon... There is less peril for your soul in not hearing mass than in not hearing the sermon' (21-22).

Recognizing, of course, that it is a much more recently composed document, it is nonetheless interesting to note that the Catechism of the Catholic Church seems to exalt the Mass over preaching, in contrast to what the Medieval leaders taught: "The Eucharist is 'the source and summit of the Christian life.' The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it" (par. 1324).

However, despite the declaration on the primacy of the Mass, when you turn to the section of the Catechism that speaks about Scripture, it appears that it is to be viewed on the same level: "For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body" (par. 103), and, "'The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures as she venerated the Body of the Lord': both nourish and govern the whole Christian life" (par. 141).

Does this mean, then, that Scripture in and of itself, or perhaps as interpreted and contained in the tradition of the Church is on equal footing with the Mass? Does the nourishment that comes from Scripture come through the preaching of Scripture, or in some other way? Or is the Catechism simply saying that the two are equally important?

Given my limited knowledge of Catholicism I may be missing something simple and obvious on this matter. Therefore, please discuss below.

*On a side note: the story of Bernardino's missionary work on the ever-authoritative Wikipedia page is quite interesting. He seemed to have been something of a medieval Whitefield.

Loading mentions Retweet

Below is the sermon I preached on May 2 at River Oaks Church in Lake Mary, Florida. About a month prior to this in our adult Sunday School class, I had taught a lesson on the importance of the resurrection and our discussion went so well that I wanted to return to this theme. I decided to preach from Acts 3 because Peter's message here is one of the many instances in Acts where a sermon from the one of apostles points to the living Christ.

If you have the time to have a listen, I would be greatful for any feedback you would be willing to give. This is only the third time I have preached, so I am still very new at this. I'm not ready to go without a manuscript at this point yet, and there was a few times where I was very conscious of being too bound to it. With time, I'm sure, I'll be able to transition to using more of an outline format for my notes. Just a technical note—the audio must have been recorded at a rather high bitrate because the the file is quite large (31mb), so it may take a minute or two to load.

Loading mentions Retweet

Colin Adams posts this paragraph from Christopher Ash's, The Priority of Preaching:

“I do not think this means that every preacher has to become a great cultural expert. It can be daunting to hear a speaker imply that unless we all become equipped to give deep and perceptive analyses of everything from the fashion industry to climate change, we cannot preach. We cannot each become experts in every aspect of our culture and contemporary issues. What we can and must do is love the people we serve and the people we seek to reach. And if we love people we will listen to them and begin to understand them. And if we do that thoughtfully we are bound to get an insight into culture” (56).

He makes a good point, but I am not sure I am in full agreement with him. Questions surrounding the church and culture are always big questions, and I wonder if Ash is a little dismissive of the issue. Then again, this is one short paragraph in what is probably a much longer chapter, and it would be good to read this in the broader context.

What do you think?

Loading mentions Retweet