Uploading the Old Testament

To be perfectly honest my sermons don't usually contain a lot of illustrations. This is due to my inability to think of appropriate illustrations rather than for any theological or homiletical reason. And when I do think up illustrations, they often aren't that good.

Except on Sunday. On Sunday I did alright. In fact, I was so happy with it I'm going to use it again this Sunday.

Sunday last we were looking at Jesus walking on water in Mark 6. In the text the disciples look at the information provided to them - Jesus walking on water in the middle of the lake in the middle of a gale in the middle of the night - and they make an assessment of who he is - he's a ghost (6:49). Mark however writes his account in such a way as to provide us with more information - he walks on water (cf Job 9:8-11) he goes to pass the disciples by (cf Ex 33:21); he declares his name (cf Ex 3:14) - and we should make an assessment of who he is. But we can only make that assessment if we understand the information - if we see what is happening in front of us.

And here's the illustration. Chuck is a programme on here in NZ on Wednesday evenings. Chuck is an unwilling secret agent - he's had the Intersect - a top secret database containing details of all major threats to the government - accidentally uploaded into his brain. What that means is that when he sees a person, a building, hears a voice or views a code which is in the Intersect he 'flashes' - all the information about the item he's seen comes flooding into his head. It allows him to understand what is in front of him.

In exactly the same way when we read Mark 6 (and indeed all of the New Testament) we should 'flash' - the information stored in our heads about the Old Testament about the types and promises of Christ, about God's overarching plan of salvation, should come flooding into our heads, that we might understand what is happening in front of of us. And yet of course the problem for many Christians is that we don't know our Old Testaments. We don't read it. We don't preach on it. We find it difficult to understand and apply and so we just abandon it. And so it isn't in our heads. We have no information upon which to 'flash'. And of course that means that when we read the New Testament - when we're confronted with the person of Jesus and God's action in and through him - it is impossible to really understand what is happening. And the danger is that we make the same mistake the disciples did - we identify, and therefore respond to, Jesus wrongly.

And in case you're wondering, I'm going to use the Chuck illustration again this week because we're starting a four week series on why and how we should read the Old Testament. Nothing like putting your money where your mouth is.

What is preaching?

Justice Potter Stewart famously said of pornography: 'I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.' Often we can feel the same about preaching. It's difficult to define what makes preaching, or certainly what makes 'good' preaching, but we know it when we see or hear it. Or as Lloyd-Jones says:

Preaching is [...] difficult to define. [...] Preaching is something that one recognises when one hears it. So the best we can do is say certain things about it...

Preaching and Preachers p. 81.

And those certain things are:

• It involves the whole of the preacher
• It has a sense of authority and control over the congregation and the proceedings
• It contains an element of freedom (on the part of the preacher)
• The preacher derives something from the congregation (in that he observes and feeds off and responds to the congregation)
• It is serious
• It is zealous
• It is warm
• It is urgent
• It is persuasive
• It is powerful

How does your preaching stack up to this? Would Lloyd-Jones calls what he hears in your church on Sunday preaching? Are there other things that you would want to say about what makes preaching?

But let's allow the great man the last word:

What is preaching? Logic on fire! Eloquent reason! [...] It is theology on fire. And a theology which does not take fire, I maintain, is a defective theology, or at least the man's understanding of it is defective. Preaching is theology come through a man who is on fire. A true understanding and experience of the Truth must lead to this. I say again that a man who can speak about these things dispassionately has no right whatsoever to be in a pulpit; and should never be allowed to enter one. What is the chief end of preaching? I like to think it is this. It is to give men and women a sense of God and His presence.

Preaching and Preachers, p. 97.

Preaching in Church

A friend of mine at College did some serious thinking about the place of virtual church - 'attending' church on-line. It seemed a somewhat ethereal issue at the time, but not any more. Churches have sprung up in Second Life, and the increase in podcasts of sermons is unending (one wonders if this is the new measure of success as a preaching - not church size, but number of downloads).

Obviously Lloyd-Jones didn't stream his sermons, and in Preaching and Preachers he doesn't comment on the pros and cons of multi-campus, live-streamed video links. But he does deal with the 1970s equivalent under the objection to preaching that people would be better to stay at home, read journals and published sermons, or listen to preachers on the radio. Listen to Lloyd-Jones' answer:

Another thing, which I find very difficult to put into words, but which to me is most important is that the man himself [who listens to a sermon on the radio or reads printed sermons] is too much in control. What I mean is that if you do not agree with the book you can put it down, if you do not like what you are hearing on the television you can switch it off. You are an isolated individual and you are in control of the situation. Or, to put it more positively, that whole approach lacks the vital element of Church. Now the Church is a missionary body, and we must recapture this notion that the whole Church is a part of this witness to the Gospel and its truth and message. It is therefore most important that people should come together and listen in companies in the realm of the Church. That has an impact in and of itself. [...] The preacher after all is not speaking for himself, he is speaking for the Church, he is explaining what the Church is and what these people are, and why they are what they are.

Preaching and Preachers, p.42

His point is that the church itself is part of the preaching event. They are the people of God formed by, constituted by, the Word of God. They are under His authority. And by their very existence they testify to the veracity of this word. This word is truth - here, look around, see this truth in action, in reconciled relationships, in forgiveness, in love, in Jew and Gentile sharing a meal.

To hear a sermon is not only an intellectual exercise. It it to submit to God's authority revealed in the Scriptures, mediated by the Spirit, in and by the company of God's people.

Pastoral Preaching

Lloyd-Jones' task in his book Preaching and Preachers is to show the primacy of preaching - to show that it is the church's primary task. Early on in the book he justifies this in light of attacks on preaching, and particularly the place of 'personal counselling' as being the minister's primary task rather than preaching. Such counselling has its place - yes. But it is to supplement, not supplant the preaching.

Many of us would agree with this, but I wonder if we actually tie the two together as strongly as we might? I think we often say that the word is being preached, and the word is being used pastorally, and leave it at that. I wonder if we could do more. I wonder if in our pastoral visiting and care, whether we would do well to use the sermon as the launching point. To use what was declared in the power of the Spirit as the place where we start our pastoral care. Not just 'what did you think of the sermon?', but 'Sunday's sermon dealt with the issue of X. Tell me about this in your Christian life.' To do so would be hard work - if like me you're on your own in a church (i.e., the preacher is doing most of the pastoral work) it can feel a little arrogant - but it would be saying that what happens on a Sunday is not just a take-it-or-leave-it event. It is God's word being declared to God's people, and should therefore have an effect on their lives. And our job as curer of souls is to see that effect worked out.

Preaching and Preachers

We've recently been on holiday, where I read Lloyd-Jones' Preachers and Preaching. It's one of those books where I've dipped into it, but, until now, had never read through. Even though it was written in the early 70s, following a series of lectures given in 1969, it contains perennial truths. There's much in it which we could disagree with, and it's obviously written by a preacher - there are sweeping statements made which only later are nuanced and refined. But there is a sensitivity and a joy to the task of preaching which just flows out of the book. Over the next few days I hope to post a small series of highlights (and low-lights, which will help us think things through) from my reading. My aim is that we might think more carefully about preaching, and about the place of preaching in the congregation (and the task of the preacher in that congregation), and ultimately be spurred on to the task of proclamation of the gospel which has been entrusted to us.

Powerful preaching

After something of a hiatus (for a number of reasons - some ongoing), I came across and was struck by the following statement:

We must pose a question. Given the rejection of biblical inerrancy and the acceptance of historical-critical methods, what is the basis of the claim that something preachable is necessarily in the text? Why is a word of truth of God necessarily present in a passage of the Bible chosen by a lectionarist or by the preacher? [...] [W]hymeone who thinks that the Bible originated historically, contextually, and editorially, thus reflecting the human and even corrupted perspectives of its writers, think that any passage one happens to select must contain something in or about it that is proclaimable?

The quote is from Edward Parley (of the Divinity School of Vanderbuilt University) in an article entitled 'Preaching the Bible and Preaching the Gospel. (Theology Today, 51 (1994), p100). Clearly there are massive issues with it, and he implicitly draws lines which are incorrect (in the last sentence, for example, he posits a disjunction between divine inspiration and the reality of human authorship).

The issue to which I wish to draw attention, however, is in the first two sentences, where he asks the question about the 'rejection of inerrancy' and the presence of the 'word of truth or God' in the Scriptures. In the present climate where inerrancy is openly debated amongst bible-believing evangelicals, I wonder if Parley is actually making an insightful point. Al Mohler, in whose little pamphlet the above quote is found, states that Parley is 'taunt[ing] preachers who reject the inerrancy of the Scripture, but who continue to preach biblical texts.' (Preaching: The Centrality of Scripture, p.12). If we are to reject the inerrancy of Scripture, then isn't Parley, at one level, correct? Why preach from the Scriptures if they might contain error? It's a fair criticism.

Of course I realise that the inerrancy debate is a large and carefully nuanced one. But it's not one confined to the academy. For if the Bible is not inerrant, then surely our preaching would struggle to be declaratively powerful? If we're not certain that what the Bible says, God says, then what we say cannot honestly be held forth as divinely saving words to a suffering world.

Might God strengthen us this Christmas to hold to the unfailing infallible word, and to preach and proclaim it with all confidence and care.

Luke 14:25-35

So far my sermon outline for this passage is:

Following Jesus means:

i. Loving Jesus before all others (vv25-26)

ii. Carrying our cross (vv 27)

iii. Careful Consideration (vv28-33)

iv. Something about salt (!) (vv 34-35)

Any ideas about point 4? I remember doing a course on preaching where we were taught that the verse that you don’t understand how it fits into the passage is often the key to the whole passage. That’s why I am quite keen to get this one right…

Machen on Preaching

‘Modern preachers are trying to bring men into the church without requiring them to relinquish their pride; they are trying to help men avoid the conviction of sin’. As such, the church ‘is busily engaged in an absolutely impossible task - she is busily engaged in calling the righteous to repentance’.

Devaluing God

I'm preaching this Sunday on John 2:12ff - the clearing of the temple. One line of application is the priority of person over place. In his interaction with the Jewish leadership, Jesus clearly transfers the location of access to the Father from the temple to himself (Jn 2:22)

What has struck me in thinking about this is that by people thinking that there is something 'holy' about the church building - that they are somehow closer to God, or that the area up the front is somehow 'special' - they aren't actually treating that place with more respect and value - they are devaluing the rest of their lives, and more importantly, the presence and work of God in the rest of their lives.

If God were more present in a particular geographical space (such as a church), then we'd certainly have to watch our thoughts, attitudes, behaviour, etc. more while we were in that space. Then, when we left, we could relax a little. It wouldn't matter as much how we lived, for God wasn't as present as he is in that other place. And yet the comfort of the gospel of Jesus is that he will never leave us or forsake us (Heb 13:5) - it was good that Jesus 'went away', for only then would the Spirit come and be with believers 'forever' (Jn 14:16). God's people are where he dwells (Eph 2:22), and therefore how we act at all times is of vital importance (1 Cor 6:19-20; Eph 4:30).

To say that God is 'more present' in a particular place is to devalue the worth and importance of every other place, and particularly to devalue the indwelling presence and work of Jesus' Spirit in his people in every place.

A question of Jensen on Driscoll

I was fortunate enough recently to visit Sydney and hear Don Carson and Kent Hughes speak. Two incredibly godly, learned, compelling teachers, and it was a joy to sit at their feet. Oh, and Mark Driscoll was there as well (which is in no way to imply that he isn't godly, learned or compelling!). If you don't know who he is, check out here (and congrats on waking up from the coma you've been in for the past couple of years).

Driscoll made 18 comments on the state of the church in Sydney, and it is fair to say that people in Sydney have not stopped talking about them. Personally I think many were spot on, some were deliberate (hopefully) caricatures and exaggerations designed to waken the slumbering, and a couple were unhelpful and wrong. Most recently, over at the Sola Panel (wish we'd thought of that name), Phillip Jensen has offered his thoughts, which are very helpful and steer a good middle ground.

However, I have difficulties with one of Phillip's comments. He says:

His [Driscoll's] address to us in the Cathedral was more that of a prophetic preacher than an expositor of the Bible

Driscoll's first comment was that 'the Bible guys are not the missional guys'. His seventh was that 'your teaching lacks [...] apologetics, mission, and application. Both statements are cutting critiques because they are stating that we [those who might align themselves with conservative evangelicalism] are handling the bible incorrectly. They're saying that we 'teach' the Bible without apologetics, mission, and application(!). That when we handle the Scriptures we are somehow not thinking about the culture (ecclesial and secular) that the Word is speaking into.

And my difficulty with Phillip's comments is that he implicitly affirms what Driscoll has criticised. He has validated Driscoll's criticism by splitting apart what shouldn't be. That being a 'prophetic preacher' can be separated out (somehow!) from being 'an expositor of the Bible'. They can't be. To expose the Scriptures is, by the power of God's Spirit, to prophetically (Rev 19:10) proclaim (2 Tim 4:2). And as God's word is made clear, as it is shown to counter our culture, as questions which oppose the message are answered, as it is prayerfully and graciously and lovingly applied to the hearers (Christian and non-Christian alike), the expositor is prophetically proclaiming the glorious gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The great irony in this, of course, is that Phillip is both, par excellence - by being an expositor of the Bible he is a prophetic preacher. And of course I'm sure Phillip wouldn't try to separate them out. But it is a timely reminder for us to keep on our toes, and to handle the word of truth correctly. Let us not separate what God has joined together.

Answer the right questions

I preached on Sunday night at a friend's church, and was approached afterwards by a woman who wished to talk about my sermon, and sermons in general. I had just preached on Joshua 14 (Caleb's request to receive his inheritance), and had had as an additional reading Numbers 13. Her concern was that I didn't address who the Nephilim were (Num 13:33). My answer to her was that it wasn't in my passage, it was a contested point amongst scholars, and that spending time discussing a detail which didn't add anything to the meaning of the passage (the point being that the 10 spies were scared of the big guys who lived in the land) wouldn't have been helpful to people.

Her suggestion back was that people don't come to church because we don't make the Bible interesting. People want to hear, it was suggested to me, about the Nephilim. About the interesting things in the Bible. About the details. Those are the questions people have, and the don't come to church because those questions aren't answered.

Don't get me wrong, she was a Christian woman who loves Jesus and wants to see people come to salvation. But at this point I think she is mistaken, although she is not alone. Of course we make our sermons interesting. And of course we deal with the details of the text (when those details actually add to the point of the text). But we do that so that we might answer the questions that the Bible poses, not the questions that people bring with them. For the questions that the Bible poses are the big questions. They're questions which most people, at some time in their lives, ask of themselves. Why am I here. What happens when I die. What's the point. But because they don't have the answers, people don't often admit that they ask those questions. They relegate them to the back-blocks of their minds. Our job is to show how God answers those questions. Interestingly. Through the details. But from the whole counsel of Scripture.

Peter Adam on Preaching

The Gospel Training Trust ran a preaching conference this past week with Peter Adam, principal of Ridely Theological College in Melbourne. The week was a great blessing, with Peter giving some very pastorally sensitive sermons from 2 Corinthians, as well as teaching on how he finds the central ministry purpose of a book (similar to Dick Lucas’ melodic line). I thought I’d just bullet point some of the key ideas, thoughts, and issues which came out of the week.

• The Bible, and in particular the New Testament epistles, were written primarily to congregations, not to individuals. Therefore, our preaching needs to be targeted at this congregational level, not just the ‘you and your relationship with God’ level.

• This has implications for repentance – there are times and places where whole congregations need to repent.

• Our aim in preaching is to communicate the entirety of the text. This means that not only the central message, but the motivation, emotion, structure, and so on are also communicated.

• It was a huge relief to hear that I’m not the only one who finds himself getting frustrated and angry at not being able to get the big idea of a book/passage quickly and clearly.

The three days were also a great encouragement – it was great to see a number of MTS trainees and young preachers from around the country wrestling with the Bible and trying to proclaim God’s word clearly and faithfully. I also learnt that Peter Adam’s does a fantastic impression of Leon Morris, so if you ever meet him, ask him to do it for you!

Yesterday in Methven

Thanks for your prayers. The sermon wasn't as bad as it could have been, although one of the key ladies in the church brought her (non, or at best extremely nominal) husband and two grown daughters along - they shot through straight away afterwards, so it will be interesting to find out what sunday lunch conversation in their house was like! One of the key guys in the church said he thought I handled it well, but wondered if I was a bit soft at points. I think he's probably right. And let me tell you that is the worst comment I have ever received in any form of ministry.

The AGM was fine - no surprises, no dramas, and a new year ahead. Let's get on with it.

Today in Methven...

I'd value your prayers today. I'm off to church to preach on Ephesians 5:21ff - the 'submit' bit. Not only is it a difficult passage in terms of the culture's approach to issues of equality, I also think it is just a plain terrible sermon! I just don't like it, and despite have quite a few cracks at different approaches nothing seemed right, and what I've got really feels like the best of a bad bunch. Nevertheless, it is still God's word, they are God's people who hear it, and if God could speak through a donkey once he can do it again.

We've also got the annual general meeting afterwards. I have to present a report, as well as there being elections for vestry (essentially parish council - similar in some respects to a group of elders). I don't think that there is going to be anything contentious (apart from the murmuring about my sermon), but I would still value your prayers for good government in the church and unity in the plans for the year ahead. Thanks

ANZAC Day II

Well, the ANZAC day service has been and gone. A monument was dedicated, wreaths were laid, and I spoke about the peace which Jesus secured on the cross. Of course it's difficult to know how it was received - a number of Christians said they were delighted to hear the gospel preached, and a number of non-church people were very thankful. It's always difficult to know how things like that went, but with about 370 people present, please do pray that what they heard might sit with them, annoy them, frustrate them, get at them, and might they investigate more what peace with God might mean for them.

The importance of being simple

I was chatting to a guy here in Methven this morning, a good solid New Zealand farmer, who is doing some study on the gospels at the Bible College of New Zealand. I got to know him when he visited our church and borrowed Blomberg's Jesus and the Gospels for his course. I asked him how the course was going, and how he was finding Blomberg.

"Great" he replied. "I'm not an intellectual - I don't want to hear fancy language. But he [Blomberg] helps me understand who Jesus is".

Let us pray that people would walk out of our churches, and away from conversations with us saying the same thing. Particularly this Easter, let us speak simply and clearly the gospel message of the death and resurrection of God's Son.

Owen's words are a timely reminder for those of us fortunate enough to have spent time studying theology:

By some men's too much understanding, others are brought to understand nothing at all.
From Sermon: The Strength of Faith. Works 9:20.

Pray that that wouldn't be us, but that we would boldly preach that simple message that sinners can be forgiven, prisoners set free, and rebels reconciled.

The worst of Easter

Amanda was pointed to this by someone she has met here in Methven. This person was absolutely genuine that this had moved her to tears as a picture of the Cross, and was encouraging people to watch it.

It is difficult to even know where to begin. Of course this is a collage from a movie - I haven't seen it and maybe (!?) the movie as a whole is more subtle and nuanced than this clip portrays. Of course there is an aspect of the atonement which this piece captures - the concept of one for many, and it attempts to deal with the pain of the Son's death.

But the problems with it monumentally outweigh the benefits. The Son's death is labelled as a tragic mistake, and indeed is seen simply as an accident. The Son himself has no intention to die for the passengers on the train - he slips and falls (cf Jn 10:18). Here indeed is child abuse.

What is more, the passengers on the train are 'saved' - but with no reference to the Father or the Son. They simply carry on in their 'pre-salvation' lives, completely ignorant of what has happened for them. Surely, if anything, this clip promotes universalism!

I do appreciate what this clip, and similar illustrations in sermons, attempt to do. As with any articulation of the gospel, not all things can be covered at once. However, I have to conclude that this is such a distortion of the gospel that I wonder if it is any gospel at all.

Preach the gospel this Easter. Preach the glories of the triune God who took on flesh that our sin might be borne and punished in him that we might be forgiven. Preach that any who turn to Him, with their doubts, worries, fears and anxieties can be released and freed and born to a new life in Christ. Preach that grace has been given, sin has been conquered, death has been defeated and that creation will never - can never - be the same again.

Preach the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. But don't preach the bridge.

The need for the preacher to be interesting

"If men's minds are wandering far away they cannot receive the truth, and it is much the same if they are inactive. Sin cannot be taken out of men, as Eve was taken out of the side of Adam, while they are fast asleep" (Charles Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students, p. 127). HT Doug Wilson.