Preaching, apologetics and a quick cycle round the block
It’s soon time for our Spring Senior Ministers’ Conference (27 April – 20 April) at Hothorpe Hall. If you’ve not been to one for a while (or ever) you may be surprised. There seems to be this image going round that it’s all hard, hard work. I don’t know where that has come from, but in essence, the conference aim is to both encourage and equip preachers, so we’re pretty chilled out. We do this in a number of ways:
- We do it with from the front sessions – this time around with Peter Adam
- We do it with input on a particular subject, often where we feel weak. This time around we’re delighted that David Robertson, Moderator of the Free Church of Scotland and a key apologist, will be coming to help us.
- We do it with small groups where we think and pray and work on preaching together. This is such a key component of our ministries that it needs to be a key component of the conference.
- We do it with networks, trying to connect people in similar situations and stages of ministry
- We do it with careful use of informal as well as formal time. That means plenty of time to relax, unwind, catch up with friends, just read the paper if you want. I think the technical term for this is fellowship. But it does, if you want, include a cycle round the block. A rather large block, it must be said, but we do get back to where we started.
You can book online here.
I’ve been preparing a sermon on Exodus 3 this week and have had to use an unfamiliar Bible translation (to me anyway). It’s raised an interesting point. We often have heated discussions about the translation itself (and are right to think through philosophy of translation and evaluate various options). But we rarely think about how Bible are typeset.
And yet, this week, the typesetting has made an enormous difference to me. I’m working a pretty familiar passage. I don’t know it by heart, sure, but there are not really any “wow” surprises in it that you sometimes get with those unfamiliar passages. And yet….
…and yet I’m struggling to find things in the passage. My particular version of this particular translation (see how cautious I’m being here??) is dense and the typeface not particularly helpful. I know what I’m looking for in the text, but sometimes struggle to find it. There’s plenty of research to show that typeface and layout really count when it comes to reading, and that’s as true for Bibles as any other literature.
In fact, more true. Mainly because Bibles employ some strange layout tools you don’t find anywhere else – little numbers and letters in the text, double columns, hyper-hyphenation and so on. So, when it comes to Bibles I’m determined to think not only of covers and feel (the soft touchy feely part of me) nor only of translation (the thinking mind in me), but layout (the preacher and reader in me). We must.
And well done you, to publishers who have thought this through and delivered excellent typesetting.
The minister and sexual purity
If, like me, you use the McCheyne Bible reading plan, you’ll have spent some of the last few days in the early chapters of Proverbs. The chapters on sexual purity are especially challenging for those in ministry. Why? Because the ministry of the word, especially but not only the pastoral element of it, is emotionally instensive. That is why preaching tires us out – there’s nothing particularly physical about it (for most of us!). But we feel drained after preaching because of the emotional investment. It is this emptying that makes ministers so vulnerable to attack. And, of course, a successful spiritual attack in the realm of sexual purity will have devastating consequences.
We’re made to be sexual beings and so this is a risk for us all – however much we may like to think about it. Here are five things the Bible says. I find these useful. No rocket science, but a necessary and regular reminder of how we guard our hearts.
1. Think of the heart. Jesus is clear that adultery starts in the heart. Even a lustful look (Matthew 5.27-30) is the same as the act to the God who sees all. And, of course, it is from within that the actions come. Unchecked lust in the heart soon turns into a porn habit. We need a ruthless approach with our own hearts, crying out to God to show us our black spots and help put sin to death.
2. Think of the Spirit. Each morning I write out the fruit of the Spirit in a little notebook. You may think that is rather quaint, but it helps me pray for his help and the fruit he brings. Including self-control. Key to fighting sexual temptation is to cry out to God to so fill us with the Spirit of Christ himself that his fruit is hanging from every branch.
3. Think of the church. The one flesh command from Gen 2 is more than sex (Eph 5.32) but not less than it (1 Cor 6.16). It therefore, at some level, depicts the joyful union Christ enjoys with the church. As a minister of this good news you need constant reminder of this truth at all kinds of levels. The church is not yours, for example. Union is a deep and meaningful doctrine. Sex,both sexual enjoyment, but also sexual fidelity or abstinence (for those who are single) is a depiction of this union.
4. Think of sex. This is not a helpful command for the unmarried – but it is biblical so I include it. The joy of sex is also preventative (1 Cor 7.1-7). Ministry couples whose marriage bed is unused are in great danger of temptation. It should not be so. It’s a command. You might not think that’s a particularly romantic way to think about sex – but it’s enormously romantic to keep your partner from Satan; it’s the best thing you can do for him/her.
5. Think of the consequences. However much we might like to think that sexual immorality is abhorrent in the cold of the day, we need to recognise that the Scriptures show us again and again that it is attractive. This is the testimony of Proverbs 5-7. Adultery can “captivate” us. The adulterous woman seduces the unwitting man. Interestingly, Solomon’s approach is to warn his son against the consequences of such an alliance (“destruction”, 6:32). How “attractive” the website or moment, we need to keep telling ourselves, “this way destruction lies.”
There’s more in the Bible, of course, but perhaps these will help out.
Old and New
I’ve just finished watching the BBC documentary Inside the Commons, Michael Cockerill’s unparalleled insight to the workings of the UK Parliament. I confess to mixed feelings. On the one hand, I have a vague sense of history and nostalgia and quite like quirks, like the Speaker marching through the Palace every day with someone in front of him singing (yes, singing) “Speak-ker.” But there’s another part of me that thinks “That is completely and utterly bonkers.” Indeed, from the point of view of democracy there are plenty of moments when the whole system seems somewhat dysfunctional. Moreover, holding Old and New together seems, at best, difficult, at worst, impossible.
I do worry about some OT preaching I hear. I do worry about some reactions to my own OT preaching. I find a nostalgia about the Old Covenant which is misplaced and ignores the sweep of Bible history. I find hearers who explicitly say things like “Wouldn’t it have been amazing to live in the Old Covenant?” and I find preachers who seem to imply that to be the case.
Profoundly we do that when we fail to preach Christ. For Christ does not belong in the Old Covenant; rather the Old anticipates him. It is not then, that we cannot preach from the Old Covenant. But we mustn’t preach the Old Covenant itself.
To do so would be completely and utterly bonkers. You may feel that you do not do so. Great. But let me ask you what the people hear?
Where do you go…?
Yesterday’s post raises an interesting question. Where do you send Christian couples for sexual help? Mrs R and I have looked into accredited training before now, but it’s a no go for most Christians as most accredited courses require Christians to sign up to commitments they cannot possibly honour in good conscience. So where do you send people? Here are some ideas:
- Physical issues are often best dealt with by medical staff. Doctors are well placed to help in this area.
- Relational issues are less straightforward. If a couple are committed to working things through then a trip to Relate can be helpful. However, if you’re unsure about their commitment to one another, such secular counselling is not the place to send them.
- There are good resources around – but there are equally rubbish ones too. Read things yourself first before recommendations.
- The Bible is surprisingly frank and clear about sex. It is also clear about the heart from where many sexual problems spring. That means that most front line help (certainly in the first instance) should be able to be given in church itself. Perhaps it’s not you – but identify a couple in the church who can help in this area.
And remember, like many pastoral problems, Christians are often very cautious about asking for help in this area – perhaps more than any other. The damage is often already done. Encouraging people to seek help without judgement is key to getting things rolling.
Mrs R and I have just written a book on sex. That’s not news, particularly, but I was interested that as part of the process I sent a draft to one of the UK’s top secular sexologists for comment. I happen to think she’s a pretty good one. The response was interesting, stating that we held “wildly different views on sex.” Now, I’ve read most of what that particular person has written on sex and I wasn’t initially convinced she was right. For married couples hoping and trying to stay loyal and committed I think much of her advice is good and proper – not wildly different.
But then I thought some more. In fact, she recognised what I failed – initially at least – to see. Your outworkings and applications may be very similar, but if you differ in your foundational principles that give rise to those applications, then your views are indeed “wildly different.” Sooner or later that’s going to show.
Christians need to think about this when they go to the world for sexual advice (and there are precious few reliable Christian places to go). Sexual advice may be helpful from such places, but needs to be filtered always through a biblical grid because, fundamentally, Christians views and the world’s views are indeed, wildly different.
Using news stories as illustrations
An older preacher I know stores up news stories in a file index system and retrieves them for use as illustrations as and when the need arises. That requires a level of dedication (and time) I simply don’t have. I tend to use the BBC or The Times search functions: very powerful tools indeed. That requires, of course, a knowledge of what you’re looking for. The story must be there somewhere in the back of your head for you to be able to search for it adequately.
But, it also requires a healthy scepticism. News stories – especially online ones – tend to be reductionistic. I think as preachers we need to exercise some caution and realise we don’t always know all the facts. Passing on stories as gospel without being in full possession of the truth is the way of the world – witness the 400,000 who signed the Jeremy Clarkson petition without even knowing what happened! Extraordinary.
But there is more to most stories – and those about Christian bashing which circulate on social media are often very skewed indeed. Take care Mr Preacher. For example, read the actual ruling of a hypothetical tribunal and you discover that Mr A was sacked not for “being a Christian” but some aggressive infringement. I recently read a notorious Ofsted report from cover to cover and had some sympathy (if it reports correctly) with the Secretary of State.
Preachers are not tabloid reporters. Illustrations are helpful windows, but need careful thought if they are going to serve the purpose for which they’re intended.
This morning I spent a happy time with some of my tutees from the Cornhill Training Course. They come from a variety of backgrounds: Anglican and Free Church, married and single, older (some retired) and younger. All of them (and they are 6 months in) have given up things to come and study with us. I asked each of them the same question: any regrets?
To a man (and all my tutees are men, but we also train women!) they said “No.” I was comforted to hear that. It’s not always universally true. Some people start out and find it’s not for them. But they are an unusual rarity. Even though we have a significant number who don’t go into full time ministry, still we find very, very few who ever regret taking the course.
Perhaps you have someone in your church who would benefit? Now’s the time to think about it and one of us here would be glad to chat through some of the options. Why not get in touch?
Fifteen years ago I was in the same boat. I left behind a relatively successful (though I cannot say glittering!) business career. The nice car and house went. We lived a simpler life. And I can honestly say, hand on heart.
Preaching and Leading
Different strokes for different folks. We all come from different traditions which determine what structure services have and who leads and preaches and – critically – whether these are the same people. I’m – to quote Levy – Free Church Reynolds, which means I am comfortable with both leading and preaching in the same service. And for some of the reasons I outlined yesterday, I happen to think that’s an extremely good model. But we don’t particularly stick to it, chez nous. I’m often leading not preaching and vice versa. And that’s OK too, provided there is at some least some joint planning and thinking. When services are a game of two halves with no connection whatsoever, I don’t think it particularly helps anyone. In fact, sometimes it can hinder: imagine you’ve got a particularly sober sermon. The rest of the service needs to reflect that, at least in part.
Just in passing
Some of the most extraordinary truths in Scripture are mentioned almost in passing. Take Ephesians 1.11-14 for example. This was my passage on Sunday and it stirred me greatly. As you almost certainly already know, Paul is first of all talking about himself as a believing Jew before pointing out to the Gentiles that they too have been included in Christ. That’s why he repeats the language of predestination (v.11 compare v.5) and being chosen (v.11 compare v.4) and why he switches from the “we” language to “you” language at verse 13.
But as he points out that he, as a Jew, was amongst those who were first to believe he says the most profound truth about God’s sovereignty:
“[He] works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will.”
Just let that sink in! Now, in the context, he is talking about his salvation, but his description of the providence of God encompasses “everything” not just the salvation of some Jews. How do you do justice to such a truth when it is mentioned as though in passing? Here are one or two ideas:
First you could make more of it than the passage does: it could become one of your teaching points. This, I guess, is an obvious temptation. I worry about his approach because it damages the delicate balance that the Spirit has inspired and detracts from the main point Paul is making about inclusion.
You could slow up and just preach the verse. I think this is a good approach as long as it is not the normal one. Most of us preach one verse at some time or another (especially in short evangelistic contexts). There is much to be said for it and it is quite a skill. We get the students to do it here from time to time and they often struggle with it. You can still be expository doing one verse, by the way: you’ve misunderstood expository preaching if you think it needs long passages.
You could use it to inform the rest of the service. This is what I did last Sunday, at least in part. We used it to help us pray and I did a short kids’ talk. We sung a Colin Buchanan song about God being in control and then sung a grown up one too: Sovereign Ruler of the Skies. That way the service held together well and we got as much truth from the passage as we could, even though the message was not skewed away from the Spirit inspired balance.
That – of course – requires the preacher to be the leader too, or at the very least work closely together. Which is a whole different topic.