“Criticisms are the nails which keep us on the cross dead to self.”[1] At least they puncture the soul and lodge in the memory for a long time. Few church leaders maintain any self-esteem after an executioner (i.e., critic) nails them.

Leaders fear criticism in large part because it often determines how their followers evaluate them, whether the criticism is justified or unjustified. Sometimes leaders find it simply impossible to correct misconceptions even when they are totally false.[2]

At the same time, critics can spur leaders on to success. As William J. Diehm aptly says, “Many persons have become great trying to prove to their critics that they could do what critics said they could not do.”[3] Of course, to turn criticism into a motivation rather than a demotivation requires a deep residual confidence in the leader’s own innate abilities and a determination to persevere whatever the cost.

But, for such confidence and determination to succeed, leaders need at least a minimal amount of working knowledge about a critic’s motivation. For instance, some critics only need more information. Other critics like how things have been and need time to process changes. Another group of critics feels left out of the decision-making process. A few critics are right and require only a simple confession of that fact from the leadership. The worst faultfinders simply complain about everything because they feel depressed, ignored, or powerless.[4] In any case, leaders must cope with criticism constructively by means of the appropriate philosophical and practical responses.

Constructive Philosophical Responses to Criticism

Responding constructively to criticism calls for a philosophical mindset. Leaders must learn to evaluate their own need for personal approval from critics. They must also train themselves to expect criticism. Leaders must differentiate between destructive and constructive criticism. And, last but not least, wise leaders develop an appreciation for the role of their critics.

Evaluate the Need for Approval from Critics

It is not healthy for leaders to care too much about what people think. As John Ortberg explains, “To truly care for people requires not caring too much about their approval or disapproval. Otherwise, the temptation to give their preferences too much emotional weight is almost inevitable” (emphasis his).[5] Fear of criticism robs leaders of their objectivity and courage.

How liberating for leaders to realize that they “are not the passive victim of others’ opinions! In fact, their opinions are powerless until [leaders] validate them. No one’s approval will affect [them] unless [leaders] grant it credibility and status. The same holds true for disapproval.”[6] While leaders are not able to control what people do to them outwardly, they are able to control their influence inwardly.

In American black churches the most important qualification for the pastor is the ability to preach, according to author Cleophus J. LaRue (p. 57). This skill, he says, has remained important to black church attendees since the days of slavery and, therefore, its art and practice have not suffered neglect nor lost appeal over the years.

After several years in the pastorate, the author now teaches homiletics at Princeton Theological Seminary. Twice in the preface, he refers to the chapters of this book as essays, several of which were previously published in other venues. He reports blacks still possess a healthy sense that God is for them and believe black preaching should bolster that opinion. Black preachers, consequently, take God’s Word seriously given that it serves as a primary source of their spirituality.

In contrast to white preaching, LaRue quotes an Indian scholar who contents, “American homileticians (i.e., white) [have] tended to focus too much on the how-tos of preaching and not enough on the whys and wherefores” (p. 37).

The volume begins with a brief history of the author’s childhood in the black church, his call to preach, his choice to leave the pastorate to attend seminary, and his professorship at Princeton. He notes the differences between black and white preaching and the irrelevance of Craddock’s inductive approach for black congregations. LaRue describes for his readers the various levels of expectations black congregations have of the sermon. He maintains blacks learn to preach more from listening to respected black preachers than professors who lecture on the subject. He asserts that black preaching tends to address five domains of experience: personal piety, spiritual disciplines, social injustice, cooperate concerns (for blacks only), and church maintenance (p. 65). Also in the book, he explains his own personal sequence of sermon preparation.

LaRue quotes several prominent black homileticians who list the major characteristics of black preaching as a whole. Interaction frequently occurs with various other authors and includes bibliographical information for those homileticians who would like to consult these resources at their own leisure. After making the observation, “Christianity is turning brown and moving south” (p. 47), he cites a prediction that the majority of Christians in the foreseeable future will be located in southeast Asia, Latin American, and Africa. This forecast serves as the background for his reference to ‘colored’ preaching, in addition to black preaching.

This reviewer has no objections to any of the contents in this volume. The author takes a balanced approach to his subject and is fair in his appraisal of white preaching. He rightfully believes both blacks and whites can learn from each other and helpfully lists seven ways to improve one’s preaching: 1) by listening to good preachers, 2) by studying preaching, 3) by desiring to improve, 4) by absorbing the Scriptures, 5) by focusing on the needs of people, 6) by understanding the different ways people listen, and 7) by improving one’s insight into human nature (pp. 124-33).

Pentecostals will appreciate the black emphasis on the belief in and contact with the spiritual world, including miracles and healings. This book explains why blacks flocked to Baptist and Methodist churches after the Revolutionary War—these churches allowed blacks to participate in them—and how the black church has a huge influence over black culture with its preachers in the lead—it is the one organization blacks fully control. Members of black churches rightfully take the position, “The person who stands to preach is not there because it is his or her turn. Rather, preachers stand to preach because it is their time—a time that has been set and ordered by God” (emphasis his, p. 64).

Charles W. Fuller, The Trouble with “Truth through Personality”: Phillip Brooks, Incarnation, and the Evangelical Boundaries of Preaching (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2010), 137 pages, ISBN 9781608994038.

‘Preaching is the bringing of truth through personality,’ stated Phillips Brooks, the former rector of Trinity Church in Boston and later Episcopal bishop of Massachusetts who lived from 1835 to 1893, to the original listeners of his now famous lectures on preaching at Yale College.[1] Many preachers and homileticians have quoted his definition ever since. But what does it actually mean? Charles W. Fuller, pastor of Bethany Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky and adjunct professor of Expository Preaching at Boyce College of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, examines Brooks’ sermons, lectures, and writings in an attempt to find out exactly.

The author forthrightly states the main thesis of his book in its introduction: “This book assesses, from an evangelical perspective, Brooks’s [sic] classic definition of preaching as ‘truth through personality’ and, after pinpointing its substantial weaknesses, salvages the concept by reconstructing it with solidly evangelical doctrines (p. xviii).

Though Fuller claims to write as an evangelical, the non-Calvinistic reader soon begins to wonder with what form of evangelicalism does the author identify himself? Since he serves as an adjunct professor Boyce College of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, it seems safe to assume he alludes to those Calvinistic evangelicals who consider themselves the only true proclaimers of the pure unadulterated gospel of Jesus Christ. The Southern Baptist Seminary has become known in recent years as a bastion of high or five-point Calvinism. Since Brooks tended to lean away from high Calvinism, even to the point of questioning the teaching of what is now known as eternal security (a distinctive doctrine of the church Fuller pastors), this reviewer wonders if this is the reason Fuller accuses Brooks of unorthodoxy?

Over all, the book tends to be blatantly negative of Brooks, as the author frankly admits and laments. A major concern for Fuller is his belief that Brooks emphasized the importance of personality over truth. He alleges Brooks did so because of his less than evangelical theology, the influence of the teaching of evolution and higher criticism in his day, and his wide reading of philosophic Romantic literature. He especially takes exception to what he perceives as Brooks’ emphasis on Jesus’ example over His atonement.

Fuller contends three problems confront any academic study of Brooks: his popularity, his ambiguity, and his idealism (pp. xxi-xxii). Brooks was an immensely popular preacher in his day. By his own admission, Brooks felt he was at his best when he spoke in general rather than in specific terms.[2] And Brooks was a product of Romanticism to some extent with its emphasis on feelings over the facts of faith. But Fuller makes Brooks into more or less a liberal in his day. He does so by evaluating Brooks’ theology in four areas: biblicism, crucicentrism, conversionism, and activism (to use Fuller’s own categories). He finds Brooks deficient on every evangelical scale he proposes. He never seems to give Brooks the benefit of the doubt. He apparently finds little, if anything, to admire in the man or his ministry, although many people in Brooks’ own day felt decidedly positive toward him.

For instance, Fuller often quotes what appear to be clear affirmations of evangelical theology by Brooks only to turn right around and explain them away. This unusual methodology gives the impression Brooks could not do or say anything right in the mind of Fuller.

Ever since Augustine said, “For since by means of the art of rhetoric both truth and falsehood are urged, who would dare to say that truth should stand in the person of its defenders unarmed against lying, so that they who wish to urge falsehoods may know how to make their listeners benevolent, or attentive, or docile in their presentation, while the defenders of truth are ignorant of that art?” (Saint Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book Four, paragraph 11), Christian scholars have attempted to utilize the best of rhetoric to promote the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The authors of this book agree with Augustine. They have concluded the reason Jesus used parables more often than arguments was because they are more persuasive. His parables appeal to logic, passion, and ethics. They made sense, addressing as they do the pressing needs of life and showing Jesus’ understanding and care for His hearers.

As evangelical believers, these authors have written for the general public—Christian and non-Christian alike. Their work is a rhetorical analysis of the communication practices Jesus used in His teaching and preaching. It incorporates and applies the well-known divisions of public speaking set forth by Aristotle in his book On Rhetoric—pathos, logos, and ethos—to analyze Jesus’ persuasion skills.

This reviewer appreciates how the authors provide specific scriptural or secular examples to illustrate the general concepts of rhetoric. They encourage the use of common ground and emotion, if the latter is properly kept in check. They remind their readers that repetition can both emphasize a point and inspire. Rhetorical questions engage the minds of listeners more than mere data alone. The authors discuss and define various forms of argument. The recommendations they make for their appropriate use and the warnings they issue against their misuse need to be heeded. They demonstrate, furthermore, that Jesus Himself used logic and appealed to reason.

The authors’ discussion of Jesus’ ethos is thorough, following Aristotle’s break-down of this concept into three divisions: skill and wisdom, virtue and goodness, and goodwill toward the audience. Each division is discussed in turn and excellent examples of the trust Jesus developed in His listeners are provided. Skill and especially goodwill remain necessary to communicate effectively in the contemporary world. Without goodwill, it is impossible to persuade. For a case in point, people seldom if ever like a braggart.

A minor problem surfaces when the authors’ turn from the indicative mood to the imperative in the prose of their writing without any warning, requiring unnecessary labor on the reader’s part (e.g., p. 39). On occasion, their use of Scripture appears taken out of context (pp. 57-8). This reviewer is not convinced the Sadducees presented an either/or argument to Jesus as the authors claim. The members of this sect seemed more likely to have argued with Him on the basis of evidence. They could not find any proof of resurrection in the Torah for themselves, so Jesus showed them where it was clearly implied. The Lord won the argument by means of better scholarship.

This book should be considered a short primer on the subject compared to standard textbooks on logic, suitable for review by veterans or introduction for novices. It will inspire readers to add more logic to their gospel presentations. Why make the gospel any harder for nonbelievers to accept than it already is? As many hindrances should be removed as possible, especially logical fallacies.

How do you avoid extremes in the pulpit on controversial affairs of state?

As a Reformed Calvinist pastor, Trumper writes for conservative and Reformed evangelicals. He advocates for a middle position between not preaching on politics at all and making preaching altogether political. He calls his position ‘the biblical-political approach.’ His research incorporates both liberal and conservative writers on the subjects of politics and the Bible. In following his father’s advice, he wishes to follow Christ more than any party or personality. Since he is both a citizen of Great Britain and a resident of the United States, he covers the political spectrum in both countries.

According to Trumper, expository preaching best allows preachers to address the strengths and weaknesses of both political parties in the light of Scripture. In the three chapters of his short book, he maintains the biblical-political approach is a middle way, a spiritual way, and a practical way. He rightly maintains some preachers over-engage politics in the pulpit, while others never engage political issues at all. His contention that the Fox television channel does not speak adequately for the church might rile some conservative readers. Its owners, in his view, also tend to worry more about ratings than objectivity. He sounds the alarm against the dangers of generalizations of either party. He argues correctly, in the opinion of this reviewer, that avoidance of political preaching altogether is irresponsible and unbiblical. The Old Testament prophets certainly addressed political issues.

Why does expository preaching, in particular, serve as the most effective approach in the pulpit? For the following reasons: it comprises the most comprehensive approach, best covers the biblical world view, keeps the preacher away from hobby horses, and broadens the possibilities of application (pp. 22-4). The biblical–political preacher will encourage examination of both the issues and methods of debate (p. 51).

Trumper wisely reminds his readers that equally sound and committed Christian thinkers take different sides on the same issues. He discusses how various preachers deal with congregants who disagree with their approach. Often, unfortunately, they are subtly encouraged to leave, despite the fact that Scripture never endorses any political party. In a thorough fashion, the writer evaluates the pros and cons of the three current approaches taken and concludes that the middle way of expository preaching has the best chance to make converts and save the culture.

The research done for this volume was thorough. The footnotes and bibliography refer the reader to a wealth of resources from the left and the right, politically and theologically. In this way, the author serves as an excellent example of the stance he advocates. The biblical-political approach demands more exacting scholarship out of the preacher in terms of both the study of Scripture and society than either of the other two approaches (pp. 56-7). Of course, preachers who follow the likes of James Kennedy, the former pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, will disagree with this author’s middle of the road stance, as will supporters of the likes of Jerry Falwell, former founder of the Moral Majority. Both of these evangelical preachers tended to address political issues in the pulpit more often than most of their peers and tended to side with only the Republican Party.

Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Preaching and Teaching from the Old Testament: A Guide for the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 222 pages, ISBN 9780801026102.

How do you preach a lament? A proverb? A law? Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., former president of Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary, answers these questions and more in this book. His credentials for this assignment include his reputation as a prolific writer and as an Old Testament evangelical scholar.

In this volume on how to preach and teach from the Old Testament, the author divides the subject into two parts. First, he addresses the need, then the means. In so doing, Kaiser builds on the foundation of his earlier book, Toward an Exegetical Theology, that explains how to develop and interpret principles from the Old Testament text. In this newer book, he devotes a chapter to each of the major genres (i.e., types of literature) found in the Old Testament. He also furnishes a sermon in every case as well to provide an example of how that particular genre should be preached. It is, therefore, basically a hermeneutics book that specifically focuses on the following genres of the Old Testament: narrative, wisdom, prophets, laments, torah, praise, and apocalyptic.

The author contends that every biblical text has only one possible meaning, i.e. the meaning the original author intended. In order to arrive at this one meaning, the reader must understand how to interpret the various genres found in the Old Treatment. Otherwise, an ill-informed preacher might attempt to interpret Old Testament praises in the same manner as Old Testament proverbs.

The one main concern of this reviewer has is the unfortunate fact that the author does not address the narrative style of sermons (whether told in the first or third person) promoted by many homileticians today. On a less serious note, the author tends to repeat himself from chapter to chapter (e.g., compare p. 31 with p. 41). Some paragraphs even seem out of order (see pp. 57-8). And, at certain times, the explanation of how to interpret a particular genre seems too brief. A few more examples would also have been helpful in order to further see how his analysis applies to other portions of Scripture within the same literally genre.

What are the marks of biblical and Spirit-filled preaching?

Frederic L. Godet summarizes the Pentecostal preacher’s purpose: “The preacher’s task in this work lies, not in wishing to act in the place and stead of the Spirit with the resources of his own eloquence and genius, but in opening up the way for Him by simple testimony rendered to Christ.”¹ While preachers should strive to do their best for Christ, they should at the same time allow the Word and Spirit to do their unique work in the hearts of people. But how do preachers open up the way for this work? I will address this issue by answering two other questions: What are the biblical premises for Pentecostal preaching? And what are the biblical principles for Pentecostal preaching? One paradigm for Pentecostal preaching answering these key questions comes from the Bible as a whole and from 1 Corinthians 2:1-16 which specifically focuses on Christ and reliance upon the Holy Spirit for lasting results.

Steve D. Eutsler

First, I will briefly examine some general biblical premises for Pentecostal preaching. Then I will focus more at length on some specific biblical principles for Pentecostal preaching drawn from 1 Corinthians 2:1-16.

Some General Biblical Premises For Pentecostal Preaching

As Fred B. Craddock says, “The pulpit has a memory, participating in a tradition reaching back across the centuries.”² Its earliest remembrances stretch back to the Old Testament and continue through the New Testament in the gospels, Acts, and epistles.

Paul was actually in sync with the whole revelation of Scripture when he declared his intention to preach only “Jesus Christ and Him crucified” in 1 Cor. 2:2.³ This focus proves true even of the Old Testament. Graeme Goldsworthy explains, “That the whole Bible testifies to Christ is what we mean when we say that Christ is in all the Scriptures. It is because of this that the preacher must ask the question of every sermon, ‘Did the sermon show how the text testifies to Christ?’”⁴ Christ constitutes the ultimate sacrifice of the Pentateuch. He provides mediation for the saints in the Psalms. And the Lord Jesus serves as the subject of prophecy in the Prophets (cf. Luke 24:44). Naturally, any Pentecostal preacher would want to bring out this Christo-centric focus in light of the declaration of Paul’s theme for preaching. Much more will be said about this emphasis on Christ in the second half of this paper.

Of course, the priests and prophets were expositors of God’s Word. The case of Ezra the priest and scribe expounding the Word in Nehemiah 8:1-12 serves as a classic example of biblical exposition. Likewise, all the writings of the prophets are in essence sermons preached to Israel and some of the surrounding nations.

Pentecostal preachers have long been noted for their ability and tendency to tell stories while they preach. They see this as following the precedent of that Master of preaching, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. In parable after parable, Christ likens the kingdom of God to something familiar to His listeners in order to aid their understanding (cf. Mark 4:10-12.). Concerning this premise, two extremes must be avoided. First, Pentecostal preachers must not rely solely upon illustrative material. Jesus also preached the kerygma—the announcement of the gospel—and taught the didache—the application of the gospel (cf. Matt. 5-7; John 3-4). Second, Pentecostal preachers must not depend exclusively on biblical exposition. Balanced Pentecostal preaching makes ample use of both illustrations and exposition. Exposition has been compared to the foundation and walls of a building and illustrations to the windows that let the light in. One without the other is poor form and impractical. Jesus was the Master of both illustration and exposition, although many modern scholars emphasize primarily His unique contribution to preaching with the parables. Jesus was Master of the metaphor such as “I am the good Shepherd” (John 10:11, etc.). In light of this paradigm for ministers, Pentecostal preachers should make use of whatever rhetorical devices available to them like illustrations to improve their communication of the gospel to those who find it difficult to hear.

Two principles concerning preaching stand out in the Book of Acts. First, preachers must preach the Word, not their own ideas or opinions (cf. 2 Tim. 4:12). Preaching Christ revealed must be centered in the text.

Second, preachers must preach as ambassadors of Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 5:20). Ministers are representatives of the Lord. They must stay true to His orders and represent the heavenly homeland accurately in word and work.

Wherever the apostles preached the gospel, they stayed true to the original message of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (i.e., the kerygma), regardless of the consequences, fair or foul (Acts 2:14-39; 3:12-26; 4:8-12; 7:2-53; 10:34-43; 13:16-41; 17:22-31; 22:2-21; 26:1-23, etc.).⁵ This model furnishes another reason why sermons should always be based upon Scripture. Use of the Bible helps insure the proper testimony of Christ and the powerful anointing of the Spirit. In this way, ministers are less likely to misrepresent their Lord.

Herbert W. Bateman IV, ed., Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 480 pages, ISBN 9780825421327.

Probably every Christian has read one of the warning passages in Hebrews and wondered whether they have rejected God’s grace to the point of no return. The confusion that results partly explains the wide variety of views held by theologians on these Scriptures.

In response to the dual concerns of theological and pastoral praxis, the authors wrote this volume. The preface explains its formal origin, “This book is a collection of papers initially presented to the Hebrews Study Group during the fifty-sixth annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (November 17-19, 2004).” Each of the four authors is a recognized scholar on the Book of Hebrews. Two are Arminians and two are Calvinists.

This work is another in a spate of books on a range of subjects looked at from three to four different points of views. Various publishers have ventured into this area of publishing.¹ Of course, these books are all co-authored by respected scholars in their fields. For the average reader who is theologically untrained, however, they may be left in a state of confusion. Even for scholars, it is sometimes difficult to reach a conclusion on these matters. One difference in this book, as a friend pointed out to me, is its narrow focus. Most of the books that constitute this genre address major subjects like predestination, the Lord’s Supper, or the relationship of the Old Testament law to the New Testament believer, etc. This manuscript specifically examines a few debated passages from the Book of Hebrews.

Herbert W. Bateman IV, the general editor, opens with a lengthy introduction to these warning passages. In his essay, he claims that all the presenters in the book believe those warned in Hebrews were genuine Christians.² To this reviewer, his chapter seems superfluous. For example while filled with information including copious footnotes, it contains little the actual authors do not cover themselves in their respective chapters.

Grant R. Osborne (representing the classical Arminian view) believes the warning passages teach that apostasy can occur and when it does it is unpardonable.³ Calvinists view the threatened discipline as the loss of rewards (or loss of fellowship with God according to others of their camp), but not in any case the loss of salvation. While Arminians view the threatened discipline as the lost of salvation, most of them believe Christians who backslide can still repent in this life and renew their salvation by the grace of God. Other Arminians believe Christians cannot only backslide but apostatize to the point of not being able (or desirous) ever to repent. Osborne adopts this latter position. He does not believe one can repent if he or she commits apostasy.