Preach? Or announce?

A while back, actually way back in December/January, I posted some excerpts and thoughts on the book To Preach or Not to Preach?. Just a week or two ago, Alan Knox did a series on the Greek verb κηρύσσω, commonly translated "preach." His conclusion was that the verb is more accurately translated "announce." I'll let him say it in his own words:

In three posts, I’ve looked at the use of the term κηρύσσω (kērussō – usually translated “preach”) in the Old Testament. I’ve explained why it is important for us to study the meaning of words in the Old Testament, especially in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. I’ve posted all passages in the Old Testament and the non-canonical books which include the term κηρύσσω (kērussō). I’ve concluded that in these passages, the meaning of the term is closer to the English verb “announce” than to any of the definitions of the English word “preach”.

He then proceeds to look at the works of Josephus and Philo, who lived in the same general time period as the New Testament was composed, to see if the word had changed in meaning. His conclusion: Nope.

<idle musing>
Hmmm. Does that line up with the arguments in To Preach or Not to Preach?, or not? I'll give you a hint: Yes! It's always nice to see scholars agree on something :)
</idle musing>

Stephanus did us a disfavor

I was reading along in Mark this morning in the CEB (my version of choice at the moment), when I stumbled across something that made me do a double-take. In Mark 3, Jesus is calling the twelve with distinct purposes in mind. But what are the purposes? Here's a smattering of popular English translations in no particular order along with what it seems that the purposes are (we'll ignore the textual issue here because it's not important to the point):

13 Jesus went up on a mountain and called those he wanted, and they came to him. 14 He appointed twelve and called them apostles. He appointed them to be with him, to be sent out to preach, 15 and to have authority to throw out demons. (CEB)

Seems that he has three purposes in mind: (1) to be with him, (2) to be sent out to preach, and (3) to have authority over demons.

13 He went up the mountain and called to him those whom he wanted, and they came to him. 14 And he appointed twelve, whom he also named apostles, to be with him, and to be sent out to proclaim the message, 15 and to have authority to cast out demons. (NRSV)

Again, the same three purposes.

13 And He went up on the mountain and summoned those whom He Himself wanted, and they came to Him. 14 And He appointed twelve, so that they would be with Him and that He could send them out to preach, 15 and to have authority to cast out the demons. (NASB)

Not as clear here. Is it three purposes, or only two? (1) to be with him, (2) to be sent out, and maybe (3) to cast out demons. The first two are introduced by "that" or "so that," while the last one is just an infinitive—but the verse number makes me subconsciously want to make it an independent point. So, we'll say three purposes.

13 And he went up on the mountain and called to him those whom he desired, and they came to him. 14 And he appointed twelve (whom he also named apostles) so that they might be with him and he might send them out to preach 15 and have authority to cast out demons. (ESV)

Also not as clear. But it does seem that there are two purposes, with verse 15 being a subset of "send them out." But, again, the verse number makes me want to posit three purposes.

13 Jesus went up on a mountainside and called to him those he wanted, and they came to him. 14 He appointed twelve[—designating them apostles—]that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach 15 and to have authority to drive out demons. (NIV)

Again, not as clear, but it might be two or three purposes. Because of the verse numbering, I would again say three purposes.

OK, now we're ready to look at the Greek

13 Καὶ ἀναβαίνει εἰς τὸ ὄρος καὶ προσκαλεῖται οὓς ἤθελεν αὐτός, καὶ ἀπῆλθον πρὸς αὐτόν. 14 καὶ ἐποίησεν δώδεκα [οὓς καὶ ἀποστόλους ὠνόμασεν] ἵνα ὦσιν μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἵνα ἀποστέλλῃ αὐτοὺς κηρύσσειν 15 καὶ ἔχειν ἐξουσίαν ἐκβάλλειν τὰ δαιμόνια· (Mark 3:13–15)

OK, what do we have? In verse 14, he appoints the 12 "in order that (1) they might be with him, in order that (2) he might send them out for the purpose of (2.1) announcing (the gospel) and for the purpose of (2.2) having authority to cast out demons."

So, what were the primary purposes for calling the twelve, according to the Greek? Two: (1) to be with him and (2) to be sent out. The secondary purposes are (2.1) to announce the gospel and (2.2) to have authority to cast out demons, both or which are dependent on being sent out.

So, the CEB and the NRSV don't convey the Greek well, and the other ones try to, but the verse break gets in the way of our seeing what the Greek says. Stephanus did us a disfavor!

In conclusion

I finished the book To Preach or Not to Preach?, and here is his conclusion:

We have seen that in the New Testament churches the growth into spiritual maturity of both individuals and communities was achieved by a variety of means, which did not include the regular sermon. Indeed, the experience of the churches and current knowledge about the learning process suggest that regular use of the sermon tends to have harmful consequences. It frequently fails to instruct; it deskills; it foster an unhealthy dependence on the clergy. In these ways the regular sermon not only fails to promote spiritual growth but also intensifies the impoverishment of Christian life which characterizes large areas of the church today.

The regular sermon does not, of course, stand alone as the one great corrupter of Christian faith and life. It is embedded in a complex organizational structure which is far removed from biblical patterns and which also inhibits Christian growth to maturity. The sad irony is that many preachers want to see their congregations grow in knowledge and love. Many take a great deal of trouble over preparing their sermons. Yet the teaching method they have chosen to use is, in practice, working with other factors to frustrate their hopes.—To Preach or Not to Preach?, page 115

<idle musing>
All of the statements above are his summary of what he has laid out in the preceding 50 plus pages, with extensive footnotes. If you disagree with his conclusions, you will have to get the book (it's out of print) and read it to see if you can negate the arguments behind his conclusions summarized above.
</idle musing>

Centrality of the cross

Our text for today:

"Who would want to get in on something where you're miserable, poor, broke and ugly and you just have to muddle through until you get to heaven?...I believe God wants to give us nice things." —Joyce Meyer

<idle musing>
John Fischer wrote a book in the early 1990’s and revised it in 2001 or so entitled On a Hill too Far Away. In it he notes that the cross is rarely mentioned in Evangelical churches anymore. It is too bloody, a stumbling block to belief, so we dispose of it. After all, we want to be relevant and fill the building.

Michael Card noted in his book of meditations on the cross that people tell him he dwells too much on the cross. It is a stumbling block to people; he should sing about happy things. After all, he wants people to listen to him, doesn’t he?

I rarely hear about the cross in any popular songs; it doesn’t sell well. It is even more rarely mentioned by the prosperity people. Why? It is a stumbling block; it doesn’t attract the crowds. We want to pack heaven, don’t we? After all, our job is to get as many people into heaven as possible, isn’t it? And if we manage to put a few pieces of silver in our own pocket along the way, well that’s the American way, right?

Well, I submit to you that it is God’s job to get people into heaven, not ours. It is God’s business whether something sells or not. It is God’s business whether we are popular or not. We are called to one thing—obedience. If the message of the cross isn’t popular, why should we be surprised? Paul already knew that: “but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” I Corinthians 1:23-24 RSV.

As I read through the New Testament, I note that the cross is central to everything Christ did. Once he was resurrected and taken up into heaven, he sent the Holy Spirit. Did that change anything? No, the apostles still preach the cross (and get a whipping for it!). The cross retains its centrality throughout the book of Acts, the epistles and on into Revelation, where it is the “lamb who was slain” that is the center of worship.

We are to look “to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.” (Hebrews 12:2 RSV) It will never be a popular theme, it will always be a stumbling block, but to us it is “Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”

Bonhoeffer summed it up well, “When Jesus calls a man, he bids him come and die.” Any other gospel isn’t a gospel at all, but a candy coated pill that contains a deadly poison, killing the soul to the things of God. “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If any one loves the world, love for the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world passes away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides for ever.” I John 2:15-17 RSV
</idle musing>

Lakeland (long)

Up until now, I have avoided saying anything about the Lakeland outpouring. But, it seems that some comments need to be made, so here we go...

As most of you know, I desire to see a revival of true Christianity in this land—actually, in this world. I have read quite a few histories of revival and not a few biographies of some of the greatest revival preachers in the last 400 years. One thing I have noted that they all have in common is that they are misunderstood and misrepresented by their contemporaries. Especially by the established leaders of the institutional church. For example, Jonathan Edwards was accused of allowing the devil to deceive him—they even had a denominational meeting that was going to censure him, but Godly men prevented it; John Wesley was called a “papist” (which was one of the worst things you could call someone in 18th century England—remember they had just come out of the religious wars) and worse; Charles Finney was accused of using “new measures” which were in contradiction to the scripture. Ironically, many of those "new measures" have now become essential in many people's minds. For example, take the altar call. This is a staple in most evangelistic services, but it was introduced by Finney, to the outrage of most of his contemporaries. Now if you don't have one, you are accused of not presenting the gospel!

Another thing that they have in common is an unusual level of physical manifestations which were a bit strange. People crying out under conviction, some actually falling to the ground and going into a trance. If you read John Wesley's journal (not the cleaned up one that Moody Press used to sell, but either the new one by Abingdon, or the older one by Baker), you will see many strange things enumerated. But, and this is the difference between many revivalists then and now, the revivalists did not put any stock in the manifestations. They looked for a changed life; a life full of the fear of God and the fruit of the Holy Spirit. Anything else was simply accepted as a way that God was working, but not seen as a substitute for a changed life.

As long as a changed life remains the focus, and God is kept at the center, let the manifestations come in whatever form they do. Personally, I think that is where Toronto got sidetracked. They started out focusing on God, but before very long, the manifestations became the center. Once that happened, God left.

I have heard many accusations raised against Todd Bentley. For example, he is violent; he almost attacks the people physically who come for healing. So? Has anybody ever read any of the reports from a Smith Wigglesworth healing? Herr Tilling, care to say anything? Smith Wigglesworth would probably be hauled into court today for the physicalness of his “laying on of hands,” yet most were healed.

I have heard complaints about the fact that he is tattoed. So? I grew up during the 1960-70 era. Anybody hear of the Jesus Movement? The big complaint about them was that they had long-hair, wore ragged blue jeans, went barefoot, and played rock and roll (guilty on all counts!). Did that mean that God wasn't at work? Did that mean that their salvation wasn't real? Can God only work through established institutional churches with robes, candles, vestments, etc.? Hmmm. Want to join the pharisees and sadducees who were against Jesus because he didn't do things the “right” way?

I have heard him accused of being ignorant. Maybe he isn't a theologian, but I would venture to say that he knows more about God than his critics. The early disciples were “ignorant and unschooled men,” did that stop God from using them? Smith Wigglesworth could barely read (and some of his theology was a bit on the questionable side). Did that keep God from using him? I know a pastor who is now in his 80's who couldn't read until God called him to preach. His answer to God was, “God, I'll preach, but you will have to teach me how to read.” God did. It is a cliché, but true, that God is more concerned with our availability than our ability.

Remember that scripture says people will know we are Christians by our love for one another. It doesn't say by our correct doctrine or by our flowery sermons or our ornate buildings. Also, remember that we are told to watch for false teachers by the fruit of their lives. Again, nothing about doctrine. Yes, doctrine is important! But, far more important is your relationship with the almighty righteous God who created you and redeemed you by the blood of his son, Jesus.

A friend of mine, who has a PhD from the University of Chicago, sent me a theological defense of the Lakeland outpouring. He gave me permission to post it, but it is too long to put up as a post. If I can figure out how to post a PDF on Blogger, I will put it up. Anybody able to tell me how?

Miscellaneous wanderings and musings

It's been a while since I posted stuff from elsewhere—not that I don't read it, I just fail to post it. Usually what happens is that I mark something and then fail to post it until it is so old that it doesn't make any sense. Well, for some reason this week brought more than the usual number of "must reads," so I'm linking to them. Enjoy!

Brian Zahnd asks how the Church is different from America. He challenges you to list 5 ways and then to his own amazement comes up with a dozen. Then he sums it all up:

Don’t get me wrong. I love America. I really do. It’s my home. For the most part it’s a fine place to live. But it’s not where my faith or my supreme allegiance lie. America is not the “last best hope of the world” (as claimed by Lincoln, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama). The first and last and only hope of the world is Jesus Christ and his kingdom. My supreme faith and allegiance is reserved for Jesus and what he is building. I am a revolutionary Christian. And I am willing to suffer for it.

Amen! Sounds like good theology to me. That shouldn't cause too many Christians a problem, should it? Well, apparently it does, as a certain chaplain found out recently. Apparently if you preach on forgiving your enemies as a chaplain in a Christian school, you can anger some important donors and get demoted. There are lots of links I could post here, but this one is a nice summary (as always, avoid the comments after the story!).

As you know two movies came out recently. Selma, the story of one of the 20th century most influential Christian leaders, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who led a non-violent movement that changed the course of American History forever. And American Sniper, the story of the most deadly Navy SEAL sniper in American history. Selma has made 29-30 million so far. American Sniper made over 103 million in the first 4 days. Gives you an idea about who our heroes are. I don’t think it is an under-statement to say that our culture is addicted to violence, guns, war, revenge and retaliation. Unfortunately, so are a lot of Christians.

You can read the full transcription of the sermon here. He was demoted from VP of Community Formation and Chaplain. Now he is Chaplain. My question? How long before he is Unemployed? He has experienced what a friend of mine refers to as the right boot of fellowship...

By the way, "Beckum is currently on leave from the campus until March 13. A statement given by the president’s office said that Beckum was 'provided paid administrative leave for rest and an opportunity for the transition to occur.'” (source). As I said, how long before he joins the ranks of the unemployed?

How about something a little different now? A good (Lenten) sermon over at Faith and Theology

In the early 1950s a man named Clarence Jordan founded an interracial farm in Georgia called the Koinonia Community, which at the time was a very foolish and dangerous thing to do. He asked his brother Robert, a lawyer, to act as counsel for the farm. “Clarence,” Robert said, “I can’t do that. You know my political aspirations. If I represented you, I might lose my job, my house, everything I’ve got.”

“We might lose everything too,” Clarence replied.

“It’s different for you,” Robert said.

“Why is it different?” And Clarence went on to remind his brother how, when they were baptised, they were asked: “Do you accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour?” “What did you say, Robert?”

Robert paused, and then said, “I follow Jesus – up to a point.”

“Could that point by any chance be – the cross?” his brother challenged him.

“That’s right. I follow Jesus to the cross, but not on the cross. I’m not getting myself crucified.”

“Then,” Clarence said, “I don’t believe you’re a disciple. You’re an admirer of Jesus, but not a disciple.”

What about me? Am I an admirer or a disciple? What about you? John Michael Talbot had a song back in the 1970s with the line, "When you are ensured this world's friendship, it's easy to live." (I can't find the full lyrics on Google...)

Meanwhile, Roger Olson has a good post on being an Egalitarian Complementarian. Sound like an oxymoron? Maybe, but what he says resonates with me. Read the whole thing, but here's the concluding paragraph:

We need to overcome our polar oppositions and recognize both man and woman as uniquely gifted by God, equal in every way, interdependent, and yet really different ways of being human.

And, finally, a review of a book that I just put on interlibrary loan request after reading the review:

If the truth is that our very first relationship when we come into being is one that is not reciprocal, we can understand why a pregnant woman might, at least some of the time, experience her encounter with the newone [his word for a fetus/unborn child] as burdensome and onerous. That, of course, is to forget momentarily how she herself first emerged, but, more important, it means that we have a decision to make. Shall we regard the burden of this asymmetry as an indication that human beings should be independent and self-sufficient? Or should we see in it an intimation of the truth that, from the start and always thereafter, we are dependent on each other? A phenomenological analysis of human emergence suggests that “the secret to the meaning of human life — our need of each other — is given away by its newest members.”

Interesting, to say the least. Something for everybody to hate in the book by the sounds of it; he's attacking the philosophical foundations of western individualism—both right and left won't stand for that! And I love his word "newone" to describe the life that is forming in the womb. (With thanks to Scot for the link)

More links

In the spirit of sharing the love, here are a few more links that have caught my fancy lately...

Joel at Grace Roots has a series of posts on the practical outworking of grace. Here is a nice little snippet:

I’ve said plenty of times that I’m very opposed to the idea that the Christian life is a matter of living by rules, principles, methods, etc. Life in Christ is a matter of His life in us, working in us and through us and out of us. It’s not about us studying principles to keep us and guide us. It’s not about becoming better people, but rather it’s about living from the new creations that we already are, trusting in Christ’s life in us to animate us...

And so in saying all of this, I want to be absolutely clear that I’m not saying that our life in Christ is a matter of striving to apply godly principles to our lives. It’s not a matter of preaching a new set of principles every week and then going out and trying to make them work.

What I am saying is that as we get more and more rooted and grounded and established in grace and in our identity in Christ, God can and does speak to us in all kinds of ways, through internal and external means, and part of that includes encouraging, exhorting and admonishing us through each other.

The Apostle Paul did a whole lot of this in his epistles. It can be a very grace-full thing to speak these things to one another. Again, it doesn’t make us “better people” and it doesn’t make us any closer to God. It simply helps to bring out the life of Christ.

And, in the second post:

I don’t believe it’s a matter of us going around trying to find principles to follow and I also don’t believe it’s a matter of a preacher coming up with a new set of generic principles to preach each week. I think it’s more a matter of, in the normal course of life, God’s children communicating with one another, and in the proper times and seasons speaking words to one another that come from our own life experiences and from biblical truth that fit the given circumstances, and that will help us to grow in grace and in the living out of who we truly already are in Christ.

<idle musing>
When we were visiting some friends in Minnesota last fall, one of them summed it up very nicely by saying, “So, what the Bible is doing is showing us what the grace-filled life looks like, not telling to do this in order to get grace.” Very insightful, I think.
</idle musing>

Somehow I missed this post until this weekend; it is from way back on February 14. Alan Knox, quoting from The Christian Century, says:

Every congregation has its supply of believers who would love nothing more than to cultivate their own private spirituality by taking home that beloved hymn refrain or sermon quip to benefit their personal life. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this private eagerness for spiritual nurture. But as soon as personal edification becomes the primary focus for "attending" church, individualism begins to infect the health of the congregation and the possibility of a grander sense of true community.

<idle musing>
I am realizing more and more each day that we are called to be a community—a community of faith, reflecting the kingdom of God, bearing witness to the power of the Holy Spirit in our daily lives.
</idle musing>

The Sermon

A while back I posted a series of quotes from To Preach or Not to Preach. His basic premise was/is that preaching to the saved is a waste of time.

Over the weekend (I'm way behind) I read Ben Myers blog from April 30, when he ran a guest post entitled On sermons: a rant. Here's a nice little excerpt:

...I’ve heard the sermon in nearly all its forms: a 15 minute homily is far too long, while a 45 minute “message” is plainly unanointed. A lifetime pulpit pounding and sanctified lecturing has led me to one obvious conclusion:

There should be a moratorium on the sermon. Let’s go straight from the Gospel to the Creed and cut the drivel in between. I may have heard fourteen sermons a week in Bible college, but I don’t remember the one I heard last week.

Preaching puts me to sleep which, by my definition, is the last thing preaching should do. The sermon should be revelatory – generating ambiguity, disrupting expectation. (Okay, so I stole this from Rowan “Ray-of-Darkness” Williams, but since this rant is about sermons, stealing someone else’s ideas is acceptable.) But, in fact, we already know exactly what to expect – fifteen minutes of nothing. Edward Schillebeeckx says the service of the word should be like the “roaring of the lion” – it is more like the yawning of a sloth.

Amen!

Ironically, most preachers genuinely believe they are above-average public speakers. (They can’t all be right, can they?) And as Gabriel Moran notes, most preachers also believe that all theology is homiletically-centered. Demurring, he says: “Probably only a clergyman could believe that preaching is a good model, let alone the best model, for understanding the religious life of mankind. It would be a near impossibility to find any non-clergymen who think of preaching and sermonizing as significant at all. Most people who give a thought to it conclude that preaching is an anachronism which is allowed existence because it bothers no one. However, if one’s professional life is centered on any activity, it is possible to view the whole world in light of that endeavor.”

Definitely read the whole thing...

Who are you?

Alan Knox has a good series going on “Sin and the Church.” In Thursday's post he talks about public confession to the church:

I've talk with many Christians who struggle with sin. Sometimes, these people struggle with "big" sins - that is, sins that the church considers to be unacceptable - not acceptable sins like pride or anger or selfishness or covetousness. No, I'm talking about sexual sins among others. Most of the time, these believers who are struggling with "big sins" are repentant. As I'm discipling them, I tell them that the best thing they can do is confess their sins to the church and ask the church to help them deal with their temptation.

What response do I get? Most of them say that they cannot even return to the group of believers with which they once met, much less confess their sin to them. Why? Because they know they will be condemned by these followers of Jesus. How do they know this? Because they have seen how the church has condemned other brothers and sisters who have committed "unacceptable sins" - that is, sins that are not acceptable to the church.

The church is more than happy to accept those who are proud, resentful, angry, selfish, covetous, etc, even when they are not repentant. But, if someone repents of an "unacceptable sin", that person is condemned and rejected. This is not the scriptural way to deal with sin.

<idle musing>
Yep; sad, but true, isn't it? Bonhoeffer in Life Together talks about the necessity of public confession. Not just a generic collect, either, but specific confession.

As I look at the journal of John Wesley, one thing that continually strikes me is the centrality of repentance and confession of sin. I think that is one of the reasons that the Wesleyan revival lasted 60 years. Wesley preached the ability of Christians to live without sin, and believed it was possible here and now. But, he didn't shy away from calling a sin a sin when he saw it. But, we seem to have lost that. Either we preach that christians are sinners—they aren't, they are saints—or we preach that they don't sin—they don't need to, but can—and so close our eyes to blatant sins, such as selfishness, pride, greed, materialism, etc.

God, redeem your church! Save us from such blindness!
</idle musing>

Prophets or profits

<idle musing>
When I was in high school, I made a poster and hung it in my bedroom that said “Men love Profits, not Prophets.” Over the years, I have found that to be true. You rarely find a prophetic person on the staff of a church; they’re too dangerous.

Well, it appears I am not the only one to notice this, because the Christianity Today blog, Out of Ur, has a very nice post asking Where have all the prophets gone? He has three points—he must have gone to seminary :) Here’s the second one:

Church structures are unsafe for prophets:
A prophet by definition is going to disturb the status quo, make people uncomfortable, and rock the boat. But when a pastor with a prophetic function is completely dependant upon the congregation for his/her livelihood it creates a conflict of interests

Why? Because the prophet may tell them that their method of obtaining profits is wrong! Nobody likes to be told they are wrong, it is part of that whole Genesis 3 thing. People especially don’t like to be told they are wrong by someone whom they are paying. After all, we are paying them; shouldn’t we be able to dictate what we are hearing? (I just had this flashback to the scene in the movie Pollyanna, where the woman sends Pollyanna with a message to the preacher about what to preach that coming Sunday).

Of course, this is nothing new; Timothy was warned about it way back in the New Testament.

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. As for you, always be steady, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. 2 Timothy 4:1-5 RSV

The other two points are also well worth considering:

1. Seminaries are not training prophets
I question whether a prophet can be trained, after all it appears to be a gift of the Holy Spirit, but nonetheless, seminary training should contain classes that show people how to question the status quo

3. Ministries evaluate size not depth
This is one of my big soap box items, but I’ll not expound on it this time!
</idle musing>

Custom is king

“Those who defend the regular sermon have no choice but to acknowledge the silence of the New Testament, to which they nevertheless appeal as supposed evidence of what they suggest might have been 'taken for granted'. What they build on this fragile foundation, however, is an habitual use of the sermon of which the New Testament knows nothing. In support of their present practice they cite a less than unanimous scholarly consensus, popular church opinion, and the 'tradition of the elders'. These are formidable allies and might be worthy of respect, provide only that one remembers one's church history. For it is precisely these forces which have always been mustered to oppose any new thought or (which has often amounted to the same thing) any return to the New Testament. Tertullian recognized the danger when he warned that 'Christ is truth, not custom' (De Virg Vel 1:1).”—To Preach or Not to Preach?, pages 104-105

<idle musing>
I find that observation sobering, if only because it is so accurate. As one church history book put it: “A reformer came along and, in the finest tradition, they killed him.”
</idle musing>

Evangelism, or community?

“...if a Christian group is lacking in love, justice, a sense of community and richness of life, then its evangelistic programmes are unlikely to succeed because either the unattractiveness of the community will dissuade potential converts from joining or, where there are conversions, these converts will be unlikely to grow to maturity. Little more will be achieved than fostering the illusion of community growth.”—To Preach or Not to Preach?, page 74

<idle musing>
Wow! That's not what most sermons and exhortations I've heard say! But, it sure does ring true. Why would anyone want to become a Christian if they only see superficial changes and cold love?
</idle musing>

Love one another

<idle musing>
As I read claims and counter claims across the blogosphere and I look at Time magazine's cover article, I am reminded of a few things. One that keeps coming to mind is an old (OK, not too old, about 1976) song by John Michael Talbot from his first album (yes, an album, you know, 12" vinyl disks...)

Sometimes, in the cool of the evenin'
Truth comes like a Lover in the wind
Sometimes, when my thoughts have gone misleadin'
She asks that same old question once again...

Chorus:
Would you crucify Him
Would you crucify Him..., my religious friend?
Would you crucify Him..., talking 'bout the sweet Lord Jesus
If He'd walk right here among you once again?

She's askin', How many times have you looked down to the harlot
Lookin' through her tears, pretendin' you don't know?
For once you were just like her, how can you be now so self righteous
When in the name of the Lord you throw the first stone

So now I turn to you through your years of your robes and stained-glass windows
Do you vainly echo your prayers "to please the Lord?"
Profess the Marriage with your tongue, while your mind dreams like the harlot
But if the Judge looks to your thoughts can't you guess your reward?

Yet how many times have you quoted from your Bible
To justify your eye for your eye and your tooth for your tooth?
You say that He didn't mean what He was plainly sayin'
But like the Pharisee, my friend, you're an educated fool!

The second thing that comes to mind is Jesus statement in the upper room, "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” John 13:35 RSV. I notice it doesn't say by our correct moral standards, important though they are. It also doesn't say by your church attendance/involvement. It doesn't say by your correct stand on political issues or Israel or by your self-righteous anathemata. It says by your love.

Now, either I don't understand what love is, or some other people don't. But, sending people willy-nilly to hell because you don't like their stand or lifestyle doesn't strike me as love. Good thing the John 8 pericope about the adulterous woman is textually doubtful, eh? Convenient to be able to cast the first stone, provided you cast the pericope out first.

A very relevant verse for Christians to take to heart is one that was addressed to Jews by Paul, but today should cause every Christian to think twice about how they act and what they say:
“The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” Romans 2:24 RSV

This week's Time magazine with its cover article on "God wants you rich" should make all Christians fall on their knees before God in repentance. To think that God wants us to become so comfortable in this transient world and ignore the poverty of others is unjustifiable in the scriptures. It takes the very things Christ stands for and turns them on their head. Christ preached death to self, we preach life to self and death to Christ! Christ preached deny yourself, love your neighbor, we preach love yourself and deny your neighbor! And we call ourselves Christians? By that definition, the devil himself is the best christian around! Nobody loves themself better that he does.
</idle musing>

To obey is better than...

“The stories of Jericho and Ai indicate the need to obey YHWH through the covenant. It is this, rather than military tactics, that grants Israel success. If Israel obeys YHWH then impregnable walls and obstacles will fall (Jericho) and Israel will not have to worry about her enemies. But if Israel disobeys, then the simplest battle in which a ruin is attacked (Ai) will be lost. Israel does not have to worry about how to possess the land or how to ‘dispose’ of her enemies, for YHWH will take care of this. Rather, Israel must worry about obeying YHWH, an obedience that will lead to blessing and rest. The stories of Rahab and Achan, refracted through the battles at Jericho and Ai, demonstrate the significance of Josh 5:13-15. YHWH is not ‘for’ ethnic Israel on her own ‘national’ terms, something rather unexpected in view of ideas of the favour and the election of Israel, rather, YHWH is ‘for’ those who confess his power and glory, who ‘do חסד [hesed]’ and obey him, made concrete in obedience to the covenant.”—Reading Joshua as Christian Scripture, p. 153

<idle musing>
And it is still true today. God is not “for” the U.S.; he never was. He is “for” those who do חסד. More conferences and laws and petitions and protests and hand-wringing aren't doing חסד.

The early church lived in a far more amoral society than the U.S., but we have no record of them being concerned about who was the emperor, or local ruler, or the rampant immorality of society. No, they simply went about loving their neighbor and living a life that drew attention to God and his love for people. They didn't downplay sin, but they didn't expect non-Christians to act any differently than they were. When Paul went to Corinth, he didn't try to close the brothels or shut down the pagan sacrifices; he preached Jesus as crucified and risen from the dead! And, just as important, he preached a gospel of transformation. Christians were transformed by the power of God, not by “trying to live a moral life” under their own power.

New Testament Christianity is uncomfortable; it demands that you live dead to self. That doesn't preach well in a suburban church. It doesn't fill the offering plates; it doesn't pay the mortgage. I don't see Paul or Peter being concerned about that, though!
</idle musing>

Basics of Biblical Aramaic

I recently received a copy of Basics of Biblical Aramaic by Miles van Pelt (thanks Jesse!). It is the most recent contribution to Zondervan's biblical languages series.

It would be easy to point out the places where I would have done things differently, but first let's see what van Pelt aims to do and if he succeeds:

This grammar was not written for Aramaic scholars or for students interested in comparative Semitic grammar. Rather, the purpose and design of this grammar is to provide the average student with a working knowledge of the Aramaic language appearing in the Old Testament. It was written for those students who desire to study, teach, and preach faithfully from those portions of the Bible that appear in Aramaic. (page x)

I kept reminding myself of this paragraph as I read through the grammar. It is not fair to evaluate a textbook on the basis of what I would have done; I'm far more interested in comparative Semitics and historical grammar than the average student :)

As far as layout, the book is 8.5 x 11 inches and the text is large enough that even my eyes could easily read it. The tables are well laid out and clear. The use of footnotes for interesting, but not essential, information is good, allowing the interested student to obtain more background.

The book assumes the knowledge of biblical Hebrew; there are repeated comparisons to how biblical Aramaic is/is not like Hebrew. Here is where I would have brought in some comparative Semitics and historical grammar to explain the ש/ת interchange, as well as other consonantal differences. He does mention the Canaanite shift, which is good. But, again, I reminded myself of his purpose paragraph. The average student would probably be more confused than helped.

He begins with the nominal system, including particles, conjunctions, and prepositions, and then proceeds to present the verbal system, beginning with the Peal and then giving the derived stems. There is a great deal of emphasis and explanation of weak verbs, which is very helpful when you consider that the majority of the verbs in biblical Aramaic are weak.

The grammar section ends with paradigm charts before launching into the reading section. The book includes all the Aramaic sections of the Hebrew Bible, complete with extensive annotations. The annotations include things like identifying a difficult to figure out root, metathesis, idiomatic phrases, etc. The strange thing about the reading section is that the order of pages is English, not Aramaic. You start reading on the left hand page, then proceed to the right, and turn the page as if it were English. I'm not sure what the logic of that is. I would think that the page order would be Aramaic, but that is a minor quibble.

The book concludes with a dictionary, based on HALOT, with one-two word glosses. Adequate for reading the passages, but for more extensive background, HALOT or BDB should be consulted.

What do I think of the book? As one who learned biblical Aramaic via the “here's a text, lexicon, and Rosenthal, now read it!” method, this book is a vast improvement. I suspect a highly motivated individual could teach themselves Aramaic using it—as long as they already know Hebrew. The explanations are clear enough and the notes in the reading will keep you from getting discouraged.

In answer to the opening question, did he succeed in doing what he set out to do? I would answer, "Yes, he did." As I mentioned, the layout is attractive and the explanations are good. As anyone who has ever taught a language will tell you, there is no perfect first year grammar for any language—except the one you write yourself! If I were to teach biblical Aramaic, I would probably adopt this book, but assign background readings in Rosenthal's A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic. Of course, if someone were to create an immersion course in Aramaic, that would be best!

The Sermon

“The regular sermon, as used today, is one of a series of sermons which takes place at most of the major meetings of the whole local church. The regular sermon cannot be detected in the Judaism of the Old Testament, the ministry of Jesus, the life of the primitive church or the church of the apostolic fathers. We shall discover evidence for it only as the church came increasingly under the influence of a variety of non-Christian ideas from the surrounding culture, frequently ideas which, like the sermon, were inimical to New Testament practice. The regular sermon was common by the third century and became the norm by the fourth, taking its place among a wide variety of ecclesiastical practices which owed little to the teaching, patterns and principles of the New Testament.”—To Preach or Not to Preach?, page 69

<idle musing>
Too bad this book is out of print. It is definitely a scholarly work—the notes are about a quarter of the book—that thoroughly examines the history of the sermon. I'm about half done with it; this is the interim conclusion which he comes to after reciting the history of the origin of the sermon. The rest of the book will evaluate its effectiveness, as he says, “we may possibly conclude that the Holy Spirit is using an old method of questionable origin in a new and effective way.” Stay tuned, and we'll see :)
</idle musing>

Around the blogosphere

Some very good posts today and yesterday that are worth reading.

Yesterday, over at the The M Blog there is a very good post about Church Planting, Baptists & Charismatics together:

I have been told 80% of evangelicals in Ecuador are either charismatics or pentecostals. To ignore and disassociate ourselves from them is not only unbiblical, it is ministry suicide, and quite clearly sin if you ask me.

He goes on for quite a while, well worth the read.

Meantime, here in the States, Jim Martin has a good post on The Wonderful World of Self:

Years ago, I was the minister to a church that met on the campus of a Bible college. The school and the church were their own separate entities. Yet, there was some overlap. After all, I taught part-time at the college (a senior level ministry class each semester). One Sunday, a man employed by the school was in our assembly. He approached me afterward and said that he was scheduled to preach in chapel that week and would like to use much of what I had just said in that morning’s sermon. I said something like "sure" and went on. As I recall, I felt encouraged that he wanted to use much of that material for his own message.

That week, I was in chapel and heard his message. It was very familiar — very, very familiar. Maybe I just wanted him to acknowledge that he heard much of this last Sunday morning in our assembly. Yet, not one word.

This bothered me.

This bothered me — a lot.

You really should read it all. One commenter on the blog said it is the "Somebody didn’t push my ‘I’m important!’ button." Well put. Definitely worth the read.

And Ted Gossard has an excellent post as well on Living out life

This is why, though rules have their place, they really do not have a kind of prior place in the living out of this life. For example, as one in Jesus, I don't refuse to steal, simply because it's a rule from God I must keep, and because it's part of a choice, among the many choices I must make along the way. No. But I refuse to steal, or fight any temptation I may have to do so, because I have this life in Jesus. And having this life, I want to live it out. And I have the dynamic in God to do so.

I was brought up with a form of legalism that made how one dresses (especially women), or what one does (and doesn't do) to be of prior importance in living out Christianity, in being a Christian. Fortunately there were those who knew better. But by and large Christianity was seen more for what we do and don't do, rather than who we are and "the life" that we have in Jesus. When I finally became a Christian, the new life in Jesus was at the forefront of my experience. I overflowed with this new love and grace I had found. But I gradually receded back into a kind of orientation, that, while not surrendering "the life" aspect entirely, nevertheless relegated it to a status that put the onus on me. As if living out this life, and remaining in it, depends on me

He continues on, worth the read.

Where's the cross?

Roger Olson asks where the cross has gone:

Why this trend over the past 50 years away from preaching and singing about the cross of Jesus? Why do we no longer sing “What can wash away my sin (nothing but the blood of Jesus)?” or “There is a fountain filled with blood” or “At the cross, at the cross, where I first saw the light”? Or at least similar hymns and songs about the cross?
...
What can explain this? Given the centrality of the cross and atonement in the New Testament and in evangelical tradition, the only explanation I can think of is accommodation to culture. We know talk about “the blood” is offensive to many people and maybe it is to us as well. It doesn’t fit very well with our shiny new sanctuaries and all the shiny new cars in the parking lots. We’re educated and upwardly mobile now. We’re affluent and sophisticated. The imagery of the cross just doesn’t sit very well with us.

Another possible reason for the dearth of language about the cross (especially blood, wrath of God, etc.) is that churches that consider themselves moderate and non-fundamentalist don’t want to do anything that smacks of fundamentalism. But I ask why give the rich New Testament and historical evangelical emphasis on the cross over to the fundamentalists? We are so often ruled by what we’re against or afraid of. We need to overcome that.

I would go so far as to say that crossless Christianity is not real Christianity. Or at least it is seriously defective, accommodated, negotiated, shallow Christianity. (Of course, most evangelical churches are not quite totally “crossless” yet, but my fear is they may be on that path.)

<idle musing>
He's right. I was at an evangelical church building recently that didn't have a cross anywhere. I asked about it, and they said they wanted to be able to make the building available to the community and that the cross would be a stumbling block. Amen! It's supposed to be a stumbling block! What does Paul say? "but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength." (I Cor. 1:23-25 TNIV)

John Fischer wrote a book On a Hill Too Far Away that looks at the disappearance of the cross from Christianity. Great book; still true—even more true—10 years later. In fact, I think that book is a new edition of something he wrote back in the early 1990s, but I might be wrong.

Maybe we should put the cross back in Christmas?
</idle musing>

Salt of the Earth, or...

“As sociologist Jacques Ellul observes, far from being a model of freedom, most Christians are models of mediocre bondage, simultaneously the slave of the latest fad and the ecclesiastical and humanistic traditions in which they were reared. The disastrous consequence is that the non-Christian world experiences little Christian influence in any area of thought and has little, if any, understanding of the essence of biblical Christianity.”—To Preach or Not to Preach?, page 83

<idle musing>
Sadly, I think he is correct. Just look at what the media think Christianity is. Now look at the New Testament. Finally, look at your own life. Which one is it closer to, the New Testament, or the other one?
</idle musing>

Things!

I spent the weekend getting caught up on older blog posts (actually I did other things, too, but that is another story). Here is a post that really caught my eye:

. . .We did not have time to stop and ask if this is truly what God wants from us, because we were so busy doing things.

We were so busy doing things...

And, that's just what they were... things. This is what I realized this morning while I was talking with my wife. We had been so busy doing things for so long that we had almost forgotten that God is not interesting in things. God is interested in us and other people... relationships.

Don't misunderstand me... I don't think these things were designed as things. But, they became things. Things to do. Things to prepare. Things to instruct. Things to follow. Things to believe. Things to support. Things to finance. Things...

We should teach other believers... but teaching can become a thing. We should preach the gospel... but preaching can become a thing. We should meet with other believers... but Sunday morning events (and Saturday evenings spent with friends) can become a thing.

Even quiet times... devotional times... prayer times... can become things. And things are not God.

<idle musing>
Martha and Mary in the Gospel of John. We live in a Martha centric society. Do this, do that, here’s the latest deadline, don’t miss it or you’re in trouble. Activity, everywhere you look. If you take time to stop and meditate, you feel guilty for not producing.

But how much of the activity is just hiding the emptiness inside? How much of the activity is a subtle form of works righteousness? How much of the activity is to keep us from confronting who we really are? If we just stay busy, we can collapse at the end of it and feel like we “did something,” thus keeping the conscience quiet.

A whirlwind of activity, but what is at the center of it? Self! And what does Christ call us to except death to self! As usual, we get it backwards. Christ calls us to die, that we might truly live. So we work like crazy, thinking we can truly find life that way. Ah, the folly of our ways. Genesis 3 permeates everything we do, think, and see. Would that we were to allow Romans 8 to have the same reign in our lives! What a transformation the world would see. Would that I John’s perfect love of God and neighbor were allowed to control our thoughts and actions. We would rapidly recover the reputation that the early church had among their neighbors! Instead we devise clever programs for “reaching the lost.” Things!
</idle musing>