E-Book on Preaching

Here is a useful addition to your reading. The author, one of the professors at the Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary says he wrote it for the following groups of people:
Student pastors (as a course overview);
Elders of the Church (as a help in sermon preparation);
seasoned preachers (as a sort of "refresher") and
those in the pew (as insight into a pastor's study practice).

The idea for the book came from a TV series about how to make things and is about how sermons are made. Check it out - it has quite a bit of useful information and is a real help in letting a congregation know about what it takes for their minister to prepare a sermon (or two) each week.

If you are going to read this, I would recommend the download - as a .pdf file it's much easier to keep the whole in focus and to skim back and forth. I found the refresher quite encouraging - nice to know you have been doing what others recommend :)

The Sower - Part III: Implications

There are some implications of this parable we need to be clear about. We also need to make corrections to some common misconceptions. We can deal with both together.

1. Preaching is only 25% effective There are some who believe, quite sincerely, that we should only expect abut a 25% success rate on preaching. So, since that is the case, they feel justified in trying many other forms of spreading the Gospel, like drama, dance and concerts. This is a little like the joke about crows on a fence. "There are ten crows on a fence. One gets shot, how many are left?" Answer: "None. If you said nine, you know maths but you don't know anything about crows." If you think the sower threw 25% of the seed on each of the type of soil then your maths is good, but you don't know much about sowing.

A sower spreads most of the seed on the prepared soil. So, since this is a picture of the results of preaching it is fair to assume that preaching will have a greater success rate than 25% and that's before we find out that the Bible says: "God has chosen the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."

2. The Gospel is the sole message There are some who believe that "redemptive-historical" preaching is what the Church needs today. For some this means every sermon must, in some way or another be related back to Christ. The sower sows the majority of his seed on good soil. That means the rocks have to be removed, the ground turned over, the field watered, the crop protected from pests. Though these things are not mentioned directly in the text, the point of the sower's activity is to bring in the harvest. And we are told that some of the seed did germinate, grow and give a good return for the work done.

Preaching is designed as the means to accomplish all these tasks. It is vital to know what the Bible says about sin - or there will be no turning away from it. We need to know what the Bible says about God's justice - or we will not know the danger of being, as Jonathon Edwards said, "sinners in the hands of an angry God." Then we need the sincere milk of the Gospel in order to grow. We need to understand what are erroneous teachings and how we can properly show our gratitude to God in our daily lives in order to grow in sanctification. The Gospel is a part of all these things but the emphasis has to change according to need. Paul's letters give hints of how those things can be done.

3. Anyone can be a preacher There is truth in this statement. Anyone can be a sower. But to be an effective sower takes training and experience - otherwise a lot more of the seed will be wasted than is necessary.

God can (and sometimes does) choose people from every walk of life to become preachers. And he can, should he wish, give insight to the teaching of the Bible so that no further training is necessary. But God does not ordinarily do this. He gifts the preacher, calls him, prepares him and sends him. But the preparation is usually in terms of experiences which drive him to the Bible. Training in exegesis, Bible languages and so on are things that the young preacher has to learn, usually from older preachers. Paul encouraged such an attitude towards study in those he trained. He told Timothy for example that he should "study to show [himself] approved unto God, a workman who needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

The Bible reminds us that faith comes by hearing, hearing comes by preaching and that no one can preach unless he be sent. Since faith is the one essential for salvation and the world is in grave danger because of rebellion against God, it follows that the greatest need of the hour is for preachers. So therefore, we should be praying to the Lord of the Harvest to send forth workers into the fields. And be ready for him to choose to send us, not just expect that will mean someone else goes.

The Sower - Part II: Responses to Preaching

This parable shows us the four types of response to preaching. There are a couple of things that thinking about it, in the 21st Century requires us to say before we consider this parable.

1. Perspective: The parable is drawn from the perspective of those experiencing the preaching. For that reason we find no overt reference to God's sovereignty or the work of the Holy Spirit in conversion. Instead the whole thing looks as if our conversion is purely our work. We choose. We persevere by resisting temptation and so on. Human decisions have consequences and this is one of the passages we might agree that imply that reality. We note, however, that this is an implication, not the clear teaching of the parable.

2. The Devil: It is fashionable today to imagine the devil is a personification of evil, that he is not a real creature. This parable speaks of him as a real person; one who must be considered as such. He acts in this world, even though his power is limited by God. Again, this second element is not in view from the perspective of the parable.

The Parable
When the sower (the preacher) goes out to spread the Word of God there are four possible responses. Three represent the faulty responses, the last represents the expected one. They are: The effect of the birds, of the rocky soil, the weedy soil and the well-prepared soil.

1. The Birds of the Air We are told that the devil snatches the seed up before it has an opportunity to germinate. The preacher speaks to them, and they hear the words but they are unwilling to heed them. Like the Scribes and the Pharisees they have their own viewpoint on life and they are not prepared to even consider changing. If there was any likelihood of that happening the Devil makes sure they have answers for everything that might trouble their consciences and cause them to change. In our day and age these are those of whatever background for whom there is no impression made by evangelism or preaching, they know what they believe and the only result of the message given is to condemn them. They heard the Gospel and rejected it completely.

2. The Rocky Soil These are those who respond to the "altar call" or hear what is said in the preaching and respond enthusiastically. They even appear to be more Christian in their responses than those who are really born again. These are harder for people in the Church to deal with. They appear in all things to be genuine Christians. They talk the talk and appear to walk the walk. And, during times where there is no persecution, they may even continue for some time with the Church. It is the trials of the Christian life, however, that show the difference. Because they are not really rooted and grounded in Christ, they fall away.

3. The Weedy Soil These are less obvious in their profession of Christianity in the beginning. Like the seed which falls in the good soil their conversion is less flashy, it appears as genuine as the real thing. And like the seed on the rocky soil they appear genuine. The cares and worries of this world, however, eventually cause them to become offended at the Gospel and they leave. The thing that is upsetting to the Church about both of these responses is that they appear absolutely genuine in so many ways. Sometimes God will even use them to point out failings in our views of Christianity yet, in times of persecution one group will leave and the enticements of the world lead the others astray. Of both groups, however, we are warned: "They went out from us that it might be made manifest," says the Apostle John, "that they were not all of us."

4. The Good Soil These are those whose genuineness is marked by two things. They persevere to the end and they bring forth fruit. Now, while it is tempting to imagine that the fruit here is bringing others to Christ - and that, indeed, may be a result of their lives - what the parable has in view is the fruit of the spirit; Love, joy and peace and so on. It seems hard for those who are responsible to preach to be faced with the almost impossibility of detecting the genuine from the false conversions.

But we need to remember that it is the Lord who tries the heart. He it is who knows who are his and, without the spiritual gift given to the Apostles - who were able to see the heart of some of the new additions to the Church, we have to accept that there will always be some in the Church who are not true believers. This is designed so that we will not be discouraged should some depart from the truth, no matter how genuine their conversion appeared or how much progress they appeared to make in holiness.

Knowing, as we do, the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer we can be encouraged in our fight against temptation and persecution. We may not be able to stand against those arrayed against us, but (as the Apostle Paul reminds us) "Greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world."

The Sower - Part I: Why Speak in Parables?

The Disciples asked Jesus this question. He said: "To you is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven but to them it has not been granted ... I speak to them in parables because while seeing they do not see, while hearing they do not hear, neither do they understand ... But blessed are your eyes because they see and your ears because they hear ..." The disciples' question was occasioned, no doubt by the way Jesus finished his parable ... "He that has ears, let him hear." It was apparent to them from that ending, that Jesus was telling the people something they should be listening to. The story about a sower, therefore, obviously had to be something more than just a nice story.

Jesus lays down three things he sought to accomplish by speaking in parables: to reveal the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven; to shut the mouths of those who did not believe; to show the truth to those who did.

1. It all begins with understanding what parables are. They are revelations of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. That means each parable shows us a little bit about the kingdom of heaven. The sower tells us how it grows, the tares and wheat tells about the present state of the kingdom, the mustard seed and the leaven show the effect of the kingdom on the world. Each picture is designed to show an aspect of the kingdom so we can see a little of what "many prophets and righteous men desired to see ... and hear, but did not ..."

2. The reprobate - and even those who are temporarily members of the Church - are denied the full significance of what they hear for two reasons:
a) They were foretold to hear and see and not understand (Jesus quotes Isaiah the Prophet to explain this point.
b) They deliberately close their eyes and scarcely hear anything because of their hearts which had become dull so that they can avoid the consequences of using their organs fully.
Consequently the parables which reveal truths about the kingdom of heaven mean nothing to them. They are looking for a different kind of kingdom and can't see how the information in the parable relates to that.

3. The blessing which comes to the disciples, and the the truly born again, is that the parables give us pictures which help us understand things which we would not otherwise be able to know. These are mysteries of the kingdom. As such we need to remember:
a) that no one parable can explain all there is to know about the kingdom (or Jesus would not have told as many as he did). This means that no parable should be pushed past the point which Jesus is making in it. The story about the rich man and Lazarus tells us that outward prosperity in this life does not mean we will infallibly be blessed in heaven. Whether we can see what is happening in Heaven from Hell, for example, may or may not be true so we should not be dogmatic about it.
b) that each parable - being a picture - gives a glimpse of the reality, nothing more. This means that where we find a conflict between the teaching of one parable and another (without pushing interpretation past its legitimate meaning) we should remember the reality is greater than either picture.

That Jesus taught in parables has a general lesson for us all to learn. There are some things which we need to know that are straightforward. As one old lady once said to her minister: "It's not the things I don't understand in the Bible that worry me, it's the things I do know and don't do." The parables fit into the second level of things which are spiritual interpretations of the world and Church - both of which are now under the Lordship of Jesus the Christ.

The rule for interpretation is the same as for any other part of the Bible. Begin with what is plainly taught, especially where there is a clear explanation of that teaching. This we can be sure about. Then go to the less clear where the deduced teaching is clear and can be verified from other clearer passages in Scripture. These we can be fairly certain about. Finally, we can look at the more obscure teachings of the Bible, where there are less clear passages than we would like. These we have a responsibility to interpret for our own edification and may gain benefit from listening to others more versed in Scripture than we are. But, in any case, we should not be adamant that our teaching is right - we may only be glimpsing a part of the whole reality.

Evangelism from Jesus

I discovered a new book on Evangelism today. It was called "Learning Evangelism From Jesus and was by Jerran Barrs. This extremely short interview was what made me interested in it. Check it out for yourself and let us know what you think :)

Natural Theology and Common Grace

First let me provide a couple of definitions:
"Natural theology ... is that part of the philosophy of religion dealing with describing the nature of the gods, or, in monotheism, arguing for or against attributes or non-attributes of God, and especially the existence of God, purely philosophically, that is, without recourse to any special or supposedly supernatural revelation." - Wikipedia
And by Common Grace I mean: "Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come to Christ, and therefore can not be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion they do profess; and to assert and maintain that they may is without warrant of the Word of God." - Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter X section IV

From the above definitions it is apparent that this subject has to do with what the natural man can deduce about God from their use of natural reason. What does God reveal about himself in nature? There has been a debate about this matter for a number of years and a contrast is often made between those of the old school (sometimes erroneously referred to as the Princeton School) and those of the Kuyperian school. I was reading a good explanation of a semi-related conflict and became impressed with the way the author, Dave Strain, dealt with the different responses. Read the interview and the comments here.

One of the things which led to this blog subject was the way Dave Strain used the idea of common grace. He pointed out, which the Bible does, that the natural man (that's the person who has not been regenerated) does actually know something of God even though he denies either that fact or the content of what the Bible says he knows. I had been accustomed to hearing Common Grace used to describe God's dealing with the unrepentant and the wicked. That he restrains (n pun intended) their behavior so they are not as wicked as they could be. It was natural theology (I was taught) which talks about what the natural man can know about God from creation.

Yet, thinking about it, there is the idea of grace involved. God did not have to reveal himself as clearly to fallen man as he does - yet he does just that. And, insofar as it does not lead to faith (in the natural man) it carries the idea of his "common operation" from the idea I had been taught. So, that God provides the basis of natural theology by his common grace shows how the two ideas can be linked.

This led to further thinking. One complaint against the view of evangelism which is advocated on these pages is - if we deny there is a common interpretation of the world, how can we talk to unbelievers with any hope of providing a reasonable basis for faith? Surely the natural man can develop a natural theology that demonstrates God exists (as witness the older form of philosophical "proofs" for the existence of God). It would seem it was just such a common interpretation (according to this view) that the Apostle Paul appealed to when he spoke on Mar's Hill (in Athens) Acts 17:16-34. But was it really?

It is our contention that Paul was using a common ground (they truly knew the real God of the Bible - even though they didn't acknowledge him as God). He spoke of the altar to an "unknown God" declaring it was him that he (Paul) would explain. He did not use natural theology to prove his existence (which the Athenians would certainly have appreciated) but declared to them the characteristics of the God of the Bible. By this procedure he avoided having to "prove" the hypothetical God was the actual God who exists. Paul rested his case on the common ground of God's revelation in nature. He then used the poets' statements to show that (even incomplete though they were) it was enough to condemn their idolatry which would be judged by Jesus Christ.

Paul used this procedure, I believe, because he knew the problem is not understanding who God is - nature declares his divine power and Godhood so clearly all are without excuse - it's sin. To become embroiled in myriad definitions and the possible debates about validity of argument was to waste time and likely to no purpose. All philosophical arguments like these can be tied up endlessly in counterarguments. Instead, Paul did exactly what we should be doing he used the common ground and developed his argument to show they were inconsistent in the sinful practice of idolatry (the thing that had exercised him since he had arrived in the city). He then warned them that such idolatry would lead to their condemnation because God had now given notice he would judge the world by Jesus Christ.

Natural theology? No. An awareness of common grace and the ability to use it (as shown in the truth behind the words of the Greek poets) to provide the reasoning the Holy Spirit uses to convict of sin. This is a extended example of a simple thing. It carries weight because - Paul really was well versed in the Greek culture, he knew his Scriptures absolutely thoroughly, he knew his Lord and he was absolutely sincere in his desire to save people from their sins. Ultimately, even for Paul, it was the Holy Spirit who made it fruitful.