Relevant Preaching: Perhaps Not What You Think

These concise comments from Mark Dever are well worth consideration.

Grand Slam Article

Holly Stratton's article posted today at SI is a terrific combination of masterful writing, sound thinking, and practical theology. It's chock full of quotable quotes on the deceptive nature of the human heart, but I'll just share one and then get out of the way:

The names of men are being printed, etched, sewn, engraved, burned and painted on everything we own at the same time God’s name is being removed.

Saying the Right Things from the Wrong Texts: Is It Preaching?

Preaching is, at its essence, proclamation. I think we can all agree on that. I think we can also agree that the method for our preaching is to proclaim ("preach") the Word. Obviously, we are also commanded to preach "the gospel," but we who are 21st century Paleoevangelicals understand (hopefully) that the gospel is revealed exclusively through the Word.

I suppose one might stand in a pulpit and proclaim something. That would meet the essential technical definition of "preaching." What is proclaimed might even be true. That does not mean that the preacher has preached the Word.

My conclusion, which I suppose not everyone will accept, is that the preacher has no divine authority to preach a message that is not grounded in the Word. If he preaches biblical truth but fails to defend it from his text in the Word, he has not preached the Word. He may have spoken truth. He may have helped people in some way. God may have worked mightily through what he said.

But I'll say it again. He has not preached the Word.

I write all this simply because yesterday SI published an article that advances the notion that preachers are not bound to restrict their message to the truth contained in their alleged text, as long as what they say is consistent with Scripture as a whole. I appreciate the sentiment that seems to have motivated the article. Pride is always a bad thing, whether it is seated in the pew, planted on a couch, or speaking in a pulpit. Or typing on a keyboard.

Two questions come to mind:
1. If a preacher says good things but does not defend them from the text, isn't it just good advice, not preaching?

2. How are preachers who say good things without defending them from the text different from exegetical charismatics who follow similar methodology in what they consider to be the gift of prophecy?

Sam Sutter, the author, alluded to some admittedly difficult texts related to the use of the OT in the NT in his article, and Tom Pryde has written a helpful response. My cautiously articulated opinion is that the OT texts were used appropriately by the NT authors, who understood the Messianic nature of the OT far better than we do today. For further information on one of the texts Sutter notes, see this article:

John H. Sailhamer, “Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:15,” Westminster Theological Journal 63.1 (2001): 87-95.

If you want to investigate the matter in depth, set aside some serious time and read Sailhamer's Pentateuch as Narrative. The bibiliographical information there is quite helpful as well.

Manliness

Recommending books I haven't read or even perused is not a habit for me, but I want to make an exception. Manliness, by Harvey Mansfield, is the kind of secular book that drives much of Christianity crazy. To be honest, I'm presuming in part that this is a great book because of some of the people who have tried to shred it.

A couple months ago I had the opportunity to hear Mansfield, an oft-assailed Harvard professor, speak at a symposium at Regent University on the future of American conservatism. I took pretty copious notes and planned to put a decent summary post together, but that hasn't happened. I'm blaming my historical theology professor and the NCAA tournament.

Mansfield's sharp wit in that presentation was exceeded only by his sharper mind. Although I'm not as well-versed as perhaps I ought to be on classical and philosophical conservatism, it was clear that Mansfield's fellow presenters looked to him as a paragon in their field.

Manliness appears to be an incisive look at gender, American culture, and the battle for good ideas. The Weekly Standard recently published a review by Christina Hoff Sommers. She writes:

Mansfield's amusing, refreshing, and outrageous observations must already be causing distress for his Harvard colleagues. But many readers will be grateful to him for his candor and bravado. Today, when scholars acknowledge sex differences, they do it timorously. They follow every assertion of difference with a list of exceptions, qualifications, and caveats. Into this world strides Professor Mansfield, loaded for bear, and lethally armed with all the powerful stereotypes thought to be banished from bien pensant society. And he deploys them without apology in shocker after shocker

I hope to tackle this book during the summer. I'll look forward to hearing from any of you who pick it up sooner.

Just When You Thought You'd Heard It All . . .

People find new ways to distort the gospel. David Nelson of SEBTS explains why this isn't just one more anecdotal excuse to complain about the 21st century American church. It's really about how we view the gospel. The gospel is supposed to appear as foolishness. It's not supposed to be attractive to the unregenerate mind.

Here's his key thought:

The Easter Bunny whipping may be an extreme example, but it reflects the too frequent use of silly promotions and kitsch programs that appear foolish to the world not because of the cross, but because they are indeed foolish, reliant on human wisdom to the betrayal of the divine.

He precedes this conclusion with some biblical rationale:

But there is a foolishness that demands to be spoken. It is not a foolishness associated with the wisdom of the world, rather it is the foolishness associated with the wisdom of God (1 Cor 1:21-22). This is “the folly of what we preach to save those who believe” (1 Cor 1:21). It is “the foolishness of God” (1 Cor 1:25) that is rooted in the cross of Jesus Christ and the “weakness of God” that comes “in demonstration of the Spirit and of power” (1 Cor 2:4) whenever the gospel of Jesus Christ is faithfully preached.

How refreshing to be reminded that the power of the gospel does not rely on the creativity or eloquence or godliness of this cracked, distorted earthen vessel.

Grudem on Sexist Language in TIME Magazine

I love it when people use sarcasm to point out the hypocrisy of postmodernism and political correctness.

Calvin Was a Biblicist

I've admitted before that I'm a church history dunderhead. Taking a class in historical theology this semester is helping, but I've got a long way to go. I've read maybe half of Calvin's Institutes in my life (along with some other smatterings of his writings), about half of which was one book of the Institutes assigned for class this week. I was left with the distince impression that Calvin wasn't writing to advance some system of theology. He was writing to explain the theology of Scripture, of which God's providence and sovereignty are key themes.

I'm not going to belabor what is little more than my opinion and impression, based on an admittedly narrow reading of Calvin. Just for fun sometime though, read him and see for yourself if you think he's defending a system or expositing Scripture. It seems plain to me that he's driven by the text. If anything, he's a bit frustrating at times because he refuses to go beyond the text of Scripture into logic and systematization, as he is so often caricatured as doing. Don't take my word for it (not that anyone would).

Islam Is Disintegrating

That's the case that one anonymous Middle East Christian broadcaster makes in this article from World Magazine. The use of radio as an evangelistic tool to reach Muslims is intriguing, but perhaps even more encouraging is this assertion that dissatisfaction with Islam is growing in the Muslim world.

Christian Political Efforts: Do They Work?

Nate Busenitz constructs a historical argument that says no. His conclusion?

What do the results of our brief historical survey suggest? The answer seems to be clear: Christianizing (or moralizing) government will never have the long-lasting, God-honoring effects its promoters so deeply cherish. Constantine’s Christian kingdom lasted the longest, but in the end it crumbled, and left two false versions of Christianity in its wake. Calvin’s Christian kingdom was both short and severe. King James [sic] VIII’s Christian kingdom dissolved into moral nothingness. And Kuyper’s Christian kingdom, or at least his Christian activism in a secular kingdom, failed to have the long-term impact he desired.

Other examples could be added to this list, but the historical lesson remains the same. Time and time again, Christian political efforts have resulted in, at most, some immediate political gains. But these gains are only external, lacking any power to change the heart of the non-Christian surrounding society. And history has shown that these gains are also always temporary, eventually resulting in both spiritual confusion and moral decline.

George Washington Was Not a Deist

That's the argument Michael and Janna Novak make in Washington's God, according to Al Mohler's radio program from March 21st. Although Washington frequently used names for God that were consistent with Deistic terminology, he expressed expectations in both public statements and prayers as well as private correspondence that God would do things that only the God of the Bible would do—things such as intervening in human affairs, forgiving sins, enlightening minds, etc.

Michael Novak writes about the book here.