Preachers at the Judgment

I don't have the exact date when the shift occurred, when the pulpits in America shifted from preaching to teaching, but I believe it happened during the 1960s when a chaotic society was rebelling against all authority and all boundaries of decency were beginning to fall apart in a nation in the middle of a moral landslide, and the church, rather than standing strong amidst all that chaos, caved in and lost her voice of authority. Pastors quit preaching hard against sin and warning sinners about hell, and instead a generation of pastors emerged who were teachers and not preachers. Today in America you'd be hard-pressed, friend, to find a true preacher of the gospel, of the Son of God, but you will find a vast amount of teachers.

The main problem with this is that few are saved under a teaching ministry. You end up with decisions instead of conversions. Good preaching will awaken a sinner to his lost condition, bring in Holy Spirit conviction, and reveal the wicked windings of the human heart, and show men their need of a savior from sin.

Preaching transforms. Teaching informs. Fill-in-the-blank teaching replaced life-transforming preaching.

But this fundamental change in our pulpits doesn't exempt us from our accountability to God, to preach the gospel in the full counsel of God, under the power of the Spirit of God. I believe every preacher of the gospel will have to stand before God at the judgment and give an account of his preaching. Did he preach for the acceptance of men, or for God's glory? Did he warn the wicked to flee from the wrath to come, or did he just soothe their conscience and entertain them? Did he inform men that few were saved, and that the way of salvation was a narrow way, and the gate straight, and one had to strive to enter in? Or did he broaden the way of salvation in ways Jesus never did? Did he warn his hearers of the miseries of the damned in hell? Or did he altogether avoid mentioning hell? Did he preach hard against sin, or was he completely silent on that subject? Did he truly have a burden for the souls of men, or did he merely make merchandise out of the souls of men? Did he preach a bloody cross on which the Prince of Glory died, or did he get out his mop bucket and clean up all the blood and gore around Calvary to make it more presentable to sinful man? Did he preach that salvation was in the hands of God, and that he could give it or withhold it and still be a just God? Or did he tell folks that salvation was in the hands of man, and they could be saved whenever they were good and ready? Did he preach the strictness and severity of the law of God, or did he soft-soak the gospel to make it more palatable to sinful man? Did he warn of a future judgment for all mankind, where everyone who is not found written in the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire? Or did he avoid such unpleasant subjects? Did he faithfully preach the full counsel of God and hold up the great doctrines of the gospel, like redemption, repentance, and regeneration? Or did he water down the gospel so not to offend anybody? Did he hold up a blood-stained Savior from sin, who has rights and claims on all followers of his? Or did he preach a shrunken, impotent Jesus that was on the level of man? Like I said, friends, I believe every preacher of the gospel will stand before God at the judgment and give an account of his preaching.

We need a reformation in our pulpits across the land to return to a preaching ministry of the gospel of the Son of God. Let us pray.