"THE PRIMACY OF PREACHING" ??
A BRIEF INTRODUCTION
In putting together this
relatively brief article, one big problem you encounter is the huge brick wall
that is placed at the feet of many people who are under the influence and power
of deception. Few things are sadder to see than church members and church
leaders entrenched in deception. Many are literally like brick walls that
have been painstakingly baked and hardened to the point that will actually keep
a person from ever seeing the truth, even though the truth may be right before
their eyes!
This unfortunately, is
the hallmark of deception.
I know how difficult it
is for a person to comprehend a different aspect of biblical truth that they
are not accustomed to. It disturbs them at the very base of their
religious life. It is very different from the way they have been taught.
So, as a result, they turn away from truth without understanding it. They
will refuse to study or examine the matter. This is terribly sad.
This is the “working of deception” in action and is the
state of the religious world in which we live today.
So in approaching this
subject, let me yet once again remind you of the following
Scripture and its importance in arriving at truth and understanding:
“Now the natural man
receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him;
and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually examined. But he that is
spiritual examines all things, and he himself is examined of no man.”
1 Corinthians 2:14-15
As you go over this
brief article, please try to lay aside your preconceived ideas and prayerfully,
with the attitude and spirit of the Bereans (Acts 17:10-11), consider
the Scriptures and the mind of the Spirit therein.
A VERY BRIEF HISTORY
There is absolutely
nothing whatsoever revealed in God's Word about the primacy and exaltation of a
specialist who issues forth a monologue Sunday after
Sunday, notwithstanding the literally myriads of messages to the
contrary. One sad example can be found here.
Even with just a very
cursory study, it will become clear
that the “sermon” and “preaching” concept that
exists today in local institutional churches, along with its academic and
professional type style, does not come from the New Testament Scriptures but
rather from Greek culture itself!
As one author noted, “The
sermon was the result of syncretism - the fusion of the Biblical necessity of
teaching with the unbiblical Greek notion of rhetoric. Such are the
indications of the influence of Greek Rhetoric upon the early churches.
It created the Christian sermon.”
When Constantine arrived
on the scene in the 4th century, it was at this time that many Greek and pagan
practices were adopted into the churches mind-set and practice. One key
element that came into being was that of “Greek Rhetoric.” After
his “conversion, ”Constantine built many “Christian
temples” and even many pagan buildings were later converted to
so-called churches.
At this time also, a
clear class of “church officials” had evolved and it was
Constantine who encouraged the use of these buildings for the “church
officials” use. This was really the official beginning of
recognizing buildings as churches as well as the beginning of
institutional Christianity and the downfall of what "church"
and "worship" truly means.
“With the conversions of
such men as Ambrose, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine, all of whom were
trained in rhetoric and were quite popular as orators within the Greco-Roman
culture of their day prior to their conversion, a new style or form of
communication began to occur within Christian assemblies.
This new form of speech
was marked by polished rhetoric, sophisticated grammar, and an undue emphasis
on eloquence. Corporate teaching within many congregations was no longer
delivered in normal or raw language, but began to take on an artistic form of
expression. In some instances, the content of the teacher’s message was
less influenced by biblical truth and more by abstract Greek
philosophy.
Within time, corporate
teaching became more of a form, designed to entertain and display the speaker’s
oratorical skill or colorful wit, rather than instruct and equip the saints for
ministry. Eventually, when the "clergy-laity" division
was solidified, only those who were officially "ordained" and
trained in the new forms of speech were allowed to address the assembly.
This did much to render
the saints inactive and helped to promote the idea that only the "professionals" have
anything worthy to say.”
Again, these things are
undisputable historical facts and is clearly evidenced in early Christian
writings.
At this point, it might
be noteworthy to mention that even the apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians Chapters
1 and 2 didn’t allow the worldly, pagan concept of rhetoric that he was most
assuredly surrounded with, to persuade or influence him in the least in regards
to his approach in proclaiming the gospel of the Kingdom.
1 Cor. 1:17: “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to bring the good
tidings: not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made
void...” Verse 22: “Seeing that Jews ask for signs, and
Greeks seek after wisdom.”
1 Cor. 2:1ff: “And I, brethren, when I came unto you, came not with
excellency of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God….
And my speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in
demonstration of the Spirit and of power….that your faith should not stand in
the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.”
THE EFFECTS
Many professing
Christians today unashamedly say that they do not consider themselves to have “attended
church” until they have listened to a lengthy sermon by their
pastor. This is how the false notion of the “primacy of
preaching” has so permeated the church and its adherents.
In many people’s minds,
the big theologians from the past are not remembered for their character or
their servanthood, but for their great oratorical ability. Look around
today and you can see that the “great ones” are those who are
most eloquent and thunderous when speaking.
For some, the thing that
actually keeps “churches” from splitting or dying is not a
body of believers caring for one another; loving one another; serving one
another, but the pastor’s ability in the pulpit!
WHAT SAITH THE
SCRIPTURES
When we look into the
Scriptures, we see a much different picture than what we see and hear in local
institutional churches today as it relates to their posturing of “the
primacy of preaching.”
The early church
communicated and taught the truth concerning the kingdom of God much
differently.
For example, when the
apostle Paul was at Troas in Acts 20:7, the word "preached
"that is used in the KJV (dialegomai) comes from a Greek word which
means "to dialogue" or "carry on a
discussion."
This clearly contradicts
what many “preachers” say and do. Take the example above
where the link was given for you to peruse.
This particular preacher
flatly comes right out and even coins a phrase and says, “Preaching is not a
dialogue. Preaching in monological!
It is a monologue.
It’s a one-sided voice of the King.” And he basis this, using Peter’s sermon on
Pentecost in Acts Chapter 2.
Now, I’m not trying to
single out this fellow as some isolated example. He gives a good and
clear presentation of what is taught and believed almost universally among
professing Christians as they meander about the halls of their local church
institutions.
But for the apostle
Paul, it was not a one-sided type of message, wrapped in deep
and profound utterances, but a TWO-WAY type of message or
dialogue for the very purpose of edification and building
up the saints.
A chapter earlier in Acts
19:8, we see Paul again “speaking boldly, reasoning and
persuading as to the things concerning the kingdom of God.”
In 1
Corinthians 14, we see the same thing again in regards to judging prophecies
and using discernment.
In Philippians
1:9-10, the apostle prays that the people may “grow in discernment that
they may test the things that are better.”
In 1
Thessalonians 5:20-21, we read about “proving all things and
holding fast to that which is good.”
You see as well in 1
John 4:1 where the apostle John urges the people to “prove
the spirits.”
In Revelation
2:2, Jesus commends them for “trying or testing those
who called themselves apostles, and were not, and found them false.”
Plus, don’t forget the
many references in Scripture to taking heed how we hear.
All of this says that
some kind of dialogue and interaction was going on within the assembly. How
could you “test the spirits” unless there is some opportunity
during the meeting to ask questions and dialogue over the alleged
teaching?
And this wasn’t done
after the “meeting was dismissed” either! This wasn’t
done privately with the speaker in a corner of the room where no one else can
listen!
NO. Contrary to
what we’re hearing today, there is absolutely nothing “monological”
going on here at all!
Even Paul’s
acknowledgement of the necessity of "factions" among
the Corinthian believers in order for “those who are approved may
become evident among you"
(1 Corinthians
11:19) clearly tells us that dialogue, discernment, and differing
opinions were all in vogue when they were assembled together.
Not one believer was “sitting in their pew,” naively
and quietly swallowing the words of another.
Everyone was expected to
discern and evaluate whatever was spoken at the time.
Remember that the
apostle even commended the Bereans when they evaluated or tested his teachings
(Acts 17:11)! This is not to suggest that Paul and the rest
of the early believers never engaged in a monologue in certain cases and at
certain times, but only that the Scriptural pattern is clearly
one of dialogue and mutual interaction.
You can say that the
early believers clearly had an “open system of communication.” But today,
what do we see? Many prefer, and actually demand “a
closed one!”
Is it any wonder today
why so few professing Christians ever think for themselves and grow up
spiritually? How can they; under a one-sided, “monological” system
of so-called “teaching?”
The “primacy of
preaching” leaves no room for the believer to think and to participate
in the process. And so, with nothing to say, with nothing to ask, and
with nothing to contribute, they are rendered uninvolved, apathetic, and
poker-faced!
We find in the
Scriptures that even when Paul and the others were speaking to unbelievers,
there was almost always an occasion for the hearers to engage in dialogue and
interaction. If this be true with unbelievers, how much more important when
interacting with believers!
THE GREAT OPPORTUNITY
In the Scriptures, the
word that you will find over and over and over again in regards to the early
believers teaching and preaching in the synagogues is the word argue or
dispute or reasoned.
In Acts 9,
we find Paul in verse 29, “speaking and disputed against the Grecian
Jews..”
In Acts 17:2, “as
his custom was, Paul went in unto them, and for three sabbath days reasoned
with them from the Scriptures”
At Athens, in Acts
17:17, Paul “disputed in the synagogue with the Jews, and with
the devout persons,”
In Acts 18:4,
Paul “reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews
and the Greeks.”
In Acts 18:19,
we find Paul at Ephesus entering into the synagogue, and “reasoning or
discussing with the Jews.”
Here is the great lesson
and example of early preaching. The early churches preaching was not a
monologue, but a dialogue! As one commentator said, “It was
not a question of one man telling a crowd of men; it was a case of a group
telling it over together.”
In so-called “churches” today,
the “sermon” should always involve a dialogue; a
discussion; a two-sided communication. This is
scriptural. This is New Testament preaching.
The Bible is very
clear. If however, you are hesitant or even unwilling to do so while “the
message is still in progress,” then at least, at the
conclusion, it should always be immediately followed by a general discussion,
in the hearing and presence of the whole assembly, for it will be at
this very point that the “teacher” has the great
opportunity to communicate the message to its fullest degree!
REFORMATION? (Don’t hold your breath)
Repeating what was just
said, if pastors are unwilling to have a give-and-take; a discussion; a
reasoning and a discerning amongst the brethren while the message is being
spoken (just like we have seen in the Scriptures) then at least, a question and
discussion period should immediately follow on what has just been taught.
Think about it.
What a great teaching moment and stimulating time that would be for questions,
for comments, or even for any differing of opinions! What better way is
there in directing the assembly to remember and to learn and grow in grace and
knowledge on what the pastor had just so wonderfully labored to teach?
Do you want to see
progress and joy in the faith of the saints? Philippians 1:25
Do you really want to
see the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the
building up of the body of Christ? Ephesians 4:12
Would you really like to
present every man perfect in Christ? Colossians 1:28
If so, why would anyone
neglect, evade, or even outright reject such a Scriptural and mighty means of
learning and communication? Do pastors truly believe that “the
primacy of preaching” during the Sunday worship service is to be a
major part of the learning experience for building up the people of God?
Horrifically, the answer
is a resounding NO, they don’t!
Many pastors will never
allow this type of format because they are threatened or intimidated by any
form of return dialogue within any public setting, either before, during, or
after any message that has just been given!
The following are mainly
five reasons why this is so.
Reason #1
Having a time for
discussion and questions after a sermon will pose institutional and
organizational issues because “the leadership” have
deliberately set their "order of worship" in
concrete, specifically designed for no participation, allowing
exact time limits for everything else, with no flexibility or spontaneity
within the corporate meeting.
Reason #2
Having a time for a
congregational discussion, for questions, or for differing opinions is highly
offensive to the man who sees himself and his opinions as above those who sit
in the pews.
Reason #3
Having a time for
questions and a time for dialogue either during or after the sermon may expose
the speaker to the possibility of questions that he may not be able to
answer. It may also reveal that his studies and preparation were perhaps,
shallow. And it could show that he is not necessarily the Bible "authority" that
he parades to be.
Reason #4
Fourthly, having a time
for dialogue, questions, and a time for “give-and-take” will
remove the image (albeit, false image) that is rampant in local institutional
churches, that being “the centrality of the preacher.”
It will remove the spotlight; the center-stage from one man and will bring
others into its realm, which can be very disconcerting to the man who has a
huge ego to sustain.
Reason #5
Having discussions,
dialogue, and questions is seen as disrespectful to the man who wants his
congregation to be dependent upon him for all the answers. If the people
were permitted to question, to dialogue, to discuss, and even perhaps offer a
better answer than he can, it will tend to remove their dependence upon his
wisdom for understanding the text of Scripture, and of course, that must never
happen!
CONCLUSION
The present evil abuses
in today’s local institutional churches that are clearly exposed on this
website have a wide range of effect in many areas of life. This is far,
far more than a personality or temperament problem.
Take the false notion of “the
primacy of preaching.” Its roots run not only in a theological
misunderstanding of the scriptures, but its roots run much deeper than
that. Its roots run deep into a misguided soul which inwardly craves for
a rigid, self-righteous, and condemning attitude. A soul that lusts and
craves for attention; for power; for authority; for rule, and for control.
I’ve heard men who are
thoroughly infected and wholly taken over with “the primacy of
preaching” mentality, ridicule and mock “love” in
an angry screaming voice. Straight from their man-made soap boxes, they
will also ridicule and mock sincere brethren who would dare to question or
disagree with them on an issue of church doctrine or policy, labeling them as
being “divisive;” “disaffected;” “rebels;” or “having
a bitter spirit.”
They behave this way
because it is believed that somehow, “Divine Authority” has
supposedly been bestowed upon them; that they “stand in a holy office.” They
believe that their words are the “voice of the King” and you
dare not question that voice, let alone, "their sermon!”
This is why men with
such an attitude and false theology can very easily step in between a husband
and/or wife (because one of them is disagreeing with the pastor) and deliberately
destroy marriages and families and feel that God is “being
glorified and His truth is being vindicated.”
This is why men with
such an attitude and false theology can “punish heresy with death” as
well.
All of these things have
happened before and continues to happen as we speak.
Brethren, the false
notion of “the primacy of preaching” is just another example
of the shady practices and exploitations that is occurring inside these
institutions. It makes“ untouchable popes” out of pastors and
bobble-head dolls out of those who follow them.
Can it be any plainer
than that?
It is one of the dark
foundations and marks of the unbiblical local institutional church system.
It is a man-made,
man-sustained philosophy that is fueled by pride, greed, lust, power, money,
and control, and NOT by Scripture. It is a philosophy which has gone far,
far“ beyond the things which are written.”
“The primacy of
preaching” scheme only
encourages and actually keeps the saints in an
infantile state and fosters an unhealthy dependence upon the preacher, exactly
what it has been designed to do. It’s not that people will never learn
from a monologue sermon but only that the Scriptural pattern is
clearly one of dialogue and mutual interaction.
To be never
afforded the opportunity to publicly ask questions or make relevant
comments during or after “the message,” clearly is NOT
Scriptural.
So as a result, very
little is expected of you, except of course for the strong admonitions directed
in making sure that you return next week for the repeat performance!
This is the sad
situation in today’s local institutional church system. Will people ever
learn? Will people ever change? Sadly for many, probably not, and
especially in regards to the perpetrators themselves, seeing that:
"It is difficult to
get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding
it."
Ken Cascio
wickedshepherds.com
Two related articles you
might also be interested in:
