Much of the debating over preaching comes from a pure intellectual standpoint only and not from a heart basis. The old saying, “You can’t give what you don’t have” would most likely be appropriate to say.

Jesus could not do much of anything in his hometown because the absence of faith on the part of those who were hearing him (preach or teach).

Regardless of the style of delivery and preparation I have found it imperative to build faith in the atmosphere before launching out on the waters of preaching. As a matter of fact I will not preach or teach where there is no faith. China has built a solid foundation of faith and I believe the rigourous preparation of ministers at the end of the year is to be able to effectively meet the faith level of that nation.

Paul Palmer

I think that there is always a danger of following some like an Andy Stanley (or a Mark Dever!) and think they are golden in all they say, when in reality their models of ministry have problems too.

Perhaps we should also stop and think about much more some of these Chinese Christians are learning, growing, gathering, gospeling like the early church?

Peter,
I’ve “the million a year” from more than one place. I think that number takes into consideration the underground believers that are coming to Christ without any clear, public records. Most recently I heard one million a year as an estimate from D. A. Carson, which I consider to be a pretty reliable source

Blessings!

I am skeptical of such a claim, in part because I was part of a college parachurch ministry that reviled normal seminary, and put many young men into leadership, something scripture warns against. Now, perhaps these men would have been better equipped to minister having had at least the training you mention above. Needless to say, they were intolerant, controlling, insecure, and spiritually abusive.

I also suggest that, again, the problem with American churches, though it may stem from the leadership on down, may not be a problem that could be solved with shorter, ‘bible only’ education and church structure.

In fact, I think our church structure IS part of the problem, but not the problem you are supposing that this education solves.

In fact, I think that proposing longer sermons EXACERBATES one of our main problems, that of passive learning in church members rather than giving them more time to actively participate in ministry.

Rather than spoon feeding them every week, we should be training them to feed themselves, and spend more of our corporate time in corporate *ministry* rather than pretending that paying attention to hour long sermons will make us more spiritual.

I am all for LEADERS being subjected to long training and education, but again, with a bias for action, not mere preaching.

I think that one of the reasons that the Apostle Paul may have spent lots of time in sermonizing is because there was no New Testament, and someone had to continually explain the new revelation and it’s relation to the OT. I don’t think he was necessarily giving us the only or best model for post-canon church.

Sure, we still need teachers, though not with the heavy emphasis we give in our current church structure of weekly Sunday services full of spectators and passive students.

To me, enthusiasm for this simplistic approach may reflect some of our own needs and failures in the west, but I maintain that such training, and the supposition that longer sermons make for better disciples and churches, is really off the mark, and will NOT produce the results of growing churches with active disciples that those high on this model think it will.

>> TERRY: there is an increasing number of churches that are adopting a “train locally” in the local church model which I think more closely reflects the first century.

I have seen this for the last couple of decades at least, where local seminaries, esp. lay seminaries, are created, and leaders are developed from within. This is definitely more efficient and perhaps even superior to creating Professional Christians in our seminaries.

However, as someone who would like to make pastoring my full time paid occupation, I would like to have both passion, a full education, AND professional organizational skills in order to do a good job.

I know that the anointing and obedience are of primary importance, but I still want to do my best to give people the best, most balanced leadership I can.

Again Seminary is fine but I would suggest that the brothers in the Home Church movement in China are learning all of the “relational” tasks you mentioned as they live, study and prepare in that context.

I think I heard Lloyd John Ogilvie said that a preacher ought to spend ONE hour of prep for evey ONE minute in the pulpit.

That would mean that for every 40 minute sermon, you ought to spend 40 hours (one work week) in preparation.

As a bivocational pastor, I don’t have that kind of time. However, I do find that I need at least half of that time to do a better than average job.

So when I spend 30 minutes for every hour in the pulpit (e.g. 15 hours for a 30 minute sermon), I do well. When I spend 8 hours for a 30 minute sermon (1/4 of the recommended time), people seem happy, but I am not happy with the quality of the results.

Specifically, what happens when I spend less time is:
- I don’t say things correctly or with the best words that make me understood
- Relevant scriptures or quotes come to mind that I don’t have written down and can’t find in the moment. Had I practiced more, I would have discovered these
- I often lack the focus and punch needed to bring my points home.