This is a short blog full of quotes from some of the best descriptions of bad preaching by Anna Carter Florence in her article "Put Away Your Sword!" in What's the Matter with Preaching Today (Louisville: WJKP, 2004).   And please, do not debate on whether a woman is qualified to teach preaching or to preach here.  She said the following:

- The students start hacking away at the text until they can grasp a piece of it to hold up while announcing, "Let me tell you what this passage means; it means that everything will be fine if we only have faith.'"

- There is another, more sinister side to the "hunt for Meaning" ... : studnets so dead set on finding out what a poem means that they will tie it to a chair with rope and torture a confession out of it.  Preachers, too, can take up rope and victimize a text ... We preachers cannot hope to nurture an intimate relationship with our sacred text in all its beauty and mystery, as long as our need to solve it overrides our desire to listen to it, and look at it. 

- Their [the students] initial forays into preaching look more like the Spanish Inquisition than the proclamation of the Word of God.

Here's another good one by Mike Graves, "God of Grace and Glory" in the same book.

- "Why is the preacher always so mad, Mommy?" Somehow Paul's statement about preaching Christ crucified becomes in the mouths of some preachers a license to crucify the listeners.

Funny, sad, but true.

I'm writing this short blog about a week after the tragedy in Philippines out of respect for the victims and their families.  What has happened sparked different reactions, many of which are quite legitimate.  Let me preface this by saying that whatever our opinions are, prayers are still much needed for the victims and their families.  In this blog, I wish to focus on the media impact of this event. With the invention of TV and free reporting media, how the story gets told impacts the reception of the story itself.

As I was finishing a book on preaching and modern media, a tragedy happened to some tourists of Hong Kong.  On Aug. 23, 2010, a disgruntle police officer who was fired from his job held a tour bus full of Hong Kongers hostage in Manila, Philippines.  The siege lasted some eleven hours, with eight hostages killed in the ensuing firefight.  In those agonizing hours, the TV reported live all the ineptness of the Filipino police force (or the so-called commandos) which failed to negotiate but instead escalated the situation so much that the gun man opened fire on hostages.  At the end, the gum man was killed by a sniper bullet.  This tragedy immediately caused extreme reactions from Hong Kong government calling for travel advisory against going to the Philippines for holiday.  Many Hong Kongers created such an outcry against Philippines that drastic actions such as firing their Filipino domestic helpers became rampant, even though those workers did not represent their country’s corrupt and incompetent politics. http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20100825/876/twl-filipino-maids-in-hong-kong-sacked.html

A less known fact is, during that same day, another report of a greater scale atrocity had taken place in Congo where two hundred women and children were systematically raped by Rwandan and Congolese rebels.  The victims included infants and little boys.  There was hardly any outrage by Hong Kongers.  Now, the simple-minded would say that Hong Kongers are generally more concerned about their own than the wellbeing of the globe.  This may be partly true, but imagine another scenario where the raping and ravaging of these women were played out like a pornographic horror movie right in our living rooms. What would be the impact?  I can almost see the internet chat rooms lighting up.  I’m suggesting that TV has done a lot to shape our perception by the way it is used by media (sometimes even wrongly).  The medium tells a story that cannot otherwise be told with greater effect.  May the memory of all these victims become a warning to our media-saturated age.

My blog originates from a Facebook post my friend wrote.  He said, “While in seminary, my preacher professor said, ‘I’m not much of a preacher, but I hope to coach you into being good preachers.’”  The irony of this statement surely is not lost on me.  The same can go for any kind of educational endeavor. Are we to ask the experienced or the educated?  I'm also thinking hard these days about commnication and education, as I'm wrapping up a book for my seminary's monograph (HKBTS Church-Culture Series) series on better communication in our modern pulpit.

The Experienced

During my short stint with competitive lifting, I realize some people are just gifted.  I’ve seen lifters who do not sleep much, eat junk and still lift a lot and look great.  I’m secretly jealous.  Many have won multiple titles.  They are the experienced … and gifted.  They look the part, while I look like ... someone who can shock you into how much I can ACTUALLY lift.

In the gym, it is hard for me to go listen to some guy who is not a great lifter and who looks horrible to give me advice on lifting.  I think it is equally hard for students to listen to someone who does not appear to be great in the field.  The most attractive person would be the one who can practice what he preaches, so to speak.  Is this all there is?

The Educated

I recall watching Freddie Roach train Manny Pacquiao, a multiple world title holder in boxing.  Manny is the best pound for pound fighter in boxing.  He is exciting, fast and strong.  Freddie, on the other hand, used to box also but never even comes close to Manny’s prowess.  I bet if they get into the ring to spar, Manny would kill Freddie.  Yet, Manny submits under Freddie’s training regimen, day after agonizing day.  What is the key?

I think there is hardly anyone who knows how to break down a fight better than Freddie. He has trained some of the world top boxers AND MMA fighters (e.g. Anderson Silva).  His record speaks for itself.  The key is his ability to read the game and understand intellectually how things work.  Freddie is the brain and Manny is the show horse.

Ask the Experienced Or Educated?

This brings us to our topic.  Should we ask those who look like they have walked the talk or should we ask those who can break stuff down?  Having been in martial arts for a number of years, I have realized that the best teachers are not always the best fighters.  Sometimes, people move well because they’re just athletic.  The same gifted folks can only train other equally gifted folks.  The less gifted remain lost.  My own preference is to find out how people got to where they are.  Some have done so through hard work and intelligence.  Others are just gifted.  For the less gifted, they have to break down their own art or craft in order to improve.  Some just got to the mediocre stage, like Freddie Roach, but they can break it down for someone else more gifted to arrive at excellence.  Sometimes, mediocrity is enough to train someone else to excellence. So, should we ask the experienced or the educated?  It depends.  I think the best measurement of an educator is how his least gifted student is made better through instruction. 



Recently tragedy struck my former church community. On that particular Sunday morning, I sat depressed in my pew.  My pastor Harry, a kind, godly and caring man, came over to say hello.  Having told him just the skeletal details of the event, he simply said, “Let’s pray together.”  It was a moment of profound truth. 

Whenever I see requests on Facebook for prayer, I always respond, “I’ll pray for you.”  Then, soon enough, the busyness of life gets in the way.  I did pray, but sometimes, just sometimes, I fail to check back on what happened to that prayer.  How often we use that response, “I’ll pray for you” as Christians?  How can we fix it?

Sometimes, I wonder if we really need to pray because God truly knows everything and He already has some kind of answer.  I suppose we pray because that’s the way we experience God.  Equally important is that prayer is the best way we care for one another.  Thus, the follow-up to prayer is almost as important as the act itself.  I often have people telling me that they’ll pray for me, but they’d never check back on the request.  I'm trying not to be cynical, but sometimes, I wonder whether they prayed or not. 

I honestly think that sometimes when Christians say “I’ll pray for you,” they really mean well, but they often forget to pray.  I like what my pastor did.  He stopped for the moment, listened and prayed right there.  I think immediate prayer is a great way to remedy our forgetfulness.

Another way Christians can better pray for one other is to keep a written log of requests. This keeps things in perspective.  The best way to stop the vicious cycle of saying, “I’ll pray for you” is to stop saying it.  If we’re not really going to pray for someone, then leave it.  We do not sound more spiritual when we use this kind of cliché.  Our best intention remains intentions until action accompanies it.



The phone rang.  I picked it up.  “Hi, I’m so and so, the executive director of so and so denomination.  Are you Sam Tsang?”  the voice gruffly demanded.  “Ah, yeah, just Sam is fine,” I replied, “Who are you again?”  “You don’t know me?  I’m so and so the executive director …” the voice got even gruffer.  Wow, he must be famous because I have NO idea who he is.

On a more pleasant day in church, I finally got to meet someone whose work I’ve devoured for years.  “Hello, Dr. Fung,” I chirped, being well pleased with meeting one of my all time favorite biblical scholars.  “Please call me Ron,” he replied, shaking my hand warmly.  I’ve had the great privilege of meeting one of the most important, if not most important, Chinese Pauline scholar, Dr. Ronald Y. K. Fung.  He happens to go to my church. For my English-speaking friends, if you don't know who Ron Fung is, look up Galatians commentary in the New International Commentary of the New Testament Series or the late academic legend Prof. F. F. Bruce's autobiography In Retrospect.  Just look at Bruce's list of his most brilliant students, Ron ranks top.  In my conversation with him over lunch, he really does act like “Ron.”  He was so kind and gracious in keeping my little boy Ian entertained while saving the topic of biblical scholarship only for the lecture hall. I was impressed, not merely with the degree, but with the “man.”  He and his wife Amy are two of the classiest people I’ve met in my life.

Truly knowledgeable people do not need titles.  This is a life lesson confirmed by this meeting.  When I lecture, I always tell my students, “Do not call me Sam, unless you’re my former classmate.”  There lies the tension between professional courtesy and personal relationship.  I sure love to find a middle ground somewhere. 

I suppose context is everything.  When preaching, I’m often introduced as “Dr. Sam” or “Dr. Tsang” because the degree is associated with my office as a preacher of the church.  I suppose it’s okay.  The same goes for my professional persona in the lecture hall.  Away from the pulpit and lecture hall, however (unless you're my students), I like to be like “Ron.”  Just call me “Sam.”  However, I notice that is not the way in other church settings where people in ordinary (non-professional) EMAILS would sign their names with their titles and degrees.  I mean, who really cares you’re a professor or doctor or whatever unless you’re educating or medicating me?  Please!!!  Leave your degrees off your personal correspondences when you’re talking and writing about church matters.  Obsession with titles and degrees only conveys superior attitude with full knowledge that we’re all God’s children. So, when in doubt, leave your titles at the church door steps.  It’s better for all involved.