- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostThe Quiet Time Performance
- Next Post »A La Carte (4/22)
Why Johnny Can't Preach
- 04/21/09
- 17
Nineteen sixty-six saw the publication of a book titled Why Johnny Can't Read. Its author, Rudolf Flesh, explained in it that societal changes were leading to illiteracy; children were increasingly unable to read, at least with the effectiveness of the children of years gone by. By the 1980's, Linden and Whimbey had followed with Why Johnny Can't Write in which they showed the similar societal trends were now keeping Johnny (a generic name used to refer to any child, male or female) from expressing himself in writing. T. David Gordon has self-consciously titled Why Johnny Can't Preach after these books because he uses it to argue that the same societal trends that kept Johnny from being able to read and write have kept a generation of ministers from being able to preach. Johnny just can't preach and Gordon just can't take it anymore.
It is important to the context of this book to realize that, when he wrote it, Gordon believed he had only months to live. He had stage III colorectal cancer and had roughly a 25 percent chance of survival. "Having been concerned about the state of preaching for three decades, I believed that it would be irresponsible to leave the world without expressing my thoughts about the matter, in the hope that better preaching might be the result." So this book has the air of a missive penned from a dying man and directed to dying men (though, happily, Gordon's cancer is now in remission). As he says, "The manuscript is, therefore, at a minimum, heartfelt."
I can think of at least a handful of books that have called contemporary preachers to task for their weak sermons or the unbiblical focus of their ministries. But this is the only one that comes to mind that takes on conservative preachers in conservative churches--the kind of men who preach expository sermons and who have ministries based on verse-by-verse exposition. Says Gordon, "I don't intend to throw stones at others; it is the conservative evangelical churches and conservative Reformed churches with which I am primarily acquainted." This is a look inward, then, and not a look outward.
The reason men cannot preach today, says Gordon, owes not to a lack of caring or a lack of effort; instead it relates primarily to societal changes. The book's subtitle is instructive: The Media Have Shaped the Messengers. In this context media does not refer to mass media, but rather to the many ways in which information or data is communicated to us, the foremost being television.
How bad is the problem? According to Gordon, it is epidemic. "I would guess that of the sermons I've heard in the last twenty-five years, 15 percent had a discernible point; I could say, 'The sermon was about X.' Of those 15 percent, however, less than 10 percent demonstrably based the point on the text read. That is, no competent effort was made to persuade the hearer that God's Word required a particular thing; it was simply asserted." Ouch. At the very least, this guy tells it like he sees it. He does not allow the preacher to wiggle out by using shortened attention spans as an excuse. "Ministers have found it entirely too convenient and self-serving to dismiss congregational disinterest on the basis of attenuated attention spans or spiritual indifference. In most cases, the inattentiveness in the congregation is due to poor preaching--preaching that does not reward an energetic, conscientious listening. When attentive listeners are not rewarded for their energetic attentiveness, they eventually become inattentive."
Societal trends, the foremost of which is the dominance of the picture over the word, have led to Johnny's inability to preach. The problem is the condition of the typical ministerial candidate when he arrives at the seminary. The reasons he cannot preach are twofold: he cannot read and he cannot write. Each of these receives a chapter-length treatment. In the first, Gordon demonstrates that Johnny has never been instructed in the reading of texts. He has been taught to read to gather information, to read as a means to an immediate end, but he has never been taught to read with a view to how a text is formed. He reads for content while ignoring construct. "Culturally, then, we are no longer careful, close readers of texts, sacred or secular. We scan for information, but we do not appreciate literary craftsmanship. Exposition is therefore virtually a lost art." In the second, he channels Neil Postman and other writers in demonstrating that Johnny is fast losing the ability to communicate well with the written word. In fact, by relying so heavily on technologies such as the telephone, he has stunted his ability to communicate with others in face-to-face contexts. Where the written word, carefully constructed, is a valuable medium for weighty content, the spoken word, especially over the telephone or other media, gives itself to levity and to thoughtless discussion.
After offering a few words on content, Gordon gives the beginnings of a prescription, a cure for the ills. He suggests that for Johnny to learn to preach he must, at the very least, have an annual review in which the church will tell him how effective they deem his preaching, he must learn to read texts closely and he must learn the sensibility of composed communication. These may not make him into this generation's Charles Spurgeon, but at the very least they will give him the tools he needs to preach the Word of God well. "Our culture, at this moment, will not develop these sensibilities, and so Johnny will cultivate them only if he makes some self-conscious and deliberately countercultural choices about how he wishes his sensibilities to be shaped."
While Gordon is prone to overstate his case at times, and while he may occasionally put preference in the place of law, he has certainly penned a book which stands as an urgent call for men to give themselves anew to the task, the calling, of preaching. It points them to several skills which will, without doubt, help them in their task of faithfully communicating the truths of God's Word to the ears and the hearts of God's people. I do think any preacher will benefit from reading Why Johnny Can't Preach, though I would urge caution in handing it to your pastor--such a gift could easily be misconstrued. And do guard your heart as you read it as I think there is the potential that it could cause you to look unfavorably on your own pastor. Having said that, I think this is a valuable book and one that ought to be widely read.


I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I write books and blogs for fun while doing web design and consulting for a living. I worship and serve at 
Comments (17)
While I agree in principle with what this author laments about , my biggest concern , in what I have been exposed to, is a clear lack of passion. Men who drone on and on , boring sermons. I grasped the subject and understood what they are trying to say ,but its like a long winded one note song! The problem starts or lays at the feet of the way pastor's are trained . Lets face it , there are very few solid seminaries left who hold to the word of God . This looks like an interesting read but like you said Tim,one I wouldn't hand my pastor next week.
More reason to praise our great God. He still uses the "Johnny's" of the world to accomplish His ends.
I came not to you with excellency of speech.
I too have sat through 45 minute plus sermons that would have been very good 30/35 minute sermons. An excellent read in this area would be Steven Lawson's "Famine in the Land." I understand that he wrote this as a challenge to the professors at a major seminary to rethink how/why they were training young men to be preachers.
This brought to my mind again John Owen's dictum that "assiduous meditation" and prayer are the main things in preaching and teaching. Yes, we must learn to read texts carefully, but meditation on and living in texts for good periods of time is also quite thin, I imagine.
I imagine that part of the problem lies with so many pastor's being expected to preach several times per week, manage the church's finances, visit people in need, work with the other staff, etc, etc. I know for me at least, it would be very difficult to dwell on and meditate on the Word in order to craft a great sermon week in and week out, with all the other responsibilites that a pastor has. Granted, there are men who can do that, but they are few and far between. It reminds me of the passage in Acts 6 where the disciples acquire help from other godly men to take care of some of the more day to day things in the church body. I also think this is another reason to have a plurality of elders, rather than our congregationally led churches. You can have several men rotating through the duties of preaching, and other pastoral duties...no one gets burned out, they each have time to prepare deeply for their sermons, and i'm sure it also lends itself to ministering to the congregation better as well.
Thank you, Tim. This is a helpful review and the book is going on my list. Dr. Gordon was my NT professor at GCTS (Greek and Romans) and I learned more about preaching from him than from my (very fine) homiletics profs.
Amen to that, i might have to read this one day.I suppose all the online media and forms of communication will only worsen the problem. Within the reformed community, i think there is a mindset that is only concerned with being 'doctrinally correct' and not with communicating truth (i can teach without error and yet benefit no one if they don't understand me).WOZ,It seem that in the past men typically preached a lot more, from the reformers to the puritans, Spurgeon, Martyn Lloyd-Jones and more, and even in one pastor churches many of these men did the visitation (sad that this is looked down upon today, although what many call visitation is just hanging out) and such and that's not to mention they didn't have all our helps, electronic resources and such. I often wonder what they considered good sermon prep and i do think it was mainly that they delighted in the word (they didn't have time to be everybody's buddy, stay up on the lastest shows, movies, sports) Not sure i would agree that the congregation as a whole should give an evaluation (maybe some very mature families) I second the 'lack of passion' comment, dry and boring. If the only people you interest is other men who went to seminary then take up a position as a professor and let a Pastor shepherd the Men, Women and Children!!!
"In most cases, the inattentiveness in the congregation is due to poor preaching—preaching that does not reward an energetic, conscientious listening. When attentive listeners are not rewarded for their energetic attentiveness, they eventually become inattentive.”
While this is not always the case, it very often is! As a kid I only halfway listened to the sermon, because when I did it didn't always make sense and it was rarely if ever effectively applied to my life. I was left with the thought, 'So what? I know this should matter...but it really doesn't seem to.'
While in college, I found an excellent church with an excellent pastor. His preaching is contextual, informational, theological, expository, and requires hard work (in a good way!)- and it is NEVER boring or dry. Although it is not always perfect- some might be a little more difficult to follow and whatnot- it is obvious week in and week out that there is a love of the text and a desire to explain what it says. And even better: he 'wields the knife': he takes the text and applies its meaning where it will expose our sin drive us to repentance.
In other words...Amen!
It's interesting to contrast this post with today's Pyromaniacs post on paper pastors and the church not giving direct feedback to their pastors, but instead running to the John Piper's and Mark Driscoll's of this world. We are doing the church a disservice when we withhold our affection, attention, prayers, and biblical admonition from our pastors.
Julius,I completely agree with you that it is possible for pastors to do it all...but as I said before, men like that are few and far between. We have men like that today as well, Piper, MacArthur, Lutzer, etc. I also think that many modern pastors have a lot of additional activities thrust on them (right or wrong) that they feel pressured to do in addition to their sermon prep time. No free passes, but we should do well to not expect that every man is capable of becoming the next Paul. Part of God's design for the church is to use men in leadership who are not perfect. This is definitely very relevant to the Pyro's post today.Also, I'm not sure what you meant by the congregation giving an evaluation? My point was, at least in the case of many baptist churches, the church is "congregationally led"...which means one teacher/preacher, and usually no elders. There are deacons, but they are usually not qualified for that "elder" position, in regards to teaching.
WOZThe evaluation part had to do with the post not with anything you said, I would contend for elder-led. I definetely know what you mean, though I would say no one is perfect and some of the bigger names would not be people i was thinking of (on the contrary i think we more idolize these men when we speak of them as some rare breed not unless of course they were involved in revival like Paul) . In most of these settings (from the past), at least in Europe most pastors work from home so they don't have to deal with unnecessary 'church business. I absolutely agree there are a lot of pety things asked and expected of pastors (like my pastor who also works pt, i told him that he didn't need to feel like he had to come visit when we had our baby---though plenty of people would be offended if the pastor didn't). To speak about 'ALL' i would not contend for anything more than biblical requirements (feeding the flock and knowing it's state). I would also encourage a pastor to make clear (perhaps in membership classes) what the role of an elder is in relation to the body. Probably saying the same things from different angles. blessings
Yep, pretty much saying exactly the same thing :)
Tim,Did you notice that you have an ad for a seminary in your sponsors section?
"Westminster Seminary ... because face-to-face is still best." and "Preparing Pastor's for the next generation."
Do all of your sponsors expect such duplicitous support!?!?!? ;-)
Dan...
It's very true that few pastors can preach, but that's not a function of not being able to read or not being able to write. It's a function of not being able to think. Too many pastors graduate from what can only be called 'Bible schools' -- i.e. places of lower, not higher, learning where regurgitation and parrotry are more valued than critical analysis and logic. Unless Christianity rids itself of its odious strain of anti-intellectualism, it will continue to be a religion that appeals to weak intellects and thumping chests.
This is true, to a certain extent. Much of what we hear coming from the pulpit these days is a candy coated, modernized, and watered down version of biblical truth and quite frankley, it does more harm than good. However, there are a good many "dead" churches out there that keep preaching as though it were the dark ages and that simpley will not do either. We need to address people with a message of hope through Jesus Christ as the center of all things and also with the word of God that can be applyed to our daily lives. Real and Relevent.
When I was 8 years old a missionary came to our Baptist Church for a revival, he was there for a week Sunday to Sunday. The first Sunday he was there he visited all the Sunday School Classes and talked to the young people. He talked to our group and asks us all if we believed in Jesus Christ, and that he died for our sins. Of coarse we all said yes. He then said all of us that weren’t baptized needed to come down to the pulpit and dedicate our lives to Christ during that morning’s service. He also said that we could be riding home with our parents after church and be hit by another car and be killed, and if that did happen our souls would be in hell forever.The above speaks volumes about what is wrong with organized religion. Let’s study the paragraph thoroughly.Why was this self confessed man of God trying to frighten us into the church? The man was an ordained minister. He was either ignorant of what he was doing or was intentionally trying to put more feathers in his cap to make his self look better, his ego was showing. He was trying to frighten us into becoming Christians, and to make his record look better. According to my bible only God can choose you, you cannot choose God. Ephesians 2: 8-9.How many Christians in the church are really saved by the only method that they can be saved and that is by God choosing them. How many are saved because of a fast talking, egotistical preacher? How many are saved because of fear tactics from a preacher. Any method except the first, being chosen by God means that they are not saved. If we took all of the Christians chosen by God into one group how many would there be? Matthew 22: 14This saddens my heart when I think of all the people who at one time were sincerely seeking God the Father and then because of egotistical preachers and men teaching falsehoods they have become disillusioned with there brand of church. Religion is all about control. You need not belong to a church in order to worshiped God. Matt.18:20Church members are earnestly seeking God; they try and do what they are told to do in order to have the Father in their life. The problem is that they cannot get to the point that they want to get to, because they are trying to listen to their minister that sometimes knows no more than they do.We need to take our spiritual life in our own hands and turn it over to God, he is the only one that can teach us and guide us in the direction that we need to go. 1 John 2: 27
Interesting review, interesting comments.
I could not help but think of Martin Lloyd Jones definition of preaching -- "logic on fire".
I pray for logic and fire in God's church this Sunday. (Beginning with more logic and fire in my office this week.)