Hospitality and Jesus

What would you give or do to have a meal with Jesus?
What about with one of his trusted inner circle of disciples? His special chosen ones?
What about with one of his other disciples or Paul? His special chosen ones?

What would you give? Give up? or do for that?

Then Why do we find it so hard to practice hospitality to one of His Chosen in the church?
His special Chosen ones!

Culture and Christianity the debate continues

Just yesterday Tim Keller wrote that the "Cultural Transformationists" and the "Two Kingdoms" adherent were getting closer in fairly representing and debating the issues than ever before, a good thing for Reformed Evangelicals. He clarifies the issues and it can be read here. As Keller describes it, Transformationists "Though different in significant ways, they all believe Christians should be about redeeming and changing the culture along Christian lines." Two Kingdom adherents "the opposite---that neither the church nor individual Christians should be in the business of changing the world or society"

Michael Horton doesn't agree totally with Keller's description of the "Two Kingdom's" view so that also needs careful persual read it here.

A must read is the article in Themelios by Dan Strange which is very thought provoking about these issues. However it is a footnote in this article by Strange that I want reflect upon in terms of considering a person's assumptions in the arguments the Culture itself presents as cogent, reasonable and "convincing".
Consider Stranges footnote #72

As Julian Rivers pointed out in 2004, ‘It may be that a culture deviates in some respect from the law of God to such an extent that some moral positions seem defensible to Scripture alone. We may rapidly be reaching that point in the Western world as regards sexual ethics’ (‘Public Reason’, Whitefield Briefing 9:1 [May 2004]: 4). One thinks here of a country like Switzerland currently discussing the decriminalization of consensual incest and the U.S. case of David Epstein, charged with having a three-year affair with his adult daughter. Epstein’s lawyer said to ABCNews, ‘Academically, we are obviously all morally opposed to incest and rightfully so. At the same time, there is an argument to be made in the Swiss case to let go what goes on privately in bedrooms. It’s OK for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home. . . . How is this so different? We have to figure out why some behavior is tolerated and some is not’

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/15/david-epsteins-lawyer-we-_n_797138.html).

To which I hope that we’d point out the assumption behind the thinking that ‘what is carried out in private is of no concern to anybody else’ is “that what I do in private doesn’t affect anybody else”. But this ignores how such activities affect one’s character and relationships in the public sphere. One cannot divorce their worldview that allows and condones such behavior from how they relate the rest of the time in public.

Just something to ponder.

regards,

Gary

Why Twitter is an idol

Just recently I saw a great articles labeled iphone, ipad, idol -  apart from being witty it was pretty much right on.
It got me thinking when on the evening news there was a piece about twitter. If you reflect upon it, twitter is all about me. People tweet their latest irrelevancy, what I am eating, what I am doing this instant, where I am going, who I am meeting, my observation of some item of culture or news or fad or point of view in less than 140 characters.

In that sense alone it is an idol because that idol is ME.

Now perhaps people are looking for intimacy, for connection on a relational level. But twitter doesn't promote it because it is a one sided conversation - it is "one hand clapping" because it doesn't allow for interaction, it doesn't allow for another person to respond. At least in a blog people can comment and you can enter into a dialogue with them.

However, there's another reason that Twitter is an idol and that is very intimately tied to the medium. It is because Twitter, being limited to 140 characters, and being used by so many people to post unconnected irrelevancies that it provides no context in which to understand the person making them. You would need a person to post minute by minute their life and You, yes You would have to read them just to get a bit of the context of their life and experiences so that you would get some meaningful context for what is being said.
In the end, who is going to read such a one sided monologue with a twit on the other end :)

Now of course you could say that you already know the person however much of the tweets people love to receive are of people that they actually don't know all that well.

So let me encourage you, sit down have a coffee and talk together. Ask them something about them, instead of focusing on hearing your own voice. You will gain so much more from being other person centred.

In Christ,
Gary

How Mark Driscoll prepares his sermons is not something a pastor would want to emulate

Over at Sermon Central is the summary of Mark Drsicoll's facebook chat about Preaching and his Q & A. I hope pastors would be a little wary of trying to imitate Mark.
Mark Driscoll begins his discussion by admitting that his approach is both unorthodox and not something that others should copy. One asks then what is the benefit of talking then about his method? If it is merely to engage others and discuss helpful insights, OK, but he does spend a lot emphasizing speech and 10000 hours of preaching.

His first disclaimer is that the Bible speaks very little on preaching, however that is not helpful at all in that what it does tell us is very instructive for our preaching and is adequate to know what things are central in Preaching.

You can read volumes on Preaching and it’s basis in Scripture.

When someone says this we need to take a second look and see what Scripture says on this matter. It tells us from the OT for example that the Scribes read the Word and gave it’s sense to their hearers. Too little is said in this “discussion” regarding 1. That we are called to faithful teach the Scriptures and 2. Preachers model to the flock by their preaching how to interpret God’s Word and then apply it.

Mark talks about how his early preaching was terrible, but to say pragmatically that if you get to 10000 hours of preaching you will be quite better misses the point. It doesn’t necessarily mean you will be a better preacher, that is, one faithful to the Word, it just means you’ll be a better speaker, more comfortable with your “presentation.” But our calling is to faithfully and accurately divide the word and declare its sense so that people may apply it to their lives.

Mark has a degree in speech and there is no doubt he is a good speaker and captivating communicator but that does not mean he is necessarily a good exegete making clear the Scriptures and applying them to his hearers. I remember his sermon on worship from the book of Revelation chapter 5 where he is novel in his interpretation and not consistent with the text. Doesn’t he realize in his preaching he models for the flock his method of interpreting and applying the Scripture? This is a serious and lofty calling, to preach the Word of God.

Does that mean we always get it right? No, but because we are accountable to the Lord we deal carefully with the Word of God and secondly, being accountable to the flock including the elders we are able to be corrected and come back to the flock to say I was wrong at this point, or need clarification what I was trying to say.

And what does it say of your regard to the flock when we hear you say all my early sermons were terrible until I got my hours up? If you mean your delivery was painful, ok, but surely Mark you are not suggesting that your exposition of the text was wrong.

Be aware my friends of these things and don’t treat such comments lightly. You just cannot equate prep time with the amount of time you spend preaching it. No matter how many books you read or write. Now we may be too harsh at this point, after all he did say “for various projects ( perhaps we should understand here ‘sermon series’ ) I am reading and studying all the time” which implies sermon preparation is actually longer than the one hour or so he starts off mentioning. If this is so, then we need to understand, that this time of study is actually part of the prep time for a sermon.

I do hope at this point he also means he is considering the passage in context and doctrinally as well as considering the original languages and what they point out.

In this case preparation for most preachers just cannot be done by most people in about an hour no matter if they have a photographic memory or not.

Just a few thoughts to ponder

In Christ,

Gary

Shane Hipps don't think much about hell either

I am so glad Shane Hipps is not my teaching pastor!
He is Rob Bell's replacement at Mar's Hill but his understanding on Hell shows no Biblical understanding at all.

His "argument" is predicated on truth being what someone experiences. perhaps he is a poached egg but hasn't experienced it yet.

What these guys so blatently neglect is the Authority of God's Word the Bible. They want to pick and choose what suits their Reason, but they fail to see that it is only in the Scriptures that we are told to trust that Jesus' death on the cross makes you rught with God.

Gary

Radical Guilt free Evangelism

For many of us, evangelistic classes on how to evangelise fill us with guilt. We are even tempted to say
"Hey let's leave that to those gifted in evangelism". How is it possible then to have guilt free evangelism?
Simply by have a changed life, a transformed life where you are being made into the image of Christ.

The Scriptures actually teach this. All of 1 Peter talks about your identity in Christ and having different attitudes and behaviour to the world around. Being different to our culture. This is seen in the submit to those in Authority, slaves submit to your masters ( a principle applied today in our workforce ), wives submit to your husbands, husbands care and nurture your wives. Then some radical attitudes in 3:8-12. "finally all of you ( no one is left out here ) live in harmony with one another, be sympathetic, love the brethren, be humble"

And even the most famous passage of all that speaks of apologetics, giving a defense for your faith in 1 Peter 3:15f is predicated upon living a changed life so that when people ask of you Why you live this way you have an opportunity to answer them with the truth of the Gospel.

Josh McDowell understands this well. He was asked in an interview why young people still flock to hear him, and it was clear that it was because it is evident that he really cares for them.

1 Peter tells us to understand who we are in Christ and to display changed attitudes and work on our relationships within the Church. When we change people will ask us What has happened.

Now that's provoking isn't it?

God Bless
Gary

The quickening pace of the downhill slide of Wycliffe and SIL

I have already made brief comment on this blog about Christ's sonship in the context of Islam, but now Wycliffe and SIL reveals a foreign worldview at work than the Scriptures in their translation of those very Scriptures.
In my mind they have been captivated by the vain philosophies of this world.
Read World Magazines fair report and a highlighting of the issues involved.
In Christ alone,
Gary