Best Sermon Ever Preached

I believe this is the best sermon ever preached and one that we should truly model our own preaching from. The centrality of the good news and Messiah and the penetration of the hearts of those hearing is quite astonishing...especially since it was about half a minute in length.

And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up; and as was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read.

And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book and found the place where it was written,

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,

Because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor.

He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives,

And recovery of sight to the blind,

To set free those who are oppressed,

To proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.”

And He closed the book, gave it back to the attendant and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him.

And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”

And all were speaking well of Him, and wondering at the gracious words which were falling from His lips; and they were saying, “Is this not Joseph’s son?”

And He said to them, “No doubt you will quote this proverb to Me, ‘Physician, heal yourself! Whatever we heard was done at Capernaum, do here in your hometown as well.’ ”

And He said, “Truly I say to you, no prophet is welcome in his hometown.

“But I say to you in truth, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the sky was shut up for three years and six months, when a great famine came over all the land;

and yet Elijah was sent to none of them, but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow.

“And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian.”

And all the people in the synagogue were filled with rage as they heard these things;

and they got up and drove Him out of the city, and led Him to the brow of the hill on which their city had been built, in order to throw Him down the cliff.

But passing through their midst, He went His way.

Luke 4:16-30

Read More......

John the Baptist and Street Preaching

Before I start this post, I want the readers to understand that this post is a process of trying to get some different perspectives on the ministry of John the Baptist and street preaching. The reason I am bringing this post to the surface is that I have run into many street preachers and spoken to them about their means of preaching and why they do it. Asked them specifically, "where do you get this method in the Bible?" Most of the time, they specifically point to John the Baptist and his way of preaching. This sort of evangelism is done in the form of just yelling on the corners, holding up signs with questionable messages and going to different religious venues telling people that they are going to hell if they don't repent. I guess my question is, "Was John the Baptist setting a prescriptive way of preaching, or was his ministry done because of the prophecies concerning him and the context he was preaching in?"

What John the Baptist Did

John the Baptist definitely preached the word of God. He is odd because he is the first voice of God after 400 years of silence. He is also a little different from his countrymen because he is from the wilderness. This just wasn't where John was preaching, but was most likely where he was from. We know this because we are told that he was clothed with camel's hair and wore a leather belt around his waist and he ate locusts and wild honey. John wasn't doing this to prove a point, he was doing this because this is just what his context and culture was being a man from the wilderness. It's like saying, Billy Bob wore tight pants, had a mullet, ate pork rinds and his house had wheels. Billy Bob is just from the sticks, this is his culture. Is Billy Bob a little odd for people from the city? Yes. Is Billy Bob a little odd for tornado alley? Not at all.


Notice too that John the Baptist was one that was foretold about:

As it is written in Isaiah the prophet:
“Behold, I send My messenger ahead of You,
Who will prepare Your way;
The voice of one crying in the wilderness,
‘Make ready the way of the Lord,
Make His paths straight.’ ”

Mark 1:2-3

John the Baptist if fulfilling his role as the connection of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant to come. He is bringing the voice back from the silence. John the Baptist is a "one of a kind" type of guy. His role was one that was specific to him and his role in the story of God. We shouldn't automatically just copy what he did because it's found in the Bible. If this is the case, then I am worried because Isaiah was called to go naked and barefoot for three years. We have to understand that sometimes prophets are called to do things that are specific to them, not for Christians for all time.

Should We Copy John the Baptist?

This is actually a yes and no answer. The yes in my mind though isn't how the street preacher would like me to answer. Notice that John the Baptist was in the wilderness and the people came to him. John stayed in his context and the people came to him. Quite interesting when you think of it. I believe this is what the street preachers get confused with. What they don't understand is that John the Baptist was actually contextualizing in his culture. He stayed in the culture of one that was from the wilderness and preached the message the people would understand. Because John stayed in the wilderness instead of going into the city with his message, it makes me wonder if he stayed in the wilderness because he knew his form and function wouldn't work in the city, but stayed where God had called him and preached like a prophet from the Old Testament would preach with a New Testament message. He used terms that they would understand, such as using the term "Lamb" and showed how he wasn't even worthy to be a servant boy to Jesus by untying his sandals. Not only this, but along with his preaching he used the Jewish washings to point towards the washing of the Holy Spirit as he baptized people to ready them for the coming of Jesus. All this is completely contextualized to the Jewish culture.

Not only this, but John preached a message of repentance and of the Messiah who would wash away our sin. John preached a message that was specific. He preached about the Messiah and didn't draw back from it. This is definitely something we could all learn from John the Baptist, as we take this message to our context and to our culture.

Just as John preached to his culture and in his context, so should we. We need to study our culture, our context and preach to them the understanding of repentance and the hope in the Messiah in a way that they would understand. Being counter cultural and getting persecuted isn't godly persecution, it's just being ignorant. It's like saying I am getting persecuted for being a Christian if I go to a ranch and wear baggy pants, white tennis shoes and my hat slammed backwards. No, I am getting laughed at because I am out of place in that culture.

Did those Following After John the Baptist Copy Him?

Yes. But not in the way you would think. Peter, Paul and John (the apostle) all copied John the Baptist by still preaching the message of repentance and the hope of the Messiah. But you will notice none of them went to the trailer park, bought a trailer, ate pork rinds and grew a mullet for Jesus. Instead, they preached the message of repentance in their context to their culture in a way that they would understand and have the best chance to accept this message without watering it down.

When Peter and Paul preached to Jews, they used the Old Testament and went to their synagogues to do so. They didn't stand on the corner yelling at people with bug guts stuck in their teeth.

When Paul spoke to the gentiles, he quoted their poets and drew from their context to point to Jesus and redemption.

When John wanted the people of his day to understand his message he drew from their source of understanding and took their phrase "logos" and attached that to Jesus.

Again, these men understood that John the Baptist was a one of a kind dude. He did what he was called to do in his context and culture and did it quite well. They took what John did and applied it in their culture. That is what we are called to do. The only reason one can truly say that they are being persecuted for their faith is if they are living out the gospel and preaching it in the context they're in and are rejected for doing so. You can't say you are being persecuted for Jesus just because people laugh at your means. This probably means you just didn't do your cultural homework.

If you eat bugs and wear camels hair in downtown Seattle yelling at people to repent, not only will peopel make fun of you, but I'll make fun of you. That's just weird.

Our Hearts are God's

All this is said to bring us to one thing. God is the one who knows our hearts. I do my best not to judge street preachers because I do not know them or their hearts. But, I will say this: if you base what you are doing on John the Baptist your interpretation of Scripture is pretty weak. We are never told to do what John the Baptist did. But, over and over again we see that we are to take the message of God and preach it in our context to our culture so that they will see clearly the ways of God and his plan of redemption. If we do anything that blocks people from seeing this message clearly, that is our fault. This is exactly what every preacher/prophet did in the New Testament.

I just ask everyone who is preaching the message of Jesus to do it in a way that presents itself fully and clearly to the culture we are in. Do not put up unnecessary walls for people to climb to get to the gospel. And from what I have seen, these walls are usually lined with megaphones and signs saying, "repent or you are going to hell."

I will also say that if this is how your culture gets out important messages to people and they respond to these types of communication, then by all means go for it. I am not hear to tell the dude with the mullet and walkman that his ways are evil, they just look odd to me.

If you want to live how John the Baptist lived, then look how your culture looks, speak how your culture speaks, and clearly show them how Jesus Christ is the center at everything that they do. Show them the greatness of the One who created their culture and context.

Read More......

What Is Contextualization?

This is a repost from about 2 years ago.

I was reading erik's notes from the Shepherd's Conference and was caught by this quote by John MacArthur:

“contextualization is a curse.” The sermons we preach and the messages we proclaim should transcend “zip-codes.” MacArthur said, referring to Peter in Acts 2, “Not only did he not identify with the generation, but he said you have to be saved from it.”

So, what is contexualization? Because I believe that John MacArthur is either throwing out the baby with the bath water, or has no clue what he means by it.

First, let me say that if MacArthur is simply meaning that we don't try and change the word of God to make it easier for people to follow by taking truths out of the gospel to do so, then I agree with him. Such as. We shouldn't stop using words like sin and hell or speaking about the cross just because the current culture doesn't like to talk about certain things. That would be wrong and is downright blasphemy of the Gospel.

But, for Dr. MacArthur to simply say that "contextualization is a curse" I find to be way off...and I believe that his thoughts on Acts 2 are way off...because I believe that Peter actually contextualizes the Gospel in this very passage!

What is contextualization? First, good biblical contextualization is not what was previously mentioned, but good biblical contextualization is to know the audience and culture you are speaking to and bringing it to them in ways that they would easily understand.

I not only believe that it is okay to contextualize, but I believe that it is biblical and what Christ would have us do and what Christ actually did when he was here on the earth.

If I can give you an example:

Read John 10. The whole of the chapter is a passage on the good Shepherd, which is Christ. Why would Christ use this kind of explanation to give eternal truths? Because those in that region were very familiar with the shepherd and sheep relationship. It was very easy to see the truths that were being offered because Christ used the context, the culture that he was in, to explain the unexplainable. And Christ did this through his whole tenure as lead pastor while he was on this earth. Think seed and sower, the vine dresser, etc. All culturally relevent to those in that time.

You might be saying, "Well that was Jesus, he can do what he wants, He is God." Well...first, I don't like that reasoning for the mere fact that we are called to imitate Christ (1 John 2:6) and he is our perfect example (1 Tim 1:16) to follow in all things. But, I will play along.

First Example: Paul

Everyone knew that I would go here, but look to Acts 17. Paul is in Athens to preach the Gospel and notices a bunch of gods being represented and especially one that is called, "The unknown God." What I like here is the use of correct biblical contextualizaion. Notice that Paul uses the culture around him to illustrate eternal truths. The truths are not changed, nor are they watered down. The reason we know this is because the Stoics didn't believe in the resurrection of the dead, and yet what does Paul preach?

because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”
Acts 17:31

Paul, although in a different culture than a Jewish one, didn't ignore the truth but proclaimed it. But notice that he didn't ignore who he was speaking to either, but contextualized the gospel so that it would be more clear for the hearers, just as Christ did the entire time he was on this earth.

Second Example: John

I am not sure how many people know this but John contextualized actual God-breathed Scripture, and he did it with one of our favorite verses that prove the Deity of our Lord Jesus. It is found in John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:1

The term here, as most know, for the term Word is the Greek word logos. What most don't know is the usage of this word in it's historical context. The term logos was known to most Greeks as that "thing," whatever it was, that held the earth together.

Look at what the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says about this word logos:

Although little used in epic,32 λόγος; achieved a comprehensive and varied significance with the process of rationalisation which characterised the Greek spirit. Indeed, in its manifold historical application one might almost call it symbolic of the Greek understanding of the world and existence.

Theological dictionary of the New Testament.
1964-c1976. Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (4:77). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

John contextualized the very pages of Scripture so that those whom he was writing to would have a greater understanding of what, and who, he was speaking of. John did his own form of speaking of the "unknown logos" by showing that they could know the actual Logos, that became flesh.

Last Example: Peter

The last example is actually going to be shown from the very passage Dr. MacArthur tries to argue his point, Acts 2. Do you think that Peter knew who he was talking to? If Paul uses the unknown god to show who God was to the Stoics in Athens and John uses the term "logos" to show the Logos for the Greeks to understand, then what should we expect Peter to use when he speaks to those in Jerusalem? Wouldn't Peter be smart to use their very patriarchs? It is hard to see what he is doing, but if you look closely, Peter is speaking to those in Judea (Acts 2:14) and then he uses what they would know, namely the Jewish Scriptures and patriarchs. He quotes Joel in Acts 2:16-21, then quotes David and the Psalms in Acts 2:25-28, then again quotes Psalm 132:11; 2 Samuel 7:12; and Psalm 89:3 in Acts 2:30; and finally ends with a quote from Psalm 110:1 in Acts 2:34,35. Notice that the message that he preaches is the exact message that Paul preaches in Acts 17 but with some tweaks because he is preaching to Jews and not Gentiles. In Acts 17 Paul does not quote one single Old Testament verse because he is speaking to the Gentiles so he contextualizes it to their unknown god so that they would understand.

I believe that Dr. MacArthur is making a huge mistake by saying that "contextualization is a curse," and continues to show that he is ignoring what emerging folks mean when we say we are contextualizing for the sake of Christ and His fame.

May we continue to love those who we are evangelizing and ALWAYS look for ways to contextualize the Gospel in a way that the will understand.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Read More......

Does Paul Washer Believe in Christ's Finished Work?

Okay...that sounds a little too far gone. I haven't heard much of Paul Washer but ran across this YouTube video on Carl Schuster's site and really was disturbed by it. This video is over 4 minutes and not one time does Washer use the name of Jesus. He never speaks of grace but continually points to what we must do in our actions. He asks, "how do you know you believe?" The problem with this question is that if the answer doesn't start and end with Christ and the cross and resurrection, no one will ever have assurance, but only doubt. No one can ever live up to the perfection that is called for to enter heaven, no one can ever test themselves and pass the test and no one can ever be assured that they believe if they don't point themselves to the Christ who died for them.

If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son. The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

1 John 5:9-13

I have not listened to much of Paul Washer, so please point me to other resources that are hopefully better than this one. I like the music in the background though. :)

John Calvin is far better at an understanding of our election and hope in Christ than Washer points out:

They tell you, if you look to Christ salvation is certain; if you return to yourself damnation is certain. Therefore, your mind must be alternately ruled by diffidence and hope; as if we were to imagine Christ standing at a distance, and not rather dwelling in us. We expect salvation from him—not because he stands aloof from us, but because ingrafting us into his body he not only makes us partakers of all his benefits, but also of himself. Therefore, I thus retort the argument, If you look to yourself damnation is certain: but since Christ has been communicated to you with all his benefits, so that all which is his is made yours, you become a member of him, and hence one with him. His righteousness covers your sins—his salvation extinguishes your condemnation; he interposes with his worthiness, and so prevents your unworthiness from coming into the view of God.

Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.2.24

Christ, then, is the mirror in which we ought, and in which, without deception, we may contemplate our election. For since it is into his body that the Father has decreed to ingraft those whom from eternity he wished to be his, that he may regard as sons all whom he acknowledges to be his members, if we are in communion with Christ, we have proof sufficiently clear and strong that we are written in the Book of Life.

Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.24.5

Check out the full quotes on the above quotes here

Below is the video of Paul Washer.

Read More......

Old School Preaching, But Is it Complete?

Mark from Here I Blog, linked to this video and as I started to watch it I had some differing emotions hit me. One, was that it did spur me to thought on my works and the real change, or lack thereof, that has happened because of Christ. Second though, was that I realized how much grace was left out of this small section of preaching. I haven't listened to the whole sermon, nor do I know anything of Al Martin, but I am a little iffy on hearing something like this. It does honestly strike a cord with me as something I need to hear, but without grace attached closely and strongly to this message, what makes this different than any other preaching of having high morals for righteousness? What are your thoughts?

Read More......

Brothers...Preach More Grace

I was listening to some John Piper and he said something pretty striking that I had never thought of. He told the preachers in the audience that if people were not asking them the question posed in Romans 6:1 that they were not preaching the gospel. This is quite the claim by Piper, but as I think about it and read more into the epistle to the Romans, I believe he is completely correct. Romans is called the gospel according to Paul and it is not light in theology. What one will continually find through Romans, is grace. So much so, that it caused Luther to see the light of his sin and the fallacies of the Papacy. From that, Romans drew Luther to the conclusion that the Epistle of James was an "Epistle of Straw" where he ended up taking it out of his Bible. Now, this was definitely an overcorrection in Luther, but if you follow his life of being hammered on working for his salvation, one can see why he loved the book of Romans and James left a bad taste in his mouth.

The question posed in Romans 6:1 is stated as such:

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?

This question, like Paul's other questions that he poses and answers, are ones that the Holy Spirit guided Paul to answer because his teaching would naturally lead to them. So, what causes one to ask this question of being able to keep sinning as much as they want?

Paul's preaching of the gospel. Specifically the grace found in the Son's death and resurrection where we gain our complete righteousness.

Throughout the epistle Paul focuses in on the finished work of Christ and righteousness found through faith in Him alone and on Christ's work alone. So much so that people simply will ask, "So can we just sin all we want because Christ will forgive and has done all the work for us?"

This comes off the heals of Chapter 5 in Romans where Paul shows that we have done nothing besides inherit and increase our sin debt, yet Christ has paid it all. He has just gone through such things as:

Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Paul keeps nailing this and just when one gets this impression of working and struggling with the faith in Romans 7, Paul brings it back again in Romans 8:1

Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Paul continued to preach grace always, so much so, that people would come to the question of, "If it is finished and grace is poured out on me instead of wrath, why not just sin all the more."

The question then comes, "Is this the question you get when you preach?" "Is this the question you get when you speak to others about the gospel?" If not, you are not preaching the gospel but something else. By my gathering of hearing people preach, they preach more like a Pharisee or a Jewish Rabbi. They preach more on what you need to do throughout your week, and leaving the finished work of Christ out of the conversation. So many are worried about Lordship Salvation, which I agree with, that they refuse to preach the depth of grace and its abundance found on the cross and through the resurrection. I am not saying to leave out the idea of "a faith that works" as James so poignantly puts forth, but if grace is not on the tip of your tongue right afterwards, you are missing the point of the Gospel.

Preachers, brothers, sisters, please remember that Christ gives water that never runs dry. It is this grace that is the water, it is the knowledge that he is sufficient and like Jesus told the woman at the well, this water is given by the Father, through the Christ. The water is not the Law, the law only makes one thirsty, the water, the quenching of the thirst of the law is the grace of the gospel.

Do you only preach the dry tongue in the desert? Or do you preach the water found at the cross?
Never did a man sincerely seek but what he found the Lord willing to give. Go to your chamber, look at your past life, survey your mistakes and your sins, and confess them; and then lift up your eyes to the cross, and say, “O Jesus, given for sinners, have mercy upon a guilty one - have mercy upon me!” He cannot refuse you. As I read in an old Puritan this week, he says, “Come to Jesus, sinner; and if you are lame, come lame; and if you say you have no feet, come on your stumps. Come as you can, for he cannot reject you till he denies himself. He must cease to be faithful before he can reject any sinner that comes humbly to rest upon him.” Try him to-day, you aged people! Seek him, and he will be found of you. You young people, turn not your backs upon him! and you in middle life, O close in with him this day, and may he give you the water of life! Did not he say to that woman, “If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee,, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water”? Ask, and he will give. What! not ask when it is to be had for the asking? Ah! Lord, we ask. Grant it now for Jesus’ sake. Amen.

Charles H. Spurgeon: Spurgeon's Sermons: Volume 15. electronic ed. Albany, OR : Ages Software, 1998 (Logos Library System; Spurgeon's Sermons 15)

Read More......

Is Open Air Preaching Effective for Today?

This topic is an interesting one as it seems to be on the comeback in some areas. In my previous post, you will notice that a friend of mine (Christina) in Mozambique has an interesting perspective on what is taking place in Africa. This post will be in regards to the United States and is not the answer for every culture, every time period and every nation. What I don't want to do is put down those who are just trying to be faithful in their calling and I also will not be speaking in regards to the past. I am going to post on what I believe Open Air Preaching should be in regards to today's culture in the United States.

Most, as they look in the Scriptures and see some of history in the Reformers and also men like George Whitefield will try and make a case that since they did it, we should do it. Most will point to yester year and say that since it worked then, we should do it now. Most will point to the fact that if one person is saved from a ministry then it is effective. I am guilty of this fact in many things I do, but that doesn't make it one that is most effective. (I might write a follow up post in regards to this thought)

I believe that both the Calvinist and the Arminian join hands in the cause of preaching the gospel in the most effective ways possible to reach the most people for the cause of Christ. What we have to be careful of as we look to what God calls us to do is make sure we don't make methods of preaching the gospel faithfully as infallible in all contexts and in all cultures. Now, this post is not to say that anyone is in sin that uses differing methods in preaching the gospel but, this post is simply asking "is it the most effective use of our time to share Christ with the lost?"

When I bring up this question to most open air preachers what they will do is usually point to men like John the Baptist, Paul and Jesus and say that since they used open air preaching to reach the lost, then they feel like that is what we should also feel compelled to do. The problem with this logic is that it is faulty at the very core. Because the opposite would be true in this logical argument. Meaning, preachers should then all sit down, because that is how the teachers of the Jewish and Greek cultures would teach, by sitting down. These days if I were to pull up a chair and sit down and make the congregation stand up the entire time, people would seriously walk out. So, the method of preaching isn't as important as the message. It's actually no where close.

The real question in these cases is "why" did John the Baptist, Paul and Jesus use these means of preaching? Why did they use open air preaching? Why did Whitefield preach so many open air sermons that he permanantly damaged his speech and often bled from his throat?

Remember I am not saying that if you like open air preaching that it is sin, but I do believe that other means are far more effective.

The reason I believe that Jesus, et al, did open air preaching is simply that is what was available. They didn't have places to meet, they didn't have microphones or comfortable chairs for people to sit in. So, we find our Saviour preaching the Sermon on the Mount, instead of the Sermon in Room 202. In Jesus' time this was the most effective way to reach the crowds of lost people for the cause of God.

Being Effective "Open Air" Preachers

We also find Paul going to places where people met to discuss religion and philosophy and he would preach to them. We find this at Mars Hill in Acts 17, and all over Acts as the apostles would go to the synagogues, go to the riverside where women gathered for the Sabbath, etc.

Do we really think that Paul and the apostles just saw where people where and then started preaching? It doesn't seem so. What they instead did is went where people were gathered to learn philophy, religion and spirituality. These places that the Apostles went to were carefully picked out for the most effective way to turn people to Christ. They didn't do this lightly and they didn't just teach and preach where ever they felt like it, or where ever people would gather.

What we find today is that open air preachers will just pick a place where people are and start preaching. I don't believe (you can show me if I am wrong) that the apostles ever went to a place just because people were there. They chose places where it was the norm for spiritual things to be discussed. Today, those places would be churches and college campuses and other forums. Men like Ravi Zacharias and Billy Graham show us what is effective for today. We have media outlets to draw large number of peoples to gather to be ready to hear the word of God spoken. These are the most effective. Many churches that I know have bible studies on college campuses and put up flyers and have people tell others so that the gospel can be shared and defended. Think about it. When you do this, people are ready to share and discuss and learn spiritual things. This is exactly what the apostles did in their preaching. They preached to people who were ready to discuess spiritual things.

What is odd for me is to simply set up shop outside a mall where people are buying underwear and pretzels and yelling at them from a bullhorn to repent. How is this possibly the most effective way to share the gospel? With all the ways to prepare someone to discuss religion and spirituality, I really don't understand how someone can say that they are being fully biblical by just picking a spot to scream out the gospel. From my reading of Scripture, this is never put forth. I am a Christian and sometimes have been scared when yelled at from one of these guys. I wasn't prepared, I wasn't in that state of mind to discuss these things. It was odd.

So, the question I have for any open air preacher or anyone who defends this practice is simply this: Why do you choose the places you do for preaching?

I am not even going into all the ways I have seen the open air preacher look foolish and do things that are down right ungodly. I am not even looking at how badly the gospel has been twisted, or theology downright heretical. I am just asking for the reason of why you choose the place you pick.

I think you will find it a hard defense to simply say that is where people are. Biblically speaking the apostles used their open air preaching only in places where it was the norm to speak such truths. We should always be ready to share Christ with others, no matter where we are, but to understand how to do this is a huge deal.

I would love to hear thoughts from actual open air preachers and will do some follow up posts if necessary.

Read More......

Open Air Preaching: Speaking to the Wind?

Below is a clip of an open air preacher. What I will say is that from what I have seen, this is about what happens with most of the open air preachers that I have seen. I want to know what your thoughts are in general in regards to open air preaching and I will write a follow up post on my thoughts as I have seen these things take place. Do you believe it is something for today? Is it biblical? Or is it just down right lunacy?

Read More......

Zaccheus was a Real Dude

I was leading a study with some of the youth this past Sunday and we were reading through Luke 19 and the story of Zaccheus. Naturally, those who grew up in church started singing the song like a bunch of Pavlov's dogs. Surprisingly, one of the youth, who is a Senior in high school admitted that he didn't know that the story of Zaccheus was real. He thought it was some made up song.

A lot of people get on liberal theology because they don't believe in the literal stories of the Old Testament, but they aren't the whole problem, conservative Christians that believe in the infallible, inerrant word of God are as well. How so? Some preachers and teachers teach the Bible as though Jesus isn't present in the stories. Like Christ is some after thought and not central to the story. This is very dangerous and leads to a senior in high school clueless on the story of Zaccheus. I know what you are thinking..."I would never do that, I would never make a story in the Bible sound like a fable." Are you sure? The question comes in how you decide to teach the Old Testament and New Testament to your children and to those around you.

Take a look at this song about Zaccheus:

Zaccheus was a wee little man
And a wee little man was he
He climbed up in a sycamore tree
For the Lord he wanted to see
And as the Savior passed that way
He looked up in that tree
And He said, “Zaccheus, you come down!
For I’m going to your house today
For I’m going to your house to stay”

What a stupid song. What's the point? What is interesting is what this song leaves out of the conversion story of Zaccheus and how Christ and His salvation to sinners is the center of the story. Look at the rest of Luke 19 that isn't included in the song:

And he hurried and came down and received Him gladly. When they saw it, they all began to grumble, saying, “He has gone to be the guest of a man who is a sinner.” Zaccheus stopped and said to the Lord, “Behold, Lord, half of my possessions I will give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will give back four times as much.” And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham. “For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”
Luke 19:6-10

Amazing that this is left out of this (I am trying hard not to use "inappropriate" language here) stupid song that retards the salvific work of Christ. It robs Jesus as the center.

The question must come: How do you teach the Bible? When you come to stories like Jonah, David and Goliath, The Red Sea, Elijah, Joshua, Creation, etc. is Jesus at the center of the story or is he left out?

I always tell people: If a Jew can teach your same lesson with conviction, you aren't teaching Christianity and Christ crucified.

With those above stories who is the hero of them? Is Jonah the hero? Is David the hero? Moses? Elijah? Joshua? Who? If it isn't Jesus and the story of redemption, you aren't teaching the true stories of Christ, but you are telling fairy tales that don't matter. I have seen some bad teachings on this. I have seen where in the story of Daniel and Nebechudnezzar, that it was never about Jesus, but about how not to be like Nebuchadnezzar. I have seen how in Jonah, the theme of "Obey God" was the center. Obey God? That's fine, but what happens when the children find out that this is impossible to perfect? What then? 80% leave the church after high school...that's "what then".

I have had this conversation recently with others and they try and defend why they just merely teach the stories without the fullness of Christ. They have said, "Kids remember stories."

Kids remember stories? Who cares? I want my kids to remember Jesus and the redemption that he promised because of the cross. I am not a Jew and refuse to teach like one. When we merely teach stories, kids grow up not realizing that Zaccheus was real, was converted, sold his possessions, paid back 4 times what he stole and Christ said that he came to seek and to save that which was lost. The story of Zaccheus was a real redemption story that shows what happens when someone "receives Christ gladly."

If you merely teach a story, you need to repent because you are aiding children to believe in either a legalistic mentality of following mere men and their works or you are teaching them that these are just mere stories without you even realizing it.

Thomas Schreiner in his book, The Law and Its Fulfillment has this to say:

This explains, says Sanders, the emphasis in rabbinic literature on the fulfillment of commandments. Sanders' thesis on why the covenant is unmentioned may be granted in one sense. Presumably the rabbis did assume that God's covenantal mercies were the basis of all their behavior, and one must recall the nature of the literature found in the Mishnah and Gemara. Nevertheless, when one combines the failure to mention the covenant with the emphasis on obeying the detailed prescriptions of the law, one has a recipe for legalism. Such theology may not be legalistic in theory; it can always appeal to the covenant as the basis of all behavior. Theology, however, is not measured only by formal statements but also by what it stresses. Any theology that claims to stress God's grace but rarely mentions it and that elaborates human responsibility in detail inevitably becomes legalistic in practice, if not theory. This principle applies to rabbinic Judaism and to Christian churches. A church outwardly lauding grace as primary and fundamental may practice the most virulent legalism.
Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment, p. 117

Here are some quick steps to follow when teaching:

1. What is the context of the story?

2. What is the practical lesson to be received? i.e. don't murder, lie, look at porn, etc.

3. Where is Christ at in the story? How is he pictured or pointed to in the story or passage?

4. In what ways can we train in righteousness and see Christ as the center of redemption because of this story?

These are just some quick things to think about as we teach, not just children, but adults. Without Christ as center, how are we different than a Jew or a story teller at the local library?

Make Jesus the center or you are helping others become Jewish or liberal in theology.

Read More......

When Jesus is Abused

This preaching is brutal. This "preacher" has decided that instead of preaching the gospel of Christ, he wants to use Christ to make his convictions turn into law. But just because this is so obvious don't think this type of stuff can't happen with you and your convictions. Know that the gospel of Christ is the most important issue behind the pulpit, not your convictions of whether a woman can wear pants or not. When the convictions become greater than the Gospel we have some issues. When we try and preach on why we are right and why some one else of the faith is wrong, to simply make a point, instead of pointing to the glories of Christ and how he saves us from our sin and self righteousness, we have lost sight of why God has called us to preach.

If you are a preacher, you must ask, "Why am I called to preach?" Is it to win sides and debates for my convictions? Or is it to save sinners from themselves to the joys of the cross? When one uses Christ for personal pride, they have twisted the reason of the calling. When Jesus isn't the reason for our preaching, but a sideshow to make a point, we need to repent. I have seen this preacher do the same things with other topics, so this is a trend with him. I will be trying to find out who he is so I can send an email to him to just simply ask him to preach the gospel.

HT: Bob Hayton

Read More......

How to Argue Like Jesus

This book was the first one that I have read from Crossway since being given the chance to review books for them on a regular basis. I asked for this book because of the title. I was a little skeptical on what in the world the writers were trying to convey with the title. What I found as I started to read is that the main title, "How to Argue Like Jesus" was a little misleading and the subtitle, "Learning Persuasion from History's Greatest Communicator" was a more appropriate title for the whole of the book. But, the title did its job, because I wanted to read it. I know I am not the only one who felt this way as Frank Turk described this same frustration.

The book is co-authored by a blogger, Joe Carter which gives us all hope of someday taking our writing to the real world. After getting passed the title and understanding what the book was actually about, which was communication and persuasion, I found the book to be very well done and one that I will have to re-read in the future and use as a reference to make my sermons and teachings more on point of how Christ communicated his eternal truth.

The book is set up to really show you how to communicate effectively and then drawing from the Scriptures to show you specifically how Christ used the same techniques that were put forth in writing by Aristotle. Not only did the authors show forth Christ's words but they also drew from historical events to show the speeches, etc. to bring their points home. In other words, even in writing this book the authors used the techniques presented to display the effectiveness to the reader.

The book from the very beginning shows one the basics of logic and how to employ logic in ones presentation for ideas, whether pastor, businessman or soccer coach. This book is really widespread and for that I allow the small errors in theology to go unmentioned.

The book goes from the basics in communication to the importance of the communicator and his/her life and how they engage their audience. Again, very good practical advice that will aid anyone who communicates to do in a better style. Not only does the book span the normal ideas of persuasion, but at the end of the book they present those qualities of communication that was unique to Christ that we should also take note of. Some of these were (these are only explained in half pages so that is why there is so many):

1. Always employ some sort of good news, even when reporting wholly bad news
2. Start with your audience's needs
3. Start with examples your audience will understand
4. Speak your audience's "language"
5. Never speak about your speech
6. Use Witness
7. Communicate with confidence
8. Get it right
9. Do not boast; act with humility
10. Know when to speak and when to be silent
11. Be enigmatic
12. Listen
13. Ask Questions
14. Just ask (for what you want)
15. When appropriate, stand up to authority
16. Don't bend core principles or standards to gather disciples
17. Create a sense of urgency
18. Remember that a prophet is without honor in his hometown
19. Praise those who do well; express disappointment in those who disappoint you
20. Don't Fear Division
21. Don't Cast your pearls before swine
22. Words Matter

Overall, the last part of the book and the beginning, with logical analysis of Christ's words, were my favorite. The only downfall of the book is that sometimes it seems too mechanic. This is what will happen when trying to convey Jesus as something other than our Saviour. This book is focused on communication, so very little, if anything, is presented about his true mission, which was to save sinners. Because of this, some parts of the book made it sound as though if you do "A" then "B" will happen. Which we know of many pastors who labor long, communicate well, and still have very little in the way of converts or numbers in the congregation. I know that the authors try to convey this at the beginning in one or two sentences but it is hard to shake as you read throughout the book. But, through all this, it does show how complex, and on point, even Christ's words were apart from the work of the Spirit. Just Christ's mere language and communication was nothing short of brilliant, but as we know, and the authors know, we can't stop there with Christ.

I would recommend this highly to any who would like to communicate better to their audience whatever their profession or ministry. I very much liked the book, now it will be about going back for further study on the methods of communication that they put forth. Highly Recommended

Links to Buy:

Crossway

Read More......

More Stuff/Crap About Vulgar Language

As I continue to take a deeper look into what this means to use vulgarity and what it means to try and understand coarse language, I think there is something that is missing in this understanding. What I, and what I suppose Tripp, Driscoll and Piper are saying, and what I know Tim Lien is saying, is that vulgar language is not always used nor appropriate. What I am not going to do is walk around and just start to use vulgar language for the sake of doing so under my liberty. For the sake of stereotyping, I am not going to become a drunken sailor. :)

The idea behind language is to know the hearer. This is really just another understanding of contextualization. This does not mean that if I am standing with folk that like to cuss for the sake of cussing that I just join in. But, what I am saying is that if I am with a crass crowd that think they are doing just fine in their walk in life, it will make more sense to use some coarse language for them to understand their plight. Meaning. I would show them how their righteous deeds are like bloody tampons (Isaiah 64:6); that Paul counted all things that he did in the flesh as "s____"; that their idols in their life are like them being whores and sluts instead of submitting to the authority of the Creator (all of Isaiah,Jeremiah, Ezekiel).

Does this mean that I sit in front of my 4 and 5 year old and talk to him in the same way? No, of course not. Does this mean that I stand in front my church and preach this in the same way? Some of the above would be worth it, not all of it though. Am I going to tell a mother that has come out of a divorce, hooked on drugs and knows she needs a redeemer that she is a whore after other gods? No. I have to know my listeners. This is how Christ and the prophets all did it as they exclaimed the word of God. The listeners had a huge role in what ways the gospel was pronounced. So, with the righteous people Christ used very coarse language and word pictures, but with the woman at the well, it was done with more "soft" wording for her to see the water that never runs dry. I also will not use words that I know someone finds offensive if we are just having a conversation. Again, important to know the hearer.

I think the biggest fear of most people that see these types of posts is the fear that I am going to give out a license to cuss. That is not what any of us are saying. We are saying that any time we publicly speak things we know to be vulgar, or coarse, this is to be bathed in prayer for understanding and to behold the glory of God in it. The reason for any type of vulgarity or coarse language is the same reason for vulgarity and coarse language in the Scriptures: to awaken the hearers out of their dullness.

If we take a stand against vulgarity and coarse language for the fear of licentiousness then we should go ahead and do the same with the grace of the cross. The reason I say this is that a lot of people hate when pastors focus in on grace and forgiveness because they are afraid you are going to give people a license to just sin and ask for forgiveness. But, we must not be scared to preach biblically for the fear of what sinners might do with the message. Remember what Paul says, "Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be!" We must preach the message of the Scriptures under the fear of our God. The whole counsel of God is to be preached, not just what we find to be useful or appropriate. I start to wonder if we really believe 2 Timothy 3:16

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
2 Timothy 3:16

There is a time to preach and teach the vulgarity of sinfulness. There is a time to use terms that will awaken the hearer to their plight. We must contextualize the gospel so that all will hear and awaken. We must also not just use vulgarity for the sake of vulgarity. We must use only what is deemed permissible in the Scriptures to awaken the hearer, even if culture would screech at such word usage.

I am guessing that no one in culture would like to hear the following:

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. 21 So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled.
Ezekiel 23:19-21

We must use discretion when to use Ezekiel and when to use Christ's words to the woman at the well, as there was nothing vulgar or coarse in his language, yet it penetrated the woman:

Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.”
John 4:13-14

This is why it is not an easy job to preach and teach the gospel of our Lord. He doesn't tell us when to use Ezekiel and when to use more subtle and soft language. Maybe this is why Paul exhorts us to "pray unceasingly." Maybe this is why the early church instituted deacons...so that they could "devote themselves to prayer and the ministry of the word."

Read More......

Preaching Notes

I found a pretty interesting series by Josh Harris. It is a series on preaching notes from some well known pastors around the country. The series has an intro and then a PDF with their actual notes they used to preach a sermon. It is interesting, to say the least, to see how others put their thoughts on paper as they prepare to bring the message of Christ. Just wait til you see Tim Keller's. Pretty crazy to say the least. Here are the posts that Pastor Josh did...enjoy:

• Mark Dever
• Mike Bullmore
• C.J. Mahaney
• Ray Ortlund, Jr.
• Tim Keller

Read More......

Preach Jesus...Always

I am currently reading, The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law, by Thomas R. Schreiner. It struck me as Dr. Schreiner was in his rebuttal of Sanders' thoughts on Judaism in both Second Temple Judaism and also Judaism in Paul's day. Sanders' main point through this is that the Jews during this time were not legalistic. Sander's tries to show that the reason that the Jews did the work of the Law was out of gratitude of the grace that God has shown them. Although I, of course, concede that this was the reason for the law, I do not believe that this is what was being practiced.

The problem is that one cannot find the grace taught in the rabbinic works in Second Temple Judaism. Sanders simply says that grace is presupposed and therefore not needed to be written to the Jews. Since the Jews knew that it was by grace that they were called and elected, there was no reason to include this in the rabbinic writings or teachings. Here is Sanders direct quote on the subject:

Very seldom is God's role in the covenant directly discussed. It is assumed so thoroughly that it need not be mentioned.
Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, p. 82

Based on this, Schreiner responds accordingly:

This explains, says Sanders, the emphasis in rabbinic literature on the fulfillment of commandments. Sanders' thesis on why the covenant is unmentioned may be granted in one sense. Presumably the rabbis did assume that God's covenantal mercies were the basis of all their behavior, and one must recall the nature of the literature found in the Mishnah and Gemara. Nevertheless, when one combines the failure to mention the covenant with the emphasis on obeying the detailed prescriptions of the law, one has a recipe for legalism. Such theology may not be legalistic in theory; it can always appeal to the covenant as the basis of all behavior. Theology, however, is not measured only by formal statements but also by what it stresses. Any theology that claims to stress God's grace but rarely mentions it and that elaborates human responsibility in detail inevitably becomes legalistic in practice, if not theory. This principle applies to rabbinic Judaism and to Christian churches. A church outwardly lauding grace as primary and fundamental may practice the most virulent legalism.
Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment, p. 117

This is a great understanding. The main point that Schreiner is making is against Sanders' view and also Judaism's view of how to teach. This also hits us squarely on the head.

We cannot preach and teach like people understand that "it is all about Jesus" unless we show them how it is truly "all about Jesus." If we just give them things to do, steps to follow, and laws they must keep as a Christian, they will fall into legalism and so will we as the teachers. We can never assume that people "get it." We have to continue to put Jesus and the cross in the front of their eyes EVERYTIME we teach the Scriptures. The reason is that our futile minds and faulty reasoning as humans will naturally move to legalism and an understanding that it is all about what we do and not what Christ has done. So, if we just tell people to pray, read the word, tell others about Jesus, memorize Scripture and help those around them without telling them "why?," we have failed. We must always underline these things with the grace of the cross and the fulfillment of Christ. Without the preaching of the cross within these principles, we return to legalism by default.

Do not assume that your parishioners, or you, ever fully understand the grace of the cross. We must study the cross, preach the cross, pray the cross, sing the cross and live the cross. We must do this daily and we should do this because this is exactly what we will be doing for all eternity.

Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders; and the number of them was myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing.” And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, “To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.” And the four living creatures kept saying, “Amen.” And the elders fell down and worshiped.
Revelation 5:11-14

Read More......

Martin Luther and Language

It seems as though language is becoming more and more a discussion these days on what is considered vulgar and what is okay to proceed from the mouth of a true Christian. I was once told that I should never be allowed to preach if I use the word "suck" or "crap." I proceeded to ask the person if they would please give me their list of acceptable words so that I could also become a legalist to place that yoke on other's necks as well.

Whether many want to admit it or not, Martin Luther, which is a hero to a lot of protestants, used some pretty vulgar images and words to get his point across. I have written about some shocking use of terms and images a couple of times in Refuting those Who Contradict and also Playing the Whore. Some of Luther's quotes, which I will not go into all of them are the following:
Luther advised people to "tell the Devil to kiss my ____"

He repeatedly said that if the Pope should send him a command to appear before him: "I shall _____ upon his summons"

He said that the monks are "the lice placed by the devil on God Almighty's fur coat"

When trying to explain how far God is or is not the author of evil, he says: 'Semei wished to curse, and God immediately directed his curse against David. God says, "Curse him not and no one else." Just as if a man wishes to relieve himself I cannot prevent him, but should he wish to do so on the table here, then I should object and tell him to betake himself to the corner.'"

My all time favorite is his response to Rome about their use of Aristotle's thoughts on reason. Luther exclaimed, "Reason is a whore."

He also mentioned, "When I (the Pope-a--) bray, hee-haw, hee-haw, or relieve myself in the way of nature, they must take it all as articles of faith, i.e. Catholics."

So, the question comes to us today as, "Why do you use harsh language or vulgar images to get your point across?" Although I wouldn't stand behind all the ways Luther spoke or gave images I do completely agree with his outlook on it, and I do think that too many people have pussy footed around using harsh biblical language to awaken the pagan from their slumber.

Below is Luther's own words for why he used such language:

I own that I am more vehement than I ought to be; but I have to do with men who blaspheme evangelical truth; with human wolves; with those who condemn me unheard, without admonishing, without instructing me; and who utter the most atrocious slanders against myself not only, but the Word of God. Even the most phlegmatic spirit, so circumcised, might well be moved to speak thunderbolts; much more I who am choleric by nature, and possessed of a temper easily apt to exceed the bounds of moderation.

I cannot, however, but be surprised to learn whence the novel taste arose which daintily calls everything spoken against an adversary abusive and acrimonious. What think ye of Christ? Was he a reviler when he called the Jews an adulterous and perverse generation, a progeny of vipers, hypocrites, children of the devil?

What think you of Paul? Was he abusive when he termed the enemies of the gospel dogs and seducers? Paul who, in the thirteenth chapter of the Acts, inveighs against a false prophet in this manner: "Oh, full of subtlety and all malice, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness." I pray you, good Spalatin, read me this riddle. A mind conscious of truth cannot always endure the obstinate and willfully blind enemies of truth. I see that all persons demand of me moderation, and especially those of my adversaries, who least exhibit it. If I am too warm, I am at least open and frank; in which respect I excel those who always smile, but murder.

I find this to be a great quote to back up Luther's use of language and images that make some cringe. I see some modern preachers getting this and using this kind of understanding to wake up the sleeping modern evangelical that will sleep his way in the pew all the way to the fires of hell.

I would rather be questioned from the legalist (or ultra conservative) on my usage of language than watch those under my guard run straight into hell without a bold warning of their whoring after other gods.

Read More......

Preaching Jesus through ALL the Scriptures

I have been listening to old Acts 29 Network sermons and came across some pretty good quotes from Jonathan McIntosh at the 2007 St. Louis Regionals in his sermon (or workshop) called The Importance of Preaching Across 3 Streams. Here are the two quotes form the sermon that I found to be awesome when thinking of how I preach and teach.

The first question that we put to the text is not what does this say to or about us, but the first question that we take to the text is how does this text testify to Jesus. I say it again, that the Christian life is defined by our relationship to Jesus so until we understand who and what Jesus is, we cannot properly understand what our relationship to him is.
Graeme Goldsworthy (from his book, Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture)


The bible is not a collection of Aesop's fables, it is not a book of virtues. It is a story about how God saves us. Any exposition of a text that does not get to Christ but just explains biblical principles will be a synagogue sermon that merely exhorts people to exert their wills to live according to a particular pattern. Instead of the life giving gospel, the sermon offers just one more ethical paradigm to crush the listeners.
Tim Keller

We have to be honest that if we do not preach for the exaltation of Jesus Christ in all of our sermons, instead of just lessons to be learned, then how are we not just like every other religion with a great moral teacher or great moral code?

McIntosh at one point states, "We don't need merely a moral teacher, we need a Saviour." I couldn't agree more.

Read More......

Is the Preacher Necessary?

I know that I am opening a can of worms here. First, I want to say that I strongly believe that the whole purpose of the church is to preach the word of God. She is to edify, She is to proclaim, She is to be the voice of the one crying out in the wilderness. I personally preach and teach once or twice a week, so I am not trying to downplay preaching. I understand that the prophets of old and the preachers in the coming of the church age (all through Acts and so on) were center of God's redemptive plan for sinners. They were called to preach the good news and so are we. So, please understand that I completely believe that the preaching is the center for the Lord's Day, that without it there is no church service and that without the preaching there is no reason for us to come together as God's people every Sunday morning at exactly 11am. ;)

So, you might ask, "Why this post?" This post is to try to understand, "Is the preacher absolutely necessary to God?" Does he have to have the preacher for people to be saved and Christians to be edified? I am writing this post based on a discussion that is happening over at Reforming Baptist and it really is something that comes out of the IFB placing too much emphasis on the preacher and not on God, in my opinion. I have read many articles in their papers and seen many advertisements that show how long a preacher has been preaching, how many people are in his church and how many people HE has saved. This, to me, is sickening.

So, is the preacher necessary for God to save people?


Here is the quick definition of the term necessary: absolutely needed; required

God does say many times through the apostle Paul that God uses preaching and it is definitely the chosen instrument that he has chosen to use to save people. We see this in Romans 10 and we also see this when Paul says in 1 Cor 1:21 that God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

This is how God ordained this. But to say that it is necessary would be a little strong for me to swallow...I think. I say "I think" because I am really opening this up for discussion to see what my brothers and sisters in Christ think about this subject.

Here is why I say that necessary is a little too strong.

nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things;
Acts 17:25

God doesn't need anything. He gives life, he takes life. He literally needs nothing to accomplish his will. Now, does he choose us to help accomplish his will? Yes. Does he have to? No.

We also find in 1 Corinthians 3:6-7 the following:

I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth.
1 Corinthians 3:6-7

Did Paul and Apollos do exactly what they were called to do? Yes. But who caused the growth? God. So much so, that God says that Paul and Apollos are nothing. The chapter then goes on to tell of the great and glorious foundation in Christ.

Here are the two that seem to speak of necessity vs. useful means.

Christ says this about his disciples:

As soon as He was approaching, near the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of the disciples began to praise God joyfully with a loud voice for all the miracles which they had seen, shouting: “Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord; Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!” Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Him, “Teacher, rebuke Your disciples.” But Jesus answered, “I tell you, if these become silent, the stones will cry out!”
Luke 19:37-40

So, we can see that Jesus says that if the disciples were silenced that God would cause the stones to cry out for the coming King. What this is showing is that we are not necessary but the message preached is necessary. That Christ is necessary. That God is so much in control and so sovereign that if the voice of those who proclaim become silent that God will use stones to cry out for Him.

I believe this is what is happening in the Muslim countries where we are seeing many Muslims come to Christ, not by preaching of a human preacher, but through visions of Christ preaching the message to them that He is truly the God/Man, the Saviour, the Christ. A truly Pauline experience.

Here is the other and then I will leave it up for discussion:

The setting here is that Joshua and the Israelites were just destroyed at Ai because of the sin of Achan. Joshua has the audacity to proclaim the following to God:

Then Joshua tore his clothes and fell to the earth on his face before the ark of the Lord until the evening, both he and the elders of Israel; and they put dust on their heads. Joshua said, “Alas, O Lord God, why did You ever bring this people over the Jordan, only to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us? If only we had been willing to dwell beyond the Jordan!“O Lord, what can I say since Israel has turned their back before their enemies? “For the Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land will hear of it, and they will surround us and cut off our name from the earth. And what will You do for Your great name?” Joshua 7:6-9

Joshua basically says that if he and the Israelites aren't around that God's name will be removed from the face of the earth. He basically is saying the same thing that Christ says, "if these disciples are silenced..." Joshua has the audacity to think that he is necessary for God's plan of glorifying his name. Look at what God says, it is almost funny:

So the Lord said to Joshua, “Rise up! Why is it that you have fallen on your face?
Joshua 7:10

Modern translation: Joshua you look like a moron, get up, I have no actual need for you.

Joshua is showing that he is truly scared and frightened that God's name will be removed if the Israelites are destroyed. God says, "Please...I don't need you...get up"

What I don't want to happen with those that don't know me is to just think that I don't place enough emphasis on preaching. That is not the case. I believe that God has told us that it is a must, that he uses the preacher to accomplish his will and that if we don't preach and proclaim that we are in sin. What I am trying to get across is that we are not absolutely necessary and therefore should get absolutely no glory for doing so. It is God who causes the growth, it is God's will that is done, apart from Christ we cannot do anything and those in the flesh cannot please God.

All these point to one thing: preaching points to the necessity of the Saviour, not the preacher.

Thoughts? Have I gone too far in this thinking? Let me have it!

Read More......

What is the Bible's Theme?

When I preach, or teach, I have to always ask myself, "How does this passage reveal, more clearly, the overall theme of the Bible?" This is central when you are trying to understand Scripture. If we believe that the whole of the inspired Scripture is profitable (2 Tim 3:16,17), even Numbers, then we have to always put each passage into the overall context of the Bible.

As you do this, it will keep you closer to God's revealed word, and less likely to become full fledged heretic. Which, after I finish up with 10 Steps to Become a Legalist, I might start a series on 10 Steps to become a Full Fledged Heretic. Plus, I can be funny in that one a little more and less people will be offended. Because, no one believes they are a heretic, just the whack job down the street that licks the light pole at night while dressed in his bath robe.

What was I saying? Oh yes. Theme of the Bible.

Not only is this my first concern with my preaching and teaching, but it is also what I do when I teach someone how to study their Bible. You have to understand the central theme of the entirety of God's word to understand the small passages that are read and studied on a daily basis. Or, if you are emergent...the passages that you summarize while you sit in your circle, with no leader, candles blazing and people licking glue sticks as you have your conversation.

When you don't have a grasp of the overall theme of the Bible, your study of the Word will not be fluent, but choppy and can become where passages stand on their own, instead of how they were intended: a fluent story from beginning (Genesis) to end (Revelation).

So, as I teach and preach, this is the Trinitarian theme that I would put forth for us all to discuss:

God redeeming a sinful people, through Christ, by the Spirit, for His glory

This is what I would see as being the complete theme of the entire Bible. Some have said things, such as, "God redeeming people for his glory." But this leaves out both the Son and the Spirit. I want a Trinitarian theme, not just focused in on God the Father.

So, when I preach, this is what I ask, "How does this passage point me more clearly that God has redeemed a sinful people, through Christ, by the Spirit, for His glory?" I am not done with my study until this is answered.

And...I have failed if I did not get this across clearly and precisely when I go to the people to preach.

We must believe it when Christ said many times that the Scriptures speak of HIM and when he told those two disciples on the road to Emmaus:

And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!“Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?”Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.
Luke 24:25-27

Preach the word dear preacher, and truly understand that before Paul said this, he told you specifically:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:16-17

Read More......

Boring Preachers Suck

Are you a preacher? Are you boring? If yes, please stop preaching. I know it sounds pretty critical. I know it sounds maybe shallow at first, but boring preaching really sucks. Besides the obvious point, that if you are boring people won’t want to sit and listen to you, how are you a good representative of the most amazing event that ever happened, namely, the cross?

Go do something else for the cause of Christ. Feed the homeless, teach Sunday School, serve your church in other ways, but if you don’t have the gift of telling others the exciting news of Christ from the pulpit…take a seat.

Here is the point of this post…I believe that preaching is different than teaching and some have the gift and some just don’t. What I want you to also know is that I am NOT saying that excitement and emotion from the pulpit is the only thing, but it is definitely a part of the pulpit. We won’t be looking at other parts of being a pastor, such as exposition of the passage, which is the most important, but we’ll just be covering one part: the excitement of preaching.

Here is what we are going to look at:

Preaching is Heralding and Shouting; Not merely Teaching
Preaching is emotional
Preaching is a gift


Preaching is Heralding and Shouting; Not Merely Teaching

One of the coolest, yet strangest men in the New Testament, was no doubt John the Baptist. If you and I saw him today we would kindly ask him to please go to the fundamental church down the street where they “like that sort of thing.” He ate bugs, dressed in camel hair and preached in the most unlikely spot: the hot desert in Judea. Dude was odd. But, he does give us some insight into what it means to preach something that means a lot to you.

John the Baptist was a man that had a conviction and it was to let people know that the Christ was coming and he was coming to take away the sin of the world. One of the best ways to see how his preaching ministry took footing is found in Matthew 3:1-12.

“JtB” as I will call him, knowing that he is dead and can’t come and hunt me down in his camel suit, had a message that he could not wait to tell everyone. Here, in this passage, there are three words that are associated with “how” JtB told people about the coming Messiah.

The first is the term, “preaching.” This term means to literally herald. This is how Strong’s defines the term: to proclaim after the manner of a herald. always with the suggestion of formality, gravity and an authority which must be listened to and obeyed.

This term speaks of authority and one that must be listened to and obeyed. Does this give you the thought of a monotone pastor that sounds like he is reading the phonebook? Hardly.

The second term is “saying” at the end of verse 1. This terms speaks of affirming something by speaking out loud by command. Again, showing authority by commanding something as the speaker speaks.

Lastly, the term “crying” is used by way of the prophecy from Isaiah 40. This term means to shout out loud because of joy or pain, to use a strong voice.

So we have the crazy man, John the Baptist, convicted of a message that he needs to preach, and he does it with excitement while he still has some locusts stuck in his teeth. In the end, we see that John the Baptist is not a man that sounds like he is in the wilderness speaking monotone about the most exciting thing to come to the people of Israel.

No, we see a man convicted of a message in the wilderness getting people’s attention, not only with the message but also in the delivery and force of the speaker. This man is one that any would listen to. Does this describe you? If not...please don't preach.

Preaching is Emotional

We learn from Christ that out of the heart the mouth speaks. We also learn that we are to love the Lord our God with all of your heart, with all of your soul and with all of your mind and with all of your strength.

When we are told to love God with all of our heart and soul, the soul is said to be part of the human that puts forth its desires and affections. You get that...affections!

So, if the preacher is allowing his heart to speak and he truly loves the Lord with all his soul, would not his mouth show the emotions and affections of his love of God?

We actually do see this in the preaching of Peter and John. They show how much they love Christ in their preaching to the people. Take a look at this verse:

Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus.
Acts 4:13

Peter and John show confidence because of what is found in their heart. This term confidence gives the idea of free and fearless confidence, cheerful courage, boldness, assurance. Notice that the council could tell that these men were uneducated and untrained, in probably oratory speaking, but it says that the council was amazed! Even more so, it says that the council, because of the confidence of the two standing before them, that these two had been with Jesus. Because of this boldness and because of their message the council in verse 18 of Acts 4 says that they ordered them to stop teaching about Jesus. Sadly, when I hear some preachers they sound like they have never experienced Christ, but only have read about him.

This passage though, as a whole, gives the essence that Peter and John were very emotional about what they were preaching on. Because of the overflow of their hearts, these two confidently proclaimed the Messiah to all who would hear. They were truly preachers, not merely teachers.

The question is do others see you, if you are a preacher, the confidence in your message? Can they tell that you have been with Jesus? Or do you sound more like a math teacher?

If people can’t tell the confidence and joy you have in Christ, I would beg you again, to find another way to serve God. Preachers are men who preach with the emotion of one that has been with Christ, not one who has only heard the good news.

Preaching is a gift

People mistakenly take preaching and lump it in with teaching as though it was the same thing. Sorry to say, these people are far off. In Romans 12 we have some of the gifts listed.

Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to exercise them accordingly: if prophecy, according to the proportion of his faith; if service, in his serving; or he who teaches, in his teaching;
Romans 12:6-7

The term for prophecy would be one that is associated with the preacher. Prophecy means to proclaim or herald before a people. The Old Testament prophet would be the equivalent of the New Testament preacher. Notice also that another gift listed in verse 7 is the one for teaching. This shows that they are not the same. Although there may be many of the attributes that are the same between the two; exposition, biblical understanding, etc., there is big difference in how one who just has the gift of teaching and one that has the gift of prophecy and teaching will differ.
I believe the main difference is going to be in the delivery. Again, the main purpose of the prophet is to declare. They are to declare the things of God. Think of the first point that we made in this post with John the Baptist. The preacher is to herald with confidence and with authority. They are to do this without wavering as the Old Testament prophets did among the nations. Think of Isaiah and Jeremiah. Think how these men spoke against the people of their day; this is the role of the preacher.

It is a gift. Teachers are much needed in the church, but we should not expect every teacher to be able to get behind the pulpit and start teaching with passion. It isn’t that easy.

The sad part is that I believe many look to teachers who can exposit a passage and knows a lot about the Bible and then they place them behind the pulpit without care. The problem is that they are boring and no one wants to listen a thing they have to say. With a preacher, they do all the same thing that a teacher would, except they come with authority, confidence and emotion for the oracles of the Lord God our Yahweh.

One of my friends quoted something that he had heard once (it wasn't said to him):

The message isn't boring, you are!

So, if you are a preacher that sounds like Ben Stein on Ferris Bueller’s Day Off…how about you take a day off and we’ll call you, don’t call us.

P.S. Just for clarification...my pastor doesn't suck...he loves Jesus and shows it through his preaching and through the way he lives his life.

Read More......