One of my rules of thumb about preachers is that you can almost immediately tell what kind of preacher they are by the introduction of a sermon. If they start out talking about themselves, you might as well run away, and fast. But that’s not always true. There is still a chance that they can move on from the “I.” A small chance, but a chance.
Do you know people who constantly talk about themselves? Are you one of those people yourself? Here’s the question: does the talking get beyond the “I” to ‘rather more important nouns and names’? Notice also the percentage of the Creed devoted to “I” versus the more important nouns and names.
Here’s a goal (for me, but you can use it if you like): always try to move from the “I” to rather more important nouns and names. And try to do it in similar percentage to the Creed.
And I do ask them to believe that when we try to make our sermons and speeches more or less amusing, it is for the very simple and even modest reason that we do not see why the audience should listen unless it is more or less amused. Our mode of speech is conditioned by the fact that it really is what some have fancifully supposed the function of speech to be; something addressed by somebody to somebody else. It has of necessity all the vices and vulgarities attaching to a speech that really is a speech and not a soliloquy.
I once took a few classes on preaching. During one of those classes, someone went on a diatribe about why they didn’t understand all the fuss about making ‘applications’ in sermons. What if a text doesn’t have any modern applications? What if you just don’t see any? Isn’t it enough that we simply ‘teach’ the text?
Chesterton reminds us that people who talk to people are not in the business of making soliloquies. If you’re making a soliloquy, then who exactly are you talking to? Perhaps you are talking to yourself. Perhaps you are trying to entertain. But you are not actually talking to people.
This will likely be my last post of the year (with the holidays and all), so I want to wish you all a Merry Christmas.
In the meantime, I give you the mandatory ‘top posts’ post. If there’s anything on the list you haven’t read before, why not give it a look? Here are the most read posts from the blog for the year:
4. God Is Love, But Love Is Not God
This one’s the first newcomer to the list. Here I take on not only modern culture, but no less a giant than St. Augustine.
8. Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ Method of Pastoral Counseling and Diagnosis
I am glad this one cracked the top 10. I worked very hard on this post in an attempt to distill the basics of the pastoral counseling method of Martyn Lloyd-Jones. I work harder to actually try to put his wisdom into practice. I still highly recommend the book on which this post is based: Healing and the Scriptures.
9. Recent Reading: Leaf by Niggle, by J.R.R. Tolkien
Here’s a taste: “Christian lawyers work for justice, and the world remains unjust. Christian doctors, nurses, and pharmacists (and others of course) work for the health and well-being of people – all of whom eventually die…”
10. Him that is Unjust, Let Him be Unjust Still: What does it mean? (Revelation 22:11)
It’s a line from the Book of Revelation that has entered into the modern consciousness via Johnny Cash’s The Man Comes Around. I remember early in the season there was an SEC football commercial that used this song. I thought there was an ironically fitting display of southern culture as I saw images of Les Miles and Nick Saban as this song played in the background.
A little quirk happening made me think of a quote by G.K. Chesterton from The Everlasting Man:
One of my first journalistic adventures, or misadventures, concerned a comment on Grant Allen, who had written a book about the Evolution of the Idea of God. I happened to remark that it would be much more interesting if God wrote a book about the evolution of the idea of Grant Allen. And I remember that the editor objected to my remark on the ground that it was blasphemous; which naturally amused me not a little.
I was watching a debate on YouTube and saw the title of a video which began, “Does God Exist?…Dan Barker Debate” But in my first (very quick) glance, I actually thought it said, “Does Dan Barker Exist?” I think that would be a much more interesting video and topic of debate.
God is not to be discussed or debated. God is not a subject for debate, because He is Who He is. We are told that the unbeliever, of course, does not agree with that; and that is perfectly true; but that makes no difference. We believe it, and it is a part of our very case to assert it. Holding the view that we do, believing what we do about God, we cannot in any circumstances allow Him to become a subject for discussion or debate or investigation…God is always to be approached ‘with reverence and with godly fear: for our God is a consuming fire’…
We believe in the almighty, the glorious, the living God; and whatever may be true of others we must never put ourselves, or allow ourselves to be put, into a position in which we are debating about God as if He were but a philosophical proposition (Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers, pp. 46-47).
Trees have no dogmas. Turnips are singularly broad-minded.
-G.K. Chesterton, Heretics
Like what you just read? Enter your email to get updates from Recognizing Christ
Get updates on our book project straight to your inbox. Seeing Christ in Fight Club (And Other Unexpected Places in Culture) is in the works. You'll also get a heads-up on our forthcoming podcast!
Your information will *never* be shared or sold to a 3rd party.
