Thoughts on preaching

1. ...on audible feedback during preaching

My church tends to be pretty audible (for lack of a better word. I think that there is a word for it but it escapes me at the moment). Our members aren't as vocal as some of the other churches that I've been to or seen on TV but they are certainly on that side of the spectrum. The spectrum ranges from extremely vocal on one end (think black Pentecostal church in the South) to silent, stone-like Reformed Presbyterian, on the other. None of these are good or bad, they're mere cultural idiosyncrasies. The noise can be annoying for some and encouraging for others. Some people like the sound of Brooklyn at night while others prefer the peace and quiet of Upstate. 

In small churches (and I mean very small) audible feedback feels almost necessary. There's nothing more uncomfortable than a room containing 15 people where one is howling at the top of their lungs and everyone else is muted. There's a seeming lack of proportionality to it. There are too few people to demand quiet. Quiet is only necessary when everyone talking would be subversive. A few people shouting "amen" every now and then in a carton sized room shows loyalty to the one speaking. That what they're saying is valuable, even if they haven’t amassed enough people by their preaching to demand a quiet crowd.

2. ...on magisterial preaching.

There is an undeniable difference between what I'll call magisterial preaching (again, for lack of a better word) and normal ho-hum preaching. There is a certain conviction in the tone. A gravitas in the speaker himself. A command of the people's respect and attention. A sense that this person is supposed to be listened to. That they are the professional, licensed by God. 

I don't think anyone would define my preaching as "magisterial", but I'm hoping that is something that can be learned with time and effort. And I think I have good enough reasons to think that it can. All I can say is that, at my best, I sound like someone who is knowledgable in what I am talking about. That causes some people to listen, and I am thankful for that.

Evangelical Approach to OT

There are several differing perspectives a person can have when approaching the Old Testament (OT) Scriptures. Though this has been a reality since the dawn of Old Testament interpretation (i.e., the first century Pharisaic versus Sadducean understanding of the OT text), modernity and its epistemology have compounded this problem for modern day interpreters of the biblical text. Waltke in An Old Testament Theology mentions some of these approaches to the Bible. His description of the Evangelical approach to Scripture, I believe, should be the aspiration of all Christian bodies and individuals. He describes Evangelicals as standing under the Bible.  This posture is arrived at primarily by a Spirit wrought humility. All other stances on the Bible have an element of pride by either denying the infallibility of the biblical text or assuming an infallible interpretation. A combination of the doctrine of inspiration and man’s depravity and finitude are the elements that form this moral and theological compound. Dr. Mark Gignilliat mentioned in a lecture how the Bible was the center of the New Testament community. If the Scriptures are appraised as being the infallible rule of faith and practice then, organically, the Church should circle around the Scriptures as the core of how the body both exists and functions. The problem arises, however, when well-meaning, humble, Christians are at odds when it comes to what exactly the OT is actually meaning to say. The horizon of the OT author and his immediate audience contains far more obstacles than that of the New Testament biblical community. Since this is the case, a proper understanding of methods like the historical-critical method should be addressed. Any method that seeks to bypass the OT text in order to arrive at a “true” understanding of the OT by analyzing ancient Near East culture or archeological discovery should be rejected. Those under the Bible do not find a better shelter under the shards of archeology. That is not to disparage the necessary understanding of the ancient Near East or archeology, but we cannot be sure of a proper interpretation of our findings. Only the Bible provides an infallible narration of events that gives the reader a proper means to asses history. Our worship, then, should be one like the early church mentioned earlier. The Bible should set the parameters of our worship (faith) and the method of our ministry (practice). Modern man’s social, psychological, and scientific beliefs must take a back seat to whatever the OT text (and a hermeneutic that recognizes that the OT leads to the New Testament and its ramifications) is attempting to say. Only then can the church arrive at a unified mind as it undergirds its New Testament faith with a Spirit wrought understanding and embracing of the OT text.
 

Bibliography

Waltke, Bruce K., and Charles Yu. An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007.

By hook or by crook

Luke 16:16-17  (NASB) ––

"16 'The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. 17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail."

Forcing.

When entrance into something (be it a position, institution, or state of mind) is difficult or impossible to attain, there is always some sort of barrier involved. We want a lot of things and the reason we don't have them is because something stands in the way. The position we want at a job is unattainable because there are experience requirements that act as barriers preventing those who should not possess such a position from possessing them. I'm in the middle of looking for new employment and the degrees and experience that I don't have act as barriers. I can’t force myself in.

Forcing implies an effort, and so we apply for the job we don't qualify for in hopes that a miracle will happen. And that after we get in we can prove ourselves worthy.

The kingdom of God is an institution with barriers. That barrier is righteousness. The key that opens the door to this barrier is repentance and faith. John stood as a doorkeeper to this barrier-gate seeking and proclaiming the password of repentance.

Many fudge the numbers when it comes to resumes and qualifications. They fabricate and invent jobs that they’ve never had; increase the lengths that they worked; lie about promotions; make up positions; make up tasks that they claim to have done. All with hopes of forcing themselves into the job.

The Pharisees fudged their resume in an attempt to enter into the kingdom. At the gate they claimed to not need the key, or password, of repentance seeing as they were already righteous––they fasted on the streets, tithed herbs, and so on. The problem is that Christ knew what is in their hearts (16:15). He knew their experience and accolades and that they didn’t measure up. They fell short.

The problem with all those who, like the Pharisees, are not honest with themselves is that God will in no way lower the requirements for the job. If the folks at IBM won't lower their standards for me, what makes you think God will lower His for the kingdom of heaven? "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail." (16:18). IBM won't remove their requirement for a Masters in Computer Science, Jesus won't remove his requirement for absolute obedience. So what do you do? Force yourself in only to get thrown out, or make use of the key of repentance? It's your call.

caveat

Just an editorial note: I started this blog in 2012 and had been posting somewhat regularly (according to my desired pace) for about two year—ending in 2014. After 2014 I took a pretty long hiatus and came back two posts ago—2019.

I mention this to say that when I wrote many of these posts I was a lot younger—that means less experienced, less knowledgable, more presumptuous, less wise, and more error-prone in my writing.

I am not saying this because I am ashamed of anything I wrote (I think much of it is quite good). I am only saying it so that grace may be given to me for some of my post's shortcomings.

In the coming months I will be going through my older posts and making corrections—grammatical, theological, emotional, etc.. There will be redactions (I'm sure) and maybe even outright deletions.

So please show grace, show patience, and most importantly, enjoy those things I have written because, like I said, I still think much of it is quite good. God bless.

Stealing and Covetousness (Part 2)

The Baptist Catechism (Keach’s Catechism) 

Q. 87. What is forbidden in the tenth commandment? A. The tenth commandment forbids all discontentment with our own estate, envying or grieving at the good of our neighbor, and all inordinate motions and affections to anything that is his. (1 Cor. 10:10; James 5:9; Gal. 5:26; Col. 3:5)

One way to differentiate between covetousness and theft (besides theft being an action and covetousness being a matter of the heart) is to realize the differing motivations behind the two. To covet is to desire something that isn't one's own possession. And this desire may culminate in theft which is the physical endpoint to one's desire for things that aren't there’s.

Stealing (or theft) does not always involve desire in the same way that covetousness does. To be clear, theft always involves desire but unlike covetousness it does not always desire out of unnecessary greed.

For example, a man has a car––a 1999 Ford Explorer––which runs fine. He may covet his neighbors 2019 Mercedes coupe. He doesn't need his neighbors car, it's simply unnecessary greed (or as the catechism describes it––"envying...the good of our neighbor").

Theft may arise simply out of true necessity. Which does not justify the act but is simply a matter of self preservation that does not necessarily imply ill-will towards the person being violated.

For example, a man is homeless and on the brink of starvation. He sees a man selling food (hotdogs). He runs up, takes the food without paying, runs away, and eats it. There's really no ill-will here, as hard as it is to believe. He could have been equally content buying, had he the money, or not stealing at all, had he not been starving. One way to look at it is this: in theft, one needs and so they desire, and in coveting, one desires and so they need.

Proverbs 6:30-31 (NASB)
30 Men do not despise a thief if he steals
            To satisfy himself when he is hungry;
      31 But when he is found, he must repay sevenfold;
            He must give all the substance of his house.

 †

Stealing and Covetousness (Part 1)

One biblical concept that a former pastor of mine informed me of that has stuck with me until today is what is called the "put off, put on" principle. For those of you who are unaware of what this is, the Apostle Paul, in his letters, had a habit of not only telling believers to quit bad behaviors ("put off") but to also adopt new behaviors to replace them ("put on"). Nature abhors a vacuum and this was Paul's (well, the Holy Spirit's) way of filling that vacuum with something profitable.

One application of this principle is found in the book of Ephesians and has to do with stealing:

Ephesians 4:28 (NASB)
"He who steals must steal no longer; but rather he must labor, performing with his own hands what is good, so that he will have something to share with one who has need."

Paul's "put off" directive—"He who steals must steal no longer"
is followed by a "put on" directive—"but rather he must labor, performing with his own hands what is good"
Paul even gives the godly rational for this new behavior—"so that he will have something to share with one who has need."

Later on in the letter he defines covetousness in a list of condemnable behaviors and I'll explain why I'm bringing this up:

Ephesians 5:5 (NASB)

"For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God."

 As is commonly understood, covetousness is the father of stealing. It is the desire for what a person has. The 10th commandment states:

Exodus 20:17 (NASB)
"You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

(Interestingly, the command not to steal in the decalogue precedes this command as the 8th commandment. Also interesting is how in Ephesians the command not to steal is also preceding the command not to covet and is given separately.)

†