Posts Tagged ‘John McArthur’

The Faith of a Harlot (Hebrew 11:30-31)

Posted: January 15, 2013 in Sermons
Tags: , , , ,
0

Dr. Harold Sightler told of a fallen woman from Greensboro, NC who listened to his radio broadcast in Greenville, SC and wrote him. “I’m a vile woman, I have broken every one of the 10 Commandments. I hesitate even to write because you would have to handle the same paper I have handled. Can you help me?” Dr. Sightler was able to tell this modern day Rahab how to be saved.

Three writers of Scripture call Rahab a harlot: Joshua, the writer of Hebrews and James. Rahab illustrates Jesus’ words to self-righteous, religious leaders in Matthew 21:31: “The tax collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.” Jesus then gave the reason: “The tax collectors and the harlots believed: and you when you had seen it, repented not afterward, that you might believe.” There is no one beyond the reach of God’s grace.

The events of Joshua 2 take place after the forty years of wandering in the wilderness in unbelief. Moses is dead and Joshua is the new leader. He will lead God’s people into the Promise Land when he crosses Jordan River. His first major obstacle is the city Jericho. Jericho covers only eight or nine acres. But it’s walls are forty feet high and thick enough for two chariots to run side-by-side across the top. Jericho is more like a giant bunker than a city. It is humanly impossible for the Israelites to defeat. But with God all things are possible and God is going to use the most unlikely person to help Joshua. The last individual whose act of faith is mentioned is Rahab the harlot. Her act of faith is recorded in Joshua 2. From Rahab we learn

1. All People are Sinners (Joshua 2:1)

A. By Birth

Rahab was a Gentile (who later believed). This should have shamed the Hebrew believers, to whom the writer of Hebrews wrote. Rahab was a Canaanite in Jericho, which was under the judgment of God. The Canaanites were a very wicked people. “They frequently put live babies in jars and built them into their city walls as foundation sacrifices. They were begging for judgment” (McArthur Hebrews, 364). All sinners, however, are under God’s judgment (John 3:18)

B. By Choice

Rahab practiced the oldest profession. She was born a sinner. She was not born a harlot. She chose to be a harlot. People are not born drunkards. People are not born homosexuals. There is no Gay Gene. But sinners can break these wicked lifestyles with God’s help just as Rahab did.

2. All People Can be Saved Sinners 

A. She had witnesses (Joshua 2:2-3)

These men were not Bob Harringtons ministering on Bourbon St in New Orleans among the strippers. Rahab’s brothel was the least suspicious place for traveling salesmen and merchants to visit. These visitors were much different from her previous clients. These godly men were led of God to a woman seeking more knowledge about the one true God.

B. She still had weaknesses (Joshua 2:4-5)

Rahab lied at least four times. Alexander Maclaren observed, “A lie was a strange kind of first-fruits of faith” (Exposition of Holy Scripture, 144). God did not condone her lie but God forgave her sin. Rahab was a new convert. Abraham who was older in the Lord lied twice.

John Newton, the author of Amazing Grace and one of the early fathers of the Evangelical movement in the Church of England, continued to participate in the slave trade for over a year after his dramatic conversion. He was still a new convert.

I read about a veteran missionary who came to Christ in the midst of a hard-drinking business environment—-and how he fortified himself with six martinis to get the courage to share Christ the first time! An inebriated evangelist? This missionary did not continue to practice drinking and evangelism. He too, like Rahab, was a new convert (Kent Hughes. Preaching the Word, Hebrews, Vol Two, 139).

C. She did become a new person (Joshua 2:6-8)

She ceased her adultery. She became a virtuous woman. The reference to flax in her house reveals she now possesses one of the qualities of the virtuous woman in Proverbs 31:13. Like Lydia, the seller of purple at Thyatira who became the first convert to Christianity in Europe when Paul preached at Philippi, Rahab was the first convert in Canaan who seems to have been a seller of linen.

3. All People Can be Saved by Faith (Joshua 2:9-11)

A. The other inhabitants heard also and according to Hebrews 11:31 “believed not.”

That is the only time in Hebrews 11 that unbelief is mentioned. Both Rahab and the rest “heard” but only Rahab believed. “All the inhabitants feared and had heard” (Joshua 2:9-10).

B. At first, the residents of Jericho were terror stricken, but soon hardened their hearts.

Every trip around Jericho, was like one of the plagues on Egypt, it was an opportunity to respond to God’s invitation but they rejected.

C. Rahab believed when she only had the bits and pieces of witnesses from her client concerning the millions of Jews on the other side of Jordan. We have the full canon of God’s Word.

4. All People Who Believe Will Have Evidences of Salvation (Joshua 2:9-18)

A. Assurance of salvation (2:9).

She had a very short doctrinal statement, but enough. “I know….the Lord your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.”

B. Burden for her family (2:12-14).

Charles Spurgeon, “If you do not want your children saved, you are not saved yourself.”

C. Love for fellow brethren (2:15-17).

James says works are the evidence of faith. One work of faith is love for other believers. She welcomed the spies into her home. She engaged them in conversation. She made provision for the spy’s safety.

D. Public confession of her salvation (2:18).

Some believe this red rope was the advertisement for her former business. It was the red rope district of Jericho. Now she unashamedly is letting others know she is identified with God’s people.

5. All People Can be Saved from Judgment (Joshua 2:19)

A. The Promise in Joshua 2:19.

There may be a parallel between the blood of the Passover that was painted on the door posts of each Israelite’s house to deliver from the judgment of the last plague so they could be delivered from Egypt and the this red rope which was hung from her window so she could be delivered from judgment and enter the Promised Land. The word “token” (2:12) or sign is used in both passages (Exodus 12:13).

B. The Fulfillment of the Promise (Joshua 6:20-25).

After seven days of circling the city of Jericho by Joshua and his people by faith, God judged all the Canaanites because they believed not and also because they would have corrupted God’s people. Rahab and her family were spared because they believed and did not reject God. Apparently the portion of the wall on which her house was built did not collapse. Have you ever been driving in the country and you see the remains of an old house out in a field and all that is standing is the chimney? That is what Jericho looked like with Rahab’s house on top and intact. While Rahab was saved by faith, the rest of the inhabitants of Jericho died and were burned with fire.

Stephen Davey notes: This scene becomes a metaphor of judgment and redemption. All who do not personally surrender to God will one day be judged by everlasting fire.

C. Salvation is not just deliverance from judgment but deliverance to God’s blessings.

Matthew one records the family tree of Christ and mentions only four women, who are infamous for one reason or another: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth. Bathsheba. Matthew records four women who by God’s grace become mothers in the Messianic line of Christ. Their past sins in no way limited their spiritual reward of being born again into the family of God.

God’s grace activated by faith did not record their sin. There is a striking omission in this reference to Rahab: The reproachful epithet “Harlot.” After the wall collapsed, and Rahab and her family were spared she married an Israelite named Salmon and she became the great, great, grandmother of King David.

It is not Tamar the prostitute, nor Ruth the Moabite, nor Bathsheba the adulteress, nor Rahab the harlot. But Rahab, the great, great, grandmother of King David through whom Christ was born.

Just as God struck her ignominious title from the genealogy of Christ so has He struck our sin from His remembrance.

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.

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.