Bloodshed

I just attended a wonderful mini-conference on the topic of "The Sufficiency of Christ", particularly as He fills His three-fold office of Prophet, Priest and King. In the session on "Jesus Christ: Our Majestic Mediator" the speaker observed that the concept of blood sacrifice doesn't play well in our contemporary culture. The irony of that statement struck me especially in light of current events:

• Zealots blow up a kerosene tanker in Iraq killing 37 and wounding 40
• Man repeatedly stabs wife and 2-year-old while motorists watch
• Woman's body found, fetus missing and cut from her womb perhaps with scissors
• Man shoots woman to death in domestic violence shelter

Which set me to pondering the question: Why is it so easy for mankind to shed the blood of another and so hard to accept the blood of another shed for them? By the way, the "headlines" above don't even touch the idea of the 40-plus million babies in the USA and 300-plus million babies in China and the elderly and terminally-ill aborted, euthanized, or assisted suicided on the altar of self.

Just goes to show the absolute depths of depravity found in the soul of every man, woman and child. And that all confirms mankind's utter helplessness to save himself in spite of his thoughts to the contrary. Thank God He didn't leave us to ourselves, or almost as bad, leave the decision up to us.

By His grace,
Sundoulos

Contextualization

The whole idea of contextualization of Scripture and the Gospel message has been around for a while now. It goes by that name as well as others but the basic principle is that in order to communicate a message we must put it into a context that the listener will understand. That can mean a linguistic context or the context of a particular medium or context as in location and method.

Now, I understand that in order for effective communication to occur, there must be a common understanding on both sides of the conversation. The terms that are used to carry ideas from speaker to listener must mean the same thing to both individuals if the message is to be transmitted reliably and accurately. However, we must recognize and acknowledge that we don't understand words instinctively; the first time we encounter a word, it must be explained and defined for us in terms we can grasp. As a teacher, I understand that principle well; if explanation were not necessary, I wouldn't have the job I do.

But there's a world of difference between explaining the message and changing the message; it sure seems that contextualizing changes the message. A couple scenarios for example: Bread to Jesus' contemporaries was an essential staple food; fish is an essential staple to the Inuit. Since the Inuit can't grow grain and have little concept of bread as a staple, we must change Jesus' words to be "I am the fish of life" so that it will have the same meaning to the Inuit as it did to first-century Jews. Since inhabitants of Polynesia never see snow and have no concept or experience of what it is like, we must change God's word through Isaiah to read "they shall be white as lily of the valley", although we can leave that word alone for the Inuit.

I see two significant problems with this method either of Scripture translation or Gospel presentation. The first problem is obvious: when we change "bread" to "fish" or "snow" to "lily of the valley", the linguistic link between original and translation is broken. The translator has selected one facet of meaning of the original word and transferred that narrow meaning to the receptor word. Although communication with one particular language group might be enhanced by that act, at the same time a wall has just been erected with other language groups because that one-to-one correspondence has been lost. I know, idioms and various figures of speech cannot be completely translated; but I think the above described method goes far beyond dealing with inherent limitations in language.

To do this in translating Scripture, at least to some degree, not only changes the Word of God, it alters the words of God. It also conveys the idea that God's Word as He spoke it is unable to communicate conceptually to every language group without alteration by translators; that, my friend, is a dangerous position to hold. But, you say, if they don't understand the concepts then what value is the Bible to them? Which brings me to the second problem.

To maintain that the only way an individual can understand God's Word is if it is translated into a context they understand is very condescending; it implies that the individual is either unteachable or drastically limited in his or her ability to learn. To maintain that we must present the Gospel message in context in order to preserve the receptor culture is to overlook or minimize the purpose of the Gospel message.

The design intent behind the Gospel is that it will change the culture; if it doesn't, then it is a false gospel. The Gospel changes people and since it changes people they will change the culture in which they live. The idea that we must preserve all cultures at all costs is certainly not found in Scripture; in fact, what we see there is quite to the contrary. A study of history clearly demonstrates that the faithful preaching of the Gospel from the Word of God civilizes barbarians and changes cultures.

Perhaps the clearest example of what needs to be done in these circumstances - unreached peoples or postmodern culture - is provided for us in Nehemiah 8 by Ezra, the scribe. Ezra stood before the people with the Word of God in a language they no longer used or understood well. The Bible was in Hebrew but the people had become assimilated into the Persian culture and adopted its language. The scenario painted for us in Nehemiah 8 is that of Ezra reading from God's Word in Hebrew and then, along with Levite helpers, giving the sense and helping the people to understand the reading. Ezra didn't change the message; he faithfully read it from God's Word; then he and his helpers taught the people what it said and what it meant.

To the Scripture and the message is to wantonly disregard an ideal teaching opportunity; sure, the explanation must be in the context, but the message must remain as faithful to the very Word of God.

By His grace,
Sundoulos

Has the Church Lost Her Keys?

You don't have to travel far to find one church or even several who are afflicted with sudden deafness when the subject of church discipline comes up. That's true whether it is their practice of discipline or upholding another church's actions in that regard that are under discussion. Yet when Peter proclaimed that Jesus was in fact the Messiah, a significant part of Jesus' response to Peter was His declaration that He would give keys to the church for the purpose of binding and loosing, of opening and shutting.

Historically the orthodox understanding has been that the keys were two, preaching the Word and church discipline. The use of these keys were also viewed as marks of a true church. Yet it seems that the exercise of church discipline is nearly non-existent in our postmodern culture. At first glance, preaching seems to be doing all right, but a closer examination reveals serious weaknesses there as well. Authoritative preaching is taking a back seat to "sharing" and God forbid we share anything that would make the audience uncomfortable.

But where preaching continues to be practiced, I'm not sure it is exercised in its fullness, that is, in such a way as to open and shut the kingdom. Preaching of the Word that is faithful to the Word should open the door to those who are truly seeking after God and His righteousness while at the same time barring entrance to any who would try to enter the Kingdom by other ways than through Christ, the Only Way. See here for elaboration on the nature of the keys and their use.

If the church is to be the place of sanctuary for saints and seekers God intended for her to be, she must recover the doctrine of the "keys of the kingdom" and their use. She must then through the faithful ministry of her leaders begin again to use those keys in the way the Master of the house has ordained. To do so is to experience His blessing and approval. To fail in the proper use of the keys is to risk His displeasure and the resulting dire consequences.

Pray the Master of the house that He will stir us up to faithfulness as good and pleasing stewards during His "absence", that the church will find her keys and begin to use them responsibly.

By His grace,
Sundoulos

Preaching and Visual Aids

Earlier this week Albert Mohler penned an insightful entry in his blog addressing "The State of Preaching Today". In addition to what he addresses there, I would make the following observation: Much of today's preaching lacks authority.

Some years ago my senior pastor gave this definition: "Preaching is the authoritative verbal public proclamation of the Word of God by an ordained man of God." Each word was carefully chosen and is essential to the full definition of what it means to stand before the gathered church and preach. While we may debate on some of the finer points such as what it means to be ordained, to remove any of the concepts from the definition is perilous.

I recently heard a sermon preached and afterward was asked to critique it. The text was appropriate, the thoughts expressed followed logically and naturally from the text, relevant application was made, but... it lacked authority. It came across more as a semi-formal talk and, while not stated as opinion, contained few if any hints even of "thus saith the Lord". This is not to criticize the delivery or demeanor of the pastor who gave the sermon; there was an essence missing in the content itself, that aroma of Christ and His truth being declared publicly and unashamedly.

Then it came to me, the other thing that was also missing. The Bible. Yes, it was there, but it wasn't there. The pastor had no Bible with him that I could observe; it certainly was not open before him on the pulpit. True enough, he read his text twice, once early on in the service and then at the beginning of his sermon. But he read it from his notes, not the Bible. You might wonder, isn't that enough? Isn't it sufficient to read God's Word aloud to the gathered church even if it isn't read from His Word? I think not, and for several reasons.

First, we have the example of Jesus Himself. In the description of what was very likely Jesus' first public sermon recorded in Luke 4, we are told that in the synagogue Jesus was handed a book of the Bible. He then carefully searched out His text, read it aloud, closed the book (scroll) and handed it back to the attendant. I am firmly convinced that Jesus had committed to memory the text of that prophecy which was fulfilled in their hearing that day. While He more than likely could have quoted it from memory, He chose instead to read from the scroll. If the Son of God Himself thought it proper to use a visual aid in His sermon, can we His humble servants do any less?

Which brings up the second reason. We humans are at least to some degree visual learners; there is much information we collect visually even in conversation with others. Think about how important "body language" is in communication. The power of the visual is clearly recognized by those who promote multimedia presentations for use in corporate worship. Jesus used an extremely powerful visual aid for the benefit of His hearers, showing by both word and act that what He was saying came from God's Word.

It is at this point that the issue of authority in preaching begins to take form. If the preacher is speaking only his own words flowing from his own thoughts and opinions, there is a definite limit to how much authority he can command over his audience. But if he is proclaiming the Word of God from the Word of God, then there is a much different authority present - that of the Author of those words, God Himself. The physical visible presence of God's Word before the people is a valuable and, I believe, an essential reminder of the true source of authority in preaching. True preaching is authoritative because the message that is faithful to the Word of God is accompanied by the authority of God and it is impossible for that essence not to be apparent.

Just as important is the third reason: the preacher stands in just as much need of the visual aid as anyone else in the church. It may seem like a small thing, to succumb to the convenience of including the Biblical text in the preacher's notes and forgo the hassle of carrying a Bible into the pulpit. But it is one less reminder that God's Word is central and essential to effective and authoritative preaching. It is also a huge step in the direction of no Biblical text at all or only brief and incidental references to such. Further, the open Bible there on the pulpit is an essential reminder that what is proclaimed must be faithful to God's Word, that the preacher is the servant of God and not man or self.

I know, it may all seem so trivial. But whether the minister reads the text from the Bible, closes it and puts it away under the pulpit and proceeds to read the sermon from her notes or if he reads his text from his notes, the result is that God's Word has visually been pushed into the background. Human nature being what it is, and the fact that things lead to things, it is only a matter of time until God's Word is completely out of the picture.

If the church is to regain her vitality and become once again a force shaping the culture, it will be the result of authoritative preaching that is faithful in every respect to the Word of God.

By His grace,
Sundoulos