The Puritan Take on Good Preaching

In a recent post, I highlighted the fact that worship discussions throughout church history were based more on theology than pragmatics and how the reverse seems to be true today.  More narrowly, the same can be said of preaching, as well.  One of the hallmarks of the Protestant Reformation was the rediscovery of the preached Word as a means of grace.  A fresh wind of the Holy Spirit inspired new generations of preachers to bring the Word of God to the people of God with power.  By the time of the Great Awakenings and revivals happening in the US and Great Britain, preaching had become quite diverse in its expression and methodology.  Out of biblical conviction, and partially in response to the variegated preaching styles out there, the Puritans developed a distinct angle on homiletics (the study of preaching) worth summarizing here.

The Westminster Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms are, in many ways, a summary of Puritan faith and practice in that era (the mid-1600's).  Likewise, the supplementary work produced by the Westminster Assembly--The Westminster Directory of Public Worship--is very "Puritan" in its approach.  Zeroing in on preaching, on which the Directory spent much time (imagine if worship books today spent as much time on preaching!), Mark Dever and Sinclair Ferguson summarize six non-negotiables of preaching, according to the Puritans.  Preaching should be done:¹     

1. PAINFULLY: The Puritans refer to the practice of "taking pains" in preparation and presentation; they urge preachers not to treat their responsibilities casually.
2. PLAINLY: "That the meanest may understand; delivering truth not in the enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect; abstaining also from an unprofitable use of unknown tongues, strange phrases, and cadences of sounds and words."
3. FAITHFULLY & WISELY: "[Preachers should be] looking at the honor of Christ, the conversion, edification, and salvation of the people, not at his own gain or glory; keeping nothing back which may promote those holy ends...framing all his doctrines, exhortations, and expecially his reproofs, in such a manner as may be most likely to prevail."
4. GRAVELY: As Richard Baxter has said, "I preach'd as never sure to preach again, and as a dying man to dying men!"
5. LOVINGLY: "[Preachers should preach] with loving affection...and hearty desire to do them good."
6. EARNESTLY: The preacher is to preach "As taught of God, and persuaded in his own heart, that all that he teacheth is the truth of Christ; and walking before his flock, as an example to them in it."

This recipe for a sermon probably tastes differently than modern recipes.  Yet I, as a preacher, find them right and challenging.  Would to God that more of our preaching were characterized by these criteria!

¹The following are excerpted quotations from Mark Dever and Sinclair Ferguson, The Westminster Directory of Public Worship (Scotland: Christian Heritage, 2008), 64-69.

Worship Ignites a Passion for Justice

Don Sweeting has a great post on the relationship between worship and justice--a connection made by the Old Testament prophets, to which American evangelical Christianity seems to be re-awakening. 

Click to read more ...

Treating Sermons Like a Wine Tasting

Walter Kaiser writes:¹ 

According to the “New Homiletic” [a term coined by David Allen], every sermon or lesson from the Bible must chiefly be “interesting.” But what biblical support could we give for this assertion?

Click to read more ...

Personal Piety is Not Enough; We Need Worship, Too

Luke Stamps has blessed us with a fabulous post on the Gospel Coalition site.  He observes the historical reasons why evangelicalism has placed a lot of emphasis on personal piety, perhaps to the neglect of corporate worship as a primary means through which God shapes and forms us into the image and likeness of Christ.  He contrasts this with (perhaps a caricature, I would admit, of) Roman Catholic spirituality, with its lack of emphasis on personal piety, so he’s not making light of the importance of our need for an individual, ongoing, and personal relationship with God.  But, in making his point about worship, He frequently interacts with the Westminster Shorter Catechism, including with this question and answer:

Question 89: How is the word made effectual to salvation?

Answer 89: The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the word, an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation.

Stamps’ comment:

It is interesting that the catechism places special emphasis on the formal preaching of the Word, which can only take place when the church is gathered together. It is often said that the corporate worship of the church is diminished when the individuals that make up the church have not been worshiping God in their daily lives throughout the week. Anyone who has ever had the responsibility of leading a local church in public worship can testify to the truth of this claim. But it seems to me that the opposite is true as well: If the church is not engaged in biblically ordered worship through Word, sacrament, and prayer, then it will be very difficult for its members to be equipped for their daily tasks of loving God and loving neighbor.

Stamps goes on to point out that worship is “not incidental, but vital,” meaning that while attending and participating in worship certainly is optional for every one of us, it is not optional if you are desirous to grow in your faith.  God chooses to do too many special things that are unique to the worship context for it to be replaced with any other practice.

Please read this important article!

*****

I believe in this subject.  Here are some previous posts that have addressed it:

Worship's Unique Ability to Give People Spiritual Wisdom and Insight

Flippant Worship Attendance: Stats and Consequences

Why the Gospel Shines Brightest in Worship

Taking Children to Jesus in Worship

The Higher the Liturgy, the More Scripture is Heard

Yesterday's post, "The Higher the Liturgy, the Lower the Preaching" was made as a generalization based on D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones' observations of England 40 years ago and of mine in the present.  Dissenting commenters made a good point, however...which I don't believe is in contradiction with yesterday's observation.  Their comments can be summarized in an experience relayed to me by Don Sweeting--former pastoral mentor and colleague, and now President of Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando.

Don took a much needed sabbatical in 2009, and in his months off he attended a wide variety of churches in the Denver Metro area--Catholic, Anglican, Greek Orthodox, Evangelical, etc.  He came away from his experiences with this stunning observation: He heard more reading of Scripture in the Catholic service than he did in the Evangelical worship service.  More generally, the churches whose worship was characterized by a higher liturgy always had more Scripture read, prayed, and sung than in the low-church evangelical environments.  Furthermore, as a friend pointed out yesterday, even the "non-Scriptural" readings (e.g. prayers or responsive readings), are filled with Scripture quotation, Scripture allusion, or language and ideas that are obviously bathed in the words of the "hallowed page." 

Contrast this with the typical evangelical low-church liturgy: a block of songs, announcements, the offering, the sermon, and a closing song.  Apart from the worship leader pausing in the middle of the song set to read a passage of Scripture, or apart from the songs themselves containing Scriptural statements or quotations, there's not much room for Scripture reading without some subversive, creative liturgy-bending.  Thankfully, more and more evangelical churches are seeing this.  The reality remains, however, that one can attend an evangelical church service and they may very well hear very little Scripture read.  

As Don pointed out in his comparison of his Catholic and evangelical experiences, there is a huge historical irony in all of this.  It was the proto-evangelicals (the Protestants) who criticized the de-valuing of the Scriptures by the Catholics during the time of the Reformation.  And here we are, 400 years later, struggling with fluffy preaching and straining to fit Scripture into our sacred "worship experience."  Meanwhile, our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters faithfully walk through their lectionary, receiving a steady diet of the whole counsel of God. 

This should make us appreciate the merits of high liturgy.  It is bathed in and allows space for Scripture to speak in multi-faceted ways.  Personally, I am on a quest to prove that one can infuse high church elements into low church liturgy without sacrificing what many people prize about "modern worship"--flow, continuity, passion, etc.  I don't know that I've achieved my goal, but far be it from us to think that Scripture reading falls in the category of a mere "high church element."  Scripture reading is a transcendent category all to itself.  I don't just want to hear Scripture reading prior to the sermon.  I want to hear God's voice at the start, calling me into worship.  I want to hear His voice at the end, blessing me and sending me forth.  And I want to hear Him in the middle, sustaining my weak mind and feeble spirit. 

My dissenters said yesterday that high liturgy doesn't necessitate a devaluing of preaching, and I agree.  But the generalization still holds true: high liturgy can tend toward lower emphasis on preaching.  By the same token, lower liturgy can tend toward devaluing the raw power of Scripture reading.  And these are claims made based on existential observation, as opposed to philosophical investigation of the foundations of either liturgical expression.

The Higher the Liturgy, the Lower the Preaching

It is fascinating that a book published in 1971 has so much relevance to very current trends in church worship right now.  D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones' Preaching and Preachers (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971) was aimed at British churches (and, secondarily, US churches) who were discounting the importance of preaching in the life of the church.

Lloyd-Jones makes several observations which are nearly graph-able in their correspondence.  One such observation is noticing the correlation between the greater emphasis on formal liturgy and the decline in preaching.  This rings true with what I see and experience.  In the more "liturgical" worship settings, one tends to see shorter sermons (often called "homilies"), and they tend to be delivered in a lifeless manner.  This is a good check to the "return to ancient" movement guys like me are heralding in evangelicalism.  This is what Lloyd-Jones has to say:

As preaching has waned, there has been an increase in the formal element in the service.  It is interesting to observe how Free-Church men, non-Episcopalians, whatever you may call them, have been increasingly borrowing these ideas from the Episcopal type of service as preaching has waned.  They have argued that the people should have a greater part in the service and so they have introduced 'responsive reading', and more and more music and singing and chanting.  The manner of receiving the people's offering has been elaborated, and the minister and the choir often enter the building as a procession.  It has been illuminating to observe these things; as preaching has declined, these other things have been emphasised; and it has all been done quite deliberately.  It is a part of this reaction against preaching; and people have felt that it is more dignified to pay this greater attention to ceremonial, and form, and ritual. (p. 16)

This is significant...and it should be a warning as we progress down the road of tradition, ritual, and greater formality with elements in our services.  The observations Lloyd-Jones has made and I am making are obviously generalizations.  In every denomination where some or all of their worship expression is marked by a more high-church liturgy, there is powerful, unabashed preaching going on.  There are lengthy sermons and a high view of the preaching of the Word in every one of these contexts.  However, Lloyd-Jones is right, and I can speak from personal experience. 

Over the last three years, I've attempted to guide our church toward elements of higher liturgy.  In doing so, I've noticed a tendency in my heart to resent the amount of time taken for preaching (and we have already clipped it down to 27 minutes!!!).  "It's crowding out our ability to add much of anything else!", I say.  Just a few weeks ago, at a worship leaders' meeting during our denomination's General Assembly, I noted several worship leaders and planners who were frustrated by the fact that they felt shackled in their creative expression in worship design simply because "the preaching took so long."  I don't fault them for this...I feel many of those same pressures.  I also understand the other side, however, because I ama preacher who feels called to preach.  I do still believe in the primacy of preaching. 

What is to be done?  I don't think Lloyd-Jones is saying (and I certainly don't believe) that there is an irreparable state of entropy with preaching when high liturgy is on the rise.  But I recognize with Lloyd-Jones that a tension exists here, and, left unchecked, it is very natural to downgrade preaching.  And if Lloyd-Jones is right about the primacy of preaching, such a move would come at the peril of the local church.