I'm preaching on Sunday with the title Why the Cross? (I think the whole 'Why can't God just forgive?' question is behind the choice of topic). What should I say?
.
Category: sermons
What is godliness?
From a sermon on Luke 14 I gave yesterday:
Godliness is radical other-centredness. Christ-likeness is opening your life out in invitation to the world.
Quiet times
This week I've been listening to sermons from the web on Luke 14. I'm preaching on it on Sunday. It's Jesus at a banquet. He heals on the Sabbath, He teaches about not taking the seats of honour, He calls people to invite the poor, crippled, lame and blind to dinner and He speaks of the kingdom as a great feast. Wonderful stuff.
But do you know, in all the sermons I've listened to from the web, what's been the number one application of Luke 14?? Quiet times! From both UK and US pastors, the predominant take-home message was 'make sure you get alone with God every day.' I'm not going to name names but I listened to some big hitters. And they preached on the feast. The feast where Jesus tells us to throw feasts and then speaks of the kingdom as a feast. And what's their conclusion: 'We need to get on our own more!' ??! Usually the logic was: Don't take the places of honour => Therefore Get humble => Therefore get on your knees => Therefore commit to quiet times.
Now there were two notable exceptions: John Piper was good. And so was the Australian (obviously!) Mike Frost. (Those two aren't usually positively lumped together but there you are). But the rest took Luke 14 and boiled it down into some very individualistic applications.
Now I'm all in favour of ensuring that our doing flows from a lively relationship with Christ. But why does that equate to 'getting alone with God'?? I mean how do we get from the feast to the prayer closet?? Are conservative evangelicals that afraid of getting our hands dirty in mission, in rubbing shoulders with the poor, crippled, blind and lame? Are we that individualistic and moralistic?
Anyway... I do think a healthy relationship with Christ means talking and listening to Him daily. But why is the quiet time the touch-stone of evangelical spirituality? Why is it the default application for every sermon? (I say this against myself) Why do we reach for the privatized exhortations so readily?
And how many times have I heard Robert Murray McCheyne's daunting challenge:
What a man is alone on his knees before God, that he is and no more.
I mean it's right to be challenged by that. But is it true? And is it right to aim for this as the very model and highpoint of Christian maturity? What about: "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (John 13:35)
I dunno. Bit of a rant really. What do you think?
.
Calling sinners to Christ
I've just written an essay on repentance and evangelism. It was very hurriedly written, but basically my point is: Unbelievers can't repent, believers must - all the time.
One of the implications is that evangelism is calling sinners to come to Christ just as they are. Two men preaching in the 19th century grasped this very well indeed.
Here is Spurgeon calling sinners to repentance:
Do not attempt to touch yourself up and make yourself something other than you really are, but come as you are to Him who justifies the ungodly. ...The Gospel will receive you into its halls if you come as a sinner, not otherwise. Wait not for reformation, but come at once for salvation. God justifieth the ungodly, and that takes you up where you now are; it meets you in your worst estate. Come in your disorder. I mean, come to your heavenly Father in all your sin and sinfulness. Come to Jesus just as you are: filthy, naked, neither fit to live nor fit to die. Come, you that are the very sweepings of creation; come, though you hardly dare to hope for anything but death. Come, though despair is brooding over you, pressing upon your bosom like a horrible nightmare. Come and ask the Lord to justify another ungodly one. (From "Justification of the Ungodly" by C.H. Spurgeon. A sermon on Romans 4:5)
And this is from a wonderful piece called Evangelical Repentance by John Colquhoun (1748-1827)
Do you postpone the act of trusting in the Lord Jesus for all His salvation, till you first sit down and mourn awhile for your sins, or till your heart be so humbled that you may be welcome to Him, and so have from your own resources a warrant for trusting in Him? Do you object against coming to Christ because you are not certain that your conviction of sin and your repentance are of the right sort? Do you apply yourself to the exercise of repentance in order to be qualified for believing in Christ, or do you apply your conscience to the commands and curses of the broken law, in order so to repent as to be entitled to trust in Him? Know, I entreat you, that this preposterous and self-righteous course will but sink you the deeper in unbelief, impenitence, and enmity to God the longer you try in this manner to seek for evangelical repentance in your heart or life, the farther you will be from finding it... Do not try to wash yourself clean in order to come to the open fountain of redeeming blood; but come to it as you are, and, by the immediate exercise of direct confidence in the Lord Jesus, wash away all your sins (Ezek 36:25).
.
What does the 'priesthood of all believers' mean?
I'm no expert on the historical use of this phrase but surely there are some unhelpful ways of spinning this evangelical touchstone. Here's what I think the phrase must protect:
-
The church as a whole is the only earthly priesthood the NT recognizes. (Ex 19:6; 1 Pet 2:9; Rev 5:10)
-
Every Christian has equally entered this priesthood.
-
None is more priestly than another.
To this should be added the indispensibile prior truth: Christ is our one and only, all-sufficient Priest. (How easy it is to trumpet the priesthood of us against catholic understandings. How much better to lead with the priesthood of Christ. But that's for another time!)
So this is what we are protecting by the phrase. BUT surely what we can't mean is: Every individual is equally a priest in themselves. Here is the great danger of misunderstanding the phrase - I may start to look for my priestliness in myself. That is, I may say 'the priesthood is all believers; I'm a believer; therefore I, on my own, am a priest.' To think like this is to completely invert the intention of the doctrine. My priestliness is found only in union with Christ and with the corporate priesthood that is His body. And I must look for priesthood in both those places - first in Christ and second in His body. But never in me! I, on my lonesome, am not a priest. I, on my lonesome, cannot begin to bring God to world or world to God.
Why is this important? Well, let's just think of the implications for evangelism:
1. Upon trusting Christ I have joined a priestly body and therefore my whole existence is now caught up in priestly work - i.e. mediating God to world and world to God. But...
2. It is a priestly body and so I must never do this in isolation. The self-funded, self-governed, one-man evangelist is not godly evangelism.
3. Because there are many parts but one body (1 Cor 12:20) we can honour the different parts without forcing 'hands' and 'feet' to be lips! In other words we shouldn't force non-speaking-gifted Christians into speaking roles. But...
4. We do have to encourage speakers and servers (1 Pet 4:10f) together to utilise their complementary gifts in mission.
That seems fairly straightforward. And yet.
-
How much of a church's evangelistic strategy simply involves bringing the non-Christian to the pulpit?
-
How much of evangelism training simply equips individuals for solo-witness?
- How much of it simply equips individuals for their verbal 'answer'?
-
What does the average church-goer think of when they think of evangelism - corporate or individual? The 'answer' or more than that?
-
How many of the church's exhortations to evangelism are straight-forward challenges for 'hands' and 'feet' to be 'lips'?
-
How little do we encourage members of the body to come together organically and complement one another in mission?
-
How do Christians feel who aren't gifted speakers - do they feel that they are just as missionary, just as priestly?
I think much of these problems come from an individualizing of the 'the priesthood of all believers'? We have turned something inherently corporate into a private possession of each member. As soon as this happens then I can be an evangelist without you. The 'lips' get on without the 'hands' and we quickly revert to a 'priesthood of the few' - just via another route.
.
Anyway, these thoughts have come out of preparation for this sermon on 1 Peter.
.
What does the ‘priesthood of all believers’ mean?
I'm no expert on the historical use of this phrase but surely there are some unhelpful ways of spinning this evangelical touchstone. Here's what I think the phrase must protect:
-
The church as a whole is the only earthly priesthood the NT recognizes. (Ex 19:6; 1 Pet 2:9; Rev 5:10)
-
Every Christian has equally entered this priesthood.
-
None is more priestly than another.
To this should be added the indispensibile prior truth: Christ is our one and only, all-sufficient Priest. (How easy it is to trumpet the priesthood of us against catholic understandings. How much better to lead with the priesthood of Christ. But that's for another time!)
So this is what we are protecting by the phrase. BUT surely what we can't mean is: Every individual is equally a priest in themselves. Here is the great danger of misunderstanding the phrase - I may start to look for my priestliness in myself. That is, I may say 'the priesthood is all believers; I'm a believer; therefore I, on my own, am a priest.' To think like this is to completely invert the intention of the doctrine. My priestliness is found only in union with Christ and with the corporate priesthood that is His body. And I must look for priesthood in both those places - first in Christ and second in His body. But never in me! I, on my lonesome, am not a priest. I, on my lonesome, cannot begin to bring God to world or world to God.
Why is this important? Well, let's just think of the implications for evangelism:
1. Upon trusting Christ I have joined a priestly body and therefore my whole existence is now caught up in priestly work - i.e. mediating God to world and world to God. But...
2. It is a priestly body and so I must never do this in isolation. The self-funded, self-governed, one-man evangelist is not godly evangelism.
3. Because there are many parts but one body (1 Cor 12:20) we can honour the different parts without forcing 'hands' and 'feet' to be lips! In other words we shouldn't force non-speaking-gifted Christians into speaking roles. But...
4. We do have to encourage speakers and servers (1 Pet 4:10f) together to utilise their complementary gifts in mission.
That seems fairly straightforward. And yet.
-
How much of a church's evangelistic strategy simply involves bringing the non-Christian to the pulpit?
-
How much of evangelism training simply equips individuals for solo-witness?
- How much of it simply equips individuals for their verbal 'answer'?
-
What does the average church-goer think of when they think of evangelism - corporate or individual? The 'answer' or more than that?
-
How many of the church's exhortations to evangelism are straight-forward challenges for 'hands' and 'feet' to be 'lips'?
-
How little do we encourage members of the body to come together organically and complement one another in mission?
-
How do Christians feel who aren't gifted speakers - do they feel that they are just as missionary, just as priestly?
I think much of these problems come from an individualizing of the 'the priesthood of all believers'? We have turned something inherently corporate into a private possession of each member. As soon as this happens then I can be an evangelist without you. The 'lips' get on without the 'hands' and we quickly revert to a 'priesthood of the few' - just via another route.
.
Anyway, these thoughts have come out of preparation for this sermon on 1 Peter.
.
Mission, evangelism and social action – part 5
"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (John 13:34-35)
"May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." (John 17:23)
"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (Matt 5:14-16)
The congregational life of the church has breath-taking potential. We are on show to the world - even beyond this world! (Eph 3:10). Jesus wants the world to look on and to say "The love these people display reminds me of Christ. This love is out of this world. Now I believe that Christ came from the Father. Praise be to God!"
If we took this seriously we would see that there is not 'fellowship' on the one hand and 'mission' on the other. But in the plan and purpose of Jesus our fellowship is missional. Our life together is to the end that we witness to the world. We are a missionary body - a kingdom of priests. (Ex 19:6; 1 Pet 2:9; Rev 5:10). The community of the church is not a community for its own sake but for the sake of the world. This outward focus is constitutive of our life together. Thus we are neither a 'holy huddle' nor a loose association of evangelists.
These are the two errors we could fall into. On the 'holy huddle' side we may invest in community life for its own sake. And yet Jesus expects that the world will be able to see our united love. On the other side we may neglect our brothers and sisters for the sake of mission. Yet this is impossible if we've understood Jesus' commands above. Loving the 'brotherhood' is missional. Thus when Paul says to do good "especially to those who belong to the household of faith" (Gal 6:10) it is not simply an inwardly-looking nepotism. The love of the Christian family is the shop-window of the gospel and has unparalleled magnetic potential!
The question in practice is how do we make this gospel fellowship visible to the outside world? I have three suggestions, I'd love to hear any that you have.
-
Churches should keep 'church' commitments to a minimum so that Christians can actually engage in the world around us.
-
Home groups should be places where non-Christian friends can come along and see fellowship (over meals preferably)
-
Church members should be encouraged to collaborate in efforts to 'infiltrate' clubs, sports teams, bars etc. This way Christians can 'love one another' before the watching world rather than having guerilla soldiers go on individual 'raids.'
Any other thoughts on the practicalities of this?
.
For a sermon I just preached on John 13 which prompted these thoughts go here.
.
The Crib and the Cross
I've just preached on Hebrews 2 this Sunday. "He shared in their humanity so that by His death..." Or again, "He had to be made like His brothers... in order that He might make atonement." (v14,17)
.
Or to quote Kim Fabricius' provocative post: "The crib and the cross are cut from the same wood."
.
See the crib and you've seen the cross ahead of time. You've seen a Man falling, there's only one outcome possible.
.
Anyway, it got me waxing lyrical. Not finished, but here's a sketch of a poem:
.
God in a manger
Defenceless, enfleshed
Immanuel crying
And fighting for breath
God in a manger
Wriggling and raw
Laid out on the wood
Enthroned on the straw
God at Golgotha
Pierced in His flesh
Immanuel crying
And fighting for breath
God at Golgotha
Forsaken and lost
Stretched out on the wood
Enthroned on the cross
.
You can read/hear the sermon here.
.
Anyway, probably won't get a chance to blog for the next week, so let me wish you all a blessed Christmas.
May we in darkness rejoice in our Glorious Light.
.
In the bleak midwinter
I grew up with Summer Christmases. Mangoes for breakfast. Roast Turkey for lunch (never mind that it's 40 degrees/100F outside). Backyard cricket. Swims and BBQs. And I loved them. But I've been thinking recently. Theologically, a summer Christmas is a contradiction in terms.
People walking in darkness have seen a great Light. On those living in the shadow of death a Light has dawned. (Isaiah 9:2)
The rising Sun will come to us from heaven, to shine on those living in darkness and in the shadow of death. (Luke 1:78-79)
The Light shines in the darkness. (John 1:5)
Christmas begins in the dark. The context for Christmas is ignorance, rebellion, captivity and death. Christmas is a celebration that finds no justification in earthly circumstances. All around is darkness and death. The only possibility for joy lies outside. Christmas celebrates an other-worldly Light dawning from on High.
Christmas is not the celebration of our sunny circumstances. Nothing in our grasp is true justification for Christmas joy. Not family, not friends, not gifts, not health, wealth, success or acclaim. Only Christ coming from beyond our circumstances - like light into darkness - only He makes a Christmas.
Yet in the Southern Hemisphere we celebrate Christmas as though we were celebrating our happy environs - and ignore the darkness. In the Northern Hemisphere we turn to family, friends and fesitivities to try to generate our own light - and ignore the darkness. But darkness is the very atmosphere of Christmas.
If you're having a tough one, know that Christmas is meant for dark places. And let's all seek our Light and joy only in the Son given to us. Apart from Him, it's only winter - no matter what side of the equator you're on.
.
To hear a Christmas sermon of mine on this theme go here.
.
2 Samuel 13
I'm preaching on this sobering passage on Sunday.
I'm struck by the sins of the fathers repeated in the children. Just as 2 Samuel 11 showed lust => deception => illicit taking => death => further chaos so it is here. In fact, just as Genesis 3 involved lust, deception, illicit taking, death and a spiral into chaos so this is re-played once again in the royal house.
From 1 Sam 16 until 2 Sam 10 we see good king David. A wonderful mirror of Christ. David is anointed among his brothers (1 Sam 16) then fights on their behalf to win victory for God's people (1 Sam 17). While the world acknowledges one king, there is a faithful remnant who serve God's choice as king. The women sing his praises, the mighty men join him in battle. Eventually he is vindicated (2 Sam 5ff). He ascends Zion and is enthroned. He shows unfailing love to those in covenant with him (2 Sam 9) elevating the helpless to table fellowship. He makes peace to the ends of the land/earth (same word in Hebrew) by defeating all his enemies and bringing peace. (2 Sam 8 and 10 - see my recent sermon on 2 Samuel 10). There ends the narrative of good king David. From chapter 11 we have bad king David. In fact, from here, we see the outworkings of sin in the kingdoms of the world. The house of David had been a mirror to the house of the LORD (see 2 Sam 7). But now (see 2 Sam 12:20) the house of David is contrasted with the house of the LORD.
Think of how important the 'house' is in Scripture. Just as the world is a 'house' (e.g. Isaiah 66:1), so is a kingdom, so is a family. These family problems are a microcosmos - a little world in crisis. (think of the Genesis 3 link above). Everything that is so heart-breakingly wrong with this family is everything that is so heart-breakingly wrong with the kingdom of the world. The sin we read about here cannot be held at arms length. It is being brought home to us because it is the problem at the heart of every house, every kingdom, the whole world.
Note how these four men are distorted pictures of true men:
Amnon is a lover. But it's love turned to lust.
Jonadab is a wise man, yet it's wisdom turned to deceit.
David is a king, but inactive in the face of evil.
Absalom is an avenger, a rescuer - yet he silences Tamar and seems to protect his own reputation more than hers.
How wonderful the lover, the wise man, the king and the rescuer could have been. But they are perverted and together make for one dysfunctional house!
And what is the state of the virgin daughter in the royal house? (This very broken mirror of the church (cf Psalm 45). How is this virgin daughter in this kingdom treated?
Desired (v1)
Deceived (v11)
Disgraced (v14)
Despised (v15)
Discarded (v17)
Dismissed (v20a)
Destroyed (v20b)
And what a word to describe her in v20: Desolate! Literally - destroyed. It's such a violent word. It's the word for Job and his household - devastated. It's most used with regard to the curse of exile - the ravaged land, the desolated temple, the agriculture dried up. She is destroyed like a war-torn country, like a shrivelled up vine, like a desecrated temple. (There is hope though for the Desolate woman - cf Isaiah 54!)
.
Now v15 has intrigued me for a long time. Can anyone help me with the psychology of this. Literally it says that after he raped her "Then Amnon hated her with a very great hatred. In fact the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her." What's going on there? What is it about this illicit taking that makes him despise what he had previously desired so fiercely??
.