Category: Uncategorized

Writing in his blog TruePravda, Jared Bridges notes the problem of watered-down Sunday School curricula. Jared makes excellent points about how the language in Sunday School programs often is stripped of its theological content to make it “kid friendly.” It reminds me of my 4th grade Sunday School teacher, who had a very hard time explaining the incident in 1 Sam. 18 in which David brought two hundred foreskins of defeated Philistine soldiers to Saul. They didn’t have flannel-graphs for that.

Seriously, I wonder whether the whole concept of “Sunday School” has run its course. Perhaps age-regimented classes run by volunteers isn’t the best way to deliver theological training to our kids, particularly when most volunteers these days aren’t highly theologically-literate. Maybe we Evangelicals need to think more along the lines of a catechistic model, in which historic Christian creeds are studied, leading up to a time of “confirmation” that the catechumen has learned them

criticisms of the Wager, to me, is more compelling: even if the many assumptions underlying the Wager are correct (which is quite debateable), the best strategy is a mixed strategy rather than an either / or choice. This, I think, is exactly the strategy most “nominal” Christians employ. They aren’t willing to commit to the faith as life-defining. Rather, they retain some of the trappings of the faith — attending church at least periodically, perhaps participating in the Mass or Eucharist — but it doesn’t penetrate. It’s a lukewarm faith, which really isn’t any faith at all.

Pascal’s insight may be useful to help prompt a sincere seeking. However, ultimately, true faith requires something like the Kantian leap of faith at some point. The deepest confirmation of faith comes not from rationalistic formulas, but from the transformation true faith brings.

David Wayne at Jollyblogger comments on expository preaching versus a more experiential model of preaching espoused in an article by Bill Easum. In contrast to Easum’s somewhat fuzzy view of preaching as a “transformational experience,” Wayne states that “Preaching is the authoritative proclamation of the Word of God.” I don’t want to defend Easum against David, because I think Easum goes a bit overboard. I’m interested, however, in the definition of preaching as an “authoritative” proclamation, and in the role of the preacher/pastor in making that proclamation. Read on…

A bit of personal background: I grew up in a Bretheren church, and so did my wife, although she was in a different and less “exclusive” version. My inlaws remain active in the Bretheren church. A key component of the Bretheren church is that the local fellowship is entirely Elder-led. That is, there is no “professional” preacher. In fact, during the primary church service, the “breaking of bread,” there is no “preaching” at all. Rather, individuals (men) offer short (hopefully short) passages of scripture and commentary, and call out hymns, as they feel led, and during the course of the service communion is observed. After the “breaking of bread,” there is a separate teaching service, in which one of the Elders, or a “Laboring Brother” (essentially a missionary who travels from local fellowship to local fellowship) offers the sermon. I believe the Bretheren tradition has its roots in the Anabaptist movement, although I never traced out the roots of my family’s branch of the church, which was ethnically very German.

The Bretheren know their Bibles. Their ecclesiological view comes from the New Testament’s discussion of various church offices. They observe, I think correctly, that the New Testament doesn’t suggest that any one person in a local congregation will be invested with the sole authority to proclaim the Word. Rather, teaching is a function for the
Elders.

My family left the Bretheren church when I was a teenager, and we’ve since belonged to a more typical American independent evangelical church with a professional pastoral staff. There are benefits to this arrangement; in particular, looking back, I think some of the Elders in our prior church were poorly educated, or not educated, in theology or theological methods, and as a result the teaching became boxed into a very narrow set of sometimes inaccurate interpretations and legalistic practices. Yet, I remain uncomfortable with the concept of preaching as an “authoritative” proclamation by an individual uniquely invested with that authority.

I suppose I still cling to some of that Bretheren ecclesiology. I view the preacher as an Elder who has been uniquely called, prepared, and trained, and gifted by the Holy Spirt, to proclaim and exposit the Word. That exposition and proclamation must be received humbly and respectfully. In fact, we expect that the Holy Spirit will be involved in the process. (I say this as a non-Charismatic, not meaning to imply a current gift of “prophecy” as some Charismatics might understand it). However, the exposition isn’t “authoritative” in the sense that the underlying text is authoritative. Even the teaching pastor is subject to the Elders’ oversight and correction. The pastor/preacher isn’t above the Elders; he is one of them.

I’m sure David wouldn’t disagree with my assertion that ultimately only the scriptural text itself is authoritative, at least in the sense of being the final authority of faith and practice. (See Westminster Confession, Ch. I, Sec. VIII-X.) I’m curious, then, what it means for preaching to be “authoritative?” And how does this relate to the debate over expository versus experiential preaching? I have few thoughts on this, but unfortunately need to get back to my paying job, so hopefully some more later…..

Continuing my previous post, I agree with the concept that worship and teaching must focus on the Word. Romans 10:7 is clear that faith comes through hearing (Greek “akoe,” literally “the sense of hearing”). Moreover, the final authority for Christian faith and practice is the written word, and the writers of scripture were inspired such that the very words they used were those that God intended to communicate. It’s absolutely critical, then, that our corporate worship and teaching, and our evangelistic efforts, focus on the written Word of God.

We shouldn’t conclude from this, however, that the expository preaching model adopted in most evangelical churches is normative. First, Romans 10:7 primarily refers to how unbelievers come to the faith, not to how local churches should order their corporate worship. Further, nothing in Romans 10:7, or anywhere else in scripture, precludes other means of experiencing Truth and participating in worship. In fact, the only detailed instructions for worship services were those given to Israel, and they are multisensory. The details for how the temple should be decorated, how the Priests should dress, and the manner in which sacrifces were to be carried out suggests that the worship experience was to be visual, fragrant, and tactile as well as verbal. (Not only that, it sometimes was loud — see, e.g., Ps. 150:5: “praise Him with the clash of cymbals, praise Him with resounding cymbals” — oh, how I wish I could hear how that sounded!) Finally, a focus on the Word doesn’t necessarily imply a focus on expository sermons.

The Word can be proclaimed without an introduction, three points, and a conclusion. The typical sermon form is merely a cultural form left over from prior generations. Perhaps sometimes the proclamation of the Word can simply be through displaying the text of a passage in a video collage, reading a narrative dramatically, or singing the text to a melody — and yes, sometimes through theological exposition. But in a culture that is accustomed to sensory media, we can’t expect to communicate effectively merely by lecturing. It’s like reading the text in Latin to parishoners who speak only German.

There’s an interesting discussion going on a

Reasons Why has an interesting post on pragmatism and movements such as the Purpose Driven Church / Life. I think the analysis falls short, however. Read on….

Reasons Why is surely correct that mere pragmatism can’t be an ultimate justification for a belief or practice. Let’s unpack this a bit, though.

In the first example given, embryonic stem cell research, reducing the justification for such research to mere pragmatism sets up a straw man. No one really claims that ESTR is acceptable simply because it leads to treatments that work. The heart of the argument is that a fetus isn’t morally equivalent to the person suffering from, say, Alzheimer’s. The fetus may have some moral status, but this lack of moral equivalence makes the research justifiable, particularly if the research is promising. Note that this has a pragmatic component, but it isn’t mere pragmatism. (I disagree with this line of reasoning, but I also don’t think it’s helpful to reduce the opposing arguments to a straw man.)

Now let’s extend this to church movements, such as the Purpose Driven Life (PDL). It’s true that, at some popular level, people might be inclined not to examine such a movement critically because “it works.” I’m not convinced, however, that most church leaders accept the material so uncritically.

We are doing the “40 Days of Purpose” at our church, for example. I’ve read through the PDL book and I think, for the most part, that it’s pretty well Biblically grounded. The overarching point of PDL, as I see it, is that we are designed to be in a relationship with God in which we serve and glorify Him rather than ourselves. It’s really nothing more than classic, orthodox Christianity.

Does this mean I think PDL is flawless? Of course not. Warren frequently takes scriptures out of context, and the section on “mission” lacks any discussion about social justice, poverty relief and the like. But here is where I’m a realist, if not a pragmatist: there is no perfect resource. If running a “40 Days of Purpose” campaign is accessible and gets people thinking about God’s broader purpose for their lives, great! We can take what’s good from those materials and then fix what isn’t and build on what’s missing.

Sozo over at Reasons Why continues the discussion on pragmatism and the Purpose Driven Life. He notes that there haven’t been many Biblical defenes of PDL. I guess I would ask first, what is seen as unbiblical in PDL? When I read the book, I felt it was a nice, contemporary discussion of priorities and spiritual disciplines. In short: your first priority should be to glorify God, your highest purpose is to bring others into His kingdom, and you begin to cultivate Christlikeness through personal purity, prayer and Bible study. I didn’t have the impression the book was presenting some kind of gimicky formula, ala “The Prayer of Jabez.”

This isn’t to say I think the book is a revolutionary or even a top-notch discussion of these topics — merely that I think it’s generally sound.

On the question of Warren’s use of scripture — he does, frequently, employ faulty exegesis, if you could call it exegesis at all. But it’s “harmless error” in a sense, because the principles are still correct. In another sense, it’s not harmless, because it sets a bad model for others to follow. Perhaps more on that in another post.

What is it about the sound of a Hammond B3 organ that is so compelling? I was listening to Mary Chapin Carpenter’s Between Here and Gone CD on the way in to work today. The organ work on that disc is just fantastic. The playing is very subtle, with those sweet sustained notes slowly spinning out from the Leslie speaker and swiring into a tight vibrato at the end of each phrase. Just like a long, slow kiss. Wonderful!