my life and my doctrine

I read this book in December or January and was convicted about what it is that I preach. Sure, it’s 20 years old. And sure, the font size in my copy is big, so it seemed easier to read and fast to finish.

John Piper is incredibly shaped by the Puritan Jonathan Edwards. It felt at points that he was summarising and paraphrasing Edwards on preaching. The result is a book which challenged me to reconsider what is the content of my preaching and how I think about it.

The content of preaching, Piper argues, ought to be the supremacy of God. His incredible sovereignty as the creator and sustainer of this universe. This is not to be a philosophical reflection on the other-ness of God. Rather a recognition of how holy he is and how sinful we are before him. This is helpful for a number of reasons:

1. We take the focus off ourselves.
   It is all too easy for my sermons to be addressing myself and the congregation as individuals, encouraging us to godly thinking and living and yet, not reflecting the worth, the glory or honour that God deserves. The danger I see is that a person-centred ministry could easily become moralistic, legalistic or this worldly.
2. We see the grace of God in his gift of Christ on the cross.
   As we refocus on our great and supreme God, we will appreciate the depravity of our sin, our helplessness before God and our utter dependancy on Him. This will turn us once again, back to the gospel, back to the message that Christ died for sinners and that we are saved by grace through faith.
3. We thank God for His Spirit, that enlightens our hearts and minds to know him.
   Therefore, the privilege that it is to preach is not due to personal merit, but the gracious gift of God working through his Word, by his Spirit.

This book also encouraged me to think differently about preaching. It is important to work on the ‘common graces’ of communication, eg how I speak, eye contact, facial expressions (or lack of in my case) etc. But being more dynamic doesn’t make up for lack of depth in content. The challenge for me is to keep working on the content, that I may be continually plumbing the depths of God’s character and then teaching this to others. If I haven’t learned anything in the preparation, I imagine not much will be taught.

It’s my goal to keep reading books on preaching. As I do, I am more committed to preparing better and often that means less time for blogs.

Kevin de Young has written a great piece about the temptation for church to cushion us from our own sin and the need for salvation.

The temptation, subtle and strong in every preacher, is to preach to other people’s sins. And so our sermons rail on emergents or homosexuality or Richard Dawkins. … But the sin we should hear about most is our own. Just as the iniquity I should most disdain is mine.

He quotes John Miller (Outgrowing the Ingrown Church, p. 26):

Among conservatives and evangelicals, its [religious cushioning's] primary mission all too often is to function as a preaching station where Christians gather to hear the gospel preached to the unconverted, to be reassured that liberals are mistaken about God and hell, and renew one’s sense of well-being without have a serious encounter with the living God.

Pray for me, that I don’t succumb to this temptation.

Today I read Thomas Cranmer’s homily entitled, ‘A Fruitful Exhortation to the Reading and Knowledge of Holy Scripture’. It’s an incredibly inspiring read! I’ve been considering the importance of preaching in a particular pastoral context, and yet here’s a homily, a sermon to be read out in the 17th century which still inspires to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the Bible.

Cranmer has such confidence in Holy Scripture as containing the Word of God, as sufficient for all knowledge to live a godly life and as scalpel to judge the human condition of those who read it.

‘In these books we may learn to know ourselves, how vile and miserable we be; and also to know God, how good he is of himself, and how he maketh us and all creatures partakers of his goodness.’

Three things in particular struck me as I read it.

Firstly, Cranmer uses such figurative language as he wrote this homily. It doesn’t seek to appeal purely to those academically inclined. Rather, his communication style includes painting a lot of visual images for the hearers. For example,

as drink is pleasant to them that be dry, and meat to them that be hungry; so is the reading, hearing, searching, and studying of Holy Scripture, to them that be desirous to know God, or themselves, and to do his will.

This is a challenge to me as I’m still working my way out of four years in theological college, which can often result in my sermons being considered heady or academic. It’s not that I want to lose theological rigour or depth, but rather, I want to work harder at communicating.

Secondly, Cranmer also speaks negatively against those who would choose not to read and know Holy Scriptures. At the start he refers to those who are ’so drowned in worldly vanities’ and ‘desire such vanities, rather than the true knowledge of God.’ He concludes his first section saying,

‘nothing more darkeneth Christ and the glory of God, nor bringeth in more blindness and all kinds of vices, than doth the ignorance of God’s word.’

This is confronting as I find it easy to play down the harsh reality of judgment on those who aren’t yet Christian. Yet in big, bold, black and white, I’m reminded that, but by the grace of God, I have been brought from the kingdom of darkness into his wonderful light. This awareness of what I’ve been saved from should inspire me to boldly continue preaching the reality of life without Christ.

Thirdly, Cranmer exhorts the hearers of the homily to not just read their Bibles, but seek to understand it. I’ve made a few comments about my desire to spend more time reading my Bible than other books or listening to mp3 sermons or on Facebook etc. This homily has rebuked me to not think about it in terms of time spent, nor chapters read, nor obligation or legalism. Rather, reading the Bible ought to lead to knowledge of God. If it doesn’t, not much is going in.

Furthermore, reading the Bible ought to be part and parcel of what it means to be a Christian.

‘If we profess Christ, why be we not ashamed to be ignorant in his doctrine, seeing that every man is ashamed to be ignorant in that learning which be professeth? That man is ashamed to be called a Philosopher which readeth not the books of philosophy; and to be called a Lawyer, an Astronomer, or a Physician, that is ignorant in the books of law, astronomy, and physic. How can any man, then, say that he professeth Christ and his religion, if he will not apply himself, as far forth as he can or may conveniently, to read and hear, and so to know, the books of Christ’s Gospel and doctrine?’

I’ll let Cranmer have the last word,

‘Let us therefore apply ourselves, as far forth as we can have time and leisure, to know God’s word, by diligent hearing and reading thereof, as many as profess God, and have faith and trust in him.’

PS. A more complete set of homilies, though with ye olde style spelling can be found here.

This isn’t so much learning from Calvin’s preaching as learning from what someone else has learnt from Calvin’s  preaching. I’ve just finished reading the first essay in Engaging with Calvin: Aspects of the Reformer’s legacy for today. This essay is by Peter Adam called ‘”Preaching of a lively kind’ – Calvin’s Engaged Expository Preaching’. He notes the distinction between theological writings, like Calvin’s Institutes, commentaries and sermons. The article is clearly reliant on Calvin’s sermons which were recorded by shorthand and published, rather than the first two. So Adam learns from what Calvin preached and how he preached it.

Adam notes five main areas to his preaching; engaging with the congregation, with God, with the Bible, with theology and in training. It is no surprise that these five overlap on the edges and it is no surprise that these five are key areas to think about in any preaching. There are a few things that were particularly noteworthy for me, which I’d like to share.

Firstly, the reminder that in preaching God is present. It is an incredible privilege and joy that as God’s word is taught, so God will be there teaching and convicting the hearers. It should not be unreasonable, in fact it should be expected, that as the Scriptures are taught, that God is at work through them by his Spirit. More specifically, ‘[t]he present secret work of the Spirit is to change us, not to make the Scriptures more powerful.’ (p24) That is, God is present as his Spirit works within us, using the words of the preacher as he expounds the Bible.

Secondly, it was a great challenge to see how Calvin was deliberately keen to be expositional so that his congregation would know their Bibles better.

Thirdly, the last key area, training had lots to ponder. I’ve thought that the way preachers preach demonstrates a model of how to read the Bible and ought to include tips and advice on how to do this well. The insights that Adam draws from Calvin’s sermons are fuller and all the more challenging.

1. ‘Calvin wanted to train his people to hear God’s words in sermons’ (p35). This reminds me of a comment I recently heard that preaching ought to generate in congregations a love for hearing God’s word taught.
2. ‘Calvin’s aim was to ensure that lay people read and understood the Bible’ (p36).
3. ‘Christians are to serve others in ordinary matters of daily life, and also in bringing them the words of eternal life’ (p36). Through regular Bible teaching, congregations should be equipped and inspired to share the insights they’ve learnt with friends. This could be through teaching and encouraging other Christians or through evangelising their non-Christian friends.
4. Calvin was keen for world mission. ‘”For the knowledge of God must be known through the whole world, and every one must share in it”‘ (p37, quoting Calvin in his sermons on the pastorals). Thus a congregation should consider and plan to prepare and equip people to leave as they serve God elsewhere.

So, how do I cram all this into the next sermon I write? I don’t think I’ll be radically different in one hit. However, I hope that over time, the reminder to consider five broad aspects of preaching will sharpen my preaching. Even Adam, after reading copious sermons Calvin preached acknowledges that ‘Calvin did not always meet the high standards that he set for himself’ (p40). Please pray for me and other preachers, that we may continue to work hard at preaching to our congregations, confronting them with God himself as the text is expounded, theology taught and people are trained and equipped for godly living.

I’m still thinking through what is often referred to as celebrity preachers. I am keen to encourage those I have pastoral care over to spend more time reading and studying the Bible than listening to someone else explaining it to them. Last night I started reading Kent and Barbara Hughes’ book Liberating Ministry from the Success Sydnrome. I was reminded of the importance of being a committed and regular Bible reader. As someone who isn’t a regular listener to mp3 sermons, it doesn’t mean I shouldn’t challenge myself. As I reflected on yesterday morning’s reading time before the kids got up, I realised I spent about as much, if not more time reading an essay (a very interesting and engaging one on preaching and church) as I had reading Isaiah (I’ve finished Proverbs and started on Isaiah). So, this morning I decided, again, to spend my time reading the Bible, praying about issues that it brought to mind and leave the computer off and other books/papers to one side.

I’m still not sure how much time I’ll give to thinking through celebrity preachers. Maybe I should first of all be committed to my own Bible reading and prayer, then diligent in my own sermon preparation. As it is, many older, wiser and smarter people have put a few of their thoughts together, so check them out instead.

I’ve never been mistaken for Brad Pitt (h/t Con Campbell) (http://www.challies.com/archives/articles/ive-never-been-mistaken-for-brad-pitt.php)

The Nameless One (http://www.reformation21.org/articles/the-nameless-one.php )

What to do when the sermon is bad (http://yingyee.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/when-the-sermon-is-bad/)

I was at Engage conference last weekend and surprised even myself with how strongly I reacted, both positively and negatively to various aspects of the weekend. The next few posts will give me a chance to reflect on the weekend. I hope that if you were there you’ll comment and help me think through the weekend.

By way of introduction I’ve never been to Engage before. It is aimed at Christians in the workplace, generally on the younger side of things. ie not pre-retirement, but twenty and thirty somethings. I’d just come off the back of two full on days of a ministry development training conference where William Taylor and Mark Dever emphasised for me the importance of gospel ministry as God’s word is taught well, taught deeply and taught faithfully. The speakers at this year’s Engage conference were William Taylor and Matt Chandler.

The highlight of the weekend was hearing William Taylor. Sure, I’d heard the three talks only days before, but they were great. The key verse for this three talks was John 5.24:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.” (John 5:24 ESV)

I can now, without the aid of my notes, remember the things he was trying to teach us from John’s gospel.

Q: What on earth is God doing?
A: He’s doing what Jesus is doing?

Q: What on earth is Jesus doing?
A: He came to bring life now and judgment later.

Q: How is Jesus doing this?
A: Through his word.

It was a great reminder of the powerful message of the gospel. That without Christ all people are dead, condemned, helpless, blind, enslaved children of Satan. God, out of his love and mercy alone, acted to bring us life. And he does this powerfully through his word. That same word is what turned water into wine, fed a massive crowd, healed a paralysed man, healed  a man from a distance and raised Lazarus from the dead. When Jesus speaks, his word is powerful.

It is therefore of utmost importance that we continue to preach the gospel, the good news that Jesus offers life to those who are dead.

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.

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?