What I Read Online – 08/20/2013 (a.m.)

20 Aug
    • So I’m taking the time to invest in learning from godly pastors at my church in Washington, DC. Lord willing, as I serve on staff at my church, I’ll also be able to develop more of the tools I need to serve long term in local ministry.
    • Built To Brag exists to communicate solid biblical truth to a young, multicultural audience in engaging and powerful ways. Led by Trip Lee, an author, teacher, and hip-hop artist, Built To Brag seeks to equip and encourage a movement of Christ-followers who are unashamed to brag on their Lord.
    • So the question we now have to answer is, “If all expository preachers differ in their style, structure and approach to preaching can we say that there is one specific way of preaching that we ought to be aiming for?” The answer is–at one and the same time–’yes’ and ‘no.’ I’d like to suggest that while there is freedom to differ in many of the categories listed above–and since the Scriptures do not give us a specific homiletical method–we don’t have to press one example as THE example of faithful preaching. That being said, it does seem to me that a “textual, expository, redemptive-historical and applicatory” approach most faithfully takes consideration of the more narrow and more broad context of the message of Scripture and the bearing it has on those to whom it is preached.
    • The grammatical element would deal with the nouns, verbs, tenses, cases and all other pertinent exegetical aspects (i.e. syntax, use of idioms, metaphors, etc.).
    • The historical element would include understanding the authors context, audience, and the overall purpose of the book as a whole.
    • The theological element of our interpretation would include the redemptive-historical (canonical) setting and the systematic-theological categories of Scripture. This means that we need to have a good grasp on the organic unity of the Scriptures
    • The goal with all textual preaching is to drain everything in the text out of the text
    • Textual preaching must connect the passage you are preaching with the context of the chapter, or wider context, in which it is found
    • However, when we speak of “expository” here we are referring to the wider context in which the immediate textual context (i.e. preaching portion) is positioned. This is the context of the book as a whole. In this sense, expository preaching is that which reminds the hearers of the relationship between the text you are preaching and the context of the book as a whole.
    • In recent years “Christ-centered” preaching has undergone something of a surge in Calvinistic and Reformed churches. What is meant by the phrases “Christ-centered” and “Gospel-centered” is not always clear. It may do us better to speak of the redemptive-historical context of preaching. The Bible is one story–a metanarrative about the redemptive plan of God–in which every part is organically related and finds its fulfillment in the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ
    • We need to learn to preach Christ out of the Old Testament, out of the Gospel narratives, in the Epistles and in Apocalyptic literature . None of these things are easy. All of them take the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit together with a strong grasp of Scripture
    • There is significantly less written to help ministers preach Christ from the Gospels
    • A few cautions should be raised at this point. It would be a mistake to only preach Christ to the exclusion of preaching the Father and the Spirit.
    • A hermeneutical principle can never take the sole place in a homiletical method.
    • reaching that has no application is inept preaching. Even though I would argue that the power for experiential living comes from the Gospel and the accurate exposition of Scripture, experiential application pinpoints that power to the different areas of our lives
    • We also must labor to know our congregants in order to know how to better apply the text to them.
    • In the pulpit he was a lion, fierce on matters of principle, austere in his gravity, able in his prime to growl and to roar as his argument required.


      Informally, however, he was a delightfully relaxed person, superb company, twinkling and witty to the last degree. His wit was as astringent as it was quick and could leave you feeling you had been licked by a cow. . . .

    • When he spoke, his English though clear was not elegant, and his voice had no special charm; British ears found it harsh, and if stirred he would screech from the podium in a way that was hard to enjoy. Nevertheless, what he said was arresting, however he might look or sound while saying it. It had firmness, arguing vision; gentleness, arguing strength; simple clarity, arguing mental mastery; and compassion, arguing an honest and good heart. There was no guile in it, no party narrowness, no manipulation, only the passionate persuasiveness of the prophet who hurries in to share with others what he himself sees.
    • One of the reasons, I suspect, that Satan and his legion rejoice in the current mass acceptability of homosexual behavior (just to use a contemporary hot-button issue) is not only because of its obvious affront to God and His creation, but also because Christian opposition to such behavior (which is good, proper and biblical) can have within it a deep-seated and deadly potential for producing pride, and for suppressing the more subtle sins that helped to nurture the aberrant behavior in the first place.
    • “Could I say to a homosexual, with respect to marriage, ‘Be ye imitators of me'”? In other words, has the Christian church modeled the reality of Christian marriage, and a Christian family, in a way that shows, not simply tells, a watching world that what we have to offer is the only meaningful way to be in an intimate relationship?
    • Of the things that Satan has convinced us are original to us, none is more subtly destructive and pervasive than a presumed independence of our own reasoning faculty.
    • Or consider the (again, right and proper) tirade against the cultural myth of man’s evolution. Could it be, if we were to ask the “crafty” question, that many Christians have assumed the same autonomy that science craves, and thus have given over so much presumed independence that we have lost the ground on which to plead for the authority of God’s Word in this discussion? Once we pretend to stand on the ground of science – be that ground the empirical evidence, rational law, or any combination of the two – at what point do we then argue that, after all, it is God’s Word on which we are dependent in order to know a fact for what it is? Do we think we can affirm science in its autonomous enterprise and then protest in those circumstances where it conflicts with our view of what Scripture teaches? Isn’t this a classic “bait and switch” of authorities?
    • However, I remain convinced that God’s word in the Bible is true, and I am determined to cling to it. My life, my struggles, my circumstances have changed over the years, but God has not. Neither has his word.
    • So this is a plea to my dear Christian sisters who are single but would love to be married: don’t stop trusting God.
    • Lie 1: You’re single because you’re…
    • Lie 2: God is not powerful enough to find you a husband
    • Lie 3: You’re single because God does not love you
    • Lie 4: Because no-one has married you, you have no value
    • Lie 5: Getting married will fix all your problems
    • Lie 6: You’ve got to find The One
    • This is the dumbest idea in the history of dumb ideas.
    • Lie 7: A single person has no family
    • As children of God, we are part of a massive family. The challenge for all of us, in our individualistic culture, is to act like it.
    • Lie 8: It’s better to marry a non-Christian than stay single for life
    • My dear sisters, if you are tempted to seek solace with a non-Christian, please don’t. Don’t even flirt with the idea.
    • Lie 9: It’s too hard to be single and you can’t keep on going
    • Churches isolate Christians from unbelievers
    • We believe that evangelism is extraordinary
    • 3. Churches don’t talk about the cost of following Jesus


    • We look for immediate results
    • We aren’t clear on the message
    • The Mortification of Spin: We don’t always transform the culture, but when we do, we usually have more fun than neo-Kuyperians.
    • Seize upon politeness
    • Minimize conjugality
    • Remove the “yuck factor.”
    • Emphasize love and commitment
    • Call for “rights” and “equality.”
    • Reject the unbiblical definition of love
    • Reject the “rights” argument
    • Return the discussion to sexual behavior in all its yuckiest gag-inducing truth

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Leave a comment

Posted by on 20/08/2013 in Current Issues


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: