I've not long finished reading a book for a review in Evangelicals Now. The book is called The Shepherd Leader by Timothy Z Witmer. You'll have to wait for EN to read the review, but one of the book's strengths is a top-ten list of why preachers should preach expository sermons. You can argue that one or two of the points are the same, but here it is anyway:
- Expository preaching identifies exactly what is at the heart of the Christian message
- Expository preaching requires that the shepherd concern himself with the intent of the Divine Author for every text.
- Expository preaching respects the integrity of the textual units given through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit
- Expository preaching keeps the pastor from riding his favourite hobby horses.
- Expository preaching requires the preacher to preach the difficult or obscure texts and challenging truths of the Bible.
- Expository preaching will encourage both pastor and students alike to become students of the Bible.
- Expository preaching gives us boldness in preaching for we are not expounding our own fallible views but the Word of God.
- Expository preaching gives confidence to the listener that what he is hearing is not the opinion of man but the Word of God.
- Expository preaching is of great assistance in sermon planning.
- Expository preaching provides the context for a long tenure in a particular place.
We have two primary schools right by us and which we can see out of our window. I notice that today the Catholic school is shut whilst the Protestant school is open. Is this the Protestant Primary work ethic, we wondered….?
Are we fighting the right battle on Scripture
This quote is taken from a 2008 book I'm just getting round to: Reforming or Conforming? Post Conservative Evangelicals and the Emergent Church edited by Gary Johnson and Ronald Gleason (interesting footnote, I notice that Smart Mart(in) Downes, one of Wales' leading lights has contributed a chapter entitled The Emerging Church Conversation and the Cultural Captivity of the Gospel; however, for some strange reason he's been left off the list of contributors! – do pray for Martin at the moment; read his blog to see why he and his family, particularly Kezia, need our upholding). The particular quote comes from Paul Wells who lectures at Aix-en-Provence (though he's really a scouser…).
And where does the real problem lie, in so far as the doctrine of Scripture is concerned for evangelicals? Not primarily in its authority and inspiration, nor in its divine nature, nor even in its inerrancy….but in its humanity. If the major evangelical publications over the last fifty years were reviewed, relatively little would be found about the specific nature of the humanity of Scripture. However, it was precisely on this point that modernist critique focused, in the belief that if the humanity of the text is taken seriously, then the nature of the divine revelatory action involved will require some reformulation. Liberals thought that because of the humanity of Scripture, the understanding of divine revelation needed revamping, whereas evangelicals seemed to suppose that if the divinity of Scripture were squared away in the context of inspiration, with inerrancy following close behind, the questions about the human nature of Scripture would somehow go away.
Do we want Apple to censor or not?
This interesting question gets to the heart of some of the issues about the church in society today.
- For some time, I've been impressed with Apple because they won't allow porn apps on their iPhone. I'm sure there are other ways to access immoral material, but it won't be through an app or an iTunes video download. Great, we say!
- Today, Phil Vischer is telling the story of how Apple pulled the plug on an app which allows online sign-up to a petition related to, amongst other things, opposition to gay marriage. Woah! Censorious Apple! (H/T Tim Challies). BTW, it does seem a supreme irony that liberalism is now becoming quite censorious as a force – the very philosophy it espouses is set aside when views are expressed are non-liberal (can you not see how absurd it is that liberals are seeking to have apps removed?).
Which do we want? Or is there a middle way?
I had the joy last Saturday of teaching on Friends International's Philip Project, something I have been doing for four years or so. The Philip Project was initially set up to train Africans studying in the UK in basic Bible handling skills – recognising that many of these would be the future leaders of churches back in Africa. It is essentially missionary work of the training kind, but based in the UK. Together with regular teachers John Richardson and Marcus Honeysett, our monthly training days are both a challenge (after all, the students all live in very different contexts) and a joy – their hunger for God's word is remarkable.
This year Philip Project is spreading its wings and on Saturday we had four Mandarin speakers. If you have any international students in your church, do think about the possibility of encouraging them to enrol – or even paying to enrol them yourselves. We have seen in a couple of African countries how students who really grasp the benefits can make a significant difference as champions of biblical preaching.
You can see some video footage from the Philip Project backed Limbé (Cameroon) preachers conference below. You also get the delight of seeing me not at my finest – very, very, very hot.
You know you’ve made a mistake when…..
…you cycle to work in the morning and then it starts snowing heavily.
God and his whispers
Tim Chester (speaking at next year's Spring Younger Minister's Conference) has blogged very helpfully about Bill Hybel's latest resource The Whisper of God and the normative role of the Word of God. Thanks Tim for an even handed and thorough review.
Something that happened in our lives recently to make me realise once again that
- Dull but Faithful to Scripture betters
- Engaging but Loose to Scripture
Please, I'm not arguing for dull preaching (why is so much evangelical preaching so dull, given that the Scriptures are so full of life?). But I've realised there is a ranking…. one is markedly superior to the other.
So, what did the academic miss….?
Did you read Henig's letter to the TImes (below)? If so, did you spot where he might have gone wrong? It's not unimportant because these are the kinds of errors we make all the time as we strive to "rightly handle the word of truth."
- First, there's an error of historical context. Henig implies strongly that 18th Century slavery is a direct counterpart to Roman slavery. True, there are some things in common. And, for sure, Roman slavery could be horrific as plenty of contemporary accounts show. But they are not the same. Professionals (such as doctors), for example, were mostly slaves in the Roman system. Context demands that we understand the kind of issue Paul is writing into and about.
- Second, there a false logic. Even if, (and I will refute this in a moment) Paul is tacitly accepting of slavery as Henig argues, then it does not necessarily flow that slavery and sexual ethics are in the same category and so an error in one must therefore indicate an error in another. For me, as an evangelical, this is not a key point, because I think that Henig has significantly misinterpreted the text, but even if had not, drawing close connections between the two issues is not legitimate without further explanation.
- Third, there is an error of immediate context. What are the main things going on in these passages which will inform our understanding of those particular texts. I don't need to go in to that now, you can no doubt go away and read it up for yourself; suffice it to say it would change Henig's interpretation.
- Fourthly, there is an error of language. Both injunctions, taken on their own, are commands to slaves to obey their masters. Neither is either implicitly or explicitly, an endorsement of slavery. The words just don't say that.
They're common enough errors – probably in my own preparation and preaching too if I'm not careful.
Why we’re right to keep banging on….
Sometimes, PT is accused of banging on about things that don't seem to matter. But there are some issues that we're right to bang on about, not least that if we are to rightly handle the Word of God, we've got to rightly understand the words of the Word of God. There was a great example of how indiscipline can lead us astray in yesterday's Times letters. Here is a letter from Rev Dr Martin Henig of Wolfson College Oxford (if you have access to behind-the-paywall you can read it here).
Sir, Discomforting as it is to modern Christians, Christianity did nothing to sweep away slavery (letter, Nov 24). Indeed, St Paul exhorts slaves to obey their masters (Ephesians 6,5), while the writer of 1 Timothy reiterates this injunction (1 Timothy 6, 1-6).
To our shame, slavery as an institution continued to be universal in the Christian Empire and into the Middle Ages and beyond. The 18th century did not re-discover slavery; the needs of plantation owners in the New World simply built on an endemic structure of slavery and serfdom that had been in existence since human records began.
Bishop Gene Robinson is right. It was the emergence of a liberal conscience that looked to the heart of the Gospel message of liberation which ended slavery. Let us hope that the same truly Christian spirit will at last end centuries of injustice and discrimination against lesbians and gays, many of them fervent Christians. If we were guided simply by biblical texts without recourse to the compassion of Christ and our own God-given reason we would still be owning slaves, stoning adulterers and burning “witches”.
Have a careful read and see where you think the exegesis and argument is flawed (I don't mean the implication that someone other than Paul wrote 1 Timothy, though I would want to take issue with that too!). It's worth spending some time trying to work it out, not least because it both reinforces how we understand Scripture and answers a very common objection to our view of homosexuality (and, indeed, a whole raft of sexual ethics).