A response to ‘Pastor Mark’
Yesterday a number of online friends directed me to a blog post by Mark Driscoll entitled ’16 things I look for in a preacher’, wondering what my response to it might be. In some ways I am tempted to point to the 26 things I look for most. However, I have chosen just five here.
You will notice that Pastor Mark is in inverted commas above. I am uneasy with the ‘branding’ of Christian leaders in this way. I am Richard, I serve as a pastor and preacher and I do other things too. However, I am not defined by them. Furthermore, I am deeply uncomfortable with the kind of beauty contest for preachers described in Mark Driscoll’s post. Any selection of servants of God based (even in jest) on American Idol has to be open to question. Preachers need to be winsome – they must court the attention of their listeners and occasionally charm them into staying tuned. However, there is the world of difference between that and a consumerist approach to preaching which says ‘sweep me off my feet or I shall take my affections elsewhere’.
So- here are the five things I am looking for in a preacher – even in the one I meet most days in the mirror.
Humble heart – a preacher without a humble heart is a liability both to her or himself and to the congregation. Any preacher who believes too much in their own brilliance may be in danger of eclipsing the one who is meant to shine.
Sore knees – more of the work of the sermon is done on the preacher’s knees than on their feet. On their knees they learn to love those who will listen, and on their knees God can perform a kind of alchemy where the base metal of the preacher is transformed into Kingdom gold.
Dirty hands – one of the reasons I am cautious about the most influential preachers being itinerant ones is that it can breed a kind of cavalier spirituality. In other words, preachers whose ministry is on the conference circuit or elsewhere are not obliged to live with the consequences of their preaching in the same way as a person in an established local ministry. I like to see a preacher with hands made dirty by the mess and wonder of congregational life.
Sparkling eyes – at the risk of sounding like either Garfunkel or Gilbert and Sullivan, I want to see a preacher with a sparkle in their eyes. I want to see that they are entranced, puzzled and amused by life on Planet Earth.
Supple mind – a supple mind can flit easily from poetry to politics, and biblical theology to cultural analysis. A supple mind, like a supple body, needs exercise – and we should expect preachers to do their homework.
Depiction of 'Mr Littledale' in his pulpit by local schoolchildren
There are so many other things I could say, and so many great descriptions of preaching by such minds as Bonhoeffer, Brueggemann and others. However, perhaps these five will serve to fuel the debate.
I note with some regret that there doesn’t appear to be any facility to comment on Mark Driscoll’s original post. Wonder why not?
Thanks Richard. Never a fan of Driscoll, as he has surely condemned me to hell – your list is great. I think if these are grasped, the rest will follow automatically (so long as a deep biblical knowledge is assumed under ‘supple mind’). Sadly, I fear that these qualities are not often the most valued by congregations, which feeds self-centredness over self-giving in preaching.
I too have just tried and failed to comment on Mr Driscoll’s posting. I too am presumably condemned to hell by him, but thankfully not by you. The difference is noted. Thank you.
I’d also be condemned because I always preach with full notes, and frequently find that those that don’t preach with at least some notes, lose me, and themselves.
And there are very few circumstances where I would preach for half and hour – I have heard it done, and done brilliantly by Revd Bell in Aberystwyth, but there are few who do, and even he used notes (which were often available along with a recording of the sermon) afterwards.
Humble heart and dirty hands – I regularly question God as to how the heck I come to be in this preaching place, to which I know the answer is because he places me there, and I only preach in his strength. Knowing where the congregation is, their current concerns (individually and corporately as a church) is important – sometimes you have to be really sensitive in how you put things across because of the particular timing of a sermon, or you have to brave, knowing that even if it makes them uncomfortable God needs them to really hear this message.
Sore knees – is most important to me. I learn so much through the process of actually writing a sermon; often I actually work out what I truly believe about a theological idea by grappling with it when asked to preach on it. (This week’s lectionary including the idea of judgement being no exception!)
Sparkling eyes – I think I know what you’re getting at, but I’m not sure I like the phrase. It’s about conviction – not based on a ‘know it all’ attitude to either the text or to preaching, but based on faith and a visible integrity that is only noticeable if you have the dirty hands!
Supple mind – sometimes too subtle a mind can be a danger in a preacher. They need to be able to use references that don’t so much prove how well read or whacky they are, but how well they know those they are preaching to. If a reference to (say) Dr Who is likely to be completely lost on more than half the congregation, then I would suggest it shouldn’t be used – however much the preacher may be addicted to watching it.
Great post Richard, unlike the one you refer to.
Now, how about my question as to whether the texts of sermons should then be posted on blogs, or not?
Thanks for your comments. Completely agree on “supple mind” – the pulpit is not a place for the preacher to show off their learning. As regards posting sermons on blogs – I have mainly avoided doing it on here. It is a purely personal choice – but my desire has always been that this should be a place to discuss preaching, rather than a showcase for my preaching – which is a different kind of blog altogether.
Ouch! I followed this link from the New Frontiers theology twitter account. Normally they link to thought-out articles that bring a balance of arguments. In this case I’m dismayed to find a rather partisan dismissal of the original content without any attempt to engage with it.
So you don’t like the ‘beauty contest’ approach Mark advocates? Way to take the ‘fun’ out of ‘fundamental’! but anyway, as someone who had to sit through a totally theologically sound but utterly boring pointless sermon that didn’t relate to real life, call people to repent or engage the church at all with the text I’d say that Driscoll’s practical pointers for preachers deserve better critique than this.
Let’s start with point 1: “Tell me about Jesus”. You know what, if you don’t do this then you don’t deserve to be in that pulpit. Good call Mark.
Point 2: “Have one big idea”. Look I was a teacher for a few years and I can tell you all lessons are supposed to have a central Learning Objective/Intention. Again, practical, sound advice.
Point 3: “Get my attention…” Again, in teaching we were urged to find a ‘hook’ to get children’s attention/engage them in the content. OK?
I could continue. In fact the problem here is that Dricoll’s blog has been miss titled . He wasn’t writing about the things he looks for in a preacher’s character (as you have described – and good call on those characteristics by the way), but rather – as he says in the article, “16 things that I’m looking for in a preacher or teacher’s sermon”
Dude! You’re coming at cross-purposes here. Of course Driscoll would look for spiritual character when choosing leaders! But here he is talking about sermon “content”. Give the guy credit for trying at least!
Ok disclaimer. I like some of what Mark says, you can shoot me if you like but there you go. However, I’m not an uncritical fanboy. I know Driscoll isn’t Jesus and therefore he’s fallible. So am I. I’ll take criticism on this post. I’ve used my real name here so not hiding under an anon status. Go for it!
Pete
When I first started this blog, someone said I would know it was of some use if people disagreed with me…
Thanks for your comments. In fact there are many of the points you raise which I discuss when teaching new preachers. As you righty observe – I have chosen to concentrate on character traits, rather than on technique – about which I have written at length elsewhere.
You seem more familiar with Mark’s work & writing than I am – any idea why he doesn’t allow for comments on the blog?
Hey, no problem! I have listened to pretty much every Mark Driscoll preach that’s online, (but not only Driscoll, before anyone leaps on that!). He isn’t afraid to make a controversial statement or two, and has repented of one or two of them as most of us probably have (or should have!).
As for why no comments. I really honestly don’t know. As a pure guess I would hazard that the monitoring of them proved too difficult. With masses of readers the shear number of comments would probably require a full time team to respond to.
I note that you have time to read your comments and respond quickly, if you were not able to would you still keep this channel open? I’m not sure I would because it gives an open invitation for critics without the option for reply. Let’s face it, critics can blog or tweet or post on Facebook anyway so it’s not like discussion is being stifled.
I have noticed that most ultra-conservatives don’t want feedback from people who disagree with them.
Citation needed! lol
Empathetic
Good listener
Non-judgemental
Helpful in the community outside the church
Economically prudent, thrifty; not lavish, flashy or attention-seeking
Just brilliant. Thank you.
Heh, you reminded me of Spurgeon who looked for wide shoulders, chest and frame, large voice, no deformities or abnormalities that would distract the listener. I kid ye not!
I’d say both comments from Pete Thorne are spot on!
Very good blog! Thank you. I am glad you do not use male only language 🙂 unlike “Pastor Mark”. I feel very uncomfortable with those aspiring to be a preacher. Surely we are called to serve others and although we can do this through preaching, I believe preaching opportunities will approach us rather than us seeking them out. I think we need to challenge the Christian cultures in which preaching is the highest calling and understand that it is through loving others day by day that Jesus’ truth comes more clearly.
Thank you: I especially like your point about sore knees. Sadly, although we do have some great preachers, the “Gospel homily” to which most Catholic congregations are subjected on Sundays teaches mainly one thing — patience.
Excellent comment Richard. As someone who preaches occassionally I know that I couldn’t do it without sore knees. I hope I have a humble heart and very dirty hands. I know you do. It was preaching just as you have described that brought me to faith in the first place. All sermons should be thoelogically sound but that doesn’t have to equate to being boring. Also the saying if you do this I’ll stop listening and if you do that I’ll stop listening. Surely we also have some responsibility to engage and receive from the sermon we happen to be listening and the whole responisbility doesn;t rest with the preacher. We can’t all have a style that will suit everyone. .
Siobhan, you are right that our attitude in receiving sermons needs to be one of engagement and willingness to glean every bit of truth and encouragement from the word. I’m pretty sure that Mark wasn’t describing his heart towards preaching but rather the very practical nature of humans that we find it harder to engage when the preacher is not engaging! It’s a two-way thing and even the greatest men have struggled here (see Paul’s preaching that literally bored a man to death).
I had a lecturer at uni who mumbled. We could not hear what he said half the time. Some students complained and he was given a microphone – which he mumbled into! This wan’t a style issue, it was a practical one. Jesus himself picked good teaching spots where the acoustics suited talking to large crowds (hillsides, from boats on water).
But yes, I agree that not everyone’s style appeals. I must confess that though I like Mark’s preaching generally, his tendency to shout through sermons when impassioned can put me off! And as to whether he’s girl-friendly, that’s another concern.
So yes, different styles will appeal to different people. Listeners are responsible for listening. And practical barriers need to be overcome.
Great comments, thanks for the Blog content Richard.
Good to see Canon Stuart Bell get a mention, would echo sentiments.
Love this! Really great list. Especially the sparkle in their eyes!
Good list, Richard. I’m a little biased, but I’d want to add a sixth point, and that is a passion for what God is doing around the world. Too many preachers are limited in their vision and understanding because they don’t see the big picture of God at work. You could squeeze this into your ‘supple mind’ category, I guess. But, as I say, I’m biased!
I like the list here, but I also like Mark Driscoll’s list. Both have merit. I don’t find explicit scriptural mandates that would confirm or deny either list.
Just my opinion.
Kim Gentes
Pingback: Things I look for in a preacher (II) « Richard Littledale's Preacher's A – Z
Pingback: Things I look for in a preacher (II) « Richard Littledale's Preacher's A – Z
Thanks for your post, Richard, an excellent and thought-provoking list of qualities.
I think that I’d like to add three points, though some of these were implied in your post (or in the other comments made).
1. Listening ears – ears that are able to listen both to God and to the world. Hearing must come before speaking.
2. A passionate voice. I’m not sure that passionate is the right word, but I can’t think of a better one at the moment. By a passionate voice I mean on a practical level someone who can be heard and who has a voice that people are able to listen to – I’ve listened to a number of preachers who have had good things to say, but who have mumbled it and so they haven’t been heard. And on another level it’s about whether what they are saying comes from their heart and from their interaction with Scripture – do they speak with authority, is there a sense in which this is ‘the word of the Lord’.
3. A faithful walk. I want to know whether the preacher I am listening to walks with God, and has a life which is consistent with the message that they proclaim. The preachers who trouble me most are those whose lives demonstrate something of what might be called the gifts of the Holy Spirit, but who seem to be possibly lacking the fruit of the Spirit.
But thank you once again, David
Great additions David!
I’d also love to see some discussion, from preacher’s perspective, as to the balance between ‘broadcast’ sermons, and more interactive/engaging content. I’ve been reading ‘Killing Cockroaches’, and he talks about the fact that churches are not (or at least should not) be trying to compete with each other, but are competing for attention with shopping malls (yes, it’s American), cinema, bowling alleys and all the other things that happen on a Sunday (although I know a number of churches are trying midweek sermons, etc.). I have a friend who went into a church as she heard the music coming from inside, and it was a cafe church – loved it and went back…
For me one of the top things required is AUTHENTICITY.
Richard, I like your list of 5 and don’t disagree. But no matter how good a preacher is (or easy on the eye) I would say their message loses everything it the preacher is not real or willing to challenge themselves/live as they are preaching we should.
Also how do you feel about preachers apologising for the message they preach? I have heard this undermines all they say and should never say in a sermon “I’m sorry if this is hard to hear…” or “I’m sorry I’m saying this…”.
Thoughts?
Jon
I absolutely agree with your 1st point – see “G” on the following day’s post (what I look for in a preacher II)
As regards the apologies etc. It can be disingenuous as in 2this son’y my idea its God’s” – when no-one can truly claim that degree of flawless connection with God. Also – if you believe it to be of God..why are you sorry to say it?
Must reflect further…