My previous post is the beginning of a short project that I’m continuing here. What follows will make more sense if you’ve read the entry from Wednesday first.
Getting started, it’s probably best to explain that I’m a set-it-all-up, ducks-in-a-row kind of thinker. I do intend to explain my view of 1 Timothy 5:9. But in order to do that, I want to back up and take a run at it from the first part of the chapter. If you don’t have a Bible nearby, you can consult the NIV translation of 1 Timothy 5 here.
- - - - - - - - -
In 1 Timothy 5:3-16, Paul discusses the church’s duty to Christian widows. Verses 3-8 teach that the church should honor those who are “widows indeed” (or “real widows”). According to Paul, “widows indeed” are those who have not only lost their husbands, but who stand in real financial need; that is, they have no living children who can care for them.
What should the church do for such women? “Honor” them. From the context it’s clear that Paul is not talking about a mere show of respect for destitute Christian widows. Instead, “honor” means “material support, financial help.” We would only dishonor widows if they received nothing but kinds words in response to their real needs. The Torah curses anyone who holds back what is owed to widows (for example, Deuteronomy 27:19; see also Exodus 22:22-24). James says,
“Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, ‘Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?” (James 2:15-16).
But what if a widow has children or grandchildren? Paul says that in that case, those people should learn to practice real religion by returning something to their parents. I love what David Lipscomb wrote in his commentary on this passage:
“None can ever know the intensity of a mother’s love for her child, her constant self-denying life to help the child she has borne. Now a child should remember this and return it in kindness, when the mother grows old. . . . What we render in kindness and love to our parents, God accepts as service to him.”
The description of the “true widow” does not end with this one point. Beginning with verse 5, Paul describes her as a praying woman who trusts in God (like Anna in Luke 2:36-37). On the other hand is the widow who chases after only pleasure (verse 6). A widow who lives like that has no claim to on-going support from the church. Paul closes this section by saying that if any one does not provide for his own, he has denied the Christian faith and is actually worse than an unbeliever.
It’s my belief that in verses 9-16 Paul is not talking about any and all true widows in the church. Instead, he’s talking about a special class or distinct order of widows. Notice that Paul does not say, “Don’t help a widow who is less than sixty . . .” Instead, he says, “Do not enroll (or, put on the list) a widow who is less than sixty . . .” It’s a vast difference.
In all probability, the group Paul refers to beginning with verse 9 was responsible for taking care of certain tasks in the church. Notice that there is a character sketch of the kind of widow the church allows to be enrolled. It’s no accident that at other points in this letter where Paul provides a character sketch (for elders, 1 Timothy 3:1-7; for deacons, 3:8-10, 12-14; and for “the women” who may be female deacons, 3:11), the description pertains to someone who will be in a position of responsibility in the church.
My main reason for taking this view, which draws a line between the end of verse 8 and the beginning of verse 9, is simple. It makes no sense to think that only widows who matched the description in verses 9 and 10 (including “the rule of sixty”) would have received support from the church.
No doubt there were many near-helpless Christian widows, much younger than sixty, who could and did receive support from the church (Galatians 6:10; James 1:27). Not to mention it’s inconceivable that Paul, a Christian rabbi, could have issued instructions to the contrary. A self-described “Hebrew of Hebrews,” Paul knew that the Jewish Scriptures spoke up for “the orphan, the widow, and the stranger in your midst” more than fifty times; and he likely knew a tradition that says the more often a teaching is repeated, the more important it is. No right-thinking person believes that a young, godly, but destitute widow suddenly becomes worthy of the church’s support upon turning sixty years old.
For these reasons, it is better to understand verse 9 as the beginning of a new section which speaks of a different group. According to this view, a “true widow” is a Christian woman of any age who has no family to care for her. But beginning with verse 9, Paul is not speaking about “true widows” in general, but about a unique group of widows who were placed on a list, enrolled. That is, past the common age for remarriage, they were qualified for and committed to what most of us would call full-time ministry.
If this view is on target, then no one should say, “There was a time when Paul said, ‘Be sure not to help a widow unless she’s at least sixty years old'.” Again, not only is that inconceivable, it also ignores the fact that the verb in 1 Timothy 5:9 is not “help” but rather “enroll.”
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
1 Timothy 5:9
Over the last couple of years, 1 Timothy 5:9 has become a popular verse among some folks in the Churches of Christ. Strange.
In the New International Version, it reads as follows: “No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband,” . . . The character sketch of the widow who may be placed on the list obviously continues. But verse 9 is enough for those who want to make a point. And their point goes like this:
What group of elders would want to say, “We’ve decided that, as a church, we’re no longer going to help any widow of the congregation unless she is--in the words of 1 Timothy 5:9-- over sixty.”? What church would stand for a decision like that? Wouldn’t we think it was foreign to the Spirit of Christ for a group of elders to announce a policy like that? And yet, there it is in black-and-white in your Bibles! If a widow is only 59, don’t help her.
That’s a near verbatim statement from a recently-preached, wide-distributed sermon which, of course, has a larger point to make. And that larger point goes like this:
When we come across a passage that says “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:12), maybe we should treat that statement the same way we treat the one in 1 Timothy 5:9. Paul didn’t intend for it to be applied in every church in every time. Because if he did, then in order to be consistent, we would have to cut off all widows 60 and under from services and assistance provided by the church. So, again, this means that twenty centuries later we have the same right, even responsibility, to look at 1 Timothy 2:12 in a different way, just as we look at 1 Timothy 5:9 in a different way.
I’d like to suggest that 1 Timothy 5:9 says no such thing. As the week goes on, I'll explain why.
In the New International Version, it reads as follows: “No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband,” . . . The character sketch of the widow who may be placed on the list obviously continues. But verse 9 is enough for those who want to make a point. And their point goes like this:
What group of elders would want to say, “We’ve decided that, as a church, we’re no longer going to help any widow of the congregation unless she is--in the words of 1 Timothy 5:9-- over sixty.”? What church would stand for a decision like that? Wouldn’t we think it was foreign to the Spirit of Christ for a group of elders to announce a policy like that? And yet, there it is in black-and-white in your Bibles! If a widow is only 59, don’t help her.
That’s a near verbatim statement from a recently-preached, wide-distributed sermon which, of course, has a larger point to make. And that larger point goes like this:
When we come across a passage that says “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:12), maybe we should treat that statement the same way we treat the one in 1 Timothy 5:9. Paul didn’t intend for it to be applied in every church in every time. Because if he did, then in order to be consistent, we would have to cut off all widows 60 and under from services and assistance provided by the church. So, again, this means that twenty centuries later we have the same right, even responsibility, to look at 1 Timothy 2:12 in a different way, just as we look at 1 Timothy 5:9 in a different way.
I’d like to suggest that 1 Timothy 5:9 says no such thing. As the week goes on, I'll explain why.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
A Tonic for Tired Preachers
One of the things I remember about preaching Sunday in, Sunday out was the grind. Not that I ever would have talked about it much, because preachers are supposed to love the fact and the act of preaching.
And I did, . . . . whenever it felt good to me, or when people said genuinely-nice things about my preaching. But anytime my sermons felt like big, fat zeros, or whenever it seemed like I was disconnected from everything and everyone important to me, it was natural to wonder if preaching was what I was supposed to be doing. Most weeks, I didn’t have much opportunity to dwell on those kinds of questions; I had to start working on my next two sermons.
(I know, I know, dubious assumptions, failure to acknowledge the biblical preachers who had it much rougher, etc., etc. But it still happens. Just ask your preacher in private).
I think it was my teacher Phil Slate who told me that the great Batsell Barrett Baxter used to say, “The tyranny of preaching is that Sunday comes every seven days.” I always took some comfort in knowing I wasn’t the only one.
Now, if you’re a preacher and any of this is sounding familiar to you, I have a book recommendation. And, no, this isn’t one of those books that you’re supposed to read because you’re supposed to have read it, and you won’t be considered a real preacher by the hot shots until you do. Instead, this is one of those books that will send you right back into the Word and will change the perspective from which you see it. J. I. Packer called it “A powerful tonic for tired preachers—a book that digs deep into the theology, strategy, and spirituality of pulpit preaching.” Years ago, I discovered it to be all that and more.
The book is The Supremacy of God in Preaching, by John Piper. It’s out in a revised edition now. Mine’s a copy of the original which, after I had first discovered it--I don’t remember how or when--I would pull it off the shelf about twice each year. It never failed to lift my eyes so that I could see again the center of the universe and source of my help. A few snippets:
On the job of the preacher:
“It is not the job of the Christian preacher to give people moral or psychological pep talks about how to get along in the world; someone else can do that. But most of our people have no one in the world to tell them, week in and week out, about the supreme beauty and majesty of God” (p. 12).
On the goal of preaching:
“The wonder of the gospel and the most freeing discovery this sinner has ever made is that God’s deepest commitment to be glorified and my deepest longing to be satisfied are not in conflict but in fact find simultaneous consummation in his display of and my delight in the glory of God. Therefore the goal of preaching is the glory of God reflected in the glad submission of the human heart. And the supremacy of God in preaching is secured by this fact: The one who satisfies gets the glory; the one who gives the pleasure is the treasure” (p. 26).
On sappy sermons :
“He [Charles Spurgeon] said to his students: ‘We must conquer—some of us especially—our tendency to levity. A great distinction exists between holy cheerfulness, which is a virtue, and that general levity, which is a vice. There is a levity that has not enough heart to laugh, but trifles in everything; it is flippant, hollow, unreal. A hearty laugh is no more levity than a hearty cry’.” (p. 58).
So preachers, once you know what you’re going to preach next Sunday, and have spent some time with the text, I think you’d be wise to spend, say, a Thursday afternoon with Piper’s book. Trust me on this one.
Oh, if you want to get a free sample of where Piper’s coming from and what the book is like, read his sermon by the same title here. Good stuff!
And I did, . . . . whenever it felt good to me, or when people said genuinely-nice things about my preaching. But anytime my sermons felt like big, fat zeros, or whenever it seemed like I was disconnected from everything and everyone important to me, it was natural to wonder if preaching was what I was supposed to be doing. Most weeks, I didn’t have much opportunity to dwell on those kinds of questions; I had to start working on my next two sermons.
(I know, I know, dubious assumptions, failure to acknowledge the biblical preachers who had it much rougher, etc., etc. But it still happens. Just ask your preacher in private).
I think it was my teacher Phil Slate who told me that the great Batsell Barrett Baxter used to say, “The tyranny of preaching is that Sunday comes every seven days.” I always took some comfort in knowing I wasn’t the only one.
Now, if you’re a preacher and any of this is sounding familiar to you, I have a book recommendation. And, no, this isn’t one of those books that you’re supposed to read because you’re supposed to have read it, and you won’t be considered a real preacher by the hot shots until you do. Instead, this is one of those books that will send you right back into the Word and will change the perspective from which you see it. J. I. Packer called it “A powerful tonic for tired preachers—a book that digs deep into the theology, strategy, and spirituality of pulpit preaching.” Years ago, I discovered it to be all that and more.
The book is The Supremacy of God in Preaching, by John Piper. It’s out in a revised edition now. Mine’s a copy of the original which, after I had first discovered it--I don’t remember how or when--I would pull it off the shelf about twice each year. It never failed to lift my eyes so that I could see again the center of the universe and source of my help. A few snippets:
On the job of the preacher:
“It is not the job of the Christian preacher to give people moral or psychological pep talks about how to get along in the world; someone else can do that. But most of our people have no one in the world to tell them, week in and week out, about the supreme beauty and majesty of God” (p. 12).
On the goal of preaching:
“The wonder of the gospel and the most freeing discovery this sinner has ever made is that God’s deepest commitment to be glorified and my deepest longing to be satisfied are not in conflict but in fact find simultaneous consummation in his display of and my delight in the glory of God. Therefore the goal of preaching is the glory of God reflected in the glad submission of the human heart. And the supremacy of God in preaching is secured by this fact: The one who satisfies gets the glory; the one who gives the pleasure is the treasure” (p. 26).
On sappy sermons :
“He [Charles Spurgeon] said to his students: ‘We must conquer—some of us especially—our tendency to levity. A great distinction exists between holy cheerfulness, which is a virtue, and that general levity, which is a vice. There is a levity that has not enough heart to laugh, but trifles in everything; it is flippant, hollow, unreal. A hearty laugh is no more levity than a hearty cry’.” (p. 58).
So preachers, once you know what you’re going to preach next Sunday, and have spent some time with the text, I think you’d be wise to spend, say, a Thursday afternoon with Piper’s book. Trust me on this one.
Oh, if you want to get a free sample of where Piper’s coming from and what the book is like, read his sermon by the same title here. Good stuff!
Friday, October 27, 2006
Scary Movies
When I went home for lunch today, I saw this re-run on “Bravo” about the “100 Scariest Moments in Movie History” or some such.
Now, I’m not one (usually) to incite fear or suggest that people watch something or go somewhere that’s going to really scare them. However, . . . . the show started me thinking about movies I’ve seen through the years that really “got” me. Off the cuff, and in no particular order, here are ten from the thriller-horror genre that made an impression on me and that I’ve watched, most of them, more than one time.
1. Jacob’s Ladder (ripped off from “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge”?)
2. Don’t Look Now
3. The Silence of the Lambs
4. Halloween
5. The Hitcher
6. The Dead Zone
7. Phantasm
8. The Sixth Sense
9. The Exorcist
10. The Shining (i.e., 1980, Stanley Kubrick’s)
Seen ‘em? Commentary? Additions? Subtractions? For Christians, what is the upshot of horror films, assuming there is one or more? How do you interpret human fascination with thoughts and images that cause us to lose sleep, bladder control, etc.? Are you a fan of the genre? Or do you advocate distance? Why?
Now, I’m not one (usually) to incite fear or suggest that people watch something or go somewhere that’s going to really scare them. However, . . . . the show started me thinking about movies I’ve seen through the years that really “got” me. Off the cuff, and in no particular order, here are ten from the thriller-horror genre that made an impression on me and that I’ve watched, most of them, more than one time.
1. Jacob’s Ladder (ripped off from “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge”?)
2. Don’t Look Now
3. The Silence of the Lambs
4. Halloween
5. The Hitcher
6. The Dead Zone
7. Phantasm
8. The Sixth Sense
9. The Exorcist
10. The Shining (i.e., 1980, Stanley Kubrick’s)
Seen ‘em? Commentary? Additions? Subtractions? For Christians, what is the upshot of horror films, assuming there is one or more? How do you interpret human fascination with thoughts and images that cause us to lose sleep, bladder control, etc.? Are you a fan of the genre? Or do you advocate distance? Why?
Thursday, October 26, 2006
2 Thessalonians 2
This morning’s New Testament class is set to do a survey of 1 and 2 Thessalonians. Of course, in a very short time, we can re-read Acts 17:1-10 and also read both of the letters.
When I did this with the Life of Paul class a few weeks ago, we had a good give-and-take on 2 Thessalonians 2, especially verses 6-9. Of course, I can go and read what Abe Malherbe has to say about this. I’ve already gotten F. F. Bruce’s take.
What say you? What’s going on in this passage?
When I did this with the Life of Paul class a few weeks ago, we had a good give-and-take on 2 Thessalonians 2, especially verses 6-9. Of course, I can go and read what Abe Malherbe has to say about this. I’ve already gotten F. F. Bruce’s take.
What say you? What’s going on in this passage?
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
This-n-That
Interesting, isn’t it? For fundraising events, folks like Regis Philbin and Walter Cronkite are invited to speak at Freed-Hardeman University.
But when Lubbock Christian University hosts the World Mission Workshop? Freed-Hardeman withholds its support because a member of the Independent Christian Church is one of the keynote speakers.
- - - - -
For those interested in learning a lot more about faith, ethics, and the environment, “the first comprehensive account of religious environmentalism,” can be found in a June 2006 release from Oxford Press, A Greener Faith: Religious Environmentalism and Our Planet’s Future. I’ve yet to read it. But it looks interesting.
- - - - -
When it comes to classes, sermons, lectures, etc. there are times when, in spite of any real preparation, something just clicks and the whole thing goes very well. There are other times when, in spite of having worked and prayed and fretted and worked, the presentation turns out to be a big fat zero.
Having experienced the former, some people conclude, “I guess this means I’ve gotten to that point where I don’t have to work so hard anymore.” This is always followed by a major meltdown, pride going before a fall and all that sort of thing.
After an experience with the latter, some people conclude, “Why try?” This is also followed by a catastrophe, because no work and all play makes Jack a clueless boy.
So, preachers and teachers and other sorts of presenters, I advocate preparing as well as you can every time. That way, you can shrug off the strike outs and take satisfaction in the homeruns, not to mention that your long-term batting average will be higher.
- - - - -
Yes, that last metaphor was a set up: GO CARDS!!!
But when Lubbock Christian University hosts the World Mission Workshop? Freed-Hardeman withholds its support because a member of the Independent Christian Church is one of the keynote speakers.
- - - - -
For those interested in learning a lot more about faith, ethics, and the environment, “the first comprehensive account of religious environmentalism,” can be found in a June 2006 release from Oxford Press, A Greener Faith: Religious Environmentalism and Our Planet’s Future. I’ve yet to read it. But it looks interesting.
- - - - -
When it comes to classes, sermons, lectures, etc. there are times when, in spite of any real preparation, something just clicks and the whole thing goes very well. There are other times when, in spite of having worked and prayed and fretted and worked, the presentation turns out to be a big fat zero.
Having experienced the former, some people conclude, “I guess this means I’ve gotten to that point where I don’t have to work so hard anymore.” This is always followed by a major meltdown, pride going before a fall and all that sort of thing.
After an experience with the latter, some people conclude, “Why try?” This is also followed by a catastrophe, because no work and all play makes Jack a clueless boy.
So, preachers and teachers and other sorts of presenters, I advocate preparing as well as you can every time. That way, you can shrug off the strike outs and take satisfaction in the homeruns, not to mention that your long-term batting average will be higher.
- - - - -
Yes, that last metaphor was a set up: GO CARDS!!!
Monday, October 23, 2006
Statement from Freed-Hardeman
A news article from the on-line edition of the Christian Chronicle got my attention. The title? “Unity discussion takes center stage at Freed-Hardeman.”
Earlier, I had seen ads for this event. But the article was the first report I’d come across about the “Contemporary Discussion” that took place at Freed-Hardeman University in Henderson, Tennessee, back on October 14th.
The article notes that the organizers and participants of the “Discussion” were focused not only on what unites the Independent Christian Churches and the Churches of Christ, but on what still divides them, namely, the Independents’ continued use of musical instruments in worship, contrasted with the a cappella practice of the Churches of Christ.
I was struck by one of the leading quotes in the article. Representing Freed-Hardeman, moderator Earl Edwards reportedly said, “Now, some have seemed to think, and sincerely so, that it takes nothing but exchanging Bibles and embracing one another [to create unity].”
This is simply wrong. The fact is, many genuine, spiritual leaders among the Churches of Christ and the Independent Christian Churches today do not think that exchanging Bibles and embracing one another is what establishes unity between the two groups.
Instead, what they believe--if I may say so--is that Jesus Christ, into whom we were all baptized by one Spirit, united us by his blood and his new life; and, furthermore, it is foreign to the Spirit of Jesus to tolerate a wall in the territory that belongs to Christ.
Speaking first as a Christian, but second as one who was schooled at Freed-Hardeman, those are my own convictions. Thoughts?
Earlier, I had seen ads for this event. But the article was the first report I’d come across about the “Contemporary Discussion” that took place at Freed-Hardeman University in Henderson, Tennessee, back on October 14th.
The article notes that the organizers and participants of the “Discussion” were focused not only on what unites the Independent Christian Churches and the Churches of Christ, but on what still divides them, namely, the Independents’ continued use of musical instruments in worship, contrasted with the a cappella practice of the Churches of Christ.
I was struck by one of the leading quotes in the article. Representing Freed-Hardeman, moderator Earl Edwards reportedly said, “Now, some have seemed to think, and sincerely so, that it takes nothing but exchanging Bibles and embracing one another [to create unity].”
This is simply wrong. The fact is, many genuine, spiritual leaders among the Churches of Christ and the Independent Christian Churches today do not think that exchanging Bibles and embracing one another is what establishes unity between the two groups.
Instead, what they believe--if I may say so--is that Jesus Christ, into whom we were all baptized by one Spirit, united us by his blood and his new life; and, furthermore, it is foreign to the Spirit of Jesus to tolerate a wall in the territory that belongs to Christ.
Speaking first as a Christian, but second as one who was schooled at Freed-Hardeman, those are my own convictions. Thoughts?
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Love Thy Neighbor, Conservatively
From a sermon by Myron S. Augsburger, “Love Thy Neighbor.”
“In faithfulness he will bring forth justice; he will not falter or be discouraged till he establishes justice on earth” (Isaiah 42:3-4).
As Jesus’ disciples, his ministers of reconciliation, we are involved in a mission of justice to provide equal opportunity to all, opportunity to come into God’s family. We should love our local and global neighborhood enough to promote the kingdom of God and its values worldwide! We do this through the many Christian disciples who carry this expression of love and justice outside the four walls of our churches, into the orders of the common life. George MacLeod expresses this most effectively:
“I simply argue that the cross be raised again at the center of the marketplace as well as on the steeple of the church. I am recovering the claim that Jesus was not crucified in a cathedral between two candles, but on a cross between two thieves; on the town garbage heap, at a crossroads so cosmopolitan that they had to write his name in Hebrew, and in Latin, and in Greek, at the kind of place where cynics talk smut and thieves curse, and soldiers gamble. Because that is where he died. And that is what he died about. And this is where [the church] should be and what [the church] should be about.”
Many evangelical Christians are very reluctant to accept the fact that poverty for the millions is directly linked to injustice, to power struggles that increase the gap between the haves and the nave-nots.
- - - - - - - -
Too, it seems clear enough that increasingly one facet of the distance between the haves and have-nots of the world is “environmental,” related to the use and stewardship of natural resources which must be managed wisely.
I wonder: What would it look like if, more and more, Christians, as an act of faith, were conservationists? What would we say to our children? What would we hear in church?
“In faithfulness he will bring forth justice; he will not falter or be discouraged till he establishes justice on earth” (Isaiah 42:3-4).
As Jesus’ disciples, his ministers of reconciliation, we are involved in a mission of justice to provide equal opportunity to all, opportunity to come into God’s family. We should love our local and global neighborhood enough to promote the kingdom of God and its values worldwide! We do this through the many Christian disciples who carry this expression of love and justice outside the four walls of our churches, into the orders of the common life. George MacLeod expresses this most effectively:
“I simply argue that the cross be raised again at the center of the marketplace as well as on the steeple of the church. I am recovering the claim that Jesus was not crucified in a cathedral between two candles, but on a cross between two thieves; on the town garbage heap, at a crossroads so cosmopolitan that they had to write his name in Hebrew, and in Latin, and in Greek, at the kind of place where cynics talk smut and thieves curse, and soldiers gamble. Because that is where he died. And that is what he died about. And this is where [the church] should be and what [the church] should be about.”
Many evangelical Christians are very reluctant to accept the fact that poverty for the millions is directly linked to injustice, to power struggles that increase the gap between the haves and the nave-nots.
- - - - - - - -
Too, it seems clear enough that increasingly one facet of the distance between the haves and have-nots of the world is “environmental,” related to the use and stewardship of natural resources which must be managed wisely.
I wonder: What would it look like if, more and more, Christians, as an act of faith, were conservationists? What would we say to our children? What would we hear in church?
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
The Best Preaching on Earth
I plan to highlight and ask for your reactions to/readings of a few more texts. But till then, I’m passing along my review of a book that has come to mean a lot to me. What follows is the piece as it appeared in the May 1997 issue of the Christian Chronicle.
Stan L. LeQuire, editor. The Best Preaching on Earth: Sermons on Caring for Creation. Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1996.
According to Psalm 19, the wonders of creation give testimony to the glory of God. But what if we ravage and ruin such wonders? Polluted rivers. Strip-mined mountains. What kind of witness can these provide?
Galatians 5:14 says that the entire law is summed up in the single command, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” But what if my way of living damages and depletes my neighbor’s world? Can I honestly say that I’m loving him as myself?
Recently, a growing number of people who take the Bible seriously have been making such points in order to show that the environment is no mere social or political issue, but that it is first and foremost a biblical and theological issue. Out of this conviction comes a new book of 22 sermons under the clever title The Best Preaching on Earth. The editor, Stan LeQuire, is director of the Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN) based in Wynnewood, Pa.
The collection is divided into six parts, each dealing with a different element of the book’s basic theme. The sermons in Part One, for example, respond to the question, “Is caring for creation really a biblical agenda?” Part Two contains three sermons that answer a common objection: “Isn’t our primary calling to the fulfill the Great Commission?” At the end, Part Six reveals how some preachers have challenged their congregations to get involved.
The book closes with two appendices. The first provides additional sermon ideas; the second tells about the EEN, its mission and services.
Like any other collection from a variety of sources, this book has it highs and lows. A few of the sermons are severely weakened, if not fatally flawed, by skewed interpretation of the Bible. Some of the preaching seems to ask for little more than a flutter of the heart. By way of contrast, the sermon by John Stott, “The Works of the Lord,” presents a rich, biblical theology of the environment; and Ron Sider’s “Tending the Garden without Worshiping It,” both instructs and inspires us to respect and care for our world.
Concern for the environment is with us to stay. The church can be thankful for this condition. Because this is our Father’s world, environmental issues provide Christians with a broader platform on which to speak of the Creator and his creation, and to teach that caring for the earth is part of fulfilling the two greatest commands. The Best Preaching on Earth gives several good examples of how to go about doing just that.
- - - - - - - -
The Amazon page for this book is here.
Stan L. LeQuire, editor. The Best Preaching on Earth: Sermons on Caring for Creation. Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1996.
According to Psalm 19, the wonders of creation give testimony to the glory of God. But what if we ravage and ruin such wonders? Polluted rivers. Strip-mined mountains. What kind of witness can these provide?
Galatians 5:14 says that the entire law is summed up in the single command, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” But what if my way of living damages and depletes my neighbor’s world? Can I honestly say that I’m loving him as myself?
Recently, a growing number of people who take the Bible seriously have been making such points in order to show that the environment is no mere social or political issue, but that it is first and foremost a biblical and theological issue. Out of this conviction comes a new book of 22 sermons under the clever title The Best Preaching on Earth. The editor, Stan LeQuire, is director of the Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN) based in Wynnewood, Pa.
The collection is divided into six parts, each dealing with a different element of the book’s basic theme. The sermons in Part One, for example, respond to the question, “Is caring for creation really a biblical agenda?” Part Two contains three sermons that answer a common objection: “Isn’t our primary calling to the fulfill the Great Commission?” At the end, Part Six reveals how some preachers have challenged their congregations to get involved.
The book closes with two appendices. The first provides additional sermon ideas; the second tells about the EEN, its mission and services.
Like any other collection from a variety of sources, this book has it highs and lows. A few of the sermons are severely weakened, if not fatally flawed, by skewed interpretation of the Bible. Some of the preaching seems to ask for little more than a flutter of the heart. By way of contrast, the sermon by John Stott, “The Works of the Lord,” presents a rich, biblical theology of the environment; and Ron Sider’s “Tending the Garden without Worshiping It,” both instructs and inspires us to respect and care for our world.
Concern for the environment is with us to stay. The church can be thankful for this condition. Because this is our Father’s world, environmental issues provide Christians with a broader platform on which to speak of the Creator and his creation, and to teach that caring for the earth is part of fulfilling the two greatest commands. The Best Preaching on Earth gives several good examples of how to go about doing just that.
- - - - - - - -
The Amazon page for this book is here.
Monday, October 16, 2006
So Very Good
“God saw that the light was good” (Genesis 1:4).
As children many of us learned that from this point forward God frequently reflects on what he has created and declares it “good” (Genesis 1:10, 12, 18, 21, 25), and at the end “very good” (v. 31).
To you, what part of creation is so beautiful, so exquisite, so delicious, so magnificent, etc. . . . . that it unmistakably tells you about the goodness of God?
By the way, if you haven’t read Genesis 1:1-2:3 in a while, read it again. Slowly, drink it in.
As children many of us learned that from this point forward God frequently reflects on what he has created and declares it “good” (Genesis 1:10, 12, 18, 21, 25), and at the end “very good” (v. 31).
To you, what part of creation is so beautiful, so exquisite, so delicious, so magnificent, etc. . . . . that it unmistakably tells you about the goodness of God?
By the way, if you haven’t read Genesis 1:1-2:3 in a while, read it again. Slowly, drink it in.
Friday, October 13, 2006
On Preaching the God of Creation
Several years ago, while still one of those Sunday in, Sunday out preachers, I decided that each year I would completely dedicate at least one of my morning sermons to the biblical doctrine of Creation.This was a bit of a surprise to me. For one thing, I’m not the outdoorsy type. I think that’s mainly because I’m way too wimpy, and never saw the connection between sleeping on the ground and fun.
Then there’s the fact that I grew up in Southwest Oklahoma. And with all of its wind and drought and hail, that place had never taught me much about growing things. My dad, who spent his wonder years on his grandparents’ farm in Iowa, had a hard time adapting to that part of our lives in Altus, a place that I love by the way.
So how had I come to my decision? I think it was mainly from my growing :-) appreciation that, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” And then, he shaped them and filled them with all sorts of delightful creatures and beautiful plants . . . I woke up to that. Of course, it probably helped that at the time I was living in Connecticut. What a beautiful place.
However it happened, something just clicked and all of a sudden, I “got” songs like Psalm 104 and “This is My Father’s World” and “Day is Dying in the West.” Ever since, one of my favorite things to pray has been the second verse from "Father of Mercies":
Father of mercies, God of love,
Whose gentle gifts all creatures share,
The rolling seasons as they move
Proclaim to all Thy constant care,
Proclaim to all Thy constant care.
At the time I had my "conversion" I was also studying passages like Romans 8:18-25, where Paul goes out of his way to insist that the scope of God’s redemptive plan is cosmic, that all dogs do go to heaven as it were.
Then, and on top of all that, I was getting tired of my congregation hearing about our Father’s world from no one besides Rush Limbaugh and his rants on environmental issues. How much of that could they take and still think Christianly about flowers and grass and trees?
So I decided to do what I could; to say out loud what I had heard in a whisper.
Next time or two, I’ll talk about some passages and maybe mention a book that helped me along the way. But before then, I want to take a long walk.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
From the "Life of Paul" Class
Among the many Roman gods and goddesses was Diana. The twin sister of Apollo, Diana was thought to care for the countryside and for wild animals. She also presided over childbirth.Among the Greeks, Diana took on some of the characteristics of the goddess Cybele. She also went by a different name, Artemis.
In New Testament times, Artemis was worshipped in places like Ephesus where the massive temple dedicated to her was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world.
According to Acts 19, when Christianity began to grow and radiate from Ephesus, the silversmiths and artisans of the city were disturbed. According to their spokesman, Demetrius, their concerns were based on two facts.
First, their income depended on the ability to sell statues devoted to the worship of Artemis. Second, there in Ephesus the Apostle Paul was convincing people that "man-made gods are no gods at all" (Acts 19:26). Christianity was eliminating jobs!
No doubt, the take-home trinkets sold by the artisans looked much like the large-scale statue of Artemis shown here. This example is housed in the Ephesus Museum in modern-day Turkey.
Of course, everyone wants to know: Are those eggs or breasts? I don't think anyone knows for certain. Most often, they're called breasts. However, if so, they are . . . how to say . . . anatomically incorrect.
Either way, they're even more provocative than tatoos and piercings, which makes you wonder if there's something written across the back side of her shorts: "Artemis Rules!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
