Does my title give me away? So much for being coy with my proposition. Let me say that this post is going to get me in trouble with some dear friends who preach God’s word every week. My message to them: Bear with my critique. I pray that my thoughts will be considered as “wounds from a friend”—a very fallible friend.
Here, let’s start this way. Have you ever heard someone (probably a preacher or teacher in the church) say something like this:
“I had prepared all week to teach on __________, but the Holy Spirit changed my lesson at the last minute.”
I have. Dozens of times. The idea it conveys is that the particular message that was prepared was not of God (at least at that time) and this new message was most certainly of God. In fact, the new message is miraculously of God! Why? Because I did not really prepare for it. It must have been God who prepared it. “I just step back when that happens and let God do his thing. Who am I to interrupt God?”
Can I say something? (Wait, let me hide behind something first . . .There.) That is a stupid statement!
My basic thesis is this: The type of assumptions required to adopt the occurrence of such homiletic detours is irresponsible both to yourself and to your audience and misunderstands the way God works in the life of the church.
Let me give you some characteristics that I see in such statements. They can:
Neglect the Holy Spirit. The idea that is conveyed is that the Holy Spirit is not present in the sermon/lesson preparation process. Without God’s presence and guidance in the study, does he somehow show up at the pulpit? There is no justification for such thinking. In fact, I would argue that we are in more need of the Spirit’s guidance in the study than we are when we deliver. If the Spirit is not present when you are in preparation, how can he be there when you deliver? The delivery is simply the product of your life, study, preparation, and daily walk with God. If this is true, why would God miraculously change what he has been preparing you to present? Can he not make up his mind? Did some new unforeseen circumstance arise that caused him to adjust, shift, or compensate for? Be careful.
Blame the Holy Spirit. The idea that God changes the sermon or lesson can be an attempt to discount your involvement and responsibility in what is being presented. Maybe you did not prepare and you are seeking someone to blame? Maybe you want to say something that you don’t think will gain people’s favor? Maybe you are just trying to blame the Holy Spirit?
Be manipulative. The third commandment, in principle, has nothing to do with swearing, but everything to do with protecting God’s reputation. When we claim that God miraculously changed the lesson or sermon, we may be manipulating the audience. In other words, it may be another way of saying, “This sermon is really from God.” In doing this, you are using his reputation by way of putting a “hands-off” authentication on your teaching. After all, if God changed your mind at the last minute, whatever criticism that someone might have must concede its fury; otherwise, the critics might find themselves at enmity with God himself. That type of approach is manipulative. The best we can do is prayfully hope that God has guided our lives, thoughts, and studies to qualify us to represent him when the time comes.
Arise from a gnostic bent. I think that people assume that this is a norm in the pulpit because we have the tendency to separate the mundane from the sacred. We often believe that if it is from the Lord, it will have a halo around it. Halos don’t seem to appear in studies that are filled with struggle, doubt, and, often, timidity in our conclusions. We seek the halos to rise above the mundane to sanctify us in a different way. However, we must live thoroughly converted lives, recognizing that the wall between the sacred and the “secular” is not really present, and it never was. It is no more spiritual to study than to preach.
But . . . What about . . .
I can hear it coming. What about Jude in the New Testament? I am just following in his footsteps.
“Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.” (Jud. 1:3)
Doesn’t Jude here demonstrate that he was going to write about something but the Holy Spirit led him somewhere else? Yes, but this cannot be applied to what I am speaking about. Jude is not saying that he was just about to write on the subject of salvation, but the Lord miraculously changed his lesson. He is saying that he purposed to write about salvation, but he was convicted of a greater priority instead. To put this in our current situation, it would be like me saying that I have been intending to preach on marriage, but I feel it is more important at this time for me to start a series on dealing with false doctrine due to its current influence in our culture. The reason for the change is not some last minute anointing of the Holy Spirit, but because of the expediency of the subject for the current situation. It says nothing about preparation and study. It is assumed that Jude is prepared to speak to the issue of his conviction precicely because of the presence of his conviction.
In the end, we need to be careful. From conception, preparation, to presentation, we can only hope that God is guiding it all. Can God change our sermon or lesson while we are in the pulpit? Of course. The question that you have to ask yourself is whether or not this is a model that we should expect. Your message can be further shaped, nuanced, and impassioned while you are teaching, but this is not really God changing your sermon. Preach what you prepare for and prepare for what you preach.
128 replies to ""I Was Going to Preach this, but the Holy Spirit Led Me to This" . . . And other Stupid Statements"
Hi Jugulum,
“And I have definitely disagreed with some of your attempts to support your ideas with Bible references. You have pointed to passages, and I’ve thought, “It doesn’t say that at all!” I’ve been as unimpressed as you were with Hebrews 1:1-3.”
You could have pointed them out to me. That would have been the best thing you could do. I don’t think I quoted any verse that didn’t say what I meant. I would have definately looked into if I have made any mistake in reading the Word of God.
You wrote:
“I read what other people write about the Bible because I know that I have blind spots & misunderstandings. I know that the Word is richer than I have yet seen. I know that I have seen things that aren’t there. And considering the counsel of the rest of the Body of Christ is a fantastic help in finding out.”
All have blind spots and when blind leads that blind both fall. That is what is happening here. Every body sings in the same tune and if somebody sings in different tune he is unwelcome. Blind leading the blind and every one is following the blind. That why I was trying to put emphesis back on Word of God. Word of God is not blind and it will lead to the right place.
Psa 119:102 I have not departed from Your judgments, For You Yourself have taught me.
Psa 119:103 How sweet are Your words to my taste, Sweeter than honey to my mouth!
Psa 119:104 Through Your precepts I get understanding; Therefore I hate every false way.
Psa 119:105 Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path.
I like that “You Yourself have taught me”.
@DaveZ Post 6.
I must be honest, I’ve only read about 2/3rds of the posts here. But I wanted to comment on the post that mentioned teaching through Romans and God adjusting the message because of someone who is at church on a certain day.
As a qualifier, I pastor a house church, 15-20 people and growing. I have a seminary education and an active guest speaking ministry throughout Arizona. I mention this because of the “arm-chair pastor” comment from earlier post.
My comment is this: Far too many chruches teach from the bible rather than teaching the bible. It’s not semantics. It’s the difference between topical teaching and exegetical, expositional teaching. I realize this is a long road to a simple point but I wanted to try and be very clear where I’m coming from with the upcoming statement.
My point: If you are teaching the bible, say Romans 11, how exactly can you teach Romans 11 apart from what the text allows and still consider yourself faithful to the text?
OR (if i missed your point entirely) Did you mean to imply that the pastor may feel moved by the Spirit to teach from a diferent text? Say Colossians 1 instead of Romans 11, by the Spirit, to reach a special visitor that only God knows is there?
If the latter was your point my question is: Can you effectively teach on a text which you have not, at some point in time, prepared through prayerful, Spirit-filled study?
Vinod,
For someone who claims to be some super-Christian, you are actually rather rude and bombastic. If that is what your “spirit” is leading you to do, I want none of it. I hope you and it are very happy together…
JasonJ, yes, I meant a different text.
I’m guessing, but you seem to be speaking from a perspective that assumes the following:
1. Exegetical/Expositional (verse-by-verse) is the only valid teaching method.
2. Specific (and recent or even within the week) study of a paticular text is mandatory to teaching on it.
Regarding the former, this statement borders on the outrageous:
I don’t know how you meant it, but it could be read as a self-righteous (“Far too many churches…” but not yours, I’m sure) blanket condemnation of topical teaching, which seems very presumptuous, if not arrogant. I’ll assume that’s not how you meant it, so those of us who prefer eisegesis should not take offence.
Furthermore, even verse-by-verse teaching is topical in essence. For example, the first couple verses of Galatians 3:
You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?
From that I could preach a sermon on any of the following topics:
1. Foolishness
2. Demonic influence
3. The crucifixion and it’s implications
4. Receiving the Spirit
5. The Law and legalism
6. Belief, with an emphasis on Grace
Everyone who teaches verse-by-verse, from MacArthur to Chuck Smith, does this. They just choose a topic based on what verse is on the schedule for that week.
Regarding my second point, I would point out that there are many pastor/teachers who would be able to teach through a passage without XX hours of preparation. Maybe he’s taught through it before. And maybe he just really knows his Bible. Then there is always the remote possibility that the Holy Spirit could actually guide his words. Well, maybe not – relying on the Spirit and power of God sounds pretty foolish. Sorry. (My sarcasm is not meant to mock or ridicule; consider it hyperbole to make a point)
A pastor friend has a remarkable story regarding this very topic. Short version – God woke him up at 2 AM Sunday morning and re-directed his message. The re-direction was confirmed at church when a 1st time attender told the pastor of sitting with a .45 in his mouth at 2 AM and praying that God would speak to him. The pastor without understanding why, preached a message that spoke directly to this individual’s situation. And believe me, this pastor is no charismaniac.
How is it that we (the evangelical church) have so little confidence in the power and privilege of God to move in miraculous ways?
Evengelicals don’t move in miraculous may be because they think God is dead.
DaveZ,
Your assumptions are correct. I do believe expository teaching is the correct way to teach the bible.
As to your second point, I’m not entirely sure how you arrived at the conclusion that my comment made any reference to time. I have studied some sections of Scripture at such great lengths while in seminary that if I were called to speak at a church within the next hour, on that passage, I would be prepared. And to that end I think you and I are in more agreement than you realize.
As for as my dislike for topical teaching, as a methodolgy, it’s akin the the “ordo salutis” debates, it’s about preeminence, what comes first.
Topical teaching, as a methodology, starts with it’s topic and searches for affirming text.
Expository teaching, as a methodology, starts with the text and communicates the topic of the text.
It really is a very different thing.
As to your comment on Galatians 3, do you really believe that all of those topics you listed are in view as Paul is writing to the Galatians? I do not. And you have perfectly illustrated my point as to how topical teaching falls short. Of your list only #5 would sort or fit the context of chapter 3 and even that “topic” falls short. The issue at hand for Paul is justifications by faith or works of the Law. So the subject matter (or topic) is neither faith nor Law but how one obtains justification.
All the other topics you listed would impose on the text things that do not communicate the message Paul was delivering.
But I think we are getting off topic. {bad ironic wordplay joke intended} =)
[…] “I Was Going to Preach this, but the Holy Spirit Led Me to This” . . . And other Stupid Statemen… […]
JasonJ,
I prefer expository preaching, but I don’t buy the premise that topical is inferior by default. I have yet to hear anyone give a scriptural example of expository preaching. The sermon on the mount is topical, as is, I believe, every sermon recorded in scripture.
Regarding the Galatians reference, Paul mentions, in one form or another, each of the items I mentioned. How can one speak on justificaton without reference to the Law, belief or grace? The cross is the basis for our justification. What is foolishness? Paul had a reason for calling the Galatians foolish, and that can be expounded upon.
I’ve heard too many well-respected preachers wander far afield from a specific passage in order to provide background or additional support for a specific teaching. Yet they still claim to be expository. What troubles me is that some seem to feel a certain smugness about that, especially compared to all those topical preachers.
I was listening to MacArthur recently speaking on The Lord’s Supper section of 1 Cor 11. The guy was all over the map. He went into detail about the Passover, went to Acts 2 to talk about the beginning of the church. Went into the definition of the church (never means a building in scripture). Spent several minutes on heresy. Used references from all over the OT and NT. He spoke on half a dozen topics that were not directly referenced in the text. Took him 2 sermons. When someone spends 90 minutes on a text that takes less than three minutes to read, he’s bringing in something that is not directly in the text. He’s developing topics and supporting them with other references. And he’s the Grand Poohbah of expository preaching!
So I disagree with your premise there too.
And to directly answer your original question:
Maybe. But I think what I really hope is that a pastor who has spent time in the Word (and if he hasn’t, he shouldn’t be a pastor) would be able to develop almost any theme on the spot, as you said you can.
Well, you did say “at some point in time,” but I seem to have missed that so I went into the time thing. Sorry. But I think you’re right, we do agree that at some time, the pastor should have developed some familiarity with almost any topic, and certainly the main themes of scripture. And on that basis, he should be able to speak with authority on something in a pinch.
I think we’re still in the topic ballpark.
Dave Z,
I disagree with your premise that unless someone preaches rigidly from a text and doesn’t show how the Scriptures interrelate that the preacher is not doing Bible exposition. The Bible is not a self-contained unit and so I would do exactly the same thing – linking texts together, presenting how other doctrines fit into the main point of the text, etc.
Right, no scripture stands alone, but when you start going through the scriptures pulling in other references, you’re in this situation:
Oops, forgot to close my blockquote. It should end after the words “affirming text” in the second line.
CMP,
I too have heard that statement too many times. One has to wonder if they were listening to the Holy Spirit in the first place, instead of doing their own thing, and if that’s not simply a public admission of guilt, even if it isn’t exactly framed that way.
Or, to take it a little further, if it isn’t a “You guys better really listen, because I’ve got REALLY got a message from the Holy Spirit that you need to heed” kind of heads up, man inspired kind of thing. Either way, I find it somewhat troubling, and want to ask: Why did the Holy Spirit have to remind them at the last minute? weren’t they listening in the first place? And, if so, why not?
I don’t know why there seems to be a preponderance of stuck on stupid judgments lately. God should be directing and changing your steps if need be; if you haven’t been paying attention during the basic preparation, than there’s an honesty to the statement that our otherwise more diligent disciplined efforts have thankfully avoided. I’d rather hear someone admit to being inept on occasion.
I do think there’s more to God choosing the foolish of the world than our professional and personal egos like to admit.
[…] Oh, and then there’s the whole issue of how manipulative the “spontaneity” card can be (not always, but sometimes). Michael Patton covers this well when he writes, “I was going to preach this, but the Holy Spirit led me to this”… and other stupid… […]
I believe that the Holy Spirit works through structure, organization, and planning. Studying for a sermon… God is in that! Yes. But, the Holy Spirit works through spontaneity as well. As pastor we prepare and study with the Spirit, but we also listen as the Spirit speaks to us as we preach. Sometimes God may change the direction of our sermon for a much needed purpose.
It’s easy with a seminary degree (and I have one) to fit God into an academic box and to overemphasize preparation, as if that’s the rubber stamp. It’s kinda of our way of saying screw you uneducated fools. We don’t want to be niave like those backwood pastors who don’t prepare at all because they are convinced by the notion that the Spirit only works through spontaneity, so we jump to the polar opposite (allow our studies to be the main voice we listen too.)
And don’t get me wrong–study IS WORSHIP! The Jewish people embody this well, but it isn’t an end in itself. Because God’s Spirit is dynamic and not static, the Spirit may lead us differently. We have to be careful not to attribute to God what is actually from us, but there are times when the Spirit testifies to us in such a real way, we know that God is leading us in a different direction.
I have a potentially silly question, is it possible that a pastor may spend his week preparing a sermon for personal reasons (personal interest, questionable motives, etc) and God is absent throughout this preperation.
At the last minute, God steps in and delivers His own message through the mouth of His messenger.
I am not a theologian, but I am also leery of categorically stating that God does not operate in a particular way because it does not meet my criteria for His actions.
I hope this makes sense and thank you for an opportunity to ramble…
I am new to comment, but have been lurking for a while (and have read and benefited from most every word on this blog!)
I have a question in regards to one of the related comments to this post.
Would any of you care to elaborate on how you came to the conclusion that many of the charismatic gifts used in the pentecostal churches may not be intended to be a part of the church of today?
I ask this, not to attack at all, but because I too have been damaged through charismatic churches. I grew up in a traditional church, and in college moved on to a large contemporary church that was very interested in feeling the Holy Spirit. I moved to being on staff. The church was seemingly being pulled in all directions, prophesies constantly happening, etc.
I am working my way back to the church. I had thought it was an issue of me and my personal faith that had gotten in the way. I had always been taught, and taught others, to actively seek the gifts of the Holy Spirit as you move to maturity in faith.
I am beginning to think I may agree with those of you who have moved back to more conservative christianity.
Would anyone share their personal journeys, or help with any biblical reasons for coming to this conclusion?
If this is better answered on another thread, please direct me!!!
-Ashley
“Neglect the Holy Spirit. The idea that is conveyed is that the Holy Spirit is not present in the sermon/lesson preparation process””
That’s not necessarily true. People can fully agree that the Holy Spirit should and does guide the preparation process, but claim that this particular time, they didn’t let him do this and just went at it on their own.
I doubt you would claim the the Holy Spirit would never say to someone “You are supposed to be saying such-and-such, instead of so-and-so”. And even if that did happen, it wouldn’t mean that the preparation was not from God. God can very well use what we see as preparation for X for the purpose of Y instead.
And also, it seems like you’re referring to the “instant, non-prepared message” as MIRACULOUS, but not the prepared type. Only on the human end of the communication is there a difference. Both are equally miraculous and equally supernatural.
Ashley …
Remember that the abuse of gifts does not render void the proper use.
“I had always been taught, and taught others, to actively seek the gifts of the Holy Spirit as you move to maturity in faith.”
You taught and were taught correctly.
Charismatic gifts are not just used in “pentacostal churches”, they are used by God all over the world and in most places it’s rather silly to think that God doesn’t do certain categories of supernatural activity any more. The USA and Western Europe are the exception because our materialistic backgrounds have limited us.
Prophecy is primarily meant, in my opinion, to see people as God sees them. God often tells us something about someone and wants us to “pass the word along” so that they can see the image of God, and see the New Creation that God has made them, rather than seeing their sin nature as their true self.
Learning to minister prophetically takes grace and humility. Humility to say “Hey, I think heard God say this, but I’m not sure. It seems right and encouraging and Biblical, but it still could be my own thoughts. Da da da da da. What do you think?” And it takes having grace for others to be wrong about something they’ve spoken, understanding that if we never risk we will rarely learn.
Daniel B-
Agreed.
I think, because as a nation we are so earthly wealthy, God certainly can get muddled. And I have witnessed a lot of us seeking these signs and bodily experiences rather than pursuing the more difficult road of slow sanctification.
For whatever reason, I think discernment in some situations is much more difficult. As I said in another thread, I have suffered from incorrect prophecies (which were given with honest intentions, and thoroughly checked on my end). I don’t think it can be written off as a mistake, because these came from several sources.
I still love and admire them.
And of course I have no bad feelings towards God.
I’ve thought perhaps it could be some sort of spiritual warfare (Satan displaying lies that are indistinguishable from the truth), or these types of issues are a result of our nation’s church collectively missing the mark.
The best answer I can come up with is that this is really powerful stuff, and we here in many of the churches in America are playing with it as if it is nothing big, or there to primarily make us feel good.
I’ve seen extraordinary things, but I have also seen a lot of negative chaos as a result of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. And I just don’t think it’s as simple as false prophets or beginner mistakes.
When I say I am becoming more conservative, what I mean is this. I know scripture is 100% accurate. Do I NEED a sign, a word from God, an experience (or any of the other manifestations of the gifts) to know His will and thoughts/feelings about me? The answer is no. Because I have His inspired word, I technically have all that I need.
Is that taking a safe route? Yes.
Is that missing out on something (some deeper connection) in my relationship with God? I don’t know. How many of us in America are taking full advantage of experiencing God through His word? Maybe we are missing out.
I’ve had many times where I’ve been preparing for a Bible Study, and I thought I knew where I was going at the start, only to find my studies leading me in a different direction. I don’t think that’s illegitimate. It was the process of studying, and the stuff I was learning that made me rethink my initial assumptions.
OK….. I just deleted a huge paragraph that I wrote to try and put this more to the point, though the writer of this article may criticize me for not going with what I originally wrote. 😉 Who are you, who am I, who is anyone of us, to play the position of judging another minister when he makes a statement such as the one you judged as stupid, in your own understanding. My friend, what if you are wrong? If so, then you just said you think it is stupid that ministers follow the leading of the Spirit. If there are those of you that feel you are OK in doing that, then I guess go right ahead and hammer down. Just remember that in the same manner in which you judge, you yourself will be judged. It just amazes me that people write such articles using the Bible as their source of authority. The same book which says that the only thing that matters is faith expressing itself in love. Oh I am sure that you will find some passage that will support your point and you will reply with it. Don’t worry, this is my only post. I just had to write something b/c it disturbs me so much to see believers speaking about ministers in such a way. Before you say that your writing this is out of love perhaps go read what the scripture has to say love is. (1 Cor.13)
Chris,
Just in case you’re still reading here, I think this post has a lot more with exercising Godly discernment in all our teaching than a lack of love or judging others. After all, the Bible itself states those who teach will be judged more harshly, and that scripture is talking about God doing that.
Some pastors I know think it’s not the Holy Spirit speaking when they are ‘told’ to change a well thought out sermon, but satan wanting it not to be heard. Others think it’s because there’s something which personally convicts them, and it’s their own mind rebelling against the truth. Still others want to get their personal opinions across as truth, without causing offense, by tacking the Holy Spirit’s name on it.
For a pastor not to question the source of something like this, and go mindlessly along with it, is a good example of fools rushing in where angels fear to tread.
We’ve got too many false prophets and teachers out there already who mislead people simply because they ‘feel’ a certain emotion or check about something, which they erroneously conclude is God speaking instead.
I think that would be a much greater offense to God.
Many a moon ago, a preacher said that same thing to our church: Holy Spirit gave me this message last night, so here goes!
Message was on depression and it was excellent…however, the preacher let my husband borrow his journal on biblical counseling and there was an article in there by Spurgeon- nearly every point was in that sermon–so the preacher plagarized Spurgeon (never mentioned him) and he claimed it was the Holy Spirit!
The preacher was married to an intelligent woman with a degree in microbiology who had started teaching high school science classes. When their youngest child started college, he left his wife for a welfare mom with 3 small children….
By their fruits you shall know them!
Once the youngest
To deny that the Holy Spirit can change our mind is to deny the power of the Spirit in relation to His purposeful functionality to develop the mind of Christ within us. Romans 8, bro.
My pastor, if he says anything like this, it’s more like “I felt led to go a different direction” which is occasionally followed by something akin to “I’ll save the original for another time.”
Personally, I never thought much of it, and as long as the message(s) in question are/were sound, then I probably won’t…
There are some Pastors that do not prepare their sermons at all, or so they say,
They claim that that go to the pulpit and the Holy Spirit will tell them what to say at that time.
I believe that is careless, the Holy Spirit helps me to prepare my sermons. While at the pulpit I will sometimes add something that comes to mind, whatever the Holy Spirit is saying to me. I totally agree with your statement ” why would God miraculously change what he has been preparing you to present?”