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.)

†

The blessings of the foreigner

Romans 16:9b - “but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil. ”

The other day I saw a family at a Chinese food restaurant. Think of that – I saw a family. It may seem like a common thing to you, but when is the last time you saw a family together? The father and mother together, the sons and daughters playing with each other. Not only were they together, but they were enjoying a meal together, dinner. This was a Saturday evening, they ordered pork-fried rice and chicken, I believe.

The reason why this picture is so rare is what we conservatives have known for quite some time as “the breakdown of the family” -the systemic destroying of the nuclear family. Through media, academia, and legislation. This threefold attack Is being waged upon all in the westernized world. This family however was immune due to one precious thing.

They were a Mexican family, perhaps barely knowing much English at all, definitely not using it as the primary language at home. They were poor, probably not having cable at home, etc. They were virtually exempt from any possibility of a corrupt worldview entering into their homes. They certainly had a worldview, and it must have been a pretty healthy one in order to  keep their family intact in the midst of so much dysfunction. So no, they did not have Miley Cyrus in their homes. No, they did not care much about modern worldly wisdom. And as of yet, the government hasn't succeeded in making home a difficult thing to maintain.  There is a sort of blissfulness in ignorance, and blessings from having nothing. This can be said about any immigrant family – Haitian, Mexican, Chinese, etc.

This is a sort of proof that you can have a godly home if you want. It only depends on how badly you want it. How much you are willing to be ignorant of the what is going on in the world today. How much you are willing to abandon the worlds wisdom for God's wisdom. Are you willing to be a stranger and pilgrim in a foreign land (1 Peter 2:1)?

Jellyfish Christianity by J.C. Ryle

Jellyfish Christianity by J.C. Ryle

The Pastoral Office
Pastors ought never to be spineless jellyfish.
Jellyfish Christianity
by J.C. Ryle

The consequences of this widespread dislike to distinct biblical doctrine are very serious. Whether we like it or not, it is an epidemic which is doing great harm, and especially among young people. It creates, fosters, and keeps up an immense amount of instability in religion. It produces what I must venture to call, if I may coin the phrase, a ‘jelly-fish’ Christianity in the land — that is, a Christianity without bone, or muscle, or power.

A jelly-fish, as everyone who has been much by the seaside knows, is a pretty and graceful object when it floats in the sea, contracting and expanding like a little delicate transparent umbrella. Yet the same jelly-fish, when cast on the shore, is a mere helpless lump, without capacity for movement, self-defense, or self-preservation.

Alas! it is a vivid type of much of the religion of this day, of which the leading principle is, ‘No dogma, no distinct beliefs, no doctrine.’ We have hundreds of ministers who seem not to have a single bone in their body of divinity! They have no definite opinions; they are so afraid of ‘extreme views,’ that they have no views at all. We have thousands of sermons preached every year, which are without an edge or a point or a corner — they are as smooth as marble balls, awakening no sinner, and edifying no saint!

We have legions of young men annually turned out from our universities, armed with a few scraps of second-hand philosophy, who think it a mark of cleverness and intellect to have no decided opinions about anything in religion — and to be utterly unable to make up their minds as to what is Christian truth. Their only creed, is a kind of ‘nothingism.’ They are sure and positive about nothing!

And last, and worst of all, we have myriads of respectable church-going people, who have no distinct and definite views about any point in theology. They cannot discern things that differ, any more than color-blind people can distinguish colors. They think . . .
everybody is right — and nobody is wrong,
everything is true — and nothing is false,
all sermons are good — and none are bad,
every clergyman is sound — and no clergyman unsound.

They are ‘tossed to and fro, like children, by every wind of doctrine;’ often carried away by some new excitement and sensational movement; ever ready for new things, because they have no firm grasp on the old; and utterly unable to ‘render a reason of the hope that is in them.’

All this, and much more, is the result of that effeminate dread of distinct doctrine which has been so strongly developed, and has laid such hold on many pastors in these days.

I turn from the picture I have exhibited with a sorrowful heart. I grant it is a gloomy one; but I am afraid it is only too accurate and true. Let us not deceive ourselves. Distinct and definitive doctrine is at a premium just now. Instability and unsettled notions are the natural result, and meet us in every direction.

Cleverness and earnestness are the favorite idols of the age!

What a man says matters nothing — however strange and heterogeneous are the opinions he expresses! If he is only brilliant and ‘earnest’ — he cannot be wrong! Never was it so important for believers to hold sound systematic views of truth, and for ministers to ‘enunciate doctrine’ very clearly and distinctly in their teaching.

Recycled life.

Life has a funny way of repeating itself...or better yet, recycling itself. You're never quite sure what place or thing will come back into your life again when you thought you parted ways with it forever. Perhaps we did not take advantage or appreciate those things which God thought we ought to have and so placed them back into our lives again. And it always seems to evoke them same response: "wow. I never realized how great it was". Life is funny that way.

Of course it can be the other way around. It can be something horribly negative. Something you dread returning back to you finding its way back to you again.

Something happened to me today that may be one or the other. I'm not sure... I'm hoping for the former, but only time will tell.

Thoughts on my sins

Hebrews 3:13 KJV

"But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin."

Sin is a terrible thing in the life of a believer. It is perhaps the only real evil one can experience as a christian. Certainly, we all can experience bad things,and most certainly do, but there is still an assurance of happiness and bliss in the midst of it (acts 16:25). However, with sin it is not so, but an expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God (Hebrews 10:25). In sin there is no hope for Rejoicing.

I have been in a rather sorry state for a while over my failings. Things which I am too ashamed to make known. Shame and guilt work like the venom of the sting of death. They make you cripple in the sense that they make you ineffective for any positive change (i.e. progression). Sins guilt keeps a brother from speaking to another and keeps his sin bubbling inside him like venom. The evil one taunts us with the moniker of a hypocrite. But many times that is not so. For the unbeliever that certainly is so,but for the believer, he or she may hold back for other reasons. Have grace.

Pray for me. You reader. You're the only one I've told and yet I haven't told you anything.  Yet pay with the restful assurance that God knows.

A tid-bit on Depravity in Luke 9:49,50

Anyone Not Against Us Is For Us

9:49 John answered, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us.” 50 But Jesus said to him, “Do not stop him, for the one who is not against you is for you.”

  
 Jesus sends out the twelve in the beginning of Luke 9. He endows them with supernatural powers of the Spirit to cast out demons and to cure diseases (Luke 9:1). They now, upon their return (most likely many days after due to all the events that occurred post their return 9:10-48), tell Christ of a man they rebuked. They apparently saw him during this time in-between, apparently this gift to remove spirits was not present in this era and was exclusively a power belonging to Christ prior to his sending his twelve out. Certainly if this fringe Christian had this ability prior this time, those closest to Christ would have this ability without Christ having to bestow it upon them. This fellow undoubtedly must have witnessed the Apostles perform a casting out of a demon and sought to imitate them. This was most likely out of a desire to aid Christ’s kingdom and not for his own glory, for Christ says he is "for Him". (The apostle Paul also speaks of people who perform religious acts in the name of Christ, but he does not say they are necessarily for him, but that they are doing a thing that aids Christ’s kingdom, Philippians 1:15-18. Even the devil unwittingly aids God's kingdom yet we would never assume his is "for Christ" because of it.) 

Let's look closer at verse 50 . . .

There's much that can be said about this verse, but let us focus on the topic at hand, which is total depravity. "the one who is not against you is for you". A definitive statement that can be said in reverse: no one who if for you is against you. It's pretty much stating the obvious. "My disciples, isn't it clear that if he is not against you he is for you? Why are you rebuking him, therefore?" We can deduce from this that there is no way you can be "not against" Christ and at the same time not "for Christ". THERE IS NO NEUTRAL GROUND. Many arminians assume that the natural man is not too hostile to God. They are not spiritually dead, but sick. Their lip-service to total depravity is a contradiction. If total depravity falls short of causing a man to be spiritually dead it is totally lacking. The natural men are at enmity with God (Col. 1:21). 

We mind as well cover all possible scenarios

Can you be against "against Christ" and "for Christ", obviously not (though we have already discussed how we can be God's enemies and yet still in God's wisdom and in man's foolishness still work to advance the kingdom of God. In a very practical sense). Can a man be "against Christ" and "not for Christ", of course, and this is the only other option. Christ says if he is for you he is for Christ and is a believer, if not, then he is lost and against you.

Wesh - Re-Evaluating Our Efforts

This was an article I submitted to a supposedly black reformed website. It was rejected, apparently. I have since, perhaps out of a desire to counsole myself, changed my views, kind of, on the idea of being part of a "black" website. There shouldn't be a black. And I know black people need to be drawn into the reformation, but we should avoid distinctions as much as possible. To use an analogy, we should cast the net hoping to draw some black fish in with the whole, we shouldn't make special lures in order to catch only the black, and when they are caught, place them in their own pile in the Reformation boat, no! They need to be in a mixed pile with all the other fish. The black fish and the white fish are both fish and need to realize they are swimming up the same stream. Anyways:

Wesh - Re-Evaluating Our Efforts

The body of Christ never seems to be aloof from the concerns of its day. It either gives rise to such concerns or slavishly follows the cultures goals and objectives, yet, in our untimely attempts to play catch-up, the question always remains, are we utilizing the worlds methodologies for progression or are we coming up with a biblical approach?

The Concern of Our Day

The churches primary goal in our day, to draw in all potential black churchmen into the reformed fold is the current interest of reformed ministers, of all colors. It's no surprise, then, that we see another, civil, movement in the secular world striving towards a similar end. America seeking to reverse its segregated culture into a mosaic of peace and unity. And I believe that once again, it is the Church that is slavishly following. An unbiblical view of race, a neglect of some of the most fundamental aspects of Christian charity has, I believe, caused our lagging, on both sides of the racial spectrum. And it is still an unbiblical view or race and the fundamentals of Christian fellowship (though it must be said, in a much lesser degree, now) that is the detriment to this trend of black reformed evangelicalism today.

Our Shared Methods

The world’s means to bringing minorities to the affluent level of their white-American countrymen has appeared to be to lower the bar for them. This finds its spiritual parallel in the predominantly white reformed church lowering some of its age old theological bars in order to receive their erring Christian brothers. The world promotes affirmative action and accepts many aspiring African-Americans into prestigious colleges they, academically, have no business being in in the first place. Parallel, the neo-reformed has accepted Charismatics, woman preachers, non-Trinitarians, and all manner of worldliness an theological declension in order to declare their unqualified poor black Christian brother "Reformed". This is atrocity is not only a slap in the face to the orthodox reformed tradition, but an insult to the intellect of black Christians (and I use the term black loosely to mean all minorities, but the black Christians seem to be the general focus. Also, we must be reminded that not all black Americans are African-Americans and I am speaking of all our black American Christian brothers and sisters).

Our Solution

Now, I don't believe most reformed advocates are aware of this. I believe they are simply following the worlds methods without even knowing it, it is an extremely easy thing to do. However, we must have a biblical view of man  -that we are all created with the same basic intellectual faculties as one another, and that there really is no need to view Christians in terms of race and ethnicity, we are our own race. Skin tone should not be overwhelming concern until unbiblical views make it so, and I'm afraid it has made it so, and only a biblical approach to our problems can eradicate the errors that brought about the unbalanced racial demographics in our current reformed and evangelical churches in the first place.

Journaling log-3

Words

Are they infinite?

Regardless, of whether they are or not, is there enough of them to convey all emotion and feelings?

All sorrows?

All levels of joy and ecstasy?

I wish I knew every word. (I’m not a wordsmith by any stretch of the imagination.)

I wish I could describe all things with the greatest detail and with precise succinctness.

Or with vague generalities: words upon words, superfluous, yet precious.

Can you describe a mountain? Its clefts and shrubs? nooks and crannies?

A river and its translucent ripples that shimmer and the surface that sways like  the boughs on its borders.

Can you describe a betrayal without tears?

Anger, without fiery eyes and veins bulging red with blood and all manner of angst and evil?

I wish I was an author.

An author is a painter.

After all do not they both use pens to convey a message?

Don’t they both use a medium? One of paper, the other of canvas.

One draws a circle the other writes ‘a circle’.

Come to think of it, is not the author far more superior?

The painter draws a ball with the greatest detail. He shades around the perimeter he causes it to appear as if it may bounce off the page if the aesthete does not hold the painting carefully.

But it's still a circle.

An author merely need to write ‘sphere’ and 2D transforms into 3D.

Life is breathed into Adam and he becomes a living and active being.

perhaps I’m reading into it too deeply.