Your pastor has in mind the decades old addict who turns up each week who he’s sure is about to receive faith for the very first time, the struggling saint who feels incapable of giving up their nightly gossip, and the bleary-eyed suffering servant who has gone through great pain to be here. Preaching is for the one closest to God, furthest from him, and for the preacher himself. Preaching is for the congregation, for a sinful choir who needs to be led to worship God once more.

Once every three weeks I serve in the kid’s service at church—a huge blessing that allows me to share the gospel regularly with the youngest in our midst. The main hall and the kid’s hall sit parallel to one another and share a hallway, so when we take the kids to the toilet, we ask them to stay silent. One day, returning to our hall, I turned to the kids and said, “We need to be quiet now, because the sermon is happening.” They all agreed, zipped their lips, and followed me back. Just before we went entered though, one of the girls turned to me and whispered, “Mr. Adsum, may I ask a question,” to which I nodded. “What’s a sermon?” she asked.
It was a fair question. One I’m sure is shared by members of churches around the world, both young and old. It reminded me of a story I heard a few years ago, of a new Christian turning to the pastor and asking why they sang “Group-Karaoke style” during the service. (In fairness, Karaoke was the new believer’s only experience of seeing words on a screen set to music.)
To many Christians, both new and old, there are likely to be things about the way church works which remain a mystery simply because they feel it’s too awkward to ask a question. Whilst there are hundreds of books on preaching for the edification and education of pastors, these books are usually inaccessible for laymen, and so the question marks remain. Perhaps that’s you?
If so, thank you so much for reading this article. This is the first of three articles, which I hope will help to clear up some misconceptions about preaching, explain how we as church members can support and uphold the work of the preacher, and offer some practical advice on how to get the most out of the sermon each Sunday.
This is the Word of the Lord
Preaching and prayer are intrinsically linked, the former is fed by the latter and fails without it. The preacher must submit himself to the Lord and take seriously the responsibility he has to deliver the word of God faithfully. His work isn’t about feeding his own thoughts and opinion, but rather inviting you to feast on every word which proceeds from the mouth of the Lord (Deut. 8:3). A wonderful example of this pastoral submission is the following prayer from eighteenth-century preacher Augustus Toplady.

Your pardoning voice I come to hear,To know you as you are:Your ministers can reach the ear,But you must touch the heart. (Augustus Toplady, modernized by the writer of the article)

Depending on your denomination or church background, these words—“This is the Word of the Lord”—may be familiar to you. Often spoken after the reading of the Scripture and followed by the sermon. Though some will inevitably become numb to the repetition of these words, their potency, as well as their use in explaining the purpose and practice of preaching, is invaluable.
Read More
Related Posts:

It is very easy to conclude that a spiritual cancer has been in the body too long and that there does not appear to be anything that those who are committed to God’s Word can do.  We have tried and we have failed.  Certainly, God can do something to heal the cancer, if He chooses.  But the future of the denomination outside a miraculous intervention is bleak.

In May of 2000 I was attending a Reformed pastor’s conference in Ohio when it was announced that Dr. James Montgomery Boice had just been diagnosed with stage four cancer. It had only just been detected but by that time the cancer was beyond anything the doctors could do to stop its destructive spread.  Dr. Boice preached his last sermon shortly after and within a few months of this announcement at the conference he was gone from this world.
The story might have had a different ending had the Lord in His providence made the cancer known at a stage at which something could have been done by doctors. But by the time the cancer was discovered, it was simply too late.  The devastation worked by the cancer in his body had gone too long untreated.
This could be a kind of analogy of the state of things in the Presbyterian Church in America. It is very easy to conclude that a spiritual cancer has been in the body too long and that there does not appear to be anything that those who are committed to God’s Word can do.  We have tried and we have failed.  Certainly, God can do something to heal the cancer, if He chooses.  But the future of the denomination outside a miraculous intervention is bleak.
And I have to be honest, in thinking through all that has gone on in the past three years in the PCA, and especially in light of the past few months, this is the question that I have asked myself.  What are we to do?
I do not know the answer.  But if we are to face the problem head on, we have to be honest about the current state of the church – about the problems that exist. And as I have considered this, I see three major problems.
First, we made a major tactical error in giving the General Assembly’s power as a judicial court to the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC).
One of the significant aspects of Presbyterian government is that there are three courts of elders.  Sessions of churches, presbyteries, and General Assembly each function as a court, or at least they originally did.  And it is a good system.  The next highest court can always be appealed to when there has been a failure or perceived failure of the lower court to render the biblically correct decision.  This provides a check on lower courts that begin to move toward liberal views of Scripture, or that begin to tolerate or accept immoral behavior among their members.  Ultimately, the General Assembly would have the last say in doctrinal and moral issues.
But in 1988, the elders of the PCA turned this power of judgment over to 24 elders.  And in so doing, set up the seemingly impossible situation in which we find ourselves today.  Had the overtures from Central Georgia, Savannah River, and Southeast Alabama requesting the assumption of original jurisdiction been considered directly by the General Assembly itself, TE Greg Johnson may have been charged for holding views regarding same-sex attraction that were alleged to be contrary to the Westminster Standards. It is conceivable that the PCA would not be in the circumstances we find ourselves today.
I was not in the denomination when the Standing Judicial Commission was created (I was in the Presbyterian Church, USA [PCUSA] at the time, watching it crumble), though I am sure the arguments for establishing the SJC centered around practicality, efficiency, and logistics.  But whatever the reasons, it was done, and despite the fact that the Book of Church Order (BCO) says that the General Assembly is the highest court, that is, unfortunately, not precisely the case.  The highest judicial court is a group of 24 elders that act, think, and judge for the rest of us. There is the perception among some that the SJC is sadly out of line with the majority of PCA elders.
It could be argued that this has left us with a kind of episcopal/presbyterian hybrid, rather than a pure presbyterian system of government.  And that is, unfortunately, more conducive to a liberal trajectory than a conservative one.
I personally think that the BCO needs to be amended back to the pre-1988 version as a necessary grassroots “check and balance” on those who would seek to change policy by judicial fiat rather than by action of the General Assembly.  The question is, can this past revision of the BCO be reversed? Or would slightly over one third of the elders who voted against the proposed amendments 23 and 37 prevent any movement to restore the GA to the highest court in every respect?
Second, we did not have the foresight to amend the BCO to exclude current false doctrines or false teachers when it would have been easily achievable.
The proposed amendments 23 and 37 recently defeated by vote of the presbyteries, could have with some insight been easily passed years ago, but they were not introduced.  Some might argue that men like TE Johnson and those espousing “Side B” views could not have been anticipated earlier, but that just isn’t correct.  The argument for ordaining “gay-but-celibate ministers” has been around since at least the 1980’s in other denominations that were becoming increasingly liberal.  Nevertheless, the elders of the PCA (conservative as they were) did not anticipate that this heresy could or would infiltrate the PCA.  But it did.  And, sadly, now that it has reared its ugly head, the numbers of those espousing the heresy, and the presbyteries following this, even though not a majority, appear to have become too many to overcome.
Finally, there appear to be among some PCA’s elders a loss of commitment to the biblical doctrines as expressed in The Westminster Confession of Faith.
By far the chief problem, when it comes down to absolute basics, is that many in the PCA appear no longer to be convinced that the Westminster Confession of Faith is an a clear exposition of biblical doctrine.
There appear to be some who do not view regeneration as taught in the Confession, as evidenced by their teachings on “Side B” theology.  They argue, in spite of Scripture to the contrary, and in spite of historical and contemporary examples, that God cannot change someone’s sexual orientation.  TE Johnson make this as clear in his December 21, 2021 USA Today article.  But this expression is a denial of the Confessional doctrine of regeneration, or at least a serious denigrating of it.  Either way it is not orthodox.
Moreover, there are elders in the PCA who appear to have softened in their views of homosexuality in general.  We have elders who would not go so far as to perform a “gay wedding,” but they would have no problem attending a “gay wedding” (as a part of affirming the persons without affirming the practice).  But no one among the Reformers or Westminster Puritans, or any number of other men committed to Scripture in the past would ever have countenanced such an inconsistency.  In fact, had any such accommodation been suggested in the Old Testament church, or any part of the church through the first part of the 20th century, the one who attempted to justify it would have been subject to discipline by the assembly. The idea of a “homosexual marriage” would have been so alien to God’s people from the beginning that they would not have been able to justify it on any kind of biblical grounds.  It would have been to them like someone attempting to justify attending a ceremony in which a pagan friend was offering a child to Molech, just to “support” his pagan friend, or to “love him while not loving the sin.”  That would rightfully have been considered a total accommodation to the perverse practice.  And yet when it comes to “gay marriages” we have PCA elders who cannot see that they are doing the same thing.  And the problem is that they just don’t see this sin as detestable anymore.  That reflects a dangerously low view of biblical ethics.
Others, whether they know it or not, have adopted the theology of Charles Finney.  This is why there is so much compromise when it comes to evangelism and apologetics.  Too many in the denomination (despite what they may say) believe that we are the ones who convince people to become Christians.  That has led them to conclude that our accommodation to culture, or alignment with the world’s academic community, or winsomeness, or non-offensiveness is necessary for us to draw people to Christ.  If we just push the right buttons, we can convince people to turn to Christ.  Some will not say explicitly that this is what they believe, but it has become their philosophy.  Not surprisingly, TE Johnson actually espouses this theology publicly, as evidenced in his most recent book.  But some in the PCA, whether they state it in clear terms or not, have espoused this man-centered approach to evangelism.
I would further argue that we actually have theological liberals in our denomination.  One conservative fellow minister in the PCA in a recent article stated that “there are no theological liberals in the PCA,” but I respectfully disagree with that statement.
There are serious liberals in our denomination.  They applauded an elder who got up and made an emotional speech devoid of any Scripture, and the next day voted to censure an elder “for intemperate speech” who simply read Romans chapter 1. They did not like the implications of that biblical text. They wanted to avoid it.  And that is exactly what liberalism does.  In fact, that is where all liberalism begins, downplaying if not rejecting, Scripture.
But that is only the tip of the iceberg.  Other elders in the denomination, and some prominent ones, reject what the Scriptures (and the Westminster Confession of Faith) clearly teach about creation, holding instead parts of the theory of evolution.  And this is a serious problem.  This is exactly what the liberals in all denominations (including the PCUS) believed.  Creation ex nihilo by the Word of God is fundamental to the biblical system.
It all comes down to one’s view of Scripture.  And there are some in the PCA whose views of Scripture simply do not line up with orthodoxy.  The “theology” of some in the PCA is more culturally or personality driven.  Their emphasis follows the world’s view of racism, justice, equality, and, as is becoming clearer, sexuality.  And wasn’t this exactly the problem with the liberals within the PCUS so many years ago – and the PCUSA now?
It may be true that no one in the PCA identifies as a liberal.  They may not see themselves as that.  But the proof is seen in the doctrines they reject.  In a previous article on sexuality, I referred to progressives within the PCA.  One teaching elder in my own presbytery, who claims to be progressive,  responded to the article by denying that there are any progressives in the denomination.  That surprised me initially, but in retrospect it makes sense.  Progressives, at least in the early stages of their personal evolution, do not want to be identified as such.  But that does not change the fact that they actually are progressive.
That is the state of the PCA as I see it.  Does this mean that nothing can be done?  That I cannot say for sure.  Certainly, God can change hearts and minds.  None of us doubt that.  So we pray.  But God also expects those who believe His Word to take serious action. Perhaps one biblical example will make the point.
In Joshua 7-8 recounts the defeat of Israel’s army by the men of the small city of Ai.  They had just seen Jericho collapse by God’s power, but here God had allowed them to fail.  Not surprisingly, Joshua fell on his knees and prayed for hours.  And what was God’s response?  “Get up!  Why have you fallen on your face?  Israel has sinned.”  That was followed by God telling Joshua, “I will be with you no more” if you do not root out the evil (or evil person) from the camp.  Prayer is obviously good.  But praying leads to action when there is sin that needs to be rooted out.
That is where we are today in the PCA.  Decisive action is needed.  What that action will be is a matter for serious consideration by all elders in the PCA who are committed to the Scriptures. What would God have us to do?
David Martin is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is Pastor of Dayspring PCA in Forsyth, Ga.

The Israelites wondered whether God had rejected them. We may wonder the same. But in Jesus we have an emphatic, definitive answer. No. Because Jesus bore our sin, we are no longer subject to that same awful judgment that he suffered. Though we groan, we can look to Jesus, the Man of Sorrows. Because of him, our true, final restoration is secure.

Most Christians know that sin is bad. But, how bad is it, really?
Sin is a tornado, and the final chapter of Lamentations helps us see the extent of the damage. The consequences of breaking covenant with the Lord are dire. And yet, there is still hope for restoration.
See Our Disgrace
The first verse in this chapter frames much of what follows.
Remember, O Lord, what has befallen us;look, and see our disgrace! (Lamentations 5:1)
The author is asking God to remember, to bring to mind for the purpose of action. Asking God to see and remember is a key part of all lament; those who lament are pleading that God would not forget them in their circumstances.
However, this is an unnatural request, that God would see or notice our disgrace. We usually like to hide those qualities and circumstances that are shameful. But in this situation, those embarrassments are exactly the reason for the lament!
Verses 2–18 provide a list of many disgraces of the people still living in Jerusalem. These disgraces range from the horrifying (deaths of fathers in Lam 5:3, rape of women in Lam 5:11) to the seemingly mundane (the people now have to pay for water and wood, Lam 5:4). To be sure, far more disgraces fall in the first category than the second, but the mingling of the two makes a profound point: Sin has brought judgment which has overturned every aspect of life. Even the loss of music and dancing (Lam 5:14–15) can be considered a tragedy.
One other disgrace is worth mentioning. In Lam 5:16, we read: “The crown has fallen from our head; woe to us, for we have sinned!” This is both a confession of sin and a lament about Judah’s inability to rule themselves. They are now in the hands of Babylon. This confession about leadership also sets the stage for verse 19 (see below).
On the whole, this first portion of Lamentations 5 (verses 1–18) shows us that the consequences of sin are real and heartbreaking. There is a direct line between the rebellion of the people and the desolation of Zion, and the present grief and loss are a result of earlier decisions to turn away from God.
Read More