Preach: Theology Meets Practice

Two preachers talk shop:

Mark Dever and Greg Gilbert. Preach: Theology Meets Practice. 9Marks. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2012. 212 pp. 27-page sample PDF.

Excerpts:

What expositional preach is and is not (pp. 36–38):

Expositional preaching is preaching in which the main point of the biblical text being considered becomes the main point of the sermon being preached. . . .

1. We’re not saying expositional preaching has to go verse by verse through a book of the Bible. . . .
2. We’re not saying expositional preaching rules out topical preaching as a legitimate practice. . . .
3. We’re not saying expositional preaching is just a series of lectures, the main goal of which is information transfer. . . .
4. We’re not saying expositional preaching is marked by any particular style. . . .
5. We’re not saying expositional preaching is not evangelistic preaching.

On using the original languages (p. 83):

One of the preacher’s greatest enemies is familiarity: He thinks he understands a particular text because he has known its meaning all his life, and because of that he winds up missing its point when he preaches it. Looking at a text in the original languages helps minimize that kind of mistake.  Continue at Andy Naselli

Mission Critical

Your church cannot do everything that everyone wants it to do. Some requests are simply impossible to fulfill; others would be inappropriate. Church leaders turn to God's Word as our guide in prioritizing how we spend limited time, treasure, and talent.

This is some of what I've learned while discussing these issues with Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert, authors of What Is the Mission of the Church? It's also what I've seen while serving in churches seeking to do good in their communities. In my experience, churches unclear about their mission from God spend much time talking about everything they should do and exasperate over how little they can actually accomplish.

Even so, healthy churches will disagree about how exactly to serve their different communities, and some may engage in activities that make others uncomfortable. At least within The Gospel Coalition's fellowship of churches, that's a healthy debate we're happy to facilitate. TGC's Theological Vision for Ministry, a consensus document for Council members, explains their unswerving commitment to seek justice while leaving room for diverse applications.  Keep Reading>>>

Sheep, Goats, and the Mission of the Church

Can't give you a sermon manuscript---I'm working on my own!---but here's how I think through the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25.

1.  I think your first impression is correct.  I think that when Jesus refers to "the least of these" in 45, that's the same group referenced in 40 when he says "the least of these my brothers."  There are two crucial things to consider here--the meaning of "the least" and the meaning of "brothers."  On "the least," elachistos, it's not quite true that it's not used of disciples anywhere else.  Jesus uses it in Matthew 5:19 to refer to those who will be called "least in the kingdom of heaven."  Paul uses it to refer to himself in 1 Corinthians 15:9 as "the least" of the apostles and in Ephesians 3:8 as "the least of all the saints."  Maybe even more to the point, other than those instances, I don't see any other places where the word is used of humans at all.  Maybe I'm missing something, but there certainly don't seem to be lots of places where elaxistos is used of non-disciples!

Besides that, elaxistos, "least," is just the superlative of mikros, "little."  And Jesus uses that quite a lot to refer to his followers.  Matthew 10:42, for example, says, "Whoever gives one of these little ones a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he will be no means lose his reward."  You could look also at Matthew 18:6, 10, and 14.

Which brings up Matthew 18:5.  That's not talking about the needy, I don't think.  It may be talking about the child who's sitting on Jesus' lap; I think it's even more likely that it's talking about disciples who are like that child.  After all, Jesus has already made that metaphorical pivot in verse 4 from the child himself to those who must be like that child, and then in verse 6 he actually brings it home by talking about "one of these little ones who believe in me."  Keep Reading >>>

The Next Big Thing

The debate over the book on The Mission of the Church by Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert [here and here] over at the Gospel Coalition and beyond is fascinating, both for its content and because it is likely a premonition of battles to come.  I have not yet read the book but the debate has pushed it to the top of my reading list and the reviews - negative and positive - lead me to believe that as of this moment I am very much with the authors not their critics on the matter of the church.

The debate reflects a number of tensions within the broader "gospel centered" scene, not least that between pastor-exegetes and leader-sociologists.   Part of the problem is that the current revival in reformed theology is not actually a revival in Reformed theology. Adherence to five or, more frequently, four points of Calvinism is that which qualifies one as reformed these days and thus as part of the movement.  Yet such adherence leaves massive and important areas of theology and church life undecided. A movement built on such minimal agreement is a movement whose strength and unity depends to a large degree on sleight of hand or at least on pretending that much else can be filed under `Agree to differ.'

The Gospel Coalition represents this in a number of ways. Its constituency enjoys consensus on a few important areas but much else is left open: some high-profile adherents regard multi-site as the wave of the future, others regard it as of the Devil; some regard T D Jakes as a Christian brother and a leader, others are horrified by him and his theology.  I suspect there is also disagreement over the issue of cultural transformation.   Keep Reading >>>

Two Cents, and Not a Penny More, on Love Wins.

I have  mixed feelings about putting this post up, mostly because I don't think very much else needs to be said about Rob Bell's book Love Wins.  If you haven't seen Martin Bashir's interview with him on MSNBC, you need to.  It tells you everything you need to know about the book and Bell's approach to these issues:  He clearly has about six highly-crafted and exquisitely ambiguous things to say, and is doggedly determined to avoid---at all cost---giving straight answers to any questions about what he really believes.  Bashir calls him out on it, and it's a service to the church and the world that he does.

Several friends have already done a great job of reviewing the entire book.  Both Tim Challies's and Kevin DeYoung's reviews are helpful pieces of work.  So this isn't going to be a full review.  That said, I do think it might be useful to point out a couple of details that I haven't seen talked about much, and that Bell simply got flat wrong.  You know the old quip about lawyers?  "Always confident, sometimes right."  That's an almost perfect description of Bell in Love Wins; he writes with amazing confidence about certain facts (word meanings, Jewish backgrounds, historical issues), and yet if you just pick up a dictionary or google a quote, you realize that what he's saying is simply wrong.  Pointing these things out isn't just a matter of "picking on" Bell, either.  It's a matter of doing our best to make sure little errors don't become part of our atmosphere.  Otherwise,  before we know it we'll have people in our churches saying, as if everybody knows it already, that Luther was a universalist and that the Bible doesn't have a concept of "forever."  So in the interest of preventing that, here are just a handful of the things that Bell gets flat wrong in his book. Keep Reading>>>

Hell: Remembering the Awful Reality

• Pastoral Perspectives on Hell

• Pastoral Fearmongering, Manipulation, and Hell

  By Mark Dever Our culture sneers at fear, as if there really is nothing to fear but fear itself. Yet Jesus told people to fear hell, and pastors today should do the same. Read more >
  

• There’s Something Worse than Death

  By Kevin DeYoung The doctrine of hell is ballast for our ministries, which will help us sail straight toward our most urgent task: proclaiming the gospel. Read more >
  

• What Then Shall We Preach on Hell?

  By Sinclair Ferguson Hell is an awful and overwhelming reality. Yet where Scripture speaks, pastors must not be silent. Here’s some practical help for this demanding calling. Read more >
  

• Hell in Biblical and Theological Perspective

• Why Hell Is Integral to the Gospel

  By Greg Gilbert Some think that by minimizing or ignoring hell, they are making God more glorious and more loving. Far from it! The horror of what we have been saved from only intensifies the glory and wonder of our salvation. Read more >
  

• Hellfire and Brimstone: Interpreting the New Testament’s Descriptions of Hell

  By Andrew David Naselli The New Testament graphically and horrifically describes hell, which raises a thorny question: how should we interpret those dreadful images? Read more >
  

• How Does Hell Glorify God?

  By James M. Hamilton Jr. Hell glorifies God by vindicating his holiness and faithfulness to his word, demonstrating his infinite worth, and magnifying his mercy and love toward the redeemed. Read more >
  

• An Annotated Bibliography on Hell

  By Gavin Ortlund This article contains brief reviews of seven key books on hell. Read more >
  
  See also:
  
  The Biblical Doctrine of Hell Examined By: Brian Schwertley

   
  

What Is The Gospel?

There are two things in particular that I think are particular dangers for evangelicals in this area. First, as I said above, there's a tendency simply to shove the cross out of the center of the gospel, to say something like, "Yes yes yes, of course the cross is important. But we need to understand that what the gospel is really about is [fill in the blank]." It could be "God's purpose to remake the world" or "God's invitation to us to join him in bringing about his kingdom" or "a declaration that Jesus is Lord over all" or any number of other things. So the center of the gospel becomes something other than the cross. I think that's a misunderstanding of the gospel.

Second, I think there's a tendency to re-think or re-understand the cross as something other than Jesus dying in the place of his people, taking the punishment they deserved for their sin. Read the rest HERE