The purpose of the church

“The most valuable work a church can perform is to so minister to individual Christian lives that they shall enter into the presence of God for themselves and have a faith that will outlast and outlive all external helps.” --IJ Van Ness

I came across this quote when doing some reading, and I’ve been staring at it off and on for the day. It’s connected to the heart of a frequent discussion these days: What is the purpose of the church?

To some, the church is about providing social services to as many as possible. This isn’t a totally bad work of God’s people, as even James 1:27 reminds us that pure and undefiled religion is looking after widows and orphans. Then there is the need to help find solutions for children in need of adoption and temporary care, families that are facing difficult times, and the ever-present need to feed the hungry.

To others, the church is about education. The church should be teaching children to be moral, wives to be submissive, husbands to be leaders, and teens to be sober and abstinent. When there are needs for education in the community, the church could be there to help with job training or placement.

Still others see in the church the institution of right-thinking government policy. Whether as a haven for immigrants or the bulwark of pure Americana, the supporter of military action or the agitator for peace, there are a dozen other ideas, and they tend to be in conflict. The church shouldn’t support government overreach into people’s lives and yet how can we idly let people face illness without access to medicine? The church enjoys much liberty in America and yet we see the risk of extending that liberty to others, and the conundrums carry on.

A few see the church as the center of revolution in this world. Whether it’s to overthrow rampant capitalism or fight against DC tyranny, the church should grip the Word with one hand and the sword with another! Some would even allow firearms, and suggest the church be the center of the community’s armory.

Yet more see the church as the center of social life. Whatever event goes on, whoever needs people for a party, wedding shower, funeral, or baby shower, the church is there to provide that experience. It’s the place to meet people, have friends and grow.

Of these many suggestions, what should the church focus on? Dr. Van Ness has provided an excellent point about what should be most valued: the church exists to strengthen God’s people to do what they are capable of doing.

I see in Scripture that the Christian faith is a faith of individuals lived out in the midst of people, in the midst of community, and this is what the church helps establish. Why? Is not the church the place for all of these other things?

Actually it’s not. The church is not the place to care for orphans and widows. Your home is. My home is. Likewise with many of the other issues listed. The church, rather, is the place where we gather to be strengthened so that we can do those things. When we try to do all things as “the church” rather than as individuals, it’s too easy to shirk our own responsibility, whether for our growth, our families, or our voting.

The church is the center point for our understanding of what it is to be a follower of Christ, the center point for our encouragement to grow in that following, but should not become the substitute for our own doing and growing.

What do you think?

Generally: what is the purpose of churches?

Personally: Why do you attend, or not attend, a church?

Corrections? Arguments? Disputations? (Not dispensations. That’s a different subject!)

Doug

A few more words on Sermons

After yesterday's long commentary about preaching, I thought I'd add a few more thoughts:

1.  Length: guess what?  Most of us are not good enough preachers to preach an hour.  And if you look back at yesterday, and avoid those pitfalls, guess what?  Your preaching will be shorter too.  Preach as long as necessary to make the appropriate point, but, and this feeds into the next comment: keep the point calm enough.

2.  Points: The Gospel should come out in every sermon.  Other things and parts of theology do NOT have to.  In fact, if you're going to preach everything this sermon, what will you preach next time?  Don't neglect the leadership of the Spirit of God, but don't kid yourself, or overestimate your importance: while some may never hear you again, is your theological viewpoint on economics what they need?  Or do they need to hear that Christ Jesus lived, died, and rose according to God's plan for their, and your, redemption.  Further:

3.  Expository preachers: I am, generally, one.  I take the text, and preach what's there.  This guides topic selection.  However, sometimes, we need to pick shorter sections of Scripture.  Really, do you need the whole chapter?  Break it down, if the section demands an hour to preach, can you preach it in two sermons? Chill out.

4.  Final comment related to length: The mind can only absorb as much as the other end can endure.  I know the arguments about attention spans and how we'll watch 2 hour movies and 3 hour football games.  Personally, though, I don't sit in silence at either.  I rarely go to the theater, but when I do, I've got snacks, and whisper to my wife.  I'm not quiet at ball games, and one of the joys of movies at home is that we can talk, pause, rewind, etc.  Want to build a 3-hour worship service with a couple of 30 minute preaching spots?  That could work, especially with an intermission for a restroom run, but most of us are not really being right when we preach that long.

4 a. (corollary) There are some people that will sit through and demand longer or pontificate how holy they are for the length of time they are in church or at Bible study.  Quick question: We are God's people, we are "the church" 168 hours a week.  How many hours are you spending isolated "at church" and is making a difference in the other hours?  I'm all for regular Christian worship, and I'm for it a scheduled, predicable times, but I hear people talk about spending 10 hours in church service type activities every week, and then their Saturdays are no different than mine, their cities no more won for Christ than mine.  Why are they bothering be in church twice as much if it doesn't make twice the difference?

5.  Get over the compliments and the criticisms.  Guess what?  The lovely church member that said he couldn't help think about you when he was listening to ____(Adrian Rogers, Charles Stanley, Billy Graham) could be half-deaf.  He could be thinking how much he wished he could stay home from your sermon to watch more _____.  Or he could be being complimentary.  But don't preach for that person.  And don't preach to copy _____ except that you copy their passion for the lost and the Word of God.  As to criticism: I've received mistimed criticism, but I don't know that I've received undeserved criticism.  The sermon I heard it after may have been great, but there have been some turkeys that no one mentioned.  So, learn from it, evaluate what good you can take from it, and move on.

6.  Grow.  There are seasons when I'm a better preacher than other times.  Some of those times are predictable, but others aren't.  It is ok to make your best effort and have not much from it.  Just don't ever not make your best effort.

7.  Find honest critics, but listen to yourself too.  I, occasionally, go back and listen to the content and style of my preaching.  Usually, I listen to make sure the audio podcast worked, then I turn it off, but I sometimes make myself listen.  It helps me grow, but I'm frequently very shaky the next time I preach, because I think I'm awful.  By contrast, your mom probably thinks you're the best preacher in the world.  Seek people that help you balance.

Thoughts about preaching 9/15/2010

 

I'm slowly, very slowly, reading through Eric Metaxas's biography of Dietrich Bonheoffer.  Why slowly?  A couple of reasons: 1.  I know how it will end, but, I'd really like to hope if I put off reading it, the end will change.  It's a vain hope, but still.  2.  There's some weighty stuff here, and I think that, while America is not headed down an identical road to the Weimar Republic, I think many of the religious and theological issues are similar.  As such, I want to learn and know more, much more.  So, I read slowly.  3.  I have a decent amount of other responsibility, and much of it requires reading, study, and writing.  So, that comes first.

Anyway, I'm kind of stuck on a quote from Bonhoeffer that is cited in the book, so much so that I added it to my daily list and am probably going to print it out, laminate it, and stick it to the pulpit at church just to make sure no one forgets it:

The Church has only one pulpit, and from that pulpit, faith in God will be preached, and no other faith, and no other will than the will of God, however well-intentioned.

(Dietrich Bonhoeffer, quoted in Metaxas, p 138. I don't know if the translation is Metaxas or if the quote was in English.  This is a blog, not a dissertation.)

Now, every preacher in America needs this, and needs to remember it.  I need it.  We are far too quick to neglect the truth that is reflected here.  Some quick thoughts about ways I've learned, typically the hard way, that I have missed this point:

1.  The pulpit is not for politics.  First off, Christians are subjects of the Heavenly King before they are citizens of anywhere else.  If it's about earthly politics, it's out of place.  If it is about being a proper subject of the King of Creation, the Lord Jesus Christ, then it is appropriate.  Issues, yes.  Sometimes individuals, but almost never parties, and always it must come back to Scripture.

1a.  (corollary): There are politics internal to most Christian organizations.  This applies here as well.  Can you do discuss it?  Should you? Absolutely, if it is about how the church is involved in spreading the Glory of God.  If it's about proper stewardship of God's resources He has entrusted to the church.  If it's about power and control, which belong to no man in the church but to God, then check it.

2.  The preaching of the Gospel is hindered, nay, stymied, by preachers maligning individuals or groups from the pulpit.  Be they his opposition, his critics, a competing church or denomination, those the church classes as enemies, or even those opposed to the purpose and plan of God.  Here's the reality: I'm up there to glorify God.  Shine the light brightly, and the darkness will scatter, or the obstacles to light will show up by contrast.

2a. (corollary): There are appropriate times and ways to identify those issues and people. However, it should involve real quotes or verified actions and a direct explanation of how the behavior is inappropriate.  Vague innuendos or junior high insults have no place in the pulpit.

2b. (further corollary): Be careful with humor and phrasing.  I once used the comment "for those of you who aren't too good with math" after setting up a math problem, I think it was about the number of seconds you have in a week, and I had the answer already.  A few people took offense, that I was insulting or calling people dumb.  At first, I thought this was being hyper-sensitive, but I can see the point.  I've used the illustration again and said, instead that "I've done the math early, because I can't do that in my head." People understood the point, no one was offended, and we felt the common kinship of not being able to do multiple sequential multiplication problems in our head. Even if a math expert had been present, she would have only felt sorry for my shortcoming, not insulted for her superior math skills.

3.  The pulpit, and preaching, is not the time and place for self-defense.  This is a hard one for many of us.  Guess what?  Preaching is about God.  Not about me, the preacher, nor about my aspirations, dreams, desires, or the knife in my back from someone I thought I trusted.  It's about the will of God, the best interest of the church, not about the career of the preacher. 

Now, some of these things have their place, but some, like insulting people, have no place in the lives of any believers, especially preachers.  The pulpit, the sermon, the worship service that is oriented toward God, is not the place for it.

Another great man that has long influenced me taught me, and it's based in Ecclesiastes, "There is a time and a place for everything."  This frequently followed by "This is not the time" or "not the place" for whatever it was.

Keep your preaching where it belongs.

1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings

Tonight at church, we're going to be talking about all 4 of these books.  Yes, I recognize that I'll spend 30 minutes preaching on 1 verse at times, and covering 4 books in one night seems a tall order.  It'll be fun.

These 4 books are also called by some 1,2,3, and 4 Kings, because they contain the records of the kings of Israel.  It starts with the origin of the monarchy, then covers the 120 years of united monarchy.  By the time we're 12 chapters into 1 Kings, we're into the divided monarchy.  Then we're into the decline and fall of both countries, Israel and Judah.

Authorship issues for Samuel and Kings (they're each 2 books because of the original medium: scrolls. Well, scrolls without vowels.  Insert vowels and then put it all on 1 scroll each and you'll kill yourself carrying it about) abound.  First of all, they cover a substantial portion of history.  True, Genesis contains more, but many conservatives have embraced a Moses as final compiler of records viewpoint of the authorship there.  The likely solution to understanding authorship of Samuel and Kings is similar. 

A word here about Biblical inerrancy:  We have generally held, as Baptists and a "people of the Book" that the original texts the Scriptures are without error.  There are some who take further steps to hold to a divine textual transmission, that the copies available at certain times (up until 1611) or continually until now are also without error.  There are also those who hold that the text is without error in its intent or its theology, while allowing for errors in history or science.

I, for one, accept that the original text said what God intended it to say.  As He does not lie or mislead, where the text contains obvious history or science, there are no errors contained.  Theology is understood as explained by the special revelation that is Scripture.  Now, the idea of an error-free text bears a special mention of quotations: where people speak, their words are recorded accurately.  Whether or not they were correct in what they said has to be established through their credibility and other statements.  It's much like a court transcript: the court reporter is not determining if the witness is honest or not, just recording what the individual said.

That being said, I do not hold that there has been perfect textual transmission.  I believe that God has preserved the general accuracy of the text, but He has left it to people to respectfully examine the available texts and determine the most likely textual reading to utilize.  Also, I don't think any specific translation is inspired or perfect, and if there was adequate evidence that portions of the NT, like the Gospels, were definitely originally written in Aramaic, that would extend to the Greek translations that top the textual tree.

Not wanting to bore with too many details, keep in mind that the vast majority of the text is without dispute among the available variants.  If I recall correctly, we're talking something on the high side of 90% agreement.  As a comparison, FedEx delivers packages on time and undamaged around 80% of the time, and they're considered reliable.  (ahem, there's another package company that hits 98%, and it's not the Postal Service). 

Of the variances that make up the less than 10%, most are things like spelling of names.  A quick illustration: my full name is Douglass.  Not Douglas, as most names that get shortened to Doug are.  Douglass.  Now, if you read an official story about me, say one that referenced my stellar work on jury duty last week, what would name would you see?

Most likely John, which is my official first name.  (Got you!)  However, one of the local media types in court knows me as Doug.  I signed in as John Douglass Hibbard, and you might find me referenced, as Mid-America Seminary has me down as, "Douglas."  So, name variations aren't major.

The biggest issues are where meaning is confused by textual questions.  There are not very many of those.  Generally, anything that would be called into question by a textual variant should not be the sole basis of any doctrine of the church, and fact is, they are not.  Typically these variances go to different expressions of time and place.  A major example is found in 1 Samuel, where there are additional explanations of the behavior of Nahash the Ammonite that Saul defeats. 

The books of the Kings contain the greater proportion of variances in the Old Testament.  This is likely because of the age of the sources and because of alternate texts available, like Chronicles, that discuss the same material. 

In person, we'll try to hit some of high points of what is contain in these 4 books.

 

Doug

Tuesday Theology (on Wednesday, I know)

Tuesday Theology (on WEDNESDAY!) September 16, 2009

The fourth commandment: 8 “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 “Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. Exodus 20:8-10

Now, what does this one mean?

Seriously? It means we have to go to church on Sunday and not work on Sunday? Is that really what it means?

Now, if you're satisfied that it means that, live it. Go to church on Sunday, do no work on that day. And make sure no one does any work to serve you on Sunday, be it at restaurants or Wal-mart or the Donut Shop. Probably shouldn't take the fruits of their labors either.

And that's not necessarily a bad place to consider starting. Perhaps, though, there's more here.

First of all, the Sabbath isn't Sunday. Never has been, but it is the last day of the week, which we would call Saturday. Although our days are arbitrary, and we could argue that in circles, given that the Hebrews in 1446 BC weren't keeping a Sunday-Saturday type of calendar. I'd think one could argue that a standardized national week was birthed out of this idea, of keeping one day out of seven holy and different. It would be much more practical than people picking their own Sabbath day. The reference back to the 7 days of creation gives an indication here of the need to rest from labors. While Scripture indicates that God did not need rest, He chose to rest. It's kind of like Jesus reading Scripture. I don't think He needed to, but did as an example. Could be wrong on that part, but I don't think I am.

So, why do we gather on Sunday? That's the second point: the church began to gather on Sundays because the first day of the week was the day Christ Jesus rose from the dead. Some folks want to argue on whether that was acceptable or not. I think it's Biblically established: Acts 20:7 seems to assume that it was normal to gather on the first day. We gather on the first day to celebrate, be taught, encourage, and strengthen one another. Why? To have strength to move through the week. Is it enough? Ah, no. Daily is our life, daily must be our walk, daily our fellowship with one another and our Lord. Yet there remains an importance to that first day, just as there is an importance to the first parts of every day, the first of everything being dedicated back to the Lord.

Now, it's interesting that the Jews are commanded to not work more than 6 days, and some see even a command to work 6. I'm not sure it's an explicit command as much as an assumptive statement. After all, there was plenty of work to do, and the 6 days of work may be mentioned as a limit as much as goal. However, it's feasible that was the case.

I'd argue, though, that for Christians, 6 days of work might not be quite accurate. I'd say we should consider whether or not Sunday is a day of rest or a day of work. Really. What, you say? Simply this: Is Sunday the Christian “ Sabbath” or is it a day that we take and work towards the worship, discipleship, and fellowship for the Lord? Just as we dedicate a tithe of the income, do we dedicate 1 day of 6 work days as working for the Lord and not ourselves?

There then remains 5 days of financially reimbursed work, and a day of rest, to reflect on on that which God has done and blessed for you. Perhaps that is what your Sunday is. If so, then which day is your workday for the Lord? Which hours of each day, then, if it shouldn't be limited to one day?

I'm not going to argue that this is explicitly Scripturally commanded. I do think it's worth considering. Everywhere in the New Testament that the Old Testament law is repeated, it's intensified. Not just murder, but anger; not just adultery, but lust; not divorce for any reason, but only for infidelity. Why would the Lord require less of the week than He did then?

Thoughts?

Doug

Tuesday Theology September 8

Tuesday Theology

September 8 ^th 2009

On teaching authority.

I was going to preach on this Sunday night, but we had an impromptu cookout instead. Which was actually my idea, so I'm not complaining.

Much to-do is made in the American church, especially us Baptist ones, about verses like

But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

1 Tim 2:12 (NASB).

This leads to all kinds of questions, like whether or not women can teach mixed Sunday School classes or preach sermons or tell their husbands what to do. I want to address this from my understanding. If you have a different understanding, bring it to the comments. Really. I want my blogging to be an extension of my ministry, which I've commonly understood to be teaching. Questions or debate are both helpful.

First of all, the verse in context is related to Paul's instructions to Timothy about church order. They are directed to Timothy while Timothy is at Ephesus, but the context shows that Paul makes a habit of this. So, we can't just dismiss this as specific to Ephesus. It's something that was his understanding and method in the church. And it's inspired by God to be here for us to read. So, what do we know about the differences between now and then? I think the key difference is that Paul and Timothy are dealing with churches that lack common access to the complete Word of God. True, some may have access to what we now call the Old Testament, but the Gospel of John hasn't even been written at this point (most likely), much less widely distributed.

So, how did the church grow? Through teachers, who taught with authority . They taught, people believed it, because there was no other way to know. This is why many of the letters in the New Testament include endorsement or rebuke of certain people as teachers. The individual teacher carried a great deal of authority.

Now, given the importance of teaching, there had to be limits on who could do it. Paul connects limiting women from the role based on Genesis 3 and the fall. It's not a matter for us to debate whether he's right or not, if we believe the Bible is complete and correct. It's for us to determine how it applies today. So, a woman was not then, and should not now, be permitted to teach with authority as was done in the churches of the day. But how does that apply today? How do we answer the questions from the beginning?

The question for today is “Where does authority to teach come from?” The answer to this question is different today, and so the question of “Who may teach?” also has a different answer. In the American church, there is no excuse why everyone should not have access to a Bible. Period. If your church lacks the resources, then there are churches that can, and should, help. Email me. We'll do what we can here. And it is this access to the Word that shows us where the authority is. The authority is in the Word of God. It's the Bible.

The Bible is our source of authority, and our sole authority. It doesn't matter how much you love your preacher, he's not allowed outside the confines of the Word. Your Sunday School class should be looking to the Word, and your teachers should be willing to listen to correction if they get away from it.

It is for this reason that I see no difficulty with a lady teaching a mixed Sunday School class. She does not teach on her authority, but she teaches the Word and the Word carries the authority. I'd even be willing to consider allowing a lady to bring a message to the whole church, providing it's based on the Word. I will note, though, that I draw a distinction between “preaching” and “pastoring” and hold that there is enough Scripture to limit “pastor” to men.

So, if the authority is in Scripture, who is responsible for what gets taught? Ultimately, I think the pastor is. The pastor's role has teaching at its center. Teaching the Word, preparing others to teach the Word. Pastors should hold accountable those that teach within their church. Can you sit in on every Sunday School class? No. But you can be available to hear from class members what's happening, and you need to respond if someone is teaching wrong things. Correct if possible, replace if necessary.

So, the next time the nominating committee needs a teacher for the youth or the young adult class, ladies, be ready. There's no reason why you can't share in a group of men and women. It's okay.

And as a side note---the word “quiet” also translates as “peace.” Perhaps as important to remember is to learn and listen in peace as to remain in silence?

Doug

Prophetic Evidence of Scripture Part 3

Tuesday Theology—September 1 2009

Prophetic Evidence of Scripture Part 3

This is a little different than last week. Last week, there were some passages to look at that are debatable whether you accept the New Testament as accurate or not. Basically, these were Old Testament prophetic passages that we can look at today to see if they were fulfilled objectively.

There's another set of Old Testament prophecies that are a little harder to verify. What makes them hard to verify? They are prophecies regarding the coming of the Messiah. And it's hard to verify because, as a Christian, I see them as fulfilled and explained in the New Testament. But, if you're not a Christian, you might not find the New Testament trustworthy. You might recognize that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy that the Messiah will be born of a virgin. I then look at Matthew 1 and say, “See? Fulfilled in Jesus!” You then respond “I don't think Matthew is being honest.” At this point, we've got an impasse.

So, I want to submit a thought to you about this. Based on several different sources, you can peg the number of Old Testament prophecies about the coming of the Messiah somewhere between 100 and over 400! Apparently, there are some areas that are in dispute. There are, though, about 60 that are very definite, and are demonstrably fulfilled in the New Testament life of the Lord Jesus Christ. Statistically speaking, you're dealing with a nearly impossible task of someone meeting these prophetic expectations unless the prophecies are accurate . Now, it's true that some prophecies could be deliberately fulfilled by a human actor, but who chooses the place of their birth? If you argue that God could choose it, and so Jesus chose Bethlehem just for the sake of fulfilling Micah 5:2, you're allowing that Jesus is God. If you consider “born of a virgin,” there's another that couldn't be deliberate. The Magi, the slaughter of the babies of Bethlehem, these are prophesied, and certainly would have been difficult for Joseph, Mary or Jesus to force into being.

My point is, you're really faced with option of acknowledging that these prophecies are accurate or that the New Testament is false, especially the Gospels. If you choose that opinion, I'd like to ask this question:

Why?

What good would it have been to falsify the story of Jesus Christ? If both religious and secular historical sources are to be believed, the first 150 years of supporting this story didn't profit anyone anything, if it was false. Why bother? Objective history supports that these writings were done before Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire in the 4 ^th Century AD, so it wasn't a political ploy. Even if it's a plot to undermine the Empire, it's got to be one of the most ill-conceived plots in history. Brutus and Cassius killed Caesar in a lot less time than it took Christians to take over Rome.

Do we think that a group of fisherman and tax collectors, surrounded as they were with redeemed sinners, former prostitutes, and a few wealthy people, thought that they could set up a religion that would eventually become the dominant force on a different continent than they lived on?

Seeing the strong interaction between Old Testament and New Testament shows the unity of Scripture. This also demonstrates the trustworthiness of the whole Bible, that those parts that seem not to have come true yet can be trusted. It may not be clear yet, but it can be trusted.

Doug

James 5:13-20

August 26, 2009 – James 5:13-20

James 5:13-20 → There's a lot within these 7 verses. It is, overall, an explanation of prayer and the need to pray, along with the release of God's power when prayer is done right. Even in James' day, there were physicians, there was medical knowledge, but he advises the sick to ask for prayer. He tells the suffering to pray. He doesn't outright forbid seeking medicine, but I think he'd be aghast at our tendency in the American church to seek doctors first and prayer second. James 5:13-14 show me that suffering and sickness should be met with prayer first. I see suffering as mental/emotional issues and sickness as physical. Both may need a doctor, but first the church should be in prayer for the ones dealing with these. We have, unfortunately, gotten too individualistic in the American church. I can't ask you to pray with me over depression because I don't want you to know.

Why don't I want you to know? Because we lack the discipleship in our churches that helps us trust each other with that information. We've got some people in the church I serve suffering through things, and there is concern that once the information goes public, it won't be used to pray, but to gossip. Why? Because we have, as churches in general, failed to disciple people, train them in God's word and in righteousness enough that we have true fellowship and trust for each other. Yet we see here in James that prayer from others is essential. This section starts and ends with that. James 5:20 addresses the need for us to be involved in the lives of our fellow believers.

Elijah prays for no rain, and gets no rain. He prays for rain, and there is rain. Why? Because Elijah was in a right relationship with God, and what he prayed was in line with the character and heart of God. God desired the people of Israel to turn with their whole hearts back to Him, and Elijah was His instrument to make that happen. Elijah was no less an inheritor of a sin nature than I am, yet do I pray like him? Do I act in faith like that? Not often. It's something that we must do!!

Our faith is useless unless we act on it, and part of that action is involved in trusting others to act in faith as well. We have faith that God can heal, but we don't trust the prayers of our family of faith to be a part of that. Why not? Is it because our own prayers are so weak? One area of life that I'm striving to grow in is my perception of others. There is a human tendency to perceive the behavior of others through our own self-understanding. I interpret your actions based on what my motives might be.

You see this when you notice that politicians seem to be distrusting of honest people, like citizens at town hall meetings. The politician has an ulterior motive, a hidden message, a group behind him telling him what to say. Since that's true of him, he assumes that the person speaking is the same way, whether they are or not. We do this when our own insincerity, for example, causes us to doubt the sincerity of another.

So, we doubt whether anyone else really prays for us, because we don't really pray for others. Sure, we give it lip-service, but we don't really do it. We don't agonize in prayer on behalf of our family, so we don't think they'll really pray for us. Two things need to change there, your perception of others and your own actions. Change your actions first. Determine to do what you would want others to do, not what others have done. We tend to turn Matthew 7:12 on its head and use it to justify our shortcomings. Jesus wasn't giving us an excuse, but a challenge.

Then you'll see your perceptions shift on their own. You'll find a willingness grow to allow others into your life. You might not find reciprocal interest from the people you are around, but be patient with them.

Scripture and Prophecy Part 2 Tuesday Theology August 25

Prophetic Evidence of Scripture—Part 2

Tuesday Theology

August 25 2009

One of the most frequently cited references to Biblical Prophecy being fulfilled is the city of Tyre. Now, if you search the internet for information about Tyre and Biblical Prophecy, you'll find explanations of how it is evidence of Scripture's truth and atheistic explanations why it is not evidence. Something to keep in mind when doing many types of investigative research: you can find what you're looking for. Almost without fail. Atheists want evidence the Bible is false. Christians want evidence it's true. We both find what we're looking for. Why? Because no one is completely open-minded.

So, why bother? Because some times people are willing to give the benefit of the doubt and think about it. If someone is absolutely unwilling to consider any evidence of truth being found in the Bible, this won't convince them. If someone is willing to consider the possibility, this might help.

On to the referenced prophecy: Ezekiel 26:8 claims that Nebuchadnezzar will destroy the mainland part of the city of Tyre; Ezekiel 26:14 mentions that the city will be desolate, not rebuilt, and used as place to spread nets. Now, these are useful tests of accuracy because there is some specific terminology used. If someone were to have prophesied that “Tyre will someday get conquered and destroyed,” that's about useless. Anybody could throw that out there. I wouldn't be going out on a limb to prophesy the destruction of New York or Atlanta someday in the future, would I? But to predict that Atlanta would become a gravel pit with an apple tree plantation would narrow down the options. For that to actually happen would be a bit less likely, unless I had some source to know the future.

So, predicting that Tyre, a city with a mainland part and an island part, would see the mainland conquered, without mentioning the island being conquered, is a specific prediction. Did that happen? It did. Then, later, Alexander the Great destroyed the rest of Tyre. Eventually, the old city of Tyre was stripped of much of its rubble and the large, flat stones are a place where local fishermen spread their nets. This took until after the Crusades before the destruction was complete.

Now, what is the counter to this as evidence? First, the great friend of all who poke holes in the Bible is time. The claim is that, given the 2,000 years, it was automatic that Tyre would be destroyed, and, being on the coast, people would mend and stretch fishnets there. Consider that for a moment, then consider that the city that is now Amman, Jordan, also existed in Biblical times, as Rabbah of the Ammonites. So did Jerusalem. Rome has existed since about the time of Ezekiel's prophecy, and this doesn't consider eastern world cities like Peking or Tokyo. It's not automatic that a city will be destroyed and not reoccupied just because of the passage of years.

Ah, but the second argument is that Tyre has been reoccupied! Well, there is a modern city of Tyre. It's within visual distance of old Tyre. But it's not at the same location, and, well, how much does modern naming count? Would one argue that New York replaces Old York? That if Orleans, France, was destroyed, it would not matter, as there are is a New Orleans? Does anyone suggest moving the Palestinians to East Arkansas, to the town of Palestine? No, because there is more to a location than a name. So, yes, there is a modern city of Tyre. It is not, however, ruled by the same empire (it's not even independent), it's not where Tyre once was, and it's not occupied even by the same people group.

What happened to old Tyre? The rubble was hauled off and used to build various other cities around that part of the world. Tyre, as a whole, will not be found again, as prophesied in Ezekiel 26:21 because it became part of cities like Acre and Antioch.

There were prophecies of the city of Sidon, part of the same empire as the city of Tyre. Sidon was prophesied to survive, and, indeed it has. Ninevah was prophesied to be lost and never rebuilt, and in fact its very existence was doubted until archaeologists found it in the last century.

There are ways to argue with these prophecies. One argument is that in places, Biblical prophecies say a city will never be “found” again. If we have rubble, it's been found. However, is that the only sense in which “found” can be taken? No, it's not. Found can also refer to the glory or power that the city held. For example, Arkansas Post here in Arkansas once was the capital of the region. While we have remains, that power will never be “found” there again.

Am I inserting a loophole to make the facts fit my theory? Perhaps I am. I come to the Bible with the assumption that the Bible is right and truthful. However, I've never seen anything that I'd say shows an absolute contradiction. Do some apparent contradictions take explaining? Certainly, but no more so than the apparent correct portions! I'm prepared to look at this world and realize it's not all explainable to me. Are you?

Doug

Prophetic Evidence of Scripture Part 1--Tuesday Theology August 18

Tuesday Morning Theology August 18

Evidences of the truth of the Bible: Part 1: Prophetic Evidence

(quick commercial: there's a Youtube Video out there explaining how the Lord Jesus Christ gave us the name of the Anti-Christ, and that name was: Barak U-Bam-aw! Daniel Wallace is one of several excellent scholars in New Testament languages. He writes the books that smart people read to get smarter on the subject. He's got a response here. Check it out)

The next few weeks, TMT will focus on how we can know the Bible is accurate and truthful. While I firmly believe that the Christian faith hinges on the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, our evidence of this, all we know about it, originates in the Bible. So, knowing how we can know the Bible is a critical building block. Why does it matter? Well, I'm sitting in a concrete block building. I know it won't fall in on my head. Why? Because I know that the concrete blocks are sound. If we know the Bible is sound, we can know whether or not our faith is sound.

There's a variety of evidences that can be used. Today, we'll start with prophetic evidence. Why? Prophetic evidence is the least likely to be trusted by non-believers, and so I want to start there. We'll look at the prophetic evidences of Scripture, then the historic evidences, and see that since we can trust the latter, we can also trust the former.

So, what is prophetic evidence ? Simply put, I class as prophetic evidence those statements made in the Bible that clearly related to the future that have come to pass in the manner mentioned. Generally, it's not hard to discern these statements. For example, Ezekiel 26:14 speaks to a specific fate for the city of Tyre. There is no theory of Scripture that places the words after the fact in this case. It is a statement of what will happen in the future. Likewise Micah 5:2 is a prophecy of the place of birth of the Messiah.

Prophetic evidence is not: 1.) that there are prophecies in Scripture; 2.) Any prophecy that has not been fulfilled, such as those of the end of the world; 3.) based on shaky interpretations of Scripture, such as assuming a prophetic statement when it is not evident. Note that I believe that there are prophecies in Scripture, that some have not been fulfilled, and that some of them might be less obvious, but these result in more debate than evidence.

Next week we'll look at some examples of prophetic evidence .

Tuesday Morning Theology-Scripture and Inspiration 1

Tuesday Morning Theology:

Westminster Shorter Catechism: What is the chief end of man? The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever . What does this mean? (Not the official answer) That mankind is created by God to bring glory to Himself, and that we need not fear this process. That God is righteous and holy, merciful and gracious, allows that man who serves Him may enjoy, from a spiritually discerned viewpoint, the process. It is no guarantee that life will be easy or enjoyable from a human perspective. The point being that we are here for God. This stands as a counterpoint to the common statement that “God is always here for you,” which, while true, is only half the story.

BF&M 2000: Article 1: The Scriptures. Interestingly, Southern Baptists do not define what constitutes the Bible. While other groups define the Bible to include, or not include, the traditional 66 books, the Apocrypha, or other works, we simply state that the Holy Bible was written by divinely inspired men. However, understand that we believe that the classic canon of 66 books is the appropriate definition of the Holy Bible.

Why is it important to have an understanding of the source of Scripture? We as Baptists claim to hold to the Reformation doctrine called sola scriptura , meaning “Scripture alone.” It's intended as a counterpoint to the Roman Catholic Church of the time elevating both church traditions and the decrees of the Pope to equality with the Bible. The difficulty came as there were some traditions and decrees accumulating that either seemed to contradict the Bible or flatly did contradict the Bible. So, the Reformers declared that “Scripture alone” held authority in the church. But what did that mean? Why these 66 books and no others? Why Paul's words and not Clement's? Why the Acts of the Apostles, but not the Acts of the Church over the previous 1000 years? It was necessary then to hold to the idea that there is something special about those 66 books.

We as Baptists hold that what is special about those 66 is this: when the human being that wrote the words wrote the words, the Spirit of God prevented that person from making any mistakes. Now, throughout church history, there have been multiple views about how this works. There are two basic groups: low-view and high-view.

Low view understanding places the most emphasis on man's involvement. A book of history, such as Acts, is held to be the result of research and effort, guided by a person that has personal motives for doing so. Some low-view proponents would hold that parts of the Bible are written by men with bad motives or deception intended. Others that they held great motives. All would allow that the writers could have made mistakes in their process. Moreover, there would be an acceptance that later writers or editors made changes to the works that may or may not have been accurate. Low-view proponents would hold that God may have inspired them to write, but not what to write. This view would summarize well as “The Bible says what God has allowed it to say.”

High-view understanding places the most emphasis on God's work. A book of history, such as Acts, may be the result of research and effort, but more than that, it is guided by the hand of God. This guidance prevented any error. Such a viewpoint holds that, for example, that Luke, while writing Acts, may have been told that it was Polysemus that fell to his death in Acts 20:9, but the Holy Spirit would have corrected him to know it was Eutychus. There are different interpretations within high-view as well. There is a concept of dynamic inspiration and of verbal/plenary inspiration. Dynamic inspiration would hold, basically, that God knew what words Paul would use to explain grace, and so chose Paul to write those words. If Paul started to deviate, God would have caused him to feel/know that he should choose something else. Verbal/plenary holds that God instructed exactly which words to use. Differing opinions within this allow for the personality/education of the writer to come through or that God is just using different tactics. This view would summarize well as “The Bible says exactly what God intends for it say.”

Most Southern Baptists are high-view people.

Now, the issue with both of these views is that apply only to what are called the “autographs” or original manuscripts. In other words, Paul wrote Romans or Luke wrote Acts under God's inspiration. But we don't have Paul's proof copy. So, there are issues of textual transmission and translation. Some hold that God provided the world with perfectly preserved copies of the Bible at various points in history and in various languages. Usually this is held by proponents of a King James Version only viewpoint, that the KJV is the only right and acceptable translation, that it is the properly preserved Word of God, and all others can be wrong.

We as Southern Baptists don't hold that across our denomination, although we can accept people that do. In fact, there are Southern Baptist Churches that are KJV-only. We also, though, accept other translations and do not entirely denounce the process of textual criticism to establish the proper text. We do expect it be done from a point of respect, that we are going to be able to determine what God intended. Also that, apart from overwhelming indications to the contrary, the traditional text should be preserved, at least in the original languages. Modernized translation shouldn't present a problem, as the semantic range of words changes over time.

The other side of the Holy Spirit's work with Scripture is called illumination . While inspiration is the work of writing the text, illumination is the work of helping the reader to understand the text. This comes alongside doing disciplined study and reading of the Word, but also bears with it the idea that we don't get the meaning without God's help. We Baptists generally see the Holy Spirit illuminating the text to believers, while using all Scripture to point non-believers to Christ and salvation.

There's some quick and highly simplified theology of Scripture for you. As for me, I'm a high-view of Scripture person. I think the autographs are perfectly correct, and that it is possible through diligent, respectful study to determine a usable text to translate. Any issues developed in that are correctable by God through the process of illuminating Scripture to the reader, but given that, even with the abundance of manuscripts and texts, there is somewhere between 95 and 98% agreement, there's not many issues there. The autographs are correct, and our best efforts should be made to translate God's word from the original to all languages so that all may hear. We ought not expect anyone to speak 17 ^th Century English just to learn about the Lord Jesus Christ, but native English speakers can grasp the KJV adequately, just as they can the NASB or ESV. As far as where I stand within the high-view, I'm more of a verbal than dynamic person, but I believe that allows for God to have used the personality of the writer. I would not go so far as to say that the writers of Scripture were “human typewriters” or to eliminate the possibility of scribal writings or group editing. In fact, the belief that God is in control of the process allows more for those actions than the idea man is in control.

With all that, this is certainly not divinely inspired. It's not even footnoted.

Doug

Exodus 30:22-33

I try to bring God's Word into my head through several avenues throughout the day. I read my Bible in the morning, usually reviewing the Sunday School passage for the coming week, sermon texts for the coming Sunday, the day's Proverbs chapter (read Proverbs every day, the chapter that corresponds with the date. you'll read it through 12 times a year. I rotate through a few translations: NLT, NASB, ESV, KJV,NIV), and I get a daily Bible reading email. A few days ago, this was the Bible reading email passage:

The Anointing Oil and Incense

22 The Lord said to Moses, 23 “Take the finest spices: of liquid myrrh 500 shekels, and of sweet-smelling cinnamon half as much, that is, 250, and 250 of aromatic cane, 24 and 500 of cassia, according to the shekel of the sanctuary, and a hin of olive oil. 25 And you shall make of these a sacred anointing oil blended as by the perfumer; it shall be a holy anointing oil. 26 With it you shall anoint the tent of meeting and the ark of the testimony, 27 and the table and all its utensils, and the lampstand and its utensils, and the altar of incense, 28 and the altar of burnt offering with all its utensils and the basin and its stand. 29 You shall consecrate them, that they may be most holy. Whatever touches them will become holy. 30 You shall anoint Aaron and his sons, and consecrate them, that they may serve me as priests. 31 And you shall say to the people of Israel, ‘This shall be my holy anointing oil throughout your generations. 32 It shall not be poured on the body of an ordinary person, and you shall make no other like it in composition. It is holy, and it shall be holy to you. 33 Whoever compounds any like it or whoever puts any of it on an outsider shall be cut off from his people.’ ”

Ex 30:22-33 (ESV)

I wanted to reflect a minute on the idea here. God is instructing Moses to do something for worship that is not allowed anywhere else in Israel. The following verses reflect a similar instruction for the incense used in the Tabernacle. What can we learn from this? I see a couple of things, and they're not necessarily connected. Here you go:

1. I see indications of early authorship, probably Mosaic authorship of Exodus. Think about it. This is the 'secret formula' for oil and incense, and it's spelled out exactly! Why would a priestly traditionalist write this down several centuries later? This is the kind of thing you would keep a secret. Unless you are writing at the beginning, as you record all the specifics as God gives them to you. Later priests would have lesser fears of losing the formula---after all, there were plenty to teach it to, plenty to remember it. Also, they would have had the option to record the formula securely, the way Coke or KFC keep their 1 copy of the recipe safe.

2. And this is the more applicable thought: There are things that belong only in the worship of God. There are behaviors, perhaps, and preparations that are about serving God, and we ought not borrow them into our daily lives.

I think there is a difference between walking in daily obedience and the acts of corporate worship as the Body of Christ. Where do these lines lie? Well, for one, I'd put the Lord's Supper as an act of the Church. At the very least, a local body approved gathering, such as church operated home groups. It's not something for a group to just decide to do on a weekend retreat, but should be something going on during a normal, expected, primarily attended activity. (Primarily attended? that would be the primary meetings of the church, such as normal worship services, home groups that are normal activities, something that attending marks active involvement in the church. And that carries no added on cost.)

Baptism should be, as much as possible, handled within the church context. There are reasons for exception here, and there would be with the Lord's Supper. One would not expect soldiers on deployment to find a local church to attend, but would not deny their participation in the Lord's Supper. However, chaplains are generally representatives of local churches somewhere, so there's a connection.

What other things? Good question! What do you think? I'd like to know if you think there are things that belong only in the worship of God, and things that belong outside of that. I know we would agree that certain things don't belong in church, when it comes to music lyrics and clothing, but many of those really don't belong in our lives at all. What about things from church behavior that we shouldn't take out at all?

3. The other side is that the worship of God should never be ordinary. A viable discussion can be had about being relevant and contextual, but the line stops at church becoming just like any other experience we have. Church should not be just as entertaining as culture, just as boring as lectures, just as somber as funerals, just as fun as the circus, or just as spiritual as the corporate retreat. There should be something different about being in church. And we should be careful to allow God to dictate that. Just as He told Moses how to mix the oil and the incense, let's have God tell us how to make our worship pleasing to Him.

Doug

Proverbs 30:33

I'd like to take a minute and point you Proverbs 30:33(ESV).

Got it? Good. Don't have it? Here you go:

³³For pressing milk produces curds,
pressing the nose produces blood,
and pressing anger produces strife. Proverbs 30:33 (ESV)

Some thoughts on this passage:

1. Other translations use various verbs to translate this, but I think they lose the parallelism of the original. The repetition of 'pressing' shows the meaning here: there are inevitable consequences for certain actions. You press the milk, you get curds. You press the nose, you get blood. You press anger, you'll get strife.
2. Pressing milk is no big deal.
3. Pressing a nose is a bigger deal. Please don't press my nose and produce blood.
4. Pressing anger is a much bigger deal. But that's what we do so very often. We know that people are angry, and we go ahead and press an issue. We learn what it takes to press someone's buttons, and we do it, thus producing a problem.

I want to challenge you not to do this! Let's think about some places this should not be done:

In your marriage. Husbands, do you know what your wife's pet peeves are? Are they things you think are trivial, like which way the toilet paper goes on the roll? Are they annoyances, like the fact that you call her and say you're leaving work, but don't go for another 10 minutes? What are the things you do, that, in truth, you know aggravate your wife, but you do it anyway? Wives, what about you? Do you do those things to your husbands?

Learn to leave those things alone! Don't press the anger and turn into strife! So many marriages run into trouble because we just go on and press anger into strife. Stop it. Take responsibility for your actions and your marriages and commit to not push each other's buttons. Don't make strife.

At your work: don't do things just to aggravate people, even if you think it's benign. Really, part of our issues as a nation is that we continue to behave like we're in Junior High. I think that's why we're constantly renaming Jr. Highs into Middle Schools. We just want it to go away. Unfortunately, most of us stopped learning social skills when we were in eighth grade, and have never moved past it.

As a homeschool family: I want to push some people's buttons and brag about how much better homeschooling is. It's tempting to try and constantly show off the benefits or defend against the criticism of homeschooling. I have to realize that some people are angry that my family doesn't want the government teaching our children. I don't need to press that anger and produce strife. I will, however, continue to do what I know is right. Proverbs 27:12 seems on point to me when it comes to government schooling, but I'll not press your anger here...

At church: if you know somebody's upset about something, don't press the anger, but try to diffuse it. Seek to understand, seek to help them deal with it Biblically. Which does not mean, by the way, sharing their complaint as anonymous prayer request with everyone. If it's a personality or preference issue, encourage the angry one to speak with the person they're upset with. If it's a legal issue, seek out someone in appropriate authority to address the issue. And if you're just mad about the carpet color the church chose, get over it.

As a country: there are people in our country who are angry. Some of them need to be dealt with. Some of them have legitimate issues that need to be handled. And some of them need to be left alone. If some folks want to move out to Idaho, live off their own land, and stay away from the world, why mess with them? All we'll get is strife.

In international relations: you've got to be careful dealing with angry people. That's what fortified borders are for.

In denominational issues: don't stir the pot between the various interpretative issues in Baptist life. Ultimately, I don't think you are more saved if you think God chose you first or if you think God allowed you light enough to see by and you chose Him. Some folks would disagree, and make it part of the Gospel. I don't think it's worth pressing. Much as C.S. Lewis said in Mere Christianity about views of the atonement: what truly matters is that God knows it worked for Jesus to die on the cross for your sins, and to raise on the third day! Does it really matter if you understand how it counts? And let's stop stirring into things that don't matter. I don't think 'private prayer language' is a spiritual gift revealed in Scripture, but I don't think it matters. I don't think you should be drinking alcohol to be intoxicated, but I like to cook, and many very good recipes call for wine. So, should I be booted if I cook with a nice chianti? What if I make 'beer bread'? Want to press that issue? Why? Is the strife worth it?

All in all, we need to learn to back off just a little bit, and give people some space on things that make them angry. Far better to live in peace with each other!

Now, this balances with standing firm for God's truth. There is no unity and no peace without truth. But, let's keep the Word as the standard of truth, and on other things, let's be a little more gracious...


Doug

Preaching it

Well, I haven't blogged through the sermon prep process this week. But, it's Sunday morning, so I thought I'd share these thoughts:

1. Public speaking scares the heebie-jeebies out of me. There's really no two ways about it. If you gave me an option, I would personally choose to sit in a room somewhere with my books and a nice fast computer, and blog, write, study, and come out to cook for people every couple of days. Throw in a nice coffee maker, I'd be set. When I'm not in front of crowds, I'm very happy.

2. Public speaking also is one of the most exhilirating I've ever done. Some people ride roller coasters because they like the scared/exhilirated feeling. Not me. Put me in front of a crowd with a topic to cover. Give me an hour to prep, a reasonable cup of coffee, and I'm ready to rock.

3. Preaching is not the same as normal public speaking. This is not simply about communicating a topic or getting over crowd fear. Now, the aspects of oral communication, the rhetorical skills, are nigh unto essential for a preacher. Don't think so? Reread 1 Timothy 3:2. What do you think 'able to teach means'? It's someone who has developed the skills to present information coherently and persuasively.

-->Note: Timothy and the other potential preachers of the NT had access to training in these areas. This is before widespread persecution. Don't think I'd advocate that house church leaders in North Korea or Iran were inept since they don't have education that they can't access. But for those who have the opportunity to learn to be better preachers, either in the classroom or by practice or by apprenticeship, and don't take those opportunities, that's not right.

Now, the biggest difference is that a public speaker has to present material he has a platform to deliver. For example, you wouldn't have me give a speech about athletics. I'm not qualified. Want me to talk about marching band? You're getting closer.

A preacher, on the other hand, is presenting material that no one is truly qualified to present. Preaching is about communicating the truth of a Holy God, that no one measures up to. Therefore, it requires the power of God. The Holy Spirit in the preacher and present in the message, the power of the Word of God that is being preached is what makes a sermon what it is. This is life-transforming truth here. No human being alone can present it.

That being said:
4. Preaching is an utterly terrifying experience. You are responsible for presenting God's truth in an appropriate manner, are responsible to be the vessel through which the Holy God makes Himself known.

Fortunately, God is present in the situation, and is capable of working through imperfect vessels. Never forget that you are an imperfect vessel, if you're preaching. Never forget your preacher is an imperfect vessel, if you're listening.

But never let sermons be about the preacher anyway. They're about God, God's Word, and the work of the Spirit in our lives.

Sermon Prep Rev 3:1-6 Part III

Difficulties in the text?

Not every passage has 'difficulties' to resolve. First a question on difficulties. What are they?

A text difficulty can be:

1. A variant that needs to be addressed. You find these especially in the Old Testament. For example, the Dead Sea Scrolls put Goliath's height at 4 cubits and a span, the Masoretic Text puts him 6 cubits and a span. In the New Testament, there are fewer text variants, but they're noteworthy, like John 8 and the whole story of the woman caught in adultery.

How you deal with these variants depends a lot on where you've learned your Biblical interpretation skills. Some people will use the KJV as their deciding factor, others will jump into whatever the 'latest' scholarship shows. I really think you need to address each issue on a case-by-case basis, with a lot of prayer and study. I consider myself a conservative person, and I take the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, without any errors in the original texts. That being said, I think John 8 is right where it should be, but I think the Dead Sea Scrolls may more accurately reflect the height of Goliath. I think that the centuries of transmission on the Masoretic text may have allowed someone that looked at the previous copy, had a hard time making out the difference between what would be '4 cubits' and '6 cubits' and said 'no way a king of Israel that's a head taller than anyone else is scared of a guy who is only 6 foot 9 inches' and therefore thought '6 cubits' was correct. How do I preach that? Simple: Goliath was still bigger than anyone else, the people expected the king to fight for them, but he's afraid. Why? Because he doesn't trust God. It's not about the size of Goliath. It's about the size of Israel's God.

2. A translation difference: we have this in Rev. 3:1 ESV and Rev. 3:1 and Rev. 3:1 KJV. These types of 'difficulties' are generally easily explainable to a congregation, and only factor if you preach from a translation that the majority doesn't have. I've got a congregation that uses, roughly, 25% NASB, 15% NLT, 30% NIV, and 30% KJV. So, if there's a major difference in how a verse is translated, I take time to explain why.

3. A theological question. This is where a verse might be understood to contradict what your church generally claims to believe. Ecclesiastes 10:19 is a great verse for this. This is also what you've got in Rev. 3:5, a theological question. We understand the Lamb's Book of Life to be the listing of all those who are saved by the grace of God. We also believe that salvation is permanent.

So what's this about 'blotting names' out of the Book of Life? I'll have to address it. Either someone will ask later, or people will leave confused. Well, my conclusion is this: I hold that people are born in sin, and in need of a Savior. But, I also think that God, in His mercy, does not hold responsible those who don't understand sin, such as children from conception until understanding. (I think that understanding comes at various ages) Likewise, there are some born with developmental issues that never reach an understanding. Now, God is the standard of justice for the universe, so how He handles people is just, whether I think so or not, but that's what I see as feasible. We also see in Revelation that those whose names are not in the Book of Life don't go to heaven. So, an unborn baby, if going to heaven, must have her name in the Book of Life. (yes, I used her, not he or she, and certainly NOT it. Why? because most infanticide is committed against little girls. great job to the feminists on that one. you've made the same progress as tobacco companies.) So how will she get in? It can't be that her name will be written when she accepts Christ. Her name has to be there from being formed in the womb (Psalm 139:13-14 ). So, I see this that the Book of Life contains everyone's name. And those who reject Christ are blotted out. Otherwise, it's an idle threat to blot out someone's name. Since God makes no threats, only promises, either to bless obedience or punish sin, it can't be an idle threat.

4. Last difficulty type: apparent knowledge that contradicts the text. Whether it be evolutionary biology or astronomy and Genesis 1:1 or archaeologists and 1 Kings 6:1, there are times when researchers call the Bible's authority and correctness into question. I have yet to encounter a case, though, where research can posit a certain position. Usually the response is one of 'I know the Bible can't be right, so I see this' or 'There is no God, therefore, no creator, big bang is the only way to go.' Then, a little mocking thrown at 'dogma over science' and 'foolish fundamentalism.' Realize that all research can be biased by presuppositions. I presuppose the Bible to be right, therefore when I see that large numbers of extinctions come in massive lumps, a fossil layer that supports a sudden 'explosion' of life around the world at a specific time, I see 8 people and a small number of critters getting off an ark and starting fresh. An atheistic viewpoint can't accept the possibility that there's a God that might have something to do with it, finds a theory to fit the facts into their viewpoint.

To handle these, you have to know what the other side says. Attacking evolution simply based on a 'I didn't come from no monkey' standpoint won't hold up well. You need to realize that there are no facts that blatantly disprove Scripture. There are interpretations of facts that people claim to disprove Scripture. There are assumptions that build into assumed facts that cause problems. You have to take the time to study it. Someone may tell you 'Carbon-dating proves the earth is older that the Bible says.' Can you explain why that's wrong with something other than 'Nuh-uh!'?

Come to all of these issues with the assumption, the foundation, that the Bible is correct, and should be taken literally unless the Bible demands it be symbolic or allegorical. Then, realize that history, science, geology, and even language study actually do provide as much support as they provide difficulty. And that you're not bending facts, but using your head.

This comes back to what is your foundation: the Bible or the world? The Word of God or the word of man?

If you're not sure, deal with that. Soon. Before you preach.

Doug

Sermon Prep Rev 3:1-6 Part II

Ok, sermon organization. Which is better than blog organization, because you can always sort and go back and forth through a blog. When you're preaching, you have to go through it once, get it right, and trust it to stick.

So, how to organize? Well, typically, I preach through things verse by verse. So, there's a natural organization there. If it's a single verse, I might go phrase by phrase. This week, I'm seeing the text support a recurrent theme. As such, I'll make an outline based on that theme, with the points I intend to make.

Note that while some preachers start with the points they want to make, and then find the verses to support them, that's not what we're doing here. What I'm looking at is how the text supports certain points, and building the sermon around them.

What are the points? I'm seeing a recurrent theme of "names" in this passage. Well, mostly. There's a minor problem. I mainly use the NASB, which uses 'name' in Rev. 3:1 and Rev. 3:5 but uses 'people' in Rev. 3:4 where there is a footnote showing that 'people' is literally 'names.' ESV uses 'reputation' Rev. 3:1 ESV and uses 'names' and 'name' in the other two verses. So, my English work leads me to think that John wove the term 'name' through the passage, which means the Lord used it 3 times in His message to Sardis. Which would make it important.

But, what about the disparity between what I think and what NASB, NLT, and ESV show? That's why preachers should be doing their best to learn Greek and Hebrew. Greek I'm ok with, if I've got time to be slow. Hebrew, not so much. Looking at the old Greek NT from OBU days, I see that 'onoma' 'onomata' and 'onoma' are the 3 words in question. I'm fairly certain 'onoma(t)' is a 3rd declension noun, which loses the (t) when there's no ending, and the (a) after the (t) shows plurality. So, 'onama' is the singular, 'onamata' is the plural, and it's the same word. Good, so far I'm apparently right.

Why are the words different in the English? Remember, languages aren't codes, you have to match ranges of meaning. In the culture that Greek served as a language, 'onoma(t)' was more than just your legal designator. It was what you were called, but also was your reputation. Just like we say things today like 'Make a name for yourself,' and we don't mean for you to change your driver's license. So, to try and make clear what the apparent intention is, reputation is used to translate 'onoma(t)' from time to time. NASB's use of 'people' conforms to the use of 'onomata' to designate a group, albeit a specific group, not a generic group. 'Onomata' can be used of a group that is of a known (to the speaker/writer) size and make-up, as the speaker/writer has a list of members. For example, the band Third Day is 'onomata' because there are specific people that are that group. Third Day fans, however, is an undefiniable group. A group you should join.

Back to the sermon: here's the points I'm seeing:

Point 1: A worthless name: Rev. 3:1 The people have a worthless name (reputation) for being alive. It's worthless because it's not true. They're dead. There are many people that you look at and think they are living a wonderful life. And in fact, they aren't. Dead inside, their name is false.

Point 2: A worthy name: Rev. 3:4 There are some in the church whose names are worthy. These are the ones who are striving to follow Christ. They will walk with Him.

Point 3: A written name: Rev. 3:5 Those who follow Christ will have their names found written in the Book of Life. These names will also be confessed, admitted to, in the presence of God. Matthew 10:32 is on point, as is Luke 12:8 so the surrounding passages about obedience to the commands of the Lord.

What is your name? Do you have a worthless name, a worthy name? A worthy name that endures is a written name. I think that perhaps we see that some live godly lives, and their name becomes permanent with their commitment to Christ.

Ok, there's the basic outline of this sermon. I'll take that outline, and preach from it. The printout I'll use will have those 3 points, any specific illustrations that I intend to use.

Last thing to look at:
Difficulties in the text.

Sermon Prep Rev 3:1-6

1 "To the angel of the church in Sardis write:
He who has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars, says this: 'I know your deeds, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead. 2 'Wake up, and strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die; for I have not found your deeds completed in the sight of My God. 3 'So remember what you have received and heard; and keep it, and repent. Therefore if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come to you. 4 'But you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their garments; and they will walk with Me in white, for they are worthy. 5 'He who overcomes will thus be clothed in white garments; and I will not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels. 6 'He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.'

Rev 3:1-6 (NASB)

Ok, preparing for Sunday AM Sermon, March 15. What do I do? Again, the first thing is to pray. Then, in terms of study, read the passage. Preferably, you want to read it in the original language. Since my Greek is shaky, I'll look at it, but then continue by reading it in several translations. Here's a good place to digress into Bible translations:

The Bible was originally written in 3 languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek(which is different from Classical Greek, which is the Greek of Homer[not Simpson, d'oh!].) I read some Greek, and no Hebrew or Aramaic. I'm still learning these. Most of us are like this. We don't know the original languages, so God provides translations of the Bible. How do we get these translations?

Well, there's the rub. Some translations are made by 1 or 2 people. Now, there's a lot of text to translate, so it's quite the undertaking. Most translations are made by committees. Why?

Realize that languages do not have 1 to 1 correspondence to each other. Huh? Well, words have what are called ranges of meaning (semantic range). These ranges entail all the possible meanings of a word. Think this isn't true? What about the word "range?" It can be:

1. A verb indicating something that is hard to keep in one place
2. A place where cattle or other animals are kept within a boundary, but allowed freedom within it
3. A cooking device, similar to a stovetop.
4. A statement of the distance something can cover
5. A place to safely practice gun control

See? Now, if you had to take the statement 'the cow is on the range,' and put it into French, what would you do? La vache est sur la prairie? or La vache est sur le forneau? Depends on whether you've got cow grazing on the range or grilling on the stove! In that case, one has to wonder about la vache or le beouf. French requires gender for nouns/pronouns, so "cow" could be "la vache" or "le taureau." Then, once you're in French, you have to consider that 'la vache' is also a slighly unnice way to refer to overweight women.

So, translation is not like math. 1+1=2, no matter what language you're using. There are decisions to be made about what words to use or not use. So, committee translations help to eliminate personal bias in translating or to strengthen understanding. Personally, I think the best study translations come from the efforts of committees. However, even committee translations differ, because of translation philosophy, and, honestly, publishing philosophy. You couldn't publish the ESV if it were just like the NASB and the HCSB and the KJV. So, you've got have some differences.

Part of translation philosophy is called dynamic equivalance. This is the effort to render phrases and grammatical units into the target language, not just a flat word-to-word translation. Why does it matter? Well, word order is crucial to grammar in English. It's crucial to emphasis in Greek and Hebrew. Ever see Star Wars? Yoda-speak is essentially word-for-word Hebrew. Never seen Star Wars? Watch the original 3.

So, you have to rearrange words, try and determine original intent. This produces the wide array of translations that are available. I won't go into detail, but here's my list of translations that I like, and why:

New American Standard (with 1995 Update): This is what I preach from, and what I mainly use to study. Good, more towards literal over dynamic, the translators allow you to figure out some of the emphasis points. For people with good reading skills, this is an excellent study Bible.

New Living Translation: This is a more dynamic translation, and is excellent for growing readers or people who need something that reads fluidly. It's not as choppy as the NASB.

English Standard Version: I don't have one, but I have this in my Bible software. Seems good, has good endorsements.

New International Version: I mainly used this back when I was a youth and a youth minister, but moved to NASB. Why? I like the literal translations better. NIV got a bad rap as the first translation to pass the KJV in sales.

Today's New Internation Version: Don't have one, don't want one, because I like the Bibles I have. Some of the decisions made in this one have been characterized as more politically motivated than Biblically motivated. I don't know.

King James Version: Ok, the KJV is a decent translation. Into the English of the 17th century, with some updates into the 18th century. There are some advances in understanding the original texts and languages since then that should not be discarded. There are changes in English since then. However, if you grew up with the KJV, and can't bring yourself to read something else, read it. But the idea that it's right and anything that's different is wrong, well, that's inaccurate at best. The KJV was made with the same processes that produced the NASB, NIV, ESV, NLT today: groups of scholars translated the best available texts, and compared their work, producing a consensus.

There are other translations, many have their own strengths and weaknesses. Some just have weaknesses. I think if you go with one of the above mentioned ones, you'll be fine.


Ok, back on the sermon mode: We'll be looking at Revelation 3:1-6. Text type? Well, Revelation is a complicated text type. The overall book is Apocalyptic literature, which means there's all sorts of symbolism in it. But, Revelation also contains basic epistles in the beginning, where you have a writing from an author to a church. So, we'll start by seeing what we can learn about Sardis and the church that is there.

Ok, some research shows that Sardis had been important in some military situations, but most of those were several hundred years in the past. An earthquake had devestated the city, but this event was probably beginning to fade from people's memories, lapsing into the realm of 'when I was a kid, I heard stories of the great earthquake.' What was Sardis like around 90-100 AD?

Apparently, the whole town had gotten kind of lazy and self-obsessed. There was adequate wealth to go around, and no reason for anyone to get up and do much. They were a city of mediocrity, that had the means and no willpower.

Okay, that helps us see what's going on with the people of Sardis. What about the church?

That's tomorrow's task...

1 Samuel 6 Part 3

Some additional thoughts on Bible interpretation before we get back into this passage:
1. Biblical interpretation is about finding out what the text says, and what God intends through it. This is not about finding 'what this means to me.' Want to get into what something means to you? Spend some time in the Hallmark aisle.
2. This author-intended meaning is static throughout time. Does this mean we grasp all of it at once? No. Does this mean there are not author-intended layers of meaning? No. However, generally there is a fairly straightforward meaning to the text.
3. There is a difference between meaning and application. For example, our passage flows through the narrative, and I think we see there that God is holy, has standards related to that holiness, and that He does not need man's help with anything. So far, that's where I am. Now, I am certain this is exactly right? Not yet. I've been wrong before, but usually careful study of the Word keeps me close to accurate on meaning. Application gets fuzzy, because it changes with time. For example, the application that God is holy and has standards for Philistines 3000 years ago was "Send the Ark back and throw in some gold to show you're really sorry." The application for the church today is going to be slightly different. (unless you have the ark. In which case, send it back).

So this brings me to the point of right now's efforts:

What is the application to bring from this passage? Well, first, where are we as a church? This is why there is frequently a difference in guest-preaching and pastor-preaching. A guest coming in that doesn't know what's going on in this church or town will most likely preach a slightly different application than the pastor who lives there and sees what's happening. An important aside: That doesn't make either one right or wrong. Application has to be tested against the rest of Scripture, to make sure you're not twisting the Word for your own purposes.

(This is why it may seem that visiting preachers and evangelists are more direct or more individual in their preaching. Your pastor is considering all he knows about the church, and may be addressing situations that you don't know about, while the visiting preacher is often more focused on how this passage applies to individual believers.)

Now, I've prayed through and studied this passage more than this blogging indicates, and I'm comfortable that the meaning God is conveying through this narrative is that He is a Holy God, and worthy of respect and honor. Additionally, that He is not a helpless God, but is fully capable. Both of these, in my understanding, are what stands behind the larger narrative unit from chapters 4 through 6. Also, this not an esoteric or detached meaning that requires me to neglect or ignore other portions of Scripture to support it. In fact, this is a repetitive theme.

So, how does this apply? Application comes at several levels: individual, family, local church, Christian people, the world at large. So, I'll break it down:

1. Individual: What individual actions should a Believer take for having read this passage? An understanding that God still brings judgment on His people for violating His standards (c6v19) leads us to teach people God's law, and to live by it. Don't think He is responsible to bail us out of sinful decisions, but that His grace will preserve our salvation, even if we are disciplined. (ties to Hebrews, the Lord disciplines those He loves
2. Individual: What about an unbeliever? The truth is, all of us, at some point, have been away from the Kingdom of God. We have been afflicted by the hand of the Lord, facing His wrath. However, God knows the way home, and He invites us to come with Him (John 14:1-6). Surrender your life to Jesus as Lord. Don't be like the Philistine rulers who saw the Ark went home, and then they went home. Follow.
3. Families: I'm not seeing a separate application toward family life. Might be there, but not relevant to what God is teaching me right now or to what He is leading me to preach.
4. Church & Christian People: Just as the Philistine rulers saw that they needed to give up some of their material wealth in recognition of God's holiness, should we not do so all the more that are His people? Why do we grasp wealth rather than release it? And they gave not just the minimum, but exceeded it (notice about the rats...)
5. The world: judgment is coming to those that don't worship the One True God. Will you be judged or accept Him? Are you like the Philistines that just wish to be left alone? Like the Philistine priests who figured out the right answers but did nothing? Like the Philistine rulers who learned, acted partway, but chose to just go home?

Now, for preparation purposes, now that I am starting to see applications, I'll go looking for illustrations to use for attention getting/retaining. Since this is a narrative passage, generally I'll use the story line to illustrate. That's one of the reasons it's there. Probably will look to news headlines about being lost and needing to be found. Either that or something historical. Occasionally, if there is a good usage, I'll use something biographical. I shy away from too much of that for 2 reasons. 1. Preaching is not about me. I should honestly not care if you remember that I preached that sermon, but that you heard from the Lord. (do I care? um, yeah. I like people's approval.) by not overly self referring, that helps keep the sermon on task. 2. Personal biography is unverifiable, which leads people sometimes to doubt the illustration. Then they doubt the sermon.

If you use biographical illustrations or anything that starts with "I," it better be true. Don't fabricate, don't stretch the truth, don't make up stories. This is not junior high school. Better a story read straight from the newspaper than a lie in the pulpit. (this is not about errors in personal stories. If you mistakenly remember a name, that's an error, correct it. People will continue to respect you and your desire for honesty and correctness).

The other word on illustrations is this: know your audience. I have 1 golfer in my audience. I have a gazillion hunters. I don't hunt. (no problem with it, just don't do it). I used to golf, but it got to expensive (don't ask). I know more about golf than hunting. So, I learn about hunting, and use that knowledge quest to illustrate, but I don't refer to golf much. Nearly everybody down here understands football, but nobody seems to know soccer or hockey. So, use football. If I were farther north, I'd learn hockey and use it.

There you go.

If you want the full product, you'll have to come to Calvary Baptist, Monticello, Sunday night. Or overnight me a rig that I can podcast from.

Doug