Tag: Text Articles

Posted on

Preaching With Power – Dr. Benjamin Reaves

Preaching With PowerWe are nearing the end of our conversation with Dr. Clifford Jones’ book Preaching with Power. In this post we will look at the chapter that contains the interview with Dr. Benjamin Reaves. Dr. Reaves taught homiletics at Oakwood College as a professor. He also was the chair of Religion and Theology department, as well as President during his tenure at Oakwood College. He is currently a vice president of Adventist Health Systems.

Understanding of Preaching

Dr. Reaves sees preaching as “communicating biblical truth from God, by God’s power, for God’s saving purpose. The objective of preaching is to motivate people to accept God’s will and plan for their lives. The sermon is the vehicle to communicate biblical truth.”

Here Dr. Reaves sees the importance of preaching Biblical truth, but with purpose. The purpose is to motivate people to accept God’s will and plan. The sermon is not only useful information but it also utilizes the Bible to energize God’s people for action based on God’s plan.

Method of Sermon Preparation


Because Dr. Reaves is now in “itinerant ministry” he considers the occasion, needs of the people, current events, as well as the preacher’s own need in the determination of what to preach. When he was in parish ministry he used the aspects of ministry to come up with a preaching calendar.

This discussion of determination of what to preach for itinerant preachers is valuable. I like Dr. Reaves’ approach especially his recognition that even the preacher’s needs can shape the pastoral approach.

Dr. Reaves’ next step is to prepare the preacher. This is something that is done all of the time. The preacher is not one that simply comes up with a sermon, but should always be in contact with the divine.

Design for PreachingDr. Reaves’ “actual” preparation consists of asking several questions that H. Grady Davis introduced. Among other things, Dr. Reaves asks, what does the passage say? He quickly adds that this investigation is completed independent of any bible commentary. Dr. Reaves reads the passage several times in many different translations. Each time he applys the questions that in Davis’ work. Dr. Reaves then moves to exegetical commentaries and finally Dr. Reaves creates a homiletical outline.

Dr. Reaves is a manuscript preacher. There is argument over whether use of the mansucript is a hinderance to effective preaching. In an upcoming podcast you will hear Dr. Derek Morris present that he believes it is important. Dr. Reaves emphasizes that the issue is not whether you use notes or you do not use them, but that you are effective in your use of the manuscript. Dr. Reaves notes that Charles Adams (the Harvard Whooper) is a master of manuscript preaching.

It is interesting how Dr. Reaves and Dr. Morris both love to preach narrative sermons while one uses the manuscript and the other preaches without notes. One thign is certain, great preaching does not require either a mansuscript or a lack thereof. Currently, however, I tend to agree with Dr. Morris that leaving the notes behind can open up avenues for a greater connection to the people. By no means does this mean that Dr. Reaves is not effective. Dr. Reaves is one of the most effective preachers that I have heard. I would encourage all to see the number of sermons that are available for Dr. Reaves on the internet. My site provides many links.

Understanding of Black Preaching

Dr. Reaves rightly notes that Black preaching is not a monolithic ideal nor is it a merely a style of preaching. At the heart of Black preaching is a world view that believes that God is a liberator who will make all things right. Reaves rightly notes that we must not fall into the trap of thinking that if there is no celebration there is no Black preaching.

The Heart of Black PreachingDr. Reaves seems to believe that the Black Preachers uniqueness comes from theology. Black preaching is not necessarily in volume or style, but in a perspective that sees God on the side of the poor and the oppressed working for their good. This is in line with Dr. Cleophas LaRue’s beleif that Black Preachers approach the text with

two fundamental questions in mind with respect to the creation of their sermon: (1) How do I demonstrate to God’s people this day through the proclamation of the Word the mighty and gracious acts of God on their behalf? and (2) How best shall I join together scripture and their life situations in order to address their plight in a meaningful and practical manner?Heart of Black Preaching, 19

I think it cheapens Black Preaching to reduce it to Whooping or yelling or noise. As Dr. Reaves notes if we follow such understandings then Howard Thurman would not be considered a Black Preacher.

Lest I be misunderstood, I do not wish to minimize or eliminate the enthusiastic proclamation of the Word that sometimes demonstrates itself in raise voice and yes even Whooping. But my only point is that the absense of this characteristic component does not mean that Black preaching has not taken place.

Understanding of Adventist Preaching

Dr. Reaves believes that one can be both authentically black and also teach Adventist doctrines. He notes that :

The choice is not between preaching Adventist doctrines and being authentically black in your preaching, but rather having a real sense of one’s self, and a real sense of the meaning of the gospel as it is interpreted through the Adventist tradition.

Dr. Reaves beleives that the “deliverance” aspect that is in black preaching is integral to the Adventist message. He concludes by saying, “We as Adventist preachers need to do…a better job of preaching the liberating aspects of our doctrines.”

I have saught to do some of this in the Sabbath work that you see on this blog, let us move forward in making the doctrines relevant by looking at them with an eye for what delivers God’s people and the world from the demonic.

Posted on

When the Beast became a Lamb

Dr. Ciro Sepulveda, chair of the History department at Oakwood College, wrote an article entitled “Reinventing Adventist History.” You can find the abridged version of the article at Adventist Today. The full article can be found at the Oakwod College Website.

Lamb Horned Beast to Lamb Like Beast

In this article Dr. Sepulveda traces the develoment of Adventist understanding of the American power. In this article we see the early Adventists “…considered the United States to be a two-horned beast of Revelation 13, a demonic power in collusion with forces of evil.”

Joseph Bates stated that “Then I suppose we shall begin to think (if not before) that the third woe has come upon this nation, this boasted land of liberty, this heaven-daring, soul destroying, slave holding, murdering country.”

Over time Sepulveda notes, the Adventist understanding of the United States changed from a beast with lamblike horns to a lamblike beast. In his final paragraph he states:

In summary, the historiography of the Adventist church helped create a new identity for the modern Adventist, no longer burdened by the troublesome baggage or worldview of the early founders, and no longer seeing the government as an evil beast in collusion with satanic powers. They no longer pressed to proclaim the second coming of Jesus because the world, after all, is not that bad. Unlike the Adventists of the middle nineteenth century who saw the nation as a warmongering two-horned beast, the modern Adventist feels very comfortable embracing the values and culture of the nation and its never-ending search for power and dominance.

Liberals and Conservatives disagree with the Pioneers

As I think about this work it hits me how many Adventists “conservative” and “liberal” would have problems with this characterization of the United States as an unredeemable beast bent on savagery. We have conservatives among us who seek to defend the policies and practices of the United States at all costs even to the point of taking up arms and dieing in the wars of this nation. Some of these may say that in the future America will be a beast, but would argue that today the United States is the best hope for humanity’s good.

In addition, we have liberals who work for peace and justice in the United States believing that their work can make the United States a better place. They might say that the United States acts beastly, but acting beastly is not necessarily the obvious outcome of all its actions. In other words our work can make the beast less of a beast.

Beast or Lamb?

Is the United States a Beast or a Lamb in its heart? Should we support it when desception is used to rationalize wars? Should we resign in the belief that it is unredeemable? Whatever one’s beleifs on that question we must admit that there have been reforms in the United States throughout history that have made the world a better place.

As an African American I am happy that people did not just assume that America was a beast that could not be reformed. Those in the Civil Rights, peace, and other movements acted in the belief that some good can come from their work. Is it a beast or a lamb? Whatever it is, our calling as Christians is to demonstrate the principles of God in this world. Such a demonstration will place us at odds with the powers of this world. But, our witness to the principles of Christ will be a blessing to others in the world.

Posted on

Magnificient Disappointment – 1844 and Being Adventist

In the Book Magnificient Disappointment Dr. Maxwell asks the Question, “Where did the word Adventist Come From?” Maxwell anticipates a standard answer of “An Adventist is a person who believes that Christ is coming soon.” Magnificent Disappointment page 89.

Maxwell finds such an answer inadequate because, as Maxwell states, the Dispensationalists believe that Christ is coming soon and they are not Adventists.IBID Instead of seeing Adventists as simply those who believe Christ coming soon, Maxwell sees 1844 as the reason that we are called Adventist.

Because historically the term Advent refers to the first coming, Maxwell makes a big deal out of the fact that early Advnetists were called “Second Adventists.” Over time the term was shortened to simply Adventist.

So Maxwell goes to the question, Why were Second Adventists believing that Christ was coming soon? His answer was that it was due to the fullfillment of the 2300 days in 1844. Thus we are Adventists becuase historically we believed that Christ was returning in “light of the fulfillment of the 2300 days.”IBID 90

Sanctuary Part of our History

All of the above simply reherses what we already know. Namely that the Sanctuary message and 1844 played a great part in our historical heritage. To deny or remove this pillar is to deny something about ourselves.

But to simply declare that the doctrine is true is not enough. When we discuss the Sanctuary message, we often spend most of our time defending or attacking the doctrine. However if we don’t spend enough time discussing the relevance of the doctrine we will ultimately set it aside.

I believe that this is what has happened to the Sanctuary message. Even though we are seeing a resurgence in interest regarding the Sanctuary message, a lot of this interest is in defending or attacking the doctrine. The larger question remains, namely, is the Sanctuary message relevant.

A Question

Today one must ask if 1844 is driving us to believe that Christ is returning soon? I would think that it did in early Adventism, but not at all today.

Can we rehabilitate and reframe the Sanctuary message for our end time? Does the Sanctuary message have anything to say to us today?

I think that there is something about the Sanctuary and the judgment that God has called us into existence to be a witness to in these final days. To get at this something we must push beyond just defining the doctrine or defending it as true, but push to understand and celebrate it in our daily lives.

My plan is to continue on this theme in the AdventistPulpit.Com for the foreseable future.