Are all believers called to evangelize?

[Brakelite]

In all probability Randy, the NTC considered Paul to be an apostle. Wherever Paul went in most places he went to the synagogue first to preach the truth of Jesus to the Jews. He was allowed to do this because he was recognized as a Rabbi and any Rabbi could give a dissertation on anything. Basically his calling was to the Jews first and the gentiles as a follow on. If one did not accept his message he would go to another group.

We have got this idea that an evangelist is someone who preaches the gospel. I like to think that he is someone who teaches the gospel. Paul, because he had been a Jewish Rabbi before his conversion, would be well versed in the ways of the devout Jews and would know how to teach the gospel to them. You might say he knew how to present the facts to them. In this regard the question he had to address "Was Jesus the messiah that they had longed for?" Was he God as he said he was? He did not teach from the New Testament because it did not exist so he would have drawn his inspiration from the OT prophets and what God spoke to him in his three years of desert experience.

As he would have been talking to other Rabbis who were well versed in OT law and customs and as they were allowed to question the speaker, Paul would have been inundated with all sorts of questions.

Although I know that none can come to the Father except the Holy Spirit leads him to, I do think that it helps if you know what you are talking about
Sunday morning sermons are a waste of time as they rarely teach you to do anything. Better that everyone is taught the essentials of the faith so they can feel confident when talking to others. I have a feeling that a lot of Christians don't want to evangelise or get involved because they don't know the truth themselves and have never been taught how to answer questions that come up regularly.

Just like to offer another slight tweek to your perspective on Paul being "allowed" to preach in the synagogue because he was a Jew. For the first couple of hundred years ago Christians worshipped in the synagogue. After time however, two things brought about a change in that practice. First was that when Rome began to crack down hard on Jewish zealots and insurrectionists, Christians sought to distance themselves from Jewry, and because Sabbath keeping was so indicative of the religion and race of Israel, that was the first thing to be discarded by some. Then, at some time the Jews themselves sought to get rid of those pestilent Christians from their midst and the rabbits devised prayers that cursed Jesus... The lack of response and/or the complaints from Christians forced disclosure and they were given the boot.
Then later still of course was the declaration of what by the 4th century had become the young papacy, officially extolled Sunday in response to the Emperors civil laws regarding Sunday and the church not wanting to be estranged from political approval and influence by not supporting those Sunday laws, in the council of Laodicea declaring Sunday as a sacred day officially for the first time, and condemning any Christians who continued to honor Sabbath.

Okay, that's a little more than a slight tweek.

 

[Randy Kluth]

In all probability Randy, the NTC considered Paul to be an apostle. Wherever Paul went in most places he went to the synagogue first to preach the truth of Jesus to the Jews. He was allowed to do this because he was recognized as a Rabbi and any Rabbi could give a dissertation on anything. Basically his calling was to the Jews first and the gentiles as a follow on. If one did not accept his message he would go to another group.

We have got this idea that an evangelist is someone who preaches the gospel. I like to think that he is someone who teaches the gospel. Paul, because he had been a Jewish Rabbi before his conversion, would be well versed in the ways of the devout Jews and would know how to teach the gospel to them. You might say he knew how to present the facts to them. In this regard the question he had to address "Was Jesus the messiah that they had longed for?" Was he God as he said he was? He did not teach from the New Testament because it did not exist so he would have drawn his inspiration from the OT prophets and what God spoke to him in his three years of desert experience.

As he would have been talking to other Rabbis who were well versed in OT law and customs and as they were allowed to question the speaker, Paul would have been inundated with all sorts of questions.

Although I know that none can come to the Father except the Holy Spirit leads him to, I do think that it helps if you know what you are talking about
Sunday morning sermons are a waste of time as they rarely teach you to do anything. Better that everyone is taught the essentials of the faith so they can feel confident when talking to others. I have a feeling that a lot of Christians don't want to evangelise or get involved because they don't know the truth themselves and have never been taught how to answer questions that come up regularly.

Boy, there is truth in what you say, but it sure is simplistic! I've spent nearly every week of my life in church, and I know what I'm talking about. Christianity can lose its intensity as it compromises truth with other religions and with pagan practices. Ultimately, the shell of religion--perhaps morality--is preached, and fellowship with God is neither emulated nor communicated. I know--I grew up in such a church.

So you're right that an exchange of thought on biblical matters is central to keeping the Gospel properly communicated. But to reduce it all to ancient Jewish customs in the synagogue is, I think, incredibly naive. And to dismiss all sermons as a waste of time borders on dangerous! My experience, through the years, is that sermons are most often inspired, but sometimes lack power.

I wouldn't blame a pastor for not being "on" all the time. Sometimes pastors are just flawed, as we all are, and gravitate towards personal interests, as opposed to God's burdens. But a pastor, in giving a message, has to be in tune with God, and often is, despite the flaws.

To reduce Paul to a "rabbi" is also a little deceptive. His call as an "apostle" was, as the Revelation depicts, *foundational.* He was called to help establish Christianity and the Church. He did this by proclaiming Christ, and then by organizing believers into fellowships that could survive the test of time.

Paul did this primarily as a teacher, I think. He preached, and then he taught. And it is his work in the NT that established the theology of the Church for the last 2000 years.

 

[Agios]

Just like to offer another slight tweek to your perspective on Paul being "allowed" to preach in the synagogue because he was a Jew. For the first couple of hundred years ago Christians worshipped in the synagogue. After time however, two things brought about a change in that practice. First was that when Rome began to crack down hard on Jewish zealots and insurrectionists, Christians sought to distance themselves from Jewry, and because Sabbath keeping was so indicative of the religion and race of Israel, that was the first thing to be discarded by some. Then, at some time the Jews themselves sought to get rid of those pestilent Christians from their midst and the rabbits devised prayers that cursed Jesus... The lack of response and/or the complaints from Christians forced disclosure and they were given the boot.
Then later still of course was the declaration of what by the 4th century had become the young papacy, officially extolled Sunday in response to the Emperors civil laws regarding Sunday and the church not wanting to be estranged from political approval and influence by not supporting those Sunday laws, in the council of Laodicea declaring Sunday as a sacred day officially for the first time, and condemning any Christians who continued to honor Sabbath.

Okay, that's a little more than a slight tweek.

I thought the Churches met in homes during this time, not in synagogues?

 

[Agios]

Boy, there is truth in what you say, but it sure is simplistic! I've spent nearly every week of my life in church, and I know what I'm talking about. Christianity can lose its intensity as it compromises truth with other religions and with pagan practices. Ultimately, the shell of religion--perhaps morality--is preached, and fellowship with God is neither emulated nor communicated. I know--I grew up in such a church.

So you're right that an exchange of thought on biblical matters is central to keeping the Gospel properly communicated. But to reduce it all to ancient Jewish customs in the synagogue is, I think, incredibly naive. And to dismiss all sermons as a waste of time borders on dangerous! My experience, through the years, is that sermons are most often inspired, but sometimes lack power.

I wouldn't blame a pastor for not being "on" all the time. Sometimes pastors are just flawed, as we all are, and gravitate towards personal interests, as opposed to God's burdens. But a pastor, in giving a message, has to be in tune with God, and often is, despite the flaws.

To reduce Paul to a "rabbi" is also a little deceptive. His call as an "apostle" was, as the Revelation depicts, *foundational.* He was called to help establish Christianity and the Church. He did this by proclaiming Christ, and then by organizing believers into fellowships that could survive the test of time.

Paul did this primarily as a teacher, I think. He preached, and then he taught. And it is his work in the NT that established the theology of the Church for the last 2000 years.

As with people claiming to be called to evangelism (and are not), the same is true for the pastor/teacher role, many were never called by God for this position, yet take it upon themselves to "call themselves", so then we see a whole bunch of false doctrine coming from the church buildings, in addition to many powerless churches. If this were not true, the prosperity gospel wouldn't exist, denominations.

We, in the Church, have taken what God has not given to us.

 

[farouk]

Yes it is ...for the Church. I see Churches as filling stations for Christians...we go to learn (some do) so we can leave that building built up in the Spirit and ready for any one who asks for the hope that is in us. Church's are NOT for the lost. IMHO.

@Nance: We should all indeed be active - physically, verbally or prayerfully - in evangelism.

 

[101G]

Addressing the OP only,
just reading a few post, not all. but post #4 was on point in that we all by the way we live, (holy), can bring people to God, and they don't have to be in a pulpit or even have an offical title, but have God, the Holy Spirit in them.

a lot of sinners are not reading any bibles, but are reading "YOU" the Christian who are true by the life they live. (and sinners know who is true or not). as a christian, they don't have to peach a sermon, but their action speak louder than any words.

Living a (holy) life is walking the walk, and that (holy) lifestyle talk the talk, without even speaking a word by mouth. the old folks had a saying, "my word is my bond". that was TRUTH then, now...........?.

so as a Christian, to the world, your lifestyle as a follower of the Lord JESUS is your "WORK" of evangelizing those that are not in Christ yet, and even to some who are in Christ....

PICJAG.

 

[Randy Kluth]

As with people claiming to be called to evangelism (and are not), the same is true for the pastor/teacher role, many were never called by God for this position, yet take it upon themselves to "call themselves", so then we see a whole bunch of false doctrine coming from the church buildings, in addition to many powerless churches. If this were not true, the prosperity gospel wouldn't exist, denominations.

We, in the Church, have taken what God has not given to us.

I've been tempted to say this, but I'm taking care. I don't want to be found opposing a work of God, however it may look to me.

Some pastors are very weak. But in my opinion the problem is less the pastor than the structure. Pastors, as the paid employee, often take on more than he should. He may not be administrator, recruiter, evangelist, healer, teacher and prophet!

I believe that the various tasks should be better distributed, to allow each of these ministries to draw upon those truly gifted in all of these areas. What do you think?

 

[Brakelite]

I thought the Churches met in homes during this time, not in synagogues?

Both... Otherwise why bother devising prayers to 'out' the Christians?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Addressing the OP only,
just reading a few post, not all. but post #4 was on point in that we all by the way we live, (holy), can bring people to God, and they don't have to be in a pulpit or even have an offical title, but have God, the Holy Spirit in them.

a lot of sinners are not reading any bibles, but are reading "YOU" the Christian who are true by the life they live. (and sinners know who is true or not). as a christian, they don't have to peach a sermon, but their action speak louder than any words.

Living a (holy) life is walking the walk, and that (holy) lifestyle talk the talk, without even speaking a word by mouth. the old folks had a saying, "my word is my bond". that was TRUTH then, now...........?.

so as a Christian, to the world, your lifestyle as a follower of the Lord JESUS is your "WORK" of evangelizing those that are not in Christ yet, and even to some who are in Christ....

PICJAG.

Totally agree. This is the sense in which all Christians are called to be evangelists. But there is a special ministry of evangelist, who is endowed with power to bring people to Christ, eg Billy Graham. One of the best ways to evangelize is in the way we live where we live. We model Christ to others, and defend the truth when called upon to do so. It is not always popular, but it is always loaded with power.

 

[marksman]

Boy, there is truth in what you say, but it sure is simplistic! I've spent nearly every week of my life in church, and I know what I'm talking about. Christianity can lose its intensity as it compromises truth with other religions and with pagan practices. Ultimately, the shell of religion--perhaps morality--is preached, and fellowship with God is neither emulated nor communicated. I know--I grew up in such a church.

So you're right that an exchange of thought on biblical matters is central to keeping the Gospel properly communicated. But to reduce it all to ancient Jewish customs in the synagogue is, I think, incredibly naive. And to dismiss all sermons as a waste of time borders on dangerous! My experience, through the years, is that sermons are most often inspired, but sometimes lack power.

I wouldn't blame a pastor for not being "on" all the time. Sometimes pastors are just flawed, as we all are, and gravitate towards personal interests, as opposed to God's burdens. But a pastor, in giving a message, has to be in tune with God, and often is, despite the flaws.

To reduce Paul to a "rabbi" is also a little deceptive. His call as an "apostle" was, as the Revelation depicts, *foundational.* He was called to help establish Christianity and the Church. He did this by proclaiming Christ, and then by organizing believers into fellowships that could survive the test of time.

Paul did this primarily as a teacher, I think. He preached, and then he taught. And it is his work in the NT that established the theology of the Church for the last 2000 years.

As a teacher both in the body of Christ and in the secular world, it is important to keep things simple. it is no use if the student says "What you are saying sounds good but I don't understand what you are saying." I base most of my teaching on line upon line, building up the case gradually so that the student gets a clear picture of what is being taught.

In the last school that I taught in the students wanted to nominate me as teacher of the year. Another class said I was the best teacher in the school so I guess I must have been doing something right.

My sojourn in the church has encompassed 66 years usually in some sort of leadership role. I started preaching when I was 14.

Nothing naive about starting at the beginning and building from there. What is naive is taking one proof text which is what too many preachers do and then trying to convince the congregation that is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Because I am a teacher, I like to hear things from A - Z like the leader in one church I was in did a series over several weeks about the NTC. I was amazed as he did an excellent job of the subject. I complimented him on it and asked what we were going to do now that he had given such an excellent series. His reply was nothing.

And my experience is that most sermons are a waste of time. As I have a post-graduate degree in teaching from a university, I was taught that anything beyond 20 minutes is a waste of time as the brain seems to switch off. In other words, don't teach and speak to the students for more than 20 minutes, even shorter is better.

In one double lesson, I spoke for an hour. When I finished one of the students pointed out the fact. I never did it again.

Not only do people switch off after 20 minutes they forget what was said in the first 20 minutes. I have tested this and ask people about the sermon they heard that morning. The reply that was common was "Oh, it was a lovely sermon." "What was it about?" "Oh I can't remember but it was a lovely sermon." what is the point of a sermon you can't remember?

I don't like to boast, but I do know what I am talking about. If I don't I shut up.

Derek Prince who is one of the most educated and inspired teachers of our time said that 50% of pastors are doing the job because of rejection. When you have rejection, EVERYTHING is filtered through it which means focusing on what is going to make you look good and as that is the most important thing, they never reach their potential because the rejection prevents them from doing so.

They don't mind being the centre of attention because it boosts their ego so mission accomplished. A man called by God cannot have an ego because all leadership in the church is servant leadership. Servants do not have egos. If they have an ego, they are in serious trouble and in all probability are not called by God.

I am in a situation at the moment where this is happening with a men's ministry. Someone will say something and the leader will tell us that he has done that. Someone else will say something and the leader will tell us what he has done in that area. The leader has always done what someone else has done and done that better. One might say it is difficult to get a word in edgeways.

There is nothing deceptive about calling Paul a Rabbi. First, there are about 25 references to Paul as an apostle. Then if you read the history books about the New Testament era it clearly states that Paul was a Rabbi and you need to do that to fully understand the message of the New Testament.

 

[Randy Kluth]

As a teacher both in the body of Christ and in the secular world, it is important to keep things simple. it is no use if the student says "What you are saying sounds good but I don't understand what you are saying." I base most of my teaching on line upon line, building up the case gradually so that the student gets a clear picture of what is being taught.

In the last school that I taught in the students wanted to nominate me as teacher of the year. Another class said I was the best teacher in the school so I guess I must have been doing something right.

My sojourn in the church has encompassed 66 years usually in some sort of leadership role. I started preaching when I was 14.

Nothing naive about starting at the beginning and building from there. What is naive is taking one proof text which is what too many preachers do and then trying to convince the congregation that is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Because I am a teacher, I like to hear things from A - Z like the leader in one church I was in did a series over several weeks about the NTC. I was amazed as he did an excellent job of the subject. I complimented him on it and asked what we were going to do now that he had given such an excellent series. His reply was nothing.

And my experience is that most sermons are a waste of time. As I have a post-graduate degree in teaching from a university, I was taught that anything beyond 20 minutes is a waste of time as the brain seems to switch off. In other words, don't teach and speak to the students for more than 20 minutes, even shorter is better.

In one double lesson, I spoke for an hour. When I finished one of the students pointed out the fact. I never did it again.

Not only do people switch off after 20 minutes they forget what was said in the first 20 minutes. I have tested this and ask people about the sermon they heard that morning. The reply that was common was "Oh, it was a lovely sermon." "What was it about?" "Oh I can't remember but it was a lovely sermon." what is the point of a sermon you can't remember?

I don't like to boast, but I do know what I am talking about. If I don't I shut up.

Derek Prince who is one of the most educated and inspired teachers of our time said that 50% of pastors are doing the job because of rejection. When you have rejection, EVERYTHING is filtered through it which means focusing on what is going to make you look good and as that is the most important thing, they never reach their potential because the rejection prevents them from doing so.

They don't mind being the centre of attention because it boosts their ego so mission accomplished. A man called by God cannot have an ego because all leadership in the church is servant leadership. Servants do not have egos. If they have an ego, they are in serious trouble and in all probability are not called by God.

I am in a situation at the moment where this is happening with a men's ministry. Someone will say something and the leader will tell us that he has done that. Someone else will say something and the leader will tell us what he has done in that area. The leader has always done what someone else has done and done that better. One might say it is difficult to get a word in edgeways.

There is nothing deceptive about calling Paul a Rabbi. First, there are about 25 references to Paul as an apostle. Then if you read the history books about the New Testament era it clearly states that Paul was a Rabbi and you need to do that to fully understand the message of the New Testament.

What point are you trying to make?

 

[marksman]

Just like to offer another slight tweek to your perspective on Paul being "allowed" to preach in the synagogue because he was a Jew. For the first couple of hundred years ago Christians worshipped in the synagogue. After time however, two things brought about a change in that practice. First was that when Rome began to crack down hard on Jewish zealots and insurrectionists, Christians sought to distance themselves from Jewry, and because Sabbath keeping was so indicative of the religion and race of Israel, that was the first thing to be discarded by some. Then, at some time the Jews themselves sought to get rid of those pestilent Christians from their midst and the rabbits devised prayers that cursed Jesus... The lack of response and/or the complaints from Christians forced disclosure and they were given the boot.
Then later still of course was the declaration of what by the 4th century had become the young papacy, officially extolled Sunday in response to the Emperors civil laws regarding Sunday and the church not wanting to be estranged from political approval and influence by not supporting those Sunday laws, in the council of Laodicea declaring Sunday as a sacred day officially for the first time, and condemning any Christians who continued to honor Sabbath.

Okay, that's a little more than a slight tweek.

In my bibles, it says they went from house to house for teaching, fellowship prayers, and meals which were called breaking of bread in those days. They went to the temple courts to pray because they were still Jews.

 

[marksman]

What point are you trying to make?

Two. Establish my credentials to show I am not a fly by night contributor and to answer your post.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Two. Establish my credentials to show I am not a fly by night contributor and to answer your post.

You needn't do that. My remarks were designed to show that you were at surface level, and needed to substantiate your points. You didn't do that.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Two. Establish my credentials to show I am not a fly by night contributor and to answer your post.

Here is the point. You said: "Sunday morning sermons are a waste of time as they rarely teach you to do anything. Better that everyone is taught the essentials of the faith so they can feel confident when talking to others. I have a feeling that a lot of Christians don't want to evangelise or get involved because they don't know the truth themselves and have never been taught how to answer questions that come up regularly."

Taken on its face, that basically discredits all churches. And that, my friend, is simplistic, not to mention a bit on the rude side. Although my thought is that there is some truth in that, I'm much more cautious not to launch in an attack on Christian pastors and sermons.

My thought, as indicated, is that there are things wrong with the structure of the church. But I wouldn't claim that sermons are generally the cause of ignorance. Often they are a means of preaching what should be done that is not being done, or to encourage things to be done that God now wants done.

Often, teaching comes through Bible studies, or through personal study, study books, and other books. But I don't completely discount what you say. There's truth in it, but again, it's criticism without much depth.

So if you're going to criticize, fine. But provide all of the qualifications necessary to make your point. All that you've risen to in life won't help you if you don't qualify your remarks properly.

Please, if you're going to characterize someone as respected as Derek Prince saying things negatively, provide a quote. Thanks.

 

[marksman]

Here is the point. You said: "Sunday morning sermons are a waste of time as they rarely teach you to do anything. Better that everyone is taught the essentials of the faith so they can feel confident when talking to others. I have a feeling that a lot of Christians don't want to evangelise or get involved because they don't know the truth themselves and have never been taught how to answer questions that come up regularly."

Taken on its face, that basically discredits all churches. And that, my friend, is simplistic, not to mention a bit on the rude side. Although my thought is that there is some truth in that, I'm much more cautious not to launch in an attack on Christian pastors and sermons.

My thought, as indicated, is that there are things wrong with the structure of the church. But I wouldn't claim that sermons are generally the cause of ignorance. Often they are a means of preaching what should be done that is not being done, or to encourage things to be done that God now wants done.

Often, teaching comes through Bible studies, or through personal study, study books, and other books. But I don't completely discount what you say. There's truth in it, but again, it's criticism without much depth.

So if you're going to criticize, fine. But provide all of the qualifications necessary to make your point. All that you've risen to in life won't help you if you don't qualify your remarks properly.

Please, if you're going to characterize someone as respected as Derek Prince saying things negatively, provide a quote. Thanks.

Simplistic or rude, it is the truth. I addressed the ministers fraternal in a town near me about being involved in evangelism and spelt out a simple way they could be involved without stretching their resources and allowing them to contribute according to what resources they had.

Their reply was no, we can't get involved in evangelism because we are too busy running our churches. Nuf said.

And I never make a point unless I have some qualifications to do so.

 

[marksman]

Here is the point. You said: "Sunday morning sermons are a waste of time as they rarely teach you to do anything. Better that everyone is taught the essentials of the faith so they can feel confident when talking to others. I have a feeling that a lot of Christians don't want to evangelise or get involved because they don't know the truth themselves and have never been taught how to answer questions that come up regularly."

Taken on its face, that basically discredits all churches. And that, my friend, is simplistic, not to mention a bit on the rude side. Although my thought is that there is some truth in that, I'm much more cautious not to launch in an attack on Christian pastors and sermons.

My thought, as indicated, is that there are things wrong with the structure of the church. But I wouldn't claim that sermons are generally the cause of ignorance. Often they are a means of preaching what should be done that is not being done, or to encourage things to be done that God now wants done.

Often, teaching comes through Bible studies, or through personal study, study books, and other books. But I don't completely discount what you say. There's truth in it, but again, it's criticism without much depth.

So if you're going to criticize, fine. But provide all of the qualifications necessary to make your point. All that you've risen to in life won't help you if you don't qualify your remarks properly.

Please, if you're going to characterize someone as respected as Derek Prince saying things negatively, provide a quote. Thanks.

"Up to 50% of pastors in the pulpit are there because of rejection." Roundabout 1979 at the South Chard Christian Church Easter Conference on a Saturday evening in the Chard Townhall.

 

[marksman]

You needn't do that. My remarks were designed to show that you were at surface level, and needed to substantiate your points. You didn't do that.

You said that I did need to establish my credentials. I did do that. Just as a matter of interest, what are your credentials?

 

[marksman]

Boy, there is truth in what you say, but it sure is simplistic! I've spent nearly every week of my life in church, and I know what I'm talking about. Christianity can lose its intensity as it compromises truth with other religions and with pagan practices. Ultimately, the shell of religion--perhaps morality--is preached, and fellowship with God is neither emulated nor communicated. I know--I grew up in such a church.

So you're right that an exchange of thought on biblical matters is central to keeping the Gospel properly communicated. But to reduce it all to ancient Jewish customs in the synagogue is, I think, incredibly naive. And to dismiss all sermons as a waste of time borders on dangerous! My experience, through the years, is that sermons are most often inspired, but sometimes lack power.

I wouldn't blame a pastor for not being "on" all the time. Sometimes pastors are just flawed, as we all are, and gravitate towards personal interests, as opposed to God's burdens. But a pastor, in giving a message, has to be in tune with God, and often is, despite the flaws.

To reduce Paul to a "rabbi" is also a little deceptive. His call as an "apostle" was, as the Revelation depicts, *foundational.* He was called to help establish Christianity and the Church. He did this by proclaiming Christ, and then by organizing believers into fellowships that could survive the test of time.

Paul did this primarily as a teacher, I think. He preached, and then he taught. And it is his work in the NT that established the theology of the Church for the last 2000 years.

I wouldn't blame a pastor for not being "on" all the time. Sometimes pastors are just flawed, as we all are, and gravitate towards personal interests, as opposed to God's burdens. But a pastor, in giving a message, has to be in tune with God, and often is, despite the flaws.

You obviously do not know how some churches operate. I know this to be a fact that one denomination sends the sermon topics and details from the head office to the local churches and that is what they have to preach. How do I know? Because the local minister told me.

 

[Randy Kluth]

No, I didn't ask you to establish your credentials at all. I said you had skated over an issue that was clearly controversial. You discarded sermons and pastors preaching those sermons. All you did was refer to Derek Prince as your source without quoting him--just characterizing his views as if he agreed with what you were saying. You need to quote him if you wish to do that.

I have zero interest in comparing who has done what. As I said, you may or may not be making a legitimate point about sermons having "issues." I gave you my view of it. All I hear from you is that no teaching is done in churches like that, while I informed you that churches that have preachers giving sermons also rely on Bible Studies, etc. No answer?