Faith Meltdown #1

A childhood friend of mine is going through a faith meltdown period.  He was the president of our youth group back when I was in Vietnam.  Recently we all hooked up via emails and after a few round of conversations, he told us that he gave up on faith recently.  I mean the guy is over 40 now and have been a churchgoer forever.  He is still going to church now with his wife and children.  But deep down inside, he said "My faith in God, in Jesus, in the Bible is virtually nothing now.  I still believe that there was a Creator, but that's about it.  No heaven, no hell, no proof that there was any concern from that Creator..."

He's not alone.  Another woman in our former youth group on the same mailing list expressed the same attitude.

After we asked him why, he explained that he was not satisfied with the answers he got so far.  Then we asked what his questions were, and he responded with some specific issues he had.  That's when it dawns on me about the cause of his meltdown.

Of course, one of the factors will always be his own responsibility.  We are responsible for our own growth in the faith.  If your church prevented you to grow, then by all mean find some other churches!  Then beyond the churches, there are plenty of other sources to strengthen your faith.  There are books and videos which discuss the matters of faith at length.  They are now can even be ordered from the net.  There are courses that you can audit, even free of charge, around the clock on the net.  If you are dissatisfied, go and seek for bread, don't just sit there and die.

But there's also another very sad factor.  It's the inadequacy of the Vietnamese churches.  Someone said that if God is our father, then the church is like our mother.  The church, not the building but the community of God's people, was supposed to be the nurturing environment to help people grow in the faith.  And we are not doing a very good job of it.  My friend's questions were common one, but they prevented his growth because (it's my guess that) he couldn't get them covered in the church environment he was in. 

But isn't that the same thing in your churches and my church too?  We are often encouraged to believe without questioning.  But that's baloney.  If the matters of faith have the utmost importance with eternal consequences, wouldn't we need to do everything we could to ensure we are on the right track?  I mean, what if Jesus Christ is not God but just a crazy dude who lived two thousand years ago?  My eternal life or eternal damnation is riding on that question.  And there are many questions like it which constitutes into my beliefs and affects my behaviors.

Granted, not everyone is like me or my friends.  Their faith requires fewer examinations; bless their souls (for faith, or the ability to believe is a gift from God).  But to people like us, who demands a bit more data before we can make decision, I think that the typical Vietnamese churches had failed to provide adequate answers.  May be some of your churches are luckier to have leaders who willing to look into your doubts without condemnation.  Much most places, you would be looked down upon if you raise any questions.  And that, I think, is what contributes to my friend's faith meltdown.

I have been patiently participating in the whimsical conversations with my former-youth-group friends for almost a month now.  We are at a point where I can start addressing some of my friend's questions without making them look like condemnations.  Pray for us, pray for my friends (just called them "the King" and "the Queen" for now)...

Even big church splits better than small church

Okay, that was a satirical title for this post. What I meant is that we, the Vietnamese churches have much to learn, even in the painful church split cancers around here.

I wrote a few weeks ago about Pastor Mike Farabez's church splitting. (And I was wrong in thinking that PastorMike.com was the web site of his new church. No, he has PastorMike.com for a while now, and in the process of building the new church website, he was just host the staging pages there. Not a wise thing in my opinion, but not as egotistical as I billed him to be. But hey, take it with a grain of salt, I am just a web surfer who happened to stumble upon the whole thing. I don't even know the guy. Just read his book and pick up a few things here and there from it. That's all.)

Now to another big church split. Pastor Mike's church was about 1,200 people with less structure. First Presbyterian Church of Hollywood was about 2,800 people with more structure. I learned more about the split today from Tod's blog, especially the valuable Presbytery document for official committee members, and the moving analysis from a former elder. It was an amazing split (if one could use that term).

To asking the question of "which one splits better?" is like asking "would a semi stumble better than a minivan in off-the-cliff crash?" Splits are as painful as crash. But at least the support structure may be able to absorb a lot of shock, pain, and reduce fatality. No doubt that in the case of Hollywood, since the matter got dragged out over a long time, through multiple layers of organizational structures, a lot of negative energies were spent and absorbed in a lot of places. People will get hurt and bruised. But fatality? I am not so sure.

Now enter the Vietnamese churches. In the last few years the cancerous church splits caused damages here too. Just in this region, you can count a few terrible splits. If Hollywood was a semi, Pacific Coast was a minivan, we are like motorcycles. We have no structures, no fighting rules. People won't just get hurt and bruised. They died!

So, learn from the crashes of the big churches and try to figure out what support structure will need to be in place today...

More on Christless Preaching...

Peter Bogert and I spoke more about Expositional/Christ-Centered Preaching in the last few posts at his site. This is really good foundational stuff for me to hash through.

I guess what I have problem with are a few minor details with Michael Spencer's "On Christless Preaching" article. First, let me state that I agree with his general direction that we should preach Christ. What I disagree is his blanket condemnation of sermons in which he deems "Christless": (1) "Sermons based entirely on Old Testament stories", (2) "Sermons that teach lessons and principles", (3) "Sermons dominated by personal narratives", (4) "Sermons about moral and cultural problems", (5) "Sermons that talk about a vague and undefined 'God'", and (6) "Sermons in which Jesus is a minor character".

Here is the thesis of my argument: Since M.Spencer have stated that...

"Scholars have long recognized the difference between "kerygma" and "didache" (proclamation and teaching) in the New Testament, but they also ecognized that Jesus was essential to both. The Gospel message--everywhere it occurs--is a proclamation/application of who Jesus is and a proclamation/application of what he did for us. Didache and kerygma are both the application of the Lordship of Jesus to the Christian, the church, family and society."

Therefore, I would propose that atleast the sermons of type (1) "Sermons based entirely on Old Testament stories", (2) "Sermons that teach lessons and principles", and (4) "Sermons about moral and cultural problems" could be valid "didache", especially when you take into the context that the sermon's audience was the people who are already committed to the Lordship of Christ. Unless you can evaluate the greater context of how a church balance its "kerygma" and "didache" on its sermon diet over a course of time, you won't be able to evaluate "if your pastor preaches a Christless sermon" or not. Knowing the make-up of the audience also helps in the evaluation.

Now, let's back it up with Scripture. Paul instructed Titus about teaching his church this way:

"But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine. Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled. Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us. Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior. For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people..." (Titus 2:1-11, ESV)

According to that, wouldn't Titus instruction to the older men, older women, younger women and younger men be anything but type (2) sermons? Wouldn't his specific concerns to the slaves be type (4) sermons? And since the New Testament wasn't fully completed at this time, wouldn't his basis for instruction on "the word of God" be type (1) sermons too?

What I see is this. Christ is the cornerstone of all our preaching and teaching. Even if we won't mention Christ name in a sermon, or if we didn't talk about salvation in a particular text, our teaching still can be "in accordance with sound doctrine". As they say in exegesis, "the context determine the meaning."

Pastor Peter Bogert offered me his series on Wisdom for analysis. I read through them and I think he preached solid Christ-Centered sermons, even though he offered plenty of "life principles" suitable even for a synagogue. Here's what I see...

• January 2, 2005: 1 Samuel 17 - The Kid Who Saw Things Clearly It's about David seeing God clearly in his battle with Goliath, introducing the topic of wisdom. It's a type (1) sermon with no mention of Christ, and the final exhortation for the Christian community to seek wisdom could be used equally to a Jewish audience.
• January 9, 2005: Proverbs 1 - Where Wisdom Begins It expounds on the "fear of the Lord" as the source of wisdom. The Gospel was presented at the end of the message when pastor Peter tied in Christ as the widom of God but the foolishness to the Gentile.
• January 16, 2005 - Proverbs 2 - You've Got To Want It It's about we need to take ownership in our pursuit of wisdom. It's a type (2) sermon with no mention of Christ, and the exhortation for the Christian community to in the Word at the end could be used equally to a Jewish audience.
• January 30, 2005 - Proverbs 3:5-6 - The Wisdom Of Well-Placed Trust It's about wisdom come from "trust in the Lord with all your heart". The Gospel was presented since it concluded with our need to trust in Christ.
• February 6, 2005: Proverbs 4:20-23 - The Wisdom Of A Heart Under Guard It's about the importance to guard our heart. Even though it's a type (4) sermon which adressed a lot of cultural and moral problems, it was back-up with Jesus teaching on the subject of the heart.
• February 13, 2005: Proverbs 5 - The Benefits Of Misplaced Passion This is my favorite sermon in the whole series because of its satirical nature. The Gospel was presented at the conclusion with the offer of forgiveness from Christ to those who had fallen to temptation, especially in sexual sins.
• February 20, 2005: Proverbs 6:16-19 - God Hates?? This sermon speaks about who God is and the sins He hates. The sermon mentioned Christ in the conclusion as "if you follow Christ, then get rid of these".
• February 27, 2005: Proverbs 8 - Rewinding And Playing It Again This message on the Lady of Wisdom repeated a few key themes before in the series: Trust God, Stay in the Word, etc. It concluded with invitation to trust God's greatest wisdom: Christ.
• March 6, 2005: Proverbs 9 - In The End, It's Up To You It's the conclusion of the whole series in which several calls for responses were made. The Gospel was presented in the invitation made to seekers to receive Christ.

There you have it - from the whole series above, one can examine the context and determine that Peter Bogert was teaching life-principles for his congregation to follow God. Sometimes Christ was mentioned, sometimes not. Sometimes the Gospel was presented, sometimes not. Sometimes the message even applicable to a Jewish/Judaism context, most of the time not. But the over all thrust was clearly there: "so that in everything [the community of the people of God] may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior. For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people..."

Once again, when we are through with the dialetic approach from different angles, I think Peter and I are talking about the samething, the same coin with different sides.

What do you think?

[Update]

Poor Peter who got pestered by me. He left me this concise answer:

"One of the the keys to making it a Christ-centered sermon is talking about the person's relationship with God as the basis for their behavior."

Ahah! That made a lot of sense.

On books...

I was tagged by the Artesian pastor Brad Hightower from 21st Century Reformation about books. Wow, I feel like a real Blogger now. People actually cue me in! So here it goes...

1. Total number of books I own or have owned:

I actually did some actual counting to estimate the answer for this question. My home office has 17 occupied shelves of about 600 books. Roughly 250 of them are business and computer books, relating to my work, the rest are relating to faith, less than 10 are fictions. At work, I have about another 150 computer/business related books.

But here's the kicker. The books on the shelves were not really my library. My library consists of 678 books in the Logos/Libronix Digital Library on my Tablet PC. I have been pouring money to keep accumulate more books on it, so it had become very valuable to me. And I actually read them as book and not just use them as reference tools. Every night, when I am putting my son to sleep, I am holding the 3 pounds Tablet PC and just go through the titles I had in Logos.

(By the way, if you want to buy Logos, check with your local seminary first, they may be able to give you a deep discount first...)


2. Last book(s) I bought:

When we came up to Seattle last month, I found a Christian outlet book store (the first of its kind for me). There, I bought "Preaching that Changes Lives" by Michael Farabez for $4.00 - please don't feel bad if you are the author of the book. I also picked up "Show Time: Living Down Hypocrisy By Living Out The Faith" from my professor there on a deep discount too.

I am such a cheapskate. If I can read from the net, I will do that first; if I can read for free, I will do it next. I will only buy if it's a bargain, or if I must absolutely needs it.


3. Last book I read:

"The Dead Sea Scrolls & Modern Translations of the Old Testament" by Harold Scanlin (from my Logos system). This is a fascinating read for me since as a proponent of expositional study of the Bible, I had always wrestled with the issue of "How reliable is every single word of the Bible, especially since we don't have the original?"

The book might be a bit technical but basically after examine all the evidences, one will have to conclude: “The textual evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls, in fact, confirms the general reliability and stability of the text of the Old Testament as we have it today” (p.140).


4. Five books that mean a lot to me:

* "What They don't Teach You in Seminary". Actually, this is not a real title, but what I called the collection of resources I picked up from Logos. It includes the 8 volumes of "The Pastor's Soul", the the 12 volumes "Mastering Ministry" and 20 volumes of "The Leadership Library" from Christianity Today including "The Contemplative Pastor". These books were written by pastors for pastors so you learn a lot from their experiences, from the obvious things about preaching, to the not so obvious things about the occupational hazards. I've read and re-read them on a regular basis.

* Bill Hull's "The Disciple-Making Church" as well as any other books by him. Since I am committed in the SonLife philosophy, as adopted by our Vietnamese Alliance Youth, I am sold on the Disciple-Making framework in ministry as well as in personal life. This will probably become my operating philosophy instead of Purpose-Driven-Church.

* Richard Foster's "Celebration of Discipline". Recently, I began to realized that "Spiritual knowledge is not the same as spiritual life!" That realization prompted me to ask, "and then how can I nurture a spiritual life?" This class book is the the answer which helps me to anchor my soul in God.

* Dallas Willard's "Divine Conspiracy". Honestly I haven't finished this one yet, but even from the few chapters that I read so far, it had affected my thinking a great deal in pointing the problem with viewing the Christian faith as something for later (eternal life) and not for the now (transformation).

* That's it for now - I don't have the fifth entry yet. It's embarassing to admit, but I am not widely read. Most of the books above I read out of "obedience" (from schoolwork, from someone recommended to me, or my mentors wanted me to read...)


5. Two major books when I was a kid:

The first was "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" by Jules Verne (in Vietnamese translation). I was six-year-old at the time, and my aunt started reading the book to me but she didn't have time to continue one. As a result, I read the whole book myself. Captain Nemo became a kind of hero for me. Cold, isolated, smart. I just want to be like him when I grow up. In a way, he messed up my personality big time for my rebellious teen years later on.

The second one was "Jonathan Livingston Seagull" by Richard Bach (also in Vietnamese translation). I was preteen at the time I read the book. I like the seagul character so much that I wrote a sequel for it back when I was in seventh grade. The book fueled my teen's attitude even more. Since I came to the US, I even watched the motion picture based on the book as well.


Well, that's it about me and the books I read. I guess the adage "you are what you eat" would also applicable here. But before you think I am all work and no play, let me add that I also enjoy reading murder-mystery fictions; but I am limited to murder-mystery short-stories only (long novels just take too much time...)

What do you read? You can also answer the same 5 questions here:

1. Total number of books I own or have owned
2. Last book(s) I bought
3. Last book I read
4. Five books that mean a lot to me
5. Two major books when I was a kid

You don't have to even be detailed on your answers. People I want to tag to answer this same book meme are...

- Sir Knights Bridge, he usually has good conversation.
- Susanio, since she will be a "professional readers" starting this Fall- she should have something to answer.
- ShorteeVi, may be she had read something new since Dan Brown's.
- Drewbie82, I hope he would have some times to answer.
- Faith604, a friend I mmade because she visited our church website. Finally Jenney and I met her in real life last May in Vancouver.
- Shrek_azn, I think this Xangan would have something to say too.
- And finally, Steve Stanley from Seneca South Carolina, whom I have never met.

On Christless Preaching...

I was extremely challenged by a long article about "Christless Preaching" by Michael Spencer. It has many good a solid points, but I think the author is also bias against the church growth leaders like Rick Warren too. (I am still on my usual wimpy position, couldn't make up my mind on one side or the other but rather learning from all sources).

But the article made me wondered if I had faithfully expounded the Word of God, especially in the last two sermons on Joseph, which it carried a distinctive life-principles-preaching flare to it. If true expository preaching is "preaching what the author intended", then I don't think squeezing every passage to make it point to Christ would be expositional either.

Yes, Michael is right about a sermon not centered on Christ would work even in a Jewish synagogue, but aren't they still the people of God? Aren't we going to worship God in the heavenly new Jerusalem with many Jews too?

Hhm, what do you think about this whole spectrum of "Christ-centered-preaching" and "Christless-preaching" here?

Tonight, I got this take from a "seasoned" preacher:

I think "preaching Christ" is our ONLY job. But I must hasten to add that I doubt whether the afore-mentioned author and I would agree in our definitions of what constitutes that kind of preaching.

I guess the finest preacher ever to "preach Christ" was, well...Christ! And His model of preaching at times fits the Rick Warren model, at other times He is more didactic, at still other times He is something akin to Billy Graham.

You notice how Jesus uses real-life as an entree to truth? You see how He speaks about the things that matter to the "man on the street"? It's all a part of the story of Jesus. And He wasn't always talking about Himself. Mostly He was talking about His Father's love for people.

Yes, preach the Blood; yes, identify and denounce sin; yes, preach sound doctrine (although the word 'doctrine' is able to make strong men blanch in terror!). But also "make the message clear and plain, Christ receiveth sinful [people]"...loves them, in fact! And His way is the way life was intended to be lived. So tell them how to live it.

The second-best preacher of Christ was, in my opinion, the Apostle Paul. Does he not get into day-to-day life issues? Is his every word concerned with the cross? No, though admittedly he does make much of the cross...as will every Bible preacher.

To my mind, the notion that every service has to have an altar call and be preached to contrive a person's response to that altar call is a thing alien to the larger history of the church and of recent innovation (mid-to-late 1800's).

I am not opposed to such services, don't get me wrong. I merely believe that we have been unbalanced in that regard. Too much focus on conversion, too little on discipleship and a life of worship.

I "hear" what the author is saying. I understand his concern. But I also think he may be saddling up to go to war over an exaggerated view of the situation. Look, not even every book of the Bible mentions God. Are we to look with suspicion and a jaundiced eye upon such writings merely because they have no overt and bare-faced reference to God?

Life is not lived at the same force and volume in all of its seasons and events. Worship that preaches Christ assumes many forms. I like the saying that is attributed to St. Francis of Assisi: "Preach Christ (or, sometimes it is, "Preach the Gospel"): If necessary, use words."

Of course, it IS sometimes necessary to use explicit words as I have mentioned above. But sometimes our mouths may whisper Christ while our lives SHOUT Him.

Or that's the way it looks from my cage...

Soul Cry

How long, O LORD? Will you forget me forever? How long will you hide your face from me?
How long must I bear pain in my soul, and have sorrow in my heart all day long? How long shall my enemy be exalted over me?
Consider and answer me, O LORD my God! Give light to my eyes, or I will sleep the sleep of death,
and my enemy will say, "I have prevailed"; my foes will rejoice because I am shaken.
But I trusted in your steadfast love; my heart shall rejoice in your salvation.
I will sing to the LORD, because he has dealt bountifully with me.
(Psalm 13)

This is the cry of my heart... not to just follow God, but to be held by God.

Sometimes I feel so defeated, and so desperated. Sometimes it is dishearten with all the stuff I see (and with the thought that I haven't seen nothing yet).

"Consider and answer me, O Lord my God." Here we pray, even in pain and despair, in expectation that God will intervene, that the supernatural will intersect the natural. There's always a danger of seperating the two, to live and think that God is not interested in this mundance lives of ours, and to escape in the the eternal perspective of fate.

But I trusted in your hesed. I trusted that your love is constant and faithful, in that my heart can rejoice, admidst the enduring trial.

Prayer for a friend

I just took a late night break from writing this week's sermon and read a Xanga entry of one of my used-to-be-members. (He left our church to explore others' but so far haven't settle down anywhere yet.) In his post, he wrote an R.I.P to his dear friend T.J. and at the end of the post, he identified T.J. as "Thanks Jesus". Is this a spiritual suicide note? I don't know, but I feel distress!

O God, please have mercy on our souls. We are young and naive. We thought that we are alive but we are dead; and mistook religious philosophy with spiritual life. Have mercy on us, and revive our life!

Conversations on Stinking Sermons

Recently Peter Bogert, (a pastor of Faith Community Church in Roslyn, PA) had a post on his blog on "Stinking Sermons", sermons which did not communicate the author's intention. He wrote:

Ramesh Richard, who teaches preaching at Dallas Seminary, has authored a book entitled Preparing Expository Sermons that is quite good. He talks, as do most other books on preaching, about paying attention to the author's intent. Then he shares an example of a sermon he heard where this was totally ignored. It would be humorous if it was just facetious, but it is sad knowing that someone spent time preparing this and felt it was acceptable to preach.

Luke 19:29-40 - Jesus & The Donkey

1. You are like the donkey (29-30)
• You are tied to someone other than the owner to whom you really belong.
• You are still young - no one has sat on you.
2. Jesus commands you to be set free (30c)
• He sets you free through his disciples. (31-32)
• There will be objections when you are being freed to serve Christ. (33)
• But he has need of you. (34)
3. Are you Christ's donkey? (35-40)
• Is he riding you?
• Are you bringing praise to him?

A couple of thoughts.

1. Someone probably worked hard, did some study, prayed about it, and came up with this. But effort alone does not make good preaching.

2. There are biblical principles reflected in this sermon. But principles separated from context is not good preaching.

3. People probably "got something" from this message. But the fact that someone was challenged does not make this good preaching.

Obviously these are factors that enter into a good sermon. But without being rooted in the intent of the author (and Author), the Bible becomes fodder for anyone's seemingly sanctified ideas - even mine. I try to continually ask myself "Is this what the author had in mind?" That at least provides me with a foundation to begin good preaching.

And I started pushing the envelope a bit, commenting...

But God could use our stinking stuff eventhough it shouldn't be an excuse to produce them...

I also observe that in personal devotion, we could be benefit from all sorts of angles...

One more thing.

Assume that you are preaching under the lectionary tradition, you are bound to hit this story once every year (or the Lukan angle once every three years). So what are you going to do (assume that breaking away from the denominational/church's lectionary tradition is not an option)? Wouldn't the minor angles be allowable if you stated clearly that it's a minor angle of the text? Wouldn't it be allowable if scripture elsewhere could be brought in to reinforce the point? I think sometimes we exalt the historical/grammatical method of study Scripture a bit too much to the point that it becomes the ONLY method.

What do you think?

Peter graciously responded...

Bumble:

I understand the dilema, but in the final analysis the meaning of the text has to come from what it says, not what I think it means. It may be hard to come up with something unique each year, but I can't sacrifice the integrity of sound interpretive skills on the altar of what MIGHT end up simply being a lack of working hard to present the text in a different manner. I guess that I feel strongly enough about this that if I were in the "you have to preach this text each year" mode, and I couldn't come up with a legitimate alternative approach, I'd use the same sermon. Quite honestly, in our day, most people wouldn't remember the original anyway. But I'd rather they get something that came from valid interpretation repeated to them than branch out to the point where my supposed insights becomes the interpretive rule rather than the original meaning of the author.

Thanks for your comments.

I am a bit more stubborn and wouldn't want to take his explaination for an answer:

Well said, Peter. Wish I could be that consistent. I strive to preach the intention of the author; but sometimes I believe that I strive to preach the intention of The Author instead. (Especially when I had a hard time second guess what's the author's intention - like when I run into obscured places in the OT with the contradictory takes from my trusted commentaries...)

At this point, I think Peter misunderstood what I meant by "obscure", so he wrote:

Bumble, I understand. But I can't see that it is more in tune with the Spirit to derive something obscure from the text or something that is not there. You might find the book The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text by Greidanus of interest.

So I tried to clarify what I meant by "obscure":

Peter, thank you for your understanding, and please forgive my stubborness. I didn't mean that we should get an "obscure meaning" out of the text; just that it may be impossible to derive the author's intention out of some "obscure text".

Let's take the case of Esther marrying to the king. Would it be possible to determine the author's intended application? At the book level, it's a call to observe Purim, which Christian won't do; so we talk about God's providence. But at the chapter/segment level, did the author intended to portray Esther as a positive example, or negative example?

So what do I do? I take a look at the current onslaught from the culture on the people of God. And I brought in the fact that the king was a pagan, the fact that the beauty was just focusing on physical attributes, then I enlisted other Scriptures against those behaviors to build a case against it.Or I could study a different set of commentaries, discuss it with a different set of people/tradition, and come up with the opposite intention...

This is more true for the OT than the NT. (And I think that's why people preached more NT).

At this point, Peter understood what I meant (I think), so he want to think some more on it:

Bumble: I understand (and sympathize!!) I would have to think for a bit on how I would handle that specific situation!

Three days later, Peter clarified his thought on why that sermon was a stinker on a follow-up post:

A few posts ago I used an illustration from Ramesh Richard's book Preparing Expository Sermons. On page 22 he provides a sermon outline that apparently was something he actually witnessed. The sermon involves nothing about the original meaning of the text, how the author would have intended it to be understood, or how the original readers would have understood it. Richard states that it is simply moralistic preaching, disconnected from any textual authority.

I don't believe that this kind of treatment of Scripture is that uncommon. Especially in devotional-type preaching or speaking, we are inclined to look for "deeper" insights. Such insights often convey good moral lessons, even ones that sound very spiritual. But as Richard points out, they lack textual authority.

So what's the problem? Doesn't the fact that a message emphasizes a good spiritual point - the lordship of Christ in our lives - justify the approach?

There are a number of reasons why this kind of interpretation/application of a passage is problematic. Some of them are technical, but let me note one thing in particular that we need to keep in mind when we preach or teach: We model how to read the Bible to our people.

If this is the approach we use for a text, what are we teaching them? We are modeling a highly suspect subjective approach to Scripture that makes "what I think it says" or "what it says to me" or even the highly pious-sounding but still dubious "what the Spirit led me to think" the authority rather than the text itself. How can we encourage our people to deal with the objective truth of Scripture when we model subjectivity?

Some may protest that it is the right of the Holy Spirit to reveal these "insights" to us. Right? Sure, I'll go along with that. But I don't think he uses that right. Despite what our "every promise in the book is mine" individual-American mind thinks, the Bible is not a personal love letter from God. It is a book written to a community, teaching the same thing to every individual of the community. Certainly there are applications to a passage that strike us differently, but let's realize that what we are reading is already the product of the Holy Spirit. Frankly there is enough there to hold us accountable and guide our lives and thinking without having to bend the meaning of the text to "get something personal" out of it.

Then this time I responded with avery long winded comment - probably the result of just finishing the reviews for the WBC's Ruth/Esther Commentary and the book "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Modern Translations of the Old Testament" by Harold Scanlin:

Thank you, Peter, for pursuing this topic some more.

But before I go on, I need to qualify my position that I am wholeheartedly agree with your statement that as preacher, we need to preach what the text mean, and not what we think what the text mean.

But I want to expound some more that it's not easy to know what the author's intention for the text. I often study between 20-30 hours for a typical Sunday's sermon. And I mean I studied: going through the text, combing through various nuances of the original languages, comparing the various readings from the extant manuscripts, reading all I can on the historical backgrounds, how that passage was interpreted through out the history of the church, etc.

And the minute that you engage in serious study of the text, you realize right away that it's not easy to determine the meaning of the text because that result depends greatly on our understanding of the textual evidence in its historical context, and both items in themselves could be interpreted very differently. (My homiletic professor once said that my problem was that I studied too much. And may be that's why it's harder for me to deal with this issue).

But back to the point of wrestling to find the author's meaning of the text. With the myriad of variants we are presented with in the course of studies, eventually we have to trust that God is leading us to discern rightly in our preparation, and so when we preach of "This is what the text means", what we really mean is: "This is what I think the text means, according to the leading of God's Spirit, after consulting the community of God's people, who are also committed to the authority of God's Word."

As our understanding of God's Word changed over time, our conclusion of "What's the author intention" will also change over time. Otherwise, preaching will become static. Granted the major themes of Scripture will be solidified over time, like the Redemption of the Lord Jesus, but many of the minor issues will be working out as the people of God wrestled to answer the questions of "What did the text means in its context?" and "What does it mean to us now?" (Like the church had worked through the theology of slavery a few hundred years, but it's no longer an issue to our theology now).

Perhaps, it's time for some clarification as well. I would suggest that the sermon must not only answer the question of "What did the text mean?" (The author's original intention to the original readers, to the best of our study, and to the maximum of discernment as allowed by God). The sermon must also answer the question of "What does it mean to me?" (Not in term of individualistic thinking of "getting something personal" out of it, but in term of what the Scripture's demand of my practical life)Honestly, I don't think that we are differing in our opinions at all; I think I was just clarifying the nuances of your general big statement: Expository preaching must preach what the text intended to do! To that, I said "Amen!" and offered a brief prayer, "And help us Lord, to discern what the text intended to do!"

At that, I think Peter finally got my convoluted logic, (or he was just worn out) and said:

Bumble:I think we do agree in the main. And please be assured that you were not a target in the post. It was kind of a natural followup.

I wholeheartedly agree that we need to move beyond the meaning of the text to its application. But, as I am sure you would agree, even that is governed by what the text says.

Have a great night! My Phillies are on their way to Oakland in a few nights - have your California team treat them nice, ok?

This is a great dialetic conversations - I love to be able to think things through with the people who has the same heart and mind and the high regard for the Word of God

But just now, my mind was brewing on another question for Peter...

Who said following God is beneficial?

The reading of this week's text...

It is for your sake that I have borne reproach, that shame has covered my face. I have become a stranger to my kindred, an alien to my mother's children. It is zeal for your house that has consumed me; the insults of those who insult you have fallen on me. When I humbled my soul with fasting, they insulted me for doing so. When I made sackcloth my clothing, I became a byword to them. I am the subject of gossip for those who sit in the gate, and the drunkards make songs about me. But as for me, my prayer is to you, O LORD. At an acceptable time, O God, in the abundance of your steadfast love, answer me. With your faithful help rescue me from sinking in the mire; let me be delivered from my enemies and from the deep waters. Do not let the flood sweep over me, or the deep swallow me up, or the Pit close its mouth over me. Answer me, O LORD, for your steadfast love is good; according to your abundant mercy, turn to me. Do not hide your face from your servant, for I am in distress--make haste to answer me. Draw near to me, redeem me, set me free because of my enemies. (Psalm 69:7-16)

Who said that following God will be beneficial to you?

It might not be that beneficial in a common sense of how everyone think as benefits. Often, when we think of benefits, we think of something added to your life. Many people easily think that Christ is a benefit added to our life. We've already have this, and this, and this; so believe in Jesus Christ so we will have more: blessings, peace, joy, happy marriage, sucessful life, etc. And eternal salvation too!

But that's the biggest misconception.

Following God is not an added benefit. It's a trade off according to the Bible. In Matthew 14, a man sold all of his lands to purchase the field with the great treasure hidden in it. In letter to the Phillipians, Paul stacked all of his human accomplishment on one side and said that he considered everything in his life as trash in compare to the possession of Christ Jesus.

There are many people today following God as an added benefit. The problem is that when God begins to take away these benefits, when their life ended up in a shamble pit, God will not be as attractive as they thought He would be. And by then, I don't think they can sing this Psalm like what the Psalmist did.

O God, open my eyes so I can see you, more than just the benefits that you bring!

Preaching Apllication

Preaching application is hard. On the one hand, if you just state the general principles, then the audience may not know how to apply it. Take this story...

In our American frontier days, there was a settlement in the West whose citizens were engaged in the lumber business. The town felt they wanted a church. They built a building and called a minister. The preacher moved into the settlement and initially was well received. Then one afternoon he happened to see some of his parishioners dragging some logs, which had been floated down the river from another village upstream, onto the bank. Each log was marked with the owner's stamp on one end. To his great distress, the minister saw his members pulling in the logs and sawing off the end where the telltale stamp appeared.

The following Sunday he preached a strong sermon on the commandment "Thou shalt not steal." At the close of the service, his people lined up and offered enthusiastic congratulations: "Wonderful message, Pastor." "Mighty fine preaching."

The response bothered him a great deal. So he went home to prepare his sermon for the following Sunday. He preached the same sermon but gave it a different ending: "And thou shalt not cut off the end of thy neighbor's logs." When he got through, the congregation ran him out of town.

On the otherhand, we all see bad examples of abuse where the preacher grinding an ax on his pulpit.

I am very aware of the power of the Word preached, therefore I am also very careful to wield it so I won’t misuse its power. There are two articles which under-gird my reservations which I sent you here: The first is “My Words in Your Mouth” by Ken Ulmer and the second is “The Heresy of Application” by Haddon Robinson. (Both are from CT site - if they are no longer accessible, Email me I could send you my cache!)

In Small Group Bible Study, application is not easily going wrong because of the interactive nature of the discussion as well as the equality of all the participants. In preaching, it’s a one way communication, if the preacher went wrong, there’s no corrective mechanism available to clue the audience in. Worse, the audience was trained to hear the preacher’s words as God’s Word, so the potential for damage is even more. There's even another full article on "The Danger of Practical Preaching".

So as I wrestled with how to apply a text for the sermon in the balance of both extremes, I found the following classifications helpful from Michael Fabarez’s book (not cut-and-pasteable from the Internet, so I typed it in here to help me internalize as well):

1. Application that is Certain: Some applications of a given passage should be preached with all the force and authority that come from God Himself.

The certainty of the application stems from careful exegetical and hermeneutical principles…

- [Case example from 2 Tim. 2:15] Paul’s instruction to Timothy regarding the study and handling of God’s Word: The forceful application to modern pastors is to give the study of Scripture high priority, and to work hard at it as faithful men of God

* In this case a certain application has been made, so full authority and force should accompany it. If one disregards this application he does not disregard a man and his opinion, but God and His Word.

2. Application that is Probable: [Some applications could be made by inference.]

Other passages may be enlisted to strengthen this application, and a logical case may be made as well, but one should be cautious as how he states such an application.

- [Same case example of 2Tim.2:15] the application may be made that pastors ought to give a large percentage of their weekly schedule to the study of God’s Word. [Notice that it’s now specific].

* It might be wise to frame the application in the following terms: “It makes sense then that we would give a large percentage of our weekly schedules to the study of God’s Word.”

3. Application that is Possible: Some applications might possibly be inferred from the context of the text and the rest of Scripture]

Disregarding this “application” would not constitute disobedience to God, and therefore should be carefully distinguished from other applications in its tone and force when it is offered.

- [Same case example of 2Tim.2:15] In an attempt to be more specific, an even more specific “application” could be that pastors should spend more time in study of Scripture than in any other duty of the pastorate.

* It might best be presented as: “It may be that most of us would be wise to schedule more time for the study of God’s Word than for any other duty of the pastorate.”

4. Application that is Improbable-but-Possibly-Helpful: Some applications may be useful guideline for some who are hearing the sermon, but it cannot be presented with the same force or authority as application that is certain.

This kind of “application” must be most carefully framed – if it is offered at all. Those who miss your disclaimers will leave thinking you said the Bible teaches this certain way. If you determine that such specificity is needed to prime the pump and get the people thinking in concrete terms, then it is better to present more than one option.

- [Same case example of 2Tim.2:15] Hoping to be helpful, a preacher may offer an application from the passage that suggests that pastors schedule twenty hours of study in the course of their weekly ministry.

* The instance above should be presented with more than one option as: “I have found it very helpful to schedule twenty hours per week for the study of God’s Word. Others have suggested that fifteen hours of study is adequate. Whatever the case, we must be sure to make the study of Scripture a high priority in our pastoral duties and work diligently at it.”

5. Application that is improbable: There are, of course, applications that will not help anyone but will afford you an opportunity to slip in that story that you’ve always wanted to share.

6. Application that is impossible: Worse, you may be tempted to provide an “application” which the text could in no way imply, simply to serve the purpose of some church program or project.

Resist these temptations (of #5 and #6)! When these gimmicks creep into your sermons, your credibility and your pulpit authority will begin to erode.

(Michael Fabarez’s “Preaching That Changes Lives”, p.138-139 with some structural rearragement to make it easier to read...)