Archive for November, 2009

God’s Call to Salvation, Part 1

Posted: November 30, 2009 in Salvation
Tags: , , , , ,
11

Here is an excerpt from John Piper’s sermon, “The Free Will of the Wind”

“This is what we mean when we use terms like sovereign grace or irresistible grace. We mean that the Holy Spirit is God’s Spirit, and therefore he is omnipotent and sovereign. And therefore, he is irresistible and infallibly effective in his regenerating work. Which doesn’t mean that we don’t resist him. We do. The Bible is plain about that (Acts 7:51). What the sovereignty of grace and the sovereignty of the Spirit mean is that when God chooses, he can overcome the rebellion and resistance of our wills. He can make Christ look so compelling that our resistance is broken and we freely come to him and receive him and believe him.”

Let’s examine Piper’s statement in the light of Scripture on the subject of God’s Call to Salvation.

Are we called to salvation like little Samuel in 1 Samuel 3 or Saul of Tarsus in Acts 9? Does the sinner hear an audible invitation from God? If not, then how does God call sinners to salvation? This subject is usually discussed by theologians in the two categories of Common and Effective Grace.

COMMON GRACE

“Common grace is the unmerited favor of God toward all men displayed in His general care for them. Common grace is displayed in three circles of activity” (Charles Ryrie, The Holy Spirit, Chicago: Moody Press, 1965, 55)

The first circle of common grace, according to Ryrie, is The General Providential Work of God in the World.

Louis Berkhof traces the development of this doctrine. It was indirectly addressed by Augustine, further expanded upon in the middle ages by the R.C.C. and finally developed into a doctrine by John Calvin to answer questions like how can rebellious sinners possess extraordinary talents and how the cursed earth produce such bountiful products?

Yet let us not forget that these are most excellent gifts of the Divine Spirit, which for the common benefit of mankind he dispenses to whomsoever he pleases . . . Now, if it has pleased the Lord that we should be assisted in physics, logic, mathematics, and other arts and science, by the labour and ministry of the impious, let us make use of them; lest, if we neglect to use the blessings therein freely offered to us by God, we suffer the just punishment of our negligence” (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication,1936, Book II,XVI, p. 297).

How can rebellious sinners possess amazing talents, like in the area of technology, and make important discoveries, as in the area of science. Because “The Lord is good to all” (Psalms 145:9) and “He is kind unto the unthankful” (Luke. 6:34), i.e., common grace.

How can the earth that is cursed because of Adam’s sin, produce so abundantly the staples necessary for life? Because God “makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:44, 45). This is another description of God’s common grace.

God in his common grace also provided a Savior for the world of sinners (1 Timothy 4:10). God’s purpose in the general blessings of common grace is to lead sinners to repentance (Romans 2:4).

The next circle of common grace, according to Ryrie, is The Narrower Circle of The Restraint of Sin.

According to 2 Thessalonians 2:6, 7, the Holy Spirit is the restrainer of sin until the coming of Christ and then this one aspect of the ministry of the Holy Spirit will be removed and the Man of Sin will come on the world scene. The neuter participle with the neuter article in verse six indicate that this restraining influence is the power of God and the masculine participle with the masculine article in verse seven prove that this influence is the person of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit also uses preaching (Isaiah 63:10 11), the government (Romans 13:1-4) and believers who are salt and light. An example of God removing his restraining influence in sinners’ lives is recorded in Romans 1:24, 26, and 28. Here God gives the sinner over to the consequences of his desired sin.

The narrowest circle of common grace, according to Ryrie, is The Conviction of Sinners.

This circle of common grace would include the general call of the gospel and the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

The external or general call of the gospel.

The gospel is to be shared with all. The biblical support of the doctrine is based on the use of the word “call:” In only a very few instances does the word convey a general invitation to elect and nonelect alike (cf. Matthew 22:14 and probably Matthew. 9:13). The vast majority of occurrences concern the effectual call which leads to salvation (Ryrie, The Holy Spirit, page 61).

When Jesus said in Matthew 22:14 that many are called, but few are chosen, he was saying that many are invited to respond to the gospel, but few are actually saved. According to 2 Corinthians 5:14, 19, 20, because Christ died for all (v.14), Christ should be offered to all (vv.19, 20). However, this universal offer of the gospel is a problem for those who believe in limited atonement as represented by Louis Berkhof.

There would be a real contradiction between the Reformed doctrines of predestination and limited atonement on the one hand, and the universal offer of salvation on the other, if this offer included the declaration that God purposed to save every individual hearer of the gospel, and that Christ really atoned for the sins of each one of them. But  the gospel invitation involves no such declaration (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941, p. 462).

Thus Scriptures, contrary to this statement, command us to give the gospel to every person (Matthew 28:19, 20) and that Christ died for the world (John 3:16) and that God has commanded all people to repent (Acts 17:30).

The conviction of the unsaved by the Holy Spirit (John 16:7, 8) of sin, righteousness, and judgment.

Ryrie comments about putting the conviction of sin under common grace rather than effective grace:

“To be sure, this might be classed under efficacious grace, but it probably belongs here since His work of conviction is not always efficacious . . . When this proving work of the Holy Spirit accompanies the preaching of the gospel, all who hear the message will be enlightened to the point of understanding that the message is true. Whether each individual who hears will go on to accept the truth is not guaranteed by this ministry of the Spirit. Acceptance would involve the work of regeneration; enlightenment involves only the giving of demonstrable proof of the truth of the message. But even that proving is a supernatural work (Ryrie, The Holy Spirit, p. 58).

My next two posts will examine the Effective Call.

“What is Man?” Or, “Who am I?” Sermon on Psalm 8

Posted: November 29, 2009 in Sermons
Tags: , , , , , ,
0

David is not having an Identity Crisis when he asks “What is Man?”

Dr. John Whitcomb said, “The 2nd leading group in America to commit suicide is university students who are searching for answers and can’t find them in secular humanism. The 1st group is psychologists who think they have the answers and do not.”

How would you answer the question, “What is man?” or “Who am I?” I am a failure,” “I am rejected,” “I am the greatest.”

David is not having an identity crisis but a worship experience! Psalm 8 is a burst of praise for who God is and what He thinks of you and me. “O LORD our Lord, how excellent is your name in all the earth” (Psalm 8:1 and 9).

God is our LORD or Redeemer. God is also our Lord or Ruler. Psalm 8 does not begin and end with man, defining him. Psalm 8 begins and ends with God. Psalm 8 is not anthropology or psychology but theology. Psalm 8 is a hymn of praise to God who has redeemed us and rules over us.

We must answer the question “Who am I?” in light of “Who is God?”

1. Who Am I?  I am the Focus of God’s Concern (8:1-2)

     A. God is infinitely above me in 8:1. David praises God for His glory that is above the heavens. In Psalm 113:4-6, God in His greatness is above the universe like a scientist crouched over his microscope observing the universe as small drop of water.

“The LORD is high above all nations, and his glory above the heavens. Who is like unto the LORD our God, who dwells on high. Who humbles himself to behold the things that are in heaven, and in the earth.”

Psalm 113:7-9 leads to our next point that God is not only infinitely above us, but He is intimately involved with us: “He raises up the poor out of the dust, and lifts the needy out of the dunghill; That he may set him with princes even with the princes of his people. He makes the barren woman to keep house, and to be a joyful mother of children. Praise you the Lord.”

     B. God is intimately involved with me (8:2). God, who is atop the universe uses the weakest and frailest of human beings, infants, to silence His enemies. Christ quoted this verse to his enemies, the religious leaders, who were upset that children were praising Him as their Messiah on His triumphal entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday (Matthew 21:16). With this verse, He silenced them.

Another infant was born, Jesus Christ, who totally frustrated and defeated God’s enemy, Satan.

You might be saying, “God could never use me. I am too poor, too ignorant, too socially retarded.” According to 1st Cor. 1:26-29, you are the perfect candidate for God to use.

2. Who Am I? I am the Climax of God’s Creation (8:3-5a)

     A. The universe reveals God’s greatness (8:3)

Charles H. Spurgeon called Psalm 8, “The song of the astronomer.” David while tending his sheep at night could see 3 to 4 thousand stars with his unaided eyes and was breathe taken at God greatness.

The astronomer’s modern giant telescopes have made some amazing discoveries since 1920. In our universe,the Milky Way, there are 100 billion stars. And then beyond our universe are billions of universes, each with 100 billion stars.

All of this, David said, was “the work of God’s fingers.” John Wesley said, “God created the heavens and the earth and did not half try.”

    B. The universe reveals man’s smallness (8:4a)

“What is man?” Man is an infinitesimal speck in space in comparison to the measureless universe. According to Psalm 144:3-4, man is a microscopic dot on the timeline of eternity. I know timeline is a contradiction to eternity.

Job asked, “What is man?” in frustration in 7:17-21 against God, whom Jobs thinks is making a big fuss over nothing in his life: “What is man, that you should magnify him? And that you should set your heart upon him? And that you should visit him every morning and try him every moment? How long will you not depart from me, or let me alone till I swallow down my spittle? I have sinned; what shall I do unto you, O you preserver of men? Why have you set me as a mark against you, so that I am a burden to myself? And why do you not pardon my transgression, and take away mine iniquity? For now shall I sleep in the dust; and you shall seek me in the morning, but I shall not be.”

Job in essence said, “I am under your magnifying glass. I can’t move without your notice and punishment. When I wake up, there you are. I can’t even swallow my spit without you micromanaging me. You have placed a bull eyes on my back. If I have sinned, forgive me and let’s move on. What is man to you? Why all the fuss?

    C. The universe reveals God’s grace (8:4b-5)

          1. When God is “mindful” of this infinitesimal atom in God’s universe and chooses him for Himself (Ephesians 1:3-4).

          2. When God “visits” weak, frail, and mortal man. God not only chooses us but He cares for us.

          3. When God made man in His image in order to fellowship with him. Psalm 8:5 states this truth two different ways. First, when David writes that God created man “a little lower than the angels.”

Here is how James Montgomery Boice explains the first truth: “The most interesting aspect of Psalm 8 is the way in which it places man in what has been called ‘a mediation position’ in the universe. Thomas Aquinas was one of the first to stress this, saying that Psalm 8 places man midway between the angels, which are above him, and the beasts, which are below. Man is a spirit/body being, according to Aquinas. Angels have spirits but no bodies. Animals have bodies but no spirits. Man, however, has both a spirit and a body and so comes between” (Psalms, Vol 1, Psalms 1-41. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994, 70). We know by this description from David that David was not an atheistic evolutionist or he would have written that man was created “a little higher than the animals.”

Secondly, not only does God have “glory” that is above the universe in 8:1 but God crowned man with His glory. Both of these statements equal the statement in Genesis one that God created man in His image. As great as the universe is, God did not make stars in His image. As measureless as the universe is, Christ did not die for planets, He died for you and me. God doesn’t desire fellowship with galaxies. We alone in God’s vast universe are made in His image and have the potential and privilege to fellowship with God.

3. Who am I? I am the recipient of God’s crown (8:6-8)

     A. God created man to rule the earth.

In Psalm 8:6-8, David quotes Genesis 1:26-28 which is a reference to Adam before the Fall into sin. God crowned man with “glory and honor” which are attributes of a king. When Adam sinned, he was dethroned. Today man is not a ruler, he is a rebel. Man is not the sovereign God intended for him to be, man is a sinner. Today, man temporarily is not realizing Psalm 8.

     B. Because of the fall of the first Adam into sin, God sent the Last Adam, Jesus Christ.

The Last Adam, Jesus Christ, has regained all that the first Adam lost in the Fall. God intended the first Adam to reign and but he rebelled and lost his control and reign. The New Testament quotes Psalm 8:6-8 and applies it to Christ. “You have put all things in subjection under his feet….But now we see not yet all things put under his feet” (Hebrews 2:8). “In reality Christ is at the right hand of the Father and everything has been subjected under his feet, but the full exercise of that power will not be evident until his return” (Harold W. Hoehner. Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002, 284).

          1. Even while on earth Christ ruled the fish: a school of fish (John 21:6), a single fish (Matthew 17:27). Christ ruled the beasts: an unbroken colt (Matthew 21:2). Christ ruled the fowl (Luke 22:34). Additionally, Christ cast out demons, healed the sick, and walked on water. All of these were Old Testament prerogatives of the predicted Messiah.

          2. Today, Paul says in Ephesians 1:22 that God “has put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church.” An example of Christ reigning today is in Colossians 1:13. Every time a sinner is converted God delivers that sinner from the power of darkness into the kingdom of his dear Son over which Christ reigns.

          3. The full exercise of Christ’s power and reign will happen in the future at His second coming according to 1 Corinthians 15:24-27 where Psalm 8 is quoted again. “Then comes the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he has put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he has put all things under his feet.”

Michael Moore, film director of Fahrenheit 9/11, quotes Jesus who said, “Love your enemies” to defend his position that we should not attack terrorist nations. In Revelation 19, when 1 Corinthians 15:24-27 will be fulfilled, Jesus will destroy His enemies with the sword of His mouth. We are to love our enemies. But God has said, “You shall not murder innocent people.” The penalty for murder is capital punishment. God is a God of love but He is also a God of justice. In the OT if an intruder is trying to break into your house at night you can take his life in defense your life and your family’s life because life is sacred. On 9/11, the terrorists invaded our house and we must defend ourselves and our families against future invasion.

          4. Because of Jesus’ death we can reign with Him. Jesus in His incarnation was made a little lower than the angels according to Hebrews 2:9. Jesus did not become an angel in His incarnation because angels don’t die and they are spirit beings. Jesus in His incarnation became man, who does die because he has physical body, “for the suffering of death.”  

On the cross, Jesus was “crowned with glory (Hebrews 2:9).” For six hours the cross was Jesus’ throne. He was ruling and reigning as King of kings and Lord of lords, conquering Death, Hell, and the Grave. Because He lives, we live. Because He reigned we shall reign with Him. Because He was crowned with “glory” on the cross in Hebrews 2:9 we shall enter the “glory” of the millennium (Hebrews 2:10) and reign  with Him and finally realize Psalm 8 and God’s original purpose for us.

Revelation 1:5-6 states the same blessed truth: “From Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his father; to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.”

This is the same place Psalm 8 ends in verse 9: “O LORD our Lord, how excellent is your name in all the earth.” We should praise the Lord because we are the focus of His concern, the climax of His creation, and the recipient of His crown.

Should Christian Leaders Sign The Manhattan Declaration Response, Part 2

Posted: November 27, 2009 in News, Pastoral Theology
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
24

We support the three moral and political issues The Manhattan Declaration defends. We support the sanctity of life which the culture of death threatens in the form of abortion, ethnic cleansing, and euthanasia. We also support the integrity of marriage and the defense of religious liberty. We support these important moral issues but not at the sacrifice of the integrity of the Gospel which this document is willing to make. The pure Gospel is the remedy for these moral issues and the Gospel is rarely mentioned in The Manhattan Declaration.

When the Gospel is mentioned it is weakened when the lines are blurred between what Roman Catholics say the gospel is and what Evangelicals say the gospel is. Throughout the declaration, Roman Catholics and Evangelical are both called Christians. The Preamble states: “It was Christians who combated the evil of slavery: Papal edicts in the 16th and 17th centuries decried the practice of slavery.” Christians and Papal edicts are in apposition as though both are equal. The papacy of the Roman Catholic Church helped produced the Council of Trent decrees and condemnations, as a rebuttal to the Reformation, which pronounced anathema on the doctrine of Justification by faith alone in Christ alone. The Preamble also states that “Christians today are called to proclaim the Gospel of costly grace.” Included in the name of Christians are Roman Catholics who believe in works for salvation in the form of observing the sacraments. This is not the Gospel of the grace of God that Paul preached, defined, and defended in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. Paul said if any person or even an angel proclaimed any other gospel than what he preached let that person be anathema or judged by God. And yet in this document another gospel of works is said to be the true gospel. The Declaration states “We, as Orthodox, Catholics, and Evangelical Christians,” “We are compelled by our Christian faith to speak,” “We are Christians who have joined together across lines of ecclesial differences,” and “It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”

Albert Mohler, whom I greatly respect,  said he was one of the original signers of The Manhattan Document because, unlike the Evangelicals and Catholics Together, does not compromise the gospel: “I signed The Manhattan Declaration because it is a limited statement of Christian conviction on these three crucial issues, and not a wide-ranging theological document that subverts confessional integrity. I cannot and do not sign documents such as Evangelicals and Catholics Together that attempt to establish common ground on vast theological terrain. I could not sign a statement that purports, for example, to bridge the divide between Roman Catholics and evangelicals on the doctrine of justification.” See R. C. Sproul’s critique of ECT in his book Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification.

Our quotes from The Manhattan Declaration do show a bridge between Roman Catholicism’s Galatian Heresy and the true Gospel. Both of these documents, Evangelicals and Catholics Together and The Manhattan Declaration were drafted by Charles Colson who in both documents seeks an ecumenical partnership between Evangelicals and Catholics.

To sign one and not the other is contradictory because the goals of both documents (to unite Evangelicals and Catholics to take moral stands) overlap as this statement from ECT reveals:

The pattern of convergence and cooperation between Evangelicals and Catholics is, in large part, a result of common effort to protect human life, especially the lives of the most vulnerable among us. With the Founders, we hold that all human beings are endowed by their Creator with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The statement that the unborn child is a human life that — barring natural misfortune or lethal intervention — will become what everyone recognizes as a human baby is not a religious assertion. It is a statement of simple biological fact. That the unborn child has a right to protection, including the protection of law, is a moral statement supported by moral reason and Biblical truth.

We, therefore, will persist in contending — we will not be discouraged but will multiply every effort — in order to secure the legal protection of the unborn. Our goals are: to secure due process of law for the unborn, to enact the most protective laws and public policies that are politically possible, and to reduce dramatically the incidence of abortion.

Here is MacArthur’s insightful assessment of The Manhattan Declaration:

The Declaration therefore constitutes a formal avowal of brotherhood between Evangelical signatories and purveyors of different gospels. That is the stated intention of some of the key signatories, and it’s hard to see how secular readers could possibly view it in any other light. Thus for the sake of issuing a manifesto decrying certain moral and political issues, the Declaration obscures both the importance of the gospel and the very substance of the gospel message. This is neither a novel approach nor a strategic stand for evangelicals to take. It ought to be clear to all that the agenda behind the recent flurry of proclamations and moral pronouncements we’ve seen promoting ecumenical co-belligerence is the viewpoint Charles Colson has been championing for more than two decades. (It is not without significance that his name is nearly always at the head of the list of drafters when these statements are issued.) He explained his agenda in his 1994 book The Body, in which he argued that the only truly essential doctrines of authentic Christian truth are those spelled out in the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds. I responded to that argument at length in Reckless Faith. I stand by what I wrote then. In short, support for The Manhattan Declaration would not only contradict the stance I have taken since long before the original “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” document was issued; it would also tacitly relegate the very worst way—for evangelicals to address the moral and political crises of our time. Anything that silences, sidelines, or relegates the gospel to secondary statues is antithetical to the principles we affirm when we call ourselves evangelicals.

See why R. C. Sproul , Alistair Begg, Michael Horton, and James White did not sign the Manhattan Declaration.

Should Christian Leaders Sign The Manhattan Declaration? Part 1

Posted: November 26, 2009 in News, Pastoral Theology
Tags: , ,
1

Read these three documents and post your response:

1. The Manhattan Declaration

2. Al Mohler’s defense for signing the Manhattan Declaration

3. John MacArthur’s defense for not signing the Manhattan Declaration

What say you? Defend your view of signing or not signing this document!

Why the Popularity and Diffculity of Narrative Preaching? The Homiletic Paradigm Shift: Part 1

Posted: November 26, 2009 in Preaching Narratives
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

When Haddon Robinson was president of Denver Seminary, he interviewed Paul Borden, professor of Homiletics at Denver Seminary and asked, “Why do you think many preachers find narrative passages and preaching difficult?” Borden’s response was, “From my own personal experience, I was never trained in narrative preaching. Having four years of Bible College and four years of seminary, I recognized when I came out of school, I did not know how to deal with narrative passages. I also had very few models since most of the men I looked up to didn’t teach me how to do it and didn’t do it well, I had no one to follow” (Paul Borden, Preaching from Biblical Narratives, Expositapes (Denver: Denver Seminary, n.d.), Set III, #1).

Since this interview there has been a renewed emphasis on narrative preaching. There are seminary courses on narrative preaching, significant books published, and journal articles, both academic and popular, written on narrative preaching. This resurgence, however, has not completely resolved the problem according to Steven D. Mathewson. He gives 4 reasons pastors still struggle preaching Old Testament stories:

1. We view stories as fluff.

2. We mimimize the role of Old Testament stories in the canon.

3. We get intimidated by the language and literature of the Old Testament.

4. We get enslaved to a particular style of exposition (Steven D. Mathewson. The Art of Preaching Old Testament Narrative. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002, 23-25). Mathewson elaborates on each of these points.

Still, there has been a paradigm shift from a didactic to a narrative form of preaching and from a deductive to an inductive form of preaching?

Osborne pinpointed the new trend: “The tendency in current homiletic theory is to reject the propositional form of preaching espoused in this section in behalf of ‘story preaching,’ an ‘event’ approach that narrates a plot or tells a story rather than presents in didactic fashion a series of theological assertions” (Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral, Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1991, 361). The purpose of this series of posts is not to replace propositional preaching, but only to add Biblical narrative preaching to the preacher’s repertoire.

Here are some reasons for the homiletic paradigm shift.

The First Reason for the Homiletical Shift       

One reason for the paradigm shift is the new emphasis on the form of the sermon reflecting the form of the genre. Jensen explains: “Why should we de-story these stories in our sermons and simply pass on the point of the story to our listeners? Why should we rip the content out of the form as our normal homiletical process? If the story (or whatever literary form the text may take) is of no matter why didn’t the biblical writer first tell us the point in the first place? Why didn’t the author of Genesis 2-3 just tell us what sin is? Why did he tell us a story? And if that biblical author carefully constructed a ‘sin story’ why do we always feel compelled to improve on the story by preaching on the point” (Richard A. Jensen, Telling the Story: Variety and Imagination in Preaching . Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1980), 128)?

The Second Reason for the Homiletical Shift

Not only do narrative sermons reflect the narrative genre, but narrative sermons have the potential to hold the interest of the hearer better than didactic sermons. The literary devise of plot or story line with its crisis, suspense, and resolution to the crisis, which is common to narratives, if reflected in the sermon, will hold the listener’s attention. Craddock argues for the interest holding ability of the narrative sermon. “Some forms make no demands of the listeners. The old pattern of stating the sermon in digest at the outset, developing the sermon, and then summarizing in conclusion is such a form. In contrast, the pattern, ‘Not this, nor this, nor this, but this’ expects the hearers to remain thoughtfully engaged to the end” (Fred B. Craddock, Preaching, Nashville: Abingdon, 1985, 174).

The Third Reason for the Homiletic Shift

The narrative form of preaching is less Greco-Roman in style, and the didactic and deductive form is more Greco-Roman; this is another reason for the renewed interest in narrative exposition. At the turn of the second century, Greco-Roman rhetoric began and continued to influence sermon preparation until the last thirty years. For example, in Acts 2, Peter’s sermon is inductive. The theme is not announced until the end: “God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36).

Peter’s audience was antagonistic and had he opened his sermon deductively with the theme at the beginning, the Jews, who crucified Christ just one month earlier, perhaps would have stoned Peter, when he proclaimed that they had put to death the Messiah. “Why should the multitude of forms and moods within biblical literature and the multitude of needs in the congregation be brought together on one unvarying mold, and that copied from Greek rhetoricians of centuries ago? Craddock explains: An unnecessary monotony results, but more profoundly, there is an inner conflict between the content of the sermon and its form. The minister is seriously affected by the conflict. The content calls for singing but the form is quite prosaic; the message has wings but the structure is quite pedestrian” (Fred B. Craddock, As One Without Authority, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1979, 143-44).

The Fourth Reason for the Homiletical Shift

The revival of narrative preaching at the end of the twentieth century and at the beginning of the twenty-first century is also due in part to people’s love for stories. “One of the most universal human impulses can be summed up in a familiar four-word plea: Tell me a story. How many of you have finished reading a story to your child and he/she almost immediately says, “Daddy, read it again!” The Bible constantly satisfies that demand. Narrative is the dominant form of the Bible. Despite the multiplicity of literary genres found in the Bible, it is above all a book of stories” (Leland Ryken, Words of Delight: A Literary Introduction to the Bible, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987, 35).

R. C. Sproul said in an interview with Michael Duduit, “I’m big on preaching from narratives because people will listen ten times as hard to a story as they will to an abstract lesson” (Michael Duduit, “Theology and Preaching in the 90s: An Interview with R. C. Sproul,” Preaching 9, March-April, 1994: 23).

When 30 to 40 percent of the Old Testament are stories, how can be say we preach the whole counsel of God’s Word and neglect the most prominent genre in Scripture?

An Expose of Emerging Church Preaching, Part 5

Posted: November 23, 2009 in Emerging Church, Homiletics/Preaching
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
0

I listen to Driscoll’s sermons, read his books, watch his Youtubes, and benefit from them. The first Driscoll sermon I heard was his sermon on the Trinity and I thought, “This is the best sermon on the Trinity I have ever heard. Come to think, this is the only sermon on the Trinity I have ever heard.” Nevertheless, there are aspects of his sermons that younger preachers who are mesmerized with Driscoll should not emulate. 

Here is what McArthur says about Driscoll’s language: He is a very effective communicator—a bright, witty, clever, funny, insightful, crude, profane, deliberately shocking, in-your-face kind of guy. His soteriology is exactly right, but that only makes his infatuation with the vulgar aspects of contemporary society more disturbing.

For examples of Driscoll’s crudeness that should not be mentioned in public see Tim Challies’ review of Confessions of a Reformission Rev. Here is part of Challies’ review after a quote from Driscoll: I cannot understand why he feels this type of quote is necessary. While this book is filled with confession, the one thing Driscoll does not seem to regret is his reputation as a loose canon and a man whose mouth is often filthy. In the end analysis, I really did enjoy Confessions of a Reformission Rev.. There is much in this book that is edifying. It helped me understand Mark Driscoll and showed how he grew a megachurch in a largely unchurched city in only eight years. He is clearly a passionate, focused man who is genuinely seeking hard after God. He has much to offer the church. I wonder, though, how long his message will be heard as long as it is wrapped in a sometimes vulgar, always sarcastic, package. It may endear him to some, but it will surely alienate him from far more. See 9Marks’ review of Driscoll’s Confessions of a Reformission Rev.

Even the New York Times writes: Mark Driscoll’s sermons are mostly too racy to post on GodTube, the evangelical Christian “family friendly” video-posting Web site. With titles like “Biblical Oral Sex” and “Pleasuring Your Spouse,” his clips do not stand a chance against the site’s content filters.

This is another example of the culture impacting the church. Driscoll sees three major views of the contextualization of culture. Driscoll rejects the syncretistic contextualization of Doug Pagitt who advocates changing the message as well as the delivery of the gospel to reach the postmoderns. “We must pursue new practices as well as new messages: the two are inseparable. It won’t suffice to put new ideas in the trappings of old practices. When we offer a new message through a practice designed to propagate a different message, we may well lose both” ( Pagitt. Preaching Re-Imagined, 80).

These have two open hands. One hand is open to Scripture and the other is open to culture, as Driscoll likes to illustrate.

Driscoll also rejects sectariansism or fundamentalism. The fundamentalist has two closed hands. The fundamentalist holds tightly to his doctrine and his culture of traditional views of music, drinking, and dress. The fundamentalist is Driscoll’s whipping post throughout his writings. Certainly, too many of our fundamental churches are known for their cutting edge ministries of the 60s and 70s.  With one hand, we must hold tightly, like a vise grip, the doctrines of God’s Word but with the other hand we can loosen our grasp on culture and like Jesus be a friend of sinners in our cities and communities. But Driscoll is over the top when he constantly compares the fundamentalist to hypocritical and unsaved Pharisees of Jesus’ time (Driscoll, The Radical Reformission, 142-143).

Driscoll is subversive as a Reformissionist with one hand holding firmly to doctrine and an open hand to culture. “Reformission churches have to continually examine and adjust their musical styles, websites, aesthetics, acoustics, programming and just about everything but their Bible in an effort to effectively communicate the gospel to as many people as possible in the cultures around them” (Driscoll, 100).

We agree that we must adjust these areas of ministry and some of our churches are in fact becoming more current and engaged. For example, conservative churches are using video and movie clips as sermon illustrations, blogs, websites, face book, and simulcast to communicate the message. Others are helping the poor and needy through servant evangelism, etc. These are changes not true in the 60s and 70s. We would agree with Driscoll, who says some things in culture are wrong such as homosexuality and extra marital sex. But some of us would disagree with all he accepts.

The solution and our response to EC is for believers to “earnestly contend for the faith (the doctrines of Scripture)” (Jude 3), love God with all our heart and our neighbor, and speak the truth in love in our culture where God has placed us. Yet realize that not all of culture is neutral. In 1 John 2:15, the command is to “love not the world.” Certainly our more traditional churches need to be cutting edge in the 21st (not 20th) century ministries and involved in the lives of the unsaved in order to win them. Our churches can be more meshed  with the cities we are seeking to win by helping the poor and hungry in order to win a hearing of the gospel. Thankfully some of our conservative churches are ministering to alcoholics, abused women, and orphans. We must be engaged as friends of sinners but distinct as the people of God. Each local church must determine where it draws the boundaries on these issues without selling out to culture. But there must be boundaries.

Conclusion

In order to effectively obey the Great Commission, we must “preach the Word.” We cannot substitute discussion sessions, stories, or the experiences of the community for the propositional truths of the text. For sure dialogue, illustrations, and interactions can be part of our sermons without sacrificing the text. While important they are all handmaidens to the explanation of the text in preaching. Our preaching must be “public hermeneutics” ( Richard L. Holland. “Progressional Dialogue and Preaching: Are They The Same?” The Master’s Seminary.17/2 (Fall 2006) 207).

“Walter Kaiser, a leading evangelical scholar, issued a simple but striking statement in his commencement address at Dallas Theological Seminary in April 2000….When a man preaches, he should never remove his finger from the Scriptures, Kaiser affirmed. If he is gesturing with his right hand, he should keep his left hand’s finger on the text. If he reverses hands for gesturing, then he should also reverse hands for holding his spot in the text. He should always be pointing to the Scriptures” (Steven J. Lawson, The Pattern of Biblical Preaching: An Expository Study of Ezra 7:10 and Nehemiah 8:1-18, Bibliotheca Sacra 158 October-December 2001: 451).

While Kaiser spoke metaphorically of the importance of keeping the text central, many in EC have their finger on the pulse of their community and are preaching thus says my community. Preach is the Word is the divine imperative.

A Thanksgiving Sermon from Ephesians 5:20

Posted: November 21, 2009 in Ephesians Class, Sermons
Tags: , ,
0

We can view every situation of life positively or negatively. We can choose to be grateful or ungrateful.

Dr. Alexander Whyte, (January 13, 1836 – January 6, 1921), is best known as the author of Bible Characters From the Old and New Testaments, was a pastor in Edinburgh and noted for finding good in all circumstances and being thankful for it. On a particularly stormy Sunday morning a member of his congregation thought to himself, the preacher will have nothing to thank God for on a wretched morning such as this. Dr. Whyte began his Sunday morning pastoral prayer in this manner, “We thank Thee, O God, that it is not always like this.”

What we have learned from the book of Ephesians is that true gratitude is supernatural and not natural. Ingratitude comes naturally.

1. Because we were born selfish according to Ephesians 2:1-3; 4:17-19.

In 2:1-3, sinners, in their spiritually dead condition, are described as being influenced by “the world,” “the prince of the power of the air,” that is, Satan, and “the flesh.” Each of these sources moves us to selfishness. Paul describes “the flesh” that is, the sinful nature in each person, as “the lusts of the flesh.” The sinner who is basically controlled by the flesh does not live purely or with a motive to please God but to satisfy the lower, lustful appetites of his fallen nature.

In 4:17-19, the sinners is further described as being totally depraved as a result of the Fall of Adam. Paul focuses on “the flesh” in his autopsy of the sinner’s cadaver. That fall adversely affected each of us completely. So that now we are selfish in our thinking, our feeling, and in our choosing.

When we were just small children and someone would give us a piece of candy, our parents would coach us , “Now what do we say?” And some of us would reply, “Can I have another piece?” Then our parents would try to apologize, “It is just a stage he is going through.” It was not a stage, it was our sinful condition that made us self centered. The reason we are not appreciative is our selfish, sinful, fallen condition.

2. Then you are supernaturally saved by God’s grace through faith in Christ according to Ephesians 2:4-9.

But does our conversion automatically make us grateful? Apparently not because Paul admonishes believers many, many times to be thankful as in Ephesians 5:3-4.

There is an Old Testament example of this truth in Numbers 11-21. In this section are “The Seven Murmurings” of God’s Redeemed People. The book of Numbers picks up the metanarrative of God rescuing His people where the book of Exodus left off. The people of God have been miraculously delivered from Egypt when God supernaturally parted the Red Sea so they could pass through unharmed and be saved from the pursuing Egyptians. Remember the scene from The Ten Commandmenst with Charleston Heston? Now God is spectacularly providing for them daily with manna from heaven. Their clothes are not wearing out. Any yet they complain seven times:

1) They murmured about the Food in Numbers 11:1-9

2) They murmured about God’s Leaders in Numbers 12:1-16

3) They murmured about God’s Will in Numbers 13-14

4) They murmured about God’s Authority in Numbers 16:1-40

5) They murmured about God’s Judgment in Numbers 16:41-19:22

6) They murmured about Life in the Desert in Numbers 20:1-13 by second generation

7) They murmured about Food in Numbers 21:1-20 by second generation. What is the difference between the People of God in the Old Testament and today? Their names and addresses. “Complain not one against one another” James has to write in James 5:9. It is impossible to murmur and be thankful at the same time. It is like worrying and trusting God. They are mutually exclusive!

3. Paul next teaches that believers must be, not only converted, but filled with the Spirit to be thankful in Ephesians 5:18-20. In this one verse, Paul answers some important questions about giving thanks.

I. When Do We Give Thanks? (Ephesians 5:20a “Giving thanks always”)

A. We give thanks after a difficulty as in Exodus 15:1-19 when God delivered Israel from Pharaoh and his army.

Israel sang God’s praises for His deliverance. This is easy. This kind of thanksgiving is like the thanksgiving you give to God after you total your car in a wreck and you look around and no one in you family is injured. This kind of thanksgiving is still appropriate to thank God for healing you your sickness, providing you a new job, or reconciliating you with a friend or family member.

B. We give thanks during a difficulty as with Paul in prison when he writes his Prison Epistles.

This is harder. For example, to the Philippians (1:3-4), Paul wrote: “I thank God upon every remembrance of you. Always in every prayer of mine for you making requests with joy.”

“ A diving accident in 1967 left Joni Eareckson Tada a quadriplegic in a wheelchair. Today, she is an internationally known mouth artist, a talented vocalist, a radio host, an author of 17 books and an advocate for disabled persons worldwide. Joni Eareckson Tada observed, ‘Giving thanks is not a matter of feeling thankful, it is a matter of obedience’” (McArthur, Ephesians, 266). We gives thanks “always” by faith even before God has healed, provided us with a new job, or reconciled us with friends or family.

II. For What Do We Give Thanks? (Ephesians 5:20b “All things”)

A. “All things” is one of Paul’s favorite expressions.

In 1 Timothy 5:17 Paul writes, “Nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who gives us richly all things to enjoy.” But these “things” richly bestowed upon us are not to be idols we adore because of the pleasure they bring us. These “things” are to be tools to minister to others. Paul qualifies “enjoy” in 5:18: “They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share.”

B. Certainly “all things” includes the “spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ” beginning in Ephesians 1:3. This is Paul’s Doxology in Ephesians 1:3-14:

1)  The love of God the Father in eternity past in Ephesians 1:3-6 for which Paul gives praise in verse 6: “To the praise of the glory of his grace.”

2)  The death of God the Son for our sins in Ephesians 1:7-12 for which Paul gives praise in verse 12: “to the praise of his glory.”

3)  The sealing of God the Spirit for our eternal security in Ephesians 1:13-14 for which Paul gives praise in verse 14: “unto the praise of his glory.”

When I read these verses I want to sing, “Praise God from whom all blessings flow, Praise Him all creatures here below, Praise Him above ye Heavenly host, Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”

C. But “all things” must include “all things” or the trials, problems, and the heart breaks of life.

Read Paul’s perspective while in prison in Ephesians 6:18-20. He is not selfishly consumed with his problem but rather he is concerned for the Ephesians for whom is praying. He requests that they pray for him to have opportunities to witness while in prison, not that his lawyer might get him out on some technocality. In essence Paul communicates: I’m not a prisoner, I am an ambassador for the King of Heaven. This is not a prison but a pulpit to preach the gospel. I’m not impounded but empowered to be a witness.

A biologist tells how he watched an ant carrying a piece of straw which seemed a big burden for the tiny ant. The ant came to a crack in the earth which was too wide for it to cross. It stood for a time as though pondering the situation, then put the straw across the crack and walked over upon it. Once across, he pulled the straw across and continued on his way. His burden became his bridge for his progress. We can give thanks for “all things” because in Romans 8:28 “we know that all things together for our good to them that love God.”

III. To Whom Do We Give Thanks? (Ephesians 5:20c “unto God and the Father”)

A. In other places Paul indicates that we give thanks to people such as Paul does in Romans 16:4 when he personally thanks Priscilla and Aquila for their sacrificial service for him.

B. Here Paul states clearly that we give thanks to God the Father. There are two very opposite attitudes of thanksgiving.

1) The first is to not give any thanks to God as practiced by the Rich Fool in Luke 12:19. He thought all his business success was totally his accomplishment. To him Jesus said, “You fool, this night your soul shall be required of you: then whose shall those things be which you have provided?” That night the bottom not only dropped out of the stock market for the rich fool but out of his life. Then Jesus applied His story to all of us: “So is he that lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.”

 2) The next attitude does give thanks to God in order to glorify Him in Luke 17:11-19. Jesus healed ten lepers and one returned “and with a loud voice glorified God and fell down on his face at his feet, giving him thanks.” This is the attitude of thanksgiving that glorifies God. James 1:17 says, “Every good and every perfect gift is from above and comes down from the Father of lights.”

When I was little I lived on the farm with my grandparents and we would feed the chickens. We would throw out the chicken feed on the ground and the chickens would peck away but never look up to see from where the feed was coming.

That is the way too many of us live. God rains on the just and the unjust and most people never look up to see from where does “every good and every perfect gift” come. God’s most perfect gift was His Son whom He sent down from Heaven to die for our sins that we might have the eternal gift of salvation. Sinners need to look up and thank God for that gift and receive Him.

IV. How Do We Give Thanks? (Ephesians 5:20d “in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”)

Paul states “in the name of OUR Lord, Jesus, Christ.” We must know Christ as our Savior before we can genuinely give thanks to God. Of course the “name” represents who Jesus is and He is the only way to God.

Acts 4:12 makes very clear, if God’s Word is the final authority in your life, that “Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

Even Jesus said in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, the life, no man comes to the Father but by me.”

The only way to be thankful according to Ephesians 5:20 is know Chirst as your Savior and Lord by means of the filling of the Holy Spirit.

An Expose of Emerging Church Preaching, Part 4

Posted: November 20, 2009 in Emerging Church, Homiletics/Preaching
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

What unifies the doctrinally divergent EC is the passion to impact culture. This passion is driven, in part, by the philosophy of liberal postmillennialism where the church will build the Kingdom of God which is followed by the return of Christ. The premillennial view of Christ’s return is that Christ will return and establish the culture altering Kingdom, not the church.

Tony Jones after poking fun of pretribulational rapturists like Tim LaHaye who say “when things ‘down here’ become bad enough, Jesus will return in glory.’ But those of us represented in this book take the contrary view. God’s promised future is good, and it awaits us, beckoning us forward. We’re caught in the tractor beam of redemption and re-creation, and there’s no sense fighting it, so we might as well cooperate” (Tony Jones. An Emergent Manifesto of Hope. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007, 130).

The mandate of the church is not to impact culture but to “make disciples” in Matthew 28:19-20 by winning people to Christ, baptizing them, and teaching God’s Word. Will fulfilling the Great Commission impact culture? The answer is that culture will to some degree be impacted by fulfilling the Great Commission. Historically this has been the case. One of the most colorful of all preachers was Billy Sunday. Sunday’s most famous sermon was “Booze” and the common result of Sunday’s city wide campaigns was the closing of saloons (Robert A. Allen. Billy Sunday Home Run to Heaven (Milford: Mott Media, 1985), 87).

His preaching impacted culture. But the church’s commission is not to impact the culture.

When impacting the culture drives a church, however, then there is the potential for what has happened in the EC: Culture impacts the church. For example and in contrast to Billy Sunday, EC preacher Mark Driscoll (though to his credit, he has distanced himself from the EC) endorses Protestant Pubs: “I personally long to return to the glory days of Christian pubs, where God’s men gather to drink beer and talk theology” (Mark Driscoll. The Radical Reformission. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004, 147).

Mark Driscoll encourages his men to brew their own beer. According to Driscoll, it is not a sin to drink but it is a sin to drink light beer (Driscoll, 139).

Part of Driscoll’s leadership training of the young men in Seattle includes “how to study the Bible, get a job, invest money, buy a home, court a woman, brew beer, have good sex, and be a pastor-dad to their children” (Driscoll, 184).

It has been claimed that Sigmund Freud enjoyed telling his followers a story of a pastor who visited an atheist insurance agent who was on his death bed. The family had asked the pastor to share the gospel with their dying loved one as they waited in another room. As the conversation continued longer than expected there was hope that the pastor was being successful in his mission. When the pastor finally emerged from the bedroom it was discovered that the agent had not converted to Christ but he had been able to sell the pastor an insurance policy.

Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Seminary, after providing this example applied it to our discussion. “In rejecting the very real defects of fundamentalism during the past few decades, evangelicals have begun to take very seriously their responsibilities to the larger culture – and with some obvious signs of success. The questions we must face honestly are these: Have we sold a new policy to the culture – or has the culture sold us a policy” (Richard J. Mouw, The Smell of Sawdust (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), p. 64, quoted in Gary E. Gilley, “The Kingdom of Emergent Theology-Part 1” http://www.svchapel.org/Resources/articles/read­_articles.asp?ID=139).

The verdict is in: Culture has sold the EC a policy. McLaren has the philosophy of the liberal postmillennialists who sees the goal of the church to impact the globe. McLaren has contextualized the message of the gospel as well as the lifestyle of Christianity. McLaren’s gospel is social.

“African and African American Christians (Black theology) and Latin American Christians (liberation theology, integral missiology) have been hitting these themes with intelligence and passion for decades, but few of us listened to their spokespeople, whether it was Dr. King or Desmond Tutu, Gustavo Gutierrez or Rene Padilla. Eco-feminist theology—articulated by authors like Sallie McFague and Mary Grey….In many ways all of these voices echo what earlier Christian leaders (from Charles Finney to Walter Rauschenbusch…had been saying: the modern Western understanding of the gospel was too often truncated, shallow, thin, bland, anemic, privatized, personalized, polarized, and compromised” ( Brian McLaren. An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, Church Emerging: Or Why I Still Use the Word Postmodern but with Mixed Feeling. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007, 147-148).

While Driscoll exposes the heresy of the McLarens, he states, “we must help cultivate a kingdom counterculture where we live” (Driscoll, 170) and “we seek to build our kingdom culture” (Driscoll,184).

Culture is mostly neutral and not worldly for Driscoll. Many aspects of culture can be used in building the kingdom culture, according to Driscoll. Consequently, culture has impacted his ministry.

In my next post I will state the views of John McArthur and Tim Challies concerning the impact of culture on Driscoll and his ministry.

An Expose of Emerging Church Preaching, Part 3

Posted: November 18, 2009 in Emerging Church, Homiletics/Preaching
Tags: , , , , , ,
0

Postmodernism’s Impact on the Style of EC Preaching

Postmodernism’s low view of Scripture is a driving force in Doug Pagitt’s Preaching Re-Imagined: The Role of the Sermon in Communities of Faith. Speaching is what Pagitt derisively calls historic preaching by the pastor. Pagitt admits candidly: “Preaching doesn’t work—at least not in the ways we hope… preaching, as we know it, is a tragically broken endeavor… great preaching isn’t sufficient.”[1]

The first style change for Pagitt is a shift from one pastor teaching God’s Word with authorial intent to members sharing multiple interpretations. Speaching, according to Pagitt, is modernistic because it is characterized by absolute truth and authorial intent i.e., one interpretation. The effect of deconstruction is heard in Pagitt’s alternative view to preaching which he calls progressional dialogue: “Progressional dialogue (hereafter PD), on the other hand, involves the intentional interplay of multiple viewpoints that leads to unexpected and unforeseen ideas.”[2]

Pagitt’s alternative, PD, is interactive with the community of God. The alternative is a direct result of Pagitt’s inferior view of Scripture. PD is interaction with the community who possesses just as much of the Word as does the Bible we hold in our hand. [3] Pagitt writes that “progressional dialogue creates a relationship in which the Bible becomes a living member of the community…. When this happens, the Bible becomes part of our conversation, not a dead book from which I extract truth.”[4]  So if Pagitt preaches in the traditional way, the Bible is a dead book, but if the community dialogues then the Bible is a living Book. The writer of Hebrews would adamantly disagree (Heb 4:12).

The result of these communal sermons is multiple views of Scripture. The Bible is only one member of the community contributing to the dialogue in Pagitt’s view.  One man proclaiming God’s Word is arrogant and too authoritative.[5] Driscoll, who disagrees with Pagitt, offers this refutation: “This makes about as much sense as shooting your doctor and gathering with the other patients in his lobby to speculate about what is wrong with one another and randomly write out prescriptions for one another in the name of equality.”[6]  This is directly opposed to Paul, who commanded as one of the required 16 qualifications to be a pastor in 1st Timothy 3:1-7 was to be “apt to teach.” See Michael Duduit’s interview with Pagitt.

The second style change for Pagitt is a move from the text being central in the sermon to experiences and stories being central. Not only are multiple views of Scripture proclaimed in a service by multiple members but by Pagitt’s admission another element of these dialogues is not the text as with historic preaching but the experiences of the community. “So our sermons are not lessons that precisely define belief so much as they are stories that welcome our hopes and ideas and participation.”[7] The center piece of preaching, according to the imperative in 2 Tim 4:2, is “the Word” not the experiences of people: “Preach the Word…reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.” Paul follows hard the command with the reason for this burning concentration of preaching on God’s Word: “The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears.” That prophesy is being fulfilled today in some groups of the EC.

Why does Pagitt reject the style of historic preaching? In part because of his postmodern deconstruction of the history of preaching. Another anti-preaching argument by Pagitt is that speaching or historic preaching is just another adverse result of the EC’s boogeyman, the Enlightenment. Pagitt, the revisionist, rewrites the history of preaching: “In reality speaching is quite new, a creation of Enlightenment Christianity in which faith formation was understood as something best handled by the ‘expert’ (aka the pastor).”[8] John Calvin is just one glaring refutation to Pagitt’s undocumented arguments. Calvin was committed to verse by verse expository preaching through books of the Bible as documented by Steven J. Lawson in The Expository Genius of John Calvin, Orlando, Reformation Trust, 2007, 16 (See review in Unashamed Workmen).

Because the church and state were not separate, and Calvin had elders who were also city council members, who could overrule the decisions of the church, Calvin faced unique battles as a pastor.

The Libertines, boasted in sinful licentiousness. Sexual immorality was permissible, they claimed, arguing that the ‘communion of the saint’ meant that their bodies should be joined to the wives of others. The Libertines openly practiced adultery and yet desired to come to the Lord’s Table.

But Calvin would have none of it. In an epic encounter, Philibert Berthelier, a prominent Libertine, was excommunicated because of his known sexual promiscuity. Consequently, he was forbidden from partaking of the Lord’s Supper. Through the underhanded influence of the Libertines, the City Council overrode the church’s decision, and Berthelier and his associates came to church to take the Lord’s Supper with swords drawn, ready to fight. With bold audacity, Calvin descended from the pulpit, stood in front of the Communion table, and said, ‘These hands you may crush, these arms you may lop off, my life you may take, my blood is yours, you may shed it; but you shall never force me to give holy things to the profaned and dishonor the table of my God.’ Berthelier and the Libertines withdrew, no match for such unflinching convictions.

Eventually, Calvin was banished from Geneva for three years (1538-1541) because of his refusal to allow the spiritually unqualified to partake of the Lord’s Table. Finally, the struggling city of Geneva invited Calvin to return. On September 13, 1541, Calvin returned after his three year banishment. He entered his old pulpit and began, “I will begin my exposition by reading our text for the morning…” and he announced the verses following the exact place he had left off three years before. Calvin started preaching on the next verse.

Preaching God’s Word is a priority of the church (2 Tim. 4:1-6). Preaching God’s Word is the ministry of God-called men whom God equips to be “apt to teach.” This is not a qualification of every member of the church, not even the deacons. But “apt to teach” which is synonymous with preaching the Word in the context of 1 Tim 3:1-7 is one of the primary responsibilities of the pastor.

[1] Doug Pagitt. Preaching Re-Imagined (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 18-19.

[2] Ibid., 52.

[3] Pagitt once again reminds us of Barth’s view, but this time in regard to preaching. Barth quotes approvingly of Luther’s view that when the preacher preaches, he is speaking God’s Word. In other words, the preacher is not simply preaching God’s infallible Word, with which we would agree, but that what the preacher says is God’s infallible Word: “Therefore, we do well to call the pastor’s and preacher’s word which he preacheth, God’s Word. For the office is not the pastor’s or preacher’s, but God’s; and the Word which he preacheth is likewise not the pastor’s or preacher’s, but God’s” Karl Barth. Church Dogmatics. 107. Again what is true with the individual, this time the preacher, in Neo-orthodoxy, is true with the community in the Emerging church.

[4] Pagitt, 218.

[5] Ibid., 123.

[6] Mark Driscoll, The Radical Reformation, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 173.

[7] Doug Pagitt. Church Re- Imagined: The Spiritual Formation of People in Communities of Fatih. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005) 166.

[8] Pagitt, Preaching Re-Imaged. 28,60,113.

An Expose of Emerging Church Preaching, Part 2

Posted: November 17, 2009 in Emerging Church, Homiletics/Preaching
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

Postmodernism’s Impact on the Content of EC Preaching

Andrew Perriman, an Emerging church theologian, in his website Open Source Theology posted this blog entitled “Jesus, God and narrative theology.”  In this post, Perriman, explains away the deity of Christ with narrative theology. In narrative theology, it is not the context of the Scriptural passage that determines its meaning, as much as the context of the community. Clearly the Biblical context of John 20:28 “My Lord and my God” exclaimed by Thomas to Jesus, is the deity of Christ. However, in the narrative context of Perriman’s community the deity of Christ is deconstructed.[1] Perriman rejects universal truths or static beliefs for dynamic insights that the Spirit of God can communicate to the current community of believers.  

The late Stanley Grenz, a theologian and philosopher in the Emerging church, would agree and actually laid a new theological basis for this emergent thinking. Grenz revealed his low view of Scripture found in his Revisioning Evangelical Theology by stating that he believes traditional evangelicalism has made mistakes that need to be revisioned. One of the mistakes, in Grenz’s view, is traditional evangelicalism’s emphasis on the Bible as a divine book rather than a human book. Translated means, importance has been placed on inspiration over illumination. According to Grenz, “We can more readily see the Bible—the instrumentality of the Spirit—as the book of the community.”[2] With this communal subjectivism, truth is found in each community, and inspiration is mixed with believers’ illumination: “The confession of the inspiration of the Bible is closely intertwined with the experience of illumination.”[3] Norman Geisler[4] observes that this view sounds like neo-orthodoxy’s view of inspiration which states that the Bible becomes the Word of God when you have experienced this event.[5] The difference between Neo-othodoxy’s view of Scripture and that of the Emerging Church is found in their emphases: Neo-orthodoxy emphasizes the individual experiencing God’s Word and the Emerging church stresses the community experiencing the Word.

 As a result of this new neo-orthodox view, many doctrines are rejected. Here are the doctrines Driscoll says the left wing of the EC, what he calls Emergent Liberals, are questioning and in most cases abandoning. As will be obviously observed, the EC has an aversion for doctrine. I have added to Driscoll’s list some documentation of this aversion.

1. Scripture

2. Jesus Christ

3. Gender

4. Sin

5. Salvation

6. The Cross[6]

7. Hell:[7] Will sinners experience a conscious eternal torment?[8]

The secular and evangelical postmodern focus on community has not only directly impaired the content of preaching by lowering people’s view of Scripture and questioning core doctrines, but the style of preaching. In my next post, I will discuss postmodernism’s impact on the style of EC preaching.

[1] “So, for example, Thomas’ words ‘My Lord and my God’ (John 20:28) are read not as an expression of a universal truth but as a particular confession of personal faith within a particular narrative context. This was how Thomas responded – or how John understood Thomas to have responded – to Jesus’ invitation to believe. So I think I’m arguing for two rather different things – first, to exercise a measure of theological restraint in reading the texts, allowing them to set contextual limits to the language that we use about Jesus; but secondly, to recognize that within the covenant community, within the body of Christ, the Spirit of God prompts (continues to prompt) a wide range of personal and corporate insights into the nature of the overlap of identity and purpose between Jesus and God.” Andrew Perriman. “Jesus, God, and narrative theology.” Open Source Theology (September 20, 2005). http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/728. Accessed December 18, 2008.

http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/728. Accesssed January 1, 2009.

[2] Stanley J. Grenz. Revisioning Evangelical Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993), 115.

[3] Ibid., 118.

[4] Norman L. Geisler and Thomas A. Howe. A Postmodern View of Scripture. A Christian Apologetics Journal 7/1 (Spring, 2008), 70.

[5] “The Bible is God’s Word so far as God lets it be His Word, so far as God speaks through it .…The statement, ‘The Bible is God’s Word,’ is a confession of faith, a statement made by the faith that hears God Himself speak in the human word of the Bible….this act of God upon man has become an event, therefore not to the fact that man has reached out to the Bible, but to the fact that the Bible has reached out to man. The Bible therefore becomes God’s Word in this event….the Bible must from time to time become His Word to us” Karl Barth. Church Dogmatics. Vol. I (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936), 123-124. Karl Barth is important to the EC. One chapter in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope is given over to promoting Barth: “Digging Up the Past: Karl Barth (The Reformed Giant) as Friend to the Emerging Church.” (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007).

[6] “And did the conservative Protestant emphasis on the death of Jesus necessarily marginalize Jesus’ life—his wise teachings and his kind deeds, which had captured my childhood imagination? Over time I began to feel as though, from my perspective, the gospel became simply an individualistic theory, and abstraction with personal but not global import. It became about the solution to a cosmic legal/business/political problem, real and serious, but a bit dry, a bit removed from real life. In my heart grew a deep, subtle, unspoken sense that something was missing, which gradually opened my heart to search for other ways of seeing Jesus” McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 48-49.

[7] “I should add that this dissatisfaction with the conservative Protestant Jesus intensified just last Christmas when one of my children was home for the holidays from college. I asked him how he was doing spiritually. ‘I’m struggling, Dad,’ he said. ‘Tell me about that,’ I said. He replied, ‘Well, Dad, if Christianity is true, then nearly everyone I love is going to be tortured in the fires of hell forever. And if it’s not true, then life has no meaning.’ He was silent for a moment and then added, ‘I just wish there were a better option.’ My heart was broken, I asked, ‘Is that the understanding of Christianity you got from me?’ He replied, ‘No, but that’s the way most Christians think. They just kind of bottom-line everything to heaven or hell, and that makes life feel kind of cheap.’ My son’s insight doesn’t apply to the best expressions of conservative Protestants, but it does, I fear, apply too often to the most popular ones. He put into blunt and powerful terms exactly what I felt vaguely and inarticulately when I was his age”[7] Brian McLaren. A Generous Orthodoxy, 49.

[8] Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective on the Emerging Church.” Criswell Theological Review. 3/2 (Spring 2006) 91.

Older Entries