I go to a small SBC church pretty much because it is the only church in my area that is not some form of Pentecostal or non-denominational. The pastor does not have a seminary degree and I am not sure if he completed university. Unfortunately, it shows.
We have seriously look at driving the miles to go to a better church, but we would only be able to attend A.M. services due to the miles.
I will say this (and I don't know if it applies to you).
I know educated people who just flat out can't preach (that have the degree).
While they feel God is calling them to the ministry, that absolutely stink at public speaking.
Communcation and rhetoric were things they never really mastered.
My dad (who preached for a while) did not have a degree, but was a wonderful public speaker.
he was well educated in the scriptures and spent much time studying.
But my dad's career was a factory worker.
He filled in at our church on two different occasions that lasted about 5 months and 9 months, respectively.
He'd also preach when our pastor was gone.
He did always wish he had received a degree, but obtaining it at that point wasn't really an option (this would've been probably 15 years ago).
He's since gone on to be with the Lord.
So degree or not, if a pastor can't effectively communicate with someone, I'd say it becomes a bit of a moot point.
Sidenote:
I do hope that you find a church that is right for you.
That is one of the qualifications found in scripture for being a pastor. The pastor is not to just be able to teach but he must be one who is particularly skilled at teaching. Everyone should be able to teach their children at home, but being a pastor is different in that he must be able to teach everyone in such a way that they understand.
Both Moses and Paul were not good speakers.
So, speaking ability cannot be the issue. I agree that being able to teach is a different animal altogether.
I know that Paul said he did not come with persuasive words of wisdom but I do not know where you got the ideas that Paul was a poor speaker. How did you come to that conclusion?
Moses had a physical problem speaking but it seems to me that he did not have a problem in organizing thoughts.
Paul communicated better as a writer than a speaker. In modern terms we would probably say that he lacked stage presence and was unsophisticated not eloquent of speech.
2Co 10:10
For they say, "His letters are weighty and strong, but his personal presence is unimpressive and his speech contemptible."
I nearly always get tickled with folk who say that Paul could not speak, or that he was a better speaker than writer. He probably was the best around in his day from both disciplines of Communication theory: Public Speaking and Interpersonal Communication. One can particularly be seen in Athens. Surely if you have not studied his rhetoric in his few sermons you should make your business to check out rhetorical applications in his writing.
In saying that he "did not come with persuasive words of speech" is, in fact, a persuasive (can we say "rhetoric?") device in itself.
There is no doubt that in the present parlance he would have had at least two PhD degrees. And he would have had a large measure of what we are trying to go back to today, the Classical Education Model. He would have been trained in the best rhetorical schools in the eastern half of the Roman Empire. He would have know well the writings of Quintillian, Seneca, Aristotle, et al.
So this is Paul's way of using, say merging, homiletical delivery with Bibilical thought wrapped in the the mechanics of rhetoric in both its written and spoken forms.
Please excuse the following shameful self promotion, but Dr. Richard Wells and I are editing a book of academic essays. There are based on Aristotle's Rhetoric and how it applies to Homiletics. It has a stellar lineup of scholars (except for me), if I mentioned some of them you would want me to sell you an advanced copy of the work. :thumbs: Look for it later this year.
We know that Paul was well educateda and would have studied rhetoric. In his day it was common to imitate your teacher. From the Greek I read I find it to be better than most of what is written today in terms of structure, thought, etc. So I would think that he chose not to use persuasive words of wisdom and imitate the orators of the day who would have sought to sound fanciful. God does not need a an orator who only has oratory skills. The Holy Spirit takes care of a lot of things. While people can be manipulated Paul chose not to (C.) The gospel does not need a lawyer. The gospel is powerful and does not need addition help from man's wisdom and brilliance (Heb. 4:12). That is one of the problems I see with so many canned methods. What method did Jesus use with the simple and philosophers?
I would not agree with the statement. I believe Jesus was a master. There is an excellent book "The Debate Strategies of Jesus Christ' that is excellent. I have only seen it as a download online which I purchased from Ages and have not seen in a few years.
I see Jesus as knowing what to do and when to do it. His exchanges with children were different than with the Pharisees and different with the Sadducees and Pharisees. With the Sadducees he only appealed from the Torah whereas with the Pharissees he used the entire OT. He used wisdom in dealing with people. I tend to think that he worked from the point of a common ground plus the fact that he knew their heart.
I do not see the gospel needing a skilled orator who can manipulate people but rather a man filled with wisdom. I think Paul and Jesus were probably quite skilled and could have manipulated people but rather appealed to their hearts.
Prov. 11:30, "The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and he who is wise wins souls."
But if you think or equate "manipulating people" with what the essence of rhetoric is then you surely are mistaken.
I am sorry to correct you publicly but I just could not let that pass without a corrective comment, if indeed that is what you meant? I did not mean any slight towards you on any level and please do not take this personally.
But what I find most of the time when someone makes a statement about the use of rhetoric, they basically show their ignorance and have not the clue of an idea of what they speak.
I agree with you. It is very useful. Rhetoric is throughout the NT.
My point was not at all about rhetoric.
I was thinking more of manipulation through argumentation to lead someone to a point where they lose the argument. The truth is not important but winning the argument is the focus. I am confident that Paul was very skilled and could have done that but chose not to. The gospel is not about manipulation someone but the good news and power of God at work.