The State of Preaching

I don't know if I've earned the right to make such an evaluation, but here we go. I preached the first service of a weekend revival last night and after the service one of the members of the church engaged me on this very subject. He had spiritually grown up under the preaching of Steven Olford and others and he was lamenting the lack of preaching power and biblical depth in the pulpit today. After the service I went back to the pastor's home and spent the rest of the evening talking with the pastor's family (his wife and in-laws, who are retired Church of God ministers). Part of that conversation also turned to the state of preaching, particularly in the Church of God. Off of this non-scientific "survey" and my own convictions based on very little observation as well as the understanding I have gained here at Fuller both from classes and from teaching students, I want to make a few observations.

1. Based on homiletical training of students, almost all of the training for students focuses on exegetical and hermeneutical training. For instance, here at Fuller M.Div. students must complete both Greek and Hebrew as well as Greek Exegesis and Hebrew Exegesis prior to taking Homiletics. In other words you take four quarters of language study before taking one quarter of preaching. The basic homiletics class (called PR 500 here) is a 4 unit class that is required for the degree. After taking PR 500 the student must take 4 more hours in either homiletics or communications. Most students take a Preaching Practicum course or two (they are 2 hours each) to fulfill their last 4 hours (a total of 8 hours is required in the preaching area). All this to say that the students are heaped in language and study habits and are given some practical experience in preaching (most of the time you will preach twice in each class, so you may preach in class as many as six times before graduating. This doesn't count your field ministry experience where you will probably preach once or twice. The disconnect I see here is that we teach them how to put a sermon together but very little performance training.
2. My mentor, Dr. Clay Schmit, is one of the leading voices in the area of Performance Preaching. Many people are put off by the use of the word "Performance" because they associate the word with the wrong things. Actors perform by becoming a character they are not. Therefore, performance is viewed by many as being akin to fakery or falsehood. Interestingly, the same connotation is not given to soloists in the church. We don't mind that they perform a song. Why the double standard? Because we are still questioning the use of emotion in the pulpit. The subject of emotionalism in North American church history is long and complicated. From the Pilgrims stoic, unemotional delivery (described as the Perkins Method by O.C. Moore in his, "History of Preaching") to the firebrand style of George Whitfield, we are unsure as to how much emotion is too much - how much performance is helpful and how much is manipulative. However, any layperson will tell you that not only don't they mind some emotion from the pulpit, they would also appreciate it if a few more preachers learned the details of rhetoric and performance in their preaching. That is why the area of performance studies is growing and I firmly believe it is one of the missing pieces in how we train preachers today.
3. The lack of creativity in preaching is astounding. We all seem to be trying to emulate someone else. We try to preach like Rick Warren or copy the style of a Joel Osteen. We get sermons off the internet and try and preach them as our own. We discover someone else's outline and preach it as though it came from our sweet and brow. Preaching is not only about doing the study required to preach well, it is also about "finding your voice" in the pulpit. You have not been called to be someone else. God saw you as a unique vessel and decided to use you, your gifts, your talents, your personality, your quirky sense of thinking to be His vessel for sharing the Word. When we copy something from someone else we deny the reality that God desires to use us and that God knew what he was doing when he called us. Use your gifts. Be creative. A three point sermon with a poem at the end may have worked for someone else but each preacher must allow her voice to shine out.
   

Maybe these will resonate with some of you. Let me know. There is more to come.

God Has Eyes, Even When We Are Blind

The title of this post has an interesting description in it. It's called anthropomorphism. It means assigning to God human qualities and physical traits that give us a frame of reference but really don't describe God literally. For instance, "God has eyes" is an anthropomorphism. God sees us but he does not have a physical appearance as we are so it is not likely that God has eyes. However, it is a way of expressing something about the nature of God (God watches over us; God sees us and knows us; God is looking down upon us; etc.). For instance, I realized to day how much God has been watching over me even when I was walking along in the dark about what to do. Here is how I came to realize this.
Today, I spent the afternoon watching several professors of preaching gather from around the nation to put on DVD their ideas and thoughts about what is called, "Performance Preaching". Before I tell you what that is, let me tell you a little bit of how I got to Fuller in the first place. I applied for a Ph.D program at several seminaries. I wanted to study preaching and had a real interest in narrative based preaching (narrative based preaching is centered in a story telling approach to scripture). As I looked at seminaries, I looked at location, reputation, and application. My goals were simple - get in! Along the way I came to realize that the philosophy of those who teach homiletics (the science of preaching) vary greatly. I interviewed in one place where the ideas I proposed were so offensive to them that I got turned down not on the basis of skill or competency or GPA but on the style of my preaching.
I had applied to Fuller based solely on its reputation. It was considered to be a top notch seminary and getting a degree from here would be prestigious. I had never met the head of the Homiletics Department, Dr. Clay Schmit. We talked briefly on the phone one day and that was it. So, when I got my acceptance, I was elated but also wondering what now? I met Clay and instantly liked him and we both felt this was a relationship that would go well. I have become his R.A. (research assistant) and get paid to help him with projects. One of those is to read and help edit a book that he is helping to put together from a variety of sources on the subject of "Performance Preaching". Today, I got my first exposure to what that means. And it was amazing. Here were all these professors of preaching from around the country talking about the very things that I am most interested in exploring. One was a mime artist and gave an amazing lecture on gestures and how important they can be. Another has an acting background and did some fascinating dramatic scripture readings. The "guru" of this movement was there and he was a wonderful and powerful man who had launched this movement and exemplified it tremendously. Another professor did a lecture (10 minutes) on the power of and the right way to emphasize words in a reading. It was revolutionary. And there was my mentor, Clay Schmit, orchestrating it all and bringing this whole thing to pass.
Here's my point. I had no idea why I should come to Fuller. I came because they accepted me and had a good reputation. I was blind to the importance of the philosophy of the institution and to the ones that would be teaching me. But God has eyes, even when we are blind. And I realized once more, I am where He wants me to be with the people He wanted me to be under doing what He has put in my heart to do. Amazing!