Preaching: Truth in Human Personality
Contributed by Paul Szobody
Nothing is so precious, yet so rare, as effective preaching. By "effective" I mean a ministry of God's Word that does what it says. Also known among evangelicals as "anointed" preaching, it comes with an unexpected divine presence, a holy hush, an inward work in hearers that truly changes them. By it sinners repent. Saints are sanctified. Light shines from heaven into the darkness of terrestrial life and the dust of death is blown away. Weak are strengthened, depressed encouraged, the sorrowful find comfort, the intelligence enlightened, the hard heart made sweetly pliable, and the disinterested and complacent shocked by a direct encounter with the living Son of God. Under the influence of its voice, the prodigal comes home and the faithful are sent out equipped for mission. The church's life, health, and mission depend on it. Her dogma is a footnote to it (an idea attributed to K. Barth). If a history of humanity be written from God's perspective, it just might be a history of preaching and its effects.
I believe therefore that there is no more precious and worthy calling than to preach and teach God's holy Word. There is no formation, no continual education, higher and more worthy of the best labor than that of a preacher. "You know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God" Jesus said to the religious leaders. They failed their ministry and God's people who depended on it. The remedy was simple: a right relationship to, and understanding of God’s word, and the quality of spiritual life whose work is accompanied by God's own effectual presence.
Yet due to the four-fold complex dynamics of text-God-speaker-audience, it may well be that preaching is likewise the most difficult vocation in this world, if it be fulfilled in an efficacious manner. In it all the intellectual, spiritual, personal, and socio-cultural knowledge, experience, and skills come into inter-relational play; and these components of ministerial life need to be worked out with much wisdom and great spiritual and human sensitivity, if the work is to be worthy of its calling. In the final analysis, if God takes it all up into his own work, it will minister life. If not, nothing of value will result. It is all of God, but it is worth our all.
For the above reasons it is both tragic and saddening to observe preachers, confident in themselves, in their intelligence, training and skills, whose preaching is not biblical, or evangelical, or effective. To use the French Jansenist Saint-Cyran's phrase, it "lacks unction." The world and the church move on as if all is good and normal. But severe famine has set in, a famine of the hearing of God's word (to borrow the words of the prophet). And most don't know it. The church has no idea what she's missing, how banal and malnourished is her life. Her bane is mere perfunctory religion: on time, well planned, perhaps esthetically pleasing, but with undiscerned empty cupboards. There's no bread on the table. John Stott pointed out the serious culpability of preachers who waste people's time with ineffective sermons. Unless one has witnessed and tasted preaching as a divine voice in the wilderness, as living bread from heaven, ignorance and self-satisfaction set in: we don’t know our own abject poverty. For this reason it's important that the preacher study and note continually what constitutes effective preaching
The Idolatry of Doing Good
On what basis is a good deed good? We might say that whatever has the effect of benefiting our neighbor is a good deed. But what if that deed was done out of selfish motive? Generally we do not call such deeds good, but rather self-aggrandizing.
What about the deed done out of guilt? If we act out of a sense of self flagellation, or a desire to atone for our wrong, then have we not put ourselves in the place of the only One who has the power to atone? Indeed, guilt itself was atoned for on the cross. Guilt offerings and sin offerings were done away with because Christ himself is the guilt offering.
Why then do we still find ourselves acting out of guilt? We act out of guilt when our condition becomes the motivation for our actions. We are guilty of all sorts of wrong, so when our condition becomes motivation, good cannot but be done out of guilt. But that is what we are freed from by the cross of Jesus. He died in order that we might now live in relation to him, and not according to our human condition.
Therefore, when we do good for someone out of guilt, we are idolaters. We are turning from a life that is lived according to Jesus and his relationship with us, and turning to a life that is lived according to our human condition.
Now the human condition is such that if we are thorough in the examination of our motives we might likely find that nearly all that we do has a self-referential motive. This might by some short-sighted line of thinking cause us to hesitate to do the good that we might if it is so motivated by guilt. But is not that consideration itself one that is self-absorbed? To the one who hesitates to do good because he is afraid of doing it for the wrong motive, Luther writes "sin boldly". Because fear is also something from which we are set free.
If we are to answer the first question "On what basis is a good deed good?" then we must answer that a good deed is good when it is a forgiven deed, and so does the will of God.
Sin is a fact and it taints our motives; fear of that sin is yet another sin! What is the solution for such a comical self-defeat? We know that sin is forgiven, so its fact cannot produce fear any longer. While some may do good because of guilt for past wrongs, Christians do good because they are forgiven of all wrongs. Any other reason is idolatry.
The Apostolic Ministry
What is the apostolic ministry. Traditionally speaking it is the ministry passed down from the apostles. Some say that this ministry is by a succession of ordination, each succeeding bishop ordaining their successors from the apostles down to the present. Others argue that the apostolic ministry is determined by faithfulness to the teaching of the apostles in the New Testament.
An apostle is one who is "sent" (in Greek "apostello" means "to send"). In the New Testament there is not an adjective "apostolic"(apostolikos), but in the English Standard Version translation of the Bible there is one verse where the translators used the word "apostolic". It is in Galatians 2:8. In this verse the apostle Paul is comparing his ministry among the Gentiles to that of Peter among the Jews. He is speaking about how God worked through both ministries. He refers to these ministries as "apostleships" (apostolh), but the ESV translates that word as "apostolic ministry". This sheds light on how we use the word "apostolic"
An Acquired Taste
Some tastes are "acquired tastes" as they say. Then there are some flavors that are so universally acclaimed as exquisite, like truffles, or single malt scotch, and yet, nonetheless are not appreciated by many. Some cannot stomach the taste of some foods which are said by many to be the apex of gustative delights
Bread of Life
As the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having hope of the resurrection to eternity.
--St. Irenaeus of Lyons
(AD 120-202)
Where a Vain Youth Presumes to Say Something About Marriage
In marriage, the reality will always exceed our expectations of what a person should be to oneself if we keep our eyes on the cross of Jesus. Expectations always limit. Before there is any expectation the possibilities are endless. But as soon as we define a certain desire in our heart concerning another person, we have placed a limit.
The shortcomings and sin of another person is frustrating, saddening, even angering. But God has so willed that those who are in Christ Jesus have put on redemption. That is, sin is paid for and it was paid for by death. So those who put on Christ, now experience all suffering and sin as part of the cross of Christ, where all sin and death was experienced, consumed, and overcome by his resurrection.
So then, when God places another person in my life, he does so for my good. I accept that person as a divine appointment to my very soul, a true soul-mate. When I have any sort of relationship with another person, then I recognize that God is sharpening me and working toward my holiness through that person. But when God puts a person in my life for marriage, then he is saying that this particular person is meant to be part of me, along with that person's sins and pains. If I do not have Christ, then my perspective is to bear along with the sin, and hope to survive, perhaps "become stronger" through it. But in Christ, when his name has been placed on us, I know that whatever sin and trial this relationship brings, it was already born on the cross. So now when I experience anything, be it joyful, sad, frustrating, exhilarating, or angering, they are ways in which I come to know Christ himself
Acts 22:16
When approaching this passage from Acts, there are two questions that we need to ask by way of understanding the grammatical structure: 1, what is the central idea of the verse, and 2, what is implied about this central idea?
For context, we will note that Saul has just been struck blind by God, heard Jesus' voice, and been sent a Christian man named Ananias to explain why this has happened to him. Previous to being struck blind Saul was a hater and persecutor of Christians, now he is completely incapacitated.
In the first place we may note that the structure of the verse is chiastic. It is arranged as follows:
The verbs are put in bold to underscore the chiastic form: participle, imperative, imperative, participle.
The purpose of a chiasm in ancient thought is to place the main idea or point to be made at the center of the construction. In Western thought we often emphasize a point by placing it at the beginning of an argument (deductive method) or at the end of the argument as the natural conclusion of the stated arguments (inductive method). The ancient world employed these methods as well, however they had a third method of ordering thought and this was the chiasm. In this method central ideas are place almost geometrically in the center of the argument, making them the "center of gravity" if you will. The chiasm then naturally draws attention to this central point.
This Acts 22:16 Ananias' instruction to Saul is stated chiastically, so our attention should be drawn to the center of the structure. The center of this chiasm is the compound imperative:
Our attention is now drawn to the conjunction και. This construction is fairly common in scripture; two imperatives are linked by και form a single idea. This is in contrast to English grammar where the conjunction "and" could be substituted with a comma. The και is taking two ideas and making them into one. This is seen elsewhere in scripture. In John 1:46 Nathanael asks Philip "can anything good come from Nazareth?" Philip replies "Come and see." In Greek these are two imperatives linked by a kai to form a single idea of coming "for the purpose of seeing."
There are a wealth of examples in the NT of an imperative being linked to a future indicative by και. Grammarian Daniel Wallace makes the case that these constructions all carry the implication of a conditional statement (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 1996, p.490). One example would be Matthew 7:7 where Jesus says aiteite kai doyhsetai umin ("ask and it will be given to you"). The implication is that "if you ask then you will receive." Wallace points out that this holds true with imperative + και + future indicative, but not necessarily imperative + και + imperative constructions. This means that we should not necessarily translate the imperatives in Acts 22:16 as "if you are baptized then you will wash away your sins." Although the possibility remains open for the Greek to be used in this way, it cannot be argued with certainty.
The purpose of the above paragraph is to point to the fact that in Greek και is not used simply as a comma that builds one idea upon another in a linear fashion. If we make the mistake of associating the use of και with our use of "and" then we may think that the commands of Acts 22:16 is a composition of two ideas, each with their proper imperative accompanied by a participle, translated something like the following:
"Having arisen, be baptized, and (or *pause*) calling on God's name, wash away your sins."
But this rendition of the text fails to appreciate two things that we have demonstrated above:
- The chiastic structure indicates that the participles are both ancillary to, and explanatory of, the central compound command by virtue of their placement at the beginning and end of the structure.
- The two imperatives are indeed a compound idea, as reinforced by the και conjunction between them following NT Greek precedent, and also by the synonymous definition of the two verbs (baptizw means "to wash").
Therefore a 'conceptual' translation of this text is as follows:
"What now remains for you? Having gotten up, and while calling on His name, Be baptized/wash away your sins."
(It may also be noted that the form απολουσαι could be an aorist infinitive, in which case the translation of the command would be: "Having gotten up, be baptized even to wash away your sins, calling on his name." But we will not press the point.)
This understanding of baptism being linked to the washing of sins is theologically consistent with the context and flow of the narrative. It is demonstrated that Saul is incapable of pleasing God as he is bound and determined to persecute God's Son Jesus. He must be knocked off his horse, struck blind, led to wherever he must god, be told by Ananias what happened and why, be told what lies before him for the rest of his life, he must be healed, be washed and be made into what God wants him to be. It is therefore consistent that the washing of his sins does not follow is own calling upon God's name, but of the washing which God himself does through the hand of Ananias as he invokes the Trinitarian formula in baptism. The 'getting up' and the 'calling on God's name' (stated in the participles) are the two actions which Saul himself does, and so they are appropriately place on the chiastic periphery of the central command which is actually a command to submit to God's own washing in baptism. Lest Saul get the impression that his righteousness comes from his own efforts and ability to call upon God, God has humbled him to the utmost and unilaterally delivered to him the gift of salvation in baptism
Jettisoning Modernity
"The Church does not exist for me; my salvation is not primarily a matter of intellectual mastery of emotional satisfaction. The church is the site where God renews and transforms us--a place where the practices of being the body of Christ form us into the image of the Son. What I, a sinner saved by grace, need is not so much answers as reformation of my will and hear. What I describe as the practices of the church include the traditional sacramental practices of baptism and Eucharist but also the practices of Christian marriage and child-rearing, even the simple but radical practices of friendship and being called to get along with those one doesn't like! The church, for instance, is a place to learn patience by practice. The fruit of the Spirit emerges in our lives from the seeds planted by the practices of begin the church; and when the church begins to exhibit the fruit of the Spirit, it becomes the witness to a postmodern world(John 17). Nothing is more countercultural than a community serving the Suffering Servant in a world devoted to consumption and violence. but the church will have this countercultural, prophetic witness only when it jettisons its own modernity; in that respect postmodernism can be another catalyst for the church to be the church."
-- James K.A. Smith
Who's Afraid of Postmodernity?
The Pure in Heart
Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God
"How does one obtain a pure heart?
"By believing in Jesus Christ and so that your sins may be washed away by his blood.
"Why is it that such people will see God?"
"Because Jesus is the one who brings us to God."
"What does it mean to 'see God'?"
"There are two promises in this statement, which are actually one promise with two fulfillments. The first promise is that those who are pure in heart, that is, those who have been washed with Jesus' blood, will be with him forever. This is God's plan for the fullness of time, to present everyone blameless before God to dwell with him forever.
The second promise is really the same one, but is fulfilled even right now. There is so much evil in the world, and our own minds are so shaped by the sinful desires of the flesh, that we are prone to regard everything with selfishness. But when we belong to Jesus we know that everything belongs to him, and so everything belongs to us through him. So we learn how everything is to be used by looking at how Jesus uses it and how he teaches us to us it."
"So what does that have to do with seeing God?"
"Well we have physical eyes, and God is spirit. So we see God by getting spiritual eyes. That's what it means to be pure in heart. To see the things of this world with spiritual eyes. When we do that we see God and enjoy him in his creation."
"For example?"
"Well, take anything that people are bound to abuse. That thing is intended for a good purpose, but it is missused. The easiest way for a person to become impure is to think selfishly. One of the easiest sins to commit is sexual sin. People think that chastity is a hard rule. But in fact sexuality is one of the greatest gifts from God for our enjoyment. But like everything, it has to be in is rightful place to be good and useful and thoroughly beautiful. God explains in scripture that the image of marriage and sexuality are a picture of god's love for his church, giving himself to her that she might produce the fruit of life in this world. So sexuality is an awesome gift to marriage as a way for people to see God through their own bodies, to see him as a God of love and pleasureable communion. So in this way if someone is pure in heart, then they have spiritual eyes to see God in sex. But impure eyes would see it as a means only for physical pleasure; this would be selfish eyes that are of the flesh and they would not see God."
"So really the promise 'blessed are the pure in heart for they will see God' is a promise both for this life and the next!"
"Yes, and this applies to every area of life. If we find that there is a law that is burdensome to us, or a rule or moral that we would prefer not to have, then we are not seeing with spiritual eyes. But if we are pure in heart, we see that all of life is a way to see God through our relationship to Jesus Christ and his creation. This is what it means to say that the law is fulfilled in Christ, or that Jesus has "done it all". This doesn't mean we stop doing good, on the contrary! It means we get his heart, his pure heart, to love seeing God in everything we do."
Thoughts on Cloning
Cloning is a complicated ethical issue because it involves the possibility of huge advances in medical illness treatment, while raising many questions about the personhood of an embryo-questions which are very familiar to an America steeped in the abortion debate.
Some would argue that it is unnatural for scientists to "play God" and create a human embryo in a laboratory by means other than the unification of a sperm and an egg. I am unconvinced by this argument. Although I understand that it seems somewhat unnatural, as a Christian I understand that God is sovereign over all the occurrences on earth. That humans discover how to mimic what God performs in nature already (i.e., identical twins) does not mean that we are playing God any more than if we put a person on life support while they are in surgery. As Boss points out, "good" and "natural" are not necessarily synonymous. It is often quite good to interfere with the workings of nature to preserve and improve life. On this basis I find that cloning holds many promising medical benefits as it pertains to cloning animals for agricultural and human applications.
However, I am more hesitant when it comes to cloning humans. Research has shown how hazardous it can be to attempt bringing a clone to full term and enabling it to survive after birth. The deformities and illnesses that ensue from most clones is frightening enough in animals. Any attempt to clone humans seems to be out of the question. We certainly do not want to create life knowing full well that it probably wouldn't survive more than a few days after birth. Neither do we want to do so knowing that it may live a miserable existence if it does survive. There are many children in the world who need good adoptive parents, people are complaining of overpopulation; it seems ludicrous to think that there is any need to clone a human being who likely will not survive.
But I am even more inhibited. As a Christian I value human life as sacred. At this point of my thought life I have not come to a firm conclusion whether I believe that an egg cell in a petri dish that has divided a few times can be considered a human being. But I respect human life such that I am not willing to say that it is not. "Where does life begin?" the philosopher asks. "In the garden of Eden", is my answer. Since humanity came into existence all of human life is sacred. Whether an embryo is in the womb or in a laboratory, it is part of the continuum of human life that God has chosen to use to reveal himself to the world. Jesus was once an embryo. This thought in itself is reason to pause.
Because of these considerations I am also opposed to human cloning as long as it involves the creation and subsequent destruction of human embryos. I am not concerned with whether or not these embryos are living souls. Such is a mystery that is too deep for me. I am concerned with regarding the potential human life as sacred as it too may have a part in God's plan for the fullness of time.
To the secularist I would say that if there is no respect for human life in its earliest and most delicate stages, then there is no respect for human life at any point. Just because we can, and science encourages it, does not mean that it is worthy of the dignity of humanity.
I struggle with the argument that cloning is a human right, falling in the jurisdiction of autonomy and reproductive rights. This schema understands that the making and bearing children is a right of the individual to serve herself. I understand the creation of life to be the fruit of love. Hate begets hate and love begets love. When two people love each other they produce a child whom they will love sacrificial for their entire lives. God provides in the schema of love-making, a way to continue loving. This is diametrically opposed to the understanding of reproduction in terms of rights. To have a child is to give of one's self, it is not a personal therapeutic choice but a sacrificial one.