Are we most like the person who wishes people well with our words, but never follow through with our actions? Or are we like the person who has head knowledge (doctrinally sound), but fails in doing good works with our hands? I hope we are more often like Abraham, who loved the Lord in word and works, and like Rahab, who loved the Lord’s people in word and works. If we’re honest, we all fall short of glorifying God in our words and our works. Therefore, we are in desperate need of God’s grace.

Doctors tell us that one of the best things we can do for our health is to get moving. In other words, stop the sedentary lifestyle and start skipping rope, skiing, swimming, or the like. Similarly, James tells us that the best thing we can do for our spiritual health is to get going (Jas. 2:14-26). A faith that stays alone is not genuine faith. Good works flow from saving faith. The apostle Paul tells us this as well: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:8-10).
James seeks to awaken his readers from spiritual sloth with two piercing questions: “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?” (Jas. 2:14). James is clearly concerned that some of his readers are deceived about what true faith is and isn’t. We can summarize his questions like this: Is faith without works saving faith?
James illustrates his teaching by first giving an example of words without works (Jas. 2:15). If someone comes to us in need of clothing and food, and we pay them lip service without hand service, we have done them no good. They didn’t just need our kind words; they needed clothes and food! In other words, we can have all the religion in the world, but if it doesn’t manifest itself in tangible results, it is rotten religion. Jesus made this same point when He spoke of the final judgment to His disciples. It is those who clothed, fed and gave a drink to those in need who had true saving faith (Matt. 25:31-46).
Read More
Related Posts:

As for the pulpit in particular- it is big, central, and strong, for a reason. It is meant to promote the preaching of God’s inspired, inerrant, sufficient, and authoritative Word as the central activity of the Church. The pulpit is bigger than the preacher. The pulpit requires the person who brings the Word to stand up and step into it. It demands the preacher consider the solemnity of the role he is exercising when preaching the Word, leading the congregation in prayer, or otherwise leading elements of the worship liturgy.

We had the opportunity to build a new sanctuary fifteen years ago and we opted for an Old School style complete with wooden pews, kneelers, choir in the back, digital pipe organ and a big central pulpit. This post is not trying to convince anyone they should do what we did, but rather to offer an explanation for those who wonder and even an encouragement for those who worship in older buildings that have a similar set up. The various features of our church architecture and layout are based on things we see as biblically important. Our building looks a certain way for a specific reason. Our choice of furnishings and the particular layout of the pulpit, baptismal, and communion table are purposeful.
It is not that other types of church buildings or layouts are unbiblical or wrong. For example, it seems the big, central, wooden pulpit is often rare in newer church buildings. Many modern churches opt for a large stage for a worship band and a portable stool or chair in front of a Plexiglas lectern for their casually dressed pastor to sit and teach or “talk with” his congregation. I do something similar on Sunday nights and in other teaching venues. Certainly, the Word of God can be taught or preached in different set ups. Jesus taught in various settings throughout his ministry, as did the Apostle Paul. The Bible doesn’t prescribe the arrangement of furniture in a church worship setting.
The pastor, sitting with small Plexiglas lectern on Sunday morning, definitely communicates casual, informal, personal interaction. It seems such a setup is intended to make the pastor come across as non-threatening, even a bit less authoritative. The pastor in that posture is about to have a conversation or fireside chat with his family and friends, it would seem. I suspect this approach might be a reaction to the yelling, pulpit-pounding, white-suit wearing, hanky in one hand, fire and brimstone preacher. The stool and lectern approach is meant to put people at ease as they listen to a “message” from the Bible. The pastor’s choice of casual dress while teaching or preaching Sunday morning tells the congregation- “Hey, I’m one of you! Let me tell you what I’ve learned this week.” I think much of the trend toward a casual set up for teaching and preaching Sunday morning has come from current generational pressure. Millennials and Gen Zs are characterized as being skeptical or dismissive of authority. The traditional big, central pulpit with the pastor wearing a suit or robe is a bit offsetting to a generation that doesn’t acknowledge levels of authority readily.
Let’s be honest-whatever your set up, something is being communicated.  Our intention is to communicate importance and authority by the chancel arrangement we have. The most important activities of the church are signified by the furnishings we have the pulpit, the baptismal, and the communion table. The ministry of Christ’s church is the ministry of the Word and Sacrament. Our furnishings are meant to make a statement about the priorities of the church.
As for the pulpit in particular- it is big, central, and strong, for a reason. It is meant to promote the preaching of God’s inspired, inerrant, sufficient, and authoritative Word as the central activity of the Church. The pulpit is bigger than the preacher. The pulpit requires the person who brings the Word to stand up and step into it. It demands the preacher consider the solemnity of the role he is exercising when preaching the Word, leading the congregation in prayer, or otherwise leading elements of the worship liturgy. Yes, the big, central pulpit is meant to exude authority-the authority of the preached Word primarily. This authority is not based on the preacher, but on the Word that is preached. In our church, the pastors wear robes so the congregation’s attention is not on his clothes, but rather the role he is filling for that hour. Some will say, The robe distracts me…it reminds me of when I was Catholic.”  Possibly. But I am guessing a good number might say, “Skinny jeans on Gen Xers, untucked shirts, and preachers in sneakers are distracting too”. The pulpit manned by a minister in a robe communicates reverence and authority. But this article is not really making a case for robe-wearing, so forgive the rabbit trail!
Back to the big central pulpit set up. Preaching is proclaiming the word of truth and exhorting the congregation to believe and obey. The pastor is commanded to “preach the Word” (2 Timothy 4:2) as part of his essential shepherding duties and the central pulpit arrangement can serve to encourage this practice. The central pulpit set up is a reminder to the pastor and the people about God’s authoritative Word. There is a sense in which pastors come and go, but the big, solid pulpit from which the Word is preached, will remain for generations. A preacher “filling the pulpit” is a great way to describe what a faithful pastor should be doing. He should know what the pulpit is meant for (preaching the Word) and do the task. In other words, many important messages can be relayed by architecture and setup.
To be clear, I would rather go to a church that has a modern set up with the stool and Plexiglass lectern where the pastor believes and preaches the Bible faithfully than a church with a traditionally arranged big, central pulpit, but the pastor does not believe or faithfully teach the Bible. The essential priority for a biblical, healthy church, is a right view and teaching of the Bible, which can be done with no pulpit at all. My purpose here is to offer explanation for a big central pulpit set up like ours and possibly provide some ideas to share with your church members if you have a similar arrangement.
Dr. Tony Felich is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and serves as the Pastor of Redeemer PCA in Overland Park, Kansas.
Related Posts:

Trans activists have achieved cultural hegemony and are going after everyone who disagrees — even with doxing, death threats, rape threats, and violence. They are coming after public education, what’s left of the entertainment industry, and will inevitably demand that churches, religious institutions, and all remaining dissenters submit to their demands and play along with their delusions as well. The culture wars are, unfortunately, real conflicts involving real people and the futures of our countries. 

There is a certain faction on the Right, especially in the libertarian wing, that poo-poos the culture wars as unimportant. Issues like gender ideology, for example, are dismissed as crass attempts to gin up anger among people uncomfortable with the pace of social change and a mere distraction from more important issues like inflation, house prices, and jobs. These are boutique issues, the thinking goes, and thus the Right would be better off ignoring these issues and focusing on the “things that matter.”
This is wrong-headed for many reasons, but most significantly, those making this article underestimate the radicalism of trans activists. Consider, for example, the fact that J.K. Rowling — a pro-abortion, pro-gay progressive — has not been invited to the 20th anniversary of the first Harry Potter film. Trans activists are so brazen that Rowling has been almost constantly threatened with violence. Recently, her home address was posted online by activists who showed up in person, and Rowling noted that this was accompanied by ominous warnings:
I’ve now received so many death threats I could paper the house with them, and I haven’t stopped speaking out. Perhaps — and I’m just throwing this out there — the best way to prove your movement isn’t a threat to women, is to stop stalking, harassing and threatening us.
It’s not just Rowling, either. Other liberal feminists are also facing a backlash. As Rowling wrote on Twitter:
Over the last few years I’ve watched, appalled, as women like Allison Bailey, Raquel Sanchez, Marion Miller, Rosie Duffield, Joanna Cherry, Julie Bindel, Rosa Freedman, Kathleen Stock and many, many others, including women who have no public profile but who’ve contacted me to relate their experiences, have been subject to campaigns of intimidation which range from being hounded on social media, the targeting of their employers, all the way up to doxing and direct threats of violence, including rape.
In fact, trans activists are going further than that in attacking those to their Left. Lesbians are being accused of “transphobia” for not being interested in “trans women”— that is, biological men with penises.