Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Take up your own cross
I thought the best idea I heard in Sunday's message was that your cross is something that you choose to pick up. This makes it different from life's general troubles -- sickness, economic hardships, relationship troubles that aren't your fault. These problems aren't crosses. They can be disciplines for sin, faith training, or a context for God revealing himself to others through you. But they aren't crosses. No one can force your cross on you, either. Christ is the one who tells you to pick it up, and so you either obey Him or you don't. In principle, you are voluntarily agreeing to share Christ's rejection by a God-hating world, in the process of following Him.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
It's sure different attendng somebody else's church on a Sunday
More vacation thoughts:
It's remarkable how not tired I am at 4:30 PM on a Sunday, having not spent 3 straight hours either speaking to, or with, people, in any official teaching, preaching, or pastoral capacity. I also didn't have to check classroom windows before we left to make sure they were all locked!
The church we attended this morning is five times our best size, but our worship teams are just as good. That's encouraging.
It was also oddly comforting to see a big church also misspell a word on its power point projection, and get some of the slides out of order. :) I don't think I'm taking pleasure in someone else's troubles! More like, it was endearing.
It's smart, operating at this larger size, to outfit your designated visitor-helpers with special shirts. I'll need to remember this.
I wondered how new pastors coming in acclimatize to a well established band of leaders, and a tight knit social network that's been going since 1997. E.g., pastor Rob Grose was a lot newer to the work than I thought, having only recently arrived from Georgia. Maybe they triple up on the depth of the interview process, so that a smooth fit is more greatly assured.
Several people greeted us, and spent some substantial time talking to us, who weren't official greeters, so kudos to them for this as well. Someone is setting the right standards from the top. If church people react to visitors as if they're invaders from the outer darkness, they need to get their heads fixed. These Mountain View folks did a good job representing the Lord, who says "Come!"
This ministry has been going since 1997, but they're only now in the midst of their first building project. The spirit was cheerful, but I know it's a bear to have to set up and break down every single week.
It's remarkable how not tired I am at 4:30 PM on a Sunday, having not spent 3 straight hours either speaking to, or with, people, in any official teaching, preaching, or pastoral capacity. I also didn't have to check classroom windows before we left to make sure they were all locked!
The church we attended this morning is five times our best size, but our worship teams are just as good. That's encouraging.
It was also oddly comforting to see a big church also misspell a word on its power point projection, and get some of the slides out of order. :) I don't think I'm taking pleasure in someone else's troubles! More like, it was endearing.
It's smart, operating at this larger size, to outfit your designated visitor-helpers with special shirts. I'll need to remember this.
I wondered how new pastors coming in acclimatize to a well established band of leaders, and a tight knit social network that's been going since 1997. E.g., pastor Rob Grose was a lot newer to the work than I thought, having only recently arrived from Georgia. Maybe they triple up on the depth of the interview process, so that a smooth fit is more greatly assured.
Several people greeted us, and spent some substantial time talking to us, who weren't official greeters, so kudos to them for this as well. Someone is setting the right standards from the top. If church people react to visitors as if they're invaders from the outer darkness, they need to get their heads fixed. These Mountain View folks did a good job representing the Lord, who says "Come!"
This ministry has been going since 1997, but they're only now in the midst of their first building project. The spirit was cheerful, but I know it's a bear to have to set up and break down every single week.
Friday, July 24, 2009
The Regional Nature of Christian Thinking
As we visit Christian friends in rural Maryland, I'm struck by how much our faith is molded by the surrounding circumstances of our communities. America is a really big place, and there's still a lot more local distinctiveness than the distorting lens of television shows us. For example, our friends are a Messianic Jewish family, so last night we heard a lot of interesting facts about the streams of Judaism in this area. In contrast, central Kentucky is almost uniformly Scot-Irish. Our town might only have something like 8% black population. There are a couple of synagogues down in Lexington; none at all in our town, located only a half hour north. Judaism is a more prominent presence out in Louisville, the city's longtime mayor being the best-known representative.
Differences in population mean differences in issues as well. I find myself thinking a lot about Protestant church nominalism, baptismal regeneration doctrines, Arminian legalism, and Prosperity Gospel/name it and claim it heresies. Socially, we face a society riddled with devastating drug addictions that are constantly cooking underneath the tranquil surface of the rolling hills and horse farms, and the violence that is created by it. Farmers struggle to overcome drought damage, and what crops to switch to, as public opinion and policy continues to turn against tobacco. There's very little practical consciousness of the rest of the country, let alone the rest of the world, except as is refracted through talk radio.
How different it seems from here in south-central Maryland. I'm sure human sinful proclivities are the same everywhere, certainly. But it is historically a German settlement, not Scot-Irish; and the daily doings of Washington D.C. -- the military, public policy makers -- permeate everything. And we would never have witnessed the Presidential motorcade in Lexington, as we did yesterday while walking down Pennsylvania Avenue on our way back t the train station. Or the FBI snipers popping their heads over the edges of the tall buildings around us, gazing down on all of us with their binoculars.
When I saw those men scanning the streets, never before had I felt conspicuous abut carrying my daughter's fold-up Barbie scooter, with its long, silvery, tubular handle...and I doubt I'll ever feel that particular pang walking around central Kentucky.
Somewhere in the OT, it describes the men of Menasseh, who were known for how they "understood the times and knew what to do." I'm just reminded how local Christian work and service really is. The world, the flesh, and the devil are at work everywhere, but the local strongholds take their own distinct forms. One place is Jericho, another place is Ai, and another place is Gath. Paul and Barnabas found different dynamics at work at Antioch Pisidia, where they got shown the door, than they found in the next town, where the locals tried to sacrifice livestock to them. The eternal truths of the Bible are always applicable, but which ones you should pull out of the armory, load, and fire is a very different question. I would like to not be a one-trick pony in the ministry, and have the discernment to know how to listen and observe my changing surroundings, as missionaries do.
Differences in population mean differences in issues as well. I find myself thinking a lot about Protestant church nominalism, baptismal regeneration doctrines, Arminian legalism, and Prosperity Gospel/name it and claim it heresies. Socially, we face a society riddled with devastating drug addictions that are constantly cooking underneath the tranquil surface of the rolling hills and horse farms, and the violence that is created by it. Farmers struggle to overcome drought damage, and what crops to switch to, as public opinion and policy continues to turn against tobacco. There's very little practical consciousness of the rest of the country, let alone the rest of the world, except as is refracted through talk radio.
How different it seems from here in south-central Maryland. I'm sure human sinful proclivities are the same everywhere, certainly. But it is historically a German settlement, not Scot-Irish; and the daily doings of Washington D.C. -- the military, public policy makers -- permeate everything. And we would never have witnessed the Presidential motorcade in Lexington, as we did yesterday while walking down Pennsylvania Avenue on our way back t the train station. Or the FBI snipers popping their heads over the edges of the tall buildings around us, gazing down on all of us with their binoculars.
When I saw those men scanning the streets, never before had I felt conspicuous abut carrying my daughter's fold-up Barbie scooter, with its long, silvery, tubular handle...and I doubt I'll ever feel that particular pang walking around central Kentucky.
Somewhere in the OT, it describes the men of Menasseh, who were known for how they "understood the times and knew what to do." I'm just reminded how local Christian work and service really is. The world, the flesh, and the devil are at work everywhere, but the local strongholds take their own distinct forms. One place is Jericho, another place is Ai, and another place is Gath. Paul and Barnabas found different dynamics at work at Antioch Pisidia, where they got shown the door, than they found in the next town, where the locals tried to sacrifice livestock to them. The eternal truths of the Bible are always applicable, but which ones you should pull out of the armory, load, and fire is a very different question. I would like to not be a one-trick pony in the ministry, and have the discernment to know how to listen and observe my changing surroundings, as missionaries do.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Why I Don't Believe In Limited Atonement
I have never been able to agree with limited atonement doctrine, for all kinds of reasons. Strict Calvinists believe that Christ died only for the sins of the elect, and no one else. There are a host of problems I see with the third leaf in the TULIP.
First and foremost is that there are certain verses which flat-out contradict it. Isaiah 53:6 says that the number of people who went astray is equal to the number of people whose iniquities fell upon Him. There's no getting around the grammar of the verse. Even if you limit that verse to the people of Israel, it's still saying that all the iniquities of all Israelites were laid on the Messiah.
1 John 2:2 says that Christ's death propitiated the sins of "the whole world". This is not saying that Christ propitiated the sins of Gentiles as well as Jews. This exact same phrase, "whole world", is used in 5:19 -- same book, same author. "The whole world" refers to everyone over whom Satan rules. In light of this explicit definition, "whole world" clearly does not mean "all races, as opposed to just the Jews." That's a dodge created by strict Calvinists to distort the meaning of the verse so it fits into the Procrustean bed of the system.
1 Corinthians 15:1-3, esp. 3, says that Paul preached to the unsaved Corinthians that Christ died for "our" sins. Paul wasn't retroactively modifying what he preached. He says that this is the same Gospel that he preached, past tense, to you, by which you were saved. Paul told all the unsaved Corinthians, the eternal destiny of whom he knew nothing, that Jesus Christ died for their sins. How could Paul make a promise like that? Paul didn't preach that Xhrist died for the vaguely-defined sins of artfully-undefined "sinners." That is the Sophist word trick that many Reformed preachers use. Paul didn't know who the elect were, but he told the Corinthians, without discrimination, that Christ died for their sins.
Limited atonement doctrine removes the Lord's redemptive right to offer forgiveness indiscriminately. In order for God to be both just and justifier (as Paul says in Romans 3:26), the Lord needs a redemptive ground on which to make an offer. The Lord cannot offer anyone forgiveness if He doesn't have the just right to do so. If Christ didn't die for everyone's sins, then the Lord is compromising His own holiness by making an indiscriminate offer of forgiveness. But Christ's cross frees God to offer forgiveness to everyone. Limited atonement doctrine also entangles God in dishonesty. He's offering something He did not provide, indeed never intended from all eternity to provide, and so is pretending. This is bad.
Limited atonement doctrine also removes the cross as an object of faith. Since we, not being God, can't know for whom Christ died, then that means we can't know if Christ died for us. We can't know if Christ died for us after believing Christ, any more than we could know before! After all, we still have no historical ground for faith. Contrary to some of the heretical things that Zane Hodges taught near the end of his life, the cross is not a dispensable part of the Gospel message.
Being mystically convinced within isn't knowing, and inward mystical insight is contradictory to how God communicates Gospel truth to men everywhere else in Scripture. The New Testament never turns the doubting Christian's mind inward, as the antidote to doubt. It always turns the doubting mind outward, to the objective facts of the cross and the resurrection. Considering that there is the problem of false faith and delusion, turning doubter's minds inward to navel-gaze whether or not their inward faith is actually faith is just to make matters worse.
I believe limited atonement is why Reformed Christians have a reputation of struggling so mightily with assurance of their own salvation. Limited atonement doctrine means you have no objective, historical way of knowing whether or not Christ died for your sins. If Christ died for everyone, then you can know He died for you. If Christ only died for the elect, and only God knows who the elect are (including whether or not you are among the elect), then it's impossible to know if Christ died for you, and as a result you can't be sure you're saved.
Answer to Derek, because my computer at work is acting funky and won't let me post a reply in the commbox: Usually the controversial stuff is the stuff that people care about, and so carries a lot of significance!
Unlimited in potential, limited only to those who exercise faith.
What strict Calvinists like Gerstner did was treat the atonement as a commercial exchange, like paying off somebody's mortgage at the bank with or without their co-signage.
But Romans 3:25 says that Christ's death only propitiates God's wrath for us on the condition of faith. The strict Reformed view (i.e., Sproul, Gerstner) makes faith a consequence of the atonement; Romans 3:25 makes faith the means by which one appropriates the atonement. Those are two really different ideas.
So the typical Reformed objections to general atonement, that it inevitably leads to universalism, or amounts to double jeopardy for the sinner in hell, are misguided. The atonement works just like the examples in the Old Testament. The paschal lamb was slain, but the blood had to be individually applied to the doorposts and lintels, otherwise the death angel would have struck down first-born Jews, too. The worshiper who brought a sacrifice to the tabernacle had to lay his hand on its head before the priest slayed it, thus signifying it as a stand-in. The bronze serpent on Moses' pole had the potential power to heal everyone without exception of snakebite, but the individual had to look at it. In no cases did the OT types of atomement work unilaterally.
First and foremost is that there are certain verses which flat-out contradict it. Isaiah 53:6 says that the number of people who went astray is equal to the number of people whose iniquities fell upon Him. There's no getting around the grammar of the verse. Even if you limit that verse to the people of Israel, it's still saying that all the iniquities of all Israelites were laid on the Messiah.
1 John 2:2 says that Christ's death propitiated the sins of "the whole world". This is not saying that Christ propitiated the sins of Gentiles as well as Jews. This exact same phrase, "whole world", is used in 5:19 -- same book, same author. "The whole world" refers to everyone over whom Satan rules. In light of this explicit definition, "whole world" clearly does not mean "all races, as opposed to just the Jews." That's a dodge created by strict Calvinists to distort the meaning of the verse so it fits into the Procrustean bed of the system.
1 Corinthians 15:1-3, esp. 3, says that Paul preached to the unsaved Corinthians that Christ died for "our" sins. Paul wasn't retroactively modifying what he preached. He says that this is the same Gospel that he preached, past tense, to you, by which you were saved. Paul told all the unsaved Corinthians, the eternal destiny of whom he knew nothing, that Jesus Christ died for their sins. How could Paul make a promise like that? Paul didn't preach that Xhrist died for the vaguely-defined sins of artfully-undefined "sinners." That is the Sophist word trick that many Reformed preachers use. Paul didn't know who the elect were, but he told the Corinthians, without discrimination, that Christ died for their sins.
Limited atonement doctrine removes the Lord's redemptive right to offer forgiveness indiscriminately. In order for God to be both just and justifier (as Paul says in Romans 3:26), the Lord needs a redemptive ground on which to make an offer. The Lord cannot offer anyone forgiveness if He doesn't have the just right to do so. If Christ didn't die for everyone's sins, then the Lord is compromising His own holiness by making an indiscriminate offer of forgiveness. But Christ's cross frees God to offer forgiveness to everyone. Limited atonement doctrine also entangles God in dishonesty. He's offering something He did not provide, indeed never intended from all eternity to provide, and so is pretending. This is bad.
Limited atonement doctrine also removes the cross as an object of faith. Since we, not being God, can't know for whom Christ died, then that means we can't know if Christ died for us. We can't know if Christ died for us after believing Christ, any more than we could know before! After all, we still have no historical ground for faith. Contrary to some of the heretical things that Zane Hodges taught near the end of his life, the cross is not a dispensable part of the Gospel message.
Being mystically convinced within isn't knowing, and inward mystical insight is contradictory to how God communicates Gospel truth to men everywhere else in Scripture. The New Testament never turns the doubting Christian's mind inward, as the antidote to doubt. It always turns the doubting mind outward, to the objective facts of the cross and the resurrection. Considering that there is the problem of false faith and delusion, turning doubter's minds inward to navel-gaze whether or not their inward faith is actually faith is just to make matters worse.
I believe limited atonement is why Reformed Christians have a reputation of struggling so mightily with assurance of their own salvation. Limited atonement doctrine means you have no objective, historical way of knowing whether or not Christ died for your sins. If Christ died for everyone, then you can know He died for you. If Christ only died for the elect, and only God knows who the elect are (including whether or not you are among the elect), then it's impossible to know if Christ died for you, and as a result you can't be sure you're saved.
Answer to Derek, because my computer at work is acting funky and won't let me post a reply in the commbox: Usually the controversial stuff is the stuff that people care about, and so carries a lot of significance!
Unlimited in potential, limited only to those who exercise faith.
What strict Calvinists like Gerstner did was treat the atonement as a commercial exchange, like paying off somebody's mortgage at the bank with or without their co-signage.
But Romans 3:25 says that Christ's death only propitiates God's wrath for us on the condition of faith. The strict Reformed view (i.e., Sproul, Gerstner) makes faith a consequence of the atonement; Romans 3:25 makes faith the means by which one appropriates the atonement. Those are two really different ideas.
So the typical Reformed objections to general atonement, that it inevitably leads to universalism, or amounts to double jeopardy for the sinner in hell, are misguided. The atonement works just like the examples in the Old Testament. The paschal lamb was slain, but the blood had to be individually applied to the doorposts and lintels, otherwise the death angel would have struck down first-born Jews, too. The worshiper who brought a sacrifice to the tabernacle had to lay his hand on its head before the priest slayed it, thus signifying it as a stand-in. The bronze serpent on Moses' pole had the potential power to heal everyone without exception of snakebite, but the individual had to look at it. In no cases did the OT types of atomement work unilaterally.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
The few true Christians left in The Episcopal Church need to get out of it!
From VirtueOnline:
The Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori derided individual salvation calling it 'the great Western heresy: that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God.'
In her opening address to the church's General Conference in California, Jefferts Schori said it was a "heresy" to believe that an individual can be saved through personal faith and trust in Jesus Christ acknowledged in a prayer of repentance.
http://www.virtueonline.o...rticle.php?storyid=10782
The Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori derided individual salvation calling it 'the great Western heresy: that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God.'
In her opening address to the church's General Conference in California, Jefferts Schori said it was a "heresy" to believe that an individual can be saved through personal faith and trust in Jesus Christ acknowledged in a prayer of repentance.
http://www.virtueonline.o...rticle.php?storyid=10782
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Patience, Forbearance, and Self-Control
Patience: The ability to endure problems, obstacles, and hardships over a long period of time, in pursuit of a God-honoring goal.
Forbearance: The ability to graciously overlook the sins, faults, mistakes, and irritations committed by others against you.
Self-control: The ability to act on God's principles of right conduct rather than impulse, especially in the area of sexuality.
We Americans are drowning in a toxic sea of self-indulgence.
We expect all our wars to be all wrapped up by the next election cycle, that nothing is worth dying for, and if any soldiers are killed then we need to immediately quit.
We're taught that there's no connection whatsoever between how people act in the bedroom and their actual character. Then we're shocked when people who act like pigs in one part of their lives act like pigs in every other part of their lives.
Christians make millionaires out of preachers who claim they can teach you how to get instant power, instant prosperity, and infallibly successful churches.
We like patience, forbearance, and self-control when people show them toward us, but we dislike the process of achieving these qualities for ourselves.
We like hope, but we don't like troubles. "We glory in our troubles because we know that life's troubles brings about perseverance, perseverance brings about proven character, and proven character brings about hope" (Romans 5:3). The opposite of hope is despair, and who wants to live life in despair? That's a horrible way to live. So we know living a life filled with hope in God's goodness is a wonderful way to live -- but we don't like the training program.
We like maturity, but we don't like trials. "Consider it all joy, brothers, when you run into various trials, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Let perseverance have its perfect result, so that you can be mature, complete, with no deficiencies" (James 1:2-4). The opposite of maturity is immaturity, and the opposite of completeness is deficiency. Does anyone want to be an immature, deficient person! I don't think so. But we sure do wish there was some other way to get there.
We love the assurance of our salvation, but we don't like the fiery testing of our faith. "For a little while you have been distressed by various trials, so that the proof of your faith, which is more precious than perishable gold, may be found to result in praise, glory, and honor at Christ's return" (1 Peter 1:6-7). When your faith in Christ survives the fire of life's problems, it proves that your faith was and is real. This is different from the rocky-soil Christian in Jesus' parable, whose false faith withers up to nothing as soon as the heat of life's trials hits it. So it's exciting to know that Christ will point to how our faith endured life's trials, as proof that we were real Christians and may enter Paradise. But that doesn't mean we like the trials.
Patience, forbearance, and self-control are what God expects out of us toward each other in the church.
Here's an old poem I read somewhere:
"To be above with saints we love,
Oh yes that will be glory.
But to be below, with the saints we know,
well, that's a different story!"
How does these qualities actually work out in real life?
We start by accepting the responsibility to control ourselves. "Exploding" is not an option. "Tearing into" or "lambasting" someone is not an option. Amusing ourselves at someone else's expense is not an option. There are some Christians who need to learn that it's not OK to yell at people. This was a very bad habit I developed at the Christian school in Houston, and it's taken me years to unlearn it.
We don't blame our temperaments. "Controlling myself" means I do what I should do in spite of my temperament. I might be a naturally timid person who dreads confrontation. I accept that I will be courageous and speak truth for the honor of Christ in spite of my selfish timidity. I might have sarcasm that just naturally spews out of my mouth. I accept that I will learn how to substitute soft words for harsh ones, and wipe the mockery out of my voice. I might have a flirtation gene that lights up within twenty paces of a pretty face. I accept that I'll control my thoughts, my tone, and my body language. I might be naturally strong-willed and independent. I accept that I will learn how to be a team player. In other words, it doesn't matter what my temperament is like. Self-control means doing whatever is right, regardless of what comes naturally. The Holy Spirit can conquer any temperament.
I also don't blame my physical body for my lack of self-control. I'm talking about normal people, not unusual cases like someone with a brain tumor that harms the brain. The physical body doesn't cause lust. Jesus had a fully physical male body, and He never lusted. It's that our souls are so weak, and our love of pleasure is so strong. It's like our soul is a child strapped to the back of a huge bucking bronco. Our souls are so weak, spiritually, we have almost no control of the horse. Lust is about releasing excitement chemicals into our brain. It's about self-centeredness and vanity. It's a godless way of alleviating boredom or loneliness. It's about novelty. It's about attention. It's about the adrenaline of thinking you're getting away with something. In other words, according to Solomon, it's an expression of our deeply-rooted foolishness.
Concluding Thoughts
This is what God is like. God is patient. In this chess-match with Satan, He's not playing speed chess, God is playing the "long game." God is forbearing. The Scripture says that God is "slow to anger." I believe He chooses to overlook 99% of our sinning. God is self-controlled. God never explodes, with either anger or tears. Unlike us, God never acts on impulses. So this morning I'm not just commending these positive qualities because they're beneficial, but because they're Godlike. So, if we're His children, it's right that we should have them.
Wisdom is how we attain these three qualities. Trials alone won't do it. Solomon said you can grind a fool in a wheat grinder, and you still won't grind the foolishness out of him (Pr. 27:22). You can suffer, but if you suffer with no wisdom, you won't learn anything. Solomon says in many of the early chapters of Proverbs that the reason a young man gives into lust is because of foolishness. People who are impatient, quick to take offense, and impulsive are that way because, first of all, they're foolish. This is why you must saturate your brain in the Bible. Foolishness is rooted in our minds, deep down like the root of a dandelion. Some churches just teach you to snip off the flower. We don't want that. We want you to dig all the roots of foolishness out of yourself.
Forbearance: The ability to graciously overlook the sins, faults, mistakes, and irritations committed by others against you.
Self-control: The ability to act on God's principles of right conduct rather than impulse, especially in the area of sexuality.
We Americans are drowning in a toxic sea of self-indulgence.
We expect all our wars to be all wrapped up by the next election cycle, that nothing is worth dying for, and if any soldiers are killed then we need to immediately quit.
We're taught that there's no connection whatsoever between how people act in the bedroom and their actual character. Then we're shocked when people who act like pigs in one part of their lives act like pigs in every other part of their lives.
Christians make millionaires out of preachers who claim they can teach you how to get instant power, instant prosperity, and infallibly successful churches.
We like patience, forbearance, and self-control when people show them toward us, but we dislike the process of achieving these qualities for ourselves.
We like hope, but we don't like troubles. "We glory in our troubles because we know that life's troubles brings about perseverance, perseverance brings about proven character, and proven character brings about hope" (Romans 5:3). The opposite of hope is despair, and who wants to live life in despair? That's a horrible way to live. So we know living a life filled with hope in God's goodness is a wonderful way to live -- but we don't like the training program.
We like maturity, but we don't like trials. "Consider it all joy, brothers, when you run into various trials, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Let perseverance have its perfect result, so that you can be mature, complete, with no deficiencies" (James 1:2-4). The opposite of maturity is immaturity, and the opposite of completeness is deficiency. Does anyone want to be an immature, deficient person! I don't think so. But we sure do wish there was some other way to get there.
We love the assurance of our salvation, but we don't like the fiery testing of our faith. "For a little while you have been distressed by various trials, so that the proof of your faith, which is more precious than perishable gold, may be found to result in praise, glory, and honor at Christ's return" (1 Peter 1:6-7). When your faith in Christ survives the fire of life's problems, it proves that your faith was and is real. This is different from the rocky-soil Christian in Jesus' parable, whose false faith withers up to nothing as soon as the heat of life's trials hits it. So it's exciting to know that Christ will point to how our faith endured life's trials, as proof that we were real Christians and may enter Paradise. But that doesn't mean we like the trials.
Patience, forbearance, and self-control are what God expects out of us toward each other in the church.
Here's an old poem I read somewhere:
"To be above with saints we love,
Oh yes that will be glory.
But to be below, with the saints we know,
well, that's a different story!"
How does these qualities actually work out in real life?
We start by accepting the responsibility to control ourselves. "Exploding" is not an option. "Tearing into" or "lambasting" someone is not an option. Amusing ourselves at someone else's expense is not an option. There are some Christians who need to learn that it's not OK to yell at people. This was a very bad habit I developed at the Christian school in Houston, and it's taken me years to unlearn it.
We don't blame our temperaments. "Controlling myself" means I do what I should do in spite of my temperament. I might be a naturally timid person who dreads confrontation. I accept that I will be courageous and speak truth for the honor of Christ in spite of my selfish timidity. I might have sarcasm that just naturally spews out of my mouth. I accept that I will learn how to substitute soft words for harsh ones, and wipe the mockery out of my voice. I might have a flirtation gene that lights up within twenty paces of a pretty face. I accept that I'll control my thoughts, my tone, and my body language. I might be naturally strong-willed and independent. I accept that I will learn how to be a team player. In other words, it doesn't matter what my temperament is like. Self-control means doing whatever is right, regardless of what comes naturally. The Holy Spirit can conquer any temperament.
I also don't blame my physical body for my lack of self-control. I'm talking about normal people, not unusual cases like someone with a brain tumor that harms the brain. The physical body doesn't cause lust. Jesus had a fully physical male body, and He never lusted. It's that our souls are so weak, and our love of pleasure is so strong. It's like our soul is a child strapped to the back of a huge bucking bronco. Our souls are so weak, spiritually, we have almost no control of the horse. Lust is about releasing excitement chemicals into our brain. It's about self-centeredness and vanity. It's a godless way of alleviating boredom or loneliness. It's about novelty. It's about attention. It's about the adrenaline of thinking you're getting away with something. In other words, according to Solomon, it's an expression of our deeply-rooted foolishness.
Concluding Thoughts
This is what God is like. God is patient. In this chess-match with Satan, He's not playing speed chess, God is playing the "long game." God is forbearing. The Scripture says that God is "slow to anger." I believe He chooses to overlook 99% of our sinning. God is self-controlled. God never explodes, with either anger or tears. Unlike us, God never acts on impulses. So this morning I'm not just commending these positive qualities because they're beneficial, but because they're Godlike. So, if we're His children, it's right that we should have them.
Wisdom is how we attain these three qualities. Trials alone won't do it. Solomon said you can grind a fool in a wheat grinder, and you still won't grind the foolishness out of him (Pr. 27:22). You can suffer, but if you suffer with no wisdom, you won't learn anything. Solomon says in many of the early chapters of Proverbs that the reason a young man gives into lust is because of foolishness. People who are impatient, quick to take offense, and impulsive are that way because, first of all, they're foolish. This is why you must saturate your brain in the Bible. Foolishness is rooted in our minds, deep down like the root of a dandelion. Some churches just teach you to snip off the flower. We don't want that. We want you to dig all the roots of foolishness out of yourself.
Monday, July 06, 2009
Topical Preaching, Part II
This comes from Brad Bigney, the preaching pastor at Grace Fellowship Church of Florence, KY (EFCA). It can be found at their website.
Why Do You Preach More Topical Sermons than Exegetical (Verse by verse through books of the Bible)?
From time to time people will ask me why I do so many topical sermon series instead of picking a book of the Bible and preaching through it verse by verse.
Here are some of the reasons why I preach the way I do here at Grace Fellowship:
1. Jesus preached topical sermons – if Jesus thought it was effective… so do I! Seriously… when you read through the Gospels you don’t see Jesus gathering a crowd and then starting to preach or teach verse by verse through one of the Old Testament books of the Bible they had at that time. He used visual illustrations, and He met the people right where they were and taught using just a verse or two for the basis of His teaching. It was hard hitting, and did not compromise God’s truth, but it was not an in depth explanation verse by verse through a book of the Bible.
2. There is no biblical record of the Apostle Paul or any other disciples ever preaching exegetically, verse by verse, sermons from a book of the Bible. You can see examples of this with Paul’s sermons in the book of Acts (on Mars Hill and other places).
3. There is no command in the New Testament instructing pastors to preach or teach verse by verse through books of the Bible. In Paul’s letters to Timothy, he doesn’t take time to exhort him to preach in a certain manner. He simply says to preach the Word (2 Timothy 4:2).
4. Many times the emphasis on preaching verse by verse through books of the Bible is driven by a belief that Bible information is the key to changing lives. Paul tells us that knowledge alone puffs up, but love edifies (cf. 1 Cor. 8:1). Not always, but many times the preachers and churches that are characterized by verse by verse preaching through books of the Bible are heavy on information or Bible facts, and much lighter on how those Bible truths apply to your life. I think that Bible application is the key to changing lives. Sheer volume of Bible information is not what changes lives. In-depth Greek or Hebrew word studies is not what changes lives. Understanding how to apply God’s Word practically in our everyday lives is what produces a love and passion for changing & growing.
Too often the goal of exegetical preaching is simply “What?” “What does the Bible say?” Our goal at Grace Fellowship is not just “What?” but “So what?” and “How?” “How does that apply to your life today?” “How would you start doing what God’s Word says to do in that verse?” “What needs to happen for you to start obeying what is being taught there?”
The clear and practical application of God’s Word to a person’s life, in the power of the Holy Spirit, is what changes lives. As a communicator I certainly benefit from word studies, but I rarely choose to pass all the details of my study on to my listeners. Believe it or not… my goal is not the preaching or teaching itself… my goal is changed lives. I want to connect real people to a real God, through His life-changing Word.
5. Be sure you understand what I’m not saying. I’m not saying it’s wrong to preach verse by verse through books of the Bible, but I am saying if you choose to do that, be careful. Make sure you don’t get caught up in your exegesis, and the details of your word studies, and lose sight of the main thing… communicating for changed lives.
6. There seems to be an arrogance among Christians who prefer exegetical verse by verse teaching of the Bible… as if they’ve got the corner on the market… they love God more… and they honor God’s Word more. This isn’t true of everyone, but I run into it frequently when this question of preaching style comes up. I rarely hear any topical preachers criticizing exegetical preachers, but I do hear quite a bit of criticism from exegetical preachers, and Christians who prefer that format, towards preachers who preach more topical or expositional sermons.
7. Look at the end result. I can’t speak for every other pastor who’s chosen to preach topical sermon series, but God has been very good to us here at Grace Fellowship. People are changing and growing because of what they’re learning from God’s Word. So if changed lives for the glory of God is the final goal, then look at the fruit of our ministry. Are people being saved? Is the Gospel being preached? Is Christ being exalted? Is the cross central in the preaching and teaching? Rather than backing away or watering it down, do we preach and teach the whole counsel of God’s Word – even the hard places? Are believers being fed and grounded in God’s Word to know how to handle life effectively by handling God’s Word accurately? Are people more devoted followers of Christ? Is the Bible our source of authority for making decisions and setting direction in our church? Is sin being exposed?
If all of that is happening effectively, I see no reason for alarm or concern. The comment I hear more than any other at our church from new people is “I’ve never grown this much in my life at any other church.” If changing and growing more and more into the image of Christ is the goal (see Roman 8:29) then it appears that God in His mercy has been pleased to use both topical and exegetical sermons to get us there.
8. It could be that this question regarding the style or format of preaching is centered around a personal preference more than it is the issue of “right” or “wrong.” It is the same as people who want to argue hymns versus choruses. I’m aware of people that leave our church for this and other matters of personal preference, and they are not wrong to do so. However, God has been using the topical or expositional style of preaching here at Grace Fellowship to bring people to Christ and root them in His Word and His grace.
9. Preaching and teaching topical messages does not mean it’s lighter in theology or preparation time. My first priority is the sermon preparation; I spend more time each week preparing my sermon than anything else I do. Preaching a topical message does not mean that it was just thrown together at the last minute. Also, preachers who preach topical sermons are not more liberal in their theology, and they are not less committed to the authority of God’s Word. God has graciously used people to communicate His Word who have been more topical or expositional rather than exegetical. Charles Spurgeon was certainly not liberal in his theology or uncommitted to God’s Word, yet he rarely preached an exegetical sermon. However, he always preached a biblical sermon that was anchored by a verse or verses that he was driving home to the hearts of the people. He preached for changed lives, and God blessed.
10. Format or style of preaching is no indication of the level of love for God’s Word. I hope that my love for God’s Word and my submission to its authority is equal to any exegetical preacher. While my messages are not usually rooted in one passage that is being unpacked verse by verse they are rooted in the truth of God’s Word, and each point is anchored by a biblical truth or verse that from Scripture.
Why Do You Preach More Topical Sermons than Exegetical (Verse by verse through books of the Bible)?
From time to time people will ask me why I do so many topical sermon series instead of picking a book of the Bible and preaching through it verse by verse.
Here are some of the reasons why I preach the way I do here at Grace Fellowship:
1. Jesus preached topical sermons – if Jesus thought it was effective… so do I! Seriously… when you read through the Gospels you don’t see Jesus gathering a crowd and then starting to preach or teach verse by verse through one of the Old Testament books of the Bible they had at that time. He used visual illustrations, and He met the people right where they were and taught using just a verse or two for the basis of His teaching. It was hard hitting, and did not compromise God’s truth, but it was not an in depth explanation verse by verse through a book of the Bible.
2. There is no biblical record of the Apostle Paul or any other disciples ever preaching exegetically, verse by verse, sermons from a book of the Bible. You can see examples of this with Paul’s sermons in the book of Acts (on Mars Hill and other places).
3. There is no command in the New Testament instructing pastors to preach or teach verse by verse through books of the Bible. In Paul’s letters to Timothy, he doesn’t take time to exhort him to preach in a certain manner. He simply says to preach the Word (2 Timothy 4:2).
4. Many times the emphasis on preaching verse by verse through books of the Bible is driven by a belief that Bible information is the key to changing lives. Paul tells us that knowledge alone puffs up, but love edifies (cf. 1 Cor. 8:1). Not always, but many times the preachers and churches that are characterized by verse by verse preaching through books of the Bible are heavy on information or Bible facts, and much lighter on how those Bible truths apply to your life. I think that Bible application is the key to changing lives. Sheer volume of Bible information is not what changes lives. In-depth Greek or Hebrew word studies is not what changes lives. Understanding how to apply God’s Word practically in our everyday lives is what produces a love and passion for changing & growing.
Too often the goal of exegetical preaching is simply “What?” “What does the Bible say?” Our goal at Grace Fellowship is not just “What?” but “So what?” and “How?” “How does that apply to your life today?” “How would you start doing what God’s Word says to do in that verse?” “What needs to happen for you to start obeying what is being taught there?”
The clear and practical application of God’s Word to a person’s life, in the power of the Holy Spirit, is what changes lives. As a communicator I certainly benefit from word studies, but I rarely choose to pass all the details of my study on to my listeners. Believe it or not… my goal is not the preaching or teaching itself… my goal is changed lives. I want to connect real people to a real God, through His life-changing Word.
5. Be sure you understand what I’m not saying. I’m not saying it’s wrong to preach verse by verse through books of the Bible, but I am saying if you choose to do that, be careful. Make sure you don’t get caught up in your exegesis, and the details of your word studies, and lose sight of the main thing… communicating for changed lives.
6. There seems to be an arrogance among Christians who prefer exegetical verse by verse teaching of the Bible… as if they’ve got the corner on the market… they love God more… and they honor God’s Word more. This isn’t true of everyone, but I run into it frequently when this question of preaching style comes up. I rarely hear any topical preachers criticizing exegetical preachers, but I do hear quite a bit of criticism from exegetical preachers, and Christians who prefer that format, towards preachers who preach more topical or expositional sermons.
7. Look at the end result. I can’t speak for every other pastor who’s chosen to preach topical sermon series, but God has been very good to us here at Grace Fellowship. People are changing and growing because of what they’re learning from God’s Word. So if changed lives for the glory of God is the final goal, then look at the fruit of our ministry. Are people being saved? Is the Gospel being preached? Is Christ being exalted? Is the cross central in the preaching and teaching? Rather than backing away or watering it down, do we preach and teach the whole counsel of God’s Word – even the hard places? Are believers being fed and grounded in God’s Word to know how to handle life effectively by handling God’s Word accurately? Are people more devoted followers of Christ? Is the Bible our source of authority for making decisions and setting direction in our church? Is sin being exposed?
If all of that is happening effectively, I see no reason for alarm or concern. The comment I hear more than any other at our church from new people is “I’ve never grown this much in my life at any other church.” If changing and growing more and more into the image of Christ is the goal (see Roman 8:29) then it appears that God in His mercy has been pleased to use both topical and exegetical sermons to get us there.
8. It could be that this question regarding the style or format of preaching is centered around a personal preference more than it is the issue of “right” or “wrong.” It is the same as people who want to argue hymns versus choruses. I’m aware of people that leave our church for this and other matters of personal preference, and they are not wrong to do so. However, God has been using the topical or expositional style of preaching here at Grace Fellowship to bring people to Christ and root them in His Word and His grace.
9. Preaching and teaching topical messages does not mean it’s lighter in theology or preparation time. My first priority is the sermon preparation; I spend more time each week preparing my sermon than anything else I do. Preaching a topical message does not mean that it was just thrown together at the last minute. Also, preachers who preach topical sermons are not more liberal in their theology, and they are not less committed to the authority of God’s Word. God has graciously used people to communicate His Word who have been more topical or expositional rather than exegetical. Charles Spurgeon was certainly not liberal in his theology or uncommitted to God’s Word, yet he rarely preached an exegetical sermon. However, he always preached a biblical sermon that was anchored by a verse or verses that he was driving home to the hearts of the people. He preached for changed lives, and God blessed.
10. Format or style of preaching is no indication of the level of love for God’s Word. I hope that my love for God’s Word and my submission to its authority is equal to any exegetical preacher. While my messages are not usually rooted in one passage that is being unpacked verse by verse they are rooted in the truth of God’s Word, and each point is anchored by a biblical truth or verse that from Scripture.
Friday, July 03, 2009
Re-vamping Old, Boring Churches
I recently heard about a pastor in New England who insists that the church can't be named "1st Baptist" any more, because it's not a relevant name to the community, and carries bad PR baggage. I wonder, does this fellow know how many enormous "1st Baptist of Wherevers" there are throughout America? He's also cancelled Sunday morning worship services for the summer. They're doing an evening service combined with fellowship activities, like a BBQ cook-out.
I think it's true that there are lots of people who would be prejudiced against any Baptist church, simply because so many Baptists have such a poor reputation for legalism and fighting. If calling my church "Daystar Community Church" removed a mental obstacle to someone visiting, I would do it, too. But it really depends on the perceptions of the community. There are as many different Baptist ministries as there are stars in the sky. They're not all KJV-waving Pharisees, to be sure!
There's a huge kaleidoscope of factors that play into a church's numerical expansion. If you don't provide life-changing preaching, and an atmosphere faith, godliness and love, then a dog-n-pony act won't work.
Does updating the music help? People do pick churches partly based on the music, and that's hard to predict, too. The traditional hymns are as much a mixed bag as the contemporary praise music, and some of the contemporary stuff is more Biblical than many hymns. I find many of the traditional hymns to be sappily sentimental, some of it distastefully romantic (In The Garden -- blecch), and the music sounds like you should be poling in a skiff wearing your straw hat with Aimee Lou, twenty-three-skiddo.
I would be interested to know if this aforementioned pastor made his philosophies and approach known to his new church when he candidated. If they called him already knowing what he was likely to do, that's one thing. If he sprang all this on them, that's another.
Question, though: Even though one might study the way this man is going about re-vamping what sounds like an old, dull ministry, is it right to object to the idea of re-booting a church so that it's more appealing to the community? I've known a lot of conservative churches that seem to go out of their way to deliberately contradict the tastes of the community. They are even proud of how peculiar, dull (they call it "reverential") and out-of-step they are.
I do not believe that trying to be appealing -- whether musically appealing, or locating the building so that it's more visible and accessible to cars, or even just giving the place a fresh coat of paint -- automatically makes you a sell-out.
I don't think there's anything admirable about deliberately defying community tastes, any more than it's wise to always follow them. It's like, if the community was full of 1st gen Japanese immigrants, and they love sushi and rice balls for meals, it's not a virtue to deliberately serve them hot dogs and mac-n-cheese and call that "not selling out to the culture".
And it's the same thing with music. If nearly everyone else but your little group of thirty hate the style of music you use in worship service, I think you have to ask yourself whether it matters to you. Are you proud that they hate it? Do you take it as a mark of superior sanctification that people won't come to your church because the music is so blah? If so, then I don't know where your head is at. You've abandoned the mission Christ gave us.
I think it's true that there are lots of people who would be prejudiced against any Baptist church, simply because so many Baptists have such a poor reputation for legalism and fighting. If calling my church "Daystar Community Church" removed a mental obstacle to someone visiting, I would do it, too. But it really depends on the perceptions of the community. There are as many different Baptist ministries as there are stars in the sky. They're not all KJV-waving Pharisees, to be sure!
There's a huge kaleidoscope of factors that play into a church's numerical expansion. If you don't provide life-changing preaching, and an atmosphere faith, godliness and love, then a dog-n-pony act won't work.
Does updating the music help? People do pick churches partly based on the music, and that's hard to predict, too. The traditional hymns are as much a mixed bag as the contemporary praise music, and some of the contemporary stuff is more Biblical than many hymns. I find many of the traditional hymns to be sappily sentimental, some of it distastefully romantic (In The Garden -- blecch), and the music sounds like you should be poling in a skiff wearing your straw hat with Aimee Lou, twenty-three-skiddo.
I would be interested to know if this aforementioned pastor made his philosophies and approach known to his new church when he candidated. If they called him already knowing what he was likely to do, that's one thing. If he sprang all this on them, that's another.
Question, though: Even though one might study the way this man is going about re-vamping what sounds like an old, dull ministry, is it right to object to the idea of re-booting a church so that it's more appealing to the community? I've known a lot of conservative churches that seem to go out of their way to deliberately contradict the tastes of the community. They are even proud of how peculiar, dull (they call it "reverential") and out-of-step they are.
I do not believe that trying to be appealing -- whether musically appealing, or locating the building so that it's more visible and accessible to cars, or even just giving the place a fresh coat of paint -- automatically makes you a sell-out.
I don't think there's anything admirable about deliberately defying community tastes, any more than it's wise to always follow them. It's like, if the community was full of 1st gen Japanese immigrants, and they love sushi and rice balls for meals, it's not a virtue to deliberately serve them hot dogs and mac-n-cheese and call that "not selling out to the culture".
And it's the same thing with music. If nearly everyone else but your little group of thirty hate the style of music you use in worship service, I think you have to ask yourself whether it matters to you. Are you proud that they hate it? Do you take it as a mark of superior sanctification that people won't come to your church because the music is so blah? If so, then I don't know where your head is at. You've abandoned the mission Christ gave us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
