Hayford at Assembly

[dawgs10]

i admit,it dont make them better people or better leaders, but it does make them more interesting preachers. why is it so horrible to have an opinion on jude 2 nowadays. i think more than one person has said jack hayford is very dry in this discussion. what ever good things you have to say about him he is dry as a bone. thats all im saying.

Dawgs,

I can't speak for anyone else, but I really do understand what you are saying. My concern is that you would discard true meat of the Word from a minister simply based upon style alone. I believe you stated something about falling asleep? Don't forget that it takes determination and discipline when panning for gold if you desire to find the nuggets.

When Elijah was hiding in the cave, God didn't come in the expected form of an earthquake, wind, or fire, but rather spoke to Elijah in a quiet whispering voice 1 Kings 19:11-12.

God uses whom he will and your statements could actually be misunderstood and taken as offensive by the ministers of the board who are not as demonstrative as T.D. Jakes or Jentzen Franklin in the pulpit.

Again, I agree with you that Dr. Hayford is not very colorful in style, but he does offer more substance than some who offer a style more animated in delivery.

Blessings,
pa[/quote


i never think you should "discard true meat" for a flashy minster. there are many shoutin minsters that i will not listen to because they are not grounded in scripture. scripture always comes first and i would say that jack hayford is very grounded in scripture. i hope i am wrong and the crowds come out and the sermon is great and is remembered as one of the best services in assembly history. then when its over i hope our church picks someone with a preacher style for those of us who perfer preachers. i pray that God will bless and lead us no matter what style we have.

[dolfan]

What is a "preacher" preacher? What is a preacher doing if he is not teaching? What good is the volume or verve of a message if the substance and application is mediocre? By the same token, if the talk is conversational and substantive and consists of well-applied truth, how is that considered dry?

Dawgs, when you allow that speakers of many different styles may be equally substantive and able to well-apply timely but timeless truth, the only thing that remains of your reference to "preacher style" is a preference for volume and verve. That kind of delivery is simply less popular than it once was. It has the benefit of excitability but the detriment of being prone to covering over a lack of substance with a lot of noise and distraction. The calmer delivery, being less excitable, must be substantive if people are to stay with the speaker as he speaks. It has to connect on the inner person, it has to "bear witness" as we like to say. You can't cover up the lack of that with silence, generally. That's why I personally think someone like Ravi Zacharias has far more to say to me than, say, Tony Evans -- a pastor who I really like to listen to on the radio but I've never seen live. Both are fine, but Ravi has more to say in the same amount of time because he is deliberate and calm. To say either of these guys is not a, whatever phrase you used -- "preacher preacher" -- reveals how style is elevated over substance. The focus ought not to be on the style, but on the Word that God delivers through the speaker to the audience.

By the way, if you insist that there is such a thing as a "preacher preacher", and that it is a biblical thing, the burden is on you to show that it is so; you can't make your point by responding to someone challenging yours with, "well, you can't prove it isn't, so nyah-nyah-nyah." Don't work 'at way.

[dawgs10]

What is a "preacher" preacher? What is a preacher doing if he is not teaching? What good is the volume or verve of a message if the substance and application is mediocre? By the same token, if the talk is conversational and substantive and consists of well-applied truth, how is that considered dry?

Dawgs, when you allow that speakers of many different styles may be equally substantive and able to well-apply timely but timeless truth, the only thing that remains of your reference to "preacher style" is a preference for volume and verve. That kind of delivery is simply less popular than it once was. It has the benefit of excitability but the detriment of being prone to covering over a lack of substance with a lot of noise and distraction. The calmer delivery, being less excitable, must be substantive if people are to stay with the speaker as he speaks. It has to connect on the inner person, it has to "bear witness" as we like to say. You can't cover up the lack of that with silence, generally. That's why I personally think someone like Ravi Zacharias has far more to say to me than, say, Tony Evans -- a pastor who I really like to listen to on the radio but I've never seen live. Both are fine, but Ravi has more to say in the same amount of time because he is deliberate and calm. To say either of these guys is not a, whatever phrase you used -- "preacher preacher" -- reveals how style is elevated over substance. The focus ought not to be on the style, but on the Word that God delivers through the speaker to the audience.

By the way, if you insist that there is such a thing as a "preacher preacher", and that it is a biblical thing, the burden is on you to show that it is so; you can't make your point by responding to someone challenging yours with, "well, you can't prove it isn't, so nyah-nyah-nyah." Don't work 'at way.

again, dolfan you and I disagree. but you may take the time to read the last post i made. and the burden is not on me to prove anything. i am simply giving my opinion. if you think more people listen to ravi zacharias
than jentezen franklin you are living in the past. style does mean something. not everything but something. i like a lot of charles stanleys sermons. and when i stay awake i hear some of them. you may like teaching preachers. thats what you like. great!!!! good for you. read the last post i made. some great leaders are teachers. if people cant admit there is a difference in a teacher and a preacher maybe they are not reading the Bible. because when speaking of gifts they are two separate things. is one more important than the other. again what does the Bible say. they are equaly important. and there is a time and place for both. 1 corinthians 12 29 asks are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? i perfer the prophet yet know they are both important. why should i continue to defend an opinion when i have said over and over that is what it is.

[dolfan]

Dawgs, I don't want you to change your opinion. I just want to know how you got there. That's the reason for my question.

You've made some assertions as fact, though. First, that there is a "preacher preacher" as opposed to a "teacher preacher". You only point to style as a difference, and you've given as 1 example Jentzen Franklin whom, the few times I've watched him, teaches. Maybe more loudly and with more animation to his movements than some, and with fewer elements maybe of exegetical stuff or didactic outlines or what have you, but teaching nonetheless. He's not particularly effective with me because I prefer the calmer type (and, again, just an admission here but he's too close to the TBN crowd for me to be comfortable with him, but I am trying to set that part of my thought aside in discussing him here), but he evidently connects with younger people and a certain stripe of pentecostal believers -- all well and fine.

But, what I don't see is the biblical distinction you assert exists between a "preacher preacher" and a "teacher preacher". Now, don't go quoting the five-fold ministries stuff because that is not going to prove your point, although you think it does. A prophet is one that speaks the truth, period. It may be a foretelling, it may be a word to the wise or of caution or of correction, a call to act, etc. The person doing it may be a teacher, with a teaching style of presentation, who doesn't just become a different personality when used by God to prophesy.

Jack Hayford is not going to take on a persona of a Jentzen Franklin even as he is used to prophesy, and I think you may be confusing style with gifts or ministry. That's my opinion. And, you may be wishing away a great but subtle move of God by your preferences, here.

Is it really that you simply want a demonstration of prophesy at the Assembly as opposed to a demonstration of exhortation? Because, if that's really what's in your heart and head, and I don't think anyone can find fault with that to be honest because you have your own convictions about what the COGOP needs, then I think it would be clearer to just say that. "I don't know Jack Hayford to be a prophet who will call the church to ________________, and I know someone like Jentzen Franklin does that kind of thing more regularly, and I think the church needs to hear that instead." That may be a more boisterous admission in the sense that you'd be offering your vision of the church's need in the place of someone else who actually makes that practical decision (i.e., HQ folks), but that doesn't mean you're wrong.

So, again, I'm more curious about how you got to this opinion than whether or not you ought to have the opinion, because I really do believe from what I read on the thread, here, that what you want for the Assembly is for God to move through the prophetic function rather than the teaching/exhortation function. That has a certain appeal to it, I'd admit, and a certain risk to it in terms of whether God is really allowed by the COGOP folks to actually lead people to and through this whole process of the Assembly.

My .02.

(Btw, I didn't compare Zacharias and Franklin audience ratings. The comparison of how many listen to each is wholly irrelevant to this. Plus, I tried to be careful not to lead you down that path by using Tony Evans in my example. But, anyway....)

[dawgs10]

Dawgs, I don't want you to change your opinion. I just want to know how you got there. That's the reason for my question.

You've made some assertions as fact, though. First, that there is a "preacher preacher" as opposed to a "teacher preacher". You only point to style as a difference, and you've given as 1 example Jentzen Franklin whom, the few times I've watched him, teaches. Maybe more loudly and with more animation to his movements than some, and with fewer elements maybe of exegetical stuff or didactic outlines or what have you, but teaching nonetheless. He's not particularly effective with me because I prefer the calmer type (and, again, just an admission here but he's too close to the TBN crowd for me to be comfortable with him, but I am trying to set that part of my thought aside in discussing him here), but he evidently connects with younger people and a certain stripe of pentecostal believers -- all well and fine.

But, what I don't see is the biblical distinction you assert exists between a "preacher preacher" and a "teacher preacher". Now, don't go quoting the five-fold ministries stuff because that is not going to prove your point, although you think it does. A prophet is one that speaks the truth, period. It may be a foretelling, it may be a word to the wise or of caution or of correction, a call to act, etc. The person doing it may be a teacher, with a teaching style of presentation, who doesn't just become a different personality when used by God to prophesy.

Jack Hayford is not going to take on a persona of a Jentzen Franklin even as he is used to prophesy, and I think you may be confusing style with gifts or ministry. That's my opinion. And, you may be wishing away a great but subtle move of God by your preferences, here.

Is it really that you simply want a demonstration of prophesy at the Assembly as opposed to a demonstration of exhortation? Because, if that's really what's in your heart and head, and I don't think anyone can find fault with that to be honest because you have your own convictions about what the COGOP needs, then I think it would be clearer to just say that. "I don't know Jack Hayford to be a prophet who will call the church to ________________, and I know someone like Jentzen Franklin does that kind of thing more regularly, and I think the church needs to hear that instead." That may be a more boisterous admission in the sense that you'd be offering your vision of the church's need in the place of someone else who actually makes that practical decision (i.e., HQ folks), but that doesn't mean you're wrong.

So, again, I'm more curious about how you got to this opinion than whether or not you ought to have the opinion, because I really do believe from what I read on the thread, here, that what you want for the Assembly is for God to move through the prophetic function rather than the teaching/exhortation function. That has a certain appeal to it, I'd admit, and a certain risk to it in terms of whether God is really allowed by the COGOP folks to actually lead people to and through this whole process of the Assembly.

My .02.

(Btw, I didn't compare Zacharias and Franklin audience ratings. The comparison of how many listen to each is wholly irrelevant to this. Plus, I tried to be careful not to lead you down that path by using Tony Evans in my example. But, anyway....)

what i have stated is there is room for both with the understanding that they are not the same according to the word of God. therefore we should keep them in the classroom or the church service where they can thrive. and yes i agree that you can teach someone without passion and see lives changed and you can preach with passion and teach someone something. thats the neat thing about the grace of God. i was off course to compare audience ratings but the point is, if we are turning to the young harvest lets do more than preach or teach about it. lets prove it by our selection of speakers at assemblies.

[free]

Maybe he'll shock you...I was sure shocked by the fire in Randy Howard at the last assembly!

[Pastor Gary]

if people cant admit there is a difference in a teacher and a preacher maybe they are not reading the Bible. because when speaking of gifts they are two separate things. is one more important than the other. again what does the Bible say. they are equaly important. and there is a time and place for both. 1 corinthians 12 29 asks are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? i perfer the prophet yet know they are both important. why should i continue to defend an opinion when i have said over and over that is what it is.

So you believe the word "prophet" means preacher-preacher?

[Pastor Gary]

can you cite anytime that he did not preach a barn burner. alot of Jesus's sermons were to the bone. how do we know how he spoke them.

Rabbi/teacher is one of the things people commonly called Jesus. Those teachers typically sat among the people expounding truth, not pacing back and forth mopping sweat with a hankie.

john 10:22 Jesus asserts his deity. how do we know he didnt raise his voice.

So teachers don't ever raise their voices?

i never tried to take away from teaching. it has its place, and we need it very much in COGOP. please do not place me the in haaa preacher fan club. thats not what i am saying. someones style is what sparks a fire in many, although there is a undercurrent to "sanatize" the church from the "Preacher" Preachers.

I don't see any undercurrent at all. What I see is that the cloud and pillar of fire have moved, and some want to stay encamped in their comfort zone. That preacherly delivery style is just that: a style, a method. It is not inherently wrong, and it is not inherently good. It's a style.

I'm sorry if this topic is a bit personal for me; for decades I was not accepted, not used and thought to have a lesser gift (or lesser anointing) because my delivery style is kind of down-home, conversational and I don't turn on a "preacher voice" when I speak.

jentezen franklin comes to mind. one of the best preachers of our time.

meh. Glad you enjoy him. A bit of a showman for my taste.

what about billy wilson. why not have him preach.

He has probably preached at a dozen assemblies. Good guy, good speaker. Been there/done that.

how about td jakes.

Shouldn't it be a requirement that the speaker be a Trinitarian Christian? Jakes is a oneness Pentecostal, isn't he?

so many of them that have a different style than jack hayford. i admit,it dont make them better people or better leaders, but it does make them more interesting preachers. why is it so horrible to have an opinion on jude 2 nowadays. i think more than one person has said jack hayford is very dry in this discussion. what ever good things you have to say about him he is dry as a bone. thats all im saying.

Not sure what you mean about "why is it so horrible to have an opinion on jude 2 nowadays" -- aren't you expressing your opinion on Jude2 right now? Does it bother you that others disagree and push back?

[dawgs10]

if people cant admit there is a difference in a teacher and a preacher maybe they are not reading the Bible. because when speaking of gifts they are two separate things. is one more important than the other. again what does the Bible say. they are equaly important. and there is a time and place for both. 1 corinthians 12 29 asks are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? i perfer the prophet yet know they are both important. why should i continue to defend an opinion when i have said over and over that is what it is.

So you believe the word "prophet" means preacher-preacher?

i believe that prophet means a couple of things. one of the meanings is to speak or preach the word of God. i also believe that the letter kills. i did not mean to upset you or anyone else. the issue is there are more passionate preachers. maybe not any better teacher. but i do think that we could do better with keynote on friday night. my opinion.

[dawgs10]

can you cite anytime that he did not preach a barn burner. alot of Jesus's sermons were to the bone. how do we know how he spoke them.

Rabbi/teacher is one of the things people commonly called Jesus. Those teachers typically sat among the people expounding truth, not pacing back and forth mopping sweat with a hankie.

john 10:22 Jesus asserts his deity. how do we know he didnt raise his voice.

So teachers don't ever raise their voices?

i never tried to take away from teaching. it has its place, and we need it very much in COGOP. please do not place me the in haaa preacher fan club. thats not what i am saying. someones style is what sparks a fire in many, although there is a undercurrent to "sanatize" the church from the "Preacher" Preachers.

I don't see any undercurrent at all. What I see is that the cloud and pillar of fire have moved, and some want to stay encamped in their comfort zone. That preacherly delivery style is just that: a style, a method. It is not inherently wrong, and it is not inherently good. It's a style.

I'm sorry if this topic is a bit personal for me; for decades I was not accepted, not used and thought to have a lesser gift (or lesser anointing) because my delivery style is kind of down-home, conversational and I don't turn on a "preacher voice" when I speak.

jentezen franklin comes to mind. one of the best preachers of our time.

meh. Glad you enjoy him. A bit of a showman for my taste.

what about billy wilson. why not have him preach.

He has probably preached at a dozen assemblies. Good guy, good speaker. Been there/done that.

how about td jakes.

Shouldn't it be a requirement that the speaker be a Trinitarian Christian? Jakes is a oneness Pentecostal, isn't he?

so many of them that have a different style than jack hayford. i admit,it dont make them better people or better leaders, but it does make them more interesting preachers. why is it so horrible to have an opinion on jude 2 nowadays. i think more than one person has said jack hayford is very dry in this discussion. what ever good things you have to say about him he is dry as a bone. thats all im saying.

Not sure what you mean about "why is it so horrible to have an opinion on jude 2 nowadays" -- aren't you expressing your opinion on Jude2 right now? Does it bother you that others disagree and push back?

to the question dont teachers ever raise their voice. i have never heard jh raise his. thats the point.

[paul]

Personally I don't think it is a matter of the volume of the voice either way that is important. For me it is the passion that one has concerning the topic they are miistering on.

You can detect the passion a person has when they are sharing. I think all to often we equate the level of passion whith the level of volume. which is not the case.

I have the unique and blessed opportunity to minister in many different denominational and non-denominational churches. I can deliever the message in a Pentecostal church and from my tradition and style, stomp, snort and hak.

I can deliver the same message in another organization and do it from a low voice and very little physical demonstration.

As paul said: I become all things to all people.

[Phil Hoover]

I've been edified and blest by his ministry for more than 20 years....HE is a tremendous man, and will edify the people of God...

GREAT choice!

[Jennifer Smith]

I what think Pastor Hayford has to offer is wisdom which he offers gently but truthfully which is always tremendously needed..! I believe Pastor Hayford will offer an insightful exhortation that will inspire those who listen.. he is a seasoned pastor which is such a valuable resource for those who are wise enough to pay attention..

Congrats and Great job!

[free]

How many pastors do we have in CoGoP that have taken a church with 18 members (all in their 60's) and with God's help grown it to over 10,000? As far as I know the answer is a big fat 0! I think that every overseer who has pastor's at the assembly should "require" them to be in every session JH speaks at and should sit with his pastors to learn together. Wouldn't that be a surprising twist?

Just a thought.

[Pastor Gary]

How many pastors do we have in CoGoP that have taken a church with 18 members (all in their 60's) and with God's help grown it to over 10,000? As far as I know the answer is a big fat 0! I think that every overseer who has pastor's at the assembly should "require" them to be in every session JH speaks at and should sit with his pastors to learn together. Wouldn't that be a surprising twist?

Just a thought.

I'll be there, and any/all my leaders who make the long trip will be there beside me.