An interesting question

[Titus2woman]

My hubby and I were just having an interesting conversation about our recent church services which seem to be changing some.

The conversation got a little heated and I wound up asking:

"If you had two stopwatches, one in each hand, the left for the time the preacher spends talking to fill up space, the right for the time he spends teaching the Bible, how much time do you think would be on each at the end of a service?" (Dramatic hand gestures of clicking stopwatches removed )

I guess it's obvious that I think there is a lot of joking, clowning, anecdotes, opinions, etc. going on... Certainly our pastor would never be accused of expository teaching... but my husband leans heavily on a scripture about the 'foolishness of preaching' being able to save. Well if that is the truth, we are certainly all good

So I am just wondering what others find in their services... Feel free to use the question above and express in time total/time percentage, averages or just talk about what you think is going on and if you think it is good, bad, neither, both... or anything else you might want to say, if you would please.

TIA

[RandyWayne]

This is my issue with hard preaching in general. In most cases there is nothing said in 60-90 minutes that cannot be said in 5. I have a number of preaching sites book marked and while many are actually pretty good sermons there are more which are nothing but an hour plus scream fest with the title of the "message" repeated often and a liberal dose of catch versus designed to illicit "amen!"'s, shouts, and endless clapping.

[Margies3]

We have been very blessed. Our former pastor - (the one who went to Indonesia as a missionary) - did alot of expository preaching. He also taught Bible classes and Religion classes at the University of Toledo. So teaching was his strong point and he was VERY good at it. He preached an average of 20-25 minutes and every word he said was important. No fluff stuff.

Then after he left, we had a young man for a year. His preaching was good, but his life had some areas that needed serious work. So it made it hard to listen to his preaching, Know what I mean? I won't go into detail. But he is gone now.

And now we've had a man filling the pulpit while we search for a new pastor. He is another one whose sermons are pure food. He does use personal examples, but only when they fit with the message.

None of these have spent time from the pulpit chatting with the congregation or "connecting" or anything. They were all serious about preaching the Word of God.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Margies3

We have been very blessed. Our former pastor - (the one who went to Indonesia as a missionary) - did alot of expository preaching. He also taught Bible classes and Religion classes at the University of Toledo. So teaching was his strong point and he was VERY good at it. He preached an average of 20-25 minutes and every word he said was important. No fluff stuff.

Then after he left, we had a young man for a year. His preaching was good, but his life had some areas that needed serious work. So it made it hard to listen to his preaching, Know what I mean? I won't go into detail. But he is gone now.

And now we've had a man filling the pulpit while we search for a new pastor. He is another one whose sermons are pure food. He does use personal examples, but only when they fit with the message.

None of these have spent time from the pulpit chatting with the congregation or "connecting" or anything. They were all serious about preaching the Word of God.

You are blessed!!!

Most preachers that I have sat under with the exception of a few would have the stopwatch going 95-99% of the time with the little bit of deepest thought, and true word teaching lasting just minutes to maybe even seconds.

Most of those "fluff and stuff" messages come from the NT without much regard to the OT other than maybe a Psalms or two thrown in sometimes. The OT was the Scripture for the early church, and IMO should be used more often, with so much for us to learn. However, much easier to scream about Acts 2:38, and the favorite passages they run to, then trying to get into the meat of the Word.

Good question T2W!!!

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

You are blessed!!!

Most preachers that I have sat under with the exception of a few would have the stopwatch going 95-99% of the time with the little bit of deepest thought, and true word teaching lasting just minutes to maybe even seconds.

Most of those "fluff and stuff" messages come from the NT without much regard to the OT other than maybe a Psalms or two thrown in sometimes. The OT was the Scripture for the early church, and IMO should be used more often, with so much for us to learn. However, much easier to scream about Acts 2:38, and the favorite passages they run to, then trying to get into the meat of the Word.

Good question T2W!!!

I agree with your opinion about needing the OT more often in preaching. It's all they had for 200 plus years, not to mention that was the platform of the apostles.

[bbyrd009]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

This is my issue with hard preaching in general. In most cases there is nothing said in 60-90 minutes that cannot be said in 5. I have a number of preaching sites book marked and while many are actually pretty good sermons there are more which are nothing but an hour plus scream fest with the title of the "message" repeated often and a liberal dose of catch versus designed to illicit "amen!"'s, shouts, and endless clapping.

I have no patience for this, so, while I am affiliated with several local churches thru the volunteering community, and have been to several services, I look elsewhere for a serious message (Shepherd's Chapel, currently). I don't discount the value of community found in a local church, tho. (You guys) should check out a Mennonite service! Eye-opening. I prolly won't become a Mennonite, but what a cool way to run a service.

[Amanah]

This is where a house church or even a small church might be interesting.

Sometimes it could be like a discussion format where the Pastor teaches on a subject then opens it up for discussion, comments, questions.

Then the pressure is not always on one person to preach/teach/entertain.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Amanah

This is where a house church or even a small church might be interesting.

Sometimes it could be like a discussion format where the Pastor teaches on a subject then opens it up for discussion, comments, questions.

Then the pressure is not always on one person to preach/teach/entertain.

The church we attend now is like this, and I love it. It is a small church, and anyone can share what is on their heart after the worship, and then the pastor shares something from the word, and again, others can add their thoughts. After closing the service, we share a meal and fellowship together.

There is no entertainment here, but a very sweet spirit of God in every service, because the pastor has no desire for us to even call him pastor, but rather a leader, or elder, and sincerely points all souls to Jesus, and not to anyone or anything else.

[Titus2woman]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

The church we attend now is like this, and I love it. It is a small church, and anyone can share what is on their heart after the worship, and then the pastor shares something from the word, and again, others can add their thoughts. After closing the service, we share a meal and fellowship together.

There is no entertainment here, but a very sweet spirit of God in every service, because the pastor has no desire for us to even call him pastor, but rather a leader, or elder, and sincerely points all souls to Jesus, and not to anyone or anything else.

Are either/both of these churches Oneness Pentecostal

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Titus2woman

Are either/both of these churches Oneness Pentecostal

Yes.

I might add, that there are those who believe in the Trinitarian version of one God, and there are Oneness there who believe also in the Oneness of God.

I used to think Trinitarians believed in three Gods, but found out in the last several years that is not the case. As Aquila has pointed out in his posts, where Trinnies and Oneness differ is how to describe Jesus. They both believe God is the father, and that Jesus is diety, but they differ in exactly how that took place. Which, IMO, the arguments can go both ways, and never end.

Bottom line, there is one God, and he chose to manifest himself in different ways, through Melchesidek possibly, through Jesus, and through his Spirit. But most everyone on this forum, I think, would agree there is only One God.