
Of late, my church and my pastor have had need of me to preach. That is a special privilege and it is a conviction of mine that the needs of His people are the commands of Christ, so I have tried to obey. Yet, I can see readily enough that my style is a bit unusual for a small Reformed Baptist congregation. They have been patient and accustomed themselves to some of my eccentricities and I have returned the favor in adapting to some of theirs.
A sample of what I have in mind might be that I have resisted addressing the congregation from a pulpit. Instead I’ve chosen to stand down below in the midst of the congregation. I do not feel above my brothers and sisters in any sense, especially as I am not their pastor, and I don’t like the view from the pulpit anyway, towering over everyone. It’s not simply an urge to be different that drives this practice. I’ve tried to comply with the more traditional expectations in the past, but I felt secretly foolish when I did so and this was becoming a distraction from my real purpose.
I’m sure I would find it very tempting to make self-deprecating jokes if I were forced to preach from one of those absurd ornate balconies which the Reformers once used, gazing down from the heights like the proverbial St. Peter, compelling the quivering souls below to discover exquisite reasons for my allowing them admission into heaven. I don’t suppose the Word of GOD needs the superficial aid of a pinnacle to impress anyone with its authority. Who could possibly stand that high anyway? The highest pulpit conceivable would bring us no closer to heaven (probably further away), and even so terrifying a rostrum as Mt. Sinai was not able to dispel idolatry from the hearts of the people.
Instead, I have reasoned, if the Son of GOD made Himself low and came among us humbly to preach, then how much more obviously would this apply to me?
Another divergence from the usual practice among Reformed Baptists is that I am not fond of preaching exhaustively through books of the Bible. In fact, on this point I come into conflict with the prevailing wisdom of many of the best preachers of our day. The call to this kind of “expository” preaching is everywhere and there are some who are so moved by it that they argue that any other form of preaching is simply unbiblical. Dr. Mohler is just such a man, full of passion about preaching in a “postmodern world.”
In this book, he focuses upon the diminishment of preaching in our day and the way to return to a vibrant flowering of worship as it has for centuries been understood, with preaching as its root. Mohler describes the present antipathy toward preaching as a result of several factors:
Contemporary preaching suffers from a loss of confidence in the power of the Word… from an infatuation with technology… from an embarrassment before the biblical text… from an evacuation of biblical content… from a focus on felt needs… from an absence of gospel…
He elaborates upon these considerations as he grapples with common skeptical tendencies that scratch away any significance from the personal nature of our words, from linguistic meaning, and therefore from authentic communion and a genuine knowledge of life. When written or spoken language is degraded, denied legitimacy or purely privatized, we are not only estranged from each other, because we are incapable of breaching the barrier of our singular experience of life—trapped into conversing alone with our inner voices, our useless passions and private demons—we are also isolated from the voice of Christ who apparently could only have ever been a revelation to Himself. Mohler’s book is like a breath of fresh sanity filtering into a latrine flooded with worldly wisdom.
He has a few ideas that sound a bit radical, recalling the days when “exhorters” were used by churches to apply the preaching directly (even publicly) to the lives of the members. I don’t suppose Mohler is yearning for a return to this practice, but I think he wishes to shake modern sensitivities a little with a witness of the seriousness of religion in former times, a practice I can sympathize with.
I have admired Mohler from my earliest introduction to him. An extremely energetic and uncompromising advocate of our faith, he is nevertheless able to deftly balance that otherwise precarious combination of sobering intensity and a caring and compassionate touch, emphasizing the need to appreciate other points of view even when fervently disagreeing with them. I’ve watched him exemplify this on a number of difficult occasions and was fascinated by his gift of insight for steering skillfully through the inhospitable waters of controversy where one would imagine that any answer must acquire fresh enemies.
In this book, he is much the same man, challenging others to their faces with grace so that it is often next to impossible to find fault with him, Biblically. Mohler is ardent but careful, and I am so very pleased to know that he is entirely Christ’s man. I would therefore recommend this book, not merely for pastors, but as Mohler insists, even for laypersons. An understanding of good preaching is always of use to those who want more than merely a passive experience in church. As Jesus warned, those with understanding must take great care in how they hear.
However, this is where the other shoe drops.

Patience is the first virtue listed by Paul in his hymn on the fullness of Love, and without love, of course, even a superior grasp of every mystery leaves us nothing. It follows, therefore, that without patience, a teacher merely teaches of himself. I was glad then with the book selection our pastor had made for a men’s study group. Our church has been a bit beleaguered by the superstition of certain members that GOD directs them through feelings or impressions into what I imagine is, for them, His “individual will” for their lives. This certainly cuts down on Scriptural labors, but more to the point, it contradicts our Father’s description of the sufficiency of His Scriptures and, in some sense, denies the rich satisfactions of His Son (who is Himself the Word).
Russian history and culture has long fascinated me. Ever since my own journeys to St. Petersburg in 1995 and 1996, I have been reading books on Russian life, especially that of the 20th century. I began initially with a biography on Nicholas and Alexandra, the last Romanov tsar and tsarina before the Revolution in 1917. The complex tapestry of passionate revolutionaries, 19th century aristocratic monarchism and the violent upheaval which transformed such an old-fashioned peasant culture into a modern, communist society stirred my imagination and my sympathies for the Russian people. After that introductory biography, I began to devour Russian history and literature and even began learning the language- a beautifully expressive Slavic tongue. In the first few years of my undergraduate degree, I aspired to a Ph.D in comparative literature, intent on devoting my life to the study and teaching of Russian literature and culture.
The demographics of my classes have shifted again with the beginning of the first fall session. Although my summer classes had held a majority of Arabic speakers, they now incorporate a fairly balanced mix of Far-Eastern and Middle-Eastern cultural backgrounds (Korea, China, Saudi Arabia and Libya). Add to this three students from Vietnam, Kazakhstan and Japan. Gotta love cultural diversity.
Try stepping into the head of a genius for a moment and you might just lose your bearings. That’s what happened to me recently when, one cheery morning, I decided to obtain a copy of Chesterton’s allegorical novel and consider his methods in the use of a genre I’ve always considered poetic and very powerful… It started out interestingly enough with Chesterton’s somewhat meandering, but never boring, observations rendered in a ticklish rhythm that makes me laugh. Chesterton has a certain way of meditating out loud that can leave one dizzy. Some have called him the “Prince of Paradox.” I prefer to think of it as a kind of enjoyment of the ironies of life, but at times he can go a bit too far. No longer merely pondering and playing with these oddities, Chesterton will at times charge into the maelstrom of worldly contradiction at full force. In this classic work, there is never a dull moment, but the reader must keep his head as he descends into a flip-flop reality of will and representation. Personally, I lost my way once and again.
In the morning, I teach Academic Skills, in which we focus primarily on developing critical reading skills, improving their vocabulary, and learning how to revise their writing through multiple drafts. I enjoy the book I’m using, which is called
I also read
they must learn as much English as possible, pass the TOEFL entrance exam and be admitted into the respective programs. If they fail, they are brought back home and are unable to continue their studies. There is a great deal of pressure on the part of their families and their sponsors to do well. Not only that, but the approaching task of succeeding in a foreign university setting awaits them like a tiger in a cave. Nevertheless, most of them are enthusiastic, hard-working and have a very positive attitude- some are overly confident and need a much more realistic point of view, and I worry that they do not take seriously the difficulties they will encounter. But it is my task to help them along, and I enjoy it very, very much. This is a thoroughly rewarding job. I just wish it paid a little more.
I am very glad that Mr. Stein chose to record and publish such a helpful portion of his extensive knowledge and experience of the craft. I am even more pleased that I found him so soon. I feel optimistic that his excellent insights have saved me from quite a few embarrassing blunders and am pleasantly bereft these days of many of my former illusions about my abilities. I now realize how much I have to learn, especially when I consider the fact that Stein on Writing was written as an introductory manual.
For a time, when I was much younger, I had a keen distaste for the seedy little nightmares of Edgar Allen Poe. Macabre was a good word for his work. He seemed a tremendously disturbed spirit, always haunting the pages of his books with sordid and grotesque inanities. I couldn’t quite understand why anyone thought his work important, other than through some remote possibility that there was a genius’ method lurking behind the apparent madness… although I had to admit that the Tell-Tale Heart was quite good. Still, that and The Raven seemed to me to be the only redeeming aspects of his life’s work.