Today’s thought (or, quote) comes from John Owen, in his book Communion with the Triune God, a book well worth owning and digesting slowly. Here it is:
From John Owen, Communion with the Triune God, 141.
Tim Keller – What do you tell pastors about their families?
This is something that I needed to hear, as I start to think about another year of seminary, adding an internship and expecting baby #3 to join in the Gensheer family fun this November!
I recently read a book intended to be given to men giving them legitimate answers concerning typical reasons why they are not present in N. American churches. It’s called Where Are All the Brothers? by Eric Redmond.
The book is written as a series of short answers to 9 common barriers, or questions, men have that serve as the basic motivations for not being part of a local church. Here is the full Table of Contents:
Introduction: What You Will Gain if You Give Me Ten Minutes of Your Life for Each of the Next Nine Days
1. Isn’t the Church Full of Hypocrites?
2. Wasn’t the Bible Written by Men?
3. Isn’t the Church Geared toward Women?
4. Isn’t the Preacher Just a Man?
5. Doesn’t Islam Offer More for Black Men?
6. Aren’t Some Churches Just After Your Money?
7. Is Organized Religion Necessary?
8. Jesus Never Claimed to Be God, Did He?
9. What to Look for to Find a Good Church
Appendix A: The Fulfillment of Old Testament Prophesies about Christ in the New Testament
Appendix B: The Church Does Not Welcome Homosexuals
Audience: While the book is written almost like a tract – something to give to someone to convince them of something – I found it worthwhile to read as a future pastor who will have to wrestle with the diminishing number of “Y” chromosomes in the church. Redmond has given me, and all of us, some very good, solid, reasoned answers to a number of questions that can keep men from fully engaging in our churches, or even just showing up.
Good: I found this book not only informative and challenging, but extremely easy to read. Redmond begins with a basic plea for readers to give just 10 minutes a day for 9 days, and that is an adequate amount of time to cover this book. If you were to give it to somebody you were trying to persuade to come to church, any church, then that is a reasonable request, and could easily get through the book. If that is your reason for reading the book, make sure you follow it up with some good conversations regarding each chapter.
Not-so-Good: While I don’t want to be nit-picky, I am not a big fan of reading books that overly dialogical. However, I think for what Redmond was trying to do, I don’t know how you could have written it any other way. Its meant to be used as a resource to give to men you have friendships with over concerns regarding church involvement. The dialogical nature works for this purpose.
Highlights: By far, Redmond does a great job all around. I think his chapters dealing with the allure of Islam for men, and the all time favorite, “Doesn’t the church just want my money?” are his most insightful contributions to the issue.
Recommendation: I would say that if this is a concern for you, either in current church praxis or because of friendships you have where this is an issue, then Redmond’s book is a great resource, well worth having. If your interest level is more on the intellectual, sociological plane, then this may be a book worth checking out, though it will not give you the detailed background and academic breadth you’re probably searching for.
Also check out CJ Mahaney’s comments about this book, and a couple of others worth checking out here (Sovereign Grace Blog).
I recently read an insightful post on what it means to preach “being missional” over at In the Time of Postmoderns I Was a Puritan. Here’s an excerpt:
He goes on to provide a brief but helpful list of several areas where we can dig in to what it means to be missional. Read the whole post here.
Michael Spencer, over at Internet Monk, has recently interviewed David Powlison regarding his contribution to the ESV Study Bible. [If you are looking for a single, solid resource for your personal library, let me recommend this study bible to you. It is not only a great translation of the Bible, but this Study Bible contains a wealth of supplemental material to help you understand the historical context of the Scriptures with pertinent, and not overpowering information. Back to Powlison.]
His focus was on reading the Bible and personal application – a task which can often be divorced from understanding the original setting, context and application of the text to its original audience.
The whole interview is helpful (click here for the whole thing), but this quote I found most interesting:
[MS] Can a verse taken completely out of context still yield a Spirit-revealed application?
I’d probably pose your question in a slightly different way, saying “yield a wise application” rather than “yield a Spirit-revealed application.” The Spirit is the source of all wisdom, for believers and unbelievers alike. If a secular psychotherapist says to an angry, entitled, manipulative husband, “You are angry, entitled, and manipulative, and you need to learn how to love your wife and not be so self-centered,” I’d rather say that those words are wise, cohere with Scripture, and express a common grace goodness of the Spirit, instead of saying they were Spirit-revealed. That counselor is missing the saving grace of Christ that is Spirit-revealed in the Word, and that ought to find expression in counseling.
Again, check out the ESV Study Bible (website here) or go to Amazon and order one. It is well worth the investment.
Darrin Patrick has some good thoughts on the idea of greatness, sparked by the recent accomplishments of a certain Olympic swimmer (Michael Phelps, in case you have been out of it). Check it out here.
…but this just sucks! Click here.
This comes from R. Scott Clark, as he responds to a common and false criticism Westminster Seminary California receives: they don’t teach application in preaching.
He reflects on his time as a student, and I think, comes up with a helpful tool for all of us to incorporate into our study and preparation of God’s Word for God’s people. Here’s what he had to say (remembering what some of his professors taught):
Bob Godfrey also taught a homiletics course. He used a slightly different method, which also produced three-point outlines, which was designed to drive the student back to the text. Having done the same exegetical work required by Volbeda, Kuiper, and Bergsma, Godfrey’s method was to ask a logical question of the text and to answer it from the text. Of course, this method requires one to ask a proper question, but the churches don’t ordinarily license insane people to preach and thus it shouldn’t be too difficult to do. What did Jesus say? Why did he say it? What does it teach us about sin, salvation, and service?
He goes on to say something that may be controversial (at least in some circles). He says that the method of applying scripture through the lens of “biblical theology” – the narrative of scripture – can actually minimize the application of the scripture, leading to repeated reductionistic application (eg. “Don’t be a moralist”). Here’s how Clark said it:
My thoughts haven’t quite formed yet, but there is something about this that I want to affirm, as well as critique. In the meantime, you guys share your thoughts. Is Dr. Clark right, in that preaching the text in light of the narrative often (not necessarily) leads to reductionistic application?
Anyone out there share your thoughts. I would especially be interested in anyone out there who has been preaching in the pulpit for a few years to share with those of us who are less experienced.
This quote comes from Marva Dawn in her book, A Royal “Waste” of Time: The Splendor of Worshiping God and Being Church for the World. Here it is:
Finally, a worthy critique! Click here.
On a more serious note, I did find this movie to be entertaining and thought provoking, though not in an intentional way. Ray Ortlund, a great man and pastor whom I respect and admire caught onto something of this (click here for post), in a way that I almost missed. While I did not leave with the same passionate conviction he did, I totally agree that the “story” of the movie was not as redemptive as some people might want to make it out to be.
Some of us go to the movies for a relaxing, entertaining evening; others to engage in our culture and discern either false truths or echoes of eden. These are both good reasons. What I am afraid of is something someone over at Ray Ortlunds blog commented on: that we may become too numb in our entertainment driven culture to discern the stories being communicated.
What I found interesting in The Dark Knight is the question it held in tension: when does righteousness become unrighteousness when dealing with unrighteousness? A question under this one would be: Did the Joker ultimately prevail in his endeavor?
[Spoiler alert – If you haven’t watched the movie, and intend to, don’t read the rest.]
I found the the resolution to the story of The Dark Knight to be a great conversation starter, but an unsatisfying solution. We leave the movie supposedly swallowing that Batman is the hero because he and Gordon cook up a “spin” on the truth: Batman takes the blame; Dent takes the heroic credit. Batman is a self-imposed martyr for the sake of a people who don’t appreciate him like they should.
While this has a faint odor of the gospel story, it betrays something fundamental. In this story, evil is not dealt with, but covered up. And in the process righteousness is defined only in terms of the end, and factored out of the means of reaching it.
It doesn’t matter how we get there, just so long as we do.
But this betrays righteousness at its very heart. And this is not the gospel story of the Bible. Jesus Christ was the one who “became sin for us” but also the one who “knew no sin.” The life of Jesus and his death on the cross, as the means to the end of our being made righteous before God, was righteous itself.
In the end, the Joker prevailed after all. This is not the story of the gospel, but rather a Nietzsche-esque Yin Yang symoblism that passes for our contemporary worldview of life. Evil is present, rampant and pervasive, and instead of truly dealing with it, we need to co-exist with it in a way that does the least damage for the most people.
Thoughts, comments…
