The Songs of Heaven

I did not grow up with Psalm singing in the church, but after listening to the Psalms a cappella,  I wish I had. I greatly enjoy the unaccompanied human voice for which the Spirit had the Psalms written. After listening to the Psalms being sung by the church I have come to agree with Carl Trueman when he writes, “Who really wants praise bands, or even organs, when one can have the fragile beauty of the human voice?”

Click this link and listen to 190 tracks of Psalm singing. I have them playing in the background as I work in my office, it is quite nice.

Also, enjoy this video of the Psalm-singing in that odd, but beautiful language, Gaelic.

What Does The Bible Say About Dating?

Guest Blogger: Zachary Garris

In one sense the Bible says absolutely nothing about dating. This is because the modern practice of dating was not around 2,000-3,000 years ago when the Bible was written. People married much younger back then (around 15 for Hebrew girls, 18 for Hebrew boys), and their marriages were arranged. Parents would set up marriages for their sons and daughters, and with their agreement, they would marry. There was no need for dating.

Now the Bible may not directly address the practice of dating, but it does say plenty about marriage. And these teachings should be applied to our practices that lead up to marriage. But notice this assumes that dating has the purpose of marriage. The Bible leaves no room for “recreational dating” or dating simply for the sake of dating. The Bible expects people to marry. And whatever practice we have that leads up to marriage, it must have marriage as the goal.

The Problem of Modern Dating

            This of course reveals a significant problem with the modern practice of dating. For dating is often done today as an end in itself. Sure a dating couple may get married years down the road. But you don’t want to get married too young, they say—you should wait until you’re out of college and financially stable. And you want to get to know the person before marriage, right? That can take time, at least a couple years. So once a person hits 15 or 16, they date. They couple off and commit to one another as boyfriend and girlfriend (at least until they decide they don’t like the other person anymore). Then, if the relationship lasts four or five years, they marry.

Now if you are a Christian, you are put in a very difficult position. Because most people today who date for any length of time have sex before they get married. And this isn’t much of a surprise—as a relationship between a man and a woman grows, so does their desire to be physically intimate. But the Christian has to fight this desire. As every good church teaches, “Don’t have sex before marriage.”

But we must ask—is the modern practice of dating really conducive towards purity? Is it realistic to pair off with someone of the opposite sex for months or years, spend time alone with them, and then not have sex? The world says “no,” and so they fornicate. And I think they are right—sexual abstinence is not a realistic expectation within the modern practice of dating. But I disagree with their solution. We shouldn’t result to immorality. Instead we should abandon the modern practice of dating.

The Novelty of Dating

            The fact is, dating in the Western world is an invention of the last century that has its roots in feminism and the sexual revolution. And the practice would have been unthinkable in most societies throughout history for two reasons. First, modern dating ignores the role of parents. Historically, part of raising one’s child was finding him or her a suitable spouse. Marriage completed a child’s transition into adulthood. Parents were to protect the virginity of their children until marriage (especially daughters), and they were also to help their children find suitable spouses. The autonomy of modern dating is possible only in an extremely individualistic society like America. We live in a culture where parents don’t want to “control” their kids, and kids don’t want to listen to their parents. Parents are completely left out of the dating scene.

The second reason the practice would have been unthinkable in previous societies is that modern dating is not very conducive towards marriage. In the past, people desired marriage for the sake of children, companionship, and financial stability (women usually had to marry for this purpose). Both men and women therefore needed the long-term commitment of marriage. But modern dating lacks such commitment. It is a semi-committed relationship that may or may not lead to marriage. A dating couple can agree to date exclusively, but they also understand that either one can break things off at anytime. In this sense, dating is better preparation for divorce than marriage. Modern dating trains young people to form relationships without commitment and then break off those relationships when things get rocky.

Is it really any surprise then that we have such a high rate of divorce in America? Did you think there was no correlation between our dating practices and our divorce practices? We live in a society that casually dates, casually gets engaged, and then casually marries. Commitment and loyalty are rare virtues today. We break up with boyfriends and girlfriends, we break off engagements, and we end our marriages in divorce.

And what is the result? Hurt. People suffer serious emotional pain from break-ups. Sometimes they have trouble entering another relationship. But usually they just get numb. And then it’s not so difficult to end another relationship—even if it happens to be marriage. On top of this, when people do finally marry they bring in all sorts of baggage from previous relationships. When they have become “one flesh” with previous partners, marriage is no longer the exclusive relationship God intended it to be. All of this has serious physical, emotional, and spiritual repercussions.

How Then Should We Date?

            I hope it’s become clear that we as Christians need to rethink our practices that lead up to marriage. The modern practice of dating causes a lot of problems, and it therefore should not surprise us that the Bible has no category for such a “dating relationship.” There’s no such thing in the Bible as a “boyfriend” or “girlfriend.” The Bible only speaks of three categories for members of the opposite sex: family, spouse,[1] and neighbor. This means if someone of the opposite sex is not your spouse or part of your family, then God considers that person to be your neighbor. You can call them your “boyfriend” or “girlfriend” or whatever else you want, but God does not give you any special rights over that person. Until you get engaged, you have made no formal commitment and should treat that person like a brother or sister. Physical and emotional intimacy are not permitted.

Now this only addresses how we should not do things. But how then should we date? The most important thing we should do is involve parents in the dating/courting process. Parents are to raise their children in the ways of the Lord (Eph 6:4) and thus prepare them to be godly husbands and wives. And this means parents should also provide help in the seeking of a godly spouse. Parents should regularly discuss marriage prospects with their children, and they should oversee any dating/courting relationships that take place.

The pattern in Scripture is that sons “marry” and daughters are “given in marriage” (Gen 24:4; Jer 29:6; Matt 22:30). This means parents should raise up sons who are looking for an “excellent wife” (Prov  31:10-31). Parents should suggest suitable mates and then encourage their sons to pursue a woman of interest. They should teach sons to respect a woman’s father and therefore seek permission to court his daughter. Sons are to then leave their parents and hold fast to a wife in marriage (Gen 2:24).

Daughters though are to be given in marriage. This means parents have a greater role in the oversight of their daughters. The Bible teaches that fathers have covenantal authority over their daughters (Num 30:3-16). And this authority is transferred from the father to the woman’s husband in marriage (Eph 5:22). This means a woman is not independent before she marries, for she is still under her father’s authority. There’s nothing magical about age 18 that suggests a woman can now ignore her parents and live autonomously. This practice stems directly from modern feminism.

Instead, parents should be seeking to marry their daughters off. Parents should regularly discuss suitable marriage prospects with their daughters. But parents should also be protecting their daughters. Men have the God-given task of protecting the women in their lives, and this means a father must protect his daughter. It is foolish for a father to allow his unmarried daughter to spend time alone in private with a man who is not her husband. Rather, the father should require the man to court his daughter under his permission and oversight. This doesn’t mean the girl can’t go out on dates. But it does mean the father is involved in the relationship. Fathers must not abdicate their responsibility to protect their daughters. They should therefore oversee their daughters’ dating practices. Of course, this is difficult to do when a family sends their unmarried daughters out of the home simply because they turn 18. This is another modern cultural practice that we may want to reconsider.

So parents should implement such a practice of being involved in their children’s dating/courtship. But seeing that many parents do not do this, children should seek to involve parents in their dating. It’s not ideal, but a young Christian woman should ask her father to oversee her dating practice. And a young man interested in a young woman should seek the permission of the woman’s father. We must not follow the culture’s rebellion against the Fifth Commandment. We must honor father and mother, and this means parents should be involved in our dating practices.

Dating with Purpose

             The final point is that singles should date with the sole purpose of marriage. This means two things: (1) People should not date unless they are ready to get married; and (2) People should marry early in a relationship. The first point should be obvious. If we reject the practice of “recreational dating,” then dating should always have marriage in mind. And if dating is done in order to marry, then someone not looking to marry should not date.

            Of course, this raises the issue of when one is ready to get married. Many parents today set the arbitrary age for marriage at college graduation. Until then, marriage will only cause serious financial difficulties, or so they say. Now there is no denying that marrying in college can be difficult—but is this worth the risk of sexual impurity? Couples often meet in college, and there is no reason to make them wait four years before they can get married. If they are going to date, then they should get married and endure the financial challenges of marriage. They’ll face them regardless of when they marry. Money is not a good reason to encourage fornication.

The second point is that people should marry early in a relationship. This is met with the objection that it takes time to get to know someone in order to decide if you should marry him or her. Now it is true that it takes time to get to know someone—that is why you have a lifetime of marriage to get to know the person! But all you need to know before marriage is that the person is marriage material and that he or she will make a suitable spouse. And hopefully you are not only getting to know someone through spending time with him or her one-on-one. People are on their best behavior on dates, and this sets people up for deceit.

You should therefore get to know someone even before you go out on a date. You should be familiar with their reputation among their family, friends, and church. Ideally, you have access to these connections. But you can also get to know a person in groups and at social functions at church. These are opportunities to find out if a person is marriage material (Is he or she godly? Loyal? Hard-working? Do you have major theological differences? Etc.).

After you have made an effort to get to know someone in these ways before dating, there is little that you need to know in dating. If you are both solid Christians and you both like each other, then you should probably get married. It’s not about whether you are a perfect match but whether you are both willing to commit to marriage and to each other.

Conclusion 

            So don’t couple off too early in life. Wait to date until you are ready to marry. And if you like someone, try to get to know him or her before dating and find out if they are marriage material. Make sure the person is a Christian (1 Cor 7:39; 2 Cor 6:14; Ex 34:16) and that you are on the same page theologically. If that seems to be the case and you are a guy, then ask the girl out. And try to involve her parents. This will provide protection against sexual sin, as well as show that you are serious about marriage. Then if things go well after a few months, you should get engaged and set a wedding date. Don’t settle for dating, but have marriage as your goal. It will be for the good of both of you. For marriage, not dating, is God’s good means for companionship (Gen 2:18), children (Gen 1:28), and sexual purity (1 Cor 7:2-5; Prov 5:15-20).

For further study

Douglas Wilson. Her Hand in Marriage.
            This book is an excellent guide to courtship for parents, but it is also helpful for young men and women. The introductory chapter on the failure of the dating system is invaluable. Every Christian parent should own this book and put its teachings into practice.

Gerald Hiestand and Jay Thomas. Sex, Dating, and Relationships.
            In the case that parents are not or cannot be involved in a dating/courting relationship, I highly recommend this book for singles. Hiestand and Thomas advocate “dating friendships,” where singles get to know one another without the physical and emotional intimacy of modern dating relationships. The book emphasizes the importance of commitment and getting married in a timely manner.

---

[1] The Bible also speaks of “betrothal.” This was similar to modern engagement, but it was much more serious and breaking it required a divorce (Matt 1:18-19).

Amillennialism

This is the last post in a brief series looking at millennial views in End-times theology. The other posts are End-Times Discussion, Premillennialism, and Postmillennialism.

Amillennialism is the predominant Reformed view, but not the only Reformed view, see Postmillennialism. Those who hold to the Amil position usually interpret Revelation with an idealist framework, rather than preterist, futurist, or historicism. In this view we are in agreement with the Postmil view that Christ will return at the end of the symbolic “thousand years,” see Revelation 20:1-6. This view maintains that there will not be a literal millennium, hence the prefix a–, in distinciton from the two previous views. The end will come in a moment, not in various stages because we are currently living in the end times, and have been since the resurrection of Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

Amillennialists also hold to the position that those prophecies found in the New Testament about the End, and those prophesied in the Old Testament in such books like Daniel, are attributed to the present church as symbols for the current blessings we receive from God the Father and the current trials we endure from the children of the Devil.

Due to Christ’s death and resurrection Satan has been (is) bound and therefore the knowledge of the Gospel can proceed to the Gentile nations (everyone is not a Jew). The Gospel advances through the prayerful proclamation of God’s Word and the power of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of those who hear. This does not occur in a vacuum, of course. God’s appointed means for the spread of the Gospel involve opposition and suffering. Jesus suffered to bring the Gospel, and we will suffer to spread the Gospel.

With this in mind, the “first resurrection” is that of those who have died in the faith and are surrounding the throne of God, Revelation 20:4-7. The “thousand years” therefore, is the symbolic time between Christ’s first coming and binding of Satan and his return to destroy Satan. In this era between the two comings of Christ, the church will witness to his work and suffer for his name. This view does not promise relief from tribulation, like the Premils, nor does it offer the outlook that the world is increasingly improving, contrary to the Postmils. Rather, the Amils believe that the great dragon, Satan, is already defeated and he can in no way thwart the plan of God to gather His people from all nations.

The familiar phrase, “You may have won the battle, but I will win the war” does not apply to the Amil. We should say, “The war has been won.” There are indeed battles for the church, to be sure, but our security is in knowing that Christ has dealt the final blow and Satan is all but cast down. Revelation 19:17-21 and 20:9-10 are seen as two perspectives on the last great battle at the end of the “thousand years” when Christ will come to rescue his church and to destroy his enemies.  There will be one resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous in which those who are judged in Christ will be ushered into glory (new heavens and new earth, 2 Peter 3:13) and those who are judged by Christ will suffer eternal condemnation (hell, Revelation 20:15).

This is the view I hold. It is the simplest view, I do not need a road map of End-time hoopla that forces the Bible to say things it doesn’t. It makes the most sense of the scope of prophecy. The Amil view does not promise more than what the Bible does as opposed to the Premil view that says the church will not experience tribulation, or the Postmil view that says the world is continually improving. The Amil view says that Satan is crushed, the church will prevail through tribulation, and when Christ comes back all will be judged, death will be defeated, and the saints will dwell with God on the new earth.

I should say, however, that each of the three views can be held within the realm of orthodox Christianity, and each view is held among Bible-believing Christians. I said it before and I will say it again, Good Christians can disagree.

Here are some recommended resources on Amillennialism:

Case For Amillennialism has been one of the pillar books for those who hold this view, along with a little more academic companion book The Bible and the Future. A lengthy, and therefore comprehensive look at Amillennialism is The Promise of the Future.
A new book which has recently been published and can be obtained for 50% off is Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative, which will soon become the foundational book for Amils.

Postmillennialism

It may be beneficial to read my two previous posts (here and here) on certain end-times views. This may help you understand the reference and terminology a little better. This post will be dedicated to the Postmillennial view of eschatology (fancy word for the study of the End).

This view, historically, has been the least popular of the three (Premil, Amil, and Postmil). In this view there are two views (go figure) and we will focus more on the second view. The Postmillennial view is also a preterist view, which means that those who hold to Postmillennialism believe that the majority of the prophecy in Revelation was fulfilled in the first couple centuries.

The Postmillennial view can be summarized like this:

(1) Christ will return after the “thousand years” during which the dragon will be bound. With the dragon bound the Gospel will triumph even more than it is now, societies and cultures will be reformed to a more godly representation of humanity.

(2) The second view sees the millennium as symbolic. This millennium is the time between Christ’s ascension and his return in which the world is progressively improving until a culmination in the second coming of Christ. And it is to this view we turn our attention to.

During this time Christ is reigning in heaven and through the Holy Spirit and the preaching of the Gospel he is exercising his reign. After all, Jesus did say, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” Matthew 28:18.

This view also holds to a first and second resurrection. The first resurrection happens at regeneration, that is, when a person is made new by the power of the Holy Spirit (John 3, Ephesians 2:4-6). This first resurrection, therefore, is a much needed, necessary, spiritual one. This is why the Great Commission is so very important, because it is through the preaching of the Word that the power of the Holy Spirit renders new hearts to those bound in darkness. This Gospel growth will increase and flourish until the whole world is filled with the glories of God.

Because of the world is continually being filled with people-made-new, it will progressively get better. Legal systems and cultural persuasions will grow ever more into God’s will. Labor and leisure will be godly. The quality of life, and it’s length, will increase, and so on because of Christ’s current reign.

There will be mass rebellion in this view, however. Before the end of the “millennium” Satan will be released and those who are children of the devil will wage war upon the church (Genesis 3:15, Revelation 12:17). It is then that Jesus will return bodily from heaven to land the final blow of defeat over his enemies, exercise his judgment and make the heavens and the earth new.

This is an appealing view of the end times. And again, good Christians can disagree. I have a few friends who hold to this view, and some of the preachers and teachers I give high regard hold to this view. However, we must admit that the 20^th Century is undoubtedly the bloodiest century in history. The reality of death in the past century cannot be ignored. My mind thinks of such men as Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, and so on.

To push back against my own argument against the Postmillennial view that the world is getting better we must also recognize a couple factors that contributed to the “bloodiest century”. For example, the population of the world in the 20^th century was exponentially larger than any other century before it. This means that the world might not be getting worse necessarily. If the world is filled with more sinners this means that there is more of a potential for evil, but not necessarily more evil. Also the cessation of such evil, or the curbing of evil, cannot be ignored either. The men listed above were stopped and this is undoubtedly a good thing. Also, with increased population there is also more potential for the Gospel to spread, which is good and glorious.

But we also have to ask, why are there so many people on the planet? The answer can only be that the quality of life and length of life is constantly increasing through technology, and medicine, and so on. Both of these reasons would give credence to the Postmillennial view.

I can see how one would believe the world is getting better, like the Postmils, because the continued, and increased, spread of the Gospel around the globe (read, The Next Christendom), and the continual improvement in quality of life. Europe and North America are quickly becoming the least populated Christian continents whereas the Global South (South America, South Africa, and certain part of Asia) are rapidly becoming Christian. In fact, the countries on these continents are sending missionaries to America!

However, we must also look at what Scripture says which may counter the notion of the Postmillennial view:

Matthew 24:6-14—“⁶ And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet. ⁷ For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. ⁸ All these are but the beginning of the birth pains.

⁹ “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake. ¹⁰ And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. ¹¹ And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. ¹² And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. ¹³ But the one who endures to the end will be saved. ¹⁴ And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.”

Luke 18:8—“⁸ I tell you, he will give justice to them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?”

2 Timothy 3:1-13—“But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. ² For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, ³ heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, ⁴ treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, ⁵ having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.⁶ For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, ⁷ always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. ⁸ Just as Jannes and Jambresopposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith. ⁹ But they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men.

¹⁰ You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, ¹¹ my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra—which persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. ¹² Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, ¹³ while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.”

The Postmillennial view, however, is an optimistic view, and we know that our God is good, and He is sovereign. The issue is not an easy one to tease apart in a blog post, so I will recommend some further studying to you:

• The Victory of Christ’s Kingdom: An Introduction to Postmillennialism is a short work that you may find beneficial.
• Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope is the “go-to” book on this topic for many.
• And a more academic look (don’t let that scare you away) on the Postmillennial view can be downloaded in audio from here.

Premillennialism

Well, sorry it has taken so long to do a follow-up post. Who knew life was this busy? The discussion in the posts to come will reside in the realm of the Second Coming of Christ. In a previous post I brought up the issues of popular media influencing our understanding of what the Bible actually teaches concerning Christ coming again.

The first millennial view that we will look at is what is commonly called Premillenialism. This view is usually associated with the futurist reading of Revelation (that can be another blog post, maybe). In this view Jesus will return before (pre) the thousand years (millennium). If you have forgotten, the passage under discussion when it comes to the millennial views is Revelation 20:1-6.The “thousand years” in the Revelation is taken to be a literal reading in this view.

When Christ returns he will wage battle with the beast and the false prophet (Revelation 16:14-16; 19:11-21. In this battle Christ will bind the devil thereby preventing the devil from deceiving the nations for a thousand years (Revelation 20:1-3).

During this time the saints, through resurrection and transformation (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18) in the “first” resurrection will reign with Christ for that thousand years. Sin will still be present in the world at this time, but it will be lessened.

Many who hold to this view, mainly dispensationalists (God has different dispensations in the history of redemption) believe that the restoration of Israel as a nation with material blessings and covenant fidelity will occur during this thousand year reign.

At the end of the thousand year reign there will be a global rebellion against Christ in which the Great Dragon, the devil, will be defeated finally. This is when the “second” resurrection occurs and the wicked will rise to be judged and experience the second death in the lake of fire (Revelation 20:6, 11-14). God will also recreate the current earth and secure His kingdom free from sin and its effects (Revelation 21-22).

There are derivations of this view, of course. Many are familiar with the teaching of the Rapture, we give many sardonic thanks to C.I. Scofield. This view, held by premillennial dispensationalists expects the thousand year reign of Christ, but it also expects that Jesus will “rapture” believers from the earth before the tribulation of seven years (3.5 years of lesser tribulation and 3.5 years of greater tribulation). This is the pre-tribulation view, there is also a mid-trib and a post-trib…lost yet?After the tribulation Christ will come back to earth and he will bring his saints with him. We call this “exegetical gymnastics”. If you would like a brief look on why the doctrine of the Rapture is unbiblical, click here.

There are many Christians who believe that the Premillennial view is correct, and this is fine. Good Christians can disagree. I disagree with the Premillennial view, and especially any view that holds to the Rapture, because these views attempt to take more from Scripture than is actually there. For example, in a book of symbolism, Premillennialists take the “thousand years” to be literal. These views impose two resurrections when the Bible teaches one resurrection for all people (John 5:28-29). These views divide the redemptive history of God into dispensations when the Bible teaches a unification in the Covenant of Grace, (Galatians 3:16, 29, 2 Corinthians 1:18-22).

For a well respected view on Premillennialsim I recommend, A Case For Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to “Left Behind” Eschatology.

Next post: Postmillennialism.

End-Times Discussion

It is not uncommon for Christians to be confused about the end-times. I have studied the Bible and read a few books on the end-times (not the Left Behind series!) and I have to admit, it is still confusing. The other day someone from church asked me whether or not unbelievers would be able to repent during the rapture. After I informed this person that the Reformed church does not believe in the rapture, because the rapture is not found anywhere in Scripture, confusion was then in our discussion.

When our thinking has been informed by popular (most often unbiblical) media such as the Left Behind series, or any of the numerous apocalyptic television shows and films, we become inundated with what we assume to be true about the return of Christ. There are varying opinions on the Second Coming and the events leading up to it. The disputed text is Revelation 20:1-6. To be fair to each view I would have to do some extra reading to present them accurately, but for now I would like to give a taste of the majority Reformed view known as amillennialism. I say that it is the “majority” Reformed view because even within the Reformed tradition there are those who hold to the postmillennial view. I will discuss the various views in later blog posts.

If you are interested in studying these things for yourself I recommend a few resources,

• Three Views on the Millennium is a nice counterpoint book. Each author writes his respective view, then the other authors respond. It is a nice, usually cordial, argument. As I discuss each view I will also attach links to books, articles, and audio.
• For amillennialism I recommend Kim Riddlebarger’s book, A Case for Amillennialism. If you are really interested in end-times discussion I would also encourage you to pre-order Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative. 
• For a free booklet on each view you can click here. This is the work of David Murray, and I recommend going to his blog here.

David Murray has also put together a short video that presents the amillennial view.

What If I Don’t Like It?

Have you ever sat in a church service on a Sunday morning expecting to hear the Word of God expounded to you in all the vigor and clarity in the manner of Charles Spurgeon, or Martyn Lloyd-Jones, John Stott, or John Piper, or Sinclair Ferguson, or Matt Chandler, or Kevin DeYoung, or (one of my favorites) Adam Barr, or Peter Marshall? Have you had these expectations? Then they have most likely been shattered when you realize the pastor who stands before you every Sunday seems more like a freshman college student in his Introduction to Public Speaking course.

I would consider myself lumped into the latter group, after all, I am new at this. My conviction is that the better I become at preaching, the more glory will be brought to God. This is why I spend much time in my sermon preparation, why I read books on preaching, listen to those great preachers just mentioned, and why I ask a few trusted individuals in the church to honestly critique my sermon. But this post is not about me, it is about all of us.

What do we do when we realize that the sermon set before us is a bad sermon? Well, we have to figure out what we mean by “bad”. There are two ways we can take this. The first would be in the area of doctrine, and I will say upfront that if your pastor is abusing Scripture, debases the miracles within Scripture, or uses Scripture for his own ends rather than the glory of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, flee! Flee to a new church and leave that old place behind. The second way in which a sermon can be bad is in its presentation, and I pray that this is where I land if I must land in either of these two areas.

I want to talk about those stuck in the second area. What if your pastor’s preaching voice comes from his nose rather than the depths of his lungs? What if his mannerisms in the pulpit are more like uncontrolled twitches? What if his sermon is too short or too long? What if the application did not follow what he spent 30 minutes building up? What if from week to week there is no cohesion, no over arching theme? What if he uses PowerPoint? What if he doesn’t? What if he never preaches from the Old Testament? What if he never preaches from the New? What if…well you get the idea.

I have a few suggestions.

If this is a consistent bother, humbly come before the Lord and pray on behalf of your pastor. Thank the Lord that He has given you such a man that loves His Word. Thank the Lord that the church has a pastor that honors Christ and speaks the truth of the Gospel. Pray for your shepherd. Believe me, a poorly delivered sermon is vastly different than a biblically aberrant sermon. I would rather have someone give me the truth in a poorly delivered sermon than someone who merely talks about himself in a glamorous way.

From Sunday to Sunday, prepare your heart through prayer and the study of the Word for the receiving of the sermon. Have you ever heard someone after a church service say, “Eh, it was okay. I didn’t get much out of it.” Then the blame usually falls on the Worship Director for choosing the wrong songs, or the Pastor for not preaching in a mode that the Complainer prefers. But pay attention to what the person said, “I didn’t get much out of it” or put another way, “It didn’t do much for me.” Where is the emphasis? The Complainer. There is no mention of the glory of God from the revelation of His Word.

Perhaps the reason someone does not “get” much out of a church service is because they are not putting much of themselves in it. The church is not a consumer-based enterprise. We are servants of the King expounding the truths of his Word. It is what it is, and it is powerful on its own. Another way to think about the Complainer is that they fail to realize how much a pastor does put in. This is why we must pray for our pastors. Pastors need the prayers of the saints. You want a “better” pastor, pray for and encourage your pastor.

Another suggestion would be to stop complaining. What does complaining do? If you are married you know the answer to this. Complaining does two things: 1) nothing positive and 2) everything negative. Complaining often turns to gossip, which often turns to bitterness, which often turns to resentment, which often turns to hatred, and then you are in a pit so deep, surrounded by your own illusions of what you think is wrong you may stop attending the church altogether cutting yourself off from the body of Christ.

Joel Beeke, in his wonderful little book The Family at Church (the following comes from pages 15-23), offers some more wisdom when it comes to listening to sermons. Beeke offers four nuggets of wisdom. 1) Listen with an understanding, and tender conscience. Beeke then expounds on the parable of the Sower in Matthew 13:3-23 in which he exhorts his readers to be good soil ready to receive the sown Word.

2) Listen attentively to the preached Word. In other words, the pastor should not be the only one working during a sermon. Listening well is hard work, so work at it. Put the bulletin down until you get home. Put your phone away. Don’t let your children play handheld games in the service. Quit counting the ceiling tiles. The preached Word of God is a matter of life and death and it should be treated as such, see Deuteronomy 32:47.

3) Listen with a submissive faith. This piece of wisdom comes from James 1:21, “Therefore, putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls.” A Christian heart should be willing to receive the counsel and rebuke of the Word of God, no matter how well the presentation is put together.

4) Listen with humility and self-examination. Isaiah 66:2 reads, “…But to this one I will look, to him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.” Are you aware of your own depravity and inability to save yourself? Are you aware of your deadness apart from Christ and the indwelling of the Spirit? Are you aware of the Word’s ability, as a means of grace, to transform your life? Are you aware that God has brought your pastor before you, in all of his weaknesses and in all of his foibles to present to you the saving power of His mercy?

We have not even touched on the issue of God’s providence, that is, His fatherly hand bringing you exactly what He thinks you need, which includes the pastor before you. What does the Complainer think of the gifts received from God’s fatherly hand? Pray for your pastor.