Poll: Elders/Bishops/Overseers/Presbyters

[mike]

Is it possible to have good things to share but bore people to death? That has been my experience. I suggest that such folks share what they have to say in small groups outside of church.

I know it was suggested either by you or someone else that needing well spoken sermons versus simple less educated ones was a negative thing and learning to learn from lowly speakers was good and to our spiritual good.

I think it is possible to preach simple less educated sermons by lowly speakers without being boring. But if we end up having a boring sermon, then we might as well make the best use of time and profit from it. I find it hard though to convince the unchurched and less churched of this.

I really miss being part of a church where laypersons regularly preached. I would say the preaching was not necessarily better than where we are now, but I think there was a certain authenticity. Not to mention variety. Listening to the same three preachers can become rather monotonous. (Our church does try to address this by scheduling visiting speakers once a month or so.) I can only imagine what it's like in churches where the same pastor preaches every Sunday.

As we discussed elsewhere, there are various issues connected with preaching that is sub-par. Some of the boredom issue comes from a speaker continuing to speak long after his primary points are made, and I think that the church would benefit from less gifted speakers by not having an expectation that a 30, 45, or 60-minute time slot must be filled up with words.

Good preaching should be like "baking a fresh loaf." If all our food tasted like cardboard, we would hardly rush to the dinner table every night. We would do it out of necessity, because we need to stay alive, but it would hardly be an inspiring experience.

[Neto]

This discussion of speaking abilities reminds me of something I've mentioned here before, but perhaps bares repeating (at the risk of being boring). One of the older churchmen in the MB conference was J. J. Toews. I recall hearing him speak at a Bible conference conducted at the Bible institute where I was studying for my Freshman year. Other speakers there had a quick tongue, and fancy delivery. Brother Toews spoke slowly, and with a heavy Plautdietsch accent. But I still recall one thing he said at that conference, probably word for word: "The Spirit-Filled Life is Christ-Centered." (He was also 'nothing to look at" - a tall, gangly man with craggy features.) (By the way, Toews is pronounced like 'taves'. I would guess that the two J's stood for Jakob Jakob, as it was the custom that the second name was the father's name. So a son named after his father would have a second name that was the same as the first. That is, all of the sons would have the same second name. So my name would have been Ernest Johnny Buller, or in those days, Ernst Johann Buller, and my Dad would have been Johann Johann. BORING! )

[Neto]

....
I can only imagine what it's like in churches where the same pastor preaches every Sunday.
....

That was my experience, growing up. We had a single (paid) pastor, and he preached both Sunday morning and evening, as well as teaching the adult Bible study on Wednesday nights. I don't recall it being boring, but of course I never knew anything different.

[mike]

Other speakers there had a quick tongue, and fancy delivery. Brother Toews spoke slowly, and with a heavy Plautdietsch accent. But I still recall one thing he said at that conference, probably word for word: "The Spirit-Filled Life is Christ-Centered." (He was also 'nothing to look at" - a tall, gangly man with craggy features.)

There are many great speakers whose appeal is not their quick tongue or fancy delivery, or physical appearance. I had teachers who delivered slowly or softly in a dry tone of voice but whose teaching was mesmerizing due to their content.

[Ernie]

do you believe that the value of the old is diminished enough to seek more enjoyable sermons for the unchurched or lost?
How do you think this value you describe would be passed down to new generations if they are built on well orated sermons?
I don’t disagree with you on either side, while I appreciate Finny’s sermons, I don’t appreciate his direction.

I think that Anabaptists who grow up listening to boring sermons develop self discipline. And most at some point decide that the content is more important than the delivery. But this doesn't justify boring sermons, IMO.
I think discipline can be developed in other ways, and this is not particularly a discipline that I would be intent on imposing on the unchurched.
There is a spectrum between boring and well orated. I'm suggesting that we don't need the boring end of the spectrum. There are a lot of good sermons in the middle that don't fit either end of the spectrum.

[Soloist]

I think that Anabaptists who grow up listening to boring sermons develop self discipline. And most at some point decide that the content is more important than the delivery. But this doesn't justify boring sermons, IMO.
I think discipline can be developed in other ways, and this is not particularly a discipline that I would be intent on imposing on the unchurched.
There is a spectrum between boring and well orated. I'm suggesting that we don't need the boring end of the spectrum. There are a lot of good sermons in the middle that don't fit either end of the spectrum.

The primary issue I see is how we acquire the oratory skill. I appreciate a well spoken sermon but not at the cost of going to a school.

[Ernie]

The primary issue I see is how we acquire the oratory skill. I appreciate a well spoken sermon but not at the cost of going to a school.

I lean that way also.

[mike]

The primary issue I see is how we acquire the oratory skill. I appreciate a well spoken sermon but not at the cost of going to a school.

I lean that way also.

Are we content with going to a doctor that acquired his skills the same way?

[Neto]

I think that Anabaptists who grow up listening to boring sermons develop self discipline. And most at some point decide that the content is more important than the delivery. But this doesn't justify boring sermons, IMO.
I think discipline can be developed in other ways, and this is not particularly a discipline that I would be intent on imposing on the unchurched.
There is a spectrum between boring and well orated. I'm suggesting that we don't need the boring end of the spectrum. There are a lot of good sermons in the middle that don't fit either end of the spectrum.

The primary issue I see is how we acquire the oratory skill. I appreciate a well spoken sermon but not at the cost of going to a school.

What is the perceived 'cost' of "going to a school? Financial, or something else? There is a music school that is conducted here in Holmes County nearly every year, teaching voice, and perhaps shaped notes 'music reading'. Should I say that "I appreciate a well sung song, but not at the cost of going to a school"? Is developing expertise in either singing or speaking somehow intrinsically 'secular', or 'worldly'? (I DO prefer to hear preaching in "a natural voice", not a contrived screeching or quiver. Maybe that is because I prefer the teaching approach.)

[Ernie]

The primary issue I see is how we acquire the oratory skill. I appreciate a well spoken sermon but not at the cost of going to a school.

I lean that way also.

Are we content with going to a doctor that acquired his skills the same way?

I'd be fine with a doctor who apprenticed another good doctor and didn't go to school. I'd prefer one that did both.

But I don't compare doctoring with preaching. I think there have been many good preachers who listened to other preachers who communicated well, and then they developed their own good style.

I have a hard time listening to preachers whose sermons come across as "trained". It feels so unnatural to me. Sort of like listening to a politician using a tele-prompter and copying someone else's style.

A preacher can preach a "good" sermon without the aid of the Holy Spirit.