POLL: What do you carry to the pulpit

I don't disagree that culture plays a part. I just believe that more of the culture would interpret the closing of a Bible in a negative way. I think we're saying the same thing, essentially.

 

Well, that's no fun! We argued ourselves into agreement and won't be able to argue about it any more. I'll state my initial reaction to your reference to Chappel's opinion in a different way, hoping to be clear about what I'm saying (and perhaps with enough difference that we can argue on for two or three more posts).

I don't think there is anything inherently right or wrong in the act of leaving one's Bible open or closing it. Therefore, a preacher would do well to be aware of any possible negative connotations that either of these acts might have for the congregation to whom he is speaking. If he is their pastor, he could eventually lead them to understand that most thinking on the matter derives from culture and tradition.

 

I usually take my notes that I have jotted down while studying and my faithful, Old Scofield, KJV.

 

Robert wrote:

What would the negative connotations be of the preacher leaving the Bible open? Just curious as to your insight on this.

 

I can think of two main things within my realm of experience: (1) Not following custom - in some areas and among some groups of churches, it is customary for the preacher to use the pulpit Bible, read his text and then close the Bible; (2) Impression that the sermon is being read - in some areas and among some churches, preaching from notes, outlines, manuscripts, etc. is quite suspect. Because of some experiences they've had, leaving the Bible open leaves the question open that there might be some notes hidden there.

 

#2 I understand, as there are some churches here in Appalachia that would suspect the same thing. But who's to say he doesn't have some notes on the pulpit? And what happens when he needs to refer the congregation back to a verse in the text? If it's like it is here, there is no reference to a text after the text is read, because the sermon and the text are and never were related.

 

I'm a little surprised you haven't experienced #1 since you are in Appalachia, although it would probably not be too likely in many Southern Baptist churches. Do you have any contact with the Mulberry Gap (SB) Association? I would think that a number of those churches would tend toward old mountain traditions, although I'm not sure just what the traditions would be in that area. As far as referring back to a verse, I don't see much of a problem. One can either quote it or turn back to the passage and read it. As far as no reference back to the text after a sermon starts, I've seen preachers with open Bibles and full notes do that too.

 

I've never heard of this problem; why would anyone have a problem with notes?

 

This could range anywhere from holding a position close to believing the preacher (while preaching) is under immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to believing a sermon (and service) should not be so scripted as to leave no room for the moving of the Spirit.

 

Because they believe if you're not making it up as you go along (er), being led by the Holy Spirit, then you really aren't preaching.

Rlvaughn, I've experienced #1. And you're right about preachers with open Bibles and notes not preaching expositionally. But it's far more common in my experience with those who get the Bible out of the way and close it so they can begin to say what they want.

 

Tom, I am fully convinced that it is a preacher's belief and/or attitude that causes him to "say what he wants" - not whether he closes his Bible.

I'm on no crusade against preachers that use notes (many preachers I dearly love use them). But I think one will be hard pressed to prove that the modern sermon (with its catchy title, attention-getting opener, amazing alliteration, and scores of other gimics) is based on biblical precept and example rather than "enticing words of men's wisdom." New Testament sermons just don't look like most modern ones!

[ May 12, 2002, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

I'm not a preacher but I have spoken many times in the pulpit and usually I carry only my KJV into the pulpit...btw... everytime I speak to the Lords people... The Lord carries me into the pulpit... Brother Glen

 

Actually, you should have had all of the above. It depends on what I am preaching/teaching on and how long before I am to preach/teach I am made aware that I will be doing so.

One pastor I worked with would have the other preachers come up to the pulpit and give us a verse(s) and then have us preach for 10 minutes. Preaching expositorily I do not always need even an outline because the text dictates the flow. Now, ask me to do a sermon in a passage that I am not very familiar with and I will tell you that I need to research that one more and will go to another passage.

 

Of course, I always take my Bible, and an outline, but I am not so bound to the outline. Most times I have it memorized, but I am not bound to the outline nor do I type everything out verbatim.

It is more of a guideline in case I get lost!

 

This could range anywhere from holding a position close to believing the preacher (while preaching) is under immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to believing a sermon (and service) should not be so scripted as to leave no room for the moving of the Spirit.</font>[/QUOTE]I'd much rather have a preacher with notes, knowing that he had soent time in study and preparation ...

 

Of course, having notes does not necessitate any of the previous ploys, and I've heard plenty of noteless preachers use these tactics as a means of memorizing their sermons! My notes use none of these tactics.

 

Chris, if you mean that you assume that a preacher using notes means he has studied, and that a preacher not using notes means he has not studied, you have assumed incorrectly and may have too limited experience with the entire concept of preaching without notes.

The purpose of the above quote is not to prove what is right or wrong, but to take notice of the fact that it is not just us country bumpkin hick preachers that advocate preaching without notes. Professor Koller wrote two books on the subject - Expository Preaching Without Notes in 1962 and another title which I can't remember offhand. These were republished in 1997 as How to Preach Without Notes. And then there is Joseph Webb's Preaching Without Notes.

Now if you mean that you prefer a preacher who has studied and is using notes to a preacher who has studied and is not using notes - to each his own.

 

No, it does not, and I was emphasizing some things that particularly wear me out (like using a word that most people neither know nor understand, and that requires five minutes of explanation - just so it will start with the right letter of the alphabet). And I'm sure some noteless preachers do use these tactics, although I've not specifically heard it. In my circles they would probably not last long nor make a good impression on the people with such jive. Discussing these things in this manner just proves that experiential-based arguments are somewhat fruitless. We may start to sound like children - we do it, but so do you. Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that most of the homiletics, preaching, oratory, etc. taught in seminaries train men of God in skills based on the wisdom of the world. But I am not nearly as concerned about form, notes, outlines, etc. as whether the Word of God is preached. Now that is what makes a sermon scriptural! As Anderson said in the quote I posted above, "the power for preaching is in the Word" - not the furniture, not the notes, not the lack of notes, not whether the Bible is opened or closed.

 

Brother Robert what you said got me to thinking how were men trained in the ministry before seminaries? Did these schools exist in the early church or is this a tradition of men?... Brother Glen

 

All I take is My Bible.

I have one with me most of the Time.