Category Archives: Preaching

Jesus: Up for grabs


Christmas Eve Day is always exciting!  I hope your scurrying will begin to slow for the big day tomorrow.

I had an interesting thought, which I’m not sure should get too much airtime, but it is certainly worth thinking about.  I’m not sure how to attack this post so let me start with the conclusion and then work to justify it throughout the post.

Conclusion: The Christmas theme of the incarnation necessarily takes one away from imperative interpretations of Jesus’ actions and words, and turns them towards a meta-narrative – the bigger story that is unfolding in the Bible.

What I have been promoting in my last three post (Jesus does not justify the title saviour…, Jesus the Who, and Jesus and a Hippo:  A mystery for all concerned) is that we should not be separating Jesus’ coming from the reason that he came.  To separate the reason of an object from the object is to render the object to subjective interpretation at best and meaningless at worst.  The incarnation cannot be considered any different.

The incarnation has value because of its reason – to save humanity from their sin.

This very statement which we take from the birth narrative in Matthew 1:21 points to a greater story that is unfolding.  Firstly, that all of humanity is found in sin, which is something to be saved from.  Secondly, Jesus has come to save them from this sin.  Thirdly, we can assume that there is some kind of different qualitative life subsequent to being save from sin.

Do you see the big picture and how Jesus fits into it?

How can we teach about Jesus from the Gospels without referring to the greater goal of saving humanity from their sin?

More specifically, why does the reason for Jesus’ coming so often disappear when we move to explain the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7, for example?  How can we possibly find the appropriate interpretation of the miraculous feats that Jesus performs, like what we see in Matthew 8, for example?  What do we do with Matthew’s end times stuff in chapter 23 without knowing that it fits into a bigger picture that finds its value in Jesus’ work of saving humanity from their sin?

To separate the life and person of Jesus from his ultimate work is separating the reason from its object.

I read a sticker the other day that went like this:  There would be no Christmas if there was not Easter.  It is chronologically incorrect because Jesus’ birth precedes his death.  But it is theologically correct because Jesus’ birth finds its ultimate value and meaning in his own death.

The way that we are forced to deal with Jesus on a meta-narrative level at Christmas time is the way that we should deal with Jesus at all times.  This bigger picture is a frame of reference that serves to limit our capacity to make what we want of Jesus.  Jesus is not up for grabs because he is defined ultimately by the reason for which he came – to die on the cross in order to save his people from their sins.  This is the reference point for all else.

We would do well to learn a lesson from the Christmas theme this Christmas.

Jesus the Who?


I’ve been thinking about how we as believers should be thinking about Jesus during the Christmas period.  This season is when he seems to get the most airtime so it is essential that we have this worked out.

We seem to dwell a lot on the classic birth narratives in Matthew and Luke, which is fair enough, because after all we are remembering Jesus’ birthday of sorts.  But is it about his birthday, that is, his arrival on Earth or is Christmas about something more?

You guessed it, something more:)

It must be something more because in Mark and John there is zilch birth narrative.  Half of the gospels therefore do not mention the classic birth narrative. This is not a mistake on Mark and John’s behalf, but their take on what Christmas is all about, and perhaps indicative of what Christmas means to Matthew and Luke too, behind all the mooing and twinkles.

Let’s look at John.

Jesus, who is he?  That’s John’s starting point.  Jesus came to Earth to his own but his own did not recognise him (John 1:11), indeed are not recognising him.  John’s mission that he chose to accept was to introduce Jesus to the world.  Through his account we come to know Jesus and understand him.  We read about his teaching, and we visualise his actions that unfold in the 21 chapters.  By the end of it we cannot say ‘Jesus, who’s he?’ but rather ‘Jesus, no thanks’ or ‘Jesus, please!’

The problem is presented clearly – his own have not recognised him.  What are we doing about this at Christmas time, in particular, in Christmas services?  I’ve stood at the pulpit on Christmas morning and wondered who the heck all those people were who were looking at me.  I hope after listening to me for 35mins they could not ask that question.  How are our friends becoming familiarised with the real Jesus this Christmas through our words?

Christmas is a great opportunity for the church to introduce Jesus, the unrecognisable one, to those that do not recognise him.

So, who is he?

Good question, I say!

Something along the lines of God, Saviour and King, understood definitively in the gospel.

Trying to do the Impossible – Part 2


My friend who is gay was weighing up the merits of Christianity.  After months of going though the details of redemptive history, and months of putting out theological spot fires it all came to down to the homosexual issue.  He asked, ‘Who should I believe about all this.  You or the other pastor down the road who has the opposite opinion on homosexuality?’

I grinned.

What was I supposed to say?  Derr, believe me!  Or believe whoever you want?  Or read the Bible and decide for yourself.

Christian Smith’s book The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism is not a truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture hurts your brain.

The book is like a heat seeking missile that does not let up and when it finally hits the target you are left wondering.  I like that.  It means that he has tapped a raw nerve; one that is exposed; one that needs attention; and one that is certainly vulnerable.

And it is vulnerable because he identifies the very thing that undermines the evangelical church’s credibility before the world.  He pin-points the Bible’s apparent internal inconsistency.  What is his proof?  My scenario above.  The stark contradiction between our claim that the Bible is consistent and clear, and the reality, which is characterised by pervasive interpretive pluralism.  Our claim and the reality do not match up.

For all the negative press that the book has attracted, I think a little credit is due at this point.  You don’t have to be a theologian to realise that there is a dreadful problem that does undermine the church on the ground.  Smith has got this bit right and we should acknowledge it.  My own experience above shows this.

The problem then is this: how can we get the diverse ranges of right, truth and meaning to converge into one version of rightness, truth, and meaning.  His answer to this question is to throw out the old way of reading the BIble (Biblicism) and bring in a new way (a Christological hermeneutic or a Christ lens).

Again, despite the poo pooing on the idea, this is right!  The evangelical church needs to stop with many  of the Biblicist methods floating around, namely, the  Bible is a handbook model (4 ways to parenting, etc), the Bible is all we need (throw out history, creed and tradition), the perfect Bible (it all fits perfectly together without loose ends), and the seven other things which he identifies.

A note of caution:  It is far too simplistic to say, as Smith does, that Biblicism is the reason for the quagmire of truth that we live in.  A more balanced approach might be that Biblicism is a hermeneutic that gives an inch, which happens to be just enough for anyone to run a mile.

I’m reminded of an Orthodox theologian called Khomiakoff who draws a distinction between the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant church.  He says that unity in the RC church is found at the cost of freedom, whereas in the Protestant church freedom is found at the cost of unity.  Great stuff!  Let’s recognise that Smith, inspite of his overemphasis, has picked a hole in the Biblicist hermeneutic and it is incumbent upon those who subscribe to such a hermeneutic to take stock.

So, what value is the Christological hermeneutic?  Can it bring the myriad of interpreted meanings back to some common point?

I think from the responses to the book we can be certain that this is not feasible, but this is the challenge of the book.  He is basically asking who is willing to let go of doctrines that are not clear in the Bible (see the eyebrows go up) and instead stick to the Gospel.  Meaning, who is willing to stop teaching the OT as directly applicable to now, but through Christ?  Who will dare apply a parable without first having it interpreted though Christ.  What is the book of James, without Christ?  Christ is key!  And I agree.  Please, more of it.

In the end Smith falls back on the ol’ adage, ‘In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in everything, charity.’

This sounds like a great idea until I find out that Smith doesn’t think that penal substitutionary atonement is essential to the gospel.  And we are back to the start.

What gives?

Not my essential (gospel), that’s for sure!

So what use is the book?  Well, I still have a hurting brain.  We both still believe that the Bible is the Word of God, which is truth.  We still have a problem because we still have a vast amount of divergence on what we consider to be the true interpretation of it.

We are chasing our tales.  In most instances such tale chasing would be deemed as a waste of time, but in this instance it is invaluable.  Smith has got us out of our seat of complacency; which was a vantage point that had no problem with, or at least turned a blind eye to, the fact of pervasive interpretive pluralism.

Being aware of the problem is a start.

Aussies and spirituality: oil and water?


Who would have thought that we Aussies were so in touch with our spiritual side?

I was perusing Richard Dawkin’s website, as you do, and I stumbled across this little gem:

By BARNEY ZWARTZ – THE AGE
Added: Friday, 25 November 2011 at 6:28 PM

Australians see spirituality as quite separate from religion, with the former much more widely accepted, according to the results of a national survey to be released in Melbourne today.

What they really dislike is celebrities endorsing religion, stories of healing and miracles, and doctrines about homosexuality and hell.

Commissioned by Olive Tree media, the survey of 1094 people shows that while Australians are generally open to spirituality, they feel they are unlikely to find it in church.

Olive Tree director Karl Faase, who is releasing the report at a forum of 70 religious leaders, said the survey sought to identify the ”blocker issues” that turned people off faith.

The obstacle that annoys Australians most is the celebrity endorsements of religion so common in the United States – 70 per cent said they were repelled by it, questioning the motives behind it. Claims of miraculous stories (58 per cent) also repelled non-believers.

It says a lot about our culture and it says a lot about how religion has been rightly or wrongly perceived by it.  Some questions came to mind as I read through the article that demand our attention:

  1. Can spirituality be divorced from religion?
  2. Does religion offer spirituality?
  3. What comprises the kind of spirituality that the masses are after?
  4. Is this the kind of spirituality something that religion is capable of offering?
  5. If it is capable of offering this, should it?
  6. Should religion be driven by secular interests?
  7. If yes, then to what extent?
  8. If no, why not?
  9. How does their conception of religion differ from church?
Of course, these questions are just the tip of the iceberg.

Whatever the story, Aussies are not as repulsed by the idea of spirituality as one might think.  This is good news!  We should be encouraged by this that people do want to engage with spirituality in some form.

What a great challenge for us at this time of year when we have every opportunity to talk about the creator and his love for us in sending the person of Jesus who came to save us from our sin.  This is the best kind of spirituality.

You got it, this is the reason for the season:)

Trying to do the impossible


I’ve been reading a book by Christian Smith called, ‘The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture‘.

It sounds like a lot of big words and stuff, but it really isn’t.  He writes well and the nature of the content of the book is engaging… for some anyway.

So what’s it all about?  In short, the authority of the Bible.  More specifically, but also more confusingly, the problem of pervasive interpretive pluralism.  What you don’t know what PIP is?  Where have you been?  Living under a rock or something?

It’s ok, I made up the acronym.

The problem of pervasive interpretive pluralism is the issue that you and I might have.  We both might read the same verse, in the same Bible, in the same version, in the same blue leather-bind, but we cannot agree on the interpretation.  This issue with interpretation is not only with one verse but many, in fact heaps!   In other words, biblical texts are read in such ways that  a number of  interpretations ensue.

I hope you can see the problem.  If the Bible is the inspired word of God, which most Christians believe it is, then surely the the Bible is not open to plural interpretations, at least not in the vast quantities in which we see them.  Smith beautifully captures the question that we’ve all been thinking:

‘If the Bible is given by a truthful and omnipotent God as an internally consistent and perspicuous (meaning clear Ed.) text precisely for the purpose of revealing to humans correct beliefs, practices, and morals, then why is it that the presumably sincere Christian to whom it has been given cannot read it and come to common agreement about what it teaches‘ (loc. 680)

Which leads us to the real problem at the heart of it.  The issue is not with our respective perspectives of the authority of the Bible per se, as each member contributing to the plural interpretations most often submits to the Bible as the authority.  So the issue is not so much about our acceptance of the Bible as authority, but with a hermeneutic or interpretive paradigm called biblicism.

Biblicism is ‘a particular theory about and style of using the Bible that is defined by a constellation of related assumptions and beliefs about the Bible’s nature, purpose, and function‘ (loc. 202).  He goes on to breakdown the constellation into 10 assumptions, which I’m sure nearly all of us would fit into somehow.

WOW!  The point that Smith is tackling is huge.  Hence the title: ‘The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture‘.  He is basically saying that pervasive interpretive pluralism is the result of the way that we all read the Bible.  In order to get rid of this interpretative pluralism and find an interpretive harmony we need to read the Bible differently.

Fascinating, hey?

I wonder if he will say that you all have it wrong and that you must read it like I read it:)

I’ll let you know.

Preaching 101


Holding a Bible or resting a Bible on the pulpit does not constitute Bible-based, Gospel-focussed, or Christ-centered preaching.

Bible-based preaching is  preaching that is based on the Bible somewhat.

Gospel-focussed preaching must be that kind of preaching where  the Gospel is at least mentioned if not somehow dwelt upon.

Christ-centered preaching must surely revolve around Christ, regardless of the passage or topic that is at hand.

Let’s call preaching as it is and not something that it is not.

Why? Shhhh


Why?  It’s a good question!

And what is the answer?   It normally takes on forms like: because I said so; because you have to; because if you do or don’t you’ll get this or that.

If you haven’t noticed, these answers do not answer the question why at all.  Have you ever wondered why these answers are given to the question why?

My guess that these answers are given is because we are not sure of the answer.  Or perhaps we don’t know the answer.  Or even that we are not sure that the answer is a good one.  Maybe that there is no answer. Best(?) of all, perhaps they couldn’t understand the answer if they heard it!

The problem of answering the question why has not always been a problem, because generally speaking people have not always asked why – for various reasons.

In recent history, we have seen people of various genders, ages, and various religious, political, and sexual persuasions live under, contribute to and perpetuate certain perceived abhorrent ideologies, without blinking an eyelid.  Of course, there are those that have blinked, but consider how many people lived through and supported communism, apartheid, the holocaust, the crusades, the war on terror, democracy and capitalism without asking that great question why.  We’ve seen abuse of the worst kind in these periods of time.

Sure, some people haven’t and don’t ask why, but even worse are those situations where the cognitive skill and the practical avenues to ask questions are taken away from people who want to ask why.  One of the best and most current examples is communism and other totalitarian regimes.  The educated are eradicated as threats to the state.  Students are considered the archenemy as they often find voice to challenge the status quo by asking why.  Community structures are dismembered.  Most notable was the deconstruction of the family during the communist period, where we saw seeds of distrust sown into the family context and where the state was upheld as each person’s trustworthy mother.  The state is often seen to take away the capacity and avenues to question the status quo.  What abuse!

Let’s cast out minds back to the Middle Ages when the Bible could not be read in the vernacular.  Even if Jane or Joe could read, which they probably could not, they still were not able to do so because all things church and Bible were done in a language that they could not understand.  Not surprisingly, the church fell into abuse.

This is the problem when the question why cannot be freely asked.  Those who hold power can live and rule in ways that are free from the inquisitive mind, are removed the voice of reason, and are void of other accountability devices.

Let’s move into the sphere of the Christianity.

The question why is not something the believer, and Bible teacher in particular, needs to be afraid of in this day and age where we see the question why being thrown about with reckless abandon.   We have two answers to give, both of which are valid.

Firstly, we have the answer, ‘I don’t know’.  We need to get better at using this one!

Secondly, the answer that we must give is the actual answer!  For example, we all know that trilly little Sunday school classic ‘Jesus loves me this I know’…  The song goes on to say that we know of Jesus’ love, ‘because the Bible tells me so.’  How often do we revert to answers regarding questions about God, and Jesus and salvation, etc, with a resounding, ’just because’ or ‘because the bible says so’?

Why Daniel are you getting all bent out of shape over this?

Well, for example, I’ve come to realise that Jesus loving me because the Bible says so is the poor cousin of why Jesus really loves me!  He died for me, in my place.  That is love!  Kids can understand that, and I can understand that!

The church similarly in some parts says, ‘Come to church and hear the word of God, but please, leave your brain at the door.’  For a world that has been taught to ask why this does not cut it, nor should it.

The church, through its teachers’ teaching should be showing how one can open the Bible and show how through questions we can read it, how it can reveal truth,  and how it answers the great questions about life and faith. These teachers should not be ashamed to stand for categorical answers and in some cases they should not fear standing for, ‘We just don’t know!’

The biblical teacher and the Bible are not a metaphorical baton for the religious police to get a populace to do as they should, but rather are the means given by God, for knowing God and relating to him as he would have us.

The Bible is there to answer the question why and it is incumbent upon the teacher to be open to these and proficient in dealing with the question why that comes their way.

The question why keeps churches and teachers fresh and accountable to the method and content they engage in and believe.  The question why should not be oppressed and feared but encouraged, nurtured and above all answered.

Who wants to be a teacher…anyone?


A good friend commented on my last post that the internet has made available a lot of knowledge, which is undoubtedly true.  He also made an interesting observation that the true job for the one looking to learn and acquire knowledge through the internet is sifting through the garbage to find the increasingly rare pearl.

I have been thinking about this for a while  because I am one of these people who is contributing to the exploding mass of stuff (garbage?) for people to sift through.  Once upon a time, being published was the result of a strict and stringent process, reserved for a few – rightly or wrongly.  Today things have changed!

I publish work every so often on this site and many people read it.  Who am I to have words and biblical stuff recorded for the world to read, vetted by no-one, and making truth claims about the Scriptures and other associated things?  The internet is the relatively new phenomenon that allows any person to publish and disseminate ideas, which includes Christian stuff.  Authority is assumed.  It is dangerous!

This realm of authority was once reserved for a certain few in the pulpit, academy, and publishing houses, but this is no longer the case.  Anyone, anywhere, can read teaching on any Christian topic, idea, book of the Bible and even books that are not in the Bible.  This presents a very real problem for the church.  Why?

Throughout the New Testament we see that the role of the teacher is not granted to anyone but to a select few.  The role of teacher and the associated authority is not for any Jane or Joe, but for someone who falls into a strict and narrow mold.  Teachers in the Bible are characterised by particular traits, and these are not self identified but identified by those whom they serve or other leaders who have themselves demonstrated such qualities.

While this idea of qualification is important, I want to write about another point that internet publishers (including myself) need to face, and we find this in James 3.

This part of James is often used to teach against gossip and the danger of the tongue, which might be an appropriate application.  The whole chunk about the tongue and the possible dangers that the tongue poses flows from verse 1 (not coincidentally!).

Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly (James 1:1).

The teacher mentioned here in verse one is then likened to the bit that steers the whole animal (v3), a rudder that steers the whole ship (v4), a tongue which makes great boasts (v4), and a spark that causes a bushfire.  These things are powerful and have a great influencing capacity.  The emphasis here, however, is not on the teaching role as something that is positive, but negative.  We see this in the climax of the warning, which goes on to describe the teacher as a tongue of fire.  This fire is not like the spark which we have previously seen, but as something that sets the body on fire, something that corrupts the body.  In the end this tongue condemns the body to the fires of hell (v6).  Such are the possibilities of the teacher and for this reason teachers will be judged more strictly (v1).

The internet is a great tool, which disseminates information, empowering the powerless and giving life through knowledge where there was no possibility.  However, the internet is a tool of destruction also.  It can and is being used to propagate Christian ideas and content that is not biblical.  The end for the one propagating such teaching and the reader is drastic.  The teacher will be judged more harshly than the one reading it, who we read as being consumed by fire.

Teaching the Bible is not a hobby, nor a career to dabble in.  It is the Word of God that has real consequences.   The internet is the means and the venue with an unlimited audience to express oneself.  It appears that there is no accountability for people wanting to write on the internet, but this is not true.  As we have seen, we are accountable for what we write and read.  It shouldn’t be taken lightly!

This is a discussion that needs to continue – for all the Christian readers’ and writers’ sake.

Mr T on Hell


Every once in a while a big name comes out of the proverbial closet and openly declares their love and orientation.

The change ruffles feathers and makes people cringe and say things like, ‘What the…  I thought he was one of us?’  ‘What happened, did he have a bad experience?’  ‘How can you possibly reach that conclusion?’  And the big ones, ‘Is he still a Christian?’ and ‘Will he go to heaven?’   All good responses and questions if you ask me because the doctrine of salvation is not one to be messed with, and by taking a universalist line you are certainly messing with it.

I write this post in response to another blog post at the Gospel Coalition site which indicates that Rob Bell (click to see what he has to say on a small vid), a prominent American pastor, author and speaker, has recently come out and declared his universalist tendencies in his latest book called, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived.

In case you’re wondering what the big deal is then I’ll give you a quick run down.  Universalism is a doctrine that deals with who God saves and how God saves.   The doctrine can take on various shapes and sizes, however it typically takes this form: God is love and as love will not (and cannot) exercise his wrath on unbelievers.  So at best, all people of all time are saved and go to heaven, or at worst, those who are not believers do not enter heaven but are removed from existence (annihilation).

The doctrine is based on a whole bunch of texts.  Here are a few:  ‘For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all’ (Rom 11:32); ‘For as in Adam all men die, so in Christ all will be made alive’ (1 Cor 15:22); and ‘But we see Jesus…by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone’ (Heb. 2:9).  Interesting, hey?

It is often said that universalism reduces Jesus’ work on the cross and that he died for nothing.  Hmmm, I don’t think it does because many Universalists would agree with me (and you?) and say that salvation is through Jesus’ cross-work alone.  In this sense it might be argued that Jesus cross-work is heightened and more valued because Jesus’ death provides salvation for everyone rather than for the elect few or for those that choose him.

The universalist position is problematic and I think it is best to argue against it from an exegetical point of view rather than with systematics or philosophy.  The universalist position is poorly defended on two fronts.  Let me give you a tiny snippet (I mean, very tiny snippet!) of how the general arguments for each side go.

Firstly, Universalism does not appropriately deal with their supporting texts.  The Universalist position often uses arguments that take words like ‘all,’ ‘everyone,’ etc to mean all of humanity, however the context of these passages demonstrate that these words are carefully clarified for the reader.  For example, the Romans 11:32 passage is not describing the extent of those saved but rather the means by which God’s mercy is offered to all.  Paul is referring to Israel (and probably to the gentiles too) who have rejected God in their disobedience (see v31) and he is showing how God uses this for his own salvific purposes.  God’s punishment of handing the Jews and Gentiles over to their sin (Rom 1:18-32) is the means by which God will show mercy to all.

Let’s look at the 1 Corinthian 15:22 passage.  Here the all is often interpreted as all of humanity of all time.  However this cannot be the case here because Paul has clearly developed an argument that the all refers to those who are found in Christ.  In the next verse (v23) we read that the all are ‘…those who belong to Christ’.

Secondly, Universalism is poorly defended because it does not deal with the texts that seemingly contradict its own position, like Romans 10:14-15.   It is clear that salvation and belief are inextricably tied together.  One cannot be saved without belief.  In Romans 1:16 the means and extent of the impact of the gospel could not be stated any more clearly, the gospel is ‘…the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jews and then for the Gentiles’.   It is for every one – make no mistake, but on the basis of faith.  Hence the Romans 10:14-15 passage!  The gospel must be taken, spoken, heard and believed by people in order to be saved.  From what?

This part of the argument is clear.  We need not go into the textual detail that appears to me to be straight forward in demonstrating that those who do not believe will be eternally punished.  I think of Matthew 25:46, John 3:16, and Romans 9:22 to name but a few texts.

Salvation is for those who believe, and hell is for those who do not.  This is the unpleasant reality and message that the Bible teaches and that we must preach.   I’m reminded of the eloquent words of Mr T in the Snickers ad campaign to encourage boldness, ‘Get some nuts!’  My fear is that in an effort to be relevant, culturally sensitive, and politically correct we shy away from the hard truth of God’s wrath that is coming on the wicked, and the eternal consequences of it.  We don’t need to be fearful of this message, or the reaction that it will most likely bring because with that message of wrath is a message of mercy and hope that we have already received.  For this reason we can and must boldly proclaim both.

This is the gospel!