« Back to Issue 33

Good Preaching Can Harm Your Church

By Michael Quicke.

Michael J Quicke

Charles W Koller Professor of Preaching and Communication at Northern Baptist Seminary in Lombard, Illinois,

and previously Principal of Spurgeon's College, London.

First Baptist Church prided itself on its succession of great preachers. You could tell how important preaching was by the high central pulpit with its impressive overhead sounding board sculpted like a fanfare of trumpets. Eminent preachers had thundered to packed congregations throughout the previous century, but now a remnant congregation of fifty three people looked to its new preacher who had been called to revive the church's flagging fortunes. Thirty year old Ted had been chosen because of his growing reputation as a gifted preacher. He was convinced about the power of preaching and the small congregation was sure its large church building would soon be full again.

Ted's opening preaching titles were publicized with confidence and flair in the local press and on huge outside billboards. To be honest Ted already knew they were good sermons for they had attracted interest and applause from his previous pastorate. From his very first Sunday, extra people began attending and within six months there were more than two hundred.

His preaching was Bible based with stimulating teaching, memorable phrases and brilliant stories. His gift for words carried people into laughter one minute and into tears the next. Across a wide age range the most common refrain of listeners was "Oh, how we enjoy the preaching." Ted always seemed well prepared, well-read and in touch with contemporary issues. Audiocassettes of his sermons were best sellers.

Within two years the regular congregation numbered over five hundred. Many had come to faith. Church staff had been appointed to cater for the many support activities. Church finances were in their best shape for decades. People said how much they loved their senior pastor and how they hoped that he would never leave. They feared that they would never find anyone else who could preach like him.

When, seven years later, a mega church invited Ted to join its staff, there was near desperation. Church members and finance officers panicked that he had become irreplaceable. They hoped that the interim period would be short and they would soon find another preacher who they could respect. But within six months congregations had shrunk to around 200. It became the incredible shrinking congregation. A thirty-eight year old, appointed three years later proved to be a disappointment. Everyone agreed he was a pleasant man and a caring pastor, but he lacked Ted's power in the pulpit. In his ten years' ministry congregations never numbered above one hundred and fifty. When he left they hoped that the interim period would be short and that they would soon find another preacher they could respect......

To Preach or Not to Preach?

Several aspects of this story bear analysis but there is one that cries out for attention. Good preaching can harm the church. What? We can fully agree that boring preaching deserves criticism. R E O White's definition of preaching - "a monstrous monologue by a moron to mutes" - is sometimes too close for comfort. Unbiblical preaching which pontificates merely human opinions or manipulates Scripture to personal agendas should also be censured outright. There are many strains of poor preaching that can damage the church, but it seems perverse to blame good preaching.

In 1996 David Norrington, an evangelical Christian, wrote To Preach or not to Preach? It is a sustained intensive attack on preaching which has fuelled other biting evangelical critiques such as Meic Pearse and Chris Matthews' book, We must stop meeting like this... (1999).

Bluntly, Norrington attacks preaching in general, and good preaching in particular. He claims that the more that people revere the sermon and respect the preacher's expertise, the more people are 'deskilled' from maturing in their own faith. Gifted preachers inevitably force listeners to be passive and dependent. "Sadly, competent preachers may create dependence more effectively than incompetent ones. This means, ironically, that in the long run competent sermons may be more damaging than indifferent ones." It is alleged that good preaching hinders the development of Christian character.

Is there any evidence that at First Baptist Church the people and preacher were locked into this paradox, that Ted's very giftedness made them less competent as Christian believers? Did the growth in numbers conceal a spiritual immaturity? Does great preaching inevitably produce boom and bust cycles? Is this too much for Ted's ego? Do less competent preachers make for more stability? And how is God going to gain any glory through the whole story?

David Norrington has some disturbing things to say. He claims that those who say that they like preaching and that they profit from it are often those who are above average in intelligence, knowledge and education. He is particularly fierce about how preaching may actually discourage other listeners so that they despise their own levels of gifting. "Being unrecognized and unacknowledged, these gifts quickly wither beyond revivification, particularly in sensitive people."

Is Preaching Biblical?

Before we protest, especially any preachers among us, that this is all grossly unfair, we need to pay attention to some of Norrington's main arguments. He finds little evidence for the contemporary sermon in the New Testament where the word translated 'preaching' relates to thirty different verbs and diverse kinds of speaking. He claims that the early church rarely used public speaking as a means to further Christian maturity. Rather this occurred primarily through teaching within smaller groups.

Contemporary sermons, therefore, owe their origin to a pincer movement of rhetoric and architecture. On the one hand, their roots lie in Greek and Roman rhetoric which he judges are responsible for so many negative features of preaching. Pagan rhetoric is predisposed to assert style over substance, to indulge in persuasion, to discourage independent thinking and to flatter the ego in performance. If you are good at rhetoric you know how to win friends and influence people. Your success owes everything to self-confident expertise. No wonder that the apostle Paul rejected eloquence and persuasive words in 1 Corinthians 1.10-2.5 and 1 Thessalonians 2.1-12.

The Influence of Buildings on Preaching

On the other hand there was the rise of the church building which also owed much to pagan patterns. With larger congregational sizes in public buildings the style of speaking increasingly needed a skilled speaker to be leader. Churches entered the long term ordeal of coping with physical and financial building demands. In those churches where preaching was dominant, its popularity drew in both people and money to support the buildings and institutions. Gifted preachers were needed more and more for economic reasons. Central pulpits and fanfare sculpted sounding boards perfectly symbolize the power of rhetoric and architecture, rather than the influence of New Testament practice.

Of course, Norrington recognizes how powerful the preaching tradition has become over twenty centuries, reinforcing assumptions about preaching, but he sees much pain:

"The sad irony is that many preachers want to see their congregations grow in knowledge and love. Many take a great deal of trouble over preparing their sermons. Yet the teaching method they have chosen to use is, in practice, working with other factors to frustrate their hopes."

His parting shot is that the sermon should disappear with immense benefits all round.

Where should we begin to make a response? Like many bold assertions there are several half truths here to be repudiated, but they are mixed up with genuine challenges which need to be heeded.

It is true that the New Testament has a wide range of words to describe how the first Christians expressed their faith and we should accept that there is very little evidence that early preaching exactly resembled what has become the norm for many of us on Sunday mornings. We should indeed be less dogmatic about forms of preaching and certainly less defensive of our own preferences.

Yet, we must assert that preaching as the event of proclamation accompanied every key turning point in the New Testament, beginning with Jesus Christ's first recorded action in Mark 1.14: "Jesus Christ came preaching the good news of God." As the puritan Thomas Goodwin put it: "God had only one son and he made him a preacher." Yves Brillioth, an historian of preaching, argues cogently how Jesus' preaching in Luke 4.14-21 reveals two streams of Jewish exposition and Greek homily flowing together in the first Christian sermon. Stunningly, in the pyrotechnics of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2, the church is birthed by a flesh and blood sermon from Peter (Acts 2.14-41). The apostles' key priority which needed safeguarding was "the ministry of the word" (Acts 6.2). This was primary (Acts 8.4).

For the apostle Paul the whole reason for his new life was to preach. "Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel" (1 Corinthians 9.16). There is a chain reaction of faith which connects believing to hearing, hearing to preaching and preaching to preachers being in the right place (Romans 10.14,15). Young Timothy is admonished to "Preach the Word" (2 Timothy 4.2).

Preaching is a crucial God-given task. In the rich variety of missionary, evangelistic and apologetic preaching, of instructing and teaching believers, of giving exposition to Scripture, a profound theology develops. The words of Scripture, the words of the preacher, the presence of the Word made flesh and the empowering of the Spirit all come together uniquely in the preaching event. Preaching is a primary way by which God's word will be heard in every generation.

No preacher should ever claim that all the resources for helping people to mature in Christ are to be found in preaching. There are many vital things that preaching cannot do which, for example, small group fellowships can - such as their opportunities for people to interact, to pray and grow together. But the story of church and kingdom cannot be told without the summons to faith by preaching. "God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe" (1 Corinthians 1.21). In the further tasks of instruction by "correcting, rebuking, encouraging" (2 Timothy 4.2), preaching is indispensably God's way of working, right from the beginning of the Christian story.

The Dangers of Rhetoric

Norrington is not the first to be concerned about the role of rhetoric. This has always been in an uneasy alliance with Christian preaching from its earliest days. Rhetoric has obvious dangers of intentionality. By definition its techniques can manipulate and persuade. Many have argued, including Luther and Calvin, that it is the work of the Holy Spirit alone to persuade and that preachers should not consciously employ techniques of rhetoric.

However, as soon as anyone opens their mouth, they are unavoidably involved in a process of persuasion. Consider that difficult telephone conversation or that speech at a retirement party. Any thought at all about how best to present any speech brings into play elementary aspects of rhetoric. We notice that actually Luther and Calvin happened to be very persuasive, as was the apostle Paul. What matters most is that preachers allow God's word to be persuasive through them. The Holy Spirit expects their openness to him and their best work to ensure faithful not false persuasion.

When David Norrington writes of the institutionalization of the church with its multiplication of buildings and structures, he rightly reminds us that our history gives fallen people an ever-widening range of possible sins of omission and commission. But you only need to spend a few minutes with the Corinthian church in 1 and 2 Corinthians to realize that an absence of church buildings and presence of small groups does not necessarily create ideal spiritual conditions.

Yet, I believe that Ted and First Baptist Church do have to sit up and take notice.

Beware the preaching ego

In First Baptist there seems to have been a collusion between a church which prides itself on its preaching tradition, and preachers like Ted who work hard to fulfil those expectations. To be a preaching centre seems to have become its entire raison d'etre. Its whole tradition has focused on lively, admirable preaching so that it has "enjoyed the favour of all the people" (Acts 2.47).

So, unintentionally, its identity has been almost entirely bound up in the liveliness and admiration of its preacher. Good preaching, for them, has drawn the crowds, presented the faith, and encouraged individuals. Nearly always such preaching has been personally affirming with a high 'feel good factor'. People want more and more of the admired and lively preacher. Ted may have tried to be humble, open to God and self-disciplined, but the more visible his 'success', the greater is the temptation to identify the church's life and mission with his preaching gift.

Of course those who first "enjoyed the favour of all the people" did so because of the overflow of worship into their community life. People marvelled at their qualities of commitment and togetherness, especially we may guess at their sacrificial practical financial support (Acts 2.42-47).

Certainly, God wants the best communicators on his side, but not so that they become the focus of attention so that no communities of love and trust are formed to overflow with love and mission. All eyes can become focused on the preacher at the front, inflating the preacher's ego and the congregation's own ego at what a rather wonderful people they are because of their preacher. No, the focus should always be on the Lord and his kingdom, where there is little room for ego.

The Preacher's Focus

So, what could Ted do in his continuing ministry in order to avoid harm from this preaching ego?

First, he should refocus on the bigness of God who loves him and has called him, and on his own littleness. God wants humble, open preachers who remain self-aware in total dependence on God's grace. Preachers cannot grow beyond the glass ceiling of their own spirituality and any church organization dedicated to reinforcing the preaching ego keeps that ceiling low. Good preachers keep needing God's fresh breakthroughs. Continue to play the pulpiteer at your spiritual peril. Feed on affirmation and it kills the spirit.

Second, Ted needs to recommit himself to the task of good preaching which is not about being admired. Rather it is proclaiming God's good news in Scripture, made present in Christ, so that preacher and listeners are empowered to live differently as Christ-shaped community. Worship and mission mean community. Yes, there is glorious affirmation for individuals but there must also be kingdom commitment for believers together. Personal cerebral response to a sermon should only be the beginning of community transformation. This means challenge, risk and vision for the preacher.

Third, he should find ways of being accountable and interactive. Some preachers testify to the value of working with a small group during the process before, during and after preaching. To reflect with others on the Scriptures and its application is immensely enriching and to be evaluated in honest love afterwards takes preachers to new levels of vulnerability and authenticity.

The whole congregation should be actively involved in a prayerful partnership, in study and in action. In one of the most productive periods of my own preaching in the centre of Cambridge, each Sunday morning Bible passage and sermon became the basis for house groups to work on the following Tuesday evening. Across the city, hundreds of people wrestled together with both doctrine and practical mission application following the preaching.

Preaching Measured by its Impact

In nineteenth century Britain, an age of great preachers, two Baptists commanded great respect. Alexander Maclaren (1826-1910) in Manchester, was a model expositor with an enthusiastic following and international reputation. Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-92) in London was also an undisputed pulpit giant. Joseph Parker, another famous contemporary preacher, said how much he preferred Maclaren to Spurgeon because "He thinks more and better."

When Maclaren died he left a legacy of books which are still treasured. When Spurgeon died he left books too. But in addition he left 198 churches he had planted, a theological college sending preachers all over the world, childrens' orphanages - all still active today. Spurgeon's vision and involvement spilled out through his preaching to make a lasting difference. Which do you think is the better preaching?