my life and my doctrine

I thought I’d reflect on our seven week series on Psalms. In particular the challenges and thoughts I’ve had preaching on some Psalms.

1. What I thought would be the biggest challenge at the beginning was working on preaching an Old Testament passage. How do I do this and recognise we live after Jesus? Is it okay to preach a sermon a Jewish Rabbi would agree with? I’ll admit now that I don’t think I had great success with this. One week the Psalm was almost overshadowed by reflections on a New Testament passage. Other times the realisation of our time felt forced and inappropriate.  However, I think it got better as I kept two things in mind. Firstly, the goal must always be to preach the passage, not my biblical theology. Secondly, I think some Psalms have quite a direct relevance to us today, without some ‘forced’ NT interpretation being added, which leads me to my second challenge.
2. How do I preach the Psalms as a genre? It’s wasn’t often that the preceding and/or following Psalms shed a great deal of light on the context of the Psalm in question. Only Ps 137, of the ones I looked at, had significant clues to determine historical context. And yet, the further I got through the series, the more I realised that the genre of Psalm doesn’t necessitate looking for a specific historical context before being able to understand it. As I mentioned in my reflections on preaching Ps 137, I’d underplayed the importance of the emotional response a Psalm is trying to elicit. Now, I could be wrong on this, so challenge me to think harder about this.
3. So, how important is it to attempt to recreate the same affective response? At the moment, I think it’s vital, for without it we can miss out on the Psalmist’s purpose in writing/composing. I’m not suggesting that the Psalms aren’t to challenge our thinking. Rather that our thinking needs to be so changed and challenged that our affections are affected too.

So, as we move on to the next series there’s a challenge from lessons learnt. All preaching ought to be based on the passage expounded and have an affectional response. If you come to evening church at St Matthias, let me know how you think this next series goes.

Last Sunday, after the sermon on Psalm 139, we had the longest question times I’ve been a part of at evening church. It gave me a greater appreciation for how good they are.

I must admit that I was initially quite scared of the concept. It was something I inherited from the previous minister. It would mean I’d have to know what I’m talking about when I preach. It would require having answers to questions I may not have thought about during my preparation.

Yet I also realise that it is a good thing. It gave the opportunity the answer some questions I didn’t address in the sermon. Surely this would be a more beneficial thing, as people would keep learning as they ask their questions of the Bible passage. Also, there would be things in my preparation which ended up on the cutting room floor and yet could still be of use. Lastly, it could be used to clarify what I’d said in case it wasn’t clear enough.

What was most encouraging about Sunday night was that the questions were of the clarifying kind. Further it also became an ongoing discussion, rather than a couple of unrelated questions. They kept building on the previous ones.

I’m now a big fan. Still scared of the curly question I may not be able to answer. But most of all, glad to be involved in a process that enable us to study God’s word and learn together.

If you go to church, what are your experiences of having questions about a sermon? What do you think of the idea of question time? Lastly, if you ever preach, would you do it?

Last Sunday I preached on Psalm 139 about God’s intimately personal knowledge of every single one of us. What struck me as I prepared and obviously struck a number of evening church people is David’s plea in verse 19-22.

19 Oh that you would slay the wicked, O God!
O men of blood, depart from me!

20 They speak against you with malicious intent;
your enemies take your name in vain!

21 Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord?
And do I not loathe those who rise up against you?

22 I hate them with complete hatred;
I count them my enemies.

My challenge was that we ought to align ourselves with God, to long for his justice to be made known, to not dismiss those who take God’s name in vain. I asked,

Do you count them your enemies? Do you hate them? Do you loathe them?

Why not?
Is it because you’re not totally aligned with God?
Is it because you don’t think God would notice or care?

This raised a number of questions:

• Aren’t we as Christians to hate the sin but not the sinner?
• Aren’t we as Christians to love those who hate us and pray for those who persecute us?
• Aren’t we commanded not to judge others?
• Isn’t it hypocritical to hate those who hate God since it is only by grace that we have been saved?

Here are some thoughts for us to reflect further.

1. Where in the Bible do we find the concept of hating the sin but loving the sinner?
   Psalm 51.5 says, ‘Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.’ This suggests that our sinfulness is part of our nature since before birth. (cf Rom 5.12-21) I think it is both hard and dangerous to attempt to distinguish what we do from who we are. We aren’t to think of God’s character independently to his actions toward us or creation. So, why would it be appropriate for us?

2. What are the consequences if we do separate character from actions?
   There are two consequences I’m not comfortable with, if we push this idea. Firstly, it could suggest that we can be a sinner with no responsibility for our sinful actions. Secondly, if God loves the sinner and hates only their sin, what does this mean for his coming judgment (Heb 9.27)? Is it against sin only, in which case every sinner is loved and welcomed into heaven? I don’t think the Bible teaches that everyone will end up in heaven, because of passages like John 3.36: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.”

3. Is it impossible to love and hate at the same time?
   One thing that seems assumed in some of these questions is that love and hate are opposites. Yet, to love someone is to care for them, to want what is best for them, to be self less. Our supreme definition of love is found in 1 John 3:16: “By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers.” I’ve heard it said and agree with the idea that the opposite of love is not hate, but apathy – a total disregard and lack of care.

4. So, how should we treat a non Christian now?

   1. This question assumes that we judge others and assess whether or not they are Christians. The Psalm describes the wicked as ‘those who hate you, O Lord’ and ‘those who rise up against you’ (Ps 139.21). It suggests those who are against God and presumably therefore it is possible to tell from their way of life.
   2. As many pointed out, we are to love our enemies. In the light of God’s judgment what better way to do this than to hold out the word of life (Php 2.15-16)? Jude captures the urgency of this when he writes, “to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh.” (Jude 1:23) It reflects love shown in mercy and hate.
   3. As Amy pointed out we must never forget that we have been saved by God’s grace. Therefore we are in no position to be judgmental of others by some internal, personal standard. Rather our goal must be to be aligned with God, to think his thoughts after him.

We are confident that God is love (1 John 4.7-8). This love isn’t just an abstract characteristic of God. Rather, as John continues, “In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.” (1 John 4:9. Cf John 3.16). God’s love is shown in action. It is shown in God’s actions to save us from judgment that we might live. It is shown in mercy to save because of a hatred of sinners.

I’m sure there is plenty more to say, but would love your comments, thoughts, further questions or feedback.

Our daughter Sophie was baptized last Sunday morning. There were three decisions we needed to make about it.

1. Did we want to do it?Tom was baptized at under 6 months. Sophie was 16 months when she was baptized. We trust in a great and sovereign God who is often portrayed as choosing, saving, caring for families, not just individuals. We trust that baptism is a sign which points to God welcoming Sophie into his kingdom and our local church congregation welcoming her into the church family.Therefore, last year, our final year at college, when Sophie was born, we decided to wait until we knew were we would be at church in 2009, so that she would be welcomed into a local church that we would be attending for more than the one year we were at our last church. It took until July on the purely pragmatic reason of trying to get two out of three godparents in the same city at the same time.

2. Who would baptize her?When we finally picked a date based on godparents’ availability, our rector was going to be on leave. He suggested that  I baptize Sophie. I must admit I found this a little odd as it would mean asking myself, with three others, some promises and then making them too. We then asked another friend on staff to baptize her, but in the end the rector was going to be around.Jo and I ended up getting our preferred option. It was preferred because it felt more like Sophie was being welcomed into the congregation by the rector representing the whole congregation. Would it have bothered us if someone else did it? Not at all, for the baptism makes clear that the person baptizing does so on behalf of the congregation, reminding us of the promises in God’s word.

3. What promises would we make?By default, I would have expected to use the AAPB first order service. By default, our church uses a combination of that with promises drawn from the gospel tract Two Ways To Live. Initially this threw me a bit. Mostly I think, because I’m conservative. It’s important to remember that the baptism is symbolic and there is nothing magical or mystical about which words are used.Most important is that the promised display and convey our and the godparents’  trust in the biblical message of salvation.

So, we promised different promises to what we did for Thomas, but neither is more baptized than the other because of it. May God continue to look after my kids, keep them close to him and bring them to our heavenly home in his time.

I tried something different last night in my sermon on Psalm 137. The purpose of the sermon was to help us feel the emotion of the Psalmist as he laments being in exile (v1-4), as he pledges himself to Jerusalem (v5-6) and as he longs for God to bring justice to avenge His name (v7-9).

I spoke in the first person, as though I was the author/composer of the Psalm. In preparation it seemed like a great way to communicate more strongly the feelings, the inspiration and the desire of the Psalmist as he expresses himself in song. While this is all achieveable, and there a few other differences which contributed to this as well, I still had a few concerns before the night.

How much poetic license do I have as a preacher as I step into the shoes of the Psalmist? There’s a quite a bit we can determine about the context of this particular Psalm. I think it’s written just after the return from exile in Babylon, reflecting on their time there (v1).

Most of all, I was wondering whether a different means of communication would overshadow the message communicated. It was easier to try funny lines as an Old Testament character observing the world today. It was easier to make the experience for those in church more ‘fun’. Yet, would it be a help or a hindrance for those listening to hear God’s word and the challenge for them today?

In the end, I ran the idea by a few people beforehand – other preachers from other churches, a few of the more mature members of evening church and even gave a practise to Jo and a friend in the afternoon.

If you’re a preacher, would you do it? More importantly, if you were there, what did you think of it?

Two days ago, on Saturday, I married a couple for the first time.  Sunday morning I was at a church that used the morning prayer form of service.  Today I was reading through the prayer book service for infant baptism.

The thing that strikes me most about the prayer book is the quality of the prayers in it. It really is thought through, more so than I am. It’s inspired me to continue to read through the big fat biography I have on Cranmer. It’d be great to understand more about the man behind the prayer book, Thomas Cranmer, and learn about his concerns for propriety of church.

Last week at a training day, Phillip Jensen reminded me of the focus the prayer book services have on the Bible read and taught. It has started some more balls rolling in my head about the purpose and place of preaching in the Christian life and in church life.

If I ever get around to doing further study, maybe something exegetical about the sermons in Acts and/or something doctrinal about the place of preaching, possibly in conversation with Thomas Cranmer. Any other ideas of what I should study?

I remember when I was in primary school we used to get silent reading time. It seems hard to find time to read these days. Maybe I’ve been spoiled by four years as a full time student. Maybe life with two little kids is just going to be like this. However, I think it’s important for me to read.

Firstly, to read my Bible on a regular basis. To this end, I’m trying to wake up (and get out of bed) before the kids do. I’m in the process of reading through Proverbs, in chunks and reading Ephesians with Peter O’Brien’s commentary.

Secondly, I want to keep pushing my brain and have set myself the target of reading six books by this time next year. In case you’re wondering, they are:

• Green & Jackman, When God’s Voice is Heard
• Jensen, Revelation of God
• MacCullogh, Thomas Cranmer
• Jeffrey, Ovey, Sach & Piper, Pierced for our Transgressions
• Neill & Chadwick, History of Christian Missions
• Maxwell, The 360 Degree Leader

I use some PC software called Bible Works which is a fantastic resource and almost indespensible when I’m preparing sermons and Bible studies.

Here’s a chance for you to win a copy of it and easily search many Bible versions for words and phrases. Subscribe to this blog, find out more about Bible Works and fill in the form to win.