“THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
TEACHING AND PREACHING”
Pardon the musings of an old preacher, but I stumbled across this e-mail exchange from almost thirty years ago and thought it might benefit you or someone you forward this to. The posts were on what was then called the Pastor’s Discussion Group, or the PDG, when these platforms were on dial-up networks, and we were very dependent on the skills and grace of our friends, the late Billy Hamm and Bob Woosley.
One pastor on the discussion list asked if anyone could describe the difference between teaching and preaching. My response was timely then and is timely now.
Following is a copy of my e-mail response, and the kind reaction of Bill Dowell, Jr. I will change only the font styles to make the two posts more easily distinguishable.
Subj:
Re: Jim Baize
Date: 9/8/98 10:10:16 PM Pacific Daylight
Time
From: JWaldrip
To: PDG@csn.net
In a message
dated 9/8/98 8:20:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Bdow919 writes:
<<
I am sincerely interested in this subject. Please define precisely
the difference between preaching and teaching. I too believe there is
a difference, but how do you define clearly what that difference is?
Bill
Dowell Jr. >>
Bill,
Without resorting to
my notes from studies made long ago, I would summarize my conclusions
about teaching versus preaching by contrasting them.
Though
they are both ways ordained of God for communicating divine truth,
one is far better suited to confronting the lost with the Gospel than
the other. One is far better at applying truth than the other. One is
far more energetic and urgent and forceful than the other. One is far
less interested in proving and much more interested in simply
declaring than the other. One is far more effective in dealing with
the whole man (emotions and intellect at the same time) than the
other (which engages primarily the intellect only). One is far more
the expression of courage and spiritual passion than the other. One
is louder than the other. One is far more authoritative than the
other. One is far more energetically opposed by the wicked than the
other. One is far more connected to the Protestant Reformation and
Baptist history than the other. One is far more a reflection of the
dire straits sinners find themselves in than is the other. One is far
better as a tool around which to rally followers than is the other
(What prominent man on our side measures up to Sam Davison in
preaching ability? But Sam Davison would not have had a chance
against J. Frank Norris, who would have eaten him for lunch.). One is
far more closely associated with a fire in one's bones than is the
other. One can only really be effectively employed by men, while the
other can easily be employed by women. One is declared by God's Word
to be more associated with people getting saved than is the other.
One is more likely to be thought of as foolishness by the lost than
the other (Would this explain why some have abandoned preaching for
teaching?). One is the single means of communicating truth which is
found nowhere else in the community of men, while the other is a
means of communication employed by every false religion on the face
of the earth. JWs don't preach. Mormons don't preach. Adventists
don't preach. Liberals and modernists don't preach. Charismatics
don't preach. Only those in the Gospel stream, from Baptists to
Pentecostals and those in between, actually preach, whether they be
Congregationalists or Presbyterians or Methodists.
Look
back on our Christian heritage and history. Who do we look to in days
gone by for his impact as a teacher? No one who immediately comes to
mind. The Catholics look to Thomas Aquinas, while we look to John
Chrysostom and McCheyene and Moody. The Catholics look to Loyola,
while we look to Luther and Wycliffe and Tyndale. The Church of
England expelled Whitefield and the Wesleys, but for what? For
preaching. Had they restricted themselves to teaching they would have
gladly remained in the Church of England and their voices would have
been muted. But they and Luther were expelled (they did not leave
voluntarily) from their respective Churches because they would not be
quieted and would not stifle their preaching. Though a theologian of
note, Edwards’ impact was felt in the pulpit preaching as best he
could. The willfully ignorant can discount the informed teacher, but
they have greater difficulty resisting the insistent thunder from the
pulpit that demands, that commands, that deserves respect and
audience. And who is the most widely read man on the planet other
than the apostle Paul? Spurgeon, the prince of the
preachers.
Finally, what is one of the characteristics of
the latter days of apostasy? Insistence on having teachers with
itching ears. Why? I think, in part, because of the rising tide of
rebellion against every form of authority that makes strong preaching
intolerable to the lost. Preaching either makes you mad (Acts 7) or
makes you glad (Acts 2), while teaching can easily leave you quite
undecided but willing to think on the matter (Right!).
Sorry
to go on so, but this is a bit of what I think is the real difference
between teaching and preaching.
And may God deliver us
from vapid and vain preaching that is absent real meat and content,
and which has given real preaching a bad reputation.
John
S. Waldrip
Subj:
Re: Jim Baize on
preaching
Date:
9/10/98 7:51:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: Bdow919
To:
JWaldrip, PDG@csn.net
<< Without resorting to my
notes from studies made long ago, I would summarize my conclusions
about teaching versus preaching by contrasting them.>>
“Thanks
John for what I consider the best explanation of the difference
between teaching and preaching I ever heard. Be sure I will share
your response with my homiletics and preaching workshop students here
at Baptist Bible College, and with other professors who teach those
courses.”
Bill
Dowell Jr.
