I would not want to communicate to the B & C audience that I never heard an encouraging word from the chapel pulpit there, but systematic sermons that stay true to the text were essentially nonexistent, hence I still would like to probe this IFBx concept of "red-hot preaching". What does "red-hot preaching" mean to you? What does it mean to the average Christian young person? I think I know exactly what HAC means by it, and I shudder at the very thought of it.
Since officially leaving Hammond two years ago, I am pleased to state that I have not heard any sermon that would fall into the category of "red-hot preaching". I have heard many sound Biblically expository sermons since then. I have heard many sermons inspiring me to a more passionate devotion to Christ and His Word since then. Consequently, I have heard far less stories about these sermons' pulpiteers' personal lives, feats, and exploits!
During my tenure at Hyles-Anderson College, I heard very few if any sermons that were Biblically systematic. I have stated this before but what characterizes the typical HAC chapel time they would like to describe as zeal, but can be identified as nothing short of unbridled, manic frenzy. Any kind of schismatic remark from the chapel speaker can elicit a chorus of hearty "AMEN"s regardless of how unscriptural it may be. All in the name of "old-fashioned fundamentalism." To take it further, I would speculate that most of them were largely man-centered and thus not glorifying the Lord. A brief listen to the average chapel sermon at the HAC website would certainly verify that it continues to this day. In my own homiletics class there, my prepared sermon was referred to as a "lecture" by the instructor, something clearly meant as a derogatory description of a sermon at HAC. I reckon that I didn't yell, spit, and foment enough during my discourse.
The attitude taken at HAC was always that the other "liberal" Christian colleges (Maranatha, BJU, Northland, Clearwater, Moody, Cedarville, Master's College, etc.) did not believe in this breed of "red-hot preaching" like we do. In retrospect, I realize what was meant by that was that these other schools aim for a Biblicist approach to homiletics and the ministry of the Word. They were often described as the schools that had "gone liberal" and "changed". The plain truth is that the aforementioned schools have stayed much closer to historic Christian orthodoxy than HAC has.
Again, what is "red-hot preaching"? What does it mean to you, and what do you think that it means to the HAC brass when they mention it? Is there a Biblical mandate for what they refer to as "red-hot preaching"? Furthermore, do the pragmatic results of this "red-hot preaching" at HAC make it acceptable fare?
May we all pray that God would free our brethren from man-centered preaching.